Skip to main content

The Papal Claim of Peter as First Pope Debunked

Roman Catholics claim to be the one true Church that Christ built. However the previous entry you have read why the Roman Catholic Church is NOT Christian. So it's time to promptly debunk the stand of the Vatican in trying to prove that the Popes succeeded from the line of Peter. Now let's get straight to debunking this fraud.

Okay first if you happen to be a Catholic, you'd say, "That's not right. Read Matthew 16:18.". However that verse is frequently taken out of CONTEXT just as most are (which this blog will do later with every other cult) however fails to see that the Rock could NOT be Peter. Peter was Petros or the small stone and the rock is Petra the big rock. In other words, it will be like this, "You are Peter and upon this rock (the Good News Version renders it as you are the rock and upon this Rock still differentiating Peter from the Rock) I will build my church." in which Peter is told that upon the rock, Jesus will build His church. He is appointing Peter as the first New Testament pastor and soon others will. Later in Matthew 18:18 (another verse taken out of context by Catholicism and other cults) EVERY disciple is given the power to loose and bind- which relates to the Gospel and NOT being the final authority instead of Scripture.

Now here are also some things to prove Peter could not be the Pope:

1.) The Bible says that Jesus is the Rock of Ages (1 Corinthians 10:4, 1 Peter 2:8).

Paul and Peter agreed in their apostolic writings that Jesus is the Rock. Jesus is the Rock as God is the Rock and Jesus is the second Person of God Almighty. Everywhere in the Old Testament, the Rock was always the LORD. For Peter to claim to be the Rock is to dare and usurp a title belonging to God alone. This makes the Pope an antichrist himself.

2.) The Bible is clear that Jesus is the Head of the Church NOT Peter (Ephesians 1:22-23, Colossians 1:18-24).

 The Popes do not only blaspheme Jesus when they claim to be the Rock but also when they claim to be the Head of the Church. Since there can only be ONE HEAD and NOT TWO HEADS therefore, either the Pope is the head of the Church or Jesus is. It can't be both as the Popes throughout the centuries contradicted their predecessors and the Bible.  Peter would not dare claim himself as the Head of the Church!

3.) Peter was married (Matthew 8:14, Mark 1:30, Luke 4:38).

 That's one truth. So now in a hasty attempt to justify the papacy, they say that Peter forsook his wife by quoting Luke 18:28 but it's again OUT OF CONTEXT. However if Peter neglected feeding his family he would be worse than an infidel (1 Timothy 5:8). What Peter really meant to forsake is that he chose Jesus above everything else. 1 Corinthians 9:5 affirms Peter was still with his wife except he was called Cephas. Also Peter in 1 Timothy 3:1-6 would affirm Peter's pastorhood to be valid as Peter was a husband of one wife.

4.) Papal infallibility could not apply to Peter by any means (Galatians 2:11-12).

Peter later committed doctrinal error. However in a grave attempt to defend the claim, some Catholic faith defenders and their mentors can also resolve to more word games like saying, "Papal infallibility means the Holy Spirit guides the Pope to avoid making error in terms of doctrine." Another crazy word game that can be played is if the Pope is wrong then he is not speaking in authority. Then again, it leads to another truth revealed in Mark 7:8-13 about how men's decisions fall into frequent error. Then they say, "Peter accepted correction." but Peter was already wrong in areas of doctrine. Would have Peter been wrong about about something else aside from doctrine then Papal Infallibility and Peter as the first Pope would've worked. 

5.) Peter regarded himself not as lord of other pastors but simply as another elder of the Church (1 Peter 5:1-3).

 Examining 1 Peter 5:1-3, Peter rejected the idea of being elder over elder and lords over God's heritage which is what the Catholic church is teaching. In 1 Peter 1:4 the Shepherd can only be Jesus Christ otherwise he would be contradicting with John 10:1. Verse 5 requires humility. The Popes are mostly show-offs. Peter as another elder would be too different than the idea that Peter is the elder of elders. He was a fellow pastor not the supreme pastor. The central government of the Church is in Heaven! Nowhere in the Bible is Peter recognized above the other apostles! Galatians 2:9 lists him as the SECOND PILLAR OF FAITH not the first!

6.) The letter of Paul to the Romans, Peter was NOWHERE to be found at the last greetings.

This again challenges the claims of the papacy of Peter as the bishop of Rome. Peter may have gone to Rome later but he didn't stay there as he was a pastor in Jerusalem. Galatians 2:7 shows the apostolic work of Peter was to be circumcised but Paul was the apostle to the uncircumcised. If Peter were the bishop of Rome, Paul would have greeted him with the other believers or also he would have not have to write to the Romans if Peter were there. Some may argue that he was out of town. But even if Peter were out of town but think but Paul would still ahve gien his regards.

7.) Also, in Mark 16:9-11, the risen Jesus showed Himself first to Mary Magdalene.

 That would also be a little bit of a challenge isn't it? Peter didn't get the privilege. 

8.) Paul wrote more of the Bible than Peter did!

Paul wrote most of the doctrine of the New Testament than Peter did although they DID NOT contradict with each other (1 Peter 3:16).

9.) Peter rejected men bowing down to him reverently (Acts 10:26) while the Popes do.

 For Catholics to say they are not worshiping the Pope can't be denied. They do more than bow down in respect, by calling him "holy father" that's already worship.

By looking at it, Peter could not be the first Pope as Catholics claim. This article is bound to get many angry but the truth must be told!  Here's a disturbing quote from the Vatican Council I about my stand that Peter could not be the first Pope:
"If any one, therefore shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church, or that he directly directly and immediately received a primacy of honor only and not of true and proper jurisdiction- let him be anathema." 

Seriously Roman Catholics need to reexamine Peter closely especially his two writings, his first apostolic sermon and so on. In fact, if there are any real apostolic successors, it would be the fundamental Christian pastors who stick their customs and traditions SOLELY on God's Word and not man's ever changing tradition. 

Popular posts from this blog

Pastor Robert Kent Jesalva Evangelizing to Manny Pacquiao

Apparently Manny Pacquiao has already received Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.  Here is a picture of Pastor Robert Kent Jesalva evangelizing Manny Pacquiao to the Lord.  Now pray that his was a real conversion and that his family will follow too.  Now looks like the Vatican has lost another faithful ally... pray that the Lord will lead Pacquiao's life to a different direction.  I just hope though our churches will continue the type of preaching that Pastor Ray Comfort carries out namely the use of the Law in preaching.

Let's just pray that if Pacquiao had a false conversion, it would be a real one as Paul Washer would repeatedly warn, "The only evidence of eternal security is continued fellowship."  True Christians will definitely continue to receive trials as life goes by to continue assuring them this that their conversion was real and to cure all doubts that they possess salvation and can't lose it.

What's Wrong with the Ang Dating Daan Movement?

The Ang Dating Daan movement is by the Members Church of God International spearheaded by its pastor (and so-called "prophet") Eliseo Soriano.  While claiming to be an expositor of the Scriptures with his "Itanong Mo Kay Soriano" or "Ask Soriano" In English, this religious group actually isn't Christian as some of the ignorant would want to believe.  Though the group claims the Bible is their only authority (as some cults do) but the problem is that they believe only Eli Soriano may interpret the Scriptures.  This is utter heresy!  Not even a great man in the Scriptures, Charles Spurgeon ever made such a preposterous claim!  This is no better than the "true church" movement by Darwin Fish which is exposed by Pastor Phil Johnson as a heretical movement.  In fact, I'm not going to waste my time debating with ADD members, they are a total waste of my time as every other debate.
Unlike John F. Macarthur of Grace to You that actually encoura…

What Does Pisseth Against the Wall Mean?

It's really getting bad for some of my Independent Fundamental Baptist brethren to actually even take the words "pisseth against the wall" which appears at least six times in 1 Samuel 23:22, 1 Samuel 25:34, 1 Kings 14:10, 1 Kings 16:11, 1 Kings 21:21 and 2 Kings 9:8 where the King James actually has the words "pisseth against the wall".  Now I am a King James only-ist but I do not support the stupid interpretation of "pisseth against the wall" by some IFB preachers who have become in some way similar to the Catholic Faith Defenders that they argue against when they should spend their time soulwinning.  Actually I even heard that rather outrageous "pisseth against the wall" sermon by Steven Anderson that was so taken out of context.
So what does pisseth against the wall mean? Let us take a look at these six verses and take it on a exegetic view NOT an eisegetic (out of context) view:
1 Samuel 23:22- "And so more also do God unto the ene…

Politically Correct People Tend to Think That They Have the Right to Offend Others But Not to be Offended By Others

Politically correct people have this new problem where they tend to think they have the right to offend others while they have the right not to be offended by others. What examples can be pointed out with politically correct people's demands that they can offend others while having the right not to be offended? Here's a few examples that could be enumerated and observed daily with how hypocritical politically people can get:

Feminists get offensive with their so-called "women's rights" but when somebody criticizes them regardless of gender then they tend to go on a full outburst. They get mad when a man hits a woman but think it's okay for a woman to hit a man that is unless if it's the frustrated housewife who slaps her husband for constant infidelity.The LGBT Community of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders insist that people should accept their homosexuality as "normal", it's okay for them to post hate comments against Christianity …

Testimony of Former Iglesia Ni Cristo Member, Now a Born Again Christian

Editor's note: 
First and foremost, I would like to thank the Bereans for this wonderful story of a former Iglesia ni Cristo minister (or pastor), now he has become a Baptist Christian.  It's a sad story that some people have just jumped from one cult to another.  Some members of the Watchtower Society, Charismatic Movement or the Iglesia ni Cristo have left Roman Catholicism but they have never truly come to know the truth of salvation is by faith in Christ alone and that any good works after Christian life is but the grace of God at work in the believer.  Now for this brave testimony that I can really share after many years of searching for one testimony which I hope will further bring more INC members to Jesus Christ.

May I begin with a word of prayer that in the midst of all these trouble, I call upon Jesus Christ the Son of God who the Iglesia ni Cristo deny is indeed God, the only way to salvation, that they trust upon their works and church membership than Him alone.  I…

The Idea Homosexuality Harms No One is a Huge Lie From the Pits of Hell!

Homosexuals have their tendency to say that if I am not affected by what they do personally then I should just shut up and leave them alone.  They say that they are just a "normal loving couple" and that their activities are "perfectly safe".  They may be able to deceive the public with false statistics but God cannot be fooled.  I can be fooled, I can fall into doubt but my God is greater than all my weaknesses.  The picture above this paragraph shows some facts from Christian Apologetics Research Ministries on some documented research on how homosexuality harms those who practice it.
A lot of painful facts really need to be addressed when it comes to homosexual activities.  Every sin has its consequence that is why God hates sin.  God hates sin because of the harm it brings.  God is not trying to be a cosmic killjoy when He forbids homosexuality because He knows the consequences it will bring to those who practice it.  Instead, He is doing so in order to protect…

Difference Between A "Good Person" (By Worldly Standards) and a Righteous Person

Romans 5:7-8 says, "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."  So where is the difference between a "good person" and a righteous person?  There is God's measuring stick vs. man's measuring stick.  Being a "good person" is when a person is compared to the others.  Let's say they compare "Mr. Nice Guy" with the likes of corrupt politicians.  To worldly standards he is a "good person" because he tries to do what is right (by his own flesh).  They are only good according to the worldly standards.  Many may be better than the other like for example, Mr. Nice Guy may treat everybody well.  However here's the real issue with God there is NO such thing as a good person as Romans 3:12 says, "There is NONE that doeth good, no not one." which goes together wit…