Built On The Wrong Apostle

[H. Richard]

This article was written by me and used on Christian debate sites. I believe it to be true based on the scriptures given.

Subject: Built on the wrong apostle:

It is believed, by many, that the grace church was started by Peter on the day of Pentecost. But if you look close all that is written in Acts, spoken by Peter, is to get the Jews (Israel) to accept Jesus as their Messiah and king so that He would return and setup the kingdom that was promised in the covenant God made with Abraham. This covenant was not made to the Gentiles.

Even in Acts 8 & 9 where we see Saul being converted it was still time for the Jews to accept Jesus as their king so that He could return and set up the promised kingdom.

Luke 13:6 10
The Parable of the Barren Fig Tree 6 He also spoke this parable: "A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none.
7 Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, 'Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?'
8 But he answered and said to him, 'Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it.
9 And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.'"
NKJV

God set the Jewish nation aside and went to the Gentiles when He, in 70 AD, had the Temple destroyed.

We see that Saul/Paul was chosen by God to be THE apostle to the Gentiles. His gospel of the grace of God was hidden in God and revealed to him (Paul), not the 12.

The 12 were apostles to the Jews. No where in the scriptures do we see Jesus and the 12 rescinding the Law of Moses, yet Paul taught that we are no longer under the Law of Moses and are dead to it. No where in the preaching of Peter, in the book of Acts, do we see any mention of salvation by the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. The reason is very simple. It was not revealed to them until Jesus told it to Paul.

Many say that James rescinded the law in Acts 15. But did he really? He said the Gentiles did not have to keep the law but nowhere in Acts 15 did he say the Jews did not have to keep it. If you go up to Acts 21:18 25 you will see that the 12 are still teaching the Jews that they are under the Law of Moses.

I believe that if people would REALLY see the words in the scriptures for what they say they would find that the religious have perverted the scriptures to say what they want them to say in order to keep the religious ideas they have. Satan does not want people to believe God’s promises given to Paul. Most of these religious ideas came through the RCC who built their church on the wrong apostle. If you look close you will see that the RCC has many of the religious rituals performed by the Jews in their Temple worship. The church for this age is built on the writings of the apostle Paul who was sent to the Gentiles by the Son of God, Jesus.

Acts 9:13 16 NKJV
13 Then Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem.
14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name."
15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.
16 For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name's sake."

Acts 22:20 21 NKJV (Paul talking to Jesus in context)
20 And when the blood of Your martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by consenting to his death, and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.
21 Then He said to me, 'Depart, for I will send you far from here to the Gentiles.'"

Gal 2:9 10 NKJV
9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.

Do the religious churches teach the agreement that was made in Gal 2:9 10 between the 12 and Paul? I think not. Do they teach that, under grace, we are no longer under the law of Moses that was taught by Jesus and the 12 to the Jews? I think not. Do they teach that the whole world will be judged by Paul’s gospel of grace, I think not.

Rom 2:16 NKJV (Paul wrote)
16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Since Paul said the world will be judged according to his gospel then it would be wise to actually know his gospel.

 

[Willie T]

Of course. Unless you are Catholic, you know Christ's Church was not built on ANY man, Peter or Paul.

Read a more accurate rendering of the translation:
15 They show that some requirements found in Moses’ Teachings are written in their hearts. Their consciences speak to them. Their thoughts accuse them on one occasion and defend them on another. 16 This happens as they face the day when God, through Christ Jesus, will judge people’s secret thoughts. He will use the Good News that I am spreading to make that judgment.

 

[mjrhealth]

Christ is and always will be teh cornerstone and as it says,

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And so it is "revelation" upon which He is building His church, its from God not man.

 

[bbyrd009]

He said the Gentiles did not have to keep the law

still confused about the Law, huh HR. I'd post the relevant vv but i know you can't see them anyway
best of luck to you ok

 

[H. Richard]

Of course. Unless you are Catholic, you know Christ's Church was not built on ANY man, Peter or Paul.

Read a more accurate rendering of the translation:
15 They show that some requirements found in Moses’ Teachings are written in their hearts. Their consciences speak to them. Their thoughts accuse them on one occasion and defend them on another. 16 This happens as they face the day when God, through Christ Jesus, will judge people’s secret thoughts. He will use the Good News that I am spreading to make that judgment.

***

Please, if you are going to quote scripture tell us where it is in the Bible. Just a number does not say what book it is in.

So it is built without a gospel preached by a man, right?

 

[bbyrd009]

please, if you are going to use a computer learn how to copy/search, ok
Romans 2, just for you

 

[101G]

It is believed, by many, that the grace church was started by Peter on the day of Pentecost. But if you look close all that is written in Acts, spoken by Peter, is to get the Jews (Israel) to accept Jesus as their Messiah and king so that He would return and setup the kingdom that was promised in the covenant God made with Abraham. This covenant was not made to the Gentiles.

Addressing the OP. not saying the writing is right or wrong, but Peter message on Pentecost was to the world. Acts 2:39 "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call".

God set the Jewish nation aside and went to the Gentiles when He, in 70 AD, had the Temple destroyed.

I don't agree with that. Romans 2:28 "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

Romans 2:29 "But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

there were many Jews by nationality who believed on the Lord Jesus. by turning to the Gentiles, this is adding not rejecting. this is why I cannot believe in any replacement theology of Israel. we're all one in Christ Jesus.

PCY.

 

[Willie T]

***

Please, if you are going to quote scripture tell us where it is in the Bible. Just a number does not say what book it is in.

So it is built without a gospel preached by a man, right?

If you were actually following the thread, it would be obvious exactly what verse that was.

 

[bbyrd009]

I don't agree with that.

no one else does either, hasn't slowed him down any yet i guess
he's here to teach, not learn. maybe you can help

 

[101G]

no one else does either, hasn't slowed him down any yet i guess
he's here to teach, not learn. maybe you can help

help is only wanted. can't make a horse drink, only bring him to the water.

PCY.

 

[H. Richard]

help is only wanted. can't make a horse drink, only bring him to the water.

PCY.

***

What do you think you have that I should believe? That Jesus' shed blood did not pay for my sins. That I have to stop sinning if I want to go to heaven. Are some people here so brain dead that they do not understand that as long as they live in sinful flesh they will sin?

Is there anything that they can offer other than that a person has to stop sinning in order to go to heaven. For those , what do you think Jesus did on the cross? Do you think He just wants people to practice a new and improved religion of works? Remember it was those in religion that had Jesus killed.

No, I have already come to the understanding that some here are absolutely ignorant as to what God has said in the word of God.

But that is my opinion and I think it is valid. I spend my time trying to get people to actually see what the word of God says and all I get is a bunch of religious people who are so lazy they can't find it in their Bible. One said the word's """gospel of grace"" is not in the Bible. But I found them and posted them. Do you think that person will reconsider his words? Absolutely not. Well you can fool people on this forum but you can't fool God.

God want people to glorify His Son for what He did for them on the cross but these people are so busy trying to get people to see them as sinless that they don't really care about Jesus' shed blood on the cross. They certainly will not give Him the credit for salvation, because they want that credit for themselves.

 

[bbyrd009]

i guess many might, yes, i recall having to overcome this perspective myself; yet i still sin, ok. The diff imo is that i now have a model to pick up my cross and follow, that redeems me. If many will cry Lord, Lord, you have to differentiate these from those, some kind of way, wouldn't you say?

That Jesus' shed blood did not pay for my sins.

Jesus did not die for your sins - Google Search

declarations are worthless, HR, and while i personally don't suspect you of this, you might see that many ppl will take your theology to mean that they cannot possibly even commit a sin as soon as they have made an altar profession, or some other variation that is not Scriptural.

Are all of your sins forgiven? Certainly. Do you think that will allow you to stand in the fire, when your unrepentant sins are revealed? Then go and tell our Job, ok?

 

[bbyrd009]

That I have to stop sinning if I want to go to heaven.

there is no "where" to go, HR; assuming you mean "after i have physically died."

the kingdom is inside you, right, or it is in your midst. Iow right now, not after you have died.

 

[bbyrd009]

Are some people here so brain dead that they do not understand that as long as they live in sinful flesh they will sin?

confess your sins, one to another
confession leads to salvation

now granted if you are following these, you will stop sinning, bc who could keep doing the same sin and confessing it 50 times a day lol. But imo cross that bridge when you get to it. I have yet to have a case where someone said "i have committed this sin 5 times today, and confessed every time." It just doesn't happen, in my experience anyway.

 

[bbyrd009]

Do you think He just wants people to practice a new and improved religion of works?

recognizing when you might be wrong (and i mean IRL, not here) and confessing that is not religious at all, HR
even atheists respond to this, see

 

[bbyrd009]

I spend my time trying to get people to actually see what the word of God says

well then i would be listening for Word, and stop trying to see It, bc you cannot, ok, as any number of mental exercises where your word is concerned might easily demonstrate to you. Or just try and Quote "the Bible is the Word" or something. Anything. We have vv outlining ppl hearing Word from Christ, and then searching the Scriptures to verify It, right; the two are plainly delineated in one verse?

the Bible is not the Book of Truth, is another alley you can explore there
the Word is the Truth, right

the Bible is not even deemed Holy
(but Law is; weird, i'll grant you, but there it is)

 

[ScottA]

This article was written by me and used on Christian debate sites. I believe it to be true based on the scriptures given.

Subject: Built on the wrong apostle:

It is believed, by many, that the grace church was started by Peter on the day of Pentecost. But if you look close all that is written in Acts, spoken by Peter, is to get the Jews (Israel) to accept Jesus as their Messiah and king so that He would return and setup the kingdom that was promised in the covenant God made with Abraham. This covenant was not made to the Gentiles.

Even in Acts 8 & 9 where we see Saul being converted it was still time for the Jews to accept Jesus as their king so that He could return and set up the promised kingdom.

Luke 13:6 10
The Parable of the Barren Fig Tree 6 He also spoke this parable: "A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none.
7 Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, 'Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?'
8 But he answered and said to him, 'Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it.
9 And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.'"
NKJV

God set the Jewish nation aside and went to the Gentiles when He, in 70 AD, had the Temple destroyed.

We see that Saul/Paul was chosen by God to be THE apostle to the Gentiles. His gospel of the grace of God was hidden in God and revealed to him (Paul), not the 12.

The 12 were apostles to the Jews. No where in the scriptures do we see Jesus and the 12 rescinding the Law of Moses, yet Paul taught that we are no longer under the Law of Moses and are dead to it. No where in the preaching of Peter, in the book of Acts, do we see any mention of salvation by the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. The reason is very simple. It was not revealed to them until Jesus told it to Paul.

Many say that James rescinded the law in Acts 15. But did he really? He said the Gentiles did not have to keep the law but nowhere in Acts 15 did he say the Jews did not have to keep it. If you go up to Acts 21:18 25 you will see that the 12 are still teaching the Jews that they are under the Law of Moses.

I believe that if people would REALLY see the words in the scriptures for what they say they would find that the religious have perverted the scriptures to say what they want them to say in order to keep the religious ideas they have. Satan does not want people to believe God’s promises given to Paul. Most of these religious ideas came through the RCC who built their church on the wrong apostle. If you look close you will see that the RCC has many of the religious rituals performed by the Jews in their Temple worship. The church for this age is built on the writings of the apostle Paul who was sent to the Gentiles by the Son of God, Jesus.

Acts 9:13 16 NKJV
13 Then Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he has done to Your saints in Jerusalem.
14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name."
15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.
16 For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name's sake."

Acts 22:20 21 NKJV (Paul talking to Jesus in context)
20 And when the blood of Your martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by consenting to his death, and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.
21 Then He said to me, 'Depart, for I will send you far from here to the Gentiles.'"

Gal 2:9 10 NKJV
9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
10 They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.

Do the religious churches teach the agreement that was made in Gal 2:9 10 between the 12 and Paul? I think not. Do they teach that, under grace, we are no longer under the law of Moses that was taught by Jesus and the 12 to the Jews? I think not. Do they teach that the whole world will be judged by Paul’s gospel of grace, I think not.

Rom 2:16 NKJV (Paul wrote)
16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

Since Paul said the world will be judged according to his gospel then it would be wise to actually know his gospel.

Indeed there are errors in how the church has followed Christ...and I tend to agree with your thinking. But I would describe it differently:

First, it is correct to say that the Jews and the gentiles come to salvation differently - that is true according to the scriptures: "first to the Jew, then to the Greek." So, we do have two different dispensations, that of the Old Covenant and the Law, and that of the New Covenant and grace...grace, because the gentiles were never under the law unless they came into the fold of ancient Israel during their times. Otherwise, the gentiles are that "other fold I must bring" spoken of by Christ. And now these are "the times of the gentiles", and no more the times of Israel - nor shall those times come again, for "It is finished."

Then, it is important to understand the error of the early church. When Jesus announced the building of His church, He did not just come out and make statements, He did so by asking one very important question: "Who do people say that I am?" But it is not the answer that He was referring to, but the means by which Peter arrived at the answer, which was via the spirit, from the Father. So, Peter became the [object] of Jesus' announcement - but He was not the [subject] of it. In other words, the church was not to be built upon Peter - that is not what He was revealing. But rather, what He was revealing by asking the question, was just how Peter arrived at the answer - and that, was Jesus' announcement of how His church would be built: a temple made with out hands, not of the flesh or of men, but of the spirit of God. Hence, the need to be born again of the spirit of God.

Therefore, yes, the Catholic church wrongly followed the flesh man known as Peter - but so did the rest of Christendom by wrongly following after the flesh of any man, whether Paul or Apolos, or whomever. No, and this happened even after Peter himself announced and confirmed that these are the times spoke of by Joel the prophet, when God would pour our His spirit upon all men, i.e., the gentiles...as these are "the times of the gentiles."

But what is even worse, is that Christendom as a whole has made a false christ out of Jesus, going against Jesus' directions to be born again of the spirit, and walk in the spirit, "following" Him in His ascension unto the Father who is [only] spirit - meaning, there is no intention of "following" Jesus at all, according to the way that it is taught. But rather, what is taught is to follow men of flesh who teach the return of Christ in the flesh, after He has left the body (whom we now are) and entered into the glory of the Father. This backward way of teaching, would have us all believe that the flesh is the evolved higher form of life that we should aspire to, rather than being raised up in the spirit as Christ was. This is the spirit of anti-Christ making men out to be God.

 

[DAH]

Great thread

Peter is not in the Gospel of Grace club, with a future home with us in heavenly places. Peter was in the Kingdom Gospel - he never preached the Gospel of Grace...Peter and Paul were polar opposites. Peter will be on one of 12-thrones in an earthly kingdom. We, along with Paul, with be in heavenly places - judging over angles; two different programs, two different destinations.

If you would like a remark on how Peter's meeting with Cornelious does NOT fall under the Gospel of Grace / Body of Christ Gospel - I will gladly serve one up ;-). Same for any thought that Abraham's interaction with God somehow revealed the Church, the Body of Christ; or when Jesus interacted with a gentile woman who He referred to as a "dog" - cuz none of those interactions hung their hat of salvation on the result of the cross... a Mystery is a Mystery - hidden since the world began - hidden even from angels, prophets, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, and the 12-Apostles...revealed first to Paul.

Eph 3:2
If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Simple dispensational differences between Kingdom Gospel (Jesus / Peter) and Gospel of Grace (Peter / Jesus' Mystery Program revealed):

Kingdom Gospel
Preaches the soon coming of the king and his kingdom (Matt 3:2)

Gospel of Grace
Preaches the grace of God for salvation (Rom 3:22-26)

Kingdom Gospel
The king and kingdom was promised to the nation of Israel (Luke 1:69)

Gospel of Grace
The grace of God is offered freely to all (Rom 3:22)

Kingdom Gospel
The kingdom was spoken about since the world began (Acts 3:21-25)

Gospel of Grace
The dispensation of God’s grace was kept secret since the world began (Rom 16:25)

Kingdom Gospel
Killing the king is a sad and wicked thing (Luke 24:17; Acts 2:23)

Gospel of Grace
The crucifixion of Christ is our glory (Gal 6:14)

Kingdom Gospel
The cross of Christ was not part of the message (Luke 9:2 vs. Luke 18:34)

Gospel of Grace
Requires preaching the cross (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

Kingdom Gospel
Resurrection was not part of the message (John 20:9)

Gospel of Grace
Preaching is vain without the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:14)

Kingdom Gospel
The kingdom requires performance (1 John 2:3; Matt 25:32-46)

Gospel of Grace
God’s grace motivates a purpose in your heart (2 Cor 9:7; 2 Cor 5:14-15)

Kingdom Gospel
The kingdom will benefit everyone on earth (Rev 20:3-4; Isa 2:3-4). This is a Gospel for a Nation

Gospel of Grace
God’s grace unto salvation benefits only those that believe (Rom 3:22). This is a Gospel for the individual.

Kingdom Gospel
Salvation comes in the future when the kingdom comes (Acts 3:19; Heb 9:28; 1 Pet 1:5)

Gospel of Grace
Salvation comes at the moment of belief (Eph 1:13; Rom 5:1)

Kingdom Gospel
To be saved requires enduring to the end (Matt 24:13)

Gospel of Grace
To be saved requires believing your work has come to an end (Rom 4:5)

Kingdom Gospel
There is a difference between Jew and Gentile in the kingdom (Matt 15:26; Zech 8:23)

Gospel of Grace
There are no Jews or Gentiles in the church in this dispensation of grace (Gal 3:28)

Kingdom Gospel
Was given to the Twelve apostles of Israel to preach (Acts 1:3)

Gospel of Grace
Was given to the apostle of the Gentiles to preach (Rom 11:13; 1 Cor 9:17; Eph 3:1-2)

Kingdom Gospel
Waiting for a kingdom of heaven to come to earth (Matt 6:10)

Gospel of Grace
Preaching for those on earth to trust Christ and go to heaven (Eph 2:6-7)

Kingdom Gospel
The kingdom will be a visible presence on earth (Matt 24:27; Rev 19:11)

Gospel of Grace
God’s grace is by faith and not by sight (2 Cor 5:7)

Kingdom Gospel
Healing of the sick was a sign of the kingdom (Matt 4:23; Mark 16:18)

Gospel of Grace
The lack of healing is a sign of God’s sufficient grace (2 Cor 12:8-10)

Kingdom Gospel
Water baptism prepares Israel to enter the kingdom (Matt 3:3; Acts 2:38)

Gospel of Grace
Baptism by the Spirit places us in the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13)

Kingdom Gospel
Continued obedience to the commandments required (Matt 23:13)

Gospel of Grace
Justified without the law of Moses; not under the law (Acts 13:39; Rom 6:14)

Kingdom Gospel
Faith without works is dead (James 2:24)

Gospel of Grace
Faith in the finished work of Christ gives peace and life (Rom 4:5; Rom 5:1)

These are just a few of the differences between preaching the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of the grace of God. These are only two of the many gospels in the Bible.

If the church agrees we are to preach the gospel. It is important we get the message right and clear. Knowing the difference between the many gospels in the Bible is the difference between a confused church and a saved church.

Today, God is dispensing his grace to a world of sinners, not his kingdom to a world in righteous judgment. It is the church’s responsibility to make all men see this mystery operation of God (Eph 3:9).

Knowing what makes the gospel of the grace of God different is necessary to make our message clear enough so that God’s will be done (1 Tim 2:4).

“Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” – 1 Timothy 2:4

 

[DAH]

Indeed there are errors in how the church has followed Christ...and I tend to agree with your thinking. But I would describe it differently:

First, it is correct to say that the Jews and the gentiles come to salvation differently - that is true according to the scriptures: "first to the Jew, then to the Greek." So, we do have two different dispensations, that of the Old Covenant and the Law, and that of the New Covenant and grace...grace, because the gentiles were never under the law unless they came into the fold of ancient Israel during their times. Otherwise, the gentiles are that "other fold I must bring" spoken of by Christ. And now these are "the times of the gentiles", and no more the times of Israel - nor shall those times come again, for "It is finished."

Then, it is important to understand the error of the early church. When Jesus announced the building of His church, He did not just come out and make statements, He did so by asking one very important question: "Who do people say that I am?" But it is not the answer that He was referring to, but the means by which Peter arrived at the answer, which was via the spirit, from the Father. So, Peter became the [object] of Jesus' announcement - but He was not the [subject] of it. In other words, the church was not to be built upon Peter - that is not what He was revealing. But rather, what He was revealing by asking the question, was just how Peter arrived at the answer - and that, was Jesus' announcement of how His church would be built: a temple made with out hands, not of the flesh or of men, but of the spirit of God. Hence, the need to be born again of the spirit of God.

Therefore, yes, the Catholic church wrongly followed the flesh man known as Peter - but so did the rest of Christendom by wrongly following after the flesh of any man, whether Paul or Apolos, or whomever. No, and this happened even after Peter himself announced and confirmed that these are the times spoke of by Joel the prophet, when God would pour our His spirit upon all men, i.e., the gentiles...as these are "the times of the gentiles."

But what is even worse, is that Christendom as a whole has made a false christ out of Jesus, going against Jesus' directions to be born again of the spirit, and walk in the spirit, "following" Him in His ascension unto the Father who is [only] spirit - meaning, there is no intention of "following" Jesus at all, according to the way that it is taught. But rather, what is taught is to follow men of flesh who teach the return of Christ in the flesh, after He has left the body (whom we now are) and entered into the glory of the Father. This backward way of teaching, would have us all believe that the flesh is the evolved higher form of life that we should aspire to, rather than being raised up in the spirit as Christ was. This is the spirit of anti-Christ making men out to be God.

Good old Peter never even left Israel - he did as instructed by Christ - keep the law, go not to the gentile and preach the Kingdom of God...Peter NEVER preached the cross for salvation. Not once will anyone find Peter or the 11 teaching anything close to 1 Cor 15:1-4. Peter protested interacting with the gentile Cornelius well into Acts - it was "unlawful: for him to be with a Gentile. He went in there kicking and screaming. The good old Pope certainly has no problem interacting with the gentile, the muslim, the buddist, etc...If the Catholic church based their pattern on Peter, they must have read another Bible ;-)

 

[epostle1]

Good old Peter never even left Israel - he did as instructed by Christ - keep the law, go not to the gentile and preach the Kingdom of God...Peter NEVER preached the cross for salvation. Not once will anyone find Peter or the 11 teaching anything close to 1 Cor 15:1-4. Peter protested interacting with the gentile Cornelius well into Acts - it was "unlawful: for him to be with a Gentile. He went in there kicking and screaming. The good old Pope certainly has no problem interacting with the gentile, the muslim, the buddist, etc...If the Catholic church based their pattern on Peter, they must have read another Bible ;-)

That is a straw man fallacy. Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles). Maybe you have another Bible.

The idea that the florid Renaissance pope is typical of all popes is not a Catholic invention, but a Protestant one. Protestantism has been compelled to rewrite all history according to it’s own necessities. As French historian Augustin Thierry has written, “To live, Protestantism found itself forced to build up a history of its own.”

The five basic assumptions of non-Catholic Christians can be corrected by looking at the history of the early church. Did Jesus envision and plan a monarchical papacy? Was the early church de-centralized? Was the early church essentially local and congregational? Did the early church only become hierarchical after the emperor was converted? Did Leo the Great invent the papacy in the fifth century? To examine this we’ll have to put on one side the preconceptions and mental images of Borgia popes and get down to ‘just the facts ma’am.’

Did Jesus Plan a Monarchical Papacy?

Jesus certainly did not plan for the inflated and corrupt popes of the popular imagination. He intended to found a church, but the church was not democratic in structure. It was established with clear individual leadership. In Matthew 16.18-19 Jesus says to Simon Peter, “You are Peter, and on this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it.” So, Jesus established his church not on a congregational model, but on the model of personal leadership.

Was this a monarchical papacy? In a way it was. In Matthew 16 Jesus goes on to say to Peter, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” This is a direct reference back to Isaiah 22.22, where the prophet recognizes Eliakim as the steward of the royal House of David. The steward was the Prime Minister of the Kingdom. The keys of the kingdom were the sign of his personal authority delegated by the king himself.

Jesus never intended a monarchical papacy in the corrupt sense of the Pope being an absolute worldly monarch, but the church leadership Jesus intended was ‘monarchical’ in the sense that it was based on his authority as King of Kings.

The reference to Isaiah 22 shows that the structure of Jesus’ kingdom was modeled on King David’s dynastic court. In Luke 1.32-33 Jesus’ birth is announced in royal terms. He will inherit the throne of his father David. He will rule over the house of Jacob and his kingdom shall never end. Like Eliakim, to whom Jesus refers, Peter is to be the appointed authority in this court, and as such his role is that of steward and ruler in the absence of the High King, the scion of the House of David. That Peter assumes this pre-eminent role of leadership in the early church is attested to throughout the New Testament from his first place in the list of the apostles, to his dynamic preaching on the day of Pentecost, his decision making at the Council of Jerusalem and the deference shown to him by St Paul and the other apostles.

Did Jesus plan the monarchical papacy? He did not plan for the sometimes corrupt, venal and worldly papacy that it has sometimes become down through history, but Jesus did plan for one man to be his royal delegate on earth. He did plan for one man to lead the others (Lk.22.32) He did plan for one man to take up the spiritual and temporal leadership of his church. This is shown not only through the famous passage from Matthew 16, but also in the final chapter of John’s gospel where Jesus the Good Shepherd hands his pastoral role over to Peter.

Was the early church de-centralized?

Independent Evangelical churches follow the Baptist Successionist idea that the early church was de-centralized. They like to imagine that the early Christians met in their homes for Bible study and prayer, and that in this pure form they existed independently of any central authority. It is easy to imagine that long ago in the ancient world transportation and communication was rare and difficult and that no form of centralized church authority could have existed even if it was desirable.

The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than a back-projected invention. In the Acts of the Apostles what we find is a church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles to the Church, he references back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem.(Acts 11:2)

The mission of the infant church was directed from Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Agabus being sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22,27) The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to decide on the Gentile decision and a letter of instruction was sent to the new churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. (Acts 15:23) We see Philip, John Mark, Barnabas and Paul traveling to and from Jerusalem and providing a teaching and disciplinary link from the new churches back to the centralized church in Jerusalem.

After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focused on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches.’”

Historian Eamon Duffy suggests that the earliest leadership in the Roman church may have been more conciliar than monarchical because in his letter to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome doesn’t write as the Bishop of Rome, but even if this is so Duffy confirms that the early church believed Clement was the fourth Bishop of Rome and read Clement’s letter as support for centralized Roman authority. He also concedes that by the time of Irenaeus in the mid second century the centralizing role of the Bishop of Rome was already well established. From then on, citation after citation from the apostolic Fathers can be compiled to show that the whole church from Gaul to North Africa and from Syria to Spain affirm the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and Paul. (but you have nothing to do with the 2nd century Church)

The acceptance of this centralized authority was a sign of belonging to the one true church so that St Jerome could write to Pope Damasus in the mid 300s,
“I think it is my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul… My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!”
The Early Papacy - 2 - Fr. Dwight Longenecker