I saw them, and that is not what I asked for. I asked for verses that tell us that the individual believer is uncannily guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret Scriptures with "infallible" accuracy. I have already told you that the Bible tells us that the Apostles, the leaders of the Church OR the entire Church have been given that charism, not the individual. It should be painfully clear that the Spirit does NOT lead men to individually interpret Scriptures correctly. You are again making the mistake of equating holiness with Scripture reading. The later does not necessarily lead to the former.
Yes, it is surprising as practiced because it separates the laity from a personal relationship with God, and there is no accountability.
Your "relationship" with God is through an invisible idea, while mine is through the medium of people and things that I can see. I personally prefer the Catholic way. Yours is too subjective and emotionally driven for me.
It establishes "kings" which God said He didn't want in the OT.
Perhaps you have forgotten the numerous times that authority was established by the NT Scriputes, to include Jesus Christ HIMSELF! Isn't it clear that leaders were established in each community as related in the Scriptures? What was there purpose if people were expected to read and heed on their own?
It is pretty obvious that leaders were established in the latter writings to preserve what was once taught. The Bible is pretty clear that there were false teachers, no doubt using the Scriptural letters of Paul and so forth, to push forward their agenda or theological beliefs. The leadership was established by Christ Himself to preserve what He taught. The Bible is not enough to do this by itself, as is painfully clear in the mere existence of numerous Protestant denominations who claim the Bible as their sole authority... not seeing that THEY are their sole authority.
In the end, the discussion of Protestant vs Catholic comes down to "who is the final authority"? Myself or the Church? The Bible is not the final authority because it is a book subject to interpretation. God no doubt knows this and certainly doesn't place man as the final authority. Thus, we see Christ forming a leadership that WOULD be guided. This is all Scriptural. Individual bible reading is NOT.
Regards
Greetings ... Jo kus
I have already told you that the Bible tells us that the Apostles, the leaders of the Church OR the entire Church have been given that charism, not the individual.
Where do the scriptures say the the understanding of the scriptures is only given unto Christian leadership ... and not to the individual christian.
Paul says that the wisdom of God is given to the spiritual, ... as opposed to the carnal.
I believe that includes both christian organisms ... and christian individuals.
Christian individuals and organizations can be more carnal ... or more spiritual, ... and, thus closer to ... or further from God's truth.1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.Your "relationship" with God is through an invisible idea, while mine is through the medium of people and things that I can see. I personally prefer the Catholic way. Yours is too subjective and emotionally driven for me.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
So ... it seems that the Protestant walk ... is more of faith ... and less of sight ... like Paul's.2 Corinthians 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)In the end, the discussion of Protestant vs Catholic comes down to "who is the final authority"? Myself or the Church? The Bible is not the final authority because it is a book subject to interpretation. God no doubt knows this and certainly doesn't place man as the final authority. Thus, we see Christ forming a leadership that WOULD be guided. This is all Scriptural. Individual bible reading is NOT.
I don't believe that you can find scripture which indicates that individual Bible study is not led by the Holy Spirit.
I would say that any study (whether corporate or individual) which is pursued by the spiritual ... will reveal the truth of God.
Whatever study is pursued by those with carnal hearts ... will seem to reveal whatever those carnal hearts desire.
And you are again describing to me a God of the "Ten Suggestions". If the Spirit is truly leading, THEN there is no individual interpretation. It is the Spirit's interpretation that is given to man. It is not a permission slip given to man to interpret as he sees fit. As we have discussed, it doesn't all happen in an instant, and man still makes mistakes. The process takes a lifetime.
I do not "equate" holiness with scripture reading, but I do say that they do go together. As I asked in a recent post, do you believe that reading scripture does NOT lead to holiness? The tone of your recent arguments leads me to believe that you think that the scriptures are a tertiary side-show to the faith. I hope you think higher of them than that. :)
Your "relationship" with God is through an invisible idea, while mine is through the medium of people and things that I can see. ...
Well, ......
Heb 11:1 : Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
2 Cor 4:18 : So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.
2 Cor 5:7 : We live by faith, not by sight.
John 20:29 : Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
---------------
FK: "It establishes "kings" which God said He didn't want in the OT."
Perhaps you have forgotten the numerous times that authority was established by the NT Scriptures, to include Jesus Christ HIMSELF! Isn't it clear that leaders were established in each community as related in the Scriptures? What was their purpose if people were expected to read and heed on their own?
I have not forgotten, and of course, Christ Himself is a special case. There is no comparison to human leaders. This reminds me of the very LAME argument I have heard that Rom. 3:23 doesn't refer to everyone because Jesus isn't excepted. To all who make that argument I say "Give me a break!" :) That's pathetic.
Biblically, leaders are proscribed and are good. There is no arguing that. The problem comes when defining the ultimate authority that they have. I believe that the power you give your leaders is unscriptural because it denies the laity from testing the teachings. For example, as we have discussed, the Bereans were ENCOURAGED to question the teachings as against scripture. The lay Catholic is PROHIBITED from questioning the core teachings from on high, if he wants to remain in good standing as a Catholic.
Now, as a system, I don't really have any problem with this. If one wants to call himself a Roman Catholic, THEN he must believe this, this, and this, and he must practice such and such, etc. That's fine with me. I just don't think that's Biblical because of the extra-scriptural requirements (as I perceive them).
The leadership was established by Christ Himself to preserve what He taught.
Yes.
[continuing:] The Bible is not enough to do this by itself, as is painfully clear in the mere existence of numerous Protestant denominations who claim the Bible as their sole authority... not seeing that THEY are their sole authority. (emphasis added)
The Bible is both an inanimate object and the power of God itself! When you say that the Bible is "not enough" I "hear" you diminishing the literal power of God. I hear you saying that God's own word isn't good enough without the help of men. In a sense, I see your concept as being that God gave us the Bible as a sort of tease. Useless on its face, but for the contrary interpretations (to plain meaning) of those in authority. Certainly, SOME of scripture requires interpretation against what we would normally call "common sense".
However, I see one big difference between Catholicism and Bible-believing Protestantism as being that we hold MUCH closer to the actual text of the scriptures, in the literal sense, than do Roman Catholics. We believe that the text of scripture was meant to be taken in and absorbed by the lay believer, regardless of his proximity to a priest, etc., by the design of God. In this light, it's funny, because except for "mystery", your view is much like a Calvinist's. You know full well that there are millions of Christians who have no access at all to a Roman Catholic priest, Bishop, whatever. Yet, you do not deny them their Christianity. Inside of what you would call "mystery" we would call faith.
In the end, the discussion of Protestant vs Catholic comes down to "who is the final authority"? Myself or the Church?
OF COURSE NOT!!! :) To match the bias of your question, here is how I would frame it from my side: "In the end, the discussion of Protestant vs Catholic comes down to "who is the final authority"? The Holy Spirit or self-appointed fallible men of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church?" ...... That's a little different. :) Now, I "think" we would both say that God is the final authority, and we just disagree on how He administers that authority. Is that fair? :)
The Bible is not the final authority because it is a book subject to interpretation.
Is the word the power of God or not?