@@TruthUnites Danke. This video was great, too, by the way. And I hadn't yet gotten to the midway pause when you went and got your kids when I commented...lol.
I feel like most of the former Protestant Catholics I've heard converted primarily because they heard these Catholic arguments but never encountered any good Protestant counter-arguments, since the average conservative Protestant pastor in America is more focused on salvation and outreach than helping people get a better understanding of theology. As a result, when a guy from a backroads Baptist church gets hit with 2000 years of Catholic theology suddenly, it feels like a revelation. But then they assume that their Protestant upbringing is all there is to Protestantism, and they are easily persuaded by Rome. Having more rebuttal videos like this helps to show that there's greater richness in the Protestant counter-arguments than Catholic internet apologists generally express.
I feel like what modern Evangelical Protestantism desperately needs today is less restorationism (acting like you can just read the Bible reeeally carefully and somehow perfectly "get" the whole message) and more appreciation for the tradition passed on by the previous generations. Historical Protestantism brings some very valuable insights and arguments. That should be obvious even if you happen to disagree with them.
@@daliborbenes5025 you mean Reformationism : We aren't here to declare the historical Christian church went totally Apostate as Mormonism declares in its need of Restoration of the church of Satan and mother of Harlots: and Protestant churches being those Harlots: l also heard another Restoration church Evangelicalist of the SDA church say this that too.
Well you just described my last 5 years. Recently I’ve found Jordan B Cooper and Gavin here and I definitely did not engage true protestantism before converting. Trying to make up for lost time now.
This is an on-going conversation. It’s really good to have these topics discussed thoroughly. Humility and brotherly love should abound while seeking Truth. 💟✝️
It's striking that Jesus chose such different language and concepts in Matthew 16 than what we find in Isaiah 22, even though he could so easily have made the two more similar (as Revelation 3 illustrates). There's a different number of keys in Matthew 16, a different type of kingdom, binding and loosing rather than opening and shutting, a reversal of the order of the activities (binding corresponding to shutting and loosing corresponding to opening), a rock rather than a peg, etc. If Jesus is going to be paralleled to two figures in Isaiah 22 (God and the king), why can't all of the Twelve be paralleled to Eliakim, as Matthew 18:18 and other evidence would suggest? If we're going to think in terms of an elevation in going from type to antitype, then how do we determine what qualifies as an elevation? Why can't the involvement of the Twelve rather than one individual be considered an elevation? If there's discontinuity in one context in going from two figures in Isaiah (God and the king) to one in Matthew (Jesus), whereas there's continuity in another context in going from one in Isaiah (Eliakim) to one in Matthew (Peter), it can't be argued that the relationship between Isaiah and Matthew is the same in every context involved. Rather, the number of figures involved is getting smaller in one context while staying the same in another. If we can allow that sort of inconsistency, then why not allow some other type of inconsistency (e.g., going from Eliakim in Isaiah to the Twelve in Matthew)? Or why not conclude that there's consistency rather than inconsistency, so that Jesus only takes on God's role from Isaiah 22, whereas some church leader below Jesus and above Peter takes on the king's role from Isaiah 22? Regarding the evidence against the papacy outside of Matthew 16, think of the many contexts in which a papacy could have been mentioned early on, but wasn't: there's no reference to a title for a papal office (in contrast to "apostle", "deacon", etc.); the qualifications for holding other offices, like apostle and elder, are mentioned in places like Acts 1 and 1 Timothy 3, whereas there's no such discussion of the qualifications for being a Pope; passages discussing the structure of the church, like 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4, say nothing of a papacy; the imagery used for the church in Ephesians 2 and elsewhere doesn't make any effort to portray a papal office; the imagery used for the apostles in Matthew 19 and elsewhere (e.g., twelve thrones, twelve foundation stones) doesn't make any effort to portray a papal office; in passages in which the apostles are anticipating their departure in some sense (Paul departing from the Ephesian elders in Acts 20, Paul and Peter anticipating their deaths in 2 Timothy and 2 Peter), there's no reference to a papal office, looking to the bishop of Rome as the foundation of the church, looking to the bishop of Rome as the center of Christian unity, or anything like that; the earliest sources to comment on the Roman church and its importance (Paul in Romans, Luke at the end of Acts, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, etc.) give a variety of non-papal reasons for the Roman church's significance; the early opponents of Christianity, including ones who addressed the religion at as much length as Trypho and Celsus did, showed no awareness of a papacy. Furthermore, passages like 1 Corinthians 12:28 (mentioning "apostles" as the first order in the church) and Galatians 2:9 (grouping Peter with other apostles and naming him second) make more sense if there was no early belief in a papacy than if there was a belief in it.
They are not different concepts. They are the same concepts magnified. Just as the skins given to Adam and Eve are not Jesus, but a representation of Him, or an imitation of him. And just as those skins did not cover up their sin, so to is Isiah 22 not as firm in its language. As for why all 12 are not paralleled, its because Jesus spoke to Peter first and specifically to Peter. He called him a rock instead of a peg, used the permanent binding and loosing rather than opening and shutting to him specifically. If you understand Catholic theology, the power of the rest of the 12 is vested in the Magisterium, which is why they can make binding proclamations independent of the Pope, but the Pope is still the leader of the Church. Think of it like this: A general in an army has many subordinates, however he does not command each one individually. He has subordinates that are of higher rank than the others to carry out his orders to certain groups. These Majors, Colonels and such have power within those orders and can even do things that are not specifically forbidden in their orders, but align with their mission objective. The General is the pope, the sub commanders are the Bishops.
@@strikevipermkII The fact that Jesus spoke to Peter first doesn't prove that the rest of the Twelve aren't paralleled to Eliakim. The language of Matthew 18:18 and the concept of using keys to bind and loose are the same as what's in chapter 16. The reason Jesus spoke to Peter in chapter 16 is that Peter is the one who answered his question. It wouldn't make sense for Jesus to respond to Peter by speaking to Thomas. Similarly, James and John are singled out in Matthew 20:20-23 because they initiated a discussion with Jesus, but it doesn't follow that what Jesus said to them isn't true of the other disciples as well. There's nothing in Jesus' speaking to Peter in Matthew 16 that implies that he's the only one who has Eliakim-like terminology applied to him or that he has authority over the other disciples. The Eliakim-like language is applied to many figures in the New Testament and in extrabiblical literature (the Jewish religious leaders in Matthew 23 and Luke 11, Jesus in Revelation 3, angels elsewhere in Revelation, etc.). You refer to "the permanent binding and loosing rather than opening and shutting", but you offer no evidence to support the idea that the former is permanent, whereas the latter isn't. Keys are being used to bind and loose, and keys don't inherently do something permanent. Rather, keys are typically used many times to repeatedly lock and unlock. The idea that they would only be used once, in some "permanent" sense that distinguishes them from the activity of using keys to open and shut, is unnatural and unproven. When Satan is bound in Revelation 20:2, it isn't permanent. He's later released.
@@jasonengwer8923 First point: My argument was incomplete. He spoke to Peter first, and changed his name and gave him the authority specifically. At no other point does God change someone's name and it does not denote new authority and responsibility. Two the language is not just binding and loosing. It's that which you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven and so on. It's the 'in heaven' part that is permanent, not just binding and loosing.
@@strikevipermkII Your appeal to Peter's new name is a departure from the argument from Isaiah 22. There is no giving of a new name in Isaiah. And Peter's being given a new name doesn't imply papal authority. Your reference to "new authority and responsibility" is too vague to be equivalent to papal authority and responsibility. James and John were given a new name (Mark 3:17) without being Popes or having any other type of unique office we know of. The same can be said of other Biblical figures who were given a new name. And Peter's was given before the events of Matthew 16 occurred (John 1:42). It made sense for Jesus to adapt his choice of imagery to Peter's name in Matthew 16, but it doesn't follow that he was given the name primarily because of the context of Matthew 16. Even if he was given the name primarily or solely due to the Matthew 16 context, a papacy doesn't follow. Your appeal to the "in heaven" qualifier with regard to the binding and loosing misses the point. If the binding is meant to only serve a temporary purpose, then the binding will be temporary, like the binding of Satan in Revelation 20. The fact that heaven is involved doesn't tell us whether the binding in question is meant to serve a temporary or permanent purpose. And Jesus applies the opening and shutting language to himself in Revelation 3. If he could be consistent with the language of Isaiah 22 in Revelation 3, why did he choose such discontinuous language (binding and loosing rather than opening and shutting, reversing the order of the terms, etc.) in Matthew 16? You've ignored some of the discontinuities between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 that I mentioned, and your explanations of the discontinuities you've responded to are inadequate for the reasons I've explained.
Gavin you're one of, if not my most, favorite non-catholic theological thinkers. I grew up in a Baptist and Non-denominational church with my parents being new converts to Christianity from an Islamic background (but not practicing Muslims). As I grew older and started building my own faith, rather than ride the coattails of my parents, I started really studying the scriptures in an effort to know more of God. In my pursuit I have found myself drawn to aspects of Catholicism, the tradition, it's authority, the sacredness ect, as compared to the apparent spiritual emptiness of western "Churchianity" as some people say. I am not sold on Catholicism as a whole (I still have strong reservations on the infallability of the Pope, Praying/intercessions of the saints, and Marian dogmas). Your dialogue with Catholics are the only ones I can find that help give me clarity.
I've been watching the back and forths here on both sides and honestly feel like it just keeps getting better. I saw Suan's response to you and noticed his frustration a bit and didn't think that you had been uncharitable in your comments on his argument in the video on Cameron. I also felt like you had been trying to honestly steel man his position with your statements on maximum flexibility, but he took that attempt to steel man his typological arguments as implying that he was free wheeling and uncareful, and then said you hadn't attempted to steel man his position like he had steel manned yours. It just didn't seem accurate to me. Overall I'm glad you are addressing some of his more recent responses as he asked and your apology in the beginning was really great as an olive branch and to turn down tensions. All of that to say I'm really enjoying your engagement with these arguments and don't mind rebuttal videos at all. 😁
Gavin, don’t forget to bring Jerome’s testimony to the table. He wrote a scholarly commentary on Isaiah. He connects Isaiah 22 with Revelation 3 and says that Christ is the holder of this key. For him, Christ opens a new phase in his passion and closes the time of the Jewish ceremonies. He doesn’t know anything about a bishop in Rome who is the holder of this key and therefore has universal jurisdiction over all the Christian church by means of this key.
Hi Pauly, I appreciate your response. Well, Jerome says what the key is, doesn’t he? Do you know any church father who came before him who interpreted this key in a different way? Quite often he shows different interpretations of other fathers who came before him but this time he is not aware of any alternative which teaches a different interpretation for this key. Are you aware of anyone before him who interpreted this key in terms of universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome? I doubt that Jerome would have missed something of that importance…
@@andreamoscofian Hi Andrea .... I would simply say this : Scripture informs us that Jesus hands the "keys" to Peter.. That would'nt necessarily be in conflict with either Isaiah or Revelation because Jesus can both possess some quality and give it to someone else at the same time. I dont have much to say sbout Jerome tbh ... his silence on a particular subject doesn't affirm denial .. Thats all
I understand where you are coming from and I appreciated our exchange ;-) The weakness of this position is that if we are going to come up with an interpretation that is unheard of in the fathers for hundreds of years then the other side has the right to say that this is a novelty. The only thing that I don’t know is novelty of which century. Do you happen to know who first said in church history and when that Eliakim is a type of the bishop of Rome?
I dont think its a weak position .. If a truth is discovered after the period of the Fathers then so be it .. Of course it would be better if the Fathers saw it too But its not a deal breaker. One possible reason for this is that it is because there was no controversy around the Papacy or the primacy of Rome , hence no need to drfend or theologise the matter .. After all some Protestant theologies are themselves novel and without historical context , but there seems to be little trouble adopting those into a some of the various post reformation denominations .... including Gavins theology i am sure ..
Peter = type of the bishop (in general) and a bishop's authority, from an Orthodox perspective. Rock = Peter's confession of faith, or Christ, or Peter himself (as meaning, the bishop in general), but confession of faith seems to be the most popular view among the Fathers. I think Suan's argument hinges on Peter Syndrome (namely, Peter = Pope, whenever Peter is mentioned). As Orthodox, I could use Suan's argument word for word, but with the understanding Peter is a type of the bishop, in general. So, from an Orthodox perspective, it isn't proof for an emperor-bishop. We see a conciliar approach in Acts - not Vatican I. We don't see Vatican I style until the Gregorian Reforms of the West in the 11th century.
@Bb Dl Thanks for your reply. Yes, I am familiar with your perspective having been Roman Catholic and having read Paster Aeturnus and the historical context surrounding that Council. "Emperor-Bishop" was partly referring to the Pontifex Maximus conception of the papacy which also included temporal authority, as outlined in documents like the Dictatus Papae. Conciliarism is heretical in Roman Catholicism. Conciliarism is the belief that Councils are the highest form of authority and governance in the Church, which Roman Catholicism as you know rejects. Yes, there are Councils, but the Pope is above a Council in Catholicism. "You are free to have your own interpretation." Over non-dogmatic issues, yes, but even for non-dogmatic issues deference is given to the Fathers, saints, bishops and Synods. It's not mere "private" interpretation. Besides, non-dogmatic beliefs in Catholicism have a range of acceptable opinions in Catholicism too so this is a non-issue really. "Your criticism of the role of the bishop of Rome in the universal scale is a criticism of orthodoxy at the diocesan level." No it's not - The argument is not that "monarchy is bad". It's that the bishop is the highest form of governance in the Church ontologically speaking and Church governance beyond that is by custom, not by divine revelation.
@@duckymomo7935 It actually has traditional roots going way back. It’s just that the Petrine Sees (which are 3) aren’t understood in an imperial manner.
@Bb Dl I’m not acting in bad faith here. But thanks… No I have not read Seiceinski’s papacy book. But I do know that in that book he demonstrates that it’s not historically correct to call Peter the first Pope, according to Seiceinski anyways. Nonetheless, I read enough books on the papacy to be convinced Vatican I did not exist in the first millennium like Roman apologetics would have us believe by their misuse of quote-mines apart from context or innovative appeals to “development of doctrine” (but if it comes down in price I’d like to buy it someday). Seiceinski, who is pretty ecumenically minded, does not view that way either. He understands Rome’s supremacy as a development which develops in the context of the Frankish reforms and Gregorian reforms of the papacy, which had been under some corruption for some time and in much need of reform. As Seiceinski puts it, that’s the context. There’s Orthodox “development” and there’s Roman Catholic *developement* - very different things. Ed Seiceinski converted from Catholicism to Orthodoxy when writing his Filioque and papacy books by the way. He apparently understands his books differently than you do. His balanced and non-polemical Filioque book vindicated Orthodoxy, if you haven’t read that one. I got my definition from Catholics. I’m not saying anything novel or strange here. I’m using the word Conciliarism as referring to the heretical part of the Council of Constance that where it declared Popes must submit to Councils because its authority is straight from Christ and above a Pope’s authority. If you don’t like how I’m using the word we can just not use a term to describe it if you’d like. I’m not talking about terms so much as concepts and authority. Here’s more on that topic from a Roman Catholic perspective that understands the term Conciliarism as I am using it - not how you’re using it: www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/04/council-of-constance-1414-18-triumph-or-death-of-conciliarism.html It’s a fact that Councils are not ecumenical unless ratified by the Pope in the Catholic communion. That’s not what I meant by concilarism. I’m saying that isn’t necessary. By the way, there isn’t a single ecumenical Council that was “headed by the Pope” as you put it. There was even one headed by a bishop in schism with Rome (St Melitius of Antioch) - which by your ecclesiology would put him outside the Church - and Rome didn’t accept that Council for a couple hundred years while everyone else had already recognized it as an Ecumenical Council. That’s Council of Constantinople I. The Pope of Rome had a highly respected authority in the first millennium - this is true. It was based on a Petrine ministry for the care of the Church. But not Rome principally as the only Petrine See - for the See was one See in three places according to Pope St Gregory the Great. This is all Orthodox. He was not however a possessor of universal, ordinary, and immediate jurisdiction. This isn’t how we have ever understood papal primacy. Whenever you see the Pope interfering without an appeal there is always push back and there was since the Pope St Victor, through Pope St Stephen I through Pope Nicholas I, and onward. He did not possess supreme temporal authority over earthly rulers either as is the context of Dictatus Papae and Unam Sanctam. Even Rome today admits the Church was governed how Orthodox govern it today in the Chieti Document which you can read for free on the Vatican’s website I believe. We would just differ in that Rome thinks that Vatican I was a “seed” that was growing slowly (in the Latin Patriarchate) and eventually becomes an oak tree by the 11th century. Where they see this as a legitimate development we would see it as an innovative development alien to the apostolic deposit do Faith. I could care less about Russian monarchy. We don’t need an emperor. Frankly we are probably better off without one. There is no such thing as a Bishop of Bishops. Never has been. That’s not what Patriarchs, Popes of Rome or Popes of Alexandria or Metropoltians are. St Cyprian of Carthage is an early witness to this fact in the pre-Nicea era (3rd century). There is no Universal Bishop.
@Bb Dl Also - we can disagree in charity and peace, even if we might be somewhat polemical. :-) I’m not anti-Catholic and I assume you aren’t anti-Orthodox. We’re a lot closer to one another than either one of us are to Protestants. The view I have of the papacy frankly should not be all that scandalous to you or other Roman Catholics. Many Eastern Catholics, especially Melkites, would agree with the Orthodox conception of primacy. I felt that way when I was Eastern Catholic but ultimately felt it was more consistent for me to be Orthodox since the UGCC liturgy I attended confessed the Pope of Rome as the “Universal Pontiff”. Since I agree with Zoghbyite Eastern Catholics that this is not in accordance with first millennium primacy, I couldn’t in good conscience remain Eastern Catholic.
The point which alone should give Suan serious pause is that this typology argument has virtually zero historical support among scholars and theologians down through the centuries. So Suan is basically asking us to believe that for about 20 centuries, virtually all of the greatest scholars and theologians throughout church history failed to notice and/or mention this incredibly important typological argument which establishes the Papacy. Cameron Bertuzzi, who is quite impressed with Suan's argument, attempted to rebut the above point by claiming that the Church Fathers and other scholars did not have Google to help them analyze and compare scriptures, and that's why they never picked up on this typological argument. Judge for yourself how plausible that response is, while keeping in mind that virtually all of the greatest theological works and Biblical commentaries were written well before the internet.
I think the hardest part about this is just the audacity of Rome to make such claims about papacy that not a single apostle even makes reference to. Seriously, if you think in the mind of the apostles, especially Paul, at least one of their writings would have mentioned something about Peter being the leader of them all. They never even allude to it. Not only that, we need Peter, James or Paul to write about how someone should succeed him. And Paul would never even have had the gall to state that he corrected Peter. This is just a mess. 🤦🏾♂️ A lot of texts would need to change for this to be clear.
I perceive Suan to be a lovely, God-seeking man. But I do also perceive him to fall into the error that many apologists (of all backgrounds) fall prey to-confidently advancing an argument that more academic scholars and theologians would be adverse to, given their training and the critical mindset it brings. That is one thing I appreciate about your work. Having a PhD in historical theology, you have that academic nose that can just sniff out a weak argument were others might have a harder time identifying or pointing out the weaknesses in it.
Dear Pastor Gavin, I’ve watched several videos from Catholics in the past few months on various topics. There is one thing that I just can’t get by and that is that I find that most Catholics argue for and point to the Catholic Church, defending their beliefs as their main goal (not saying all, I also believe that there are brothers and sisters in Christ), but the videos are so intellectual, often empty and draining and it often boils down to “we have the better arguments”, everything is about the church fathers, but it is different with you, one can hear, that your goal is, that God would be glorified. You don’t primarily point people to a certain Christian tradition, but you point People to the person of Jesus Christ (especially in your video about church anxiety) wanting people to put their trust in him and that is very prominent in you. It is your heart that is different. And if that is the fruit of being solid in your Protestant beliefs, what else can one be than Protestant, for the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart. God bless you🙏🏼
My problem with catholicism is that it seems like they assume their position is true and they just need to find a way to prove it, but even if they can't find a way, it's still true. I cannot accept this way of thinking.
Thank you, once again, for the research and scholarship to show that the Catholic position has holes. I appreciate your openness and dedication to reading the early church fathers for clarity or lack there off on such points.
@@theknight8524 Same with Dr. Ortlund constantly making new Anto Catholic videos!🤣 Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 keep your posts up they always help us see how blind a person can be following a church: Mormons have that same type of Blind obedience. We should be following Christ as He alone saves us: not religious rituals.
@@davidjanbaz7728 I totally agree with you, faith alone and Scripture alone, are man made traditions not found in Holy Scripture! Why listen to fallible Protestant Pastors, when we have the infallible Holy Scriptures? You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 why listen to fallible magisteriums who make up doctrines that are clearly not in scripture? How do you know your fallible mind is interpreting the “infallible” teachings of the pope and magisteriums? 😂 Catholicism is a really weird religion.
Binding and loosing in Matthew actually has nothing to do with succession of church authority or judicial language at all. That conclusion, that which Kostenberger and Carson reach, is based upon Rabbinic writings found centuries after the NT. Makes no sense to read that back into the text at all if you think about it. Intertestamental literature uses the term binding and loosing to refer to exorcism. In fact, almost every single use of the term binding or loosing is related to or has something to do with demonic spirits or exorcism - Mk. 3; Mt. 12; Lk. 13, etc. This same idea is true of the "keys of the kingdom" imagery. Which references to keys and the bottomless pit in Rev. 20, then of course you have the Risen Christ in Rev. 1 holding the "keys to death and Hades." So, the way we should probably understand it is the apostolic authority given to Peter, which then is transferred to the church is that of a liberating authority. One that by the Gospel "Looses" people from the powers of darkness and the Devil, and opens the doors of the kingdom to the oppressed. It's less about keeping people out but liberating people and bringing them in. See: Richard H. Hiers, in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Volume 104:2, "Binding and Loosing"
In my more limited experience, the standard of relation between Scripture and doctrine used by Catholics tends to lean toward mere non-contradiction while that of Protestants leans toward positive presence. That seems to be the case in this conversation. Suon seems to be saying (yes, this is a simplification) that the significance of the type and its attributes can be expanded whily-nilly up until you get to the point where the text would speak against it. Meanwhile, Protestants would say that you can only take the significance of a type as far as the text gives positive warrant. In other words, Catholics will fill up an empty space in the text in the shape of their doctrine which is merely absent of prohibitions, while Protestants do not build doctrine without the presence of a positive textual foundation. At least this is the case concerning key doctrines which seperate orthodoxy from heresy as Papal Supremacy does within Catholicism. If you stubbornly refuse to accept the Pope, you go to Hell. That is not a doctrine to be built on a typological foundation whose justification is "this is as far as we can humanly push this single type before we run up against Scripture." This is like a child saying, "Well, Mom and Dad never said we *couldn't* " do such-and-such. We are the Church of Christ, not the Church of what Christ didn't Prohibit. Yes, most Protestants allow the presence of things not positively commanded in Scripture to a certain extent, especially regarding the use of Things Indifferent and minor issues. But *not* concerning core doctrine the disbelieving of which counts one as an unbeliever! God reveals how given types are and are not fulfilled in anti-types, because almost anything can be a type of anything else. And even confirmed type-anti-type relationships often have as many or more attributes in contrast than in common, which is often part of the message of the typology itself. So it's just not safe to take one's pre-existing doctrine and go fishing for unconfirmed typological support. That's just not how types work. Biblically unsupported typological attributes simply cannot be a source of important doctrine. This kind of loose doctrinal standard is how we ended up with the Medieval Catholic Church and the need of the Reformation to begin with.
Gavin, I think, at beginning of this, operational definition of terms being used would be helpful for those not so deeply immersed in your world of apologetics and theology. I believe you are trying to reach outside the academic world to the broader world of the churched and unchurched, yes?
The other apostles share in the power of binding an loosening through the power of the keys given only to Peter. The other apostles weren't given the keys, just the power which comes through the keys. Succession is clearly evident in the New Testament. St Matthias was chosen to succeed Judas. I guess apostolic succession was all just made up by first century Christians and that Protestants restored what Christ really wanted which was that was anyone with a Bible could start their own church based on their private interpretation.
I like your content and the way you try to be prudent on comments, but if you want to see characteristics of infallibility in the office etc. Then where the new testament office would be elevated? If would have the same characteristics would mean the old version would be of equal and that does not work with typology. God bless you
I don't think there is any further need to discuss this new eliakam thing. It has been refuted to any rational thinking person. How do we know something is a type in scripture? Simple, the Lord or the Apostles tell use it is. Is Isaiah 22 a type? Yes. How do we know? Because the Lord Himself told us it was. Revelation 3:7 tells us it is a type of Christ. That He, not Peter holds the key to the house of David. One might say that Christ is the new Eliakim. Also, We know Peter is not the new eliakam because the Lord and the apostles never taught the church that he was. And the early church fathers knew nothing of this argument. If we care about truth and the word of God, we must reject it. It is a new false teaching.
It’s not new: it’s been around for a long time, and Christ is not a STEWARD. Christ being a steward of the King might be the weirdest thing I’ve heard from anyone professing to be a Christian in a long time. He’s the KING, ergo He cannot be a steward, ergo Christ is definitely NOT the fulfillment of Eliakim.
@@nathangraham2189 When was it first used? As Dr Ortland pointed out, not everything from a type carries over to the anti type. Often it is just one aspect of a type which carries over. The fact is that the word of God says that Jesus is the one who holds the key to the house of David. Revelation 3:7 quote Isaiah 22 directly and attributes it to Christ. The Apostles never attribute Isaiah 22 to Peter. Which is why we must reject it.
from what i have read from some catholic apologist is that Peter was given supremacy i.e. authority in scripture, when he is mentioned above the others in decision making, and other scriptures that mention him in like a 'go to figure' (my words), and that Peter later chose his successor who then chose his etc... and that the power to bind and loose is inclusive of the authority to pick their successor and also the authority of the power to give (the doctrine of development) where they further then declare doctrines etc... like Papal Primacy, infallibility, etc....
So I have a potential silly questions. One of the claims of Catholics claim of the unbroken chain from the apostles. Meaning no one in that chain became apostate (because that's what has invalidate other churches with the similar claims). That cause me to have two questions, one how does that work with the idea of mortal sins removing yourself from grace that gives salvation and two how do they deal Peter literally disavowing Christ three times after being called the rock. Would that make that office invalid after his "apostasy".
Maybe think of it more like this. Jesus is the true vine - just because some bishops or priests have potentially strayed away from the faith and were branches that were cut off doesn't necessarily mean all did at the same time at any given point in history. If there was a distinct time period where every single bishop and priest became apostate then your claim would make sense :).
With all due respect, choosing the typology of Adam being married so Christ must be married is an absolutely terrible example as just like Adam Christ marries his bride, the Church in the eschaton. Mary the new Eve is the form of the Church the first tremor of things to come. Mary as mother of the Church become it’s archetype. And when the Church is called the body of Christ it is in the sense that the bride becomes one flesh with her husband.
10:05 Jesus was and is married. He fulfills that property in a more perfect way than the first Adam. He serves and sacrifices for his bride,the Church, in the ultimately perfect way.
How is it that Rev 3 - 7 makes Jesus a new Eliakim? Eliakim derives his authority from the king the king always has authority over the keys. He loans them to the master of the palace. If the master of the palace can open and shut by a derived power from the king than obviously the king has all the same authority and more... I would be hesitant to accept an exegesis that demotes Jesus to a Master of the Palace and not the King of Kings.
I have as I usually do, listened to this video a few times. There seems so much grasping at straws, and guessing what someone else has said in the videos. Hate to repeat what I've posted on the Jimmy Aikens response, but perhaps if I rephrase what I have posted, there it will make more sense. Having listened to several of Suan, Jimmy and other (Protestant and Catholic) Discussions and debates on this and other subjects, there seems to be a theme with your videos. I've even commented on the issue in the past. The Suan video you are engaging in rebutting is only one of his arguments which focuses on Typology, but in a review of his other videos, there are other non-typological arguments he uses (note I don't say proofs, regardless of how much I agree with Suan's arguments. As it seems there are several times one or the other gets the feeling their toes are stepped on) As there seems to be an agreement that Typology does not fit 100% all aspects (Adam Married, Jesus must be and other QAnon sounding non-arguments.) So I'll leave that now. Because it seems there is evidence that has not been discussed in past videos, (for example the statement in a past video that the Council of Trent did not address the issues of the Protestant Reformers, where it seems that the only texts reviewed and presented are the Decrees of the Council, when there are many commentaries by both those who were there and by Protestants like Chemnitz as well as later Catholic Writers like Herbert Jeden which cover the discussions and debates that eventually led to the outcome when the Fathers sat down and voted on the Decrees. Without reviewing the Debates, both from those who supported and dissented, we don't get a good sense of why and how the conclusion was determined. Finances don't have to always put our libraries at a disadvantage, the Internet Archive has many scanned copies for free, time and the lack of knowledge that such books exist do. ) So ending that rant, and addressing the issue of this video, taking a second to not neglect that while scratching the surface I do find Dr. O's balanced and fair attempts to argue his points, a great breath of fresh air compared to some other (Protestant and Catholic) Apologists. Now to the meat of my question. Comments like, "Infallibility means you are incapable of error. Or the comments on Supremacy." as well as the comments like, "I don't see that in Vatican I" beg the question, what is your understanding of What the Catholic Church and Vatican I taught and teaches? What is it that you understand Infallibility to mean. It would seem that it means a non-Catholic understanding that it is the Pope and not the promise and Grace of God that under the circumstances A B and C the Pope by God's promise to the Church speaks infallibly. Or do you understand the very limited instances in which Catholics hold Papal Infallibility, and the Indefectibility of the Church? You may very well understand what the Catholic Church teaches, I could be wrong, but from the video, I don't get the sense that what you are arguing against is anything more than a superficial understanding from a Non-Catholic argument, vs an argument against the Catholic teaching on the position of the Pope, or what prerogatives his Office holds, vs the man who holds the Office.
I think he wasn't necessarily commenting on Jesus's marital status, just how typology should work. Adam was married to a single human wife. Jesus wasn't.
The Typological Argument is the worst argument for the Papacy because it relies on an Argument by Analogy, which is formally invalid. Now, this is different from the typical inductive/abductive arguments because here the person you're disagreeing with HAS to agree that X and Y are analogous and that's unlikely. If the other one disagrees, the whole argument falls no matter how hard you believe in that analogy. Suan has to abandon these kind of problematic arguments. *This argument is about "I am right" and not about finding the **_best way_** to get to the truth.*
Suan has been told this about 50 times. He doesn't seem to care. His argument is little more than a tar baby. You are right to just recognize that it is formally invalid (as all arguments by analogy are) and just not get caught up in the details.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj, precisely what powers did Jesus confer to Peter through this analogy of the Keys that was not conferred to all of the other apostles, and precisely where were these powers present in the origin?
@@philoalethia The keys, that's the point. He commissioned all of the bishops but none were given _these_ particular charisms, one bishop did. In Luke 22 Jesus talks about the distinct role of St Peter for the sake of strengthening the faith of the other bishops, through service.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj, first, you seem to be confused. Peter was not a bishop. He was an apostle. There is an important difference. Second, if I ask what powers were conferred by these metaphorical keys--as no actual keys changed hands--there are many possible rational answers. Your answer, "the keys," is not among them. Anyway, so your claim is (1) the keys were given only to Peter, and (2) that these involve strengthening the faith of the other apostles ("through service")? Is that correct?
I think the difference between you and Suan is that he accepts the moral necessity for the office of the Pope and you do not. The type must be about the papacy, because without it, there is not infallible scripture, in the same way that objective morality requires that God exists. And they function in the same way, dealing with a whole bunch of 'nots' and a few 'dos' rather than a bunch of 'do this or that' kind of thing. If you do not accept God's existence, then your morality is only your opinion, only objective in your own mind. If you do not accept the office of the Pope, then there is no infallible scripture, it is only your opinion. Thats the logic of the Papacy, and if this logic is correct, then God would know this and would give us the Papacy to insure we have the authority we need to know if we are actually in His Church. Thus when we find God giving authority in the manner He does in Matthew 16, it is reasonable to assume this is what he meant, in form and in function.
Do you need to establish an infallible office to say that gravity exists? Same with the bible. Church doesn't need to be infallible to see what texts have been fabricated.
@@georgwagner937 It's not just the fabrication that is tested, it's the interpretations, though settling which texts are cannon also requires the authoritative office. There are many ways to interpret a text, even after is has been declared infallible. Which are wrong if there is no authority to decide? What is wrong if there is no objective moral authority? It is just your opinion versus my opinion and in matters of salvation, that wont do.
@@strikevipermkII the Canon is quite clear on what is necessary to be saved. And we ought not to act like the holy spirit doesn't exist. It is possible to come to saving faith without the help of a church. The Bible, prayer and a seeking heart are enough to get to know God.
@@georgwagner937 And yet there are disagreements on wether baptism is required. Also, the cannon itself is not clear, as there are disagreements about that as well.
When you believe tradition is equal to scripture then you have to fit scripture to your presupposition of tradition. You can pick, pull and choose any number of verses to justify your beliefs. That’s leads to error. We need to evaluate all of our presuppositions and traditions by what God says. Is the Gospel I trust backed by scripture? Does my beliefs contradict the word of God? God commands us to repent from error
The type that everyone seems to miss is Melchizedek. His was not an institutional priesthood. We know not where he came from or where he went. Jesus is called a priest according to Melchizedek. Protestants, where do all of them come from, where do they go? Denominations do, sometimes appear and disappear or morph into different institutions. But so what. We are an antitype of something that was without a permanent institution. The permanence lies in heaven, not on earth. Just as the real holy of holies lies in heaven and no longer exists on earth.
@@1984SheepDog Accept the NT book which emphasizes this states emphatically that the high priest has made the sacrifice once for all time. Unlike the OT sacrifices which must be repeated. The sacrifices left to the church today are thank offerings, fellowship offerings and offering ourselves and our means to God.
@@1984SheepDog that’s all inferred. The scripture doesn’t say anything about that explicitly. That’s why Protestants won’t buy into that argument that it was transubstantiation.
We appreciate the rebuttal videos! Don’t let Trent Horn, Jimmy Aiken ect… take the lion’s share of that. That’s how they have persuaded many people on certain subjects, through rebuttal videos. And you Gavin are one of the reasons Trent has had to break his “no rebutting rebuttal videos” rule. Catholic apologists are being challenged in a whole new way since you created your channel. I’ve never seen so many people in comments sections openly questioning their Catholicism and considering Protestantism than with your videos. I praise God for your ministry. 🙏🏼
It’s always tough when you engage any given subject with the presupposition of “I know my position must be right because Catholicism can’t be true cause I am Protestant” that’s at least how many people (me included in past years before I became catholic after months of intense study and help by Jimmy akin) spend decades wasted and not coming to terms with truth, harmonizing desperately what helps them to keep them somewhat Protestant. A premature pre commitment blinds and one isn’t able to dissect truth accordingly. For me this applies to Protestantism as it has so many blatant inconsistencies and errors. Many are literally not able to see the wood for the trees, when reality is that so many Protestants are remaining Protestant because they unfairly hold to an absolute distortion of Catholicism and The Catholic Church. I hope the debate between Gavin and Trent will be very informative for Protestants. 👍
24:30. I’m glad you brought up the “30,000 protestant denomination“ fallacy. I had mentioned this to Trent Horn when we had our discussion last spring about this, and how many Roman Catholics are believing this because it’s being taught by Roman Catholic apologists, including those at Catholic Answers. I have heard Trent State on his podcast for Catholics not to use this argument, because even The National Catholic Register has written an article that this is not true, and it’s taken from a study which includes Catholic Rites and even non Christian religions. But I see that this argument is still going around, so it periodically needs to be corrected.
Is anybody counting all of the non-denominationals that don't affiliate with anything? Each one is a separate religion because only that guy was given the truth.
Trent, in his latest rebuttal video against Gavin, at around 30 minutes in, is also acting like executing heretics is completely off the table for the Roman Catholic Church. Which is just not true at all and he knows it. He knows Catholic integralists, many of which espouse a nostalgia for the very idea of coercing Protestants and acting in this way, are a growing intellectual movement within Catholicism and him and the rest at Catholic answers have not called it out at all. Many Protestants that convert to Rome do not realize this, they are under the impression, as I was, that the church has outlawed this type of punishment because it is evil to be so cruel to people, but they haven’t outlawed it in any meaningful way, because clearly there is a growing number of intellectuals espousing the idea. They haven’t even declared the action gravely sinful because it’s evil, they’ve outlawed it because of “prudential” purposes. Even in trents video he doesn’t call it gravely evil or sinful. You have to watch what Catholics say on this because a lot of the theology is simply law language. They’ll say it’s not prudential or it’s illicit (not allowed), but won’t ever call it evil.
@@jordand5732 Calvin loved execution for dissenters too. Did Gavin mention that? What's even worse is that Calvin invented a religion based on a god created obviously in Calvin's image, who sentences people to a torturous death for the crime of being created. Is that twisted or what?
Thank you very much! I’m trying to keep up with the discussion but with so many long videos it’s hard. This was a great summary, and I thought you made very persuasive points.
Dr. Ortlund, that was a great response! Recently been digging more into your channel, and I have found a lot of really good stuff here. I am working toward starting a PhD in historical or biblical theology, and your videos have kinda pushed me toward the historical route! You have helped me not only feel better equipped to talk about these topics, but also to have a stronger foundation for what I believe. I would love it if you eventually made a video about Mortal and Venial sins in relation to 1 John 5 and how that developed throughout the patristic age and on. Thank you for your in depth and thorough videos thus far!
God bless you Dr Ortland, you speak so clearly and humbly on such topics. After listening to hours of debates from both Catholic and Protestants apologists during the lockdown, so many of them just caused me so much confusion. I haven't heard one convincing argument for the papacy, the more I hear Catholics debate this issue the less convinced I am.
Great video. The thing is, *even if* you could get some type (which seems dubious) for papal primacy, the primacy of the bishop of Rome *is not the same* as the papacy itself. You could hold that the pope is the first among equals, and that this was the view of the church (I happen to think it was). Why would the type rule out this understanding of the papacy? (And yes, that means that if Rome would repent, I'd be willing to come under the Roman Pontiff like I come under my archbishop)
What in your view would you see as the major distinctions as viewing the primacy of the bishop of Rome as opposed to the papacy. Seems like a distinction without a difference, but I'm curious to hear what you think.
@@TKK0812 Consider a council of elders. The chief elder has power to lead and such. But he certainly does not have power to demand religious submission of intellect and will to non infallible teaching on threat of excommunication. In Humani Generis, however, the papal office is said to be such that it's protected from ever teaching something that would harm souls--even in non infallible teaching. So the primacy of the Roman Bishop would mean that while the Roman Bishop's judgments would be given more weight than any individual, yet a conciliar judgment is greater (which Vatican I rejects). The pope would not be said to be infallible, nor could the pope bind people to things that aren't in the apostolic teaching. He'd lead the church in a fallible way, like a father leads his household or a rector leads a parish with multiple priests.
@@TKK0812 It would also mean rejecting the notion that the pope can just define dogma ex cathedra in a binding and infallible way, such that dissent is counted as intrinsic schism even if such dissent represents a genuinely divided mind among the bishops (e.g. like the assumption of Mary). The authority of the bishops taken collectively would be seen as greater than the authority of the pope, and the pope would be charged with leading--which doesn't mean he can bind all Christians to extra or unbiblical things (like communion in both kinds) just like a rector can't bind priests in that way under pain of excommunication, even as he leads other priests.
Gavin, I grew up Baptist and eventually traversed into the Catholic Church. You’re videos are playing a huge role in a potential return back to the Protestant tradition. Thanks and God bless.
@@pigetstuck Two things come to mind. Firstly the argument that the doctrines of the Catholic church do not become clearer as time progresses but rather muddier bordering on false as more and more accretions are added on. Secondly, the papacy being infallible is seriously problematic because if I have a crisis of conscience regarding a doctrine I have to ignore that and accept the teaching of the church or risk being in mortal sin.
People object to "more rebuttal videos"? There is no point to RU-vid other than the following: 1. Videos of hydraulic presses crushing things 2. Offensive standup comedy 3. Rebuttal videos 4. Musical parodies These people don't understand the Nature of RU-vid.
This is the first time I've ever even heard of this Eliakim. This seems to be such a minor, minor character to hang so much weighty meaning on. Not everything in the Bible is some how a typology.
Typology is most certainly not prophecy. The way it is used in the NT, it is more of a didactic tool. The type is used to explain the role or function of the anti-type. The authors of the NT already knew the Truth. They, at times, used typology to explain ideas, which is like using an example to explain a concept. Therefore, the polemic/apologetic use of typology between old and new testaments to prove some dogma/doctrine is putting the cart before the horse. We may use it to explain otherwise clearly stated doctrines, in order to elucidate complex ideas. This shouldn't be a very controversial or complex thing to understand. It seems Roman Catholics are so desperate to find a Biblical justification for the papacy, that they have conveniently decided to forgo consistent principles of hermeneutics.
If we hit 50 this time of year here in MN everyone's outside and half of them are wearing a t-shirt! I remember once when I was in Orlando a local came into a gas station talking to the clerk about how it was "freezing". It was in the low 60s out. SMH.
I’m not a scholar but my understanding of type/anti-type is that we can only claim it if scripture makes that claim and only within the parameters that scripture gives.
You are totally correct, and you dont need to be a scholar to know it. To not abide by this basic safeguard allows for any level of chaotic typologies.
@@bcain the fact that scripture is God-breathed and so because it’s inspired only it can infallibility interpret type/anti-type. Everything outside is interpretation at best or reading into it at worst
Always appreciate these rebuttals even when I disagree. On the note about Peter's succession, what's your take as to why historians like eusebius give a list of popes following Peter starting with clement?
Love the video! I think the point also needs to be made that doing typology from church doctrines or writings outside of Scripture is incoherent. Otherwise, any religion could find types. Mormons could use a similar method to illustrate that Joseph Smith has a type in the Old Testament. It needs to be expressed clearly or at least somewhat clearly in Scripture. Exegesis not eisegisis.
One thing I’ve been thinking a a lot about lately is the authority the apostles were given. What did this authority entail? It seems Jesus says whatever decisions they make, God will acknowledge in heaven. However that must come with qualifications. For example, the apostles could not have made it a rule that church members should get drunk 3 times a week because that would contradict Gods earlier commands. It doesn’t actually say there was any qualifications but it seems obvious there had to be. However, I would still like to know specifically what did the authority and the power to bind and loose extend to. Thanks for any responses.
Scott Hahn talks about how the correct tense is more like "will have been bound in heaven" so that the infallibility itself is coming from Christ, who is the head of his church (this phrasing from his appearance on Pints with Aquinas with Cameron Bertuzzi as well) and is something extended in Matthew. "Binding and loosing" was a term used by rabbis to show who was/wasn't in communion. So my understanding is that basically this is the power being extended by Christ - the authority to say who is/isn't in communion with Christ's church, guided and protected by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15)
Gavin: "I've gotta go in like 30 minutes." Me: *gets sad I only get 30 minutes, then checks video length and sees its actually 50 minutes and smiles* Excited to watch this!
This argument/debate seems cut and dry. There are many good arguments for Catholicism, but this is not one. The more I see Suan and other Catholic apologists unwilling to acknowledge what seems fairly obvious is calling my appreciation/respect for them into question.
@@bilbobaggins9893 as an outsider, how much would you trust a group of Mormon apologists, who are paid by an official Mormon apologetics org, to make solid arguments?
Wait a minute, Jesus is married to His Church, and our marriage is a sacrament that reveals Christ and the Church. Also, it is interesting that Ahishar is the οἰκονόμος. In Luke 12:41-43, we find the following: "Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager [οἰκονόμος], whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant[i] whom his master will find so doing when he comes. '" The apostles were stewards of the mysteries of God (1 Cor 4:1) and so are bishops (Titus 1:7). It is not a QED moment, but it is supportive. God bless!
The thing is ... nobody is claiming Jesus was married , nobody is having this argument ..... so I think this is not a strong analogy or argument in my opinion . but we do indeed have a papacy and we do indeed have a parralell in the OT. That is evidentiary
Lol, new Eliakim, Unum Sanctum, Sucessor of Peter, Infallible, Father of the Church, Papa (father), His Sanctity... for non-Roman Catholics these terms are totally inadequate to be applied tp another sinful person just because he holds a higher office in a certain denomination. The other day I heard about a pastor who said he upgraded from 'apostle' to 'cherubim'. As a evangelical, I think this sort of narcisism is non sense. The same thing about the title 'Doctor in Sanctity' to theologians with doctor degree. No matter how high esteem you hold your leader, he does not deserve attributes that should be given to God or place him into a beyond human category of sorts.
Thank you for your service and ministry Gavin. To me, the papacy is essentially indefensible. It seems obvious to me that it's not grounded in the Bible. The great lengths at which many Catholics go to defend it using typology tells me all I need to know. They seem to be really grasping and stretching here. I'm shocked that your rebuttal videos are necessary. I know that they are and so I appreciate you making them, but I don't see how any reasonable person can think that the papacy is defensible Biblically. Thank you for keeping the discussion going on this and other topics. Again, I really appreciate your ministry! God bless you!
Hey Gavin, I'm not sure if you've come across this paper. I thought it was interesting how the LDS were using the Eliakim typology to support their church authority. This paper is from 2014.. The paper is written by a Professor at BYU regarding Peter's Keys. He connects it to the Old Testament specifically Eliakim. This is closely tied to Mormon theology of Joseph Smith receiving the keys from Peter and the Apostles. rsc.byu.edu/sites/default/files/pub_content/pdf/Pet%E2%80%8Bers_Keys.pdf I think this is a good demonstration of typology running amok. Hence our concerns. Feel free using it in your channel. I think more people need to be aware of the implications with such argumentation.
I prefer this format over a real-time debate because it allows both interlocutors to consider what each are saying and take time to formulate their strongest possible response.
It's amazing how good rethorical skill you have when you go deep into theological argumentation, I still can work while listen to you and at the same time get what you are saying in a distracted enviroment.
Scott Hahn does a good job of explaining primacy (what it is and isn't) in just a few minutes at in the "Conversion to Catholicism, the Papacy, and Cameron Bertuzzi's Journey (w/ Dr Scott Hahn)" by Pints with Aquinas at the 40:38-45:00ish mark. Jesus as rock/Peter as rock are not really in competition as he describes. He also goes through balancing Vatican I with episcopal collegiality in Vatican II. There's no need to create a false dichotomy in a both/and situation.
The way he describes it is nothing like Vatican 1 descriptions and is something more like Eastern Orthodox views. I think Catholics really need to own the sharp and definitive language of V1 without softening it.
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 In saying something clearly, that doesn't mean the Church intends to isolate that truth from other truths or put it in opposition to other things it has always taught, such as collegiality. Both can be true. As far as needing to "own" a particular phrasing, let me quote Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI from when he was Prefect of the CDF: "The text also presents the various forms of binding authority which correspond to the grades of the Magisterium. [Donum Veritatis] states--- perhaps for the first time with such candor-- that there are magisterial decisions which cannot be the final word on a given matter as such but, despite the permanent value of their principles, are chiefly also a signal for pastoral prudence, a sort of provisional policy. Their kernel remains valid, but the particulars determined by circumstances can stand in need of correction." -On the 'Instruction Concerning the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian' p106
@@asgrey22 well Vatican 1 claims that the Pope has authority *over* the other Bishops. And so when we ask Scott Hahn for evidence of this, what he says here isn’t it. It’s evidence for something else.
Ahh I'm only a few minutes in, and I already wish I'd had this video as a reference a few years ago. I wanted to explain to a former pastor why I disagreed with a very specific claim about Solomon in a book we were reading, but I didn't know how to explain it. This makes it much clearer in my mind. (The book was putting forward a 3-character theory about Song of Solomon, based on the idea that Solomon couldn't really be a good type of Christ because he had multiple wives, so there had to be an additional monogamous shepherd character as the bridegroom.) Do you think that Solomon in the Song is supposed to be a type of Christ as a bridegroom, or does his "bad record" with wives disqualify that reading of SoS? I've never had a problem with it, but then again I've never been able to make heads nor tails of SoS. 😅
Thanks for the video. Firstly, I do think the NT is scant on papacy because it really wasn't the urgent issue when they were just struggling to survive. Also, with geographic distance and lack of social media, this authority wasnt really felt by the lay believer. Secondly, Peter does show tremendous humility. And this is what confuses the issue. The medieval papacy and some theologies coming out from there does distort our view and we need this corrective. Having said that I think the issue is: 1. Should we expect the Spirit to lead us into all truth so that the seed of the doctrine in NT might at first glance look very different as a mature tree? 2. It is clear enough that there is an authority in Peter as an Office (seen in the use of different words, Petros and Cephas). Why would that office cease in the first century? All organisations need order and leadership so same for the Body of Christ.
This is why I see typology as primarily useful for confirming what we otherwise know about antitypes and for confirming/demonstrating God’s sovereign hand of providence and his eternal plan (prophecies function in a similar way). Once you start taking properties from types and applying them to antitypes, a degree of arbitrariness enters the picture and any argument made thereafter rests on inherently shaky ground.
Someone just tried to tell me that Mary has a throne next to Jesus because Bathsheba had a throne next to Solomon who was the king of the Jews. Is this typology gone amuck?
While I firmly believe Peter was the first Pope (for more reasons than pure typology), I think everyone on all sides of this debate should be THRILLED to be seeing so much high-level discourse from so many thinkers on these important theological topics. I like to imagine this is the kind of stuff we would've seen in the first few centuries concerning theological disagreements and heresies had RU-vid had been available back then. Of course, then we wouldn't have fun legends like St. Nicholas slapping Arius over the Trinity, but there's still time for that. Trent Horn and Gavin Ortlund are effectively slapping each other with RU-vid thumbnails and I am HERE FOR IT.
