The King James Bible Church
PO Box 310 Mt Ommaney
This is a continuation of “Was Peter the first pope?”
8. Peter was not the head of the church
We find in scripture that Christ in heaven, is the head of the church.
“Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” (Eph 1:20-23)
This states clearly that Christ was not the head of the church while he was on earth and was not made head of the church until he ascended into heaven. Clearly then, no man can then be called the head of the church, as this title belongs to Christ in heaven.
If any doubt would still exist in the reader’s mind, we have “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.” (Eph 5:23).
9. Peter is never called the pope
The word ‘pope’ was invented around 610 AD and is not a word found anywhere in the Bible. Neither are the titles cardinal, archbishop, archpriest, archdeacon and so on.
We read “… And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.” (Matt 23:8-12)
Of course calling no man your ‘father’ refers to spiritual matters and not an earthly father and this means that Catholicism ignores the Bible yet again. Being a father means you give life to your son or daughter in the physical sense, so we are not to spiritually call anyone ‘our father’ as there is only one father in heaven who gives us spiritual life. Priests do not give life to your soul. They do not atone for our souls. They are not mediators between man and God. Calling a priest a ‘father’ is nothing more than Old Testament paganism (Judges 17:10) and is not found in the New Testament. Christ condemns this (Matt 23:9).
Furthermore, if Peter had supremacy, why would Paul rebuke Peter openly because he was acting in a blameworthy manner? Peter was being hypocritical and two faced, that’s why. Paul writes “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 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.” (Gal 2:11-12)
Now, surely such behaviour was not becoming of Peter, the supreme and infallible head of the church.
Furthermore, there is a church council taking place in Acts 15, where Peter, Barnabas and Paul all gave reports, but it was James, not Peter, who was the one who rendered the final decision. What a slap in the face that must have been for the first pope.
In addition, we are reminded that Peter was not elevated above the others, being named along- side others as being pillars (Gal 2:8).
Finally, when the Lord says three times to Peter, and in front of the others, “… Peter … lovest thou me more than these? … Feed my lambs.” (John 21:15), he is not addressing him because of his supremacy, but in actual fact, just the opposite. Christ is well aware of the flawed and sinful nature of Peter, who denied him three times. We read “Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. … Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended. Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
By saying this, he infers that he loves the Lord more than any of the disciples. But Peter doesn’t believe the words of prophecy that can never be broken and must be fulfilled. He should have said in a humble and contrite manner “Wow Lord! That includes me. What a wretch I am etc etc .” But he didn’t. In a proud and arrogant way, he elevated himself above the scriptures and boastfully declared how wonderful he was and although the others would run away - he wouldn’t!
So it is with Peter’s sinful, reprehensible and hateful three-fold denial of Christ, that Jesus ‘hammers’ Peter three times, and ‘cuts him down to size’ in front of the others, and forces a three-fold profession of his love for the Lord.
Peter the Supreme, infallible, all loving Pontiff? Hardly! No my friends, just the opposite.
And finally, a further insight into the sinful and rebellious nature of Peter is found with God’s rebuke from heaven as he frantically wants to erect three tabernacles.
“… let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: ... (Luke 9:33). Waiting on the Lord’s instructions? Not Peter the pope.
11. Peter never forgave sins
I would urge the reader to get and read the tract “What is Binding and Loosing?”. In it, you will see that Peter’s gospel was that of an earthly kingdom of heaven which was superceded 2,000 years ago by Paul’s kingdom of God gospel.
Everyone knows that no man can forgive sins but God only (Mark 2:7), but not Rome. Believing their own scriptures, Rome says that priests and popes can forgive sins. Now, Peter could inform that sins were remitted sins in a similar way that Paul could say to the jailer his sins would be forgiven should he “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved …” (Acts 16:31). Now remission of sins concerned only past sins and not future sins.
You see, today if a person is saved, all future sins are paid for as well. But the best Peter could do was to inform people that should they believe what he was saying about the earthly kingdom of heaven, he could assure them that their past sins were covered, but not washed away (Rev 1:5) as Paul could. An inferior gospel indeed. Was Peter robbed to pay Paul? Christians are glad he was, otherwise we would still be without eternal security.
But as Roman Catholicism has based itself on Peter with his temporary salvation concerning sins past, it is no wonder that millions of Catholics are rocketing straight into the lake of fire. What can you say? Bad roots – bad fruits!
12. Paul says to follow him not Peter
Someone’s telling lie? No, not at all. Peter was telling the truth for another time 2,000 years ago, but it has since become obsolete with Paul’s gospel.
Cast your eyes over the following:
1 Cor 11:1 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.”
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
1Thess 1:6 And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost:
Gal 4:12 Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am…
Phil 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
2Thess 3:9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
Romans 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
2 Tim 3:10 But thou hast fully kown my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience …
1Cor 9:17 … a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
2Cor 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
1Thess 1:5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, …
2 Tim 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:
Continued in “Was Peter the first pope?” Part 3 OF 3.