The Bible Itself never states that It is the sole and only authority of Christianity. The word "Bible" is not even mentioned in Scripture. However, I totally agree that It is one of the authorities in Christianity, but where does It state that It alone is the only authority?
Unless you can show that the traditions of the Catholic Church are directly from the Apostles (or supported by the Apostles), I guess I need to keep away from you.
Not only is tradition endorsed by scripture, but it is simply common sense. All non-Catholic Christians believe it; though, to be sure, they won’t admit it. No Protestant, if he sat down and thought about it, would affirm that he believes something completely different from the earliest Christians that heard the gospel directly from the mouth of an apostle. One may immediately say that that is because he has scripture and has nothing to do with tradition. But that doesn’t work because I’m talking about advocates of sola scriptura that have diametrically opposing interpretations of scripture.
For example: Baptists believe in adult only baptism; Presbyterians affirm infant baptism. Lutherans top them both by believing in baptismal regeneration. Yet, which of them would say that the earliest Christians believed the other denominations’ position? Can one seriously imagine that the apostle Peter went about teaching adult only baptism, and the apostle John went about teaching infant baptism, and the apostle James went about teaching baptismal regeneration?
Contradictory teachings cannot both be "guided by the Spirit". For example, some Protestant groups will tell me that I must speak in tongues in order to prove I’m saved. Others will tell me that speaking in tongues was a phenomenon relegated to past ages but not legitimate today; anyone who does speak in tongues is following the devil. Can both of those opinions be "guided by the Spirit?" How do we know which, if either, is true? Both groups claim guidance by the Spirit and that they are "Biblical."
No Protestant approaches the scriptures in a vacuum. He brings his presumptions – i.e. traditions – to the scriptures. If I am a Calvinist, I will interpret everything in a way consistent with my Calvinist tradition. Thus, 1 Peter 3:21 will not be referring to baptismal regeneration but will be making a point consistent with my presuppositions. Protestant practice is therefore a proof that tradition is an authoritative interpreter of scripture. Protestants assume what they claim is impossible to believe. Catholics believe in sacred Tradition and admit it; Protestants believe in sacred Tradition and don’t admit it.
So you're just going to ignore that every one of your verses was refuted?
Paul repeatedly said, stick to what I said or wrote. Since I've never heard Paul speak, I can safely assume I should stick to what he wrote. He never said there was an authority passed down through the ages in the Church. He did charge others with preaching what he publicly preached, but he never comanded the faithful to assume that whatever the Catholic Church said was authority. 2 Timothy 2:2 only commands the teachers, not the students.
And about differences in denominations... After the Apostles, differences have always existed. As early as 325, there was a great difference of belief in the early churches: Arian heresy stated that Jesus was a created being. The issue was not settled finally until the Council of Constantinople in 381.
If churches leaders could disagree on the divinity of Jesus in the 300s, one can only imagine what other doctrinal differences existed at the time.
And so the Nicene council created the Nicene Creed in agreement with the Scriptures. The Nicene Creed lays out the basic foundation that a church must accept to be part of the catholic and Apostolic Church. The Nicene Creed uses the term catholic (small c) meaning universal, not the Roman Catholic Church.
The Nicene Council deposed 2 bishops because they would not profess the divinity of Jesus. They didn't touch on the method of baptism. They understood that churches would have differences of opinion. They created a creed as a measuring stick. My synod stands up to that standard. We are part of the universal and Apostolic Church.
So why does the present Catholic Church disagree with the Nicene Creed and the decisions of the Nicene Council? My synod, the LCMS, believes in the Nicene Creed. We are part of the universal Church of believers. Why does the Catholic Church claim otherwise?