The exclusivity of the apostles is very clear: they are told the true meaning of the parables for example. Also there was a circle of disciples at the Pentecost. But this being said, I agree, that the Holy Ghost goes where He wishes. My accusation of hubris only applies to claims of divine guidance when they are at variance with the consensus patrem.
we have no less confidence because we do not read it through the lens of the fathers
But you should -- because what it is that you know and they did not?
We don't have a central government to throw out sects or cults who want to call themselves Protestant ... Those of us Bible-believing Protestants hold on to the scriptures
I agree that the "30,000 denominations" rap is reaching. More to the point would be maintream protestant denominations that have gone leftist on social and sexual morality teaching. They are not obscure sects or cults. Another example I'd give is free will denominations versus calvinist denominations. These -- a few major denominations -- is what I have in mind.
Second, while you are all united on the four solas, I believe I have demonstrated sufficiently that the Catholic interpretation of what scripture has to say on the Eucharist, free will, the role of works, and apostolic succession is likewise following the scripture, and often with greater fidelity to the text than the Protestant reading. What gives?
On this level, I would guess that 99% of Bible-believing Protestants would now be just as unified as you are with the Orthodox.
OK, I see your point.
I see you have come up with a brand new interpretation for Rom. 3:23
Not at all, I always argued that the context in Romans 3 is the depravity of mankind outside of the grace of Christ.
I could play ball with the doctrine of impossibility, according to scripture, such as in the case of Christ or (arguably) children. But Mary is in neither of those groups and there is no scriptural exception for her
The point is that the childen and Christ are not excepted either. Therefore St. Paul is painting with a broad brush there and no individual conclusion is to be drawn for anyone, Mary, or St. John the Baptist, or Noah, or Abel, etc. His thrust throughout the epistle is Christian unity: he needs to explain to the Romans that things that separate them from the Jews, such as laws and customs, are unimportant, while things that united them, such as sin and faith, are important.
No scripture covers Mary according to Catholic beliefs
Oh, please. Genesis 3, Luke 1, Luke 11:27, John 2, John 19, Acts 2. Mary is an important part of the scripture quite apart from Catholic Marian devotions.
reading it with no lens, and no bias
That in itself is a modernistic bias. You will read what pleases you and disregard what does not, -- just like you disregard James 2 on works, or Matthew 16 on papacy and the church.
But you should -- because what is it that you know and they did not?
We let God's word speak for itself. The hierarchy does/has not due to the necessity that the Bible match Tradition. Naturally, this will lead to different conclusions and knowledge.
I agree that the "30,000 denominations" rap is reaching.
Thank you for saying so. :)
More to the point would be mainstream protestant denominations that have gone leftist on social and sexual morality teaching. They are not obscure sects or cults.
I would agree that they give real Protestants a bad name, and I wholly reject them. They have decided to go out on their own and reject the original principles of the original Reformers. IOW, they reject scripture. To anyone who does know the scriptures, like you, they are also easy to spot. So, when those who actually adhere to Reformed theology say something, you can easily distinguish it from what these others are saying. In the same way, when I hear a Catholic say something I know is contrary to official dogma, I know to dismiss it as to Catholicism.
Another example I'd give is free will denominations versus Calvinist denominations. These -- a few major denominations -- is what I have in mind.
Yes, that's fair. It is probably the weakest link in our claim to unity because it is a big deal. However, there is still a ton of theology on which we agree. I have made a very "loose" comparison to the differences between Catholics and the Orthodox.
Second, while you are all united on the four solas, I believe I have demonstrated sufficiently that the Catholic interpretation of what scripture has to say on the Eucharist, free will, the role of works, and apostolic succession is likewise following the scripture, and often with greater fidelity to the text than the Protestant reading. What gives?
Not sure what you mean. Given the gulf between our interpretations, it doesn't seem possible that we are both following the scriptures with fidelity. We each have our views, and there are plenty of other interpretations floating around out there that we would both immediately dismiss as wrong.
[On Rom. 3] The point is that the children and Christ are not excepted either.
Christ is specifically excepted, by name, and by PAUL! :) That has to count. According to scripture, children MAY be excepted, or they may be exempt due to the doctrine of impossibility. A reasonable case can be made. However, with Mary we have none of this.
FK: "No scripture covers Mary according to Catholic beliefs."
Oh, please. Genesis 3, Luke 1, Luke 11:27, John 2, John 19, Acts 2. Mary is an important part of the scripture quite apart from Catholic Marian devotions.
Sorry, I meant that no scripture covers Mary in terms of her sinlessness. BTW, where do you see Mary in Acts 2? Of course I would disagree that Mary appears in Gen. 3 :) It just doesn't fit the flow of thought.