>>729600
>Scripture does not interpret itself
Did you know that there are many bible verses that just say what other bible verses mean?
>There is no such thing as self-evident truth
That is one of the most ridiculous, modernistic, and unbiblical things I've ever seen on this board. Are you an atheist, sir? How can you square such an ultrarationalistic worldview with theistic beliefs? If there is no self-evident truth, then there is no instinct, and no instinctual knowledge, since the ability to ascertain knowledge from text proceeds from man's communicative instinctual abilities. Thus, radical skeptic rationalism must be true, since there is no self-evident truth, no knowledge can be taken for granted, we must work our way up and attain all knowledge.
>Both the process of arriving at facts and interpreting facts are determined by the interpretive framework or paradigm that they're run through
So the force of your argument is that 1. All interpretation is a pure fabrication in the mind of the interpreter, and therefore, 2. Communication is impossible. For no communication occurs without interpretation, as communication is the sending of signals which are subsequently interpreted so as to transfer meaning from one person to another. But if the interpretation is simply a fabrication of the interpreter, then this transfer of meaning is impossible, since there is no vehicle left for it. This is your argument. You're saying God cannot communicate with us, because communication is impossible, and therefore when God speaks all we hear is ourselves. If you're going to believe this sophistical absurdity, I merely ask that you be consistent in it. For the logical conclusion of this argument is not that the Roman or Greek church is the true church, but an epistemic solipsism. After all, when your bishop speaks, why are his words clearer than God's? Why are you even posting, why are you even reading this? Doesn't the fact you only apply this standard to God's word and absolutely nothing else just scream to you that this argument is nothing more than an excuse to protect your church from the tribunal of scripture? Don't you find it suspicious that your church is so desperate to escape judgement from the bible?
>When you choose to ignore the witness of the Church
According to you, it is impossible to do anything but twist scripture, so to you following "the witness of the Church" is just deferring to whatever pretzel the guy in the funny hat twists it into. Maybe we should try not twisting scripture, just a thought.
>a worldview that is colored by language, culture, history, personal experiences and so on, and with all of the assumptions that a worldview entails
Through proper study these can be easily distinguished from the clear teachings of the bible and a Christian worldview embraced instead.
>As the Fathers used to say: every heretic quotes scripture in defense of their heresies
If they did tend to say that, it was not to deny the authority of the bible, but to deny heretics the right to fill the words of the bible with their own meaning out of context and pretend it is divine teaching.
>This is why I roll my eyes at baptist's tactical copy-pasting of scripture
Of course. I mean I just proved at length the translation of your post is "the bible has no authority" (and that your solution to the alleged problem is an admission of this denial) so it's completely unsurprising you roll your eyes at it.