To the contrary, I am applying common sense. Nowhere in Scripture is it stated that "Scripture alone" is the sole source of Christian knowledge. In fact the opposite is true. St. Paul says: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."
Furthermore, Christ, Our Divine Teacher, established a visible, hierarchical Church and directed His Apostles to "teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". He instructed and directed them orally, and quite obviously, Scripture does not contain a complete record of His every word. Tradition bridges the historical gap between the life of Christ and the written Gospels. We know that the Apostles endeavored to serve the Lord faithfully and to obey His Holy Will, even unto death. Therefore, it can be quite logically inferred that the Apostolic succession is Christ's plan for His Church, communicated directly by Him to the Apostles.
The idea that Apostles, Church Fathers and early Christians would deliberately act in opposition to Christ's Holy Will by circumventing or corrupting His plans for the operation of His Church, yet at the same time submit to martyrdom rather than deny His teachings does not pass the reasonable man test.
Even Rome believes in baptism by desire, and contritio caritate perfecta, which can only work by faith appropriating justification by faith.
No, it is by grace alone that one is saved. Without grace, faith is not possible.
No, i see you as applying Romanized sense, which supposes papal assertions and parrotted "proofs" are actually were valid, and when refuted again, it jumps to another specious accusation, often employing staw men a needed.
Nowhere in Scripture is it stated that "Scripture alone" is the sole source of Christian knowledge.
Indeed, and thus contrary to the straw man of RC apologetics, Westminster states,
that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
And Scripture affirms natural revelation in creation and innate sense of the Law. But Scripture is what determines whether conclusion drawn from them are true.
But the sufficiency aspect of SS refers to what is "necessary," either materially of formally, and as Scripture in its fulness uniquely providing for that, while it alone was the supreme standard to which all had to conflate and complement once Moses wrote the Law.
Scripture formally provides for salvation in such ways as providing the very sermons souls heard and believed and were saved by, such as Acts 20:36-43.
But it materially provides for such things as reason, the church and preachers, study helps, etc., and it is the only body of Truth that is stated to be wholly inspired of God, and the instrument which the church uses for "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2Tim. 3:15-17)
CARM states
Sola Scriptura is the teaching that the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God. Sola Scriptura means that the Scriptures--the Old and New Testaments (excluding the Catholic apocrypha)--are the final authority in all that they address (1 Cor. 4:6); and that tradition, even so-called Sacred Tradition, is judged by Scriptures. Sola Scriptura does not negate past church councils or traditions. Those who hold to Sola Scriptura are free to consider past councils, traditions, commentaries, and the opinions of others. But, the final authority is the Scripture, alone because the Scripture alone is what is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16) and not past church councils, tradition, commentaries, and opinions. Scripture is is above them all.
Even before the last book was written the fact is that it is abundantly evidenced that Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, and to which conflative and complementary writings were further added.
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus materially provides for a canon of Scripture.)
St. Paul says: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."
Indeed, and a SS preacher can say the same, and even preach Scriptural truths without a Bible, while Rome cannot show one tradition Paul referred to that was not subsequently written.
The issue is whether apostolic preaching was dependent upon Scripture as being the supreme standard, and which it was. Thus "Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures." (Acts 17:2)
And unlike what may be said of apostolic preaching and that of writers, Rome cannot and does not claim that the words which which express her traditions are wholly inspired of God. Even infallible decrees do not have God as their author as Scripture does. They both are declared and assuredly believed to be of God based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome. Which claim is contrary to Scripture.
Thus again as Keating asserts,
The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true. ” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.[http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption]
Furthermore, Christ, Our Divine Teacher, established a visible, hierarchical Church an...
You already tried this, and which does not equate to Rome today being the infallible church, which is not Scriptural, and she is fundamentally different than the NT church. But the body of Christ continued nonetheless as salvific truth was yet conveyed.
He instructed and directed them orally, and quite obviously, Scripture does not contain a complete record of His every word.
And we know this because of the written word, which judges all Truth claims, and which must conflate with it as supreme. But that not all that can be known is irrelevant, nor does Rome provide all that can be known. Both sola scriptura and sols ecclesia can only claim of sufficiency, but only the words of Scripture were wholly inspired of God, and thus must judge all truth claims.
We know that the Apostles endeavored to serve the Lord faithfully and to obey His Holy Will, even unto death. Therefore, it can be quite logically inferred that the Apostolic succession is Christ's plan for His Church, communicated directly by Him to the Apostles.
Your premise does not establish your conclusion, as the faithfulness of the apostles does not require apostles perpetually, and which is not seen or taught in Scripture. Again, the means of transmission after apostles was by NT pastors, not priests, among other things . Rome is a foreign church in Scripture.
The idea that Apostles, Church Fathers and early Christians would deliberately act in opposition to Christ's Holy Will by circumventing or corrupting His plans for the operation of His Church, yet at the same time submit to martyrdom rather than deny His teachings does not pass the reasonable man test.
That is a false dilemma, a logical fallacy, as besides the issue not being that Apostles were aberrant, it is not necessary for men to deliberately act contrary to Christ in order to subscribe and perpetuate some unScriptural aberrant teachings, such as prayer to the departed , while many souls have died for even non-Christian faith, in all sincerity, and no one is saying CFs were not sincere.
No, it is by grace alone that one is saved. Without grace, faith is not possible.
That is ambiguous and avoids the fact that one can even claims salvation under the law was by grace, as man could not even breath except by God' grace, or hear and obey the Law.
The fact is that Roman salvation is by grace thru merit. By God's grace one becomes good enough for heaven based on his own personal holiness. This begins at baptism which act makes one good enough, and typically ends by becoming good enough again to enter Heaven thru suffering in "purgatory" commencing at death. But in every place which clearly describes the postmortem place or condition of believers it shows it is with the Lord, (Luke 23:43; Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 15:52; 2 Cor 5:8; 1 Th 4:17; 1Jn. 3:2), in whose presence there is fulness of joy (Ps. 16:11). To God be the glory.
Just what are those traditions Paul was referring to that he handed down that we are to keep that were not included in Scripture?
How do you know?
How do you know they’re from the apostles, Paul in particular?
How do you know they’ve been passed down faithfully?
What is your source for verifying all of the above?
Please provide the sources for verification purposes.