Yes, you have been shown much scripture to support these ideas. There is just as much evidence of these ideas as there is of the idea of the Trinity. However, men in your Church have made interpretations of these scriptures to reject the plain meanings in order that they might be in line with Tradition. Another example of men putting themselves ahead of God's word.
The Bible is packed with examples of men using scripture as authority, not tradition. One glaring example is Jesus in the wilderness. When He answered satan, how many times did He quote tradition, and how many times did He quote scripture? Here are other examples: Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc.
Acts 17:11 : Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Notice they did not examine the Tradition to see if what Paul said was true.
Note also that it is axiomatic to you that the Church is the only authority on earth to interpret scripture. This is to the exclusion of even the Bible itself. I cannot think of a clearer example of men elevating themselves above scripture.
Blue Duncan's 5174 cited a verse cut from the next qualifying verse to support Sola Fide, while the qualifying verse, Eph. 2:10 turns the "plain meaning" into the Catholic doctrine of salvation through faith by grace sustained by charitable work. It also cited a verse whose plain meaning is that the clergy should augment their formation by reading the scripture, in support of Sola Scriptura. This kind of "plain reading" heavily colored by Protestant theological fantasies is rather typical. (See Joe's 5187 and my 5177 for details).
It is true that there is no plain scripture for the Holy Trinity either. The difference , of course, is that the Holy Trinity was taught by the Church as early as there was a Church. The Lutheran solas, on the other hand, were never taught by the Church. It is then incumbent on the Protestants to show why the Church was getting her soteriology and scripturology wrong for 2,000 years.
I have seen your "evidence" of Sola Scriptura, and frankly, I find it pitifully weak and illogical. If I can totally destroy the concept, it remains difficult to see why you are not aware of this flimsy "proof", since I am not a rocket scientist. You point me to Scripture that doesn't say anything about "alone", just Scripture is "profitable". So are a lot of things...
As to Sola Fide, the Scripture says quiet clearly, faith without works is dead. And CATHOLICS twist Scriptures?
The plain meaning? The plain meaning is that we are not saved by faith alone. The plain meaning? Scripture alone is NOT the sole source of Christian teaching. That much is pretty freakin obvious when the first 20 years of Christianity did pretty well without a NT Scripture. Nor did the average Joe have access to a Bible until the printing press some 1400 years later. Imagine, somehow, Christianity survived without everyone reading the Bible daily and doing group study questions on Job... Again, sorry about the sarcasm, but I tire of this exercise in pointing out the obvious over and over again.
The Bible is packed with examples of men using scripture as authority, not tradition.
The Scriptures THEMSELVES are Tradition. They were written dozens of years after the fact, in some cases, even more. Jesus didn't put down all traditions, he put down traditions that led people from God. As to Satan in the desert, he ALSO used Scriptures...
The Bereans, I already answered. You think the Bereans consulted the OLD TESTAMENT to read about how CHRISTIANS should worship and celebrate the Eucharist or celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday??? Paul calls the Bereans worthy because they, unlike the Thessalonians, were open to Paul's message! Not because they consulted the OT! SO DID THE THESSALONIANS! But they didn't believe Paul.
Notice they did not examine the Tradition to see if what Paul said was true.
WRONG. ALL Scripture reading is based on a particular traditional background reading, just like you read Scriptures with a tradition that claims that man has no responsibility for his actions and God condemns people without knowing if they would reject Him or not...
Note also that it is axiomatic to you that the Church is the only authority on earth to interpret scripture.
I never said that only the Church can interpret Scriptures! I do it all the time. It is just that we read Scriptures within the paradigm established by the Church, not our personal opinion. If I decided that God was a Duality rather than a Trinity, I would no longer be a Catholic. If I said that as a Protestant, what would happen to me? Nothing. I am the ultimate authority in Protestantism. If "the Spirit" leads me to believe their are only two persons in the Godhead, who are you to tell me I am wrong?
Thus, Catholics read the Bible with an overall background that God is love and that God desires the salvation of all men and that God has chosen to show His great love for man by dying on the cross to redeem ALL men. Thus, we read Scriptures through these lenses. I already told you the Church only infallibly declares about a dozen verses that mean "x" and there is no way around this. Otherwise, the Catholic is quite free to interpret Scriptures - as I have pointed out about our vaunted freedom that you despise. For example, I have the freedom to consider that Genesis 1 did not scientifically happen the way described. Or that Jonah was literally swallowed by an actual whale. YOUR fundamental stance PREVENTS that! And YOU tell ME that I am told how to interpret all of Scriptures? Come on, now.
Regards