Pilgrim’s Corner

by

Was the Apostle Peter the first Pope?

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus . . .

2 Timothy 2:5

The Roman Catholic contention is that Saint Peter was the first Pope and the author of papal succession. Romanism also considers the pope to be the “head of the church” in spite of (and in direct contradiction to) that title already belonging to the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5:23).

Romish tradition teaches that not only did the Apostle Peter visit Rome, but that he pastored a church in Rome, died in Rome, is buried in Rome, and St. Peter’s Basilica is standing where Peter is supposed to have been martyred and buried. The Bible never makes mention of any of these things and the word “pope” isn’t even found in the Bible.

 

Below I’ve posted seventeen evidences (not “traditions”) for your consideration. Some of these facts were adapted from this website but the majority of this following information came from John MacArthur’s profound sermon entitled Unmasking the Pope and the Catholic System.

So, was Peter the first pope or not? Let us examine this subject with the following points.

01- The Bible never claioms that Peter was a pope, nor does it say that he was the “head of the church.” The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) takes biblical texts out of their context to support this pretext. One would think that if Peter were a pope (especially the first) that the Scriptures would certainly recognize and reflect this fact.

02- The word “pope” is not even found in Scripture. (It also never mentions the words “monk” or “rosary” either.)

03- There’s no archeological or historical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome.

04- The Bible gives a reason why there’s no archeological or historical evidence that peter was ever in Rome. In Romans 15:20, the Apostle Paul says that he aspired “to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another man’s foundation.” Had Peter been in Rome, then Paul would not have evangelized there since Paul said he didn’t want to build on another man’s foundation.

05- Paul greets a myriad of people in Romans chapter 16, yet makes absolutely no mention of Saint Peter. If Peter was the pope or “head of the church” in Rome, this would be a grievous oversight/omission on Paul’s part.

06- Paul greets ten people in Rome throughout his letter known as 2 Timothy; none of them are Peter.

07- When mentioning the pillars of the Church (not the heads as Christ is the only head of the Church), the Apostle Paul mentions Peter before John, but after James (Galatians 2:9). Is this any way for a pope to be recognized?

08- Peter was never called to preach to the Gentiles (which would have been those in Rome). Peter was entrusted with the Gospel to the circumcised, the Jews. (Galatians 2:7-8).

09- There’s no mention in Scripture of Peter being the head of the Church in Rome. He wasn’t even the head of the Church in Jerusalem; James was. (Galatians 2 & Acts 15).

10- Peter never considered himself the head of the Church (i.e. the pope). In the introduction of his letter (1 Peter 1:1), he simply calls himself “an apostle of Jesus Christ.” Notice he did not call himself the apostle, pope, or even “head of the church.” And he didn’t even refer to himself with the name “holy father” (a title ascribed to popes).

11- Peter further clarified his view of himself when he referred to himself as a “fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ” (1 Peter 5:1). He equated himself on the same level as the others he was writing his letter to.

12- Who was calling the shots? Scripture reveals that it was not Peter, the supposed “head of the Church.” He was being told what to do by the elders of the Church (Acts 8:14). Shouldn’t the “head of the Church” be the one giving instruction and direction? See additional examples of the leaders and elders of the church giving directions, not Peter, in Acts 11:22, Acts 15:22-27, Acts 21:18, and Acts 21:23-24.

13- The Apostle Paul opposed Peter to his face (Galatians 2:11) because Peter “stood condemned.” Hardly the thing for someone to do to a pope, the supposed Roman Catholic “head of the Church.”

14- Jesus called Peter “Satan,” and said that he was a stumbling block to Jesus (Matthew 16:21-23). Is this any way to talk to a pope?

15- Peter acted cowardly and denied the Lord Jesus (Matthew 26:69-75). Is this any way for a pope to act?

16- The history of the early Church as accounted in the book of Acts makes absolutely no mention of Peter after chapter 15. For someone who is supposed to be the “head of the church” and the first pope, you’d think there’d be more mention of him in this inspired book of early Church history.

17- And finally, Peter was a married man (Matthew 8:14, Mark 1:29-31, Luke 4:38-39 & 1 Corinthians 9:5), something a pope could not be.

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority.

Colossians 2:8-10

 

by

Glorious Resurrection Sunday; He Is Risen; Worthy is the Lamb!

He was pierced through for our transgression,

He was crushed for our iniquities;

The chastening for our wellbeing fell upon Him,

And by His scourging we are healed.

All of us like sheep have gone astray,

each of us has turned to his own way;

But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.

Isaiah 53:5-6

A little road called the Via Dolorosa.

Watch the Lamb.

Worthy is the Lamb that was slain

to receive power and riches

and wisdom and might

and honor and glory and blessing. . . .

To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb,

be blessing and honor and glory

and dominion forever and ever.

Revelation 5:12-13

by

An e-mail from a reader.

georgia.gifI received the following letter from Ken and was hoping that maybe one of you out there could help him.

In desperate need for a solid biblical church

Hello,
I know what you are thinking…Aren’t we all? But, the reason I’m writing you is because of the what you do with the website and the blog. I just moved to Augusta, GA. I’m in the Army. I need to find a solid church. I don’t want to spend a whole a lot of time at church that is bad. This is just a question. Do you have access to any lists of churches that follow your creed or John MacArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, Paul Washer and etc? You know solid biblical doctrine being taught in or near Augusta, GA. In any help or direction would be greatly appreciated.

God Bless, Ken

by

Happy 100,000th!

balloons_and_streamers.jpgOn Wednesday, March 5th, this blog obtained its 100,000th hit in less than seven months since it began last August 10th. I want to thank all of my readers and especially those who have supported and encouraged me; even those who have contacted me via e-mail with their sincere words of encouragement and thankfulness to this blog’s tenacious defense of the gospel in the face of all variations of error so prevalent in the church today. Many times discouragement set in and contemplations of ending Reformation Nation were entertained. But the correspondences I have received have encouraged me to keep on contending for the faith. Thank you all, you know who you are.

– The Pilgrim

by

America’s most sinful cities.

us-stripes.jpg Using the proverbial seven deadly sins, Forbes Magazine recently rated the most sinful cities in America. Below I have listed the city that ranked first in each category. You can click on the respective links to find out what other cities made the top ten (and how Forbes judged their sinfulness). I am certain you will be surprised at who ranked first in each category and who made the top ten.

Most lustful city: Denver

Click here to see the other cities that made the top ten and how they were judged.

Most greedy city: San Jose

Click here to see the other cities that made the top ten and how they were judged.

Most jealous city: Memphis

Click here to see the other cities that made the top ten and how they were judged.

Most wrathful city: Detroit

Click here to see the other cities that made the top ten and how they were judged.

Most gluttonous city: Memphis

Click here to see the other cities that made the top ten and how they were judged.

Most slothful city: Memphis

Click here to see the other cities that made the top ten and how they were judged.

Most prideful city: Salt Lake City

Click here to see the other cities that made the top ten and how they were judged.

by

Can you guess where this verse is?

 

Can you cite me the book, chapter, and verse where the following passage can be found from The Message?

“How well God must like you–you don’t hang out at Sin Saloon, you don’t slink along Dead-End Road, you don’t go to Smart-Mouth College.”

Does this even seem vaguely familiar to you?

This would be funny if it weren’t so sad. Sad because people actually consider The Message to be a legitimate Bible “translation.” Rick Warren quotes from it often and XXXChurch passes it out as their “Jesus Loves Porn Stars” Bible.

To see the answer click here.


by

Do you support your local Christian bookstore?

My recent visit to a local Christian bookstore got me thinking about something and I thought I’d pose the question to the readers of this blog:

Do you patronize your local Christian Bookstore? By patronize I specifically mean, do you make purchases from your local Christian bookstore?

Here are my thoughts:

The Christian bookstore can be a light in the darkness of a somewhat spiritual desert in some communities. There are people who stumble into such establishments who would never darken the doors of a church. Usually the owner, (and workers), are professing Christians who could help lead a lost soul to Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, every Christian bookstore that I’ve been in sells tons of literature and books that contain enough heresy to lead any seeking soul who finds them to Hell. Alongside great books of the Christian faith can be found almost every purveyor of false doctrine, every wind of doctrine, and every doctrine of demons imaginable.

So the question arises, how much poison is permissible in your glass of water? Do you support such a den of heresy? If so, why? If not, why?

See this follow-up post.

by

Cleaning house. A letter to the readers of this blog.

sweep.jpg Reformation Nation was launched on August 10, 2007. Today, (our six-month anniversary), we reached our 80,000th hit. I have chosen today’s occasion to make a change to how things are done here. I am going to put a stop to the incessant anti-Christian, hate-mongering that some can’t seem to refrain from. In effect, I will begin cleaning house.

Many come in here and get angry with what has been posted. (Then they judge me, my intentions, and my heart while telling me not to judge.) They can’t see to figure out how to stop visiting this blog (like those who can’t find the power button on their TV and so complain about the content that they’re “forced” to watch). So in spite of being offended and despising what is said in here, for some reason they are driven to return time and time again. While here they spew their venom as they are “forced” to read these posts. In doing so they are compelled to leave their hateful, arrogant, condescending, and rude remarks wherever they see fit. It ‘s their way of being an example of “love” while they instruct us to be more loving.

Others come in here just to tell me–ad nauseum–what I should or should not blog about.

So I go to thinking, hey, whose blog is this anyway? And who is this blog for? As the tag line says, it’s for the “fellow Pilgrim” not the pagan rock worshipers, God-hating atheists, and any other group whose sole purpose in life is to take their anger and hatred for God and project it onto Christians. You see, they have no problem with nominal Christians, cultists, and any other group as long as they’re all fighting against those who are on the narrow path.

It’s also very quaint and apropos how each of these groups give the other little pats on the back in appreciation for one another. It’s amazing to see how nothing brings so many diverse and opposing groups together in harmony like their common hatred for genuine, non-conforming, non-compromising Christians. Nothing binds their hearts together quite like their common hatred for God’s elect.

I originally set a standard on what comments were acceptable, but I allowed that bar to be lowered for comments directed toward myself. For example, I have not allowed people to insult Mormons in here and have actually deleted comments in which the whole purpose of the comment was to make fun of Mormons. (Ironically, as I was writing this post I had to remove a comment that was hostile to Atheists that I felt was inappropriate. If any of you are interested in seeing what I deemed “inappropriate” I will be more than willing to e-mail the entire comment to you.) I understand that most don’t know these things because they don’t see what happens behind the scenes, but it wouldn’t matter anyway, because they think they’ve got me all figured out.

I, on the other hand, have put up with the insulting, rude, and vitriolic comments directed toward me and this blog, allowing them to remain in the public domain. (This type of abuse by those who keep claiming they’re loving–I understand–is part of the reason Ingrid stopped allowing comments on Slice of Laodicea.)

Well, starting today, this will change.

One individual who prowls around this blog like a roaring lion to plant his “seeds” has this very disclaimer on his own blog: “Contributing to this site is a privilege, not a right. If you are unable or unwilling to exercise tolerance for perspectives that differ from your own, I reserve the right to limit or restrict your access.” Of course this same standard of tolerance is not extended to me when he’s on my blog: It’s the classic “do as I say, not as I do.”

I also found this disclaimer by fellow Pilgrim, Jim Bublitz, on his blog Old Truth: BE OUR GUEST, NOT OUR TROLL. You are a guest on this privately owned website, but that doesn’t mean that you must agree with our views. However, if you find that your comments disagree more often than not, or if you think that you should hang-out here for the purpose of providing a regular, ongoing, “counter-balance” to our views, then this site is not for you. In such a case, we recommend that you open your own blog, and use it to express yourself there. In return, you can expect that our authors will abide by this same rule on your blog.

So after pondering these ideas, I have decided to follow suit and apply the same rules as these experienced bloggers have done. If you cannot comment on here respectfully and without personal attacks, or if the whole point of your comment is an attack itself (like this one: “What kind of false doctrine do you follow? Apparently you know more about my church than myself so enlighten me.”) then expect your comment to be deleted. I will also moderate some commenters specifically due to their incessant hateful comments.

I am happy to announce that as of today I am returning this site to its original purpose and intention; a lifeline for fellow Pilgrims. Does this mean that I will not accept any opposing views? Certainly not. It’s not the opposing views I have issue with, it’s the few people (normally Atheists, Agnostics, and the occasional Witch) who vicariously spew their hatred for God by attacking His people. You don’t have to agree with everything in here, in fact you don’t have to agree with anything in here, just as long as your comments are respectful and add to the discussion. If, however, you choose to camp on this blog just to insult everyone else, then I suggest getting your own blog if your addiction is that incurable.

In this world we live in everyone is permitted to have their own opinion on any subject, now matter how corrupt, perverse or outlandish that opinion may be. Everything is now acceptable and tolerated. However, Christians are supposed to conform to the “wisdom” of this world or “keep their mouths shut.” This of course is called “tolerance.” The views and opinions of those who have such a hate for Christians can be found just about anywhere in this world, but I will no longer provide a platform for their scoffing. I know some will be grateful for this decision; wondering what took me so long, and others will be angry; demanding that they have carte blanche access to say what they want. Well, you have abused that privilege and it is now henceforth revoked.

If there’s any parting words I can give to those who loath Christians, it’s this: Just hang in there, a time will come–and it won’t be very long–in which you can act out that blind rage and burning anger. The day will come when people like you will be permitted to put people like me to to death (Matthew 24:9-11). Granted, you may not be the one to pull the lever, but the powers that be will do so with your hearty approval and while you think you’re doing God a service (John 16:2). That time is approaching and it will come. You just have to be patient.

If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. – Jesus Christ

John 15:18-19

by

Denying Hell: The bandwagon is getting quite full.

The topic of Hell came up in another post (read the comments here). One commenter–a Mormon–has found himself on the side of Universalists, Agnostics, Atheists, Wiccans, Jehovah’s Witness and Carlton Pearson in either down-playing, altering or denying the existence of Hell. Regardless of whether this is just his personal view or the LDS organization’s new PR move, either way, the denial of hell is beginning to gain in popularity.

For clarification, the denial of the doctrine of Hell doesn’t have to be confined to denying the existence of Hell. There are multiple ways of twisting, spinning, and distorting Scripture all while asking, “Hath God really said?” These include questioning the duration, the type of punishment, the degree of punishment, adding the teaching of purgatory to it, denying that most people will find themselves there (usually preceded with “A Loving god would never do that,” or “My god would never do that“), etc.

As the ecumenical movement gains momentum we find more and more beliefs merge in areas where they once found themselves in disagreement. The doctrine of Hell is yet another “politically incorrect” orthodox teaching of Christianity that is being discarded for the more modern, God-light view shared by an ever-increasing number. As people continue to form a personal, conscience-easing god in their own image tailored to suit their own tastes, we will continue to see more and more people denying biblical doctrines such as Hell. It usually starts with “I just can’t believe ______ ” fill in the blank.

Compromising biblical doctrines (like the deity of Christ, the atonement of Christ’s shed blood, the Trinity, the authority of holy Scripture, etc.) are frequently being done now in the name of the new Greatest Commandment: Unity.

by

What’s your supreme authority for spiritual truth?

I found this poll over at Proclaiming the Gospel and thought that it would be a great poll to post here (with three of my own additions).

Which is your supreme authority for spiritual truth?

1). My experience and opinion.

2). My church and clergy.

3). My parents and family.

4). My heart.

5). What seems right to me.

6). Whatever works.

7). My Bible.

Of course, if your answer isn’t found here you can add it in your comments.

by

Which is your preferred Bible translation?

bibles-stack.jpg Back in October I asked the question “What is your favorite Bible translation and why?” (See the post and comments by clicking here). With the increase in readership since then, I’d like to revisit the question. I’ve also added an audio clip from the Albert Mohler Program on the topic of which translation is best. Just click here to listen to the 26-minute discussion.

Additionally, I never divulged my preferred translation. So what better time than now? I prefer the New American Standard Bible (and use it for those posts in my Sola Scriptura category and anytime I quote the Bible on this blog unless otherwise noted). I also have in my library the ESV, KJV, NKJV, NIV, RSV, NCV, and The Message (just for laughs). I do all my studying and work from the NASB and prefer it.