Interpreting Scripture

[cobbettj]

Somebody said to me the other day that I cant interpret Scipture and that only the Prophet can interpret Gods word. They used 2 Peter 1:20 to support their arguement. But in context all this is saying is that Scripture does not come from any private origin (from the apostles own minds) but is inpired of the Lord through the Holy Spirit.

In response I said that it is through Gods word that we gain knowledge and understanding (Proverbs 2:6). If we dont have the capacity to understand the scriptures ourselves then we can pray for the wisdom to understand the scriptures (James 1:5).

In Acts 17:11 some people were commended for searching the answers in the scriptures becouse they did not believe the apostles.

And finally, the Scriptures teach us how to discern a false prophet. So if I need the prophet to interpret for me then I could never know if he is a false prophet.

Any more thoughts, im not sure I have him convinced yet. Is there some support I am missing?

[Just_A_Guy]

2 Peter 1:20 should be read in light of 2 Peter 1:19, where Peter notes that we have the "more sure word of prophecy".

Follow footnote c in verse 19 to find out what that means. In short, though, it's talking about a doctrine that, when realized, can allow a person to receive revelation directly in a very profound way directly from the Son.

Now, a word of caution: The prophet holds final interpretation for the public scriptural interpretations that are taught and embraced by the Church-at-large. If you get a revelation about a scripture that contradicts the Church's official position, you may or may not be in apostasy per se--but either way, you'd better keep that revelation to yourself.

[cobbettj]

We do have a more sure word of prophecy. Not cunningly devised fables, but eyewitness accounts of of our Lord Jesus Christ (see vs 16).

If only the prophet can determine the interpretation of Scripture that teaches us how to discern a false prophet, then how could I ever know that he is a true or false prophet?

Originally Posted by Just_A_Guy

If you get a revelation about a scripture that contradicts the Church's official position, you may or may not be in apostasy per se--but either way, you'd better keep that revelation to yourself.

Of course any revelation which is contrary to Gods word is not from the Holy Spirit. Paul said that we can trust the gospel over an angel from heaven (Galatians 1:8). The scriptures hold authority over any heavenly being.

If the spirit asked you to murder a little girl walking down the road. Would you do it? I wouldnt becouse I know that it is wrong according to Gods word. Hence the scriptures hold higher authority then a spirit or heavenly being.

[john doe]

A re-reading of Ephesians 4 would be helpful here. Your Galations 1:8 reference is a strawman argument.

[cobbettj]

"believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." - 1 John 4:1

What do you suppose we use as a foundation to try and compare the spirits against? I suggest the words of the eyewitnesses in the scriptures.

What specifically were you refering to in Ephesians 4?

[uniderth]

The word of God is consistent. Joseph Smith warned that a way to tell if a message is from God or not is if it contradicts a previous revelation.

[cobbettj]

Exactly, thats why I would hold the Scriptures in higher regard than a spirit or heavenly being.

[changed]

I believe that we are supposed to liken scriptures to ourselves, and that we can receive personal guidance by interpreting scriptures to parallel our own individual circumstances. Not that we should allow ourselves to interpret scriptures to contradict anything that the prophet has taught, but that we can expand and deepen what the prophet has taught through applying those principles within our own lives. The prophet gives the broad blanket interpretation that covers everyone, and then we add the individual likening that refines the principles for ourselves.

[HEthePrimate]

I have heard more than one LDS person criticize the Catholic Church for not translating the Bible into vernacular languages earlier. They accuse the Catholic clergy of centuries past of controlling what the people believe, and teaching them unscriptural doctrines, by keeping the people from reading the scriptures themselves, and offering only their "official" ecclesiastical interpretation of the scriptures. They talk about how important it is for people to be able to read the scriptures in their own language. To me, that implies allowing people to interpret the scriptures for themselves, and removing a barrier or layer of mediation between the ordinary person and God. It seems to me that the reason for translating the scriptures into the vernacular is so everybody can read them and see for themselves what they say, and have a more personal relationship with the scriptures and with God, rather than relying entirely on the mediation of a priestly caste.

[Just_A_Guy]

Originally Posted by cobbettj

Of course any revelation which is contrary to Gods word is not from the Holy Spirit. Paul said that we can trust the gospel over an angel from heaven (Galatians 1:8). The scriptures hold authority over any heavenly being.

Then why did Paul assure his hearers in Galatians 1:11-12, that

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Interesting how Paul doesn't cite the existing corpus of scripture for his knowledge of the gospel. He cites his own revelatory experience.

How was Ananias supposed to know that Paul's claims about what happened on the road to Damascus weren't a load of hooey dreamed up by some grasping, ambitious Christian-hater? Read Acts 8--he had a vision. By the way, as you read Acts 2, you'll see that Peter wasn't particularly bothered by the idea of visions, either.

Originally Posted by cobbettj

If the spirit asked you to murder a little girl walking down the road. Would you do it? I wouldnt becouse I know that it is wrong according to Gods word.

If by "Gods word" you mean the Bible, that's an interesting conclusion; because plenty of people over the past few millennia have used the Bible to justify all kinds of abominations--including murder.

Whether you admit it or not, I daresay your aversion to murder is based on a little more than the plain text of the Bible. The same book that tells us clearly not to kill (or "murder", depending on your interpretation of the Hebrew) has as two of its major heroes, Israelite leaders who ordered mass genocide and justified the practice as a commandment from God.

Hence the scriptures hold higher authority then a spirit or heavenly being.

I am scratching my head over this notion that the law is greater than the Lawgiver. One would think that the murder of Jesus of Nazareth by people who claimed complete fealty to God's word as it then existed, would be a pretty potent warning against that kind of thinking.

Remember, even Israel understood that Israel was to measure those who claimed to speak for God according "to the law and to the testimony" (Isaiah 8:20). Jesus' teachings contravened Israel's understanding of both. He disregarded rabbinical instructions about acceptable Sabbath-day behavior. He disregarded the religious dietary code. Saul of Tarsus threw out the entire Mosaic code, for heaven's sake!

If Paul can re-interpret--or even modify--or even (heaven forbid!) add to the corpus of existing scripture, then why can't Joseph Smith or Thomas Monson do the same (provided, of course, that they have the same authority as Paul did)? Unless you're a Catholic, then your own theology arose because at some point somebody took it upon themselves to interpret the scriptures in a way that was new to themselves and to the society in which they lived. On what scriptural basis do you attack Joseph Smith for doing what Paul, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and even Jesus Himself all did?

"believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." - 1 John 4:1

What do you suppose we use as a foundation to try and compare the spirits against? I suggest the words of the eyewitnesses in the scriptures.

It's really not as hard as you seem to want it to be:

Originally Posted by Galatians 5:22-23

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Originally Posted by cobbettj

What specifically were you refering to in Ephesians 4?

I suspect JD was referring to the existence of Church officers including prophets and apostles.