Successors of Peter?

by Terry Wane Benton

Roman Catholics claim that Peter was the first pope and that he had a higher authority over the other apostles and the church in general. Yet Scripture does not show this to be true. Paul by the Spirit said that he (Paul) was not one whit behind the “most eminent apostles” (II Corinthians 12:11). Notice that he did not look up to Peter as “the most eminent apostle (singular), as though Peter ranked higher, and as though Peter was the “pappa” or “pope”. Peter was never higher than James, John, or Paul. Paul is right!

Those who say Peter was the first pope contradict the Spirit that guided Paul to say that no one was higher in rank than the others. Further, Paul mentions that “Cephas” (Peter) was a married man (I Corinthians 9:5). The existence of unmarried “popes” proves that Peter was not a pope, and that none of the so-called popes actually had Spirit-guided authority to set themselves over the church and then claim to be following a biblical pattern of succession from Peter. Since Peter was never a pope, and popes later developed marriage rules different from Peter's, it is clear that popes never existed in the first-century church and therefore had no right to come into existence.

• There were no popes in the first century or in the Scriptures.
• The Scriptures “completely furnish the man of God” (II Timothy 3:16-17).
• The Scriptures do not furnish us a pope.
• Therefore, no one can be a lawful successor of a pope. Whoever claims to be a successor is only a deceived and deceiving man.

Each of the four sentences above is true. Therefore, the conclusion is true.

In his last letter before he was executed around 67 AD, Peter did not tell his readers they would need a replacement apostle or pope. Instead, he told them they had everything they needed: “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (II Peter 1:3). They would not need Peter nor a replacement for Peter. They just needed to use what they had in their knowledge of Jesus and the prophetic word, now made more sure.

Paul, in his last letter before he was executed in about 67 AD, did not tell Timothy that he would need a replacement apostle or pope. Instead, he told him to have faith, hold on to it, and preach it; and that “all scripture was given by inspiration of God” and that it “completely furnish the man of God,” so there was no need for more (II Timothy 3:16-17). No one would overrule Scripture or have equal or greater authority than it.

The apostles had completed their testimony to the world. They were the eyewitnesses. There would be no more witnesses. Scripture preserves the complete testimony. The apostles were to be guided into all truth (John 16:13), not “some” truth, and then more truth would come through their “successors.” If it did not come through the original apostles and prophets of the first century, it is not the truth we need for spiritual peace and safety. Correction and doctrine are all completely furnished in the scriptures. If any man preached differently, additionally, more or other than what was given in the scriptures, they are to be “accursed”, even if an apostle or an angel preached it (Galatians 1:6-10). There are no successors to Jesus’ personally selected witnesses. Therefore, everything that developed after the first century is the tradition of men that contaminates the pure water of God’s holy scriptures.

Go back to the scriptures alone! They completely furnish the man of God from the first century forward!