"That's Just Your Interpretation"

Was reading a friend's blog--he's become a staunch Evangelical Protestant over the years I became Orthodox--and the idea came up that we non-Protestants have no right to say to Protestants that a certain verse of Scripture is "just their erroneous interpretation," for after all, we as Roman Catholics and Orthodox (we're always getting lumped together) have to interpret the infallible decisions our churches issue (which, in his eyes, apparently happens all the time), thus moving the pesky issue of "personal interpretation" down a notch, but by no means removing it entirely, as is our claim.

From Tertullian, a second century bishop who later lapsed into heresy and renounced ideas like the following, on the reason for uniformity of doctrine within the Early Church:

It is not believeable to say that the apostles were either ignorant of the whole scope of the message which they had to declare, or that they failed to make known to all men the entire rule of faith. Let us see, then, whether--even though the apostles proclaimed it simply and fully--the churches, through their own fault, proclaimed it differently than had the apostles. You will find that the heretics put forward all these suggestions of distrust.... Suppose, then, that all churches have erred. Suppose that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony. Suppose that the Holy Spirit had insufficient concern for any one church as to lead it into truth--although He was sent for this reason by Christ.... Suppose also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently--to believe differently--than what He Himself was preaching through the apostles. If so, is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No accident distributed among many men leads to one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various results. However, when that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same--it is not the result of men, but of tradition. Can anyone, then, be reckless enough to say that the ones who handed on the tradition were in error?

While there were very real controversies in the early Church over various things--the exact layout of the Trinity, the church calendar, the exact way in which Christ was divine--many of the "big issues" Protestants raise are answered uniformly by this tradition of the universal Church. I know it was personally this consensus that made me make the jump from Baptist to examine the ancient apostolic communions' claims. While I do grant that it ultimately was *my* (perhaps erroneous? Not that I can tell, but...) decision to join the Orthodox Church, I find some comfort in knowing that, in all the Churches that follow this tradition--only 3: The Orthodox, the Catholics, and the Non-Chalcedonian churches--this former Evalgelical's "big issues" of

• baptismal regeneration (yes)
• infant baptism (yes)
• salvation by faith AND works (theosis and synergy in the ancient Church)
• eternal security (no such thing--we keep the free will to disobey and leave)
• the Real Presence (oh yeah)
• Episcopal Church government (St. Ignatius of Antioch)
• Apostolic Succession (a must)
• liturgical worship (by 110 AD it was universally recorded)
• the promise of the Lord to lead His Church in all (that's ALL) truth, victorious against the gates of hell (taken seriously)
• prayers for the dead and to the departed saints (St. Polycarp and catacomb walls)
• use of imagery in worship (catacombs and churches)
• the role of the Theotokos (Mary) in our salvation (the new Eve)
• the Deuterocanonical books (not given a "free pass" by all the fathers, but highly honored as, at worst, a "second canon," a mere step down from Scripture)

...all of these were answered with one voice by the early Church. No need to interpret; the answer's right there.

This is the interpretation of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church -- and the 2 heresies that have since split from Her yet still attempt to honor the Tradition (which says something about the clarity of said Tradition!). If an individual--much less a whole confession!--reads differently into any of this, they have a sure recourse; the receptors of the apostles' own words--who sat at their feet for years and heard elaborations of the Christian faith from them--all show us if we err in these matters. Thanks be to God for His Church and the confession and traditions--whether by word or by epistle (2 Thess. 2:15)--of the apostles on which She was founded.