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.
How encouraged I was to see this response, because I had other things to do, and your discourse spoke exactly what I had in mind, just in your own truthful words! So that gave me an unexpected breather. Actually, I was about to also conclude any further exchange with this opposer's intransigent approach to Scriptural admonition. The Risen Christ dealt with Cleopas and his companion during their hike to Emmaus,
"Then he said unto them, 'O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?'
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" (Lk. 24:2-27).
He called them fools for not taking counsel from the Scripture for their opinions, rather than relying on their own reasonings to interpret what they had observed; then proceeded to demonstrate how to apply Scriptural light to their predicament.
And I would say, for the three principal opposers that have plagued this topic that until they receive and apply that spiritual light, God will not give them more light--they will have to stay in the dark, with only the uninspired fallible Greater Catechism to keep them company (Which is, of course, just an accumulation of all their errors for some 1800 years, starting with the Catechical School under the Gnostic Pantaenus).
I intimated in my first response to this article that humanistic logic (reasoning, imagination, λογισμος) is not the way to approach Romanists, for they love that and is the way they are trained by Jesuits, using the same type of logic that the serpent deceived Eve. The Jesuits refined their form of logic to refine catholic doctrine in the Spanish Inquisition. If one contends on doctrinal issues, if they are allowed to employ catholic traditions, reasonings, and experiences, you will lose in that natural realm. The only way to contend is relying on their spiritual weaknesses in their attack, and cast down these reasonings through spiritual discernment that only the Holy Ghost can give you:
"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled" (1 Cor. 10:3-6)
They absolutely hate it when you take the Holy Scriptures under the direction led by The Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:11), and with a literal hermeneutic, and apply them as Christ did to the Devil and his spawn the scribes, lawyers, Pharusim, Tsaddukim, and high priests. They will immediately run to the Patristics, for a start (as you pointed out) to intimidate you with their titles and writings.
I thank the Lord that you sensed this (1 Cor. 2:15) and responded accordingly to the natural, logical human's reproaches:
"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.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man " (1 Cor. 2:14-15).
It's good that you came out of your corner swinging, in Spiritual armor and wielding "... the sword of the Spirit, which is the ρημα of The God" (Eph. 6:17b,c).
This reminds me of Priscilla and Aquila, who responded to Apollos:
"This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly" (Acts 18:25,26).
Their New Testament doctrine was enhanced by Paul ( A.D. 57-58, Winter, The Epistle to Romans, by Paul The Apostle, from Corinth), and their experience was later described by Luke, Paul's disciple (A.D. 63, Acts of The Apostles written by Luke at Rome).
Any doctrine that claims apostolic authority must be grounded in Scripture. This was commonly stated by those early church fathers.
The opposers do err, as you have said, and as I would have also, in running to the unscriptural portions of the Patrisics, and equating those embroidered observations and Platonic-supplied twistings of the Word as having the same reliability as the very God-breathed Truths. Dr. Thomas A. Strouse, former Dean of the Emmanuel Baptist Theological Seminary, Newington, CT, in his paper "Ye are The Body of Christ" observed:
"Although the Apostolic Fathers stood near the Apostles, this chronological proximity may have caused them to be unable to discern distinctive NT truth. Berkhof offers several characteristics of the Patristics' theological writings. Their writings reflected the lack of originality, depth, clearness and definiteness. The Patristics, most of whom were unregenerate, considered the NT Scriptures to be the continuation of the OT with no distinctions concerning the people of God or His agency through which he ministers (i. e., the assembly of immersed believers; cf. Mt. 28:19-20; 1 Tim. 3:15). In failing to use the historical-grammatical (dispensational) hermeneutic to interpret Scripture, the Patristics superimposed the sacral society concept upon the NT. They looked to the OT for the antiquity of church leadership and for the meaning and mode of baptism. The sacral society concept is the state religion in a certain region, headed up by one leader, entered into by one means for all inhabitants, and defended by exterminating all dissidents. Constantine embraced the platonic (sic) catholicity of the Patristics to form the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), with its one head of the bishop of Rome, with its baptismal regeneration of infants, and with its persecution of all dissidents. This visible catholic ecclesiology, initiated by Ignatius and his ilk, propagated by Iraneus and Cyprian, and popularized by Augustine, became the orthodox position for Christendom until the Reformation." (my emphasis)
Strouse, in a footnote, indicated the lack of some Patristics ne birth briefly:
"The writings of the following men indicate their dim awareness of soteriological truth. Ignatius taught baptismal regeneration, Cyprian believed in purgatory, Iraneus maintained salvation by works, and Augustine held to prayers for the dead."
And I previously in this topic noted the questionability of that of Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen (Hexepla), and Eusebius of Caesarea; Origen being one of the foremost known corrupters of the text in history, and is said by Eusebius to have castrated himself to avoid female temptation. (Was that God's plan for him? What kind of doctrinal basis provoked that? or is even worth gearing?)
So you see the nature of the kind of self-promoting people upon whom the Romanist place great reliance for their traditions -- but not so much on the Bible without them. You will note one discourse here was about Acts 2:38, which is extremely difficult to harmonize with the rest of the NT when it is interpreted as supporting baptismal regeneration (even with immersion as the mode).
Well, again, your note was very welcome as another witness to a Bible truth:
"He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" (Heb. 10:28-29).
Going forward,
"Let brotherly love continue ... Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me" (Heb. 13:1,5-6)
So long for now ---
a few random thoughts:
1. you state the same authority would be troublesome if that authority is based upon “ mere fallible human beings”. i think you have hit the nail on the head between those in the Church and those that reject the Church - the Church is a divine institution, it is the Body of Christ, it is not a human organization like the Moose Club, it is led by and protected by the Holy Spirit. the same Holy Spirit that is the author of the Scriptures. how could Jesus say the gates of hell would not prevail against it? how can the elect not be fooled? the answer is the Holy Spirit.
2. please don’t think i am sticking my chest out, the glory of the Church and it’s 2,000 years existance is all of God and the glory goes to Jesus Christ. i have nothing to boast about, any faith i have is a gift from God, just as saving grace is a gift from God.
what i can’t understand is those outside the Church will read the OT and see the hand of God protecting His people Israel from her enemies who wished to destroy her. yet these same people believe that God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, was unable to protect the Israel of God, the Church, from apostasy. even when the Scriptures, which they claim to believe, tell them is is impossible, they still don’t believe it. of course, without the Holy Spirit opening their spiritual eyes, such a thought seems like foolishness to them. to the Catholic, the foolishness is believing Satan could overtake the Church.
3. the Sacred or Holy Tradition received from the Apostles is absolutely verifiable, the evidence is the Church itself. what do you suppose Andrew, James, Philip, Matthew, Jude, Thomas and the rest of the Apostles were doing after Pentecost? the Scriptures don’t say, but i believe that they obeyed the great commission and went into all the world, preaching Jesus Christ and adding to the Church those that were to be saved. small (t) tradition tells us they all met a martyr’s death except the beloved John.
as i indicated in a prior post, they left behind One Church, One Faith. their teaching was accepted as the Word of God, the Church did not wait until a new Epistle from Paul was received to know how to baptize or what the Eucharist was. these men, appointed faithful men to teach the Faith to others, just as Jesus commanded them to do and Paul instructed Timothy to do. Teach, Teach, Teach, this is the mission of the Church. no where did the Apostles command the Scriptures me copied and everyone read them for themselves and then, thinking they are being led by the Holy Spirit, decide what of the Church’s teaching they will accept and what they will reject.
4. i have never met anyone who was Orthodox in their Faith that has a problem accepting Sacred Tradition. in fact, those outside the Church reject doctrines that are plainly taught by the Scriptures and can be shown to have been believed by the Church from Apostolic times. i’ll name two:
a. baptismal regeneration
b. the Real Presence in the Eucharist
why argue about doctrines derived from Sacred Tradition ( such as the canon, infant baptism, worshipping on the first day of the week, apostolic succession ) when the two great Biblical doctrines of Baptism and the Eucharist are rejected?
5. doctrines that are derived from Sacred Tradition must not be found in the Scriptures, but they also can not contradict the Scriptures either. for example, if someone was to claim there are two baptisms ( water and spirit )and use Sacred Tradition as the basis for this belief, it would need to be rejected out of hand because the Scriptures are clear there is only One Baptism.
6. the Romans did not kill off the Apostles before they had a chance to say everything, that is the point of Sacred Tradition. what do you think the word count would be if you compared all of the spoken words of the Apostles from 33ad to each of their deaths, compared to all the words of the 27 book NT? i dare say, the spoken words of the Apostles would exceed the written NT by about a factor of at least 1,000 times!! do you think men like Polycarp and Ignatius, men who learned the Faith at the feet of the Apostle John and loved Jesus to the point that they were put to death fo that love, do you think they understood infant baptism? they didn’t wait to see if Paul addressed it in an Epistle, they saw John do it. sola scriptura was not in effect in 50ad, 95ad, 108ad, nor 2012ad.
7. you quote 1 John 2:19 and i am very glad you did. you notice the Biblical pattern is the false comes out of the true, the true never comes out of the false.
you can go through Church history and you will see many, many groups have come out of the Catholic Church ( gnostics, arians, nestorianism, monophytisism, donatists, mrcionsim, protestantism, etc ) and you will see they all fit 1 John 2:19. the Catholic Church has been here since 33ad, it will be here until Jesus returns - although i do believe we are witnessing the great falling away that will occur before the end. the two witnesses are dead and the world is rejoicing.
8. you claim the True Church will always know and cling to the truth. we agree!!! the question i have that no one can answer is where was this “true church” before the 16th century?
9. i will accept your definition of sola scriptura, but like many other doctrines, different Protestants have different beliefs on its meaning.
do you ever wonder what Jesus thinks of 38,000 different denominations all claiming to follow Him, when He prayed His followers be one in John 17?
10. the only burden on the Church is the same one that it has had for 2,000 years - to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations and baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that Jesus commanded them to do.
the burden on us, is are we going to be led by the Holy Spirit to be obedient to that Apostolic Faith, that after 2,000 years, thanks to the grace of God, is still here, just as Jesus promised it would be.
as i indicated earlier, i firmly believe we are witnessing the great falling away which will happen right before the end. many, many false prophets have arisen and many are being led astray. the testimony of the Church is dead, Satan is taking his seat in the temple of God ( the Church is the temple of God, not some rebuilt bricks and mortars in the middle east ) it truly is a time of great tribulation for those who hold to the Apostolic Faith. every day, when i go outside and look up at the clouds, i pray, is today the day you return Lord? he ( or she ) who has an ear, let them listen.