the problem those who claim to follow “sola scriptura” have is twofold:
1. the concept itself is condemned in the Scriptures
2. the ultimate authority is actually the man in the mirror, giving his or her OPINION on what the Scriptures teach. this is easily illustrated: baptists and lutherans both claim “sola scriptura” as a doctrine, now the baptist does not baptize infants and the lutheran will, both claiming the Scriptures as their authority and both can’t be right.
so what history has shown is the fruit of this doctrine is people honoring Jesus with their lips, but their heart is far from Him. how can i say this? because Jesus prayed for unity and Paul commanded it, yet the fruit of their actions is in direct DISOBEDIENCE to the Lord they claim to love and follow. the non-Christian world laughs at the 30,000 groups ( most started in the USA since the 19th century ) and can’t believe Jesus was sent by the Father with all this confusion and attacks on the Church.
the Scriptures themselves tell us the natural man can’t understand the truth of God WITHOUT the Holy Spirit’s help.
now, we know the Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion and He won’t lead men to believe one thing ( baptismal regeneration fo example ) for 1,500 years and then inspire men to believe the opposite in the 16th century. what we do know is false teachers will arise and lead many astray.
now, we don’t have to wonder about what is the true Church to be in unity with, Jesus gives us the acid test in the Scriptures - IT IS HIMSLEF.
THE UNITY OF THE TRUE CHURCH IS FOUND IN JESUS CHRIST AND THE TRUE CHURCH HAS ALWAYS BEEN UNIFIED IN THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST.
if someone claims to be a “Christian” and abstains from worshipping with the Church because they reject the Eucharist, they prove by their actions they are not true followers of Jesus. by their fruits you will know them, in this case , the fruits are dissension and disunity and rebellion against the Lord.
as Paul told the Corinthians ( after instructing they all should agree and have no dissensions ) in 1 Corinthians 10:16 - “ the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST? the bread which we break, is it not a participation IN THE BODY OF CHRIST?”
here is the acid test - v17 BECAUSE THERE IS ONE BREAD, WE WHO ARE MANY ARE ONE BODY, FOR WE ALL PARTAKE OF THE ONE BREAD.
true Christians have partaken of JESUS CHRIST for 2,000 years.
no matter how many false teachrs arise and no matter how many Bible verses they quote or no matter how they honor Jesus with their lips, WE KNOW THEM BY THEIR FRUITS. AND IF THEY SPERATE THEMSELVES FROM THE CHURCH AND ARE NOT ONE AS JESUS COMMANDED, THEIR FRUIT IS NOT FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT.
for THERE IS ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM.
No Catholic, no Christian, eh???
God thru the scriptures condemns your 'unified' religion in no uncertain terms...
You can not gain salvation by getting wet and eating a cracker...
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Seeing as you have not interacted with my response in which your fanciful premise of Roman unity and deliverance from reliance upon fallible human reasoning in discerning truth is challenged and refuted, and have failed to even answer direct questions, but instead, taking after Rome, have engaged in argument by assertion, due to your fallible decision (according to Roman reasoning) to submit to and defend an assuredly infallible magisterium, assurance of which is based upon you her autocratic infallibly proclaimed infallibility, then there is not warrant to exspend further time appealing to reason. And who likely is a SSPX or sedevacantist who disagrees with Lumen Gentium (not that this aspect is without warrant).
There is unity only in their dissension.
Where?
2. the ultimate authority is actually the man in the mirror, giving his or her OPINION on what the Scriptures teach.
As opposed to the ultimate authority being the man in Rome. Considering the history of the popes, that's not much of a win either.
this is easily illustrated: baptists and lutherans both claim “sola scriptura” as a doctrine, now the baptist does not baptize infants and the lutheran will, both claiming the Scriptures as their authority and both can’t be right.
And even is some church body interprets it as infant baptism STILL doesn't mean that they're right but rather that they have consensus.
So what do you propose instead? That someone else appoints themselves as the interpreter of Scripture and then leave everyone else to interpret what THEY had to say?
Because that's what then ends up happening; the interpretation then has to be correctly interpreted. Who does that for the individual.
And so it goes, forever interpreting for layers and layers and in the end, the final interpretation of ANYTHING is done by the individual.
Having the RCC interpret for you is only adding another layer to work through to understand Scripture and in the end you have to interpret what they say.
Your own personal interpretation of the IM. YOPIOTIM.