It should be obvious by now that rather than conceding SS being unworkable, i have argued that it is as workable as sola ecclesia, and that indeed it is abundantly evidenced to be the supreme transcendent standard under God, but which will not prevent individual persons or churches from differing.
The solution to the problem of disunity is not one that attempts to censure all others by defining itself infallible, so that it cannot be wrong, even in defining itself infallible, but by overcoming evil with good, and error by "Scriptural manifestation of the truth," (2Cor. 4:2) and thus requires the church to continually Scripturally manifest warrant for its authenticity in word and in power, which institutionalized religion does not, and persecutes those born of the Spirit. (Gal. 4:29)
Again, this is why the church began in dissent from an established magisterium, and is why the council of Acts 15 had authority, not under the premise of assured infallibility.
It is incumbent upon sola scriptura to pass its own test, the Church doesn't hold this doctrine so it does not apply it.
It is incumbent upon sola ecclesia to pass its own test, but both can show essential unity within each group, while sola ecclesia is more dangerous, which sola ecclesia cults example, and which Rome has shown by it's overall deadness of the damned and its use of the sword of men.
I don't see where scripture alone for all dogma and doctrine is scriptural.
You will not see a straw SS if that is what you have in mind. The "sola" aspect does mean only the Scriptures can be used, as SS does not hold to the sufficiency of Scripture is being strictly formal, but includes material sufficiency, so that it provides for reason, the magisterium, etc. And as i have argued, in principal for the establishment of additional writings to Scripture and its closure.
Your discussion of infallibility, I find the use somewhat nonsensical. Does your Church claim its dogma and doctine is fallible?
You lack specificity, but If you find it nonsensical then there is a problem. I affirm that magisteriums, both that of Catholics and Prots, can and have taught truths that are without error, as established by Scripture, but that none save the Lord can claim assured infallibility, that it was and will be impossible for them to err whenever and whatever they universally declare on faith and morals. This has no Scriptural example and is not validly extrapolated from instances when individuals or magisteriums have spoken pure truth, and which we know from infallible Scripture.
I’m gonna have to stop you on your first point: “will not prevent individual persons or churches from differing.”
Which means it is unworkable as we’ve been discussing. Unless I’m misunderstanding your words here.