Steve Noel

Roger E. Olson has said this as well HERE There are several Evangelical theologians who have said this. It seems the common denominator among them is conversations with Robert Millet. Other Evangelical critics of Mormonism view this very differently. HERE is another viewpoint.

I am learning that this is one of the major differences between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. Hermeneutics is something that is foundational when an Evangelical seeks higher education in a biblical/theological/pastoral field. In working on my BA in Religion I have transferred 4 different times. Every school puts hermeneutics as one of the first courses of study. When I start working on my MA in Apologetics, the first course I will take is on hermeneutics. My pastor is working on a doctoral degree in Biblical Interpretation and Theology. One of his first courses was on hermeneutics. I have been thinking a lot about this dynamic in Evangelical / Latter-day Saint discussions / debates. Those who would engage Latter-day Saints in discussion / debate will almost certainly have some training in hermeneutics. I don't think I could overstate the importance educated Evangelicals place on this. This is why so many discussions / debates on biblical texts between many Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints can be so frustrating. A discussion on principles of interpretation would go a long way in understanding where the other person is coming form.

I just about went anti-Mormon on you

1. I have not commented on the letter as a whole. Just to the reference in 1 Peter 1:19-21. 2. Based on the reasons I've given I do not think Peter was writing about future Scripture in these verses. 3. That being said, I would not say that what he says here only applies to the Old Testament and has no bearing on future Scripture. The heremeutical approach that I am using here starts with interpretation of the text in context (what it meant when it was written). Once we determine what it meant, then we can apply it in similar circumstances (what it means to us today). This technique distinguishes between the interpretation of the text and the application of the text.

The reason that I say it is the Old Testament is because Peter specifically says he is talking about "prophecy of Scripture" in verse 20. The word translated "Scripture" (GK: γραφή) here means a writing. I believe it is always used in the New Testament to refer to what we call the Old Testament (see HERE). This is the "Scripture" Peter is referring to here. Since I am convinced from the context that he is not talking about prophets in general but about the prophetic Scriptures of the Old Testament, I do not see this as addressing 1st century (Peter) or modern day prophets. Peter was encouraging believers that they can trust the prophetic Scriptures of the Old Testament because they are the product of the Holy Spirit through the prophets.

I think Bushman mentions the volcanic eruption in his footnotes. I have had several different LDS people recommend this book as good.

Catholic interpreters over the years have insisted that Peter was the one being referred to as "the rock" upon which Christ would build his church. Peter is then declared to be the first Pope. In reaction to this the Reformers and many modern Protestants teach that it is Peter's confession of Christ as the Son of God that is "the rock" upon which the Church is built. I think this is an overreaction. It seems to me that Jesus is referring to Peter here. I do not know the original languages (Aramaic & Greek) enough to make an argument from them here, but I have read competent scholars who have made the case for Peter being "the rock." We just don't accept the papacy as being legitimately supported from this reading. Let me give you something to think about regarding the gates of hell not prevailing against the church. You rightly point to the language of "hell" here being a reference to death. I agree. You reference the Bible Dictionary which points out that this word is used for Christ's resurrection from the dead. Now think about this. When will the gates of death/ the tomb / the grave not prevail against the church? At the resurrection! So I do not think this text can be used to teach that there would not be an apostasy. That is not the point of the text at all.

I wanted to thank you all for working through this text with me without becoming hostile because we have some disagreements.

I understood what you meant. I don't disagree that we are not to rely only on our own understanding. We should seek to be led by the Spirit. I never open the Scriptures to read without first asking the Lord to open my understanding and give me light.

It is good that you brought in the larger context of the whole book. I also appreciate that you affirm that there are rules of interpretation. The verse you've shared from 2 Peter 3:16 is very appropriate here. We must take care in how we handle to Scriptures. I haven't used the NIV any many years. I prefer more literal translations like the NASB or ESV. I also have a Zondervan Greek and English Interlinear New Testament that I reference often. Thanks for contributing to the conversation here.

spamlds, I appreciate that you share your thoughts with conviction and clarity. It is interesting to see the contrast between your view, and that of LDS scholars like Stephen E. Robinson or Robert Millet. The go out of there way to deny that what you are saying here is what Latter-day Saints believe. I am interested to know what you think of these different approaches.

I agree that we can still miss the author's intention, but that is the goal of this method of interpretation. I do not share your skepticism about the possibility of discovering the author's intent. Much more could be said, but I appreciate your interaction here.

That is a nice find. Thanks.

As much as I am tired of winter in April, it could be worse. I picked up Richard L. Bushman's book Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling from our local library. In it he tells a bit of the family history for both Joseph and Emma. He mentions that 1816 was known in the Northeast as "the year without summer." He writes that "on June 8th several inches of snow fell across the highlands of northern New York and New England, and ice formed on the ponds" (27). I think that would be it for me. I would have to move south.

It just keeps getting worse. We got a bunch of snow today. The roads are terrible.

I appreciate this reply. I will interact when I get a little more time. Thanks.

We discover the intention of the author from the historical-grammatical context. Take a few minutes to read this blog post. It expresses the approach to Scripture that I have tried to demonstrate here.

I have a little bit of training in biblical Greek. I can read the words, but I don't have enough vocabulary memorized to read the sentences. I am trying to get back into studying it myself. I would like to be able to read the Greek NT devotionally someday.

I think the NIV is pretty good. I usually read the ESV or NASB. Thanks for taking up my challenge. The first step of interpretation is to understand what the text meant when it was written. In verse 20 Peter tells us that he is talking about "prophecy in Scripture" that was produced by the "prophets." Thus, it is clear that this is a reference to the prophets whose prophecies are recorded in the Old Testament. That is the only "Scripture" Peter possessed. Peter tells us that these biblical prophecies were not produced (NIV "came about") by the "prophet's own interpretation of things" (KJV "private interpretation"). What does "private interpretation" mean in this context? The context is about how the prophecies of the Scriptures (Old Testament) "came about." Therefore, "private interpretation" here means something like "reasoned opinion." The prophecies of the Old Testament prophets were not the result of the prophets reasoned opinion, or, as in the NIV, "by the prophet's own interpretation of things." To go back to my original point on this text, take note of the linking word "For" which begins verse 21. This word tells us that what follows is an explanation of why what was just said is true. The reason that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophets reasoned opinion ("private interpretation" or "own interpretation of things") is because "prophecy never had its origin in the human will." Here "the human will" is parallel to "the prophet's own interpretation of things" in the previous verse. They are saying the same thing in different language. Both texts are talking about the "origin" of the prophecies recorded for us in the Old Testament Scriptures. They did not come from the prophet's own interpretation of things / private interpretaton / human will, rather, the source of the prophecies was the Holy Spirit. The prophets whose prophecies were recorded in the Old Testament Scriptures were mouthpieces for the Holy Spirit. They did not tell us their reasoned opinion / private interpretaton / own interpretation of things. When this text is understood in context it becomes clear that Peter was not writing about interpreting what we read in the Bible. The subject of these verses is not the reader of Scripture, but rather the origin of the prophecies in Scripture.The phrase "private interpretation" is what throws people off. We must not pull a phrase out of context and then use it in a way that the author never intended.

I just looked this passage up in a commentary by Michael Green. After going through the text carefully he concludes: This is the same thing I am saying. Verse 21 tells us what Peter meant by "private interpretation" in verse 20. Verse 21 is about the origin of the prophecies in Scripture.

If you don't mind I would like to challenge you a bit on this. In my post I sought to demonstrate from the text of 2 Peter 1 why the interpretation I offered is correct. Can you demonstrate from the text why my interpretation is incorrect? I am interested to see from this text how you come to your conclusions. Can you demonstrate from 2 Peter 1 that his intention in vv. 19-21 is to correct misinterpretation and teach that the church is lead by a hierarchy?

Thank you for adding to the discussion. Many misunderstand what Peter meant when he mentioned "private interpretation" in 2 Peter 1:20. The misunderstanding results from taking the phrase "private interpretation" out of context. When we read this phrase in context we find that Peter was not speaking against personal interpretation of Scripture at all. Here is the text in context: Take note of the linking word "For" at the beginning of v. 21. This tells us that what follows is a reason clause. A reason clause answers the question, "Why is this true?" Verse 21 tells us why verse 20 is true. Peter says that, "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" because "prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: buy holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Notice that v. 21 is not about why individuals should not interpret Scripture. It is about how the prophecies in Scripture came about. This verse is about the source of the prophecies in Scripture. It has nothing to do with individuals seeking to interpret the Scriptures. This text was not intended to teach that we should get our interpretation via revelation as opposed to using reason. It also was not intended to teach that the authoritative interpretation of Scripture comes from chosen leaders and not individual believers.

I would like to get your thoughts on this situation. I think it highlights a concern I have with this approach. We had a guy in our church that would go from church to church because he was always trying to correct the beliefs of the church. He was basically a Calvinist. He was convinced that Jesus did not die for all mankind, but only for the elect. He would argue that human beings have nothing whatsoever to do with their salvation. God saves whomever he wishes to save and damns whomever he wishes to damn. Now whenever I would try to discuss a passage of Scripture with him he would not listen. He was not interested in understanding the text in context. In his mind he was right, because this was the interpretation he got from the Holy Ghost. So is he correct?

These are good guidelines. There are some good guidelines that Roger E. Olson shared in his book Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. He says that we "should strictly avoid attributing beliefs to adherents of the other side that those adherents explicitly reject. This often happens because critics think they see where certain beliefs of the others must logically lead and then attribute the "good and necessary consequence" (as they see it) of a belief to the others even though the others deny it." (Kindle Locations 2902-2904). He also advocates that we should go to the sources and not outsiders to get our information, since "self-description is always better than a description by an outsider" (Kindle location 2910).

I am definitely willing to listen and work at understanding the LDS viewpoint. I have been really impressed with Stephen E. Robinson's sections in the book How Wide the Divide? I am hoping to find other LDS writers like that.