“my basis for assurance of truth is the same basis by which the church began, requiring Truth to be manifest by Scriptural substantiation in word and in power”
But, when the Church began, there was no set canon of Scripture. This led to much error and heresy. This is why the Church set about to confirm what was Scripture. The New Testament as we know it, was not compiled until 367 AD. Three Catholic synods were then held to ratify this list, and in 405 AD Pope Innocent I declared these 27 scrolls to be the universal New Testament for all Christians.
” Scripture as the wholly inspired and basically literal word of God is the supreme infallible authority”
You wouldn’t know it were so if it were not for the Catholic Church. Ask yourself how you know the Bible to be divinely inspired. The answers are circuitous. For a truly divine work to be divine it must naturally be confirmed by a relevant authority. Is not the Quran thought to be divine by Muslims?
For something to be so crucial to man, so important for man’s salvation, certainly we would have an authority to tell us of its certainty and accepted divinely inspired Words. This is so. Of course, if the Catholic Church were not the pillar and Truth of Jesus Christ’s Holy Word, surely their confirmation would not be accepted by any Christian. Yet, it is.
As to your scriptural deference. How do you know it is divinely inspired Word of God? Of course your answer must come back to what I have written above. Playing Scriptural Verse Chess is a game that can never end. We can flip verse for verse to support our perspective, but it comes back to our interpretation of that Scripture in the end. God wanted unity. One Church, the one established by Him.
So, because the Muslims think the Quran is divine scripture, that means it is? Your logic breaks down right there. For writings to actually BE divine, they would have to both really be FROM Almighty God as well as prove that they are in some undeniable way. In the Old Testament, God repeatedly told the Jewish people that He was sending them prophets and that these prophets would speak the words God wanted them to know, believe, trust and meditate upon. One way He said they would know what was truly from Him was He would tell them things before they happened (prophecy) so that when they happened like He said they would, they could know true prophets from false ones. Read Deuteronomy 13 and 18, for example. It tells you that exactly. The New Testament was written in the same way as holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21).
The words GOD ensured were written for our salvation, assurance, exhortation, edification and so that we would be thoroughly furnished for all good works able to live lives honoring, glorifying and pleasing to God were NOT left up to the whims of men hundreds of years later. The gospels and epistles were received, copied, circulated, taught, referenced and obeyed long before a group got together to "formalize" what was or was not God-breathed Scripture. God's word was the truth, was manifest AS the truth and was the power of God unto salvation. Those who are Christ's hear and recognize His voice and His words would be divine whether or not a group decided they were. I sincerely hope you understand that point. Scripture was STILL Scripture before there was a formal "canon". All the canon did was "officially" confirm what was already believed to BE the word of God. Canon means "rule of faith" and God's word has always been the authority for our faith.
And God used Harrod, Judas and an ass to fulfill His will. So what’s your point?
The scriptures, the word of God condemns Catholic teaching on so many fronts that I can't believe how successful that religion has been in convincing you guys to all but completely ignore what God tells anyone who will even take the time to look...Here's another example:
2Co 1:13 For we write none other things unto you, than what ye read or acknowledge; and I trust ye shall acknowledge even to the end;
Here's the Catholic version...
13. For we write no other things to you than what you have read and known. And I hope that you shall know unto the end:
The verbal, oral tradition was put to paper...They are the same...The people already had heard everything there was to hear before it was written down...And if it wasn't written down, it wasn't scripture,the word of God, then or later...
When the last word that was written by the Apostle John was recorded, the canon was closed...And they all knew it...Hundred of years before the Catholic religion got their mitts on it...
That bible was put together by mostly Jews and originated around the area where the apostles did their work, i.e., Jerusalem, Antioch, etc...They copied and passed these bibles out and around and it was hundreds of years before that fake religion got together down in Africa and modified the scriptures and tries to this day to lay claim as to being the authors of the original scriptures...
With the authority of the Roman army, that religion killed most of the Christian opposition and collected and burned the scriptures it could find...Thank God they were never completely successful...
So this is your answer to one of my original questions, that a (conditionally) infallible head and magisterium is necessary to disputably determine what and who is of God, writings and men, so that what it rejects must be rejected?
As for my answer, I was referring to the fact that the church began upon Scriptural substantiation, in the light of what was established, and which provided for new writings becoming established after the same manner old one did. Both men of God and writings of God were essentially established as being of God due to their enduring Heavenly qualities and effects, and were so even if the contemporary powers that be did not recognize them. And while it helps when they do, this is not the real basis for their establishment.
405 AD Pope Innocent I declared these 27 scrolls to be the universal New Testament for all Christians.
So again, is the basis for your assurance based upon Rome's claim that she is the one true and infallible (conditionally) church, and necessary for assurance, or that (as it seems) you judge that she is so in the light of her being the steward of Scripture, and the inheritor of Divine promises of God's presence and preservation, and having historical descent?
As for Innocent I (the son of the previous pope according to Jerome), ratifying what had already become established, this does not make Rome the one true church with a perpetual infallible magisterium. The evidence and need for that is an issue, without which you have a different church. Meanwhile, you would not have an indisputable entire canon until after Luther died, as some disagreement continued thru the centuries right into Trent.
You wouldn’t know it were so if it were not for the Catholic Church.
So your argument is that being the instrument and steward of Scripture makes such the infallible interpreter of it, and the authority on Truth to which all must submit to?
Ask yourself how you know the Bible to be divinely inspired. The answers are circuitous. For a truly divine work to be divine it must naturally be confirmed by a relevant authority.
My basis is not circuitous, but yours is. As for me, ask yourself how 1st century souls knew that Jesus was the Christ, or that Isaiah etc. was inspired. Don't forgot to answer it.
For something to be so crucial to man, so important for man’s salvation, certainly we would have an authority to tell us of its certainty and accepted divinely inspired Words. This is so. Of course, if the Catholic Church were not the pillar and Truth of Jesus Christ’s Holy Word, surely their confirmation would not be accepted by any Christian. Yet, it is.
The shallow nature of this RC polemic is revealing. This is why i asked my questions first. So according this logic, an infallible magisterium is it is necessary for both men and writings of God to be recognized as being so, and for assurance of Truth. And that to agree with some of its official teachings means you must agree with all of them?
As to your scriptural deference. How do you know it is divinely inspired Word of God?
How did anyone know the multitude of OT references by Christ were of God before there was a church of God? But again, your argument is that, a (conditionally) infallible head and magisterium is necessary to disputably determine what and who is of God, writings and men, so that what it rejects must be rejected.
We can flip verse for verse to support our perspective, but it comes back to our interpretation of that Scripture in the end. God wanted unity. One Church, the one established by Him.
And thus without an infallible interpreter no one can have assurance of Truth, and could not be sure Jesus was the Christ.
But rather than a basic unity based upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation upon which the Lord and the apostles established their Truth claims, we can flip from one sola ecclesia church to another that claims that their interpretation of the evidence is infallible, and that they are the one true church.
Even your closest neighbors, the Orthodox Church, "opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional.” Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135 To which much more can be added, while the LDS also presumes its leaders have been essentially infallible, and thus its additional source of revelation, and interpretation of history is true, if absurd, but as objectively examining the evidence is a hard path to unity, that is why Rome and such require implicit submission to core teachings. But Christ came to bring division as well, for unity itself is not the goal of the Godly, but Truth, which is divisive.
Organizational unity is not the same as spiritual unity, and while Rome has her largely paper unity, she abounds with diverse views even among clergy. And what she really believes is what she effectually conveys, and the most committed to the supremacy of Scripture over men (which and whom RCs attack) have been more unified as a people in contending against those who deny core salvific truths and moral positions, in Rome even a Ted Kennedy is treated as a brother (pope Benedict even graciously blessed him and thanked him for his prayers), even in death. And you cannot formally separate from them without being in schism. For the preeminence of Rome and faith in her is the main message. As seen by the degree of incessant cult-like devotion and promotion here.
Not that i think any church matches the level of the NT church in power purity and passion, but the only way to any degree of it is upon the basis that it was established upon, and preaching the gospel of grace as the apostles exampled, (Acts 10 etc.) not being formally justified by interior holiness as a morally incognizant infant (usually) via sprinkling of water upon proxy faith, and (usually) ending up becoming good enough to enter Heaven in purgatory.