But how does that work in real life? Two people can read the same passages in the Bible and completely disagree about their meaning. Take for example John chapter 6… Catholics & Lutherans would read those verses and say that Jesus was clearly speaking of his literal body and blood. An Evangelical Christian would read those same verses and say not so… He was speaking symbolically.
Without Church authority or Tradition, who is to say which group is correct? Doesn’t it simply become a matter of opinion?
Baptism is another example… within Christianity there are so many different views of baptism based on scripture. It saves, it’s a work and doesn’t save, infants should be baptized, believing adults should be baptized etc. etc. I could quote scripture to support each of those views… doesn’t it then automatically become a matter of one’s interpretation of the verses?
The Catholic Church is a shining example of the fact that it doesn’t matter if one claims to have an infallible interpreter, that still there exists stark divisions in the Church of Rome. Is the Protestant a separated brother or anathema? Is Vatican II infallible or is it not? Is it absolute necessity for salvation that we are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff or not? Is eating meat on Fridays during Lent a mortal sin or not?
JonNC is right with
Actually, no. SS is the practice of holding scripture as the final norm, as opposed to individual interpretation
.
The fact that people disagree with one another on Biblical interpretation is not a failure of its sufficiency, or otherwise the argument would backfire on Rome and show Rome’s Magisterium to be equally insufficient.
As Dr. James White stated:
“Let’s say James Akin writes the PERFECT textbook on logic. It is completely perspicuous: It is fully illustrated, completely consistent, and it provides answers to all the tough questions in plain, understandable terminology. It covers all the bases. Now, would it follow, then, that every other person who consulted this textbook would agree with every other person who consulted this textbook on matters of logic? Well, of course not…
Now the question I have to ask is this: Is there something wrong with Mr. Akin’s textbook if it does not produce complete unanimity on questions logical? Is the problem in the “textbook” or in the people “using” the textbook?”
The so-called “infallible interpreter” of Rome just adds more debate to the fire than Scripture itself does. It is not the fault of Scripture that others find disagreement with it.
And having a Magisterium has NOT prevented disagreements in the Catholic Church.
Without Church authority or Tradition, who is to say which group is correct? Doesn’t it simply become a matter of opinion?
Or, furthermore, when the Catholic has an argument on doctrine, can they call the Magisterium for a ruling? And will that ruling solves the problem or add fuel to the debate? Once again the point must be noted that a so-called infallible human interpreter has done nothing to alleviate debate amongst Catholics.
The Bible is clear with regards to salvation, or otherwise the apostle John would have been false when he stated “but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20:31) Peter informs us that there are “some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction”, but he does not say even these hard things are unknowable. Where the problem lies is in the assertion by John, “The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.” Those who reside in the darkness cannot see the light.
The Catholic claim about the necessity of an infallible human interpreter means Scripture is only knowable to a select few who claim to know Scripture so well that they can point out who is correct and who is in error. The very nature of Gnosticism!
Based on the debate here:
philvaz.com/apologetics/a60.htm
