1) You've said (above, and elsewhere) that the "sola" in "sola Scriptura" refers to "Scripture as alone being the supreme sufficient authority and standard on faith and morals" (etc.). Fine. Can you please tell me WHY you believe that?
I already basically addressed this. Why? For the same reason souls recognized men and writings as assuredly being of God, in the light of their enduring heavenly qualities and attestation, finding OT writings as salvific and more to be desired than fine gold (as was told you) and obedience resulting in great reward and able to make them wiser than their teachers, and as the standard for testing Truth claims. After the same manner do i see Scripture as i do. But which does not infer ensured infallibility on the part of the discerners, nor must a lack of this equate to a lack Biblical assurance.
The confirmatory judgment of the magisterium may exclude dissent, but cannot mandate implicit assent of faith under the premise that it cannot be wrong, as per Rome. Instead, ultimately the validity of its judgments requires the evidential warrant by which men and writings became assuredly ascertained as being of God, versus the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, whereby the RC has assurance and renders assent of faith, under which Scripture history and tradition only mean what Rome says in any conflict. As no less than Manning reasoned,
But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelationâ€
“...the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.†— Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
2) Akin to #1, above: can you please explain HOW (apart from the Catholic explanation of an infallible Magisterium discerning and defining the matter) the books of Scripture were chosen,
As was told you, the historical reality is that due to the heavenly qualities and attestation of certain men and writings, souls fallibly judge[d] certain writings as being of God, and consequently a body (canon) of them."
Just answer the question asked you, "How were any men or writings recognized and established as assuredly being of God, such as Isaiah, to John the baptizer?.... do you see this discernment as inferring ensured infallibility on the part of the "electors?" Or a lack of this as being excluding Biblical assurance?"
So far, you've said simply that "it's okay to appeal to councils and things other than Scripture"..
No, i certainly have not simply said that.
and I don't disagree (that's the Catholic position, after all);
No, that is simply not the Catholic position, as "after all" what the pope and papal affirmed councils of Rome infallibly say is effectively the supreme law above what Scripture says, even by infallibly declaring that she is infallible.
but surely you can give some solid basis for the AUTHORITY of those "powers which put together the Scriptures" (apart from simply urging me to accept it on your say-so).
Just where did I urge you me to accept Scriptures on my say-so? Besides not apparently reading what I wrote, are you now arguing against what I did not write?
And what i did say as regards a solid basis was that rather than necessitating an infallible magisterium, OT writings were established as authoritative and the basis for the "the gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures." (Romans 1:1-2) And the magisterial office was instrumental in this by affirming what had been established by consensus as being of God, the magisterium being the supreme judicial court for disputes, but not as the supreme infallible authoritative source on Truth, requiring implicit assent of faith, excluding the possibility of valid dissent, as if it was the wholly inspired and assured word of God
The Roman mind seems simply incapable of comprehending how a magisterium can be authoritative as the supreme judicial court, without having or claiming ensured infallibility which excludes the possibility of valid dissent, but that is the reality in Scripture, versus the autocratic authority of Rome. And logically, as the church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses (Mt. 23:2) as historical magisterial stewards of Scripture then the Roman model effectively invalidates the church, as would if attributing ensured infallibility to the magisterium.
Which Scriptural, historical reality refutes your idea that "that there must be an infallible way to discern which books are "inerrant Scripture", and which are not... or else the "inerrancy" of those books will be of little use (since there'd always be doubt as to whether the "right books" were chosen)." For as said, if that was the case then as said, "no one could be sure if Exodus was of God, or Isiah, etc. Thus the abundant references to the written word of God in the OT actually were of questionable authority, and thus the NT church and "the gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," (Romans 1:2) was established upon dubious sources.
Consistent with your premise, a soul cannot have assurance that Rome is the supreme infallible authority except by faith in her as the supreme infallible authority, who has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, then n her declaration that she is infallible is infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Logic exercise: please define (literally: de = to, fine = end; tell me the limits of that term and the concept which it represents) the object to which the phrase "THIS WORD" refers.
Logic exercise: Since in Roman reasoning an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential to ascertain what Scripture consists of and means, then please explain how any writings or body thereof were held to be authoritative without said magisterium?
You seem to be interpreting it as meaning "Scripture, whole and entire".
Logic means that as your premise is false so is your conclusion. The context was distinctly said to be that of OT writings, yet the authority of which in principle upholds Scripture as "being uniquely qualified and sufficient to function as the regula fidei—the infallible rule for the faith and life of the Church, providing the Truth essential for salvation and growth in grace."
No faithful and well-informed Catholic will argue against the IMPORTANCE and the AUTHORITY and the NECESSITY of the Scriptures;
No faithful and well-informed Catholic will argue against the IMPORTANCE and the AUTHORITY and the NECESSITY of the Roman magisterium as effectively being the Supreme Law, which leads to treating the Scriptures as an (often abused) servant to support Rome, not simply for basic commonly held doctrines, but in order to misuse its inherent authority to make her distinctive claims look Scriptural, especially in condescension to evangelical types. Logically if you claim to be the only authority who infallibly defines what Scripture both is and means, then you are the sole supreme authority.
we argue only against the Protestant tendency to try to use them ALONE as the "guide/norm/etc." of faith... since it's not designed to do that, and it doesn't CLAIM to do that.
Really? If we are talking about the same thing, that of Scripture being the final court of appeal as the infallible Source/Rule of Truth on what must be believed, to which both in civil and ecclesiastical courts are to look to in rendering binding judgments as to what must be done (and upon which the validity of them ultimately depends), then that is just what Scripture claims to be. Popes may damn evangelicals, and SCOTUS may effectively punish dissent to Obergefell, but neither can mandate implicit assent of faith that excludes valid dissent.
I dare you to show me any magisterium office of men on earth that could not be corrected by Scripture, under the premise that they posses ensured veracity, while i can show you that they were corrected by Scripture, but which is never corrected by men.
Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word. (Psalms 119:9)
Yes. Now, we need a definition of "THY WORD".
Then why not look at the source whence it comes? Contextual, what do you think it refers to? Scripture or the magisterium? And it is Scripture that effects such things, then it supports which as being the only infallible (and thus The) authority on Truth.
complete with Protestant interpretations (and additions, such as "sola Scriptura"
That simply follows in principle.
I don't see how you could possibly conclude anything of the sort. Taking this individual text as a piece of logical data, it's very vague; it certainly says that the "Word" is the Word of God.... but it doesn't say whether that "Word" is written, or oral, or both;
Really? The whole of Ps. 119 refers to the Law/statutes/commandments/ordinances/precepts/testimonies, which Moses was commended to write, (Dt. 31:9; Josh, 8:32) with writing being the chosen means of preservation, (Ex. 127:14; Isaiah 30:8; cf. Job 19:23) and as the Rule for devotion, doctrine and direction, and which is described as something tangible, accessible, transcendent, and thus "Mine eyes prevent the night watches, that I might meditate in thy word," (Psalms 119:148) thus among other things enabling the execution of "the judgment written." (Psalms 149:9)
If the Law served as the supreme authority, how much more is this wholly inspired source when God gives more grace via added revelation. Even the Law was sufficient for what God required at that time, if not for the Christian life, but He is free to give more grace, and which men are accountable for in degree that they are blessed.
And in addition to what Scripture formally provides, are such graces it materially provides, from reason to teachers to the personal guiding/leading of the Spirit (especially during the offering!). But to make the papal or conciliar words of the church effectively equal to and of superior authority to wholly inspired Scripture is unholy presumption. They have no ensured infallibility nor are they wholly inspired of God.
Do remember that "Word of God", in the Scriptures, refers primarily and ultimately to Jesus, Himself (the "Logos", John 1:1, etc.).
Indeed, to which even He appealed to Scripture as verification, while do you hold that your magisterium is God, who alone possesses ensured infallibility, except for souls speaking as wholly inspired of God? Do you claim that latter for your magisterium?
nor does it define the CONTENTS of that "Word",
What the "Law' refers to there can be seen by comparing Scripture with Scripture, as can the expanded meaning of the Law in the NT, to which it often appeals. And as expressed before, if you are right, that you need an infallible magisterium in order for these writings to have the authority attributed to them ("Scripture cannot be broken," etc.), then it remains the prophets and the NT church was built upon texts which were held to be of God but which were actually of dubious authority. Welcome to the church of Rome.
So... St. Paul commands the disciples to hold fast to the traditions (oh, that word rings harshly in some Protestant ears!) which were given them, EITHER BY WORD OF MOUTH or by letter...
This argument was also dealt with. As said, SS preachers themselves can enjoin corporate obedience to Scriptural Truths, but what neither dare claim is to speak under full inspiration of God providing new public doctrinal revelation as such as Paul did, and in laying down his judgments on such things as marriage.
Meanwhile, the oral passing down of teaching and events occurred but which we assuredly know because such were was penned under the full inspiration of Spirit, and you have no evidence these known truths to which the Thessalonians enjoined were some ancient unwritten tradition nor something that would not be written, as it normally was, as a study of the phrase “the word of God/the Lord†shows. If you want to claim Rome is privy to some unwritten apostolic doctrine which she can make binding beliefs out of, then she need to manifest the credentials for that, as the apostles did. See below.
the early Church was hard at work--with evangelizing, baptizing, ordaining, absolving sins, anointing, etc.--for decades before the NT was even WRITTEN, much less compiled, approved as actual Scripture, and put into wide circulation (which took centuries). Any beliefs to the contrary are simple wishful thinking.
I understand the problem. RCs want to find sanction from Scripture for Scripture not being the supreme and sufficient standard, and for oral tradition being equal to it, under the supreme authority of the Roman magisterium. Thus they want to equate the oral preaching which took place before the NT was written with being what Rome deems is oral tradition, thus giving her a license to autocratically make binding beliefs out of what she asserts. However, the whole of this presumes,
1. That these essential salvific or edifying things were not written as Scripture, yet should be binding beliefs, even if something 2,000 years after it allegedly occurred, and despite the serious lack of evidential warrant, contrary to what the apostles orally preached, leaving saints in doubt for most of church history about a necessary belief.
2. That that somehow the church was engaging in such things as praying to angels and ascended saints in Heaven (which is actually a later development as one of many marginal perverse Jewish traditions, while a heavenly Queen of Heaven is only seen in paganism), yet despite approx. 200 prayers in Scripture the Holy Spirit provides absolutely ZERO prayers to anyone in Heaven but the Lord. Nor can this be extrapolated from human communication in this realm. This is quite the presumption. But which tradition is to be assuredly believed as certain due to another tradition, that of Rome's ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. That your texts support making binding beliefs of unwritten tradition based upon this is what is simple wishful thinking.
3. That Roman leadership as is the apostles in orally providing the assured word of God for the whole church, yet Rome's so-called apostolic successors utterly fail (as i do) of the qualifications and overall credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12) In addition, not even they presumed perpetual ensured infallibility of office, not even in writing Scripture, nor was this the basis for the assurance of what was believers, but thus they appealed to contemporary external eye witnesses of events, and or special revelation in doctrinal teaching, and their apostolic credentials and Scriptural substantiation in word and on power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
In addition, SS does not hold that it was always operative, any more than Rome can claim that for her magisterial alternative. As said, at one time oral tradition was the supreme standard for faith and obedience, according to the grace given before Moses. But as written, Scripture became that manifest supreme standard, sola prima, by which additional revelation and claimed prophetic fulfillment and writings (which it provided for,) it were tested by, and thereby, as God gave more grace, more writings established as being Scripture, leading to SS.
I'd also gently point out that, logically speaking, it proves very little to say, "the Bible is the most important... because the Bible says so!" Ever hear of "circular arguments"?
You seem so intent to finally find a logical fallacy in every closet that you miss how your judgment can apply to you, as in arguing that an infallible magisterium is essential to ascertain what Scripture consists of, while arguing from Scripture that Rome is that infallible magisterium. Thus you attempt to prove what Scripture is by the church and what the true church is by the Scriptures.
However, this is not the same as asking to show where the Scriptures support something, including about itself, and your denial from the beginning was that Scripture does not teach SS, not even close, and thus there is no circularity in showing what Scripture says about itself and how it was used in substantiating Sola Scriptura from that source. If you want external evidence for Scripture being the word of God, and as such its supremacy and sufficiency, then we can do that route.
As for judging these writings to be of God, fallible souls can correctly judge certain men and writings as being of God, and consequently a body (canon) of writings can be established, and which judgment they find continually confirmed, which is what these books themselves claim. Assurance in Scripture is never based on ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, but upon holy substantiation in word and in power.
If you object to that, consider that as said, RCs themselves make what can only be called a fallible judgment, meaning it allows for the possibility of error, in (erroneously) judging Rome as being of God and as warranted to be their supreme and infallible authority, (which she effectively is for them) to which all lesser sources owe their authority.
And the means of preservation was by writing: Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: (Isaiah 30:8)
I don't suppose you'd be open to staying within the bounds of your data, and saying that writing was *A* (and not "the", in the sense of "only") means of preservation? The Scripture passages you quote simply don't prove (or even mean) what you claim that they mean.
Really? Then show me another preserved wholly inspired substantive body which contains all that Scripture does, or even another one that complements it which is set forth as the supreme standard for obedience and testing Truth claims. And the basis for its veracity. You have yet to show the Roman alternative to SS.
Roman irreverence toward The Scriptures is evidenced by their altering wording to support the magicsteeringthem assertions. The catholic Bible has alterations to passages so that the altered passages support heresies like thedeification of the Mother of Jesus, as one example.