Deconstructing the Petrine Panoply: A Rebuttal to Dave Armstrong’s Case for the Papacy

J. Neil Daniels

Nota Bene: An audio overview is available here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Iv6IWu0q895UTcnAZunNDuy6eMbo-W9r/view?usp=drivesdk

Introduction

In A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute, 2003), Dave Armstrong presents what he terms a “Petrine Panoply," a list of fifty New Testament data points intended to demonstrate not merely Peter’s personal prominence among the apostles but his possession of a unique, divinely-instituted office that allegedly anticipates the Roman papacy. Armstrong argues that the "cumulative weight" of these biblical references provides strong, even “inescapably compelling,” evidence for the papal office and its ecclesiological centrality in Christian doctrine. According to Armstrong, this primacy was both established by Christ and accepted by the early Church, and it developed historically into the doctrine of the papacy without departing from its apostolic roots.

This essay offers a point-by-point rebuttal to Armstrong’s “panoply,” addressing the interpretive fallacies, historical anachronisms, and theological assumptions undergirding his claims. While Armstrong’s collection of biblical passages is impressively exhaustive, his conclusions do not follow from the data he assembles. His argument commits the fallacy of equivocation by conflating apostolic prominence with ecclesiastical supremacy and commits a further error by projecting later ecclesial structures (such as the Roman papacy) back onto the apostolic period. The biblical portrait of Peter, when read in its proper literary, historical, and theological contexts, affirms Peter’s significance without supporting the apparatus of the papacy that later Roman Catholic dogma constructed.

Rebuttal to Dave Armstrong’s “Petrine Panoply”

1. “Peter alone is the Rock upon which Jesus builds his Church (Matt. 16:18).”
This is Armstrong’s cornerstone, and rightly so, for it undergirds the Roman Catholic claim that Peter holds a unique foundational status. Yet the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 has been debated since the patristic era. While many scholars today agree that “this rock” refers to Peter in some capacity, the passage does not support the notion of a transferable office of universal jurisdiction. Christ uses the term “rock” (πέτρα) metaphorically, and Peter’s role is foundational in the apostolic era (cf. Eph. 2:20), not perpetual. Furthermore, the early Church Fathers did not uniformly interpret the “rock” as Peter’s person. Augustine, for instance, wrote that the rock was Christ or Peter’s confession (Retractions 1.21.1). Even if Peter is the rock, the passage says nothing of successors or of Rome. Armstrong's attempt to read ecclesiastical architecture into Christ’s metaphor of building is a category error: Jesus is both builder and cornerstone (cf. 1 Cor. 3:11; Eph. 2:20–21).

2. “Peter alone is given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:19).”
The keys signify authority to admit or exclude from the kingdom, a reference echoing Isaiah 22:22. However, Armstrong neglects that the same authority—to bind and loose—is given to all the apostles in Matthew 18:18 using the exact Greek construction. Thus, any exclusive claim is invalidated by the broader context. The keys are symbolic of apostolic authority as a whole, not the inauguration of a singular Roman episcopate. Moreover, Peter does not use this authority in any way in Acts to assert hierarchical dominance; rather, his role in Acts is participatory and accountable (see Acts 11:1–3).

3. “Peter is individually given the power to bind and loose (Matt. 16:19).”
As noted above, this is later repeated to all the apostles in Matthew 18:18, in the plural form. Armstrong’s omission of this crucial context suggests a conveniently selective reading. The rabbinic terminology of “binding and loosing” referred to authoritative teaching or halakhic application, something Jesus shares with His apostles (cf. John 20:23). The claim that Peter alone holds this authority misrepresents the nature of apostolic collegiality presented throughout the New Testament (cf. Acts 15; Gal. 2:9).

4. “Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of Apostles (Matt. 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13).”
Peter’s primacy in order reflects his historical and narrative importance, not jurisdictional supremacy. If we apply Armstrong’s logic consistently, James the Lord’s brother—who delivers the final verdict in Acts 15—should be considered the first pope. The listing order is a literary convention, not a constitutional claim for papal succession. No New Testament text assigns Peter a monarchical role on this basis.

5. “Peter is almost always named first whenever he appears with anyone else... except Galatians 2:9.”
Armstrong appeals to pattern as though frequency implies theology. But narrative frequency is a product of Peter’s prominence in the Gospels and Acts, which focus largely on Jewish evangelism. Once Paul’s Gentile mission takes center stage (Acts 13 onward), Peter virtually disappears. Galatians 2 is particularly fatal to Armstrong’s claim: Peter is named second, not first, and more importantly, he is rebuked publicly by Paul (Gal. 2:11). No one rebukes a pope in public without grave implications.

6. “Peter alone among the Apostles receives a new name, Rock (John 1:42; Matt. 16:18).”
Receiving a new name is not unique to Peter. James and John were called “Sons of Thunder” (Mark 3:17), and Saul became Paul (Acts 13:9). In biblical tradition, name changes often accompany new roles (e.g., Abram to Abraham), but they do not entail an enduring office. Peter’s new name signifies his function in the foundation-laying period of the Church, not an institution of papal succession.

7. “Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after himself (John 21:15–17)...”
This interpretation is unwarranted. The passage is a personal restoration after Peter’s threefold denial, mirroring his threefold commission. Jesus uses the term “feed My sheep,” but Peter himself calls Christ the “Chief Shepherd” in 1 Peter 5:4 and refers to himself as a “fellow elder” (5:1). Armstrong’s interpretation inserts Roman ecclesiology where the text offers pastoral exhortation.

8. “Peter alone is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus (Luke 22:32).”
Again, this prayer is in light of Peter’s weakness and impending denial, not his elevation. The Greek grammar underscores Christ’s unique concern for Peter’s failure, not his authority. The command to “strengthen your brethren” is fulfilled by all who teach sound doctrine (cf. 2 Tim. 2:2), and Peter himself would later acknowledge Paul's writings as “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:16), suggesting mutual deference rather than hierarchical distance.

9. “Peter alone is exhorted by Jesus to ‘strengthen your brethren’ (Luke 22:32).”
This charge is part of Peter’s restoration and functions as a pastoral imperative. It does not denote exclusive leadership over the other apostles. In fact, the book of Acts presents a distributed leadership, with James leading the Jerusalem Council and Paul leading missionary expansion. Nowhere is Peter seen as issuing binding decrees to the entire Church.

10. “Peter is the first to confess Christ’s Messiahship and divinity (Matt. 16:16).”
Peter’s confession is indeed significant, but others make similar or greater confessions. Nathanael calls Jesus “the Son of God” (John 1:49), Martha affirms both Messiahship and Sonship (John 11:27), and Thomas calls Jesus “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28). To isolate Peter’s confession as though it carried ecclesial authority beyond the others is to impose a theological framework not present in the text.

11. “Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Matt. 16:17).”
Armstrong appeals here to Christ’s commendation of Peter: “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” However, this instance of divine revelation is not unique. All the apostles received revelation, as seen in John 14:26 (“the Holy Spirit…will teach you all things”) and Galatians 1:12 where Paul says he received the gospel “through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” Peter’s revelation was momentous in the moment, but not exclusive or uniquely foundational.

12. “Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1–13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.”
Peter and John are both arrested in Acts 4, and both are questioned. Peter does the speaking in this instance (vv. 8–12), but this reflects his boldness, not necessarily leadership in a hierarchical sense. When Stephen is martyred (Acts 7), he delivers a much longer and more powerful sermon. Leadership in speech is situational, not institutional in this context.

13. “Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37–41; 5:15).”
Peter’s Pentecost sermon results in mass conversion (Acts 2), but it is a mistake to assume that public response to preaching implies ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The miracles associated with Peter (Acts 5:15) are similar to those later attributed to Paul (e.g., Acts 19:11–12). The signs affirm apostolicity—not papal authority.

14. “Jesus Christ uniquely associates himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute-money (Matt. 17:24–27).”
The miracle of the coin in the fish’s mouth, where Jesus pays the temple tax for Himself and Peter, is a theological statement about Jesus’ identity and fulfillment of the Law, not a declaration of papal headship. That Peter is included in this miracle is consistent with his close proximity to Christ, but Armstrong reads into the text an exclusivity that is not warranted.

15. “Christ teaches from Peter’s boat, and the miraculous catch of fish follows (Luke 5:1–11): perhaps a metaphor for the Pope as a ‘fisher of men.’”
Luke 5 records Christ teaching from Peter’s boat and the miraculous catch of fish. Armstrong interprets this as an ecclesiological metaphor for the papacy, but such symbolism is entirely imposed upon the text. The call to be “fishers of men” is given to all the disciples (cf. Matt. 4:19; Mark 1:17). The notion of “Peter’s bark” (boat) as the papal Church is a medieval allegory, not a biblical doctrine.

16. “Peter was the first apostle to set out for and enter the empty tomb (Luke 24:12; John 20:6).”
While Peter enters first, John arrives earlier and allows Peter to enter before him (John 20:4–6). If Armstrong’s logic held, John’s deference would imply submission to papal authority. But the text merely describes a moment of mutual respect. There is no implication of ecclesiastical hierarchy in their actions.

17. “Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the Apostles (Mark 16:7).”
Mark 16:7 simply says, “tell His disciples and Peter.” The mention of Peter separately is best understood as an act of grace after his denial, not as recognition of jurisdictional preeminence. This reading is consistent with Christ’s restorative interaction with Peter in John 21. Armstrong’s interpretation overlooks the pastoral, redemptive character of the narrative.

18. “Peter leads the Apostles in fishing (John 21:2–3, 11). The ‘bark’ (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church.”
That Peter says “I’m going fishing” (John 21:3) is more likely a statement of vocational regression than ecclesiastical initiative. The disciples accompany him, but the scene portrays post-resurrection uncertainty, not leadership. The Catholic allegory of Peter’s boat as the Church is again imposed retroactively and lacks exegetical basis.

19. “Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (John 21:7).”
Peter’s impulsiveness and affection for Jesus are evident here, as in other places (e.g., Matt. 14:28–29). However, these episodes show Peter’s personality, not primacy. Armstrong’s conflation of piety with papacy is unwarranted.

20. “Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15–22).”
Peter does speak in Acts 1 to initiate the replacement of Judas, but this was not an act of supreme authority. His actions are ratified by the assembled brethren (Acts 1:23), and the final decision is made by casting lots (v. 26), suggesting dependence upon divine choice rather than Petrine decree. The collective involvement of the apostles and the broader group indicates shared leadership.

21. “Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).”
Peter does initiate the process of replacing Judas, but this is not an act of unilateral authority. The qualifications for apostleship are discussed (vv. 21–22), two men are proposed by the entire group (v. 23), and the final decision is left to God through the casting of lots (v. 26). This demonstrates corporate discernment and divine sovereignty—not Petrine jurisdiction. Peter is functioning as a leader among equals, consistent with his pastoral role.

22. “Peter is the first person to speak (and the only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to ‘preach the gospel’ in the Church era (Acts 2:14–36).”
Peter’s Pentecost sermon is bold and Spirit-empowered, but the claim that this establishes him as the supreme head of the Church does not follow. Stephen and Paul also deliver major sermons in Acts (Acts 7; 13), with equal or greater theological complexity. Furthermore, the emphasis in Acts is on the Spirit's empowerment of the whole Church, not the investiture of a single governing office. Peter’s speech is significant, but situational—not institutional.

23. “Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6–12).”
This miracle is a fulfillment of Christ’s promise in John 14:12, that His disciples would do greater works through the power of the Holy Spirit. That Peter performs the first miracle mirrors his role as the apostolic representative to the Jews (Gal. 2:8). However, Paul performs comparable and arguably more extensive miracles (cf. Acts 19:11–12). Healing a beggar does not establish a foundational ecclesiology.

24. “Peter utters the first anathema (on Ananias and Sapphira), which is emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2–11).”
Peter’s pronouncement upon Ananias and Sapphira results in divine judgment, but again, the lesson is that lying to the Holy Spirit is a grave offense—not that Peter holds exclusive judicial power. This is the Spirit’s action, not Peter’s. Other apostles confront sin in similar ways (cf. Acts 8:20–23; 13:9–11), showing that Peter’s authority is not singular.

25. “Peter’s shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).”
Armstrong cites this as evidence of Peter’s unique power, but such extraordinary miracles are not limited to Peter. Paul’s handkerchiefs and aprons healed the sick (Acts 19:12). These signs confirm apostolic witness, not institutional hierarchy. Miraculous agency in Acts is grounded in the Spirit’s sovereign action, not in a formal ecclesiastical office.

26. “Peter is the first after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).”
Raising Tabitha from the dead is a remarkable event, but again, it must be interpreted in line with the broader apostolic witness. Paul later raises Eutychus (Acts 20:9–10). No priority of office follows from sequence of miracle. Armstrong conflates chronology with preeminence, and significance with succession.

27. “Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1–6).”
Peter is chosen to receive Cornelius due to his apostolic status and proximity, not papal office. The vision Peter receives challenges Jewish exclusivism and prepares him to understand the inclusion of Gentiles. Armstrong neglects the fact that Peter is later challenged by the Church for associating with Gentiles (Acts 11:2–3), and he must explain his actions to his peers—not impose his authority upon them.

28. “Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9–48).”
The conversion of Cornelius is pivotal, but the entire episode is initiated and directed by divine revelation. Peter initially resists the vision and only reluctantly accepts its implications. The event demonstrates Peter’s obedience, not his supremacy. Moreover, the subsequent missionary expansion to the Gentiles is led primarily by Paul, not Peter. This severely undercuts Armstrong’s argument for Petrine centrality.

29. “Peter instructs the other Apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5–17).”
Peter recounts his vision and its implications, and the apostles and brothers in Jerusalem accept it (Acts 11:18). But the nature of this report is explanatory and persuasive, not magisterial. The universal scope of the gospel is affirmed by the community, not dictated by Peter. The language of consensus and praise to God (“Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance”) indicates shared understanding, not imposed decree.

30. “Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison: Acts 12:1–17).”
While it is true that Peter is miraculously delivered, such divine interventions are not unique to him. Paul and Silas are later released by a supernatural earthquake (Acts 16:26), and Stephen sees a heavenly vision before martyrdom (Acts 7:55). Theologically, these instances show God’s providential care for His servants, not a special ontological status. Armstrong turns what is an act of grace into a proof of ecclesial privilege.

31. “The whole Church (strongly implied) offers earnest prayer for Peter when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).”
Armstrong interprets the Church’s collective prayer for Peter as evidence of his singular importance. However, this is a misreading of a standard communal response to suffering. The Church also prays and fasts for Paul and Barnabas before their commissioning (Acts 13:2–3). That the Church prays earnestly for Peter simply shows their love and concern—not that he held a superior office. If anything, it underscores the vulnerability of leaders in persecution, not their authority.

32. “Peter opens and presides over the first council of Christianity and lays down principles afterward accepted by it (Acts 15:7–11).”
Peter does speak first at the Jerusalem Council, summarizing his experience with the Gentiles and affirming salvation by grace. Yet he does not preside. The final judgment is rendered by James (vv. 13–21), who says, “Therefore I judge…” (v. 19). The decree issued by the council is in the name of “the apostles and the elders” (v. 22), not Peter. The conciliar model is synodal and collegial. This passage is more consistent with conciliar Protestantism than Roman Catholicism.

33. “Paul distinguishes the Lord’s post-Resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles (1 Cor. 15:4–8).”
That Peter is mentioned separately in the resurrection appearances (cf. Luke 24:34; 1 Cor. 15:5) is consistent with his role as a central apostolic witness. But this differentiation says nothing about supremacy or succession. Paul likewise distinguishes James and himself in the same passage. Peter is first chronologically, not hierarchically.

34. “The two disciples on the road to Emmaus... mention only Peter (Simon), even though they themselves had just seen the risen Jesus (Luke 24:33–34).”
This observation supports the centrality of Peter in the resurrection narratives, which aligns with his pastoral restoration and apostolic calling. However, Armstrong extrapolates ecclesiastical supremacy from mere narrative emphasis. The Emmaus disciples affirm Peter’s encounter to validate the resurrection, not to affirm papal jurisdiction.

35. “Peter is often spoken of as distinct among Apostles (Mark 1:36; Luke 9:28, 32; Acts 2:37, 5:29; 1 Cor. 9:5).”
Peter is mentioned individually at key moments, but so are James, John, and Paul. Acts 2:37 highlights his speech at Pentecost, and Acts 5:29 includes Peter and the apostles. The Pauline reference in 1 Corinthians 9:5 notes that Peter traveled with his wife—a fact used to defend the apostles’ right to material support, not to confer primacy. Armstrong’s use of these verses reveals selective emphasis and an interpretive lens biased toward hierarchicalism.

36. “Peter is often spokesman for the other Apostles, especially at climactic moments (Mark 8:29; Matt. 18:21; Luke 9:5, 12:41; John 6:67 ff.).”
Indeed, Peter frequently acts as spokesman, but this reflects temperament and initiative, not an institutional office. Spokesmanship is functional, not ontological. Even in John 6:67–69, Peter articulates faith on behalf of the Twelve, yet this is not accompanied by any declaration of authority over them. Furthermore, Paul later rebukes Peter publicly (Gal. 2:11–14), which no one would do if Peter’s role included supreme ecclesial authority.

37. “Peter’s name is always the first listed of the ‘inner circle’ (Peter, James, and John).”
This is a common narrative convention. The inner three are frequently grouped together in moments of revelation (e.g., Transfiguration, Gethsemane), yet Peter is not given more information than the others. James and John are also given names (“Boanerges,” Mark 3:17), and James becomes the central figure in Jerusalem. There is no evidence that Peter exercised dominion over the others within this trio or the Church at large.

38. “Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic Gospel scenes, such as walking on the water (Matt. 14:28–32; Luke 5:1 ff.; Mark 10:28; Matt. 17:24 ff.).”
Armstrong’s assertion is not inaccurate as a narrative observation—Peter often plays the central role. However, his prominence is frequently in the form of misunderstanding, failure, or impulsivity. For example, he sinks in fear while walking on water (Matt. 14:30), misunderstands Christ’s mission (Matt. 16:22–23), and proposes building tabernacles at the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:4). That the Gospels highlight Peter’s interaction with Christ underscores his humanity and need for grace, not his institutional primacy.

39. “Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14–24).”
Peter rebukes Simon Magus, but Paul later confronts Elymas (Acts 13:8–11), warns against Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim. 1:20), and writes entire epistles countering false teaching. The refutation of heresy is a task given to all apostles and elders. It is unwarranted to conclude from this single event that Peter held exclusive doctrinal authority over the Church.

40. “Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times... If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable sixty percent of the time any disciple is referred to.”
This statistical claim may be accurate in raw frequency, but theological conclusions cannot be drawn from numerical prominence alone. Judas is mentioned in all four Gospels with tragic frequency, yet this is no commendation. Paul, though mentioned less in the Gospels, dominates the apostolic literature from Acts 13 onward and is the author of thirteen epistles. Frequency reflects narrative focus, not ecclesial supremacy. Furthermore, Peter disappears from the narrative entirely after Acts 15, whereas Paul remains dominant. A doctrine of the papacy cannot be built upon statistical frequency without collapsing into absurdity.

41. “Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14–41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision, and a disciplinary decree… an example of binding and loosing.”
Peter’s Pentecost sermon is authoritative because it is inspired, not because Peter held a papal office. It is a function of his apostolic role, which he shared with others. Paul likewise interprets Scripture, renders doctrinal judgments (e.g., Gal. 1:6–9), and instructs churches with Spirit-inspired authority. Armstrong conflates prophetic apostolic witness with jurisdictional office. Moreover, Acts 2 makes no reference to Peter exercising exclusive power or issuing decrees in a juridical sense. He proclaims the gospel, as all apostles were commissioned to do (cf. Matt. 28:18–20).

42. “Peter was the first ‘charismatic,’ having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14–21).”
This argument is both theologically and terminologically imprecise. Peter explains the gift of tongues by appealing to Joel 2, not by issuing an institutional ruling. The text presents a spontaneous outpouring of the Spirit which affects all 120 disciples (Acts 2:4), not just Peter. His speech is prophetic and pastoral, not juridical or magisterial. If Peter’s explanation of the tongues event constitutes an exercise of supreme authority, then Paul’s regulation of tongues and prophecy in 1 Corinthians 14 would need to be construed as papal—a claim Armstrong would not make.

43. “Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and Baptism (Acts 2:38).”
Again, chronological primacy is not equivalent to ecclesiastical supremacy. Peter calls for repentance and baptism, as do Paul (Acts 17:30–31), Philip (Acts 8:12), and Ananias (Acts 22:16). The command to repent and be baptized was part of the apostolic commission given to all the apostles (Matt. 28:19). That Peter is first in the book of Acts reflects the Jewish priority of the gospel (Rom. 1:16), not a monarchical office.

44. “Peter (presumably) leads the first recorded mass Baptism (Acts 2:41).”
The baptism of 3,000 follows the preaching of Peter, but there is no indication he physically administered them all, nor that this act was ecclesiastically unique. Baptism in the early Church was conducted by various ministers and apostles (cf. 1 Cor. 1:14–17). The record in Acts 2:41 focuses on the collective response of the crowd, not the hierarchical role of the preacher.

45. “Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44–48).”
Peter’s command in Acts 10:47–48 flows from divine initiative and vision. Importantly, the Gentiles are baptized after receiving the Holy Spirit, demonstrating that Peter follows God's lead rather than dictating terms. Peter's immediate companions actually perform the baptisms (“he ordered them to be baptized,” v. 48). This affirms apostolic participation, not Petrine preeminence.

46. “Peter was the first traveling missionary and first exercised what would now be called ‘visitation of the churches’ (Acts 9:32–43).”
This assertion is historically inaccurate. Philip had already traveled to Samaria (Acts 8:5), and Paul’s first missionary journey begins in Acts 13:2. That Peter visits believers in Lydda and Joppa is unremarkable and consistent with apostolic practice. Armstrong’s use of the term “visitation of the churches” imposes a later hierarchical framework onto the apostolic period. There is no suggestion that Peter’s travels were part of a governance model.

47. “Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days… (Gal. 1:18).”
This visit reflects Paul’s desire for personal acquaintance, not deference to a superior. Paul explicitly insists that he did not receive the gospel from any man (Gal. 1:12), and that those who “seemed influential” added nothing to him (Gal. 2:6). This undermines any interpretation of Galatians 1–2 as establishing Petrine primacy. Furthermore, Paul later publicly rebukes Peter (Gal. 2:11), which is irreconcilable with Armstrong’s claim to papal jurisdiction.

48. “Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pet. 5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or elders.”
Peter calls himself a fellow elder (συμπρεσβύτερος), not a superior bishop. His exhortation is pastoral, grounded in shared responsibility, not hierarchical superiority. The term episkopos does not appear in 1 Peter 5:1–2; the word used is presbyteros. This passage contradicts Armstrong’s claim, showing Peter identifying with, rather than presiding over, the other elders.

49. “Peter interprets prophecy (2 Pet. 1:16–21).”
All apostles and prophets interpret Scripture. Paul likewise explains prophecy in great detail (e.g., Rom. 9–11). Peter’s statement in 2 Peter 1:20 affirms the divine origin of Scripture and the Spirit's role in its transmission. It does not assert an exclusive interpretive prerogative for Peter, much less establish a teaching magisterium in Rome.

50. “Peter corrects those who misuse Paul’s writings (2 Pet. 3:15–16).”
Peter acknowledges that some twist Paul’s letters, but his correction is general, not directed at specific persons. He offers no official ruling or punishment. His recognition of Paul’s writings as “Scripture” is a powerful testimony to the apostolic canon, but it affirms mutual respect rather than superiority. Furthermore, if Peter had jurisdictional authority, we would expect correction of Paul himself in Galatians 2—not the reverse.

Final Remarks

Having now examined each of the fifty claims in Dave Armstrong’s “Petrine Panoply,” it becomes clear that the Roman Catholic case for the papacy, as built upon the person of Peter, is exegetically strained, historically anachronistic, and theologically circular. Armstrong attempts to marshal a vast array of biblical data points to argue that Peter was not only prominent among the apostles but uniquely endowed with authority that would carry on through his successors in Rome. However, upon close inspection, none of the individual points establishes such a conclusion, and the cumulative force of the list does not amount to more than the sum of its flawed parts.

The primary error in Armstrong’s argumentation is one of exegetical overreach. He repeatedly interprets descriptive biblical narratives as if they are prescriptive ecclesiological declarations. Narrative prominence is treated as a theological endorsement of supremacy. That Peter often speaks first, receives direct revelations, or plays a central role in early Christian history is not in dispute. However, these facts do not establish that he exercised monarchical authority over the Church, nor that such authority was transmitted through an unbroken line of Roman bishops. Armstrong consistently conflates apostolic leadership with institutional supremacy, without warrant from the text.

A second error is historical anachronism. Armstrong reads back into the New Testament a fully developed Roman episcopacy with universal jurisdiction, something that even Roman Catholic historians admit did not emerge until centuries later. The early church recognized Peter’s foundational role, but it also esteemed James as the leader of the Jerusalem church and Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles. Moreover, the New Testament exhibits a pattern of collegial leadership among apostles and elders, not centralized control in a single figure. The papacy, as it came to be defined, bears the marks of gradual ecclesiastical development and political accommodation, not apostolic institution.

Finally, Armstrong’s reasoning is theologically circular. He presupposes the papacy in order to prove it. His entire reading of Scripture is governed by the conclusion he seeks to demonstrate. Thus, every detail about Peter’s life—his name, his actions, his placement in lists, his speeches, his miracles—is treated as encoded evidence of papal doctrine. But this is a hermeneutic of suspicion, not submission to the text. The New Testament’s ecclesiology is Christocentric, not Petrine; it is grounded in Scripture, not in succession.

In sum, Armstrong’s case fails to establish the papacy as a biblical office. Peter was indeed a significant and honored apostle, but the New Testament gives no indication that he was the sole head of the Church, nor that his authority was intended to be transmitted through successors in Rome. The foundation of the Church is Jesus Christ Himself (1 Cor. 3:11), and the apostolic witness is one of shared authority under the lordship of Christ. The doctrine of the papacy must therefore be regarded as a post-apostolic development without warrant in the biblical record.

For Further Study 

Allison, Gregg R., and Chris Castaldo. The Unfinished Reformation: What Unites and Divides Catholics and Protestants After 500 Years. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016.

Written by two scholars with a deep understanding of both Catholic and evangelical perspectives, this accessible volume presents a fair yet firm Protestant critique of Roman Catholic doctrines, including ecclesiology and authority.

Barrett, Matthew. Canon, Covenant and Christology: Rethinking Jesus and the Scriptures of Israel. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2020.

Though focused on Christology and canon, Barrett provides helpful theological groundwork that implicitly challenges the Roman Catholic magisterial model by rooting authority in Scripture and Christ.

Barrett, Matthew, ed. Reformation Theology: A Systematic Summary. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017.

This scholarly compendium outlines key Reformation doctrines, including Scripture, justification, and the Church, with chapters specifically engaging Roman Catholic teachings on authority and tradition.

Beckwith, Francis J. Return to Rome: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2009.

A personal account of a former Protestant theologian who converted to Catholicism. Useful for understanding Catholic reasoning from a sympathetic insider’s perspective. Frequently cited by Catholic apologists.

Boettner, Loraine. Roman Catholicism. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1962.

A comprehensive and polemical Reformed critique of Catholic doctrine. Though dated in tone and methodology, it remains widely cited for its systematic treatment of the papacy, Mariology, and ecclesiology.

Bouwsma, William J. John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

A scholarly biographical study of Calvin, including his resistance to Catholic authority and his constructive work in Reformed ecclesiology. Offers historical context for Protestant critiques of papal claims.

Carson, D. A. “Matthew.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Rev. ed., Vol. 9, edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, 23–671. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.

Provides exegetical depth to the key Petrine texts in Matthew 16. Carson affirms Peter’s role but denies that this establishes papal succession or infallibility.

Demacopoulos, George E. The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013.

This scholarly, rigorous textual and historical analysis examines how late‑ancient bishops (notably Leo I, Gelasius, and Gregory I) strategically invoked Peter to assert ecclesiastical authority. Demacopoulos shows that appeal to Peter often corresponded with moments of institutional weakness.

Fesko, J. V. Word, Water, and Spirit: A Reformed Perspective on Baptism. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010.

A strong critique of Catholic sacramentalism and the broader ecclesial framework that supports Rome’s claims to authority, including reflections on the role of bishops.

Geisler, Norman L., and Ralph E. MacKenzie. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995.

A balanced and charitable yet thorough critique of Catholicism. Chapters on the Magisterium, Scripture, and the papacy are especially helpful for understanding major areas of disagreement.

González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity: Volume 1, The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. Rev. ed. New York: HarperOne, 2010.

Offers a balanced narrative of Church history, noting the development—not apostolic origin—of papal authority. Important for separating historical facts from later theological interpretations.

Hitchcock, James. History of the Catholic Church: From the Apostolic Age to the Third Millennium. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012.

A Catholic historian’s perspective. While presenting a pro-papal view, Hitchcock acknowledges historical complexity, including rivalries, conciliar tensions, and political developments in papal history.

King, David T. Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith. 3 vols. Battle Ground, WA: Christian Resources, 2001.

This comprehensive Protestant response to Catholic appeals to tradition includes detailed documentation from Scripture and the Church Fathers. Volume 3 deals explicitly with the authority claims of the papacy.

Köstenberger, Andreas J., and Michael J. Kruger. The Heresy of Orthodoxy. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010.

A sharp critique of the Bauer hypothesis and its use by Catholic and liberal scholars to justify tradition-based theology. Supports the Protestant claim that Scripture—rather than ecclesial consensus—preserved orthodoxy.

Kruger, Michael J. Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012.

An essential volume for undermining Catholic claims about the Church “creating” the canon. Kruger defends the self-authenticating nature of Scripture against Magisterial epistemologies.

Mathison, Keith A. The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001.

A clear and historically informed critique of Rome’s two-source theory of authority. Mathison also challenges the caricature of Protestant private judgment and upholds the classical (not individualistic) model of sola Scriptura.

Minnich, Nelson. “The Papacy and the Protestants, 1517–1563.” In The Cambridge History of the Papacy, edited by Joëlle Rollo-Koster, Robert A. Ventresca, Melodie H. Eichbauer, and Miles Pattenden, 321–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2025.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108750608.016.

A historian’s overview of how Reformation-era Protestants contested Roman authority and dismantled theological claims to papal primacy.

Owen, John. The Church of Rome No Safe Guide. In The Works of John Owen, Vol. 14, edited by William H. Goold. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1967.

A classic Puritan response to Rome, arguing from Scripture, reason, and Church history that the Roman Church has erred doctrinally and is not a reliable guide to faith and morals.

Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. 2nd ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998.

A Reformed systematic theology with significant critique of Roman ecclesiology and soteriology. Offers rigorous biblical-theological alternatives to Catholic paradigms.

Ryle, J. C. The Papacy: Its History, Dogmas, Genius, and Prospects. London: William Hunt and Company, 1854.

Though older, this trenchant Anglican critique remains relevant for its historical clarity and theological force. Ryle addresses the incompatibility of papal claims with the New Testament and early church.

Sproul, R. C. Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism. Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2012.

A concise yet penetrating treatment of the key areas of doctrinal divergence between Rome and classical Protestantism, including justification, authority, and the papacy.

Svendsen, Eric D. Evangelical Answers: A Critique of Current Roman Catholic Apologetics. Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 1999.

A thorough and readable critique of modern Catholic apologetics, engaging key figures like Keating and Hahn. Addresses sola scriptura, the canon, papal authority, and justification from an evangelical perspective.

Svendsen, Eric D. Upon This Slippery Rock: Countering Roman Catholic Claims to Authority. Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2002.

A concise exegetical and historical rebuttal of Matthew 16:18 as a basis for papal primacy. Refutes claims of Petrine succession with patristic and grammatical evidence.

Webster, William. The Church of Rome at the Bar of History. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1995.

This work examines Roman Catholic claims in light of early Church history, arguing that papal supremacy, infallibility, and tradition-based doctrines lack patristic support. Carefully surveys the Fathers, councils, and canonical developments to show divergence between Catholic dogma and historical evidence.

Webster, William. The Matthew 16 Controversy: Peter and the Rock. Battle Ground, WA: Christian Resources, 2005.

This work thoroughly examines patristic interpretations of Matthew 16:18 and argues against its use as foundational for the papal office. The overview and reviews confirm its existence and scholarly intent.

Webster, William. The Patristic Exegesis of the Rock of Matthew 16:18. Christian Resources, n.d. Accessed June 18, 2025. https://christiantruth.com/articles/fathersmt16/.

Webster, William. The Roman Catholic Church: Catholic Claims and Contradictions. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1996.

A focused critique of internal inconsistencies within Catholic theology and apologetics. Addresses the tension between Scripture and tradition, development of doctrine, and contradictory magisterial pronouncements, making a strong case for the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture.

White, James R. The Roman Catholic Controversy. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1996.

An accessible and widely used Protestant response to Catholic apologetics. White’s chapters on sola scriptura, papal infallibility, and tradition provide a readable but robust refutation of Catholic claims.