{"id":65455,"date":"2022-08-01T18:12:27","date_gmt":"2022-08-01T22:12:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=65455"},"modified":"2022-08-01T18:12:27","modified_gmt":"2022-08-01T22:12:27","slug":"no-papacy-in-the-nt-think-again-vs-jason-engwer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/08\/no-papacy-in-the-nt-think-again-vs-jason-engwer.html","title":{"rendered":"No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

With Special Emphasis on the Protestant Exegesis of \u201cThe keys of the kingdom of heaven\u201d (Matthew 16:19)<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer again took aim at one of his favorite targets: the papacy, in his article, \u201cHow could a papacy have been referred to?\u201d<\/a> (Tribalblogue<\/em>, 7-30-22). His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

[P]assages like Matthew 16, Luke 22, and John 21 don\u2019t imply a papacy. <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
I will demonstrate in this article how Matthew 16 teaches an explicit<\/em> notion of the papacy. insofar as it is the office of the headship \/ leadership of the Church, including an extraordinary amount of singular ecclesiastical authority. And I shall do this by citing only Protestant scholars, and presenting their learned opinions about the exegesis of the passage. If it then comes down to Jason\u2019s own opinion vs. some two dozen or so eminent Protestant scholars, I think readers know, as I do, whose opinions are more worthy of allegiance.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
I agree that Luke 22 and John 21 are implicit references to the papacy. I\u2019ve already addressed Jason\u2019s arguments against them:<\/div>\n
\n

Papal Passages Lk 22:31-34 & Jn 21:15-17<\/a> (vs. Jason Engwer) [5-12-20]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

*<\/div>\n
Of course, he utterly ignores any critique I make of his work (it wasn\u2019t always this way), and has for a number of years now; and I am banned at his website. Perhaps some readers will be so kind as to mention this critique over there. Not that it\u2019ll make him reply<\/em> . . .<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
If a papacy were to be derived from such passages, it would have to be derived implicitly<\/i> rather than explicitly. <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
This is true for Luke 22 and John 21 but not for Matthew 16, as I will show. There is nothing wrong with implicit arguments for Scripture. Protestants accept many of those in favor of their doctrines, and I would note that for some of their major \/ bedrock beliefs, there is no biblical proof at all: not even implicit (e.g., the canon of the New Testament, sola Scriptura<\/em> and sola fide<\/em>). Oddly enough, that doesn\u2019t stop them from believing these things or even from literally building their theological system upon them.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
There is no explicit reference to a papacy in any of the earliest sources. <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
The New Testament is<\/em> the earliest source.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
That raises the question of what we should expect a reference to a papacy to look like.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
We should expect exactly what we find<\/em>: St. Peter is specifically called \u201cThe Rock\u201d by our Lord Jesus Christ: he whom the Lord would \u201cbuild\u201d His \u201cChurch\u201d (Mt 16:18). \u201cPeter\u201d is a translation of the Greek petros<\/em>. Jesus would have actually used the Aramaic kepha<\/em>. St. Paul calls Peter the same name, eight times<\/a> (a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic: Cephas<\/em>): thus proving that Jesus re-named Peter \u201cRock\u201d: referring to him being the human cornerstone of the new universal Church of Christ.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
And Jesus gave Peter \u201cthe keys of the kingdom of heaven\u201d (Mt 16:19, RSV). As we shall see, this describes the sublime leadership power in the Church that he was appointed by Jesus to possess.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Similarly, there are explicit references to non-papal church offices, such as apostle and elder. We\u2019re even told what qualifications they have to meet and other details about their offices.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Yes there are, and there are explicit references to the papacy: being the \u201cRock\u201d upon whom the Church was built, and possessing \u201cthe keys of the kingdom of heaven\u201d. The Bible also talks about the office of bishop: a thing that Jason never mentions. It spells out the functions and role of bishops, as I have written about<\/a>. The pope is a \u201cbishop of bishops\u201d or a \u201csuper bishop\u201d and remains the bishop of Rome, while he is pope of the entire Church. So in that sense, too, the Bible describes some of the functions of the papacy. The difference is that the pope\u2019s flock is the whole<\/em> Church and not just a local<\/em> church.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
There is no such term (akin to \u201cking\u201d, \u201ccenturion\u201d, \u201capostle\u201d, \u201celder\u201d, etc.) for a papal office, <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Yes there is: the one who possesses the keys of the kingdom of heaven and is the Rock.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
nor is there any discussion of such an office analogous to the discussions we find of other offices in Acts, the pastoral epistles, and elsewhere.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
The discussion lies in the in-depth exegesis that scholars do concerning Matthew 16.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
The apostles (plural) are referred to as the first order in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28), without any singling out of Peter or Roman bishops, and we see other passages similarly referring to the apostles as equals (Matthew 19:28,\u00a0Galatians 2:9,\u00a0Ephesians 2:20,\u00a0Revelation 21:14).<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
The apostles qua<\/em> apostles were indeed equals. But the papacy is not merely an apostolic office; it\u2019s an ongoing one (like bishops and elders and priests). The first pope just happened to also be an apostle.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
There were ways of distinguishing Peter from the others if somebody had wanted to make such a distinction, as the distinction between Jesus and the apostles in\u00a0Ephesians 2:20\u00a0illustrates, but none of the authors distinguish Peter as having more authority than the other apostles.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Sheer nonsense. This was what my article, 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy<\/a> was designed to refute. Jason \u2014 two decades ago \u2014 tried to refute and satirize it twice and I refuted him twice:<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
Reply to Critique of \u201c50 NT Proofs for the Papacy\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[3-14-02]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Refutation of a Satirical \u201cPauline Papacy\u201d Argument<\/a>\u00a0[9-30-03]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n

Recently, Brazilian apologist Lucas Banzoli outdid Jason, with his\u00a0\u201c205 Proofs Against the Primacy of Peter.\u201d\u00a0<\/a>I replied in four parts:<\/p>\n

*<\/div>\n
Reply to Lucas Banzoli\u2019s 205 Potshots at St. Peter, Part I<\/a>\u00a0[5-26-22]<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Lucas Banzoli\u2019s 205 \u201cPetrine Potshots\u201d, Part II<\/a>\u00a0\/\u00a0Part III<\/a>\u00a0\/\u00a0Part IV<\/a>\u00a0[5-30-22]<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n

Banzoli, like Jason Engwer, also seems to have fallen off the face of the earth, after I started critiquing many of his articles. Go figure . . .<\/p>\n

When . . . various early patristic sources (Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Tertullian) comment on why the Roman church is significant, they mention virtues like faith, love, and generosity and other non-papal factors, like the Roman church\u2019s faithfulness to apostolic teaching, its location in the capital of the empire, and the presence and martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome. A papacy isn\u2019t mentioned . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Jason conveniently skips over St. Clement of Rome<\/a> (d. 99; reigned starting in 88 AD), who was \u2014 according to\u00a0 Irenaeus<\/a> (c. 130-c. 202) and Tertullian<\/a> (c. 155-c. 220) \u2014<\/span> the second or third bishop of Rome and pope after Peter. His letter to the Corinthians indicated very strong papal power. As I wrote in my article: Pope St. Clement of Rome & Papal Authority<\/a> [7-28-21]:<\/div>\n
\n

Why is it that Clement is speaking with authority from Rome, settling the disputes of\u00a0other<\/em>\u00a0regions? Why don\u2019t the Corinthians\u00a0solve it themselves<\/em>, . . .? Why do they appeal to the bishop of Rome? . . .\u00a0St. Clement writes (I use the standard\u00a0Schaff translation<\/a>: no Catholic \u201cbias\u201d there!): . . .<\/p>\n

If, however, any shall\u00a0disobey<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0the words spoken by Him through us<\/strong><\/em>, let them\u00a0know\u00a0that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; . . . (59,\u00a0my bolding and italics)<\/p>\n

Joy and\u00a0gladness\u00a0will you afford us, if you become\u00a0obedient\u00a0to the words written by us and through the\u00a0Holy Spirit\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>root out the lawless\u00a0wrath\u00a0of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. (63,\u00a0my bolding and italics)<\/p>\n

Clement definitely asserts his authority over the Corinthian church far away. Again, the question is: \u201cwhy<\/em>?\u201d What\u00a0sense<\/em>\u00a0does that make in a Protestant-type ecclesiology where every region is autonomous and there is supposedly no hierarchical authority in the Christian Church? Why must they \u201cobey\u201d the bishop from another region (sections 59, 63)? Not only does Clement assert strong authority;\u00a0he also claims that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are speaking \u201cthrough\u201d him<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n

That is\u00a0extraordinary<\/em>, and very similar to what we see in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:28 (\u201cFor it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things\u201d: RSV) and in Scripture itself. It\u2019s not strictly inspiration but it is sure something akin to\u00a0infallibility<\/em>\u00a0(divine protection from error and the pope as a unique mouthpiece of, or representative of God).<\/p>\n

Moreover, Max Lackmann, a Lutheran, makes the observation:<\/p>\n

Clement, as the spokesman of the whole People of God . . . admonishes the Church of Corinth in serious, authoritative and brotherly tones to correct the internal abuses of their ecclesiastical community. He censures, exhorts, cautions, entreats . . . The use of the expression send back in the statement: Send back speedily unto us our messengers (1 Clement 65,1), is not merely a special kind of biblical phrase but also a form of Roman imperial command. The Roman judge in a province of the empire sent back a messenger or a packet of documents to the imperial capital or to the court of the emperor (Acts 25:21). Clement of Rome doubtless also knew this administrative terminology of the imperial government and used it effectively. (In Hans Asmussen, et al,\u00a0The Unfinished Reformation<\/em>, translated by Robert J. Olsen, Notre Dame, Indiana: Fides Publishers Association, 1961, 84-85)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

Rome is about 617 miles from Corinth<\/a>. That would be like the archbishop of Detroit (my hometown) issuing instructions to the bishop and people of Des Moines Iowa (600 miles away<\/a>) and saying that the latter better obey, lest \u201cthey involve themselves in transgression and serious danger\u201d and claiming that \u201cthe words written by us\u201d were \u201cthrough the Holy Spirit.\u201d No two bishops in the Catholic Church talk like that to each other. Nor do leaders of denominations talk with each other in this rather authoritarian and superior-subordinate manner.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
It makes no sense except as an early manifestation of self-conscious papal power and authority. We have that in this First Epistle of Clement<\/a>, which is usually dated to 96 AD. Thus, explicit evidence for a papacy is present in the Bible and in a letter by an apostolic father from 96 AD. Jesus\u2019 words are recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, which is dated by conservative Bible scholars to before 70; probably in the 60s AD.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
If a papacy existed, it would be surprising if such a significant office weren\u2019t referred to explicitly and often. But if it were referred to implicitly rather than explicitly, we would accept something that implicitly comes from the authority of Jesus and the apostles, even though the lack of explicit reference to it would be surprising. The problem with the papacy is that it isn\u2019t taught explicitly or implicitly.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Nonsense again. I have shown an explicit reference in 96 AD from St. Clement of Rome. Keep reading to learn what many good Protestant scholars think is the teaching in Matthew 16 regarding Peter\u2019s authority.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
[T]here\u2019s nothing about, say, the canonicity of Hebrews that makes it as suspicious as the papacy. . . . There\u2019s no comparable situation with Hebrews\u2019 canonicity. . . . Similarly, there\u2019s no evidence supporting the papacy comparable to or better than what we have for the canonicity of Hebrews (e.g., what Eusebius reported about the widespread acceptance of Hebrews as scripture when he was composing his church history in the late third and early fourth centuries; . . . ). . . . The evidence for something like the canonicity of Hebrews is better than what we have for the papacy . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Really? The book of Hebrews wasn\u2019t considered canonical at all during the period of 60s-96 AD: where we have explicit evidence for the papacy. Indeed, in the west it wasn\u2019t in the canon until the 4th century, while in the east it was accepted in the period between 250-325. It wasn\u2019t included in the Muratorian Canon<\/a> (c. 190), which did<\/em> include The Apocalypse of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon. [see my The New Testament Canon & Historical Processes<\/a> (InterVarsity Press, 1996).] St. Cyprian (d. 258) never cites it; nor does he ever cite James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, or Jude [F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture<\/em>, 1988, pp. 184-185]. Origen (d. 254) regarded Hebrews as of disputable canonicity [Bruce, ibid<\/em>., p. 193]. The \u201cCheltenham\u201d canon, likely from North Africa, dating from 365, doesn\u2019t include Hebrews [Bruce, ibid<\/em>., pp. 219-220]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Now I will present an overview of how many prominent Protestant scholars and reference works exegete \u201ckeys of the kingdom\u201d and what they believe it to mean (with references in footnotes below).<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
W. F. Albright<\/strong> and C. S. Mann<\/strong> [1], concurring with the insights of Roland de Vaux<\/strong> [2]: \u201cThe keys are the symbol of authority . . . the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel.\u201d Craig S. Keener<\/strong> [3]: \u201cThe image of keys (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration . . .\u201d \/ \u201cprobably refers primarily to a legislative authority in the church.\u201d M. Eugene Boring<\/strong> [4]: \u201cThe keeper of the keys has authority within the house as administrator and teacher (cf. Isa 22:20-25, which may have influenced Matthew here). The language of binding and loosing is rabbinic terminology for authoritative teaching, for having the authority to interpret the Torah and apply it to particular cases, declaring what is permitted and what is not permitted. Jesus . . .here gives his primary disciple the authority to teach in his name.\u201d \/ \u201cauthoritative teaching, . . . that lets heaven\u2019s power rule in earthly things . . . . Peter\u2019s role as holder of the keys is fulfilled now, on earth, as chief teacher of the church.\u201d<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
George Buttrick<\/strong> [5]: \u201cThe keys of the kingdom would be committed to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority.\u201d S. T. Lachs<\/strong> [6]: \u201cThe authority of Peter is to be over the Church, and this authority is represented by the keys.\u201d R. T. France<\/strong> [7]: \u201cPeter\u2019s \u2018power of the keys\u2019 declared in [Matthew] 16:19 is . . . that of the steward . . . . whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household.\u201d \/ \u201cNot only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority . . . The image of \u2018keys\u2019 (plural) perhaps suggests . . . the steward, who regulates its [the house\u2019s] administration . . . an authority derived from a \u2018delegation\u2019 of God\u2019s sovereignty\u201d [16]. Ralph Earle<\/strong> [8]: \u201cPeter would give decisions, based on the teachings of Jesus, which would be bound in heaven; that is, honored by God.\u201d J. Jeremias<\/strong> [9]: \u201cappointment to full authority. He who has the keys has on the one side control, e.g., over the council chamber or treasury, cf. Mt. 13:52, and on the other the power to allow or forbid entry, cf. Rev. 3:7.\u201d<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
F. F. Bruce<\/strong> [10]: \u201cThe keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . . (Isaiah 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward.\u201d Oscar Cullman<\/strong> [11]: \u201cJust as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of his house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the house.\u201d<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n

New Bible Dictionary<\/em><\/strong> [12]: \u201cIn the . . . exercise of the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical discipline, the thought is of administrative authority (Is 22:22) with regard to the requirements of the household of faith. The use of censures, excommunication, and absolution is committed to the Church in every age, to be used under the guidance of the Spirit . . . So Peter, in T.W. Manson<\/strong>\u2019s words, is to be \u2018God\u2019s vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God\u2019 (The Sayings of Jesus<\/em>, 1954, p. 205).\u201d \/ \u201cIn the Old Testament a steward is a man who is \u2018over a house\u2019 (Gen 43:19, 44:4; Is 22:15, etc.). In the New Testament there are two words translated steward: epitropos<\/em> (Mt 20:8; Gal 4:2), i.e. one to whose care or honour one has been entrusted, a curator, a guardian; and oikonomos<\/em> (Lk 16:2-3; 1 Cor 4:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 4:10), i.e. a manager, a superintendent \u2013 from oikos<\/em> (\u2018house\u2019) and nemo<\/em>\u00a0(\u2018to dispense\u2019 or \u2018to manage\u2019).<\/p>\n

Eerdmans Bible Dictionary<\/em><\/strong> [13]: \u201c[T]he keys here represent authority in the Church.\u201d\u00a0Adam Clarke\u2019s Commentary<\/strong> [14]: \u201cIn allusion to the image of the key as the ensign of power, the unlimited extent of that power is expressed with great clearness as well as force by the sole and exclusive authority to open and shut.\u201d\u00a0New Bible Commentary<\/em> <\/strong>[15] \u201cThe \u2018shutting\u2019 and \u2018opening\u2019 mean the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) . . . \u201d<\/p>\n

For further references to the office of the steward in Old Testament times, see 1 Kings 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18, where the phrases used are \u201cover the house,\u201d \u201csteward,\u201d or \u201cgovernor.\u201d In Isaiah 22:15, in the same passage to which our Lord apparently refers in Matthew 16:19, Shebna, the soon-to-be deposed steward, is described in various translations as:<\/p>\n

i) \u201cMaster of the palace\u201d JB \/ NAB
\nii) \u201cIn charge of the palace\u201d NIV
\niii) \u201cMaster of the household\u201d NRSV
\niv) \u201cIn charge of the royal household\u201d NASB
\nv) \u201cComptroller of the household\u201d REB
\nvi) \u201cGovernor of the palace\u201d Moffatt<\/p>\n

Likewise, the following Protestant scholars view Matthew 16:18 as Jesus referring to Peter himself<\/em><\/strong> as \u201cthe Rock\u201d; not merely his faith. The citations and references can be found in these two articles: Primacy of St. Peter Verified by Protestant Scholars<\/a> [1994] and Protestant Scholars on Matthew 16:16-19<\/a> (Nicholas Hardesty) [9-4-06]:<\/p>\n

Henry Alford, Herman N. Ridderbos, R. T. France, William Hendriksen, Oscar Cullmann, Gerhard Maier, J. Knox Chamblin, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament<\/em>, Craig L. Blomberg, William E. McCumber, M. Eugene Boring, John A. Broadus, Albert Barnes, David Hill, New Bible Commentary<\/em>, Donald A. Hagner, Craig S. Keener, The Expositor\u2019s Bible Commentary<\/em>, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary<\/em>, Philip Schaff,\u00a0Lange\u2019s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew<\/em>, vol. 8, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary<\/em>, W. F. Albright, and C. S. Mann (The Anchor Bible<\/em>), The Layman\u2019s Bible Commentary<\/em>, New Bible Dictionary<\/em>, Word Studies in the New Testament<\/em> (Marvin Vincent), Encyclopaedia Britannica<\/em> (1985; article by D. W. O\u2019Connor, a Protestant), Robert McAfee Brown, D. A. Carson, Richard Baumann.<\/p>\n

Protestants at this point (even granting the above) sometimes argue that there is no indication in the Bible of papal succession<\/em>. I address that issue in many papers:<\/p>\n

Petrine & Roman Primacy & Papal Succession (vs. Calvin #14)<\/a>\u00a0[6-13-09]
\n*<\/div>\n
\n
Papal Succession & the Bible: An Exchange\u00a0<\/a>[1-27-12]<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
The Biblical Argument for Papal Succession<\/a>\u00a0[12-12-15]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Papal Succession: A Straightforward Biblical Argument<\/a>\u00a0[4-28-17]<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
FOOTNOTES<\/span><\/strong><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
[1] The Anchor Bible: Matthew<\/em>, (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1971), 196.<\/div>\n
[2] Ancient Israel<\/em>, tr. by John McHugh (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), 129 ff.<\/div>\n
[3] The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament<\/em>, (Downer\u2019s Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 256, 90.<\/div>\n
[4] \u201cMatthew,\u201d in Pheme Perkins and others, eds.,\u00a0The New Interpreter\u2019s Bible<\/em>, vol. 8, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 346.<\/div>\n
[5] with other editors, The Interpreter\u2019s Bible<\/em>, (New York: Abingdon, 1951), 453.<\/div>\n
[6] A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke<\/em>, (Hoboken, New Jersey: Ktav, 1987), 256.<\/div>\n
[7] Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher<\/em>, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1989), 247.<\/div>\n
[8] \u00a0\u201cMatthew,\u201d in A. F. Harper and others, eds.,\u00a0Beacon Bible Commentary<\/em>, vol. 6, (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1964), 156.<\/div>\n
[9] \u201cKleis,\u201d in Gerhard Kittel, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed.,\u00a0Theological Dictionary of the New Testament<\/em>, vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968), 749-750.<\/div>\n
[10] \u00a0The Hard Sayings of Jesus<\/em> (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity, 1983), 143-144.<\/div>\n
[11] Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr<\/em>, trans. Floyd V. Filson, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953), 203.<\/div>\n
[12] J. D. Douglas, editor, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1962, 1018, 1216.<\/div>\n
[13] Allen C. Myers, editor, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1987 (English revision of\u00a0Bijbelse Encyclopedie<\/em>, edited by W. H. Gispen, Kampen, Netherlands: J. H. Kok, revised edition, 1975), translated by Raymond C. Togtman and Ralph W. Vunderink, 622.<\/div>\n
[14] abridged one-volume edition by Ralph Earle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1967 (orig. 1832, 8 vols.), 581.<\/div>\n
[15] D. Guthrie, and J. A. Motyer, editors, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 3rd edition, 1970 (Reprinted, 1987, as\u00a0The Eerdmans Bible Commentary<\/em>), 603.<\/div>\n
[16] Vol. 1:\u00a0Matthew<\/em>, in Leon Morris, General Editor.,\u00a0Tyndale New Testament Commentaries<\/em>, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press\/Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, 256.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
***<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
***<\/div>\n
\n

Photo credit:<\/strong> Delivery of Keys to Saint Peter<\/em>\u00a0(c. 1525), by Vincenzo Catena (1470-1531)<\/span>\u00a0[public domain \/\u00a0Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Summary<\/em>: Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer claims that there are no indications of the papacy in the NT. I refute him, citing prominent Protestant exegetes.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

With Special Emphasis on the Protestant Exegesis of \u201cThe keys of the kingdom of heaven\u201d (Matthew 16:19) Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer again took aim at one of his favorite targets: the papacy, in his article, \u201cHow could a papacy have been referred to?\u201d (Tribalblogue, 7-30-22). His words will be in blue. *** [P]assages like […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":65458,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[231,138],"tags":[16312,598,1131,1132,163,1500,4512,161,16357,16363,1130,162,4290,1133,16360,1129],"class_list":["post-65455","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-anti-catholicism","category-papacy-infallibility","tag-50-nt-petrine-proofs","tag-apostolic-succession","tag-bible-papacy","tag-biblical-authority","tag-ecclesiology","tag-jason-engwer","tag-keys-of-the-kingdom","tag-papacy","tag-papacy-in-the-new-testament","tag-papacy-in-the-nt","tag-petrine-primacy","tag-popes","tag-primacy-of-peter","tag-primacy-of-rome","tag-pter-the-rock","tag-st-peter"],"yoast_head":"\nNo Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer) No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer)<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"With Special Emphasis on the Protestant Exegesis of "The keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 16:19) Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer claims that there are no indications of the papacy in the NT. I refute him, citing prominent Protestant exegetes.\" \/>\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\/2022\/08\/no-papacy-in-the-nt-think-again-vs-jason-engwer.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer) No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"With Special Emphasis on the Protestant Exegesis of "The keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 16:19) Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer claims that there are no indications of the papacy in the NT. I refute him, citing prominent Protestant exegetes.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/08\/no-papacy-in-the-nt-think-again-vs-jason-engwer.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-08-01T22:12:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/08\/PeterKeys5.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"386\" \/>\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=\"17 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\/2022\/08\/no-papacy-in-the-nt-think-again-vs-jason-engwer.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/08\/no-papacy-in-the-nt-think-again-vs-jason-engwer.html\",\"name\":\"No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer) No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer)\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2022-08-01T22:12:27+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-08-01T22:12:27+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"With Special Emphasis on the Protestant Exegesis of \\\"The keys of the kingdom of heaven\\\" (Matthew 16:19) Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer claims that there are no indications of the papacy in the NT. I refute him, citing prominent Protestant exegetes.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/08\/no-papacy-in-the-nt-think-again-vs-jason-engwer.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/08\/no-papacy-in-the-nt-think-again-vs-jason-engwer.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/08\/no-papacy-in-the-nt-think-again-vs-jason-engwer.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer)\"}]},{\"@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).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer) No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer)","description":"With Special Emphasis on the Protestant Exegesis of \"The keys of the kingdom of heaven\" (Matthew 16:19) Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer claims that there are no indications of the papacy in the NT. I refute him, citing prominent Protestant exegetes.","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\/2022\/08\/no-papacy-in-the-nt-think-again-vs-jason-engwer.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer) No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer)","og_description":"With Special Emphasis on the Protestant Exegesis of \"The keys of the kingdom of heaven\" (Matthew 16:19) Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer claims that there are no indications of the papacy in the NT. I refute him, citing prominent Protestant exegetes.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/08\/no-papacy-in-the-nt-think-again-vs-jason-engwer.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2022-08-01T22:12:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":640,"height":386,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/08\/PeterKeys5.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/08\/no-papacy-in-the-nt-think-again-vs-jason-engwer.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/08\/no-papacy-in-the-nt-think-again-vs-jason-engwer.html","name":"No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer) No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer)","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2022-08-01T22:12:27+00:00","dateModified":"2022-08-01T22:12:27+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"With Special Emphasis on the Protestant Exegesis of \"The keys of the kingdom of heaven\" (Matthew 16:19) Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer claims that there are no indications of the papacy in the NT. I refute him, citing prominent Protestant exegetes.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/08\/no-papacy-in-the-nt-think-again-vs-jason-engwer.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/08\/no-papacy-in-the-nt-think-again-vs-jason-engwer.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/08\/no-papacy-in-the-nt-think-again-vs-jason-engwer.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer)"}]},{"@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).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65455","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=65455"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65455\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/65458"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65455"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65455"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65455"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}