The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Petra and Petros

Pilgrim,

I have a predisposition to "wailing" it all started ....but thats another story.

First of all "its canonization" does not mean "Peter's canonization". I made the assumption that the people in this forum know that the Scripture was canonized many years after the first century by the Church.

I also made the assumption that with a little thought my logic in claiming that the books I attributed to Peter's apostolic authority and witness could be easily followed.

It goes like this:

1. The logical and systematic canonization of the new testament documents must begin with faith in the words of our Lord in the Gospels of Matthew and John as no man could have said those words excepting the incarnate Christ. I am excepting the Gospels of Luke and Mark as there were many false Gospels that had to be sorted out by the Church.

2. Nowhere in the Gospels is mention made of Paul, but Peter is mentioned and given apostolicity and witness in all four.

3. Paul is given apostolicity and witness by Peter in 2 Peter 3:15,16. And Paul is given this apostolicity nowhere else except by himself and Luke.

4. Only Paul gives witness to the discipleship of Mark and Luke. So, the circle of canonization returns to their Gospels and the book of Acts. This is because Mark and Luke are not even mentioned in their own Gospels other than in title.

So, one may see that without the person and witness of Peter, 18 NT books would cease to exist due to lack of apostolic authenticity. They are as I said, 1 and 2 Peter, the Gospels of Mark and Luke, the book of Acts and all of the Epistle's of Paul. I am not saying that there is not a Spirit inspired confirmation of Holy Scripture but I am saying that there was also logical and systemized confirmation so that there would be no doubt to believers or argument as to authenticity. Except for the RCC and other cults such as the Mormans, is this not true?

The remaining 9 books of Scripture are authenticated by the Gospels with the exception of Hebrews which was once thought by the Church to be authored by Paul but no one really knows. I believe that Hebrews is accepted by the Church because of its overwhelming spiritual and non-contradictory content. (This is a personal and unverifiable guess on my part.)

And now to Peter. This is quoted from the William Webster Essay, "The Papacy and the "Rock" of Matthew 16".

"Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff sums up the Orthodox point of view throughout the middle ages in these comments:

'Orthodox ecclesiastical writers were never ashamed of praising the "coryphaeus" and of recognizing his pre-eminent function in the very foundation of the Church. They simply did not consider this praise and recognition as relevant in any way to the papal claims, since any bishop, and not only the pope, derives his ministry from the ministry of Peter...It belongs to the essence of Orthodox ecclesiology to consider any bishop to be the teacher of his flock and therefore to fulfil sacramentally through the apostolic succession, the office OF THE FIRST TRUE BELIEVER, Peter.'"

Not that I am Orthodox or even close to it, but it is not hard to see that not only here but in many places and again, Peter WAS considered to be "special" by the patristic Church. This is not because of his person or that he was any better than any other Christian but the unique providential position as the first confessor of "Jesus is the Christ".

Now, I still believe that Peter was blessed by the Lord in an unique way to his eternal honor in his providential presentation of Scripture and witness to the Church. To me, this was done by the Lord when He related with wordplay Peter's name to His own and the propositional Scripture and published Gospel that was soon to follow. You may disagree but it does not give you the right to say that I am waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of line or that I need to "polish my theory" as if I had just denied the Lord.

Denny

Roms 3:22-24