Refutation of Jason Engwer's The New Testament's Denial of the Papacy: The Death Knell to Roman Catholicism
Jason's words will be in blue; my words will be in black.
While Peter is mentioned a lot in the gospels and in the earliest chapters of Acts, often this is because he's the most outspoken and the most rash of the disciples (Matthew 16:16, Matthew 16:22, Matthew 18:21, Matthew 26:33, Mark 9:5, John 18:10). This is why Peter received so much attention from Jesus (Matthew 16:23, Luke 22:31-34, John 18:11, John 21:15-17). From the second half of Acts forward, however, Paul is mentioned much more than Peter. Paul ends up writing much more of the New Testament than Peter does, and the earliest church fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, etc.) speak more of Paul than they do of Peter, and they make statements about Paul that are more exalted than what they say about Peter. Paul, by far, receives the most attention early on, even though Peter became more popular among many of the church fathers who wrote from the third century onward.
Just giving an alternate explanation for Peter's seemingly authoritative actions doesn't disprove his primacy. Plus, Jesus does more than just give Peter attention; He gives him authority! All the apostles together received the power to bind and loose in Matthew 18:18, but only Peter received it BY HIMSELF, INDEPENDENT OF ANY OTHER APOSTLES (Matthew 16:18). Jesus BUILT THE CHURCH on Peter (Matthew 16:18). Only Peter received the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:19). Jesus prayed SPECIFICALLY for Peter so that his faith may not fail and that he may strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:31-32). Jesus asked Peter if he loved Jesus MORE THAN THE OTHER APOSTLES (John 21:15). Jesus told Peter, and PETER ONLY, to feed His lambs, tend His sheep, and feed His lambs (John 21:15-17). This is hardly "just more attention."
Yes, Paul is mentioned more than Peter from the second half of Acts forward, but that's because Acts is concerned with the spread of the early Church, which consisted mostly of Gentile converts, and Paul was the primary missionary to the Gentiles. And so what that Paul wrote most of the New Testament? What does that have to do with anything?
And about the Church Fathers. Well, that's off topic; this is supposed to be about the papacy in the New Testament, not the papacy in the Fathers.
Did the apostles have any concept of Peter being their ruler? No (Luke 9:46, Luke 22:24, 1 Corinthians 12:28, 2 Corinthians 12:11, Galatians 1:1, 2:6-9).
In Luke 9:46 and Luke 22:24, the apostles argue about which of them was the greatest. Obviously Jason interprets "greatest" to mean "one with the most authority," but he's reading his own interpretation into the text. They were arguing who was the greatest human being, the greatest servant of God, not the one with the most authority.
In 1 Corinthians 12:28, Paul lists various Church offices, including apostles and teachers; however, he doesn't list pope. Just because Paul doesn't mention Peter being the pope doesn't mean that Peter wasn't. Paul was talking about how we are all members of the body of Christ, and he listed general groups of people. The pope, however, is just one specific office; it does not fit into this context.
In 2 Corinthians 12:11, Paul says that he is not inferior to any super-apostles, and Jason thinks he is referring to the other apostles. However, if you read this verse in context (2 Corinthians 11:1-5, for example), you'll see that Paul was referring to false teachers and being sarcastic by calling them super-apostles.
In Galatians 1:1, Paul says that he is an apostle sent by God and not by man. How does this show that he didn't have any concept of Peter as pope?
In Galatians 2:6-9, all Paul says is that those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders in Jerusalem contributed nothing to him. He obviously isn't talking about Peter, because Peter, along with James and John, was called an acknowledged pillar in verse 9, not a supposedly acknowledged leader. He even says, "what they actually were makes no difference to me," implying that he didn't know if they really were leaders, but he did know that Peter was a leader.
Actually, Jason digs himself into a hole by quoting this passage; two surrounding passages support the papacy. In Galatians 1:18, Paul goes to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter. Why? Because Peter was the head of the apostles. And in Galatians 2:13, the Jews (even Barnabas!!!) followed Peter's example in not eating with the Gentiles, so Paul had to rebuke him. If even Barnabas followed Peter's example, Peter almost certainly had to have been the leader of the Church.
Did Jesus think that Peter was a shepherd in the sense that he would oversee the other apostles? Apparently not. To the contrary, He tells Peter that John's future is none of his (Peter's) concern (John 21:21-22).
Here, all Jesus is saying is that Peter cannot change Jesus' will; all he can do is follow Jesus.
The apostles are repeatedly portrayed as being at the same level of authority (Matthew 19:28, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14). During the doctrinal dispute in Acts 15, Peter's testimony is heard (Acts 15:7-11), but doesn't settle the dispute. James has the last word (Acts 15:13-21), and his terminology is incorporated into the letter that's sent out (Acts 15:23-29). The letter mentions "the apostles and the brethren who are elders", but says nothing of papal authority.
First of all, just because the apostles are on equal authority on some issues doesn't mean that Peter isn't their leader. They had the same authority IN THAT THEY WERE APOSTLES; however, Peter had a special authority. Matthew 19:28 says that the apostles will judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Okay, they all have equal authority in this area; however, this has nothing to do with leading the Church on earth, which is where the pope has special authority. In 1 Corinthians 12:28, Paul is just listing groups of people; there was no reason for him to mention Peter's special authority. Both Ephesians 2:20 and Revelation 21:14 say that the kingdom of God is built upon the 12 apostles. Again, they take the apostles as a general group, and the context doesn't call for Peter being singled out.
In the Council of Jerusalem, Peter speaks up "after there had been much debate" (Acts 15:7), and after he speaks, EVERYONE is quiet as they listen to Paul and Barnabas tell of the signs and wonders that God worked through them among the Gentiles. Notice that after the debating, Peter spoke authoritatively, and everyone was quiet after he spoke. Then, James reaffirms Peter's decision, even referring to Peter's authority! To show that James DIDN'T speak authoritatively as Peter did, I will quote from Jesus, Peter, and the Keys by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess:
"What language indicates that the opinion of James is not a pronouncement of the council? Verse 19: 'my sentence.'
"The actual words used, 'And so I give my voice' (Ego krino) (v. 19), do not actually favor the view that he [James] was summing up, or deciding the matter on his own authority. Elsewhere in Acts [13:46, 16:15, 26:28] the same verb krino is used to denote the expression of an opinion and could better be expressed by the phrase 'in my opinion,' or 'as for me.'" Michael M. Winter, Saint Peter and the Popes, (Baltimore: Helicon, 1960), 32.
As bishop of Jerusalem, James naturally would've held a place of honor at the council. As for James' terminology being used, I think that's irrelevant; just because James' terminology was the best doesn't mean he made the decision.
Yes, the decision was attributed to the council as a whole, but Peter had the final say in the council. Just because the decision was attributed to the council as a whole doesn't take away from Peter's authority or the fact that he had the last word at the council.
Did the apostles view the Roman church as some sort of mother church that had supreme authority? No. To the contrary, Paul writes a letter of doctrinal and moral instruction to the Roman church. In his letter to the Romans and in his letters written from prison in Rome, Paul never mentions a papacy, nor does he even mention Peter in association with the Roman church. Paul refers to himself instructing and caring for all of the churches (1 Corinthians 4:17, 7:17, 2 Corinthians 11:28), something he surely couldn't have done if he didn't have authority over the Roman church. Paul writes about church government over and over again (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11-12, etc.), but never mentions a papacy. To the contrary, he refers to apostles as the highest authority (1 Corinthians 12:28), with no mention of a Pope who is above the authority of the apostles generally.
Paul wrote a letter to the laypeople in Rome, not to the Church officials or the bishop of Rome. As an apostle, he would've had authority over all the laypeople.
There are a few reasons why Paul might not have wanted to mention Peter in his letter:
� To say that the leader of the Church was in the capital of the Roman empire would've been a death sentence for Peter; Paul could've been looking out for Peter's safety
I agree that Paul would've had authority over all the Churches because he was an apostle; however, this doesn't mean he had as much authority as Peter.
In the two verses that Jason gave where Paul talks about Church government, he is talking about the GENERAL categories of people, not each specific office. There was no reason for him to mention the pope in this context. In 1 Corinthians 12:28, he mentions apostles as the highest GENERAL GROUP of people with authority, and that is most certainly the apostles.
Peter himself seems to have had no concept of a papacy. He refers to his authority as an apostle (1 Peter 1:1, 2 Peter 1:1) and an eyewitness to Christ's earthly ministry (1 Peter 5:1, 2 Peter 1:16), but never as a Pope. Although he had just as much apostolic authority as the other apostles, Peter referred to his governmental authority as nothing more than that of a "fellow elder" (1 Peter 5:1). When Peter was nearing death, he said that he was leaving behind written documents in order for people to be able to remember what he had taught (2 Peter 1:13-15, 3:1-2). He doesn't say anything about leaving behind a successor, much less a Roman bishop with papal authority.
Well, yes, Peter WAS an apostle; it's no surprise that he would refer to himself as an apostle. By referring to himself as an elder, he was practicing what he preached, humility (1 Peter 3:8, 5:3). If you want to take 1 Peter 5:1 to mean that he was just an elder, then he wouldn't be an apostle either, which is absurd. So what if Peter never referred to himself as pope in two of his letters? He didn't have to.
Peter doesn't say that he will leave written documents for people to remember what he taught. 2 Peter 1:13-15 just says that he will make every effort so that Christians will be able to remember his teachings after his death. For all we know, this could be by apostolic succession (the next pope). In 2 Peter 3:1-2, all he says is that his letters are trying to remind his readers could remember the words spoken by the prophets and Jesus' commands. Since Peter's two letters do not contain EVERYTHING spoken by Jesus and the prophets, he is obviously not teaching sola scriptura.
Obviously, there was no papacy during the time of the apostles, contrary to the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. And it isn't a matter of a papacy not being mentioned just because there was never any occasion for it to be mentioned. If there was a papacy during the time of the apostles, there would have been many contexts in which mentioning it would have been appropriate (Luke 22:24, John 21:22, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Peter 1:13-15, 3:1-2, etc.). Yet, a papacy is never mentioned. It's even contradicted by Paul's references to his equality with and independence from the other apostles, for example (Galatians 1-2, etc.). Even if the doctrine of the papacy wasn't contradicted by the New Testament, its absence would be enough to make the claims of the Catholic Church untenable.
In 1 Timothy and Titus, Paul doesn't say anything about Scripture's authority, so, by Jason's logic, it doesn't have authority either (although we know it does because OTHER books mention it). Paul's purpose in writing the letters wasn't to remind Titus and Timothy of any binding, infallible authorities, so there's no reason why he would've mentioned the papacy. Where he DOES mention sources of authority is 2 Timothy (specifically 3:14-17), and THIS is where Paul might've mentioned the papacy. However, he doesn't. Why not? Who knows, but this one absence doesn't prove anything. Actually, in 2 Timothy, Paul appeals to Scripture (3:16-17) and Tradition (1:13, 2:2, 3:14), so the papacy was included in the Tradition.
As I have shown, none of the passages that Jason brings up to refute the papacy actually hold up. The only possibly legitimate argument he has is that the bible is silent about the papacy in certain places. However, this is an argument from silence, and arguments from silence rarely prove anything. Plus, as I will show, the places where the bible DOES mention Peter's authority more than make up for the silence in other parts.
The truth is that the papacy is an institution that took hundreds of years to come into being. Catholic apologists try to force a post-apostolic institution into the writings of the apostles (Colossians 2:8). To see a papacy in the New Testament, the Catholic apologist must:
1.) rely on speculative interpretations of passages like Matthew 16:18-19 and Luke 22:32 (Where do any of these passages mention papal authority or successors?)
Where do they mention papal authority? Come on, Jason; you've GOT to be kidding me.
Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven in Matthew 16:19. In the ancient world, keys were a symbol of authority (Isaiah 22:22, Revelation 3:7), so Jesus was giving Peter authority over HEAVEN! If THAT'S not papal authority, then I don't know what is! Also in Matthew 16:19, Jesus says that whatever Peter binds and looses on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. If something is bound in heaven, that means that God bound it. God cannot lie, so whatever Peter binds must be infallible. As for succession, that's more implicit. First of all, why would Jesus give Peter all this authority, only to have it die with him? That's absurd! Secondly, as many scholars (both Catholic and Protestant) have noted, Isaiah 22:20-22 foreshadows Matthew 16:18, and the office of prime minister (or steward over the house, or whatever other names it has in Scripture) in Israel was passed on from generation to generation, so the papacy should also.
While Luke 22:32 doesn't mention successors, it does mention authority. Jesus prays SPECIFICALLY for Peter that his strength may not fail and that he may strengthen his brethren. Why specifically Peter? Because he was the leader of the Church.
Also, Jason seems to have forgotten about John 21:15-18, where Jesus tells Peter to feed His lambs, tend His sheep, and feed His sheep. The metaphor of a shepherd as a king was common in ancient times, and Scripture uses the metaphor of feeding for ruling (2 Samuel 5:2, Isaiah 40:9-11, Ezekiel 34:23). Now, remember, John's Gospel was written after Peter died, so why would John include this incident if Peter's authority died with him?
Last but not least, Peter is always listed first when named among the apostles (except for 1 Corinthians 3:22 and Galatians 2:9). In the Gospels, not only is Peter always listed first, but Judas Iscariot is always listed LAST (Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16). Matthew even sets Peter apart by calling him the first! In the list of the apostles in Acts (1:13), Peter is also mentioned first. EVERY TIME Peter is mentioned with one or more apostles in Acts, he is ALWAYS listed first (for example, Acts 3:1, 3:11, 4:1); the apostles are even sometimes just called "Peter and the apostles" (Acts 2:37, 5:29)!
I already dealt with points 2 and 3, so I will skip them.
4.) assume that unique things said or done by or about Peter are evidence that he was a Pope, while denying any papal implications when something unique is said or done by or about another apostle
Ok. What unique things have other apostles done or said that have papal implications?
� Maybe Peter wasn't in Rome when Paul wrote the letter; Peter could've been out preaching and using Rome as a home base. Or maybe Paul wrote the letter when the Jews (including Peter) were expelled from Rome by Emperor Claudius.
� Actually, Paul does seem to refer to Peter in Romans 15:20 when he says, "Thus I make it my ambition to proclaim the good news, not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on someone else's foundation." The "someone else" who had already laid the foundation in Rome was probably Peter.
