Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[throughfiierytrial]

Let's suppose that "thoroughly equipped for every good work" signifies the sufficiency of Scripture. The problem I have with such a view is that when Paul is here talking about "the Holy Scriptures," he is referring to the Old Testament. If this verse refers to the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is therefore the object of sufficiency, then what are we do to with the New Testament addition? If this really does indicate the sufficiency of the Old Testament, then this means that the New Testament is unnecessary (for if X is sufficient then what is not-X is not necessary).

But Jesus gave the Great Commission...ends in, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you. That's the making of the NT. And, Peter refers to Paul's letters as Scripture.

 

[GDL]

Respectfully, if you look at the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches and the Assyrian Church of the East, the development of church tradition makes much more sense, and can be understood holistically. Catholicism vs. Protestantism is a false dichotomy, and also Sola Scriptura as proposed by Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer is a different doctrine than the Nuda Scriptura doctrine people tend to confuse it with, for Luther and Cranmer and even Calvin did not altogether reject tradition.

Thank you for your input. It brings to the surface something I may be attempting to communicate but haven't quite done so yet.

For me personally, I have to boil things down to a basic foundation that I can deal with and build upon. Tradition can be applied to at least a couple different things. One may desire to restate this, but I'll just say that in regard to the topic at hand, we're dealing with the tradition of interpretations of Scripture and/or traditional practices within the Church that may or may not be Scriptural.

Along the way in this process of Faith for me, I determined it best to quit a business career and go to seminary as the old guy in the class mainly to learn Hebrew and Greek in order to deal with Scripture as much as possible in quiet in prayer with all the exegetical tools I could find. For a few reasons, I ended up being much more versed in Greek than in Hebrew and at this point I'd have to go back and start Hebrew instruction at the beginning again, which I may do.

These concepts of SS or NS or whatever phrase is being applied to whatever discussion along the way, including the past or the future, take almost as much time and effort to keep up with than undertaking a new or continuing a previous exegetical study in Scripture. Also, when one ventures into the "scholarly" ranks, it's discovered that there are a whole new set of protocols to spend time on in order to function and be accepted within that realm. It, like any other discipline also has its own vocabulary, so we have to learn that as well.

Through exposure to extensive training available, I chose a discipline that made sense to me and left things like Textual Criticism to others who were gifted/interested in them. The exposure did provide a realization of all the continuing work being done in seemingly all areas theological and somewhat of an ability to check in on their progress from time-to-time,

Sometime well after being taught about hermeneutics and getting a little loftier, I encountered an organizational split among one of my training centers. One of the factors was a disagreement over the Gospel, of all things! Beyond realizing that some of my trainers were arguing to separation over some basics, to say the least, I was led to the conclusion that for all the scholarly loft, some did not seem to understand the meaning of a few primary and vital Biblical words. Then I thought about my hermeneutics training and realized it was all well and good, but it had never included the basic and tedious groundwork of digging into the Text to learn what God means when He uses certain words.

We all deal with traditions, whether exegetical ones or routines and practices. Few if any of us have not been exposed to the historical views of interpretations of Scripture. Whether or not we know the names of some of the ECF's or other students of Scripture throughout the ages, including the Hebrews who were dealing with God and His Word long before the Gentile world, our contemporary pastors and teachers are mostly passing down traditional interpretations and various schools of thought. Sometimes we can find a strictly exegetical piece of work that deals in-depth with the language of the Text and does a good job of cross-referencing within the Text itself. In the realm of seminaries, it seems quite common practice to have to deal with commentaries, of which there are a multitude. And then one is expected to reference other commentary writers in one's own work. After dealing with this to some degree I met with my professor and told him I was not going to continue the commentaries practices because I just wanted to deal exegetically within the Text.

All this to explain that it's almost impossible to set aside traditions in some form or another. I'd say it is impossible if one is involved in any denomination. The thing is, I've learned more in redeeming time doing the (forgive the terminology please) grunt work of scouring the Text to do basic word studies to see how God uses words, than I have listening to anyone over a period of 4 decades in The Faith of Jesus Christ, which I entered in a blessedly forced semi-retired from the world full time endeavor reading and listening to several 1,000's of hours of teachings. Many of these teachings I later had to unlearn, which is not an easy task.

Bottom line: As I've mentioned, at this point I'm really not much interested in SS, NS, or any such concepts. As the Word says about itself, or Himself, it is alive and powerful and... There is so much to learn within the Text. We don't have enough time drawing breath to learn it all. He knows this. I think He honors the faithful seeking and He honors obedience with more teaching. I enjoy the process of sitting at His feet in Christ in Spirit and working to exhaustion or getting to relax and regenerate. When I venture out, as I said previously, I take in from whatever camp may spark my interest. Inevitably I find some disagreement with most and desire to go back to work within. I appreciate the work of men (mankind), but I think we have to admit that it's quite chaotic and creates tribal alliances. I prefer the simplicity of the parallelism of His Word and His Spirit (Prov1:23) and I'm comfortable that He will judge me fairly and perfectly in every way.

I apologize for the length. I'm simply attempting to provide some clarity in a medium that many times creates more misunderstandings and disagreements than anything positive. Such is the issue with exegesis. It's partially a process of dealing with our own filters, which I think He is cleaning out over time.

 

[Freth]

It means that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith. That's what this thread is about, not whether we should throw words out of the Bible, or disobey Christ, or neglect to read Scripture, etc.

Jesus said that man should live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, which was a quote from Moses, and was actually a quote from Himself who gave it to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Then He said it again in His revelation to John to drive home the message. "The sole infallible rule of faith," as shown in my last post, Revelation 14:12 "...the saints keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus," which can only be found in scripture.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, they do. Do you agree with everything Rome says? I'm no prophet but I don't see Rome being the end of denominations.

Correct.

I did acknowledge this. It's called the Body of Christ of which every true Christian is a member. At this time IMO Christians are interspersed throughout many, many denominations. From what I recall, you agree with this, or at least did.

I think we know there is a foundational belief we all must share and there are a lot of traditions that have little true bearing. Once again, I simply do not think that the Jewish Paul was instructing to stick with his traditions, and they look like Rome. As you know, only Rome believes in the charism of Rome. I doubt the bulk of the 1+billion know or care what that means, and I've little doubt there is much darnel in all denominations. I sure hope I'm misreading you and you're not suggesting the infallibility of Rome.

The eastern churches believe in the charism of infallibility of the Church. And they would define the beliefs that apply, denying beliefs that conflict. The Church must have that gift or we have little way to discern truth. Private interpretation of Scripture, which begins taking place anytime a human picks up the Bible and reads it, is insufficient to fully know the truth.

 

[GDL]

The eastern churches believe in the charism of infallibility of the Church. And they would define the beliefs that apply, denying beliefs that conflict. The Church must have that gift or we have little way to discern truth. Private interpretation of Scripture, which begins taking place anytime a human picks up the Bible and reads it, is insufficient to fully know the truth.

Yet it is human beings within the Body of Christ who make up Christ's Ekklesia and the way I see it He is capable of providing by His Spirit knowledge of His Word to anyone of us apart from only giving it to those within one organization some decide for whatever reasons to call the [only] Church.

I share with you the desire for unity of the mind of Christ on earth, but He allowed splits like the Reformation to take place. Although substantial denominationalism has proceeded as you said, widespread scattering of the Word of God has also led to many being able to dig into it themselves apart from being force-fed by one group or another. Sure, this has caused problems, but who are we to say that He has not used this to gather those who are truly His who for whatever reasons will not rely on people for Truth?

It's odd how we come to commend or decry what the corporations are and do when the corporations are just a bunch of people. It's fallible people we are ultimately dealing with, not infallible people or organizations with various traditions. IMO He has His Body consisting in part of those still in temporal bodies interspersed all over the globe within & without various denominations and it's not Rome or any one group who says who they are. He knows those who are His - they are those who are withdrawing from unrighteousness (sin/lawlessness/disobedience to Him) (2Tim2:19). No organization of man on earth, including Rome, is doing a good job of running its organization in this light. I think we have to look to the HEAD of the [interspersed] BODY to find this progressively taking place.

What happens fhansen, if you through reading Rome determine what Salvation is and I and others apart from Rome come to a same or very similar conclusion through working in Scripture in Christ in Spirit? Rome didn't teach us all. What happens if I and others disagree with Rome - we're automatically wrong because we disagree with the Magisterium? When it takes 500 years to work out a doctrine, who is capable of knowing who else on the planet knew the truth before it had some high degree of institutional consensus?

The only infallibility is Him. The only ones who have anything right are in agreement with Him by whatever means He has used to teach them, wherever they are and among whomever they congregate with, if anyone regularly.

 

[zippy2006]

Jesus said that man should live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, which was a quote from Moses...

See post #2 and the link provided there:

• "The Other Paul": Deuteronomy 8:3 proves Sola Scriptura. (Original Debate) {Attacking P3}
• Jimmy Akin: I agree that man lives by the word of God, but this includes God's word as passed down in writing and in oral tradition. Even in the Old Testament itself the word of God was passed on authoritatively by oral tradition.

 

[zippy2006]

Respectfully, if you look at the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches and the Assyrian Church of the East, the development of church tradition makes much more sense, and can be understood holistically. Catholicism vs. Protestantism is a false dichotomy, and also Sola Scriptura as proposed by Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer is a different doctrine than the Nuda Scriptura doctrine people tend to confuse it with, for Luther and Cranmer and even Calvin did not altogether reject tradition.

Yes, this is a good point. The Catholic Church is not the only Church which rejects Sola Scriptura. All of the ancient Churches have an approach which is different from Sola Scriptura. One can abandon Sola Scriptura without becoming a Catholic.

 

[fhansen]

Yet it is human beings within the Body of Christ who make up Christ's Ekklesia and the way I see it He is capable of providing by His Spirit knowledge of His Word to anyone of us apart from only giving it to those within one organization some decide for whatever reasons to call the [only] Church.

But...but...truth is not about majority vote. Even within Catholicism people may believe all kinds of things but the gospel truth is the treasure of the church while individual Christians can and do bring quite a smorgasbord of beliefs to the table, more so yet with the advent of Sola Scriptura.

I share with you the desire for unity of the mind of Christ on earth, but He allowed splits like the Reformation to take place.

Allowed? God allows evil. We pretty much have free reign down here so not everything that occurs is necessarily according to His will, including scandals within the RCC as an example.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yes, this is a good point. The Catholic Church is not the only Church which rejects Sola Scriptura. All of the ancient Churches have an approach which is different from Sola Scriptura. One can abandon Sola Scriptura without becoming a Catholic.

I keep looking for Sola Scriptura in Christian history. I can't find it in the OT or the NT or the Fathers or the Councils. It only appears, finally, with Martin Luther. Where was it all of those years before Martin Luther. If it is THE critical dogma of the faith it should have been obvious through all of Christian history. And it should have been obvious in the actual Bible. That is a gaping historical hole.

My argument here is not one from Tradition, but from history. A true teaching of the faith that laid invisible for 1500 years is quite a thing. If it's true, it shouldn't have remained invisible 1500 years. Also, if it is a true teaching of the faith the practitioners of it should have less disagreement over what it actually means. Disagreement among the practitioners of it seems to actually be increasing.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Holocaust and Holodomor and the Chinese Cultural Revolution were 'allowed' but are not considered at all blessed by God.

 

[fhansen]

What happens fhansen, if you through reading Rome determine what Salvation is and I and others apart from Rome come to a same or very similar conclusion through working in Scripture in Christ in Spirit?

Then we ask, 'What the heck was all this Reformation business about? Was there really any reason to split the church after all?" Luther didn't want to at first aand he, himself, maintained later that justification was the crux of the reason for the Reformation, why it was necesary. And he was wrong.

Rome didn't teach us all.

Originally it did, in the west at least.

What happens if I and others disagree with Rome - we're automatically wrong because we disagree with the Magisterium? When it takes 500 years to work out a doctrine, who is capable of knowing who else on the planet knew the truth before it had some high degree of institutional consensus?

Not sure where the 500 years comes from. The early teachings were the same and that theology would also be concretized, so to speak, in the sacraments for us simple folk. Later more elaborate amd sophisticated means of explaining and claifying and defining the faith would come, as possible and as needed. And I can show the basic outworkings of that process and dialogue at council which demonstrates the fuller understanding of the church on justification. Either way plenty disagree with Rome, which is why the Reformation took place, obviously. Plenty disagree with God for that matter -which is why the world's in darkness to begin with.

Those who are strong Catholics don't blindly bow to the Magisterium although they will come to a point where they give it the benefit of the doubt because they've come to trust it as they've come to agree with it on the basics.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Since you seemed to object to the word "you" that was used in John 14:26 to mean individuals

It means particular individuals it was addressed to, the Twelve. Context matters.

when Jesus promised the Spirit of Truth to those who obey. His commandments John 14:15-18

You can't universalize something addressed to particular people in a particular group to just everybody. The context of Jn 14 is specific to the Twelve. You could argue it applied to their successors, such as Matthias and those who were the other successors to the Twelve, but it does not generalize to everybody.

His commandments John 14:15-18 and the Spirit will teach us all things, which is a promise of Jesus for those who are seeking Truth and to those who obey

The truths the Holy Spirit will guide the Twelve to are shared with all of the Church. I think you apply it to yourself that you are the recipient of the knowledge of all things all by your lonesome.

Acts 5:32, The Spirit will also convict one of their sins which will hopefully lead one to repentance and a changed heart. This is why it’s so important to have an open heart and allow the Spirit to guide and the Spirit will never guide you away from God's Word. God’s Word is Truth. Psalms 119:160

OK. God's Word is truth. Do you think I disagree with that?

So not sure why the objection to the scripture I posted or the word "you" to mean individuals. Of course the Holy Spirit guides individuals and His church. We probably have a different definition of His church though.

Because the particular individuals in Jn 14 are the Twelve and not just everybody. So I'm not protesting the Scripture but your interpretation of it, which lacks the context of which individuals it was spoken to. The Holy Spirit guides individuals. The Holy Spirit guides the Church. We can get some guidance from the Holy Spirit directly and some is conveyed through the Church. But you are right that we have different views of the Church, likely forever irreconcilable views. I see you are SDA. That makes us miles apart. You have to believe that the Catholic Church is out to persecute you and force you to worship on Sunday. So you look at the Church as I know it as a horror. As I said, 'miles apart'.

You are not making an argument I am making here.

Of course not. I am pointing out something of the context of Jn 14 that you have not considered yet.

Where is that in scripture?

If you can't accept that we are not to be solo Christians I can't help you. That's a weakness of Sola Scriptura. You can be a solo Christian with just your Bible in a cave. And you can think every verse applies to you. And you don't need the successors of the Twelve because all the knowledge from the Holy Spirit and all the gifts of the Holy Spirit have been given directly to you. But if that were so you could just intuit the Bible and you would not need anything given to the Twelve to write the NT. I live in a world where I need the fruits of the special gifts given specifically to the Twelve because I have not been given all knowledge direct from the Holy Spirit. God gave me the gift of the Bible, indirectly, through the Church. And God gave me knowledge of which books make up the Bible indirectly through the Church. I do not have any gift allowing me to intuit those things by my lonesome in a cave. I receive those things from God through the Church because God provided for some people to have more gifts and more knowledge than others. Specifically in Jn 14 there were gifts spoken of in a superabundance that not everybody got.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes, this is a good point. The Catholic Church is not the only Church which rejects Sola Scriptura. All of the ancient Churches have an approach which is different from Sola Scriptura. One can abandon Sola Scriptura without becoming a Catholic.

And at the same time the difference between traditional Sola Scriptura churches and older churches is very subtle. In many cases, due to liturgical reforms at Vatican II, and also ill-advised use of instruments in some non-Catholic traditional churches, one will find more elaborate liturgy in Anglican and Lutheran churches than in neighboring Roman or Maronite or other Catholic churches in communion with Rome.

I would argue that among Christians who are of one accord regarding the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity of worship, there is a need for unity and forgetting past differences like this in order to jointly bear the cross of opposing modernism and pos–modern theology which is not pro-life and which rejects the clear moral instruction of the church on human sexuality and sexual morality in favor of capitulating to worldly desires, and simultaneously to call the church back to reverent traditional worship, and promote people to appreciate the beautiful forms of traditional worship developed in Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and Assyrian churches and to reject the current disaster where we are importing secular music by taking works characteristic of various genres of popular music and inserting vaguely religious platitudes that refer to our Lord but which unlike the hymns sung as recently as by our grandparents in almost all churches anywhere, whether an ancient hymn from the fourth century like the Trisagion or Te Deum Laudamus, or a more recent hymn like Hark The Herald Angels Sing, contain important theological information and serve as sources of doctrinal instruction.

Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.

 

[zippy2006]

I keep looking for Sola Scriptura in Christian history. I can't find it in the OT or the NT or the Fathers or the Councils. It only appears, finally, with Martin Luther. Where was it all of those years before Martin Luther. If it is THE critical dogma of the faith it should have been obvious through all of Christian history. And it should have been obvious in the actual Bible. That is a gaping historical hole.

My argument here is not one from Tradition, but from history. A true teaching of the faith that laid invisible for 1500 years is quite a thing. If it's true, it shouldn't have remained invisible 1500 years. Also, if it is a true teaching of the faith the practitioners of it should have less disagreement over what it actually means. Disagreement among the practitioners of it seems to actually be increasing.

Yes, I agree with this. Jimmy Akin also argues that Sola Scriptura is really a product of the printing press, and could not have been plausibly proposed prior to the printing press. I think this is a strong argument.

In general, Sola Scriptura seems to be one of those ideas that a lot of people take for granted, but once it is questioned it crumbles to bits.

 

[zippy2006]

P1 may or may not be always true. Saying P1 is true is setting up a premise that might not be true, thus anything further that depends on P1 or builds on it would be a broken crutch to lean on.

P2 is true sometimes at least. Some people or many people , for or against it, call it a doctrine. It might not in reality be a doctrine.

C1 is claimed by so many people, that something they believe is derivable from Scripture, it is not a reliable claim .

P3 seems to be directly false.

C2 Thus, in view of a foundation of quiksand, is not sustainable nor true from this step by step.

You are just claiming things, with zero argument or justification.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yes, I agree with this. Jimmy Akin also argues that Sola Scriptura is really a product of the printing press, and could not have been plausibly proposed prior to the printing press. I think this is a strong argument.

But of course. Everybody has to have their own Bible. But that simply was impossible before the printing press. It would take a skilled copyist a third of a year per Bible before that so very very few would have Bibles. Most couldn't read anyhow. Sola Scriptura was thus impossible. So Martin Luther invents the idea but then gets really mad when the peasants decide that they too can decide from Scripture alone what the Bible means AND they don't agree with Luther.

In general, Sola Scriptura seems to be one of those ideas that a lot of people take for granted, but once it is questioned it crumbles to bits.

It's a meta-dogma that few people can actually bring themselves to question. It's about like thinking cats and dogs could get along. Unthinkable.

 

[chevyontheriver]

You asked what you think. You admitted your watched attached video wasn't very good.
You claim the argument is succinct and incisive. Not authoritative nor true. Not "very good"....

I agree that it wasn't very good. The Protestant guy sounded OK in the introduction but after that it was on his part a two hour heart attack. Jimmy Akin was gracious but smoked him (in a kind and polite way).

So succinct and incisive and true and logical. It was not authoritative because Jimmy Akin is not a bishop so he has no particular authority in what he says. That does not negate succinct and incisive and true and logical at all .

So a meh debate mostly because the other guy couldn't bring it even though he had lots of words. BUT in this debate Jimmy Akin makes the case clearly. You should be able to counter Akin's argument presented above easily if Sola Scriptura is actually Scriptural. The debater couldn't do it. It was painful to listen to.

 

[chevyontheriver]

My cats and dogs, full grown, and puppies and kittens, all along
have gotten along very well.

I know it's possible. You have experienced it. But for many it would be unthinkable. Unthinkable like it would be unthinkable that there are holes in Sola Scriptura/

Given your experience with cats and dogs perhaps you would be able to see flaws in Sola Scriptura too.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

It means particular individuals it was addressed to, the Twelve. Context matters.

You can't universalize something addressed to particular people in a particular group to just everybody. The context of Jn 14 is specific to the Twelve. You could argue it applied to their successors, such as Matthias and those who were the other successors to the Twelve, but it does not generalize to everybody.

The truths the Holy Spirit will guide the Twelve to are shared with all of the Church. I think you apply it to yourself that you are the recipient of the knowledge of all things all by your lonesome.

OK. God's Word is truth. Do you think I disagree with that?

Because the particular individuals in Jn 14 are the Twelve and not just everybody. So I'm not protesting the Scripture but your interpretation of it, which lacks the context of which individuals it was spoken to. The Holy Spirit guides individuals. The Holy Spirit guides the Church. We can get some guidance from the Holy Spirit directly and some is conveyed through the Church. But you are right that we have different views of the Church, likely forever irreconcilable views. I see you are SDA. That makes us miles apart. You have to believe that the Catholic Church is out to persecute you and force you to worship on Sunday. So you look at the Church as I know it as a horror. As I said, 'miles apart'.

Of course not. I am pointing out something of the context of Jn 14 that you have not considered yet.

If you can't accept that we are not to be solo Christians I can't help you. That's a weakness of Sola Scriptura. You can be a solo Christian with just your Bible in a cave. And you can think every verse applies to you. And you don't need the successors of the Twelve because all the knowledge from the Holy Spirit and all the gifts of the Holy Spirit have been given directly to you. But if that were so you could just intuit the Bible and you would not need anything given to the Twelve to write the NT. I live in a world where I need the fruits of the special gifts given specifically to the Twelve because I have not been given all knowledge direct from the Holy Spirit. God gave me the gift of the Bible, indirectly, through the Church. And God gave me knowledge of which books make up the Bible indirectly through the Church. I do not have any gift allowing me to intuit those things by my lonesome in a cave. I receive those things from God through the Church because God provided for some people to have more gifts and more knowledge than others. Specifically in Jn 14 there were gifts spoken of in a superabundance that not everybody got.

I believe the Holy Spirit is enough to help one understand the scriptures, which is what Jesus taught. I personally think its dangerous to rely only on your church to interpret scriptures for you, because we will not be judged based on what our denomination has taught and we will not be judged as a church- we each stand before Jesus as individuals come judgement day 2 Corinthians 5:10 so if your church got it wrong, it will be leading a lot of people down the wrong path. It’s important for individuals to study the scriptures and while I do not believe we should be at this solo, we have an individual responsibility to ensure what is being taught in church reconciles with God’s Word. We are warned the devil deceives the whole world- his deception will be in the church- so if your pastor or priest is not teaching from scripture- we are warned there is no light- meaning they are not being led by God’s Spirit. God’s Word is the lamp to our feet Psalms 119:105 and His Spirit of Truth will teach us all things, Jesus said it, I believe it and have personal experience with the Holy Spirit teaching me scriptures. I would personally be a little leery of a church who teaches that you can’t understand God’s Word without them and that you cannot receive God’s Spirit with a church. To me this says the power is in the church when the real power is Jesus Christ, that we can go directly to.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I believe the Holy Spirit is enough to help one understand the scriptures, which is what Jesus taught.

Wonderful. BUT if this were true as simply as you stated it there would be far far less disagreement on what Scripture means. Unless you can claim the Holy Spirit is enough to help you alone to understand Scripture but the Holy Spirit is insufficient to help all of those other people who disagree with you.

I personally think its dangerous to rely only on your church to interpret scriptures for you, because we will not be judged based on what our denomination has taught and we will not be judged as a church- we each stand before Jesus as individuals come judgement day 2 Corinthians 5:10 so if your church got it wrong, it will be leading a lot of people down the wrong path.

This 'wrong path' seems very easy to get onto by people who follow Sola Scriptura. Just sayin'.

It’s important for individuals to study the scriptures and while I do not believe we should be at this solo, we have an individual responsibility to ensure what is being taught in church reconciles with God’s Word.

If only we all did this. So many Protestant traditions remain unexamined by people who think they follow no traditions. So by all means take responsibility to ensure that what is taught by your group reconciles with God's Word. Be absolutely sure of it. It IS a responsibility after all.

We are warned the devil deceives the whole world- his deception will be in the church- so if your pastor or priest is not teaching from scripture- we are warned there is no light- meaning they are not being led by God’s Spirit. God’s Word is the lamp to our feet Psalms 119:105 and His Spirit of Truth will teach us all things, Jesus said it, I believe it and have personal experience with the Holy Spirit teaching me scriptures.

I think you are saying here that you are infallible, that you have been taught all things, that you are more complete in your understanding than maybe your own pastor.

I would personally be a little leery of a church who teaches that you can’t understand God’s Word without them and that you cannot receive God’s Spirit with a church. To me this says the power is in the church when the real power is Jesus Christ, that we can go directly to.

I would be leery of exactly the same thing. But who says you cannot receive the Holy Spirit? Not the Catholics. Not the Orthodox. Nobody I know of. And yet we do need some office of the Church who can step in and say that you or I have the wrong interpretation. Because you and I, at least I, am not infallible. I can make mistakes. I may need to be corrected. I have people for that. You claim the Holy Spirit will show you. But then that other guy will also claim the Holy Spirit will show them. And yet you disagree with each other on serious matters of faith and morals. SO who can step in and decide between the two of you? I have an authoritative Church to take care of that.