The Most Misused Verse Against Protestantism 

if you believe that of the epistles, then you should believe the same of the gospels that harmonize with them perfectly, as well as the OT -- the whole of the Scriptures falls with that one statement, you're saying you essentially believe in a different gospel from a different god. good luck with that.

​@@Taterstiltskin He's just saying that if the church was so protected from errors, then the epistles, most of which are correcting congregations, are strange. He's not denying the epistles.

​@@TaterstiltskinHe's saying that nearly all of the Epistles serve to correct the church in significant error. And he's correct.

I'm still looking into both. Has any thing in particular closed the door to Orthodoxy for you?

@@MikesMusicMethod paganism

I left the Orthodox Church because of its exclusivist claims. I believe they're committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Watch the interviews with Joshua Schooping. My experience in the Orthodox Church was very similar to his. I left for the same reasons.

​@@user-en6zl1cm5r please elaborate. I couldn't name a single person at the Greek Orthodox Church i attend who makes judgment on anyone outside the Church. I'm curious as to where you got this feeling and sentiment from? Was it a congregation you attended? People arguing on the internet? Or? And do you mean an "exclusivist" claim in the sense that the Orthodox think they're the "true" church? If that's the case though then every church is exclusivist. The only reason anyone breaks from one church and goes to another is because they think they have more of the Truth of Christ.

@@MikesMusicMethod The Orthodox Church teaches that people outside the OC aren't Christians. I know this from priests, born Orthodox, converts. It's well known. The Orthodox don't like to advertise this because they're trying to attract new blood to the sect.

"In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same was also head-that is also why he is called Cepheus ['Rock']-of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner... Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of Holy Church" -The schism of the Donatists 2:2 (AD 367)

Thank you for the kind words, Christopher, I am very grateful to hear you think my videos bring glory to God. May it be!

Alex Augustine changed his view on church being found on Peter

Go listen to Jay Dyer’s refutation of the papacy parts one and two. Incredibly solid academically. Lengthy, but well worth spending the time.

@jesse77able Would you mind to share the link? Or can I find it in RU-vid? Many thanks!

Glad you find them useful! I find much to admire in the Lutheran tradition.

Same here!

Same here 👍🏻

@Conquering Death It's quite obvious that plenty of atheists do good in the world. I don't understand your comment in relation to mine.

So glad you enjoyed the triage book!

Hey Tammy, do you see Mary as the new Eve?

@@flearhcp I could not become Catholic for the most of the same reasons as Tammy. I don't believe the doctrine about Mary being the new Eve. To believe that is part of the slippery slope that has her near to divine, devoid of original sin, living a sinless life (and only Christ is expressly said to have accomplished that), a perpetual virgin, and a co-redemptrix w/ Christ himself. I don't think NT scriptures support this, and digging for an OT type to try and support is thin at best.

Mariology is one of the most beatiful doctrines of the catholic church, you are missing so much, Mary is your mother, the full of grace, all she wants is take you closer to her son, we do not worship her, we recognize her an present our admiration to her. But i know is hard to acept Mariology, you have to go very deep in scriptures.

@@xaviertorres1685 And Church history.

Cool, I grew up Anglican and now I'm in non denominational.

It's not misused, it's true. The Church wasn't established by man in the 16th century. It was established in AD 30 by the Lord. Although it's true there is no earthly pope, everything else about protestantism is wrong. Orthodox Church is the true Church, St Athanisious was the first to identify the Canonical 27 NT books that everyone uses today

Wrong choice .... protestantism is heresy as you ignore Jesus's direction instruction to eat his body and drink His blood ( Holy Eucharist) Why do you disobey Jesus? Here is the proof: Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 - “This is my Body…This is my Blood.”..... It's in your bible but you have been brainwashed by your pastors who only want your tithes Why do you ignore Jesus's commandment ? Why ? It's there in the bible Think for yourself instead of letting your pastor fool you . Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 - “This is my Body…This is my Blood.”

Don't concern yourself with negative comments Marian.

​@@Adam-ue2ig just a few more scoldings from strangers and we'll surely see the light...

@Conquering Death Protestants wouldn't deny that. They simply argue that the Bishops, sitting on the seat of Peter and the Apostles, are not magically caused to become infallible the moment some arbitrary "ecumenical" volume of them meet together.

Precisely! I can only share my 20 years in EO, but your concern is exactly what happened to me. One becomes so totally immersed in reading the lives of the saints, the liturgical texts, the prayerbook with it's dozens of negative affirmations, and the hundreds of Icons begging for your gaze, that the simple promises of the Bible fade into the background. The rituals become your salvation, which are always slipping away into the future, while you anticipate the next sacramental treatment! You are never able to locate forgiveness, because its a moving target that ends up at the Demoniac Tollhouses after bodily death, and if you escape the DT, you face the Last Judgment. An abysmal hope to be sure! The Apostle Paul's warning about being seduced from the simplicity of Christ becomes a reality. Christ settled the sin issue once and for all! Eastern Orthodoxy does not understand this!

The Eastern Orthodox Church is the body of Christ. To focus on Christ, will lead you toward Orthodoxy

@@courtneykees21. I’ve researched EO because I know so many young people who have converted (including my SIL). The beautiful reverence, claims of historicity & intentionality draws them, I think. However, when I studied some of the distinctive doctrines (icons, Mariology, understanding of the Gospel, etc) in comparison to the Scriptures. They not only don’t stand up, but consistently draw the eye away from the finished work of Christ (which the book of Hebrews goes into extensively).

glad they have been enjoyable!

I believe Augustines interpretation of the millennium played into the misapplication of this verse.

He most likely won’t answer you.

@Bb Dl yep and moreover he’s very dishonest and a master of half truths.

@@RedWolf5 can say that again. Playing with nauces at times does help

@YAJUN YUAN yes they did. I was asking for a follow up. Maybe better all three Gavin Ortlund, Joshua Schooping, and Matthew Joyner. As an Irenic Catholic, I would like to hear how they address these so called anomalies in the Early Church. Like how can they accept Ephesus when the Council was closed with an Akathist to Theotokos and how can they accept Chalcedon when during the session the fathers venerated St Euphemia's shrine at Chalcedon? These anomalies need to be addressed by Protestants. Privately I had a correspondence with one of them and basically Protestants do not accept any ecumenical councils as Catholics or Eastern Orthodox do but rather selectively as long as it aligns with Scripture. This is why Protestants don't accept canons from the First Nicaea on monastic celibacy and hierarchic structure in the Church. When I was a Dutch Calvinist that's how I accept all six ecumenical councils. This basically argues that around the fourth century the Church has lapsed at least partially if not totally. Because this is systemic and everywhere. We can't find a Protestant church in the first millennium.

@@bbdl2147 If so many low-hanging fruits is so easily debated and refuted, why bother with the high-hanging fruit?

@Conquering Death I don't believe Iconoclasm is correct and this didn't neccicarly convince me that it is. The bigger issue for me is the question Gavin brings up related to councils and how we know which ones to follow from a empirical perspective. Believe me I will be talking with an Orthodox Bishop and Priest on this topic and I might even contact some higher level theologians from that side of the discussion as well but the issue related to councils is something I want to approach from as many angles as i possibly can. I do apprecaite your concern and love however in your comment thatnk you for it

Glad to be connected, hope the vids are useful!

David, even more ironic, Jesus Christ did not take away the keys He gave to Peter alone. The keys are never mentioned in Matthew 18. Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas,which is Aramaic for rock and gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God and Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren! The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. ( Genesis 17:12). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink and His Church built on Peter the rock

@@matthewbroderick6287 funny how RC always try’s using Peter to prove that the Pope has supreme infallible authority. Especially since before the schism the Church didn’t view it this way. Maybe in Rome they did, because that was their bishop of the Patriarch, but the majority of the Church never seen it this way and the Church is not made up of some peoples quotes, but what has been believed everywhere at all times by all Christians. All the other Patriarchs agreed that the Pope did not have supreme infallible authority. The one in Rome, went off on their own hungry for power and influenced through power in the west. The Pope is not Peter, so please stop using Peter to try and prove the Papacy. The Papacy has literally been used to divide the Church many times, to the point of 45000 Protestant denominations. They schismed the Church, the Orthodox Church in 1054 by proclaiming supreme power and authority, then caused all sorts of blasphemy with selling of indulgence, and only 500 years later their actions created another schism with horrible consequences. Because they decided to change their intellectual theology of Plato, by Augustine to Thomas’s Aristotle. Then now the Papacy prays with Pagans and teaches others to do so as well and is creating another schism with Traditionalist SSPX. Nothing but division and corruption has come from the RC by their pride and hunger for power and control.

@@malachi6120🫶🏼

@@matthewbroderick6287 other guys comment is the truth

@WORLD-MINISTRY mine is actually the Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!

Thank you so much! 1. Yes. 2. Will do a video on that sometime

Yeah I’ve thought that too about the gates of hell. This verse teaches that the church is on the advance and not about freedom from error

The way I've always read it (even before I became interested in apologetics) was that the phrase "the gates" was a synecdoche (referring to the whole by a part). In this instance, the gates are an emblem of the city. Sort of how for us the flag of a country represents the country. So if I said, "The Russian banner will not prevail against Ukraine", I am referring to the country of Russia as a whole. And when Jesus says, "the gates of Hades", He is referring to Hades itself and all of its power. But that's just a difference which Bible nerds would debate. Even if one rejected that view of the phrase, it doesn't seem like a problem for the argument in question. Because if your army is offensively prevailing against the enemy gates, it sure as hell (no pun intended) isn't conquering you. Thus, saying that the Church will not fail to storm the gates of Hades includes the idea that evil will be wildly unsuccessful in its attempts to assail the Church.

I agree with Raj. Dr. Michael Heiser takes a close look at the Greek and suggests that a better modern translation of 'prevail against' is 'withstand'. He also takes a look at the immediate context of the passage and points out that Jesus and his disciples are standing in Caesarea Philippi, the location of the 'Gates of Hades', an ancient cave known at that time for the worship of false gods.

@@yvichenj333 ooh that's an interesting point! The cesarea/gate of hell bit.

This is also make sense to me.

thanks for engaging the videos and wrestling with the content!

That can be said about any Protestant sect

Thanks! Yes, would have to do a separate video on that verse, though some of the principles would be similar, like the meaning of the word "church"

@Conquering Death Rather an organism that sees Christ as head not the Pope.

@@jesussaves2642 Christ is the head of the Church, not the Pope. This is basic Catholicism 101, my good sir.

@@prolelog Not always in practice.

@@jesussaves2642 that’s a non-argument. You could say that about any branch of Christianity. You need to front proof of your claim.

😂

Hello Mm, If you would allow me, I'd like to address a few of your points: "Could Protestantism be an error?": If seems you may be thinking of "Protestantism" in a (Roman) Catholic sense of singular, irreformable, entity. "Protestantism" was born out of a proposed need to reform, and such, could be said to be in a constant flux of reform. That being said, "Protestants" could acknowledge possible errors and the need to reform them at various points of church history. So to ask if "Protestantism" could be an error seems to ask if some irreformable entity is wrong, at this moment...which doesn't seem to represent the nature of "Protestantism". I also think that people who do not identify as (Roman) Catholic, (Orthodox) Catholic, etc, can agree that Jesus instituted the "Chruch" with authority to operate and perservere through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The "Church" can be both "the body of believers" as well as an "objective institution". We just may disagree on the boundaries of said institution. Regarding the apparatus you mention as your means of clarifying your understanding on matters of faith, allow me to ask you this: How do you interpret what your apparatus says regarding these matters, and could you consider that you may use this apparatus as a backstop in the same manner people you may identify as "protestant" do the same thing with God's Word?

The abuses of the church are written off…

The abuses SND errors of Catholicism which continue to this present day, being presided over by sinful men.

@@susanburrows810 wait aren’t we all sinners? No abuses or sinners in Protestant churches, wow! Seem to have utterly missed the point of my comment. Good job.

thank you so much for the kind words, Judah! What an encouragement. I will try to address this when I can find the time! :)

1 Cor. 4:15 also has to be balanced w/ the scripture about call no man father. There seems to be a context of only honouring our Father in Heaven. So though I'm not Catholic, I don't have a problem calling a priest father. They take a vow of celibacy and don't have children of their own, so then their flock is their children. Some priests, like Father Altman take their flock children as very precious.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 Thanks for sharing this passage and your input! This further spikes my interest in the subject now! I think 1 Cor. 4:15 and the familial language that Paul uses towards his fellow believers (like when he calls Timothy his "true child in the faith") gives great credence to your point. And again, I think ultimately what God is concerned about with this issue is our hearts. But I guess still my concern is whether or not titles like these are more damaging than good in that they can create a breading ground for pride in the hearts of leaders and for confusion about who is the real leader of the church, which of course is Christ. For even when Paul does use this language I don't get the impression that he uses it as some sort of title but rather as a metaphoric and personal description of the nature of his relationship with these believers. I see no problem with that in itself and for any priest who sees their flock as their family. I bet that most of them truly view their position of "father" towards their flock in the same tender and intimate way that Paul did his. But I guess I'm wondering if there is some sort of danger to avoid when it crosses over to a more official title? And what about you and me or anyone else outside of the priest's flock? Maybe it makes sense for those inside his flock, but why should we refer to him as "father" if that is not the type of relationship we have with him? I also want to say that I think when it comes to any sort of title that is also reserved for God (like "father, teacher, leader, shepherd, etc.") we should tread very carefully. For He of course is our ultimate and true father, teacher, leader, shepherd, etc. So I think Christian leaders should be incredibly eager to jump out of that spotlight and do their best to shine that light on our Lord. I think this idea is consistent with Jesus' critique in Matthew 23 and also Paul's general attitude towards church leadership in his Epistles. For example, just one chapter before the passage you shared, Paul was making it clear that though the Corinthians were debating about which Christian leader they "belonged to" God was the one who is actually on top and in control of His Church. Those Christian leaders, including Paul, are nothing but His "servants." Not that true Christians would deny that God is our real leader, I just again think we should be cautious with our use of titles because of the effect that they can have. Now with that said, I do need to acknowledge that Matt. 23:9 says that we should call "no man your father on earth..." and yet I, like almost everyone else, refer to my biological father as "father" or "dad." I admit, this was a bit of a stumper, but I think my concern is still valid in that maybe this should call into question how Christian dads should rear their children? It might require us going against the grain of culture a little bit, but based on this passage shouldn't we make an effort to step out of the spotlight in a similar sense as our Christian leaders in order to magnify the fatherhood of God? Maybe that looks like teaching our kids (and us) to be more comfortable to refer to ourselves by our first names in an effort to help them see that their true and perfect father is God, and our relationship as father and child is really just a tangible metaphor that points to the real thing? Just a thought! I'm speculating and writing down the thoughts that are coming to me now as I think about these things. I also want to acknowledge the cultural and temporal differences of Paul's original audience and their concept of "father" compared to ours today. What can that further tell about what this commandment means and its relevancy towards us? Idk! Time for more study and engagement. :) Thanks again for your input!

@@judah7528 I'm glad that helped and I hope this helps too. To give a bit of context to who Jesus was addressing and why is likely key to Math. 23:9: Woes to Scribes and Pharisees …8But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Christ.… Reading Math. 23 fully really sheds light that he was putting the scribes and pharisees in their place. It was about pride, as you've picked up on and it's an admonition against pride. It's odd that some people only pick up on "call no man father", because he also says call no one Rabbi/teacher/instructor, but he means for them see themselves as equals. They were doing everything to be seen of men and were prideful of their office. So that seems to be what Jesus is really addressing. That's why Paul is calling the good apostles fathers and then in Timothy of course, there's mention of teachers, evanglists, aposltles. It's not the titles or offices that are wrong, it's the spirit in which they are carried out.

@@TruthUnites Thanks!

"I thank GOD for Luther's (and others) boldness more and more" LOL, that's why he was angry that his ignorant movement lead to denying the basic doctrine of Christianity, the Trinity. Second, High Priest may have done wicked behaviors but God but the question to ask is where majority promoting heresy? "We'd still have some sticking points but virtually every sticking point between us comes from doctrinal reinterpretations and accretions arising in the centuries following the lives of the Apostles not from the EXPLICIT teachings in scripture." The questions begs, what is scripture? Should we trust the priests who as you mentioned "sin, idolatry, sorcery, wickedness, immorality" who wrote the scripture???

Well-said!

@@bethl yeah right

It cannot be honestly argued by anyone that really knows what the Bible says that God's Church consists of all believers when Jesus repeatedly warned that there would be about false converts using His name to deceive ppl. He even went so far as to say _many_ will be deceived.

@@theeternalsbeliever1779 The believers are the true believers...some fall away but they had no root and John says they went out from us BECAUSE they were NEVER really of us....so yes the believers are the church.

@@theeternalsbeliever1779 Phil 1:6 And I am sure of this, that he who began (A)a good work in you (B)will bring it to completion at (C)the day of Jesus Christ.

@@theeternalsbeliever1779 Jeremiah 32:40 I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me.

@@theeternalsbeliever1779 so yes, It can HONESTLY be argued by ANYONE that knows the bible.

"...gates of hell will not prevail...." - means no teachings from hell can enter the church - The true church will never succumb to pressures to conform to the secular world.

@@joekey8464. In light of all the warnings of error coming into the church in all the Epistles, your interpretation isn’t logical & presumes much.

@@bethl Error like what? This is the only church that has zero tolerance for abrtn, no divorce, no remarriage, no artificial birth control, etc. It never succumbed from the intense pressure from the secular world to conform. All other churches has given way and accepted them in various degrees into their church.

@@bethl This is the only church that has zero tolerance for abrt, no divorce, no remarriage, no artificial birth control, etc.

@@bethl The church never succumbed from the intense pressure from the secular world, (even from Catholics) to conform. All other churches has given way and accepted them in various degrees into their church.

Oh someone just commented this! Really interesting.

Lateran Council 1 Canon 21: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage. Lateran Council 2 Canon 6: For since they should be and be called the temple of God, the vessel of the Lord, the abode of the Holy Spirit, it is *unbecoming* that they *indulge in marriage* and in *impurities.* 1 Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and *teachings of demons,* through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who *forbid marriage* 1 Corinthians 9:5 *Do we not have the right* to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Canon 21 continued: We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that *marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved,* and that the persons be condemned to do penance. Matthew 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. Innocent III, 1204 "We destine specially to this, that the material sword may be sanctioned to supply the defect of the spiritual sword, and you, besides the temporal glory which you will attain from so pious and praiseworthy a work, may obtain that pardon for sins, which we grant as an indulgence for the remission of their sins, since we want those who faithfully shall have laboured against the heretics to rejoice in the same indulgence as we grant as an indulgence for those crossing the sea for the aid of the Holy Land." Lateran Council 4 Canon 3: Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and *to the best of their ability to exterminate* (pro viribus exterminare studebunt) in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church. _Ad extirpanda_ of Pope Innocent IV: We decree that the head of state [...] shall observe, both what is written herein, and other regulations and laws both ecclesiastical and civil, that are published against heretical wickedness. [...] No heretical man or woman may dwell, sojourn, or maintain a bare subsistence in the country, or any kind of jurisdiction or district belonging to it, whoever shall find the heretical man or woman shall boldly seize, with impunity, all his or their goods, and freely carry them off. [...] The head of state, or whatever ruler stands foremost in the public esteem, must cause the heretics who have been arrested in this manner to be taken to whatever jurisdiction the Diocesan, or his surrogate, is in, or whatever district, or city, or place the Diocesan bishop wishes to take them to. [...] *The head of state or ruler **_must force_** all the heretics whom he has in custody, provided he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs* to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know. Lateran Council 1 Canon 21: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage. Lateran Council 2 Canon 6: For since they should be and be called the temple of God, the vessel of the Lord, the abode of the Holy Spirit, it is *unbecoming* that they *indulge in marriage* and in *impurities.* 1 Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and *teachings of demons,* through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who *forbid marriage* 1 Corinthians 9:5 *Do we not have the right* to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Canon 21 continued: We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that *marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved,* and that the persons be condemned to do penance. Matthew 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. Innocent III, 1204 "We destine specially to this, that the material sword may be sanctioned to supply the defect of the spiritual sword, and you, besides the temporal glory which you will attain from so pious and praiseworthy a work, may obtain that pardon for sins, which we grant as an indulgence for the remission of their sins, since we want those who faithfully shall have laboured against the heretics to rejoice in the same indulgence as we grant as an indulgence for those crossing the sea for the aid of the Holy Land." Lateran Council 4 Canon 3: Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and *to the best of their ability to exterminate* (pro viribus exterminare studebunt) in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church. _Ad extirpanda_ of Pope Innocent IV: We decree that the head of state [...] shall observe, both what is written herein, and other regulations and laws both ecclesiastical and civil, that are published against heretical wickedness. [...] No heretical man or woman may dwell, sojourn, or maintain a bare subsistence in the country, or any kind of jurisdiction or district belonging to it, whoever shall find the heretical man or woman shall boldly seize, with impunity, all his or their goods, and freely carry them off. [...] The head of state, or whatever ruler stands foremost in the public esteem, must cause the heretics who have been arrested in this manner to be taken to whatever jurisdiction the Diocesan, or his surrogate, is in, or whatever district, or city, or place the Diocesan bishop wishes to take them to. [...] *The head of state or ruler **_must force_** all the heretics whom he has in custody, provided he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs* to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know.

@@Mygoalwogel Isn't what you are doing is quote mining?

@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 No

@@Mygoalwogel actually yes, even if where not quote mining, still would not prove satanic Protestantism to be correct because you still have to deal with eastern Orthodox who have apostolic succession.

@@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613 Then why did you waste our time by asking?

Glad to be connected! I have been told about it but need to read it Heiser's own words before making an evaluation. :)

@@TruthUnites it's a strong interpretation from Jesus 2nd temple period Biblical Judaism that says the Gates of Hell is the huge Rock in Caesarea Phillipi that is THIS ROCK ,not Peter and is what Peter is contrasted to. The Large Cave is the Gates of Hell in this Pagan worship site of THIS ( huge) ROCK ! The verse where Christ also tells Peter to Get behind me Satan cannot be taken literally either! So if Peter is literally THIS ROCK he is also Satan in a verse down the page. I don't see both as being literal and is a stronger interpretation than the polemic Protestant one against the RCC interpretation.

The Catholic Church has made so many doctrinal errors AND unbiblical/ extrabiblical additions for 2,000 years largely because it is powered by manmade sinful leaders. It is NOT to be trusted, up to the present time, but THE SCRIPTURES, JESUS & THE SPIRIT should be the focus & authority. Much shame on the hierarchy & behavior of RCC; we ALL are imperfect & sin.

Good questions! I’ve heard Gavin address some in other videos, so perhaps you can find those.

Acts, Now this is a very thoughtful response. Well articulated indeed. Question: Help me understand how we can connect (a potentially single) error from the "teaching authority of the Church from its highest levels" to "bound the laity to an idolatrous heresy for all time", without the assumption that this "teaching authority" in inerrant, and said (potentially single) error sends "the Church" spiraling to heresy "for all time"? Could we not leave room for error and correction (reform), with that still being consistent with the perseverance of "the Church"?

@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 : Thanks! If I'm understanding you correctly, here's what I think you've asked me. You've looked at my argument and said: "OK, I can see where that makes sense within its own frame of reference. But it seems your argument depends on the idea that the teachers of the Church (as you see them) are infallible. Or at least that they can be under certain circumstances. But... I don't share that assumption. Why can't we admit that a council could make a mistake and be corrected by a later one? Why think that a single error in 325AD binds us for all time, instead of allowing for another council in 545AD to look back and make a course correction? Whence commeth this necessity that councils act infallibly and irreformably? It seems that it creates the very problem you wish to solve." It's a great question, and I probably won't do it justice. This is the way I look at it. If it was the case that a council in 545AD corrected a major doctrinal error made in 325AD (and I used the example of the Trinity because the stakes cannot be bigger), then it would open the question of who was correcting who. Was 325AD correct and 545AD was a corruption? Or was 545AD the correction and 325AD the error? And who is to decide? It seems that such a scenario would doom the Church to split in a 325 faction and a 525 faction. The fathers at the councils, however, didn't see it that way. They thought that the Holy Spirit is superintendant over the proclamations of the Church's teachers when operating at the ecumenical level. That way the Church could say, as the fathers in Acts 15 said, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." They thought they were hammering these determinations into bedrock so the faithful could have certainty on disputed questions. If they weren't, then all they were doing was offering their best guess. And all anyone is doing is offering their best guess. But this, they thought (and I think) is not consistent with the nature of the Church which was prophesied in the Old Testament and established in the New. Thus, at Nicaea they esteemed themselves to have the wherewithal to settle the question forever. And Christians - both Catholic and Protestant - for all intents and purposes treat them as if they did. Because if they didn't (and couldn't) then it becomes difficult to see how the Church could be the pillar and bulwark of truth. It would just be the US Supreme Court with funny hats. I probably did a poor job at this, but that's my best answer for now.

@@actsapologist1991 I consider that a phenomenal response, and appreciate you taking time to answer me. It might help you better understand my position if you realize that I actually agree 100% with: "Why can't we admit that a council could make a mistake and be corrected by a later one?" My concern is that certain traditions don't seem to articulate it this way, at least not on a street level. Forgive me for being ignorant of "official teachings" on this matter. It seems the street level understanding of the "inerrancy of the church" extends to any and all official pronouncements; excluding room for future reform. Regarding "pillar of truth": Again, just referencing my street level conversations, this seems to be used to demonstrate absolute infallibility of a teaching magisterium. I am seeking education on making the jump from "pillar of truth" to unquestionable infallibility.