As we look through the Acts of the apostles we see Peter is quite often singled out as the general leader of the twelve. Other than a few occasions where one of the apostles takes authority, he makes most of the claims and commands. Let's look at a particular verse in which the Catholic Church uses to claim their succession from Peter.

OK, we see Peter here spoken to by Jesus. What was Jesus telling him? What "rock" was it that he was referring to when He said that "upon this rock I will build my church?

Was he referring to Peter as this rock? Why would he have not just said, "Upon thee I will build my church."? Something does not quite add up, and when we question the clarity of scripture, we must study it some more. Throughout the bible, names have had a great meaning, not only meaning but almost always represented what that person really was.

If Peter was the "rock" of the church(upon this rock I will build my church), then who was Jesus?

This is on the parable of the sown seeds. I find it very interesting indeed that Jesus used the term "rock"(petra) here.

Are we to assume, that since Jesus said that upon this rock I will build my church, that Peter is also being referred to in these verses also? I certainly hope not, yet the term "rock" all refers to the same greek root: "petra".

What do we see in Peter's name? "petr -os". A much smaller rock. So, if we conclude that in all other terms "Petra" refers to Christ, why should it be any different that the term "rock", "Petr-a" used in Matt. 16:18, be any other than Jesus Christ himself?

will continue soon....

This post was last modified: Tue Nov 22, 2005 08:55 AM by Jim.

In continuance, can we assume that Peter was saved?

Can the Holy Spirit reside in an unclean temple? If the Lord cannot look upon sin and we are not saved, how can the Holy Spirit reside there?

This I think is the crux of the matter when it comes to "works" and the catholic church. If it is not of works, but a gift of God by grace alone, then how would the Catholic CHurch have it's power? It couldn't. It would require the authority of the church to determine what works a person would have to perform to get to heaven...

Is this biblical?

If Peter could lose his salvation because of a lack of works, or bad works, or whatever, then how could his word be infallible? And if the Holy Spirit can not reside in a clean temple, then what determines the fact that anything a man could say could indeed be infallible? this doesn't make much sense.

So what exactly WAS Peter's authority? It was the authority of the Holy Spirit guiding Peter that was the auithority, just like everyone else who received that gift, e.g. Cornelius' household, disciples, etc. The only authority given to man was the authority in the local church to work the things of the world. What about Pastoral authority and how does it extend to the Protestant church? Does the Pastor of a church have the ability to have God's Holy Word revealed to Him above and beyond that of the common man? I don't think so. What is possible is that the Pastor can act as a mediator(not the mediator, mind you) between two parties to settle a biblical difference.

What is funny is that I was told on another post that the Catholic Church had one teaching, one belief, and one unified body. This simply is not true. I have been to a few catholic churches and to say there are no differences in doctrine is simply wrong. To say there are no sects of the catholic church is simply wrong.

Just like everywhere else, there are not only differences of opinion, but great differences of doctrine.

I believe that the Catholic Church, no different in heirarchy than other local protestant churches except for the establishment of a man who they believe is something other than he is, is simply that, a local church.

So the question remains:

Did Peter pass down a direct, indicated, successive apostolic charge to others in his successive line to be an ultimate authority over the local church next to God? Absolutely not.

The pastoral authority that exists today is established for the natural man to have authority, and this is still in agreement with Peter's authority. Man cannot exist in anarchy, there has to be an organized entity. It is in man's nature to form a government. We say that evidenced by Israel's desire to have Saul instead of God as their King. Not to justify kings over God, I speak as a Gentile. What would a church be without pastoral authority? It is the eaxmple of Peter and the apostles charge to many churches named, and unnamed, to charge men of God, called of God, to take charge of a local flock. Without it their would be chaos. The authority ends there. No man has the authority to teach God's Word above and beyond that of which the Holy Spirit teaches an individual. If the man truly has the Holy Spirit teaching him, then there will be agreement on conclusion. It is when man seeks to teach himself without the aid of the Holy Spirit, where he errs greatly.

Can works get us into heaven? No they cannot.

A man must repent and trust in Jesus Christ in faith through His shed blood, and that man's works will show forth his salvation. Even after this point, if he chooses again to serve himself, the Lord, in His infinite grace and mercy will allow that man to be in His permissive will, but will ultimately bring that man back into His directive will. For it is God's Will that He(the Lord) should be glorified above all else. I believe that God's permissive will shall last only so long allowing the testimony of one of His children to dishonor the Lord before He takes him out. This is mercy itself.

It is man's ability and desire in salvation to do all for the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. If it were limited by works then that means God gives and takes His grace with reservation and it is not a gift at all. What a hardship it would be to have to earn your way to heaven, what a price to put on Jesus' shed blood!

Jim

bump

While we continue to hear the declaration of papal succession from Peter to Benedict XVI, why do they have almost no documentation of this papal succession between 67-499A.D.?

Almost nothing is known about the "popes" during this time. I was kind of wondering about Anastasius I, who also condemned Origen.

I will venture a guess here that no documentation exists other than the writings of Eusebius himself, whose beliefs were based upon Origen, who was anathematized by the catholic church, yet are a sole source for their belief of papal succession. Kind of ironic don't you think?

This post was last modified: Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:10 PM by Jim.

Oh, and here is a good one, documented by none other than Eusebius himself:

8O
So we can trace blasphemous representation of Christ by the popes even back to 236 A.D., what a long lineage of blasphemy!

If peter was the first Pope as they claim this is a very interesting event indeed, this is when Paul set Peter right in regards to eating with the gentiles when Jews were present.
Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

This was his response to Peter!

This event had no lasting issue between Peter, and Paul as we read in
II Peter 3:15 - And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

No papacy here just two men called of God spreading the Gospel!
The Church leadership isn't Peter, Paul and Mary It is the LORD JESUS CHRIST!

Peter being a simple fisherman, who became a fisher of men, wouldn't even be considered today for the high office of papa.


Jim Norman

Amen, brother Jim!

Greetings from England.

Came across this forum and felt we should register. We are former Roman Catholics, with a ministry that reaches to all people, but especially to Catholics - http://www.excatholicsforchrist.com.

Look forward to interacting with some of you folks.

James
(John 12:32)

Brother James,

I am assuming, please correct me if I am wrong, that you are Pastor James Battal?

If so, let me proceed. What you have on your site about the apostle Peter as stated about Peter being the first pope, was right on! If you do not mind, I will quote something here from your site:

This is quite profound and something I have been studying very closely recently, and as I have stated before, I do not believe in coincidences.

If we look at the conversion of Cornelius' household, who do we see as the one who had the dream to go forth and go to him? We see Peter. (read Acts Ch 10)

Now, bearing this in mind, who do we see Paul reprimanding for fearing the Jews and leaving the commandment of the Lord to go forth to the Gentiles(Gal. 2:7-12) We see none other than Peter. I believe Peter to be a type of John Mark who also had left Paul for whatever reason and went back home(Acts 13:13) after he saw what happened to Barjesus(Elymas) the sorcerer.

(I believe the transfer of the Gentiles ministry from Peter to Paul happens around Acts Chapter 12 -13)

As you have stated, Paul is the primary apostle to the Gentiles, because of Peter's failure. We read in Galatians:

2:7
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
2:8
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
2:9
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
2:10
Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
2:11
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
2:12
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.
2:13
And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
2:14
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?

I just wanted to share that.

If you want to read something interesting about the life of John Mark in relationship to the apsotle Paul, please go to that that thread: "John Mark". I just want to maintain subject continuity here.

Love in Christ,

Jim

Hi Jim,

No, I'm sorry but I am not a pastor.

James G. Battell

Ah thank you for clarifying that. I mispoke myself, I made an assumption, and also mispelled your name.

I am sorry about that, but I do appreciate what the site has to say about the apostle Peter.

Love in Christ,

Jim

Jesus changed his name from Simon to Cephas(Peter), which means rock. I don't see how that is confusing.

No Catholic misrepresents the Pope for Christ.

They most certainly do, not directly stated, but every day implied.

So by "implied," you interpret your perceptions of Catholics as reality through your judgmental view of their faith? How surprising! I sure that few people thank you for spreading lies about people whose beliefs you obviously don't understand, given the activity of this board. And you're the moderator? Thanks and goodbye.