So what’s wrong with that line of reasoning? I mean, who wouldn’t want to go to the same group of people who had the Bible since Jesus’ time?
The answer to what's wrong with that line of reasoning is simple, which is why RCs keep refusing to answer the question asked in response to their we-gave-you-the-Bible polemical assertion, which is,
are you saying that being the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture means they are the infallible interpreters of it, so that dissent from them is rebellion against God?
The problem with that line of reasoning is that it effectively nukes the church, since it began in dissent from those who had historical descent, and sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, the instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of divine promises of God's presence and preservation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6; Rm. 3:2; 9:4).
Unto whom “were committed the oracles of God.” “Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (Romans 9:4-5)
But whom, like Rome, they likewise presumed of themselves a veracity above Scripture,* and thus rejected Christ and His apostles, asking, like Rome, "By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?" (Mark 11:28)
But the church began in dissent, following a holy man in the desert who ate insects and an itinerant Preacher who reproved the magisterium by Scripture, and who established His truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power. As did the apostles and early church (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) - not the premise of a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, regardless of Rome defining herself as having such.
And which led to both division and basic unity.
In addition, formal historical decent does not establish in the New Covenant, (Rm. 2:28,29) but Scriptural faith does, Scripture being the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced.
An d in the light of which it is manifest that the church of Rome, despite its problematic "unbroken succession," and even because of it, is critically different than the NT church, and cannot lay claim to her popes being apostles.
See my prior post on this and more .
Therefore your decision to submit to Rome was based upon a fallacious line of reasoning , and which logically would require you to submit to those who were the instruments and stewards of Scripture when Christ came, rather than following an itinerant Preacher whom they rejected.
However, if your basis for assurance of Truth is that of scriptural substantiation, then you not only would follow the Lord Jesus in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, but you also would dissent from Rome in order to follow the Lord Jesus, as she also presumed of herself a level of veracity above that which is written, teaching traditions of men as doctrines of God. (Mk. 7:2-16)
As a RC, you are not to objectively examine the evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of RC doctrine, but submit to Rome, as your assurance of Truth rests upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.
And for whom Scripture is simply a servant to be used (and abused) to support her, as she presumes to be the supreme authority, and Scripture, Tradition and history can only authoritatively mean what she says they mean.
And which is cultic, and fosters faith to a strong degree in herself and her powers and one's own merit for salvation, while to believe on the Lord Jesus is to cast all your faith and confident in the Lord Jesus to save you as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, really believing that He can and will by His sinless shed blood and righteousness, and so be baptized and follow Him. Thanks be to God.
*For the decision of their Scribes,...they claimed the same authority as for the Biblical law, even in case of error...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...-http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees
Ok thanks. I would only like to clarify that the line of reasoning I described before (which you analyzed in great detail) is certainly not the foundation of my faith today. Ironically for reasons you describe. One can’t base one’s faith on a claim of authority I agree.
I was describing though how one might approach the “problem” (for lack of a better word) of faith. What is the next most reasonable step, given a faith in God. Then, after that step, there would be another step and another. This is only, ultimately a human way to approach the issue. I’m only human after all so that’s the only way I can approach and tackle any challenge.
Part of this is to recognize how I live and work in other areas. How am I successful, how do I find something to be reasonable. How do I know something is true.
If I have a problem assembling a bike, after reading the directions I call a help line (if it’s available).
If I have problems doing math or science problems at home (homework), I’d ask my teacher for help.
If I have problems in my marriage, (which I don’t, I’m just saying), we would seek help. Maybe even help from a priest.
All of these things are a reasonable first step for their respective problems. No one could say otherwise. No one could reasonably say, “Just go it alone, read the manual again read the math book again, just pray for your marriage don’t seek help. It will all work out if you just have enough ‘faith’”. No one would say that in those situations, not to themselves, not to others.
So for this reason, it seemed to me then, and still seems to me now, to be a good, first step. After all, by that time and certainly now I believed that God was/is Incarnate. So, I reasoned, if God himself took human form, came down to earth to save humanity, then he must want to work IN the world, and not above it as all the other gods of all the other religions. No, he must, for whatever reason value humanity, and want to work in it to save it, even though we screw up all the time.
Since then it’s become clear to me that Christianity is an EVENT, happening now and not merely a lesson in history or a list of things to do (or not do) to “get to heaven” and “avoid hell”. So I still maintain it’s the reasonable thing to do, to at least start with the stewards and instruments of Scripture in a search for an encounter with Christ here and now. Because that’s what I wanted then, and still want now (even though I’ve encountered him some times since then I still want to encounter him again).
Otherwise, it’s not reasonable, it’s not really human to be a Christian. If He is not present and helping us NOW in a tangible way, the only way we can really respond to him as a human, Christianity is just a nice idea. A moralism meant to soothe an impending fear of death, or something checked off a checklist, as any other worldly label, that ultimately means nothing.
This is the level I want, really need, to live my faith. And I submit it’s the level everyone needs to live it, if they are honest with themselves.