I beg to differ, as we are dealing with spiritual principles as regards how truth is determined, and how both men in writings of God are recognized as being so. The RC premise, which you affirmed, is that an infallible head and magisterium is necessary to determine what and who is of God, so that what it rejects must be rejected, whereby you have assurance. And that on the basis of historical descent Rome is that incontestable authority.
Nor are the two faiths that different, and the parallels are more similar, but the point is that under the Roman logic neither writings or men of God should have able to have been est. as being so without an infallible head and magisterium, and first century souls should have submitted to the scribes and Pharisees.
My search of the Scripture had led me to believe that the Catholic Church is the one, Holy and Apostolic Church that Christ gave us, “loosing…binding….and retaining”. When I read Scripture I do not read to validate the Catholic Church or invalidate Protestant Churches, I read to grow closer to God.
So you claim to have arrived at a decision based upon a evangelical means of determining truth, which results in you rejecting that means of determining truth. As a former Catholic, who became manifestly born-again even while the Catholic, my journey which was the opposite. In any case, not objectively examining Scriptural evidences in order to determine the veracity of what is preached is cultic, not Christian. Reading Scripture is for devotion and direction, but it is also for doctrine.
So, your castle point is that this line of reasoning is circular, begging the point.
It is indeed. RCs engage in arguments by assertions, as if "Rome has spoken in the matter is settled." Which for them it is, as that is their basis for assurance of Truth. And thus they disparage our searching the Scriptures and evidences in order to ascertain truth, as only Rome can assuredly provide that. And they assuredly know that because Rome has assuredly said so.
For as said, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. Which includes the premise that she is the one true and infallible church. You cannot go wrong with that.
I suppose we could use that same line of debate to accuse the entire of Christianity as being false. We would likely have an Arian Church and a Christ is Divine Church. Mass confusion, uncertainty and not even consensus on what it means to be a Christian at the most basic level.
That is not the same line of debate, and your reasoning is a logical fallacy, for it supposes that because of the negative examples of not having a universal centralized magisterium, then unity cannot be realized as a result of holding Scripture as supreme as the wholly inspired and basically literally word of God, and supposing that the unity of of sola ecclesia is greater in quality. The former testifies of greater practical (where it counts the most) unity in core beliefs overall than what Catholicism produces, despite lacking it organizationally.
Meanwhile, it supposes a degree of unity under the Roman Catholic model that is simply not there. Why actually unity does Rome have as a church? What one believes is manifest by what it does and effects, and Rome's claim to universal unity is mainly a paper or a thin one and organizationally. Taking part in a universal ritual with the perfunctory professions it much produces does not establish much of a degree of unity. More evangelicals (93%) believe the Bible to be the full inspiration of Scripture (which 27% of Catholics do not) than do Catholics in transubstantiation (30-82%). And Catholics overall, including its clergy, are much more diverse and liberal in beliefs than those who most strongly believe in Scripture being the supreme authority, which basis RCs attack.
In addition, the Roman Catholic model, in which what they church says supremely determines Truth, results in competing churches claiming they are the supreme magisterium to whom all must submit.
And again, the debate is not whether there needs to be magisterial oversight and authority, that the manner of claims. Rome makes herself in claiming to be Christianity's supreme authority.
We must therefore go back and ask ourselves under what basis was the New Testament church established. How could writings and men of God be est. as being so without an infallible magisterium? (cf. Mk. 11:28-33: "for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.") How could souls have assurance that an itinerant preacher was the Christ when he was rejected by the people who sat in the seat of Moses? ("By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? Mark 11:28.) Did Christians believe because of affirmation from the latter, or on the basis of scriptural substantiation in word and in power?
Certainly the latter means has the problem of competing claims (although so does sola ecclesia, if to a lesser scope), but which necessitates the manner of power, purity, probity and performance the Lord and his apostles manifested. Yet Rome claims more for itself than even the apostles did, as in a perpetual quality of assured veracity for their office. And you must have such in proportion to your claims, but it is almost obscene to compare Rome (or me, without making her claims) with the apostles. But insofar as any church does, it will gain more true followers. A evangelical type believer should look for a man as Peter, but which popes stand far in contrast to (as do i), some worse than others.
If we don’t accept that the Catholic Church, its Councils, writings are valid (as we must do with your line of reasoning)…how do we accept the Apostles actions and comments as real and not fantasy folktales?
You certainly do not have to do so with my line of reasoning, in which both writings and men of God are est. as being of God due to their enduring divine qualities and attestation, which the powers that be are to confirm, yet they are such even if rejected by such powers, as was the case in the beginning of the church.
You have the cart before the horse. It was because men and writings had been est. as being of God before there ever was a church in Rome that the church began, yet which church God used to further attest to the supernatural origin of Scripture.
"And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen." (Mark 16:20) "So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed." (Acts 19:20)
And thus, as Israel did, the church itself became was an instrument for additional revelation, but which does not make the former the supreme authority over the latter. Which was a basic error of the Pharisees. (Mk. 7:2-16) Akin to Rome, "For the decision of their Scribes, or "Soferim" (Josephus, σοπισταί; N. T., γραμματεἴς), consisting originally of Aaronites, Levites, and common Israelites, they claimed the same authority as for the Biblical law, even in case of error (Sifre, Deut. 153-154); they endowed them with the power to abrogate the Law at times (see Abrogation of Laws), and they went so far as to say that he who transgressed their words deserved death (Ber. 4a). By dint of this authority, claimed to be divine (R. H. 25a), they put the entire calendric system upon a new basis, independent of the priesthood. They took many burdens from the people by claiming for the sage, or scribe, the power of dissolving vows (Ḥag. i. 8; Tosef., i.). - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees
The Gospels? The entire Canon confirmed by the Church?
Once again you reverting back to the argumentation an infallible magisterium is necessary to recognize writings as being of God, and that the that the steward of Scripture is that magisterium. Which reasoning has already been made void.
Was Jesus Christ really the Son of Man? How do we know, beyond our feelings of personal bias, if we don’t have any of the above? You are again making the mistake of confusing the validity of the teaching office, but which is not above Scripture, thus while it can be wrong the elect have a higher source, with that of what Rome claims, with its magisterium being the supreme and infallible source.
Well, then, one wonders how anyone know that the book of Isaiah, among others, were of God, and that John the Baptist was, and that Jesus was the Christ, without an infallible magisterium!
Maybe the powerful and influential Arians would persuade the people and Christianity would be dead as we know it, not even a basic agreement that Christ was God.
Here again you ignore the fact that Evangelicals historically have had great success in refuting the Arians and such, due to a shared contention for core truths, which is why the modern evangelical movement arose. Thus they have been attacked by both liberals and Rome, as their greatest threats. Meanwhile Rome in the modern world increasingly became home to many diverse beliefs, and had its greatest success in suppressing doctrinal error and lack of submission by her unholy and unscriptural use of the sword of men.
But when unable to do combat heretics as we have done, I think an error of Catholicism in was that of increasingly resorting to arguments from tradition. In respect to such groups as the Arians, traditions which upheld scriptural truth could were invoked, but increasingly tradition was placed in the same level as Scripture, including extra biblical traditions of men, and thus they were also perpetuated.
(I suppose we could use that same line of debate to accuse the entire of Christianity as being false. We would likely have an Arian Church and a Christ is Divine Church. Mass confusion, uncertainty and not even consensus on what it means to be a Christian at the most basic level.)
“That is not the same line of debate, and your reasoning is a logical fallacy”
It IS a logical fallacy. Because I simply took your fallacious reasoning in regard to your Christian/Jewish argument and carried it forward to it’s illogical conclusion.
Although your pointing to the Jewish religion doesn’t have much meaning for the Early Christians, in fact Christians walk away from the Jewish religion, it is valid in and of itself for Jews.
It has struck me that all of the finer points or myths about Catholicism are fruitless at this point, because your castle point (authority) is made continually on nearly every point. So, let us discuss authority.
Jesus instituted His Church with a clear line of Apostolic succession. The Early Church was not a system of independent congregations, meeting and deciding Church doctrine and practice based on individual belief or democratic means. The Church was guided and ruled with authority by the bishops, elders and clergy who had a direct line of succession from the Apostles.
Clement of Rome, who had direct contact with the Apostles writes directly on succession in Letter to the Corinithians (80 A.D.)...
“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on the question of the bishop’s office. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect knowledge, they appoint those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. As for these, then, who were appointed by them, or who afterwards appointed by other illustrious men with the consent of the whole Church, and who have ministered to the flock of Christ without blame, humbly... Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.”