You wouldn't be siding with the theologians of your "separated brethren" on this, would you? Oh how I have heard the protests from Rome about being called "Babylon"!!!! And now you are insisting that we call Rome "Babylon?
All kidding aside, though, even the churches of the Reformation and later have their "patriarchs" and "traditional interpretations", but when confronted with the facts of Scripture, those things should give way. Unfortunately, they often do not.
The basic rule of hermeneutical interpretation is that the plain meaning of Scripture is to rule over the imaginative meaning. If it is possible and probable that "Babylon" means "Babylon" then without further consternation, it means "Babylon". Why would this be the only place in the New Testament when a writer had to hide the fact of where he is? Peter was not deceptive. He was just straight-forward. Rome was Rome. Babylon was Babylon, and every Jew knew what Babylon was and where it was.
If Rome was known as Babylon, then why didn't all the "Fathers" refer to the Church of Babylon instead of the Church of Rome? What Peter meant by "Babylon" and what John meant by the term, might be different, as the latter was writing figuratively.
Again, another argument from silence. You seem to have a thought pattern that makes frequent use of and gives great weight to arguments from silence. A review of the basic informal fallacies might be helpful to you.
-A8
. . . even the churches of the Reformation and later have their "patriarchs" and "traditional interpretations", but when confronted with the facts of Scripture, those things should give way. Unfortunately, they often do not.
And certainly sad that is. And it is far too common, as well.
The basic rule of hermeneutical interpretation is that the plain meaning of Scripture is to rule over the imaginative meaning.
That's what I'm referring to when I speak of extrapolations and inferences. I believe that God made abundantly clear those priority things--virgin birth, substitutionary death on The Cross, The Resurrection etc.
I have a hard time believing that God would fail to make those things clear which are super high priorities to Him as much as many denominations and sects make them out to be as issues of distinction and far too often as issues of "righteousness" and even of making Heaven.
Accordingly I have a bias that where more than one interpretation of Scripture is quite plausible, that it must not be an issue that God would have us grab each other by the throats over--intellectually, or otherwise. In some respects, such Scriptures may even be tests to see who will work for unity regardless of biases about such and who will not. God certainly had the CAPACITY to insure that every last word and phrase in Scripture was abundantly clear to the nth degree beyond argument. He did not do so.
Either He intended as He stated--for Holy Spirit [NOT THE CHURCH, NOT DOCTRINE, NOT THE PRAYER GROUP; NOT THE SEMINARY; NOT THE CHRISTIAN NOVELS; NOT THE CHRISTIAN SELF HELP BOOKS; NOT THE RADIO PREACHERS; NOT PONTIFICAL ENCYCLICALS; NOT GRANDDAD; NOT ONE'S FAVORITE MENTOR] . . . BUT THE HOLY SPIRIT--TO LEAD US INTO ALL SCRIPTURAL TRUTH AS NEEDED in each individual's life.
It is also conceivable that God allowed such fuzziness knowing full well what contentious human beings would do with them--as a test to see whether pride, turf, intellectual arrogance, organizational allegiance, . . . and the like would take priority over HIS COMMAND/DESIRE THAT WE DWELL IN UNITY OF SPIRIT UNDER HIS BLOOD--particularly on the clear essentials and allowing lesser things to be . . . well . . . lesser things.
Getting individuals and Jewish/Christian organizations to major in minors and minor in majors has been a tool of satan since well before the Pharisees.