You are right, that really would be conceit. I'm glad no one on my side has EVER said anything like that. :) We have never held that your guys have any less access to the leading of the Holy Spirit than we do. The Holy Spirit leads all believers, including Catholics. But of course, the results are never identical. I hope you would agree that the Holy Spirit has never zapped all knowledge and wisdom of scripture into any one man OR group at any given time since at least the Apostles, if ever. God's will is apparently that different people will apprehend scriptural truth at different rates and at different times accordingly.
FK: "We can honestly disagree on which is correct, but you can't say we are not allowed to have confidence because we don't have a pope."
The difference is that when I read the scripture, I read it with the fathers of the Church. I never read it alone. ...
Yes, that is a big difference, but we have no less confidence because we do not read it through the lens of the fathers. It's just a matter of that we use different earthly authorities. I am comfortable in saying that we each DO have confidence respectively.
Sometimes, I will take a flier too, or a private interpretation. If it's way off base, then someone of the same faith will poke me in the ribs and say "hey, the Bible says that's no good because of this, this, and this." After checking it out, I would be easy to change my view. It's already happened and I'm sure it will happen again. That doesn't shake my confidence.
But what all protestants have in common is the belief in the perspicuous self-explanatory Scripture (truncated to fashion). That belief logically demands that your faiths be identical, since they are driven by the same scripture in a self-evident fashion.
No, that's way oversimplifying. We do not hold that everything in scripture is self-evident upon a first reading. Otherwise, we would not need to study it for the rest of our lives.
A general Protestant belief that core issues are perspicuous is actually revealed in the similarity of (very) core beliefs among most Protestant groups. Of course defining what is a "Protestant group" is something that Apostolics and actual Protestants are 180 degrees apart on. I think I can now almost legitimately say that I've had numbers like 30,000 denominations thrown at me, probably, 30,000 times. It's complete nonsense. We don't have a central government to throw out sects or cults who want to call themselves Protestant, so opponents just throw all of us into the same soup. I suppose we cannot stop those who do that, but it really is intellectually dishonest.
It does not at all follow that a belief in general perspicuousness requires identical faiths from all who hold that view. Under your system one man, or a group of men, declares what the scriptures mean. At any given time that's it, no matter how much that "it" has (arguably) changed over time. We put the Holy Spirit in the place of those men, and say that He has chosen not to work in the same way. The Spirit could have chosen to reveal all things to all believers instantly, but He didn't. Instead, He decided to make it a lifetime pursuit. Glory be to God for His decision. Sure, some non-Apostolic faiths have emerged that are not even Christian, but those are the ones who have abandoned scripture. Those of us Bible-believing Protestants hold on to the scriptures and continue to grow as the Spirit wills.
Our [EOC and RCC] traditions and church organizations may differ, but we agree on the fundamental theology: Scripture as part of Tradition interpreted through the Church, salvation as a result of a lifelong struggle for sanctification, apostolic succession, obedience to bishops, etc.
Well, if that's what you call fundamental theology, then Protestants are more unified than you ever imagined. :) Sola Scriptura. Salvation is a result of grace through faith. No Apostolic succession, etc. On this level, I would guess that 99% of Bible-believing Protestants would now be just as unified as you are with the Orthodox.
In all these examples we look at the verse in context and it says what we say it says. You take it out of context and force it into a preconceived theological framework. We agree with the verse as intended.
I can't seem to remember which one of us I am quoting here. :)
For example, "all have sinned" in one place speaks of the man before the sanctifying grace of Christ and in the other "all" is interspersed with "many" and speaks of the sin of Adam anyway, and not of personal sin, -- in both places the the text allows for an exception, such as Christ Himself, or children, or Mary, or some other exceptionally righteous people.
I see you have come up with a brand new interpretation for Rom. 3:23. Very creative. However, since we still sin after sanctifying grace, what leads you to believe that this is the distinction? The verse just says "all have sinned". 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 ONLY way to cover Mary is to build in something that is not there at all. You just got through telling me that you interpret from context, and yet you have none at all here. The only way you can claim context is to change scripture to make it match Tradition, thus proving once again that Tradition trumps scripture.
"Believe and you will be saved" does not say what the belief should entail in terms of works.
Right, but other scripture DOES cover that. No scripture covers Mary according to Catholic beliefs. Scripture actually opposes those beliefs. Tradition steps in to change what the scripture says.
But, as you know, my contention is that one who reads the Bible through the patristic lense and not through the lense of modernity becomes Catholic or Orthodox. He will easily overcome the Protestant prooftexts.
There's no contention about it, of course that would be the result! :) If you stand over my shoulder and tell me what every verse "really" means, then I obviously wind up with your view. I have been talking about reading it with no lens, and no bias. I maintain that such a reader will wind up MUCH closer to the Reformed view than an Apostolic one. That is logically inevitable, since you do not allow scripture to interpret itself. Instead, scripture means something else, outside of itself (Tradition).
[Break at "To 8556". Continued on next post]
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.