Terry,
Good to see evidence of you punching away at the keyboards - here and on that other related topic. If I knew which topics would make you feel more like yourself, I'd come up with another one whether it means acting as straight man or not.
When you made this entry, it brought back memories. Back about five years ago, when I first saw a home crisis brewing, someone close to me, seemingly out of the blue asked:
"Don't you think you need to have someone explain to you the Bible, someone who is expert to teach you what it is all about?" In other words, someone to drop by with the booklet "What the Bible Really Teaches".
But I didn't even know that. At that point it was "How odd!" Here she is with her presumed Protestant background telling me with my Catholic background that I need someone like a priest to explain doctrines derived from the Bible. Whose line was whose?
And by coincidence, I happened to see a newly published book (by Alister McGrath) titled, "Chistianity's Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution - A History from the 16th Century to the 21st". And after I read all 500 pages of it, I had to conclude that I wasn't hot on the trail of what she was talking about. Only colder. I could only conclude that Protestantism now had so many branches that many of them had turned 180 degrees from their point of departure.
On page 221 there was brief mention of a group called Jehovah's Witnesses- Starting on 220:
[Despite efforts for unity of belief]...
"...Indeed the Reformation itself, by insisting on the right of all believers to read and interpret the Bible for themselves can be seen as a revolt against the quasi-papal centralization of authority.
"One strategy of particular interest emerged during the 1980s, when some conservative Protestants, particularly in the US, began to characterize the Bible as 'infallible' or 'inerrant'. In doing so they were picking up on some themes from the 19th century writings of Benjamin Warfield, while giving them a new and significant emphasis. Yet this claim did not, as some had hoped, solve the problem of multiple interpretations. It is perfectly possible for an inerrant text to be interpreted incorrectly [ e.g., students with the math text]. Asserting the infallibility of the text merely accentuates the importance of the interpreter of that text. Unless the interpreter of the text is also thought to be infallible - a view that Protestantism has rejected, associating it with Catholic views of the church or the papacy- the issue of determining the right meaning of the Bible is not settled, or even addressed, by declaring the sacred text is infallible. The Jehovah Witnesses, for example, regard the Bible as infallible, yet interpret core passages in a way that most Protestants find unacceptable, especially in relation to the identity of Jesus of Nazareth.
"...What distinguishes Protestantism at this point [in debate] is not allowing any authority above scripture, such as a pope or council. This principle is often affirmed using the Latin slogan Scriptura ipsius interpres (Scripture is its own interpreter). Whereas Catholicism resolves such tensions through magisterial pronouncements on the part of the teaching authority of the church, Protestantism recognizes no such authority above scripture. Such tensions must be resolved by means that will command support within Protestantism on account of the intrinsic merits, including their intellectual plausibility and their consonance with biblical witness as a whole."
All right. Easier said than done. The author had another 300 pages to go.
I discovered that my dearest had always assumed that Martin Luther was a family name of the King family. Nothing to do with anybody else. Back in the 160s BC, the orthodox Maccabean revolt started when Hellenized Jews started buying off the Seleucid Greek rulers to obtain their own high priesthood. Within a generation the Hasmonean heirs to the revolt were engaging in the same practice.
But still, I would say that there are additional complications to right scriptural interpretation. For as shown by no more than translation and compilation, how can the Bible be inerrant if it contradicts itself? Or, as shown in some comparisons in another topic, if the original intent of the Hebrew or Greek words is unclear?
In that regard I do sympathize with the Protestant plausibility argument. The alternative is much like throwing out all case law because some decisions seem clearly in error. If we throw it all out we have nothing to guide us and nothing to learn from.
"Interpretation is Christianity"...?
