How can "sola scriptura" be possible?

[steaver]

As I believe others have pointed out, another possibility is that many simply bring their own pre-conceptions to the scriptures. You obviously will see this if you examine some of these threads. A scriptural text clearly says one thing and yet people mangle and deform it beyond all recognition. As if this were not otherwise obvious, we need to let the writers tell us what they want to say, and not impose our own systems on them.

I always love these comments. Of course, your own positions are the correct ones, right? :thumbs:

God Bless!

 

[Alive in Christ]

JDLongmire,

"It is too bad that the RCC does not recognize the pinnacle of reformation is Sola Scriptura"[/quote[

And unfortunetly the Orthodox also reject Gods clear truth regarding Sola Scriptura.


:godisgood:

 

[Alive in Christ]

JDLongmire,

"It is too bad that the RCC does not recognize the pinnacle of reformation is Sola Scriptura"

And unfortunetly the Orthodox also reject Gods clear truth regarding Sola Scriptura.


:godisgood:










...........

 

[DHK]

You did not give scripture that indicates that all sixty six books were canonized by the Apostles; just some of the books. I mention the ECF because of the statement that it was given to the early church.

That Scripture does not have to be provided.
2Tim.3:16 states that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. By inference that means that all the Scripture--all 66 books, no more and no less, are the ones that are inspired.
I have complete confidence in the intelligence of the Apostles that they taught the early church which books were inspired and which books were not. However if you want to treat them like your neighborhood cavemen, that is up to you.

 

[BRIANH]

That Scripture does not have to be provided.
2Tim.3:16 states that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. By inference that means that all the Scripture--all 66 books, no more and no less, are the ones that are inspired.
I have complete confidence in the intelligence of the Apostles that they taught the early church which books were inspired and which books were not. However if you want to treat them like your neighborhood cavemen, that is up to you.

That scripture does not have to be provided? Interesting assertion.
There is a rather contentious debate between proponents of a 66 book canon and those who adhere to a 73 book canon. We know historically, since Carthage and Hippo, that a 73 book canon was the norm prior to the reformation, any existing copy of the Vulgate proves that. We also know that from Hippo to the reformation; there does not exist any historical evidence of a 66 book canon. We also know that prior to Hippo and Carthage; our canon is in flux. Now the funny thing is that you and I probably agree on the same canon. Having said that, I don't know you. I can tell you quickly resort to absurd conclusions (ie the caveman comment). You are welcome to ignore the conflicting patristic comments, although curiously you do appeal to them for your dating of John's death at the time of Trajan in 98 AD, I instead use them; as I have done in my book Confronting Catholicism. Thank you for your time and I will endeavor to effectively answer her question.

 

[BRIANH]

Its something I've believed in for the past 13 years.

But Im at a point now where Im revisiting everything that I believe, and I just dont see how its possible, especially considering that for the first few hundred years, the bible wasnt all put together.

They didnt have all the "scriptura" to be "sola" about.

And it seems to me to be obvious that "sola scriptura" is problematic. How many protestant denominations do we have now? All claiming Sola Scriptura with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Either the Holy Spirit is confusing us, or maybe we are wrong about Sola Scriptura.

You are correct that the Bible (specifically lets say the NT) was not put together until the late 4th century. What I encourage you to do Emily, my daughters name , is to start reading the early Christian fathers and look at the high regard they held the books that would become scripture. Starting with Ignatius, on up until the canonization of the Bible, the early Christian fathers appeal to what would become the NT. When a tradition or teaching is contrary to scripture and tradition, they confront it.
Now the thing about tradition is we all use it in certain things. You however are wondering where to find God's truth; scripture or tradition/scripture.
The first thing to point out is most of the traditons adhered to by Catholics, and to a degree the Orthodox, are things that are not part of the Bible OR early Christian history.
Take for example; the Assumption of Mary. What an event that would have been! The mother of Jesus swept away! The Catholic church teaches, for the most part that occured in Ephesus. Did you know though; no one mentioned it for 300 years? A bishop IN Ephesus even wrote that no tradition exists!
I encourage you to read the PDF file on my home page. It discusses at length how so many of the teachings of Catholicism are not found in the Bible and directly contradict early Christian history.
I can assure you that God's truth can be found. It is in the pages of the Bible. Sola scriptura is true and an examination of early Christian history will confirm that for you.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are correct that the Bible (specifically lets say the NT) was not put together until the late 4th century. What I encourage you to do Emily, my daughters name , is to start reading the early Christian fathers and look at the high regard they held the books that would become scripture. Starting with Ignatius, on up until the canonization of the Bible, the early Christian fathers appeal to what would become the NT. When a tradition or teaching is contrary to scripture and tradition, they confront it.
Now the thing about tradition is we all use it in certain things. You however are wondering where to find God's truth; scripture or tradition/scripture.
The first thing to point out is most of the traditons adhered to by Catholics, and to a degree the Orthodox, are things that are not part of the Bible OR early Christian history.
Take for example; the Assumption of Mary. What an event that would have been! The mother of Jesus swept away! The Catholic church teaches, for the most part that occured in Ephesus. Did you know though; no one mentioned it for 300 years? A bishop IN Ephesus even wrote that no tradition exists!
I encourage you to read the PDF file on my home page. It discusses at length how so many of the teachings of Catholicism are not found in the Bible and directly contradict early Christian history.
I can assure you that God's truth can be found. It is in the pages of the Bible. Sola scriptura is true and an examination of early Christian history will confirm that for you.

Give me your link. I'll be glad to review it. What came first the Scriptures or the Church?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: I am not a Calvinist. Check your derogatory remarks at the door.

HP: I do not intend any insult and no one called you a Calvinist DHK. It is slander, according to your own code of slander, for you to imply or act as if I did. Please tell me how calling a well recognized Calvinistic dogma, developed as part of the Calvinistic theological system subsequent to the advent of the real father of Calvinism, Augustine, is synonymous with calling you a Calvinist? By the way, many wear that name as a badge of honor. It is somewhat difficult for me to understand why the vehement attacks on me if I dare associate a well recognized belief that has been established as dogma within Calvinstic circles for hundreds of years as a direct result, or part and parcel, of that system of thought.

If I call the doctrine of a second work of grace an Arminian doctrine, is that a derogatory remark? Your attempts to distance certain long held beliefs of those known for hundreds of years as Calvinistic doctrines is an attempt at trying to somehow revise well established history. What might appear to work for an ostrich will not generally suffice for a debate forum or a serious seeker of truth.

 

[DHK]

That scripture does not have to be provided? Interesting assertion.
There is a rather contentious debate between proponents of a 66 book canon and those who adhere to a 73 book canon. We know historically, since Carthage and Hippo, that a 73 book canon was the norm prior to the reformation, any existing copy of the Vulgate proves that.

This information is wrong right here, and shows that you have a propensity for leaning on Catholic-biased information.
First, even the works of Flavius Josephus attest to 66 books in the canon of Scripture. The ECF need not always be resorted to for historical facts.
Secondly, we know that the extra Deuterocanonical books were not inspired. The RCC includes them in the OT. The OT was completed by 450 B.C. There was no book even considered to be part of the canon of the OT Scripture written after 400 B.C. And yet everyone of the Apocryphal books were written between 150 B.C. and 50 A.D., well outside the parameters of the closure of the OT canon.
The Jews never accepted them as Scripture.
The Apostles never accepted them as Scripture.
Christ didn't accept them as Scripture.
The early church didn't accept them as Scripture.
Protestants, as a whole never accepted them as Scripture.
They were only officially accepted as Scripture at the Council of Trent in 1532.
The doctrines contained in these books are contrary to the doctrines contained in the Bible, and we know that the Bible doesn't contradict itself.
We may safely conclude that these books were never Scripture, but were written by imposters.

We also know that from Hippo to the reformation; there does not exist any historical evidence of a 66 book canon. We also know that prior to Hippo and Carthage; our canon is in flux.

Not only does Flavius Josephus attest to such a Bible, but so do other very early versions--the Itala, and the Syrian, both second century translations.

Now the funny thing is that you and I probably agree on the same canon. Having said that, I don't know you. I can tell you quickly resort to absurd conclusions (ie the caveman comment). You are welcome to ignore the conflicting patristic comments, although curiously you do appeal to them for your dating of John's death at the time of Trajan in 98 AD, I instead use them; as I have done in my book Confronting Catholicism. Thank you for your time and I will endeavor to effectively answer her question.

Again there is more to history than the ECF. They do provide us with some good information. There are some good uses for them. I do not rely on them for theology. The Bible is my sole authority for faith and practice.

 

[DHK]

HP: I do not intend any insult and no one called you a Calvinist DHK. It is slander, according to your own code of slander, for you to imply or act as if I did. Please tell me how calling a well recognized Calvinistic dogma, developed as part of the Calvinistic theological system subsequent to the advent of the real father of Calvinism, Augustine, is synonymous with calling you a Calvinist? By the way, many wear that name as a badge of honor. It is somewhat difficult for me to understand why the vehement attacks on me if I dare associate a well recognized belief that has been established as dogma within Calvinstic circles for hundreds of years as a direct result, or part and parcel, of that system of thought.

If I call the doctrine of a second work of grace an Arminian doctrine, is that a derogatory remark? Your attempts to distance certain long held beliefs of those known for hundreds of years as Calvinistic doctrines is an attempt at trying to somehow revise well established history. What might appear to work for an ostrich will not generally suffice for a debate forum or a serious seeker of truth.

You have been given two official warnings about this. Is it necessary for you to belittle someone else's comments by comparing them to another person, a person nevertheless, in whose doctrine he doesn't even believe. Your comments are beyond disparaging.

 

[Emily25069]

but...

It does seem to me as though it was the Catholics/orthodox folks who God trusted to pen our New Testaments.

I am not looking at becoming Catholic, btw...

But it seems to me that nobody REALLY believes in sola scriptura.. really.. I mean, a lot of my first ideas about how to interpret the bible came from a charismatic church and the Pastors opinions and interpretations. When scripture stopped making sense there, my husband and I hopped over to the Baptist church, but yet again, I am running into scriptures that do not make any sense at all whatsoever.. Peter's keys, binding and loosing, This IS my body, being a few. It seems like a more ancient, traditional christianity has better answers for those things.. THere being no universal church being another huge one for me. When I read the bible, its so clear to me, but Im told by baptists that that "is not what scripture means". ugh.. so frustrating.

And I have yet to read the church fathers for myself, but I am going to. I keep hearing that the ancient church looks much more Catholic, that they really did believe in Eucharist, and that infants were baptized as the norm.

Again, keep in mind, I have made absolutely no decisions, but Im looking at this very seriously. I want to know the truth.

And no, I dont think that the bible is inadequate AT ALL. I think we are the inadequate ones, BUT, if there is a church that has it right, then I want in. Its so confusing and divided.

Do we have a free will or not? (scripture seems to say yes and no)
Are baptism and the Lords supper sacramental? Baptists say no.
-I believe that scripture says YES resoundingly, even though I attend a baptist church. when I read the scriptures involving both of these things, I do not come to the conclusion by scripture alone, that these things are just acts of obedience.

There is so much that divides us. How do we KNOW that we are the right ones?

I guess thats all Im asking.

Because I tell you what, I dont know that Im right. I know nothing.

 

[mrtumnus]

This information is wrong right here, and shows that you have a propensity for leaning on Catholic-biased information.
First, even the works of Flavius Josephus attest to 66 books in the canon of Scripture. The ECF need not always be resorted to for historical facts.
Secondly, we know that the extra Deuterocanonical books were not inspired. The RCC includes them in the OT. The OT was completed by 450 B.C. There was no book even considered to be part of the canon of the OT Scripture written after 400 B.C. And yet everyone of the Apocryphal books were written between 150 B.C. and 50 A.D., well outside the parameters of the closure of the OT canon.
The Jews never accepted them as Scripture.
The Apostles never accepted them as Scripture.
Christ didn't accept them as Scripture.
The early church didn't accept them as Scripture.
Protestants, as a whole never accepted them as Scripture.
They were only officially accepted as Scripture at the Council of Trent in 1532.
The doctrines contained in these books are contrary to the doctrines contained in the Bible, and we know that the Bible doesn't contradict itself.
We may safely conclude that these books were never Scripture, but were written by imposters.

Not only does Flavius Josephus attest to such a Bible, but so do other very early versions--the Itala, and the Syrian, both second century translations.

Again there is more to history than the ECF. They do provide us with some good information. There are some good uses for them. I do not rely on them for theology. The Bible is my sole authority for faith and practice.

Slight problem with the red. These books were in the initial canon defined by the Synod of Hippo in 393 and affirmed by the Council of Cartage in 397. Trent added no new books but simply declared the canon that had been in place for over a thousand years infallible and closed.

Ironically, these two councils are also the ones who determined the NT canon which is accepted by all Christians as valid. The same individuals who worked under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to determine which of the available writings were truly inspired to canonized the NT are the same who placed these books in the OT canon.

It was a Jewish 2nd century council I believe who opted to abandon the Greek OT translation that contained these books and revert to the Hebrew translations which did not. Of major concern was the favorable language in the Greek that supported the divinity of Christ -- "a virgin shall bear a child" as opposed to "a maiden shall bear a child" and such.

I have always found it ironic that when accepting which canon of Scripture is valid many opt to align with a Jewish council that denied the divinity of Christ over that of the Christian council they believe were guided by the Holy Spirit to correctly canonize the NT.

 

[DHK]

You are correct that the Bible (specifically lets say the NT) was not put together until the late 4th century. What I encourage you to do Emily, my daughters name , is to start reading the early Christian fathers and look at the high regard they held the books that would become scripture. Starting with Ignatius, on up until the canonization of the Bible, the early Christian fathers appeal to what would become the NT. When a tradition or teaching is contrary to scripture and tradition, they confront it.

Bad mistake. When looking for the truth, go to its very source: "the way, the truth, the life," is Jesus Himself, who is revealed to us in the Scriptures. What do the ECF reveal to us:
Origen is often referred to as the "Father of Arianism." He was a heretic. His heresies are well known, so well known that even the RCC declared him a heretic.
Ireaneus believed that Jesus lived to the ripe old age of 80, and had some other very eccentric ideas.
The idea of purgatory surfaced with the ECF.
Tertullian believed in infant baptism during the first part of his life. In the latter part of his life he got converted, was baptized as an adult by immersion, and then joined the Montanists. Which part of Tertullian's life are you going to believe?

I follow after Jesus Christ, and the teachings that He left for us in the Word of God.

I can assure you that God's truth can be found. It is in the pages of the Bible. Sola scriptura is true and an examination of early Christian history will confirm that for you.

Quite true. But why the need to wade through pages of ECF for a confirmation.
"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God."

 

[DHK]

Slight problem with the red. These books were in the initial canon defined by the Synod of Hippo in 393 and affirmed by the Council of Cartage in 397. Trent added no new books but simply declared the canon that had been in place for over a thousand years infallible and closed.

Yeah, the apocryphal books had been kicking around. No one but the Catholics accepted them as Scripture. And as I stated, and you infer, the RCC did not officially accept them as Scripture until the time of the Council of Trent in the 16th Century. What a joke!!

Ironically, these two councils are also the ones who determined the NT canon which is accepted by all Christians as valid. The same individuals who worked under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to determine which of the available writings were truly inspired to canonized the NT are the same who placed these books in the OT canon.

I like humor. It gives me a good laugh when the Catholics claim sole authority for canonicity of the Bible. They also claim that they invented the doctrine of the trinity. What other gold nuggets can you come up with? The apostles and those taught by the apostles came up with the canon of Scripture, not any Catholic Councils.

It was a Jewish 2nd century council I believe who opted to abandon the Greek OT translation that contained these books and revert to the Hebrew translations which did not. Of major concern was the favorable language in the Greek that supported the divinity of Christ -- "a virgin shall bear a child" as opposed to "a maiden shall bear a child" and such.

I have always found it ironic that when accepting which canon of Scripture is valid many opt to align with a Jewish council that denied the divinity of Christ over that of the Christian council they believe were guided by the Holy Spirit to correctly canonize the NT.

The Holy Spirit used the nation of Israel, the prophets of Israel to give us the Old Testament. They were originally written in Hebrew and still are. The NT was written in Greek, and we still have over 5,000 MSS attesting to the veracity of the Scriptures. There is almost nothing that authenticates the spurious books of the apocrypha. They are even heretical in nature.

 

[mrtumnus]

Whose said anything about the RCC? I could care less what the RCC recognizes or not. IMO, the RCC were the first Protestant Church anyway.

In XC
-

An opinion not reciprocated by the Catholics towards the Orthodox interestingly enough.

But I am curious about your view about the "first" -- why not the Oriental Orthodox?

 

[mrtumnus]

Its something I've believed in for the past 13 years.

But Im at a point now where Im revisiting everything that I believe, and I just dont see how its possible, especially considering that for the first few hundred years, the bible wasnt all put together.

They didnt have all the "scriptura" to be "sola" about.

And it seems to me to be obvious that "sola scriptura" is problematic. How many protestant denominations do we have now? All claiming Sola Scriptura with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Either the Holy Spirit is confusing us, or maybe we are wrong about Sola Scriptura.

The fracturing of the church that began with the doctrine of sola-scriptura is the fruit of the Reformation imho. Martin Luther was writing a mere 8 years after his theses with angst that there were those who questioned his interpretation of Scripture and were headed down a path of falsehood.

Your obvious conclusion has always been what has affirmed for me that Christ did give authority to His church, with specific roles for all members of the body. For some, it is to lead in truth.

It helped when I actually did a Bible search on "authority" and discovered it was nowhere mentioned in scripture in conjunction with scripture. Authority in the Bible is always mentioned in terms of people -- who God has given it to.

Your questions are difficult. For whatever consolation it is worth, I have never noticed correct doctrine (however one may define it) and grace to necessarily go hand-in-hand. Too many grace-filled people I've run across who couldn't agree on doctrine! But I do wish you peace as you seek answers to your questions.

 

[mrtumnus]

Yeah, the apocryphal books had been kicking around. No one but the Catholics accepted them as Scripture. And as I stated, and you infer, the RCC did not officially accept them as Scripture until the time of the Council of Trent in the 16th Century. What a joke!!

I like humor. It gives me a good laugh when the Catholics claim sole authority for canonicity of the Bible. They also claim that they invented the doctrine of the trinity. What other gold nuggets can you come up with? The apostles and those taught by the apostles came up with the canon of Scripture, not any Catholic Councils.

The Holy Spirit used the nation of Israel, the prophets of Israel to give us the Old Testament. They were originally written in Hebrew and still are. The NT was written in Greek, and we still have over 5,000 MSS attesting to the veracity of the Scriptures. There is almost nothing that authenticates the spurious books of the apocrypha. They are even heretical in nature.

Perhaps you would then like to point out when the Orthodox "officially" accepted them as Scripture? You position is that Jerome's Latin Vulgate was not "official" scripture accepted by the church? That the Catholic church did not have an "official" canon of scripture for 1500 years?

And please provide any evidence of a full list of NT books provided by the apostles that match what is in the current canon prior to these councils?

 

[DHK]

Perhaps you would then like to point out when the Orthodox "officially" accepted them as Scripture? You position is that Jerome's Latin Vulgate was not "official" scripture accepted by the church? That the Catholic church did not have an "official" canon of scripture for 1500 years?

And please provide any evidence of a full list of NT books provided by the apostles that match what is in the current canon prior to these councils?

Jerome, very reluctantly and much pressure put the apocrypha into the Vulgate. It was not his desire to do so. He unwillingly submitted to the authorities above him. He knew that they didn't belong there.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Emily,

It does seem to me as though it was the Catholics/orthodox folks who God trusted to pen our New Testaments.'

Was Paul the Apostle Catholic or Orthodox? Peter? James? Titus? Matthew? Luke?

Were any of them Catholic or Orthodox? Of course not. And if God had given any or all of them a glimpse of the horrendous idolotry, blasphemy, goddess worship, and un-Godly "authority" systems that their people are in bondage to they would recoil in horror.

"I am not looking at becoming Catholic, btw..."

I certainly hope not.

"But it seems to me that nobody REALLY believes in sola scriptura.. really.."

Well, we do. God has made it so clear.

"I mean, a lot of my first ideas about how to interpret the bible came from a charismatic church and the Pastors opinions and interpretations. When scripture stopped making sense there, my husband and I hopped over to the Baptist church, but yet again, I am running into scriptures that do not make any sense at all whatsoever.. Peter's keys, binding and loosing, This IS my body, being a few"

Keep on studying, keep on learning, keep on "comparing scripture with scripture". Ask God to open your eyes to His truth. LISTEN to the charismatics, LISTEN to the Baptists, LISTEN to the Church of Christers. Listen to the Methodists and Presbyterians and Pentecostals. NEVER buy what ANY of them say "carte blanche", but CONSIDER what they present and ask God to teach you. FEED on the scriptures yourself with the attitude of "Open my eyes, that I might behold wonderful things from your word".

God has given all of these different groups different things to emphasise FOR A REASON. To maintain balance, while also having differing practices and points of emphasis....since there are so many different personality types and different gifts in His people. Dont let ANYONE lie to you and convince you that you need a monolithic TEACHING MAGESTERIUM, or a large group of CHURCH FATHERS who'd job it is to spoon feed Gods children. That idea is a CULTIC as can be.

There is nothing in the world wrong with listening to different teachers, preachers or biblical material. But NEVER turn them into your authority. The authority God has given to every one of us is Himself...and the scriptures.

"It seems like a more ancient, traditional christianity has better answers for those things.."

Goddess worship? Idolatry" Blasphemy? The VIOLENT DENIAL of Gods liberating Gospel of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone?

THOSE are better answers???

"There being no universal church being another huge one for me."

Where did you get that idea? Of course there is the Universal Church. Just like there is the local church. We are ONE body of Christ.

"When I read the bible, its so clear to me, but Im told by baptists that that "is not what scripture means". ugh.. so frustrating."

I know it is. But...let the pastor or whoever it is telling you that have their convictions, and YOU have YOURS.

"And I have yet to read the church fathers for myself, but I am going to."

Its interesting reading, but be very discerning. As DHK has pointed out, some of them were the father of heresies.

"I keep hearing that the ancient church looks much more Catholic, that they really did believe in Eucharist, and that infants were baptized as the norm."

Some did...some didnt. Many of the ones who didnt were MURDERED by the Catholic Church....because they didnt.

"Again, keep in mind, I have made absolutely no decisions, but Im looking at this very seriously. I want to know the truth."

PRAISE THE LORD!!!

That is just where God wants you, Emily. And HERE is His answer to you...

John 8: 31-31

"Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed in Him, "If you continue in my word, you are my disciples indeed, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free"

There it is Emily. He didnt say "Find some bible teachers and let them spoon feed you", or "Find a huge church and let their Teaching Magestirium spoon feed you", or anything like that.

"If you continue in my word"

The scriptures.

And no, I dont think that the bible is inadequate AT ALL. I think we are the inadequate ones, BUT, if there is a church that has it right, then I want in.

There is...no...church...that has it all right, Emily. It doesnt exist. And the ones who claim they do are the ones who are the most decieved.

"Its so confusing and divided."

No its not. It just seems that way. God has ONE church on this earth...all of His people.

"Do we have a free will or not? (scripture seems to say yes and no)
Are baptism and the Lords supper sacramental? Baptists say no.
-I believe that scripture says YES resoundingly, even though I attend a baptist church. when I read the scriptures involving both of these things, I do not come to the conclusion by scripture alone, that these things are just acts of obedience."

And you have a right to your convictions. There is nothing wrong with that, and Christ even tells us...

"Let you brother be fully convinced in his own mind, for who are you to judge anothers servant?

MEN sometimes say its a great great problem...but God says it isnt. The mean spirited squabbling and pridefull arrogance sometimes are a problem, but not the differences.

"There is so much that divides us. How do we KNOW that we are the right ones?"

Because we are Gods people. Born again people, Spirit led and Blood bought.

I guess thats all Im asking.

Because I tell you what, I dont know that Im right. I know nothing.

Your Lord...

"If you continue in my word, you are my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

God richly bless you, Emily



:godisgood:

 

[steaver]

There is...no...church...that has it all right, Emily. It doesnt exist. And the ones who claim they do are the ones who are the most decieved.

Not sure I agree with this statement. We may differ in "interpretations" of scripture, but we agree that it is the scripture alone that is the final authority. With the RCC they believe it is THEIR interpretations of scripture that is the final authority. They believe and teach that what they say is correct because God works only through their church for correctness in interpretation and application of scripture.

It is so obvious to any bible student who is comparing the RCC teachings with the actual scriptures that the RCC has got many things dead wrong. Which is why we have the "protestants" (protesters) today.

And then there are the baptist (who are not protesters, so they say) who claim to have been baptist from the Apostle's day. Yet no baptist has ever explained to me why they are called baptist. Somebody had to label them baptist for some reason and they had to at some point accept it for some reason. I don't find them in the scriptures as "baptist". All we read about is Christians.

God bless! :wavey: