How Do We Accurately, Confidently (and Humbly) Interpret Holy Scripture?
My testimony after a brief journey into a Reformed Christian Subreddit
Of all the places online that I find fascinating, Reddit is one that stands out. Not because I’m an avid poster or spend a lot of time there—frankly, I don’t. I only created an account in 2021, and after that, I took a 2 or 3 year break without logging in at all. It’s only recently that I’ve revisited the platform. Why? Because there’s a vast, highly engaged community of Christians eager to share their opinions, and it’s been eye-opening for me in understanding modern Christianity on a deeper level.
Now, I don’t fully understand what karma is on Reddit—it sounds a bit hippie-dippy to me—but I know it’s some sort of quality control measure for your contributions. If people “upvote” your posts and comments, you earn karma. Conversely, your karma drops if people don’t like what you post. But what does having a lot of karma get you? I have no idea. Still, I’ve recently started accumulating karma by doing one simple thing: asking questions.
I’m a Catholic Christian, but as you might have noticed, I don’t highlight that in my profile or Substack details outside of my actual posts. Why? Because I see Substack as an opportunity to engage with Christians I may disagree with, and I hope that by presenting myself simply as a Christian, I won’t be off-putting to the average Protestant, non-denominational, or Orthodox.
While I love interacting with my Catholic brothers and sisters, I find great value in having productive, fruitful conversations with people who don’t share all my beliefs. These interactions challenge my thinking, and I like to think they also challenge non-Catholic Christians.
With this mindset, I’ve occasionally engaged not just in a Catholic subreddit, but also a Reformed Christianity subreddit, which is a branch off of Protestantism. And, as I mentioned, I’ve been accumulating karma points. For those familiar with the internet, this might surprise you. “A Catholic getting upvotes in a Protestant online community?” Yes, it’s true*.
* Although I did take a few arrows, in the form of downvotes, defending Catholic statues and relics in that same subreddit—not all heroes wear capes, I know.
I’ve done this by asking thought-provoking, neutral, exploratory questions and responding to the answers. Only a few, as I don’t spend much time on Reddit (which is fine by me, given some of the more unsavory forums on the site).
One question I asked was, “Does Christ allow divorce in the New Covenant?” Another was, “Do you believe there are varying degrees of sin in terms of severity?” Not only did I receive a wide variety of responses, but I also noticed an overarching theme worth discussing.
The first question, regarding sin, was particularly interesting. As Catholics, we believe in both mortal and venial sins and their corresponding doctrinal implications. But how did the Reformed community respond? From what I observed, the responses were split, with about 65% saying yes, and the rest saying no. There was a wide range of detailed descriptions and doctrinal interpretations on how sin affects justification. Some agreed that certain sins are worse than others but didn’t believe this impacted one’s justification before God.
On the topic of divorce, the split was similar, with around 65% saying yes and the remainder saying no. The majority seemed to believe that Paul and Christ’s teachings suggest there are cases where divorce is allowed, such as adultery or abandonment. In these cases, they felt it was tragic and not recommended, but sometimes authorized.
My observation from these discussions
After reviewing all the answers and discussions on these two questions, here was my main observation: There was no unified answer to either question. No clear black and white; everything was very gray.
Had I been someone exploring Christianity for the first time, trying to understand what might be considered essential doctrines, I would have been flummoxed, without a clear path forward.
Many of the respondents were admittedly articulate, with Scripture verses at the ready to support their arguments. But even the most articulate arguments were often completely contradicted by others, adding to the confusion.
Others relied on what appeared to be a very personal or biased interpretation, something along the lines of, “I believe this because it seems like the most appropriate way to interpret this passage of Scripture.” Their interpretations were grounded in how they personally wanted to understand the verse or how it made sense to them. It reminded me of a family member who once said that religion is personal, and you just have to find a way to worship God that “works for you.”
For those that may dismiss my “findings” from the discussion in the Reformed community, please know that this isn’t intended to create a straw man out of Protestant theology—it’s to hopefully spur fruitful and productive discussion on the topic of accurately interpreting Scripture. My observations are not limited to this interaction alone, but from years of conversations with Protestants of many traditions and my own spiritual journey in the Christian faith. This was just a recent example.
My reflection on common answers
As I hope readers of this Substack recognize (if they’re out here in any sort of mass), the goal of this publication is to offer thought-provoking posts for those in an ongoing effort to seek the truth. And not in some ambiguous way, like “your truth” and “my truth,” but in the one (singular), objective reality that is truth.
For anyone who appreciates math, the reality of one objective truth and a plethora of different “truths” manifested as varying answers to important theological questions doesn’t add up. It all boils down to interpretation and the doctrines that arise from it. So, as Christians today, how can we even begin to interpret Holy Scripture with confidence?
Is it solely through the Holy Spirit? In conversations with close Protestant friends and colleagues, I’ve been told that we can discern the meaning of Scripture through the Holy Spirit—a divine interpretation of a divine text, they say.
As Christians, we’re all living temples of the Holy Spirit, are we not? Absolutely, but if this is the case, how did so many people filled with the Holy Spirit arrive at so many different conclusions? Is it possible that the Holy Spirit could lead one person to believe that divorce is allowed, and another to believe that it is never allowed?
Or is it through biblical scholarship, translating modern texts back to their original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic? Jason Staples addresses this challenge in several ways in his post, “An Inspired Text Requires an Inspired Interpretation.”
Not only must one learn to navigate multiple interpretations—inevitably influenced by biases and personal perspectives—but one must also understand the cultural and linguistic contexts of the original writers, which complicates translation. Effective word-for-word translation is rarely possible when moving between languages like Greek and English, and the true meaning can be altered or even lost.
Staples summarizes this challenge well: “As anyone with experience in more than one language will attest, translating from one language to another requires translating from one way of thinking to another—and this is all the more true when going from a Semitic tongue to an Indo-European language or vice-versa.”
My thoughtful answer to the question
So, again, to the question, “How do we interpret Holy Scripture with accuracy, confidence, and humility?”
In reading Staples’ post, I believe he quite eloquently and articulately identifies the problem: sola Scriptura, using modern texts disconnected from 2,000 years of historical linguistic and cultural context, has major flaws. And the Holy Spirit is the necessary component to helping us understand the fullness and richness of Scripture. But I don’t think Staples explicitly takes it far enough, and where I might humbly take it another step further.
While the Holy Spirit is essential, but it’s only one part of a two-part solution. The other part? A credible, Spirit-filled community of catechetical scholars who can authoritatively interpret Scripture for today’s Christians.
Why is the authority of the Church so important here?
Today, we’re bombarded with personal opinions, interpretations, and biases. The idea that each of us can individually interpret Scripture has led to where we are now: a fragmented Church, divided by countless doctrines and theologies, all claiming to be rooted in the same Holy Spirit. But if the Holy Spirit is leading us all, why the confusion? Why the division? Why are there hundreds of thousands of different Christian denominations worldwide with different beliefs and doctrines?
We are broken. As flawed human beings, we’re prone to misunderstanding, misinterpreting, and projecting our own wants and desires onto the text. Even with the best intentions, our personal interpretations are limited by our knowledge, experiences, and the cultural lenses through which we view the world. That’s why the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, has always upheld the necessity of authoritative interpretation.
I once shared this example with a friend: Imagine you had to perform surgery on yourself, a close friend, or even a family member to save their life. You have a surgical textbook filled with all the medical terminology and detailed diagrams you could ever need. So, yes, the information is all there, but would you feel confident moving forward with just that book? Or would you rather have an experienced surgeon by your side, guiding your hand?
The textbook, while valuable, is no substitute for the wisdom and steady hand of a surgeon with years of experience—let alone a group of surgeons, helping you do the same thing. You wouldn’t rely solely on your interpretation of the textbook, no matter how thorough or flawless it might be. You’d seek the expertise of someone (or a group of “someones”) who know(s) the intricacies of the human body and has been in the operating room countless times.
Believe me—this isn’t about diminishing personal faith or one’s individual relationship with God. Not at all. It’s about ensuring that relationship and the doctrines we follow are built on a solid foundation. It’s about protecting the integrity of the Gospel and ensuring that the truths passed down through generations remain untainted by personal interpretation or bias.
When we lean on the Church’s authority, we aren’t dismissing the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives; we’re embracing it. The Spirit works through the Church—through its scholars and teachers—to illuminate Holy Scripture in a way that is faithful to the truth handed down from Christ to the apostles and from the apostles to us.
In the end: Yes, ultimately, it’s the Holy Spirit guides us. But to interpret Scripture with confidence, we must also lean on the Church, trusting in the wisdom of those who have gone before us and those that the Lord has appointed to that role. And guided through the the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church can lead us into the fullness of truth.
Joshua, perhaps I can add some understanding from a Lutheran (LC-MS) perspective on Sola Scriptura. We hold to Sola Scriptura, that is, Scripture alone is the source of all Christian doctrine and life. Scripture is therefore Norma Normans (the norm that norms). Not everyone agrees, as you said, what Scripture teaches. During conflict with Rome and then conflict with the Reformed and Anabaptists, Lutherans wrote out their positions on various doctrines. Some they found agreement, others they did not. These were eventually collected in 1580 and published in the Book of Concord. We (the LC-MS, etc…) hold these as authoritative because (as opposed to as far as) they teach what Scripture teaches. These are not sources of doctrines, but witnesses to Scripture doctrines. We refer to them as Norma Normata (a norm that is normed). So, for example, the Book of Concord begins with the three ecumenical creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian), the earliest agreed upon witnesses. From there other 16th Century documents were added. Brain slip, but I think the Catalogue of Testimonies, is either includes or appended. This includes various statements from early church fathers agreeing with the witness of the Lutheran reformation. Although authoritative secondarily, these merely bears witness to Scripture. Martin Luther summed up our position well. (Paraphrasing) “the early Church, Popes, bishops, and councils disagree and contradict themselves at many times and places. Scripture alone can be trusted as the source of all Christian’s doctrine. No one can be saved by the Faith of another. One must believe for himself. Scripture alone can I trust.” As I said, that’s a paraphrase. Ultimately, Scripture alone can be fully trusted. True Christian unity confessed, for example in the Apostles Creed and explained to me by one of my seminary professors, is an article of faith that is believed. In other words, it lies hidden beneath outward, visible distinctions that are like a shattered glass. I hope this clarifies, at least, the Lutheran position on Sola Scriptura as opposed to Scripture and the Church as sources of doctrine. Thank you also for your kindness and openness in discussing such matters. God’s peace!
Justin
I'm a Methodist and was raised Methodist and am studying in a Methodist seminary. I find that I also have trouble with sola scriptura. Not because I think that Scripture isn't authoritative, but rather because I think that it can be easily twisted. For instance, my background is in studying literature, and it amazes me all of the wildly different view points that folks can come up with based off their interpretations of a single paragraph of a single work. I also have seen many literature scholars force a certain interpretation to back up their own personal agenda without regarding authorial intent or the whole picture. So, in that way I think that while Scripture says what it says and it is authoritative, we cannot interpret it without the aid of the Spirit. I agree with what you said about a Spirit-filled community interpreting the Scripture. I find that, in my opinion, the most reliable source for interpreting Scripture is the early Church Fathers. There's a reason I like them so much, and it's not because they have an understanding of Scripture that is solid and single. Many contemporary Christians, as you said, think their interpretation is the only correct one. What I like about the Fathers is that they simply say, "Well, I don't really know." They acknowledge the beautiful and divine mysteries of God and His Word. Now, that's not to say that they don't take a stand on anything. They most certainly do stand against heresies. But what they acknowledge is that God is so transcendent of us that we'll never fully understand everything, but that our lives should be based around seeking understanding of Him as a pursuit. The mistake I think a lot of Protestants make is that they think they can figure it all out because to not have it figured out is a bad thing. The Fathers say, "We'll work to figure it out, but we won't figure everything out... Isn't that great?" After all, if we knew everything about God, I'm not sure He'd be worth worshiping. That's why I love the Fathers and that's why I think we can reliably turn to them for Scripture interpretation. I wish more Protestants gave them the time instead of rejecting them as similar to the Pharisees. The Fathers see the beauty in mystery, whereas modern Christians get frustrated with such things. I don't know. I probably generalized a lot in this comment, but it's just my two cents. Thanks for your article. I enjoyed it!