Quote:
Originally Posted by sotzo  Here is the short answer...you cannot escape the job of interpretation. Whether you take Scripture as final authority or Rome, one still must interpret what the source is saying. For instance, one cannot simply read the proceedings of a papal encyclical and be of one mind with the Pope simply because he/she read it. A person still must interpret what the Pope said and sort through how it applies to their life. This is why there are canon lawyers in the RC church. Canon lawyers go about interpreting and applying what the Pope is said to infallibly decree.
By inserting the Pope, one does not get a ticket out of their subjective self, like plugging into some sort of Matrix that communicates truth via osmosis. Ask your friend whether he has gone without having to interpret his Bible now that the Pope has assured him its infallbile. You see, he is no further along than where he was.
Yes there could possibly be a million interpretations of the Bible, everyone suiting it to his own whim. This is precisely what the super-apostles did with revelation in the early Church. The response then is the same as it should be now...to hold fast to the confession that was laid down once for all on the Apostolic foundation. It is not "me interpreting my Bible alone" (solo Scriptura)...it is "me interpreting my Bible within the context of a relationship with the Church" (sola Scriptura).
Does this mean there will never be differences among people doing interpretation within the context of such a relationship with the Church? Of course not. Acts 15 shows that such differences are nothing new. However, inserting Rome as an answer to this reality is like trying to illuminate the sun with a flashlight. |
That has been exactly my approach...and it seems like I've gotten nowhere with it...although, I don't believe he's really grappled with it...here's his response to such an argument (and notice, he certainly misunderstands sola scriptura):
"The Church does not say that the faithful are not to read the Scriptures and to pray for the Spirit's light in understanding them. Quite the contrary. In fact, the Douay-Rheims that I read from begins with three enclyclicals dealing with that very issue and it strongly encourages private study and devotion. So the difference is not so much over private reading but over a final court of appeals over matters of dispute among private readers.
It should be granted that the "me, the Holy Ghost, and my Bible" approach that is held by the majority of Protestants has led to theological, moral, and ecclesiological pluralism. This is beyond dispute, really. The reason for this is that, for the Protestant, there is no person or thing that can declare which "me" has properly interpreted the "Bible" with the supposed assistance of the Holy Ghost. Each holds what he believes to be true, each has his verses, each has his answers, each says he prayed for the Holy Ghost's lights, and each insists that their belief is "Bible based."
This is highly problematic and the Protestant, in his heart of hearts, knows this. Now everyone is right, this is obvious. But how are we to know who is right? The Protestant insists that we must see which one is most in tune with the Scriptures. The problem is that each one has already made their mind up and each of them believes with all of their being that they are right, that their view is Biblical, and that the Holy Ghost helped them. Here is the vicious circle.
What we insist upon is a final court of appeals that lays to rest disputes on matters of faith and morals. The Protestant will insist that we need an interpretation of the interpretation. But this is not so. This is not how it works in any other field. Let us take a court as an example. Two people come to court with two differing views of an account. They lay forth their case. In the end, a judge gives a verdict. That verdict is binding. It hold authoritative weight because of the office held by the one giving the verdict.
Once the case is done and over with, who would insist that we need an interpreter of the verdict? The verdict laid to rest the dispute. One account was tossed to the side, another was upheld. As with the Ethiopian eunuch, he was given an interpretation of something that was mysterious and difficult to understand, yet he never said to Philip, "Yeah, that is the interpretation, but how do I interpret your interpretation?" Once something was interpreted, it was laid to rest.
When all is said and done, the Church does not deny the right of the people to read the Scriptures, to search their depths, or to apply them to their lives. Instead, the Church gives its rulings in those instances and on those matters that are under dispute. The rulings give a framework that the faithful can work from when attempting to understand other portions of the Scriptures. Nothing more, nothing less. We have a framework which has a place for he who hold the keys, those who diligently study to show themselves approved, as well as the need for someone to interpret. Sounds awfully Biblical to me.
btw- Watch out, presuppositionalism is a road to Rome. Trust me"