[bdeaner]

I find disagreement with its random grabbing of objectionable points from different denominations, then implicitly lumping them all together to smear the totality of “Protestantism”. Much of what is criticized is NOT the norm across the umbrella philosophy, so it is disingenuous to portray isolated flaws as such.

I think the point of the article is that once you reject the infallibility of the teaching authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, you hit a slippery slope that opens the Bible to multiple interpretations and actually, taken to its logical conclusion, undermines the credibility of the Bible's authority -- which was granted through canonization by the early Church.

[Mr Rogers]

Interpreting Scripture isn’t hard if you read the text. If you need for the text to say things it doesn’t, then you need a Magisterium to tell you what it says.

And no, Rome did not make scripture scripture, the churches did by common assent - 300 years later. Local councils ratified what their churches already believed. Remember, it took 1500 years for a formal declaration from the Catholic Church about what was scripture, and what was not.