Who is the first Christian to deny the Primacy of Peter or his successors?

[chestertonrules]

Not a trick question, just curious. I don't know the answer.

 

[Frogster]

Would that include james being in charge of the jerusalem church?

 

[chestertonrules]

Would that include james being in charge of the jerusalem church?

No. There is no denial there. James just reiterates Peter's revelation from God.

I'm talking about an explicit denial.


We have many quotes supporting this doctrine. When did someone first say that it was wrong in explicit terms?

 

[Eucharisted]

The first would be the Apostle Judas, who betrayed Jesus. He denied Peter's authority and primacy in three ways:

1) He stole money from Jesus' purse. He did not have the permission of Christ or His vicar Peter, whom He put in charge of the Apostles, to take money out of the purse, for, as the keeper of the purse, though a thief, he only had the permission to give alms to the poor;

2) He left the Last Supper early. He decided to not receive God into his heart, being as Satan already occupied it, and so excused himself to do what he wished, and Jesus, knowing his evil deed, told him "Go, do what you must": I.e., not an approval of evil but a knowledge of Judas' wickedness and that he would be fulfilling the Scriptures (even if he might not be aware of some or any of the above). Again, he did not have permission to go but chose to go;

3) He thirsted after another authority. It is clear from his betrayal of God and His Messiah and from his proliferation of the sin of theft - both of which Christ knew yet permitted for greater good, and which He corrected him on, as shown at least once in Scripture when He rebukes Judas for rebuking the woman who used expensive oil on Him - that Judas wanted the freedom to do whatever he wanted, freedom not only from law but also from justice, and he wanted a messiah who conformed to his beliefs and practices rather than one who would conform him to God, and he not only doubted in Christ but also in His Mercy, the latter of which is clear from his despair and suicide. Because of the above, he sought not Christ but another authority, even an authority of primacy for himself, anything but submission to Peter, who to him as a vicar of Christ reminded him of Christ and so whose office disgusted him, yet which office he sought in the sense of desiring primacy for himself. And Judas is not like us who are free of the law, nor is he like those who mistake men for Christ, nor is he like James who doubted Christ until His Resurrection, nor is he like Peter who despaired until the Master turned to him as He was being taken away to His trial: Rather, he is more of a representation of those evil men among righteous men, weeds among the wheat, who are so far from God that they cannot stand Him or His Messiah.

 

[lighthouse_hope]

Primacy as primus inter pares or primacy as infallible pontiff of the Church?

 

[katherine2001]

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.

 

[Frogster]

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.

 

[MrPolo]

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?

 

[Hentenza]

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.

 

[mont974x4]

Although 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.

 

[Unashamed Jesus Freak]

There is no chief apostle.

No, there isn't. That just isn't biblical.

 

[MrPolo]

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.
(John MacArthur, Peter: A Lesson in Leadership, 2000)​

I welcome the sola scripturists to examine his article to determine if he's going by Scripture or not.

 

[simonthezealot]

Although 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.

YEP

 

[mont974x4]

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.
(John MacArthur, Peter: A Lesson in Leadership, 2000)​

I welcome the sola scripturists to examine his article to determine if he's going by Scripture or not.

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.

 

[boswd]

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.

Hi Katerine this seems to contradict Orthowiki

The holy, glorious and all-laudable Apostle Peter is the leader of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ


Apostle Peter - OrthodoxWiki

Is the EO split on who was the leader of the Apostles?

Thanks

 

[boswd]

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.

I always viewed Peter as like a President of a City Council. not really above anyone but who's role was to keep everyone on the same page and keep the message on course and being the spokesman and being there for disputes.

But as with any President of a City Council isn't above being rebuked etc.


just my 2cents.

 

[mont974x4]

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.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Saint Peter along with St Paul are often called "Chiefs of the Apostles" in the Orthodox Church. We have a feast day dedicated to them as such on June 29 -Feast of the Holy, Glorious, and All-Praiseworthy Chiefs of the Apostles, Peter and Paul.

Feast of the Holy, Glorious, and All-Praiseworthy Chiefs of the Apostles, Peter and Paul — Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

 

[boswd]

There is no chief apostle.

I disagree, for one I don't think Christ would have left is message to be carried out without some form of order and structure. Everything about God is structure, not chaos.

and second I do agree with the interpretation of Matt. 16 that this was where Christ chose Peter to be the leader.

If you read the entire passage, it starts out with Christ showing the Apostle's that there is still doubt out there when he asks "Who do people say the Son of God is" and of course we know what they shouted.

But when asked who did THEY believe the Son of God is Peter spoke up
Odd question to be given to this group at this point in time don't you think? Obviously they all know who the Son of God is. This Would be like asking an MIT student on his last exam a simple if 2+x=7.

But Peter did speak up dispite the obvious answer.

To me this is what Christ was looking for. Someone who would speak up in the face of doubt. that's when he gave Peter the keys.

 

[boswd]

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.

of course everything points to Christ but Christ was leaving for heaven and I do believe he wanted his Church to have some form of Structure as they went out to spread the Word.

I think many people have to be careful as not to try and reinterpret scriputure based on agendas. I do think many Protestants refuse to believe that Peter was the leader or leader of sorts simply because that would be lending some form of credance to the Catholic Church who base the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) leadership as the line of Peter.

You can still believe Peter was the leader and still not be in communion with the Bishop of Rome, look at the EO's and the Anglicans.

This is where our friend Anglian would be helpful. He's very well versed in Christian History and very unbiased.