2023-02-21T15:28:00-04:00

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He’s active on YouTube.

***

The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in blue. I used Google Translate to transfer his Portugese text into English.

*****

This is a reply to Lucas’ article, “Conheça toda a perseguição e proibição da Igreja Católica à leitura da Bíblia!” [Know all the Catholic Church’s persecution against and prohibition of reading the Bible!] (4-28-18). It’s a massive article: more than 14,000 words, and there is quite a bit of documentation, too (164 footnotes). But Lucas is only presenting one side. Many of his citations need to be understood in larger immediate or historical context.

Moreover, one must also understand that there was plenty of Protestant suppression of Bibles (whether justified or not) as well, and on the same basis as the Catholic rationale (they were thought to be dad and/or dangerous translations). By never presenting those sorts of facts, an entirely one-sided and unfair perspective is set forth. It’s well worth the time to refute assertions in this article from documented facts of history: to at least give Catholic and fair-minded non-Catholic readers another side of the issue.

Those who seek historical truth will read different perspectives. There is never only one. As the old saying goes, “there are two sides to every story.” This is particularly true concerning Protestant-Catholic historical divisions. Feelings and party loyalties run very high. Even if both sides (Catholic and Protestant) regarding this issue are highly biased (and we all have our biases), it’s still good to read both so as to achieve a much more balanced and well-rounded picture.

This article is by far the most complete study available on the internet on the subject, which brings together the largest number of primary sources and quotes from scholars and historians to leave no room for doubt. 

It’s long and detailed, but it’s biased and one-sided.

All material is taken from a chapter in my book on the Reformation, in the final stages of construction.

Duly noted.

“They tell you that the Scriptures must not be in your mother tongue, but that is only because they want to blindfold you and lead you into captivity.” (William Tyndale)

This headline-like citation illustrates the slanted perspective right off the bat. The Catholics are the “bad guys.” The reader knows exactly what he or she will be getting. But creating “bad guys” in historical analysis when it is a matter of honestly held religious differences, generally leads to bad and untrustworthy research. The Catholic regards (or should regard, according to what the Catholic Church teaches) Protestants as fellow Christians and “separated brethren.” But the anti-Catholic Protestant (not all Protestants! just a tiny minority) views Catholicism as a non-Christian cult or heresy. The diametrically opposed difference of perspective leads to massively different “spirits” in how one goes about analyzing an opposing viewpoint.

Among the documents he cited (which we will examine later) that prove that the Church prohibited the reading of the Bible were the Council of Toulouse (1229) . . . 

This is not “the Church.” It was a local synod, specifically reacting to distorted translations or interpretations of Holy Scripture by the wildly heretical Albigensians and Cathari. The entire population of Toulouse was only about 32,000 in 1229. The estimated population of Europe in 1200 was 68 million, and 72.9 million in 1250. Thus, the decree of the synod of Toulouse in 1229 (using the European population of 1250) affected approximately only one out of 2278 Europeans (or, 0.04%): hardly a blanket condemnation / prohibition of Scripture!

The Albigensians were a Gnostic- and Manichaean-inspired heresy, which believed that matter was entirely evil. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), in its article, “Albigenses” describes some of their more bizarre beliefs and practices:

Jesus Christ . . . is still a mere creature. The Redeemer could not take on a genuine human body, because he would thereby have come under the control of the evil principle. . . .

[T]he liberation of the soul from its captivity in the body is the true end of our being. To attain this, suicide is commendable; it was customary among them in the form of the endura (starvation). The extinction of bodily life on the largest scale consistent with human existence is also a perfect aim. As generation propagates the slavery of the soul to the body, perpetual chastity should be practiced. Matrimonial intercourse is unlawful; concubinage, being of a less permanent nature, is preferable to marriage. Abandonment of his wife by the husband, or vice versa, is desirable. . . .

Properly speaking, Albigensianism was not a Christian heresy but an extra-Christian religion . . . What the Church combated was principles that led directly not only to the ruin of Christianity, but to the very extinction of the human race.

For much more on this dangerous, radical sect and the related Cathari (documented mostly by Protestant scholars), see my article, Were the Albigensians Primitive or Proto-“Protestants”? [6-7-98]. Once we understand what the council of Toulouse was reacting against, the more we understand that it was concerned with a very likely attack on the Bible, in order to promulgate these wild, demonic doctrines. That’s not being “against” the Bible. It’s being concerned for the integrity and right preservation of the Bible.

The Cambridge History of the Bible (not a Catholic work) stated that “no universal and absolute prohibition of the translation of the Scriptures into the vernacular nor of the use of such translations by clergy or laity was ever issued by any council of the Church or any pope” (p. 391). The 1910 New Catholic Dictionary (“Bible Reading by Laity”) reiterates this opinion:

In the history of the Church there never has been a general prohibition against the reading of the Bible by the laity. While the Church does not consider Bible reading necessary for salvation, she has always approved such reading under proper conditions. In consequence, we find that any restrictions which the Church has placed on the reading of the Bible were aimed at the use of heretical or corrupt versions, or versions without proper notes or authorization, and not against the reading of the Bible itself. The Albigenses and Waldenses who appealed to unauthorized and, at times, corrupt versions in their disputes with Catholics, gave occasion for the first restrictive decrees. These decrees, edited by the Synods of Toulouse (1229), Tarragona (1234), and Oxford (1408), aimed to restrict the reading of the Bible in the vernacular. [my bolding]

It should also be pointed out that early Protestantism was fully behind censorship of views that each particular sect disagreed with. We grant that each had sincere and defensible views as to a proper Bible translation, just as the Catholic Church did and does. But their suppression of “dissenting” views was certainly no less strong than corresponding Catholic efforts, and arguably more severe in many instances: not to mention more hypocritical, since the myth of the so-called “Reformation” is supposed “freedom of the individual and their conscience” all-around. That was never true, and it’s not true with regard to censorship, either.

For example, one of Martin Luther’s Catholic debate partners, Jerome Emser, produced a German version of the New Testament in 1527. Ironically, it was scarcely different from Luther’s translation. His Wikipedia article states that “his own version is merely Luther’s adapted to Vulgate requirements.” So that shouldn’t have been a big deal, right?  But how did Luther react to it?:

Luther . . . set his pen in motion concerning this Catholic translation of the Bible. ‘The freedom of the Word,’ which he claimed for himself, was not to be accorded to his opponent Emser . . . When . . . he learnt that Emser’s translation . . . was to be printed . . . at Rostock, he not only appealed himself to his follower, Duke Henry of Mecklenburg, with the request that ‘for the glory of the evangel of Christ and the salvation of all souls’ he would put a stop to this printing, but he also worked on the councillors of the Elector of Saxony to support his action. He denied the right and the power of the Catholic authorities to inhibit his books; on the other hand he invoked the arm of the secular authorities against all writings that were displeasing to him. (Johannes Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 volumes, translated by A. M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 [originally 1891], vol. XIV, 503-504)

Not only were Catholic Bibles forbidden and censored in many Protestant districts, but all Catholic works whatever, as Janssen noted:

[I]n Protestant districts all Catholic books, were strictly prohibited, and the printers forbidden under penalty to publish them. (Janssen, ibid., p. 502).

My point is that these practices (like the larger issue of religious intolerance and persecution) were well-nigh universal at the time. The big problem I have is that we always hear about Catholic censorship: which is twisted and exaggerated, while hearing next to nothing about Protestant censorship, which was in some ways more massive and autocratic and arbitrary than Catholic supervision of Bible-reading and other reading that the Church thought was proper or improper.

Among the documents . . . that prove that the Church prohibited the reading of the Bible were . . . the Council of Trent (1545–1563) . . . 

Really? That’s news to me. Trent, like the council of Toulouse, was concerned with distortions and unauthorized versions of the Bible. It decreed concerning “the Edition, and the Use, of the Sacred Books” (Session 4: 1546):

And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,–thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,–print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author’s name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary . . .

Besides the above, wishing to repress that temerity, by which the words and sentences of sacred Scripture are turned and twisted to all sorts of profane uses, to wit, to things scurrilous, fabulous, vain, to flatteries, detractions, superstitions, impious and diabolical incantations, sorceries, and defamatory libels; (the Synod) commands and enjoins, for the doing away with this kind of irreverence and contempt, and that no one may hence forth dare in any way to apply the words of sacred Scripture to these and such like purposes; that all men of this description, profaners and violators of the word of God, be by the bishops restrained by the penalties of law, and others of their own appointment.

Trent also produced “Ten Rules Concerning Prohibited Books” (December 1563). Here’s a portion of that:

I

All books which have been condemned either by the supreme pontiffs or by ecumenical councils before the year 1515 and are not contained in this list, shall be considered condemned in the same manner as they were formerly condemned.

II

The books of those heresiarchs, who after the aforesaid year originated or revived heresies, as well as of those who are or have been the heads or leaders of heretics, as Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Balthasar Friedberg, Schwenkfeld, and others like these, whatever may be their name, title or nature of their heresy, are absolutely forbidden. The books of other heretics, however, which deal professedly with religion are absolutely condemned. Those on the other hand, which do not deal with religion and have by order of the bishops and inquisitors been examined by Catholic theologians and approved by them, are permitted. Likewise, Catholic books written by those who afterward fell into heresy, as well as by those who after their fall returned to the bosom of the Church, may be permitted if they have been approved by the theological faculty of a Catholic university or by the general inquisition.

In summary: Bible translations from heretics are mostly prohibited; their translations of other texts requires ecclesiastical approval. The Catholic Church simply wanted to check out and approve vernacular translations of the Bible. What in the world is wrong with that? It’s no different from Protestants being concerned to read a translation that is accurate and true to the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. In section VI of this decree, it was stated also that theological writings in the vernacular languages (like Bibles) require Church approval. But they weren’t absolutely prohibited.

This is little different in the main from the strong allegiance of many Protestants to the King James Version of 1611. It’s not “anti-Bible” to favor that version, nor is it “anti-Bible” for the Catholic Church to strongly prefer its “standard”: the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome and other approved versions drawn and inspired by it. Ecclesiastically approved vernacular versions had been encouraged and accepted all along. None of this is antiBible at all.  Robert E. McNally, SJ, sums it up:

While it is true that the Council did not explicitly approve of translations of the Bible in the language of the people, it is equally true that it did not condemn the preparation and dissemination of such popular versions. (“The Council of Trent and Vernacular Bibles”, pp. 225-226)

Lastly, if it is objected that Trent and the Catholic Church of the time only allowed the “official” versions of the Latin Vulgate, this, too, is demonstrably untrue. Catholic writer Barrett Turner made very interesting and helpful analyses of Trent and the Bible:

Trent nowhere forbids the use of the original languages, as if St. Jerome had not used them to revise the Old Latin texts or make his own translations. . . .

[S]cholars who remained within the Catholic Church had begun to use the original languages before Protestants started openly defying the Church’s leadership and traditions. One need look no further than the Complutensian Polyglot (1516), completed in Alcala, Spain, under Cardinal Ximenes, who dedicated the work to Pope Leo X, or the Greek edition of the New Testament edited by Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536) [with the permission of the same pope, and published in 1516]. Such scholars desired to see greater familiarity with Sacred Scripture and were no less ardent in calling for the reform of abuses than were Protestants. . . .

The reluctance of the Council to ban translations of the Bible into vernacular languages opened the door for translations such as the Reims New Testament (1582) and the entire Douai-Reims Bible (1609-1610). . . .

Enshrining the Vulgate as the “authentic” edition does not mean that the Vulgate cannot be revised in light of the best Latin manuscripts or that one may never correct the Latin text using the Hebrew or Greek manuscript traditions. In this openness to humanistic textual criticism, the Tridentine Fathers order that the Vulgate be corrected after the Council such that one version attaining as closely as possible to Jerome’s original translation would find universal use. The employment of Greek and Hebrew to correct the Latin was not forbidden in any way. The revision of the Vulgate was completed under popes Sixtus V and Clement the VIII and published in 1598. (“Calvin, Trent, and the Vulgate: Misinterpreting the Fourth Session”Called to Communion, 6-13-11)

All of this is clearly conscientious, responsible regulation of the proper translation of Holy Scripture for the spiritual well-being of the people. To characterize this as “prohibit[ing] the reading of the Bible” is plainly a distortion of the reality: especially when committed by one as educated (in history!) as Lucas. Accuracy and good research is Task #1 in apologetics.

For further related reading, see my “Council of Trent: Anti-Bible or Anti-Bad Bible Translations?” [5-12-21].

The third supposed scandalous “prohibition” mentioned  was a Dogmatic Constitution of Pope Clement XI, entitled Unigenitus Dei Filius (1713).” Lucas has a field day with it. An absolutely indispensable analysis of this document is the article, “Did the Church Forbid Bible Study?” (1-20-12), by Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin. One interested in this specific topic simply must read the whole thing. But here are some key portions where he summarizes the gist of Unigenitus:

It does not seem to be “We reject the idea of individual study of Scripture since Scripture is unclear.” If a person has proper preparation (has a proper grounding in the faith, isn’t going to leap to heretical conclusions, is well informed about the methods of Scripture interpretation, etc.) then what would be wrong with him studying on his own? . . .

[I]t’s okay for a person to say, “By God’s providence the Scriptures are not as clear as I would need them to be to study them on my own. I’m in the position of the Ethiopian eunuch, who can’t discern important points on his own, without guidance. The fact that the Scriptures contain this level of mystery is a reason for me not to do Bible study without guidance.” . . .

[T]here are good reason for not endorsing universal, unguided Scripture study. Some people are simply not prepared for it. . . .

It also seems to me that they [the above propositions] do not add up to a rejection of individual Scripture study for those who are properly prepared for this. They are merely rejecting the idea that unguided Scripture study should be universally engaged in by all Christians, regardless of their level of preparation, and Christians are not at fault if they do not feel themselves prepared to undertake this task and are content to learn the Scriptures under ecclesiastical guidance.

Jimmy in effect fully refutes Lucas’ accusations about Unigenitus, with far more subtle and nuanced analysis than Lucas provides. For related reading, see my ““Unigenitus” (1713) vs. Personal Bible Study? (+ Other Supposed “Anti-Bible” Catholic Proclamations & Analogies to Calvinist “Dogmatism” at the Synod of Dort) [5-14-21].

We have here a Dogmatic Constitution, dealing with matters of faith, signed by an infallible pope and confirmed by other infallible popes and councils, rejecting with all the horror of the world the reading of Sacred Scripture for all lay people, . . . 

Nonsense. Read Jimmy’s article to be disabused of this shallow and hostile interpretation of its meaning. Lucas cited some Catholic apologists who didn’t know what they were talking about in this instance. It’s the old tactic of “find the worst opponents of your position, not the best.” Jimmy Akin is one of the best Catholic apologists in the world, and has been for over 25 years now. He is never cited a single time in Lucas’ 14,000 words + treatment of this topic (nor are any number of credentialed, professional apologists).

Lucas cites the historian Paul Johnson, who is a Catholic (I read his huge and excellent book, Modern Times, over thirty years ago), stating:

From the 13th century onwards, many vernacular versions of the New Testament began to circulate in different languages. From the late 14th century onwards, the availability of the Bible to the public became the central object of disputes between the Church and its critics, such as the Wycliffists and Hussites. No popular Bibles were allowed by the authorities, except in Bohemia . . . (History of Christianity. Rio de Janeiro: Imago Ed., 2001, p. 329)

This is — with all due respect to Johnson — untrue. In fact, the Catholic Church has always been a big advocate of vernacular Bibles. The true facts are quite contrary to the negative image that the anti-Catholic sector of Protestant polemicists have tried to create and foster these past 500 years. Perhaps the best and most decisive response to this myth is to cite the preface of the Authorised or “King James” 1611 English translation of the Bible, which describes the long history of vernacular translations in England long before Protestantism ever arose:

Much about that time [1360], even our King Richard the Second’s days, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen that divers translated, as it is very probable, in that age . . . So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, . . . but hath been thought upon, and put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any Nation; no doubt, because it was esteemed most profitable, to cause faith to grow in men’s hearts the sooner, . . .

The history of English Bible translation (preceded earlier by editions in the earlier common language of Anglo-Saxon) is very long, starting with Caedmon in the 7th century, Aldhelm (c. 700), the Venerable Bede (d. 735), followed by Eadhelm, Guthlac, and Egbert (all in Saxon, the vernacular language of that time in England). King Alfred the Great (849-99) translated the Bible, as did Aelfric (d. c. 1020). Middle English translations included those of Orm (late 12th century) and Richard Rolle (d. 1349).

Vernacular Bibles in many languages appeared throughout the early and late Middle Ages (after Latin ceased being a common, widespread language). Between 1466 and 1517 fourteen translations of the Bible were published in High German, and five in Low German. Raban Maur had translated the entire Bible into Teutonic, or old German, in the late 8th century. Between 1450 to 1520 there were ten French translations, and also Bibles rendered in Belgian, Bohemian, Spanish, Hungarian, and Russian. 25 Italian versions (with express Church sanction) appeared before 1500, starting at Venice in 1471. The Wikipedia article, “Bible translations into German” recounts the rich history of pre-Luther German Bibles:

Charlemagne promoted Frankish biblical translations in the 9th century. There were Bible translations present in manuscript form at a considerable scale already in the thirteenth and the fourteenth century (e.g. the New Testament in the Augsburger Bible of 1350 and the Old Testament in the Wenceslas Bible of 1389). There is ample evidence for the general use of the entire vernacular German Bible in the fifteenth century. In 1466, before Martin Luther was even born, Johannes Mentelin printed the Mentel Bible, a High German vernacular Bible, at Strasbourg. This edition was based on a no-longer-existing fourteenth-century manuscript translation of the Vulgate from the area of Nuremberg. Until 1518, it was reprinted at least 13 times. In 1478–79, two Low German Bible editions were published in Cologne, one in the Low Rhenish dialect and another in the Low Saxon dialect. In 1494, another Low German Bible was published in the dialect of Lübeck, and in 1522, the last pre-Lutheran Bible, the Low Saxon Halberstadt Bible was published. In total, there were at least eighteen complete German Bible editions, ninety editions in the vernacular of the Gospels and the readings of the Sundays and Holy Days, and some fourteen German Psalters by the time Luther first published his own New Testament translation.

Protestant Church historian James Gairdner confirms what I have written above:

The truth is, the Church of Rome was not at all opposed to the making of translations of Scripture or to placing them in the hands of the laity under what were deemed proper precautions. It was only judged necessary to see that no unauthorized or corrupt translations got abroad; and even in this matter it would seem that the authorities were not roused to special vigilance till they took alarm at the diffusion of Wycliffite translations in the generation after his death.

. . . To the possession by worthy lay men of licensed translations the Church was never opposed; but to place such a weapon as an English Bible in the hands of men who had no regard for authority, and who would use it without being instructed how to use it properly, was dangerous not only to the souls of those who read, but to the peace and order of the Church. (Lollardy and the Reformation in England, Vol. 1 of 4, 1908, 105, 117)

[T]he overwhelming majority of Christians were prevented from having access to the sacred book, and the few who had access to its contents were already conditioned to accept the interpretation offered by the official Church, which obligatorily imposed it on the high clergy and that could burn anyone. who dared to contradict these interpretations. In other words, the only ones who could have access to the Bible were puppet priests, who only served as puppets of the papal system. The people were left in utter ignorance of the Scriptures, just the way the Enemy wanted. As God already told Hosea, “my people perish for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6). . . . 

[L]ay people had no hope of having access to the Bible, thanks to the restrictive norms imposed by the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

This is pure anti-Catholic myth. It largely comes from Martin Luther’s fairy tales about the supposed prior history of the Bible (in German) before he came onto the scene. As early as 1518 Luther had proclaimed:

[T]he Holy Word of God has not only been laid under the bench but has almost been destroyed by dust and filth. (Preface to the complete edition of A German Theology, Luther’s Works, vol. 31, 75-76)

In his Commentary on Peter and Jude (1523), Luther opines:

But up to this time, the idea that the laity should read the Scriptures has been treated with derision. For in this the devil has hit on a fine trick to tear the Bible out of the hands of the laity; and he has thought thus: If I can keep the laity from reading the Scriptures, I will then turn the priests from the Bible to Aristotle, . . . (translated by John Nichols Lenker [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 2005]; comment for 1 Peter 3:15; p. 158)

And again he repeats the mantra in 1526:

[T]he reason why the world is seduced as it is, is none other, than because it suffers itself to be led by maddened reason, and permit the Word of God to fall into disuse, as if hidden under a bench, or laid up in rust; . . . (Select Works, translated by Henry Cole, 1826, “Professors and Prophets Known by Their Fruits”, p. 544)

Catholic scholar Hartmann Grisar wrote the six-volume biography, Luther. The following is from Vol. 5 from 1916:

[I]t is instructive from the psychological standpoint to trace the development in Luther’s mind of the fable to be dealt with more fully below that, under Popery, the Bible had been discarded and that he, Luther, had brought it once more to light. . . .

When afterwards he had been dazed by his great success with his translation of the Bible he was led to fancy that he was the first to open up the domain of Holy Scripture. . . .

Accustomed as he was to hyperbole, we soon find him declaring, first as a paradox and then as actual fact, that the Bible had been buried in oblivion among the Catholics. The Papal Antichrist had destroyed all reverence for the Bible and all understanding of it; only that all men without exception might not run headlong to spiritual destruction had Christ, as it were by “force,” preserved the “simple text of the Gospel on the lecterns” “even under the rule of Antichrist.” . . .

According to a careful summary recently published by Franz Falk no less than 156 different Latin editions of the Bible were printed in the period between the discovery of the art of printing and the year of Luther’s excommunication, i.e. from 1450 to 1520. To this must also be added at that time many translations of the whole Bible, many of them emanating from what was to be the home of the innovations, viz. 17 German, 11 Italian, 10 French, 2 Bohemian, 1 Belgian, 1 Limousine and 1 Russian edition, making in all, with the 6 Hebrew editions also known, 199 editions of the complete Bible. Of the German editions 14 are in the dialect of Upper Germany.

Here are some more facts about the history of the Bible:

The number of translations . . . of the complete Bible, was indeed very great . . . Between this period [1466] and the separation of the Churches at least fourteen complete editions of the Bible were published in High German, and five in the low German dialect. The first High German edition was brought out in 1466 by Johann Mendel, of Strasburg . . . [Other editions in High German: Strasburg: 1470, 1485 / Basel, Switzerland: 1474 / Augsburg: 1473 (2), 1477 (2), 1480, 1487, 1490, 1507, 1518 / Nuremburg: 1483]. Bible Translations in Low German: Cologne: 1480 (2) / Lubeck: 1494 / Halberstadt: 1522 / Delf: before 1522] (Johannes Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 volumes, translated by A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 [orig. 1891], vol. 1, 56-57; vol. 14, 388)

We know from history that there were popular translations of the Bible and Gospels in Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian and Hungarian for the Catholics of those lands before the days of printing . . .

In Italy there were more than 40 editions of the Bible before the first Protestant version appeared, beginning at Venice in 1471; and 25 of these were in the Italian language before 1500, with the express permission of Rome. In France there were 18 editions before 1547, the first appearing in 1478. Spain began to publish editions in the same year, and issued Bibles with the full approval of the Spanish Inquisition (of course one can hardly expect Protestants to believe this). In Hungary by the year 1456, in Bohemia by the year 1478, in Flanders before 1500, and in other lands groaning under the yoke of Rome, we know that editions of the Sacred Scriptures had been given to the people. In all . . . 626 editions of the Bible, in which 198 were in the language of the laity, had issued from the press, with the sanction and at the instance of the Church, in the countries where she reigned supreme, before the first Protestant version of the Scriptures was sent forth into the world . . . What, then, becomes of the pathetic delusion . . . that an acquaintance with the open Bible in our own tongue must necessarily prove fatal to Catholicism? . . .

Many senseless charges are laid at the door of the Catholic Church; but surely the accusation that, during the centuries preceding the 16th, she was the enemy of the Bible and of Bible reading must, to any one who does not wilfully shut his eyes to facts, appear of all accusations the most ludicrous . . .

We may examine and investigate the action of the Church in various countries and in various centuries as to her legislation in regard to Bible reading among the people; and wherever we find some apparently severe or unaccountable prohibition of it, we shall on enquiry find that it was necessitated by the foolish or sinful conduct on the part either of some of her own people, or of bitter and aggressive enemies who literally forced her to forbid what in ordinary circumstances she would not only have allowed but have approved and encouraged. (Henry G. Graham, Where We Got the Bible, St. Louis: B. Herder, revised edition: 1939, 98, 105-106, 108, 120)

See also in this regard, the wonderfully informative article by Andrew C. Gow, “The Contested History of  a Book: The German Bible in the Later Middle Ages and Reformation in Legend, Ideology, and Scholarship” (The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, Vol. 9, Article 13 [2009] ); and, “Luther’s Condemnation of the Rostock New Testament,” by Kenneth A. Strand.

To make matters worse, what little was read at Mass – conveniently selected texts – was read in Latin , which was not a problem for early Western Christianity (which spoke that language), but became a major problem for the medieval Church when Latin had already become a dead language that only the clergy – and with exceptions! – knew. . . . the Catholic clergy would rather speak ten thousand words misunderstood by the people than speak five intelligible words.

Medieval homilies at Mass were in the vernacular:

The popular sermon (sermo modernus “modern sermon” in Latin) was a type of sermon in vernacular, the language of common people, that was commonly delivered by Catholic friars of the Franciscan and Dominican orders in the Middle Ages, on Sundays, Feast Days, and other special dates. . . .

[T]he sermon was written in Latin and the oratory was done in the vernacular. (Wikipedia, “Popular sermon”; many sources provided)

Holy Scripture had to remain “secret”, out of sight of the people, for only in this way could the clergy secure control over the masses. As late as 1199, Pope Innocent III sternly rebuked the Waldensian “heretics” who translated the Bible into French, ranting:

Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine… Let no simple and uneducated man dare to occupy himself with the sublimity of Holy Scripture or preach it to others. [Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum 770-771]

First of all, I’d like to note that Holy Scripture itself does indeed teach the principle of a necessity for authoritative guides with regard to reading and understanding Holy Scripture:

Exodus 18:20 and you shall teach them the statutes and the decisions, and make them know the way in which they must walk and what they must do.

Moses was not simply to deliver and read the Law (Torah: first five books of the Bible) to the Hebrews, but also “teach them” about it. Since he was the Lawgiver and author of the Torah, it stands to reason that his interpretation and teaching would be of a highly authoritative nature.

Leviticus 10:11 and you are to teach the people of Israel all the statutes which the LORD has spoken to them by Moses.

Moses’ brother Aaron was also to teach the true meaning of the Torah. It was true at this early stage,. just as it was in Jesus’ time, that believers were not simply given Bibles (as if it were a mass “Gideon’s Bible” crusade) to read. Authoritative interpretation was stressed as necessary from the beginning.

Deuteronomy 33:10 They shall teach Jacob thy ordinances, and Israel thy law . . .

Authoritative interpretation of the Torah was also the responsibility of the Levite priests. Compare this with 2 Chronicles 15:3; Malachi 2:6-8 — the latter calls them “messenger of the LORD of hosts”.

Ezra 7:6, 10 this Ezra went up from Babylonia. He was a scribe skilled in the law of Moses which the LORD the God of Israel had given; and the king granted him all that he asked, for the hand of the LORD his God was upon him. . . . [10] For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the LORD, and to do it, and to teach his statutes and ordinances in Israel.

Nehemiah 8:1-3, 7-8, 12 And all the people gathered as one man into the square before the Water Gate; and they told Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the LORD had given to Israel. [2] And Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could hear with understanding, on the first day of the seventh month. [3] And he read from it . . . [7] Also Jesh’ua, Bani, Sherebi’ah, Jamin, Akkub, Shab’bethai, Hodi’ah, Ma-asei’ah, Keli’ta, Azari’ah, Jo’zabad, Hanan, Pelai’ah, the Levites, helped the people to understand the law, while the people remained in their places. [8] And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly [footnote, “or with interpretation”]; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading. . . . [12] And all the people went their way to eat and drink and to send portions and to make great rejoicing, because they had understood the words that were declared to them.

8:7 describes thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra, and “who helped the people to understand the law.” Much earlier, in King Jehoshaphat’s reign, we find Levites exercising the same function (2 Chronicles 17:8-9). There is no sola Scriptura, with its associated idea “perspicuity” (evident clearness in the main) here. The people did indeed understand the law (8:12), but not without much assistance — not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself, but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc.

Luke 24:25-27 And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! [26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” [27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Acts 8:27-31 And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Can’dace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship [28] and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. [29] And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” [30] So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” [31] And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

2 Peter 3:15-17 So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, [16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. [17] You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.

It’s not just “the medieval Catholic Church” that came up with this concept. It’s clearly taught in inspired revelation. It’s also true that in the first five centuries of the Church, it was a deliberate and widespread practice to only gradually introduce new Christians to the “deeper” elements of Christianity. This practice was known as the Discipline of the Secret, or Disciplina Arcani in Latin.

Therefore, not only the Bible in both Testaments, but also the early Church for some 500 years, held that not everyone should simply be given a Bible to read, with no authoritative guidance to steer them from erroneous interpretations (many of which have been observed throughout history, especially among schismatic and heretical “sects” or “cults”).

The quotation from Pope Innocent III in 1199, if read closely, never states that the Bible was to be “forbidden”. Rather, he stated that a “simple and ignorant person” ought not “presume to reach the sublimity of Sacred Scripture, or to preach it to others.” This is a different concept altogether from saying that “no one who is not theologically educated can read the Bible.”

I have in my own library the hardcover edition of Denzinger’s Enchiridion symbolorum (the standard source for the dogmas of the Catholic Church): 43rd edition from 2012, edited and translated in part by my good friend, Dr. Robert Fastiggi (who in fact translated the very passage I shall produce below). The letter in question appears in the 2012 edition on pages 251-252. It’s entitled, “Letter Cum ex iniuncto to the Inhabitants of Metz, July 12, 1199.” The earlier part makes it clear that the pope is not prohibiting Bible reading. It alludes to the people of Metz having obtained French translations of most of the New Testament (the Latin Vulgate then being the “standard” edition of the Bible). The Holy Father continues:

[E]ven though the desire to understand the divine Scriptures and the eagerness to exhort in accordance with them should not be criticized but rather commended, nevertheless, in this case, it is clear that these people are justifiably rebuked, because they conduct their own secret gatherings and they arrogate to themselves the office of preaching; they ridicule the simplicity of priests . . . [cites Matthew 10:27], [God is] indicating clearly  by this that evangelical preaching is to be offered, not in secret gatherings, as is done by the heretics, but publicly in the Church, according to Catholic custom. Therefore, since the order of teachers is, as it were, primary in the Church, no one should indiscriminately arrogate to himself the office of preaching.(p. 252; my bolding)

Dr. Fastiggi renders one portion that follows the above: “[C]learly no simple or unlearned person should presume to touch the sublimity of Sacred Scripture or preach it to others.” There is not a single word about prohibiting the Bible altogether in the entire document. What is rebuked is the presumption of a teaching office that is unwarranted. Leonard E. Boyle wrote a chapter, “Innocent III and Vernacular Versions of Scripture”, included in the book, The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in Memory of Beryl Smalley (edited by Katherine Walsh and Diana Wood, Oxford: Blackwell, 1985, 97-107). Here are excerpts:

[A] recent historian [H. E. Mayer, The Crusades, . . . (Oxford, 1972), p. 207] . . . states baldly that the Fourth Lateran Council, under Innocent, ‘set limits to the translation of the Bible into the vernacular’, where in fact the Council has nothing whatsoever on the matter. (pp. 97-98)

Innocent never once mentions the translations. What he is really concerned about is what he sees as the usurpation by these people at Metz of the office of preaching, an office which does not belong to anyone and everyone in the Church. (p. 101)

The crucial question, of course, is whether or not Innocent eventually abolished the translation . . . We do not know. (p. 104)

There is not in fact the slightest hint that Innocent ever spoke in any way, hypothetically or not, of suppressing the translations. (p. 105)

While the ancient Church valued the reading of the Bible by the common people and did everything to make the Word of God reach the knowledge of the masses, the papal Church considered the simple people as mere “pigs” . . . 

Of course, the pope was citing the words of Jesus. If his application was so terrible, so was that of Jesus, who also called certain people “pigs” or “swine” and also “dogs” as part of a metaphor: “Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you” (Mt 7:6).

Contrary to modern Catholic apologists, Innocent III nowhere says that the reason why Scripture could not be translated into the language of the people was because those translations were poorly done, but rather because the people supposedly lacked the ability to understand the Bible . . . 

That’s nothing more than the Bible itself teaches in many places, per the passages I produced above. Lucas can make this argument if he likes, as long as he is aware that he is opposing Scripture itself.

That was the reason why they forbade any translation of the Bible, even those produced by Catholic authors. They only allowed the Vulgate because it was written in a language no one could read – a very convenient choice for them.

This is massively — spectacularly — untrue, as proven by the documentation of scores and scores of medieval vernacular translations.

If the problem were only the alleged “errors of translation”, the Church itself would certainly provide authoritative and official translations, but they did not exist . . . 

They certainly did exist. This is falsehood and an anti-Catholic myth.

Lucas cites another edict from Pope Innocent III in 1215. But it’s a variation of the same theme: unauthorized translators are forbidden.

Beth Allison Barr (Baptist) is Associate Dean in the Graduate School and Associate Professor of History at Baylor University and a Resident Scholar at Baylor’s Institute for Studies of Religion. She wrote:

First, my medieval ears balk at how often the Coverdale Bible is referenced as the “first” complete English Bible. Yes, it was definitely the first complete printed Bible in English….but this doesn’t mean (as it is often understood) that complete English Bibles did not exist before the sixteenth century.  Which leads me to my second point.  This inscription, although technically accurate, paints a picture of the vernacular Bible as a creation of the Reformation. The phrase “affording the means of reading and hearing, in their own tongue the wonderful works of God” suggests that medieval people before Coverdale could not do this.

This is a myth.

Frans van Liere in his book An Introduction to the Medieval Bible [Cambridge University Press, 2013] suggests the myth that ordinary medieval people “did not read the Bible” probably originated in sixteenth-century church histories. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, for example, regaled audiences with tales of Protestant martyrs guilty of nothing more than owning English Bibles. Hence was formed the popular and lasting impression of an evil Catholic church so intent on restricting lay access to the Bible that they would kill to do so. Yet, even though “the Protestant Reformation did achieve a change in the way the Bible was read and the way it functioned within Christian spirituality,” as van Liere writes, “this change was largely due to a long medieval tradition of lay access to biblical texts.”

In other words, not only did medieval people have biblical literacy, they benefited from a Catholic church which actively encouraged biblical literacy. . . .

Let’s just take a quick look at some pre-Reformation Bibles in England.

First, by the 11th century, English translations had been made of the Psalms, the first six books of the Old Testament, and the Gospels. Although these certainly circulated in clerical circles, scholars argue that they were also intended for use by “literate laymen.” Indeed, van Liere notes how these texts were used by Matthew Parker in the sixteenth-century to prove “historical precedents” for English Bible translations and thereby substantiate his case to produce more translations.

Second, we know that by the late fourteenth century, followers of John Wycliffe had translated the entire Bible into English. Modern Protestants often think of this as a “heretical” Bible used only by those dissatisfied with English Catholicism. But more than 250 extant copies of the Wycliffite Bible still exist today (from New Testaments to complete Bibles), suggesting that it was in common use. Catholic sermons from the fifteenth century confirm this, as–like the fifteenth-century Dominican sermon cycle–they quote directly from the Wycliffite Bible. In other words, the “heretical” Wycliffite Bible was used by Catholic clergy, showing a much broader approval for English Bibles across the medieval Christian spectrum. It was also used by medieval people who were not clergy. For example, we know that prominent nobility owned copies of the Wycliffite Bible, and, as van Liere states, “there is no evidence that they incurred their owners the suspicion of heresy.”

What does this all mean?

While certainly the Reformation ushered in broader use of the vernacular Bible and made it a “hallmark of true Christianity,” the Reformation emphasis on the Bible was built on a solid foundation of biblical access by medieval Christians. . . .

[F]or those of you who want to read further on this topic, I highly recommend: . . . Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (University of Notre Dame Press, 3rd edition, 1978). (“The English Bible before the Reformation”, Anxious Bench, 5-4-16).

In a follow-up article, she continues busting anti-Catholic historical myths:

The question then stands: what about medieval ecclesiastical proclamations banning vernacular translations of the Bible?

Yes, the medieval church did make prohibitions against vernacular Bibles. Pope Gregory VII forbade publication of vernacular scripture in Bohemia in 1080; the papacy declared in 1199 that vernacular translations were praiseworthy but dangerous; the Synod of Toulouse in 1229 directed a canon against the misuse of scripture (which included forbidding vernacular texts); and–the most famous–in 1408 the Third Synod of Oxford forbade translating the Bible into English.

But these restrictions on vernacular Bibles must be contextualized. As Frans van Liere so astutely states in his An Introduction to the Medieval Bible (p. 203): “On the one hand, there are a number of edicts and injunctions against the translating of the Bible into the vernacular, and against the use of such Bibles. On the other hand, no text was more widespread and popular than the Bible in its many vernacular versions, and many of these do not seem to have raised an eyebrow from the ecclesiastical authorities. Historians studying this period must thus acknowledge a wide range of opinions and practices that were not always consistent with each other.”

In other words, the medieval Catholic church never comprehensively banned vernacular Bibles. See van Liere again: “Contrary to popular perception, there was no blanket prohibition against biblical translation in the vernacular in the Middle Ages.” Vernacular Bibles, for the most part, flourished and were accepted by ecclesiastical authorities. This is true even in England, as attested by the widespread flourishing of the Wycliffite Bible among Catholic clergy and laity alike.

It was mostly during moments of stress and fear that localized and reactionary prohibitions against Bibles were made. Note that three of the four prohibitions mentioned above were made in direct response to heresy threats: the Waldensians and Albigensians in 1199 and 1229, and the Lollards in 1408.   The historical origins of the prohibitions (localized responses) and the continued flourishing of vernacular scripture despite the prohibitions also suggests that the concern was more with untrained lay folk teaching and preaching the Bible, and thereby spreading heretical ideas, than with vernacular scripture itself. As van Liere writes, “There was a large corpus of medieval vernacular translations and paraphrase of biblical texts, and there were no objections against their use, as long as these texts and their uses avoided association with heretical groups.”

So I will say one more time: yes, the medieval church did ban vernacular Bibles. But not in the way most modern Protestants think. The bans were localized, reactionary, and not very effective. Medieval vernacular Bibles existed and continued to flourish before the Reformation. (“Banning the Bible: Did It Really Happen in the Medieval World?”, 5-18-16)

The accusation that the Catholic Church chained Bibles in order to keep them from the common people, is equally wrongheaded and historically misinformed. The exact opposite is true: Bibles were chained in libraries so that they would not be stolen, precisely because they were so valued and treasured (especially before the invention of the movable-type printing press in the mid-15th century), in order to be more accessible to all. Protestants did the same thing themselves for some 300 years. For example, Eton and Merton Colleges (Oxford) did not remove their chained Bibles until the 18th century.

***

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: [email protected]. 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: image from Lucas Banzoli’s article (4-28-18) here critiqued.

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli attempts to present a systematic (Catholic) “Church vs. the Bible” historical revisionism. I offer many specific rebuttals.

2023-02-21T15:26:43-04:00

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He’s active on YouTube.

***

The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in blue. I used Google Translate to transfer his Portugese text into English.

*****

This is a reply to Lucas’ article, “Justino pregava a Sola Scriptura?” [Did Justin preach Sola Scriptura?] (6-5-13).

People who like to stir up controversy

I like to stir up biblical, theological, and historical truth.

have claimed that Justin of Rome (AD 100-165) never taught Sola Scriptura . . . 

True.

Before showing whether or not Justin believed in Sola Scriptura, it is necessary for us to explain to Catholics what Sola Scriptura is, since I tirelessly see misrepresentations of the meaning of the term being put in their mouths.

That is too often true. But of course it’s also true that many Protestants don’t understand the proper definition of it, either. We’ll see if Lucas does. I’m glad that he is taking the time to define the term, since he didn’t in his article about Origen and Tertullian, that I replied to yesterday.

First, let’s get to what Sola Scriptura does not mean: 1st Sola Scriptura does not mean that everything has to be in the Bible.

• It is not in the Bible that Barack Obama would be president of the USA or that São Paulo would be three-time world champion in 2005, and yet I believe that. What has to be in the Bible is not “everything”, as some Catholics erroneously claim, but the doctrines that were taught by the apostles and Jesus Christ. We do not believe that “everything is in the Bible”, but we believe that no biblical writer has “hidden” any important doctrinal truth that was not written by any of them in the 66 books of Holy Scripture.

Good and correct, so far. Catholics agree.

2nd Sola Scriptura does not mean that we should reject all traditions.

• Even Protestant churches have their traditions, with their dress, their hymnals, their liturgies, their customs. Traditions that are rejected by evangelicals are those traditions that invent doctrines that are not found in the Scriptures and cannot be demonstrated from them, as is the case with many Catholic dogmas, which are sustained purely by what is not written.

So he claims. I have shown again and again that sola Scriptura itself is not taught in the Bible. It’s a self-defeating, late-arriving extrabiblical tradition of men. Every Catholic doctrine can be shown to be supported by the Bible in some fashion, and to be in harmony with the Bible. I’ve done this myself in my own work.

Now, let’s show Catholics what Sola Scriptura means:

1st Sola Scriptura means that we have in the Bible everything that is necessary for our salvation.

That’s material sufficiency, and we agree with it.

2nd Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is totally sufficient in matters of faith and practice.

3rd Sola Scriptura means that any doctrinal tradition that has no biblical basis must be rejected.

4th Sola Scriptura means that all moral or doctrinal teaching of the Christian faith must be based on Scripture. Now that we know what Sola Scriptura means and what it doesn’t mean, Catholics can stop arguing in a vacuum, refuting a scarecrow.

The standard definition of sola Scriptura in use among Protestants is that the Bible is the only infallible standard and norm for Christian theology, faith, and practice. Lucas fails to note this, so his definition (while a “fair” one) is inadequate. I went through the definition at length in my paper, Reply to Lucas Banzoli: 2 Tim 3:16 & Sola Scriptura (5-31-22).

It follows that the Church and tradition can never be infallible. Therefore, if  Church father asserts one of the latter two scenarios, he does not believe in sola Scriptura. I will demonstrate  that this is the case for Justin Martyr.

And if you pay a little more attention to Justin’s own works, you will see that he had exactly the same conception as evangelicals of what we really mean by Sola Scriptura:

Not at all, as I will prove. He asserts material sufficiency of Scripture, which is not the same as sola Scriptura, and he also asserts the infallibility of Church and tradition, which expressly contradicts sola Scriptura and proves that he didn’t believe in it.

1st Justin believed that what was not said by the Scriptures was doubtful and suspect.

That is untrue, as I will document, as we proceed.

2nd Justin tried to prove by the Scriptures everything he presented.

That’s great and true, but is not sola Scriptura. Simply arguing from the Bible doesn’t prove what one’s rule of faith is. And for this proposition about Justin to be true, it would have to be shown that he never appealed to anything but Scripture.

-Text: “If, sirs, it were not said by the Scriptures which I have already quoted, that His form was without glory, that through His death the rich would suffer death, that by His stripes we must be healed, and that He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and if I had not explained that there would be two advents of him who was smitten for you, when you will know him whom you have pierced and your tribes will mourn, then consider what I have said to be doubtful and suspect. But it was through the contents of the Scriptures, dear holy and prophetic among you, that I try to prove all that I have presented, in the hope that one of you may be found to be a part of the remnant, which has been left by the grace of the Lord of hosts, unto eternal salvation” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.32)

As we see in the quote above, Justin used to say that if what he said has no Scriptural basis, let it be considered suspect, obscure, doubtful.

That’s not what he was arguing. The point isn’t that everything not in Scripture is “doubtful and suspect” (“dubious and obscure in the English translation from the Schaff set). His point, rather, was that, since Trypho was a Jew, he fully accepted Old Testament revelation as “holy and prophetic”). So Justin is saying, “I’m using your own Scriptures to prove my point. If I didn’t, you wouldn’t believe me.” He’s engaging in good evangelistic method and strategy (utilize what the opponent respects).

Once correctly understood in this way, it’s evident that it has nothing to do with the dispute about sola Scriptura.

But that, on the contrary, it was by the content of the Scriptures that he tried to prove all (and not some part) of what he presented!

Yeah, because the Old Testament was what Jews and Christians heled in common. He’s not even including the New Testament in this particular portion of his argument.

Catholics unfortunately cannot subscribe to Justin’s words, for:

• They believe in doctrines outside the Bible as dogmas of faith, not as “doubtful and suspect.”

• They do not try to prove everything they believe from the Scriptures, as they admit that much of what they believe is not found in the Bible, but in the so-called “oral tradition”.

All Catholic doctrines must be in harmony with the Bible, and that’s what we try to prove: almost always with massive use of Scripture.

So we see Justin contradicting the Catholic pillars of non-biblical oral tradition and reiterating the Christian principles of Sola Scriptura.

Nonsense. This was taken out of context, as shown. Later, I will prove that Justin doesn’t stick to the Bible Alone; hence, he held to a Catholic rule of faith, not a proto-Protestant one.

3rd Justin believed that we cannot fail to constantly refer to the Scriptures.

-Text: “It is a ridiculous thing… that whoever bases his discourse on the prophetic Scriptures should abandon them and refrain from constantly referring to the same Scriptures, thinking that he himself can provide something better than Scripture” (Dialogue with Trypho) , Chapter 85)

Failure to constantly refer to the Scriptures is the most usual thing for a Catholic who is used to basing his doctrines on tradition, for thinking that “it can provide something better than Scripture”.

Justin was saying that if one claims to be making an argument from the Bible, they can’t forget about the Bible and start arguing in another way (which is self-evidently true). Catholics do not say that tradition or Church doctrines are “better than Scripture.” They say that both can be authoritative and also infallible, under the right conditions. That’s not “better, period”; rather, it is “equally authoritative and sometimes even infallible.”

It’s Lucas who is warring against straw men so far. He first presented one of Justin’s citations out of context, and now he doesn’t correctly understand his meaning and misrepresents the Catholic rule of faith. I assume in charity that he is doing so out of ignorance, not deliberate intent to be inaccurate.

4th Justin demonstrated what he said in the Scriptures.

-Texts: “He said he saw a ladder, and the Scripture declares that God was lifted up on it. But that this was not the Father, we demonstrate by the Scriptures… And that the rock symbolically proclaimed Christ, we also demonstrate by many Scriptures” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.86)

“Are you familiar with them, Trypho? They are contained in your Scriptures, nay, not yours, but ours. For us we believe in them, but although you read them, you do not capture the spirit that is in them” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.29)

“For Christ is King and Priest, he is God and Lord, both of angels and of men, he is captain, he is the stone, and was born a son, and for the first time he was subjected to suffering, and then he returned to heaven, and, again, coming with glory, He is announced as having the everlasting kingdom: so I taste of all the Scriptures” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.34)

“Reversing the Scriptures, I must endeavor to convince you that he who is said to have appeared to Abraham and Jacob and Moses, and who is called God, is different from him who made all things numerically” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 56)

“I could have proved to you from the Scriptures that one of these three is God, and is called an Angel” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.56)

“Be assured, then, Trypho, who are established in the knowledge and faith of the Scriptures, of the counterfeits which he who is called the devil wrought among the Greeks” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.69)

“It is for this reason that I am, through fear, very sincere in my desire to converse with men according to the Scriptures, but not with those who have a love of money, or of glory, or of pleasure” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 82)

Of course he did (but not exclusively so). So do we. It’s the hallmark of my entire ministry: Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (my blog); A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (my first book). But this is neither here nor there, with regard to proving that he supposedly believed in sola Scriptura. It proves nothing whatsoever about that. What’s interesting, then, is why Lucas and so many Protestants equate citing a lot of Bible in making theological arguments with sola Scriptura. That would make me one of the biggest supporters of sola Scriptura on the planet earth, if so. But in fact, I have written three books expressly against it.

It is noteworthy that Justin always insisted that in all doctrinal terms it was necessary to prove from the Scriptures what he was saying. Note that he never adds to “search in tradition”, but only in the Scriptures (=Sola Scriptura), . . .

“Never say never”! Keep reading . . .

which have always been the pillar and foundation of our faith. If there were hidden doctrines in Holy Scripture, then Justin would not be so insistent that what he himself said must be proved by Scripture. After all, why such a need and obligation to “prove something from the Scriptures” if, as Catholics insist on saying, there are a lot of doctrines that are simply not found in the Bible? In this case, such a need to have to prove all doctrines by “many Scriptures” would be useless, for Catholics themselves do not do that!

All Lucas’ citations from Justin so far are from the Dialogue with Trypho. Of course he cites the Old Testament Scripture because Trypho was Jewish, and this is what he accepts (as Justin said, above). It’s a basic misunderstanding to act as if this use of OT Scripture proves that he believed in sola Scriptura. Why would he cite any Christian tradition to a Jewish person, who couldn’t care less about that? He has to use a source that they both revere, which is the Old Testament.

5th Justin believed that it was necessary to prove doctrines by the Scriptures.

Repeating a falsehood over and over does not make it any less false.

-Texts: “But that this was not the Father, we must prove from the Scriptures” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.86)

“And that the stone symbolically proclaimed Christ, we must also prove by many Scriptures” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.86)

Note the term: “we have to prove it”, which refers to a necessity. Why such a need, if Catholics are more than convinced that there is no such need, in view of the supposed “insufficiency” of the Scriptures and that many doctrines are not there? If Catholic thought is right, what is the real purpose in being absolutely necessary to prove from many Scriptures about the doctrinal subject being treated? Why didn’t Justin just do like the Catholics, saying that nothing has to be in the Bible and that there’s no such need for any specific doctrine to be in the Bible? Note that what is being discussed here is not whether or not the matter in question is in the Bible, but why it is necessary to “have to prove” by the Scriptures, if not all doctrines need to be in them. In this case, even if there was a biblical passage about it, Justin could do like the Catholics and simply say that: “And that the stone symbolically proclaimed Christ, we will show in the Scriptures, although there would be no need for this, for we also have the oral tradition…” But, on the contrary, he says that he had to prove it by many Scriptures! That is, proving a doctrine by Scripture was absolutely necessary!

Already dealt with. Lucas seems completely oblivious as to the background context of the Dialogue with Trypho. And of course he continues to caricature the Catholic rule of faith.

6th Justin believed in the sufficiency of the Scriptures.

-Texts: “Now then, make us the proof that this man whom you say was crucified and ascended into heaven is the Christ of God. For you have sufficiently proved by the Scriptures already quoted by you, that it is declared in the Scriptures that Christ should suffer and enter again into glory, and receive the everlasting kingdom of all nations, and that every kingdom be subordinate to Him: now show us that this man is he” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.39)

“But you seem to me not to have heard the Scriptures what I said I had blotted out. For such as have been cited, they are more than sufficient to prove the points in dispute, besides those that are maintained by us, and yet to be presented” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.73)

The Scriptures are more than enough to prove the points in dispute! If that’s not proof of the sufficiency of Scripture—which is a principle of Sola Scriptura—then I don’t know what is!

So do we; so this accomplishes nothing in this debate. Lucas correctly notes that [material] sufficiency is a principle of Sola Scriptura”: but it is a principle or premise that is held in common with Catholics. So it doesn’t disprove our view to trot it out, when we already agree with that aspect. I wish I had a dollar for every time I have seen Protestant apologists foolishly repeat this basic category error, times without number. I’d be rich.

7th Justin believed in the inerrancy of Scripture.

-Text: “I am fully convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, and you should endeavor to convince those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, instead of being of the same opinion as I am” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.65)

Interestingly, I’ve seen many Catholics claiming that the Bible is not infallible or inerrant, some even say it’s not the Word of God! Justin, however, was incisive in saying that in the Bible there are no contradictions, just as evangelicals do.

There are many individuals who call themselves Catholics but who do not fully accept the Catholic Church’s teachings (theological liberals or nominal Catholics). That has no bearing on what the Church actually teaches.

8th Justin believed in the free examination of the Bible.

-Text:

“I purpose to quote to you the Scriptures, not because I am anxious to make only an artistic exposition of words, for I have no such faculty, but because I have grace from God bestowed upon me for the understanding of his Scriptures.” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.58)

Note that Justin tells Trypho that he quotes the Scriptures to him because he had the grace of God to understand the Scriptures, even though he was neither the pope nor a Roman bishop. In fact, nothing in Justin’s biography, which can be read here or here, indicates that he ever held any position of ecclesiastical leadership in the Church. He was not pope, he was not a bishop, he was not a cardinal, he was not a presbyter, he was not born in Rome. It was not part of the “Magistery” [magisterium], according to the Catholic conception. And yet he said that God had given him the grace not only to search and quote the Scriptures, but to understand them!

Catholics don’t deny this possibility at all. We simply say that many others interpret the Bible wrongly (note all the heresies in the early centuries, that Lucas is well aware of), and so an authoritative Church is necessary in order to “check” those errors. Once again, this proves nothing as to whether Justin held to the falsehood of sola Scriptura. Lucas is fighting against air, or windmills, like Don Quixote.

9th Justin believed that doctrinal security comes from attachment to the Scriptures.

-Text: “I have commented to the lord, who is very anxious to be secure in all respects once you hold fast to the Scriptures” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.80)

We are not insecure if we have only Scripture to guide us, because holding on to Scripture means being secure in every way. If it is in all respects, then evidently the doctrinal aspect is not excluded from this picture. As we read Justin, we are well aware of the notion that we can be secure in all respects by holding to the Scriptures, and not just in “some” respects, as if the doctrinal aspect were left out and lacked the support of a tradition: extra-biblical oral.

Scripture is great and fantastic. That’s why the Catholic Church authoritatively pronounced its canon and preserved it through all those fifteen centuries before Protestantism existed. Next question?

10th Justin rejects human doctrines and asks to believe only if the Scriptures are frequently quoted.

-Text: “If I undertake to prove this by human doctrines or arguments, you must not agree with me, but if I frequently quote the Scriptures and ask you to understand them” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.68)

It is clear that the acceptance of the doctrine, in Justin’s view, was conditional on its substantiation in the light of Scripture, and not on any other human argument that might be offered.

Yes, because Trypho was a Jew.

In view of all this, we can only conclude that Justin believed as strongly or more strongly in Sola Scriptura as any Reformer of the 16th century.

This hasn’t been proven to the slightest degree. Not one whit of proof . . .

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

In view of all this, it is indisputable that Justin believed in Sola Scriptura in the same way that it was proposed by the Reformers and believed by the early Christians. If such statements were in the mouth of a Luther or Calvin, they would be immediately rebuked by a Roman Catholic, but as it came from a second century man, venerated by the Catholic Church itself, the conversation changes, and they try in every way to omit and distort information, resorting to personal attacks, accusations and real mental juggling to deny everything Justino said so clearly and explicitly.

We don’t have to deny anything that Lucas has presented from Justin, because we agree with all of it. All this shows is that Lucas lacks an accurate understanding of 1) precisely what sola Scriptura means, and 2) the Catholic rule of faith.

• But what about the pagan authors that Justin quoted? Does that mean he doesn’t believe in Sola Scriptura?

Of course not. In the Bible itself there are many quotes from authors outside the Bible, such as the apocrypha of Enoch which is quoted in Jude 14, the book of the Assumption of Moses which is quoted in Jude 9, the Greek comedy Thais (written by the Greek poet Meander ) which is quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:33, from the work Cretica, by Epimenides (600 B.C.), which is quoted by Paul in Acts 17:28, from the work Phenomena, written by the Greek poet Aratus (315 – 240 B.C.) , or from Cleantus (331 – 233 B.C.) in his Hymn to Zeus, which has quotations from his works mentioned by the same apostle in Acts 17:28.

Very good. It’s correctly noted that it proves nothing as to the present debate.

This obviously does not mean that Paul, Jude or the other biblical writers believed in the inspiration or doctrinal source of such writings, it just means that the specific quote from which it was taken constitutes truth. I myself, who believe in Sola Scriptura, often cite other authors outside the Bible in support of a particular point of view or interpretation of a biblical text, and this in no way means that I stopped believing in Sola Scriptura because of this. The Reformers themselves, such as Luther and Calvin, quoted other authors, and that did not stop them from believing in Sola Scriptura. Why only with Justin would it have to be different?

It proves nothing: just as Lucas’ entire presentation above proves nothing (except that Justin loved the Bible; so do I and so does the Catholic Church) and is one massive non sequitur. Now I’ll give my complete argument, which is completely relevant to the topic:

The algebraic “x” factor here is how Justin Martyr views Church and Tradition in relationship to Holy Scripture. It doesn’t logically follow that he has no opinion on those things. We can’t know one way or the other what Justin believes about the rule of faith, based on only the above information. If it could be shown that he did not grant the Church and Tradition binding authority, and didn’t include them in the rule of faith, the anti-Catholics might have a valid point.

The data in this instance is fairly scarce, since Justin’s three surviving works are primarily philosophical and apologetic in nature, rather than theological, and the theology that Justin does discuss is only rarely related to ecclesiology or the rule of faith as here discussed. It’s highly unlikely, prima facie, that Justin would differ radically from the other pre-Nicene Church fathers. Justin was a major source for Irenaeus, who speaks of apostolic succession and tradition and Church authority all over the place. Yet despite these difficulties, I believe there is enough information to be had, to reject a sola Scriptura interpretation.

Justin doesn’t always mention only Scripture (as if he thinks it is the only source for truth):

. . . the Scriptures and the facts themselves . . . (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 23)

I bring from the Scriptures and the facts themselves both the proofs and the inculcation of them, . . . But you hesitate to confess that He is Christ, as the Scriptures and the events witnessed and done in His name prove, . . . (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 39)

In Chapter 76 of the Dialogue with Trypho, entitled “From Other Passages the Same Majesty and Government of Christ are Proved,” Justin referred to “an obscure prediction,” and of prophecies “proclaimed in mystery” and “declared obscurely,” and which “could not be understood by any man” until Jesus Himself expounded upon them. So much for “perspicuity” and the entirely self-interpreting nature of Scripture in the main. Catholics readily agree that Scripture often interprets itself. We simply deny that it always does, or that there is no need for authoritative interpretation from outside itself. Here is the above chapter in its entirety:

“For when Daniel speaks of ‘one like unto the Son of man’ who received the everlasting kingdom, does he not hint at this very thing? For he declares that, in saying ‘like unto the Son of man,’ He appeared, and was man, but not of human seed. And the same thing he proclaimed in mystery when he speaks of this stone which was cut out without hands. For the expression ‘it was cut out without hands’ signified that it is not a work of man, but [a work] of the will of the Father and God of all things, who brought Him forth. And when Isaiah says, ‘Who shall declare His generation?’ he meant that His descent could not be declared. Now no one who is a man of men has a descent that cannot be declared. And when Moses says that He will wash His garments in the blood of the grape, does not this signify what I have now often told you is an obscure prediction, namely, that He had blood, but not from men; just as not man, but God, has begotten the blood of the vine? And when Isaiah calls Him the Angel of mighty l counsel, did he not foretell Him to be the Teacher of those truths which He did teach when He came [to earth]? For He alone taught openly those mighty counsels which the Father designed both for all those who have been and shall be well-pleasing to Him, and also for those who have rebelled against His will, whether men or angels, when He said: ‘They shall come from the east [and from the west], and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven: but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness.’ And, ‘ Many shall say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not eaten, and drunk, and prophesied, and cast out demons in Thy name? And I will say to them, Depart from Me.’ Again, in other words, by which He shall condemn those who are unworthy of salvation, He said, Depart into outer darkness, which the Father has prepared for Satan and his, angels.’ And again, in other words, He said, ‘I give unto you power to tread on serpents, and on scorpions, and on scolopendras, and on all the might of the enemy.’ And now we, who believe on our Lord Jesus, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, when we exorcise all demons and evil spirits, have them subjected to us. For if the prophets declared obscurely that Christ would suffer, and thereafter be Lord of all, yet that [declaration] could not be understood by any man until He Himself persuaded the apostles that such statements were expressly related in the Scriptures. For He exclaimed before His crucifixion: ‘The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the Scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.’ And David predicted that He would be born from the womb before sun and moon, according to the Father’s will, and made Him known, being Christ, as God strong and to be worshipped.”

If no one could have understood these prophecies until Jesus fulfilled and explained them, of what use is Scripture Alone in that case? It would be of no use whatever, without the Teacher to give the proper sense of the prophecies. Compare Justin’s similar statements:

Up to the time of Jesus Christ, who taught us, and interpreted the prophecies which were not yet understood, . . . (First Apology, Chapter XXXII)

But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically. (First Apology, Chapter LV)

This brings to mind Jesus’ conversation with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35). Scripture states:

Luke 24:27 (RSV) And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

The two disciples later marveled at how Jesus “opened to us the Scriptures” (Lk 24:32). In other words, those prophecies were not understood until Jesus explained them, and in fact, most of the Jews did not see that they were fulfilled. Thus, Old Testament Scripture was insufficient for these messianic truths to be grasped simply by reading them. One could retort that the Jews were hard-hearted and thus could not understand since they had not the Holy Spirit and God’s grace to illumine their understanding.

But that proves too much because it would also have to apply to these two disciples, and indeed all of the disciples, who did not understand what was happening, even after Jesus repeatedly told them that He was to suffer and to die, and that this was all foretold. They didn’t “get it” till after He was crucified. Justin Martyr noted himself that the disciples had not understood the very Psalms he was expounding:

The rest of the Psalm shows that He knew that His Father would grant all His requests, and would raise Him from the dead. It also shows that He encouraged all who fear God to praise Him, because through the mystery of the Crucified One He had mercy on the faithful of every race; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren, the Apostles (who, after He arose from the dead and convinced them that He had warned them before the Passion that He had to suffer, and that this was foretold by the Prophets, were most sorry that they had abandoned Him at the crucifixion). (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 106)

The Phillips Modern English translation renders Luke 24:32 as, “he made the scriptures plain to us.” The Greek word for “opened” is dianoigo (Strong’s word #1272). According to Joseph Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1977 reprint of 1901 edition, p. 140), it means “to open by dividing or drawing asunderto open thoroughly (what had been closed).”

This meaning can be seen in other passages where dianoigo appears: Mk 7:34-35, Lk 2:23, 24:31,45, Acts 16:14, 17:3). Obviously, then, Holy Scripture is informing us that some parts of it were “closed” and “not plain” until the “infallible” teaching authority and interpretation of our Lord Jesus opened it up and made it plain.

This runs utterly contrary to the Protestant notion of perspicuity of Scripture and its more or less ubiquitous self-interpreting nature; also to biblical passages such as 1 Peter 1:20: “. . . no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own private interpretation” (cf. Peter’s description of Paul’s letters: “There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures”: 2 Peter 3:16). The need for an interpreter was also illustrated in the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch:

Acts 8:28, 30-31 . . . he was reading the prophet Isaiah . . . So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?”

It turns out that he was reading Isaiah 53:7-8, as we are informed in Acts 8:32-33. Philip then interprets the passage as referring to Jesus, and preaches the gospel to the eunuch (Acts 8:35). An authoritative interpreter was needed. And no one can say that the eunuch didn’t understand because of “hardness of heart” because subsequent events show that he was willing to accept the truth (as he got baptized in Acts 8:38). He simply didn’t have enough information. He needed the authoritative (“infallible,” if you will) teacher. Old Testament Scripture (which was Justin’s primary Scripture) was not sufficient enough for him to come to the knowledge of the truth.

One might also note that Justin Martyr’s routine casual assumption that his own interpretations of a host of biblical passages are self-evident, clear, etc., is itself highly questionable. Protestant Bible scholar F. F. Bruce commented upon this, in his analysis of Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho:

Both appeal to the Old Testament, but they cannot agree on its meaning, because they argue from incompatible principles of interpretation. Quite often, indeed, the modern Christian reader is bound to agree with Trypho’s interpretation against Justin’s. For example, they discuss the incident of the burning bush . . . Trypho says, ‘This is not what we understand from the words quoted: we understand that, while it was an angel that appeared in a flame of fire, it was God who spoke to Moses.’ [Dialogue, 60.1] Here Trypho’s understanding is sounder than Justin’s.

. . . Justin’s Greek text of Psalm 96:10) (LXX 95:10) read ‘the Lord reigned from the tree‘ – to him a clear prediction of the crucifixion. Trypho’s Bible did not contain these additional words (and neither does ours). ‘Whether the rulers of our people’, said Trypho, ‘have erased any portion of the scriptures, as you allege, God knows; but it seems incredible.’ [Dialogue, 73] Again, Trypho was right.

. . . Justin Martyr . . . evidently regards the Septuagint version as the only reliable text of the Old Testament. Where it differs from the Hebrew text, as read and interpreted by the Jews, the Jews (he says) have corrupted the text so as to obscure the scriptures’ plain prophetic testimony to Jesus as the Christ. (The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 65-66)

As we would expect at that early stage in the development of the canon of Scripture, Justin Martyr did not have a clear understanding of which books belong in the New Testament. F. F. Bruce contends that he “appears to quote” the Gospel of Peter. He elaborates, in a footnote:

In First Apology 36.6, speaking of the passion of Christ, Justin says, ‘And indeed, as the prophet had said, they dragged him and made him sit on the judgment-seat, saying “Judge us”.’ Compare Gospel of Peter 3:6 f. where Jesus enemies ‘made him sit on a judgment-seat, saying “Judge righteously, O king of Israel!”‘ The prophet referred to by Justin is Isaiah (cf Is. 58:2). The idea that Jesus was made to sit on the judgment-seat could have arisen from a mistranslation of John 19:13 (as though it meant not ‘Pilate sat’ but ‘Pilate made him sit’). (Ibid., 200-201)

Here is the passage from Justin:

And as the prophet spoke, they tormented Him, and set Him on the judgment-seat, and said, Judge us. And the expression, “They pierced my hands and my feet,” was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate. (First Apology, 35 – Bruce appears to have mistakenly cited chapter 36)

Finally, according to the eminent 19th-century Protestant patristics scholar Brooke Foss Westcott, there is some indication in Justin of acceptance of an apostolic Tradition, including an oral component. After an exhaustive, remarkable 75-page exposition of Justin’s understanding of the canon of the New Testament. Westcott concludes:

There are indeed traces of the recognition of an authoritative Apostolic doctrine in Justin, but it cannot be affirmed from the form of his language that he looked upon this as contained in a written New Testament. ‘We have been commanded,’ he says, ‘by Christ Himself to obey not the teaching of men but those precepts which were proclaimed by the blessed Prophets and taught by Himself.’ [Dialogue 48] But this teaching of Christ was not strictly limited to His own words, as Justin explains in another passage:

As [Abraham] believed on the voice of God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness, in the same way we also when we believed the voice of God which was spoken again by the Apostles of Christ, and the voice which was proclaimed to us by the Prophets, even to dying [for our belief], renounced all that is in the world. [Dialogue, 119]

Thus the words of the Apostles were in his view in some sense the words of Christ, and we are therefore justified in interpreting his language generally, so as to accord with the certain judgment of his immediate successors. His writings mark the era of transition from the oral to the written Rule. His recognition of a New Testament was practical and not formal. As yet the circumstances of the Christian Church had not led to the final separation of the Canonical writings of the Apostles from others which claimed more or less directly to be stamped with their authority. (A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1980, from the 1889 sixth edition, 172-173)

Following are the two passages cited by Westcott, along with similar thoughts in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho:

For we have been told by Christ Himself not to follow the teachings of men, but only those which have been announced by the holy Prophets and taught by Himself. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 48)

What greater favor, then, did Christ bestow on Abraham? This: that He likewise called with His voice, and commanded him to leave the land wherein he dwelt. And with that same voice He has also called of us, and we have abandoned our former way of life in which we used to practice evils common to the rest of the world. And we will inherit the Holy Land together with Abraham, receiving our inheritance for all eternity, because by our similar faith we have become children of Abraham. For, just as he believed the voice of God, and was justified thereby, so have we believed the voice of God (which was spoken again to us by the Prophets and the Apostles of Christ), and have renounced even to death all worldly things. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 119)

“The twelve bells which had to be attached to the long robe of the high priest, were representative of the twelve Apostles, who relied upon the power of Christ, the Eternal Priest. Through their voices the whole world is filled with the glory and grace of God and His Christ. David testified to this truth when he said: ‘Their sound has gone forth into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world‘ [Ps 18.5]. [2] And Isaiah speaks as though in the person of the Apostles (when they relate to Christ that the people were convinced, not by their words, but by the power of Him who sent them), and says: ‘Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? We have preached before Him as a little child, as if a root in a thirsty ground‘ [Isa 53.1-2]. (And the rest of the prophecy as quoted above.) [3] When the passage, spoken in the name of many, states: ‘We have preached before Him,’ and adds, ‘as a little child,’ it proves that sinners will obey Him as servants, and will all become as one child in His sight. An example of this is had in a human body: although it is made up of many members, it is called, and is, one body. So also in the case of the people and the Church: although they are many individuals, they form one body and are called by one common name. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 42)

From Isaiah we know that the Prophets who were sent to carry His messages to man are called angels and apostles of God, for Isaiah uses the expression, ‘Send me’ [Isa 6.8]. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 75)

. . . we Christians, who have gained a knowledge of the true worship of God from the Law and from the word which went forth from Jerusalem by way of the Apostles of Jesus, . . . (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 110)

All of this shows the likelihood that Justin Martyr did not hold to sola Scriptura. Nothing seen in Justin is inconsistent with the perennial Catholic understanding of authority. His thought is simply at an early stage of Christian development, as we would fully expect in the 2nd century. Loving Scripture and believing it is materially sufficient is not enough to establish that one believes in sola Scriptura, or else I myself would be an enthusiastic proponent of it, whereas in fact I think it is a dangerous falsehood not found in the New Testament and viciously self-defeating. What Lucas has produced as “proof” in no way, shape, or form, proves what he erroneously thinks it proves.

***

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: [email protected]. 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: Lucas Banzoli, Facebook photo as of 5-3-22, dated 15 January 2018.

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli attempts to show that Justin Martyr held to sola Scriptura, but only proves his belief in the truth of material sufficiency.

2023-02-21T15:26:03-04:00

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He’s active on YouTube.

***

The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in blue. I used Google Translate to transfer his Portugese text into English.

*****

This is a reply to Lucas’ article, “2ª Timóteo 3:14-17 e a Sola Scriptura” [2nd Timothy 3:14-17 and Sola Scriptura (Abridged Version)] (9-11-12).

One of the strongest passages in favor of the biblical Christian principle of Sola Scriptura is found in 2 Timothy 3:14-17, where Paul says:

2 Timothy 3:14-17 (RSV) But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it [15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, [17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Here Paul attests and confirms the complete sufficiency of the Scriptures, for he says that the Holy Letters:

“…are able [dunamai] to instruct you for salvation” (v.15)

Paul here employs the Greek word dunamai, which denotes power. He is saying that Scripture is powerful enough to make man wise for salvation. “Sage” here is the translation of the Greek word sophizo, which means:

4679 σοφιζω sophizo of 4680; TDNT – 7:527,1056; v 1) to make wise, teach. 2) to become wise, to have understanding.

No Catholic has any problem with any of that. We (overwhelmingly) believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture (all that is necessary for salvation is found in Holy Scripture, either explicitly, implicitly (in kernel or primitively developed form), or by direct deduction from other passages. I just engaged in a lengthy exchange about this with Brazilian Portugese apologist Pedro França Gaião, entitled, “Material Sufficiency of Scripture & Anti-Catholic Sophistry” (5-23-22). So far (after a week, he has chosen not to counter-reply, and to instead participate in a series of insults and ad hominem attacks against Catholics. Apparently, he’s not confident enough to defend his theological positions. ‘Tis a pity.

Secondly, before we go further, we must carefully define exactly what sola Scriptura is. Lucas doesn’t seem to do that anywhere in this paper, yet it’s crucial to do so, because there are so many misunderstandings on both sides of the debate. Here is the standard definition:

Reformed Baptist apologist James White (already mentioned by Fr. James in his video) defines sola Scriptura as I have myself defined it for 31 years as a Catholic:

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church. (The Roman Catholic Controversy, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996, 59; the original was all italics)

Reformed Protestant Keith A. Mathison concurs:

Scripture . . . is the only inspired and inherently infallible norm, and therefore Scripture is the only final authoritative norm. (The Shape of Sola Scriptura, Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2001, 260)

So does the late Protestant apologist Norman Geisler:

What Protestants mean by sola scriptura is that the Bible alone is the infallible written authority for faith and morals. (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995, 178; co-author, Ralph E. Mackenzie)

Lutheran pastor Jordan Cooper agrees as well:

Sola Scriptura . . . recognizes that there are many authorities, but Scripture is the sole infallible authority, so Scripture has preference over all other authorities we might have. (“An Explanation of Sola Scriptura,  3-11-19)

As does Baptist pastor Gavin Ortlund:

Sola Scriptura has always been maintained as the view that the Bible is the only infallible rule for theology. (“Sola Scriptura DEFENDED”, 12-15-20).

London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689): The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, . . . [very first sentence].

Since Scripture is the only infallible norm for theology, then it follows that the Church (including the papacy and ecumenical councils) and tradition (including apostolic succession) can never be infallible. This proposed exclusivity of infallible authority in the Bible is what the proponents of sola Scriptura cannot prove (and have not ever proven) from Holy Scripture itself. Yet it is essential in its definition, and this is their burden to establish, in order to prevent their view from becoming self-defeating.

Failing to prove these things, they then do a sort of sleight of hand and act as if proving material sufficiency of the Bible (which Catholics agree with) in Scripture is proving sola Scriptura. It’s not. They are two different things. So what we see is an endless parade of Protestants proving material sufficiency of Scripture and casually assuming that this is the same thing as sola Scriptura. It’s a pathetic, pitiful display.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 is almost always considered the quintessential proof of sola Scriptura, and Lucas acts no differently.  But it doesn’t prove any such thing, as I will show. Even Reformed Baptist pastor and five-point Calvinist Gavin Ortlund admitted that it doesn’t, in his video, “Sola Scriptura DEFENDED” (12-15-20):

I’d also admit that verses like 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21, and John 10:35 don’t in themselves get you to sola Scriptura, . . . [between 13:55-16:05 on the tape].

Lutheran pastor Jordan Cooper takes this lack of biblical proof even further in his video, “A Defense of Sola Scriptura (3-12-19):

I think the question that we have is: do we have to find a particular Scripture that says Scripture is the only authority? And I just don’t think we have to. We don’t. There’s nothing in — you can’t find — in any of Paul’s letters, for example, . . . “by the way, Scripture is the only authority and traditions are not an authority and there is no magisterium that is given some kind of infallible authority to pass on infallible teachings.” It seems like a lot of Roman Catholic apologists think that for Protestants to defend their position, that they have to find a text that says that.” [1:39-2:14]

Protestants don’t have to find one text, but anything; several texts taken together, through deductive logic, that teaches such a thing. They can’t, and because they can’t, we see a remarkable, mind-boggling concession like this: a prominent Lutheran pastor and theologian admitting that the Bible doesn’t teach the central tenet of their rule of faith: the Bible as the only infallible authority. This being the case, he throws in the towel and claims that there is no necessity to even look for such (nonexistent) proofs. Protestants are determined to believe in this principle, even though it’s clearly not in the Bible. That makes it (plainly) a self-defeating belief. One of the two “pillars of the Reformation”: as Protestants call them (the other being sola fide: faith alone) isn’t in the Bible (nor do I think their other pillar is, either). It’s an extrabiblical tradition of men. But they seem not to care about this.

So Pastor Cooper, in light of this, does what Protestants always do: he says Scripture is uniquely inspired (of course it is; no one disagrees), and finds material sufficiency in the Bible and plays the illogical game of acting as if this is sufficient to in effect support sola Scriptura and the Protestant rule of faith and to refute the Catholic “three-legged” rule of faith (Bible-Church-Tradition). One can’t disprove a competing point of view by producing “evidence” for things that the other side already believes. But that’s the route Pastor Cooper decided to take:

I think, more so, what we have to do is just speak about the unique authority of Scripture and the unique nature of Scripture, and just to say that Scripture does present itself as God-breathed. 2 Timothy 3:16 is kind of the famous text that says this . . . [2:15-2:35]

Amazing, but not surprising to me (one who has been debating this issue for 31 years). Once closely scrutinized, Protestants really isn’t “totally biblical” at all. In fact, it’s far less Bible-based than Catholicism is. The present issue is a prime and classic example of that. And these two influential Protestant pastors on YouTube (nice and sincere and good and admirable Christian examples both, as men) spectacularly help to prove my point. See my full replies on this issue, to Gavin and Jordan.

I will now proceed to show that Lucas plays the very same game: he proves material sufficiency (that we agree with) but not sola Scriptura from Scripture. And this was his best chance for proving sola Scriptura, according to widespread Protestant proclamation that 2 Timothy 3:16 is the very best proof of that false and novel doctrine. If there is one passage that they always bring up, it’s this one.

In other words, Holy Scripture is powerful {dunamai} to make a man wise, understanding {sophizo} so that he may be saved {soteria}. If the Scriptures were not sufficient for salvation, Paul would not have said that they were powerful in making man wise for salvation. They would be incomplete, insufficient, without oral tradition. Therefore, they would not be powerful enough, or at most it would make the man of God wise for many things, but not for salvation, in case the Scriptures were insufficient for salvation, as Catholics preach. Then Paul says: “…all Scripture is inspired by God [theopneustos]” (v.16)

Yes, of course Scripture is sufficient in that way. Praise God! But it’s not the topic at hand. If Lucas wants to defend material sufficiency rather than sola Scriptura, he ought to indicate that in his title and an introduction. Instead, we get the same old tired routine.

“Divinely inspired” is the translation of “theopneustos”, which means:

2315 θεοπνευστος theopneustos of 2316

and a supposed derivative of 4154; TDNT – 6:453,876; adj

1) inspired by God.

1a) the content of the scriptures. Therefore, Paul points to Scripture as being divinely inspired (theopneustos) of God, not an extra-biblical oral tradition. And he continues: “…and profitable for teaching [didaskalia]” (v.16)

Yes, the Bible is inspired. DUH! Christianity 0101. After stating the obvious, and a thing that no serious, educated trinitarian Christian disagrees with, he then throws in the obligatory misrepresentation of the Catholic and Orthodox positions. Neither contends for an “inspired” Church or tradition: only an infallible Church and tradition (and that, under very particular specified conditions). This is the real debate. Is anything besides Scripture an infallible authority? Protestants say no. Catholics, Orthodox, and the Bible say yes.

“Teach” here is the translation of the Greek term “didaskalia”, which means:

1319 διδασκαλια didaskalia

from 1320; TDNT – 2:160,161; n f

1) teaching, instruction.

2) teaching.

2a) that which is taught, doctrine.

2b) teachings, precepts.

Indeed, Christians learn from the Bible. I’ve been intensely studying it and massively using it in my writings for these past 45 years. Again: DUH! What else is new?

Paul is pointing out the sufficiency of Scripture for the indoctrination of man for salvation. He had just pointed out the point of wisdom from the Scriptures for salvation (v.15), and now he points out that these very Scriptures are what constitute the Christian’s indoctrination (v.16), the teaching, the instruction, the precepts of genuine faith.

In other words, material sufficiency . . .

Again, the oral tradition is left out of the way and the Scriptures alone are pointed out as being the center of human indoctrination with a view to salvation.

This passage is specifically about the Bible. It doesn’t follow that everything it doesn’t mention is excluded. I’ll prove that from another of Paul’s inspired writings shortly.

And Paul goes on to say:

“…for the rebuke [elegchos]” (v.16)

“Rebuke” (or “reprove”) is the equivalent of the Greek “elegchos”, which means:

1650 ελεγχος elegchos

from 1651; TDNT – 2:476,221; no

1) verification, by which something is proved or tested.

2) conviction.

In other words, Paul points to Scripture as the material by which something is tested and verified to be true or false. The verification of the plausibility of any doctrine must pass through the sieve of Scripture, which Paul points out as being the “elegchos” of the Christian faith, that is, the means by which we verify (test, prove) whether the doctrine taught by someone proceeds or not. .

Yes, Scripture must be agreed with, in any proposed tenet of theology. No one disagrees. If something is contrary to Scripture: not harmonious with it, it’s false.

Catholics cannot say the same thing, for they care little or nothing whether a given doctrine is biblical or unbiblical, since their scapegoat (also known as oral tradition) serves as the basis for all non-biblical teachings. Biblical from them.

Nonsense. As I just said (repetition is a good teacher): “Scripture must be agreed with, in any proposed tenet of theology. . . . If something is contrary to Scripture: not harmonious with it, it’s false.” This is Catholic teaching, and always has been. There are truths not included in the Bible, but they must never ever contradict the Bible, like the extrabiblical tradition of men and falsehood sola Scriptura does.

In my apologetics, I defend absolutely every Catholic doctrine and belief as in harmony with Holy Scripture.

And Paul continues:

“…for correction [epanorthosis]” (v.16)

“Correction” here comes from the Greek word “epanorthosis”, which means:

1882 επανορθωσις epanorthosis

from a compound of 1909 and 461; TDNT – 5:450,727; n f

1) restoration to a correct state.

2) correction, improvement of life or character.

Scripture, being inspired revelation, can obviously correct false doctrine. That’s exactly what I do with regard to sola Scriptura. I utilize Scripture in order to correct the false and unbiblical doctrine of sola Scriptura. Hence my books: 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (2012) [now also available in Portugese] and Pillars of Sola Scriptura: Replies to Whitaker, Goode, & Biblical “Proofs” for “Bible Alone” (2012).

Therefore, the improvement of our character in our Christian life, with a view to restoration to a right state, comes from the Holy Scriptures and not from any other writing or tradition.

The Bible simply never says that. Lucas is (like so many Protestant defenses of sola Scriptura) assuming without any evidence that what the Bible asserts about itself in this one passage somehow excludes anything other than itself. It does not.

It is the Scriptures that have the power to restore man to the image and likeness of God.

Yes, they do have that power. Amen!

And Paul goes further and says:

“…for instruction in righteousness” (v.16)

“Instruction in justice” is, in Greek, “paideia ho in dikaiosune”. The first word means an “instruction which points to growth in virtue” (Strong’s Concordance, 3809), and the second means:

1343 δικαιοσυνη dikaiosune

from 1342; TDNT – 2:192,168; n f

1) in a broad sense: state of what is as it should be, justice, a condition acceptable to God.

1a) doctrine dealing with the way in which man can reach a state approved by God.

1b) integrity; virtue; purity of life; justice; right thinking, feeling and acting.

2) in a restricted sense, justice or virtue that gives to each his due.

Of course it does all that, too. No Christian in their right mind denies this. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether sola Scriptura is true and biblical or not. But it sounds impressive, doesn’t it (if one doesn’t know that it is a total non sequitur)?

It is very clear, therefore, that the standard of justice (in doctrinal and moral terms, such as integrity, virtue, purity, thoughts and actions) is achieved through the instructions we receive in Holy Scripture. It would be very strange for Paul to point to the Scriptures as being all these, if they were merely what Catholics say about it: insufficient!

It is sufficient; just not exclusively so.

But the bigger bomb comes in verse 17, which says:

“…that the man of God may be perfect [artios]” (v.17)

“Perfect” here comes from the Greek word “artios”, which means:

739 αρτιος artios

of 737; TDNT – 1:475.80; adj

1) provided, supplied.

2) complete, perfect.

Therefore, Paul here attests and confirms that the Scriptures make man “complete, perfect, provided, supplied” (meanings of artios) for salvation (v.15), teaching (v.16), correction (v.16), reproof (v.16) and instruction in righteousness (v.16)! If the Scriptures were insufficient, then the Bible would not make the man of God “complete,” but incomplete; it would not make him “supplied”, but lacking an oral tradition; and it would not make him “perfect,” but imperfect, since man would only be complete and perfect for salvation if he were supplemented with oral tradition.

So we see that Paul’s language, from beginning to end, attests to the superiority and complete sufficiency of Scripture for the Christian walk.

I’m delighted that Lucas brought up this aspect of artios. Now I shall make my reply proper to all of this, regarding 2 Timothy 3.

In 2 Timothy alone (context), St. Paul makes reference to oral tradition three times (1:13-14, 2:2, 3:14). In the latter instance, St. Paul says of the tradition, knowing from whom you learned it. The personal reference proves he is not talking about Scripture, but himself as the tradition-bearer, so to speak . . . The “exclusivist” or “dichotomous” form of reasoning employed by Protestant apologists here is fundamentally flawed. For example, to reason by analogy, let’s examine a very similar passage, Ephesians 4:11-15:

Ephesians 4:11-15 And his gifts were that some should be apostle, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are able to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,

If the Greek artios (RSV, complete / KJV, perfect) proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture in 2 Timothy, then teleios (RSV, mature manhood / KJV, perfect) in Ephesians would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors, teachers and so forth for the attainment of Christian perfection. Note that in Ephesians 4:11-15 the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, knowledge of Jesus, the fulness of Christ, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3:16-17, yet it doesn’t even mention Scripture.

Therefore, the Protestant interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves too much, since if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to synthesize the two passages in an inclusive, complementary fashion, by recognizing that the mere absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. Thus, the Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching. This is precisely the Catholic view. Neither passage is intended in an exclusive sense.

And the apostle concludes by saying:

“…and fully equipped [agathos] for every good work” (v.17)

Scripture is powerful to make man “fully prepared”, which in Greek is “agathos”, which means:

18 αγαθος agathos

a primitive word; TDNT 1:10.3; adj

1) of good constitution or nature.

2) useful, healthy.

3) good, pleasant, kind, cheerful, happy.

4) excellent, distinguished.

5) honest, honorable.

That is: fully honest, honorable, excellent, distinguished, useful, healthy, good, pleasant, kind, cheerful, happy! It is difficult to see the limits of the benefits of agathos in the life of the Christian. And Paul says that Scripture makes man “fully agathos”, that is, completely all that which is the meanings of agathos!

Therefore, it becomes naive and unreasonable to infer that Scripture is not sufficient in the life of the Christian, if Paul says that it makes the man perfect and fully prepared. It makes man all that we see above in its fullness; therefore, never, never and under no circumstances can we say that it is insufficient in the life of the Christian!

It is sufficient, but so is the Church, as the Ephesians passage above shows. Two other passage clearly indicate an infallible Church:

In the Jerusalem Council, described in Acts 15, apostles (including Paul, Peter, and James) and elders got together to resolve a controversy over the place and function of circumcision, which foods were clean, and in a broader sense, how much Mosaic Law would apply to Christians. Here’s what it decided:

Acts 15:28-29 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: [29] that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.

Here is the authority that this letter had, as seen in how Paul viewed it:

Acts 16:4 As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.

This is the universal and authoritative (and in this case, infallible) Church. A decision reached at Jerusalem was regarded as binding and in effect, “infallible” and was to be observed not just locally, but by Christians all through Asia Minor (Turkey), where Paul was preaching. This is essentially the equivalent of an ecumenical council.

1 Timothy 3:15 . . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

This may not seem compelling at first: just seven words at the end. But I believe that if we analyze it more deeply and think through it, that it provides a rock-solid argument for the infallibility of the Church. Here’s how I myself did that in my book, 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (pp. 104-107, #82):

Pillars and foundations support things and prevent them from collapsing. To be a “bulwark” of the truth, means to be a “safety net” against truth turning into falsity. If the Church could err, it could not be what Scripture says it is. God’s truth would be the house built on a foundation of sand in Jesus’ parable. For this passage of Scripture to be true, the Church could not err — it must be infallible. A similar passage may cast further light on 1 Timothy 3:15:

Ephesians 2:19-21 . . . you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [20] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [21] in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;

1 Timothy 3:15 defines “household of God” as “the church of the living God.” Therefore, we know that Ephesians 2:19-21 is also referring to the Church, even though that word is not present. Here the Church’s own “foundation” is “the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” The foundation of the Church itself is Jesus and apostles and prophets.

Prophets spoke “in the name of the Lord” (1 Chron 21:19; 2 Chron 33:18; Jer 26:9), and commonly introduced their utterances with “thus says the Lord” (Is 10:24; Jer 4:3; 26:4; Ezek 13:8; Amos 3:11-12; and many more). They spoke the “word of the Lord” (Is 1:10; 38:4; Jer 1:2; 13:3, 8; 14:1; Ezek 13:1-2; Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Jon 1:1; Mic 1:1, et cetera). These communications cannot contain any untruths insofar as they truly originate from God, with the prophet serving as a spokesman or intermediary of God (Jer 2:2; 26:8; Ezek 11:5; Zech 1:6; and many more). Likewise, apostles proclaimed truth unmixed with error (1 Cor 2:7-13; 1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11-14; 2 Pet 1:12-21).

Does this foundation have any faults or cracks? Since Jesus is the cornerstone, he can hardly be a faulty foundation. Neither can the apostles or prophets err when teaching the inspired gospel message or proclaiming God’s word. In the way that apostles and prophets are infallible, so is the Church set up by our Lord Jesus Christ. We ourselves (all Christians) are incorporated into the Church (following the metaphor), on top of the foundation.

1 Peter 2:4-9 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; [5] and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. [6] For it stands in scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.” [7] To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, “The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,” [8] and “A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall”; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. [9] But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (cf. Isa 28:16)

Jesus is without fault or untruth, and he is the cornerstone of the Church. The Church is also more than once even identified with Jesus himself, by being called his “Body” (Acts 9:5 cf. with 22:4 and 26:11; 1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23; 4:12; 5:23, 30; Col 1:24). That the Church is so intimately connected with Jesus, who is infallible, is itself a strong argument that the Church is also infallible and without error.

Therefore, the Church is built on the foundation of Jesus (perfect in all knowledge), and the prophets and apostles (who spoke infallible truth, often recorded in inspired, infallible Scripture). Moreover, it is the very “Body of Christ.” It stands to reason that the Church herself is infallible, by the same token. In the Bible, nowhere is truth presented as anything less than pure truth, unmixed with error. That was certainly how Paul conceived his own “tradition” that he received and passed down.

Knowing what truth is, how can its own foundation or pillar be something less than total truth (since truth itself contains no falsehoods, untruths, lies, or errors)? It cannot. It is impossible. It is a straightforward matter of logic and plain observation. A stream cannot rise above its source. What is built upon a foundation cannot be greater than the foundation. If it were, the whole structure would collapse.

If an elephant stood on the shoulders of a man as its foundation, that foundation would collapse. The base of a skyscraper has to hold the weight above it. The foundations of a suspension bridge over a river have to be strong enough to support that bridge.

Therefore, we must conclude that if the Church is the foundation of truth, the Church must be infallible, since truth is infallible, and the foundation cannot be lesser than that which is built upon it. And since there is another infallible authority apart from Scripture, sola scriptura must be false.

And Paul also says that it makes a man fully equipped for “every good work,” which in the Greek is “exartizo,” which means:

1822 εξαρτιζω exartizo
de 1537 and a derivative of 739; TDNT – 1:475.80; v
1) complete, finish.
1a) to supply with perfection.

That is, the Scriptures perfectly supply our spiritual needs, in all the senses seen in the previous verses. In the face of all this, it is incoherent and even absurd to say that Scripture is insufficient and lacking in an oral tradition for man to be sufficiently indoctrinated for salvation. Paul does not even cite oral tradition here, and he attests to the complete sufficiency of Scripture in several possible ways.

Likewise, Ephesians 4:11-13 states: “And his gifts were that some should be apostle, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” without ever mentioning Scripture.

To claim that the quotations pertain only to the Old Testament is a weak and superficial objection, since Paul was referring to the nature of Scripture, not a list of books. Therefore, being a reference to the essence or nature of the Holy Scriptures, it encompasses “all Scripture,” that is, all divinely inspired writings which would be recognized as being equally Holy Scripture.

In fact, we have strong indications that the apostles themselves already considered the New Testament divinely inspired as much as the Old, for Peter affirms that Paul’s writings are part of the Scriptures (2Pe.3:16), and Paul quotes in 1st Timothy 5 :18 a passage from the gospel of Luke (10:7), calling it “Scripture” (1 Tim.5:18), along with quotations from the Old Testament.

Therefore, Paul’s reference in 2 Timothy 3:14-17 concerns the nature of the Scriptures which encompasses all the books that we recognize as being “divinely inspired” by God, which evidently includes not only the Old Testament but also the New. 

I agree. I haven’t used that argument here.

I also recommend reading this article [link], in which I clarify this passage with much more breadth and depth.

And once again the Catholic claims against Sola Scriptura fall to the ground.

Not in the slightest. In fact, Lucas (as I explained) never properly defined that which he was supposedly defending, and that is the first task of any rebuttal. I did, from six solid Protestant sources. I proved that Lucas was defending material sufficiency and not sola Scriptura. Then I showed from Ephesians 4 that 1 Timothy 3:14-17 is not an exclusive passage. The Church (without mentioning Scripture in that passage) is also said to “equip” in almost all the same ways.

Lucas’ task was also to show that an infallible Church and tradition are not taught in the Bible. He never did that. He merely made a bald claim with no supporting references. I, on the other hand, gave two very strong arguments from Scripture itself, to the effect that an infallible Church is taught in the Bible. If so, sola Scriptura collapses. Lucas didn’t positively establish it, and I shot it down with two biblical arguments that are diametrically opposed to it.

Let readers judge who has the better and more biblical (and true) case!

***

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: [email protected]. 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: Lucas Banzoli, Facebook photo as of 5-3-22, dated 15 January 2018.

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli attempts to show that 2 Timothy 3:14-17 supports sola Scriptura, but succeeds in only defending material sufficiency.

2023-02-21T15:25:17-04:00

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He’s active on YouTube.

***

The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in blue. I used Google Translate to transfer his Portugese text into English.

*****

This is a reply to his article,“Tertuliano e Orígenes em defesa da Sola Scriptura” [Tertullian and Origen in defense of Sola Scriptura] (4-17-16).

• Tertullian (160 – 220)

Tertullian also took pains to show the unique authority of the Bible:

“For even the apostle, in his declaration – which he does not do without feeling the weight of it – that ‘Christ died,’ immediately adds, ‘according to the Scriptures,’ that he might lighten the harshness of the declaration by the authority of Scripture, and thus remove the offense from the reader” [Contra Práxeas, 29]

He notes that Paul argued from the Scriptures. So what? Of course he did. So do all the fathers, all Catholic apologists, theologians, bishops and popes, priests in their homilies, and I myself constantly in my work. This doesn’t prove sola Scriptura. It proves use of Scripture as an inspired authority.

For him, the only reason that could lead them to believe a doctrine is if it were given to them in Scripture:

“Surely one could not believe even these things even of the Son of God, unless they were given to us in the Scriptures.” [Contra Práxeas, 16]

This is an interesting one and carries some force, I grant [link]. It can’t be immediately dismissed like so many Protestant patristic arguments. But I think it could probably be interpreted in terms of material sufficiency. My own take on what he says here is that he is commenting on all these amazing events recounted in the Bible, that are so much so that it would be difficult for people to believe in them, but for the fact that they are included in the inspired revelation of the Bible. We know that elsewhere (as I will show below) Tertullian stated that extrabiblical doctrines (harmonious with the Bible) could and should be believed, so he is not absolutely against that.

Remember, Catholics fully agree that the Bible is unique. We simply assert that there are other infallible — not inspired — authorities, too (Church and tradition).

He does not say, “unless it is given to us in Scripture or tradition,” but only in Scripture. It is the only authority that can lead a Christian to believe any doctrine.

He says those things elsewhere (which Lucas will have to grapple with). But it could be partly an exaggerated or rhetorical argument as well, because immediately after this cited portion, he says: “possibly also they could not have been believed of the Father, even if they had been given in the Scriptures, since these men bring Him down into Mary’s womb, and set Him before Pilate’s judgment-seat, and bury Him in the sepulchre of Joseph.” He isn’t going to argue that these things shouldn’t be believed, despite being in the Bible. So it seems to me at least this second statement must be rhetorical and non-literal, with a particular meaning. If it is (which seems clear), then it is likely that the preceding statement may be, too.

She is also enough, as he said:

“Make us happy to say that Christ died, the Son of the Father; and let that be enough, because the Scriptures have told us so.” [Contra Práxeas, 29]

Material sufficiency . . .

For him, the “voice of the Holy Spirit” present in Scripture is enough and no other deliberation is necessary beyond that:

“And why should I, a man of limited memory, suggest anything more? Why remember anything else in Scripture? As if the voice of the Holy Spirit wasn’t enough; or else any other deliberation were necessary, if the Lord cursed and condemned by priority the artisans of these things, of whom He curses and condemns the worshippers!” [On Idolatry, 4]

Well, yes, inspired Scripture is enough to settle problems. But this is not also a logically necessary denial that nothing else could also do so.

Against the school of Hermogenes, he declares one of the most emphatic statements of Sola Scriptura, saying:

“Let the school of Hermogenes show us that what it teaches is written: if it is not written, tremble at the anathema fulminated against those who add to Scripture, or take away from it.” [Contra Hermógenes, 22]

There were, therefore, two options: either the doctrine was written (in Scripture) and valid; or, if it was not written, it represented an addition to the Scriptures, and would be the object of God’s anathema withering. From this statement we see how seriously the early Church Fathers took the concept of Sola Scriptura, where only doctrines that were written in the Bible were accepted and where anything more or less than that was anathema.

The topic at hand here [link] was whether creation was made out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo), or from “underlying matter.”  The sentence immediately before Lucas’ citation reads: “But whether all things were made out of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find.” So Tertullian asks his opponent to produce such a passage (I have produced the contrary) and then notes that no one should add or take away from Scripture because the book of Revelation (22:18-19) tells us not to do so. No one disagrees with that. I don’t see how this is any sort of proof of sola Scriptura.

This represents the entirety of Lucas’ arguments with regard to Tertullian and the rule of faith (one semi-convincing proof that’s not compelling). I can produce far more than this, because I don’t ignore the many relevant passages in Tertullian, like Lucas does:

The material below is from Philip Schaff’s 38-volume collection of the Church fathers. Anglican Church historian J. N. D. Kelly summarizes Tertullian’s view on the rule of faith:

[F]or Tertullian what was believed and preached in the churches was absolutely authoritative . . . on occasion [he] described this original message as tradition, using the word to denote the teaching delivered by the apostles, without any implied contrast between tradition and Scripture . . . Tertullian can refer [de praescr. 21; c. Marc. I, 21;4 5] to the whole body of apostolic doctrine, whether delivered orally or in epistles, as apostolorum traditio or apostolica traditio . . .

Tertullian’s attitude does not differ from Irenaeus’s in any important respect . . . In its primary sense, however, the apostolic, evangelical or Catholic tradition [C. Marc. 4, 5; 5, 19; de monog. 2] stood for the faith delivered by the apostles, and he never contrasted tradition so understood with Scripture . . .

But Tertullian did not confine the apostolic tradition to the New Testament; even if Scripture were to be set on one side, it would still be found in the doctrine publicly proclaimed by the churches. Like Irenaeus, he found [E.g., de praescr. 21; 32; c. Marc. 4, 5] the surest test of the authenticity of this doctrine in the fact that the churches had been founded by, and were continuously linked with, the apostles; and as a further guarantee he added [De praescr. 28] their otherwise inexplicable unanimity . . .

This unwritten tradition he considered to be virtually identical with the ‘rule of faith’ (regula fidei), which he preferred to Scripture as a standard when disputing with Gnostics . . . where controversy with heretics breaks out, the right interpretation can be found only where the true Christian faith and discipline have been maintained, i.e., in the Church [De praescr. 19] . . .

He was also satisfied, and made the point even more forcibly than Irenaeus, that the indispensable key to Scripture belonged exclusively to the Church, which in the regula had preserved the apostles’ testimony in its original shape. . . . the one divine revelation was contained in its fulness both in the Bible and in the Church’s continuous public witness. (Early Christian Doctrines, HarperSanFrancisco, revised 1978 edition, 36, 39-41)

The Church

[T]he churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church . . . (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 20)

[I]t is incredible that these could have been such as to bring in some other rule of faith, differing from and contrary to that which they were proclaiming through the Catholic churches, — as if they spoke of one God in the Church, (and) another at home, and described one substance of Christ, publicly, (and) another secretly, and announced one hope of the resurrection before all men, (and) another before the few; although they themselves, in their epistles, besought men that they would all speak one and the same thing, and that there should be no divisions and dissensions in the church, seeing that they, whether Paul or others, preached the same things. Moreover, they remembered (the words): Let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than this comes of evil; [Matthew 5:37] so that they were not to handle the gospel in a diversity of treatment. (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 26)

Sacred Tradition

It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 21)

When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition? (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 28)

Such are the summary arguments which we use, when we take up arms against heretics for the faith of the gospel, maintaining both that order of periods, which rules that a late date is the mark of forgers, and that authority of churches which lends support to the tradition of the apostles; because truth must needs precede the forgery, and proceed straight from those by whom it has been handed on. (Against Marcion, Book IV, ch. 5)

We have it on the true tradition of the Church, that this epistle was sent to the Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans. (Against Marcion, Book V, ch. 17)

For if, even at that time, the tradition of the gospel had spread everywhere, how much more now! Now, if it is our gospel which has spread everywhere, rather than any heretical gospel, much less Marcion’s, which only dates from the reign of Antoninus, then ours will be the gospel of the apostles. (Against Marcion, Book V, ch. 19)

Apostolic Succession

[E]ven if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians? For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions. (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 19)

They [the Apostles] then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. . . . Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality — privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery. (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 20)

From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for no man knows the Father save the Son, and he to whomever the Son will reveal Him. Matthew 11:27 Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach — that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached — in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them — can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches— those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth. (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 21)

[N]or can they presume to claim to be a church themselves who positively have no means of proving when, and with what swaddling-clothes this body was established. (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 22)

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, — a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith. (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 32)

Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, as many as walk according to the rule, which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. . . . But on what ground are heretics strangers and enemies to the apostles, if it be not from the difference of their teaching, which each individual of his own mere will has either advanced or received in opposition to the apostles? (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 37)

No doubt, after the time of the apostles, the truth respecting the belief of God suffered corruption, but it is equally certain that during the life of the apostles their teaching on this great article did not suffer at all; so that no other teaching will have the right of being received as apostolic than that which is at the present day proclaimed in the churches of apostolic foundation. You will, however, find no church of apostolic origin but such as reposes its Christian faith in the Creator. But if the churches shall prove to have been corrupt from the beginning, where shall the pure ones be found? Will it be among the adversaries of the Creator? Show us, then, one of your churches, tracing its descent from an apostle, and you will have gained the day. (Against Marcion, Book I, ch. 21)

Petrine Primacy / Papacy

Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the rock on which the church should be built, who also obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth? (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 22)

Afterwards, as he himself [St. Paul] narrates, he went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing Peter, [Galatians 1:18] because of his office, no doubt,  . . . (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 23)

[T]hey at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, . . . (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 30)

*****

Lucas then moves onto Origen, where he commits the same misguided error again and again:

Like the others, Origen reinforced the fact of the sufficiency of Scripture. He declared that “what we have taken from the authority of Scripture must be sufficient to refute the arguments of heretics” [De Principiis, Livro II, 5:3]. When he entered into theological debates, he made a point of saying that the discussion at hand should be resolved on the basis of the Bible.

This is pure material sufficiency. Most Catholics agree, so it is a non-issue.

He said:

“Thirdly, the apostles manifested to us the Holy Spirit, associated in honor and dignity with the Father and the Son. In this, however, it is no longer clearly distinguished whether the Holy Spirit is begotten or unbegotten, or whether he must also be considered the Son of God or not. It is these things that must be investigated to the best of our ability through a careful search from the Holy Scriptures.” [De Principiis, Cap.4]

“It is important, therefore, that he use these things as elements and foundations, according to the commandment that says: ‘Illuminate yourselves by the light of science’, anyone who wishes to construct a series and a body of reasons for all these things, to investigate by means of manifest and necessary affirmations what there is of truth in each of them, and to build up a body of examples and affirmations from what I have found in the Holy Scriptures” [De Principiis, Cap.10]

“Now all this, as we have underlined, was done by the Holy Spirit that, seeing that those events which lie on the surface can be neither true nor useful, we may be guided to the investigation of that truth which is most deeply hidden, and to the affirmation of a meaning worthy of God in those Scriptures which we believe to have been inspired by Him.” [De Principii, 4:15]

Yeah, we should check all doctrines by Scripture. I did that today, in my previous reply to Lucas, showing that sola Scriptura can’t be found in Holy Scripture. Nothing proving sola Scriptura here . . .

He also made a point of analyzing in the Bible the veracity of each doctrine or theory elaborated. When something was not confirmed by the authority of Holy Scripture, he rejected it, to make way for what was biblical:

“I do not observe that this is greatly confirmed by the authority of Holy Scripture; whereas, in relation to the other two, a considerable number of passages are found in the Holy Scriptures which seem capable of being applied to them” [De Principii, 4]

The proof of the doctrines which he asserted he took not from tradition, but from Scripture: “To deal with so many and such things, it is not enough to entrust the sum of this subject to human senses and common intelligence, speaking, so to speak, visibly about invisible things. We must also take, for the demonstration of the things of which we speak, the testimonies of the Divine Scriptures” [De Principiis, Livro IV, Cap.1]

“Exhorted thus briefly by the very logic and coherence of the subject, though we have extended ourselves a little, what we have said is sufficient to show that there are some things whose significance cannot be explained by any discourse of human language, but which are declared by an intelligence, simpler than the properties of any words. The understanding of the divine letters must also adhere to this rule, and what is said must be considered not for the baseness of the word, but for the divinity of the Holy Spirit who inspired the one who wrote them.” [De Principiis, Livro IV, Cap.27]

Exactly right. Catholics totally agree! Go to the Bible to back up all of your doctrines. If we agree with this, then obviously it’s not an argument against us. It’s not even on-topic.

The reverse was also true. If the reason a doctrine was accepted was because of its conformity to Holy Scripture – not tradition – the reason why some erred was not because they ignored tradition, but because they ignored the Scriptures or did not read them correctly:

“Having made this brief comment on the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures by the Holy Spirit, it now seems necessary to explain why some, ignoring the way by which the understanding of the divine letters is reached, not reading them correctly, have fallen into so many errors” [De Principiis, Livro IV, Cap.8]

Scripture as the basis of all doctrines becomes even clearer when we see Origen saying that both the simplest and the most advanced would have to be built up by Scripture, not to mention tradition either for one or the other:

“He must do this, first, that the simplest may be edified by the very body of Scripture, as it were. This is what we call common and historical understanding. If, however, they already begin to advance a little, so that they can understand something more deeply, let them also be edified by the very soul of the Scriptures” [De Principiis, Livro IV, Cap.11]

His entire search for true doctrine was grounded in Scripture:

“All this, as we have said, the Holy Spirit sought so that, insofar as what is on the surface could not be true or useful, we would speedily be called to seek a higher truth, and search the Scriptures, which we believe to be inspired by God, a sense worthy of God” [De Principiis, Livro IV, Cap.15]

If one doesn’t study and understand the Bible, they leave themselves open to serious errors. The Catholic says “amen!” This all has to do with material sufficiency.

The same Scripture, which the Papists hold to be insufficient for salvation,

But we don’t do that . . .

Origen said was given just for our salvation!

“Just as man is said to be made up of body, soul and spirit, so is Holy Scripture, which by divine liberality was given for the salvation of men.” [De Principiis, Livro IV, Cap.11]

Of course it was. DUH!

He also advocated free examination. Instead of saying that the meaning of the passages could only be examined and discovered by the Roman magisterium, he asserted that any intelligent person who studied the Scriptures could discover the meaning for himself:

“People of intelligence who wish to study Scripture can also discover its meaning for themselves.” [Contra Celso, Livro VII, 11]

The Catholic Church (Council of Trent) required one interpretation only for all of seven verses in the Bible. That’s it! The rest can be interpreted as one wishes. Nor was it true historically that the Catholic Church tried to suppress the Bible, as the common myth would have it:

Were Vernacular Bibles Unknown Before Luther? (Luther’s Dubious Claims About the Supposed Utter Obscurity of the Bible Before His Translation) [6-15-11]

Dialogue: “Obscure” Bible Before Luther’s Translation? [7-24-14]

Catholic Church: Historic “Enemy” of the Bible? [9-11-15]

Did Pope Innocent III Forbid the Bible in 1199? (+ Does the Bible Itself Teach That it Should be Read Without Need of Any Authoritative Interpretation?) [5-11-21]

Did Medieval Catholicism Forbid All Vernacular Bibles? [5-11-21]

Council of Trent: Anti-Bible or Anti-Bad Bible Translations? [5-12-21]

“Unigenitus” (1713) vs. Personal Bible Study? (+ Other Supposed “Anti-Bible” Catholic Proclamations & Analogies to Calvinist “Dogmatism” at the Synod of Dort) [5-14-21]

Sometimes it wished to suppress unauthorized or bad translations; but of course Protestants have always done that, too, so it’s not an issue.

Even the “deeper truths” could be discovered by one who investigated the meaning of Scripture on his own, citing three biblical texts in his defense:

“The deepest truths are discovered by those who know how to ascend from simple faith and investigate the underlying meaning of the divine Scriptures, according to the admonitions of Jesus, who said, ‘Search the Scriptures,’ and the desire of Paul, who taught that ‘we must know how to respond to every man’, yes, and also of those who said ‘always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the faith that is in you’” [Contra Celso III, 33]

Material sufficiency again . . .

Interestingly, Origen never told Celsus that if he wanted to discover the deeper meanings of biblical texts he would have to turn to an infallible magisterium in Rome, or consult a pope who would interpret Scripture infallibly. Rather, what he reaffirms is that anyone can study the Bible and discover for himself the meaning of the passages. It was exactly the same principle restored by the Reformers, being explicitly preached at that time. 

If only one aspect of his teaching is presented, one would get such an impression. But I believe that all the relevant material one can find about a specific Church father should be set forth, so that we get the whole truth, not half-truths and carefully selected portions meant to convey an impression in one direction only. And so I now present Origen’s writings that are actually relevant to this debate and on-topic:

And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles. (On First PrinciplesBook IV, Section 9; English translation based on extant Greek of Origen)

As in all such cases, one must also determine what the writer believes about the Church and Christian tradition, because the rule of faith has to do with the relationship of those two entities with Scripture. We already see that Origen, in the second excerpt above, incorporates the Church and apostolic succession into the mix (“who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles”), so that he is expressing the Catholic “three-legged stool” view.

The word “standard” is particularly noteworthy and revealing. Church and tradition/ apostolic succession are involved in the rule of faith alongside Holy Scripture. All we need do now is supplement the above with other related utterances from Origen, and reputable Protestant scholarly opinion. Origen also wrote the following:

Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit; and not only regarding these, but also regarding others which are created existences, viz., the powers and the holy virtues; it seems on that account necessary first of all to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these, and then to pass to the investigation of other points. For as we ceased to seek for truth (notwithstanding the professions of many among Greeks and Barbarians to make it known) among all who claimed it for erroneous opinions, after we had come to believe that Christ was the Son of God, and were persuaded that we must learn it from Himself; so, seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the Churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition. (De Principiispreface, complete section 2; ANF, Vol. IV)

Origen, in this Preface, reiterates over and over the same non-scriptural elements of the rule of faith: “the teaching of the apostles” (4), “most clearly taught throughout the Churches” (4), “the apostolic teaching” (5), “This also is clearly defined in the teaching of the Church” (5), “the teaching of the Church” (again in 5, and in 6, 7, 10), “the Church’s teaching” (7), “Respecting which there is one opinion throughout the whole Church” (8). He continues on in the same manner throughout this work:

“he may judge these to be heretical and opposed to the faith of the Church” (Bk. I, ch. 7, part 1); “We have now to ascertain what those matters are which it is proper to treat in the following pages according to our dogmatic belief, i.e., in agreement with the creed of the Church” (Bk. I, ch. 7, part 1). “the punishments of sinners, according to the threatenings of holy Scripture and the contents of the Church’s teaching”; “some take offense at the creed of the Church” (Bk. II, ch. 10, part 1), “Those, however, who receive the representations of Scripture according to the understanding of the apostles, . . . (Bk. II, ch. 11, part 3).

Therefore, it is apparent that Origen held to the Catholic rule of faith and apostolic succession, and that he denied sola Scriptura.

Protestant historian J. N. D. Kelly describes Origen’s view of the relationship of the Bible and tradition:

Early third-century writers, like Clement of Alexandria and Origen, continued to use language about it [tradition, in context] closely akin to that of Irenaeus and Tertullian, and spoke of ‘the ecclesiastical canon’ or ‘the canon of faith’ . . . in addition to the Church’s public tradition, they believed they had access to a secret tradition of doctrine . . . for Origen it seems to have consisted of an esoteric theology based on the Bible . . . According to Origen, the rule of faith, or canon, was the body of beliefs currently accepted by ordinary Christians; or again it could stand for the whole content of the faith. In his usage it was equivalent to what he called ‘the ecclesiastical preaching’ . . . and he meant by it the Christian faith as taught in the Church of his day and handed down from the apostles. Though its contents coincided with those of the Bible, it was formally independent of the Bible, and also included the principles of Biblical interpretation. (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, fifth revised edition, 1978, 43)

Kelly’s last sentence describes almost exactly the Catholic distinction between material and formal sufficiency of Scripture. We agree with Protestants that Scripture is materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient as a rule of faith, independently of Church and Tradition.

***

Related Reading

For much more on sola Scriptura: see my Bible, Tradition, Canon, & “Sola Scriptura” web page.

For documentation of many more Church fathers who rejected sola Scriptura, see the “Bible” section of my Fathers of the Church web page.

***

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: [email protected]. 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: Lucas Banzoli, Facebook photo as of 5-3-22, dated 15 January 2018.

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli attempts to show that Origen & Tertullian were sola Scripturists. They were not, as I abundantly prove with citations.

2023-02-21T15:24:07-04:00

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He’s active on YouTube.

***

The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in blue. I used Google Translate to transfer his Portugese text into English.

*****

See other installments:

Part One: “Disproofs” #1-50

Part Two: “Disproofs” #51-100

Part Three: “Disproofs” #101-15o

***

Continuing response to his article, “205 Provas Contra O Primado de Pedro” (no date) [205 Proofs Against the Primacy of Peter]. 

151. Paul continues to “glory” (2 Cor.12:1) in this, defending his authority as an apostle. He passes on the “visions and revelations of the Lord” (2Co.12:1), having been “caught up to the third heaven, and hearing unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for man to speak” (2Co.12:4). Paul was the only apostle who, in life, was caught up to the third heaven!

St. John (while still in this life) was caught up to the very throne of heaven:

Revelation 4:1-6 After this I looked, and lo, in heaven an open door! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up hither, and I will show you what must take place after this.” [2] At once I was in the Spirit, and lo, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne! [3] And he who sat there appeared like jasper and carnelian, and round the throne was a rainbow that looked like an emerald. [4] Round the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clad in white garments, with golden crowns upon their heads. [5] From the throne issue flashes of lightning, and voices and peals of thunder, and before the throne burn seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God; [6] and before the throne there is as it were a sea of glass, like crystal.

The prophets Daniel (ch. 7) and Isaiah (ch. 6) had also been ushered into the presence of God in what appears to be heaven, too: both before their deaths.

152. Paul asserts that he should be “praised by you” (2Co.12:11), since he was in no way inferior to the most excellent apostles (2Co.12:1).

Basically a repeat of #66, #125, and #149.

153. After defending the authority of his apostolate, comparing himself with even the most excellent apostles and not finding himself in an inferior position to them (on the contrary, he claims that he suffered and went through experiences that none of them did), he ends saying that he could be “strong in the use of the authority which the Lord has given me to build you up and not to tear you down” (2 Cor.13:10).

See my reply to #150 and #152. Again, he’s talking about the Corinthian congregation, as to his “authority.” This has no relation to whether Peter was the leader of the early Church.

154. Paul affirms that the gospel he preached “is not of human origin” (Gal.1:11), for “I received it from no one, nor was it taught to me; on the contrary, I received it from Jesus Christ by revelation” (Gal.1:11,12). This shows us that Paul was not indoctrinated in the doctrine of Peter, as in submission to him as “pope”, but only and directly from Jesus Christ, without dependence on the other apostles.

It does not at all. That’s how he first received it. When he visited Peter for fifteen days at the outset of his ministry (Gal 1:18: the verse that Lucas totally ignores throughout his entire article), they weren’t talking about the weather . . .

155. This explains why, when he was converted, he did not consult anyone (Gal.1:15-17), nor did he go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before him, but went straight to Arabia. : “When it pleased him to reveal his Son in me so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I consulted no one. Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me, but immediately I departed for Arabia, and returned to Damascus” (Gal.1:15-17). Paul’s ministry was independent, not dependent on Peter or the authority of any “pope” or other apostles. If Peter were pope and leader of Christians, it would be Paul’s responsibility to consult him immediately, as the supreme and ecclesiastical authority that he would be.

It doesn’t necessarily have to be immediately, but it was early on. Again, Lucas ignores Galatians 1:18: the very next verse after the ones he brings up, and extremely relevant to the discussion.

156. It was through Paul that the Ephesians received the dispensation of God’s grace (Eph.3:2,3).

Being an evangelist . . . St. Peter did the same with the 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and Cornelius and his kin and friends (Acts 10). With St. John he converted 5,000 in Jerusalem, at the temple (Acts 4:1-4), and a bunch of other people soon after (4:31), and many in Samaria (8:14-17).

157. If anyone thinks he has reason to trust the flesh, Paul even more so (Phil.3:4).

And how is this related to our topic, pray tell?

158. Paul tells the Philippians to be imitators of him (Phil.3:17), following the example they have in him (Phil.3:17).

This repeats #137 from Part Three. Sloppy . . . Either Lucas has a bad memory or lousy organizing / editing skills. This is now maybe the tenth time (?) he has done this.

159. Paul could do everything in Him who strengthened him (Phil.4:13).

Of course; so can anyone if they will have faith and cooperate with God’s grace. That’s the whole point of Paul being a model to imitate (#137 and #158). He wrote these letters for our instruction as Christians.

160. The word which the Thessalonians received from Paul “was not the word of men, but as it truly is, the word of God” (1 Thess.2:13). In no other apostle do we see a statement like this!

Nonsense. John the Baptist wasn’t even an apostle, and the Bible says, “the word of God came to John the son of Zechari’ah in the wilderness” (Lk 3:2). A whole room full of people in Jerusalem “were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness” (Acts 4:31). Christian leaders spoke “the word of God” (Heb 13:7). Peter told believers in five different areas: “You have been born anew, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God” (1 Pet 1:23). St. John said “the word of God abides in” young Christian men (1 Jn 2:14).

But the real “fun” for Protestants comes in realizing that “word of God” in 1 Thessalonians 2:13 is not the Bible, but oral teaching. This is consistent with Paul’s teaching throughout. Even more “surprising” for Protestants is to understand that Paul thought that apostolic tradition was synonymous with the “word of God” and the Bible and the gospel and overall Christian message:

1 Corinthians 11:2  Maintain the traditions . .  . . even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15  Hold to the traditions . . . .  taught . . . by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6  . . . the tradition that you received from us.

1 Corinthians 15:1  . . . the gospel, which you received . . .

Galatians 1:9  . . . the gospel . . . which you received.

1 Thessalonians 2:9  We preached to you the gospel of God.

Acts 8:14 Samaria had received the word of God.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 You received the word of God, which you heard from us, . . .

2 Peter 2:21  . . . the holy commandment delivered to them. (cf. Jude 3: “the Faith which was once for all delivered to the saints”).

It is obvious from the above biblical data that the concepts of tradition, gospel, and word of God (as well as other terms) are essentially synonymous. All are predominantly oral, and all are referred to as being delivered and received. Tradition is right in there with them, without distinction. In St. Paul’s two letters to the Thessalonians alone we see that three of the above terms are used interchangeably.

In 2 Thessalonians “gospel” is mentioned twice (1:8 and 2:14), “tradition” twice (2:15 and 3:6), but neither “Scripture” nor “Scriptures” appears. “Word of the Lord” appears once (3:1), but it appears not to refer to the Bible. Likewise, in 1 Thessalonians “Scripture” or “Scriptures” never appear. “Word,” “word of the Lord,” or “word of God” appear five times (1:6,8, 2:13 [twice], 4:15), but in each instance it is clearly in the sense of oral proclamation, not Scripture.

Clearly then, tradition is not a dirty word in the Bible, particularly for St. Paul. If, on the other hand, one wants to maintain that it is, then gospel and word of God are also bad words! Thus, the commonly asserted dichotomy between the gospel and tradition, or between the Bible and tradition is unbiblical itself and must be discarded by the truly biblically minded person as (quite ironically) a corrupt tradition of men. Paul is elsewhere almost unanimously positive about tradition. In the one place where he wasn’t (Col 2:8), he made a contrast of good and bad tradition, just as Jesus did:

Philippians 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.

2 Timothy 1:13-14 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me . . . guard the truth which has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.

2 Timothy 2:2 And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

161. Paul gave “commandments by the authority of the Lord Jesus” (1 Thess.4:2). There is no record – biblical or historical – of any other apostles giving commandments by the authority of Christ.

This ground was already covered in #138 and #145 in Part Three, so this is now the third time Lucas has made this argument in the same list. It’s embarrassing. He needs an editor if he can’t properly edit his own writings. I sure hope he has one for his books.

162. If anyone does not obey Paul’s letters, he is marked and no one associates with him, so that he will be ashamed (2 Thess.3:14).

That’s right. All Christians should obey their bishops or pastors / priests. Does Lucas obey his bishop? Oh wait: does he even have one?

163. The Sound Doctrine is seen in the gospel that God entrusted to Paul (1 Tim.1:11).

The gospel is entrusted to all Christians to share:

Matthew 5:14-16 You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. [15] Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. [16] Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

Luke 9:6 And they departed and went through the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere.

Acts 15:7 And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.”

2 Timothy 4:2 preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season . . .

1 Peter 3:15  but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;

Jude 3 . . . contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints

164. Paul is the only apostle who had the authority to deliver two blasphemers – Hymenaeus and Alexander – to Satan, so that they would learn to blaspheme no more (1 Tim.1:20).

St. Peter delivered Ananias and Sapphira to death (Acts 5:1-10). And he acted essentially the same as St. Paul did, with Simon (simony):

Acts 8:17-23 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. [18] Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, [19] saying, “Give me also this power, that any one on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” [20] But Peter said to him, “Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! [21] You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. [22] Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. [23] For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.”

165. Paul recognizes Luke’s gospel as Scripture divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit (1 Tim.5:18).

Good for him. The Catholic Church did that with regard to the entire Bible.

166. The model of the Sound Doctrine that we must retain was found in what was taught by Paul (2 Tim.1:13).

Yes, it was the tradition and gospel and word of God and the faith and the truth that he received (1 Cor 11:23; 15:3) and was “entrusted” with (2 Tim 1:12), and was a “steward” of (1 Cor 4:1; Eph 3:2).

167. Paul wrote in such a way that even Peter himself considered certain things “hard to understand” (2Pe.3:16). In other words, the “infallible pope” did not have the full understanding and understanding of Paul’s writings, and yet Catholics insist that the pope is the only one who knows how to correctly and perfectly interpret the Bible!

Infallibility (applicable in very specific laid-out conditions) doesn’t entail knowing everything about everything. As for Bible interpretation, Lucas’ last statement above is equal parts asinine and purely ignorant. In fact, the Catholic Church at Trent taught that all of seven Bible passages must be interpreted one way. Beyond that, everyone is free to engage in exegesis and interpretation of the Bible.

168. God did extraordinary miracles and wonders through Paul’s hands (Acts 19:11).

St. Peter raised Tabitha from the dead and healed others.

Even handkerchiefs and aprons were taken from their bodies to the sick, and the diseases fled from them, and the evil spirits fled from them (Acts 19:12). Nowhere in the New Testament is there an apostle with such power and authority that the demons themselves are cast out through his handkerchiefs and aprons!

This is an argument for second-class Catholic relics (items that come into contact with a saint), by the way. I’m glad that Lucas is obviously enthralled with and excited about our theology of relics. Nowhere in the New Testament is there an apostle with such power and authority that people are healed by his shadow! (Acts 5:15)

169. When God wanted to bring his word to light, he did so through the preaching entrusted to Paul (Titus 1:3).

Lots of people preached the gospel. I went through that in my reply to #163. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether Peter was the first pope.

170. Luke, the Church historian and writer of the book of Acts, did not bother to record anything about the “prince of the apostles” in his episcopate in Rome, but returned exclusively to Paul’s ministry among the Gentiles.

He had a lot to write about, but he chose to have Peter be the main figure in the first part of the book and Paul in the second. Sounds about right to me. These were the most important things going on in the early Church, both instances.

Although Peter appears frequently in the first chapters of Acts (while Paul was not yet converted), from the moment Paul enters the scene and becomes converted on the road to Damascus (and until the end of the book) Luke is exclusively concerned in narrating the acts of the apostle Paul, and leaves Peter for second or third hand! The logic is really very simple: When Paul enters the scene, Peter leaves the scene!

So what? Luke covers the momentous events with Peter in the very earliest times of the Church, then goes to Paul because his ministry was important and exciting too. This proves nothing whatsoever as to our topic

Evidence against the primacy of Peter in Rome

171. Jesus does not single out Rome as the main or one of the main centers of early Christianity. On the contrary, it affirms that the gospel would be preached “in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). If Rome were the main seat of the Christian faith, it would certainly be included by name by Jesus (as Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria were), and not just by way of generalization (“ends of the earth”). Rome only became the matrix of Christianity centuries later, not by order of Christ, but by the Roman political domination.

Jesus didn’t have to mention it. Those things worked out naturally. Rome was the center of the empire, so Christians were soon going to become involved there. As it is, both Peter and Paul died in Rome, and surely this is significant. God’s plan was to transform the pagan (and often wicked) Roman Empire. It took about 280 years until it legalized Christianity.

172. The apostles were not scattered along with the others in the Acts 8:1 episode. Therefore, Peter did not go to Rome, but remained in Jerusalem.

173. When Peter and John were sent to Samaria (Acts 8:14), they returned preaching the gospel in “many Samaritan villages” (Acts 8:25), without passing through Rome.

174. Peter, acting as an itinerant missionary, went to Lydda, where he preached the gospel (Lat.9:32). Again Rome is far from Peter’s destiny!

175. Still on his missionary journeys, Peter went to visit Cornelius in Caesarea (Acts 10:1). Again very, very far from Rome!

176. Before arriving in Caesarea, Peter was in Joppa (Acts 10:5). That is, Peter was neither in Rome when he went there, nor was he in Rome when he left there.

177. As early as Acts 11, the Judean brothers criticized Peter when he returned to Jerusalem (Acts 11:1-3) after preaching the gospel in Lydda, Joppa, and Caesarea. Therefore, after his evangelistic missions, Peter again takes his place as an apostle in Jerusalem, not Rome.

So what? It was early on. He gets there in due course.

178. Peter did not occupy the “chair of Rome”, but, on the contrary, “traveled everywhere” (Acts 9:32)!

At that time, he was a traveling evangelist, yes. Man, these are silly items. Utterly ridiculous . . .

179. In the Acts of the Apostles we see the historian of the early Church, the physician Luke, writing in detail about the various places where Peter was. Among them are Jerusalem (Acts.8:1), Samaria (Acts.8:25), Lydda (Acts.9:32), Caesarea (Acts.10:1), Joppa (Acts.10:5), and also other places that we see through the Pauline epistles, such as Antioch, according to Galatians 2:11, where Paul rebuked Peter to the face. Now, why does the Bible show Peter in so many places, but about Rome, however, he insists on not saying anything?! Even more considering that Peter’s time and ministry in Rome would be – for Catholics – of much more importance and relevance than simple “apostolic journeys” here or there, it would be absolutely indispensable that Peter be mentioned at least in Pomegranate!

It doesn’t because Acts was written before the time that Peter went to Rome.

1 Peter 5:13 She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.

Several Protestant commentaries think that this is a code word for “Rome”:

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers:

It may be called the established interpretation that the place meant is Rome. We never hear of St. Peter being in the East, and the thing in itself is improbable, whereas nothing but Protestant prejudice can stand against the historical evidence that St. Peter sojourned and died at Rome. Whatever theological consequences may flow from it, it is as certain that St. Peter was at Rome as that St. John was at Ephesus. Everything in the Letter also points to such a state of things as was to be found at Rome about the date when we believe the Letter to have been written. It is objected that St. Peter would not gravely speak of Rome under a fanciful name when dating a letter; but the symbolism in the name is quite in keeping with the context. St. Peter has just personified the church of the place from which he writes, which seems quite as unprosaic a use of language as to call Rome “Babylon.” And it seems pretty clear that the name was quite intelligible to Jewish readers, for whom it was intended. The Apocalypse (Revelation 17:18) is not the only place where Rome is found spoken of under this title. One of the first of living Hebraists (who will not allow his name to be mentioned) told the present writer that no Hebrew of St. Peter’s day would have had need to think twice what city was meant when “Babylon” was mentioned. . . . Finally, as M. Renan suggests, there were reasons of prudence for not speaking too plainly about the presence of a large Christian society in Rome. The police were still more vigilant now than when St. Paul wrote in guarded language about the Roman empire to the Thessalonians. (See Excursus on the Man of Sin, after 2 Thess.) It might provoke hostilities if the Epistle fell into the hands of a delator, with names and places too clearly given.

MacLaren’s Expositions:

[It is] my own opinion that ‘Babylon’ means Rome. We have here the same symbolical name as in the Book of Revelation, where, whatever further meanings are attached to the designation, it is intended primarily as an appellation for the imperial city, which has taken the place filled in the Old Testament by Babylon, as the concentration of antagonism to the Kingdom of God.

Meyer’s NT Commentary:

According to Eusebius (H. E. c. 15), Papias already was of opinion that the name Babylon is here used figuratively, and that by it Rome is to be understood. The same view is adopted by Clemens Alex., Hieronymus, Oecumenius, Beda, Luther, and by most of the Catholic interpreters; in more recent times by Thiersch, Ewald, Hofmann, Wiesinger, Schott, etc. The principal reasons brought forward in support of this view are—(1) The tradition of the primitive church, which speaks of the apostle’s stay in Rome, but makes no mention of his having lived in Babylon; (2) The designation of Rome as Babylon in Revelation, chap. Revelation 14:8, Revelation 18:2; Revelation 18:10; (3) The banishment of the Jews from Babylon in the time of the Emperor Claudius, according to Joseph. Ant. i. 18, c. 12.

180. It was the church in Jerusalem (not Rome) that sent missionaries such as Barnabas to Antioch (Acts 11:22). If Peter was pope in Rome, which was the seat of apostolic Christianity, one would expect that it was from there that missionaries were sent and the gospel was centralized.

Once again, he simply wasn’t there yet. He ended up there. Why is this so hard to grasp?

181. It was not in Rome that Christians were called by this name for the first time, but in Antioch (Acts 11:26).

This has absolutely nothing to do with our topic.

Ignatius of Antioch, a first-century bishop, adds that it was right there in Antioch – and not in Rome – where the apostles laid the foundations of the Church: “This was first fulfilled in Syria, for “the disciples were called Christians in Antioch” “, when Paul and Peter laid the foundations of the Church” (Ignatius to the Magnesians, Long Version, Cap.10).

Some very early things happened in Antioch. I don’t see how this affects the Catholic argument. Peter later went to Rome and began an unbroken succession of popes that has lasted until this day.

182. There are strong indications that Peter was only in Rome to die in martyrdom, arriving there at the end of his life. For example, Origen (2nd century) sheds a lot of light on this and states: “Peter, having finally gone to Rome, was there crucified upside down.” This “finally” makes it clear that Peter did not stay in Rome for 25 years, years as Catholics want, but only at the end of his life, FINALLY, and with the purpose clearly stated right there – to be crucified upside down (martyred).

The Catholic Encyclopedia (“St. Peter”), way back in 1910 or so, stated:

As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. . . .

Although the fact of St. Peter’s activity and death in Rome is so clearly established, we possess no precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn.

It provides early historical evidence for the belief that St. Peter died in Rome:

  • From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria , who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles ), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples ( Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, II, xv; III, xl; VI, xiv); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Adv. haer., III, i). In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark , Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle .
  • Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (v): “Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church ] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles — St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony . . ., has entered the merited place of glory ” . . .
  • Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter (165-74), says: “You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom ” (in Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, II, xxviii).
  • Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St. John), passed a considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the second century, and then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he described the Roman Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of the Apostolic tradition , as “the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul ” (Adv. haer., III, iii; cf. III, i). He thus makes use of the universally known and recognized fact of the Apostolic activity of Peter and Paul in Rome, to find therein a proof from tradition against the heretics.
  • In his “Hypotyposes” ( Eusebius, “Hist. Eccl.”, IV, xiv), Clement of Alexandria , teacher in the catechetical school of that city from about 190, says on the strength of the tradition of the presbyters : “After Peter had announced the Word of God in Rome and preached the Gospel in the spirit of God , the multitude of hearers requested Mark, who had long accompanied Peter on all his journeys, to write down what the Apostles had preached to them” (see above).
  • Like Irenaeus, Tertullian appeals, in his writings against heretics, to the proof afforded by the Apostolic labours of Peter and Paul in Rome of the truth of ecclesiastical tradition. In De Prescriptione 36, he says: “If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome where authority is ever within reach. How fortunate is this Church for which the Apostles have poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter has emulated the Passion of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John”. In Scorpiace 15, he also speaks of Peter’s crucifixion. “The budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross”. As an illustration that it was immaterial with what water baptism is administered, he states in his book (On Baptism 5) that there is “no difference between that with which John baptized in the Jordan and that with which Peter baptized in the Tiber”; and against Marcion he appeals to the testimony of the Roman Christians, “to whom Peter and Paul have bequeathed the Gospel sealed with their blood” (Against Marcion 4.5).

183. The ecclesiastical historian of the Church, Eusebius of Caesarea (3rd and 4th centuries), sheds even more light and states with the greatest possible clarity: “Peter, it seems, preached in Pontus, Galatia and Bithynia, in Cappadocia and in Asia, to the Jews of the Diaspora; at last he reached Rome and was crucified with his head down, as he himself asked to suffer” (HE, Book III, 1:2). Therefore, the places where Peter preached the gospel the most were in Pontus, Bithynia, Cappadocia and Asia.

So what? Eusebius obviously drew this from the First Epistle of Peter:

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappado’cia, Asia, and Bithyn’ia,

Eusebius verifies what Catholics believe. On what basis should he be doubted?

Paul states that he was an itinerant missionary (1 Cor.9:5). He did not exercise a primacy in Rome!

At that time he was, yes.

In the same way, he preached “to the Jews of the Diaspora”, not “to the Romans”!

At first, that’s what he primarily did.

Finally, Eusebius states the time when Peter arrived in Rome – “at last” – and with the purpose of dying in martyrdom, just as Origen said. It was only towards the end of his life that Peter came to Rome, not to exercise primacy or to act as “pope”, but with the clear purpose of being martyred. This completely eliminates the Romanist pretensions of placing Peter 25 years in Rome, and on top of that as pope!

Which Catholics say that Peter was in Rome for 25 years?

184. Paul writes to Philemon directly from Rome in AD 60, where Peter is supposed to have been (according to the Catholic gospel). However, Paul cites four companions with him in Rome. They are: (1) Epaphras, (2) Mark, (3) Aristarchus, (4) Demas, and (5) Luke. At no point does Paul quote Peter in Rome! This fact makes it clear that Peter was not there, or, if he was, his presence would be indispensable, along with the other five names that were with Paul (Phil.1:23-25). Paul would not ignore Peter’s authority. If Peter were there, the denial of his presence would be a clear sign of insubordination.

Epaphras was his “fellow prisoner” (1:23), and Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, his “fellow workers” (1:24). As Lucas said, they were his “companions.” They all sent “greetings” (1:23). This has nothing to do one way or another with whether Peter was there.  This was standard practice for Paul at the end of his letters (it’s almost always the people who are “with” him):

“All who are with me send greetings to you” (Titus 3:15).

“Eubu’lus sends greetings to you, as do Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brethren” (2 Tim 4:21)

“The brethren who are with me greet you. All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar’s household” (Phil 4:21-22)

“All the saints greet you” (2 Cor 13:13)

“The churches of Asia send greetings. Aq’uila and Prisca, together with the church in their house, send you hearty greetings in the Lord. All the brethren send greetings” (1 Cor 16:19-20)

Colossians 4:10-14 Aristar’chus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions — if he comes to you, receive him), [11] and Jesus who is called Justus. . . . [12] Ep’aphras, who is one of yourselves, a servant of Christ Jesus, greets you, always remembering you earnestly in his prayers, that you may stand mature and fully assured in all the will of God. [13] For I bear him witness that he has worked hard for you and for those in La-odice’a and in Hi-erap’olis. [14] Luke the beloved physician and Demas greet you.

Romans 16:21-23 Timothy, my fellow worker, greets you; so do Lucius and Jason and Sosip’ater, my kinsmen. [22] I Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in the Lord. [23] Ga’ius, who is host to me and to the whole church, greets you. Eras’tus, the city treasurer, and our brother Quartus, greet you.

185. To the Philippians, also in Rome, A.D. 61, Paul mentions special greetings from those in “Caesar’s palace” (Phil.4:21-23), but again he does not mention Peter or the papal see, which would be much more important if it really existed!

186. Writing to the Colossians, still in Rome (AD 60), Paul this time mentions several names. They are: (1) Tychicus, (2) Onesimus, (3) Aristarchus, (4) Mark, (5) Jesus, (6) Epaphras, (7) Luke, and (8) Demas. Again, the complete silence about Peter is embarrassing to papists. It’s incredible that Paul gave eight names, but he “forgot” exactly the most important of them: Peter!

187. To the Colossians, Paul writes that Mark and Jesus were “the only ones of the circumcision who are my co-workers for the Kingdom of God” (Col.4:11) in Rome. Interestingly, Peter was precisely “apostle of the circumcision” (Gal.2:8,9), as were Mark and Jesus the Just. But only these last two who collaborated with Paul in Rome, and he is accurate in saying that “these are the only ones who are my co-workers” (Col.4:11). By saying “unique”, he excludes the possibility of “someone else”. So either Peter didn’t really hold any “chair of Rome,” or he didn’t collaborate with Paul!

188. Writing his second epistle to Timothy in Rome (AD 67), Paul again cites several names as being with him in that city (2 Tim.4:9-12,21,22). These are: (1) Luke, (2) Eubulus, (3) Prudente, (4) Linus, (5) Claudia. Again, Paul does not quote Peter! We don’t know if Paul was “in a quarrel” with Peter and that’s why he always omitted his name, just to give the false impression that he was with him. In any case, the most likely alternative remains that Peter was actually not there!

189. In that same epistle, in chapter 4 and verses 9-12, there is a precious statement from Paul. He claims that Demas had left him, as well as Crescent and Titus. He again does not quote Peter. In other words, Peter had not left him, nor was he with him. Everything leads us to believe that he was not even in Rome, which needs no further comment and clarifies all things.

190. Still in this final greeting, Paul quotes that “only Luke is with me” (2 Tim.4:11), that is, closest to him in that city. By saying “only Luke”, he excludes the chances that Peter was also there, incognito, invisible, or on a secret mission. It was Luke – and only Luke – who was with him!

191. Finally, Paul states that “at my first defense, all forsook me” (2 Tim.4:16). Now, if there was any Christian leader for Catholics who could “save the skin” of Paul, it would certainly be the Pope, Peter. Yet again Peter doesn’t show up doing anything for Paul in Rome! Could it be that Peter was in Rome, always being so indifferent to the apostle Paul?

Mark Shea wrote:

[M]y basic response would be, “Who says Peter was there when Paul wrote the Romans?”  It seems to me he could have been anywhere.  Just as Paul founded Churches and moved on so Peter may have founded the Church at Rome and then gone on and been anywhere in the Empire when Paul wrote.  The apostles tended to get around.  As far as I know, the only thing solid we have from the Tradition is that Peter founded the Church at Rome and that both Peter and Paul were martyred there. I know of nothing in the Tradition which demands we believe Peter remained in Rome from the time he founded the Church until his death and can think of lots of reasons for presuming Peter was on the move like the other apostles till he returned to Rome to meet his destiny. The archeology that supports the fact that the tomb of Peter below the basilica of St. Peter is rather impressive. It is backed by the memoirs of apostolic Fathers who also remember Peter and Paul dying at Rome.  Against this, the argument that Paul doesn’t mention Peter in his letter is essentially an argument from silence—and a silence that can be accounted for in other ways than by supposing that the witness of the entire early Church and the bones of a crucified man (in a tomb bearing the inscription “Peter is within”) are somehow an elaborate fraud. (“Where Was Peter When Paul Wrote Romans?”, National Catholic Register, 4 March 2013)

I think the simpler explanation, though, is that Paul was simply mentioning his immediate companions. They had to be with him in order to convey to him the notion that they wanted to send greetings along in his epistle. It would obviously have been dangerous for Peter to visit Paul in prison. Or he may have also been “underground” and Paul didn’t want to reveal that he was there by mentioning him.

192. For a long time, the Christians who were scattered did not preach the gospel to anyone, but “only to the Jews” (Acts 11:19). As the Romans were not Jews, it is difficult to reconcile the idea that Peter quickly settled there, looking for a Jew to preach the gospel!

For the umpteenth time: one need only believe that Peter (for a sustained time), was only there later in his life.

193. The Roman Emperor Claudius had expelled all Jews from Rome in AD 41 to AD 54. This was the reason why Aquila and Priscilla had to leave there, “for Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome” (Acts 18:1,2). As Peter was a Jew, he would not be there alone. Claudius was not going to expel all the Jews but to leave precisely one of the “principals” there, alone. Therefore, at this time Peter could not have been in Rome at all.

Then that fits in with my repeatedly expressed scenario that Peter was only there later in his life.

194. In Galatians 1:13-18, Paul claims to have gone to Jerusalem and met Peter, having been with him for fifteen days. Therefore, since Peter was still in Jerusalem at this time, it is a fact that he was not holding any professorship in Rome.

That’s correct. Here’s a shocking revelation to Lucas: people move around a lot . . .

195. Peter was “an apostle to the circumcised” (Gal.2:8), not to the Gentiles. If Peter occupied the See of Rome, he would be an apostle to the Romans (Gentiles), consequently he would be an apostle to the uncircumcised, as well as Paul (Gal.2:9,10), for he acted among them. Paul was a Jew, but because he had a ministry among the Gentiles, he was considered an apostle to the uncircumcised (Gal.2:7,8). Peter, also being a Jew, was nevertheless considered “an apostle to the circumcised” (Gal.2:8), for his ministry was not among the Gentiles (as was Paul’s), but among the Jews themselves! Therefore, Peter was not predominantly active in Jerusalem (Jews) and not in Rome (Gentiles).

196. Paul affirms that “the gospel of the uncircumcision was entrusted from outside, as to Peter the gospel of the circumcision” (Gal.2:7). If Peter acted as bishop in Rome, he would be the chief apostle of the uncircumcision (Gentiles), not Paul! Therefore, one of two: Either Paul was greater than Peter, so that he was the chief apostle to the Gentiles, even though Peter was also turned to the Gentiles of Rome(!); or else Paul was one of the chief of the Gentiles because he was among them (Gentiles), while Peter was one of the chief of the circumcision because he was among them (Jews). Therefore, it is logical to say that Peter was predominantly in Jerusalem (even though he had missionary journeys like that of Acts 8:14), while Paul was predominantly among the Gentiles. Once again, “Peter, Bishop of Rome” is a much more invented myth.

197. In Galatians 2:9, Paul is in Jerusalem with James, Peter and John (Gal.2:9), which shows us that Peter (as well as James and John) were still in Jerusalem. Furthermore, we see that Paul would continue to address the Gentiles, while they would continue to address the circumcised: “They agreed that we should address the Gentiles, and they the circumcised” (Gal.2:9). 198. Already in Acts 23:11, we see the Lord Jesus telling Paul to have courage, for “as you testified about me in Jerusalem, so shall you testify also in Rome” (Acts 23:11). Now, where was Peter, the pope, who for so many years in that city did not make the name of Jesus known there?

I’ve been through this before and at this point I’m too lazy to look it up. Both men did both things.

199. In Acts 11:2, Peter returns to Jerusalem, and for this time Herod arrests him (Acts 12). Since this king died a short time later (Acts 12:23) and Josephus Flavius ​​claimed that such an event (of Herod Agrippa’s death) took place during the fourth year of Claudius’ reign (in 45 AD), it logically follows that at this time Peter was still in Jerusalem.

Yep.

200. In Galatians 2:11, Peter appears in Antioch, already in 45 AD, which is very, very far from Rome, in the middle of the East!

Indeed it is. No problem for our view.

201. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), which was attended by Peter, took place in this city and not in Rome. If Peter had been pope in Rome, such a Council might well have taken place there, and if he was really in Jerusalem, it follows that in AD 49 Peter was still in Jerusalem, and therefore not in Rome.

Correct. This ain’t rocket science.

202. At the end of the Acts of the Apostles, around 60-61 AD, Paul arrives in prison in Rome (Acts 28:11), and Luke records that the brothers of faith went to him (Acts 28:15). Interestingly, Peter does not show up to receive his ministry colleague, nor does Luke bother to narrate Peter there, which would be of the utmost importance! Peter again keeps his mystery “hidden” in Rome!

203. When Paul arrived in Rome, around AD 60-61, a fact recorded in the last chapter of Acts, the Romans needed information about the Christians, as they had no further information about it. They needed to hear from Paul what he thought (Acts 28:22), having to gather on a certain day to hear the gospel message (Acts 28:23). If Rome were the seat of the Pope or the center of Christianity, this would not be necessary, since they would already know very well who Christians are!

Dealt with in my reply to #191 above.

204. Peter, in writing his first epistle, claims to be writing from “Babylon” (1Pe.5:13). There are several reasons to believe that this place is not Rome, as Catholics preach.

And there are several reasons to believe it does stand for Rome, as explained in my reply to #182 above.

A. First, because if Babylon is an enigmatic language for Rome, then Catholics will have to admit that Rome is Babylon, thus dismantling their belief that Jerusalem is the Babylon of the Apocalypse. Since almost all Catholics preach that Babylon is Jerusalem, it logically follows that if the passage here is cryptic or figurative, it must be Jerusalem, not Rome!

Rome was already called “Babylon” in the book of Revelation.

B. But there are several reasons to believe that Peter was not using mysterious or enigmatic language in 1 Peter 5:13. For example, the apostle Paul writes openly to the Romans, without riddles (Rom.1:7). He doesn’t need to say he was writing “to the Babylonians”, he simply says he was writing to the Romans! In the same way, Luke, writing Acts at about the same time as Peter’s epistle, spares no words to address Rome. . . (Acts.28:14; Acts.28:16; Acts. 19:21; Acts.23:11; Acts.18:2; etc.). He writes openly about this city several times. Therefore, there would be no reason for Peter to break the entire biblical rule and use such differentiated language, whose context itself does not support it, since the context is not at all “gimmicky” or “mysterious”!

There must have been danger involved or he wouldn’t have done it.

C. The reference, therefore, concerns the city of Babylon situated by the Euphrates. There was a considerable Jewish population in the vicinity of Babylon in the early centuries of the Christian Era. It remained a focus of Judaism for centuries and therefore a suitable place for Peter, who was “the apostle to the circumcised” (Gal.2:8), to preach the gospel. Reading 1 Peter 1:1 and 1 Peter 5:13, we see that Peter did not write either from Rome or to the Romans!

Since Rome was already called “Babylon” in the book of Revelation it seems plausible that Peter would have done the same thing.

205. Finally, there is nothing better than analyzing Paul’s own letter to the Romans. If there was a more than perfect opportunity to name the “Pope Peter” who was supposed to be there, this would be the perfect chance! However, Peter is not even mentioned throughout all sixteen chapters of Paul’s epistle to the Romans! And worse: It does not even appear in the list of extended greetings that the apostle passes on in the last chapter, where he nominally greets twenty-seven brothers from Rome, and does not quote Peter from beginning to end! Why, if Peter were the pope there, being one of the most important figures in all of Christianity, he should be the first to be greeted by Paul! But this one, from start to finish, writes perfectly as someone who has no idea that Peter was there. He doesn’t remember his name at the beginning of the letter, nor in the middle, nor in the final greetings. This, however, does not prevent his saluting another twenty-seven persons whom he remembered, nor does it prevent Catholics, even in the light of all this, from preferring to continue in the most vigorous ignorance, rather than confessing all the obvious and self-evident points. – evident throughout this study, and free themselves from their historical errors that are easily refuted.

If St. Peter simply wasn’t there yet at the time St. Paul wrote this letter, that would easily explain it.

***

END OF ENTIRE REPLY

Go to Part One (#1-50)

Go to Part Two (#51-100)

Go to Part Three (#101-150)

***

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: [email protected]. 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: Detail of Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter (1481-82) by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli takes on my “50 NT Proofs for Petrine Primacy”, with his 205 “Petrine Potshots”. This is Part IV of my replies (#151-205).

2023-02-21T15:23:41-04:00

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He’s active on YouTube.

***

The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in blue. I used Google Translate to transfer his Portugese text into English.

*****

See other installments:

Part One: “Disproofs” #1-50

Part Two: “Disproofs” #51-100

Part Four: “Disproofs” #151-205

***

Continuing response to his article, “205 Provas Contra O Primado de Pedro” (no date) [205 Proofs Against the Primacy of Peter]

101. Paul used the authority of the name of Jesus Christ to cast out an evil spirit, which went out immediately (Acts 16:18).

All twelve disciples had that power (Lk 9:1). So did the seventy evangelists appointed by Jesus (Lk 10:17, 20).

102. The seven sons of the head of the Jewish synagogue rebuked evil spirits on the basis of “Jesus whom Paul preaches” (Acts 19:13). At no time is Peter indicated by them or anyone else as sufficient authority to repel demons.

We know that he did from Luke 9:1: written by Luke: the author of Acts, too.

103. There were two people in the Christian faith who, as important as they were, made themselves “known” by name even by the devil, who insisted on highlighting them. They are: (1) Jesus; (2) Paul (Acts 19:15).

The demons mentioned Paul because his name had already been invoked by the Jewish exorcists (Acts 19:13).

104. God intervenes on Paul’s behalf with violent earthquakes to the point of shaking the foundations of a prison (Acts 16:22-26). At no other time in the New Testament does God intervene in nature in such a way on behalf of a servant of his.

There was no earthquake, but an angel got St. Peter out of prison, too (Acts 12:7-11). So only St. Paul got an “earthquake intervention.” But how does that prove that he is more so a papal figure (if there is one) than St. Peter? It simply doesn’t.

105. Paul was in charge of the baptism of the jailer and his entire family (Acts 16:33).

Great. In what way is that relevant to this discussion?

106. Paul is the apostle who baptized the most people recorded in the Bible (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor 1:16; Acts 19:5; Acts 18:8, etc.).

So that’s the Philippian jailer and his family, Crispus, the ruler of a synagogue, “some disciples” of John the Baptist, Crispus, Ga’ius,
and the household of Steph’anas. St. Peter was responsible for 3,000 baptisms in one day (Acts 2:38-41), as well as Cornelius with “his kinsmen and close friends” (Acts 10:24, 45-48).

107. Paul was officially a Roman citizen, who had numerous privileges at that time (Acts 16:38).

And this is relevant how?

108. Paul was at the forefront of encouraging the disciples in the faith. It was he who met the brothers in Thyatira, and encouraged them to continue in the walk of faith (Acts 16:40).

Of course he did. This doesn’t indicate that he was the first pope.

109. Paul is the apostle who most often entered Jewish synagogues to debate with Jews (recorded in the Bible). For three consecutive Sabbaths he went to the synagogue to argue with them from the Scriptures (Acts 17:2).

110. Paul was the only apostle to defend the Christian faith at the famous Areopagus in Athens, of which there is a biblical record (Acts 17:22).

This shows that he was a great debater, evangelist, and debater, but not the pope.

111. While some apostles like Peter were married (1Co.9:5), “Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching” (Acts.18:5).

Great. Anyone can choose to do that if they wish, and if God calls them to it.

112. Paul is the only apostle recorded to have strengthened all the disciples throughout the region of Galatia and Phrygia (Acts 18:23).

113. Paul “argued convincingly about the Kingdom of God” (Acts 19:8), convincing the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.

114. There is no record of an apostle more persecuted than Paul. In his words: “…I have worked more than them and I have been in jail more times. I have been whipped far more than they were, and I have often been in danger of death” (2 Cor.11:23). From reading 2 Corinthians 11:23-29 we see his testimony that he was the most persecuted apostle in the history of the early Christian Church (in its early years).

115. Paul was the only apostle in Church history who preached to “all the Jews who lived in the province of Asia” (Acts 19:10). For two years, they all came to hear the word of the Lord through the preaching of this blessed apostle. There is no historical record of any apostle in the history of the Church who has achieved such a wide reach in terms of propagating the faith to the unsaved.

Good for him, and irrelevant to this discussion.

116. Paul resurrects the young Eutychus (Acts 20:10-12), in yet another great demonstration of God’s power through his life.

Peter raised Tabitha from the dead (Acts 9:36-41).

117. Paul instructs the pastors, bishops and elders of the Church for three years, never failing to warn each one of them in their Christian walk (Acts 20:31).

Good for him, and irrelevant to this discussion.

118. All the bishops, pastors and elders made “great weeping” for Paul, falling on his neck and kissing him (Acts 20:37). It is probably the greatest display of affection and consideration ever known for an apostle.

This shows he was greatly loved, but not that he was the pope.

119. God chose Paul from all the ancestors to make the truth known through him (Acts 22:14,15), to see the righteous and to hear the words of his mouth (Acts 22:14,15).

We would expect that He would so bless the Greatest Evangelist.

120. He is one of the only ones to receive directly from God the guarantee of “being a witness to all men of what he has seen and heard” (Acts 22:15).

Jesus told all the apostles: “you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Sama’ria and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

121. Paul is the only apostle who claims to have fully fulfilled the will of God, “having fulfilled my duty to God with all good conscience, until this day” (Acts 23:1).

Jesus prayed that the faith of Peter would not fail (Lk 22:32). And it didn’t (after he repented for having denied Him). He also fulfilled his duty and calling and died as a martyr, being crucified upside down. Peter responded to what Jesus said by saying, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death” (Lk 22:33). He wasn’t ready that night, as we all know (and most of us wouldn’t have acted differently in that situation, though we sit in our armchairs looking down our nose at St. Peter), but he was after his repentance, and after having been filled (or re-filled) with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, so that he actually did fulfill what he claimed.

122. Paul begins to defend the authority of his ministry in his epistle to the Galatians. He writes that he went to Judea for the purpose of speaking to those who “seemed most influential” (Gal.2:6). According to Catholicism, this must certainly include Peter. However, he claims that “what they were then makes no difference to me” (Gal.2.6)! He would hardly have been so “insubordinate” to a position above his own, as special as “infallible” as is “pope” (if there had been such a thing, of course!).

This was the second time Paul went to Jerusalem to consult with Peter (and/or James and John), fourteen years (Gal 2:1) after he was already established as an apostle and evangelist. According to the Bible, Peter was the preeminent authority, which is why Paul had to, and did consult with him, during his first visit to receive sanction for his ministry:

Galatians 1:18-19 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. [19] But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

Now, what impression does this passage give, as to the relative importance in the church of Peter, James, and John? Yes (my answer, too . . .). But oddly and inexplicably enough, Lucas never mentions Galatians 1:18 in his entire presentation of 205 disproofs of Petrine primacy (at least if the search engine is correct). I think we should consider and analyze all the passages related to Peter and Paul in this discussion. One would think that in the course of 205 points, this key and ultra-relevant verse would be included. But Lucas prefers to ignore some of the Bible passages that don’t agree with his position, and to engage in selective presentation, which is basically setting out half-truths.

123. Paul asserts that these more influential men “added me nothing” (Gal.2:6). They had nothing to add to Paul’s life other than what he already knew or already was!

Yes, because they couldn’t make him more of an apostle than he already was. That was established no later than his first visit with Pope St. Peter (Gal 1:18-19).

124. Paul, in stating more clearly who these “influential men” were, does not differentiate Peter from the others, as being the most important.

Galatians 1:18 already showed that. But as I noted, Lucas conveniently skipped over that verse. Out of sight, out of mind! Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil . . .

On the contrary, he generalizes together with James and John. Nor does he make a point of citing Peter as being the first among them, but he places James as the first pillar of the Church, even ahead of Peter himself (Gal.2:9).

This is basically a repeat of #50, that I answered at considerable length in Part One., citing several Protestant commentaries in agreement with me.

125. Paul affirms that “I had been entrusted with the preaching of the gospel to the uncircumcised, as Peter was entrusted to the circumcised. For God, who worked through Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, also worked through me to the Gentiles” (Gal.2:7,8). One can clearly see the tone of equality between Paul and Peter. He does not place Peter above him, but on an equal footing, in asserting that God has worked in the same way among them, equally, and not disproportionately to the one to the detriment of the other.

Apostles treated each other — broadly speaking — as equals, yes. I basically replied to this line of reasoning in my reply to #66 in Part Two. Here’s the heart of that rebuttal:

None of this proves anything, anymore than Paul calling lessers “brethren” (many many times) “proves” that they are on the same level as him. Even Jesus called His disciples “friends” (Jn 15:13-15). Does that mean He isn’t above them? Paul calls Christians “fellow heirs with Christ” (Rom 8:17) and “God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9), and he calls other Christians “fellow workers” and “fellow soldiers” and “fellow servants” (see the references).

Also, we see Jesus saying, “the Father is greater than I” (Jn 14:28) and “My Father . . . is greater than all” (Jn 10:29), but in the same Gospel also saying, “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30) and “All that the Father has is mine” (Jn 16:15) and “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (Jn 14:9) and “I am in the Father and the Father in me” (Jn 14:11). Hebrew, biblical, and Catholic thinking are not “either/or” (as habitually in Protestantism), but rather, “both/and.” Therefore, sometimes Paul or Peter or the biblical narrative can talk in terms of their equality, and other times, refer to Peter’s headship in the hierarchy of the Church.

126. Paul was chosen by God to “open the eyes of his own people and of the Gentiles, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God” (Acts 26:17,18). Although this is a function of all Christians, for he was chosen of God to receive this call directly from Him, among many others.

The same is true of St. Peter, who was clearly the leader of the brand-new Church, starting on the Day of Pentecost, when he delivered the first sermon in the Church age and oversaw the baptism of 3,000 new believers (Acts 2). He continues being the focus of Luke’s narrative in Acts (during the time that Paul was persecuting and killing Christians), primarily evangelizing Jews, up through chapter 13, where the narrative switches over to the newly converted Paul (since he and Peter were the two most important figures in the new Church).

It was Pope St. Peter, not Evangelist St. Paul, who was the first to learn that the Mosaic dietary and ceremonial laws wouldn’t be required for Christians, and he was the first to receive the Gentiles into Christian fellowship, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48). Just prior, an angel had told Cornelius to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6). Peter referred back to this in his talk at the council of Jerusalem: “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe” (Acts 15:7). Obviously, since Peter wound up in Rome as the bishop, and was martyred there, he had long since focused upon outreach to Gentiles.

History and scholarship tells us that Peter was killed in 64 AD, during the reign of the madman Nero. This was before Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans (in 70 AD). Thus, Peter had decided to concentrate on outreach to the Gentiles, just as Paul had. Both evangelized Jews and Gentiles. It’s foolish to create some arbitrary divide, as if it is absolute. Both wound up being martyred in Rome.

127. Paul was considered “the chief head of the sect of the Nazarenes -και ειναι πρωτοστατης της αιρεσεως των Ναζωραι” (Acts.24:5). The presence of the definite article and the singular πρωτοστατην shows us clearly that Paul was actually the leader of the Christians appointed by the famous lawyer Tertullus (Acts 24:2), with the consent of the Jews and Luke, the evangelist who confirmed and recorded this in the Acts of the Apostles. Once again we see that Paul – and not Peter – is the most suitable to be “leader of the sect of the Nazarenes”!

Once again (annoyingly), Lucas decides to repeat an entry. If he keeps doing that, it will merely allow me to deepen and strengthen my answers, by dealing with the same thing twice (as I will do in this instance, and it doesn’t look good for his argument at all). This material was covered in my reply to #49 in Part One. There I noted that:

My RSV Bible says “a ringleader” as opposed to “the ringleader.” How much difference one little word makes! I’ve found only one out of about 60 English translations of Acts 24:5 that has “the ringleader.”

So an argument Lucas obviously thinks was a “knockout punch” for Paul being some sort of “pope” rather than Peter, is mercilessly shot down by 59 out of 60 translators of the Bible into English. That’s pretty decisive. A. T. Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament (at Acts 24:5) shows the true sense: “A ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes . . . a front-rank man, a chief, a champion” [my bolding and italics]. In a Greek-English Interlinear version of the Bible (see the description of it), we see that there is no definite article, either:

prōtostatēn te tēs tōn Nazōraiōn

πρωτοστάτην τε τῆς τῶν Ναζωραίων

a leader then of the of the Nazarenes

“Nazarenes” has a definite article preceding it; but “leader” (or, “ringleader”) does not. And that’s why 59 out of 60 English translations use the indefinite “a” in describing Paul’s leadership, not the definite “the.” Whatever Portugese translation Lucas used here simply got this wrong, according to the overwhelming consensus of Bible translators (in English). I didn’t simply claim this. The translators have made it crystal-clear. I accept their conclusion; Lucas does not. Readers can make their own choice, having now read two sides, rather than just one. Isn’t back-and-forth dialogue wonderful?

128. Paul exalted his own ministry (Rom.11:13).

Yes he did. And what did he say in that verse? (Lucas merely cites it; I examine it): “I am an apostle to the Gentiles . . .” He states exactly what his role or office is: the evangelist to the Gentiles, so as to spread Christianity far and wide. It’s quite evident that such a role is not that of pope, who is the shepherd, leader, teacher, and protector of all Christians, not Gentile unbelievers. So this is Paul stating with his own “mouth” what he is (the Great Evangelist) and what he is not (the pope and leader of Christians). Paul reiterates this point of his central purpose in evangelizing the Gentiles many times.

129. Christ accomplished through Paul in word and deed (Rom.15:18). He was the only apostle on record to have “fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ” (v.19) from “Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum” (v.19).

Yes, he preached far and wide, because that was his office: evangelist. This disproves that he was pope. Why can’t Lucas see this? So many of his “disproofs” are actually strong arguments for the Catholic view of Peter as the first pope. I can’t thank him enough for affording me this wonderful opportunity to prove all the more that Peter was the first pope and that Paul certainly was not. I’ve come up with many arguments throughout these replies that likely would have never crossed my mind.

130. Paul is the only apostle who writes that he was living “in the fullness of the blessing of Christ” (Rom.15:19).

This doesn’t prove that no one else partakes of the same blessing. In order to do that it would have to read something like, “I am the only one who comes in the fulness of the blessing of Christ.”

131. Paul used the authority of the name of Jesus Christ to plead with all the Romans, giving them orders to obey “in one thought and in one judgment” (Rom.1:10).

That’s acting like a bishop does, since it is one local church or congregation. But that doesn’t prove universal jurisdiction. Paul exercises authority and supervision over the churches that he planted or nurtured.

132. Paul’s name appears first in relation to Peter in Romans [1 Corinthians] 1:12. Paul appears first, Apollos second, while Peter is only third (last listed). If Catholics really want to convince that the fact that someone’s name is mentioned first means that he has primacy over the others that come later (as they constantly do with the list of disciples), then there’s a hell of a headache that puts Peter behind Paul and Apollos!

The actual verse is 1 Corinthians 1:12. I don’t think this has any significance for our topic, because it has to do specifically with factionalism, not with ultimate authority. Paul names himself first because he was actually predominant in Corinth, having planted the church there (Acts 18; 1 Cor 2). Apollos is next because he gained much fame and reputation as an expert in apologetics in the region, in discussion with the Jews:

Acts 18:27-28 . . . When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, [28] for he powerfully confuted the Jews in public, showing by the scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.

He was doing so well preaching and defending the faith there that the next verse notes:

Acts 19:1 While Apol’los was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus.

Division of labor . . . Because Apollos was thriving in Corinth and its surroundings, Paul (ever the pragmatist) bypassed it and went to Ephesus. Acts 18:27 stated that Apollos arrived in Achaia. This was a province of Greece in the Peloponnese peninsula that was directly to the west and north of Corinth. Because of Apollos’ success, factions started developing, as Paul notes, saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol’los,” (1 Cor 1:12).

Quite obviously and unarguably, then, Apollos was not listed after Paul because he was the second most important in the universal Church after Paul, but because he was the second most important in Corinth. No one in their right mind would say that Apollos had more importance in the early Church than Peter. So Paul mentions himself and Apollos in that respect. Then to broaden his point of unity to make it more general, the first person he thinks of is Peter (the pope), and then Christ (which is the proper answer: all Christians belong to Christ, and He alone). Paul nails down the point by adding, “Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

The meaning, then, seems clear: “You say you belong to me or Apollos [the local leaders of the Corinthians], or to Peter [the pope and leader of all Christians], or to Christ.” This actually strengthens Petrine primacy, rather than diminish it, once the context is understood, because the first person he mentions beyond the immediate regional context is Peter; then he mentions Christ, because that was Who Christians should ultimately follow.

And who are the Christians who are famous for naming themselves after men and following them to a fault, and forming competing sects: precisely the opposite of St. Paul’s view? Lutherans, Calvinists, Mennonites, Zwinglians, Wesleyans, Arminians, Amish . . .

My original argument, as I have explained many times, is a cumulative one. It becomes strong and impressive by its constant repetition. Here was how I put it in my 50 Proofs for Peter. It’s not only being listed first that is noteworthy, but being named so often, period:

4. Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the “first” (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.

5. Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one (only?) example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he (“Cephas”) is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (e.g., 1:18-19; 2:7-8).

36. Peter’s name is [almost] always the first listed of the “inner circle” of the disciples (Peter, James and John – Mt 17:1; 26:37,40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).

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!

Lastly, if Lucas wants to make an argument from the word order in 1 Corinthians 1:12, then not only is Apollos more important than Peter in the early Church (absurd), but Jesus Christ is less important than all three men (!!!): seeing that He was listed fourth and last. Now his argument in #132 is shown to be ultra-ridiculous and more full of holes than Swiss cheese or a pin cushion.

133. Paul asserts that they were but servants through whom the Corinthians came to believe (1 Cor. 3:5), so that “neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but God alone” (1 Cor. 3:3). :7). In fact, such a picture does not occur in Catholicism, where the Pope “has full, supreme and universal power in the Church. And he can always freely exercise this power of his” (Catechism, §882).

To the contrary, popes routinely call themselves “Servant of the Servants of God.” This goes back to Pope St. Gregory the Great in the 6th century. So this “picture” is part of Catholicism. On the other hand, there is supreme and universal power in the Church, as seen in the decree of the Jerusalem council, in conjunction with the “Holy Spirit” (Acts 15). And the infallibility of the Church is also taught in 1 Timothy 3:15. When the logical and ecclesiological implications of that verse are unpacked, it is seen to teach the infallibility of the Church, which is contrary to sola Scriptura. If the Church has that power, it makes sense that the leader of the Church also would.

And Peter possessing the “keys of the kingdom” proves exactly that. That’s why the great Protestant scholar F. F. Bruce said Peter was the “chief steward” of the Church (see the Introduction in Part One), why the Lutheran Oscar Cullmann called Peter the “superintendent” (ibid.), why Methodist W. F. Albright thought Peter was the “the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain” (#7 in Part One), why Craig Keener thought he had “legislative authority” (ibid.), and why The Interpreter’s Bible confirmed that Peter had “plenary authority” and was the “chief teacher” (ibid.).

This is why, also, when Peter spoke at the Jerusalem Council, no one disagreed with him (“And all the assembly kept silence”: Acts 15:12), and local bishop James deferentially said, “Simeon has related . . .” (15:14), and proceeded to show how the prophets agreed with Peter (15:15-18). Peter (guided by his recent revelation / vision form God) had decided that the Gentiles shouldn’t have to follow the entire Mosaic Law, including circumcision, and this is what the council decreed. This is precisely “power in the Church”: exercised by St. Peter, leading a council of elders and apostles, including St. Paul (whose words in this gathering weren’t even recorded).

134. Paul claims that it was he (not Peter) who laid the foundation for the church (1 Cor. 3:10).

In context, this is clearly referring to Paul laying the foundation for the local Corinthian church (1 Cor 2:1-5; Acts 18:1-11), not the Church universal. Very shoddy hermeneutics here . . . Besides, if Paul had laid the foundation of the universal, Catholic Church, then it didn’t even exist on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit started indwelling all Christians and when 3,000 persons were baptized and “added” to the Church (Acts 2). Paul was still killing Christians in those days. So this entire notion is utterly absurd and false. It’s embarrassing to me as an apologist to have to take time to refute such a silly, vacuous argument. But we see how weak Lucas’ case is. This is a prime example.

135. Rather than adduce the pope, Paul adduces himself when he speaks of the (spiritual) “fathers” that the Corinthians had (1 Cor.4:15). If Peter were the [only] pope, obviously he would be the one for it, not Paul (remember that the very word “pope” comes from the word “father”).

Another silly, fatuous argument. Lucas himself says that this refers to the Corinthians only. Popes are the fathers of all Christians, but bishops are also the fathers of local churches, and priests of local congregations or parishes, if you will. It’s not an either/or scenario.

136. It was Paul – not Peter – who had begotten the Corinthians in faith through the gospel (1 Cor.4:15).

He planted a church as an evangelist. That is the evangelist’s task, not the pope’s.

137. Paul is the only apostle who constantly pleaded with us to imitate him (1Cor.4:16; 1Co.11:1; Phil.3:17).

He did, but in 2 Thessalonians, which was actually a joint effort of  Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy (1:1), Paul said to imitate all three of them:

2 Thessalonians 3:7-9 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle when we were with you, [8] we did not eat any one’s bread without paying, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you. [9] It was not because we have not that right, but to give you in our conduct an example to imitate.

Does Lucas now argue as a result, that Timothy and Silvanus are higher in the Church than Peter? Hebrews broadens the scope of this “imitation” too:

Hebrews 13:7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith.

Hebrews 11:1-40 (the whole chapter) is the famous “heroes of faith” passage. It was written, quite obviously, to exhort people to imitate the figures mentioned: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Joseph, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, and “Samuel and the prophets”.

138. Paul is the only apostle who passed on commandments (1Co.7:10 [7:6?]; 1Co.14:37,38)!

Peter commanded Cornelius and his kin and friends to be baptized (Acts 10:48). Jesus told eleven disciples (including their leader, Peter): “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:20). That was certainly passing on commandments. St. John did this, too: “Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment which you had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard” (1 Jn 2:7; cf. 2 Jn 1:4-6); “And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also” (1 Jn 4:21).

139. Paul is the only apostle with a “universal” character, who passed orders to “all the churches” (1 Cor.7:17).

Note it is plural: “churches” (i.e., congregations). He’s acting like a bishop, over local churches, not like a pope over the universal Church, though it is true that the advice and commands in his epistles are generally regarded as applicable to all Christians (just as the rest of the New Testament is so regarded as well).

140. Paul acknowledges that he was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor.7:40).

Christianity has decided that the canonical writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the author of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude were also inspired (“God-breathed”), so this is neither here nor there as to our topic at hand. This dispute is not about All the Wonderful Things About Paul (that no one disagrees with). It’s about Whether Peter Was the Pope / Leader of the Early Church.

141. Paul defends the validity of his apostleship with the following arguments (1 Cor.9:1):

A. It was free.

B. He saw the Lord Jesus.

C. The Corinthians were Paul’s work in the Lord.

And how is this a disproof of Peter’s papacy? The title of Lucas’ article that I am replying to is 205 Proofs Against the Primacy of Peter. Writers generally stick to the topic indicated by their title. But apparently Lucas disagrees with this widespread practice. Many of these entries about Paul have nothing to do (pro or con) with Peter’s primacy or lack thereof.

142. Note that none of Paul’s arguments for the validity and veracity of his true apostleship (either in 1 Cor. 9:1 or in any other chapter) is based upon its being “accepted or ordained by the pope.” Of two, one: Either Paul ignored the leadership and authority of Peter, or else Peter was not all that as Catholics preach. Paul’s apostleship and authority was completely independent of any acknowledgment of Peter!

We wouldn’t necessarily expect to see that at such an early stage of ecclesiology; however, what evidence we do have (Paul’s visiting Peter for fifteen days at the outset of his ministry: Gal 1:18) strongly suggests Peter’s sanctioning approval. It wasn’t just a mere coincidence that Apostle / Pope St. Peter was the one whom Apostle / Evangelist St. Paul visited, and for fifteen days, right at this important stage in his mission. If he were truly some sort of “spiritual lone ranger” as so many Protestants pretend (and Lucas may be one of them), then he wouldn’t have to go beyond Ananias, who laid hands on him (the usual rite of ordination), baptized him and was told by the Lord that Paul would have a great mission and destiny. That would constitute his ordination, if just anyone could do that. But in fact, we see the authority and ecclesiastical superiority of Peter in play.

143. Paul showed that he had the same rights to himself that the other apostles had, and he includes Peter (1 Cor.9:5).

Yep. Irrelevant. If we’re talking about apostles, Peter was one, too.

144. Paul made himself weak to win the weak, and strong to win the strong. He did everything to everyone, to somehow save as many people as possible. In his own words, “I do everything for the gospel’s sake, to share in it” (1 Cor.9:22,23). Paul was definitely the apostle who was most committed to defending the faith, to the point of becoming everything to everyone, so that they could receive Christ and see in him an example to be followed.

Exactly. This is what we would fully expect evangelists in particular to do, as good “persuasive policy”. I have tried to imitate this in the 41 years I have done Christian apologetics. Once again, Lucas seems to forget what the subject matter of this dispute is about. No one disagrees with all the great things that he notes about Paul (at least the ones that aren’t distorted and misunderstood). Was Peter the Pope? is our topic, and I religiously stick to it even if Lucas goes sailing off into the wild blue yonder, wildly, obliviously producing scads of non sequiturs and talking about all of St. Paul’s attributes that I have admired and respected as a committed disciple of Jesus and Bible-lover these past 45 years.

145. Paul’s words were not merely instructions, but “commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). He categorically states that if anyone were to ignore his words, “he himself will be ignored” (1 Cor.14:38). Nowhere else in the New Testament do we see an apostle writing with such authority, or writing on the authority of “the Lord’s commandments.”

Now Lucas bizarrely repeats an (erroneous) argument he made just seven entries earlier (#138 above). Weird . . .

146. Paul claims that he worked much harder than all the apostles did. He says, “…and his grace toward me was not in vain, but I worked harder than all of them” (1 Cor.15:10). As the apostle who works the most towards others, he can certainly be considered the “front line” among the apostles, the first and the one who most carried the gospel message.

He was the hardest worker. I agree! See my reply to #144 above.

147. Paul was “Christ’s ambassador” (1Co.5:20) [should be 2 Cor 5:20], and he claims that God made his appeal through him (1Co.5:20).

Yes he was. So was Timothy, co-writer of 2 Corinthians (1:1). That’s why Paul writes in the plural, and why it has “ambassadors” in the plural:

2 Corinthians 5:20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

But Lucas ignores the “we” and “us” that the epistle constantly employs, and so ignores poor old Timothy, who is also an “ambassador.” Peter, for his part, had long since been an ambassador or representative of Christ, as one of the twelve disciples (Mt 10:1), as Jesus made abundantly clear:

Matthew 10:22 and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. . . .

Matthew 10:40 He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me.

148. The only apostle the Bible says is “commended in everything” (2 Cor.6:4) is Paul.

It doesn’t say God commended him, but that “we commend ourselves in every way”. St. Peter taught that those who are commended by God are a rather large number:

1 Peter 2:19-20 For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures pain while suffering unjustly. [20] . . . if when you do right and suffer for it you take it patiently, you have God’s approval.

The writer of Hebrews applies it to a large number of past saints: “the men of old received divine approval” (Heb 11:2), based on their faith (11:1).

149. Paul clearly did not defend the superior authority of the apostle Peter over himself. Proof of this is that he says: “I was in no way inferior to the most excellent apostles” (2 Cor. 11:5). How could he have said such a thing, when Peter was the greatest earthly leader of the Church on the face of the earth, the “universal bishop”? Since Paul was in NO way inferior to the most excellent apostles, it is obvious and patent that he was not inferior to Peter or the others, either in terms of ecclesiastical authority.

I’ve dealt with this issue of “equality” twice now: in #66 in Part Two, and in #125 above.

150. Paul again defends his apostolic authority, not judging himself inferior to others (2Co.11:22-30), based on these facts: 

A. He was also a Hebrew (v.22).

B. He was also an Israelite (v.22).

C. He was also a descendant of Abraham (v.22).

D. He was much more a servant of Christ (v.23).

E. He worked much harder (v.23).

F. He was imprisoned more times (v.23).

G. He was scourged more severely (v.23).

H. He was exposed to death many more times (v.23).

I. He went through much more tribulation than anyone else (vv.25-27).

J. For these things he is proud (v.30).

He was an apostle, yep. Not every apostle is a pope, and not every pope is an apostle. He had the ancestral pedigree. He suffered a lot. The problem with Lucas’ analysis is that Paul also taught that everyone who “suffer[ed] with” Christ would — as a direct result — be “glorified with him” and would be “heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ” (Rom 8:17).

151. Paul continues to “glory” (2 Cor.12:1) in this, defending his authority as an apostle. He passes on the “visions and revelations of the Lord” (2Co.12:1), having been “caught up to the third heaven, and hearing unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for man to speak” (2Co.12:4). Paul was the only apostle who, in life, was caught up to the third heaven!

St. John (while still in this life) was caught up to the very throne of heaven:

Revelation 4:1-6 After this I looked, and lo, in heaven an open door! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up hither, and I will show you what must take place after this.” [2] At once I was in the Spirit, and lo, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne! [3] And he who sat there appeared like jasper and carnelian, and round the throne was a rainbow that looked like an emerald. [4] Round the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clad in white garments, with golden crowns upon their heads. [5] From the throne issue flashes of lightning, and voices and peals of thunder, and before the throne burn seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God; [6] and before the throne there is as it were a sea of glass, like crystal.

The prophets Daniel (ch. 7) and Isaiah (ch. 6) had also been ushered into the presence of God in what appears to be heaven, too: both before their deaths.

152. Paul asserts that he should be “praised by you” (2Co.12:11), since he was in no way inferior to the most excellent apostles (2Co.12:1).

Basically a repeat of #66, #125, and #149.

153. After defending the authority of his apostolate, comparing himself with even the most excellent apostles and not finding himself in an inferior position to them (on the contrary, he claims that he suffered and went through experiences that none of them did), he ends saying that he could be “strong in the use of the authority which the Lord has given me to build you up and not to tear you down” (2 Cor.13:10).

See my reply to #150 and #152. Again, he’s talking about the Corinthian congregation, as to his “authority.” This has no relation to whether Peter was the leader of the early Church.

154. Paul affirms that the gospel he preached “is not of human origin” (Gal.1:11), for “I received it from no one, nor was it taught to me; on the contrary, I received it from Jesus Christ by revelation” (Gal.1:11,12). This shows us that Paul was not indoctrinated in the doctrine of Peter, as in submission to him as “pope”, but only and directly from Jesus Christ, without dependence on the other apostles.

It does not at all. That’s how he first received it. When he visited Peter for fifteen days at the outset of his ministry (Gal 1:18: the verse that Lucas totally ignores throughout his entire article), they weren’t talking about the weather . . .

155. This explains why, when he was converted, he did not consult anyone (Gal.1:15-17), nor did he go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before him, but went straight to Arabia. : “When it pleased him to reveal his Son in me so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I consulted no one. Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me, but immediately I departed for Arabia, and returned to Damascus” (Gal.1:15-17). Paul’s ministry was independent, not dependent on Peter or the authority of any “pope” or other apostles. If Peter were pope and leader of Christians, it would be Paul’s responsibility to consult him immediately, as the supreme and ecclesiastical authority that he would be.

It doesn’t necessarily have to be immediately, but it was early on. Again, Lucas ignores Galatians 1:18: the very next verse after the ones he brings up, and extremely relevant to the discussion.

156. It was through Paul that the Ephesians received the dispensation of God’s grace (Eph.3:2,3).

Being an evangelist . . . St. Peter did the same with the 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and Cornelius and his kin and friends (Acts 10). With St. John he converted 5,000 in Jerusalem, at the temple (Acts 4:1-4), and a bunch of other people soon after (4:31), and many in Samaria (8:14-17).

END OF PART THREE

Go to Part One (#1-50)

Go to Part Two (#51-100)

Go to Part Four (#151-205)

***

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: [email protected]. 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: Detail of Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter (1481-82) by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli takes on my “50 NT Proofs for Petrine Primacy”, with his 205 “Petrine Potshots”. This is Part III of my replies (#101-150).

2023-02-21T15:23:13-04:00

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He’s active on YouTube.

***

The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in blue. I used Google Translate to transfer his Portugese text into English.

*****

See other installments:

Part One: “Disproofs” #1-50

Part Three: “Disproofs” #101-150

Part Four: “Disproofs” #151-205

***

Continuing response to his article, “205 Provas Contra O Primado de Pedro” (no date) [205 Proofs Against the Primacy of Peter]. 

51. Paul places James as the first pillar of the Church in Galatians 2:9, placing him before Peter who only appears second. In addition to the fact that Peter is not the main pillar of the Church (as he would be if he were pope) and has to share his place with others, he is still mentioned behind James! Now, the “pillar of the Church” is a sign of leadership, of authority. Therefore, Peter is not the only leader, much less the first!

Already explained in my reply to #50. For further reading on this, see:

Did St. Paul Seek St. Peter’s Approval for His Ministry? (+ Does The Word Order in Galatians 2:9 Suggest a Lowering of Peter’s Primacy?) [4-27-17 and 9-4-17]

James Listed Before Peter (Gal 2:9)? (vs. Jason Engwer) [12-3-21]

52. Peter had been entrusted with preaching the gospel to the circumcised (Jews), as was Paul to the uncircumcised (Gentiles) – Gal.2:6-8. Again, no hint of “universal primacy” is extant, as Peter is not bishop of Gentiles and Jews, but is indicated by Paul as having a ministry aimed at Jews, while he (Paul) is at Gentiles. In addition to the fact that if Peter were bishop in Rome he would be of the uncircumcised (Gentiles), we also have the sad realization that he does not occupy universal jurisdiction, but only a local ministry on the same level as Paul (Gal.2:6- 8).

The First Epistle of Peter is directed towards a wide audience (1:1: “To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappado’cia, Asia, and Bithyn’ia”), and reads like pastoral guidance of the leader of the Church to the whole Church. Peter humbly calls himself a “fellow elder.” But it doesn’t follow that he has no more authority than the other bishops (Paul also called himself a deacon). In fact, he assumes authority throughout his epistle: “gird up your minds” (1:13); “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).

53. Jesus is said to be the only cornerstone of the Church (Eph.2:20), and we are built “on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph.2:20), not Peter. Once again, Peter is not indicated as the foundation or main stone of the Church, but only one among so many apostles and prophets, built on that one cornerstone that is Jesus Christ!

See my article, Can Christ & Peter Both be “Rocks”? [4-21-22] Excerpt:

[Some Protestants argue that] Scripture elsewhere calls Jesus Christ a “Rock”; therefore (so the reasoning goes) Peter can’t possibly be called the same thing. This simply isn’t true. The objection presupposes what I would argue is an unbiblical and hyper-rationalistic “either/or” outlook; whereas the Bible teaches a “both/and” point of view. Here are some of the passages brought up in order to set forth such a view:

Matthew 21:42 (RSV) Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the scriptures: ‘The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” (cf. Mk 12:10; Lk 20:17-18)

Acts 4:11 as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall; and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

Romans 9:32-33 Why? Because they did not pursue it through faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, [33] as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall; and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

1 Corinthians 10:4 . . . For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

1 Peter 2:4, 6-8 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; . . . [6] For it stands in scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.” [7] To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, “The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,” [8] and “A stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall”; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

Now, is this intended to exclude anyone else being called a rock or a stone? No. In Scripture, creatures are often called in an essentially lesser sense or degree, things which God is called. There can be such a thing as a Big Rock (God) and a small rock or stone (men or a man). In fact, this is explicit biblical teaching. Note that in the passage from 1 Peter, above, I left out a verse. Here it is:

1 Peter 2:5 and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

The “spiritual house” is likely referring to the Church. Jesus, in the larger passage, was called a “living stone” a “cornerstone” and “the head of the corner.” Yet we Christians are also called “living stones” in the same passage. Thus, there is no “either/or” pattern here. Both things can be true. If there can be little stones along with God as the Big Rock, then there can also conceivably be the “chief” of these secondary stones, and that would be Peter, based on the data of Matthew 16:18. And there’s more, too:

Ephesians 2:19-22 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [20] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [21] in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [22] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

This is again referring to the Church (2:19), which is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (2:20). Thus we have precisely the same notion that Catholics contend is expressed in Matthew 16:18: there is a secondary / “co-worker” sense in which the Church is built upon men. Here it is the twelve apostles and prophets as well. In Matthew it’s Peter, as the leader and foremost of the apostles. And then in the next verse we have the “Big Rock”: “Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone”. So there is no false dichotomy. One is not in opposition to the other. Another passage teaches the same thing (without mentioning Jesus in this particular instance):

Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

This sort of typology is, as I stated, common in Scripture.

54. Once again, Jesus is singled out as the only foundation (1 Cor.3:11). Peter himself declared that the rock in question was Jesus (1 Pet. 2:4), and that he (like other Christians) were “living stones” built on the main stone (1 Pet. 2:4-6).

See my reply to #53.

55. Peter, in writing his two well-known epistles, NEVER identified himself with the terms the Catholic Church inadvertently assigned to him: pope, prince of apostles, chief, head, bishop of bishops – these are all terms totally unknown to Peter. He simply identifies himself the way he was: “apostle” (1Pe.1:1) and “servant” (2Pe.1:1). As much as Catholicism invented many myths about Peter that emerged much later, there is nothing in the writings of this same apostle that could indicate a greater ostentation than that of “apostle” and “servant”, as well as all the other apostles!

See my reply to #52. So what? Much ado about nothing. Paul never called himself an “evangelist” either, even though he was the greatest evangelist of all time, and he uses the word three times.  Does it follow that he is not an evangelist? Jesus never called Himself “God” or “God the Son.” God the Father never calls Himself that in the Bible, even though He is called this name by others many times. Does it follow, then, that He ought not be called “God the Father”?

56. Peter had “neither silver nor gold” (Acts 3:6). Popes, however, have ample amounts of both!

See my articles, Biblical Evidence & Defenses for Expensive Church Buildings and Dialogue on Biblical Views Re Following Jesus & Riches.

57. At no time does Paul or any other apostle identify in the figure of Peter a maximum authority in their writings. Rather, what we see is Paul clearly stating that God “appointed some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers” (Eph.4:11). Note that neither “pope” nor anything of the sort appears to be an office in the Church. Simply put, Paul innocently “forgets” precisely what is most important within the Catholic Church!

The pope is the bishop of Rome. Lucas forgot to include Paul’s mention of bishops (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-2; Titus 1:7). We’ve already discussed whether James or Peter or both jointly presided over the council of Jerusalem. Bishops preside over local councils and popes preside over ecumenical ones. So we see the papacy and the episcopacy in kernel form here, and we have an infallible council (with Paul spreading its binding decree): something that is anathema to Protestantism. This is exactly what we would expect at this stage: a primitive development of what was later much more developed.

58. When the Judean brothers heard that the Gentiles had heard the word of God, they criticized Peter for having food in the house of uncircumcised men (Acts 11:1-3). They would hardly have done this if Peter were infallible pope, as they would be going against a superior authority, being subordinate to them. but spends a long time giving explanations about it (Acts 11:4-7).

That has to do with behavior, not promulgation of doctrine or infallibility (just as with Paul’s criticism of Peter for hypocrisy in Galatians). Since we have never claimed that popes are perfect, it’s is a non sequitur. Popes can be, and are, criticized in a variety of ways. I’ve done it myself. There is such a thing as respectful, substantive criticism.

59. If there was a “pope” (which comes from the word “father”), Jesus would not have said that “call no one on earth your father, for one is your Father, which is in heaven” (Mt.23: 9).

This is a silly, classic anti-Catholic canard. The sky would fall and western civilization would come to an end if this wasn’t inevitably trotted out. See my articles, “Call No Man Father” vs. Priests Addressed as “Father”? [National Catholic Register, 8-9-18] and Biblical Evidence for “Holy Father” & “Vicar of Christ” [9-12-15].

60. It is not Peter the Supreme Pontiff, but Jesus. Just as the OT priests were a shadow of the NT priests (ministers of God), so the high priest was a figure of a greater priest, superior to the “ordinary” priests. If Peter were pope, he would be the perfect figure identifiable as this “High Priest”, or “Supreme Pontiff” (as Catholics themselves attribute to him, as well as to other popes). However, biblically only Jesus is our High Priest (Heb.6:20; 10:21; 7:23-25; 8:4)!

This is a substanceless “argument”. Jesus is the quintessential high priest in the sense of presenting Himself once and for all at His crucifixion as a sacrifice on our behalf to the Father (Heb 10:10-14). No created human being does that, and no one has offered animal sacrifice like the OT priests did, since 70 AD, so this is a non sequitur. There is simply no comparison of this with popes.

61. Furthermore, the prerequisite for fulfilling OT figures and becoming Supreme Pontiff in light of the New Covenant included having a “permanent priesthood” and “living forever to intercede for them” (Heb.7:23-25). ). Furthermore, he also needed to be “holy, blameless, pure, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens” (Heb.7:26). Now all these things do not fit the figure of Peter, but only in Christ. Therefore, Peter was not the High Priest/High Pontiff!

Again, the papacy has nothing to do with this. Jesus as high priest was figured in the OT by the high priest offering sacrifices at the temple and entering the Holy of Holies once a year on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). That’s why Jesus is called the Lamb of God.

62. Finally, when an analogy is drawn between the Supreme Pontiff in heaven and the Supreme Pontiff (Priest) on earth, it is not to speak of Peter, but of the Israelites who presented the “offerings prescribed by the law” (Heb.8 :4). Again, Peter is not indicated as being the Supreme Pontiff on earth, as this title was only given to him later by the Catholic Church, as well as the other popes.

There is no such analogy. It’s fundamentally confused. Yes, the pope is “high priest” or “supreme priest” (pontiff), but it’s in the sense of New Testament priests, not OT priests, who offer animal sacrifice. The One who fulfilled their model was Jesus, Who sacrificed Himself as the innocent Lamb of God.

63. The Chief Shepherd appointed by Peter himself is not himself, but Christ (1Pe.5:4).

As Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid wrote:

Jesus is the shepherd of his flock the Church (Jn 10:16), yet he shares his shepherdhood in a subordinate way with others, beginning with Peter (Jn 21:15-17) and extending it later to others (Eph 4:11) . . . Jesus says he’s the only shepherd (Jn 10:11-16), yet this seemingly exclusive statement doesn’t conflict with him making Peter shepherd . . . or with his calling others to be shepherds as well (Eph 4:11). Peter emphasizes that Jesus shares his role as shepherd with others by calling Jesus the chief shepherd . . . (1 Pet 5:4). Note also that the Greek construction of John 10:16 . . . is the same as 1 Timothy 2:5 (. . . one mediator . . .). The apostles and their successors the bishops, are truly shepherds also. (“Any Friend of God’s is a Friend of Mine”This Rock, Sep. 1992, 7-13)

64. Peter writes so that those who shepherd do not act as rulers of the flock (1Pe.5:3), exactly the attitude of the popes, who dominate the entire “flock” called the Roman Catholic Church!

This gets back to what I discussed in my reply to #3 in Part One. The pope is not to “lord it over” the flock or be a tyrant or despot. Jesus and the New Testament are not against leadership; they oppose tyrannous leadership and dictatorship. Peter, writing to elders, expresses precisely the same thing:

1 Peter 5:2-3  Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, [3] not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock.

I’ve often noted that the pope affects the day-to-day life of the Catholic far less than many Protestants’ daily lives are affected by their own pastors. The pope doesn’t know I exist. But once in 1986 (on the advice of two pastor friends), I dared to respectfully criticize my Protestant pastor after he claimed — like a good Protestant — that everyone should “keep your pastors honest”. What was the result of that? I was denounced from the pulpit and lied about, and my ministry (I was an apologist and evangelist then, too, on college campuses, commissioned by this very pastor) was trashed. That was being a petty dictator: precisely what Jesus and Peter commanded us to never be.

Was James “dominating the entire flock” when he issued the proclamation of the council of Jerusalem, which claimed to be led by the Holy Spirit? If not, how is what popes do any different? How is it even different from what Luther and Calvin did? Martin Luther said things, after all, like the following:

I need not have any title and name to praise highly the word, office, and work which I have from God and which you blind blasphemers defile and persecute beyond measure. I trust my praise will overcome your defiling, just as my justice will overcome your injustice. It does not matter if, with your blasphemy, you are on top for the moment.
Therefore, I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you — or even an angel from heaven — to judge my teaching or to examine it. For there has been enough foolish humility now for the third time at Worms, and it has not helped. Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give an explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world – I Pet. 3:15. I shall not have it judged by any man, not even by any angel. For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 6:3 ]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved – for it is God’s and not mine. Therefore, my judgment is also not mine but God’s. (From: Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So-Called, July 1522. Luther’s Works, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan [volumes 1-30] and Helmut T. Lehmann [volumes 31-55], St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House [volumes 1-30]; Philadelphia: Fortress Press [volumes 31-55], 1955. This work from Volume 39: Church and Ministry I [edited by J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann]; pages 239-299; translated by Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch; excerpt from 248-249)

Is that “domineering”? Is that being a “ruler”? No pope has ever spoken like that, which is why I have called Luther a “super-pope.” Erasmus wrote about Luther (after vainly trying to “dialogue” with him):

I want you and your adherents to know that I am not . . . so faint-hearted as to be disturbed by your insults. But the fact that you are so disparaging, derogatory, and utterly contemptuous towards my Discussion argues that it is not as contemptible as you make out. If it did not bear down on you, your pen would not have produced such outrageous insults to its author.

[Y]ou are so impudent in your insults . . . so unrestrained in your abuse when you are hemmed in by arguments, that no one, even if he bent over backwards to be fair to you, could find any excuses for your spirit. (Erasmus responding to Martin Luther, Hyperaspistes [1526], pp. 103, 140 in Vol. 76 in Collected Works [1999] )

65. Peter wrote in the position of “elder” (1Pe.5:1). The Catholic Church declares a priest to be “inferior to a bishop” (Council of Trent, Can.7, 967), and further states that priests cannot exercise certain functions because they are of an inferior order (Council of Trent, Can.7, 960). Now, was Peter, writing as “an elder” (1Pe.5:1), of a lower order? Could he be pope, since the priest cannot perform “certain functions”? Here is the testimony of the Catholic Church itself regarding the demotion of the position of priest as an “inferior order”, which would hurt the very concept of Peter – who was a priest – being the most superior order existing in the Church!

As I noted before, Paul often called himself a deacon or minister (1 Cor 3:5; 4:1; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Eph 3:7; Col 1:23-25), yet no one would claim he was only a deacon, and nothing else. And he never (far as I can tell) called himself an “evangelist.” “Elders” in the Bible sometimes meant the equivalent of “local pastor / priest” or “bishop.” James was the bishop of Jerusalem, as many Protestants agree, but he is called an elder at the council of Jerusalem. The offices were somewhat fluid at this early stage, because ecclesiology was only in its infancy.

66. Furthermore, Peter wrote to the elders, saying that “I do so in the same capacity as an elder with them” (1Pe.5:1), that is, on an equality with them, and not superiority, as would be the case if he exercised a primacy over all others!

That’s routine “papal talk.” The pope will often say “fellow bishops” because he is a bishop (of Rome) as well as pope. None of this proves anything, anymore than Paul calling lessers “brethren” (many many times) “proves” that they are on the same level as him. Even Jesus called His disciples “friends” (Jn 15:13-15). Does that mean He isn’t above them? Paul calls Christians “fellow heirs with Christ” (Rom 8:17) and “God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9), and he calls other Christians “fellow workers” and “fellow soldiers” and “fellow servants” (see the references). These are desperate arguments, and lack understanding of biblical language and idiom and even the repeated scriptural admonition to be humble and have an attitude of servanthood.

67. It is the duty of all bishops and elders to shepherd God’s flock, and not Peter’s alone (1Pe.5:1,2; Acts.10:28). It was everyone’s duty to “feed the church of God” (Acts 10:28).

Yes, of course it is.

Christ specifically addressed Peter on the occasion of John 21:17 because of the apostle’s denials mentioned earlier. Peter denied Jesus three times, and Christ gave him the opportunity to reaffirm his love for his Master three times.

That’s the standard “anti-papal” interpretation of that passage, and I agree that it is part of its meaning, but not all of it. The meaning and intention of “Feed my lambs . . . Tend my sheep . . . Feed my sheep” and “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32) are not wiped out or nullified, simply because it was partly the process of restoring Peter.

This was the same process that Paul went through after having killed Christians. God said, “he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel” (Acts 9:15). Thus, Paul’s future as the Great Evangelist was laid out to him at the beginning of His ministry. Likewise, after Peter repented of his momentary weakness and fear for his life (far less of a sin than Paul’s), Jesus (Who is God) revealed to him his role as the leader and Shepherd of the Church: to “feed” and “tend” and “strengthen” the flock.  It couldn’t be any more clear than it is.

68. Peter was rebuked by Paul face to face in Antioch, “because he was reprehensible” (Gal.2:11). A Catholic would never call the Pope “reprehensible”, nor would he resist him in the face!

As explained several times, popes have the gift of infallibility (and that in very particular specified conditions only), not impeccability. Maybe one day Protestant anti-Catholic polemicists will be able to grasp this simple distinction. But obviously, that day hasn’t arrived yet. Patience, Lord!  As to Catholics supposedly never rebuking popes, that is sheer nonsense. Saints and Doctors of the Church like St. Francis of Assisi, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and St. Dominic have done that in no uncertain terms.

There were also many instances of morally inferior popes (e.g., during the Renaissance) being soundly rebuked by holy priests and laymen. This is nothing novel whatsoever in Catholic ecclesiology. No one knows better than Catholics the distinction between the nobility of an office and (too often) the [relative] sanctity of the person holding it at any given time.

69. Furthermore, Paul asserts that Peter “was not walking according to the truth of the gospel” (Gal.2:14), and that he had acted in “hypocrisy” (Gal.2:13). A pope who is infallible in matters of faith could hardly be classified in this way.

Again, this proves that Lucas has no clue whatsoever as to the meaning and limited application of infallibility, which has nothing directly to do with good conduct and behavior. It’s equal parts sad and absurd that Catholics have to keep explaining this till we’re blue in the face. The anti-Catholics never learn this. It’s no more difficult than a first-grader learning to read.

Jesus excoriated the Pharisees for hypocrisy more than anything else. Yet at the same time He told His disciples to “practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice” (Mt 23:3). The Pharisees weren’t even followers of Christ, yet Jesus still told His followers to obey their teaching. Thus, we see that instances of hypocrisy do not wipe out a person’s teaching authority: that they have on other grounds.

If Peter were pope, Paul would have respected Peter’s ultimate and infallible authority in the decision he made, rather than rebuking him in public and in letter, not to mention the supposed “authority” that Peter had over him!

It wasn’t an instance of infallible authority. Peter wasn’t binding anyone else to it. He simply acted hypocritically.

70. Peter “feared those of the circumcision” (Gal.2:12). If Peter were pope, it would be Jewish Christians who should fear him!

Peter was temporarily hypocritical, no more. It has nothing to do with his authority.

71. Peter acted with dissimulation when he saw that “some from James” arrived (Gal.2:12), starting to separate himself from the Gentiles because of this (v.12). If James were under Peter’s leadership, there would be no reason to fear him, nor to censure the Gentiles for fear of those who came from James. The episode makes no sense in the view that Peter was above James in apostolic authority. If that were so, Peter would not fear an “inferior” himself, much less those sent “from” him! On the contrary, it would be Peter himself who would give orders and maintain his position of authority as leader.

This merely expands upon the last three criticisms, which are already answered.

Evidence that Peter did not exercise primacy over John

72. John, along with Matthew, was the only apostle among the 12 who composed a gospel.

Many believe that Peter was the main source behind the content of the Gospel of Mark, which was in turn (according to the prevailing scholarly view) largely copied or followed by Matthew and Luke. It matters not if he dictated it; Paul did the same in some (possibly all) of his letters, as we know.

73. John was the only apostle chosen by the Lord to have the revelation of the Apocalypse, on the island of Patmos, concerning the final and eschatological events.

Great. It doesn’t make him pope. Peter had a vision about all foods being clean. Peter raised people from the dead, and his shadow healed people.

74. John wrote more epistles than Peter, in addition to the gospel itself and the Revelation. As Jerome well said, perfectly defining this whole picture: “Peter is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle – one is a married man, the other a virgin; but Peter is only an Apostle, while John is an Apostle, an Evangelist, and a Prophet. An Apostle, because he wrote to the Churches as a teacher; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel, which no other Apostle, except Matthew, did; a prophet, because he saw on the island of Patmos, where he had been exiled by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr of the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the limitless mysteries of the future” (Against Jovinian)

Solomon wrote more than both of them, and he ended up fallen away from God.

75. Of all the disciples, John was the only one considered the “beloved disciple” (Jn.13:26; Jn.13:25).

This is silly and inexcusably ignorant, for anyone who is theologically educated, as Lucas is. It was already covered in my reply to #19 in Part One, which had exactly the same content. So now we’re repeating items in the long list of 205?

76. Even as he and Peter ran to the tomb, there is a clear distinction between “Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 20:2), clearly differentiating that this “disciple whom Jesus loved” it was the other (John), and not Peter himself.

This is just a silly variation of #19 and #76. Are we to believe that Jesus didn’t love Peter at all, or only loved John, among the disciples? We can’t, because the Bible tells us otherwise, as I already explained, with #19. Jesus stated to the collective of the disciples that He “loved” all of them (Jn 13:34; 15:12).

77. John was the only disciple who leaned on Jesus’ chest (Jn.13:23).

Peter was the only one whom the Bible noted was specifically prayed for by Jesus (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”: Lk 22:32). The prayer even had to do with what Catholics call indefectibility: the inability to fall away from the faith or proclaim a falsehood as binding (a gift that we believe the pope has). So even this had something to do with his role as leader / pope. Which of these two things is the more important and significant?

78. John was the only disciple chosen by Jesus to know which disciple would betray him (Jn.13:26).

John asked Him, and so He told Him. I don’t see that this is all that significant. Jesus would have answered the same with any of the disciples, I believe.

79. John had to correct in writing an error of Peter’s that had spread among the brothers, that he should not die (Jn.21:20-24).

Good for him. God used a donkey to communicate truth to Balaam (Num 22:21-39). When Lucas can come up with a list of “50 Biblical Reasons for Johannine Primacy” then he can come back and present an argument that is worthy to be regarded as equal in force with mine. As it is, he came up with 13, or 26% as many arguments as I produced for Peter. Whoop-de do! Is anyone impressed by that?

80. John was the first disciple to reach the tomb (Jn.20:4).

This is a replica of #27: “The first of the disciples to arrive at the tomb was John, not Peter (Jn.20:4).” Since I answered that in Part One, there is no need to repeat myself. Now we see how Lucas gets to 205 potshots; he repeats a bunch of these twice. Not impressive . . .

81. John was the only disciple to whom Jesus entrusted his mother to his care (Jn.19:26,27).

This is a re-tread of #25, also answered in Part One.

82. John did not deny Jesus.

Good. He also didn’t kill Christians like Paul, or plan to have a man killed in battle (i.e., premeditated murder) so he could have sex with and marry his wife (David). God made Big Sinner Paul the greatest evangelist of all time and writer of much of the inspired revelation of the NT. He made an eternal covenant with Big Sinner David (knowing that he was to commit these great sins), had him write most of the wonderful Psalms (a model of worship and praise ever since), become the greatest King of Israel / Judah, and made him be in the OT the model for the Messiah (his direct descendant) and messianic kingdom.

So why not make Big Sinner Peter the pope? No biggie! It’s all the same . . . All God has to use for His purposes (excepting Mary, who was made sinless solely by His grace) is a bunch of miserable sinners like us. But He makes it His business to transform us (filthy, ungrateful rebels that we are) and make us fit for His use. Praise Him for that!

83. John was always present at the most important events. He entered with Jesus into the house of the head of the synagogue at the resurrection of Talitha (Mark 5:37). He went with Jesus to the Mount of Olives, moments before the crucifixion (Mark 14:33). He was with Jesus at the scene of the transfiguration on the mount, with Moses and Elijah (Mark 9:2). He went up to a mountain to pray together with Jesus (Lk.9:28). He was regarded as one of the main pillars of the Church (Gal.2:9). If Peter is to be considered the “ultimate leader” based on his presence at important events like this, John certainly couldn’t help but be too, since he was with Peter and James on all these occasions!

Yes, it’s well known that Peter, James, and John were the “inner circle” of the disciples. This doesn’t overcome Peter’s primacy. Let Lucas come up with “50 Biblical Proofs for the Primacy of James” too (along with his miserable thirteen “proofs” for John). He can’t. So this is just fluff and silliness: meant to avoid the obvious primacy of Peter that is obvious in the Bible (at least once someone points it out, as I have).

84. John was the only disciple who followed Jesus to the foot of the cross, while all the others fled, Judas betrayed him, and Peter denied him (Jn.19:26).

Yes he did, and it is to his eternal credit. I love John! His NT writings are fantastic. But being at the cross has nothing to do with his supposedly having more “papal credentials” than Peter.

Evidence that Peter did not exercise primacy over Paul

As noted last time, I went through this routine with Jason Engwer 18 1/2 years ago: Refutation of a Satirical “Pauline Papacy” Argument (vs. Jason Engwer) [9-30-03]. For all I know, Lucas derived some of his material from Jason.

Let me begin answering this section by noting that I absolutely love and admire St. Paul. He’s one of my huge heroes and model for my apostolate of apologetics and evangelism. I always say that when I get to heaven I would like to talk to, in order: 1) our Glorious Lord and Savior Jesus, 2) the Blessed Virgin Mary, 3) the Apostle Paul, and 4) St. John Henry Cardinal Newman. In my work, I probably utilize and ponder St. Paul’s writing maybe 500 times more than I would use or think about St. Peter’s.

So none of the material to come is in any way, shape, or form, meant to denigrate or minimize St. Paul in even the slightest degree. I’m simply arguing that the Bible presents St. Peter as the ultimate leader of the early Church, not St. Paul. That doesn’t make St. Paul “inferior” to St. Peter.

In fact, I think that St. Paul played a much greater and especially more influential role in the history of Christianity and the development of the early Church than St. Peter, but that is not the question at hand, which is: “does the Bible present Peter as the leader of the early Church and the first pope (Petrine Primacy)?” This understood, most of Lucas’ “Pauline Primacy” texts will be non sequiturs, just as most of his list so far have been.

85. Paul saw the Lord Jesus (Acts 9:27) and “preached boldly in his name” (Acts 9:27), being the apostle who worked the most (1 Cor 15:10).

Peter lived with Jesus for three years (Paul never met Him except in a vision) and also preached boldly: so much so that when Herod wanted to persecute Christians, after he killed James (Acts 12:2), he went straight after Peter and put him in prison (Acts 12:3-4). An angel appeared to get him out of prison (12:7-11).

86. The entire assembly of believers in Jerusalem (at the Council) was silent as they listened to Paul and Barnabas speaking of all the signs and wonders that God had done among the Gentiles through them (Acts 15:12).

This is now the second time that Lucas has misinterpreted Acts 15:12 (the other being his #43, where he gave the wrong verse [15:13] and wrongly applied it to the council’s reaction to James).  Now he is erroneously applying it to Paul and Barnabas. In fact, it was the council’s reaction to Peter’s speech (15:7-11). The text says after his speech: “And all the assembly kept silence”: followed by a semi-colon, which means a strong break in the text (and remember, the original NT didn’t have chapters or verses). Then it says that Paul and Barnabas gave their report (while not recording their words, as Luke recorded Peter’s and James’). Get it right!

87. Paul was one of the existing prophets and teachers in the Church, named in Acts 13:1.

Good. And so Jesus appeared and said, “Saul, I now name you Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church . . .” Oh wait, that was Peter!

88. Paul and Barnabas were the ones set apart for the work of the Lord (Acts 13:2).

Of course they were! So are all Christians, whom Paul teaches have a calling: “let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him” (1 Cor 7:17).

89. Paul is the first to recognize and refute the heresy, against Elymas the magician (Acts 13:9-12).

Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, period, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24), five chapters earlier.

90. The city’s proconsul, being a “learned” man (Acts 13:7) and of great importance in the city, believed through Paul’s rebuke to Elymas, “deeply impressed with the teaching of the Lord” (Acts 13: 12).

Wonderful! How is this relevant? Paul impressed a proconsul . . .

91. Paul was the only one to stand up to defend Christianity in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:14-16).

Fabulous! The point is to show that a bunch of Bible passages, taken together, prove that Paul was the leader of the whole Church. It’s not just anything Paul does . . .

92. Paul was the apostle who most edified the Church with apostolic epistles, thirteen in all. A much larger number than Pedro, for example, with only two.

Popes need not necessarily be primarily writers. So this is neither here nor there.

93. Paul was the most church-founding apostle in the history of early Christianity.

Likewise, the founding of churches is not within the pope’s purview, but is, rather, the job of the evangelist.

94. Paul was the only apostle who ever preached to an entire city that gathered to hear the word of the Lord (Acts 13:44).

95. A great multitude of Jews and Gentiles believed through Paul’s preaching to the Jewish synagogue (Acts 14:1).

96. Paul and Barnabas were the only ones to stand up to defend the Christian faith before Jews and Gentiles in Iconium (Acts 14:1).

Nor is evangelism the primary purpose of a pope, though it can surely be part of what they do. Evangelism is for the nonbeliever, whereas popes watch over the Christian flock.

97. Paul works a notorious miracle on a paralytic (Acts 14:10), so much so that the great crowd thought he was a god (Acts 14:11).

Peter raised the dead (Acts 9:40), and Cornelius tried to worship him, too (Acts 10:25).

98. Paul preached the good news and made many disciples in Antioch and Iconium (Acts 14:21).

Great. Peter preached the first Christian sermon after Pentecost (Acts 2:14-36), resulting in three thousand conversions, baptisms, and folks being “added” to the Church (Acts 2:41).

99. Paul is the only apostle known to appoint elders in every church and commend them to the Lord (Acts 14:21).

That makes him a functional bishop, but not a pope.

100. Paul made use of the “keys” to “open the post of faith to the Gentiles” (Acts 14:27), so that they too might through his preaching hear the word of the Lord, and be saved.

This is a repeat of #35. I’ll repeat the first part of my answer there: “Keys of the kingdom” was a technical term, referring back to Isaiah 22 (as many Protestant commentators agree). They were only given to Peter. I treated the matter of the “keys of the kingdom” very extensively in my reply to #7 in Part One, citing seven corroborating Protestant scholars. What Paul was doing in Antioch, as recorded in Acts 14:27 had nothing whatsoever to do with the “keys” as understood by scholars.

END OF PART TWO

Go to Part One (#1-50)

Go to Part Three (#101-150)

Go to Part Four (#151-205)

***

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: [email protected]. 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: Detail of Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter (1481-82) by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli takes on my “50 NT Proofs for Petrine Primacy”, with his 205 “Petrine Potshots”. This is Part II of my replies (#51-100).

2023-02-21T15:22:10-04:00

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He’s active on YouTube.

***

The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in blue. I used Google Translate to transfer his Portugese text into English.

*****

Part One: “Disproofs” #1-50

See other installments:

Part Two: “Disproofs” #51-100

Part Three: “Disproofs” #101-15o

Part Four: “Disproofs” #151-205

*****

I am responding to his article, “205 Provas Contra O Primado de Pedro” (no date) [205 Proofs Against the Primacy of Peter]. It’s a reply to my well-known article, 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy, which was written in 1994 as part of my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism: completed in May 1996 but not “officially” published until 2003 (Sophia Institute Press). The article has been posted on my website since it began in February 1997, and was also published in the print magazine, The Catholic Answer, Jan/Feb 1997, 32-35 (now posted at the Catholic Culture site). It was translated into Portugese in the late 1990s by Carlos Martins Nabeto and also by Ewerton Wagner Santos Caetano sometime before July 2008. Apparently, it has been widely spread in Brazil for some time now.

Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer made similar critiques of the article, which I comprehensively responded to:

“Reply to Critique of “50 NT Proofs for the Papacy,” (vs. Jason Engwer) [3-14-02]

Refutation of a Satirical “Pauline Papacy” Argument (vs. Jason Engwer) [9-30-03]

St. Peter Listed First in Lists of Disciples: A Debate (vs. Jason Engwer) [10-12-20]

It should be made clear at the outset, exactly what I think my article established; how much I claim for it (since Lucas seems to take a low view of cumulative arguments). I wrote in the initial article itself:

The Catholic doctrine of the papacy is biblically based, and is derived from the evident primacy of St. Peter among the apostles. Like all Christian doctrines, it has undergone development through the centuries, but it hasn’t departed from the essential components already existing in the leadership and prerogatives of St. Peter. . . . The biblical Petrine data is quite strong and convincing, by virtue of its cumulative weight, . . .

In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Christian history; in particular, Church government. The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this.

In my 2002 reply to Engwer I vigorously defended the article:

I think it is very strong, certainly stronger than the biblical cases for sola Scriptura and the canon of the New Testament (which are nonexistent). . . .

As I said, it is a “cumulative” argument. One doesn’t expect that all individual pieces of such an argument are “airtight” or conclusive in and of themselves, in isolation, by the nature of the case. . . . Obviously, passages like the two above [Jn 20:67 and Acts 12:5] wouldn’t “logically lead to a papacy.” But they can quite plausibly be regarded as consistent with such a notion, as part of a demonstrable larger pattern, within which they do carry some force. . . . Another way to respond to this would be to make an analogy to a doctrine that Jason does accept: the Holy Trinity:

Does Jason really think it’s reasonable to expect me to explain to him why passages like Isaiah 9:6 and Zechariah 12:10 don’t logically lead to Chalcedonian trinitarianism and the Two Natures of Christ?

Obviously, the Jews are quite familiar with Isaiah 9:6 and Zechariah 12:10, but they don’t see any indication of trinitarianism at all in them, nor do the three passages above “logically lead” to trinitarianism, if they are not interconnected with many, many other biblical evidences. Yet they are used as proof texts by Christians. No one claims that they are compelling by themselves; these sorts of “proofs” are used in the same way that my lesser Petrine evidences are used, as consistent with lots of other biblical data suggesting that conclusion. . . . Likewise, with many Protestants and the papacy and its biblical evidences. . . .

[O]ne strong Protestant presupposition is that Paul was much more important than Peter. Indeed, that is how it appears on the face of it in the New Testament (with so many books written by Paul and all). As with many Catholic beliefs, one must take a deeper look at Scripture to see how the pieces of Catholicism fit together in a harmonious whole.

Knowing this, I approached the Petrine list with the thought in mind: “Paul is obviously an important figure, but how much biblical material can one find with regard to Peter, which would be consistent with (not absolute proof of) a view that he was the head of the Church and the first pope?” Or, to put it another way (from the perspective of preexisting Catholic belief): “if Peter were indeed the leader of the Church, we would expect to find much material about his leadership role in the New Testament, at least in kernel form, if not explicitly.” . . .

As for the nature of a “cumulative argument,” what Jason doesn’t seem to understand is that all the various evidences become strong only as they are considered together (like many weak strands of twine which become a strong rope when they are woven together). . . . many of the other [proofs] are not particularly strong by themselves, but they demonstrate, I think, that there is much in the New Testament which is consistent with Petrine primacy, which is the developmental kernel of papal primacy.

The reader ought to note, also, that in the original paper I wasn’t claiming that these biblical indications proved “papal supremacy” or “papal infallibility” (i.e., the fully-developed papacy of recent times). This is important in understanding exactly how I viewed the evidence. . . .

None of the things on the list are “irrelevant,” as Scripture itself is not “irrelevant,” and does not record tidbits of information for no reason. It is inspired; God-breathed, after all. God doesn’t give us useless information. These factors are relevant as indications consistent with the leadership role of Peter. There were many other leaders in the early Church as well, but only one preeminent leader. It is like talking about the Speaker of the House or the Senate majority leader [in American government]. They’re leaders, too, but the President holds a higher office than they do.

I defended my original article at great length in all my replies to Jason. And I will do so again in this multi-part article.

F. F. Bruce, the well-respected Protestant biblical scholar, made a similar point to mine, about Peter’s centrality and importance:

A Paulinist (and I myself must be so described) is under a constant temptation to underestimate Peter . . .

An impressive tribute is paid to Peter by Dr. J. D. G. Dunn towards the end of his Unity and Diversity in the New Testament [London: SCM Press, 1977, 385; emphasis in original]. Contemplating the diversity within the New Testament canon, he thinks of the compilation of the canon as an exercise in bridge-building, and suggests that

it was Peter who became the focal point of unity in the great Church, since Peter was probably in fact and effect the bridge-man who did more than any other to hold together the diversity of first-century Christianity.

Paul and James, he thinks, were too much identified in the eyes of many Christians with this and that extreme of the spectrum to fill the role that Peter did. Consideration of Dr. Dunn’s thoughtful words has moved me to think more highly of Peter’s contribution to the early church, without at all diminishing my estimate of Paul’s contribution. (Peter, Stephen, James, and John, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1979, 42-43)

Elsewhere, four years later, Bruce observed:

And what about the “keys of the kingdom”? . . . About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward. (F .F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1983, 143-144)

James Dunn, himself no mean Bible scholar, backs up my overall point quite nicely, too:

So it is Peter . . . who was probably the most prominent among Jesus’ disciples, Peter who according to early traditions was the first witness of the risen Jesus, Peter who was the leading figure in the earliest days of the new sect in Jerusalem, but Peter who also was concerned for mission, and who as Christianity broadened its outreach and character broadened with it, at the cost to be sure of losing his leading role in Jerusalem, but with the result that he became the most hopeful symbol of unity for that growing Christianity which more and more came to think of itself as the Church Catholic.  (Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, London: SCM Press, 1977, 385-386)

Many prominent Protestant scholars and exegetes have agreed that Peter is the Rock in Matthew 16:18, including Henry Alford, (Anglican: The New Testament for English Readers, vol. 1, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1983, 119), John Broadus (Reformed Baptist: Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Judson Press, 1886, 355-356), C. F. KeilGerhard Kittel (Lutheran: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968, 98-99), Oscar Cullmann (Lutheran: Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 2nd rev. ed., 1962), William F. Albright, Robert McAfee Brown, and more recently, highly-respected evangelical commentators R.T. France, and D.A. Carson, who both surprisingly assert that only Protestant overreaction to Catholic Petrine and papal claims have brought about the denial that Peter himself is the Rock.

That’s nine so far. Here are some more:

10) New Bible Dictionary (editor: J. D. Douglas).
11) Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1985 edition, “Peter,” Micropedia, vol. 9, 330-333. D. W. O’Connor, the author of the article, is himself a Protestant.
12) New Bible Commentary, (D. Guthrie, & J. A. Motyer, editors).
13) Peter in the New Testament, Raymond E Brown, Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann, editors, . . . a common statement by a panel of eleven Catholic and Lutheran scholars.
14) Greek scholar Marvin Vincent.

If Peter was the Rock, as all these eminent Protestant scholars believe, then the argument is a straightforward logical one leading to the conclusion that Peter led the Church, because Jesus built His Church upon Peter. If there was a leader of the Church in the beginning, it stands to reason that there would continue to be one, just as there was a first President when the laws of the United States were established at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Why have one President and then cease to have one thereafter and let the executive branch of government exist without a leader?

Catholics are, therefore, simply applying common sense: if this is how Jesus set up the government of His Church in the beginning, then it ought to continue in like fashion, in perpetuity. Apostolic succession is a biblical notion. If bishops are succeeded by other bishops, and the Bible proves this, then the chief bishop is also succeeded by other chief bishops (later called popes). Thus the entire argument (far from being nonexistent, as Jason would have us believe) is sustained and established from the Bible alone.

To conclude this introduction, I cite the great Lutheran scholar Oscar Cullmann:

Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord puts the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so does Jesus hand over to Peter the keys of the house of the kingdom of heaven and by the same stroke establishes him as his superintendent. There is a connection between the house of the Church, the construction of which has just been mentioned and of which Peter is the foundation, and the celestial house of which he receives the keys. The connection between these two images is the notion of God’s people. (Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1952 French ed., 183-184)

***

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.

Glad to hear it’s being spread far and wide in Brazil! Lots of Bible going out . . .

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.

A cumulative case from all over the New Testament is the very opposite of “in isolation.” It’s systematic theology. Whether he has refuted my argument remains to be seen. Keep reading, folks, and get ready for a “long ride”! It always takes much more “ink” to refute errors than it does to state them. And repeating errors over and over makes them no less false. One could say “2 + 2 = 5” all day long and it wouldn’t be any less false than it was the first time one said it.

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.

Nonsense; but an “E for effort . . .”

Without further ado, I will go over the 205 proofs below found throughout Scripture, broken down especially into four main points:

1. Peter’s supposed supremacy over the other apostles in general.

2. Peter’s supposed supremacy over John.

3. Peter’s supposed supremacy over Paul.

4. Peter’s supposed primacy in Rome for 25 years.

After all this, I believe that there will be no more people left who prefer to be clubbed with their isolated biblical passages. Anyone who analyzes the New Testament as closely as I did before composing the present study can easily see how what the Bible overthrows most is the supposed “primacy of Peter.” Read and have fun. The peace of Christ be with all brothers.

Peace and joy of Christ to Lucas and all. May the best argument prevail and may God open our eyes, give us all an open mind and heart, and lead and guide us into the fullness and splendor of biblical truth and revelation, wherever it “goes”. Kick your socks off, find a nice easy chair, and enjoy the “ride.” I know I will enjoy writing this. I hope readers enjoy reading it too.

Evidence that Peter did not exercise primacy over the other apostles

1. The disciples asked “who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt.18:1). Jesus, however, did not take the opportunity to say that it was Peter; quite the opposite! If Peter exercised primacy among the apostles, it would have been no problem for Jesus to end the question right away by answering as Catholics openly declare – that it is Peter, and that’s it!

This is a silly and frivolous, unserious argument. The whole point of the passage is that this was an instance of presumptive arrogance, pride, and spiritual immaturity among two disciples: to be fighting about who was the “greatest” disciple. Jesus cuts right through the pride, stating, “Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 18:4). He reiterates later: “He who is greatest among you shall be your servant; whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted” (Mt 23:11-12).

The two disciples in question knew they were wrong, since on one occasion Jesus asked them what they were “discussing” and the text says “they were silent; for on the way they had discussed with one another who was the greatest” (Mk 9:33-34). Jesus said: “he who is least among you all is the one who is great” (Lk 9:48). It was James and John who were the disciples who talked like this: as we know from other passages (and the anger of the other ten against them):

Matthew 20:20-21, 24 (RSV) Then the mother of the sons of Zeb’edee came up to him, with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. [21] And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Command that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” . . . [24] And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers.

Mark 3:17 James the son of Zeb’edee and John the brother of James, whom he surnamed Bo-aner’ges, that is, sons of thunder;

Jesus gave them that nickname because these were the two impulsive characters who wanted to kill people with fire because they weren’t receptive to Jesus:

Luke 9:53-55 but the people would not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. [54] And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, “Lord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?” [55] But he turned and rebuked them.

Even tempestuous Peter never said anything that stupid. So to see these passages with their clear intent (James and John were spiritually immature and prideful: apparently inherited from their mother), and to make out that this would supposedly be a golden opportunity for Jesus to say, “Peter is the greatest among you!” is just plain dumb. He’s not going to rebuke the very notion as spiritually prideful and then provide Peter as the example of spiritual pride (??!!). That makes no sense whatsoever.

Besides, Catholics would never say that Peter was the “greatest” anyway. He was simply the leader of the disciples and the first pope. The greatest person was arguably the sinless and immaculate Blessed Virgin Mary. But of course she was too humble to speak in those terms (“I am the handmaid of the Lord . . . he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden”: Lk 1:38, 48). It’s Elizabeth who praises her: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!” (Lk 1:42), but Mary immediately gives all the glory to God (Lk 1:46-55).

Some of this can likely be explained by petty jealousy, as Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers, commenting on Matthew 18:1 speculates:

We may well believe that the promise made to Peter, and the special choice of the Three for closer converse, as in the recent Transfiguration, had given occasion for the rival claims which thus asserted themselves. Those who were less distinguished looked on this preference, it may be, with jealousy, while, within the narrower circle, the ambition of the two sons of Zebedee to sit on their Lord’s right hand and on His left in His kingdom (Matthew 20:23), was ill-disposed to concede the primacy of Peter.

Talk about “isolating” passages and having no clue about context . . . Lucas is off to a very poor start. See how much writing it took to properly and thoroughly refute a lousy argument?

2. The fact that the disciples disputed among themselves as to which of them was the greatest shows us that there was no primacy among them, not even after Mt.16:6 (note that the dispute came after that, in Mt.18:1). ). If the disciples had understood Jesus’ statement in Matthew 16:16 (or any other) as an indication of Peter’s superiority over the others, there would be no such dispute, nor would it be necessary to ask Jesus “which of them was the greatest”, since it was already decided that it was Peter! That would make as much logic as a Catholic asking about who has more dominion, the pope or those below him. The very fact that this question is raised already shows us that there was no such primacy, and even more the fact that Jesus denied it further accentuates this fact.

This is equally silly, because there are various meanings and applications of “greatest”: not simply an application to the pope and no one else. Lucas assumes that they could only be talking specifically about being the leader of the disciples. In fact, Jesus stated who was the “greatest” before Matthew 16, and it wasn’t Peter:

Matthew 11:11 Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Note that Jesus again made His habitual point about meekness and servanthood. The spiritual pride and immaturity of James and John has no bearing on the primacy of Peter. If indeed they were jealous or envious, as the above Protestant commentator believed, this would actually be evidence in favor of Jesus placing the primacy of ecclesiastical jurisdiction upon Peter. The disciples were often clueless before they received the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. This is nothing “new” or surprising at all.

3. Jesus stated that the rulers of nations rule over them and important people exercise power over them, but that would not be the case among the disciples (Mt.10:42,43). Now, if Jesus agreed with the dominion that the pope exercises over others (bishops and clerics), then he would have said just the opposite, that is, that Peter was leader among them, just as the rulers of nations were leaders among them.

Jesus’ point was clearly not about mere leadership, but rather, the spirit in which a ruler rules. He is to be the servant of all, just as Jesus was (the perfect example):

Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. (cf. Mk 10:42)

Various translations in English bring out His meaning more clearly: “domineer over them” (NASB), “have absolute power . . . [tyrannizing them]” (Amplified, which is designed to stress specific and particular meanings), “foreign rulers like to order their people around . . . have full power over everyone they rule” (CEV), “show off their authority over them” (CEB), etc.

Thus, Jesus was simply saying that Christians must be guided by a different spirit (to act according to His own example), and to not be despots and tyrants, like so many secular leaders are. The ruler was to serve all, not dominate them and be filled with the lust for power. Jesus had no beef against civil (or Church) government per se. When asked about taxes, He casually said, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (Mt 22:21; cf. Mk 12:17; Lk 20:25; Rom 13:6-7). The Apostle Paul appealed to Caesar and his Roman citizenship (which spared him from crucifixion: Acts 25:11-12). He wrote:

Romans 13:1-5 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. [2] Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, [4] for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. [5] Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

Peter commanded Christians to “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors . . . Honor the emperor” (1 Pet 2:13-14, 17). The emperor at the time he wrote was Nero.

Jesus did say that Peter was the leader of the disciples and His new Church, by making him the Rock upon which that Church was built, giving him (and he alone) the keys of the kingdom, and telling him to “Feed my lambs . . . Tend my sheep . . . Feed my sheep” (Jn 21:15-17), and “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).

The fact that Christ does not emphasize equality, but rather a contrast, shows us very clearly that, in fact, there would not be a superiority between them: “You know that those who are considered rulers of nations dominate them, and important people exercise power over them. It will not be so among you” (Mk.10:42).

No; it shows that there ought not be a power-hungry, domineering spirit, not that there would be no leadership in the Church. Jesus wasn’t an anarchist. He believed in Church government, just as He believed in civil government.

4. Jesus called Peter “a man of little faith” (Mt.14:31), because he doubted (Mt.14:31).

So did all of the disciples at one time or another. As I said above, this was before they had received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Only one, John, was present at the crucifixion. “Then all the disciples forsook him and fled” (Mt 26:56; cf. Mk 14:50), “You will all fall away because of me this night; for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered'” (Mt 26:31; cf. Mk 14:27). After they were Spirit-filled, it was a completely different story, and ten of the eleven disciples (minus Judas) died as glorious martyrs.

Let me get this out of the way now and not have to repeat it: Catholics don’t believe that popes are impeccable (sinless), only that they are infallible: and even that is under very specific conditions. So every one of these supposed “disproofs” that notes that Peter was a sinner is simply stating the obvious, and is an irrelevant non sequitur.

5. Peter had the audacity to rebuke Jesus (Mt.16:22), and was rebuked like a demon (Mt.16:23), for acting as a “stumbling block” (Mt.16:23 – NIV; ” cause of scandal” – ARA).

See my answer to #4.

6. Jesus rebuked Peter for “thinking not of the things of God, but only of the things of men” (Mt.16:23).

See my answer to #4. Peter, before he had the Holy Spirit, was understandably concerned about Jesus talking about going to Jerusalem and being killed. He had little understanding about the Messiah having to die for the sins of the world. Once he did, after the Resurrection and Pentecost, then he was a bold and fearless leader, eventually being martyred by being crucified upside down.

We could have a field day pointing out the many sins of anyone before they committed themselves to Jesus as a disciple. We need only look as far as St. Paul, for starters. He recalled later in his life: “I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women,” (Acts 22:4; cf. 9:4; 22:7; 26:11, 14; Gal 1:13, 23; 1 Tim 1:13). He lamented his own past: “I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor 15:9); “I am the foremost of sinners” (1 Tim 1:15).

But here’s the point, and it applies to both Paul and Peter. Paul wrote: “I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief” (1 Tim 1:13). If we’re gonna run down the past sins of apostles, then we should apply this “indignation” equally to Paul. After all, it takes a lot more sinful will to decide to persecute Christians and kill them for the crime of believing that Jesus was Lord and Messiah, than to lose courage in a moment of fear for one’s life, and deny Jesus as a result.

7. It was not only Peter who had the power to “bind or loose”, for this authority was given by Christ to all the disciples (Mt.18:18). Again, Peter appears in the same condition of equality with the other apostles, being that they were invested with the same authority as him!

This is being given the same authority only insofar as they all could impose penances or forgive sins (grant absolution); that is, exercise “binding and loosing.” Every priest and bishop today can do that. It doesn’t make them equal to the pope in authority (or all of the disciples equal to Peter in office). This is some sort of logical fallacy for sure, but I’m too lazy to look it up. But in any event, Peter alone was given the “keys of the kingdom” and this has implications of having a singular office of great authority. Protestant commentators note:

The keys are the symbol of authority, and Roland de Vaux (Ancient Israel, tr. by John McHugh [New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961], 129 ff.) rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. (W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, [Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1971], 196)

This verse [Mat 16:19] therefore probably refers primarily to a legislative authority in the church . . .

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 (Is 22:22, in conjunction with 22:15). (Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament [Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1993], 90, 256)

The keys of the kingdom would be comitted to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority. (George Buttrick et al, editors, The Interpreter’s Bible [New York: Abingdon, 1951], 453)

The authority of Peter is to be over the Church, and this authority is represented by the keys. (S. T. Lachs, A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke [Hoboken, New Jersey: Ktav, 1987], 256)

Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ declared in [Matthew] 16:19 is . . . that of the steward . . . . whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household. (R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1989], 247)

The ‘kingdom of heaven’ is represented by authoritative teaching, the promulgation of authoritative Halakha that lets heaven’s power rule in earthly things . . . . Peter’s role as holder of the keys is fulfilled now, on earth, as chief teacher of the church. (M. Eugene Boring, Matthew, in Pheme Perkins et al, editors, The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 8 [Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1995], 346)

Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of his house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the house. (Oscar Cullman, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, translated by Floyd V. Filson [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953], 203)

8. Peter lacked spiritual insight into the meaning of the parable (Mt.15:15), as did the multitude.

See my answer to #4. Non sequitur.

9. Peter was again rebuked by Jesus for not being able to watch with him even one hour (Mt.26:40).

See my answer to #4. Non sequitur.

10. While Judas was the only disciple who put Jesus to death, Peter was the only disciple who publicly denied Jesus in his death (Mt. 26:69,70).

See my answer to #4. Non sequitur.

11. Peter continued to deny Jesus, even after cursing and swearing (Mt.26:74).

Peter immediately repented upon hearing the cock crow (Mt 26:75; Lk 22:62). His sin and moment of weakness — due to a rational fear for his life in that terrible circumstance — literally lasted just a few minutes. But Paul’s sins went on for some time, and he was so stubborn that he had to be knocked to the ground and more or less forced to convert to Christ. We need to keep things in perspective.

12. Once again the disciples had argued among themselves as to which was the greatest (Mk.9:33,34 and Mk.10:41,42).

Not all of them: only James and John. See my reply to #1.

Both times, Jesus never points to Peter as this leader, as Catholics bluntly do. On the contrary, he confirms that this would not happen between them (Mk.10:43).

Already answered in my reply to #1. Again, Jesus said in Mark 10:43: “whoever would be great among you must be your servant”. That no more rules out a pope who is a servant of all than it does God the Son, Who served all (“the Son of man came not to be served but to serve”: Mt 20:28; cf. Mk 10:45; “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet”: Jn 13:14). It doesn’t rule out bishops in the Church, which are expressly mentioned in the Bible (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-2; Titus 1:7; “office” in Acts 1:20 is also episkopos). Nor does it rule out a “bishop of bishops.” This is very poor argumentation and exegesis.

13. Peter continued to demonstrate his fallibility, asking Jesus to depart from him (Luke 5:8), confessing that he was “a sinful man” (Luke 5:8). He did not stand out for being more holy or righteous than the others! Note the contrast to another disciple, Nathanael, in John 1:45.

See my answer to #4. Non sequitur.

14. According to John’s account, Andrew was the first disciple to follow Jesus, not Peter (Jn.1:40,41). Peter only followed him after Andrew called him (Jn.1:41).

So what? What does the order of being called have to do with anything? Paul was called so late that he didn’t even meet Jesus during His earthly life. Once the twelve were all called and in place as disciples, Peter was clearly their leader. It’s so clear that most Protestants don’t deny it. They simply deny that he was pope, or more specifically, that there was papal succession (i.e., a continuance of the office begun by Peter).

15. The greatest praise of character found in Christ’s words is not directed to Peter, but to Nathanael—a “true Israelite, in whom there is no falsehood” (John 1:45).

See my answer to #4. Non sequitur.

16. Although it is often Peter who goes ahead in answering Christ’s questions, at other times it is not him. For example, in John 11:26 this role is occupied in the person of Thomas, encouraging all the other disciples to go to death for Christ (John 11:16).

This doesn’t defeat my argument, which was: “Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles” (#35). The argument is what it is. Being the spokesman “often” shows that the NT is indicating his leadership: in this one way along with forty-nine others.

17. When the Greeks wanted to address Jesus, they did not go looking for the “leader” Peter as “the mouth of the apostles” to communicate Jesus. On the contrary, they preferred to address Philip (Jn.12:20). Curiously, he also did not bother to go to the “leader” Peter, but to Andrew (Jn.12:22). Nor was he concerned to transmit to the “leader” Peter, but he brought the message to Jesus (Jn.12:22). Again, any authority of Peter over the other disciples is unknown!

It doesn’t necessarily mean anything. They simply wanted to see Jesus, saw one of His disciples, and asked him to lead them to Jesus. Philip didn’t have to go to Peter to figure out where Jesus was. Andrew was probably simply close at hand, so Philip may have asked him something like, “hey these guys want to see Jesus, do you think it’s okay?” I don’t see that Peter had to be involved every time someone wants to see Jesus. This is irrelevant, as to His leadership.

18. Jesus said that “no one sent is greater than the one who sent him” (Jn.13:16). Interestingly, it was not Peter who sent the missionaries of the church, but he himself who received orders from the others and was sent by the apostles: “The apostles in Jerusalem, hearing that Samaria had accepted the word of God, sent Peter and John there”( Acts 8:14). Therefore, according to Christ’s rules (“the one sent is not greater than the one who sent him”), Peter could only be, at most, on an equal footing with the other apostles. Exactly what all the evidence points to!

This doesn’t follow. Jesus made a proverbial-type statement that doesn’t apply literally to every particular that includes the same word, “sent.” Being commissioned or sent doesn’t mean that the one sent is equal or lesser than the ones sending him. If so, then Paul would be no more important or significant than “elders” at the council of Jerusalem who sent him to Antioch (Acts 15:22, 25).

19. It was not Peter “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, but John (John 13:26).

This is plain silly. Virtually all conservative Bible commentators agree that this description was John referring to himself in his Gospel, and — in humility — not naming himself or saying “I”. The phrase only appears in John, four times (13:23; 20:2; 21:7, 20; cf. “the other disciple”: 20:2-4, 8). It means nothing more than that and doesn’t imply preference or favoritism. In the same book, Jesus stated to the collective of the disciples that He “loved” all of them (Jn 13:34; 15:12).

20. It was not Peter who reclined in Jesus’ bosom, but John (Jn.13:26; Jn.13:25).

So what? John happened to be able to sit next to Jesus at the Last Supper. Peter may have been on Jesus’ other side, for all we know. But this proves nothing, either way.

21. Jesus denies the truth of Peter’s statement in John 13:37. In addition, it predicts its denials that would occur in the sequence (Jn.13:37,38).

See my answer to #4. Non sequitur. But of course, later on, Peter did lay his life down for Jesus, and was crucified upside down. So Jesus predicted that Peter wouldn’t lay down his life for Jesus right before the crucifixion, but he also predicted his later martyrdom:

John 21:18-19 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.” [19] (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) . . .

22. It is Thomas who asks for guidance on the Way (Jn.14:5), leading Christ to make the emphatic statement known from John 14:6, that he was “the way, the truth and the life” (Jn.14 :6).

So Thomas asked a question: big wow! How does that imply that he was the leader of the disciples?

23. It is Philip who asked Jesus to reveal the Father (Jn.14:8).

See the previous reply.

24. It is Judas (not the Iscariot) who asks about the manifestation of Christ in our lives (Jn.14:22). Again we see that Peter was far from being one-on-one among all the times that someone takes the floor!

It’s irrelevant. I said that Peter “often” took the lead; not always. And that is significant. It doesn’t have to be 100% / every time / no exceptions, for it to have force as an argument, together with 49 other ones: all pointing in the same direction.

25. Jesus entrusted his mother, Mary, to the care of the beloved disciple, John, and not to Peter (Jn.19:26,27). This must sound even stronger for Catholics, who elevate Mary’s titles to the highest levels, considering her “mother of the Church”. Therefore, according to the same logic, it was John who took care of the “mother of the Church”, not Peter!

Again, this simply has no bearing on whether Peter was leader and pope or not. Jesus probably chose John for this because he was the only disciple there at the cross, with Mary, and Jesus wanted to say such a thing to Mary (and John) in person.

26. Peter does not appear at the foot of the cross, like the apostle John, and some women described in John 19:25, who persevered to the end for Christ’s sake and did not give up following him even at the foot of the cross!

See my answer to #4. Non sequitur.

27. The first of the disciples to arrive at the tomb was John, not Peter (Jn.20:4).

So what? All this means is that he could run faster. What does that have to do with being pope? All popes have to be the fastest runners at the Olympics? What’s interesting here is how John acted when he got there first. He didn’t go in the tomb. He waited for Peter, who did go in (Jn 20:5-8). After Peter did that, John followed. It seems pretty clear that this is deference to a leader.

28. It was not Peter alone who ordained the elders, but all the twelve, gathering all the disciples together (Acts 6:2).

29. Peter did not take it upon himself to choose the “seven men of good testimony” ([Acts].6:3,4), but the apostles in common agreement said to “choose among you” (v.3) the men who should be selected. [note: Lucas’ original mistakenly had John 6:3-4 as the cited verse]

Ordination isn’t the function of the pope alone. This doesn’t prove Peter wasn’t pope or a “proto-pope.”

30. Years later, Peter once again continued to demonstrate his reliability, now also in doctrinal aspects, considering certain foods as “an unclean and profane thing” (Acts 10:15), when Jesus himself had “declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:19)!

In Mark 7:19, it’s the author, Mark, who made the statement, “Thus he declared all foods clean”. This wasn’t stated in explicit terms by Jesus to the hearers, and so the dietary laws didn’t formally change yet. Therefore, Jewish Christians continued to follow the Mosaic dietary laws until the council of Jerusalem, which declared: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity . . (15:28-29).

It was Peter leading, but in conjunction with the apostles and elders (precisely like popes and bishops in ecumenical councils) declaring the official change regarding dietary laws, with the express consent of the Holy Spirit. Peter had received the vision from God in Acts 10, that was actually followed by the Council. We don’t even have the recorded words of Paul at this council, and he went out loyally proclaiming its “Peter-originated and recommended” decision on his missionary journeys (Acts 16:4).

31. Peter equaled Cornelius, placing himself in the same position as a man, not “above” him (Acts 10:25,26).

Yes; as human beings, because Cornelius “fell down at his feet and worshiped him” (10:25). Peter pointing out that he was a man like Cornelius and not to be worshiped has no relevance to whether he was pope. No pope (being a man) should be worshiped, either. This is the dumbest and most laughable objection so far. Pathetic . . .

32. Peter rejected the act of prostrating themselves before him (Ac.10:25,26). Popes, on the other hand, accept all types of people who constantly prostrate themselves at their feet and kiss their hands! What a difference between Peter and the popes! While Peter set an example for Christians to follow, the popes (usurping Peter’s place) accept any and all “reverence” that Peter never accepted!

This is equally ridiculous. Popes accept acts of veneration, not worship, precisely as occurs in Scripture itself:

Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon describes word #7812: shachah as “. . . prostrate (especially reflexive, in homage to royalty or God):–bow (self) down, crouch, fall down (flat), humbly beseech, do (make) obeisance, do reverence, make to stoop, worship.” [see all of the numerous OT instances of its use]
*
It’s translated in the following manner in the KJVworship (99x), bow (31x), bow down (18x), obeisance (9x), reverence (5x), fall down (3x), themselves (2x), stoop (1x), crouch (1x), miscellaneous (3x). It mostly means bowing down to God in worship (adoration), but also not infrequently means bowing down before superiors or angels in homage or veneration. There are many biblical examples of this:
1 Chronicles 29:20 Then David said to all the assembly, “Bless the LORD your God.” And all the assembly blessed the LORD, the God of their fathers, and bowed their heads, and worshiped [shachah] the LORD, and did obeisance [shachah] to the king.

Genesis 27:29 Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down [shachah]  to you. Be lord over your brothers, and may your mother’s sons bow down [shachah] to you. . . .

This is Isaac’s blessing of Jacob.

Genesis 42:6 Now Joseph was governor over the land; he it was who sold to all the people of the land. And Joseph’s brothers came, and bowed themselves [shachah] before him with their faces to the ground.

King Nebuchadnezzar “fell upon his face, and did homage to Daniel” (Dan 2:46; cf. 8:17). The Philippian jailer “fell down before Paul and Silas” (Acts 16:29). Men (apostles) are venerated in the New Testament. The Greek for “fell down before” in Acts 16:29 is prospipto (Strong’s word #4363). It is also used of worship towards Jesus in five passages (Mk 3:11; 5:33; 7:25; Lk 8:28, 47). So why didn’t Paul and Silas rebuke the jailer? I submit that it was because they perceived his act as one of veneration (which is permitted) as opposed to adoration or worship, which is not permitted to be directed towards creatures. Note that the word “worship” doesn’t appear in the above five passages, nor in Luke 24:5 or Acts 16:29. When “worship”  [proskuneodoes appear in connection with a man or angel, it isn’t permitted, as in Acts 10:25-26 (St. Peter and Cornelius).

Thus, we see the same in Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9, because St. John mistakenly thought the angel was Jesus, and so tried to worship / adore the angel. The same thing happened when men thought that Paul and Barnabas were Zeus and Hermes and “wanted to offer sacrifice.” They were rebuked, as mistaken (Acts 14:11-18).

Is all that idolatry, according to the prohibitions of “bowing down” (Ex 20:5; Lev 26:1; Dt 5:8-9; and Mic 5:13). No. All of those passages are strictly about conscious “graven image” idols, meant to replace God. One mustn’t bow to them. But this is obviously not a prohibition of all bowing and veneration, or else the passages above would be presented in the Bible with disapproval (there is not the slightest hint of of that).

33. It was not the church at Rome that sent Paul and Barnabas to Antioch (remember again John 13:16), but the “church in Jerusalem” (Acts 11:22). Taking into account the Catholic argument that Peter was bishop of Rome, and the assumption that Rome (like Peter) exercised primacy over other local communities, this fact points much more to the supremacy of the church in Jerusalem, further overturning this myth. Catholic. Of two, one: Either Rome was not greater than Jerusalem (and therefore Peter was not greater than James or the bishop who ran the church in Jerusalem), or Peter was not bishop in Rome!

This was only one point of time, and fairly early on. Jerusalem was the focus of attention at first; hence, the council of Jerusalem (led by Peter) was an event carrying sublime authority. That will change drastically after Jerusalem is sacked and destroyed by the Romans, not long after, in 70 AD. Most historians agree that Peter eventually resided in Rome and was killed there. Not all think he was the first Roman bishop, but that usually depends on one’s theological and ecclesiological beliefs. Commissioning / sending or ordaining people was usually done on the local level in the early days. None of this should surprise us, and certainly none of it has relevance to Peter’s office.

34. It was not Peter who sent his “subjects”, but he himself received orders and instructions from others (Acts 8:14). He was sent in the same way as Barnabas (Acts 11:22) and then Judas and Silas (Acts 15:22), who are sent later. There is no indication that Peter is solely responsible for things or a kind of “mandatory” of the Church! If Peter were the leader of the church, how could he himself be sent to Samaria with John by the church, instead of him being at the head of sending missionaries?

This is the same fallacy, repeated. Being “sent” is no big deal. Several times elders of a local church “sent” apostles. This was true both with Peter and Paul. Lucas is wrongly assuming all these things, and then shooting them down, as if they have any relevance to our present topic. They do not.

35. Peter was not the only one who had the “keys”, for Paul and Barnabas “opened the door of faith to the Gentiles” (Acts 24:27), all the apostles had the authority of the keys to “bind and loose” in Matthew 18:18, and the Pharisees themselves held it, but did not use it correctly (Luke 11:52).

“Keys of the kingdom” was a technical term, referring back to Isaiah 22 (as many Protestant commentators agree). They were only given to Peter. Acts 24:27 has nothing to do with that. Nor was it applied to the other disciples in Matthew 18:18 because the privileges of the key-bearer were more extensive and exclusive than the powers of “binding and loosing”, as I alluded to above.

36. The greatest Council of the early Church was not held in Rome, but in Jerusalem (Acts 15:2). If Rome was the seat of Peter, and Peter was the “prince of the apostles”, then logically it should be the most suitable place to be the seat of such a Council. The fact that this only took place in Jerusalem shows us that either Peter was never in Rome as pope, or else he did not in fact have any authority at a higher level than the other apostles.

Jesus concentrated on the Jews first, then intended for His Church to reach out to the Gentiles. Everything began in Galilee and Jerusalem, so that’s why the council was there. But Jerusalem was soon to be almost utterly destroyed, so by necessity, the “center” would have to be somewhere else. It made sense in God’s providence to make this location the seat of the Roman Empire.

37. Paul and Barnabas went to deal with this matter with “the apostles and elders” (Acts 15:2), not with Peter in a singular sense.

It was the model of the later ecumenical councils: apostles and elders (later, bishops), presided over by the pope. It perfectly anticipates later Catholic history and ecclesiology.

38. Peter was not the one who opened the Council, nor the one who closed it, not even the one who had the most important word!

39. It was not Peter who first rose to settle the matter with his “gift of infallibility”, for he only said something “after much discussion” (Acts 15:7).

40. Peter, when speaking, did not declare himself as “pope”, nor as exercising primacy over others, nor as the only one who had infallibility. On the contrary, he only emphasizes his ministry among the Gentiles (Acts.15:7) in terms of his various missionary journeys (Acts.9) through Samaria (Acts.8:25), Lydda (Acts.9:32), Caesarea (Ac.10:1), Joppa (Ac.10:5), Antioch (Gal.2;11). He does not claim to be a “universal bishop”, but only points out a missionary ministry among the Gentiles!

41. It was the “apostles and elders” (Acts 15:6) who dealt with this matter. Again, Peter’s sole supremacy is unknown!

42. It was James who presided over the Council of Jerusalem. The entire letter sent to the Gentiles was based entirely on the words of James, not Peter (Acts 15:19-21).

The text doesn’t really say who “opened” it. But it’s nothing unusual for bishops / elders to vote on such matters. That’s how it was with recent papal declarations that were infallible. Bishops were heavily consulted, since the pope wanted to act in concert with them. So either that happened here, or the elders / apostles as a group decided to call the council.

Peter (in the presence of Paul, James, and other apostles) was the first speaker who was named, and one of only two persons who had their words recorded. Peter didn’t have to declare himself the pope. He noted how he was in the forefront of the issue being discussed: “God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe” (15:7) and recommended loosening the Mosaic law in the case of Gentile converts.

He had been the first to oversee the first Gentile Christians who were baptized (Acts 10:44-48). Peter acted with that authority, and everyone knew his background as the leader of the twelve disciples. That’s why Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18).

After Peter spoke (15:7-11), no one disagreed with him (“And all the assembly kept silence”: 15:12). Then after Barnabas and Paul gave their unrecorded report, James, the local bishop (who appears to preside over the council’s proceedings because of that), refers back to Peter’s words  (15:14), backs them up with Old Testament Scripture (15:15-18) and then suggests a particular application of Peter’s words (15:20), which was followed in the conciliar decision (15:28-29).

We certainly wouldn’t expect to see a full-blown papacy at this very early stage, because the doctrine developed, just as every other one did (all taking hundreds of years) — it was the same with bishops and the canon of the Bible and even the Holy Trinity — , but what we see here is perfectly compatible with the seeds or kernels of the later fully developed papacy.

43. When James spoke, everyone was silent (Acts 15:13).

That was actually 15:12, and it was after Peter spoke, not James. I thank Lucas for confirming one of my arguments. If he thought it was significant if indeed silence had occurred after James’ speech, then he must think so if it happened after Peter talked (which is the actual case). Glad to find a rare agreement!

44. It was James who closed the Council, not Peter. When asked about all the fundamental points by which we can identify someone who presides over an assembly, James perfectly fills in all the questions: Who has the final say? James. Who gave the verdict? James. Whose suggestion was decided as the very letter that would be sent to the Gentiles? James! Peter’s role in this Council cannot be remotely compared to the leadership of James! This knocks down Peter’s chances of being pope, for then he would himself preside over the Council, and make use of his “infallibility” to decide the matter!

Per my argument above, it appears to me that they sort of jointly preside or work closely together, at any rate. James spoke last because he was the local host-bishop. Early ecclesiology often can’t be put in a nice little package and wrapped with a bow. All sides tend to project their own views in this area onto the past. It’s best that we all admit this. Hence, I wrote in my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism:

As is often the case in theology and practice among the earliest Christians, there is some fluidity and overlapping of these three vocations [bishop, elder, and deacon] (for example, compare Acts 20:17 with 20:28; 1 Timothy 3:1-7 with Titus 1:5-9). But this doesn’t prove that three offices of ministry did not exist. For instance, St. Paul often referred to himself as a deacon or minister (1 Corinthians 3:5, 4:1, 2 Corinthians 3:6, 6:4, 11:23, Ephesians 3:7, Colossians1:23-25), yet no one would assert that he was merely a deacon, and nothing else. Likewise, St. Peter calls himself a fellow elder (1 Peter 5:1), whereas Jesus calls him the rock upon which He would build His Church, and gave him alone the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:18-19). These examples are usually indicative of a healthy humility, according to Christ’s injunctions of servanthood (Matthew 23:11-12, Mark 10:43-44). (Appendix Two: “The Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church“, 252)

45. The final opinion was not from Peter, but from the “apostles, elders and the whole church” (Acts 15:22) in general. It was they who sent Paul and Barnabas to Antioch (Acts 15:22) with the answer, not Peter.

46. ​​Also the letter sent to the Gentiles with the description of the decision taken on the part of the leadership of the Church has nothing to do with any primacy of Peter, nor does it suggest this. He only limits himself to saying that they were “the brethren apostles and presbyters” (Acts 15:23), without making an average or particular status for Peter as the “ultimate leader” of the Church.

Correct on both counts. This is very early, only slightly developed ecclesiology. But it’s still far closer to Catholicism than any form of Protestantism. Sola Scriptura doesn’t leave any room for an infallible council, that reached a decision binding upon all the Christians around, accompanied by the words: “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (15:28). That’s Orthodox or Catholic theology, and even in Orthodoxy, they believe in seven ecumenical councils, and then no more occur.

Christians were bound to the decision, as we know from Acts 16:4: “As they [Paul and Silas] went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem.” Sola Scriptura simply has no place for such a thing, because it holds that only Scripture is infallible and the standard for the rule of faith. The Jerusalem council utterly contradicts that, and is only one of scores of biblical objections to sola Scriptura.

47. Many years later, Paul was still unconcerned about visiting the church in Rome, but he was determined to “make haste to Jerusalem” (Acts 20:16). If Rome and not Jerusalem were the seat of Christianity, where Peter acted as “pope”, Paul would certainly be in a hurry to get to Rome, not Jerusalem!

Obviously, this was before 70 AD, as explained.

Furthermore, we see that Paul went to Jerusalem to visit James (Acts 21:18).

This was obviously a “missions report” having to do with what was decided at the Jerusalem council. James was there because he was the bishop of Jerusalem. Peter would have almost certainly been evangelizing somewhere else. And so the text says: “he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry” (21:19). This hearkens back to the time right before and during the council:

Acts 14:27 And when they arrived, they gathered the church together and declared all that God had done with them, and how he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles.

Acts 15:3-4 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoeni’cia and Sama’ria, reporting the conversion of the Gentiles, and they gave great joy to all the brethren. [4] When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them.

Acts 15:12 . . . and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

If Peter were the ultimate authority to which Paul owed allegiance, he would be in a hurry to get to Rome and speak with Peter, a fact in which the Bible is simply silent from beginning to end!

Well, when Paul visited Peter, he was still in Jerusalem. But that doesn’t wipe out the fact that he consulted with him to get the “go ahead” for his ministry and work:

Galatians 1:18-19 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. [19] But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. (cf. 2:9: “and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised”)

48. When Peter was released from prison, he told them to report this to James (Acts 12:17), who evidently should have been the first to hear about it.

As the local bishop, yes, that would be perfectly logical. He left word before he went out of town (21:18: “he departed and went to another place”).

49. It is not Peter who is indicated as being “the leader of the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5), but Paul.

My RSV Bible says “a ringleader” as opposed to “the ringleader.” How much difference one little word makes! I’ve found only one out of about 60 English translations of Acts 24:5 that has “the ringleader.” So this hardly bolsters Lucas’ case that Paul was regarded as the top leader by Anani’as’ “spokesman, one Tertul’lus” (24:1). “Nice try, but no cigar”: as we say in English.

50. Peter is not appointed as the only pillar of the Church, but shares the place with others (Gal.2:9).

In Galatians 2:9, where Peter (“Cephas”) is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (e.g., 1:18-19; 2:7-8). In ten places in the New Testament (RSV), Peter is listed first whenever he is mentioned along with James and John, and sometimes, in addition to them, other disciples as well:

Matthew 10:2 The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother;

Matthew 17:1 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart.

Mark 5:37 And he allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of James.

Mark 9:2 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart by themselves; and he was transfigured before them,

Mark 13:3 And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,

Mark 14:33 And he took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled.

Luke 6:14 Simon, whom he named Peter, and Andrew his brother, and James and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew,

Luke 8:51 And when he came to the house, he permitted no one to enter with him, except Peter and John and James, and the father and mother of the child.

Luke 9:28 Now about eight days after these sayings he took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray.

Acts 1:13 and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James.

Galatians 2:9 is an exception: “James and Cephas and John”. I would guess it is because James was the bishop of Jerusalem. Even so, in the preceding verses (2:7-8) and ones after (2:11-14), only Peter is referred to. Many Protestant commentaries agree about why James was listed first:

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary James—placed first in the oldest manuscripts, even before Peter, as being bishop of Jerusalem, and so presiding at the council (Ac 15:1-29).

Expositor’s Greek Testament This was probably because as permanent head of the local Church he presided at meetings (cf. Acts 21:18).

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges James . . . is named first, because the reference is to a special act of the Church in Jerusalem, of which he was president or Bishop. “When St Paul is speaking of the missionary office of the Church at large, St Peter holds the foremost place”. Lightfoot. Compare Galatians 2:7-8 with Acts 12:17; Acts 15:13; Acts 21:18.

Bengel’s Gnomen James . . . is put here first, because he mostly remained at Jerusalem, . . .

Pulpit Commentary James . . . is named first, before even Cephas and John, though not an apostle, as being the leading “elder” (bishop, as such a functionary soon got to be designated) of the Church of Jerusalem; . . .

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers The way in which St. Paul speaks respectively of St. Peter and St. James is in strict accordance with the historical situation. When he is speaking of the general work of the Church (as in the last two verses) St. Peter is mentioned prominently; when the reference is to a public act of the Church of Jerusalem the precedence is given to St. James.

This relative trifle (which can be easily explained) doesn’t overcome the mountain of evidence I have compiled as to the primacy of Peter.

END OF PART ONE

Go to Part Two (#51-100)

Go to Part Three (#101-150)

Go to Part Four (#151-205)

***

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: [email protected]. 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: Detail of Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter (1481-82) by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli takes on my “50 NT Proofs for Petrine Primacy”, with 205 potshots at St. Peter & his primacy. This is Part 1 of my replies.

2023-02-21T15:19:43-04:00

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He’s active on YouTube.

*****

I am responding to his article, “7 Perguntas aos católicos sobre a intercessão dos santos” (9-13-12) [Seven Questions for Catholics About Intercession]. His words will be in blue. I use Google Translate to transfer Portugese into English.

Below is a list of saints who supposedly cure the ailments of Catholics who pray to them. With all these saints, the Catholic doesn’t even need to go to the pharmacy or go to the doctor (laughs): [followed by a long list of such patron saints]

Of course, the Church, like the Bible, fully recognizes routine medical care through natural means (as I have written about) and it also recognizes supernatural healings (sometimes, not all the time, according to God’s will). It’s not either/or. It’s the current Protestant “faith and prosperity teachers” who tell people not to seek medical help, and falsely claim that God always heals (a most unbiblical doctrine). I opposed these dangerous errors as unbiblical in one of my very first apologetics efforts, as a Protestant in 1982. So “cast out the beam from your own eye” as Jesus said . . . Catholics have never taught that people shouldn’t seek conventional medical care.

Protestants object that certain saints have special or particular influence with God, and more efficacious prayers in specific areas (our notion of patron saints). I don’t see why. The Bible clearly teaches that different people have different levels of grace (Acts 4:33; 2 Cor 8:7; Eph 4:7; 1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 3:18). From this it follows, it seems to me, that some might specialize in certain areas more so than others, according to different parts of the Body of Christ (there is much Pauline teaching on that). Why should this be either controversial or objectionable? It’s usually objected to because of observed excesses, while an ironclad argument against it from Scripture is rarely made. And we see above that Lucas merely mocks it (which impresses no thinker as any sort of rational argument).

James 5:17-18 (RSV) Eli’jah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. [18] Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit.

It sure looks like Elijah had a particular influence over weather, doesn’t it? Therefore, why couldn’t someone ask him to pray to God about the weather, rather than someone else, since he had this record of asking for rain to cease, and it did for three and-a-half years? So he became, in effect, the “patron saint of meteorological petitions.”

We do roughly the same in this life with friends, on the level of empathy. So, for example, if a woman has difficulty with miscarriage or difficult pregnancies or deliveries, she might go to a woman who has experienced the same thing and ask her to pray to God for her. I don’t see any intrinsic difficulty here. Catholics don’t ever deny anyone the ability to “go straight to God.” But we assert with James that certain prayers of certain people have more power (also with regard to certain specificities); therefore it is sensible to go to them as intermediaries.

Now let me ask you a few questions:

#1 Does “Saint Lazarus” only pray for lepers? If, for example, I don’t have leprosy, but I have a kidney disease, and I pray to Saint Lazarus, won’t he answer me?

I see no reason for why we should think so. This is based on a prior fallacy: “to specialize in one thing means that one can’t do anything else.” So, for example, I specialize in apologetics. Because of this, people come to me with apologetics questions, knowing that I am a professional apologist. Does it follow that I don’t love chess, travel, the outdoors, animals, good movies, classical music, children, or that I can’t answer any questions on anything other than apologetics, etc? Of course not. Likewise, with Lazarus or any other saint, by reasonable analogy.

#2 How does “Saint Lazarus” know the requests of all the thousands of faithful who pray to him in the four corners of the world, in all ages of humanity and at the same time, if he does not have the character of omnipresence? For example, if a Catholic in China is praying to Saint Lazarus at exactly the same time that a Catholic in Brazil, another in the United States and another in Angola are praying exactly the same, who will Saint Lazarus answer? If he can serve everyone together, how can he be in these various places at the same time, and hear all these simultaneously, without granting him any divine attributes of omnipresence or omniscience?

Omnipresence means being everywhere at once. Omniscience means having all possible knowledge. These are attributes of God only. In order to answer multiple prayers (even offered at the same time) it’s not necessary to possess either of those traits. It’s only necessary to be outside of time and to have greater powers of comprehension (gifts from God to us in heaven). Having great knowledge can still be millions of “miles” away from having all knowledge, which is what omniscience is. It’s a false dilemma or an attempted “false equivalence.” To enter into eternity and heaven is to leave conventional time and enter into eternity, which is a completely different metaphysical reality.

St. John stated: “when he appears we shall be like him” (1 Jn 3:2), and our Lord Jesus said, “in the resurrection they . . . are like angels in heaven” (Mt 22:30). St. Paul teaches the same:

1 Corinthians 2:9 But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,” (cf. Is 64:4)

1 Corinthians 13:9-10, 12 For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; [10] but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. . . . [12] For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully,

1 Corinthians 15:51-53 Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, [52] in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. [53] For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality.

Thus it looks like the saints in heaven will possess very great knowledge. But it’s also true that they will be outside of time, as part of what it means to enter into eternity. Is this just “Catholic stuff”? No. Protestant writer Ray Stedman, in an excellent article, explains in agreement:

The problem . . . arises only when we insist on projecting the concepts of time into eternity. We constantly think of heaven as a continuation on a larger and perfect scale of life on earth. Locked into our world of space and time, we find it very difficult to imagine life proceeding on any other terms. But we must remember that time is time and eternity is eternity and never the twain shall meet. We experience something of the same difficulty in dealing with the mathematical concept of infinity. Many people imagine infinity to be a very large number, but it is not. The difference is that if you subtract 1 from a very large number, you have one less, but if you subtract 1 from infinity you still have infinity. . . .

The thing we must remember in dealing with this matter of life beyond death is that when time ends, eternity begins. They are not the same, and we must not make them the same. Time means that we are locked into a pattern of chronological sequence which we are helpless to break. For example, all human beings sharing the same room will experience an earthquake together. While there are varying feelings and reactions, everyone will feel the earthquake at the same time. But in eternity events do not follow a sequential pattern. There is no past or future, only the present NOW. Within that NOW all events happen. . . . (“Time and Eternity”)

This being the case, answering multiple prayers that may be simultaneous in earthly time, is no problem at all for a saint, who is no longer within time or constrained by it. Many Christian thinkers (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox alike) agree that eternity is a timeless concept by nature. It’s not simply “time extended forever.”

The only other “difficulty” a Protestant might have is with the notion of dead saints being aware of earthly events. The Bible clearly states that they are aware:

Hebrews 12:1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us,

“Witnesses” here is the Greek word martus, from which is derived the English word “martyr.”

1) Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Joseph H. Thayer, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 4th edition, 1977; orig. 1901, 392) defines it — as used in this verse — as follows: “One who is a spectator of anything, e.g. of a contest, Heb 12:1.”

[Strong’s word #3144; similar usages cited by Thayer: Lk 24:48; Acts 1:8; 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39; 13:31; 26:16; 1 Pet 5:1 – the sense is indisputable in these other verses]

2) Word Studies in the New Testament (Marvin R. Vincent, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1980; orig. 1887; vol. 4, 536), another standard Protestant language source, comments on this verse as follows:

‘Witnesses’ does not mean spectators, but those who have borne witness to the truth, as those enumerated in chapter 11. Yet the idea of spectators is implied, and is really the principal idea. The writer’s picture is that of an arena in which the Christians whom he addresses are contending in a race, while the vast host of the heroes of faith who, after having borne witness to the truth, have entered into their heavenly rest, watches the contest from the encircling tiers of the arena, compassing and overhanging it like a cloud, filled with lively interest and sympathy, and lending heavenly aid.

3) Word Pictures in the New Testament (A. T. Robertson [Baptist], Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1932, vol. 5, 432), comments:
‘Cloud of witnesses’ (nephos marturon . . . The metaphor refers to the great amphitheatre with the arena for the runners and the tiers upon tiers of seats rising up like a cloud. The martures here are not mere spectators (theatai), but testifiers (witnesses) who testify from their own experience (11:2,4-5, 33, 39) to God’s fulfilling promises as shown in chapter 11.

[Note that the notion of “spectators” is the primary metaphor — the arena — so that both meanings: that of spectators and witnesses in the sense of example are present. Neither can be ruled out]

4) Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (ed. Gerhard Kittel & Gerhard Friedrich; tr. and abridged by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1985; 567), an impeccable and widely-used linguistic (non-Catholic) source, states: “In Heb. 12:1 the witnesses watching the race seem to be confessing witnesses (cf. 11:2), but this does not exclude the element of factual witness.”

So our four non-Catholic language references all confirm that the element of “spectatorship,” which lends itself to the Catholic notion of communion of saints, where saints in heaven are aware of, and observe events on earth, is present in Hebrews 12:1, and cannot be ruled out by any means, on the basis of a doctrinal bias.

Then the objection is to asking dead saints to intercede in the first place. I reply to that as follows:

1) We ask others on earth to pray for us.

2) Angels (many passages) and dead saints (Rev 6:9-10) care very much for us.

3) Angels are aware of earthly events (Lk 15:10; 1 Cor 4:9, and many other passages); so are dead saints (Heb 12:1). Moreover, angels are extremely intelligent and can deduce our thoughts and follow our actions.

4) We observe both angels (Rev 8:3-4) and dead saints (Rev 5:8) presenting our prayers to God, and know from other passages that they intercede for us (Jer 15:1).

5) The Bible says that the prayers of the righteous are very powerful in their effects (Jas 5:16-18). How much more the prayers of perfected saints (Mt 22:30; 1 Jn 3:2) and always-sinless angels?

6) Men also talk to dead men (1 Sam 28:12-15; cf. Mt 17:1-3; 27:50-53; Rev 11:3) and angels on numerous occasions, and angels initiate discourse with human beings (Gen 21:17-18; when Jesus Christ was born); this is scarcely distinguishable from invocation of them.

7) Petitions made to angels are granted (Genesis, chapters 19, 32, 48).

8) Therefore, it follows that we can ask either to intercede.

#3 And if, while our Saint Lazarus intercedes for the Chinese Catholic leper, ten other faithful begin to pray to this saint simultaneously, what does he do? How does he have time to specifically intercede for each of their requests, without leaving anyone “to the back of the line”? If the answer is that time in Heaven is different from time here and therefore this problem does not exist, how can we measure the correspondence between time in eternity and time here?

This is the same question posed in #2, which I just answered. We don’t have to “measure” anything. We simply recognize that being in heaven with God, in eternity, is fundamentally different from operating in chronological, sequential time.

#4 How much time does a saint spend praying for the faithful and how much time does he spend doing other things? Does the saint have nothing else to do but spend the whole day interceding for each of the thousands of faithful who pray to him? Does he still find time to enjoy Heaven, to praise, to converse with the other saints, or is he all the time interceding?

This, too, was already answered above, because Lucas seems to not comprehend the nature of eternity. Saints in heaven have all the time in the world to do whatever they like. There are no temporal limits, as in this life.

#5 How can we be absolutely sure that all these saints are really in Heaven, if the Catholic Church teaches that no one can be sure of salvation?

We can’t be absolutely sure who is in heaven, apart from having faith that the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, in proclaiming that a saint is indeed in heaven. If we attempt to ask the intercession of a person who in fact was not saved and in heaven, certainly God would direct our prayer to someone who is. The Catholic Church also doesn’t teach the utter inability to know whether we are saved or not (“eternal insecurity”). It teaches the biblical view of moral assurance of salvation.

#6 Even if the saints were really in Heaven, as the Bible says that “David did not ascend to heaven” (Acts 2:34), and that “in the hereafter, where you are going, there is neither work nor design, nor knowledge, nor any wisdom” (Ecc.9:10)? How can there be so much intercession in Heaven, if there is no knowledge (of things that happen on earth), no wisdom (necessary requirement for a well-made intercession), and no works (and interceding is a work)? Note that the text is not just talking about the destiny of the body, but the “beyond [Sheol]” (v.10), which immortalists say is the gathering place of souls after death.

Contrary to Lucas’ claim, there is extraordinary knowledge and wisdom in heaven. He cites the classic proof text always produced by annihilationists like himself (and, for example, the Arian heretics, Jehovah’s Witnesses), which is taken radically out of context.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 . . . the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward . . .

If the first clause is understood in an absolute sense, then so must the second clause be interpreted. Thus, the dead would have no “reward” as well as no consciousness. This would deny the resurrection and the rewarding of the righteous (see Rev 20:11-13; 21:6-7; 22:12, 14). Obviously, then, a qualification of some sort has to be placed on Ecclesiastes 9:5. In the very next verse, we learn that:

. . . neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

In other words, in relation to this world, the dead know nothing, but they are in a different realm, where they do know something. As further examples of this limited sense of “not knowing anything” in Scripture, see 1 Samuel 20:39 and 2 Samuel 15:11, where an interpretation of unconsciousness would be ridiculous.

Beyond all that, the passage was talking about Sheol, or Hades (see Luke 16), which is not heaven at all, but rather, the place where souls went before the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It was sort of a holding tank. Jesus in Luke 16 proves that souls in Sheol are quite conscious indeed.

For many other disproofs of annihilationism and/or soul sleep, see my papers, “Soul Sleep”: A Thorough Biblical Refutation [11-28-07]  and Biblical Evidence for an Eternal Hell [1998]

#7 And, finally, the most important question: is it not enough to pray to the Saint called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to fulfill all the offices of all the other saints? Wouldn’t I, praying to Jesus, be answered in what would be answered if I prayed to Saint Lazarus? Which is more efficient: praying to the saint or praying directly to Jesus?

The Bible teaches that “The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (James 5:16). This means, that, yes, it is more “efficient” to ask a person more righteous than we are to pray to God on our behalf. Hey, it’s in the Bible! I didn’t make this up. Nor did the Catholic Church. In the larger context of that passage, James also states:

James 5:14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;

The passage doesn’t say “go right to God, and if you don’t, it is a danger of idolatry.” No; the sick person is advised to go to the elders, and have them pray, and anoint. The dead in Christ are more alive and more aware than we are, so it’s foolish to exclude them from our prayer life. James 5:14 and James 5:16 clearly teach a notion of “differential prayer factors”.

Moses said: “You have sinned a great sin. And now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin” (Ex 32:30). One of the sinning Israelites could have asked Moses to pray for him, knowing that he had a relationship with God Himself and was a holy man. It’s perfectly biblical . . . In Numbers 14:19 Moses prayed: “Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray thee . . . ” Moses and Aaron stopped a plague that had already “gone forth from the Lord” (Num 16:46-48). God proclaimed: “Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel” (Num 25:11). So Moses and Aaron might be called the “patron saints of preventing Gods wrath.”

Then there is the remarkable passage where Abraham “stood before the LORD” (Gen 18:22) and interceded for the people of Sodom, asking God to spare the wicked city if there were “fifty righteous” there (18:23-26). Then he “bargains down” God to agree to not judge the city if 45 (18:28) or 40 (18:29) or 30 (18:30) or 20 (18:31) or ten (18:32) righteous could be found. But alas, there were not even ten, and so it was destroyed. But this shows the extraordinary power even to “persuade” God that a holy, righteous person has. Obviously, we ought to add Abraham, too, to the “patron saints of preventing Gods wrath” too. He almost saved two cities from destruction (if only there had been ten righteous persons in them).

Moreover, since Catholics believe that Mary was without sin and is the greatest creature God ever made, and the Mother of God to boot, we think her prayers have the most power of any creature’s prayer. It makes entire biblical sense.

I look forward to Catholic responses.

He got his wish! I look even more eagerly forward to his counter-reply.

***

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: [email protected]. 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: Saint Paul Writing His Epistles (c. 1620), attributed to Valentin de Boulogne (1591-1632) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli asks seven questions regarding interceding saints. I’m only too happy to oblige! But I wonder if he will counter-reply?

2023-02-21T15:18:15-04:00

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He’s active on YouTube.

*****

I am responding to his article, “A Igreja Católica está acima da Bíblia? Cinco sofismas papistas refutados!” (9-10-17) [Is the Catholic Church above the Bible? Five Papist Sophistries Refuted!]. His words will be in blue. I use Google Translate to transfer his Portugese text into English. 

I will be citing the parts of his article that directly relate to the title. He delves into other areas, too, such as the nature of the Church in the New Testament, canon issues, and what various Church fathers believed. Those can be debates for another day (and I’ve already written about and debated all of them many times). Presently, I’m interested solely in this accusation that the Catholic Church supposedly places itself “above” the Bible. One thing at a time . . .

The remarkable thing about this article is that Lucas never cites a Catholic or an official Catholic Church document, in order to establish what he casually assumes: this notion that the Church considers itself superior to the Bible, or that it “gave” the Bible to the world. This would be like a fifteen-year-old tenth-grader writing a book report about, say, Charles Dickens’ view of orphanages, and merely stating over and over, “Dickens thinks so-and-so about orphanages” and “Dickens thinks this [and that] about orphanages” but never actually citing his writings at any time in order to document it.

Such a methodology is fundamentally silly and inexcusable, especially for a man as educated as Lucas clearly is. He knows better. It shouldn’t even be necessary to point this out. I challenge him to provide more documentation of his claims against the Catholic Church in his articles. Otherwise, he will leave himself open to embarrassing refutations, such as this present effort, and exhibit an impression of shoddy, undocumented research. Urging him to do better in this regard is actually an act of charity. I take no pleasure in proving people wrong. I would rather see us agree on things where we ought to agree. There is enough division among Christians without pretending about “disagreements” that in fact do not exist.

In recent weeks, an old argument has resurfaced about who holds the ultimate authority – whether it’s the Bible, or whether it’s the Church. Of course, it is the Papists who propose the argument that it is the Church, meaning, of course, their Church, that is, the Roman Catholic Church. It all started when a relatively unknown priest started spreading nonsense that the Roman Church has authority over the Bible, and gained more popularity after Malafaia gave him an answer on his YouTube channel (see here). After that, social networks were ignited by a veritable festival of Romanist attacks against the authority of the Bible “refuting” Malafaia, with even Father Paulo Ricardo (the one who said “evangelicals are suckers” for going straight to God) recording videos in which he repeats all the same silly, old, outdated and already-refuted arguments, as always.

For Catholics, this is literally a meaningless question. It’s Protestants who hold that the Bible has ultimate authority (sola Scriptura). Because we reject that (for at least a hundred biblical reasons, as I wrote about in my book on the topic), there is a tendency for Protestants to caricature our view as either sola ecclesia or sola traditio. But neither of those positions accurately represents the Catholic rule of faith, which has been called a “three-legged stool” (Bible-Church-tradition). One of the most accurate descriptions of the view of Catholicism and the early Church that I’ve seen comes from Protestant historian Heiko Oberman:

As regards the pre-Augustinian Church, there is in our time a striking convergence of scholarly opinion that Scripture and Tradition are for the early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma, Scripture and Tradition coincide entirely. The Church preaches the kerygma which is to be found in toto in written form in the canonical books. 

The Tradition is not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as the handing down of that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything is to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything is in the living Tradition. 

It is in the living, visible Body of Christ, inspired and vivified by the operation of the Holy Spirit, that Scripture and Tradition coinhere . . . Both Scripture and Tradition issue from the same source: the Word of God, Revelation . . . Only within the Church can this kerygma be handed down undefiled . . . (The Harvest of Medieval Theology, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, revised edition, 1967, 366-367)

Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation), from the Second Vatican Council (11-18-65) articulately expresses the Catholic view with great eloquence:

9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence. (6)

10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls. (ch. 2, sections 9-10; my bolded italics and green font color)

I’ve been told by my Brazilian Catholic friends that Fr. Paulo Ricardo is a very brilliant teacher. If I am to form an accurate opinion about what he stated on this topic, I would have to see his words documented, in context. I highly doubt that his teaching in this regard is as “silly” as Lucas claims. The Catholic view is nuanced and subtle enough that it can easily be caricatured and distorted by those who have a hostility against the Church, and who are predisposed to be quite uncharitable towards it: thus leading to straw men and inaccuracies (as we see presently).

I have observed this myself in countless instances, in my 31 years of Catholic apologetics and hundreds of debates. All the more reason to cite one’s opponent, so as to avoid falling into the trap of caricaturing them and fighting a straw man, rather than the actual view. This is a duty that all Christian apologists (of whatever stripe) must strive to abide by.

Here I will not delve into the issue any further than necessary, for the simple fact that this has already been exhaustively done in my book that addresses the topic – In Defense of Sola Scriptura. It has also been covered in numerous articles over the more than 500 already published by me in this blog and in Apologia Cristã, which can be checked in this thematic list of articles. So I will leave this space to make a brief and summarized consideration of the most well-known papist sophistry and traps.

Fair enough. It may be that in this book and on this other blog, actual references and documentation were provided. That’s implied in the above statement. However, I came to this article — with its provocative and polemical title — expecting to find at least a little bit of this documentation. If Lucas reads this, I would like to see him give me a few of those. It would take him less than a minute to cut-and-paste.

I, too, have written quite a bit: more than 4,000 online articles and 50 books, and my web page concerning Bible and Tradition is one of my most extensive. I’ve written more about this crucial debate about Christian authority than on any other topic. We can appeal to our other writings all day long. If we want to play that game, I have eight times more than Lucas (written over a time span longer than he’s been alive), so, no problem. But I want to see documentation from claims made, and especially from the official documents of the Catholic Church.

Sophism 1 – The Church that is superior to the Bible, because it defined the canon of the Bible

This is the most common sophistry. He already starts from two false premises, namely: (1) that this Church that defined the biblical canon was the Roman Church in particular, and (2) that this Church “created” a canon, instead of having only recognized one. . These other sophistries will also be refuted here, but for now let’s take that teaspoon and open the concession that this Church was indeed the Roman Church and did create the canon, for the sake of argument. The point is that even this would not prove the superiority of the Church over the Bible.

We absolutely deny the premise. Don’t believe me? Very well, then, how about the last two ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church?:

First Vatican Council (1870)

These the Church holds to be sacred and canonical; not because, having been carefully composed by mere human industry, they were afterward approved by her authority; not because they contain revelation, with no admixture of error; but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been delivered as such to the Church herself. (Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, chapter II; italics and green font color added)

Here’s another translation:

These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical, not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.

Second Vatican Council (1962-1965)

The divinely-revealed realities which are contained and presented in the text of sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For Holy Mother Church relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that they were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn. 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; 3:15-16), they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation [Dei Verbum], ch. 3, section 11; italics and green font color added)

Likewise, the Council of Trent issued the Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures in 1546 (coincidentally the year Luther died). It says nothing about the Church’s supposed “superiority” over Holy Scripture. Rather, it refers to having “preserved” both the gospel and the Bible. That language presupposes being lesser (and in no way “above”) than the thing referred to. A museum of history “preserves” artifacts that are given to it. No one in their right mind would think that the museum created its precious artifacts or that it considered itself “above” them in the scheme of things, simply because it preserves and protects them.

St. Thomas Aquinas taught the same thing in the 13th century (lest someone think this is “new” teaching in Catholicism):

Now the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith. (ST 2-2, q. 5, a. 3c)

[F]aith adheres to all the articles of faith by reason of one mean, viz. on account of the First Truth proposed to us in Scriptures, according to the teaching of the Church who has the right understanding of them. Hence whoever abandons this mean is altogether lacking in faith. (ST 2-2, q. 5, a. 3, ad 2)

Note how Aquinas stated that “the teaching of the Church . . . proceeds” from the Bible, and is “on account of” the truths therein, which are the “one mean.” Elsewhere in his Summa Theologica he wrote:

We ought not to say about God anything which is not found in Holy Scripture either explicitly or implicitly. (ST 1, q. 36, a. 2, ad 1)

This is, of course, a textbook definition of the material sufficiency of Scripture. In my immediately previous reply to Brazilian Protestant apologist Pedro França Gaião, he claimed that material sufficiency within Catholicism was only introduced in the 1950s (others falsely claim Cardinal Newman introduced it to Catholicism a hundred years earlier). He wrote:

I was arguing that material sufficiency, or One Source Theory or Totum-totum is a position formulated by Geiselman in the 50’s as an opposition to the Two Sources Theory. Leandro is denying Geiselman’s point that Bellarmine, Eck and other Catholic apologists were opposed to material sufficiency . . .

Really?  That would be “news” to Aquinas 700 years earlier, since he held the view, as did literally dozens of Church fathers. But no one should think that St. Thomas Aquinas did not also accept the sublime authority of Sacred Tradition. He did:

The Apostles, led by the inward instinct of the Holy Ghost, handed down to the churches certain instructions which they did not put in writing, but which have been ordained, in accordance with the observance of the Church as practiced by the faithful as time went on. Wherefore the Apostle says (2 Thess. 2:14): “Stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word”—that is by word of mouth—“or by our epistle”—that is by word put into writing. (ST 3, q. 25, a. 3, ad 4)

. . . the Romish logic of “the Church created the canon and is therefore superior to the Bible” . . . the 4th century Church recognizing the canon of the Bible does not make it above the Bible.

He again repeats the caricature and distortion and alleged Catholic belief that he hasn’t documented. In great contrast, I produced what Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II, and St. Thomas Aquinas all taught on this topic (I’d love to see whether he produced those citations in his book and other articles, that he said dealt with this topic).

He goes on to make an analogy of secular constitutions which is perfectly valid. But what he doesn’t comprehend is that Catholics already agree with his premise that the Church is not “above” the Bible. This is what we call a non sequitur in logic. In other words, his argument is irrelevant, since (having a false premise) it is against a straw man. Live and learn . . .

Sophism 3 – The Church “created” the canon

It is argued by them that the Roman Church “created” the canon in the 4th century, as if there was no Bible until then. Even they often issue “challenges” such as: “How could there be Sola Scriptura if there was no Bible for three centuries?” (and other such barbarities). This is because, for them, a biblical book could not really be considered “Scripture” until some council met at the end of the 4th century saying so. For example, Luke’s gospel would not be considered an authentic, canonical gospel and an integral part of Scripture until the bishops of Hippo met more than three hundred years after its writing. This is absurd, irrational and senseless.

Yes, we agree, which is why Vatican I and Vatican II expressly stated the same thing.

In many places, both directly and indirectly, Sacred Scripture teaches that it is inspired and infallible. What it doesn’t provide, however, is its own canon (list of books). Simply put: Scripture is what it is. 1 Timothy 3:16 and other passages clearly teach inspiration. The Catholic Church merely acknowledges what is already (by its very nature) Scripture, or inspired revelation from God; it doesn’t make it so.

Why, then, some people ask, do Catholics often act as if there would have been no Bible without the Catholic Church? They claim that this implies that we Catholics think our Church is above the Bible and superior to it. The Protestant position (so they tell us) makes more sense because it places churches and traditions beneath Scripture. This seems obvious because the Bible is inspired and infallible, and men and traditions (which make up churches) are fallible and quite prone to error. So how can it be otherwise?

It doesn’t follow at all, however, that Catholics are placing Church above Scripture, in simply pointing out that human authority was needed in order to determine the canon. An analogy or comparison might be in order, to further explain this.

All agree that the Bible must be properly interpreted. Protestants, to their credit, place a huge emphasis on learning to study the Bible wisely and intelligently (the sciences of exegesis and hermeneutics). Just because learning and study are needed to correctly read the Bible and to attain to truth in theology, doesn’t mean that, therefore, the Bible did not already contain truth, or that human interpretation is “higher” than “God-breathed” biblical inspiration.

Likewise, it was necessary — because there was a lot of significant disagreement regarding several New Testament books — for human church councils to decide on the specific books that were to be included in the biblical canon. This doesn’t imply in the least that the councils (let alone the Church) are “above” Scripture, any more than a Christian communion authoritatively declaring in its creed that Jesus is God in the flesh, makes them “higher” than He is, or superior.

Proclamation of an existing reality has nothing to do with some supposed “superiority” of category. Both the Bible and theological truth remain what they are at all times.

Next question?

***

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: [email protected]. 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: [Pixabay / public domain]

***

Summary: Brazilian apologist Lucas Banzoli brings out the “Church ‘Above’ the Bible” caricature of what the Catholic Church has actually taught regarding the biblical canon.

Follow Us!



Browse Our Archives