It's easy. I just don't trust that institutions will always have the best answer.
One small critique of the article is that it presupposes that the only way to analyze the Bible is to look only within the pages of the Bible, and not perform the type of contextual and literary analysis that the Bible deserves.
Granted, even with that, you are still going to have differences in opinion.
My major critique is that the article presupposes that this leads to very important problems.
I found this piece to be on point:
Quote:
According to Mathison, when Christians do not follow the authoritative guidance of the Church in their interpretation of Scripture, not only do they fall into various kinds of errors, but Scripture itself, as he shows by various examples, necessarily ceases to function as their authority. In one example, he refers to Reformed theologian Robert Reymond's call for "an abandonment of the Nicene Trinitarian concept in favor of a different Trinitarian concept," referring to Reymond's rejection of the Nicene Creed's teaching that Christ is eternally begotten.12 According to Mathison, this shows that for proponents of solo scriptura the Nicene Creed has no real authority.13
Mathison also refers to Edward Fudge, who defends annihilationism, as another example of someone operating according to solo scriptura. Fudge claims that Scripture "is the only unquestionable or binding source of doctrine on this or any subject."14 The fact that annihilationism is heterodox does not deter him; he believes that his own interpretation of Scripture is correct on this matter, and that here the Church has been wrong. In addition to these examples, Mathison identifies Ed Stevens, who defends hyperpreterism, as another proponent of solo scriptura. Mathison quotes Stevens as writing:
Even if the creeds were to clearly and definitively stand against the preterist view (which they don't), it would not be an overwhelming problem since they have no real authority anyway. They are no more authoritative than our best opinions today, but they are valued because of their antiquity. . . . We must not take the creeds any more seriously than we do the writings and opinions of men like Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, the Westminster Assembly, Campbell, Rushdoony, or C.S. Lewis.15
The biggest danger, this author seems to suggest, is that we might come to different, conflicting opinions on stuff like annihilationism, the nature of the Trinity, and preterism.
Who cares? Why can we not live in community even if we conclude different speculations on metaphysical nuances of a transcendental God which we have no ability to fully comprehend anyways? The meat of the gospel is still there, and it is pretty self interpretive.
One of the great lessons that Jesus brought to our attention is that man has the tendency to focus on the nuances to the exclusion of the important principles. An authoritative hierarchy that decides who is right and who is wrong on these nuances just encourages this problem. Jesus often deflected questions about the bright line of the law on tricky subjects by referencing the importance of Godly principles.
Quote:
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spicesmint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the lawjustice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. - Matt 23
Quote:
At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."
He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated breadwhich was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven't you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." - Matt 12
In conclusion, I don't think that this is as bad of a problem as the article makes out. Sure, people have a tendency to divide, and that is bad. And, you will always have some kook like we have here in Houston who is going to twist stuff to his own benefit. But, adopting an authoritative structure to dictate "correct" answers of metaphysical questions to me seems not to align with the actual teachings of Jesus Christ, who emphasized the the important things are the core principles, which are hard enough to do that differences of opinion on most of these nuances don't really deserve our attention.
Not that I dislike the Catholic Church. MVP of all charitable institutions of all time. I generally love Catholics.
