Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[CWBetts]

Not Scriptures, but they are Divine Revelation

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

i have one thing to say. protestants pick up the Bible and begin quoting Scriptures. now my question is who were the teachers at the time? who wrote the NT? who were the men speaking to the people? how many apostles were there? was any of the these man teaching different from each other? was any apostle telling people pick up a Bible and interpret for yourselves?

the CC received her teachings from the Apostles themselves and she is to go and teach all men.

**“Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the
Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached
by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers On this was the Church founded;
and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.”
St. Athanasius, Letter to Serapion of Thmuis, 359 A.D… **

You say that the Catholic Church received her teachings from the Apostles and that this teaching was preserved by the Fathers.

Are you claiming that this teaching was infallibly preserved? If so, how did this process operate and where is the credible evidence for it?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

You say that the Catholic Church received her teachings from the Apostles and that this teaching was preserved by the Fathers.

Are you claiming that this teaching was infallibly preserved? If so, how did this process operate and where is the credible evidence for it?

It is a matter of faith.

Do we believe that Jesus promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth?

Do we believe that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church?

Do we believe if we listen to those sent by Jesus we are listening to him?

If we believe these things it is not difficult to believe that the Church infallibly passed on the Word of God.

 

[Cinette]

Not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

There are people who come on these forums in pursuit of the truth and they are serious about it.

There are people who are bent on irritating, who never read the answers and who keep sparring.

There are people who are never consistent and you have a split-personality like you. They think this is a game or a sport and they spend their time like you - sporting.

So I said SS stood for Silly Sporting.

Since you are the person who believes in SS you should be the one to define it. I just think it doesn’t make any sense. No logic to it.

Finally, there are people who really hate the Catholic Church and can be found on these threads. There is so much hatred levelled against the Church. Jesus warned us about it and which is the Church against which you will find the most attacks - why the Catholic Church of course. There are a TON of books written attacking the Church. It sells. Have you heard of Dan Brown latest film? He wants to destroy the Catholic Church - in fact he is against religion but the CC is the main target. Those are the people we Christians should unite against. Those are the people who target our children. The devil is real and very active my friend.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

For many centuries (officially in writing since 382 AD) the Catholic Church has enlisted numerous theologians and scholars, some Catholic and some non-Catholic, some singularly and at other times in the form of groups or committees to verify the most accurate, non-bios translations and interpretations of Scripture possible. In addition, they have guarded and presented the integrity of Sacred Tradition through the Magisterium since the beginning. You may be interested in reading the below news article which once again bring this to public awareness.
Vatican City, Oct 15, 2008 New article of Catholic News Agency
Pope calls for theologians and Bible scholars to work together more closely
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14065

It has been proven over and over again that those who left the Catholic Church to establish a “right” faith outside the Church with their own interpretations have done nothing more than create further confusion and splintering of those who desire to be faithful.
With that said, although I do not agree with the philosophy you follow, I honestly commend you on your devotion to the faith you have and recognize your faithfulness to our Lord, Jesus Christ. I pray that those Catholics and other Christians who are less than dedicated to their faith will come to know devotion as you do. I and perhaps others sometimes loose perspective when it comes to the desire to see our separated brothers and sisters return to what we know as Full Christianity. But it is not any one individual who guides one to the right path, but God himself when He feels it appropriate. We can only hope to plant the seed. I will tell you that I would not hesitate to stand in your support for conversion if that time ever came but regardless you have a brother here any time you are looking for a viewpoint or have a topic to discuss that I may be of help with.

Dear Brother Tom,

I was genuinely moved by this gracious post and I thank you heartily for the kind, generous and considerate words you have used.

I take your words, actually, as an expression of God’s very own good will between us and I give Him grateful praise.

I realise that my position on sola scriptura is not your position. I respect that; and I respect all true Catholics who practise their faith. You have the right to believe as you do.

Actually, although I hold to sola scriptura and sola fide there are large amounts of Catholic dogma that I can agree with. It is good for us to remember that. I am attracted to some aspects of catholic spirituality. I am a conservative Christian and very disciplined and orderly in bible reading and prayer.

You state:

“but regardless you have a brother here any time you are looking for a viewpoint or have a topic to discuss that I may be of help with.”

Thank you so much for this - yes, I do regard you as a brother and I’ll keep your kind invitation in mind.

By the way, I’ll just keep being truly myself as I have written in these posts. I will analyse a situation and then give you my honest thoughts. I will always be honest, I promise you that! Therefore, if I take a position that is not Catholic you will know that it is only on principle that I write. I am not opposed as such to Catholics.

May God bless you, In Christ Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

2 Peter 1:20 - “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation…”

What “Scriptures alone” were the early Christians using as their sole rule of faith before the (Catholic) Council of Rome determined the Canon of Scripture in the year 382AD?

Matt. 28:20 - “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.

A word of clarity and explanation is needed here.

Although I have been arguing for the sola scriptura position, I do not deny - and never have - that the scriptures must be properly interpreted, according to the rules of sound exegesis.

Futhermore, when I have stated that the inerrant scriptures are self-authenticating I simply mean to convey that the inherent, objective meaning is in the scriptures themselves. The meaning has to be exegeted from scripture; the meaning is not yielded by any “flat reading of the text”. I am not a Fundamentalist in the pejorative sense of that term.

The term self-authenticating only means that no other sources of theology can stand BESIDE scipture. The scriptures stand OVER sacred tradition. However, the inherent, objective meaning of scripture is derived through faithful exegesis.

I hope this makes my position clearer.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Psalm 19:7-8; John 6:63; Romans 1:16; 1 corinthians 1:18; 2 Timothy 3:15.

Latin Vulgate; Psalm 19:7-8
7 impleat Dominus omnes petitiones tuas nunc cognovi quoniam salvum fecit Dominus christum suum exaudiet illum de caelo sancto suo in potentatibus salus dexterae eius 8 hii in curribus et hii in equis nos autem in nomine Domini Dei nostri invocabimus

7 The Lord fulfill all thy petitions: now have I known that the Lord hath saved his anointed. He will hear him from his holy heaven: the salvation of his right hand is in powers. 8 Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will call upon the name of the Lord our God.
7 “The salvation of his right hand is in powers”… That is, in strength. His right hand is strong and mighty to save them that trust in him.

Latin Vulgate; John 6:63
63 si ergo videritis Filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius

If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63 “If then you shall see”… Christ by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; and at the same time correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.

Latin Vulgate; Romans 1:16;
16 non enim erubesco evangelium virtus enim Dei est in salutem omni credenti Iudaeo primum et Graeco

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek.

16 The principal theme of the letter is salvation through faith. I am not ashamed of the gospel: Paul is not ashamed to proclaim the gospel, despite the criticism that Jews and Gentiles leveled against the proclamation of the crucified savior.

Latin Vulgate; 1 corinthians 1:18

18 verbum enim crucis pereuntibus quidem stultitia est his autem qui salvi fiunt id est nobis virtus Dei est

18 For the word of the cross, to them indeed that perish, is foolishness; but to them that are saved, that is, to us, it is the power of God.

18 The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Latin Vulgate; 2 Timothy 3:15
15 et quia ab infantia sacras litteras nosti quae te possint instruere ad salutem per fidem quae est in Christo Iesu
15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
15 and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
[10-17] Paul’s example for Timothy includes persecution, a frequent emphasis in the Pastorals. Timothy is to be steadfast to what he has been taught and to scripture. The scriptures are the source of wisdom, i.e., of belief in and loving fulfillment of God’s word revealed in Christ, through whom salvation is given.

Craig, I have included here the excerpts from the scriptures you referred to taken from the Latin Vulgate mainly, as this was the first source translated and interpreted. I do point out that regardless of their intent, none of these scriptures diminish the directives of the Apostles to each other or their successors in the necessity of teaching sacred tradition along with scripture. One more point, the CC does not in any way attempt to diminish the value of the scriptures with Sacred Tradition but rather strengthens scripture with ST.

Hi Tom,

Where can Sacred Tradition be found today and what does it precisely consist of?

Also, on your view do the scriptures and Sacred Tradition always bear an EQUAL authoritative relationship with one another?

May God bless you, In Christ Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

It is one of many reasons why people convert, speaking from personal experience . It is visible proof of the subjectivism inherent in the Sola Scriptura approach. For if the meanings of the scriptures were all “obvious” from scripture alone, without either Tradition or Magesterium, Protestants wouldn’t come into enormous disagreements over their meaning. For there are many extremely sincere people in all Protestant denominations, and the non-denominationals too are usually very sincere. They’re just mistaken in the way they see many Biblical things.

The vastly more simple explanation is that many sincere Christians read the same document, interpret it differently (even as you and I do right now), and thus come to different conclusions. And then their different conclusions on important matters cause friction between them, so they join denominations that agree with them.

I agree that sin and materialism are connected. Most of it is human error, though- the simple fact that lots of people can read the same document and will form different conclusions. I’ve encountered that in college classes all the time, when the class reads a document. They read it and then a debate forms over it because not everyone interprets it the same way. I’ve seen the same thing loads of times in scripture analysis.

That, I’m afraid, has been disproven by history. Protestants have always had a very high emphasis on scripture exegesis. That goes straight back to the days of the Reformation and has never died out. Yet even among Bible scholars and experts, there are huge disagreements over matters of the faith within Protestantism. Put one Baptist, one Pentecostal, one Presbyterian, one Anglican and one Lutheran theologian into the same room and set them talking about doctrine, and OUCH. They might be nice to one another, but despite all the immense knowledge of scripture each of them has, they won’t agree. In fact, Protestantism has been splintering steadily into ever smaller and smaller pieces since the very beginning of the Reformation. That is just fact. It’s the history of denominationalism- and the “future” can be seen in non-denominationalism and opposition to all organized religion. That movement is mushrooming in modern society and creates far greater doctrinal diversity amongst Christians.

These are the clear results of subjectivism, Craig. They are the result of people reading the same document with honesty and sincerity, and analyzing it carefully, and interpreting it in different ways.

No document interprets itself. Each is interpreted by its reader- whether literally, symbolically or metaphorically.

The Catholic Church’s centralized authority in Christ through the Magesterium is the source of its unity. The fact that in Protestantism every individual is the final authority on scripture interpretation before Christ is the reason why they scatter.

Remember what Jesus said also, when you look at the Church’s unity vs. Protestantism’s scattering. Jesus said, “Whoever does not gather with me scatters" (Matthew 12:30). Most Protestants serve Jesus, and I believe you do too. But they do not gather with the “Body of Christ,” the Church, and they also separate themselves from the Catholic Eucharist, which Catholics believe is our Lord Himself. Therefore they in critically important senses divide themselves from Jesus (usually by accident), and you can see the result worldwide. Unity in the true Church vs. unholy division everywhere in Protestantism where people separate themselves from it.

Hi Lief,

A very well written post and I have read it carefully.

One point, however, I must clarify with you - when I speak of the self-authenticating power of the scriptures, I do not deny that they do not need to be accurately interpreted according to the rules of sound exegesis.

The self -authenticating power of the scriptures means that there is an organic unity in the scriptures themeslves concerning doctrine; there is an objective meaning inherent in the divine scriptures that God meant to convey.

Where you and I differ, is in the greater question:

‘Who gets to do the interpreting?’

Does the divine right to interpret the scriptures reside in the ROMAN CATHOLIC MAGISTERIUM? AND IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC MAGISTERIUM, ALONE? I, for one, do not think so.

God’s blessings, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Actually it does, in more than one passage. An explicit reference is in Acts 15:28-29. The “apostles and elders” of the Church met in a council in Acts 15 to discuss the issue of circumcision and the conversion of the Gentiles. They had their council, made their decision, and then ordered the rest of the Church to adhere to it. They wrote the following instructions to the rest of the Church.

This was the verdict of their council, one that they gave as an order. “To impose upon you,” and they also said this decision had been arrived at by them and the Holy Spirit, which means that the authority of the council was infallible. For the Holy Spirit’s word is certainly infallible, and that is what they said they had. It was them and the Holy Spirit who made the decision, according to them, and it was authoritative, so they gave its decision as an order.

So the infallible role of the Magesterium is written about explicitly and is seen in practice in the Bible itself.

Some Protestants argue that this was the only infallible council, but the scripture is supposed to provide the example for all Christians to follow. The Early Church followed exactly the same practice as is found in Acts 15, submitting to the authority of Church councils and declaring their infallibility, because they submitted to the Scripture’s example too.

It never gives the role of interpreting the scripture as final authority to every individual Christian. That is just not in the Bible, and while you’ve shown me many verses that emphasize the importance the Bible should have in people’s lives, you haven’t shown me any passage that says the scripture is self-authenticating or the final arbiter and standard of doctrine. There is no basis for those beliefs in the Bible- which is why no Christian can be found, historically, who held to them prior to the Reformation.

You are used to making one interpretation, the “self-authentication” interpretation that you have not been able to show to be in the Bible, and which Christians prior to the Reformation had no knowledge of. You are rejecting the scriptural authority of the Pope and the Magesterium and Tradition, all of which are the Early Christians believed in and all of which I have shown you are in the Sacred Scripture. I challenge you to seriously question your assumptions and pray for guidance on this matter. As I did- and the Spirit led me to the Catholic Church.

Hi Lief,

If the Roman Catholic Magisterium is the official interpreter of the inerrant scriptures, then why have they not compiled an infallible commentary on them; giving final, infallible exposition on all difficult portions of scripture?

Why do Catholics, for example differ over questions such as Creation, Predestination, Election and Reprobation?

I look forward to your comments.

Blessings in Christ, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

The problem of course is even Catholics disagree over major theological issues. There is a wide divergence of theological views on central issues such as soteriology (which IMO is perhaps the most important sub-topic in theology). For instance there are different orders in the church, like the Jesuits and Benedictines, who have substantial disagreements regarding soteriology.

Yes, I agree with these observations. This has been my experience as well.

If there is a Roman Catholic Magisterium appointed by God to infallibly interpret the scriptures then why so much confusion; so much disagreement on central issues?

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

The disagreements are not central doctrine. What is central is the teaching regarding our conduct as Christians.

For example, the free will/predestination spectrum should have no impact on the daily conduct of our lives as Christians.

Agreed?

But surely the Roman Catholic Magisterium could tell us all what is the final, infallible truth on the free will/predestination issue?

Scripture has an objective meaning, does it not?

If the Magisterium can’t deliver on this, what is the basis of the supposed infallible guidance it is supposed to possess?

 

[Cinette]

Hi Lief,

If the Roman Catholic Magisterium is the official interpreter of the inerrant scriptures, then why have they not compiled an infallible commentary on them; giving final, infallible exposition on all difficult portions of scripture?

Why do Catholics, for example differ over questions such as Creation, Predestination, Election and Reprobation?

I look forward to your comments.

Blessings in Christ, Craig

Hi Craig!

I would like to have a go at answering you too.

The Church thru its Magisterium is the only authority in matters of essential faith and morals necesary for our salvation where she has made pronouncements on these. They can be found in the docs of the 21 great Councils of the Church over 2000 years in encyclicals and bulls issued by Popes.

Most important these can be found in the official new Catechism of the CC promulgated by JP II. Issues like the historicity of Creation are left open. There is such a thing as development of Doctrine which the church leaves open and which further development in science and archeology will make it clearer as time progresses. The church allows free discussion between its theologians.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

That is not true. My understanding is that human interpretations and traditions about the meaning of Scripture are not the “norm of truth,” and these are what I see as dominating Protestantism through its subjectivist approach of Sola Scriptura.

The Scripture is absolutely all true, and so is the Sacred Tradition the apostles handed down from God to their successors, and so is the revelation of the Sacred Magesterium. These are complementary truths, all one and all mutually supporting. Scripture, Tradition and Magesterium together form one deposit of faith and reflect the Trinity in their roles and in their unity. None of them ever contradict the others. They always agree and they support one another in everything. They make clear the meaning of the revelation of God, rather than leaving humans to figure it out for themselves through their own readings (human traditions of interpretation) of the Bible.

Goes and does so.

We should listen to Moses and the prophets. All Christians, no matter where you look, are encouraged to read the Scripture and listen to it. However, does this verse say we are to listen to them alone?

Look at the verse you’ve given! It says itself that Jesus interpreted the Scripture to them- they were unable to correctly interpret it on their own. Is it any wonder, then, that He left for His Church a Magesterium inspired by the Spirit to lead the Church into all truth?

This verse does not say Jesus told them to treat as infallible Scripture alone. It does nothing for Sola Scriptura. In fact, it flatly contradicts the idea that the meanings of scripture are so obvious that anyone through personal reading will be able to come to all the right conclusions through it.

Actually, there are several passages that affirm the role of Sacred Tradition, just as I have shown you there are several that affirm the Papacy and Magesterium.

The Early Church taught the same about Sacred Tradition. They constantly affirmed full adherence to Scripture, Tradition and the authority of the Magesterium and the Seat of Peter, just as the Scripture itself does.

Hi Lief,

Out of interest, who comprises the Magisterium? Is it the Pope and the Cardinals? Who else is included? Who decides how many men comprise the Magisterium? Where did God give precise instruction for the regulation of the Magisterium?

In Christ, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Scripture does not oppose the Pope. They complement one another. They are forever unified. Private interpretation is subject to error, though. This is clear from the fact that Jesus predicted that many “false teachers” will enter the Church and deceive many. So Scripture shows itself that private interpretation is fallible and can lead people astray, but Peter is Christ’s spokesman and all the Church rests on him, the Rock. Therefore by uniting ourselves to him rather than trusting our own interpretive talents, we are secure. Amen.

I agree absolutely. And his infallible declarations are always in accordance with scripture, not “above” it.

Where does the Bible say that?

Their place of authority over the Church is clearly described in Acts 15, as I pointed out in one of my most recent previous posts, which I’ll await your response for .

The scripture itself recommends that Christians follow the Pope (under whose authority it says all the Church lies), Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium. It actually clearly describes each of these roles. I await your responses to the scriptures I cited in my last few posts, in reference to each of these roles .

And please prayerfully try to get around the traditions of men that originated in the Reformation, as you consider these passages.

Hi Lief,

I will prayerfully consider what you have written in your last few posts.

It may take a few days. I am not “ducking for cover” you will understand. I will never back away from discussing truth. However, I am very busy at work at the moment.

I know you will understand. I will come back to you.

In Christ,

Craig

 

[Lief_Erikson]

But surely the Roman Catholic Magisterium could tell us all what is the final, infallible truth on the free will/predestination issue?

Scripture has an objective meaning, does it not?

If the Magisterium can’t deliver on this, what is the basis of the supposed infallible guidance it is supposed to possess?

I know this wasn’t addressed to me, and I’ll get to your posts to me later. I just want to mention that this very objection you’ve just raised is the same I’ve heard non-Christians make about the Bible for years. They tend to ask me, “If the Bible is inerrant, why doesn’t God give the answer to this or this question through it? He could have told people the answer and had them write it down in the Bible.” They sometimes ask, “If the Bible authors can’t deliver on this, what is the basis of the supposed infallible guidance it is supposed to possess?”

There are lots of things the Bible doesn’t say. There are lots of things the Magesterium hasn’t made clear, too. God chose what He wanted to put in the Bible, though, and He chose when He wanted to speak through it, historically, revealing new books. In the same way, God chooses when He will speak through the Magesterium, historically, and what He will say through them. He doesn’t reveal everything at once. That is not His way- Jesus foretold this in the New Testament, saying to His apostles, according to scripture the original bishops of the Church (see Acts 1:20, KJV), “When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13, NIV). And He said to them, “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear” (John 16:12). He reveals the truth that He entrusted to His Church with ever increasing clarity as time goes on.

Just as the Bible concentrates on giving people what they really need for unity with God, and was a developing revelation that took place over the course of thousands of years, as more and more inerrant books slowly and steadily trickled out of God’s mouth into the Israeli consciousness, in the same way the revelation of God comes from the mouth of God through the Magesterium in a slow, developing process over thousands of years into the consciousness of the Church, and reveals what people really need to come into more complete unity with Christ.

God could infallibly settle the Molinist vs. Thomist predestination debates within the Church through the Magesterium, just as He could have said more about any question he liked in the Bible. He can do whatever He wants with the infallible sources through which He speaks. However, God reveals what He pleases in His own timing and way. The Magesterium is not an institution controlled by humans.

 

[twb1621]

One pope inspired by the Holy Spirit declares all non-Catholics eternally damned and another pope inspired by the Holy Spirit says they are not. It doesn’t change “Church Doctrine” but it changes belief and teaching.

I see what you’re saying. Well the first (right or wrong) was responding to a particular situation involving the king at that time but in this sense it was not spelled out that in order for a person to commit and live in a state of mortal sin, they must have the knowledge it is a mortal sin they are committing. This is a recognized fact in the Church. This includes those who are not living the Catholic Faith and have no knowledge of the teachings of the Catholic Faith. In the sense this pope declared those outside the Church without the possibility of salvation, it would refer particularly to those who left or would leave the Catholic Church with the knowledge of the faith. It is correct in that circumstance and I believe there were Bible verses referred to back that up. As scripture says, more is expected of those who have more and this refers to those blessed with the gifts of the Church Jesus founded. More is expected of Catholics because more is offered to us in the way of teachings and the sacraments.

 

[twb1621]

Dear Brother Tom,

I was genuinely moved by this gracious post and I thank you heartily for the kind, generous and considerate words you have used.

I take your words, actually, as an expression of God’s very own good will between us and I give Him grateful praise.

I realise that my position on sola scriptura is not your position. I respect that; and I respect all true Catholics who practise their faith. You have the right to believe as you do.

Actually, although I hold to sola scriptura and sola fide there are large amounts of Catholic dogma that I can agree with. It is good for us to remember that. I am attracted to some aspects of catholic spirituality. I am a conservative Christian and very disciplined and orderly in bible reading and prayer.

You state:

“but regardless you have a brother here any time you are looking for a viewpoint or have a topic to discuss that I may be of help with.”

Thank you so much for this - yes, I do regard you as a brother and I’ll keep your kind invitation in mind.

By the way, I’ll just keep being truly myself as I have written in these posts. I will analyse a situation and then give you my honest thoughts. I will always be honest, I promise you that! Therefore, if I take a position that is not Catholic you will know that it is only on principle that I write. I am not opposed as such to Catholics.

May God bless you, In Christ Craig

understood and respected

 

[Lampo]

There is not one shred of evidence for this claim.

Sure there is. The Tradition of the Catholic Church. You just reject it.

The Scriptures never mention the birth of Mary.

Scriptures do not mention what books should be included in the Bible either, but you accept the authority of the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit when she determined the canon.

So to claim she was somehow “protected from original sin” is to speculate without any facts.

Incorrect. The fact is the Tradition of the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, has declared this to be so.

 

[guanophore]

Actually God is the final authority – but yes Jesus left Peter in the role of final decision maker on doctrinal issues. That role ended when the romans crucified him upside down. When I think of all the Popes who have committed such atrocities, to equate them with Peter is just disturbing (and I’m trying my best to be kind).

Where in scripture does it say “that role ended”?

Jesus told Peter “get thee behind me Satan”, and Peter committed the atrocity of denying Him during His passion. Somehow, these acts, and the hypocrisy described in Galatians, did not make his “role end”.

On what basis would you assume that a gift God gave was depended upon the frailties of a man?

 

[Lampo]

The scriptures stand OVER sacred tradition.

How is that possible since sacred Tradition is what produced the Bible? There is a fundamental rule in reasoning that I am trying to think of that applies here, but my mind is blank (very normal for me). It’s something like, “The thing produced cannot be greater than the source.” Maybe someone can help me here.

Also, you did not answer my question. What Scriptures alone were the early Christians using before the Catholic Council of Rome decided the Canon of Scripture?