Protestant arguments against the primacy of Peter

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sebastian04
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
@BartholomewB
It is inconceivable that the Holy Spirit would allow the church to be leaderless when Jesus spent so much time grooming Peter. Admittedly we don’t know how the decision was made but it had to be made. I think the first 10 Popes were martyred so is was not the safest job to be had!
 
A Protestant can accept, I think, that the Church was never left without a leader. When Peter was martyred he was succeeded by Linus, and Linus was succeeded by Clement, and so on. The names and dates of the popes are a matter of history. What is in question is whether Jesus’ promise to Peter — “Upon this rock I will build my Church” — applied to him alone, or whether it was transferable to his successors in the papacy. A Protestant can argue that it applied to Peter alone, and that by the time Peter died in the closing years of Nero’s reign, that promise had been fulfilled. Thanks to Peter, by that time the Church had already been built.
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
The names and dates of the popes are a matter of history. What is in question is whether Jesus’ promise to Peter — “Upon this rock I will build my Church” — applied to him alone, or whether it was transferable to his successors in the papacy. A Protestant can argue that it applied to Peter alone, and that by the time Peter died in the closing years of Nero’s reign, that promise had been fulfilled. Thanks to Peter, by that time the Church had already been built.
Click to expand...
Well, the Church has power to bind & loose. History shows how the Church addressed Peter’s successor. It’s a matter of History.
 
@BartholomewB
So what power did Peter have that His successors did not have with that distinction?
 
Julius_Caesar said:
So Jesus told His followers to observe bad doctrine.

Because as oft said, He declared, “Do what they tell you.”
Click to expand...
As He also said ,“Beware of their leaven (bad doctrine/ teaching)”

We have both to *do and beware, as do not fall into, or not do because of.

Pretty simple. Apostles were to obey leaders when speaking rightly from chair of Moses. Yet when they were told not to preach Christ as Messiah, they disobeyed. They commanded such because of hypocrisy, bad doctrine/ teaching, and lacking the gift of faith/ revelation from the Father,etc…
 
Last edited:
Justin_Mary said:
.History shows how the Church addressed Peter’s successor
Click to expand...
And as some historians might say, rather anachronistically.

The papacy as known today evolved, developed, enlarged etc…many would say wrong to apply the office of today to Linus or Clement for example.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
And as some historians might say, rather anachronistically.

The papacy as known today evolved, developed, enlarged etc…many would say wrong to apply the office of today to Linus or Clement for example
Click to expand...
Many people say a lot of things.

Are they right?
 
Julius_Caesar said:
The leaven was hypocrisy
Click to expand...
Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees”
Mat16:12

Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy."
Luke 12:1

Both cherries are on the tree.

It is possible for bad character and actions and bad teaching to go hand in hand.
 
mcq72 said:
It is possible for bad character and actions and bad teaching to go hand in hand.
Click to expand...
Or more accurately, their teaching was plagued with hypocrisy.

Which is why Jesus could say, “Do what they say not what they do.”
 
Julius_Caesar said:
Or more accurately, their teaching was plagued with hypocrisy.

Which is why Jesus could say, “Do what they say not what they do.”
Click to expand...
Precisely, the obedience, the doing is conditional.

A teaching plagued with hypocrisy is sitll " bad" teaching, don’t you think?
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
Only divine revelation can discern all the (name removed by moderator)ut , from varied sources and opinions.
Click to expand...
And divine revelation has given us, “You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” ans “Strengthen your brothers.”
 
mcq72 said:
Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy."
Luke 12:1

Both cherries are on the tree.

It is possible for bad character and actions and bad teaching to go hand in hand.
Click to expand...
Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the RULE OVER YOU, and SUBMIT yourselves : for they watch for your souls , as they that must give account , that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
 
Julius_Caesar said:
And divine revelation has given us, “You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” ans “Strengthen your brothers.”
Click to expand...
Well that is God breathed scripture. Yet interpretations abound and again must go to the Source for divine revelation, as the Church and many communities claim to have done.

Even the earliest fathers varied on interpretation of “rock”. The C one developed.

I have no problem with accepting or adding to seemingly valid interpretations that Peter was also foundational, a rock/stone from out of the Rock.
 
Last edited:
ArchStanton said:
Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the RULE OVER YOU, and SUBMIT yourselves : for they watch for your souls , as they that must give account , that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Click to expand...
Not conditional? So the apostles were disobedient when they ignored rulers who let em out of jail under condition of preaching no more?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top