![\"\"](\"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\u00a0blue<\/span>. I used\u00a0Google Translate<\/em>\u00a0to transfer his Portugese text into English.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n See other installments:<\/span><\/p>\n Part One: \u201cDisproofs\u201d #1-50<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n Part Two: \u201cDisproofs\u201d #51-100<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n Part Four: \u201cDisproofs\u201d #151-205<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Continuing response to his article,\u00a0\u201c205 Provas Contra O Primado de Pedro\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(no date) [205 Proofs Against the Primacy of Peter<\/em>]<\/span><\/p>\n 101.<\/strong> Paul used the authority of the name of Jesus Christ to cast out an evil spirit, which went out immediately (Acts 16:18). <\/span><\/p>\n All twelve disciples had that power (Lk 9:1). So did the seventy evangelists appointed by Jesus (Lk 10:17, 20).<\/p>\n 102.<\/strong> The seven sons of the head of the Jewish synagogue rebuked evil spirits on the basis of \u201cJesus whom Paul preaches\u201d (Acts 19:13). At no time is Peter indicated by them or anyone else as sufficient authority to repel demons. <\/span><\/p>\n We know that he did from Luke 9:1: written by Luke: the author of Acts, too.<\/p>\n 103.<\/strong> There were two people in the Christian faith who, as important as they were, made themselves \u201cknown\u201d by name even by the devil, who insisted on highlighting them. They are: (1) Jesus; (2) Paul (Acts 19:15). <\/span><\/p>\n The demons mentioned Paul because his name had already been invoked by the Jewish exorcists (Acts 19:13).<\/p>\n 104.<\/strong> God intervenes on Paul\u2019s 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. <\/span><\/p>\n There was no earthquake, but an angel got St. Peter out of prison, too (Acts 12:7-11). So only St. Paul got an \u201cearthquake intervention.\u201d But how does that prove that he is more so a papal figure (if there is one) than St. Peter? It simply doesn\u2019t.<\/p>\n 105.<\/strong> Paul was in charge of the baptism of the jailer and his entire family (Acts 16:33). <\/span><\/p>\n Great. In what way is that relevant to this discussion?<\/p>\n 106.<\/strong> 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.). <\/span><\/p>\n So that\u2019s the Philippian jailer and his family, Crispus, the ruler of a synagogue, \u201csome disciples\u201d of John the Baptist, Crispus, Ga\u2019ius, 107.<\/strong> Paul was officially a Roman citizen, who had numerous privileges at that time (Acts 16:38). <\/span><\/p>\n And this is relevant how?<\/p>\n 108.<\/strong> 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). <\/span><\/p>\n Of course he did. This doesn\u2019t indicate that he was the first pope.<\/p>\n 109.<\/strong> 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).<\/span><\/p>\n 110.<\/strong> 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).<\/span><\/p>\n This shows that he was a great debater, evangelist, and debater, but not the pope.<\/p>\n 111.<\/strong> While some apostles like Peter were married (1Co.9:5), \u201cPaul devoted himself exclusively to preaching\u201d (Acts.18:5). <\/span><\/p>\n Great. Anyone can choose to do that if they wish, and if God calls them to it.<\/p>\n 112.<\/strong> Paul is the only apostle recorded to have strengthened all the disciples throughout the region of Galatia and Phrygia (Acts 18:23). <\/span><\/p>\n 113.<\/strong> Paul \u201cargued convincingly about the Kingdom of God\u201d (Acts 19:8), convincing the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. <\/span><\/p>\n 114.<\/strong> There is no record of an apostle more persecuted than Paul. In his words: \u201c\u2026I 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\u201d (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). <\/span><\/p>\n 115.<\/strong> Paul was the only apostle in Church history who preached to \u201call the Jews who lived in the province of Asia\u201d (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. <\/span><\/p>\n Good for him, and irrelevant to this discussion.<\/p>\n 116.<\/strong> Paul resurrects the young Eutychus (Acts 20:10-12), in yet another great demonstration of God\u2019s power through his life. <\/span><\/p>\n Peter raised Tabitha from the dead (Acts 9:36-41).<\/p>\n 117.<\/strong> 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). <\/span><\/p>\n Good for him, and irrelevant to this discussion.<\/p>\n 118.<\/strong> All the bishops, pastors and elders made \u201cgreat weeping\u201d 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.<\/span><\/p>\n This shows he was greatly loved, but not that he was the pope.<\/p>\n 119.<\/strong> 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). <\/span><\/p>\n We would expect that He would so bless the Greatest Evangelist.<\/p>\n 120.<\/strong> He is one of the only ones to receive directly from God the guarantee of \u201cbeing a witness to all men of what he has seen and heard\u201d (Acts 22:15). <\/span><\/p>\n Jesus told all the apostles: \u201cyou shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Sama\u2019ria and to the end of the earth\u201d (Acts 1:8).<\/p>\n 121.<\/strong> Paul is the only apostle who claims to have fully fulfilled the will of God, \u201chaving fulfilled my duty to God with all good conscience, until this day\u201d (Acts 23:1). <\/span><\/p>\n Jesus prayed that the faith of Peter would not fail (Lk 22:32). And it didn\u2019t (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, \u201cLord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death\u201d (Lk 22:33). He wasn\u2019t ready that<\/em> night, as we all know (and most of us wouldn\u2019t 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<\/em> fulfill what he claimed.<\/p>\n 122.<\/strong> 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 \u201cseemed most influential\u201d (Gal.2:6). According to Catholicism, this must certainly include Peter. However, he claims that \u201cwhat they were then makes no difference to me\u201d (Gal.2.6)! He would hardly have been so \u201cinsubordinate\u201d to a position above his own, as special as \u201cinfallible\u201d as is \u201cpope\u201d (if there had been such a thing, of course!).<\/span><\/p>\n This was the second<\/em> time Paul went to Jerusalem to consult with Peter (and\/or James and John), fourteen years<\/em> (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<\/em> to, and did<\/em> consult with him, during his first visit<\/em> to receive sanction for his ministry:<\/p>\n Galatians 1:18-19<\/strong>\u00a0Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.\u00a0[19] But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord\u2019s brother.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now, what impression does this passage give, as to the relative importance<\/em> in the church of Peter, James, and John? Yes (my answer, too . . .). But oddly and inexplicably enough, Lucas never mentions Galatians 1:18<\/em> 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<\/em> 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\u2019t agree with his position, and to engage in selective presentation, which is basically setting out half-truths.<\/p>\n 123.<\/strong> Paul asserts that these more influential men \u201cadded me nothing\u201d (Gal.2:6). They had nothing to add to Paul\u2019s life other than what he already knew or already was! <\/span><\/p>\n Yes, because they couldn\u2019t make him more of an apostle than he already was<\/em>. That was established no later than his first visit with Pope St. Peter (Gal 1:18-19).<\/p>\n 124.<\/strong> Paul, in stating more clearly who these \u201cinfluential men\u201d were, does not differentiate Peter from the others, as being the most important. <\/span><\/p>\n Galatians 1:18 already showed that. But as I noted, Lucas conveniently skipped over that<\/em> verse. Out of sight, out of mind! Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil . . .<\/p>\n 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). <\/span><\/p>\n This is basically a repeat of #50, that I answered at considerable length in Part One<\/a>., citing several Protestant commentaries in agreement with me.<\/p>\n 125.<\/strong> Paul affirms that \u201cI 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\u201d (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.<\/span><\/p>\n Apostles treated each other \u2014 broadly speaking \u2014 as equals, yes. I basically replied to this line of reasoning in my reply to #66 in Part Two<\/a>. Here\u2019s the heart of that rebuttal:<\/p>\n None of this proves anything, anymore than Paul calling lessers \u201cbrethren\u201d (many many times<\/a>) \u201cproves\u201d that they are on the same level as him. Even Jesus called His disciples \u201cfriends\u201d (Jn 15:13-15). Does that mean He isn\u2019t above them? Paul calls Christians \u201cfellow heirs with Christ\u201d (Rom 8:17) and \u201cGod\u2019s fellow workers\u201d (1 Cor 3:9), and he calls other Christians \u201cfellow workers\u201d and \u201cfellow soldiers\u201d and \u201cfellow servants\u201d (see the references<\/a>).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Also, we see Jesus saying, \u201cthe Father is greater than I\u201d (Jn 14:28) and \u201cMy Father . . . is greater than all\u201d (Jn 10:29), but in the same Gospel also<\/em> saying, \u201cI and the Father are one\u201d (Jn 10:30) and \u201cAll that the Father has is mine\u201d (Jn 16:15) and \u201cHe who has seen me has seen the Father\u201d (Jn 14:9) and \u201cI am in the Father and the Father in me\u201d (Jn 14:11). Hebrew, biblical, and Catholic thinking are not \u201ceither\/or\u201d (as habitually in Protestantism), but rather, \u201cboth\/and.\u201d Therefore, sometimes Paul or Peter or the biblical narrative can talk in terms of their equality, and other times, refer to Peter\u2019s headship in the hierarchy of the Church.<\/p>\n 126.<\/strong> Paul was chosen by God to \u201copen 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\u201d (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. <\/span><\/p>\n 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\u2019s 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).<\/p>\n It was Pope St. Peter, not Evangelist St. Paul, who was the first to learn that the Mosaic dietary and ceremonial laws wouldn\u2019t 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: \u201cBrethren, 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\u201d (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.<\/p>\n History and scholarship tells us that Peter was killed in 64 AD<\/a>, 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\u2019s foolish to create some arbitrary divide, as if it is absolute. Both wound up being martyred in Rome.<\/p>\n 127.<\/strong> Paul was considered \u201cthe chief head of the sect of the Nazarenes -\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u039d\u03b1\u03b6\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u201d (Acts.24:5). The presence of the definite article and the singular \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd 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 \u2013 and not Peter \u2013 is the most suitable to be \u201cleader of the sect of the Nazarenes\u201d! <\/span><\/p>\n Once again (annoyingly), Lucas decides to repeat<\/em> an entry. If he keeps doing that, it will merely allow me to deepen and strengthen my answers<\/em>, by dealing with the same thing twice<\/em> (as I will do in this<\/em> instance, and it doesn\u2019t look good for his argument at all). This material was covered in my reply to #49 in Part One<\/a>. There I noted that:<\/p>\n My RSV Bible says \u201ca<\/em>\u00a0ringleader\u201d as opposed to \u201cthe<\/em>\u00a0ringleader.\u201d How much difference one little word makes! I\u2019ve found only\u00a0one<\/em>\u00a0out of about\u00a060 English translations of Acts 24:5<\/a>\u00a0that has \u201cthe<\/em>\u00a0ringleader.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So an argument Lucas obviously thinks was a \u201cknockout punch\u201d for Paul being some sort of \u201cpope\u201d rather than Peter, is mercilessly shot down by 59 out of 60 translators of the Bible into English. That\u2019s pretty decisive. A. T. Robertson\u2019s Word Pictures of the New Testament<\/em> (at Acts 24:5<\/a>) shows the true sense: \u201cA<\/em><\/strong> ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes . . . a<\/em><\/strong> front-rank man, a<\/em><\/strong> chief, a<\/strong><\/em> champion\u201d [my bolding and italics]. In a Greek-English Interlinear version of the Bible<\/a> (see the description of it<\/a>), we see that there is no definite article, either:<\/p>\n pr\u014dtostat\u0113n<\/a> te <\/a>t\u0113s<\/a>\u00a0t\u014dn<\/a> Naz\u014drai\u014dn<\/a><\/p>\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u039d\u03b1\u03b6\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd<\/p>\n a leader then of the of the Nazarenes<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cNazarenes\u201d has a definite article preceding it; but \u201cleader\u201d (or, \u201cringleader\u201d) does not<\/em>. And that\u2019s why 59 out of 60 English translations use the indefinite \u201ca\u201d in describing Paul\u2019s leadership, not the definite \u201cthe.\u201d Whatever Portugese translation Lucas used here simply got this wrong, according to the overwhelming consensus of Bible translators (in English). I didn\u2019t 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<\/em> sides, rather than just one<\/em>. Isn\u2019t back-and-forth dialogue wonderful?<\/p>\n 128.<\/strong> Paul exalted his own ministry (Rom.11:13). <\/span><\/p>\n Yes he did. And what did he say<\/em> in that verse? (Lucas merely cites<\/em> it; I examine<\/em> it): \u201cI am an apostle to the Gentiles . . .\u201d He states exactly what his role<\/em> or office<\/em> is: the evangelist to the Gentiles, so as to spread Christianity far and wide. It\u2019s quite evident that such a role is not<\/em> that of pope, who is the shepherd, leader, teacher, and protector of all Christians<\/em><\/strong>, not Gentile unbelievers<\/em><\/strong>. So this is Paul stating with his own \u201cmouth\u201d what he is<\/em> (the Great Evangelist) and what he is not<\/em> (the pope and leader of Christians). Paul reiterates this point of his central purpose in evangelizing the Gentiles many times<\/a>.<\/p>\n 129.<\/strong> Christ accomplished through Paul in word and deed (Rom.15:18). He was the only apostle on record to have \u201cfully proclaimed the gospel of Christ\u201d (v.19) from \u201cJerusalem and round about to Illyricum\u201d (v.19). <\/span><\/p>\n Yes, he preached far and wide, because that was his office: evangelist. This disproves<\/em> that he was pope. Why can\u2019t Lucas see<\/em> this? So many of his \u201cdisproofs\u201d are actually strong arguments for the Catholic view of Peter as the first pope. I can\u2019t thank him enough for affording me this wonderful opportunity to prove all the more<\/em> that Peter was the first pope and that Paul certainly was not<\/em>. I\u2019ve come up with many arguments throughout these replies that likely would have never crossed my mind.<\/p>\n 130.<\/strong> Paul is the only apostle who writes that he was living \u201cin the fullness of the blessing of Christ\u201d (Rom.15:19). <\/span><\/p>\n This doesn\u2019t prove that no one else<\/em> partakes of the same blessing. In order to do that it would have to read something like, \u201cI am the only one<\/em> who comes in the fulness of the blessing of Christ.\u201d<\/p>\n 131.<\/strong> Paul used the authority of the name of Jesus Christ to plead with all the Romans, giving them orders to obey \u201cin one thought and in one judgment\u201d (Rom.1:10). <\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s acting like a bishop does, since it is one local church or congregation. But that doesn\u2019t prove universal jurisdiction<\/em>. Paul exercises authority and supervision over the churches that he planted or nurtured.<\/p>\n 132.<\/strong> Paul\u2019s name appears first in relation to Peter in Romans [1 Corinthians]<\/span> 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\u2019s 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\u2019s a hell of a headache that puts Peter behind Paul and Apollos!<\/span><\/p>\n The actual verse is 1 Corinthians 1:12. I don\u2019t think this has any significance for our topic, because it has to do specifically with factionalism<\/em>, not with ultimate authority. Paul names himself first because he was actually predominant in Corinth, having planted<\/em> 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:<\/p>\n Acts 18:27-28<\/strong> . . . 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He was doing so well preaching and defending the faith there that the next verse notes:<\/p>\n Acts 19:1<\/strong> While Apol\u2019los was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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<\/a> in the Peloponnese peninsula that was directly to the west and north of Corinth. Because of Apollos\u2019 success, factions started developing, as Paul notes, saying, \u201cI belong to Paul,\u201d or \u201cI belong to Apol\u2019los,\u201d (1 Cor 1:12).<\/p>\n 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<\/em>. 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<\/em> answer: all Christians belong to Christ, and He alone). Paul nails down the point by adding, \u201cWas Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?\u201d<\/p>\n The meaning, then, seems clear: \u201cYou 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.\u201d This actually strengthens<\/em> Petrine primacy, rather than diminis<\/em>h 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<\/em> ultimately follow.<\/p>\n And who are the Christians who are famous for naming themselves after men<\/em> and following them to a fault, and forming competing sects: precisely the opposite<\/em> of St. Paul\u2019s view? Lutherans, Calvinists, Mennonites, Zwinglians, Wesleyans, Arminians, Amish . . .<\/p>\n 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<\/em>. It\u2019s not only being listed first<\/em> that is noteworthy, but being named so often, period<\/em>:<\/p>\n 4. Peter\u2019s 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 \u201cfirst\u201d (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.<\/p>\n 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 (\u201cCephas\u201d) is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (e.g., 1:18-19; 2:7-8).<\/p>\n 36. Peter\u2019s name is [almost] always the first listed of the \u201cinner circle\u201d of the disciples (Peter, James and John \u2013 Mt 17:1; 26:37,40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).<\/p>\n 39. Peter\u2019s 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!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n 133.<\/strong> Paul asserts that they were but servants through whom the Corinthians came to believe (1 Cor. 3:5), so that \u201cneither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but God alone\u201d (1 Cor. 3:3). :7). In fact, such a picture does not occur in Catholicism, where the Pope \u201chas full, supreme and universal power in the Church. And he can always freely exercise this power of his\u201d (Catechism, \u00a7882).<\/span><\/p>\n To the contrary, popes routinely call themselves \u201cServant of the Servants of God.\u201d<\/a> This goes back to Pope St. Gregory the Great in the 6th century. So this \u201cpicture\u201d<\/span> is<\/em> 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 \u201cHoly Spirit\u201d (Acts 15). And the infallibility of the Church is also taught in 1 Timothy 3:15. When the logical and ecclesiological implications<\/a> of that verse are unpacked, it is seen to teach the infallibility of the Church, which is contrary to sola Scriptura<\/em>. If the Church has that power, it makes sense that the leader of the Church also would.<\/p>\n And Peter possessing the \u201ckeys of the kingdom\u201d proves exactly that. That\u2019s why the great Protestant scholar F. F. Bruce said Peter was the \u201cchief steward\u201d of the Church (see the Introduction in Part One<\/a>), why the Lutheran Oscar Cullmann called Peter the \u201csuperintendent\u201d (ibid<\/em>.), why Methodist W. F. Albright thought Peter was the \u201cthe vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain\u201d (#7 in Part One), why Craig Keener thought he had \u201clegislative authority\u201d (ibid<\/em>.), and why The Interpreter\u2019s Bible<\/em> confirmed that Peter had \u201cplenary authority\u201d and was the \u201cchief teacher\u201d (ibid<\/em>.).<\/p>\n This is why, also, when Peter spoke at the Jerusalem Council, no one disagreed with him (\u201cAnd all the assembly kept silence\u201d: Acts 15:12), and local bishop James deferentially said, \u201cSimeon has related . . .\u201d (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\u2019t have to follow the entire Mosaic Law, including circumcision, and this is what the council decreed. This is precisely \u201cpower in the Church\u201d<\/span>: exercised by St. Peter, leading a council of elders and apostles, including St. Paul (whose words in this gathering weren\u2019t even recorded<\/em>).<\/p>\n
\nand the household of Steph\u2019anas. St. Peter was responsible for 3,000 baptisms in one day (Acts 2:38-41), as well as Cornelius with \u201chis kinsmen and close friends\u201d (Acts 10:24, 45-48).<\/p>\n