Now considering the length of your post I apologise if I miss anything but I shall to the best of my ability respond.
Sure.
15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
It states that all scripture is inspired and comes from divine revelation which is perfectly true, and the Catholic Church oncurs with that, congratulations. Likewise it also says that all scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. However nowhere in this passage does it state that scripture is the sole infallible authority. On the contrary this passage is merely an assertion that all scripture is inspired text from God and useful for catechesis which is perfecty true by any measure of the word. Now you have states that tradition is not 'God-breathed', and you are correct insofar as the bible does not use that phrasing in reference to sacred tradition. But scripture does indeed support sacred tradition.
There are a couple of issues here. First of all, Catholicism is CONTRADICTORY to Scripture:
http://bible.cc/1_timothy/2-5.htm
Protestants claim there is one Mediator, Jesus Christ, as this verse says. Catholics teach that Mary and the Saints are also mediators. Catholicism is incorrect.
1 Corinthians 11:2-16
2 Thessalonians 2:15
John 21:25
The first two sections of Scripture you cite do provide support for Tradition. But not in the same sense that 2 Timothy 3 does for Scripture. Its not nearly as strongly worded. In 2 Timothy, it says Scripture is GOD BREATHED. Nowhere is this said about Tradition.
Now, tradition can still be important, and provide insight, without being infallible. I can buy that. But it is not infallible.
I guess it would be like if I said: "Listen to every word that I command you, trust me with all of your heart and do all that I command, and obey the teachings of my family." Now, if you considered me a valid source (Say you were already my follower.) Now, would you interpret this to mean that my family saying something is as valid as me saying it? Nope, my family could contradict me or whatever. I say about myself strong words that prove that everything I say is true, but I don't say this of my family. I simply say obey them, in weak language. It can be assumed that certain commands of my family may be wrong.
I am ignoring, of course, that I am not infallible either, I am just a man obviously, and I err quite often. But for the sake of analogy, assume this is not the case.
It says to "Obey Tradition" simply because Paul's traditions were true! Paul could not have known future traditions would be true.
As for your last verse, that simply says that Jesus did other things that weren't written. And obviously this isn't the case. I'm not saying the Bible is 100% conclusive on every moral and doctrinal issue. That's where free will, Christian Liberty, the conscience, and personal belief all come into play.
The first two highlight the oral transmission of knowledge ie sacred tradition while the third acknowledges that the bible does not contain everything Christ said. Scripture also acknowledges that christ spoke with the apostles at times not recorded in scripture, and reason likewise would determine this. Now in consideration of these verses and the promise of christ to send the Holy Spirit to inspire and teach John 16:13 we see that sacred tradition is indeed a viable source of authority. Consider this with the promise of Christ to 'be with us always until the end of days' and with the famous promise to Peter. "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church and not even the gates of hell will prevail against it" we see that Christ promises to preserve the Church from error in matters of doctrine and the impossibility according to this promise of the Church falling into error.
Christ promises the Church in general (Christians in general, including Catholics but not ONLY Catholics) will prevail. Obviously he means Christians, since there wasn't a Catholic Church at the time for Hell to prevail against.
And BTW, how do you know it was the Catholic Church it refers to? How do you know it wasn't the Orthodox Church?
Thus we see a combination of biblical exhortations to accept oral teachings of the day (incidentally prior to the compilation of the new testament) the promise of the holy spirit to continue in revelation what christ taught, the impossibility of the bible containing everything Christ spoke and thus see that alone the bible is not sufficient a source for authority by itself. (not to mention you failed to break the paradox i mentioned previously)
Thus we see that Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are both neccessary combined with the Sacred Magisterium (not prevail against it, and the exhortation to obey the legitimate authority of the apostles and bishops [paul]) which like three legs of a stool keep the church upright in correct doctrine in fidelity to ALL Christ commanded. Sola Scriptura is more like hopping on a pogo stick.
Then why has the Papacy corrupted the original doctrines?
I do think Tradition can be a valuable sense of insight into the Early Church, but it is not infallible, and the farther forward you go, the more corruption you see. In the 1500s the Catholics were burning heretics at the stake (The Protestants were doing so as well, I'm not trying to troll Catholics here) but the Catholics are the Church of God! At least, according to you. AFAIK, Catholicism teaches that at least some (I never understood exactly how "Outside the Church, there is no Salvation," means, let alone that it is the most moronic way to word a tradition that actually teaches that non-Catholics CAN be saved) non Catholics are Christians. Therefore, God's chosen Church killed some of God's Children. If this is the case, have not the gates of Hell prevailed?
If I understand the full implications of Sola Scriptura correctly, it's not a belief held universally by Protestants.
*And now for the intermission*
Well, Sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture, and no other source, in inspired. I don't think it necessarily think all proponents of Sola Scriptura teach inerrancy. With that said, pretty much all Protestants accept Sola Scriptura.
You failed in your previous post to address actual catholic doctrine instead hypothesing on a non-existent work-based salvation theology. The Catholic Church does not teach that works justify salvation.
I know some Catholics, particularly some less serious ones, teach works Salvation, but I don't know what the official doctrines are.
What the Catholic Church teaches is that faith is neccesary for salvation,
Doesn't Catholicism teach that a lack of faith, with less than perfect knowledge, does not necessarily damn a person?
that your faith in Christ is a neccesary precondition to salvation, however true faith demands sacrifice for otherwise it is empty.
I agree, but I think you have the order backwards. We don't get saved because we do good works, we do good works because we are saved.
That said, good works are the EVIDENCE we are saved. Its like if I claim I was hit by a car. Is it POSSIBLE my claim is accurate, even if I don't look like it? Maybe, it could have happened long ago, but there would be no evidence, so you'd have reason to be skeptical.
In the same way, genuine good works show evidence of a genuine encounter with the Holy Spirit. Not showing works does not mean you aren't saved, but that Evidence does not exist, and therefore we don't really know if the person is truly saved or not (Occasionally its painfully obvious, but be very careful when going down that road.)
Acts 16:31 says believe and you shall be saved, not believe and do good works and you shall be saved.
Just like a marriage requires sacrifice of its participants in mutual self giving to eachover thus the faithful christian must make sacrifice his sin, and act in fidelity to all the commandments of christ. Thus faith is manifested in works and in fidelity to the commands of christ otherwise your faith is meaningless as you fail to acknowledge the demands of holiness and God.
I agree, Faith without works is dead, but works are not what save you. A Faith + Works gospel is one that teaches that man can save himself, or at least assist in his Salvation, by his own efforts. But the Bible teaches none are righteous.
-
Likewise you also mentioned a lower place in heaven for those who sin on earth,
I think this is more based on the place of the heart than an actual sin. I think a guy in India who knows nothing about the Bible other than the tiny bit he was taught, yet gives his life to what he knows, will receive great reward in Heaven. I don't think simply avoiding Sin will grant us great reward.
this seems to bring up the principle of mortal and venial sin 1 John 5:16-17 in which some sin is so grievous that it cuts off salvation, kills the soul and unless its is genuinely repented is 'deadly' and leads to damnation. In regards to sola fide this is problematic as if their is sin that is mortal, clearly supported in scripture than one can lose their salvation. Likewise having commited such a sin does not presuppose loss of belief and under Sola Fide this would mean that no sin is mortal. This is clearly contradicted in scripture which states that sin can lead to death, which is the true death of damnation.
Don't Catholics teach a bunch of mortal sins, like Masturbation, sex outside marriage, exc? Do you believe we are called not to pray for people who commit such sins?
I believe in mortal sin, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but I do not believe it is possible for a Christian to do this. In fact, I think very few people actually get the opportunity to do this.
