Hoping this helps: 0:43 Goal of this video 2:45 Five admirable things about the RCC. 5:12 Biblical Argument: Is the Rock in Matthew 16:18, Peter, Christ, Peter's proclamation, or a hybrid of these? (Slides at 7:25) 16:13 Historical Argument: Where is a preeminent bishop/pope's presence before the 5th century? 27:38 Final Statements
This is probably my favorite video you have made. I don’t see a lot of good content critiquing the RCC while still treating them as brothers in Christ. This was much needed!
@@IvanAlvarezCPACMA I think even though RC teaching is not as clear on the gospel and gets some very important things wrong, but they believe that Jesus, fully man and fully God, died and rose again for our sins, and whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. They follow and trust in the same trinitarian God, which Mormons and JWs do not.
@@IvanAlvarezCPACMA well, obviously, we do not just take the claims for granted. We have to use our own mental faculties to determine which claims are true. Based on what we know the gospel to be from Scripture and using our reason to determine who lines up with that, we can have a rough idea of who real Christians are. I think there is an obvious, wide gap between the orthodoxy of Mormons and Roman Catholics.
You do such a good job of being respectful while bringing up really good points. It's what youtube needs. No more of " stupid protestant argument gets destroyed by based Catholics' and vice versa. If western society is going to exist in the future it will be thanks to content like this. Thank you
As a Roman Catholic I can honestly say you've done a great job on this topic. However, I'm wondering if you've ever considered The Eastern Orthodox Churches claims of being the original church?
Gavin is a congregationalist, isn't he? But he admits Peter had a leadership role in this video. By cherry-picking church-father quotes (I could easily find other quotes of Ambrose in support of at least a high view of the pope - not necessarily infallibility) he makes his case, and also by zooming in on certain texts, picking them apart (they could easily be read in other ways of course). Coming back to my first point - Gavin acts like each congregation can be autonomous - but does he believe that it was how Jesus set it up? What's the point of Peter's "leadership role", a role Gavin readily accepts. The point I am making is that when zooming out of the text, one can see the broader picture. Jesus did have 70 disciples, of which 12 held closer, of which 3 he held even closer, of which 1 he chose as a leader. Modern, democratic sensibilities may dislike the hierarchical nature, but the leap from such a divinely elected organization (which mirrors even the Trinity) to a modern congregationalist view is an anachronism. Therefore the critique is hollow. At best, he can perhaps critique the infallibility of the papacy.
I had this same thought. He doesn’t understand what was taking place in Matthew 16. Iirc he says the pope is the one to interpret and pass down new teachings. Okay, and the magisterium just decorated the church🤦♂️
St. Basil of Seleucia had the best explanation of "Thou art Peter" that I've ever heard. (9:35 ff) Indeed, this is the crux and source of all contention between Catholics and their "separated brethren" of all stripes. They broke from the Orthodox because of this pride, and the Protestants broke from them because of abuse. It all comes from the Papacy's claim to authority and infallibility. Peter was never given the office to be the "Vicar of Christ" and Lord over all believers in Christ's absence. From the beginning of the Church, all questions were debated by all of the Apostles available at the time, and decided in consensus. It is the confession of faith which is the foundation because it's the recognition of Jesus' divine identity. Jesus is the Rock, and Peter was commended for getting it right. But Jesus never said he should take His place when He left.
Wow, this was handled with such wisdom and grace! As someone with a Protestant background who has been “sent out two by two” with a catholic brother to reach our mutual friends, it’s so nice to see others engage theological topics without hubris or division! Truly an embodiment of “in essentials unity, in nonessentials freedom, and in all things love”
I am gradually coming to a realization that you have filled, and are filling, a huge vacuum in this space and in the general defense of the Protestant faith. I admire your humility, your knowledge of Scripture and church history, and your ability to lay out your arguments in a logical and engaging way. I need to respond by remembering to like your uploads and by looking into your Patreon. I don't do the former very much here and I haven't done the latter at all. May I provide encouragement in word, in the meantime. Your videos are preparing me for joining a congregation again on Sundays. I am certain they are speaking to a great many Christians who have lost their love and respect for the institution of the church. I believe, while it may be a gradual start, your voice will be prominent in the future. That said, I fear the traps the enemy will use to ensnare you. I don't mean Roman Catholic apologists. I mean the source of temptation. So many of our shepherds have gone astray. You must know the story of a well-known apologist, his massage businesses, his conduct that would be considered lewd by any standard, and his deception regarding his credentials. He had a significant following, although I never thought he explained anything well. We are all sinners, but the nature of his sins and indiscretions probably led many to disillusionment. We can all be tempted, by fame, by the desire for intimacy, by comfort in an uncertain world, by the enjoyment of things the world enjoys. I pray you will be guarded and that you will be strong in guarding yourself. Thank you for your work.
Birds lay eggs; some birds cannot fly (eg. Ostrich); a platypus lays eggs; a platypus cannot fly: therefore, the platypus is a type of bird. Except it's not. Logic and soundness are not necessarily equivocal. There is no sound Christian theological or historical conclusion arriving at a refutation of the Papacy. At least, if one is utilizing sound premises, then he arrives at the Orthodox pov, ie. "the pride of place" idea. Baptist theology? Well, there's a reason it doesn't formalize until just recent time. If there is no Apostolic heirarchy, then, duh, one isn't going to 'accept the Papacy.' But that's the rub, not that the thinking proves too little but too much: good luck going back to the first century, second century, etc. and running around as a "Christian pastor" whilst asserting that there are no bishops, no ordained presbyters, no canonical mission, no legation. A "Church" without bishops, without ordination, and where platypus are birds.
The church comprises those who believe in and follow Jesus Christ wherever that following may take them and no matter what obeying His teachings cost them.
@@yeetoburrito9972I'm with you, but it feels more and more democratic rather than apostolic. All the Anglican stuff I love is actually Catholic and I'm having a harder time not being Catholic. Of course, a Catholic who struggles with the papacy but who sees apostolic succession as valid. Idk haha😊
Great protestant apologist. Ive seen so many catholics/orthodox being negative with you on the comments. I think not all of them are like that in general. But i can see you know you are getting yourself in hot water with these great arguments. You defend our faith peacefully and intelligently. Thanks!
Contrary to Roman Catholic claims, Jesus did not call Peter the Rock on which Christianity would be founded. Roman Catholics make much of Matthew 16:18-19, using it to justify their claims of Papal Authority and Papal Succession. However, they take Jesus’ words out of context and ignore the underlying meaning of the Greek text. *Matthew 16:13-19* _Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter_ [πέτρος (petros)], _and on this rock_ [πέτρα (petra)] _I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 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."_ Apologists for the Roman Catholic dogma often claim the discussion was in Aramaic and the same word was used in that language for both 'Peter' and 'rock' in Matthew 16:18, since Aramaic uses the same word in both cases. But, if that is so, why did Matthew confuse the matter by using different Greek words? And does the claim about the Aramaic words hold up? Let's just suppose the discussion was in Aramaic. Given that Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26 and Daniel 2:4b-7:28 are written in Aramaic, those passages give us some clues as to how Jesus might have made such a differentiation had he been inclined to do so - as Matthew 16:18 implies. Plus, we already know of the Aramaic כֵּיפָא (kepha), for Cephas. Let's also suppose for the sake of discussion that the Aramaic lacked differentiating nouns. Are there any adjectives for small and large Jesus might have used to convey the distinction we find in the Greek text of Matthew 16:18? Indeed there are: • For small, we have the adjective זְעֵיר (zeer), as in Daniel 7:8; and • For large, we have the adjectives שַׂגִּיא (saggi), as in Daniel 2:6, and רַב (rab), as in Daniel 2:35. Any of the above could be applied to כֵּיפָא (kepha) to make an Aramaic small/large distinction for each of which a single Greek noun is all that would be needed. And are there any Aramaic nouns Jesus might have used that correspond with the distinction we find in the Greek text of Matthew 16:18? Indeed there are: • For πέτρος (petros), we have כֵּיפָא (kepha), meaning a small rock. • For πέτρα (petra), we have טוּר (tur), meaning a large rock, a cliff or a mountain, as in Daniel 2:35. There is also the Aramaic and Hebrew noun אֶבֶן (eben), translated 'rock' in Genesis 49:24 (Hebrew) and 'stone' in Daniel 2:34 (Aramaic), for which we have אֶ֣בֶן גְּלָ֔ל (eben gelal) for large (heavy) stones in Ezra 5:8; 6:4. So, the availability of suitable Aramaic nouns and adjectives that Jesus could have used to create the distinctions reflected by πέτρος (petros) and πέτρα (petra) in Matthew 16:18-19 debunks the Petrine Apostolic Succession claim, which leaves its apologists unable to account for Matthew different Greek nouns if he thought Jesus was referring to Simon Bar-Jona in both cases. Note, too, that Jesus didn't give Peter the binding and loosing authority at that time. That didn't happen until Matthew 18:18, when Jesus gave it to _all_ the apostles.
As a protestant, I do deny the papacy from a linguistic aspect of the language in scripture, but I do not deny Roman catholicism because of the papacy. Like perpetual virginity, or her assumption, the papacy to me is very benign. I do believe an apostolic succession as it pertains to the continued passed on teachings of the church. But For instance, if Rome didn’t have mandated curses upon accretion practices then the church would be far more appealing to me because if it would be pure Gospel, without anything extra. It would then be the original patristic tradition.
@@HillbillyBlack I think the questions are: what is the Gospel? Is it just the Bible? Can we count apostolic tradition as well? If we can't count on apostolic tradition, how can we trust the Bible in the first place, if it was written by the apostles AND others, based on oral tradition years after Jesus? If the rule of faith is the Bible alone, wouldn't Jesus have written something himself to safeguard his teaching? How did early Christians find sound doctrine with the books dispersed and mixed opinions on the list of the inspired books for centuries? In the end, if the Church couldn't safeguard sound doctrine, we can't trust the Bible and Protestantism as we know today wouldn't be feasible until the invention of the press. What we think is accretion we can't know for sure, unless there's clear opposition from the early Church fathers.
@@marcosdisiervi6481 we trust the New Testament only because it is a commentary fulfillment of the old. Jesus quotes the old testament 90 times. The apostles over 150 times. The New Testament doesn’t give you anything new. The entirety of the gospel is contained in the prophets and the law. It’s impossible to know the point of Christ if you don’t understand what he’s fulfilling. That text pre-dates the Catholic Church by 1000 years and in that tradition, the discerning reading and common practice of fellowship over the Scriptures was encouraged by the levitical counsel, unlike the Catholic Church which hindered the word of God’s access for almost 1200 years
@@marcosdisiervi6481 we can trust Protestantism because the point of the reformation was not to create a new religion but to return to the patristic deposit of the church itself. And all we did was remove the medieval accretions added by the Roman empire. No one venerated saints in the early 2 to 300 years of church history. No one considered Peter the pope, no one spoke against faith alone as the single mechanism of salvation and no one elevated tradition above the sufficiency of scripture for salvation. Traditions added by the Roman empire are cursed according to the teachings of Paul in second Thessalonians and Galatians because the tradition mentioned in scripture is the tradition of the gospel, not an open ended ability to add to what has already been solidified. If you pay attention to those verses, they are past tense text not open ended text allowing for further tradition. We must always measure anything the church conjures up or teaches against scripture. We do not measure the teachings of the church against tradition. Everything is measured against scripture because it is the only source of infallible writing we have. Not even tradition is infallible and there is not any extra documents in existence outside of scripture of the words of the apostles or Jesus. Oral tradition doesn’t come close to infallibility. In fact, oral tradition never existed in the original deposit of the church. Traditions certainly did but they were gospel traditions like the Eucharist, baptism, spiritual renewal of the mind through spiritual transformation in salvation. These are the traditions spoken of in scripture. Not something hidden or inferred or secretly revealed. In the end, the church did SafeGaurd the word of God. It just wasn’t the Roman catholic empire. Praise God there were three separate legitimate reformation throughout the Roman catholic system splitting from a corrupt grossly inaccurate system built by men of an unregenerate nature controlled by Satan. In fact if you look at church history, all of the legitimate church fathers living according to scripture stop after 500 ad. After that it’s pure medieval Roman empire. A state religion guilty of killing those that would dare speak against doctrine declaration of the state. Hardly a Christlike attitude. The gospel is the good news. That’s what the word means. And the good news is Jesus. And the only source of writings about Jesus is in the Tanakh and the fulfilling text of the New Testament. Now if you really want to rely on oral tradition where there’s a passing of apostolic succession through the memorization of oral teaching, I highly suggest you join Islam. The Quran has been in memorization circulation for most of its existence and is more trusted in oral form than it’s written accounts.
Just ordered my copy of “Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals.” Hopefully I can knock it out on my flights to and from Nairobi this month. You’re content has helped me so much, keep up the great work!
This is all in line with orthodox objections to the primacy of Rome as well. Would you make a video summarizing your objections to the theological or ecclesiological claims of the East?
Yep and by those objections you prove that you are in fact apostates. cyprian of carthage wrote this in 251 a.d. "[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, 👉🏻yet he founded a single Chair,👈🏻 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; 👉🏻 *but a primacy is given to Peter👈🏻, whereby it is made clear that there is but ONE CHURCH AND ONE CHAIR* So too, all 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 desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church* 👈🏻(Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)
@@timothy9360😂 and because Peter could decide everything alone, he never did decide a single thing alone in the whole new testament. Yeah, makes sense. Surely those verses mean that the catholic church is the one true church in all eternity. Despite the fact that Jesus said the end of the world would come within the lifetime of the apostles. Jesus preached the kingdom of God and what we got instead was the catholic church.
@@timothy9360 Cyprian of Carthage in dispute with Pope Stephen :"None of us should make ourselves the bishop of bishops or by tyrannical threats force our colleagues to the necessity of submission, because each bishop, by virtue of freedom and power, has the right of his own choice, and as he cannot be judged by another, so he cannot judge another; but let us all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power to put us in charge of His Church and judge our actions" (Sententiae episcoporum // PL. 3. Col. 1054). "Even Peter, whom the Lord chose first and on whom he founded His Church, when Paul discussed the issue of circumcision with him, did not arrogantly arrogate anything to himself, and did not arrogantly claim anything, and did not say that he had primacy..." (Ep. 71. 3) According to the modern Catholic researcher P. Mattei, Cyprian has: "The Roman Church (and its head)… as the owner of Petrov's heritage, she is a guarantor of communication, although this does not imply any kind of her jurisdictional or doctrinal primacy" (Mattei. 2012. p. 52).
I have recently discovered your channel and want to thank you for the way you approach difficult subject matter. As a Protestant, my focus has been on knowing what the Bible says and have long had an interest in apologetics. I have now developed an interest in polemics and philosophical arguments, and realised that I have utterly neglected church history. Your channel is now my first stop as I set about correcting this oversight. You have a new subscriber. Thank you again.
I think you gave the main reasons I have for why I can't accept the papacy. I've even begun debating things with Catholics and I feel like they always end up relying on an interpretation of verses that's dependent on a Catholic context. I've drastically changed my thoughts on Catholicism and appreciate it immensely especially individuals like Pascal, Aquinas, Augustine, and the Scholastics and some of my favorite thinkers today like Peter Kreeft, Tom Woods, Gerard Casey, and Brad Birzer happen to be devout Catholics but at the end of the day I'm fairly comfortable with my solo scriptura non-denominational affiliation and seem to not see enough reason to make me leave that
@@bradleymarshall5489 Lol, I hear ya. I was an ancap before I became a Christian. There is so much overlap between the two, yet such a gulf at the time. Without sounding too pretentious, Christian theologians might benefit from a better understanding regarding the anatomy of the current state; and Christian ancaps might benefit from a better understanding regarding God's word. A discussion between Doug Wilson and Bob Murphy would be awesome.
@@justingorman1068oh ya no I agree which is why I'm writing a book trying to show the connection. One thinker in particular who I think has shown better than anyone that decentralization is Christian is Don Livingston (a man Tom Woods said was one of his top 10 influences) His lectures and writings on ideology and politics are mindblowing
@@bradleymarshall5489 RE Livingston and Christianity: Could you recommend resources? A quick internet search did not yield much. Writing a book? Nice. If you want feedback from a random guy on TH-cam, I'd totally be that guy.
Gavin my brother in Christ your videos have helped me so much , as a new Christian who took my salvation VERY seriously i was extremely burdened and worried about being in the "true" church ect. Ive learned so much from you , you have been a blessing in my life! and i feel secure in my faith , secure in Christ i now rest , THANKYOU!!
The way I view this whole protestant-catholic-orthodox debate is that you're not looking at salvation. As long as you believe in Jesus Christ, you are saved. But the issue is looking at the "fullness of the truth". So I am a Protestant now, but I'll probably be a Lutheran or something, and I'm looking at Catholicism. The only issue for me is icon veneration, the papacy, the repeated prayers, etc.
@@kazumakiryu157Your soteriology doesn’t necessarily match up to the Catholic or Orthodox view though. So it’s not just a matter of “picking your favorite” team so to speak.
@@countryboyred yeah, of course not. That's why I'm considering not being protestant, for those concerns. But I would say to just assert that all protestants are unsaved is also a bit weird. Even the Catholic church and the CCC affirms that protestants are saved, though not "officially".
@@kazumakiryu157 The Orthodox definitely do not believe that all Protestants are unsaved. It’s not our place to speculate on someone’s salvation. Of course being inside the Church would make it much easier to be saved. The RCC has Unum Sanctum which was pretty clear that only those in communion with Rome could be saved but then they changed their mind with Vatican 2 which had a much more loving view of Protestants calling them “separated brothers”. Wherever you end up, I wish you the best on your journey and may God guide your path.
Listening to you, I feel like I'm taking a theology course. As a Protestant who came out of Orthodoxy, I think you hit it right on the head .I believe the rock Jesus was referring to was the rock of faith Peter demonstrated. Never heard it explained that way.
I’m a Missouri Synod Lutheran. I’m interested in people’s views who became Protestant who were Orthodox. What church were you apart of and what made you leave?
I’m working my way slowly back to my Protestant roots from 25 years in Eastern Orthodoxy. This channel has the right series of messages at the right time. Literally a godsend! Thanks Pastor!
@David Good Because I got saved 🤣. Prayed about it, went to the Orthodox Church with my mom, and what we heard confirmed that nope, this is definitely not where God wants me to be.
@@costa328 what did you hear? I've also seen people pray about things and they believe they were confident in what God said for it only to be confident in what they said to themsleves. This is after they had proved themsleves wrong after some time. I'm protestant myself, but just curious
Catholic here, your content is very well thought out and charitable. I don't agree with everything but I appreciate your content and it gives me something to think about. Subbed.
Fwiw I’m with you on your interpretation. I see our Catholic brothers and sisters as such in Christ, but the Papacy is based on false premises. And further, I see it as damaging. There is no ‘head’ of the Christian church, and it sure ain’t the Pope, whomever that may be throughout history. Thanks for your thoughtful insights.
@@merrym72veetee12 No Christian denies that Christ is the head of the church (including Catholics). The pope is the earthly head and without that you have endless splintering over opinions.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787you assert that the pope is the early head as though you didn't even listen to the video. Jorje Borgolio is the best example of why I reject the papacy. Add to that all the immoral and vicious behavior over the past 2 millenia and you have ample reason to see the scoundrels are not worthy of receiving such uncritical adulation.
@@johngeverett Why would you assume I didn’t watch the video, do you imagine Dr. Ortlund makes points that cannot be rebutted? Dr. Ortlund holds the papacy to an unreasonable standard. He says there is no strong evidence early enough but he is completely content believing Baptist doctrines that have no evidence from before the 1500s. The role of the pope has nothing to do with adulation of a man; if you want to claim that the Catholic Church makes too big a deal out of the pope, fine. That’s understandable. What is important to devout Catholics is that Christ’s teaching is preserved and carried through the centuries and without the papacy (as an office) there is no way to know where the true faith is. This is why Catholics today can look into every century in the past and see our faith there; we are not trusting a man, we are trusting Jesus to build his church and guide it. The pope is merely a man, a steward, a pawn on God’s chess board. Have there been bad popes? Absolutely. Has the Catholic Church ever left the earth or stopped teaching the same faith throughout the good, bad, and ugly? No, it has not.
It's true that when a Protestant is regenerated, born again; we tend to focus on our walk with the Lord and His word and the truth of the matter is that, we are content. We don't view Church history as that important, and therefore when Catholic Apologists come around loaded with Church history, referencing to this Church father or that Church father, this Council or that Council ~ normally according to what they want to convince a person with, but not necessary what these historical writings were meant to communicate, we end up being overwhelmed; and many have departed from the simple gospel truth and entered endless genealogies and accepted false teachings that crept into the Church over centuries without question simply because of our ignorance of Church history. As a Protestant, who knew that the day I gave my life to the Lord, that my life changed for good, my conscious tells me I am secure in the Lord's hands and so I am truly disturbed when someone comes along to persuade me to follow extra biblical teachings that are clearly not taught in the Bible. I always wonder how does a born again Christian is really convinced to believe in purgatory, Marian doctrines (recently I was listening to testimonies of wearing a brown scapula) and other burdens of religious practices that one is bound to, to be a good Catholic without his/her conscious being disturbed. There is a great relief that young dedicated but loving Protestants are rising up to explain these things fully and in truth. The goal should remain evangelising the lost not merely converting them to our Church for numbers. Protestant Church members go out in highways and byways to preach the gospel and it's sad to see that the fish they catch is sweet-talked into abandoning the Lord to follow religion.
To follow religion , what a mess phrase you are it seems sounds that those Catholics are ignorant of their faith that we don't read our Bible not yours.
Although you mentioned the rock aspect of Matthew 16, you barely mentioned the keys and the binding and loosing, which is just as important or even more important than the rock part of Matthew 16. Would God give this power to Peter and allow him to bind heresies on earth as in heaven, thus making God a liar?
It’s pretty cool watching this in December 2021 with my Christmas tree lights on while yours is in the background of your video. At any rate, good stuff! A lot more can be said that can possibly be put into a 28 minute video, but the points you brought up were the same I discovered when exploring the early church while considering the claims of Rome. I found, with apologies to Cardinal Newman, that if “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”, to be deeper in history is to cease to be papalist. God bless, and Merry Christmas!
Thank you Dr. Ortlund. I just subscribe to your channel. I love your videos in viewing our faith through the lens of history. I'm an Indonesian Protestant. There is a well known pastor here in Indonesia, Dr. Bambang Noorsena from Orthodox background, who use the same approach by tracing the history of the early church fathers. His teachings help me a lot to build up my faith. I'm glad to know you are a Protestant, I hope I can learn to see the perspectives balanced from either side especially regarding the differences between the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant doctrines. May Jesus bless you and your ministry.
As as catholic, I find it refreshing to understand why protestant have a hard time with the papacy as long as it is done in a respectable manner. still kinda curious to me why a person with your knowledge is a baptist instead of a protestant church that is more liturgical like lutherans or anglican. not sure if you have a video explaining it.
Baptists have their own liturgy, and they are also part of the reformed protestantism, though I'm not quite sure as per how do you vinculate fairly a certain liturgy tradition with being (or not) knowledgeable.
@@angelbonilla4243 maybe I have but it is not my fault there are different types of baptist churches. i have seen lot of southern baptist churches where I live.
I would think that the fact the Baptists weren't around until the 17th century would be an indicator that the Baptist Church isn't apostolic in origin but established by a man. In fact, all of the non-Catholic churches lack a pedigree that goes back to the apostles.
So, I appreciate the irenic approach. I'll try to do the same in return. The thought I kept having as I listened to this was: "Please define what you mean by 'the papacy'." That is, when you refer to it as a "massive doctrine", the first thing I want to know is what you think is entailed in the doctrine and what you regard as massive. When some people say, "The Papacy", what they imagine is a man dressed in fine robes in Rome, approving every bishop in the world, making infallible pronouncements every other Tuesday, and exclusively being called "the Pope". When all that isn't found, the doctrine is found to be lacking historical or exegetical merit. And for lack of knowing what you regard as the details of "the Papacy", I'm was never certain what you were expecting to find. For me, what I regard "the Papacy" is that Jesus established Peter as the leader of the Apostles (and thus the head pastor of the Church), and he intended for this role to continue in some kind of succession. So what I expect to find is somewhat modest. For the Scriptural case, the first thought which came to mind was the subjectivity of saying something is slim, or unclear. Last year I was invited to a Calvinist Bible study which was studying Hebrews 10. When we got to the second half, they admitted that a cursory glance may lead one to think it was teaching a Christian could lose his/her salvation. But a more advanced look made it "unclear". I remarked that it didn't seem unclear to me, and I asked if they regard it as unclear out of necessity. (Then I politely was asked to never return). I digress. What exactly constitutes something being unclear and scant? For many, myself included, the conjunction of Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 is pretty solid. Jesus's blessing in Luke 22 followed by the commissioning in John 21 is really persuasive. The fact that Peter is mentioned more than the other Apostles by wide margin seems significant. And in regard to Acts 15, it seems to me that there's a tendency in Protestant circles to over-emphasize James' role and to relegate Peter in this passage to the role of a secretary - rather than the guy who stood up and settled the core theological issue on behalf of the group, ending the debate. For me (and others) the thing which grants it the best plausibility is the functional argument. Without some place where the buck stops, it seems that theological questions can have no universal resolution. There needs to be a man at the top who can stand up like Peter in Acts 15 and say what the case is. For lack of that, it seems to me that the project of theology either divides into multiple irreconcilable camps or stops entirely. For many, the prospect of getting the Protestant world together and asking a simple practical question like, "Can a Christian lose his salvation?" or going to the Orthodox world and asking, "Can a divorced Christian get remarried?" is enough to convince people about the necessity of the Papacy. Granted, this its an easier argument to make when its John Paul II standing athwart the Soviet Empire surrounded by a crowd screaming, "We want God" - compared to Pope Francis, who is truly like "The Last Jedi" of Popes. Terrible, but sadly canonical.
😂 I love the story of the Hebrews Bible study. That book is a major reason I'm not a Calvinist, even though I don't believe in loosing salvation. I think there is a middle ground there between the Calvinist and the Armenian approach to scripture.
@@BibelFAQ : It's always seemed to me that the possibility of disinheriting oneself from salvation is the most clearly taught doctrine in the New Testament. The most explicit among the two dozen or so passages would be Hebrews 10:19-39. The passages which people use to assert the opposite, I think, can be plausibly taken in other ways. But the massive quantity of work one has to do find ways around those which say it can be lost should be an indicator that the Bible does indeed teach the possibility of disinheritance. Among the others would be: 2Timothy 2:12 - Christians being told Christ might deny them. Luke 8:11-14 - the seeds which sprout life, but die. 1Cor 15:1-2 - the possibility of believing in vain. Galatians 5:4 - Christians being told they've fallen from grace. Hebrews 6:4-6 - Apostates being spoken of. James 5:19-20 - the mention of Christians falling away and in danger of spiritual death. John 15:1-6 and Romans 11:20-22 - The possibility of a grafted in vine being cut off. Romans 14:15, 1Corinthians 6:8, Ephesians 5:3-6, 1Timothy 5:7-8 - Christians being warned that immorality will result in disinheritance. 2Peter 2:20 - Apostate Christians being spoken of. 1Corinthians 9:27 - Paul saying he could possibly be damned. I'm not saying that inventive ways cannot be found around all those passages. But the work necessary to do it should be an indicator that this is not the correct way.
Isn’t it just like the Devil, who is an expert manipulator of the Word, to convince many within and outside of the Church to exalt one Apostle above all of his co-equals? And not only that, but to bow the knee to all subsequent Popes as a diversion from direct faith in Jesus Christ? There is absolutely no Biblical basis for the Papacy. If Jesus giving the keys to Peter was a promotional appointment to the Papacy, then Peter would have immediately began to serve as the ‘Director’ of the Apostles from that point onwards. Remember when Samuel the Prophet anointed Saul as Israel’s first King, which began the reign of the Davidic Dynasty with their next King? Well, as soon as Saul was anointed to Kingship, he immediately ascended the throne. Peter never assumed any position above Apostleship. Not a hint of Peter being the “Pope” is evidenced throughout any of the Gospels or even later in Acts. Simply because there is no Papacy. In Matthew 16, Jesus blessed Peter with personal Apostolic authority, not Papal infallibility. There is only one “Pope” who is our Heavenly Father-Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd.
I 💯 agree. But they'll never concede to those who debate/challenge that. No matter how many Bible verses u throw down, they'll either take a verse to prove their justified, so out of context (it'll make u wanna laugh) OR they claim "Sola Scriptura is not anywhere in the Bible, u Protestants make things up". Make it make sense. They also often say that both tradition & the Bible are necessary/req'd for faith. They simply cannot understand that it's by "faith alone" that God saves us. They can't let it go & it's disheartening.
This has been so helpful. Ive been listening to a lot of Catholic commentary lately and, biblically, the whole Peter thing was clear to me but I just don't have enough knowledge of the early church to come close to a judgement. Catholic apologists seem to zero in on people like Ignatius while i can see you have studied widely and mention many names and the variety of views at that time. The answer to Catholicism is just "Sorry, not enough evidence" and that theme comes out over and over in what I have come across.
This is the most reasonable explanation I’ve ever heard on this subject. Most Protestants will vehemently argue that Christ was referring to himself instead of Simon (which is ridiculous) and take the verse out of context to provide evidence. You should give a class on this.
Much appreciated especially your even handed non hostile approach. Acts 20:28 ...Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
Even handed? He made no mention of Matthew 16:19 where we see only Peter was given the keys to Heaven. No other apostle was given the keys to Heaven. He also only gave Church fathers that were vague in their explanation of the primacy of Peter. He certainly didn't post cyprian of carthage on the primacy of Peter. Let's have a look why he might of left cyprian out of this video shall we. cyprian of carthage wrote this in 251 a.d. "[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, 👉🏻yet he founded a single Chair,👈🏻 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; 👉🏻 *but a primacy is given to Peter👈🏻, whereby it is made clear that there is but ONE CHURCH AND ONE CHAIR* So too, all 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 desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church* 👈🏻(Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)
It’s texts like this (and there are warnings all throughout the New Testament) that makes me wonder how so many people are just certain that their particular Faith tradition simply could not have let error in.
Hi Gavin, as former Catholic, be careful when you say "grace," because to Catholics grace is the help God gives you through prayer and the sacraments to do the works you need to be saved. You have to cooperate with grace to be saved.
I was always taught (as a catholic) that before His crucifixion, he made that statement, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church". I've always thought that if He wanted Peter to build his church He would have said "You are Peter and YOU will build my church". Not I will build it. This leaves a lot to interpretation. One thing it doesn't say is "you and your successors". At the end of the day, The Lord wanted everyone to remrmber Him and live according to His word. That surely is what really matters.
Hmm... Well, I will start by saying I do like Mr. Ortlund's style- I believe what he states in the beginning- he truly doesn't want to offend anyone; instead, he simply desires to peacefully provide contrasting perspectives, and he does so without insults, yelling, name-calling, etc. so this is very admirable. Now, with all that being said, I respectfully disagree with the majority of his analysis. Regarding his Biblical argument, Mr. Ortlund claims that scriptural support of the idea of the papacy is "slender and ambiguous." Well, the way he happens to present it, yeah. But his understanding of that excerpt from Matthew's Gospel is lacking and his interpretation of it is mistaken- especially since he does not know how to relate it to the rest of scripture. Firstly, he conveniently only cites the first part: "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18) Well, if the full concept of the passage had stopped at that point, then maybe his interpretation could be argued as possibly correct. However, that is not the case, because the verse immediately following is: "I will give you 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 16:19, NIV). Re-read that. Yes- Jesus gave Peter "the keys to heaven" and the authority to "bind and loose on earth and in heaven." It clearly says it right there- "𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶..." Does that really sound like Jesus was only referring to Peter's declaration? ("You are the Messiah" in verse 16)? No, of course not- a declaration, however insightful it may be, is simply a statement- an insightful declaration, such as the one Peter spoke, merely reflects the insightfulness of the one who spoke it, but the declaration itself cannot be 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 "keys to heaven" nor 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 authority to "bind and loose," the person who spoke the declaration is 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 those things- because it is a person that makes decisions- and in this particular case, that person is the one to whom Jesus gave such authority- that person was Peter- so yes- he was the first pope. Besides this, one must consider typology- i.e. how the Old Testament is revealed and fulfilled in the New Testament- the "keys to the kingdom" and the authority to "bind and loose" is a very specific reference to the prophetic passage in Isaiah: "On that day I will summon My servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and tie your sash around him. I will put your authority in his hand, and he will be a father to the dwellers of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘋𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘥. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘩𝘶𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘶𝘵𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯." (Isaiah 22:20-22, NIV). This passage would have been familiar to the Apostles- remember, they were all Jewish men who would have known the writings of the prophets in the Tanakh (i.e. Hebrew Bible). Notice the very similar parallel phrasing to the analogous passage in Matthew above- the Isaiah passage is about the royal steward- the man appointed by the King of Judah to serve as his substitute- i.e. to make binding decisions in the king's name. Note that the passage states that the royal steward is given "the key to the house of David." And how is Jesus described? Yes- the descendent of David- the new forever ruler of the "Davidic Kingdom"- as Nathan the prophet explains to David himself: “‘The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son." (2 Samuel 7:11-14) In addition, one must keep in mind Daniel's prophecy when he interpreted King Nebuchadnezzar's dream: "In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands-a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces." (Daniel 2:44-45). Note that in that prophecy there is "a rock not cut by human hands." Does that sound familiar? The "rock" smashes the statue in Nebuchadnezzar's dream- the statue that represents the different historical kingdoms- Babylon (gold), Persia (silver), Greece (bronze), and Rome (iron). The "In the time of those kings" refers to the last kingdom- Rome. And during which empire did Jesus come into the world? Yep- during the Roman empire. And He built His Church (i.e. His "kingdom") on the "rock" (i.e. Peter) and that "rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth (Daniel 2:35)" (i.e. Peter went to Rome, spearheaded the Church, and it spread around the world). Today, which is the only Christian Church that has a "rock" (i.e. a pope who is the successor of Peter), and which is headquartered in Rome, and which has spread throughout the entire world? Yes- the Catholic Church. Mr. Ortlund's presentation of the other passages- Luke 22, and John 21- is also quite superficial. Now before you think of saying the same silly thing that so many others do- claiming the word "pope" is not in the Bible, just pause and consider- the word "trinity" is not in the Bible either. Neither are the words "hypostatic union," nor the word "incarnation." Despite those words not appearing, all Christians believe Jesus is the second person of the Holy "Trinity"- both God and man (i.e. "hypostatic union") - the Word made flesh (i.e. "incarnation"). Just because a certain word is not in the Bible does not mean that the 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵 which the word describes is not there- it is. Religious terminology is developed over time- specific words often come later simply in order to provide a unique term for the ancient ideas that they describe. Besides, do you know what other word is not in the Bible? The word "Bible"! Why? Because during Jesus' time on Earth, the Bible did not exist- any usage of the word "scripture" in the Bible refers to what we today call the Old Testament- because at that time, the New Testament had not been written yet. And the Bible as we know it today would not be compiled until well over three centuries after Jesus' ascension. Keep in mind, Jesus Himself never (permanently) wrote anything down- nor did He command His apostles to do so. We have the Bible because fortunately some of His apostles (starting around 50 AD) chose to write down some of their testimony and to send letters- these were later gathered, copied, sorted, translated, analyzed, and declared as a canonical listing by the Catholic Church (firstly at the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD). So if you love and appreciate the Bible, then thank the Catholic Church for putting it together. Really, the irony in this video is almost overwhelming- some evangelical Protestants claim that "Catholicism doesn't follow scripture" but they are the ones who are obviously ignorant of it.
*that person is the one to whom Jesus gave such authority- that person was Peter- so yes- he was the first pope.* Thats your proof? Peter made a claim so that equals being pope? First, Peter wasn't given anything right there. They were all given the same thing a couple of chapters later. And 'keys' do not equal some singular authority for Peter to exercise. He doesn't show us anywhere in the n.t. any singular authority that he and he alone used. There is a lot of eisegesis here. There is literally nothing in common between Isa 22 and Mat 16. That parallel exists between Isa and Rev 3. If the papacy was found in the n.t. we would see it right next to Deacon and Elder in the pastoral epistles where Paul details the structure of the church. Its not there. And there was no canon declared at Hippo or Rome 382. The canon for the rcc wasn't dogmatically declared until Trent, session 4, 1546.
@@ContendingEarnestly Well, first of all, I prefer to avoid the word "proof" when it comes to theological debates- in matters of religion, it is often impossible to unquestionably "prove" a certain point. Instead, I like to use the word "evidence." So yes actually- that passage from Matthew 16:18-19 is certainly evidence that Jesus did give authority to Peter- again, the scripture is quite clear: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church...I will give you 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." Jesus' statement here certainly sounds quite authoritative and distinct. Note that Peter didn't "make a claim" (as your wrote above), but rather it was Jesus who gave Peter his position- the King assigned His royal steward (as the typological passage from Isaiah reflects- and if you can truly tell yourself that "There is literally nothing in common between Isa 22 and Mat 16," as you wrote in your comment, well then, ok- that's your opinion which you are entitled to (given the obvious parallel language between the two passages, I think it's a disingenuous point of view, but whatever). As for the passage from Matthew 18:18 (I assume this is the one you mean when you wrote "a couple chapters later"), yes indeed- the other apostles are given a similar authority: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." That is the authority of bishops- "to bind and loose"- i.e. to declare truths/provide clear doctrinal teaching on matters of faith for the church. So yes- I agree with you on that point- Jesus did give that authority to all His apostles. However, notice in that latter passage, Jesus does 𝙣𝙤𝙩 include the "I give you the keys to the Kingdom of heaven" part- that part was something He said/gave only to Peter (compare to the previous citation above). Notice that in Mathew 16:18-19 Jesus says "you" in the singular- because He is speaking only to Peter (in the original writing this is clear because the Greek language has both distinct pronouns and distinct verb forms for singular "you" - σὺ δήσῃς καὶ λύσῃς- versus plural "you"- ὑμεῖς δήσητε καὶ λύσητε- and this is also reflected in certain (older) English translations that distinguish them- e.g. King James Version- "thou" vs. "ye"). Jesus also commissions Peter to "feed my lambs/sheep" (John 21:15-17) and tells him "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." (Luke 22:32). Keep in mind, the pope is a bishop- the bishop of Rome. It is the case that the bishop of Rome holds pre-eminence over the other bishops since that is where Peter established the headquarters of Christ's Church. So, while all bishops hold authority to "bind and loose," the bishop of Rome (i.e. the pope) holds supremacy. I disagree with your claim that Peter's authority is not reflected in the New Testament. Firstly, his name always appears first on lists of the apostles (see Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:13-16) and he is mentioned very disproportionately more than any other apostle ("Peter" (or as "Simon"/"Cephas") is specifically mentioned close to 200 times- more than all the other 11 apostles 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙗𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙙- the next most-mentioned apostle- John- is mentioned less than 50 times, and most other apostles are mentioned by name very infrequently (some of them just once or twice)). On the subject of names, the fact that Jesus re-designated "Simon" as "Peter/Cephas" is, in itself, quite significant: name-changes in scripture indicate an elevation of status and a God-given mission (compare "Abram" and "Sarai" becoming "Abraham" and "Sarah" when God makes a covenant with them as the "father and mother of many nations" (Genesis 17:5, 15-16), and compare "Jacob" becoming "Israel" after he wrestles with the angel (Genesis 32:28), and "Saul" becoming "Paul" after his conversion related in Acts. Besides this, even when Jesus first meets Peter, He seems to single him out for his future mission- in chapter 5 of Luke's Gospel, Peter is the first apostle to worship/recognize Jesus as God - he kneeled before Him and called him Lord (see verse 8) and Peter is the first apostle that Jesus commissions to "fish for men" (see verse 10). In other places we see Peter speaking on behalf of all the apostles- e.g. see John 6:68-69. And importantly, Peter is the one who declares a resolution against the Judaizers at the Council of Jerusalem- see Acts 15:7-11. Furthermore, throughout the book of Acts, Peter's prominence as the earthly leader after Jesus' ascension is quite evident- it was Peter who called for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:15-21) and then later at Pentecost, he is the one who addresses the diverse crowd and evangelizes them (see Acts 2:14-40), later, Peter also heals and instructs people (see Acts 3:4-7 and 12-13), and Peter rebukes the high priest and his family (see Acts 4:8-10), and Peter is described as being such a strong vessel of God's works that even his shadow has healing power (see Acts 5:15-16). As for the canon being declared 𝙙𝙤𝙜𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 at the Council of Trent, yes- I believe you are correct, BUT, note the important distinction here- 𝙙𝙤𝙜𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 declared. In general, ecumenical councils only make dogmatic declarations when actually necessary- in order to definitively settle a debate- e.g. to prevent/combat heresy. Keep in mind that the Council of Trent was the first council of the Counter-Reformation- i.e. it was convened in order to deal with the heresies of the Protestant Reformation- one such heresy was the attempted suppression of certain books from the Bible- the deuterocanonicals (i.e. what Protestants call the "Apocrypha"). So, that is why it might 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘮 like the Biblical canon was not established until Trent in 1546, but it is misleading- the Church had actually listed the canon of scripture looong before then- first at the Synod of Hippo in 393, as I wrote previously. And this makes sense- after all, why would a matter need to be definitively settled if it had not been questioned before then- because until the Protestant Reformation, all (western) Christians had accepted the Biblical canon as consisting of the 73 books which Catholics still recognize up to the present day- it was not until the Protestant Reformers started trying to suppress certain books that the Church had to step in and make that dogmatic declaration.
@@verdecillo9940 I won't reply to every point, it'd be too long. Here are some highlights. *the King assigned His royal steward (as the typological passage from Isaiah reflects- and if you can truly tell yourself that "There is literally nothing in common between Isa 22 and Mat 16," as you wrote in your comment, well then, ok- that's your opinion which you are entitled to (given the obvious parallel language between the two passages, I think it's a disingenuous point of view, but whatever).* Just show me the parallel language between Isa 22 and Matt 16. Here is my quick overview. Isa 22:22 22 "Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, When he opens no one will shut, When he shuts no one will open. NASB Matt 16:19 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." NASB Okay, now that we see both passages wheres the parallel? A. One has key, singular the other has keys, plural. Hows that a parallel? B. One says he opens no one will shut, he shuts no one will open. The other says, whatever you bind shall be bound, whatever you loose shall be loosed... I'm at a loss to see where the parallel is? So where is the parallel? Here; Rev 3:7 7 "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: NASB A. Isa 22 says key of David. Rev 3 says key of David. B. Isa 22 says opens and no one will shut. Rev 3 says opens and no one will shut. C. Isa 22 says he shuts no one will open. Rev 3 says who shuts and no one opens. So youre premise that Peter is some prime minister has zero foundation. What the kingdom of David had doesn't not mean the kingdom of God has the same thing. And it doesn't. Eph 2 talks about the foundation of the church; Eph 2:20 20 having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, NASB foundation of the apostles (plural). Peter is not singled out here but one of many with Jesus being the cornerstone. *As for the passage from Matthew 18:18 (I assume this is the one you mean when you wrote "a couple chapters later"), yes indeed- the other apostles are given a similar authority: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." That is the authority of bishops- "to bind and loose"- i.e. to declare truths/provide clear doctrinal teaching on matters of faith for the church. So yes- I agree with you on that point- Jesus did give that authority to all His apostles.* Catholics use Matt 16 and this for much more than simply teaching. They use it as a blank check to make up whatever they want that agrees with Rome. The binding and loosing, the keys are not some special, singular authority but simply the gospel of Jesus Christ. When the gospel is proclaimed and someone believes it, they are free/loosed from their sin. If they reject it they remain bound by their sin. Everyone who faithfully proclaims the gospel has those keys. If you have a false gospel then your keys don't open anything. The rcc has a false gospel of faith + _______________ fill in the blank; popes, mary, sacraments, works... *Jesus also commissions Peter to "feed my lambs/sheep" (John 21:15-17)* He does, know why? Because Peter denied Him three times. This is restoring Peter, not elevating him. And did Jesus pray for Peter? Sure, want to know why? This is before he denies Jesus and Jesus knows he is going to fall. But 'when you return, strengthen your brothers.' Peter will fall, Jesus knows this and he will repent. Then he will know what thats like so he can strengthen others. Nothing here suggests for a second that Peter is pope. *Rome holds pre-eminence over the other bishops since that is where Peter established the headquarters of Christ's Church.* Zero proof of this. And his call wasn't to the gentiles but jews. Although Peter and Paul preached to anyone their primary call is what i listed from Gal 2. Knowing this, why is Peter heading off to the most pagan gentile city in the world at that time when the jews are in Israel? *I disagree with your claim that Peter's authority is not reflected in the New Testament.* Your list of Peters accomplishments is meaningless. The question is did he have a singular authority that he and only he possessed that everyone else submitted to him for? No. I can give a list of Pauls accomplishments if thats the standard for being pope. The office is spoken of nowhere. Deacon is there and its requirements but not the popes? *one such heresy was the attempted suppression of certain books from the Bible- the deuterocanonicals (i.e. what Protestants call the "Apocrypha").* First, prots don't call it apocrypha as though that name started in 1517. Jerome called it apocrypha. So did Athanasius and others. I don't see the word deuterocanoncial in the church fathers do you? If so please cite your sources. I have all 37 volumes i'd love to check that out. Jerome rejected the apocrypha. Gregory the Great rejected part of it. Cardinal Cajetan a contemporary of Luther rejected all of it. So lets not lay all of this at the feet of the reformers. Plenty of catholics rejected them too, after 397. *the Church had actually listed the canon of scripture looong before then- first at the Synod of Hippo in 393,* The list from 393 came from Rome 382 and not the official acts, those were lost. Another group took notes and passed them on to Hippo. They were read at Hippo but not approved. They were at Carthage in 397. Again, lists were everywhere then. They were lists of books approved to be read. Not a settled canon. *because until the Protestant Reformation, all (western) Christians had accepted the Biblical canon as consisting of the 73 books which Catholics still recognize up to the present day* That is historical fiction as i just proved. If the 73 book canon was accepted by all right up to the Reformation why did Jerome reject the entire thing, by name? Or Gregory or Cardinal Cajetan....right up to the Reformation? They didn't all agree. *it was not until the Protestant Reformers started trying to suppress certain books that the Church had to step in and make that dogmatic declaration.* See above.
@@ContendingEarnestly Ok, well, as I already wrote, I have given my evidence and you have given yours- you obviously have your way of interpreting things and I have mine, so this has now devolved into a mater of "I think this" versus "you think that" and it's not really going to be settled with one of us conceding to the other, so I guess there's not much point in continuing this (especially not as two random un-invested strangers in a TH-cam comment section). I responded to your reply to my original comment because you accused me of "eisegesis," claimed there's "literally nothing in common," etc. so I thought I could explain my perspective. But the main point of my original comment was to provide an informal rebuttal to the actual video because Dr. Ortlund presents a one-sided and limited analysis- so I simply wished to provide a contrasting point of view. We all have access to the same scriptures, so obviously we can't just use "scripture alone" to decide doctrine and practice- because if it were that simple, then all Christians would agree with each other. Instead, Protestants have thousands of denominations that all teach different things. Do you think that is what Christ wants? For His Church(es) to be divided and in disagreement with each other? So what is the solution? Well, as a Catholic, I believe that Jesus didn't just start an unorganized group of followers who could decide whatever they wanted as individuals and if some disagreed with others then they could split off and form dissenting groups. Instead, I believe that Christ established one Church- as stated in the Matthew 16:18 (note that Jesus says "my 𝘤𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩" singular NOT "my 𝘤𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘴"). And the one Church that He established has authority to govern itself by deciding the proper interpretation of scripture and through maintaining the sacred traditions of its early leaders (i.e. the apostles). If it's not that way, then the result is as I wrote- an ever-increasing fragmentation of His Church. I have no hard feelings against you (despite your misconceptions) and I wish you good luck in your walk with the Lord. Peace and Blessings!
As a Pentecostal turning catholic I thought this video was great content. You brought up good points and was very respectful in pushing your points. I think their is more to this topic that you cant fit in a TH-cam video. Both sides have great arguments for their position. One can also argue that before Constantine became emperor the majority of popes were martyred so that push or development becoming more clear in the 5th century to me makes sense.
Read on classical Protestantism. I understand why you might want to leave the Pentecostal church, but consider some historic Protestant traditions like Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, etc.
Here’s a story of a struggling Protestant. In my walk of 10 years as being a Christian I’ve called 3 very different churches home as the first two turned out to be heretical - and ended up in a reformed Baptist church. Then moved to a new large country town and am trying to find a church to call home. The Presbyterian church we just went to on Sunday is very small, held in a school hall and the congregation is made up predominantly of people over 70. Also, the ordinances (communion) were not delivered during the service. What a let down. I now just visited the Roman Catholic Church which is open to visitors every day of the week all day, stands on the highest part of the town and has stood since 1887. I was awestruck. The turmoil that lands on the Protestant when moving to a new town, when trying to find a church is immense. My question is Do you think God wants us to experience such turmoil that wouldn’t exist if we were one unified ecclesial body? There are many problems with the Roman Catholic church but I fear there are many more with the Protestant church such as the practical example I’ve just given. Ive been part of 3 very different churches in only 10 years because it’s easy to get very lost in Protestantism. Now I’m starting over in a new town. What the heck do I do? The main option here appear to be either Pentecostalism, Catholicism, dying Baptist / Presby churches, or a few pop up churches that are likely heretical.
I appreciate your loving approach to being truthful, loving and respectful at the same time. I too love Catholic people and aim to love them and encourage them in truth also.
One thing I would add to the good points you made on the Biblical argument; Matthew 7:24-27 ... "House built on the Rock, not sand"... One could draw some connections there to that rock-faith-confession argument there. Be like the wise man in Jesus's parable, have faith like a rock, like Peter, on The Rock; Lord Jesus. (EDIT: If that would match the original language used)
Awesome video! I love when you include quotes from church fathers, especially when the whole quote is written out on the screen! Would it be possible to share the books you found the quotes in? I'm a protestant trying to get more involved with the writings of the church fathers.
A latecomer here, but God bless your efforts in this important faucet of the Lord's work. I have been involved in rebuking Catholics occasionally on some particular issues I know pretty well which comes under the heading of defending the Faith. Some of these misguided folks are barely aware of the problems with certain peculiarly false traditions within their own confines and need to be informed of the underlying issues. As you well know, there are meaningful aspects to areas of proper rebuke and correction that are sorely ignored by many denominations, though such a side ministry undertaken with understanding and firm love is an integral part of being a good and well rounded servant of the Gospel. Thanks again.
This is a fantastic video. I heard Trent Horn wants to have you in his studio. It would be really interesting to hear the conversation between you and Trent. You have excellent points and it would be great to hear his response to this. You would make an exceptional interlocutor Great video!
Dr Gavin Ortlund is a baptist and he has a Gavin Ortlund holds a PhD from Fuller Theological Seminary, an MDiv from Covenant Theological Seminary and a BA in religion and philosophy from the University of Georgia according to a wikipedia search
Phenomenal! My father became Catholic about ten years and I’ve been trying to figure why in the world he did that ever since. Lol. This helps fill in some missing pieces! Thank you so much. God bless
@@Wilkins325 Luther rejected all Catholic teachings, it is either you believe in Luther or the Church The early church was defined by the celebration of the mass, the Holy Eucharist, the apostles, the church fathers, the saints, the popes, the bishops, the bible and its sacred traditions.
@@jamesrey3221 Luther and the Reformers were right. Luther only rejected what was false and corrupted. The early church was defined by the Gospel, scripture, the Apostles. NOT the mass, eucharist, "saints", popes, bishops, traditions. All of that developed over time, including church fathers.
Regarding Peter, There is not even confirmed data that he ever was in Roma. Paul was there, but we don't know about Peter for sure. The sources are not 100% reliable. . And if he did go to Rome, he did not go as a bishop but as a visiting apostle. Why? Because Peter was NOT a bishop. He was an apostle. Peter was NEVER bishop of Rome. "So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up" (Ephesians 4, 11-12) The idea that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus established His church, is a completely wrong interpretation of Mathew 16, 18: " And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it." The "rock" is not Peter, but the truth that Peter had just pronounced (v.16): "Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” PETER HIMSELF says that "Jesus is “‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’ (Acts 4, 11) he repeats the idea in his 1st epistle (2, 6,). He never considered himself to be that kind of rock. PAUL also says that Jesus is the cornerstone of the church (ephesians 2, 20) (1 Co.3, 11). From 77 CHURCH FATHERS, only 17 thought that the rock was Peter. The rest think it was Peter's affirmation. In Mark 5, 33-35, the disciples argue for 1st place. Why should they if it has been given already? Jesus also told them that no one of them was above the others: (Mathew 20, 26-27). Paul mentions different OFFICES in the church: apostles, prophets & teachers. (1 Co 12, 28). No mention of a Pope. It was James, & not Peter, who presided the 1st COUNCIL of the church in Jerusalem. (Acts 15). In Acts 8, 14, the apostles sent Peter & John to Samaria. Waw! The Pope is sent in a mission by pple under him! PETER refers to himself as an apostle & servant. No more than that (1 Peter 1, 1; 2 Pe 2, 11). HISTORY does not prove the papacy right, just its huge corruption. Popes have been more political figures than anything else. The actual pope seems more concerned with saving the planet than saving souls!
Great video, Gavin. Love all the research on the church fathers. One thing I would add is, even if you accept the RCC interpretation of Matt 16 that Peter is the rock in an official capacity, you still have the problem of connecting that to the church of Rome. There is zero evidence that Peter was the bishop of Rome. He was martyred there and buried there. Presumably he ministered and preached there prior to his martyrdom. But there is no evidence that he held any ecclesiastical office in the church of Rome, much less bishop. Then you have the further problem of the lack of evidence that Rome even had a bishop until the mid to late 2nd century. So there is at least a century gap between Peter and the first named bishop of Rome (I'm not sure who that is -- it might be Victor ca. 190s; I know Eusebius refers to him as the bishop of Rome when recounting the debate with the Asian churches over Easter). Medieval tradition (the Liber Pontificalis) claims that the first papal successors of Peter were Linus, Anacletus, Clement, etc., but we have no historical (from that time or near that time) evidence that they were actually bishops of Rome, much less popes with universal jurisdiction. It really does look like a case of reading history through the lens of later developments (like you said, the shift with Gregory the Great and following, especially the 8th century alignment of the papacy away from being under the thumb of the Byzantine emperor to the Carolingians).
Ignatius in his epistle to the Romans says that he does not command them "as Peter and Paul did" implying that Peter was a bishop there. Of course this does not prove him being the universal bishop of all the churches but I do think that should be noted.
@@alfredolebron1428 Ignatius wrote: "I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul: they were apostles, I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4.3). I wouldn't read this as suggesting that Peter was a bishop there. It only supports what we already know, that the two apostles, Peter and Paul, spent time in Rome and ministered there. And when they did so, their authority was that of apostle not bishop. If this sentence implies that Peter was a bishop of Rome, then it implies that Paul was as well, which is not part of the RCC claim.
In response to the question - “Is Jesus the rock or is Peter the rock? The answers is simply YES! This is not a zero-sum game. Jesus is the ultimate authority, and he bestowed that authority upon Peter. Isaiah 22 is clearly talking about Jesus, but when Jesus quotes it in Matthew 16, He makes it about Peter! Peter was made the representative of Christ on earth. The only reason Peter and his successors have authority on earth is because they received it from the ultimate authority in Heaven! Jesus is the authority, and the Pope is His representative (Vicar). So the answer is yes! Jesus is the Rock and Peter is the rock! God bless you for having the love of Christ, brother! A lot of Catholics can learn so much from you!
This is not to mention that if we are to assume the office of regent carries over from the Davidic kingdom to the Kingdom of God that Peter who was given the keys (a sign of rhe office in the Davidic kingdom) was the holder of a specific office and that that office would continue after his death is reasonable
@@JBlackjackp Absolutely. This is also supported in Acts 1 when the Apostles chose Matthias to replace Judas. Judas’s place as an Apostle is specifically called in “office.” So if Judas Iscariot, the least of the Apostles (always being last when the names of the Apostles are listed in the New Testament), had an office that HAD to be filled, then of course Peter, the primary Apostle (always being listed first when the names of the Apostles are listed) most definitely had an office as well that would have had to be filled with a replacement after Peter died.
@@JBlackjackp I know he didn't even mention Jesus quoting Isaiah which is a main Catholic argument for the continuation of Peters primacy. "In Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Isa. 22:21)." I took that from part from Catholic answers in the article Peter the Rock lol. Annoying how didnt bring that up i would have liked to here his take on it
The Septuagint, which the Fathers of the Church used and ratified as the Old Testament Canon of Scripture does not contain the same reference to keys in Isaiah 22:22. Even barring such, we cannot purport to assume that this is the exact idea Jesus was alluding to in Matthew 16, much less ascribing such a station to St. Peter. Hence the entire point of this video: we cannot assume or jump to conclusions without context and the interpretation of the Church Fathers considered: whether one is Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. Two of these groups have trouble with Historic Circumstances and the Teachings of the Fathers; One does not. Certainly, if you approach the sources with an honest and open heart, you can figure out that Orthodoxy is One, Protestantism and Catholicism are two.
Thank you for this eloquent and respectful video. I'm an Episcopalian and as part of the Anglican Communion we hold to Apostolic Succession but reject the Papacy. You did an excellent job of explaining how supremacy of the Bishop of Rome wasn't really a thing in the early church.
@@foodmaniac9339 Since your reply was so dignified, respectful, and in the spirit of Christian brotherhood I'll respond. No one believes the Church holds apostolic succession through the crown. It is however the Bishops that do. During the split with Rome there were bishops who remained loyal to the Pope and others who helped create the Anglican Church. It's similar to how the Eastern Church retains its apostolic succession by the laying on of hands going back to the apostles but is not beholden to the Bishop of Rome.
@@enischial965 is that what jesus wanted? A king goes against the church, cause his balls were itching and wanted to marry against the church law and since doesn't get his will done, makes his own church and executes Catholics. How in the world are you apostolic if you have female ordained ministers and bishops. You like the king more than god. That's what Anglican is. Rejecting the papacy is rejecting the church. Where is that apostolic succession if there is no bishop and no pope. You guys have the worst history on your side regarding succession and you have the face to talk about supremacy of the pope. Let's talk about the supremacy of the king first.
@@foodmaniac9339 Supremacy of the monarchy is a common myth about Anglicanism. What it really is is a combination of the religious authority with the secular authority. A concept known as caesaropapism. The church of England was not the first one to do it. A great example is the early Byzantine Church where the Emperor served as supreme governor and protector of the Church. So while he is the supreme governor, the king is not the head of the Church. His Majesty King William III holds no authority in the Episcopal Church. We are still part of the Anglican communion, however we consecrate our own Bishops and have our own Presiding Bishop. The history of our split with the Church of England after the American Revolution is quite fascinating. In terms of Papal authority and Petrine Primacy, I understand people's reasons for backing it. Through the intense and prayerful study of scripture, tradition, reason, and church history I have yet to find enough evidence to allay my disagreements to it. You sound like you already have your mind made up on the matter, so I will not press nor debate you further. Also, truth be told, I don't monitor my TH-cam alerts all that often. Please understand I do hold the Roman Catholic Church in extreme high regard. Even as a Protestant I recognize Catholics as my brethren. May Christ's peace be upon you. Have a prayerful Lent and a happy Easter.
Liked the video a lot and I appreciate your irenic approach. Would love to see the references when you quote the fathers so that we could look them up. As someone who has had many seminary friends go Catholic it’s nice to see more thoughtful treatments of Catholic theology from a Protestant perspective. Thanks!
Thanks for appreciating the Catholic churches teaching on contraception. To me that is the evidence that the Catholic Church is truly built upon a solid rock. If it was man made then the teaching on contraception would certainly be the first thing to go...
Yes, Pope Paul IV's Humanae Vitae which reaffirmed the church traditional teaching on sexual morality was largely ignored and rejected by other churches and look where we are now.
@@jamesrey3221 yeah and to be honest the impact of that rejection is felt in the Catholic faith. Under the hood we have many American Catholics who secretly adopt practices that align with the secular viewpoint.
@@MrPeach1 yes, it is the heresy of Modernism (Relativism and secularism. The idea that the truths of the ancient faith are viewed as outmoded and are now subject to adapt to secular "culture") that impacts deep in society including the church, the abuse scandals, etc. was in part caused by the rejection of Humanae Vitae. Pope Paul's encyclical was opposed even by Catholics, but God in His wisdom see's the importance of family in our civilization that He has to do battle to save it for us. “We must remember that life begins at home and we must also remember that the future of humanity passes through the family.” From a letter of Sr. Lucia to Cardinal Caffarra “In that letter we find written: ‘The final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan will be about Marriage and the Family.’ Don't be afraid, she added, because whoever works for the sanctity of Marriage and the Family will always be fought against and opposed in every way, because this is the decisive issue. Then she concluded: ‘nevertheless, Our Lady has already crushed his head’.” We see this 'battle' being wage in social media, politics and even in the supreme court. In the end God can never lose.
I have read all the Pelikan series on Church history, and I found your summary very helpful and well done. You are a light! I have been a Protestant most of my life, and a theolog. I taught adult Sunday School for decades. But I am increasingly drawn to the Catholic Church. This is one of several issues I’ve been studying. I think most of the non-typological arguments in favor of a Pope rest largely upon its efficacy as a “referee.” Bishop Robert Barron, the famous Catholic evangelist, also argues that the Rock” is Christ, not Peter. Thank you for this. I am so glad you are in the conversation!
I hope you keep yourself far away from the Roman Catholic Church! I was raised RC and confirmed in that church. But God strove with me for 8 years (from age 18 to 26) to leave the RCC, and now I attend a wonderful ACNA Anglican parish. The RCC is a cult that enslaves its laity via fear. "Outside of the RCC there is no salvation," they taught for centuries. Still today, most members believe that the RC Sacraments are what will save them! The primary reason for any church's existence is to propagate Jesus' Gospel and to guide people toward salvation through faith in Christ. Anglicans teach what Jesus and Paul taught. Look at what Jesus said: John 3:14-18 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that *whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.* For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. *He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed* in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Look also at John 6:28-29,35,39-40. "Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, *This is the work of God, that ye believe* on him whom he hath sent...And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst....And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that *every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.*" Likewise, Paul wrote to the Ephesians (2:8-9), "For by grace are ye *saved through faith;* and that not of yourselves: *it is the gift of God: Not of works,* lest any man should boast." In contrast, I was taught by the Catholic Church (in catechism and in Mass) that man *might be* saved by being baptized into the Catholic Church, by believing in Jesus, by receiving the Eucharist regularly, by being absolved and performing penances, by keeping the Commandments, etc, but that even if I did all of those things well enough I still might go to hell if I slipped up badly enough and died with a mortal sin on my conscience. Instead of viewing God's grace as a *gift freely given* to anyone when they trust that Christ's atonement paid their personal sin debt in full, the Catholic Church taught me to trust in their Sacraments (which they portray as being unavailable anywhere else, thus binding me to the church of Rome) more than I trusted in Jesus' death and resurrection. This is reflected in their historical teaching that "there is no salvation outside the (Roman) Catholic Church." But neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever taught such a doctrine. Thus, the Roman Catholic faith is not truly Apostolic; it is literally *faith in the Catholic Church* instead of *faith in Jesus my only Savior."* After all, Jesus (not the RCC) died for me on the cross! I also see the idolatry of their Eucharist because of their doctrine of Transubstantiation; they actually worship the wafer as God, much like the Israelites created and worshiped a gold calf as God. As for the papacy, Gavin missed the best argument against it. Consider what Jesus said (in Matt. 16:18, in the original Greek version): "Thou art petros" (a rock) is a masculine noun. "Upon this petra I will build my church" -- petra is a feminine noun. Jesus did not call Simon Peter a woman, obviously. Nor would Jesus refer to Himself in the feminine. Therefore, the petra upon which Jesus builds His church is the foundational, revelatory truth Simon was the first person to speak: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Simon Peter was the first person to give voice to the critical belief that Jesus is the Messiah, the Savior, and that He is divine. This is the revelatory truth upon which Christ builds His true church.
@lukewilliams448 Yes. And guess what... they aren't infallible. They said a great many correct things, and they said some things that weren't. Fortunately, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, or else we'd swallow everything they said (and we'd be very confused by all the contradictions they present against one another; for example, some of them believed that Matt. 16:18-19 applied only to Peter and not to any successors, and others believed the _petra_ rock was not Peter but was his confession of faith and/or Jesus Himself).
I don’t agree with your arguments, except to say all Christians agree that Jesus is the head of the church. I do like how you present your arguments in a calm and reasoned manner instead of just hurling attacks. For this reason I respect you though I don’t agree with you.
@@ContendingEarnestly I am asking the original commentor, csterett, pretty much what you are asking, but more detailed. I agree with Gavin. I just can't even imagine the eternal Christ putting someone at the "cathedral" because what's the point of being an eternal King and High Priest if someone will take that chair temporarily?!?!?
I love your approach and attitude. In fact the only reason to become Catholic would be to accept what Cardinal Newman called "Development Of Doctrine".
The Jerusalem Council in Acts is fundamental on this point for me. It is a Biblical-Exigetical, Historical, and logically vital argument against the supposed primative nature of Romanism all contained in a single narrative. To substantiate its own claims, the Roman Church has to show that its definitive distinctives were present from the very inception of the Church's existence. In Acts, we have an event which is post-Resurrection and post-Pentecost (no one can say that the Church didn't fully exist at this point) yet is witnessed to within the pages of the New Testament scriptures themselves which testify that it was carried out under proper divine guidance and approbation. So, it serves as an absolute test case against which to place the Roman distinctives. Petrine/Papal supremacy, Roman supremacy, monarchical magisterium, monarchical bishoprics, etc. as well as Eastern Ceasaropapism are not only absent, but are contradicted by the scripturally-verified example of the apostles themselves. The distinctive aspects that make the Roman Church what it is simply and clearly did not exist in the beginning, nor is their future emergence provided for or justfied by scripture or even human doctrine from the earliest stage.
The Council of Jerusalem is the proto-example of the Pope, making a binding decision for the universal Church, St. Peter declaring that Gentiles did not have to become Jews before becoming Christian, and another Bishop, St. James making a recommendation to appease the Judaizers in Antioch specifically.
@St. Hubertus Outdoors , You have got to be kidding me. Peter doesn't so much even rise to the level of primus inter pares in the Jerusalem Council. He gives his testimony, but the one presiding over the meeting (if anyone at all) is James because he's the leader in Jerusalem, they were meeting in Jerusalem, and the question at hand had come about due to Judaizers going out from Jerusalem. No one sat "ex cathedra" as the vicar of Christ. They agreed together, and James formulated their joint declaration. There was no Pope or "proto-Pope" in Acts. And this was not just *any* council, but the council formed of the apostles of Christ, preserved in the inspired Word, and testified by that very Word to have been carried out according to the will and leading of God. This council *must* logically be seen as normative and definitive, and there was no Pope! Besides this, even if some kind of "proto-Pope" were being evidenced (and it would suggest James in that role rather than Peter anyway) which it's not, that's not good enough to support the Catholic position which is that the Papacy existed from the time of Christ's earthly ministry. The doctrines of Catholicism are supposed to be "what all Christians, have believed at all times and at all places." I suppose the apostles and elders at Jerusalem were not the true Church then, because the central Catholic doctrine of Papal supremacy, which is supposedly primitive to a time well before that event, *does not exist in Acts* . "Proto" isn't good enough to support Catholic claims on this issue. All you are doing by making that argument is conceding the point that the monarchic, supreme, magisterial Papacy did not exist during the first century of the Church. Thus, it is a doctrine of man not of God, and this central stumbling block in the relations between Roman Catholics and all other Christian groups around the world should be cast aside, leading to truer doctrine and increased unity.
@@jameswoodard4304 Acts 15 does not deny the Primacy of St. Peter. Once St. Peter stood to speak, everyone was silent, and he made the pronouncement for the Universal Church. The Primacy comes from having the Keys to the Kingdom of God. Mt. 16:19 is clear that the Lord Jesus appointed St. Peter to be His “Master of the Palace.” Mt. 16:19 is a clear reference to Is. 22:22.
@St. Hubertus Outdoors , Order of events: -Everyone discussed generally -Pharisees delivered their opinion for one side of the debate -Peter gave a speech for the other -Then, "Everyone fell silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul..." as they gave testimony of God working among the Gentiles -Then James of Jerusalem gave a summary opinion which they all agreed to. Is that how the Roman Papacy works? If the Catholic Church had a point of debate to settle, is that what it would look like? All the bishops including the one of Rome gather together, the Roman bishop is simply among those who speak in turn, then a different bishop provides the communal decision? You are deceiving yourself if you answer yes. If you thought so yourself, you would not have relied on the concept of "proto-Pope." You are well aware that the Roman Papacy as it is distinct to Roman Catholic dogma did not exist. And remember this. No one denies Peter had a leadership role *among* the apostles. To win your point, you can't just show that he was important or had *some* leadership role, but that the current doctrine of the Papacy was present. You *cannot* do that, because it wasn't. As to the scriptures you cite, at best, they show a leadership role of some kind for the person of Peter among the apostles, which everyone already knows. You would still have to prove the application from Peter himself to the ongoing office of the Roman bishop, *and* that the office was identical to current Catholic dogma relating to the Papacy. And that's best-case for you. Worst case, the verses about rock and keys don't obtain to Peter personally or his office as supposed bishop of Rome, but to the confessing church generally. The fact remains that Catholicism requires Peter to have acted as a fully Roman Catholic pontif during the first century. We have a record of church organization, structure, and decision-making from the first century. It is not Roman Catholic. You can't get around that by quoting ambiguous passages that, at best, confirm what everyone already concedes.
Great video...and I say this as a former Protestant who, jbtw, had your dad as my pastor for a couple of years. Curious, in pointing out areas where you admire Catholicism you mentioned moral theology and specifically mentioned contraception. I would love to hear your position on it
As a Catholic I respect your views. The first thing is that Jesus founded the Church before the scriptures were written down. The second thing is that the church is the Mystical Body of Christ (the people of God) and has produced some wonderful Saints and Scholars over the history of the Church as well as many sinners.. Everything that you are saying has been discussed and debated within the Catholic Church great scholars for over 2000 years. I also think there is a big difference between Evangelical view of the Papacy in the USA than our view in Europe.. The miracle is that the Papacy has survived with all its failings, faults, attacks and corruptions. I believe the Holy people of the church and of faith as well as the holy priests, monks, nuns, hermits, and Saints were the real reformers of the papacy and the Church despite the corruption, scandals and bad leadership. I was recently in Belgium and went to visit the "Lamb of God" painting in Ghent which had a wonderful history. This was painted in the 14th Century before the reformation and tells a lot about the Church in the 14th century, there is also a copy of the gospels in Latin from a local monastery in the 8th Century on display in the Cathedral.. Have a look at it and look at the medieval monasteries to have a look their role they played in the Papacy and the church. I would say the monasteries were closer to the Catholic Church and people than the Papacy. The monks protected and transcribed the Gospels in Latin. Not all Catholics are fans of the Current Pope Francis and previous Pope's. As all are human and are sinners and we have some very good Popes in the office as leader of the Church over the 2000 years. May God bless all seeking the Truth in the Person of Jesus Christ. 🙏
Another great video, thank you. I'd love to see you follow some of these conclusions, and answer the broader question of why you are not orthodox? You pointed out the conciliar nature of the church as an objection to the Papacy, which I agree with. It does logically follow to address orthodoxy and I'd be really interested in this! Enjoying your theological retrieval book.
15:37 Jesus never wrote a book. He did, however, commission apostles to spread the gospel. They wrote the books. Books that came well after the resurrection of Jesus. Those apostolic successors still exist. They are bishops of the catholic and orthodox churches. And if nobody is a pope then everyone is their own pope. Witness to the practice among Protestants of church shopping.
Great video! I just found your channel through a recommendation by a friend and I immediately subscribed. I haven't had nearly enough truth exposure over the Catholic doctrine much at all, and this was some much needed information. Thank you. If I wanted I further my study into these kinds of topics myself however, are there any good books you would recommend on the church Father's writings? I already am in-line to purchase the Lord's supper book you recommended from another video, but one with more information over the issues regarding the papacy would also be desirable. Please let me know.
Great books, A woman rides the beast by Dave Hunt. Or research Bereanbeacon - richard Bennet, he teaches you all the catholci doctrine and shows you why its not biblical.
I am a Catholic and it's becoming more difficult to accept the current papacy teaching of the Catholic Church. If you consider the current divide between traditional minded Catholics, modern Catholics, SSPX, and sedevacantists it becomes obvious that most Catholics have the same concern whether they will admit it or not. Each of these divides are just an attempt to explain away the changes in the modern Catholic Church and still hold onto the ideal of the Pope. I'm a Catholic convert from Protestantism and see the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches as the true Church--they were one Church for more than a 1000 years. I am finding myself drawn to the Eastern Orthodox Church simply because of the reverence of their Liturgy. Much is said about theology and history, but truth should be found in how a church worships. Unfortunately most Catholic Masses today are very irreverent.
@Zachary Trent The papacy changed significantly during the Gregorian reforms starting in the 11th century. These changes along with the unilateral addition of the Filioque led to the schism that’s lasted more than 8 centuries. As to the reverence of Mass, any Mass that offers the Eucharist in the hand is irreverent and particularly so when it’s offered by an Extraordinary Eucharist Minister. Comparing the failures of Orthodox patriarchs with that of popes is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Patriarchs can’t make changes to dogma but the pope can. Most recently Pope Francis has changed the catechism to state the death penalty is no longer permitted. Orthodox Christians don’t have to accept the ramblings of heretical patriarchs, but Catholics do have to accept the Pope’s teachings.
I suggest looking into other rites of the Catholic Church. I heard Melkite Divine Liturgy is amazing. These are essentially eastern liturgies but they’re in communion with the Catholic Church. definitely check those out.
Hoping this helps:
0:43 Goal of this video
2:45 Five admirable things about the RCC.
5:12 Biblical Argument: Is the Rock in Matthew 16:18, Peter, Christ, Peter's proclamation, or a hybrid of these? (Slides at 7:25)
16:13 Historical Argument: Where is a preeminent bishop/pope's presence before the 5th century?
27:38 Final Statements
This is probably my favorite video you have made. I don’t see a lot of good content critiquing the RCC while still treating them as brothers in Christ. This was much needed!
What if RCC preaches heresy? How can people who believe a false gospel be brothers in Christ? Are Mormons? JW?
@@IvanAlvarezCPACMA I think even though RC teaching is not as clear on the gospel and gets some very important things wrong, but they believe that Jesus, fully man and fully God, died and rose again for our sins, and whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. They follow and trust in the same trinitarian God, which Mormons and JWs do not.
@@Qhaon Mormons make similar claims with significant nuances, just like RCC. How do we distinguish?
@@IvanAlvarezCPACMA well, obviously, we do not just take the claims for granted. We have to use our own mental faculties to determine which claims are true. Based on what we know the gospel to be from Scripture and using our reason to determine who lines up with that, we can have a rough idea of who real Christians are. I think there is an obvious, wide gap between the orthodoxy of Mormons and Roman Catholics.
But what if whatever Protestant church or denomination you go to does?
You do such a good job of being respectful while bringing up really good points. It's what youtube needs. No more of " stupid protestant argument gets destroyed by based Catholics' and vice versa. If western society is going to exist in the future it will be thanks to content like this. Thank you
Thanks Ben, appreciate the kind words.
As a Roman Catholic I can honestly say you've done a great job on this topic. However, I'm wondering if you've ever considered The Eastern Orthodox Churches claims of being the original church?
@@TruthUnites Where can I read the original version of the Ambrose of Milan quote, “Ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia”?
Gavin is a congregationalist, isn't he? But he admits Peter had a leadership role in this video. By cherry-picking church-father quotes (I could easily find other quotes of Ambrose in support of at least a high view of the pope - not necessarily infallibility) he makes his case, and also by zooming in on certain texts, picking them apart (they could easily be read in other ways of course). Coming back to my first point - Gavin acts like each congregation can be autonomous - but does he believe that it was how Jesus set it up? What's the point of Peter's "leadership role", a role Gavin readily accepts. The point I am making is that when zooming out of the text, one can see the broader picture. Jesus did have 70 disciples, of which 12 held closer, of which 3 he held even closer, of which 1 he chose as a leader.
Modern, democratic sensibilities may dislike the hierarchical nature, but the leap from such a divinely elected organization (which mirrors even the Trinity) to a modern congregationalist view is an anachronism. Therefore the critique is hollow. At best, he can perhaps critique the infallibility of the papacy.
I had this same thought. He doesn’t understand what was taking place in Matthew 16. Iirc he says the pope is the one to interpret and pass down new teachings. Okay, and the magisterium just decorated the church🤦♂️
St. Basil of Seleucia had the best explanation of "Thou art Peter" that I've ever heard. (9:35 ff)
Indeed, this is the crux and source of all contention between Catholics and their "separated brethren" of all stripes. They broke from the Orthodox because of this pride, and the Protestants broke from them because of abuse. It all comes from the Papacy's claim to authority and infallibility. Peter was never given the office to be the "Vicar of Christ" and Lord over all believers in Christ's absence. From the beginning of the Church, all questions were debated by all of the Apostles available at the time, and decided in consensus.
It is the confession of faith which is the foundation because it's the recognition of Jesus' divine identity. Jesus is the Rock, and Peter was commended for getting it right. But Jesus never said he should take His place when He left.
You are a brave man....This and related issues almost split apart my entire family. Thanks for wading in, and I hope folks are nice in their replies.
I pray for unity in your family despite doctrinal differences. I'm having this same problem brother
As usual, well done.
A thoughtful and compassionate critique for each of us is both helpful and necessary.
-An Orthodox brother in Christ.
Wow, this was handled with such wisdom and grace! As someone with a Protestant background who has been “sent out two by two” with a catholic brother to reach our mutual friends, it’s so nice to see others engage theological topics without hubris or division! Truly an embodiment of “in essentials unity, in nonessentials freedom, and in all things love”
Your sharing was clear and convincing, and spoken in love. Thanks!!!
I am gradually coming to a realization that you have filled, and are filling, a huge vacuum in this space and in the general defense of the Protestant faith. I admire your humility, your knowledge of Scripture and church history, and your ability to lay out your arguments in a logical and engaging way. I need to respond by remembering to like your uploads and by looking into your Patreon. I don't do the former very much here and I haven't done the latter at all.
May I provide encouragement in word, in the meantime. Your videos are preparing me for joining a congregation again on Sundays. I am certain they are speaking to a great many Christians who have lost their love and respect for the institution of the church. I believe, while it may be a gradual start, your voice will be prominent in the future. That said, I fear the traps the enemy will use to ensnare you. I don't mean Roman Catholic apologists. I mean the source of temptation. So many of our shepherds have gone astray. You must know the story of a well-known apologist, his massage businesses, his conduct that would be considered lewd by any standard, and his deception regarding his credentials. He had a significant following, although I never thought he explained anything well. We are all sinners, but the nature of his sins and indiscretions probably led many to disillusionment. We can all be tempted, by fame, by the desire for intimacy, by comfort in an uncertain world, by the enjoyment of things the world enjoys. I pray you will be guarded and that you will be strong in guarding yourself. Thank you for your work.
Birds lay eggs; some birds cannot fly (eg. Ostrich); a platypus lays eggs; a platypus cannot fly: therefore, the platypus is a type of bird.
Except it's not.
Logic and soundness are not necessarily equivocal.
There is no sound Christian theological or historical conclusion arriving at a refutation of the Papacy.
At least, if one is utilizing sound premises, then he arrives at the Orthodox pov, ie. "the pride of place" idea. Baptist theology? Well, there's a reason it doesn't formalize until just recent time. If there is no Apostolic heirarchy, then, duh, one isn't going to 'accept the Papacy.'
But that's the rub, not that the thinking proves too little but too much: good luck going back to the first century, second century, etc. and running around as a "Christian pastor" whilst asserting that there are no bishops, no ordained presbyters, no canonical mission, no legation.
A "Church" without bishops, without ordination, and where platypus are birds.
The church comprises those who believe in and follow Jesus Christ wherever that following may take them and no matter what obeying His teachings cost them.
@@LibertysetsquareJack Anglicanism for the win!
@@yeetoburrito9972-yep, as long as it’s traditional classical Anglicanism (not the “progressive” episco-pagan kind). 👍🏻
@@yeetoburrito9972I'm with you, but it feels more and more democratic rather than apostolic. All the Anglican stuff I love is actually Catholic and I'm having a harder time not being Catholic. Of course, a Catholic who struggles with the papacy but who sees apostolic succession as valid. Idk haha😊
Great protestant apologist. Ive seen so many catholics/orthodox being negative with you on the comments. I think not all of them are like that in general. But i can see you know you are getting yourself in hot water with these great arguments. You defend our faith peacefully and intelligently. Thanks!
Contrary to Roman Catholic claims, Jesus did not call Peter the Rock on which Christianity would be founded.
Roman Catholics make much of Matthew 16:18-19, using it to justify their claims of Papal Authority and Papal Succession. However, they take Jesus’ words out of context and ignore the underlying meaning of the Greek text.
*Matthew 16:13-19*
_Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter_ [πέτρος (petros)], _and on this rock_ [πέτρα (petra)] _I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 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."_
Apologists for the Roman Catholic dogma often claim the discussion was in Aramaic and the same word was used in that language for both 'Peter' and 'rock' in Matthew 16:18, since Aramaic uses the same word in both cases. But, if that is so, why did Matthew confuse the matter by using different Greek words? And does the claim about the Aramaic words hold up?
Let's just suppose the discussion was in Aramaic. Given that Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26 and Daniel 2:4b-7:28 are written in Aramaic, those passages give us some clues as to how Jesus might have made such a differentiation had he been inclined to do so - as Matthew 16:18 implies. Plus, we already know of the Aramaic כֵּיפָא (kepha), for Cephas.
Let's also suppose for the sake of discussion that the Aramaic lacked differentiating nouns. Are there any adjectives for small and large Jesus might have used to convey the distinction we find in the Greek text of Matthew 16:18? Indeed there are:
• For small, we have the adjective זְעֵיר (zeer), as in Daniel 7:8; and
• For large, we have the adjectives שַׂגִּיא (saggi), as in Daniel 2:6, and רַב (rab), as in Daniel 2:35.
Any of the above could be applied to כֵּיפָא (kepha) to make an Aramaic small/large distinction for each of which a single Greek noun is all that would be needed.
And are there any Aramaic nouns Jesus might have used that correspond with the distinction we find in the Greek text of Matthew 16:18? Indeed there are:
• For πέτρος (petros), we have כֵּיפָא (kepha), meaning a small rock.
• For πέτρα (petra), we have טוּר (tur), meaning a large rock, a cliff or a mountain, as in Daniel 2:35.
There is also the Aramaic and Hebrew noun אֶבֶן (eben), translated 'rock' in Genesis 49:24 (Hebrew) and 'stone' in Daniel 2:34 (Aramaic), for which we have אֶ֣בֶן גְּלָ֔ל (eben gelal) for large (heavy) stones in Ezra 5:8; 6:4.
So, the availability of suitable Aramaic nouns and adjectives that Jesus could have used to create the distinctions reflected by πέτρος (petros) and πέτρα (petra) in Matthew 16:18-19 debunks the Petrine Apostolic Succession claim, which leaves its apologists unable to account for Matthew different Greek nouns if he thought Jesus was referring to Simon Bar-Jona in both cases.
Note, too, that Jesus didn't give Peter the binding and loosing authority at that time. That didn't happen until Matthew 18:18, when Jesus gave it to _all_ the apostles.
Thanks!
Commenting to support the channel. Deserves to been seen/heard.
Im Anglican and this is the only Baptist i listen to. Love this guy. Firm but fair
I'm catholic. Thank you for being kind. ❤🙏
Amen. We see arrogance everywhere last days.
God bless those who really want to find the truth.
As a protestant, I do deny the papacy from a linguistic aspect of the language in scripture, but I do not deny Roman catholicism because of the papacy. Like perpetual virginity, or her assumption, the papacy to me is very benign. I do believe an apostolic succession as it pertains to the continued passed on teachings of the church. But For instance, if Rome didn’t have mandated curses upon accretion practices then the church would be far more appealing to me because if it would be pure Gospel, without anything extra. It would then be the original patristic tradition.
@@HillbillyBlack I think the questions are: what is the Gospel? Is it just the Bible? Can we count apostolic tradition as well? If we can't count on apostolic tradition, how can we trust the Bible in the first place, if it was written by the apostles AND others, based on oral tradition years after Jesus? If the rule of faith is the Bible alone, wouldn't Jesus have written something himself to safeguard his teaching? How did early Christians find sound doctrine with the books dispersed and mixed opinions on the list of the inspired books for centuries? In the end, if the Church couldn't safeguard sound doctrine, we can't trust the Bible and Protestantism as we know today wouldn't be feasible until the invention of the press. What we think is accretion we can't know for sure, unless there's clear opposition from the early Church fathers.
@@marcosdisiervi6481 we trust the New Testament only because it is a commentary fulfillment of the old. Jesus quotes the old testament 90 times. The apostles over 150 times. The New Testament doesn’t give you anything new. The entirety of the gospel is contained in the prophets and the law. It’s impossible to know the point of Christ if you don’t understand what he’s fulfilling. That text pre-dates the Catholic Church by 1000 years and in that tradition, the discerning reading and common practice of fellowship over the Scriptures was encouraged by the levitical counsel, unlike the Catholic Church which hindered the word of God’s access for almost 1200 years
@@marcosdisiervi6481 we can trust Protestantism because the point of the reformation was not to create a new religion but to return to the patristic deposit of the church itself.
And all we did was remove the medieval accretions added by the Roman empire. No one venerated saints in the early 2 to 300 years of church history. No one considered Peter the pope, no one spoke against faith alone as the single mechanism of salvation and no one elevated tradition above the sufficiency of scripture for salvation.
Traditions added by the Roman empire are cursed according to the teachings of Paul in second Thessalonians and Galatians because the tradition mentioned in scripture is the tradition of the gospel, not an open ended ability to add to what has already been solidified. If you pay attention to those verses, they are past tense text not open ended text allowing for further tradition.
We must always measure anything the church conjures up or teaches against scripture. We do not measure the teachings of the church against tradition. Everything is measured against scripture because it is the only source of infallible writing we have. Not even tradition is infallible and there is not any extra documents in existence outside of scripture of the words of the apostles or Jesus. Oral tradition doesn’t come close to infallibility. In fact, oral tradition never existed in the original deposit of the church. Traditions certainly did but they were gospel traditions like the Eucharist, baptism, spiritual renewal of the mind through spiritual transformation in salvation. These are the traditions spoken of in scripture. Not something hidden or inferred or secretly revealed.
In the end, the church did SafeGaurd the word of God. It just wasn’t the Roman catholic empire. Praise God there were three separate legitimate reformation throughout the Roman catholic system splitting from a corrupt grossly inaccurate system built by men of an unregenerate nature controlled by Satan.
In fact if you look at church history, all of the legitimate church fathers living according to scripture stop after 500 ad. After that it’s pure medieval Roman empire. A state religion guilty of killing those that would dare speak against doctrine declaration of the state. Hardly a Christlike attitude.
The gospel is the good news. That’s what the word means. And the good news is Jesus. And the only source of writings about Jesus is in the Tanakh and the fulfilling text of the New Testament.
Now if you really want to rely on oral tradition where there’s a passing of apostolic succession through the memorization of oral teaching, I highly suggest you join Islam. The Quran has been in memorization circulation for most of its existence and is more trusted in oral form than it’s written accounts.
Hey Gavin, you do a great job addressing the problems with Catholicism in a very polite and respectful way. Appreciate your work sir
Thank you for being a peacemaker.
Just ordered my copy of “Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals.” Hopefully I can knock it out on my flights to and from Nairobi this month. You’re content has helped me so much, keep up the great work!
Great and charitable presentation. As a convert to Orthodoxy I have no qualms with any of this :)
This is all in line with orthodox objections to the primacy of Rome as well. Would you make a video summarizing your objections to the theological or ecclesiological claims of the East?
I’ll work on it! Could be a while.
Yes please! :)
Yep and by those objections you prove that you are in fact apostates.
cyprian of carthage wrote this in 251 a.d.
"[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, 👉🏻yet he founded a single Chair,👈🏻 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; 👉🏻 *but a primacy is given to Peter👈🏻, whereby it is made clear that there is but ONE CHURCH AND ONE CHAIR* So too, all 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 desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church* 👈🏻(Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)
@@timothy9360😂 and because Peter could decide everything alone, he never did decide a single thing alone in the whole new testament. Yeah, makes sense. Surely those verses mean that the catholic church is the one true church in all eternity. Despite the fact that Jesus said the end of the world would come within the lifetime of the apostles.
Jesus preached the kingdom of God and what we got instead was the catholic church.
@@timothy9360 Cyprian of Carthage in dispute with Pope Stephen :"None of us should make ourselves the bishop of bishops or by tyrannical threats force our colleagues to the necessity of submission, because each bishop, by virtue of freedom and power, has the right of his own choice, and as he cannot be judged by another, so he cannot judge another; but let us all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power to put us in charge of His Church and judge our actions" (Sententiae episcoporum // PL. 3. Col. 1054).
"Even Peter, whom the Lord chose first and on whom he founded His Church, when Paul discussed the issue of circumcision with him, did not arrogantly arrogate anything to himself, and did not arrogantly claim anything, and did not say that he had primacy..." (Ep. 71. 3)
According to the modern Catholic researcher P. Mattei, Cyprian has: "The Roman Church (and its head)… as the owner of Petrov's heritage, she is a guarantor of communication, although this does not imply any kind of her jurisdictional or doctrinal primacy" (Mattei. 2012. p. 52).
I have recently discovered your channel and want to thank you for the way you approach difficult subject matter. As a Protestant, my focus has been on knowing what the Bible says and have long had an interest in apologetics. I have now developed an interest in polemics and philosophical arguments, and realised that I have utterly neglected church history. Your channel is now my first stop as I set about correcting this oversight. You have a new subscriber. Thank you again.
I think you gave the main reasons I have for why I can't accept the papacy. I've even begun debating things with Catholics and I feel like they always end up relying on an interpretation of verses that's dependent on a Catholic context. I've drastically changed my thoughts on Catholicism and appreciate it immensely especially individuals like Pascal, Aquinas, Augustine, and the Scholastics and some of my favorite thinkers today like Peter Kreeft, Tom Woods, Gerard Casey, and Brad Birzer happen to be devout Catholics but at the end of the day I'm fairly comfortable with my solo scriptura non-denominational affiliation and seem to not see enough reason to make me leave that
Fan of Tom Woods, huh? Are you an ancap?
@@justingorman1068 eh depends on the day. More just a proponent of decentralization and "spontaneous order" more then anything else
@@bradleymarshall5489
Lol, I hear ya. I was an ancap before I became a Christian. There is so much overlap between the two, yet such a gulf at the time.
Without sounding too pretentious, Christian theologians might benefit from a better understanding regarding the anatomy of the current state; and Christian ancaps might benefit from a better understanding regarding God's word.
A discussion between Doug Wilson and Bob Murphy would be awesome.
@@justingorman1068oh ya no I agree which is why I'm writing a book trying to show the connection. One thinker in particular who I think has shown better than anyone that decentralization is Christian is Don Livingston (a man Tom Woods said was one of his top 10 influences) His lectures and writings on ideology and politics are mindblowing
@@bradleymarshall5489
RE Livingston and Christianity: Could you recommend resources? A quick internet search did not yield much.
Writing a book? Nice. If you want feedback from a random guy on TH-cam, I'd totally be that guy.
Gavin my brother in Christ your videos have helped me so much , as a new Christian who took my salvation VERY seriously i was extremely burdened and worried about being in the "true" church ect. Ive learned so much from you , you have been a blessing in my life! and i feel secure in my faith , secure in Christ i now rest , THANKYOU!!
Have you decided on what denomination you'd join?
The way I view this whole protestant-catholic-orthodox debate is that you're not looking at salvation. As long as you believe in Jesus Christ, you are saved. But the issue is looking at the "fullness of the truth". So I am a Protestant now, but I'll probably be a Lutheran or something, and I'm looking at Catholicism. The only issue for me is icon veneration, the papacy, the repeated prayers, etc.
@@kazumakiryu157Your soteriology doesn’t necessarily match up to the Catholic or Orthodox view though. So it’s not just a matter of “picking your favorite” team so to speak.
@@countryboyred yeah, of course not. That's why I'm considering not being protestant, for those concerns. But I would say to just assert that all protestants are unsaved is also a bit weird. Even the Catholic church and the CCC affirms that protestants are saved, though not "officially".
@@kazumakiryu157 The Orthodox definitely do not believe that all Protestants are unsaved. It’s not our place to speculate on someone’s salvation. Of course being inside the Church would make it much easier to be saved. The RCC has Unum Sanctum which was pretty clear that only those in communion with Rome could be saved but then they changed their mind with Vatican 2 which had a much more loving view of Protestants calling them “separated brothers”. Wherever you end up, I wish you the best on your journey and may God guide your path.
Listening to you, I feel like I'm taking a theology course. As a Protestant who came out of Orthodoxy, I think you hit it right on the head .I believe the rock Jesus was referring to was the rock of faith Peter demonstrated. Never heard it explained that way.
I’m a Missouri Synod Lutheran. I’m interested in people’s views who became Protestant who were Orthodox. What church were you apart of and what made you leave?
I’m working my way slowly back to my Protestant roots from 25 years in Eastern Orthodoxy. This channel has the right series of messages at the right time. Literally a godsend! Thanks Pastor!
Hey costa, why did you come out of Orthodoxy?
@David Good Because I got saved 🤣. Prayed about it, went to the Orthodox Church with my mom, and what we heard confirmed that nope, this is definitely not where God wants me to be.
@@costa328 what did you hear? I've also seen people pray about things and they believe they were confident in what God said for it only to be confident in what they said to themsleves. This is after they had proved themsleves wrong after some time.
I'm protestant myself, but just curious
One of your best videos. The Roman Catholic historic narrative is indeed something that one has to buy into. Like putting on a small shoe.
Indeed, taking on the whole “innovative “ package before you can “technically” approach salvation - is like swallowing an alligator ~ ~ ~
True
Solid work as always sir. You'll never know how many ppl you are helping along their journey, but I am one.
Catholic here, your content is very well thought out and charitable. I don't agree with everything but I appreciate your content and it gives me something to think about.
Subbed.
Dot fall for this false teacher. There’s only one truth not 35K+ versions of it like Protestants like to believe.
10000% not catholic myself. But I respect catholics. ANd I'm Glad that Dr. Gavins videos have blessed u
Fwiw I’m with you on your interpretation. I see our Catholic brothers and sisters as such in Christ, but the Papacy is based on false premises. And further, I see it as damaging. There is no ‘head’ of the Christian church, and it sure ain’t the Pope, whomever that may be throughout history. Thanks for your thoughtful insights.
Jesus Christ is the head of the Christian church and always will be 😊
@@merrym72veetee12 No Christian denies that Christ is the head of the church (including Catholics). The pope is the earthly head and without that you have endless splintering over opinions.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787you assert that the pope is the early head as though you didn't even listen to the video. Jorje Borgolio is the best example of why I reject the papacy. Add to that all the immoral and vicious behavior over the past 2 millenia and you have ample reason to see the scoundrels are not worthy of receiving such uncritical adulation.
@@johngeverett Why would you assume I didn’t watch the video, do you imagine Dr. Ortlund makes points that cannot be rebutted? Dr. Ortlund holds the papacy to an unreasonable standard. He says there is no strong evidence early enough but he is completely content believing Baptist doctrines that have no evidence from before the 1500s. The role of the pope has nothing to do with adulation of a man; if you want to claim that the Catholic Church makes too big a deal out of the pope, fine. That’s understandable. What is important to devout Catholics is that Christ’s teaching is preserved and carried through the centuries and without the papacy (as an office) there is no way to know where the true faith is. This is why Catholics today can look into every century in the past and see our faith there; we are not trusting a man, we are trusting Jesus to build his church and guide it. The pope is merely a man, a steward, a pawn on God’s chess board. Have there been bad popes? Absolutely. Has the Catholic Church ever left the earth or stopped teaching the same faith throughout the good, bad, and ugly? No, it has not.
@@johngeverett and yet Schism begets schism.
It's true that when a Protestant is regenerated, born again; we tend to focus on our walk with the Lord and His word and the truth of the matter is that, we are content. We don't view Church history as that important, and therefore when Catholic Apologists come around loaded with Church history, referencing to this Church father or that Church father, this Council or that Council ~ normally according to what they want to convince a person with, but not necessary what these historical writings were meant to communicate, we end up being overwhelmed; and many have departed from the simple gospel truth and entered endless genealogies and accepted false teachings that crept into the Church over centuries without question simply because of our ignorance of Church history. As a Protestant, who knew that the day I gave my life to the Lord, that my life changed for good, my conscious tells me I am secure in the Lord's hands and so I am truly disturbed when someone comes along to persuade me to follow extra biblical teachings that are clearly not taught in the Bible. I always wonder how does a born again Christian is really convinced to believe in purgatory, Marian doctrines (recently I was listening to testimonies of wearing a brown scapula) and other burdens of religious practices that one is bound to, to be a good Catholic without his/her conscious being disturbed. There is a great relief that young dedicated but loving Protestants are rising up to explain these things fully and in truth. The goal should remain evangelising the lost not merely converting them to our Church for numbers. Protestant Church members go out in highways and byways to preach the gospel and it's sad to see that the fish they catch is sweet-talked into abandoning the Lord to follow religion.
Wow. Well said.
To follow religion , what a mess phrase you are it seems sounds that those Catholics are ignorant of their faith that we don't read our Bible not yours.
Although you mentioned the rock aspect of Matthew 16, you barely mentioned the keys and the binding and loosing, which is just as important or even more important than the rock part of Matthew 16. Would God give this power to Peter and allow him to bind heresies on earth as in heaven, thus making God a liar?
This is wonderful. I’m Protestant and I have been blessed by your videos and by your kindness for those who disagree.
It’s pretty cool watching this in December 2021 with my Christmas tree lights on while yours is in the background of your video. At any rate, good stuff! A lot more can be said that can possibly be put into a 28 minute video, but the points you brought up were the same I discovered when exploring the early church while considering the claims of Rome. I found, with apologies to Cardinal Newman, that if “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”, to be deeper in history is to cease to be papalist. God bless, and Merry Christmas!
Thank you for a very helpful scriptural and historical analysis. I agree with your observations.
Thank you Dr. Ortlund.
I just subscribe to your channel. I love your videos in viewing our faith through the lens of history.
I'm an Indonesian Protestant.
There is a well known pastor here in Indonesia, Dr. Bambang Noorsena from Orthodox background, who use the same approach by tracing the history of the early church fathers. His teachings help me a lot to build up my faith.
I'm glad to know you are a Protestant, I hope I can learn to see the perspectives balanced from either side especially regarding the differences between the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant doctrines.
May Jesus bless you and your ministry.
I wish every Christian could be as irenic as you! Thanks for being a role model for me! (Also thanks for the new vocab of the day 😁.)
Gavin, I added your channel in my list of recommended channels. Keep up the hard work.
Thank you for this great video, Gavin
As as catholic, I find it refreshing to understand why protestant have a hard time with the papacy as long as it is done in a respectable manner. still kinda curious to me why a person with your knowledge is a baptist instead of a protestant church that is more liturgical like lutherans or anglican. not sure if you have a video explaining it.
Baptists have their own liturgy, and they are also part of the reformed protestantism, though I'm not quite sure as per how do you vinculate fairly a certain liturgy tradition with being (or not) knowledgeable.
May be you have a wrong view of Baptist as not educated.
@@angelbonilla4243 maybe I have but it is not my fault there are different types of baptist churches. i have seen lot of southern baptist churches where I live.
I would think that the fact the Baptists weren't around until the 17th century would be an indicator that the Baptist Church isn't apostolic in origin but established by a man. In fact, all of the non-Catholic churches lack a pedigree that goes back to the apostles.
Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
It's so heart warming to hear such a charitable view of an opposing side! Thank you for your respectful treatment of this
Well-researched, thoughtful, and peaceable. Excellent video!
:)
Excellent video, great research, you came to many of the same conclusions I have. Nice to hear an expert echo my concerns 😄
So, I appreciate the irenic approach. I'll try to do the same in return.
The thought I kept having as I listened to this was: "Please define what you mean by 'the papacy'." That is, when you refer to it as a "massive doctrine", the first thing I want to know is what you think is entailed in the doctrine and what you regard as massive. When some people say, "The Papacy", what they imagine is a man dressed in fine robes in Rome, approving every bishop in the world, making infallible pronouncements every other Tuesday, and exclusively being called "the Pope". When all that isn't found, the doctrine is found to be lacking historical or exegetical merit. And for lack of knowing what you regard as the details of "the Papacy", I'm was never certain what you were expecting to find. For me, what I regard "the Papacy" is that Jesus established Peter as the leader of the Apostles (and thus the head pastor of the Church), and he intended for this role to continue in some kind of succession. So what I expect to find is somewhat modest.
For the Scriptural case, the first thought which came to mind was the subjectivity of saying something is slim, or unclear. Last year I was invited to a Calvinist Bible study which was studying Hebrews 10. When we got to the second half, they admitted that a cursory glance may lead one to think it was teaching a Christian could lose his/her salvation. But a more advanced look made it "unclear". I remarked that it didn't seem unclear to me, and I asked if they regard it as unclear out of necessity. (Then I politely was asked to never return).
I digress. What exactly constitutes something being unclear and scant? For many, myself included, the conjunction of Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 is pretty solid. Jesus's blessing in Luke 22 followed by the commissioning in John 21 is really persuasive. The fact that Peter is mentioned more than the other Apostles by wide margin seems significant. And in regard to Acts 15, it seems to me that there's a tendency in Protestant circles to over-emphasize James' role and to relegate Peter in this passage to the role of a secretary - rather than the guy who stood up and settled the core theological issue on behalf of the group, ending the debate.
For me (and others) the thing which grants it the best plausibility is the functional argument. Without some place where the buck stops, it seems that theological questions can have no universal resolution. There needs to be a man at the top who can stand up like Peter in Acts 15 and say what the case is. For lack of that, it seems to me that the project of theology either divides into multiple irreconcilable camps or stops entirely. For many, the prospect of getting the Protestant world together and asking a simple practical question like, "Can a Christian lose his salvation?" or going to the Orthodox world and asking, "Can a divorced Christian get remarried?" is enough to convince people about the necessity of the Papacy. Granted, this its an easier argument to make when its John Paul II standing athwart the Soviet Empire surrounded by a crowd screaming, "We want God" - compared to Pope Francis, who is truly like "The Last Jedi" of Popes. Terrible, but sadly canonical.
😂 I love the story of the Hebrews Bible study. That book is a major reason I'm not a Calvinist, even though I don't believe in loosing salvation. I think there is a middle ground there between the Calvinist and the Armenian approach to scripture.
@@BibelFAQ : It's always seemed to me that the possibility of disinheriting oneself from salvation is the most clearly taught doctrine in the New Testament. The most explicit among the two dozen or so passages would be Hebrews 10:19-39.
The passages which people use to assert the opposite, I think, can be plausibly taken in other ways. But the massive quantity of work one has to do find ways around those which say it can be lost should be an indicator that the Bible does indeed teach the possibility of disinheritance.
Among the others would be:
2Timothy 2:12 - Christians being told Christ might deny them. Luke 8:11-14 - the seeds which sprout life, but die. 1Cor 15:1-2 - the possibility of believing in vain. Galatians 5:4 - Christians being told they've fallen from grace. Hebrews 6:4-6 - Apostates being spoken of. James 5:19-20 - the mention of Christians falling away and in danger of spiritual death. John 15:1-6 and Romans 11:20-22 - The possibility of a grafted in vine being cut off. Romans 14:15, 1Corinthians 6:8, Ephesians 5:3-6, 1Timothy 5:7-8 - Christians being warned that immorality will result in disinheritance. 2Peter 2:20 - Apostate Christians being spoken of. 1Corinthians 9:27 - Paul saying he could possibly be damned.
I'm not saying that inventive ways cannot be found around all those passages. But the work necessary to do it should be an indicator that this is not the correct way.
Fancis my not be a stJPII but the last Jedi is way to harsh he is at worst mediocre imo.
@@JBlackjackp That's fair.
This is a reasonable take.
Wonderful respectful and insightful as always
Isn’t it just like the Devil, who is an expert manipulator of the Word, to convince many within and outside of the Church to exalt one Apostle above all of his co-equals? And not only that, but to bow the knee to all subsequent Popes as a diversion from direct faith in Jesus Christ? There is absolutely no Biblical basis for the Papacy. If Jesus giving the keys to Peter was a promotional appointment to the Papacy, then Peter would have immediately began to serve as the ‘Director’ of the Apostles from that point onwards. Remember when Samuel the Prophet anointed Saul as Israel’s first King, which began the reign of the Davidic Dynasty with their next King? Well, as soon as Saul was anointed to Kingship, he immediately ascended the throne. Peter never assumed any position above Apostleship. Not a hint of Peter being the “Pope” is evidenced throughout any of the Gospels or even later in Acts. Simply because there is no Papacy. In Matthew 16, Jesus blessed Peter with personal Apostolic authority, not Papal infallibility. There is only one “Pope” who is our Heavenly Father-Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd.
I 💯 agree. But they'll never concede to those who debate/challenge that. No matter how many Bible verses u throw down, they'll either take a verse to prove their justified, so out of context (it'll make u wanna laugh) OR they claim "Sola Scriptura is not anywhere in the Bible, u Protestants make things up". Make it make sense.
They also often say that both tradition & the Bible are necessary/req'd for faith. They simply cannot understand that it's by "faith alone" that God saves us. They can't let it go & it's disheartening.
Amem brother, the more i study, the more i pray for them
This has been so helpful. Ive been listening to a lot of Catholic commentary lately and, biblically, the whole Peter thing was clear to me but I just don't have enough knowledge of the early church to come close to a judgement. Catholic apologists seem to zero in on people like Ignatius while i can see you have studied widely and mention many names and the variety of views at that time.
The answer to Catholicism is just "Sorry, not enough evidence" and that theme comes out over and over in what I have come across.
It would be nice to see more Orthodox Christians responding to this
This is the most reasonable explanation I’ve ever heard on this subject.
Most Protestants will vehemently argue that Christ was referring to himself instead of Simon (which is ridiculous) and take the verse out of context to provide evidence.
You should give a class on this.
This is a really great video, Gavin!
Thank you for your high quality teaching.
a great video, I learn alot historically... thanks Dr. Ortlund
Good stuff and respectfully said. Thank you for your charitable tone and content.
This is great, thanks for this channel, it's direction and your willingness to share in love
glad it was useful to you!
This is so good. Keep up the good fight, Gavin! Much love to my Catholic friends.
Much appreciated especially your even handed non hostile approach. Acts 20:28 ...Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
Even handed? He made no mention of Matthew 16:19 where we see only Peter was given the keys to Heaven. No other apostle was given the keys to Heaven. He also only gave Church fathers that were vague in their explanation of the primacy of Peter. He certainly didn't post cyprian of carthage on the primacy of Peter. Let's have a look why he might of left cyprian out of this video shall we.
cyprian of carthage wrote this in 251 a.d.
"[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, 👉🏻yet he founded a single Chair,👈🏻 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; 👉🏻 *but a primacy is given to Peter👈🏻, whereby it is made clear that there is but ONE CHURCH AND ONE CHAIR* So too, all 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 desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church* 👈🏻(Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)
It’s texts like this (and there are warnings all throughout the New Testament) that makes me wonder how so many people are just certain that their particular Faith tradition simply could not have let error in.
Hi Gavin, as former Catholic, be careful when you say "grace," because to Catholics grace is the help God gives you through prayer and the sacraments to do the works you need to be saved. You have to cooperate with grace to be saved.
Literally "Grace is no more Grace." I appreciate Gavin's peaceful spirit, but the things that Rome does to the Gospel always make me angry.
@@AzariahWolf heterodox tend to get angry at orthodoxy.
@@coriesu9022 "Orthodox" is a weird way to say "in direct contradiction to their own founding documents"
@@AzariahWolf "in direct contradiction to what heretics from the 16th century started teaching."
Fixed that for you.
@@coriesu9022 Paul wasn't a 16th century heretic, but you are a 21st century one.
Well done Dr. Ortlund!
I was always taught (as a catholic) that before His crucifixion, he made that statement, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church". I've always thought that if He wanted Peter to build his church He would have said "You are Peter and YOU will build my church". Not I will build it. This leaves a lot to interpretation. One thing it doesn't say is "you and your successors".
At the end of the day, The Lord wanted everyone to remrmber Him and live according to His word. That surely is what really matters.
Hmm... Well, I will start by saying I do like Mr. Ortlund's style- I believe what he states in the beginning- he truly doesn't want to offend anyone; instead, he simply desires to peacefully provide contrasting perspectives, and he does so without insults, yelling, name-calling, etc. so this is very admirable. Now, with all that being said, I respectfully disagree with the majority of his analysis. Regarding his Biblical argument, Mr. Ortlund claims that scriptural support of the idea of the papacy is "slender and ambiguous." Well, the way he happens to present it, yeah. But his understanding of that excerpt from Matthew's Gospel is lacking and his interpretation of it is mistaken- especially since he does not know how to relate it to the rest of scripture. Firstly, he conveniently only cites the first part: "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18) Well, if the full concept of the passage had stopped at that point, then maybe his interpretation could be argued as possibly correct. However, that is not the case, because the verse immediately following is: "I will give you 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 16:19, NIV). Re-read that. Yes- Jesus gave Peter "the keys to heaven" and the authority to "bind and loose on earth and in heaven." It clearly says it right there- "𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶..." Does that really sound like Jesus was only referring to Peter's declaration? ("You are the Messiah" in verse 16)? No, of course not- a declaration, however insightful it may be, is simply a statement- an insightful declaration, such as the one Peter spoke, merely reflects the insightfulness of the one who spoke it, but the declaration itself cannot be 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 "keys to heaven" nor 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 authority to "bind and loose," the person who spoke the declaration is 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 those things- because it is a person that makes decisions- and in this particular case, that person is the one to whom Jesus gave such authority- that person was Peter- so yes- he was the first pope. Besides this, one must consider typology- i.e. how the Old Testament is revealed and fulfilled in the New Testament- the "keys to the kingdom" and the authority to "bind and loose" is a very specific reference to the prophetic passage in Isaiah: "On that day I will summon My servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and tie your sash around him. I will put your authority in his hand, and he will be a father to the dwellers of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘋𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘥. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘩𝘶𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘶𝘵𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯." (Isaiah 22:20-22, NIV). This passage would have been familiar to the Apostles- remember, they were all Jewish men who would have known the writings of the prophets in the Tanakh (i.e. Hebrew Bible). Notice the very similar parallel phrasing to the analogous passage in Matthew above- the Isaiah passage is about the royal steward- the man appointed by the King of Judah to serve as his substitute- i.e. to make binding decisions in the king's name. Note that the passage states that the royal steward is given "the key to the house of David." And how is Jesus described? Yes- the descendent of David- the new forever ruler of the "Davidic Kingdom"- as Nathan the prophet explains to David himself: “‘The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son." (2 Samuel 7:11-14) In addition, one must keep in mind Daniel's prophecy when he interpreted King Nebuchadnezzar's dream: "In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands-a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces." (Daniel 2:44-45). Note that in that prophecy there is "a rock not cut by human hands." Does that sound familiar? The "rock" smashes the statue in Nebuchadnezzar's dream- the statue that represents the different historical kingdoms- Babylon (gold), Persia (silver), Greece (bronze), and Rome (iron). The "In the time of those kings" refers to the last kingdom- Rome. And during which empire did Jesus come into the world? Yep- during the Roman empire. And He built His Church (i.e. His "kingdom") on the "rock" (i.e. Peter) and that "rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth (Daniel 2:35)" (i.e. Peter went to Rome, spearheaded the Church, and it spread around the world). Today, which is the only Christian Church that has a "rock" (i.e. a pope who is the successor of Peter), and which is headquartered in Rome, and which has spread throughout the entire world? Yes- the Catholic Church. Mr. Ortlund's presentation of the other passages- Luke 22, and John 21- is also quite superficial. Now before you think of saying the same silly thing that so many others do- claiming the word "pope" is not in the Bible, just pause and consider- the word "trinity" is not in the Bible either. Neither are the words "hypostatic union," nor the word "incarnation." Despite those words not appearing, all Christians believe Jesus is the second person of the Holy "Trinity"- both God and man (i.e. "hypostatic union") - the Word made flesh (i.e. "incarnation"). Just because a certain word is not in the Bible does not mean that the 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵 which the word describes is not there- it is. Religious terminology is developed over time- specific words often come later simply in order to provide a unique term for the ancient ideas that they describe. Besides, do you know what other word is not in the Bible? The word "Bible"! Why? Because during Jesus' time on Earth, the Bible did not exist- any usage of the word "scripture" in the Bible refers to what we today call the Old Testament- because at that time, the New Testament had not been written yet. And the Bible as we know it today would not be compiled until well over three centuries after Jesus' ascension. Keep in mind, Jesus Himself never (permanently) wrote anything down- nor did He command His apostles to do so. We have the Bible because fortunately some of His apostles (starting around 50 AD) chose to write down some of their testimony and to send letters- these were later gathered, copied, sorted, translated, analyzed, and declared as a canonical listing by the Catholic Church (firstly at the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD). So if you love and appreciate the Bible, then thank the Catholic Church for putting it together. Really, the irony in this video is almost overwhelming- some evangelical Protestants claim that "Catholicism doesn't follow scripture" but they are the ones who are obviously ignorant of it.
👍
*that person is the one to whom Jesus gave such authority- that person was Peter- so yes- he was the first pope.*
Thats your proof? Peter made a claim so that equals being pope? First, Peter wasn't given anything right there. They were all given the same thing a couple of chapters later. And 'keys' do not equal some singular authority for Peter to exercise. He doesn't show us anywhere in the n.t. any singular authority that he and he alone used. There is a lot of eisegesis here. There is literally nothing in common between Isa 22 and Mat 16. That parallel exists between Isa and Rev 3. If the papacy was found in the n.t. we would see it right next to Deacon and Elder in the pastoral epistles where Paul details the structure of the church. Its not there. And there was no canon declared at Hippo or Rome 382. The canon for the rcc wasn't dogmatically declared until Trent, session 4, 1546.
@@ContendingEarnestly Well, first of all, I prefer to avoid the word "proof" when it comes to theological debates- in matters of religion, it is often impossible to unquestionably "prove" a certain point. Instead, I like to use the word "evidence." So yes actually- that passage from Matthew 16:18-19 is certainly evidence that Jesus did give authority to Peter- again, the scripture is quite clear: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church...I will give you 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." Jesus' statement here certainly sounds quite authoritative and distinct. Note that Peter didn't "make a claim" (as your wrote above), but rather it was Jesus who gave Peter his position- the King assigned His royal steward (as the typological passage from Isaiah reflects- and if you can truly tell yourself that "There is literally nothing in common between Isa 22 and Mat 16," as you wrote in your comment, well then, ok- that's your opinion which you are entitled to (given the obvious parallel language between the two passages, I think it's a disingenuous point of view, but whatever). As for the passage from Matthew 18:18 (I assume this is the one you mean when you wrote "a couple chapters later"), yes indeed- the other apostles are given a similar authority: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." That is the authority of bishops- "to bind and loose"- i.e. to declare truths/provide clear doctrinal teaching on matters of faith for the church. So yes- I agree with you on that point- Jesus did give that authority to all His apostles. However, notice in that latter passage, Jesus does 𝙣𝙤𝙩 include the "I give you the keys to the Kingdom of heaven" part- that part was something He said/gave only to Peter (compare to the previous citation above). Notice that in Mathew 16:18-19 Jesus says "you" in the singular- because He is speaking only to Peter (in the original writing this is clear because the Greek language has both distinct pronouns and distinct verb forms for singular "you" - σὺ δήσῃς καὶ λύσῃς- versus plural "you"- ὑμεῖς δήσητε καὶ λύσητε- and this is also reflected in certain (older) English translations that distinguish them- e.g. King James Version- "thou" vs. "ye"). Jesus also commissions Peter to "feed my lambs/sheep" (John 21:15-17) and tells him "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." (Luke 22:32). Keep in mind, the pope is a bishop- the bishop of Rome. It is the case that the bishop of Rome holds pre-eminence over the other bishops since that is where Peter established the headquarters of Christ's Church. So, while all bishops hold authority to "bind and loose," the bishop of Rome (i.e. the pope) holds supremacy.
I disagree with your claim that Peter's authority is not reflected in the New Testament. Firstly, his name always appears first on lists of the apostles (see Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:13-16) and he is mentioned very disproportionately more than any other apostle ("Peter" (or as "Simon"/"Cephas") is specifically mentioned close to 200 times- more than all the other 11 apostles 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙗𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙙- the next most-mentioned apostle- John- is mentioned less than 50 times, and most other apostles are mentioned by name very infrequently (some of them just once or twice)). On the subject of names, the fact that Jesus re-designated "Simon" as "Peter/Cephas" is, in itself, quite significant: name-changes in scripture indicate an elevation of status and a God-given mission (compare "Abram" and "Sarai" becoming "Abraham" and "Sarah" when God makes a covenant with them as the "father and mother of many nations" (Genesis 17:5, 15-16), and compare "Jacob" becoming "Israel" after he wrestles with the angel (Genesis 32:28), and "Saul" becoming "Paul" after his conversion related in Acts. Besides this, even when Jesus first meets Peter, He seems to single him out for his future mission- in chapter 5 of Luke's Gospel, Peter is the first apostle to worship/recognize Jesus as God - he kneeled before Him and called him Lord (see verse 8) and Peter is the first apostle that Jesus commissions to "fish for men" (see verse 10). In other places we see Peter speaking on behalf of all the apostles- e.g. see John 6:68-69. And importantly, Peter is the one who declares a resolution against the Judaizers at the Council of Jerusalem- see Acts 15:7-11.
Furthermore, throughout the book of Acts, Peter's prominence as the earthly leader after Jesus' ascension is quite evident- it was Peter who called for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:15-21) and then later at Pentecost, he is the one who addresses the diverse crowd and evangelizes them (see Acts 2:14-40), later, Peter also heals and instructs people (see Acts 3:4-7 and 12-13), and Peter rebukes the high priest and his family (see Acts 4:8-10), and Peter is described as being such a strong vessel of God's works that even his shadow has healing power (see Acts 5:15-16).
As for the canon being declared 𝙙𝙤𝙜𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 at the Council of Trent, yes- I believe you are correct, BUT, note the important distinction here- 𝙙𝙤𝙜𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 declared. In general, ecumenical councils only make dogmatic declarations when actually necessary- in order to definitively settle a debate- e.g. to prevent/combat heresy. Keep in mind that the Council of Trent was the first council of the Counter-Reformation- i.e. it was convened in order to deal with the heresies of the Protestant Reformation- one such heresy was the attempted suppression of certain books from the Bible- the deuterocanonicals (i.e. what Protestants call the "Apocrypha"). So, that is why it might 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘮 like the Biblical canon was not established until Trent in 1546, but it is misleading- the Church had actually listed the canon of scripture looong before then- first at the Synod of Hippo in 393, as I wrote previously. And this makes sense- after all, why would a matter need to be definitively settled if it had not been questioned before then- because until the Protestant Reformation, all (western) Christians had accepted the Biblical canon as consisting of the 73 books which Catholics still recognize up to the present day- it was not until the Protestant Reformers started trying to suppress certain books that the Church had to step in and make that dogmatic declaration.
@@verdecillo9940 I won't reply to every point, it'd be too long. Here are some highlights.
*the King assigned His royal steward (as the typological passage from Isaiah reflects- and if you can truly tell yourself that "There is literally nothing in common between Isa 22 and Mat 16," as you wrote in your comment, well then, ok- that's your opinion which you are entitled to (given the obvious parallel language between the two passages, I think it's a disingenuous point of view, but whatever).*
Just show me the parallel language between Isa 22 and Matt 16. Here is my quick overview.
Isa 22:22 22 "Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, When he opens no one will shut, When he shuts no one will open. NASB
Matt 16:19 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." NASB
Okay, now that we see both passages wheres the parallel?
A. One has key, singular the other has keys, plural. Hows that a parallel?
B. One says he opens no one will shut, he shuts no one will open. The other says, whatever you bind shall be bound, whatever you loose shall be loosed...
I'm at a loss to see where the parallel is?
So where is the parallel? Here;
Rev 3:7
7 "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: NASB
A. Isa 22 says key of David. Rev 3 says key of David.
B. Isa 22 says opens and no one will shut. Rev 3 says opens and no one will shut.
C. Isa 22 says he shuts no one will open. Rev 3 says who shuts and no one opens.
So youre premise that Peter is some prime minister has zero foundation. What the kingdom of David had doesn't not mean the kingdom of God has the same thing. And it doesn't.
Eph 2 talks about the foundation of the church;
Eph 2:20 20 having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, NASB
foundation of the apostles (plural). Peter is not singled out here but one of many with Jesus being the cornerstone.
*As for the passage from Matthew 18:18 (I assume this is the one you mean when you wrote "a couple chapters later"), yes indeed- the other apostles are given a similar authority: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." That is the authority of bishops- "to bind and loose"- i.e. to declare truths/provide clear doctrinal teaching on matters of faith for the church. So yes- I agree with you on that point- Jesus did give that authority to all His apostles.*
Catholics use Matt 16 and this for much more than simply teaching. They use it as a blank check to make up whatever they want that agrees with Rome. The binding and loosing, the keys are not some special, singular authority but simply the gospel of Jesus Christ. When the gospel is proclaimed and someone believes it, they are free/loosed from their sin. If they reject it they remain bound by their sin. Everyone who faithfully proclaims the gospel has those keys. If you have a false gospel then your keys don't open anything. The rcc has a false gospel of faith + _______________ fill in the blank; popes, mary, sacraments, works...
*Jesus also commissions Peter to "feed my lambs/sheep" (John 21:15-17)*
He does, know why? Because Peter denied Him three times. This is restoring Peter, not elevating him. And did Jesus pray for Peter? Sure, want to know why? This is before he denies Jesus and Jesus knows he is going to fall. But 'when you return, strengthen your brothers.' Peter will fall, Jesus knows this and he will repent. Then he will know what thats like so he can strengthen others. Nothing here suggests for a second that Peter is pope.
*Rome holds pre-eminence over the other bishops since that is where Peter established the headquarters of Christ's Church.*
Zero proof of this. And his call wasn't to the gentiles but jews. Although Peter and Paul preached to anyone their primary call is what i listed from Gal 2. Knowing this, why is Peter heading off to the most pagan gentile city in the world at that time when the jews are in Israel?
*I disagree with your claim that Peter's authority is not reflected in the New Testament.*
Your list of Peters accomplishments is meaningless. The question is did he have a singular authority that he and only he possessed that everyone else submitted to him for? No. I can give a list of Pauls accomplishments if thats the standard for being pope. The office is spoken of nowhere. Deacon is there and its requirements but not the popes?
*one such heresy was the attempted suppression of certain books from the Bible- the deuterocanonicals (i.e. what Protestants call the "Apocrypha").*
First, prots don't call it apocrypha as though that name started in 1517. Jerome called it apocrypha. So did Athanasius and others. I don't see the word deuterocanoncial in the church fathers do you? If so please cite your sources. I have all 37 volumes i'd love to check that out. Jerome rejected the apocrypha. Gregory the Great rejected part of it. Cardinal Cajetan a contemporary of Luther rejected all of it. So lets not lay all of this at the feet of the reformers. Plenty of catholics rejected them too, after 397.
*the Church had actually listed the canon of scripture looong before then- first at the Synod of Hippo in 393,*
The list from 393 came from Rome 382 and not the official acts, those were lost. Another group took notes and passed them on to Hippo. They were read at Hippo but not approved. They were at Carthage in 397. Again, lists were everywhere then. They were lists of books approved to be read. Not a settled canon.
*because until the Protestant Reformation, all (western) Christians had accepted the Biblical canon as consisting of the 73 books which Catholics still recognize up to the present day*
That is historical fiction as i just proved. If the 73 book canon was accepted by all right up to the Reformation why did Jerome reject the entire thing, by name? Or Gregory or Cardinal Cajetan....right up to the Reformation? They didn't all agree.
*it was not until the Protestant Reformers started trying to suppress certain books that the Church had to step in and make that dogmatic declaration.*
See above.
@@ContendingEarnestly Ok, well, as I already wrote, I have given my evidence and you have given yours- you obviously have your way of interpreting things and I have mine, so this has now devolved into a mater of "I think this" versus "you think that" and it's not really going to be settled with one of us conceding to the other, so I guess there's not much point in continuing this (especially not as two random un-invested strangers in a TH-cam comment section). I responded to your reply to my original comment because you accused me of "eisegesis," claimed there's "literally nothing in common," etc. so I thought I could explain my perspective. But the main point of my original comment was to provide an informal rebuttal to the actual video because Dr. Ortlund presents a one-sided and limited analysis- so I simply wished to provide a contrasting point of view. We all have access to the same scriptures, so obviously we can't just use "scripture alone" to decide doctrine and practice- because if it were that simple, then all Christians would agree with each other. Instead, Protestants have thousands of denominations that all teach different things. Do you think that is what Christ wants? For His Church(es) to be divided and in disagreement with each other? So what is the solution? Well, as a Catholic, I believe that Jesus didn't just start an unorganized group of followers who could decide whatever they wanted as individuals and if some disagreed with others then they could split off and form dissenting groups. Instead, I believe that Christ established one Church- as stated in the Matthew 16:18 (note that Jesus says "my 𝘤𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩" singular NOT "my 𝘤𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘴"). And the one Church that He established has authority to govern itself by deciding the proper interpretation of scripture and through maintaining the sacred traditions of its early leaders (i.e. the apostles). If it's not that way, then the result is as I wrote- an ever-increasing fragmentation of His Church. I have no hard feelings against you (despite your misconceptions) and I wish you good luck in your walk with the Lord. Peace and Blessings!
Thank you very much, Brother! That is extremely helpful! Please keep going on to teach. It is much needed. God bless you!
Fantastic statement Dr. Ortlund!
As a Pentecostal turning catholic I thought this video was great content. You brought up good points and was very respectful in pushing your points. I think their is more to this topic that you cant fit in a TH-cam video. Both sides have great arguments for their position. One can also argue that before Constantine became emperor the majority of popes were martyred so that push or development becoming more clear in the 5th century to me makes sense.
Read on classical Protestantism. I understand why you might want to leave the Pentecostal church, but consider some historic Protestant traditions like Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, etc.
Here’s a story of a struggling Protestant. In my walk of 10 years as being a Christian I’ve called 3 very different churches home as the first two turned out to be heretical - and ended up in a reformed Baptist church. Then moved to a new large country town and am trying to find a church to call home. The Presbyterian church we just went to on Sunday is very small, held in a school hall and the congregation is made up predominantly of people over 70. Also, the ordinances (communion) were not delivered during the service. What a let down. I now just visited the Roman Catholic Church which is open to visitors every day of the week all day, stands on the highest part of the town and has stood since 1887. I was awestruck.
The turmoil that lands on the Protestant when moving to a new town, when trying to find a church is immense. My question is Do you think God wants us to experience such turmoil that wouldn’t exist if we were one unified ecclesial body? There are many problems with the Roman Catholic church but I fear there are many more with the Protestant church such as the practical example I’ve just given. Ive been part of 3 very different churches in only 10 years because it’s easy to get very lost in Protestantism. Now I’m starting over in a new town. What the heck do I do?
The main option here appear to be either Pentecostalism, Catholicism, dying Baptist / Presby churches, or a few pop up churches that are likely heretical.
I would caution you not to seek ecclesial stability in exchange for personal stability. You will not experience assurance at a Catholic church.
@@ethanstrunk7698 agreed. I’m now comfortably a Berean (I.e reformed Baptist) 😂
Nicely done. This is why Luther contended in his day from the Fathers. One faith and one mediator is where true catholicity resides.
I appreciate your loving approach to being truthful, loving and respectful at the same time. I too love Catholic people and aim to love them and encourage them in truth also.
WORTH WATCHING MANY TIMES TO REALLY ABSORB EACH CRUCIAL POINT
One thing I would add to the good points you made on the Biblical argument; Matthew 7:24-27 ... "House built on the Rock, not sand"... One could draw some connections there to that rock-faith-confession argument there. Be like the wise man in Jesus's parable, have faith like a rock, like Peter, on The Rock; Lord Jesus.
(EDIT: If that would match the original language used)
Thanks for your gracious introduction and for tackling this issue.
Awesome video! I love when you include quotes from church fathers, especially when the whole quote is written out on the screen! Would it be possible to share the books you found the quotes in? I'm a protestant trying to get more involved with the writings of the church fathers.
The Fathers Know Best is great!
What are your thoughts or Irenaeus book 3 chapter 3?
Great video! From a Protestant inquiring Eastern Orthodoxy
A latecomer here, but God bless your efforts in this important faucet of the Lord's work. I have been involved in rebuking Catholics occasionally on some particular issues I know pretty well which comes under the heading of defending the Faith. Some of these misguided folks are barely aware of the problems with certain peculiarly false traditions within their own confines and need to be informed of the underlying issues. As you well know, there are meaningful aspects to areas of proper rebuke and correction that are sorely ignored by many denominations, though such a side ministry undertaken with understanding and firm love is an integral part of being a good and well rounded servant of the Gospel. Thanks again.
Excellent! Wonderful resource.
This is a fantastic video. I heard Trent Horn wants to have you in his studio. It would be really interesting to hear the conversation between you and Trent. You have excellent points and it would be great to hear his response to this. You would make an exceptional interlocutor
Great video!
So appreciate your videos!
I appreciate your views on Papacy. What is your tradition? Your professional training?
Church History?
Dr Gavin Ortlund is a baptist and he has a Gavin Ortlund holds a PhD from Fuller Theological Seminary, an MDiv from Covenant Theological Seminary and a BA in religion and philosophy from the University of Georgia according to a wikipedia search
Phenomenal! My father became Catholic about ten years and I’ve been trying to figure why in the world he did that ever since. Lol.
This helps fill in some missing pieces! Thank you so much. God bless
because your father is wise enough to know what is true, either Catholicism and early Christian History is true or Luther is true.
@@jamesrey3221that is a wildly false dichotomy.
@@Wilkins325 Luther rejected all Catholic teachings, it is either you believe in Luther or the Church
The early church was defined by the celebration of the mass, the Holy Eucharist, the apostles, the church fathers, the saints, the popes, the bishops, the bible and its sacred traditions.
@@jamesrey3221 Luther and the Reformers were right. Luther only rejected what was false and corrupted.
The early church was defined by the Gospel, scripture, the Apostles. NOT the mass, eucharist, "saints", popes, bishops, traditions. All of that developed over time, including church fathers.
@jamesrey3221 Luther was and is true, the rcc is not.
Gavin, I love you for the work you do
Regarding Peter,
There is not even confirmed data that he ever was in Roma. Paul was there, but we don't know about Peter for sure. The sources are not 100% reliable. . And if he did go to Rome, he did not go as a bishop but as a visiting apostle. Why? Because Peter was NOT a bishop. He was an apostle. Peter was NEVER bishop of Rome.
"So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up"
(Ephesians 4, 11-12)
The idea that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus established His church, is a completely wrong interpretation of Mathew 16, 18: " And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it."
The "rock" is not Peter, but the truth that Peter had just pronounced (v.16): "Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
PETER HIMSELF says that "Jesus is
“‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’ (Acts 4, 11) he repeats the idea in his 1st epistle (2, 6,).
He never considered himself to be that kind of rock.
PAUL also says that Jesus is the cornerstone of the church (ephesians 2, 20) (1 Co.3, 11).
From 77 CHURCH FATHERS, only 17 thought that the rock was Peter. The rest think it was Peter's affirmation.
In Mark 5, 33-35, the disciples argue for 1st place. Why should they if it has been given already?
Jesus also told them that no one of them was above the others: (Mathew 20, 26-27).
Paul mentions different OFFICES in the church: apostles, prophets & teachers. (1 Co 12, 28). No mention of a Pope.
It was James, & not Peter, who presided the 1st COUNCIL of the church in Jerusalem. (Acts 15).
In Acts 8, 14, the apostles sent Peter & John to Samaria. Waw! The Pope is sent in a mission by pple under him!
PETER refers to himself as an apostle & servant. No more than that (1 Peter 1, 1; 2 Pe 2, 11).
HISTORY does not prove the papacy right, just its huge corruption. Popes have been more political figures than anything else. The actual pope seems more concerned with saving the planet than saving souls!
Exactly!
Great video, Gavin. Love all the research on the church fathers. One thing I would add is, even if you accept the RCC interpretation of Matt 16 that Peter is the rock in an official capacity, you still have the problem of connecting that to the church of Rome. There is zero evidence that Peter was the bishop of Rome. He was martyred there and buried there. Presumably he ministered and preached there prior to his martyrdom. But there is no evidence that he held any ecclesiastical office in the church of Rome, much less bishop. Then you have the further problem of the lack of evidence that Rome even had a bishop until the mid to late 2nd century. So there is at least a century gap between Peter and the first named bishop of Rome (I'm not sure who that is -- it might be Victor ca. 190s; I know Eusebius refers to him as the bishop of Rome when recounting the debate with the Asian churches over Easter). Medieval tradition (the Liber Pontificalis) claims that the first papal successors of Peter were Linus, Anacletus, Clement, etc., but we have no historical (from that time or near that time) evidence that they were actually bishops of Rome, much less popes with universal jurisdiction. It really does look like a case of reading history through the lens of later developments (like you said, the shift with Gregory the Great and following, especially the 8th century alignment of the papacy away from being under the thumb of the Byzantine emperor to the Carolingians).
Ignatius in his epistle to the Romans says that he does not command them "as Peter and Paul did" implying that Peter was a bishop there. Of course this does not prove him being the universal bishop of all the churches but I do think that should be noted.
@@alfredolebron1428 Ignatius wrote: "I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul: they were apostles, I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4.3). I wouldn't read this as suggesting that Peter was a bishop there. It only supports what we already know, that the two apostles, Peter and Paul, spent time in Rome and ministered there. And when they did so, their authority was that of apostle not bishop. If this sentence implies that Peter was a bishop of Rome, then it implies that Paul was as well, which is not part of the RCC claim.
@The Catholic Integralist the problem begins from apostolic succession a doctrine taught no where
In response to the question - “Is Jesus the rock or is Peter the rock? The answers is simply YES!
This is not a zero-sum game. Jesus is the ultimate authority, and he bestowed that authority upon Peter. Isaiah 22 is clearly talking about Jesus, but when Jesus quotes it in Matthew 16, He makes it about Peter! Peter was made the representative of Christ on earth. The only reason Peter and his successors have authority on earth is because they received it from the ultimate authority in Heaven! Jesus is the authority, and the Pope is His representative (Vicar).
So the answer is yes! Jesus is the Rock and Peter is the rock!
God bless you for having the love of Christ, brother! A lot of Catholics can learn so much from you!
This is not to mention that if we are to assume the office of regent carries over from the Davidic kingdom to the Kingdom of God that Peter who was given the keys (a sign of rhe office in the Davidic kingdom) was the holder of a specific office and that that office would continue after his death is reasonable
@@JBlackjackp Absolutely. This is also supported in Acts 1 when the Apostles chose Matthias to replace Judas. Judas’s place as an Apostle is specifically called in “office.” So if Judas Iscariot, the least of the Apostles (always being last when the names of the Apostles are listed in the New Testament), had an office that HAD to be filled, then of course Peter, the primary Apostle (always being listed first when the names of the Apostles are listed) most definitely had an office as well that would have had to be filled with a replacement after Peter died.
@@JBlackjackp I know he didn't even mention Jesus quoting Isaiah which is a main Catholic argument for the continuation of Peters primacy. "In Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Isa. 22:21)." I took that from part from Catholic answers in the article Peter the Rock lol. Annoying how didnt bring that up i would have liked to here his take on it
Thank you.
The Septuagint, which the Fathers of the Church used and ratified as the Old Testament Canon of Scripture does not contain the same reference to keys in Isaiah 22:22. Even barring such, we cannot purport to assume that this is the exact idea Jesus was alluding to in Matthew 16, much less ascribing such a station to St. Peter. Hence the entire point of this video: we cannot assume or jump to conclusions without context and the interpretation of the Church Fathers considered: whether one is Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. Two of these groups have trouble with Historic Circumstances and the Teachings of the Fathers; One does not. Certainly, if you approach the sources with an honest and open heart, you can figure out that Orthodoxy is One, Protestantism and Catholicism are two.
Thank you for this eloquent and respectful video. I'm an Episcopalian and as part of the Anglican Communion we hold to Apostolic Succession but reject the Papacy. You did an excellent job of explaining how supremacy of the Bishop of Rome wasn't really a thing in the early church.
Ya, says the queen worshipper who replaced the pope with the king as the head of the church. Apostolic succession? You guys? Lol. Best joke.
@@foodmaniac9339 Since your reply was so dignified, respectful, and in the spirit of Christian brotherhood I'll respond. No one believes the Church holds apostolic succession through the crown. It is however the Bishops that do. During the split with Rome there were bishops who remained loyal to the Pope and others who helped create the Anglican Church. It's similar to how the Eastern Church retains its apostolic succession by the laying on of hands going back to the apostles but is not beholden to the Bishop of Rome.
@@enischial965 is that what jesus wanted? A king goes against the church, cause his balls were itching and wanted to marry against the church law and since doesn't get his will done, makes his own church and executes Catholics. How in the world are you apostolic if you have female ordained ministers and bishops. You like the king more than god. That's what Anglican is. Rejecting the papacy is rejecting the church. Where is that apostolic succession if there is no bishop and no pope. You guys have the worst history on your side regarding succession and you have the face to talk about supremacy of the pope. Let's talk about the supremacy of the king first.
@@foodmaniac9339 Supremacy of the monarchy is a common myth about Anglicanism. What it really is is a combination of the religious authority with the secular authority. A concept known as caesaropapism. The church of England was not the first one to do it. A great example is the early Byzantine Church where the Emperor served as supreme governor and protector of the Church. So while he is the supreme governor, the king is not the head of the Church. His Majesty King William III holds no authority in the Episcopal Church. We are still part of the Anglican communion, however we consecrate our own Bishops and have our own Presiding Bishop. The history of our split with the Church of England after the American Revolution is quite fascinating. In terms of Papal authority and Petrine Primacy, I understand people's reasons for backing it. Through the intense and prayerful study of scripture, tradition, reason, and church history I have yet to find enough evidence to allay my disagreements to it. You sound like you already have your mind made up on the matter, so I will not press nor debate you further. Also, truth be told, I don't monitor my TH-cam alerts all that often. Please understand I do hold the Roman Catholic Church in extreme high regard. Even as a Protestant I recognize Catholics as my brethren. May Christ's peace be upon you. Have a prayerful Lent and a happy Easter.
@@enischial965 the Byzantine eastern orthodox went wrong on that part and that's why the western church opposed it.
Phenomenal video. Very well articulated and above all, accurate.
Liked the video a lot and I appreciate your irenic approach. Would love to see the references when you quote the fathers so that we could look them up.
As someone who has had many seminary friends go Catholic it’s nice to see more thoughtful treatments of Catholic theology from a Protestant perspective.
Thanks!
Thanks Matthew!
Thanks for appreciating the Catholic churches teaching on contraception. To me that is the evidence that the Catholic Church is truly built upon a solid rock. If it was man made then the teaching on contraception would certainly be the first thing to go...
So true lol
Yes, Pope Paul IV's Humanae Vitae which reaffirmed the church traditional teaching on sexual morality was largely ignored and rejected by other churches and look where we are now.
@@jamesrey3221 yeah and to be honest the impact of that rejection is felt in the Catholic faith. Under the hood we have many American Catholics who secretly adopt practices that align with the secular viewpoint.
@@MrPeach1 yes, it is the heresy of Modernism (Relativism and secularism. The idea that the truths of the ancient faith are viewed as outmoded and are now subject to adapt to secular "culture") that impacts deep in society including the church, the abuse scandals, etc. was in part caused by the rejection of Humanae Vitae.
Pope Paul's encyclical was opposed even by Catholics, but God in His wisdom see's the importance of family in our civilization that He has to do battle to save it for us.
“We must remember that life begins at home and we must also remember that the future of humanity passes through the family.”
From a letter of Sr. Lucia to Cardinal Caffarra “In that letter we find written: ‘The final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan will be about Marriage and the Family.’ Don't be afraid, she added, because whoever works for the sanctity of Marriage and the Family will always be fought against and opposed in every way, because this is the decisive issue. Then she concluded: ‘nevertheless, Our Lady has already crushed his head’.”
We see this 'battle' being wage in social media, politics and even in the supreme court. In the end God can never lose.
Thank you for this.
I have read all the Pelikan series on Church history, and I found your summary very helpful and well done. You are a light! I have been a Protestant most of my life, and a theolog. I taught adult Sunday School for decades. But I am increasingly drawn to the Catholic Church. This is one of several issues I’ve been studying. I think most of the non-typological arguments in favor of a Pope rest largely upon its efficacy as a “referee.” Bishop Robert Barron, the famous Catholic evangelist, also argues that the Rock” is Christ, not Peter. Thank you for this. I am so glad you are in the conversation!
I hope you keep yourself far away from the Roman Catholic Church! I was raised RC and confirmed in that church. But God strove with me for 8 years (from age 18 to 26) to leave the RCC, and now I attend a wonderful ACNA Anglican parish. The RCC is a cult that enslaves its laity via fear. "Outside of the RCC there is no salvation," they taught for centuries. Still today, most members believe that the RC Sacraments are what will save them!
The primary reason for any church's existence is to propagate Jesus' Gospel and to guide people toward salvation through faith in Christ. Anglicans teach what Jesus and Paul taught. Look at what Jesus said:
John 3:14-18 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that *whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.* For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. *He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed* in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
Look also at John 6:28-29,35,39-40. "Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, *This is the work of God, that ye believe* on him whom he hath sent...And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst....And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that *every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.*"
Likewise, Paul wrote to the Ephesians (2:8-9), "For by grace are ye *saved through faith;* and that not of yourselves: *it is the gift of God: Not of works,* lest any man should boast."
In contrast, I was taught by the Catholic Church (in catechism and in Mass) that man *might be* saved by being baptized into the Catholic Church, by believing in Jesus, by receiving the Eucharist regularly, by being absolved and performing penances, by keeping the Commandments, etc, but that even if I did all of those things well enough I still might go to hell if I slipped up badly enough and died with a mortal sin on my conscience. Instead of viewing God's grace as a *gift freely given* to anyone when they trust that Christ's atonement paid their personal sin debt in full, the Catholic Church taught me to trust in their Sacraments (which they portray as being unavailable anywhere else, thus binding me to the church of Rome) more than I trusted in Jesus' death and resurrection. This is reflected in their historical teaching that "there is no salvation outside the (Roman) Catholic Church." But neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever taught such a doctrine. Thus, the Roman Catholic faith is not truly Apostolic; it is literally *faith in the Catholic Church* instead of *faith in Jesus my only Savior."* After all, Jesus (not the RCC) died for me on the cross!
I also see the idolatry of their Eucharist because of their doctrine of Transubstantiation; they actually worship the wafer as God, much like the Israelites created and worshiped a gold calf as God. As for the papacy, Gavin missed the best argument against it. Consider what Jesus said (in Matt. 16:18, in the original Greek version):
"Thou art petros" (a rock) is a masculine noun. "Upon this petra I will build my church" -- petra is a feminine noun.
Jesus did not call Simon Peter a woman, obviously. Nor would Jesus refer to Himself in the feminine. Therefore, the petra upon which Jesus builds His church is the foundational, revelatory truth Simon was the first person to speak: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Simon Peter was the first person to give voice to the critical belief that Jesus is the Messiah, the Savior, and that He is divine. This is the revelatory truth upon which Christ builds His true church.
@lukewilliams448 Yes. And guess what... they aren't infallible. They said a great many correct things, and they said some things that weren't. Fortunately, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, or else we'd swallow everything they said (and we'd be very confused by all the contradictions they present against one another; for example, some of them believed that Matt. 16:18-19 applied only to Peter and not to any successors, and others believed the _petra_ rock was not Peter but was his confession of faith and/or Jesus Himself).
So did you convert?
@@rexlion4510thanks for sharing
@lukewilliams448what keys? Your conclusion makes Peter the Rock not Christ.
I don’t agree with your arguments, except to say all Christians agree that Jesus is the head of the church. I do like how you present your arguments in a calm and reasoned manner instead of just hurling attacks. For this reason I respect you though I don’t agree with you.
What specifically do you disagree with?
Do you disagree based on what you were taught or because his arguments had flaws?
@@thomasc9036 I disagree based on my own study. His arguments were right on. If you have proof please give some details.
@@ContendingEarnestly I am asking the original commentor, csterett, pretty much what you are asking, but more detailed. I agree with Gavin. I just can't even imagine the eternal Christ putting someone at the "cathedral" because what's the point of being an eternal King and High Priest if someone will take that chair temporarily?!?!?
@@thomasc9036 Youre right. I assumed you were responding to me.
Gavin, thank you for this. It is perhaps the best video on the subject I’ve yet to encounter.
Well done!!! 🙌
Thank you for this video!
I love your approach and attitude. In fact the only reason to become Catholic would be to accept what Cardinal Newman called "Development Of Doctrine".
The Jerusalem Council in Acts is fundamental on this point for me. It is a Biblical-Exigetical, Historical, and logically vital argument against the supposed primative nature of Romanism all contained in a single narrative.
To substantiate its own claims, the Roman Church has to show that its definitive distinctives were present from the very inception of the Church's existence.
In Acts, we have an event which is post-Resurrection and post-Pentecost (no one can say that the Church didn't fully exist at this point) yet is witnessed to within the pages of the New Testament scriptures themselves which testify that it was carried out under proper divine guidance and approbation. So, it serves as an absolute test case against which to place the Roman distinctives. Petrine/Papal supremacy, Roman supremacy, monarchical magisterium, monarchical bishoprics, etc. as well as Eastern Ceasaropapism are not only absent, but are contradicted by the scripturally-verified example of the apostles themselves.
The distinctive aspects that make the Roman Church what it is simply and clearly did not exist in the beginning, nor is their future emergence provided for or justfied by scripture or even human doctrine from the earliest stage.
The Council of Jerusalem is the proto-example of the Pope, making a binding decision for the universal Church, St. Peter declaring that Gentiles did not have to become Jews before becoming Christian, and another Bishop, St. James making a recommendation to appease the Judaizers in Antioch specifically.
@St. Hubertus Outdoors ,
You have got to be kidding me. Peter doesn't so much even rise to the level of primus inter pares in the Jerusalem Council. He gives his testimony, but the one presiding over the meeting (if anyone at all) is James because he's the leader in Jerusalem, they were meeting in Jerusalem, and the question at hand had come about due to Judaizers going out from Jerusalem. No one sat "ex cathedra" as the vicar of Christ. They agreed together, and James formulated their joint declaration. There was no Pope or "proto-Pope" in Acts.
And this was not just *any* council, but the council formed of the apostles of Christ, preserved in the inspired Word, and testified by that very Word to have been carried out according to the will and leading of God. This council *must* logically be seen as normative and definitive, and there was no Pope!
Besides this, even if some kind of "proto-Pope" were being evidenced (and it would suggest James in that role rather than Peter anyway) which it's not, that's not good enough to support the Catholic position which is that the Papacy existed from the time of Christ's earthly ministry. The doctrines of Catholicism are supposed to be "what all Christians, have believed at all times and at all places." I suppose the apostles and elders at Jerusalem were not the true Church then, because the central Catholic doctrine of Papal supremacy, which is supposedly primitive to a time well before that event, *does not exist in Acts* . "Proto" isn't good enough to support Catholic claims on this issue. All you are doing by making that argument is conceding the point that the monarchic, supreme, magisterial Papacy did not exist during the first century of the Church. Thus, it is a doctrine of man not of God, and this central stumbling block in the relations between Roman Catholics and all other Christian groups around the world should be cast aside, leading to truer doctrine and increased unity.
@@jameswoodard4304 Acts 15 does not deny the Primacy of St. Peter. Once St. Peter stood to speak, everyone was silent, and he made the pronouncement for the Universal Church.
The Primacy comes from having the Keys to the Kingdom of God. Mt. 16:19 is clear that the Lord Jesus appointed St. Peter to be His “Master of the Palace.” Mt. 16:19 is a clear reference to Is. 22:22.
@St. Hubertus Outdoors ,
Order of events:
-Everyone discussed generally
-Pharisees delivered their opinion for one side of the debate
-Peter gave a speech for the other
-Then, "Everyone fell silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul..." as they gave testimony of God working among the Gentiles
-Then James of Jerusalem gave a summary opinion which they all agreed to.
Is that how the Roman Papacy works? If the Catholic Church had a point of debate to settle, is that what it would look like? All the bishops including the one of Rome gather together, the Roman bishop is simply among those who speak in turn, then a different bishop provides the communal decision? You are deceiving yourself if you answer yes. If you thought so yourself, you would not have relied on the concept of "proto-Pope." You are well aware that the Roman Papacy as it is distinct to Roman Catholic dogma did not exist.
And remember this. No one denies Peter had a leadership role *among* the apostles. To win your point, you can't just show that he was important or had *some* leadership role, but that the current doctrine of the Papacy was present. You *cannot* do that, because it wasn't.
As to the scriptures you cite, at best, they show a leadership role of some kind for the person of Peter among the apostles, which everyone already knows. You would still have to prove the application from Peter himself to the ongoing office of the Roman bishop, *and* that the office was identical to current Catholic dogma relating to the Papacy. And that's best-case for you. Worst case, the verses about rock and keys don't obtain to Peter personally or his office as supposed bishop of Rome, but to the confessing church generally.
The fact remains that Catholicism requires Peter to have acted as a fully Roman Catholic pontif during the first century. We have a record of church organization, structure, and decision-making from the first century. It is not Roman Catholic.
You can't get around that by quoting ambiguous passages that, at best, confirm what everyone already concedes.
@@jameswoodard4304 th-cam.com/video/xl3pD4l0K5U/w-d-xo.html
Great video...and I say this as a former Protestant who, jbtw, had your dad as my pastor for a couple of years. Curious, in pointing out areas where you admire Catholicism you mentioned moral theology and specifically mentioned contraception. I would love to hear your position on it
As a Catholic I respect your views. The first thing is that Jesus founded the Church before the scriptures were written down. The second thing is that the church is the Mystical Body of Christ (the people of God) and has produced some wonderful Saints and Scholars over the history of the Church as well as many sinners.. Everything that you are saying has been discussed and debated within the Catholic Church great scholars for over 2000 years. I also think there is a big difference between Evangelical view of the Papacy in the USA than our view in Europe.. The miracle is that the Papacy has survived with all its failings, faults, attacks and corruptions. I believe the Holy people of the church and of faith as well as the holy priests, monks, nuns, hermits, and Saints were the real reformers of the papacy and the Church despite the corruption, scandals and bad leadership.
I was recently in Belgium and went to visit the "Lamb of God" painting in Ghent which had a wonderful history. This was painted in the 14th Century before the reformation and tells a lot about the Church in the 14th century, there is also a copy of the gospels in Latin from a local monastery in the 8th Century on display in the Cathedral.. Have a look at it and look at the medieval monasteries to have a look their role they played in the Papacy and the church. I would say the monasteries were closer to the Catholic Church and people than the Papacy. The monks protected and transcribed the Gospels in Latin.
Not all Catholics are fans of the Current Pope Francis and previous Pope's. As all are human and are sinners and we have some very good Popes in the office as leader of the Church over the 2000 years. May God bless all seeking the Truth in the Person of Jesus Christ. 🙏
I'm watching this New Year's Eve 2021. One year on
Another great video, thank you. I'd love to see you follow some of these conclusions, and answer the broader question of why you are not orthodox? You pointed out the conciliar nature of the church as an objection to the Papacy, which I agree with. It does logically follow to address orthodoxy and I'd be really interested in this! Enjoying your theological retrieval book.
Thanks Tom! Will try to get to a video on orthodoxy but it may take some time.
15:37 Jesus never wrote a book. He did, however, commission apostles to spread the gospel. They wrote the books. Books that came well after the resurrection of Jesus. Those apostolic successors still exist. They are bishops of the catholic and orthodox churches. And if nobody is a pope then everyone is their own pope. Witness to the practice among Protestants of church shopping.
Great video! I just found your channel through a recommendation by a friend and I immediately subscribed. I haven't had nearly enough truth exposure over the Catholic doctrine much at all, and this was some much needed information. Thank you.
If I wanted I further my study into these kinds of topics myself however, are there any good books you would recommend on the church Father's writings? I already am in-line to purchase the Lord's supper book you recommended from another video, but one with more information over the issues regarding the papacy would also be desirable. Please let me know.
Great books, A woman rides the beast by Dave Hunt. Or research Bereanbeacon - richard Bennet, he teaches you all the catholci doctrine and shows you why its not biblical.
Great Video!
I am a Catholic and it's becoming more difficult to accept the current papacy teaching of the Catholic Church. If you consider the current divide between traditional minded Catholics, modern Catholics, SSPX, and sedevacantists it becomes obvious that most Catholics have the same concern whether they will admit it or not. Each of these divides are just an attempt to explain away the changes in the modern Catholic Church and still hold onto the ideal of the Pope.
I'm a Catholic convert from Protestantism and see the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches as the true Church--they were one Church for more than a 1000 years. I am finding myself drawn to the Eastern Orthodox Church simply because of the reverence of their Liturgy. Much is said about theology and history, but truth should be found in how a church worships. Unfortunately most Catholic Masses today are very irreverent.
@Zachary Trent The papacy changed significantly during the Gregorian reforms starting in the 11th century. These changes along with the unilateral addition of the Filioque led to the schism that’s lasted more than 8 centuries. As to the reverence of Mass, any Mass that offers the Eucharist in the hand is irreverent and particularly so when it’s offered by an Extraordinary Eucharist Minister.
Comparing the failures of Orthodox patriarchs with that of popes is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Patriarchs can’t make changes to dogma but the pope can. Most recently Pope Francis has changed the catechism to state the death penalty is no longer permitted. Orthodox Christians don’t have to accept the ramblings of heretical patriarchs, but Catholics do have to accept the Pope’s teachings.
I suggest looking into other rites of the Catholic Church. I heard Melkite Divine Liturgy is amazing. These are essentially eastern liturgies but they’re in communion with the Catholic Church. definitely check those out.
@@bansheebrethren797 Eastern Catholic Rites are not available in my area but I did consider that as an option.