[Uncle Chip]

"I have given them thy word ...Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth....Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word that they all may be one." It appears that the words of these apostles, surviving after them in the documentary form of Gospels and Epistles, was to be the center of Christian unity --- not some self-proclaimed undocumented magisterium without papers, keys, or bones. Okay, if you want it that way, "... the words ...was ...". Using your grammar, I note that you cite no words which shows that the only words which was to be the center would be those words which was written down and determined (by the Magisterium) to be the canonical NT. But it is an extra scriptural assumption that all "the words" was going to be written down in the NT. It's the kind of thing we'd need some authoritative interpreting body to state. We cannot find it in the text. So if your statement is a statement of YOUR faith and system of belief, fine. However, it is not a refutation of what adiaireton8 wrote, but, if anything a confirmation, at least of the concept, because you have to reach outside of Scripture for the core of your point. You say It appears that the words of these apostles, surviving after them in the documentary form of Gospels and Epistles, ... but your main point, which you slip in as a participial phrase, not only does not have determinative support in Scripture (or why didn't you state it?) Instead we find instructions to follow what was handed on not only in writing but by word of mouth. It's sad. You all haul out the "All scripture is inspired ...," and it's not all that bad an argument. On its face it MIGHT be true. But to take it as PROOF of sola scriptura" requires a magisterial function to provide an authoritative interpretation of an ambiguous text. But you are interpreting the text to deny the propriety or need for a magisterial function. You fall into the hole you dig, logically speaking, or so it appears. The words spoken to Apostles was (as you put it) handed on in many ways, and you can show no dispositive proof that they was all condensed into Scripture. You simultaneously demonstrate the need for a magisterial function and the chaos and illogic which arises from the lack of one, while you also argue against both the need and the meeting of the need. Heigh ho, going for a walk.

Please excuse for a moment while I try to dial up a quorum of the "Magisterium" for an official interpretation of your post.

[wmfights]

MD: But to take it as PROOF of sola scriptura" requires a magisterial function to provide an authoritative interpretation of an ambiguous text.

IOW, let those at the top of a hierarchy tell you what to think. Doing this is naive because it assumes that they will always seek the truth, even if the truth may diminish their authority and status.

Our LORD sent us a counselor who indwells us due to our faith why not trust him?

[Mad Dawg]

Is there a point there or was that just a place-holder?

My point is that in the post to which I responded you reach beyond Scripture to argue that one ought not to reach beyond Scripture. Thus you demonstrate the need for an authoritative Magisterium.

I hope that's clearer.