![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/05\/PeterKeys2b.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nLucas Banzoli<\/a> 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\u2019s human nature after His death.\u00a0He has a Master\u2019s 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\u2019s active on YouTube<\/a>.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in blue<\/span>. I used Google Translate<\/em> to transfer his Portugese text into English.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Part One: \u201cDisproofs\u201d #1-50<\/strong><\/p>\n See other installments:<\/p>\n Part Two: \u201cDisproofs\u201d #51-100<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n Part Three: \u201cDisproofs\u201d #101-15o<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n Part Four: \u201cDisproofs\u201d #151-205<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I am responding to his article, \u201c205 Provas Contra O Primado de Pedro\u201d<\/a> (no date) [205 Proofs Against the Primacy of Peter<\/em>]. It\u2019s a reply to my well-known article, 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy<\/a>, which was written in 1994 as part of my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism<\/em><\/a>: completed in May 1996 but not \u201cofficially\u201d 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<\/i>, Jan\/Feb 1997, 32-35 (now posted at the Catholic Culture<\/em> site<\/a>). It was translated into Portugese<\/a> in the late 1990s by <\/span>Carlos Martins Nabeto<\/a> and also by Ewerton Wagner Santos Caetano<\/a> sometime before July 2008. Apparently, it has been widely spread in Brazil for some time now.<\/p>\n Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer made similar critiques of the article, which I comprehensively responded to:<\/p>\n \u201cReply to Critique of \u201c50 NT Proofs for the Papacy,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(vs. Jason Engwer) [3-14-02]<\/p>\n Refutation of a Satirical \u201cPauline Papacy\u201d Argument<\/a>\u00a0(vs. Jason Engwer) [9-30-03]<\/p>\n St. Peter Listed First in Lists of Disciples: A Debate<\/a>\u00a0(vs. Jason Engwer) [10-12-20]<\/p>\n It should be made clear at the outset, exactly what I think my article established<\/strong><\/em>; how much I claim<\/em> for it (since Lucas seems to take a low view of cumulative arguments). I wrote in the initial article itself:<\/p>\n 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\u2019t 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, . . .<\/p>\n 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In my 2002 reply to Engwer I vigorously defended the article:<\/p>\n I think it\u00a0is<\/i>\u00a0very strong, certainly stronger than the biblical cases for\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i> and the canon of the New Testament (which are nonexistent). . . .<\/p>\n As I said, it is a \u201ccumulative\u201d argument. One doesn\u2019t\u00a0expect<\/i> that all individual pieces of such an argument are \u201cairtight\u201d 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\u2019t \u201clogically lead to a papacy.\u201d But they can quite plausibly be regarded as consistent<\/i>\u00a0with such a notion, as part of a demonstrable larger pattern, within which they do<\/em> carry some force. . . .\u00a0Another way to respond to this would be to make an analogy to a doctrine that Jason\u00a0does<\/i>\u00a0accept: the Holy Trinity:<\/p>\n Does Jason really think it\u2019s reasonable to expect me to explain to him why passages like Isaiah 9:6 and Zechariah 12:10 don\u2019t logically lead to Chalcedonian trinitarianism and the Two Natures of Christ?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Obviously, the Jews are quite familiar with Isaiah 9:6 and Zechariah 12:10, but they don\u2019t see any indication of trinitarianism at all in them, nor do the three passages above \u201clogically lead\u201d 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 \u201cproofs\u201d are used in the same way that my lesser Petrine evidences are used, as\u00a0consistent<\/i> with lots of other biblical data suggesting that conclusion. . . . Likewise, with many Protestants and the papacy and its biblical evidences. . . .<\/p>\n [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.<\/p>\n Knowing this, I approached the Petrine list with the thought in mind: \u201cPaul is obviously an important figure, but how much biblical material can one find with regard to Peter, which would be\u00a0consistent with<\/i>\u00a0(not\u00a0absolute proof\u00a0<\/i>of) a view that he was the head of the Church and the first pope?\u201d Or, to put it another way (from the perspective of preexisting Catholic belief): \u201cif 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.\u201d . . .<\/p>\n As for the nature of a \u201ccumulative argument,\u201d what Jason doesn\u2019t seem to understand is that all the various evidences become strong only as they are considered together<\/strong><\/em> (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<\/i>\u00a0with Petrine primacy, which is the developmental kernel of papal primacy.<\/p>\n The reader ought to note, also, that in the original paper I wasn\u2019t claiming that these biblical indications proved \u201cpapal\u00a0supremacy<\/i>\u201d or \u201cpapal\u00a0infallibility<\/i>\u201d (i.e., the fully-developed papacy of recent times). This is important in understanding exactly how I viewed the evidence. . . .<\/p>\n None of the things on the list are \u201cirrelevant,\u201d as Scripture itself is not \u201cirrelevant,\u201d and does not record tidbits of information for no reason. It is inspired;\u00a0God-breathed<\/i>, after all. God doesn\u2019t 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\u2019re leaders, too, but the President holds a higher office than they do.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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.<\/p>\n F. F. Bruce, the well-respected Protestant biblical scholar, made a similar point to mine, about Peter\u2019s centrality and importance:<\/p>\n A Paulinist (and I myself must be so described) is under a constant temptation to underestimate Peter . . .<\/p>\n An impressive tribute is paid to Peter by Dr. J. D. G. Dunn towards the end of his\u00a0Unity and Diversity in the New Testament<\/i>\u00a0[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<\/p>\n it was Peter who became the focal point of unity in the great Church, since\u00a0Peter was probably in fact and effect the bridge-man who did more than any other to hold together the diversity of first-century Christianity<\/i>.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s thoughtful words has moved me to think more highly of Peter\u2019s contribution to the early church, without at all diminishing my estimate of Paul\u2019s contribution. (Peter, Stephen, James, and John<\/i>, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1979, 42-43)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Elsewhere, four years later, Bruce observed:<\/p>\n And what about the \u201ckeys of the kingdom\u201d? . . . About 700 B.C. an oracle from God\u00a0announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man\u00a0called Eliakim . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build,\u00a0Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward.\u00a0(F .F. Bruce,\u00a0The Hard Sayings of Jesus<\/i>, Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1983, 143-144)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n James Dunn, himself no mean Bible scholar, backs up my overall point quite nicely, too:<\/p>\n So it is Peter . . . who was probably the most prominent among Jesus\u2019 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. \u00a0(Unity and Diversity in the New Testament<\/i>, London: SCM Press, 1977, 385-386)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Many prominent Protestant scholars and exegetes have agreed that Peter is the Rock in Matthew 16:18, including\u00a0Henry Alford<\/b>, (Anglican:\u00a0The New Testament for English Readers<\/i>, vol. 1, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 1983, 119),\u00a0John Broadus\u00a0<\/b>(Reformed Baptist:\u00a0Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew<\/i>, Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Judson Press, 1886, 355-356),\u00a0C. F. Keil<\/b>,\u00a0Gerhard Kittel\u00a0<\/b>(Lutheran:\u00a0Theological Dictionary of the New Testament<\/i>, vol. VI, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968, 98-99),\u00a0Oscar Cullmann<\/b>\u00a0(Lutheran:\u00a0Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr<\/i>, 2nd rev. ed., 1962),\u00a0William F. Albright<\/b>,\u00a0Robert McAfee Brown<\/b>, and more recently, highly-respected evangelical commentators\u00a0R.T. France<\/b>, and\u00a0D.A. Carson<\/b>, 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.<\/p>\n That\u2019s nine so far. Here are some more:<\/p>\n 10)\u00a0New Bible Dictionary<\/i>\u00a0(editor: J. D. Douglas). 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<\/i>, it stands to reason that there would\u00a0continue<\/i> 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?<\/p>\n 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\u00a0popes<\/i>). Thus the entire argument (far from being\u00a0nonexistent<\/i>, as Jason would have us believe) is sustained and established from the Bible alone.<\/p>\n To conclude this introduction, I cite the great Lutheran scholar Oscar Cullmann:<\/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. The connection between these two images is the notion of God\u2019s people. (Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr<\/i>, Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1952 French ed., 183-184)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ***<\/p>\n 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 \u201cproofs\u201d of the primacy of Peter.<\/span><\/p>\n Glad to hear it\u2019s being spread far and wide in Brazil! Lots of Bible going out . . .<\/p>\n It was only after a long time that I decided to elaborate a rebuttal to that article, not only answering all of Armstrong\u2019s points, but also carrying out 205 proofs against the primacy of Peter, which largely refute all the supposed \u201cevidence\u201d that he found in isolation in the Bible.<\/span><\/p>\n A cumulative case from all over the New Testament is the very opposite<\/em> of \u201cin isolation.\u201d<\/span> It\u2019s systematic theology. Whether he has refuted my argument remains to be seen<\/em>. Keep reading, folks, and get ready for a \u201clong ride\u201d! It always takes much more \u201cink\u201d to refute<\/em> errors than it does to state<\/em> them. And repeating errors over and over makes them no less false. One could say \u201c2 + 2 = 5\u201d all day long and it wouldn\u2019t be any less false than it was the first time one said it.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s study was extremely arbitrary and that it absolutely ignored the total content of the Scriptures that vigorously repudiate all his attempts.<\/span><\/p>\n Nonsense; but an \u201cE for effort . . .\u201d<\/p>\n Without further ado, I will go over the 205 proofs below found throughout Scripture, broken down especially into four main points:<\/span><\/p>\n 1. Peter\u2019s supposed supremacy over the other apostles in general. <\/span><\/p>\n 2. Peter\u2019s supposed supremacy over John. <\/span><\/p>\n 3. Peter\u2019s supposed supremacy over Paul. <\/span><\/p>\n 4. Peter\u2019s supposed primacy in Rome for 25 years. <\/span><\/p>\n 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 \u201cprimacy of Peter.\u201d Read and have fun. The peace of Christ be with all brothers.<\/span><\/p>\n 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 \u201cgoes\u201d. Kick your socks off, find a nice easy chair, and enjoy the \u201cride.\u201d I know I will enjoy writing this. I hope readers enjoy reading it too.<\/p>\n Evidence that Peter did not exercise primacy over the other apostles <\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n 1.<\/strong> The disciples asked \u201cwho is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven\u201d (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 \u2013 that it is Peter, and that\u2019s it!<\/span><\/p>\n This is a silly and frivolous, unserious argument. The whole point<\/em> 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 \u201cgreatest\u201d disciple. Jesus cuts right through the pride, stating, \u201cWhoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven\u201d (Mt 18:4). He reiterates later: \u201cHe who is greatest among you shall be your servant; whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted\u201d (Mt 23:11-12).<\/p>\n The two disciples in question knew<\/em> they were wrong, since on one occasion Jesus asked them what they were \u201cdiscussing\u201d and the text says \u201cthey were silent<\/em>; for on the way they had discussed with one another who was the greatest\u201d (Mk 9:33-34). Jesus said: \u201che who is least among you all is the one who is great\u201d (Lk 9:48).\u00a0It 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):<\/p>\n Matthew 20:20-21, 24<\/strong> (RSV) Then the mother of the sons of Zeb\u2019edee came up to him, with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something.\u00a0[21] And he said to her, \u201cWhat do you want?\u201d She said to him, \u201cCommand that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.\u201d . . . [24] And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers.<\/p>\n Mark 3:17<\/strong> James the son of Zeb\u2019edee and John the brother of James, whom he surnamed Bo-aner\u2019ges, that is, sons of thunder;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Jesus gave them that nickname because these were the two impulsive characters who wanted to kill people with fire because they weren\u2019t receptive to Jesus:<\/p>\n Luke 9:53-55<\/strong> 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, \u201cLord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?\u201d [55] But he turned and rebuked them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Even tempestuous Peter never said anything that<\/em> 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, \u201cPeter<\/em> is the greatest<\/em> among you!\u201d is just plain dumb. He\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n Besides, Catholics would never say that Peter was the \u201cgreatest\u201d 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 (\u201cI am the handmaid of the Lord . . . he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden\u201d: Lk 1:38, 48). It\u2019s Elizabeth who praises her: \u201cBlessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!\u201d (Lk 1:42), but Mary immediately gives all the glory to God (Lk 1:46-55).<\/p>\n
\n11)\u00a0Encyclopaedia Britannica<\/i>, 1985 edition, \u201cPeter,\u201d Micropedia, vol. 9, 330-333. D. W. O\u2019Connor, the author of the article, is himself a Protestant.
\n12)\u00a0New Bible Commentary<\/i>, (D. Guthrie, & J. A. Motyer, editors).
\n13)\u00a0Peter in the New Testament<\/i>, Raymond E Brown, Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann, editors, . . . a common statement by a panel of eleven Catholic and Lutheran scholars.
\n14) Greek scholar Marvin Vincent.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n