Nah Dannyboy - your posts always remind me of 1 Timothy
f any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, [4] He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions,
Now as you've seen, Scripture itself shows that Sola Scriptura i.e. scripture ALONE is non-scriptural!
Thus we are left with what the issue and question you have avoided answering, why do you have evangelicals who hold on to this and then reject the Trinity? This is because their very teaching is non-Christian and unsound as your answers show. Do you agree or disagree?"
Nah Dannyboy - your posts always remind me of 1 Timothy f any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, [4] He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions, Now as you've seen, Scripture itself shows that Sola Scriptura i.e. scripture ALONE is non-scriptural! Rather, contrary to your recourse of asserting fallacies as if that makes them true, I have not seem Sola Scriptura - properly understood - is non-scriptural, but in fact God;s chosen means of reliable preservation is writing, and that Scripture is the only substantive infallible sufficient - in its formal and material senses - for faith and morals. And that its alternative, of sola ecclesia - or more precisely sola Rome (the church alone is the supreme sufficient authority, providing both Scripture and oral Tradition, infallibly determining and interpreting both) is what is non-scriptural!
Since this the case, and since Caths typically construe SS into meaning that only Scripture formally provides all that is needed, and only can be used to understand God's will, then I referenced the below by the grace of God, but which was apparently ignored and thus your fallacious assertion was repeated.
14 questions as regards sola scriptura versus sola ecclesia
Some think that sola scriptura (SS) means we must dispense with the teaching office of the church, and conclusions of synods and commentaries, etc. but which opinion means that such are misled as to what SS reasonable means. But if instead they mean how can Scripture alone be the wholly inspired, sure, supreme and sufficient (in its formal and materiel senses) standard on faith and morals, when Paul referred to keeping oral tradition 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and the church as being the foundation of the Truth, then it is because,
1. Scripture was the standard by which even the veracity of of apostles was subject to testing by:
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)
2. Men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, neither which even Rome presumes its popes ans ecumenical councils do.
3. Under the alternative of sola ecclesia, one can only assume that what their church teaches as oral tradition includes the teachings Paul referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and which assurance is being based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which itself comes from so-called tradition.
5. And it is abundantly evidenced that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.
6. Rather than an infallible magisterium being required to for writings to be established as being from God, a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") " even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 1828, etc.)
7. None of the few Greek words in 1 Timothy 3:15 ("church living God pillar and ground the truth" teach that the magisterial office of the church is supreme over Scripture, and both words for “pillar” and “ground” of the truth denote support (apostles were called “pillar”). And Scripture itself and most of it came before the church, and was built upon its prophetic and doctrinal foundation. And thus the appeal to it in establishing the authority of teaching by the church.
Questions for those who argue for the alternative of sola scriptura, which is that of sola ecclesia:
1. What is God's manifest most reliable permanent means of preserving the word of God: oral transmission or writing?
2. What became the established supreme authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or Scripture?
3. Which came first: an authoritative body of the written word of God, or the NT church, and that provided the prophetic and doctrinal and moral foundation for the NT church?
4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly inspired authoritative writings by the first century require an infallible magisterium?
5. Which transcendent sure source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating Truth claims to a nation which was the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation: oral transmission or writing?
6. Was the veracity of Scripture subject to testing by the oral words of men or vice versa?
7. Do Catholic popes and councils speak or write as wholly inspired of God in giving His word like as men such as apostles did, and also provide new public revelation thereby?
8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and the most reliable record and supreme source on what the NT church believed?
9. Do you think sola scripture must mean that only the Bible is to be used in understanding what God says, and means that all believers will correctly understand what is necessary, and that it replaces the magisterial office as a judicial earthly authority on matters of dispute?
10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc. or that this sufficiency refers to Scripture as regards it being express Divine revelation, and which formally and materially (combined) provides what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace?
11. What infallible oral magisterial source has spoken to man as the wholly God-inspired express and public word of God outside Scripture since the last book was penned?
12. Where in Scripture is a magisterium of men promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office whenever it defines as a body a matter of faith or morals for the whole church?
13. Does being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation mean that such possess that magisterial infallibility?
14. What is the basis for your assurance that your church is the one true apostolic church? The weight of evidence for it or because the church who declared it asserts she it cannot err in such a matter? Thus we are left with what the issue and question you have avoided answering, why do you have evangelicals who hold on to this and then reject the Trinity? This is because their very teaching is non-Christian and unsound as your answers show. Do you agree or disagree?"
That was not ignored, but answered with the response that if a commonality is held by two parties then they should be treated as one, then since evangelicals hold many things Catholics do, then your chosen Brazilian example is Catholic. Meanwhile if SS is to be indicted as the cause of aberrations, versus blamed by the misuse of an instrument then by that reasoning you could blame the Bible itself for abuse of it, since the devil quotes it, as does your favored Brazilian example of evangelicals and as do Catholics.
All and all, your responses continue to be an example Catholic apologetic sophistry, and parroting refuted Catholic apologetic propaganda, which take up more valuable time to expose, by the grace of God.