Of course. Interpretation of such things as the Trinity and the Eucharist are based on the "proper" understanding of Scriptures. Defending EITHER dogma depends on reading the Bible a certain way - a way that is taught OUTSIDE of the Bible, whether it be oral preaching, liturgical worship, daily prayer, or the teachings of the Church that followed the Apostles. Now, the question becomes "what is the 'proper' interpretation and where do we find it?" I contend we find that in the Catholic Church. You contend that the "spirit" leads you one way and simultaneously, the "spirit" leads another Christian in the opposite direction.
I just don't see a lot of wiggle room on anything of great importance.
You must have forgotten our discussions on free will and grace...
But in any event, the topic we were discussing was whether the Holy Spirit leads people to read the Bible, and to what level reading the Bible is helpful to the Christian.
You are changing your argument, FK. You are taking up a "new" argument that I will not disagree with. Of course the Spirit leads people to read the Bible and of course the Bible is helpful to Christians. That is not debated here, although now you are trying to make that as your point of discussion. Your previous argument was that the Spirit leads people to understand the Bible and God's Word, with or without the Church's aid - and as people read the Bible, they grow in holiness, which enables them to understand the book that much more. That is what this discussion was about. If the original topic was as you have laid it out, I never would have argued with it!!! How could I?
I do disagree with much of the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, but I don't claim to have any sort of global understanding of every verse. Not even close.
So understanding your own falliblity, what argument are you going to show me that you are more knowledgeable then 2000 years worth of preaching and meditating on the Word of God? Why are you relying on your own human abilities to determine what the Word of God means? And saying that the Spirit leads you to understand the Bible's individual verses is obviously a false argument, because you have admitted that you do not have a global understanding of the Scriptures, and you have also admitted that you have been wrong before. Your being right on verses, again, does not depend on your personal holiness, which returns us to your initial mistaken argument, but on your interpretations as they are in line with the "pillar and foundation of the truth"
By the way, we have already discussed Romans 3. Interpretation of it does not depend on anything to do with Mary, but with common sense and a cursory reading of the Psalms... It is you that is ignoring the Word of God, now The Bible over and over again speaks of righteous people. We must view Romans 3 with that in mind, unless you want to say that the Bible contradicts itself.
Regards
Not really. The Spirit leads different people along different paths toward the same end. On the most core issues we still agree. That must be the work of the Spirit. You contend that ALL of the truth is found among the writings of a precious few men you have chosen to follow. That is fine. I think other men have read the scriptures in a truer light, because their views match the text better, so I give more consideration to those writings. That should also be fine, but it isn't with you because you, i.e. your Church, claim monopoly. I do not for the writers I like, but I do for the scriptures themselves. I think all needed truth can be found in the scriptures, as opposed to in men.
You must have forgotten our discussions on free will and grace...
If I have, then I regret it. I remember that you and the Orthodox have an issue about grace, but since you're not in communion I don't know if we could count that. In any event, my use of "great importance" was probably too squishy, so it could well have been an overstatement.
FK: "But in any event, the topic we were discussing was whether the Holy Spirit leads people to read the Bible, and to what level reading the Bible is helpful to the Christian."
You are changing your argument, FK. You are taking up a "new" argument that I will not disagree with. ...... Your previous argument was that the Spirit leads people to understand the Bible and God's Word, with or without the Church's aid - and as people read the Bible, they grow in holiness, which enables them to understand the book that much more.
Well, all of those things were part of the discussion. When I said "in any event" that was dependent on your response, which I now have. If that wasn't what you meant, etc., OK. I would clarify a point about your framing, though. I said that the Spirit leads "Christians", as opposed to "people", to understand the Bible better. In addition, I think that God's Church may be very helpful in this. I obviously do not believe the help of the RCC is necessary for spiritual development in most cases. However, it is certainly true that the early Fathers had the most important things right.
So understanding your own fallibility, what argument are you going to show me that you are more knowledgeable then 2000 years worth of preaching and meditating on the Word of God?
I don't even claim to have more knowledge than the Fathers. I just look at the scriptures and see that their interpretation, in many cases, doesn't match the text at all.
So, I say to myself that either one of two things is true. Either, (1) the Bible was written in comparative gibberish, only decipherable to a select few, unelected fallible men in the hierarchy, across time, and that God's word was designed purposefully to be unattainable to me personally, but only through what these men told me to believe, effectively splitting my faith between God and these men since I am also dependent on them for my salvation. And, that the millions who have access to scripture but not to men of the Church are as good as lost with a useless document to them. OR, (2) that these very well-meaning men started to get it wrong at some point and drifted away from sole fidelity to God and gave greater weight to other interests, as all fallible humans can fall prey to.
Now, under the first choice, I really cannot have a personal relationship with God because everything has to go through a middle man first, in effect. What I have to believe is that God really truly wanted men with absolute power to rule over me spiritually. When I look at the text of scripture I see that God wanted just the opposite, so number (1) does not look good to me. OTOH, to agree with the second choice, all I have to do is make the bold accusation that all of your hierarchs were and are human beings, all with human failings, all born as sinners. In addition, I have to believe that God is able and willing to handle His Church here on earth without the help of men. Is He powerful enough, will He lead me or can only men do it, etc.?
Well, after reading some scripture, and given the fact that I did not grow up in any church, you can imagine which option sounds more attractive to me. :) I DO want a personal and close relationship with God. Just Him. No angels, no saints, no departed relatives, or anyone else who isn't on earth. I want 100% of my Heavenly love to be focused on just ONE.
And saying that the Spirit leads you to understand the Bible's individual verses is obviously a false argument, because you have admitted that you do not have a global understanding of the Scriptures, and you have also admitted that you have been wrong before.
No, as a fallible human being I am capable of misapprehending the Spirit's teaching. It's even possible that the Spirit wanted it that way FOR A TIME, in order for greater understanding to come later. I grow. Does the RCC grow? Does the RCC right now have every single truth of the Bible down stone cold? Has it always? You see, it's really very close to the same. We both believe the Spirit leads, it's just a matter of whom, how, and why.
It is you that is ignoring the Word of God, now The Bible over and over again speaks of righteous people. We must view Romans 3 with that in mind, unless you want to say that the Bible contradicts itself.
Biblically, it is obvious that "righteous" does not equal "sinless", at least for humans. Much of scripture would have to be re-written for that to be true, and no doubt has been within the Magisterium. There are several verses that reference all of us as sinners, with no exception for Mary or any other human. I have seen a few techniques used to get around situations like this, (i.e. when the Catholic position is cornered against the text), including yours here that the scope of a plain statement is limited by a tortured reference, and I have also seen the old "the speaker was only talking to THOSE GUYS" ploy used in several places. I will say they are very creative, but not very persuasive. :)