By far the most frustrating, and yet most common counter arguments to any Biblical truth is "that's just your interpretation". It can be used against literally anything the Bible says, ironically including whatever the person making the claim believes, which should be a dead giveaway that it's a terrible response. "That's just your interpretation". Well yeah, and your view is your interpretation, so we're just going to hit a stalemate if you don't sort your act out.
Once we've sorted our acts out, we can start discussing why certain interpretations are better than others. Often, what you'll find is that a lot of the division within the Church over how to interpret Scripture comes from sources outside of Scripture.
After years of experience, my go-to example would be the origins debate. The Bible is so clear on this issue that I literally changed my mind just by reading it. I had always been taught, in school, in books, and by people I looked up to, that God could easily have used the Big Bang and Evolution to create, and there is no conflict between "science" and Scripture. This is a belief that many Christians still hold. But no, the fact is, there never was a "Big Bang", nor did life begin in a murky pool, nor are we the end result of millions of years of descent with modification. Rather, the heavens and the Earth were created by divine command, in a mere 6 days, with each living organism being created according to its kind on the latter half. God initially created one man from the dirt, and one woman from the man's ribs, and we are all descended from them.
"That's just your interpretation". Ok, well, look at what the Bible says, and tell me, how do you interpret it any other way? "Well, if you look at science...", nope, now you're not interpreting the Bible, you've erroneously concluded that Evolution is science, and therefore 3,400 years of Creationism can be thrown out the window. "But Augustine says...", nope, not only was Augustine among the voices who almost unanimously espoused the Creationist view prior to the 1600s, but Augustine is not the Bible. "But Hugh Ross, and William Lane Craig, and..." stop, just admit that it isn't the Bible you're interpreting at this point. If anything comes out of your mouth that doesn't include "the Scriptures say...", you are no longer interpreting the Bible. I can say "The Scriptures say 'For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.'" Therefore, I believe that in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Note how at this point I don't even have to explain my interpretation to you, it's literally in Scripture, word for word.
Of course, since Evolution and the like were literally designed to "free" humanity from the Christian faith (and some Evolutionists even admit that), its sources are a dumb place to go as aids to reinterpreting the Bible. But actually, even within Church contexts, it's easy to misuse even the good aids. Creeds and confessions, for example, are supposed to be used to summarise the interpretations we already hold. There is, however, a very real danger that they can be ascribed more authority than they have any right to.
To be clear, I am not against creeds and confessions. They can be helpful and edifying, especially if you're new to the faith, or just haven't been diligent enough in studying it. However, they must be put in their place: They are designed to express the interpretations we have already drawn from the Scripture, not ways to reinterpret Scripture. Sadly, however, they very often are. In fact, you could know the Scriptures inside and out, yet still be considered "ignorant" if you don't know at least one confession.
It gets even worse when it comes to the so-called "Church Fathers". As I already alluded to, they can be used to defend just about any heresy, even the new ones. But this is because, as good as many of them were, they were human, meaning they did not always stick to Scripture. This is to the extent where they would sometimes fight each other. Jerome and Augustine, for example, had a disagreement regarding Galatians 2, in which Paul rebukes Peter. Jerome, being a primitive Papist, had a very high respect for Peter, and could not stomach the idea that Paul, of all people, might have had grounds to accuse him. Thus, he suggested, Peter and Paul were merely putting on a show for sake of edifying the Galatians.
Now, if you use Jerome as an interpretive guide, you will conclude that Peter did not play the hypocrite in Galatians 2, nor did Paul genuinely rebuke him for it. However, if you use Augustine as the interpretive guide, you will draw the opposite conclusion. In this case, ultimately, it turns out that Augustine was right. But not because he was Augustine. Rather, Augustine interpreted the Bible as the Bible in this case. Jerome, by contrast, used Jerome as his interpretive guide!
And this is a trap we all fall into. We live in a world where "what does the Bible mean to you?" is considered a sensible question. In reality, however, we should be cutting those last two words off and simply asking "what does the Bible mean?" We shouldn't be talking about "my" interpretation vs. "your" interpretation. Of course, inevitably, no matter how you interpret the Bible, it will always be your interpretation. But your interpretation should always come from what you read. That is the entire point of reading.
Now, often, you will find yourself in good company. Tertullian of Carthage interpreted John 6:63 just as modern "Protestants" do regarding exactly how literal (or not) Jesus was being when He said "eat my flesh" and "drink my blood", and Cyril of Alexandria used 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to show that the Scriptures are sufficient. Thus, when we use these verses in the same way, Catholics cannot claim, as they are so prone to do, "that's just your interpretation". But it is vitally important to ensure that we are using the Bible to say that, in this case, Tertullian and Cyril are right. We cannot say "Tertullian and Cyril say...". Otherwise, we're not interpreting the Bible, we're interpreting Tertullian and Cyril, and giving them far more authority than they will ever have.
You see, then, the folly of the whole "that's just your interpretation" nonsense. Far too often, different interpretations are not even interpretations at all. They are attempts to overrule Scripture while feigning some sort of allegiance to it. But this is the exact problem the Pharisees had in Jesus' day! They claimed to trust in Moses, yet Moses wrote of Jesus, and they wanted to crucify Him instead. The result? Jesus said it wouldn't be Him accusing them to the Father, it would be the same Moses they claim to trust.
In the same way, when we talk about interpreting Scripture, we are ultimately confessing its authority. Therefore, it is vital to get it right, lest it testify against us on Judgement Day. Imagine standing before God Himself, and He says "my word says...", and your response is "that's just your interpretation". No, there is a correct interpretation, and you're not going to get it as long as you let basically any source except the Bible tell you what the Bible says.