by Matthew A. C. Newsome ©2003

I try to keep up with the discussion going on at Spero Forums, a discussion group for dialog and debate between Catholics and Protestants (mostly Baptists).  In one particular instance, a fellow calling himself "Shrack the Baptist" objected to my warning against "private interpretation" of the scriptures to suit our own pet doctrines and desires.  He wrote a lengthy post in response, part of which is quoted below.

In the Catholic mind, the term "private interpretation" is used to describe the act of any individual who reads the Bible and comes to a different conclusion than does the Catholic magisterium. But I find it interesting that Peter, who was the first to use the term "private interpretation," didn't have any qualms about entrusting two epistles of Scripture to the minds of the common laity. . . . when Peter said that the prophecy of Scripture was not of any private interpretation, what he meant by it was that no prophecy had ever come about as a result of the will of any man. . . . And this is because Peter understood that the church, which is the congregation or assembly of saints, is the pillar and ground of the truth, and not some magisterium composed solely of bishops or elders. In other words, Peter knew that the church members to whom he was writing were very capable of comprehending what he was writing to them, because they were the church of Christ. . . . It seems to me, then, that while Catholics are busy depicting the beliefs of others as "private interpretation," as if there is something invalid in having a different interpretation of Scripture than themselves, the Catholics have actually come up with their own kind of private interpretation, which hardly resembles anything remotely close to what the apostle was speaking about.

My response, in part, is what follows.

---

I feel like I need to respond to Schrak's post here before addressing [the original topic of the thread].

First, let's identify the verse in question (2 Peter 1:20) in its context. Peter here has just finished reminding the recipients that the Apostles were witnesses of Christ's sacrifice and Resurrection. This, he says, is not something they made up, but something they have seen. Only after stating this does he remind them that no prophecy in scripture is open for private interpretation.

Taken in context, the scriptures he refers to are the Jewish scriptures, and the prophecies are those referring to the Messiah. There were Jews in that time who denied Christ was the Messiah and they did this claiming that He did not properly fulfill the prophecies according to their interpretation.

Peter here is telling them that it is not a matter of private interpretation, but a matter of what is. The truth is the truth and he is a witness to the truth.

Perhaps a verse more pertinent to the subject at hand is one that comes towards the end of this same epistle. In 2 Peter 3:15-16, he writes, "So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do to the other scriptures" [emphasis mine].

Again, like the Old Testament mentioned previously, this implies that with the emerging New Testament, as well, there is a right and a wrong interpretation. There is an orthodox and a heterodox view. Peter says that the "ignorant and unstable" misinterpret these texts. Who can he be talking about? Individuals? Certainly I have known many individuals who were both ignorant and unstable, as I am sure you have.

But could Peter be talking about the Church? Could the Church have misunderstood or misinterpreted Sacred Scripture for 2000 years? Many people accuse the Catholic Church of "twisting" scriptures to her own destruction. Is the Church "ignorant and unstable?"

Not according to the Word of God. Scripture calls the Church "the pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

Schrak identifies this "church" as merely a collection of individual believers. And surely there is some truth in this. All the baptized are joined with the Body of Christ, which is the Church. But is this all the Church is? Is this where the Church's teaching authority lies? Surely no, for then the Church would be a democracy and our doctrine would be defined by popular opinion. This is not the case. No one gets to cast a vote on what is the truth.

Schrak denied that "the church" has the ability to teach authoritatively, and this is where our primary difference lies. This is why Catholics speak against private interpretation of scripture. We know it cannot always be right. We know individuals do not have the ability to decide their own truth. If that was the case, then all those who privately interpreted the Old Testament prophecies to mean Jesus was not the Messiah would have been just as right as Peter was.

It would mean that Luther, who interpreted scripture to mean Christ's Real Presence existed in the Eucharist along with the bread and wine (consubstantiation) would have been just as correct as Zwingli, who interpreted the scripture to mean that the Eucharistic meal was merely symbolic, and the Real Presence was a superstition. It would mean that Calvin, who interpreted the scripture to mean that man's fate is predestined by God would be just as correct as those who say we have free will. It would mean that Mormons, who interpret the scripture to mean that Jesus is the God of our single planet, and when we die, if we are lucky, we will get to be the god of our own planet of worshipers, have just as much credence as the Pope!

This multitude of beliefs is where the private interpretation of scripture leads you. The Catholic Church simply advises you that there is but one truth, and that you are not the first person to read the Bible. Don't think you are going to "get it right" where 2000 years of consistent Church teaching has "gotten it wrong." There is the sin of pride in that.