I'm having a hard time believing that you are actually appealing to this passage to support 'sola scriptura' when just a few weeks ago we should you very clearly that the verse does not in any way teach 'sola scriptura'. It tells us that the Scripture is useful for x, so that [hina] the man of God may be equipped for every good work. It does not say that Scripture alone is sufficient for bringing a man to that state. To read it that way is to take out of it what it does not say, what *no* early church fathers took it to say, what no bishops took it to say, what no early commentators took it to say, for 1500 years!! Let's stop pretending that 2 Tim 3:16 teaches 'sola scriptura'; it doesn't.
One fundamental truth of Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is inerrant and cannot contradict itself, nor can Tradition contradict the Bible. Luther recognized that the RCC had fully broken away from this idea.
The Catholic Church has never claimed that Tradition can contradict the Bible. You're not going to get away with strawmen here.
Luther and the Reformers saw that the RCC had long been doing this, and in fact continue to do so to this day. Sola Scriptura does not say all Tradition is wrong, it says anything that contradicts the Bible is wrong.
"Contradicts the Bible" really means "Contradicts [our private interpretation of] the Bible".
The Reformers believe that the level of open mind you are speaking of SO defies logic and reason that the Marian beliefs, and other dogma and doctrine of the RCC actually do contradict the Bible.
No degree of open-mindedness can make x contradict y. If x contradicts y, then no matter how close-minded one is, x still contradicts y. And if x does not contradict y, then no degree of open-mindedness can make x contradict y. Therefore, no degree of open-mindedness makes any of the Catholic doctrines about Mary contradict the Bible.
-A8
What are you talking about? My side won that debate handily. :) We went around and around about "sufficiency" and "profitable", and what "so that" means. I'm still confident. :)
The Catholic Church has never claimed that Tradition can contradict the Bible. You're not going to get away with strawmen here.
I never said that the RCC claimed its Tradition COULD contradict the Bible. I said that it DID contradict the Bible despite its claims. Luther and the other Reformers recognized that. If Tradition did not contradict the scripture there would have been MUCH less need for the Reformation.
No degree of open-mindedness can make x contradict y. If x contradicts y, then no matter how close-minded one is, x still contradicts y.
What you say is true in fact, but not in claim. A fact remains a fact, regardless. An open mind can claim something is a fact when it is not. That's what I'm talking about.