Sola Scriptura vs Sola Dei Verbum

Pro argues that Sola Scriptura (henceforth SS) has three implications. I don"t deny the first. Pro then ascribes to me an argument about Canon which I never made. I made a similar epistemic argument about knowing inspiration, but knowing what is Canon is a separate issue, & to discuss it is a red herring. His second claim is that while God can reveal something to someone, it doesn"t follow that it is binding & authoritative upon others. I agree. Kinda. This is true of scripture too, is it not? For example, when Jesus tells one of the invalids not to tell others what he had done for him, or when Jesus tells Peter not to worry about what he commanded others, it still remains valid & binding only for that individual, however, it is true teaching nonetheless that such an event occurred. It would be false to say that such an event didn"t occur. Because it"s recorded in scripture (I"ve justified scripture in my previous speech), it"s therefore an infallible proposition. So, it is both a subjective revelation & command yet universal at the same time. Scripture needn"t have any direct relevance to me to give intellectual assent to it, & claim it infallibly true. Even if these two points were granted, they do not make a positive case for SS. His only attempt to do this is in his third. The doctrine of SS is that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for Christians. Then Pro claims that one implication of this is that 2nd Tim claims scripture is that it is the sole fallible truth. But this doesn"t tell us anything. This is a tautology. So his only attempt to justify SS fails. I"ve already sketched out some problems with the application of this verse under Pro"s interpretation, & he gave a rebuttal. Pro has clarified what he meant by sufficient. I accept. He means to say that it contains all the propositional information necessary for good works. Then he makes the non-sequitur saying because it is necessary for good deeds, it must therefore contain all the propositions necessary for sound doctrine. Here, I think, a difference is becoming more clear between Pro & myself. He seems to believe that all one needs to know is that which is directly relevant to one"s life. But I"ve disputed this when I discussed his second point. If Jesus revealed it to us, then it should be preserved as literally God"s word, even if it were not addressed to us, as Jesus may have personally addressed Peter or Judas. So long as the content came from God, it must be infallible. Pro seems to believe that it is only infallible if it came from God & it has direct relevance to our lives. There are many counter-examples to this. What relevance do the more dull parts of the Bible have to our lives? Like genealogies, for example. Also, doesn"t this lead to a relativism of revelation? If God can reveal something to an individual, but it is not binding upon others, then it follows that this person could say, "Well, this doctrine may not be true for you, but it is for me." What a brave new world. Further, while SS entails that only the Bible is the sole infallible standard of doctrine, how much of the Bible entails SS? It would not be a very impressive doctrine to say that only a handful of verses is sufficient for SS. This is fatal when applied to 2nd Timothy, because not all of scripture was completed at this time. Therefore, it would follow that Revelation is not necessary for "every good work". I quote Pro, "What sufficiency entails is that all necessary Christian doctrines are contained in the Scripture." Here I ask, what did Christ ever teach that wasn"t necessary for the Church? Contra SS, I"ve been disputing his first objection, & to his second, it does in fact need to be in scripture, since all scripture contains all information necessary for doctrine. SS is such a doctrine, according to Pro, & therefore should be found in scripture. For my first argument, Pro claims it doesn"t follow but he did not explain. If the content is identical, then it must have the property of being inspired. If the content is written, why is it magically inspired then & only then? What is supernatural about ink paper? If the content is identical, then, by the law of identity, it is also inspired. Pro cedes that God may have given inspiration to things other than scriptures. Unless God can lie, they are also infallible. It needn"t be binding upon anyone else for it to be required to preserve & declare infallible. Pro has to justify why it must have application & explain the counter-examples. Pro claims I ignored his examples of doctrine being tested by scripture (I didn"t ignore them, I just didn"t think it was appropriate to address them in my opening). All that follows from his examples is that scripture is a valid authority to use to scrutinize new doctrine. Who denies that? But what doesn"t follow is that it is the only way to test new revelation or it is the only standard. To argue so from the examples he gave is ad ignorantium. He cedes that the teachings of the apostles carried authority, but then says they don"t carry that same authority today. Again, I appeal to the law of identity. How does authority cease after time? Pro says I ignored his argument about how we know what came from the apostles. It"s a red herring, though I think worthy of another debate topic, which I welcome. Concerning inspiration (not Canon), people knew what scriptures were on the authority of the apostles. Pro says he trusts what they said. How is that not ceding the entire debate over? It not that the references in scripture make no sense, but that cannot be justified alone. The Scriptures in reference in 2 Tim are most likely the OT as he was child when introduced. Pro insist that my argument is circular because I believe "Jesus taught the infallibility of the Catholic church BECAUSE of that"s how the Catholic Church interprets" it. Did I ever give that argument? Granted we're in the same boat, we're at a stalemate. Man I ran out of room.