Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[twb1621]

"…It was the will of the Almighty that the Church in which the true faith was preserved should be one, that all the faithful might profess the one faith, but the devil, St. Cyprian says (2), invented heresies to destroy faith, and divide unity. The enemy has caused mankind to establish many different churches, so that each, following the faith of his own particular one, in opposition to that of others, the true faith might be confused, and as many false faiths formed as there are different churches, or rather different individuals. This is especially the case in England, where we see as many religions as families, and even families themselves divided in faith, each individual following his own. St. Cyprian, then, justly says that God has disposed that the true faith should be preserved in the Roman Church alone, so that there being but one Church there should be but one faith and one doctrine for all the faithful. St. Optatus Milevitanus, writing to Parmenianus, says, also: “You cannot be ignorant that the Episcopal Chair of St. Peter was first placed in the city of Rome, in which one chair unity is observed by all” (St. Opt. l. 2, cont. Parmen.)

(2) St. Cyprian de Unitate Ecclesie

1. – The heretics, too, boast of the unity of their Churches, but St. Augustine says that it is unity against unity. “What unity,” says the Saint, “can all those churches have which are divided from the Catholic Church, which is the only true one; they are but as so many useless branches cut off from the Vine, the Catholic Church, which is always firmly rooted. This is the One, Holy, True, and Catholic Church, opposing all heresies; it may be opposed, but cannot be conquered. All heresies come forth from it, like useless shoots cut off from the vine, but it still remains firmly rooted in charity, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (St. Aug. lib. 1, de Symbol ad Cath. c. 6). St. Jerome says that the very fact of the heretics forming a Church apart from the Roman Church, is a proof, of itself, that they are followers of error, and disciples of the devil, described by the Apostle, as “giving heed to spirits of error and doctrines of devils” (I. Tim iv. 1).
2. – The Lutherans and Calvinists say, just as the Donatists did before them, that the Catholic Church preserved the true faith down to a certain period – some say to the third, some to the fourth, some to the fifth century – but that after that the true doctrine was corrupted, and the spouse of Christ became an adulteress. This supposition, however, refutes itself; for, granting that them Roman Catholic Church was the Church first founded by Christ, it could never fail, for our Saviour himself promised that the gates of hell never should prevail against it: “I say unto you that you are Peter, and on this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. xviii, 18). It being certain, then, that the Roman Catholic Church was the true one, as Gerard, one of the first ministers of Luther, admits (Gerard de Eccles. cap. 11, sec. 6) it to have been for the first five hundred years, and to have preserved the Apostolic doctrine during that period, it follows that it must always have remained so, for the spouse of Christ as St. Cyprian says, could never become an adulteress.
3. – The heretics, however, who, instead of learning from the Church the dogmas they should believe, wish to teach her false and perverse dogmas of their own, say that they have the Scriptures on their side, which are the fountain of truth, not considering, as a learned author (3) justly remarks, that it is not by reading, but by understanding, them, that the truth can be found. Heretics of every sort avail themselves of the Scriptures to prove their errors, but we should not interpret the Scripture according to our own private opinions, which frequently lead us astray, but according to the teaching of the Holy Church which is appointed the Mistress of true doctrine, and to whom God has manifested the true sense of the Divine books. This is the Church, as the Apostle tells us, which has been appointed the pillar and the ground of truth: “that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and the ground of truth” (I. Tim. iii, 15.) Hence St. Leo says that the Catholic faith despises the errors of heretics barking against the Church, who deceived by the vanity of worldly wisdom, have departed from the truth of the Gospel…” – (St. Leo, Ser. 8, de Nat Dim.)
   Excerpt from;
   THE HISTORY OF HERESIES and THEIR REFUTATION;

Translated from the Italian of
St. Alphonsus M. Liguori

stas.org/apologetics/church/True_Religion/hrefute.shtml

 

[Eric_Prine]

I’m just wondering why there are some people are out here saying they do not believe that any one person or entity could have infallible beliefs but are so adamant that the idea of sola scriptura is true.

 

[distracted]

Luther and Calvin were right on. Jones was not.

Luther and calvin disagreed with each other… so how could both be right???

so which one was “right”?

Both were wrong in all ways in which they disagreed with the Church Christ founded…

 

[distracted]

I’m just wondering why there are some people are out here saying they do not believe that any one person or entity could have infallible beliefs but are so adamant that the idea of sola scriptura is true.

It is a given that they who believe in sola scriptura are infallible…

Where have YOU been??? Helllllooooo!!!

 

[justasking4]

distracted;4316264]Luther and calvin disagreed with each other… so how could both be right???

so which one was “right”?

What specific thing or two did they disagree on?

Both were wrong in all ways in which they disagreed with the Church Christ founded…

They were at least unified on this…

 

[A_Sinner_1]

This has already been shown to be false.

Quite the opposite. This has proven true over 2000 years, despite false teachers claiming to be Catholic then and today, and even popes and bishops of questionable morality. Church teaching has developed, but not (unlike the Protestants) changed. Feel free, however, to check back in on this issue when the Church stance on divorce, birth control, abortion, and homosexual marriage changes, like it has in so many Protestant groups.

We already see error creeping into the church in Paul’s writings where he warns churches about some of these errors

.

Why should these churches pay any attention to St. Paul? What authority did he have? Who gave it to him? His writings at that time were not part of the Bible.

 

[twb1621]

I’m just waiting for an honest answer from a believer in Sola Scriptura and Luther / Calvin to respond to posts 833 and 835

 

[PJM]

I’m not that familar with Luther. Are you referring to the book of James? If so, did he not later accept it?

REPLY:

First, I too am no expert on Luther, however it seems to me quite unlikely that Luther would accept the letter of James, especially as it relates to salvation “through faith alone.”

James Chapter 2:"14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. 18 But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe–and shudder. 20 Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? 21* Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 23* and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. faith apart from works is dead.

So is John 3:16 the answer? Hardly, read also John 3:5 and John 3:36, and then read Mt. 19:16.

How do Protestants explain these?

Gods continued Blessings, PJM m.c.

 

[guanophore]

Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

There was no new testament canon for four centuries. If sola scriptura were true, then there would not have been the Authority of the Church to both follow, write, collect, canonoize and promulgate the scriptures. All this came from outside the so called final rule of faith.

How does this follow?

A sole authority or final rule will not depend upon something outside of itself to exist and to be authenticated.

 

[PJM]

A justasking4 post:

Finally, Luther was not infallible as no man or council is. He can and did err at times.

I will be happy to expalin why infallibility exist, but first do you accept the “Primacy of Peter?”

Need to know so I can explain it in a manner you will understand.

Thanks,
God’s continued blessings,
PJM m.c.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

I showed how each of those verses did not say the Scripture is sole standard and arbiter of doctrine. That was my main point. I know we disagree right now, but I’d appreciate you showing me how these verses contradict the points I made about each of them.

Hi Lief,

This is becoming a circular argument and a bit like a “dog chasing its tail”.

I appreciate your writings and the solid content you bring to these discussions. I do not, for one moment, doubt your authenticity, credibility or spirituality as a Christian. I would hope, in a similar fashion, that you don’t doubt mine.

However, this discussion concerning whether sola scriptura is absolutely biblical comes down to a matter of interpretation. You are arguing for scripture plus Sacred Tradition; I am arguing for scripture alone as the source from which we derive our doctrine.

The scriptures I quoted did not say in as many words ‘SCRIPTURE ALONE IS THE ONLY SOURCE FROM WHICH WE DERIVE OUR DOCTRINE’. I will grant you this. However, by good and necessary deduction sola scriptura is the truth to which these scriptures lead.

Lief, as a Catholic you cannot show me scriptures that unequivocally declare ‘SCRIPTURE PLUS SACRED TRADITION INTERPRETED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC MAGISTERIUM IS THE SOURCE OF OUR DOCTRINE AND TRUTH’. No, of course you can’t! You have made logical deductions and inferences which are consistent with the inherent nature of your belief system.

I remain firmly convinced that the scriptures I have quoted uphold, vindicate and point to the sola scriptura principle.

 

[guanophore]

This has already been shown to be false.

Do you not see that individuals are fallible, and that people in the Church fall short? Would you not agree that Peter, the rock upon whom Christ built the Church is a fallible man?

Christ did not promise the church that it would be protected from error.

Well, we understand what He said differently, don’t we? What should we do when we cannot resolve a dispute between ourselves?

By the way, what do you think that Jesus meant when He said that He would send HIs spirit, who would lead them into all truth?

In fact He and His apostles warned that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. If the church was protected from error then false teachers would never be a problem.

A statement such as this reveals a misunderstanding about the charism of infalliblity. False teachers coming in does not equal false teaching going out. Yes, there have been false teachers and many have been led away as a result. But the Church herself cannot teach error because her head is Christ, and he is incapable of error. You are confusing the Church, the Bride of Christ, with the fallible members attached to her. The church is much larger than fallible men.

We already see error creeping into the church in Paul’s writings where he warns churches about some of these errors. and in Revelation.

Error creeping in does not equal error creeping out. The reason we know the error from the Truth is because the Spirit cannot lie. The soul of the Chruch is the spirit, and that is why she is preserved in all Truth.

Did any early father teach that the pope would be infallible?

“infallible” is a Latin word which was not used in the time of the early fathers, who wrote in greek. The Fathers wrote that the eternal truth of God was, is, and will be found in the Church, and that God HImself preserves the Church from error.

Its amazing how far a person can get by just assuming things from Scripture instead of investigating what they mean.

It is also amazing how far away from the Truth one can get by relying only on the Scripture.

How i wish there was infallibility.

I think not. If you were to accept this, you would have to become Catholic.

 

[twb1621]

Hi Lief,

This is becoming a circular argument and a bit like a “dog chasing its tail”.

I appreciate your writings and the solid content you bring to these discussions. I do not, for one moment, doubt your authenticity, credibility or spirituality as a Christian. I would hope, in a similar fashion, that you don’t doubt mine.

However, this discussion concerning whether sola scriptura is absolutely biblical comes down to a matter of interpretation. You are arguing for scripture plus Sacred Tradition; I am arguing for scripture alone as the source from which we derive our doctrine.

The scriptures I quoted did not say in as many words ‘SCRIPTURE ALONE IS THE ONLY SOURCE FROM WHICH WE DERIVE OUR DOCTRINE’. I will grant you this. However, by good and necessary deduction sola scriptura is the truth to which these scriptures lead.

Lief, as a Catholic you cannot show me scriptures that unequivocally declare ‘SCRIPTURE PLUS SACRED TRADITION INTERPRETED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC MAGISTERIUM IS THE SOURCE OF OUR DOCTRINE AND TRUTH’. No, of course you can’t! You have made logical deductions and inferences which are consistent with the inherent nature of your belief system.

I remain firmly convinced that the scriptures I have quoted uphold, vindicate and point to the sola scriptura principle.

Craig, you do have an admirable dedication to your belief but I can’t help but ask you with all due respect, can you respond one way or the other with an honest explanation as to Posts 833 and 835.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

That’s what the Mormons say too, and use this as a justification for the inclusion of their Book of Mormon. Firm confidence is not a good enough witness.

This is an extra-Biblical justification for Sola Scriptura. The Church declared in three Early Church councils what books belonged in the canon, by its authority ending the canon disagreements for the Universal Church.

The belief that these men were holy to the ends of their lives comes solely from extra-Biblical Tradition.

Er . . . Interestingly, no Early Church Father’s canon list exactly matches the current Protestant canon. Some of them are very similar to the current Protestant canon, but none of them match it exactly. Also, the canon that the Church ended up settling on in its councils included the Deuterocanonical books. So none of the Early Church Fathers had a list that exactly matched the Protestant canon, and the Early Church councils themselves resulted in canons that differed from the Protestant canon. So I don’t know where you’re coming from here. The Early Church Fathers had lots of different lists and opinions on what books should be in the canon. There were a great variety of opinions on the matter. And the canon the Early Church settled on is the one the Catholic Church uses.

The opinions of the Early Church, councils and Fathers alike, also are an extra-Biblical source. Tradition.

The self-authentication of scripture is not in the Bible! I have yet to see a verse that says the Bible is self-authenticating. I’d really appreciate some exposition from you of some of the verses you gave, so that I can see where and how they say scripture is self-authenticating. I offered some exposition already, showing how those verses don’t say anything about self-authentication of scripture – some don’t even mention the scripture – and those that do speak clearly about the scripture simply say what its value is. But they never say it is the final and sole standard of doctrine. So I’d really appreciate some exposition from you showing me how that is not so.

I do appreciate the time you are taking to get to know more of our beliefs on this website, by the way. Thank-you also for the great respect you have shown Catholics.

If you are saying that Sacred Tradition and the decrees of popes and church councils were revelation along with scripture, you are saying - obviously - that scripture is not our only source of doctrine. This I reject and deny.

The logical outcome of your postulation that Sacred Tradition and the decrees of popes and church councils are also a source of doctrine, is to say that scripture is imperfect and obscure and needs the RC Magisterium to interpret it. Scripture is not the norm of truth on your understanding.

I believe Christ Himself rejects such tradition of this kind as a source of theology and doctrine when He urges people to return to the CLEAR FOUNTAIN OF SCRIPTURE (see and please read carefully Luke 16:29 and Luke 24:27).

Sacred Tradition, therefore, is not infallible like scripture. Consequently, Sacred Tradition cannot be considered binding or authoritative in the church.

 

[PJM]

Hi Lief,

The scriptures I quoted did not say in as many words ‘SCRIPTURE ALONE IS THE ONLY SOURCE FROM WHICH WE DERIVE OUR DOCTRINE’. I will grant you this. However, by good and necessary deduction sola scriptura is the truth to which these scriptures lead.

Lief, as a Catholic you cannot show me scriptures that unequivocally declare ‘SCRIPTURE PLUS SACRED TRADITION INTERPRETED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC MAGISTERIUM IS THE SOURCE OF OUR DOCTRINE AND TRUTH’. No, of course you can’t! You have made logical deductions and inferences which are consistent with the inherent nature of your belief system.

I remain firmly convinced that the scriptures I have quoted uphold, vindicate and point to the sola scriptura principle.

Reply:
My dear friend in Christ,

Please read my post #842 and then explain to me again were you find Scripture support for your position. Sorry to enter the debate so late

Also read (KJV) is fine for this diccussion, 2 Tim. 3:16.

Can you give futher assistance and direct to where in the bible it tells me I have a personal right to accept the things I agree with and to chose to disguard those passes that do not support my claims, my theology?

God’s continued Blessings.
Looking forward to your responce,
PJM m.c.

 

[guanophore]

If you are saying that Sacred Tradition and the decrees of popes and church councils were revelation along with scripture, you are saying - obviously - that scripture is not our only source of doctrine. This I reject and deny.

Scripture itself, the NT at least, is a 100% product of the Sacred Tradition. The Teaching was delivered “once for all to the saints”, and from that faith deposit, the NT was penned. The Teaching kept by the Apostles did not suddenly become obsolete when some of it was committed to writing. On the contrary, the Apostolic instruction was followed to preserve what was handed down, whether by word of mouth, or by letter.

The decrees are a reflection of the once for all deposit of faith. Throughout history, it has been necessary to articulate the faith for the time, culture,a nd prevalent heresy. The doctrine has not changed, though the application and understanding of it has.

Scripture has never been the only source of doctrine. All the teachings come from Christ, through the Apostles.

The logical outcome of your postulation that Sacred Tradition and the decrees of popes and church councils are also a source of doctrine, is to say that scripture is imperfect and obscure and needs the RC Magisterium to interpret it. Scripture is not the norm of truth on your understanding.

Scripture was never intended to contain the fullness of the faith. Nor was it meant to be a “perfect” articulation of doctrine for all time. It is infallible, and inerrant, but it has always been subject to interpretation. If you study the early heresies, you will see that they are also based in scripture. I am not sure what you omean by scripture being a “norm” of truth. It was not written for the purpose of containing everything, but is is profitable.

I believe Christ Himself rejects such tradition of this kind as a source of theology and doctrine when He urges people to return to the CLEAR FOUNTAIN OF SCRIPTURE (see and please read carefully Luke 16:29 and Luke 24:27).

Jesus intended that what was taught be consistent with the written revelation of God in the scripture. He did not reject tradition, on the contrary, he practiced it HImself. He rejected departure from Truth, whereever it was found.

Sacred Tradition, therefore, is not infallible like scripture. Consequently, Sacred Tradition cannot be considered binding or authoritative in the church.

If you believe this, then you will have to throw out your bible, since it is the product of sacred tradition.

 

[PJM]

I am gaining an understanding that non-Catholics as well as perhaps, not a few Catholics struggle with the Catholic position of Salvation through BOTH faith and works, and not faith alone.

A futher observations suggest at base is the Catholic Church’s MANDATE to “Loose and Bind” and how this mandate came about. If one is unable to accept the “Primacy of Peter” and what that obligates and entails, other doctine is far less clear.

Catholic Answer on Primacy of Peter

The question before us is “can there be ‘an infallible proclamation’ out side of the bible?

The short answer is yes.

The RCC teaches and has always taught (and has almost always had deserters, even in the present age), understood and put into practice that the Supreme Pontiff, whether alone or in “communion with the Magistrium” (the body of bishops world wide that are supporting the Pontiff,) may and can make an official pronouncement from the “chair of Peter” on matters of Faith and or Morals (only), intended for world wide application, and if all above conditions are met, it is understood to be an “infallible pronouncement.”

As a secondary note: All teachings are the Holy Father, relating to the RCC, are to be given assent and acceptance of faith, by all Catholics. In other words we are to accept and live his teachings.

Why is this? Why does the Pope have the right, indeed the mandate to speak to Gods children, on behalf of God Himself?

Because I am limited to the number of words that I can use, I will in this post only reference one bible passage, perhaps at a later time, I will post additional verses supporting the Primacy of Peter? They are quite numerous *** a “body of work.”

Matt. 16:013-19
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

We have to establish two platforms for our discussion. First: we accept the fact that word’s have specific, “common” meeting to those giving utterance and to those being spoken to. Second: We acknowledge that both those giving utterance, and those who have done the transcribing, are inspired by The Holy Spirit, (Jesus exempted because He too is God), to use specific words, phrases and locations. In other words, mere coincidence has no place in our discussion. We accept the facts that Jesus knew what He was doing, and that as God, He was incapable of lying.

Point One: Why did Jesus select the area of Caesarea Philippi, to make this enormously important appointment?

Reply: Caesarea Philippi is located in the northern part of Judea. The above quoted passage took place on a large hill, and was the location of a very large, and locally famous, Pagan Temple. As a “safeguard” the temple was build behind a huge protective ROCK.

Point Two: In O.T. biblical days it was common for cities to be walled and fortified. Further, they really did have a main gate, and there was a Key to the City, that really locked and unlocked the main gate.

Point Three: In the quoted bible passage: “I,” “you,” “my,” and “church” are all singular for very specific reasons. “Church” for example clearly, indisputably, shows God’s intent to start and Shepherd only “one church.”

Point Four: In every walled city there was a “King” which is the role Jesus assumes in this story. “Hail King of the Jews!”

Point Five: As one might expect, actually running the city was a whole lot like real work, so it was delegated to another, usually called the “Prime Minister.” So we will use that term for the one who actually ran the city, day in, and day out. The P.M. answered ONLY to “the King.” What the PM ordered done, was done, and what the PM forbid, was legally forbidden, and violators were punished by the PM.

Point Six: The terms, “To Bind and or To Loose” were legal and binding at law, Rabbinical Terms, known and accepted by all those Jesus was speaking too as authority to Govern.

Point Seven: Just as Jesus is the King in this story, Simon, Now “Peter” (Greek for “rock,”) is the new Prime Minister! As such he in given total and complete autonomous rule and daily governance of the New Church that Jesus has just created. “On this “rock” meaning the very person of Peter himself, “I” will build “my” church. Again Words Mean Something!

Point Eight: “I will give you” Peter the Key to the Kingdom of Heaven. PERIOD! This is God telling us this fact.

Point Nine: The power to govern is immediate, total, complete, unlimited and binding on all. Amen!

Point Ten: God knew what He was doing, Jesus knew what He was setting up, Peter and the Apostles understood exactly what was meant and accepted and lived in obedience, what God had ordained. We, my friend are to do no less. “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her,” does not mean that sin cannot or for that matter, does not exist within Her. No, what is promised by God is two-fold. First, sin will not prevail! Second, God promised to send the Holy Spirit, as the guarantor of TRUTH, that any official pronouncement from “the chair of Peter,” on matters of Faith and or Morals, cannot, I repeat, cannot be in error, because God Himself say’s so.

God’s continued Blessings,

PJM m.c.

 

[PJM]

Posted by Craig:
“If you are saying that Sacred Tradition and the decrees of popes and church councils were revelation along with scripture, you are saying - obviously - that scripture is not our only source of doctrine. This I reject and deny.”

Reply:
My dear brother in Christ,

Could you be so kind as to direct me to where it affirms your position in Scripture? Thanks.

What abour John 21:24-25?
"24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.
25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."Also, the bible was not written until about 70 years after Christ Resurection, and the Cannon of the bible was not completed until about the year 400.

I love your tecnacity But, what about the truth, God’s truth:thumbsup:

God Bless, PJM m.c.

 

[JMJ_coder]

-For the proponents of sola scriptura-

Where do the Early Church Fathers teach sola scriptura? And those that composed the canon in the 4th century Councils - where are their arguments in favor of sola scriptura?

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

These quotations from the Early Church Fathers show the great ancient authority of the bishops of Rome. These writings are history. If some modern scholars want to disagree with the ancient writers about Early Church practice, that’s their problem.
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp
catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp

The authority of the Papacy is also Biblical.

The Biblical Basis for the Papacy

Peter is always listed first among the Apostles except in Galations 2:9.

Places where Peter is listed first:
Matthew 10:2
Mt 26:37 Jesus takes Peter (listed first) and the two sons of Zebedee with him during the Agony in the Garden.
Mk 1:16 Peter listed first among the call of the first disciples
Mk 1:36 Peter, listed first, is the one to find Jesus leaving Capernaum
Mk 3:16 Peter listed first in the Mission of the Twelve (Judas mentioned last).
Mk 5:37 Jesus does not allow anyone to accompany Him inside the synagogue except Peter (listed first), James, and John.
Mk 9:2 Peter listed first among the 3 disciples to witness the Transfiguration of Jesus
Mk 13:3 Peter listed first among disciples
Mk 14:33 Peter listed first among the disciples in the Garden
Lk 6:14 Peter listed first among apostles in the Mission of the Twelve (Judas is listed last).
Lk 8:51 Peter listed first among disciples allowed to enter the synagogue with Jesus.
Lk 9:28 Peter listed first among disciples who witness the Transfiguration of Jesus
Jn 21:2 Peter listed first among the seven disciples in the resurrection appearance in Galilee
Acts 2:37, 1:3, Peter mentioned first among the apostles.
Acts 3:1 Peter listed first
Acts 4:13 Peter named first
Acts 4:19 Peter named first, and again speaks before the Sanhedrin
Acts 5:29 Peter named first among apostles and speaks as leader
Acts 8:14 Peter named first
1 Cor 15:5 Jesus, after the Resurrection, appears first to Peter, then to the rest of the Apostles

Also, the scripture refers to “Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32, Mk 16:7, Acts 2:37), revealing that he had a special position of authority amongst them.

To say that Peter had a special position among the Apostles on the basis of the scriptures you have quoted is quite a stretch.

Furthermore, to go on to find in these verses some sort of justification for Peter as the first Pope is importing into scripture a meaning that the Holy Spirit did not intend for these verses.

The Roman Catholic claim concerning Peter as the first pope sets aside the scripture principle. I reject this claim because it places the authority of the pope above scripture.

Quite honestly, Lief, to list these verses to find evidence for your claim that the pope alone is the infallible interpreter of scripture is a huge call; it is a call that I do not in my deepest conscience accept. For you to imply that the pope’s pronouncements, definitions of dogma and theology, and public utterances are said to be inerrant is excessive. For you to imply that when the pope speaks ex cathedra he declares final and unalterable doctrine is an entire exaggeration, in my opinion. Peter, in the verses you quoted, does not fit in any way the description of a pope as you understand it.

On your view, scripture becomes subject to the authority of the pope as its interpreter and no one can appeal to scripture against the pope.

It is my deeply held conviction that the pope must either make his pronouncements in accordance with scripture or against scripture. Now if the pope speaks in agreement with scripture he differs in no way from any other minister of God’s word.

I believe the claims of papal infallibilty are extravagant claims and I reject them entirely. Popes have arisen in the course of church history as something that developed historically; they are not God’s perfect will for the governance of His Church. Church councils are subject to the authority of scripture; their testimony is only human and no human testimony can be a source of divine truth.