Sola Scriptura Is Not God's Plan - An Argument

[GandalfTheWhite]

This is the strangest thread I think I have read.
It seems that people are arguing that Protestants do not believe in the church or preaching!!
Kind of a Catholic Jack Chick!
I THINK people know better but I am not sure.

Hi Brian!

I’m not sure but I think you might be misunderstanding what people here are actually saying. Most Protestant denominations do indeed believe in a church but the protestant concept of church is very different from the Catholic concept of church. It’s a bit like when you say talk about about different types of worship. The idea you should rather get from this thread is that the Protestant concept of church doesn’t really help Sola Sriptura. Thus I think referring to your concept of the church is in this case quite irrelevant (correct me if you think otherwise).

Now, I’m not sure from where you get the idea that people think that Protestants don’t believe in preaching. I don’t think anyone can believe that - especially if he/she actually owns TV .

Pax Domini

 

[roblrich]

I can only speak for baptists as I was once one, and they don’t worship at church. They only go and listen to a pastor preach. That’s it! And if they disagree with the pastor, they fire him and get another. If the church has a split on opinion, they may split into two different churches as one baptist church did that I attended in Green Co. Ky in the 70’s.

That’s the problem with protestants in my opinion. They have no church leadership or authority. They only want to hear what they want to listen to, as some in this thread only want to read what they agree with.

The more one listens or reads a protestant, the more they prove themselves wrong, as have the ones in this thread. One even admitted earlier that yes, it was Saint Peter that instructed us and ruled that in Acts 15, it was no longer necessary to circumcize, but circumcision should be replaced with baptism.

But then, protestants, or at least baptists don’t even believe that baptism is “necessary”. So what do baptists really stand for? Not very much, and that’s why I left them. Oh, they are a convenient church. They don’t demand much of a person. But my soul is much more valuable to me then risk it with a generic religion that has little tradition and no authority.

As Steve Ray (baptist turned Catholic) would say, protestants only see things through their “protestant” glasses. Thank God he helped me to take those baptist tinted glasses off and recognize the truth when I saw it.

NOTHING IN THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CONTRADICTS ANYTHING IN THE BIBLE, NOR DOES ANYTHING IN THE BIBLE CONTRADICT ANYTHING IN THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!

But the 33,000 protestant denominations have to cherry pick their scriptures and they even had to leave out several entire books of the Bible to try to make their case. And even then, they continue to wonder in the wilderness, lost and without direction, splintering and dividing themselves into more and more different beliefs. It’s very sad really. But there is hope.

I am listening to a CD from Steve Ray, called “From Baptist to Catholic”. In it he speaks about a Detroit Pentecostal Pastor named Alex Jones who converted to Catholicism and brought most of his church with him. Hallelujah!!!

Jones recently wrote a book named, “No Price too High: A Pentecostal Preacher Becomes Catholic”. You can find it in all book stores and at Amazon.com.

 

[Randy_Carson]

bump

 

[loscampos]

First we must have a question or hypothesis: Which has more authority, the church or scripture? We could also make this into a statement: The bible has more authority than the church. The converse statement would be: the church has more authority than the bible.

After the question we must look for any scripture verses that explicitly state one or the other.

The argument for Biblical authority:

            2 Tim 3:16 “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice”

The argument for Church authority:

            Mat 18:15-18 “But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”

            1 Tim 3:15 “But if I tarry long, 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 ground of the truth.”

Now that we have some explicit scripture verses we must find their implied meanings. As a side note, we could bring points on what constitutes the church, what is the body of the church, how do we determine if a book in scripture is inspired if it isn’t explicitly stated and so forth? All of these topics we will dive deeper into in further essays, but in order to stay on the current topic we will not go into all of these points that could be brought up.

Our second task is the context and the meanings of theses verses. In 2 Tim 3:15 we find that scripture is important for teaching and reproving etc. An underlying problem with this verse to prove scripture has more authority than the church is; if two people are teaching two different things from the same scripture. If the two in dispute are using the same scripture for correction and reproof, how then shall the dispute be settled? Mat 18:15-18 clearly states they must go to the church to settle the matter. The next question is then, why do we go to the church to settle the matter and not only scripture? We go to the church because it is the pillar of truth. This is an important concept because Jesus himself is truth. He is passing down his authority on truth to the church. This is especially clear if we continue on and finish reading 1 Tim 3:16, he refers to binding and loosing. Although this topic can be further talked about, we will use only what is relevant. The church is the truth because it can leave things out of heaven, something the bible in itself cannot do.

Lastly do either one of these points contradict themselves or any other passages pertaining to authority. “The bible has more authority than the church,” contradicts itself and the authority of the church. Continuing from our example on two people disputing each other from the same verse, not only does the bible tell us to go to the church to settle disputes, it tell us that it is not for private interpretation. This is made clear in 2 Pet 1:20 “Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation,” We can go in many different directions with this verse, but we will stick to the framework of authority. The altercation between the two people has part of its roots in conflicting interpretations. Within a larger context, if these two were leaders of different churches in Christianity, if neither church has authority over each other, then aren’t they both just interpreting the bible as their own? The main point is that there is a singular reference to adjudicate differences and it is a singular church and not scripture.

Does the statement “the church has more authority than the bible,” contradict itself or other teachings. The answer is no, not only for the reasons stated above; we could also look at binding again in more depth, as well as the spirit leading us in truth and so forth. Used in conjunction with each other 2 Tim is a great leading point into the other two verses.

Following a clear path used equally on both sides of the argument the following can be stated:

“The bible has more authority than the church,” is not explicitly stated, not implied, contradicts itself, does not fit within the context of authority.

Conversely “the church has more authority than the bible,” is explicitly stated as well as implied in many others, does not contradict itself and fits perfectly within the context of authority.

This is taken from: lococatolico.com/Essays.html

 

[mikeledes]

Saint Augustine also said the following:

**“Those which we keep, not as being written, but as from TRADITION, if observed by the whole of Christendom, are thereby understood to be committed to us BY THE APOSTLES themselves or plenary Councils, and to be retained as instituted.” (Ep 118).

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).

“And if anyone seek for Divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been HANDED DOWN by APOSTOLIC authority.” (On Baptism 24 speaking of infant Baptism).

“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] …may be supposed to have had its origin in Apostolic Tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the Apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).**

bringyou.to/apologetics/a23.htm

bringyou.to/apologetics/num6.htm

bringyou.to/apologetics/a60.htm

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Fidelis]

For the purposes of this conversation, it is important to keep in mind that in common parlance, “Sola Scriptura” implies it’s corrollary, private interpretation.

So when we Catholics say Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura, what we mean to say is that “Protestants believe that everything an individual Christian needs to know to be saved is found clearly in the Bible, and that the individual believer is bound only by what he believes is the correct interpretation (his or someone elses) of what he sees in the Bible.”

Hope that helps.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Adapted from “Why Be Catholic” - a talk by James Akin

If it is truly God’s plan for people to come to the knowledge of salvation and form their theology via sola Scriptura, then it should be something the average Christian can easily implement. Otherwise, sola Scriptura is simply something for the Christian elite, the Christian illuminati, and not something to be used by the common masses which could have no hope of putting it into practice. To the contrary, average Christians should not try to implement sola Scriptura, for they would certainly go wrong. Instead, they should listen only to the sola Scriptura elite for their information about what the “Bible only” says. Here’s why.

sola Scriptura presupposes or assumes a number of things in order for it to be practical or workable. If it is to be used by the average Christian in world, then the following basic requirements have to be met:

1. The existence of the printing press: Without this, there is no way one can make enough Bibles for people to do the kind of in-depth study needed to form theology.
2. The universal distribution of Bibles: Merely having access to a Bible occasionally and for short periods of time is not adequate for study, reflection, and testing of ideas. One needs a personal copy of the Bible.
3. Universal literacy: Merely hearing Scripture read cannot substitute for the detailed reading and re-reading or the word studies one needs to do in order to be a competent exegete. One must be able to read the Bible for oneself.
4. Universal possession of or access to scholarly support materials: Without commentaries, language tools, theological dictionaries, etc., any attempt to do serious theology is going to go hopelessly off course. To do serious theology, one must either own or have easy access to good scholarly support materials.
5. Universal possession of adequate leisure time for study: It does no good to have all the tools for Bible study if one must spend all one’s time working in the fields trying to eke out a starvation diet for oneself and one’s family. One must have sufficient leisure time to do serious, in-depth Bible study.
6. Universal nutrition: Though it isn’t pleasant to think about, people’s brains just don’t work right if they aren’t nourished properly. Children who are malnourished grow up to have all kinds of cognitive problems. One must be fed correctly if one is going to think correctly.
7. Universal education in critical thinking skills: People must be trained to recognize good arguments from bad, to spot logical fallacies, to weigh evidence, and to test propositions from multiple points of view. One must have solid training in critical thinking skills in order to undertake the study of theology responsibly.

Needless to say, the average citizen of the world today does not meet all seven of these presuppositions that sola Scriptura makes. Much less the average person over the entire course of world history.

In fact, assumption #1 did not become true until very recently. The printing press was only invented in the 1450s, shortly before the Protestant Reformation. Three quarters of Church history as it now stands had already passed under the bridge before the first assumption of sola Scriptura was even met.

Because the practical assumptions required by sola Scriptura are not now met, nor ever have been met by the average Christian in world history, we must conclude that sola Scriptura is not God’s design for how the average Christian in world history is to learn his theology. Put simply, sola Scriptura is not God’s plan.

If it were truly God’s plan that modern medicine, including the latest surgical techniques and the numerous life-saving drugs now available in many parts of the world, ought to be viewed as important and urgently needed by the masses, that presupposes several things:

1. The money and technology needed for research into new drugs must exist. But this has not always been the case. A few hundred years ago the world knew nothing about germs, so no antibiotics were used.
2. Without hospitals, no one has access to x-rays, laboratories, and intensive care areas. Modern hospitals are still quite rare in some countries.
3. Without effective anesthesia and pain medicine, even minor surgery would be nearly impossible.

I guess we can safely conclude that modern medicine is not something that God thinks is very urgently needed. Neither are modern farming methods, modern communications, or anything else that is relatively new.

 

[mikeledes]

Adapted from “Why Be Catholic” - a talk by James Akin

If it is truly God’s plan for people to come to the knowledge of salvation and form their theology via sola Scriptura, then it should be something the average Christian can easily implement. Otherwise, sola Scriptura is simply something for the Christian elite, the Christian illuminati, and not something to be used by the common masses which could have no hope of putting it into practice. To the contrary, average Christians should not try to implement sola Scriptura, for they would certainly go wrong. Instead, they should listen only to the sola Scriptura elite for their information about what the “Bible only” says. Here’s why.

sola Scriptura presupposes or assumes a number of things in order for it to be practical or workable. If it is to be used by the average Christian in world, then the following basic requirements have to be met:

1. The existence of the printing press: Without this, there is no way one can make enough Bibles for people to do the kind of in-depth study needed to form theology.
2. The universal distribution of Bibles: Merely having access to a Bible occasionally and for short periods of time is not adequate for study, reflection, and testing of ideas. One needs a personal copy of the Bible.
3. Universal literacy: Merely hearing Scripture read cannot substitute for the detailed reading and re-reading or the word studies one needs to do in order to be a competent exegete. One must be able to read the Bible for oneself.
4. Universal possession of or access to scholarly support materials: Without commentaries, language tools, theological dictionaries, etc., any attempt to do serious theology is going to go hopelessly off course. To do serious theology, one must either own or have easy access to good scholarly support materials.
5. Universal possession of adequate leisure time for study: It does no good to have all the tools for Bible study if one must spend all one’s time working in the fields trying to eke out a starvation diet for oneself and one’s family. One must have sufficient leisure time to do serious, in-depth Bible study.
6. Universal nutrition: Though it isn’t pleasant to think about, people’s brains just don’t work right if they aren’t nourished properly. Children who are malnourished grow up to have all kinds of cognitive problems. One must be fed correctly if one is going to think correctly.
7. Universal education in critical thinking skills: People must be trained to recognize good arguments from bad, to spot logical fallacies, to weigh evidence, and to test propositions from multiple points of view. One must have solid training in critical thinking skills in order to undertake the study of theology responsibly.

Needless to say, the average citizen of the world today does not meet all seven of these presuppositions that sola Scriptura makes. Much less the average person over the entire course of world history.

In fact, assumption #1 did not become true until very recently. The printing press was only invented in the 1450s, shortly before the Protestant Reformation. Three quarters of Church history as it now stands had already passed under the bridge before the first assumption of sola Scriptura was even met.

Because the practical assumptions required by sola Scriptura are not now met, nor ever have been met by the average Christian in world history, we must conclude that sola Scriptura is not God’s design for how the average Christian in world history is to learn his theology. Put simply, sola Scriptura is not God’s plan.

You forgot to mention knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic, and koine Greek. Everyone claims they’re teaching the “plain meaning” of Scripture and yet you have differences between Lutherans and Reformed, Arminians and Calvinists, and differences even within Calvinism (five pointers, four pointers, pedobaptists, credobaptists). In reality, each Protestant is relying on their own private interpretation, the private interpretation of their pastor, or the private interpretation of a major theologian (i.e. Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, Darby, etc.).

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

If it were truly God’s plan that modern medicine, including the latest surgical techniques and the numerous life-saving drugs now available in many parts of the world, ought to be viewed as important and urgently needed by the masses, that presupposes several things:

1. The money and technology needed for research into new drugs must exist. But this has not always been the case. A few hundred years ago the world knew nothing about germs, so no antibiotics were used.
2. Without hospitals, no one has access to x-rays, laboratories, and intensive care areas. Modern hospitals are still quite rare in some countries.
3. Without effective anesthesia and pain medicine, even minor surgery would be nearly impossible.

I guess we can safely conclude that modern medicine is not something that God thinks is very urgently needed. Neither are modern farming methods, modern communications, or anything else that is relatively new.

All of these things pertain to physical life. In the end, it is God who has final say on when you leave this earth and when you don’t, regardless of any modern innovations. The Bible, however, deals with the spiritual and the most important issue of one’s life, the salvation of one’s soul. Thus clarity is absolutely essential.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Nick_Jones]

Following a clear path used equally on both sides of the argument the following can be stated:

“The bible has more authority than the church,” is not explicitly stated, not implied, contradicts itself, does not fit within the context of authority.

Conversely “the church has more authority than the bible,” is explicitly stated as well as implied in many others, does not contradict itself and fits perfectly within the context of authority.

There are a few fatal flaws in this view of yours:

1. Without the Scriptures, how on earth can you, or anyone else, determine which religion and/or which religious teachings are from God?
2. How is it possible to hold the view that “the church has more authority than the bible,” without viciously insulting God? Without God’s word, “the church” is just a bunch of prideful lost souls inventing whatever doctrines seem useful to maintain control over the masses.

 

[justinthemartyr]

No one said that the Churh was above the scriptures. The Sacred Tradition of the church(which gave us the canon of scriptures called the Bible,biblia,book) is equal to the scriptures as seen in
2 thess 2:15

No one said you did not need the Bible, only that the Bible alone is not the sole authority of God. If that were true, then we wouldn’t have the canon of scripture as we know it, for the sacred Tradition of the church would have never canonized the scriptures.

ie, there is no bible, without the Sacred Tradition of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which decided the canon in 382ad.

 

[IgnatiusJReilly]

Augustine, De bono viduitatis. 2. See NPNF, Series I, III:442. [/indent]

He also says this:
"For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)—not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. "

Saint Augustine did not believe in Sola Scriptura. Indeed, the idea of Sola Scriptura does not enter the Christian scene until Martin Luther. Luther came to this view after losing a debate with Eck.

Holy Scripture has always been venerated and is one of the pillars, but nobody before Luther taught that we come to an understanding of the Christian faith through Scripture ALONE.

In fact, shortly after Luther, many groups sprang up because they had very different interpretations of Scripture. Servetus and his group denied the Trinity because, in his view, it wasn’t Scriptural. Zwingli and Luther got into a pamphlet war over whether sola fide was correctly interpretd as “the just shall live by FAITH” (Luther) or “the just shall LIVE by faith” (Zwingli).

 

[Nick_Jones]

No one said that the Churh was above the scriptures. The Sacred Tradition of the church(which gave us the canon of scriptures called the Bible,biblia,book) is equal to the scriptures as seen in
2 thess 2:15

If the canon of Scriptures was given to us by the church, then the church came before the Scriptures, and the church is therefore above the Scriptures.

No one said you did not need the Bible, only that the Bible alone is not the sole authority of God. If that were true, then we wouldn’t have the canon of scripture as we know it, for the sacred Tradition of the church would have never canonized the scriptures.

Did the Jews know what was (OT) Scripture without the magisterium? If so, how did they know?

ie, there is no bible, without the Sacred Tradition of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which decided the canon in 382ad.

I guess that means that all of the Jews living before the time of the apostles never knew the OT Scriptures!

 

[Harsalter]

1. How is it possible to hold the view that “the church has more authority than the bible,”

Because Christ told Peter that he was appointed head of the Church…

Matthew 16:18 "*And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell *(including Martin Luther and all Protestants) shall not prevail against it."

…and Christ went on and instructed Peter, that whatever Peter or his successors deemed necessary, it would be enforced infallibly by God!

Matthew 16:19 "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

I guess ‘sola scriptura’ believers conveniently forget these passages. That means that the Pope, the successor of Peter has infallibility. Pretty much puts to rest any authority any protestant could possibly claim. Once I understood this, like many others, I could not sleep and once day break came, I did not walk but I ran to my car and drove as quickly as I could to the nearest Catholic parish and screamed, “I WANT TO BE CATHOLIC JUST LIKE THE ORIGINAL APOSTLES!”

 

[justinthemartyr]

If the canon of Scriptures was given to us by the church, then the church came before the Scriptures, and the church is therefore above the Scriptures.

Did the Jews know what was (OT) Scripture without the magisterium? If so, how did they know?

I guess that means that all of the Jews living before the time of the apostles never knew the OT Scriptures!

The Catholic church has never stated that the Church is above the scriptures.

The sacred Tradition of the Church is equal to the Word of God given in the written form of Tradition, called scripture.

2 thess 2:15

The jews before the time of the Church utilized scripture(OT canons) and the jews were taught by their priests and leaders just as the Christian lay people are led by the Bishops and priests and deacons of the Church.

The jews knew the scriptures very well, if fact they did not even have chapters and verses, but memorized much of the scriptures that were read and taught by their peaders in the temples. The jews did not have one set canon, their were 5 canons, but the Word of God revealed through the commandments was what each followed for his/her guidance to do the will of God through the Law of God.

Jesus Christ fulfilled that law, but did not do away with any of it. We are no longer under that law but it is written on our hearts as scripture states. The Nt church is the perfect fulfillment of an OT priesthood which had basically failed and not what God intended.

To say that Christ(head of the Church) and His Body are above His Word in writing is silly at best.

Christ is Christ in written or oral Word, or in the Flesh, it is still the same authority, equal to each other. the priests of the Church today are Christ for us, as Paul stated that he forgave their sins in the person of Christ(persona Christi). The two are equal in authority.

 

[Harsalter]

The Catholic church has never stated that the Church is above the scriptures.

The sacred Tradition of the Church is equal to the Word of God given in the written form of Tradition, called scripture.
.

True. I sort of bought into the false premise of the question I answered above. But my points still hold true as far as the authority of the Church being equal to scripture.

Also, protestants who use their incomplete Bible do not have seven books of the Old Testament that even Christ and the original apostles used. This is very peculiar to me claiming that an incomplete book has 100% authority. It just proves to me the ignorance of most protestants, because if they understood this, most would convert. I did.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Because Christ told Peter that he was appointed head of the Church…

Are you certain that the concept of “papacy” is mentioned somewhere in the bible? If so, could you tell me where?

Matthew 16:18 "*And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell *(including Martin Luther and all Protestants) shall not prevail against it."

Are you saying that “this rock” is Peter? If so, why don’t other parts of the NT mention or suggest that Peter is to be the head of the church?

…and Christ went on and instructed Peter, that whatever Peter or his successors deemed necessary, it would be enforced infallibly by God!

Matthew 16:19 "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

How do you get from this (binding and loosing) to a pope, and where in Scripture is Peter given the headship of the church?

 

[Harsalter]

Are you saying that “this rock” is Peter? If so, why don’t other parts of the NT mention or suggest that Peter is to be the head of the church?

Because unlike protestants, Peter only needed to be told once.

So let me see if I understand the reasoning of your questions. To be correct, one needs to only believe in a church derived from one created by a man that left the original church 1500 years after the institution of the original Church. And then one must only believe in an incomplete book as the entire basis of their faith as this protester tore out seven books of the Bible that even Christ and the original apostles taught?

How can anyone dismiss the Sacred Tradition taught from Christ and the original apostles is beyond me. Again, I was once a baptist but even at age 11, I understood my family’s church had no basis of authority and certainly had other flaws.

Protestants have no church authority and no one in the protestants many churches have any authority to translate and decipher scripture. But then they insist on basing their entire faith system on a book they don’t even understand.

Edited to add this: I hope I do not come off uncharitable. My attitude comes from my frustration as an ex-protestant that had been lied to and misled all his life. I am sure these protestants meant well, but they were simply ignorant and misinformed. It took my own studies to learn the truth.

The truth and facts are stubborn things. And only 98% of the truth is nothing but a lie.

Have a great day.

 

[justinthemartyr]

Are you certain that the concept of “papacy” is mentioned somewhere in the bible? If so, could you tell me where?

Are you saying that “this rock” is Peter? If so, why don’t other parts of the NT mention or suggest that Peter is to be the head of the church?

How do you get from this (binding and loosing) to a pope, and where in Scripture is Peter given the headship of the church?

Let’s see…

“Cephas”(aramaic and Kephas in hebrew) is the name which Christ gave to Simon. Cephas means rock john 1:42 I believe. It’s in your Bible.

You are cephas and upon this cephas I will build my church, in the aramaic word used by Christ.

Jesus is our shepherd, right? Jesus specifically asked cephas(peter, rock) to tend His sheep and feed His sheep, making Peter the earthly shepherd of Christ’s sheep.

He individually gave cephas the power to bind and loose on earth as in heaven and then also gave him the kleys to the kingdom of heaven of which Jesus is Lord of. This authrity in and of itself is proof positive, not to mention the first entire 1500 years of Christianity showing us that peter had the earthly position to serve Christs sheep as chief shepherd. He is the earthly father of the church. papa=pope

Just as Paul stated he was their father in christ and just as Abraham was the earthly father of God’s chosen in the OT and Jesus calls him this.

Also, peters name is spoken over 195 times in the Nt, more than all of the other apostles combined.

I hope this helps. peace, justin

 

[Nick_Jones]

Let’s see…

“Cephas”(aramaic and Kephas in hebrew) is the name which Christ gave to Simon. Cephas means rock john 1:42 I believe. It’s in your Bible.

You are cephas and upon this cephas I will build my church, in the aramaic word used by Christ.

Is it possible that “this rock” (in Matt. 16:18) is the confession of Peter, and not Peter himself?