I'll start with Scripture, but I can continue if you wish.
According to Baptists, Scripture is "the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried" (e.g., the Southern Baptist "Faith and Message," June 14, 2000). The General Association of Regular Baptists concurs that "We believe in the authority and sufficiency of the Holy Bible" (GARBC Articles of Faith), and then goes on to effuse that:
"The Bible is the final authority in all matters of belief and practice because the Bible is inspired by God and bears the absolute authority of God Himself. Whatever the Bible affirms, Baptists accept as true. No human opinion or decree of any church group can override the Bible. Even creeds and confessions of faith, which attempt to articulate the theology of Scripture, do not carry Scripture's inherent authority" (GARBC "Baptist Distinctives").
The Bible is indeed the inspired and infallible word of God. But the Bible neither makes the claim that Holy Scripture is sufficient nor that it is the supreme standard in deciding religious matters.
Indeed, when we speak of the Bible, we speak of a canonical collection of Scriptures that are accepted as both: 1.) inspired, and 2.) authoritative. However, nowhere in the Bible do we find a definition of the canon of the Bible, hence our canonical Bible cannot be said to have any Biblical authority in and of itself. In point of fact, the canon of the Bible was an ecclesiastical judgment, arrived at over several centuries of Christian life and reflection, and finalized by a series of Councils in the late fourth century. The very process of the canonization of Scripture subordinates the Bible to the authority of the Holy Spirit operating through the ministry of the living Church!
The faithful Baptist, then, would do well to consider the following topics:
2 Timothy 3:16:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
This splendid passage proves the plenary inspiration of Holy Scripture beyond any shadow of a doubt, but it argues against the Baptist doctrines of the sufficiency and supreme authority of Scripture.
Firstly, Paul specifically writes that Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction. These are each ecclesiastical functions of the various ministers of the Church, and hence Paul deliberately states that Scripture is a pastoral tool in the hands of the leadership of the Church. But while Paul writes that Scripture is useful for doctrine, he does not say that Scripture is the necessary and sufficient font of all doctrine. Such is simply not in the text at hand.
Moreover, it should not escape our notice that Paul is referring to the Old Testament, since the New Testament was not yet written, compiled and canonized. Does this mean, by the logic of internal sufficiency, that we should REJECT the New Testament as inspired and profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction?
Does this passage in any way establish which books are to be part of the canon of the New Testament? Does this passage in any way establish its own standing as Holy Scripture?
Finally, it is worth noting that Paul was writing to Timothy, who was Greek; he was writing in Greek, and cites the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint). Hence, when he says "all Scripture," he is implicitly pointing to the Septuagint translation and canon of the Bible. Thus, Paul means that "ALL Scripture" must certainly include the deuterocanonical books of the Greek canon of the Old Testament (e.g., Wisdom, Sirach, Tobut, Maccabees, etc.). Does this mean that Baptists should put these books back into their Bibles?
2 Peter 1:19-21:
"And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed … knowing first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
Again, this passage proves the divine inspiration of Scripture, but says nothing to the matters of sufficiency or supreme authority. Indeed, since Scripture, being the voice of God through the Holy Spirit, is not of any private interpretation, then the interpretation of Scripture is surely a task of the "bishops which the Holy Spirit has appointed to shepherd the Church of God which He purchased with His own blood" (Acts 20:28). Indeed, does not Paul inform Timothy that Scripture is a profitable tool for the formulation of doctrine?
We must take 2 Peter 1:19-21 in the context of the entire first chapter of Peter's Second Epistle. Peter reminds his audience that he has for many years proclaimed to them, by means of his preaching and witness, the power and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ (1:16); he tells us that he has seen confirmation of the words of the prophets (1:19; which indeed he did in the Transfiguration and in the Empty Tomb). He tells us that he is about to suffer martyrdom (1:14), but that he will leave a "means to recall these things to mind" (1:12, 15).
Hence we must take note that Peter never wrote a Gospel, and that 2 Peter is his last canonical Epistle. What then did he leave behind "to remind you always of these things"? Peter left behind the teaching office of the Church to call these things to mind. Indeed, it is Peter who tells us so firmly to "be submissive to the presbyters" (1 Pe 5:5)!
An indication of the full scope and import of this teaching office that Peter and the Apostles established is to be gleaned from the telling fact that two of the four Gospels were written by Christians who had no first hand knowledge of the Life of Christ, but rather drew on the traditions and teachings of the Church for their information.
It is thus that 2 Pe 1:19-21 takes its meaning: if the interpretation of prophecy (i.e., Scripture) is not of a private nature, then it is of an ecclesial nature. The Scriptures have great authority, but the individual Christian, often a "newbie" or inexperienced soul ('neoteros', 1 Pe. 5:5) in his walk with the Lord, has no real business taking the interpretation of Scripture upon himself. Indeed, Peter reminds us quite explicitly that many have fallen into error in misreading Paul's epistles (2 Pe 3:16).
2 Corinthians 1:13:
"We do not write you anything you cannot read or understand."
Peter clarifies this, saying: "In all [Paul's] letters there are of course some passages which are hard to understand, and these are the ones that uneducated and unbalanced people distort, in the same way that they distort the rest of Scripture--to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:11).
Also, Peter reminds us that "we must recognise that the interpretation of Scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual" (2 Peter 1:20). This is to say, according to Peter, Scripture is subordinate to ecclesiastical authority in matters of teaching and doctrine. This statement, of course, is in complete harmony with Paul's comment on the profitability of Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:16.
John 16:13:
"When He, the Spirit of Truth has come, He will guide you into all truth."
This is not an unconditional promise that every believer will be able to infallibly interpret Scripture, thereby according Scripture full sufficiency and supremacy in matters of discerning doctrine and religious questions. Indeed, Paul reminds us that not every one of us is gifted by the Holy Spirit with the word of wisdom or the word of truth (1 Cor. 12:8). The mistaken and un-Biblical notion to the contrary is precisely why there exists today such a bewildering multitude of competing Protestant churches and sects!
The Spirit does guide us into truth, of course. But we must stand humbly before God like the Ethiopian Eunuch, who realized that he could not understand the Scriptures by himself, and asked the guidance and instruction of a Spirit-filled Bishop of the Church (Acts 8:26-39)! That is the Scriptural way to interpret Scripture!
One of the greatest dividers between Catholics and such fundamentalists as Baptists is the manner in which we construct the relationship between the Bible and authority within the Church. The Catholic Church has, for its part , acknowledged this state of affairs (UR, 21), which is so awkwardly apparent to those believers, Catholic and Baptist alike, who seek only to share the Good News of Jesus Christ with those around them.
So, what can we say about the practical import of our doctrinal differences on the matter of the Bible and authority? In rationalizing their split from the Catholic Church some 500 years ago, the reformers and their congregational progeny have raised the compelling battle-cry of "sola scriptura"! The Catholic Church has responded by underscoring the importance of apostolic traditions within Divine Revelation, and by emphasizing the teaching office of the episcopacy (e.g., LG, 25). The Church thus views the deep reverence that Baptists have for the written Word of God as something approaching a cult of the Book (UR, 21).
The Problem of Biblical Authority for Average Believers
For the practical purposes of nearly all lay people, Catholic and Baptist alike, this contention over the nature of the authority of the Bible invariably translates into a matter of human authority.
How can this be so? Let us take for example the "Baptist Distinctives" of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, which teaches that "the Bible is the final authority in all matters of belief and practice … whatever the Bible affirms, Baptists accept as true." In principle, this is a wonderful idea. In practice, it is impossible to attain and thus, to the degree that the gap between ideal and reality is denied, even potentially deceitful. Between what the Bible "affirms" on any given topic and in any given passage, and what a body of believers corporately accepts as true, there must intervene an authoritative hermeneutic process. Even were one to insist that everything that the Bible says may be taken literally and at face value, the need for an external and authoritative interpreter remains. This may illustrated quite readily.
As you are aware, the Bible contains many texts that simply do not agree with each other on major points. Let us not bring up such complicated and contended issues as salvation and the work of redemption, but rather focus our attention on just one or two simple examples that shall suffice to make the point.
John, for example, tells us that Jesus was crucified on the afternoon before the Passover meal (13:1, 29; 18:28; 19:14, 31), while Mark (14:12-16) and hence the other synoptics tell us that He ate the Passover meal with his disciples (i.e., the Last Supper) and was crucified on the following day. On which day was Jesus really crucified?
Similarly, John writes that Jesus personally bestowed the Holy Spirit upon the disciples in the evening on the day of His Resurrection, that first glorious Easter Sunday (20:19-23). Luke, however, tells us quite specifically that the Holy Spirit descended upon those same disciples on the feast of Pentecost, some fifty days later and after the Ascension (Acts 2:1-4). When did the Holy Spirit descend upon the disciples?
There are of course many, many more such examples of what one might call discrepancies in the Bible; this cannot be denied by anyone who has devoted any appreciable time to studying Sacred Scripture. But does this mean that the Bible is not true? Does this mean that our precious Christian faith is based on a fraud? Of course not!
But these discrepancies, once they come to the attention of the individual believer, do in fact demand a convincing, authoritative explanation. This is to say, then, that the Bible is not, and cannot be, truly self sufficient, at least for the practical purposes of each and every believer, on even such important and seemingly straight-forward topics as the historical facts of the Passion and the Descent of the Holy Spirit.
Surely God must have willed this apparent insufficiency of the Bible for a reason of His own? Are these discrepancies perhaps a sign for us, the Church, living in the last age? Indeed, exploring Biblical discrepancies has led many students of the Bible to a deeper, often anagogical understanding of the mystery of God's love for humankind. Moreover, the apparent insufficiency of the Bible must be seen as a reminder that it is not a book, not even such a holy book as the Bible, that is at the head of the Body of Christ, but rather Christ Himself, both in glory in heaven and in the mysteries by which He continues to manifest Himself and His loving presence among us. Truly He is with us, even until the end of the age (Mat. 28:20); for the Word of God lives and abides for ever (1 Pet. 1:23). We too, as the Body of Christ Who is the Word, are a living Church for the Holy Spirit operates among us, in part in the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and in part in the doctrines and traditions handed down through the ages.
The Bible and the Mediating Authority of the Church
Most fundamentalists, of course, recognize the need for a somewhat more sophisticated hermeneutic than "whatever the Bible affirms, I accept as true." An interpretative, didactic agency must exist to mediate the passage of truth from the Bible to the believer. Some fundamentalists hence claim that the Holy Spirit guides each and every believer in understanding and interpreting the Bible, pointing to such texts as John 16:13 for Scriptural support. Indeed, many of the more vituperative Catholic-baiters, such as Dave Hunt (1994, 338), raise this belief as a largely rhetorical device by which to assail the fact that Catholics readily acknowledge the teaching authority of the Church!
Sadly, this pneumatic theory of interpretative authority, when applied without distinction to all believers, is simply un-Biblical. Paul confirms that the Holy Spirit mediates the word of wisdom, and the word of truth, to Christians (1 Cor. 12:8). But Paul also and quite specifically admonishes that not all of us are given those specific spiritual gifts; rather, God Himself has appointed pastors and teachers in the Church (Eph. 4:11; 1 Cor. 12:28-29). Holy Scripture, of course, is the greatest tool that these duly appointed and ordained pastors and teachers have in formulating doctrine, reproving wayward brothers, correcting errors and instructing the faithful in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16). But it is just not the place of each and every Christian to claim for himself the right to interpret Scripture (2 Pet. 1:19-21), for in point of fact much of Scripture is simply too hard to understand and can lead to errors and distortions when the uneducated or unbalanced attempt to be their own Bible teachers (2 Pet. 3:11).
What does this mean for us, the average believers in the pews? We ask, with St. Paul, are all of us teachers (1 Cor. 12:29)? Of course not. Nearly all of us must rely to a greater or lesser extent on our teachers, exegetes and interpreters to mediate the full meaning of the Bible to us. Even from the beginnings of our individual walks with Christ, just as the Thessalonians, we must be taught the Good News and established in the faith by those approved of God (1 Thess. 2:4; 3:2). And this relationship with our teachers of Scripture continues in our life in the Church. Paul urged Timothy, and hence all bishops and teachers, to proclaim the word with longsuffering and teaching, for many "shall turn away their ear" from sound doctrine and follow after the fables of false teachers (2 Tim. 4:2-4). The message is clear: in order to persist in sound doctrine and the truth of Jesus Christ, the average believer is exhorted to listen to the teaching of his duly ordained pastors and teachers.
Let us be quite clear on the import of this Biblical teaching: for the average Christian layperson, the authority of the Bible can only emerge in a meaningful way from the very teaching and doctrinal authority of the Church.
Catholics and Holy Scripture
So what, exactly, is the Catholic position on authority and the Bible? To begin, recall that the Catholic Church believes that the books of the Bible are the inspired word of God, which "firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred scriptures" (DV, 11). But the ways of God are not always readily comprehended by mere mortals (e.g., Job 38-30:2; Is. 55:8-9; 1 Cor. 13:12); thus Catholics acknowledge that the Holy Spirit is the necessary interpreter of Scripture (DV, 12). Today, the Catholic Church exhorts each and every believer to frequently and prayerfully read the Bible. Indeed, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation cites St. Jerome to this end, reminding us that "ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ" (DV, 25). Thus, the latest Catechism includes excellent and time-proven guidelines for the Spirit-filled reading of the Bible (32-24).
This is not, however, an invitation to hermeneutic libertinism and profligacy. The Catholic Church specifically and unabashedly claims the responsibility of ultimate judgment in the matter of interpreting the Bible especially on points of doctrine, faith and morals (DV, 12). Such a position is not only necessary, it is wholly salubrious. Since the Jesuits in particular once mastered the art of casuistry, we Catholics, of all people, are all too aware that in the hands of an able rhetor the Bible can be made to say just about anything on any topic. In nearly any debate over even the most substantial of matters, both sides, pro and con, can cite the Bible at will to marshal support for their own views. Indeed, we have watched main-line Protestantism descend into a morass of liberalism even while citing the Bible for support in such innovations as divorce and remarriage, abortion, women pastors and homosexuality. We have also watched the fundamentalist branches of Protestantism undergo a thousand-and-one splits and schisms over the impact of discordant interpretations of Scripture on church doctrine.
Thus, in matters of Scriptural interpretation and doctrine, Catholics stand ready to listen to their bishops and teachers; such is, after all, the only correct Scriptural position. Of course, Catholic theologians and lay people often debate the meaning of certain nuances in the Scriptures just as freely and just as often as fundamentalist theologians and lay people. However, at an institutional level, Catholics have chosen to stress the unity of the Church in the Holy Spirit over the individual liberty of hermeneutic application. We believe what we are taught by those who have been ordained and empowered by the Holy Spirit to interpret the Scriptures, and to use Scripture in matters of doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction (2 Tim. 3:16). We turn our ears to the words and teachings of our God-appointed pastors, so that we may avoid the tempting lures of the false teachers who have gone forth into the world in this last age (2 Tim. 4:2-4).
Those who love God's Holy Scriptures are invited to join the Catholic Church in proclaiming and preserving the written word of God until the end of the age.
Sources Cited:
DV = Dei verbum. Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, 18 Nov. 1965.
Hunt, Dave. A Woman Rides the Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days. Eugene, 1994.
LG = Lumen gentium. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 21 Nov. 1964.
UR = Unitatis redintegratio. Decree on Ecumenism, 21 Nov. 1964.