“A mere assertion of propaganda. Your church simply cannot be the NT church of Scripture, or the one true church, since distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).”
(sigh) If only you knew how to think. Let’s simply destroy your poor attempt at an argument with one simple rejoinder. You say “distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed” and yet:
1) There are “distinctive” Protestant “teachings” that appear no where in scripture (sola scriptura being one of them). Thus, you have negated your own beliefs with the logic of your own claim.
2) No where in scripture does anyone - including Almighty God Himself - claim that all teachings are found ONLY in scripture. Therefore, your argument’s premise makes no sense.
3) You will utterly fail to refute points 1 or 2 above.
That also simply another assertion, for indeed sola scriptura - that Scripture alone is the supreme standard as the only wholly God-inspired and faithful substantive word of God, and sufficient in its formal and material senses to provide what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace - is indeed Scriptural. Especially according to the Catholic standard for that status, seeing Catholics contend that such distinctive Catholic teachings as praying to created beings in Heaven as well as the hyper-exaltation of the Mary of Catholicism, etc., are Scriptural.
2) No where in scripture does anyone - including Almighty God Himself - claim that all teachings are found ONLY in scripture. Therefore, your argument’s premise makes no sense.
Which simply displays ignorance of SS, since that does not mean that all teachings are found ONLY in scripture, but that "things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation" are provided, explicitly or "by good and necessary consequence may [not necessarily will be by all] be deduced from Scripture" including with "a due use of the ordinary means," while also providing for "synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith..." and some circumstances concerning the worship of God "which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word." (Westminster Confession of Faith) There are even SS Pentecostals who do not see SS as opposing private revelation.
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 the preaching of apostles was subject to:
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 and ecumenical councils do in declaring what the word of God is.
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.
4. We can assume that what Paul referred to as tradition was subsequently written down, since God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;
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 the supreme infallible source of Truth over that of Scripture, and both words for “pillar” and “ground” of the truth denote support (apostles were called “pillars”) and which the church does, and is grounded in it. For 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 (such as "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24:27).
3) You will utterly fail to refute points 1 or 2 above.
Rather, it is your false conception of SS that fails, as does your necessary alternative to SS, and thus you have my following questions:
1. What is God's manifest most reliable permanent means of preserving what He told man as well as what man does: oral transmission or writing?
2. What became the established supreme authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or "it is written/Scripture?"
3. Which came first: the written word of God and an authoritative body of it, or the NT church?
4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly inspired authoritative writings require an infallible magisterium?
5. Which transcendent sure source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating her claims to the nation that 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?
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 provides for what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace?
11. What oral source has spoken to man as wholly inspired the public express 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?