Amen, Brother!
I want to go through the "book" you posted before responding, but what I scanned was edifying.
It seems to me that of the 5 Solas the one that produces the greatest opposition is the simple straightforward idea that Scripture stands Alone as the final authority. We all have to decide for ourselves what that final authority in matters of Faith will be. I know for me my eyes opened like never before when I began to try and discern the rightness of things based on Scripture Alone.
Thank God for anything that helps.
In brief, as the only objective, material source which is affirmed and established to be 100% inspired by God, (2Tim. 3:16) then it must stand as the authority over an office which effectively calls for implicit faith in itself, as being assuredly infallible, based upon its infallibly interpretation of Scripture, history and its mysterious tradition.
Confidence and understanding of both the Bible or the infallible magisterium requires appeal to fallible human reasoning, in convincing souls to trust and to understand them, and church dogmas also require some degree of interpretation, but the Bible, in so appealing, evidences that seekers who want the light will be salvifically persuaded by Scripture, as the Bereans were, and the manner of attestation it evidences (not simply blind faith). And those who do not are those who “wrest” the Scriptures, (2Pet. 3:16) which evidences they can be wrested, which wresting is what presuming to be the assuredly infallible supreme doctrinal authority, as per Rome, requires (but which she infallibly denies is possible in her infallible case).
While the Berean method can result in men differing on salvific truth, and therefore an assuredly infallible office, which men let do all such thinking for them, is appealing, but the Bible does not promise or evidence such as Rome examples, and even Jesus (though being God, He need not have) substantiated His truth claims by the Scriptures, and reproved by the Scriptures those who taught, as if they were infallible, unScriptural traditions as doctrines which were to be obeyed. (Mt. 15:1-9)
Sound doctrine is evident by its demonstrable Scriptural conformity, and its overall manner of fruit (Acts 2:41; 8:36-39) and attestation, to varying degrees, while contentious souls who rebel against it are manifest by the doctrinal example of the Pharisees, and their reliance on the arm of flesh, as a practice, both in specious speeches (Rm. 16:18) and in persecuting their theological adversaries, (Gal. 4:29) as the natural branch of the Jews did. (Gal. 4:29)
If Rome had not done likewise, but all its teaching were as demonstrably Scriptural as those foundational truths which those who hold to SS most universally agree on and contend for, its claim to be infallible would have some evidence (as promising that its decrees would always fulfill this criteria). But instead, its claims need not truly rely on Scriptural substantiation, but are infallible when fulfilling her formulaic criteria, which allows promulgating Scripturally unsupported tradition as equal with Scripture, even if they also fail of “unanimous consent of the Fathers.”