WHO GETS TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE? (Part 1)

 

In the animal kingdom, many species are very social – that is, they need companionship and are highly dependent on others within their species.  But it is even more so with mankind.  People need each other and in order to thrive, we must be able to communicate well with each other. 

Man has developed many ways to communicate with his fellow man and it is important that we can accurately understand each other.  Some communication needs are merely useful, while others are critical.  And I would say that when it comes to reading and interpreting Scripture, this is certainly of the highest order, because we should want everyone to benefit from the Bible and to make it into Heaven. 

The Bible is widely recognized as God’s Word to mankind (Mark 7:13; 2 Corinthians 4:2; Ephesians 6:17; Colossians 1:25), and it is of great importance to know what God’s message to us is.  The problem is that not everyone agrees with each other on how to interpret the things God is telling us.  So, the big question is: who gets to interpret the Bible – who has the authority to do so – and what do we do when there are disagreements on important issues?

Problem Solved?

So, again, who is it that can authoritatively interpret Bible verses?

The Catholic Church “solves” this problem by declaring itself the “official” source for Scripture interpretation for the whole church.  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the [Catholic] Church alone…” (CCC #85)

And again:

“The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the [Catholic] Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.” (CCC #100)

So, according to the Catholic Church, not only do we need them to interpret, but they are the ONLY ones to be trusted to do the job “authentically”!  Apparently, they have a corner on the “Bible interpretation market.”  Practically speaking, this would be a “spiritual monopoly.”

So, apparently, if Protestants, Orthodox, or anyone else claiming to be Christian disagrees concerning an interpretation of some Scripture passage, they must submit to the leaders/Magisterium of the Catholic Church for the correct interpretation.  Only they have the authority to infallibly interpret!

Authority to Interpret?

For the record, in those very same Scriptures, we find no such thing as “authority to interpret.” The truth is that there is no “special authority” needed when interpreting Scripture.  Asking who has that authority is like asking, “Who has the authority to obey the Commandments?”  But we don’t need “authority” for that because we are expected to obey them.  In the same way, we are commanded to interpret God’s Word (2 Timothy 2:15).  Will everyone do it perfectly?  No, but we are expected to do it to the best of our ability/understanding.  Much of Scripture is easily understood, but for those things that challenge our understanding, we must go deeper into Scripture, as Jesus did when the devil quoted Scripture to Him (Matthew 4:5-7).  Jesus simply said, “It is written again…”

Furthermore, the Bible never tells us that there is a person or group in the post-apostolic church who can teach anything infallibly, as they claim.

The Scourge of Division

It seems that the top reason Catholics say that we need an infallible interpreter is because of all the DIVISIONS they see in Protestantism.  And they feel that this Magisterium is the key to bring about unity.  But it is absolutely inevitable that divisions will come, no matter which group you believe in, because we are human, and we are fallible. 

But which is worse: 1) blindly submitting to a supposedly infallible source, whose popes tend to have an unhealthy desire for “unity at any cost” and whose members embrace a church plagued with unbiblical and false doctrines, OR 2) being part of a fallible group of believers who diligently study the Word and who try hard to make a reasonable interpretation of what Scripture says, and who observe context, use common sense, recognize the fact that Scripture is consistent with itself, and place Scripture above all other teachings, testing all things by it (1 Thessalonians 5:21)? 

Now, I am not saying that Catholics have none of the latter traits mentioned, but I am saying that they tend toward the former.  So yes, we should not be afraid to question our own church leaders and church teachings, whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox.

And since we are commanded to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) and to “prove all things” (1 Thessalonians 5:21), how can a Catholic possibly do these things if he is forced by that Church to never let his understanding of Scripture contradict the Church’s teaching?  A Catholic may say, “But the Church is infallible, so we don’t need to test or doubt it.”  But this is purely circular reasoning.  You had to use your fallible understanding to come to that conclusion.  But the Bible, unlike the Catholic Church, has proven itself!  The Magisterium has not proven itself to be infallible, and we have no biblical reason to believe it is.

But divisions are indeed an issue.  Catholics complain about Protestant divisions, but there are also plenty divisions in the Catholic Church, as well, e.g., there is a “Pre-Vatican” view (traditionalists), “Post-Vatican” view, “Feminist,” “Progressive,” “Liberal,” etc., etc.  Many of these are fighting with each other on-line, even about “infallible” doctrines!

So, if divisions are a problem for Protestants, they are also a problem for Catholics!  But these cannot be avoided.  All human groups have at least some divisions, unless they are a mindless cult!

It is interesting that the apostle Paul, himself, said that certain divisions are sometimes actually necessary in the body (1 Corinthians 11:17-19), so that those who are of approved character may be clearly recognized.  

Paul is not endorsing divisions here, but he acknowledges that divisions are a reality in the church of Christ, sometimes permitted by God in order to reveal those who are genuine believers and those who are not.  These factions serve to encourage practical discernment between true and false teachings, exposing hypocrisy and encouraging those that are faithful.

So, would an infallible Magisterium stop divisions from happening?   No, it wouldn’t, even if such an infallible Magisterium did exist! 

We will continue with Part 2 next time…

 

MARTIGNONI AND SOLA SCRIPTURA

Last month, we specifically addressed the “authority to interpret Scripture” concept which we found in one of John Martignoni’s newsletters (#268).  Martignoni is a well known and influential Catholic apologist who has thousands of people who subscribe to his newsletter and other materials.  So, we feel that it is important to address some of his errors and misrepresentations.

This month, we will take a look at Martignoni’s view of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (“Bible Alone”).  In newsletters #83 through #85, which can be found here

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter

Martignoni addresses Sola Scriptura and claims that this doctrine is not logical, not historical, and not scriptural.  But his foundational argument is based on a couple of false premises.  For example, Martignoni first defines Sola Scriptura in this way in newsletter #83:

“First, let me define the dogma of Sola Scriptura so that you know exactly what I mean when I use the term.  As I understand it, it is the belief that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the only thing that a Christian needs in order to know whatever they need to know about Christian teaching and practice.”

This definition is the first false premise.  Perhaps there are some Protestants who would define Sola Scriptura in this way, but that is certainly not a biblical definition.  We believe that Sola Scriptura is indeed a biblical concept and we would simply define it this way:

• Scripture is the only infallible Rule of Faith for the church today.

Key word, “infallible.”  There are indeed other sources of authority (or rules of faith) in the church today, like church leaders, theologians, the writings of church fathers, archaeological and historical evidence, traditions, councils, Bible commentaries, catechisms, etc.  We are free to use these things to help us learn and grow spiritually, but none of these are infallible.  Scripture is the ultimate Rule of Faith today because it is the only infallible one.  But John Martignoni’s false premise is that those who believe in Sola Scriptura must use ONLY the Bible to learn anything spiritual.  But that is a misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura.

At the end of this particular newsletter, Martignoni appeals to his audience to help him by asking for advice from his readers so he can “tweak” his upcoming article on Sola Scriptura.  And, in fact, in newsletter #84, his readers are the ones who pointed out that his original definition was “too narrow,” and convinced him to use a somewhat more biblical definition of Sola Scriptura.  His second (refined) definition is this:

“The Bible is the sole authority that one needs to decide what is and is not authentic Christian teaching and practice.  Now, that is not to say that one cannot learn things from sources other than the Bible, but these other sources are not infallible, as is the Bible, and do not carry the kind of binding authority that the Bible carries.”

Here, it appears that he is starting to understand the meaning of Sola Scriptura.  But immediately after this, Martignoni turns right around and contradicts this new definition by saying:

“In other words, the Bible is the sole rule of faith for the Christian.  If it’s not in the Bible, then I, as a Christian, am not bound to believe it.”

He misses the fact that Sola Scriptura allows for the Christian to believe in other rules of faith, as long as that rule does not conflict with Scripture.  Again, he goes from “sole authentic teaching” to “sole rule of faith.”  He reverts back to his original (faulty) definition.

And once again, in newsletter #85, Martignoni does another word switch:

“Does the Bible teach that it is the sole infallible authority for deciding matters related to Christian teaching and practice?  In other words, does the Bible teach that it is the sole rule of faith for the Christian?”
 

Do you see what he does here?  In the first half, he gets the biblical definition right, but then turns right around and switches back to his original wording.  This is a typical bait-and-switch tactic.

Still again, he later contradicts his refined definition of Sola Scriptura by saying:

“However, it nowhere says anything about the Bible being the sole rule of faith for the Christian.”
 

Martignoni seems to have trouble maintaining a consistent definition of Sola Scriptura.  How many times do we need to remind him that Sola Scriptura DOES NOT mean that the Bible is the sole rule of faith.  It is the sole INFALLIBLE rule of faith.  There is a world of difference. 

 

Is Martignoni intentionally muddying the water?  A professional apologist like himself should know better; he should easily be able to recognize the difference between the two definitions.  Apparently (by his own admission) even his readers can tell the difference, since they were the ones who suggested the new definition.

John Martignoni’s second false premise in these articles is that we need infallible authority when we interpret the Bible and we cannot allow “individual interpretation” of Scripture.  But we already addressed that error in last month’s article here:

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

Again, this “authority to interpret” argument is one of Martignoni’s foundational arguments that he uses often.  For him, it is a major building block for many (if not most) of his teachings.  But exposing this false “need” for infallible interpretations undercuts Martignoni’s whole “authority argument” and brings it crumbling down.

We cannot emphasize this enough:  Even if John Martignoni’s church was infallible (and we strongly assert that it is not) and if they were able to perfectly and infallibly interpret Scripture, he would still be in the same “trap” as the Protestant.  He must still use his own fallible mind and faculties, along with common sense, to interpret his supposed infallible source (the Catholic Church).  He cannot claim that fallible interpretations are a problem for Protestants, but not for Catholics.  We are all fallible.

 

So, John Martignoni is off to a very bad start if he cannot even get the definition of Sola Scriptura right, and if one of his most foundational arguments (“authority to interpret”) is invalid.  Interested readers can find, in this blog, answers to Martignoni’s other arguments against Sola Scriptura, as well.  See these links:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/03/did-apostles-practice-sola-scriptura.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/08/welcome.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/12/sola-scriptura-and-divisions.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/02/canon-and-infallible-certainty.html

We also have an eight-part series on Sola Scriptura starting here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/03/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-1.html