Protestantism just makes no sense to me.

[joe370]

But even this scriptural perspective lacks certainty, Joe. Even if one views the giving of the keys to Peter the man, there is also scriptural credence to the position that the keys, given to Peter, are therefore given to the Church. That’s the authority a Lutheran pastor refers to when announcing absolution - “as a called and ordained servant of Christ, and by His authority…”.
I don’t think even Lutherans deny the pivotal role Peter plays. We just don’t see that role as universally jurisdictional (is that a phrase? ) in the way Catholicism does.

Jon

Is this admitted by anyone in the church, from the 1st century leading to the east-west schism? Perhaps I overlooked it.

 

[joe370]

But even this scriptural perspective lacks certainty, Joe. Even if one views the giving of the keys to Peter the man, there is also scriptural credence to the position that the keys, given to Peter, are therefore given to the Church. That’s the authority a Lutheran pastor refers to when announcing absolution - “as a called and ordained servant of Christ, and by His authority…”.
I don’t think even Lutherans deny the pivotal role Peter plays. We just don’t see that role as universally jurisdictional (is that a phrase? ) in the way Catholicism does.

Jon

The Lutheran view, (at least that Pastor) is that Jesus gave the keys to all 12 of the apostles, and they proceeded to give those metaphorical keys to their successors, ergo the eastern orthodox churches, oriental churches and and the catholic church, all have a rightful claim to universal jurisdiction? Did I get that right? I considered that as a possibility long ago…

 

[JonNC]

The Lutheran view, (at least that Pastor) is that Jesus gave the keys to all 12 of the apostles, and they proceeded to give those metaphorical keys to their successors, ergo the eastern orthodox churches, oriental churches and and the catholic church, all have a rightful claim to universal jurisdiction? Did I get that right? I considered that as a possibility long ago…

I don’t see universal jurisdiction for any singular see. that seems to have rested with councils.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Is this admitted by anyone in the church, from the 1st century leading to the east-west schism? Perhaps I overlooked it.

I’ve read what Orthodox members here say. I think I’ve read them right, but maybe Mickey or Michael could better elaborate.

Jon

 

[ApologiaSophia]

I’ve tried to wrap my head around it, but nothing about them makes sense. Forgive my bluntness, but to me the whole idea of protestantism just seems to stem completely from ignorance. Indeed, it is quite sad how many Protestants are so incrediblty ignorant of Catholicism, and see it as this weird “other” branch of Christianity. Some don’t even consider it Christianity, which is perhaps the most depressing part of it all.

I mean, most protestants go by Sola Scriptura. This means they trust the Bible, but they act as though the Bible just appeared out of thin air. It wasn’t, it was written and assembled by the early Church. Then, any Christian with a lick of common sense then must conclude that the Holy Spirit guided the early Church while they wrote and assembled the Bible. Even the most stubborn protestants must accept that the Catholic church was God’s true church. So, do protestants just think God abandonned the Catholic Church halfway through or something? I find this to be the biggest whole in Protestant logic. The Bible had to come from somewhere, and if it came from the Catholic church, then that must mean the Catholic church has authority from God.

There’s also the accusation of the supposed manmade traditions of the Church. If anything, Protestantism seems far more guilty of that than Catholicism. Protestantism picks and chooses what to do and what not to do. They decide that confession is wrong, because sin should be private, they decide the Eucharist is symbolic, the multitude of different doctrines based on different readings of scripture, etc. and unlike Catholics, they do not even claim the Holy Spirit is guiding them. For one thing, it’s not even possible for all these different interpretations to be true. If God is a real, true entity that we are to follow and obey (and not some ambiguous thing that people have mixed feelings about and can take or leave), then one would think that He would have only one ground set of rules. The Catholic Church is the only branch that claims to have that. From what I can tell, most branches of Protestantism seem to leave most major decisions up to individual interpretation. I’m sorry, but this just doesn’t seem the way an Almighty God would have us do things at all.

Christ talked about unification and the like. The Catholic church seems to be the only Christian Church that even has unity. If a Baptist or a Methodist or Lutheran stood up and made a bold and perhaps heretical statement, not many people care. He can be easily ignored for being a fanatic, even by other Baptists, Methodists, or Lutherans. However, if a Catholic preist or bishop says anything, people listen. Because he is part of an organization, and he has people to answer to. He represents the church anytime he speaks out in public. Because Catholic have unity. Protestants seem to be all over the place.

I just don’t see how so many people can be Protestant. Of course I love them and acknowledge them as Christians, and will continue to pray for them, But their logic just makes zero sense to me.

Call me lazy, but I did not feel like reading every single post. If any of what I say is a repeat, forgive me.

To understand Protestants, one has to look at history (just like protestants would need to look at history to understand Catholics). Protestantism begins in the Reformation. Martin Luther, who is hailed the father of the reformation, was actually a Roman Catholic monk/priest and New Testament scholar in Germany. What was Luther’s beef? Corruption in the RC. The selling of indulgences for examples. He argued that the Catholic use of relics were rooted more in superstition than faith, and argued (with good cause) that many of the relics that were claimed to be this or that were actually frauds. In short, the RC was selling hope to raise money for their own purposes during Luther’s time (I won’t go into anymore detail, but I encourage you to research this more in depth. I recommend Luther’s Ninety-Five Thesis.). Luther’s original intent was never to leave the Catholic church, but to reform it. Of course things got sticky and Luther and his supporters broke away/were excommunicated. Lutheranism was born. There were other men of other countries and other times who followed Luther’s lead, though in their own way. John Calvin believed that Church tradition was muddled and that many traditions that arose within the Church were unbiblical, superstitious, and corrupt The reason Calvin instituted Sola Scriptura is because many people were being misled and ripped off because they believed the teachings and traditions of the RC, at least at that time. Sola Scriptura is used as a defense to prevent the clergy or anyone else from preying on the piety of the laity. As history continues factions formed among protestants as they disagreed. (Again this is crash course reformation, i urge you to study it more in depth).

The Protestant today usually does of this inherited bias against Catholicism and the Papacy. Bias breeds hate and misconception. Because they knowingly or unknowingly inherited the belief of Sola Scriptura they are naturally inclined to despise Catholicism which is heavily influenced by Church history and apostolic tradition. However, since such things aren’t in the Bible Protestants see them as either superfluous or heretical depending on the issue. Veneration is a huge stumbling block, because in the eyes of a Protestant there is not practical difference between veneration and worship. In there eyes Catholicism is idolatrous. They also reject papal infallibility and authority, but this can also is traced back to the attitude of the Reformers towards the papacy given the times in which they lived. Today, unless the protestant is reformed or (relatively) well informed in history, many Protestants today have little to knowledge of the Reformation. Many Protestants don’t even know that Protestantism broke off from the RC.

In any case, regardless of ones beliefs about Protestantism or Catholicism, I do not think it would be too bold a statement to say if the RC had kept the first thing first the whole Reformation could have possibly been avoided. Even so, I the Reformation was for the ultimate good. Had it not, my own personal theological beliefs could be drastically different from what they are now. I think it also Promoted Biblical study among Protestant and Catholic laity alike.

In any case, if you want to understand Protestantism, you must look into the Reformation.

 

[joe370]

I don’t see universal jurisdiction for any singular see. that seems to have rested with councils.

Jon

Wouldn’t that suggest that universal jurisdiction (the ability to authoritatively arbitrate on behalf of the one universal church, when necessary, especially when heresies arise) ceases to exist? If that is the case then protestantism would start to make a little more sense. I just can’t imagine Jesus allowing that to happen though. Of course you and I have been down this road before and it always ends with the proverbial impasse.

 

[JonNC]

Wouldn’t that suggest that universal jurisdiction (the ability to authoritatively arbitrate on behalf of the one universal church, when necessary, especially when heresies arise) ceases to exist?

Not necessarily. It certainly makes it difficult to discern where it is. Additionally, we do have the 7 early councils as a foundation, and we can look to scripture for guidance.
And anyway, the issue could be solved.

Jon

 

[joe370]

East - west unity…impasse…LOL…

 

[ApologiaSophia]

To anyone who is not a Catholic, let me ask you:

By what means are you certain that your understanding of Scripture is correct and not someone else’s understanding that contradicts yours? Do you claim it’s because your interpretation of such and such verse makes sense in light of other passages of Scripture? What then about someone else’s contradicting interpretation of that same passage that uses even other verses to prove their point? And don’t you have any concern that perhaps, not having the ability to memorize the entirety of Scripture at any given point in time, you may have omitted one or another verse which sheds even more light on your interpretation of the passage in question? Don’t you think this is a very shaky method of interpreting Scripture?

While some Protestants (usually some kind of non-denominational evangelical sort off shoot) do make personalized attempts at interpreting Scripture, I think you misconceive how Protestants look at Scripture. The founding Reformers themselves were heavily influenced by Early Church writings, particularly Augustine. Any Reformed or well-educated Protestant will tell you that proper interpretation of Scripture comes from thorough exegesis. Exegesis is the key. What does Scripture say? What is intended by the author? Eisegesis is as avoided as possible. Its not about what someone says about Scripture, but what are the Scriptures themselves saying? That being said, you will find Protestant to engage other thinkers, modern and ancient, on Scriptural interpretation. How else could there be Protestant Biblical Scholars unless this were so? The Reformation was also heavily influenced by the enlightenment. They put an emphasis on reason. They do not think someone should accept an interpretation of Scripture just because someone else says so, even if that person be ordained. Even the Apostle Paul commended the Bereans (Acts 17:11, I Corinthians 4:6-7). Personally I believe in the importance of Church tradition and history… that being said Tradition should be judged by Biblical exegesis. Tradition can be useful in bringing insight to Scripture but should not contradict Scripture or make Scripture say what it does not intend to say.

That being said, I would like to point out that if you study the Early Church fathers… they disagreed on Scriptural interpretation. Their theology was not uniformly the same.

As far as shakey interpretations of Scripture, no examination of Scripture is more shakey than the absence of examination. “The Church teaches…” is not an examination of Scripture. Tradition can be very helpful in understand and interpreting the Scriptures, but it depends on how it is used. If one is not willing to be critical of tradition, at least to some extent then tradition, instead of binding Scripture together, can bind the reader from understanding what the Scripture actually means. One can still be Catholic and question the teachings of the Pope. It is not blasphemy, Paul rebuked Peter in the book of Acts.

In short, I agree that Scripture should not be up to private opinion. You’re mistaken if you think that is how all Protestants do Biblical scholarship.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Kbwall,

I have had similar throughts - and, I, too, find the entire situation very sad.

And, while there is a concern about how little actual knowledge that most Protestants have about the Catholic Faith - most have simply been ‘brain-washed’ with anti-Catholic teachings and organized hatred. History is distorted and presented in such a way that anyone believing what was said, would surely have a aversion for the real Church of Christ.

In my opinion, our real work is to live out our Faith in such away as to show these Protestants that the love of Christ abides in us. Pointing out their lack of logic and willingness to submit to contradictions and chaos - while accurate - may not put is in the appropriate frame of mind to see them as sincere (but misguided) brothers in Christ.

God bless

I’ve tried to wrap my head around it, but nothing about them makes sense. Forgive my bluntness, but to me the whole idea of protestantism just seems to stem completely from ignorance. Indeed, it is quite sad how many Protestants are so incrediblty ignorant of Catholicism, and see it as this weird “other” branch of Christianity. Some don’t even consider it Christianity, which is perhaps the most depressing part of it all.

I mean, most protestants go by Sola Scriptura. This means they trust the Bible, but they act as though the Bible just appeared out of thin air. It wasn’t, it was written and assembled by the early Church. Then, any Christian with a lick of common sense then must conclude that the Holy Spirit guided the early Church while they wrote and assembled the Bible. Even the most stubborn protestants must accept that the Catholic church was God’s true church. So, do protestants just think God abandonned the Catholic Church halfway through or something? I find this to be the biggest whole in Protestant logic. The Bible had to come from somewhere, and if it came from the Catholic church, then that must mean the Catholic church has authority from God.

There’s also the accusation of the supposed manmade traditions of the Church. If anything, Protestantism seems far more guilty of that than Catholicism. Protestantism picks and chooses what to do and what not to do. They decide that confession is wrong, because sin should be private, they decide the Eucharist is symbolic, the multitude of different doctrines based on different readings of scripture, etc. and unlike Catholics, they do not even claim the Holy Spirit is guiding them. For one thing, it’s not even possible for all these different interpretations to be true. If God is a real, true entity that we are to follow and obey (and not some ambiguous thing that people have mixed feelings about and can take or leave), then one would think that He would have only one ground set of rules. The Catholic Church is the only branch that claims to have that. From what I can tell, most branches of Protestantism seem to leave most major decisions up to individual interpretation. I’m sorry, but this just doesn’t seem the way an Almighty God would have us do things at all.

Christ talked about unification and the like. The Catholic church seems to be the only Christian Church that even has unity. If a Baptist or a Methodist or Lutheran stood up and made a bold and perhaps heretical statement, not many people care. He can be easily ignored for being a fanatic, even by other Baptists, Methodists, or Lutherans. However, if a Catholic preist or bishop says anything, people listen. Because he is part of an organization, and he has people to answer to. He represents the church anytime he speaks out in public. Because Catholic have unity. Protestants seem to be all over the place.

I just don’t see how so many people can be Protestant. Of course I love them and acknowledge them as Christians, and will continue to pray for them, But their logic just makes zero sense to me.

 

[joe370]

ApologiaSophia;9634512]Call me lazy, but I did not feel like reading every single post. If any of what I say is a repeat, forgive me.

To understand Protestants, one has to look at history (just like protestants would need to look at history to understand Catholics). Protestantism begins in the Reformation. Martin Luther, who is hailed the father of the reformation, was actually a Roman Catholic monk/priest and New Testament scholar in Germany. What was Luther’s beef? Corruption in the RC. The selling of indulgences for examples. He argued that the Catholic use of relics were rooted more in superstition than faith, and argued (with good cause) that many of the relics that were claimed to be this or that were actually frauds. In short, the RC was selling hope to raise money for their own purposes during Luther’s time…

It seems reasonable to conclude that trust in Jesus’ guidance, regarding His Church, in the face of corruption, and the faith that He Himself will forever protect His church from doctrinal heresy along with quashing corruption e.g. selling of indulgences, would be the overall best policy to employ. Your thoughts?

In any case, regardless of ones beliefs about Protestantism or Catholicism, I do not think it would be too bold a statement to say if the RC had kept the first thing first the whole Reformation could have possibly been avoided. Even so, I the Reformation was for the ultimate good. Had it not, my own personal theological beliefs could be drastically different from what they are now. I think it also Promoted Biblical study among Protestant and Catholic laity alike.

Was the reformation really a good thing? Is it safe to say that the Eucharistic doctrine is one of the most important teachings, (if not the source and summit) of Jesus? Scripture seems to agree with that idea. Sadly because of the 16th century reformation (people, through no fault of there own, that had nothing to do with the 16th century reformation) are now deprived of Jesus’ Body and Blood (real food…real drink…). I am not talking about people like Jon NC, who truly believe, sacramentally, that the bread becomes our Lord’s Body. I am talking about people, like my sister, who view the Eucharist as nothing more than a mere symbol, which was believed by no one, not even Martin Luther.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

In all fairness, consider birth control and masturbation. Two hundred years ago every Protestant denomination agreed these were objectively immoral. Now, many of them condone and accept these. What changed? Surely God does not change like shifting shadows, so why then was it once objectively immoral and yet now it’s not?

Liberals do, yet you act like there are not liberal Catholics who teach the same things. There are liberal theologians and factions in the RC, and offshoots on liberal Independent Catholic denominations. Just because the Pope excommunicates them does not mean they cease to exist.

 

[joe370]

Liberals do, yet you act like there are not liberal Catholics who teach the same things. There are liberal theologians and factions in the RC, and offshoots on liberal Independent Catholic denominations. Just because the Pope excommunicates them does not mean they cease to exist.

But they cease to belong to the church, and excommunication seems quite biblical. When sola scriptura is the final arbiter, liberal ideas can run amok, for no one has a right to defy anyone’s beliefs no matter how foreign they might be to traditional catholcism or protestantism. Each sola scriptura is the final arbiter. That does not seem very biblical to me. Your thoughts friend? By the way, I am not suggesting that Anglicans embrace sola scriptura.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

It seems reasonable to conclude that trust in Jesus’ guidance, regarding His Church, in the face of corruption, and the faith that He Himself will forever protect His church from doctrinal heresy along with quashing corruption e.g. selling of indulgences, would be the overall best policy to employ. Your thoughts?

Indeed. Two ways you might want to look at this though. 1) How is it Martin Luther’s fault for being excommunicated for being right? At least on the matters of corruption. 2) Lutherans have been preserved. Methodism has been preserved. Anglicanism has been preserved. Reformed churches have been preserved. The Protestant church has been preserved. I whole-heartedly agree with you that God will keep His church. What I probably disagree with you on is what that means and the specifics of how that’s done.

Was the reformation really a good thing? Is it safe to say that the Eucharistic doctrine is one of the most important teachings, (if not the source and summit) of Jesus? Scripture seems to agree with that idea. Sadly because of the 16th century reformation (people, through no fault of there own, that had nothing to do with the 16th century reformation) are now deprived of Jesus’ Body and Blood (real food…real drink…). I am not talking about people like Jon NC, who truly believe, sacramentally, that the bread becomes our Lord’s Body. I am talking about people, like my sister, who view the Eucharist as nothing more than a mere symbol, which was believed by no one, not even Martin Luther.

Hypothetically, even if it was a bad thing, much good has come out of it. Even for the RC. I agree that the Eucharist is very important. Personally, I too believe in the real presence. I think Jesus taught other things that he would have deemed more important, but I know that debatable and would be quite controversial on this forum. Many Protestants don’t believe in the real presence. Many Protestants do. Yet, for the one’s who do I can see them growing spiritually. They grow in faith, hope, and love. They are compelled to egood works, and are zealous in evangelizing the Gospel. The Scriptures tell us that you wil know them (true Christians, the invisible Church) by their fruits (fruits of the Spirit) and by their love… not by their specific beliefs about the Eucharist, as important as the Eucharist itself may be. (I stress that I am not contesting the importance of the Eucharist or the real presence, but I think your judging on the wrong basis).

 

[joe370]

ApologiaSophia;9634677]Indeed. Two ways you might want to look at this though. 1) How is it Martin Luther’s fault for being excommunicated for being right? At least on the matters of corruption. 2) Lutherans have been preserved. Methodism has been preserved. Anglicanism has been preserved. Reformed churches have been preserved. The Protestant church has been preserved. I whole-heartedly agree with you that God will keep His church. What I probably disagree with you on is what that means and the specifics of how that’s done.

As a former non-catholic I certainly can relate with you.

Hypothetically, even if it was a bad thing, much good has come out of it. Even for the RC. I agree that the Eucharist is very important. Personally, I too believe in the real presence. I think Jesus taught other things that he would have deemed more important, but I know that debatable and would be quite controversial on this forum. Many Protestants don’t believe in the real presence. Many Protestants do. Yet, for the one’s who do I can see them growing spiritually. They grow in faith, hope, and love. They are compelled to egood works, and are zealous in evangelizing the Gospel. The Scriptures tell us that you wil know them (true Christians, the invisible Church) by their fruits (fruits of the Spirit) and by their love… not by their specific beliefs about the Eucharist, as important as the Eucharist itself may be. (I stress that I am not contesting the importance of the Eucharist or the real presence, but I think your judging on the wrong basis).

I just feel that if the reformation (both sides are to be blamed as per the CCC) had not fractured Jesus’ Mystical Body, then so many more good Christians, on a global scale, would, no doubt, embrace what we feel so strongly about, namely the Holy Eucharist. I guess it is what it is…

 

[ApologiaSophia]

But they cease to belong to the church, and excommunication seems quite biblical. When sola scriptura is the final arbiter, liberal ideas can run amok, for no one has a right to defy anyone’s beliefs no matter how foreign they might be to traditional catholcism or protestantism. Each sola scriptura is the final arbiter. That does not seem very biblical to me. Your thoughts friend? By the way, I am not suggesting that Anglicans embrace sola scriptura.

You miss my point. If I pastor a Protestant church, and one of the deacon starts spouting some Liberal nonsense, I can certainly kick him out of my church… that does not stop him from starting a church of his own nor does it stop him from joining another church. The Catholic church does not teach Sola Scriptura and yet liberalism is still found in your camp. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not the problem. Also, Sola Scriptura does not teach “private interpretation” but that Scripture alone has ultimate authority on every thing doctrinal. In other words, ultimate authority concerning doctrine should not rest with tradition or the papacy but with Scripture itself. Again, this is to defend against such corruption as indulgences which was unbiblical, but was taught by the Pope to be a theological truth. Because the Pope was supposed to be authoritative in doctrinal issues and infallible in matters have faith, everybody said “ok, sure, it mus be true.” It wasn’t. I love Church history/tradition… I don’t even have a problem with the papacy (though I share in the papal critiques of the Eastern Orthodox). All I’m saying is that Scripture does not have to be the only way we obtain knowledge about our faith and form our theology, but that all things should be judged and examined by it. Even for a RC I think this would be an agreeable position.

 

[joe370]

ApologiaSophia;9634715]You miss my point. If I pastor a Protestant church, and one of the deacon starts spouting some Liberal nonsense, I can certainly kick him out of my church… that does not stop him from starting a church of his own nor does it stop him from joining another church.

Very true.

The Catholic church does not teach Sola Scriptura and yet liberalism is still found in your camp.

Unspoken? Agreed. Birth control for example…

Therefore, Sola Scriptura is not the problem.

I don’t see how dissension within a church somehow suggests that sola scriptura is not a problem? Sure, people leave there existing church and start their own church, and even base their teachings on scripture alone, but they would be basing their teachings on something unbibilical - right? That seems problematic to me.

Also, Sola Scriptura does not teach “private interpretation” but that Scripture alone has ultimate authority on every thing doctrinal. In other words, ultimate authority concerning doctrine should not rest with tradition or the papacy but with Scripture itself.

Who becomes the interpreter of scripture if not the individual (private interpretation) or the papacy (church authority)?

 

[ApologiaSophia]

I just feel that if the reformation (both sides are to be blamed as per the CCC) had not fractured Jesus’ Mystical Body, then so many more good Christians, on a global scale, would, no doubt, embrace what we feel so strongly about, namely the Holy Eucharist. I guess it is what it is…

I ate the rift between denominations. I have hated that even as a Protestant between Protestant denominations. It is a deeper desire of mine to see the Church united as one. That probably wont happen, Not because it could, but in order for that to happen many things would have to change that just seem too unlikely to be changed. I just want to point out that Christ’s Mystical Body has been fractured long before the Reformation. The Great Schism for example. Honestly though, schism is bound to happen. For instance, I would love to become RC (Or perhaps Eastern Orthodox… it would be a toss up) but my biggest stumbling block (not my only one, but the biggest one) is veneration. I have no problem with veneration mind you, I think Mary and the saints should be venerated. My problem is how the RC/EO churches practice veneration goes above and beyond what I would define as veneration. I have a moral conviction that will not allow me to join. However, this is why I became Anglican. It upholds Orthodoxy in all primary things, but allows there to be difference of opinion of secondary matters. (I believe moral teaching to be a primary thing, thus it should not be left up to personal opinion. I think Anglicans should eject liberal priests/bishops from office and that American Anglicans should break away from the Episcopalian church). In any case, i think it is this model that allows an intellectual freedom, but continues to stay rooted in the heart of the Gospel. I appeal again to the Early church.

 

[joe370]

ApologiaSophia;9634779]I For instance, I would love to become RC (Or perhaps Eastern Orthodox… it would be a toss up) but my biggest stumbling block (not my only one, but the biggest one) is veneration. I have no problem with veneration mind you, I think Mary and the saints should be venerated. My problem is how the RC/EO churches practice veneration goes above and beyond what I would define as veneration.

Some people, no doubt, go overboard. It’s inevitable. Are you OK with what the CC teaches regarding the appropriate level of veneration?

 

[ApologiaSophia]

I don’t see how dissension within a church somehow suggests that sola scriptura is not a problem? Sure, people leave there existing church and start their own church, and even base their teachings on scripture alone, but they would be basing their teachings on something unbibilical - right? That seems problematic to me.

Who becomes the interpreter of scripture if not the individual (private interpretation) or the papacy (church authority)?

1. In other words, Sola Scriptura does not produce Liberalism. There are many conservative churches that teach Sola scriptura. Actually, as a matter of fact, often times Liberals object to Sola Scriptura. Examples, the Bible speaks on homosexual sin quite plainly. If a Liberal says the Bible is not totally authoritative, the homosexuality is no loner a problem. They don’t actually hold to the Bible, they hold to the feelings and pick the Scriptures they like. That is NOT Sola Scriptura. (As I said before, Sola Scriptura does not teach personal interpretation).
2. The CHURCH is the interpreter of Scripture. Augustine was a wonderful interpreter of Scripture. He was Bishop, but not the bishop of Rome. He did not interpret Scripture by saying "Well this is what the Pope has interpreted Scripture to say). Augustine is a Doctor of the Faith. Read his writing “On Christian Doctrine.” There he explains how one is to interpret Scripture. Never does he say “Ask the Pope.” What he teaches is exegesis. The word Church/Ecclesia means group, or congregation. What the Church says about Scripture is what the congregation says about Scripture. We should not privately interpret but exegete Scripture and actively engage other exegetes, modern and ancient. Look to your Jewish roots from which the Church of Christ comes. They have no pope. They don’t even have bishops. They have rabbi’s. Rabbi’s actively engage in personal study, collective study, Talmudic study (tradition) and debate other rabbi’s. Jewish “laity” are advise to seek wisdom and counsel from the trained Rabbi’s, but no Rabbi demands their blind obedience or submission to their rabbinic teaching. Yet, despite all the debate and freedom of thought, the core of their Jewish belief and the essence of their Jewishness is retained. That is how an ASSEMBLY (Church) studies and interprets Scripture, in close community,