Jason Engwer: Rebuttal
In my opening remarks, I referred to some errors that are often made by Catholics when assessing the evidence for the doctrine of the papacy. Some of those errors were made by my opponent in his opening remarks. The word limits of this debate won’t allow me to respond to every argument he raised, but I want to give some representative examples to illustrate that my opponent’s conclusions are unreasonable.
Keys
I’ve already addressed the issue of the imagery of keys in scripture. What I wrote is enough to refute most of what my opponent asserted on this subject in his opening remarks. Since he emphasized Isaiah 22, however, I want to respond with some comments on that passage.
Any assertion that the keys of Matthew 16 are to be defined by the key of Isaiah 22 is unprovable. As I explained earlier, in my opening remarks, the imagery of keys is used in all sorts of ways in scripture, so it can’t be assumed that the keys of Matthew 16:19 represent papal authority. Nobody would argue, for example, that the figures in Luke 11:52 and Revelation 20:1-3 are Popes because of their possession of keys. As I explained earlier, the evidence suggests that the keys of Matthew 16:19 and the binding and loosing mentioned in the same passage are all part of the same imagery, which means that all of the disciples, not just Peter, received that power (Matthew 18:18). But even if we assume that the keys were unique to Peter, the passage says nothing about papal authority, successors, Roman bishops, etc.
Does citing Isaiah 22 change any of this? No, it doesn’t. Not only does Isaiah 22 refer to one key of David, while Matthew 16 refers to multiple keys of the kingdom of Heaven, but we also know from Revelation 3:7 that the key of Isaiah 22 is possessed today by Christ, not Peter or any bishop of Rome. If any New Testament passage is a parallel to Isaiah 22:22, it’s Revelation 3:7, not Matthew 16:19.
Even if we assumed that Matthew 16 is a parallel to Isaiah 22, there would still be problems with the Roman Catholic interpretation. The power of the key in Isaiah 22 was only temporary, and the possessor would eventually "break off and fall" (Isaiah 22:25). The key would eventually be in the possession of God (Revelation 3:7). This contradicts the Catholic assumption that a key would assure infallibility and a consistent succession. The key in Isaiah 22 didn't assure infallibility, and it eventually passed to God Himself rather than to another man.
Rather than being evidence of an early papacy, the comparison between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 is evidence of Roman Catholic desperation. What are we to conclude when such a speculative comparison to an Old Testament passage is one of the primary evidences cited by modern Catholic apologists to argue for a Divinely appointed papacy?
Luke 22:32
My opponent made claims such as the following about Luke 22:32:
Here in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter is singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. Therefore, he is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all.
The same Greek term used in reference to Peter “strengthening” in Luke 22:32 is also used of other people in other passages. In Acts 14:22, we read about Paul and Barnabas “strengthening the souls of the disciples”. In Acts 15:32, we read of how Judas and Silas “strengthened the brethren”. In Romans 16:25, we read about the Roman church being established (strengthened) through the gospel Paul preached. Etc. My opponent is trying to place far more weight on Luke 22:32 than it can bear.
The Church of Rome or the Bishop of Rome?
In my opening remarks, I explained that Catholic apologists often make the mistake of failing to distinguish between the Roman church being prominent and the Roman bishop being a Pope. My opponent fell into that error repeatedly in his opening remarks. Any influence the Roman church had is assumed to be the result of a papacy, and is read back into the apostolic era, even though there’s no evidence of its existence at the time. The claim was made that:
in the earliest days of the Church, when the Apostles still resided there, Jerusalem was also the “court of appeal” for Christians (e.g. Acts 15:2 & Acts 16:4). Yet, with the destruction of the city in A.D. 70, Jerusalem could no longer be seen as the Church’s “H.Q.” ...Nor had it been for some time, since the sack of Jerusalem was predicted by the Lord Himself (Matt 24:1-25); and the Apostles would have prepared accordingly. That is why Peter established his base at Antioch; and after that at Rome.
The earliest documents, including those of the apostles, don’t say anything about a “court of appeal” transferring from Jerusalem to Antioch to Rome. Jerusalem was influential when the apostles were there, but that doesn’t have anything to do with a papal “court of appeal” that was transferring from one city to another. All of my opponent’s arguments about a “court of appeal”, an early Christian “headquarters” that transferred from one city to another, the apostles “preparing for the destruction of Jerusalem”, etc. are speculative. Not only are the arguments speculative, but they also fall short of what the Catholic Church has taught. The Catholic Church claims that the bishop of Rome has always had papal authority, not that the church of Rome eventually became a “court of appeal” after Jerusalem and Antioch.
Pope James
How the concept of a “court of appeal” that transferred from one city to another arose is worth noting. Though most historians, including Catholic historians, don’t believe that Peter was a bishop of Rome, some conservative Catholics still maintain that he was. The earliest sources say nothing of Peter being a Roman bishop, even when discussing the Roman church and Peter’s relationship to it. There are all sorts of chronological problems with the concept of Peter having been a bishop of Rome, and the lists of Roman bishops, which appear from the second half of the second century onward, contradict one another. As I’ve mentioned, the earliest Roman churches probably were led by multiple bishops, not one bishop.
Despite this and other evidence against a succession of monarchical bishops in Rome that began with Peter, the concept that Peter was a bishop of Rome was promoted in some documents from the third century onward, especially apocryphal documents. Some Catholic apologists cite those documents to argue that Peter was a bishop of Rome. However, there are problems with relying on these documents to reach that conclusion. Not only are many of the documents historically unreliable, but other documents, including earlier ones, claim that Peter was also bishop in other cities. The Protestant historian Oscar Cullmann explains regarding Antioch, for example:
We have seen that the tradition of the episcopate [of Peter] at Antioch is exceedingly hard to defend on historical grounds, even if the letters of Ignatius suggest the assumption that the monarchical episcopate developed relatively early at Antioch. It must nevertheless be emphasized that this tradition is much older and better attested than is that of the Roman episcopate [of Peter]….
If one were determined to maintain the completely arbitrary principle according to which Peter’s episcopal office in a church could aid in giving to its later bishops the exclusive claim to Matthew 16:17 ff., then on this basis Antioch could establish a greater claim to the primacy than Rome. (Peter: Disciple - Apostle - Martyr [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster, 1953], p. 231)
Not only do some documents claim that Peter was bishop in Antioch and elsewhere, but some of the earliest apocryphal documents even claim that Peter was in submission to James, who is portrayed as a sort of papal figure. Cullmann explains:
Particularly important is the fact that the Pseudo-Clementina, which are friendly to Peter, clearly subordinate Peter to James. Peter has to “give an accounting” to James, “the bishop of the holy Church.” To him Peter sends his public addresses, and Clement calls him “Bishop of Bishops,” “leader of the holy church of the Hebrews and of the churches founded everywhere by God’s providence.” Clement traces Peter’s commission to him back to a commission that James gave to Peter. (pp. 224-225)
Contrary to my opponent’s assertion that Peter acted as Pope at the council in Jerusalem in Acts 15, James is the last one to speak, he uses the most authoritative language (“I judge”, etc.), and it’s his language that’s incorporated into the letter that’s sent out (Acts 15:13-29). Should we conclude on the basis of the Pseudo-Clementina, Acts 15, and such that James was a Pope? Obviously, we shouldn’t, yet Catholics rely on similar evidence to argue that Peter was a Pope.
My opponent refers to Jerusalem as an early “court of appeal” that later transferred to Antioch, then to Rome. Yet, when we examine the reasons why Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome were influential early on, those reasons were associated with geography, a reputation Jerusalem already had before the time of Christ, the wealth of the Roman church, the presence of the apostles in those cities, and other factors that are irrelevant to a Divinely appointed papal office. Jerusalem continued to be influential after Peter left the city, and other cities that Peter went to never became as influential as Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome were.
The Roman Church is Never Taught?
My opponent claimed, in reference to First Clement:
So, here --as early as A.D. 90 --we have the church of Rome teaching and issuing authoritative instruction to the other churches --something that is never done in the reverse.
Of course, most of the early correspondence among Christians involved one individual writing to another individual or to a church. In that regard, there aren’t many letters from one church to another church. But the Roman church did receive instruction from individuals. Paul’s epistle to the Romans, for example, instructs the Roman church on matters of doctrine, church discipline, etc. Though my opponent claimed, incorrectly, that Ignatius never instructs the Roman church in his letter to the Romans, he actually does. We read in chapter 7:
The prince of this world would fain carry me away, and corrupt my disposition towards God. Let none of you, therefore, who are in Rome help him; rather be ye on my side, that is, on the side of God. Do not speak of Jesus Christ, and yet set your desires on the world. Let not envy find a dwelling-place among you; nor even should I, when present with you, exhort you to it, be ye persuaded to listen to me, but rather give credit to those things which I now write to you.
Does Ignatius also say, however, that the Roman church teaches others and is not itself taught? Yes, he does, but the context is important. Ignatius is arguing that the Roman church teaches others by its love and generosity, not in the sense of papal jurisdiction.
Of course, if we were to conclude that the Roman church had papal authority because it taught and influenced other churches, we would also have to conclude that Paul, John, Jude, James, Ignatius, Polycarp, Cyprian, and other church leaders were Popes, since they also sent letters of advice, rebuke, exhortation, etc. to other churches and other church leaders. It was common practice among the early Christians to do so. Did the Roman church advise the Corinthian church? Paul likewise advised the Roman church, and Polycarp advised the Philippians on a matter of discipline within their church. Did people send letters to the Roman church commending it for its love and generosity, asking it for favors, etc.? They also sent letters to other churches commending them, asking for advice, etc., such as Ignatius “begging” the Ephesian church to allow one of its deacons to remain with him, promising that it would bring honor to the bishop of Ephesus. To read a papacy into any of this is speculative and unreasonable.
Victor and Excommunication
The word limit for this rebuttal won’t allow me to address every issue my opponent raised in as much depth as I would like to. However, I want to at least briefly address his claims about the authority exercised by Victor, bishop of Rome, during the controversy over the celebration of Easter in the late second century. For those who want to read more about this and other subjects relating to the historicity of the papacy, I have an article at my web site
( site since defunct )
that addresses the evidence against a papacy among the earliest church fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc.). The Easter controversy, involving Victor, is one of the issues addressed in the article. I also recommend reading the editor’s note at the end of (link since defunct) for some comments on a passage my opponent cited from Irenaeus’ Against Heresies. There are all sorts of disagreements among scholars as to how to translate the passage, and even the translation most favorable to Roman Catholic claims says nothing of a papacy.
Regarding Victor and the Easter controversy, the comments of Eastern Orthodox historian Nicholas Afanassieff bear mentioning:
Let us avoid the common mistake of talking about the churches of Asia Minor being “excommunicated [by Victor].” At the end of the second century, nobody thought it possible for one church to excommunicate another; nothing could be at issue beyond a breaking of brotherly communion between the churches. (The Primacy of Peter [Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press], 1992, pp. 136-137)
George Salmon explains:
A few words may be necessary to explain what was meant by the threat of excommunication which was used against them [the churches of Asia Minor]: it meant a suspension of those friendly relations which I have already described (p. 282) as existing between the different Churches which all regarded themselves as members of one great community. That one Church should break these relations with another did not necessarily imply any claim of superiority. If the Sovereign of England were to dismiss the Russian ambassador, it would be a token of hostility, but would not imply any claim of superiority over the Sovereign of Russia. (The Infallibility of the Church, p. 385)
Throughout history, churches and individuals have excommunicated and anathematized one another without any implication of one having governmental authority over the other. When the Eastern and African churches excommunicated the Roman church in the sixth century during the “three chapters” controversy, for example, would my opponent conclude that those churches must have had authority over the Roman church? Salmon also points out:
Suppose it had been Irenaeus who had rashly broken communion with the Asiatic Churches; suppose that Victor had then written a letter to Irenaeus, sharply rebuking him, and had written also to other bishops, warning them not to separate from those who had been unwarrantably excommunicated; and suppose that in consequence of this action of Victor’s the threatened schism had been averted, would not that have been paraded as a decisive proof of Papal Supremacy? (p. 386)
Though Victor tried to change the stance of the churches of Asia Minor, and though he threatened to break fellowship with them if they didn’t change their stance, they ignored his threats. The church father and church historian Eusebius, in his church history (5:24), records part of a letter written to Victor by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus. Polycrates explains that he and other church leaders will maintain their stance on the celebration of Easter, and that they aren’t intimidated by Victor’s threats:
I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘we ought to obey God rather than man.’
The Roman Catholic historian Klaus Schatz summarizes this dispute over the celebration of Easter, as well as a dispute a few decades later that also involved the bishop of Rome:
Rome did not succeed in maintaining its position against the contrary opinion and praxis of a significant portion of the Church. The two most important controversies of this type were the disputes over the feast of Easter and heretical baptism. Each marks a stage in Rome’s sense of authority and at the same time reveals the initial resistance of other churches to the Roman claim. (Papal Primacy, p. 11)
“Anti-Catholic” or Historical?
My opponent’s opening remarks referred to people such as William Webster and James White being “anti-Catholics”. The implication, of course, is that these men are irrational in their opposition to Roman Catholicism. To anybody who approaches these issues soberly and with an open mind, I need only recommend reading Webster’s and White’s material. Webster, for example, in Peter and the Rock, has hundreds of pages of citations of church fathers and historians, documenting the inaccuracy of Roman Catholic claims about the papacy. Though my opponent dismisses White’s arguments about Luke 22:32 and John 21:15-17 as “anti-Catholic” and unreasonable, White documents in The Roman Catholic Controversy (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House, 1996) that he’s only repeating the same interpretations applied to those passages by various church fathers. The problem isn’t that opponents of Catholicism are irrationally “anti-Catholic”. The problem is that Catholics have been misled by their own denomination, which has a record of dishonesty and attempting to revise history (the Donation of Constantine, the pseudo-Isidorian decretals, etc.).
There’s a famous quote from the Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman to the effect that to know history is to cease being Protestant. Actually, the opposite is true. To know history is to cease being Roman Catholic. Evangelicals reject the doctrine of the papacy not because they’re “anti-Catholic”, but because the papacy is not historically apostolic.
Jason Engwer
About | Apologetics | Philosophy | Spirituality | Books | Audio | Links