Sola Scriptura

[LaymansTermsPlease]

As far as the tradition of the belief, look at the Belgic Confession.

Article 1: The Only God

We all believe in our hearts and confess with our mouths that there is a single and simple spiritual being, whom we call God -- eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, unchangeable, infinite, almighty; completely wise, just, and good, and the overflowing source of all good.

Article 2: The Means by Which We Know God

We know him by two means:

First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: his eternal power and his divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20.

All these things are enough to convict men and to leave them without excuse.

Second, he makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for his glory and for the salvation of his own.

Article 3: The Written Word of God

We confess that this Word of God was not sent nor delivered by the will of men, but that holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit, as Peter says.^1

Afterwards our God-- because of the special care he has for us and our salvation-- commanded his servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit this revealed Word to writing. He himself wrote with his own finger the two tables of the law.

Therefore we call such writings holy and divine Scriptures.

Article 4: The Canonical Books

We include in the Holy Scripture the two volumes of the Old and New Testaments. They are canonical books with which there can be no quarrel at all.

In the church of God the list is as follows: In the Old Testament, the five books of Moses-- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; the books of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth; the two books of Samuel, and two of Kings; the two books of Chronicles, called Paralipomenon; the first book of Ezra; Nehemiah, Esther, Job; the Psalms of David; the three books of Solomon-- Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song; the four major prophets-- Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel; and then the other twelve minor prophets-- Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.

In the New Testament, the four gospels-- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles; the fourteen letters of Paul-- to the Romans; the two letters to the Corinthians; to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians; the two letters to the Thessalonians; the two letters to Timothy; to Titus, Philemon, and to the Hebrews; the seven letters of the other apostles-- one of James; two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and the Revelation of the apostle John.

Article 5: The Authority of Scripture

We receive all these books and these only as holy and canonical, for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith.

And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them-- not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they prove themselves to be from God.

For even the blind themselves are able to see that the things predicted in them do happen.

Article 6: The Difference Between Canonical and Apocryphal Books

We distinguish between these holy books and the apocryphal ones, which are the third and fourth books of Esdras; the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Jesus Sirach, Baruch; what was added to the Story of Esther; the Song of the Three Children in the Furnace; the Story of Susannah; the Story of Bell and the Dragon; the Prayer of Manasseh; and the two books of Maccabees.

The church may certainly read these books and learn from them as far as they agree with the canonical books. But they do not have such power and virtue that one could confirm from their testimony any point of faith or of the Christian religion. Much less can they detract from the authority of the other holy books.

Article 7: The Sufficiency of Scripture

We believe that this Holy Scripture contains the will of God completely and that everything one must believe to be saved is sufficiently taught in it. For since the entire manner of service which God requires of us is described in it at great length, no one-- even an apostle or an angel from heaven, as Paul says--^2 ought to teach other than what the Holy Scriptures have already taught us. For since it is forbidden to add to or subtract from the Word of God,^3 this plainly demonstrates that the teaching is perfect and complete in all respects.

Therefore we must not consider human writings-- no matter how holy their authors may have been-- equal to the divine writings; nor may we put custom, nor the majority, nor age, nor the passage of time or persons, nor councils, decrees, or official decisions above the truth of God, for truth is above everything else.

For all human beings are liars by nature and more vain than vanity itself.

Therefore we reject with all our hearts everything that does not agree with this infallible rule, as we are taught to do by the apostles when they say, "Test the spirits to see if they are of God,"^4 and also, "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house."^5

^1 2 Pet. 1:21
^2 Gal. 1:8
^3 Deut. 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19
^4 1 John 4:1
^5 2 John 10

 

[LaymansTermsPlease]

Or for more specific Baptist tradition, the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.

Chapter 1: Of the Holy Scriptures
1._____ The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.
( 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29, 31; Ephesians 2:20; Romans 1:19-21; Romans 2:14,15; Psalms 19:1-3; Hebrews 1:1; Proverbs 22:19-21; Romans 15:4; 2 Peter 1:19,20 )
2._____Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these:

OF THE OLD TESTAMENT: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Solomen, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations,Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistle to the Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation

All of which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.
( 2 Timothy 3:16)

3._____ The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon or rule of the Scripture, and, therefore, are of no authority to the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings.
( Luke 24:27, 44; Romans 3:2 )

4._____ The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.
( 2 Peter 1:19-21; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 John 5:9 )

5._____We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
( John 16:13,14; 1 Corinthians 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20, 27)

6._____The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
( 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Galatians 1:8,9; John 6:45; 1 Corinthians 2:9-12; 1 Corinthians 11:13, 14; 1 Corinthians 14:26,40)

7._____All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.
( 2 Peter 3:16; Psalms 19:7; Psalms 119:130)

8._____The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.
( Romans 3:2; Isaiah 8:20; Acts 15:15; John 5:39; 1 Corinthians 14:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 28; Colossians 3:16 )

9._____The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly.
( 2 Peter 1:20, 21; Acts 15:15, 16)

10.____The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved.
( Matthew 22:29, 31, 32; Ephesians 2:20; Acts 28:23)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Of course, the Scripture that Timothy had known from his youth was the Old Testament. It would be another 300 years before the NT canon was "finalized".

Not entirely true. The NT was in the process of being written, but it was already being recognized as Scripture (2 Peter 3). As Tony points out, the canon of Scripture is not dependent on the church for its validity. Scripture is self-attesting. </font>[/QUOTE]Some books in the NT were recognized as Scripture before others. Ironically, 2 Peter was one of the books which was disputed for a long time. Other disputed books in various locales were Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation. Other books were considered in some places to be on par with Scripture but which did not ultimately make it into the canon include: Epistle of Barnabas, First Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Gospel of the Hebrews, etc. If Scripture was as "self-attesting" as you claim, why the uncertainty and disagreements? Also, why did most early Christians consider the OT "Deuterocanon" Scripture while most (but not all) Protestants reject them today? Both groups could claim the "witness of the Holy Spirit" within them, but that doesn't solve anything.

Chronologically, the Church did precede the first NT book by about 20 years so it couldn't be dependent on the NT for its existence. Indeed the NT Scriptures, inspired by God, were given by the Apostles of the Church within the Church. Like it or not, we (more or less) owe our canon to decisions the Church made to distinguish the authentic, inspired Apostolic writings from those other extant writings that were non-Apostolic and/or spurious. The Holy Spirit, of course, guided the Church in these decisions, and the recognition of the canon was indeed a gradual process.

 

[Bro Tony]

DT,

While I understand the history and how the church council were used by God to set aside that which is Holy Scripture, of which we both agree. My point is that it is not the church or the council that decided what is or is not Scripture. Scripture is eternal and it comes from God, He and He alone determines whether it is genuinely the Word of God. He certainly can use any of us or those who went before us, but we nor did they decide what is Scripture.

That is my point. I hope it is clear and understandable. God Bless.

Bro Tony

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Bro Tony,

Good point and I agree.

The same Spirit who inspired the Apostles to write the Scriptures also led the Church to recognize those Scriptures.

DT

 

[Bro Tony]

Amen!!! In complete agreement.

God Bless,

Bro Tony

 

[Daniel David]

The early church received its doctrine directly from the Apostles. Check Acts 2 for the reference.

The question is this: where did the apostles authority go?

If you think it is the church, you would be in error. The church depended upon the apostles.

The authority of the apostles went into their God-inspired writings. This became the instruction for the church.

 

[Bro Tony]

DD,

That is my point in stating that the Word of God is eternal. It is the final authority in all matters. The church understands its place and work in the Kingdom of God because of what the Word says. The Word does not depend upon the Church for its validation. The history of the church demonstrates the folly of this view. But, the Church depends on the Word for its validation.

Bro Tony

 

[Matt Black]

The Council of Carthage no more 'determined' what was Scripture than the Councils of Nicaea,Constantinople I, Ephesus and Chalcedon 'determined' Who Jesus was; both had already been determined by God a few centuries earlier or, if you want to be really spiritual, in eternity. 'Discerned' would perhaps be a better verb to describe what the church did.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
The early church received its doctrine directly from the Apostles. Check Acts 2 for the reference.

The question is this: where did the apostles authority go?

Yes, that is the question.

If you think it is the church, you would be in error. The church depended upon the apostles.

Why would one be in error if he thought that? Christ describes the church as having authority in Matthew 18, and Paul called the Church "the ground and pillar of the truth in 1 Timothy 3:15. Where does Scripture indicate that this authority would disappear when the Apostles died?

Many churches in various parts of the world survived with incomplete and varying collections of Scripture for many years after the Apostles died. Were these churches any less authoritative? Also over half the apostles did not even write God-inspired Scripture. Did the churches (particularly in the East) they founded lack authority after these Apostles died and before they possessed the full OT and NT?

While the Church was built on the foundation of the Apostles (and prophets) as it is written in Ephesians, the same Holy Spirit which inspired the Apostles did not abandon the Church when the apostles died. The Church ultimately depends on Christ (the chief cornerstone), and not the apostles alone.

The authority of the apostles went into their God-inspired writings. This became the instruction for the church.

I agree that genuine apostolic God-inspired writings carried the authority of the Apostles, but where in Scripture does it say that these writings would be the only place where apostolic authority would reside when the apostles died? On the contrary Paul commanded the Thessalonians to "hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or our epistle" (2 Thess 2:15). What he taught them by word of mouth carried the same weight as his epistles. He did not say that this only applied while he was living. Indeed, he instructed Timothy: "And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim2:2). Note that Paul didn't say to teach only those things that were written nor did he command to write down the things he heard after Paul died before committing it to others. Paul expected his oral teaching to carry the same force.

It's not a question of Scripture or the Church or the Scripture vs. Tradition. Rather, there existed among early Christians a reciprical relationship among Scripture, Church, and Tradition.

 

[AdoptedDaughter]

I still haven't seen any scripture that plainly states that we are to hold to Sola Scriptura.

 

[Pastor Larry]

2 Tim 3:16-17 plainly state it. Adjust your position about that verse to conform to the context and meaning contained in it. If Scripture equips us for "every" good work, then there is no good work that Scripture does not equip us for. That means that if we want to be fully equipped in doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, all we need is Scripture.

If you will not accept that, then I am not sure there is much use in looking elsewhere.

 

[AdoptedDaughter]

Yes, it says that it equips us, it doesn't, however, state that we are to only use scripture.


My thing is that I can't find it plainly stating it, without us having to say "Well...this is interpreted as such and such".

Is there a verse, without having to use are own interpretation that supports Sola Scriptura?

 

[Frogman]

Dear Sister,
This is as close a reference as I can find and as Brother Larry has said, if this cannot suffice, I am hardpressed as to what else to say on this topic. You must be convinced in your own mind that the Bible is the full word of God complete in its record and revelation. No one else can have this or any conviction on your behalf.

There is more that leads up to this from the prohets of the OT, and from the words of Jesus in John chapter 5, '...search the scriptures...'
The best reference, imho, to begin to answer your question starts with the quote given below:

2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no, prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

God Bless
Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yes, it says that it equips us, it doesn't, however, state that we are to only use scripture.

What else would you use?? All truth comes from God and the truth of God in Scripture has been promised the only thing we need. That is not really a matter of interpretation. It seems to me to be the plain meaning of hte text ... I am really confused as to your line of thinking. What else do you think is out there that we as believers need?

 

[Brother Adam]

The honest scholar will tell you that sola scripture is a means to an end. It is not in the Bible, period. Protestants, and those who do not hold to sola scripture, believe the Bible to be the inerrant, infallible, (and obviously inspired) Word of God. Through the rejection of any visible head to Christ's Church, and the adherence to local, individual churches, without any central leadership, sola scriptura is the only logical path.

During the first centuries of Christianity there was no New Testament and the "scriptures" spoken of in the Bible refer to the Old Testament scriptures. The Apostles would use these scriptures to help others verify that indeed the claims of the Christ were true, as he fulfilled all of the prophecies written about him. Paul consistently fought Jewish leaders about the scriptures when they claimed that one must be circumcised to be saved.

Also interesting to note is that the Apostles themselves did not "advocate" a "sola scriptura" doctrine when it is defined to be the "only" authority. The Apostles had authority over local churches, correcting, teaching, and praising them in their letters and visits.

It may not be wrong to hold to sola scritpura, but one that does, does so based on tradition.

Acts 17:11
Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

1 Cor. 15:3-4
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures

2 Tim. 2:15 (KJV)
Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Adam

A scholar who tells you that is no scholar at all. Your claims here smack of the RCC claims that are necessary to maintain its own authority. They are not grounded in Scripture.

Your misunderstanding is huge in this area. Sola Scriptura does not reject a visible head of Christ's church. Every church has a visible head. But that head is under the authority of Scripture, unlike in the RCC where the visible head is over the authority of Scripture, in practical terms.

The NT never set forth any "central leadership" apart from the apostles. To read it into Scripture is a gross error. We, today, exist under apostolic authority has it has been passed down in the NT.

Paul's fight with teh Judaizers was not about Scripture, but about the Law and freedom in Christ.

The truth of the matter is that sola scriptura is the biblical doctrine of church authority. Any attempt to show otherwise requires abandoning the teaching of Scripture. The establishment of a man made head was a necessary institution given the perspective of the RCC. It was not a biblical institution.

In short, the doctrine of sola scriptura is the only biblical approach to Scripture. The catholics have yet to anwer 2 Tim 3:16-17 in a rational way. They have no answer to it.

 

[Brother Adam]

A scholar who tells you that is no scholar at all. Your claims here smack of the RCC claims that are necessary to maintain its own authority. They are not grounded in Scripture.

Barring discussion that hasn't even surfaced on this thread yet, this seems to be only opinion.

Your misunderstanding is huge in this area.

I really welcome correction, as I myself have no interest in crossing the Tiber. Yet, as I believe the Bible says that scripture is our final authority, allows me to see my Baptist pastor as an authority, capable of interpreting the scriptures, and allowing me to reside under his leadership, so long as he does not start teaching grave error.

Sola Scriptura does not reject a visible head of Christ's church. Every church has a visible head. But that head is under the authority of Scripture, unlike in the RCC where the visible head is over the authority of Scripture, in practical terms.

Christ's Church extends further than the building at the corner of 3rd and Main. Peter along with the other Apostles did not stay in one spot and induvidually lead one small group of believers. They were a central apostolic leadership for the Church. Each church in turn had leaders who stayed with the groups of believers.

But let me ask, would you say that sola scritpura means "only the Bible" or "the Bible is final". If you definition of sola scripture is "only the Bible"- then where does that put your authority in your own church? Are you given the authority to rightly and accurately divide the Truth? If it is "the Bible is final" then the RCC or other various denominations position is not so absurd. The RCC does not set itself above the scriptures, but is subject to the scriptures. In talking to Catholics they agree "nothing can contradict the sacred scriptures". The claim is simply that the visible head in the Church can accurately interpret the scriptures in matters of faith and morals. Since you seeem focused on the RCC though, I suggest reading "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" By Pope John Paul II.

The NT never set forth any "central leadership" apart from the apostles. To read it into Scripture is a gross error. We, today, exist under apostolic authority has it has been passed down in the NT.

Precisely! That is what the claim is- Apostolic leadership!

Paul's fight with teh Judaizers was not about Scripture, but about the Law and freedom in Christ.

Which the Judaizers believe thier stance is rooted in the scriptures.

The truth of the matter is that sola scriptura is the biblical doctrine of church authority.

Yet the scriptures do not affirm this truth. Instead they give you, as a pastor, authority. Subject to the scriptures, of course, but authority none-the-less. If it is to be "only the scriptures" then your position as pastor is useless in matters of teaching and correcting, which you would claim belongs solely to the Bible.

In short, the doctrine of sola scriptura is the only biblical approach to Scripture. The catholics have yet to anwer 2 Tim 3:16-17 in a rational way. They have no answer to it.

What is irrational about apostolic leadership?

 

[Dr. Bob]

And the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea; and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.

Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the [oral] word with great eagerness, examining the [written] Scriptures daily, to see whether these things [oral teaching of Paul] were so.

Oral teaching of the GREATEST apostle was NOT valid unless it agreed with written revelation.

So you tell me that Pope XYZ's word or Church "father" ABC should be considered equal to Scripture, when Paul's wasn't? Absurd.

That deflates the tradition of "tradition" espouses by RC 'church'.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Barring discussion that hasn't even surfaced on this thread yet, this seems to be only opinion.

IT has been well defended in orthodox Christianity for years.

[qutoe]I really welcome correction, as I myself have no interest in crossing the Tiber. Yet, as I believe the Bible says that scripture is our final authority, allows me to see my Baptist pastor as an authority, capable of interpreting the scriptures, and allowing me to reside under his leadership, so long as he does not start teaching grave error. [/quote]Pastoral authority stems from biblical authority. The pastor’s authority derives from Scripture.

[quiot]Christ's Church extends further than the building at the corner of 3rd and Main. Peter along with the other Apostles did not stay in one spot and induvidually lead one small group of believers. They were a central apostolic leadership for the Church. Each church in turn had leaders who stayed with the groups of believers. [/quote]Apostolic leadership was central. Today, we do not have apostolic leadership. That passed with the apostles. Today, we have the words of the apostles in the NT. That is our apostolic leadership in every church and in the church.

If you definition of sola scripture is "only the Bible"- then where does that put your authority in your own church? Are you given the authority to rightly and accurately divide the Truth?

Pastoral authority is derived from scripture properly taught.

The RCC does not set itself above the scriptures, but is subject to the scriptures. In talking to Catholics they agree "nothing can contradict the sacred scriptures". The claim is simply that the visible head in the Church can accurately interpret the scriptures in matters of faith and morals. Since you seeem focused on the RCC though, I suggest reading "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" By Pope John Paul II.

The RCC most certainly does set itself above Scripture. They teach a false doctrine. They contradict Scripture. That is what the reformation was all about. Their claim is far different from the protestant claim. The Scriptures back up the Protestant claim. We cannot rewrite history and theology for the sake of ecumenism.

Precisely! That is what the claim is- Apostolic leadership!

But it is a false claim. The pope has no apostolic leadership. He is not an apostle. That is a direct contradiction of Scripture. Apostles in Scripture had certain characteristics. The pope has none of those. No pope has ever had apostolic authority.

Which the Judaizers believe thier stance is rooted in the scriptures.

But what was the problem? Bad understanding and misuse of Scriptures. That is a possibility. But the answer to the problem of bad interpretation is not to institute an office that Scripture doesn’t have.

Yet the scriptures do not affirm this truth. Instead they give you, as a pastor, authority. Subject to the scriptures, of course, but authority none-the-less. If it is to be "only the scriptures" then your position as pastor is useless in matters of teaching and correcting, which you would claim belongs solely to the Bible.[/qutoe]You misunderstand sola scriptura is you think biblical pastoral authority compromises it.

What is irrational about apostolic leadership?

Nothing. I didn’t say apostolic leadership was irrational. I, in fact, affirmed apostolic leadership. What I said was that Catholics have no rational answer to 2 Tim 3:16-17.