Originally Posted by via_dolorosa
The whole question is set upon a false premise. For us, the Bible is a part of the revealed word of God, not the final arbiter of all Christian truth. The Church's authority is greater than that of the Bible evidenced clearly by the Church forming the canon by counsil to begin with. A servant does not become greater than its master. For this reason, St. Augustine said that he should not believe in the gospels themselves if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church.
And of course, we historic Reformed Protestants would vehemently disagree... and have for centuries. wink

Tomes have been written on both sides defending their respective views and nothing I could possibly say here would therefore be of any import whatsoever. However, I have often put my observation of the error espoused by Rome in very simple terms: Rome claims the Bible is the very Word of God and therefore authoritative. And, that Bible gives Rome the ultimate authority over the Bible, thus making itself not only the supreme authority but de facto and of necessity, infallible, neither of which is logical or possible.

Given that my time is severely limited today, I'll simply provide some articles written by men far more qualified to explain the differences between Rome and Protestantism and who do an excellent job of refuting Rome's position.

- The Authority of Scripture
- What Do We Mean by Sola Scriptura?
- The Argument for an Infallible Body
- Unshakable Authority

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]