This avoids answering my questions, but my basis for assurance of truth is the same basis by which the church began, requiring Truth to be manifest by Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, while allowing error as a test for souls.
Shall we have the pandemonium of 10,000 interpretations
Shall we have the pandemonium of 10,000 interpretations
All this does is invoke a negative aspect under one model, in which Scripture as the wholly inspired and basically literal word of God is the supreme infallible authority (which much of Protestantism rejects), even though that model can also see unity in core salvific truths (thus the modern evang. movement arose who counter liberalism and cults etc.), while allowing for some interpretation in others.
Yet under the alternative model (sola ecclesia, in which the church is the supreme incontestable authority, as Rome, the EO, and many cults), divisions and conflicting interpretations are also seen.
In fact, on the practical level, which is where it is manifest what a church really believes and teaches, evangelicals overall are more unified on basic conservative moral views and truths than those Rome overall treats as members in life and in death.
Sola ecclesia is the easier way for unity, thus the Watchtower Society has the most uniform doctrinal assent, not simply on paper as in Rome. But it is inferior in quality to a unity which is the result of noble souls to objectively examining the evidence in order to determine the veracity of Truth claims, which RCs are not to do re Rome's official teaching.
You ask by what authority does....? The Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of Truth, compiled and confirmed the Bible and is responsible for its interpretations....the promises of Jesus and the 2,000 year old history
So the basis for your assurance is based upon Rome's claim that she is the one true and infallible (conditionally) church, and necessary for assurance, or that you judge that she is so in the light of her being the steward of Scripture, and the inheritor of Divine promises of God's presence and preservation, and having historical descent?
unchallenged for 1,500 years. God’s mistake? I think not.
You must have a different history book, as consistent with Scripture, i see her claims to being the same church as that of Scripture being challenged on the basis of Scripture. For on the basis she manifestly is not that church, priests being only one example among others.
Irenaeus “It is possible, then...,
Quoting him does not make Rome the NT church, and the former judges the (co-called) fathers more than she is judged of them, (Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) which fail to provide unanimous consent for the body of Rome's doctrines.
And even Catholic and other scholarship provides much support for us against the Roman imagination of Peter being seen as the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 and of a perpetuated infallible Petrine papacy reigning supreme over the church from the beginning.
I could also selective quote Irenaeus as he says say things as "They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures," referring to heretics, and upholds "proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves." (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103312.htm) and that, "..the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them."
This is not to say i do not think they were in error on certain things, even if though they were pious men who could be saved by a basic faith in the Lord Jesus. But it is to say that while you may find support among them, as do the tradition intensive EOs for their conflicts with Rome, yet your assurance must rest upon Rome's interpretation of Tradition, Scripture and history.
You can attempt to argue with me by invoking more of what you see as supports, but unless you require of me an a priori assent to Rome as the infallible teacher, you should show from Scripture what i had asked you , to begin with.
“my basis for assurance of truth is the same basis by which the church began, requiring Truth to be manifest by Scriptural substantiation in word and in power”
But, when the Church began, there was no set canon of Scripture. This led to much error and heresy. This is why the Church set about to confirm what was Scripture. The New Testament as we know it, was not compiled until 367 AD. Three Catholic synods were then held to ratify this list, and in 405 AD Pope Innocent I declared these 27 scrolls to be the universal New Testament for all Christians.
” Scripture as the wholly inspired and basically literal word of God is the supreme infallible authority”
You wouldn’t know it were so if it were not for the Catholic Church. Ask yourself how you know the Bible to be divinely inspired. The answers are circuitous. For a truly divine work to be divine it must naturally be confirmed by a relevant authority. Is not the Quran thought to be divine by Muslims?
For something to be so crucial to man, so important for man’s salvation, certainly we would have an authority to tell us of its certainty and accepted divinely inspired Words. This is so. Of course, if the Catholic Church were not the pillar and Truth of Jesus Christ’s Holy Word, surely their confirmation would not be accepted by any Christian. Yet, it is.
As to your scriptural deference. How do you know it is divinely inspired Word of God? Of course your answer must come back to what I have written above. Playing Scriptural Verse Chess is a game that can never end. We can flip verse for verse to support our perspective, but it comes back to our interpretation of that Scripture in the end. God wanted unity. One Church, the one established by Him.