Problems with the Protestant Notion of Private Interpretation.

Private interpretation has the following problems -

1) The principle of private interpretation assumes the text as a given. Yet the text in the OT was not a given, but was in a state of progressive revelation made within the Patriarchal community and then the covenant community of Israel. Both communities lived their faith within structures given by God and within traditions that reinforced and affirmed the understanding of the texts considered to be revealed. For example, the priests would teach the scriptures and thereby have authority to apply the law to the community. The Chair of Moses was also used to teach and bind the faithful.

2) The principle of private interpretation assumes revelation is contained within the NT. Yet, the NT text states many times that the apostles gave the gospel as an oral tradition through preaching. That gospel dominated the early church as the community in which revelation was understood. Revelation within the early church was understood and received as an oral gospel, which assumed certain doctrines and practices not all together included in the scriptures. By ignoring the early church practice, the principle of private interpretation applied within Protestantism without any evidence from history or the text, assumes such practice has ceased. The assumption is false, making the application of the principle of private interpretation within Protestantism also false.

3) The principle of private interpretation assumes sola scriptura as an implied principle. As sola scriptura is false, then the principle of private interpretation is misapplied within Protestantism.

4) The principle of private interpretation assumes doctrines to be believed are derived from a text. Yet there is no evidence within the text that such a method is ever used in the OT or NT Church. Hence the principle of private interpretation assumes a method to discover Christian doctrine that is foreign to the scriptures themselves. Hence, the principle of private interpretation is misapplied within Protestantism.

5) The principle of private interpretation assumes methods of exegesis that are not contained within the text. Such methods in the modern age are many and diverse which arrive at different conclusions concerning what the text means. As the principle of private interpretation assumes a valid method, which is not given in the scriptures, any valid method must be derived independent of any directive given in the text. The lack of scriptural mandate for a method mitigates against the use of any method along with the principle of private interpretation. Hence, the principle of private interpretation is misapplied within Protestantism.

6) The principle of private interpretation assumes both an easy access to the text, and literacy which is only available in the modern age. Hence the principle of private interpretation is unhistorical when compared to the availability of the text to the faithful and the ability of the faithful to read the text. The historical application of the text is more aligned with the Church teaching the scriptures and the fullness of the gospel along with tradition, rather than individual exegetes being formed at university to then produce multiple competing doctrines from the same text.

7) The principle of private interpretation assumes too much concerning the intent of the Holy Spirit as the author of the text. It assumes the Holy Spirit wrote the text primarily as the means by which Christian doctrine is to be determined. Yet there is no evidence within the text that the Holy Spirit intended this for the text. Hence, the principle of private interpretation is misapplied within Protestantism.

8) The principle of private interpretation assumes too much concerning the competence in any Church age of exegetes to correctly interpret the text. As Church history moves on, history reveals the principles of exegesis once accepted are then questioned and either improved upon, or abandoned as problems arise. Such problems become apparent over long time periods, which indicate that the principle of private interpretation opens Christians in any generation to the vagaries of schools of thought on exegetical method, which can be influenced by false philosophies of the schools. Historical evidence against the application of private interpretation mitigates against its application within Protestantism.

9) The principle of private interpretation assumes too much authority for exegetes and a misplaced authority for scripture. The text does not grant exegetes authority, or theologians authority. Nor does the text grant authority to the text apart from the Church as the covenant community with the powers to speak for God. Hence the principle of private interpretation assumes 1) a false authority for exegetes and theologians and 2) a false lack of authority for the Church.

10) The principle of private interpretation assumes too little authority within the church. For by private interpretation, the principle assumes there is no other corrective, or normative guide within the church to direct a Christian towards Christian doctrinal truth. The principle of private interpretation therefore falsely assumes no other equivalent or greater authority when there is abundant support within the text and church history that speaks of such authority within the church. In short, the principle of private interpretation seeks to apply the guidance of the Holy Spirit to individuals, but rejects that guidance to the Church proper to then speak prophetically to define dogmas of the faith.

11) The principle of private interpretation inevitably concludes to diversity of Christian doctrine and denominationalism. Yet denominationalism is not found in the NT scriptures. Hence the principle of private interpretation is false according to the principle contradicting scripture in practice.

12) The principle of private interpretation inevitably concludes to diversity of Christian doctrine and consequently to both fundamentalism and liberal indifferentism concerning Christian doctrine. Both are foreign to the text, and therefore the principle of private interpretation contradicts the scriptures in practice.

13) The principle of private interpretation is applied along with the principle that says unclear texts can be better understood by the clearer texts. Yet there is no guarantee that unclear texts can be better understood through clearer texts. In fact the application of clearer texts to unclear texts may only act to truncate and remove ambiguities deliberately placed by the Holy Spirit in unclear texts for His own reasons. The Holy Spirit is Lord of all, and therefore Lord of ambiguity, given for men’s salvation.

14) The principle of private interpretation has historically been behind many debates between Protestants on a multitude of doctrines. Yet there is no evidence within the text that debates are the means God has given the church to decide upon Christian doctrine. Hence the principle of private interpretation concludes to a false practice not taught in the scriptures.

For these any many other reasons, the principle of private interpretation is both helpful to understand the text, but when misapplied as we see it in Protestantism, is gravely deficient.

JM