Oh, I know, and we grumble about those who claim to be Catholic but don't believe what the Church teaches, even the most basic. That's why I seldom say "Catholics believe..." rather "The Church teaches..."
Why? James does say "Baptism now saves you." And it's not just the water which is salvific. And who says they're not resolved? You. For us, they are resolved completely.
If that's accepted, you proved Scripture alone is sufficient contrary to his complaint.
The speculation was essentially the same with whether it was regenerative and where it fits in the economy of salvation. The verbiage is different, but that's because there are so many different avenues its been explored under.
But who besides yourself, and those who happen to agree with you (and not all do based on Scripture alone), say that you understand it?? And at least in the overall scheme of most teachings I also have the testimony of the early church and ECFs to confirm my understandings of the Word.
It would seem to me you're excluding the middle inappropriately. The options ar not naked Scripture vs an enshrined magisterium, sola scriptura is compatible with being historically informed. Sola scriptura is merely the rejection of "Holy Tradition" not tradition entirely.
The ECF are just as ambiguous as the Bible on the matter, and just as subject to interpretive biases. Baptism theology really didn't become a major question until the 3rd-5th century.
And they would say the same for yourself. If you're referring to the doctrine of SS, it has no inherent allowance for a role for tradition to play. And while many of us would insist that said tradition is quite relevant for knowing the faith, for adding historical practice and experience to the equation, that cannot be proven, especially to one who wishes to stand on an opposing belief based on their interpretation of Scripture.
The people who put forth sola scriptura would disagree there's no room for tradition. Jan Hus, Luther, Calvin all made extensive use of early writers in their arguments. You're confusing it with what has come to be called nuda scriptura, which proponents of sola scriptura agree is an error. Sola scriptura requires that Scripture be the final authority, unequaled. It does not require it be the sole authority, reason and history are necessary for a proper interpretation. The abuses you're highlighting are just as possible with any other source of authority, with the individual themselves to blame not the doctrines they hold.
With that logic, then no tradition should be considered worthwhile for any purpose. But even Scripture said to hold onto unwritten teachings/traditions, meaning there can be traditions of God-as well as traditions of men. We error when we wish to believe that the bible was intended to serve as a clear and exhaustive catechism.
I think you're just avoiding the simple truth. Any rule of faith serves no purpose if we cannot reliably and consistently know what it means to assert as being the rule, itself. Ambiguity and vagueness, resulting in plausible disagreement, means that we lack the rule to begin with on relevant points that the doctrine of SS would have us apply.
I don't know if you actually believe that or not. But it doesn't matter much since I cannot comment further on Sola Scriptura if you don't ask about Sola Scriptura or at least speak to the issue of God's word in revelation being the most authoritative source of guidance for essential doctrine.
Okay. And I've explained it to you and others here many times.
