Replies

Most Protestants find it in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

The fact is that this passage (or any other) does not even hint at Scripture being the sole rule of faith. It says that Scripture is inspired and necessary—a rule of faith—but in no way does it teach that Scripture alone is all one needs to determine the truth about faith and morals in the Church. My attempt to defend this bedrock teaching of Protestantism led me to conclude that sola scriptura is unreasonable, unbiblical, and unworkable.

That was a good quote but incomplete for context:
2 Timothy 3:14-17 KJV

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

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

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

So Paul told Timothy he could search the Holy Scriptures to find salvation through Jesus Christ.

Then we have Christ say this as well:

Luke 24:25-27, 44-49 KJV

Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

44-49

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.(KJV)

Clear to me Jesus was clear.

>> The fact is that this passage (or any other) does not even hint at Scripture being the sole rule of faith.<<

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9

Please prove that the apostles taught the assumption of Mary. If you can’t the Catholic Church teaches another gospel. That applies to anything the Catholic Church teaches that isn’t in scripture. Scripture is the only evidence we have of what the apostles taught.

The fact is that this passage [ 2 Timothy 3:16-17] (or any other) does not even hint at Scripture being the sole rule of faith.

So if Scripture as the only wholly inspired, objective, transcendent Divine revelation is not the sole infallible rule of faith (which does not exclude the role of reason, the church, etc. which Scripture materially provides for), then what is the infallible standard or rule for faith and morals?

You may say the church, but nowhere is it taught that all that the church will ever formally, universally teach on faith and morals (in accordance with Rome's formula) will be infallible, thus RCs erroneously try to extrapolate it out of Scripture.

But consistent with those attempts, if Paul said that the stewards of Scripture (via the magisterium) formally, universally teaches on faith and morals will be wholly inspired of God, and instrumentally able to make one "perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works," then they would do just the opposite of what you do with 2 Timothy 3:16-17!

It says that Scripture is inspired and necessary—a rule of faith—but in no way does it teach that Scripture alone is all one needs to determine the truth about faith and morals in the Church

The problem with this is that your idea of SS is incorrect. If Scripture alone is all one needs to determine Truth then we would not need a brain, the Holy Spirit, reason, the church, etc., which as said, Scripture provides for, but Scripture is sola as being the infallible and supreme standard or rule for faith and morals.

My attempt to defend this bedrock teaching of Protestantism led me to conclude that sola scriptura is unreasonable, unbiblical, and unworkable.

In that case you were trying to defend a strawman as a bedrock teaching of Protestantism (and can you show us where you tried that?), or you otherwise never saw how it is Scriptural. The OT provides for recognition of both men and writings of God as being so, and thus for additions being added, and thus for a canon.

And do you deny that in Scripture it is manifest as being the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced? .

Do disagree that the church did not begin under the premise of a perpetual assuredly (if conditional) infallible magisterium of men, but upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power? (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

And upon what basis (Scripture, etc.?) do you have assurance that Rome is the one true and infallible church?

And we are still waiting for the answer to the question asked in post 200 , regarding the "we gave you the Bible polemic:

Are you saying that being the instruments and stewards of Scripture requires or renders them the infallible authority on it, so they that which they reject must be rejected?