This is an excellent article from ANNOYED PINOY asked me to repost something I wrote almost a decade ago. It was a list of 51 Biblical proofs of a Pauline papacy and Ephesian primacy. I wrote it in response to a Roman Catholic apologist’s list of 50 alleged Biblical proofs of a Petrine papacy. Some of the items in my list are meant to parallel items in that Catholic’s list. For example, he cited the performance of a miracle through Peter’s shadow (Acts 5:15) as evidence of Petrine primacy. I paralleled that with a citation of Acts 19:11-12 as evidence of Pauline primacy. I don’t actually think a Pauline papacy is implied by Acts 19 or any other passage I cite below. What I was doing was demonstrating how the same sort of bad reasoning that Catholics often apply to Peter can be cited to justify similar conclusions about other Biblical figures, like Paul.
Catholics can’t object to my list by pointing to post-Biblical evidence for a Petrine papacy, since the issue under discussion is whether the Biblical evidence supports a papacy. Nobody denies that a Petrine papacy eventually developed in Rome. The question in this context is whether that papacy was just a later development or is a teaching of the scriptures as well. If Ephesus had been the capital of the Roman empire and had possessed other advantages the Roman church had, and the Ephesian church had gradually become more and more prominent, the bishops of Ephesus could have claimed that the Bible teaches a Pauline (or Johannine) primacy. In fact, in other places I’ve noted early patristic material that could be cited in support of an Ephesian primacy.
My list loses some of its force when removed from its original context. But I think it’s mostly understandable, even without much knowledge of the background that led me to write what I did. Here are the 51 Biblical proofs of a Pauline papacy and Ephesian primacy, using popular Catholic reasoning:
1. Paul is the only apostle who is called God’s chosen vessel who will bear His name before Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:15).
2. Paul is the last apostle chosen by God, apart from the other twelve.
3. The resurrected Christ appears to Paul in a different way than He appeared to the other apostles (Acts 9:3-6).
4. Paul is the only apostle who publicly rebukes and corrects another apostle (Galatians 2:11).
5. Paul is the only apostle who refers to his authority over all the churches (1 Corinthians 4:17, 7:17, 2 Corinthians 11:28).
6. Paul is the only apostle to call himself “father” (1 Corinthians 4:15).
7. Paul is the steward of God’s grace (Ephesians 3:2). This means that Paul is the overseer of salvation. Fellowship with Paul and his successors is necessary for salvation.
8. Paul is mentioned more in the New Testament than any other apostle.
9. The book of Acts, which mentions all of the apostles, discusses Paul more than any other apostle.
10. Paul was the first apostle to write a book of scripture.
11. Paul wrote more books of the New Testament than any other apostle.
12. Paul is the first apostle to be taken to Heaven to receive a revelation (2 Corinthians 12:1-4).
13. Paul is the only apostle Satan was concerned about enough to give him a thorn in the flesh (2 Corinthians 12:7).
14. Paul seems to have suffered for Christ more than any other apostle (2 Corinthians 11:21-33).
15. Paul seems to have received more opposition from false teachers than any other apostle did, since he was the Pope (Romans 3:8, 2 Corinthians 10:10, Galatians 1:7, 6:17, Philippians 1:17).
16. Paul seems to have traveled further and more often than any other apostle, as we see in Acts and his epistles, which is what we might expect a Pope to do.
17. Only Paul’s teachings were so advanced, so deep, that another apostle acknowledged that some of his teachings were hard to understand (2 Peter 3:15-16). Peter’s understanding of doctrine doesn’t seem to be as advanced as Pope Paul’s. Paul has the primacy of doctrinal knowledge.
18. Paul was the first apostle whose writings were recognized as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16).
19. Paul singles himself out as the standard of orthodoxy (1 Corinthians 14:37-38).
20. Only Paul refers to himself having a rod, a symbol of authority (1 Corinthians 4:21).
21. Paul initiates the council of Acts 15 by starting the debate with the false teachers (Acts 15:2) and delivering a report to the other church leaders (Acts 15:4).
22. Peter’s comments in Acts 15:7-11 are accepted only because Pope Paul goes on to confirm them (Acts 15:12).
23. When the Corinthians were dividing over which apostle to associate themselves with, Paul’s name was the first one mentioned (1 Corinthians 1:12).
24. Paul was the only apostle with the authority to deliver people over to Satan (1 Corinthians 5:5).
25. Paul had the best training and education of all the apostles (Philippians 3:4-6).
26. Paul is the only apostle to call the gospel “my gospel” (Romans 2:16).
27. Paul writes more about the identity of the church than any other apostle does (1 Corinthians 12, Colossians 1, Ephesians 4-5), which we might expect a Pope to do. Paul is the standard of orthodoxy and the Vicar of Christ on earth, so he has the primary responsibility for defining what the church is and who belongs to it.
28. Paul writes more about church government than any other apostle does, such as in his pastoral epistles.
29. Paul discusses church unity more than any other apostle does (1 Corinthians 12-14, Ephesians 4), suggesting that he was the one responsible for maintaining church unity because of his papal authority.
30. Paul writes more about the gospel than any other apostle does (Romans, Galatians). As the leader of Christianity, Paul was most responsible for explaining the gospel and other Christian doctrine.
31. After Jesus, Paul speaks more about the kingdom of God than anybody else does (Acts 14:22, 19:8, 1 Corinthians 4:20, Galatians 5:21, 2 Thessalonians 1:5). After leaving earth, Jesus passed on the responsibility of teaching about the kingdom of God to Paul, the king of the church on earth.
32. Paul speaks of revealing mysteries more than any other apostle does (Romans 11:25, 1 Corinthians 15:51, Ephesians 5:32, 6:19, 2 Thessalonians 2:7), since he was the chief teacher of the church.
33. Paul was the only apostle other people tried to impersonate (2 Thessalonians 2:2), since he had more authority than anybody else.
34. Paul’s clothing works miracles (Acts 19:11-12).
35. Paul is delivered from death more than any other apostle (Acts 14:19, 28:3-6, 2 Corinthians 11:23).
36. The Jewish exorcists in Acts 19:13 associate themselves with Paul rather than with any other apostle.
37. The demons in Acts 19:15 recognize Paul’s primacy.
38. The Jews in Acts 21:28 recognize Paul’s primacy, saying that he’s the man they hold most responsible for teaching Christianity everywhere.
39. Paul had authority over the finances of the church (Acts 24:26, 2 Corinthians 9:5, Philippians 4:15-18).
40. Paul acts as the chief shepherd of the church, taking responsibility for each individual (2 Corinthians 11:29). For example, Paul was Peter’s shepherd (Galatians 2:11).
41. Paul interprets prophecy (2 Thessalonians 2:3-12).
42. Only Paul is referred to as being set apart for his ministry from his mother’s womb (Galatians 1:15).
43. Jesus Christ is revealed in Paul (Galatians 1:16), meaning that Paul and his successors are the infallible standard of Christian orthodoxy.
44. Paul is the only apostle who works by himself, only later coordinating his efforts with the other apostles (Galatians 1:16-18).
45. Only Paul is referred to as bearing the brandmarks of Christ (Galatians 6:17).
46. Every Christian was interested in Paul and what was happening in his life, looking to him as their example and their encouragement (Philippians 1:12-14).
47. Christians served Paul (Philippians 2:30).
48. Paul worked more than the other apostles (1 Corinthians 15:10), since he had more responsibilities as Pope.
49. Paul was to be delivered from every evil deed (2 Timothy 4:18), meaning that he was infallible.
50. Only Paul is referred to as passing his papal authority on to [Ephesian] successors who would also have authority over the church of God (Acts 20:28).
51. Among the seven churches addressed in Revelation 2-3, the church of Ephesus is mentioned first, since the bishops of Ephesus have primacy as the successors of Paul. The church in Ephesus “cannot endure evil men” (Revelation 2:2), meaning that the bishop of Ephesus is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. The Ephesian church puts false teachers to the test (Revelation 2:2) by exercising its papal authority. The bishop of Ephesus has the responsibility of evaluating all teachers and declaring which are orthodox and which are not. None of the other churches in Revelation 2-3 are described as having this authority.
point #49: “The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom.”
Any Christian can honestly make this claim. To suggest that it supports Paul’s infallibility is just another example of how Sola Scriptura does not work. You are making an argument against your own beliefs.
The underlying problem with this article is the belief that scripture is supreme. Even Martin Luther incorrectly claimed supremacy over scripture when he modified the contents. He became his own magisterium.
Protestants believe that the content of Holy Scripture is all inclusive on every doctrinal and moral issue in detail such as the primacy of Peter or not. How did more than ten generations of Christians get by until the first canon approximately 400 years after Christ ascended? That is almost as long as from the “reformation” until now. It is called tradition under the guide of a visible Church. The notion of every man and his Bible did not exist until 1500s.
John King,
I am not sure you have understood the point of the article. In the introduction the writer, Jason Engwer makes it clear, “I don’t actually think a Pauline papacy is implied by Acts 19 or any other passage I cite below. What I was doing was demonstrating how the same sort of bad reasoning that Catholics often apply to Peter can be cited to justify similar conclusions about other Biblical figures, like Paul.”
You make a bold claim about Luther. An early Luther questioned whether the book of James should be included in the canon, as it seemed to teach things contrary to other books which were certainly part of the canon. However, he came to see that the book of James and the writings of Paul could indeed be harmonized. He never doubted the authority of Scripture, but in early days questioned whether James was in fact Scripture.
Regarding the first 400 years, I invite you to check out the historical facts by means of the content at this link: http://effectualgrace.com/2012/07/25/scripture-and-the-church-fathers/
“Let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.” – Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 – 379 A.D.)
That is how I understood the article. You provided additional insight into the Sola Scriptura mind. For example, your response avoids the idea that Luther actually edited the Scriptures but that he only removed obviously uninspired documents. This alone shows a complete trust in a particular current version of scripture without regard to the history of how it was compiled or why is was compiled. In essence, “God is sovereign and would not give me a tainted or incomplete version of his Word”. History shows us that Christians did not express the need to explicitly authenticate (canonize) scripture until counterfeit documents began to surface. If it was not clear to the early Church as to what was inspired and what was not, what makes you think that Luther was simply picking up the obvious trash and throwing it into the garbage?
John King,
It is indeed sad that you do not allow for someone to grow in understanding (as Luther did) simply because you do not like the man, and more than that, twist the facts regarding him. No Evangelical Protestant I know of believes Luther was infallible anyway, which is exactly the point, isn’t it?
That which is theopneustos “God breathed” (Scripture alone) is the infallible rule of faith for the people of God.
That is a judgmental statement. Unless you are psychic you no access to my motives. From what I revealed I may be a Lutheran and just playing the Devil’s Advocate. The point is that my personal opinion of Luther is irrelevant. That kind of talk gets striked from the record. Apologetics should be polite and energy used to construct sound arguments rather than mudslinging. BTW, II Timothy 3:16 states that all scripture is “God breathed” and “useful” but not sufficient.
John King,
Oh my mistake – you like Luther – so glad to be corrected.
If you are the devil’s advocate I hope you will refrain from further work for him – I hear those who are in his employ have much to complain about when they receive their wages.
2 Timothy 3:16 does not teach sufficiency but the very next verse (a continuation of the same sentence) indeed does. The God breathed Scriptures thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work.
John
Forgive me if I offended you, but clearly sarcasm doesn’t make for a good chess game either. It appears that II Timothy 3:16-17 communicates that all Scripture is beneficial so that the Man of God will be complete. I take a multivitamin so that I will have a complete diet, for example, but the multivitamin in itself is not my complete diet.
John King,
In that you have treated Luther as you have with complete disregard to the facts, I felt sarcasm was indeed an appropriate response.
Your multi-vitamin analogy does not work. Here is what 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 teaches: http://effectualgrace.com/2012/08/13/2-timothy-316-17/
This is out order since I could reply under your last response.
Just because you or I think someone is incorrect or doesn’t have all the facts together does not mean sarcasm or mudslinging is in order. What I am looking for are your arguments to support your beliefs and for you to reasonably address my counter arguments. The fact that you have made this public indicated that you were into apologetics and would entertain a civil debate. If I have my facts wrong about Luther then simply show me how. On II Tim 3:16-17 you state my analogy is wrong but do not tell me why but rather direct me to another page. This page, in essence, appears to state that because the Scriptures are God Breathed, which I agree BTW, and that my multi-vitamin analogy is not applicable. That the analogy of a “Super-Vitamin” is in order. That this Super-Vitamin is all that is needed.
The problem appears to be that this argument encompasses a scope outside the context of II Tim 3:16-17 with no other scriptures to support the scope you believe it intends.
Strictly speaking I will argue that this interpretation of II Tim 3:16-17 is not even Sola Scriptura.
John King,
If there is any mud flying around, be assured that it was you who threw the first handful with your gross distortions of Luther and what he supposedly did with Scripture. Your comments were highly inflammatory as well as plain wrong.
Your analogy does not work because it is insufficient (which is ironic in that this is the topic under discussion) – for it to work it would need to be a food dispensory that gives all that is needed to take care of people’s needs as regards to food, not a simple multi-vitamin.
I stand by my comments as well as the article I pointed you to. You do not address the issues raised and your disagreement, while noted, is not an argument.
Although I am Catholic and clearly do not agree with your beliefs, and while I find your beliefs offensive, I make whatever opportunity I can find to appeal to those who hold to them. I used to be an Evangelical. It is interesting that I recently received a similar response as yours when debating against homosexuality on a pro-homosexual blog. I was quickly called a bigot and offensive. As Apologists we need to love the sinner and hate the sin. If the sin in question is heretical ideas then destroy them in light of the truth and reason, not berate the messenger. I argue you could not so you decide to choke the messenger. You sure you want to be an Apologist? Good day sir.
John King,
Though I have provided a thorough exegesis of the text (which you have not responded to because it was in another article – as if that is a good reason as to why not to) and though I have taken the time to explain why your multi-vitamin analogy will not work – your only response is that because I engaged in sarcasm when you were less than kind (shall we say) to Luther and twisted the historical facts, you are leaving the discussion. Therefore off you go, running to the hills crying that I have choked the messenger. This much is clearly evident – you cannot deal with the text and therefore resort to ad hominem (attacking the man) as a cover and then leave the discussion feeling you have done your side a favor. Yet all you have done though is to reveal your inability to interact with the text of Scripture, which alone is of sufficient authority (by its very nature as being breathed out by God) to bind the conscience. No mere word of man, be it of Popes, Cardinals or anyone else has this kind of authority.
Let God be true and every man a liar.