- Dec 17, 2007
- 8,747
- 515
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Not a trick question, just curious. I don't know the answer.
Would that include james being in charge of the jerusalem church?
The Apostles themselves denied the primacy of Peter and his successors (at least as far as the RC belief about the primacy of Peter) by choosing James to be the first bishop of the Church of Jerusalem. If the Apostles had the same understanding of the primacy of Peter, then Peter would have been the first bishop and not James. Also, James presided over the first council of all the Apostles, not Peter.
The Apostles themselves denied the primacy of Peter and his successors (at least as far as the RC belief about the primacy of Peter) by choosing James to be the first bishop of the Church of Jerusalem. If the Apostles had the same understanding of the primacy of Peter, then Peter would have been the first bishop and not James. Also, James presided over the first council of all the Apostles, not Peter.
Pardon me for asking, but I have two follow-up questions. Why does the benchmark of Peter being the chief apostle rest on whether or not he was appointed Bishop of Jerusalem? And second, are you therefore arguing the chief apostle was James?
There is no chief apostle.
YEPAlthough much would depend on when you think the NT books were written, and we don't know the content of all their personal discussions I would suggest that Peter himself was the first follower of Christ to deny his "primacy". Just reading 1 Peter we see his rightful focus on Christ and he would be appalled (I am sure) of the unbiblical pedestal so many people have placed him on.
For you sola scripturists who respect John MacArthur (who is also quite anti-Catholic and also a sola scripturist):The chief of the twelve was Peter. They had to have a leader, and he was their leader.I welcome the sola scripturists to examine his article to determine if he's going by Scripture or not.
(John MacArthur, Peter: A Lesson in Leadership, 2000)
The Apostles themselves denied the primacy of Peter and his successors (at least as far as the RC belief about the primacy of Peter) by choosing James to be the first bishop of the Church of Jerusalem. If the Apostles had the same understanding of the primacy of Peter, then Peter would have been the first bishop and not James. Also, James presided over the first council of all the Apostles, not Peter.
It is unfair to expect me to answer for MacArthur and it would be unwise of me to justify his stance. I suggest you ask him yourself.
I do know some people have, using Scripture, claimed that Peter often served as a spokesman for the group. I find it plausible, but hardly a basis for the Peter worship performed by so many people. It was simply a practical way to relay information, not an implication of primacy.
There is no chief apostle.
that is possible...but remember we only have a few recorded discussions and debates. It is highly possible that one of the other apostles served as a spokesman in other instances.
There is a severe lack of evidence to support the primacy of Peter. Everything in Scripture points to Christ.