All right, but it definitely is not "who has the correct understanding, and why?''
Well, it sort of
is. Because if using Scripture as the final rule of faith cannot resolve controversies, and if Spirit-led people don't necessarily agree as well, then where do we find the authority here on earth to settle such matters? As I've written in the past, many of the disagreements among SS adherents were never even
questions in the past-because the church in the east and the west have always believed and practiced Christianity a certain way.
You can say that, but it is also invalid. I have explained why that is so. In short, no matter what we turn to for the answer, no matter what we consider to be the authority, people will disagree on the meaning. So we have God's word in Scripture--almost every church agrees to that--and people disagree about the meaning of some passages and some terms. That's right.
And Scripture isn't of much value if we don't understand what it means to tell us-and the
more we understand God's revelation the better, of course. Churches and denominations agree internally, with their creeds, catechisms, confessions, etc, just as an individual agrees with himself. The question is, simply,
who has it right?
But what do you offer instead? Well, your church says to follow a manmade concept called Holy Tradition or Sacred Tradition and guess what? All the churches that do so are in disagreement with each other on what that authority tells them!
Some people say the bible is man-made; it's for each of us to determine whether and how God has spoken and continues to speak to us. And, again, I'll submit that the eastern and western ancient Churches are far more in line with each other on doctrine than Protestants are with either church, and in many cases with each other. Going by Scripture alone, the abandonment of the ancient liturgies, of the priesthood, of the Eucharist as being the central focus of every service, and a host of other innovations that began shortly after the beginning of the Reformation with new ones continuing to arise thereafter are not at all implausible; even today's Prosperity and Oneness doctrines along with superstar evangelicals spewing much nonsense such as Benny Hinn (at least in his prior incarnation) et al, as well as JWs, even, are natural enough quasi-offsprings of SS.
With Sola Scriptura
anyone has the right to continue on with the Reformer's tradition of using Scripture, rather than the Church, itself, as being the final authority, with new spin-offs resulting. Who can say they're wrong, with any designated enforcing authority, at least? Even when a dissenting sect spins off of the RCC today, such as the SSPX, for example, the dissenters likewise must first establish, in their minds, that the magisterium is teaching error;
they must deny the authority of the Church, IOW. In their case they don't appeal to Scripture but rather to Tradition, but the effect is the same. And the Church claims the right to label their beliefs as heretical, or schismatic.
, your favorite criticism of Sola Scriptura applies also to the alternative that some churches, including your own, follow. So how is that an improvement??
The ancient Churches have history, a continuous lived experience since reception of the faith, on their side.
