Post by ironbark on Apr 27, 2015 23:56:49 GMT -5
The doctrine of apostolic succession is not taught in Scripture, neither is the one of infallibility for church leaders.
Christ gave Peter no such authority or to any successor of Peter. Other apostles with Peter constituted the church foundation (Eph. 2:19-22; Rev. 21:14). Other apostles with Peter constituted the church foundation (Eph. 2:19-22; Rev. 21:14).
James had equal authority with Peter at Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1-10).
It even appears that James was the main leader, or at least chairman of the general conference at Jerusalem (Acts 15:13-19).
Peter was not infallible, for he was rebuked by Paul (Gal. 2:1-11).
Peter calles himself a fellow-elder (1 Pet. 5:19).
The power to bind and loose was not for Peter only, but for all the apostles (Luke 24:49; John 20:22-23; Acts 1:8; 2:43), in fact it is promised to every believer throughout this age (John 14:12; Mark 16:15:20).
Peter was not the rock upon which Christ built the church. Christ was the true foundation (1 Cor. 3:11 and the chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:19-22). Peter was merely one of many living stones, as he himself testified (1 Peter 2:5). He further taught that Christ is the "LIVING STONE" (1 Peter 2:1-8).
It is clear in Scripture that the church at Rome was not started by Peter. It is also clear that no apostle had ever been to Rome before Pauls visit. The gospel was no doubt taken to Rome by Jews who were present at Pentecost (Acts 2:10). These converts remained in Jerusalem long enough to get sufficent training in Christian doctrin to start a church at Rome. The church was established there at an early period, for it became well known throughout the Roman Empire by the time Paul visited there (Romans 1:8).
The church had been in communication with Paul, not Peter, wanting him to come there for many years (Rom. 15:23).
It was Pauls policy not to build upon another mans foundation, and this he would violate if Peter were the resident bishop (Rom. 15:20-21; 2 Cor. 10:14-16).
If any apostle had been there, the church would have been in a much better condition and would have recieved more benefits than were evidenced in Rom, (Rom. 1:11). If Peter were at Rome as the resident Bishop, Paul would not have felt his responsibility to go there (Rom. 1:10-15; 15:18-32). He would have been courteous enough to his superior to refer to Peter in his long letter when he sent greetings to many others in Rome (Rom. 16:1-27).
In no Scripture is Peter recognized as the universal head of the church with headquarters in Rome. On the contrary, Jerusalem was the headquarters of Christendom untill it was destroyed in 70 A. D. (Acts 15; Gal. 2). Peter had no authority over Gentile churches (2 Cor. 11:28). He had no more authority over the Jewish churches than did James (Gal. 2:9). The difference between the ministries of Peter and Paul prove that the Roman church was maily Gentile and that Peter did not found the Gentile Church (Gal. 2: 8; Rom. 1:13; 10:1-3; 11:13-14). In none of his prison-epistles did Paul mentionPeter at Rome as the resident, universal head of the church, or as even being there in any capacity. This fact is more striking when Paul mentions many less noted workers of God as being there (Rom. 16; 1 Cor. 16:15-24; Col. 4:7-18).