On Peter, Authority, and Two Scriptural Reasons Why I am Not Roman Catholic

I am not convinced that there is any scriptural basis for the apostolic succession or supremacy of Peter.  The sheer weight and gravity of the claim are so great that they require a clarity in scripture matched to that of the cross, the resurrection, and the hope of the gospel.

In this article, we will examine some of the main scriptural claims of the Roman Catholic Church regarding its authority. 

Before we do this, I think it's important to speak to the responsibility we have as Christians to examine such claims. Some Catholics argue that the Roman Catholic Church is the only body with the authority to interpret Scripture.  Even this idea is foreign to scripture and logically inconsistent.  

In Galatians, we read that Paul instructs the Christians in Galatia—not the Roman Catholic Church—that they have a moral and theological responsibility to discern truth Listen to what he says, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:6-9). 

We clearly see the burden Paul places on them: to know the gospel and discern the truth. Interpreting scripture is not a job only for church leaders. We all have a responsibility to seek truth, take up our cross, and follow Christ. 

Regarding interpretation, we should also recognize that even if you defer to the church for all interpretation of scripture, there is still an element you must interpret the interpreter. For example, if you read the Roman Catholic Catechism, you still must seek to understand it and apply it. We never get away from interpretation. Therefore, be diligent. Search the Word. Study and pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit.  

Reason 1: Matthew 16

Let’s begin with the Matthew 16 "keys to the kingdom" text. While interesting, it does not come anywhere close to validating the weight of the claim stated above. In every other instance in the Bible when a position/office of such esteem is given, it is undoubtedly clear (Abraham, Moses, David, etc.). Moreover, these claims are supported and recognized by their contemporaries. There was never ambiguity or debate on who was leading God's people. This is not the case with Peter in the New Testament or even early church history.  

Scripturally, the Matthew 16 text makes far more sense when one views them as Peter's confession on which the church is built. I am not removing Peter from the equation - he is important. In pattern, Peter then preaches the gospel at Pentecost and to the Gentiles in Acts 10-11. Both times, there is an active presence and confirmation of the Holy Spirit. While monumentally important, Peter is not doing anything different than the other apostles - he is proclaiming who Christ is and what He has done. It's significant because he is the first. In doing so, he becomes the rock on which the confession is built.  

The gospel he preaches (first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles) is the instrument through which God builds his church. Paul tells us plainly that “The gospel is the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16).  Peter’s confession is notable because it is the first, but it is not a unique ability. In fact, all Christians are called to share the gospel and take it to the nations (Matthew 28:19). It is with this power (the gospel) and this confession by which the gates of hell are stormed, not a papacy. I think this is why Paul says at the end of Romans that he is a priest of the gospel (Romans 15:16). The power resides in the confession of who Christ is and what the gospel means for sinners.

A second aspect of the Matthew 16 text that needs addressing is the verses on binding. Matthew writes, “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (16:19). I have heard many Catholics use this text to argue that this is evidence of the church's authorship (through Peter). Again, this is interesting and, if I am completely honest, I can see how, with an eisegetical, casual reading of the text, it might appear this way. But with a little study, the claim loses its weight quickly.  

Thankfully, Jesus uses this same phrase just a few chapters later in the context of church discipline. This isn't another book or another author. It's the same gospel and same author, so if we want to understand the text correctly, we now have a huge clue.

In this case, Jesus is teaching on sin within the church. He describes the process of church discipline and then says, “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Matthew 18:18-19).  

While much can be said about this passage, given our current topic, I want to draw attention to one critical aspect. Note that the very nature of this statement and the delegation of authority is plural, not singular. This authority is given and dwells in a gathering, not a single person. 

This plurality resonates well with the text in Matthew 16. Notice Jesus last words: “Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ” (v. 20). So even though Jesus begins speaking to Peter, there remains a plural element to his teaching. The application and charge are for all the apostles.

Paul affirms this when he declares that “you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:19-20). Again, we see the plurality of apostles and even a repetition of the rock analogy.

Peter is not given a unique office above and beyond the other apostles. His confession is the rock on which the church will be built. Although influential and a leader, he shares the apostolic office with the other eleven.

Reason 2: Acts

A study of the New Testament will yield that none of the other books in the New Testament even hint at Peter possessing authority over the other apostles. In fact, I would argue that we see the opposite. The earliest and most accurate church history book, Acts of the Apostles, demonstrates this truth. This book, breathed out by God, gives us insight into the history, theology, and polity of the early church. It should be the starting place of any discussion on church history, as it is scripture and history.

This really is an incredible point if you think about it. My experience is that Catholic apologists will commonly point to all kinds of church history to build their arguments, while glossing over the book of Acts.

As stated, there is nowhere in Acts that hints Peter possesses any sort of office above that of the other apostles. This is notable since in Acts 15 we read about the Jerusalem Council.  

In this chapter, there is an argument that breaks out if new believers should also receive circumcision to be saved. There is much debate before the decision is made. It's worth noting that while Peter does speak and he is influential, the decision is rendered by James at the end. If anyone was presiding over the council, it was not Peter; it was James.  

Verse 19 begins with James’ ruling, “Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles.,” (Acts 15:19). In the very first church council, Peter is certainly involved and even influential, but he does not decide or provide the final ruling. 

I will take this opportunity to remind my Catholic friends that influence, even great influence, is not the same thing as possessing a supreme authority. These things are very, very different. We see this play out later in Acts when Peter effectively operates in such a way as to undermine this ruling (siding with the circumcision party), and Paul must call him out, publicly.  

Regarding polity, what we do see in Acts is the apostles working together for the advancement of the gospel through missions and the planting of local churches. One can argue for a multilayer church government approach. For example, we read in Acts 13 how Paul and Barnabas are sent out for their work (Acts 14:1-6). But even here, Peter does not seem to be directly involved.

In closing, we need to remember that we all have a responsibility to seek out the truth and follow Christ as faithfully as we can. As compelling as some of Rome’s claims might be, the burden of proof is too heavy for scripture to validate (or even infer). For the reasons mentioned above (and others perhaps for another article), I must reject the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.