2 Peter 1:20-21

[RHannosh619]

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

We went over this at bible study lat night, I want to know what any protestants would have to say counterarguing this?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

We went over this at bible study lat night, I want to know what any protestants would have to say counterarguing this?

2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

We do not argue against it. We interpret it differently than you probably do. Let me explain our view.
In this passage, Peter is affirming “word of prophecy” (verse 19). He says this “prophecy of scripture” is of (or from) holy men moved by the Holy Ghost. It did not come from the will of man. The passage has nothing to do with interpreting the Bible, which would be anachronistic anyway. It is saying that scripture came from men moved by the Holy Ghost. The subject of these sentences is prophecy of scripture and its origins. It came in old time (it is not discussing the present time) from men moved by the Holy Ghost. It was not a man’s private interpretation that made scripture but men moved by God. That is why this word of prophecy (scripture) is more sure.
Suggesting the subject of these verses is private interpretation of the Bible takes it out of its context.
Peter is not discussing people abusing Old Testament passages, instead he is affirming their more sure word of prophecy (scripture).
This is affirmed by going back even further to see that Peter is defending scripture and the truth they follow

2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables,

And that is our view

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

We do not argue against it. We interpret it differently than you probably do. Let me explain our view.
In this passage, Peter is affirming “word of prophecy” (verse 19). He says this “prophecy of scripture” is of (or from) holy men moved by the Holy Ghost. It did not come from the will of man. The passage has nothing to do with interpreting the Bible, which would be anachronistic anyway. It is saying that scripture came from men moved by the Holy Ghost. The subject of these sentences is prophecy of scripture and its origins. It came in old time (it is not discussing the present time) from men moved by the Holy Ghost. It was not a man’s private interpretation that made scripture but men moved by God. That is why this word of prophecy (scripture) is more sure.
Suggesting the subject of these verses is private interpretation of the Bible takes it out of its context.
Peter is not discussing people abusing Old Testament passages, instead he is affirming their more sure word of prophecy (scripture).
This is affirmed by going back even further to see that Peter is defending scripture and the truth they follow

And that is our view

How would it be anachronistic to say that it has nothing to do with interpreting scripture?

And, if I may, do you feel that Peter knew he was writing scripture in this letter? Or Paul in his various letters? Were all the apostles letters written with the belief that they would be scripture? Or were they instead referring to already existing scriptures when they say things like “the scriptures”?

 

[Rightlydivide]

How would it be anachronistic to say that it has nothing to do with interpreting scripture?

And, if I may, do you feel that Peter knew he was writing scripture in this letter? Or Paul in his various letters? Were all the apostles letters written with the belief that they would be scripture? Or were they instead referring to already existing scriptures when they say things like “the scriptures”?

Forget the anachronistic part then. While I can defend that one word, I would prefer for people to deal with the content of my post.

No. I do not feel like Peter knew that. Paul maybe. But that does not deal with the content. Back to the content of my post and the verse itself.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Forget the anachronistic part then. While I can defend that one word, I would prefer for people to deal with the content of my post.

No. I do not feel like Peter knew that. Paul maybe. But that does not deal with the content. Back to the content of my post and the verse itself.

The anachronistic part was important to your point. I think it warrants explanation.

You said

The passage has nothing to do with interpreting the Bible, which would be anachronistic anyway

The passage seems quite explicit that it is interpreting prophecy

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation

What you are saying seems to be that prophecy (scripture) itself came about by the action (movement) of God? Correct?

Are you assuming that all scripture is prophecy?

Are you assuming that all prophecy is scripture?

Would I be incorrect in assuming that the prophecies in scripture (since IMHO, not all scripture is prophesy and not all prophesy is scripture) came about by God’s will and are not subject to ones own interpretation?

Would that not then imply that the prophetic nature of scripture and the prophesy contained within it are not open to private interpretation (especially since much of the prophesy in scripture is obscure)?

Then to whom should we look for interpretation, since one person can never be assured of the guidance of the Holy Spirit? In other words, when I read Revelations account of the tribulation, I am not scripturally (spellcheck doesnt like this word… did I misspell it?) allowed to interpret it myself, so where should I go for the interpretation? Is it to be a majority rule on the interpretation of the Scriptures or are they self interpreting?

I apologize if this sounds aggressive, that is not my point. I simply want to understand where you are coming from on this subject.

FSC

 

[Scoobyshme]

I think it is a mistake to try to separate Scripture from Holy Tradition and the Magesterium of the Church. God is three Divine Persons in one. God’s Word, likewise, has a trinitarian nature. Just like we cannot separate the three Persons of God from the unity of God, we cannot separate the Scriptures from Holy Tradition or the Magesterium. All three must go together in a unified whole.

Jesus, Son of God, became man. He preached and taught His truth orally and by example. He never wrote anything down, and as far as we can tell, never told anyone else to write anything down. He did, however, command the Apostles (and by logical extension, their successors) to go forth and preach and teach everything He had taught them. (see Matt. 28:20) SOME of what He taught them got written down. We call that the New Testament. But not all of what He did and taught was written down (see John 21:25).

If we allowed every man, woman, and child to read and self-interpret the Scriptures, we would end up with what Protestant Christianity has become, an incredibly splintered, dis-unified, disagreeing mess, where no one has any authority to correct anyone else. Everyone’s opinion as to what Scripture says is as valid as anyone else’s. Why would anyone believe that Jesus intended to found His Church and spread His truth via a book available to be self-interpreted? He knew human nature was such that we’d end up with as many opinions as we have people reading and interpreting.

Jesus founded a (one) Church, which has been around for 2000 years. He sent the Holy Spirit to lead it into all truth, and which 1 Tim 3:15 says is the “pillar and foundation of truth” when it comes to doctrine. The Catholic Church does not, nor has it ever, claimed the right to correct Jesus Christ, or change the deposit of faith which He handed to the Church through the Apostles and their successors. All the Church can do is hand on what it was given. Period. And it has done so faithfully, for 2000 years now.

 

[Rightlydivide]

=

FidesSpesCarita;7041709]The anachronistic part was important to your point. I think it warrants explanation.

It was not at all important. LOL It was a throw away line. It was a phrase after a comma, set off from the main point. How can that be important?

You said

The passage seems quite explicit that it is interpreting prophecy

No, look at your passage

that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost

It was not man’s private interpretation that the prophecy came about. It came as men were moved by the Holy Spirit.

What you are saying seems to be that prophecy (scripture) itself came about by the action (movement) of God? Correct?

Yes

Are you assuming that all scripture is prophecy?

No, but that is terminology that Peter uses. It is right in line with Christ in Matthew when he uses the same word to refer to the prophecies of Isaiah.

Are you assuming that all prophecy is scripture?

No. It is the term Peter uses to describe scripture.

Would I be incorrect in assuming that the prophecies in scripture (since IMHO, not all scripture is prophesy and not all prophesy is scripture) came about by God’s will and are not subject to ones own interpretation?

So according to your view the most this passages says is that prophecy is not up to one’s private interpretation? In other words, if what you are saying about prophecy is correct, Peter is only writing about prophecy in one of its meanings. In my view, Peter uses prophecy to refer to scripture in general.

Would that not then imply that the prophetic nature of scripture and the prophesy contained within it are not open to private interpretation (especially since much of the prophesy in scripture is obscure)?

It does not imply that at all because it is talking about the origins of it.

Then to whom should we look for interpretation, since one person can never be assured of the guidance of the Holy Spirit? In other words, when I read Revelations account of the tribulation, I am not scripturally (spellcheck doesnt like this word… did I misspell it?) allowed to interpret it myself, so where should I go for the interpretation? Is it to be a majority rule on the interpretation of the Scriptures or are they self interpreting?

If your view of this passage is correct, then do not ask me, look to 2nd Peter. Your view has Peter mentioning the dangers of private interpretation but not saying the correct way to interpret scripture through the church? Peter does not mention the church; does he?

I apologize if this sounds aggressive, that is not my point. I simply want to understand where you are coming from on this subject.

No problem. I have more parts of the epistle to look at to further my view but we should stick to this particular passage first.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

EDITED FOR BREVITY=
It was not at all important. LOL It was a throw away line. It was a phrase after a comma, set off from the main point. How can that be important?

The statement that it would be anachronistic to assume that he meant private interpretation of scripture in this verse is anachronistic is analogous to saying that the old testament prophecies referring to Christ is anachronistic.

It was not man’s private interpretation that the prophecy came about. It came as men were moved by the Holy Spirit.

HUA

No, but that is terminology that Peter uses. It is right in line with Christ in Matthew when he uses the same word to refer to the prophecies of Isaiah.

No. It is the term Peter uses to describe scripture.

HUA

So according to your view the most this passages says is that prophecy is not up to one’s private interpretation? In other words, if what you are saying about prophecy is correct, Peter is only writing about prophecy in one of its meanings. In my view, Peter uses prophecy to refer to scripture in general.

I was not making a statement regarding my opinion, just trying to find yours so we can have a meaningful conversation without me making wild assumptions (as I am prone to do) regarding your intended meaning.

And for the record, I agree that this is how Peter and Paul use the word. And yes, it states that all scripture was inspired by God.

It does not imply that at all because it is talking about the origins of it.

Would it be fair to say that there is much in scripture that has various levels of meaning? Or is everything to be taken at face value?

If your view of this passage is correct, then do not ask me, look to 2nd Peter. Your view has Peter mentioning the dangers of private interpretation but not saying the correct way to interpret scripture through the church? Peter does not mention the church; does he?

No, but 1 Timothy 3:15 addresses it quite well. And since Peter was being addressed to settle disputes at the time, I think it is fair to reason that it was generally understood that we should look to the hierarchy.

No problem. I have more parts of the epistle to look at to further my view but we should stick to this particular passage first.

I’m good with that. I do enjoy the way you argue, it is refreshing to not have to deal with tangential arguments constantly.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The statement that it would be anachronistic to assume that he meant private interpretation of scripture in this verse is anachronistic is analogous to saying that the old testament prophecies referring to Christ is anachronistic.

HUA

HUA

I was not making a statement regarding my opinion, just trying to find yours so we can have a meaningful conversation without me making wild assumptions (as I am prone to do) regarding your intended meaning.

And for the record, I agree that this is how Peter and Paul use the word. And yes, it states that all scripture was inspired by God.

Would it be fair to say that there is much in scripture that has various levels of meaning? Or is everything to be taken at face value?

No, but 1 Timothy 3:15 addresses it quite well. And since Peter was being addressed to settle disputes at the time, I think it is fair to reason that it was generally understood that we should look to the hierarchy.

I’m good with that. I do enjoy the way you argue, it is refreshing to not have to deal with tangential arguments constantly.

I believe that Peter’s argument must be evaluated in light of the rest of his epistle.
That may be a fundamentalist thing. I have not studied Catholic approaches enough to really comment. Does not make it better, does not make it worse, it might make it differetn though.
I do not disagree that Paul has some views on matters such as this but we are a LONG ways from leaving Peter. Remember, Peter is writing to deal with a specific problem. We have to define what the problem was and how he answered it on its own merits.
Let’s just be clear and see if you agree.
In your view, this verse means that you should not privately interpret a verse but the epistle does not tell you what to do or how to interpret a verse. It is implied elsewhere.

In my view, the verse is speaking about the origins of scripture and does not directly deal with private interpretation.
Correct? Modifications?

HOWEVER, I do believe the verse does deal in some parts with items that are related and am happy to address that if we agree on what I just wrote.

 

[RHannosh619]

I agree with the person above who talked about Jesus setting an example. The Bible is great, its the Word of God, but Jesus came down to this earth for some reason, which is to establish HIS church.

There is only one truth, although protestantism as well as other religions share in some truth, there is only one truth.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I think this passage is clear enough to realize that Peter is specifically talking about prophesies, and that prophecy does not come by nature but through the gift of the Holy Spirit. As St. Bede says in his commentary on this passage, “Just as the prophets wrote not their own but God’s words, so also the reader of them cannot use his own private interpretation.”

But even though Peter is specifically talking about prophecies, this same principle applies to Scripture in general, similar to the way St. John says in Revelation, “18 I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.”

As a Catholic we have the Church as the safeguard to insure that we do not interpret Scripture in a way that is wrong doctrinally. We do have a great deal of liberty to interpret Scripture, but we have the correct doctrine of the Church to keep us in check. As long as we know our Faith and what the Church teaches then we can approach the Bible with confidence. But if you do not have a good understanding of what the Church teaches then you are not equipt with the necessary tools to begin interpreting the Bible.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I agree with the person above who talked about Jesus setting an example. The Bible is great, its the Word of God, but Jesus came down to this earth for some reason, which is to establish HIS church.

There is only one truth, although protestantism as well as other religions share in some truth, there is only one truth.

Whether you agree with me or not, did I answer your question?

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I believe that Peter’s argument must be evaluated in light of the rest of his epistle.
That may be a fundamentalist thing. I have not studied Catholic approaches enough to really comment. Does not make it better, does not make it worse, it might make it differetn though.
I do not disagree that Paul has some views on matters such as this but we are a LONG ways from leaving Peter. Remember, Peter is writing to deal with a specific problem. We have to define what the problem was and how he answered it on its own merits.
Let’s just be clear and see if you agree.
In your view, this verse means that you should not privately interpret a verse but the epistle does not tell you what to do or how to interpret a verse. It is implied elsewhere.

My understanding of this verse is that it directly deals with the origin of scripture (i.e. scripture is of God, not from men) while also giving instruction to avoid trying to interpret these things written without consulting the authority (as Peter was being consulted) put in place to handle disputes or differing interpretations. And yes, the details are dealt with elsewhere.

In my view, the verse is speaking about the origins of scripture and does not directly deal with private interpretation.
Correct? Modifications?

HOWEVER, I do believe the verse does deal in some parts with items that are related and am happy to address that if we agree on what I just wrote.

Well, I dont agree 100% with your view, but since I know how you read the text I think we can move on. Unless you need me to clarify something?

 

[Rightlydivide]

FidesSpesCarita
I have decided to ask another question first, contrary to what I said because I am not clear and it determines where I go in 2nd Peter next. I hope that is ok and then yes I will return to 2nd Peter.
When you state that the details are dealt with elsewhere, what do you specifically mean?
According to your view, if I am correct, the interpretation of scripture is dealt with elsewhere, I want to know specifically how that was done (when, where, to whom, etc).
Thanks

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

FidesSpesCarita
I have decided to ask another question first, contrary to what I said because I am not clear and it determines where I go in 2nd Peter next. I hope that is ok and then yes I will return to 2nd Peter.
When you state that the details are dealt with elsewhere, what do you specifically mean?
According to your view, if I am correct, the interpretation of scripture is dealt with elsewhere, I want to know specifically how that was done (when, where, to whom, etc).
Thanks

I am aware that you interpret it differently, but 1 Timothy 3:14-15. Your interpretation will be based upon your view of what fundamentally comprises the Church, which differs from the Catholic view. But, we must look to THE Church to know how to conduct ourselves in God’s House. This includes Scriptural and doctrinal interpretation, as shown in Acts. I will attempt to flesh this out later, since I know it is an almost worthless reply, but I am a bit busy today and did not want to blow this thread off for too long.

FSC