Replies

"I will go by the historical accounts than other people thousands of years later. "

Besides the variance in historical support, then upon that premise (historical authority=veracity) you have just nuked the church. The premise of the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders was that of yours, but while ordination is provided for by Scripture, it is does not provide assured veracity or infallibility or perpetuation of their office, and yet writings were established as Scripture and truth was preserved without an assuredly infallible magisterium, as God raised up men whose authority was established by conformity to Scripture and the supernatural attestation which it reveals being given to the Truth.

The Lord Jesus Himself was “rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes” (Lk. 9:22) who, like as a true Roman Catholic would do, challenged His authority (nor those of John the Baptist) as it did not come from them, saying, “By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?” (see Mk., 11:27-33) But in contrast to them, the Lord Jesus established His on Scripture and the power of God it affirms, 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) And reproved by Scripture their presumption in making the mere “tradition of the elders” to be as Scripture which it contradicted (though some Catholics actually argue it did not).

As for the Catholic premise for truth and unity, that of sola ecclesia — with the church being the supreme authority (for it claims to infallibly define what truth consists of and its meaning, and infallibly declares that it is infallible when speaking in accordance with her infallibly defined formula) — you also have disunity, as not only do the EOs disagree on no less an issue than papal infallibility, as well as some other interpretations of Tradition, Scripture and history, but every major cult effectively operates out of the same premise, that of its magisterium speaking infallibly, even if the term is not used. (I am aware that Rome will invoke Scripture to support itself, especially in modern times, but that interpretation only has the authority Rome gives it, and which is based upon the premise of assured infallibility, while the arguments and reasoning behind infallible decrees are not necessarily infallible themselves).

It is true that Catholics must hold to certain core truths, and are in substantial unity with each other, but they can and do being able to disagree about many things not infallibly defined, or where there is room for interpretation. And which is more substantial than one realizes, as Roman Catholics cannot even be sure how many infallible decrees there are, and little of the Bible is held to have been infallibly defined, and they have much liberty to interpret the Bible within their RC parameters.

Likewise evangelicals who hold to the supremacy of Scripture overall hold to certain core truths, and who thus example a common front against cults which deny their shared core truths, and a unity which transcends denominational lines.

They also have varying degrees of interpretation in other things, but are usually are under a magisterium which not only requires or fosters consent to certain core truths but provides general parameters effecting limits to the degrees of interpretation, especially within their own flock, whereby aberrations are manifest. And as a group the evidence testifies to more unity in core truths and Scriptural moral views than their Roman Catholic counterparts, though both are in decline.

In addition, the Roman Catholic magisterium effectively only has power of her own flock, despite claims otherwise, and the unity she effects is not necessarily effectually greater than other individual flocks.

It is also true that Catholics claim to have an assured infallible interpreter, and attack Sola Scripturists for not having one of their supreme authority (Scripture), and relying on fallible human reasoning instead (however prayerful and guided), yet Catholics do not have an assured infallible interpreter of their supreme authority (the magisterium), and can required varying degrees of interpretation, but they engage in fallible human reasoning, while their decision to submit to their assuredly infallible magisterium was itself a fallible human decision.

Thus under both models, that of sola ecclesia and Sola Scriptura you have common consent to core truths, along with formal divisions and internal variation of interpretations, the differences only being a matter of degrees.

How then is truth ascertained and established? The fact is that Scripture is the only transcendent, material authority on faith and morals which is established to be wholly inspired of God, (2Tim. 3:16) due to its Heavenly qualities (conflation and complementarity and power). And most writings were established as such before there was a church in Rome, and was being the standard for obedience and testing truth claims. And nowhere does it promise that the church in Rome would forever be infallible whenever it speaks universally on faith and morals.

Nor does God make Truth so compelling to all so that rebels cannot convince themselves against the reality of God, but Truth is ascertained the same way that light-loving seeking souls were convinced of the gospel truths, that being based upon its conflation with Scripture in text and in power. For of such is the kingdom of God, not in self declaration. (1Cor. 4:20)

And which gospel and its attendant basic truths, and the preaching thereof which effects manifest regeneration, is the most critical testimony to the church of the living God, (1Tim. 1:15) whose builder and maker is God, versus its institutionalized counterpart, having more religious form than life-giving relationship. And which is easy for even a believer to fall into to some degree, if they do not constantly seek to live on the front line of faith, and thus i must preach to myself as well.