If one relies on self and bible alone as a sole rule, that person directly opposes Christ, even as expressed in scripture. Questions for you to ponder, which bear directly on your salvation:
"Self and bible alone as a sole rule" as representing SS (sola scriptura), means a fallible person looking to a wholly God-inspired - and thus infallible - substantive standard body of Truth as alone being the sure sufficient (in its material and formal senses)
Yet the Roman Catholic alternative is that of a fallible person relying on a source which is not wholly God-inspired and assuredly infallible, but has only presumed to assert that she (conditionally) is protected from error. Meaning that Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based criteria: pope or ecumenical in union w/ him defining a matter of faith and morals for the whole church). Which means that her declaration (Pastor Aeternus) itself that she is infallible, is infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares, past, present and future. She also essentially presumes protection from at least salvific error in non-infallible magisterial teaching on faith and morals.
You can attempt to argue that being a God-ordained authority which could conclusively settle disputes and require submission, being the judge on who and what is true and of God (both men and statements) and to bind and loose in that regard, requires ensured perpetual magisterial veracity (EPMV), yet as described, that is simply not what Scripture examples and teaches regarding this office.
And both men and writings of God were established as such before there was a church which presumed it was essential to know these.
Neither does the commission to teach nor the promise to progressively lead into all truth (which has been going on since Genesis, and will be fully realized with the resurrection of the elect:
1 Corinthians 13:12;
1 Jn. 3:2) require EPMV.
Moreover, simply because something is true does not make it to be equal to the inspired word of God with its power, (Heb. 4:12) and since neither popes nor councils in union with him speak or write as wholly inspired of God, which Scripture is, then it only is the sure, supreme substantive word of God and source and judge of Truth.
Neither was it any magisterium of men (though it be a valid office) that the Lord Himself used as His sword of Truth to defeat enemies and substantiate His claims, but that of Scripture, for as said, the NT church established its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, the Scriptures, (
Mt. 22:23-45;
Lk. 24:27,
44;
Jn. 5:36,
39;
Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19;
2Cor. 12:12, etc.) and God-inspired oral teaching, and miracles, the later of which Scripture validates as a attesting to Truth, but only as consistent with prior revelation.
Many today demand that salvation is centered on the bible. THis is near idolatry, as the bible does not save. JEsus Christ saves.
That is a form of an either/or false dilemma, a logical fallacy, since to believe the Bible is to believe the gospel, which is believe in the Lord Jesus of it.
The bible tells a tiny fraction of His life.
Indeed, (
John 21:25) but rather than speaking of the need for oral revelation supplementing this, the same author points to writing for truth of salvation: Likewise, These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (
1 John 5:13)
And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (
John 20:30-31)
For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (
Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27;
Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24;
Joshua 1:8;
2 Chronicles 34:15,
18-19,
30-31;
Psalm 19:7-11; 119;
Isaiah 30:8;
Jeremiah 30:2;
Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29;
Luke 24:44,
45;
John 5:46,
47;
John 20:31;
Acts 17:2,
11; 18:28;
Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15
Revealed truth has demonstrsated for nearly 2,000 years that He did not found His Church on any writing, and especially writing as a "sole rule."
To the contrary, it was Scripture which both preceded the church (do you deny this?) and provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church (do you deny this?), and by which the Lord substantiated His mission by, and opened the understanding of disciples to, and who invoked this in testifying to Christ and the gospel, while be able to speak (and write) as wholly inspired of God, and provide new revelation by, which your leadership does not! Do you deny this?
Meanwhile, so-called "revealed truth" has demonstrated the presumption of leadership to claim something which even history fails to evidence, as in the Assumption, (even as
Ratzinger confessed), since she presumes (in the words of Cardinal Manning) "the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy...that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness." (“The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: pp. 227-228)
I can toss out thousands of verses, but they are meaningless if one, on its own authority, decides they are meaningless.
Rather, it is not I who am claiming authority as if a "little pope," nor deeming any Scripture to be meaningless, for any claim by me to veracity must rest upon the weight of sound Scriptural substantiation. In contrast, it is your church which has presumed that she alone is the sure supreme authority, since Scripture, Tradition and history only authoritatively consists of and means what she says, and one cannot even know what the word of God consists of apart from faith in her.
If 1st century souls followed this logic, that the historical magisterium over God's people where to be followed in all her judgments, then they would not have been able to ascertain that John the baptizer was "a prophet indeed," (
Mark 11:32) and followed an itinerant preacher whom the historical magisterium rejected.
. Questions for you to ponder, rwhich bear directly on your salvation: Did Christ found a Church. Yes or no?
Yes, into which the Spirit baptizes ever believer upon regeneration. (1 Co, 12:13) even if they have no organic church to go to yet. (Acts 8:35-40)
And the only one true church is the body of Christ (Colossians 1:18) to which He is married, (Ephesians 5:25) being the "household of faith," (Galatians 6:10) for it uniquely only and always consists 100% of true believers, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes every believer into, (1Co. 12:13) as "living stones" in this "spiritual house," (1 Peter 2:5) while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares.
And with organic fellowships being what a believer to become part of, being baptized under water (if possible) as seen in Scripture, and which become increasingly diverse. (Rev. 2+3).
However, distinctive Catholic teachings
are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels). Which includes its
Peter, and
gospel and
Lord's supper. Therefore, based upon this, it has no valid claim to being the one true church.
More questions for you are, do you not rely on self and your church alone as a sole rule, since you made a fallible decision to trust in a church as being infallible, and the word of God only authoritatively consists of and means what is says it does?
“the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium)
“People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high.” ( Cardinal Avery Dulles)
Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; (Providentissimus Deus)Pope Leo XIII)
How did souls know who and what was from God before your church presumed that she was essential to assuredly know such?
Did Christ give that Church Divine Authority to bind or loose "whatever" on earth and in heaven? Yes or no?
Yes, not just the collective church, but "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven." (Mat 18:19)
Which is related to "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son". (John 14:13) "And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:" (1 John 5:14)
This broad provision is not restricted to church government, and is conditional upon "in my name," meaning according to his will, with proper motive, heart and faith.
As explained before, the Matthew 18:15-18 section contextually refers to judicial cases, which flows from the OT, in which the judgment of what was essentially the "supreme court" was binding, in guilt or innocence, or other issues, was binding, with dissent being a capital offense. (Deuteronomy 17:8-13) The closest application of this was Acts 15,
It certainly does not sanctify all that Catholicism has loosed upon the earth, including the decree that bound all Catholic rulers to exterminate/expel all heretics she pointed to, lest the faithful be no longer obligated to obey them. (canon 3, Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council, 1215) Nor Protestant similar suppression.
Physically binding opposition is not what Mt. 18 sanctions.
Did Christ command that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Yes or no?
Yes, and which refers to the gates of Hell not withstanding the body of Christ rescuing those falling into those gates. Which means is by effectual heart-purifying regenerating gospel faith in the Lord Jesus, (Acts 10:36-47; Acts15:7-9; Titus 3:5) and not that of salvation essentially being via perfection of character.
We on earth, who sin and suffer are not yet saved, despite protestations to the contrary. Salvation is realized only when on stands purified and perfected in the presence of God.
As regards final, full experiential salvation, that will be at the believer's resurrection, which is the only transformative postmortem experience the NT speaks of when clearly referring to the afterlife, which imperfect Paul looked forward to. Who at His coming,
"shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." (Philippians 3:21)
And the only place of conscious existence after this world is that of being with the Lord at His coming.
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and
so shall we ever be with the Lord. (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)
However, Scripture plainly and repeatedly states that believers of gospel faith are presently "accepted in the Beloved," and positionally made to sit together with the Lord in Heaven, (Eph. 1:5; 2:6) having been forgiven all trespasses and translated into the kingdom of his dear Son, from where thy look for their Lord's return and their transformative resurrection. (Colossians 1:13; 2:13; Phil. 3:20)
In addition to what I wrote above, as being true believers, they are affirmed as presently possessing eternal life:
"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13)
And since one is saved by effectual justifying faith, which is evidenced by Spirit-led works of faith, (Rm. 8:14; Heb. 6:9,10; 1 Thessalonians 1:3-10) then Scripture warns believers against believing a false gospel based on merit via the Law, making Christ of no effect, to no profit, and of departing from the living God, thereby forfeiting what faith obtained. .(Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:6; 10:25-34)
Biblical fact: Christians do not need a bible for salvation. The bible itself proves this. No Christian in the bible had a bible. Pleae explain this biblical fact.
What is there to explain? SS does not hold that having a Bible is essential for salvation, and SS preachers from long ago preached the gospel to souls who had none. SS holds that the Bibical contains what is necessary for salvation and obedience, and which sufficiency obviosly does not exclude teachers and study helps, etc. which Scripture materially provides. And whereby a soul
may attain to saving knowledge, not that such assuredly will nor must have a Bible.
And also that "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." - The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)
Hope this helps. Sorry it had to be so prolix.
