Well said, and so very true. For this reason I am here, to reveal truth according to the gospel of Christ Jesus. For this reason, we, who have His spirit within us, are called to continue what He started in spreading the Good News that redemption is at hand for those who chose to believe.

My only vise with this is where you said "And it was Jesus who gave his authority to Peter and the Church (see above or Mt 16:18-19)." to understand that scripture we have to read the whole account of that conversation and not take only a part of it. Jesus asked whom they, the desciples thout He was, and no one but Peter answered correctly, showing that either he was truly faithful (if he wre he would not have denied Jesus), or God had revealed that truth to him. Peter answered saying, "you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." To this Jesus replied, Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven." And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the very gates of hell will not overcome it." Jesus gave Simon a new name at this point, calling him Peter, and stressed that it is the revealed knowledge of God to Peter that Jesus will build his church on.  Jesus went even further to state that the very gates of hell would not stand agains IT. Not, the very gates of hell would not stand against you or even him, but IT. Meaning that revealed truth.

I say this because it is this type of misconception and error that is tearing the body of Christ apart. That and we have become too engrossed with the "church" rather than the BODY of Christ. Granted the body IS the church, but to put more emphasys uon a building or church body is detremental to what God has established in the body of Christ. We tend to "cliq" together and insist that "my church is better than your because we know more than you". Hocky puck! Christ called us into UNITY with God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, that WE might be complete. He sent his Holy Spirit to reveal all truth, not man, not a book, but his Spirit who just happens to be as much God as God is God. God gave his spirit to Jesus, and Jesus in turn gave that self same spirit to the believers, all who are born again, born of His Spirit.

Peace be upon you brother, and may God continue to work through you in mighty ways to the increase of his kingdom here on earth. Amen

Well posted. I would also have added the moment in the Gospel when Jesus charged St. Peter with "feeding His sheep," entrusting His flock and His care of the flock to St. Peter, upon whom He built the Church, and to whom He entrusted authority over it. In the lists of apostles that show up in the Synoptic Gospels, he is always listed first. He is often the first to enter the tomb after the resurrection, and sometimes the first to even see it. Even St. Paul mentions in 1 Cor. 15:5 that it was Cephas (Peter) who first saw him, and the resurrection is not the only priveleged moment St. Peter had with Christ (walking on water, being "recruited," witnessing the transfiguration, seeing him on the shore and leaping into the water to greet him, etc.) A telling moment of the leadership and respect St. Peter had amongst the apostles rings loudest for me in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem. Although it is St. James that seems to make the closing argument (being that he was, after all, the leader of the Church in Jerusalem), St. Peter's words are powerful and well respected:

"After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe." (Acts 15:7; italics added for emphasis)

Let's not mistake a name or common authority for 'unity,'

The Protestants need to explain how they can believe in a fundamental doctrine (sola scriptura) that by it's very nature brings disunity and factionalism.

Unity doesn't just happen.  There are principles, if followed which bring about unity.  A centeralized, hierarchical organization under the authority of a single leader is one of those principles.

This organizing principle has always been at the center of the Church.

As used in the New Testament, the word we translate as Church is not an institution, but the body of believers who make up the bride of Christ. Catholic, protestant, or whatever other label a person chooses is not important. Religiousness is what Jesus was against, yet in His name we prop up one religion after another and put His name on the the lot of them.

As for unity, if you look at the context of the scripture quoted Jesus was not calling for unity of one man with another, but of all men with God. Division occurs when men unite with each other rather than with God. Religion has a nasty way of doing this. If you want to discuss disunity of religion, I recommend reading James, particularly Jas 1:26-27 - "If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. Religion
that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit
orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained
from the world."

@MC_Shann@xanga -  Even now I am listening to some Catholic authorities in serious debate over church issues.

Debate is not disunity.  Debate is good.  It is the rejection of Christ's authority that is bad because it brings disunity.

They can sit with brothers and sisters from all scopes of Christianity and commune.

Yes, we'll all sit together with our legs crossed and chant OOOOOOOOMMMMMM!  Then we'll all go out and hug at tree.

 While everyone has the right to interpret scripture... NO ONE has the right to misinterpret it. I don't remember seeing my "right" to interpret God's word written anywhere in the Bible. 

as a non-believer, i have always viewed Christianity's inability to remain unified as evidence that it is, indeed, not the one true faith.  if the belief system can be THAT relative, it can't possibly be universally true.  that is, unless you believe in moral relativity... something that most Christians seem to be against.

if i would ever be Christian again, i'd most likely be Catholic.  i agree with the doctrine far more. 

See, here's the problem: Disagreements are simply a part of being individuals. The annoying fact is, Jesus really did leave a lot of things up to us. Beyond the basics of the faith (I think most Christians would agree on, say, the Apostle's Creed) are a lot of variables. But just because we may disagree doesn't mean we're disunified--I may disagree with my brother on some issues (say politics), but that doesn't change the fact that he's my brother. We're brothers because we were born to the same father. Unity is something much bigger than any possible disagreement.

I do agree that actual disunity is a huge, tragic, and unfortunate problem in the church. But I think you've chosen the wrong scapegoat. There were splits and factions and disunity in the church long before anyone ever used the phrase "Sola Scriptura." Even in the early church when the apostles were still alive and on earth, there were disagreements, factions, and contentions. The Jerusalem council, the split between Paul and Barnabas, the various factious parties called out in the epistles. What about the split between the eastern and western churches in 1054? What about the Papal Schism of 1378-1417 (there were three rival popes all claiming succession)? Today Wikipedia actually lists no fewer than 55 current "Catholic" denominations worldwide, not counting Eastern Orthodoxy. Clearly, just telling us to follow whichever one that has the "correct interpretation from Jesus" on issues where we disagree is not going to solve the problem.

What is the real cause of disunity? That attitude that says, "If you don't completely agree with me, we can't possibly do anything together." As long as we continue to think this way, there will be disunity.

"What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you?" (James 4:1)

What matters is not that we stop having disagreements, but that we stop being disagreeable.

I should add that I think you've somewhat misunderstood Sola Scriptura-- a doctrine that simply posits that we should do with our spiritual leaders' teachings what the Bereans were called "noble" for doing to an apostle's teaching (Acts 17:11), and that we should not do with the Scriptures what the Pharisees were condemned by Jesus for doing (Mark 7:13). But I'm not particularly inclined to debate that at the moment; there are bigger happenings afoot.

By extension of the apparent argument, who's to say that what the Church teaches is not a valid interpretation, but rather heretical?

The authority claimed by the Church is also based on a scriptural interpretation, is it not?

And if the authority of the Church to interpret Scripture is based on an interpretation of Scripture, then where does the authority lie - in the Church or in the Scripture used to argue its position?

All this argument does is draw a large circle which can then be used to spin people into further arguments.

Why not just keep the ultimate authority where it belongs - Jesus Christ?

We don't create unity in the Body of Christ, we preserve it.

@MusicologyNut85@xanga - You wrote "Who is doing what with their interpretation"

Your absolutely right! The problem is that those who are coming up with these way out forms have never been adherents to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. They have no claim to the reformation and no claim to historical Protestantism. While in the Reformed traditions there are some differences but great communion. One of my favorite programs to listen to is a Podcast called "The White Horse Inn". It is a round table discussion by 4 men of completely differing Reformed faiths. They don't hide their differences but their differences never cause a break in their fellowship.

Also, there are churches that start out Sola Scriptura (The ELCA for example) and as soon as they abandon the doctrine chaos soon follows. My point being this. Many of the churches out there that do not follow the ideas set forth in the reformation are not our babies. Some are. They start out strong then abandon their bibles. But to say that ALL protestant churches are Sola Scriptura is just not true. Even the ones that claim "Bible only" are not Sola S. Because Sola S. is not some blind statement. It is a premise with an anchor. Never, never has it been every man for himself...

Also, here is an article about the Early church Fathers and their teachings on Sola Scriptura.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html

Grace and peace! Hope your holiday weekend is full of fun and brings glory to God alone.

~Michael