I believe you key idea is "'Scriptural evidence' is always a matter of interpretation."
So you are basically promoting Catholic Relativism (but not really, for only RCC interpretation unlocks the absolute truth - right?).
Truth, as such, is subjective and "it's [truth is] always a matter of rival interpretations". Furthermore, you state: "No text by itself proves anything self-evidently".
On this thread and on many others where we have debated, I and many others have explained the Catholic (and on these points, the Eastern Orthodox largely agree with Catholics) view of authority in detail. You read what we write then restate it unrecognizably. In this case you accuse us of subjectivism.
We believe that Christ authorized a way to maintain non-subjective interpretation of Scripture: bishops. We recognize that others do not believe that Christ did this. We recognize that others (you) read Scripture in such a way as to deny the fundamental authority of bishops. But notice that they are then replacing that authority with another authority (their denomination's, their pastor's, their individual purportedly Holy Spirit-guided authority). We are not subjective and we do not say that truth is subjective. We say that one arrives at firm, non-subjective truth by a combination of Scripture plus authoritative interpretation.
We believe in this Christ-given apostles/bishop structure on the basis of the historical record: the Church recorded her history and it includes ample historical evidence that bishops succeeded the apostles as authoritative teachers and intepreters of Christ's message entrusted to them (which exists also in the NT which these apostles wrote down). This historical record outside of the NT is fully compatible, does not contradict anything in the NT, we conclude.
Of course, rival interpretations of the historical record exist. I am trained as a professional historian. I have studied how these rival interpretations of the historical record emerged. I have come to believe one interpretation of the historical record (Catholic-Orthodox) and to reject the others (Protestant Reformers, secular Enlightenment are the two main ones). Why? Because the Catholic-Orthodox one has been around continuously all the way back. The others consist in saying, "the Catholic-Orthodox interpretation of the historical record represents a manipulation of the record to buttress the illicit power of the bishops." But the people making that accusation (Protestant Reformers, Enlightenment philosophes) had an axe to grind: they had already concluded that bishops were the problem. So they seemed to me to be reading into their interpretation of the historical record their a priori prejudices against bishops.
Okay, as a thought-experiment, let's stipulate that bishops are the problem, that they did, having custody of the Church's record (both in Scripture and the tradition of their own predecessors in office), distort it and create a falsely-claimed Christ-given authority for apostle-bishops. If that's truly what happened in history (and this is an interpretation of the historical record), then how in the world would anyone be able to arrive at the true alternative reading of the historical record? Any alternative will be subject to the various a priori assumptions of the interpreter.
So, we are stuck: either (1) the apostle-bishops were really authorized by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit to receive and take care of and pass on and write down and interpret Christ's own message in Scripture and in authoritative bishop-interpretation, in which case we have access to the true story of who Jesus was and what he did
or (2) we have no way of ever knowing for sure what he said and did because these untrustworthy, non-Christ-authorized apostles-bishops are the sole source of the written record (the NT and their own surviving writings and homilies on the NT). If the successors to the bishops are not Christ-authorized and guided to intepret the historical record (including the NT), then we, 1000, 1500, 2000 years later will read into that record whatever we wish to, reflecting our own pre-dilections, assumptions, pre-judices etc.
Now, you may well say, "but the authorized interpreter of the NT that I believe in is the Holy Spirit. That's how I know that we can know the true meaning of Scripture, and the true meaning is not Christ-authorized apostle-bishops. I know that through the Holy Spirit."
The problem is that a thousand other well-meaning "Bible Christians" and mainline Protestants--pastors, congregations, individuals, denominations--each claims the Holy Spirit guided them to a slightly or greatly different "Clear and True Interpretation" of Scripture regarding infant baptism, bishops, ministers, Communion, praise bands etc. If that's how the Holy Spirit solves the problem, then why bother with Christianity at all? It would seem that the Holy Spirit has failed abysmally in making the meaning of the NT really clear.
So, you wanted a boiled-down version of our beliefs? Here it is: either the apostle-bishop system is Christ-given and Holy Spirit guided and true or there's simply no way to know what did happen "back then," no way to know that Jesus of Nazareth died and rose from the dead. In short, either the apostle-bishop system is true and trustworthy or Christianity is a pipe-dream, infinitely malleable to whatever modern-day "Christians" wish to make of it.
You continued: I am shocked that your idea of truth is so subjective. But I guess you perceive that it is in your favor to downplay the ability of God to communicate clearly through His Word and thereby to enhance the supposed authority of your group by believing you hold the correct "interpretation" without which the Word is inaccessable.
Get over your shock and listen carefully. You say we play down your claim that God can speak clearly through Scripture and give the true interpretation to your group. You insert motives, cynical motives in our heads.
But you surely believe that you have the correct interpretation just as we believe we do. If you did not believe really, truly, that you have the true interpretation, you would not be so persistent in rejecting ours and insisting that yours is the true, Holy-Spirit-given clear meaning of Scripture.
What's so hard about this? Neither of us is subjective. We both believe, not in "subjective" truth but in objective truth. We differ over the means by which God reveals the real, objective truth, the true interpretation of Scripture. We say it's by way of the bishops (authorized by Christ, based on a set of Scripture passages and additional early Church historical records that, we say, shows him doing that). You say, "no bishops," rather, God speaks directly through the Scriptures--but to say God does not use bishops is itself an interpretation of the various passages and, in fact, while you don't have bishops, you do not get your interpretation straight from Scripture anymore than I do. You listened to Pastor X and read commentary Y as you formed your interpretation of Scripture.
Yes, to be sure, you believe that it was the Holy Spirit working through Pastor X and commentary Y that brought you to your present clear understanding of the true meaning of Scripture. But we believe that the Holy Spirit did exactly that with our apostle-bishops.
Does this leave us with a simple "he said, she said" stand-off (your premise that I'm claiming total relativism)? No. You believe the Holy Spirit has clearly guided your group (and whatever other Bible-Christians or denominations largely agree with you) into the true meaning without apostle-bisops. (A) You offer "Scripture+Holy Spirit" while (B) we offer "Holy Spirit+bishops (+Scripture written by apostles)" It's not a mere standoff because A leaves us hopelessly fractured into 1000s of "true Holy-Spirit interpretations of Scripture" which in fact end up looking suspiciously like whatever basic cultural trends were taking place at the time the 500th or 888th or 945th "true Holy Spirit interpretation" came into being: Luther, Calvin (2nd generation Protestant), Pietist, Latitudinearian, Finneyite, Pentecostal, Seeker-Friendly etc.
Whereas (B) leaves us with Orthodox and Catholics who agree on virtually everything except the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome (on original sin and the procession of the Spirit we effectively end up at the same place by different routes). You can, of course, try to portray Catholics and Orthodox as hopelessly divided, but I'm sorry, if one steps back and surveys the 1000s of Protestants disagreeing over infant baptism, the nature of Christ's present in the Eucharist (even whether it's mere Communion or something more), predestination and free will, the role of the minister/priest, the role of bishops--on all these points and hundreds more, Catholics and Orthodox agree while Protestants disagree massively. The immense degree of unity among Catholics-Orthodox--those who have stuck with the Apostle-Bishop structure and the comparatively immense disunity among all (no exceptions) Christians who have abandoned the Apostle-Bishop structure in favor of "Scripture/Holy Spirit" is simply overwhelming.
You continued: Therefore it follows that a person must accept your interpretation of the Bible BEFORE he or she can understand it.
Close but misleading. What provides the key to interpreting the Bible the way we do is that we believe Christ gave us apostles/bishops. The role of these apostles/bishops are described in the NT but we believe that they existed and functioned as interpreters of Christ's message before that message was written down in Scripture, that Christ authorized them simply to preach his message. Part of their preaching was to write it down. Another part was to interpret it as disputes arose over his message. The disputes arose very early. So yes, prior to approaching the interpretation of Scripture one must decide what one believes about how Scripture came into existence and how its authority relates to Christ's authority and to the authority of Christ's apostles (and bishops).
You claim to believe that God communicates clearly and directly via Scripture and accuse us of downplaying that cynically because it serves our purpose.
Look, the reason we believe that Scripture alone cannot communicate clearly is logic and experience: the meaning of any set of words, the US Constitution, the Charter of the United Nations, the Torah, the Quran, Shakespeare's Henry IV--can be and inevitably is disputed.
It's a simple fact that, given a long enough period of time (a few weeks or months, usually) people do not agree about any set of words, formula, document. And it's a simple fact that those who claim, like you do, that the meaning of God's word is selfevident, clear because God makes it clear, do not agree among yourselves about what that selfevident meaning is--you are divided into thousands of groups based on your principle of self-evident meaning. Are your prepared to condemn to hell all those Protestant groups who disagree with you over infant/adult baptism, the nature of Communion, the meaning of the "gifts of the Holy Spirit," whether "praise bands" are good or bad, whether formal Creeds should be used or not and a thousand other things? Or do you say, "well, at least in large measure they agree with me on sola scriptura instead of bishops so I guess those who at least reject Catholic/Orthodox bishop-interpreters and accept "clear, self-evident Bible teaching" are on the right track"?
Experience shows that the Bible simply is not clear about its meaning. If it were, all Christians would agree about what the meaning is--unless you are prepared to say that those who disagree with you have rejected the clear meaning that God makes clear to those who will listen. But that would mean that those who don't see the meaning that is so obvious to you are rejecting God and headed for hell. DOn't you see that this leaves you and however many hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of Christians agree with you broadly or in detail alone on the way to heaven and billions of other people who say they are CHristians headed for hell because they refused to see the "clear" meaning of Scripture. If the meaning of Scripture is so darn clear, why do so few people see the same clear meaning that you (and some, relatively few, others) see?
You asked in conclusion: Is this (sans my editorializing) a correct summation of your position?
No it was not.
I'll get to your points asap.
But may I say in the meantime, your are truly a prolific poster!
Do your fingers hurt?
Excellent post on bishops and the history of the Church.
What is interesting is that conservative Protestants will deny the Church's authority, yet they accept those same bishops' determination on what IS Scripture AND they also deny the warped history of the Da Vinci Code and other such Neo-Gnostic history. They accept the same determinations made at Nicene regarding Christ (although it is clear that Scripture alone is undecided on the Essence of Christ compared to the Father). Why, if the Church's authority is unacceptable, do they unwittingly accept the Church's authority on these matters? Are they Catholic and don't realize yet? What is interesting also is the arrogance that they have when they think they know more than the combined writings of 2000 years of spiritual thought of God's revelation, some of which was written less than 100 years after Christ's resurrection...
Thanks for your posting.
Brother in Christ