{"id":52144,"date":"2020-10-18T16:44:26","date_gmt":"2020-10-18T20:44:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=52144"},"modified":"2020-11-07T20:10:24","modified_gmt":"2020-11-08T00:10:24","slug":"peters-primacy-is-disproved-by-his-personality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/10\/peters-primacy-is-disproved-by-his-personality.html","title":{"rendered":"Peter’s Primacy is Disproved By His Personality?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

Protestant Apologist Jason Engwer Continues His All-Out War on St. Peter & the Papacy<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Gotta give Protestant apologist Jason Engwer an E for effort and a C for cleverness and inventiveness. He has taken it upon himself to refute\u00a0 many scriptural arguments I have made in favor of Peter\u2019s primacy (while not \u2014 in recent years \u2014 naming<\/em> me, which is a frequent tactic of anti-Catholic polemicists). Four days ago, for a fleeting moment acknowledging my paltry existence, he stated that he would ignore my critique of one of his anti-Peter arguments:\u00a0<\/span>St. Peter Listed First in Lists of Disciples: A Debate<\/a>, by<\/span> writing<\/a>:<\/p>\n

I have to be highly selective in what I do and don\u2019t reply to, given how often I get responses from people, other work I\u2019m involved with, and other factors. I\u2019m not planning to respond to Dave\u2019s article at this point.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is nothing new for Jason. We sparred as far back as 2000, but he has not directly answered any critique of mine for ten years now. In August 2003 we had a big highly publicized written (formal) debate on the anti-Catholic CARM discussion board, regarding the Church fathers and sola Scriptura<\/em>. It didn\u2019t go well for Jason. In recalling what happened<\/span>\u00a0(on 11-20-15<\/a>), I observed:<\/span><\/p>\n

I was in \u201cenemy territory\u201d and their champion was gonna (was supposed to) rip me to shreds. I would finally get my \u201ccome-uppance\u201d once and for all. Well, it didn\u2019t happen quite like the expectations of the anti-Catholic minions.<\/span><\/p>\n

Jason hedged and hawed and avoided direct argumentation with me (interaction with my\u00a0arguments<\/em>) from the beginning. He started in with the personal insults early on. It\u2019s been that way in all the attempted debates I have had with him through the years. It\u2019s what anti-Catholics do when they get with Catholics who can defend their faith.<\/span><\/p>\n

It was so bad that out of the ten Church fathers originally to be debated, Jason dealt with only four and then decided to split from the debate (much to the disappointment of his fans). I continued on analyzing all ten. I had predicted that he would leave, five days before it happened. I could see the writing on the wall, . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Even when Jason was supposedly directly engaging my arguments, back in 2010, he attempted to systematically ignore some 80% of them<\/em>, as I documented at the time:<\/span><\/p>\n

Proof That Anti-Catholic Apologist Jason Engwer Ignores an Average of 80% of Catholic Opponents\u2019 Arguments (Four Exchanges With Bryan Cross and Myself)<\/a>\u00a0[1-14-10]<\/span>
\n
\nEvidence That Anti-Catholic Apologist Jason Engwer Mostly Ignores Catholic Arguments in \u201cDebate\u201d: Exactly What He Cited From Two of My Recent Papers<\/a>\u00a0[1-14-10]<\/span><\/p>\n

So now he\u2019s back to his old tricks. He said he would ignore my post about St. Peter, for lack of time, but now he has proceeded to write an article (in classic Engwer style)\u00a0precisely<\/em> about the prominence of Peter (or lack thereof), which clearly<\/em> has my past papers on the topic in mind, while not mentioning me: per the usual modus operandi<\/em> of anti-Catholic apologists: a method perfected by his buddy, James Swan, of the Boors All<\/em> blog.<\/span><\/p>\n

Here is the complete history of our debates back and forth regarding Petrine primacy:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy\u201d\u00a0<\/a>(Dave) [1994; online on my website \/ blog since 1997]<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0*<\/div>\n
\u201c51 Biblical Proofs of a Pauline Papacy and Ephesian Primacy<\/a>\u201d\u00a0(Jason) [March? 2002]<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0*<\/div>\n
\u201cReply to a Critique of \u00a0my\u00a050 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy<\/i><\/a>\u201c\u00a0<\/i>(Dave) [3-14-02]<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0*<\/div>\n
\u201cA Pauline Papacy<\/a>\u201d\u00a0(Jason) [April? 2002]<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0*<\/div>\n
Refutation of a Satirical \u201cPauline Papacy\u201d Argument<\/a> (Dave) [9-30-03]<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0*<\/div>\n
Peter Is Always Listed First<\/a>\u00a0(Jason) [11-23-14; alluded to and linked<\/span> on 10-11-20<\/a>]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
St. Peter Listed First in Lists of Disciples: A Debate<\/a>\u00a0(Dave) [10-12-20]<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
The Simplest Explanation For Peter\u2019s Prominence<\/a> (Jason) [10-17-20]<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Peter\u2019s Primacy is Disproved By His Personality? (Protestant Apologist Jason Engwer Continues His All-Out War on St. Peter & the Papacy) (Dave, 10-18-20: this present paper)<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
First, Jason tried to show that \u2014 assuming there is such a thing as a papacy, for the sake of a satirical argument \u2013, St. Paul would fit the bill better than St. Peter. Now his latest vain attempt is to make out that Peter\u2019s strident, impulsive personality accounts for many of the ostensible instances of his being prominently mentioned in many biblical narratives (something that no one<\/em> denies). Jason wars against even many prominent Protestant commentaries that agree that Peter was the leader of the disciples (which was what I had been primarily arguing for all along).\u00a0In my last paper on the topic, replying to his arguments from 11-23-14, I cited five of them, asserting things like:<\/span><\/div>\n
\n

\u201cacknowledged preeminence.\u201d<\/span> (Ellicott\u2019s Commentary for English Readers<\/em><\/a>)<\/p>\n

\u201cThis accords with the pre-eminence which he had among the apostles\u00a0as\u00a0primus inter pares<\/span><\/em>\u00a0. . . which was\u00a0recognised by Jesus Himself.\u201d<\/span> (Meyer\u2019s NT Commentary<\/a><\/em>)<\/p>\n

\u201c[A]t the head of the list stands Peter,\u00a0first\u00a0not only numerically (Meyer) but\u00a0in importance, a sure matter of fact, . . .\u201d <\/span>(Expositor\u2019s Greek Testament<\/a><\/em>)<\/p>\n

\u201cPeter is named\u00a0first<\/span>, not without an indication of rank . . . on the\u00a0primacy of Peter, see\u00a0<\/span>Luke 8:45<\/a>;\u00a0Luke 9:32<\/a>;\u00a0John 1:42<\/a>;\u00a0Matthew 16:16<\/a>;\u00a0John 21:15<\/a>;\u00a0Acts 1:15<\/a>;\u00a0Acts 2:14<\/a>;\u00a0Acts 8:14<\/a>;\u00a0Acts 10:5<\/a>;\u00a0Acts 15:7<\/a>.\u201d (Bengel\u2019s Gnomen<\/a><\/em>)<\/p>\n

\u201c. . .\u00a0the leading position that St. Peter held among the twelve.\u201d<\/span> (Pulpit Commentary<\/a><\/em>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

One can perhaps see why Jason chose to ignore this paper of mine, because he has to be<\/span> \u201chighly selective\u201d in what he will and won\u2019t<\/span> \u201creply to.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
But (not burdened by Jason\u2019s shortcoming convenient selectivity), I plunge ahead and reply to his latest paper.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
There are many places in the New Testament in which Peter is prominent for reasons that are obviously of a non-papal nature. I\u2019ll start with some examples in the gospels of Matthew and John that are striking in how similar they are, despite appearing in such different contexts. When Peter leaves the boat he\u2019s in and enters the water in\u00a0Matthew 14:29\u00a0and\u00a0John 21:7, while the other disciples remain in the boat, he does so because of the nature of his personality, not because he\u2019s a Pope.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
Matthew 14:25-29<\/strong> (RSV)\u00a0And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea.\u00a0[26] But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, saying, \u201cIt is a ghost!\u201d And they cried out for fear.\u00a0[27] But immediately he spoke to them, saying, \u201cTake heart, it is I; have no fear.\u201d\u00a0[28] And Peter answered him, \u201cLord, if it is you, bid me come to you on the water.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0[29] He said, \u201cCome.\u201d So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus;<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
John 21:7<\/strong> . . .\u00a0When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his clothes, for he was stripped for work, and sprang into the sea.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
This is one of many examples where Peter is featured in the biblical narrative. I have suggested that the abundance of these suggests that he was the leader of the disciples, and that the Gospel writers also wanted to portray<\/em> him accordingly. Jason wants to say that it\u2019s merely a<\/span> \u201cpersonality\u201d<\/span> thing. In other words, Peter was impulsive, so he volunteered first; therefore, that\u2019s what we have in the story. What Jason misses, however, is that this is not just a personality thing, but also a will<\/em> thing.\u00a0It\u2019s a fine Christian quality to have a willingness to serve the Lord<\/em> without hesitation<\/em><\/strong>:<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
Matthew 10:37-38<\/strong> He who loves father or mother more than me is not\u00a0<\/b>worthy\u00a0of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not\u00a0worthy\u00a0of me; [38] and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not\u00a0worthy\u00a0of me.<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
Luke 9:59-62<\/strong>\u00a0To another he said, \u201cFollow me.\u201d But he said, \u201cLord, let me first go and bury my father.\u201d\u00a0[60] But he said to him, \u201cLeave the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.\u201d\u00a0[61] Another said, \u201cI will follow you, Lord; but let me first say farewell to those at my home.\u201d\u00a0[62] Jesus said to him, \u201cNo one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
Romans 12:11\u00a0<\/strong>Never flag in zeal, be aglow with the Spirit, serve the Lord.<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
1 Peter 3:13<\/strong>\u00a0Now who is there to harm you if you are\u00a0<\/b>zealous for what is right?<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
2 Peter 1:10<\/strong>\u00a0Therefore, brethren, be the more\u00a0<\/b>zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall;<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
2 Peter 3:14<\/strong>\u00a0Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be\u00a0<\/b>zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.<\/span><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
Revelation 3:19<\/strong>\u00a0Those whom I love, I reprove and chasten; so be\u00a0<\/b>zealous and repent.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
It\u2019s no accident that St. Peter mentions zeal<\/em> three times in two of his epistles, since it was a praiseworthy quality that he exemplified. And I submit that it is this quality that is highlighted in many passages. Peter responded first because he had more zeal, and that is a great trait for a Christian believer and disciples of Jesus to have, along with similar traits like<\/span> being firm<\/a>, having<\/span> a strong faith<\/a>, and<\/span> being steadfast<\/a> and persevering<\/a> and having<\/span> endurance<\/a>.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
I suppose this ties into personality or temperament to some<\/em> extent, but it is primarily<\/em> an aspect of the will and resolve, and an exemplary Christian quality. Peter possessed it, and arguably this was one big reason why Jesus chose Him to lead His disciples and His Church. How that is supposedly an argument against<\/em> his being this leader, is, I confess, beyond me. As so often, Jason just sees what he wants<\/em> to see.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Similarly, Peter\u2019s entering the tomb, while John remains outside, in\u00a0John 20:6\u00a0is best explained by Peter\u2019s personality, not a papal office.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
In and of itself, it\u2019s no big deal that Peter happened to enter first. But what Jason neglects to see is the importance in the Bible and Hebrew culture, of symbolism and how things are presented. Peter is consistently presented<\/em> as prevailing and being the leader and first to do things. The systematic aspect of Peter so often being presented in this way is seen in a representative 17 items of my<\/span> 50 reasons for his primacy<\/a>:<\/div>\n
\n

8. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his \u201cfaith may not fail\u201d (Lk 22:32).<\/span><\/p>\n

9. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to \u201cstrengthen your brethren\u201d (Lk 22:32).<\/span><\/p>\n

10. Peter first confesses Christ\u2019s divinity (Mt 16:16).<\/span><\/p>\n

11. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).<\/span><\/p>\n

14. Jesus Christ uniquely associates Himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute-money (Mt 17:24-27).<\/span><\/p>\n

15. Christ teaches from Peter\u2019s boat, and the miraculous catch of fish follows (Lk 5:1-11): perhaps a metaphor for the pope as a \u201cfisher of men\u201d (cf. Mt 4:19).<\/span><\/p>\n

16. Peter was the first apostle to set out for, and enter the empty tomb (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:6).<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n

17. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).<\/span><\/p>\n

18. Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The \u201cbark\u201d (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.<\/span><\/p>\n

19. Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (Jn 21:7).<\/span><\/p>\n

20. Peter\u2019s words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).<\/span><\/p>\n

21. Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).<\/span><\/p>\n

22. Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to \u201cpreach the gospel\u201d in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).<\/span><\/p>\n

23. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).<\/span><\/p>\n

24. Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!<\/span><\/p>\n

26. Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).<\/span><\/p>\n

28. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Understood and interpreted with this<\/em> background and overall framework in mind, yes, I think it is also significant that Peter is described in Holy Scripture as the first to enter the tomb of the risen Jesus (though he was not the first to see<\/em> the risen Jesus: that was Mary Magdalene). And it is because he is the leader and first pope; therefore, in biblical thinking, it is fitting and appropriate for him to 1) do<\/em> that, and 2) to be recorded<\/em> as having done it.<\/span><\/p>\n

And so on. Peter was outspoken, impulsive, rash, and so forth, so that he would often stand out for reasons other than a papacy. There\u2019s no reasonable way to deny that Peter\u2019s prominence in the early sources is due partly to such personal traits.<\/span><\/p>\n

Yes, but I don\u2019t think this one proposed factor overcomes the place of zeal and a strong faith, etc., which indicate that he was chosen as leader for those reasons (but not because he was perfect<\/em>). I think this is desperate special pleading on Jason\u2019s part.<\/span><\/p>\n

And that\u2019s a problem for Roman Catholicism. Since Peter\u2019s personality explains his prominence so well, no papacy or any other concept of a similar nature is needed to explain that prominence.<\/span><\/p>\n

Many biblical leaders and heroic figures had quite strong personalities (not to mention big faults as well). I don\u2019t see that this suggests that they weren\u2019t leaders or especially selected by God. One can think of Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Job, Moses, Joshua, David, Elijah, Jeremiah, St. Paul, and many others. In other words, it largely coincides<\/em> with leadership, and so is hardly a contraindication<\/em> of same.<\/span><\/p>\n

All other things being equal, we prefer simpler explanations. Simplicity isn\u2019t the only criterion we take into account, but it is one of the criteria we consider. Why seek a second explanation for Peter\u2019s prominence when the first one is sufficient?<\/span><\/p>\n

Jason assumes it is sufficient. But in no way does this \u201cthesis\u201d explain away the prominence of Peter in the New Testament: a thing freely admitted by the vast majority of Protestant commentators, while still refusing to accept the historical papacy built upon Peter (being Protestant).<\/span><\/p>\n

The passage most often cited by Catholics in this context,\u00a0Matthew 16:18-19, is closely followed by Jesus\u2019 rebuke of Peter in verse 23. We don\u2019t take that latter passage as a reason to look for a Satanic succession that will infallibly represent Lucifer in every generation. Yes, Jesus singles out Peter in\u00a0Matthew 16:23. Yes, what Jesus says to Peter there isn\u2019t said to anybody else. But all of what occurs in that episode can easily be explained by Peter\u2019s personal traits. He misjudged the situation and rebuked Jesus when he shouldn\u2019t have, so Jesus responded in a way that singled out Peter, since Peter was the one speaking to him. It wouldn\u2019t make sense for Jesus to rebuke Thomas in response to Peter\u2019s error. In the same way, Jesus\u2019 responding to Peter in verses 18-19 is easily explained, and\u00a0best<\/i>\u00a0explained, by Peter\u2019s personal characteristics, without any papal office involved. It was Peter who rightly identified Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God, so it wouldn\u2019t have made sense for Jesus to have responded by talking to Thomas.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Wavering people who were also zealous and extraordinary leaders of the faith and chosen by God is not unusual; in fact, it might be said to be the norm<\/em>. Abraham lied about his sister, Moses murdered a man, and seemed to have quite a temper (striking the rock for water a second time, etc.); he complained to God about not being eloquent. Saul and Solomon fell away from the faith (yet Solomon built God\u2019s temple); King David famously had a man killed so he could take his wife. <\/span><\/p>\n

It didn\u2019t stop God from making an eternal covenant with him, and making him a prototype of the Messiah Jesus (who was called \u201cSon of David\u201d). St. Paul persecuted Christians. Thomas doubted that Jesus had risen from the dead. Peter could be overzealous, precisely because he was zealous in the first place<\/em>. So he wound up being rebuked by Jesus and denying him three times. But he repented.<\/span><\/p>\n

Another glaringly obvious thing (if one reflects on it for not too long) is that Jesus chose Peter and called him \u201cthe Rock\u201d (changing his name) despite<\/em> his tempestuous personality, not because<\/em> of it, just as he chose similar hotheads and \u201cuneven\u201d people like Moses, Samson, David, Jonah, Elijah, and Paul. He wasn\u2019t the leader of the Church because of his personality or a supposed perfection, but because he was the man for the job according to God<\/em>, in His providence and knowledge of all things. No one God chose for His tasks was perfect and sinless, save the Blessed Virgin Mary. And she only was because of an extraordinary act of God\u2019s preserving grace at her conception before she even had a free will to accept.<\/span><\/p>\n

And, unlike the situation with verse 23, what\u2019s said of Peter in verses 18-19 is also said of the other disciples elsewhere. If we assume that Peter is the rock in\u00a0Matthew 16:18, the other apostles are also referred to with such architectural terminology (Galatians 2:9,\u00a0Ephesians 2:20,\u00a0Revelation 21:14).<\/span><\/p>\n

No one else is called the \u201crock\u201d upon whom Jesus would build His Church. It\u2019s common in Scripture to have a preeminent prototype alongside lesser similar types. This would be analogous to the pope and bishops. Peter is the ultimate leader (pope) and his fellow disciples are also leaders in the Church (bishops).<\/span><\/p>\n

And, unlike the effort to differentiate Jesus in\u00a0Ephesians 2:20, for example, no effort is made in any of these passages to differentiate Peter from the other apostles.<\/span><\/p>\n

He is made to stand out and particularly mentioned as distinct among the group<\/em> many times (see, e.g.,\u00a0Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29; 1 Cor 9:5).<\/span><\/p>\n

Similarly, the imagery of thrones in\u00a0Matthew 19:28\u00a0differentiates Jesus\u2019 glorious throne from the thrones of the Twelve, but no effort is made to distinguish Peter\u2019s.<\/span><\/p>\n

There would be no need to do so in that particular passage, because the dynamic is Jesus over against His disciples (i.e., God and creatures), and so He mentions Himself as sitting on God\u2019s throne, and the twelve disciples also<\/em> having thrones. Moreover, the larger passage still shows Peter as the leader (\u201cLo, we have left everything and followed you. What then shall we have?\u201d \u2014 19:27), and Peter functions as the spokesman for all of them, using the word \u201cwe\u201d; therefore, Jesus answers in a collective sense (\u201cyou who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones\u201d \u2014 19:28). So the dynamic is \u201cwhat will we<\/em> have? \u2014> \u201call of you<\/em> will have this<\/em> [thrones]\u201d. In that \u201cstructure\u201d it\u2019s not necessary<\/em> to point out Peter\u2019s preeminence. Nor (I submit) would or should it be expected.<\/span><\/p>\n

Likewise, all of the disciples are referred to as having the keys of the kingdom in\u00a0Matthew 18:18, again without any effort to place Peter above the others.<\/span><\/p>\n

This again misses the point (as so often with Jason, who habitually \u201ccan\u2019t see the forest for the trees\u201d). Only Peter is described (directly by name, which always<\/em> has significance in Scripture) as being given the keys (16:19). That goes beyond merely binding and loosing, as many Protestant commentators have noted. The other disciples can also bind and loose (18:18), but they can\u2019t bind the entire Church as Peter can, as the \u201csuperintendent\u201d of the Church: as Protestant commentator Oscar Cullmann described him:<\/span><\/p>\n

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. (St. Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr<\/em>, Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1952 [French edition], 183-184)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Peter is sometimes appointed to a role that\u2019s superior to that of one or more of the other apostles.<\/span><\/p>\n

Not just \u201csometimes\u201d<\/span> but systematically<\/em>; over and over again.<\/span><\/p>\n

But when it happens, such as his being an apostle with a focus on the Jewish people in\u00a0Galatians 2:8, we\u2019re explicitly told about it. We don\u2019t have to read it into the text in the sort of dubious way Catholics handle passages like Matthew 16 and\u00a0John 21:15-17. Another passage where we see explicit reference to a significant role Peter was appointed to is\u00a0Acts 15:7. Peter was chosen to introduce the Gentiles to the gospel in Acts 10. That\u2019s not equivalent to a papal office, but it is a unique role Peter was given.<\/span><\/p>\n

Well, it\u2019s perfectly consistent<\/em> with his being the leader and the pope. It\u2019s appropriate and to be expected for Peter to be the first to bring the Gentiles in, even though Paul soon takes the lead in evangelism to the Gentiles. All the more reason to interpret this as a \u201cpapal indication\u201d: since one would expect<\/em> it to have been done first by Paul: in light of the subsequent emphasis of his ministry. But it wasn\u2019t<\/em>; Peter was the first.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In a similar way, John is the beloved disciple, Paul is referred to as having a focus on the Gentiles that Peter didn\u2019t have in\u00a0Galatians 2:8, etc. Peter is sometimes unique, superior, and so forth in comparison to the other apostles, but never in a way that suggests a papacy.<\/span><\/p>\n

That\u2019s what Jason claims, but it doesn\u2019t hold any water when all the data is fairly considered. Jason doesn\u2019t do that. He just looks at portions of the Bible that he falsely thinks bolster his \u201canti-papal\u201d point of view and ignores the rest. He\u2019s made virtually a career as an apologist out of ignoring anything that doesn\u2019t fit into his heretical imaginings. <\/span><\/p>\n

My<\/em> approach, on the other hand, is to examine all major arguments that are relevant on a topic, including (importantly) examining point-by-point opposing arguments like Jason\u2019s: whereas he is presently ignoring mine which differ from him. He\u2019s in a bubble and an echo chamber, but I\u2019m out here engaging sincere but terribly mistaken opponents of what I believe. Jason takes an approach opposite<\/em> of his mentor, the late Steve Hays, who wrote (words in green<\/span>):<\/span><\/p>\n

If you comment on something I say, especially in the form of a criticism, then that\u2019s an open invitation for me to respond. If you can\u2019t take it when people reply to your public criticism of their position, then don\u2019t criticize their position.\u00a0You evidently think that criticism is a one-way street. You should be free to criticize Calvinism, but a Calvinist has no right to criticize Arminianism.\u00a0<\/span>(3-5-08<\/a>)<\/p>\n

I notice Preston ignores objections he can\u2019t refute. . . .\u00a0Preston keeps taking ethical and intellectual shortcuts.<\/span> (11-24-15<\/a>)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
To be fair, though, it should be noted that Steve (after supposedly \u201cfiguring out\u201d that I had \u201can evil character\u201d<\/span>) eventually decided to ignore any critiques of mine, up to and including banning me from his site (a ban that continues to this day; with Jason also blocking me on his Facebook page, too). So he wasn\u2019t totally consistent on this score, either. Likewise, commenter<\/span> \u201cEpistle of Dude\u201d<\/a> wrote on Jason\u2019s site, Tribalblogue<\/em>:<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Of course, it\u2019s your prerogative not to respond.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, your choice not to respond to Steve [Hays]\u2019s points means either you don\u2019t want to respond or you aren\u2019t able to respond. If the former, then a good reason might be because you don\u2019t like to engage in online debates. But in that case it\u2019s odd to say the least because you initiated an online debate with the questions in your tweets. Not to mention you\u2019ve expended some time and effort to \u201ccorrect\u201d Steve on a peripheral point as well as to interact with others here. . . .<\/span><\/p>\n

Hence, this would seem to leave the best explanation for why you don\u2019t respond to Steve\u2019s points being because you aren\u2019t able to respond \u2013 or least that\u2019s not an unreasonable inference to make.<\/span> (4-22-18<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Yep. And it is reasonable to conclude also that Jason refuses to interact with my recent critiques (now numbering 13 since May, including this one) because he is unable<\/em> to. But readers see me interacting with his every point, which is why I have cited his entire article alongside my response, which I do very often in debates. And they see him ignoring my<\/em> arguments, except for distant, indirect allusions. And it\u2019s not rocket science to arrive at an opinion as to why that is.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
There\u2019s no one explanation for Peter\u2019s prominence in every context. But appealing to his personal traits to explain passages like Matthew 16,\u00a0Luke 22:32, and John 21 is more parsimonious than appealing to another, superfluous explanation, like a papacy.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
It\u2019s not plausible.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
Luke 22:31-32<\/strong> \u201cSimon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,\u00a0[32] but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n

I guess Jason thinks this is yet another \u201cpersonality-dominated\u201d Gospel scene because after this portion, Peter claims, \u201cLord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death\u201d (22:33): which, of course, he actually did<\/em>, later in his life. So, according to Jason, this is in the Bible because Peter\u2019s impulsive, overzealous temperament required for it to be in there; and it has nothing to do with his papacy.<\/span><\/p>\n

But think for a moment about what is entailed in that view. Jesus prays for Peter, that his faith may not fail. Are we to believe that no other disciples would have instances of failed faith? Only one of them, after all, was present at His crucifixion (St. John). Did none of them experience a lack of faith during that terrible time of His Passion? Of course they did! \u201cDoubting Thomas\u201d is an obvious example. So the relevant question is: why is it that Jesus is praying only for Peter\u2019s faith? And why is Satan after him: so much so, that Jesus mentions it as something to pray for?<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

In trying to search for it, I can\u2019t find any other passage where Jesus is described as \u201cI have prayed for you\u201d or \u201cI will pray for you\u201d in reference to a single person. Peter\u2019s the only one I can find (if someone knows of another, please let me know). I\u2019m not claiming that Jesus didn\u2019t pray for people. What I\u2019m saying is: the fact that Holy Scripture seems to highlight<\/em> only Peter as one whom Jesus specifically prayed for, must be significant.\u00a0Then Jesus adds: \u201cwhen you have turned again, strengthen your brethren\u201d (Lk 22:32). He is to do that precisely because he is the leader<\/em>, whose job it is (among many other thing) to edify and strengthen other believers.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Earlier, Jason argued that John 21:7 was another \u201cPeter\u2019s personality\u201d passage because only Peter jumped into the sea to meet Jesus. I dealt with the fact that this zeal is commendable in and of itself. But what happens later<\/em> in that chapter? Jesus asks Peter three times if He loved Him, and when Peter replies, Jesus tells him to \u201cFeed my lambs\u201d (21:15) and \u201cTend my sheep\u201d (21:16) and \u201cFeed my sheep\u201d (21:17). Why does He do<\/em> that? It\u2019s because \u2014 again \u2014 Peter was the leader, and that was what leaders do: the shepherd and the sheep who follow him: the sheep he cares for. It seems rather obvious that the deeper meaning is Peter as the Chief shepherd of and over other Christians. No one else<\/em> is singled out in this fashion as he is.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Furthermore, Paul\u2019s greater prominence than Peter in most of Acts and most of the rest of the New Testament makes more sense if Peter\u2019s earlier prominence was due to personal factors like those I\u2019ve mentioned rather than a papacy.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Not at all. The Bible is simply highlighting the importance of Paul\u2019s missionary journeys, and Paul as the \u201cintellectual\u201d of the New testament is given pride of place as teacher (hence, all his epistles in the New Testament). None of this undermines or contradicts all that we know of Peter\u2019s primacy, per all the various arguments that can be made (and which I have made in many articles). Jason\u2019s view is as silly and foolish as arguing that \u201cKing David\u2019s personality<\/em> is all that is in view \u2014 or at least the main emphasis \u2014 when the Bible describes him, because later in the Old Testament people like Solomon, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel are highlighted.\u201d It\u2019s downright ridiculous; desperate pseudo-\u201cargumentation\u201d . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
James, also, is more prominent than Peter at times.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Usually, this refers to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, but it is a non-starter argument, as I have explained:<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
From Acts 15, we learn that \u201cafter there was much debate, Peter rose\u201d to address the assembly (15:7). The Bible records his speech, which goes on for five verses. Then it reports that \u201call the assembly kept silence\u201d (15:12). Paul and Barnabas speak next, not making authoritative pronouncements, but confirming Peter\u2019s exposition, speaking about \u201csigns and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles\u201d (15:12). Then when James speaks, he refers right back to what \u201cSimeon [Peter] has related\u201d (15:14). To me, this suggests that Peter\u2019s talk was central and definitive. James speaking last could easily be explained by the fact that he was the bishop of Jerusalem and therefore the \u201chost.\u201d (3-2-17<\/a>)<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
It\u2019s probably not a coincidence that Peter\u2019s prominence greatly diminished once individuals with personality traits like those of James and Paul became apostles.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Ah, so now the \u201cpersonality theory\u201d is applied to James and Paul too! It\u2019s asinine . . .\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
When Paul and Peter are preparing the readers of their letters for their impending deaths in 2 Timothy and 2 Peter, both of them direct their readers to remember\u00a0past<\/i>\u00a0apostolic teaching and scripture, for example, but say nothing about the bishop of Rome (or an ongoing infallible church). Factors like these make more sense if Peter\u2019s prominence was of a non-papal nature.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
2 Timothy is simply not about the papacy. It\u2019s a highly personal and emotional \u201cpassing of the torch\u201d between Paul and Timothy (which is not the papacy, but apostolic succession):<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
2 Timothy 1:3-6, 13-15<\/strong> I thank God whom I serve with a clear conscience, as did my fathers, when I remember you constantly in my prayers.\u00a0[4] As I remember your tears, I long night and day to see you, that I may be filled with joy.\u00a0[5] I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lo\u2019is and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you.\u00a0[6] Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; . . . [13] Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus;\u00a0[14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.\u00a0[15] You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, and among them Phy\u2019gelus and Hermog\u2019enes.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
2 Timothy 2:1-2, 15, 22<\/strong> You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus,\u00a0[2] and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. . . . [15]\u00a0Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. . . . [22]\u00a0\u00a0So shun youthful passions and aim at righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call upon the Lord from a pure heart.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
2 Timothy 3:14\u00a0<\/strong>But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
2 Timothy 4:2<\/strong>\u00a0preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Paul talks about the hierarchical authority structure of the Church elsewhere:<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
Galatians 1:15-18<\/strong>\u00a0But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace,\u00a0[16] was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood,\u00a0[17] nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus.\u00a0[18] Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n

Then later, when Paul and Barnabas are present with Peter at the Council of Jerusalem, Peter clearly predominates, and all the text says that Paul and Barnabas did was give a mission report, highlighting their work among Gentiles (Acts 15:4: one verse). It\u2019s Peter who delivers the central argument that determines the outcome of the council (15:7-11). It is then said that Paul and Barnabas \u201cwent on their way through the cities\u201d and \u201cdelivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem\u201d (Acts 16:4). That hardly suggests that Paul is above<\/em>\u00a0Peter, does it?<\/span><\/p>\n

Thus, the relevant data suggests or (at the very<\/em> least) is perfectly consistent with the notion that Peter is the head of the Church.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Jason brought up Peter\u2019s \u201cfarewell\u201d in 2 Peter. But there are very important differences here. Paul was writing to one person, who was his disciple \/ helper: Timothy. But Peter (as we would expect of a pope) writes to all<\/em> Christians:<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
2 Peter 1:1\u00a0<\/strong>Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Because he is writing to the Church as a whole, he warns of future dangers:<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
2 Peter 2:1-3<\/strong> But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.\u00a0[2] And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.\u00a0[3] And in their greed they will exploit you with false words; from of old their condemnation has not been idle, and their destruction has not been asleep.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
2 Peter 2:13-15\u00a0<\/strong>suffering wrong for their wrongdoing. They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their dissipation, carousing with you.\u00a0[14] They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children!\u00a0[15] Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Be\u2019or, who loved gain from wrongdoing,<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
2 Peter 3:1-3, 17-18\u00a0<\/strong>This is now the second letter that I have written to you, beloved, and in both of them I have aroused your sincere mind by way of reminder;\u00a0[2] that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles.\u00a0[3] First of all you must understand this, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own passions . . . [17]\u00a0You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.\u00a0[18] But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
His first epistle is also to a wide variety of Christians, and is written in a similarly exhorting tone and tenor, befitting a shepherd and pope:<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
1 Peter 1:1<\/strong>\u00a0Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappado\u2019cia, Asia, and Bithyn\u2019ia,<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
1 Peter 5:2-3\u00a0<\/strong>Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly,\u00a0[3] not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
I would urge readers, as a Catholic apologist, to be guided by all<\/em> of Scripture, not just carefully selected parts, in light of the 2000-year-old history of interpretation within the Church, rather than following the wild goose chase of rogue and unaccountable individuals like Jason who provide (when they oppose the Catholic Church) the slop of arbitrary and ultimately failed and unbiblical traditions of men.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
***<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Photo credit:<\/strong>\u00a0Saint Peter<\/i>, by\u00a0Dirck van Baburen (c. 1594-1624)<\/span> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
***<\/span><\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Protestant Apologist Jason Engwer Continues His All-Out War on St. Peter & the Papacy Gotta give Protestant apologist Jason Engwer an E for effort and a C for cleverness and inventiveness. He has taken it upon himself to refute\u00a0 many scriptural arguments I have made in favor of Peter\u2019s primacy (while not \u2014 in recent […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":52154,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[231,138],"tags":[598,1131,1132,12133,163,1500,12130,12127,161,12124,1130,162,12136,4290,1133,1129],"class_list":["post-52144","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-anti-catholicism","category-papacy-infallibility","tag-apostolic-succession","tag-bible-papacy","tag-biblical-authority","tag-cephas","tag-ecclesiology","tag-jason-engwer","tag-lists-of-apostles","tag-lists-of-disciples","tag-papacy","tag-peter-the-first","tag-petrine-primacy","tag-popes","tag-preeminence-of-peter","tag-primacy-of-peter","tag-primacy-of-rome","tag-st-peter"],"yoast_head":"\nPeter's Primacy is Disproved By His Personality? Peter's Primacy is Disproved By His Personality?<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Protestant Apologist Jason Engwer Continues His All-Out War on St. Peter & the Papacy Gotta give Protestant apologist Jason Engwer an E for effort and Protestant anti-Catholic Jason Engwer tries to undercut Peter's primacy & status as the first pope by arguing that the Bible highlights him largely because of his tempestuous personality.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/10\/peters-primacy-is-disproved-by-his-personality.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Peter's Primacy is Disproved By His Personality? Peter's Primacy is Disproved By His Personality?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Protestant Apologist Jason Engwer Continues His All-Out War on St. Peter & the Papacy Gotta give Protestant apologist Jason Engwer an E for effort and Protestant anti-Catholic Jason Engwer tries to undercut Peter's primacy & status as the first pope by arguing that the Bible highlights him largely because of his tempestuous personality.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/10\/peters-primacy-is-disproved-by-his-personality.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-10-18T20:44:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-11-08T00:10:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/10\/Peter8.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"388\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"480\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/10\/peters-primacy-is-disproved-by-his-personality.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/10\/peters-primacy-is-disproved-by-his-personality.html\",\"name\":\"Peter's Primacy is Disproved By His Personality? Peter's Primacy is Disproved By His Personality?\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-10-18T20:44:26+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-11-08T00:10:24+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"Protestant Apologist Jason Engwer Continues His All-Out War on St. Peter & the Papacy Gotta give Protestant apologist Jason Engwer an E for effort and Protestant anti-Catholic Jason Engwer tries to undercut Peter's primacy & status as the first pope by arguing that the Bible highlights him largely because of his tempestuous personality.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/10\/peters-primacy-is-disproved-by-his-personality.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/10\/peters-primacy-is-disproved-by-his-personality.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/10\/peters-primacy-is-disproved-by-his-personality.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Peter’s Primacy is Disproved By His Personality?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Peter's Primacy is Disproved By His Personality? Peter's Primacy is Disproved By His Personality?","description":"Protestant Apologist Jason Engwer Continues His All-Out War on St. Peter & the Papacy Gotta give Protestant apologist Jason Engwer an E for effort and Protestant anti-Catholic Jason Engwer tries to undercut Peter's primacy & status as the first pope by arguing that the Bible highlights him largely because of his tempestuous personality.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/10\/peters-primacy-is-disproved-by-his-personality.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Peter's Primacy is Disproved By His Personality? Peter's Primacy is Disproved By His Personality?","og_description":"Protestant Apologist Jason Engwer Continues His All-Out War on St. Peter & the Papacy Gotta give Protestant apologist Jason Engwer an E for effort and Protestant anti-Catholic Jason Engwer tries to undercut Peter's primacy & status as the first pope by arguing that the Bible highlights him largely because of his tempestuous personality.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/10\/peters-primacy-is-disproved-by-his-personality.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_published_time":"2020-10-18T20:44:26+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-11-08T00:10:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":388,"height":480,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/10\/Peter8.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/10\/peters-primacy-is-disproved-by-his-personality.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/10\/peters-primacy-is-disproved-by-his-personality.html","name":"Peter's Primacy is Disproved By His Personality? Peter's Primacy is Disproved By His Personality?","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-10-18T20:44:26+00:00","dateModified":"2020-11-08T00:10:24+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"Protestant Apologist Jason Engwer Continues His All-Out War on St. Peter & the Papacy Gotta give Protestant apologist Jason Engwer an E for effort and Protestant anti-Catholic Jason Engwer tries to undercut Peter's primacy & status as the first pope by arguing that the Bible highlights him largely because of his tempestuous personality.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/10\/peters-primacy-is-disproved-by-his-personality.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/10\/peters-primacy-is-disproved-by-his-personality.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2020\/10\/peters-primacy-is-disproved-by-his-personality.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Peter’s Primacy is Disproved By His Personality?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52144","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=52144"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52144\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/52154"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52144"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52144"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52144"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}