Replies

>Peter's point is that a person can't sit down, read the Bible, and authoritatively make a truthful claim of his or her own on any divine revelation contained therein.<

I am sure you read that some where or heard it said but that is not consistant with the entire passage.

2Pe 1:12 Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know [them], and be established in the present truth.

2Pe 1:13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting [you] in remembrance;

2Pe 1:14 Knowing that shortly I must put off [this] my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.

Peter is expressing his concern that they will continue to have the truths he has given them after his death.

2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

2Pe 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

2Pe 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

Here Peter says they have not made up the truths as some fable but he was one of the few people that actually heard the audible voice of God.

2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; where unto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Here he says scripture (word of prophecy) is more sure than a voice from heaven.He then continues to endorse the importance of scripture in the verses you contested.

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.(origin)

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

It is interesting that Peter proceeds in the next 2 chapters to warn against false teachers and their "destructive words".He finishes the epistle by again stressing the value of scripture.

2Pe 3:15 And account [that] the long suffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

2Pe 3:16 As 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.

Their can be no doubt that Peter taught the supremacy of scriptures and considered them to be God's word.(God Breathed)

Their can be no doubt that Peter taught the supremacy

The supremacy of which Sciptures? At the time those letters were written, there were about 40 gospels floating around the community. It was the Catholic Church, several hundred years later, that authoritatively deemed what we have now as the "official" New Testament canon.

If you're going to be technical, the only true Scriptures officially recognized by the very early Church was the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e. whenever Jesus says "so that the Scriptures may be fulfilled," He's not talking about the Bible but the Torah). So, if you want to be "Scripture-only" you might as well disregard the whole of the New Testament and refer only to the true Scriptures, as recognized by the first Christians.

Do Protestants honestly believe that the Bible we have always existed in the form it does today? I suggest reading some history books.

I am sure you read that some where or heard it said but that is not consistant with the entire passage.

I am sure you have read this somewhere that the Bible is the supreme authority, but this exalted "truth" of sola scriptura is not consistent with Christian theology for 1000+ years.

Here's a quote from Irenaeus dated 189 A.D.:
"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (Against Heresies, 3:4:1).

Or Origin, dated 225 A.D.:
"Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2).

And this is a good one from Epiphanius of Salamis, dated 375 A.D.:
"It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6).

And some from my favorite Saint, Augustine:
"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

"But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation" (ibid., 5:26[37]).

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

Now, do you mean to tell me that you understand more about Christian theology and the importance of Apostolic authority than the whole of the Christian Church for over 1000 years? Does your opinion trump theirs?