The Case FOR the Papacy w/ Joe Heschmeyer 

@YAJUN YUAN Sorry to hear that.

@YAJUN YUAN That is what the magisterium determines.

@YAJUN YUAN Lol have you ever heard of the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

@YAJUN YUAN ahahaha Catechisms have existed since the very early days of the Church my friend.

@YAJUN YUAN and that's somehow bad why?

Do it. It will be the best decision you'll ever make.

praying for your journey

No doubt that you had a false gospel message of faith plus works equals salvation nonsense. Oh yes, no doubt that they talked grace through faith but then.... They said something like; Repent of your sins, pick up your cross daily, make Jesus Lord and Master of your life, surrender your will, give your life to Christ, etc? These are all works of service and have absolutely nothing to do with salvation at all. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Jesus is Lord God Almighty clothed in unsinful humanity and He is the author of eternal life to all who trust Him alone for salvation. Saving repentance is realizing that you are a sinner deserving of God's just punishment in Hell and turn (repent) from whatever you trusted in before, if indeed you trusted in anything; to trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation. Most professing Protestants are just bastard children of their mother the Roman Catholic Church.

@@hogansheroes2793 ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

@@alphonsustheleast1537 I'm glad you're having so much fun here. This is serious business.

The hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church has always appalled me. Why should a mere mortal have the authority to "excommunicate" any other mortal from his divine connection with God?

@@mugsofmirth8101 how do you deal with places like Matthew 18:17 and 1 Corinthians 5:5, which seem to demand Church discipline (including excommunication)?

@DonnyBlips this was a good response

@@mugsofmirth8101 Do you know what excommunication means?

@@mugsofmirth8101 Why did Peter the rock and sole key holder, have the power and authority to declare that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was? ( Genesis 17:12). The Church has the Authority to treat people as separated from the flock if disobedienent and rebellious. ( Matthew 18:18, Titus 1:10). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior ,He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

I've read it - loved it. Converted last year.

I would recommend the Early Church Was The Catholic Church. I found Pope Peter more concerned with specific papal issues rather than the legitimacy of the papacy as a whole. Pope Peter seemed to be a book for Catholics. The Early Church Was the Catholic Church is an evangelistic book for Protestants.

@@mortensimonsen1645 Welcome home! You made the right choice! God bless you!!

@@tony1685 Tony, Your "Seventh-day Adventist" church traces its roots to American preacher William Miller (1782-1849), a Baptist who "predicted" the Second Coming would occur between March 21, 1843, and March 21, 1844. Because he and his followers proclaimed Christ’s imminent advent, they were known as “Adventists.” When Christ failed to appear, Miller reluctantly endorsed the position of a group of his followers known as the “seventh-month movement,” who claimed Christ would return on October 22, 1844 (in the seventh month of the Jewish calendar). When this DIDN'T happen either, Miller renounced predicting the date of the Second Coming, and his followers broke up into a number of competing factions. Miller would have nothing to do with the new theories his followers produced, including ones that attempted to save part of his 1844 doctrine. Miller had claimed, based on his interpretation of Daniel and Revelation, that Christ would return in 1843-44 to cleanse “the sanctuary” (Dan. 8:11-14, 9:26), which he interpreted as the earth. After the disappointments of 1844, several of his followers proposed an alternative theory. While walking in a cornfield on the morning of October 23, 1844, the day after Christ failed to return, Hiram Edson felt he received a spiritual revelation that indicated that Miller had misidentified the sanctuary. It was not the earth, but the Holy of Holies in God’s heavenly temple. Instead of coming out of the heavenly temple to cleanse the sanctuary of the earth, in 1844 Christ, for the first time, went into the heavenly Holy of Holies to cleanse it instead. Another group of Millerites was influenced by Joseph Bates, who in 1846 and 1849 issued pamphlets insisting that Christians observe the Jewish Sabbath-Saturday-instead of worshipping on Sunday. This helped feed the intense anti-Catholicism of Seventh-day Adventism, since they blamed the Catholic Church for changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. These two streams of thought, Christ entering the heavenly sanctuary and the need to keep the Jewish Sabbath, were combined by Ellen Gould White, who claimed to have received many "visions" confirming these doctrines. Together with Edson and Bates, she formed the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, which officially received its name in 1860. Why be so gullible by believing in pretentious "prophets" when Jesus, who is God, clearly founded ONLY ONE CHURCH against which the "gates of hell will not prevail"? How can you intelligently justify such invented tales evidently produced by humans without any authority except for the one they invented for themselves? May God give you the grace to know His truth.

@@tony1685 Tony, Go take a nap. It is evident you can't handle information that makes you nervous.

Umm...do you not know James White?

@@HvV_FilmRoom yes I remember that James White got soundly thrashed in a debate about the validity of sola scriptura

@@Peter-jo6yu LOL is that why Roman Catholics are scared to death to this very day of debating him?

@@HvV_FilmRoom check James White’s debate with catholic Trent Horn, it is really good. There are also good ones (a bit older) with Jimmy Akin and Patrick Madrid. All on RU-vid.

@@HvV_FilmRoom j white has been circulating the same poor arguments for decades, if u actually hear his objections refuted u will see how poor White's arguments are

Agreed

*The NT writers and the early church fathers didn't just write things for their own sake. Paul wrote letters usually addressing particular problems, whether issues with members in churches or doctrinal disputes* So? They also wrote by way of just general doctrinal establishment, encouragement, requests for prayer etc. The whole book of Acts is a historical narrative *of the early church* that doesn't even *hint* at a papacy. It's absurd to think that the writers would only write concerning the papacy if it was under dispute. *The fact that the Papacy is not explicit in the NT isn't as strong a claim as some would think* Oh, it's extremely strong and it's why protestants reject your private interpretation. This heads I win, tails you lose mentality is extremely unhelpful. If the NT writers give catholics a vague verse at best like Matthew 16:18, they jump all over it to establish the ad hoc papacy and say "See! It's right there!". But if something isn't explicit or even implicit (I would say Matthew 16 doesn't even raise to the level of implicit) then you can't just use another ad hoc rationalization like "Well it was just so clear and established that no one thought to talk about it" You can't honestly believe this is a good argument?

I think if you can get past the “if it ain’t in the Bible..” mentality, you open yourself up to a world of evidence for how the early church was structured. Though, I does seem that the powers and authority of the Papal Office developed over time. That isn’t really a mark against it as much of the Christian church structure developed over time. That’s just natural.

@@TKK0812 *They also wrote by way of just general doctrinal establishment* Did they? Can you provide an example where a doctrine is established for its own sake and there is no context whatsoever, such as a dispute or schism or behavioral issue, for it? *The whole book of Acts is a historical narrative of the early church that doesn't even hint at a papacy.* That's just pure exaggeration. Of course there are hints of the papacy. The fact that during the council debate about gentile circumcision, Peter gets up and doesn't just give his opinion on what to believe. No, in Acts 15:11, he says "We believe...". He's literally telling all the apostles and the elders, even the pro-circumcision group what they are to believe. And what happened? The room was silent. He, by mere declaration settled the dispute by telling everyone what to believe and everyone accepted it. No one challenged his authority to do this. Now, sure, that doesn't explicitly spell out the papacy and sure potentially you can read this in different ways. But to act like such things are not even a hint is just ridiculous. *It's absurd to think that the writers would only write concerning the papacy if it was under dispute.* No it's not. As I said at the start, give me an example where doctrine is explicitly spelled out and there is not catalyst or context. As for the rest, you are just putting words in my mouth I never said. It isn't just Matt 16:18, so I'm not gonna comment on that. Wanna know what else is not even hinted at in the bible? Scripture alone, faith alone. Apparently those are very important for Protestants, but there is no hint of them in the bible. Luther, on his own authority, had to add the word "alone" to his German translation Rom 3:28 just so faith alone is somewhere.

@@billyg898 *Did they? Can you provide an example where a doctrine is established for its own sake and there is no context whatsoever* First , saying the NT writers established doctrine "for it's own sake" is a blasphemous disregard for the revelation of God. Scripture is replete with verses concerning the importance and awesomeness of knowing God and who He is. So when Paul, under inspiration of Holy Spirit, established a doctrine in the church, it was not "for it's own sake". Secondly, I never said there was not context, rather what I said is that the writings are not simply for settling disputes or schisms etc. I could give massive amounts of evidence, but just one is all I need to demonstrate my point. Vast amounts of Revelation are just simply that, in the greek "apokalypsis" meaning to uncover or reveal. Much of this book is written to the church as a whole and has no concern with settling specific disputes or debates or issues, it's simply something God chose to reveal to His church. *That's just pure exaggeration. Of course there are hints of the papacy. The fact that during the council debate about gentile circumcision* I don't mean this to be rude, but if that's honestly, in your heart of hearts, something you believe hints at the papacy, then I truly don't believe a dialogue concerning this would even be fruitful. That shocks me that you think that carries *any* weight. I will reassert that Acts does not even hint at the papacy. *Wanna know what else is not even hinted at in the bible? Scripture alone, faith alone* Tu quo que fallacy

He truly does. His clarity is almost stunning. This is my first time hearing him (though I recently bought one of his books without even knowing who he was). I definitely want to check out more videos with him now.

correction, the Holy Spirit creates the church at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit inspires those in the early church to write inspired doctrine. Church and Bible is nothing without it's source.

Incorrect. We made nothing. God made it.

The New Testament is God's infallible word, so are you saying that the Church created God's word? This is a scary comment.

@@TheOtherCaleb wrong..... must be Catholic

@@maxcassidy4527 I misspoke. The Holy Spirit established the church, then the New Testament authors reveal the Church via inspiration.

Early Church*

May God bless you. One thing I think we need to realize amidst apologetics is actually living out our faith and we all can get lost in the division. God loves the humble and your comment sounds like it and so keep it up❤️.

@@Deto4508 Thanks! Inflatable Popes is a whole other discussion 😂 Blessings.

@@faithharbour Blessings to you too friend!

The inflatable doctrine is only relevant during Papal Pool Parties. 😉

@@Jerome616 😂😂😂

The Papacy is a commutative case and if Peter was the leader of the early church I think that lays down a lot of the foundation for the Papacy

Caleb, Nor then is faith alone and Scripture alone, both of which are not found in Holy Scripture, an argument for Final authority and salvation requirements! Yet, the office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

@@matthewbroderick6287 Substantiate.

I think it is. A unique role is a part of what the papacy entails. That’s not the same as saying it’s a knock down argument tho.

Isn’t it? If Jesus made sure to put all the apostles on equal footing - that would be giant argument against the papacy. But he didn’t. And the leadership model practiced in Israel was kingdoms (with succession). If there were no succession, what would that entail for the church? If one grants succession and the hiearchy as god-given (the Son submits to the will of the Father - remeber Gethsemane) - then we very quickly have «supremacy» in some form. Infallibility is just a necessity - to end endless debates.

Haven't heard that one before but I must say, that's quite clever!

Nice. Makes sense. On its own it wouldnt make a strong case but it strengthens the case for the papacy.

@@tony1685 Good question! It got me thinking. On the one hand, I am interested in seeking the truth, not avoiding any of it. On the other, I am interested in a particular kind of counter-arguments, not all kinds. Let me explain: I assume you believe in the divinity of Jesus. If so, would you be interested in some reasons why Jesus is not God? I could probably pull together some arguments. You could of course say "yes", being confident that you could refute the particular bible verse by quoting some other verses, or perhaps explaining the wider context. But furthermore, the reason why you do believe in the divinity of Jesus (again, my assumption) is most likely based on some *positive* statement you find in the Bible (and most likely because of the tradition you've grown up with). My point is that these *positive* statements ("before Abraham, I was" or "the Father and I are one" ) are not refuted as soon as Jesus "only the Father knows the hour". Therefore, in order to refute the divinity of Jesus, I suppose one would need a verse that says it more clearly like "I am just an angel" or "don't mistake me for God". I hope you see what kind of reasons I am looking for - probably the same way you would approach the Unitarian. I think it is indisputable that Peter was the leader of the Apostles. I think it is indisputable that Jesus appointed him to that position. Therefore, Peter as the "rock" meets very little cognitive resistance in me. With all that said, please go ahead with your reasons - I will of course read and try to give them a fair hearing.

Yeah 100%. To be honest, the fact that this is debatable is mind blowing... "You are the rock and on this rock I will build my church" - NO, no... It's not Peter and it's not even a church, it's an abstract concept of people who couldn't read yet red the Bible... - But isn't clear that Peter had the main authority all over scripture? - No... it's not.

@@tony1685 I understand what you wanted to convey with the first references about two or three witnesses, but I don't think you apply them correctly. So I am afraid we don't see eye to eye on these "Bible Rules". I would assume that since the Bible is infallible, it would be more than enough with one reference. After all - it cannot be wrong. Although we can interpret it wrongly. So I don't buy the leap from "two or three (fallible) witnesses" to "two or three (infallible) Scripture citations". I think that is incoherent. Furthermore, Jesus argues that he witness about himself. That is clearly not what the Torah had in mind. Nevertheless - this is possible because he is infallible. So I understand you are SDA and as always you all want to debate the Sabbath. In your mind, it's a slam dunk I suppose, but it is not. Paul was all about countering the influence of the Jews that needed to revert back to circumcisions and food restrictions. You can see this in all his letters. We know from Acts that nearly all sorts of food were permitted, and we know from Acts that the Christians did gather on Sunday - so when Paul talks about those weak in faith, he clearly has in mind those that need the legalistic framework of the Old Covenant. That is not to say that the moral code of the Old Covenant has been absolved, clearly not - but something has changed. So when we read both that Christians gather on Lord's day and that Paul warns about those that are excessively concerned about days (Rom 14, Col 2, Gal 4) - and the Church Tradition has preserved meetings on Sunday, it is not complicated. Sabbath observance belongs to the old Covenant. Ignatius of Antioch - the disciple of John the Apostle says "[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death". In fact, I would say Rom 14 is directed to SDA. Furthermore, since bringing up the faithfulness to the Word, is that a test SDA will pass? It seems like SDA accepts re-marriage, especially for the "innocent" part. Clearly a violation of Scripture. Jesus never says anything about re-marriage being allowed for the "innocent" part. It is clear that SDA doesn't understand why this is so: The marriage is a holy sacrament pointing to the unbreakable vow from Jesus to his Bride. Even if the Bride is unfaithful, Jesus will not find himself another Bride (even though he is innocent). Furthermore, I find that SDA practices rebaptism for people that have sinned in this area - another unbiblical teaching. Source: family.adventist.org/sda-policy-on-divorce-and-remarriage/

The pope is wreaking havoc with his authority. So much so that millions of your brethren want him removed. According to you, this is hatred. Where does this hatred come from and what is the truth in your pope's destruction of Roman Catholicism as it has been taught?

@@lkae4 kindly dont teach me , my own faith. And a small correction needed in your statement. You said "The pope is wreaking havoc with his authority. So much so that millions of your brethren want him removed" we do not need or asking or want pope to be 'REMOVED' because we are not such a kind that we can remove something which JESUS established. Pope Francis must be REPLACED with the NEXT PETER that's what many of us are looking for because we know very well than protestants that many times we get bad pope who doesn't make up to the mark and this can be pretty obvious because he is just a mere human being. So its not like protestant concept that works here that we don't like something and immediately we say that "Ok well lets start a new group" Noooo !!!!

@@wayofjesus-thetruth4698 In order to replace him, you have to remove him. Thanks for confirming. And I agree, Francis is a mere human being. But I think you just contradicted your own church views if you think Francis is just a mere human being.

@@lkae4 Its you as a protestant believes some crazy stuff about pope. We, know very clearly that he is a human being. Peter was a normal human being so people sitting on his chair would obviously be the same humans. And to replace him doesn't mean that the authority which Christ established will be removed. Thats the reason I said clearly that the next peter must come up REPLACING the present leader

@@wayofjesus-thetruth4698 Nah. I've known Francis was a heretical universalist non-Christian for a long time. Millions of Roman Catholics are starting to believe that truth.

Paul does refer to Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock. Paul though never writes about faith alone, nor Scripture ALONE! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

Heschmeyer addressed that. The fact that Paul never mentions a supreme infallible bishop of Rome is because, and I'm heavily paraphrasing, people already know that. Also, as someone mentions this to me, Paul had other letters beside what's in the bible. So Paul's letters in the bible can't be consider his exhaustive thought on what Church governance is. It is partially, but not exhaustively.

That particular argumentum ex silentio was addressed, I believe, in Erick YBarra's videos over at Classical Christian Thought. If you scroll down to the bottom of my playlist they should be located there. ru-vid.com/group/PLCOqsGsyCt4BCe8V0wmvP7KefvLUfptK-

@@namapalsu2364 other letters? yes. But consider the time he put into letters compared to the 30 years he spent teaching in person. That is oral tradition that overwhelmingly dwarfs all of his writings.

Paul never talks about imputed justice, satisfaction for sin, penal substitution, faith alone, etc etc etc etc - which are in fact heresies, contradicted by Scripture numerous times

@DonnyBlips True. I’ve edited my initial comment.

@DonnyBlips I agree with a lot of what you just said. I think then we’re going to have to distinguish what are these developments, mainly focusing on the controversial ones and if they’re permitted or not. We know The Holy Spirit cant lead The Church in error so I would subunit to yes in them being permitted.

You got it!

@YAJUN YUAN The Regulative Principle tends to devolve into what eventually birthed the Christian Church (denomination). But, I also tend to think that both views are the Regulative Principle with more or less steps.

So who was the authority to say there are 2 versions of sola scriptura? And if there are 2, who decides which one is right.... because if you have people claiming to be christians but following 2 different versions of sola scriptura, you now have 2 faiths and a split in the church (if you can even call protestantism a church)

@@AustralianChristianFascists Rome doesn't have differing views on important doctrines?

@YAJUN YUAN I'm not sure I see why that is a bad thing. Would you care to explain why it is a bad thing to be in continuity with the Ancient Faith of the Church and be formed by it thoughts and practices?

@@alexwarstler9000 No, not on doctrine.

There's no contradiction between Christ being the Cornerstone and Peter being the Rock upon which the Church is built. Ephesians describes all of the Apostles as the foundations of the Church. Revelation describes the New Jerusalem as having twelve foundations. And as Peter says, we are all to become living stones. Pulling everything together, one would never conclude that all references to rocks are references to Christ. Rather, one would conclude that the different rocks serve different rolls in the edifice of the Church, a living temple for God built up by each living stone resting upon the foundations beneath it. It's really quite similar to Paul's famous Body of Christ, in which different persons serve as different members in the body with Christ as the head. The difference is that Peter and the Apostles are singled out as having particular foundation roles in the edifice--without which the whole thing collapses. Hence it is quite fitting for the Peter and the Apostles to have successors, such that Church always has its foundations in place--just as the body of Christ should always have its heart and vital organs. Once you see the whole picture, it's pretty obvious that 1 Peter 2:4-8 is oozing Catholicism, just like the rest of the Bible.

@@jonathanstensberg Perhaps. Still, with Paul touting Christ as head and the Johns reiterating that there are multiple, equilateral foundation stones, the political revolution of the Papa looks even more extraneous than with my original point. As always, I suspect truth and wisdom lie somewhere in-between, crying out for us to seek and find her. I cannot see how Roman Catholicism is laced throughout scripture, but I can see and agree how Catholic Faith is.

I too thought his argument against Gavin's claim of Constitution mentions the President therefore the Bible should mention the pope was very interesting, showing as well that governors are not mentioned in the constitution. I also think we shouldn't be too quick to say "this argument wasn't good". I think he may have been trying to stay away from the common arguments for the papacy, as he mentioned Protestants are already familiar with them, and was possibly trying to show some other areas that the papacy could be seen. Also granting that passages can have multiple meanings. I will need to look into his book Pope Peter to get a better overall view of all the arguments he uses to come to the papacy.

@@Jonathan_214 I am fine to concede good arguments that he made, but I am also gonna call out bad ones. The John argument was almost purely eisegesis. We know this because it ignores the fact that Jesus explains the parable in John 10 and says that He Himself is the shepherd. He wasn't referring to Peter.

Nate, I appreciate that very fair feedback! I did a pretty bad job of explaining the argument from John 10, but if you take a close look at the passage, Jesus uses two back-to-back images. In the first ten verses, Jesus is explicitly the Gate for the sheep, and authentic shepherds arrive by the gate to tend the sheep. He is also the Good Shepherd, and that begins in verse 11. So I think it's easy to group both of those sayings into one, when they're not. As for the idea that Peter is being restored, there's clearly a connection between Peter's threefold denial and threefold affirmation, but the idea that Peter stops being an apostle in such a way that he needs to be restored is contrary to numerous explicit references in Scripture to him still being an Apostle between Holy Thursday evening and the period after the Resurrection described in John 21. I do a better job of explaining both of those angles in Pope Peter then I am doing here or in the interview itself (still working on brevity and clarity, sorry!)

@@JosephHeschmeyer thanks for your response! I didn't expect to hear from you directly! I'm sitting here reading John 10, and it seems to me that Jesus is simply explaining the parable He just told, not giving a different illustration entirely. He reuses the language saying those who enter are thieves and robbers, and says He is the door in the second illustration, which seems to be exactly like the first illustration, except He then goes and calls Himself the door as well. If I'm misunderstanding, let me know, but that it what it seems to me is happening.

@@JosephHeschmeyer You're doing excellent!! I really love your book Pope Peter. Converted last year. You manage to pack so many things in such a short time span that it's crazy. And you did actually mention that there were multiple shepherd parables in John 10, so no worry. It's just that people need to pay attention to every word :D. I was thinking of an argument for the interpretation that Peter actually was *the rock* - which I've outlined in a comment for this video. Essentially it says that if he was not *the rock*, then no need to translate his name (Paul called him Cephas from time to time). What do you think of such an argument?

For real.

But I guess there are people talking a lot about it. Of course Jesus Christ gave all the Apostles together - the apostolic collegiate - the power of binding and loosing too (Matthew 18, 18), which reflects the complement for collegiality as far as ecclesial teaching AUTHORITY goes, so it must all be in compass with the perfect law-giver’s wisdom. It does not signify therefore an annulment of the Petrine authority, due to two theological facts: 1) it was given to Peter with specificity, anteriority and prominence, singularly addressing to him - even by name (and function, which relates to the name changing) - directly and individually among all the Apostles; 2) only to Peter Our Lord gave - individually - the “keys of the Kingdom” and no other Apostle or disciple were commanded to receive them from Jesus, but through participation. Thus it explains the convergence in the Church teaching/magisterial authority both of the 1) Petrine teaching authority in the power of the Keys (= Papal authority: Mt 16, 18-19) and the 2) gathered Apostolic collegiate teaching authority with Peter (not apart from Peter) (=Ecumenical Councils’ authority in communion with the Successor of Peter: Mt 18, 18). Those parallelisms tend to be more or less crystalline to deep and hardcore Catholic ecclesiologists, but I agree Catholics could be clearer since not anyone take those concepts for granted. Ecclesiology is much overlooked.

@@masterchief8179 Thank you for your response. I really appreciate it and the following questions aren't meant as "refutations" of your position but as genuine questions. 1. Isn't Matthew 18 talking about the Church at a local level? The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible takes this position as well as (I think) Dale Allison and WD Davies in their second volume in their Matthew commentary series. What makes this seem the case is that the passage is talking about a particular person being taken before the Church authorities to be judged (resulting in either excommunication 18:17, or forgiveness and reconciliation with the community 18:13, 19). This seems to indicate that this is talking about the local church because in the early Christian communities, people going astray occur too frequently for all the apostles (or their successors) to get in a council. In fact, verse 19:20 seems to indicate you need at least two, but not all 12. How would you respond to this? 2. The authority to bind and loose seems to be talking about the authority to bind and loose *people* in the local christian community. However, this is different from binding and loosing propositions. Therefore it seems that the context specifies the binding of people without specifying the binding of propositions. Furthermore, if it was about propositions then the local court would be able to bind these Christians to a proposition that a different local community does not bind them to. This allows for a difference in theology among different local churches which seems counter to Catholic claims of unity. Your answers would be appreciated. If you prefer, you can direct message me (if that doesn't work just reply to this comment). I came to the conclusion that the apostles and their successors had the authority to excommunicate and forgive people but not define things. Peter's Binding and loosing Matthew 16 is unsymmetrical with this because the context implies it's talking about teaching authority and thus Peter had the ability to bind and loose propositions for the whole Church (since that's what's in view in Matthew 16). Thank you and God bless.

@@shlamallama6433 I agree with your observations about contextuality. I guess they are pretty accurate. But even if Matthew 18 deals more properly and directly with excommunication (= matters of discipline) and Matthew 16 deals more properly and directly with faith (= propositions on doctrine), the two contexts must be intertwined because of the parallelism which justly arises from the terminology of “binding and loose” in the two cases and senses. In Rabbinic tradition, the expression was applicable both to doctrinal and to disciplinary aspects. Suan Sonna is a young Catholic apologist that has made this explanations about Halakha (if I’m not mistaken). But if so, when referential to doctrines of faith (teachings about “the Law”) it was believed nevertheless that the ontological nature of the High Court’s judgment was distinct than the disciplinary judgment (and the Sanhedrin was “backed up” by Heaven to preserve the purity of the teachings). It would most certainly show a categorical difference between the wrong condemnation of Jesus when He was framed by the Sanhedrin (Lk 22, 66-71) and the teachings over the mosaic law of the Pharisees upon the authority of Moses’ “cathedra” (Matthew 23, 1-3). So it is pretty interesting: under those lenses, the interpretation of Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 more or less claims what Germans would call “Systematische Interpretation”, I guess. About Mt 18 being a reference to the local (authoritative) church (but not the universal church), I agree with you again. It concerns - in the immediate context - the way to act upon an obstinate sinner who refuses amendments at local levels, only without excluding the possibility of his action’s effect being broader than local communities. As far as a doctrinal proposition goes, I guess we would need to check again the more systematic interpretation: contextualizing Matthew 18 maybe with Acts 15 could fairly be described as an adequate way of understanding how the Early Church conceived collegiality (in doctrinal matters). Those would be my two cents! Thanks for you very thoughtful comment!

@@masterchief8179 Thanks for your explanation! Yeah what I forgot to mention is I think that Acts 15 would be the justification scripturally for ecumenical councils.

"I think that Catholic Apologists should be giving more attention the terminology of "binding and loosing" and what that means. Perhaps there should be a debate about that." yes that seems to be the crucial point.

Their burgers are delicious, but have you tried In-N-Out's "fries"? Bland garbage. Just saying.

Catholic priests also get to be in all the best horror movies. You think they'd ever do a good exorcist movie with a Lutheran pastor? Nope.

@YAJUN YUAN Well, yeah, but the characters in question are Catholics even if the actors aren't.

@YAJUN YUAN You are making many assumptions. On what basis do you say "this level of inspiration does not exist any more?" Is that scriptural or is it a tradition of men? You confuse sinfulness with fallibility regarding doctrinal matters. Whilst all men are sinful, not all are infallible on doctrinal matters. Furthermore, to ensure that the integrity of scripture is maintained, that each new copy over lengthy periods of time are true to the original, there has to be an infallible body of men, with a leader to ensure that this happens, and to also ensure no erroneous text is added to the already inspired text, as some have already erroneously done, mixing existing scripture with heretical ideas, such as Mormonism and Islam. There has to be an infallible body to also define to the whole world what is scripture and what is not, what IS the inspired word of God and what is not. The rooting out of heresies past, present and future is only possible if God does this in conjuction with an infallible body which cooperates with his grace to ensure that the sanctity of his word is preserved for posterity and for all time. When you realise this fact, then do the words of Jesus become apparent, that he will be with his church until the end of time, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Your protestant views prevent you from seeing the obvious. Now that it is apparent to you from what I've told you, it would be foolish to maintain it.

@@myrddingwynedd2751 "Your protestant views prevent you from seeing the obvious. Now that it is apparent to you from what I've told you, it would be foolish to maintain it..." I don`t call myself Catholic or Protestant but the arrogance of that statement is breathtaking, if you wish to win folk over .

@@petethepeg2 How is it arrogant?

@@myrddingwynedd2751 Dear brother or sister, just re-read slowly that last sentence of yours and ask yourself the same question again! That is not exactly winsome is it! More like contention and confrontation ! Also you make your arguement seem like a fact when it's just your point of view!

@@petethepeg2 I think it's incredibly arrogant to assume a neutral position, unless you're SDA, which for all intents and purposes is 'still' a protestant viewpoint. Its arrogant since you assume the neutral position is the right one, that both catholics and protestants are wrong, and you see above their petty squabbles and disagreements. I will change my mind if you can convince me the neutral position is the right one to hold. You see, you are like atheists who claim Christians are arrogant for calling certain sexual practices immoral, or like moral relativist who call Christians arrogant for claiming absolutes, like they're saying "how can you possibly know the truth?" or "who do you think you are to be telling me what's right and wrong?" It's a baseless accusation and slander to make the one who speaks the truth sound like the malevolent one, without taking into account the possibility that one has submitted themselves to divine revelation in humility. You offered no argument as to why my statement is arrogant, which implies you are being rather sneaky, merely trying to paint me out to be a bad guy for either speaking the truth, or if not the truth, at least my opinion. If anything, and I could be wrong, but I think you are the one being rather lofty here since you're a fence sitter, proudly exclaiming you can see the silly faults on both sides. If only we had your wisdom we could see what you see? Can you see the pridefulness in your neutral position?

nah...

nah..

@@Matt-ck3pp why not (I'm actually curious)?

Hell, no. Dyer only fit in a videogamer community.

Eric ybarra and Jay dyer have had their papacy discussion before, probably similar to what you'd see with Joe H

Paragraphs are your friend, Steve. They make your writing a lot easier to read. Protestants believe that God works through many institutions on this earth, including the Catholic church, Eastern Orthodox, etc. You do realize that the Orthodox think that they are the keepers of the flame, the true church, the true apostolic successors, etc.? Why are THEY wrong? We can disagree and still be unified around Jesus. Maybe we should focus more on unity and acceptance between different institutions and less on purging those who disagree with us on something. All believers are part of the Church. The Church doesn't have to be one huge, worldwide institution that tells everyone what to do. The Trinity and the incarnation are both concepts well-rooted in the words of Jesus, the apostles, and the church fathers. The books of the Bible were also pretty much agreed upon by the early church. Not so much the papacy, etc. People who need one church with a supreme leader making all the decisions remind me of the Israelites begging for a king. I mean, if it makes you feel better then who am I to judge. But God would have been MUCH clearer about this if the Pope was really a thing, in my view.

​@@toddthacker8258 I did reply to your comment. But I think it was too long so I did post it at the top of the comments section. It is probably too long for you to want to deal with but I did respond. Thanks again.

@@stevenwall1964 I appreciate you taking the time! I looked about for your comment in this section (using "newest first") and did not see it. Is it possible that you posted it in another thread?

@@toddthacker8258 Hi Todd, Thank you for responding. I have responded you a few times but it is just too long I suppose and the “Comment” Section won’t take it. I will try to be more brief. Please don’t think I am being belligerent. I just have question about how you see the evidence. I was once an atheist who thought Christianity was false because it was so divided. The New Testament in agonizing clear language demands that the church be unified. Clearly Jesus says in John 17 that he wants the church to “be one” and he gives a reason. It is so the “world will know” that Christianity is true. No other religion is unified and so Jesus says it twice. He wants the church to “be one” so the “world will know.” Then he says he wants church to be “perfectly one” so the world will believe. Paul ratifies that with dozens of passages that say the church must be one. Paul demands that the church “agree on everything and that there be “no divisions” among them (1st Corinthians 10). In Ephesians 4 he says that church should have complete unity so that believers are not tossed to and fro by many different doctrines. When I read the New Testament as an atheist I wrote what Jesus said about the church. 1. “The gates of hell would not prevail against it” - Matthew 16 2 It had to be united. John 17 “That they may all be one so that the world may know…” 3. It would face persecution - John 15:20 4. It would go to all nations - Matthew 28 5. Jesus would be with the church until the end of time. Matthew 28 6. Jesus will send the Holy Spirit to guide the church “forever.” John 14:17 7. Jesus would send the holy spirit to guide the church in “all truth.” John 16:13 8. Jesus gives the ultimate authority of judging sin to “THE CHURCH.” In Matthew 18 he says if someone sins then if the issue cannot be resolved “one-on- one” then you should get two or three witnesses. And if the issue is not resolved then it gets taken to THE CHURCH . And whoever does not listen to THE CHURCH is to be separated. THE CHURCH has the ultimate authority when it comes to judging what is sinful. And obviously false teaching is sinful. 9. Paul confirms that the church must be unified and he says that the "pillar and foundation of the truth is "the church." That lines up with Matthew 18. We actually see this system of Jesus play out in the New Testament. In Acts 15 people start a false teaching that Non Jews have to be circumcised when they convert to Christianity. Paul confronted them and they would not stop. The church held the Council of Jerusalem in 50 AD or so and it says that they came to a decision. The wrote a letter saying “it seems good to us and the Holy Spirit…” and they made a ruling. The church was being guided by the spirit just like Jesus stated. I became convinced of the resurrection and of the Christian truth claim because Jesus said he would build a unified church that the gates of hell would not prevail against despite being persecuted but that it would go to all nations. And Christian apologists point out that the unity and growth of the early church is proof of the resurrection. That convinced me that Christianity was true. When I read the writings of the early church fathers it was these men. Clement 95 AD - - Ignatius 107 AD - - Paipas 130 AD- - Polycarp from Smyrna in 150 AD - - Justin Martyr of Rome (150 AD) - - Hegesippus 170 AD - - Irenaeus of Lyon (France) in 180 AD - - Origen (215 AD), - - Cyprian (250 AD) -- Hilary 315 to 367 AD - - Athanasius 298 to 374 AD - - Eusebius 260 to 339 AD - - Gregory of Nyssa 335 to 395 AD - - Gregory of Nazianzus 329 to 390 AD - - Ambrose 339 to 397 AD - - Jerome 347 to 407 AD - - Augustine the Great 354 to 430 AD . Starting with Ignatius he called the church the Catholic Church which simply means the Universal Church. And though you Todd say that you don’t see the Papacy, these guys certainly did. From Irenaeus forward these men claimed that it was a tradition handed on by the apostles that Peter was made the leader of church based on Matthew 16 and many other passages that show the Primacy of Peter. So this early church even when you read a Protestant church history scholar is the Catholic Church. I read JDN Kelly’s book “Early Christian Doctrine.” And I read Jarislov Pelikan’s 5 volume set on church history. Pelikan who was Lutheran at the time said that the early church fathers were “nauseatingly Catholic.” Besides the Papacy being in place very early (as the Bishop of Rome, the name label “papacy” came later) Kelly and Pelikan confirm that the early church also believed in 1) The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. 2) Baptismal regeneration and infant Baptism. 3) Salvation by faith through “infused grace” which helped the believer to be “made holy.” This was the unified belief of the church for 1,000 years. So this is my question. How is it not literally incoherent to claim that the unity of the early church is part of the proof that Christ was resurrected and really was guiding his church; but then 1,000 years later someone looks back on the early church and claims that they got some of those doctrines completely wrong? That makes no sense to me. You asked why are the Orthodox wrong? It is because they got angry at the Pope in 1054 and when they could not resolve it they looked back on the early church and just declared that the Papacy was an error from the start. And that is every Protestant’s claim as well. They look back to the early church and claim that some doctrine the church developed was an error and yet they cannot agree on which ones were errors and which to keep. Look at what one is saying when they look back to the early church and claim that some doctrine was totally wrong. They are saying that the early church was unified and that great unity is evidence that proves that Jesus really was resurrected from the dead and was guiding his church. But then the claim is made 1,000 years later or 1500 years later that some of things the church was unified about were completely wrong??? How is that not incoherent? These people on this list all went back to the church that existed for the first 1,000 years. I would invite you to look at their stories. Kenneth Howell former Protestant Professor. David Mills former Protestant professor. Kenny Buchard former mega church pastor. Marcus Grodi, Former Protestant Pastor. Francis Beckwith, College Professor and president of the Evangelical Theological Society. John Henry Newman, Scott Hahn, former college professor and Presbyterian pastor. Dr. David Anders former Protestant Reformation history professor. Dr. Douglas Beaumont former Protestant Professor. John Bergsma PhD in Biblical Studies, former Protestant Pastor and College Professor. Al Kresta former Protestant intellectual. Tim Staples former Pentecostal Pastor. Keith Nester Protestant Mega Church Pastor. Chris Osgood former Protestant Pastor, Jeff Cavins, Former Protestant mega church pastor. Mark Galli former Protestant Pastor.. Paul Thigpen former Pentecostal preacher, Steve Wood, Former Evangelical Pastor. Noah Lett a Lutheran Pastor. Jeffery Hendricks a Methodist minister. Jason Reed a Protestant Professor. Ian Murphey Baptist Minister. Sean Page former mega church pastor. David Currie - wrote the excellent book” Born Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic” James Papandra - he went to Fuller Seminary as a church historian.. Eric Ybarra former Protestant Intellectual. Matthew Thomas who used to work with JI Packer is a college professor. Cameron Bertuzzi eventually did consider my argument which I am sure he heard from others more important than me. Robert Lewis Wilken who was and Early Church Professor. Ken Hensly is a former Baptist pastor. He does a You Tube Channel called “On The Journey with Matt and Ken.” You can watch the many different series he had about how he was Baptist Pastor for 15 years and he ran into the very same evidence that I describe here. Pat Flynn was an atheist like me (only a lot smarter) and came to the same conclusion after he was a Christian. It seems simply incoherent concept to look back and claiming that the Holy Spirit led the church into egregious errors. Steve Ray is a former Protestant who set to prove what you believe which is there is not enough evidence for the Papacy; but instead he found the evidence overwhelming. You can see it in the book “Upon This Rock.’ Take a read and maybe you will see the evidence in scripture of the Papacy because there is a lot when you look. Dom Chapman is another former Protestant Intellectual that tried to prove the Papacy was not Biblical. He ended up putting all the evidence in a book called “Studies on the Early Church Papacy.” The evidence of the Papacy was overwhelming for this guy who was a prior anti-Catholic. God Bless you and thank you for taking an interest in my comment.

@@tony1685 Jesus called Simon "Cephas" (Rock) and this was translated by Matthew to the greek "Petros" (Peter) - Matthew 16 is indeed soley referring to Peter/Cephas.

@@tony1685 My friend, you’ve completely missed the wordplay, “Peter” and “Rock” are the same word in Aramaic (which Jesus was speaking to Simon in) - he therefore said - “And I say to you that you are Rock and on this Rock I will build my Church” - and if you interpret this literally - Peter’s remains were found under the Vatican, which was built on-top of St Peters Tomb.

@@tony1685 Jesus changes Simon’s name to Kepha and then gives him the keys of the kingdom of heaven (makes him Master of the Palace) - in Judaism a name change is always significant. This whole passage is a parallel of Isaiah 22.

@@tony1685 The text does not say a “chip off the real rock”, instead the text says that Jesus calls Simon “Rock” - where do you find in the text what you have stated it says?

@@tony1685 So you reject Jesus’ own words that Simon is Peter (Rock) then. Jesus is the chief cornerstone of course, he is also the good shepherd and gate. So is also Simon the rock upon which the Church is built, the servant of the servants of God and the first among the Apostles. So is also the Church the foundation pillar of truth, of which Christ prayed would stay united - without a solid foundation built on rock, Protestantism like the house built on sand is always going to divide and collapse.

He did have such a video with Dr. Ortlund last week?

John 21 also reads a bit differently than what you would think based on his description. The other disciples DO bring the net to the shore after Peter jumps ship, they just don’t haul it into the boat. Dragging the net straight up, out of water and against gravity, is way different than dragging up a beach, especially if the boat is so small the weight would tip the boat (which means the strength of the disciples wasn’t even the pertinent limiting factor). And frankly I don’t see how any of this proves much. It’s a good example of finding what you already expect in a passage rather than the passage just meaning something clear.

@DonnyBlips Good luck getting Latin mass back.

@@ThruTheUnknown That was supposed to be a come back?

@@kevinbartolen5881 Nah buddy u r doin much better than I.

@@ThruTheUnknown Latin mass never left

@@Miatpi Tell that to pope Francis who is trying his best to eradicate it

He said he was gunna do that tho.

It is true though that there is a debate within EO as to the number of Ecumenical Councils. That’s different from which councils should bind the faithful, though, considering there have been pan-Orthodox synods. And, even though you hear different online, EO are bound to those as well.

"Since then, beloved, we see so great a protection divinely instituted for us, it is reasonable and just that we rejoice in the merits and dignity of our leader, giving thanks to the eternal king, our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, for having given such great power to him whom He made prince of the entire Church, so that if anything, even in our time, be rightly done and rightly disposed through us, it must be attributed to the working and governance of him, to whom it was said: “and thou, when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren,” and to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, in response to the threefold profession of eternal love, said three times, by way of mystical insinuation, “Feed my sheep.” Without a doubt, the pious shepherd does so to this day, and he fulfills the command of his Lord, confirming us by his exhortations, and praying for us incessantly, so that we may not be overcome by any temptation..." (Leo the Great, Sermon 4, PL 54: 149-52)

@@lucaspacitti182 Not trying to do some gotcha but I don't trust that quotation, 'sermon 4' isn't in the schaff collection and the only source I get when I search that up on the internet is a Catholic apologetic book which then references back to a Italian (or Latin maybe idk) book from 1866 which I can't read... Do you know where I can read the whole sermon it would be a interesting quotation if it's authentic.

@@Haexz1 Read "Leo The Great: Sermons (Fathers of the Church Patristic Series)" translated by Jane Patricia Freeland, C.S.B.J., and Agnes Josephine Conway, S.S.J. Or go to the Patrologia Latina online and read the original

​@@lucaspacitti182 Thanks for that just read the whole sermon. I don't see what this has to do with the papacy really, Leo says Peter is the shepard of the church but never links that authority Peter had to himself or the papacy. The quotation continues on and says '"Feed my sheep." Doubtless he now does that. As a dedicated shepherd, he carries out the mandate from the Lord. He strengthens us with his exhortations and never stops praying for us that we might not be overcome by any trial.' Leo is saying it's Apostle Peter not the Pope or the papacy that strengthens the brethren and feeds the sheep, you are making a link there Leo himself doesn't make.

@@Haexz1 This is a sermon Pope Leo gave on the anniversary of his elevation to the See of Rome. He is saying the Apostle Peter to this day gives a divine protection to "us" (royal "we", used in all papal encyclicals), confirming "us" and praying for "us". In Sermon 5, he says the Apostle Peter to this day presides over his see and has conveys the stability of the Rock to his successor. It's okay if you interpret it differently, but for me it's very clear that he believes all the promises given to Peter (Mt 16, Lk 22, Jn 21) continue in his successors

No peter

the pope is not infallible 99% of the time, only when he speaks ex cathedra.

Si el protestantismo tuvo que comenzar 15 siglos después, están volviendo a inventar la rueda. Pueden interpretar como quieran, pero antes de los protestantes ya había Iglesia y Biblia.

Did you watch the conversation with Gavin?

@@connermcginnis entirely unconvincing. They’ve also debated on other channels. It’s not close.

This is meant with all respect. The New Testament clearly attests to Peter’s primacy. Church Fathers who knew the apostles attest to the establishment of a hierarchy and line of succession from the first century.

Look what Tertullian had to say on the topic. It’s not as cut and dry as you might think.

Also, Gavin gave a very good argument on why the NT does NOT lay out Peter’s primacy. Very logical and convincing. Again, it as cut and dry as you think. Clearly so, because that’s why Cameron B. Is going on this journey.

Dig in to some Catholic interpretations of (1) the appointing of a successor for Judas and (2) the Jerusalem Council.

@@jasonkirklin2263 they appointed a successor to Judas as an Apostle. That doesn’t point to a pope in any way. The logical conclusion you might draw is that each apostle got a successor, but eventually you’d run out of living people who met the qualifications clearly set up in Acts 1. The decision in the council of Jerusalem was given by Jame the brother of Jesus, not Peter. If Peter was the supreme leader of the church he would likely have given the decision. I don’t see how either of these events help the case for a pope.

@@Seven_1865 Yes, that’s one way to interpret these passages. But they can also be interpreted in a way that recognizes the authority of Peter in the context of the Apostles and at a Council. So the question isn’t just whether either side can do exegesis. The question is how to read Scripture and how to understand tradition. Your response indicates only that the Catholic understanding of a few texts in Acts isn’t persuasive to you. Fair enough. But it is persuasive to many. How do we decide whose interpretation is right? I think one of the things Joe is getting at is that at least part of the Catholic response to what you’re saying is that the conditions you’re setting on Scripture for how it ought to talk about the papacy are not consistent with how God reveals things in Scripture. In other words, part of the Catholic claim is that you’re looking for the wrong kind of evidence.

@@jasonkirklin2263 the only way you get to your conclusion is if you’re presupposing your position. The council of Jerusalem affirms the authority of James not Peter. Yes Peter has some authority and input, but I don’t see a way of reading that and coming up with Peter’s supremacy. As for evidence, I think it’s unconvincing to just say I’m looking for the wrong kind of evidence. But since you’ve said that, what is the right kind of evidence.

@@Seven_1865 Re: evidence, in general I’d say we’re not looking for a fully developed doctrinal statement on the papacy. Rather, look at how the early church operated. After all, they are the preservers and teachers of God’s revelation to us. Consider Joe’s comments about 1 Clement and Irenaeus. Is the papacy somewhat disputed in the early church? Yes. But not as disputed as orthodox Christology. It takes longer to come to an orthodox understanding of Christ than the papacy. Why trust the Church on one but not the other? Re: Acts 15: Yes, James (bishop of Jerusalem) gives the final word. But nothing about the papacy says the Pope has to talk last or most. Note that James’s contribution is pastoral. “Here’s how we’ll handle this situation with Gentile converts.” But he appeals to two authorities at the beginning of his speech: Peter and the prophets. They provide the doctrinal ground for his pastoral pronouncement. Note also that after much discussion on the issue it is Peter who speaks and resolves the controversy. Then Paul and Barnabas say “Yeah that’s what happened to us too” and James says “Yeah, and that’s what the prophets say, so here’s what we’ll do.”

Nobody said Peter was infallible 🤦🤦🤦🤦

You don’t have an understanding of how papal infallibility works. The pope is only infallible in certain statements if certain conditions are met….this is a fairly rare occurrence. Pope Francis is not infallible, Peter was not infallible.

Some of the kings of Israel were evil and even worshipped idols. Did God ever withdrawal recognition of the monarchy in Israel which he created?

So then does that also mean he is the supreme bishop?

If the Bible is the “final” source of Christian instruction, then what part of the Bible sets forth the notion that anything in the current Bible should be used at all. If you don’t have tradition (aka. Coming up with a doctrine), then you have nothing you can stand on at all.

@@Jerome616 the Jews said the same thing about their tradition in Jesus day and even still today. You see how futile that argument is?

@@chapter404th the difference is Jesus, obviously.

@@Jerome616 you still don’t get the point. The Roman Catholic Church is a Gentile version of the Scribes and Pharisees.

@@chapter404th in some ways yes. They are. But so are pastors and Bible study leaders and youth pastors , so in and so forth. We all lean on the Bible AND tradition whether you realize it or not. At the end of the day, the Bible simply does not cover every aspect of religious life that a church leader might run into. Thus, they end up having to interpret scripture to fit the situations they encounter. From simple things like how to be save, to complex things like like how to run a church service.

@DonnyBlips Everything he said can be easily refuted. So much speculation to invent the office of the pope making inferences from what the text doesn't say at all.

I don’t think you watched the same video :)

@@jaredbajer712 I don’t know if you’re really engaging the arguments he’s presenting though. “Just because it doesn’t say so means that it is so”, is just very far off from what he was really saying. Being sold on there being no papacy and then hearing out why there might actually be one is what we should strive to do over perhaps mistakenly misrepresenting important arguments being layed out and If you don’t mind me asking, which one of his points do you think can be refuted and how?

@@Deto4508 To summarize I just disagree with everything he said. Nothing he said was a slam dunk against protestantism or proof or even convincing evidence to support the idea of a papacy. It's a lot of wishful thinking and trying to find Scripture to back up a man made office. Jesus is our high priest, he is King, he is Lord, he is our advocate, Savior, and intercessor, according to Scripture, not the pope, not Mary, or any other human being. He did not instruct us to set up a theocratic government on Earth. He will reign in his kingdom when He returns. The apostles were the highest living authorities immediately following Christ being directly commissioned by Him and we have the word of God they left us which is all sufficient along with a personal relationship with the our Lord. Jesus is sufficient in every way, it is Him we follow.

@@jaredbajer712 I think his staring points were very telling about Protestantism and it basically gets down to interpretation. Not our own interpretation but The Church’s interpretation, The Church Jesus left us is interpretation. If we read Scripture trying to find The Church, instead of understanding The Church, guided by The Holy Spirit is what wrote Scripture and that this same Church guided by The Holy Spirit will not prevail against the gates of hades, then we’re doing it wrong. Wishful thinking of a man made office is kind of unfair to say but even then if I were to put that statement against countless of Early Church Father’s interpretation of The Church, whose correct about it? I agree with you heavily on Jesus indeed being our High Priest, King and Lord and Saviour. Not Mary, not the Pope. But your next comments are your interpretation of what His will is for us, saying He didn’t leave a Church but just the The Bible, contradicts how The Bible came out to be, considering The Church was the one who canonized The Bible. This is the really sad part honestly, a lot of people deny The Catholic Church because of misunderstandings and them wanting to be closer to Jesus, not knowing He built The Church. It sometimes seem polemics and conspiracies against His Church block a lot of our minds of accepting it. God bless you my brother.

@@ReverendDr.Thomas Hey, sure. So I ask the young Elders of the Mormon temple: "What does not mean?" They usually say, "Huh?" And I repeat myself. With an awkward smile looking at each other one of them usually says to me, "It means not." And we chuckle. Then I ask, "So does it mean 'maybe' or 'yes' or 'somewhat'?" and they say, "No, not means not." Then I say, "Cool. I agree. Now, can you turn in your Bible please to Matthew 16:18 and read it aloud for us. They do. Then I ask, "So, if as you said, 'Not means not!' then how does the Mormon church's idea that evil DID overcome good and the gates of hell DID overcome the church until Joseph Smith fixed it square with Mt 16:18's NOT?" They stammer. I wait. And pray. They say, "We, uh, can we, uh, research this and come back next week?" I say sure. And I add, "I'd be very interested to see how the Total Apostacy can be true and this NOT be true too because if the Total Apostacy is true then it seems like Jesus would be a liar. So, until you show me some proof, I'm gonna go with the fact that Jesus is the Carpenter par excellence, and when He builds something He builds it to last! Not something that would fall apart only 67 years after He built it!" Then when they come back we rehash how not means NOT. And then I ask what does "all" mean? :-)

Someone still has to say that is how to correctly interpret the passage... like you decided you are God's interpreter to authoritatively say the Jehovah's Witness have the incorrect interpretation... Someone had to have authority to say the scripture is infallible.

Agree an overstatement. But the argument still holds that some won’t - ie your former Brethren in JW. More to the point is the true consubstantial divinity of Christ .

the reference to the Church teaching was indeed present and indispensable iun your search, as it is shown by the fact that you studied the Bible trying to verify if the Christian representation of God as Trinity is the true one...

Not only that, but John contains the triple peter do you love me? From Jesus. If anything it shows peters downfall before Jesus restores him.

Jesus also renamed John, was called the disciple whom Christ loved, Jesus gave him the Revelation, and he was the first to be called to discipleship by Jesus. All these things clearly demonstrate the primacy of John. Obviously this is all nonsense, but it's how I feel anytime I listen to a catholic argue for the pope.

There are no good arguments for papacy

Ah, shameless anti-Catholicism; love it. :) Tell me, what structure does the Davidic kingdom have? What line is Jesus descended from? What is the difference between Abram and Abraham? What do keys mean, and what exactly is the power of binding and loosing (as understood from 1st Century Jewish sources)? You are free to remain Protestant, but this kind of caricature is unbecoming of a Christian. I can do the exact same thing on you: "The arguments seem to boil down to All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" therefore sola scriptura. The arguments are really bad. See how utterly unconvincing and a waste of time this is? Time to pick up the game then

@@ClassicPhilosophyFTW Where many Catholics outright lie is when they say anyone who's not Catholic is a protestant. History does not agree in the slightest. Secondly Peter was the man sent to preach the gospel to the Jews. We're not Jews. Paul's our guy and Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit said to follow him as he follows Christ. Anyone following Peter isn't being honest to what scripture says. That's an excellent argument that casts aside whether Peter is the rock or not(even though 1 corinthians says Jesus is the rock) Gentiles follow the man ordained by God to spread the Gospel. Not the man ordained by man.

So much false statements, so much to go through... *In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy* Not explicitly, but it doesn't explicitly state many doctrines. Many, if not most, are inferred. The NT tends to just mention something which already assumes the doctrine. The word Trinity is no where in scripture, it isn't spelled out in the NT and smart unitarians can make strong attempts to explain away the passages that seem to assume it. Doesn't mean it isn't there though. Similarly, there are many many passages in the NT that is best explained by the idea of the papacy. Just because some can attempt to explain away these passages, like Jesus giving Peter a unique authority (separate to the others) to bind and loose for instance, doesn't equate with "no mention". *In the New Testament, there is no mention of...worship/adoration of Mary* The Catholic church does not teach worship or adoration of Mary so this is a moot point. *In the New Testament, there is no mention of...petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers* The bible also never mentions blinking. Are you gonna stop blinking, or will you be reasonable and say that the bible doesn't explicitly oppose blinking so its fine? There is no explicit opposition to doing so, and the bible does promote petitioning Christians who are alive for their prayers. The saints are more alive and closer to God than we are, so like blinking, what's the problem exactly? *In the New Testament, there is no mention of...apostolic succession* No mention? The apostles pray to God then make Matthias an apostle, successor to Judas, in Acts 1 through the laying on of hands. It's the first thing they do after Jesus ascends. 1 Timothy 4:14 has Paul indicating that Timothy was given authority by the laying on of hands, and in 5:22 warns not to be hasty with passing on that authority through the laying on of hands. The early church recognized Timothy as the first Bishop of Ephesus and apostolic succession was ubiquitously understood by them, almost like it came from the apostles. *In the New Testament, there is no mention of...the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments* Sacraments impart grace. That's what makes them sacraments. Sacrament of the Eucharist - Jesus says explicitly that the lords supper is for the forgiveness of sins. To have sins forgiven is to receive grace, AKA a sacrament. Sacrament of Reconciliation - In John 20:23, Jesus also explicitly gives the apostles the authority to forgive sins as well as withhold forgiveness. Why do that if he doesn't want people to come to them to be forgiven? Of course he does. This is the leaders of the church forgiving sins. With apostolic succession, that's the foundation for confession. A sacrament. Sacrament of Baptism - I don't really think I need to explain this. Even many who don't believe in baptismal regeneration typically still believe baptism, in some ways imparts grace. I think I'll leave it there. This is getting too long. But just that alone indicates no one should just take your word for it and should be doubtful that you are being truthful here.

Do you just save this kind of post for special occasions, or did you actually write this out just now. Either way it’s quite impressive. Not the arguments, those have been debunked for years and years and yet people still bring them up. But the fact that you can post something so comprehensive and yet so wrong., that’s quite impressive.

@Bryce Gladwin They are facts that cannot just be dismissed. not ever have they been debunked because it's historically accurate and corroborated

@@Jerome616 They are regurgitating from Alexander Hislop's book "Two babylons" and Jack Chick.

Jesus started Catholic church. You are against it.

I think Matthew 16:18 is a very strong verse for the papacy, at that point you only need one more verse and I do think there are a couple that have true distinctions from Peter to the rest and Joe noted some of them here. Of course it’s still not ideal for the average Bible reader, but I think we’re going to have to take account how the Early Church interpreted them to a higher level. As for saying the Pope is the cause for many schisms, I just don’t know about that. When there is a certain way The Church, that Christ Himself established, is teaching, the faithful are to submit too it. There’s no doubt in my mind that the Reformers had good intentions, but they also had interpretations and ideas that were opposed to what The Church thought. We can’t really put it on the pope that he didn’t accept the reformers ideas, that contradicted The Church’s ways for 1500 years. The Catholic Church remained but like Joe stated, how many denominations are there now? And how many of them are opposed on different doctrines to each other? The Great Schism is of course tragic as well, but putting everything bad happening, on the pope, isn’t fair mainly because it wouldn’t be accurate too. Being One is the goal at the end and God willing, it will happen, but for now we’re going to have to distinguish what doesn’t from what does have the fullness of truth and submit too that.

​@@Deto4508 Scripture is explicitly clear that there is only one Rock, and that that Rock is Christ/God Himself. When Jesus calls Simon "Petros", it literally means, little rock, and it is to show that he (Petros) has been joined to the Rock through his profession of faith. In the same way that we are called Christians, because we are followers of, and joined to, Christ. Likewise, all Christians are called to be lively stones (by Peter no less), just as Christ is The Stone. "For who is God, but the LORD? And who is a Rock, except our God?" ~ Psalm18:31 "He alone is my Rock and my salvation, my fortress; I shall not be greatly shaken." ~ Psalm 62:2 All that being said. I, and many Protestants, have no problem with affirming that Peter had a leadership role amongst the Apostles, though we see him as the first among equals. But even if he was the highest in position and authority, that still wouldn't come anywhere close to establishing the office of the Papacy. There is no mention that such an office is transferable, nor that it is infallible. Also, why should we assume that it is the Bishop in Rome that is the "Pope", and not the Bishop of Antioch? Since Peter established that church too according to tradition. Again, it makes no sense for such an important doctrine to not be mentioned anywhere in Scripture, especially since it is the cause of so much division in the Body of Christ.

@@beowulf.reborn You make very good points. As for the Petros interpreted to be little rock point, I’ve heard it before but that’s just not the consensus view of that interpretation, especially by the early church and for good reason A number of Protestant scholars even affirm the Catholic view on it. I think Joe really did a good job of the focus Jesus was showing on Peter. Jesus telling us this was revealed by His Father in Heaven and then the binding and loosing part which is literally taken to mean infallibility or an undisputed authority in Judaism, and if that wasn’t enough changing his name to Rock, as a play in words and we know from Scripture itself God changes names to people appointed for a new journey and ultimately a new “them” is being ie: Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel etc. This is just Matthew 16, but the evidence here when interpreted correctly, seems very clear and was taught as clear from the beginning our Religion. This kind of goes to your other point of what makes the Bishop of Rome have more authority than the bishop of Antioch which is a legit question. One place I would point to is Pope Leo and not only what he taught but the way he taught. He taught and spoke infallibly. He knew fallibility wasn’t some dictatorship, he knew The Head and The Body of The Church are connected but he never went into it with a proposal looking for debate. It seemed they understood clear what Matthew 16 was presenting and he, as almost all church fathers have epistles on it. The Tome of Leo was accepted by the East, a teaching not only of Christ having 2 natures but on matters of the papacy. It’s just sad that there is division and disunity in the church. Ultimately we pray for unity but we should also discern what currently has the fullness of truth and submit too it, allow both evidence from history to weigh each other and pick the correct one, even if it’s uncomfortable, we’re obliged too.

@DonnyBlips If it’s ginger ale, I’m in😂

@@beowulf.reborn *When Jesus calls Simon "Petros", it literally means, little rock, and it is to show that he (Petros) has been joined to the Rock through his profession of faith. In the same way that we are called Christians, because we are followers of, and joined to, Christ.* These points has been thoroughly rebutted that even scholars who use to make this claim no longer do. Let's break this up: *When Jesus calls Simon "Petros", it literally means, little rock* No it doesn't. The distinction between petros and petras was gone by the 1st century. In fact, even in the 3rd century BC, Apollonius of Rhodes, in the Argonautica, writes that the main character "seized from the plain a huge round boulder...four stalwart youth could not have raised it from the ground even a little." The word he used for huge round boulder was 'petros'. Does that sound like a little rock? Also, the word 'petros' had fallen in to disuse by the 1st century. Matthew refers to rocks of different kinds often, yet the only time petros is used by Matthew or any NT writer is when referring to Simon Peter. If Matthew wanted to call Peter a little rock, he would have used 'lithos'. In fact, Matthew uses lithos in other occasions, such as referring to the small stone you wouldn't give to your child in 7:9, and also the boulder that covered Jesus' tomb. A further point is that we know that Jesus likely said this in Aramaic, calling Simon Kepha and saying that on this *kepha* he will build his church. John 1:42 has Jesus say that Simon will be called 'Cephas" (A transliteration of "Kepha", which is Aramaic for rock). You might say that John was originally in Aramaic and translated to Greek, thus explaining why he used Cephas, rather than Petros. However, Paul also called Simon "Cephas" and he was writing in Greek. If Jesus called Simon "Petros", not "Kepha", why would Paul take the Greek "Petros", translate it in to Aramaic, "Kepha", then transliterate that back in to Greek as "Cephas"? That makes no sense. No, Jesus called him Kepha, and Matthew, writing in Greek to a Greek audience, wanted to convey that the name meant petros specifically, not merely lithos. And, as I said earlier, the distinction between petros and petras was gone by the 1st century. *it is to show that he (Petros) has been joined to the Rock through his profession of faith* Then why didn't Jesus change anyone else's names after their profession of faith? Read John 1. There are literally 4 confessions. John the Baptist says “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world...A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me...I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One." Then we have Andrew declaring “We have found the Messiah” (which John explains means Christ) to Peter. Then we have Phillip: “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote-Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." Lastly, we have Nathaniel who says directly to Jesus (and notice how similar this is to Peter's confession): "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel.” All of those confessions occur and not once does Jesus change any of their names. And, as I noted earlier, John 1:42 is this same chapter, where Jesus calls Simon "Cephas". Yet, we don't see any confession from Simon here. So all those confessions are mentioned in this one chapter, but Simon, who has no confession mentioned is the one Jesus calls Rock, but you want to claim that it's about his confession? As I said, these points have been thoroughly destroyed that those who use to make them have stopped.

@@DixonCameronS LOL! This is an Apologetics channel. We are talking about arguments, cases, and reason... not numbers. Roman Catholicism is wrong because it necessitates the Papacy...which is obviously a false teaching. I Clement 42 (a supposed Pope, LOL) clearly states there would be bishopS as leaders and not one monarchical bishop, as does Hermas Vis. 3,5,1. Ignatius, WHO WAS A BISHOP APPOINTED BY PETER (Eusebius, Church History 3, 36) talks about many famous Christian authorities of the time, and NEVER EVER mentions A bishop in Rome. The Shepherd of Hermas nowhere talks about a bishop in Rome, but always refers to leadership in Rome in the PLURAL FORM. So all historical evidence says there were no Supreme Bishops in Rome in the First Century.

Essence-Energy Distinction is hard to follow, but once it clicks, it makes total sense.

@@DixonCameronS Why do I have to repeat myself again? It is irrelevant if 100% of the population converts to Roman Catholicism, this video is about the arguments for the Papacy which is unimpressive and pales against the historical data that demonstrates that there were not Roman Supreme bishops in the First Century.

@@DixonCameronS Angry? I just showed Catholicism is false and you did not even care to answer. I am not angry, you are just desperate because historical data is against Catholicism. Why you keep talking about Catholics, that I don't know.

@@prime_time_youtube Perhaps you can get a deeper dive into one his case on the papacy from his book “The Early Church was a Catholic Church “. Even though I thought he had great points, an hour video obviously shouldn’t be enough to sway ones mind.

Judging by the nature and attitude of your comment, I'm not surprised you get labeled "uncharitable"

@@TKK0812 notice how they dance around directly referring to ortlund. They know he's a baby.

@@hayatelaguna7599 Thanks for proving my point.

There are much better ways to phrase this that could prove or help your point.

I don't think there are many people willing to work with Jay

So your position is that, to support THE most critical office in the Church that EVERY Christian should know about and submit to, God requires "a meta-reading, historical, contextual, deep and connecting each passage to its history and everything that encompasses it." I don't know, Jean. Seems like with something THIS important God would have been just a touch clearer, rather than requiring an advanced theology degree. Regular people can understand pretty much all of the other critical elements of Christianity just from the text.