In response to my question, Tierney suggests that Protestant "interpretation" is to be characterized as "everyone get your Bibles out, and believe what you want to believe." Of course this is not how we view interpretation. Interpretation is the extraction, usually via exegetical means, of a passage's meaning. It is the same technique used to interpret the writings of Josephus. Far from being "private judgment," there are excellent hermeneutical criteria used to ascertain a passage's meaning.(1) For the Tierney-type Catholic, interpreting Scripture requires that "we use Scripture and Tradition to verify it." But this evinces a bloated theology in the Catholic position for now we must look toward another source of doctrinal elucidation (e.g., Tradition) and expect to personally interpret that correctly. In effect, we are to prefer the transitive (where x=Bible; y=Tradition; z=Interpretation):

when instead it would be more conservative to simply affirm identity:

Thus, whether x is guided by the Holy Spirit or y is, the essential "difficulty" with interpretation remains. So, why conflate the problem with Tierney's bloated theology where he merely extends the problem rather than solves it?

     I also want to clarify Luther and Calvin. First, Luther expressed his lack of confidence that the "papists" could extract sola fide from James and that, for the Reformers, "That epistle of James gives us much trouble." In his empassioned response, Luther complains "I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove."

     A shallow reading of Calvin in his Institutes, only partially cited by Tierney, actually reveals Calvin's reliance on Pauline Scripture (this is militantly contrary to what Tierney would have the reader believe when he says, "You do not see references to what Paul says in scripture to harmonize the 2"). In context, because one cannot interpret James to "invert" the role of justification as it would be "impious" to do so, Calvin offers his full commentary where he compares James's Scripture with Paul's Scripture. The following citation immediately follows Tierney's citation:

In effect, James uses one of the fundamental rules of hermeneutics: to interpret obscure passages in light of clearer ones. In this case, James relies on the clarity of Paul to interpret James's "faith without works" as an ostensible expression of the already imputed justification. This, Tierney said, Calvin did not do.

     Therefore, while Tierney addresses his requirement for interpretation and critiques Protestantism's alleged inadequate view, I find them both wanting.

END NOTES

1. For an excellent contemporary resource, I recommend W. Kaiser and M. Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994). For a good but lengthy reading in systematic theology, I recommend W. Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 3 Vols (Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1991).