Defense of Sola Scriptura

[SyCarl]

Hi, SyCarl,

You brought up some interesting points… let me offer an opinion…

This is where the major problem lies - at least as I appreciate it. Indeed, we are to examine everything closely - and, we are to hold on to what is good. And, to answer your question of how can we determine this - the answer is quite straight forward: you go to the Church established by Jesus Christ as idetified in Matt 16.

The problem arises when the teaching we are examining has been put forward by the Catholic Church. It makes little sense to use the Catholic Church to determine what is good when it is the source of what is being examined. The Catholic Church puts forward that its teachings with respect to faith and morals are infallible. How do we examine this to see if it is true? You can say that Jesus promised it but to determine that He actually did promise it you would need to make a private interpretation of the evidence put forward. It is not enough that the Church says so because that is pulling itself up by its own boot straps.

To accept that the Catholic Church is right because it says so is dangerous particularly as the claimed infallibility can be wielded by one man. I would never say that any Pope has been the anti-Christ but that does not guarantee that this could not happen in the future. If the Catholic Church is wrong in its claims, what more could the anti-Christ ask for than a Church whose members are required to accept his every teaching on his say so alone?

 

[JonNC]

I’ll totally adopt, believe and propagate the notion of sola scriptura when someone shows me a quote from the bible that it is so…not a convoluted implication, but a clear statement.

Hi Newbie,
Why does the practice of using scripture as the final norm necessarily require that that practice be clearly stated in scripture?

Jon

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I was wondering if anyone knows any arguments that defend the idea of Sola Scriptura.

I grew up with that as a founding belief for my Christianity, but upon closer scrutiny, the idea that the Bible is the only infallible word of God seems self-contradictory.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only infallible word of God. So some external claim must have made it so. In order for that claim to be taken as absolutely true, thae source of that claim must also be infallible, thus contradicting the claim that the Bible is the only infallible source of God’s word.

I don’t want to risk being narrowminded here so I was wondering if there any Fundamentalist responses to this that I should at least be aware of when discussing the idea, and where I could find them?

Thanks,

-nt

I shall like to take a stab at it, though I am late into this discussion, and, presumably, will have used arguments already present throughout this thread (as there’s too much to read!).

You are correct in a certain sense that scripture does not refer to a specific verse which unequivocally and exclusively explains the belief of Sola Scriptura.

Then again, the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t clearly spelled out either, it is a conclusion made via a systematic approach to scripture. I would say the best explanation of Sola Scriptura in the Bible would be:
*
“Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, ‘Do not go beyond what is written.’”* (1 Corinthians 4:16)

I think the greatest misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura, found both among Protestants (specifically Evangelicals) and Catholics and Orthodox is that Sola Scriptura is a rejection of Holy Tradition.

I wholeheartedly disagree. While I would say that the Bible alone is infallible, I believe that Tradition is very important to the Church at large. I don’t think we can just read the Bible from our own interpretations and simply have the claim “Oh, the Holy Spirit is leading me.” There is obviously an absolute way to read the Bible, and Tradition would be our way of doing so. In particular the writings of the early Church must be examined with regards to scripture.

However, because Tradition is generally oral, we must be careful to keep it free from unorthodox beliefs creeping into him. Therefore, I would view the Bible as a standard from which to judge Tradition. Tradition must always be in full accordance with what the Bible says. To give an extreme (but of course, fake) example, if Sacred Tradition somehow taught that Jesus was a created being, we would immediately dismiss this belief because it clearly contradicts the Bible.

Additionally, aside that scripture I mentioned, there is also when Paul preached to the Bereans. What did they do? They immediately appealed to scripture:

“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” (Acts 17:11)

So I guess this would be a partial defense from me. I’m probably not the best one to mount it considering that I’m doubting Evangelicalism, but this is what I think so far.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, SyCarl,

I really appreciate the way that you have approached this … and will do my best to answer your concerns … Oooooooops … I hate to do this but I went over the 6000 character limit. I will break this in half…and send the second part in a moment.

The problem arises when the teaching we are examining has been put forward by the Catholic Church.
As I see it, this is the core of the problem you are presenting. The issue, to use an example, would be like going to a used-car salesman and asking questions about a particular car…and the guy says, “Trust me.” Under such circumstances … most people would politely back away from such a salesman and find another place to buy a car! I will come back to this analogy a little later (hopefully, not beating it to death…) as I work to answer your concerns.

It makes little sense to use the Catholic Church to determine what is good when it is the source of what is being examined.
I would agree with you under any other circumstance - but, not this one. Here is why: God knows everything - from before the creation He knew what was going to happen and who was going to do what. I think we can agree on that. So, the issue come down to this: since God knows everything and is all powerful are His Promises worthy of belief? If the answer is, “No”, then we really can not go any further. But, if the answer is, “Yes” then we need to examine this more closely.

In Matt 16, God the Father inspires Peter (and none of the other 11) with the correct answer to Christ’s question about who do men say I am. Peter shouts out the answer - which probably amazed the 11 - and Christ acknowledges that His Father prompted him to get it right. This is not a minor point. Since God has hand picked Peter (with all of his sins, faults, and failings) adn was able to work through him to get the job of establisheing His Church on earth (look at fire that burned in Peter on Petecost as described in Acts 2) don’t you think that God had plans for His Church after Peter died? It would certainly seem that way to me: Christ spends 3-years grooming His 12 Apostles, instructs them to go out all over the world and baptize in the name of the Trinity and preach the Good News and then leaves them leaderless upon the death of Peter? I don’t thnk so.

The Catholic Church puts forward that its teachings with respect to faith and morals are infallible. How do we examine this to see if it is true?
One approach, SyCarl, is to go to Scripture to see for yourself.

“Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.” Certain popes have set very poor examples - beginning with public scandal. But, Christ never said any of His Apostles would be free of sin - only that God would guide His Church. Another way to look at this - even to the point of giving stronger evidence - is that there have been (and will be) popes who fail in their personal lives! Our faith is that the pope is the visible head of Christ on earth and will not teach error. Our faith is NOT that the pope will never sin.

 

[tqualey]

Here is part two, SyCarl.

You can say that Jesus promised it but to determine that He actually did promise it you would need to make a private interpretation of the evidence put forward. It is not enough that the Church says so because that is pulling itself up by its own boot straps.

I think we need to look at three items to address this concern:

1.) the Scripture verses quoted above,

2.) the writing of the Early Church Fathers identifying the authority of the pope to resolve conflicts, and

3.) a review of the teachings of the Church to see if error has been taught in the past.

Please look at those previously quoted verses, I think you will identify that there is no ambiguity in any of these statements contained in Holy Writ

I was especially impressed with St. Augustine’s response to the discussion on the heresy of Palegius, one aspect of which was Palegius’ denial of Original Sin. Here is an interesting link: americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/romalocuta_article.htm It does a lot to give the background behind this famous saint’s statements.

When it comes to the consistency of teaching, I think that if there were a human institution that was 2,000 years old, you would expect to see a lot of changes - especially in their basic beliefs and mission statement. Take Origianal Sin as an example. The Catholic Church has always taught that this comes from the sin of our First Parents, that one of the effects of Baptism is the removal of this sin and that the consequences of this sin remain with all of us. These beliefs came under attack in 411AD by Palegius and were refuted. Today, the Catholic Church still teaches was she taught from the very beginning. From a strictly human aspect - the non-reversal of any teaching concerning revealed truth for 2,000 years should be very impressive to even the casual observer. If you look deeper, you will see that it is not a human acheivement by any means. Here is an example of the Holy Spirit working to keep the Church for teaching error.

To accept that the Catholic Church is right because it says so is dangerous particularly as the claimed infallibility can be wielded by one man. And, is has been wielded by men who were apparently more interested in money and power and earthly pleasures then in doing the Will of God. But, you will notice that during the tenure of these poor leaders - none of them came out with a doctrine that: Baptism is not necessary, the Eucharist is just a memorial event, Confession is to be done between man and God with no priest, etc.

I would never say that any Pope has been the anti-Christ but that does not guarantee that this could not happen in the future. If the Catholic Church is wrong in its claims… Truly, IF Christ had not founded His Church (and, that is the Catholic Church) as He did - I would only be guessing as to which Church He founded. Fortunately, Scripture (as previously quoted) history (an example of St. Augustine’s statements on Plalgius’s heresy) and knowledge of today’s teaching by the Catholic Church give me the assurance I need to honestly tell you that God Himself is standing behind His Church.

…what more could the anti-Christ ask for than a Church whose members are required to accept his every teaching on his say so alone?
ultimately, this is where Faith comes in. Either we believe the Word of God or we don’t. There really is not a middle ground.

God bless

 

[Newbie2]

Hi Newbie,
Why does the practice of using scripture as the final norm necessarily require that that practice be clearly stated in scripture?

Jon

Because the claim is that Scripture is the final norm and authority. For Sola Scriptura to be true, Scripture itself would have to make that claim, otherwise there is an extra-scriptural authority that decides that Scripture is to be the authority, right?

Which to me is an odd claim, since the authority that assembled the canon is considered to be authoritative only in that one, single area of authority, namely to have the decision making ability of what did and did not pass muster on being the written, inspired word of God. That authority then appears to cease in some minds after that task has been completed.

 

[TEPO]

In sola Scriptura, one becomes born again… Literally.

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl;6256059:

I think we need to look at three items to address this concern:

1.) the Scripture verses quoted above,

2.) the writing of the Early Church Fathers identifying the authority of the pope to resolve conflicts, and

3.) a review of the teachings of the Church to see if error has been taught in the past.

Please look at those previously quoted verses, I think you will identify that there is no ambiguity in any of these statements contained in Holy Writ

In looking scripture to support the infallibility of the Catholic Church are you not using your own interpretation to determine if it supports what the Church claims?

When it comes to the consistency of teaching, I think that if there were a human institution that was 2,000 years old, you would expect to see a lot of changes - especially in their basic beliefs and mission statement. Take Origianal Sin as an example. The Catholic Church has always taught that this comes from the sin of our First Parents, that one of the effects of Baptism is the removal of this sin and that the consequences of this sin remain with all of us. These beliefs came under attack in 411AD by Palegius and were refuted. Today, the Catholic Church still teaches was she taught from the very beginning. From a strictly human aspect - the non-reversal of any teaching concerning revealed truth for 2,000 years should be very impressive to even the casual observer. If you look deeper, you will see that it is not a human acheivement by any means. Here is an example of the Holy Spirit working to keep the Church for teaching error.

I would disagree that there has been consistency of teaching. The Catholic Church has often put forward matters that must now believed with Catholic and divine faith. Even if the doctrine can be found in the past, this is a change in that something which did not have to believed now must be. Has God changed His requirements whenever the Church pronounced something as dogma? If He didn’t then either the Church errs in saying it is a required belief or it has failed those before the pronouncement who didn’t believe the doctrine.

For example, at the final judgment, will God condemn someone who died after 1870 because that person did not believe in papal infallibility but not condemn someone who died in 1869 who didn’t believe it either?

 

[Newbie2]

tqualey;6256345:

Has God changed His requirements whenever the Church pronounced something as dogma? No.

If He didn’t then either the Church errs in saying it is a required belief or it has failed those before the pronouncement who didn’t believe the doctrine. Third possibility; see below.

For example, at the final judgment, will God condemn someone who died after 1870 because that person did not believe in papal infallibility but not condemn someone who died in 1869 who didn’t believe it either? No.

Third possibility; that the Church’s understanding of revealed truth has developed over time. They are not “condemned” for not believing something that they did not completely understand, especially since any such particular truth had not been properly understood before the time of their death. Same with the Early Christians, or those who had maybe just heard part of the Gospel message, were considering it and hadn’t really made it part of their belief system before their death. Same thing happens nowadays too; people die before they understand the Truth well enough to accept it as belief; God will judge them in his own way.

 

[SyCarl]

Third possibility; that the Church’s understanding of revealed truth has developed over time. They are not “condemned” for not believing something that they did not completely understand, especially since any such particular truth had not been properly understood before the time of their death. Same with the Early Christians, or those who had maybe just heard part of the Gospel message, were considering it and hadn’t really made it part of their belief system before their death. Same thing happens nowadays too; people die before they understand the Truth well enough to accept it as belief; God will judge them in his own way.

We are told Tradition comes from the Apostles to whom Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would provide all truth. There has also been no new revelation since the Apostolic age. I cannot see how men 2000 years later can understand something better than the Apostles, who were originally taught by Jesus and the Holy Spirit, from whom the teaching supposedly has been passed on.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, SyCarl,

We will really need to get down to specifics.

tqualey;6256345:

In looking scripture to support the infallibility of the Catholic Church are you not using your own interpretation to determine if it supports what the Church claims?

OK, you take the verses I gave you,and demonstrate how these do not support infallibility.

(Matt. 28:19–20) Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

(John 16:12-13) I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.

(Matt. 16:17-19) Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

(1 Tim. 3:14-16) I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon. But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. Undeniably great is the mystery of devotion, Who was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed to the Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.

I would disagree that there has been consistency of teaching. The Catholic Church has often put forward matters that must now believed with Catholic and divine faith. Even if the doctrine can be found in the past, this is a change in that something which did not have to believed now must be. Has God changed His requirements whenever the Church pronounced something as dogma? Reread John 16:12-13. Christ is specifically telling the Apostles that He has not told them everything yet. Recall that God revealed Himself to the Jews in a very particular way - and really quite different from the way in which Christ revealed Himself to us. For example, in the OT Jews were to be circumcised on the 8th day from their birth. Peter declared, at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts that circumcision was no longer required. God does not change. God reveals Himself to us as we develop. It is not that one day God suddenly decided that He did not want circumcision anymore. The real answer is that He only wanted it up to a certain point in our development. The same can be said for any other item you are considering. God knew from all eternity what He was going to do and how He was going to reveal Himself to us.

Now, take a look at consistency of teaching when it comes to the very clear condemnation of homosexuality. The OT and NT are quite clear. Apparently, many of the groups that embrace SS have now decided to ‘inclusive’ and say that homosexual behavior is now not unacceptable. There are homosexual ordained bishops that are apparently practicing within the scope of their religion. Conversely, the CC has always condemned such deviant sexual practices - even though (and, even today) some ordained individuals have engaged in them (along with other sexual deviations with children). The CC has not changed its teachings - it still condemns these acts and holds out the mercy of God’s forgiveness for those who sincerely repent and seek absolution through Confession.

If He didn’t then either the Church errs in saying it is a required belief or it has failed those before the pronouncement who didn’t believe the doctrine. You know, the Pharisees took a similar tone in telling Christ about the Law and how they thought He was breaking it. There is no doctrinal error in the Catholic Church.

For example, at the final judgment, will God condemn someone who died after 1870 because that person did not believe in papal infallibility but not condemn someone who died in 1869 who didn’t believe it either? You know, you really should read that link I gave you on Augustine. Even though St. Augustine is talking about how the heresy of Palegius was resolved, he is also identifying the doctrinal authority of the Catholic Church. This is noteworthy.

Simply because something was not defined as a doctrine, does not mean it was not already believed! St. Augustine is making that point quite clear when he says that Rome has resolved the controversy and the matter is over - there is no further debate. So, either you accept the authority that Christ gave to Peter and his successors - as St. Augustine obviously did - or you don’t.

Seriously, there is no middle ground here.

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

Hi Newbie,
Why does the practice of using scripture as the final norm necessarily require that that practice be clearly stated in scripture?

Jon

Catholics ask that question in order to show that Protestants do indeed have extra-biblical traditions. It is a pointed question, in light of the countless discussions we have had in which we have had to defend particular doctrines against the accusation of their being not “clearly stated in Scripture.”

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

Originally Posted by JonNC View Post
Hi Newbie,
Why does the practice of using scripture as the final norm necessarily require that that practice be clearly stated in scripture?

Jon
Because the claim is that Scripture is the final norm and authority. For Sola Scriptura to be true, Scripture itself would have to make that claim, otherwise there is an extra-scriptural authority that decides that Scripture is to be the authority, right?

Which to me is an odd claim, since the authority that assembled the canon is considered to be authoritative only in that one, single area of authority, namely to have the decision making ability of what did and did not pass muster on being the written, inspired word of God. That authority then appears to cease in some minds after that task has been completed.

Jon, N2 makes a really good point, don’t you think? Who or what is the extra-scriptural authority that decided that Scripture was/is to be the Christians final authority? I cannot identify any extra-scriptural authority that did this? I can only identify the extra-scriptural authority that resolved doctrinal disputes/differences, which included the correct inclusion exclusion of the books in the holy bible.

Surely if we can locate this extra-scriptural authority (which of course did not state in sacred scripture that sacred scripture was to be the new authoritative benchmark) - then the holy bible is not the Christians final authority - maybe? I think, this is the key to everything. If the bible is not the Christians final authority for resolving doctrinal differences, then something else, must be the final authority for resolving doctrinal differences? The holy bible did not become the Christians final authority until the 16th century Protestant reformation. If the sin of man (as opposed to SS) - is the cause of all the division in the church, (and we agree that there was plenty of sinning in the church for the first 1000 years, yet the church still remained one and united) - then why didn’t division ensue, when men left the CC and started new churches, (with scripture alone as their final authority) - until the PR? I agree that the east - west schism in the 11th century, eventually gave way to doctrinal variances, but they are minimal. Either the EOC continues to be the church of Matthew 16, which means that the CC is wrong about these minor doctrinal variances between the 2, or it’s the other way around. I know that I mentioned this already, but certainly one of these churches could be the church of Matthew 16, guided into all truth? I am not trying to defocus from all the other PC’s, for truth can be found in these churches as well, and I am in no way saying that the Lutheran church isn’t coalescing with these 2 churches, because, like you said: some of them are. I am simply suggesting that the EOC and the CC are the only 2 churches that have Jesus Christ as their founder. Of course Jesus only found one church and His church had a parting of ways, just as the CC and the reformers had a parting of ways. I believe that the first parting of ways was significantly less damaging to Jesus’ Mystical Body for the simple fact that the CC and EOC continued to defer to sacred scripture and sacred tradition for resolving doctrinal disputes. They never transfered final authority to the holy bible via the interpretation of each Christian. Is the holy bible the inerrant authoritative Word of God? Absolutely! But I know one thing for sure: I wasn’t entrusted with the final authority to arbitrate, evaluate and resolve anything, regarding the teachings of Jesus Christ. Perhaps if a Christian can locate this extra-scriptural authority, then maybe the fullness of truth can be found?

Either the EOC or the CC is the church of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus, or one of the many PC’s is the church of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus, or, the catholic church, small c (all churches included, even the churches considered heretical, for no one has the authority to label them as such, if SS is the Christians final authority) - is the church of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus Christ - right?

Jon, can you imagine if the authority of the U.S. Constitution (the supreme law) - was transfered to each American citizen for arbitration/amendment?

 

[joe370]

Hey Carl…

We are told Tradition comes from the Apostles to whom Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would provide all truth. There has also been no new revelation since the Apostolic age. I cannot see how men 2000 years later can understand something better than the Apostles, who were originally taught by Jesus and the Holy Spirit, from whom the teaching supposedly has been passed on.

I totally agree! I cannot see how men who established churches (as opposed to the church of Matthew 16 founded by the God- Man) - in the 16th, 17th…21st century, can understand something better than the Apostles, who were originally taught by Jesus and the Holy Spirit, from whom the teaching has been passed on and safeguarded, again, by the perpetual guidance of the holy spirit. John 14:16

What do you mean when you say: supposedly? If the teachings of JC were not passed on to the CC, then His teachings certainly weren’t passed on to one of the Protestant churches?

Did the HS stop guiding the church of Matthew 16 into all truth, and start guiding one of the reformed churches into all truth? If so, then when and which church?

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

It is dangerous territory to suggest over time our knowledge increases.
What could we hold as valid belief that will not be changed?
Theology would become assumption. Truth, relative.

 

[joe370]

A question for all SS advocates: If the Apostles alone were guided by the holy spirit, into all truth, (which stopped once the last apostle died) - and the Apostles were charged with the mission, by Jesus, to commit His teachings to the holy bible, which was/is to be the Christians final authority regarding all that He taught/revealed (as opposed to any church leadership) - then why isn’t this stated in the bible, and why the need for teachers in the CC and the PC’s, and why wasn’t SS, scripture alone, (as the Christians final authority for resolving doctrinal differences, as opposed to any church leadership) - employed until the 16th century, and why did Jesus say to His Apostles only, who all passed away in the 1st century, the following:

“If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth.”

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Joe370 - I suppose we have the conspiracy theory (surely not another?) When the last Apostle died, we saw the death of the understanding of Scripture… until 16th Century when Christ sent another help-mate by which all things shall be revealed.
Is Martin Luther the incarnation of the Holy Spirit (now I’m becoming absurd!)?

 

[Newbie2]

We are told Tradition comes from the Apostles to whom Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would provide all truth. There has also been no new revelation since the Apostolic age. I cannot see how men 2000 years later can understand something better than the Apostles, who were originally taught by Jesus and the Holy Spirit, from whom the teaching supposedly has been passed on.

You don’t see how we can understand something differently in light of living in a different society and culture, speaking a different language and having totally different norms from the time of the apostles? Why then do we need biblical commentaries that explain Scripture from the viewpoint of a 1st century Christian? Why do biblical scholars bother to study the history of the Roman empire in order to better understand the meaning of Scripture?

Catholics ask that question in order to show that Protestants do indeed have extra-biblical traditions. It is a pointed question, in light of the countless discussions we have had in which we have had to defend particular doctrines against the accusation of their being not “clearly stated in Scripture.”

Indeed. That’s what I was getting at.

 

[jericho777]

You don’t see how we can understand something differently in light of living in a different society and culture, speaking a different language and having totally different norms from the time of the apostles? Why then do we need biblical commentaries that explain Scripture from the viewpoint of a 1st century Christian? Why do biblical scholars bother to study the history of the Roman empire in order to better understand the meaning of Scripture?

Indeed. That’s what I was getting at.

When interpreting scripture there are many factors as you have pointed out. The context and condition surrounding the original text, customs and traditions of the time and idiomatic phraseology to name a few. When one studies scripture in light of these it sharpens the meaning and can clarify any ambiguity.

You mention commentaries plural this is important because scripture being one word is not always clear or may have several valid interpretations. As you see there is no one clear thought or insight on the meaning of scripture. It is exceedingly deep in richness and meaning. On the essentials of scripture it is crystal clear as to what is necessary for salvation. Just as in the time of Jesus people were wrestling with the meaning of scripture. This is healthy.

When ever possible scripture should be used to define itself. This will minimize the effects of outside influences from tainting the original intent.

 

[JonNC]

Because the claim is that Scripture is the final norm and authority. For Sola Scriptura to be true, Scripture itself would have to make that claim, otherwise there is an extra-scriptural authority that decides that Scripture is to be the authority, right?

Well, Newbie, your statement required “…a quote from the bible that it is so…not a convoluted implication, but a clear statement.” Those of us who practice SS properly know that not everything is explicit. The typical verses used by us are well known.
It is, therefore, essentially in the same that Catholics (and Orthodox) use Tradition and Scripture together.
So, I’ll return the statement to you: “I’ll totally adopt, believe and propagate the notion of -]sola scriptura/-] Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium when someone shows me a quote from the bible that it is so…not a convoluted implication, but a clear statement.”

Which to me is an odd claim, since the authority that assembled the canon is considered to be authoritative only in that one, single area of authority, namely to have the decision making ability of what did and did not pass muster on being the written, inspired word of God. That authority then appears to cease in some minds after that task has been completed

Obviously, there are various claims to that authority as well, since there are various canons throughout Christianity, many of whom have a canon larger than Rome. But again, SS does not eliminate or exclude Tradition, but in fact embraces it. Lutherans, as you know, value Tradition - the creeds, early councils, and our own Confessions. All that the practice of sola scriptura says is that Tradition, teachings and teachers, are subject to the norming of scripture.

Jon