Funny...Paul didn't mention "Tradition" as being profitable or God-breathed. Only Scripture.
But the verse doesn't have to say specifically..."only scripture." For the Roman Catholic to rely upon this linguistic dodge is telling.
The simple reading of the text says it is Scripture, and only Scripture, that is inspired by God.
Roman Catholic "Tradition" cannot make that claim.
But he did command us to hold fast to tradition:
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. (2Thess. 2:15)The simple reading of the text says it is Scripture, and only Scripture, that is inspired by God.
The Bible also shows that the gathered pastors of the church spoke with the authority of the Holy Spirit itself:
It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us… (Acts 15:28)That same Holy Spirit continues to operate through the church founded by Jesus Christ.
This thread is turning into a tl;dr for me at the moment, and I really don’t want to insert myself into an argument, especially when I’ll probably end up disagreeing with both sides in one way or another, heh...
One thing I do note is that when I argue with Protestants, it’s about the meaning of Scripture, and tradition only comes into play as, potentially, supporting evidence, especially in regards to what the earliest churches believed.
When I argue with Catholics, it tends to revolve around why their tradition supersedes the plain words of the Bible.
When they’re not just calling me a heretic, that is.
There are reasonable Catholics on this board it seems, but I don’t tend to argue with them!