2 Peter 1:20 Protestant Perspective

[Cloudberry]

But add in verses 16-19 and you have Peter making the claim that he, like the OT prophets, has the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and thus his word is “a more sure word” [verse 19].

Also, add verses 16-19, not But. Both the OT and NT were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Both are a more sure word, because the Words were inspired by the Holy Spirit. But these passages of Holy Spirit inspired scriptures have nothing to do with personal interpretation of scripture. These passages of scripture are about the more sure Word and the source of scripture, God Himself.

 

[ezeekl]

Also, add verses 16-19, not But. Both the OT and NT were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Both are a more sure word, because the Words were inspired by the Holy Spirit. But these passages of Holy Spirit inspired scriptures have nothing to do with personal interpretation of scripture. These passages of scripture are about the more sure Word and the source of scripture, God Himself.

I don’t think so. Peter said “we have a more sure word”. The ‘we’, if you read the verses before, refered to those who were witnesses. He is talking about himself and the apostles. So basically what Peter is doing is saying that just as the OT prophets did not make up stuff on their own but were inspired by the Holy Spirit ,so too Peter and the Apostles were the NT equivalent and when preaching the gospel, as they were commanded to do by Jesus, they had the same inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Jesus, besides commanding them to preach the gospel, did tell them that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth. That promise was made to the Apostles and not to all of the disciples. So this is why Peter says his word is a more sure word because it is not his private interpretation but that of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Cloudberry]

I don’t think so. Peter said “we have a more sure word”. The ‘we’, if you read the verses before, refered to those who were witnesses. He is talking about himself and the apostles. So basically what Peter is doing is saying that just as the OT prophets did not make up stuff on their own but were inspired by the Holy Spirit ,so too Peter and the Apostles were the NT equivalent and when preaching the gospel, as they were commanded to do by Jesus, they had the same inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Jesus, besides commanding them to preach the gospel, did tell them that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth. That promise was made to the Apostles and not to all of the disciples. So this is why Peter says his word is a more sure word because it is not his private interpretation but that of the Holy Spirit.

I don’t think so?

The question is, can an individual, by themselves, understand or interpret the scriptures?
Are we dependent on the Church to interpret the scriptures for us? This passage of scripture is about the source of inspiration. After Peter wrote his epistle he needed to read it himself to understand it’s meaning. This passage has nothing to do with our dependency on the church for interpretation or that an individual cannot, by themselves. understand or interpret the scriptures.

The following is the original post.

The Meaning Given To It: Our Catholic friends, as well as others, have used this verse to allege that an individual cannot, by themselves, understand or interpret the scriptures (see The Faith Of Millions, pp. 152-153). Rather, we need special assistance which, in the case of the Catholic, would be the Catholic Church.

 

[fhansen]

I don’t think so?

The question is, can an individual, by themselves, understand or interpret the scriptures?
Are we dependent on the Church to interpret the scriptures for us? This passage of scripture is about the source of inspiration. After Peter wrote his epistle he needed to read it himself to understand it’s meaning. This passage has nothing to do with our dependency on the church for interpretation or that an individual cannot, by themselves. understand or interpret the scriptures.

The following is the original post.

The Meaning Given To It: Our Catholic friends, as well as others, have used this verse to allege that an individual cannot, by themselves, understand or interpret the scriptures (see The Faith Of Millions, pp. 152-153). Rather, we need special assistance which, in the case of the Catholic, would be the Catholic Church.

Just as the Eunuch couldn’t understand without the help of a true disciple, so God continues to offer that guidance through the Church He established for that purpose. And non-Catholics have continuously proven that they cannot know the meaning of scripture without the help of those ancient Churches, on their own, by the fact of their frequent disagreements with each other as to its meaning. Venture into a Christian forum or two and observe the vast number of theologies, many changing, new ones evolving, with much argumentation ensuing, all holding to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, the basic position of JWs, BTW

 

[Cloudberry]

Just as the Eunuch couldn’t understand without the help of a true disciple, so God continues to offer that guidance through the Church He established for that purpose. And non-Catholics have continuously proven that they cannot know the meaning of scripture without the help of those ancient Churches, on their own, by the fact of their frequent disagreements with each other as to its meaning. Venture into a Christian forum or two and observe the vast number of theologies, many changing, new ones evolving, with much argumentation ensuing, all holding to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, the basic position of JWs, BTW

What is JWs, BTW? What is a non-Catholic? Does 2 Peter 1:20 support the theology that individual cannot, by themselves, understand or interpret the scriptures? What does “frequent disagreements with each other” have relevance to the 2 Peter 1:20 question?

All have false teachers, just as there will be false teachers among you, and that does not exclude the Catholics. Scripture is the only source that can identify the false teachers. How can anything else be trusted unless it also passes the test of scripture, Sola Scriptura. The first protestants were Catholics trying to reform the Catholic church. I am not trying to reform the Catholic church, thus I am not a protestant.

2 Peter 2:1-3

English Standard Version (ESV)

False Prophets and Teachers

2 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

 

[sousley]

I don’t think so?

The question is, can an individual, by themselves, understand or interpret the scriptures?

Yes, within the faith of the Church, but not without.

Are we dependent on the Church to interpret the scriptures for us?

These are not the primary questions. The Catholic Church has never presented an exhaustive list of “correct interpretations”; however, even without this list, St. Jerome stills exhorts “ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ”.

The issue is when the “interpretation” functions outside of the tenets of faith. (ie. “There is one mediator… the man Jesus Christ” (1 Tim 2:5). Can I interpret this to mean Jesus Christ is only a man and not divine? Why not? What if I say I am filled with the Holy Spirit; does that change anything? Surely we know that this interpretation would be faulty. It violates a central tenet of faith that is promulgated and protected by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Cloudberry]

Yes, within the faith of the Church, but not without.

Are we dependent on the Church to interpret the scriptures for us?

These are not the primary questions. The Catholic Church has never presented an exhaustive list of “correct interpretations”; however, even without this list, St. Jerome stills exhorts “ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ”.

The issue is when the “interpretation” functions outside of the tenets of faith. (ie. “There is one mediator… the man Jesus Christ” (1 Tim 2:5). Can I interpret this to mean Jesus Christ is only a man and not divine? Why not? What if I say I am filled with the Holy Spirit; does that change anything? Surely we know that this interpretation would be faulty. It violates a central tenet of faith that is promulgated and protected by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The issue is 2 Peter 1:20 and not 1 Tim 2:5. Does 2 Peter 1:20 teach that you cannot have a personal interpretation? 2 Peter 1:20 does not address the issue of personal interpretation. 2 peter 1:20 is not about faulty interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20 is about the inspiration of scripture being the Holy Spirit. The deity of Jesus Christ is relevant, but this is not an issue with 2 Peter 1:20 anymore than personal interpretation is an issue with 2 Peter 1:20.

The following was take from the Fundamentalist or Catholic from catholic.com The context of 2 Peter 1:20 has been taken out of context.

The Bible also tells us that private interpretation is not to be the rule for understanding the Bible. Peter declares this to be a matter of prime importance, saying, “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (2 Pet. 1:20). Later he warns what can happen if a person ignorantly approaches Scripture on his own or is unstable in clinging to the apostolic teachings he has received. He states of Paul’s letters, “There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:16). Private interpretation and instability in clinging to the doctrines passed down from the apostles can thus result in one twisting the scriptures to one’s own destruction.

2 Peter 1:20 does not support the issue of private interpretation. Again 2 Peter 1:20 when taken in context is about the inspiration of scripture by the Holy Spirit and is not relevant concerning private interpretation by an individual.

 

[ezeekl]

I don’t think so? The question is, can an individual, by themselves, understand or interpret the scriptures?

The answer to your question is a definite NO. Jesus gave us the church, the nucleus of which was the Apostles. To these men Jesus said that whoever heard them heard Jesus. The passage of scripture about the source of inspiration is Timothy 3:16 not 2Peter 1:20.
.

Are we dependent on the Church to interpret the scriptures for us?

YES, for that is why we have the church so we can be one body and not go off willy nilly each of us interpreting scripture for ourselves. Look what that has done to protestantism. Can’t you see that in just 500 years protestantism has devolved into thousands of denominations who cannot agree on some basic stuff like Baptism. You see, it really doesn’t matter what the inspiration of scripture is if you are going to interpret it wrong anyway. In the Old Testament the prophets were the ones who said, “Thus sayeth the Lord…” It wasn’t the people. In the New Covenant it is the Church who proclaims the word of God. Jesus established a church with authority to bind on earth as well as in heaven. The scripture [Mt 16:18-19] is all to clear on that yet protestants still deny that. Like I said, it really doesn’t matter what the source of inspiration is if you are going to misinterpret it anyway. The point is that Jesus said it, the gospel writer recorded it and you deny it. So the question for you yo answer is, WHY?

 

[fhansen]

What is JWs, BTW?

Jehovah’s Witnesses, who claim to “reason from scripture”, using it as their sole authority. And they, in fact, ‘even deny the Master who bought them’ by denying His divinity, which they argue against via scripture, as Arian did in similar manner centuries before.

What is a non-Catholic? Does 2 Peter 1:20 support the theology that individual cannot, by themselves, understand or interpret the scriptures?

Yes, we can hear and recognize the voice of God, we can glean many truths and gems of wisdom, but we can easily be misled regarding the teachings of Christ and the true nature of the gospel.

What does “frequent disagreements with each other” have relevance to the 2 Peter 1:20 question?

Most heresies are born from misunderstandings of scripture.

All have false teachers, just as there will be false teachers among you, and that does not exclude the Catholics. Scripture is the only source that can identify the false teachers. How can anything else be trusted unless it also passes the test of scripture, Sola Scriptura. The first protestants were Catholics trying to reform the Catholic church. I am not trying to reform the Catholic church, thus I am not a protestant.

We’re not speaking of individuals, who, of course, can be false teachers, but rather about the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, as 1 Tim 3:15 puts it, the Church as the authoritative interpreter of scripture, along with her own, lived tradition since the beginnings of Christianity, since a time before one word of the New Testament was written. The Church is precluded from error in matters of faith and morals; somebody has to be or else we can’t be assured of knowing the gospel with accuracy, in the fullness of truth as its been put. The bible was simply never meant to be a catechism-it is both the work of the Church with God Who inspired her people to write it and her continued resource to His Word. In any case, the bible cannot interpret itself; that requires a living, chosen, authority, otherwise disagreement often occurs.

 

[fhansen]

These are not the primary questions. The Catholic Church has never presented an exhaustive list of “correct interpretations”; however, even without this list, St. Jerome stills exhorts “ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ”.

This doesn’t mean Jerome* expected* the Church to come up with an exhaustive list of interpretations. She interprets and uses scripture as needed, but her main role in any case is to interpret, define, clarify, and proclaim the faith, as Jesus did.

 

[sousley]

This doesn’t mean Jerome* expected* the Church to come up with an exhaustive list of interpretations. She interprets and uses scripture as needed, but her main role in any case is to interpret, define, clarify, and proclaim the faith, as Jesus did.

That was actually me that said that, not Cloudberry, and I agree with you.

 

[fhansen]

That was actually me that said that, not Cloudberry, and I agree with you.

Oops! I don’t know how I managed to pull that off but my apologies to both of you. I guess the quoting from post 27 was a bit off.

 

[rom422]

This is a great thread. I learned a lot. Thanks, guys!

 

[Cloudberry]

Jehovah’s Witnesses, who claim to “reason from scripture”, using it as their sole authority. And they, in fact, ‘even deny the Master who bought them’ by denying His divinity, which they argue against via scripture, as Arian did in similar manner centuries before.

Yes, we can hear and recognize the voice of God, we can glean many truths and gems of wisdom, but we can easily be misled regarding the teachings of Christ and the true nature of the gospel.

Most heresies are born from misunderstandings of scripture.

We’re not speaking of individuals, who, of course, can be false teachers, but rather about the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, as 1 Tim 3:15 puts it, the Church as the authoritative interpreter of scripture, along with her own, lived tradition since the beginnings of Christianity, since a time before one word of the New Testament was written. The Church is precluded from error in matters of faith and morals; somebody has to be or else we can’t be assured of knowing the gospel with accuracy, in the fullness of truth as its been put. The bible was simply never meant to be a catechism-it is both the work of the Church with God Who inspired her people to write it and her continued resource to His Word. In any case, the bible cannot interpret itself; that requires a living, chosen, authority, otherwise disagreement often occurs.

Conclusion:

From catholic-defense.com/bible.htm The private interpretation of the Bible is not condoned in the Bible Itself according to 2 Peter 1:20. This position is also conferred by Catholic.com. To interpret 2 Peter 1:20 such that this passage is about the source of scripture and not about personal interpretation would violate the position of the Catholic church that personal interpretation is not allowed.

Anyone that takes the position that has an interpretation that 2 Peter 1:20 is not about personal interpretation should not identify with the Catholic church.
gty.org/resources/sermons/61-15/?term=61-15

 

[rcwitness]

The answer to your question is a definite NO. Jesus gave us the church, the nucleus of which was the Apostles. To these men Jesus said that whoever heard them heard Jesus. The passage of scripture about the source of inspiration is Timothy 3:16 not 2Peter 1:20.
.

YES, for that is why we have the church so we can be one body and not go off willy nilly each of us interpreting scripture for ourselves. Look what that has done to protestantism. Can’t you see that in just 500 years protestantism has devolved into thousands of denominations who cannot agree on some basic stuff like Baptism. You see, it really doesn’t matter what the inspiration of scripture is if you are going to interpret it wrong anyway. In the Old Testament the prophets were the ones who said, “Thus sayeth the Lord…” It wasn’t the people. In the New Covenant it is the Church who proclaims the word of God. Jesus established a church with authority to bind on earth as well as in heaven. The scripture [Mt 16:18-19] is all to clear on that yet protestants still deny that. Like I said, it really doesn’t matter what the source of inspiration is if you are going to misinterpret it anyway. The point is that Jesus said it, the gospel writer recorded it and you deny it. So the question for you yo answer is, WHY?

Scripture can be profitable to all men, who seek God. There are things that can profit us in all Scripture. Furthermore, there is not necessarily only one meaning to specific Scriptures.

What I see this passage from Peter as meaning, is we do not interpret Scripture ourselves OUTSIDE of Magisterial Teaching. Magisterial Teaching is the ‘nucleus’ of the Church leadership continued through a living Apostolic appointing.

There are only 12 prophetic passages in Scripture that have been officially interpreted by the Church Magisterium. These do not necessarily have only these specific interpretations, but can have other profitable meanings behind them. Yet, no Scripture can contradict these 12! In fact, I believe it is said that all heresies in some form contradicting at least one of these.

Michael

 

[rcwitness]

These are the 12 officially defined passages of Sacred Scripture:

1.) Romans 5:12
2.) John 3:5
3.) Matt. 26:26
4.) Mark 14:22
5.) Luke 22:19
6.) 1Cor. 11:23
7.) John 20:22
8.) James 5:14
9.) Matt. 16:16
10.) John 21:15
11.) 1Cor. 11:24
12.) Luke 22:19 (two meanings)

Please correct me if I am mistaken

Michael

 

[sousley]

Conclusion:

From catholic-defense.com/bible.htm The private interpretation of the Bible is not condoned in the Bible Itself according to 2 Peter 1:20. This position is also conferred by Catholic.com. **To interpret 2 Peter 1:20 such that this passage is about the source of scripture and not about personal interpretation would violate the position of the Catholic church that personal interpretation is not allowed.
**
Anyone that takes the position that has an interpretation that 2 Peter 1:20 is not about personal interpretation should not identify with the Catholic church.
gty.org/resources/sermons/61-15/?term=61-15

The Catholic Church may not completely agree with all of the well-meaning bloggers on the internet today. The bolded statement above seems to fall a bit short of The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation: Dei Verbum

DEI VERBUM
Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation
CHAPTER III
SACRED SCRIPTURE, ITS INSPIRATION AND DIVINE INTERPRETATION
11. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

1. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words….But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith.

 

[rom422]

I think that 2 Peter 1:20-21 means that no prophecy (or teaching) of Scripture originates from one’s mind (or from one’s personal reasoning and analysis of facts and events), because prophecies do not originate from the mind of the prophets, but from the Holy Spirit who inspires them.

That is what the passage directly and literally says. And protestants are quite right in pointing out that fact. However, if the teachings of Scripture do not originate from the sacred writers’ mental effort but from the Holy Spirit who inspires them, then it necessarily follows that their proper understanding or interpretation is also not acquired by our mind alone, but by the illumination of the same Holy Spirit that inspired the prophets.

I think that this has been the basis of the Catholic Church’s use of 2 Peter 1:20-21 as an argument against the private interpretation of Holy Scripture. It is not because the private interpretation is explicitly prohibited by 2 Peter 1:20, but because that prohibition is implicitly and necessarily contained in that same passage.

To be sure, the Holy Spirit also illumines us individually. However, we receive His illumination in different degrees depending on our readiness to receive His gifts. This is the reason why different individuals reading the same Scripture, and aided by the same Holy Spirit, do not profit equally from their reading. Some will understand the texts better than others. However, total and infallible illumination is promised only to the Church: “But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth” (John 16:13). Consequently, while it is good for all Catholics to read the Bible individually, they are also encouraged to understand the sacred texts according to the Mind of the Church.