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?
Please explain your path of logic. Because I say that Bible reading does not necessarily lead to holiness (although it is instrumental in OUR day and age), I am now suggesting a God of the "Ten Suggestions"? How so?
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. :)
Listen, FK. There are plenty of "Christians" who CLAIM to read the Bible. And yet, we see they have no problem committing adultery, fornication, stealing, and other such grievious sins that are supposed to end once we declare Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Bible reading does NOT make one holy. God makes one holy. We recognize the graces that He gives us and we utilize those graces, especially given through the sacraments, and we become slowly transformed. We become holy. While Bible reading is certainly a part of this, it is not instrumental in it. Submitting to the Will of God is. If only I could show you how many 'bible reading' Christians call me names, condemn me to hell, don't even consider me a Christian. They stoop to levels of conversation that are, quite frankly, embarrassing. This is from people who have been reading the Bible, according to them, for 20 plus years. Bible reading does NOT equal holiness, nor is it an accurate measurement of one's holiness....
We are all aware of holy people. I know a number of elderly people who are not well-versed in Scriptures. However, they adhere to Christ and I consider them quite holy because of their actions and attitudes towards their fellow man. In the USA Today, there are some editorials that are from non-Christians (maybe yesterday or today's paper) that tell of the problem. These people know the basics of Christianity - and see FOR THEMSELVES that many of us are hypocrites. I would venture to say that many of these hypocrites are Bible reading men and women.
As to your comments about "seeing", tell me, what makes you think I see actual blood and flesh when I partake in the Catholic Eucharist? What makes you think I see the Holy Spirit alighting on an infant when he becomes baptized? The sacraments are ALL based on faith in things we DON'T see going on behind the things we do see.
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.
I am not sure what role you have for leaders in your scheme. However, in the Bible, did the Corinthians test the teachings of Paul? Did the Asians test the teachings of John? In the end, they did accept them as from God. That is the difference. I accept the Catholic Church's CLAIM that they speak as representatives appointed by God. They are to be held to the CHURCH'S (the entire community) bar of acceptable teaching. We are told to test the truth - when speaking of traveling teachers where we DON'T know who appointed them. But where is the Scriptural verses that tell us that duly appointed apostles are to be second-guessed - AND that we place OURSELVES in authority? THAT is not Scriptural.
The lay Catholic is PROHIBITED from questioning the core teachings from on high, if he wants to remain in good standing as a Catholic.
So are the lay Protestants. Please.... In your rush to judgment, you don't even consider you do the very same things. How long would you allow a Christian who said the Trinity was from a teaching of the "whore of Babylon"???
I have to cut short. Take care. Please consider what I have said.
Regards