How can the holy bible (a collection of books as opposed to church leaders) - be the ultimate and final authority for non-Catholics...

[joe370]

How can the bible be the ultimate and final authority for resolving doctrinal differences in light of the following passages: 2Pet 1:20, 2Pet 3:16-17?

 

[brakelite]

How can the bible be the ultimate and final authority for resolving doctrinal differences in light of the following passages: 2Pet 1:20, 2Pet 3:16-17?

Those references in fact show that the Bible must be the final authority. Not me, not you, nor the church, either yours or mine. The Bible doesn’t contradict itself, so any difficulty with one aspect of scripture can be clarified by searching other texts which dwell upon the same topic and subject. The Bible therefore interprets itself, the Holy Spirit guiding and leading and providing wisdom to understand as we progress and grow. If we deny the power of God to reveal His will to individuals by His Spirit we deny the promises that Peter tell us that we can trust in .(2 Peter 1:3,4.)

 

[joe370]

Hey BL…Could you elaborate? So the authority for you and I (each and every individual Christian) - is the bible via my private interpretation…your private interpretation… of the bible, even though the bible says: then you must understand first of all, that NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS MADE BY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION? If "His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction, then how do I know that my interpretation isn’t distorted

Those references in fact show that the Bible must be the final authority. Not me, not you, nor the church, either yours or mine. The Bible doesn’t contradict itself, so any difficulty with one aspect of scripture can be clarified by searching other texts which dwell upon the same topic and subject. The Bible therefore interprets itself, the Holy Spirit guiding and leading and providing wisdom to understand as we progress and grow. If we deny the power of God to reveal His will to individuals by His Spirit we deny the promises that Peter tell us that we can trust in .(2 Peter 1:3,4.)

 

[brakelite]

Private interpretation is an individual taking a text, deciding by his own wisdom what the meaning and implications are regarding that text, without taking into account any texts elsewhere that dwell upon the same subject or topic. Often, such a text is taken out of context, sometimes the reader goes to the text with a preconceived position and simply uses the text to support an already established belief. It is possible using this method to develop any kind of belief system one likes, far departed from truth, yet all based on the “Bible”. Using this method, one is making up his own religion, devising his own way to God. It is inherently putting one’s own mind and desires ahead of God.
The Roman Catholic way is to defer to the church the authority to interpret scripture. Trusting implicitly in the church politic and its councils to my mind is denying the opportunity to God to speak personally to the sincere Bible student. It reminds me of the Jesuit Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises which has had great influence in modern Catholicism, and an excerpt which reveals the principle of of rejecting any possibility personal inspiration or enlightenment regarding truth. Loyola said “I will believe what seems to me black to be white if the hierarchical church so teaches.” One wonders, with this kind of teaching, whether there is any true freedom within Catholic educational institutions to enquire or study and teach freely, particularly history where the church’s interests are at stake. Since being on this forum, in just a couple of dozen posts, I have already picked up 3 infraction notices, each one for ‘contempt of Catholicism’. All I was doing was presenting another perspective on history, and revealing my personal belief. There was no abuse or belittling, just an historical perspective based on solid historical sources. It seems to me therefore that debate on such things is frowned on and openly discouraged. Just as group Bible study is recommended within Catholicism but only with a senior lay member or priest in attendance to ‘guide’ the faithful into ‘truth’.

However, if one comes across a text that appears to teach contrary to established doctrine, what is one to do? Surely to make sure one is standing upon solid ground, he will do further study, and find other texts which deal with the same subject. He will then act upon what he has found. He will take his discovery to his pastor/priest, and ask for an explanation from the church’s perspective. If the church can adequately explain their stand using the Bible, then all is well. If however the church needs to go to tradition to justify its stand though the scriptures may contradict such a stand, then one must decide for oneself what has the greater authority. The word of God or the church.Putting all these together is not private interpretation, but allowing the Bible to teach, allowing the Bible to interpret itself. But God gives to each of us the freedom to choose ones own destiny and the liberty to choose ones own way to faith and eternity.

 

[StFrancisXavier]

Private interpretation is an individual taking a text, deciding by his own wisdom what the meaning and implications are regarding that text, without taking into account any texts elsewhere that dwell upon the same subject or topic. Often, such a text is taken out of context, sometimes the reader goes to the text with a preconceived position and simply uses the text to support an already established belief. It is possible using this method to develop any kind of belief system one likes, far departed from truth, yet all based on the “Bible”. Using this method, one is making up his own religion, devising his own way to God. It is inherently putting one’s own mind and desires ahead of God.
The Roman Catholic way is to defer to the church the authority to interpret scripture. Trusting implicitly in the church politic and its councils to my mind is denying the opportunity to God to speak personally to the sincere Bible student. It reminds me of the Jesuit Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises which has had great influence in modern Catholicism, and an excerpt which reveals the principle of of rejecting any possibility personal inspiration or enlightenment regarding truth. Loyola said “I will believe what seems to me black to be white if the hierarchical church so teaches.” One wonders, with this kind of teaching, whether there is any true freedom within Catholic educational institutions to enquire or study and teach freely, particularly history where the church’s interests are at stake. Since being on this forum, in just a couple of dozen posts, I have already picked up 3 infraction notices, each one for ‘contempt of Catholicism’. All I was doing was presenting another perspective on history, and revealing my personal belief. There was no abuse or belittling, just an historical perspective based on solid historical sources. It seems to me therefore that debate on such things is frowned on and openly discouraged. Just as group Bible study is recommended within Catholicism but only with a senior lay member or priest in attendance to ‘guide’ the faithful into ‘truth’.

However, if one comes across a text that appears to teach contrary to established doctrine, what is one to do? Surely to make sure one is standing upon solid ground, he will do further study, and find other texts which deal with the same subject. He will then act upon what he has found. He will take his discovery to his pastor/priest, and ask for an explanation from the church’s perspective. If the church can adequately explain their stand using the Bible, then all is well. If however the church needs to go to tradition to justify its stand though the scriptures may contradict such a stand, then one must decide for oneself what has the greater authority. The word of God or the church.Putting all these together is not private interpretation, but allowing the Bible to teach, allowing the Bible to interpret itself. But God gives to each of us the freedom to choose ones own destiny and the liberty to choose ones own way to faith and eternity.

The Bible does not contradict the Church for the Church compiled what you know as the Bible. The Church came first, then the Bible.
Simply look at the state of Luthers protest and you can see that sola scriptura is a fallacy. 38,000 + different “churches” teaching different doctrines based on their own personal interpretation of Scripture. If you don’t like A’s interpretation, go down the street to B’s church. If you don’t like him, try C and so on. That isn’t scriptural. Jesus founded one Church which Scripture shows us He gave His teaching authority too.

 

[Church_Militant]

This idea does not have its roots in the Word of God and so proves to be a new wind of doctrines of modern men.

Twice I opened discussions on this idea and they can be found in the following links.
It’s NOT in the Bible, okay?
It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? (Part II)

Nowhere does the Bible ever lay claim to this final and ultimate authority, nor does it ever state that we are to read and interpret it for ourselves, since the early church certainly did not.

In fact, as many of you know, St. Paul told Timothy specifically what the pillar and ground of the truth was.

[14] These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly. [15] But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1st Timothy 3)

 

[Rightlydivide]

How can the bible be the ultimate and final authority for resolving doctrinal differences in light of the following passages: 2Pet 1:20, 2Pet 3:16-17?

2nd Peter 1:20 in context states that the people who wrote scripture did not do so of their own power or interpretation
Here is the context:

18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
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:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.6
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

Prophecy of scripture, or how scripture came by men of God speaking as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. There is nothing in this passage to indicate Peter is shifting from talking about prophecy…a sure word of prophecy, that prophecy of scripture was not done according to one’s own devices but as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
To suggest that 1:20 refers to how a church interprets the Bible removes the entire passage from its context. One, Peter is not talking about the church in this passage. Two, if that were the case Peter does not tell how to interpret scripture properly.
In looking at the whole paragraph, I believe it is clear what Peter is referring to.

The next passage states that people do not interpret Paul correctly. So Joe, who is Peter writing to in this passage?

Finally, have these two verses been infallibly interpreted by the Catholic Church? I am more curious than not.

 

[JHow]

(post abbreviated for space)…Putting all these together is not private interpretation, but allowing the Bible to teach, allowing the Bible to interpret itself.

Well, I never heard of any book that can interpret itself. The process you described (the paragraphs before the quote above) doesn’t seem to warrant a description of “self-interpretation”.

But God gives to each of us the freedom to choose ones own destiny and the liberty to choose ones own way to faith and eternity.

I rather thought the Bible gave us one way (Jesus) to the Father?

 

[tester]

2nd Peter 1:20 in context states that the people who wrote scripture did not do so of their own power or interpretation
Here is the context:

Prophecy of scripture, or how scripture came by men of God speaking as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. There is nothing in this passage to indicate Peter is shifting from talking about prophecy…a sure word of prophecy, that prophecy of scripture was not done according to one’s own devices but as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
To suggest that 1:20 refers to how a church interprets the Bible removes the entire passage from its context. One, Peter is not talking about the church in this passage. Two, if that were the case Peter does not tell how to interpret scripture properly.
In looking at the whole paragraph, I believe it is clear what Peter is referring to.

The next passage states that people do not interpret Paul correctly. So Joe, who is Peter writing to in this passage?

Finally, have these two verses been infallibly interpreted by the Catholic Church? I am more curious than not.

Re: 2 Peter 1:20
Rightlydivided is absolutely correct:

While 2 Peter 1:20 is often used by Catholics as a “proof” text against Sola Scriptura it is actually a proof text for the divine inspiration of Scripture.

Verse 19 is talking about why we should pay attention to the word of the prophets. The reason why is that word of the prophets is not the prophets own self interpretation or originating from the will of a man, but from God himself through His Holy Spirit:

The context of these verses have nothing to do with someone’s reading and understanding of scripture, but has everything to with the true authorship of Scripture.

All well informed Protestants see it that way.

If Catholics claim that it means that you and I can’t personally interpret scripture, then please, really unpack it for us , show us Protestants how it doesn’t refer to the authorship of scripture.

If you cannot show that the context is the “reading and understanding” vs. the proclaiming of Divine Authorship of Scripture , then please refrain from quoting it as a “proof” text against Sola Scriptura

 

[joe370]

BrakeLite, you said:

Private interpretation is an individual taking a text, deciding by his own wisdom what the meaning and implications are regarding that text, without taking into account any texts elsewhere that dwell upon the same subject or topic. Often, such a text is taken out of context, sometimes the reader goes to the text with a preconceived position and simply uses the text to support an already established belief. It is possible using this method to develop any kind of belief system one likes, far departed from truth, yet all based on the “Bible”.

Agreed…

Using this method, one is making up his own religion, devising his own way to God. It is inherently putting one’s own mind and desires ahead of God.

Agreed…

The Roman Catholic way is to defer to the church the authority to interpret scripture.

As opposed to private/individual interpretation frowned upon in the bible. I believe that private interpretation is OK as long as I defer to the church in the end when it comes to a dispute.

Trusting implicitly in the church politic and its councils to my mind is denying the opportunity to God to speak personally to the sincere Bible student.

So, no deference to the authority of the church and no private interpretation. So who has the final authority to interpret scripture???

However, if one comes across a text that appears to teach contrary to established doctrine, what is one to do?

Good question…I am not to defer to the church according to you, and I cannot rely on my own private interpretation according to Peter, for my interpretation might be distorted. So what should I do???

Surely to make sure one is standing upon solid ground, he will do further study, and find other texts which deal with the same subject. He will then act upon what he has found.

That is further study that leads to private interpretation and I agree with that logic as long as my interpretation aligns with the interpretation of the church.

He will take his discovery to his pastor/priest, and ask for an explanation from the church’s perspective.

That is deference to the church and you said: Trusting implicitly in the church politic and its councils to my mind is denying the opportunity to God to speak personally to the sincere Bible student.

If the church can adequately explain their stand using the Bible, then all is well.

Trust in the church leaders as long as the church’s interpretation adequately agrees with my interpretation??? Okay…

If however the church needs to go to tradition to justify its stand though the scriptures may contradict such a stand, then one must decide for oneself what has the greater authority.

Back to the authority of private interpretation of scripture…I feel like I’m on a roller coaster. LOL…

The word of God or the church.Putting all these together is not private interpretation, but allowing the Bible to teach, allowing the Bible to interpret itself. But God gives to each of us the freedom to choose ones own destiny and the liberty to choose ones own way to faith and eternity

Who has the final authority in the end: the individual or the church???

The bible cannot interpret itself - agreed? People interpret books, including the books found in the bible. I agree that God gives to each of us the freedom to choose ones own destiny and the liberty to choose ones own way to faith and eternity.

BL, I ask again: the authority for you and I (each and every individual Christian) - is the bible via my private interpretation…your private interpretation… of the bible, even though the bible says: then you must understand first of all, that NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS MADE BY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION or is it the church? Thus far you have said:

He will take his discovery to his pastor/priest, (the church) - and ask for an explanation from the church’s perspective

And that is very biblical. Hebrews 13:17

You then say:

If however the church needs to go to tradition to justify its stand though the scriptures may contradict such a stand, then one must decide for oneself what has the greater authority,

And that is private interpretation frowned upon and also contradicts what you said here:

It is possible using this method to develop any kind of belief system one likes, far departed from truth, yet all based on the “Bible”…Using this method, one is making up his own religion,

devising his own way to God. It is inherently putting one’s own mind and desires ahead of God.

BL, if, as scripture says "His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction, then how do I know that my interpretation isn’t distorted?

 

[SyCarl]

Reading 2 Peter 1:20 in the context of the preceeding verses makes clear what Peter is dealing with. It is the making of the prophecy in the first place that does not involve the prophets’ interpretation of what was revealed to them. They wrote exactly what God told them.

So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

(2Peter 1:19- 2:1 NASB)

2 Peter 3 does not teach contrary to scripture alone which does recognize that there are difficult things in the Bible. What it teaches is that the necessary things are clear, not all things.

 

[Todd520]

How can the bible be the ultimate and final authority for resolving doctrinal differences in light of the following passages: 2Pet 1:20, 2Pet 3:16-17?

joe, as a hint, it’s much nicer if you include the scripture you are asking people to comment about.

I’m with other posters, that these two bits of scripture make a claim to not trust Man (church), or at least to study the bible so you can discerne errors
They clearly don’t argue the need for a final authority.

 

[simspt]

Private interpretation is an individual taking a text, deciding by his own wisdom what the meaning and implications are regarding that text, without taking into account any texts elsewhere that dwell upon the same subject or topic. Often, such a text is taken out of context, sometimes the reader goes to the text with a preconceived position and simply uses the text to support an already established belief. It is possible using this method to develop any kind of belief system one likes, far departed from truth, yet all based on the “Bible”. Using this method, one is making up his own religion, devising his own way to God. It is inherently putting one’s own mind and desires ahead of God.
The Roman Catholic way is to defer to the church the authority to interpret scripture. Trusting implicitly in the church politic and its councils to my mind is denying the opportunity to God to speak personally to the sincere Bible student. It reminds me of the Jesuit Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises which has had great influence in modern Catholicism, and an excerpt which reveals the principle of of rejecting any possibility personal inspiration or enlightenment regarding truth. Loyola said “I will believe what seems to me black to be white if the hierarchical church so teaches.” One wonders, with this kind of teaching, whether there is any true freedom within Catholic educational institutions to enquire or study and teach freely, particularly history where the church’s interests are at stake. Since being on this forum, in just a couple of dozen posts, I have already picked up 3 infraction notices, each one for ‘contempt of Catholicism’. All I was doing was presenting another perspective on history, and revealing my personal belief. There was no abuse or belittling, just an historical perspective based on solid historical sources. It seems to me therefore that debate on such things is frowned on and openly discouraged. **Just as group Bible study is recommended within Catholicism but only with a senior lay member or priest in attendance to ‘guide’ the faithful into ‘truth’.**However, if one comes across a text that appears to teach contrary to established doctrine, what is one to do? Surely to make sure one is standing upon solid ground, he will do further study, and find other texts which deal with the same subject. He will then act upon what he has found. He will take his discovery to his pastor/priest, and ask for an explanation from the church’s perspective. If the church can adequately explain their stand using the Bible, then all is well. If however the church needs to go to tradition to justify its stand though the scriptures may contradict such a stand, then one must decide for oneself what has the greater authority. The word of God or the church.Putting all these together is not private interpretation, but allowing the Bible to teach, allowing the Bible to interpret itself. But God gives to each of us the freedom to choose ones own destiny and the liberty to choose ones own way to faith and eternity.

Most Christians take for granted the judjements that the Catholic Church councils have made regarding Doctrines and the canon. This is not unique to Catholics but Protestants as well.

True there was much skepticism within Catholicism regarding Biblical criticism pre WWII secondary to the modernist and rationalistic presuppositions and misinterpretation of the data used by irreligious Biblical scholars in the late19th century and early 20 century. This all changed during the 40s when the Catholic Church acknowledged the positive use of biblical research and resulted in the biblical movement within the Catholic Church. Catholic academics have enjoyed this academic freedom and been encouraged.

The only thing frowned upon within the Catholic Church is over zealous seminarians or popularizers who misintepret their Catholic professors teachings at the expense of the laity.

This is an interesting statement
"If the church can adequately explain their stand using the Bible, then all is well. If however the church needs to go to tradition to justify its stand though the scriptures may contradict such a stand, then one must decide for oneself what has the greater authority."

Its one thing to claim the Catholic Church goes beyond the Scriptures with its doctrines and quite another to claim they contradict the Scriptures. Also most doctrines go beyond the Scriptures and these doctrines are accepted by both Protestants and Catholics. What many arent willing to admit or just arent aware of are how many doctrines have extra-Biblical elements that were later required by the Church to be more clearly articulated to defend against erroneous teachings that were occuring. This emperically tends to go against the thesis that the Bible interprets itself.

 

[joe370]

Hey Todd; The moderator said that my threads were too long…so I just cited the passages…

joe, as a hint, it’s much nicer if you include the scripture you are asking people to comment about.

I’m with other posters, that these two bits of scripture make a claim to not trust Man (church), or at least to study the bible so you can discerne errors
They clearly don’t argue the need for a final authority.

 

[joe370]

Carl, how do I know that my private interpretation is not distorted? After all I was not entrusted with the final authority to interpret sacred scripture, and I am referring to the stuff that divides Christianity such as the Eucharist. Some things in the bible are just common sense stuff that everyone agrees with.

16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Do you believe that each and every Christian has the final authority when it comes to the interpretation of the infallible bible?

Reading 2 Peter 1:20 in the context of the preceeding verses makes clear what Peter is dealing with. It is the making of the prophecy in the first place that does not involve the prophets’ interpretation of what was revealed to them. They wrote exactly what God told them.

(2Peter 1:19- 2:1 NASB)

2 Peter 3 does not teach contrary to scripture alone which does recognize that there are difficult things in the Bible. What it teaches is that the necessary things are clear, not all things.

 

[SyCarl]

Carl, how do I know that my private interpretation is not distorted? After all I was not entrusted with the final authority to interpret sacred scripture, and I am referring to the stuff that divides Christianity such as the Eucharist. Some things in the bible are just common sense stuff that everyone agrees with.

Do you believe that each and every Christian has the final authority when it comes to the interpretation of the infallible bible?

How can you trust your private interpretation of verses like Matthew 16-16-19?

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

(Mat 16:16-19 NASB)

Is it not your interpretation of verses like this that convinces you that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Jesus and is infallible and authoritative? No matter how few passages you interpret on your own, you must interpret some to reach your conclusions.

 

[joe370]

tester;7200340]Re: 2 Peter 1:20
Rightlydivided is absolutely correct:

While 2 Peter 1:20 is often used by Catholics as a “proof” text against Sola Scriptura it is actually a proof text for the divine inspiration of Scripture.

So my private interpretation of sacred scripture is all I need? That seems to make me the final authority of scripture and I know that I was not entrusted with the final authority of scripture.

Verse 19 is talking about why we should pay attention to the word of the prophets. The reason why is that word of the prophets is not the prophets own self interpretation or originating from the will of a man, but from God himself through His Holy Spirit:

The context of these verses have nothing to do with someone’s reading and understanding of scripture, but has everything to with the true authorship of Scripture.

I agree regarding the authorship…

 

[joe370]

Hey Carl…

How can you trust your private interpretation of verses like Matthew 16-16-19?

(Mat 16:16-19 NASB)

 

[tester]

My interpretation of Matthew16 tells me that Jesus built his church on Kepha, and my protestant friends interpret Matthew 16 to mean that Jesus built his church on Jesus’ confession. Can I trust that my interpretation is not distorted? How do we settle this matter? Scripture is not settling the matter…
I

Well I would test all things…and see what other persons, places, or things are called the “rock” in the Bible.

I would look at the context before and after: parallel verses : the apostle reactions :

Was it referenced in other scriptures: ex: a Gospels event referenced in Paul’s letters
I would look for definitive statements and see if they could be applied to the text in question.

and yes I would consider 2000 years of Church teaching, reason, and experience.

Or I could ask the one who claims infallibly that the Scripture grants them infallibility when interpreting Scripture…

Now Joe370 , what makes more sense?

 

[joe370]

]tester;7201160]Well I would test all things…and see what other persons, places, or things are called the “rock” in the Bible.

That’s what I did. By the way, I have registered with CARM and will ask some questions there when I get the chance.

I would look at the context before and after: parallel verses : the apostle reactions :

Was it referenced in other scriptures: ex: a Gospels event referenced in Paul’s letters
I would look for definitive statements and see if they could be applied to the text in question.

I drew my conclusion based on all of that and yet it disagrees with the interpretation of my non-Catholic friends. How do I know that my interpretation is not distorted? Who can settle this matter for me and my non-Catholic friends in view of the fact that the holy bible is not settling this matter?

and yes I would consider 2000 years of Church teaching, reason, and experience.

That seems reasonable.

Or I could ask the one who claims infallibly that the Scripture grants them infallibility when interpreting Scripture…

I decided, after an exhaustive inquiry into the matter, that the CC was in fact the historical church founded by Jesus on Kepha forever guided by the HS into all truth (revealed truth that is) - and I now have no problem deferring to the CC and I certainly respect anyone’s right to disagree with me.