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
Was Peter “Any Old” Apostle? 10 Anti-Papal Arguments

Was Peter “Any Old” Apostle? 10 Anti-Papal Arguments

Last updated on: September 11, 2026 at 3:11 pm by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Was Peter “Any Old” Apostle? 10 Anti-Papal Arguments 2026-09-11T15:11:50-04:00 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.

This is my initial transcript for the video, “Was Peter Just One of the Apostles? 10 More Anti-Papal Arguments Debunked” (Catholic Bible Highlights, with Kenny Burchard, 9-11-26). A link to the video is also provided below.

*****

Lucas Banzoli is a Brazilian anti-Catholic apologist. His words are in blue (Kenny sort of summarized them — rather than quote them — in the video), and then I respond.

***

Peter Equal in Authority to James and John?

Peter is not appointed as the only pillar of the Church, but shares the place with others (Gal.2:9).

In Galatians 2:9, where Peter (“Cephas”) is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (e.g., 1:18-19; 2:7-8). In ten places in the New Testament, Peter is listed first whenever he is mentioned along with James and John, and sometimes, in addition to them, other disciples as well (Matthew 10:2; 17:1; Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; 14:33; Luke 6:14; 8:51; 9:28; Acts 1:13). Galatians 2:9 (referring to a meeting in Jerusalem), is an exception: “James and Cephas and John”. I would guess it is because James was the bishop of Jerusalem. Even so, in the preceding verses (2:7-8) and ones after (2:11-14), only Peter is referred to. Many Protestant commentaries agree about why James was listed first:

Expositor’s Greek Testament: This was probably because as permanent head of the local Church he presided at meetings (cf. Acts 21:18).

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: James . . . is named first, because the reference is to a special act of the Church in Jerusalem, of which he was president or Bishop. “When St Paul is speaking of the missionary office of the Church at large, St Peter holds the foremost place”. Lightfoot.

Bengel’s Gnomen: James . . . is put here first, because he mostly remained at Jerusalem, . . .

Pulpit Commentary: James . . . is named first, before even Cephas and John, though not an apostle, as being the leading “elder” . . . of the Church of Jerusalem; . . .

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers: The way in which St. Paul speaks respectively of St. Peter and St. James is in strict accordance with the historical situation. When he is speaking of the general work of the Church (as in the last two verses) St. Peter is mentioned prominently; when the reference is to a public act of the Church of Jerusalem the precedence is given to St. James.

Was Peter Only a “Fellow Elder” and Not Pope?

Furthermore, Peter wrote to the elders, saying that “I do so in the same capacity as an elder with them” (1Pe.5:1), that is, on an equality with them, and not superiority, as would be the case if he exercised a primacy over all others!

That’s routine “papal talk.” The pope will often use the words, “fellow bishops” because he is a bishop (of Rome) as well as pope. None of this proves anything, anymore than Paul calling lessers “brethren” many times “proves” that they are on the same level as him. Even Jesus called His disciples “friends” (Jn 15:13-15). Does that mean He isn’t above them? Paul calls Christians “fellow heirs with Christ” (Rom 8:17) and “God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9), and he calls other Christians “fellow workers” and “fellow soldiers” and “fellow servants”. These are desperate arguments, and lack understanding of biblical language and idiom and even the repeated scriptural admonition to be humble and have an attitude of servanthood.

Paul often called himself a deacon or minister (1 Cor 3:5; 4:1; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Eph 3:7; Col 1:23-25), yet no one would claim he was only a deacon, and nothing else.

Paul’s Rebuke of Peter’s Hypocrisy Proves He Wasn’t Pope?

Peter was rebuked by Paul face to face in Antioch, “because he was reprehensible” (Gal.2:11). A Catholic would never call the Pope “reprehensible”, nor would he resist him in the face!

Popes have the gift of infallibility (and only in very particular specified conditions only), not impeccability. As to Catholics supposedly never rebuking popes, that is sheer nonsense. Saints and Doctors of the Church like St. Francis of Assisi, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and St. Dominic have done that in no uncertain terms. This is nothing novel or troublesome whatsoever in Catholic ecclesiology. No one knows better than Catholics the distinction between the nobility of an office and sometimes the lack of sanctity of the person holding it at any given time.

Jesus excoriated the Pharisees for hypocrisy more than anything else. Yet at the same time He told His disciples to “practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice” (Mt 23:3). The Pharisees weren’t even followers of Christ, yet Jesus still told His followers to obey their teaching. Thus, we see that instances of hypocrisy do not wipe out a person’s teaching authority: that they have on other grounds.

Peter’s Denials and His Feeding of the Sheep

Christ specifically addressed Peter on the occasion of John 21:17 because of the apostle’s denials mentioned earlier. Peter denied Jesus three times, and Christ gave him the opportunity to reaffirm his love for his Master three times.

That’s the standard “anti-papal” interpretation of that passage, and I agree that it is part of its meaning, but not all of it. The meaning and intention of “Feed my lambs . . . Tend my sheep . . . Feed my sheep” and “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32) are not wiped out or nullified, simply because it was partly the process of restoring Peter. It doesn’t have to be “either/or”: in other words, the very typical Protestant false dichotomy.

“Peter Didn’t Write a Gospel!”

John, along with Matthew, was the only apostle among the twelve who composed a gospel.

Many believe that Peter was the main source behind the content of the Gospel of Mark, which was in turn (according to the prevailing scholarly view) largely copied or followed by Matthew and Luke. It matters not if he dictated it; Paul did the same in some (possibly all) of his letters, as we know, and Jesus never wrote any documents that we know of.

“Ringleader of the Nazarenes”

It is not Peter who is indicated as being “the leader of the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5), but Paul.

My RSV Bible says “a ringleader” as opposed to “the ringleader.” How much difference one little word makes! I’ve found only one out of about 60 English translations of Acts 24:5 that has “the ringleader.” So this hardly bolsters Lucas’ case. A. T. Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament (at Acts 24:5) shows the true sense: “A ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes . . . a front-rank man, a chief, a champion”. In the Greek, “Nazarenes” has a definite article preceding it; but “leader” (or, “ringleader”) does not.

Peter the Heresy-Hunter

Paul is the first to recognize and refute the heresy, against Elymas the magician (Acts 13:9-12).

Peter was the first to recognize and refute heresy, period, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24), five chapters earlier.

Peter Can’t Expel Demons?

Paul used the authority of the name of Jesus Christ to cast out an evil spirit, which went out immediately (Acts 16:18). . . . At no time is Peter indicated as a sufficient authority to repel demons.

All twelve disciples had that power, as we know from Matthew 10:1 and 10:5, 8 (“These twelve Jesus sent out, . . . “ . . . Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons . . .”; cf. Mk 3:14-19; 6:7, 13; Lk 9:1). So did the seventy evangelists appointed by Jesus (Lk 10:17, 20), and Philip (Acts 8:6-7). Jesus even said that “those who believe” in Him would cast out demons (Mk 16:17). There is also another passage that in context is about Peter and “the apostles” in this regard, so that it’s certainly reasonable to assume that he was among the ones who expelled demons:

Act 5:12, 15-16 Now many signs and wonders were done among the people by the hands of the apostles. . . . [15] . . . they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and pallets, that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them. [16] The people also gathered from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all healed.

Where Lucas gets a kooky idea like this from, I have no idea. But it’s obvious how wrong it is and how easy to refute, simply by looking up “demons” and “spirits.” All in a day’s work for an apologist . . .

John, Not Peter, Laid His Head on Jesus’ Chest

John was the only disciple who leaned on Jesus’ chest (Jn.13:23).

Peter was the only one whom the Bible noted was specifically prayed for by Jesus (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”: Lk 22:32). The prayer even had to do with what Catholics call indefectibility: the inability to fall away from the faith or proclaim a falsehood as binding (a gift that we believe the pope has). So even this had something to do with his role as leader / pope. Which of these two things is the more important and significant?

John Was at the Cross, Not Peter

John was the only disciple who followed Jesus to the foot of the cross, while all the others fled, Judas betrayed him, and Peter denied him (Jn.19:26).

Yes he did, and it is to his eternal credit. I love John! His writings are fantastic. But being at the cross – whereas Peter was not — has nothing to do with Peter not having “papal credentials”.

***

Summary: Was Peter just a “run-of-the-mill” apostle? Kenny Burchard and Dave Armstrong answer ten more Protestant objections to papal authority, and highlight 30 Bible passages.

*
***
*

Practical Matters: This is the most comprehensive and multi-faceted Catholic apologetics blog: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT. I offer more than 5,000 free online articles, fifty-nine books, and many scores of videos at the Catholic Bible Highlights YouTube channel (please subscribe!). If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider financially supporting it. PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Dave Armstrong Bookstore”. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million!

***

Papacy & Infallibility

Videos

Biblical Arguments for the Papacy

Previous Post

September 6, 2026

Protestant Confessions & "Ever-Virgin" Mary

Next Post

September 16, 2026 Dialogue on Eternal Security / Absolute Assurance

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"Special pleading, and not a serious response to my arguments . . ."

Dave Armstrong

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

""no man needs to teach us."Didn't you just teach us?"

Dave Armstrong

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

""Catholics say they are the only church that can lead people into heaven."In fact, we ..."

Dave Armstrong

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

"And lastly, I belong to no denomination and am free to serve God as He ..."

Mariah

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

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