That sounds reasonable (no pun intended), but Christ stated that the Church, not Scripture should be the final authority: "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church: but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Matthew 18:17 ) Christ did not state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction. He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity. In addition, St. Paul states that the Church, not Scripture is "THE pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15) Since the Church alone is mentioned as the pillar of truth, then It alone has the right to discern the truth and interpret Scripture. Scripture is pretty straightforward about the Church's role in salvation, Its authority and Its organization. It's all a matter of deductive reasoning, correct interpretation and pure logic.
indeed. christ gave the apostles the ability to bind and loose NOT a handful of letters and books rolled together with personal discernment
The definition of "church" is in question here as well.
That sounds reasonable (no pun intended), but Christ stated that the Church, not Scripture should be the final authority: "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church: but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Matthew 18:17 )
Your quote doesn't say anything about the scripture as authority (or not), it only mentions the Church. "The Church" means different things to different people. :) IMO, 2 Tim. 3:16-17 talks about scripture as final authority. If the Church is following the scripture, then the results should be the same. In the OT, the equivalent of "the Church" frequently did not follow the scripture.
Christ did not state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction. He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity.
What? :) In the same book of Matthew you quote from Jesus says this:
Matt. 5:18 : I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
"The Law" was written down, it was scripture. In addition, Jesus quoted from other scripture as AUTHORITY all the time, even to satan's face. In fact, that's all He said to satan. It sounds to me that Jesus thought scripture was pretty authoritative. Why else would He quote from it instead of using His own words as often as He did?
Also note that in the Matthew passage you cite, it says that THE LAST PLACE YOU SHOULD GO WITH A DISPUTE IS THE CHURCH. If one faithful man could point out a scriptural teaching, oral or written, if he had it, to another faithful man, then that was the preferred way of handling it. That tells me that the appeal was to the wisdom of local clerics. In many cases I'm sure that worked fine, but not in all cases, since there have been unworthy clergy from all time. I can't believe Christ meant for us to follow unfaithful clergy if their views contradicted scripture. That is what would result if Christ meant: "just do whatever your local priest says, under any circumstances".
Since the Church alone is mentioned as the pillar of truth [per 1 Tim. 3:15], then It alone has the right to discern the truth and interpret Scripture.
Again, it depends on who "the Church" is. But even if it was the RCC, then that puts your hierarchs ahead of scripture itself, because they would not allow scripture to interpret itself, as we contend. However, no RC has ever admitted to me to holding this view. I do not understand how a hierarchy of men can say they have 100% power over the meaning of every verse in a book, and then say that their authority is no higher than the book. That seems very contradictory to me.
Scripture is pretty straightforward about the Church's role in salvation, Its authority and Its organization. It's all a matter of deductive reasoning, correct interpretation and pure logic.
I couldn't agree more. :) When we add in the entirety of scripture, this describes Sola Scriptura.
When the Roman Church bolted from the other 4 major Church provinces in the East, she ceased to have any argument to speak for the whole Church.
Yes, "the Church" authoritatively interprets scripture, but now that Rome and Constantinople destroyed her unity, followed much later by serious Christians' attempts at reform (whom Rome separated herself from as well) who exactly is the Church?
Please don't trot out the tired Peter's Church in Rome argument...as the Church spans all denominations, and is made up of those people who have Christ as Lord.