This rules out God inspired scripture for the man of God to be complete once he adds to God's Word, the liturgy of the Orthodox church.
Alfred, that is ridiculous. You mean to say then that you do not worship God? Do you even know what a liturgy is?
Is Jesus talking? 
You are upping your game. You will be a great radio sidekick soon.
I was thinking the same thing. We three should meet up monthly and do a podcast. We can be Orthodox versions of Howard, Fred and Robin.
Still waiting for one of you to prove Paul included liturgy in this text:
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.[/color] (2Ti 3:16-1 NKJ)
Where is the word "liturgy?"
It seems this is the only, or at least the main, passage you're hung up on in defending
sola scriputra. Obviously if your belief lacks a Scriptural claim or Scriptural backing, then it is a self-refuting belief and should be cast aside. So let's look at 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and see if it works as a defense for
sola scriptura.
We must remember that "profitable" doesn't mean "solely." That is, in the Greek the word might mean something is important and even needed, but it doesn't indicate that it and it alone is needed. We might need oxygen to breath, but oxygen alone isn't what keeps us alive. Likewise, we might need Scripture in order to test doctrines and have revelation, but Scripture alone isn't what builds up our spirit.
The passages states that the "man of God" is made perfect by the use of Scripture, but it doesn't say that Scripture alone makes a "man of God." So we can't inverse the meaning of the passage without exposing our own theological biases. We are then left interpreting the passage to mean that a man of God must rely on Scripture in order to obtain perfect, but nothing within that statement indicates that Scripture alone is what makes a person a "man of God."
Now, certainly you'll disagree with what I have said above. You'll wish to offer a counter-interpretaiton and should I choose to continue the debate, we'll end up proof-texting each other until one of us wears out, one of us is banned, or the topic closes. And therein lies one of the practical problems of
sola scriptura (moving away from 2 Timothy now, which if it doesn't support your case you're left with a belief that Scripture alone grants authority without any Scripture to back up that belief); while the belief arose out of the abuses of the Catholic Church and the Popes,
sola scriputra doesn't avoid those abuses, but only exacerbates them by making every man a pope. Whereas the Councils could work through their theological disagreements/misunderstandings because of an established authority structure and because they were knowledgable in the faith, under the idea of
sola scriptura anyone can have a personal interpretation of Scripture. Practically speaking, how does this aid the collective body in moving towards the Truth?
I think there wouldn't be an issue with
sola scriptura if Protestants simply changed the idea to one where nothing could contradict Scripture. After all, I doubt many or any Orthodox or even Roman Catholics would object to such a belief (as, from what I've seen, it's what they believe). Such a belief would allow for tradition, liturgy, and so on because such traditions do not contradict Scripture. This would also allows us to accept things not found in Scripture, but that coincide with Scriptural teachings.
Sadly, however, much of
sola scriptura has turned into the belief that if anything is to be taught, it must be found in Scripture. This, of course, limits what one can believe and what language one can use; we've seen how heretical groups have completely turned
sola scriptura around on Protestants to claim that since the word "Trinity" isn't found in Scripture, it can be rejected. Now, you would hopefully think such a way of thinking is crazy, but who is to say they're wrong if we buy into
sola scriptura? After all, the word "Trinity" doesn't appear in Scripture, so aren't they just following Scripture more closely than you or I? Hence the problems of this belief.
