The Bible says that the Spirit will lead us individually (John 14:16-17, Rom. 8:9) and He will also lead God's Church corporately (Eph. 2:22). I haven't commented on the latter, as we do not agree on who "God's Church" is.
Reading the OT itself without the mind of the Church will NOT yield that Jesus Christ is the Messiah - it actually denies it in the literal sense: [Deut 21:22-23] ... This is a huge reason why so many Jews didn't convert. They were Sola Scriptura Jews who read only the literal sense of Scriptures, not seeing Christ in the many prophesies.
There were hundreds of signs in the OT that Jesus was the Messiah. Many were literal, some required interpretation. This does not offend Sola Scriptura, for it is not a doctrine of literal-only. It is a doctrine of proper context within the rest of scripture. Many things in the Bible were specifically intended to be interpreted. If the Bible was literal only, then it would contradict itself.
FK: "The Spirit reveals only the truth and men appropriate it to varying degrees. Sanctification improves the correctness of the apprehension of the Spirit's revelations. Christians grow in their faiths and are able to accept higher understandings."
The problem with this "system" is that one never knows the truth...
I don't see it as any less superior to your system, which is to follow men who claim to have all the answers. I suppose you would have more respect for Protestantism if we had elected Luther and Calvin co-Popes and blindly followed everything they ever wrote. :)
It [2 Tim. 3:16-17] doesn't say that. You destroy your own concept of Sola Scriptura!!! It's a far cry from "Scripture is USEFUL" to "Scripture is absolutely EVERYTHING"
It says that scripture makes the man of God thoroughly equipped for EVERY good work. Do you believe there is a level of equipment that is higher than "thoroughly"? Are there other works that Tradition instructs on which are not included in "every"?
Eph 4:11-13 gives us another "thing" that "utterly equips and perfects the Christian", and it isn't the Bible.
Yes it is. This passage says that teaching is good to prepare God's people. Do you suppose it means teaching that is contrary to scripture (as it is today)? I don't either. The teaching should not be of themselves but be in conformity with the scripture. Teaching scripture is good. Jesus did it all the time.
Yes, it does. But He leads us individually in a different manner than He does corporately. Paul doesn't give us the sense that we are to read the Scriptures outside the Church. He constantly appeals to HIS OWN authority on how the Community is to act and worship. Why would this be necessary IF the Spirit led everyone the same way on corporate matters? As to "who" is the Church, I have already said that Protestants are not necessarily outside the Church. Individual Protestants might very well be better Catholics than the ones who go to Mass twice a year...
There were hundreds of signs in the OT that Jesus was the Messiah. Many were literal, some required interpretation.
Can you name some "literal" ones that apply ONLY to Christ that requires no interpretation? I can't think of many off hand. Most of the Scriptures used as "Messiah verses" can be interpreted to Christ - or not, depending on one's openness to the Gospel.
It is a doctrine of proper context within the rest of scripture. Many things in the Bible were specifically intended to be interpreted
And where does this specific paradigm come from? Where does one get the "correct" mind to read the Scriptures? The Jews have the very same OT and have been reading it much longer - yet, they still don't agree with our interpretation. Well, we know that God is the reason, but practically, it is because the Church provides the proper manner of reading the Scriptures - in light of Christ.
I don't see it as any less superior to your system, which is to follow men who claim to have all the answers.
If God can provide an infallible book through infallible men, why exactly cannot God do the same thing through infallible men when gathered under the auspice of the Spirit?
Do you believe there is a level of equipment that is higher than "thoroughly"?
I never said there was something "better" than the Scriptures. I am arguing that 2 Tim 3 does not give the sense of EVERYTHING, denying that anything else can equip man... This is what Sola Scriptura means. It is the ONLY authority. The text never makes that claim.
This passage [Eph 4:11-13] says that teaching is good to prepare God's people. Do you suppose it means teaching that is contrary to scripture
That is not the issue! Why do you continuously pit the Church against the Scriptures? Ephesians 4 certainly doesn't imply that the teachers of the Church teach in contradistinction to the Scriptures! It only says that there is ANOTHER means of providing for the Christian towards perfection...And the Bible is not mentioned - although we KNOW that such teaching is NOT against the Bible. It is based on the Apostolic Teaching, whether oral or written.
teaching that is contrary to scripture (as it is today)?
I suppose if you say it enough, you'll begin to believe it. I have already shown how your own beliefs contradict Scriptures, such as baptism is not necessary for salvation and that man is saved by faith alone and that man cannot lose his salvation in heaven.
The teaching should not be of themselves but be in conformity with the scripture. Teaching scripture is good. Jesus did it all the time.
Teaching utilizes Scriptures. Everything we believe is either explicitly or implicitly found in Scriptures. But Scriptures are not the ONLY rule of faith. Scriptures can be interpreted in numerous ways, as Protestantism has shown. Many smart men who have read the Bible dozens of times cannot agree on some of the verses. Actually, many of the verses. Thus, we believe that the Bible is to be consistently read a particular way as expressed by the Apostolic Tradition, a continuity of 2000 years. This is what makes the Bible living for the Church.
Regards