[Kindle location 1089]
We have already
seen that Paul listed James before Peter in his list of those “reputed” to be
pillars (Gal. 2:9). Not only did he list James first, but his use of the word “reputed”
suggests he did not necessarily agree with the estimation others had made.
[Kindle location 1095]
Paul could not
have said that he did not care what Peter was if he thought Peter had “full,
supreme, and universal power over the whole church.” In fact, dismissing the
reputation of James, Peter, and John implies that he saw a “full, supreme, and
universal power” over all three. Paul assigned all his actions and opinions the
one “full, supreme, and universal” authority that Scripture does mention: Jesus
Christ (Matt. 28:18).
[Kindle location 1118]
Paul gives not a hint
that Peter carried any legitimate authority in the Corinthian church, attributing
all authority and power to God and warning them not to “boast about human
beings” (1 Cor. 3:21).
[Kindle location 1129]
To Titus he [Paul]
writes, “You must say what is consistent with sound doctrine,” and, “Say these
things. Exhort and correct with all authority” (Titus 2:1, 15).
Despite this
emphasis on sound doctrine and on how to live as a member of God’s family, he
mentions neither Peter nor Rome. It is not plausible that Paul knew that Peter
had “full, supreme, and universal power,” was “pastor of the entire church” and
sole possessor of the keys of the kingdom, yet he never mentioned this in a
letter emphasizing the things consistent with sound doctrine.
[Kindle location 1133]
We need to add in
the testimony of Paul’s companion, Luke, who wrote the book of Acts. At the end
of Acts, we find Paul in Rome under house arrest. He taught from there for two
years. Although Paul was in Rome and teaching, Luke finds it unnecessary to
mention Peter or the authority of the church of Rome.
[Kindle location 1136]
We cannot find
arguments against Peter or Roman bishops having “full, supreme, and universal
power over the whole Church” because no one protests something that does not
exist. Since neither Peter nor the bishops of Rome made any such claim in the
early history of the Church, we will never find anyone writing against the
claim.
