Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
You have to read more, and then some...1 Peter (80-110 AD)
God's love is passion that warms and purifies those who love Him, and burns those who hate Him. But it's still love. God is love and God doesn't change.
I’m willing to do so. But I feel that my . . . spiritual sabbatical from significant public posting on the religion forum is to be for some days more, yet.
Thanks for asking. If I forget, You are welcome to remind me.
What we mean by one church is not what you think we mean by one church.
For us ex opere operato is precisely an affirmation of grace made available without merit, while going after congregations which are more congenial or similar to one's own thinking, seems to be an insistence on at least right thinking, right preaching, all of which strike me, at least, as works.
It's good piece. I used pretty much to think what he says. But here's his error, or one of 'em:
For if you identify the true Church with one visible communion, then no matter how corrupt the institutional Church becomes, you are committed to that system.He doesn't understand our teaching of one church of whom all who are baptized with water in the name of the Trinity are in some sense members. The identification is not as he says it is. What we identify with "one visible communion" (in his words) is full access to all the assured means of grace. That does NOT indicate that God limits the His grace to these means. Rather, we are promised that God's graces are made available to us AT LEAST and ASSUREDLY through these means.
I have already referred to this line of thought in some posts responding to issues raised about the necessity of Baptism.
I think Mr. Hayes makes all the usual generalizations about the sex scandal which overstate the complicity of the Church leadership as a whole, suggests a misunderstanding of what "magisterium" is, minimizes the contribution of people in Quix's profession who , on the basis of a mistaken understanding of the problem counselled Bishops to hush the thing up and move the clergy around. There's not much point into going into that on this topic.
But the main thing is, I think, the misunderstanding about the relationship between "the True Church" and "one visible Communion".
And I think Pope St. Pius V or John XXIII would disagree that the Church was "beyond reform".
WE have such profound differences that our "plain meanings" radically differ and certainly our ecclesiology is not well understood and nothing like what many seem to think it is.
Sources?
“You have to read more, and then some...1 Peter (80-110 AD)”
Even the early church fathers and those of the first century agreed that Peter wrote the Epistle. It was not written later to compromise, but a letter to churches undergoing severe persecution after Paul’s death, but before Peter’s.
From your own citation.
Donald Guthrie writes: “There has been such widespread assumption that Peter’s epistle is but an echo of Paulinism that it is refreshing to find an increasing tendency to mark the individual contribution of Peter in the field of New Testament theology. There is both an absence of such Pauline doctrines as justification, law, the new Adam, and the flesh, and the presence of highly characteristic methods in Peter’s own presentation, such as his copious use of Old Testament citations and moral codes, his church-consciousness, historic consciousness and Christ-consciousness. Peter’s teaching cannot be systematized into a theological school of thought, but there is enough distinctiveness about it to differentiate it from Paul’s approach. The most notable contribution is the doctrine of Christ’s descent into Hades, which in its focus upon the resurrection of Christ stands in direct relationship to Peter’s emphasis on the resurrection in the early Acts speeches. As an eyewitness of the risen Christ Peter would never forget the profound impression which that stupendous event made upon his mind, and the doctrine of the descent, however obscure it is to modern minds, would surely be more natural as a part of primitive reflection upon the significance of the resurrection than as a later development, or as a peculiar fancy of a pseudonymous author.” (New Testament Introduction)
As I write this, I'm listening to a really very good production of Die Walküre on National People's Radio. It seems Wagner's point was that if you give up beauty and love for safety, it just won't work out.
Where'd you find that?
Libera nos, Domine!
The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit" [Council of Florence, Session 6—6 July 1439]
Good job, Kosta. Seems we believe the same thing, said differently. I think the confusion was over "Theology" vs. "Economy".
Regards,
Joe
Of course they did. It was essential that the Petrine-Pauline rift be overcome once Judaism and Christianity definitely parted ways. Peter was essential because of the Gospels, but he and James the Just were Jews in practice, and Paul was essential in redefining the faith into a Gentile religion.
It was not written later to compromise, but a letter to churches undergoing severe persecution after Paul’s death, but before Peter’s
There was no persecution of Christians in Asia Minor during Peter's lifetime. That began at the end of emperor Domitian's reign (in the 90's of the 1st century). Peter is believed to have died around 65 AD or so. The only persecutions of Christians during +Peter's time was in Rome, yet 1 Peter clearly opens up with a different location:
... now for a little while you may have to suffer various trials...[1 Pet 1:1,6]
From your own citation. Donald Guthrie writes: “There has been such widespread assumption that Peter’s epistle is but an echo of Paulinism that it is refreshing to find an increasing tendency to mark the individual contribution of Peter in the field of New Testament theology...
Of course, there are die-hard apologists among conservative evangelicals. That doesn't mean he is right. For example he says:
What Peter's characteristic presentation? What other works, before 1 Peter, are attributed to Peter (and John) whom the Book of Acts described as to "uneducated and untrained men"? [Act 4:13]
Obviously you chose to cherry-pick one commentary that fit the evangelical point of view, and the rest are automatically discarded. I guess we can always stick our heads into the sand and pretend the sun doesn't shine.
That's what I don't get. Why don't they see that when they mock those who believe that Paul's writings are true, they are also mocking Paul, as well as God? Oh well. I guess for some, parts of God's truth are truthier than others. :)
It would be intresting to find out how many orthodox and Papist Romanist types think it would be better for a person to be unbaptized and/or unbelieving than to be Baptized and to believe in the Love of God.
I really think that anyone who wants to tell us what our ecclesiology is ought to read Dominus Jesus. The charges of "Rubber Bible" and "rubber dictionary" make me despair that anyone is sufficiently intereste din the truth to attack us for what we do beleive rather than what others say we believe.
It's just not as simple as "There are a lot of denominations and we're the right one while all those others aren't."
They choose to slurp at the trough of agnosticism and be critics of the scriptures rather than believers. And for that reason the salvation therein will escape them.
“So strong is the evidence for the use of this epistle in the early church that some scholars have regarded it as proved and maintained that it was considered to be canonical as early as this word had a meaning.” There are parallels in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians, Ignatius, Barnabas, and Shepherd of Hermas. These may indicate borrowing, but not necessarily. Polycarp definitely quotes from it, though he does not identify the quoted material as coming from Peter. Irenaeus, however, does quote from it, and regards it as a genuine work of Peter. From the last third of the second century on, this letter is frequently regarded as Petrine, and is cited by Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, etc.
B. F. Westcott, “The Canon of the New Testament”,
There is not the least evidence to show that its authoriuy was ever been disputed, but on the other hand it does not seem to have been much read in the ltin churches althoughthat it was not unkown in these churches is shown by its presence in a large number of Old Latin manuscripts.”
Stibbs and Wallis, “1 Peter, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries”
“We may conclude, therefore, that, leaving aside for the moment any possible use of 1st Peter in other New Testament writings, wee find abundant evidence of its influence on the thought and expression of early Christians, much of its wide reception and general recognition as Peter’s and none whatever that it was attributed to anyone else. The judgment of Chase stands: “The only natural interpretation of the fact is from the first it was regarded as the work of that apostle.”
Both polycarp and Papias quote from the letter and attribute it to Peter. TGhe early church had refused to recognize fraudulent letters from “Peter” but recognized 1 Peter as authentic.
The persecution could have been the general persecution from the synagogues, Rome or Nero for the arson of Rome.
What are the sources tot he contrary except a personal bias?
“Obviously you chose to cherry-pick one commentary that fit the evangelical point of view, and the rest are automatically discarded. I guess we can always stick our heads into the sand and pretend the sun doesn’t shine.”
From Guthrie, “New Testament Introduction” 1st Peter,
(Guthrie is no evangelical nor ishe particularly conservative)
“So strong is the evidence for the use of this epistle in the early church that some scholars have regarded it as proved and maintained that it was considered to be canonical as early as this word had a meaning.” There are parallels in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians, Ignatius, Barnabas, and Shepherd of Hermas. These may indicate borrowing, but not necessarily. Polycarp definitely quotes from it, though he does not identify the quoted material as coming from Peter. Irenaeus, however, does quote from it, and regards it as a genuine work of Peter. From the last third of the second century on, this letter is frequently regarded as Petrine, and is cited by Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, etc.
B. F. Westcott, “The Canon of the New Testament”,
There is not the least evidence to show that its authoriuy was ever been disputed, but on the other hand it does not seem to have been much read in the ltin churches althoughthat it was not unkown in these churches is shown by its presence in a large number of Old Latin manuscripts.”
Stibbs and Wallis, “1 Peter, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries”
“We may conclude, therefore, that, leaving aside for the moment any possible use of 1st Peter in other New Testament writings, wee find abundant evidence of its influence on the thought and expression of early Christians, much of its wide reception and general recognition as Peter’s and none whatever that it was attributed to anyone else. The judgment of Chase stands: “The only natural interpretation of the fact is from the first it was regarded as the work of that apostle.”
Both Polycarp and Papias quote from the letter and attribute it to Peter. The early church had refused to recognize fraudulent letters from “Peter” but recognized 1 Peter as authentic.
The persecution could have been the general persecution from the synagogues, Rome or Nero for the arson of Rome.
What are the sources to the contrary except a personal bias?
You just don't get it, do you?
Polycarp borrows from it but does credit it to Peter. Papias is descibed by the first Church historian Eusebius as a dimwit.
the commentaries you left out (again):
Eric Eve writes: "Despite 1 Pet 1:1, the author is unlikely to have been the apostle Peter. The cultured Greek of the epistle makes it perhaps the most literary composition in the NT. The apostle Peter probably knew some Greek, but 1 Peter does not look like the product of an unlettered (Acts 4:13) Galilean fisherman. It employs a sophisticated vocabulary incorporating several NT hapax legomena, and its author appears to have some command of the techniques of Hellenistic rhetoric. He is also intimately acquainted with the OT in the LXX, whereas we should have expected the Galilean Peter to have been more familiar with an Aramaic Targum or the Hebrew." (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 1263)
W. G. Kümmel writes: "I Pet presupposes the Pauline theology. This is true not only in the general sense that the Jewish-Christian readers, the 'people of God' (2:10), are no longer concerned about the problem of the fulfillment of the Law, but also in the special sense that, as in Paul, the death of Jesus has atoned for the sins of Christians and has accomplished justification (1:18 f; 2:24). Christians are to suffer with Christ (4:13; 5:1), obedience to the civil authorities is demanded (2:14 f), and the Pauline formula en xristw is encountered (3:16; 5:10, 14). The frequently advanced proposal that I Pet is literarily dependent on Rom (and Eph) is improbable because the linguistic contacts can be explained on the basis of a common catechetical tradition. But there can be no doubt that the author of I Pet stands in the line of succession of Pauline theology, and that is scarcely conceivable for Peter, who at the time of Gal 2:11 was able in only a very unsure way to follow the Pauline basic principle of freedom from the Law for Gentile Christians." (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 424)
Paul J. Achtemeier writes: "The type of Greek found in 1 Peter reveals that whether or not the author was born a Greek, he had enjoyed some level of formal education, if not an 'advanced' education in rhetoric or philosophy, at least a 'middle' education that would have included, along with geometry, arithmetic, and music, a reading of such classical authors as Homer. While one may surely presume some facility in Greek even among Palestinian fishermen in the first century who lacked formal education, the kind of Greek found in this epistle was probably beyond such a person, and hence the language was in all likelihood not given its present form by Simon Peter." (A Commentary on First Peter, pp. 4-5)
Daniel Wallace also suggests Peter's use of an anonymous scribe, indeed a companion of Paul, nominating Luke as one candidate. While it may be impossible to disprove such an idea, Eric Eve writes: "One cannot save Petrine authorship by arguing that Peter employed a secretary. If one argues that this secretary was Silvanus, the traveling companion of Paul (e.g. Selwyn 1958) or an anonymous amanuensis of the Roman church (Michaels 1988) the letter then becomes the product not of Peter, but of the secretary, since it is the latter's language that the epistle exhibits (see Beare 1970)." (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 1263)
W. G. Kümmel writes: "I Pet contains no evidence at all of familiarity with the earthly Jesus, his life, his teaching, and his death, but makes reference only in a general way to the 'sufferings' of Christ. It is scarcely conceivable that Peter would neither have sought to strengthen his authority by referring to his personal connections with Jesus nor have referred to the example of Jesus in some way." (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 424)
W. G. Kümmel writes: "The situation of persecution of those addressed can be understood only as occurring at the beginning stages of civil persecution (see pp. 418 f). According to the unanimous tradition of the early church, the first persecution of Christians on more than a merely local basis (cf. 5:9) took place under Domitian. But that, of course, takes us beyond the life-span of Peter." (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 424)
and so on....
But, of course, we all believe what we choose to believe. I choose to doubt that which is unsupported by facts. The burden of proof is on those who make claims
There is no proof, no convincing evidence whatsoever, to show that 1Peter was written in superb Greek and sophisticated theology by a Palestinian fisherman with no formal education, whose native language was Aramaic. The historical timing of the persecution is wrong. The date of the epistle is given at 80-110 AD based on the writing style, etc. That pretty much closes the case. When this was written, Peter was long dead. Thus, there is no proof that 1 Peter as well as 2 Peter were written by Peter the Apostle. In favct, all evidence seems to point to the contrary.
Why was it accepted as authoritative? The Church embraced 1 Peter as authoritative early on because it was absolutely vital for the Church's survival to overcome the Petrine-Pauline dispute (which, contrary to some opinions, did not end at the Council in Jerusalem, not do the accounts if this event in Acts and in Paul's' Epistles match).
Imagine that! How dare they question something the believers swear by but cannot prove? Of all the nerve of them to ask for proof! That inner knowledge of the various believers was once exposed and it's called Gnosticism, which seems to be alive and well especially in the Reformed community. And for that reason the salvation therein will escape them
I guess you have advanced hidden knowledge of that too? Or someone died and appointed you the judge, in which case I would like to ask you tom show some identification.
So, questioning is the same as mocking? I spent the early part of my life in a place where it was a cirme to question "offcial truth." I have promised myself ever since my parents brought me to this country, to never accept "official truth" just because some people say it's "sacred."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.