Private Interpretation of Scripture

[Timonator348]

To me it seems obvious to me that we need guidance in correctly interpreting Scripture [BIBLEDRB]Acts 8:30-31[/BIBLEDRB] [BIBLEDRB]2 Peter 1:20[/BIBLEDRB]but a Protestant friend keeps arguing with me that true Christians that belong to the universal invisible catholic church interpret Scripture correctly individually as the Spirit is working within them. He usually cites 1 Corinthians 2, 2 Corinthians 3 & Psalms 119 in support of this position as well as claiming the Bible is fully self claiming itself as inspired for the 66 books he holds as Scripture. I haven’t had much luck convincing him otherwise with historical facts about ecumenical councils or Scripture citations. Anyone have any suggestions from a similar situation?

 

[TMC]

To me it seems obvious to me that we need guidance in correctly interpreting Scripture [BIBLEDRB]Acts 8:30-31[/BIBLEDRB] [BIBLEDRB]2 Peter 1:20[/BIBLEDRB]but a Protestant friend keeps arguing with me that true Christians that belong to the universal invisible catholic church interpret Scripture correctly individually as the Spirit is working within them. He usually cites 1 Corinthians 2, 2 Corinthians 3 & Psalms 119 in support of this position as well as claiming the Bible is fully self claiming itself as inspired for the 66 books he holds as Scripture. I haven’t had much luck convincing him otherwise with historical facts about ecumenical councils or Scripture citations. Anyone have any suggestions from a similar situation?

Sure individuals can interpret the bible correctly individually, but how can your friend assert that that always do, or even mostly do, given that they come up with such widely varying interpretations?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

It would seem that individual interpretations of the bible have helped spawn over 34,000 distinct Protestant denominations in 238 countries. Can they all possibly be correct? Obviously not. I do not think Christ had this in mind when he established the Church.

 

[ctkrcia]

Hmmmmm…

Why is there then such disagreement between Christians on proper interpretations of scripture? Why is there over 40,000 different Christian denominations? If the Holy Spirit were guiding everyone, would He really guide us to different conclusions that would pit brother against brother? What lesson is to be learned from that?

 

[Bookcat]

(Not addressing his misunderstanding of the nature of the Church or of the Bible)

A Christian in full communion with the Catholic Church…or Christian not in full communion…yes can understand a passage of scripture correctly…and yes they* can *be guided by the Holy Spirit in doing so…this is true.

However such an individual is not “protected from error” in so doing…and can get things wrong (heck otherwise everyone would agree always on scripture).

and of course the Sacred Scriptures are meant to be read within the Church…

 

[TMC]

(Not addressing his misunderstanding of the nature of the Church or of the Bible)

A Christian in full communion with the Catholic Church…or Christian not in full communion…yes can understand a passage of scripture correctly…and yes they* can *be guided by the Holy Spirit in doing so…this is true.

However such an individual is not “protected from error” in so doing…and can get things wrong (heck otherwise everyone would agree always on scripture).

and of course the Sacred Scriptures are meant to be read within the Church…

Not disagreeing with you, but I would point out that a Protestant would say that they are reading “within the Church” but they have a very different view of what “within the Church” means. So for the purpose of trying to convince Protestants, I would emphasis your first point, that it is possible for individuals to be guided to a correct interpretation, but they can’t always be or they would all agree (and they clearly don’t).

 

[PLeeD]

The Catholic church does not provide explicit and detailed explanations of the correct understanding for the entire bible. My understanding is that there are only a few verses that have been specifically explained.

First, which verses are they, and where are can we find the explanations? A link would be great.

Second, what is a person to do with all the rest of scripture for which the Catholic church does not give a precise explanation for understanding?

 

[TMC]

The Catholic church does not provide explicit and detailed explanations of the correct understanding for the entire bible. My understanding is that there are only a few verses that have been specifically explained.

First, which verses are they, and where are can we find the explanations? A link would be great.

Second, what is a person to do with all the rest of scripture for which the Catholic church does not give a precise explanation for understanding?

I, for one, am not sure that the Church has given a definitive explanation of any particular passage of Scripture. As to what to do with the rest of Scipture? Read it, of course.

The Church’s teaching and Tradition give us guidance on how to interpret Scripture. In other words, the catechism and other teachings of the Church shed light on the Truth in a way that helps Catholics to interpret and frame Scripture. But the Church does not give Catholics the kind of lock-step binding instruction about Scripture that many Protestants think it does. In many ways, the way Catholics look at Scripture is not very different than the way other non-fundamental Christians read Scripture, and is much freer than the way most fundamentalists read Scripture.

 

[beth40n2]

In the back of the Catechism there is a section called “Index of Citations” which lists all the scriptures that are referred to in the Catechism. It also references quotes by Popes and saints. The section on scriptures referrenced in the Catechism is quite extensive.

 

[TMC]

I, for one, am not sure that the Church has given a definitive explanation of any particular passage of Scripture. As to what to do with the rest of Scipture? Read it, of course.

The Church’s teaching and Tradition give us guidance on how to interpret Scripture. In other words, the catechism and other teachings of the Church shed light on the Truth in a way that helps Catholics to interpret and frame Scripture. But the Church does not give Catholics the kind of lock-step binding instruction about Scripture that many Protestants think it does. In many ways, the way Catholics look at Scripture is not very different than the way other non-fundamental Christians read Scripture, and is much freer than the way most fundamentalists read Scripture.

Sorry to reply to myself, but in case that is not very clear, here is an example. The Church teaches that Mary was ever-virgin. So Catholics keep that in mind when interpreting the passages of the Gospels that refer to relatives of Jesus. Obviously, if Catholics follow the Church on this teaching, they will be compelled to interpret those Scriptures in a way that allows for the perpetual virginity of Mary. But the Church does not mandate that Catholics believe that those referred to in some translations as “brethern” of the Lord are Joseph’s children from a previous marriage (although many do) or that they are cousins (which many others believe) or whatever. I mention this particular example as it is the most restrictive interpretation point that comes to my mind. Even here, the teaching of the Church on Mary frames the interpretation of those passages, but does not force a lock-step view of every word. In most other areas, Catholics have far more “room”, but Catholics are asked to intepret Scripture in a way that is consistent with the teachings of the Church.

 

[MarkBrown]

Just as we need direction (teaching) in math, science, reading, morality etc, we need direction (teaching) in scripture. While most readily accept the former, most want to “go it alone” in the latter.

As to interpretations, very seldom does one interpret without guidance. Calvinist interpret scripture through the teachings of Calvin. The fundamentalist missionary sitting in my living room last night, through the teachings of Penscola Baptist Institutes anti catholic leader Peter Ruckman. Catholics through the Church and rely on 2000 years of teaching.

Your friend is missing something very obvious. St Paul wrote to the Church in Corinth teaching them about scripture, how to read it, understand it etc. He writes in chapter 1:10-18 they were keeping to what he taught them in regards to Christ, scripture etc. He takes them to task for seperating into groups. (I guess the missionary was right, protestants have been around for a long time)

I agree it is possible for someone to stumble upon the truth or correct interpretation of scripture, just as it is possible for someone to stumble upon basic math equations solutions. The problem is how much will be in error until that point. St Paul compares this early church/parish/body to babes who are fed milk. The picture is of someone or group being lead to maturity as a parent leads a child. Paul is helping the Corinthians understand scripture and Christ and God. He did not turn them loose and say figure it out. Just like I did not give my 15 year old a book on driving, the keys to the car and show her the road and tell her to figure it out the Holy Spirit will guide you. Her interpretation of traffic laws, codes, signs etc in this process would be “different” from the authorities view. She may argue she knows and I am wrong and maybe even the authority is wrong because the spirit revealed it to her. All she has to go on is her limited understanding, knowledge and experience. If we reject this method of drivers training, why do we or some think this is ok for theology?

Personal interpretation comes down to a simple thing. What Satan said in Gen 3:14. Since then we have wanted or believed we can be like God. If we have a problem with God, having a problem with any authority is a given. We as humans dislike being told what to do. Especially in the States, our history and culture is a rebellious culture to authority. Sometimes a good thing, but not all the time. The first protestants who came here were nonconformists or puritans who thought there way was better. Follow on protestants learned that the hard way. And catholics…ouch.

As a protestant, I have come to understand why so many discount or dislike the Pope. They want his job. As my 12 year old and I discussed recently, we all have a Pope. Either he is in Rome or he sits in our living room.

Fr. Mark

 

[Timonator348]

Thanks for all the great responses! It’s good to hear some people who agree with me. I think Protestants, especially in America have a hard time differentiating between their civil, earthly representative form of government and the Kingdom of Heaven. With Christ being the king of kings we are his subjects and it is not a democracy.

 

[mackbrislawn]

For those who claim that the Holy Spirit guides them to understanding scripture, I ask, then, why do you need scripture? If you rely on something external to scripture, like the Holy Spirit, it is not scripture that you are learning from, but the external thing, the Holy Spirit! Therefore, scripture itself is superfluous, and all that is needed is the Holy Spirit.

 

[stevekehl]

I think there are some misconceptions about Protestants. First of all, we don’t run around willy-nilly throwing out scriptural interpretations like fortune cookies. Second, as Paul instructed, the more mature members of the congregation do mentor younger Christians, teaching through Sunday School and Bible study. Third, starting up your own church is hardly difficult and most legitimate Protestant churches agree on more doctrine than they disagree (I must admit, it does pain me to see so much division among the family) Last, there is a rule used that says scripture must interpret scripture, in other words no verse stands alone. Interpreting scripture must be done in the context of the verses surrounding it, the theme of that section of the book, and must be supported by scripture in other books of the Bible. While Protestants do believe in individual interpretation, it is taken very seriously. As Paul wrote in Phillipians, “work out your salvation with fear and trembling”, but also cross reference and check context.
God Bless

 

[mackbrislawn]

I think there are some misconceptions about Protestants. First of all, we don’t run around willy-nilly throwing out scriptural interpretations like fortune cookies. Second, as Paul instructed, the more mature members of the congregation do mentor younger Christians, teaching through Sunday School and Bible study. Third, starting up your own church is hardly difficult and most legitimate Protestant churches agree on more doctrine than they disagree (I must admit, it does pain me to see so much division among the family) Last, there is a rule used that says scripture must interpret scripture, in other words no verse stands alone. Interpreting scripture must be done in the context of the verses surrounding it, the theme of that section of the book, and must be supported by scripture in other books of the Bible. While Protestants do believe in individual interpretation, it is taken very seriously. As Paul wrote in Phillipians, “work out your salvation with fear and trembling”, but also cross reference and check context.
God Bless

The above is all true of course. The trouble, though, is that very principle of private interpretation does allow for individuals to develop their own intepretations independently of any congregation. Strong willed individuals who do this can convince others of their teachings and they follow him resulting in a new denomination.

Yes, scripture must interpet scripture, and the context of the verses must be considered. Now, to extend this principle a little bit, a Catholic will say that scripture itself must be interpreted in context, and that context is Tradition. Just like a bible verse must be interpeted within the context of the surrounding verses, and similar subjects elsewhere in scripture, the bible itself must be interpreted within the context in which it was formed. If you rip a verse out of context, you will misunderstand it, and likewise, if you rip the bible out of its context, you will misunderstand it. The Bible does not stand alone.

This is what Catholics think Protestants have done, they have ripped the bible out of its context, taken it alone, and hence misunderstand it. “'Scripture interprets scripture.” A broader way to say it would be “God’s word inteprets God’s word.” In this case God’s word includes Tradition as well. So, Tradition interptets scripture, from a Catholic point of view. This Tradition is believed to have come from the apostles and early Christians themselves.

When you interpret scripture, you aren’t doing it just for yourself, but for everybody else too, since the message of scripture is for all. That’s a huge responsibility, and dangerous as well, because Peter says that the ignorant twist scriptures to their own destruction.

 

[dsmantz]

I didn’t read all the responses, but I would like to touch base on something. Yes, there are a lot of Protestant denominations, and the vast majority of them are independent Bible churches that hold to Calvin’s theology. Let’s keep in mind that it’s not an individual interpretation of Scripture that was the main cause of these denominations (I’ve heard it said that not counting your independents, you’re looking more at around 12,000. Still quite a bit, but a lot less than 33,000-40,000) but rather personal theology, belief, and morals that spawns such a denomination.

For example, the issue with Rob Bell and all. It’s not an interpretation of Scripture that caused him to come to his conclusion, but rather a personal theology and belief tied with morals.

Now, as for individual interpretation, I do believe that if a person has made themselves open the Holy Spirit, then they should be pretty much on track with it all. BUT, we should always compare our interpretation with others who we know are held as correct, just because we are sinful man, and well, I don’t trust myself to remember to stop by the grocery store on the way home, much trust myself on complete interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

 

[Salvatore123]

PLeedD, you said:

“The Catholic church does not provide explicit and detailed explanations of the correct understanding for the entire bible. My understanding is that there are only a few verses that have been specifically explained.”

When one compares the number of verses in the entire bible with the number of verses about which the Catholic Church has taught infallibly, then, relatively speaking, that latter number will be “few”.

But it is hardly none, as you imply. All seven sacraments in the Catholic Church have a biblical basis. The prime example is the Eucharistic Discourse found in John 6. Another clear example is the Catholic Church’s teaching on the indisollubility of marriage - something Jesus Christ expressly taught when he discussed how Moses “gave in” to divorce because the Israelites had hardened their hearts and simply would not listen.

stevekehl, you said:

“Last, there is a rule used that says scripture must interpret scripture, in other words no verse stands alone. Interpreting scripture must be done in the context of the verses surrounding it, the theme of that section of the book, and must be supported by scripture in other books of the Bible. While Protestants do believe in individual interpretation, it is taken very seriously.”

Sir, I do not doubt your sincerity in what you say, but I hope you think about what you just said and consider: where, exactly, did you (and other protestants) get this “rule of interpretation”? It does not come from the bible - I assure you I have looked and it is not there. So right away, you are relying on something “extra-biblical” to help you determine how to interpret the bible.

Next, and I am NOT trying to make fun of you - but please think carefully about what I say before reacting: What about someone such as a Jimmy Swaggart who runs around up and down the aisle of his OWN independent church (he left AOG after they suspended him and he didn’t like the suspension) and begins “high stepping” like he is walking on hot coals? What about someone such as Kerney Thomas who screams so loudly that it literally makes your ears hurt if your TV is turned on normal volume and he tells you that he can literally heal you by you and him touching a piece of cloth at the same time? What about someone like Benny Hinn who literally waives his suit jacket at people and the entire front row of his audience performs what I call a “human wave fallout” as though they had been knocked in the head with a shovel?

I know exactly what you are going to say: “You are taking certain protestants and trying to lump all protestants into the same category as them and that is unfair.”

You are correct - I AM taking certain protestants and “lumping” them in the same category, but not in the category you probably think.

I am not saying all protestants behave in such a manner as these individuals. But I AM saying that protestantism LEADS to such individuals because they have no one to guide them and protect them from error. Each of these individuals started as a member of what I would call an “established” protestant church, and then struck out on his own to teach his own gospel.

My wife, who was Southern Baptist when we were married, was the granddaughter of a Baptist preacher. Do you know what his training for his church leadership was? Nothing - he followed in the footsteps of his father. Guess who followed him when he died? His oldest son. Training by the son? None. So while it is good that older members of the congregation try to teach younger members, how do you know the subject being taught is “correct”?

The best, and what I consider the FIRST example of “protestantism” that occurred was when Jesus was teaching about his body and blood truly being food and drink. The first “protestants” (his first group of disciples other than the 12 Apostles) looked and talked to him as if he were crazy, said they could not follow what he was saying, and they left him for good. In other words, they left Christ because they did not like or could not accept what he taught. Now don’t you think that if this large group of disciples had merely misunderstood him, Christ would have immediately told them, “Hold on! Don’t go - you have misunderstood what I was saying! This is what I mean.” But he didn’t - he let them go. And not only that, he turned to the 12 and asked them if they were leaving too. St. Peter gave the most beautiful response in the bible: “To whom shall we go?”

You see, we Catholics do not follow the Magisterium and the Pope for guidance just because we think we are better than anyone else. We do so because we realize that Christ promised us guidance that would not fail, and we realize that without protected guidance, to whom would we go for guidance?

I sincerely hope you took what I just said in the spirit I said it - with charity and humility. It was not to make fun.

 

[Timonator348]

I think another point is the difference between reading the bible on your own and interpreting the bible on your own. Everyone, of course has the right to read the bible on their own, but no where does the bible promise that we can come to a full understanding of his truth by relying on our own interpretation through human wisdom and reasoning. I know Scripture refers to mature Christians having the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16). Bit we also know God’s wisdom is secret and hidden and “So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” (1 Corinthians 2:7;11). I think the point that is being missed is that we can come to understand what God has revealed to us as spiritual persons bit it is still God’s revelation not our opinion of what that revelation may be. The intellect cannot over shadow the spirit moving within our soul but our personal feelings can also not overshadow our intellect. This is why understanding God is not merely a matter of intelligence, God’s plan for our salvation involves the mind body and soul.

Look forward to future responses!

 

[praxising]

For those who claim that the Holy Spirit guides them to understanding scripture, I ask, then, why do you need scripture? If you rely on something external to scripture, like the Holy Spirit, it is not scripture that you are learning from, but the external thing, the Holy Spirit! Therefore, scripture itself is superfluous, and all that is needed is the Holy Spirit.

That’s true, actually. The Spirit can inspire - or communicate to us - in a variety of ways, through an experience, a song, a piece of art, something we overhear in line at the grocery store, or just by interior locution. And if all the copies of Scripture in all the world suddenly disappeared, we would not be left alone, for we are an Apostolic Church. But it seems that God decided we need Scripture, else it would all have been lost long ago as so many writings were.

I believe that’s because all people are different, by God’s Will, and we have been given something we all can share and understand as a basic canon, and also as a way of validating those private moments. Interior locutions that tell you to hurt your neighbor cannot be validated by the teachings of Christ in Scripture, for instance. Common teachings unite us, rather than divide us, because humans like so much to be “right” which means “better” and so one group will say only inspiration in a certain tree are validating while another will say only meditations in a certain desert cave are. But if we have to run all these revelations through the body of tradition and body of text of a Universal Ecclesia, then we all together are more likely to come to true understanding.

As for the question in the OP: I think private interpretation might be mostly for specific situations. Like, you are troubled about some issue and you come across a Scripture quote that holds an answer for you. That can be the Holy Spirit using that moment and those words to send you some Light. But that might not be the same as a Church interpretation of what the Sacred Writer intended to be understood. Both can be true, but also be somewhat different.

 

[Salvatore123]

Praxising made a very important statement:

“I think private interpretation might be mostly for specific situations. Like, you are troubled about some issue and you come across a Scripture quote that holds an answer for you. That can be the Holy Spirit using that moment and those words to send you some Light.”

This is EXACTLY what the Church is referring to (indirectly) when it says that certain bible translations are approved for “private reading/study”, but not for liturgical use.

Setting aside which translations are “better”, I am confident we can all find comforting words in the bible to help us through life’s trials. Job, Proverbs, and the Psalms are three perfect OT examples of scripture that we can resort to for uplifting our spirits in time of need.

At the same time, it took the Magisterium of the Church and learned men, such as the Early Church Fathers, to focus on biblical verses and render a broader meaning to scripture, such as comparing Jonah in the belly of the whale for 3 days to Jesus in the sepulchre for 3 days, or the prophecy of the coming of Christ in Isaiah 7:14 being tied to Matthew’s description of “Christ among us” through the Blessed Mother, or the defeat of Satan by Mary/Jesus as foretold by the passage in Genesis about the heel striking the head of the serpent.

So, in the end, by all means - read and study the bible. But do so with a heart open to the Holy Spirit and keeping one’s (not the OP or praxising or anyone in paticular - I mean everyone) own, ever-present “arrogance” in check so that one does not begin substituting one’s personal interpretation of scripture for that of Holy Mother Church.