death of the Saviour and is the fa miliar scene where Peter warms him self by the fire of the enemies of Christ and thrice denies with bitter cursing that he was even acquainted with the Son of God (Matt. 26:69-75; cf. 35, 40, 41). The third incident fol lows the Cross and has to do with Peter’s compromise of the gospel of the grace of God when Paul said, “But when Peter was come to Anti och, I withstood him to the face, be cause he was to be blamed” (Gal. 2:11-14). What kind of a pope is this who is publicly rebuked by one of the other apostles, who denies Christ thrice with bitter oaths, and to whom Christ Himself must needs say, “Get thee behind me, Satan” ? This is “ a man of like passions” even as others, a sinner saved by grace, a servant of God used in spite of his frailty, but most certainly not the supreme and infallible spiritual head of all of the church of God! In Peter’s relationship to the other apostles, the Scriptures represent him as one of the twelve, their equal but not their master. At the Jerusalem Council, Peter gives his opinion but leaves the matter with others to de cide. In Acts 11, he gives a courteous answer unto those who contended with him, but invokes no papal su premacy to correct the Judaizers with whom he speaks. In First Peter 1:1, Peter claims of himself that he is “an apostle,” and in 5:1 that he is “an elder,” but in each case he is one among many, on an equal footing to be sure, but without the slightest trace of supremacy of any kind. In deed, in Acts 8:14 Peter is sent on a mission by the other apostles, and it might well be asked who sends the pope on any mission to do their bid ding? The supreme head of the church to whom is due all pre-emi nence is none other than Christ Him self (Col. 1:18), and with this Peter agrees when he sets forth Christ as the chief comer stone of the church, the head of the comer both elect and precious* and “he that believeth on him shall not be confounded” (1 Pet. 2:6,7). It is a fundamental requirement for any man who professes to speak for God that he be true to the Scriptures, for those selfsame Scriptures shall judge him in the last day (John 12:48). Let the reader decide for him self what is the clear testimony of the Word of God in respect to the theory of “Petrine Supremacy.” The next and concluding article on this subject will deal with the primary passage, Matthew 16:18, and the dogma that Peter is the rock upon which the church is founded. (To be Concluded)
Doctrinal Pointers by Gerald B. Stanton, Th. D. Prof, of Systematic Theology, Talbot Theological Seminary Was Peter the First Pope ? (Part 2)
such as bowing down before him and kissing his feet, for when Cornelius fell down at Peter’s feet (Acts 10:25, 26,) Peter answered plainly, “Stand up; I myself also am a man.” In the fourth place, it is clear that Peter was not in a position of chief supremacy and leadership in the church, for at the only Apostolic Council of the early church (Acts 15), held at Jerusalem and not at Rome, it was James who presided and not Peter, although the latter was present. Nor was it Peter who was the greatest missionary of the first century, the author of more of the New Testament than any other, the great doctrinal preacher of early Christianity chosen of God to be the chief revelator of the things pertain ing to the church, for those honors went to the Apostle Paul. In Gala tians, Paul argues at considerable length that he is equal with Peter in the dignity of apostleship, while in Second Peter 3:15, 16, Peter speaks graciously of the wisdom given to his beloved brother Paul and con fesses that the writings of Paul are Scriptures of equal authority with all others and are to be obeyed. What then of the supposed dogma of papal infallibility as it applies to the one whom multitudes consider to be the first pope? Three incidents from the life of Peter should forever silence such a claim, the first from the very chapter where Peter is sup posedly placed in the position of pri macy. Christ, predicting His suffer ings and death in Jerusalem is re buked by Peter. Then Christ turned and said to that apostle, “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men” (Matt. 16:21-23). Strange language indeed to one just com missioned as the “Vicar of Christ,” the infallible representative of God upon the earth! The second incident is likewise in connection with the
mhe story is told of a native boy of I Johannesburg, South Africa, sitting ■"■on the curb reading a New Testa ment. Said a passing priest, “An ig norant boy like you shouldn’t be reading the Bible.” Replied the lad, “ I have a search warrant. The Bible tells me to ‘search* the Scriptures’ (John 5:39) and I’m just doing what I’m told!” Now Rome does not like to search the Word, particularly in respect to the supposed Petrine su premacy. It is assumed that Peter is the only foundation for the church, but they who search the Word must disagree, for they know something about Peter. In the previous column it was seen that there is no proof what soever that Peter ever resided in Rome as bishop of that church, but that all the Biblical evidence points to the contrary. It was likewise dem onstrated that “ apostolic succession” would have been an impossibility during much of the church’s history, the first pope appearing in the sixth century. The question is now raised, “ If Peter were indeed the first pope, what kind of a pope would he have been?” Some interesting answers are clearly seen as one makes a study of Peter's Relationship to the Early Church First of all, Peter would not have permitted men to call him by the title of pope (from papa, father), for Matthew 23:9 commands, “ Call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” Secondly, he could not have advocated the celibacy of the clergy for he himself was a married man (Matt. 8:14), and it is one of the Scriptural requirements for a bishop that he be “ the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2; cf. 4, 5). He must “rule well his own house, having his chil dren in subjection,” argues Paul, “ for if a man know not how. to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” Thirdly, Peter would never have permitted men to bestow worldly honors upon him,
25
O C T O B E R 1 9 5 3
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker