Thread: Private interpretation

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.

For the edicification of all...........

Boarders, when is interpretation "private"?

Literally, "one's own loosing" (as in to let something go, or loose something) instread of simply "private interpretation," but the translation still fits if you understand the Greek behind it.

First, there is a bit of work to think through the Greek transaltion. We need to decide how to transalte it:

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (KJV)

2 Peter 1:20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.

Yes, I have quoted the NIV - shame on me, but in this instacne it is important to use it for a moment. Obviously, depending on which way you interpret it, it will make a differecne. Is it "us" or the "prophet?"

In the second section, we do not find the word "prophet" in the original, but the translators seems to have stuck it in thier depending ont he way you transalte "own." Is it my own or his own?

Peter is definitely (in context) talking about False teachers, and in verse 21 talks specifically about prophecy that was given to men who speok from god and were carred along by the Holy Spirit. Prophets seem to be in view here, which turns the "private interpretation" idea on its head in this instacne. It seems to be speaking about the prophet, not the Christian in his bedroom during devotions.

Right, in this context Peter is saying that revelation (ie the Scriptures) were not inspired by the individuals writing them. He is defending inspiration by the Holy Spirit and the fact that it is God who carried these men along as they wrote. So their inspired writings are not inspired from themselves, but from God (God-breathed).

And to reiterate - it has [i:149994a079]nothing[/i:149994a079] to do with a believer reading and interpreting the written Word of God for himself.


Phillip

[Edited on 4-8-04 by pastorway]

There is no way that this may not have further implications than just the inspiration of Scripture.

If they couldn't understand it privately, and it couldn't be inspired privately, then it also cannot be understood today, in its final canon, privately.

In the nature of this holy communication, why would the Spirit inspire writers to pen the oracles of God, and then allow each man to decide for himself what it says? If the Spirit does not allow understanding, the interpretation is private. That is the only way we can look at it.

So, the next question is, how do we know whether or not we have understood what the Spirit is trying to convey?

That is what private interpretation is all about. I agree in this context that the Prophets are in view. They could not write anything inspired unless it was imparted to them with understanding by the Spirit. If anything was imparted to them, but not by the Spirit, then it didn't make it into the canon.

Likewise, if we are to understand it, the Scriptures have to come to us in the same manner. It will not be understood unless the Spirit understands it for us. If this happens then it is not private interpretation, but the interpretation of the Holy Spirit.

So how do we know when this happens?

We get chills? goose pimples? a light shines down on us? we're so good we don't need a sign, we just know? our conscience has been fully sanctified by our relationship to Christ and we just get it right every time we read it?

Absolutely not. What we understand of the Scriptures is from the Holy Spirit alone. What we do not understand, is on us, it is our own private interpretation.

Now, if there is one truth, which there is, how may we understand Scripture, if what we say it means is divergent from another? We KNOW the Spirit was speaking to us, but we're not sure about the other fella. THIS IS WRONG. If it is the truth, we are not the first ones to come by it. If it is the truth, it has been given lavishly to many who name the name of Christ. In short, we will agree to what the truth is. This is orthodoxy.

Anything else is private interpretation.

In Christ,

KC

[quote:31aa965150][i:31aa965150]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:31aa965150]
There is no way that this may not have further implications than just the inspiration of Scripture.

If they couldn't understand it privately, and it couldn't be inspired privately, then it also cannot be understood today, in its final canon, privately.

In the nature of this holy communication, why would the Spirit inspire writers to pen the oracles of God, and then allow each man to decide for himself what it says? If the Spirit does not allow understanding, the interpretation is private. That is the only way we can look at it.

So, the next question is, how do we know whether or not we have understood what the Spirit is trying to convey?

That is what private interpretation is all about. I agree in this context that the Prophets are in view. They could not write anything inspired unless it was imparted to them with understanding by the Spirit. If anything was imparted to them, but not by the Spirit, then it didn't make it into the canon.

Likewise, if we are to understand it, the Scriptures have to come to us in the same manner. It will not be understood unless the Spirit understands it for us. If this happens then it is not private interpretation, but the interpretation of the Holy Spirit.

So how do we know when this happens?

We get chills? goose pimples? a light shines down on us? we're so good we don't need a sign, we just know? our conscience has been fully sanctified by our relationship to Christ and we just get it right every time we read it?

Absolutely not. What we understand of the Scriptures is from the Holy Spirit alone. What we do not understand, is on us, it is our own private interpretation.

Now, if there is one truth, which there is, how may we understand Scripture, if what we say it means is divergent from another? We KNOW the Spirit was speaking to us, but we're not sure about the other fella. THIS IS WRONG. If it is the truth, we are not the first ones to come by it. If it is the truth, it has been given lavishly to many who name the name of Christ. In short, we will agree to what the truth is. This is orthodoxy.

Anything else is private interpretation.

In Christ,

KC [/quote:31aa965150]


Thank you Kevin for clearifying that which I was trying to convey. I agree and as of recent, certain posts have concerned me.

So why is there so much disagreement concerning the particulars of our "once delivered to the saints faith" Kevin ? ?

There seems to be an underlying orthodoxy on this board, yet we all disagree with each individual person on some point.

Is this to keep us humble ? ?

And how do we deal with error graciously when we are truly convicted that the opposing doctrine is sat_anic ? ?

Our Credo/Pedo debate for instance ?

Is it a case of simply saying, "I love you, brother, but you are wrong." ?

Right on KC. There is only one interpretation of scripture and many applications. We need the body of fellowship to help us test our applications and learn if they fit the interpretation. We have one rule - the scriptures. We let scripture interpret scripture. We need others to point out that perhaps our theology is driving our application.

That is the great and noble function of this board.

[quote:3de3b7d9e1]So why is there so much disagreement concerning the particulars of our "once delivered to the saints faith" Kevin ? ?[/quote:3de3b7d9e1]

Because we are not going on to perfection, we are "laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment."

Look at that list for a moment. What does it entail? Soteriology, Sacramentology, and Eschatology. What three things do we speak of more? What causes more contention?

To be fair, though, the Hebrew writer says that we will do this if God allows. Obviously, He is not allowing. Why? For the same reason Paul gives. "For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you." Once again, the Spirit bears witness. How do we know who is right? We look to those who have gone before, who have modeled Christ, who have been set apart in God's kingdom as those who have been approved by Him. Not one man among them was completely correct on everything. No two of them agreed on everything completely either. But the collection of their total minds on the places they did agree, leave us with an overwhelming orthodoxy that one would have to be blind to miss.

On soteriology, Paul, correctly understood by most of the early fathers to include Augustine, was also understood basically by Luther, but more fully by Calvin. Collectively, they make up what is properly known as the doctrines of grace. This is the majority report and all of the Reformed confessions are in agreement. On Sacramentology, this is not so cut and dried, yet the majority opinion from the early church to the Reformation is termed "calvinistic" in understanding, yet it was more than just Calvin. Independently, this testimony was spread to the churches. Reformed Churches basically agree except for the Reformed Baptists.

On eschatology, the majority of the church believes that there will be a physical return of Christ and a bodily resurrection of the dead. Opposition to these beliefs began rather early.

Yet, in each of these three, we find the most to argue about. But God has spoken to the Church. We have the definitive answers to these questions. However, we are either too proud or too blind to admit them.

[quote:3de3b7d9e1]There seems to be an underlying orthodoxy on this board, yet we all disagree with each individual person on some point.[/quote:3de3b7d9e1]

True, but if we would all submit ourselves to the orthodoxy of the Church, we would cut down on these disagreements considerably.

Whose orthodoxy? As in the Highlander, there can be only one. Those who oppose this one testimony in the Church of God, CHOOSE for themselves not to submit.

[quote:3de3b7d9e1]Is this to keep us humble ? ?[/quote:3de3b7d9e1]

Absolutely, so that we do not believe we have arrived. Merely agreeing with orthodoxy does not mean that we have arrived. There are some things our hearts disagree with, that we must continue to wrestle with. Submission means that we will never arrive, because we only act in submission to the things we disagree with. If we already agree with it, it is not submission, but agreement.

[quote:3de3b7d9e1]And how do we deal with error graciously when we are truly convicted that the opposing doctrine is sat_anic ? ?[/quote:3de3b7d9e1]

We must always examine "convictions". How well does it line up with Scripture? Are we disagreeing because we don't fully understand? Or are we being dogmatic on a point we feel we've got down. The latter suggests pride and arrogance. The former demands that we continue to wrestle with the subject only making tentative statements until our understanding becomes more complete.

Therefore, when dealing with error, we need to determine whether or not we have sufficiently weighed the matter. For most of us, soteriology is sufficiently weighed and we may with confidence dispel the doctrines apposed, always seasoned with grace. For things we're dogmatic about (this writer definitely included), we tend to be more ferocious in our barking of what we believe only because we're unsure of our position. Oft times, this is not so graciously seasoned.

We need to study to show ourselves approved, yet at the same time, not try to prove ourselves. 'Tis a delicate balance, but that is why we pray.

[quote:3de3b7d9e1]Our Credo/Pedo debate for instance ?

Is it a case of simply saying, "I love you, brother, but you are wrong." ? [/quote:3de3b7d9e1]

I think this area is truly one that requires submission from everyone. I don't know that there are sufficient proofs for either side, so it becomes a choice. Yet there must be truth there. And because I believe this, I will choose to stand on the side of the Reformation and Calvinism. I cannot believe that the Spirit would have led these men astray in this area. I believe He showed them the truth, and it is truth that should be amenable to all. But it is a choice, simply because it is absent of clear Scriptural mandate. Chapter and verse would have done nicely, but I will not question why God has allowed this division among us.

We should go on to perfection. And Lord willing, we will.

In Christ,

KC