2 Peter 1

[josephdavid]

Can anyone help me understand this verse in 2 Peter Chapter 1.

A protestant says this shows that Peter did not leave a successor.

1:15. And I will endeavour that you frequently have after my decease whereby you may keep a memory of these things.

To me it makes it clear that Peter is handing down tradition and his teachings?

 

[mike182d]

Peter clearly appoints a successor to Judas in the book of Acts: Matthias. So, Apostolic succession does exist. The question is, if Peter could appoint a successor to another Apostle, why would he/could he not appoint a successor to himself?

Reason and history tend to be on the side of the Church on this one.

 

[jaz1976]

I think that if you look at the entire passage, St Peter is saying that he is about to die just as Jesus had shown him. He knows this, but wants the flock to understand that his (St Peters) teachings will be kept alive and handed on.

There are only 2 posibilities that seem logical here:

1. St Peter writes them all down and makes copies for everyone so that they can read it for themselves and interpret them for themselves. This is what protestants would believe and is completely false. Peter did not write down ALL of the Deposits of Faith.
2. Peter will have a successor, who will have a successor, who will have a successor, etc, etc, etc… to ensure that the teachings and authority will prevail. This is the Catholic view and as history shows us is what happened.

So, we see just by what happened next what Peter really meant.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

2 Peter 1

12Therefore I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. 13I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder, 14since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. 15And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.
16For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

IMHO, All the text says is Peter will find a way to remind one to add the qualities to their life that is discussed in the first part of the chapter. It does not say exactly how he is going to do this. So, I take the text to mean, Peter will use every means at his disposual, apointing qualified teachers, writing this leter that we are reading, and his personal preaching while he is still here on earth. The text is not ecusive to any one means, but includes any means one can think of that Peter did do.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

On second thought, one need only look at the nature of the epistle in Peter’s day to get the answer. A letter was written to a church body, it was read and expounded on by the pastor of that church which recieved and read the letter to the members of the assembly. In his letter, Peter wrote about those qualities that he is to remind us about.

duh!!!

 

[RyanL]

Daniel Marsh:

On second thought, one need only look at the nature of the epistle in Peter’s day to get the answer. A letter was written to a church body, it was read and expounded on by the pastor of that church which recieved and read the letter to the members of the assembly. In his letter, Peter wrote about those qualities that he is to remind us about.

duh!!!

Perhaps…but what about the word ‘always’? How did St. Peter ensure that this would ‘always’ be the case?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I don’t see the word “always” in the text.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Daniel Marsh:

I don’t see the word “always” in the text.

It isn’t - but the Church claim is that he had successors ever since; and the Church is not meant to contradict the Bible. They are meant to confirm one another without disagreeing.​

It’s not all certain that he had an individual successor, in the more familiar fashion - and only dogma, not historical evidence, positively requires one to believe he did. The early episcopate at Rome may have been a combination of what we would now call presbyterian with episcopal Church government, one of the elders being the episcopos. But the manner in which church government grew up is a whole topic by itself. On this theory, Clement of Rome would have been “first among equals” in the body of “presbyters” (= “elders” = “priests”) in the Roman Church. The topic is very hard to discuss, because so many of these words have overtones and associations - they are “loaded” Unsurprisingly, this topic is much discussed among ecumenists

And, the passage does not imply that he was to have successors century after century - that is an assumption based our knowing that men have asserted a claim to be his successors; but our knowing of the long period between him and us, does not allow us to assume that he had any idea that there would be such a period.We know that succession to him was claimed - that does not mean that we can suppose that he knew what we know: it’s important not to make him into a 20th century Catholic Pope, because he was none of those things; and the claim that the Roman Popes are each in turn legitimate successors to him does not imply that he was. ##

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

oh always is in the NIV translation.

I think Peter was writing to a specific group that was alive in his lifetime. and that this text has that limited scope, thus his reminder of these things are in person by way of this letter where he wrote about such in this very letter.

Basically, it boils down to whom is the you peter is writing to, is he writing to a specific group that was alive in his time or is he writing to all christians of all time?

I think the scope is more likely limited to those alive at the time that the letter was written to.

 

[RyanL]

Daniel Marsh:

oh always is in the NIV translation.

Yes, “always” was the forth word in the passage you quoted.

I think Peter was writing to a specific group that was alive in his lifetime. and that this text has that limited scope, thus his reminder of these things are in person by way of this letter where he wrote about such in this very letter.

Basically, it boils down to whom is the you peter is writing to, is he writing to a specific group that was alive in his time or is he writing to all christians of all time?

I think the scope is more likely limited to those alive at the time that the letter was written to.

 

[RyanL]

Daniel Marsh:

oh always is in the NIV translation.

Yes, “always” was the forth word in the passage as *you *quoted it.

I think Peter was writing to a specific group that was alive in his lifetime.

I have bolded the part which makes me question everything else you have to say (in this post and all others, quite frankly).

and that this text has that limited scope, thus his reminder of these things are in person by way of this letter where he wrote about such in this very letter.

“I am writing you a letter and in my letter I will tell you that this letter is the letter which I have written so that you may read my letter.” ?!? Do you see why this is a ridiculous position? Let me illustrate through history: Peter writes a letter and says that he will do something to make sure they will “always” be reminded of his teachings. Furthermore, Peter writes this on his way to be martyred. Peter knows he’s on his way to be martyred. Now, you seriously want us to believe that Peter’s last act is to say he will do something to ensure his teachings will “always” be remembered, but that something he will do is something that he’s already done? Do you now understand how this is absurd interpretation, especially when read in light of Peter’s actions in Acts 1?

Basically, it boils down to whom is the you peter is writing to, is he writing to a specific group that was alive in his time or is he writing to all christians of all time?

Either way; both were to survive Peter by a numbr of years and he knew it.

I think the scope is more likely limited to those alive at the time that the letter was written to.

There’s that phrase again. At its root is the presumption that the Truth cannot be absolutely known, which is a presumption to be rejected by anyone who believes in Divine Revelation. It is creeping relativism, and asserts that everyone is entitled to their own interpretation and no interpretation can be valued more than any other (or even if some can be rejected, no interpretation can be infallible). This is the “wandering in the desert” which Christ came to lead us out of - do you think that He (or Peter for that matter) would lead us back into the wilderness again?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[buzzcut]

The verse from Peter (“I will endeavour …”) isn’t specific about how this would be done.

It has to be read in conjunction with Irenaeus, writing in the second century, who says (Adversus Haereses, Book III, Chapter 3):

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi Ryan, are you denying that “you think”?

And, what I said makes perfect sense in context.

And, what does someone who wrote years after Peter have to do with the plain sense of what peter wrote? It is a question of what Peter’s audience understood Peter to be saying, not what we all, including the church fathers understood him to be saying years after the fact.

 

[RyanL]

Daniel Marsh:

Hi Ryan, are you denying that “you think”?

I’m denying the logical fallacy that there is no better interpretation than whatever it may be that I happen to think at any given moment. This is error of modern Protestant thought, and it is an error for which you seem to have a particular penchant.

And, what I said makes perfect sense in context.

No it doesn’t. See how easy it is to make an assertion and not back it up? I’ve explained why you’re logically wrong, buzzcut explained why you’re historically wrong, and yet you don’t feel the need to justify your position. See my point about errors above.

It is a question of what Peter’s audience understood Peter to be saying, not what we all, including the church fathers understood him to be saying years after the fact.

I agree that we must consider what point the author of any given epistle is trying to convey and the context in which he was writing. However, assuming that Peter was writing exclusively to the adults who were already confirmed in their faith (an extremely generous concession on my part), this particular grammatical construction still makes no sense. See my previous post.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Angainor]

mike182d:

Peter clearly appoints a successor to Judas in the book of Acts: Matthias. So, Apostolic succession does exist. The question is, if Peter could appoint a successor to another Apostle, why would he/could he not appoint a successor to himself?

I don’t see any reason why he couldn’t. Unless there was no one left around like Matthias who had “been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us.” Acts 1:21-22

If Barsabbas was still around they could have appointed him successor.

 

[tjmiller]

Just because St. Peter says that people should remember his teachings after he is gone, does not mean that he did not appoint someone to take over his job after the selfsame decease.