I think Augustine was wrong on his comment about interpretation. Sure, there are parts of the Bible where alternate interpretations can be found within the text. But we have to balance that with Peter's statement here: "20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." So there is an intended meaning that we need to find. Sometimes that is harder than others.
My pastor says the same - there is one meaning, that which the author intended. But what if the author intended two meanings? What if the author was moved by the Spirit to write that which the author did not fully understand?
I don't mean to be argumentative; I value your view and that of my pastor which is why I approach this idea with caution. I am just not settled on this idea of only one meaning.
I agree that the author could have intended two meanings or a broad meaning that includes several different aspects or perspectives. All we have are the words, so as long as the interpretation fits within the text and doesn't contradict anything else in Scripture, we should accept it. I think the ultimate author is the Holy Spirit. He knows what He means, and He is also there to teach us into what He meant (though no one ever knows it all).
As always, a pleasure to read your reflections in the morning, often even before ( I confess!) my morning prayers! May I commend to you: Alan Richardson, "Creeds in the Making"? A short book, you can buy it on Amazon or access it on the Internet Archive. I first read it in my freshman theology course in 1969. I am using it now in an adult education course for parishioners in my Orthodox parish. Fr. Richardson is Church of England Anglican, and, after CS Lewis, Eric Mascall, and Henry Veatch, my favorite thinker in that tradition. Richardson's thesis: the historical Creeds (Nicea, Athanasian, and Apostles') were crafted in order to indicate what theological interpretations (Arius, Nestorius, and so on) did not appear to do justice to the Church's experience of her Resurrected Lord, but, generally, crafted in such wise as to avoid positive theories about the mysteries of the faith (Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement). The classical councils clarified the "what" regarding articles of the faith (say, that the Lord Jesus is both God and man), but not the "how" (say, regarding the nature of how the Lord Jesus is both divine and human). Fr. Richardson believes that the Church is indebted to the classical heresies for provoking it to think more clearly about the data of revelation (the "homoousius" terminology of Nicea, for instance). Thinking clearly does not, of course, lessen the mysterious aspects of that data.
I think Augustine was wrong on his comment about interpretation. Sure, there are parts of the Bible where alternate interpretations can be found within the text. But we have to balance that with Peter's statement here: "20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." So there is an intended meaning that we need to find. Sometimes that is harder than others.
https://thecrosssectionrmb.blogspot.com/
My pastor says the same - there is one meaning, that which the author intended. But what if the author intended two meanings? What if the author was moved by the Spirit to write that which the author did not fully understand?
I don't mean to be argumentative; I value your view and that of my pastor which is why I approach this idea with caution. I am just not settled on this idea of only one meaning.
I agree that the author could have intended two meanings or a broad meaning that includes several different aspects or perspectives. All we have are the words, so as long as the interpretation fits within the text and doesn't contradict anything else in Scripture, we should accept it. I think the ultimate author is the Holy Spirit. He knows what He means, and He is also there to teach us into what He meant (though no one ever knows it all).
As always, a pleasure to read your reflections in the morning, often even before ( I confess!) my morning prayers! May I commend to you: Alan Richardson, "Creeds in the Making"? A short book, you can buy it on Amazon or access it on the Internet Archive. I first read it in my freshman theology course in 1969. I am using it now in an adult education course for parishioners in my Orthodox parish. Fr. Richardson is Church of England Anglican, and, after CS Lewis, Eric Mascall, and Henry Veatch, my favorite thinker in that tradition. Richardson's thesis: the historical Creeds (Nicea, Athanasian, and Apostles') were crafted in order to indicate what theological interpretations (Arius, Nestorius, and so on) did not appear to do justice to the Church's experience of her Resurrected Lord, but, generally, crafted in such wise as to avoid positive theories about the mysteries of the faith (Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement). The classical councils clarified the "what" regarding articles of the faith (say, that the Lord Jesus is both God and man), but not the "how" (say, regarding the nature of how the Lord Jesus is both divine and human). Fr. Richardson believes that the Church is indebted to the classical heresies for provoking it to think more clearly about the data of revelation (the "homoousius" terminology of Nicea, for instance). Thinking clearly does not, of course, lessen the mysterious aspects of that data.
Thank you, William. I appreciate the book recommendation; it will be added to my backlog.