Jason Engwer, Trent Horn, & My 50 NT Petrine Proofs

Jason Engwer, Trent Horn, & My 50 NT Petrine Proofs July 28, 2022

Catholic apologist Trent Horn, on his popular YouTube channel, The Counsel of Trent, did a show entitled, “The ‘Pauline parody argument’ against the papacy (with Suan Sonna)” [7-27-22] This was directed towards a 2012 article from Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer, entitled, “51 Biblical Proofs Of A Pauline Papacy And Ephesian Primacy.”

What viewers wouldn’t know, however, is that Jason’s original parody was directed towards my 1994 piece, 50 New Testament Proofs for Peter’s Primacy & the Papacy (later published in 2003 on pages 233-238 of my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism).

In his usual charity and courtesy, Jason forgot to mention that I was the writer — though I am mentioned in the comments — or link to my article. I’ve long been banned from that site. What one would also never find out there, is that I answered Jason’s original articles along these lines twice (now almost 19 and 20 years ago):

*
*
If anyone is interested in reading the author that Jason was parodying (yours truly), defending his arguments twice, and critiquing Jason back, the above two articles will provide that information. He’s playing the same “we mustn’t ever mention that scoundrel Dave!” game in his reply to this video, stating, “I was paralleling a list at a Catholic web site . . .”
*
This is a tactic first developed by anti-Catholics James White and James Swan, in the early 2000s, in a cynical attempt to minimize, mock, and dismiss my apologetics work. They decided to rarely if ever mention my name (or to sometimes use “DA”): lest anyone read my work and be led astray to the hideous Harlot and Beast, Catholicism. Swan even once ridiculously wrote a book review of one of my books, without ever mentioning the book title or my name. That’s quite a feat!
*
Recently, Brazilian apologist Lucas Banzoli outdid Jason, with his “205 Proofs Against the Primacy of Peter.” He did at least extend the courtesy (and the standard protocol) of mentioning the person he was responding to:
The present study is, first, an extensive and elaborate refutation of a famous Catholic article by Dave Armstrong, which today is in practically all Catholic websites that, in Brazil and in the world, repeat and disseminate a list of 50 “proofs” of the primacy of Peter.
*
It was only after a long time that I decided to elaborate a rebuttal to that article, not only answering all of Armstrong’s points, but also carrying out 205 proofs against the primacy of Peter, which largely refute all the supposed “evidence” that he found in isolation in the Bible.
*
To show that the biblical gospel is not formed by one or another isolated passage that cannot support doctrine, I sought to show a much greater biblical content, clearly demonstrating that Dave’s study was extremely arbitrary and that it absolutely ignored the total content of the Scriptures that vigorously repudiate all his attempts.
I replied in four parts:
*
*
*
Contrary to his high confidence expressed above, not a peep has been heard back from Lucas, these past two months . . . But hope springs eternal!
*
One thing that Jason and some others don’t “get” about my original article is that it’s not about the alleged overwhelming force of any given item, but the cumulative effect of all of them together. That was the emphasis of Fr. Peter Stravinskas, when he encouraged me to write the article for his magazine, The Catholic Answer, in 1997.
*
In the video a criticism was made about the general drift of my #39. But it was misunderstood. The comparison wasn’t between Peter and everyone else in the Bible, but between him and other disciples. Here it is:
39. Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to!
Some of my 50 arguments are weaker than others, of course, and I’m not making humungous claims for individual arguments. I’m not epistemologically naive. Again, those who are interested would have to read my two counter-replies to Jason. I show how my arguments (rightly understood) stand up and that his do not. Nor, frankly, is he very good at satire and parody: learned arts for sure.
*
***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter (c. 1482) by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Trent Horn did a video on Jason Engwer’s parody of my article on 50 NT Petrine Proofs.  I’ve defended myself twice. Jason didn’t name me or link to my article.


Browse Our Archives