one of the problems i find in trying to arrive at truth, especially in theological matters, is you must have the same authority.
for example, if i am discussing who God is with a Muslim, he will refer to the Koran as his authority. since i reject the Koran, and believe it to be devil inspired, the discussion doesn’t get very far.
just like having a great computer software program, but if you put “garbage in”, you will get “garbage out”
so for me, the authority is the same as it was in 33ad, 133ad, 233ad, and every year since then and will be the same until Jesus returns at the end of the world - the authority for doctrine and practice in the Church is the The Apostles. the Apostles received this authority from Jesus Christ Himself and received the power to proclaim the Word of God when they recieved the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
this Apostolic teaching the Word of God, our basis for doctrine and practice, never was, and never will be restricted to the written Scripture they left us ( the doctrine of “sola scriptura” ) as unfortunately you indicated you believe. you quote the Apostle Paul teaching what the Church has believed for 2,000 years:
2 Thessalonians 2:15 “ so then, brethern, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter”
there you have St Paul telling us in Scripture what the standard for the Church is to be for doctrine and practice. this is the same standard that the Church received from the Apostles from the Apostolic or Sacred Tradition.
and we see this standard played out through out the Scriptures and in the practice of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years. in Acts 8, Philip converts the eunuch first by using Isaiah, but then using the revelation of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah received orally.
when the Apostle Thomas baptized infants and then passed away, were his successors to end this practice because they never received a letter from Paul instructing them to baptize infants? no, the authority was the Apostles and what they taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
now, we must admit, that men came along in the 16th century and rejected this Biblical standard for authority, by ironically enough claiming only the written word of God was to be used for doctrine and practice. they rejected the teaching of apostolic succession that the Church received from the Apostles, both orally and in 2 Timothy 2:1-2.
but the true Church rejected this 16th teaching and held firm to the 1st century teaching.
sola scriptura can be dismissed not only using the Scriptures themselves, but also in asking this question:
since no book that anyone has ever believed to be Scripture contains a table of contents for the Bible, on what basis do we determine which books are canonical and which are not?
for example, we have the gospel of peter, the shepard of hermas, the didache and the epistle of clement to the corinthians. are these books scripture? why or why not?
at various times, people have rejected Hebrews, James and Revelation from the canon, how can we be sure they are Scripture?
you can’t use Scripture to establish Scripture, it’s illogical. the only answer is the authority of the Church using Sacred Tradition.
the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, that the Church received from the Apostles as shown by 2 Timothy and the from Clement of Rome, taught by St Peter and his successor as Bishop of Rome in his epistle to the Corinthians. ( incidentally, this epistle was considered Scripture and read in the churches there for about 100 years )
for you to say “let’s not ever consider” the formation of the Catholic Church is to reject a major tenant of the Apostolic Faith.
notice, the only people who reject Apostolic Succession must reject it, since they don’t possess it.
notice, the only people who reject Sacred Tradition, must reject it, since they don’t possess it.
notice a pattern??
the “churches” were never autonomous, they always were subject to the Apostles and this truth remains today.
so for anyone to say the great martyr St Ignatius, who was put to death in Rome for his testimony and faith in Jesus Christ, who was personally taught the faith by the Apostle John, is “error-prone”, says more about the person making the statement than it does about Ignatius.
Ignatius certainly would have understood what John taught him about baptism, the Eucharist and the person of Jesus Christ. ( just as you seem to have absorbed the teaching of witman very well )
Ignatius famously left 7 Epistles on his way to martyrdom, and one of them tells us the Gnostics abstain from the Eucharist because they do not believe it to be the Body of Jesus Christ. it appears there are many today who hold to this Gnostic position. could the human author of John 6 mislead Ignatius?? i highly doubt it, especially since the Real Presence was believed everywhere and at all times in the Church. error prone indeed, the Gnostics certainly thought so!
now, you accuse the Church of following the “Nicolaitans” mentioned in Revelation and you think they practiced overwelming the laity by the clergy rule or something. of course, Revelation says no such thing, it doesn’t tell us what the Nicolaitans believed, so this clergy rule nonsense, is just that, nonsense. Irenaeus tells us the Nicolaitans were Gnostics, so they probably rejected the Real Presence. uh oh, starting to hit close to home.
what is often not said in these discussions is more important than what is said. so if one rejects the Catholic Faith, and it’s claim of Apostolic authority using word of mouth and written words of the Apostles for doctrine and practice, what does one replace it with???
some say “ local, autonomous churches” OK, lets explore that theory. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Churc, He said He would be with us always, even to the end of the age, the Scriptures say the elect will not be fooled, and finally Paul tells us in 2 Timothy 3:8-9,
as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith; but they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of these two men”
“they will not get very far”
ok, let’s look at what happened to these “local autonomous churches” if this truly was the Biblical model for the Church and not the Romanist Nicolaitan clergy rule model, what happened??? where were they in the 1st four centuries after the Apostle John dies. no one can find them.
did they have names? no one can find them and there is a huge reason, it is the 800 lb gorilla in the room, the reason no one can find them is they did not exist. it is a figment of men like witman and others imagination.
you mentioned favorably the Montanists, without apparently realizing that they believed in continual revelations from the Holy Spirit, they did not believe the canon was closed as you stated you believe it is. big contradiction there and one that should eliminate the Montantists as the church ( besides as Paul said their folly was evident and they didn’t get far )
next the Donatists were mentioned favorably as the church. well, the Donatists not only believed in baptismal regeneration, but believed unless the priest was holy, the baptism was useless. i doubt you believe this!! their error was exposed very well by the Bishop of Hippo and again their error was evident for all to see and they did not get very far.
so this “local autonomous” church philosphy has led directly to the confusion and error we see in today’s lost world and has led to 38,000 different denominations in this country alone! what a far cry from Jesus prayer to the Father in John 17 and Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 1.
if we want to arrive at truth, we must have the same standard as the Church had in 33ad.
( wow, i went a whole post without Caps, even though i wanted to for emphasis about a hundred times! )
Such a "solution" to the problem you cite (everyone having the "same" authority) is and would always be troublesome if that authority is based upon mere, fallible human beings. Discussing with a Muslim the doctrine that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God incarnate, who came to earth to redeem mankind from sin can never be settled on the basis of a hierarchy in a church. It can ONLY be resolved when the Muslim's heart has been softened by the Holy Spirit of God to receive the Gospel of grace. Sticking out ones chest and declaring you have 2000 years of history to back you up will be met with rejection unless and until his heart is open. Besides, having a self-declared "infallible" authority in the Roman Catholic Church has NOT resulted in its "unity" - no matter how much it claims to be.
Such a claim concerning "history" is, as, everyone knows or SHOULD know, of no more proof than that of any other religion which is further back in antiquity. A Hindi can claim an older religion as can the Jewish man or woman for that matter. No, faith, if it comes, comes by hearing and hearing by the "word of God". Even the Roman Catholic Church claims to hold to the Divinely-inspired nature and authority of the Bible, the Holy Scriptures. Without it we would be at the mercy of any of a number of self-proclaimed spiritual leaders and teachers. Fortunately, we, as did the early Christian believers, have the teachings of our Savior Jesus Christ as He preached while here on earth as well as what He continued to reveal to His Apostles and disciples after His ascension enscripturated by God's design. NO OTHER writings have that Divine authority - the Apostles knew it and so did their followers. What the Holy scriptures say and the teachings of the rule of Christian faith are identical. The early church fathers taught that the apostles received the fullness of the revelation from Christ and passed on that revelation in its entirety in their preaching and epistles.
this Apostolic teaching the Word of God, our basis for doctrine and practice, never was, and never will be restricted to the written Scripture they left us ( the doctrine of “sola scriptura” ) as unfortunately you indicated you believe. you quote the Apostle Paul teaching what the Church has believed for 2,000 years: 2 Thessalonians 2:15 “ so then, brethern, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” there you have St Paul telling us in Scripture what the standard for the Church is to be for doctrine and practice. this is the same standard that the Church received from the Apostles from the Apostolic or Sacred Tradition.
Of course, this is what you have come to believe because it is what you have been told but it is NOT verifiable. In fact, the opposite can be shown that the "traditions" Paul spoke of WERE those same teachings that were written down. Tell me, why would Paul or Peter or John leave out essential truths from their epistles? Did the pagan Romans kill off all the Apostles and prophets before God had a chance to say everything He wanted to say? HARDLY! The problem the Roman Catholic Church has is proving that what they claim is the truth "always and everywhere believed" and derived from the "unanimous consent of the fathers", was actually the case. Any doctrine that claims apostolic authority must be grounded in Scripture. This was commonly stated by those early church fathers.
now, we must admit, that men came along in the 16th century and rejected this Biblical standard for authority, by ironically enough claiming only the written word of God was to be used for doctrine and practice. they rejected the teaching of apostolic succession that the Church received from the Apostles, both orally and in 2 Timothy 2:1-2. but the true Church rejected this 16th teaching and held firm to the 1st century teaching.
Men DID come along at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century and they DID reject the teachings of the Apostles to the early church - but it was NOT the Reformers. In fact, the Reformers sought to get rid of the false dogmas and perverted doctrines that had been allowed to seep into the Catholic Church and which negated the truths of the Gospel. Your retort has often been that you can't believe God would "allow" the church to become apostate and that IS true, however, the "church" - those that are Christ's own sheep - were never led astray. It was some of the leaders of the state church that had grown too comfy with worldly treasures and power and who forgot their place and purpose to lead God's flocks. But this was hardly the first time such separation came about. In fact, it started before the first century was over. The Apostle John even spoke about it:
There is a reason for apostasy: "so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." The gospel drives out the hypocrite, the false professor. In fact, if hypocrites and false professors are comfortable in your church, then you have a good reason to question whether the gospel is being preached with clarity and power. Christ knows His sheep. They hear His voice. They do not listen to a man who claims to be the Vicar of Christ, who arrogantly allows himself to be called "Holy Father." They are satisfied with His Word, which is why false teachers tirelessly seek to inculcate dissatisfaction and distrust in the Word. That is how they get the false disciples to follow them. And we see it happen every day. We should expect to see it happening every day. It is a fulfillment of God's Word. (http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?catid=7)
But the TRUE church, the body of Christ, will ALWAYS be able to know and cling to the truth - we have the Holy Spirit within who leads us into ALL truth and who will never leave us or forsake us so we may boldly say, "The Lord is my helper, of whom should I fear?"
One last thing...I am tired of the false assertions that sola scriptura amounts to "the Bible alone as the sole authority in matters Christian." This is an error, it is NOT the true meaning of the term. The doctrine of sola scriptura holds the Scriptures are the sole infallible authority for the church and the sole infallible rule of faith. Protestants affirm church authority, but deny infallible church authority. Protestants affirm the necessity of a ruling office in the Church, because the Scriptures teach it (1 Tim. 3). Protestants affirm the necessity of a teaching ministry in the Church, because the Scriptures teach it (Eph. 4:11-16).
It must come down to whether or not we will believe God's voice. Rome teaches it is the "Church" and specifically the Pope and the Magesterium who comprise God's voice to believers. I believe God's voice is His revelation to man through the Divinely-inspired Scriptures. The Scriptures are God's voice. The Bible tells us it's God's voice: II Timothy 3:16-17 states, "All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction, for training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work." The burden of proof lies on Roman Catholics who claim God's infallible voice is somewhere else besides the Scriptures.