The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Petra and Petros

I'm afraid that I've been thinking (some will say speculating) about Scripture again.

Anyway, my thoughts have led me to ask a question anew. Could the Church and the Reformers, in rightfully rejecting the RCC claim of Peter's apostolic succession in Matthew 16:17-19, have thrown the baby out with the bath water?

Or, to ask this in another way: Was there a unique and very special blessing, other than the affirmation of his elected faith in the Son of God, bestowed upon Peter by our Lord? I've come to believe that there was, and the blessing has to do with the word of God in Scripture and its canonization.

One does not have to go far in studying the canonization of the New Testament documents before discovering that apostolic witness and authority plays the major role. (among many other tests)

What we find is witness to the apostolate of Peter by the Gospels of Matthew and John. The only witness to the apostolicity of Paul, other than Paul himself, is found in 2 Peter 3:15,16. Paul in turn witnesses to the discipleship of Mark and Luke.

It follows then, that Peter is given by the Spirit of God witness, authorship or apostolic authority for fully 18 of the 27 New Testament books. They are, 1 and 2 Peter, the Gospels of Mark and Luke, the book of Acts and all of the Pauline Epistles! No one can deny that this is an unprecedented blessing, as Peter was given a unique and unspeakable, eternal honor in the participation and presentation of the majority of New Testament Scripture and gift of God's Holy Word to the Church.

Does this make sense to anyone, or am I way out of bounds here?

Denny

Roms 3:22-24

Sorry, but I think you are Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of bounds here. First of all, there is no good argument to be found that Peter was singled out among the Apostles as one who was to be given special privilege, authority, knowledge, abilities, etc.

See these articles:
The Papacy and the ‘Rock’ of Matthew 16
The Church Fathers' Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18

Secondly... Peter was long dead before the Canon was officially recognized by the Church. It is accepted that the last living Apostle was John, not Peter. Thus if anyone could have been instrumental in gathering together, or whatever you are proposing, the writings of the Apostles, etc., it would have been him. But I seriously doubt he had the means or ability to do any such thing.

Lastly, in regard to "It follows then, that Peter is given by the Spirit of God witness, authorship or apostolic authority for fully 18 of the 27 New Testament books." . . . your conclusion is illogical! It simply does not "follow" your premise whatsoever. What does the alleged "witness of Peter's apostolate" found in the Bible have to do with him being given a special office and/or task to form the Canon of Scripture? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> Even a little disturbing is your remark that the only mention of Paul's apostolate is Paul himself... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/jawdrop.gif" alt="" /> What happened to divine inspiration? Paul was the instrument used by the Holy Spirit in the writing of those letters he wrote, some of which he had a scribe do the actual writing. Further, it is Peter who also by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, elevates and recognizes the writings of Paul as being "Scripture"; equal to and to be esteemed among the other inspired books, which was evidently the predominant view in the churches already at that time. And a little bit of Bible trivia to be thrown in here.... it is Luke, not Paul, Peter, John nor any other who wrote the majority of the New Testament.

My advice? I wouldn't spend any more time trying to develop your theory. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Well I'll add to what Pilgrim said since he got his lick in first.

I don't know. He might as well have been saying "I name you Peter--because your head is as hard as a rock!" About three or four verses later he's calling him Satan because Peter tries to divert him from the cross. Not to mention the fishing trip after Jesus' crucifixion. He was actually rebuked by Paul too because of his playing favorites with the Jews. He was a good guy well used by the Lord at Pentecost, but I can't see any special blessing. The "you" Jesus is using where he says "I'll give you the keys, etc..." sounds more like you all.

And yeah, if anyone had a special blessing it was John, but Jesus rather pointedly told Peter that it wasn't his concern. I'll give that a yessir and move on...

When I read it looks to me that Jesus is merely renaming him because of his confession--the first, if I'm not mistaken--and that the confession will be the foundation of the church not Peter. Plus, if there was any special blessing by the Lord you'd have thought that ALL the other apostles would have been "blessed" by him.

Paul didn't seem to see any special need to go to Jerusalem for Peter's approval. I can't remember how long it took him to get over there but it was a good while and not until he was heading that way on other business. So nope, it looks like the baby's safe and perhaps we were really tossing out the chamber pot.

There you go, two bits and change.

Many of these issues have been discussed before here: Luther on Baptism (yes, it is the right thread, we just went a wee bit off-topic for a while). <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Pilgrim,

I am more than willing to hear criticism, especially from someone I respect as much as you. But---please do not read into what I wrote, what I did not say.

I have already read the articles you suggested and more concerning the "Rock" of Matthew. What I suggested was that some may have overlooked something in the Lord's blessing to Peter. The authors are interested only in correctly refuting the RCC's claim of Peter's "chair".

Where on mother earth did I say: Peter put the canon together?

I do not believe I need Scriptural authority to say that those who wrote it under the Spirit's inspiration are blessed and that it would be an "unspeakable honor".

Are you suggesting that the 27 books of the New Testament somehow ended up upon our shelves without systematic and logical thought by the Church? (Yes, years later) And this being Spirit inspired thought in the main concerning apostolic authority and witness?

Further, I do not believe you even completely read my post because this is what you said:

"further, it is Peter who also by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit elevates and recognizes the writings of Paul as being Scripture ..."

Please read my post again and tell me that that is not EXACTLY what I said. I also said that the only mention of Paul's apostolate, outside of Paul and Luke, is Peter.

I'm sorry but I believe you have flown off the handle by speedreading my post and jumping to conclusions that I did not write, nor would even consider. You considered this to be rude in another post and I do in this one.

Denny

Roms 3:22-24

Sorry, but below is where I concluded that is what you meant. If I have read you wrong, accept my apologies. But it seemed and still does that is the meaning of your words.

Or, to ask this in another way: Was there a unique and very special blessing, other than the affirmation of his elected faith in the Son of God, bestowed upon Peter by our Lord? I've come to believe that there was, and the blessing has to do with the word of God in Scripture and its canonization.

One does not have to go far in studying the canonization of the New Testament documents before discovering that apostolic witness and authority plays the major role. (among many other tests)

What we find is witness to the apostolate of Peter by the Gospels of Matthew and John. The only witness to the apostolicity of Paul, other than Paul himself, is found in 2 Peter 3:15,16. Paul in turn witnesses to the discipleship of Mark and Luke.

It follows then, that Peter is given by the Spirit of God witness, authorship or apostolic authority for fully 18 of the 27 New Testament books. They are, 1 and 2 Peter, the Gospels of Mark and Luke, the book of Acts and all of the Pauline Epistles! No one can deny that this is an unprecedented blessing, as Peter was given a unique and unspeakable, eternal honor in the participation and presentation of the majority of New Testament Scripture and gift of God's Holy Word to the Church.

Secondly, with regard to the "authorship or apostolic authority for fully 18 of the 27 New Testament books" being attributed to Peter, this simply isn't factual. Peter wrote only 2 letters of the N.T. He is not given any "apostolic authority" for anything else. But at the risk of being accused of misconstruing what you wrote, can you explain in detail what YOU mean by "apostolic authority for" these 18 books? In fact where is any Apostle given "authority for" anything they wrote? Further, it was the Apostle Paul who is highlighted as being the most prolific evangelist of the Gospel of Christ; not Peter. So the honor of having a "unique and unspeakable, eternal honor in the . . . presentation . . . of the Scripture" belongs to Paul. And the other honor of which you speak of, i.e., the "participation of the N.T.", actually belongs to Luke, who wrote more of the N.T. than all the other authors combined. Lastly, it would appear that Peter's ministry was mostly with regard to the Jews, but Paul's ministry encompassed both Gentiles and Jews, and over an incredible amount of territory.

Conclusion... once again, I simply cannot find any evidence to support your claim(s). And, I find no biblical warrant to single out Peter as one who received a special blessing over any of the other Apostles.

In His Grace,

I read somewhere (might have been James White) that if anyone was the leader among the Apostles it was James not Peter.

Tom

Acts 15 would be supportive of that idea. Perhaps it was decided among the Apostles with a good prompting from the Holy Spirit, that Peter had better preaching skills and thus was chosen to preach during the Pentecost celebration? But James was gifted with better administration skills? Whatever the human reason(s) might have been, it was the Spirit's choice of who should function as they did. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> However, one thing seems certain, that Peter is not said to have been one who stood out among the Apostles in any overt way. He was simply a faithful servant who lived and died with an unshakable love for Christ and the desire that the Gospel go out to all who would hear.

In His Grace,

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

Well, in my case, your assumption was wrong... your argument doesn't follow logic. Perhaps someone with a little more time can detail how this is true.

Secondly, I really don't care for your bifurcation of the book of Acts from the Gospel of Luke, since the author himself says it was a continuation of his Gospel. Thus the attestation of Paul's apostolic appointment, authority and inspiration is fully established far more than any other Apostle, since again, let me remind you that it is Luke who penned the majority of the New Testament.

Luke 1:1-4 (ASV) "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed."

Acts 1:1-5 (ASV) "The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, until the day in which he was received up, after that he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom he also showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing unto them by the space of forty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God: and, being assembled together with them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, [said he], ye heard from me: For John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.

Thirdly, the authenticity and eventual Canonization of the Bible is incontrovertibly not based upon the testimony of Peter, to which you think otherwise it seems. I would encourage you to study further on just what criteria was used by the Church to finalize the Canon. And let me once again point out that the council which deliberated on Canon did not "create" the Canon but simply put an imprimatur upon those writings, with few exceptions, which had been already accepted as inspired for many years beforehand.

You certainly can believe what you want, but that doesn't mean that it is cogent nor believable by anyone else. Unless you can show from Scripture that your "discovery" is defensible from the Scripture, you really shouldn't expect anyone to accept it. And finally, as to your emotional objection to my referring to your "theory" as being "waaaaaaaaay out there", I did so at your own personal invitation:

Does this make sense to anyone, or am I way out of bounds here?

Hey! you asked.

In His Grace,

Are you serious? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> I beg to differ with you. Isn't Paul in fact the one who has written most of the New Testament? He's credited with 13 books not counting Hebrews. Other than the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts what else has Luke written?

In fact I think Paul and John both have written more books than Luke. John has written 5 books.


Wes <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

Wes,

I am dead serious. Just take a count of the number of chapters and verses and also how long some of those chapters are. You will obviously be amazed at how much material is contained in the Gospel of Luke and Acts. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Oh, and in case you are wondering, this is not something original with me.... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/nope.gif" alt="" />

So you are measuring Luke writings by the number of verses and actual words rather than by chapters or books! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> Well, that's a different sort of measurement and you may be right but I'm still sort of skeptical.

When I have sufficient time I'll have to check that out for myself.


Wes

Example..... You write 8 letters consisting of 6 chapters each. I write 2 letters consisting of 28 chapters each. Your chapters average 20 verses and my chapters average 60 verses. Would you say you wrote more than me? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Yes, do check it out on a word-for-word basis. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

Luke = 1149 verses
Acts = 1006 verses

GRAND TOTAL = 2155 verses

Edited: added the number of verses total for Luke and Acts

Luke wrote the most. See attachment. Also see NT Stats This is easier than bean counting.