The Bible tells me that the church - (not the Bible) is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
This discussion is ongoing all over the religion board. And I always fail to get a cogent response to one question I have.
To wit: Why do "Bible only" Christians come away from the same authority with disagreement? If the Bible is supposed to be a rule book, why no consensus on what it demands?
Because we are fallible humans. If we were perfect, with perfect understanding, we wouldn't be here.
“If the Bible is supposed to be a rule book, why no consensus on what it demands?”
1. “Bible only” (sola Scriptura) Christians (from the SBC to Calvary Chapel’s to the Church of God) - for whom “only” does not mean that the teaching office of the church is not needed, nor that history and traditions cannot be helpful, but that Scripture alone is the ultimate doctrinal authority on earth, it being the only objective revelation which is affirmed to be wholly God-breathed - almost universally do agree on the foundational truths which are articulated in the Nicene creed, in addition to salvation by grace and the supremacy of Scripture.
This unity is shown its stand against cults which rejects the historical orthodoxy as regards the divine nature of Christ, and the means of salvation, and eternal punishment, etc.
And such aberrations are not the result of sola scriptura (SS) but of formally or effectively holding to an authority over the Bible, such as the Watchtower Society leaders or the “living prophets of the LDS as well as the traditions of Rome which fail of sound Scriptural warrant.
2. Both Rome and evangelicals have standards by which heresy is defined, while allowing for varying degrees of dissent in more peripheral areas. Rome herself has infallibly defined very little of the Bible, and “the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty” (Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers)
Catholics even can disagree somewhat with teachings of the Ordinary and General magisteriums, while a significant number of both priests and laity disagree with some infallible teachings. They usually just do not leave Rome, neither do they need to, and by this Rome effectually teaches that memberships with her is what really counts.
3. Unity itself is not the goal, and if it were then such cults as the WTS would win, and complete doctrinal unity is a goal yet to be reached. The unity of the early church was of heart and mind, but did t encompass all aspects of doctrine that could or would be dealt with.
And while the Scriptures do materially provide for the teaching office, both in the O.T and N.T,, infallibility is not assured based upon conformity with a formula. The Jewish magisterium was in fact reproved for teaching for doctrines the traditions of men which were contrary to Scripture. (Mk. 7:7-13)
Rather, as seen i Acts 15, doctrinal assurance was realized by its conformity with the prior established revelation of the Scriptures, along with accompanying supernatural Divine attestation, which along with its enduring life-changing power, is part of what often worked to establish revelation as being Scriptural.
4. God could have eliminated any rational freedom to dissent, either by opening up the ground to swallow any who opposed a Moses type figure, and or making the Bible even more astounding its predictive elements, and free from any problematic passages which skeptics need to justify their rejection of the rule of God.
But instead, like a veiled women, God most clearly manifested basic truths, beginning with nature, but only those who respond by seeking and obeying out of a honest heart what they know as truth find the truth that makes one free, and progressively so. And the means which such noble souls prove doctrine is by searching the Scriptures (Acts 17:11), by which the Lord and His disciples substantiated what they taught, and in adding to a then-open canon. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 2:14-40; 13:16-41; 17:2; 18:28; 28:23)
This method must allow for those who reject it, while division because of truth is actually necessary, (1Cor. 11:19) but rather that promoting a paper unity based upon Rome’s self proclaimed formulaic infallibility, the authority of very apostles was established “by the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,” , so they testified, “by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.” (2Cor. 4:2; 6:7)
“For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.” (1Cor. 4:20) And while it lacks the pomp and ceremony or Rome, it is evangelical churches, even its current compromised state, that manifest this the most, over institutionalized counterparts.
What I really was wondering is, what authority do you look to? I’m just curious. I don’t go to the religious boards enough to know the discussion.