#5 - First thing comes to mind is Galatians which talks about the Law being sufficient only as a tutor until the time that Christ came. In which case, the interpreter would be Christ and the Holy Spirit.

#13 and 14 are straw men. Through normal historical processes, the accuracy of the manuscripts can be obtained better than any other work, yet we read those works without the need for a separate "interpreter" or "tradition" (what is the "tradition of ceasar?)

#16 tends to show why matters of faith should not be decided by a single body, in this case the RCC. They withheld the Bible from the common man. This was aided by the lack of printing press and literacy. However, both of those could have been overcome to increase the circulation (although not to the point of a Bible in every home)

#17 and #21 seem contradictory. It either existed in the 14th century (as is implied by #17) or it was because of Luther (16th Century) or possibly neither. But how can a doctrine exist 100+ years before its source?

#20 shows the bias that this is operating from. A more neutral statement would be that the RCC and the Protestant Bible differ. I could easily write that the RCC has 7 extra
books.

__________________
Nathan Taylor
MDiv Student
SBTS - Louisville, KY
Clifton Baptist Church (SBC)