Peter Exalts Scripture Over Tradition

20/20 hindsight. And still merely done by tradition.

Yoou can't get around it DHK. Tradition recognized Scripture.

Ron

 

You gave what to me? Carson's "exact words" but you can't remember what thread?

At the thread which you linked, I saw nothing from Carson "attacking" or "denying" 2 Peter. Why don't you point out the actual offending words?

What I "deny" is accepting spurious accusations against another with out proof. Shame on you.

Ron

 

Actually, the NKJV reads, "And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,".

That seems to support my understanding of the verse. The eye witness account is to give support to the prophecy not to down play tradition.

Frankly, I don't see how the eye witness account of the Transfiguration would be called "tradition" anyway.

Were there already circulating stories about it among the Jews of that day that were accepted as true based on the oral telling? I very much doubt it.

What would the "tradition" then be by your understanding?

Ron

 

Originally posted by Carson...

Yet, you accept 2 Peter as canonical. You received the Bible from the Catholic Church. Catholic bishops decided to include 2 Peter in the canon of the New Testament and it has been a part of the Church's canon ever since. With the advent of Protestantism, the canon is retained (based as it is on the authority of the bishops), and thus, you regard 2 Peter as Scripture.

Hi Curtis,

You wrote, "I accept 2 Peter as scripture simply because it's right after 1 Peter in my KJV. I completely trust that version, I stake my very salvation upon the words I have read between it's covers. Sound's narrow minded, but that's how much I trust God in preserving his word for me."

All I can say is "Wow". What you have just said, Curtis, represents fundamentalism at its core, and it's a system that I find quite antithetical to the God-given faculty of reason.

your bro in Christ,

Carson

Hi DHK,

Your post, "If Brown died believing Catholicism rather than Christ, that is truly unfortunate." is not only uncharitable, but untrue. I hope and pray that you will learn to treat disciples of Christ that devote their entire lives to his Holy Writ with more respect and charity.

If your scholarship is so liberal as to believe that Peter did not write his own epistles (or at least dictate them)

That is to assume that Peter wrote 2 Peter to begin with.

Perhaps that is the reason you would not have the Scripture as your final authority. You really don't believe it is authoritative.

How would my holding to the pseudoauthorship of 2 Peter be the cause of my rejection of this epistle as authoritative? Also, one can regard Scripture as authoritative while also not holding Scripture as one's final authority. To disallow for this distinction would be to impose your Protestant categories upon Catholics.

God bless,

Carson

 

Curtis, I still don't see it. Exactly where, in the post above, does Carson deny that 2 Peter is Scripture?

Ron

 

I guess we have differing meanings of the word deny, eh ?

The last sentence, he denies it as authorative. What else do you need ?

 

Context, Curtis, context.

Carson was responding to a specific line of reasoning. Copied below for you.

DHK's(?) reasoning:
"Perhaps that is the reason you would not have the Scripture as your final authority. You really don't believe it is authoritative."

Carson's response to that reasoning:
"How would my holding to the pseudoauthorship of 2 Peter be the cause of my rejection of this epistle as authoritative?"

Carson is not saying 2Peter is not authoratative, but is asking for clarification on DHK's(?) line of reasoning.

Critical thinking skills, Curtis, critical thinking skills!

 

No, DHK, I am saying that your list of "qualifications" as to what is and is not Scripture was drawn up with the benefit of hindsight and that none of those qualifications can be found in Scripture itself.

Your list of qualifications for Scripture are all "traditions". There is no instruction in Scripture that tells us what is and is not Scripture.

For example: OT must have been written by a Prophet. Ok, until it was written, who knew who was or was not a prophet?

You now know that the authors were all prophets because they wrote down the prophecies that came true.

Ron

 

Have a nice Turkey day, Ron.

 

kai = and

ekomen = we are holding, possessing, or regarding

bebaioteron = more reliable, firm, well-founded, confirmed, verified, or effective

ton = the

prophatikon = prophetic

logon = word

Put it together and it says "We are holding or regarding as more reliable/confirmed/etc. the prophetic word". In my opinion, the KJV/NKJV/ESV more accurately reflect what Peter is saying. He holds the prophetic word to be more reliable that the things he saw with his own eyes and he commends it to the believers as such in the following verses. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Did you start with the original Greek, or did you start with the KJV and work backwards to the Greek.

It makes a big difference. I find it hard to believe that all those other versions came to such different wording than the KVJ if they were working from the same Greek words.

I suspect that you started at the KJV online and then asked for the underlying Greek. Of course, doing it that way would get you Greek words to support the KJV translation but not much in the way of support of your interpretation of "Scripture over tradition".

Ron

 

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

Acts 16:10 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.

Romans 1:15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
Romans 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

Romans 15:20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation:

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

1 Corinthians 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

1 Corinthians 9:16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!

1 Corinthians 9:18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

2 Corinthians 10:16 To preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man's line of things made ready to our hand.

Seems like the Gospel is commanding us to preach the gospel. No tradition there. Nope. Not one cammand to preach tradition. Not one.

BTW.....Gospel = Scripture.

 

Curtis, how did you get so far off the topic?

Hello, the topic is over here....

The opening post of the thread stated that 2Peter was declaring Scripture to be above tradition.

I don't believe that the 2 Peter 1:19 is saying this but rather we can have a "more sure" belief in the OT prophecies because of the Apostles eye witness to the fullfillment.

Carson made the point that the only way that you know 2Peter to be Scripture is by the tradition of the Church.

Tell me, if not by tradition, how do you know that 2Peter is Scripture? You have no inspired table of contents in your Bible.

DHK talked about a list of qualifications, but those qualifications are by tradition. There is no list of qualifications as to what is or is not Scripture in the Bible.

Ron

 

I know 2 Peter to be scripture, because it comes right after 1 Peter. Page 1455 in my Bible, but I'll be willing to bet that's not the case with you. In said episrle, Peter claims to be the author. I find it a dangerous practice to deny things I have read in my Bible. Maybe he wrote it, maybe he didn't, but it appears to me that God is fine with me accepting Peter as the author, or he wouldn't have preserved that way in the book.

JMHO.

The topic is scripture above tradition. The verses I posted support scripture above tradition.

 

OOPSIE!!!!!

[ November 27, 2002, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Bro. Curtis ]

 

If I gave you an original 1611 KJV, would you accept the Deutroconanicals as Scripture because it is included?

"Maybe he wrote it, maybe he didn't..

Now you are saying that 2 Peter may not be Scripture, if you follow the same standard that you and DHK set for Carson.

Uhhh... no. What you did was post verses that didn't come anywhere near talking about tradition, let alone it's relationship to Scripture.

Ron

[ November 27, 2002, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

I dont see Rome within 5000 miles of this verse. Catholic means universal " by the authority" of the "universal CHristian Church" which is made up of beleivers indwelt by the Holy Spirit From all over Europe and Asia and wherever else there may be groups of believers.

Believers were using the Scriptures long before the Roman Church made up any official canon.