14 questions as regards sola scriptura versus sola ecclesia

14 questions as regards sola scriptura versus sola ecclesia   

Some think that sola scriptura (SS) must mean that only the Bible is to be used, and  that no one can be saved unless they have and can read the Bible, and even that a SS preacher could not preach the gospel to people without a Bible, nor enjoin obedience to oral exhortation (under the premise that the preaching can pass the test of Scripture), and that Scripture formally explicitly provides all that is necessary for salvation and growth in grace, thus dispensing with the teaching office of the church, and helps of commentaries and any authority of synods,  

But which opinions means that such are misled as to what SS means, and reason dictates, versus "alone" in SS meaning Scripture alone is the only infallible, supreme, standard of express Divine public revelation, to which all teaching must agree with, and as the sole sure, substantive source and authority on doctrine, it is  sufficient (in its formally and material senses* combined) to  provide all that is needed for salvation and growth in grace, by which  one can (not necessarily all will) do so thereby. 

As in the words of the Westminster Confession, in Scripture

 "the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for God's own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture."

"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them"   (necessary things).

The "due use of the ordinary means" can include helps such  as dictionaries and commentaries (which abound among SS advocates), as Scripture materially provides for the gifts such as teaching. 

As well as providing for administration, that of the teaching office of the church,  under which Westminster Confession  (originally  a confession of the Church of England) itself falls.  

And in which it is affirmed,

 "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." 

Also, as a matter of material providence:

.".we acknowledge...that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature , and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_I.html 

And since Scripture also testifies to and affirms the recognition and establishment of a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings by the time of Christ, so also it provided for the complete canon of Scripture.
For a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings was manifestly established by the time of Christ as being “Scripture, (”in all the Scriptures” - Lk. 24:27) “ even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings. ( Lk. 24:44). 

 And which body provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church (which was thus a product of Scripture)

And regarding the objections of how Scripture alone can be the wholly inspired, sure, supreme and sufficient (in its formal and material 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, and that souls could be regenerated without a complete Bible or being able to read it, then it is because,

1. From Adam onward, God always provided enough revelation for obedience to Him, which (aside from general revelation of nature, and morally of conscience) before Moses, was in a very limited sense and expressly to a limited amount of persons  who thus shared it.

But when choosing to reveal Himself more fully and to an entire nation, God committed His word to writing, this manifestly being His  chosen means of preservation, versus  materially insubstantial  untestable oral transmission which is highly vulnerable to undetectable  corruption   (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;

2. As with Moses, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, neither of which even Rome presumes its popes and ecumenical councils do. Yet  Scripture had become the standard by which even the veracity of  even the apostles could be 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)

Likewise, as from Adam onward, souls today can be saved who do not personally possess a Bible or are able to read Scripture, as faith comes by hearing the word of God, and those who hear the Truth of gospel of the grace of God, and convicted of their need for salvation thereby can be saved thru those who share that truth.  By the grace of God souls could hear  the basic message of  Acts 10:43-47 and could be saved, and go on from there.

But it is Scripture that alone is the sure supreme standard for the veracity of what is taught, and formally provides necessary Truth, explicitly or implicitly, and materially provides for teachers, etc. Thus what is taught must be the Truth of Scripture, versus contrivances as the  assumption of the Assumption. 

3. Moreover, 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 for a RC, the assurance (that something is the word of God) is based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity, which itself is based upon so-called tradition (nowhere in Scripture is perpetual magisterial veracity in all universally binding matters of faith and morals promised or seen, nor is that how God preserved faith, nor is it required for authority). 

4. While Catholicism presumes that what Paul referred to as tradition is part of its body of unwritten oral tradition, but which cannot be proved and the premise that unwritten oral tradition is the word of God is  based upon its own tradition of ensured   perpetual magisterial veracity.  

However 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 of the word of God. 

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 for a body of wholly God-inspired  writings to be established as being from God, as mentioned, a  body of authoritative writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture ("in all the Scriptures:" Lk. 24:27), 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; 18:28, 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 “pillars”). And Scripture itself and most of it came before the church, and the latter was built upon the prophetic, doctrinal epistemological foundation of transcendent Scripture. And thus we see the abundant appeal to it in establishing the authority of teaching by the church, as the Lord did Himself in establishing His prophetic messiahship and ministry to those who would build His church, and opening their understanding of Scripture,  which included expanding the contents of Scripture, such as through Paul (cf. 2 Peter 3:15,16) 

Thus here are 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 substantive authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or  Scripture?
3. Which came first: an authoritative body of  wholly God-inspired writings  of the word of God, or the NT church, and which provided the transcendent prophetic, doctrinal and moral foundation for the NT church?

4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly God-inspired authoritative writings by the first century require an infallible magisterium?
5. Which transcendent sure, substantive 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 ever 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 could and did, and also provide new public revelation thereby?
8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the transcendent, supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and the most reliable record and supreme source for what the NT church believed?
9. Do you think sola scriptura 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 (and ideally a centralized one)  as the  formal  judicial earthly authority on matters of dispute (though it appeals to Scripture as the only infallible and supreme substantive source of Divine Truth)?
10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible explicitly and 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 public revelation, and which formally and materially (combined) provides what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace, as the sole sure, supreme, standard of express Divine public revelation?
11. What infallible oral magisterial source has spoken to man as the wholly God-inspired 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?

 *SS actually includes the materially sense as regards sufficiency, as  affirming such things as reason and the recognition by Truth-loving souls as to what is of God, thus  providing for a canon of Scripture,  but not as in Catholicism, (esp. RC). 

In which "The Church" asserts that written and oral tradition teach ensured perpetual magisterial veracity in formal teaching on faith and morals, uniquely for their church, thus effectively validating its own claim. 

Whereby  they claim the Assumption is a fact ("remembering" what history forgot to record in that era), and thus all are required to believe it. 

But SS does teach material sufficiency in the sense that "what is "necessary for God's own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added [as public express revelation], whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." To which it adds that souls by "a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" (necessary things). And that,

.".we acknowledge...that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature , and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/westminster-confession-faith