That's simply disingenuous. I don't start with the foundational presumption that the Bible is the Word of God as though I just looked at it one day and decided it was so. There are many academic and historical reasons why I believe it to be the Word of God.
I, on the other hand, approach the Bible as just another book (at least I did before believing that the Church is the Church set up by Christ).
How instrumental was the Bible in convincing you that the Church is the Church set up by Christ? Did you come to believe the Roman Catholic Church was Christ's "Ont True Church" primarily because Scripture said it was or because you chose to believe others when they told you it was?
With extra-biblical evidence, I had very good evidence that the Bible is speaking the truth when it discusses the life of Christ and the ensuing actions of the Church.
As pointed out above, I have the same evidence.
I see the continuing evidence from the witnesses that followed. And thus, St. Augustine said "I would not believe in the Gospel if it were not for the Catholic Church".
And at the time of Augustine the Church was quite well orthodox and Biblical in its teachings. The church you belong to today is not.
No circular argument here, unlike your point of view. You make the presumption that the Bible is the Word of God without proving it from outside sources.
Horsepucky. You're putting words into my mouth when we've never even had a discussion on Biblical inerrancy, which demonstrates pretty clearly that the "sola scriptura" you are railing against isn't the sola scriptura historical Protestantism holds to.
That is not true in the case of the Catholic Church, which utilizes outside sources to prove the case laid out in Scriptures.
It uses a self-reinforcing argument to support its claims. It points to Scripture as objective proof of its claim of infallibility while at the same time supporting its interpretation of Scripture with that same argument of infallibility.
Sure. Go read St. Irenaeus, who castigated heretics who ALSO "proved from Scriptures" their idea of the demiurge and so forth. He said we can only know what the Scriptures REALLY mean by reading them within the Church. This makes sense - as thousands of Protestant denominations continue to prove the wisdom of Irenaeus.
So Irenaeus has a problem with the example of the Bereans. Oh, wait...I'm sure the Church will come up with an explanation of it that allows them to maintain their claim of infallibility, and that explanation has to be accepted because, after all, the Church is infallible.
Round and round and round...
As to the Bereans, tell me where they found in the Scriptures the practice of the Eucharist, something that they did every Sunday? What did Paul commend them for? Not for Bible reading - the Jewish Thessalonians were condemned and they had the same bible and read it all the time. They were commended because they were opened to Paul's INTERPRETATION of Scriptures. Without proper interpretation, the Bible leads one to destruction, as 2 Peter says.
It says they examined the Scriptures to see if the things they heard were so. It does NOT say they went back and re-interpreted the Scriptures in light of what Paul told them. If you look at the reactions of the Thessalonians and then the Bereans, the former disregard Paul despite his appeal to Scripture because they are jealous and cling to their tradition, while the latter examine his words in light of the Scriptures and believe him.
That type of mishandling of Scripture would certainly explain how you could be persuaded that Scripture support the notion of an infallible Roman Catholic Church.
I found that extra-biblical writings, whether secular or religious, appeared to agree and that there appeared to be cohesiveness with the Catholic claim. The sources led me to believe the veracity, along with the witnesses who make the claim. Of course the bible played a role. But men surrounding the Bible, the Church, make a distinctive claim that only Islam or Judaism makes in a historical context. So one comes down to whether one believes Mohemmed or Jesus Christ was indeed a continuation of Judaism. I disregarded the Koran - not because of the Bible, but because of the Church AND the witness of Islam.
And at the time of Augustine the Church was quite well orthodox and Biblical in its teachings. The church you belong to today is not.
So the Catholic Church of St. Augustine is not the same Catholic Church of today? That is like saying an acorn is not the same thing as an oak tree... Men do not remain static in their contemplation of the Word of God.
You're putting words into my mouth when we've never even had a discussion on Biblical inerrancy, which demonstrates pretty clearly that the "sola scriptura" you are railing against isn't the sola scriptura historical Protestantism holds to.
I've had this conversation enough times to know that Protestants themselves do not hold to their own definition of Sola Scriptura. Basically, it comes down to interpretation - your own - vs. anyone else. Anyone who disagrees with your particular interpretation is clearly wrong... Thus, the "spirit" gives a million different interpretations on a wide array of topics. I suppose that goes hand in hand with the relativism prevalent today in society... - "what i believe is truth and what you believe is truth"
It says they examined the Scriptures to see if the things they heard were so. It does NOT say they went back and re-interpreted the Scriptures in light of what Paul told them.
Wrong. The first Christians - Jews - had to do a MAJOR paradigm shift. Anyone who doesn't recognize that hasn't a clue on what was being taught vs. what was previously held by the Jews. For example, the OT says that anyone who was hung on a tree was condemned... Paul himself had a problem with that verse, no doubt, because Jews brought it up! People didn't become Christian because of the Old Testament. They became Christian because they SAW Christ in the Church, the people. They saw a committment, a love, a fervor for God. The "foolishness" of the Gospel was a stumbling block - until people SAW Christians at work, SAW Christ working through these people.
Today, this continues. People convert LARGELY because of the witness of other people, not by picking the Bible off the library shelf and reading it. I can tell you this is so from my own experience every year when people become Catholic.
Regards