An infallible Scripture needs an infallible interpreter. So Catholics have argued, at least since the Reformation.

Luther, of course, disagreed: “They must admit that there are many among us, godly Christians, who have the truth faith, spirit, understanding, word and mind of Christ, and why then should one reject their word and understanding and follow the pope who has neither faith nor spirit? . . . Since we are all priests and all have one faith, one gospel and one sacrament, why then should we not have the authority to test and determine what is right or not right in the faith?”

Significantly, Luther offers a more communal/corporate view of the interpretation of Scripture (he complained frequently about lodging interpretive decisions in “one man”). He also, obviously and famously, denies that that there’s a single final interpretation of Scripture - neither in Pope or council.

Protestants have not always grasped the flip side of this. If there is no infallible interpreter of Scripture, then we are left with a host of fallible interpreters and interpretations. Protestants trust that the Spirit is the Spirit of illumination, who leads into truth. But that doesn’t nullify the fact that for Luther and for all Protestants there is no single place where the hermeneutical buck stops. Protestantism affirms a certain and infallible Bible, but acknowledges that every interpretation of that Bible is subject to revision in the light of further interpretation. Protestantism requires Christians to live with a degree of uncertainty. In this, as in other ways, the Reformation is a child of the Renaissance.

Protestantism, we might say, is all about dissemination.

Is this a deep root of postmodernism? Is this one of the reasons why some Protestants have resonated to some postmodern themes? Is this a reason why we’re seeing Protestants converting to Catholicism?