Replies

Christians follow Jesus.

The problem comes in when anyone follows anyone else’s *interpretations*, even those of the Catholic church.

What your questions demonstrate is faith in a works based belief system. It’s all based on following someone else’s teachings about what they should do and not do. That’s where factions and denominationalism comes in, the us vs. them, mentality. They don’t do what we do, therefore they’re not saved.

But salvation is not based on works, because by the works of the law, no one shall be justified. The law was put in charge to lead us to Christ, to show us what God’s standards are so that we can see our need for a savior. (Galatians 2 & 3)

The righteous shall live by faith. Good works are prepared in advance for us to walk in and do them, not to save us but to demonstrate to the world the power of God in our lives, to minister to the hurting and needy, to overcome evil with good, and, ultimately, to glorify God.

The Jews thought that obeying the Law to the letter saved them, so they took the Law God gave Moses and added to it. Jesus condemned their traditions of men that only further burdened men. Paul himself said that for all his flawless keeping of the Law, he counted it all loss for the sake of knowing Christ and being found in Him, not having his own righteousness but having the righteousness of Christ credited to his account, so that Paul himself did not have to keep the law.

If someone who could keep the law as well as Paul did could not be saved by it, then nobody can.

Is an individual Protestant's interpretation of Scripture infallible?

Not assuredly as per Rome's claim. However, insomuch as it is clearly taught in Scripture then a statement is incapable of failure or error. Therefore even the man in the street which states, "there is a Creator," or "Jesus Christ is Lord and who died for sins and rose again" (1Pt. 3:18) is speaking infallible salvific truth.

Accordingly, the degree of veracity of any teaching is dependent upon the clarity and weight of Scriptural substantiation, upon which Christ and the apostle's established their claims in word and in power, (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.) for of such is the kingdom of God, (1Cor. 4:20) - not self-proclamation - and upon this basis we affirm sucn commonly held salvific truths as expressed in the Apostle's Creed, etc.

In contrast, the RC basis for veracity is not the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but the premise of perpetual assured infallibility. But which is not what Scripture teaches.

If so, then who should follow his interpretation?

As the Lord responded to those who basically asked the same question, (Mk. 11:27-33) the answer is found in another question, why should anyone follow a man in a hairy garment in the desert eating insects, and who instructed souls to follow an itinerant Preacher from Galilee, both of whom were rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) being over the people who were stewards of Divine revelation and inheritors of the promises, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) and whom He reproved by Scripture? (Mk. 7:2-16)

The answer is that is was not upon the premise of an assuredly infallible magisterium that truth was conveyed and preserved, but that as abundantly evidenced , it is the Scriptures that were the transcendent material standard for obedience and in establishing truth claims.

If yes, how is each individual Protestant different from the pope?

As basically expressed above, and contrary to the borrowed polemic you should return as faulty, under SS no one can claim a charism of assured infallibility - that they will always be incapable of error whenever they speak to all the church on faith and morals - but as in Scripture, veracity is dependent upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation.

And in contrast to SS, it is under Rome that an individual becomes supreme, as the pope is "infallibly" affirmed by men to be infallible, and is not subject to councils, and consistency with the past is supremely determined by him.

What authority canonized the Protestant collection of Books (Bible = Biblia = Books)?

The same authority that established writings as Scripture before there was a church in Rome, and upon which the claims of the Lord of the church and thus itself were established. (Lk. 24:44) If you reject this authority and establishment then you nuke the church.

The answer is that the Holy Spirit who inspired writings as Divine established them among men as being Divine like as a true man of God is, that being upon Heavenly qualities and attestation (and thus the law of the Lord is given more praise than any man or women save for Christ).

Those who sit in power should recognize and ratify both men of God and writings of God, but what Scripture teaches is that they often reject both, and that God raising up men of God whose authority is established upon Scriptural substantiation to reprove the perversity and presumption of who sit in power. "And by a prophet the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved." (Hosea 12:13)

And thus the church began and thus it has been and will be preserved as the body of Christ. Rather than self-proclamation under the premise of assured infallibility, which is what cults typically essentially engage in, this means requires superiority in power, piety and Scriptural probity (2Cor. 6:4-10) to overcome the competition, (2Cor. 6:4-10) continually manifesting that the church is that of the "living God," (1Tim. 3:15) supporting the truth of Scripture. That is why it is more difficult than presuming to "infallibly" define tradition Scripture and history as supporting you. And using the power of the sword of men.

Was this authority infallible?

The authority under which Scripture was given and is established as Divine is alone assuredly infallible, but no church office possesses inherent infallibility whenever they speak on F+M, while the "infallible" canon of Rome took over 1400 years to issue , and thus dissent was expressed right into Trent, as RC sources affirm.

In Scripture, inherent infallibility of men a per Rome is not taught, but what is taught is assurance of truth based upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

If not, how can the Bible be inerrant?

The answer is found in another question: if the writings upon which the church established its claims were not given and established under an assuredly infallible magisterium, then how could they be inerrant and have authority? (Because man is not responsible for their Divine inspiration and inerrancy.) Related to this, why should anyone disobey the very men who sat in Moses seat to follow an unsanctioned (holy) radical in the desert and a (Heavenly) trouble maker from Galilee.

Under the Roman model both were unauthorized renegades who would be expected to be persecuted and prosecuted for daring to reprove by Scripture those who sat in power, but under the Scriptural model by which superior authority of authenticity is established, truth was preserved and given by such.

If so, what was this Authority? And when did Its teaching authority dissolve?

Since your foundational premise is faulty, that an infallible authority is necessary to establish writings as Divine, rather than the means by which the church began, so your question is non sequitur. The reality is that again, God is what made writings Divine, while the veracity of the 66 book Protestant canon is established among the faithful upon the basis true men of God are, that of Divine qualities and attestation, including strong evidence that Lk. 24:44 corresponds to the Hebrew canon, which your own Catholic encyclopedia affirms is that of the Protestant OT. (Again, see here .)

Meanwhile, while lack of Protestant canonical conformity is made a major issue by RCs, yet it is virtually ignored when it comes to the EO's who also differ with Rome on the canon, even if not as much.

Now one last question for you: since Scriptural substantiation cannot be the real basis for your assurance of truth, nor reliance upon fallible human reasoning, what is the real basis for your assurance of faith that Rome is the one true (conditionally infallible) church to whom all are to submit?