Private Interpretation

[Raf]

The Way International teaches that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation," meaning readers should allow the text to interpret itself rather than use their reasoning skills to decipher what the text really means. Division in the church comes from one group or more "privately interpreting" various scriptures about any number of topics (John 1:1, water baptism, etc). Instead of "letting loose" on our own, we should let the Bible speak for itself. The proof text is II Peter 1:20.

The ironic problem with this is that II Peter 1:20 is not talking about the meaning of scripture. It's talking about the origin. When Peter says no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, he's not talking about deciphering the meaning of the words. He's talking about the scripture prophecies being "God's Word." That's why the next verse says how holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (ignore the caps if that makes you happy. Not the point).

So if you allow scripture to interpret itself in its verse and context, you find that II Peter 1:20 is not talking about "private interpretation" in the manner that The Way uses that term.

The funny thing is, I do not have a problem with the principle of letting scripture interpret itself and bringing as little of yourself into it as possible. The author of the document is not you. It is not fair to inject your experience and presupposition into a text to decipher the author's meaning. You have to discern the author's meaning to the best of your ability.

For the Bible, this opens a HUGE can of worms because everyone starts with presuppositions. The Way starts with the presupposition that the Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God. It is not correct to say "The Bible contains God's Word." It is correct to say "The Bible IS God's Word."

That means under that presupposition, you are compelled to conclude the Bible has one author (many writers, but one author) and that its message on all issues is coherent. The Bible is not allowed to contradict itself, and what Paul says about a subject (say, speaking in tongues) has to be harmonious with what Luke wrote in Acts, regardless of the appearance that they contradict each other on their face (Paul says no one understands a tongues speaker, Acts has hundreds of people seeming to understand a dozen tongues speakers). So we propose explanations: Acts was an anomaly. Paul was generalizing about the norm. Without the presupposition of harmony due to a single Divine author, you could just as easily conclude Paul and Luke simply disagreed, or that one (or the other) was simply wrong. 

Is it "private interpretation" to use logic and reason to infer logical, reasonable explanations for apparent contradictions? Or is that allowing the scripture to interpret itself? I would argue the latter.

To sum up, we could go off in a million directions on this topic, but the bottom line is that VPW, and by extension The Way International, got II Peter 1:20 wrong. It is not about the meaning of scripture. It's about the inspiration behind it. Verse 21 should be read in unison with verse 20, as both are addressing the same subject.

Thoughts?

[Nathan_Jr]

No text ever interpreted itself, as no text ever wrote itself. Ever. Even legal texts, in spite of their painstakingly precise composition, require interpretation by the courts. And ancient texts, especially!

Ancient religious literature and scripture will be interpreted by the reader, the translator, the theologian, the historian, the profiteer… but never by the texts themselves.

Texts have writers and audiences (and editors). To explain a text with this understanding, and in light of its literary and historical context, in light of presuppositions, is exactly… the act of interpretation! A text itself can’t do this for itself by itself.

Now, one may assert the CLAIM that a text interprets itself.

One may also claim to jump over barns. 

Edited 9 hours ago by Nathan_Jr
Gloves

[WordWolf]

If "All Scripture explains itself, either in the verse, or in the context, or as a term has been used before",

which Bullinger said in "How to Enjoy the Bible", and has been taught at twi since vpw started quoting Bullinger in the 1950s,

then II Peter 1:20  has to be understood in the context of the surrounding verses, which is to say, in light of II Peter 1:21.  When one allows this process, then the explanation that vpw gave- which he photocopied from Bullinger without understanding it- is seen as INCORRECT. 

This is not a notable problem in and of itself. Bullinger made a mistake, and vpw made 2 mistakes- to not examine Bullinger's conclusion, and to just pass it alone unexamined.  Men are human, and make mistakes. They will make errors. They will teach errors.

Where this becomes a notable problem is where one is taught that the entire PFAL experience- the PFAL classes as a whole, and the foundation of "wierwille's" teaching as a whole-  is not simply what wierwille taught, but that it was the product of what GOD ALMIGHTY HIMSELF taught wierwille, and wierwille just passed along to everyone else at the behest of GOD ALMIGHTY.  

Now, which is more sensible- that the error was the result of wierwille making a mistake when understanding Bullinger because wierwille did all this on his own volition and it all rested on his skill and those of the Christians whom he photocopied, even though he claimed he was taught by God Almighty, and thus, he should never be questioned on doctrine because to question wierwille on doctrine is to question GOD ALMIGHTY HIMSELF on doctrine, a mistake made by Eve in the Garden of Eden,

or

that the error was the result of GOD ALMIGHTY HIMSELF making a mistake and passing that mistake on to wierwille, who was correctly passing along what GOD ALMIGHTY taught wierwille, which is what wierwille claimed happened?

 

There's no third option. Using Bullinger's own techniques- and thus pfal and twi's own techniques because they were passed along entirely- to read II Peter 1, the only sensible conclusion is that II Peter 1:20 refers to the origin of Scripture, NOT whether one "lets the hounds loose on the game."  Bullinger's own techniques show Bullinger to be in error in this instance.