After reviewing the feedback on the Short I made with the same argument, I think there's an important distinction to make. In this video, I'm arguing against the idea that a magisterium is necessary in principle to determine if someone has interpreted a text rightly. I stand by that claim. However, this is not to say that a magisterium isn't incredibly useful to sort out the ensuing mess of what to do when two groups within the church think they're right. It is in fact very helpful to have some authority structure to settle the debate. However, settling the debate is a matter of administering authority, not determining truth. Again, if we say it's the latter, we're raising the bar for truth too high. With that distinction in mind, I look forward to fruitful conversations with you all :)

I am catholic and I think Austin has a good point here. You don’t need the magisterium to be confident of SOME beliefs you get through the bible/church history/events in the modern era. But the greater concern here is in regard to contentious beliefs that we don’t have a strong consensus on (e.g baptismal regeneration). In topics like these, even if you feel sure of your specific position, an intellectually humble person will still admit the possibility of intellectually deceiving himself (which is not unlikely given that there are very smart christians that would disagree with your stance on that topic)

The Catholic Church relies on three authorities to discern Truth. Magisterium, Scripture and Tradition, and they must not contradict each other when coming to a conclusion. How can their be any better system to have confidence of what is Truth. Not to mention Jesus promised to guide the Church into ALL Truth. You seem to simply not want the Catholic Church to be right.

i disagree here. Its a strong argument. I look at the passage when Jesus breathed on the Apostles and said recieve the Holy Spirit whose sins you forgive are forgiven whose sins you retain are retained. I feel that this is authorizing the certain men to forgive on Gods behalf and is the basis for what confession is. Most protestant groups exegesis doesnt get them to the same conclusion but someone here is right and someone here is wrong. This is a critical issue that must be resolved. If God provided a mechanism to recieve his forgiveness through a particular group of individuals then to get that wrong would be a huge blunder. We need a magisterium to tell us what just happened there.

I agree with the weight of your argument here - I shy away from such emphases myself - but I do see immense value in magisterial authority when it comes to the preservation of unity in the interpretation of Scripture. P.S. I love this length of video. Long enough to make a substantial point but short enough to watch on quick breaks between other projects.

New subscriber here. Came from Gavin Ortlund. You're charitable. God bless you ❤✝️🙏

You need to ask yourself why didn't the early church take your understanding of authority and live by it. Did the early church function off of sola scriptura? Why did the early church even consider any type of Magisterium? Why didn't early christians live out their faith in denominations? If they followed your take I don't see how bishops and popes resolve early church heresies.

Not necessarily. But it is necessary to prevent division, schism, and heresy when people interpret the Bible that goes against essential Dogmas.

Individual interpretation of Scripture is what led to the countless sects and splits upon splits within Protestantism. We know what Christ instituted and we had a unified Chuch before the sin of Pride infected those who separated and created personalized doctrines.

I think it is hard to argue for the merit of Protestantism because it is such a broad and diverse set of churches that sometimes have little in common. I don't mean that as a slight, but it is reality. When someone asks me about Protestantism, I have to ask, "which Protestant branch are you referring to?" Not having a magisterium (not even talking about an infallible magisterium, which doesn't exist in Catholic or Orthodox), would cause endless Schism and thousands of interpretations--- which has happened. If scripture can be interpreted in many different ways and we end up settling for that, we will be tiptoeing on relativism and concluding that truth really can't be found in scripture. So yes, Magisterium and Ecumenical Council is very important. Yes, you can know things without a Magisterium...but that doesn't mean it isn't needed.

The problem with this argument is that the interpretation of the Bible has implications of salvation and how we are to live, it’s not like a book club parsing out what Dostovesky was trying to portray in a particular text. Infallibility is necessary for doctrine, Protestants also act as if their interpretation is infallible. Like John 6 being a spiritual meaning, that has far reaching implications if you get that text wrong

I'm not a Catholic, but I do believe you have misinterpreted their argument. Your example regarding CS Lewis' beliefs doesn't really help, either, because you have chosen an example on which there is no disagreement. Is it possible to interpret scripture without the magisterium? Sure. Even reliably, too, *if everyone agrees,* assuming you accept a "majority rules" type of interpretative paradigm. You can come to any interpretation you want, but the question is *on what grounds do you believe your interpretation superior to any other?* For example, we can be confident in the personal interpretation "the Bible teaches God exists" because everyone agrees with that. Therefore, I can base my confidence on the consensus of many other people. Because it's obvious? Well, other people think differently. How do you know your judgment and reason is the superior one we should go with? If only half of the people who read scripture believed it taught the existence of God, and they had an alternate interpretation, I could no longer be as confident in my interpretation. I would have to justify why my ability to assess the evidence is superior to the abilities of half of the population. I enjoy your content. I think in this case however you are focusing on ontology too much and neglecting epistemology. As an Orthodox Christian, not a Roman Catholic, I must disagree with your claim that the magisterium is merely about administering authority. A magisterium can also have a hand in *identifying* truth. None of us "determines" truth. But that doesn't matter, because we must have a reliable standard for the identification of truth, and personal interpretation of the text, or personal assessment of evidence in general, is not a reliable way to do that.

The argument is that if the Protestant heresy was true, you would be able to solve theological controversies over the interpretation of scripture, by scripture itself.

So, I think the strong-form argument, as you present it here, really is weak. But let's get behind the pop argument. I'd make a few points. First, there are absolutely conclusions you can draw from the Bible, as a text, which don't admit to alternative interpretations and which don't require a magisterium to elucidate. I don't think any thoughtful Catholic would disagree. Second, the Bible is nonetheless not just any text and the principles we'd use to derive a relatively unambiguous meaning from other texts are very different. Most notably, the Bible is not a text but 73 texts, or 66, or 75 with, even if you take traditional authorship as read, at least 35 different human authors. When I read even the most complicated novel, say, Finnegans Wake, I can assume a continuity of style, lexicon, and thought pattern that I can't assume with the Bible, even under the strictest definition of inerrancy. Does James mean the same thing by justification as Paul? Who's to say? Like, it's just manifestly obvious that you could come to the conclusion that definitive interpretations of the Bible are hard to reach without at all undermining the general principle that other individual texts have an accessible meaning. Third, the broader question is, can you get to Orthodoxy by approaching the Bible as a text? By that I don't mean, "is Orthodoxy consonant with the text" but "is Orthodoxy mandated by the text". Could someone, in good faith, read the Bible and conclude that, say, Jesus is Lord indeed, but a lesser light than the Father. Is that an interpretation you can exclude from the text alone and without appealing to the accumulated weight and outworking of the first several centuries of Christian tradition? Would a person who'd never heard of Christianity be able to read the text, with the aid of pre-Christian source materials as context, and come to the view of the Godhead you have by Chalcedon? If you performed that experiment on 100 people, would that view be the overwhelming majority? A bare majority? Would it even be a plurality? Which brings us to the real point: yes, you can say a fair number of things, definitively, about the Bible without an authoritative interpreter, but you can't say nearly as much as Christians have traditionally wanted to say. You can exclude many things but you can't exclude enough things. And thus it's no surprise that, as Christianity has increasingly disdained tradition and the democracy of the dead, Orthodoxy has gotten thinner on the ground.

If you're in a complete dark room with no visual or sound reference and someone tells you to throw a ball into a can, it's possible for you to do it? Yes, but how would you know if you managed to do it without someone turning the lights on? It's possible to interpret the Bible to know doctrine and to be right about it but it's not possible to know if you were right in the first place.

Allie Beth Stuckey posted a video about how the SBC is voting on women pastors and teaching on IVF. I recommend watching that video. It ties somewhat into this argument and why we need a magisterium. In Matthew 7:24-27, our Lord explicitly says, build on rock and not on sand. Evangelicals will eventually cave. Up to the 1930’s all the mainline churches were against contraception and then the teaching changed. These issues are only a matter of time. I say this because there is no church polity. Not even an organization as big as the SBC can bind its members and churches morally and doctrinally. Our Lord sheds light on this issue in Matthew 18, “If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” However, in the case of excommunication, this member can just go down the road to a Baptist church that does espouse the beliefs they’re clinging to. If not a Baptist church, then they may become Methodist, or Anglican or non denominational. Ultimately the job of the church is to bind consciences. That is what it means to build on rock. Scripture is the house, the church is the rock. If the church is made of sand and cannot bind, the logical conclusion is Judges 21:25, “In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes.” Again, our Lord sheds clear light on this in Matthew 16:18-19, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Before his bitter and most sorrowful passion our Lord prayed for unity, John 17:20-21, “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.” There will never be unity if each man can take the house of scripture and build it on the sand of himself. It is not the responsibility of each believer, it is the responsibility of the church or else the church that believer belongs to will have failed him. Evangelicals will fail, it’s only a matter of time. “And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.”

How did the apostles in the Church in the Book of Acts establish themselves as ones who could interpret scripture? In Acts 2 when Peter said "This is that which is spoken of by the Prophet Joel" how did he show that his interpretation of Joel was to be listened to? In Galatians, how did the Apostle Paul show that his interpretation of the Law of Moses was correct? If you were in the Church in the Book of Acts, why would you have listened to the interpretation of scripture by the apostles? If they didn't have church history to refer to, as the Church was new, what would have been you reason for listening to them?

Put the inerrant Word of God on a table in a room with an illiterate 8th c. Christian peasant from the countryside. Now tell me whether an infallible magisterium is necessary or not. It absolutely matters who stands in between the scriptures and the Christian. Would a Calvinist be comfortable with a Methodist instructing our hypothetical peasant on salvation? How about a Baptist being OK with a Lutheran telling our peasant friend about regenerative baptism?

Great points and questions. The Magisterium declaring certain interpretations to be truth really only do so if those are integral to the Faith and/or there's a need to clarify as differing interpretations could lead to heresy or schism and compromise Church unity. So as a Catholic, I would trust my own interpretation of Scripture unless it deviates from the Magisterium. This is similar to why you still need the Supreme Court to interpret and clarify the laws. They don't opine on every single law, but only of there is a major disagreement that could affect a large part of the population. The Supreme Court having the authority and final say avoids free-for-all interpretation of laws.

You are right that truth is an independent objective reality that doesn't require a magisterium to exist. But objective truth isn't unifying if in practice fallen man can't determine what it is. The examples you give involve texts that are perspicuous (like whether CS Lewis believed in Hell). And surely the Bible is perspicuous on many things, but Protestants seem to insist on its perspicuity in all things or at least the most important ones ("the main things are the plain things"). But I don't need a magisterium to determine that is not true. Plainly, intractable interpretive issues have persisted for hundreds of years among good faith, educated adherents of sola scriptura working as hard as they can to resolve them. And not on obscure issues of primarily theological interest, like whether Christ had one or two wills, but on cores issues of the gospel, like whether and how salvation can be lost (and if yes, what to do to get it back).

@GospelSimplicity: Hey, Austin! I like this video, and am happy you made it. It's clear that no _Magisterial intervention_ is required to adjudicate the meaning of "Jesus wept." 🤣 Whenever a Catholic expresses why he thinks Jesus instituted a judicial authority in the Church, if that Catholic claims we can't know _whether Jesus wept_ without a Magisterium, he's making a _bad argument._ THAT SAID, have you ever considered the analogy to Intellectual Property Law? For example, the question of "Who owns the copyright to Stairway To Heaven?" ...or, who owns the "Golden Arches" as a Trademark? Here's what I mean: In Christianity there are some topics where the Bible is formally sufficient for any honest observer to have certainty (e.g. "Jesus wept"). There are also topics where the teaching is _initially_ unclear, but comparing the treatment in one book with another can bring clarity (e.g., were James and Joses sons of Jesus' mother? No, they were sons of the wife of Clopas). Beyond these, there are many other topics where the Bible seems to provide _insufficient_ clarity for confidence, but various competing Christian "camps" _claim_ (for whatever reason, but polemical bias is surely involved) that it _is_ sufficiently clear (e.g. pedobaptism vs. credobaptism). And there are still other topics where everybody agrees the Bible is saying _something_ which the _original hearers/readers_ probably understood, but about which we have no certainty. (Who is the Man of Lawlessness, and what is restraining him?) Right there, we have _four_ categories of topics: 1. sufficient clarity for certainty; 2. low-level ambiguity resolved by cross-reference to parallel texts; 3. medium-level ambiguity producing differences-of-opinion even though various persons _claim_ certainty with inadequately-founded confidence; 4. high-level ambiguity where people can speculate, but every honest person either admits he's speculating, or is using extra-textual data because the _text_ is underdetermined. But I don't think we can stop at just those _four_ categories. Surely we also need a category for things like "Which books should be in the canon-of-Scripture?" and "How are Christians even _supposed_ to use Scripture? To reconstruct the faith's dogmas from whole cloth, without reference to history? Or as a source for devotional and typological contemplation? Or both? Or something else?" and "What does it even _mean_ for a book to be inside the canon? Does that merely mean it should be publicly read aloud in the liturgy (which seemingly was the main concern of the initial canonization)? Does it mean that an individual's interpretation of Passage X automatically provides justification for dissension if it comes into conflict with some other individual's interpretation of the same passage?" and "What does it even mean for a text to be _theopneustos?_ Does it guarantee _inerrancy_ to incidental historical and scientific claims? Or only to the original sacred author's main topic? Or only to things pertaining to salvation?" ...etc., etc., etc. And if that's the _fifth_ category, then surely there's also a sixth: "What metaphysical, epistemic, and ethical underpinnings should be assumed when reading the text? Should we think that Natural Law is a valid way of deriving ethical conclusions -- that when we're "plundering the Egyptians" for the best of their golden ideas, we can include Aristotle in our synthesis -- or should we take an approach rejecting everything that doesn't explicitly derive from the traditions of the Hebrews ("What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" or Luther's, "Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things!") ...? ...aaaand there may be still more categories than those. BUT, in the midst of all this, keep in mind: 1. Christianity is what it is, and was what it was, long before you and I were a couple of twinkles in our dads' eyes, respectively; 2. Amid all the things we are free to speculate about (e.g. who restrains the Man of Lawlessness) there is still something called the Required Content of the Christian Religion (RCCR): The doctrines and rites and morals that everybody ought to know and agree upon; and, 3. Whatever this "required content" is, it was revealed by God, in order that the People of God would benefit from it, and carry it to the world in His name. So, He _meant_ for it to be knowable and recognizable. And that's where an analogy to Intellectual Property comes into play, doesn't it? Did you ever see the movie "Coming to America" with Eddie Murphy? There's a guy who runs "McDougal's," clearly a rip-off of McDonald's, same colors and everything. Trademark laws exist so that the consumer can _recognize and know_ which commercial entity he's doing business with. That way, the consumer can have a well-principled confidence he's getting a "Big Mac" and not a "Big Mick." 😁🍔 To make this possible, we have a _court system_ which deals with Trademark infringement, right? And in a Trademark lawsuit against X, if the court finds _against_ X, it's an official declaration that, "You, sir, are X, but you were pretending to be Y. But you're not Y, you're X, and you don't have any right to claim that you're Y." Now, it's clear that Christianity has a problem: Lots of different folks _claim_ to be presenting us the RCCR -- that _required content of the Christian religion -- but since they contain irreconcilable differences on some points, they _can't_ all be doing so. We _wish_ we could write this problem off as trivial by saying, "Well, it's only on unimportant topics. We all agree on the important stuff..." but that's clearly not the case. Morals are at play; doctrines of God are at play; various things related to salvation are at play. There's no escape by _that_ route! We desperately need the RCCR, and not some near-beer substitute. We need to "know the truth" so that the truth will "set us free," right? But that leads inescapably to an Epistemic Problem: How can we _know_ that we have located the RCCR, instead of something slightly-wrong but sufficiently-similar to fool us? If we _claim_ that we "know," how can we be sure that our "knowledge" isn't just a subjective _feeling_ of certainty which, while sincere, is inadequately-founded, derived from the quirks of our personal history instead of a truly _principled_ basis for confidence? It appears that this _mirrors_ the problem with Trademark violations. And the only practical way to deal with _that_ problem was for society to have a Judicial Authority with the ability to _resolve_ the dispute, _with finality._ (By, "with finality," I mean: People can't just bring up the case again in different courts, over-and-over, hoping to re-try the case in different venues, venue-shopping for their preferred outcome. There's an appeals process, but it ultimately terminates _somewhere._ At some point the matter becomes "settled.") Is there any other way to resolve such disputes, _other than_ a Judicial Authority that, after however many appeals, can rule with finality? What other way? And, if anyone _proposes_ some other way, let me ask this about his proposal: Can you show me _that_ method being used to resolve Christian disputes, in every century, from today all the way back to the Ascension of the Lord? ...and, if you think the Bible is especially important, can you make me any argument that _that_ method (whatever it is) was _instituted_ by the Lord, somewhere in the texts of the Bible? Austin, I think that the analogy to Intellectual Property law is at least _revealing,_ even if it's not perfect. What do you think? Best to you and yours, CW

Under a Protestant, non-magisterial ecclesiology, how are we to make sense of "the church" as being the "pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15) who can arbitrate between disputing Christian brothers and, if not listened to, is able to regard them as to be treated like a "pagan or a tax collector" (Matthew 18:17)?

Yes, as a central authority -- and why the Church has been able to maintain an overall consistent theology and ecclesiology for 2000 years -- it really *is* necessary. The End.

The Magisterium isn't necessary in a Metaphysical sense But given that scripture already says that there are essentials in it that are easy to misinterpret, then this means the Magisterium is practically necessary And you don't need scripture to tell you this Just look at the state of protestantism Its the world's most divided religion and its not even a competition.

The real question is did Christ found a visible Church with binding teaching authority

@gospelSimplicity I am thankful for the amount of time you research these topics. It’s obvious these are not built upon knee jerk sensational opinions. You keep doing what you’re doing. I don’t agree, but that’s my right.

Hmm. Seeing how there are thousands of non catholic denominations...yes

This was a great video, as always Austin. Weighing in on the question of "knowing" and "believing" as it pertains to the magesterial authority in question: I don't think that any Catholic tradition worth its money would ever say that any interpretation of the faith constitutes a "knowing." Rather, it is the essence of faith that it is a believing given to us by grace (and for the Catholic, through those holy institutions such as Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Magisterium). As such, the question of infallibility takes on a different sort of role than one which establishes factual interpretation; rather the magisterial authority of the church would establish certainty (or credibility -- "believability") of some artifact of faith. Secondly, I think the argument that premises that "there [ought] exist some magisterium" is fraught with misunderstandings about what the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of "magisterium" is, and that is the teaching authority of the church and not some actual body within the church that teaches. It is, in theory, the sacred authority and duty of the church to hand down and interpret tradition (of which scripture is part). Those two things being the case; the Sacred Magisterium holds the important and necessary role of authorizing certain and creditble (and not factual) claims about matters of faith. The idea that protestant bodies don't have a "magisterium" I think fundamentally misunderstands the idea of magisterium, and fails to recognize that insofar as protestants believe themselves to be inheritors of the apostolic faith, "preaching the Gospel" is necessarily an exercise of the magisterium; i.e. the sacred authority and duty of the church to teach and pass on the Gospel message, and to interpret it via the tradition which was handed to them. Those ministers who exercise this authority are not "the magisterium" but exercise magisterial authority. As such, for Catholics, that authority is vested in and properly exercised by the bishops and pope and varying levels, ordinary and extraordinary. For protestants, I imagine that authority is vested in those who are "ordained" (or commissioned, etc.) to preach and minister the Word. (Note: I think it's also very important to remember that the magisterial infallibility regarding dogma only pertains to the authority of the pope to establish matters of faith in extraordinary and very constrained circumstances, and that any other concept of magisterial infallibility is reserved for ecumenical councils, whereby infallibility isn't dogmatic, but rather signals that any teaching therein established is free from error or sin.) In sum, I don't think it is possible to have any authentic ecclesiology without a necessary magisterium, regardless of how it is exercised on the ground, and that for MOST cases, infallibility is not necessary for the interpretation of scripture.

Exactly. Nobody acts like they cant know anything without an infallible magisterium. We do it all the time, especially Catholic converts who have to read and interpret all sorts of texts (for themselves) in order to determine whether Rome is the true church, all without a magisterium doing it for them. I also see a distinction between truth and authority. Authority is what arbitrates between parties. But authority doesn't necessarily entail truth. My biggest issue is that the convenience of a magisterium cannot come at the cost of violating the word of God (which is what you get with Rome).

This is kind of a lame argument; you're comparing unlike things. The fruits of not having a magisterium are all around you.

I would love your feedback on this argument I thought of recently, it's a bit deeper but similar to the topic: let's assume the low church protestant view of an invisible body of believers is true. If so how do we know what scripture is? It is identified by the people of God. Who are the people of God? They are the ones who follow scripture. But then those terms are circular and therefore meaningless. You would require a visible, delineated body of believers to break that circularity. I don't know that that gets us to an infallible magisterium but it would be a short hop from there imo.

One of the most difficult things about being Protestant, that I think is really good, is that you need to do the hermeneutical work. You have your interpretation and I have mine, but that doesn't mean that our interpretations are equally valid. Good hermeneutical practices, a solid biblical theology, knowledge of the languages, and a suspicion of our own bias all help reveal in the majourity of cases that one interpretation is supreme. Having a magisterium certainly makes it simpler by settling the debate, but for the honest truth seeker it leaves a lot to be desired because those nuances and hermeneutical particulars seem to just get squashed under a desperation for a settled argument. It's frustrating to see how often people pretend like hermeneutics isn't a real science that can uncover real truth and boil it down to "your interpretation vs my interpretation". Also, the magisterium doesn't exactly solve this issue since believing that the magisterium has the authority it claims to have is a matter of personal interpretation. You cannot submit to the magisterium until you have personally come to an interpretation of Scripture that necessitates it.

Well the Bible doesn’t deny nestorianism or the idea that Jesus has one will or two wills or one vs two natures The Bible doesn’t comment on the simplicity vs complexity of God

Hey, I found your argument very valid in criticizing an inflated infallible magisterium. As a Catholic I think so too that saying we just need a authoritative magisterium is short sighted. The magisterium itself needs to give an argumentation for its decisions and it also cannot teach something that’s really in contradiction to church tradition or scripture. Furthermore many things the magisterium decides aren’t infallible truth claims. There are some things the magisterium teaches that are indeed viewed as infallible like the divinity of Jesus or other dogmas but there’s a hierarchy of truth claims as well. I also think that theology is very important and that we indeed can find knowledge within texts, different interpretations aren’t equally valid. Still, we see a pattern in Protestantism where groups divide over a theological difference where both sides bring up good and sound arguments. The Bible is a book out of many books that portray different and partly contradicting views themselves. I think a magisterium then is necessary practically in order to create unity. It’s like if there’s a discussion for years over a certain thing but you never make a decision - that’s not good, there needs to be a point where someone makes a decision. And another aspect is important too: communion. If we decide in communion „this is the way“ we can trust it way more than if it’s just ourselves alone.

Yes. Without a magisterium, anyone can interpret Scripture to his or her choosing hence Protestants and their thousands of denominations.

This is the point that kept me Protestant, though a different kind of Protestant than I was before I studied church history and theology. You can't get away from private judgment and interpreting people and texts. From my perspective and with all respect to my Catholic friends, I find that adding in the Councils, canons, encyclicals, traditions (is it Sacred or small "t" tradition) adds another layer onto the Bible which also needs interpreting. I've often said Protestants disagree over Scriptural interpretation but Catholics and Orthodox disagree over not just how to interpret the Bible but also how to interpret the Councils, popes and their broader tradition. There are different Catholic theologians who disagree over how many times the Pope spoke infallibly, or whether or not Vatican Two taught any binding doctrine (since anathema was never used) or whether is was all merely discipline changes which could be undone (this is a big difference between Trad Cats and Novus Ordo Catholics). You get the point. The RCC apologists have a real blind spot on this issue in my view, and once I realized it I couldn't unsee it.

Came for the Orioles hat, stayed for the theological takes. Let’s go O’s!

"As Delivered By Angels" episode on the Lord of Spirits is a really good take on this. I want to note a couple things for the Catholic viewers on this: 1) Extending the infallibility of scripture to an infallible authority does not get us out of the problem of infinite egress. At the end of the day, a person still has to interpret the abstraction of words. Not all interpretations of Vatican II are the same, this is way there are Trad Catholic movements that have left communion with Rome, and ones that have stayed in communion with Rome. 2) A gentle reminder that scripture was not canonized in Nicaea I, which seems to be a common misconception among both Catholics and Protestants. Yes, there where descriptions of what scripture contained early on, but the first magisterial. The first prescriptive (not descriptive), magisterial, canon of books was in the Council of Trent in 1546.

Absolutely it is. Not so much for a novice, but it becomes necessary to avoid disobedience (our first sin). And certainly for preserving the faith through time and history. Can someone outside the Catholic church interpret the bible, of course! But how do you know if it's correct? Protestants widely differ on this, for instance, they interpret the Eucharist incorrectly. Nothing is clearer than that. That doesn't mean God's grace isn't present in Protestants, but grace is everywhere and available to anyone, but if it doesn't bring you to the Body of Christ, then only God knows what happens, and it will be by grace and mercy that you are saved. However, we have assurance in Christ in the Eucharist. John 6:53 "Unless you eat of my Body and drink of my Blood, you have no life in you."

Regarding the interpretation of the Bible, I love the introduction of The Meaning of Icons, by Vladimir Lossky, where he talks about the relationship of Tradition and interpretation. I don't know if you already read that, the pdf is available in scribd.

Yes, sure it is. Protestants have opinions about what they think is true, imagine each person with a different opinion, it's a complete confusion.

Protestants must admit they can never know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY " or who the Woman is in Revelation 12, or who the rock is in Matthew 16, as Scripture ALONE is infallible, thus making all their interpretations, FALLIBLE! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!

I think the big question comes down to this: Is the unity of faith really important or not? If the answer is yes; then a Magisterium is necessary. If the unity of faith is just a good thing that would be great to have but not a primordial thing, then the Magesterium might be useful but not that important

I think the CS Lewis analogy falls short. Debating whether Paul taught about justification is one thing. Determining what the proper interpretation of his teaching on justification is another. Further, Arius didn’t argue about the existence of Jesus, he argued about how to understand Jesus.

getting lost in the weeds. the eunich saying how could he understand what he reads if he hasnt been shown? all the books in the world couldnt contain all that jesus said and did, so if youre bible only you are missing teachings. paul telling the faithful to observe what they have been taught. jesus said he would be with us til the end of the age.

Reformed Baptist is the One True Church!

Oh no! A call to critical thinking! ... This might be my favorite video of yours I've seen. Truly thought-provoking stuff. Thank you!

Hey Austin, another great video! One question that I’m studying right and was wondering your thoughts: Since we don’t see Sola Scriptura in church history does that completely discount the idea or would that fall into something like “doctrinal development”? Thanks!

If you and I have a discussion on a topic and afterwards I send you an email of what we discussed. You will fully understand that email. If you or I send that email to a friend they will have a good understanding of what we discussed (assuming I wrote it well). They however, will not have a full understanding, especially if there are nuances in our discussion. However, if you or I talk to our friend about the email then they will come much closer to a full understanding of what was discussed. This is my way of understanding the role of the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition.

Great video, thanks! I’m a Catholic seminarian myself and I agree we should stop making arguments for the Magisterium as if it were a *logical* necessity in order to have any knowledge. I think it’s much more appropriate to make an argument from *fittingness.* The word Magister simply means teacher. When we go into the classroom as school kids, it’s most effective to have both textbooks and a living teacher to help us. Not equating the Bible with a mere textbook, it’s just an analogy. Someone could learn directly from a textbook, but most people would probably attest to the value of having living teachers to explain the various subjects to us as kids! Similarly, Jesus tells the Apostles to “go and teach all nations” - He didn’t merely tell them to go and pass out texts (Biblical or otherwise). And of course as you know, there are an array of topics that simply are not mentioned directly in the Bible, even though we can decipher Biblical principles (think of IVF or artificial intelligence or something). It’s very helpful to have a teacher to show us how to apply Biblical principles to these issues which frankly, are simply just not covered directly in the Bible. Jesus said to the Apostles “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. I will send my Spirit to lead you into all Truth.”

Magisterium is not only necessary as Bible interpreter but also to clarify the church position on new situation like: human clonation or DNA manipulation.

Are you in the Baltimore area? I ask because I see your Baltimore Oreo's hat. If you are in Maryland area, greeting from Laurel, Maryland. Good job and parsing and breaking down various positions.

What if the critique could be simplified? Shedding of the "infallibility" for a second, what would you say if someone argued, "Protestantism is wrong because there is no one who has the right to judge in matters of controversy (especially when the answer cannot be easily discerned). Since you could not settle the dispute for all, this renders the system practically unworkable."

Was the magisterium REALLY necessary to define the bible?

I was raised Catholic, and I've been Protestant since 1981. I would have more confidence in an infallible Magisterium were it not the source, in Roman Catholicism, of so many doctrines having no basis at all in Scriptures, and some arguably are opposed to the clear testimony of the Scriptures. I understand the argument for an authoritative teaching body on the earth to guide all Christians in understanding the Scriptures. But the Magisterium's reliance on extra-biblical sources or even, at times, no source at all, undercuts both its authority and its motivation -- which honestly appears more focused on advancing Roman Catholicism than on advancing the clearly taught fundamentals of the faith from the Scriptures. While I hold to Sola Scriptura, it isn't a necessary backdrop for criticism of the Magisterium. Extra- biblical sources are a valued context, but must only be considered if they reasonably concur with the Bible. Infallible teachings like the Assumption of Mary really indict the Magisterium, given that nothing in Scripture even hints at such a thing. The Church does need a strong teaching presence, and I'm sadly aware of how it's lacking, but an infallible Magisterium that appears devoted to one branch of the faith rather than to the Scriptures in the service of the faith isn't working.

Please bring in Michael Lofton he is working for Catholic Answers and is giving out courses on understanding Magisterium of Catholic Church. Jimmy Akin has a Book too 'Teaching with Authority' on Magisterium.

Yoo I love your videos. Just wanna share a random thought that you kinda look like a less shaggy, younger David Crowder 😂❤ God bless your work and thanks for sharing your journey

It seems that the only way to avoid the major epistemological pitfalls is to avoid placing the burden of correct interpretation on man and to place it on God, who is uniquely infallible. And we can do this by looking at the ways in which the Church historically interpreted scripture and declared doctrine universally, as even though individual bishops and hierarchs can err, the entire Church cannot fall and the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church into all truth. The ecumenical councils are the primary example of this, but so are other interpretations and doctrines that were universally believed and practiced by the entire Church historically. I'll be honest I think this raises a few major issues for the reformers. The primary one is that even though we can debate over differences in practice between east and west, liturgical use of icons in one form or another was accepted and practiced (and justified through biblical interpretation) by the universal Church, even by the separated Oriental Orthodox, prior to the reformation.

The main misunderstanding here is thinking that the Catholic Church created a magisterium and called it infallible so that they could know exactly what the Bible means, because in absence of such an infallible magisterium there would be no way for us to know how to interpret the Bible. This is simply a caricature. The role of the magisterium is not to interpret texts that otherwise nobody could understand. The magisterium (the council of the apostles and elders) was set up by Christ himself, to whom he gave the power of binding and loosing and on whom he breathed the Holy Spirit so that they could be led in all truth. The role of the magisterium is to preserve the living faith of the apostles and protect the Church from heresy. The magisterium is not a super powerful scholar that does perfect exegesis. The whole issue at stake here is always the principle of sola scriptura. The gospel was not meant to be exegetically derived from the Bible, as Protestant believe. The gospel was meant to be preserved and proclaimed by the living Church. In conclusion, if you come up with your own interpretation of the Bible that is opposed to the teachings of the magisterium, you can be sure you are wrong, not because the magisterium does better exegesis than you do, but because the magisterium is the custodian of the fullness of the faith since the time of the apostles.

I like to think of the magisterium as the umpire, we can all interpret a passage in different ways, that is why there so many churches and traditions among Protestants. To be Catholic is to believe as one faithfully to the holy Spirt.

This needed to be said - this argument is just a way for RCs and EOs to avoid doing epistemology.

Interesting point, though I personally don’t use the argument the way you put it. You are correct, there are things we can know from scripture for certain. However, the strength of the magisterium is similar to having an umpire at a Baseball game. It’s a third party useful for settling disputes when both sides won’t budge on their views. If we are not subjected to an authority, then players can do whatever they want if they have sufficient support. The reformers were aided by the royalty of the day and thus were protected by an outside force from the correction of the Church. We see this pattern repeated again and again. It’s not that all interpretations are valid/ equally possible, but rather that one man vs one man lacks an arbiter.

You always have insightful videos but I think this one misses the mark a bit. It is not that without a magesterium an individual cannot interpret texts accurately or that a person cannot very often say who is right and who is wrong when there is a divergent interpretation. Rather, as I see it, the magesterium has a twofold function. One is to keep the Church from erring in a matter of faith or morals. Not that we can't know the correct answer without it but that it guarantees it. One can get a test question correct without looking at the answer key, but having the answer key guarantees it to be accurate. The other function, as I see it, is to allow the Church to draw the correct implications from sacred texts when it is not clear from the text. The Trinity would be an example of this, as are many modern social issues. I would also add that in the case of teachings of the Church a very high level of certainty is indeed needed that is not needed in everyday life because the implications are so high. As an example, it is a tragedy that on so many important social issues of the day (abortion, immigration, environment, euthanasia just to name a few) that different Christian groups come to such divergent conclusions such that there appears to be no correct answer at all. Imagine is the Church spoke with one accord instead.

I would enjoy seeing GS interview Bruce Gore. Lately, I’ve been watching his series on Revelation called “The Apocalypse in Space and Time”, and he does a brilliant job looking at the history of how church movements interpreted such a vivid text, from the earliest period through the twentieth century. I think he’d be a great person to talk to about history, kingdom theology, and I’d like to hear his view on Calvinism since he’s a member of the Presbyterian Church.

Austin with all due respect, I think if we were to adopt your position and saying that all of the scripture we are able to arbitrarily, interpret and come to the clear and concise, meaning I think that the scriptures themselves would have to support that or way by which you are able to do so, but I think what the Catholics and also the Eastern Orthodox have done is clearly showed that that’s actually not the case and that Christ does safeguard the interpretation and I don’t think that it is complicated in Saying that the arbitrary interpretation of scripture belongs to either a concealer fundamentalism or a magisterium either way involves councils and bishops and popes determining these things which the new testament really does seem to imply this in several ways rather than saying you’re able to determine what issues are primary issues secondary issues and so on I think that protestants are swimming through murky Waters as they arbitrarily try to determine what of these issues are such. And oh by the way, I don’t think it’s a bad argument.

There is a better argument for Councils and Tradition having authority to bind conscience against personal interpretation and personal experience. This is what happens in Acts 15. It's not about knowledge being impossible but rather proper authorities within the epistemology.

One thing that I find odd for the Christian mind and heart at all is that any would devote the bulk of their "giving a reason for the hope" time to standing up for their church against other Christians-Catholic apologists or Protestant critics-instead of working in that same vein to evangelize the lost or de-churched.

1) Do you think it's possible to come to a definitive conclusion on, say, infant baptism based on the text, in the same way that we could come to a conclusion on Lewis believing in Hell based on his text? 2) If so, what does this say about the people who come to the wrong conclusion on infant baptism?

respectfully i don´t know how one with formal religion-studies education, gets this so wrong. it's not "always interpreting a text or an other". it's Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch receiving the faith not from the writings but by hearing. Most of Christians did not get the faith by accidentally picked up the right book, but by the living by other Christians.

Austin I appreciate your videos.

If I may add another comment: I can see why I spent so much time watching puppy videos.

I would agree that this argument as presented in this video would be problematic and I'm sure that there are many Catholics that would use it like that, but I would articulate this argument a bit different. First of all I would agree that a magisterium is not absolutely required for a person to reach the proper interpretation of Scripture. We will always need to rely on our ability to understand/interpret to some degree in any system, God gave us rational minds and we should use them. The purpose of the magisterium however is not to interpret everything for us rather it is to settle disputes of interpretation when they arise. I know from your other videos that you would agree that ernest, holy, and learned people can come to different interpretations of Scripture and make sound cases for their side. The magisterium is not required for interpreting all of Scripture but a singular authoritative point is required for definitively settling disputes. And when knowing which interpretation is correct could determine the fate of your soul a definitive answer because pretty important. Without a magisterium many interpretation will be put forward and some of them will be the proper interpretation, then people will be able to investigate and study and decide what they believe to be true, and many will come to the same proper interpretation but many others will for one reason or another come to the wrong interpretation. And while people can always continue their study and correct their understanding later, many won't. The magisterium is there to look at all of the interpretations out there and determine this one is correct and that one is not or even this range of interpretations are all valid but those ones are not. The magisterium is not the sole source of interpretation rather the sole authoritative source for settling disputed interpretations. And we can have confidence in what the magisterium teaches because it was instituted by Christ and is lead and protected by the Holy Spirit. So some people stretch this argument/the role of the magisterium past what it should be but the argument that the Protestant model has no way to definitively discern proper interpretation or settle disputes outside of one's own personal understanding is true.

Honesty i'm an outsider to this issue but I honestly think Roman Catholics act like Presuppositionalist and just assume their correct instead of proving their interpretation is actuality reasonable.

Agreed RCs shouldn't argue Scripture is hopelessly obscure or that every interpretation is equally plausible, but both Protestants and RCs agree it is obscure in parts, it's just a difference in degree (RCs affirming even the "essentials" can also be unclear). Secondly, Protestants don't interpret Scripture like every other text in life - they affirm things like spirit illumination (no one prays for understanding before reading Garfield), a canonical hermeneutic in which an authors text and intent is to be interpreted by other texts of various genres, languages, eras, authors, audiences, a supernatural vs natural/secular hermeneutic, and so on. Thirdly, we don't have this interpretive freedom in every aspect of society. The Supreme Court isn't infallible, but it's normative, America isn't a bunch of Sola Constitutionists, nor are citizens who interpret laws according to an eventual SCs ruling normative - similarly, the magisterium serves to confirm understanding individuals may reach on their own. Fourthly, this seems to reduce infallibility to inerrancy. Are Protestants comfortable claiming Scripture is inerrant but not infallible?

I am not Roman Catholic, yet I do disagree with your premise (s). First, just within the Protestant world, the interpretation of seems to be very, very varied. Are Lutheran right on Holy Communion or are SBC pastors correct? This can go across the spectrum of issues. Who is right? Can you use the text alone and are able to say one believe on Holy Communion can be proven correct. The answer is no, that cant be done. I absolutely believe in the concept of Saints or holy men and woman, who do to their unique closeness to God can understand the text more perfectly and teach the rest of us about it.

St. Chrysostom argued that we should be a man and use our common sense. He also argued that Scripture was simple and true.

This is absolutely true, Austin. Both your criticisms that magisterial data is more perspicious than equivalent biblical data and that we need infallible data to know anything are spot on

I come from a Protestant background I'm now a Catholic. I think to some degree yes you can interpret text alone on simple maters but absolutely not with the whole new testimony. His example is over simplified. Yes we can know Jesus believes in a hell, was male, mother was Mary. Other important things like real presence , baptism, did Jesus have actual brothers and sisters, is Peter the leader ? So Catholics can't argue Protestants can't know anything, but definitely can't know a lot. Also you can't know for certain who's right JWS or the reformers by bible alone. It is a matter of theological opinion. Cleary. Not sure what this guys missing here.

Why does Protestant churches split apart? Isn't it on differences of biblical interpretations? Is this what Jesus had set-up - who you guys can't agree on my teachings, just form a new church? The magisterium is to settle important arguments of moral and biblical interpretations in a definitive matter and not for doing bible interpretation for everyone. In its 2000 years of history, the magisterium had only dogmatically defined a handful of biblical passages. The magisterium is there for setting up guard rails of one personal interpretations and act as a referee.

This is a bit of a misrepresentation of the Catholic position I hear Catholics taking on interpretation, not to say some people haven’t made the argument you’re stating. It doesn’t have to be one extreme or another. Most interpretations are pretty straightforward from the gospels, love your neighbor, etc… but when it comes down to it sometimes there are disputes and differing interpretations. This is why the Counsel of Jerusalem was called in Acts 15, so that the magisterium could teach infallibly and the Christians at the time could proceed with true doctrine. If that’s the paradigm in the Bible, why would we deviate from that today let alone ever? Peter himself even states that Paul can be difficult to understand at some times and then some people can twist those verses unto their own destruction. Was Peter wrong when he said that about Paul’s writings? Were the apostles and bishops wrong to call a counsel in Acts 15?

Well, I’m one hundred percent guilty of making this argument. While, I think that Austin brings up a worthy consideration, I respectfully, think he misses the point. It seems to me he’s so focused on whether we need a magisterium, and concerned about how to choose a moderate view of interpreting scripture that he forgets what scripture says of itself. Scripture tells us that God became man, that God (the objective) entered into the world to be KNOWN, not camouflaged and obscured. From the Incarnation flows, not just the Truth, but the significance of Jesus’s teachings, his words, his church. They are to have a meaning from which His people can benefit. We, as the recipients of that significance, that life-altering, transformative message, must first, before trying to interpret that message, before deciding whether there is or isn’t a Magisterium, recognize that we are recipients of Divine Revelation. Not a mere book or poem. But Truth from Truth itself. Now, consider these passages- I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice. if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it Now, consider these questions in light of the passages you read: - Does Jesus intend for doctrines say baptism or Eucharist to be a high degree of certainty or defined Truth, - Does God intended for us to have a high degree of certainty in what books comprise the bible or does he intend to reveal exactly which books are in the bible? - Does God ever intend to reveal something is from heaven or only that there’s a high degree of certainty? - Did the apostles, when they taught baptism, justification, sanctification, have the expectation that it would be quite alright if the Church would have a variety of understandings of what those doctrines were in the future? -Is the church supposed to have one teaching on Justification in one century and another teaching in another century? Are other teachings similarly allowed to change each century? -If someone doesn’t follow the church’s teaching are they allowed to go to another church and be considered a christian -When an ecumenical council declares Jesus is of one substance with God, do we only have a high degree of assurance of that or is that True? Isn’t it clear that Jesus is the Truth and wants to give people the Truth through the church he established? Therefore, let us not modernize the bible’s idea of Truth. So when someone claims we shouldn’t think we need a Magisterium to know the truth because we don’t want to set the definition of Truth so high that it undercuts other arguments, that person might want to think about who’s setting the bar so high, is it Catholics or Jesus? Or, perhaps, this is frankly a not a very good argument.

An honest question for my Catholic brothers. If your system is really the church established by God with all the right checks and balances, then why are your churches across the world so often in spiritual shambles? I have personally seen witch doctors formulas made by nuns sold in a Catholic church in Mexico (the bishop was aware of this), and literal pagan worship events done in multiple southwest parishes done as "cultural festivals". I have seen credible reports of utter syncretism in India, and the pope is spouting so much junk it's hard to even get started in a comment thread. Why don't I see the fruit of your supposed guardrails that protect from error? What I am missing?

Glad you brought this up. This is one of the more misleading arguments that Catholics will make if they are trying to make a case about the wholistic understanding of biblical interpretation. That’s not the Catholic claim, and scholars like Joseph A. Fitzmyer could enlighten anyone if they thought it was the case. More common is the cases being made using typological interpretation. Though Protestants and Catholics alike certainly agree on many typological interpretations, the ones you often hear that are used to make a case for Catholicism are not dogmatized by the magisterium.

Anyone arguing about the Bible has forgotten about “the personal relationship with Christ”. A Bible scholar may or may not be a disciple of Christ. A disciple of Christ may never understand the role of the magisterium. The Church is a family that nurtures the simple and satisfies the deepest thinkers. However, deep thinkers who can’t accept Church authority will struggle and wonder without satisfaction. One person cannot assimilate all the interwoven concepts and their meaning apart from the family and without the sacraments. The Bible alone? Alone indeed.

I think you are coming at this topic from the opposite direction from what those who use the argument are actually trying to convey. Perhaps this is the fault of those who are communicating it, and perhaps a lapse in judgement from your side. I don't know, and that is not really the important bit. However, I think when bringing up the necessity of a magisterial authority it is a question of epistemology. What is the source of truth and knowledge. We often forget in our modern era with all these fancy things like the internet and scholarly sources and research and books and facts all at the tips of our fingers that we begin to think that we can come to a knowledge of the truth on our own. However, it is important to remember that all truth that is not directly experienced comes to us by virtue of a mediator. That mediator is the authority we must appeal to when claiming to know something. In other words, our beliefs are only as good as the source we received them from. (On a side note, I think AI will soon remind people of the importance of this. How will we know who actually said what or if a picture is actually real or not.) In the ancient world this was readily apparent to people, because they couldn't just read a wikipedia article on any given subject or some news article or listen to a reporter, all of which present the illusion of objectivity. You could not pick up a random book in the ancient world and know with certainty that the author is who the book claims the author is. You needed somebody with reliable witness in most matters to certify your knowledge. This is what the magisterium is. It is the source of verified authority, the handed down witness of the apostles through those men who were specifically appointed to transmit that testimony. St Augustine describes the symbiosis of authority and knowledge beautifully when he tells the heretics of his day who were trying to convert him that if they were to convince him that the Church was false by the scriptures, then he must also reject the scriptures because it was by the Church that he was given the scriptures. So to not accept the Church is to also reject the Scriptures that the heretics wanted to appeal to. The authority of the magisterium is antecedent to the scriptures and therefore what it says regarding the scriptures cannot be disputed. We know the meaning of the scriptures because the Church gave them to us and told us what they mean. Remember that God established a people, Christ established a Church, and the Holy Spirit inspired men in these bodies to write the holy scriptures. God did not first give a book and then build up a body of people around that text. The text of the scriptures is not the primary source of authority. Men who God inspired are the authorities who cause the scriptures to be inspired and authoritative, and those men left us with other men to carry on their work and entrusted those men with their authority. In the Orthodox Church we call this magisterium the Holy Tradition, Roman Catholics place it in the office of Peter which they equate with Bishop of Rome.

As a member of a Protestant community whilst attending a Catholic university I encountered criticisms for my faith because I was “privately interpreting” the scriptures (referencing 2 Pet. 1:20-12) and thus my thoughts and convictions were discredited. It is a hurtful thing to accuse someone of. Be careful how you treat other believers.

I would not say this is a bad argument. It just requires one more premise. That is that on many important issues there is real, sincere disagreement about what the scriptures say. You are picking stupid examples where the disagreement is trivial. It is based on ignorance or perhaps deceit. Those are hard issues to deal with yet they do not seem like show stoppers. A non-infallible magisterium could suffice because can provide honest, informed opinion. Not as easy to do as it sounds but likely possible. Yet many disagreements among protestants are not based on ignorance or deceit. They are based on different schools of theological opinion. They have persisted for a long time and sincere, intelligent Christians belong to each school. That is when you are truly stuck as a Protestant.

Many scholars believe the oldest Christian creed is 1 Cornithians 15:3-4 "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures". No Magesterium needed for comprehension. Christ was constantly beefing with the Pharisees over their inflation of tradition. Meanwhile the Bereans were lauded for their love of scripture. I wonder if the Bereans were known as the "me and muh bible" crowd..

Have you ever made a video engaging with John Henry Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine? It's a masterpiece and absolutely required reading for this topic.

They don’t just have the Bible. They also have Apostolic tradition

It's not about subjugating your ability to interpret and understand scripture to another party but as a place that you can go to when two different interpretations clash

It's quite simple I think, there is only one intended way to interpret Scripture which is how God wanted it to be interpreted and no other way. So the only way to ensure that is that Jesus Himself or someone else authorized by Him does this. Any other way, means it's no longer God the authority to interpret Bible, but ourselves to fit what we want things to be as we like. It's one reason why so many denominations exists and all claim to be valid and true. Agreed infallibility is not needed to get knowledge, but it is to ensure you get correct knowledge and when this relates to moral and faith, I would say it's a big deal, bc mistakes then can have eternal consequences. It makes sense bc if there is no truth then no way to know if JW or Mormons or protestants are better off one another, given there is nothing to compare each other to, so it makes sense and is needed.

I think the issue is not we can’t see the truth through Scripture But the problem is you need a magisterial authority to settle definitively disputes on interpretations to avoid disunity Protestantism just doesn’t that function to settle disputes

Sure, anyone can interpret scripture. However, you do need a Magisterium to interpret scripture correctly in times of disagreement... which is much of the time.

how can you be made a disciple if you have no teacher? I’m Orthodox and have no dog in this fight. But to me if the Church cannot “make a disciple” by true teachings, then Christ lied. And it seems to me that the Protestant does not believe his rabbi will infallibly make him a disciple because his rabbi can teach him false teachings. Imagine going to Christ to learn and being unconvinced of his ability to make you a disciple infallibly. And if you say He is God. Then the Holy Spirit is no less God and will infallibly make you a disciple. It seems to me that sola scriptura denies the great commission by implication.

Word of God🙂✝️ Magestirium 😵‍💫😵‍💫

Wouldn't you want to be in conformity with the Body of Christ, the gift of God for our instruction? Trusting ourself to interpret the Bible is so much easier than trusting others (because it makes no demands on our natural self-pride), but no more reliable.

That is just not the Catholic position. All the magesterium does is insist that any interpretation of scripture is consistent with history, tradition and linguistics. Protestants just pick up any Bible in any translation and mutilate it to say anything they wish. That’s the whole point of evangelical Christianity. They are treating it like magic. This is so frustrating, you know all of this. Give me one distinctly Protestant position where they haven’t come to the conclusion first and then twisted scripture to make it work. This is not so confusing, you would just laugh at someone treating any other written work in this way. It’s preposterous

@GospelSimplicity: You've said that Scripture interpretation is possible _without_ the Magisterium, but certain _practical_ benefits are lost without it. What benefits are those?

Douglas Beaumont a Catholic KZfaqr and a Theologian, if I not mistaken did a video regarding this topic few months ago. I came ro know that day there are no Infallible official Commentaries of Catholic Church on Sacred Scriptures other than on few passages. We take other refference books such as Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott, Denzinger etc and then see how that Passage can be applied in Light of Infallible Dogma or Doctrine. It was quite a reveal for me.