Again, I apologize for mind-reading.
If there is no private interpretation, then there must be public interpretation, no? And how better to do that than by the learned having discussions in public and coming to a conclusion, which conclusion is protected by the Holy Spirit? Is that not how the early Church worked? Is that not what was described in Acts?
I am clear on the fact that Luther’s original actions were in accord with this long-standing way of doing things. Where Luther went wrong was to refuse to give up his ideas when presented with Church teachings, which contradicted his own, and then refuse to discuss his ideas further with academics of the Church.
Thus, Lutheranism itself was based on private interpretation. In order to promote his idea of Sola Fide, he changed the Bible when he translated it.
And the further changes in Protestant theological thought were also based on private interpretation.
Where did you get the idea about "there is no private interpretation"? Perhaps when Peter was talking about the origin and authority of Scripture? Here's what he said, see if you can guess what was meant by "no prophecy of Scripture comes from the prophet's own interpretation":
He wasn't talking about people reading the word and understanding its meaning. Rather, he said what the prophets spoke didn't come from their own words or their own interpretation of what the Holy Spirit revealed to them but they spoke as the Holy Spirit moved/carried them along. We have the more sure word of prophecy. The Scriptures we have IS the very word of God, not the musings of mere men. So, naturally the Holy Spirit has gifted to the body of Christ those who are empowered by Him to teach, to lead, to disciple others and to evangelize. But NONE of these people have authority OVER God's word. It says what it says. It's not written in some foreign code but the Holy Spirit enables believers to know the truth Scripture is putting forth. He will teach us ALL things, Jesus said. The early church defended the rule of faith BY the Scriptures and the teachings handed down to them by the Apostles (they were the same).
I am clear on the fact that Luther’s original actions were in accord with this long-standing way of doing things. Where Luther went wrong was to refuse to give up his ideas when presented with Church teachings, which contradicted his own, and then refuse to discuss his ideas further with academics of the Church.
Luther's actions were based on his fidelity to the Scriptures and the abuses he saw first hand within the Roman Catholic hierarchy up to and including the Pope. He wasn't wrong especially at the early stage when he questioned the use of indulgences and the rampant simony around it. As a side, the Pope DID stop the buying and selling of indulgences - so he acknowledged the church was wrong. Luther defended his beliefs by appealing to Scripture as well as the Early Church fathers against the novel doctrines that had been brought in over the centuries that were not taught by the Apostles and could not be defended by the rule of faith of Scripture OR tradition. Tradition became whatever Rome said it was.
You apparently don't know that Luther went back and forth with the "academics" of the Catholic church and there are hundreds of letters and papers attesting to that which are even available online and translated into English.
Thus, Lutheranism itself was based on private interpretation. In order to promote his idea of Sola Fide, he changed the Bible when he translated it.
Your initial premise was wrong so your conclusion fares no better. Luther's GERMAN translation, specifically the passage in Romans 3:28 that you presume he wrongly changed, has also been shown to be a bogus claim (this thread even gives a link that speaks to this). That use of the term "faith alone" was used by earlier translations including Catholic ones and was defended by numerous Catholic "academics". Here's the link if you don't want to go through this thread to find it: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html.
And the further changes in Protestant theological thought were also based on private interpretation.
Again, false premise, false conclusion. Besides, Catholicism has changed and added theological thought based on nothing more than "we say it's true, so it's true", they don't even pretend to go to Scripture to defend it.
Hopefully, this helps you understand a little more why non-Cath Freepers participate on these threads.
WHERE can I read about this?
It appears I this thoughtful post of yours that you are trying to make a case that private interpretations exist. On this we agree.
Perhaps I caused this confusion when I posted, “ not once. Not ever.”
What I meant was that God nowhere in Scripture ever prohibits a believer from interpreting Scripture when he or she reads it. This has been promolgated by those who do not read/understand the context of what is said in one passage. Unfortunately, the Roman wing of Christianity has used this sad lie to discourage and prevent people from feeding on the Word of God as they are commanded to do.
Best