There is a very good reason for the fact that Catholics do not defend the doctrine of Scripture alone: the Bible does not offer solid evidence for Catholicism. No where in the Bible does Jesus, or anyone else, say “Peter, you are the leader of the apostles.” In the absence of clear evidence, Catholics make do with cryptic passages, muddy interpretations, and tradition.
Section One: The Catholic Proof Texts
Upon This Rock (Matthew 16:18)
The Catholic Position: Jesus names Peter rock in Matthew 16:18. So the passage means: “you are Peter (rock), and on this rock (Peter) I will build my church.”
Response: The original version of the Bible was written in Greek. And the Greek text uses two different words for rock: petros and petra. The passage really says: “you are petros (Peter), and on this petra (Jesus) I will build my church.” Jesus is really the rock on which the church is built. Imagine a father telling his son: “you are little man, and on this big man I will raise my family.”
Scripture provides more evidence. The word petros is used 116 times in the New Testament, exclusively as a name for Peter. Petra is used 16 times in the New Testament, exclusively as either large rocks or Jesus. An example of petra being used for Jesus is in 1 Corinthians 10:4: “for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock (petra) was Christ.” It doesn’t get any clearer than that. Matthew 7:24 is an example of petra being used for large rocks. It is the passage in which Jesus tells people to build their house on rock (petra), not on sand. In this parable the rock (petra) is a metaphor for God. We have a clear distinction throughout scripture: Petros is Peter, petra is Jesus and God.
One Catholic response is clearly irrelevant. Catholics point out that Peter cannot have a female name. So he had to be named petros, not petra. That is true, but it has nothing to do with the real debate, which is whether petra is a metaphor for Jesus, or for Peter.
Catholics have a second response. They argue that the original conversation between Peter and Jesus would have been in Aramaic, and Aramaic has only one word for rock, which is cephas. So the conversation would have gone: “you are cephas, and on this cephas I will build my church.” But that is a guess, we have no idea how the conversation unfolded besides what is recorded in scripture. Jesus may have interjected a word from another language, or he may have used cephas both times but gestured to Himself the second time to make it clear that Jesus is the rock upon which the church is built. Either way, this is a moot point, because the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, not our best reconstruction of the original conversation. And the Bible is in Greek, and it makes a distinction between petros and petra.
This leads Catholics into a third tactic, which is to claim that the original scriptures, such as the Peshitta, are actually in Aramaic. This is simply false. Archeologists can date manuscripts, and the earliest versions of the bible are not in Aramaic. The earliest surviving copies of the Bible are actually only small fragments of papyrus rolls. The bulk of the papyrus decayed over time and only a small scrap is left. These papyrus scraps have names like p52 (which is one of the oldest), and they are written in Greek. This is why scholarly consensus is behind Greek Primacy.
Keys to Heaven (Matthew 16:19)
The Catholic Position: The very next verse makes it clear that Peter is chief apostle: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Peter is clearly given the authority to make the decisions on earth.
Response: Jesus makes the same promise to all of the apostles in Matthew 18:18 “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
However, there are some differences in wording between Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18. Some Catholics would then build their case around these differences, but it requires that the following three conditions are met. (1) the difference in wording grants extra “oomph” to Peter’s ability to bind and loose, (2) the ability to bind and loose amounts to having leadership of the apostles, and (3) Peter is tacitly excluded from the second and weaker terms of the binding and loosing powers granted in the second promise.
The first of these three conditions is reasonable: the language in Peter’s promise does seem a bit more developed and forceful. But (2) fails. Paul has more authority over doctrine and theology, as evidenced by the fact that he wrote far more epistles than Peter. But that does not make Paul leader of the apostles. Just having a certain spiritual gift does not mean that you also have the spiritual gift of leadership over apostles. In other words: the gift of extra strong binding and loosing does not entail the gift of leadership over apostles. And finally, it is hard to argue (3) since Peter was part of the audience and had an interlude with Jesus immediately after the second binding and loosing promise. Peter was clearly part of Jesus’ audience the second time through.
Feed My Sheep (John 21:15)
The Catholic Position: The repetition in the passage serves a purpose. Jesus gives Peter three charges: take care of the children, take care of the laity (non-clergy believers) and take care of the clergy. This makes Peter the head of the clergy, and all earthly Christianity.
Response: The protestant position is explained by Jesus himself in Luke 22:31:
31″Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”
33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.”
34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”
The threefold confession of love was Peter’s repentance for his threefold denial of Christ. The command to feed Jesus’ sheep is to strengthen the faith of his brothers in Christ. That is a mission that Christ demands of all believers, not just Peter. For scriptural proof, in Acts 14:21-22 Paul strengthens other disciples.
The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15)
The Catholic Position: Peter presides over the council of Jerusalem. And even Paul submits to the authority of the council. Therefore Peter is the chief apostle.
Response: Peter speaks first at the council, but James speaks last. Who is usually in charge of a meeting: the person who speaks first, or the person who speaks last? Furthermore, listen to how James closed the meeting in Acts 15:19.
It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
That ended out being the action taken. James ended the meeting, and James made the judgment on how much of Jewish law applied to the gentiles. James’ judgment is included exactly in the final letter sent by the council. If Acts 15 supports papal primacy, then it shows that James is the leader of the apostles.
Of course, as the letter of the council makes clear, it is really the Holy Spirit in charge. There is no need for leaders when the Holy Spirit guides all the apostles. But against the Catholics, the Holy Spirit does not use Peter, but James.
Peter’s Special Role
The Catholic Position: Peter was the first apostle chosen. He is always listed first amongst the apostles. When Jesus had a special point to make, or entered into conversation with someone, it was almost always Peter. This makes Peter primary among apostles
Response: Catholics make a huge leap from Peter being prominently featured and playing a large role to being made official leader of the other apostles. Lots of apostles had special roles in various ways. John is the apostle Jesus loved. That sounds like a better criterion for being leader of the apostles than Peter’s bumbling but well-intentioned ways. James presided over the council of Jerusalem, the first gathering of the apostles. Paul was apostle to the gentiles, worked the hardest to spread the Good News (1 Corinthians 15:10), wrote 13 books of the Bible (more than any other apostles), and settled more issues of doctrine than any other apostle. Paul also rebuked Peter for being wrong (Galatians 2:11). This is why Paul is equal to the most eminent apostles (2 Corinthians 11:5, 2 Corinthians 12:11). If anything, Paul should be the Pope!
Section Two: The Protestant Proof Texts
Paul’s Apostolic Authority
You can make an excellent case against Peter’s alleged primacy by invoking Paul, who is clearly a more important apostle than Peter. Paul was also chosen by Jesus (Acts 9). Paul, like Peter, could work miracles such as cast out an evil spirit (Acts 16), heal the sick (Acts 14, Acts 19, Acts 28), and raise the dead (Acts 20). Paul wrote more books of the New Testament than any other apostle. Paul wrote 13 books of the New Testament, Peter wrote two. Paul worked harder to spread the Good News than any other apostle (1 Corinthians 15:10). Paul was apostle to the gentiles, Peter was apostle to the Jews. If any could claim a larger mission, it was Paul, simply because there are so many more gentiles who need to hear the Good News.
Catholics would respond by saying that Peter had a different ministry. The CEO is not necessarily the hardest worker in the company. But again, in the absence of a clear statement by Jesus making Peter the leader of the apostles, Catholics make an indirect case. They count as evidence every incident in which Peter plays an important role. It is only reasonable for Protestants to do the same. And the fact of the matter is that Paul worked harder (1 Corinthians 15:10), started more churches, settled more issues of doctrine - even against Peter (Galatians 2:11), and wrote more books of the bible than Peter did.
Paul’s Eminence
In 2 Corinthians 11:5 the apostle Paul says “5For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.” This is echoed in 2 Corinthians 12:11. This passage single-handedly refutes any claim for Peter’s primacy, because Paul is at the same level as Peter.
Here is the Catholic response. Official dogma claims that Paul meant apostles ironically, and was referring to pseudo apostles. The context of the quotes is that Paul was combating bad doctrine from false apostles. Therefore, Paul is claiming, ironically, to be as authoritative as any of these false prophets. But there is no reason to infer irony except the desire to weaken Paul’s claim to authority. A far more straightforward interpretation is that Paul was establishing his authority so that he could combat the false apostles: don’t listen to false apostles when you can listen to someone who is equal to the most eminent of apostles.
Peter Rebukes Paul
Paul rebukes Peter in Galatians 2:11, when Paul says “When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.”
Catholic would point out the fact that many Bishops, Priests and laymen have opposed the Pope. They are correct, but again we have to invoke the point that in the absence of a clear statement by Jesus saying “Peter, you are the head of the apostles” that Catholics instead make an indirect case. Every time Peter has a prominent role Catholics use it as evidence for Peter’s primacy. Conversely, when Peter is clearly mistaken about a really big issue - evangelizing the Gentiles - then it should be used as evidence against Peter’s primacy.
Who is the Greatest (Luke 9:46, 22:24)
The apostles had two separate disputes about who was the greatest amongst them. The first was shortly after the “upon this rock” speech (Luke 9:46), and the other at the Last Supper (Luke 22:24). Both of these disputes happened after Jesus’ “upon this rock” speech. There were other apostles with Jesus during that speech. The Protestant position is that if Jesus made Peter the leader of the apostles, then they would have known about it, and wouldn’t have disputed who was the greatest.
Catholics would respond by saying that the apostles are - like us - sinful and prideful men and did not want to respect Peter’s authority. But that involves reading motives into the text. The simplest interpretation is that the issue was left open. Furthermore, Jesus’ response was not to reinforce Peter’s alleged primacy, but rather to emphasize become like a child, a servant, or being the least on earth in order to become great.
Peter is not First Amongst Equals
No where in the Bible is Peter given any explicit description of authority. In fact, all signs point against it.
- Acts 15:26. “As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”
- 1 Peter 1:1. “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ.” Not chief apostle, or “first apostle amongst equals” but just a regular apostle.
- 2 Peter 1:1 ” 1Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ.”
- 1 Peter 5:1 “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed.” Peter calls himself an elder, not chief apostle, bishop of Rome, or anything else.
- Acts 8:14. “14When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them.” If Peter is chief apostles, then why is he sent by other apostles?
Peter wrote two books of the Bible and is discussed in countless others and yet never once is he referred to as anything other than a regular apostle. Not Pope, Bishop of Rome, chief apostle, or first amongst equals.
Catholics respond by pointing to tradition. Popes today refer to themselves as elders, brother, and apostles. But again, in the absence of a clear statement by Jesus such as “Peter, you are the leader of the apostles” that Catholics instead make an indirect case. So we have to use scripture to decide if Peter really did have authority over other apostles. And the scripture is overwhelming that Peter did not.
Not Called Rabbi (Matthew 23:8)
Matthew 23:8 says:
But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
This statement clearly rejects the office of Pope, and the leadership that Catholic churches expect. Catholics may fall back and claim that their mission is to be humble, but that does not cohere with their proclaimed authority as final arbiters of scripture, and intermediaries who offer the necessary sacraments needed for salvation.
Quick Hits
The doctrine of Scripture Alone does not appear in the Bible
This happens in most debates. The easiest response is to ask “So does this mean that you concede the point that scripture does not support Catholicism?” If they answer “no” then the debate continues. If they answer “yes” then they’ve conceded defeat. You can either engage the doctrine of scripture alone, or you haven’t researched that issue, you can declare victory in battle, if not the war.
Catholic Church, established 33 AD
Acts and the Epistles record the early history of the church. And they do not record anything remotely resembling the Catholic church. At some point after the scriptures closed, and by the time Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church was formed. However, this does bring up an important point: Catholicism is wrong, but being wrong does not mean you are not a Christian. If Catholics have faith, they are still Christians and they are still going to heaven.
This is also important to the debate. Jesus promises in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of Hades will not prevail against His church. So there had to be true Christians before the reformation and after the Curse of Constantine made a corrupted form of Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Catholicism is not perfect, but it is still Christian.
