I know that is a lot of incoming, but if you read all my response thru, you should have seen that holding to Scripture as the supreme and sufficient authority does not restrict the Word of God to being only written (James White, among others, states that “The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or, in fact, in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it.” (http://vintage.aomin.org/cathan.html)
If Jesus said, it, then then it is the word of God, thus claiming that only what it in the Bible can be the word of God is a misunderstanding of the the prima Scriptura or SS position.
However, as i explained, this is not contrary to Scripture being the Divinely established assured Word of God, and thus the supreme authority on Truth, and providing what is needed, both in the clear or the derived sense, for salvation and growth in grace.
In contrast is the position that the church draws its authority directly from God, with whatever sources it invokes for support only having authority because she gave it to them.
I see.
Thank you for the clarification.
Then we are in agreement on the "gotta be in the Bible" doctrine, if not the validity of Sola Scriptura.