He's distorting patristic texts to obscure church dogma while pushing for his own brand of christianity which has no apostolic lineage. not serving Christ
It blew my mind when I found out that the rock they were standing on was “the gate of hell”… Jesus essentially saying He’s starting His church on the front porch of Satan/the enemy and the gate is useless to stop the invasion. Major boss move and very loud and clear message to everyone who was standing there. That’s the actual cultural, historical, geographical and religious context of that whole scene.
@@Testimony_Of_JTFhe renames Simon “Cephas” and then says “AND on this rock” so the case could be (and likely is) that he is talking about something separate. Jesus said he is the rock. He didn’t suddenly give that to Peter. Thats blasphemy. There was a deeper point to the renaming. Probably he was representative of Christ (just as all the Apostles) but was a leader of sorts. Not like a king or a president or a pope. But the rock the church is built in is certainly not Peter as is clarified later in the new nee testament and in other gospels. The catholics refusal to acknowledge scripture in its proper context and as your final authority has led to extreme biblical illiteracy
@ScribeAlicious In John 21:15-17 Our Lord is using singular verbs when telling Peter to "feed" His lambs, so clearly Our Lord is not asking the other apostles to do the same feeding (at least in the Koine). Our Blessed Lord reaffirms Peter’s unique role in Matthew 17:27, where He tells Peter that his tax payment represents them both, insinuating that Peter is indeed His vicar (at the very least, on a legal level). Luke agrees with the aforementioned in Acts 2:14 where it is written "Peter and the eleven". That's an odd way to refer to the apostles. I mean, if a band is called "Josey and the peppers" guess who's the lead singer? Again, in Acts 15:7 Peter says that God chose "my mouth" which is singular... The scripture does not say God chose "our mouths" as in all of the apostles. It says "my" (μου) because Peter is referring to himself and only himself. If you are still not convinced about the Petrine supremacy, when the apostles ask who's greater (Luke 22:24), Our Lord actually answers the question in Luke 22:31-32: *surprise* it's Peter. Again, in the original Greek, Our Lord claims to have prayed for Peter alone and not the other apostles, then He tells only Peter to strengthen his brothers. The Koine quotes Our Blessed Lord to tell Peter “I have prayed for ‘σοῦ’ (notice He doesn’t say ὑ̄μῶν)... that σύ strengthen your brothers” (notice He does not say ὑ̄μεῖς). Our Lord literally spells out to the apostles how singular Peter’s authority is over them, it cannot be more clear. So much so in fact, that when Clement of Rome decides who ought to be bishop in Corinth, no one bats an eye despite the apostle John still being alive. First century Chistians never questioned the successor to Peter having more authority than even a surviving apostle, thus to deny the papacy is to create your own brand-new version of Christianity, completely distinct from the faith of the first Christians.
Good video, clear explanations, thanks! One thing that came to mind as I was watching was Peter's own writings in 1 Peter 2:5, where he calls the believers he's writing to "living stones" in their own turn. Christ is the Rock, Peter is rocky, and we also have a calling to be stones.
It’s been a long time since I looked it up in a lexicon, but as I recall, Christ is the Rock, a large boulder. Peter is a stone, like a fragment that was chipped off the boulder, which makes him one of the stones. This is due do the way the masculine and feminine genders of petros and petras, respectively, are used. Illustration: Petra, the mountain fortress.
@@ricksonora6656Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock and Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
Dan, yet, Jesus Christ refers to Himself as a mere servant as well! Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock and Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God! Even many Protestant scholars attest that Peter is the rock on whom Jesus built His Church! "Peter is the Shepherd of the Universal Church ", ( John Chrysostom). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is is true food and Blood true drink!
St Augustine: "For, if the order of bishops succeeding to each other is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus... and so on to Anastasius, who now sits in the same place."
@@duckgrow he says in the video this last exegesis of Augustine is a result of multiple retractions. This was the last statement giving from him on this topic. So no, you're wrong
@@jj4829they don’t read the full body of work or listen to entire videos. They just copypasta Catholic answers and Trent Horn. As Ortlund said in another video “there’s a lot of cope in the comments”
@@duckgrow …except that what Gavin cited was from his retractions, where he deliberately rejects the interpretation that modern RCs favor, saying that he was wrong to say something more like that earlier. If you have something after his retractions, I'm all ears, but stuff earlier should be considered in light of his later rejection of it.
@@ScribeAlicious I am a protestant and I think the Catholic Church misuses tradition. However, what the universal church has universally believed throughout the centuries is important to consider. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. 2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. Edit: I just now realized you meant this specific tradition. Nevermind lol
From St. Jerome: Commentary on Matthew 16:18 "But you say that the Church is founded on Peter, although the same is elsewhere attributed to all the apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends equally on them all; yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head is appointed, the occasion of schism is removed." Letter to Pope Damasus "I speak with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the cross. I, following no one as my chief but Christ, am associated in communion with Your Blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church is built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Whoever is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails."
@@Testimony_Of_JTF Yes, but Peter as the head, where there is no schism. Who sit in the chair of Peter according to Jerome? Pope Damasus, bishop of Rome.
I'd want to look at Jerome again to be sure, but all of those things could be affirmed by Cyprian, who explicitly does not think that Peter had any greater power or authority than the other apostles. That is, that Peter was singled out specifically to indicate a principle of unity. The chair of Peter is applied to those who are successors of the apostles generally; not solely to the pope-Peter in Matthew 16 is in some way representative of the whole apostolic college.
Pope Hadrian in a letter to the 2nd Council of Nicaea also took the "confession" view of Matthew 16:18, describing Peter as "He, therefore, that was preferred with so exalted an honour was thought worthy to confess that Faith on which the Church of Christ is founded."
@@OctagonalSquare The fact that there were historically Popes that exercised authority and Christians listened to them, albeit to sometimes relunctantly or with resistance, still points to that authority.
@@aloyalcatholic5785authority doesn’t equal infallibility. The pope is a legitimate authority but he has no capability to infallibility declare doctrine
Then there would be no point in listening to the Church at all. If the first council ever held on circumcision could have been wrong, then there would have been no point in obeying it. @@kodyoneill497
I love the appeal to exegete Matthew 16 alongside the rest of the NT rather than resting everything on this obscure passage. I say this all the time when speaking about this verse.
"For, if the order of bishops succeeding to each other is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'” - St Augustine.
Our encyclopedia of Popes actually has a list of Roman Bishops going back to Peter all 266 of them when they can provide one then maybe we will take them seriously Augustine says that’s how we know who is that Catholic Church without a list they aren’t even in the discussion
gavin mentioned that he was referencing Augustines "mature" thoughts. Gavin mentions mature since he is aware of thoughts that pose differently to the idea he is speaking here but was spoken/written earlier than what Gavin is claiming his more matured view.
@@TheOppiterAugustine never retracted Peter having a list of successors to his Chair just changing his views on how the rock can be understood you conflated 2 different issues
@Ty9001 Not trying to start an argument, just curious about your thoughts: Why would having an unbroken chain of Romans bishops make you more apostolic than a church that teaches apostolic doctrine but doesn't have an unbroken chain of Roman bishops? I think Gavin makes a fair point here. Shouldn't doctrine matter more than who is teaching it? Though I guess if the presumption is that the Church is inerrant than that changes the answer. Either way, God bless!
@@Ty9001 providing an alternate Pope usually results in several decades of brutal warfare. That was the point of the Reformation: to distribute power so that only Christ can lead His church in its entirety. Producing an alternative Pope is antithetical to Protestantism. Producing a completely different form of governance with God as Father, Son, & Holy Spirit as the true head was the aim. Just like we've seen in recent times with Pope Benedict and Tikon of Moscow: the only leader of the Church who cannot be leveraged out by the forces of corruption is Christ. The view of Peter as Rock leads us to an earthly man who can be circumvented quite handily. The view of Christ as Rock, the chief cornerstone, leads to a Church that is as undying as Christ.
Ireneaus: "the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority"
Authority's a bad translation there. The latin is principalitatem, if I remember correctly, which a good bit broader of a word than authority-"firsthood" could work, perhaps, which is notably less than jurisdiction (and could even be referring to it being the capital of the Roman empire, I'd imagine). There's also a bit of that quote that you didn't include there about how it's because apostolic traditions from elsewhere should be gathered in Rome. It's not ascribing some power to it. For more on this, see Edward Denny's excellent book Papalism.
But yuo see, Gavin, the magisterium cannot err, therefore even though nearly all early church fathers interpreted Matthew 16 as such the Roman Catholic Church can force a completely different interpretation of the passage and be correct. Checkmate
“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Augustine, Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]). “Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Augustine, Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
Yes, everyone recognized that Peter was the first of the apostles. That's obviously very different from the modern Roman claims. A representative primacy, versus a jurisdictional one.
It would be helpful to present the other side of St. Augustine’s interpretation. “Number the bishops from the See of Peter. And, in that order of fathers, see whom succeeded whom. This is the Rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer.” Erick Ybarra has a great article in which he affirms both the diffusive understanding of Mt 16:18 by the fathers and then shows how the same fathers interpret Mt 16:18 with Peter as the rock, his primacy among the apostles and bishops, etc…
A key opens a door. And Peter accomplished that as documented in Acts. He opened the door to many unbelieving Jews with his discourse at Pentecost, the outpouring of the Spirit upon Samaritans, and the conversion and outpouring of the Spirit upon the first Gentiles with Cornelius and his family. Task accomplished and nothing more involved with it. Later church fathers tried to generalize and add to what is essentially a very straightforward assignment from the Lord.
@@lohi172 If anyone has the fullness of the faith, it is, beyond a reasonable doubt - not protestants lol. Protestants are just so individualistic. Maybe Gavin Ortlund has the fullness. But certainly not Protestantism as a whole. There's not tradition or history to even hold on to, because everyone is schismatic from the reformers.
The issue becomes when they pronounce anathemas on anyone that doesn’t believe clear accretions. They claim infallibility on these clear accretions. It makes it difficult to find middle ground when the stakes are made that high. For example, they use this authority structure to declare anathema on anyone that doesn’t fully adhere to Marian Dogma. If they would make these beliefs less binding then it’d be easier to find unity.
During Vatican I, Archbishop Kenrick of St. Lewis discussed the research of Catholic Scholar Jean de Launoy in opposition to papal infallibility. Launoy found that in 80% of cases this passage is discussed, Peter himself is not viewed as the rock by the early church.
@@joeoleary9010During the First Vatican Council, Archbishop Kenrick opposed the doctrine of papal infallibility, which stated that the Pope is free of error when pronouncing dogma. Archbishop Kenrick argued that papal infallibility would keep non-Catholics away from the Church, cause a schism within the Church and could not be declared infallible until the bishops of the world agreed on the matter at hand. Kenrick was in the minority opinion and his views were not accepted by the majority.
As a Protestant, I’ve wondered this too. I think there is a connection between this and what happens on the Galilee shore in John 21, where Jesus restores Peter after His Resurrection. Jesus had a very clear mission for Peter as leader of the Church, but was it as Jesus’ earthly representative? Supreme Leader of the Church? I am not sure.
@@AbetTorontoAdventure He also called James and John the sons of thunder. Should we therefore assume that when Jesus returns with a voice like thunder that James and John will be speaking for him?
But wait there is more from Augustine: Sermon on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul (Sermon 295) "For Peter himself, in many places in the Scriptures, appears to represent the Church, especially in that place where it was said, 'I give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' What, therefore, was given to Peter alone was given to the Church."
I was just looking through the comments on one of Trent’s videos and comparing them with the tone of the comments here and wow, the clear, seething hatred many Catholics have for Protestants is concerning. Meanwhile people in these comments aren’t making extreme jabs at Catholics
Gavin, thank you for your time and much needed attention to Matthew 16. Some of your readers should revisit [1Peter 2] from verse 4 onward. Pay special attention to the "living stone(s)" being built up, "the Stone the builders rejected", a "rock" of offense- the "Cornerstone"- lots of analogies for this word "petros". When it doubt, cling to this: On Christ the solid Rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand. Gavin, can you please do a video on the artifact publicized by the Frankfurt Archaeological Museum (December 2024), called "The Frankfurt silver inscription"- the engraving wrapped in a small silver amulet that scientists date back to between 230-260 AD? Thank you in advance! 😃
@Clifford777 yea thats pretty sad he feels the need to comment in such a way. Seeing comments like "I can hear the romans crying already" is also sad and doesn't help move the conversation
Another Against the Letters of Petilian (Book 2:51) "Come, brethren, if you wish to be engrafted in the vine. It is grievous to see you lie cut off from it. Count up the bishops from the very seat of Peter, and in that order of fathers see who succeeded whom. This is the rock against which the proud gates of hell do not prevail."
And Cyprian says things like this while believing Peter was equal in honor and power to the other apostles. This isn't the strong quote you think it is.
Your explanation makes the most sense in the full context of Scripture. When you accept "Development of Doctrine" it's amazing how elaborate and expansive a doctrine can become from just a single passage. While, in this instance it applies to the Roman Catholic Church, it can often apply to many branches of the Church, i.e., Pentecostal, EO, etc.
@@geoffjs It obviously developed; the question is just whether it's faithful to the apostolic faith. A bunch of the things are intrusions from gnostics and elsewhere, not apostolic in origin.
I don't think this issue is clearly as "representative" as one might think on the surface. As someone who was raised Reformed Baptist, I respect you a ton so I really don't want this to come off rude! These quotes below seem to lean in the other direction so I would say that a both/and approach to the text is the most appealing. “Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.” (Saint Augustine, Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18, GCC 51 [A.D. 393]). “For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: "Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!" (Letter 53, St. Augustine)
Gavin misrepresents church fathers an awful lot. Saint Augustine did not disbelieve in papal authority like he is trying to say. Saint Augustine accepted a papal mission from Gregory the Great in his lifetime and also wrote what you quoted above, as well as more. So trying to say Protestants are in agreement with Augustine in their view of church authority is wild.
@@truthnotlies It's not a misrepresentation. Gregory himself said the pope was the leader of the bishops and that he ought to be able to be held accountable by them; that he did not have monarchial authority over them. This is Augustine's view, and TBH, Martin Luther's, at least at the time the Lutherans wrote the Treatise on the Papacy. If Rome was to say, the pope is the leader but the papacy is not infallible and he can be overruled by the church as a whole (e.g. by the assembled bishops), I'd say: right, there's the #1 obstacle to unity removed.
@@igorc.2245technically no one was at that time because the Roman Catholic church hadn’t schismed away from the true remnant yet that was preserved in Luther.
Do you also agree with Augustine on: 1. The canon of Scripture 2. Purgatory 3. Intercession of saints 4. Baptismal regeneration 5. Sacrificial offer of the Mass 6. Authority of the Sacred apostolic tradition 7. Authority of the Church 8. Sinlessness of Mary 9. Perpetual virginity of Mary 10. Mary’s bodily assumption into heaven 11…. ?
@@thejerichoconnection3473 not everything but like the RCC does you also don’t prescribe to everything he nor any church father claimed. Do you agree with Augustine on slavery being ok and unbaptized babies go straight to hell - not limbo. Also where does Augustine talk about Mary’s bodily assumption? That is a genuine question
I found it interesting that Peter denies Christ after the events in Matthew 16. To me that makes it quite clear that Peter is still capable of sin, is fallible, is flawed, and that there was not some mystical transference of infallibility taking place there. However, if we look to John 21, we find that after Christ's resurrection He does come to speak to Peter and to re-instate him. While I see absolutely no evidence for Peter holding an office of leadership that can be passed on, it is quite clear that Jesus is giving him a role of leadership here, as He tells Peter to "feed my lambs", "take care of my sheep" and "feed my sheep". I do find the typological argument of Peter being a representative of the whole Church interesting, and I think it makes his close relationship with Christ, as well as his denial of Christ, all the more poignant. It really shows that struggle that we all face in our servitude to Jesus; that while at times we are close, and we always see Him as our friend and master, that we can still make mistakes, we can still sin, we can even get caught up with the madness of the world and deny Him, at least in our deeds if not in our words. Despite this, Peter is his own person, and Jesus does give him duties that he does not specifically to give to the other disciples; not necessarily in Matthew 16 (as these privileges are given to all in Matthew 18), but arguably in John 21. I want to caveat that I do not see this as creating the position of the papacy; but perhaps it is a blend of these two verses that informs the RC position? That Peter is going to be leader due to John 21, and that he has the power to bind and loose as shown in Matthew 16; so if Peter passed on his position of leader, or caretaker of the lambs, that it would be done in heaven as on earth; is that the logic? We could also interpret the passages about being a caretaker for Jesus' sheep as not a unique office, but rather something that all the other disciples knew they were to do; while at this point Peter is 'estranged' from Jesus after having denied Him 3 times, and that Jesus is simply re-instating the role that he had before as one of the disciples. In other words; Peter is not being given unique power, he is simply being returned to his old position, where he was equal in authority with the others. The purpose of John 21 then could be more to do with redemption than it is about creating an office; that Peter, despite failing Jesus with his three denials, is readily welcomed back by Jesus, showing that our Lord is loving and merciful, and that even when we fail Him, we can always return to Him and He will welcome us with open arms, and restore us; much like the story of the prodigal son.
We as humans have weaknesses, one of which Peter displayed in Mt 16:22 by questioning Jesus & later by denying Him thrice. All popes are humans subject to weaknesses. However, on rare occasions, when teaching officially on faith & morals,they are protected by the HS from teaching error.
@@geoffjs Could it be argued that God can speak through any one of us though? Even if not all of us, certainly ALL of the twelve disciples. If we look to Mark 13:11, Matthew 10:19, etc, we see Christ gathering the twelve disciples and telling them not to worry about what to say in advance, but that the Holy Spirit will be sent and will speak through them. Clearly when God is speaking directly through us, as shown in those passages with the Holy Spirit, our words ARE infallible. They may not be recognised by latter generations as having been directly from God; but they still are. I think this actually can happen with all Christians, but even if not; it certainly applies to all the Apostles, Peter is not singled out for this. So why do RCs specifically set out Peter and his successors as the only ones who can speak infallibly? If we understand that the Holy Spirit can be sent to speak through people, could not any Christian hold that power, or at least any Apostle? Other Apostles also held, at least according to traditions, certain Sees, for instance Alexandria is cited as being of Mark; by the logic that you argue the successor of Peter/Rome can speak infallibly, could we not also argue that the successor of Mark/Alexandria can speak infallibly? This is all very interesting to think about. For my own view, I think God can at times speak through all people, and at times does send the Holy Spirit to speak through Christians when something important needs to be said. I think the way we can tell if it is from God or not, is to test it against the Scriptures. If it is supported by the Scriptures; it could very well be from God. If it goes against the Scriptures; it is not from God. This would also be my reasoning for rejecting certain ideas from the papacy. While I do not know if Mary was assumed into heaven, and the Bible says nothing about it; I do know that my salvation is not dependent upon believing that Mary was assumed into heaven, because the Bible says a LOT about what is required for salvation, and it never mentions that. Therefore, when the RCs try to anathematise people for not believing Mary was assumed into heaven; I can be certain that they are wrong. EDIT: I used Mark in one of my arguments above, but Mark is not an apostle/disciple so some might argue that Christ's teaching that the Holy Spirit will speak through them may not apply to him. However, James son of Alphaeus or James the Lesser is, and the apostolic see of Jerusalem is traditionally given to him, so the same argument can be made that James is a disciple and apostle who holds a bishopric and incontestably can speak infallibly should the Holy Spirit speak through him as Jesus stated will happen in Mark 13:11 and Matthew 10:19, so the same argument holds that Peter and Rome should have no greater authority than James and Jerusalem based upon the logic above.
"In reaction to Cardinal Guidi's insistance that before issuing a definition, the pope must investigate the tradition of the church, Pope Pius broke out with the famos words, "I am tradition! I am the Church!" - John W. O'Malley, Vatican I: The Council and the Making of the Ultramontane Church, p. 212.
Pope Pius was only stating long established Catholic doctrine -- the living pope is the *only* arbiter of the meaning of Catholic tradition, teachings, doctrine and worship. There is no one in the church or in the past that has authority over the living pope. This is the practical application of Matthew 16:18 as the RCC has always understood it.
@@joeoleary9010 What do you make of Constance and Basel's decree in Haec Sancta that the council has its authority immediately from Christ, and the pope has to listen?
Yeah to me the argument that “the rock is Peter” never made sense and it makes less sense when we see in the rest of Scripture that when someone is referred to as the rock it is always referring to, and I’m pretty confident on this, YHVH or Jesus Christ. Verses like 1 Samuel 2:2, Psalms 18:2-3, Deuteronomy 32:4 and many others. I actually made a video on this subject because the study itself is fascinating in Scripture. Great video as always Gavin and Merry Christmas to you and to your family!!
It makes perfect sense when you realize Jesus would be speaking Aramaic. "Simon, you are 'Kepha' and on 'Kepha' I will build the Church." And also reading Matthew 16:19- Jesus literally says 'you.'
Michael S. Heiser said that the rock is Mt Hermon, because that was the mountain where they physically were when Jesus said this. Mt Hermon was considered the gates of Hell because it was a primary place of pagan sacrifice. According to Heiser, Jesus was making a declaration of war against the pagan gods.
@@KnightFelMike was vehemently opposed to interpreting stuff from 2nd Temple Judaism using Christian lenses from the 2nd-4th centuries. A time period far removed from the contemporary realities in which New Testament Scripture was written.
Yup… the rock they were standing on was essentially the front porch in front of the gates of hell… setting up shop on the enemies doorstep was the ultimate boss move.
So ,u equate Petros Masculine noun to Rock feminine noun. Doesn't even make sense from the language. It's a play on words by Jesus to emphasize that the Rock of the pagan worship site would NOT be able to resist the kingdom of God coming in the Church of Christ. Peter is this small Rock that will inisiate this with his Preaching on the Day of Pentecost.
@davidjanbaz7728 A few noteworthy points: 1. The normative rendering of the word is the feminine. Matthew (or the scribe who translated it to Greek) would have known this, and also would have known it's not normal to refer to a male with the feminine word, hence the change to the masculine when plainly referring to Peter. 2. Most New Testament scholars agree that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek. So the Petra/Petros distinction wouldn't have been in the original writing. 3. Jesus spoke Aramaic, and in Aramaic, the ONLY way to say "rock" is Kepha. So he would have used the same word twice, "You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church." And ironically, Cephas (the transliteration of Kepha) is exactly what Paul called Peter. 4. You didn't address my point. Every single time someone's name is changed in scripture, it marks an extremely big transformation in the person renamed. You're saying Peter IS the lone exception. This mean Jesus changed his name for no reason in the exact same passage where he said he would build his church on the same word Peter's name was changed to.
@@davidjanbaz7728 A few noteworthy points: 1. The normative rendering of the word is the feminine. Matthew (or the scribe who translated it to Greek) would have known this, and also would have known it's not normal to refer to a male with the feminine word, hence the change to the masculine when plainly referring to Peter. 2. Most New Testament scholars agree that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek. So the Petra/Petros distinction wouldn't have been in the original writing. 3. Jesus spoke Aramaic, and in Aramaic, the ONLY way to say "rock" is Kepha. So he would have used the same word twice, "You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church." And ironically, Cephas (the transliteration of Kepha) is exactly what Paul called Peter. 4. You didn't address my point. Every single time someone's name is changed in scripture, it marks an extremely big transformation in the person renamed. You're saying Peter IS the lone exception. This mean Jesus changed his name for no reason in the exact same passage where he said he would build his church on the same word Peter's name was changed to.
@@davidjanbaz7728 A few noteworthy points: 1. The normative rendering of the word is the feminine. Matthew (or the scribe who translated it to Greek) would have known this, and also would have known it's not normal to refer to a male with the feminine word, hence the change to the masculine when plainly referring to Peter. 2. Most New Testament scholars agree that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek. So the Petra/Petros distinction wouldn't have been in the original writing. 3. Jesus spoke Aramaic, and in Aramaic, the ONLY way to say "rock" is Kepha. So he would have used the same word twice, "You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church." And ironically, Cephas (the transliteration of Kepha) is exactly what Paul called Peter. 4. You didn't address my point. Every single time someone's name is changed in scripture, it marks an extremely big transformation in the person renamed. You're saying Peter IS the lone exception. This mean Jesus changed his name for no reason in the exact same passage where he said he would build his church on the same word Peter's name was changed to.
@Gavin Ortlund What are your thoughts on Michael Heiser’s interpretation of the rock passage: “This passage [Matthew 16:17-18] is among the most controversial in the Bible, as it is a focal point of debate between Roman Catholics and Protestants. The former argue that Peter is the rock upon which the church is established and thus the passage makes Peter the leader of the original church (and the first pope). Protestants insist the rock is a reference to God on analogy of passages like 1 Corinthians 10:4. Both of these traditional understandings are incorrect. The reference to the rock is the place where they are standing-Caesarea Philippi at the foot of Mount Hermon. The apostate King Jereboam built an idolatrous worship center there (1 Kings 12) and the city adopted the worship of Baal practiced by the Canaanites since the days of Joshua in their city Baal-Gad (Joshua 11:17; cp. Judges 3:3). In Jesus’ day, Caesarea Philippi was also called Panias, having been dedicated to the worship of Pan. When viewed from this perspective, the scene takes place on geography considered the gates of hell in Old Testament times, the domain of Baal, the lord of the dead, and at the mountain where the plot of the Watchers was hatched. Hell, of course, wouldn't be complete without the devil. It is well known to scholars that Baal is the Old Testament counterpart to the devil. In Ugaritic, one of Baal's titles is ba al zebul ars (Prince Baal of the Underworld"), from which the New Testament Beezebul and Beelzebub derive. This isn't about who gets to be pope (or not). Its a cosmic confrontation, with Jesus challenging the authority of the lord of the dead” (Reversing Hermon, 95)
The first and chief objection to the Papacy in the Book of Concord is that the pope ought to be able to be corrected and held accountable by the rest of the church, or at least the bishops. FWIW, every Protestant church body has some head, president, etc; we ought to be able to live with this if the RCC was ever to actually try to compromise to end the Reformation.
Gregory the Great: "Who could doubt that the Church is made firm by the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles, whose name is derived from a rock, and who was called Peter because he was the first to establish the foundations of faith?"
I am sorry - but God established the foundations of faith! When Peter confessed who Jesus was - Jesus said Peter only knew who Jesus was because GOD had revealed it to hime No one who comes to faith in Christ can do so unless God revealed the truth to them! Our understanding and our faith is a gift of God.
Gregory the Great says that whoever calls themselves things which, it turned out later popes used, the forerunner of the antichrist. I don't think he's the guy you want to trust here.
Gregory the Great was adamantly opposed to a monarchial papacy. He insisted that the authority of the church was held by the bishops collectively. Martin Luther even called him the last good Pope on that basis.
As far as I know, the job of an apostle is to personally know Jesus face-to-face, and give, testimony, give confession of the truth about Jesus, to others. So this posture of yours makes total sense. Otherwise, as you say, apostolicity is threatened.
I'm Orthodox, but i have to say the catholics have the right interpretation of matthew 16. Yes christ and peters confession play a role as the rock in varying degrees, but the factor that simon had his name changed to Peter is the important part. Everytime in the entirety of scripture when God changed someones name it shows the role that character has in the biblical narrative....now where the papacy went wrong is going from supremacy to infallible. The first millennial papacy had more peoer than the rest of the bishops as someone who would settle disputes and such, but not the pwoer grabs he was making leading up to the schism.
The doctrine of papal Infallibility was defined at Vatican 1 in 1869. 800 years after the schism. If you're gonna say papal infallibilty is made up, then it wouldn't be at the schism. It would be during the 19th century. Actually you stating that there's evidence of papal Infallibility during the schism in 1054, gives evidence to the supremacy of the successor of Peter has always been within the Church. Peace, brother in Christ. Let me know what you think.
That's actually the chief complaint that the Lutherans make in the Treatise on the Papacy. It was that he ought to be able to be held accountable by the church at large or at least the bishops.
@@ratatoskr9366 Maybe I didn't speak well, I understand papal infallibility wasn't defined till Vatican 1. I'm saying we see the power consolidation starting around the time of the franks, and I think they used the disagreement over enzymes and the filioque as further justification for the pope taking more power than he had previously. Yes I believe the pope has supremacy, and not just a seat of honor, but nothing like the put forward in Vatican 1. I don't like the handpicking of cardinals and just other ecclesiastical stuff they do.
Peter received it first. 2 chapters later all the apostles were given it as equals. Thus you see that Peter is first among equals. That’s precisely how the bishop of Rome was intended to conduct his ministry to the church universal
The Apostles where given authority but none of them had the keys like Peter did. So your statement is false and not supported by scriptures. Please see Isaiah 22:22 as well to compare with Mat 16:18
@ seriously? The history of the Papacy is one of corruption and wickedness! The papacy has a history of bribery, extortion , I could name dozens of popes that were more corrupt and unbiblical than American politicians. Including Francis .
@@thejerichoconnection3473 how do you know they were saints? Only those who born again by an act of God and nothing else are saints and you can’t guarantee that they were all born again . Some of them acted like devils!
Gavin is correct to use Retractions to show Augustine's final position -- because Augustine did seem to change his mind. But, Gavin leaves out an important point. He fails to cite the full text of the retractions which show that, while Augustine did ultimately opine that Peter is not the rock, but rather the confession is the rock, Ausgustine also says "let the reader make up his own mind." This shows that Augustine is admitting that either interpretation is possible and reasonable.
This is irrelevant. If Augustine opined that either was acceptable, his view would still consequently be a far cry from what Rome claims Christ was teaching matthew 16.
Also Gavin, I really do love your work and you're one of the best defenders of Protestantism out there, but please, please do a video on Jimmy Akin's argument for Matthew 16 where he breaks down the structure of the passage to show how it logically follows that Peter is the rock.
Please read the book by Steve Ray., former Baptist. Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church (Modern Apologetics Library)
i've talked personally with Steve, he doesn't even understand there are Ten Commandments. he's pretty much a Bible illiterate. i guess that's why he's catholic.
I think the thought experiment would work better in the following way: If Augustine were alive at various moments of growth or papal power or defining of papal authority…would he be obedient?
Well we know as a matter of historical fact that while Augustine didn't have a Vatican 1 understanding of the Papacy he nevertheless did view the Pope as a unique Petrine leader of the Church and not simply equal with the other Bishops. The Pope for Augustine was the "apostolic see" with a special and unique authority. Also - re: Matt 16:18, the categories of singular and collective are not mutually exclusive. Peter can be both representative and head.
@charlesjoyce982 I assume you are referring to the sermon where he says something to that effect, ie, "letters have been sent to the apostolic see, the matter is closed." That whole incident is worth studying. Augustine's conflict with several Popes concerning Pelagianism reveals multiple things. First, Augustine feels no need to bow the knee to Pope Zosimus when he feels Pope Zosimus has erred. Second, Augustine nevertheless sees the Pope as a unique Petrine authority in the Church and not simply equal to other Bishops.
@@taylorbarrett384 yes, thats right. Augustine expressed frustration with Zosimus, but not open rebellion of any sort. This frustration is further evidence that Augustine knew the importance of the Pope's leadership.
@@charlesjoyce982 Well he did reject Zosimus' ruling quite openly, along with a council of African bishops, who together rebuked Zosimus and contradicted him - even when Zosimus had invoked his petrine authority to make the ruling. So we cannot say Augustine and these African Bishops held to Vatican 1. But they certainly didn't think the Pope was merely another Bishop, equal to all the others in every way. The Pope did possess a special and unique Petrine authority in the Church.
Hey Gavin, i do have an honest question for you. Are you sure you are not coordinating with Trent Horn's video on Sola Scriptura? Both of you have a picture of Augustine, and it looks eerily coincidental how you guys post these videos so close in time with each other
Great video Gavin. Thank you. Question: Can you address the arguements made against Protestants concerning the canon (namely the "You all use our canon and say it's authority is infallable, but not the authortiy of those who canonized it" argument)? I have thoughts but would enjoy hearing your opinions.
It's okay if we have a fallible list of infallible books. We can recognize the wisdom and diligence of those who were in the early church attempting to discern what is in the canon without thinking that they're infallible.
Matthew 20:25-28 NKJV [25] But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. [26] Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. [27] And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave- [28] just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
As a Catholic, I can agree with the exegetical assessment of all Christians being 'living stones' and in some sense participating in 'being a rock'. Likewise, I can understand us all being 'successors' to the 'apostles' when we consider 'apostles' in the etymology of being ambassadors for Christ to the world. But it seems like there is a conflation at the end in Barth's discussion of successors of the 'apostles' where he is now discussing 'apostles' as those who do have serve as bishops and heads of churches. This is a different use of the word 'Apostle'. His says that the protest of Protestantism is the "How" of handing on this succession by being appointed their leadership from existing leaders - what he describes as 'mechanical' and 'legal' ways. It seems that this protest is against the understanding that Paul has for the organization of the church from the time of the apostles, such as Timothy and Titus - They didn't receive this authority by being 'spiritually' a successor, but by receiving it 'mechanically' from those, like Paul, who already had it. Furthermore, they could in turn decide who received such successor-ship: they could decide who did and did not qualify as Elders, how they should or should not be financially compensated for their work, whether what they taught was sound or not, and when those who took it upon themselves to stand up against someone appointed by the Apostles and persist in this, they could determine that such men were self-condemned. This isn't just peculiar to Paul; the book of Acts repeatedly contrasts the wrong acts of those who merely 'went out' of their own accord with those who "were sent". Successor-ship to apostolicity in this sense is not something you can privately take to lead a congregation of Christians in this manner, you do have to have the "assured human possession" that Barth opposes. I do agree Gavin that those who received this authority are subordinate to authentic 'apostolicity' in the sense of fidelity to the gospel, this is consistent with Paul's warnings about how Timothy is to select Elders who are worthy, but this warning was important precisely because this 'mechanical transfer' is something the Church recognized as authoritative from the beginning. Elders are held accountable before God, but they aren't held accountable before their flock as whether they actually are elders or not (Hebrews 13:17).
No Jesus decided to create chaos by creating 3000 Protestant sects to argue among themselves what they believe or enjoy. “That they may be one as thou Father in me and I in thee that they may be also in us that the world may believe that thou hath sent me “He said this 2000 years ago.His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is His Body .He gives us His literal body soul and Divinity in the Eucharist at Mass in every country.
As opposed to the 7 fold split church that already existed, all mutually anathematising each other, with the Roman church that had just had three popes for a century, etc, etc. The corrupt and abusive leadership of the church *caused the splitting*. Look at it now, sedevacantism is booming because the current pope wants LGBTQ jubilees and says all religions arrive at God. I'd LOVE for the Reformation to be able to finish and have visible unity once more, but until Rome (and us) repent of some of our stances, that can never be.
I used to think the rock could’ve maybe been referring to Peter but that was before I read the entirety of the Bible. The more I have traversed through the Scriptures there are countless times when the Lord is referred to as the Rock, in the Old Testament and New. I can’t help but feel it’s almost obvious the Rock is referring to Jesus(God).
I find it interesting that we are not-picking interpretations of the text.. I wonder if you could grant that it would be POSSIBLE (not even probable, but possible), that the Church’s interpretation of this specific text is correct..?
This constant quote mining of the fathers has become frankly unbearable. For any of Augustine’s quotes that seem to support the Protestant position, there are 10 that totally destroy it. The fathers have written tons of tractates throughout their lives sometimes even contradicting themselves. You cannot pick one random quote and conclude that Augustine believed X. You must consider the entirety of Augustine’s works and beliefs and ask yourself: did he sound more proto-Protestant or Catholic? If you are honest, the answer is obvious. What are we even talking about?
Proto Protestant absolutely. Augustine is quoted incessantly by Calvin. Luther was an Augustinian Friar. The strong Monergism of Protestants is Augustinian.
@ the fact that Calvin misused Augustine to invent his theology is irrelevant. Augustine believed in: 1. OT canon including deuterocanonical books 2. Purgatory 3. Sacred oral apostolic tradition 4. Binding authority of the Catholic Church, founded on the rock of Peter 5. Real presence in the Holy Eucharist 6. Baptismal regeneration 7. Confession to a priest 8. Sacrifice of the Mass 9. Seven sacraments 10. Sinlessness of Mary 11. Perpetual virginity of Mary 12. Mary’s bodily assumption 13. Intercession of the saints 14. Prayers to the saints 15. Prayers for the dead 16. Etc etc etc For some reason, these “proto-Protestants” look unbelievably Catholic.
It is interesting that whenever this text is used as a proof, the context is largely ignored. I'm thinking specifically of the fact that right after calling Peter a "Rock" for the church, Jesus calls him "Satan" for his unbelief. It is an interesting way that Matthew unfolds this comment, as if he is trying to make it clear that Peter can be either a rock for the church or a satanic influence on her depending on his confession.
Swim to what? Most Catholic intellectuals think the current pope is a heretic. That would indicate there's really no rock to swim to, that it's all just an empty ideal.
If the Peter and his successors are seen as 'the vicar of Christ on Earth', you can easily say that both Christ and Peter are the 'Rock'. It's basically about seeing Peter as the the vicar of 'Rock' or "The Rock on Earth'.
When Jesus said this to Peter He Himself was on earth, to assume he is appointing Peter his vicar (on earth) is a stretch of the interpretation of the passage. I dont think God would build his one true church on a passage that has such varied interpretation even among the church fathers.
@@mikeoxmaul1788 Christ literally says Simon is 'Peter' = Rock, and on this rock He will build his Church. How much clearer He could have been? Especially when considering other verses like Isaiah 22:22 and John 21:15-17.
Tertullian: "Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' with the power of 'loosing and binding in heaven and on earth'?"
Can you do more short form videos like this on the topic of the views on the papacy by more church Fathers? And have you and redeemed zoomed talked about any collabs coming up?
I asked a Catholic one time if this verse was supposed to be him being made a pope, then why only a few verses later does Jesus say get behind me satan? The priest had no response for me. I find it odd that the guy who is supposed to be the head of christ on earth would be called satan
Good question! We as humans have weaknesses, one of which Peter displayed in Mt 16:22 by questioning Jesus & later by denying Him thrice. All popes are humans subject to weaknesses. However, on rare occasions, when teaching officially on faith & morals,they are protected by the HS from teaching error.
**WRONG** - JESUS at Mat 16:18 also 'set THIS witness stone' (Peter/Rock) JUST like his forefather Joshua did (Joshua 24:25-28) set THIS stone/rock as **witness** that "HEARD God's Word and is to **witness against those who don't hold to it** , a permanent forever role/office! This , FROM THE SCRIPTURES itself, annihilates your 'confession theory' which is shown NOWHERE in scripture !!
I would think some wordplay on Peter's name might've been involved in Augustine's comments and, indeed, in Christ's own words. "Thou art Petros (chunk of rock), and upon THIS Petra (Mass of rock), I will build my church.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty No serious scholar would say they were speaking greek . In fact, we have no evidence that all of the apostles could speak greek. Also, the distinction between "petra" and "petros" does not exist in koine greek. So its a moot point.
Gavin, may I offer what I think is a way to move this debate forward? Discuss what you think Peter’s confession is. Is it merely the words that Jesus is the Son of the Living God? Is it “confessing Christ” in some generic, desiring to be Christian way? Is the Confession a stand-in for the Gospel as a whole? You gloss over this and I am starting to wonder if this is the real source of exegetical tension.
The Peter vs. Peter’s confession distinction is only useful as a disambiguation. Catholics constantly reiterate that the Pope is not infallible in his person, he is only infallible 1) representing/speaking for the bishops/teaching office of the church, and 2) speaking on faith and morals. This sounds a lot like the Pope only has this charism when, like Peter, he speaks in a “representational (I would say leadership/spokeman) capacity” and about matters of faith. Catholics don’t harp on this distinction because we aren’t making the confusion you are attributing to them not because they are. The role of offices in the church enter the argument for Catholics as a premise (one which Augustine accepts BTW). It isn’t proved by Matthew 16, and no one said it was. A proof text cannot prove every aspect of a doctrine.
If Peter is a rock it is only through faith and belief in Jesus as Lord and saviour. I think Jesus’ names even seem to be being a bit being ironic, like Sons of Thunder or if it might have been a play on words if Mary Magdalene was the tower. But maybe they also a bit become these things also.
To my Catholic brothers and sisters... is the absence of the papacy (and the theological framework that accompanies it) from scripture at all concerning to you? I understand the 3-leggeed stool of Catholicism but you'd think Scripture, especially Peter himself, would have much to say about the single most important office of the Church. As I've read through scripture, here are some points on the matter I have jotted down. Curious to hear your responses. Thanks and blessings. - The papacy is never mentioned in the writings of Paul, John, James, or Jude. - Papacy is absent from Peters own letters - No mention of the papacy or it’s theological framework in any pastoral epistle despite their extensive instruction on ecclesiastical matters - No mention of the papacy or it’s theological framework in any of Paul’s letters despite their extensive systematic instruction on how to live a Christian life - Peter never refers to himself as pope but rather calls himself an elder (1Peter 5:1) - Peter never refers to himself as pope but rather calls himself an apostle (1Peter 1:1, 2Peter 1:1) - Peter never claims primacy - Peter gives no indication of papacy, in fact when Cornelius fell at his feet Peter says “Stand up; I too am a man”. He puts himself equal to Cornelius. He certainly does not exercise papacy. (Acts 10:25-26) - Peter gives a beautiful sermon in Acts 2: quotes scripture, calls for repentance, say Christ forgives sins, and we are told 3,000 souls were saved that day. Where is Catholic theology in any of this? Where is the papacy, the warnings of purgatory, the foundation of papacy and apostolic tradition, etc? - 2 Peter is sometimes seen as a farewell discourse as he knew his death was imminent. He reminds his followers of his teachings, commands them on how to live, and makes future predictions. This is his last chance to influence and guide his followers thereafter; not a single mention of his papal office, papal succession, or anything remotely close. - In 2 Peter one of the major themes was false teachings vs Gods prophetic word. If the papacy and apostolic succession was Christs’ implementation to preserve and protect the truth of the Church as Catholics claim, are we not alarmed by its absence and omission from the first Pope?
I would love to see a reply your question. I think you raise excellent points particularly in reference to Peter's own words from 1 and 2 Peter. I would add that Peter does use the stone imagery even quoting Psalm 118 and refers to Christ as the cornerstone and the "rock of stumbling", and all believers as the stones that comprise the "spiritual house".
Or is Jesus affirming Peter’s testimony or affirmation? Also later the apostle Paul had to correct Peter behavior with the Jewish dietary laws ! Lastly, there was no Roman Bishop (Papal) identity representative at some of the earliest councils.
By quoting the Bible! They wrote it and preached it- the word of God! So anyone who teaches what the Apostles taught is following in their footsteps Paul said they and we are all ambassadors for Christ - so long as we stick to the Word of God and do not go off on a tangent as hundreds of Catholic popes and bishops and priests have done! Many Protestants have too. So they are all false teachers as the Bible says.
@saenttor of that was true there would be no need for the judgement seat of Christ. Judgment at the Throne of God 11¶And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Well clearly Paul didn't even see Peter as more authoritative than Apollos. That's very clear since in Paul's discourse on factions in 1 cor 1, Paul does not speak about Peter in any special way even though this was a perfect time to do just this. Btw I never hear this argument but it's basically a slam dunk against Peter's special authority.
I doubt Paul would had the same respect for Apollos that he had for Peter. Paul specifically saught out Peter after his conversion and spent 15 days with him. Paul knew that Peter was special.
@charlesjoyce982 I mean, well that can be explained by recognising that Peter was a disciple but regardless, when it comes to matters of doctrine, according to Paul: if I chose to listen to just Apollos he didn't think it would be a big deal. That's super clear. In corinthians 1 Paul says: 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 ESV [12] What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” [13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? This does not sound like someone who sees Peter as supreme
@@charlesjoyce982 And so what? This does not get you a papacy. And clearly according to Paul, there's no difference between following Paul, Cephas or Apollos
Even if you say it was exclusively Peter who was the rock, to then act as though this exclusive power was somehow transferred solely to the bishop of Rome is absurd. Catholics are trying to establish this idea of Peter only to squeeze the elephant that is the pope through the back door
"Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? Or are these keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ.” Can i say i represent the church? No. Only St.Peter and his successors
Gavin cites (apologies if I missed any)...
1. 4:05, 5:52 - Augustine, _Retractions,_ 20.1
5:17 - Sermon 229
6:16 - Sermon 149.5-6
2. Scripture - Ephesians 2:20; I Corinthians 10:4; I Peter 2:8, Psalm 118:22; Galatians 2:9
3. 7:49 - Vatican I - _Pastor Aeternus_ 1.1-2
4. 8:18 - Hill, Edmund - _The Works of St. Augustine: v.1. Sermons on the Old Testament, 20-50_
5. 8:34 - Siecienski, Ed, _The Papacy and the Orthodox_ 116
6. 9:41 - Barth, Karl, _Church Dogmatics_ 1.1
Thank You John! You are a great Scribe! Blessings!!
Thanks for being a blessing to the body of Christ. You're very well needed in times like this ❤️✝️
I don’t think so
@TheresaCronin-kc6wz Keep thinking
He's distorting patristic texts to obscure church dogma while pushing for his own brand of christianity which has no apostolic lineage. not serving Christ
Great video as always brother! I always learn something I otherwise wouldn’t even think about.
Thank you for so much clarity.
Now that Augustine called Peter Rocky, I'm imagining Sylvester Stallone in a Bible movie
Actually Rocky's box club in the movie was "Ressurection A.C."...
Rocky vs. Apollo Creed. Rocky vs. Apostles Creed. Rocky vs. Athanasian Creed. "Ain't gonna be no rematch."
It blew my mind when I found out that the rock they were standing on was “the gate of hell”… Jesus essentially saying He’s starting His church on the front porch of Satan/the enemy and the gate is useless to stop the invasion. Major boss move and very loud and clear message to everyone who was standing there.
That’s the actual cultural, historical, geographical and religious context of that whole scene.
That's Dr.Michael Heiser's position as is mine.
@@davidjanbaz7728Yes sir… that’s where I learned it. 😊❤
No it's talking about the apostle He went out of His way to rename "Rock"
@@Testimony_Of_JTFhe renames Simon “Cephas” and then says “AND on this rock” so the case could be (and likely is) that he is talking about something separate. Jesus said he is the rock. He didn’t suddenly give that to Peter. Thats blasphemy. There was a deeper point to the renaming. Probably he was representative of Christ (just as all the Apostles) but was a leader of sorts. Not like a king or a president or a pope. But the rock the church is built in is certainly not Peter as is clarified later in the new nee testament and in other gospels. The catholics refusal to acknowledge scripture in its proper context and as your final authority has led to extreme biblical illiteracy
@ScribeAlicious In John 21:15-17 Our Lord is using singular verbs when telling Peter to "feed" His lambs, so clearly Our Lord is not asking the other apostles to do the same feeding (at least in the Koine).
Our Blessed Lord reaffirms Peter’s unique role in Matthew 17:27, where He tells Peter that his tax payment represents them both, insinuating that Peter is indeed His vicar (at the very least, on a legal level).
Luke agrees with the aforementioned in Acts 2:14 where it is written "Peter and the eleven". That's an odd way to refer to the apostles. I mean, if a band is called "Josey and the peppers" guess who's the lead singer?
Again, in Acts 15:7 Peter says that God chose "my mouth" which is singular... The scripture does not say God chose "our mouths" as in all of the apostles. It says "my" (μου) because Peter is referring to himself and only himself.
If you are still not convinced about the Petrine supremacy, when the apostles ask who's greater (Luke 22:24), Our Lord actually answers the question in Luke 22:31-32: *surprise* it's Peter. Again, in the original Greek, Our Lord claims to have prayed for Peter alone and not the other apostles, then He tells only Peter to strengthen his brothers. The Koine quotes Our Blessed Lord to tell Peter “I have prayed for ‘σοῦ’ (notice He doesn’t say ὑ̄μῶν)... that σύ strengthen your brothers” (notice He does not say ὑ̄μεῖς). Our Lord literally spells out to the apostles how singular Peter’s authority is over them, it cannot be more clear. So much so in fact, that when Clement of Rome decides who ought to be bishop in Corinth, no one bats an eye despite the apostle John still being alive. First century Chistians never questioned the successor to Peter having more authority than even a surviving apostle, thus to deny the papacy is to create your own brand-new version of Christianity, completely distinct from the faith of the first Christians.
Wow. I was JUST looking this up. It's crazy how this exact topic came up as a whole video.
Ask, seek, knock! ☺
Yeah, I was just wrestling with this the other day myself.
The algorithm is algorithming
Good video, clear explanations, thanks!
One thing that came to mind as I was watching was Peter's own writings in 1 Peter 2:5, where he calls the believers he's writing to "living stones" in their own turn. Christ is the Rock, Peter is rocky, and we also have a calling to be stones.
It’s been a long time since I looked it up in a lexicon, but as I recall, Christ is the Rock, a large boulder. Peter is a stone, like a fragment that was chipped off the boulder, which makes him one of the stones. This is due do the way the masculine and feminine genders of petros and petras, respectively, are used. Illustration: Petra, the mountain fortress.
@@ricksonora6656Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock and Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
Dan, yet, Jesus Christ refers to Himself as a mere servant as well! Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock and Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God! Even many Protestant scholars attest that Peter is the rock on whom Jesus built His Church!
"Peter is the Shepherd of the Universal Church ", ( John Chrysostom). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is is true food and Blood true drink!
St Augustine:
"For, if the order of bishops succeeding to each other is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus... and so on to Anastasius, who now sits in the same place."
@@duckgrow he says in the video this last exegesis of Augustine is a result of multiple retractions. This was the last statement giving from him on this topic. So no, you're wrong
@@jj4829they don’t read the full body of work or listen to entire videos. They just copypasta Catholic answers and Trent Horn.
As Ortlund said in another video “there’s a lot of cope in the comments”
@@duckgrow …except that what Gavin cited was from his retractions, where he deliberately rejects the interpretation that modern RCs favor, saying that he was wrong to say something more like that earlier.
If you have something after his retractions, I'm all ears, but stuff earlier should be considered in light of his later rejection of it.
Too bad the tradition doesn’t get taught anywhere in scripture
@@ScribeAlicious I am a protestant and I think the Catholic Church misuses tradition. However, what the universal church has universally believed throughout the centuries is important to consider.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
Edit: I just now realized you meant this specific tradition. Nevermind lol
From St. Jerome:
Commentary on Matthew 16:18
"But you say that the Church is founded on Peter, although the same is elsewhere attributed to all the apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends equally on them all; yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head is appointed, the occasion of schism is removed."
Letter to Pope Damasus
"I speak with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the cross. I, following no one as my chief but Christ, am associated in communion with Your Blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church is built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Whoever is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails."
Good quotes. They all receive the keys of the kingdom through Peter
@@Testimony_Of_JTF Yes, but Peter as the head, where there is no schism. Who sit in the chair of Peter according to Jerome? Pope Damasus, bishop of Rome.
I'd want to look at Jerome again to be sure, but all of those things could be affirmed by Cyprian, who explicitly does not think that Peter had any greater power or authority than the other apostles. That is, that Peter was singled out specifically to indicate a principle of unity. The chair of Peter is applied to those who are successors of the apostles generally; not solely to the pope-Peter in Matthew 16 is in some way representative of the whole apostolic college.
Pope Hadrian in a letter to the 2nd Council of Nicaea also took the "confession" view of Matthew 16:18, describing Peter as "He, therefore, that was preferred with so exalted an honour was thought worthy to confess that Faith on which the Church of Christ is founded."
And if anyone needs it to support the papacy, it’s a pope.
@@OctagonalSquare The fact that there were historically Popes that exercised authority and Christians listened to them, albeit to sometimes relunctantly or with resistance, still points to that authority.
@@aloyalcatholic5785authority doesn’t equal infallibility. The pope is a legitimate authority but he has no capability to infallibility declare doctrine
Then there would be no point in listening to the Church at all. If the first council ever held on circumcision could have been wrong, then there would have been no point in obeying it. @@kodyoneill497
@@kodyoneill497 So you're not Catholic?
I like Heiser’s approach to this verse. Fighting right at hells door. And then the transfiguration immediately follows.
I learned a lot in such a short span. Love this. Feel free to exposit little chunks of text whenever you wish, especially with a historical lens.
Good video, very thoughtful!
I love the appeal to exegete Matthew 16 alongside the rest of the NT rather than resting everything on this obscure passage. I say this all the time when speaking about this verse.
Great work, thanks.
"For, if the order of bishops succeeding to each other is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'” - St Augustine.
Our encyclopedia of Popes actually has a list of Roman Bishops going back to Peter all 266 of them when they can provide one then maybe we will take them seriously Augustine says that’s how we know who is that Catholic Church without a list they aren’t even in the discussion
gavin mentioned that he was referencing Augustines "mature" thoughts. Gavin mentions mature since he is aware of thoughts that pose differently to the idea he is speaking here but was spoken/written earlier than what Gavin is claiming his more matured view.
@@TheOppiterAugustine never retracted Peter having a list of successors to his Chair just changing his views on how the rock can be understood you conflated 2 different issues
@Ty9001 Not trying to start an argument, just curious about your thoughts:
Why would having an unbroken chain of Romans bishops make you more apostolic than a church that teaches apostolic doctrine but doesn't have an unbroken chain of Roman bishops? I think Gavin makes a fair point here.
Shouldn't doctrine matter more than who is teaching it? Though I guess if the presumption is that the Church is inerrant than that changes the answer. Either way, God bless!
@@Ty9001 providing an alternate Pope usually results in several decades of brutal warfare. That was the point of the Reformation: to distribute power so that only Christ can lead His church in its entirety. Producing an alternative Pope is antithetical to Protestantism. Producing a completely different form of governance with God as Father, Son, & Holy Spirit as the true head was the aim.
Just like we've seen in recent times with Pope Benedict and Tikon of Moscow: the only leader of the Church who cannot be leveraged out by the forces of corruption is Christ. The view of Peter as Rock leads us to an earthly man who can be circumvented quite handily. The view of Christ as Rock, the chief cornerstone, leads to a Church that is as undying as Christ.
Woah 83k! Praise God for growth
Glory to God
Excellent!
Grace to you. Gavin
Interesting!
Very helpful! Thank you!
Ireneaus:
"the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority"
Authority's a bad translation there. The latin is principalitatem, if I remember correctly, which a good bit broader of a word than authority-"firsthood" could work, perhaps, which is notably less than jurisdiction (and could even be referring to it being the capital of the Roman empire, I'd imagine). There's also a bit of that quote that you didn't include there about how it's because apostolic traditions from elsewhere should be gathered in Rome. It's not ascribing some power to it. For more on this, see Edward Denny's excellent book Papalism.
But yuo see, Gavin, the magisterium cannot err, therefore even though nearly all early church fathers interpreted Matthew 16 as such the Roman Catholic Church can force a completely different interpretation of the passage and be correct. Checkmate
Only God can’t err … humans err everyday, especially the magisterium
@@rolandolugo5135 He was being sarcastic.
@@Spencizzle1 if he was than my apologies
Like Nicea 2 they can have errors in their reasoning but the conclusion is protected.
@@geoffrobinson That’s pretty spot on actually haha.
“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Augustine, Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Augustine, Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
"Peter represented the church"
=//=
"Peter was established the head of the church"
The former does not necessarily imply the latter.
Yes, everyone recognized that Peter was the first of the apostles.
That's obviously very different from the modern Roman claims. A representative primacy, versus a jurisdictional one.
It would be helpful to present the other side of St. Augustine’s interpretation.
“Number the bishops from the See of Peter. And, in that order of fathers, see whom succeeded whom. This is the Rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer.”
Erick Ybarra has a great article in which he affirms both the diffusive understanding of Mt 16:18 by the fathers and then shows how the same fathers interpret Mt 16:18 with Peter as the rock, his primacy among the apostles and bishops, etc…
The confession is the rock/foundation of our faith. Jesus and Peter are the rock in maintaining that foundational notion of our belief.
A key opens a door. And Peter accomplished that as documented in Acts. He opened the door to many unbelieving Jews with his discourse at Pentecost, the outpouring of the Spirit upon Samaritans, and the conversion and outpouring of the Spirit upon the first Gentiles with Cornelius and his family. Task accomplished and nothing more involved with it.
Later church fathers tried to generalize and add to what is essentially a very straightforward assignment from the Lord.
I was hoping you would do a video on Matthew 16 and 18. Thank you!
Let's be charitable to our RC brothers and sisters, folks. Protestants have made a lot of errors as well, and there's no need to become arrogant.
True but the RCC uses arguments like this to “prove” they have the “fullness of the faith” and “the Church JC started.” Seems arrogant to me.
@@lohi172 If anyone has the fullness of the faith, it is, beyond a reasonable doubt - not protestants lol. Protestants are just so individualistic. Maybe Gavin Ortlund has the fullness. But certainly not Protestantism as a whole. There's not tradition or history to even hold on to, because everyone is schismatic from the reformers.
@@lohi172 It can be, depending on what they mean by it. But it doesn't mean we should match someone else's attitude.
The issue becomes when they pronounce anathemas on anyone that doesn’t believe clear accretions. They claim infallibility on these clear accretions. It makes it difficult to find middle ground when the stakes are made that high. For example, they use this authority structure to declare anathema on anyone that doesn’t fully adhere to Marian Dogma. If they would make these beliefs less binding then it’d be easier to find unity.
@@loganpeck5084 True but I don’t think Gavin’s arrogant. Maybe some people are here but it seems mostly civil.
Boss video
During Vatican I, Archbishop Kenrick of St. Lewis discussed the research of Catholic Scholar Jean de Launoy in opposition to papal infallibility.
Launoy found that in 80% of cases this passage is discussed, Peter himself is not viewed as the rock by the early church.
Kendrick ultimately accepted V I's decision to make papal infallibility dogma.
@ of course he did, but that’s not the point
Did they do an analysis on the meaning of the keys and whether Peter alone holds them or if Peter holds them primarily?
@@MusculusPulveri Well it kind of is the point, because it implies that Kendrick didn't find Launoy's argument totally persuasive.
@@joeoleary9010During the First Vatican Council, Archbishop Kenrick opposed the doctrine of papal infallibility, which stated that the Pope is free of error when pronouncing dogma. Archbishop Kenrick argued that papal infallibility would keep non-Catholics away from the Church, cause a schism within the Church and could not be declared infallible until the bishops of the world agreed on the matter at hand. Kenrick was in the minority opinion and his views were not accepted by the majority.
Peter’s name means stone/rock in Greek (Petros). Why did Jesus change Simon’s name to Peter? There has to be a reason.
Great video!
According to Protestant logic, he was trying to mock him. There’s no other explanation.
Because there was another Simon among the apostles and he wanted to be able to talk about them each without causing confusion.
@@HSuper_Lee and why Rock? Now it's causing more confusion because Protestants always say Jesus is the Rock Now you have two rocks now.
As a Protestant, I’ve wondered this too. I think there is a connection between this and what happens on the Galilee shore in John 21, where Jesus restores Peter after His Resurrection. Jesus had a very clear mission for Peter as leader of the Church, but was it as Jesus’ earthly representative? Supreme Leader of the Church? I am not sure.
@@AbetTorontoAdventure He also called James and John the sons of thunder. Should we therefore assume that when Jesus returns with a voice like thunder that James and John will be speaking for him?
But wait there is more from Augustine:
Sermon on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul (Sermon 295)
"For Peter himself, in many places in the Scriptures, appears to represent the Church, especially in that place where it was said, 'I give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' What, therefore, was given to Peter alone was given to the Church."
I was just looking through the comments on one of Trent’s videos and comparing them with the tone of the comments here and wow, the clear, seething hatred many Catholics have for Protestants is concerning. Meanwhile people in these comments aren’t making extreme jabs at Catholics
Gavin, thank you for your time and much needed attention to Matthew 16. Some of your readers should revisit [1Peter 2] from verse 4 onward. Pay special attention to the "living stone(s)" being built up, "the Stone the builders rejected", a "rock" of offense- the "Cornerstone"- lots of analogies for this word "petros". When it doubt, cling to this: On Christ the solid Rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand. Gavin, can you please do a video on the artifact publicized by the Frankfurt Archaeological Museum (December 2024), called "The Frankfurt silver inscription"- the engraving wrapped in a small silver amulet that scientists date back to between 230-260 AD? Thank you in advance!
😃
The amount of hate towards Catholics in this comment section is sad.
Look up 3 comments from this comment in the newest comments… I haven’t seen any hate like that from any Protestants here.
@Clifford777 yea thats pretty sad he feels the need to comment in such a way. Seeing comments like "I can hear the romans crying already" is also sad and doesn't help move the conversation
@@A-ARonYeager true brother, I appreciate your desire for edification and I myself love my Catholic and orthodox brothers / sisters in Christ deeply!
Have you seen the one cursing the Satanic “sola Scriptura” confessors.
It’s sadly going both ways here
@Thatoneguy-pu8ty real charitable on both sides. If there's anything Jesus wants, it's for us to yell at each other online...
Another
Against the Letters of Petilian (Book 2:51)
"Come, brethren, if you wish to be engrafted in the vine. It is grievous to see you lie cut off from it. Count up the bishops from the very seat of Peter, and in that order of fathers see who succeeded whom. This is the rock against which the proud gates of hell do not prevail."
And Cyprian says things like this while believing Peter was equal in honor and power to the other apostles. This isn't the strong quote you think it is.
Your explanation makes the most sense in the full context of Scripture. When you accept "Development of Doctrine" it's amazing how elaborate and expansive a doctrine can become from just a single passage. While, in this instance it applies to the Roman Catholic Church, it can often apply to many branches of the Church, i.e., Pentecostal, EO, etc.
Yet, Protestantism, on other occasions denies the development of doctrine such as Marian devotion. Quite frankly, I’m tiered of the hypocrisy!
@@geoffjs It obviously developed; the question is just whether it's faithful to the apostolic faith. A bunch of the things are intrusions from gnostics and elsewhere, not apostolic in origin.
Gavin could you rebutt Trent's recent video of "The Fallacy of Sola Scriptura?" Thank you
I don't think this issue is clearly as "representative" as one might think on the surface. As someone who was raised Reformed Baptist, I respect you a ton so I really don't want this to come off rude! These quotes below seem to lean in the other direction so I would say that a both/and approach to the text is the most appealing.
“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.” (Saint Augustine, Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18, GCC 51 [A.D. 393]).
“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: "Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!" (Letter 53, St. Augustine)
Gavin misrepresents church fathers an awful lot. Saint Augustine did not disbelieve in papal authority like he is trying to say. Saint Augustine accepted a papal mission from Gregory the Great in his lifetime and also wrote what you quoted above, as well as more. So trying to say Protestants are in agreement with Augustine in their view of church authority is wild.
And what are you drawing out of those quotes exactly? Neither of those imply anything like Vatican I.
@@truthnotlies It's not a misrepresentation. Gregory himself said the pope was the leader of the bishops and that he ought to be able to be held accountable by them; that he did not have monarchial authority over them. This is Augustine's view, and TBH, Martin Luther's, at least at the time the Lutherans wrote the Treatise on the Papacy.
If Rome was to say, the pope is the leader but the papacy is not infallible and he can be overruled by the church as a whole (e.g. by the assembled bishops), I'd say: right, there's the #1 obstacle to unity removed.
Nice!! Glad to agree with Augustine. You defend protestantism intelligently, pastor😊
Augustine is not prot btw.
@@igorc.2245technically no one was at that time because the Roman Catholic church hadn’t schismed away from the true remnant yet that was preserved in Luther.
Do you also agree with Augustine on:
1. The canon of Scripture
2. Purgatory
3. Intercession of saints
4. Baptismal regeneration
5. Sacrificial offer of the Mass
6. Authority of the Sacred apostolic tradition
7. Authority of the Church
8. Sinlessness of Mary
9. Perpetual virginity of Mary
10. Mary’s bodily assumption into heaven
11….
?
@@thejerichoconnection3473 not everything but like the RCC does you also don’t prescribe to everything he nor any church father claimed. Do you agree with Augustine on slavery being ok and unbaptized babies go straight to hell - not limbo. Also where does Augustine talk about Mary’s bodily assumption? That is a genuine question
Weirdly St Augustine accepted a papal mission from Pope Gregory the Great... Doesn't really sound like he did not believe in the authority there.
I found it interesting that Peter denies Christ after the events in Matthew 16. To me that makes it quite clear that Peter is still capable of sin, is fallible, is flawed, and that there was not some mystical transference of infallibility taking place there.
However, if we look to John 21, we find that after Christ's resurrection He does come to speak to Peter and to re-instate him. While I see absolutely no evidence for Peter holding an office of leadership that can be passed on, it is quite clear that Jesus is giving him a role of leadership here, as He tells Peter to "feed my lambs", "take care of my sheep" and "feed my sheep".
I do find the typological argument of Peter being a representative of the whole Church interesting, and I think it makes his close relationship with Christ, as well as his denial of Christ, all the more poignant. It really shows that struggle that we all face in our servitude to Jesus; that while at times we are close, and we always see Him as our friend and master, that we can still make mistakes, we can still sin, we can even get caught up with the madness of the world and deny Him, at least in our deeds if not in our words. Despite this, Peter is his own person, and Jesus does give him duties that he does not specifically to give to the other disciples; not necessarily in Matthew 16 (as these privileges are given to all in Matthew 18), but arguably in John 21. I want to caveat that I do not see this as creating the position of the papacy; but perhaps it is a blend of these two verses that informs the RC position? That Peter is going to be leader due to John 21, and that he has the power to bind and loose as shown in Matthew 16; so if Peter passed on his position of leader, or caretaker of the lambs, that it would be done in heaven as on earth; is that the logic?
We could also interpret the passages about being a caretaker for Jesus' sheep as not a unique office, but rather something that all the other disciples knew they were to do; while at this point Peter is 'estranged' from Jesus after having denied Him 3 times, and that Jesus is simply re-instating the role that he had before as one of the disciples. In other words; Peter is not being given unique power, he is simply being returned to his old position, where he was equal in authority with the others. The purpose of John 21 then could be more to do with redemption than it is about creating an office; that Peter, despite failing Jesus with his three denials, is readily welcomed back by Jesus, showing that our Lord is loving and merciful, and that even when we fail Him, we can always return to Him and He will welcome us with open arms, and restore us; much like the story of the prodigal son.
We as humans have weaknesses, one of which Peter displayed in Mt 16:22 by questioning Jesus & later by denying Him thrice.
All popes are humans subject to weaknesses. However, on rare occasions, when teaching officially on faith & morals,they are protected by the HS from teaching error.
@@geoffjs Could it be argued that God can speak through any one of us though? Even if not all of us, certainly ALL of the twelve disciples. If we look to Mark 13:11, Matthew 10:19, etc, we see Christ gathering the twelve disciples and telling them not to worry about what to say in advance, but that the Holy Spirit will be sent and will speak through them.
Clearly when God is speaking directly through us, as shown in those passages with the Holy Spirit, our words ARE infallible. They may not be recognised by latter generations as having been directly from God; but they still are.
I think this actually can happen with all Christians, but even if not; it certainly applies to all the Apostles, Peter is not singled out for this.
So why do RCs specifically set out Peter and his successors as the only ones who can speak infallibly? If we understand that the Holy Spirit can be sent to speak through people, could not any Christian hold that power, or at least any Apostle? Other Apostles also held, at least according to traditions, certain Sees, for instance Alexandria is cited as being of Mark; by the logic that you argue the successor of Peter/Rome can speak infallibly, could we not also argue that the successor of Mark/Alexandria can speak infallibly?
This is all very interesting to think about. For my own view, I think God can at times speak through all people, and at times does send the Holy Spirit to speak through Christians when something important needs to be said. I think the way we can tell if it is from God or not, is to test it against the Scriptures. If it is supported by the Scriptures; it could very well be from God. If it goes against the Scriptures; it is not from God.
This would also be my reasoning for rejecting certain ideas from the papacy. While I do not know if Mary was assumed into heaven, and the Bible says nothing about it; I do know that my salvation is not dependent upon believing that Mary was assumed into heaven, because the Bible says a LOT about what is required for salvation, and it never mentions that. Therefore, when the RCs try to anathematise people for not believing Mary was assumed into heaven; I can be certain that they are wrong.
EDIT: I used Mark in one of my arguments above, but Mark is not an apostle/disciple so some might argue that Christ's teaching that the Holy Spirit will speak through them may not apply to him. However, James son of Alphaeus or James the Lesser is, and the apostolic see of Jerusalem is traditionally given to him, so the same argument can be made that James is a disciple and apostle who holds a bishopric and incontestably can speak infallibly should the Holy Spirit speak through him as Jesus stated will happen in Mark 13:11 and Matthew 10:19, so the same argument holds that Peter and Rome should have no greater authority than James and Jerusalem based upon the logic above.
"In reaction to Cardinal Guidi's insistance that before issuing a definition, the pope must investigate the tradition of the church, Pope Pius broke out with the famos words, "I am tradition! I am the Church!" - John W. O'Malley, Vatican I: The Council and the Making of the Ultramontane Church, p. 212.
Thats a lie!
@@evanzanyswer6295nope he really said that
Pope Pius was only stating long established Catholic doctrine -- the living pope is the *only* arbiter of the meaning of Catholic tradition, teachings, doctrine and worship. There is no one in the church or in the past that has authority over the living pope. This is the practical application of Matthew 16:18 as the RCC has always understood it.
@@joeoleary9010 What do you make of Constance and Basel's decree in Haec Sancta that the council has its authority immediately from Christ, and the pope has to listen?
Yeah to me the argument that “the rock is Peter” never made sense and it makes less sense when we see in the rest of Scripture that when someone is referred to as the rock it is always referring to, and I’m pretty confident on this, YHVH or Jesus Christ. Verses like 1 Samuel 2:2, Psalms 18:2-3, Deuteronomy 32:4 and many others. I actually made a video on this subject because the study itself is fascinating in Scripture. Great video as always Gavin and Merry Christmas to you and to your family!!
It makes perfect sense when you realize Jesus would be speaking Aramaic. "Simon, you are 'Kepha' and on 'Kepha' I will build the Church." And also reading Matthew 16:19- Jesus literally says 'you.'
Why did Christ changed Simon's name to Peter?
Michael S. Heiser said that the rock is Mt Hermon, because that was the mountain where they physically were when Jesus said this. Mt Hermon was considered the gates of Hell because it was a primary place of pagan sacrifice. According to Heiser, Jesus was making a declaration of war against the pagan gods.
That’s much more likely than the Roman Catholic interpretation. Spiritual geography.
@@KnightFelMike was vehemently opposed to interpreting stuff from 2nd Temple Judaism using Christian lenses from the 2nd-4th centuries. A time period far removed from the contemporary realities in which New Testament Scripture was written.
Yup… the rock they were standing on was essentially the front porch in front of the gates of hell… setting up shop on the enemies doorstep was the ultimate boss move.
If Peter isn't the rock, then Jesus changed his name to rock in the same passage for absolutely no reason.
So ,u equate Petros Masculine noun to Rock feminine noun.
Doesn't even make sense from the language.
It's a play on words by Jesus to emphasize that the Rock of the pagan worship site would NOT be able to resist the kingdom of God coming in the Church of Christ.
Peter is this small Rock that will inisiate this with his Preaching on the Day of Pentecost.
@davidjanbaz7728 A few noteworthy points:
1. The normative rendering of the word is the feminine. Matthew (or the scribe who translated it to Greek) would have known this, and also would have known it's not normal to refer to a male with the feminine word, hence the change to the masculine when plainly referring to Peter.
2. Most New Testament scholars agree that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek. So the Petra/Petros distinction wouldn't have been in the original writing.
3. Jesus spoke Aramaic, and in Aramaic, the ONLY way to say "rock" is Kepha. So he would have used the same word twice, "You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church." And ironically, Cephas (the transliteration of Kepha) is exactly what Paul called Peter.
4. You didn't address my point. Every single time someone's name is changed in scripture, it marks an extremely big transformation in the person renamed. You're saying Peter IS the lone exception. This mean Jesus changed his name for no reason in the exact same passage where he said he would build his church on the same word Peter's name was changed to.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Jesus did not call him Patricia... any Greek speaking person would tell you this
@@davidjanbaz7728 A few noteworthy points:
1. The normative rendering of the word is the feminine. Matthew (or the scribe who translated it to Greek) would have known this, and also would have known it's not normal to refer to a male with the feminine word, hence the change to the masculine when plainly referring to Peter.
2. Most New Testament scholars agree that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek. So the Petra/Petros distinction wouldn't have been in the original writing.
3. Jesus spoke Aramaic, and in Aramaic, the ONLY way to say "rock" is Kepha. So he would have used the same word twice, "You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church." And ironically, Cephas (the transliteration of Kepha) is exactly what Paul called Peter.
4. You didn't address my point. Every single time someone's name is changed in scripture, it marks an extremely big transformation in the person renamed. You're saying Peter IS the lone exception. This mean Jesus changed his name for no reason in the exact same passage where he said he would build his church on the same word Peter's name was changed to.
@@davidjanbaz7728 A few noteworthy points:
1. The normative rendering of the word is the feminine. Matthew (or the scribe who translated it to Greek) would have known this, and also would have known it's not normal to refer to a male with the feminine word, hence the change to the masculine when plainly referring to Peter.
2. Most New Testament scholars agree that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek. So the Petra/Petros distinction wouldn't have been in the original writing.
3. Jesus spoke Aramaic, and in Aramaic, the ONLY way to say "rock" is Kepha. So he would have used the same word twice, "You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church." And ironically, Cephas (the transliteration of Kepha) is exactly what Paul called Peter.
4. You didn't address my point. Every single time someone's name is changed in scripture, it marks an extremely big transformation in the person renamed. You're saying Peter IS the lone exception. This mean Jesus changed his name for no reason in the exact same passage where he said he would build his church on the same word Peter's name was changed to.
I’m not a big Barth guy, but that quote was 🔥
@Gavin Ortlund What are your thoughts on Michael Heiser’s interpretation of the rock passage:
“This passage [Matthew 16:17-18] is among the most controversial in the Bible, as it is a focal point of debate between Roman Catholics and Protestants. The former argue that Peter is the rock upon which the church is established and thus the passage makes Peter the leader of the original church (and the first pope). Protestants insist the rock is a reference to God on analogy of passages like 1 Corinthians 10:4.
Both of these traditional understandings are incorrect. The reference to the rock is the place where they are standing-Caesarea Philippi at the foot of Mount Hermon. The apostate King Jereboam built an idolatrous worship center there (1 Kings 12) and the city adopted the worship of Baal practiced by the Canaanites since the days of Joshua in their city Baal-Gad (Joshua 11:17; cp. Judges 3:3). In Jesus’ day, Caesarea Philippi was also called Panias, having been dedicated to the worship of Pan.
When viewed from this perspective, the scene takes place on geography considered the gates of hell in Old Testament times, the domain of Baal, the lord of the dead, and at the mountain where the plot of the Watchers was hatched. Hell, of course, wouldn't be complete without the devil. It is well known to scholars that Baal is the Old Testament counterpart to the devil. In Ugaritic, one of Baal's titles is ba al zebul ars (Prince Baal of the Underworld"), from which the New Testament Beezebul and Beelzebub derive. This isn't about who gets to be pope (or not). Its a cosmic confrontation, with Jesus challenging the authority of the lord of the dead” (Reversing Hermon, 95)
This one has me scratching my head
@@michaelbush1374 The episode referred to was featured in the most recent Chosen series.
@@joeoleary9010 I just started watching that!
Whoa! He's doing it!
The first and chief objection to the Papacy in the Book of Concord is that the pope ought to be able to be corrected and held accountable by the rest of the church, or at least the bishops.
FWIW, every Protestant church body has some head, president, etc; we ought to be able to live with this if the RCC was ever to actually try to compromise to end the Reformation.
Gregory the Great:
"Who could doubt that the Church is made firm by the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles, whose name is derived from a rock, and who was called Peter because he was the first to establish the foundations of faith?"
I am sorry - but God established the foundations of faith! When Peter confessed who Jesus was - Jesus said Peter only knew who Jesus was because GOD had revealed it to hime No one who comes to faith in Christ can do so unless God revealed the truth to them! Our understanding and our faith is a gift of God.
@@mikekayanderson408 This does nothing to disprove the former. Everything comes from God obviously.
Gregory the Great says that whoever calls themselves things which, it turned out later popes used, the forerunner of the antichrist. I don't think he's the guy you want to trust here.
Gregory the Great was adamantly opposed to a monarchial papacy. He insisted that the authority of the church was held by the bishops collectively. Martin Luther even called him the last good Pope on that basis.
As far as I know, the job of an apostle is to personally know Jesus face-to-face, and give, testimony, give confession of the truth about Jesus, to others.
So this posture of yours makes total sense. Otherwise, as you say, apostolicity is threatened.
I'm Orthodox, but i have to say the catholics have the right interpretation of matthew 16. Yes christ and peters confession play a role as the rock in varying degrees, but the factor that simon had his name changed to Peter is the important part. Everytime in the entirety of scripture when God changed someones name it shows the role that character has in the biblical narrative....now where the papacy went wrong is going from supremacy to infallible. The first millennial papacy had more peoer than the rest of the bishops as someone who would settle disputes and such, but not the pwoer grabs he was making leading up to the schism.
The doctrine of papal Infallibility was defined at Vatican 1 in 1869. 800 years after the schism.
If you're gonna say papal infallibilty is made up, then it wouldn't be at the schism. It would be during the 19th century.
Actually you stating that there's evidence of papal Infallibility during the schism in 1054, gives evidence to the supremacy of the successor of Peter has always been within the Church.
Peace, brother in Christ. Let me know what you think.
That's actually the chief complaint that the Lutherans make in the Treatise on the Papacy. It was that he ought to be able to be held accountable by the church at large or at least the bishops.
@@ratatoskr9366 Maybe I didn't speak well, I understand papal infallibility wasn't defined till Vatican 1. I'm saying we see the power consolidation starting around the time of the franks, and I think they used the disagreement over enzymes and the filioque as further justification for the pope taking more power than he had previously. Yes I believe the pope has supremacy, and not just a seat of honor, but nothing like the put forward in Vatican 1. I don't like the handpicking of cardinals and just other ecclesiastical stuff they do.
Peter received it first. 2 chapters later all the apostles were given it as equals. Thus you see that Peter is first among equals. That’s precisely how the bishop of Rome was intended to conduct his ministry to the church universal
The Apostles where given authority but none of them had the keys like Peter did. So your statement is false and not supported by scriptures. Please see Isaiah 22:22 as well to compare with Mat 16:18
@@a.ihistory5879 The standard patristic interpretation is that he received it representatively, and so it is common to the whole church.
Any rational person that studies the history of Papacy would never conclude it a blessed and holy office
Thanks for trashing 2000 years of saints.
@ seriously?
The history of the Papacy is one of corruption and wickedness!
The papacy has a history of bribery, extortion , I could name dozens of popes that were more corrupt and unbiblical than American politicians. Including Francis .
Emotional blackmail.@@thejerichoconnection3473
@@thejerichoconnection3473 how do you know they were saints? Only those who born again by an act of God and nothing else are saints and you can’t guarantee that they were all born again .
Some of them acted like devils!
@@thejerichoconnection3473 He's got a point. It's pretty sordid. Many saints suffered (were "trashed") under the frequent corruption of Rome.
The Short answer is yes, he would.
Had to watch it twice. Too much info for 11 mins
Gavin is correct to use Retractions to show Augustine's final position -- because Augustine did seem to change his mind.
But, Gavin leaves out an important point. He fails to cite the full text of the retractions which show that, while Augustine did ultimately opine that Peter is not the rock, but rather the confession is the rock, Ausgustine also says "let the reader make up his own mind." This shows that Augustine is admitting that either interpretation is possible and reasonable.
This is irrelevant. If Augustine opined that either was acceptable, his view would still consequently be a far cry from what Rome claims Christ was teaching matthew 16.
@@jeremybamgbade
If we are trying to establish what Augustine's views were then it is certainly relevant.
Also Gavin, I really do love your work and you're one of the best defenders of Protestantism out there, but please, please do a video on Jimmy Akin's argument for Matthew 16 where he breaks down the structure of the passage to show how it logically follows that Peter is the rock.
Big, if true!
Please read the book by Steve Ray., former Baptist. Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church (Modern Apologetics Library)
i've talked personally with Steve, he doesn't even understand there are Ten Commandments. he's pretty much a Bible illiterate.
i guess that's why he's catholic.
Gavin’s the honey badger
I think the thought experiment would work better in the following way: If Augustine were alive at various moments of growth or papal power or defining of papal authority…would he be obedient?
Well we know as a matter of historical fact that while Augustine didn't have a Vatican 1 understanding of the Papacy he nevertheless did view the Pope as a unique Petrine leader of the Church and not simply equal with the other Bishops. The Pope for Augustine was the "apostolic see" with a special and unique authority. Also - re: Matt 16:18, the categories of singular and collective are not mutually exclusive. Peter can be both representative and head.
Rome has spoken.
@charlesjoyce982 I assume you are referring to the sermon where he says something to that effect, ie, "letters have been sent to the apostolic see, the matter is closed." That whole incident is worth studying. Augustine's conflict with several Popes concerning Pelagianism reveals multiple things. First, Augustine feels no need to bow the knee to Pope Zosimus when he feels Pope Zosimus has erred. Second, Augustine nevertheless sees the Pope as a unique Petrine authority in the Church and not simply equal to other Bishops.
@@taylorbarrett384 yes, thats right.
Augustine expressed frustration with Zosimus, but not open rebellion of any sort. This frustration is further evidence that Augustine knew the importance of the Pope's leadership.
@@charlesjoyce982 Well he did reject Zosimus' ruling quite openly, along with a council of African bishops, who together rebuked Zosimus and contradicted him - even when Zosimus had invoked his petrine authority to make the ruling. So we cannot say Augustine and these African Bishops held to Vatican 1. But they certainly didn't think the Pope was merely another Bishop, equal to all the others in every way. The Pope did possess a special and unique Petrine authority in the Church.
Sure, everyone recognized that Rome had primacy. That's not controversial. That's just extremely different from Vatican I's claims.
Hey Gavin, i do have an honest question for you. Are you sure you are not coordinating with Trent Horn's video on Sola Scriptura? Both of you have a picture of Augustine, and it looks eerily coincidental how you guys post these videos so close in time with each other
just a coincidence, haha! Sola Scriptura and Matthew 16 are different topics, too.
He says 'Peter', not 'Rock' is confusing. Peter MEANS Rock
Yeah. And in the Aramaic there was no "big rock" or "little rock" distraction.
@@truthnotlies and the only reason for the Greek distinction with regards to personal name is gender aka
Peter not Patricia
Great video Gavin. Thank you.
Question: Can you address the arguements made against Protestants concerning the canon (namely the "You all use our canon and say it's authority is infallable, but not the authortiy of those who canonized it" argument)?
I have thoughts but would enjoy hearing your opinions.
It's okay if we have a fallible list of infallible books. We can recognize the wisdom and diligence of those who were in the early church attempting to discern what is in the canon without thinking that they're infallible.
@BernardinusDeMoor Agreed.
Matthew 20:25-28 NKJV
[25] But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. [26] Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. [27] And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave- [28] just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
Pope Damasus:
"The first See, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish."
This video isn’t going to make anyone angry 😅
As a Catholic, I can agree with the exegetical assessment of all Christians being 'living stones' and in some sense participating in 'being a rock'. Likewise, I can understand us all being 'successors' to the 'apostles' when we consider 'apostles' in the etymology of being ambassadors for Christ to the world.
But it seems like there is a conflation at the end in Barth's discussion of successors of the 'apostles' where he is now discussing 'apostles' as those who do have serve as bishops and heads of churches. This is a different use of the word 'Apostle'. His says that the protest of Protestantism is the "How" of handing on this succession by being appointed their leadership from existing leaders - what he describes as 'mechanical' and 'legal' ways.
It seems that this protest is against the understanding that Paul has for the organization of the church from the time of the apostles, such as Timothy and Titus - They didn't receive this authority by being 'spiritually' a successor, but by receiving it 'mechanically' from those, like Paul, who already had it. Furthermore, they could in turn decide who received such successor-ship: they could decide who did and did not qualify as Elders, how they should or should not be financially compensated for their work, whether what they taught was sound or not, and when those who took it upon themselves to stand up against someone appointed by the Apostles and persist in this, they could determine that such men were self-condemned.
This isn't just peculiar to Paul; the book of Acts repeatedly contrasts the wrong acts of those who merely 'went out' of their own accord with those who "were sent". Successor-ship to apostolicity in this sense is not something you can privately take to lead a congregation of Christians in this manner, you do have to have the "assured human possession" that Barth opposes.
I do agree Gavin that those who received this authority are subordinate to authentic 'apostolicity' in the sense of fidelity to the gospel, this is consistent with Paul's warnings about how Timothy is to select Elders who are worthy, but this warning was important precisely because this 'mechanical transfer' is something the Church recognized as authoritative from the beginning. Elders are held accountable before God, but they aren't held accountable before their flock as whether they actually are elders or not (Hebrews 13:17).
No Jesus decided to create chaos by creating 3000 Protestant sects to argue among themselves what they believe or enjoy. “That they may be one as thou Father in me and I in thee that they may be also in us that the world may believe that thou hath sent me “He said this 2000 years ago.His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is His Body .He gives us His literal body soul and Divinity in the Eucharist at Mass in every country.
Jesus was a religious Jew. He didn’t institute ritual hematophagy.
As opposed to the 7 fold split church that already existed, all mutually anathematising each other, with the Roman church that had just had three popes for a century, etc, etc.
The corrupt and abusive leadership of the church *caused the splitting*. Look at it now, sedevacantism is booming because the current pope wants LGBTQ jubilees and says all religions arrive at God.
I'd LOVE for the Reformation to be able to finish and have visible unity once more, but until Rome (and us) repent of some of our stances, that can never be.
I used to think the rock could’ve maybe been referring to Peter but that was before I read the entirety of the Bible. The more I have traversed through the Scriptures there are countless times when the Lord is referred to as the Rock, in the Old Testament and New. I can’t help but feel it’s almost obvious the Rock is referring to Jesus(God).
I find it interesting that we are not-picking interpretations of the text.. I wonder if you could grant that it would be POSSIBLE (not even probable, but possible), that the Church’s interpretation of this specific text is correct..?
The RC position is possible but unlikely.
@@mikeoxmaul1788 Without lies, Protestantism dies!
This constant quote mining of the fathers has become frankly unbearable.
For any of Augustine’s quotes that seem to support the Protestant position, there are 10 that totally destroy it.
The fathers have written tons of tractates throughout their lives sometimes even contradicting themselves. You cannot pick one random quote and conclude that Augustine believed X.
You must consider the entirety of Augustine’s works and beliefs and ask yourself: did he sound more proto-Protestant or Catholic?
If you are honest, the answer is obvious. What are we even talking about?
Proto Protestant absolutely.
Augustine is quoted incessantly by Calvin.
Luther was an Augustinian Friar.
The strong Monergism of Protestants is Augustinian.
@ the fact that Calvin misused Augustine to invent his theology is irrelevant.
Augustine believed in:
1. OT canon including deuterocanonical books
2. Purgatory
3. Sacred oral apostolic tradition
4. Binding authority of the Catholic Church, founded on the rock of Peter
5. Real presence in the Holy Eucharist
6. Baptismal regeneration
7. Confession to a priest
8. Sacrifice of the Mass
9. Seven sacraments
10. Sinlessness of Mary
11. Perpetual virginity of Mary
12. Mary’s bodily assumption
13. Intercession of the saints
14. Prayers to the saints
15. Prayers for the dead
16. Etc etc etc
For some reason, these “proto-Protestants” look unbelievably Catholic.
We can't believe that Augustine taught that all unbaptized babies go to hell? Scholars would disagree.
I know this is completely irrelevant but the video commentary on The Silent Planet is missing
It is interesting that whenever this text is used as a proof, the context is largely ignored. I'm thinking specifically of the fact that right after calling Peter a "Rock" for the church, Jesus calls him "Satan" for his unbelief. It is an interesting way that Matthew unfolds this comment, as if he is trying to make it clear that Peter can be either a rock for the church or a satanic influence on her depending on his confession.
Coal posting
Many early churhc fathers didn't agree with the Catholic Churches interpretation of that verse on who is the rock.
C’mon Gavin. Swim the Tiber. The water is nice. Turbulent, but nice.
He needs to come to Wittenberg
Swim to what? Most Catholic intellectuals think the current pope is a heretic. That would indicate there's really no rock to swim to, that it's all just an empty ideal.
If the Peter and his successors are seen as 'the vicar of Christ on Earth', you can easily say that both Christ and Peter are the 'Rock'. It's basically about seeing Peter as the the vicar of 'Rock' or "The Rock on Earth'.
When Jesus said this to Peter He Himself was on earth, to assume he is appointing Peter his vicar (on earth) is a stretch of the interpretation of the passage. I dont think God would build his one true church on a passage that has such varied interpretation even among the church fathers.
@@mikeoxmaul1788 Christ literally says Simon is 'Peter' = Rock, and on this rock He will build his Church. How much clearer He could have been? Especially when considering other verses like Isaiah 22:22 and John 21:15-17.
Tertullian:
"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' with the power of 'loosing and binding in heaven and on earth'?"
Can you do more short form videos like this on the topic of the views on the papacy by more church Fathers? And have you and redeemed zoomed talked about any collabs coming up?
Former Roman catholic here. The Papacy and Purgatory are the tw major issues I have with Catholicism. Thank you Gavin
Did you ever have any concerns with the veneration of Mary or icon veneration as a Catholic?
@turkeybobjr yes I definitely did. Especially the dogmas of the immaculate conception and assumption.
@@omarvazquez3355 Was it a gut feeling that, even though they argued valiantly for it, something just wasn't quite right about it?
@@turkeybobjr Yes. And also some of the alleged quotes from Mary like "Through the scapular and the rosary I will save the world."
I asked a Catholic one time if this verse was supposed to be him being made a pope, then why only a few verses later does Jesus say get behind me satan? The priest had no response for me. I find it odd that the guy who is supposed to be the head of christ on earth would be called satan
Good question! We as humans have weaknesses, one of which Peter displayed in Mt 16:22 by questioning Jesus & later by denying Him thrice.
All popes are humans subject to weaknesses. However, on rare occasions, when teaching officially on faith & morals,they are protected by the HS from teaching error.
@@geoffjs Then what happened to Pope Honorius I? Was the Holy Spirit on vacation during his tenure?
**WRONG** - JESUS at Mat 16:18 also 'set THIS witness stone' (Peter/Rock) JUST like his forefather Joshua did (Joshua 24:25-28) set THIS stone/rock as **witness** that "HEARD God's Word and is to **witness against those who don't hold to it** , a permanent forever role/office! This , FROM THE SCRIPTURES itself, annihilates your 'confession theory' which is shown NOWHERE in scripture !!
I would think some wordplay on Peter's name might've been involved in Augustine's comments and, indeed, in Christ's own words. "Thou art Petros (chunk of rock), and upon THIS Petra (Mass of rock), I will build my church.
They werent speaking Greek in this scene.
@@charlesjoyce982Christ and the apostles spoke Greek and Aramaic.
They could have been speaking Aramaic certainly.
But all we have is the Greek text.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty
No serious scholar would say they were speaking greek .
In fact, we have no evidence that all of the apostles could speak greek.
Also, the distinction between "petra" and "petros" does not exist in koine greek.
So its a moot point.
Easy answer. Yes, yes he would.
The others bind and loose
Only Peter is given the Keys.
Gavin, may I offer what I think is a way to move this debate forward? Discuss what you think Peter’s confession is. Is it merely the words that Jesus is the Son of the Living God? Is it “confessing Christ” in some generic, desiring to be Christian way? Is the Confession a stand-in for the Gospel as a whole? You gloss over this and I am starting to wonder if this is the real source of exegetical tension.
The Peter vs. Peter’s confession distinction is only useful as a disambiguation. Catholics constantly reiterate that the Pope is not infallible in his person, he is only infallible 1) representing/speaking for the bishops/teaching office of the church, and 2) speaking on faith and morals. This sounds a lot like the Pope only has this charism when, like Peter, he speaks in a “representational (I would say leadership/spokeman) capacity” and about matters of faith. Catholics don’t harp on this distinction because we aren’t making the confusion you are attributing to them not because they are.
The role of offices in the church enter the argument for Catholics as a premise (one which Augustine accepts BTW). It isn’t proved by Matthew 16, and no one said it was. A proof text cannot prove every aspect of a doctrine.
If Peter is a rock it is only through faith and belief in Jesus as Lord and saviour. I think Jesus’ names even seem to be being a bit being ironic, like Sons of Thunder or if it might have been a play on words if Mary Magdalene was the tower. But maybe they also a bit become these things also.
To my Catholic brothers and sisters... is the absence of the papacy (and the theological framework that accompanies it) from scripture at all concerning to you? I understand the 3-leggeed stool of Catholicism but you'd think Scripture, especially Peter himself, would have much to say about the single most important office of the Church. As I've read through scripture, here are some points on the matter I have jotted down. Curious to hear your responses. Thanks and blessings.
- The papacy is never mentioned in the writings of Paul, John, James, or Jude.
- Papacy is absent from Peters own letters
- No mention of the papacy or it’s theological framework in any pastoral epistle despite their extensive instruction on ecclesiastical matters
- No mention of the papacy or it’s theological framework in any of Paul’s letters despite their extensive systematic instruction on how to live a Christian life
- Peter never refers to himself as pope but rather calls himself an elder (1Peter 5:1)
- Peter never refers to himself as pope but rather calls himself an apostle (1Peter 1:1, 2Peter 1:1)
- Peter never claims primacy
- Peter gives no indication of papacy, in fact when Cornelius fell at his feet Peter says “Stand up; I too am a man”. He puts himself equal to Cornelius. He certainly does not exercise papacy. (Acts 10:25-26)
- Peter gives a beautiful sermon in Acts 2: quotes scripture, calls for repentance, say Christ forgives sins, and we are told 3,000 souls were saved that day. Where is Catholic theology in any of this? Where is the papacy, the warnings of purgatory, the foundation of papacy and apostolic tradition, etc?
- 2 Peter is sometimes seen as a farewell discourse as he knew his death was imminent. He reminds his followers of his teachings, commands them on how to live, and makes future predictions. This is his last chance to influence and guide his followers thereafter; not a single mention of his papal office, papal succession, or anything remotely close.
- In 2 Peter one of the major themes was false teachings vs Gods prophetic word. If the papacy and apostolic succession was Christs’ implementation to preserve and protect the truth of the Church as Catholics claim, are we not alarmed by its absence and omission from the first Pope?
I would love to see a reply your question. I think you raise excellent points particularly in reference to Peter's own words from 1 and 2 Peter. I would add that Peter does use the stone imagery even quoting Psalm 118 and refers to Christ as the cornerstone and the "rock of stumbling", and all believers as the stones that comprise the "spiritual house".
@@davidbartlett6746 Yup. I actually have like an entire page worth of similar points but figured these get the idea across well enough.
Or is Jesus affirming Peter’s testimony or affirmation? Also later the apostle Paul had to correct Peter behavior with the Jewish dietary laws ! Lastly, there was no Roman Bishop (Papal) identity representative at some of the earliest councils.
As a Protestant without apostolic succession. How can you prove to someone who isn’t Christian that you’re teaching the same as the apostles??
By quoting the Bible! They wrote it and preached it- the word of God!
So anyone who teaches what the Apostles taught is following in their footsteps
Paul said they and we are all ambassadors for Christ - so long as we stick to the Word of God and do not go off on a tangent as hundreds of Catholic popes and bishops and priests have done! Many Protestants have too. So they are all false teachers as the Bible says.
Peter got it wrong over and over and over... why would anyone think it's a transfer of authority?
That is literally what Jesus says...
@stratmatt22 "on this rock". could Jesus be saying .."on this principle".....since Jesus is called the Rock and cornerstone Himself?
@@JonnyDurockonly God forgives sins but he gave the apostles the powers to forgive sins too. Does that diminish the authority of God?
@saenttor of that was true there would be no need for the judgement seat of Christ.
Judgment at the Throne of God
11¶And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Well clearly Paul didn't even see Peter as more authoritative than Apollos. That's very clear since in Paul's discourse on factions in 1 cor 1, Paul does not speak about Peter in any special way even though this was a perfect time to do just this. Btw I never hear this argument but it's basically a slam dunk against Peter's special authority.
I doubt Paul would had the same respect for Apollos that he had for Peter. Paul specifically saught out Peter after his conversion and spent 15 days with him. Paul knew that Peter was special.
@charlesjoyce982 I mean, well that can be explained by recognising that Peter was a disciple but regardless, when it comes to matters of doctrine, according to Paul: if I chose to listen to just Apollos he didn't think it would be a big deal. That's super clear. In corinthians 1 Paul says:
1 Corinthians 1:12-13 ESV
[12] What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” [13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
This does not sound like someone who sees Peter as supreme
@@noahfletcher3019 there were many disciples. Paul saught out Peter -- the obvious leader of the disciples.
@@charlesjoyce982 And so what? This does not get you a papacy. And clearly according to Paul, there's no difference between following Paul, Cephas or Apollos
@@noahfletcher3019
The whole context of scripture shows Peter's special role.
That role was to continue in his successors.
Even if you say it was exclusively Peter who was the rock, to then act as though this exclusive power was somehow transferred solely to the bishop of Rome is absurd. Catholics are trying to establish this idea of Peter only to squeeze the elephant that is the pope through the back door
"Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? Or are these keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ.”
Can i say i represent the church? No. Only St.Peter and his successors