Private Interpretation : 2 Peter 1:20

  • Thread starter Thread starter tyson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tyson

Guest
I am wondering what the church teaches on this particular passage in scripture. I can only assume that we have 50,000 different denomination/non-denomination churches because of this mistake of interpretaing scripture on ones own opinion…Am I correct in assuming this?
 
Here is what the New Advent site states:

**Peter1:20 **
Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

Hoc primum intellegentes quod omnis prophetia scripturae propria interpretatione non fit

No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation… This shows plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise.
 
I am wondering what the church teaches on this particular passage in scripture. I can only assume that we have 50,000 different denomination/non-denomination churches because of this mistake of interpretaing scripture on ones own opinion…Am I correct in assuming this?
Actually my favorite verse in regards to “private interpretation” is the “itching ears” image Paul gives to Timothy:
3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. -2 Tim 4
 
I am wondering what the church teaches on this particular passage in scripture. I can only assume that we have 50,000 different denomination/non-denomination churches because of this mistake of interpretaing scripture on ones own opinion…Am I correct in assuming this?
From the Catechism:

**85 **“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
 
I am wondering what the church teaches on this particular passage in scripture. I can only assume that we have 50,000 different denomination/non-denomination churches because of this mistake of interpretaing scripture on ones own opinion…Am I correct in assuming this?
The bible is replete with prophecy from Genesis to Rev.
2pet1:19-21 states that none of the prophecy comes from man, but all is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
It is not refering to INTERPRETING prophecy, it is stating that all prophecy is from the Holy Spirit.
 
My baptist friend interprets it this way - “private interpretation” means without the aid of the Holy Spirit (i.e. - interpretation by non-believers). As long as someone is a believer, the Holy Spirit is with him and guiding him, and his interpretaiton is no longer ‘private’. Thought this was interesting…I always wondered how non-Catholics ‘got around’ this verse.
 
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.
 
From the Catechism:

**85 **“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
If followed that would put a real damper on this board!
 
I could never get a satisfactory answer from my Baptist friends concerning Private Interpretation with concerning the bread and wine becoming the Body and Precious Blood of or Lord.

They say its symbolic, I KNOW its REAL. I would ask them,“If we both believe in the word of God, we both are being lead by the Holy Spirit, then which one of us is right”?

The best they can do is “dance” around many many scripture versus pointing out the Vine/Branches etc as evidence that Jesus was speaking only in the symbolic.:rolleyes:

Would really love an answer as to how we both can read the same passage of scripture and believe two totally different things when both of us are being lead by the Holy Spirit.:confused:
 
I could never get a satisfactory answer from my Baptist friends concerning Private Interpretation with concerning the bread and wine becoming the Body and Precious Blood of or Lord.

They say its symbolic, I KNOW its REAL. I would ask them,“If we both believe in the word of God, we both are being lead by the Holy Spirit, then which one of us is right”?

The best they can do is “dance” around many many scripture versus pointing out the Vine/Branches etc as evidence that Jesus was speaking only in the symbolic.:rolleyes:

Would really love an answer as to how we both can read the same passage of scripture and believe two totally different things when both of us are being lead by the Holy Spirit.:confused:
Your Baptist friends must submit to the Protestant “Magisterium”.

That is, if one of them were to come to the conclusion that infant baptism is biblical or that John 6 really means what it says, they would have to make a choice: keep quiet about their beliefs or leave the church. Why?

If they began to talk among the members of the Church about these new beliefs, it would raise a stir within the congregation. Eventually, the Pastor would invite them in for a talk. If they continued to talk about theology that did not agree with the official teaching of the Baptist “Magisiterium”, they would be asked to leave or “disfellowshipped”. Pastors get ousted for the same reasons.

Protestants talk a big game about “private interpretation” but in the end, they have to answer to the “teaching authority” of their denomination just like Catholics do. When they refuse, BOOM, another Church is born just down the street.

Why do you think there are so many denominations?

The obvious difference, of course, is that our Magisterium is infallible.
 
Your Baptist friends must submit to the Protestant “Magisterium”.

That is, if one of them were to come to the conclusion that infant baptism is biblical or that John 6 really means what it says, they would have to make a choice: keep quiet about their beliefs or leave the church. Why?

If they began to talk among the members of the Church about these new beliefs, it would raise a stir within the congregation. Eventually, the Pastor would invite them in for a talk. If they continued to talk about theology that did not agree with the official teaching of the Baptist “Magisiterium”, they would be asked to leave or “disfellowshipped”. Pastors get ousted for the same reasons.

Protestants talk a big game about “private interpretation” but in the end, they have to answer to the “teaching authority” of their denomination just like Catholics do. When they refuse, BOOM, another Church is born just down the street.

Why do you think there are so many denominations?

The obvious difference, of course, is that our Magisterium is infallible.
Maybe I’m reading it wrong and I’m sure you can correct me if I am but 2pet1:19-20 has nothing to do with interpreting scripture. It is saying that the prophecy in scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. When you read this verse do you come to another conclusion?
It is not referring at all to any private interpretation of scripture. Is this what the tradition of the church teaches about this verse?
 
The bible is replete with prophecy from Genesis to Rev.
2pet1:19-21 states that none of the prophecy comes from man, but all is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
It is not refering to INTERPRETING prophecy, it is stating that all prophecy is from the Holy Spirit.
Newbie,

You are quoting out of context. Runandsew gives the traditional (since 2 Peter was read and preached about) view of 1:20.

You are changing the words’ obvious meaning and extrapolating one statement “all prophecy is from the Holy Spirit” from verse 21 to apply to verses 19 and 20.

Verse 19 is talking about the prophetic message of Jesus as the Messiah in Jewish scripture, that it is necessary to preserve the historical facts concerning Jesus and to keep the faith about his message.

Verse 20 is straightforward (see runandsews posting above yours), “there is no prophecy of scripture [OT] that is a matter of personal interpretation.”

And coming from the end of a chapter concerned with those who were “eyewitnesses of his majesty” to the power of God’s promise through OT prophets, there is no way no matter how you twist the words, that “it is not referring to interpretation of scripture.”

As to your assertion that “It is not referring to INTERPRETING prophecy,” well, that’s YOUR personal interpretation contrary to the 2 Peter 1:20.
 
Newbie,

You are quoting out of context. Runandsew gives the traditional (since 2 Peter was read and preached about) view of 1:20.

You are changing the words’ obvious meaning and extrapolating one statement “all prophecy is from the Holy Spirit” from verse 21 to apply to verses 19 and 20.

Verse 19 is talking about the prophetic message of Jesus as the Messiah in Jewish scripture, that it is necessary to preserve the historical facts concerning Jesus and to keep the faith about his message.

Verse 20 is straightforward (see runandsews posting above yours), “there is no prophecy of scripture [OT] that is a matter of personal interpretation.”

And coming from the end of a chapter concerned with those who were “eyewitnesses of his majesty” to the power of God’s promise through OT prophets, there is no way no matter how you twist the words, that “it is not referring to interpretation of scripture.”

As to your assertion that “It is not referring to INTERPRETING prophecy,” well, that’s YOUR personal interpretation contrary to the 2 Peter 1:20.
Now I understand. The catholic interpretation of this verse, which is also your interpretation since you are obedient to the church, is that it is saying that no one can interpret prophecy except the church. And you being of sound mind, when you read the verse for yourself, and I mean actually read the verse in the bible(not on some website), that you understand it to be referring to private interpretation of scripture?
Maybe we are looking at different bibles and that is the reason for the mix up. But my nkjv in NO WAY is referring to private interpretation. It is UNDOUBTABLY referring to the origin of all prophecy, The Holy Spirit.
The language is simple.
I don’t know how anyone could think otherwise.
 
Maybe I’m reading it wrong and I’m sure you can correct me if I am but 2pet1:19-20 has nothing to do with interpreting scripture.** It is saying that the prophecy in scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit**. When you read this verse do you come to another conclusion?
It is not referring at all to any private interpretation of scripture. Is this what the tradition of the church teaches about this verse?
Newbie, here is one of your ‘interpretations’ of the passage.
 
The bible is replete with prophecy from Genesis to Rev.
2pet1:19-21 states that none of the prophecy comes from man, but all is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
It is not refering to INTERPRETING prophecy**, it is stating that all prophecy is from the Holy Spirit**.
Newbie, here is the other ‘interpretation’ of the same passage.
 
Which one is the correct interpretation, Newbie??

**Is it **

A. "the prophecy in scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit."

or

B. "all prophecy is from the Holy Spirit."

Thanks anyway for the duplicitous, forked-tongue, meaning, but I’ll stick to the “Catholic” interpretation.

It is common sensical and doesn’t “read” anything into scripture.
 
Which one is the correct interpretation, Newbie??

**Is it **

A. "the prophecy in scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit."

or

B. "all prophecy is from the Holy Spirit."

Thanks anyway for the duplicitous, forked-tongue, meaning, but I’ll stick to the “Catholic” interpretation.

It is common sensical and doesn’t “read” anything into scripture.
Is there a “catholic” interpretation of this passage?

I don’t think this is one of those few passages of scripture where your church has defined the meaning and made it binding upon you guys.
 
Now I understand. The catholic interpretation of this verse, which is also your interpretation since you are obedient to the church, is that it is saying that no one can interpret prophecy except the church.
Correct.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**85 **“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

(continued in next post)
 
Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Peter wrote:

“[Paul] 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.” (2 Peter 3:16)

Who is Peter’s audience in this case? We find this in the opening verse of the book:

“Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:” (2 Peter 1:1)

Peter was writing to believers who had received a faith that was of equal standing to his own. He tells his readers that there are some things in Paul’s letters and other scriptures that are difficult to understand. He also points out exactly who is having trouble understanding them. Notice that he didn’t name non-believers, or the evildoers, or the ungodly or those who don’t pray to the Holy Spirit for wisdom and enlightenment. He said “ignorant and unstable” people.

This is a much bigger group of people that we realize at first. After all, how many of us are not ignorant of scripture in some ways? How many of us can read the original Hebrew or Greek or understand the Aramaic idioms that were used by the Jewish people in the first century? How many of us have degrees in scripture study, and even if we did, would that alone bring us to any better understanding of what the Bible is trying to tell us? Not likely – even those with advanced degrees, who have studied scripture for most of their lives, do not agree on what certain passages mean. How then can the ordinary person understand what the Bible really says about the truth?

Still, we tend to give ourselves the benefit of the doubt, don’t we? Surely, Peter could not have been referring to us? Well, consider this: do you think any of the people Peter was referring to ever said to themselves, “Hey, I’m ignorant and unstable. I think I’ll twist the scriptures to my own destruction”? No! These people were ignorant of the true meaning of scripture, but they didn’t realize it. They were ignorant of the fact that they were ignorant!

However, they were not ignorant of the words of scripture – what it says – they were just ignorant of what it really means. The truth is they thought they had the most accurate interpretation of scripture – that’s why they were distorting and twisting it to their own destruction. They didn’t need anyone to tell them what Paul’s letters or other scriptures really meant – they were sure they already knew because they thought they could interpret scripture for themselves!

This ought to cause some serious reflection among some people in our own day and age. But some will ask, “Is this really true? Are we not able to come to some personal understanding of the Bible when we read it?” Well, what more does the Word of God have to say about personal interpretation of scripture? In the same letter, Peter, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, had this to say:

“Know this first of all that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” (2 Peter 1:20)

From all of these passages, we see that the idea that everyone can read and interpret scripture for themselves – that everyone can decide for themselves what is and is not truth or what are and are not correct doctrines – is not scriptural. Nowhere in scripture does it say that we can simply pick it up and read it on our own and be guaranteed that we will understand what we read correctly. Nowhere does the Bible tell us that the Holy Spirit will guide every individual into an infallible understanding of each and every verse.

Of course, Protestants don’t *really *believe that all you need to do is read scripture and pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit, either. Otherwise, why would they send so many of their pastors to study at seminary? Can a seminary teach them anything that the Holy Spirit can’t? No. They recognize, however, that personal interpretation of the Bible can lead to misunderstanding of the Word of God – even to destruction. Therefore, guidance is necessary. So, where do we find a guide that can teach us the accurate interpretation of scripture regarding truth?

The Bible is very clear: we need truth to be saved, but the Bible is also very clear that we cannot get this truth from reading the Bible alone. We need someone to instruct us or to guide us to understand what the Bible says about the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top