Th.. th..th..That's all Folks!
That's it, Is that as good as it gets.. Pardon the less than zealous reception here, but the closest any of you can get to answering the question of; on what basis do you have to prove the claim that the Bible as the inspired Word of God is the sole authority in regard to matters of faith is:
Ta da!.... We can't agree that the church has any authority on these matters...so the common ground is the bible. Therefore that shall be the sole measuring stick in deciding these matters.
But then,... if we can't agree, why not accept the Catholic contention that it is precisely by the authority of the Christ's Church that we can accept the canon and the teaching that the Bible is the inspired Word of God?.
Or did I leave something out? Oh, How could I forget, .... The bible has to be the sole static standard of authority because it is so easily understood and no TRUE believer could ever mis -translate scripture and even if they did as long as they don't interpret it the way the Papists do, they'll be alright.
Let's look as the gymnastics here:
Yelsew says:
Therefore we use the Holy Scriptures assembled by the Catholic church, to be the 66 books commonly called the bible. We accept the additional books refered to as the apocrypha as 'extra-biblical' writings, and if they were commonly available, we would also accept the other first century writings as 'extra-biblical' writings of "bible times authors", though not necessarily "Holy Spirit inspired".
Just curious, would any of you agree with the above statement particularly that "assembled by the Catholic Church" bit?
First, the Catholic church "assembled" 72 books not 66. The original KJV had 72 books. Later versions removed 7 OT books. Luther threw out the Epistle of James and Hebrews from his earlier translation that predated the KJV; as well as some OT books.
So what version(s)issuance did the Holy Spirit think it necessary to intervene and add some direction (because it certainly would help to have all the books available to use as proof-texts)

And to which do you subscribe?
And what binding council spoke with such clarity that it was obvoiusly led by the Holy Spirit and therefore so leads you to accept their
extra-biblical conclusions?
And as far as the neat idea about the "extra-biblical" books not being "commonly available," one must remember it was a novel approach of the 16th century reformers of the canon to NOT include these books.
A little research will prove that one of the questions to be addressed by the Council of Trent had to do with addressing the "reformers" insistence on REMOVING the books.
Yelsew comes as close as any Protestant probably ever will in admitting that the authority to define the canon came from the Catholic Church in his above quote, but then the all-to-common mental gymnastics start. Hence he finishes with:
Therefore, Bob is correct in his statement, because we do not have "common ground" outside the commonly held scriptures.
The question is how does one prove the bible is the sole authority on matters of faith. I'm not at this juncture even pressing that you HAVE to aknowledge the Catholic Church as the binding authority that you lean on. It is good enough right now just to get you to admit that you do not get that authority for the Bible itself.
Yelsew is not alone, Frank cartwheels with:
Bob is correct. If one does not have the same standard, measure or rule he cannot resolve OBJECTIVELY his differences. OBJECTIVE TRUTH IS FOUND ONLY IN THE WORD OF GOD. Personally, this is the precise reason I use no other source as authority for doctrine or practice. Without the pleanry, verbally inspired static standard of the new testament, MEN CANNOT KN0W OBJECTIVE DIVINE TRUTH. John 17:17.
If you want subjective opinion or bias ABOUT the truth just consult any theologian who is bound to his creed books and articles of faith, or his loyalty to a council or religious governing body.
Of course, these governing bodies and creeds are not authorized in the static standard of truth. It reminds me a lot of the children of Israel who wanted a king like all the other nations. God let them have it their way. However, in so doing they had rejected him. I Samuel 8:6,7.
I guess I have to start at the top as virtually every sentence screams of circular reasoning.
Bob is correct, you say? and why: Because we can't agree on what standard should apply, so you MUST take our word for it ("yeah it's 15 centuries late but, hey we like the book you guys came up with")
"OBJECTIVE TRUTH IS FOUND ONLY IN THE WORD OF GOD" sproing , bip rumble-tumble. And just how is it, you can beyond any pitfalls of logic know that what you are referring to is:
1.) The "Word of God?"
2.) Represents "Objective Truth?" and
3.) That Objective Truth is only found there?
And if you will try to distinquish your answers from the claims of the BOM, or the Koran, or Edgar Cayce's claims etc.
For if your answer seeks scripture as it's sole source to answer the questions then by what leap of logic would you keep a Mormon or Muslim from excercising that same right in "proving" the claims of their so-called Divinely inspired books?
Big dismount coming:
Personally, this is the precise reason I use no other source as authority for doctrine or practice
Is it then your independent practice to confirm each book in the Bible as belonging there? How then do you know to accept Ruth, Esther and Ezra in the OT and discard Wisdom, Sirach and Baruch? (Sanford and Son didn't give you the answer!)Who did? You can't say the Bible did because you won't find a list of books that belong within scripture.
So we are left with: " We can't agree to use your static standard (the Church), so we have to go
solely by the Word of God. (Even though it's obvious that the defining of canon was decided by the church and therefore is extra-biblical wink-wink, tumble Splat!)
God Bless
Stephen