Please see my post 436.
Those who believe in Sola Scriptura disagree amongst themselves. They all just read the Bible and get guidance from the Holy Spirit.
And they disagree.
So either:
1. Truth is unknowable and God is the author of chaos
Or
2. God left us a teaching church, with the authority to settle disputes.
#2 is what i see in the New Testament.
And Catholics disagree amongst themselves.
Your point is?
If that invalidates Scripture as the final rule of authority, then the whole Catholic church is invalidated by the disagreeing believes of Catholics.
So?
Those who DISbelieve in Sola Scriptura disagree amongst themselves as well.
I don’t suppose you saw this part of the New Testament.
And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever--the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you. John 14:16,17
1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
We have that same Spirit if we will listen.
Acts 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
Why do some not learn?
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Those who believe in the alternative Sola Ecclesia (the church is supreme, as it authoritatively defines what Divine revelation consists of and its meaning) disagree amongst themselves.
So either: 1. Truth is unknowable and God is the author of chaos Or 2. God left us a teaching church, with the authority to settle disputes.
Incomplete, you mean without an assuredly infallible church, that being Rome, truth is unknowable and God is the author of chaos. But which is a false conclusion and dilemma. The lack of an infallible church does not mean truth is unknowable and God is the author of chaos, for if that was the case then no one could know or have assurance of truth prior to church of Rome.
And if the magisterium before that was infallible then no church would be legit.
Nor does disagreement on matters of truth mean is God to be blamed, any more copyists errors in Bibles. Moreover, not only has comprehensive doctrinal unity remained a goal not yet realized, nor is that what unity Jn. 17 refers to, but Romanism itself abounds with things they can disagree on (even as to which teachings are infallible and forbid dissent), even beyond her paper unity, and fosters more liberalism and less unity on many core issues than evangelicalism, and substantially disagrees with the Byzantine rite on what Tradition, Scripture and history teaches.
The Roman premise than an assuredly infallible ecclesiastical magisterium is necessary to define and preserve truth and for unity, and that being the steward of Divine revelation and inheritor of promises of God's presence and preservation, and having historical descent requires of means such is infallible, is manifestly false .