But I think Mr. Rogers was asking (and rightfully so) what is that interpretation based on, and what makes it authoritative in an absolute sense if not on faith alone? That's hardly a proof.
***It doesn’t matter that the translation from Greek to Greek to Greek to Latin to Latin to English to English is less than pure. It only matters that the interpretation is
But I think Mr. Rogers was asking (and rightfully so) what is that interpretation based on, and what makes it authoritative in an absolute sense if not on faith alone? That’s hardly a proof.***
No, it isn’t. We have the current Scripture and we have the other documentation that the Church possesses that indicates its authority to translate, interpret and teach. Does that constitute absolute proof? Of course not. But the documents held by the Church, and Scripture itself, point to the authority of the Church and refutes the authority of any individual. Again, it is not proof.
It does come down to faith. We have many indications that the faith is justified, yet in the end, it is faith. Kosta and I have been part of many conversations in the last couple of years that illustrated the differences between faith and proof, or faith and knowledge. I suspect that we will continue in the future as well.