2 Peter 3:16 Protestant interpretaion?

[catsrus]

originally posted by joshua_b
Correction…that was the only SACRED Scripture available to anyone at that time. Once again…ANYTHING written down was a “scripture”. Who is to say that the author isn’t referring to items outside of what we consider to be Canonical ?

Talk about nit picking…
Okay, SACRED scripture.
The point is still that there was NO OTHER SACRED scripture to be reffered to at that time except the SACRED Hebrew writings
As to your question about reference, that is not even logical.

 

[sandusky]

catsrus:

Talk about nit picking…

What???

catsrus:

Okay, SACRED scripture.
The point is still that there was NO OTHER SACRED scripture to be reffered to at that time except the SACRED Hebrew writings

You continue carping the confirmation from your own Catholic Encyclopedia that Peter referred to Paul’s writings as scripture.
carsrus:

As to your question about reference, that is not even logical.

What question are you quibbling over?

 

[sandusky]

jam707406:

yes. the taught being the magisterium. the untaught being those that find proper interpretation from the magisterium.

I see.

jam070406:

i’m implying that there are those that believe it still works today and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. then there are those, such as yourself, that rebel against the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church by denying it’s authority to teach and interpret scripture.

I don’t deny its authority to teach and interpret scripture. After all, your church is its own country.

jam070406:

they now believe they can interpret on their own, thanks to the reformers.

There are two sides to every story.

 

[catsrus]

Sandusky, since you want to name call - I’m a carper and a quibbler - nothing you have to say on this subject, or any other is of any further interest to me.
How sad that you must descend to labeling those with whom you disagree.

 

[sandusky]

Sandusky, since you want to name call - I’m a carper and a quibbler - nothing you have to say on this subject, or any other is of any further interest to me.
How sad that you must descend to labeling those with whom you disagree.

Just having fun with your nit-picking quote.

Perhaps I should have put this:

Better?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

That Peter considered Paul’s letters to be scriptures.

**

16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures**, unto their own destruction.

But I thought the early church had no new testament until the catholic church canonized it in the 300/400’s?

Thanks for posting this.

Notice who is doing the canonizing of Scripture here…the Pope!

 

[ABostonCatholic]

What does your presently moot speculation have to do with the present reality that we presently have in our possession all of the only know copies of Paul’s epistles? For that matter, what does it have to do with anything?

There is nothing moot about the point I made. There are places in Pauls writing (1 Cor. 5:8, Col. 4:16) where it seems POSSIBLE that there are other writings of Pauls that have been lost. If it is POSSIBLE that there were lost writings, then it is POSSIBLE that such writings be found.

My question was, if this POSSIBILITY should become ACTUAL, would you immediately accept it as scripture, since you interpreted Peter to mean that ALL of Paul’s writings are inspired (including any possible lost epistles).

Got news for you, what the writers of scripture wrote, is orthodoxy.

What do you not understand about the canonization process? Certainly the writers of the canonical scriptures are writing orthodoxy. What the Church Fathers did during their deliberations was look at the texts they have, for instance, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas, and Judas, and decided which ones were orthodox based off of the faith which has been passed down to them. The first four were accepted while the latter two were not. They tested the PROPOSED scriptures for orthodoxy based on something which must necessarily be outside of that very scripture.

 

[apophasis]

Paul’s letters were not sacred scripture at that time.

Paul’s letters were sacred Scripture the very moment they were penned.

prove to us Peter thought Paul’s letter was Sacred scripture.

I think Peter does a fine job of that himself right there in verse sixteen.

and another thing, Paul writes that he only wrote because he couldn’t be there in person. so if he had gone in person perhaps a letter would not have been written. therefore we would have to rely further on oral Tradition preserved by the church.

And the point of this hypothesis is what?

 

[apophasis]

ABostonCatholic:

There is nothing moot about the point I made. There are places in Pauls writing (1 Cor. 5:8, Col. 4:16) where it seems POSSIBLE that there are other writings of Pauls that have been lost. If it is POSSIBLE that there were lost writings, then it is POSSIBLE that such writings be found.

My question was, if this POSSIBILITY should become ACTUAL, would you immediately accept it as scripture, since you interpreted Peter to mean that ALL of Paul’s writings are inspired (including any possible lost epistles).

The Colossians passage merely speaks about a letter in circulation coming from Laodicea. It does not necessarily mean Paul wrote a letter to Laodicea which was lost to us. His letters were circulated amongst the churches and the one coming to the Colossians could very well have been his letter we call to the Ephesians.

As for 1 Cor. 5:8, it is possible Paul did write a previous letter to the Corinthian church but this one superseded it since the previous one was misunderstood and Paul explains himself in this present letter; and no doubt this one was inspired (theopneustos, “God-breathed”) by the Holy Spirit. It’s not just the fact that Paul wrote something that made it Scripture, but that it was theopneustos (2 Tim. 3:16).

It is possible that there was a discarded letter superseded by another, but there are no “lost” Scriptures. Unless you happen think that God is incompetent since He Himself said: “I am watching over My Word to perform it” (Jer. 1:12).

 

[sandusky]

ABostonCatholic:

There is nothing moot about the point I made. There are places in Pauls writing (1 Cor. 5:8, Col. 4:16) where it seems POSSIBLE that there are other writings of Pauls that have been lost. If it is POSSIBLE that there were lost writings, then it is POSSIBLE that such writings be found.

Unless, or until what you speak of comes to pass, the speculation is an academic exercise that is moot.

ABostonCatholic:

My question was, if this POSSIBILITY should become ACTUAL, would you immediately accept it as scripture, since you interpreted Peter to mean that ALL of Paul’s writings are inspired (including any possible lost epistles).

It took almost 1600 years for the first infallible definition of the canon, if your speculation came to pass, and I doubt that it will, it would probably take another 1600 years to determine the authenticity of the find; I will certainly be at rest with the Lord by then.

ABostonCatholic:

What do you not understand about the canonization process?

My statement that what the writers of scripture wrote is orthodoxy was in response to two statements made by you:

BTW-Peter’s assumption is that SOME letters of Paul are inspired, not that ALL of them are, and certainly we don’t know WHICH ones are. The Church would decide that much later on.

Keep in mind, too, that one of the tests for a book to be in the canon was theological orthodoxy, which necessarily implies that there be a standard outside of scripture itself.

Catholics maintain that the NT church is the Catholic Church. That being the Catholic position, Peter was speaking to the Catholic church in that epistle, and He was doing so as the Pope; therefore, Peter was not assuming that some of Paul’s letters were inspired; rather, Peter was declaring, as the Pope, that all of Paul’s letters are scripture. As a Catholic, you should know that.

Now you may argue that He wasn’t speaking ex cathedra; however, he was speaking inspired scripture which is far better than speaking ex cathedra.

Do you better understand my statement concerning orthodoxy now?

The canonization process has nothing to do with Peter’s statements in 2 Pet 3, but with the fact that Pope Peter declared that the NT writers knew that they were writing scripture; therefore, the NT church knew that it had NT scripture; how else would they know to preserve it?

 

[ABostonCatholic]

It took almost 1600 years for the first infallible definition of the canon, if your speculation came to pass

That is not true. The Synod of Hippo in 393 affirmed the New Testament cannon and it has been affirmed since then. The fact that it wasn’t declared by an ecumenical council is irrelevant, since these councils typically respond only to error and clearly define what is already accepted as true.

The canonization process has nothing to do with Peter’s statements in 2 Pet 3, but with the fact that Pope Peter declared that the NT writers knew that they were writing scripture; therefore, the NT church knew that it had NT scripture; how else would they know to preserve it?

Certainly they knew they were inspired by God. My point is that it is an incorred and potentially dangerous step to say that Peter thought that all of Pauls letters were inspired, rather than just some or even most If lost letters of Paul are ever found, there will be people who argue that they should be included as scripture. If the position you described above is the dominant one, then new scripture, at least by Protestants, might be added. That makes my point far from moot. We need not wait for such writings to be found before we can legitimately speculate about what we should do.