• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Rise of Rome

Anthony Pritchard

Well-Known Member

The Rise of Rome: The Eclipse of Apostolic Faith​

How the Roman ecclesiastical hierarchy emerged long after the Apostles
​

The churches founded by Christ and the Apostles were simple, local congregations gathered under the headship of Christ. The earliest churches were led by a pastor, assisted by deacons, and supported by older, respected men in the congregation, rooted in Scripture, and connected to one another through fellowship rather than centralized authority. No apostolic writer ever describes a universal bishop. No apostolic writer ever describes a church with political power. No apostolic writer ever describes Rome as possessing jurisdiction over other churches. The earliest churches were communities of believers, not an institution.

After the deaths of the Apostles and the eyewitnesses who had known them, the churches entered a period of irregular development. Some congregations adopted a single bishop as a practical means of maintaining order. Others retained plural elders. All remained local. Rome was respected as a large urban congregation, but it was not a governing authority. Its influence was moral and historical, not jurisdictional. Ignatius of Antioch wrote strong words about unity, but he did not teach Roman supremacy. Irenaeus spoke of Rome as a witness church, not a monarch. The second and third centuries show diversity of practice, but no central government.

Everything changed when Christianity encountered imperial power. In 313, Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, granting legal toleration to Christians. This was not the creation of a state church. It was the beginning of imperial favor. Bishops gained civil authority. Basilicas were funded. Church councils were convened by imperial summons. The emperor presided at Nicaea. The church was no longer a persecuted minority. It was becoming an institution with political connections.

The decisive moment came later. In 380, Theodosius issued the Edict of Thessalonica, declaring Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. This act transformed the church into a state church and a state religion. Bishops became imperial administrators. Ecclesiastical decisions carried civil consequences. Rome’s bishop gained prominence because Rome was the capital of the empire. The rise of Roman primacy was not an apostolic development. It was a political development. It was shaped by imperial geography, imperial authority, and imperial expectation.

As the centuries passed, Rome’s bishop moved from being a local elder to being a political figure. The identification of Peter’s primacy with Rome’s primacy was not a first century belief. It was a later construction. Historians dispute whether early bishops of Rome possessed any primatial rights at all. The New Testament is almost silent about Peter in Rome. It gives no indication that he ruled the church. It gives no indication that he held jurisdiction over other congregations. It gives no indication that he was a pope. Early history outside Rome’s own writings does not support papal claims. The rise of the papacy is a fourth century story, not a first century one.

This is why the Roman Catholic Church cannot be the church Christ built. Christ founded His church in the first century. Rome’s ecclesiastical hierarchy arose in the fourth century. Christ’s church was local, plural, and under His headship. Rome’s church became political, centralized, and under imperial authority. The teachings of Christ stand against the later doctrines Rome adopted. The claim that Rome is the church Christ built is historically impossible. The claim that Peter was the first pope is unsupported by Scripture and contradicted by early history.

The rise of Rome is not the story of apostolic succession. It is the story of political recognition, imperial establishment, and institutional development. It is the story of how a local congregation in the first century became a state church in the fourth century. It is the story of how ecclesiastical authority replaced apostolic simplicity. It is the story of how the church of Christ was overshadowed by the church of empire.

This is the historical record. It is clear, it is documented, and it is not in dispute among serious historians. The Roman Catholic Church arose through the power of emperors, not through the authority of Christ. The papacy arose through political development, not through apostolic mandate. The church Christ built remains what it always was. A body of believers under the headship of Christ, guided by Scripture, and rooted in the gospel.

Roma surgens, fides cadens - Rome rising, faith falling.

~Tony

© A.K. Pritchard 1979, 2026 – Free to use with proper attribution.
 

Anthony Pritchard

Well-Known Member
Sources consulted:

Apostolic and post apostolic churches

These sources establish that the earliest churches were local congregations led by a pastor, assisted by deacons, and supported by older respected men. They also show that Rome had no jurisdictional authority.

Everett Ferguson, Church History Volume One: From Christ to Pre‑Reformation

A standard academic work. Clear on the structure of early churches and the absence of Roman primacy.

Peter J. Carter, “Where Did the Catholic Church Come From?”

A modern historical overview that traces the development from apostolic congregations to the later Roman institution.

Ignatius of Antioch, Letters

Shows early emphasis on unity but no Roman supremacy.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies

Rome is mentioned as a witness church, not a governing authority.

J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines

Explains doctrinal development and the diversity of early church structures.

Constantine and toleration

These sources show that Constantine did not create a state church. He created legal toleration and imperial favor.

“Constantine the Great and Christianity”

A historical overview of the Edict of Milan, imperial patronage, and the emperor’s role at Nicaea.

Britannica, “Constantine I”

Details Constantine’s policies, his involvement in church councils, and the beginning of imperial influence.

Peter J. Carter, “Constantine: The Hinge”

Explains the shift from persecution to imperial favor.

Theodosius and establishment

These sources show that Christianity became the state religion in 380, not in the apostolic age.

“Edict of Thessalonica”

Historical summaries of the decree that made Christianity the official religion of the empire.

Britannica, “Roman Catholicism: Emergence”

Explains how the institutional church developed under imperial authority.

Peter J. Carter, “Theodosius: Establishment”

Shows the transition from tolerated religion to state religion.

Rise of Roman primacy

These sources show that Roman primacy was not apostolic. It was political and developed gradually.

Britannica, “Papacy in Early Christianity”

Notes that historians dispute early papal authority and that the New Testament does not support Roman primacy.

John R. Curran, From Petrus to Pontifex Maximus

Explains how the bishop of Rome moved from local leadership to imperial significance.

J. N. D. Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes

Provides historical profiles showing the gradual development of papal claims.

Why Rome is not the church Christ built

These sources contrast the first century churches with the fourth century institution.

New Testament ecclesiology

Acts, Paul’s letters, and Peter’s writings show local congregations under Christ’s headship.

Everett Ferguson, Church History Volume One

Shows the historical shift from apostolic simplicity to imperial hierarchy.

Peter J. Carter, “Where Did the Catholic Church Come From?”

Clear on the difference between Christ’s churches and Rome’s later institution.

Why Peter is not the first pope

These sources show the lack of scriptural and historical evidence for Peter’s papacy.

New Testament references to Peter

No jurisdiction. No papal office. No Roman residency stated.

Britannica, “Papacy in Early Christianity”

Notes the absence of early papal authority and the silence of Scripture.

Curran, From Petrus to Pontifex Maximus

Shows how papal claims developed centuries after Peter.

Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines

Explains doctrinal development and the later construction of papal primacy.
 

Armchair Apologist

Well-Known Member
Very well written and informative. I agree 100% except that you state that the New Testament is "almost" silent about Peter in Rome. I would assert that the New Testament is COMPLETELY silent about Peter being in Rome and the silence is quite deafening in Romans 16 where Peter, the 'First Pope' and supposed founder (according to the Roman Catholic Church) is completely snubbed by the Apostle Paul!

It is universally believed by most that Peter was likely martyred outside of Rome but evidence of his ever having a long-term residence in Rome didn't emerge until later in the 2nd Century and his being the actual 'Bishop of Rome' did not exist until the 3rd Century! All this means very little to you and me but is quite significant to anyone trying to assert that the Church was built upon Peter, the "First Pope!"
 
Top