1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Peter Exalts Scripture Over Tradition

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by swaimj, Nov 25, 2002.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 5
  1. swaimj

    swaimj <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    In I Peter 1:16-18, Peter reviews one of the episodes from Jesus' life which he personally witnessed (the Transfiguration). But he exalts the scriptures even above the oral tradition he is passing on by saying "We have a more sure word of prophecy..." and he goes on to say that this prophecy is the inspired (holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost) "scripture" (v. 20). Since Peter refers to the scriptures as "more sure" than oral tradition, we should consider them more sure as well.
     
    #1 swaimj, Nov 25, 2002
  2. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi swaimj,

    I believe you're referring to 2 Peter, not 1 Peter. How do you know 2 Peter is Scripture? Does the epistle claim to be Scripture itself?

    God bless,

    Carson

    [ November 25, 2002, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
     
    #2 Carson Weber, Nov 25, 2002
  3. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Gen.3:1 "And he (the serpent) said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said,"

    The doubter from the beginning has doubted the Word of God, and continues to do so.
    DHK
     
    #3 DHK, Nov 26, 2002
  4. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi DHK,

    You wrote, "The doubter from the beginning has doubted the Word of God, and continues to do so."

    And that presupposes that 2 Peter is the Word of God to begin with, which harkens back to my question.

    Besides, you doubt 7 books of God's Holy Word as well as chapters from Daniel and Esther. I would encourage you not to throw out such condemnations so loosely as to have them boomerang right back at you.

    God bless,

    Carson

    [ November 26, 2002, 01:43 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
     
    #4 Carson Weber, Nov 26, 2002
  5. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    The Catholic Church did not formally accept the Apocrypha until the 16th century. The Jews never accepted it all. I think we know what books are forgeries, and 2 Peter is not one of them.
    DHK
     
    #5 DHK, Nov 26, 2002
  6. Ben W

    Ben W Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,883
    Likes Received:
    6
    Swaimj, Absolutley.

    Many people base their christian discernment on what is going on at church rather thatn reading their bible and seeing if what is happening in the modern church is in fact scriptural.

    As far as 2Peter not being included in the bible it along with the book of Jude have a message for those who cannot accept the Word of God. The truth hurts.
     
    #6 Ben W, Nov 26, 2002
  7. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carson,
    How do you know that Matt16:18 is Scripture?
    Do you see the circular reasoning you employ?

    " How do you know that the magesterium of the Catholic Church is infallible"

    " Because Matt 16:18 says so"

    "So, how do you know that that is Scripture"?

    "Because the Church tells me it is"
     
    #7 Ps104_33, Nov 26, 2002
  8. swaimj

    swaimj <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    Correct. My mistake. I should have said II Peter. I appreciate the question, but since Baptists see it as scripture and the Catholic church holds it as scripture, let's discuss what it says and what it means. If you want to discuss whether it is scripture, start another thread. Otherwise I consider you to be "begging the question". [​IMG]
     
    #8 swaimj, Nov 26, 2002
  9. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Amen!!! It is only attacked for what it says. And there is no doubt in my mind why that book is so disliked. God preserved it for a reason. Who are we to doubt him ?
     
    #9 Bro. Curtis, Nov 26, 2002
  10. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carson wasn't attacking 2Peter. He was asking how you would know that it is Scripture if not for the tradition of the Church? Do you have an inspired table of contents?

    Ron

    [ November 26, 2002, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]
     
    #10 trying2understand, Nov 26, 2002
  11. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Generally, when the word "Scripture" appears in the NT, it referss to the OT, since the NT had not been known about yet, and, since much of the NT had not even been written yet.
     
    #11 Johnv, Nov 26, 2002
  12. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Jews never accepted [the apocrypha] at all.

    That's debatable. The Council at Jamnia asserted that the Apocrypha was to be listed in the canon of OT scriptures.
     
    #12 Johnv, Nov 26, 2002
  13. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    The Masoretic Text as it is today, and as it always has been, does not have the apocrypha. Conservative Jews have never accepted these spurious books.
    DHK
     
    #13 DHK, Nov 26, 2002
  14. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I disagree, Ron. Carson has attacked 2Peter plenty of times. You either accept it, or reject it as scripture. Telling people it isn't scripture is an attack.

    Johnv, do you consider the NT scripture ?

    [ November 26, 2002, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Bro. Curtis ]
     
    #14 Bro. Curtis, Nov 26, 2002
  15. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, Psalm, how do you know that that is Scripture?
     
    #15 trying2understand, Nov 26, 2002
  16. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Telling people it isn't scripture is an attack."

    And accusing someone of saying this when they did not is bearing false witness.

    I have read through Carson's posts on this thread and he made no such statement.

    Ron
     
    #16 trying2understand, Nov 26, 2002
  17. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, I beleive that what Peter is saying is that we can be "more sure" of the truth of the prophecy (Scripture) because it has the additional witness of Peter (ie. his oral testimony).

    That is why he starts out saying that he is an eye witness.

    Here are various translations. I think that over all they support my understanding of the verse in question.

    And we have the word of the prophets made more certain NIV

    So we have the prophetic word made more sure NASB

    And we have the prophetic word [made] firmer still. AMP

    Because of that, we have even greater confidence in the message NLT

    We have also a more sure word of prophecy KJV

    And so we have the prophetic word confirmed NKJV

    And we have the prophetic word [made] surer DARBY

    Ron

    [ November 26, 2002, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]
     
    #17 trying2understand, Nov 26, 2002
  18. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
     
    #18 DHK, Nov 26, 2002
  19. trying2understand

    trying2understand New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can you cite Scripture for this? Or is it a traditon?

    Where did I express doubt?

    I merely asked how do you know what is Scripture other than by tradition? I would say that all of your qualifications are tradition.

    Ron
     
    #19 trying2understand, Nov 26, 2002
  20. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
     
    #20 DHK, Nov 26, 2002
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 5
Loading...