You have the insurmoutable disadvantage that you do not have the authority to define what is Scripture and what isn’t.
It's already been defined....it was long before Roman Catholicism showed up.
Besides, Roman Catholicism didn't finalize their canon until Trent.
Call no man father
Matthew 23:9
 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' |
And ah, since common souls around 25 AD do not have the authority to define what was from God (men and writings) then does that mean they were wrong, and in rebellion to God, as RCs place all who claim authority without being sanctioned by her?
And if an infallible church is essential to know what Scripture consists of, as RC theology teaches, and for preservation of the faith, then how could a body of Scripture become established as being so and authoritative before there was a church which presume she was essential for this? And how could faith be preserved, if as usual, among a relative remnant.
And what is your basis for assurance that what the Catholic claims is true? The weight of evidence as with evangelicals in principle, or because an faithful church has told you? Which is correct?
Oh the questions.
And you have the insurmountable disadvantage of having queers and pedophiles as your authority protected by the flimsy defense of Peter being the sole "rock" upon which the Church was built. Not to mention ignoring history as to when the Pope transitioned from merely being "first in honor" because Rome was the capital city to first in power.