The Bible Interprets Itself

The Bible Interprets Itself

November 29, 2004

Stan Williams, Ph.D.

This is therapy.

Last night in a noisy jazz club I got into an argument with a few Lutherans who claim they're not Protestant but the original "catholic" church. Since Luther was excommunicated, so their thinking goes, and didn't voluntarily leave the Catholic Church he (and they) are not "protesting" anything and so they shouldn't be considered Protestants.

This is fascinating logic. If Lutherans are the original Catholic Church I wonder what happened to the church that kicked Luther out?

I was also informed that these particular folk are part of an independent Lutheran Church and left the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church (recently) and neither will they have anything to do with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in American because they, too, teach wrong doctrine. Again, fascinating logic. I wonder how excommunications and defections enhance one's authority? And how do we know, just within Lutheranism, which the "true" Catholic-Lutheran Church? By what method, just within Lutheranism, is truth measured infallibly?

I was also told that Catholics have an erroneous Bible insofar as it has 72 books in it and the Lutheran Bible (?) has 66. This is fascinating reconstruction of Lutheran history, insofar as all of Luther's Bible translations had all 72 books in them.

By what authority do these Lutherans use only 66 books?  Surely not Luther.

But the most fascinating thing I heard all evening was that the Bible interprets itself. I've head this before. But it leaves me slightly confused.  Where in the Bible am I informed as to which of the 66 or 72 are supposed to be in the Bible? Or do we not need an infallible authority (e.g. a church council) to establish an infallible authority (e.g. the Bible)? And why does the Bible not include one or more of the dozen of letters and writings from the early Apostles such as the Gospel According to Peter, The Epistle of Barnabas, or The Didicae? Who determined what was to be in the Bible and what was to be excluded? If the Bible can interpret itself, then surely it can resolve it's own evolution. And if the Bible can interpret itself, then why are their 20,000 + different Christian churches all claiming that the other church is misinterpreting the Bible?

Before the Protestant Reformation, the answer was very simple. In fact, the answer now is the same as it was for the first 1500 years. There is an authority that listens and obeys the Holy Spirit as prescribed by Christ.

Or, where does the Bible say that the Bible is the only authority on morals and faith apart from men, led infallibly by the Holy Spirit, to interpret it?

As a Roman Catholic there is a very easy answer to the authority issue, because it is so explicitly stated in the Bible. And contrary to what many non-Catholics believe, the teachings of the Church are infallible not simply because they come from a man who is the head of an institution, but because they come from the Holy Spirit, as Jesus said they would. Here is the doctrine and process in a few Bible verses.

----

Jesus tells Peter, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Mt 16:19)

But such authority is not arbitrary but inspired and infallibly brought to the Church through the Holy Spirit. Again Jesus is talking: "The Holy Spirit...will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you." (John 14:26)  "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, will guide you to ALL truth. (John 16:12-13)

And then, Jesus says to the Apostles, "RECEIVE the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." (John 20:23)

Thus, infallibility ONLY comes through the Holy spirit, and yes through men in leadership who have been given that blessing.

----

Now non-Catholic Christians disagree with this, because in their Christian culture they've been taught that no one is infallible. And within their Christian upbringing they are absolutely right. There is no infallible promises to any of their non-Catholic church leaders. That is their experience, their life, their teaching, and even Catholics agree with that teaching. Why? Because somewhere in history non-Catholic leaders have either been excommunicated (as Luther was) or voluntarily defected from the church and by natural consequence excommunicated themselves. Therefore they have been separated from the above promise of infallibility.

It is only reasonable then, that non-Catholics are offended when someone tells them that what they believe about infallibility is true, but only for their own church. And what is true for their church does not, by logic or any other extension of authority, extend to another church. To do so is like someone with O+ blood claiming that everyone else must have O+ blood. Or, it's like the leader of one organization demanding that another organization follow the first organization's by-laws.

The verses quoted above explicitly state and define infallibility; and you will never read of a Lutheran theologian claiming them for himself or his church. Non-Catholic theologians will continue to say that no one is  infallible (that is what they know from personal experience), and that is the claim echoed loudly, and clearly, and continually by all non-Catholics.

This, too, is fascinating. Because the non-Catholic proclamation about how no one or no church is infallible, IS in the form of an infallible statement. It is a universal, dogmatic, timeless declaration of fact...to those that say it.

And so, logically, if no one is infallible, how then does anyone know absolute truth? Or, how can one even be so infallible to prescribe that no one is infallible?

The Catholic Church has a simple answer. The Holy Spirit speaks through the Church (which contains all believers, including priests, religious, bishops and the Bishop of Rome) and through prayer, fasting, dialogue, debate, and study...the will of God about a particular issue is arrived at and proclaimed by the Church as true. The process in each case takes years. Never has a Pope arbitrarily, outside that normally very long process of discerning God's will, made any dogmatic proclamation. And never has a Pope made a proclamation of truth without the consensus of the other bishops of the church. Thus, while the Pope is said to have the office of the keys, he has never used them without being in union with the doctrine of the full church. Furthermore, no doctrine has ever been proclaimed unless the church can confirm that the doctrine was believed and held true during the lives of the Apostles and in keeping with their direct teachings. Therefore, although some doctrines have been proclaimed since the last apostle died, the Church can demonstrate that the first church under the Apostles' leadership held such beliefs. Like the law of gravity, the proclamation of the law later on does not create it, but only explains and articulates what has always been true.

Response to Barb

A response to Barb's comment found in the comments here:
https://ninevehscrossing.blogspot.com/2004/11/the-bible-interprets-itself.html
It was too long to post in the comments section of that post.

Hi Barb. No offense, either. 

Let me clarify.

The foundation of the Catholic Church in the New Testament is legendary. Church doctrine, of course began BEFORE there was a NT. Over the first 300 years of the Church the Scriptures of the NT were written, passed around and finally collected together. There was NOT a NT at first. So, Christianity is not based on the NT, but on the oral teachings of the Apostles. And that has lasted about 2000 years without change except in how to interpret passages in the face of modern apostasies.

Protestantism, however, came about after 1500 years. You see, Protestantism makes the assumption that the Holy Spirit was wrong for the first 1500 years of Christianity. How can that be?  (This also applies to the Deuterocanon books in the O.T.... If the Bible is the inspired word of God, so the argument goes, and there are 7 books in the O.T. that shouldn't be there (as Protestants claim), then how did the Holy Spirit get it wrong for so long?) The only way that Protestant argument holds water is if they assume the Bible for the first 1500 years was NOT completely inspired by the Holy Spirit. --- The priesthood is mostly celibate (some Catholic priests are married, and if you count the 20 other Catholic Rites other than the Roman Rite) there are many married Catholic priests. (Christ was male and celibate if you recall...thus the model). I don't see how that is a weakness in any way, for it requires strength and discipline of purpose. and clearly a calling by God. (see this post based on thoughts from a Protestant theologian, John Piper: Evangelical Sing and Celibate Benefits.)

I'm glad you included the word "seeming" as a qualifier to "guaranty of salvation via ritual and confession" for that is a perversion of Catholic doctrine that only the uninformed and prejudiced believe. There is no guaranty of salvation in Catholic doctrine. Ritual (if you're referring to the sacraments, is clearly a way to pass on God's grace and mercy....but only to the person who has a right disposition of heart. (That is what the Church teaches.) The PHYSICAL act is important in the same way the GOD BECAME PHYSICAL.) But if there is any guaranty of salvation, even if you're Protestant, confession and turning from sin is part of it...and that is the purpose of the Rite of Reconciliation (Confession to a Priest), ashes on Ash Wednesday, and parts of the Eucharistic liturgy including taking communion ("I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." John 6:53.)

As to forgiving the mafia I'm not sure how you know the hearts and minds of people you have never met. Do you suppose that a gangster going through the motions with no intent of changing his life is forgiven in the eyes of the Church? That's ridiculous...and the only truth to it is in the perverted and imaginary minds of anti-Catholics who want to hold onto their false understandings of Catholic doctrine for fear of becoming Catholic if they actually understood the truth of it. Fulton Sheen famous said, “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”  God's mercy and forgiveness is available to all with a contrite heart who seek and obey him...regardless of their past life. Your concept of the Catholic rite of confession is probably grotesquely perverted if you think that going through the motions without the contrite disposition of heart (true repentance) is part of Catholic teaching. It is not, and never has been.

Now, what you refer to as "social practices incompatible with Biblical holiness" I have no idea, unless you expect Catholics in their individual lives to be without sin (which is the goal for all Christians). I know more than a few Protestants who participate in social practices incompatible with Biblical holiness. But if you're referring to church teaching, I'm be curious what that could be?

You mention Church "tradition." Let's not equivocate. There are two kinds of "tradition." Tradition (with a capital "T") refers to Sacred Tradition that is part of the church's teachings. Thus, the Bible (esp. NT) is a Tradition of the Church. Lower case "tradition" are things all Christians do that are NOT part of doctrine, but more in keeping with devotional practices. The Sacramental Liturgies of the Church are "T"raditions that have been passed down by both Biblical and Early Church practices. Ironically, Protestants have many of these Traditions that they call doctrines that cannot be found in in their history or in the Bible (e.g. Sola Scriptura)

It is true, as you say, that the Catholic Church, in terms of its communication tools, can and have learned much from their Evangelical and other fellowships.  But those are not doctrines. Catholicism makes a distinction in the hierarchy of believes that does not formally exist in Evangelicalism. There is at the highest level (1) DOGMA, (2) DOCTRINE, (3) CANON LAW, (4) WORSHIP PRACTICES, and finally (5) PRIVATE DEVOTIONS. Only dogmas must be believed to be a Christian. Doctrine is what can be publicly taught, Canon Law are the administrative rules that govern Dogma and Doctrine, Local Parish Worship Practices are geographically diverse based on a country's culture, and Devotions are what's allow privately but not publicly. Since Evangelicalism isn't structured like that, it only takes a single Evangelical pastor to elevate his private devotion to the level of a dogma— thus tens of thousands of different denominations...there's no central authority to interpret what is true.  Not so in Catholicism. No so.

I'm not sure how you can classify music (per se) as "Catholic" or "Protestant" unless the hymn was written by a Protestant. But the Church does not make such distinctions. "A Mighty Fortress is our God" (by Martin Luther) is in all Catholic hymnals...but then Luther wrote that while he was still Catholic (but that's just an aside and not a issue for inclusion).

This need to better study the Bible is finally taking root in the Catholic Church in America. You have to remember, however, that the Catholic Church has a very large presence in countries that are illiterate and such is history. It has not been but for the last several hundred years that "reading" and "literacy" has even been widely available in the Western World.  You don't have to be literate to be Catholic, but most Protestants and Evangelicals believe you can't be a Christian unless you can quote Bible verses and study the Bible (clearly a l.c. tradition of Sola Scriptura Evangelicals). That is why older Catholic Churches were filled with statues and stained glass and mosaics of Biblical and famous Christians, and of course, paintings....almost all that exist in famous galleries around the world are by Catholic painters.

Yes, there are Wesley hymns in Catholic hymnals. Catholic. But then most Protestants don't realize that when John and Charles Wesley were writing hymns they both believed in the real sacramental presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (see https://www.amazon.com/Eucharistic-Hymns-John-Charles-Wesley/dp/1878009559) as the Church of England still believes, along with Orthodox and Lutherans (although Lutherans have a minor difference in understanding about it). This is all very Biblical based in the Gospels (esp. John 6) and throughout Paul's writings. It has been that way since the first century and the last Supper. It's only been in the last 200 years that Protestants changed that doctrine, essentially ripping it out of the Bible because it was too Catholic.  It was studying John 6 that finally removed the scales from my eyes and thrust me into Catholicism.  Here's the story: https://ninevehscrossing.blogspot.com/2016/08/corpus-christi-commentary-on-john-6.html