How to respond to "you shouldn't interpret scripture"

[FightingFat]

Hi all, my baptist father in law has been trying very hard to convert my wife and I and he raised an objection that I’ve never heard before. He insists that if we don’t believe the book of Genesis is describing a literal six 24hr day creation that we are essentially rejecting God’s divine revelation… my wife’s response was to say that we don’t understand the entire book of Genesis to be literal and that an old universe is compatible with the Bible.

Here’s where things get interesting. My father in law insists that we don’t have the authority to interpret scripture, and that to do so is wrongheaded. The response to that of course is to say that everyone (including my father in law) who derives some sort of meaning or understanding out of the text is in one way or another “interpreting” scripture. Despite pointing this out to him, he refuses to acknowledge that he himself interprets scripture… he usually says something like “I don’t interpret scripture, I just read it as it is written.”

Anyway, I’m not sure what can be said at this point to resolve this road block, I was wondering if any of you have any advice or if you can explain to me where this view comes from. Thanks!

Ask him what he makes of John 6!

 

[kingston1]

Ask him if baptism is necessary for salvation. This is Steve Ray’s argument that if you read John 3:5 it says one must be born of “water and spirit” which literally means baptism is necessary for salvation.

Or ask him what is necessary for one to be saved? If he says “To be saved one must ask Jesus into your heart.” If that’s all that is necessary then how can John 3:5 be true and where in the bible does it say literally “one must ask Jesus into their heart”?

Billy Graham started the “sinner’s prayer” as a method for salvation and it seems from personal experience most evangelicals and Baptist types tend to believe this is sufficient as “faith alone” is sufficient.

Again from Steve Ray the tradition of evangelicals and baptists come from men and not only the bible. They had to draw out these conclusions on how to be saved and they leave out Jesus’ own words that one must be born of “water AND spirit.” Not just the spirit.

I am in the same exact position as you except that my FIL doesn’t ever speak to me about why we are wrong. However, when listening to his spiritual mentors such as John MacArthur, CJ Sproles etc they think the Church is wrong and maybe even hate the RCC.

Most of their followers believe secretly that Catholics are not Christian but won’t come out and say it in the open because they follow the traditions of men, e.g. John MacArthur. As I’m sure you’re aware too, they go to only non Catholic sources to find out why the Catholics are wrong, never willing to read encyclicals, the catechism, etc.

There are a lot of threads on John MacArthur so if you wanted to see what they actually believe (at least some) do a thread search on him.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I believe in Contemplative Prayer that allows the Holy Spirit to speak to us. Without the Holy Spirit, the Bible is just a bunch of mumble jumble! So, no the Bible should not be interpreted.

 

[BenjaminJ]

Considering according to Genesis, God created light one day, and didn’t create the sun, moon, and stars till the following day, its hard to take Genisis’s story of creation literally.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi all, my baptist father in law has been trying very hard to convert my wife and I and he raised an objection that I’ve never heard before. He insists that if we don’t believe the book of Genesis is describing a literal six 24hr day creation that we are essentially rejecting God’s divine revelation… my wife’s response was to say that we don’t understand the entire book of Genesis to be literal and that an old universe is compatible with the Bible.

Here’s where things get interesting. My father in law insists that we don’t have the authority to interpret scripture, and that to do so is wrongheaded. The response to that of course is to say that everyone (including my father in law) who derives some sort of meaning or understanding out of the text is in one way or another “interpreting” scripture. Despite pointing this out to him, he refuses to acknowledge that he himself interprets scripture… he usually says something like “I don’t interpret scripture, I just read it as it is written.”

Anyway, I’m not sure what can be said at this point to resolve this road block, I was wondering if any of you have any advice or if you can explain to me where this view comes from. Thanks!

If he just reads scripture as it is written, then ask him to read this passage:

John 6:48-51
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

If he refuses to accept the Catholic interpretation that the Lord’s Supper is not symbolic, then he is admitting that he does NOT “read it as it is written.”

Or how about this passage take from your FIL’s beloved KJV:

John 9:1-8
Matthew 9King James Version (KJV)

9 And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city.

2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.

4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?

5 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?

6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

7 And he arose, and departed to his house.

8 But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.

Does your FIL read it as it is written? Because it says that God has given the authority to forgive sins not to a man, but “unto men”. Does your FIL admit this supports the Catholic view of confessing our sins to a priest who has the authority to forgive sins in persona Christi?

And finally, what about this important passage:

Matthew 16:18-19
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Jesus is not the rock in this passage; Peter is and Baptist scripture scholars acknowledge this. So, if your FIL will “read it as it is written”, the passage tells us that Peter, the first pope, has been given the authority to bind and loose here on earth. (Other passages support the concept of apostolic succession.)

The plain fact is that your FIL does NOT want to simply “read it as it is written” - he reads scripture with his Baptist lenses firmly in place.