I see that Sippo has weighed in. I seriously doubt that there's any contemporary Catholic NT scholar who affirms the Petrine authorship of 2 Pet. Not Fitzmyer. Not Johnson. Not Brown.
For that, he'll have to go over to the Prots (e.g., Green, Guthrie, Harrison, Kruger, Moo, Schreiner, Warfield).
So poor Mr. Sippo is reduced to Evangelical scholarship for his appeal to “what Pope St. Peter warned us about in his second encyclical.”
*****************************************
Prots are notoroiusly thin-skinned when it comes to criticism but rather eager to tell us Catholics how mean we are for "not taking us seriously." They still think that debating and human scholarship are the way to discovering eternal verities. Their pride is offended when their clever systems are challenged. This is nothing more than a theological form of Pelagianism. They fail to understand that salvation is not the only thing that we receive from God by grace alone. We also receve revelation in the same manner. Prots are so fearful of offending God with "righteousness by works," but they are totally commited to "revelation by works."
That is what Pope St. Peter warned us about in his second encyclical:
2Pe 1:19 And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
2Pe 1:20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
2Pe 1:21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro!http://www.envoymagazine.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1165 - top
I wonder who affirms 2Pet was a papal encyclical besides Sippo. If anyone can get me a source for that, I'd be gateful. Otherwise I'm going to laugh about it while I cut the grass.
ReplyDeleteWell, that and the matter that Perry and Enloe are bearing arms on the side of Sippo and Armstrong.