I have a dear friend undergoing the same process, and she is being either discouraged or isolated by her family and family. Pray for her, and may He help you to reach Him in His Church.
@@rorypinata265 I already said a prayer for her. I hope she finds the strength she needs from Jesus and having you as a friend to support her. May I suggest a visit to a local parish and ask about joining a Catholic Bible study or a Small Christian Group for fellowship and to meet some more Catholic Christians. It’s a great way to find some friends too.
I've seen firsthand a ton of Protestants convert to Catholicism who are very strong in their faith, but the only Catholics that I see convert to Protestantism are very weak in their faith. Praise be to God that Cameron is finding his path.
@@Justas399 Its not growing in western countries. Just because some convert does not mean that a lot of people are doing it. It grows through communities in Africa and Asia, which have high birthrates because it are developing countries
This is a brave man!! He was never afraid to debate any Catholic, and he always did so politely. It takes courage to admit you're wrong and change your mind. God bless you, Mr. Bertuzzi.
@@peaceandlove544I mean that I converted because I read the early Church fathers, which lead me to reading Scott Hahn’s books. Once I realized that my Protestant faith did not match that of the earliest Christians (and was, in fact, something very different), I could no longer hold to it.
To me, it is kind of ironic to use the Didache to disprove the papacy while overlooking the fact it describes both the Mass and the Eucharist as the form of worship used by the early Christians! Excellent video, I was very excited to hear this side of Cameron's conversion story
This is something that was really an eye-opener. Before there was even a compiled Bible there was the Didache Ironically enough it despite it not being inspired scripture the Didache historically shows how Christians lived and how they worshiped. There's a good reason why it's often referred to as the first catechism. How Protestants can be ignorant to that fact while still claiming Sola scriptura and protesting against the sacraments and the authority of the Church, the same church that compiled the books of the Bible by Guidance of the Holy Spirit, is amazing
The original Christians were Orthodox, not Catholic. The papacy is a heresy that was a product of geography and language difference between the East and West during the crusades.
@@FlexCathedrafromIG For sure! There seems to be a tendency to willfully ignore the many early sources about Christian life and doctrine among protestant denominations. My understanding was that the Didache was one of many writings that were considered or treated as scripture by many Christians prior to the establishment of the Biblical canon. The only reason we have the Bible is because the Catholic Church compiled and authoritatively established it at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.
Remember to find Christ's church with your heart not just your mind. That said, I'm excited to have Cameron with us! I hope he can continue to guide people to Jesus.
Y’know what would be hilarious? Two agnostics/atheists debating whether Catholicism or Protestantism is more likely given the truth of the Bible. I just think that that would be so weird…
Yeah but most athiests cant even make it past "if God is good why me get the flu" so i cant see that being very productive or indicitive of anything. Theres alot of very intelligent creators but they're calvinists or catholics, which I believe are both heterodox. So intelligence even doesnt seem to be the defining factor of doctrinal interpretation.😊
God bless you Cameron. We pray that all our separated brothers and sisters come home to the fullness of Christian truth in the Catholic Church like you did. Jesus we trust in you.
@@thejohnmarkprojectThen you better be consistent in your illogic and abandon the Bible altogether because the same Church that Christ Himself established, who you say truth cannot be found in, is the same one who determined, compiled, canonized and preserved the Scriptures that make up your Bible. Better find you a new religion, maybe become a stone licking pagan muslim. In reality there is no truth in protestantism, which teaches all contradictory and conflicting doctrines, which actually contravenes Jesus's wish that all His faithful be of one mind and one accord.
I was staunchly sola scriptura until I started reading the early church fathers. Doing that made me realize how much of my own ideas and other people’s ideas I unknowingly and unintentionally imported in to the text, and how this was actually unavoidable. The scriptures can be considered infallible data, but data without interpretation is meaningless. So, the scriptures can be unquestionably true but unless I can have an authoritative interpretation I cannot know reliably anything from them. That realization marked my departure from evangelicalism. I’m still working out whether or not I need to go to Rome.
So since virtually none of the Bible has been infallibly interpreted how have you in anyway solved for your initial problem? Not only that, haven't you merely added another layer to the issue since you can fallible interpret the interpretation? Not sure why extra Biblical sources (early church fathers) that were not divinely inspired in anyway gives you logical ground to require an authority over divinely inspired scripture (Bible).
Through the 2000 years of Holly catholic Magisterium, Doctrine and tradition. Just don't go Bergoglian. Trad, latin, orthodox, Novous Ordu just not Bergoglian (progressive). You will love the great doctors of the Church. Like St Thomas Aquinus. And the extraordinary saints, after the apostles. St Padre Pio, XX century saint. Impressive. The Passion of the Christ was not only based on The Holly Bible but on the Revelations made by our Lord to a German lady saint of the details of His passion. 😢😢😢😢😢 People will tell you catholics idolize Blessed Mother Mary but it's not God to us but the blessed Mother of Our Lord and Our Blessed Mother that interceds for us. We through prayer can interced for others of course Our Lord's Blessed Mother can even better interced for us. As she is the most holly human that ever lived. Thus it is the person that the evil one hates most for her absolute humility and sainthood that She is the one called for assistance and intercession during exorcisms through the holly rosary prayer. The Hail Mary is Biblically based and the rosary is a number of hail Marys along with Our fathers while meditating in chapters of Our Lord's life. It's a true spiritual armour. Nobody has the spiritual armour for these end of times as we have: The true Bible, The Church founded by Our Lord, the rosary, the Holly Eucharist, the Holly mass, holly/exorcised water/salt/oil, holly Adoration, sacrament of reconciliation/penitence, blessed medals/sacramentals, consecrated priests, etc.
Please consider the first two replies to your post. They contain powerful internal critiques of this argument against Protestantism that you are posing.
@@sharplikecheddar2 my friend do you realize that if the early Church Fathers were not divinely inspired in anyway then you can’t even Trust in the Bible itself 😅 there was not New Testament, only Old Testament! It was the Church who decided every single letter to add to the Bible and figure it out which was the autor of every page, because there’s was fakes gospels too. And the authority was given by Christ himself and he promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church. That was the point of founding a single Chuch: to have the authority, the knowledge, the tradition and the Spiritual guide to give a solo and fallible interpretation to the people. Instead of using your biased logical limitation you should go and start reading early Father’s Church (they all breathe Catholicism). Protestantism is the result of disobedience and men own interpretations.
My advice for all Protestants considering Catholicism, from a Catholic: if you convert to Catholicism without considering the high church protestants, you may end up leaving Catholicism because you never read the Catholic response to these theology and patristics-savvy Protestant reformers. So pray for the grace to know the fault in the best arguments for what is false be that Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, etc. Now I think you may be so convinced of Catholicism (perhaps from the scriptural argument for the papacy, a personal revelation that confirms Catholicism, or something else) that not looking at the classical Protestants or Orthodox arguments is not as much of a problem. But exercise your research objectively and prayerfully. If you are convinced that it is legitimate to pray to the saints and holy angels, I suggest you ask for their intercession. If you think praying the rosary isn't sinful I suggest doing it often as a means to discern Catholicism. Thank you for coming to my TED-talk.
I have a question about the pope; why did he kiss the quran? Isn’t that kinda blasphemous considering how it talks about our lord and rejects his divinity? does this not go against the teaching of infallibility?
@@Commandosoap777 Catholics think the Pope makes mistakes and can be wrong except when speaking "ex cathedra" or infallibly. The funny thing is they also have to use some mental gymnastics/circular reasoning to explain when that is and isn't the case. I'm not going to claim to be an expert on it but I would encourage people to research in depth what that looks like in practice. I have yet to come across a catholic apologist that can give me an answer that seems compelling. I love my Catholic brethren but papal infallibility is a big problem. If not present, unity between churches would be easier but as it currently stands, either protestants have to accept all 150 something-ish dogmas to become catholic, or catholics have to back pedal or at least allow for difference in thought and accept the legitimacy of other traditions/church bodies. Pray for unity in the Church all
@@Commandosoap777 if you had an HONEST intellectual curiosity, you'd have already researched papal infallibility and understood that it doesn't prevent you from personal error. Expecting people to explain to you something extremely researchable is a good sign of someone acting in bad faith. But I'm sure you're aware of your interior motives. As for the actual answer as to why a pope would kiss the Quran, the answer is foolishness, ecumenism, and seduction by the spirit of the age. It's the same reason a pope would speak fondly or positively of protestantism for reasons other than pity and mercy.
01:30 "In Bayesian terms [...] you can be a bit more precise". Precision does not equal accuracy though. As Gavin Ortlund also pointed out in his response video, if you don't have a good foundation of how to assign the numerical weights to your input data, as well as taking into account things like uncertainty or correlation, your analysis won't do much other than giving the appearance of being sophisticated.
That's what jumped out at me too like a minute in.... it's just applying your own basis as to how strong something is (you are just giving things a weight)....so in the end, its just more work to feel better about what your thoughts are. Maybe it helps clarify in one's own mind what their beliefs are, but not sure how helpful that is to anyone else (not that he is taking the position that his strategy is for others to follow).
The PAPACY whether catholic or protestant is completely logical & SPIRITUALLY right. There is no way how an Organised God ,would leave behind a church consisting of men & women of flesh without a central leadership on earth.
There's no model of the catholic church found in the early church. . What you see is each church is lead by bishops and deacons, which can give no commands, they only guide. And then churches communicating with each other for guidance, as well as the guidance from the Holy Spirit. . And they always depend on the teachings of Jesus, and never an outside source or their own opinions.
@@thejohnmarkproject @ johnmark I know you've been told this. But the truth is the opposite when you actually search. I have a whole list of quotes within the first few hundred years of Christianity writing on the office of the papacy.
@@thejohnmarkproject You are reading your modern American democratic understanding of governance back into the 1st century A. D. Levant, sir. That is called eisegesis - reading back into an ancient text, your personal presuppositions. Jesus isn't the Governor of Governors, and the President of Presidents...He is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. He wasn't elected to the Messianic office by a majority of the Hebrews and Romans of His time. Such a subjective individualist, 21st century American comment to make.
My understanding is that God has his Church on Earth under the leadership of Jesus Christ, by direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit that was given to the Church until the return of Jesus. Jesus made a way for his Church to come directly to God, without the need for a figure head to be the go-between man and God. The vale was torn. There are Elders and Leaders to help the Church, but not a central man figurehead that man needs to go to. His Church is now in the New Covenant, that figurehead was required in the Old Covenant. I would like to look further into this, as it seems so foreign to my understanding of scripture. If there are any bible verses that are best to start with for me to understand this Papacy view or where this comes from, please let me know. I would love to dig in to them.
When Suan first came out with the argument I was in the conversion process. Though it's been around for some time it was Suan that really gave some flesh to the bare bones of the idea. It didn't help a whole lot for me but , if the geniuses of the church keep developing it out, I could see it driving more protestants to the faith
If anyone knows where I can find Cameron's Bayesian analysis, please let me know. I am an applied mathematician and would very much like to see his work on this. Thanks!
"Unless those four arguments are very strong." OR, if you're approaching the debate "charitably," and not with *discernment,* and you open your mind up so much that everything falls out.
Truly this video is a highly spiritual revealing work and confirmative testimony to the papacy in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church of Traditional Teachings and Worship Amen 🙏
Protestant here. I have the upmost respect for my fellow Catholic brother and sisters in Christ. We both have a love and reverence for our Savior but just disagree on a few things and that’s OKAY. Let all that we do be done in love.
"...On a few things..." lol the chasm between Catholics and Protestants is as wide as the chasm that separates Lazarus and the rich man. Those "few things" are imperative and of very high gravity. Christ has one bride and one church. He's not a polygamist. There cannot be hundreds of different opinions on infallible doctrine and dogma. "Mere Christianity" is deficient and is not what we are called to assent.
@@FlexCathedrafromIG So let me get this straight, a seemingly well meaning Christian tries to spread a message of unity under our Lord (JESUS alone, which I believe is difficult for you as a roman catholic to focus on at times given problematic doctrines) and you try to light him up and seemingly try to embarrass him? Very Christian of you "Christian". And before you go here, yes I know that American Protestants were historically very uncharitable to catholics in generations past, but many, many Christians from all traditions are interested in unity today, something your condescending and rude comment does nothing to help. God Bless -I edited some here to be charitable although the response wasn’t imo
Especially given the times we live in, I'll take your friendship any day. God bless, and yes, we are brothers in Christ. We always start there. I think in the future, we will all only grow closer. We have to.
“As a Protestant I wanted to get rid of OT”. Nope. As Cameron, maybe, but not as a Protestant. The Protestant tradition is pretty rich with typology too.
Yes. The trouble it is the teaching of fallible men from the 16th century. Remember all the founders and their successors left the Catholic Church, the Church Jesus established.
Yes. When I heard him say this, I cringed hard. Maybe this is true for lukewarm Protestants (and lukewarm Christians in general), but typology is not an exclusively Roman Catholic thing. It’s rich in the Orthodox and Protestant churches as well.
Yeah, that was one of the clues that he is making this up. . I'm not even sure what he means when he says protestant, because catholics really misuse that term, so I'll just say, as a Christian - we don't believe in getting rid of the OT. That's not something that protestants or any Christian does.
0:42 Calculating numbers on a spreadsheet like God is a subject for your research paper instead of the Sovereign Creator who has spoken to us. What did God say in his word, the Bible. When I read the first two chapters of Galatians it makes the Papacy totally untenable. All I've heard from Roman Catholics so far has been long winded excuses as to why I shouldn't believe the plain sense of what Paul was saying.
The system he used is a way of reducing bias and is inferential in nature. It is used when there are more then one reasonable options on the table. It can be very helpful. For instance we can use it with the existence of God. Someone might start with a very low "prior probability" for His existence. Say 1% chance he exists. Each reasonable argument for the existence of God increases that probability. Atheists usually consider arguments for God 1 at a time and rarely look at them as a group. The Bayesian system forces one to look at all the arguments for the conclusion.
@@glstka5710 You can easily say along this same line of logic that: “writing pages in a book like God is a subject for your research paper instead of the sovereign creator who has spoken to us.” By this logic, no one can ever write a book about God or theology (including the Bible) if writing about God is demeaning to Him.
@@lukeemrich5451 The post is about putting your system above what is stated in the text. If there is doubt you can use a system but it's still just a fallible system. Where the text is clear systems need to be subordinate. When I read the first two chapters of Galatians it makes the Papacy totally untenable.
I’m a Protestant who has always like this channel and has also followed Bertuzzis journey. While I appreciate the charity of both men speaking here, it’s a little disheartening to see many Protestant views either misrepresented or just downright assumed to be the view of all Protestants. He says something like “as a Protestant I always thought I could sort of just ignore the Old Testament”. That may be true for what he did personally but that is just simply not a Protestant position whatsoever, in fact in many cases Protestants seem to more heavily emphasize Old Testament writings. Additionally, in another part of the video he makes it seem like Protestants can just believe whatever we want. Again, not an orthodox position, but maybe one he had. While some Protestants view it that way it doesn’t mean it’s the official Protestant position. It’d be like me saying “Oh well Catholics worship Mary!!”, because that is the street level reality of some while it isn’t the position of Rome doctrinally. Praying for both of these men who I view as brothers in Christ, but we gotta do a better job of discussing real issues not just straw men people
You proved his point. You said “official Protestant position” There is none. Martin Luther 1517 - anyone can figure out what the Bible means by themselves. So if a Protestant wants to get rid of the Old Testament, who in the Protestant church has the authority to say no ? I remember arguing with a Protestant who told me to my face. “My church don’t believe in the 10 commandments” I was stunned.
@@R.C.A.T maybe he is way smarter than me I don’t know But I do know the NATIONAL CATHEDRAL downtown Washington DC is Protestant And it’s 100% in favor of Gay marriage Abortion 9 months Trans rights
@@PInk77W1 So when I said “Protestant position” I do understand your point that there isn’t a “THE Protestant Church”, and I do understand the fact that a major weakness of leaving Rome is less authority being imposed in some regards, so touche’, that is one argument that is a stronger one for Catholicism imo. HOWEVER, what I can say, is that ignoring the Old Testament is exceedingly rare in Protestant circles, and he threw it out as if that’s just a common trait that Catholicism takes the OT seriously and Protestants don’t. Regarding your mention of churches that have essentially drifted into apostasy/disobedience/etc, this is a case of ignoring God’s word (which ALL Christians agree is the final authority) Not fair to say it’s ONLY a symptom of Protestantism. Cardinal Marx in Germany literally threw a “Queer Mass” and to my knowledge faced no actual major consequences. Catholicism is not immune to the outside world hurting the Church, and again, it wouldn’t be fair for me to take things certain Catholics have done and apply seemingly as a semi blanket in Catholicism. Added: I hope this message comes across the way it was meant, to edify and provide food for thought. Again, I actually like this channel despite major disagreements I have with the Roman Church, peace to all Also, I do know many mainline churches have drifted into error, EXCEEDINGLY isn’t a good word to use for the rarity of what I mentioned, but if you go back and read the Reformers, or look at many millions of faithful church bodies, you’ll find a high regard and reverence for the OT
@@richardlindquist3714 As a Catholic I agree with you, they low-key did paint Protestantism with one huge brush when we all know it more complicated than that. However, I do tend to see more Protestants handing out just the Gospels without the OT not to generalize too much. But yes, not all Protestants share the same doctrines and dogmas.
Deciding between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy right now. About to read “The Papacy” by Eric Ybarra and “The Papacy and the Orthodox” by Edward Siecienski after finishing “The Case for Catholicism” by Trent Horn and “The Orthodox Church” by Timothy Ware. Any suggestions are appreciated as I’m a more recent Christian convert. I have more books on my list, but those are the ones I felt I should read first. The current ones I’m reading are to get an idea about both denominations, the next two to form my view on the papacy.
Interesting argument about typology but how come the rest of the apostles didn’t get that connection in Acts and the Epistles? Why did Paul have to publicly rebuke Peter? Why did Paul said he was in charge of sharing the message to the gentiles and Peter should oversee the entire Catholic church? Why does Paul tell the local elders to govern their own churches instead of submitting to Peter and Peter’s home church in Antioch? Why did Paul not also give qualifications for future papal candidates when he cave them for elders and deacons? Surely a role that important needs to have even higher qualifications than elders, right? Or could it be that the rest of the Apostles didn’t make this typological connection because there isn’t one? Just because something seem similar doesn’t mean it’s typological.
Especially considering that in Revelation 3:7 the prophecy of Eliakim is quoted almost exactly in reference to Jesus.. "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: 'The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens."
I'm curious how Revelation 3:7 factors in to the Eliakim typological argument: ~"And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: 'The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens." (Rev 3:7 ESV) This verse in Revelation, which is referring to Jesus, seems to be quoting Isaiah 22:22 almost word for word, ~"And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open." (Isa 22:22 ESV) Whereas connecting Matthew 16:19 to Isaiah 22:22 seems to be a lot more contrived. Notice, there's no mention of the specific "key of David" or irreversible shutting and opening. ~"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Mat 16:19 ESV) Thus, it seems more likely that the typological fulfilment to Eliakim is Jesus, rather than Peter. Perhaps Jesus is speaking to Peter about a different set of keys? I have not studied this for very long, so I would love to hear some thoughts in response to this! What am I missing?
Not to mention there are really good arguments and even a whole heck of a lot of church fathers that suggest that "upon this rock I will build my church" was about Christ found in the confession of Peter, rather then Peter himself.
@samcooperyoutube If you google Catholic Answers, there's an article "Does the Book of Revelation Disprove the Papacy?" that explains the three passages referencing the Keys. The short answer is, both Jesus and Peter have the Keys. Jesus is the King, the Keys are His to give to His steward or to use Himself.
@@MarilynBoussaid-yd1vk A chapter or two later, the same binding and loosing that Peter's keys allowed was given to the rest of the apostles. Therefore, we must conclude that they also were given the keys. This makes sense because they all find their place in there individual locations. Peter didn't see himself as a Pope. Instead, he leaves his high honor in Jerusalem because he says that he has been called to the Gentiles. He obviously didn't see his position as one of absolute authority. Right?
Basically he attempts an unbias analysis of papacy through probability and comes up with way more evidence against the papacy. Then chooses how much each point is worth based off his own opinion to give papacy a higher probability. Sticking his own bias right back in. Doesnt seem very helpful. Also he put all of his probability of converting on the papacy. If you put all the arguments for and against catholicism i think that list against it would only get bigger. Seems very illogical his reasoning for converting.
Except that's not the way that things were set up. The church was set up with equality. If you look at the role of Peter in the Bible it doesn't show Peter in a leadership role. No one answers to Peter. Every apostle has their own input.
@@thejohnmarkproject and if you’re referring to Peter being the first among equals, you’re right. But first is still a place of rank. Even the Orthodox agree to first among equals but they disagree on the level of jurisdiction. One night debate the context of the next quotes but I’ll leave them here anyway… JOHN CHRYSOSTOM “Jesus said to Peter, ‘Feed my sheep’. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world.” (Homilies on John, 88.1). EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN “[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]). CYRIL OF JERUSALEM “The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]). “[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there-he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14). “In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32-34]” (ibid., 17:27). CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). ORIGEN “[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]). THE LETTER OF CLEMENT TO JAMES “Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]). TERTULLIAN “For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]). “[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]). CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA “[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
A fairly obvious fact, which I think would be problematic for your argument, is that Moses and Elijah were regular, flawed humans who could (and did) failed and/or needed a helper.
@@mariojosephsierra1568 - my point was more about Jesus, not Peter. Jesus obviously doesn't need a helper *in the same way* that Moses and Elijah did i.e. Jesus was not flawed as others are. Your original comment seems to me to be implying that because something was the case for Moses and Elijah, it would therefore also make sense for Jesus - that was what I'd dispute. But I may have misunderstood your original point :)
There's way too much convertitis going on with a lot of today's TH-cam personalities. Let the Lord heal your nous before making these decisions. Someone who says, "My spiritual life was dry. I wasn't praying or reading Scripture," probably wasn't attending a fellowship regularly, etc., is in no spiritual condition to be doing Bayesian analysis on anything of a spiritual nature. Theology isn't Rationality. Theology isn't Metaphysics, either. And Theology is most certainly not statistical analysis. But God bless Cameron. I wish him all the best and consider him a brother in Christ even if we're "separated brethren."
I'm really interested in this argument Cameron presents @ 6:00 where he compares Matthew 16:19 and Isaiah 22:22. My knowledge of the old testament is very limited. However it is obvious from the words both passages reveal that they are strikingly similar. I am familiar with new testament enough to know that Jesus bestows the same powers to all of this apostles. Given that is true, in my mind it lends far more credibility to the Orthodox view. They insist that every patriarch is of the same authority, like all apostles were of the same authority. That is how the new testament describes it. Jesus did, however, give this power to Peter first, and that makes him- first among equals- in respect to other apostles. This is yet another strong case for the Orthodoxy as they agree that the patriarch of Rome is first among equals. Or rather that he should be that. It is only the Pope who rejects this as insufficient power. He demands to be treated as the one with powers and authority greater to other patriarchs, as if Peter had greater power or authority in respect to other apostles. Given that Peter was of the same power and authority as other apostles, I do not see how one could reach that Catholicism is true. Did I omit or misrepresent anything? Thank you for reading and have a nice day.
@Paul Freije You may be familiar with Matthew 16:19 where Jesus gives this power to Peter first. Jesus a bit later extends this authority to all of the apostles in Matthew 18:18. Peter and the other disciples were to continue Christ’s work on earth in preaching the gospel and declaring God’s will to men and they were armed with the same authority as He possessed. In Matthew 18:18, there is also a reference to the binding and loosing in the context of church discipline. The apostles do not usurp Christ’s lordship and authority over individual believers and their eternal destiny, but they do exercise the authority to discipline and, if necessary, excommunicate disobedient church members.
@@mikedennis9531 The keys are the metaphor for the authority Jesus bestows on Peter. Jesus’ words meant that Peter would have the right to enter the kingdom himself, that he would have general authority symbolized by the possession of the keys, and that preaching the gospel would be the means of opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers and shutting it against unbelievers. The book of Acts shows us this process at work. By his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-40), Peter opened the door of the kingdom for the first time. The expressions “bind” and “loose” were common to Jewish legal phraseology meaning to declare something forbidden or to declare it allowed.
Catholic here: i don’t think that it is important that Peter was the one who was given authority first, but that his authority and role was different of that of the others. The pope actually in a sense, although he is the leader of the church, does remain a bishop and at the same level of authority as the other bishops. Jesus is the true leader of the church, and the pope is the leader of the church on earth while Jesus is in heaven. The papacy fills in Jesus’s role as head of the church since Jesus is in heaven, the pope (palace administrator, Eliakim) watches over the kingdom while Jesus is away. I do believe that the words used in Isaiah 22 say that Eliakim’s role as palace administrator is to watch over the kingdom while the king is away. So i would say it isn’t so much that the pope has a HIGHER authority than the bishops, but the role of pope is different. Some of that is accurate but not a topic i am absolutely certain on. I don’t want to give you the impression that what i just typed is expressly the Catholic view 😂 Although my average mind thinks it is correct
@@PetarStamenkovic Matthew 18:18 illuminates even further the veracity from the papacy. The key was only given to Peter. The authority given to the apostles in Matthew 18:18 is subject to Peter's distribution or restriction of the keys since with which the others act authoritatively. Peter has the keys to act therefore their authorities is subject to Peter's.
Its an inferential system. It requires one to make a judgment about the prior probability of the claim. Depending on the application this can be subjective and is its weakness. Otherwise, its a really good and successful system in many of its applications.
Cameron, Pick St. John Henry Newman as your confirmation Saint! Go on a pilgrimage to England and learn more about him! He converted to Catholicism from Anglicanism and he was an Anglican priest!
4:41 Is.22:22 actually works against the Papacy. Like most proof texting it falls apart when you look at context. First Eliakim is being told that he is about to replace Shebna because Shena was displeasing to God so it is clear that these officers were not considered infallible as the Papacy is. Next read the following verses. “And I will drive him like a peg in a firm place, And he will become a throne of glory to his father’s house. “So they will hang on him all the glory of his father’s house, offspring and issue, all the least of vessels, from bowls to all the jars. “In that day,” declares the LORD of hosts, “the peg driven in a firm place will give way; it will even break off and fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken.” vss.23-25. Even Eliakim is replaceable. If Shebna and Eliakim represent Popes then there is also a Prophet Isaiah who rebukes them, Martin Luther.
This is simply the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. This is the most grifter-y thing ever stated. People falling for this deserve to get conned by Rome.
Nah. It is a good argument to make but there are other arguments that are better. If all you had to go on was this prophecy and Matthew 16 you wouldn't be unreasonable in seeing a connection.
@@blusheep2the fact that so many church fathers disagrees on Matthew 16 just shows it’s not solid ground for the papacy. Plus the legitimacy of the papacy hinged on forged documents. That’s historical fact that cannot be argued against. That’s like arguing D-Day didn’t happen.
He is using the Bayesian system because there are multiple options and interpretations on the table to choose from. The thing is that I don't think he was ever that mature of a Christian (Sorry Cameron if you read this. I don't know you and its just an impression.) I say this because he said as a Protestant he just wanted to act like the OT didn't exist. That isn't Protestantism.
It called the Bayesian logic and it used for inferential arguments. Those are arguments where you don't have absolute deductions and so you must make a decision based off of what the evidence infers. Its a great tool but I think the weakness is that you have to assign a "prior probability" number to the conclusion. When we are talking about predicting the number of blue m&m verse the other colors, this is not that difficult but when you are talking about, say, the existence of God, then it becomes very subjective what you assign the prior probability to be. I'm really not the expert on the system which is fairly mathematical, but I imagine that the prior probability that Peter is a type of Eliakim depends on the existence of other options and if Eliakim is meant to be a type, in the Christian church, at all.
To be fair, this video is not a complete presentation of his conversion journey and decision and doesn't even reflect the time given to his decision. I hope those who are doubtful pay a more fair judgement by watching all his videos following the evidences.
*"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18 DRA)*
Peter is not a ‘this’. The ‘this’ is referring to Peter’s confession that Christ is the son of God. That is the foundation of the church: Christ’s divinity.
@@Spainkiller, could you explain this then: and he took Simon to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, 'You are Simon son of John; you are to be called Cephas' -- which means Rock. John 1:42
@@chidmania8485 Yes: Christ calles Peter a rock, and then in Matthew, he reiterates that before stating that there's also a rock upon which He will build his church: his confession. In other words: Christ did a pun. "Your name means rock! You know what's also a rock? Your confession, upon which I'll build my church!"
@@Spainkiller so why did Jesus give Simon the name Rock? What was the purpose? He could have done what you said he did without changing Simon's name. So what was the point?
@@chidmania8485 He could've done a lot of things. It's not about what you think would've been best. Why did Jesus dress up/act as a gardener right after His resurrection? We'll never know; maybe He just has a sublime sense of humour.
I seen his 3 important points video ironic how the first 2 points were of his failure of his procast and the fact the way things are going he will be out of a job soon and how he will be forced to close it down. Then when he came to point 3 he said I'm a catholic 😂 I think he used his " intellect" well and I bet his procast will survive with this decision!!!
I love Matt Fradd and this channel, I'm a protestant and I'm not convinced of Catholicism or Orthodoxy. With that being said, if I belonged to a church that held to no sacraments and had no proper view of the Eucharist or Baptism, I would take Catholicism over that any day. Unfortunately the church has fabricated extremely weak denominations and the modern evangelical movement is certainly something to abandon no doubt.
Here’s another case for the Papacy. Yes. Matt. 16 is naturally going to be used first. But the catalyst is going to also be Mark 6:7-8, take ONLY STAFFS…. Why? This isn’t what was said to the 70 when Jesus sent them out (Luke 10) Only to the 12. Remember, 12 STAFFS/RODS 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail. And I will give you (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:18-19 (Check the hermeneutics of Jeremiah 1:11-19, "They will fight against you, but will not prevail.") Scholar F.F. Bruce (among others) explains: “Binding” and “loosing” were idiomatic expressions in rabbinical Judaism to denote the promulgation of rulings either forbidding or authorizing various kinds of activity. The authority to bind or loose given to Peter in the present context is given to the disciples as a body in Matthew 18:18, in a saying of Jesus similarly preserved by this evangelist only. Again, the record of Acts provides an illustration. Where church discipline is in view, Peter’s verbal rebuke of Ananias and Sapphira received drastic ratification from heaven (Acts 5:1-11)." It is true that “the authority to bind and loose given to Peter” is “given to the disciples as a body in Matthew 18:18.” But authority can come in various degrees. All 100 senators are given the authority to write and vote on legislation, but the Senate majority leader can do more with that authority than his colleagues can, being privileged to bring legislation to a vote as well. Peter’s rebuke to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 inflicts death through divine action. This is significant, as there are only two other times in the New Testament where God kills someone: Acts 12:23, where he strikes down Herod for setting himself up as a god, and 1 Corinthians 11:29-30, where St. Paul notes that many have brought death on themselves by unworthily consuming the Eucharist. Acts 5 is the only time, however, that God does so through an apostle’s rebuke. Evangelical scholar Eckhard J. Schnabel puts it this way: “Luke describes Peter as the spokesman of the apostles, who have just received Ananias’s gift. He also describes Peter as having the gift of prophecy, which allows him to see into Ananias’s heart-something only God can do (cf. Heb. 4:13).” This is remarkably similar to how Jesus revealed in Matthew 16:17 that God the Father, and not any human source or power, helped Peter identify Jesus as the Messiah, Son of God. We also see the Church moved by Peter’s dream to loosen Jewish dietary restrictions-another direct revelation from God to the one apostle (Acts 10:9-16). Finally, notice that Acts 5 is referenced as a “drastic ratification from heaven” of “Peter’s verbal rebuke.” Peter’s actions-a uniquely Petrine binding and loosing-shake the entire Church: “and great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things” (v. 11). His individual exercise of binding and loosing authority is the only one feared in this way. Although all of the apostles were respected afterwards, the people specifically laid the sick in Peter’s presence so that his shadow could touch and heal them (v. 15). In all the lists of the apostles in the Gospels, Peter is always mentioned first (cf. Matt. 10:1-4; Mark 3:13-19) Luke 22:31-32 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” Gen. 49:8 “Judah, you are he whom your brothers shall praise; Your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; Your father’s children shall bow down before you." vs. 9 Judah is a lion’s whelp; From the prey, my son, you have gone up. He [a]bows down, he lies down as a lion; And as a lion, who shall rouse him? vs. 10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor THE RULERS STAFF from between his feet, Until Shiloh (Messiah) comes; And to Him (Messiah) shall be the obedience of the nations. (Zechariah 14:9; Matt. 25:31-33; Acts 1:9-12) Jesus tells the 12 to take ONLY STAFFS: Mark 6:7-8 7 And He (Jesus) called to Himself the twelve, and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. 8 He charged them to take nothing for their journey except A STAFF; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts.." 12 STAFFS. Numbers 17:1-3 "The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel, and get from them rods/STAFFS, one for each fathers’ house, from all their leaders according to their fathers’ houses, TWELVE RODS/STAFFS. Write each man’s name upon his rod, 3 and write Aaron’s name upon the rod of Levi, For there shall be ONE ROD (STAFF) for THE HEAD of each fathers’ house. Vs. 4 Then you shall deposit them in the tent of meeting before the testimony, where I meet with you. 5 And THE ROD of the man whom I choose SHALL SPROUT." (a pre-eminent staff among the 12 staffs) Jeremiah 1:11-19 11 "And the word of the Lord came to me, saying, “Jeremiah, what do you see?” And I said, “I SEE A ROD OF ALMOND.” 12 Then the Lord said to me, “You have seen well, for I am watching over my word to perform it. Vs. 13 The word of the Lord came to me a second time, saying, “What do you see?” And I said, “I see a boiling pot, facing away from the north.” 14 Then the Lord said to me, “Out of the north evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land. 15 For lo, I am calling all the tribes of the kingdoms of the north, says the Lord; and they shall come and every one shall set his throne at the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem, against all its walls round about, and against all the cities of Judah. 16 And I will utter my judgments against them, for all their wickedness in forsaking me; they have burned incense to other gods, and worshiped the works of their own hands. Vs. 17 But you (Jeremiah), gird up your loins; arise, and say to them everything that I command you. Do not be dismayed by them, lest I dismay you before them. 18 And I, behold, I make you (Jeremiah) this day a fortified city, an iron pillar, and bronze walls, against the whole land, against the kings of Judah, its princes, its priests, and the people of the land. 19 They will fight against you; but they shall not prevail against you, for I am with you, says the Lord, to deliver you.” (hermeneutics of Matthew 16:18 and Jeremiah 1:19)
It's sad to hear how weak your understanding of the OT was as a protestant. I'm Protestant and love and appreciate the OT greatly and understand the NT to be a fulfillment of it. That's not exclusively Catholic.
Maybe the words just came out of his mouth in a way that didn’t fully express his knowledge on it... as a protestant, do you see the typological argument for the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist? How He is the new passover lamb?
@@luke9747 You're mixing truth with catholicism here. . No one denies that Jesus is the passover lamb. Not the new. The original. . the physical lamb and other sacrifices were all temporary placeholders. . As far as Jesus blood and body being in the eucharist, and you eating it as catholicism claims - that is not Biblical in anyway.
@@thejohnmarkproject “Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”” John 6:53-58 NIV This seems to me to be very clear biblical support
Firstly I have to say that I recognise how difficult it is to move from one faith tradition to another, especially with family and ministry. I was recently received into the Orthodox Church after being Baptist and Anglican so I really do respect Cameron and all the work he did. I do believe that, on a purely intellectual level, intelligent and honest people can review the relevant evidence and come to different conclusions on the papacy. I think if you accept 'doctrinal development' then the papacy could make sense. I have to say that I find Cameron's approach completely baffling and it demonstrates to me why I continue to struggle to see the path towards the papacy from a patristic and biblical perspective. Essentially it was Bayesian logic being applied to a *single* piece of evidence that tipped him over the edge, all from a purely rational perspective. This is extremely problematic because, by this measure, there are a number of doctrines that could be proved or disproved via this method. Take typological argument A - See how convincing it is - Then accept or reject an entire theological system, such as Roman Catholicism. Not taking the time to actually analyse this approach I'd simply want to ask the following questions... Is this the way the Holy Apostles reached a consensus at the Council of Jerusalem? Is this the method of argumentation you see for the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ by St Athanasius? Is this how the holy Fathers came to formulate the Nicene-Constanitopolitan Creed? Is this the method by which any foundational doctrine in the Faith is discerned? If not, then why should it be trusted when deciding a central doctrine in the Faith of the Catholic (universal) Church? From my perspective I'm of course disappointed that he didn't consult the thinking of a scholar like Kallistos Ware, a living historian like Edward Sicienski or even Father Patrick Ramsey from the Reason and Theology podcast itself. I'm still astounded that people who have access to the Scriptures and the universally accepted Church Fathers end up believing in something like the papacy without seeing it explicitly affirmed and explained in the Fathers, and explicitly accepted by them all. We wouldn't accept the Trinity, the Eucharist, the roles of bishops and presbyters if it was a matter of debate within the Church. All these were explicitly stated and argued for by the Latin and Greek Fathers, no one needs to rely on typology or isolated quotations. For example, the virginity of the Virgin Mary and her role as mother of God. That has some typology of course, it has scripture ('Mother of my Lord' in Luke), it doesn't have absolute patristic consensus but it's nearly absolute. Most importantly there are many Church Fathers who *explicitly* explain the doctrine and the reasons for its' necessary acceptance. Whereas with the papacy people are willing to accept a quote here and there, a piece of typology and then explanations from Fathers way after the patristic period whilst completely discounting the contrary evidence (St Gregory the Great rejecting the title of ecumenical patriarch for the Patriarch of Constantinople, various Fathers breaking communion with Rome - apparently unaware that they cut themselves off from the head of the Church, popes being excommunicated, canons expressly stating that bishops shouldn't interfere with one anothers Sees, Fathers and Saints stating that the 'keys of the kingdom' belonged to the three Apostolic Sees, or all bishops). All this is apparently irrelevant if you think the papacy is a good idea for church unity. This human conception on what's best for church unity, as if any of our personal reasoning should be trusted, now mixed with Bayesian logic on one piece of typology... I have no words! Again, rational people can differ on this but I am just astounded by the arguments people find convincing and how little evidence people want for such a central doctrine in the Faith.
Ever since reading into Orthodoxy and the works of the early Father's I just can not accept the papacy as I just can not force myself to believe it is biblical. As you stated anything about the papacy that others try to say is biblical has almost no standing in the Bible. It's just one verse in just one of the 4 gospels of the apostles. This is what drives me to Orthodoxy as the true church.
Why would one require "arguments" and "probabilistic calculations" in this context? Hasn't everything been disclosed and concluded? It seems to me that when even the most faithful are resorting to "probabilistic calculations," there must be some great ambiguity involved. Is it possible that God is elusive not just to atheists but also to those who desire nothing more than to believe? "If this argument is valid, then it constitutes strong evidence." But how can "arguments" serve as evidence for truths about reality? Arguments originate and reside in the minds of individuals. Their impact on you is merely a reflection of your pre-existing mental dispositions. It's akin to a carousel, nothing more.
Seems like a pretty elaborate mind palace he’s been building. I don’t remember anything in the Gospels about weighing probabilities, just having faith. Seems like the only faith he has in is this set of stats he’s picked for his Character creator RPG religion.
Cam said it before that EVERYONE does this to some extent. He's an analytical person so the Bayes is logically fitting for his preference. Put it this way: A historian would use his skills to find truth of whatever his looking in History, a Philosopher would use his reasoning to prove/disprove a proposition. Whatever your method is and what your good at, you may use that to exercise your faculty of reason. And if Bayes is Cam's tool to make his thoughts tangible and readable then good for him. Now Bayes might not be satisfyingnfor you but that's not the point. Do your own.
Basically he's reaching and reaching and stretching nothing into some sort of pseudo argument and hoping that no one notices. People just listen to him drone on about absolutely nothing, and think - "Wow. I don't know what he's talking about. Must be something really intelligent. I'm convinced." . He gave absolutely no proof for the papacy and catholicism. . He quotes a few books, but oddly didn't mention any specific verses, and didn't even mention them, and how they convinced him. . Being a protestant that switched to catholicism I doubt a bit. Not saying for sure that he's lying, but he did give off the tale tale traits of a propagandist. With the classic underdog story. . "There was all this information against the papacy, and only a little bit for it. But in the end catholicism won." . muslims pull the same move. They trot out someone who's obviously muslim, and then claim that he use to be a Christian preacher or someone in Christianity that was super into Christianity, but by reading the quran he converted to islam. The sign that it's all an act is that this supposed Christian knows absolutely nothing about the Bible. . Another sign here is that he kept saying "Well I wanted to give the protestants something." Even using protestant was a tale. catholics like to call everyone that isn't a catholic a protestant. This isn't something that Christians do.
The name eliakim means "God will establish" or "God will cause to rise up." Which sounds a lot like saying "this guy is a type to a coming antitype, he will one day establish this antitype and cause it to be raised into higher and higher perfections."
Yeah I like both these guys but that argument is weak sauce imo. As someone who has gone through my own faith journey (and is coming back through the other side still Protestant), I still got nervous or anxious about hearing an awesome argument that will cause me to have to revisit everything again, and then it was like "Yeah there is some typology in the OT and NT that make sense and my computer said that means I should probably become catholic I guess" (somehow).....I really think Cameron is a good man of God and maybe he was just nervous but this argument made me concerned that he really hasn't worked through it all like it seemed he had
@@lproof8472 Yeah, and he also said Protestants think we can think whatever we want in regards to scripture? I want to be charitable but it's clear the dude never fully grasped classical Protestant thinking and didn't really have a base to defend. I know there are informed Protestants that really just are compelled to switch for various reasons, and while i do not know how much work he put in and I certainly don't know his heart, this seemed just very arbitrary and silly like you said
On the primacy of Peter: ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA [T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and himself the Savior paid tribute [Mt 17:27], quickly seized and comprehended the saying. And what does he say? “Lo, we have left all and followed you” [Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? 21 (c. A.D. 200)]. TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith] [Antidote for the Scorpion’s Sting 10 (c. A.D. 211)]. [T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Mt 16:18-19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the clear intent of the Lord when he himself conferred this upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys [Modesty 21 (c. A.D. 220)]. ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA [I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things that seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in only one; for they do not reach so high a stage of power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens [Commentary on Matthew 13:31 (c. A.D. 249)]. ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .” [Mt 16:18-19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church? [Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)]. Let me know if you want more.
LETTER OF CLEMENT TO JAMES Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom the Father first revealed the Son; whom the Christ blessed with good reason; the called, and elect [Letter of Clement to James 2 (c. A.D. 290)]. ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM The Lord is loving to man, and swift to pardon, but slow to punish. Let no man therefore despair of his own salvation. Peter, the chiefest and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little maid, but he repented and wept bitterly [Catechetical Lectures 2:19 (c. A.D. 350)]. [Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius set up his statue. . . . As the delusion was extending, Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their prayers against Magus, and struck him down to the earth. And marvelous though it was, yet no marvel. For Peter was there, who carries the keys of heaven [Mt 16:19] [ibid., 6:14-15]. In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter also, the chief of the apostles and the bearer of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, healed Aeneas the paralytic in the name of Christ at Lydda, which is now Diospolis [Acts 9:32-34] [ibid., 17:27]. ST. EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN [Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness that I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures [Homilies 4:1 (c. A.D. 353)]. ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN [Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Mt 16:18]? [Faith 5:57 (c. A.D. 379)]. ST. JEROME Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom, being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord [Illustrious Men 1 (A.D. 392)]. But you say [Mt 16:18], the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all, yet one among the Twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism [Against Jovinianus 1:26 (c. A.D. 393)]. ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO 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” [Sermons 295:2 (c. A.D. 411)]. Who can fail to know that the most blessed Peter was the first of the apostles? [Tractates on John 56:1 (A.D. 416-417)].
@@deanodebo No, he sits on the throne of Peter, there had to be ecumenical councils to determine arianism as heracy, protecting the church, and therefore the papacy had to have power.
exactly. But they rail against the Bible like most cults do. So they don't really care what is in the NT. Funny that he tried to use the Bible to prove catholicism, without pointing out one single verse.
Jesus quotes Isaiah 22:22 (out of the broader immediate context of Isaiah 22: 15 - 25) at Matthew 16: 18-19 and applies it to what He is doing with Cephas / St. Peter. There is so much more biblical evidence though, than just Matt. 16: 17-19. The problem is fundamentalist and evangelical Protestants tend to read their western / American, 21st century traditions' presuppositions back into an ancient 1st century A. D. text of the Middle East.
Would have been nice to hear what this argument actually is. Can you explain the typology further can you help the rest of us who are struggling with this?
I presume you believe that the people, places, and events in the Old Testament prefigure, that is, point forward to and act as types of the incarnation, life, passion, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension into heaven of Jesus Christ. Adam is a prefigurement of and a type of Christ, Abraham is a type of Christ, Moses is a type of Christ, David is a type of Christ, etc. This is the essence of typology, which is itself mentioned by St. Paul at Rom. 5:14: "...who is a type (Gk. typos) of Christ to come".
So, the question becomes, why does Jesus Christ quote Isaiah 22: 22 at Matt. 16: 18-19? Or, in other words, what is going on at Isaiah 22: 15 - 25 that Jesus Christ would consider it important to quote from it, to St. Peter, in reference to what is going on at Matt. 16: 13 - 20? So, let's look at Isaiah 22:15 - 25 for a moment, to get the context for the quote of Isaiah 22:22.
At Isaiah 22: 15 - 25, YHWH is addressing King David's vizier, Shebna - his Prime Minister, if you will, the "Master of the Palace" (cf. Isaiah 22: 15). Apparently he has abused his office as an official in government and used it to aggrandize himself and YHWH is so displeased with his conduct that he is going to punish Shebna and depose him from his position (cf. Isaiah 22: 16 - 19). He is to be succeeded in his office as Master of the Palace by Eliakim (cf. Isaiah 22: 20 - 24). This is the broader context (Isaiah 22: 15 - 25 ) for the verses which immediately surround Isaiah 22: 20-22. The immediate context for Isaiah 22: 22 (again, which Jesus quotes at Matthew 16: 18-19) is Isaiah 22: 20 - 22. Eliakim is to succeed Shebna to the office of Master of the Palace (cf. Isaiah 22: 20). The one who holds this office is recognizable by particular vestments which the office holder wears (cf. Isaiah 22: 21a), and which has an authority which derives from and is subordinate to the king's own authority (cf. Isaiah 22: 21b), and is an office which not only the people of God, but also the king's own house are to accord with a high degree of dignity ("He shall be a FATHER to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah."; cf. Isaiah 22: 21c). The signature sign of his office is the "keys of the house of David" with full deputized authority to "...open...and...shut..." in the king's name (cf. Isaiah 22: 22). 3:13
In light of the types in the OT prefiguring their fulfillment in the NT; and in light of Jesus Christ quoting Isaiah 22:22 to St. Peter at Matt. 16: 18-19; and in light of the fact that the broader context for Isaiah 22:22 is Isaiah 22: 15-25, where YHWH is appointing Eliakim to suucceed Shebna to be the Master of the Palace to the Davidic king; and in light of the fact that Jesus Christ is, humanly speaking, the descendant of King David, and the long awaited Messianic king (cf. II Sam. 7: 16; Luke 1: 32, 33), it seems obvious that Jesus is appointing his new Eliakim / Master of the Palace, and giving him the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" with full authority to "bind...and...loose" in His name, and that the Church is to accord him the dignity of "a FATHER" to the new Jerusalem and the eternal "house of Judah".
Orthodox never denied the papacy but the line draws where the Pope has chosen to want supreme authority over all bishops. Not only not biblical but early church fathers didn’t agree with that either. Popes also
Both the Catholic and the Orthodox believe they are the one true church, right? Or do I have something wrong? If so, what really is the split about? Was it just about icons?
Ohhh i wish i had money to visit the holy sites in Italy, Portugal and France. May God bless me with that trip in the future or maybe after He comes. Ps: i hope his family doesn't cut him off.
“In that day I will call Elikim, son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand; and he SHALL be a FATHER to the people of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he SHALL open and none shall shut and he SHALL shut and none shall open. Is. 22 Papacy
Revelation 3:7 quotes this almost exactly and its talking about Jesus... "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: 'The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens."
@@PInk77W1 You can make your own decision but the prophecy of Eliakim says: Isaiah 22:22 _“Then I will put the key of the house of David on his shoulder; When he opens, no one will shut, When he shuts, no one will open._ Matthew 16 says this about Peter: _“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”_ Revelation 3:7 Jesus says: _“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this:" You be the judge which is closer then the other. Then consider Matthew 18 Jesus says to his disciples: _“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."_ I'm just reading the text. I'm not trying to read into it anything or read out of it anything.
What I got from this is that there were very few arguments that he found for the papacy, and quite a bit more against the papacy… and then some analysis he made somehow made the smaller body of evidence for the papacy better and more convincing than the larger body of evidence against the papacy. Nice! I guess…
I think that he's saying that even though there may have been numerically more points in favor of the papacy being false, the numerically fewer points in favor of the papacy were much more likely than the rest.
I don’t know if this argument is more ridiculous to my Orthodox self or to my mathematician self. Btw, how did he explain that the authority of Peter went uniquely to the See of Rome and not to the Apostolic See of Peter in Antioch?
I found this probabilistic account to be amusingly dubious on several grounds: 1) The link between statistical analyses and neutrality is tenuous. Statistical evidence is in large measure dependent upon subject framing of questions being sought after. In other words, it is hardly objective as though the seeking subject were wholly removed from the analysis. In this respect, results can easily be skewed, particularly as it relates to questions in the humanities, which is notoriously laden with subjective prejudices that constitute the findings of individual scholars. 2) Even if such analyses were valid means of ascertaining truth in the humanities, there is still the question of how tangible evidences encountered in the world of theological, biblical, and historical research can be transitioned over into a computerized spreadsheet. 3) This former move seems to mistake the distinctive character of the humanities for something nearer to the natural sciences, where objects can be dissected piecemeal. In other words, we are doing precisely what Pope Benedict XVI warned against in mistaking theology for physics. 4) This leads to the technological reduction of theological experience into the categories of epistemology resembling the Neo-Kantian fixation upon ‘value.’ What is missed in all of this is the worldly character of theology as something which is foremost proclaimed and lived, rather than dissected through secondary discursive reflection that has misplaced the Geisteswissenschaften for the naturawissenschaften. It has the same pitfalls as a world denying Gnosticism that is wholly fixated on epistemi ascertained worldlessly through Microsoft Excel.
Peter may have had “Papal Qualities” he may even had Papal Authority but neither he nor any other Apostle, Disciple, Patriarch or Bishop ever deployed it against the resounding voices of the many as outlined in Scripture when James and the Apostles in first century Jerusalem confronted what could be considered the first heresy of teaching you had to become Jewish prior to becoming Christian. The Sin of the Papacy was abandoning that fundamental first century organizational principle that guided and is in fact proof of the Holy Spirits continued inspirations on the Body of Christ until 1054. What’s the harm? Easy, 900 page “summary of belief” the Roman Catholic Catechism and the continuing fracturing of the Body of Christ. This logic is no better than Luther’s, the Orthodox were wrong for 1000 years until Pope Leo V’s revelation, oh look here the Bible says I have the authority, lucky for me. “Rational conclusions based on objective study” is the exact process that created every heresy ever uttered including schism that is strongly, frequently and authoritatively argued against in Scripture. But that for some reason Scripture hasn’t been enough to dissuade schismatics who all demand absolute authority of Scripture from continuing to fracture the Church. It’s an incredible vicious cycle staking hypocrisy on top of hypocrisy that the Papal claims have unleashed on Christendom that now anyone with a Bible and an opinion and the lack of fear to use them can and do proclaim themselves Pope. That is the arbiter to determine truth from heresy. Besides if anyone truly looks objectively at Peter’s succession there is a much stronger case for Antioch over Rome where he never served as Bishop or appointed any Bishop. If being martyred in Rome is the standard that’s an exceedingly long and impressive list.
@@QuisutDeusmpc Every heresy ever spoken was accompanied by Bible passages. The fact that the men who wrote, compiled, translated and selected New Testament writings along with the Disciples they taught and the Church fathers they taught never elected anyone Pope or granted Papal primacy to any contemporary is overwhelming evidence hat the Papacy is what History tells us it is, a later accretion born of Political, Economic and Military necessity planted when the Bishop of Rome also became the King of the Papal State and rooted when it found it convenient if not necessary to make alliances with the Frankish Emperor Charlemagne who was quite pleased to be called the Holy Roman Emperor and begin instituting reforms that further separated the Church of Rome from the East. Not a single Bishop outside the realm of Charlemagne and certainly not any patriarch from antiquity, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria nor Jerusalem fallowed the Pope and his claim of Primacy. Regardless of the position of Rome as First among equals that was replaced by the fourth Ecumenical Council or St. Peter and the rock and the keys or other isolated passages obscure or clear don’t negate the obvious commands of Scripture to refrain from schism and to be of one mind and judgement. In other words if the Papal claims were in fact based in Scripture and pleasing to the Holy Spirit the Biblical solution was to win over the consensus, not excommunication and sacking Constantinople. Roman Catholicism has a wonderful deep and meaningful history. It has built the second most glorious monument of Christianity, St. Peter’s Basilica, and spread the word of Christ far and wide. It has also Developed extraordinary charitable organizations, Hospitals and Universities. This should be enough for Catholics to be proud of without needing to selectively read Scriptures and revising history. May God Grant you many years.
With all the unwanted attention his wife is getting, this surely can’t be helpful right now. I can’t claim to know Cameron as well as Pints with Aquinas do, but I think it’s more respectful to not overwhelm Cameron with this kind of attention.
These "prove the papacy" debates always consider Protestant vs. Catholic points in a vacuum and then refute the Protestant arguments (most of which Orthodox would agree with Catholics on) but either never present or gloss over the Orthodox arguments against the papacy. Mr. Bertuzzi did the same thing here. And I really doubt this totally arbitrary mathematical calculation he came up with will convince anybody except those already convinced.
Oh, looks like this one argument had a lot of weight in his conversion. I'm wondering if the "Reversing Hermon" argument, also based on the old testament made it in the Cameron's list. Where mount Hermon is the rock, not Peter and the correct translation would be that the gates of hell cannot withstand the church. The church with resurrected Christ as head being in offensive, not in defensive. An old Testament protestant scholar named Michael Heiser is holding to this position. Cameron was contacted by Rob from Sentinel Apologetics to discuss the same. But, as far as I know, Cameron did not answer...
I think you're right that "the gates of Hell" is a description of an offensive move, not defense. But how does that mean Peter isn't what Catholic's believe?
@@FrJohnBrownSJ Correct translation would also be Hades, not Hell: "the gates of Sheol/Hades will not withstand the church", which makes a difference. The argument goes like this. The rock that they are talking about in Matthew 16:18 is where they're standing, because it was known as the gates of Hades. Verse 13 says that Peter’s confession takes place in the district of Caesarea Philippi. This city was in the heart of Bashan on a rocky terrace in the foothills of Mount Hermon. It's the place where the lord of the dead was worshiped. Argument would be that, in fact, what you have Jesus saying here is something like, you all know what this place is, I am going to turn Satan's domain into his tomb. Offensive, not defensive. It is not that God is making Bashan his mountain literally, but conquering its divinities and theologically replacing it (Psalm 2:1-8, Psalm 2:1-8, Psalm 22 "bulls of Bashan surround me") In the apocryphal Book of Enoch, Mount Hermon is the place where the Watchers, class of fallen angels, descended to Earth. An act corresponding to description of the Nephilim of Genesis 6, which speaks of sexual relations between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men." Jesus is the one who acts out the judgment that God renders in Psalm 82 over the principalities and powers. There are a dozen places where Paul connects the work of Christ with the demise of the authority of the gods over the nations. I've mainly just put some citations together. I tend to, but it is not yet my position. There would be a lot more to say, because there are connections all over the Bible for this theory. I guess best is to read Michael S. Heiser's books "The Unseen Realm" or "Reversing Hermon"...
Let's say it's true, let's say Mount Hermon is the rock. If it IS true, what would it say about Jesus and Scripute if it took about 2000 years for someone to finally interpret this passage correctly? Wouldn't that make God/Jesus a terrible comminucator?
@@nealkriesterer Did you apply the same criteria to Eliakim argument ? Mount Hermon similar references you'll find plenty in Patristics. Not as the rock, but I guess, the 2000 years argument would maybe work, if the traditional historical churches would agree on papacy, but they don't. Like, I've said, it's not my position, I am still studying it. But, the context of this discussion is that one argument that Cameron was not fully convinced of came to be the most important one because of his usage of Bayesian AI. So, if we go so much into deep learning, my initial wondering was only if he also considered this other argument as someone invited him to do so.
Using the term Beysian lends credence to an action that is simply anecdotal. There were 16 issues against and 4 pro papacy. He really only discussed one and that superficially.
Regardless of the validity of the papacy the Marian dogma's are so unbelievably unbiblical that it's hard to be able to full-blown converts to Catholicism. I love my Catholic brothers and sisters and see immense value in the history of the Catholic Church and what they've done for the kingdom of God but there are some things that are so off in left field that I genuinely struggle with
It's clear you don't trust the Church. If you trusted the Church then you would believe all dogmas by faith in the Church. Being churchless is like being an orphan.
I feel exactly the same. There are numerous issues that I have with the Catholic Church but the Marian doctrines are the number one issue. Its biblically heretical and it draws people's eyes off Christ, which is a sin in my opinion. The second issue is that the Church seems more concerned with submission to itself then to submission to Christ and you can see that in koppite9600's response. Just get in line and don't question.
In the process of conversion from non- denominational to Catholic right now as well
❤🎉 May His mercy uphold you 🎉❤
Jesus is the reason for the Catholic Church. God bless you during your exciting journey into Christs Church.
I have a dear friend undergoing the same process, and she is being either discouraged or isolated by her family and family. Pray for her, and may He help you to reach Him in His Church.
@@rorypinata265 I already said a prayer for her. I hope she finds the strength she needs from Jesus and having you as a friend to support her. May I suggest a visit to a local parish and ask about joining a Catholic Bible study or a Small Christian Group for fellowship and to meet some more Catholic Christians. It’s a great way to find some friends too.
@@rorypinata265 Will be praying!
I've seen firsthand a ton of Protestants convert to Catholicism who are very strong in their faith, but the only Catholics that I see convert to Protestantism are very weak in their faith. Praise be to God that Cameron is finding his path.
Interesting. If catholicism is growing why are so many churches closing?
@Sir Shramp Correct, I edited it. Thank you for pointing that out!
@@Justas399 Its not growing in western countries. Just because some convert does not mean that a lot of people are doing it. It grows through communities in Africa and Asia, which have high birthrates because it are developing countries
@@Justas399 Globally, the Catholic Church is growing, at least if I remember Pew Polls correctly.
@@doctorirrefragibilis catholicism has grown primarily by birthrates.
This is a brave man!! He was never afraid to debate any Catholic, and he always did so politely.
It takes courage to admit you're wrong and change your mind. God bless you, Mr. Bertuzzi.
Reading the early church fathers and Scott Hahn is the beginning of the end for a lot of us. Praise God!
What do you mean
@@peaceandlove544I mean that I converted because I read the early Church fathers, which lead me to reading Scott Hahn’s books. Once I realized that my Protestant faith did not match that of the earliest Christians (and was, in fact, something very different), I could no longer hold to it.
To me, it is kind of ironic to use the Didache to disprove the papacy while overlooking the fact it describes both the Mass and the Eucharist as the form of worship used by the early Christians! Excellent video, I was very excited to hear this side of Cameron's conversion story
This is something that was really an eye-opener. Before there was even a compiled Bible there was the Didache Ironically enough it despite it not being inspired scripture the Didache historically shows how Christians lived and how they worshiped. There's a good reason why it's often referred to as the first catechism. How Protestants can be ignorant to that fact while still claiming Sola scriptura and protesting against the sacraments and the authority of the Church, the same church that compiled the books of the Bible by Guidance of the Holy Spirit, is amazing
I suppose an eastern orthodox Christian could still appeal to it since they affirm the Eucharist and transubstantiation.
The Orthodox would disagree lol
The original Christians were Orthodox, not Catholic. The papacy is a heresy that was a product of geography and language difference between the East and West during the crusades.
@@FlexCathedrafromIG For sure! There seems to be a tendency to willfully ignore the many early sources about Christian life and doctrine among protestant denominations. My understanding was that the Didache was one of many writings that were considered or treated as scripture by many Christians prior to the establishment of the Biblical canon. The only reason we have the Bible is because the Catholic Church compiled and authoritatively established it at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.
'He who is of the Truth hears My voice' - well done, Mr. Bertuzzi!
Remember to find Christ's church with your heart not just your mind. That said, I'm excited to have Cameron with us! I hope he can continue to guide people to Jesus.
Y’know what would be hilarious? Two agnostics/atheists debating whether Catholicism or Protestantism is more likely given the truth of the Bible. I just think that that would be so weird…
It would be interesting.
That actually would be very interesting. And funny
Yeah but most athiests cant even make it past "if God is good why me get the flu" so i cant see that being very productive or indicitive of anything. Theres alot of very intelligent creators but they're calvinists or catholics, which I believe are both heterodox. So intelligence even doesnt seem to be the defining factor of doctrinal interpretation.😊
God bless you Cameron. We pray that all our separated brothers and sisters come home to the fullness of Christian truth in the Catholic Church like you did. Jesus we trust in you.
The truth cannot be found in the catholic church.
@@thejohnmarkprojectThen you better be consistent in your illogic and abandon the Bible altogether because the same Church that Christ Himself established, who you say truth cannot be found in, is the same one who determined, compiled, canonized and preserved the Scriptures that make up your Bible. Better find you a new religion, maybe become a stone licking pagan muslim.
In reality there is no truth in protestantism, which teaches all contradictory and conflicting doctrines, which actually contravenes Jesus's wish that all His faithful be of one mind and one accord.
Great video, even better background! I was just in Rome a month or so ago for the first time and absolutely loved it.
I was staunchly sola scriptura until I started reading the early church fathers. Doing that made me realize how much of my own ideas and other people’s ideas I unknowingly and unintentionally imported in to the text, and how this was actually unavoidable.
The scriptures can be considered infallible data, but data without interpretation is meaningless. So, the scriptures can be unquestionably true but unless I can have an authoritative interpretation I cannot know reliably anything from them.
That realization marked my departure from evangelicalism. I’m still working out whether or not I need to go to Rome.
So how do you know how to interpret the interpretation?
So since virtually none of the Bible has been infallibly interpreted how have you in anyway solved for your initial problem? Not only that, haven't you merely added another layer to the issue since you can fallible interpret the interpretation?
Not sure why extra Biblical sources (early church fathers) that were not divinely inspired in anyway gives you logical ground to require an authority over divinely inspired scripture (Bible).
Through the 2000 years of Holly catholic Magisterium, Doctrine and tradition.
Just don't go Bergoglian. Trad, latin, orthodox, Novous Ordu just not Bergoglian (progressive).
You will love the great doctors of the Church. Like St Thomas Aquinus. And the extraordinary saints, after the apostles.
St Padre Pio, XX century saint. Impressive.
The Passion of the Christ was not only based on The Holly Bible but on the Revelations made by our Lord to a German lady saint of the details of His passion. 😢😢😢😢😢
People will tell you catholics idolize Blessed Mother Mary but it's not God to us but the blessed Mother of Our Lord and Our Blessed Mother that interceds for us.
We through prayer can interced for others of course Our Lord's Blessed Mother can even better interced for us. As she is the most holly human that ever lived. Thus it is the person that the evil one hates most for her absolute humility and sainthood that She is the one called for assistance and intercession during exorcisms through the holly rosary prayer. The Hail Mary is Biblically based and the rosary is a number of hail Marys along with Our fathers while meditating in chapters of Our Lord's life.
It's a true spiritual armour. Nobody has the spiritual armour for these end of times as we have: The true Bible, The Church founded by Our Lord, the rosary, the Holly Eucharist, the Holly mass, holly/exorcised water/salt/oil, holly Adoration, sacrament of reconciliation/penitence, blessed medals/sacramentals, consecrated priests, etc.
Please consider the first two replies to your post. They contain powerful internal critiques of this argument against Protestantism that you are posing.
@@sharplikecheddar2 my friend do you realize that if the early Church Fathers were not divinely inspired in anyway then you can’t even Trust in the Bible itself 😅 there was not New Testament, only Old Testament! It was the Church who decided every single letter to add to the Bible and figure it out which was the autor of every page, because there’s was fakes gospels too.
And the authority was given by Christ himself and he promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church.
That was the point of founding a single Chuch: to have the authority, the knowledge, the tradition and the Spiritual guide to give a solo and fallible interpretation to the people.
Instead of using your biased logical limitation you should go and start reading early Father’s Church (they all breathe Catholicism). Protestantism is the result of disobedience and men own interpretations.
Dr Pitre Brant videos and devine mercy videos explain this topic very well
Such an intriguing and fantastic story! Glory be to Jesus Christ!
My advice for all Protestants considering Catholicism, from a Catholic: if you convert to Catholicism without considering the high church protestants, you may end up leaving Catholicism because you never read the Catholic response to these theology and patristics-savvy Protestant reformers. So pray for the grace to know the fault in the best arguments for what is false be that Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, etc. Now I think you may be so convinced of Catholicism (perhaps from the scriptural argument for the papacy, a personal revelation that confirms Catholicism, or something else) that not looking at the classical Protestants or Orthodox arguments is not as much of a problem. But exercise your research objectively and prayerfully. If you are convinced that it is legitimate to pray to the saints and holy angels, I suggest you ask for their intercession. If you think praying the rosary isn't sinful I suggest doing it often as a means to discern Catholicism. Thank you for coming to my TED-talk.
Perfectly reasonable.
I have a question about the pope; why did he kiss the quran? Isn’t that kinda blasphemous considering how it talks about our lord and rejects his divinity? does this not go against the teaching of infallibility?
@@Commandosoap777 Catholics think the Pope makes mistakes and can be wrong except when speaking "ex cathedra" or infallibly. The funny thing is they also have to use some mental gymnastics/circular reasoning to explain when that is and isn't the case. I'm not going to claim to be an expert on it but I would encourage people to research in depth what that looks like in practice. I have yet to come across a catholic apologist that can give me an answer that seems compelling. I love my Catholic brethren but papal infallibility is a big problem. If not present, unity between churches would be easier but as it currently stands, either protestants have to accept all 150 something-ish dogmas to become catholic, or catholics have to back pedal or at least allow for difference in thought and accept the legitimacy of other traditions/church bodies. Pray for unity in the Church all
@@Commandosoap777 because he was no pope, there is unfortunately no pope since 1958, the sedevacantists are right
@@Commandosoap777 if you had an HONEST intellectual curiosity, you'd have already researched papal infallibility and understood that it doesn't prevent you from personal error. Expecting people to explain to you something extremely researchable is a good sign of someone acting in bad faith. But I'm sure you're aware of your interior motives. As for the actual answer as to why a pope would kiss the Quran, the answer is foolishness, ecumenism, and seduction by the spirit of the age. It's the same reason a pope would speak fondly or positively of protestantism for reasons other than pity and mercy.
01:30 "In Bayesian terms [...] you can be a bit more precise". Precision does not equal accuracy though.
As Gavin Ortlund also pointed out in his response video, if you don't have a good foundation of how to assign the numerical weights to your input data, as well as taking into account things like uncertainty or correlation, your analysis won't do much other than giving the appearance of being sophisticated.
Well said.
That's what jumped out at me too like a minute in.... it's just applying your own basis as to how strong something is (you are just giving things a weight)....so in the end, its just more work to feel better about what your thoughts are. Maybe it helps clarify in one's own mind what their beliefs are, but not sure how helpful that is to anyone else (not that he is taking the position that his strategy is for others to follow).
Gavin Ortlund sums up his entire false ministry with that comment.
@@chad_hominemsolid argument bro.
I knew he would convert right from the bat,when he is sat down with dr.hanh, me too , was also converted again deeper to the faith.
The PAPACY whether catholic or protestant is completely logical & SPIRITUALLY right. There is no way how an Organised God ,would leave behind a church consisting of men & women of flesh without a central leadership on earth.
I’ve said the same. It’s only logical. Like every organization does
There's no model of the catholic church found in the early church.
.
What you see is each church is lead by bishops and deacons, which can give no commands, they only guide.
And then churches communicating with each other for guidance, as well as the guidance from the Holy Spirit.
.
And they always depend on the teachings of Jesus, and never an outside source or their own opinions.
@@thejohnmarkproject @ johnmark I know you've been told this. But the truth is the opposite when you actually search.
I have a whole list of quotes within the first few hundred years of Christianity writing on the office of the papacy.
@@thejohnmarkproject
You are reading your modern American democratic understanding of governance back into the 1st century A. D. Levant, sir. That is called eisegesis - reading back into an ancient text, your personal presuppositions. Jesus isn't the Governor of Governors, and the President of Presidents...He is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. He wasn't elected to the Messianic office by a majority of the Hebrews and Romans of His time. Such a subjective individualist, 21st century American comment to make.
My understanding is that God has his Church on Earth under the leadership of Jesus Christ, by direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit that was given to the Church until the return of Jesus. Jesus made a way for his Church to come directly to God, without the need for a figure head to be the go-between man and God. The vale was torn. There are Elders and Leaders to help the Church, but not a central man figurehead that man needs to go to. His Church is now in the New Covenant, that figurehead was required in the Old Covenant.
I would like to look further into this, as it seems so foreign to my understanding of scripture. If there are any bible verses that are best to start with for me to understand this Papacy view or where this comes from, please let me know. I would love to dig in to them.
Is it possible for Cameron to share the spreadsheet he made? That could be pretty handy. Thanks much!
He'll be sharing it at Jimmy Akin's Channel. No date yet.
@@glorianiaga2111 thanks for the info. I'd definitely wait for that!
The spread sheet of salvation.
When Suan first came out with the argument I was in the conversion process. Though it's been around for some time it was Suan that really gave some flesh to the bare bones of the idea. It didn't help a whole lot for me but , if the geniuses of the church keep developing it out, I could see it driving more protestants to the faith
even the church fathers recognized that the bishop of Rome had more authority than others!!
If anyone knows where I can find Cameron's Bayesian analysis, please let me know. I am an applied mathematician and would very much like to see his work on this. Thanks!
"Unless those four arguments are very strong."
OR, if you're approaching the debate "charitably," and not with *discernment,* and you open your mind up so much that everything falls out.
Truly this video is a highly spiritual revealing work and confirmative testimony to the papacy in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church of Traditional Teachings and Worship Amen 🙏
Protestant here. I have the upmost respect for my fellow Catholic brother and sisters in Christ. We both have a love and reverence for our Savior but just disagree on a few things and that’s OKAY. Let all that we do be done in love.
"...On a few things..." lol the chasm between Catholics and Protestants is as wide as the chasm that separates Lazarus and the rich man. Those "few things" are imperative and of very high gravity. Christ has one bride and one church. He's not a polygamist. There cannot be hundreds of different opinions on infallible doctrine and dogma. "Mere Christianity" is deficient and is not what we are called to assent.
@@FlexCathedrafromIG So let me get this straight, a seemingly well meaning Christian tries to spread a message of unity under our Lord (JESUS alone, which I believe is difficult for you as a roman catholic to focus on at times given problematic doctrines) and you try to light him up and seemingly try to embarrass him? Very Christian of you "Christian". And before you go here, yes I know that American Protestants were historically very uncharitable to catholics in generations past, but many, many Christians from all traditions are interested in unity today, something your condescending and rude comment does nothing to help. God Bless
-I edited some here to be charitable although the response wasn’t imo
Especially given the times we live in, I'll take your friendship any day. God bless, and yes, we are brothers in Christ. We always start there. I think in the future, we will all only grow closer. We have to.
@@FlexCathedrafromIG You mean the different opinions of the popes throughout history ?
Amen
Bro brought his sweatshirt to the Vatican.
So?
Welcome home, Cameron!
“As a Protestant I wanted to get rid of OT”. Nope. As Cameron, maybe, but not as a Protestant. The Protestant tradition is pretty rich with typology too.
Yes. The trouble it is the teaching of fallible men from the 16th century. Remember all the founders and their successors left the Catholic Church, the Church Jesus established.
Yes. When I heard him say this, I cringed hard. Maybe this is true for lukewarm Protestants (and lukewarm Christians in general), but typology is not an exclusively Roman Catholic thing. It’s rich in the Orthodox and Protestant churches as well.
I think the OT types point to the reality of the Catholic Church being the same one Christ founded.
Yeah, that was one of the clues that he is making this up.
.
I'm not even sure what he means when he says protestant, because catholics really misuse that term, so I'll just say, as a Christian - we don't believe in getting rid of the OT. That's not something that protestants or any Christian does.
@@Danaluni59
They don't though in anyway. To try to make that argument is really reaching. The Bible destroys catholicism.
God told David
I will build u a throne and it shall last forever.
3000yrs later the pope sits on a throne.
Where can we see this spreadsheet???
I didn’t even know bro got converted !! That’s cool af
0:42 Calculating numbers on a spreadsheet like God is a subject for your research paper instead of the Sovereign Creator who has spoken to us. What did God say in his word, the Bible. When I read the first two chapters of Galatians it makes the Papacy totally untenable. All I've heard from Roman Catholics so far has been long winded excuses as to why I shouldn't believe the plain sense of what Paul was saying.
The system he used is a way of reducing bias and is inferential in nature. It is used when there are more then one reasonable options on the table. It can be very helpful.
For instance we can use it with the existence of God. Someone might start with a very low "prior probability" for His existence. Say 1% chance he exists. Each reasonable argument for the existence of God increases that probability. Atheists usually consider arguments for God 1 at a time and rarely look at them as a group. The Bayesian system forces one to look at all the arguments for the conclusion.
@@glstka5710 You can easily say along this same line of logic that: “writing pages in a book like God is a subject for your research paper instead of the sovereign creator who has spoken to us.” By this logic, no one can ever write a book about God or theology (including the Bible) if writing about God is demeaning to Him.
@@lukeemrich5451 The post is about putting your system above what is stated in the text. If there is doubt you can use a system but it's still just a fallible system. Where the text is clear systems need to be subordinate. When I read the first two chapters of Galatians it makes the Papacy totally untenable.
I’m a Protestant who has always like this channel and has also followed Bertuzzis journey. While I appreciate the charity of both men speaking here, it’s a little disheartening to see many Protestant views either misrepresented or just downright assumed to be the view of all Protestants. He says something like “as a Protestant I always thought I could sort of just ignore the Old Testament”. That may be true for what he did personally but that is just simply not a Protestant position whatsoever, in fact in many cases Protestants seem to more heavily emphasize Old Testament writings. Additionally, in another part of the video he makes it seem like Protestants can just believe whatever we want. Again, not an orthodox position, but maybe one he had. While some Protestants view it that way it doesn’t mean it’s the official Protestant position. It’d be like me saying “Oh well Catholics worship Mary!!”, because that is the street level reality of some while it isn’t the position of Rome doctrinally. Praying for both of these men who I view as brothers in Christ, but we gotta do a better job of discussing real issues not just straw men people
You proved his point.
You said “official Protestant position”
There is none.
Martin Luther 1517 - anyone can figure out what the Bible means by themselves.
So if a Protestant wants to get rid of the Old Testament, who in the Protestant church has the authority to say no ?
I remember arguing with a Protestant who told me to my face.
“My church don’t believe in the 10 commandments”
I was stunned.
@@R.C.A.T maybe he is way smarter than me
I don’t know
But I do know the NATIONAL CATHEDRAL
downtown Washington DC is Protestant
And it’s 100% in favor of
Gay marriage
Abortion 9 months
Trans rights
@@PInk77W1 So when I said “Protestant position” I do understand your point that there isn’t a “THE Protestant Church”, and I do understand the fact that a major weakness of leaving Rome is less authority being imposed in some regards, so touche’, that is one argument that is a stronger one for Catholicism imo. HOWEVER,
what I can say, is that ignoring the Old Testament is exceedingly rare in Protestant circles, and he threw it out as if that’s just a common trait that Catholicism takes the OT seriously and Protestants don’t. Regarding your mention of churches that have essentially drifted into apostasy/disobedience/etc, this is a case of ignoring God’s word (which ALL Christians agree is the final authority) Not fair to say it’s ONLY a symptom of Protestantism. Cardinal Marx in Germany literally threw a “Queer Mass” and to my knowledge faced no actual major consequences. Catholicism is not immune to the outside world hurting the Church, and again, it wouldn’t be fair for me to take things certain Catholics have done and apply seemingly as a semi blanket in Catholicism.
Added: I hope this message comes across the way it was meant, to edify and provide food for thought. Again, I actually like this channel despite major disagreements I have with the Roman Church, peace to all
Also, I do know many mainline churches have drifted into error, EXCEEDINGLY isn’t a good word to use for the rarity of what I mentioned, but if you go back and read the Reformers, or look at many millions of faithful church bodies, you’ll find a high regard and reverence for the OT
I see your point but there are so many protestant denominations that you are bound to straw man someone lol.
@@richardlindquist3714 As a Catholic I agree with you, they low-key did paint Protestantism with one huge brush when we all know it more complicated than that. However, I do tend to see more Protestants handing out just the Gospels without the OT not to generalize too much. But yes, not all Protestants share the same doctrines and dogmas.
Deciding between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy right now. About to read “The Papacy” by Eric Ybarra and “The Papacy and the Orthodox” by Edward Siecienski after finishing “The Case for Catholicism” by Trent Horn and “The Orthodox Church” by Timothy Ware.
Any suggestions are appreciated as I’m a more recent Christian convert. I have more books on my list, but those are the ones I felt I should read first. The current ones I’m reading are to get an idea about both denominations, the next two to form my view on the papacy.
Pray.
Hallow is a great app. Thank you for the recommendation! Now I just gotta get used to using it daily
Can we get this spreadsheet
Interesting argument about typology but how come the rest of the apostles didn’t get that connection in Acts and the Epistles? Why did Paul have to publicly rebuke Peter? Why did Paul said he was in charge of sharing the message to the gentiles and Peter should oversee the entire Catholic church? Why does Paul tell the local elders to govern their own churches instead of submitting to Peter and Peter’s home church in Antioch? Why did Paul not also give qualifications for future papal candidates when he cave them for elders and deacons? Surely a role that important needs to have even higher qualifications than elders, right? Or could it be that the rest of the Apostles didn’t make this typological connection because there isn’t one?
Just because something seem similar doesn’t mean it’s typological.
Especially considering that in Revelation 3:7 the prophecy of Eliakim is quoted almost exactly in reference to Jesus..
"And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: 'The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens."
God Bless you gentlemen
I will always be Catholic 🇻🇦❤️
Βιβα Κριστο Ρεξ!
he will be a good addition to Trent Horn, Scott Hahn and the rest of catholic converts who passionately defends Catholicism
"converts"
I'm curious how Revelation 3:7 factors in to the Eliakim typological argument:
~"And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: 'The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens." (Rev 3:7 ESV)
This verse in Revelation, which is referring to Jesus, seems to be quoting Isaiah 22:22 almost word for word,
~"And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open." (Isa 22:22 ESV)
Whereas connecting Matthew 16:19 to Isaiah 22:22 seems to be a lot more contrived. Notice, there's no mention of the specific "key of David" or irreversible shutting and opening.
~"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Mat 16:19 ESV)
Thus, it seems more likely that the typological fulfilment to Eliakim is Jesus, rather than Peter. Perhaps Jesus is speaking to Peter about a different set of keys?
I have not studied this for very long, so I would love to hear some thoughts in response to this! What am I missing?
Not to mention there are really good arguments and even a whole heck of a lot of church fathers that suggest that "upon this rock I will build my church" was about Christ found in the confession of Peter, rather then Peter himself.
@samcooperyoutube
If you google Catholic Answers, there's an article "Does the Book of Revelation Disprove the Papacy?" that explains the three passages referencing the Keys. The short answer is, both Jesus and Peter have the Keys. Jesus is the King, the Keys are His to give to His steward or to use Himself.
@@MarilynBoussaid-yd1vk A chapter or two later, the same binding and loosing that Peter's keys allowed was given to the rest of the apostles. Therefore, we must conclude that they also were given the keys. This makes sense because they all find their place in there individual locations. Peter didn't see himself as a Pope. Instead, he leaves his high honor in Jerusalem because he says that he has been called to the Gentiles. He obviously didn't see his position as one of absolute authority. Right?
Basically he attempts an unbias analysis of papacy through probability and comes up with way more evidence against the papacy. Then chooses how much each point is worth based off his own opinion to give papacy a higher probability. Sticking his own bias right back in. Doesnt seem very helpful.
Also he put all of his probability of converting on the papacy. If you put all the arguments for and against catholicism i think that list against it would only get bigger. Seems very illogical his reasoning for converting.
Matt.. the glasses man. What brand are those ? Looking sharp
Moses had Aaron. Elijah had Elisha. It’s only right that Jesus had Peter.
Except that's not the way that things were set up. The church was set up with equality.
If you look at the role of Peter in the Bible it doesn't show Peter in a leadership role.
No one answers to Peter. Every apostle has their own input.
@@thejohnmarkproject and if you’re referring to Peter being the first among equals, you’re right. But first is still a place of rank. Even the Orthodox agree to first among equals but they disagree on the level of jurisdiction. One night debate the context of the next quotes but I’ll leave them here anyway…
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM
“Jesus said to Peter, ‘Feed my sheep’. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world.” (Homilies on John, 88.1).
EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN
“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM
“The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).
“[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there-he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14).
“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32-34]” (ibid., 17:27).
CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
ORIGEN
“[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
THE LETTER OF CLEMENT TO JAMES
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
TERTULLIAN
“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
A fairly obvious fact, which I think would be problematic for your argument, is that Moses and Elijah were regular, flawed humans who could (and did) failed and/or needed a helper.
@@dom252 It’s not problematic at all. Peter would have Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the other Apostles. (Helper and helpers)
@@mariojosephsierra1568 - my point was more about Jesus, not Peter. Jesus obviously doesn't need a helper *in the same way* that Moses and Elijah did i.e. Jesus was not flawed as others are. Your original comment seems to me to be implying that because something was the case for Moses and Elijah, it would therefore also make sense for Jesus - that was what I'd dispute. But I may have misunderstood your original point :)
There's way too much convertitis going on with a lot of today's TH-cam personalities. Let the Lord heal your nous before making these decisions. Someone who says, "My spiritual life was dry. I wasn't praying or reading Scripture," probably wasn't attending a fellowship regularly, etc., is in no spiritual condition to be doing Bayesian analysis on anything of a spiritual nature. Theology isn't Rationality. Theology isn't Metaphysics, either. And Theology is most certainly not statistical analysis.
But God bless Cameron. I wish him all the best and consider him a brother in Christ even if we're "separated brethren."
I'm really interested in this argument Cameron presents @ 6:00 where he compares Matthew 16:19 and Isaiah 22:22. My knowledge of the old testament is very limited. However it is obvious from the words both passages reveal that they are strikingly similar.
I am familiar with new testament enough to know that Jesus bestows the same powers to all of this apostles. Given that is true, in my mind it lends far more credibility to the Orthodox view. They insist that every patriarch is of the same authority, like all apostles were of the same authority. That is how the new testament describes it. Jesus did, however, give this power to Peter first, and that makes him- first among equals- in respect to other apostles. This is yet another strong case for the Orthodoxy as they agree that the patriarch of Rome is first among equals. Or rather that he should be that. It is only the Pope who rejects this as insufficient power. He demands to be treated as the one with powers and authority greater to other patriarchs, as if Peter had greater power or authority in respect to other apostles.
Given that Peter was of the same power and authority as other apostles, I do not see how one could reach that Catholicism is true. Did I omit or misrepresent anything? Thank you for reading and have a nice day.
He gives the powers to bind and loose to all but He gives only the keys to Peter.
@Paul Freije You may be familiar with Matthew 16:19 where Jesus gives this power to Peter first. Jesus a bit later extends this authority to all of the apostles in Matthew 18:18.
Peter and the other disciples were to continue Christ’s work on earth in preaching the gospel and declaring God’s will to men and they were armed with the same authority as He possessed. In Matthew 18:18, there is also a reference to the binding and loosing in the context of church discipline. The apostles do not usurp Christ’s lordship and authority over individual believers and their eternal destiny, but they do exercise the authority to discipline and, if necessary, excommunicate disobedient church members.
@@mikedennis9531 The keys are the metaphor for the authority Jesus bestows on Peter. Jesus’ words meant that Peter would have the right to enter the kingdom himself, that he would have general authority symbolized by the possession of the keys, and that preaching the gospel would be the means of opening the kingdom of heaven to all believers and shutting it against unbelievers. The book of Acts shows us this process at work. By his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-40), Peter opened the door of the kingdom for the first time. The expressions “bind” and “loose” were common to Jewish legal phraseology meaning to declare something forbidden or to declare it allowed.
Catholic here: i don’t think that it is important that Peter was the one who was given authority first, but that his authority and role was different of that of the others. The pope actually in a sense, although he is the leader of the church, does remain a bishop and at the same level of authority as the other bishops. Jesus is the true leader of the church, and the pope is the leader of the church on earth while Jesus is in heaven. The papacy fills in Jesus’s role as head of the church since Jesus is in heaven, the pope (palace administrator, Eliakim) watches over the kingdom while Jesus is away. I do believe that the words used in Isaiah 22 say that Eliakim’s role as palace administrator is to watch over the kingdom while the king is away. So i would say it isn’t so much that the pope has a HIGHER authority than the bishops, but the role of pope is different.
Some of that is accurate but not a topic i am absolutely certain on. I don’t want to give you the impression that what i just typed is expressly the Catholic view 😂 Although my average mind thinks it is correct
@@PetarStamenkovic Matthew 18:18 illuminates even further the veracity from the papacy. The key was only given to Peter. The authority given to the apostles in Matthew 18:18 is subject to Peter's distribution or restriction of the keys since with which the others act authoritatively. Peter has the keys to act therefore their authorities is subject to Peter's.
Just so people know 0.91 is 91%. Pretty darn high
1:24 You assign points? On what basis? seems rather subjective to me.
Its an inferential system. It requires one to make a judgment about the prior probability of the claim. Depending on the application this can be subjective and is its weakness. Otherwise, its a really good and successful system in many of its applications.
Matt Fradd looking like a boss or an secret agent! 😂
Cameron,
Pick St. John Henry Newman as your confirmation Saint!
Go on a pilgrimage to England and learn more about him! He converted to Catholicism from Anglicanism and he was an Anglican priest!
10:07 Back to the abstract calculations instead of exegesis of the text.
Where can we find Cameron's Analysis (Excel sheet)?
I love this but what is a "Bajan" analysis?
@@AliseM-w3r Bayesian analysis
4:41 Is.22:22 actually works against the Papacy. Like most proof texting it falls apart when you look at context. First Eliakim is being told that he is about to replace Shebna because Shena was displeasing to God so it is clear that these officers were not considered infallible as the Papacy is. Next read the following verses. “And I will drive him like a peg in a firm place, And he will become a throne of glory to his father’s house. “So they will hang on him all the glory of his father’s house, offspring and issue, all the least of vessels, from bowls to all the jars. “In that day,” declares the LORD of hosts, “the peg driven in a firm place will give way; it will even break off and fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken.” vss.23-25. Even Eliakim is replaceable. If Shebna and Eliakim represent Popes then there is also a Prophet Isaiah who rebukes them, Martin Luther.
great video, but the stereo sound kind of bothers me :/
This is simply the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. This is the most grifter-y thing ever stated. People falling for this deserve to get conned by Rome.
Nah. It is a good argument to make but there are other arguments that are better. If all you had to go on was this prophecy and Matthew 16 you wouldn't be unreasonable in seeing a connection.
@@blusheep2the fact that so many church fathers disagrees on Matthew 16 just shows it’s not solid ground for the papacy. Plus the legitimacy of the papacy hinged on forged documents. That’s historical fact that cannot be argued against. That’s like arguing D-Day didn’t happen.
@@KnightFel I'm not familiar with the forged documents.
Why is the sound so bad? Why didn't you fix it in post?
1:00 What is a "Bayesian" analysis? How about just exegeting Scripture.
He is using the Bayesian system because there are multiple options and interpretations on the table to choose from. The thing is that I don't think he was ever that mature of a Christian (Sorry Cameron if you read this. I don't know you and its just an impression.) I say this because he said as a Protestant he just wanted to act like the OT didn't exist. That isn't Protestantism.
What's the name of the method Bertuzzi mentioned in wieghing arguments?
It called the Bayesian logic and it used for inferential arguments. Those are arguments where you don't have absolute deductions and so you must make a decision based off of what the evidence infers.
Its a great tool but I think the weakness is that you have to assign a "prior probability" number to the conclusion. When we are talking about predicting the number of blue m&m verse the other colors, this is not that difficult but when you are talking about, say, the existence of God, then it becomes very subjective what you assign the prior probability to be.
I'm really not the expert on the system which is fairly mathematical, but I imagine that the prior probability that Peter is a type of Eliakim depends on the existence of other options and if Eliakim is meant to be a type, in the Christian church, at all.
@blusheep2 thank you very much. Are there other similar tools to evaluate arguments?
@@abdullahimusa9761 Not that I am aware of. There are some really good videos that aren't religious in nature that explain it in more detail.
@@blusheep2 I see, thanks
To be fair, this video is not a complete presentation of his conversion journey and decision and doesn't even reflect the time given to his decision. I hope those who are doubtful pay a more fair judgement by watching all his videos following the evidences.
*"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18 DRA)*
Peter is not a ‘this’. The ‘this’ is referring to Peter’s confession that Christ is the son of God.
That is the foundation of the church: Christ’s divinity.
@@Spainkiller, could you explain this then:
and he took Simon to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, 'You are Simon son of John; you are to be called Cephas' -- which means Rock.
John 1:42
@@chidmania8485 Yes: Christ calles Peter a rock, and then in Matthew, he reiterates that before stating that there's also a rock upon which He will build his church: his confession.
In other words: Christ did a pun. "Your name means rock! You know what's also a rock? Your confession, upon which I'll build my church!"
@@Spainkiller so why did Jesus give Simon the name Rock? What was the purpose?
He could have done what you said he did without changing Simon's name.
So what was the point?
@@chidmania8485 He could've done a lot of things. It's not about what you think would've been best.
Why did Jesus dress up/act as a gardener right after His resurrection? We'll never know; maybe He just has a sublime sense of humour.
I seen his 3 important points video ironic how the first 2 points were of his failure of his procast and the fact the way things are going he will be out of a job soon and how he will be forced to close it down. Then when he came to point 3 he said I'm a catholic 😂 I think he used his " intellect" well and I bet his procast will survive with this decision!!!
It's not wise to psychoanalyze someone, at worse you're baring false witness towards him.
I love Matt Fradd and this channel, I'm a protestant and I'm not convinced of Catholicism or Orthodoxy. With that being said, if I belonged to a church that held to no sacraments and had no proper view of the Eucharist or Baptism, I would take Catholicism over that any day. Unfortunately the church has fabricated extremely weak denominations and the modern evangelical movement is certainly something to abandon no doubt.
Here’s another case for the Papacy.
Yes. Matt. 16 is naturally going to be used first. But the catalyst is going to also be Mark 6:7-8, take ONLY STAFFS…. Why? This isn’t what was said to the 70 when Jesus sent them out (Luke 10) Only to the 12. Remember, 12 STAFFS/RODS
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail. And I will give you (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 16:18-19
(Check the hermeneutics of Jeremiah 1:11-19, "They will fight against you, but will not prevail.")
Scholar F.F. Bruce (among others) explains:
“Binding” and “loosing” were idiomatic expressions in rabbinical Judaism to denote the promulgation of rulings either forbidding or authorizing various kinds of activity. The authority to bind or loose given to Peter in the present context is given to the disciples as a body in Matthew 18:18, in a saying of Jesus similarly preserved by this evangelist only. Again, the record of Acts provides an illustration. Where church discipline is in view, Peter’s verbal rebuke of Ananias and Sapphira received drastic ratification from heaven (Acts 5:1-11)."
It is true that “the authority to bind and loose given to Peter” is “given to the disciples as a body in Matthew 18:18.” But authority can come in various degrees. All 100 senators are given the authority to write and vote on legislation, but the Senate majority leader can do more with that authority than his colleagues can, being privileged to bring legislation to a vote as well.
Peter’s rebuke to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 inflicts death through divine action. This is significant, as there are only two other times in the New Testament where God kills someone: Acts 12:23, where he strikes down Herod for setting himself up as a god, and 1 Corinthians 11:29-30, where St. Paul notes that many have brought death on themselves by unworthily consuming the Eucharist. Acts 5 is the only time, however, that God does so through an apostle’s rebuke.
Evangelical scholar Eckhard J. Schnabel puts it this way: “Luke describes Peter as the spokesman of the apostles, who have just received Ananias’s gift. He also describes Peter as having the gift of prophecy, which allows him to see into Ananias’s heart-something only God can do (cf. Heb. 4:13).”
This is remarkably similar to how Jesus revealed in Matthew 16:17 that God the Father, and not any human source or power, helped Peter identify Jesus as the Messiah, Son of God. We also see the Church moved by Peter’s dream to loosen Jewish dietary restrictions-another direct revelation from God to the one apostle (Acts 10:9-16).
Finally, notice that Acts 5 is referenced as a “drastic ratification from heaven” of “Peter’s verbal rebuke.” Peter’s actions-a uniquely Petrine binding and loosing-shake the entire Church: “and great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things” (v. 11). His individual exercise of binding and loosing authority is the only one feared in this way. Although all of the apostles were respected afterwards, the people specifically laid the sick in Peter’s presence so that his shadow could touch and heal them (v. 15).
In all the lists of the apostles in the Gospels, Peter is always mentioned first (cf. Matt. 10:1-4; Mark 3:13-19)
Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”
Gen. 49:8
“Judah, you are he whom your brothers shall praise;
Your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies;
Your father’s children shall bow down before you."
vs. 9 Judah is a lion’s whelp;
From the prey, my son, you have gone up.
He [a]bows down, he lies down as a lion;
And as a lion, who shall rouse him?
vs. 10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
nor THE RULERS STAFF from between his feet,
Until Shiloh (Messiah) comes;
And to Him (Messiah) shall be the obedience of the nations.
(Zechariah 14:9; Matt. 25:31-33; Acts 1:9-12)
Jesus tells the 12 to take ONLY STAFFS:
Mark 6:7-8
7 And He (Jesus) called to Himself the twelve, and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. 8 He charged them to take nothing for their journey except A STAFF; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts.."
12 STAFFS.
Numbers 17:1-3
"The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel, and get from them rods/STAFFS, one for each fathers’ house, from all their leaders according to their fathers’ houses, TWELVE RODS/STAFFS.
Write each man’s name upon his rod, 3 and write Aaron’s name upon the rod of Levi, For there shall be ONE ROD (STAFF) for THE HEAD of each fathers’ house.
Vs. 4 Then you shall deposit them in the tent of meeting before the testimony, where I meet with you. 5 And THE ROD of the man whom I choose SHALL SPROUT."
(a pre-eminent staff among the 12 staffs)
Jeremiah 1:11-19
11 "And the word of the Lord came to me, saying, “Jeremiah, what do you see?” And I said, “I SEE A ROD OF ALMOND.” 12 Then the Lord said to me, “You have seen well, for I am watching over my word to perform it.
Vs. 13 The word of the Lord came to me a second time, saying, “What do you see?” And I said, “I see a boiling pot, facing away from the north.” 14 Then the Lord said to me, “Out of the north evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land. 15 For lo, I am calling all the tribes of the kingdoms of the north, says the Lord; and they shall come and every one shall set his throne at the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem, against all its walls round about, and against all the cities of Judah. 16 And I will utter my judgments against them, for all their wickedness in forsaking me; they have burned incense to other gods, and worshiped the works of their own hands.
Vs. 17 But you (Jeremiah), gird up your loins; arise, and say to them everything that I command you. Do not be dismayed by them, lest I dismay you before them. 18 And I, behold, I make you (Jeremiah) this day a fortified city, an iron pillar, and bronze walls, against the whole land, against the kings of Judah, its princes, its priests, and the people of the land. 19 They will fight against you; but they shall not prevail against you, for I am with you, says the Lord, to deliver you.”
(hermeneutics of Matthew 16:18 and Jeremiah 1:19)
Hi! Can you please set up the CC feature?
Is Cameron’s Bayesian Analysis available somewhere?
What is a horseshoe? What does a horseshoe do? Are there any horse socks? Is anyone listening to me?
It's sad to hear how weak your understanding of the OT was as a protestant. I'm Protestant and love and appreciate the OT greatly and understand the NT to be a fulfillment of it. That's not exclusively Catholic.
Maybe the words just came out of his mouth in a way that didn’t fully express his knowledge on it... as a protestant, do you see the typological argument for the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist? How He is the new passover lamb?
Oh he heard it from top Protestants. Who didn’t he invite on his channel?
@@luke9747
You're mixing truth with catholicism here.
.
No one denies that Jesus is the passover lamb. Not the new. The original.
.
the physical lamb and other sacrifices were all temporary placeholders.
.
As far as Jesus blood and body being in the eucharist, and you eating it as catholicism claims - that is not Biblical in anyway.
@@thejohnmarkproject
“Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.””
John 6:53-58 NIV
This seems to me to be very clear biblical support
Firstly I have to say that I recognise how difficult it is to move from one faith tradition to another, especially with family and ministry.
I was recently received into the Orthodox Church after being Baptist and Anglican so I really do respect Cameron and all the work he did.
I do believe that, on a purely intellectual level, intelligent and honest people can review the relevant evidence and come to different conclusions on the papacy. I think if you accept 'doctrinal development' then the papacy could make sense.
I have to say that I find Cameron's approach completely baffling and it demonstrates to me why I continue to struggle to see the path towards the papacy from a patristic and biblical perspective.
Essentially it was Bayesian logic being applied to a *single* piece of evidence that tipped him over the edge, all from a purely rational perspective. This is extremely problematic because, by this measure, there are a number of doctrines that could be proved or disproved via this method. Take typological argument A - See how convincing it is - Then accept or reject an entire theological system, such as Roman Catholicism.
Not taking the time to actually analyse this approach I'd simply want to ask the following questions... Is this the way the Holy Apostles reached a consensus at the Council of Jerusalem? Is this the method of argumentation you see for the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ by St Athanasius? Is this how the holy Fathers came to formulate the Nicene-Constanitopolitan Creed? Is this the method by which any foundational doctrine in the Faith is discerned? If not, then why should it be trusted when deciding a central doctrine in the Faith of the Catholic (universal) Church?
From my perspective I'm of course disappointed that he didn't consult the thinking of a scholar like Kallistos Ware, a living historian like Edward Sicienski or even Father Patrick Ramsey from the Reason and Theology podcast itself.
I'm still astounded that people who have access to the Scriptures and the universally accepted Church Fathers end up believing in something like the papacy without seeing it explicitly affirmed and explained in the Fathers, and explicitly accepted by them all. We wouldn't accept the Trinity, the Eucharist, the roles of bishops and presbyters if it was a matter of debate within the Church. All these were explicitly stated and argued for by the Latin and Greek Fathers, no one needs to rely on typology or isolated quotations.
For example, the virginity of the Virgin Mary and her role as mother of God. That has some typology of course, it has scripture ('Mother of my Lord' in Luke), it doesn't have absolute patristic consensus but it's nearly absolute. Most importantly there are many Church Fathers who *explicitly* explain the doctrine and the reasons for its' necessary acceptance.
Whereas with the papacy people are willing to accept a quote here and there, a piece of typology and then explanations from Fathers way after the patristic period whilst completely discounting the contrary evidence (St Gregory the Great rejecting the title of ecumenical patriarch for the Patriarch of Constantinople, various Fathers breaking communion with Rome - apparently unaware that they cut themselves off from the head of the Church, popes being excommunicated, canons expressly stating that bishops shouldn't interfere with one anothers Sees, Fathers and Saints stating that the 'keys of the kingdom' belonged to the three Apostolic Sees, or all bishops). All this is apparently irrelevant if you think the papacy is a good idea for church unity.
This human conception on what's best for church unity, as if any of our personal reasoning should be trusted, now mixed with Bayesian logic on one piece of typology... I have no words!
Again, rational people can differ on this but I am just astounded by the arguments people find convincing and how little evidence people want for such a central doctrine in the Faith.
Ever since reading into Orthodoxy and the works of the early Father's I just can not accept the papacy as I just can not force myself to believe it is biblical. As you stated anything about the papacy that others try to say is biblical has almost no standing in the Bible. It's just one verse in just one of the 4 gospels of the apostles. This is what drives me to Orthodoxy as the true church.
Why would one require "arguments" and "probabilistic calculations" in this context? Hasn't everything been disclosed and concluded? It seems to me that when even the most faithful are resorting to "probabilistic calculations," there must be some great ambiguity involved. Is it possible that God is elusive not just to atheists but also to those who desire nothing more than to believe?
"If this argument is valid, then it constitutes strong evidence." But how can "arguments" serve as evidence for truths about reality? Arguments originate and reside in the minds of individuals. Their impact on you is merely a reflection of your pre-existing mental dispositions. It's akin to a carousel, nothing more.
What’s up with microphone audio
Seems like a pretty elaborate mind palace he’s been building. I don’t remember anything in the Gospels about weighing probabilities, just having faith. Seems like the only faith he has in is this set of stats he’s picked for his Character creator RPG religion.
Cam said it before that EVERYONE does this to some extent. He's an analytical person so the Bayes is logically fitting for his preference. Put it this way: A historian would use his skills to find truth of whatever his looking in History, a Philosopher would use his reasoning to prove/disprove a proposition. Whatever your method is and what your good at, you may use that to exercise your faculty of reason. And if Bayes is Cam's tool to make his thoughts tangible and readable then good for him. Now Bayes might not be satisfyingnfor you but that's not the point. Do your own.
Basically he's reaching and reaching and stretching nothing into some sort of pseudo argument and hoping that no one notices.
People just listen to him drone on about absolutely nothing, and think - "Wow. I don't know what he's talking about. Must be something really intelligent. I'm convinced."
.
He gave absolutely no proof for the papacy and catholicism.
.
He quotes a few books, but oddly didn't mention any specific verses, and didn't even mention them, and how they convinced him.
.
Being a protestant that switched to catholicism I doubt a bit. Not saying for sure that he's lying, but he did give off the tale tale traits of a propagandist. With the classic underdog story.
.
"There was all this information against the papacy, and only a little bit for it. But in the end catholicism won."
.
muslims pull the same move. They trot out someone who's obviously muslim, and then claim that he use to be a Christian preacher or someone in Christianity that was super into Christianity, but by reading the quran he converted to islam. The sign that it's all an act is that this supposed Christian knows absolutely nothing about the Bible.
.
Another sign here is that he kept saying "Well I wanted to give the protestants something." Even using protestant was a tale. catholics like to call everyone that isn't a catholic a protestant. This isn't something that Christians do.
He is literally convincing me more of my belief in protestantism as he speaks. Idk how he ended up Catholic.
because Sola Scriptura is unbiblical gibberish
can we get a pdf of this diagram???
The name eliakim means "God will establish" or "God will cause to rise up." Which sounds a lot like saying "this guy is a type to a coming antitype, he will one day establish this antitype and cause it to be raised into higher and higher perfections."
Wow, his argument for conversion was A LOT weaker than I thought it would be.
Yeah I like both these guys but that argument is weak sauce imo. As someone who has gone through my own faith journey (and is coming back through the other side still Protestant), I still got nervous or anxious about hearing an awesome argument that will cause me to have to revisit everything again, and then it was like "Yeah there is some typology in the OT and NT that make sense and my computer said that means I should probably become catholic I guess" (somehow).....I really think Cameron is a good man of God and maybe he was just nervous but this argument made me concerned that he really hasn't worked through it all like it seemed he had
@@richardlindquist3714 And where did he get this idea that Protestants ignore the Old Testament? The whole thing came off as baseless and silly.
@@lproof8472 Yeah, and he also said Protestants think we can think whatever we want in regards to scripture? I want to be charitable but it's clear the dude never fully grasped classical Protestant thinking and didn't really have a base to defend. I know there are informed Protestants that really just are compelled to switch for various reasons, and while i do not know how much work he put in and I certainly don't know his heart, this seemed just very arbitrary and silly like you said
What sources would you list on the Early Fathers that can defend the papacy
On the primacy of Peter:
ST. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA [T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and himself the Savior paid tribute [Mt 17:27], quickly seized and comprehended the saying. And what does he say? “Lo, we have left all and followed you” [Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? 21 (c. A.D. 200)].
TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith] [Antidote for the Scorpion’s Sting 10 (c. A.D. 211)]. [T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Mt 16:18-19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the clear intent of the Lord when he himself conferred this upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys [Modesty 21 (c. A.D. 220)].
ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA [I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things that seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in only one; for they do not reach so high a stage of power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens [Commentary on Matthew 13:31 (c. A.D. 249)].
ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .” [Mt 16:18-19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church? [Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)].
Let me know if you want more.
LETTER OF CLEMENT TO JAMES Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom the Father first revealed the Son; whom the Christ blessed with good reason; the called, and elect [Letter of Clement to James 2 (c. A.D. 290)].
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM The Lord is loving to man, and swift to pardon, but slow to punish. Let no man therefore despair of his own salvation. Peter, the chiefest and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little maid, but he repented and wept bitterly [Catechetical Lectures 2:19 (c. A.D. 350)]. [Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius set up his statue. . . . As the delusion was extending, Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their prayers against Magus, and struck him down to the earth. And marvelous though it was, yet no marvel. For Peter was there, who carries the keys of heaven [Mt 16:19] [ibid., 6:14-15]. In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter also, the chief of the apostles and the bearer of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, healed Aeneas the paralytic in the name of Christ at Lydda, which is now Diospolis [Acts 9:32-34] [ibid., 17:27].
ST. EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN [Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness that I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures [Homilies 4:1 (c. A.D. 353)].
ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN [Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Mt 16:18]? [Faith 5:57 (c. A.D. 379)].
ST. JEROME Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom, being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord [Illustrious Men 1 (A.D. 392)]. But you say [Mt 16:18], the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all, yet one among the Twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism [Against Jovinianus 1:26 (c. A.D. 393)].
ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO 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” [Sermons 295:2 (c. A.D. 411)]. Who can fail to know that the most blessed Peter was the first of the apostles? [Tractates on John 56:1 (A.D. 416-417)].
@@RumorHazi
Ok. So now explain how Francis = Peter
@@deanodebo No, he sits on the throne of Peter, there had to be ecumenical councils to determine arianism as heracy, protecting the church, and therefore the papacy had to have power.
Irenaeus ‘Against the heresies’ book 3, chapter 3. Written 180 AD
I don’t see the Papacy in the NT and in most of church history. At most the Bishop of Rome is a mere Bishop who had a primacy of honour only.
exactly. But they rail against the Bible like most cults do. So they don't really care what is in the NT.
Funny that he tried to use the Bible to prove catholicism, without pointing out one single verse.
Jesus quotes Isaiah 22:22 (out of the broader immediate context of Isaiah 22: 15 - 25) at Matthew 16: 18-19 and applies it to what He is doing with Cephas / St. Peter. There is so much more biblical evidence though, than just Matt. 16: 17-19. The problem is fundamentalist and evangelical Protestants tend to read their western / American, 21st century traditions' presuppositions back into an ancient 1st century A. D. text of the Middle East.
That "mere" Bishop of Rome was Peter. The rock upon which Jesus said he'd build his Church.
Would have been nice to hear what this argument actually is. Can you explain the typology further can you help the rest of us who are struggling with this?
At Matthew 16: 18-19, Jesus quotes from Isaiah 22: 15-25
I presume you believe that the people, places, and events in the Old Testament prefigure, that is, point forward to and act as types of the incarnation, life, passion, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension into heaven of Jesus Christ. Adam is a prefigurement of and a type of Christ, Abraham is a type of Christ, Moses is a type of Christ, David is a type of Christ, etc. This is the essence of typology, which is itself mentioned by St. Paul at Rom. 5:14: "...who is a type (Gk. typos) of Christ to come".
So, the question becomes, why does Jesus Christ quote Isaiah 22: 22 at Matt. 16: 18-19? Or, in other words, what is going on at Isaiah 22: 15 - 25 that Jesus Christ would consider it important to quote from it, to St. Peter, in reference to what is going on at Matt. 16: 13 - 20? So, let's look at Isaiah 22:15 - 25 for a moment, to get the context for the quote of Isaiah 22:22.
At Isaiah 22: 15 - 25, YHWH is addressing King David's vizier, Shebna - his Prime Minister, if you will, the "Master of the Palace" (cf. Isaiah 22: 15). Apparently he has abused his office as an official in government and used it to aggrandize himself and YHWH is so displeased with his conduct that he is going to punish Shebna and depose him from his position (cf. Isaiah 22: 16 - 19). He is to be succeeded in his office as Master of the Palace by Eliakim (cf. Isaiah 22: 20 - 24). This is the broader context (Isaiah 22: 15 - 25 ) for the verses which immediately surround Isaiah 22: 20-22.
The immediate context for Isaiah 22: 22 (again, which Jesus quotes at Matthew 16: 18-19) is Isaiah 22: 20 - 22. Eliakim is to succeed Shebna to the office of Master of the Palace (cf. Isaiah 22: 20). The one who holds this office is recognizable by particular vestments which the office holder wears (cf. Isaiah 22: 21a), and which has an authority which derives from and is subordinate to the king's own authority (cf. Isaiah 22: 21b), and is an office which not only the people of God, but also the king's own house are to accord with a high degree of dignity ("He shall be a FATHER to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah."; cf. Isaiah 22: 21c). The signature sign of his office is the "keys of the house of David" with full deputized authority to "...open...and...shut..." in the king's name (cf. Isaiah 22: 22). 3:13
In light of the types in the OT prefiguring their fulfillment in the NT; and in light of Jesus Christ quoting Isaiah 22:22 to St. Peter at Matt. 16: 18-19; and in light of the fact that the broader context for Isaiah 22:22 is Isaiah 22: 15-25, where YHWH is appointing Eliakim to suucceed Shebna to be the Master of the Palace to the Davidic king; and in light of the fact that Jesus Christ is, humanly speaking, the descendant of King David, and the long awaited Messianic king (cf. II Sam. 7: 16; Luke 1: 32, 33), it seems obvious that Jesus is appointing his new Eliakim / Master of the Palace, and giving him the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" with full authority to "bind...and...loose" in His name, and that the Church is to accord him the dignity of "a FATHER" to the new Jerusalem and the eternal "house of Judah".
Orthodox never denied the papacy but the line draws where the Pope has chosen to want supreme authority over all bishops. Not only not biblical but early church fathers didn’t agree with that either. Popes also
Both the Catholic and the Orthodox believe they are the one true church, right? Or do I have something wrong? If so, what really is the split about? Was it just about icons?
the Fraddster's mike is not working
Ohhh i wish i had money to visit the holy sites in Italy, Portugal and France. May God bless me with that trip in the future or maybe after He comes.
Ps: i hope his family doesn't cut him off.
It would be cool if he published his Baes Analysis (don’t know who to spell it). I’d be curious to see it that’s for sure
Bayes.
It'll be published eventually! Working on making it appropriate (and accessible) for public consumption.
“In that day I will call Elikim, son of Hilkiah.
I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand; and he SHALL be a FATHER to the people of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he SHALL open and none shall shut and he SHALL shut and none shall open.
Is. 22
Papacy
Obviously Jesus. Come on man.
@@dyffryn330
Jesus is a Son. That verse refers to a father.
Come on man
Revelation 3:7 quotes this almost exactly and its talking about Jesus...
"And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: 'The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens."
@@blusheep2 Jesus literally gave Peter the
Keys and u say nope
@@PInk77W1 You can make your own decision but the prophecy of Eliakim says:
Isaiah 22:22
_“Then I will put the key of the house of David on his shoulder; When he opens, no one will shut, When he shuts, no one will open._
Matthew 16 says this about Peter:
_“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”_
Revelation 3:7 Jesus says:
_“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this:"
You be the judge which is closer then the other.
Then consider Matthew 18 Jesus says to his disciples:
_“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."_
I'm just reading the text. I'm not trying to read into it anything or read out of it anything.
What I got from this is that there were very few arguments that he found for the papacy, and quite a bit more against the papacy… and then some analysis he made somehow made the smaller body of evidence for the papacy better and more convincing than the larger body of evidence against the papacy.
Nice! I guess…
I think that he's saying that even though there may have been numerically more points in favor of the papacy being false, the numerically fewer points in favor of the papacy were much more likely than the rest.
I don’t know if this argument is more ridiculous to my Orthodox self or to my mathematician self.
Btw, how did he explain that the authority of Peter went uniquely to the See of Rome and not to the Apostolic See of Peter in Antioch?
Peter died in Rome
The issue is The Papacy is an idea, not a person.
Both sides? As if Orthodoxy doesn’t exist?
Well they agree with Protestantism against Papal supremacy, right?
So he made a math calculation? That's the basis?
I found this probabilistic account to be amusingly dubious on several grounds:
1) The link between statistical analyses and neutrality is tenuous. Statistical evidence is in large measure dependent upon subject framing of questions being sought after. In other words, it is hardly objective as though the seeking subject were wholly removed from the analysis. In this respect, results can easily be skewed, particularly as it relates to questions in the humanities, which is notoriously laden with subjective prejudices that constitute the findings of individual scholars.
2) Even if such analyses were valid means of ascertaining truth in the humanities, there is still the question of how tangible evidences encountered in the world of theological, biblical, and historical research can be transitioned over into a computerized spreadsheet.
3) This former move seems to mistake the distinctive character of the humanities for something nearer to the natural sciences, where objects can be dissected piecemeal. In other words, we are doing precisely what Pope Benedict XVI warned against in mistaking theology for physics.
4) This leads to the technological reduction of theological experience into the categories of epistemology resembling the Neo-Kantian fixation upon ‘value.’
What is missed in all of this is the worldly character of theology as something which is foremost proclaimed and lived, rather than dissected through secondary discursive reflection that has misplaced the Geisteswissenschaften for the naturawissenschaften. It has the same pitfalls as a world denying Gnosticism that is wholly fixated on epistemi ascertained worldlessly through Microsoft Excel.
I don’t think Seraphim Hamilton debunked this with Suan
Peter may have had “Papal Qualities” he may even had Papal Authority but neither he nor any other Apostle, Disciple, Patriarch or Bishop ever deployed it against the resounding voices of the many as outlined in Scripture when James and the Apostles in first century Jerusalem confronted what could be considered the first heresy of teaching you had to become Jewish prior to becoming Christian. The Sin of the Papacy was abandoning that fundamental first century organizational principle that guided and is in fact proof of the Holy Spirits continued inspirations on the Body of Christ until 1054. What’s the harm? Easy, 900 page “summary of belief” the Roman Catholic Catechism and the continuing fracturing of the Body of Christ. This logic is no better than Luther’s, the Orthodox were wrong for 1000 years until Pope Leo V’s revelation, oh look here the Bible says I have the authority, lucky for me. “Rational conclusions based on objective study” is the exact process that created every heresy ever uttered including schism that is strongly, frequently and authoritatively argued against in Scripture. But that for some reason Scripture hasn’t been enough to dissuade schismatics who all demand absolute authority of Scripture from continuing to fracture the Church. It’s an incredible vicious cycle staking hypocrisy on top of hypocrisy that the Papal claims have unleashed on Christendom that now anyone with a Bible and an opinion and the lack of fear to use them can and do proclaim themselves Pope. That is the arbiter to determine truth from heresy. Besides if anyone truly looks objectively at Peter’s succession there is a much stronger case for Antioch over Rome where he never served as Bishop or appointed any Bishop. If being martyred in Rome is the standard that’s an exceedingly long and impressive list.
In spite of Mr. Bertuzzi's personal statements, there is so much more biblical evidence for the papacy than he seems to be aware.
@@QuisutDeusmpc Every heresy ever spoken was accompanied by Bible passages. The fact that the men who wrote, compiled, translated and selected New Testament writings along with the Disciples they taught and the Church fathers they taught never elected anyone Pope or granted Papal primacy to any contemporary is overwhelming evidence hat the Papacy is what History tells us it is, a later accretion born of Political, Economic and Military necessity planted when the Bishop of Rome also became the King of the Papal State and rooted when it found it convenient if not necessary to make alliances with the Frankish Emperor Charlemagne who was quite pleased to be called the Holy Roman Emperor and begin instituting reforms that further separated the Church of Rome from the East. Not a single Bishop outside the realm of Charlemagne and certainly not any patriarch from antiquity, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria nor Jerusalem fallowed the Pope and his claim of Primacy. Regardless of the position of Rome as First among equals that was replaced by the fourth Ecumenical Council or St. Peter and the rock and the keys or other isolated passages obscure or clear don’t negate the obvious commands of Scripture to refrain from schism and to be of one mind and judgement. In other words if the Papal claims were in fact based in Scripture and pleasing to the Holy Spirit the Biblical solution was to win over the consensus, not excommunication and sacking Constantinople.
Roman Catholicism has a wonderful deep and meaningful history. It has built the second most glorious monument of Christianity, St. Peter’s Basilica, and spread the word of Christ far and wide. It has also Developed extraordinary charitable organizations, Hospitals and Universities. This should be enough for Catholics to be proud of without needing to selectively read Scriptures and revising history. May God Grant you many years.
I'm not arguing for Protestantism, but I must make a comment. You are interviewing a guy who claimed to be a Protestant, even though he never was.
His whole family is Protestant. Seeked top Protestants for their theology
@@CPATuttle source
@@thejohnmarkproject search his channel for anyone
With all the unwanted attention his wife is getting, this surely can’t be helpful right now.
I can’t claim to know Cameron as well as Pints with Aquinas do, but I think it’s more respectful to not overwhelm Cameron with this kind of attention.
Id be curious to see how hes assigning his priors.
Can I get this spreadsheet please? 😂 ❤
These "prove the papacy" debates always consider Protestant vs. Catholic points in a vacuum and then refute the Protestant arguments (most of which Orthodox would agree with Catholics on) but either never present or gloss over the Orthodox arguments against the papacy. Mr. Bertuzzi did the same thing here. And I really doubt this totally arbitrary mathematical calculation he came up with will convince anybody except those already convinced.
And now cameron is really busy talking about ghosts, demons and aliens. So much
Progress.
Oh, looks like this one argument had a lot of weight in his conversion. I'm wondering if the "Reversing Hermon" argument, also based on the old testament made it in the Cameron's list. Where mount Hermon is the rock, not Peter and the correct translation would be that the gates of hell cannot withstand the church. The church with resurrected Christ as head being in offensive, not in defensive. An old Testament protestant scholar named Michael Heiser is holding to this position. Cameron was contacted by Rob from Sentinel Apologetics to discuss the same. But, as far as I know, Cameron did not answer...
I think you're right that "the gates of Hell" is a description of an offensive move, not defense. But how does that mean Peter isn't what Catholic's believe?
This argument still does not disprove the Catholic claims about the text. All it does is change some details about it.
@@FrJohnBrownSJ Correct translation would also be Hades, not Hell: "the gates of Sheol/Hades will not withstand the church", which makes a difference.
The argument goes like this. The rock that they are talking about in Matthew 16:18 is where they're standing, because it was known as the gates of Hades. Verse 13 says that Peter’s confession takes place in the district of Caesarea Philippi. This city was in the heart of Bashan on a rocky terrace in the foothills of Mount Hermon. It's the place where the lord of the dead was worshiped. Argument would be that, in fact, what you have Jesus saying here is something like, you all know what this place is, I am going to turn Satan's domain into his tomb. Offensive, not defensive. It is not that God is making Bashan his mountain literally, but conquering its divinities and theologically replacing it (Psalm 2:1-8, Psalm 2:1-8, Psalm 22 "bulls of Bashan surround me")
In the apocryphal Book of Enoch, Mount Hermon is the place where the Watchers, class of fallen angels, descended to Earth. An act corresponding to description of the Nephilim of Genesis 6, which speaks of sexual relations between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men." Jesus is the one who acts out the judgment that God renders in Psalm 82 over the principalities and powers. There are a dozen places where Paul connects the work of Christ with the demise of the authority of the gods over the nations.
I've mainly just put some citations together. I tend to, but it is not yet my position. There would be a lot more to say, because there are connections all over the Bible for this theory. I guess best is to read Michael S. Heiser's books "The Unseen Realm" or "Reversing Hermon"...
Let's say it's true, let's say Mount Hermon is the rock.
If it IS true, what would it say about Jesus and Scripute if it took about 2000 years for someone to finally interpret this passage correctly? Wouldn't that make God/Jesus a terrible comminucator?
@@nealkriesterer Did you apply the same criteria to Eliakim argument ? Mount Hermon similar references you'll find plenty in Patristics. Not as the rock, but I guess, the 2000 years argument would maybe work, if the traditional historical churches would agree on papacy, but they don't.
Like, I've said, it's not my position, I am still studying it. But, the context of this discussion is that one argument that Cameron was not fully convinced of came to be the most important one because of his usage of Bayesian AI. So, if we go so much into deep learning, my initial wondering was only if he also considered this other argument as someone invited him to do so.
Using the term Beysian lends credence to an action that is simply anecdotal. There were 16 issues against and 4 pro papacy. He really only discussed one and that superficially.
Truth doesn't need many forms. Truth is Truth
And logical fallacies are logical fallacies. The more important the issue is the more important it is decided wisely not with gimmicks.
Regardless of the validity of the papacy the Marian dogma's are so unbelievably unbiblical that it's hard to be able to full-blown converts to Catholicism. I love my Catholic brothers and sisters and see immense value in the history of the Catholic Church and what they've done for the kingdom of God but there are some things that are so off in left field that I genuinely struggle with
It's clear you don't trust the Church. If you trusted the Church then you would believe all dogmas by faith in the Church.
Being churchless is like being an orphan.
I feel exactly the same. There are numerous issues that I have with the Catholic Church but the Marian doctrines are the number one issue. Its biblically heretical and it draws people's eyes off Christ, which is a sin in my opinion. The second issue is that the Church seems more concerned with submission to itself then to submission to Christ and you can see that in koppite9600's response. Just get in line and don't question.
The strangest use of Artificial Intelligence ever!