2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
You contend that this verse negates the idea of sola scriptura? This and your preceding statements just cement my belief that some have no clue whatsoever about it. No sane Christian will deny that the early church relied completely upon the message preached to them and spread by the apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ. It is also undeniable that the early believers received the writings from those who were charged with feeding and nurturing them in the developing revelations from God. That these groups of believers made up the "church" is correct but it was not one church but many scattered throughout the entire region. As devotees shared the gospel and people believed and received the Holy Spirit they also began to share the good news of Jesus Christ and they gathered together in their homes to worship, to share in blessings and to exhort each other in the Lord. Pastors and elders were named, then bishops to keep order among their own flocks and to ensure the clarity of the doctrine. They WERE united in the faith even though they were far apart one from the other - they were all together the Body of Christ even as we are still today.
There was a church in Ephesus, in Jerusalem, in Thessolonica, in Corinth, Galatia, Philippi, Colosse and Rome and as the word spread many, many more were started. The writings of the apostles and others were shared and copied, studied, preached and rejoiced over. That there was this universally accepted group of writings as from God was clearly evident. When the church in Rome and others set about to compile a volume of these writings they most certainly relied not only upon the accepted traditions of the churches but their own confidence in God's revealed word. To think they did this without the leading and provision of God himself is ridiculous. God is to whom we owe all glory and thanksgiving for his holy Scriptures, not man and certainly not those who would boast that this imparted some mystical power in them to continue to decide what was reveled or not outside of Scripture.
Finally, I am somewhat stunned by your assertion that "in my mind, sola scriptura leads me to become my own pope". I can only attribute this to some necessity to get a dig in. But let me assure you, I do not think of myself in that way nor would most "Protestants" if you ever asked them and then actually listened to their answer. I can no more create my own truth than I can create the Mona Lisa. Granted, some try, but put up to the original, the fakes are discovered by the experts. There are experts in the Bible and the Lord has given them to his church as teachers, evangelists and pastors and any worth their salt better be an expert in the Word or the fakes get found out and disgraced soon enough. It's happened in the past and still goes on today, the wolves are recognized by the truly Spirit-filled believers and cast out into the woods where they belong. So without the Holy Spirit and God's Word - the Bible - we would not be able to tell who is really teaching the truth. It is and will remain our authority and no man can take the place.
OTOH, you get a pope like most of the ones the Catholic church has had, and they lead the whole denomination astray.
And when someone tries to be the church back on track, out of the hands of some immoral, corrupt, greedy power monger, who fancies himself as Christ’s representative on earth, he’s branded a heretic and sent to hell (ex-communicated) by said evil, vile pontiff.
Somehow, I don’t think that that abuse of binding and loosing is what Jesus had in mind when He gave them that privilege ( or whatever you want to call it). I don’t think that Jesus would have meant it to be abused to blackmail someone into submitting to demonically motivated corrupt human being.
Even if it were every man his own pope, it would mitigate the damage done to others by keeping it smaller in scale. It would only be the people who followed that individual instead of the case of the Roman pontiffs who led millions off the spiritual cliff to their own ruin.
i agree with much of what you had to say. The main point is it is the Holy Spirit that protects the Church from teaching error, not man! But the Holy Spirit will not lead someone to believe a different doctrine in the 16th century than the 1st! The Church was given the authority of Jesus to teach in Matthew 28. sola scriptura was not practiced in the Apostolic era and should not be now. The NT example is for the Church to teach, not for everyone to read the Scriptures and come to their own conclusions on the Trinity, baptism, the Eucharist, apostolic succession, sola fide, once save always saved, predestination, the Mass, infant baptism, etc. etc. sola scriptura has led to so much confusion in doctrine, that now we are told doctrine doesn’t really matter, who can know the truth, etc. the cults eat this thinking up!! the churches you mention were local churches, all holding the Catholic Faith received from the Apostles. You can read about this Church in the early Church Fathers, what they taught, how they worshipped. By the grace of God and the protection of the Holy Spirit, you will find that Church is still here 20 centuries later. That is not due to men, but Jesus! you may not think of yourself as your own “pope”, but when it comes to doctrine, you follow what you believe to be true, rather than being taught by the Church. there is no record of anyone doing this in the NT. let me ask you, what power on earth has the authority to absolutely declare what books belong in the Bible and which don’t? anyone? or are we all supposed to decide the canon on our own? you may not like it or accept it, but Jesus decided to use “men” ( we call them the Apostles ) and they have successors, sorry they are “men” too!