JOHN MARTIGNONI’S LOSING BATTLE

 

I’ve previously devoted several of my articles to addressing comments made by Catholic apologist and speaker John Martignoni, who maintains the Bible Christian Society newsletter.  Today, we will deal with his Newsletter #410.  You can find it here:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/586-apologetics-for-the-masses-410-private-interpretation-of-the-bible-vs-church-teaching

John often speaks about how Protestants (who admit to being fallible) will have a problem correctly interpreting Scripture, while claiming it is not an issue with Catholics.  He emphasizes that what the Protestant believes depends entirely on his private, fallible interpretation of the Bible, while the Catholic can rest confidently in the authority of the Catholic Church for correct interpretations.

In this particular newsletter, he gets a question from someone named “Cary L.” who asks:

“Why is your potentially fallible decision to trust the claims of the Roman Catholic Church for your salvation correct?

John Martignoni states that it is an excellent question, and I agree!  In fact, I don’t think that John (or any other Catholic) can adequately answer it the way he wants to without violating Scripture or common sense.

First Things First

But John requests that Cary first deal with a question of his (John’s) own:

“If you are not infallible in your interpretation of Scripture, then how do you have any sure way of knowing what is and is not authentic Christian doctrine and practice?”

Ok, so let me try to adequately answer John Martignoni’s question to Cary L.  It’s about certainty.  The question is assuming that infallibility is a must to be able to know basic Christian doctrine.  But this doesn’t follow.  This is the same old false dichotomy that some Catholic apologists use over and over: 1) either your interpretation is infallible (i.e., unable to err), or 2) it has to be wrong.  It is as though there is no third option.  But every single person is fallible, yet, many times a person gets the interpretation correct!  Just because an interpretation could possibly be wrong doesn’t mean that it will indeed be wrong.

Post-apostolic Christians don’t have infallibility, but we don’t need it to have enough certainty to come to the knowledge of the truth, or to be saved.  We only need a sufficient amount of certainty. 

Are there some passages more difficult than others?  Yes, there are (2 Peter 3:15-16).  Do we get it wrong sometimes?  Yes, we may.  And you may say, “That’s not very reassuring if it’s possible that we can be wrong!”  But that’s what Bible study is for, and nowhere in that Bible are we told that we need infallibility to interpret a Bible verse.  In fact, Scripture points out that the common person can indeed understand it.  Jesus expected exactly that!  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/07/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-6.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/search?q=interpretation

In fact, it was mostly the common people who listened to and followed Jesus.  Basic hermeneutical concepts (i.e., Bible interpretation principles) and common sense go a long way here. 

What’s the Difference?

Ok, back to Cary’s question.  Cary is basically asking: “Isn’t the reasoning of the Catholic who is trusting in his understanding of Church teachings just as fallible as the reasoning of the Protestant who is trusting in his understanding of Scripture?  The answer is yes, indeed.

But Martignoni is saying no, it isn’t.  He says that what Protestants do “does not at all equate with my accepting the teachings of the Catholic Church as being authoritative and infallible.”  In other words, the Protestant has a problem, but the Catholic can’t go wrong when trusting in his “infallible” church. 

Supposedly, Protestants can’t read and understand infallible Scripture with certainty, yet Catholics can confidently read and understand their church’s “infallible” teaching.  But how is it that the Catholic is supposed to somehow have more certainty than the Protestant?  He doesn’t.  There is no difference.  Even if they end up with an infallible source, they still both have to begin with their fallible reasoning.

Martignoni’s “Infallibility”

John Martignoni goes on to state that he is indeed infallible in his first-hand knowledge of some things, for example, he “infallibly” knows that he is married, that he lives in Birmingham, that 2+2=4, etc. 

He further says that he can know something infallibly about matters of which he has second-hand knowledge, like the speed of light, the fuel for the sun, the year of the death of George Washington, etc.

Ok, I get his point, but these last things he mentioned would have less certainty, since some scientists, researchers, historians and authorities may have actually got some of their information wrong.  It happens from time to time.

But, of course, the infallibility that we are concerned with here is not about these things.  We are speaking of having infallible certainty in spiritual and moral matters.  No one but God has this level of certainty.  But again, He does give humans sufficient certainty in spiritual matters (1 John 5:13).

But John’s whole point, I think, is that the things he mentioned here are told to us by an “authoritative” source (scientists, researchers, historians, etc.).  So, apparently, according to John, if it’s based on some authority, it must be true, correct?  And of course, depending on an authoritative source is exactly what John will claim, concerning the Catholic Church.  He also makes a big deal over Cary’s admission of fallibility, and he keeps throwing it back into Cary’s face.  But fallibility is not necessarily a weakness when it comes to Bible interpretation.  We all have fallibility and Martignoni needs to stop pretending that Catholics are somehow immune to it, just because they believe their Church to be infallible. 

Double Standard

We use our fallible reasoning daily in everything we do, and most people use it effectively.  By the way, every type of communication has to be interpreted.  And the Catholic, just like the Protestant, is obligated to use his own fallible, “non-authoritative,” “private” understanding to interpret not only the Bible, but also to interpret his own church’s teachings.  Again, no one has moral infallibility today, and it doesn’t take such a gift to have a sufficient amount of certainty.  There is no getting around this fact, in spite of what John Martignoni says.  There is a double standard being used here.

All Christians should use the Scriptures to evaluate their own church’s teaching.  1 Thessalonians 5:21 says to “… test all things.”  But this does not apply only to the leaders, but to the “laity,” as well.  Checks and balances.

The problem is that John has been pushing his version of “fallibility-can’t-produce-certainty” for a long time.  He refuses to give up his argument, but he is still wrong on this. 

Biblical “Proof” of the Need for an Infallible Magisterium?

He then demeans the God-breathed Scriptures when he tells Cary:

“The Scriptures reflect the tradition of the Christian faith, they are not the source of the Christian faith, as you make them out to be.” (Emphasis mine)

Ok, first of all, I’ve never seen a Catholic who can actually fully define this Sacred Tradition.  You can’t trust in it if you can’t accurately tell us what all it contains.  See here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-about-tradition.html

Second, the Christian faith is indeed encapsulated in Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  This is how we know what the true Christian faith is, and this is also how we detect false doctrine.

John proceeds to mention a couple of Bible passages to attempt to prove that we need more than just the Bible.  He uses Nehemiah 8:1-8 to suggest that it was the leaders in this passage (like in the Catholic Magisterium) who had to explain what the Book of the Law was saying.  But we have to remember that, in this context, these Jews had just returned from Babylon (whose language had become ingrained in their minds for many years while there).  Many of those Jews grew up with the Babylonian language.  But the Book of the Law was written in Hebrew, so, many Jews in that seventy-year exile had to now “brush up” on their native language, while some could probably speak very little Hebrew!  That’s why the Jewish leaders had to expound/translate the Law for the people.  So, this passage does not at all prove that we need an infallible magisterium to interpret for us.

Again, John Martignoni also uses Acts 8:30-31 for the same purpose.  In this passage, the Ethiopian eunuch is reading the book of Isaiah aloud, and Philip asks the eunuch if he understands what he is reading.  The eunuch responds, “How can I unless someone guides me?” (Acts 8:31).   Catholics will often respond, “See, there it is!  We need an infallible Magisterium to interpret Scripture for us.” 

But, to use the words of John Martignoni, “Not so fast!”  Philip was NOT an apostle, a pope, or part of an infallible magisterium, but simply a deacon in the church (Acts 6:5)!  So why does John use this passage to try to prove a magisterium?  Is there some intentional deception going on here? 

Furthermore, these passages that John quoted do not negate the abundance of verses showing that the common man is expected to understand Scripture, as revealed in the links above.

Later on, John points out more passages to demonstrate that the (Catholic) Church has authority to bind and loose (Matthew 16:19), to decide between disputes (Matthew 18:15-19), to teach with authority (Luke 10:16), etc., etc., to suggest that the Catholic Church fits all that criteria.  But most of these points are addressed in the following links:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/10/matthew-16-keys-binding-and-loosing.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/09/matthew-16-who-or-what-is-rock.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/09/pillar-and-foundation.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/08/hi-jacking-of-john-2023.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/apostolic-succession.html

John’s attempt to use Scripture to show that the Catholic Church is infallible falls far short of its goal.

John’s System

It’s a losing battle, but John gives it his best shot and waxes eloquent in his explanation of how he arrives at his conclusion:

“My theological system is based on the teachings of the 2000-year old Catholic Church which I believe, after careful consideration of the available evidence, and there is a lot of evidence - historical, scriptural, logical, etc. - was founded by Jesus Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit and operates with the authority of Jesus Christ which He Himself gave to it.”

But unfortunately, John had to use his fallible reasoning, step by step, to come to this conclusion!  This happens in each of those steps in this process, yet John thinks he is bypassing this issue of man’s fallibility.  He is not.

John Martignoni greatly downplays fallibility, but if it weren’t for his fallible reasoning, he would have never discovered his “infallible Church” (even though his conclusion is wrong).  So, if John’s fallible reasoning is good enough to get him to that conclusion (after plowing through the logical data, Scripture, tons of church history, studying the multitude of church fathers, studying Sacred Tradition, etc., etc.), wouldn’t that same fallible reasoning be good enough to simply read and understand Scripture in the first place?  If your fallible reasoning can help you navigate through all that, you should be able to trust it to understand and interpret Scripture.  Apparently, the Catholic Church can’t trust you to read Scripture directly, but they can trust you to go through all the above process with no issues!  Interesting logic.

Conclusion

It is not only John Martignoni, but there are many Catholic apologists that emphasize the Catholic Church’s ability to “infallibly interpret” the Bible. 

We need to ask, though, exactly how much of the Bible is actually interpreted infallibly by the Church?  No one really knows, since Catholics disagree on the number of verses with such a status.  But know this for sure… it is only an incredibly tiny fraction of the Scriptures that the Catholic Church has interpreted with such certainty!  If infallible interpretation is so critical (and the Catholic Church seems to think that it is), then why are so few verses rendered as “infallibly” determined?  What about the “certainty” of the rest of the verses in the Bible? 

If you appeal to common sense (or something like it) then why can’t Protestants do the same thing?  The Catholic’s certainty is not any greater than ours.  See also this link:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/10/martignoni-and-authority-to-interpret.html

Catholics will say, “But if you misunderstand something in Scripture, the ‘Living Church’ can correct you, unlike the Bible.” 

But misunderstandings don’t just happen to Protestants. 
There are plenty Catholics who also misunderstand “infallibly-interpreted” Church teachings.

But the Bible is indeed a living book (Hebrews 4:12), given to us by the Word of God, Himself (John 1:1), and its words will judge us on the last day (John 12:48).  It is not the Catholic Catechism that will judge us on the last day.  And neither will the Catholic Church.  It will be the words of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, penned inside the greatest book the world has ever known.  It is a miraculous, God-proven and God-breathed book (2 Timothy 3:16), with its contents perfectly interwoven by God.  And if a person studies it, he will soon see that it does indeed correct misunderstandings, if you take it in context, and in its totality.  It is a life-changing book of such great magnitude, yet it can be understood sufficiently by mere humans whose hearts are right.

So what’s the answer when we disagree with someone else about Bible passages?  Horror of horrors [for some Catholics], it simply comes down to us debating the Bible using our fallible minds (along with decent biblical hermeneutics, common sense and a humble attitude -Luke 8:15).

John Martignoni, I hope that you will be humble enough to recognize (and admit!) that your worn-out arguments about man’s uncertainty due to his fallibility don’t hold water.  Stop misleading your audience.  Since this is a losing battle for any Catholic, let’s put this false teaching to rest.

POPE FRANCIS SPEAKS WITH FORKED TONGUE

When I was a kid, we watched many “cowboy and Indian” television shows.  One of the phrases that the Indians would sometimes use was, “White man speak with forked tongue.”  They would say this when someone would speak out of both sides of his mouth, i.e., when he would say one thing and then say something that contradicts what he first said.

Double Standard

Recently, Pope Francis has done exactly this when speaking to two different groups.  On November 5, 2019, an article from Catholic News Service, states that the pope recently said, “The Catholic Church must follow Jesus’ command to preach the gospel to every person, otherwise it will not fulfill its mission of bearing witness to Christ.” 

He also said in that article, “Either she [the Church] evangelizes or she is not (the) Church.”  And again, “…to evangelize means to deliver Christ’s teachings ‘in simple and precise words like the apostles did.’”  See here:

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2019/11/if-church-does-not-evangelize-it-will-decay-pope-says/

Ok, assuming that the Catholic Church did evangelize with the true gospel, the pope’s comments sound pretty good, but a month later in December, 2019, at Pilo Albertell high school in Rome, Pope Francis had a totally different message for the students there.  Here are a couple of articles that cover the pope’s statements:

https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2019/12/22/pope-francis-tells-christians-not-to-try-to-convert-nonbelievers/

https://disrn.com/news/pope-says-christians-should-never-try-to-convert-unbelievers-anyone-who-proselytizes-is-not-a-disciple-of-jesus

These are some of his comments:

•           After being asked by a student about people of other faiths, the pope said, “We are all the same, all children of God.
•   "If someone says they are a disciple of Jesus and comes to you with proselytism [sharing his faith or attempting to convert], they are not a disciple of Jesus.”
•       “In front of an unbeliever, the last thing I have to do is try to convince him.  Never.  The last thing I have to do is speak.  I have to live consistent with my faith.  And it will be my testimony to awaken the curiosity of the other who says: ‘But why do you do this?’  And yes, I can speak then.”
•       “Never, never bring the gospel by proselytizing.”
•       “Proselytism is not done, the church does not grow by proselytism.”
•       “We are not in the time of the Crusades.”
•       He stated that football teams and political parties proselytize, but there is no proselytizing with the faith.

So, to sum up his message to these high school students, a believer should never approach anyone to share his faith (proselytize) to win him over to the truth.  He must first live out his faith in front of that person for an undetermined amount of time, and wait until the person comes up to him and asks him about his beliefs.  Then (and only then) should he share the truth with him.  Anyone who does share his faith before he is approached is NOT a disciple of Jesus Christ.  Never try to convince anyone of the truth of Jesus Christ by speaking first.  One must awaken their curiosity first.

Wow!  This is so anti-biblical, it is unbelievable.  Neither Jesus nor any of His apostles evangelized this way. The early church certainly lived out the gospel before others, but they didn’t wait until someone questioned them before verbally sharing the gospel with them.

God’s Commandment to the Church

Jesus gave us the “Great Commission” in Matthew 28:18-20:

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, “All power is given unto Me in Heaven and in earth.  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.  Amen.”

I would think that Jesus’ parting words to mankind were pretty important, but He says nothing whatsoever about waiting for people to approach you first.  On the contrary, there is a sense of urgency in His words.

Peter, the supposed “first pope,” boldly proclaimed the gospel to a large and mixed crowd (Acts 2:14-40).  But notice that Peter approached THEM with the truth – the truth that they were sinners who cooperated in the death of Jesus, the Messiah – and after this, the crowds asked Peter what they should do (v. 37).  He then continues to share how they could get saved.  But he did not wait around for them to approach him first.   And there are many other cases in Scripture that refute the pope’s method of witnessing (e.g., Matthew 4:17, 23; John 4:7-26; Acts 8:4-5, 26-35; 13:4-5;14:1; 18:24-28, etc.).

If we really believe that many are going to Hell (Matthew 7:13), how can we delay?  If you have the message of eternal life, shouldn’t you be quick to share it, both passionately and often?

 

Yes, as the pope suggests, we should be so faithful and obedient to live out the gospel message that unbelievers would take notice and approach us to ask about the gospel.  But we dare not remain silent until that day comes!

And today, there should be an even greater urgency to verbally and clearly share the gospel, seeing that the time is short before Jesus’ return (Matthew 24; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 3:1-5).

The world would never have been turned upside down by Christianity if the apostles had taken the pope’s advice.

Defining the Term

But in an attempt to defend the pope’s comments, some Catholics have said the issue has to do with the pope’s use of the term, “proselytize,” and that he uses the word to mean a forced conversion.  Thus, the reference to “we are not in the times of the Crusades” (when forced conversions were common).

But that doesn’t seem to be a good argument.  According to the Meriam-Webster dictionary, “proselytize” means:

“To induce someone to convert to one’s faith; to recruit someone to join one’s party, institution, or cause.”

Cambridge English Dictionary:

“To try to persuade someone to change his or her religious beliefs, political party, etc., to your own.”

Dictionary.com:

“To convert or attempt to convert as a proselyte; recruit.”

There is no hint of a forced conversion in these definitions.  Even more authoritative, the New Testament uses the word “proselyte” four times, and it simply refers to one who is the result of proselytizing… a convert.  Nowhere in the New Testament are proselytes shown to be forced converts. (Matthew 23:15, Acts 2:10, 6:5, and 13:43)

I just want to remind the reader that the pope had said above that football teams and political parties “proselytize,” and he also said that this shouldn’t happen in the church.  Does he mean that football teams and political parties FORCE their members to join, under threat of penalty or death?  This is highly unlikely, but to be consistent, he would have to say this.  But I doubt seriously that political parties and football teams use this method to obtain members.

 

Furthermore, since the word “proselyte” is a biblical term, it should be agreed upon by all who follow Christ.  The biblical concept of “proselyte / proselytism” cannot properly mean one thing in English and something else in Italian, or Russian, or Japanese.  For Christians, our understanding of it should always line up with the biblical use of it, since the Bible is inspired.  It doesn’t matter how the Vatican defines the term, nor the World Council of Churches, nor any individual church.  The God-breathed Scriptures are greater than all of these (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Conclusion

The pope’s “evangelizing” method is neither practical nor biblical.  Ironically, we should actually welcome the pope’s desire to NOT share his Catholic gospel, since this false, works-based gospel has done enough spiritual damage already.  But for true believers, it is imperative to share the biblical gospel message as often and as fervently as possible, using any good (and biblical) means to open doors, and to take advantage of every opportunity – not wait for the lost to approach us. 

We should all agree that our witnessing should not involve force, deception, threats, manipulation, etc.  Anyone who does that is not acting as a Christian, just as the Catholic Church was not acting Christ-like in the Crusades.  But the pope is now going to the other extreme.

 

I believe that what is happening is that, in the Catholic Church’s ongoing quest to promote the ecumenical movement, Pope Francis is playing both sides.  On the one hand, to his own people, he wants to appear biblical by insisting that the gospel is preached (as we saw in the very first article linked above), but on the other hand, he wants to appear friendly and willing to cooperate with, and accept, all other religious groups.  But this is very dangerous.  There is such a thing as spiritual unity, but only unity in the TRUTH is biblical. 

Remember at the beginning of this article when the pope was asked about people of other faiths, and he said that “We are all the same, all children of God”?  This is an extremely irresponsible and false claim.  We are all created by God, but we are certainly not all His children (Matthew 13:38; John 8:44; Acts 13:10; 1 John 3:10).  It seems that no one wants to say it, but the truth is that all non-Christians (whether atheist, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, etc.) need to be evangelized.  This is the greatest love we can show them.

I believe that most people in Christianity understand the terms “proselytize,” “evangelize,” and “convert” to be synonyms.  According to the dictionary and the Bible, they all mean basically the same thing.  And since the pope’s message to these high schoolers will be made known to the whole world, don’t you think that there will be very much confusion because of it?  The evidence shows that there is indeed.  Did he believe that everyone would automatically think that “proselytize” means to “force” a conversion?  This pope is very controversial and has a knack for not being very clear on some key spiritual issues.  It almost appears that he is doing this on purpose.

So, my Catholic friends, what is it that the pope is asking you to do?  Does he want you to “follow Jesus’ command to preach the gospel to every creature”?  Or does he want you to just live the Christian life while waiting to “awaken the curiosity” of others until they question you about your faith?

How can Pope Francis be trusted if he can’t be consistent with what he said just a month before on a key spiritual issue?  This man is indeed highly intelligent, but he speaks with a forked tongue.  

PRIVATE INTERPRETATION

The issue of “private interpretation” of Scripture (also called “private judgment”) comes up quite often in Catholic / Protestant debates.  This article is mainly directed toward Catholics, but it is not just for Catholics, since there are many others who also misunderstand the concept.  The only time the term is actually mentioned in the Bible is in 2 Peter 1:20:

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.”

Many will say that this verse “warns us against private interpretation.”  No, the Apostle Peter was not warning against anything in this verse.  So, let’s put this false teaching to rest, once and for all.  This was not a warning of any kind.  On the contrary, if read in context, one will see that this passage is actually an encouragement about the truthfulness and reliability of Scripture.  Many miss the whole point of this verse and twist it to say what it doesn’t mean.  Note that:

• It is not telling us that we can’t interpret Scripture

• It is not telling us that interpretation is “dangerous”

• It’s not telling us that only a certain organization or “magisterium” can interpret for us

• It is not telling us that only church leaders can interpret for us

• It mentions nothing of a need for “infallibility” when reading the Bible

Many people just assume these things are true from the start.  But let’s look at this passage IN CONTEXT:

2 Peter 1:

v. 18) “And this voice which came from Heaven we heard, when we were with Him in the holy mount.”

v. 19) “We have also a more sure Word of prophecy; whereunto you do well that you take heed, as unto a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the Day Star arise in your hearts:”

v. 20) “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.”

v. 21) “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” 

How can one “take heed” to prophecy (verse 19) if he can’t interpret that prophecy?  Also, why does the apostle compare Scripture to a light (verse 19) if Scripture interpretation keeps us in the dark (as many believe)?  The comparison of Scripture to “light” is meaningless if we can’t interpret its contents.

As any honest Bible reader can see, this passage is speaking of the ORIGIN of the message that God gave to the apostles and prophets and is NOT speaking of the READING of the Bible.  It is speaking of the SOURCE of prophetic Scripture, not the STUDY of it.  The prophets heard from God and, with God’s help, infallibly interpreted that message and infallibly related it to their audience.  The meaning of this passage is simply that Scripture did not originate in the mind of mere men.  It came directly from the mind of God, not from human impulse.

Also, notice (v. 18) that Peter is referring to the time he had personally seen the Lord Jesus transfigured.  (Matthew 17:1-9) This was a very real and personal experience for Peter, yet he speaks of Scripture as an even “more sure word”! (v. 19)

Concerning the definition of “private interpretation,” the Greek words for it simply mean “one’s own interpretation.”  A private interpretation is one that is fallible.  The prophets were not affected by fallibility when they received God’s words.  But all the rest of us today are when it comes to reading Scripture.  So how does the one reading the Bible really know that he is being led by the Holy Spirit?  How does he know that he is arriving at God’s interpretation, as opposed to his own?  Answer:  Your interpretation will be correct if it lines up with the rest of Scripture, with the immediate context and the overall context taken into account.  Yes, and God allows (even demands) common sense be used as well, when interpreting His Word.  Furthermore, history, genre, grammar, etc., also help us to understand.

But according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a private interpretation is only right when it agrees with (or, at least doesn’t contradict) the Catholic Church (CCC #119).  Interestingly, this would mean that the Catholic can trust his own fallible interpretation of Scripture as long as that interpretation does not contradict his own fallible interpretation of the Church’s dogmatic teachings.  And this is supposed to produce the “infallible certainty” of which they boast?

The Catholic believes that his church’s magisterium has the final word.  But it is Scripture that is the Ultimate Standard for Christians, not any church, denomination, or organization.  (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

According to the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia (under “Protestantism”) we read:

“Again, it is illogical to base faith upon the private interpretation of a book [i.e., the Bible].  For faith consists in submitting; private interpretation consists in judging. In faith by hearing, the last word rests with the teacher; in private judgment it rests with the reader, who submits the dead text of Scripture to a kind of post-mortem examination and delivers a verdict without appeal: he believes in himself rather than in any higher authority.”

This is typical Catholic rhetoric.  Catholics say that Scripture can’t be the final authority because it requires interpretation, so we need an infallible teacher to be certain.  They accuse the Protestant of making himself the final interpretive authority, and accuse him of being his own pope.  He is now a judge of the Scriptures, rather than an interpreter.  Accusations abound - but we will soon see the double standard they use.

In all fairness, some Catholics will admit that private interpretation is acceptable and necessary, but many Catholics will say no and create a false dilemma here.  In this case, either:

1) One must have an infallible interpretation by a teacher, or 

2) He will have a wrong interpretation.
   

But these are not the only two options.  Someone can give a fallible interpretation and still be right.  Catholics will often point out that Protestants are “limited” to fallible interpretations, and therefore, have little or no certainty.  But this is a clear double standard, since the Catholic cannot escape this same “dilemma” of using his fallible mind to interpret his sources, whether that source is Scripture, the magisterium, the church fathers, Tradition, or whatever.  It is unavoidable.  All forms of communication must be interpreted.  And all of us have fallible minds and make fallible interpretations.  The truth is, the Catholic has no more certainty in interpreting Scripture than anyone else does. 

 

One way that the Catholic thinks that he can get around the “problems” of fallible interpretations and lack of certainty is by first finding the “True Church” (which, of course, he’ll say is the Catholic Church).  But how do we determine that they are the true church?  He’ll tell us that we must first find it through a study of Scripture, church history, Sacred Tradition, and the church fathers, and this will lead us to an infallible Church who will then be able to tell us correctly what Scripture means.  At this point, we can then rest and never have to worry about our certainty in interpretation any more.

But if you can understand Scripture well enough to “verify” a papal office and its claims of infallibility, and if you can interpret this never-clearly-defined “Sacred Tradition”, and if you can interpret the multi-faceted history of the church, and if you can interpret the teachings of the church fathers (whose language is often harder to understand than the Bible), and if you can piece all of this together to find the “One True Church”… then why couldn’t you just simply interpret the Bible outright?  Ironically, the Catholic Church can’t seem to trust you to interpret the Bible by itself, yet it expects you to be able to go through the long and complicated process above.  But where is the certainty that they so desperately desire in all of this process?  The fact is, in this case the level of certainty is lowered!

The Catholic Church is using very circular reasoning:  They are infallible because that’s what they interpret Scripture to mean.  How do we know that this is the correct interpretation?  Because they are infallible!  Should faithful Catholics believe the Church’s interpretations because they make good sense and because they line up with biblical principles?  No, they want them to believe it because they say so.

CONCLUSION

Even though we all need help interpreting now and then, there is no “special authority” required to interpret the Bible.  Every Christian should be growing in his personal study of God’s Word.  However, it’s not an overnight process; and you don’t have to have a perfect understanding or perfect interpretations of every Bible verse to be pleasing to God.  But God does expect us to interpret His Word when He speaks of “rightly dividing the Word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).  We may not have infallible certainty, but we can have sufficient certainty.  Like it or not, when reading Scripture, all interpretations are private interpretations – there may be a lot of people who interpret a passage the same way that you do, but each one of them must still fallibly interpret what they read.

No matter how you slice it, it is always ultimately you who will stand before God… and you (and your interpretations) will be judged accordingly, whether you followed your own ideas or whether you chose to be subject to an authority of some type.  No one will be able to fully blame anyone else on Judgment Day.  If you, as a responsible adult, don’t test all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21) by God’s Word, it will be no one’s fault but your own.

The Bible is inspired by God and it therefore has enough consistency in its texts and in its principles to help us discern what God is telling us.  Otherwise, why would He bother to give it to us?

We encourage everyone to read the Scriptures, both Old and New Testament.  Read them in context and read them slowly, carefully, and prayerfully.  Read them with a humble attitude because they are God’s words to us.  They are words of life, eternal life.

See also:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/dialogue-on-bible-interpretation.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/07/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-6.html