Peter or Paul for Church leadership?

[DustThouArt]

In debating with protestants of different persuasions I encounter the argument that Paul, and not Peter was the apostle of the gentiles and thus the defacto apostle who instituted the early Christian Church. Further it is argued that his epistles are the source for all Christians in this age( argued by dispensationalists) and Peter along with the other 11 apostles were ministering to the Jews only. I have read and studied the Scripture quoted by these individuals to prove their claims. Can you assist me with an argument to rebut this position? Thank you.

 

[Genesis315]

Without even getting into the details the reason Protestants put forth this argument is to try and disprove the papacy, which they reject and don’t have as part of their church structure. “Peter wasn’t the head of the Church, Paul was” makes the tacit admission that the Apostolic Church has a primacy. Protestants have no primacy.

This goes to the common issue with a lot of non-Catholic polemics–they are completely focused on nitpicking the Catholic claims without actually making positive argument for their own religion/institution.

Anyway, Paul wasn’t the head of the Church since he had to have his ministry confirmed and authorized by Peter (see Gal. 1:18-19). St. John Chrysostom, in his commentary on John 21:15-17 for example, offers this as proof of Peter’s primacy:

And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240188.htm

 

[Francis]

Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

2 Peter 3:15_18 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

1 Corinthians 14:40 but all things should be done decently and in order.
Sirach 16:27 He arranged his works in an eternal order, and their dominion for all generations; they neither hunger nor grow weary, and they do not cease from their labors.
.
Leviticus 10:10 10 You are to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean;
-Wisdom 6:10 For they will be made holy who observe holy things in holiness,
and those who have been taught them will find a defense.

1 Corinthians 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

Mark 9:42 [ Temptations to Sin ] “If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea.

1 Corinthians 4:17 For this reason I sent you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ Jesus, as I teach them everywhere in every church.2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people (the Church) who will be able to teach others as well.

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

2 Peter 1:21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
2 Peter 3:16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

 

[spiderweb]

Anyway, Paul wasn’t the head of the Church since he had to have his ministry confirmed and authorized by Peter (see Gal. 1:18-19).

Exactly. Who was leading the Church while Paul was persecuting Christians? It wasn’t Paul. What bearing does it have who preached to who? Who they focused on in their individual preaching has nothing to do with who was the head of the early Christian Church.

 

[MT1926]

In debating with protestants of different persuasions I encounter the argument that Paul, and not Peter was the apostle of the gentiles and thus the defacto apostle who instituted the early Christian Church.

There are many verses of scripture that show St. Peter preached to both Gentiles and Jews. Tell them to reread Acts 10.

Further it is argued that his epistles are the source for all Christians in this age( argued by dispensationalists)

If we were forced to choose I would think the Gospels, containing Jesus very words would be the source for all Christians.

Peter along with the other 11 apostles were ministering to the Jews only.

Seriously, only Jews??? I thought Matthew went to Ethiopia? I thought Mark went to Egypt? Luke was in Greece, Peter went to Rome, Now James the Just stayed in Jerusalem, so that might be a yes? Bartholomew I think went to Asia, I’m sure there are many more places they went to and stopped to preach along the way.

This is what happens when you refuse to read any historical documents.

I have read and studied the Scripture quoted by these individuals to prove their claims.

Would love to know which verses they are using, most likely out of context, to make these claims.

Can you assist me with an argument to rebut this position?

If you could post their verses, I’m sure we could help further.

God Bless

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Actually, there are some fairly strong historical arguments for James, not Paul, to have been head of the early Church instead of Peter.
I personally doubt that a man such as Paul who had never seen or met Jesus on earth would be leader of a Church that contained 12 apostles and many other people who had spent time with Jesus personally.

 

[De_Maria]

In debating with protestants of different persuasions I encounter the argument that Paul, and not Peter was the apostle of the gentiles…

It was St. Peter who FIRST received the command to talk to gentiles. See Acts 10.

St. Peter recognized this when he said in Chapter 15:

7 [d]After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

This is why St. Peter was sent to Rome to preside there. Rome was the center of gentile activity. That isn’t in Scripture, but we see that St. Paul admits, before he ever gets to Rome:

Romans 1:8 First, I give thanks[f] to my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is heralded throughout the world. 9 God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in proclaiming the gospel of his Son, that I remember you constantly, 10 [g]always asking in my prayers that somehow by God’s will I may at last find my way clear to come to you. 11 For I long to see you, that I may share with you some spiritual gift so that you may be strengthened, 12 that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by one another’s faith, yours and mine. 13 I do not want you to be unaware, brothers,[h] that I often planned to come to you, though I was prevented until now, that I might harvest some fruit among you, too, as among the rest of the Gentiles.

And so, he wasn’t the first to go to Rome, the center of the Gentiles. St. Peter was there first, because he was the Prince of the Apostles. St. Paul came there to help support a ministry that was started before him.

 

[DustThouArt]

Mostly Ephessians chapter 3 and Galatians chapter 1 and 2.

 

[DustThouArt]

Thanks, but most of the baptists I encounter deny the Apostles spread outside of Judea. The argument that I get is that Catholics made this up. It is a tough argument.

 

[RKS89]

A study of early Christian art may serve well here. In Securely dated 2nd century art we see that Christ is depicted (rightly so) most prominently, numbering in what is estimated to be 300-500 times. The second most depicted person after Christ is Peter, at least 200 times, and probably closer to 300 as he appears in the guise of Moses or a shepherd. St. Paul appears about 50 times. It seems that if Paul were in fact the prime Apostle, the message wasn’t relayed to those responsible for 2nd century Christian art.

 

[RKS89]

Also, dispensationalism is a fringe idea. Originating in the mid 19th century by John Darby (Plymouth Brethren), and popularized in America by CI Scofield’s copiously annotated Scofield Reference Bible, it’s infiltrated many Protestant sects to greater or lesser degrees. It is assuredly unscriptural and takes for itself an untenable and erroneous presupposition that ultimately divorces Christ from the Christian. Dispensationalists, in my experience, generally know scripture exceedingly well and it can feel impossible to stand toe-to-toe with them in that arena. It’s a view that isn’t supported by the historical record nor any biblical scholar worth their salt. What’s more, there are some popular TV preachers (Les Feldick is one I’m familiar with) who garner a relatively small but…vocal following. You can try to sidestep the intricacies of their complex exegesis by asking about where we got the Bible and whether or not it is actually the sole rule of faith. Here you can cite the usual argumentd for the Catholic view of Scripture, Tradition and the historical eaely church. That way you aren’t verse slinging and you’re getting to the root of the issue- private interpretation of Scripture operating on a platform totally void of authority. Good luck.

 

[MT1926]

Romans 1:8 First, I give thanks[f] to my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is heralded throughout the world. 9 God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in proclaiming the gospel of his Son, that I remember you constantly, 10 [g]always asking in my prayers that somehow by God’s will I may at last find my way clear to come to you. 11 For I long to see you, that I may share with you some spiritual gift so that you may be strengthened, 12 that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by one another’s faith, yours and mine. 13 I do not want you to be unaware, brothers,[h] that I often planned to come to you, though I was prevented until now, that I might harvest some fruit among you, too, as among the rest of the Gentiles.

And so, he wasn’t the first to go to Rome, the center of the Gentiles. St. Peter was there first, because he was the Prince of the Apostles. St. Paul came there to help support a ministry that was started before him.

Just to build a little more on this verse…

Romans 15:20 thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man’s foundation, 21 but as it is written,

“They shall see who have never been told of him,
and they shall understand who have never heard of him.”

Paul’s Plan to Visit Rome
22 This is the reason why I have so often been hindered from coming to you.

St. Paul tells us here that he had not gone to Rome yet because Christ had already been preached there. He did not want to build on another man’s foundation.

For Catholic’s we believe this other man was St. Peter.

1 Peter 5:13 She who is at Babylon,[a] who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark

Babylon was a great city destroyed before Christ. So we can deduct that St. Peter isn’t actually in Babylon. Therefore it must be a code word for a different city, which we believe is Rome.

Even if they don’t accept this as evidence that St. Peter was in Rome first, St. Paul’s writings make it crystal clear that another Apostle preached to the Roman gentiles before St. Paul.

Hope this helps,

God Bless

 

[mattp0625]

YOU are Peter

Upon this Rock

And I will give YOU the keys

And whatever YOU bind on earth will be bound in heaven

Then in Acts…“Peter and the apostles answered”

 

[MT1926]

Thanks, but most of the baptists I encounter deny the Apostles spread outside of Judea. The argument that I get is that Catholics made this up. It is a tough argument.

My first thought here is…OK so show me the evidence that your claim isn’t made up.

Second, let’s say they are correct. Think about this logically. We have 12 guys sitting in one place and one guy running all over the place doing the heavy labor. What does that sound like to you? Sure sounds like a hierarchical business model to me. You got your board of directors sitting around making all of the decisions of what the labors must do.

They can’t have it both ways. If they want to claim the 12 men who were with Jesus from the beginning never left Judea, then they have to be accept the fact that the only reason these 12 men wouldn’t leave was because they were running the Church from ground zero.

Sounds like a hostile witness to me. Their defense still proves a Church magesterium.

The only other thing I would probably say is that there are many people who deny the Holocaust ever occurred. They believe the entire thing is “MADE UP”.

God Bless

 

[Mary888]

Yes, St. Paul was the Apostles of the nations. But were the others “jewish only”? Where does it say that?
In Galatians, St. Peter sends St. Paul with instructions on what to tell the priests of the nations, so they do not accept the idea that circumcision is a must in order to follow Christ.

 

[MT1926]

Mostly Ephessians chapter 3 and Galatians chapter 1 and 2.

Well in Ephesians 3 St. Paul says…

4 When you read this you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6 that is, how the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

St. Paul tells the Gentiles in verse 6 that they have become "fellow heirs…in Christ Jesus.

Now how were they made heirs?

Through the mystery of Christ…revealed to his holy apostles and prophets.

St. Paul is not saying revealed to me here. He is making it crystal clear that he is not the man in charge. He goes on in verse 7 & 8 to tell them that he is a minister of the Gospel however, he is the very least of all the saints.

I don’t get it? Are they proof texting verse one and saying see St. Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles?

Galatians 1 & 2. Can you point out what they are trying to prove?

Maybe this article from Jimmy Akin will help.

Peter in Galatians | Catholic Answers Magazine

God Bless

 

[De_Maria]

Yes, St. Paul was the Apostles of the nations. But were the others “jewish only”? Where does it say that?
In Galatians, St. Peter sends St. Paul with instructions on what to tell the priests of the nations, so they do not accept the idea that circumcision is a must in order to follow Christ.

It says that in Acts 15. The Council of Jerusalem, headed by St Peter and chaired by St James, sent St Paul to the Gentiles with a message.

 

[DustThouArt]

Yes, that is what I ran into. And while I know Scripture fairly well, I was put on the defensive trying to defend the Church Teachings under a barrage of scriptural quotes. It basically came to an impasse since their view on the divisions of the ages has us working from different points of fact.

 

[DustThouArt]

Yes, they argue from the point of St. Paul stating that He received the mystery direct from the Lord and not from the other Apostles. The difficulty with this is that they split the Apostles and St. Paul into two different “dispensations” I think this is an “agree to disagree” solution. There are too many differences of interpretation to go through.

 

[De_Maria]

The thing is that they claim the Church split into. Hebrew Church under the banner of St Peter and a gentile Church under the banner of St Paul. But what we have today is a predominantly Gentile Church under the banner of St. Peter.