And which scripture alone advocate holds “true to the teachings of Christ?”
You’re suggesting, albeit covertly, that “sola scriptura” (I find it silly to use Latin phrases for this stuff shrug) necessitates that the truth is not absolute. Let’s look at it this way – even in the Catholic church, with the supposedly infallible magisterium, there are some who choose not to believe the truth (as the Catholic church defines it), right? Likewise, with a non-physical religious authority and interpreter (God), people can also choose not to believe. The truth is absolute – it’s only the people who change their minds. Still, I really see no way in which this applies more to non-Catholics.
What he is suggesting is that basing ones beliefs only on personal interpretation of scripture, and scripture alone as their only authority doesn’t get us to what is the truth, and if it did then we wouldn’t have thousands of Protestant denominations all
competing to what scripture actually means.
You’re missing one critical component – to be led, we must be open. The more open we are, the more leading God does. The problem is, most people aren’t all that open. For instance, can you say noone in the Catholic church lacks something from knowing “all truth”?
What do you mean by openess? If you mean by openess, juxtaposition, then that’s what we are doing on this CA forum. If you mean everyone reads the Bible and gives what they deem to be the best interpretation, then that doesn’t solve anything and only rely’s on everyones subjective best guess. However, if we objectively look to see that there was a church Jesus established and see it also as truly as it was and it, the authortative church from the begining, we can juxtapose that with Mt 16:15-19, Mt 18:18, 1 Tim 3:15 and see which “church” Jesus is speaking.
So, the local religious authorities (priests) cannot be considered to be accurate, even in the supposedly infallible church?
Infallibility doesn’t mean every word uttered by a priest, bishop or the Pope is always accurate; they are sinners as are we, Rom 3:23. What papal infallibility means is when the Pope teaches on faith and morals, speaks from the chair of Peter Mt 16:18-19 (ex cathedra) and promolgates that doctrine dogmatically upon all of the faithful then, if those three parameters are met then that doctrine is considered dei fide dogma which means it is without error.
Also, what do you think God meant when he said that the people of Israel would turn from him, and that he would estblish a new covenant…a covenant in which his words would be written on our hearts. This doesn’t seem to necessitate a Catholic teaching authority.
Jesus isn’t addressing a church authority in Heb 8:8-10. He is saying the old covanent of the Mosaic law where they sacrificed bulls and animals wasn’t sufficient. The new covanent law of grace is one that is based on love. Jesus adresses the name “church” only two times Mt 16:18, 18:18.
In Matt 16:18, when Jesus speaks of building *his *church, certainly ‘church’ cannot be interpreted to refer simply to the local Matthean community, in isolation from the other Christian communities. (A universalistic outlook in Matthew is attested in 28:18-19 where the disciples are commissioned to go forth to make disciples of all nations and baptize them.) But Matthew also knows of ekklesia applied to the local community (18:17). It is interesting that the binding/loosing power to the disciples (18:18) is mentioned in the context of the latter, while the binding/loosing power given to Peter is mentioned in the context of the former." Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, and John Reumann, eds., Peter in the New Testament, (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg; New York: Paulist: 1973), 100." [Jesus, Peter and the Keys page 69]
“As the word ekklesia] is used in Matthew it has two slightly different meanings. In 16:18 the Universal Church is in view, in 18:18 the local assembly (cf. the apparent fluctuation in Acts and the Pauline epistles).” W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 11, in J.A. Emerton, C.E.B. Cranfield, and G.N. Stanton, eds., The International Critical Commentary, (Edinburgh:Clark, 1991), 629." [Jesus, Peter and the Keys, Queenship publishing]
In Mt 16:18 Jesus has the universal church in view and the only ancient and modern universal church is the Catholic church.