Replies

2 Peter 1:20 does not mean a private vs public interpretation of the Bible, where "private" would mean "hidden, arcane interpetation." This is a misreading of the passage.

Take a look at the New International version of the Bible -- a Protestant Bible, by the way -- and you will see another translation that clarifies the meaning here:

2 Peter 1:20-21 (New International Version)
20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.
21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Here, what was "private interpretation" is translated as "own interpretation." The contrast therefore is, as I stated previously, a contrast between an individual interpretation versus the authoritative interpretation of the Church. Remember, this is even a Protestant Bible, and the Roman Catholic Church's interpretation of this Scripture is clearly the accurate one, in contrast to your "arcane" interpretation.

Secondly, in regard to the Ethiopian, yes, the man was told how to understand Scripture, which is precisely my point. He was not able to understand the Scipture on his own, as Sola Scriptura would imply. He needed the teachings of an authority, St. Philip, (who is granted authority by virtue of his relationship to the Church) in order to understand the true meaning of the Scripture. That's exactly the point I was making, and that's why this passage refutes the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Remember, St. Philip was not one of the 12 Apostles, but was commissioned by the Apostles (see Acts 6:6) and was therefore able to preach the Gospel with authority (Acts 8:4-8) -- which is why His teaching relects legitimate Apostolic teaching.

The obvious implication is that the Bible is NOT sufficient in itself as a teacher of Christian doctrine. Also required is an authority to instruct the reader in the proper interpretation. Who is the proper authority? The authority granted by Apostilic tradition -- in other words: the Church. The meaning is plain, clear and obvious, not arcane or esoteric in any way.

The obvious implication is that the Bible is NOT sufficient in itself as a teacher of Christian doctrine.

I guess we'll have to disagree.

Also required is an authority to instruct the reader in the proper interpretation.

I guess we'll have to disagree.