February 14, 2004
"Do you understand what you are reading?"
The title of this article is a quote from Acts 8:30. Most of you will recognize it as Philip's question to the Ethiopian who was reading from Isaiah. The Ethiopian's response is rich with meaning: "How can I unless someone explains it to me?" (Acts 8:31). I would like to discuss with those of you outside of the Catholic/Orthodox Church the problem of Scripture interpretation. I would very much appreciate it if we could enter into a dialogue on the following questions. I have posted these questions in the context of comments to other articles, but no one has responded. I really hope that some of you will consider these questions and put forth a coherent response.
1) Describe your beliefs on interpretive authority. Who has the authority to interpret Scripture? Is it an individual or collective authority? What is the extent of the authority? In other words, is it solely for the benefit of the individual, or is it an apostolic authority?
2) How does your view of authority deal with conflicting interpretations? There are over 20,000 different "Christian" denominations. There is not a single verse in Scripture that they would all agree upon. Some disagreements surround very trivial issues, such as pre-, a-, and post-millenialism, or pre-, mid-, and post-tribulation rapture. Some disagreements surround significant issues, such as infant baptism or the real presence of Christ in communion. Some disagreements are over fundamental issues, such as whether Christ really is God. There are a host of disagreements in between over issues such as abortion, homosexuality, birth control, the ordination of women, etc. and so on. These facts are the base upon which answers to the following subquestions should be given.
-------(a) Why do different interpretations exist? As I anticipate the "Holy Spirit" to be included in any response to question 1, it should be clear that the Holy Spirit cannot be resposible for 20,000 different interpretations. What is the cause of the different interpretations, and how does that effect the claim that the Holy Spirit is really the one inspiring the interpreter? How does your view of authority maintain internal coherency and external consistency in light of the facts?
-------(b) How do you know which interpretation is correct? This is ultimately the end of this discussion. Any view of authority should inexorably lead an individual to know, right or wrong, the Truth of a certain interpretation. Anything less is a recipe for moral relativism. If Truth is not knowable beyond doubt, it is susceptible to error. If susceptible to error, it is no different from any other interpretation. Thus, Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, LDS, Jehovah's Witness, and ultimately non-Bible based religions are all equally acceptable. Of course, if you are a fan of moral relativism, this question is beside the point, and I would politely ask that you not respond.
These are not rhetorical questions. I do believe that they shed light on the fundamental failure of the Protestant tradition. However, I would also like to better understand the different points of view that exist and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of those views. If interested, please address all of the questions in turn. Let's keep it orderly. If there are other questions that should have been asked (necessary and limited to the issue of interpretation) I welcome any suggestions.
In Christ,
Dave
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
welcome to st blogs!
Posted by: Nicole at February 14, 2004 08:06 PMDave,
All is quiet on the home front... I find it extremely interesting that many of the Protestants that visit this blog find it necessary to attack such things as Mary, the Saints, Purgatory, and the Eucharist, but remain silent when a pivotal challenge like the one above is issued. I say pivotal because, as I have insisted throughout this blog, it ultimately is. If these questions cannot be answered, all other arguments are in vain. I hope that all our readers will take note of this. Foundations are shaken by such dialogues. Thank you for the concise and pointed questions. I wonder if we will have any takers.
In Christ,
Joe
Thanks, Joe. It really does cut right to the heart of the matter. Less than a year ago, this topic scared me as a Protestant. My close friend from law school and I engaged in a dialogue on issues of the faith for four years. During the last two, he refused to discuss secondary issues such as Mary, Purgatory, etc., instead focusing exclusively on issues of authority. It was a masterful maneuver, and one that forced me into a corner. Sadly, I think that many people refuse to honestly consider these issues. My lawyer's mind, however doesn't let go of anything til I get to the bottom of it. Once I got there, what I found turned my stomach--literally.
We have talked about "Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic" by Currie on this blog. I read it before coming to the Church, and as I read Currie's depictions of being reconciled to the Church, I was sickened. I think it was half because the thought of becoming Catholic made me nauseous and half because deep down I knew that he was right. At the end, it was all the Holy Spirit. Having fed me on a steady diet of Catholic reading, He set up the right set of circumstances: in August, Bishop Robinson being ordained in the Episcopalian church, then in October, my own fundamentalist church announcing that they were no longer serving communion because it was too "ritualistic", then in November, a slew of e-mails from my friend's wife and several converts.
My point is this: I think that many if not most of the Protestants visiting this blog would not post unless they were honestly seeking to know more about the Catholic faith and their own. Someone may respond to these questions, albeit uncomfortably, attempting a logical and coherent response (or maybe not). But ultimately, logic is simply a tool, an avenue down which the journey home may lead. The mover, though, is always the Holy Spirit, and unless our readers are lead by the Spirit down this path, many of our Protestant friends will remain mired in gut reactions and deep seated suspicion of the Church. I pray frequently for the people commenting on the articles. I know that we all do. Let's continue doing just that, because even more than our "insightful" articles, I think prayer has the power to move mountainous souls!
In Christ,
Dave
1. I have no interpretive authority except that I am responsible for what I read. The Text is objective. Not my interpretation of it. Interpretation ought to be collegial.
2. There are probably about 250 denominations. And maybe 3-5 theological streams. 20,000 is -wildly- exagerated, developed by counting all the independant baptists as indivdidual denominations, rather than as being the same.
How do I deal with it? See my answer to question 1.
a. Different interpretations exist because we are finite, fallen people. We make mistakes, and we learn more as we grow in Christlikeness and in our exegetical abilities. And not everyone who says the Bible says something is a person of integrity.
However, the vast bulk of the Bible is not hard to understand, including the way to salvation, and basic morality.
This objective Text, composed of the very words of God (in the originals) is the objective thing that sits there on the table, that we can approach together, and wrestle with understanding the difficult passages. That is how it ought to be. Sadly, too often "party spirit" as it is translated in the NIV, and pride prevent this from occurring as it should.
Posted by: Steve at February 20, 2004 12:11 AMSteve,
A couple of thoughts. First, "independents" should be counted separately. If they teach differently, they are different. Even so, 250 is far more than the one Christ prayed for in the Garden of Gethsemani (John 17:21).
The reason God gave us the Church (Matt 16:18) is that we are "finite, fallen people" and He wanted to establish a Church that carried forth Truth (1 Tim 3:15). We are finite and fallen, but God insures that the Church remains theologically correct at all times - this is something we can faithfully trust.
There are sections of the Bible that are difficult to interpret - even St. Peter notes this (2 Peter 3:16). The Church leaves interpretation to us for the most part, however she protects us from misinterpreting the text. In addition, she is responsible for the canon of the Bible - protestants allowed Luther to remove many books from the Bible, which is difficult for me to understand.
Finally, remember that there are many "original" translations of the Bible. Most are not true originals, but translations of the original into another language. Many of the translations are different - some include words that others don't. Without the Church, it is virtually impossible to say "We know this Bible is perfect."
Just some thoughts.
God bless,
Jay
Steve,
If I understand you correctly, you are stating that there is NO interpretive authority in your view. Instead, you postulate that Scripture is clear on its face. Is this an accurate statement of your position?
If so, how is it that you can authoritatively claim that the Episcopalians (just to use an example) are wrong to appoint a homosexual bishop? Without an interpretive authority, you have no way of knowing that you are right. Of course you will say that the Scriptures demonstrate the truth of your position, but so will they. And since you are just as much a "finite, fallen" (your words) person as they, you have no more assurance that you are correct, than they have that they are correct. In fact, even professing the "truth" as you see it is really an act of pride, since in so doing you fail to acknowledge the mistakes you will make brought about by the limitations of your own underdeveloped exegetical abilities. (Again, your words.)
Let us take a passage of Scripture to prove my point. Jesus states that if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out. (Matt. 5:29; really the entire Sermon on the Mount is a treasure trove of hard to understand doctrine.) Objectively, this could not possibly be more clear: if you have ever lustfully and intentionally viewed pornography, start plucking. Now, I am well aware that you would interpret this verse differently (and I would likely agree), but it is interpretation nonetheless.
This idea that Scripture is objective is really unsupportable, and you have stated nothing in support of such a conclusory statement. In fact, while acknowledging the reality of over 200 different denominations (your own conservative figure), you for some reason persist in this bizarre notion of Scripture's ability to interpret itself. And all the while, Scripture itself states that it is difficult to understand (see Jay's post).
Another prime verse is James 2:24, which states, "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." (NIV) Let's review: Protestant credo-"Sola fide" ("faith alone"); James-"not by faith alone". Well sure, the Protestant position is enunciated so clearly in Scripture that we Catholics must have been crazy to miss it; plain as the nose on your face! (And please note that this is considered a fundamental issue by both Catholics and Protestants alike.) This verse (for a Protestant) should demonstrate beyond any question that Scripture is indeed not patently clear on its face. The mysteries are complex, the doctrine deep, and all is subject to interpretation. And again, II Pet. 3:16 is unequivocal on this point. Also, I would return you to the quote I used in the article: Acts 8:31. How can you understand unless someone explains it to you? And if you cannot, then Scripture cannot possible be objectively clear on its face.
Steve, could you please explain your position that no interpretive authority is needed in the light of the facts and these Scriptures? Further, please explain how it is that you can try to convince others of your understanding of Scripture when you yourself cannot even be sure that you are right. Thanks.
In Christ,
Dave
