Ah, you admit that beliefs you hold such as the papacy and the word Trinity cannot be found in the New Testament, yet you believe it and affirm it. (I would agree the concept of the Trinity is found, nothing regarding the papacy). But, then you hypocritically attack sola scriptura as not being valid since a verse does not specifically say 'sola scriptura' (even though I Cor. 4:6 does indeed say not to exeed what is written). Okay, got it. Only those 'beliefs' you hold count.
The Traditions of the Church are not the traditions Paul was writing about
Paul was referring to anything that contradicts Scripture. Including the unbiblical and contradictory 'Mary was sinless' Catholic Doctrine which is refuted by Romans 3:28 - All have sinned.................
Furthermore, if the word of the Lord is so "revealed" why are there so many Protestants that disagree on what it is and says?
Probably the same reason there are contradictory RCC 'traditions'. (There are many traditions in the Roman Catholic Church that are not all harmonious. Some traditions in the church support the office of the universal bishop; other traditions denounce the office of a universal bishop (read Gregory the Great and Cyprian).
It's simple really. Those supporting the idea of sola scriptura must be able to present all of their ideas as supported by scripture.
Those who don't, don't. Get it?
Including the unbiblical and contradictory 'Mary was sinless' Catholic Doctrine which is refuted by Romans 3:28 - All have sinned.................
Do infants sin?
Yes, that's right.
But, then you hypocritically attack sola scriptura as not being valid since a verse does not specifically say 'sola scriptura' (even though I Cor. 4:6 does indeed say not to exeed what is written).
Tell me you really didn't write that.
The phrase "sola scriptura" is NOT the basis of my argument. The fact that the concept is neither stated nor implied is the real basis of my argument.
even though I Cor. 4:6 does indeed say not to exeed what is written
We already did this. "What is written" does NOT say anything about the Bible.
Paul was referring to anything that contradicts Scripture.
Prove it.
Including the unbiblical and contradictory 'Mary was sinless' Catholic Doctrine which is refuted by Romans 3:28 - All have sinned.................
If Christ Himself doesn't violate your reading of 3:28, why does Mary have to? I see no qualifier in that verse.
Probably the same reason there are contradictory RCC 'traditions'.
Hardly, we don't spin off another congregation every time a significant portion of the church think the color of the new carpet isn't sanctified enough.