Read all you want but the Bible forbids private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. That is why there are more than 30,000 christian denominations today and the number continues to grow (ELCA, for example). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the "founder" of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that "any milkmaid who could read" would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her "interpretation" of the Bible. Luther opened a "Pandora's Box" when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity.
What is the basis for asking a saint for intercession when we are told in Thessalonians 4 that the dead are asleep to us?
Eph. 3:14-1 tells us that we are all one family in heaven and on earth, united together, as children of the Father, through Jesus Christ. Our brothers and sisters who have gone to heaven before us are not a different family. We are one and the same family. This is why, in the Apostles Creed, we profess a belief in the "communion of saints." There cannot be a "communion" if there is no union. Loving beings, whether on earth or in heaven, are concerned for other beings, and this concern is reflected spiritually through prayers for one another. In 1 Tim 2:1-2, before Paul's teaching about Jesus as the "one mediator," Paul urges supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people. Paul is thus appealing for mediation from others besides Christ, the one mediator. Why? He explains this in 1 Tim 2:3 - because this subordinate mediation is good and acceptable to God our Savior. Because God is our Father and we are His children, God invites us to participate in Christ's role as mediator.
Do you remember what happened to Saul when he tried to talk to a dead Samuel?
Recall 2 Macc. 15:12-16, where the high priest Onias and the prophet Jeremiah were deceased for centuries, and yet interact with the living Judas Maccabeas and pray for the holy people on earth.
In Matt. 17:1-3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30-31 – deceased Moses and Elijah appear at the Transfiguration to converse with Jesus in the presence of Peter, James and John (these may be the two “witnesses” John refers to in Rev. 11:3). Nothing in Scripture ever suggests that God abhors or cuts off communication between the living in heaven and the living on earth. To the contrary, God encourages communication within the communion of saints. Moses and Elijah’s appearance on earth also teach us that the saints in heaven have capabilities that far surpass our limitations on earth.
I want to thank you for the quality of the articles you post. As a Catholic convert, I am trying to catch up on information that wasn’t in my frame of reference as a Protestant.
This is an especially good article about Mary, and your reply about the communion of saints was excellent.
Thanks again!
“Read all you want but the Bible forbids private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). “
It does not. 2 Peter 1:20 does no such thing.
It is a passage referring to the divine inspiration of the Old Testement, not that we were to submit to a “public” understanding of it. It is speaking of prophecy and that such came from God. I know this was RC practice - that until relatively recently, even OWNING a Bible was discouraged by many - but it is NOT the Message.
There is only one Truth, I agree. However, individuals and should read, understand, and interpret scripture ourselves. We do not need a modern Pharisee. In most cases, the denominations of Protestantism differ in style. Rarely is it a doctrinal schism (politically correct groups like the liberal ELCA and the Marxist-leaning US Catholic Bishops (not all) notwithstanding). That Pandora’s Box is the freedom from the oppression of men under the cover of faith. Freedom is messy. It is also healthy. Error like the ELCA’s actions gets weeded out. It loses in the marketplace of ideas. Something that can’t happen in a rigid, top-down structure the Catholic Church once was pre-Reformation. I would argue the Reformation was good for the RC too.
“This is why, in the Apostles Creed, we profess a belief in the “communion of saints.””
The “saints” mentioned are not the saints of Roman Catholic teaching - good people who are canonized long after death. That was not practiced at the time. The “saints” so referenced are believers today - alive and not asleep. When Paul wrote to the Ephesians, he addressed the letter to the saints at Ephesus. Was he writing to the dead?
“Recall 2 Macc. 15:12-16, where the high priest Onias and the prophet Jeremiah were deceased for centuries, and yet interact with the living Judas Maccabeas and pray for the holy people on earth.”
The Apocrypha are apocryphal. They are not Canon and are not in the Protestant Bible. The Protestant Bible contains only the Canon.
“To the contrary, God encourages communication within the communion of saints.”
Again, the “communion of saints” are the “fellowship of believers”, not the dead. Certainly not the dead chosen in a political process by men in Rome. The dead are as if they are asleep to us. Your example of the Transfiguration just points to the obvious - they are not asleep to God.
“Read all you want but the Bible forbids private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20).”
Not true. 2 Peter 1:19-21 says, “19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
From a sermon by John MacArthur:
“...So, Peter says...Look, the writers of Scripture are not like those prophets. The writers of Scripture speak for God...so he says in verse 20, “But know this...” Here is a truth of primary importance linked with that phrase in verse 19, “You do well to pay attention.” “But know this,” what do you mean this? What he’s about to say. Know this fact, “First of all...this is bottom line, point number one, basic lesson, if you’re going to be confident about Scripture, if you’re going to be certain about Scripture, the first thing you have to know is this, basic lesson, “That no prophecy of Scripture,” now that’s designating all Scripture, Old Testament and by implication all New Testament, all the holy writings, the graphe, all of it, “is,” notice that word, “No prophecy of Scripture is genneti(?),” and the word means “comes into being.” “No prophecy of Scripture comes into being, or originates, or arises, or comes into existence from one’s own interpretation.” That was true not of a true prophet but of...what?...a false prophet. The false prophet spoke of his own things, spoke out of himself. But no prophecy of the writing of God’s truth arises from someone’s own epilusis. Now this word epilusis is translated “interpretation.” In some ways that’s an unfortunate translation because I think it tends to make people think that it’s talking about how you interpret Scripture when it’s really talking about the very source of it. The word means a releasing. It can mean a solving or an explaining. Some feel it actually has the idea of inspiration. The genitive case in the Greek indicates source. He’s not talking about how you interpret Scripture, he’s talking about where it came from, how it originated, what its source was. And so he says the first thing you need to know if you’re going to trust the lamp that lights the dark place is that no prophecy of Scripture ever came from some human source. It isn’t like the teaching of the false prophets. No prophecy of Scripture has originated in the prophet’s own understanding.
Peter is concerned with the source of Scripture. Prophets didn’t invent it. They didn’t invent the Word. Not at all. the same God who spoke at the transfiguration about the deity and humanity of Christ, the same God who spoke of the perfection of His Son is the same God who authored Scripture. You do well, he says, to give heed to this holy Scripture like a night light in the midst of worldly darkness because what is in it is not the result of human inventions like the myths of false teachers. The NIV, I think, has an excellent translation, it says, “No prophecy of Scripture ever came about by a prophet’s own ideas.” He couldn’t be talking about interpretation or verse 21 would make no sense. Verse 21 says, “For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” That explains what he means in verse 20. Quite the contrary to Scripture being of human origin, it is of divine origin...for NO prophecy, NO word of Scripture, NO word from God, not any was ever absolutely never...notice how emphatic this is...no prophecy was ever at any time made by an act of human will. The Bible is not the product of men.”
(http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/61-15)
We are not told to pay close attention to the Bible in one verse, then told we cannot understand it in the next, and that God wrote it in the third. The idea that the Bible is incomprehensible is an insult to God. The idea that men in the Catholic Church can explain God’s thoughts better than God Himself is blasphemy.
Also, there are NOT 30,000 Protestant denominations. The book that claim is based on says A) there are perhaps 8000 Protestant denominations and B) there are nearly 3000 Roman Catholic denominations.
Unless you want to confess to having 3000 Roman Catholic denominations, I suggest admitting the author’s idea of a ‘denomination’ differs dramatically from yours and mine.
And please do not use the ELCA as an example. They have gone into apostasy, not because they have trouble interpreting the Bible, but because they believe the Bible isn’t authoritative. It is hardly fair to use someone who rejects the Bible as the basis for saying what happens when people follow the Bible!