Anytime I’m in a discussion with just about any Christian outside of Protestantism, the proof text of 2 Peter 1:20 comes up. The person, hearing my explanation of a passage, claims that my interpretation of the text is not valid by itself—I need the authority of the Magisterium or the Early Fathers or Something. But is that what the verse is teaching—that any interpretation of the text is dependent on the totality of the Church (be it the historical Church or the body of teaching from the Church) over (and against) the individual?
Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: 2 Peter 1, interpretation, sola scriptura
Posted in hermeneutics | Comments (0)
I should acknowledge that on this text, interpretations differ. And here I don’t speak of the theistic interpretation versus a naturalistic interpretation, but rather between Christians who look at the Bible as inspired, inerrant and profitable. That being said it would behoove any believer to tread lightly when considering tearing an alternate interpretation of this text as being worldly or Satanic. We can agree that these things are true—but our interpretations may be false. That being the case, here are some views, with their Scriptural support and their inherent problems.
Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: creation, genesis, interpretation, origins
Posted in study, text/language | Comments (1)
