Of course the church has the Holy Spirit, by virtue of the fact that the Holy Spirit indwells Christ's flock and Christ's flock makes up His church on earth. "And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Yet you deny that the Church can interpret anything.
I deny many of the things the EO and RCC interpret. And that's not difficult. It's fairly simply, really, because I compare God's word to what the EO and RCC teach and I realize these two man-made institutions err when compared to Scripture.
Christ was speaking to His disciples specifically and not to everyone. It's a plain as it gets.
As Christ says in John 17:20, He includes all those who believe on His name. Why the EO and RCC feel compelled to exclude believers from Christ's prayer of inclusion, and instead invest some man-made magisterium with God's grace is unfathomable and anti-Scriptural.
But they don't have to go to church to praise God.
They go to church to praise God because Christ told us to gather with like-minded believers and sustain each other through His word.
And Protestants do not nullify the position of a pastor as one who leads Christ's congregation in worship. They simply do not invest their pastors with the blasphemous title of "another Christ," and most EOs would heartily agree with Protestants on this one. You, OTOH, seem to side with Rome more often than even your own church instructs.
I hear fallible preachers talking about the word of God over the radio every day interpreting it as they see fit.
Yep. So do I. And yet that has nothing to do with the fact that God does give the Holy Spirit to whom He will in order to guide that person's understanding of Scripture wherein he may learn of his salvation by Christ alone, if God so wills.
Therefore, illuminated by His power, we believe neither by our own nor by anyone else's judgment that Scripture is from God; but above human judgment we affirm with utter certainty (just as if we were gazing upon the majesty of God Himself) that is has flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men." -- John Calvin, "Institutes of the Christian Religion," Book I, Chapter 7."Let this point therefore stand: that those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; hence, it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit. For even if it wins reverence for itself by its own majesty, it seriously affects us only when it is sealed upon our hearts through the Spirit.
That is why God gave us the Bible, to check to see if what they say lines up with it (Acts.17:11,1Jn.4:1)
That is why God gave us the Bible, to check to see if what they say lines up with it (Acts.17:11)
Based on what? Your own interpretation? Is that not also an interpretation of (wo)men? What give you the authority to do that? It's not the Bible, for sure.
I compare God's word to what the EO and RCC teach and I realize these two man-made institutions err when compared to Scripture.
You mean you interpret what you read to what the EO and RCC teach? You are also wrapping yourself into a self-contradiction by that. For, it was this "Institution" that had to correctly interpret and spiritually recognize the word of God in order to set it aside for the canon!
The other problem is that your side is using the "canon" of one man, Martin Luther, who rejected the canon of the whole Church. Protestantism defines a man-made institution through which any man's whim can be justified through personal interpretation of the Bible, slavery being one of them.
As Christ says in John 17:20, He includes all those who believe on His name
Yes, through the word of the sent, through apostolic teaching. Read verses 13-21.
Why the EO and RCC feel compelled to exclude believers from Christ's prayer of inclusion, and instead invest some man-made magisterium with God's grace is unfathomable and anti-Scriptural
They don't. That is your erroneous impression, which is extra-scriptural. It was Christ Himself who commissioned individuals to teach so that others may believe in Him, through their word. He was speaking about His disciples. And His disciples passe don the office commissioned to them by the Lord to those of their choosing, in succession to this day.
They go to church to praise God because Christ told us to gather with like-minded believers and sustain each other through His word.
Really? Did He also say it was to be on a Sunday?
And Protestants do not nullify the position of a pastor as one who leads Christ's congregation in worship.
Why not? Where does it say that the congregation is to be led by a pastor? Where does it say that one cannot stop his daily activities and, like the tax collector in a synagogue, with his eyes down, simply say "Lord forgive me, a sinner?"
They simply do not invest their pastors with the blasphemous title of "another Christ," and most EOs would heartily agree with Protestants on this one. You, OTOH, seem to side with Rome more often than even your own church instructs.
Alter Christus is an unfortunate construct, and to some extent it reflects the deep divide between our (Orthodox) and Latin mindsets. We do not see a priest as "another Christ," but as an icon, a representation of Christ. Just as the NT says a bishop should be beyond reproach and the same for a deacon, a priest should be as Christ-like as humanly possible.