What I HAVE said is God's spirit was required just as Jesus said he would send to bring knowledge and correct recollection to the minds of the disciples. (John 14:26).
Some sort of internal attitude check is not the sense of diakriseis since Paul was pointing to miraculous gifts of tongues, prophecy, knowledge, wisdom.
At Hebrews 5:14 Paul uses the term diakriseis in the sense of discriminating one from the other, right and wrong teachings.
It was that ability to “discern spirits” that allowed Peter to detect Ananias’ lie and that of his wife. (Acts 5:1-10).
No private interpretation involved, it was God's spirit acting upon these persons.
Paradoxically, the very text which is used to condemn private interpretation has not been infallibly defined, and is erroneously invoked as condemning the use of fallible human understanding in interpreting Scripture.
The approved notes to the official Roman Catholic Bible states on 2Pt. 1:20,21 ("For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." ) , often cited “against private interpretation, these verses in context are directed against the false teachers of 2 Pt 2 and clever tales (2 Pt 1:16). The prophetic word in scripture comes admittedly through human beings (2 Pt 1:21), but moved by the holy Spirit, not from their own interpretation, and is a matter of what the author and Spirit intended, not the personal interpretation of false teachers.”
Which is close, except that the full meaning is what the Divine author intended, while the human ones who penned it may have intended it in a more limited sense, and wonder at its meaning.
2Pt. 1:20 is referring to the manner by which prophecy is given, in contrast to “cunningly devised fables,” (2Pt. 1:16) as prophecy was not a product of the imagination of men, but of holy men of God speaking as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2Pt. 1:21) Therefore they were "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. " (1 Peter 1:11)
While prophecy was a mystery to men who wrote it, at least insofar as its prophetic meaning (many were written to describe present circumstances, but were prophetic in their fuller future application), other writing was not necessarily a mystery to men who wrote it, but they too wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, for all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. (2Tim. 3:16)
And searching therein we also see that it does not condemn "private interpretation," in the sense of making judgments and discerning truth based upon evidence, use of reason, and examination of the Scriptures, as this is appealed to and affirmed in Scripture, even if it conflicts with those who sit in authority, as that is how the Lord Jesus gained followers and the church began.
RCs cannot deny this, as they appeal to fallible human reasoning in seeking to persuade souls to assent to Rome as to Christ*. But once they have then their premise is that such use of reason in order to discover religious truth is no longer necessary, as an infallible Church gives him the Word of God and interprets it in the true and only sense. That is, "having once found the true Church, private judgment of this kind ceases; having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all." “He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means")
Thus, even though the claims of Christ and the apostles were established upon Scripture (the law, the prophets, and wisdom books, which were established as being Divine without an assuredly infallible magisterium) in text and in power, it being the supreme transcendent standard for Truth, and even though the Catholic will condescend to appealing to Scripture as if it were the supreme authority, his goal is to bring one to submit to the church of Rome as the supreme, assuredly infallible authority, which she has infallibly defined herself to be. And assurance of the veracity of her pronouncements is not dependent upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation.
However, while many Roman Catholics seem to broadly condemn any interpretation of Scripture apart from what Rome provides, relative little of Scripture has been infallibly defined by her, and approved commentaries can vary in their interpretation of texts, and within the parameters of Catholic teaching the Catholic has extensive liberty to interpret Scriptures in seeking to support their church (which itself involves some interpretation), even though these interpretations may contradict each other.
Therefore it is not any interpretation that the Roman Catholic is (supposed to be) condemning as “private interpretation,” but any interpretation that contradicts Roman Catholic teaching, even if the teaching or the text has not been infallibly defined (though determining this status involves interpretation), and regardless of whether the text at issue is used to support that teaching or not.
And again, this is based upon Rome infallibly defining herself as the supreme assuredly infallible authority on earth (while other Catholic churches contradict her), though Scripturally, this was not necessary for the providence and preservation of Truth and the supernatural establishment of writings as Scripture by the time of Christ, and it was against such overly presumptuous authority that the church began in dissent from, but which upheld a magisterium that looked to the Scriptures as the supreme material standard for obedience and testing truth claims, which they are abundantly evidenced to be.
And by which we see the teaching authority of the church is established, but not with assured formulaic infallibility, but as dependent upon Scriptural warrant, and in which truth claims are established upon conformity with it in text and in power, and enabling correction (by those whom God raise up) of those who presume more than what is written, for thus the church was established and by is preserved as the body of Christ.
Supplementary post here.
*What is infallibly proclaimed through solemn definitions or its ordinary and universal teaching requires “full assent of faith” (you must fully believe it with divine or ecclesiastical faith), while much of what Roman Catholics believe and practice is non-infallible (allowing for the possibility of error, if not critically salvific), and requires religious submission of the mind and will (you are to submit to it, and while some private questioning may be possible, it is to be done with a mind submissive to correction in loyalty to Rome, as explained in Donum Veritatis.)
CYC to metmom:
“It is noteworthy that one of the gifts of the spirit Paul listed was the ability of some individuals in the congregations to distinguish between true and false writings. (1 Cor, 12:10)”
~ ~ ~
The arguing will go on forever until God personally sets
everyone straight. That’s why no one will speak or reply
to the prophecy about Revelation 6:12-17. I must of
posted it three times.
“I will not hear”, “I will not see”...the silence is painful.
Thanks for your reply on what you truly meant by the above.
All I was concerned with from the start was your one quote. I truly thought you were defending private judgment.
Protestants usually give another reason to defend private judgment (PIOS).
God did not give each person the gift to interpret Scripture, you would see thousands of personal opinions. It would result in division. Terrible, terrible fruit.