Since taking the Father's words on THIS would be circular logic, surely you have a verse to point to for it.
Explain why the Church wasn't lost for 1500 years when no one believed 'sola scriptura'.
'Sola scriptura' is not historical. When the Apostles and the bishops appointed by them preached, they didn't preach out of a book. There was no Bible. Not only did lay-people not have a Bible, *no* Christian had a Bible. It wasn't written yet! And the canon took hundreds of years to form. If you understand that, you will understand how 'sola scriptura' is actually refuted by the very of the history of the Church. Scripture *could* not have been the authority of the Church during that time. Therefore, the Protestant has to say that at some arbitrary point in time (who knows when), authority magically passed from the bishops to the Scriptures. Before, Christians had to obey their bishops. But after that point in time, Christians could ignore their bishops (since each Christian became his own bishop or Pope).
You make Luther and Calvin your authorities, because they are the one's who started 'sola scriptura'. You are following a philosophy that just started 500 years ago. Before that, no one thought like that. That modern philosophy is an innovation. (And Protestants balk at the notion of "development"!) This philosophy lies at the beginning of the rise of the Enlightenment and Romanticism and Egalitarianism, where human Reason (and Feeling and Will) is made the new God. We all, by means of our own Reason, determine the meaning of Scripture for ourselves. We all, by means of our own Reason, are authorities on the meaning and teaching of Scripture. And thus, as a result, no one is an authority. This is the democratization of the Church, the rejection of the hierarchical structure instituted by Christ and the Apostles. What we now see in Protestantism (30,000 denominations) is the natural result of a philosophy that make each man his own pope. If my Reason is the highest authority, then I do not need Popes, or bishops, or priests, or pastors, or anyone. 'Me and my personal Jesus are perfectly complete, thank you.'
The Scripture does not teach that everyone should have their own copy of the Scriptures, or that we must all interpret the Bible for ourselves. (Protestants misinterpret the passage on the Bereans so as to import a completely modern notion of individualism foreign to the first 1500 years of the Church. What is noble about the Bereans is not their individualism or egalitarianism, but rather their desire to understand fully.) The Scripture does not provide us with the canon, i.e. tell us which books belong to Scripture. You make the Protestant leaders your authorities, because you follow the canon that they decided. Luther (and Lutherans for 100 years after Luther rejected Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation, II Peter, II and III John. Eventually Lutherans returned to the canon decided by the Calvinists and Anglicans. Elsie, why don't you decide for yourself which books belong to the Bible? Why do submit to authority of other men to determine which books belong to the Bible? It was the Puritan divines at the Westminster Assembly (in the 1640s) who decided the present Protestant canon. Why do you submit to these men, and treat them like a college of Cardinals? Luther rejected the Apocryphal books of the OT in his edition of the Bible in the 1530s. Why do you listen (and submit) to Luther's decision on this matter, if you are so opposed to human authority? Moreover, since, in your view, we are all our own Pope with regard to interpretation of Scripture, why do you try to convince others of your view? By doing so, you contradict your own philosophy. If, as you believe, I am my own Pope regarding the interpretation of the Scripture, then how dare you try to push your interpretation of Scripture on me. If you were to be truly consistent with your individualist philosophy, you would remain absolutely silent about all matters of interpretation of Scripture. But, no. You are not content to be your own Pope; you want to be Pope over others as well, and hence you keep pushing your view on others. So which is it? Will you be consistent with your "We-are-all-our-own-Pope" view, or will you continue to contradict it by pushing your views of Scripture on others?
-A8