...hereby you - who before asserted what the Prot position is - example belief in another fav RC propagandist strawman, that SS means only Scripture is to be used in determining what God reveals...
And.. We do uphold the teaching and magisterial office...
No you don't. At least not that I've ever seen, unless you wish to state now that you, Daniel, are a Presbyterian, since you do tend to post passages from the WCF from time to time. Are you a Presbyterian?
If not, if you are going to state like everyone else around here that "I'm not a part of any denomination" and/or "I'm just a Bible-believing Christian" or similar non-committal statements, then you most certainly do not "uphold the teaching and magisterial office." I'm fully aware of the theoretical definition of "sola scriptura".
The problem is with you and everyone else around here, you don't actually follow it in practice. You belong to no denomination and when asked, responses similar to the above are given.
The only authority you rely upon is Scripture. When asked to support your claims nothing else is given other than Scripture and your interpretation of it. You never give any other authoritative reason.
So you are your own authority. Whether you want to admit it or not is not my concern.
??
These conversations are most profitable and enjoyable when we do not presume to know internal motivation in disregard of presented testimony. Our testimony is that we do regard Scripture as the supreme authority, and that we do have regard for those God give us as teachers to the body of Christ, as there are Scriptural accounts for all of that. Where it goes off the rails is when one party or the other gets frustrated with the logical and Scriptural arguments and starts seeking a means of closure without getting an agreement on the points being contested. The temptation, and I maintain we all feel it occasionally, is to drop down into sweeping generalizations that express our own beliefs much more than they express the other party's beliefs.
(Sidebar: Oddly, this reminds me of an experience I had when I was in grade school. I am an attorney now, but back then I was just a kid who liked watching Perry Mason at Grandma's house every Sunday evening. It happened that in one of my classes at school we were given a chance to play attorney in a criminal case. I was cast as the prosecutor, and I had read the workbook and absolutely knew who the guilty party was. But when I got him on the stand, and I had gone through a few poor, simplistic efforts to get him to fess up, just like Perry Mason, he wouldn't cooperate! The nerve of him! It really got me frustrated, and I fell into just berating him, which also did nothing to get at the truth. I've reflected a lot on that since then, and it is a factor in how I work now. Glad it wasn't on tape. But then this all happened before the invention of either fire or the wheel, so I guess I'm safe. :) )
Anyway, I have a proposal, part of a hypothetical civility code some of us are thinking about, that would be a voluntary set of rules we could keep in addition to the regular RF forum rules. My proposal is that when one or the other side realizes they have not moved the other party and have essentially nothing else they can do in terms of adding new information or new analysis, just admit the impasse openly and cordially. I've actually seen others do this, and I've tried it myself a few times. Rather than accusing the other party of not admitting something which they have testified they do not believe, try taking them at their word and admit the dead end.
BTW, this doesn't mean we have to accept false statements of objective fact. If someone claims there's a secret Hebrew original NT known only to certain initiates that invalidates the Greek NT, and they can't pony up the proof, they are stuck with the facts being against them. They lose, we win, at least until someone comes up with real, new facts that change the equation.
But if we testify to you we honor Scripture as our supreme objective authority on matters of Christian faith and practice, then it will do no good to accuse us of some hidden alternative spiritual reality to which none but God has access. That's what we really believe, and we have resolved the subsidiary issues accordingly. We aren't all Presbyterians or Reformed Baptists or Lutherans, etc. But on a point by point basis, any one of us might find the Westminster or the London Baptist or the Augsburg confessions useful and instructive and beneficial to know and learn. The fact that we don't share your exact model of how the magisterium should work does not mean we reject the concept altogether. That's a fallacy of false dilemma. It only means we have a different working model than you do, one that can actually work across a multiplicity of denominational histories to forge real unity on key issues.
But when these objections are met with accusations rather than analysis, you know what that means to us? It means you have run out of serious analytical ammunition and are resorting to nerf darts. This is very easy to do. I'd bet a thorough review of my own posts would turn up more of that than I'd like. But is it good? Does it help move the other party in your direction? Doubtful. When is the last time you bought a product from someone who accused you to your face of not really believing in your own objections to the product? It doesn't work.
And our objections to the Roman "product" are quite real to us. In the present discussion, for example, we see that the logic of papal infallibility runs in an infinite loop, which is the main point of the OP, and offers a worse solution rather than a better to a significant epistemological problem. In computer terminology, we might call it the bootstrap problem. How does one get from being a fallible private self with inescapably personal sensory and interpretive processes to a place where they know divine truth in an objective way? If you think this is easy or trivial, I can't go there with you. I think it takes a miracle:
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
(John 6:44-45)
... which miracle of divine, personal revelation is exampled by Peter himself:
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
(Matthew 16:16-17)
There is much more that could be said here, but I am already going on too long. The short of it is that the analysis phase of our present discussion is still rich with unexplored veins, and does not have to be cluttered up with comments that are sure to produce a defensive response but have little to no analytical value. When any of us does get to that place of going in unproductive circles, why can't we just say, OK, this is where we're at for now, and just leave it there? Anyway, just my two cents ....
Peace,
SR