Title & Purpose

Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble:

for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand, Joel 2:1.

All quotations from the Scriptures will be from the Authorised Version - the best and most accurate English translation of the Scriptures.

Please see Sermons & Articles further down the Blog about why the Authorised Version is the best and most accurate English translation of the Scriptures

and why we reject the many perversions of the Scriptures, including those so beloved of many neo-evangelicals at present such as ESV & NKJV.

Beware of the Errors in The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible! 
Featured Sermons:

Wednesday, 13 March 2013

Peter's message to the new Pope

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, 1 Peter 1:18,19. 

The Church of Rome falsely claims that Peter was the first Pope. She has built the whole system of the Papacy supposedly upon certain words that the Saviour spoke to Peter making him the head of the Apostles and giving him special authority on earth over the Church of Christ.

Peter is not the rock upon which the Church is built. Neither was he given any special place above the other apostles in the Church. Furthermore there is no evidence in the Bible that Peter was ever bishop of Rome as Popery claims. The only time that Peter was ever in Rome is the claim from Church history that he was taken there and martyred for the faith.

Even Rome has a problem establishing this fiction. Rome believes that Scripture should be interpreted by the universal consent of the Church Fathers. This creates a problem for Rome on the issue of Peter being the 'rock' upon which the church is built, according to some interpretations of Matthew 16:18.

The Church Fathers do not support this point. As acknowledged by the Archbishop of Kenrick who attended Vatican I: seven Church Fathers say the Rock means the twelve Apostles as a body; sixteen believes it to refer to Christ Himself; seventeen believe that it refers to Peter and forty-four say it means the faith that Peter professed. Rome's own claim doesn't stand up to her own test never mind what the Bible teaches!

Bible evidence that argues against Peter ever being in Rome or being the first Pope. 
[1] Peter was the apostle to the dispersed Jews, the majority of whom lived in Asia not in Europe, cf. Galatians 2:9: And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcisionActs 2:9-11: Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles and the apostle to Europe. It is inconceivable that Peter would have followed His calling to the few Jews then living in Europe.

[2] During the years when he was supposed to be Pope in Rome the Bible states that Peter was elsewhere. Rome claims that Peter was Pope from c.a. 42-67 AD. However, the Book of Acts has him elsewhere during this time, in Jerusalem, Judea, Galilee and Samaria [Joppa, Acts 9]. From here he went to C├Žsarea, to meet with Cornelius and then back to Jerusalem, where he was later put in prison by Herod.

There are some time references to take note of in New Testament. Three years after Paul’s conversion Peter was still in Jerusalem, cf. Gal 1:18, c.a. AD 40. He was still there for the Council of Jerusalem, cf. Acts 15, which took place around AD 49. Fourteen years after Paul had first gone up to Jerusalem he returns and Peter is still present, cf Gal 2:1, 9. We also read that Paul had a dispute with Peter at Antioch Gal 2:11.

[3] Paul sought to preach the gospel where it had never been taken before, cf. 2 Cor 10:16. Rome was one of these places to which Paul desired to go and preach, cf. Rom 1:15 and therefore Peter could not have been there.

4. Paul in writing his epistle to the Romans sent greetings to a number of church members but never once in all that epistle does he mentions Peter. This epistle was written c.a. AD 58.

5. Towards the close of Peter’s life he was in Babylon, 1 Peter 5:13. This is believed to have been c.a. AD 60-64, maybe as late as AD 67. It is a long way from Rome! Not unless Romanists are acknowledging that Romanism is really Babylonian religion.

6. Up until Paul’s death in Rome no mention of Peter ever being there. This was around the same time as Peter was in Babylon and therefore it is no surprise that Paul does not mention Peter being at Rome.
He does mention a number of servants of the Lord who were at Rome with him, but definitely not Peter.

Having said all this, Peter has a message for the new Pope:

I. Salvation can never be earned or merited 
Rome believes that salvation can be earned and merited. Salvation according to her can be earned by being a good Catholic. A good Catholic will go to Mass, say their prayers etc., do their penance and engage in all the other activity that Rome states is necessary for Salvation. Her's is a salvation by works. She pronounces a curse upon those who believe and practice salvation by faith alone in the merits of Christ.

Peter rules out earning salvation. It is not by works of righteousness which we have done that any of us can be saved. It is not by corruptible things such as silver or gold. Corruptible things cannot buy that which is incorruptible. That which is of little value and worth can never buy that which is great value.

How foolish can people be to think that with their paltry sums they can obtain salvation from God. Salvation cannot ever be earned. There is none righteous no not one. Therefore no one can earn salvation for themselves. If somehow it was possible to buy salvation ourselves what would you do to earn it, cf. Rom 3:20,22,23.

Protestant Popery. We may speak about Roman Catholics and their religion of works but we live in a day of Protestant popery. Blinded Protestants think that they too can earn salvation with their 'good works' and outwardly moral lives.

Salvation is by free grace. Christ has paid the price. He offers salvation without money and without price, Isa 55:1-3: Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.

II. Salvation is in a person and not a Church. 
Rome claims that Holy Mother Church is the dispenser of grace to individuals. She claims that the Church is essential to salvation. You cannot have salvation without the priesthood, you cannot have the priesthood without the Church. To be out of fellowship with the Church is to be on your way to hell.

In Rome’s eyes it is the Church that dispenses the grace of God in salvation.

Peter whom Rome claims to the first Pope does not agree. He warns that vain traditions hand down have to be forsaken. He points each one away from vain traditions and from any organisation and he points them to one person. It is certainly not to a Pope. Rather it is the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Redemption comes by the merits of this person alone. It comes from Christ direct to the sinner by the work and power of the Holy Spirit.

There is no need for any other priest but Christ. His is an everlasting priesthood. It is not transferable to an other person even be he a Pope. Christ Jesus is all that we need. Paul backs Peter up by saying in 1 Timothy 2:5: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. There is certainly no mention of the Church in Peter's definition of the Gospel, Acts 4:12: Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. That name is the name of Christ, cf. Acts 4:10-11.

Christ alone is the sinless one. We must be careful to understand that all the priests in the Old Testament were not mediators between the people and God. All those High Priests and ordinary priests were types and shadows of the one mediator between God and men whether in Old Testament or in New Testament. They all pointed forward to Christ. In the Old Testament Christ was their mediator.

Jesus Christ alone is the one who acts as our mediator for He alone is sinless. As Peter says He is the Lamb without blemish and without spot. Only a sinless mediator can act for sinners and bring salvation to them. Sinners must be pointed away from a Church, no matter which that Church may be, and they must be pointed alone to the person of Jesus Christ.

So called Protestants trusting in their Church. Peter’s message is not only applicable to Roman Catholics, it is applicable to all. How many so called Protestants there are who are trusting in their Church to take them to heaven? Whether it is baptism, confirmation, church membership, taking of the sacraments, a Christian burial, or whatever. It is the religion of Cain all over again, a religion of works.

III. Salvation is to be found in a finished work. 
We are well aware of the claims Rome makes about the Mass, that it is a continuation of the sacrifice of Christ, where the priest offers Christ afresh on the altar for the sins of the living and the dead.

In Peter’s mind the sacrifice of Christ was finished. He speaks here about the precious blood that was shed. The sacrifice that takes away sin must be one that involves the shedding of blood. Without the shedding of blood is no remission. By Rome’s own admission the sacrifice of the Mass is bloodless one. Therefore, it is of no worth or value.

Peter enlarges upon his thinking in 1 Peter 3:18: For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.

No more sacrifice for sin is required. If Christ suffered once, if He cried it is finished, then the work of accomplishing redemption is complete. No more sacrifice is needed. Why would you need a sacrifice if one was sufficient and did all that was required?

We know the work of Christ is finished. God testified that Christ had met all the demands that were to be satisfied by raising His Son from the dead. Christ could only come from forth from the grave and be released from death after every requirement was met. He did so testifying that His sacrifice was sufficient to put away sin. Therefore we need nothing else but Christ and His saving work.

This is Peter's message to the new Pope. 

1 comment:

Steve Finnell said...


Was the apostle Peter the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church? A few reasons why Peter was not the first Pope.

Peter was not Pope because there is no office of Pope mentioned in the Scriptures. Peter was not the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church because there is no Roman Catholic Church mentioned in the Bible.

Peter was not a Pope because the apostles were not in subjection to him.

2 Corinthians 11:5 For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles. 2 Corinthians 12:11 I have become foolish; you yourselves compelled me. Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody.

Not only was the apostle Paul not in subjection to Peter, he reprimanded Peter in Antioch.

Galatians 2:11-21 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned....14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?....

Peter was not Paul's superior. (Cephas was Peter, John 1:42)

Peter was not a Pope, because he did not believe that the Virgin Mary was a mediator between men and God nor did he offer up prayers to her.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Peter was not a Pope, because he did not pray to any saints dead or alive. Prayer is worship.

Matthew 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, "Go Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only !"

Peter was not the first Pope, because he refuse to let men bow down and kiss his ring in an act of worship.

Acts 10:25-26 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him. fell at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter raised him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am just a man."

Peter was not the first Pope because he did not referred to himself as the Chief Shepherd or head of the church of Christ. The Chief Shepherd and head of the church is Jesus Christ and Jesus alone.(Colossians 1:13-19, 1 Peter 5:1-4, Hebrews 13"20, Ephesians 1:20-23, Matthew 28:18-20, Ephesians 5:22-24.)

Peter was not the first Pope nor was he ever a Pope.


YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY CHRISTIAN BLOG. http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com