The scriptural justification for papal ‘vicarship’ is also questionable. It’s rather late and I’d rather not get into it now, but if you look at the Greek of the most commonly used supportive text, it does not refer to Peter as the ‘rock’ in a way that denotes that he is the physical rock (please correct me if I’m wrong).
It also ignores other scripture where Peter is chastised... for instance where Christ rebukes him with, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”
(Mt 16:23)
Please note that I am not saying Peter is Satan... he remains an Apostle of Christ and one of the foundations upon which Christ spread his Good News.
As to ‘Sola Scriptura’, except in discussion with Catholics, the term never comes up. It is often used as some kind of condemnation... as if a it is somehow wrong to base your faith entirely upon the Word of God. What a sad thing when people use trust in scripture as an attack.
I do not look only at scripture however, and I think you'll find this true of even those who claim adherence to 'Sola Scriptura'. We all look at the writings and lives of Brethren in Christ, both past and present. For example, I usually have at least one missionary biography going at any given time, and also look at the writings of early Christianity (ie Tertulian, Justin Martyr, Augustine of Hippo, etc). More recent theologians and thinkers also top my reading list (ie. Ajith Fernando, NT Wright, John Dominic Crossan, etc). I should mention that merely because I read them does NOT mean I agree with everything they write.
I absolutely affirm though, that the highest authority is the Word of God contained in scripture. It is scripture that I use to measure the people that I read.
We are to use the Words of God to test the wisdom of man... not the other way around.
They don't contradict. In matters of the faith and of morals, the pope is infallible.
it does not refer to Peter as the ‘rock’ in a way that denotes that he is the physical rock
Petra vs. Petros, correct? IMO, that shows the importance of Peter against the importance of Christ. Obviously, Peter's importance pales in comparison. Now, that's just my opinion on "petra" vs. "petros" ... I'm sure the Church has an official stance on this, but you asked for my personal opinion when we began this and I'm offering that.
It also ignores other scripture where Peter is chastised
At no time does the Church deny that Peter was human and erred as humans do. A sinless life is not a requirement of an apostle. God does not called the qualified, he qualifies the called. Also, not long after being chastised, he also denied Christ 3 times as predicted. But read on ... he then became a pillar of faith.
What a sad thing when people use trust in scripture as an attack.
Wasn't an attack on my part. From reading your replies, you sounded as if that was something you held to.
We are to use the Words of God to test the wisdom of man... not the other way around.
Agreed. But God's word is not limited to the Bible. As scriptures says ... we will know them by their fruits.