Moderator Scoring Copy: Antony’s Round 3b
Thesis Statement in BLUE
Valid Documentation in RED
Closing Summary in PURPLE
Non-considered statements in GREY
Invalid arguments (-5 points each, up to 25 points) in PINK
Moderator comments in ORANGE

My thesis  will emphasize that just as there's no room for anything to stand beside His inviolable word  (Psalm 138:2)  the biblical principle is that there's simply no time, either. (While that may be interesting for another debate, that’s NOT the thesis of THIS debate - we’re not debating whether or not there is “room for anything to stand beside” the Bible, but whether or not sola scriptura is biblical. - 5 points ).     "This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shall meditate therein day and night." (Josh 1:7-8, Deut 6:6-9; 8:3; 11:18-20; Psalm 1:2, 2 Kings 22:13, 2 Tim 4:2).    Thus, our spiritual appetite looks only to one menu:
"I have esteemed the words of His mouth more than my necessary food"  (Job 23:12, Isa 66:2).    
We, like Job, should desire to "eat " those words, just as Jeremiah did:   "Thy words were found and I did eat them, and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart" (15:16).  
The typology of eating--- and now drinking--- is brought into play because the only way we can know God is by what He has   said.    "As the deer panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my SOUL after thee, O God"  (Ps 42:1). The Psalmist declared his SOUL was insatiable for a sense of the divine presence.  How would that be accomplished?
By Sola Scriptura!   "Therefore shall ye lay up these words in your heart and in your SOUL...and cleave unto Him" (Deut 11:18), because "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God"  (Deut 8:3, Matt 4:4).  

One of the primary reasons my adversary imagines Sola Scriptura  is unbiblical, is because he observes disagreements among Protestants, and Councils needing to correct heretics.   However, the doctrine  doesn't teach that there will be lock-step agreement among those who practice it.  The fact that there are disagreements doesn't remove the Bible's ability to function as the sole rule of faith---any more than the mistake of adding 2 eggs to the batter (when the recipe calls for 3) makes the recipe card unable to function as the sole rule of cookery for a cheese omelet!  The answer to Verga's dilemma is actually solved  by   Sola Scriptura.   "The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man in   different portions   (1 Cor 12:4-11, 2 Kings 2:9).
Furthermore,  God frequently leaves us in ignorance and dismay to take us to the next spiritual level (Gen 50:20, 1 Sam 1:5, 2 Kings 4:27, Ps 119:67, 1 Cor 11:19).   So just as His will includes  depriving us of knowledge  (just like the ostrich!  Job 39:13-17), conversely,  so must He, "open our understanding, that we might understand the Scriptures" (Luke 24:45).   


As to T.V.'s questions:

1)  He requires that the dictionary define the word "sufficiency" as being synonymous with the word "sola".  
We assert that  the principle of Sola Scriptura  is implicitly found in 2 Tim 3:14-17, where the Scriptures are said to outfit the believer completely.  Consequently, according to the Christian dictionary (Louw & Nida'a Greek-English Lexicon) this "completeness"  is defined as  SUFFICIENT.

(Scroll to "What Sola Scriptura teaches", section C.    http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/shamoun/sola scriptura.html)

2)  Colossians 1:8 says Christ must have the preeminence. While He is  head of the church, He is also the Word of God (Jn 1:1), and that  preeminent word, found no where else but in the Scriptures,  will Judge us on the Last Day (Jn 12:48), since the RCC has failed to produce any other of His words outside of the blessed Text.   So in conjunction with being fully equipped with the Scriptures per 2 Peter 3:14-17, then He has, sufficiently  "given us all things that pertain to life and godliness, per 2 Peter 1:3.  
3)  I never said that God "ONLY" spoke through the Scriptures and made that abundantly clear in my introduction.
4)  I never said that 2 Tim 3:15 used the word "soley".
5)  I never said that the teachers in 1 Cor 12:28 use only the Scriptures.  Have you forgotten that  our debate thesis says there may be other "rules", but which are subordinate to the primary?  
This also answers, re:  Priscilla and company.
6)  I never said that Luke 24:45 conveyed anything about Jesus "wanting the apostles to use the Scriptures to understand the Scriptures".   The verse says He opened their understanding.  

In conclusion,   the amazing hubris of Roman Catholicism may be likened to the sedition of Miriam and Aaron. Placing themselves on the same level as the divinely appointed head and ruler, Moses.....  " They said,  has the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses?  Has He not spoken also by us?  And the Lord heard it"   (Numbers 12:2).  Indeed, the Lord did hear it, and struck Miriam with leprosy.   

The  " Miriamitis-Syndrome"   which has afflicted Roman Catholicism, asks us, "Has the Lord indeed spoken only by the Scriptures?"
To answer that question, we need to go right to the source and see if the claim of a " Theopneustos Tradition" can stand the scrutiny of biblical investigation (Deut 13:14, Prov 25:2).     (No, we don’t, that is NOT the thesis of THIS DEBATE! -5 points; upon reconsideration, this will be allowed and 5 points added back.)
The word tradition occurs 14 times in the N.T.   Eight of them come from Christ and each reaction is negative and inflammatory (Matt 15:2, 3, 6; Mk 7:3, 5, 8, 9, 13).   Peter's one reference is no kinder (1 Peter 1:18).    Paul makes five references, and two of them get thumbs down (Col 2:8, Gal 1:14).   That leaves us with three positive statements on which Verga's argument hinges:
1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15 and 2 Tim 2:2.   (Again, irrelevant to THIS DEBATE!  THIS DEBATE is NOT about Verga’s beliefs or what Catholicism teaches. -5 points; upon further reflection, Verga brought up these verses, Antony has the right to respond to them, this 5 points added back).
But let the gentle reader beware that these traditions had already  been "handed down" (past tense), which they were "taught" (past tense), and "heard"  (past tense).  This in  NO  way constitutes proof for a  future tense of unfolding revelation delivered viva voce--- anticipating the RCC "development of doctrine" theory!  Contrary to the Pope telling us tradition "makes progress" and "develops"...   
(Section 28 http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_20031016_pastores-gregis_en.html)  (Again, irrelevant to THIS DEBATE!  THIS DEBATE is NOT about what Catholicism teaches -5 points).

...the Corinthian traditions already  were fully developed because they had been (past tense)  "keeping them"  
(1 Cor 11:2).   There's no reason to believe that the traditions referred to were nothing other than the components of the gospel (1 Cor 15:1-4).  In the spirit of 2 Thess 2:5  &  3:10:    "Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things"......"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you."   The content being told, matched precisely with what was written!   My opponent has exegeted these passages with the presupposition of an infallible, on-going tradition in mind, but fails to demonstrate (if his position were true) that Paul's oral instruction differed in substance  from what was preserved in the epistles.  

He has interpreted Scripture in light of Catholic tradition:   
(Paragraph, "Decree Concerning the Use of the Sacred Books"  http://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html)

Unfortunately, this method  reverses the epistemological standard set forth by Christ which had Tradition being subordinate to Holy Writ (Mk 7:6-13).   Hence, Sola Scriptura  reigns supreme.  (This debate is not about the supremacy of Scripture, it is about whether or not sola scriptura is biblical. -5 points).

Adjusted Points:  
Thesis Statement:  [Original 20 points] Reviewed 25 points (+5 from original)
Valid Documentation: [Original 25 points] Reviewed 25 points (no change)
Closing Summary:  [Original 15 points] Reviewed 20 points (+5 points)
Invalid arguments:  [Original 0 point] Reviewed 20 points (+20 points)

Total Adjusted Points:  90 points (+30 points from original)

For details on reviewed scoring, click here.