Grover Stevens
Was Peter Pope? Was he the visible head of
the Christ's church? Did the Lord Jesus Christ confer on him the Chair
of Primacy - the ruler, the Confirmer, and the Shepherd of his brethren?
Was Peter given the office of Vicar of Christ, or representative of Christ
on earth - the throne of sovereignty - the holder of an unrivaled dignity?
If the answer to these questions is "yes," we need to know it; and if on
the other hand, the answer is "no," we ought to know it; because it is
a matter of submission to God.
A Question of Authority
This is a question of authority. Those who claim
that Peter was the Supreme Pontiff, the Pope, naturally look to him and
his successors as their source of authority in all matters of religion.
And of course, those who deny that Peter was Prince of the Apostles, generally
speaking, look to the Bible as their supreme and final authority in religion.
Of course we all understand that Jesus Christ, Himself, being the Son of
God and therefore the Lord and King, is the actual source of authority
in the Christian religion. But the question is, does Christ express Himself
and thus guide and govern His church through the Pope, or through the Bible?!
Thus it is either the Bible, or the Pope.
The Pope or The Bible?
If, indeed, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ who
holds ALL authority in heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18), and God speaks
to His creation, mankind, thru the Pope and he is God's avenue of authority
in religion, then the Bible is not, and is therefore a dead letter, and
we must look to the Pope and not the Bible for our knowledge of God's will
and the final settlement of all our controversies of faith and morals.
On the other hand if God speaks to us in this dispensation of time thru
the inspired writings we know as "the Bible" and it therefore is our source
of authority in religion, then the Pope is not, and is therefore the most
colossal fraud ever perpetrated on man, and is the nearest fulfillment
of the prophecy of the "man of sin" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 known to man.
Here the apostle Paul declared that "the day of the Lord will not come
unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son
of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God,
or that is worshipped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself
out as if he were God."
(Note: All Scripture quotations are from the
Catholic Confraternity translation of the Bible unless otherwise indicated.
Please turn in your Bible and read all scriptural references whether quoted
or not.)
Four Things to Be Proved
In order to prove that Peter was the Pope, at
least two things must be established: First that Christ established such
an office or position as that of Vicar of Christ, and second, that Christ
appointed Peter to be the first such officer. Then in order to connect
the present day Pope with such an office, it would be necessary to show
that Christ ordained that there be a succession, and then (and only then),
that that succession has been complete and uncorrupted unto the present
Pope.
Your attention is now invited to the first of these questions. Did
Christ establish such an office as that of Pope, or Vicar of Christ?
Did Christ Establish The Office?
An office of such magnitude should be clearly
pointed out, yet not one Bible reference can be given that clearly announces
this colossal office. If Christ had established such an office, He certainly
would have defined it by stating its powers and duties, and giving the
qualifications for its officers. When God appointed the Levitical priesthood
He stipulated their qualifications and defined their powers. The office
of Elders and Deacons in the church of Christ is clearly named and their
qualifications and duties plainly stated. But nowhere do we find an office
to be filled by a Pope, nor any qualifications to be possessed in order
to fill such an office, or its powers and duties defined. We are constrained
to conclude, therefore, that from the standpoint of God's Word, the Bible,
no provision nor promise was made for the office of a Pope.
Not only are we left without a single hint
or allusion in the Bible to there being an office of Pope or vicar of Christ,
but the Bible is specific in stating, "Brethren, consider THE high priest
of our profession, Jesus Christ." Christ is not "A" high priest, but "THE"
high priest - leaving no room for another.
Pope A Sub-Head
To prove that the church must have a head does
not prove the office of Pope. Christ is the head of the church (Colossians
1:18). You must prove that the church has a sub-head, a vicegerent, a representative
or proxy, a vicar - that is what the Pope is supposed to be. The scriptures
teach that Christ is the one and ONLY head of the church (Ephesians 1:22-23).
In Ephesians 5:22-23 the Apostle Paul declares, "Let wives be subject to
their husbands as to the Lord, because a husband is head of the wife, just
as Christ is head of the Church, being Himself savior of the body. But
just as the Church is subject to CHRIST, so also let wives be to their
husbands in all things." Here is some scripture that plainly states that
the church is "subject to Christ," and not to Peter as Christ's vicar.
Certainly, if Christ had appointed a vicar to be the head of the church,
the Apostle Paul would have known it and the Holy Spirit would surely have
inspired him to have mentioned it at least once in some of His writings,
especially His discourse on the head of the church, and to whom the church
is subject. The Sacred Oracles say that the church is "subject to Christ,"
but still some people say that the church is subject to the Pope as Christ's
representative. I cannot find the latter by any authority other than human
- from men, not from God.
In Ephesians 4:11 Paul lists the officers
of the church over which Christ is the head, "and He gave some men as apostles;
and some as prophets, others again as evangelists, and others as pastors,
and teachers." He lists apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers,
but NO POPE. Here would have been a most logical place to mention the office
of Pope, but alas, it isn't there. Since it is not listed here, nor elsewhere,
we confidently affirm that such an office did not exist. No, my friends,
there is absolutely no positive nor express institution of the office of
Pope, nor of one's call and consecration to such an office, nor any law
of succession whatsoever in all the New Testament.
Was Peter The First Pope?
We next consider the question, Did Christ make
Peter the first Pope?
Logically, this question is already answered
in the one we just discussed. If Jesus Christ did not institute such an
office as that of Pope, He certainly could not have appointed Peter to
an office that did not exist. But, since some think that Christ did make
Peter the first Pope, let us study their arguments. They fall into two
classes: One, the scriptures; and two, philosophical arguments. We will
notice the scriptures first, then the others, and then we shall offer arguments
from the scriptures showing that Peter could not have occupied such a position.
First, I wonder about Papists appealing to
the scriptures to prove their contention. If the New Testament is sufficient
to establish the dogma of the Papacy, why isn't it sufficient to instruct
us in other fundamental doctrines? If it is not sufficient then why appeal
to it? Papists contend that the Bible is reliable and right only because
the infallible Pope pronounced it so. Thus they cannot hope to establish
the Primacy of Peter and their doctrine of infallibility from the Bible,
for before they can appeal to the Bible they must first prove - and that
NOT by the Bible (the Scriptures) - the office of Pope. Then he can pronounce
the Bible reliable. This is, of course, IF they follow their own position
on the matter.
Furthermore, why do they appeal to our private
judgment in an effort to establish, by the Bible, the infallible office
of the Pope? If we can understand the import of the scriptures which they
use to prove the Papacy, why not others also?
Matthew 16:18-19
Their first and foremost proof text is Matthew
16:18-19, "And I say unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." They
claim that the rock on which Jesus said He would build His church was Peter.
Obviously this is a strained and unnatural meaning to give the words of
Christ in this passage of Scripture. In the first place, Christ did not
say, "Thou art Peter and upon Peter I will build my church." Nor did He
say, "Thou art Peter and upon THEE I will build my church." The Lord said,
"Thou art PETER and upon this ROCK I will build my church." "Peter" and
"rock" are TWO different words both in the English, Latin, and Greek Scriptures.
Peter is one thing, and the rock on which Christ built His church is another.
This is not only true from a casual reading of the verse, but I shall further
substantiate this by abundant proof. If it be contended that Matthew wrote
in the Aramaic instead of the Greek, and only one word was used for both
"Peter" and "rock" I will remind you that "Peter" and "rock" are two different
words in both the English, Latin, and Greek Scriptures. Would you say that
they are wrong? The fact that the Greek, Latin or English language has
a number of different words for "stone" or "rock," does not argue that
more than one has to be used. When the Bible was translated from the Aramaic,
if indeed Matthew wrote in Aramaic, one and the same word could have been
used if the text had called for it. But, furthermore, no copy of Matthew
in Aramaic has ever been found, nor any trace or quotation from such a
manuscript; the only authentic copy we have is the Greek version, and this
gives two words - "Petros" (Peter) and "petra" (rock). The very fact that
an appeal is made to the Aramaic is proof positive that Catholics realize
that the Greek, Latin, and English copies of the Bible do not sustain their
interpretation of this passage of Scripture. It is obvious from this fact
that this contention is founded on the figment of desperation to prove
a point that is NOT sustained in the Scripture.
This, my friends, is the evidence that is
offered to prove the colossal office of the Supreme Pontiff- the highest
and most sacred office on earth!
"Thou" and "This"
As further evidence that they misinterpret this
passage, and give it a forced meaning, I call your attention to the pronouns
"thou" and "this." "And I say to thee, THOU art Peter, and upon THIS rock
I will build my church." A pronoun must agree with its antecedent in person,
number and gender. "Thou" is singular number and masculine gender; "this"
is plural number and feminine gender. "Thou" is 2nd person (spoken to).
"This" is 3rd person (spoken of). "Thou" modifies "Peter," and "this" modifies
"rock," hence clear evidence that the two antecedents "Peter" and "rock"
are references to two different things. Christ was speaking to Peter about
the rock on which He would build His church. To have addressed Peter in
the 2nd and 3rd persons, as both present and absent, in the same breath,
is absurd. Furthermore, the fact that "this rock" is feminine and "Peter"
is masculine makes it obvious that the rock on which Christ would build
His church was the truth that Peter has just confessed, and not on Peter
himself.
Setting Of Text
Let's look at the setting of this Scripture. Jesus
and His disciples have just come into the district of Caesarea Philippi.
One geographer said in describing this city that it was "rock founded rock
bounded and rock surrounded." Upon coming into view of this city Jesus
"began to ask His disciples, saying, Who do men say the Son of Man is?"
They answer, John the Baptist, Elias, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
Jesus completely ignores this answer and immediately asks another question,
"But who do you say that I am?" It was Simon Peter who answered and said,
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Christ delays no longer,
He has the answer He was seeking, "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, for
flesh and blood hath not revealed this to thee, but my Father in heaven.
And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." It is obvious that
the rock on which Christ says He will build His church is the confession
which Peter made, or the fact which he stated - "Thou art the Christ the
Son of the living God." Why elicit such a truth if He did not intend to
make use of it? - If He meant to pass by that truth and allude to Peter
alone. To have done such would have been irrational. Notice, too, that
just as soon as Peter made this confession, Christ immediately began making
His point on building the church. Building the church is the focal point,
not the coronation of Peter.
While I believe that it is obvious that the Lord did not build the
church on Peter, still there is a reason why the Lord spoke as He did.
"Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." In the teachings
of Jesus He consecrated every scene, and circumstance and topic of conversation,
to religion. To the fishermen who were casting their nets into the sea
He said, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." To the Samaritan
woman at Jacob's well He spoke of "living water" and "Whosoever drinks
of the WATER that I shall give him, shall never thirst." While watching
the sheep and shepherds He said, "I am the good shepherd ... my sheep hear
my voice and they follow me." When His disciples had forgotten to take
bread on the voyage across the lake He said, "Beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees." To His enemies in view of the temple He says, "Destroy this
temple (speaking of His body), and I will build it in three days." And
so in the passage before us, He asks His disciples the important question,
"Whom do you say that I am?" And Peter makes the great confession, "Thou
art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." And Jesus says to him, "Thou
art stone, and upon this rock - this great truth -1 will build my church."
In this scene, Christ is pictured as the builder;
the fact of Peter's confession - "Thou art the Christ the Son of the Living
God" - is pictured as the foundation; Peter is pictured as the turnkey
or door keeper; and the church is the thing to be built. It is impossible
for Peter to be both the door keeper AND the foundation in the same illustration.
Subsequent References by Apostles
There is yet another way of determining the true
meaning of this passage. How did the Apostles and early Christians understand
this statement of Christ? Subsequent references to the foundation of the
church by the apostles of Christ clearly show that Jesus Christ, Himself,
and NOT Peter was the foundation of the church. In Ambrose, bishop of Milan,
and also a canonized saint, lived 340 - 379, wrote, "Faith is the groundwork
of the church, because of the faith, and not the person of Peter, it was
said, that the gates of death should never prevail against it." (De Incarn.
C.V., No. 34)
Gregory, bishop of Nazianzus and a canonized
saint, lived 329 - 389, wrote, "Peter is called a rock and the foundations
of the church are planted in his faith." (Or. de moder. ferv. in disp.)
Augustine, bishop of Hippo, a canonized saint,
lived 354 - 430, a very prolific writer, says, "He (Christ) called him
Peter, that is, the rock, and praised the foundation of the church which
was built on the Apostle's faith." (Tractii. in Joan, Number 20).
Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, a canonized
saint, died in 444, says, "To my mind it appears evident that the rock,
here intended by Christ, is nothing else than the disciple's unshaken faith,
on which the church was built, that it might not be in danger of falling
or of surrendering to the powers of darkness." (Lib. iv de Trinit.)
Caesarius, the Cisercian says, "On this rock, namely, on the unshaken
faith, to which thou owest thy name, 1 will build my Church." (Horn, de
Cath. S. Petri)
Half of Early Church Denies It
Besides this, friends, the conflict between the
Roman Catholic Church or Western Church, and the Orthodox Greek Catholic
Church or Eastern Church, was from the beginning, and continues to this
good day, over whether or not the "Roman See" was the Supreme Head of the
church. On July 16th, 1054 A.D., the bishop of Rome excommunicated the
bishop (Patriarch) of Constantinople and all who agreed with him in the
controversy over the bishop of Rome as "ecumenical (universal) bishop."
Philip Schaff, in his scholarly eight volume "History of the Christian
Church" says, "Cerularius, supported by his clergy and the people, immediately
answered by a synodical counteranathema on the papal legates, and accused
them of fraud... The patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem adhered
to the see of Constantinople. Thus the schism between the Christian east
and west was completed. The number of episcopal sees at that time was nearly
equal on both sides" (Volume 4, page 320).
The eastern churches, including the
city of Jerusalem, the cite of the original church (Acts 2), the well known
church at Antioch (Acts 11:26), and many other churches which were planted
and watched over by the Apostles of Christ including Peter and Paul, were
"excommunicated" by the Roman Bishop because they did not and would not
recognize the Bishop of Rome as the head of the church! Think of it - HALF
of the church "excommunicated" because they did NOT believe that the Bishop
of Rome was the head of the church! - and it was the older or original
"half at that! Surely, my good friends, there is left no room for a reasonable
doubt on this all important verse of scripture.
Keys of the Kingdom
We have now but to notice verse 19. Here Jesus
says to Peter, "And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven;
and whatever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever
thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt 16:19).
The "keys of the kingdom of heaven" are simply
the right to open the kingdom of heaven by announcing the terms of forgiveness
of sins and entrance into the kingdom. This Peter did on the day of Pentecost
of Acts 2 when he said to inquiring believers, "Repent and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your
sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (verse 38). Again,
an angel told Cornelius who was praying at his home, "Send to Joppa and
fetch Simon, surnamed Peter; he will speak to thee WORDS by which thou
shalt be saved" (Acts 11:13-14). WHY SEND FOR PETER? Because Christ had
given to him the "keys of the kingdom," that is, the privilege of being
the first to announce the terms of admission into His kingdom. Thus Peter
opened the two-leaved gate, and introduced both Jews (Acts 2:38) and Gentiles
(Acts 10 & 11) into the kingdom. This having been done, it needs not
to be repeated. The gates of heaven have not since been closed. God gave
the keys to Peter, and Peter opened the gates of the kingdom of heaven
to us all (Acts 2:38-39). You and I can pass thru the gates in the same
way in which these people did — by believing, repenting, and being baptized
for the forgiveness of sins. All those who did this were added to the church
or kingdom, hence passed thru the door opened by Peter. We enter the kingdom
today in the same way, hence pass thru the same door. The gates of heaven
are open, and will remain so until the second coming of Christ at the end
of time.
From John 17:14 and other scriptures we learn
that God's Word was given to ALL the apostles. Peter only had the distinction
of being the first to announce the terms of the remission of sins. (See
Ephesians 3:2-6; 2 Peter 3:1 -2, etc.)
The power to bind and loose, remit and retain
sins was given to ALL the apostles in Matthew 18:18, where the Lord Jesus
says, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever
you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven." Again in John 20:22-23,
"When he had said this, he breathed upon them, and said to them, Receive
the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them;
and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."
The Gates of Hell
We continue now by considering the expression,
"the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." This part of the verse
is used by Catholics to prove that the church will be preserved from teaching
error, hence "infallibility." They teach that the "church" itself, is not
infallible, but only the Pope, and that he is not infallible all the time,
only when he speaks "ex cathedra.' Cathedra is Latin for chair, hence,
ex cathedra means "from the chair" or officially. Thus, ALL the churches
CAN teach error, ALL the clergy, and ALL the laity CAN teach error; thus
it is possible for all the Catholics in all the world to teach error, according
to them, except the POPE WHEN he speaks officially. Hence, for this passage
to fit their doctrine, it would have to read this way, "Error shall never
prevail against the Pope when he speaks from the chair."
The true meaning of the sentence becomes obvious
when the terms are properly understood. What is the meaning of the word
"hell," then "gates of hell." Next, what is it that the gates of hell shall
not prevail against? And finally, how, or in what way might the gates of
hell prevail against it?
The term "hell" in this verse is the Greek
word "Hades," which means the place of disembodied spirits, the grave,
the realm of the dead. In other words the place where death holds captive
the spirits of the dead or the prison-house of Death. Revelation 20:13,
speaking of the resurrection, says, "...death and Hades delivered up the
dead which were in them..." It was from the gates of the ancient cities
that their armies marched, hence their strength or power. The safety of
the cities depended largely upon the strength of its gates. Hence, the
"gates of Hades" means the power or strength of Hades. Hades is not the
hell which is the second death. The Greek word "Gehenna" is the word used
to refer to that hell. Revelation 20:14 teaches that "death and Hades"
will be destroyed in the "lake of fire," the eternal hell (Gehenna) at
the last day.
We next ask, what is it that the gates of
Hades shall not prevail against? Look at the sentence. The Lord Jesus said
"Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell (Hades) shall
not prevail against it. The antecedent of "it" is the clause, "Upon this
rock I will build my church." Hence, the thing that the "gates of hell"
shall not prevail against is Christ building His church. In other words
Christ said, Upon this rock I will build my church and the power of death,
or strength of Hades shall not stop me, or prevail against my doing so.
This is a far cry from saying that "the church" will never teach error.
This completely refutes the argument of Papists
based on Matthew 16:18-19, and ought to forever settle the matter. Let
me appeal to you this morning in behalf of the love of Jesus Christ, and
the salvation of your soul, to remove all prejudice and preconceived ideas
and accept the truth of God on this all important theme.
Feed My Lambs, Feed My Sheep
ANOTHER passage of Scripture which Catholics rely
on to prove the Primacy of Peter is John 21:15-16.1 quote from the King
James translation of the Scriptures, because the Confraternity translation,
from which I have been quoting, is wrong in its translation of this verse.
The King James version reads, "Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of
Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?" But the Confraternity translation
reads this way, "Simon, son of John, dost thou love me more than these
do?" The word "do" is inserted contrary to the rules of interpretation.
"These" in the Greek is in the NEUTER gender, hence, refers to the fish,
nets, worldly goods, and not the other Apostles, as Papists think.
Of course the real proof text comes from verse
16, "Feed my lambs ... feed my sheep." Let us study these words in connection
with the context and circumstances. Peter and some of his brethren had
returned to Galilee, confused and overwhelmed with the events of the day.
They felt themselves destitute, forsaken, and in need. While Jesus was
with them He provided for them in some way. He could say, "When I sent
you without purse, and script and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said,
Nothing." But He was gone, and they did not know which way to turn. In
this distress, Peter says, "I am going fishing." And the others said, 'We
also are going with thee.' And after toiling all night they caught nothing.
When the day was just breaking, Jesus, standing on the beach, (yet the
disciples did not know that it was Jesus), said to them, 'Young men, have
you any fish?' They answered Him, 'No.' He said to them, 'Cast the net
to the right of the boat and you will find them.' They cast therefore,
and now they were unable to draw it up for the great number of fishes.
The disciple whom Jesus loved said therefore to Peter, 'It is the Lord.'
Simon Peter therefore, hearing that it was the Lord girt his tunic about
him, for he was stripped, and threw himself into the sea. But the other
disciples came with the boat (for they were not far from land, only about
two hundred cubits off), dragging the net full of fishes. When therefore,
they had landed they saw a fire ready, and a fish laid upon it, and bread.
Jesus said to them, 'Bring here some of the fishes that you caught just
now.' Simon went aboard and hauled the net onto the land full of large
fishes, one hundred and fifty-three in number." Now, after they had dined
Jesus says to Peter, "Dost thou love me more than these?" The circumstances,
the context, and the grammatical construction of these words, all show
that Jesus said in effect to Peter, "Do you love Me more than these fish,
or this occupation."
The construction that Catholics give to this
verse is, "Do you love me more than these disciples love me?" How could
Peter answer such a question? Was he omniscient to know how much his companions
loved his master? Had the Lord's question been as Papists think, Peter
would have had to answer, "Lord I love thee, but I do not know how much
my brethren love thee: they also love thee, but I know not whether I love
thee more than they do."
But suppose he could have known, then I ask,
was it becoming to ask so invidious, offending, slighting a question? Would
not they have themselves disparaged if Peter had said, "Yes, Lord, I love
thee more than all my fellow-apostles love thee!!"
No, my friends, such is not the case. Peter
had erred. He had become discontented - had forgotten his duty to his master,
and had committed himself to his former occupation of fishing, and thus
induced the rest to join him. Christ asks him solemnly, "Do you love me
more than these fish, these boats, nets, apparatus, or this worldly employment?
Peter answered, "Yes, Lord Thou knowest that I love thee." Jesus then said
to Peter, "Feed my lambs." Then in order to impress Peter more fully, the
Lord asked about Peter's love for Him a second time, and a third! Peter
was grieved that the Lord had questioned his love the third time, but each
time confessed his love for Him. Jesus replies each time, "Feed my lambs
... feed my sheep." In other words, Jesus simply asked Peter, "Which do
you love most -Me, or this occupation?" Peter said that he loved the Lord.
Jesus replies, "Then feed my sheep" - or in other words, "Tend to my work
- cease to spend your time providing food for yourself, and feed my lambs
and sheep, and I will provide for you." This was a rebuke to Peter, not
a coronation!
To be sure Peter was an apostle, and therefore
was to shepherd the followers of Christ together with the other apostles,
but NOT OVER them. That is the point that must be proved - that Peter was
a shepherd OVER the other APOSTLES. This verse certainly does not so teach.
Thus the second grand text on which Catholics have leaned with so much
confidence is taken from them.
Confirm Thy Brethren
The next text on which Catholics rely is Luke
22:31 -32. "And the Lord said, 'Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has desired
to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee,
that thy faith may not fall; and do thou, when once thou has turned again,
strengthen thy brethren.'" Really, I see nothing, not even an inference,
in this passage that teaches that Peter was to be the Vicar of Christ.
This seems to say simply this: Peter, as you have experienced the bitterness
of repentance, you can hereafter comfort or strengthen your penitent brethren.
This is in keeping with the proverb that goes something like this - "Those
who have suffered can best sympathize with the suffering. But the Catholics
interpret it thus: Peter, when you are converted you shall then be my vicar
and prince of the apostles! Just think, the most stupendous office on earth
- the Pope, the representative of the Lord of lords and King of kings -
depends upon such evidence as this!
We are told "Christ prayed for Peter." But alas, Did Jesus pray for
Peter only? In John 17 we find Jesus praying for ALL the apostles. Verse
9 reads, "I pray for THEM; not for the world do I pray, but for THOSE whom
thou has given me, because THEY are thine." Verse 11 says, "Holy Father,
keep in thy name THOSE whom thou hast given me." No, my friends, this passage
does not remotely teach that Peter was the Vice-governor to Jesus Christ.
All whose hearts are not blinded by a strong desire that it might be so,
can clearly see that it does not.
One Fold and One Shepherd
We next consider John 10:16, "..and there shall
be one fold and one shepherd." This does not prove that Peter was the Pope,
but rather disproves it. We all agree that the "one fold" is the church.
The "other sheep" which the Lord must bring are the Gentiles. We all agree
on that. The footnote in the Catholic Confraternity translation says, "the
union of Jew and Gentile in Christ's Church." So we see that Christ's Church
is the one fold and CHRIST is the One Shepherd. But Catholics think that
PETER is the ONE SHEPHERD; which a casual reading of the text emphatically
denies. Verse 11 settles it. The Lord Jesus says, "I am the good shepherd,"
NOT Peter. In fact, there is no room for Peter at all as there is only
ONE SHEPHERD, and He is Jesus Christ, Himself.
Simon's Name Changed
Another text which Catholics use in this connection
is John 1:42, "Thou art Simon, the son of John; thou shall be called Cephas
(which interpreted is Peter)." Catholics argue that Christ's having changed
Simon's name to "Peter" or "rock," that such makes him the foundation of
the church, and the Vicar of Christ. Obviously, this does NOT follow, and
is indeed a far fetched idea. Imagine such an office as that of Vice-governor
of Jesus Christ, who has the key of death and hell (Revelation 1:18), being
dependent on such evidence for its existence!
It was a very common thing in the history
of the patriarchs and Jews to change names. For instance, Sarai is changed
to Sarah; Abram to Abraham; Jacob to Israel; etc. In this same connection
let us read Mark 3:16-17. "There were Simon, to whom he gave the name Peter;
and James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James (these he surnamed
Boanerges, that is, Sons of thunder)." I suppose, according to their argument
concerning Peter's being a rock, that they would contend that these two
apostles were actually converted into Thunder. The changing of their names
did not convert them into thunder; neither did the name Cephas convert
Peter into a stone. That Peter was a stone in this building that Jesus
styled "My Church," cannot be denied, BUT he was only one among many. Ephesians
2:20 declares, "you are built upon the foundation of the apostles, (not
Peter only, but all the apostles) and prophets with Christ Jesus Himself
as the chief corner stone." 1 Peter 2:5 says, "Draw near to Him (the Lord),
a living stone, rejected indeed by men but chosen and honored by God. Be
you yourselves as living stones, built thereon into a spiritual house,
a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through
Jesus Christ." Here EVERY CHRISTIAN is called a stone.
Thus every Bible text that Catholics have
used to prove the Primacy of Peter is taken from them. Nowhere in all the
Bible can they find a positive statement that announces or defines such
an office as that of Pope, nor, one that appoints Peter to such a dignity.
The very best they can do is to produce these few inferences, and I believe
that we have clearly demonstrated that even the inferences are not there.
Next we will examine the Philosophical arguments of Catholics.
My friend, our soul's salvation is at stake.
I beg you to turn from human traditions to the Bible, the divinely revealed
Word of God, which alone will be the standard of judgment in the last great
day.
Peter Was First Called
Your attention is now invited to the philosophical
arguments which Catholics make in an effort to establish the Papacy. First,
it is argued that Peter was the first apostle called. If this were true,
it certainly would not prove that Peter was the Pope, the vicar of Christ,
or representative of God. Such far fetched conclusions only testify to
how utterly destitute Catholics are for proof of a Pope. But from John
1, verses 35 to 44, we can see plainly that at least two, and maybe three,
of the disciples were called before Peter. Does this prove that the one
of these three that was first called was therefore the Pope? According
to the Catholic's reasoning, it would. Else, why would they advance the
argument if they thought there was no merit in it? So, according to their
argument, the disciple that was called before Peter was, would be the Pope
rather than Peter!! Instead of proving, this passage disproves their contention.
Peter Was Always Named First
Next we hear them say that Peter was always named
first in every list of the apostles. Suppose that this is true. It would
not prove that such gave him the distinction of being Pope - "the voice
of God." Peter was not the first one named in Galatians 2:9. This verse
says, "James and Cephas and John who seemed to be the pillars." Notice
first that three pillars are named and not just one, and furthermore, that
James is mentioned first - before the apostle Peter; hence, according to
the argument of Catholics that the first one mentioned is the greatest,
James was a greater "pillar" in the church than Peter. Furthermore, in
I Corinthians 3:22 Paul and Apollos are both mentioned before Peter. In
I Corinthians 9, verse 5, the "other apostles" are mentioned first, then
"the brethren of the Lord," and then, after that, Peter is mentioned. Again,
in John 1:44, it speaks of the city of Andrew and Peter. Here Andrew is
mentioned before Peter. So we see that there are several instances of others
being mentioned before Peter. Hence the argument of Catholics falls flat.
Yea, more than that it proves with equal force that Peter definitely did
not hold any such distinction as that of being Pope. If his being mentioned
first in some places proves that he WAS the ruler of the other apostles,
then his being mentioned - second - and third in other places certainly
proves that he was NOT such a ruler. This, my friends, is the proof offered
that the Pope of Rome is the Representative of our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ!! Believe it who can!
Peter Was Superior to Other Apostles
Along this same line of reasoning, our good Catholic
friends argue that Peter was superior to the other apostles. As proof that
he was, they reel off a number of things that Peter did that seems to them
to show that he occupied a place of distinction.
(1) They say that Christ washed Peter's feet first. This is
not true, but if it were it wouldn't show that Peter was the Pope. John
tells us the story. John 13:5-6, "Then He poured water into a basin and
began to wash the feet of the disciples, and to dry them with the towel
with which He was girded. He came, then, to Simon Peter..." (Catholic Translation,
Confraternity Edition). This would show that Peter was not superior since
other disciples had their feet washed first. If not, why not?
(2) They say that Christ appeared to Peter after His resurrection. I
reply that He appeared to the other apostles also, and to many other people
besides. If they say that He appeared to Peter when he was alone, then
I answer that He did likewise to Paul and to James. (See 1 Corinthians
15:1-7.)
(3) They say that Christ told Peter he was to catch men instead of fish.
He said the same to Andrew.
(4) Then they point out that Christ predicted the kind of martyrdom
that Peter would suffer. But He also predicted that John would not be martyred
and that would be equal to His predicting the death of Peter and parallel
their idea and thus make void their point.
(5) Then, they contend that Peter took the initiative in the selection
of a successor of Judas. True, but Peter did not appoint the successor,
as he would have done had he been the Pope. This disproves, rather than
proves their contention. We will notice this point more in detail under
the heading "Negative Argument."
(6) Again, Catholics say that Peter was the speaker on Pentecost. We
readily grant this point, but as has already been shown, this was a privilege
granted to Peter by virtue of the "keys" which Christ said that He would
give to Peter - the privilege of being the first to announce the terms
of entrance into the kingdom.
(7) But again, we are told that there was virtue in Peter's shadow.
So was there in the shadow of the apostle Paul, and Paul performed as many,
or more miracles, at least more are mentioned, than the apostle Peter.
(8) Again, they say that Peter exercised power to discipline Ananias
and Sapphira. Yes, but the other apostles were in on that, too. And furthermore,
Paul exercised authority and discipline, too. See Acts 13:10-11 and 1 Corinthians
5:3-5.
(9) Again, Catholics argue that Peter took the lead in the extension
of the gospel to Samaria. From Acts 8 we learn that it was Philip who led
in this work rather than Peter.
(10) Still another contention of Catholics is that Paul went to Jerusalem
to see Peter, thus showing Peter's superiority. When the false teachers
at Galatia made this same argument to prove that Paul was inferior to the
other apostles, Paul replied to them by saying that when he went to Jerusalem,
"they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing unto me" (Galatians
2:6-8). And he further declared that he was in "nowise inferior to the
great apostles." Still again, Paul affirmed "that the gospel which was
preached by me is not of man. For I did not receive it from man, nor was
I taught it; but I received it by revelation of Jesus Christ". So Paul
denies that Peter taught him a thing.
Now, all of these things Catholics sum up, and
conclude that Peter was Superior to the rest of the apostles, and therefore
he was the Pope. I have told you before that the office of Pope is founded
on an assumption, now you can see that it is so. Catholics group together
a number of passages which they say imply that Peter was the Pope -just
think of it - the most colossal, magnificent office known to men of earth
- the vicar of Christ the representative of God, the voice of God - an
office of such stupendous proportions founded entirely upon an inference.
This shows beyond a doubt that there is not a single verse of Scripture
in all of God's Word that clearly defines this gigantic office. Peter was
superior to the rest of the apostles, (we are told) therefore, Catholics
conclude that he was the Pope.
Kinds of Superiority
Granting that Peter was superior to the other
apostles, such still would not make him their Ruler. There are different
kinds of superiority. First there is superiority of age. I have been taught
all of my life to respect people who are older than I. Then, there is superiority
of talents. One person is more talented than another, say for example in
music, or speaking, or in strength, or as a carpenter, etc. So, the more
talented are superior to the less talented in the same field. Winston Churchill
is a far better speaker than I, hence, he is far superior to me in speaking.
Another kind of superiority is that of character. Good people are superior
to bad people in character. The character of a sober man is superior to
that of a drunk. The character of an honest man is far better than that
of a thief or robber. People who live a righteous, godly life are certainly
superior in character to those who live ungodly, depraved lives. Again,
we have superiority of office. The president of a company is superior in
authority in that company to the people whom he has employed. The President
of the United States is superior in office, or authority to the citizens
of our country. In each case, we must obey our superior officer.
Now, granting that Peter was superior to the
other apostles how can Catholics assume that this superiority was official?
Why take for granted superiority of office, and ignore the other kinds
of supremacy. I am willing to admit that Peter was superior to the others
in age, talents, and character, all three, but certainly NOT in authority.
He had no authority over and above the other apostles. That Peter was an
apostle and therefore had the authority of an apostle, I certainly do affirm,
but that he had superior authority over the other apostles, I emphatically
deny that the Bible teaches any such thing. The man doesn't live that could
prove such a contention by the Bible.
Again I say that Catholics assume that Peter
was superior in office, and then build their stupendous claims for the
Pope of Rome on that assumption. My good Catholic friends, let me appeal
to you today to think seriously about the foundation of your belief. Your
salvation — your going to heaven is at stake! Nobody can answer for you
in the Judgment Day. God holds you personally responsible for what you
believe. Jesus Christ said "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall
make you free" (John 8:32).
Why Peter Could Not Be Pope
Now we will consider some reasons why Peter could
not have been the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, the Prince of the Apostles.
Of course these reasons should, and do, affect the interpretations that
we give other passages of Scripture dealing with this subject. The Bible
does not contradict itself - so, no interpretation of a passage can be
true if that interpretation contradicts other passages of Scripture. In
other words, the Bible does not teach in one passage something that it
denies in another. To be more specific still, the Bible does not teach
in one place that Peter was the Pope, then in some other Scripture, that
Peter was not the Pope. Each passage of Scripture must be considered and
understood in the light of and in harmony with the rest of the Bible. The
passages which we shall notice are very plain in their statement of facts,
and show beyond a doubt that Peter was not the Pope. Therefore these arguments
should be kept in mind while considering all the passages already discussed.
I believe that we have clearly shown that the idea of Peter's having been
appointed to the office of Pope is definitely lacking in every reference
which Catholics use. This fact becomes even more evident when we consider
them in the light of these negative arguments - arguments that clearly
demonstrate the utter impossibility of Peter's occupying any such office
as that of Pope - or Father Superior to the Apostles.
None to Be Greater Than Others In Kingdom Of Christ
One of the most forceful arguments against the
doctrine of the existence of a Pope is the great emphasis that Jesus placed
upon the fact that none should be greater than others in the kingdom of
Heaven. There are at least three different occasions on which there arose
an argument among the apostles as to who should be the greatest among them.
The first one is recorded in Matthew 18:1-5, and Mark 9:33-37, and also
Luke 9:46-48. The second is found in Matthew 20:20-28; and the third is
Luke 22:24-30.
The very fact that the apostles had an argument
among themselves as to who should be the greatest, shows beyond a doubt
that Peter did not occupy such a position, for if he had been the head
of the apostles, then no such arguments would have arisen. This shows that
the apostles themselves did not understand that Christ had given Peter
the primacy in verses we have already discussed - such as Matthew 16:18,
"Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church;" and verse 19,
"I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom;" and John 21, "feed my
lambs ... feed my sheep," and Luke 22, "confirm thy brethren," etc. All
who think that these passages teach that Christ made Peter the Prince of
the Apostles, should bear in mind that none of the apostles thought so.
Wouldn't these occasions have been wonderful
opportunities for the Lord to have settled the matter once and for all
by making it plain that He had made Peter their chief- if indeed He had.
But, did He do this? Far from it! Instead He rebuked them all for having
such a worldly-minded spirit. He said, "Unless you turn and become like
little children, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew
18:1-3). In other words, Jesus said to them, unless you repent of such
an ambitious and worldly-minded spirit, and become humble and unambitious
as little children you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Notice that
Jesus says that they could not enter into the kingdom of heaven if they
retained such ambition. Would it not be right to conclude, therefore, that
anyone claiming such a position as "greatest in the kingdom of Heaven"
today is rejected of God and is not in the kingdom of heaven?! If not,
why not?!
It is worthy of notice also that Christ, instead
of teaching that Peter was the greatest in the kingdom, taught that "whoever
humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom." Furthermore,
neither the other apostles, nor anyone else, was instructed to receive
Peter as the chief apostle and thereby receives a little child receives
Me."
Notice, too, that the dispute in Luke 22 occurred
on the night of the betrayal - the last night that the Lord Jesus spent
on this earth in His earthly life in the flesh, yet the apostles did not
understand that Peter was their chief or Pope! If they had understood that
Peter was their chief or pope, and Christ's vicarthen no such dispute could
have arisen among them!! On this occasion, instead of Christ announcing
plainly that Peter was their Pope and His Vicar, He taught them that there
was no such place in His kingdom. Hear Him, "Now there arose also a dispute
among them, which of them was reputed to be the greatest. But He said to
them, 'The kings of the Gentiles Lord it over them, and they who exercise
authority over them are called Benefactors. But not so with you. On the
contrary, let him who is greatest among you become as the youngest, and
him who is the chief as the servant. For which is the greater, he who reclines
at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who reclines? But I am in
your midst as he who serves'" (Luke 22:24-27). Christ first very emphatically
denies that any of the apostles should be "Benefactors" to "exercise authority"
over the others. In the kingdoms of men the great are served by the others,
but Christ teaches that the opposite is true in His kingdom, then gives
Himself as an example; thus very plainly teaching that no one would occupy
any such place as a Benefactor (or Pope) to exercise authority over the
others.
The Lord went a step further in settling this
dispute by declaring distinctly that all the apostles were equal and that
they would all "sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (the
kingdom of heaven)" (Luke 22:29-30).
I hardly see how language could be plainer.
This one argument shows beyond dispute that both the apostles of Christ,
and the Lord Himself, did not recognize Peter as the ruler of the apostles,
nor His vicar. The Apostles did not, for they quarreled as to who should
be the greatest (exercise authority); and The Lord did not, for He said
that it shall not be so among you. Friends, let us not be as some whom
the Lord described as having their heart hardened, their ears hard of hearing,
and their eyes closed, lest, He said, "at any time they see with their
eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their mind, and be
converted." Your heaven is at stake. Hear the truth and obey it today.
Peter Sent By Other Apostles
But again, another reason why Peter could not
have been the Pope is because he was sent by the other apostles to Samaria.
Acts 8:14 says, "Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria
had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John." In this
connection I call your attention to the language of our Lord Jesus Christ
in John 13:16, "I say to you, no servant is greater than his master, nor
is one who is sent greater than he who sent him." The conclusion is obvious.
(1) The one who is sent is not greater than he who sent him. (2) Peter
was sent to Samaria by the apostles. (3) Therefore, Peter is not greater
than the apostles. Beloved friends, this speaks a volume against the notion
of Peter's occupying a chair of primacy over the apostles.
Council at Jerusalem
The 15th chapter of Acts tells of a meeting of
the apostles and elders at Jerusalem to discuss the subject of circumcision
of the Gentiles. Catholics sometime attempt to prove that Peter was the
Pope by asserting that Peter settled the argument on this occasion. Such
is mere presumption. After much disputing Peter spoke, calling attention
to the fact that he was the one who went to the home of Cornelius, the
first Gentile converts, and that God showed that there was no difference
between the Jew and the Gentile by giving them the Holy Ghost. Peter did
not submit a decree, he merely related the facts. Following Peter, Barnabas
and Paul spoke, telling of the great signs and wonders that God had done
among the Gentiles thru them. Then, James, who was presiding at the meeting,
reviewed the speeches of Peter, Barnabas, and Paul, then showed that all
this was in harmony with the prophets, and then suggests, "MY sentence
is that we write them a letter..." The letter was not an order from Peter,
nor simply Peter's decision. The Confraternity translation (Catholic translation)
says, "WE have decided, being assembled together..." (Acts 15:25). Not,
"His Holiness Pope Peter decided..." No, the Word of God records that "We
have decided." The King James translation reads, "it seemed good unto US..."
Peter did not dictate the course, nor submit
a decree; he was not the first, nor the last to speak; his speech was the
relating of events as they happened to him or in his presence, and to comment
upon their significance; the concluding speech was delivered by James in
which the summary of all the speeches was made, the conclusion drawn, and
suggested action was given; James presided at the meeting, not Peter; and
the letter was signed by ALL the apostles and elders. All of these facts
show that Peter did not occupy such a position of authority as that of
a Pope or Vicar of God.
Three Pillars - James, Peter, John
In Galatians 2:9, the apostle Paul said, "...and
when they recognized the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and
John, who were considered the pillars, gave to me and to Barnabas the right
hand of fellowship." Here THREE "pillars" are mentioned instead of one;
Peter is mentioned as one of the three, and James is mentioned BEFORE Peter.
If mentioning Peter first in other places makes Peter superior to the other,
then why doesn't it follow that mentioning James first in this connection
prove that James was superior to Peter and John??
Vacancy of Judas & The Selection Of Deacons
The vacancy of Judas was filled, not by appointment
of "Pope Peter," but by casting lots (Acts 1:26). It is true that Peter
took the lead in the selection but this does not prove that he was Pope.
Rather, the fact that Matthias was selected by the casting of lots instead
of by appointment from Peter shows that Peter had no such power. Why would
God ignore the authority of His Vicar, and select Matthias by the casting
of lots instead of through His representative, the Pope? A rather singular
way for God to treat His Supreme Pontiff, don't you think?
Again in Acts 6:2-6 we see the office of Pope
ignored in the selection of the seven deacons. The "brethren" were directed
by the twelve apostles to select the seven men who would serve as deacons.
The conclusion is obvious; no such office as that of Pope existed.
Peter Taken To Task by Jewish Brethren
When word got around that Peter had gone into
the home of Gentiles and had eaten with them the brethren at Jerusalem
"found fault with him." The King James version says that they "contended
with him." They took him to task, calling on him to explain his actions.
The attitude manifest on the part of the Jewish brethren on this occasion
shows plainly that they did not consider Peter to be the vicegerent of
God.
Paul Rebuked Peter
In Galatians 2:11-14 we have an account of a controversy
between Paul and Peter. Paul tells it only in self-defense - because his
apostleship has been questioned. He first declares that the gospel which
he preached was not received from any man, but that it was by the revelation
of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11-12). He then tells about going to Jerusalem
and conferring with those who seemed to be the pillars - James, Peter and
John, and declares that they "added" or "imparted nothing to me." In other
words, he received nothing new from them. Paul then shows his complete
independence of the apostles in his knowledge of the gospel by telling
about his controversy with Peter. He said "When Peter was come to Antioch,
I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that
certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were
come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the
circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch
that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when
I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel,
I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the
manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles
to live as do the Jews?" Thus we have an account of Paul's rebuking his
father, Pope Peter, before them all. Mind you, Paul was telling this to
prove that he did not look to the other apostles, nor any other man for
the gospel which he preached, and he further showed his absolute independence
of all others by telling how he rebuked Peter before them all. All these
facts show how utterly contrary to the Sacred Writings are the assumptions
of popery. No, my friends, Peter was not the Pope.
Paul Equal to Chiefest Apostles
In 2 Corinthians 11:5 Paul shows that no such
office of supremacy existed among the apostles by declaring, "For I regard
myself as nowise inferior to the great apostles." The King James translation
reads, "For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles."
This is the same thing that Paul was saying to the Galatians when he told
them that "They who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing unto
me" (Galatians 2:6-8). This is one inspired apostle's attitude toward all
the other inspired apostles - Peter included, and reveals the fact from
inspiration from God that Peter was EXCLUDED from any office above the
others.
Peter Did Not Claim Primacy
Peter, nowhere in His writings claimed to be the
Prince of the apostles. He claimed simply to be a "fellow-elder," and in
the same connection condemned any who presumed to be "lords over God's
heritage" (1 Peter 5:1-3). In 2 Peter 3:2, Peter says, "That ye may be
mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and
of the commandment' of US the apostles of the Lord and Savior." Thus Peter,
with his grave before him, in his last will and testament, so to speak,
made no claim to such primacy; made no mention of such an office for himself,
NOR any successors, but simply claimed to be "AN apostle of the Lord and
Savior."
If it be argued that such was omitted because
of modesty, then I reply that it was a time and subject far too great for
modesty to silence the apostle Peter. Furthermore, it might be added that
modern day "Popes" have lost that modesty.
Peter Refused Adoration
When Peter came to the home of Cornelius, as recorded
in Acts 10:25-26, Cornelius met him, and "fell down at his feet, and worshipped
him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man."
Peter's statement, "I myself also am a man" indicates that he was no more
than a man. To simply inform Cornelius that he was a man would be senseless.
Cornelius could see that much. Peter was telling him that he was no more
than a man, and therefore, not a subject of worship. This action was quite
unlike those who claim to be Peter's successors, but more important, it
shows that Peter was a mere man, NOT the Vicar of God.
The Case of Paul
There are several statements made by the apostle
Paul, which are ignored by Papists, but which I shudder to think of what
they would make of them if they had been made by Peter. Paul said in 2
Corinthians 11:28 that he (Paul) had the "care of all the churches." This
is the very thing that Papists claim for Peter, but alas, Paul says it
is his, not Peter's, and Paul did not mean that he was Pope. In Acts 24:5,
Paul is called the "ringleader of sect of the Nazarenes." In 1 Corinthians
15:10 Paul says that he "labored more abundantly than they all."
Peter's Special Commission to The Jews
In Galatians 2:7-8 we learn that Peter had a special
commission to the Jews. We read from God's inspired record, the Bible,
"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircum-cision
was committed unto me as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision,
the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles)... they gave me and Barnabas
the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and
they unto the circumcision." Now, if Peter were "Pope" over ALL the church,
and all the world, how could he have a special commission to the Jews,
the circumcision?? The very fact of Peter's special commission to the Jews
shows that he was NOT the supreme head over the entire church. Furthermore,
Paul was to the Gentiles what Peter was to the Jews. If Peter was Pope,
then Paul was also.
Twelve Thrones
In Matthew 19:28 and also Luke 22:29-30, Jesus
promises twelve thrones - one for each of His Apostles. They were to sit
upon these twelve thrones "in Christ's kingdom" and "in the regeneration"
when Christ would be sitting on the throne of His glory - that is this
present dispensation, now. This shows the equality of the apostles, and
therefore, denies that Peter, or any other, was superior in authority to
the others.
Call No Man on Earth Your Father
Jesus very plainly said, "Call no man on earth
your father" (Matthew 23:9). The word "pope" means "father." Hence, Christ
said "Call no man on earth your "pope," and also, our calling anyone on
earth "father" or "pope." Sometimes our attention is called to the fact
that we refer to our fleshly fathers as "father." Yes, this is true, but
they are called father in a fleshly sense. In Hebrews 12:9 the contrast
is made thus: "We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and
we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto
the Father of spirits, and live." Yes, we may call our fleshly fathers,
"father," but Jesus forbids us calling any man on earth "father" in a religious,
or spiritual sense. God is the father of our spirits, therefore, "Call
no man on earth your father, for one is your father which is in heaven."
No man on earth is to be called "father" in a religious or spiritual sense.
The Pope is not a father in any other sense, therefore, the Pope violates
this command of Christ, AND all who CALL HIM "Pope," or "father" violate
it also. Yet, this is the very thing that Catholics claim that Peter was.
They do not think that he was the "father" or "Pope" of the disciples of
Christ in a fleshly sense, but they DO think he was their "father" or "pope"
in a spiritual or religious sense. BUT, this is the very thing that Christ
commanded them NOT to recognize in any man on earth, and therefore forbade
anyone to be such. Therefore, if Peter were the "father" or "pope" of the
Apostles and disciples of Christ, he was such in plain contradiction to
this command of Christ! And therefore, I conclude that he occupied no such
office.
The very next verse says, "Neither be ye called
masters, for one is your master, even Christ." Papists claim that Peter
was the ruler, or master of the apostles and followers of Christ, and that
present day Popes are his successors. BUT, Christ commanded them not to
be masters, because Christians have only ONE master, and He is CHRIST.
Therefore, Peter could not have been the ruler or master of the disciples
of Christ without violating this command of Christ.
Conclusion
In view of this array of scriptural evidence it
is obvious to every thinking, sober-minded person that PETER WAS NOT POPE.
We have clearly and conclusively shown that Catholics have no authority
for their Pope either in the Holy Scriptures or in reason. Every argument
they make has been answered. PETER WAS NOT THE POPE. And, IF Peter was
NOT, then none can claim that office as his successor. To do so would be
the nearest fulfillment of Paul's prophecy of the "man of sin." Read this
prophecy and ask yourself this question. "Am I following the man of sin
in the great apostasy?" 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 says, "The day of the Lord
will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed,
the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called
God, or that is worshipped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives
himself out as if he were God." IF the Pope is NOT the "man of sin," then
who do you think is?
This is not a light matter. Eternity is involved. Have you been building
your hopes on a home in heaven on the false assumption that the Pope is
the Vicar of Christ? Then, turn away from it today and be a simple New
Testament Christian and a member of the New Testament Church - the Church
of Christ (Romans 16: 16; Acts 2:47; 1 Corinthians 12:27). Investigate
the Church of Christ. May God help you to learn and obey the truth. The
Lord Jesus Christ said, "Ye shall know the TRUTH and the TRUTH shall make
you free."
|