Built On The Wrong Apostle

[epostle1]

THE PRIMACY OF PETER
Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are exceptions to the rule).

Matt 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Act 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. What other man has walked on water? This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.

Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus' teachings.

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree.

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the "fisher of men."

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter's formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.

John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.

John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the "barque of Peter") is a metaphor for the Church.

John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord's ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.

Acts 5:3 - Peter declares first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon's quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among apostles and works healing of Aeneas.

Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the "whole Church" offered "earnest prayers" for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles.

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the only "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.

2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.

Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head. "You are Peter and upon this wrong Apostle I will build my church." Puleeeze.

 

[bbyrd009]

pretty sure we got vv about personality cults already k
unless Peter died for your sins

 

[H. Richard]

THE PRIMACY OF PETER
Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are exceptions to the rule).


Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

NOTE: Other than Cornelius, the scriptures never say anything about Peter preaching to a Gentile.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.

NOTE: Peter only related about the time he went to Cornelius. It was James who determined that Paul should go to the Gentiles and they, the 12 to the circumision. Nothing is said about Peter being the leader of the church in Jeruselum. It is indicated that James was the leader.

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

NOTE: There is nothing in the scripture indicated that say the above. In that scripture Peter's name was not mentioned.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles.

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.

It was over three years before Paul went to Jerusalem to see the apostles. He also saw James at that time. See scriptures below.

***
1 Cor 15:3-7
3 I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said.
4 He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said.
5 He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve.
6 After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.
7 Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles.

Col 4:2-9
2 Continue earnestly in prayer, being vigilant in it with thanksgiving;
3 meanwhile praying also for us, that God would open to us a door for the word, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in chains,
4 that I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak.
5 Walk in wisdom toward those who are outside, redeeming the time.
6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one.
Final Greetings (cf. Eph 6:21,22) 7 Tychicus, a beloved brother, faithful minister, and fellow servant in the Lord, will tell you all the news about me.
8 I am sending him to you for this very purpose, that he may know your circumstances and comfort your hearts,
9 with Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you. They will make known to you all things which are happening here.
NKJV

Gal 1:17-20
17 Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to consult with those who were apostles before I was. Instead, I went away into Arabia, and later I returned to the city of Damascus.
18 Then three years later I went to Jerusalem to get to know Peter, and I stayed with him for fifteen days.
19 The only other apostle I met at that time was James, the Lord's brother.
20 I declare before God that what I am writing to you is not a lie.

 

[Helen]

Good and interesting thread to read!

 

[Nomad]

THE PRIMACY OF PETER
Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are exceptions to the rule).

Let's see if your reasoning holds water. Paul is mentioned 189 times in the NT. Maybe the title of your post should have been THE PRIMACY OF PAUL. It seems that your 'most mentioned' rule has already fallen apart. And when Paul speaks of Peter, James & John as "pillars" of the Church, he lists James first. That's quite a significant 'exception' if in fact the one mentioned first is 'supreme.' If there were a time when your 'first mention' rule would be paramount, it would be here where Paul is referring to the 'pillars' of the Church. Maybe Paul didn't get the memo.

Also, during the very first Church council in Acts 15, Peter speaks first, but James is the one who renders his judgement at the end of the proceedings. Whose judgement??? That's right, James' judgement. Peter didn't seem to realize that he was the first Pope. We also have that sticky little matter found in Galatians 2 where Paul opposes Peter "to his face because he stood condemned." That's one hell of way to treat the very first vicar of Christ. I'm afraid your 'primacy meter' is defective.

 

[Willie T]

Right on, Nomad! You rock, Bro.

 

[epostle1]

Let's see if your reasoning holds water. Paul is mentioned 189 times in the NT. Maybe the title of your post should have been THE PRIMACY OF PAUL. It seems that your 'most mentioned' rule has already fallen apart. And when Paul speaks of Peter, James & John as "pillars" of the Church, he lists James first. That's quite a significant 'exception' if in fact the one mentioned first is 'supreme.'

Nonsense. I am using the whole NT, you are fixed on Acts 15. There are only 2 exceptions in the whole NT, that I already named, and harping on them is the best you can do to discredit Peter's role in the Church.[/quote]If there were a time when your 'first mention' rule would be paramount, it would be here where Paul is referring to the 'pillars' of the Church. Maybe Paul didn't get the memo.[/quote] I used terms like "mentioned" and "mentioned first" which cannot be denied. What your post amounts to is a distraction to the other 70 verses posted, and a denial of all the places in Scripture where Peter takes a leadership role. Deny, deny, deny.

Also, during the very first Church council in Acts 15, Peter speaks first, but James is the one who renders his judgement at the end of the proceedings. Whose judgement??? That's right, James' judgement. Peter didn't seem to realize that he was the first Pope.

WRONG. James re-iterated what Peter already said. What part of "SIMEON HATH DECLARED" don't you understand?

We also have that sticky little matter found in Galatians 2 where Paul opposes Peter "to his face because he stood condemned." That's one hell of way to treat the very first vicar of Christ. I'm afraid your 'primacy meter' is defective.

So what. Peter was a hypocrite in that instance, and so Paul rebuked him. They had no differences theologically. Popes have been rebuked throughout history (e.g., by St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, St. Francis). It doesn’t follow that they have no authority. Jesus rebuked and excoriated the Pharisees, but He told His followers to follow their teaching, even though they acted like hypocrites ((Matt 23:2 ff.). It's a sticky matter for ignorant Protestants who confuse impeccability (living without sinning) with infallibility (teaching without error)

You’re trying to set the Bible against the Church, which is typical Protestant methodology, and ultra-unbiblical. The Bible never does that. You do it because it is a man made Protestant tradition to do so. The Jerusalem Council plainly shows the infallibility of the Church. So you play word games with "infallibility" and history in general, and ignore the infallibility of the Jerusalem Council.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Pope spoke, all were kept silent. Not after James spoke, and not Paul.
Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.
Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching, not the other way around.


13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 SIMEON HATH DECLARED how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. SIMEON HATH DECLARED, not Paul and not James. James is referring to what Simeon (Peter) has already declared, and you are trying to tell me JAMES HATH DECLARED. Pure lunacy.

How can you honestly say that James is handing down any final decision at this Council? Do you have a verse that supports such a far-fetched view? I am even using the King James Version, and no such verse exists.

Matt 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Act 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles. Why don't you harp on those?

In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, and the Catholic Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.


Read more at Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a "Lone Ranger"?

 

[Nomad]

How can you honestly say that James is handing down any final decision at this Council? Do you have a verse that supports such a far-fetched view?

Sure do. James speaking at the end of the prceedings says:

Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
Act 15:20 but should write to them...

 

[H. Richard]

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

***

If Peter was the first to preach the gospel of grace explain why he didn't know he was to do it. God had to send him (Peter) a vision that said "what God has called clean let no man call unclean". Explain why Peter and the other Jews with him were astonished when a Gentile was saved. Didn't Peter know it at Pentecost??? The fact is that the church you talk about has set itself up as a mediator between man and God and by doing so has made itself to be Christ (god). Explain why Peter says the Jews killing Jesus was something to repent of where as Paul says Jesus' work on the cross was something for the world to give Him (Jesus) Glory for.

 

[epostle1]

THEE PRIMACY OF PAUL???

It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.

• In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf.9:17). (do what and told by whom)?
  
  
• He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18), (Paul did not confirm Peter's calling)
  
  
• and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9).
  
  
• He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27).
  
  
• Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).
  
  
• Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”
  
  
• The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.” by who?? THE CHURCH, not a committee
  
  
• Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role),
  
  
• and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).
  The Jerusalem Council certainly regarded its teachings as infallible, and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself. The records we have of it don’t even record much discussion about biblical proof texts, and the main issue was circumcision (where there is a lot of Scripture to draw from). Paul accepted its authority and proclaimed its teachings (Acts 16:4).

Furthermore, Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:6, 13-14; 2 Tim 4:1-6), and tells him to pass his office along, in turn (2 Tim 2:1-2) which would be another indication of apostolic succession in the Bible.

The attempt to pretend that St. Paul was somehow on his own, disconnected to the institutional Church, has always failed, as unbiblical. Protestant frown upon institutions, but we Catholics rather like the Church that Jesus Christ set up, initially led by St. Peter.

 

[epostle1]

***

If Peter was the first to preach the gospel of grace explain why he didn't know he was to do it. God had to send him (Peter) a vision that said "what God has called clean let no man call unclean". Explain why Peter and the other Jews with him were astonished when a Gentile was saved. Didn't Peter know it at Pentecost??? The fact is that the church you talk about has set itself up as a mediator between man and God and by doing so has made itself to be Christ (god). Explain why Peter says the Jews killing Jesus was something to repent of where as Paul says Jesus' work on the cross was something for the world to give Him (Jesus) Glory for.

Slow down. I count at least 4 false assumptions in your post.
1. Peter preached the gospel to Jews and gentiles. Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18. So what makes you think he didn't know what he was doing?
2. There were no Gentiles at Pentecost that I am aware of. Chapter and verse, please.
3. "Explain why Peter and the other Jews with him were astonished when a Gentile was saved." I don't know what you are talking about. Again, chapter and verse please.
4. We don't abide by your slogan viewpoint of sole mediator.
Much to the surprise of many Protestants I have spoken to over the years, the Catholic Church actually acknowledges Christ to be our one and absolutely unique mediator who alone can reconcile us to the Father in a strict sense. In his classic, The Catholic Catechism, Fr. John Hardon explains:

… the Incarnation corresponds to mediation in the order of being, and the Redemption (remission of sin and conferral of grace) is mediation morally.

This kind of mediation is incommunicable. No one but the Savior unites in himself the divinity, which demands reconciliation, and the humanity, which needs to be reconciled.

Protestants generally agree with us on this point. However, Fr. Hardon goes on to say:

Nevertheless, lesser and subordinate mediators are not excluded. The question is what purpose they serve and in what sense do they mediate. They can help the cause of mediation in the only way that human beings (or creatures) can contribute to the work of salvation, namely, by their willing response to grace; either better disposing themselves or others for divine grace, or interceding with God to give his grace, or freely cooperating with grace when conferred.

The “lesser and subordinate mediators” is where the trouble starts. And yet, the context of I Timothy 2:5 demonstrates Fr. Hardon’s point. In the first two verses, St. Paul commands “supplications, prayers and intercessions to be made for all men...” Intercession is a synonym for mediation. Hebrews 7:24-25 refers to Jesus acting as our one mediator at the right hand of the Father and refers to him as intercessor:

But [Christ] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. Consequently, he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Christ is our one mediator/intercessor, yet, St. Paul commands all Christians to be intercessors/mediators. Then notice the first word in verse five: “For there is one God and one mediator…” And then in verse seven he says, “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle.” What is an apostle if not a mediator? The very definition of apostle, according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, is “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders.” That’s an essential part of what a mediator is. In short, St. Paul says we are all called to be mediators because Christ is the one mediator and for this reason he was called to be a mediator of God’s love and grace to the world!

Is this a contradiction? Not at all! The fact that Jesus is our one mediator does not preclude him from communicating this power by way of participation. The Bible also declares: “But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one teacher, (Gr. – didaskolos) and you are all brethren.” This text cannot be any clearer, yet James 3:1 and Ephesians 4:11 tell us we have many teachers (Gr. – didaskoloi) in the Church. The key is to understand that the many teachers and mediators in the body of Christ do not take away from Christ as the one teacher and mediator because they are, in a sense, Christ on this earth and they serve to establish his offices of teacher and mediator in him. XXAs members of the body of Christ graced with a specific task by Christ they can say with St. Paul in Galatians 2:20, “It is not I, but Christ who [teaches] in me…”
One Mediator Between God and Men | Catholic Answers
And remember, we are not talking about necessity here. The Church is not claiming Christ couldn’t get the job done so he needed help. Of course not! He could do it all—and all by himself—if he wanted to. He could come down here right now and write this blog post much more effectively than I ever could. But he chooses not to do everything himself, strictly speaking. He delights in using his body to communicate his life and love to the world.
As with all false anti-Catholic charges, the answers are a bit more complex that the sound bytes and carnival barkers that you are accustomed to. And you have to THINK.

 

[H. Richard]

THEE PRIMACY OF PAUL???

It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.

• In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf.9:17). (do what and told by whom)?
  
  
• He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18), (Paul did not confirm Peter's calling)
  
  
• and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9).
  
  
• He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27).
  
  
• Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).
  
  
• Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”
  
  
• The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas “being sent on their way by the church.” by who?? THE CHURCH, not a committee
  
  
• Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role),
  
  
• and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).
  The Jerusalem Council certainly regarded its teachings as infallible, and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself. The records we have of it don’t even record much discussion about biblical proof texts, and the main issue was circumcision (where there is a lot of Scripture to draw from). Paul accepted its authority and proclaimed its teachings (Acts 16:4).

Furthermore, Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:6, 13-14; 2 Tim 4:1-6), and tells him to pass his office along, in turn (2 Tim 2:1-2) which would be another indication of apostolic succession in the Bible.

The attempt to pretend that St. Paul was somehow on his own, disconnected to the institutional Church, has always failed, as unbiblical. Protestant frown upon institutions, but we Catholics rather like the Church that Jesus Christ set up, initially led by St. Peter.

***

Jesus didn't come to set up a new and improved religion. It was people in religion that had Jesus killed. I am sure you believe what you write but I do not and there are many just like me.

All your church teaches is doing religious rituals and works that you think will get you and others into heaven. You don't teach that Jesus has already made a way for people to get into heaven and it isn't by doing works of religion. The way was paid for on the cross. But if you don't believe His works paid for your sins then you are not under God's grace but under the law which you can not keep.

According to Isaiah 53.6 all the sins of the world were lay on Jesus when he shed His blood on the cross. But your church does not teach this.

Isa 53:3-6
3 He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
4 Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
NKJV

Rom 3:24-26
24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,
26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
NKJV

Rom 5:8-10
8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.
10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
NKJV

Eph 1:7
7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace
NKJV

Eph 2:13
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
NKJV

Col 1:13-14
13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love,
14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.
NKJV

But I am sure you will say that it only applies to those in your church.

 

[FHII]

I have a few problems with some of the arguements put forth on this thread. I would like to discuss a few of them. I will start wth just one:

There has been a claim that Peter's name appears more than anyone else's in the NT.

So what? Yea its a great thing. But that really isn't a statistic that proves the point that is trying to be made.

Wrote most in the NT and thus, who gave us more doctrine (teaching)? Paul comes with 13 books (14 if you include Hebrews), John is 2nd with 5, and Peter comes in with 3. Paul wins that by a landslide as he single handedly beat everyone else combined!

Half the book of acts (roughly speaking) focuses on Paul. Roughly half on Peter. The simple reason is that Luke was following the story line and it shifted to Paul solely after the 15th chapter.

Here's my point: i see this mention of how many times Peter's name comes up every 6 or so months. It's cooking the books. In other words, playing on meaningless stats and ignoring others that really mean more.

Who is the greatest prophet in the Bible? Isaiah? Jeremiah? Jesus say it was John the Baptist, and he doesn't even have one book credited to him. He had ONE prophecy! Isaiah had many. But Jesus said there wasn't a greater. See my point?

Here's another stat: how many churches did Peter start according to the Bible? ZERO! According to the Bible. I believe he did... And if Luke was following Peter instead of Paul we would see it.

Antioch? No. It was grass roots started and Paul went there to monitor the progress Jerusalem? No. Jesus started that one and every indictation is that James tended it after a certain point. But I might give you that one in that peter was pretty much the guy for a time. Rome? No. Paul did and scripture even says Jesus sent Paul there.

But is a shocker isn't it? We know Paul started several Churches in Greece, Asia minor and Italy... But I can't find solid confirmation for Peter starting one.

Peter ABSOLUTELY was a great man. Christianity would not be the same without him. I love his teachings and follow them. But pointing out how many times he's mentioned is not indication of his supremacy. There are better arguements to try to prove that... But they aren't so great either.

 

[Phoneman777]

Let's see if your reasoning holds water. Paul is mentioned 189 times in the NT. Maybe the title of your post should have been THE PRIMACY OF PAUL. It seems that your 'most mentioned' rule has already fallen apart. And when Paul speaks of Peter, James & John as "pillars" of the Church, he lists James first. That's quite a significant 'exception' if in fact the one mentioned first is 'supreme.' If there were a time when your 'first mention' rule would be paramount, it would be here where Paul is referring to the 'pillars' of the Church. Maybe Paul didn't get the memo.

Also, during the very first Church council in Acts 15, Peter speaks first, but James is the one who renders his judgement at the end of the proceedings. Whose judgement??? That's right, James' judgement. Peter didn't seem to realize that he was the first Pope. We also have that sticky little matter found in Galatians 2 where Paul opposes Peter "to his face because he stood condemned." That's one hell of way to treat the very first vicar of Christ. I'm afraid your 'primacy meter' is defective.

Didja hear how Pope Peter had Paul arrested and then burned at the stake for that time when Paul "withstood him to the face" for his prejudice against the Gentiles believers, as an example to all those who would dare question Pope Peter's infallibility? Or how Peter wrote almost the entire New Testament? Or how Peter received so many revelations from God that he had to receive a thorn in his flesh to keep him humble? Me neither. I think it's clear that the only thing Peter excelled at above all the other apostles was his uncanny ability to insert his foot so completely in his mouth, but praise God that He can use such a one, for in that there is hope for me as well

 

[FHII]

I think it's clear that the only thing Peter excelled at above all the other apostles was his uncanny ability to insert his foot so completely in his mouth, but praise God that He can use such a one, for in that there is hope for me as

Well I think that's a bit of a stretch to make a point. But it does make a point. Peter was a great man of God, but yes... He did make MANY mistakes and received a lot of rebukes. His boldness... Even when wrong, is why Jesus used him like he did.

 

[Heb 13:8]

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

with James 2:21-25 in reference to Godly righteousness or lack thereof, and has nothing to do with losing salvation. Good thread Richard.

 

[DAH]

Mm kay pumpkin

Acts 10:43
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

That aint the Gospel tgat opens the gates if Heaven today. Muslims believe Jesus existed. You dunk them in water all day long, but they wont be saved. They need to believe in the death burial and resurrection for forgivenss of sins. Peter did not preach that. He and the 12 were afraid to ask Jesus what the heck he meant when he tried to explain why he was going to die...why do you think they all ran to the empty tomb, thinking someone stole His body? Why would they think that if they knew what was happening? The cross was a murder, a curse in the eyes of the 12; a blessing per Paul.

 

[Phoneman777]

Well I think that's a bit of a stretch to make a point. But it does make a point. Peter was a great man of God, but yes... He did make MANY mistakes and received a lot of rebukes. His boldness... Even when wrong, is why Jesus used him like he did.

Amen, Peter was a good man who learned to love God and his fellow man, which is light years away from where he started. Proves that the power of God working in any of us can have miraculous results, but while I appreciate the value of what the Bible says implicitly, it is easily diminished when the Bible is placed in the hands of Catholic apologists who are perhaps most needful of Peter's warning of how "wrest" of the Scriptures leads "unto their own destruction". Too many verses that balance the ones used to exalt Peter as the first Pope.

 

[mjrhealth]

You will never win an arguement with men who have Idols in there hearts, which is why God said,

2Ki_17:12 For they served idols, whereof the LORD had said unto them, Ye shall not do this thing.

Like taking a bottle of booze away from a drunkard.

 

[Nomad]

Amen, Peter was a good man who learned to love God and his fellow man, which is light years away from where he started. Proves that the power of God working in any of us can have miraculous results, but while I appreciate the value of what the Bible says implicitly, it is easily diminished when the Bible is placed in the hands of Catholic apologists who are perhaps most needful of Peter's warning of how "wrest" of the Scriptures leads "unto their own destruction". Too many verses that balance the ones used to exalt Peter as the first Pope.

I agree. I have no disdain for Peter. I just have a problem with unbiblical ideas about him.