As helpful and right as they can be, Divinely inspired writings were not essentially established as such by conciliar decrees, but as God first revealed Himself to man and supernaturally attested to His reality and truth, (like to Abraham) and of the faith and character of those who believed, obeyed it and testified of it (like Moses), so was the written testimony of them and by them established as from God, which progressively became the standard by which further revelation and men of God were tested and established, as a continuing principle. (Is. 8:20; Mt. 22:29-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:39,42; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Heb. 1, etc.)
By the time of Jesus a distinct body of writing referred to as Scripture was already realized, without an assuredly infallible magisterium (which only Jesus was), as is evident by references to the Scriptures by which they substantiated claims, and the apostles and true men of God were themselves established as being such by a holiness and doctrine which conformed to that which was written, and by the effects of believing which corresponded to its claims, which in turn affirmed the veracity and Divine inspiration of the Scriptures.
What Trent finally, decisively did (for Rome) was to recognize and ratify what had progressively become established, though i hold that that there was sound reason for great men to reject the apocrypha as Scripture, as i do, though not as forbidden reading. And the Divine inspiration of the writings of Scripture continue to be attested to through those who believe and obey its gospel of grace, thanks be to God.
As for interpreting free from the influence of Holy Tradition and safe from subjective aspects, i do not think that this is what those who hold to SS do in practice, any more than they disallow that God can “speak” to souls today during the offering. And even wedding ceremonies typically have some paganism in them. But what they mean is that all must be tested for conformity by the only objective source which we are assured is wholly inspired of God, and thus is assuredly infallibly, and by such bring every thought to the obedience of Christ
While interpretation requires discernment, and leaves room for a limited amount of disagreement in some things more than others, the same is true in every day life, with sound reasoning versus aberration being more demonstrable in accordance with the degree of revelation. And the “main and plain” things of Scripture are basically just that, and thus those who hold to SS most universally agree with Rome on such core essentials as an articulated in the Nicene Creed, while contending against those which are more based upon a nebulous oral tradition, and which in turn has the magisterium as its authority. And even teachings by church magisteriums require some interpretation, including which ones are “infallible.” Moreover, many things were not unanimously believed by church fathers.
And now this:
Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. -From Alister McGrath's The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/deliberate-fiction.html
And do not forget that Jeremiah 31:33-34 was prophesied and fulfilled with the New Covenant.
Really? You do understand, don;t you, that not one verse in your NT canon would be there but for the bishops of The Church who, using Holy Tradition as the measure, said it was OK for Christians to use them because, d, what they teach is in accord with what The Church "always and everywhere believed"? Tell, d, what did the HS inspire any protestant preacher or divine to add to the canon of the NT as established by The Church?
Now, as for your citations, well, it looks like the old proof text generator has a bug in its software. What in heaven's name do they have to do with the issue at hand? It isn't that the NT's claims are factually self authenticating is it?. Tell me you don't mean that!
"By the time of Jesus a distinct body of writing referred to as Scripture was already realized, without an assuredly infallible magisterium (which only Jesus was),..."
Which "distinct body of writing" was infallibly and magisterially realized by Christ? Leave out the "infallible" part. What distinct body of writing, other than the Septuagint, with all its variations, are you talking about?
"What Trent finally, decisively did (for Rome) was to recognize and ratify what had progressively become established, though i hold that that there was sound reason for great men to reject the apocrypha as Scripture, as i do, though not as forbidden reading."
What the Latin's local Council of Trent did is neither here nor there for me. It certainly isn't religiously "necessary" for nor binding upon me. I'm Orthodox. What I care about is "what The Church always and everywhere believed."
"But what they mean is that all must be tested for conformity by the only objective source which we are assured is wholly inspired of God, and thus is assuredly infallibly, and by such bring every thought to the obedience of Christ"
What is the objective source which we are assured is wholly inspired by God? Is it the NT, with all its variations? OK. What exactly about it is "infallible"? It is a book, d. Are books "infallible"?
"While interpretation requires discernment, and leaves room for a limited amount of disagreement in some things more than others, the same is true in every day life, with sound reasoning versus aberration being more demonstrable in accordance with the degree of revelation. And the “main and plain” things of Scripture are basically just that, and thus those who hold to SS most universally agree with Rome on such core essentials as an articulated in the Nicene Creed, while contending against those which are more based upon a nebulous oral tradition, and which in turn has the magisterium as its authority. And even teachings by church magisteriums require some interpretation, including which ones are “infallible.”"
Again, I couldn't possibly care less what Rome, the parent of all protestants in The Faith and to whom you all should show respect, says about interpretation of Scripture through the Magisterium. If you want to accept, for example, such "core essentials" as the Frankish innovation of the filioque, that's between you folks and Rome. I have no idea what you mean when you write of core essentials "...which are more based upon a nebulous oral tradition, and which in turn has the magisterium as its authority. Again, I'm Orthodox. For us, Holy Tradition is not based on anyone's Magisterium.
"Moreover, many things were not unanimously believed by church fathers."
I know. That's why we look to the consensus patrum on matters of patristic theology and not what any one, fallible, Father might have said.
"the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained."
Whose or what "classic concept of tradition"? "Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith."
I love it when protestants use Greek terms, even if they often use them incorrectly. Orthodoxy has always preserved the kerygma of the Apostles. Read this by Fr. Georges Florovsky, one of the greatest Orthodox theologians of the 20th century. It will explain where we are coming from: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/florov_fathers.aspx