There does seem to be some support for the Private Interpretation idea.

Matthew 6:5-6

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Frank | 12.22.05 - 9:23 pm | #

To be fair to Catholics, most of the devout Catholics I know would have answered with some variation on the Protestant "Because Christ is my Lord and Savior" theme.
Matthew | 12.22.05 - 11:52 pm | #

I thnk perhaps you are giving a somewhat misleading view of the Reformers. Given their reaction to the Radical Reformers, one could hardly call Luther and Calvin champions of "private interpretation." Their whole premise was built upon sola scriptura but it was not solo scriptura. Tradition was to be judged by scripture but they acknowleged the role of tradition in the Church. Luther and especially Calvin used the interpretations given by the patristic writers - particularly Augustine of Hippo - high esteem in formulating their own theology. When the Reformation hit England, the Englsh Reformers even kept the traditional polity of the Church.

The Kennedy anecdote may be soothing to ears in a homespun sort of way but it masks some very deep differences that no amount of spin can change. The fact remains that much of Evangelical Protestantism qualifies as a different religion from what the Reformers believed and in many ways is farther away than Rome was at the time.

The tendency is to overlook differences but in reality the alleged unity is an illusion. They may agree, for example, on the solas of the Reformation but their interpretations are diametrically opposed. Modern Evangelicals have a different definition of "sola scriptura" from traditional Calvinists and Lutherans, they have a different definition of faith, and they have a completely different understanding of worship, the sacraments, and the Church. The only real agreement is on the terminology of the solas (but not the substance) and on the united front against Catholicism.

In Christ,

Albert
Albert | Homepage | 12.24.05 - 4:37 am | #

I believe it was John Stott who made the comment; In esentials unity, in non-essentals liberty and in all things charity. This has encouraged me greatly when discussing biblical doctrine and interpretations with others. My comment is toward those that are learned enough in the Christian faith to understand the differences between essentials and non essentials. When we leave the "principals of the doctrine of Christ"and "as we go on to perfection" differences of opinion on biblical texts will sometimes occur due to our incomplete knowledge or worse our biases. Spiritual maturity will often dictate the ability to discuss non essential topics.
Peter | 12.24.05 - 8:29 am | #

> "There does seem to be some support for the Private Interpretation idea..."

And don't forget 2 John 10. To direct individual believers to reject false teachers presupposes that the individual can discern false teaching. Had St Paul been Cathodox nstead of Evangelical, he'd have written "And do not even invite into your home a preacher who is not in visible communion with the Patriarch of [Rome/ Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople or Jerusalem or a majority of them]"...
Tom R | 12.27.05 - 11:17 pm | #

I agree... Being "one in Christ" is very important for the church members to know and understand... as your last paragraph states.

...Bernie
http://fgn.typepad.com/
bernie dehler | Homepage | 12.30.05 - 2:53 pm | #