One of the texts used by Roman Catholics to prove that Peter was indeed the Pope, who has leadership over the universal church after Christ's ascension, is found in Acts 15:1 to 29 where a council was held to settle a doctrinal dispute. The dispute was if circumcision and observance of the laws of Moses were necessary for the Christians to be saved (15:1 and 5-6). In the midst of the dispute, Peter rose up and gave his speech (15:7-11). After Peter had spoken, the people in the council was said to be silent (15:12). Peter's speech was said to be the basis of James' judgment (15:13-19).
The so-called evidence of Peter's primacy in Acts 15 rest on his speech in verses 7 to 11 that silenced the council in verse 12, and that also caused James to make his judgment in verses 13.
Did the council acknowledge Peter's primacy because they became silent in respect to his speech? It doesn't follow. Peter indeed have said something convincing that caused the entire council to consider it in silence, but that doesn't mean he was supreme. During his life on earth Christ has silenced his critics and oppositions. Although His critics had nothing more to say, they still hated Him and did not acknowledge His supremacy.
It's ironic that after Peter had spoken Paul, Barnabas, and James continued to speak. No one stopped the three by saying, "Hey our pope has spoken, please stop talking."
In Galatians 2:11, Paul opposed Peter because the latter had committed a mistake of separating himself from the Gentiles for fear of the circumcised Jews. Does Paul's convincing opposition to Peter imply his supremacy over Peter? It also doesn't follow. In both instances, Peter and Paul have good arguments but it doesn't follow that they are superior in position.
As for James making his judgment based on Peter's statement, it also doesn't follow that James acknowledged Peter's primacy. James indeed had good inputs from Peter, but do take notice that James said "it is my judgment," in verse 19 and his sentence was implemented all the way to verse 30. The judgment made by James should have been an indicator that he was leader of the church in Jerusalem.
Some Roman Catholics may argue that the word judgment in verse 19 can also mean opinion. While that can be true, it does not apply in verse 19. When they wrote their instruction to the church, they indicated that it seemed good to the Holy Spirit. Why would just an opinion be good to the Holy Spirit? Didn't James quote the authoritative Scripture? Therefore, James' sentence is a decision that must be carried out and not merely an opinion. Besides, if it were just an opinion of James, shouldn't this be regarded as private interpretation which Roman Catholics detest?
The funny thing about the belief Peter's primacy is when nice things are said about Peter, Roman Catholics regard this as basis for his supremacy. But when nice things are said about others they are just normal occurrences.
The so-called evidence of Peter's primacy in Acts 15 rest on his speech in verses 7 to 11 that silenced the council in verse 12, and that also caused James to make his judgment in verses 13.
Did the council acknowledge Peter's primacy because they became silent in respect to his speech? It doesn't follow. Peter indeed have said something convincing that caused the entire council to consider it in silence, but that doesn't mean he was supreme. During his life on earth Christ has silenced his critics and oppositions. Although His critics had nothing more to say, they still hated Him and did not acknowledge His supremacy.
It's ironic that after Peter had spoken Paul, Barnabas, and James continued to speak. No one stopped the three by saying, "Hey our pope has spoken, please stop talking."
In Galatians 2:11, Paul opposed Peter because the latter had committed a mistake of separating himself from the Gentiles for fear of the circumcised Jews. Does Paul's convincing opposition to Peter imply his supremacy over Peter? It also doesn't follow. In both instances, Peter and Paul have good arguments but it doesn't follow that they are superior in position.
As for James making his judgment based on Peter's statement, it also doesn't follow that James acknowledged Peter's primacy. James indeed had good inputs from Peter, but do take notice that James said "it is my judgment," in verse 19 and his sentence was implemented all the way to verse 30. The judgment made by James should have been an indicator that he was leader of the church in Jerusalem.
Some Roman Catholics may argue that the word judgment in verse 19 can also mean opinion. While that can be true, it does not apply in verse 19. When they wrote their instruction to the church, they indicated that it seemed good to the Holy Spirit. Why would just an opinion be good to the Holy Spirit? Didn't James quote the authoritative Scripture? Therefore, James' sentence is a decision that must be carried out and not merely an opinion. Besides, if it were just an opinion of James, shouldn't this be regarded as private interpretation which Roman Catholics detest?
The funny thing about the belief Peter's primacy is when nice things are said about Peter, Roman Catholics regard this as basis for his supremacy. But when nice things are said about others they are just normal occurrences.
