Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: NYer; Favor Center; arielguard; TheFourthMagi

“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!


36 posted on 08/23/2009 6:43:32 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers
"It is hardly fair to use someone who rejects the Bible as the basis for saying what happens when people follow the Bible!"

Shouldn't even have to be said!

37 posted on 08/23/2009 6:49:31 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers

John MacArthur is not an authority for me anymore. Can you reference anyone more qualified. Perhaps someone with an “St.” before their name.


39 posted on 08/23/2009 8:26:26 PM PDT by arielguard (Fasting without prayer is vainglory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers
The idea that men in the Catholic Church can explain God’s thoughts better than God Himself is blasphemy.

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. Today, there are more than 30,000 different non-Catholic Churches all claiming to have the "Truth". When it comes to interpreting Scripture, individual non-Catholic Christians claim the same infallibility as the Papacy. If one were to put two persons of the "same" non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their "interpretation" of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes." But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is "No." Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.

42 posted on 08/24/2009 6:06:38 AM PDT by NYer ( "One Who Prays Is Not Afraid; One Who Prays Is Never Alone"- Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson