Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer)

No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer)

Last updated on: August 1, 2022 at 6:12 pm by Dave Armstrong

No Papacy in the NT? Think Again (vs. Jason Engwer) 2022-08-01T18:12:27-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

With Special Emphasis on the Protestant Exegesis of “The keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:19)

Protestant anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer again took aim at one of his favorite targets: the papacy, in his article, “How could a papacy have been referred to?” (Tribalblogue, 7-30-22). His words will be in blue.

***

[P]assages like Matthew 16, Luke 22, and John 21 don’t imply a papacy.

I will demonstrate in this article how Matthew 16 teaches an explicit 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’s 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.

I agree that Luke 22 and John 21 are implicit references to the papacy. I’ve already addressed Jason’s arguments against them:

Papal Passages Lk 22:31-34 & Jn 21:15-17 (vs. Jason Engwer) [5-12-20]

Of course, he utterly ignores any critique I make of his work (it wasn’t 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’ll make him reply . . .

If a papacy were to be derived from such passages, it would have to be derived implicitly rather than explicitly.

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 and sola fide). Oddly enough, that doesn’t stop them from believing these things or even from literally building their theological system upon them.

There is no explicit reference to a papacy in any of the earliest sources.

The New Testament is the earliest source.

That raises the question of what we should expect a reference to a papacy to look like.

We should expect exactly what we find: St. Peter is specifically called “The Rock” by our Lord Jesus Christ: he whom the Lord would “build” His “Church” (Mt 16:18). “Peter” is a translation of the Greek petros. Jesus would have actually used the Aramaic kepha. St. Paul calls Peter the same name, eight times (a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic: Cephas): thus proving that Jesus re-named Peter “Rock”: referring to him being the human cornerstone of the new universal Church of Christ.

And Jesus gave Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (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.

Similarly, there are explicit references to non-papal church offices, such as apostle and elder. We’re even told what qualifications they have to meet and other details about their offices.

Yes there are, and there are explicit references to the papacy: being the “Rock” upon whom the Church was built, and possessing “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. 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. The pope is a “bishop of bishops” or a “super bishop” 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’s flock is the whole Church and not just a local church.

There is no such term (akin to “king”, “centurion”, “apostle”, “elder”, etc.) for a papal office,

Yes there is: the one who possesses the keys of the kingdom of heaven and is the Rock.

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.

The discussion lies in the in-depth exegesis that scholars do concerning Matthew 16.

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, Galatians 2:9, Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14).

The apostles qua apostles were indeed equals. But the papacy is not merely an apostolic office; it’s an ongoing one (like bishops and elders and priests). The first pope just happened to also be an apostle.

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 Ephesians 2:20 illustrates, but none of the authors distinguish Peter as having more authority than the other apostles.

Sheer nonsense. This was what my article, 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy was designed to refute. Jason — two decades ago — tried to refute and satirize it twice and I refuted him twice:

Reply to Critique of “50 NT Proofs for the Papacy” [3-14-02]

Refutation of a Satirical “Pauline Papacy” Argument [9-30-03]

Recently, Brazilian apologist Lucas Banzoli outdid Jason, with his “205 Proofs Against the Primacy of Peter.” I replied in four parts:

Reply to Lucas Banzoli’s 205 Potshots at St. Peter, Part I [5-26-22]

Lucas Banzoli’s 205 “Petrine Potshots”, Part II / Part III / Part IV [5-30-22]

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 . . .

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’s 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’t mentioned . . .

Jason conveniently skips over St. Clement of Rome (d. 99; reigned starting in 88 AD), who was — according to Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 202) and Tertullian (c. 155-c. 220) — 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 [7-28-21]:

Why is it that Clement is speaking with authority from Rome, settling the disputes of other regions? Why don’t the Corinthians solve it themselves, . . .? Why do they appeal to the bishop of Rome? . . . St. Clement writes (I use the standard Schaff translation: no Catholic “bias” there!): . . .

If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; . . . (59, my bolding and italics)

Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. (63, my bolding and italics)

Clement definitely asserts his authority over the Corinthian church far away. Again, the question is: “why?” What sense does 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 “obey” the bishop from another region (sections 59, 63)? Not only does Clement assert strong authority; he also claims that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are speaking “through” him.

That is extraordinary, and very similar to what we see in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:28 (“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things”: RSV) and in Scripture itself. It’s not strictly inspiration but it is sure something akin to infallibility (divine protection from error and the pope as a unique mouthpiece of, or representative of God).

Moreover, Max Lackmann, a Lutheran, makes the observation:

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, The Unfinished Reformation, translated by Robert J. Olsen, Notre Dame, Indiana: Fides Publishers Association, 1961, 84-85)

Rome is about 617 miles from Corinth. That would be like the archbishop of Detroit (my hometown) issuing instructions to the bishop and people of Des Moines Iowa (600 miles away) and saying that the latter better obey, lest “they involve themselves in transgression and serious danger” and claiming that “the words written by us” were “through the Holy Spirit.” 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.

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, 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’ words are recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, which is dated by conservative Bible scholars to before 70; probably in the 60s AD.

If a papacy existed, it would be surprising if such a significant office weren’t 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’t taught explicitly or implicitly.

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’s authority.

[T]here’s nothing about, say, the canonicity of Hebrews that makes it as suspicious as the papacy. . . . There’s no comparable situation with Hebrews’ canonicity. . . . Similarly, there’s 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 . . .

Really? The book of Hebrews wasn’t 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’t in the canon until the 4th century, while in the east it was accepted in the period between 250-325. It wasn’t included in the Muratorian Canon (c. 190), which did include The Apocalypse of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon. [see my The New Testament Canon & Historical Processes (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, 1988, pp. 184-185]. Origen (d. 254) regarded Hebrews as of disputable canonicity [Bruce, ibid., p. 193]. The “Cheltenham” canon, likely from North Africa, dating from 365, doesn’t include Hebrews [Bruce, ibid., pp. 219-220]

Now I will present an overview of how many prominent Protestant scholars and reference works exegete “keys of the kingdom” and what they believe it to mean (with references in footnotes below).

W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann [1], concurring with the insights of Roland de Vaux [2]: “The 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.” Craig S. Keener [3]: “The image of keys (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration . . .” / “probably refers primarily to a legislative authority in the church.” M. Eugene Boring [4]: “The 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.” / “authoritative teaching, . . . that lets heaven’s power rule in earthly things . . . . Peter’s role as holder of the keys is fulfilled now, on earth, as chief teacher of the church.”

George Buttrick [5]: “The keys of the kingdom would be committed to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority.” S. T. Lachs [6]: “The authority of Peter is to be over the Church, and this authority is represented by the keys.” R. T. France [7]: “Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ declared in [Matthew] 16:19 is . . . that of the steward . . . . whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household.” / “Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority . . . The image of ‘keys’ (plural) perhaps suggests . . . the steward, who regulates its [the house’s] administration . . . an authority derived from a ‘delegation’ of God’s sovereignty” [16]. Ralph Earle [8]: “Peter would give decisions, based on the teachings of Jesus, which would be bound in heaven; that is, honored by God.” J. Jeremias [9]: “appointment 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.”

F. F. Bruce [10]: “The 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.” Oscar Cullman [11]: “Just 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.”

New Bible Dictionary [12]: “In 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’s words, is to be ‘God’s 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’ (The Sayings of Jesus, 1954, p. 205).” / “In the Old Testament a steward is a man who is ‘over a house’ (Gen 43:19, 44:4; Is 22:15, etc.). In the New Testament there are two words translated steward: epitropos (Mt 20:8; Gal 4:2), i.e. one to whose care or honour one has been entrusted, a curator, a guardian; and oikonomos (Lk 16:2-3; 1 Cor 4:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 4:10), i.e. a manager, a superintendent – from oikos (‘house’) and nemo (‘to dispense’ or ‘to manage’).

Eerdmans Bible Dictionary [13]: “[T]he keys here represent authority in the Church.” Adam Clarke’s Commentary [14]: “In 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.” New Bible Commentary [15] “The ‘shutting’ and ‘opening’ 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) . . . ”

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 “over the house,” “steward,” or “governor.” 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:

i) “Master of the palace” JB / NAB
ii) “In charge of the palace” NIV
iii) “Master of the household” NRSV
iv) “In charge of the royal household” NASB
v) “Comptroller of the household” REB
vi) “Governor of the palace” Moffatt

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

Henry Alford, Herman N. Ridderbos, R. T. France, William Hendriksen, Oscar Cullmann, Gerhard Maier, J. Knox Chamblin, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Craig L. Blomberg, William E. McCumber, M. Eugene Boring, John A. Broadus, Albert Barnes, David Hill, New Bible Commentary, Donald A. Hagner, Craig S. Keener, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Philip Schaff, Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, W. F. Albright, and C. S. Mann (The Anchor Bible), The Layman’s Bible Commentary, New Bible Dictionary, Word Studies in the New Testament (Marvin Vincent), Encyclopaedia Britannica (1985; article by D. W. O’Connor, a Protestant), Robert McAfee Brown, D. A. Carson, Richard Baumann.

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

Petrine & Roman Primacy & Papal Succession (vs. Calvin #14) [6-13-09]
*

Papal Succession & the Bible: An Exchange [1-27-12]

The Biblical Argument for Papal Succession [12-12-15]

Papal Succession: A Straightforward Biblical Argument [4-28-17]

FOOTNOTES

[1] The Anchor Bible: Matthew, (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1971), 196.

[2] Ancient Israel, tr. by John McHugh (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), 129 ff.

[3] The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 256, 90.

[4] “Matthew,” in Pheme Perkins and others, eds., The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 8, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 346.

[5] with other editors, The Interpreter’s Bible, (New York: Abingdon, 1951), 453.

[6] A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, (Hoboken, New Jersey: Ktav, 1987), 256.

[7] Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1989), 247.

[8] “Matthew,” in A. F. Harper and others, eds., Beacon Bible Commentary, vol. 6, (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1964), 156.

[9] “Kleis,” in Gerhard Kittel, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968), 749-750.

[10] The Hard Sayings of Jesus (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity, 1983), 143-144.

[11] Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, trans. Floyd V. Filson, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953), 203.

[12] J. D. Douglas, editor, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1962, 1018, 1216.

[13] Allen C. Myers, editor, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1987 (English revision of Bijbelse Encyclopedie, edited by W. H. Gispen, Kampen, Netherlands: J. H. Kok, revised edition, 1975), translated by Raymond C. Togtman and Ralph W. Vunderink, 622.

[14] abridged one-volume edition by Ralph Earle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1967 (orig. 1832, 8 vols.), 581.

[15] D. Guthrie, and J. A. Motyer, editors, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 3rd edition, 1970 (Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary), 603.

[16] Vol. 1: Matthew, in Leon Morris, General Editor., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press/Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, 256.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

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’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Delivery of Keys to Saint Peter (c. 1525), by Vincenzo Catena (1470-1531) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: 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.

Anti-Catholicism

Papacy & Infallibility

papacy in the New Testament

Previous Post

August 1, 2022

Persecution of Catholics in Scotland Up Till 1829

Next Post

August 2, 2022 Jason Engwer's Anti-Papalism Refutes Denominationalism

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz