I think you need to read and quote scripture with a little more integrity and honesty...
KJV Proverbs 3:5-6
5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
When one reads scripture, it is absolutely essential that one begins with prayer and a heart in tune with God's will. Fully surrendered to God's purposes, and a willingness to obey the truth when revealed. We are trusting God to fulfil his promise when He said, "the holy Spirit will lead you into all truth". But such promises are conditional. As Paul said, you must have a love for truth... As a principle... Not a love for what you believe to be truth. Yes, the scriptures are the final authority, because they are the word of God. They are not the word of the church.
And like the Bereans, confirm what others teach by comparing with the scriptures. Retain what is true, and throw out what isn't.
God never gave any man or institution final authority. He gave them disciplinary power over behaviour within the body, but spiritual authority always remained with Jesus as our High Priest. No institution or priest or pastor, be it Catholic, Protestant, or independent, has authority over the consciences of man. Of man makes a mistake in theology, and is willing to be corrected, God will correct him. If he refuses to be corrected, God will allow him the freedom to go his way and bear the result of his errors, and perhaps in time see his fault and repent. But the relationship with God is real, and no-one, not even the Pope, stands between me and God and accepts the responsibility for the direction and path I take in life. That's on me.
They got stuff right as well. And the reformation was God's doing. There was pain, and there were mistakes, but it was necessary else the world would remain in ignorance and superstition. It took time to shed the vestiges of Roman error, and it still isn't over. That some are returning to Rome to embrace "Mother" again means the reformation in some contexts will have to be fought all over again.
Only in so much as the church actually retains a connection with the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The Catholic church in Rome and Alexandria departed from the Truth when they embraced and coveted the baubles of political office in the 4th century and created a union of church and state. They trusted in political power to entrench church dogma over the power of the holy Spirit. Then later persecuted those who refused to join in this new Papal concept.
Yes. Because it wasn't the entire church. Only Rome took the steps to apostasy as follows...
1. Forming a creed, expressing their faith in man-made phrases instead of adhering to the word of the Lord.
2. Making that man-made creed a test of fellowship, and denouncing all as heretics who would not assent to the exact wording of their creeds.
3. Making the creed a rule by which all heretics must be tried. Many were thus declared sinners whose faith was more in harmony with the direct statements of the Bible than that of those who decreed against them.
4. Constituting themselves a tribunal for the trial of heretics, and excluding from their fellowship all who would not assent to their creeds. Not content to debar such from church privileges in this world, they declared them subjects for the lake of fire.
5. Having thus kindled a hatred in their own hearts against all who did not conform to their creeds, they next invoked and obtained the aid of the civil power to torture, and kill with sword, with hunger, with flame, and with beasts of the earth, those whom they had declared unfit to remain in the world.
My suggestion is you do not question integrity and honesty.
@civic are you happy with that? One more strike and you are out.
I will not reply again if you do.
I suggest you STUDY the early church.
Jesus sent the apostles to preach, not write, which is why Romans says the faith "comes by hearing" not reading, few could read, scripture was kept hidden from the romans, and the printing press was 1500 years in the future, the decision on what was canonical 300 years in the future..
Which is why Paul tells you to stay true to what is taught by word of mouth and letter.
The faith is handed down which is the meaning of "paradosis", "tradition". Scripture only came later as a product of the churches power to bind and loose.
Without it you would have a heretical canon, many heresies and no idea which books are canonical.
We know what was handed down by the writings of the disciples of the apostles.
We know what apostle John taught about the eucharist from disciples such as Ignatius that a eucharist is of the real flesh valid only if presided by a bishop in succession. We know from iraneus the entire succession was known to his day. He even lists the bishops of Rome.
So that is what John taught. Iraneus tells us that to his day mid second century the entire succession was known. He also lists the bishops of Rome. We know by scripture the meaning of the inherited office of "keys of the kingdom", and we know the meaning of "bind and loose. Even Calvin in commentary accepts the succession of Peter. It seems you are arguing with almost all other christians.
The blame on the fourth century is echoing a myth. If you read such as the life of anthony by anasthasius (him of the nicene creed and council) you see nothing actually changed in doctrine other than freedom to worship. It is an often quoted antic catholic myth as the time of apostasy. It does not stack up.
"sola scriptura" is a false man made tradition of the reformation - we know who defined it and when with no sciptural basis or basis in early fathers - disprovably logically, historicall and scripturally, and by its fruits. The fruits of sola scriptura are endless division and schism
as such as all "lean on their own understanding" about meaning of scripture.
Even Luther despaired of the monster he created in later life - he lamented " it is the greatest scandal" "every milk maid now has their own doctrine". But Luther could not put pandora back in the box. It was precisely because the meaning of scripture is not obvious or evident and all made up their own meaning believing sometimes in polar opposites using the same scripture to do it!
The only way to know what scripture means is to study tradition - what post apostolic fathers said it meant, and authority -
Jesus gave the power to bind and loose.
You forget. I was protestant and evangelical, till I discovered none of it made sense. I know both sides of the arguments.
I suggest you Read "essay on development of christian doctrine" by Newman before he crossed the tiber.
Read the hundreds of testimonies of why many theologians and pastors returned to Rome by studying history,.