Magisterium will NEVER replace the higher teaching of the HOLY SPIRIT

Why Sola Scriptura cannot stand on it's own

first point: Every Protestant interprets sola scriptura differently! it's sola sola interpretura

None of the various types of those outside orthodoxy can agree on what they interpret by sola scriptura. so, the self-interpretation extends to the very meaning of sola scriptura!

Sola scriptura by simple translation is Scripture alone -- nothing outside scripture allowed. This is the logic of those who rejected the Oral Gospel of Jesus Christ brought by Paul+Silas. This was not the philosophy of the Bereans
Many Presbyterians and other Calvinists among others hold to the meaning that only things directly in scripture should be acknowledged. This was outright rejected by the Berans

Others hold that it must be directly derived from Scripture -- but never elaborate how directly. If one says directly, then the nature of Christ is strongly hinted at in the Septuagint, but not in the Tanakh --> this writing by a Jew with a view :) outlines the Jewish point that the Tanakh does not have the same references as the Septuagint. Hence if there are Protestants who disclaim the Septuagint in favor of the Tanach then they must hold to this person's point of view which elaborates as

From the site: ajewwithaview (link above): The Jewish G-d never, ever takes human form – and certainly doesn’t pop in to planet earth to impregnate a Nice Jewish Girl...Above all, though, Jesus did not fulfill any of the Jewish messianic prophecies

--> so, if one says that the Church is wrong to take the works like Maccabees etc. from the Septuagint as all should be derived from the Tanakh, then must agree with the author of the above

Some say that sola scriptura is that that's the ONLY place to derive the truths for salvation -- again something that goes against what the Bereans did with their OT scripture (see points 1 and 2 above)
Others say that only truths needed for salvation must be SOLA scriptura

Second: Sola scriptura itself is not in scripture!

Nowhere in scripture do we see anyone saying that all should be from scripture ALONE. On the contrary we read Paul in 2 Thess 2:15 to hold fast to all traditions -- oral or written
There is nothing in Scriptura that teaches that Scripture should be held in isolation from the Church and Tradition.
Sola scriptura also fails that it can't even be derived

2 Tim. 3:16–17 says

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

It nowhere says SOLA scriptura. It just says "all scripture" -- not defining scripture, not saying what is outside is wrong, just saying "if it's scripture it be good" In fact it is building words into scripture by claiming that it says sola scriptura so Sola Scriptura contradicts itself!

Now Sola Scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim. 3:14 which says

14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

--> nowhere does it say that this learning was SOLA scriptura, in fact it was mostly ORAL teaching as with the Bereans.

Also, Sola scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim. 1:13–14 which says

13Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
14That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.;

--> note, words heard.... not scriptura.

And sola-scriptura-types neglect to read 2 Tim 2:2 which says

2And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. ;

"Has HEARD" what you have heard, commit and teach to others. No sola scriptura here either

Third: Ephesians 4:11-15 says something quite contrary to sola scriptura

11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, all are for the "perfecting of the saints" and to prevent being "carried about with every wind of doctrine"

The problem is reading too much into 2 Thess 2:15 --> if one holds by that as saying ONLY scripture, then the same sola scriptura-type would have to say that Ephesians 4:11-15 says ONLY pastors, etc., --> this is the contradictory nature of the ONLY doctrines -- on the contrary the Church holds to AND, Scriptura AND the Church, Water AND Spirit

Fourth: Sola scriptura -- so which one?

Let's see --

does sola scriptura say one should believe in something as basic as Jesus was always God (Trinitarian position) or that Jesus Christ was man made God (Oneness PENTECOSTAL Protestant position) or the Angel Michael (Seventh Day Adventist Ellen G White teaching)
Does sola scriptura say that there is the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Lutheran, some Anglicans, maybe even Methodists), or is it just a symbol (Calvinists)
Does sola scriptura say that one MUST talk in tongues (Oneness Pentecostal) to display faith or not?
Does sola scriptura say that there should be an episcopate (Lutheran, Anglican) or not (Presbyterians)?
Does sola scriptura say that apostolic succession is important (Anglican) or not (others)?
Does sola scriptura say that Baptism is for infants and sufficient (Presbyterian etc.) or not (Baptists)?
Does sola scriptura say that God pre-damns people to hell (Calvinism) or not (others)?
Does sola scriptura say that vestements are ok (or in the silly words of one poster allowing men in dresses and silly hats) (Anglicans, Lutherans, some Methodists, Presbyterians, even Baptists and Pentecostals) or not?
Does sola scriptura say that Jesus came only for the salvation of a few (Calvinists) or he was Savior of the world (everyone else)?
Does sola scriptura agree or disagree with soul sleep? (Calvin: "As long as (the soul) is in the body it exerts its own powers; but when it quits this prison-house it returns to God, whose presence, it meanwhile enjoys while it rests in the hope of a blessed Resurrection. This rest is its paradise. On the other hand, the spirit of the reprobate, while it waits for the dreadful judgment, is tortured by that anticipation. . .", Psychopannychia,
Does sola scriptura agree or disagree with worshipping on a Sunday (Presbyterians, Pentecostals etc.) or not (Seventh Day Adventists)
Does sola scriptura agree with the Adventists that one should follow kosher laws or not?
Does sola scriptura believe that we still have spiritual gifts like prophecy amongst us (Pentecostals) or not (Presbyterians)
Does sola scriptura agree with being "slain in the spirit" (Pentecostalism) or not (Presbyterianism, Lutheranism etc)
Does sola scriptura say that Regeneration comes through Baptism (Lutheranism) or not (Baptists)
Does sola scriptura say that grace can be resisted (Pentecostalism, Lutheranism, Methodism) or not (Calvinism)
Does sola scriptura say that baptism is three-fold (Mennonites) or not?
Does sola scriptura say that there is no free will (Calvinism) or that man has free will (Mennonites)
Does sola scriptura say that it is faith + works (Mennonites: Menno Simons told the followers of Luther and Calvin: “If you wish to be saved, you must walk in the way of the Lord, hear His Word, and obey it. For nothing avails in heaven nor on earth unto salvation, … not even Christ with His grace, merit, blood, and death, if we are not born of God, … if we do not believe His Word sincerely, and if we do not walk in the light and do right. As John says: …>If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie.’” (Complete Writings of Menno Simons, p. 208)) or not?
Does sola scriptura say that there is imputed righteousness (Calvinism) or not (Mennonites)

So, in conclusion, the basic point is that there are conflicting definitions of sola scriptura and it itself is unbiblical

Thank you for responding.

Cronos: “The question is — in your studies/opinions/views is Jesus God or just the first created being? why?”

cyc: In the Bible at Rev. 3:14 Jesus calls himself the “beginning of creation by God”, a creature, a created being.

Now I will ask you a question. Who did Jesus say was his God?

Jesus called God His Father and also said that He was ONE with the Father and finally remember Peter called Him "My Lord and My GOD"

This can be summed up in John 1:1 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Remember that there is only ONE God so Jesus cannot be a god, He IS God

Or John 5:1-8

1After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
2Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
3In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.
4For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
5And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.
6When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?
7The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.
8Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk...
...
18Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Only GOD can be equal to GOD, if, as you say Jesus was just a creature, then this statement does not make any sense.

Jesus was God, so His God is God.

Furthermore we have the example of the Bereans showing how false is Sola Scriptura

The Bereans as an example of the errors of Sola Scriptura

The Bereans Acts 17:11 "... received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.[1]", and many of them believed. --> these "scriptures" were the Septuagint only and maybe the Gospel of Mark and Matthew. The Gospel of John wouldn't be written for some more decades, and Acts hadn't been written yet, and neither any of the epistles.

So, in short, these folks were OT alone -- and nothing else. Is that only what's in your bible?

Furthermore, context, context, context, read the preceeding and following lines

10 As soon as it was night, the believers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue.
11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
12 As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men.

So, they did rely on a man's word initially -- two men, Paul and Silas who spread the Good News amongs them. Then they checked the OT to see if the references to the Christ were correct. And also, the Berean Church included GREEKS -- who wouldn't have read the scriptures as they were not of Jewish origin, they took the Gospel for what Paul and Silas preached, tradition alone, not scripture.

Furthermore, note what happened before -- in Thessalonia. There, "For three weeks he [Paul] reasoned with them from the Scriptures" --> THESE THESALLONIANS were sola scriptura folks who disagreed with Paul and Silas' interpretation of scriptures (the OT) on the Christ.

Remember, both the Thesalonians in the passages before this and the Bereans were Jews who studied the OT for the references of Jesus being the Christ. Why did they study this? because of the ORAL TRADITION that Paul and Silas brought, claiming Jesus Christ was the Son of God.

The Thesalonians rejected this as "it weren't in scripture, sola scriptura", while the Bereans accepted Holy Tradition, i.e. ORAL teaching by Paul and Silas.

if anything, the tale of the Bereans shows the error of SOLA scriptura.

The Thesalonians

The key point about the jealousy of the Thesalonians is this:

along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women

It's clear that that was the reason for the "jealousy" -- yet also note that only "some" of the Jews were persuaded -- the others rejected the ORAL Gospel as being outside scripture. These were the early sola-scriptura-types. In contrast we have the Bereans who accepted non-SCRIPTURA information, namely the ORAL Gospel --> something that the sola-scriptura folks of today would reject.

The Bereans

As this article says

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul's new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded-not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).

And, as the article itself points out

From the perspective of sola scriptura types, the Thessalonians would have been more noble-minded, for they loyally stuck to their canon of Scripture alone and rejected any additional binding authority (spoken or written) from the mouth of an apostle. In fact, at the Council of Jamnia, around A.D. 90, the Jews determined that anything written after Ezra was not infallible Scripture; they specifically mentioned the Gospels of Christ in order to reject them.

Further errors in sola scriptura

Now the sola scriptura types say they hold to scripture alone,

Yet they hold on to things like

the Rapture
"Accept Jesus as your personal Savior" --> this bears more time. This is never taught from scripture, yet parroted by many. While the Bible says that (Matt. 1:21 21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins, Acts 4:12 12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.) Jesus is the savior, but nowhere can one make the fallacious derivation -- where is it per sola scriptura?

In fact the Bible says
Matthew 28.20

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Revelation 2.10

10Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

1 Corinthians 15:58

58Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

1 Corinthians 15.1-4

1Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

There's not quick fix, just "accept", but 12Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Then the "accept Jesus and ask Him to come into your heart" which seems at odds with Matt 7:21.

Sola scriptura leads to the beautiful conclusions of Harold Camping, J Smith, Mary Eddy Baker, Charles Taize etc. etc

The problem is continuous reformatting

There are new directions being found, new interpretations everyday.

Each new bunch of Reformatters reformats the old.

You have the first generation namely Lutheran sticking close to orthodoxy with the Lutherans holding to the True Presence in the Eucharist, to Baptismal regeneration etc.
Generation 2: Then you have the Calvin-Zwingli crowd rejecting these two as well as other aspects of orthodoxy
Generation 3: Knox and the Anglican compromise
Generation 4: The Unitarians like Michael Servetus who went from being Catholic to Lutheran to Reformed to denying the Trinity.
Generation 5: the Baptists who now rejected infant baptism (quite unlike their namesakes the Anabaptists (now called Mennonites)) and said that there was a great Apostasy in the first centuries of Christendom (Gen 1-3 took later centuries as the dates of their "Great Apostasy")
Generation 6: the Restorationists at the Great Awakening, like
- The Millerites, to become the Seventh DayAdventists -- with Ellen G White saying that Jesus was the same as the Archangel Michael and that Satan woudl take the sins of the world at the end of time and other beauties. They came up with their own version of the Bible
- The Unitarians and Universalists -- reborn and reinvigorated by this reformatting, they tossed out the Trinity and eventually they end up as they are today where they believe in nothing
- Jehovah's Witnesses: they tossed out the Trinity too and came up with their own version of the Bible
- The Mormons: they took the Trinity and made it three gods. They too came up with their own version of the Bible
Generation 7: the Orthodo Presbyterian C, the FourSquare Ahoy! Pentecostalists, the Raelians, the Branch Davidians, the Creflo-Dollar crowd, the Jesse Dupantis (I went to visit Jesus in heaven and comforted Him) etc -- one step further beyond generation 6
Generation 8: ... any one of the thousands of new sects formed since 1990

The human nature, of course, had a beginning but the Deity of the Son as co-eternal with the Father and Holy Spirit is easily proved from Scripture. Jehovah, God Almighty, is the only savior and God and Jesus is "God with us".

So, you believe that the Son is a "God-asisstant"?

Both MEAN to refer their thinking to Scripture. Both think they have done so. Yet some are Arian and some are Nicene...There is something other than just Scripture involved here.

Every Trinitarian and Christological variety is based on scriptures. The "something other" is limited to very narrow choices.

This can be summed up in John 1:1 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Remember that there is only ONE God so Jesus cannot be a god, He IS God

Not being a partial party, I would add that the Greek of John 1:1 doesn't say that, Cronos. John's language was way too sophisticated to assume that he made a grammatical mistake (and being inspired that would not be possible, would it be?). There is no doubt that, grammatically, the verse reads "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [or towards, or near] God, and the Word was a God.

The use of Greek articles leaves no doubt that the second God was a god.

Likewise, saying that there is only one God and therefore there can be no other Gods is not true. Logically, if someone is himself the one and only Lord God, then he is not "with" or "towards" or "near" himself, thus the Greek pros here represents a problem with the official Church explanation.

It is also worth looking up the use of the word "god" in both Testaments to realize that just because someone says you are "my God" doesn't mean the Lord God (Yhwh, the OΩN).

Let me just add that this does not prove the Church is woirng, or exhaust all arguments on which the official Church Chrisotlogy is based. Basically, the Triniatrian dogma is something that took 300 years to perfect and is in part due to the books not commonly enocuntered in Protestant and other non-Catholic canons.

"are just pretty direct and to the point, which is fine by me" and you are honest to say what you believe. I appreciate that. I may disagree with you on the nature of the Trinity, but I respect both your right to your opinion and your clarity in discussing and sharing your beliefs

Thank you

cronos: On what basis are you so sure that Camping is not a shaved man?

Uri: It is as clear as his lack of facial hair.

oh, that's a good one! Camping is a shaved man :-p

Sola scriptura practitioners like Camping take the Bible and separate it from its central doctrine, reads it as a book, as individual componenet instead of the whole and then claim that they got it from Biblical authority for their crazy ideas

The central theme of the Bible is God's salvation for mankind. That's how it reads right from the Fall to Apocalypse

Camping follows Sola scriptura as is evident from HArold Cmaping's website says

Harold Campingo: "we emphatically teach that the whole Bible is the Word of God. We believe that, in the original languages in which the Bible was written, every Word was from the mouth of God, and consequently, is never to be altered and must be obeyed. The Bible alone, and in its entirety, is the Word of God.”

Now,this Sola scriptura guy (Camping) takes the idea that everyone's interpretation is correct and SOLA scripture (which is egotistical and not learning as a community) to it's logical conclusion

The proper way is the orthodox way where we read Scripture in the community of The Church, which is how Christians had always believed for 1500+ years and still do in orthodoxy

Sola scriptura practitioners like Camping take the Bible and separate it from its central doctrine, reads it as a book, as individual componenet instead of the whole and then claim that they got it from Biblical authority for their crazy ideas

Scripture is to be read in context as we in orthodoxy keep repeating (because this is what we have learnt from our elders and all of us through the Holy SPirit have learnt this as a community) but the Sola Scriptura folks keep making fools of themselves with these predictions. The next one is for 2012 May, then 2012 december

Why do you hold to these same false teaching that Harold Camping used to come up with his fake number?

your “ my age, geographic location, profession, children, etc” are personal and not relevant to most discussions on religion (if not all). However, your beliefs ARE relevant. This is a religion forum on which we share what we believe.

bb: I'll go on record as saying I believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate

Thank you. CYC has different beliefs, but he is honest to tell us about them and I respect his right to have these and to share these -- on a religion forum, we should know what our basic beliefs ARE before we sit down to discuss details, which is why it can be quite against the spirit of sharing our faith when people hide their beliefs (neither you nor cyc have done this here so this is not highlighting you)

===================

Let me explain. In a discussion on something like say Baptism, there is a different discussion between a group of Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists (Martin Luther's Catechism states that To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save. No one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, to "be saved". To be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil and to enter into the kingdom of Christ and live with him forever.) where we all, Lutherans, Orthodox, Anglicans, Methodists accept some basics

and a discussion between say a Lutheran and a Presbyterian is different as they do not share the basic belief so discussing details is senseless if the basics are not agreed on.

Similarly a discussion between a Presbyterian and a Jehovah's Witness must revolve around the basic concept of Trinitarian baptism. There is no point about discussing full immersion or not if the two do not agree on the basics

A Jehovah's Witness coming in a discussion (but still a valid) between an Orthodox and Lutheran on some finer point is like someone jumping into an argument on calculus and asking why are we considering some constants (or even why 1+1 = 2). Now if the Jhw is honest about his beliefs, then a discussion happens at a more basic level. And I appreciate the Jhw for asking this

But if the person does not reveal their beliefs on this basics, the discussion reduces to confusion.

So, keeping in mind what I've written above, I ask about a poster's beliefs to build common ground. Many posters have said it is "personal" to ask them which denomination they belong to -- they won't say if they are Presbyterians or Lutheran etc. -- now each denomination has more or less basic ideas on certain topics. Even say the Baptists, we know what they believe in terms of Baptism, right?

So, ok, people don't want to do this, so next I asked if they believe in the Nicene Creed which gives us a common point, but many say no I won't talk to a creed.

finally I ask them what they believe -- any believer will want to share what they believe in -- whatever their beliefs are. And, it's fine to share this -- this is a religion forum -- if one is even an agnostic, the honesty of saying "I'm not sure" is appreciated and enables dialogue rather than shuts it off.

Thank you again cyc for sharing your beliefs.

Question — I read in John 1:1 etc. the image of Jesus as God, creating the world. I see this as “the word WAS God” as being pretty unambiguous

Actually kosta, there are certain translations of the Bible like the Watchtower version which incorrectly translates this as "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

This is what we mean by faulty translations.

bb: The human nature, of course, had a beginning but the Deity of the Son as co-eternal with the Father and Holy Spirit is easily proved from Scripture. Jehovah, God Almighty, is the only savior and God and Jesus is "God with us".

And yet Jehovah's witnesses and even our friend cyc can interpret scripture to say that according to them, He is just the first-born of creation.

“This can be summed up in John 1:1 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Remember that there is only ONE God so Jesus cannot be a god, He IS God”

Jesus himself said there could be “a god” when he quoted (John 10:34,35) Psalm 82 where God calls human judges “gods”.

You should note that the Greek always capitalizes the word “god” no matter what god is being referred to. English uses capitals in a different way.
Also there is no indefinite article in Greek like our “a” in “a god”. To make something definite one could use “the” just as in English or...note well...or simply leave “the” out to make it indefinite.

John 1:1 is not some esoteric, deeply mysterious code work by John. He simply wrote “and God was the Word.”

The simple and most straightforward English translation would reflect what John said in Greek...”a god”.

“18Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”

That was Jesus’ enemies accusation against him. They also accused him of being a drunk and demon possessed.

“Only GOD can be equal to GOD, if, as you say Jesus was just a creature, then this statement does not make any sense.
Jesus was God, so His God is God.”

And THAT makes sense? Perhaps it does to you but not by any sensible use of the English language I am aware of.

“Jesus called God His Father and also said that He was ONE with the Father and finally remember Peter called Him “My Lord and My GOD”

Jesus said he “one” with his disciples in the same way so what is he talking about in ‘oneness’?
Where did Peter say that? Are you confusing Peter with Thomas?

All of which has been basically shown you before, and need not extended discourse again.

all of which have been refuted before and shown to be basically conflations or utterly incorrect

Let's take your one over-inflated sentence

Indeed it is a tradition, especially as regards the spirit of it, but it is derived from a multiplicity of texts Scripture, showing revelation normatively being written and becoming the objective, transcendent authority for obedience and conformity of doctrine, and affirming means and methods of interpretation. --> so,

you say that you follow a tradition and your tradition is called SS -- so, you have your own man-made traditions??
secondly, you say "as regards the spirit of it" -- so there is no proof?
thirdly you say "is derived from a MULTIPLICITY of text" -- BESIDES SCRIPTURE?? SO, SOLA SCRIPTURA IS PROVEN ACCORDING TO YOUR STATEMENT BY things OUTSIDE Scripture? you prove SOLA scriptura by taking things outside Scripture? Illogical! and hilarious!
showing revelation normatively being written and becoming the objective, transcendent authority for obedience and conformity of doctrine, and affirming means and methods of interpretation -- translation "showing revelation as implying it being written and becoming the authority for obedience and conforming to doctrine and saying okey-dokey to interpretation --> that's a circular position!! -- you just used a lot of frivolous language to use a circular argument.
And the rest of your points are exactly the same -- using fancy language to cover up zero content or content with half-truths or just spins!
So, no, your post has shown us nothing and neither has any of your earlier posts shown us anything but long words with no content behind them.