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.
“Both men of God and writings of God were essentially established as being of God due to their enduring Heavenly qualities and effects...”
Very true. However, this does not solve the problem of disunity on what those holy books were, and this leads to error and heresy, leading to the critical Arian heresy. This is not small stuff, but gets to the central tenets of what Christianity is and what Christians believe.
“...ask yourself how 1st century souls knew that Jesus was the Christ, or that Isaiah etc. was inspired. Don’t forgot to answer it.”
This gets to the point of Tradition and Apostolic Succession. After those who were fortunate and blessed enough to actually see Jesus Christ teach and fulfill his crucifixion and resurrection, we had the Apostles.
Both in Biblical evidence and in historic evidence of the Early Church we see both of those give fairly compelling evidence to support the Catholic Church. There is nearly unanimous consent to the episcopal, hierarchical and visible nature of the Church which Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail against.
‘St. Clement, bishop of Rome, teaches apostolic succession, around 80 A.D. (Epistle to Corinthians, 42:4-5, 44:1-3), and St. Irenaeus is a very strong witness to, and advocate of this tradition in the last two decades of the 2nd century (Against Heresies, 3:3:1,4, 4:26:2, 5:20:1,
Eusebius, the first historian of the Church, in his History of the Church, begins by saying that one of the “chief matters” to be dealt with in his work is “the lines of succession from the holy apostles’
There is obviously development of the Church, but it looks much like the Catholic Church in hierarchy and in doctrine. With respect, and I say this in a loving respect to you as a Christian brother, it definitely doesn’t look like the Protestant Churches of modern day. There is little unity in structure and constant division. There is split after split in doctrine. As a former Protestant, I’ve been there and seen the division, the splitting of churches into 2 or even 3.
Traveling on the road...”...Love the Lord Thy God, with all of your heart, mind and strength...and love your neighbor as you would want to be loved...”
Loving God and our neighbor is our path. In the spirit of unity, as we have differences, let’s remember that in the end, that we do have much we agree on. Our Salvation is only through Jesus, The Holy Trinity, The Resurrection and the coming unimaginable Mercy that we truly don’t deserve.
Ping