First, those verses DO NOT strongly allude to sola scriptura; they are just the best ones Protestants can find in defense of their doctrine, and even those are not conclusive.
Sure they do.
Second, it is completely unreasonable to dogmatically insist the Bible is the only authority for faith and practice when the Bible itself makes no such dogmatic pronouncement.
That is a false definition. Protestants rely upon tradition, even RCC tradition, to a great degree. A better definition is that the Scripture is the final authority- Those traditions cannot be held to the same state of authority as the Scriptures, for the self evident reason that one could, by that assumed authority, change what the Scriptures provide.
This, for much the same sensible reason that the common law is not codified into our Constitution, and that extraordinary means must be met to physically amend the Constitution. The Canon should be treated in the same way for the same reason.
It is also somewhat misleading to accuse the Protestant of accepting external sources by way of the Gospels (and etc), accepting those things that were oratory at the foundation of the Church, as we all know that those Gospels simply codify the spoken traditions which the Scripture does in fact approve. You also accept them as authoritative.
We begin our disagreement in your extension of those traditions beyond the formal Canon, and what disagreement we have in regard to the Canon itself, namely the Apocryphal books.
Nevertheless, What we as Protestants recognize as Scripture, namely the Protestant Canon, is well defined and is the point at which we begin any sola scriptura arguments, as that Canon defines what we call Holy Scripture, regardless of the matter of it's adoption. Any argument must reasonably fall within those parameters.
I maintain for all practical purposes this is a distinction without difference. The very multiplicity of Protestant denominations argues the Scripture is NEVER the "final" authority even among Protestants.
Those traditions cannot be held to the same state of authority as the Scriptures, for the self evident reason that one could, by that assumed authority, change what the Scriptures provide.
Again, I disagree. There can be no "new" traditions by definition, and the traditions that exist do not contradict Scripture insofar as Catholics understand both witnesses.
It is also somewhat misleading to accuse the Protestant of accepting external sources by way of the Gospels (and etc), accepting those things that were oratory at the foundation of the Church, as we all know that those Gospels simply codify the spoken traditions which the Scripture does in fact approve. You also accept them as authoritative.
I'm sorry. I do not understand this paragraph. Could you rephrase, please?
We begin our disagreement in your extension of those traditions beyond the formal Canon, and what disagreement we have in regard to the Canon itself, namely the Apocryphal books.
Nevertheless, What we as Protestants recognize as Scripture, namely the Protestant Canon, is well defined and is the point at which we begin any sola scriptura arguments, as that Canon defines what we call Holy Scripture, regardless of the matter of it's adoption. Any argument must reasonably fall within those parameters.
I see no reason to accede to your terms, if I'm understanding you correctly.
Christ quoted from the Septuagint, and the Septuagint contains the Deutero-Canonicals.
Again, I see no reason to exclude Scriptures the Post-Temple Jews and Protestant reformers both excluded for the same reason: to take credibility away from Church.