An2elect2:


THE WH0RE sees Peter as
the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His
church LOL (Matthew 16:18 ). It holds that he had
authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The
Roman Catholic Church maintains that sometime after
the recorded events of the book of Acts, the
Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and
that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early
church as the central authority among all of the
churches. It teaches that God passed Peter’s
apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as
bishop of Rome. This teaching that God passed on
Peter’s apostolic authority to the subsequent
bishops is referred to as “apostolic succession.”Right?
The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter
and the subsequent popes were and are infallible
when addressing issues “ex cathedra,” from their
position and authority as pope. It teaches that this
infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the
church without error. The Roman Catholic Church
claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back
to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true
church, since, according to their interpretation of
Matthew 16:18 , Christ built His church upon
Peter.Lolzzzz
But while Peter was central in the early spread of
the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew
16:18-19 ), the teaching of Scripture, taken in
context, nowhere declares that he was in authority
over the other apostles, or over the church (having
primacy). See Acts 15:1-23 ; Galatians 2:1-14 ; and 1
Peter 5:1-5 . Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that
the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have
primacy over the church. Scripture does not even
explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather
there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter
writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to
Rome ( 1 Peter 5:13 ). Primarily upon this and the
historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome
come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the
primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture
shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the
other apostles ( Ephesians 2:19-20 ), and the “loosing
and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise
shared by the local churches, not just their church
leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19 ; 1 Corinthians
5:1-13 ; 2 Corinthians 13:10 ; Titus 2:15 ; 3:10-11 ).
Also, nowhere does Scripture state that, in order to
keep the church from error, the authority of the
apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the
idea behind apostolic succession). Apostolic
succession is “read into” those verses that the
Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine
(2 Timothy 2:2 ; 4:2-5 ; Titus 1:5 ; 2:1 ; 2:15 ; 1
Timothy
5:19-22 ). Paul does NOT call on believers in various
churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other
church leaders based on their authority as bishops
or their having apostolic authority, but rather based
upon their being fellow laborers with him ( 1
Corinthians 16:10 ; 16:16 ; 2 Corinthians 8:23 ).
What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings
would arise even from among church leaders, and
that Christians were to compare the teachings of
these later church leaders with Scripture, which
alone is infallible (Matthew 5:18 ; Psalm 19:7-8 ;
119:160 ; Proverbs 30:5 ; John 17:17 ; 2 Peter
1:19-21 ). The Bible does not teach that the apostles
were infallible, apart from what was written by them
and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to
the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus,
makes note of coming false teachers. To fight
against their error does NOT commend them to “the
apostles and those who would carry on their
authority”; rather, Paul commends them to “God and
to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:28-32 ). It is
Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick
for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ), not
apostolic successors. It is by examining the
Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or
false ( Acts 17:10-12 ).
Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to
Scripture, is a clear and emphatic “no.” Peter
nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles.
Nowhere in his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the
Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or
power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does
Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic
authority would be passed on to successors. Yes,
the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the
disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the
early spread of the gospel (Acts chapters 1-10).
Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he
would be (Matthew 16:18 ). However, these truths
about Peter in no way give support to the concept
that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the
“supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his
authority would be passed on to the bishops of
Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true
Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord
Jesus Christ ( 1 Peter 2:25 )

newbornmacho:

How are you young lady? Kudos on speaking truth to power. More ink to your pen.

Craigston:
I doubt Peter was the rock Jesus declared to build His church on. If the church would be built on any man's regard, it would be the Lord in flesh, Jesus' name. The rock was the revelation and is the knowledge that Jesus is the son of God. That makes it the church of Christ, not Peter's. Peter wasn't the good shepherd; he was a servant of the good shepherd. There is only one head of the church --- Christ himself.