Ah, well, we have one item that Candace's treasurer did not have, and that is the full, complete account of God's special revelation, the Bible; and that is hope enough. It collapses the two thousand years by placing the reader right in the middle of the scenes portrayed. There is nothing more needed to be known of Jesus that is not within its pages. It takes the place of Stephen, who was the best God had for that time.
That is the fulfilled hope we have, to fruitfully learn of our Lord from The Holy Scriptures we are given for that purpose.
>> It takes the place of Stephen Philip <<
I have no idea why I wrote "Stephen" and let it pass when I meant Philip.
It is true that the Scriptures are materially sufficient to equip believers in the faith; however, would you equip a young soldier with a uniform and rifle and send him out into battle without training him first?
Consider: Lutherans and Calvinists believe in unconditional election as regards predestination. However, Lutherans do not believe in a predestination to Hell, while Calvinists do (aka double predestination). Both denominations subscribe to Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Which of the two is correct?
Or what of the denominations influenced by Arminianism, such as Methodism? Arminianism holds to conditional election, contrasting with Calvinism in particular. Who is correct?
Or consider baptismal regeneration, which is held by Lutherans. Evangelicals, Baptists, and Fundamentalists (among others) disagree that water baptism is necessary for salvation. All subscribe to Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Who is correct?
Or what of salvation in general? Lutherans and Anglicans believe that salvation can be lost by a baptized Christian, that they may fall away. Calvinists, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Evangelicals would disagree. Who is correct?
These are not minor quibbles, for they are issues of tremendous significance on how a Christian is to live!
If all these denominations claim Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, yet arrive at wildly different conclusions, it logically means that some are interpreting Scripture incorrectly.
How do you tell which interpretation is correct?