Yes, I do: “Scripture alone”—i.e. the Bible alone is to be trusted as the source of Divine Revelation and salvific truth. Your particular version seems to say that “if it isn’t in Scripture, don’t believe it”.Scripture is to be the final authority on any matter of Faith ..
“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.”
- Basil the Great (ca.329–379) On the Holy Spirit, 7.16
“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”
- Gregory of Nyssa (d.ca, 395) “On the Holy Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327
Well... again, that's very interesting, and we can discuss those quotes in a moment, but: can you tell me where "sola Scriptura" (as per your definition) is found in the Bible? Since you claim to be a "sola Scriptura" adherent, and since neither you nor I claim to be a "sola Sancti" ("Saints only") adherent, isn't it reasonable for me to ask you where "sola Scriptura" is found in the Bible? If it isn't there, then--by your standard--we ought not to follow it... right?
Earlier, you laughed and accused me of "cherry-picking" the Scriptures (which is nonsense--I explained to you, already, that a denial of "only use Scripture" doesn't translate as "never use Scripture"; you understand that now, right?). But don't you see that you're "cherry-picking" the Saints? St. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (see
here, for a few references), and you do not. How is that possible, if you both believe in "sola Scriptura", and if "sola Scriptura" is all that's needed to find salvific truth? Since you and St. Gregory hold opposite positions, and since there are only two possibilities for the Eucharist (either it is the true Body of Christ, or it isn't), one of you must be wrong, and one of you must be right. Do you follow, so far?