What do you think?
Rate this book
Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church
Ray, a former Evangelical Protestant and Bible teacher, goes through the Scriptures and the first five centuries of the Church to demonstrate that the early Christians had a clear understanding of the primacy of Peter in the see of Rome. He tackles the tough issues in an attempt to expose how the opposition is misunderstanding the Scriptures and history. He uses many Protestant scholars and historians to support the Catholic position. This book contains the most complete compilation of Scriptural and Patristic quotations on the primacy of Peter and the Papal office of any book available. It has over 500 footnotes with supporting evidence from Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical, and non-Christian authorities.
350 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 1999
100 people are currently reading
518 people want to read
About the author
Stephen K. Ray
13 books27 followersStephen K. Ray was raised in a devout, loving Baptist family. His father was a deacon and Bible teacher and Stephen was very involved in the Baptist Church as a teacher of Biblical studies and lectured on a wide range of topics. Steve and his wife Janet entered the Catholic Church in 1994.
In addition to running a family business, Steve spends time researching, writing, and teaching about the Catholic Faith. He is the author of Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church, Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church, and St. John's Gospel: A Bible Study and Commentary.
He is currently producing a 10-video series for Ignatius Press called The Footprints of God: The Story of Salvation From Abraham to Augustine, filmed on location in the Holy Land.
In addition to running a family business, Steve spends time researching, writing, and teaching about the Catholic Faith. He is the author of Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church, Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church, and St. John's Gospel: A Bible Study and Commentary.
He is currently producing a 10-video series for Ignatius Press called The Footprints of God: The Story of Salvation From Abraham to Augustine, filmed on location in the Holy Land.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
April 14, 2020
This book is a prime example of why academic training is important if you're attempting to write a coherently argued book about theological history. Stephen Ray is an ex-Evangelical with zero theological training or historical training, zero expertise; unfortunately, self-taught is half-taught, as Mr. Ray doesn't know what he doesn't know. Providing endless block quotations from early church sources outside of their original context is not an argument; his understanding of the theology/history of the primacy is severely lacking. Anyone looking for actual arguments regarding the early primacy, Catholic-Orthodox relations, Catholic-Protestant relations, etc., should turn to recent works by Manoussakis, Puglisi, Pottmeyer, Vgenopoulos, Congar, A. N. Williams, etc.
December 30, 2012
This is *the* book for anyone who wants to deeply investigate the claim of the primacy of Peter. Steve Ray offers a staggering amount of evidence from the early church fathers. Half of the material of the book is footnotes, and these are well worth your read, as Steve uses them to introduce the various authors and offer explanations to help us understand the context and meaning of the material.
Don't skip the appendices either! These are also well worth your time.
Don't skip the appendices either! These are also well worth your time.
July 19, 2011
Ray gives the definitive defence of papal primacy by going through all of the relevant Scripture passages and writings of the Church Fathers, showing their significance in the establishment of the papacy. He also provides a detailed biography of St. Peter, as well as describing the foreshadowing of the papacy in the Old Testament. Great book. Highly recommended.
October 27, 2008
Apologetics at its best.
December 27, 2010
Very indepth book. I plan to read it again in the near future.
August 23, 2018
My Catholic and Protestant friends were in a debate. They came to the question of whether or not the early church recognized Peter as their leader. It got to the point of:
"Yes, they did."
"No, they didn't."
Well, when neither side knows the history, the only thing to do is more research. I recommend this book to people on both sides of the debate.
History is a wonderful thing!
"Yes, they did."
"No, they didn't."
Well, when neither side knows the history, the only thing to do is more research. I recommend this book to people on both sides of the debate.
History is a wonderful thing!
September 25, 2017
Great read and very informative. A must read for any Catholic wanting to have more knowledge of their Church. I highly recommend this book! A must for every library.
March 4, 2012
This was an amazingly thorough book about the life of S. Peter, the office he was appointed to, and the ramifications of the succession of that office as well as the ancient and historical contexts and beliefs attached to that office. Ray knocks this one out of the park. One is left in awe of the Church Christ founded and the amazing love and provision he gave and is giving her. As someone who is currently Protestant, i have a totally new outlook on the historical and spiritual significance and validity of the Chair of Peter. One cannot help but be drawn to the truths found in the ancient church through the Church fathers. While perhaps not agreeing 100% of the time there is no doubt that the See of Peter vested in the Bishop of Rome was the singular point of unity for the first 1500 years of the Church. Of course this doesn't "seal he deal" for Catholicism's claim but it forces the Protestant and Orthodox alike to take a hard look at history and decide whether our church is THE Church founded by the Lord Jesus. Ray makes an amazingly convincing argument to the negative. The reason I gave this book 4 and not five stars was of course not because of content or argument but because of structure. It's a difficult read because you have to bounce back and forth from narrative to footnotes but anyone who has read Steve's other books is familiar with is style. Although its challenging is well worth it. This is the definitive defense of the Chair of Peter and the Roman See.
August 9, 2010
Steve is one of the most dynamic speakers I've ever heard when he is talking about biblical times and history. I would love to travel to the holy land on one of his tours.
I've read his "Crossing the Tiber" and am now slogging my way trhough "Upon this Rock". Slogging? Yes! I find his style of writing difficult for me, Steve documents his books with every imaginable footnote. And while the additional information provide is informative, it is so disruptive of my reading that I often loose track of the main theme. Do I learn alot from Steve, again the answer is Yes, but I have to work at it to get past the fact that many of the pages of the book are three quarters foot note, and one quarter what I think of as the "main story line".
I will continue to read his books, its worth it, but it is not as enjoyable or easy a read as I would like.
I've read his "Crossing the Tiber" and am now slogging my way trhough "Upon this Rock". Slogging? Yes! I find his style of writing difficult for me, Steve documents his books with every imaginable footnote. And while the additional information provide is informative, it is so disruptive of my reading that I often loose track of the main theme. Do I learn alot from Steve, again the answer is Yes, but I have to work at it to get past the fact that many of the pages of the book are three quarters foot note, and one quarter what I think of as the "main story line".
I will continue to read his books, its worth it, but it is not as enjoyable or easy a read as I would like.
September 13, 2024
A CONVERT TO CATHOLICISM DEFENDS PETRINE/ROMAN PRIMACY
Stephen K. Ray is a former Baptist deacon, whose conversion story is told in his (and his wife's) book, Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church; he has also written 'St. John's Gospel: A Bible Study Guide and Commentary.'
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1999 book, "I wrote to William Webster [author of books such as 'The Matthew 16 Controversy: Peter and the Rock and Church of Rome at the Bar of History']... Mr. Webster's response was very telling, and I wish he had been forthright about this matter in his book. His return E-mail stated, 'No father denies that Peter had a primacy or that there is a Petrine succession. The issue is how the fathers interpreted those concepts...' What an extraordinary admission...
"Many of the Fathers were in theological or disciplinary disagreement with Rome... yet they never denied Rome's primacy... it would have been as simple as proving from the Bible or from tradition that Peter, and subsequently his successors in Rome, had no primacy, no authority to rule in the Church. Yet, as even Webster freely admits, this refutation never occurred." (Pg. 12-13)
He points out concerning Gal 2:11-14, "Why... would Paul's action in any way prove he 'did not regard Peter as infallible in faith and morals'? Why would Paul be out of line in correcting some wrong practice of Peter? Does Peter claim perfection? Does the Catholic Church ever claim that the successor to Peter is any more perfect in his conduct than Peter was himself? Does the Catholic Church teach that either Peter or the current Pope is impeccable, sinless, always perfect in his conduct, always practicing perfectly what he preaches, never in need of confession?... If Popes are guilty of imprudent or immoral conduct, they can be, should be, and often have been reproved." (Pg. 57)
He criticizes Lorraine Boettner's claim [in Roman Catholicism] that there is no historical proof that Peter was ever in Rome: "One must ask why Boettner ignores the overwhelming testimony of the early Christians. Does he consider all written documents of the first centuries to be 'legends,' even the documents that came out of the theological councils of the Church that defined the doctrines of the Blessed Trinity and the deity of Christ and those in which the canon of the New Testament was determined?...
"Does he have proof of Peter being elsewhere? Absolutely not. Can he quote other sources or traditions that would support an opposing view? No. He has simply turned a blind eye in his loyalty to novel Protestant notions." (Pg. 101) He admits, however, that "there is the distinct possibility that Paul and Peter were not the best of friends and that Paul would not go out of his way to see or write Peter at this point in his ministry... there is evidence enough in Scripture that Paul had a strong and independent personality and had conflicts with more than one person." (Pg. 107)
He concludes, "The antagonists admit that the question at issue is not whether there WAS a primacy but how it was INTERPRETED. Our study has shown it was interpreted very literally and very consistently... In fact, what we find is that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church still within the apostolic tradition and functioning according to the principles and customs of the fathers." (Pg. 245)
This book will be of great interest to anyone studying Catholic apologetics.
Stephen K. Ray is a former Baptist deacon, whose conversion story is told in his (and his wife's) book, Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church; he has also written 'St. John's Gospel: A Bible Study Guide and Commentary.'
He wrote in the Introduction to this 1999 book, "I wrote to William Webster [author of books such as 'The Matthew 16 Controversy: Peter and the Rock and Church of Rome at the Bar of History']... Mr. Webster's response was very telling, and I wish he had been forthright about this matter in his book. His return E-mail stated, 'No father denies that Peter had a primacy or that there is a Petrine succession. The issue is how the fathers interpreted those concepts...' What an extraordinary admission...
"Many of the Fathers were in theological or disciplinary disagreement with Rome... yet they never denied Rome's primacy... it would have been as simple as proving from the Bible or from tradition that Peter, and subsequently his successors in Rome, had no primacy, no authority to rule in the Church. Yet, as even Webster freely admits, this refutation never occurred." (Pg. 12-13)
He points out concerning Gal 2:11-14, "Why... would Paul's action in any way prove he 'did not regard Peter as infallible in faith and morals'? Why would Paul be out of line in correcting some wrong practice of Peter? Does Peter claim perfection? Does the Catholic Church ever claim that the successor to Peter is any more perfect in his conduct than Peter was himself? Does the Catholic Church teach that either Peter or the current Pope is impeccable, sinless, always perfect in his conduct, always practicing perfectly what he preaches, never in need of confession?... If Popes are guilty of imprudent or immoral conduct, they can be, should be, and often have been reproved." (Pg. 57)
He criticizes Lorraine Boettner's claim [in Roman Catholicism] that there is no historical proof that Peter was ever in Rome: "One must ask why Boettner ignores the overwhelming testimony of the early Christians. Does he consider all written documents of the first centuries to be 'legends,' even the documents that came out of the theological councils of the Church that defined the doctrines of the Blessed Trinity and the deity of Christ and those in which the canon of the New Testament was determined?...
"Does he have proof of Peter being elsewhere? Absolutely not. Can he quote other sources or traditions that would support an opposing view? No. He has simply turned a blind eye in his loyalty to novel Protestant notions." (Pg. 101) He admits, however, that "there is the distinct possibility that Paul and Peter were not the best of friends and that Paul would not go out of his way to see or write Peter at this point in his ministry... there is evidence enough in Scripture that Paul had a strong and independent personality and had conflicts with more than one person." (Pg. 107)
He concludes, "The antagonists admit that the question at issue is not whether there WAS a primacy but how it was INTERPRETED. Our study has shown it was interpreted very literally and very consistently... In fact, what we find is that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church still within the apostolic tradition and functioning according to the principles and customs of the fathers." (Pg. 245)
This book will be of great interest to anyone studying Catholic apologetics.
April 17, 2020
A major challenge for people converting to the Roman Catholic faith is the papacy. The role of the pope as head of the Church of Christ doesn't fit in with current democratic ideals. The church was founded two thousand years ago, so investigating the early writings on Peter and the papacy has immense value. Understanding the culture of that time and the organic growth of the church provides a new perspective. This book gives an in-depth look at early writings on Peter and the primacy of the bishop of Rome.
The book is divided into three parts. The first looks at Saint Peter himself as he is described in the New Testament and in ancient secular texts. He clearly had a special role in the nascent church, a role given to him by Jesus Himself. He took on a leadership role among the apostles and Paul came to meet with Peter specifically when he converted to Christianity and wanted to become an apostle. Peter traveled to Rome and died during the persecutions of Nero. Ray discusses various objections to Peter's primacy and provides convincing counterarguments.
The second part looks at the first five hundred years of church history, specifically at the role of the bishop of Rome in the growing Christian church. Ray looks at dozens of texts from the early church fathers (theologians and bishops). This part of the book turns into a bit of a slog. He gives the quotations in the text and provides commentary in footnotes (which are on the same page, so readily consultable). I found this part a little repetitive and less interesting than the first part. Again, Ray looks at various objections and questions raised by Protestant scholars and gives able explanations of the Catholic understanding.
The final part of the book looks at more modern writings, specifically the Council of Trent (1566), Vatican I (1870), Vatican II (1965), and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994). This section is short and clarifies current understandings of the role of the Pope.
The first appendix lists all the popes from Peter to John Paul II (the book was published in 1999, so no Benedict XVI or Francis--I've written them in to my book!) along with a list of anti-popes, the men who illegitimately claimed to be pope. The second appendix is an interesting essay looking at the Old Testament basis for Peter's primacy, mostly looking at Joseph as the Pharoah's prime minister and at Isaiah's text on the change from Shebna to Eliakim as royal steward in Israel. Other issues are discussed, such as how God changes people's names (Abram to Abraham, Simon to Peter).
For me, the best parts of the book were the first section, discussing Peter directly, and the second appendix, comparing Old Testament examples to Peter's selection and role. The rest of the book has good information but is more scholarly. The book is a great resource for information on the founding of the papacy.
Recommended.
The book is divided into three parts. The first looks at Saint Peter himself as he is described in the New Testament and in ancient secular texts. He clearly had a special role in the nascent church, a role given to him by Jesus Himself. He took on a leadership role among the apostles and Paul came to meet with Peter specifically when he converted to Christianity and wanted to become an apostle. Peter traveled to Rome and died during the persecutions of Nero. Ray discusses various objections to Peter's primacy and provides convincing counterarguments.
The second part looks at the first five hundred years of church history, specifically at the role of the bishop of Rome in the growing Christian church. Ray looks at dozens of texts from the early church fathers (theologians and bishops). This part of the book turns into a bit of a slog. He gives the quotations in the text and provides commentary in footnotes (which are on the same page, so readily consultable). I found this part a little repetitive and less interesting than the first part. Again, Ray looks at various objections and questions raised by Protestant scholars and gives able explanations of the Catholic understanding.
The final part of the book looks at more modern writings, specifically the Council of Trent (1566), Vatican I (1870), Vatican II (1965), and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994). This section is short and clarifies current understandings of the role of the Pope.
The first appendix lists all the popes from Peter to John Paul II (the book was published in 1999, so no Benedict XVI or Francis--I've written them in to my book!) along with a list of anti-popes, the men who illegitimately claimed to be pope. The second appendix is an interesting essay looking at the Old Testament basis for Peter's primacy, mostly looking at Joseph as the Pharoah's prime minister and at Isaiah's text on the change from Shebna to Eliakim as royal steward in Israel. Other issues are discussed, such as how God changes people's names (Abram to Abraham, Simon to Peter).
For me, the best parts of the book were the first section, discussing Peter directly, and the second appendix, comparing Old Testament examples to Peter's selection and role. The rest of the book has good information but is more scholarly. The book is a great resource for information on the founding of the papacy.
Recommended.
August 16, 2024
Excellent book, chronicles the primacy of Peter throughout the first 5-6 centuries, and beyond, fairly extensively.
The author does respond, in some detail, to a handful of prominent protestant critics. This includes the very popular reformed-baptist, James White. I found the authors responses to some of the protestant counter-claims to be satisfactory and convincing.
The one major qualm I have with this book is the structuring. It is formatted with extensive footnotes, sometimes taking up 1...2.. Or even 3 pages (just with one footnote). I am not sure who this book is geared towards, as it seems to be trying to slot in somewhere between appearing over academic vs just being a chronicling of the Petrine evidence.
So I found it difficult to read at times. The actual body/text of the book is structured as chronological quotes, covering various Petrine topics, with the authors commentary and additional context remaining in the footnotes. I understand that technically, the footnotes do provide additional context, but then within the footnotes themselves, I find the author cites other author/sources. So it becomes a sort of citation inception. Now, I am not an academic (and I do not believe the author is either, moreso a knowledge apologist), but I would reckon that much of the authors writings and commentary would have been better placed within the actual text of the book itself.
Otherwise, with the exception of this footnote debacle, again, it seems to be a fairly diligent presentation of the evidence, and seems to be very well researched as a whole, regardless of it's formatting.
The author does respond, in some detail, to a handful of prominent protestant critics. This includes the very popular reformed-baptist, James White. I found the authors responses to some of the protestant counter-claims to be satisfactory and convincing.
The one major qualm I have with this book is the structuring. It is formatted with extensive footnotes, sometimes taking up 1...2.. Or even 3 pages (just with one footnote). I am not sure who this book is geared towards, as it seems to be trying to slot in somewhere between appearing over academic vs just being a chronicling of the Petrine evidence.
So I found it difficult to read at times. The actual body/text of the book is structured as chronological quotes, covering various Petrine topics, with the authors commentary and additional context remaining in the footnotes. I understand that technically, the footnotes do provide additional context, but then within the footnotes themselves, I find the author cites other author/sources. So it becomes a sort of citation inception. Now, I am not an academic (and I do not believe the author is either, moreso a knowledge apologist), but I would reckon that much of the authors writings and commentary would have been better placed within the actual text of the book itself.
Otherwise, with the exception of this footnote debacle, again, it seems to be a fairly diligent presentation of the evidence, and seems to be very well researched as a whole, regardless of it's formatting.
May 20, 2021
I truly hated this book but forced myself to read it all for the sake of truth. Although it was difficult to be sure because the Kindle format prevents flipping ahead without messing up my syncing (I read on more than one device) it appear to me that more than half the text was devoted to lengthy footnotes. Skipping back and forth between the "narrative" (brief descriptions and quotes from early Church Fathers) and the notes (some of which appeared two or three to a page and then consisted of from one to seven pages themselves) was incredibly tedious. The author's purpose was to offer proofs of the Catholic position on the papacy, but it seems to me that he didn't actually prove anything except that everyone throughout history believed that Peter was the Bishop of Rome. As I was unaware that anyone doubted this, I got very tired of the argument, which took up about a third of the book. The rest of it consisted (along with the previously mentioned footnotes) of a fairly brief section on modern Catholic details and a longer one dealing with the first century Church. Oddly, although some Orthodox writers were quoted if they seemed to support the Catholic position, I couldn't find anything about the Great Schism. The author obviously spent a lot of time and effort on researching and constructing this book (I wouldn't call it writing!) but I'm going to have to read other, less biased and more useful sources before making a final decision.
May 2, 2024
Stephen K. Ray's Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church delves into the theological concept of papal primacy, the belief that the Pope holds a position of authority within Christianity. Ray, a former Protestant convert to Catholicism, approaches the topic through a dual lens – scripture and historical analysis.
The book's strength lies in its comprehensive approach. Ray meticulously examines biblical passages often cited to support papal primacy, offering interpretations and context. He further explores writings of early Church fathers and historical developments to bolster his arguments. Readers interested in a detailed exploration of these sources will find Upon This Rock a valuable resource.
However, it's important to consider the book's perspective. Ray's background as a Catholic convert shapes his approach, and the book primarily argues in favour of papal primacy. Readers from other Christian traditions, particularly those rejecting this concept, might find a different perspective lacking.
Overall, Upon This Rock offers a scholarly examination of papal primacy. It provides a strong foundation for those interested in the theological arguments and historical evidence surrounding this concept. However, readers should be aware of the book's perspective for a well-rounded understanding of the topic.
The book's strength lies in its comprehensive approach. Ray meticulously examines biblical passages often cited to support papal primacy, offering interpretations and context. He further explores writings of early Church fathers and historical developments to bolster his arguments. Readers interested in a detailed exploration of these sources will find Upon This Rock a valuable resource.
However, it's important to consider the book's perspective. Ray's background as a Catholic convert shapes his approach, and the book primarily argues in favour of papal primacy. Readers from other Christian traditions, particularly those rejecting this concept, might find a different perspective lacking.
Overall, Upon This Rock offers a scholarly examination of papal primacy. It provides a strong foundation for those interested in the theological arguments and historical evidence surrounding this concept. However, readers should be aware of the book's perspective for a well-rounded understanding of the topic.
August 14, 2022
It's a great book. It's held back from being a five star, in my eyes, mostly because of the existence of "Jesus, Peter & The Keys," which is basically the same book but better. Also, in the first part of the book there was a stretch of like 30 pages for which >90% of each page was taken up by footnotes ... that should be a signal to the author that some of your footnotes shouldn't be footnotes and should instead be included in the actual body of the text.
January 10, 2022
As a recent convert to the Catholic Church I found this book profoundly reassuring. Through an immense attention to detail, Ray provides insights into the greater connections, correlations and relationships of Christ's ministry on earth and the early apostolic period.
A beautiful fun read that grounds you firmly in the faith.
A beautiful fun read that grounds you firmly in the faith.
January 21, 2022
I hated the way the majority of this book was set up, with just a bunch of quotes as the text and explanation in footnotes. I would have rather had less quotes and the explanations or summaries in the text or just a 600 page book rather than this.
That said, Appendix B was the best part of the book and where actual arguments were more put forth in a more readable fashion.
That said, Appendix B was the best part of the book and where actual arguments were more put forth in a more readable fashion.
February 26, 2024
I tried for four years to read this book by this Baptist convert to Catholicism. It demonstrates such poor scriptural interpretation. As I read through his copious footnotes, trying to grasp his arguments and thoughts, I was worn out by his seeming inability to be honest with the text and instead only want to read into the text his suppositions.
After four years… I gave up. It’s dross.
After four years… I gave up. It’s dross.
March 7, 2018
This is an absolute must read for every single Catholic. As an Eastern Orthodox convert, I am now not only convicted beyond doubt of my communion with Rome, but of my need to learn even more about the information presented and share it with others. Incredible book.
January 24, 2019
A wonderful reference book for those studying the early Church, Catholicism, and the Papacy. A must-read for all theology geeks.
March 28, 2020
Pretty good. I thought a few things were kind of a reach just to support his views. Also not a fan of how big the footnotes can be. But overall very informative and a MUST read for all Christians
December 25, 2021
Enjoyable. But, I'm not convinced of the what we would today call the Papacy.
August 22, 2025
Exhaustive, persuasive, and a little boring
June 1, 2015
This book is not for the light reader. It is a serious book. I also don't know that it had to be set up to be this way. It is like grad school that believes in weeding out the lesser students by making them work for it. Instead of incorporating the meat of the argument or narrative thread and background details into the book extensive FOOTNOTES dominate most every page, at least once the ENTIRE page is a continued footnote. This material is super interesting and insightful, but the formatting is beyond difficult to read for size, for chopping up the quotes, and just general readability. The organization moves from scripture to history to early church writings to demonstrate that only selective quoting can render the Pope a late invention of power hungry Catholic bishops. Extensive sources make this argument clear, extensive footnotes do not. Interesting but dry and heavy. A revised version of the material to incorporate rather than isolate the footnotes would earn 5 stars.
May 30, 2016
Difficult read due to how the main ideas are presented and the amount of footnotes. The main portion of the book consists of source document quotes that support the reasons primacy of Rome. Footnotes provide commentary on the quotes and while the quoted source document material is completely on point and totally relevant, the writing style seems to be more of a collection of research notes that are wanting to be put into a book/research paper. Would have been a better read for the average reader had the quotes been interspersed within the footnote commentary. Still an important and informative read. Even though its difficult to read because of the style, its worth it.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 26, 2014
Essential study for Christians who want to deeply understand their faith from its roots. This is a difficult read, but well worth it. Heavily footnoted and cross-referenced, Ray fills a great need. As a convert to Catholicism, Ray anticipates and researches every argument. Now I want to go back with a highlighter...
December 12, 2016
This book was both fascinating and easy to read. I highly recommend it to all except the newest Christians.
I have a Protestant background, but the author has convinced me in the validity of the papacy.
I have a Protestant background, but the author has convinced me in the validity of the papacy.
November 6, 2023
This is a good compilation of the scriptural and historical support for the validity of the office of the Pope, including a couple of appendices one of which lays out the Old Testament support for the office based on a few passages there and the historical office of the High Priest in Jerusalem.
October 1, 2012
This book does presents just what it promises, a full dealing with the scriptures and early Church history with great references for doing fuller studies.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews