Replies

Just to set the record straight, as far am informed, most who hold to Sola Scriptura do not reject history as a supplement to understanding the Bible, nor that the “word of God” encompasses more than what is written (Jn. 21:25; Rev. 10:4), though it is hard to find where that term refers to revelation that was not subsequently recorded, nor do they reject that God can “speak” to souls today (esp. during the offering); but they hold that the Scriptures are the ultimate authority by which all is tested, it being the only tangible class of revelation that we are assured is wholly inspired of God. (2Tim. 3:15,16)

Adherents of SS also hold to a degree of formal sufficiency of Scripture, which most essentially refers to salvific truth being comprehensible enough that a seeker of truth could normally be saved thru reading the Bible alone, and live a life of holiness (i would restrict it to a basic degree, not maturity). In addition, their position on material sufficiency includes the church and other helps to holiness and Bible interpretation, but which are subject to Scripture as far as authority.

In contrast, the RCC essentially holds to what has been termed “sola ecclesia,” that of the church being the ultimate authority, as they claim to be the sole authority which infallibly defines both the extent and meaning of authoritative sources of spiritual truth, and thus the authority by which such truth may be infallibly known, (versus private judgment, that of one’s own searching the Scriptures). Thus, that a conclusion could be correct which does not conflate with what Rome has infallibly defined is held to be untenable. As is the use of “private judgment” as an authoritative means of determining truth. The viability of the RC Magisterium is seen in authoritatively defining the Bible, and its superiority is evidenced by the uniformity of belief among Catholics, versus Protestants, broadly defined.

Rome rejects the formal sufficiency of Scripture, and its material sufficiency sanctions its own authority and church traditions, and that which proceeds from it.

The questions then would be:

1. How is a person to know for sure that the RCC is infallible?

2. Upon what basis did the RCC infallibly declare itself infallible?

3. To what degree does unanimous consent of the Father have to be to in order to be unanimous?

4. Can Catholics know for sure they are interpreting correctly the infallibly defined teachings of the Catholic church?

5. To what degree do Catholics disagree with their churches teaching, and where is this allowed, how does this compare with evang. Prots in general?

6. What is the longest thread ever on FR?

Thanks