Question about "sola scriptura"

[Fidelibus]

[Staff edit]

First of all why does scripture have to claim it?

Oh..... so you don't adhere to the sola scriptura (Bible Alone) doctrine? If not, what else would you say there is?

What authority is there that is higher than God?

First off, just as a river can never be higher than it's source, no creature can be greater than it's creator. Secondly, if you are talking about the Teaching Authority of Christs Church here on earth, thats simple..... the Magisterium. In other words.... the teaching office of the Church which consists of the Pope and Bishops. Matthew 16:18 is key to understanding Christ’s intent to pass on the authority to lead the Church to Peter and the apostles. Christ tells Peter that he is the rock on which He will build His church.When we Catholics use the term apostolic succession, we are referring to the line of bishops that stretches all the way back to the apostles—to Peter—the first Pope. Apostolic tradition (the authentic teaching of the apostles) was handed from Christ to the apostles, and from them to their successors. This unbroken line of popes (the bishops of Rome) and all other bishops have guided the Church for the past 2,000 plus years, just as Christ intended (Matthew 28:19-20). Christ sent His apostles out into the world with authority to teach and heal (Luke 9:1-2) and to forgive sins (John 20:23). This God-given authority is exercised by the bishops within the Catholic Church to this day.

How do we decide which books belong in the bible since the Bible does not say which books belong there?

First off, I do not adhere to the doctrine of sola scriptura. (bible alone) I actually beleive it to be unbiblical, since nowhere in scripture does it state that Scripture alone is sufficient as a sole rule of faith. Now as for who or what decided which books belonged in the Bible and which did not..... thats simple.... the Canon of Scripture which refers to the whole of inspired Scripture; the books that are accepted as inspired by God.
The Supreme Authority in the Catholic Church defined what belonged to the Canon of Sacred Scripture. Regarding both the Old and New Testament Canons, Pope Damasus I convoked a synod in 382 and defined the Canon of Sacred Scripture as we know it today. Pope Innocent I (401-417) sent this identical Canon to a Gallican bishop who had inquired about the matter. The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three Synods of Carthage (393, 397, 419) all confirmed the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals in the Canon of Sacred Scripture. By the end of the seventh century, the Oriental Churches had accepted the decisions of Western authority on this matter. In accord with the Council of Florence, Pope Eugenius IV issued the "Decretum pro Jacobitis" (Decree for the Jacobites) which listed the Canon of Sacred Scripture as including the deuterocanonicals.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

I have a question about the definition of sola scriptura.

Am I not a "sola scriptura -Christian" if I believe, that to understand the will of God and to get to know the truth, the text in the Bible in itself isn't sufficient, but that one must be guided by the Holy Spirit to understand what the Bible text actually says?

I just watched a debate between a Protestant and a Catholic on the subject of sola scriptura. I was surprised that neither one of them claimed that God's Spirit is the one who is above the written Bible text – and not that the Bible text is the only authority (the view of the protestant debater) nor that the Church doctrine and tradition have the same authority as the Bible text (the view of the Catholic debater)!

It can be seen clearly that if someone who isn't born again from above, from the Spirit of God, reads the Bible s/he most definitely doesn't understand the core message: the redemption from sin and death in the Son, Jesus Christ.

I also remember from the time before I became a Christian myself that I didn't understand the Bible at all, even though I read it every now and then (because the text was aesthetically and emotionally appealing on many parts). But when I became a Christian, I immediately began to see God's message.

So if I believe like this am I or am I not "sola scriptura"?

I don't know the technical meaning or formal meaning of sola scriptura but I consider myself such. You bring a new question before me. One must not veer from the text in my view, but the Holy Spirit opens our eyes to actually understand the spiritual meaning of the text and permits us to grow.
John 17:17:
Sanctify them by Thy Truth; Thy Word is Truth.
(not sanctify them, period, in other words)
I John 2:27:
As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.
from the account of the Road to Emmaus...
Luke 24:25-27:
He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
(we see here that although they heard and read some of the Word...presumably the O.T....that even the disciples didn't understand it...once the Holy Spirit was sent at Pentecost they did as did others and in the passage below we have Jesus [as the Comforter] opening the minds of his disciples)...
...and, Jesus' Appearance to His Disciples after His Resurrection...
Luke 24:45:
Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON

This thread is closed for review

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has had a clean. Please note that the rules of CF (the regula vitae of our community here) provide you with sufficient information for you to abide by them.
Please, therefore, review and abide by the rules on flaming and goading.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

so rome does not pray to mary. you sure about that?

Prayers to Mary

also how do you feel about this particular prayer to mary?

would rome's advocates approve all the prayers presented here?

 

[Mountainmike]

I don't know the technical meaning or formal meaning of sola scriptura but I consider myself such. You bring a new question before me. One must not veer from the text in my view, but the Holy Spirit opens our eyes to actually understand the spiritual meaning of the text and permits us to grow.

Step back from that and look at the bigger picture.

If asking the spirit for guidance on interpretation worked, why is it post reformation there are now tens of thousands of variations?

You do not have to look hard to find at least five mutually exclusive post reformation interpretations of:
eucharist
baptism
salvation
godhead
authority
clergy including succession, necessity and gender
LGBT issues
life issues - abortion/contraception
marital issues
purgation
rapture
suffering
tradition (eg "articles" , "confessions" etc)
etc etc
then many arcane issues..what happens to an infant dying prebaptism?

You name it, protestants DISAGREE on it.
And hold almost every permutation of the above, and the standard response when they cant find one of the above ten of thousands of belief sets to suit them, they schism again.
None of them can be the true church because they all disagree, so by simple logic they all believe in one or more things that are false!

But our Lord promised us
HIS church would be one.
And the gates of hell would not prevail against it.
And since the truth cannot change neither can doctrine.

So now go back to the very first christians, disciples of the apostles, who were handed the faith by paradosis ,and see what they believed
Succession bishops, real presence, liturgy, sacraments and so on...
Read for example ignatius letter to the Smyrneans...you are in for a BIG surprise!

Then see which churches have the longevity to qualify as our Lords Church, and still hold the beliefs the first Christians did...

The list whittles down to at most 2. And none of them post reformation!

 

[Wolf_Says]

I think you mistook prayers, with asking Mary to pray for us.

Plus please provide the link for the video which you shared (and how old is that thing??? @_@). But allow me to point some things out for you from the link you DID provide.

Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, Our life, our sweetness and our hope.
To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve, To thee do we send up our sighs, Mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.
Turn then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, And after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary! Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God, That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Amen.

Next,

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed are thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

Next,

Holy Mary,
help those in need,
give strength to the weak,
comfort the sorrowful,
pray for God's people,
assist the clergy,
intercede for religious.
Mary all who seek your help
experience your unfailing protection.
Amen.

Next,

O Mary, recall the solemn moment when Jesus,
your divine Son, dying on the Cross,
confided us to your maternal care.
You are our Mother, we desire ever to remain your devout children.
Let us therefore feel the effects of your powerful intercession with Jesus Christ.
make your Name again glorious in the shrine once renowned throughout England by your visits, favours, and many miracles.
Pray, O holy Mother of God, for the conversion of England, restoration of the sick, consolation for the afflicted, repentance of sinners, peace to the departed.
O blessed Mary, Mother of God, our Lady of Walsingham, intercede for us.
Amen.

These are asking for Mary to pray for us. Simple as that.

 

[thecolorsblend]

so rome does not pray to mary. you sure about that?

Prayers to Mary

I am not sure to whom you have directed this post (quoting the person to whom you're replying would've been a big help). And obviously I cannot speak for anybody else.

But we need to define what "prayer" means. In the Catholic understanding (which, logically, can be the only one which counts in this discussion), it is a petition. I find that many Protestants interpret prayer as an act of worship. And while it can certainly be that too, the Catholic understanding of prayer isn't so narrow.

So when Protestants say Catholics pray to Our Lady (which we do), they believe they've identified us as idolaters, and perhaps something worse, because they define "prayer" in a much more narrow and specific way than we do. But however flowery a Marian devotion might be it is not intended as an act of worship.

To relate this to my point about the Catholic definition of prayer being the only one which matters in this discussion, the possibility that Marian devotion may resemble worship to someone else is quite completely irrelevant. Worship happens in the heart. Identitcal actions take on different meanings depending on intent.

For example, in some cases some people will flip a middle finger at their friends as an expression of endearment. But they might also flip a middle finger to someone else as insult. The fact that flipping a middle finger is sometimes an insult doesn't necessarily make it an insult in all cases at all times irrespective of context.

The point is that intent matters. When I pray a Hail Mary, my heart's intent is reverence but not worship. Others don't have to agree with or approve of my actions. But my actions objectively are not acts of worship because my heart motive is not one of worship.

Those things having been said, I flipped through several prayers on the page you posted. Several of those prayers are Marian devotions approved by the Catholic Church; Hail Holy Queen, Hail Mary, Prayer to Mary, Our Lady of Walsingham, Prayer to Our Lady of Fatima, Regina Caeli, Angelus, Magnificat and others are definitely approved. I can't swear to all of them though.

also how do you feel about this particular prayer to mary?

would rome's advocates approve all the prayers presented here?

That video is ten minutes long. Can you identify the time stamp of the part that troubles you or perhaps post the text in reply please?

 

[Mountainmike]

I think our protestant friends would be most suprised if they read the writings of those at the councils who chose the canon of scripture, they rely on now called the "new testament"

St Ephrem (and others) were positively gushing about the benefits of asking Mary to intercede for us.

But where is the suprise in that?

If we go back to Jesus invoking old testament he clearly aligned to Davidic Kings. Why ? Because HIS audience of jews looked for all meaning there in the OT.
That's how we know his reference to "Keys of the kingdom" instituted a succession office akin to prime minister. (days of Hezekiah)

But thats also how we know that Mary is a davidic Queen. Queen is an an honorary title given to the mothers of Davidic Kings. Who we see in solomons time, given a throne and the king bowed to her , and told her he would do whatever was asked of her. AKA power of intercession with the King.Jesus expected an audience of Jews to interpret it that way.

We see that intercession at CANA where Jesus rebukes her because "his time had not yet come" (ie too soon mum!) but does what she asks anyway.

We see the word "woman" used there - the same word used of Eve, and at the foot of the cross, the woman of revelations - whose spiritual "offspring were those who keep Gods commands . Jesus said on the cross "behold your mother"

But where is the surprise in any of that?

She is "chaire kecharetomone" which is undertranslated as "full of grace" because it means more literally "has been perfected in grace". And it was not just a description (mary full of grace) it was a title (hail full of grace) ie "grace personified".
Not only that - The lord we are told - is with her.

Elizabeth was honoured that the "mother of my lord" had come to her. She did not say that she was honoured only because the "Lord to be" was in her presence. Elizabeth honoured Mary herself.

We see the prayers of saints there at the altar of God, and who is the highest of saints? Mary! See the titles the angel gave her. No other human was ever given those titles!

Mary was a special woman, and special in salvation history.

Those who chose the canon and creed revered her, and asked for her intercession.
Why do people trust the inspiration of those councils to choose the canon, then totally ignore what they thought scripture meant?


Protestants make her sound like an old used wineskin. That is not what God himself said of her through angels!

I think you mistook prayers, with asking Mary to pray for us.

Plus please provide the link for the video which you shared (and how old is that thing??? @_@). But allow me to point some things out for you from the link you DID provide.

Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, Our life, our sweetness and our hope.
To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve, To thee do we send up our sighs, Mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.
Turn then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, And after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary! Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God, That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Amen.

Next,

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed are thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

Next,

Holy Mary,
help those in need,
give strength to the weak,
comfort the sorrowful,
pray for God's people,
assist the clergy,
intercede for religious.
Mary all who seek your help
experience your unfailing protection.
Amen.

Next,

O Mary, recall the solemn moment when Jesus,
your divine Son, dying on the Cross,
confided us to your maternal care.
You are our Mother, we desire ever to remain your devout children.
Let us therefore feel the effects of your powerful intercession with Jesus Christ.
make your Name again glorious in the shrine once renowned throughout England by your visits, favours, and many miracles.
Pray, O holy Mother of God, for the conversion of England, restoration of the sick, consolation for the afflicted, repentance of sinners, peace to the departed.
O blessed Mary, Mother of God, our Lady of Walsingham, intercede for us.
Amen.

These are asking for Mary to pray for us. Simple as that.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

the video starts at the timestamp.

so you do approve of these prayers. well there you go.

this basically shows that Christ's sole mediation is insufficient for rome. they have to pray to someone else, whether it be mary, saints, whatever.

The scripture is clear. there is only one mediator who is Christ Jesus. rome rejects this. there's not one head mediator over a bunch of sub mediators, just one.

also mary is not the mother of God. God is a trinity. she is not the mother of the Father and the Holy Spirit. she is the earthly birth mother of Jesus.

 

[Mountainmike]

Now read my post above, that puts mary in her proper context
The context the fathers of the councils who picked your new testament believed!
And if you want to know what catholics believe, read the catechism, not AN other video.

the video starts at the timestamp.

so you do approve of these prayers. well there you go.

this basically shows that Christ's sole mediation is insufficient for rome. they have to pray to someone else, whether it be mary, saints, whatever.

The scripture is clear. there is only one mediator who is Christ Jesus. rome rejects this. there's not one head mediator over a bunch of sub mediators, just one.

also mary is not the mother of God. God is a trinity. she is not the mother of the Father and the Holy Spirit. she is the earthly birth mother of Jesus.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Now read my post above, that puts mary in her proper context
The context the fathers of the councils who picked your new testament believed!
And if you want to know what catholics believe, read the catechism, not AN other video.

would you approve the prayer in the time-stamped video? yes or no. why or why not?

 

[Mountainmike]

would you approve the prayer in the time-stamped video? yes or no. why or why not?

It is not my job to approve it, the magisterium has done that since the first christian times. If you want to know what Catholicism approves and actually believes, read the catechism.

I have no doubt if I looked I could find some pretty wacky views of more or less everything within the "split P" presbyterianism. I would not waste time watching videos of them either.
Do all presbyterians authors "represent " presbyterian mainstream views? And if they did, why does the split P keep splitting?

Let us look at the context of Mary as she was intended to be understood, and how Catholicism understands her. "caire kecharetomene"

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

I think our protestant friends would be most suprised if they read the writings of those at the councils who chose the canon of scripture, they rely on now called the "new testament"

St Ephrem (and others) were positively gushing about the benefits of asking Mary to intercede for us.

But where is the suprise in that?

Rather, where is the relevance in that? they aren't infallible either.

they didn't choose the canon, Christ chose the canon of His revealed word through His prophets and apostles. what the council did was recognize what Christ had already done. We know God is not capable of error or contradiction so God's word will be consistent and without contradiction. this is why the apocrypha isn't included because it's contradict those of the rest of scripture. we either need to throw the other 66 books out and just use those or vise versa. they can't exist together.

If we go back to Jesus invoking old testament he clearly aligned to Davidic Kings. Why ? Because HIS audience of jews looked for all meaning there in the OT.
That's how we know his reference to "Keys of the kingdom" instituted a succession office akin to prime minister. (days of Hezekiah)

an office all 12 received apparently. the keys to the kingdom are what allowed the 12 to bind and lose. they all got it.

But thats also how we know that Mary is a davidic Queen. Queen is an an honorary title given to the mothers of Davidic Kings. Who we see in solomons time, given a throne and the king bowed to her , and told her he would do whatever was asked of her. AKA intercession. Jesus expected an audience of Jews to interpret it that way.

i'll need more expansion on this idea to understand how this has anything to do with Mary's stature in rome. Scripture doesn't honor her this way as none of the apostle who wrote God's Word for the church under the guide of the Holy Spirit said anything of consequence about mary in their epistles. you'd think if the Holy Spirit of God really wanted us to honor mary the way rome does, He would've said as much.

She is "chaire kecharetomone" which is undertranslated as "full of grace" because it means more literally "has been perfected in grace". And it was not just a description (mary full of grace) it was a title (hail full of grace) ie "grace personified".
Not only that - The lord we are told - is with her.

not a greek scholar, don't play one on the radio, and sleeping at a holiday inn will do me no good. I'll have to look more into this one.

The Lord is with all believers, even if they aren't alleged co-redeemers and mediators.

We see the prayers of saints there at the altar of God, and who is the highest of saints? Mary!

those prayers were our prayers her on earth, not the prayers of those who were already dead in the Lord.

Mary was a special woman, and special in salvation history.

it's true that she was the only woman who gave incarnate flesh to Christ through childbirth, but beyond that, nothing.

she actually has nothing to do with salvation. she simply played a role in Christ's incarnation. she had nothing to do with Christ death, burial and resurrection, nor the shedding of His blood with cleansed all the saints(including hers) from their sins. again, Christ's death saved us, not His birth.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

It is not my job to approve it, the magisterium has done that since the first christian times.

so is that a yes?

 

[Mountainmike]

so is that a yes?

Now read my post above, and the catechism, if you find it there you can assume it approved. I doubt that you will.

You need to understand, I came from protestantism and evangelical background before realising all the cheapshots at catholicism were simply unjustified. People attacking a caricature of catholicism , not the real thing.

I have given you the basic context of Marian belief

So I will not dignify a cheapshot attack with a video with an answer. Unless it is either biblical or founded in the early father tradition or the catechism.

Perhaps you should come to Mass.

The first thing you will notice is that the mass liturgy has a far higher propoprtion of scripture than any protestant or evangelical worship. The mass is almost entirely composed of scripture.

The second thing you will notice is only one or two references to Mary at all. Both in the context of "pray for us" - because she is the highest of saints. But then where is the suprise in that? The writings of some of those who chose your new testament urge all to ask for intercession of Mary. So not a God then. We honour her, because the angel sent from God, and such as Elizabeth did the same. But not a God, we do not pray to her, we ask her to pray for us.

The third thing you will notice is the power of the eucharist, much the same as it was for the very first christians taught by apostles, whose writings are extant. All believed in the real presence, the source and summit of christianity provided it was performed by succession clergy.

 

[Wolf_Says]

the video starts at the timestamp.

so you do approve of these prayers. well there you go.

this basically shows that Christ's sole mediation is insufficient for rome. they have to pray to someone else, whether it be mary, saints, whatever.

The scripture is clear. there is only one mediator who is Christ Jesus. rome rejects this. there's not one head mediator over a bunch of sub mediators, just one.

also mary is not the mother of God. God is a trinity. she is not the mother of the Father and the Holy Spirit. she is the earthly birth mother of Jesus.

I had thought you were a rather upstanding person, however it seems moreso that you just simply twist words around to fit your narrative. And sorry, I wont play that game.

Mary is the Mother of God Jesus Christ, so yes she is actually the mother of God, the Son. The daughter of the Father, and wife of the Holy Spirit.

Scripture says there is 1 mediator between us and God the father, but it says NOTHING about mediators between us and our Lord Jesus.

 

[Wolf_Says]

Rather, where is the relevance in that? they aren't infallible either.

they didn't choose the canon, Christ chose the canon of His revealed word through His prophets and apostles. what the council did was recognize what Christ had already done. We know God is not capable of error or contradiction so God's word will be consistent and without contradiction. this is why the apocrypha isn't included because it's contradict those of the rest of scripture. we either need to throw the other 66 books out and just use those or vise versa. they can't exist together.

Its 73 books, the incomplete Bible is 66.

Also yes they did indeed choose the canon, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and they chose 73 books to fill the Holy Bible.

The "Apocrypha" does not contradict a single thing of scripture, rather it builds upon it. It only contradicts your UNDERSTANDING of scripture, which is not the understanding of the Catholic Church; the author of the NT and publisher of the Holy Bible as we know it today.

They can, and do exist together, and did so perfectly fine for the first 1500 years of Christianity. Historical fact.

an office all 12 received apparently. the keys to the kingdom are what allowed the 12 to bind and lose. they all got it.

I have pointed it out to you before, they recieved the power to bind and lose, but not the keys to the kingdom. That fell solely to Peter, and through the gift of the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven given by Jesus to Peter and the Church that Jesus started, the apostles had that power.

i'll need more expansion on this idea to understand how this has anything to do with Mary's stature in rome. Scripture doesn't honor her this way as none of the apostle who wrote God's Word for the church under the guide of the Holy Spirit said anything of consequence about mary in their epistles. you'd think if the Holy Spirit of God really wanted us to honor mary the way rome does, He would've said as much.

He gave it to you in black and white......

I suggest you do some studying up on the early Church Fathers and their viewpoints, as they were the ones who spread Christianity across the world, wrote the NT, and many of the doctrine that almost all Christians live by and believe (aka, God is a Trinity)

those prayers were our prayers her on earth, not the prayers of those who were already dead in the Lord.

They are clearly shown in Heaven, we are not in Heaven. They are the Church Triumphant who have made it to Heaven and pray for those who are still on earth.

it's true that she was the only woman who gave incarnate flesh to Christ through childbirth, but beyond that, nothing.

she actually has nothing to do with salvation. she simply played a role in Christ's incarnation. she had nothing to do with Christ death, burial and resurrection, nor the shedding of His blood with cleansed all the saints(including hers) from their sins. again, Christ's death saved us, not His birth.

So the birth of somebody has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of their life? If Mary had said no, Jesus would not have been born and become True God and True Man, meaning His death and resurrection would not have taken place.

Sounds like it is pretty involved if you ask me.

And also, I am not entirely sure how Jesus would react to people talking about His mother in such a way. Cannot imagine that He would be entirely happy with that....

Mary was cleaned before she was born. Jesus's death still redeemed her sins, but being God, He is not trapped inside time like we are. She was redeemed prior to her birth, so that God would not have a sinful woman give birth to His only Son.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Step back from that and look at the bigger picture.

If asking the spirit for guidance on interpretation worked, why is it post reformation there are now tens of thousands of variations?

You do not have to look hard to find at least five mutually exclusive post reformation interpretations of:
eucharist
baptism
salvation
godhead
authority
clergy including succession, necessity and gender
LGBT issues
life issues - abortion/contraception
marital issues
purgation
rapture
suffering
tradition (eg "articles" , "confessions" etc)
etc etc
then many arcane issues..what happens to an infant dying prebaptism?

You name it, protestants DISAGREE on it.
And hold almost every permutation of the above, and the standard response when they cant find one of the above ten of thousands of belief sets to suit them, they schism again.
None of them can be the true church because they all disagree, so by simple logic they all believe in one or more things that are false!

But our Lord promised us
HIS church would be one.
And the gates of hell would not prevail against it.
And since the truth cannot change neither can doctrine.

So now go back to the very first christians, disciples of the apostles, who were handed the faith by paradosis ,and see what they believed
Succession bishops, real presence, liturgy, sacraments and so on...
Read for example ignatius letter to the Smyrneans...you are in for a BIG surprise!

Then see which churches have the longevity to qualify as our Lords Church, and still hold the beliefs the first Christians did...

The list whittles down to at most 2. And none of them post reformation!

We are sanctified by the Truth...John17:17
There are many, many levels of maturity in any church rendering many different interpretations. The Word itself says there are different gifts...knowledge and wisdom among them. Question is when do we lead and when do we follow? We are all responsible to know and follow the Word and do as it says for there are many wolves among the sheep. Without the Word one does not have godly instruction.
I Corinthians 4:6:
so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.”
II John 9:
Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
Proverbs 30:5-6:
“Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
Do not add to his words,
or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
Revelation warning of not adding or subtracting is relevant as well in my view because it deals with the entire covenant in riddle fashion and this is exactly as God dealt with the people of old testament covenant...issued the same warnings.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Step back from that and look at the bigger picture.

If asking the spirit for guidance on interpretation worked, why is it post reformation there are now tens of thousands of variations?

You do not have to look hard to find at least five mutually exclusive post reformation interpretations of:
eucharist
baptism
salvation
godhead
authority
clergy including succession, necessity and gender
LGBT issues
life issues - abortion/contraception
marital issues
purgation
rapture
suffering
tradition (eg "articles" , "confessions" etc)
etc etc
then many arcane issues..what happens to an infant dying prebaptism?

You name it, protestants DISAGREE on it.
And hold almost every permutation of the above, and the standard response when they cant find one of the above ten of thousands of belief sets to suit them, they schism again.
None of them can be the true church because they all disagree, so by simple logic they all believe in one or more things that are false!

But our Lord promised us
HIS church would be one.
And the gates of hell would not prevail against it.
And since the truth cannot change neither can doctrine.

So now go back to the very first christians, disciples of the apostles, who were handed the faith by paradosis ,and see what they believed
Succession bishops, real presence, liturgy, sacraments and so on...
Read for example ignatius letter to the Smyrneans...you are in for a BIG surprise!

Then see which churches have the longevity to qualify as our Lords Church, and still hold the beliefs the first Christians did...

The list whittles down to at most 2. And none of them post reformation!

And in addition to my last comment on this post of yours I should say that Peter, which your church claims as its founder (rather than Christ, as I say) was married...I Corinthians 9:5 which includes the other apostles...contrary to the teachings of the Catholic church which does not allow a priest to marry. It can be clearly seen by that all-illuminating Word that this is a false teaching and a destructive heresy...
I Timothy 4:1-3:
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
Yes, those who are sola scriptura know the Truth and those who are not are just stabbing at it from the dark.