Timothy and I have been conversing on this issue for a while now. (See our earlier conversation here.)

I'm glad he has responded. And my reply is as follows:-

By circularity, I'm assuming your are NOT referring to the original charge of circularity, but the second:

"Regardless of any of these, I wonder- who does the interpreting of these verses? The Roman Catholic church? If so, how can we know that their interpretation is the right one? Because they are infallible? By what grounds to they claim infallibility? The Bible verses you cited?

Notice the circularity."

Yep.

Your charge of circularity is false because the origin of the scriptures and the interpretation taught to the Church was ommitted.

Recall that both the Old and New Testaments were given to the Church in unwritten form by God. The words that were written in their hearts were passed on orally until transcribed into written form. First by the Jewish church and later by the Christian church. The Jewish church, in the form of rabbis and priests, interpreted the Old Testament. Thus, the precedent is set with the OT that the Church interprets scripture, not individuls.

I disagree. The OT and NT were not the OT and NT until it was written down. Until they became scripture.

Is the precedent set? No, I don’t think so. The Jewish rabbis/priests may have done the majority of the interpreting and expounding, but laypeople also had access to the scriptures and could understand them for themselves. Also, you can see how the Jewish interpreters came to different conclusions. The Pharisees and Sadducees illustrate this.

What is the church? Individuals. Individuals are the ones who do the interpreting, be they Catholics or Protestants.

When Jesus came, He taught the apostles and the other disciples (the Church) the right interpretation of the scriptures. You surely do not claim that Christ taught the wrong interpretation of scripture?

No. But I do not see any reason why he thought everything there is to know to the apostles. I believe the apostles learned many other things by the exegesis of the OT- things which were probably not taught to them by Jesus.

The apostles and their disciples faithfully passed along the Gospel and the interpretations of scripture taught by Christ, first orally and later in writing. You surely do not claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke, Peter, Paul, James or John erred in teaching or writing the NT scripture and its interpretation.

Therein lies the problem. What makes someone infallible? Apostolicity? But how about people like Luke? Surely you do not claim that what he wrote was fallible. The truth is, the Bible is infallible and absolutely correct, but not always our interpretations of it. The apostles and some others might have had access to Jesus’ infallible teachings as well as good skills in interpretation, but we must also remember that the early church also had its share of heresies and bad interpretations.

The early Church faithfully recorded the teachings of the appostles and their disciples. Ignatius of Antioch wrote about 20 years after the death of the apostle John and was himself the disciple of one of John's disciples.

The Catholic Church has faithfully preserved and taught the same teachings and interpretations of the early Church. The written records are available for all to read.

Since there were a variety of opinions held by different church fathers, would you care to tell us which segment of the early church has faithfully preserved the correct teachings?

Whenever there is a question of the true interpretation of scripture, the Church, through its magisterium (bishops, priests, and lay scholars), carefully reviews the scripture and the interpretation taught and recorded by the early Church.

The same thing happens with Anglicans, Methodists and Presbyterians. As for the interpretation taught and recorded by the early Church, there were many differing ones. Care to tell us which is is correct? (And how do we know it is?)

Thus, I and fellow Catholics may have the utmost confidence that the Church's interpretation of the scriptures is true. (If something is true, it's also, by virtue of being true, infallible. How can truth ever be fallible?)

I do not have your same level of confidence in the Church.

Note that there is nothing circular in the above, until there is a question regarding an interpretation. Then and only then does the Church "circle back", but it circles back into Church history (sacred tradition) to make absolutely certain that the Church teaches the truth (infallibly).

It seems to me that all you have argued is that the RC church follows the Early Church- and that is itself debatable. Which early church father, for example, should we follow? Why? Are they truly recording the “apostolic” teaching of old? How does one know?

(I have seen no such care in the interpretations of non-Catholic churches. Where are your safegaurds against teaching a false interpretation, especially in light of the fact that at no time does your church nor do its pastors ever claim infallibility?)

Our safeguards usually lie in our creedal confessions (or the ones we adopt) and/or our statement of faith.

Claims to infallibility are meaningless unless proven. Sometimes infallibility can be an artificial construct we put upon things.

Even then, the apostle Paul (being infallible, as you hold) when preaching to the Bereans, had his teaching checked with the Bible. If his teaching was infallible, why bother to check the Bible? The point is, although Paul was probably teaching the truth, we should always check back to our foundation, the Bible.

Is that because they know that they are teaching errors?

It’s because they know that they might be wrong; that they are human.

If non-Catholic churches teach the true interpretation of the scriptures, why are there so many churches with contradicting doctrines?

Some churches teach correct hermeneutical principles, others don't. Some follow them, others don't follow them good enough. It all depends on how hardworking, meticulous and accurate we are.

Was this Christ's intention? Did Christ establish a single Church with one true (infallible) interpretation of scripture or did He establish many churches with as many differing (false, fallible) interpretations of scriptures?

What do you know, I wonder, of Christ’s intentions?

The church in the NT were riddled with doctrinal problems even with all the "infallible" resources at their disposal. It is interesting to note that Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, does not argue with them using his infallibility by saying "I'm an apostle, I'm infallible, and that settles it". Rather, we see him correct the straying members of the Corinthian church by reason and by expounding and intepretation of scripture.

To summarize:
1) God teaches the Church the truth.
2) The Church first teaches orally.
3) The Church later writes down the truth.

God -> Church -> Scripture -> Us

Nothing circular.

There’s a problem with (1). What is the “Church”? There were many churches with different interpretations of scripture and doctrines. Which one is right?

Now demonstrate to me that all the doctrines you hold were taught by the early NT church and held by Polycarp (disciple of John), Ambrose, Augustine, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and/or Cyril. Where's your proof that the interpretation of scripture you hold is the true (infallible) one?

Regarding these men, they were not infallible. They had fallen into many errors and held differing opinions. Tertullian, for example, was caught up with Montanism. He also held to creation ex nihilo. Others like Origen taught that God created from pre-existing matter. Augustine taught predestination. The Roman Catholic church does not.

I can’t give you proof that my interpretation is the infallible one because there is no infallible interpretation. Again, which of these people should we see as teaching the “true” doctrines?

"Prayer...yeah, that's a good idea. Mormons ask us to pray too."

First, that's an attempt at guilt by association. Bad form...

No, it’s an attempt to show that prayer alone doesn’t get things solved. People who pray sometimes are led into different things.

Second, what are you afraid of? You believe in the divinity of Jesus, that you may pray directly to Him and ask for guidance, and He is faithful and will answer you.

Agreed, but Jesus is not a vending machine wherein you pray to him and get your answer the next day. He has given us the Bible for that. Pray to Jesus to show you the truth, then go to his Word and find it.

Here's some additional food for thought by the reknown Christian G.K. Chesterton:

"I could not understand why these romancers never took the trouble to find out a few elementary facts about the thing they denounced. The facts might easily have helped the denunciation, where the fictions discredited it. There were any number of real Catholic doctrines I should then have thought disgraceful to the Church . . . But the enemies of the Church never found these real rocks of offence. They never looked for them. They never looked for anything . . . Boundless freedom reigned; it was not treated as if it were a question of fact at all . . . It puzzled me very much, even at that early stage, to imagine why people bringing controversial charges against a powerful and prominent institution should thus neglect to test their own case, and should draw in this random way on their own imagination . . . I never dreamed that the Roman religion was true; but I knew that its accusers, for some reason or other, were curiously inaccurate."

(The Catholic Church and Conversion, NY: Macmillan, 1926, 36-3)

That’s real bad form from you- quoting generalizations and vague statements. For that matter, switch the words "Roman" and "Catholic" with "Protestant" and you get some damning statements against the RC church.

In the end, Tim, the fact that you try to establish infallibility by arguing to the early church is revealing. It shows that you can't establish it from the scriptures (but if you tried, then that would have been circular).

Should we trust the early church? The fact is, we don't know. There might've have been some true statements made, and some false ones. But how can we know for sure which is the "truth"? I say we have the Bible for that. Granted, people interpret it differently. But they do so to many other things as well because we are all fallen creatures.

Instead, we better start learning how to understand the Word of God.

God bless you as well.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 at 6:01 PM. |