top of page
  • Writer's picture

THOU ART PETER & PAPAL ROME


Papal Rome claims the following verses in Matthew 16:14-18 as the foundation for their position as the leading Christian denomination and therefore Mother Church for all Christians with the outrageous claim that Peter was the first Pope which we will see at the end of this page is unscriptural and fraudulent.


"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:14-18


Peter said: "Thou art the Christ,..."

Jesus said: "...thou art Peter,..."



Christ is the rock (Petra) upon which the church is built.

Peter is a stone, (Petros) or fragment from the Rock (Petra).





CHRIST IS THE ROCK, THE TRIED STONE



"And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1Cor 10:4


The word "Peter" meant a stone, or a fragment of rock. Christ used earthly things to illustrate heavenly lessons. He took the name Peter, meaning, a fragment of rock, to direct the mind to "the Rock," Christ Jesus, of which Peter, when he accepted Christ as His Master, became a portion, or fragment. Every true follower of Christ becomes one of the "living stones" in the great spiritual building of God. 1Peter 2:5


Note the question in the Matthew 16 passage and Peter's answer:


Jesus: "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?"

Peter: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."


Christ was a tried stone. He did no sin, neither was there guile found in his mouth.

Peter was tried as well and found wanting, hence cannot be the Rock upon which the church is built as Rome tries to make out. Matt 16:23 - "But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."


"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."

 


CHRIST OR PETER - WHICH?


THE dogma of papal infallibility is, that the pope is "infallible," not by any promise to him himself either as an individual or as an official, but "by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

Therefore, in the study of this subject, it is proper enough to inquire, How do they find this thing promised to Peter? and, Was there in fact ever any such thing promised to Peter, or to the pope "in blessed Peter," or in anybody else?"

The claim being that this thing is promised to him only "in blessed Peter," it is essential, as we have seen, to make some sort of a connection between the pope and Peter. And, as we have also seen, this essential connection is made when the pope speaks "ex cathedra, that is, 'from turn out that no such thing as infallibility was ever promised to Peter at all, then it would follow that even the chair of St. Peter cannot supply to the pope the much desired infallibility.


The truth is, that this promise of infallibility to Peter, and, consequently, to the pope, "in blessed Peter," springs from the same law that we have already found to be the source of the "infallibility" of the pope, namely: the law that, like produces totally unlike, and out of nothing something comes. It is in fact created by two enormous assumptions—first, that the Church of Christ "must have a visible head," and secondly, that Peter is that head. The first of these assumptions is thus stated by Cardinal Gibbons: Unity of government is not less essential to the Church of Christ than unity of doctrine. Our divine Saviour never speaks of his churches, but of his Church. He does not say: "Upon this rock I will build my churches," but "Upon this rock I will build my Church," from which words we must conclude that it never was his intention to establish or to sanction various conflicting denominations, but one corporate body, with all its members united under one visible head; for as the church is a visible body, it must have a visible head.—Faith of Our Fathers, pp. 24, 25.

Upon this leap in logic; upon this jumped-at conclusion; upon this sheer assumption, that the Church of Christ "must have a visible head,"— upon this is built the whole papacy with its claim of infallibility and everything else that it claims to have and to be. But nothing could be more false than the idea that the Church of Christ has or "must have a visible head." Jesus Christ himself is head of the Church; for it is written: "I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ." And, "Ye are the body of Christ and members in particular." And He "is the head of the body, the Church."


The Lord Jesus lived in this world a whole lifetime as man, subject to all the weaknesses and infirmities of a man; for he said of himself, "Of mine own self I can do nothing." And as he said likewise to all men, "Without me ye can do nothing," and likewise of himself, "Of mine own self I can do nothing," it is perfectly plain that in this world he put himself in the place where man is; yet he was led of the Father all the way, for he said, "The Father that dwelleth in me he doeth the works." Thus he did not assert himself, and take of himself, his own way, but he trusted the Father, and was led of him, and was taught of him, as all of us must be who shall be saved by him.


He did not of himself follow his own way, but only as he was guided by the Father; that is to say, that the Father was his head all the time that he was in this world as man; and the Father, as that head, was all this time invisible. And this is to show and does show plainly that in showing to man the way that he must take, Jesus Christ lived the Christian life in this world without a visible head.


For the Lord Jesus to have asked in this world for a visible head to be his guide, would have been to deny the Father. And for any professed believer in Jesus to ask for a visible head to be his guide, is to deny Jesus Christ. The Christian is to see Him who is invisible. Heb. 11:27. The Christian is to look at the things that are not seen. 2 Cor. 4:18. And the invisible things of God are clearly seen. Rom. 1:20. So that nothing could more plainly expose the essential earthliness and carnality of all the papal concaptions than does this demand that there shall be "a visible head" to the Church of Christ. Any church that has a visible head is not, and cannot be, the Church of Christ. And such is the Roman Catholic Church.


Against says the cardinal:

His Church is compared to a human body. In one body there are many members all inseparably connected with the head. The head commands and the foot instantly moves, the hand is raised and the lips open. Even so our Lord ordained that the Church, composed of many members, should be all united to one espoused visible head, whom they are bound to obey.—Id., p. 92.


The Church of Christ is the body of Christ, it is true. And Christ himself is the head of this "his body, which is the Church." And to take away Christ, the true head of this body, and put another—a man—in his place, is only to take away all life from the church and so leave it only a lifeless thing so far as the Lord or spirituality is concerned. To take away the true head of any body and put another head in the place of the true one, is to destroy the life of that body. Even though the substitute head be really fastened on in some way, all that there can be of the thing is but a dead form. And such is the Catholic Church, according to every idea of it that is set forth by the papacy itself.

Again we quote from the same authority:—

The church, in fine, is called in Scripture by the beautiful title of bride or spouse of Christ, and the Christian law admits of only one wife.—Ib.


True enough this is, in itself. And that same Christian law admits of only one husband. Now, in this scriptural symbol, Christ occupies the place of husband to the wife. And as the Christian law admits only of one husband, it follows as plainly as can be, that for another person to put himself in the place of husband to this wife—the church—is positively to violate the Christian law. And for any wife—any church—claiming to be the bride or spouse of Christ, to allow another person to take the place of Christ, the true husband, to her, is positively to violate the Christian law, and so to proclaim herself an adulteress and a harlot. And such is the Catholic Church, according to her own authoritative statement.


To claim that Peter was the first to occupy this illegitimate place toward the "spouse of Christ," or that this "spouse" accepted Peter as the first substitute for her true and living husband—this does not in the least alter the essential immorality of the thing, nor does it relieve it of the just charge that it is a positive violation of the Christian law which admits only of one husband. "For the woman that hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth. . . . So, then, if while her husband liveth she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband be dead she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another even to Him that is raised from the dead." Rom. 7:2-4. Thus, according to the Scripture, the Christian, and in this the Christian Church, is married to Christ—"to him that is raised from the dead"—as long as he liveth. Therefore, for any Christian church to be joined to another husband while Jesus Christ liveth, is to be called by the Scriptures of truth "an adulteress."


Now, so the Catholic Church claims to be "the spouse of Christ," and yet claims "another man" as her visible husband, her "visible head," to "speak to her his sentiments in faith and morals;" as this is her own showing, and she pretends to make no other, she is therefore obliged to claim that Jesus Christ is dead, or else confess that she is an adulteress. And in either case it is perfectly plain that she is not the bride or spouse of Christ; for if she will claim that he is dead and that therefore she has right to be joined to this other one, then she is not his spouse but the spouse of the other man; while if she will not allow that Christ is dead, "then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress," and in this she is just as certainly not his spouse. So from her own showing and upon her own claims it is certain that the Catholic Church is not in any sense a Christian church.


It is therefore perfectly clear that in the first of her assumptions, namely, that "the church must have a visible head," the papacy is all at sea. How, then, is it with her other assumption, that Peter was appointed that visible head, and so the pope by succession from him, and therefore "by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter," "is infallible" "when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, 'from the chair' of St. Peter?" Here are the cardinal's words on that:


Let us now briefly consider the grounds of the doctrine [of the infallibility of the pope] itself. The following passages of the gospel, spoken at different times, were addressed exclusively to Peter. "Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." "I, the Supreme Architect of the universe," says our Saviour, "will establish a church which is to last till the end of time. I will lay the foundation of this church so strong and deep on the rock of truth that the winds and storms of error shall never prevail against it. Thou, O Peter, shall be the foundation of this church, it shall never fall, because thou shalt never be shaken; and thou shalt never be shaken because thou shalt rest on Me, the rock of truth." The church, of which Peter is the foundation, is declared to be impregnable, that is, proof against error. How can you suppose an immovable edifice built on a tottering foundation? for it is not the building that sustains the foundation, but the foundation which support the building.—Id., pp. 150, 151.


On this same passage of scripture the author of "Catholic Belief" comments as follows:— As the Church of Christ was to last beyond the life-time of St. Peter, even to the end of the world, and as the church is not a lifeless, material building, but a living body of man requiring a living head to rule them and to be a foundation to that great society, this promise of Christ, of making Peter a rock, was meant not only for Peter, but also for his successors. There must be proportion between the building and its foundation. The building, namely, the visible church, being a living, successive body of men, the foundation also, that is, the visible ruling power which sustains the whole superstructure, must be living and successive. Therefore the successors of St. Peter, as the supreme visible rulers of the church, are such, like St. Peter, the rock or the visible foundation of it.—Catholic Belief, pp. 94, 95.


Now on their very face these statements plainly show that the conception which they define is utterly incongruous and fails at every turn, as applied to Peter or any other man or succession of men. And all that is needed to annihilate the whole theory, is but to read two or three passages of scripture which speak directly on this subject. Even admitting that the word Peter means a stone or rock, and that therefore Peter was a rock, allowing the scripture to explain its own statements it is seen that this is far from proving that Peter was the rock upon which the Church of Christ was to be built.


For it is written: "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. 3:11. And again: "Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. In whom [in Jesus Christ himself, not in Peter] all the building fitly framed together growth unto an holy temple in the Lord. In whom also ye are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." Eph. 2:20-22. Please note particularly that this scripture does not say that Ye are built upon the foundation which is the apostles and prophets; neither does it say, Ye are built upon the foundation, the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; but it does say, "Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets," that is, Ye are built upon the foundation upon which the apostles and prophets are built.


Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. And who is the foundation of the apostles? and prophets? Answer: "Jesus Christ himself," and "other foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is Jesus Christ." Therefore, as "the foundation of the apostles and prophets" is "Jesus Christ himself," and as Christians are "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets," it is settled by the Scriptures of truth, that whoever is not built upon "Jesus Christ himself" as the only foundation that is laid, or that can be laid, is not a Christian; and any church that is not built upon "Jesus Christ himself" as the only foundation that is laid, or that can be laid, is not in any sense a Christian church.


And such, by her own exclusive claim, is the Catholic Church. She does not claim to be "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets," which is "Jesus Christ himself," as the only foundation. She claims to be built upon one of the apostles himself as the foundation. The Church of Christ is not built on any such "foundation." The Church of Christ is not built on a foundation of dust, nor even on a rock that is made out of dust. It is built upon the eternal, self-existent, Rock, which is "Jesus Christ himself." {October 11, 1894 ATJ, AMS 314.16} by Alonzo Trevier Jones

 

"THOU ART THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD" "...AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH; AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT"


 

THE TESTIMONY OF PETER


DID PETER HAVE INFALLIBILITY TO GIVE


IN our consideration of Papal "infallibility" ..., we found that Christ and not Peter is the rock upon which the church is built. But let us have the word of the Lord by Peter himself on this point.


Thus it is written by the hand of Peter: "As new-born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: if so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious: to whom coming as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God and precious, ye also as lively stones are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore it is also contained in the Scripture, Behold I lay in Sion


A CHIEF CORNER STONE


elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded. Unto you, therefore, which believe, He is precious; but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner."

1 Peter ii. 2-7.


That the "stone" here referred to is none other than Jesus Christ Himself, and not Peter in any sense, is clear from the words spoken by Peter in another place, thus, speaking of "Jesus Christ of Nazareth," whom the Jews had crucified, he says, "This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner." Acts iv. 10, 11.


In the first of these passages from the words of Peter, he says that this "is contained in the scripture," and then quotes a portion of this "scripture." Let us turn to that scripture to which Peter here refers, and which he says means "Jesus Christ of Nazareth," and see what it does say in full. Here it is: "Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried atone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste." Isa. xxviii. 16. Peter himself says that this stone which is laid "for a foundation" is "Jesus Christ of Nazareth," and that "this stone"—this "Jesus Christ of Nazareth,"—"is the head." And Peter says that it is to this "living stone" that men must come in order to be of the building of Christ—in order to be of this "spiritual house," which is the church of the living God.


Now, to every one who cares for the truth only, the testimony of Peter himself is better than the testimony of the Catholic Church about Peter. And to every such one the inspired testimony of Peter himself as to who is the foundation and head of the church, is far better than is the uninspired and self-interested testimony of the Catholic Church and her Popes about Peter. The


INSPIRED TESTIMONY OF PETER


himself is that "Jesus Christ of Nazareth" is "the stone," the "living stone," which is the "sure foundation" and "the head" of the building of God, this "spiritual house," which is the church of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God. This is also the inspired testimony of the Apostle Paul. In other words, this is the testimony of Jesus Christ Himself, that He and He alone is the foundation and head of the apostles and prophets and of the whole church of Christ, and that "other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."


[And this word demonstrates that the claim of the Papacy that Peter is the foundation and head of the church of Christ is as false; fleeting, baseless, and intangible, as is "the stuff that dreams are made of." It therefore and of necessity follows that the "infallibility of the Pope," as derived from "the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter," is also as false, fleeting, baseless, and intangible, as is "the stuff that dreams are made of."]

Cardinal Gibbons, in "Faith of our Fathers," makes Jesus say to Peter, "Thou, O Peter, shalt be the foundation of this church. It shall never fall, because thou shalt never be shaken." In noticing the words of Christ to Peter that He had prayed for him, that when he should be sifted as wheat, his faith should not fail, the Cardinal further says: "Therefore the faith of Peter will always be firm" (page 152); that, consequently, the faith of Peter's "successors" would always be firm, and therefore these "successors" would always be infallible in the faith.


This argument, like all their other ones in favour of the infallibility of the Pope, is utterly groundless, from the divinely recorded fact that


PETER WAS SHAKEN


and that his faith did fail more than once. For it was after these words were spoken by the Lord that Peter denied Him three times and declared that he did not know Him. It will not do to say that this was not a point "regarding faith or morals," and that therefore infallibility was not involved. It was entirely a question of faith and morals.


It was a question of faith, for the knowing of the Lord Jesus is nothing else than a matter of faith; and to deny Him is nothing else than to deny the faith by which alone He is known.


It was a question of morals, too, because to make his denial as emphatic as possible, Peter then and there "began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak." Mark xiv. 71. And it is certain that to curse and to swear involves a question of morals.


Therefore it is certain, by the Divine record, that Peter did fail and did decide wrongly on a question of faith and morals. And this divinely recorded fact annihilates the claim of the infallibility of the Pope, as derived in succession from Peter.


If this fact and the logic of it would be dodged by the plea that this all occurred before the day of Pentecost, and therefore before Peter was endowed with the Holy Ghost; this plea will fail also because of the divinely recorded fact that after Pentecost Peter failed again, and this, too, upon the very pivotal point of the faith. Here is the word of the Lord as to that:


But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because be was to be blamed. For, before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them that were the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ: even we have believed in Jesus Christ: that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law, for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Gal. ii. 11-16.


Here is the Divine record that Peter "was to be blamed" in this matter, and this "because he walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel." And the particular point of the truth of the Gospel that was involved in this transaction of Peters, was the all-important question of how are men to be justified? Is it by faith? or is it by works? Is it by the faith of Christ? or is it by works of the law? Is it by faith without works—a faith which works? or is it by "faith and works," with all the trust in the works? Is it by Christ alone? or is it by Christ and something else? This was the question that was involved in the course of Peter there. It was nothing less than the supreme question of faith and morals. And on this supreme question of faith and morals Peter there decided wrongly.

He decided this great question not according to the truth of the Gospel. This is the truth by the word of God, and it therefore


ANNIHILATES ALL THE CLAIM


of the infallibility of the Pope as derived from "blessed Peter" when he speaks "from the chair of St. Peter" or from anywhere else, "regarding a question of faith or morals" or anything else.


Cardinal Gibbons seems to see the danger to "the infallibility of the Pope" from this fact, and he therefore says of it that St. Paul criticised his [Peter's] conduct on a point not affecting doctrine, but discipline.


But this will never do, even for him; because this question that was then up between Paul and those Jews who professed the faith, and who constantly followed up Paul and opposed the Gospel, and by whom Peter, and even Barnabas, were carried away from the truth of the Gospel—that question we say that was then up between Paul and those Jews was the very question that was up between the Reformers and the Papacy in the Reformation. And the Council of Trent, which was called especially to consider the questions raised by the Reformation, treated this question altogether as a question of doctrine, and not of discipline at all.


So, for the Cardinal to say that Paul criticised Peter's conduct "on a point not affecting doctrine," while it was the very point that the Council of Trent treated as altogether affecting doctrine—this will not do even for him: this fact destroys his argument and annihilates even this plea by which he would save "infallibility" to Peter and to the Pope "in blessed Peter."


So, then, the conclusion of the whole matter is simply this: As the claim of

"the infallibility of the Pope" is solely that it is "promised to him in blessed Peter," it follows plainly enough that if it was not in Peter, then even, according to their own dogma, the Pope does not have it, and no Bishop of Rome ever did have it. And by the Divine record it is certain that Peter at least twice decided wrongly "regarding faith and morals."


Therefore by the Divine record it is made perfectly certain that the infallibility of the Pope or any other man or set of men, derived from "the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter," or in anybody else, when he speaks "ex cathedra," or any other way, on a question "regarding faith or morals," or anything else, is utterly without any shadow of foundation in any right conception imaginable.


Every argument adduced in its favour is sheer fallacy; and analysis of every claim upon which it is based only develops the finale that, out of nothing something comes. Yet, as the thought that out of nothing something comes, involves either creation or absurdity, and as this claim of infallibility is seriously asserted by and in behalf of the Papacy, this is but the development of the assertion of creative power as the prerogative of the Papacy. It is the

USURPATION OF THE PAPACY


of the essential prerogative of the Creator. It was therefore perfectly fitting to the subject and to the occasion, that, when the decree of the infallibility of the Pope was passed in the Vatican Council, Pius IX. should pervert to this blasphemous service the dying words of our Creator and Redeemer, and rapturously exclaim, "It is finished."


But as any claim on the part of a man in any place, of the prerogative of creation, is but absurdity and nothingness; so this claim of the Papacy, which, by every analysis, develops only the finale that out of nothing something comes, is only supreme absurdity and absolute nothingness.


It is the most unconscionable piece of imposture that was ever proposed to be imposed upon mankind. It is the greatest humbug in the most gigantic system of humbuggery that ever there was in the world. It is the culmination of the blasphemous claim of this "the mystery of iniquity," beyond which it is impossible even for it to go.

A. T. JONES.



 


PETER THE FIRST POPE?


Papal Rome claims Peter to be the first Pope. But this is altogether based on very dubious testimony of the so called church Fathers so let the Scriptures and its logic show that the claim is another fraudulent unscriptural heresy perpetrated by Papal Rome.



"THEY WENT OUT FROM US, BUT THEY WERE NOT OF US"


The Epistles of John tells us the following about the Antichrist (see webpage on The AntiChrist):


1John 2:18,19 - "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."


  • They went out from us, but they were not of us;

  • The antichrist folk "went out from us"

  • They went out from John and Peter's company of Christians.

  • John and Peter both knew of the Lord's day & kept the Seventh Day Sabbath

  • If Peter were the first Pope, then Peter is said to have "went out from us"

  • Papal Rome keeps Sunday as the day of worship & not THE Sabbath.

  • Peter "went out from us" & is said to have started the Papal system.

  • John and Peter would have been in opposing camps.

  • They couldn't be in the same camp, as someone "went out from us"

  • Having "went out from us", Peter is then said to be "not of us".

  • John then, is in the TRUTH camp and Peter in the ERROR camp - "not of us".

  • This can hardly be the case as John & Peter wrote powerful epistles.

  • John and Peter were on the same side, the side of truth.

  • Peter according to scripture never abandoned the truth.

  • Peter could never have "went out from us" & be the first pope

  • Peter could never be said to be "not of us" & be the first pope

  • Hence Peter was never the first pope and was never Antichrist.


God bless

Elias


 






10 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page