Now playing on Facebook - a diatribe about what Private Interpretation is and is not.

... and put here because I don't want to have to rewrite it.

Let's talk about some basic concepts -


Authority - Scripture is authoritative. The Church is authoritative. You can disagree with the latter, but it is supported throughout the texts you accept as authoritative. See e.g., The church is the pillar and bulwark of truth. 1 Tim. 15 - 16. The Church is also visible. See John 17 and other passages.

The notes in the Ignatius study bible are not "authoritative" because they were written by Scott Hahn. Insofar as they have authority, they are authoritative because a bishop of the Church has inspected the notes and determined that they are free from doctrinal error.

That doesn't mean that Hahn's notes are scripture or that they define the only truth. What it means is that are within the range of orthodox opinion.

Private Interpretation - I suspect that Private Interpretation does not mean what you think it does - I suspect that you think that Private Interpretation means "reading the Bible, using your mind, consulting other sources, and coming up with the 'correct' interpretation."

Of course, the devil is in the idea of "correct." How do Protestants come up with the "correct" understanding. The answer is that as a practical matter, they do exactly what Catholics do - they consult tradition and delimit what is "correct" by the answers that their tradition has given in the past.

The only difference between what Protestants and Catholics do is that Catholics are honest about it.

But what "Private Interpretation" really means is that there are no "correct" interpretations. "Private Interpretation" is vaguely defined. I note that Alister McGrath doesn't offer a definition of it in his "Christianity's Dangerous Idea," but he does say that the core of Private Interpretation is that "the interpretation of Scripture is the right and responsibility of every Christian."

What this idea connotes is that everyone has the same shot at interpreting scripture correctly, because if that wasn't the case, then we couldn't say that the interpretation of scripture was the right and responsibility of everyone; rather, we would say that some people should listen to those with the more correct interpretation.

Here you can see why my idea that Augustine might be an abler interpreter of Scripture than a bunch of guys on the internet was attacked with vehemence. I was suggesting that not everyone had the same ability, that Augustine might just be a more worthy interpreter than some dude writing on Facebook in 2011.

Consider the responses that I got. I was told that everyone had the same access to the Holy Spirit - which is nonsense - and that people today had better access to information because of the internet than Augustine - which is equally nonsense, as I demonstrated.

Private interpretation is intellectual nihilism that denies that there is a correct interpretation that we can know with any certainty. If everyone has the same access to the Holy Spirit, and is sincere and diligent in their efforts to understand scripture, and if they come up with radically different understandings, then there is no basis under Private Interpretation to say that one interpretation is right and another is wrong. They are all equally right FOR THE PEOPLE DOING THE INTERPRETING!

Hey, does that sound like the history of Protestantism at all?

Do you deny that?

In fact, does that sound like modernity and relativism at all?

The contrary to Private Interpretation is to say that there is an objectively correct interpretation that can be reached through reason over time as defined by the Church. This doesn't mean that all of scripture is given a single interpretation. That would be impossible because scripture is always succeptible to different interpretations. But it does mean that the Church can define certain interpretations as wrong. For example, it is wrong to deny that the Son is consubstantial with the Father. Generally, so long as that is understood, we are free to interpret subject to that limitation.

So, non-private interpretation does not mean that there is no interpretation. It means that interpretation must be done within the broad guidelines of defined doctrines.

Epistemology - So, having framed this anaylsis, the answer should be clear. How do we know certain doctrines as being true? The exact same way that you and other Protestants know it - because the Church - our church - told us. You don't hold to the Nicene doctrine because you started with the Bible and got there yourself. You accept the Nicene Creed because of a long-series of argument that sought to make sure that the Nicene doctrines "fit" with the rest of Christianity.

We don't have to re-invent the wheel. We can rely on the church which is the pillar and bulwark of truth and which is led by the Holy Spirit into all truth.

The question is, do you trust the Church? I do. I know that my church was founded by Jesus Christ. I can follow an unbroken linkage of bishops back to the beginning. I trust the promise of Christ that the Church will prevail against the gates of Hell.

Since Protestants can't make that claim, they tend to get sucked into a circular argument where Scripture is the only authority because it is Scripture. Of course, why it's scripture or who said it is scripture is simply an issue that gets dropped into a Protestant "blind spot."

Now, I ask you, did I do "Private Interpretation" in accepting the authority of the Church? The answer is "No." I wasn't interpreting the Scripture. I was looking at history.

Once I get to the point of trusting the Church, I now reject Private Interpretation. It is not primarily my right or responsibility to interpret scripture. It is primarily the right and responsibility of the Church to interpret Scripture. My right and responsiblity is secondary to that of the Church. I am not deluded that my interpretation would be better than that of the Church or of the great thinkers of the Church.

Now, reflect back on the CAA diatribe. My point was that whether the Old Testament epiphanies where appearances by God - as everyone seemed to believe - or by Angels - as Augustine argued - was all within the limits of orthodox belief. The church has offered no definition on the subject. So, we can argue about the issue. I offered Augustine as a possible interpretation. Not a single Protestant bothered to read Augustine. Not a single Protestant said, "hey, that's interesting." Why was that?

The answer was that they didn't think they needed Augustine. I was told repeatedly that Augustine might be great theologian, and no one was saying that they were as good as Augustine, but their opinions were really as good as Augustine, ALL WITHOUT EVER READING OR ADDRESSING WHAT AUGUSTINE WROTE!

That is just disappointing from any group that claims to be intellectual. Augustine, as I said, might be right, he might be wrong, but, heck, he ought to have some persuasive authority in an area that is unclear.

Interpretation - As I said, there are places where the Bible is unclear. There are places where Augustine is clear. My questions to you were (a) do you deny that? and (b) if you admit the obvious, what does that do to your claim about needing interpreters to interpret Augustine?