Question Protestants Couldn't Answer w/ Keith Nester

📺 Full Episode: • From PROTESTANT PASTOR...
Keith Tells Matt some of the answers he got asking Protestant seminary
🟣 Join Us on Locals (before we get banned on YT): mattfradd.loca...
🖥️ Website: pintswithaquin...
🟢 Rumble: rumble.com/c/p...
👕 Merch: shop.pintswith...
🚫 FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔵 Facebook: / mattfradd
📸 Instagram: / mattfradd
We get a small kick back from affiliate links.

[@BensWorkshop]

Keith is an on fire protestant Pastor who now preaches the fullness of The Truth of the Roman Catholic Church. It is awesome to behold.

[@bwnco]

@@BensWorkshop Took a protestant to get me back to Mass... lol luv him

[@BensWorkshop]

@@bwnco Yes. I keep doing a double take every time he speaks. He sounds a lot like an on fire protestant pastor.... but preaching Catholicism.

[@bwnco]

@@BensWorkshop i like that he gives me simple answers to non catholics i can politely share. Like that on Mary an Saints was main thing i needed replies to simple n to point. Was the Rosary that got me following Keith on his Rosary crew deal... Yes wished more Priests n Deacons were preachy like Keith! I for one love it..i love a good ole fire n brimstone protestant sermon. Bishop sheens old sermons are great. Recently started watching some of them. Im more of a warrior crusade kind of catholic now.. id rather use a bat for rightous anger then a flower! LoL Church Militant is a great org also.

[@BensWorkshop]

@@bwnco Fair. I loved Fulton Sheen's tale from his parish church in Soho (London) when he took in a woman who had passed out at the door of the church when he opened it in the morning. Made her coffee to wake her up. Suggested she come back for mass later. She made him promise that he would not ask her to go in the confessional. So when she came back early for mass he showed her around the church, and as they passed to confessional, pushed her in without asking and heard her confession. Two years later she became a nun!

[@bwnco]

@@BensWorkshop wow!!!!

[@TheGoodGadfly]

Proving how impactful cavalier responses to important questions can be.

[@brentonstanfield5198]

I appreciate Matt pointing out, that this was more of a case of these individuals being unable to provide answers, rather than Protestantism having answers at all.

[@StringofPearls55]

James White never convinced me.

[@forthwith]

Matt being a good lad

[@kiwisaram9373]

All the cults claim to have the answers?

[@KnightFel]

@@StringofPearls55Michael Heiser handles this question easily. Rome is totally wrong on Matthew 16. It’s literally not Peter being the first pope or Rome having the keys.

[@FimiliarGalaxy9]

@@kiwisaram9373yes but “by their fruits you shall know them”

[@ronaldsmith6829]

Okay, Matthew 16:17... One has to understand context and the structure of the conversation. The narrative of the conversation starts on verse 13, not 17. Taking Matthew 16:17 standing by itself takes the verse out of context, which is the error the RC has made. The leading question Jesus asked was, "Who do men say that I, the Son Of Man am?" vv16:13b Peter answered the question with, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." vv16:16b This is where Jesus says "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in Heaven." vv16:17b He continued with (and this is where the crucial error occurs with the RC), "And I also say to you that you are Peter (naming him after the revelation he spoke), and on this Rock I will build my Church..." Okay, you can't take vv16:17 out of context with vv16:16b. Reason being, the rock is what Peter SAID not Peter himself! The Rock Christ would build his Church on would be that He (Jesus) was the Christ (messiah), the Son of the living God. So the Catholics got it wrong the same way the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Seventh Day Adventists get a great many things wrong, by taking a verse out of context and then building doctrines on it. The cornerstone of the Christian faith, no matter the denomination, is that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah who came to save the world from their sins and is the Son of the Living God. Any other belief is not Christian! Jesus also slammed the door on EVERY other religious belief by saying, "...There is NO other way to the Father BUT THROUGH ME!" This is why the Romans persecuted the Christians so vehemently. Rome enforced polytheism throughout the empire to prevent sectarianism and promote peace. Christianity was a serious threat (they thought) to that peace. The Jews were tolerated in their monotheism because they weren't evangelical. That is to say, the Jews didn't proselytize the pagan population surrounding them. Christians did so with great success! This caused the Roman authorities great distress. So, to recap: The Rock Christ speaks of building on was Peter's statement, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!" This was the rock, not Peter himself. Likewise, the RC claims that Peter came to Rome and established the Church himself. This is also unprovable. There is no evidence, either written or physical, that Peter relocated to Rome or that he established any Church there. There is likewise no evidence that Peter died there. It is a tradition of the RC alone. I suspect that this story was concocted during the Schism that developed between Rome and Constantinople. It may have been an attempt to claim an ascendancy (higher authority) to Rome over Constantinople.

[@coopahtroopah1175]

*Gavin Ortlund enters the chat*

[@Wolly735]

The reason Peter’s faith is the rock is because even he could see the truth with an open heart. Even he, who Jesus constantly admonished because he got so much wrong even with constant instruction at Jesus’ side, understood the truth. It’s not because Peter was so great that he was the rock, it’s because he WASN’T great, but he humbled himself, proclaimed the truth, therefore his faith was great.

[@johnyang1420]

Why did Jesus give the keys to Peter? You cant give keys to his faith!

[@Wolly735]

@@johnyang1420 He also didn’t give him physical keys… What do keys do? They open and close locks. Just as a note, In the same book Jesus admonished all the disciples twice right before he talks about the keys (not infallible). In the very next book, Jesus says that if the disciples would have faith the size of a mustard seed, they could tell a mountain to move and it would. So, just reading the words, it seems like the faith and humility displayed by Peter (a very fallible man who Jesus constantly has to correct) seeing and proclaiming Jesus as Christ, would grant him “the keys” to unlock heaven? Again, not because he is so great, but because he is fallible and human, but sees and proclaims and lives in truth. That seems more congruent and speaks more to responsibility than authority. Once you see the light, the truth, you are held accountable to remain in it; to act in accordance with it, and St. Peter did!

[@southernlady1109]

Peter himself is the rock on which God established His Church and Doctrine. He is the first Pope of Gods Church and the one God gave The Keys to Heaven. The Keys are Gods Authority and power. Mt16:18-19, 10:1-4 The Catholic Church is the only one with the direct succession of Popes dating back to Peter, Jesus’ apostle. The Catholic Church is the pillar of truth 1 Tim 3:15 and the Bride of Jesus Christ. Mt 22:2-13, 2 Cor 11:2, Eph 5:22-33, Rev 19:7-9, 22:17 God instituted His Sacraments and Teaching in His Church. He wants everyone to be His One True Apostolic Catholic Church, remaining in His Doctrine, receiving His Sacraments and Teaching. He rebuked the pharisees for making their own version of His Church, just like all 44,000 other Christian Churches have done. Mt23:1-39, Lk11:37-54 John 1:42 And he led him to Jesus. And Jesus, gazing at him, said: “You are Simon, son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas,” (which means large rock In Aramaic and is translated as Peter). Matthew 16:18 And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:19 And I will give YOU the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever YOU shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever YOU shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.” John 21:15 Then, when they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” John 21:16 He said to him again: “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” John 21:17 He said to him a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was very grieved that he had asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” And so he said to him: “Lord, you know all things. You know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my sheep. Ephesians 2:19 Now, therefore, you are no longer visitors and new arrivals. Instead, you are citizens among the saints in the household of God, Ephesians 2:20 having been built upon the FOUNDATION of the Apostles and of the Prophets, with Jesus Christ himself as the PREEMINENT CORNERSTONE. Ephesians 2:21 In him, all that has been built is framed together, rising up into a holy temple in the Lord. Ephesians 2:22 In him, you also have been built together into a habitation of God in the Spirit.

[@Wolly735]

@@southernlady1109I’ve read the arguments interpreting Jesus’ words from both the pro-papal supremacy perspective and the orthodox interpretation. The orthodox makes more sense to me. And, I think we can know what is right and wrong by judging in the way Jesus taught, by the fruits. How’s that papal supremacy working out?

[@southernlady1109]

⁠Your opinion and interpretation does not negate Gods Church. I don’t converse with anyone slandering God, especially KZbin trolls!

[@ccl201]

My wife and I just visited Rome after a visit to Fatima as well as a Mediterranean cruise trip. I was looking forward to a private tour at the Vatican Museum that my wife booked, and found some time to read more about St. Peter's Basilica. Then I read about the martydom of St. Peter who was executed on the cross near St. Peter's Square under Roman Emperor Nero and his body was buried under the Basilica. The Bible passage quickly came to my mind when Jesus said to Peter in Caesarea Philippi, "You are the rock (petra), and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." It was a prophesy by Jesus our Lord that Peter would become a martyr and the location of the Church would be related to his burial site. It was fulfilled when Constantine (son of St. Helena) converted to Christianity in the 4th century and built the first Basilica in Rome, which was later rebuilt during the Renaissance period. The successors of Peter were essentially the next Popes that continued to be the shepherds for the sheep of Jesus Christ, namely the Christians.

[@kevinkane9446]

You need to turn away from your idolatry.

[@johnyang1420]

Veneration buddy….read the catechism

[@kevinkane9446]

@johnyang1420 Just do you understand the catechism is not the inspired Word of God, and it is full of contradiction and error. The catechism is not a good thing to use to support your teachings.

[@johnyang1420]

@@kevinkane9446Catechism is a summation of Catholic beliefs

[@johnyang1420]

@@kevinkane9446There is no idolatry in the Catholic church

[@DozenDeuce]

Literally The Fallacy Fallacy: You presume that because a claim has been poorly argued, that the claim itself must be wrong

[@catholickirby]

They note this in the video. It's not that the questions could not be answered, but that the answers he continually got were bad and unhelpful.

[@shmeebs387]

He grants this in this clip. I think he's just saying how it frustrated him, not that it proved anything.

[@kwesigaspencer652]

These are valid arguments, for both the catholic and protestant folk to consider

[@ST-ov8cm]

Yeah….it helps if one watches the full video

[@pigetstuck]

@@ST-ov8cm a little caveat at the end doesn't help much... why even put out the clip, especially with the title they gave it?

[@fc-qr1cy]

The entire conversation was Brilliant

[@Seethi_C]

I expect a 2 hour video response from Gavin Ortland

[@antillious]

Won’t need to be two hours, he’ll just point to previous videos where he goes over this. He will site the Catholic historian who enumerated the fathers and will show that majority thought that “the rock” was Peter’s confession. Even most of the ones who said the rock was Peter ALSO thought it was the confession. From there you still need to get from the rock being Peter to infallible magisterium and Papal succession. So yeah, Protestant’s can answer this question.

[@jon6car]

​@@antilliousThe leap from St. Peter to Magisterium is less than the leap from mere Christian theism to protestant ideas (sola scriptura, sola fide etc). How would you explain that leap to one who accepts that God exists and that He revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ to protestantism?

[@robertajaycart3491]

​@jon6car Matthew 16:18 Isaiah 22 provides the Old Testament context that Jesus’ disciples would have understood completely as he quoted this particular passage in Matthew 16. When Jesus said to Peter, “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,” his disciples would recognize the passage from Isaiah. They would understand that not only was Jesus calling himself the King of his kingdom, but that he was appointing Peter as his royal steward. That John in Revelation sees the ascended and glorified Christ holding the eternal keys only confirms the intention of Jesus to delegate that power to Peter-the foundation stone of his Church. Catholic scholars are not alone in interpreting Matthew 16:17-19 as a direct quotation of Isaiah 22. Stephen Ray, in Upon This Rock, cites numerous Protestant biblical scholars who support this understanding and affirm that Jesus is delegating his authority over life and death, heaven and hell, to the founder of his Church on earth. The second strand in the braided rope of Petrine authority is the image of steward. The steward in a royal household appears throughout the Old Testament record. The patriarch Joseph works with a steward in the palace in Egypt. King Saul has a steward, as does the prince Mephibosheth, but the most important image of steward in the Old Testament for understanding Matthew 16 is in Isaiah 22. There the prophet foretells the fall of one royal steward and the succession of another. Shebna is being replaced by Eliakim, and the prophet says to the rejected Shebna, “I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in 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” (Is 22:21-22). The true holder of the keys to the kingdom is the king himself, and in the Book of Revelation we see that the risen and glorified Christ holds the power of the keys-the power to bind and loose. John has a vision of Christ who says, “I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades” (Rv 1:18). So the king holds the keys of the kingdom, but he delegates his power to the steward, and the keys of the kingdom are the symbol of this delegated authority. The keys not only opened all the doors, but they provided access to the store houses and financial resources of the king. In addition, the keys of the kingdom were worn on a sash that was a ceremonial badge of office. The passage from Isaiah and the customs all reveal that the role of the royal steward was an office given by the king, and that it was a successive office-the keys being handed to the next steward as a sign of the continuing delegated authority of the king himself

[@fantasia55]

​@@antilliousGavin is the Pope of Ortlundism.

[@fantasia55]

​@@antilliousGavin thinks the Church Fathers were Reformed Baptists.

[@shazbaar02]

PCUSA; say no more.

[@ethanmcconnell7785]

As soon as he said “she” I knew it wasn’t going to be good. It’s almost like liberals don’t have good doctrine.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

Everyone can play that game, though. "German Bishop's conference, say no more". It's not a really helpful dig.

[@KwarterCraft]

PCA is where it's at. Pipes, Cigars, and Alcohol. But yes, PCUSA moved away from biblical teaching a long time ago, which is why PCA was formed.

[@andygainor4268]

Yeah… I don’t think he was at RTS when he asked that question… might be still a protestant if he was.

[@jamesburdette]

Its too bad he took that off the cuff answer as representative of the protestant response to Matthew 16:18.

[@obcane3072]

The Roman Catholic Church interprets this verse as Jesus establishing Peter as the first Pope and the foundation of the Church. They believe that the "rock" refers to Peter himself, whose name in Greek (Petros) means "rock," and that Jesus was instituting the papacy and the apostolic succession. This forms the basis for the Catholic understanding of the authority of the Pope as the leader of the universal Church. The Greek Orthodox Church views Peter as an important apostolic figure but does not accept the supremacy of the Pope as defined by the Roman Catholic Church. They interpret the "rock" as Peter’s confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, rather than Peter himself. The Orthodox tradition emphasizes the collective leadership of the apostles and the Church’s continuity through the bishops as a group rather than through a single leader. The Syrian Orthodox Church, also interprets the "rock" as Peter’s confession of faith. They emphasize the unity and collegiality of the apostles rather than the primacy of Peter as an individual leader. For them, the foundation of the Church is the faith in Jesus Christ, and the Church is sustained through the Holy Tradition and the teachings of the Apostles.

[@_Bumby_]

People are forgetting that Peter literally means “rock.”

[@aGoyforJesus]

No, we’re not.

[@richardkramer4076]

Cephas literally means rock in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke with the apostles. John 1:42 makes it clear Jesus intends to rename Simon as the Rock and does so at Caesaera Philippi. Matthew's gospel uses the Greek Petros as a name for Rock, also translating to Peter, but Jesus used the Aramaic Cephas. Either way, claiming that Peter was not the Rock is just Protestant wishful thinking.

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

@@richardkramer4076 “Protestant wishful thinking…?” As well as the majority of the testimony of the early church fathers on that passage?

[@kiwisaram9373]

For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

[@glennlanham6309]

@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 yes, the majority of the Fathers DO ADMIT that Jesus is speaking to Peter himself and not making some kind of grammatical twister by changing subject mid-sentence!!

[@brave.freak1995]

You need to interview William Lane Craig and have this discussion.

[@Forester-]

"Moreover the difference between petra and petros is in the nature of a pun; and the pun connects Jesus' saying with Peter, with the very name that Jesus Himself had given him. Jesus is saying that Peter is the rock on whom the church will be built. This is consistent with the first half of the book of Acts." - D.A. Carson, Peter and the Founding of the Church in "Great Leaders of the Christian Church"

[@txu9272]

While the Orthodox recognize that St. Peter was given significant authority, they reject the notion that this authority extended to a monarchical or universal jurisdiction over the whole Church as claimed by the Catholic Church. The Orthodox view emphasizes a conciliar model of governance rather than a centralized one led by the Pope, who they see as “first among equals” rather than a supreme authority. In the early church time, authority within the Church is shared among bishops, who are seen as successors of all apostles, rather than vested in a single office or individual.

[@redchariots5428]

As a former protestant, I agree we are all over the place, so many of us think we are knowledgeable Christians. We know very little because it's built on "just believe don't ask questions." As soon as someone argues, you lose because you aren't well versed in your faith. An untrained child against a grown man, verbally a bully. If you block their fist they give up.

[@MichaelMannucci-fp7jb]

What a ridiculous statement and a lie. Never have I heard "just believe don't ask questions" in Protestant circles.

[@redchariots5428]

@@MichaelMannucci-fp7jb Then you haven't run into people that can't explain their faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church is actually answering most of the questions when it comes to the faith. What I've run into most people say If it's not mentioned in the Bible, we just don't know. We actually do, it's called apostolic tradition.

[@MichaelMannucci-fp7jb]

@@redchariots5428 I have met far more Roman Catholics who can't explain their faith than Protestants. But "Just believe don't ask questions" is a lie. You're lying about Protestantism. Lying is a sin even in Roman Catholicism. I hope you repent, as you'll give an answer for every idle word (Matthew 12:36)

[@redchariots5428]

@MichaelMannucci-fp7jb I have had that said to me in the past, so it's not a lie. I pray the Lord forgives both of us poor sinners for offending Him, through our own fault, Lord forgive us.

[@MichaelMannucci-fp7jb]

@@redchariots5428 First, I don't believe you. Second, you said Protestantism is "built on just believe don't ask questions." That's a lie. Your post-confrontation KZbin prayer isn't going to get you out of your bold-faced lie.

[@MrKingishere1]

Gavin Orland has answered all of the objections. Catholics tried to use to refute protestant ism. The Matthew 1618 argument has literally been Refuted billions of times. This is why I left the Catholic Church, you guys are just so desperate.

[@limoncellosmith7594]

yet here you are watching Catholic channels? What's missing from your life???? Come back to the Truth!

[@MrKingishere1]

@@limoncellosmith7594 I’m subscribed and it came up on my feed lol. I’m subscribed to all kinds of channels. Don’t use the “why are you here then “ line to say God is calling me back to your church. I am in the truth. Catholicism is the furthest from the truth.

[@maryleeespinoza239]

Don’t Protestants refute each other?

[@MrKingishere1]

@@Justhumbleme why does that matter? This is a trick question Catholics ask in order to generalize.

[@JW_______]

Is this supposed to be persuasive? Sounds like this guy had some milk toast professors.

[@fantasia55]

It's not supposed to be persuasive.

[@kevinkane9446]

1 Corinthians 10:4 and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.👈

[@southernlady1109]

John 1:42 And he led him to Jesus. And Jesus, gazing at him, said: “You are Simon, son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas,” (which means large rock and is translated as Peter). Matthew 16:18 And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:19 And I will give YOU the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever YOU shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever YOU shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.” Ephesians 2:19 Now, therefore, you are no longer visitors and new arrivals. Instead, you are citizens among the saints in the household of God, Ephesians 2:20 having been built upon the foundation of the Apostles and of the Prophets, with Jesus Christ himself as the preeminent cornerstone. Ephesians 2:21 In him, all that has been built is framed together, rising up into a holy temple in the Lord. Ephesians 2:22 In him, you also have been built together into a habitation of God in the Spirit.

[@KevinPublic]

It's sad that an Old Testament professor couldn't give you a proper answer. It's even sadder that Christians today are so ignorant of our Jewish origins. Make no mistake, The Way is the fulfillment of God's covenant to Abraham, not the replacement. While there are a number of ante-Nicean church fathers who started wandering, the Apostolic Fathers didn't. They, also being Jewish, got it. Let's look at the entire story. Jesus asks the disciples who the crowds believe the 'Son of Man' is, one of the titles of Messiah. They offer various replies... all of them off, because none of them were the Messiah. When Jesus asks Simon Peter, HE replies, "YOU are." Simon Peter was the first person to associate Jesus with the correct definition of Messiah. Among other prophecies is Isaiah 9:6-7, which states that Messiah, "shall be called wonderful counselor, almighty God, everlasting Father, prince of peace." Simon Peter successfully identified Jesus as Messiah and Messiah as the LORD. Throughout the entire Old Testament, only one person has ever been identified as a 'rock'... and that's the LORD, well over 100 times. Only the LORD God ever got that name and only the LORD deserves that name. When Jesus calls Simon, "Rock," it's not because SIMON is the Rock, but because Simon successfully IDENTIFIED the Rock. How do we know this? What Jesus says right after that, "I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." Note the impersonal pronoun, "it," at the end. If Jesus was referring to Peter, He would have said, "you," or, "him." Jesus was referring to Simon Peter's testimony... his identification of who the Rock was. That testimony will break down the gates of Hell, not Simon Peter. "That sounds shaky," you may think. But, consider this... at no point in all Scripture, from Acts on, do we see a single shred of evidence that Peter was ever in charge of anything. We don't see anything definitive that he was even PART of the Jerusalem Council, let alone in charge of it. As Peter said, at the beginning of Acts that it wasn't the Apostles' (ones sent) job to neglect the Word to wait tables (Acts 6:2). Administration was the responsibility of others, not the Apostles. They spent their time evangelizing and dying for Jesus. He reported to the Council more than once in Acts. He answered to them, they didn't answer to him. As Jesus Himself said in Matthew 28:18, "All authority on heaven and on earth has been given to me." Jesus didn't delegate. Hebrews 4:14-16 affirms this. Jesus is our High Priest. We don't need anyone else. Hope that helps.

[@bradmorris5797]

As a protestant, I can't say that I'm particularly fond of that answer. In any case, I don't think I've worked through the presumed theological problems with simply acknowledging Peter as a non-papal (Scripture doesn't say that) but prominent Apostle of a non-hierarchical (Scripture doesn't say that, either) church without for some reason being forced to accept an entire theocratic Papacy on top of that. In some way, Matthew 16:18 seems to be a play on words to call out Peter as a particular builder of the church. In any case, was he not? Can we not grant the Catholics that Peter was specially anointed? Is it not evident in early church history that he was just that? I guess I'm saying that I don't understand why there needs to be special explanation of this scripture by Protestants over and above that.

[@KevinPublic]

@@bradmorris5797 , here's the thing... When looking to interpret Scripture, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox... None of that matters. Matthew was a Jew, writing to Jews regarding the King of the Jews. His gospel was an apologetic for Jewish scholars. You need to interpret Scripture as a Jew. Scripture can't mean for us what it didn't mean for them. Yes, Peter was annointed as an apostle. So were the others. He spent his life proclaiming the Word and was martyred for it. So were the others. We should certainly celebrate that, pick up the same cross they did and follow them.

[@donaugustine9748]

A lot of people don’t have an answer. Or have a wrong answer. Jesus was referring to to the claim that Jesus is the Son of God. By that (proclamation) the church will be built and has been built. It doesn’t take a Protestant or catholic to read and understand the text. He didn’t build the church by Peter. But peters confession was rock solid!! Christ is the chief cornerstone! And even if Peter is the Rock that has the keys and binding and loosing authority, what does that have to do with confirming Catholics or denying Protestant? Peter went on and had to be corrected by pope Paul? Remember? He still was a hypocrite eating with the Jews only. Thanks be to pope Paul! Lol This is about the Church!! The faith in Christ!! By Grace alone Through Faith alone In Christ alone

[@johnyang1420]

How do you know?

[@windyday8598]

@@johnyang1420 the church is built on the foundation of the apostles (plural) and prophets. jesus being the chief cornerstone. (rock)

[@aGoyforJesus]

Wow. A liberal Protestant didn’t get an answer your questions.

[@chrisgray7905]

This video is bad.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

I'd be happy to answer these questions, Keith! :)

[@anglicanaesthetics]

1.) Petrine primacy does not equal thr papacy. One can hold that the Roman bishop has a place of primacy *when* living under the authority of the apostolic deposit, such that a reunited church would be a church with the Roman pontiff as the pastor of the church catholic, without holding to papal infallibility and such. 2.) I think the fathers held a bunch of varying views on the Eucharist; I'm making a video on this forthcoming.

[@gregoryweaver3670]

I sometimes think some of these ex-Protestants must not have had very good sources.

[@cirdan4170]

Its clear that Jesus has given Peter a leadership role in the church: Luke 22,23 "but I have prayed for you, that your faith will not fail; and you, when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." This in no way necessitates the infallibility of Peter as we see in the Judaizer-controversy where Paul publicly rebukes Peter. Much less does it necessitate a transmissible teaching office. In the question about the inclusion of the gentiles it looks like James the brother of Christ and not Peter is the head of the Jerusalem church since he speaks last and seems to make the final decision (Acts 15,13). Peter like no other (except maybe Paul) lays the foundation of the early church (cf. Ephesians 2,20). He is the one speaking for the church at its establishment (Acts 2), and is the one going to Samaria to lay his hands on the Christians there for them to receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8) but none of these things necessitates an infallible office or presupposes a hereditary or transmissible office. Peter and Paul reafirm each other by the spirit as apostles but the whole air of acts seems to suggest a very fluid authority structure and something far more led by the Spirit in the moment than by posittion. The early church seems to have understood the elders (presbyters, elders and bishops all are synonyms here, see Jeromes commentary on galatians ...) as the successors of the apostles as you see in the first epistle of clement.

[@cirdan4170]

Concerning the Lord's supper many Protestants hold to a real presence of Jesus in the sacrament similar to the Orthodox Church. That was Calvin's view, rejecting transubstantiation but holding to real presence. It is a symbol, but the symbols of God usually hold both real power and reals presence. For example the bronze serpent was a symbol of Christ and a type of Christ pointing to Him and yet anyone who looked to it was saved from the snake bites. They were not saved from their sins since it was "just" a symbol, but there was real power in it. So I think it is with the blessed sacrament that in it we really experience and connect to our Lords suffering and His saving work on the cross and thus any miracle connected to the ritual doesn't surprise me at all. However, for that to occur the wine doesn't have to become literally the blood of Christ to the degree that no wine is left. God usually doesn't rely on such technicalities. If it literally changes then we should be able to test it. The water at Canaa literally became wine in the sense that they could taste the wine and see the color etc. Also in the early church the Eucharist was celebrated as part of the love feasts, a kind of potluck and as we can read in 1. Corinthians 11 some of the Christians there were not waiting for others suggesting, that just participating in the meal was understood as participating in the Eucharist so no changing the substance required as they didn't seem to wait for the blessing to begin with the meal.

[@richardkramer4076]

@@anglicanaesthetics Re your #1: One can "hold" a lot of things as seen in your first sentence, most of them false because denying such is critical for Protestants. Petrine primacy and primacy of the Bishop of Rome and successors to the chair of Peter are widely seen in the writings of early church fathers. (Ignatius of Antioch, for example, a disciple of the Apostle John). The term "pope" came later, but by giving Peter the "keys to the kingdom," Jesus was bestowing a special power to the man Peter, but He was also bestowing it to an OFFICE that had successors mirrored by the royal steward in the Davidic Kingdom evidenced in Isaiah 22:22. He had the power to act and make decisions in the absence of the king. This was well understood by 1st century Jewish apostles but often lost on 21st century Protestants. The office became known as the chair of Peter and/or the Bishop of Rome, but it was the same office when the term "pope" was ushered in later as an affectionate term. When the Corinth church had a dispute late in the 1st century, they could have had it settled by John the Apostle, who was much closer, but they sent it to Rome for the Bishop of Rome to settle (Clement, now considered the 4th pope.) Also, Petrine primacy in the office is a different matter from infallibility, which is rarely invoked. As to your second point, opposing views on the Eucharist were a distinct minority, and no voice was as powerful in history as Ignatius' who was very clear on the matter. You can't get much more authoritative than a disciple of John the Apostle who wrote the famous gospel on the Bread of Life Discourse in John 6. One can "hold" many opposing views but they would be wrong. Anyone reading John 6 with an open mind can clearly see Jesus did not mean it symbolically, despite all the twisting rationalizations to the contrary made by Protestants. It was also believed in all of Christendom, east and west, until humans in the Reformation applied man-made traditions denying it, simply as another means to deny the authority of the CC.

[@francoisplaniol1489]

Skipping personal investigation is a no-go in biblical theology. Making personal decisions on interpretations of fallen theologians is loss of self control. Church fathers who interpret Jesus saying (Mt16:18) its Peter are not earlier than IVth century, which is 300 years after the facts. If you take a text out of its context, you can interpret whatever you want, but it will not stand for a A in the exam, rather a "out of context, learn to read!". In context, Jesus asks who he is in the eyes of his apostles. His words then refers necessarily to his topic. Jesus the Son of God (nota: not God but the Son of God, which is yet a destruction of catholic doctrine) is the foundation of the church. In using 2 words for petrus/petra he also makes very clear he takes distance from assimilation the man from the fonction. In the first council, James contradicted publicly Peter (according to RC no one is allowed to contradict the pope), so James - Paul too - are discarded for eternal life - I speak insane=RC. On the top, that James presides shows that Peter was anyway not considered as pope. Non sense over non-sense. Daniel says the RC-popery is a king who is strong in riddles, and we see thats right, since only people who study for themselves debunk the pope-story.

[@PhilGeissler]

Let me answer the question with a question, Where does it say that Peter being the "rock" that the church is built on translates to the Papacy? Couldn't it just mean that Peter was the original disciple who started the Church (not a Papal Line) in Jerusalem?

[@robertajaycart3491]

Matthew 16:18 Isaiah 22 provides the Old Testament context that Jesus’ disciples would have understood completely as he quoted this particular passage in Matthew 16. When Jesus said to Peter, “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,” his disciples would recognize the passage from Isaiah. They would understand that not only was Jesus calling himself the King of his kingdom, but that he was appointing Peter as his royal steward. That John in Revelation sees the ascended and glorified Christ holding the eternal keys only confirms the intention of Jesus to delegate that power to Peter-the foundation stone of his Church. Catholic scholars are not alone in interpreting Matthew 16:17-19 as a direct quotation of Isaiah 22. Stephen Ray, in Upon This Rock, cites numerous Protestant biblical scholars who support this understanding and affirm that Jesus is delegating his authority over life and death, heaven and hell, to the founder of his Church on earth. The second strand in the braided rope of Petrine authority is the image of steward. The steward in a royal household appears throughout the Old Testament record. The patriarch Joseph works with a steward in the palace in Egypt. King Saul has a steward, as does the prince Mephibosheth, but the most important image of steward in the Old Testament for understanding Matthew 16 is in Isaiah 22. There the prophet foretells the fall of one royal steward and the succession of another. Shebna is being replaced by Eliakim, and the prophet says to the rejected Shebna, “I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in 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” (Is 22:21-22). The true holder of the keys to the kingdom is the king himself, and in the Book of Revelation we see that the risen and glorified Christ holds the power of the keys-the power to bind and loose. John has a vision of Christ who says, “I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades” (Rv 1:18). So the king holds the keys of the kingdom, but he delegates his power to the steward, and the keys of the kingdom are the symbol of this delegated authority. The keys not only opened all the doors, but they provided access to the store houses and financial resources of the king. In addition, the keys of the kingdom were worn on a sash that was a ceremonial badge of office. The passage from Isaiah and the customs all reveal that the role of the royal steward was an office given by the king, and that it was a successive office-the keys being handed to the next steward as a sign of the continuing delegated authority of the king himself.

[@PhilGeissler]

@@robertajaycart3491 I thought Jesus was the foundation stone also known as the Cornerstone? I will research the concept of the royal steward. Thank you.

[@robertajaycart3491]

@@PhilGeissler Doesn't belong to me but it's very interesting to note that this is about Catholicism. Scripture alone has proven to be a great way to teach whatever you want (Justifying Slavery in the South for an example.) This is why Peter warned of people twisting scripture to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:215-17). To prove it is more than just a nebulous of believers, you can use Scripture itself: They would have to show that no where in Scripture does it describe the church as anything more than a body of believers. We on the other hand can cite numerous passages that show Christ instituted his Church to be both visible and invisible, to very much have a government resembling the government Moses built, with offices that were passed on: Paul refers to all who glory in the cross of Jesus to be “the Israel of God.” (Galatians 6:11-18). Elsewhere the Church is called “the New Jerusalem” (Hebrews 12:18-24, Revelation 21:9-10) So far that would be a body of believers, the Church. How then does Scripture describe both the Israel of the OId Testament, the Israel of God- the church? Israel is described in Scriptures as a an "ekklesia" (Deuteronomy 31:28-30- greek septuagint "church/ assembly), the same word used for Church in the New Testament. (Matt 16:18) Both are also called God’s Bride/ Jesus’ Bride (Jer 2:2, Ephesians 5:25-32,Rev 21:9-10) a House, (Ex 40:37-38, Eph 2:19-22, 1 Tim 3:15) A Holy Nation (Ex 19:5-6, 1 Peter 2:9-10) and a Kingdom (1 Sam 24:20, Luke 22:28-30) And just as Israel described as all these had a government, Christ's Church is described in Scripture as his Bride, the house of God, holy nation, a kingdom, and a government: Isaiah 9:6,7 "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the GOVERNMENT will be upon his shoulder...Of THE INCREASE OF HIS GOVERNMENT and of peace THERE WILL BE NO END, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. " And as with the government of Israel, there was a hierarchy to rule and judge over the people, one which Jesus modeled his Church after: - Moses installed 12 leaders of Israel// Jesus installed 12 apostles with his authority. - Moses installed 70 presbyters// Jesus commissioned 70 presbyters (Luke 10) with his authority to preach and minister. - Moses installed a hierarchy of government to rule and judge the people (Ex 18:13-26), appointing judges in every town (Deut 16:18-19)// Jesus appointed his apostles to sit on thrones Judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Lk 22:29-30) l, and appoint elders in every town (Titus 1:5-7). - Moses instructed the people to consult the judge (Deut 17:8-10)// Jesus instructs to take matters to the church (Matt 18:17, cf Acts 15:1-22) - The judgements of the hierarchy were proclaimed to be the judgements of God (Deut 1:16-18) // Jesus gave his church the power to bind and loose in heaven what it binds on earth (Matt 18:18) , and the judgment made by the council in Acts 15 seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to them (vs. 28) The authority to govern did not end with the first generation of Israel (Moses’ generation), nor these Laws being written down in Scripture. Their offices were passed on throughout the generations. So too were the offices of the Church’s government, as we see in Acts 1, when Peter proclaims that Judas’ “office” of apostle (Greek “episcope”- overseer,” BISHOPrick” v. 20) be succeeded by another. “Episcope” is the greek word used in Scripture for “Bishop,”described Paul as “an office” (1 Timothy 3:1), which the Apostles appointed through the laying on of hands, as Moses did with Joshua, and instructed Timothy and Titus (also Bishops) to do the same but not hastily (1 Tim 5:22), calling the Bishop “the Steward of God” (Titus 1:7). Paul even instructs Timothy to only entrust what he learned from him to other faithful men to do so with others also. (2 Tim 2:1-3). What Timothy learned from Paul included teaching to not be hasty in laying on hands with just anyone, but those who were above reproach to meet the qualifications to become a Bishop (1 Tim 3:1-7), and to teach them also to entrust what they learned to faithful men to then teach others to do so. This is the pattern of Apostolic Succession, modeled after the government of Israel, but heightened to a visible and spiritual level, guided to all truth by the Spirit as Christ prayed for all who followed the Apostles to be one (John 16:12-13, 17:20-23), so that the members of his body aren’t tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine crafted by cunning men who don’t have the authority (Eph 4:8, 11-14) Lastly, we see an early church writing from the 1st century speak of Apostolic Succession by Clement, who all early church fathers and historians unanimously knew was the same Clement Paul spoke of in Phil 4:3, who’s name Paul says is “in the book of life.” Clement wrote in his letter to the Corinthians: “Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]). So throughout Scripture and the extrabiblical 1st century writing of a companion of Paul’s mentioned in Scripture and in the book of Life, the Church has both spiritual and visible properties, resembling the governing hierarchy of the Old Testament Israel Moses installed, with successors to carry on and lead the church to the truth of Christ, So it would seem that in order to disqualify the church as being ANYTHING more than just the body of believers, we would need some sort of decree in Scripture or by a Church Council declaring that the government of the Church shall no longer reside in the successors of the Apostles, but only in Scripture. It simply HAS to be relinquished by the existing authority in order to be true, or else the men who reject the authority in favor of another (Sola Scriptura) are following after the examples of Korah, Kohath, Abiram, and On in attempting to taking authority from those who God gave His authority to. And as Scripture shows, it ended in disaster for them (Num 16:1-3, 31-33)

[@MikeyJMJ]

​@@robertajaycart3491Those were the best comments about biblical evidence for the papacy that I've come across. Also, cracking profile picture!

[@robertajaycart3491]

@MikeyJMJ I use to be Protestant before becoming Catholic, 10 years of research later. A lot of knowledge. I just keep this all handy for the Anti Catholics.

[@brianlysne5436]

Unfortunately, the examples he gives are clearly from those who are cavalierly ignorant. It would much more instructive to hear answers from knowledgeable, serious, conservative Protestants.

[@andrewmarshall7569]

Former Roman Catholic here. EME, lecter, and I was asked to consider being a deacon before I intentionally departed from Roman Catholic Apostasy. Peter was not the first pope. It is noted and supported by historical records that he was crucified upside down. Why would a pope be crucified? Romans 3:23 also tells us that all have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God, which includes Mary. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the father, but through him. There is no mention in scripture about Mary being sinless or as “co-mediatrix” with Jesus. I could go on and on about this, but I would highly advise any person who still adheres to the Roman Catholic cult, to investigate why the current pope is so apostate, and defends the child molesters within your clergy. Why does he ingratiate himself with the WEF and other satanic organizations like it? This is absolutely not what Jesus taught. The pope will be speaking at an upcoming climate conference, where he is asserting that mother earth is more important than anything else. This conference is called COP 28. In departing, I would highly recommend that each and every one of you would read revelation 18. Look specifically at the colors of the church leadership that are being warned against. Spoiler, it is purple (bishops) and scarlet (Cardinals).

[@fantasia55]

Peter considered himself unworthy of being crucified like Jesus.

[@SP-td9xj]

If bad social beliefs in the current age is a reason to leave the church I sure as hell hope you're not a protestant, protestantism was built on theological relativism and the current left wing wave taking over each church is a natural endpoint from where it started

[@COMPNOR]

Well, like a typical Protestant, you'd prefer to throw the Blessed Mother in the gutter and consider her irrelevant post-birth of Christ. God chose Mary to bear His Son for a reason. Out of any female in the world, He chose her. Scripture might not say she was sinless, but it doesn't say she was a sinner either. Sola Scriptura falls on its face in this way, much like it does in so, so many other areas. So, it would be wise to reassess your own apostasy and realize you are not an infallible source of knowledge and understanding of the faith. The Holy Roman Catholic Church is.

[@fantasia55]

@Christendom88 I doubt he was ever a Catholic, and I doubt he's now a Protestant. His post is typical of Muslims who pretend to be Christians in order to discredit Christianity.

[@pierdurin]

@@andrewmarshall7569 what do you mean with "why would a pope be crucified"? I don't understand the question

[@Sherleykurios]

Funny argument, Mr Keith. Jesus said " You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." Jesus is the rock of the Bible believing Christians. Yahweh is depicted as the rock in the Old Testament. Similarly Jesus is the rock upon which the church is built. According to you, Peter is greater than Jesus. That's why Catholic church stands on Peter not Jesus. Read Greek Bible Keith then u will understand better. Peter is considered as a piece of rock (petra) to be built on the solid rock Jesus (Petros) . Read 1 Peter 2:5-7.

[@photonz1812]

I always saw this in the light of Matthew 16:16. When Simon (called Peter) responds saying "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus calls him by his nickname (meaning rock) and proclaims that on the rock solid truth of Peter's words and example will Jesus' Church be built. Additionally I also think of the parable of the wise and foolish builders. How it is wisest to build your life on the LORD Jesus Christ and the fact that He is God the Son - both willing and able to save us. As building your life on Peter's example is good but building it on the LORD Jesus Christ and who He is best.

[@robertajaycart3491]

Matthew 16:18 Isaiah 22 provides the Old Testament context that Jesus’ disciples would have understood completely as he quoted this particular passage in Matthew 16. When Jesus said to Peter, “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,” his disciples would recognize the passage from Isaiah. They would understand that not only was Jesus calling himself the King of his kingdom, but that he was appointing Peter as his royal steward. That John in Revelation sees the ascended and glorified Christ holding the eternal keys only confirms the intention of Jesus to delegate that power to Peter-the foundation stone of his Church. Catholic scholars are not alone in interpreting Matthew 16:17-19 as a direct quotation of Isaiah 22. Stephen Ray, in Upon This Rock, cites numerous Protestant biblical scholars who support this understanding and affirm that Jesus is delegating his authority over life and death, heaven and hell, to the founder of his Church on earth. The second strand in the braided rope of Petrine authority is the image of steward. The steward in a royal household appears throughout the Old Testament record. The patriarch Joseph works with a steward in the palace in Egypt. King Saul has a steward, as does the prince Mephibosheth, but the most important image of steward in the Old Testament for understanding Matthew 16 is in Isaiah 22. There the prophet foretells the fall of one royal steward and the succession of another. Shebna is being replaced by Eliakim, and the prophet says to the rejected Shebna, “I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in 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” (Is 22:21-22). The true holder of the keys to the kingdom is the king himself, and in the Book of Revelation we see that the risen and glorified Christ holds the power of the keys-the power to bind and loose. John has a vision of Christ who says, “I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades” (Rv 1:18). So the king holds the keys of the kingdom, but he delegates his power to the steward, and the keys of the kingdom are the symbol of this delegated authority. The keys not only opened all the doors, but they provided access to the store houses and financial resources of the king. In addition, the keys of the kingdom were worn on a sash that was a ceremonial badge of office. The passage from Isaiah and the customs all reveal that the role of the royal steward was an office given by the king, and that it was a successive office-the keys being handed to the next steward as a sign of the continuing delegated authority of the king himself.

[@mrmcduck4902]

The thing I never get about the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16, is that it in no way legitimises the papacy. Even accepting that it establishes Peter as the foundation/head of the church with special spiritual authority, it never implies that this is a successive position. Nothing in the passage suggests that it applies to anyone besides Peter.

[@richardkramer4076]

If you understood what 1st century Jewish apostles understood about "the keys of the kingdom" then you would understand. In Jewish kingdoms, especially the Davidic Kingdom (which Jesus used as a model for both his visible and invisible church), there was an appointed royal steward who was given the keys to the kingdom. He actually wore a key on his tunic. He had the authority to make binding decisions in the place of the King if the King was absent. It was an OFFICE, with successors, and a new one filled the office when the previous one died. We see a replacement happening in Isaiah 22:22...same concept. Jesus knew after his ascension that someone needed sole authority over his church to make binding decisions. This only makes sense despite efforts by Protestants to deny it. This is not a hard concept to understand, and the writings of the very early church fathers recognized that authority rested with the Bishop of Rome. We know this from their writings. When the church at Corinth had a big dispute, they sent a letter for resolution off to Clement, the third successor to Peter as the Bishop of Rome. (now called Pope Clement although the term had not yet come into vogue). Why is this significant? Because the Apostle John, the gospel writer, was still alive on the island of Patmos, 250 miles away and they knew that, but to send it to the Bishop of Rome was a distance three times as far. They recognized the Bishop of Rome had the authority, not John.

[@kevinkane9446]

​@@richardkramer4076According to the Catechism, the pope is the head of the church(Really Christ is head of church), and the pope supposedly has the "authority of Christ" CCC 2034. According to the Catechism, the pope and magesterium are the only ones who can properly interpret God's Word(no biblical support for this claim) CCC 100. According to the Catechism and to you the Holy Spirit is leading them as you've attempted to prove by quoting John 16:13 also taking it out of context and putting men up on a pedestal at the same time by suggesting only leaders in the Catholic church have the Holy Spirit in them We can clearly see Pope Francis teaching things that are not true. On Nov 30/2015, Pope Francis stated that Muslims are our brothers and sisters in Christ. We know from the Quran that Muslims deny Christ as being God's Son as well as the crucifixion of Christ. We know from the Bible that anyone who denies Christ as Lord is condemned and is not our brother or sister. The Bible also says if you deny the Son, you don't have the Father 1 John 2:23. On March 25, 2016, Pope Francis claimed Hindus and Muslims serve the same God as Christians. We know for a fact that this is not true according to the bible. Pope Francis partners up with those of other faiths, worships alongside them, and claims we all serve the same God. We know this practice is condemned according to the scriptures. 2 Corinthians 6:14. The popes teachings and actions would prove he is not being led by the Holy Spirit, just like Pope john paul ll as he did the same things, there's even photos of him kissing a Quran. This would prove the pope has no authority, and by extension, the Catholic church has no authority as they are operating under the leadership of men who are clearly heretics. Titus 1:9 This shows they are not of God, and their claim to authority is not valid.

[@johnyang1420]

Thats your interpretation

[@johnyang1420]

Google “list of popes” to see popes going back to Peter

[@kevinkane9446]

@johnyang1420 There's no biblical record of Peter ever being in Rome. The bible is against you arguing genealogy as a way to claim authority. Titus 3:9 But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies,👈 dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile.

[@william3347]

The foundation is the confession of Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living God. Just a short while later Jesus tells Peter "get behind me satan". If Peter himself had been granted all that authority then why such a harsh rebuke? In the letters to the seven churches in Revelation why doesn't Jesus recognize the central authority, vicar, the ruling Pope from that time? Instead Jesus addresses authority 'angels' of each church even individuals within those churches and provided the vision to John who was not the Pope.

[@vejoshiraptor]

What a sad strawman argument. As if a verse that says Peter was foundational to the church somehow equates to apostolic succession and papal supremacy!

[@johnyang1420]

Read book Pope Peter by Heschmeyer

[@fantasia55]

That is what early Christians believed.

[@wlf7184]

@@fantasia55 no.

[@krisk6834]

When the apostles chose Matthias to take Judas' place, they showed that the seat of an apostle has to have someone in it. Was there some point where they stopped that and decided to do things another way? If they didn't, and if Peter is the rock, then whoever is in his seat is also the rock.

[@vejoshiraptor]

@@krisk6834 You’re referring to Acts 1:21-26. Read it again. The requirements they put down for who could become an Apostle is that it be someone who followed Jesus from his Baptism all the way to his ascension. Pretty sure nobody today meets that requirement! It also *doesn’t* show “that the seat of an apostle *has* to have someone in it.” If that were true, we would expect 12 people today in the seats of the apostles, not one! The passage just shows that it was *possible* in the Apostolic age for new apostles to be appointed. It doesn’t show that it was necessary, nor that it would continue beyond the age of the eye-witnesses. Lastly, even if we ignore all those inconsistencies and leaps of logic, it *still* wouldn’t mean that someone who becomes appointed as an apostle somehow takes on the specific roles or characteristics of any one apostle who preceded them. Would you claim that Mathias taking Judas’ place would mean he’ll be a thief and a traitor like Judas? If not, then why would we think someone who succeeds Peter would be a “rock” like Peter? “If Peter is a rock, then whoever is on his seat is also a rock” is just a completely baseless claim.

[@LiliesofEden]

So honest and real question here…. I attend a Lutheran church that does believe the bread and wine is the body and blood and is literal. So I don’t understand Protestants who don’t see it as such. I also have heard explanations of the “rock” referring to the church, not necessarily connected to Peter. It’s mostly explained as the church / body being anyone who is a born again believer. The argument being that the Greek word used for rock here is the female version of the word, equating it to the church (bride) and not Peter. Anyone have a break down of this? Any explanations for these beliefs? I’m so confused, and very interested in Catholicism.

[@thejohn17project15]

It's sad that he never got an actual answer about that verse. There is a good answer to his question. As someone who no longer Identifies as a Protestant but is also not Catholic this passage is not hard to answer when looking at the broader context.

[@jon6car]

Which is?

[@chwedl13]

He already got one...that story was just his first step to his journey to Catholicism.

[@phillipgriffin4355]

Took me all of 2 seconds. “All religions are paths to God. I will use an analogy, they are like different languages that express the divine.” Your current pope. As opposed to scripture "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

[@MichaelMannucci-fp7jb]

As a Protestant, it's encouraging you think one of the best questions is Matthew 16:18, because it's a very easy answer. _And Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it._ (Matthew 16:16-18) Roman Catholics say "upon this rock" refers to Peter. Protestants say "upon this rock" refers to Christ, from Peter's statement "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" The great thing is we have the Apostolic interpretation already: _Therefore you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone. 21In Him the whole building is fitted together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord._ (Ephesians 2:19-20) According to Paul in Ephesians 2, the church is built on the foundation of the Apostles (plural, not Peter) and Prophets (plural, not Peter), and Christ Jesus being the (singular) cornerstone (aka rock). And of course, many other Apostolic Scriptures (including Peter's own interpretation of who the rock is in 1 Peter 2), all of which identify Christ as the rock, none of which identify Peter as the rock. And, as a side note, PCUSA is very liberal (evidenced by the fact thay had a woman teaching in seminary) and Reformed only in name, and United Methodists certainly are not reformed, and are so liberal it's ridiculous. So... not surprised you weren't finding any serious answers.

[@theproceedings4050]

I enjoy watching many of the talks on this channel, however I feel all too often Matt gets a sinful pleasure from mis-characterizing and degrading us Protestants by both his guest choice and his questions (this belief is reinforced by a definite wider trend among Catholics). Maybe he doesn't intend to do this, but it is the way it is being perceived. For those who will no doubt tell me "this channel is only for Catholics" that is silly, clearly Mr. Fradd is aware that he has a much more diverse platform than just that. I would further like to point out for commenters, many of whom are far more vicious and militant than Matt, that when you lie about and mock others in those ways, you reveal yourselves to be apart from Christ and no doubt shame both your fellow believers and your clergy.

[@johnyang1420]

Take RCIA and join the Catholic church started by Jesus

[@theproceedings4050]

@@johnyang1420 Not started by Jesus number one. And No.

[@calebpearce9334]

Maybe it’s true that none of the people he spoke to had an answer off the top of their heads. But uh… Protestantism has absolutely been addressing Matthew 16 since the beginning. We’re in line with the Orthodox in recognizing that most church fathers identified “the rock” as Peter’s confession and not Peter himself. As to what seems to be the second point of this video, Protestants have also been addressing the perspicuity of scripture since the very beginning. You’re more than welcome to disagree with the Protestant answers. But don’t add this to the long list of catholic videos titled “a question Protestants can’t answer” when it’s definitely questions Protestants have been answering for 500 years.

[@frisco61]

Soooooo Christianity had it wrong for 1500 years until Luther showed up???

[@SacredCuriosity]

​@@frisco61the Orthodox, who like Catholics claim to be the original church, reject papal supremacy as well

[@calebpearce9334]

⁠@@frisco61think for just a second and consider if I EVER made the claim they were wrong for 1500 years. Claim: “prots can’t answer this question” Me: “yes we can answer this question” You for some reason: “you think the church was wrong for 1500 years!” Can’t you see that has nothing to do with what’s being discussed here?

[@richardkramer4076]

@calebpearce9334 Protestants may have been giving answers for 500 years, but even some Protestant theologians and historians are starting to realize the teaching of the CC is right on Peter being the rock and Protestant excuses held no merit. They started admitting to intellectual honesty. You will have to cite examples, because your claim that "MOST church fathers identified 'the rock' as Peter's confession" is simply false. We see various Protestant rationalizations that have tried to explain this away....like Jesus is really the rock, or Peter's confession, or the Petros/petra "big rock/little rock" nonsense. Here is why Protestant excuses are all wrong in a nutshell: Historians agree that Jesus spoke with His apostles in Aramaic, but Matthew's gospel was written in common (Koine) Greek. So Jesus did not actually SAY the words Petros or petra at Caesarea Philippi. He spoke the only word in Aramaic for "rock"...KEPHA. The Greek transliteration of rock as a name is Cephas. Simon is referred to as Cephas in several bible verses, but the smoking gun in the bible is found in John 1:42. It is very clear that Jesus, upon meeting Simon, told him that He, Jesus, would be renaming Simon CEPHAS (which means Rock and Peter comes from the Greek Petros for the same name). There is no doubt Peter is the Rock that Jesus intends to build His church on, and in the bible, when God RENAMES someone, it is for momentous reasons. We saw that when Abram was renamed Abraham by God in the OT. Here is a possibility you might consider: you are simply wrong and have no good reason to persist in error. Search what Cephas means and you get: "rock" Cephas is a masculine name of Aramaic origin, meaning "rock." It is derived from the Aramaic word kephas, which means "rock" or "stone." Cephas is a biblical name known for its connection to Peter from the Greek word for rock, petros.

[@wlf7184]

@@frisco61 No. There were the Eastern churches.

[@RyanOlander]

St. Augustine even said it was Peter's confession that Christ built the Church. St. Paul also refers to Christ as our foundation.

[@kellyross4801]

"Rocky, here is the rock upon which I will build MY Church, and the gates of hell will not stand against it." It was perfectly clear *to the other Apostles, and early Church Fathers that Peter / Rocky was THE Rock. It wasn't questioned seriously until Luther. And note: it makes a handy argument to justify leaving the Church, if Peter *isn't the Head. It's a rhetorical fallacy of convenience! 🙄😆 Pax 🙏

[@BiffsCoffee27272]

Lol yeah reading the answers protestants are saying in this chat are cracking me up. I remember thinking the same way, but once you learn how the entire early church interpreted it. It's hard to maintain the arrogance that you are interpreting it better then them. Sadly most protestants don't know history before Luther. And also they know next to nothing about what Catholics believe. Just anti-catholic propaganda. And made up history. But hey their own interpretation of scripture is their authority. Which is why there are 50000 denominations.

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

What percentage of the church fathers do you think read this passage like you claim? I’m guessing the percentage would surprise you.

[@kellyross4801]

@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 Clement, Ireaneous, Origen...

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

@@kellyross4801 Origen (185-253) And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God. But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect?…..”

[@fellow_servant_jamesk8303]

@@kellyross4801 Study by French Roman Catholic Jean de Launoy showed the patriotic sources found the following: 17 citations supporting Peter as the rock of Matthew 16 (yet this does not necessitate that the Papacy flows from this interpretation) 16 citations supporting Jesus as the Rock 8 supporting the apostles together as forming the rock And 44 citations indicating that the rock of Matthew 16 was the confession of faith made by Peter (The (R) Catholic position represents ONLY 20% of the church father references)

[@Barnesproductions]

There are people who can answer these questions, though.

[@samwisegamgee2488]

A correct understanding of that passage is that it is the truth that Peter spoke. Not Peter himself. Unfortunately, that professor was ill-equipped to answer that question accurately. Jesus says "...upon THIS rock..." not necessarily upon Peter himself. The rock being that Jesus is Christ, the Son of the living God (16). Simon Peter is known as the "rock" for this truth being revealed to him. Simon -"the one who hears" or "the one who has heard" and Peter -"the Rock". It is my understanding (and I am always willing to be corrected) that what Peter spoke is the Rock upon which the Church is to be built. Jesus would not give that weight upon a mortal and sinful man (because men always fail). Rather, the undying and unwavering truth that He is Christ is smarter and more effective.

[@matthewphelps5136]

YES! Perfect answer, thank you.

[@richardkramer4076]

Then read my explanation to CalebPearce in this thread because I wish to correct you. John 1:42 is the very short answer to my longer response. Jesus spoke in Aramaic with his apostles, and the verse shows Jesus intended to rename Simon CEPHAS which as a name with Aramaic origins meant ROCK.

[@samwisegamgee2488]

@@richardkramer4076 I understand that perspective but respectfully disagree. Simon Peter essentially means the one who has heard (Simon) the rock (Peter). And Jesus says "this" is the rock on which I will build my church. When Jesus says "...THIS is the rock..." he is pertaining to the truth that Peter heard. The Rock is the revelation that Jesus is Christ, the Son of the living God. The rock Jesus is talking about is the Truth, not the literal man Simon Peter.

[@richardkramer4076]

@@samwisegamgee2488 If you are Protestant, you must disagree or embrace intellectual honesty and admit it is obvious that Peter is the rock because of John 1:42. Your explanation is one of three or four erroneous Protestant possibilities, so there is disagreement even among Protestants. It is not widely held by biblical scholars. The common link is that you MUST disagree with the CC. Do a search on what Cephas means. It means ROCK and Jesus tells Simon He will be changing Simon's name to Cephas in John 1:42. Perfectly clear unless you insist on denying reality. The Greek of Matthew's gospel uses the word Petros (also means rock) but Jesus spoke Aramaic and He clearly named Simon ROCK. . You are giving what you were taught because it is critical for Protestants.I noticed you changed the biblical words to "THIS is the rock"...actually, in Aramaic, Jesus translated to English said "You are Rock, (but we say Peter) and on this rock I will build My church"....Matthew wrote in Greek and used Petros which is rock in Greek for the Aramaic name Cephas (kepha) which Jesus actually spoke at Caesaera Philippi. In English it became Peter, but it still means rock. There are numerous Protestant theologians or scholars who agree Peter is the Rock, and to name a few it includes Baptist Craig Blomburg, Presbyterian J. Knox Chamblin, Reformed Herman Ridderbos, and Anglican R.T. France. You need to accept the reality that what you were taught is not the truth.

[@johnm.4947]

Which came first: the Bible or the Church? For several generations the New Testament was not yet compiled nor the Canon of the Bible formulated, so…

[@fantasia55]

Church

[@Nikolai393]

If Peter is the undisputed leader of the Church, why does James, the Brother of Christ, have the final say at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15?

[@sentjojo]

Because James was the Patriarch of Jerusalem and the council was in Jerusalem

[@CScott-wh5yk]

@@sentjojoSo region has priority over person?

[@sentjojo]

@@CScott-wh5yk having the last word isn't about who has priority. Church Councils still work this way, they always have. The only thing that matters is the Pope agrees with the final verdict, and James agreed with Peter

[@Nikolai393]

@sentjojo why wouldn't Peter be the Patriarch? He didn't live in Rome. A majority of the Church Elders were very much based in Israel. When James finalized the Council, he says "this is my judgement". It seems very much to me that he didn't need the approval of Peter

[@MiszuFiszu]

@@Nikolai393 if my memory serves me right, the "Judaizers" which were convincing Christians to get circumsised, came from Judea (Acts 15:1) that is from James' Church. It makes sense then that he - after Peter gives a more general judgement/exposition of Faith - offers a more specific judgement, concerning his own faithful. Of course, someone can dispute this, that's fair. But I think it suffices to show that James speaking last and pronouncing a "judgement" is by no means a "slam dunk" against the question of Peter's primacy (which the passage in Acts isn't concerned with at all in that moment)

[@MRAGFT7]

It´s striking how similar protestant conversions to Catholicism stories are. They tend to have most of these points or situations in common

[@Giguere2011]

I’m always surprised on how drawn towards Catholicism he was considering that Greek Orthodoxy hasn’t changed since the Creed while the Roman church has.

[@glennlanham6309]

even more than that, you have never even had a Council...you admit your church(es) are stale...

[@regis_red]

The Church hasn’t changed. The doctrine and sacraments haven’t changed, the Eucharist hasn’t changed.

[@glennlanham6309]

@@regis_red keep your fingers crossed with this "Synod"...there have been robber synods before...

[@southernlady1109]

Jesus Christ established His One True Apostolic Catholic Church & Doctrine with His apostles, before His Passion. He appointed them leaders, Peter as Head, gave THEM His authority, power & Sacraments(The Keys to Heaven). He taught everyone is to be His One True Church, receiving His Sacraments, Doctrine & Teaching or you DO NOT HAVE GOD. ALL 44,000 other Christian Churches, without Gods authority, broke away from the only Church, Doctrine & Sacraments that Jesus Christ established, to start their own version of Gods Church, like the Pharisees did and God rebuked them for doing so. Mt 23:1-39, Lk 11:37-54, Mt 16:18-19, 10:1-4, Mk3:14-19, Eph 2:19-22, 1 Cor 12:28, Acts 20:28, Lk 22:28-32, Jn 21:15-17, 10:16, 17:20-26, Eph 4:4-6, 2 JN1:9, Gal 1:6-9, Heb 13:9, Jn 3:5, Act 22:16, 2 Cor 5:18-20, Jn 20:21-23, Mt 18:17-18, Jn 6:51-59, 1 Cor 11:23-29, Lk 22:18-20, Eph 1:13, 2 Cor 1:21-22, Mt 19:4-6, Col 3:17-19, 2 Cor 5:20, 1:25-29, Lk 22:28-32, Jm 5:16, Lk 10:34 are a few pertinent verses. The Catholic Church gave The Holy Bible to the world. Over 1500 years later, Protestants, without Gods authority, rewrote it, deleted verses, chapters, books and changed wording to The Holy Bible & to The Ten Commandments. Changing a word here and there can negate the meaning of the verse. Revelation 22:18 For I call as witnesses all listeners of the words of the prophecy of this book. If anyone will have added to these, God will add upon him the afflictions written in this book. Revelation 22:19 And if anyone will have taken away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his portion from the Book of Life, and from the Holy City, and from these things which have been written in this book.

[@johnyang1420]

Amen

[@imago2758]

The rock is clearly the teachings of Christ. Matthew 7:24-25 clearly teach that those who build their lives on his words are like wise people who build their house on the foundation of the rock. No matter what goes against them they will still stand. And later, when it is revealed who he is, he says that upon this rock, which was the identity that the Father revealed to Peter, he will build his church. So the foundation of all of Christs’ words and teachings come from who he is. That is he is the Messiah, or the anointed one. A second Moses/Israel if you will, which is why Matthew details out the death of the males killed by Herod in chapter 2. Then Christ leaves Egypt as a pattern of a new exodus to go back Israel, the land of promise. Jesus is heavily displayed as the representative of Israel (Matthew 2:15, Hosea 11:1, Hosea 1:11) and a prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:18-19). So yes, upon the rock of his words, that is the foundation of who he is, he will build his church/gathering (Acts 7:38) . The idea is to bring them back into the promised land as the new Moses. And all the sermons, or words spoken on the mountain parallel Moses and the law he was given in Sinai. A new covenant and commands. Even Matthew 17:1-9 parallels Exodus 24:16. Six days of creation that leads into the rest of God where the glory of God is. And Christ is that Glory, law and word that surpasses Moses and Elijah, which represent the law and the prophets.

[@frekigeri4317]

Which is why Protestants are tossed to and fro on every wind of doctrine 11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Ephesians 4:11-14 Sorry, 44,000 denominations and counting, all created just after the movable type printing press and the invention of sola scriptoria

[@imago2758]

@@frekigeri4317 Genuine believers among these ideological different denominations hold to a form of unity in Christ, considering one another brothers and sisters despite their differences . It’s very similar to the conflict in Romans 14 concerning Jew and gentile dietary laws. You know, how both groups saw themselves honoring God through different means. But, if you disagree with my argument based on what you’ve just said, then you’ve made no point against what I’ve said…

[@frekigeri4317]

@@imago2758 I’m sorry but Jesus Christ is the truth. Either infant baptism is permitted and true or it’s not. Either the Eucharist is true or it’s not. These aren’t small issues The fact you wander aimlessly from one denomination to another while singing Kumbaya and shaking everyone’s hand means very little.

[@imago2758]

@@frekigeri4317 Can you explain infant baptism from the teachings of Christ? The disciples were sent out teaching all that he had commanded them. As far as I can tell he never spoke of baptizing infants. As for the Eucharist, or the Lords super, the new Passover, why do you believe I disagree with that? Also, why is there a pope, which means papa or father, called that? Jesus speaks directly against that in Matthew 23:9. I have reasons to disagree with you.

[@IG88AAA]

So just reject the words of Christ “you are Peter(Greek petros-rock)” See also John 1:42. “Cephas” is rock in aramaic. So, Jesus changes Simon’s name to Rock, and in the same breath says on this rock He will build His church, but He didn’t mean it that way. What He actually meant was ANYTHING that rejects the primacy of Peter. Reminds me of “speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” ‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭3‬:‭16‬ ‭RSV Unstable as in lacking a stable foundation. Perhaps if one was to be upon the Rock Christ built His church upon, one would not be unstable.

[@cullenkehoe5184]

What if the authority outside the scripture you have to choose from is wrong? Indulgences? Purgatory? Mary worship ? No thanks. I'll stick with Protestants. Some Protestsnt churches are good, some are not. I attend a Pentecostal lite that is great.

[@johnyang1420]

Jesus started Catholic church

[@srisley13]

There are many Protestants and Orthodox who acknowledge that Peter is the rock, but the Papacy does not automatically follow from that.

[@southernlady1109]

The Catholic Church has the direct succession of Popes dating back to Peter, Jesus’ apostle. The list, The Annuario Pontificio is found on the official website for The Vatican, The Holy See.

[@paddingtonbear6815]

Jesus is the cornerstone, Peter is a little rock like everybody else that makes up the church✝️

[@TheprophetJeremiah25]

Why is he being taught by a women in the first place?

[@toddbuchholz550]

The rock is the gates of hell, mount Hermon, Christ is claiming victory over the gates of hell

[@SomebodySomewhere-ul1eu]

Catholic logic is very strange. How do you get from that verse to the institution of the Papacy ?

[@johnyang1420]

Read the early church fathers

[@RealMatthewWalker]

Any answer that ends with duh is not to be trusted

[@Justas399]

No office of a papacy in the NT. Roman Catholic scholar Richard P. McBrien concedes, “from the New Testament record alone, we have no basis for positing a line of succession from Peter through subsequent bishops of Rome” (Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism: Completely Revised& Updated, [HarperCollins, 1994], p. 753).

[@maryleeespinoza239]

That scholar might as well be a Protestant. It’s from the New and Old Testament. When a king - Jesus - gives keys to the kingdom, the steward is next in authority below the king. OT The keys are passed down_the succession_to Eliakim, from the former master of the House of David, for example. It’s like we are always so revolutionary against monarchy which doesn’t help in understanding what used to be so clear for how these offices work.

[@Justas399]

@@maryleeespinoza239 where did Peter hand off the keys? Where is the documentation?

[@cullenkehoe5184]

Completely right. The (invisible) church has great authority on earth given by Jesus. But it's not tied to a flawed human institution. It is composed of all believers.

[@Justas399]

@@cullenkehoe5184 yet, pastors and elders have a specific authority in their churches. The apostles also had a special kind of authority.

[@lellachu1682]

McBrien is a known dissenter, so you can't put too much weight into anything he says. Lord have mercy on his soul.

[@KjoNiels]

Could I get a Protestant’s response to the scripture in question (Matthew 16:13-19) when it is paralleled with Isaiah 22 and the Steward of the house of David, as well as Nathan’s prophecy in 2 Samuel 7:8-17. I feel like given the concrete nature (real people, real authority) of the Old Testament Davidic Kingdom and the clear prophecy of its future established reality, and the clear New Testament fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdom in our Blessed Lord, that having a real concrete person given an actual office is a better explanation of the words Christ spoke. I don’t see how Our Lord’s words of “keys to the Kingdom”, “binding and loosing” is meaningful apart from authority given to a specific person, as opposed to Peter’s statement of faith alone. Thoughts?

[@wlf7184]

Try this: It's authority (or a mission) given to a group of people - the community of those who follow Jesus.

[@pigetstuck]

total straw man answers; it's understandable why he converted

[@hannahdeforest9148]

This is a tragedy. The answers you received were totally unprepared and unbiblical. There's a lot to unpack about the question of authority in the church. Lots of passages to look at. But here's a quick answer to "the rock" on which Jesus will build his church: It's the Spirit- revealed truth that Jesus is the "Christ, the Son of the Living God." Jesus will build his church on the foundation of who he is: The Son of God who came in flesh to seek and save sinners who are worthy of nothing but death and eternal punishment. Praise Him!!

[@johnyang1420]

Peter is the rock

[@hannahdeforest9148]

@@johnyang1420 That is the misunderstanding upon which the Catholic office of the Pope is based, yes.

[@Ransomonious]

I've noticed of late some Catholics have been cautiously expressing concern over the current Pope because of scriptural conviction. The issue of an external authority is an interesting point here.

[@johnyang1420]

Pope personal opinion is irrelevant

[@WT-Sherman]

If Peter isn’t the Rock, then why did Jesus change his name and why did Jesus give , only him, the keys.

[@2anonymous]

In Matt 18:18 he gives the power to forgive to the whole church, not just Peter.

[@WT-Sherman]

@@2anonymous The Keys pertain to Authority. Also reference Is 22:22. Only Peter was given them. As for the power to absolve sins : John 20:22-23. Given to the Apostles. Future priests and bishops of the Church. They act in persona Christi. So, it is still Our Lord who actually absolves the sin.

[@glennlanham6309]

St. John Chrysostom (an Eastern Patriarch!) on the Pope: It is a prerogative of the dignity of our city [that is, Antioch] that, from the beginning, it received as master the prince of the apostles. In fact, it was a just thing that this city - which was glorified by the name of “Christians” before the rest of the earth - should receive as shepherd the prince of the apostles. When we received him as master, however, we did not keep him forever but rather yielded him to the royal city of Rome. Therefore, we do not hold the body of Peter, but we hold the faith of Peter as we would Peter himself. As a matter of fact, as long as we hold the faith of Peter, we have Peter himself

[@timrosen1618]

Are you demonstrating the papacy by quoting Chrysostom?

[@glennlanham6309]

@@timrosen1618 who should be against the Papacy but a Patriarch of the East? According to Eastern theology, they never submitted to a Pope. Athanasius and Chrysostom prove quite otherwise

[@ToeTag1968]

First point: Matthew 16:13-20 is all about Jesus and establishing he is the Christ. "You are Peter and upon this rock..." There is a distinction there. If Peter was the rock, Jesus would have said, "You are Peter, and upon your rock..." or "upon your foundation." But we know Jesus is the chief cornerstone. Jesus was saying that Peter's faith that Jesus is the Christ is the foundation of building the church. So, "upon this rock" refers to the faith that believers will have that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. The Early church fathers, like Augustine, held this view. Medieval Papal and Papal council doctrines have taken the Catholic Church well off the rails of how worship of God and Jesus Christ are supposed to be.

[@richardkramer4076]

False analysis ToeTag. Read my in depth reason in this thread in answer to CalebPearce. Simon is called Cephas about half a dozen times in the bible, but notably in John 1:42, where Jesus tells Simon He will be renaming Simon CEPHAS (an Aramaic origin name that MEANS "Rock.") Jesus then does what He promised by renaming Simon at Caesaera Philippi...that's ROCK. Look up the meaning of Cephas...it means rock in Aramaic. Jesus spoke with His apostles in Aramaic. There is no doubt Peter is the rock that Jesus intended to build His church on...when God renames people in the bible it is for momentous reasons, like Abram to Abraham in the OT. If this wasn't momentous, Jesus had no reason to rename Simon. And by the addition of giving "the keys of the kingdom" ONLY to Peter, 1st century Jewish apostles knew EXACTLY what Jesus was doing and what He meant, even if 21st century Protestants make all kinds of erroneous guesses. Right out of Isaiah 22:22 and the Davidic Kingdom....Jesus was bestowing enormous power on Peter after He, Jesus, ascended into heaven. The power to make decisions in the absence of the King....and it was understood as an OFFICE, with successors after the death of the royal steward who had been given the "keys."

[@ToeTag1968]

@@richardkramer4076 Hi Richard! Jesus gave several of his disciples nicknames. That he gave one to Simon is not unusual. The bible makes it clear in many ways that Jesus is the Rock, the chief cornerstone. That Jesus nicknamed Simon "Cephas" does not testify that Peter would be the first leader of the church. It was given due to his faith. Let's look at some scriptures (I'll use the NRS Catholic Edition). I pray that you do take the time to look up and review the citations: 1 Corinthians 3:11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:4 ...and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. Psalms 118: 21:22 I thank you that you have answered me and have become my salvation.The stone that the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. It is easy to see that Jesus is described as the foundation of the global church. So, reading scriptures in context reveals that belief in Jesus as the Christ, and the act of his sacrifice was the beginning (the foundation) of the church (Acts 20:28), and that He is the chief cornerstone of the church (Matthew 21:42). If that wasn't clear enough, let's take a look at Ephesians 2:19-22 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God. Do you see? There is no mention of Peter being the sole overseer of the church. Or being the first church father. ALL of the disciples/apostles were charged with the task. As for the "keys of the kingdom" phrase. Tense is important here. Jesus says that they WILL get the keys to the kingdom. Jesus did not give the keys only to Peter (but to all of the apostles), and he didn't give them at that moment. All of the Apostles are given that same authority in Matthew 18:18 and John 20:23 - the beautiful moment Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit onto all of the disciples. So, as far as the work of establishing and founding the church, we are told several times that the church is founded by all of the apostles, not one (Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14). So, back to the beginning. Jesus was praising Peter for rightfully discerning that Jesus is the promised Messiah. And, when the time came (Pentecost), the faith of everyone who accepted that knowledge would be the start of the church. And, as we know, that confession of faith is the all-important key to salvation! Is Peter important? Yes, of course! But he is equal partner in the building of the church as proven if you re-read the last reference provided, Revelation 21:14. God bless you.

[@richardkramer4076]

@@ToeTag1968 Great example of denial of realityToe Tag. You are desperately in denial, because it is critical to Protestant beliefs. Your biblical quotes have no connection to Matthew 16. A metaphor can be used multiple times with different meanings. The appearance of one, like Jesus called the rock in one place does not mean it can't be used for someone else. Flawed logic. . Your attempt to dismiss John 1:42 couldn't have been more lame. Jesus clearly says he will be changing Simon's name to Cephas, which MEANS Rock. It was not a "nickname." It was meant to have purpose. Peter will be the ROCK that Jesus builds His church on. You have another GLARING error. Yes, future tense is important with the power of the "keys, because Peter would get that power WHEN Jesus made His ascension into heaven. Here is your error, however: It is clear to me that you have no understanding what "the keys to the kingdom" MEANS (I'm sure you will supply some false Protestant definition)....it is the power given to the royal steward in Jewish kingdoms, like David's in isaiah 22:22 where he has the power to ACT and make binding decisions in the ABSENCE of the King (at ascension for Jesus). The power to bind and loose is initially promised to Peter ALSO, but it is DIFFERENT from "the keys to the kingdom". It was a power in Judaism given to high priests in the temple. Here is your GLARING error: You said "ALL of the apostles were given that same authority" for the keys and you are flat wrong! Why? Because the original Greek text in Matthew 16:19 uses Greek YOU (singular), meaning the power of the keys will be given to Peter ALONE as well as the power to bind and to loose. Yes, later in Matt 18:18 Jesus extends the power to bind and loose to ALL the apostles, but NOT the KEYS to the kingdom. We know this is the historical meaning also, because numerous early church fathers wrote about the primacy of Peter and his successors as the Bishop of Rome. Having the power of the keys was always to one person, but it stayed with successors because it also defined an OFFICE. You are simply grasping at straws and you are simply wrong.

[@ToeTag1968]

@@richardkramer4076 Whoa. I feel personally attacked. I'm sorry if I came off flippant about Simon Peter's naming. Nothing Jesus did was without purpose. I get that. But Jesus, and the other disciples continued to call him Simon, Simon Peter, or Peter throughout scripture. Please review John 21:15-17. In Luke 22:31-34 Jesus uses Simon's given name and then later on, his alternative name (is that better than nickname?). Also look at Luke 24:34. So, yes, Jesus gave him an alternate name by which he could be called. Simon Peter was one of the three most beloved disciples. The other two, Jesus (I think humorously and affectionately) called them the Sons of Thunder. This extra naming, to me, was a sign of deep affection. Since you brought up original Greek, it is worth noting that Jesus was making a play on words in Matthew 16:18. "Thou art Petros and upon this petra I will build my church." Jesus used the masculine to refer to Peter and the feminine to refer to the foundation of faith that would be the bedrock of His church. It is easy to see when you truly look. At the risk of offending you further, the keys, again, were not delivered only to Peter. A key in that time was a symbol of authority. As you mention, power granted to act in the absence of the king. This was the power and authority Jesus gave to all of his disciples. Jesus bestowed authority to them all at the same time when He breathed on them the Holy Spirit. That any additional authority was given to Peter beyond that given to the other apostles doesn't track in relation to other verses. There is no other time in scripture where it is mentioned that Peter has such keys alone. I have nothing but love and adoration for Simon Peter for being the first of the apostles to bring the Good News to Gentiles like myself. I am thankful for his heart and ministry. And, now, as we are all disciples of Christ, we have that same authority to bind and loose. Hallelujah.

[@richardkramer4076]

@@ToeTag1968 Read some competent biblical scholars...my explanation comes from them on the keys. It is a different than receiving the power to bind and loose, and it is NOT mentioned as also being given to the other apostles in Matthew 18:18. You are simply wrong, because you are ascribing the wrong meaning to the keys of the kingdom. You obviously think it is the same as binding and loosing. History and tradition and competent bible scholars say you are wrong. At some point you need to realize you are wrong. Protestants were 15 centuries removed from reality. Find me any early church father that agrees all apostles were given the keys to the kingdom. It is simply wishful thinking on your part. The papal coat of arms shows the keys.You are stubborn in your error as are most Protestants....those who knew they were taught error converted to Catholicism, including many brilliant scholars who make the best Catholic apologists like Scott Hahn, John Bergsma, and Trent Horn..The other Jewish apostles knew what Jesus meant, even if you don't. The writings of the early church fathers say so. Peter had the keys, i.e. ultimate authority, but all the apostles needed the power to bind and loose because they were spread out all over the Roman Empire. Common sense tells someone that 12 bosses doesn't work, or no central authority....which is why Protestantism has splintered into thousands of churches. ...spawned by the false doctrines of Luther that unites all Protestants in error (sola scriptura and sola fide). I see you failed to mention that Peter is also called Cephas throughout scripture, for example, by Paul in Galatians 2 and several times in 1st Corinthians, which is why I say "so what" to being called Simon or Peter, or Simon Peter, because I am not denying that. That is a useless argument. But you keep trying to hide that Jesus said He would change his name to Rock and now you are just creating smoke screens. Your comment about his other names is meaningless. You keep dodging the clear meaning of John 1:42 that Jesus predicts He will change Simon's name to Rock (Cephas, an Aramaic name) Mentions of Peter are there because it is the Greek form, but Cephas is also used by the apostles. You can try to deny reality all day but you won't convince anyone with common sense. Numerous contemporary Protestant scholars and historians admit the CC is correct and that Peter is the rock, and that is increasingly accepted. You can deny reality all you want to...just not in continuance with me. I am not going to argue, and your weak arguments aren't even remotely close to convincing me. Have a nice evening.

[@Modeltnick]

Not buying it.

[@dann285]

Two personal experiences means "Protestants could'nt answer?"???? Say what? So not here to debate Catholisism or Protestantism, but as far as authority I do understand what he is saying, but this is it , The Roman Catholic Church equates authority and infalibility. They claim to have the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[@johnyang1420]

They could not answer…..that is true

[@dann285]

The Roman Catholic Church equates authority and infalibility. @@johnyang1420

[@southernlady1109]

God gave His apostles and their direct successors, Catholic Clergy His authority and power in His One True Apostolic Catholic Church. Mt 10:1-4, 16:18-19 The Catholic Church is the pillar of truth 1 Tim 3:15 and The Bride of Jesus Christ Eph 5:22-33, Rev22:17, Mt 25:1-13 The Catholic Church is the only one He established. He rebuked the pharisees for making their own version of His Church, just like all 44,000 other Christian Churches have done. Mt 23:1-39, Lk 11:37-54 Jesus wants everyone to be His One True Church, remaining in His Doctrine and receiving His Sacraments and Teaching or you do not have Him. Eph 4:4-6, Jn 10:16, 17:20-26, 2 Jn 1:9, Heb 13:9, Gal 1:6-9, Jn1:42, 21:15-17, Mt10:1-4, 16:18-19, Eph 2:19-22, 1 Cor 12:28, 1 Pet 2:6-9, Lk 22:28-32, Mk 3:14-19, 1 Cor 11:23-29, Jn 6:51-59, 3:5, 20:21-23, 2 Cor 5:18-20, Mt18:17-18 are a few of the pertinent verses

[@dann285]

Where does it state that this autority is infallable?? Answer, no where@@southernlady1109

[@yonlee6960]

👍🙏

[@chetmanley5031]

Bro stop dividing the body of Christ. This is about a personal relationship with God through Jesus. Not poking holes in the different denominations. This is childish.

[@limoncellosmith7594]

Of course we need to poke holes in all these denominations. The Truth matters, and thank God for seekers who sincerely look for the Church Jesus actually founded, not those who broke away due to human beings.

[@maryleeespinoza239]

Having different denominations IS division

[@chetmanley5031]

If you seriously think that you need to be catholic to have a relationship with God and go to heaven you are lost. @@limoncellosmith7594

[@chetmanley5031]

Thats fair. But we are here now. Focus on the gospel and relationship. Not blasting people over details that really do not matter. @@maryleeespinoza239

[@johnyang1420]

Jesus started Catholic church. Protestants broke away. Please come back!

[@glennlanham6309]

Augustine, by his actions, clearly agrees: With St. Augustine, you’ll find the same belief. One need only read the canons of the Council of Carthage from 417 A.D., in which Augustine and the other North African Fathers met, to see their respect for, and submission to, “the Apostolic See” (Rome) and the “holy and most blessed pope.” Or read Augustine’s own writings, in which he speaks of the same. Rome stands in a place of authority, capable of settling disputes authoritatively. There is also the case of a controversy in a Council, Pope Leo the Great resolved it. to quote Augustine: "Peter has spoken, the issue is settled"

[@xrendezv0usx]

Jesus Christ is the authority of the church. Peter being the "rock" of the church which Jesus built is fine, but in no way did this give him infallibility in any way shape or form. Look at how the catholic church was used to preserve and compile the Bible! The rock indeed! But Jesus said that all of His followers are "brothers" and that none should stand in lordship above the others- in fact he specifically warned them against using titles of "Father" in His church. And God was gracious enough to make it clear beyond any shred of doubt that it is Jesus Christ alone who is the ultimate authority, and His Word (the Word of God is Jesus Christ). NOT the word of Peter! Even after Jesus commissioned Peter as "the rock" Peter then goes on to deny Christ three times! "Oh infallibility is a matter of church doctrines" Well even after Peter received the Holy Spirit, he was practicing false doctrines regarding circumcision, and even needed to be corrected by Paul! No man or council of men is equal to God in His divine authority and eternal infallibility. Neither are the words of men or council of men equal to the Word of God in its divine authority and eternal infallibility!

[@benindependent5956]

For the question about external leadership: The Spirit guides us in understanding and life. Matt 16:13-19 is about Yashuah being the Messiah. He tells Peter he's the rock (Petros) and on this bedrock (Petra) he will build his assembly. So Peter being the first one the Father reveals this to is told he gets the keys to bind and loose in heaven and earth. Matt 18:18 Yeshuah mentions to his disciples that whatever they bind and loose in heaven and earth will be set. So now there are more rocks for the bedrock. Rev 21:14 the wall of the new Jerusalem had 12 foundations which were the 12 apostles. In 1 Peter 2:7, Peter says Yashuah is the cornerstone. Verse 5 - you (believers) like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house.

[@Kefa...]

How do protestants say the name Peter, without squirming?

[@andreastarks2780]

The church was started by the Jews. The gospel went to the Jews first and then the gentiles. Peter lead the apostles ministry to the Jews in the first 10- 14 years of the church growing before Paul’s ministry to the jew first and then specifically to the gentiles. The foundation of the church was built on the rock of Jesus restoration of Israel to God through Peters ministry the gospel Jews. Not to build the Roman Catholic Church.

[@maryleeespinoza239]

Like you said, the Gospel is for the Jews and Gentiles. Hence, the word catholic, Greek for universal. The Church is the people, everyone who believes. Everyone can be restored to God. The Catholic Church is of the promise to Abraham that from him will come a nation-Israel, and from this nation will come a King for *all nations. We who are from around the whole world who accept Jesus, who is the head of the Church, are the body of the Church. Bridegroom-bride. The Church is not Israel simply because we’re otherwise Gentiles if not Jewish.

[@benry007]

There are different interpretations of what Jesus meant when he said on this rock I will build this church. Even if you say its Peter then its still a leap to say Peter passed that responsibility on to the future bishops of Rome. I believe the Apostles had a unique ministry and its not one that can be passed to the modern day. It requires being commissioned by Christ personally.

[@johnyang1420]

Read book Pope Peter by Heschmeyer

[@sawyerwhited6802]

The Rock is a title that God has given Himself throughout the entire Bible, so we are to believe that He gives that title to Peter, a created being? God gives His glory (title) to no one & is not the author of confusion.

[@maryleeespinoza239]

That’s what Peter/Petros/Kephas/Kepa means and that’s what Jesus changed his name to. Jesus is the King, and the keys are given (and passed down) to the stewards who are next in authority below the king. Glory be to God!

[@TNFLHT]

Such a vague statement that is in Matthew. It really is so much more of a stretch to take that passage and roll it into the position the Pope has now. Peter is in some sort of leadership role...sure i can see that. Peter and all people put in that role by a select few in the future is the ultimate decision maker for Christians everywhere and forever ummm probably not. 😂

[@bradmorris5797]

Right!? I find that Protestants often come flying hard out of the gate against a plain contextual reading of Matt 16:18 and instead present ridiculous interpretations of scripture out of spite that almost marginalize or run down Peter. I do not understand why we can't just read this scripture with an understanding that Jesus knew that Peter would be uniquely pivotal in the building of his church worldwide. It seems perfectly consistent with scripture to accept this, and there's no way that I have to have the entire weight of Papal Theocracy hoisted upon me just because I accept Peter as a prominent church figure.

[@johnyang1420]

“Whatever is bound on earth will be bound in heaven”

[@slick222]

good stuff

[@LStephenO]

whenever a title is this clickbaity, the content is never that good.

[@paulhudson4254]

Protestants: Cafeteria Christianity, take what ya like leave the rest! Luther deluxe 🌺☦️🌺

[@cullenkehoe5184]

Have you done your idol worship for today and prayed and worshipped Mary yet? Or the amazing socialist Pope you have? Or some dead saints? Or for dead relatives stuck in Purgatory for centuries? That's all biblical....(and I am being sarcastic if it wasn't obvious). I wish I had more in common with Catholics but you guys have some bizarre practices. So many obstacles put in between you and Jesus. Jesus is your intermediary to God and he's waiting to hear from you. You don't need an intermediary. Not Mary nor dead saints nor anything else. And Purgatory has zero scriptural support. And Indulgences are simply heretical.

[@SomebodySomewhere-ul1eu]

Catholics: Trust me bro, you aren't allowed to interpret anything outside of how we tell you to interpret it.

[@markfry4304]

Catholics: Complete heresy.

[@glennlanham6309]

excellent

[@SneakyEmu]

They were literally standing on a notorious "rock"/ mountain when Jesus said this, Mt. Hermon which was known as "the gates of hades". It makes what Jesus says "upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hades will not prevail against it." The context of this statement is all around them. Why do Catholics ignore this piece of context?

[@maryleeespinoza239]

The Church is the people- the community of followers. Jesus changed Simon’s name to Kepa/Keon’s/Petros/Peter for a reason - to be the foundation of the Church. There is also the keys. When kings - Jesus and David in the OT - give keys to their kingdom to someone, that steward is next in authority. Whatever you bind…whatever you loose…. Eliakim is given the key to the house of David from the former master of the house, so those keys/authority are passed down like the succession of popes.

[@SneakyEmu]

@@maryleeespinoza239 typology to support such radical doctrine is unwise

[@maryleeespinoza239]

@@SneakyEmu that’s the context

[@lellachu1682]

We don't ignore it, as it confirms what we believe. Jesus took the Apostles to Caesarea Philippi to a cave that was known as the gates of Hades, handed Peter the keys, and promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church.

[@PeterbFree]

The church is built on Peter and not on Jesus, and therefore, the Pope is everything? I am truly grateful for this explanation, as it confirms why I am not a Catholic.

[@joenguyen9475]

It’s just word play; in reality, it’s your church.. you are there for yourself only… as all Protestants are…

[@jamesmoran6058]

Isn't "on this rock" referring to Matthew 16:16

[@timothy3120]

Nope. In the ESV, Matthew 16:16 is "Simon Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'" Matthew 16:18 is "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

[@timmoore9736]

It is a bit amazing that there are not more Protestant theology students asking the same sorts of questions.

[@Justas399]

Its amazing how many RC's don't the history of the papacy and how its absent in the NT.

[@torva360]

Usually they get a real answer when they ask

[@kiwisaram9373]

(CNN)Between June 2017 and June 2018 the Catholic Church in the United States spent a whopping $301.6 million on costs related to clergy sexual abuse, including nearly $200 million in legal settlements, according to a report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. So Catholics welcome all new members to help pay for this.

[@theproceedings4050]

There are. The fact that most of them do not convert is evidence of a well-reasoned theological interpretation. The high ratio of Catholic converts that Matt has on has convinced you that Protestants don't have good answers. Let me assure you, while a few Protestants convert to Catholic and a few Catholics convert to Protestant their faith journeys are their own, and either side has a nearly unassailable claim to their interpretational authority. If you spend all of your time only listening to Matt (as good as he is) you will gain a skewed and incorrect understanding of both Protestantism and Catholicism.

[@henryc7548]

3:13 isn’t that the Holy Spirit

[@timrosen1618]

What infallible source do we use to make sure the church is not teaching in error?

[@johnyang1420]

Jesus started the infallible Catholic church

[@timrosen1618]

@@johnyang1420 So you don’t know.

[@timrosen1618]

@@johnyang1420 “Jesus started the infallible Catholic Church” No, Jesus started the Christian Church, way before the foundation of todays roman catholic sect.

[@johnyang1420]

@@timrosen1618Jesus started Catholic church….he knew

[@johnyang1420]

@@timrosen1618Catholics are Christians…..”Christian” today means Protestant…Why protest the one true Catholic church of Jesus? Take RCIA

[@fabiotuan5206]

Jesus is the Rock / Truth. Upon this rock/ truth i will build my church! Or is peter the rock and truth..hmm?

[@frekigeri4317]

15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. 1 Timothy 3:15 Ya, that’s the Catholic Church, hands down

[@fabiotuan5206]

@@frekigeri4317 Yeah funny, catholic church arrived on the scene about 300 ad

[@frekigeri4317]

@@fabiotuan5206 did it now. How did Saint Ignatius of Antioch write about it in 110 ad then? Having been a disciple of John the Apostle and born in 50ad and dying in 140ad. Btw, I’m pretty sure the people that were Christian’s aka Catholics before Constantine decriminalized Christianity were Christian’s aka Catholics after he decriminalized Christianity

[@pigetstuck]

@@frekigeri4317 reading the context of 1 Timothy 3:15 will help us better understand what is being said...

[@fabiotuan5206]

@@frekigeri4317 Church started in Jerusalem on Pentecost so what has that to do with catholism ?

[@markfry4304]

The office of Pope is not Biblical. Sorry.

[@maryleeespinoza239]

When a king gives keys to his kingdom to someone, that means that man is to be the steward - a position below the king - who is also able to make decisions in the king’s stead. Whatever you bind…whatever you loose….

[@markfry4304]

@@maryleeespinoza239 He gave all of us that authority as believers. Not one man.

[@maryleeespinoza239]

@@markfry4304 Then what would be the point of Jesus saying, “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”? He is talking about binding authority. Remember, if there are 50 people in a room to tell their interpretations of the Bible, there’ll be 50 interpretations. The Church is supposed to be one in unity, not everyone splitting into denominations with each and every difference.

[@johnyang1420]

Papacy is perfectly biblical

[@2anonymous]

The Office of the Pope has been called the anti-Christ. Seems fitting since Peter is called Satan a few verses later in Matt 16:23

[@lexycole9579]

0:28 the current pope has affirmed homosexuality, how do you reconcile this? As a protestant, I appreciate a lot of the pushback that you make in the show about faith being too individualized when there’s no greater leadership authority, but what is your response when the leadership authority in the Catholic Church openly endorsed practices which God hates?

[@AJ-hi4lx]

In his magisterium, the 2021 Responsum to the question regarding blessings of couples of the same sex says, "For this reason, it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex[6]. The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan." In his magisterium, he has called homosexual unions to be ordered contrary to the Creator's plan. Furthermore, the same response continues, saying, "But he does not and cannot bless sin: he blesses sinful man, so that he may recognize that he is part of his plan of love and allow himself to be changed by him." Pope Francis affirms the sinfulness of sodomy.

[@cantrait7311]

Because we are Protestants Yep that’s about the kind of answer you’ll get

[@johnyang1420]

Makes zero logicsl sense

[@jamesmoran6058]

He had a question about the who has external authority the scripture is authority in it self The holy spirit gives confirmation understanding and is the external authority he's looking for

[@frisco61]

How did you decide that the Scriptures are their own authority.

[@Forester-]

I guess Phillip should have told the Ethiopian Eunuch that.

[@frekigeri4317]

The Holy Spirt trained me in Catholicism before I knew what Catholicism taught. The Holy Spirt and the Church teach the same thing.

[@johnyang1420]

Catholic church canonized bible in 4th century

[@ionlybowtogod9268]

James White and Jeff durbin have entered the chat.

[@Sharker2400]

If only. James White has been ducking debates with Trent Horn for years since their first one.

[@timrosen1618]

@@Sharker2400 Trent Horn has been dodging a debate with James White for years.

[@davidthenewtheologian7757]

Everyone talks about the church fathers, but I actually read them. Ignatius of Antioch says he longs to touch the breasts of Mary . Another one says he saw the Phoenix bird! Yes the mythical creature that dies in flames and rises from the ashes and everyone saw that same bird.

[@Goncalo.]

congratulations david, you are the only man to ever read the church fathers!

[@davidthenewtheologian7757]

@@Goncalo. so you agree with what I said ? He talks about touching the breasts of Mary ? And they speak of the Phoenix Bird?

[@MiszuFiszu]

I read St Ignatius and don't recall that part about Mary. Could you please point me to the quote? Also - to your second - example, I recall St Clement mentioning a phoenix, however I didn't get the impression that he claims to have seen it, rather he was referring to a (perhaps) commonly held belief. Feel free to correct me on this point. Finally, the point is not that the Church Fathers had every single thing right and were never wrong. Obviously, there was no phoenix, for example. The point is that when they speak about the Christian Faith, they are bearing witness not to their own, private opinions, but to the prevailing beliefs of their communities and local Churches. Reading them, we gain a glimpse into how the earliest Christians understood Scripture, some being direct students of Apostles, others living in communities strongly concerned with preserving the Apostles' true Faith even as generations passed. That is why we refer to them as authorities and we hold their writings and creeds in high regard.

[@davidthenewtheologian7757]

@@MiszuFiszu si we forget all the stuff we disagree with and we re interpret all the stuff that’s clearly myth like the Phoenix bird .

[@davidthenewtheologian7757]

@@JIMMYUNKNOWN did you read them ?

[@grayman7208]

and it's too bad the catholic church fell so far away from it's origin ... not a single apostle. i guess that is why jesus commissioned joseph smith to restore the church.

[@maryleeespinoza239]

To say you’ll become gods of other planets in the next life?

[@grayman7208]

@@maryleeespinoza239 are you not familiar with the scriptures ? we will sit at the right hand of jesus, and inherit all god has. romans 8:1-7, 1 peter 1:4, john 1:12, and many more scriptures tell us this. and the catholic church, and the protestant churches do not seem to know this. we are the children of god. and his goal is to make us like him. that is the entire purpose of our spirits coming to earth and inhabiting a body.

[@maryleeespinoza239]

@@grayman7208 to think that we will be like gods was the whole reason for the fall of man in the first place. That lie comes from Satan as a serpent in the garden of Eden. Humans remain humans and humans are soul *and* body. Though we may be separated from our bodies for a time when we die, in the end of time there’ll be the resurrection of the body. Our body is not just something to cast off as thought of in the demon god worshipping religions like Buddhism. The demons - who are bodiless spirits (and are jealous of bodies) -want to be gods and get worshipped around the world as such. Plus, the Michael’s name in Hebrew means, Who is like God? - a rhetorical question in that no one is like God in His *divinity.* Not just in His supreme divinity but including of any divinity. God has the heavenly Host/army led by St. Michael the archangel defeat the demons.

[@wlf7184]

With a magic hat.