Papal Authority in the NT and the Fathers (vs. Mike Winger)

Papal Authority in the NT and the Fathers (vs. Mike Winger) March 9, 2024

Incl.  “Papal” & Patristic Exegesis of Matthew 16 and John 21; Relationship of the Bible & the Church

Pastor Mike Winger is the featured teacher of BibleThinker online ministry. He graduated from the School of Ministry at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa and was ordained in 2006. He has since served in various ministries with a primary focus on being a youth pastor. Mike has since transitioned into laboring full time with BibleThinker to provide free teaching content worldwide. He also has a thriving YouTube channel called Learn to Think Biblically (688K subscribers). Mike is strongly committed to a careful and thoughtful study of the Bible with a view toward answering skeptics’ challenges with reason and Scripture. I use RSV for Bible verses. Mike’s words will be in blue.


I’m responding to Mike’s video entitled, “Why Catholicism is WRONG” (8-24-15). It has received 316,481 views, as of 3-8-24.

1:06 if their claim’s accurate, then I can’t interpret the Bible only they can

In fact, the Catholic Church has required one particular view of a Bible passages for only nine passages in the entire Bible. This is an annoying myth that we hear all the time. Indeed, the orthodox, faithful Catholic interpret doctrines that he derives from Scripture with the help and guidance of the Church and sacred tradition, but so what? Every Protestant does the same thing within their own denominational tradition. No five-point Calvinist, for example, can find a verse in the Bible which proves apostasy or falling away, or one that teaches God’s desire for universal, rather than limited atonement (and there are many such passages). He can’t deny total depravity in any text, or irresistible grace. We all have orthodox and dogmatic boundaries that we abide by. No Christian of any stripe could say that John 1:1 does not teach the deity and Godhood of Jesus.

1:13 the Bible is extra it is not essential

This is sheer nonsense. The Catholic Church reveres the Bible as much as any Protestant denomination or individual. I remember reading The Battle for the Bible (1977) by Protestant scholar Harold Lindsell, back in the day (the early 80s) when I was a fervent evangelical, and his making the point that the Catholic Church had a doctrine of the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture — including after Vatican II, which changed no doctrines — that was as “high” as any Protestant view (it really struck me at the time, and I was delighted to learn of it). Catholics also think that sacred, apostolic tradition and the Church are infallible authorities, and we do because the Bible itself teaches this: notably in Acts 15 (the Jerusalem Council) and in 1 Timothy 3:15: both of which — closely examined — teach the infallible authority of the Church (which is directly contrary to sola Scriptura). This is not sola ecclesia, as it has been caricatured (by Mike and many others). It’s a three-legged-stool rule of faith: Bible-Church-Tradition: all of which are in complete harmony with each other.

1:19 Church statements are what’s essential 

They are, but not exclusively so, as he makes out, and in a manner that is hardly different from each Protestant denomination, that has creeds and confessions that they adhere to, just as we have our doctrines that we believe. Lutherans have the Book of Concord. Presbyterians have the Westminster Confession. Anglicans have the 39 Articles, etc. No one can claim that they aren’t “essential” too in their own domains.

1:19 when the Catholic theologian uses the Bible to try to prove Catholic doctrine it’s just an exercise. It’s not that they think they have to [do]. They don’t believe they have to use the Bible; they’re just doing that to try to convince you to try to convince others

This is pure mythology. How would he even go about proving such a ludicrous claim? You notice that he doesn’t cite anything to corroborate his charge. It simply comes from his own cynical anti-Catholic bias. No Catholic decree or argument from a Catholic theologian or apologist has ever stated that the Bible is unimportant or merely optional in doing theology. To the contrary, official Catholic documents like Vatican II, the Catholic Catechism, or papal encyclicals are literally filled with Scripture (at least as much if not more than the typical Protestant sermon). It’s clear from the sheer volume that Scripture is central in the whole enterprise.

2:37 the Roman Catholic Church bases their case . . .  for their authority [on] that single pillar that holds up all the doctrine of the church: “we declare it, therefore it’s true.”

First of all, we don’t say something is true simply because the Church declares it (which would be circular reasoning). What we actually say is that the Church declares it because it is based on the Bible and the history of doctrine and reason. Secondly, if there is any single “pillar” it’s the Bible; particularly this verse: “. . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). If the Catholic Church is indeed that, again, it’s not because it merely makes the claim, but because the Bible said so, and we have many other biblical and historical reasons for identifying the Catholic Church as the one true Church of the Bible, that Jesus set up, with Peter as the first earthly leader.

2:59 Matthew 16 . . . whatever it does teach it certainly does not teach that Peter was the first pope 

Matthew 16:16-19 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” [17] And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

At the very least he was clearly intended to be the leader of the new Church, of which he was even said to be the foundation (“Rock”). R. T. France, widely considered to be one of the best New Testament exegetes, stated: “Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority . . . The image of ‘keys’ (plural) perhaps suggests . . . the steward, who regulates its [the house’s] administration . . . an authority derived from a ‘delegation’ of God’s sovereignty” (Vol. 1: Matthew, in Leon Morris, General Editor., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press/Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, 256). That sounds pretty “papal,” doesn’t it? Yet it’s a commentary from a Protestant on the New Testament text (words of Jesus). Here are what other Protestants say, along similar lines:

Craig S. Keener wrote: “The image of keys (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration / probably refers primarily to a legislative authority in the church” (The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament [Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1993], 256, 90). The great scholar F. F. Bruce stated that “in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward” (The Hard Sayings of Jesus [Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity, 1983], 143-144). T. W. Manson, in his book, The sayings of Jesus: as recorded in the Gospels according to St. Matthew and St. Luke (London: SCM Press, 1954 ed., p. 205 ) stated that Peter was — as shown by by Jesus’ words — “God’s vicegerent” who would “declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community” and whose decisions would be “confirmed by God”.

3:31  in fact 80% of the time the Church Fathers disagree with the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16

First of all, the fathers aren’t the ultimate authorities in exegesis, and if some of them got this wrong (from our Catholic perspective) it is no problem for our system at all. Biblical exegesis is an independent field of study and can be done today, regardless of what was believed about specific passages in the past. The above arguments from Protestant exegetes stand on their own. I have made the case from the Bible because both sides accept it as inspired, infallible revelation. Precisely because it is inspired, neither side can dismiss it. It has to be grappled with. The above is what some of the very best Protestant exegetes have stated about Matthew 16 and what it means (in a nutshell, Peter was given extraordinary authority by Jesus). Mike just whips up a negative bald sentence; I provided significant and solid Protestant scholarship. It’s a huge difference in methodology.

There were, in fact, many Church fathers (far more than 20%) who thought Peter was the rock, the foundation of the Church and its leader, based on Matthew 16. Here are 18 of them:

Tertullian, writing around 200-220, stated that “Peter . . . is called the Rock whereon the Church was to be built” (Prescription against Heretics, 22).

St. Hippolytus wrote around 225: “By this Spirit Peter spoke that blessed word, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established” (The Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9).

Origen writing around 230-250, called Peter “that great foundation of the Church, and most solid rock, upon which Christ founded the Church” (In Exod. Hom. v. n. 4, tom. ii) and “Upon him (Peter)  . . . the Church was founded” (In Epist. ad Rom. lib. v. c. 10, tom. iv) and “Peter upon whom is built Christ’s Church” (T. iv. In Joan. Tom. v.).

St. Cyprian, c. 246, wrote about “Peter, upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built” (Epistle 54 to Cornelius, 7).

Firmilian, c. 254, wrote about “one Church, which was once first established by Christ on a Rock” (Inter Ep. S. Cyp. Ep. lxxv).

Aphraates (c. 336) stated that “the Lord . . . set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the Church” (Homily 7:15, De Paenitentibus).

St. Ephraem (c. 350-370) called Peter “the foundation of the holy Church” (Homilies 4:1).

St. Hilary of Poitiers in 360 held that Peter was “the foundation-stone of the Church” (On the Trinity, Bk. VI, 20).

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 363), commenting on Matthew 16, calls peter “the foremost of the apostles and chief herald of the Church” (Catechetical Lecture 11, 3).

St. Optatus (c. 370), commenting on the same passage, wrote that Peter was “to be preferred before all the Apostles” and was “The Head of the Apostles” (De Schism. Don. l. vii. n. 3).

St. Gregory of Nazianzen (370) stated that Peter “is entrusted with the Foundations of the Church” (T. i. or. xxxii. n. 18).

St. Gregory of Nyssa (371) wrote that Peter was “the Head of the Apostles . . . (upon him) is the Church of God firmly established. . . . that unbroken and most firm Rock upon which the Lord built His Church” (Alt. Or. De S. Steph.).

St. Basil the Great (371) stated that Peter “received on himself the building of the Church” (Adversus Eunomius 2:4).

St. Epiphanius (c. 385): “upon which (Rock) the Church is in every way built . . . Foundation of the house of God” (Adv. Haeres.).

St. Ambrose (c. 385-389): “whom when He styles a Rock, He pointed out the Foundation of the Church” (T. ii. l. iv. De Fide, c. v. n. 56).

St. John Chrysostom (c. 387): “Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church . . . that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples” (T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paenit. n. 4).

St. Jerome (385): “Peter, upon whom the Lord has founded the Church” (Letters 41, 2).

St. Cyril of Alexandria (424): “the church . . . over this he sets Peter as shepherd” (Comm. on Matt., ad. loc.).

Mike then brings up John 21, where Jesus tells Peter to “feed my sheep,” etc., and then he claims:

5:31 whatever Jesus is doing here, this says nothing about a papacy . . . if you didn’t know about the papacy, you’d never read the Bible and come up with that doctrine; it just would never happen. It would never occur to you. It’s completely artificially foisted upon the Scriptures; pushed onto the Bible. We need clear teachings, not vague implications.

It is clear teaching; I completely disagree. In the context of many Bible passages already indicating a profound leadership of Peter among the disciples and in the early Church (I found fifty such), it’s significant that Jesus uses an agricultural shepherd and sheep parallel, which is a metaphor for being a pastor. The word “shepherd” is used 15 times in the NT in this fashion. So what does Jesus do here? He was with seven of the disciples (Jn 21:2) in a post-Resurrection appearance.

But He singled out Peter and charged him to “feed my lambs” (21:15) and “tend my sheep” (21:16) and “feed my sheep” (21:17), which could quite plausibly be taken to mean His entire Church, since He uses the words “the sheep” or “sheep” 14 times in John 10: meaning, believers in the Church. There He was talking about Himself as the Ultimate Shepherd. But there are also earthly shepherds (pastors or priests or bishops). Jesus didn’t say this to all seven disciples present. He said it to Peter only. That must have some significance. It fits into the scenario of him being the leader of the Church.

After all, Jesus had already said (Mt 16) that He would build His Church upon Peter, as the Rock. This exhortation perfectly fits in with that. It’s the same sort of thing in Luke 22:32, where Jesus says, “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” and “strengthen your brethren” to Peter alone. I believe it’s the only time Jesus is said to have prayed for one person, who is named. And guess who it is? Just a “coincidence”: it’s once again Peter.

Many Protestant commentators say that Peter was singled out and asked three times because he denied Jesus three times. That may very well be true, but if so, it doesn’t follow that my interpretation is null and void. He still encouraged him to be a pastor of what is arguably the entire Church; and it goes along with Luke 22:32 and Matthew 16:18-19. Moreover, the parallel to the denials would be when Jesus asked him three times, “do you love Me?” But the other parts are not parallels to the denials. Thus, this attempted dismissal of the larger “papal” meaning of the passage fails in its evasive purpose.

Mike makes a bald analysis and a skeptical claim with no reasoning whatever. I reason through it, do exegesis, including cross-referencing, and make an actual argument. Which is the more impressive method of the two?

6:02 Jesus here is putting Peter in a shepherding position, yes absolutely, but does . . . feeding the sheep and tending the lambs make him like the ultimate apostle who’s in charge of all the other apostles?
The Bible massively indicates that he was the leader of the disciples and of the early Church. Protestants don’t even deny that. It’s too obvious. Here he is shown to be that again by being singled out. All of them would be shepherds but Jesus talks to Peter alone. It makes perfect sense. If He built His Church upon Peter, then Peter would certainly be charged with feeding the “sheep” en masse.
6:15 in fact Acts 20:28 it talks about all of the elders in Ephesus and all of them are told that they’re to shepherd the Church of God
Mike answers himself here. This was strictly a local context: elders in Ephesus (Acts 20:17) caring for that flock. The phrase, “church of God” can refer to only a local church (see, e.g., 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1). Peter didn’t have a specific flock when Jesus told Him to feed His sheep. So it seems to be a universal shepherding, which also is what we see in the nature of his first epistle, which is to a large group (“To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia”: 1:1), not one local church, as with Paul’s letters. I wrote in August 2022 about this:

Pontus was in the north of Turkey and largely surrounding the Black Sea north of it. Galatia was in the center of Asia Minor (Turkey),  Cappadocia in its southeast, and Bithynia in its northwest. “Asia” in the NT refers to Asia Minor.

So Peter was writing to Christians in a vast area. The size of Turkey is about a thousand miles from west to east, and 300-400 miles from north to south. This is the area, and also east and north of the Black Sea, that was the recipient of Peter’s first epistle. The letter is filled with decidedly “papal” commands: and Peter assumes sublime authority throughout his epistle:

“gird up your minds” (1:13 [RSV]); “be holy yourselves in all your conduct” (1:15); “love one another earnestly from the heart” (1:22); “So put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander” (2:1); “long for the pure spiritual milk” (2:2); “abstain from the passions of the flesh” (2:11); “Maintain good conduct among the Gentiles” (2:12); “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution” (2:13); “Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.” (2:17); ” wives, be submissive to your husbands” (3:1); “Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman” (3:7); “have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind.” (3:8); “Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling” (3:9); “in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense” (3:15: apologetics!); ” keep your conscience clear” (3:16); “keep sane and sober for your prayers” (4:7); “hold unfailing your love for one another” (4:8); “Practice hospitality ungrudgingly to one another” (4:9); “As each has received a gift, employ it for one another” (4:10); “Tend the flock of God that is your charge” (5:2: addressed specifically to other bishops); “you that are younger be subject to the elders” (5:5); “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God” (5:6); “Be sober, be watchful” (5:8); and “Resist him, firm in your faith” (5:9).

This is altogether the scope and nature of a bishop’s teaching, with authority, and to Christians over an area a thousand miles wide and 400 miles from bottom to top. That’s not “local church” stuff!

8:57  the earliest interpretation where someone says that this is papal in John 21 is from 680 AD, over 600 years later. Then someone finally has the idea that this is papal and who is it? Pope Agatho; a very self-serving claim  for his own power to increase by tying it to this scripture.

Nice try. Here his claim is much more broad: no Church father at all thought the passage was “papal”; that is, indicative of Peter being the leader of the early Church, and we have to get all the way to 680 AD to find anyone who thinks this way. One wonders if Mike did any research on the matter. It’s likely that he simply read this in an old anti-Catholic book (filled with the usual history-challenged myths) and passed it along. All I have to do is find one Church father to refute this sweeping claim, but I have found nine:

Origen (c. 216): “the Chief Authority as regards the feeding of the sheep was delivered to Peter” (T. iv. l. 5, in Ep. ad Rom. n. 1).

St. Cyprian (c. 246): “to the same [Peter] He says, after His resurrection, Feed my sheep. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, . . . yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one.” (Treatise 1: On the Unity of the Church, 4).

St. Ephraem (c. 350-370): “The Lord . . . delivered his flock to Simon . . . Three pledges he took from him as shepherd, that with love he should shepherd his lambs, and should visit his sheep with mercy, and should guard his ewes with fear.” (HVirg. 36, 6; CSCO 223, Syr. 94).

Ambrosiaster (c. 380-384): “After the Saviour all were included in Peter; for He constituted him to be their head, that he might be the shepherd of the Lord’s flock” (Quaest. 75, ex N. Test. in App. St. August. tom. iii. 2894).

St. Ambrose (385): Therefore did Christ also commit to Peter to feed His flock” (Ib. in. Ps. cxviii. [Mem] n. 3).

St. Epiphanius (c. 385): “He heard from the same God, ‘Peter, feed My lambs;’ to him was intrusted the flock; he leads the way admirably in the power of his own Master.” (Tom. ii. In Anchorat. n. 9).

St. John Chrysostom (c. 387): “He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren . . . [and] says, ‘If Thou lovest Me, preside over the brethren’ . . . He sets the presidency over his own sheep . . . He appointed this man (Peter) teacher . . . of the world.” (In Joan. Hom. lxxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii.).

“What advantage, pray, could be greater than to be seen doing those things which Christ with his own lips declared to be proofs of love to Himself? For addressing the leader of the apostles He said, Peter, do you love me? and when he confessed that he did, the Lord added, if you love me tend my sheep. The Master asked the disciple if He was loved by him, not in order to get information (how should He who penetrates the hearts of all men?), but in order to teach us how great an interest He takes in the superintendence of these sheep. This being plain, it will likewise be manifest that a great and unspeakable reward will be reserved for him whose labors are concerned with these sheep, upon which Christ places such a high value. . . . For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors. . . . Will you, then, still contend that you were not rightly deceived, when you are about to superintend the things which belong to God, and are doing that which when Peter did the Lord said he should be able to surpass the rest of the apostles, for His words were, Peter, do you love me more than these? . . . one is required to preside over the Church, and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls . . .” (On the Priesthood, Book II, 1-2)

St. Augustine (c. 400): “. . . the Lord commended his sheep to Peter himself to feed . . . when Christ speaks to one, unity is commended — and to Peter for the first time, because Peter is first among the apostles.” (Sermo. 295).

“[T]here are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.” (Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, ch. 4, 5).

“The Lord, indeed, had told His disciples to carry a sword; but He did not tell them to use it. But that after this sin Peter should become a pastor of the Church was no more improper than that Moses, after smiting the Egyptian, should become the leader of the congregation.” (Contra Faustum, Book XXII, 70).

“And again the Lord asked this question, and a third time He asked it. And when he asserted in reply his love, He commended to him the flock. For each several time the Lord Jesus said to Peter, as he said, I love you; Feed My lambs, feed My little sheep. In this one Peter was figured the unity of all pastors . . .” (Sermon 97 on the New Testament, 2).

“Peter generally stands for a figure of the Church.” (Sermon 25 on the New Testament, 10; cf. Sermon 96; Sermon 88, 4).

“For He says to Peter, in whom singly He forms the Church; Peter, do you love Me? He answered, Lord, I do love You. Feed My sheep. ” (Sermon 87 on the New Testament, 3).

St. Peter Chrysologus (432): “He commends His sheep to be fed by Peter, in His stead” (Serm. vi. In Ps. xcix).

Mike continues his comments on this passage from John 21:

9:45 Peter did not claim to be the Pope. He’s not treated as the Pope. He didn’t wield the power of the papacy. If Peter wasn’t the Pope, how can his successor be the Pope? If Peter’s not the Pope, nobody is; there is no Pope!

Well, we need only look at the above patristic passages regarding Jesus telling Peter to feed His sheep. How is Peter described?:

Chief Authority; head; shepherd of the Lord’s flock; presidency over the brethren; teacher . . . of the world; leader of the apostles; superintendence of these sheep; sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors; surpass the rest of the apostles; one is required to preside over the Church; entrusted with the care of so many souls; first among the apostles; charge to feed His sheep down to the present episcopate; pastor of the Church; the leader [like Moses] of the congregation; In this one Peter was figured the unity of all pastors; Peter generally stands for a figure of the Church; Peter, in whom singly He forms the Church; His sheep to be fed by Peter, in His stead.

If all of these descriptions aren’t “papal” what in the world is? How much evidence does one need, pray tell? How many more ways are necessary to describe what is clearly leadership of the entire Church? Nothing else is required. This is what many eminent Church fathers believed about John 21. Yet Mike claimed that no one thought this way until 680 AD. All these men were a bunch of ignorant, spiritually vacant dopes, I guess: to see all of this in a passage that Mike thinks is wholly insignificant in terms of Church government and the papacy. Make your choice, folks: Mike, or the Bible’s clear teaching and Church fathers like Cyprian, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, and Augustine. And then we can add the descriptions of Peter in the fathers, in interpreting Matthew 16:

the Rock whereon the Church was to be built; the rock of the Church; that great foundation of the Church; solid rock, upon which Christ founded the Church; Peter upon whom is built Christ’s Church; upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built; Church . . . established by Christ on a Rock; the foundation; the rock and structure of the Church; the foundation of the holy Church; the foundation-stone of the Church; the foremost of the apostles; chief herald of the Church; preferred before all the Apostles; Head of the Apostles; entrusted with the Foundations of the Church; Rock upon which the Lord built His Church; received on himself the building of the Church; upon which (Rock) the Church is in every way built; Foundation of the house of God; the Foundation of the Church; Head or Crown of the Apostles; the First in the Church; that firm Foundation; the Great Apostle;, the First of the disciples; Peter, upon whom the Lord has founded the Church; the church . . . over this he sets Peter as shepherd.

That’s an awful lot of material to ignore, in order to pretend that St. Peter wasn’t the leader of the earliest Church; the first pope, if you will.




Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five 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: Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!



Photo credit: see book and purchase information for this title of mine from 2012.

Summary: Protestant apologist Mike Winger says that Matthew 16 & John 21 give no indication of the papacy whatsoever. I exegete them & cite Church fathers’ interpretation.

"How timely as I recently read a comment from a non-Catholic asserting that belief in ..."

Sola Scriptura: Reply to James White ..."
""...studied Bible and theology at WalkRight Baptist Bible Institute from 2011 to 2103"You sure you ..."

Lazarus & the Rich Man: Jesus ..."

Browse Our Archives