The Interpretation of the Bible
By G. B. Thompson
ONE claim put forth by the Roman Catholic Church as proof of her love and veneration for the Bible, is that she has preserved it through the ages, and transmitted it to us. Having thus set herself forth as a witness to its authenticity, she follows with the claim of being the only true interpreter of that Word, and forbids to those within her pale the right of private interpretation. Concerning this claim Rev. J. A. Wylie makes the following observation: “We admit the church—that is, the universal church, and not exclusively the church of Rome—to be a main witness as to the authenticity and genuineness of the Scriptures, on the ground that they have come down to us through her; but that is another question altogether from her right to solely and infallibly interpret the Scripture. The messenger who carries a letter may be a competent witness as to its authenticity and genuineness. He had it from the writer; it has not been out of his possession since; and he can speak very confidently and authoritatively as to its expressing the will of the person whose signature it bears; but is he only, therefore, entitled to interpret its meaning? He may be a very competent authority on its authenticity, but a very incompetent authority on its sense. The church of Rome has confounded the question of authenticity and the question of interpretation. Because the church carries this divine letter to us, we will listen to what she has to say on its authenticity; but inasmuch as this letter is addressed to us, and touches questions which involve our eternal welfare, and contains not the slightest hint that it needs to be either interpreted or supplemented by the bearer, we will use the right and responsibility of interpreting it for ourselves.”—“The Papacy,” pages 175, 176. Rome’s claim of love for the Scriptures is not for any value which she puts upon them “as connected with the glory of God and the salvation of man, but because they afford her a better foundation than any she could invent on which to rear her system of superstition.” With Rome it is the Bible and tradition. And tradition is, in practice, placed above the inspired Word, in that tradition interprets the Word, but the Word is never permitted to explain tradition. Her claim of love for, and belief in, the Bible is a mockery. To the Bible this so-called mother church adds the Apocrypha; tradition; the acts and decisions of the church, including tomes and tomes of papal bulls, decretals, and sayings and doings of so-called saints; and volumes of the Greek and Latin fathers. From all this chaos of falsehood and contradiction, interpreted and explained by priests and bishops, the poor people are to learn the way of salvation. Light and liberty are twins. When one is lost, the other is also; when faith is surrendered, peace is parted with. How true, as Wylie says, that “having put out his eyes, popery led man away to grind in her prison-house.” How thankful we should be for an open Bible, in which every man may read concerning the love of God, and the duty which he owes to his Creator; and that through a loving and merciful Saviour he can come to God, and find compassion and forgiveness for his sin; that without the intervention of priest, prelate, or the Virgin Mary, he can read the blessed Word, understand it for himself, guided only by the Holy Spirit, and obey it according to the dictates of his own conscience. This was the great battle-cry of the Reformation, “The Bible and the Bible only.” Let us daily study the Bible for ourselves.