jaredlogan on Nostr: Thanks Josh. I know we disagree, but I appreciate your time and response. First off, ...

Thanks Josh. I know we disagree, but I appreciate your time and response.

First off, if the Bible is the only authority, why so many Protestant divisions on how to interpret it? If a church had authority to close canon, why not to interpret it?

From what I see, the Bible itself doesn't claim to contain everything, considering oral teachings are mentioned as well as traditions. Even the gospel of John mentions, "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."

Second, if the Bible is the only authority, where does it define the exact canon for a Bible? Why align with a Hebrew canon defined by a community that didn't recognize Christ, rather than the fuller canon the early Church recognized? It could be argued therefore that Hebrew sources (following their defined canon) are your magisterium for biblical canon, even though you claim you don't have one. This reveals a core issue in that you claim sola scriptura, but you don't determine the canon individually, you defer to a historical judgment.

The Apostles established a Church, not a book (praise be to God for our scriptures). To be clear we don't trust the magisterium over the scripture, we trust it because of scripture. Whether you claim to trust an authority or not, by claiming trust in a defined canon you are choosing an authority. And down the chain to your pastors, theological tradition, your church's confession or catechism. You just call it 'ministerial authority' rather than 'magisterium.'

If apostolic succession has no merit, why trust the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15? Peter, James, and Paul don't say 'go home and read Scripture individually.' They exercise corporate, binding authority. If apostolic succession is meaningless, why does this council matter at all? And if it matters, doesn't that prove the Church has interpretive authority? The question isn't whether we need interpretive guidance; it's where that guidance comes from and how we know it's trustworthy. Your framework requires authorities, but you won't admit it. Let's be honest about what we actually trust and why.

I'm not claiming to have all of the answer. These are serious questions that I wrestle with and they actually lead me further into Catholicism.