2 Peter 1:20 Protestant Perspective-- It should be clear that Peter is not discussing the interpretation or understanding of scripture but, rather, its origin.

JD1987 Regular Member   Join Date: September 12, 2010 Location: FL Posts: 810 Religion: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

2 Peter 1:20 Protestant Perspective Came across this site http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-2-peter-1-20.htm I copied and pasted for those who'd rather just read it here: The Text: ...Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. The Meaning Given To It: Our Catholic friends, as well as others, have used this verse to allege that an individual cannot, by themselves, understand or interpret the scriptures (see The Faith Of Millions, pp. 152-153). Rather, we need special assistance which, in the case of the Catholic, would be the Catholic Church. The Context: Peter is determined to continually recall certain truths to the minds of those to whom he wrote, vss. 12-15. He and other apostles did not adhere to carefully planned fairy-tales when they spoke of Jesus, for they had been eye-witnesses of all that Jesus did in proving his Deity, vss. 16-18 (see also 1 John 1:1-4). Next, Peter says that the words they spoke had been made "more sure" and the readers would do well to take heed to them, vs. 19. Then, in our text, Peter explains why the word of prophecy was "more sure" and how it became such. The Meaning: First let it be observed that this verse cannot be saying that scripture cannot be understood because such a statement would involve a logical dilemma: it is illogical to try and prove by scripture that scripture cannot be understood. For, if we can understand our verse to teach a particular truth then we prove by our assertion that scripture can be understood. Besides this, Paul very clearly stated that what he wrote could be understood, Eph. 3:1-4. When we observe this verse in the above-outlined context and notice the appearance of a very big little word in the verse following it, the meaning should be apparent. Vs. 21 begins with the word "for"---one of the "biggest" (in terms of significance) in all the Bible. Peter, in vs. 21, explains what he means in vs. 20: "For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit." It should be clear that Peter is not discussing the interpretation or understanding of scripture but, rather, its origin. The apostles and prophets did not invent myths and write these down. The origin of their message was God, not their own wills, minds, or imaginations. "We received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God", 1 Cor. 2:12. Thoughts on this explanation? __________________ No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness which is of me, saith the LORD. - Isaiah 54:17

#2     Jan 30, '11, 4:52 pm

rdscheirer Regular Member   Join Date: May 11, 2005 Location: Augusta,GA Posts: 547 Religion: catholic

Re: 2 Peter 1:20 Protestant Perspective You should remember that when Peter was speaking about scripture, and even Paul, the only scripture was the Old testament.

#3     Jan 30, '11, 5:43 pm

Victorious Regular Member   Join Date: September 10, 2006 Posts: 1,525 Religion: Catholic

Re: 2 Peter 1:20 Protestant Perspective Quote: Originally Posted by PJD1987 The Meaning: First let it be observed that this verse cannot be saying that scripture cannot be understood because such a statement would involve a logical dilemma: it is illogical to try and prove by scripture that scripture cannot be understood. For, if we can understand our verse to teach a particular truth then we prove by our assertion that scripture can be understood. Besides this, Paul very clearly stated that what he wrote could be understood, Eph. 3:1-4. When we observe this verse in the above-outlined context and notice the appearance of a very big little word in the verse following it, the meaning should be apparent. Vs. 21 begins with the word "for"---one of the "biggest" (in terms of significance) in all the Bible. Peter, in vs. 21, explains what he means in vs. 20: "For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit." It should be clear that Peter is not discussing the interpretation or understanding of scripture but, rather, its origin. The apostles and prophets did not invent myths and write these down. The origin of their message was God, not their own wills, minds, or imaginations. "We received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God", 1 Cor. 2:12. Thoughts on this explanation? This is a straw-man argument. First, it says that the passages does not mean that Scripture cannot be understood, which is not what the Catholic Church in fact teaches; then it sets out to demolish this non-existent Catholic position. As for Ephesians 3:1-4, I'll see this guy and raise him. 2 Peter 3:15-17: Quote: So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. __________________ ...I put before you the one great thing to love on earth: the Blessed Sacrament...There you will find romance, glory, honour, fidelity, and the true way of all your loves upon earth...J.R.R. Tolkien

#4     Jan 30, '11, 6:10 pm

TimothyH Senior Member   Join Date: March 26, 2010 Posts: 6,290

Re: 2 Peter 1:20 Protestant Perspective Quote: Originally Posted by PJD1987 The Meaning Given To It: Our Catholic friends, as well as others, have used this verse to allege that an individual cannot, by themselves, understand or interpret the scriptures (see The Faith Of Millions, pp. 152-153). Rather, we need special assistance which, in the case of the Catholic, would be the Catholic Church. First of all, the author needs to be corrected on what Catholics believe and what they don't believe. Nowhere does the Catholic Church teach that an individual Christian cannot come to some understanding of scripture nor is there an an absolute prohibition against interpretation of any passage of scripture by an individual Christian. I have no idea what that "The Faith of Millioins" citation is but I'm sure it is not a magesterial document of the Church. Quote: Originally Posted by PJD1987 The Meaning: First let it be observed that this verse cannot be saying that scripture cannot be understood because such a statement would involve a logical dilemma: it is illogical to try and prove by scripture that scripture cannot be understood. I totally agree with the above statement. But again, to argue it in the context of an individual Christian reading the Bible is not a moot point based on the same false assumption of what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Yes, the Church is the final authority and we must always check our own interpetation against the magesterial teaching of the Church but to assert that the Holy Church teaches that an individual Christian cannot possibly come to any understanding of scripture on his own is an absurdity. The incorrect assumption of what the Catholic Church teaches negates the author's entire logical argument, renders moot the need to even argue the point. Along with Victorius, I'll ante up... The disciples approached him and said, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" He said to them in reply, "Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted. (Matthew 13:10) The word of the Lord... Thanks be to God. -Tim-

#5     Jan 30, '11, 7:04 pm

PJD1987 Regular Member   Join Date: September 12, 2010 Location: FL Posts: 810 Religion: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

Re: 2 Peter 1:20 Protestant Perspective Quote: Originally Posted by TimothyH The disciples approached him and said, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" He said to them in reply, "Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted. (Matthew 13:10) The word of the Lord... Thanks be to God. -Tim- Slightly off topic, but since you used this, it brought up another question I had...forgive me, I was brought up Catholic, but never had an in depth understanding of my faith until recently, and I'm trying to get deeper into the Word and all that entails...but I always wondered why if as Jesus says, "the knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven has been granted to you," they seem to not understand, Mark 9:32, Luke 9:45, John 10:6, Matthew 13:13... As I said, slightly off topic, but thought I'd ask... __________________ No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness which is of me, saith the LORD. - Isaiah 54:17

#6     Jan 30, '11, 7:07 pm

Victorious Regular Member   Join Date: September 10, 2006 Posts: 1,525 Religion: Catholic

Re: 2 Peter 1:20 Protestant Perspective Quote: Originally Posted by PJD1987 Slightly off topic, but since you used this, it brought up another question I had...forgive me, I was brought up Catholic, but never had an in depth understanding of my faith until recently, and I'm trying to get deeper into the Word and all that entails...but I always wondered why if as Jesus says, "the knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven has been granted to you," they seem to not understand, Mark 9:32, Luke 9:45, John 10:6, Matthew 13:13... As I said, slightly off topic, but thought I'd ask... Off the top of my head, I'd say that the granting of the knowledge and the actual acquisition of said knowledge by the disciples do not have to have happened simultaneously. The disciples, remember, had not yet received the Holy Spirit. __________________ ...I put before you the one great thing to love on earth: the Blessed Sacrament...There you will find romance, glory, honour, fidelity, and the true way of all your loves upon earth...J.R.R. Tolkien

#7     Jan 30, '11, 7:27 pm

fhansen Regular Member   Join Date: November 11, 2007 Location: Northern CA Posts: 5,523 Religion: Catholic

Re: 2 Peter 1:20 Protestant Pershttp://forums.catholic.com/forumdisplay.php?f=30pective Quote: Originally Posted by PJD1987 The Meaning: First let it be observed that this verse cannot be saying that scripture cannot be understood because such a statement would involve a logical dilemma: it is illogical to try and prove by scripture that scripture cannot be understood. For, if we can understand our verse to teach a particular truth then we prove by our assertion that scripture can be understood. Besides this, Paul very clearly stated that what he wrote could be understood, Eph. 3:1-4. It's not a case of trying to prove anything with scripture.It's a case of Peter stating what should almost be obvious; scripture-the OT-is not to be interpreted privately. And Protestants have proved why this is so over and over with their varying interpretations-in both the old and new testament. __________________ "This is the very perfection of a man, to find out his own imperfections." - Saint Augustine "It is love alone that gives worth to all things." - St. Teresa of Avila

#8     Jan 31, '11, 7:17 am

TimothyH Senior Member   Join Date: March 26, 2010 Posts: 6,290

Re: 2 Peter 1:20 Protestant Perspective Quote: Originally Posted by Victorious Off the top of my head, I'd say that the granting of the knowledge and the actual acquisition of said knowledge by the disciples do not have to have happened simultaneously. The disciples, remember, had not yet received the Holy Spirit. And it took three years for Jesus to fully reveal the Eucharist to the Apostles. We are still developing doctrine today. "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. (John 16:12-14) Heck, I'm in the computer industry and have to read stuff two or three times before I fully understand it. -Tim-

#9     Jan 31, '11, 2:39 pm

GreggAlvarez Regular Member   Join Date: April 6, 2010 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 1,072 Religion: Catholic, former Atheist

Re: 2 Peter 1:20 Protestant Perspective Quote: Originally Posted by PJD1987 Came across this site http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-2-peter-1-20.htm I copied and pasted for those who'd rather just read it here: The Text: ...Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. The Meaning Given To It: Our Catholic friends, as well as others, have used this verse to allege that an individual cannot, by themselves, understand or interpret the scriptures (see The Faith Of Millions, pp. 152-153). Rather, we need special assistance which, in the case of the Catholic, would be the Catholic Church. The Context: Peter is determined to continually recall certain truths to the minds of those to whom he wrote, vss. 12-15. He and other apostles did not adhere to carefully planned fairy-tales when they spoke of Jesus, for they had been eye-witnesses of all that Jesus did in proving his Deity, vss. 16-18 (see also 1 John 1:1-4). Next, Peter says that the words they spoke had been made "more sure" and the readers would do well to take heed to them, vs. 19. Then, in our text, Peter explains why the word of prophecy was "more sure" and how it became such. The Meaning: First let it be observed that this verse cannot be saying that scripture cannot be understood because such a statement would involve a logical dilemma: it is illogical to try and prove by scripture that scripture cannot be understood. For, if we can understand our verse to teach a particular truth then we prove by our assertion that scripture can be understood. Besides this, Paul very clearly stated that what he wrote could be understood, Eph. 3:1-4. When we observe this verse in the above-outlined context and notice the appearance of a very big little word in the verse following it, the meaning should be apparent. Vs. 21 begins with the word "for"---one of the "biggest" (in terms of significance) in all the Bible. Peter, in vs. 21, explains what he means in vs. 20: "For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit." It should be clear that Peter is not discussing the interpretation or understanding of scripture but, rather, its origin. The apostles and prophets did not invent myths and write these down. The origin of their message was God, not their own wills, minds, or imaginations. "We received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God", 1 Cor. 2:12. Thoughts on this explanation? I disagree. The Church has never stated that Scriptures cannot be understood individually. Perhaps individual Catholics have, but that is not what the Church says. The Church just says that no doctrine or prophecy can be interpreted individually. But it also says that we are to use Scriptures in order to teach ourselves our relationship to God. Why do you (not the OP personally) think He gave us the Sacred Tradition? To teach us Truths. To give light to the written Word of God so that we may be kept from untruth. And we know that this is not our doing. This is the Holy Spirit's. The Bible is much much deeper than doctrine (which themselves are also a way of life). It speaks to us all in different ways because we each are different and have different paths. I interpret things for myself in my relationship with God. Everybody else could interpret the same exact verses completely differently but none of them are wrong. We each are drawn to different books, different verses, etc... of the Bible. My favorite verses are Revelations 2:10, Matthew 17:7 and 1 Peter 3:15 and everybody else's are different. My interpretations for personal use are probably completely different than that of anybody else's in the world. It is with the interpretation of doctrine and especially prophecy (that is, in its modern definition; but in the biblical context, "prophecy" can also mean Truths) that Peter was talking about. I think so anyway. It all makes sense because individual interpretations of doctrine have not worked out too well for Christianity. But, for Catholics, there are billions of personal interpretations of each person in his own relationship with Big Guns Upstairs. Does this help?

#10     Jan 31, '11, 5:06 pm

COPLAND 3 Regular Member   Join Date: January 13, 2008 Location: Ashland Ky Posts: 2,663 Religion: Catholic

Re: 2 Peter 1:20 Protestant Perspective As been mentioned above, the arguement has been created based upon a false assumption that all Catholics only interpret that verse to mean that a person cannot interpret Scripture. But on the otherhand I have seen Catholics interpret that verse to mean that in such a rigid way that I disagree with them when they take that verse to primarily mean that Scripture cannot be interpreted individually. The verse means that none of the holy prophets preached apart from the Word of God. But that verse can be used for teaching that Scripture should be taught and understood through the eyes of the Holy Spirit and not through the eyes of the individual reader. Just as how Scripture did not come about by human effort alone, so Scripture should not be interpreted by human effort alone. And for Catholics we can interpret Scripture based upon the safeguard of the Catholic Church. __________________ Check out the Douay-Rheims Study Bible https://sites.google.com/site/douayr...tudybible/home Check out the Aquinas Study Bible in progress! https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home

#11     Jan 7, '12, 1:03 am

Calvin1 Trial Membership   Join Date: January 6, 2012 Posts: 1 Religion: Protestant

Re: 2 Peter 1:20 Protestant Perspective In my understanding, this verse is often used against the Protestant understanding of Scripture. The key question being, "who is in view in verse 20," the prophet(s) or those who are reading them? I believe Rome commonly interprets this passage as teaching that the reader ought not privately interpret that which has been delivered by the prophet. If however this verse deals not with how we interpret the Scripture, but rather how the Scripture came into existence, such an interpretation may not be what Peter intended. That Peter has the origin of prophecy in mind here is supported by the entire context of the epistle, particularly what's coming in chapter two where he is in essence contrasting the false prophets with the true ones (False prophecy is the result of mans imagination, whereas true prophecy is not the result of the prophets own imagination). Furthermore the use of the Gk. word ginomai as opposed to the common state of being verb eimi suggests the idea of "becoming" or "coming into being" as opposed to something more stative. Hence the NIV may capture the meaning clearest, "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation." This understanding is solidified by verse 21 which seems to be a summation of the argument. It therefore seems that Peter is teaching us about the origin of true prophecy. It originates not with man, but with God! This was a clear polemic against the false prophets whose words were not spoken under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (interestingly, this is a common contrast between the true and the false prophet, especially throughout the OT) Any questions about this exegesis??

#12     Jan 8, '12, 1:56 am

DENNYINMI Junior Member   Join Date: July 29, 2010 Location: Rochester Hill, MI Posts: 234 Religion: Catholic

Re: 2 Peter 1:20 Protestant Perspective Quote: Originally Posted by Calvin1 In my understanding, this verse is often used against the Protestant understanding of Scripture. The key question being, "who is in view in verse 20," the prophet(s) or those who are reading them? I believe Rome commonly interprets this passage as teaching that the reader ought not privately interpret that which has been delivered by the prophet. If however this verse deals not with how we interpret the Scripture, but rather how the Scripture came into existence, such an interpretation may not be what Peter intended. That Peter has the origin of prophecy in mind here is supported by the entire context of the epistle, particularly what's coming in chapter two where he is in essence contrasting the false prophets with the true ones (False prophecy is the result of mans imagination, whereas true prophecy is not the result of the prophets own imagination). Furthermore the use of the Gk. word ginomai as opposed to the common state of being verb eimi suggests the idea of "becoming" or "coming into being" as opposed to something more stative. Hence the NIV may capture the meaning clearest, "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation." This understanding is solidified by verse 21 which seems to be a summation of the argument. It therefore seems that Peter is teaching us about the origin of true prophecy. It originates not with man, but with God! This was a clear polemic against the false prophets whose words were not spoken under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (interestingly, this is a common contrast between the true and the false prophet, especially throughout the OT) Any questions about this exegesis?? I enjoyed your summation! Your first post, and welcome!