No it is not, as faith in Scripture is not based upon it simply saying so, but upon the Divine qualities that attest to its divine inspiration, like as they do to a man of God. And not because a supposedly infallible magisterium said they were.
Thus writings were recognized and established as being of God long before Rome presumed to be the authority necessary for that. And thus souls had assurance that Jesus was the Christ, based upon Scriptural substantiation - not because the stewards of Scripture said so.
But Rome denies you can have real assurance from Scripture, as that is contrary to her presumption, and thus when defending Rome as the one true church (OTC), the Catholic predictably appeal to his sole authority—the Church.
This is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning which betrays an essential problem with the doctrine itself. For the Catholic's basis for assurance that Rome is the OTC is because she infallibly defined herself as being so, who alone can provide real assurance of truth. To hold otherwise would be to validate evangelical means of determining truth.
The RC can said some evidences persuaded him to trust Rome, but that is a fallible decision to trust a church as if it were God.
The Catholic Church’s position on inspiration is not circular. We do not say “the Church is infallible because the inspired Scriptures say so.” The Church was established historically and functioned as the infallible spokesperson for the Lord decades before the New Testament was written. The Church is infallible because Jesus said so. However, it is true that we know the Scriptures to be inspired because the Church has told us so. That is also an historical fact.
Staples is now engaging in the typical RC recourse of argument by assertion. That Rome is established historically and functioned as the infallible spokesperson for the Lord Jesus, who said the Church is infallible, and which is a historical fact, is one massive interpretative lie, and which Rome's interpretation is the only one that is held to be authoritatively true.
That is to say, according to her interpretation, or decree, only her interpretation can be authoritatively correct. Staple's pretensions of establishing Rome based upon evidences are not based upon the premise that one may have assurance of Truth based on such, which is how the church began, but is based upon the premise that these evidences show Rome to be the one true infallible church because she said so.
When the Catholic approaches Scripture, he or she begins with the Bible as an historical document, not as inspired.
That statement itself is telling. In attempting to prove Rome is the supreme authority on Truth and over Scripture, he must polemically divest it of its Divine inspiration, since only Rome can authoritatively give us assurance that it is!
Yet as said, both men and writings of God, and indeed the bulk of our Bible, were recognized as being so before there ever was a church of Rome that presumed she was necessary to establish such.
And under Her premise of historical descent establishing her as the steward of Scripture, inheritor of the promises, and thus incontestable authority on truth, and who and what was of God, then the church itself would be rendered invalid, for has said, it began in dissent from those who had historical descent and were the stewards of Scripture, and inheritor inheritor of divine promises of God's presence and preservation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6; Rm. 3:2; 9:4).
What is very clear historically is that Jesus established a kingdom with a hierarchy and authority to speak for him
Rather, what is very clear is that this and other so-called evidences four. Rome do not teach Roman Catholicism with her perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium and pope reigning supreme overall, with "priests" sprinkling infants infants recognition of proxy faith, formally justifying them by interior holiness, and gaining spiritual light by physically eating human flesh, and finally becoming good enough in purgatory to enter heaven, among multitude other things alien to the New Testament church. .
In reality, the more Staples attempts to make an argument based upon history the more it betrays his premise that this argument is considered true because Rome says she is what it attempts to prove.
And in addition to Scripture teaching contrary to Rome's pretensions and propaganda, even Catholic scholarship, among that of others, provides evidence contrary to Rome's claims of apostolic succession, etc.
The so called *apostolic succession* has deemed God a mere allegory and created new deities to pray to. This succession has devised their own methodology of deciding who is and is not a saint. Christ Himself said call no flesh man ‘Father’, yet, through the ‘apostolic succession’ their high priest is called ‘Holy Father’. One cannot get much farther away from ‘sola scriptura’ than that tradition all by itself. By the way in the last book of the WORD, Revelation, there are 7 churches listed not just one. Listed by each of these churches are their doctrines, what is acceptable doctrine and what doctrines causes all but two to fall short. These warning are given, yet in majority ignored. And then the self praising and boasting comes that without the ‘apostolic succession’ none of we commoners would even have the WORD.
There can be no doubt as to why Rome rejects ‘sola scriptura’, because in the ‘Volume of the Book’ their traditions are not scriptural, but created by their claims of divine ‘apostolic succession’. God used a donkey to get a preacher for hire attention, so all this hiding from the WORD is a short term activity.
Solomon (Ecclesiastes 1) wrote long before the invention of an ‘apostolic succession’ there was nothing new under the sun, what had been would be again... And Paul basically restated this warning, ICorinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
I love using ‘sola scriptura’ on the unbelievers.
From your link:
“Substantiation for this understanding of the gospel came principally from the Scriptures, but whenever they could, the reformers also quoted the fathers of the catholic church. There was more to quote than their Roman opponents found comfortable” (Pelikan 48-49).”
Such is what I have also found in my readings of them, and the great irony of the Catholic religion, which always boasts of being historic, of having a succession from day one. And this is so obvious that all one needs to do is open up a single book from one of these church fathers, and with that opening, almost as deadly as that of opening the Bible, the Catholic church comes tumbling down all over again.