Ok, fair enough. Lets start over. I've probably been more grumpy than usual for divers and sundry reasons that have nothing to do with you or anyone else on the forum.
The OP was stating problems of Sola Scriptura without providing a meaningful definition. As I am sure you also realize SS said by 15 people will probably mean 15 different things to those same people, I pointed out that SS has a specific historical definition that seems to be at odds with the OP implied definition. SS is the assertion historically that Scripture alone is the infallible source of faith and practice over and against the notion of an unwritten Scared Tradition. What winds up getting lampooned is the idea that SS = Me and my bible alone. Which I would add the magisterial reformers such as Luther, Calvin, Melachton, Cranmer, Beza etc would have rejected. What I am not saying is that a christian reading the bible by him/herself cannot receive great benefit. What I had in mind was what I call Roman distinctive like the marian dogmas which are novel doctrines found nowhere in scripture. To be clear, while I accept the creeds I do not put them on the same level as Scripture. I am Anglican so I believe the best form of church polity is Episcopal, but again that is not an infallible statement because scripture is silent on a preferred polity IMO. In other words I have a place for tradition but I don't view the same as infallible like Scripture.
I am making sense? It was not my intent to take a cheap shot at any other body of christians.
