Was this the standard in the year 45 A.D., 12 years after Pentecost, before many NT books were even written?
Who had the authority to decide, in the year 100 A.D., that the book John was writing on the isle of Patmos was divinely inspired? How could Scripture possibly answer this question?
Who had the authority to decide in the year 250 A.D., which books constituted Scripture, when the canon of Scripture was still debated? How could Scripture possibly answer this question?
Which Bible today is the true Bible? How do you know? Is this authority infallible? Which canon of Scripture should answer these questions?
How are illiterate people saved? Today they represent almost 20% of the world's population.
Where is your notion that "Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience," in the Bible?
Jesus reveals the "transcendent supreme standard for obedience" in Scripture, yet this is ignored by Protestants.
“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.The power to "bind and loose" is a rabbinic expression, meaning to "forbid by an indisputable authority, and to permit by an indisputable authority."“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
(The "keys of the kingdom" referred to in the OT [Isaiah 22:22] represented authority over Israel delegated to the majordomo in the Davidic king's absence. This authority, or office, is now widened by Jesus to refer to authority over His earthly Church, over which Jesus is the King [Rev 3:7], in Christ's earthly absence, with the pope acting as Christ's vicar on earth. The pope is not The King, but the King's earthly representative, as the vice-regent of the Kingdom of David was during the Davidic king's absence.)Matthew 16:19
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
John 20:23
If you bind fast the sins of any, they remain bound ... if of any ye may loose the sins, they are loosed to them; if of any ye may retain, they have been retained ...
The councils that met to put the bible together...were they guided by the Holy Spirit or by their own assumed authority? Is the Holy Spirit chopped liver? Did they not mean for the those scriptures to be used for “doctrine and reproof” or did they mean for traditions not supported by those scriptures to take precedence over those scriptures?
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit can’t think for himself? Yeah I know all about the apocryphal books’ controversies...they were controversial back then too! The early councils didn’t find one book they could have included that supports Mary having no original sin? Some early apostle must have said something about that...what nothing written down from Paul or John? Jesus must have said something about his mother being sinless from birth...somewhere? Sola Scriptura is a guard against sentimentalist based traditions posing as hard truth!
I think the attacks against Sola Scriptura come from a place inside many Catholics that is more emotional and sentimental as opposed to reasoned faith. It skews the comfortable narrative Catholics have about themselves in terms of their man made traditions and that Church’s tendency over history to blend in a syncretic fashion with pagan practices to make their “wafer” more palatable spiritually speaking to the various cultures over time.
So much “blending” was done that by the 1500’s I believe God sparked the reformation, and inspired the printing of scriptures in the vernacular so that preaching of the SAVING KNOWLEDGE of Jesus’ Gospel would not be lost from the world.
First, and which eliminates the other "How could Scripture possibly answer this question?" polemical queries, SS does not presume to be or need to be operative at all times and in all places, esp. in its full sense, any more than its alternative of sola ecclesia (the church is the sole supreme authority, as possessing the charism of perpetual assured infallibility of office), does. Even White holds, "You will never find anyone saying, “During times of enscripturation—that is, when new revelation was being given—sola scriptura was operational.” - http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2012/06/26/the-council-of-jerusalem-and-enscripturation/
Yet in principle we can see its supremacy and material sufficiency at work as the word of was written. God spoke to certain men to a limited degree and scope before there was anything written, yet as written, the comprehensive Torah became the supreme transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims. (Is. 8:20 etc.)
And to which more complimentary writings were added, in conflation with them, and by Scriptural substantiation in word and in power the Lord validated His mission and message, as was the oral preaching of NT. (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 which writings and men even common souls could correctly discern as being of God, essentially due to their Heavenly qualities and attestation, without a perpetual infallible magisterium.
And which oral transmission and recognition of the word of God, and its progressive enscripturation Scripture provides for, as the supreme and sufficient (more materially earlier) standard.
In contrary to which is sola ecclesia, in which the historical magisterium is infallible, and essential to assuredly know what men and writings are of God, and the veracity is RC teaching rests upon the premise of assured infallibility of the church, and indefectability of the magisterium.
But which was not the basis under which the NT church began.
God also communicates to men via the light of nature, and can in others ways (as during the offering: most every preacher hopes:), and and even pagans may speak some Divine truth, all is subject to testing by Scripture, which body is uniquely wholly inspired of God, which Rome cannot even claim for her "infallible" decrees.
Who had the authority to decide, in the year 100 A.D., that the book John was writing on the isle of Patmos was divinely inspired? How could Scripture possibly answer this question? Who had the authority to decide in the year 250 A.D., which books constituted Scripture, when the canon of Scripture was still debated?
Though there was no complete canon for most of Rome's history, the magisterium is to affirm both men and writings that have become established as being of God by consensus, as they were before.
But as with the Pharisees, this question presupposes that they magisterium cannot be wrong, the question is who had the authority to decide whether a prophet was or a book was of God and authoritative before Christ? In other words, how could any have authority if they without an infallible mag.?
How could Scripture possibly answer this question?
As a now question that is answered above, for as written it provided for more writings and men being provided and discerned as being of God and authoritative. And for the magisterium affirming such. But as only Scripture as a testable tangible body ( unlike amorphous tradition) is wholly inspired of God and unchangeable, unlike men, then it alone is the supreme sufficient (in formal and material aspects combined) standard.
Thus your other like questions are also answered
Jesus reveals the "transcendent supreme standard for obedience" in Scripture, yet this is ignored by Protestants. ...Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Wrong and a strawman based on a superficial understanding, as SS does not negate ecclesiastical authority, but in fact affirms it (as Westminster does), and in its OT form its binding judgment could mean the death penalty. (Dt. 17:8-13) But not as though such was or is infallible. Lack of assured infallibility does not negate authority as some RCs imagine, as even Rm. 13:1-7 makes clear. Nor does is prevent transmission and preservation of Truth and faith and people of faith.
Your argument also fails to consider the basis upon which the church established itself, which was not upon the premise of assured infallibly of the instruments and stewards of Scripture, and recipients of promises of God's presence, leading and preservation, but upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (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.) Without which foundation there would be no NT church.
The "keys of the kingdom" referred to in the OT [Isaiah 22:22] represented authority over Israel delegated to the majordomo in the Davidic king's absence.
Where is this infallibly taught as referring to Peter as vicar? Or even in the CCC? Does being read in Mass every 3 years along with May. 16:18,19 make it official teaching?
For while its language and concept of a key and policing authority is used in Mt. 16:18,19 (Paul even uses language of the Philistines) this does not make it a prophecy of Peter's power, and much less necessitate that the real subject will have successors.
For instead, not only was this prophecy of Eliakim's ascendancy apparently fulfilled in the OT - as 2Ki. 19:1 2Ki. 18:18, 2Ki. 18:37 and Is. 3622, 37:2 all refer to Eliakim being over the house, (bayith, same in Is. 22:15,22) which Shebna the treasurer was, (Is. 22:15) and evidently had much prestige and power, though the details of his actual fall are not mentioned [and who may not be the same as "Shebna the scribe" (sâkan) mentioned later] - but the text actually foretells that,
In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken it. (Isa 22:25)
Whether this refers to Shebna or Eliakim is irrelevant, as it means that being a nail that is fastened in the sure place does not necessarily denote permanency, as it certainly did not here.
However, if we are looking for a future fulfillment with permanency, both the language concept of a key and being a father to the house of David corresponds more fully to Christ, and who alone is promised a continued reign (though when He has put all His enemies under His feet, He will deliver the kingdom to His Father: 1Cor. 15:24-28).
For it is Christ who alone is said to be clothed "with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle," (Rv. 1:13; cf. Is. 22:21) and who came to be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (Is. 22:21; cf. Heb. 7:14; 8:8; 9:6)
And who specifically is said to be given "the key of the house of David," "so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open," (Is. 22:22) as He now “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7) and is a nail in a sure place who sits in a glorious throne in His father's house, (Is. 22:23; cf. Rv. 3:7)
And upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the issue, ” (Is. 22:24) for He is the head of the body, the church, (Colossians 1:18) "from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,“ (Eph. 4:16) and in Jesus Christ dwells "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9)
Thus neither Eliakim nor Peter are shown having this manner of fulfillment, nor does it necessarily denote successors (Christ has none Himself, but took over from the Father).
as the vice-regent of the Kingdom of David was during the Davidic king's absence.
Rather, if this " a nail in a sure place" corresponds to anyone future then it is Christ, and nothing is said of Eliakim having a vice regent. Thus this prophecy is actually contrary to Peter being that Eliakim.