Official Definitions of Sola Scriptura

[batman1973]

Agreed. I’ll do one better: I’ll start by defining what Sola Scriptura is NOT:
it’s not personal interpretation, it is the final authority.
it does not do away with tradition, rather, tradition is subjective to scripture.
it does not take away from faith, rather it edifies it.
it does not take away from reason, again it edifies it.
(Yeah, RCC’s can rock a 3 legged stool. Mine’s got 4: Scripture, tradition,faith, and reason)

 

[Novocastrian]

One of the challenges of dialogue between Catholics and Protestants is coming up with common definitions of theological terms, and one of the most common disagreements concerns what is meant by the term sola scriptura.

Protestants are frequently frustrated by what they believe to be Catholic misunderstandings of what sola scriptura is or is not. Catholics are frustrated by the fact that different Protestant groups seem to define the term differently.

Therefore, I would like to ask: What is the official definition of sola scriptura used by your faith community? Please provide the name of your denomination along with the definition. If you have a link to an official website where you get the definition, that would be great.

Thanks.

**Article VI. *Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation. ***

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

…] And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

**Article VI. *Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation. ***

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

…] And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine…

Material or Formal?

 

[JonNC]

It’s clear he doesn’t. He’s one of the major antagonists in the SS debate. I agree that it’s frustrating that the RCCs on this board are closed minded. They have their definition and refuse to bend on the truth when it’s given to them.

He typically directs these types of questions to other non-Catholics about their view. I’ve conversed with Randy enough over the years that I’m sure he understands our view.

Jon

 

[Novocastrian]

Material or Formal?

It does not explicitly say, but seems to strongly imply material sufficiency. I suppose it leaves the door open for formal sufficiency too, but that would probably require a great many caveats.

 

[concretecamper]

Agreed. I’ll do one better: I’ll start by defining what Sola Scriptura is NOT:
it’s not personal interpretation, it is the final authority.
it does not do away with tradition, rather, tradition is subjective to scripture.
it does not take away from faith, rather it edifies it.
it does not take away from reason, again it edifies it.
(Yeah, RCC’s can rock a 3 legged stool. Mine’s got 4: Scripture, tradition,faith, and reason)

it’s not personal interpretation, it is the final authority. Well, from what I have seen posted from many, the final authority piece is dependent on what one believes scripture says so you are right back to personal interpretation.

it does not do away with tradition, rather, tradition is subjective to scripture. I have seen many people try to fit Tradition into their view of what scripture means.

it does not take away from faith, rather it edifies it.
it does not take away from reason, again it edifies it. From what I have read on this forum, alot depends on MY faith and MY reason.

It seems to me, that while moble in word and idea, Sola Scriptura as defined in the post I responded to naturally returns to personal interpretation.

 

[KP3243]

Originally Posted by batman1973 View Post
It’s clear he doesn’t. He’s one of the major antagonists in the SS debate. I agree that it’s frustrating that the RCCs on this board are closed minded. They have their definition and refuse to bend on the truth when it’s given to them.​

Close minded? Jesus set up A church not different churches who have different bibles, different interpretations of scripture, different people in charge of the faith community, different sacraments, different understanding of the sacraments, different understanding of his mother, different understanding of the liturgy. How on earth could God expect everyone to be ready for His second coming if everyone is doing their own thing? Protestantism is European and individualistic by nature and wrong. You can’t invent your own truth. The bible says the pillar and bulwark of truth is the Church who also happened to complied all books of the old and new testaments into the holy bible. So you are taking Catholic tradition and then 1500 years later telling Catholics oh we got it all figured out now, yup now that we are here we got it all figured out. Listen to how ridiculous people sound to Catholics.

 

[KP3243]

it’s not personal interpretation, it is the final authority.​

Abortion is not specifically mentioned in the bible, without personal interpretation you could not have an opinion on this crime against humanity.

 

[Randy_Carson]

TWENTY-FIVE PROTESTANT SCHOLARS ON PETER THE ROCK
(Listed Alphabetically)

“You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter)." (John 1:42)

“Jesus replied, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:17-19)

W.F. Albright (Protestant) and C.S. Mann

“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence…The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Albert Barnes (Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian)

“The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion” [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].

Francis Wright Beare (Presbyterian/Reformed)

“The play on words – ‘Peter’, this ‘rock’ – requires a change in Greek from petros (properly, ‘stone’) to petra. In Aramaic, the two words would be identical – Kepha the name given to Peter, transliterated into Greek as Kephas (Gal. 2:9), and kepha, ‘rock’. The symbol itself is Hebraic: Abraham is the ‘rock’ from which Israel was hewn, and in a rabbinic midrash, God finds in him a rock on which he can base and build the world…” (Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew [Harper and Row, 1981], page 355)

John Broadus (Baptist)

“As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession”

“Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.”

“But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”… Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.” [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356JPK page 20]

Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist)

“Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.” (The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22 (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252, JPK pages 31-32)

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

M. Eugene Boring (Disciples of Christ)

“16:18, Peter as Rock. Peter is the foundation rock on which Jesus builds the new community. The name ‘Peter’ means ‘stone’ or ‘rock’ (Aramaic Kepha Cepha; Greek petros)… There are no documented instances of anyone’s ever being named ‘rock’ in Aramaic or Greek prior to Simon. Thus English translations should render the word ‘stone’ or ‘rock,’ not ‘Peter,’ which gives the false impression that the word represented a common name and causes the contemporary reader to miss the word play of the passage: ‘You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church.’ Peter is here pictured as the foundation of the church…On the basis of Isa 51:1-2 (cf. Matt 3:9), some scholars have seen Peter as here paralleled to Abraham; just as Abram stood at the beginning of the people of God, had his name changed, and was called a rock, so also Peter stands at the beginning of the new people of God and receives the Abrahamic name ‘rock’ to signify this.” (The New Interpreter’s Bible [Abingdon Press, 1995], volume 8, page 345)

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)

“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

“The word Peter petros, meaning ‘rock,’ (Gk 4377) is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.” (Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18)

J. Knox Chamblin (Contemporary Presbyterian)

"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church”. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus. " (“Matthew” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742).

Oscar Cullman (Lutheran)

“The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros…Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection…The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story…For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art Rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Cullmann, article on “Rock” (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107, 108)

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Suzanne de Dietrich (Presbyterian theologian)

“The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. ‘Simon”, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community.” (The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16 (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93, JPK page 34).

J.D. Douglas

“That the rock is Peter himself . . . is found almost as early as the other [interpretation], for Tertullian and the bishop, whether Roman or Carthaginian, against whom he thundered in De Pudicitia, assume this, though with different inferences. Its strength lies in the fact that Mt 16:19 is in the singular, and must be addressed directly to Peter . . . Many Protestant interpreters, including notably Cullmann, take the latter view.” (New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 972)

R.T. France (Anglican)

“Jesus now sums up Peter’s significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter’s character (he did not prove to be ‘rock-like’ in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus’ church. The feminine word for ‘rock’, ‘petra’, is necessarily changed to the masculine ‘petros’ (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play
is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form ‘kepha’ would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the ‘rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. "The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied…Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus’ new community . . . which will last forever.” (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985], vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

“The name Peter means ‘Rock’, and Jesus played on this meaning to designate Peter as the foundation of the new people of God. His leadership would involve the authority of the steward, whose keys symbolized his responsibility to regulate the affairs of the household. Peter would exercise his leadership by his authority to declare what is and is not permissible in the kingdom of heaven (to bind and to loose have this meaning in rabbinic writings)…It is sometimes suggested that because the word for ‘rock’ (petra) differs from the name Petros, the ‘rock’ referred to is not Peter himself but the confession he has just made of Jesus as Messiah. In Aramaic, however, the same term kefa would appear in both places; the change in Greek is due to the fact that petra, the normal word for rock, is feminine in gender, and therefore not suitable as a name for Simon! The echo of Peter’s name remains obvious, even in Greek; he is the rock, in the sense outlined above.” (France, New Bible Commentary with consulting editors Carson, France, Motyer, Wenham [Intervarsity Press, 1994], page 925, 926)

Frank E. Gaebelein

The Greek makes the distinction between petros' and petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ``petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . .“In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Frank E. Gaebelein, General Editor, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984, vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368.

Richard B. Gardner (Brethren/Mennonite)

“The key question here is whether the rock foundation of the church is Peter himself, or something to be distinguished from Peter. If the latter, Jesus could be speaking of Peter’s faith, or of the revelation Peter received. It is more likely, however, that the rock on which Jesus promises to build the church is in fact Peter himself, Peter the first disciple (cf. 4:18; 10:2), who represents the whole group of disciples from which the church will be formed. At least four considerations support this view…” (Gardner, Believers Church Bible Commentary: Matthew [Herald Press, 1991], 247)

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)

“The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built… The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock… seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.” (Matthew 14-28 Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470, JPK pages 36-37)

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

William Hendriksen (Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary)

“The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.” (New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973], page 647JPK page 14]

David Hill (Presbyterian)

“On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

Ivor H. Jones (Methodist)

“…in 16.18 Peter is the rock on which the new community could be built, as Abraham was described in rabbinic writings as the rock on which God could erect a new world to replace the old…The arguments have raged across the centuries over the phrase ‘on this rock’ : does it mean on Peter, or on Peter’s confession? But the text is clear: Peter was divinely inspired and this was the reason for his new function and the basis of his authorization. His function was to provide for Jesus Christ the beginnings of a stronghold, a people of God, to stand against all the powers of evil and death…They are God’s people, the church…as the church they represent God’s sovereign power over evil (18.18b) and rely upon a new kind of divine authorization…This authorization is given to Peter; so Peter is not only a stronghold against evil; he also is responsible for giving the community shape and direction.” (Jones, The Gospel of Matthew [London: Epworth Press, 1994], page 99)

Craig S. Keener (Protestant Evangelical)

“‘You are Peter,’ Jesus says (16:18), paralleling Peter’s ‘You are the Christ’ (16:16). He then plays on Simon’s nickname, ‘Peter,’ which is roughly the English ‘Rocky’: Peter is ‘rocky,’ and on this rock Jesus would build his church (16:18)…Protestants…have sometimes argued that Peter’s name in Greek (petros) differs from the Greek term for rock used here (petra)…But by Jesus’ day the terms were usually interchangeable, and the original Aramaic form of Peter’s nickname that Jesus probably used (kephas) means simply ‘rock.’ Further, Jesus does not say, ‘You are Peter, but on this rock I will build my church’…the copulative kai almost always means ‘and’… Jesus’ teaching is the ultimate foundation for disciples (7:24-27; cf. 1 Cor 3:11), but here Peter functions as the foundation rock as the apostles and prophets do in Ephesians 2:20-21…Jesus does not simply assign this role arbitrarily to Peter, however; Peter is the ‘rock’ because he is the one who confessed Jesus as the Christ in this context (16:15-16)…” (Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Eerdmans, 1999], page 426-427)

John Peter Lange (Protestant)

The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun… The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock”, etc.” (Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8 [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976], page 293, JPK page 19)

Thomas G. Long (Presbyterian/Reformed)

“Since, in the original Greek, Petros and petra both mean ‘rock,’ it is easy to spot this statement as a pun, a play on words: ‘Your name is “Rock,” and on this “rock” I will build my church.’ Jesus’ meaning is plain: Peter is the rock, the foundation, upon which he is going to erect his church…Jesus spoke Aramaic, however, not Greek. In Aramaic, the words for ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’ are the same (Kepha)…the most plausible interpretation of the passage is that Jesus is, indeed, pointing to Peter as the foundation stone, the principal leader, of this new people of God…there is much evidence that he also played a primary leadership role in the early Christian church…For the church, the new people of God, Peter was, indeed, the ‘rock,’ corresponding to Abraham of old, who was ‘the rock from which you were hewn’ (Isa. 51:1).” (Long, Matthew [Westminster John Knox Press, 1997], page 185, 186)

Gerhard Maier (Lutheran)

“Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.” (“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate,” Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58, JPK pages 16-17)

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Herman Ridderbos (Contemporary Dutch Reformed)

“It is well known that the Greek word (petra) translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man’s name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros. The word petros was not an exact synonym of petra; it literally meant ‘stone.’ Jesus therefore had to switch to the word petra when He turned from Peter’s name to what it meant for the Church. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter. Because of the revelation that he had received and the confession that it motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future church.” (Ridderbos, Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew [Zondervan, 1987], page 303 as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 35-36)

Eduard Schweizer (Presbyterian/Reformed)

“The ‘rock’ is Peter himself, not his confession. Only on this interpretation does the pun make sense.” (Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew [John Knox Press, 1975], page 341)

+++

For the Protestant Reformers to rationalize breaking away from what was universally acknowledged in their culture as the Christian Church, it was necessary for them to deny the Catholic Church’s authority. To maintain their positions, they were forced to portray it as a kind of “anti-Church” that was unjustly claiming the prerogatives of Christ’s true (but invisible) Church.

Their chief target was, of course, the pope. To justify breaking away from the successor of Peter, they had to undercut the Petrine office itself. They were forced to deny the plain reading of Matthew 16:18—that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church.

More recent Protestants have been able to back away from the position that early Protestants felt forced to make and have been able to admit that Peter is, indeed, the rock. It remains to be seen whether they will start drawing the necessary inferences from this fact.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We return now to our discussion already in progress.

 

[KP3243]

Originally Posted by batman1973 View Post
Except the Orthodox don’t agree with you. And, neither do protestants. Peter is not the rock. His confession was. Read a little. It won’t hurt. I promise.​

Then why does Jesus quote Isaiah 22:22 in Matthew 16:18 if He isn’t handing over real authority? Early Christians including Saint Paul believed Peter had authority. Let’s also not pretend God that never had a visible authority on earth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

**Article VI. *Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation. ***

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

…] And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine…

Novo-

After reading the above, I think I can prove the perpetual virginity, the Immaculate Conception and the universal jurisdiction of the pope, etc…but I don’t think you’re going to agree with my proofs.

Now what?

 

[pablope]

It’s clear he doesn’t. He’s one of the major antagonists in the SS debate. I agree that it’s frustrating that the RCCs on this board are closed minded. They have their definition and refuse to bend on the truth when it’s given to them.

What truth are you talking about? The truth according to whom? By your definition?

And, no Lutheran has provided the direct quote or definition from Luther himself of what SS is…so far.

Jon has attempted…and still keeps searching.

 

[pablope]

And that is why you are part of the problem. And, if you grow tired of my so called “name calling” feel free to ignore me. I have answered all your questions. And, you’ve pointed out, YOU DON’T CARE.

How about you…are you not part of the problem also?

 

[pablope]

Agreed. I’ll do one better: I’ll start by defining what Sola Scriptura is NOT:
it’s not personal interpretation, it is the final authority.
it does not do away with tradition, rather, tradition is subjective to scripture.
it does not take away from faith, rather it edifies it.
it does not take away from reason, again it edifies it.
(Yeah, RCC’s can rock a 3 legged stool. Mine’s got 4: Scripture, tradition,faith, and reason)

Reason according to whom? whose reasoning…the individual?

 

[KP3243]

Jesus fulfilled the laws and established His church which has existed since the Apostles and who still has Apostolic succession today, so unless we missed the second coming and Jesus established new laws and abolished the laws that the Catholic church still uses today during the Reformation, then the Catholic Church is the true Church Jesus established and things like the real presence in Eucharist is still the truth, there is no other way around it. No mere human can abolish what Jesus created. You cannot show up 1500 years later and claim that Jesus is not present in the Eucharist and the Bible is now the only authority you need. Jesus is the only one who can make changes like that.