@@jonhilderbrand4615 St Augustine was a Catholic bishop, he celebrated daily mass, administered confession, infant baptism, and every other Catholic sacrament and also had a high view of scripture which is very Catholic, he also submitted to the pope. I feel it’s one things to cite certain individuals and Bible verses buts it’s another to represent their view correctly and appropriately
If you let Peter interpret Peter, we can see clearly what he understood in what Christ said, "as lively stones, you are built up together as a spiritual house..." (1 Peter 2:5) Christ is the living stone we are built upon. Our confession makes us a part of the house of God, and then we are built up together as co-confessors of that truth Christ preached.
@@thadofalltrades Peter is referred to as a "so-called pillar of the church" in Galatians. But so were James and John in that instance. Seems as though Super Paul failed to recognize Peter as any singular Big Whoop.
It blew my mind when I found out that the rock they were standing on was “the gate of hell”… Jesus essentially saying He’s starting His church on the front porch of Satan/the enemy and the gate is useless to stop the invasion. Major boss move and very loud and clear message to everyone who was standing there. That’s the actual cultural, historical, geographical and religious context of that whole scene.
@@Testimony_Of_JTFhe renames Simon “Cephas” and then says “AND on this rock” so the case could be (and likely is) that he is talking about something separate. Jesus said he is the rock. He didn’t suddenly give that to Peter. Thats blasphemy. There was a deeper point to the renaming. Probably he was representative of Christ (just as all the Apostles) but was a leader of sorts. Not like a king or a president or a pope. But the rock the church is built in is certainly not Peter as is clarified later in the new nee testament and in other gospels. The catholics refusal to acknowledge scripture in its proper context and as your final authority has led to extreme biblical illiteracy
@ScribeAlicious In John 21:15-17 Our Lord is using singular verbs when telling Peter to "feed" His lambs, so clearly Our Lord is not asking the other apostles to do the same feeding (at least in the Koine). Our Blessed Lord reaffirms Peter’s unique role in Matthew 17:27, where He tells Peter that his tax payment represents them both, insinuating that Peter is indeed His vicar (at the very least, on a legal level). Luke agrees with the aforementioned in Acts 2:14 where it is written "Peter and the eleven". That's an odd way to refer to the apostles. I mean, if a band is called "Josey and the peppers" guess who's the lead singer? Again, in Acts 15:7 Peter says that God chose "my mouth" which is singular... The scripture does not say God chose "our mouths" as in all of the apostles. It says "my" (μου) because Peter is referring to himself and only himself. If you are still not convinced about the Petrine supremacy, when the apostles ask who's greater (Luke 22:24), Our Lord actually answers the question in Luke 22:31-32: *surprise* it's Peter. Again, in the original Greek, Our Lord claims to have prayed for Peter alone and not the other apostles, then He tells only Peter to strengthen his brothers. The Koine quotes Our Blessed Lord to tell Peter “I have prayed for ‘σοῦ’ (notice He doesn’t say ὑ̄μῶν)... that σύ strengthen your brothers” (notice He does not say ὑ̄μεῖς). Our Lord literally spells out to the apostles how singular Peter’s authority is over them, it cannot be more clear. So much so in fact, that when Clement of Rome decides who ought to be bishop in Corinth, no one bats an eye despite the apostle John still being alive. First century Chistians never questioned the successor to Peter having more authority than even a surviving apostle, thus to deny the papacy is to create your own brand-new version of Christianity, completely distinct from the faith of the first Christians.
He's distorting patristic texts to obscure church dogma while pushing for his own brand of christianity which has no apostolic lineage. not serving Christ
@@EmmaBerger-ov9ni I agree and it's sad but we can't know for sure if he does it in full will or in ignorance. I empathize, there are many reasons to be dug into an ideology especially where changing your mind can cause massive ripple effects through your family and community. That being said, I have reviewed the same material and the arguments are simply preposterous. I have full faith that anyone doing the same and being genuinely open will all be convicted of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Don't forget the following verse, protestants always have an answer about the rock but the following verse makes no sense in a protestant context : Matthew 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Don't forget the following verse, protestants always have an answer about the rock but the following verse makes no sense in a protestant context : Matthew 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
@@EmmaBerger-ov9ni most Protestants take Matthew 16:19 to apply to the episcopate in a broad sense rather than to the continual succession of a singular Peter figure. The Fathers (ergo, St. Irenaeus in Contra Haeresium) point out that numerous churches can trace their succession back to the Apostles in general and Peter specifically. To be true to the passage in particular and Holy Scripture in general, we Protestants must acknowledge the requisite existence of the episcopate in the church, but that does not compel the universal church to be subordinate to one earthly bishop. The only bishop qualified to lead the church in its entirety is Christ, which circles back to him being the rock.
Pope Hadrian in a letter to the 2nd Council of Nicaea also took the "confession" view of Matthew 16:18, describing Peter as "He, therefore, that was preferred with so exalted an honour was thought worthy to confess that Faith on which the Church of Christ is founded."
@@OctagonalSquare The fact that there were historically Popes that exercised authority and Christians listened to them, albeit to sometimes relunctantly or with resistance, still points to that authority.
@@aloyalcatholic5785authority doesn’t equal infallibility. The pope is a legitimate authority but he has no capability to infallibility declare doctrine
Then there would be no point in listening to the Church at all. If the first council ever held on circumcision could have been wrong, then there would have been no point in obeying it. @@NyghtingMan
But yuo see, Gavin, the magisterium cannot err, therefore even though nearly all early church fathers interpreted Matthew 16 as such the Roman Catholic Church can force a completely different interpretation of the passage and be correct. Checkmate
A key opens a door. And Peter accomplished that as documented in Acts. He opened the door to many unbelieving Jews with his discourse at Pentecost, the outpouring of the Spirit upon Samaritans, and the conversion and outpouring of the Spirit upon the first Gentiles with Cornelius and his family. Task accomplished and nothing more involved with it. Later church fathers tried to generalize and add to what is essentially a very straightforward assignment from the Lord.
@@lohi172 If anyone has the fullness of the faith, it is, beyond a reasonable doubt - not protestants lol. Protestants are just so individualistic. Maybe Gavin Ortlund has the fullness. But certainly not Protestantism as a whole. There's not tradition or history to even hold on to, because everyone is schismatic from the reformers.
The issue becomes when they pronounce anathemas on anyone that doesn’t believe clear accretions. They claim infallibility on these clear accretions. It makes it difficult to find middle ground when the stakes are made that high. For example, they use this authority structure to declare anathema on anyone that doesn’t fully adhere to Marian Dogma. If they would make these beliefs less binding then it’d be easier to find unity.
It would be helpful to present the other side of St. Augustine’s interpretation. “Number the bishops from the See of Peter. And, in that order of fathers, see whom succeeded whom. This is the Rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer.” Erick Ybarra has a great article in which he affirms both the diffusive understanding of Mt 16:18 by the fathers and then shows how the same fathers interpret Mt 16:18 with Peter as the rock, his primacy among the apostles and bishops, etc…
@@ReformingApologetics Sure, here you go: Origen (c. 184-253) “Peter, upon whom the Church is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail…” (Commentary on Matthew, 12:10) Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200-258) "There is one God, and Christ is one, and there is one Church, and one chair founded by the voice of the Lord upon Peter. Another altar cannot be constituted or a new priesthood made, except the one altar and the one priesthood." (On the Unity of the Church, Chapter 4) Tertullian (c. 155-240) “Was anything hidden from Peter, who was called the Rock on which the Church would be built, who obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?” (De Praescriptione Haereticorum, Chapter 22) Jerome (c. 347-420) "But you say the Church is founded upon Peter, although the same thing is done in another place upon all the apostles, and all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends equally upon all the apostles. Nevertheless, among the twelve, one is chosen that he might be placed as the head over the others." (Against Jovinianus, Book 1:26) Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-395) “Peter was declared blessed by the Lord and placed in charge of the foundation of the Church... He is called the rock of faith, the base of the faithful, the foundation of the Church.” (Against Eunomius, Book 4:13) Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) "For Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with Himself the Savior paid the tribute..." (Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?, Chapter 21) Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202) "The blessed apostles, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him Clement..." (Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3:3) Hilary of Poitiers (c. 310-367) “Blessed Simon, who after his confession received the keys to the kingdom of heaven and was appointed the rock of the Church.” (On the Trinity, Book 6:20) Firmilian of Caesarea (c. 200-268) “The power of binding and loosing was given to Peter alone, and the Church was established upon him as upon a foundation.” (Epistle to Cyprian, 75)
@@ReformingApologetics Ok, never mind. Here, let me give you one of hundreds of examples: Council of Sardica, Canon 3c: if a bishop is convicted of an offence by a verdict in a case, and if the convicted bishop objects to the verdict and seeks recourse by asking for reconsideration, then the bishops who judged the case - the trial court - should "honour the memory of St. Peter the Apostle" and write to the bishop of Rome about the case; The authority of The Bishop of Rome comes from St Peter, the Rock of Mathew 16.
"For, if the order of bishops succeeding to each other is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'” - St Augustine.
Our encyclopedia of Popes actually has a list of Roman Bishops going back to Peter all 266 of them when they can provide one then maybe we will take them seriously Augustine says that’s how we know who is that Catholic Church without a list they aren’t even in the discussion
gavin mentioned that he was referencing Augustines "mature" thoughts. Gavin mentions mature since he is aware of thoughts that pose differently to the idea he is speaking here but was spoken/written earlier than what Gavin is claiming his more matured view.
@@TheOppiterAugustine never retracted Peter having a list of successors to his Chair just changing his views on how the rock can be understood you conflated 2 different issues
@Ty9001 Not trying to start an argument, just curious about your thoughts: Why would having an unbroken chain of Romans bishops make you more apostolic than a church that teaches apostolic doctrine but doesn't have an unbroken chain of Roman bishops? I think Gavin makes a fair point here. Shouldn't doctrine matter more than who is teaching it? Though I guess if the presumption is that the Church is inerrant than that changes the answer. Either way, God bless!
@@Ty9001 providing an alternate Pope usually results in several decades of brutal warfare. That was the point of the Reformation: to distribute power so that only Christ can lead His church in its entirety. Producing an alternative Pope is antithetical to Protestantism. Producing a completely different form of governance with God as Father, Son, & Holy Spirit as the true head was the aim. Just like we've seen in recent times with Pope Benedict and Tikon of Moscow: the only leader of the Church who cannot be leveraged out by the forces of corruption is Christ. The view of Peter as Rock leads us to an earthly man who can be circumvented quite handily. The view of Christ as Rock, the chief cornerstone, leads to a Church that is as undying as Christ.
Good video, clear explanations, thanks! One thing that came to mind as I was watching was Peter's own writings in 1 Peter 2:5, where he calls the believers he's writing to "living stones" in their own turn. Christ is the Rock, Peter is rocky, and we also have a calling to be stones.
It’s been a long time since I looked it up in a lexicon, but as I recall, Christ is the Rock, a large boulder. Peter is a stone, like a fragment that was chipped off the boulder, which makes him one of the stones. This is due do the way the masculine and feminine genders of petros and petras, respectively, are used. Illustration: Petra, the mountain fortress.
@@ricksonora6656Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock and Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
Dan, yet, Jesus Christ refers to Himself as a mere servant as well! Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock and Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God! Even many Protestant scholars attest that Peter is the rock on whom Jesus built His Church! "Peter is the Shepherd of the Universal Church ", ( John Chrysostom). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is is true food and Blood true drink!
@ If you could argue Rome’s claim from scripture, you would. But you have to argue from opinions of later authorities. That doesn’t cut it. The worse error is your claims that Jesus did not give any of the authority to others, which the video already refuted, and you represent an order to serve as permanent, heritable authority, which is a straw man. Even Protestants miss this: The keys of the kingdom wet used in accordance with the outline in Acts 1:8 and fulfilled in chapters 2, 8, 10, and 19. The kingdom and the gift of the Holy Spirit has been opened to all. The keys have served their purpose. The kingdom does not require perpetual opening. Thus always with Rome. Sigh.
@ricksonora6656 i agree, why listen to fallible and unnecessary Protestant Pastors like James White and Gavin Ortlund, when we have the infallible Holy Scriptures? Again, yet even many Protestant scholars attest that Peter is the rock on whom Jesus built His Church, as too many Church Fathers! Plus, you bear false witness against me, as I never stated that Jesus Christ did not give any authority to the other Apostles! I simply stated what Holy Scripture teaches, that Jesus Christ promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God! "Peter is the Shepherd of the Universal Church ", ( John Chrysostom). "Peter that great Rock and firm foundation ", ( Ambrose). Protestants are so entertaining! Scripture ALONE is infallible as they claim, until of course they provide their own infallible interpretations! So entertaining are so many Protestants! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!!
From St. Jerome: Commentary on Matthew 16:18 "But you say that the Church is founded on Peter, although the same is elsewhere attributed to all the apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends equally on them all; yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head is appointed, the occasion of schism is removed." Letter to Pope Damasus "I speak with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the cross. I, following no one as my chief but Christ, am associated in communion with Your Blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church is built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Whoever is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails."
@@Testimony_Of_JTF Yes, but Peter as the head, where there is no schism. Who sit in the chair of Peter according to Jerome? Pope Damasus, bishop of Rome.
I'd want to look at Jerome again to be sure, but all of those things could be affirmed by Cyprian, who explicitly does not think that Peter had any greater power or authority than the other apostles. That is, that Peter was singled out specifically to indicate a principle of unity. The chair of Peter is applied to those who are successors of the apostles generally; not solely to the pope-Peter in Matthew 16 is in some way representative of the whole apostolic college.
@@BernardinusDeMoor There is NO collective chair of Peter .. and ONLY Simon had his name changed .. That's what I would call a unique and singular privilege .
@@paulywauly6063 It's pretty common among the church fathers to take Matthew 16 as treating Peter as a representative, and as signifying unity in the church, but not as actually conferring any special power or honor upon him. Cyprian, one of the earlier fathers, and in the west (North Africa), and so under the Roman patriarchate, says this explicitly. (Yes, you'll see RC apologists (mis)use Cyprian's quotes. Amusingly enough, some of the things they'll use are literally where he says this, because people don't read the context or try to understand his full position, but pattern-match it onto something modern.) Is there a reason why I shouldn't follow the common patristic position that Peter is here acting as a representative here, without attributing to him personally special power?
Don't forget the following verse, protestants always have an answer about the rock but the following verse makes no sense in a protestant context : Matthew 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
I was just working through this passage in my devotions yesterday. What great timing! Thanks for the helpful video which reinforced the conclusions I drew.
I was just looking through the comments on one of Trent’s videos and comparing them with the tone of the comments here and wow, the clear, seething hatred many Catholics have for Protestants is concerning. Meanwhile people in these comments aren’t making extreme jabs at Catholics
Have you seen the hate many Protestants have for Catholic Church too, to be fair? Both in this channel and in Trent's channel? It goes both ways. If you notice, Trent defends the Catholic Church while Gavin attacks the Catholic Church as false. Trent does not make his channel about pointing out falsehood in other denominations. Whereas this channel is about pointing out falsehood in Catholic or Orthodox Church. How about pointing out some of your own falsehood as well? Oh no, you can't say your church is infallible right? That sounds like Catholics. 😂
@ you’re kinda proving my point. You jump straight to assuming worst of intentions in my post and left no room for nuance. This channel isn’t purely dedicated to falsehoods in Catholicism, though that’s a big topic. Mainly because many Protestants who trust that Christ is their Lord who died for their sins are being told by many Catholics online that they aren’t true Christian’s or that they aren’t truly saved and it’s causing a ton of distress. For what it’s worth as well, yeah that’s gonna be a bad seed in the comments here and there regardless the channel as well. But you look at the comments on any given video if Trents and compare with any given video from Gavin and there’s no denying that the group spewing more unnecessary hatred as a whole is Trent’s community
@ and I never, ever said I believe Protestants are infallible and perfect. No, no, no. Far from it, and I’m more than willing to admit that and point that out. We have plenty of issues that need correction and redirection. But the fact you made that assumption based on my comment, which had nothing to do with that, again proves my point that it seems many Catholics assume worst intentions for Protestants. But again, for sake of nuance and clearly I need to spell every little thing out, that does not mean Protestants don’t do that for Catholics too. Sometimes even worse! But the ratios just seem different based purely on anecdotal evidence I’m seeing in the comment sections.
I found it interesting that Peter denies Christ after the events in Matthew 16. To me that makes it quite clear that Peter is still capable of sin, is fallible, is flawed, and that there was not some mystical transference of infallibility taking place there. However, if we look to John 21, we find that after Christ's resurrection He does come to speak to Peter and to re-instate him. While I see absolutely no evidence for Peter holding an office of leadership that can be passed on, it is quite clear that Jesus is giving him a role of leadership here, as He tells Peter to "feed my lambs", "take care of my sheep" and "feed my sheep". I do find the typological argument of Peter being a representative of the whole Church interesting, and I think it makes his close relationship with Christ, as well as his denial of Christ, all the more poignant. It really shows that struggle that we all face in our servitude to Jesus; that while at times we are close, and we always see Him as our friend and master, that we can still make mistakes, we can still sin, we can even get caught up with the madness of the world and deny Him, at least in our deeds if not in our words. Despite this, Peter is his own person, and Jesus does give him duties that he does not specifically to give to the other disciples; not necessarily in Matthew 16 (as these privileges are given to all in Matthew 18), but arguably in John 21. I want to caveat that I do not see this as creating the position of the papacy; but perhaps it is a blend of these two verses that informs the RC position? That Peter is going to be leader due to John 21, and that he has the power to bind and loose as shown in Matthew 16; so if Peter passed on his position of leader, or caretaker of the lambs, that it would be done in heaven as on earth; is that the logic? We could also interpret the passages about being a caretaker for Jesus' sheep as not a unique office, but rather something that all the other disciples knew they were to do; while at this point Peter is 'estranged' from Jesus after having denied Him 3 times, and that Jesus is simply re-instating the role that he had before as one of the disciples. In other words; Peter is not being given unique power, he is simply being returned to his old position, where he was equal in authority with the others. The purpose of John 21 then could be more to do with redemption than it is about creating an office; that Peter, despite failing Jesus with his three denials, is readily welcomed back by Jesus, showing that our Lord is loving and merciful, and that even when we fail Him, we can always return to Him and He will welcome us with open arms, and restore us; much like the story of the prodigal son.
We as humans have weaknesses, one of which Peter displayed in Mt 16:22 by questioning Jesus & later by denying Him thrice. All popes are humans subject to weaknesses. However, on rare occasions, when teaching officially on faith & morals,they are protected by the HS from teaching error.
@@geoffjs Could it be argued that God can speak through any one of us though? Even if not all of us, certainly ALL of the twelve disciples. If we look to Mark 13:11, Matthew 10:19, etc, we see Christ gathering the twelve disciples and telling them not to worry about what to say in advance, but that the Holy Spirit will be sent and will speak through them. Clearly when God is speaking directly through us, as shown in those passages with the Holy Spirit, our words ARE infallible. They may not be recognised by latter generations as having been directly from God; but they still are. I think this actually can happen with all Christians, but even if not; it certainly applies to all the Apostles, Peter is not singled out for this. So why do RCs specifically set out Peter and his successors as the only ones who can speak infallibly? If we understand that the Holy Spirit can be sent to speak through people, could not any Christian hold that power, or at least any Apostle? Other Apostles also held, at least according to traditions, certain Sees, for instance Alexandria is cited as being of Mark; by the logic that you argue the successor of Peter/Rome can speak infallibly, could we not also argue that the successor of Mark/Alexandria can speak infallibly? This is all very interesting to think about. For my own view, I think God can at times speak through all people, and at times does send the Holy Spirit to speak through Christians when something important needs to be said. I think the way we can tell if it is from God or not, is to test it against the Scriptures. If it is supported by the Scriptures; it could very well be from God. If it goes against the Scriptures; it is not from God. This would also be my reasoning for rejecting certain ideas from the papacy. While I do not know if Mary was assumed into heaven, and the Bible says nothing about it; I do know that my salvation is not dependent upon believing that Mary was assumed into heaven, because the Bible says a LOT about what is required for salvation, and it never mentions that. Therefore, when the RCs try to anathematise people for not believing Mary was assumed into heaven; I can be certain that they are wrong. EDIT: I used Mark in one of my arguments above, but Mark is not an apostle/disciple so some might argue that Christ's teaching that the Holy Spirit will speak through them may not apply to him. However, James son of Alphaeus or James the Lesser is, and the apostolic see of Jerusalem is traditionally given to him, so the same argument can be made that James is a disciple and apostle who holds a bishopric and incontestably can speak infallibly should the Holy Spirit speak through him as Jesus stated will happen in Mark 13:11 and Matthew 10:19, so the same argument holds that Peter and Rome should have no greater authority than James and Jerusalem based upon the logic above.
During Vatican I, Archbishop Kenrick of St. Lewis discussed the research of Catholic Scholar Jean de Launoy in opposition to papal infallibility. Launoy found that in 80% of cases this passage is discussed, Peter himself is not viewed as the rock by the early church.
@@joeoleary9010During the First Vatican Council, Archbishop Kenrick opposed the doctrine of papal infallibility, which stated that the Pope is free of error when pronouncing dogma. Archbishop Kenrick argued that papal infallibility would keep non-Catholics away from the Church, cause a schism within the Church and could not be declared infallible until the bishops of the world agreed on the matter at hand. Kenrick was in the minority opinion and his views were not accepted by the majority.
I'm familiar with the Catholic interpretation of this passage and a general Protestant interpretation, but haven't seen it fleshed out like this. Thanks Gavin.
I love the appeal to exegete Matthew 16 alongside the rest of the NT rather than resting everything on this obscure passage. I say this all the time when speaking about this verse.
@mwidunn The perspicuity of Scripture does not teach every Scripture is clear... only that the message of salvation is clear enough in Scripture to be known. 👍
You only have to look at the same passage of Scripture to be very wary of jumping to conclusions and the need to handle metaphors very carefully. In the same narrative Jesus calls Peter ‘Satan’!
Another Against the Letters of Petilian (Book 2:51) "Come, brethren, if you wish to be engrafted in the vine. It is grievous to see you lie cut off from it. Count up the bishops from the very seat of Peter, and in that order of fathers see who succeeded whom. This is the rock against which the proud gates of hell do not prevail."
And Cyprian says things like this while believing Peter was equal in honor and power to the other apostles. This isn't the strong quote you think it is.
@Gavin Ortlund What are your thoughts on Michael Heiser’s interpretation of the rock passage: “This passage [Matthew 16:17-18] is among the most controversial in the Bible, as it is a focal point of debate between Roman Catholics and Protestants. The former argue that Peter is the rock upon which the church is established and thus the passage makes Peter the leader of the original church (and the first pope). Protestants insist the rock is a reference to God on analogy of passages like 1 Corinthians 10:4. Both of these traditional understandings are incorrect. The reference to the rock is the place where they are standing-Caesarea Philippi at the foot of Mount Hermon. The apostate King Jereboam built an idolatrous worship center there (1 Kings 12) and the city adopted the worship of Baal practiced by the Canaanites since the days of Joshua in their city Baal-Gad (Joshua 11:17; cp. Judges 3:3). In Jesus’ day, Caesarea Philippi was also called Panias, having been dedicated to the worship of Pan. When viewed from this perspective, the scene takes place on geography considered the gates of hell in Old Testament times, the domain of Baal, the lord of the dead, and at the mountain where the plot of the Watchers was hatched. Hell, of course, wouldn't be complete without the devil. It is well known to scholars that Baal is the Old Testament counterpart to the devil. In Ugaritic, one of Baal's titles is ba al zebul ars (Prince Baal of the Underworld"), from which the New Testament Beezebul and Beelzebub derive. This isn't about who gets to be pope (or not). Its a cosmic confrontation, with Jesus challenging the authority of the lord of the dead” (Reversing Hermon, 95)
I don't think this issue is clearly as "representative" as one might think on the surface. As someone who was raised Reformed Baptist, I respect you a ton so I really don't want this to come off rude! These quotes below seem to lean in the other direction so I would say that a both/and approach to the text is the most appealing. “Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.” (Saint Augustine, Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18, GCC 51 [A.D. 393]). “For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: "Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!" (Letter 53, St. Augustine)
Gavin misrepresents church fathers an awful lot. Saint Augustine did not disbelieve in papal authority like he is trying to say. Saint Augustine accepted a papal mission from Gregory the Great in his lifetime and also wrote what you quoted above, as well as more. So trying to say Protestants are in agreement with Augustine in their view of church authority is wild.
@@truthnotlies It's not a misrepresentation. Gregory himself said the pope was the leader of the bishops and that he ought to be able to be held accountable by them; that he did not have monarchial authority over them. This is Augustine's view, and TBH, Martin Luther's, at least at the time the Lutherans wrote the Treatise on the Papacy. If Rome was to say, the pope is the leader but the papacy is not infallible and he can be overruled by the church as a whole (e.g. by the assembled bishops), I'd say: right, there's the #1 obstacle to unity removed.
You forget the following verse : "Matthew 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’"
@@EmmaBerger-ov9ni he didn’t forget that part. The point of the video was “who is Jesus giving the keys to” Peter, in confessing Christ, representing all the apostles.
@joshuareeves5103 that doesn't change the problem, it doesn't make sense in a protestant context. Who can bind and loosen? Where is that heavenly power? If you believe it's the apostles who have that key, then their successors have it today too, that's apostolic succession.
@@EmmaBerger-ov9niexactly. It really can’t be more clear. Not to mention that Saint Augustine has some very clear statements on his position of the papacy “I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.” (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, 5) “There is one God, and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the voice of the Lord, which the gates of hell shall not overcome.” (Sermon 131, 10) "It is to the authority of your [Pope Zosimus] holy see that we are all bound by the bond of love." (Letter 174)
Hey Gavin, i do have an honest question for you. Are you sure you are not coordinating with Trent Horn's video on Sola Scriptura? Both of you have a picture of Augustine, and it looks eerily coincidental how you guys post these videos so close in time with each other
But wait there is more from Augustine: Sermon on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul (Sermon 295) "For Peter himself, in many places in the Scriptures, appears to represent the Church, especially in that place where it was said, 'I give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' What, therefore, was given to Peter alone was given to the Church."
Greater Rock and lesser rock is a very good distinguishment. Just in the Greek when Jesus says, 'You are Peter' he uses a Greek word for a little stone and the word "rock" that the church is built on is 'petra' which is basically a mountain or craggy hill.
It is interesting that whenever this text is used as a proof, the context is largely ignored. I'm thinking specifically of the fact that right after calling Peter a "Rock" for the church, Jesus calls him "Satan" for his unbelief. It is an interesting way that Matthew unfolds this comment, as if he is trying to make it clear that Peter can be either a rock for the church or a satanic influence on her depending on his confession.
I've noticed that too. In both instances, Jesus is making distinctions. The first being that "hey Peter, your name is rock, BUT i don't wanna confuse you when I say this, I will build my church on your declaration of faith that I am the Christ." Paraphrasing, of course. The same can be said about Him calling Peter Satan.
Don't forget the following verse, protestants always have an answer about the rock but the following verse makes no sense in a protestant context : Matthew 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
@@EmmaBerger-ov9niwhat do you mean that Protestants don’t have an answer for that? Ortlund literally addressed that in this video. Jesus in some verses shortly after gives the same authority and keys to the kingdom to all of the 12, not Peter alone.
@TruthUnites Great inciteful video! Have you seen any clips of the recent discussion between Voice of Reason and Ruslan KD? It would be interesting to see a breakdown of their discussion on church attendance
@@igorc.2245technically no one was at that time because the Roman Catholic church hadn’t schismed away from the true remnant yet that was preserved in Luther.
Do you also agree with Augustine on: 1. The canon of Scripture 2. Purgatory 3. Intercession of saints 4. Baptismal regeneration 5. Sacrificial offer of the Mass 6. Authority of the Sacred apostolic tradition 7. Authority of the Church 8. Sinlessness of Mary 9. Perpetual virginity of Mary 10. Mary’s bodily assumption into heaven 11…. ?
@@thejerichoconnection3473 not everything but like the RCC does you also don’t prescribe to everything he nor any church father claimed. Do you agree with Augustine on slavery being ok and unbaptized babies go straight to hell - not limbo. Also where does Augustine talk about Mary’s bodily assumption? That is a genuine question
Both interpretations-Peter as the rock and his confession as the rock-emphasize essential truths about the Church’s foundation. The Church is built on the revelation of Jesus as the Messiah and the leadership established by Jesus Christ (the head of the Church, the rock, and the cornerstone) through Peter. St. Augustine’s writings reflect this balance. While he sometimes interpreted the “rock” as Peter’s confession of faith, he also recognized the importance of Peter’s role and the authority of the Bishop of Rome. This dual understanding enriches the theological significance of the passage (Matthew 16:15-19). Both aspects are seen as complementary rather than mutually exclusive. Would St. Augustine affirm the papacy? Yes, St. Augustine did affirm the papacy. He recognized the authority of the Bishop of Rome and the importance of apostolic succession from Peter. One Jesus. One Universal Apostolic Church. Amen
To my Catholic brothers and sisters... is the absence of the papacy (and the theological framework that accompanies it) from scripture at all concerning to you? I understand the 3-leggeed stool of Catholicism but you'd think Scripture, especially Peter himself, would have much to say about the single most important office of the Church. As I've read through scripture, here are some points on the matter I have jotted down. Curious to hear your responses. Thanks and blessings. - The papacy is never mentioned in the writings of Paul, John, James, or Jude. - Papacy is absent from Peters own letters - No mention of the papacy or it’s theological framework in any pastoral epistle despite their extensive instruction on ecclesiastical matters - No mention of the papacy or it’s theological framework in any of Paul’s letters despite their extensive systematic instruction on how to live a Christian life - Peter never refers to himself as pope but rather calls himself an elder (1Peter 5:1) - Peter never refers to himself as pope but rather calls himself an apostle (1Peter 1:1, 2Peter 1:1) - Peter never claims primacy - Peter gives no indication of papacy, in fact when Cornelius fell at his feet Peter says “Stand up; I too am a man”. He puts himself equal to Cornelius. He certainly does not exercise papacy. (Acts 10:25-26) - Peter gives a beautiful sermon in Acts 2: quotes scripture, calls for repentance, say Christ forgives sins, and we are told 3,000 souls were saved that day. Where is Catholic theology in any of this? Where is the papacy, the warnings of purgatory, the foundation of papacy and apostolic tradition, etc? - 2 Peter is sometimes seen as a farewell discourse as he knew his death was imminent. He reminds his followers of his teachings, commands them on how to live, and makes future predictions. This is his last chance to influence and guide his followers thereafter; not a single mention of his papal office, papal succession, or anything remotely close. - In 2 Peter one of the major themes was false teachings vs Gods prophetic word. If the papacy and apostolic succession was Christs’ implementation to preserve and protect the truth of the Church as Catholics claim, are we not alarmed by its absence and omission from the first Pope?
I would love to see a reply your question. I think you raise excellent points particularly in reference to Peter's own words from 1 and 2 Peter. I would add that Peter does use the stone imagery even quoting Psalm 118 and refers to Christ as the cornerstone and the "rock of stumbling", and all believers as the stones that comprise the "spiritual house".
@sharplikecheddar2 - Peter and the others KNEW exactly what JESUS meant at Mat 16:18 when HE also 'set THIS witness stone' (Peter/Rock) JUST like his forefather Joshua did (Joshua 24:25-28) set THIS stone/rock as witness that "HEARD God's Word and is to **witness against those who don't hold to it** , a permanent forever role/office! It was TO PETER at Mat 16:19 that Jesus handed the 'keys of the kingdom' . . . Just as our Lord clearly once did to Eliakim in Isaiah 22:15-24 even saying "he will be AB[papa/father] to the people"v.21" It was TO PETER at John:21:15-25 that Jesus said 'FEED MY LAMBS' . . .! It was to Peter that JESUS said at John 21:15-25 to 'shepherd HIS flock'! Scripture SHOWS us at John 21:11 that it was PETER **ALONE** who dragged the net (filled with every kind large fish) landing it on dry ground to the feet of Jesus - all without a single tear! It was TO PETER at Luke 22:32 that Jesus told "Strengthen Your Brothers" . . . Jesus even did all this KNOWING that Peter was not without personal fault! By Jesus word @ Mat 20:26-28 Peter KNEW that He would be a SERVANT LEADER, which is why YOU will not find ANY example in scripture of Peter 'Lording over others' & 'flaunting authority' = apparently the only definition of 'leadership' TO YOU that you demand scripture produce for you to submit to the authority Jesus established ?? ;)
@@garyr.8116 When you say, “Peter and the others knew exactly what Jesus meant” please be specific. Are you claiming they “knew” that Peter was being appointed to a church office that would serves for generations to come, be capable of infallible teaching, and have universal jurisdiction over the church on faith and morals? How are you arriving to that conclusion based on any of the verses you provided? Or are you simply saying that Peter seemed to have an authoritative status? Joshua 24:25-28 - I am not sure I am following your point with this scripture reference. Are you contending that the people Joshua was leading away from Pagan practices “knew” that the stone which bared witness was representative of Peter and a future papacy/ permanent office? 9 times in Joshua we read of stones being used for various purposes. Are all 9 times symbolic of Peter and the papacy? What about all the other OT references to stones and rocks, all Peter? Help me understand how this passage is leading you to Peter and a “permanent office” and how the pagan people of that time “knew” this. Your other examples follow much of the same reasoning. You seem to argue that any verse directed at Peter unequivocally means Peter/papacy and that everyone “knew” this. But you are not providing any evidence or scripture to bridge that gap. Scripture is littered with verses addressed to specific people for specific reasons… like when Jesus called Peter satan for example… that doesn't mean they are to be taken as theological frameworks and I'd need the exegesis that get’s us there, not mere presuppositional claims. “apparently the only definition of 'leadership' TO YOU that you demand scripture produce for you to submit to the authority Jesus established” Again, a claim without any evidence and a red herring at that. That is not my definition of leadership nor is it my prerequisite for submitting to authority.
It seems important that Christ only changed Peter's name, not the names of the other Apostles. He could have used the term "Peter" to refer to all Bishops, or all Christians, but did not. This suggests that it is important for there to be a concrete, personal guardian of the confession, which is in danger of being corrupted or diluted by lies & sin. This is what Catholics believe about the office of the Papacy.
@huntersmith4201 - we are clearly shown that in scripture, JESUS also 'set THIS witness stone' (Peter/Rock) JUST like his forefather Joshua did (Joshua 24:25-28) set THIS stone/rock as witness that "HEARD God's Word and is to **witness against those who don't hold to it** , a permanent forever role/office!
"In reaction to Cardinal Guidi's insistance that before issuing a definition, the pope must investigate the tradition of the church, Pope Pius broke out with the famos words, "I am tradition! I am the Church!" - John W. O'Malley, Vatican I: The Council and the Making of the Ultramontane Church, p. 212.
Pope Pius was only stating long established Catholic doctrine -- the living pope is the *only* arbiter of the meaning of Catholic tradition, teachings, doctrine and worship. There is no one in the church or in the past that has authority over the living pope. This is the practical application of Matthew 16:18 as the RCC has always understood it.
@@joeoleary9010 What do you make of Constance and Basel's decree in Haec Sancta that the council has its authority immediately from Christ, and the pope has to listen?
@@BernardinusDeMoor I think Haec Sancta is stating a presupposition of the definition of a pope: It's always assumed that a pope is acting in the best interests of Christ's church. My point is even many Catholics aren't aware that there's no loophole in Catholic teachings that allows the laity to deem the pope a heretic. Even the bishops can't do that. The proof of that is in the history of the church. 2000 years of Catholic history, even including "bad" popes, not once have the bishops ever vetoed or deposed a pope.
St Augustine: "For, if the order of bishops succeeding to each other is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus... and so on to Anastasius, who now sits in the same place."
@@duckgrow he says in the video this last exegesis of Augustine is a result of multiple retractions. This was the last statement giving from him on this topic. So no, you're wrong
@@jj4829they don’t read the full body of work or listen to entire videos. They just copypasta Catholic answers and Trent Horn. As Ortlund said in another video “there’s a lot of cope in the comments”
@@duckgrow …except that what Gavin cited was from his retractions, where he deliberately rejects the interpretation that modern RCs favor, saying that he was wrong to say something more like that earlier. If you have something after his retractions, I'm all ears, but stuff earlier should be considered in light of his later rejection of it.
@@ScribeAlicious I am a protestant and I think the Catholic Church misuses tradition. However, what the universal church has universally believed throughout the centuries is important to consider. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. 2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. Edit: I just now realized you meant this specific tradition. Nevermind lol
I find it interesting that we are knit-picking interpretations of the text.. I wonder if you could grant that it would be POSSIBLE (not even probable, but possible), that the Church’s interpretation of this specific text is correct..?
@ I can respect that position even tho I disagree with it.. only slightly though. I would claim it’s more-likely-than-not that the RC position is true and fitting..
@@sloanjackson8 the RC views the papacy as a Salvation matter. If that was in reality the case there would be no disagreement among the church fathers about the interpretation of the passage as they would have known the fait of the worlds souls rest on it.
Gavin, thank you for your time and much needed attention to Matthew 16. Some of your readers should revisit [1Peter 2] from verse 4 onward. Pay special attention to the "living stone(s)" being built up, "the Stone the builders rejected", a "rock" of offense- the "Cornerstone"- lots of analogies for this word "petros". When it doubt, cling to this: On Christ the solid Rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand. Gavin, can you please do a video on the artifact publicized by the Frankfurt Archaeological Museum (December 2024), called "The Frankfurt silver inscription"- the engraving wrapped in a small silver amulet that scientists date back to between 230-260 AD? Thank you in advance! 😃
Agreed that the primary aspect of the passage is the confession of Faith and rightly confessing the Rock Christ. The Church is founded in a double manner though. Primarily the true confession of Faith, but also it is founded on the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20), that is men as well as doctrine. Christ is the chief cornerstone as God-man and not only as doctrine. So, both the confession is needed as well as the human foundation in a hierarchal manner because the Church is not founded on all the faithful as a collective, but on the apostles and prophets. The giving of the "keys" is important to draw this out because the authority and decisions to bind or loose can only be exercised by a man and not the doctrine as doctrine. Thus, St Peter is called rock after the Rock Christ and St Peter must both confess Christ as Rock in the true sense and, with the confession, be a rock on which the Church is founded. This foundation is to continue from generation to generation, so both the Faith, or more fully the Apostolic Tradition, must remain firm as to the men upon whom the Church is built from generation to generation, the successions of the ordained priesthood, that is bishop and presbyters. St Peter is singled out as a point of unity for the apostles both each has the keys in whole and not merely in collective but only in union with each other. Thus, there is a continuing need for sees of unity among the bishops, which converge to one See, the one Petrine See, which is in three bishops, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, with Rome standing first of these. To be in the Church, one needs both to have the Faith of St Peter as well as be founded on St Peter in the hierarchal sense. As St Ignatius of Antioch says, the Church is where the bishop(Christ) is with the presbyters (Apostles) and deacons and apart from these nothing can be called "Church'. Because the Faith is first and humans err, it is not on any hierarchy of bishop and presbyters that one is united to the Church, but only on that preaching and preserving the Faith or Apostolic Tradition without change, and that recognised by the Petrine See, which forms a tighter more protected core of stability to unite the churches, but nevertheless is still bound to preach the Faith truly and bishops of these sees can err, St Peter himself denied Christ, and be cast out, even if God preserves one or the other in the Faith just as He preserved and restored St Peter despite the denial.
To your first reference of Mathew 16 vs Mathew 18. One is giving the authority to Peter as an individual and the other is giving the authority to a grouping of bishops (this is how the magisterium has always worked). Also, if Augustine is how you draw your arguments, then quote all of Augustine including the more direct quotes on the matter… "For if the order of bishops succeeding to each other is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'" (Letter 53, to Generosus) "There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church... the succession of priests, from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate." (Against the Letter of Mani, 4:5) "Peter, because he was the first among the apostles, and a zealous lover of Christ, was frequently spoken of as representing the whole Church." (Commentary on Psalm 108) "Among these [apostles], Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. On account of that representation which he alone bore, he deserved to hear, 'I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven' (Matthew 16:19). For these keys, not one man, but the unity of the Church received." (Sermon 295) "He [Peter] represented the Church universal. When it was said to him, 'I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by various temptations." (Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5) "Peter is named after the rock, not the rock after Peter. Peter was called from the rock; the rock was not called from Peter. And upon this rock the Church is built, which the gates of hell do not prevail against." (Sermon 26.1) "Peter was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by more abundant grace the first and chief apostle. But when it was said to him, 'I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' he represented the whole Church, which in this world is being loosened from sin and bound by godliness." (Sermon 229M) "If you are not in the body of Peter, you cannot have the keys of the kingdom. For Peter represents the Church as a whole, and it is the Church that has the authority to forgive sins." (Sermon 295) "Rome has spoken; the case is closed (Roma locuta est; causa finita est)." (Sermon 131:10)
Great video Gavin. Thank you. Question: Can you address the arguements made against Protestants concerning the canon (namely the "You all use our canon and say it's authority is infallable, but not the authortiy of those who canonized it" argument)? I have thoughts but would enjoy hearing your opinions.
It's okay if we have a fallible list of infallible books. We can recognize the wisdom and diligence of those who were in the early church attempting to discern what is in the canon without thinking that they're infallible.
He has done so. He looks back to figures like St Jerome and Cyril of Jerusalem, they give us the same Canon that the Hebrews followed, also with the book of Baruch and the letter to Jeremiah which was included in their book of Jeremiah, though the Hebrews did not necessarily have it. Jerome makes clear those are the Canon, and the others are less important; Cyril flat out tells us not to read the apocryphal books. Cyril also goes on to say that those were the books handed down by the Apostles and the bishops of old. Martin Luther when retrieving the Canon went to what the Hebrews read due to his awareness that the RCs had made a lot up and written fraudulently, which is not to say everything out of the RC church is bad, but just that at his point in time it was difficult to trust what came from them, they were known to justify un-Biblical practices by just making stuff up; so he went to the Hebrews, figuring their Canon was far more likely to be pure and not altered for political reasons. The difference between the books he included, and those we are told by Cyril that the Apostles and Early Church read, is Baruch and the letter of Jeremiah. I did read Baruch and the letter of Jeremiah out of interest recently, I did not see either posing any problemsfor a Protestant; Baruch takes place during the Babylonian exile, and is telling the Hebrews that they deserve to be in exile, that they are being punished for their sin, and that they must repent. There is also an allusion to Jesus coming to save the world at one point. The letter of Jeremiah is very short, and is just on the idols in Babylon, saying that they are just lifeless wood and metal and there's nothing to fear or respect about them. I do not see anything supporting any of the RC or EO dogmas that Protestants traditionally disagree with, and there's not really anything new that is not found in other books, especially the Prophets. They are very short, I'd recommend giving them a read for yourself. So the Protestant Canon is, according to Jerome and Cyril, the Canon that the Apostles followed. The Apostles did also read Baruch and the letter of Jeremiah, though there is noting that will change any Protestant perspectives in those two, and the reason why Martin Luther may not have deemed those Scripture is because he was going by the Hebrew Canon, which separated them from the book of Jeremiah, while Jerome and Cyril and the Early Church included them within that book. Hope that helps! You can read these for yourself if you look up Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical lectures 4, right at the bottom between point 33 and 37 he has a bit 'Of the Divine Scriptures' where he lays this out. I cannot find the quotes by Jerome at the moment, when I google it just comes up with lots of Catholics trying to downplay his opposition to their Canon, I'm sure you can find it with a little digging but its time for me to have breakfast. God bless!
Your explanation makes the most sense in the full context of Scripture. When you accept "Development of Doctrine" it's amazing how elaborate and expansive a doctrine can become from just a single passage. While, in this instance it applies to the Roman Catholic Church, it can often apply to many branches of the Church, i.e., Pentecostal, EO, etc.
@@geoffjs It obviously developed; the question is just whether it's faithful to the apostolic faith. A bunch of the things are intrusions from gnostics and elsewhere, not apostolic in origin.
@Clifford777 yea thats pretty sad he feels the need to comment in such a way. Seeing comments like "I can hear the romans crying already" is also sad and doesn't help move the conversation
Yeah to me the argument that “the rock is Peter” never made sense and it makes less sense when we see in the rest of Scripture that when someone is referred to as the rock it is always referring to, and I’m pretty confident on this, YHVH or Jesus Christ. Verses like 1 Samuel 2:2, Psalms 18:2-3, Deuteronomy 32:4 and many others. I actually made a video on this subject because the study itself is fascinating in Scripture. Great video as always Gavin and Merry Christmas to you and to your family!!
It makes perfect sense when you realize Jesus would be speaking Aramaic. "Simon, you are 'Kepha' and on 'Kepha' I will build the Church." And also reading Matthew 16:19- Jesus literally says 'you.'
Yet JESUS also 'set THIS witness stone' (Peter/Rock) JUST like his forefather Joshua did (Joshua 24:25-28) set THIS stone/rock as *witness* that "HEARD God's Word and is to **witness against those who don't hold to it** , a permanent forever role/office!
Notice the literary artistry of the 3 blessings given to Peter in Matthew 16: - Blessed are you (a unique blessing, positive affirmation) - You are Peter and on this rock.... (highlighting to Peter his task). Jesus was speaking in Aramaic to Peter. The name Cephas is a form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.” - I will give you the keys (positive affirmation/instruction) which is why we know it's a man and not a 'deposit of faith'. You have to give the keys to a man - a steward and not 'an intellectual idea'.
@@c2s2942 In Matthew 18 Christ does indeed give the other apostles the authority to bind and loose but not the keys. It is Peter therefore, who uniquely occupies the role of the 'prime minster' (with the other apostles being his 'ministers'). This is a reference to the Davidic Kingdom (see Isaiah 22 for context). So the king (Christ) holds the keys of the kingdom, but he delegates his power on earth to the steward (Peter) and the keys of the kingdom are the symbol of this delegated authority. Hence, from the very beginning, Peter was regarded as 'first among equals' amongst all the apostles/bishops. We also see in John 21 that Jesus once again gives his pastoral authority to Peter with three solemn commands: “Feed my lambs, take care of my sheep, feed my sheep.” The Catholic Church teaches that the three strands of rock, steward and shepherd are woven in and through the whole of Scripture, coming into focus when Christ hands his authority on earth to Peter, until He comes again at His Second Coming. Hope this makes sense. I was born and raised Protestant but once I studied the Catholic Church there was no going back - I had to be in the Church that Christ started. The other reason was the Eucharist but that's a whole other conversation! God Bless.
Notice what is lost! The keys! Gavin says thatvin matthew 18 the binding and loosing is noted in respect to all apostles. He says that Christ is also a rock. True, true. But conveniently drops the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and therefore loses the overall sense. Think about what it would mean for you to give your car and house keys to someone, thats what Jesus did with Peter. Always look fot what Gavin leaves out as he walks you down the protestant path!
As far as I know, the job of an apostle is to personally know Jesus face-to-face, and give, testimony, give confession of the truth about Jesus, to others. So this posture of yours makes total sense. Otherwise, as you say, apostolicity is threatened.
This constant quote mining of the fathers has become frankly unbearable. For any of Augustine’s quotes that seem to support the Protestant position, there are 10 that totally destroy it. The fathers have written tons of tractates throughout their lives sometimes even contradicting themselves. You cannot pick one random quote and conclude that Augustine believed X. You must consider the entirety of Augustine’s works and beliefs and ask yourself: did he sound more proto-Protestant or Catholic? If you are honest, the answer is obvious. What are we even talking about?
Proto Protestant absolutely. Augustine is quoted incessantly by Calvin. Luther was an Augustinian Friar. The strong Monergism of Protestants is Augustinian.
@ the fact that Calvin misused Augustine to invent his theology is irrelevant. Augustine believed in: 1. OT canon including deuterocanonical books 2. Purgatory 3. Sacred oral apostolic tradition 4. Binding authority of the Catholic Church, founded on the rock of Peter 5. Real presence in the Holy Eucharist 6. Baptismal regeneration 7. Confession to a priest 8. Sacrifice of the Mass 9. Seven sacraments 10. Sinlessness of Mary 11. Perpetual virginity of Mary 12. Mary’s bodily assumption 13. Intercession of the saints 14. Prayers to the saints 15. Prayers for the dead 16. Etc etc etc For some reason, these “proto-Protestants” look unbelievably Catholic.
As an Orthodox Christian this did NOT surprise me!! Don't make assumptions young Ortlund. Time for you to stop following the traditions of men, which is what all Baptists and protestants do - and join the Church founded by Christ ☦☦☦☦☦☦☦
You follow traditions that are 100% not in the Bible or the Early Church. Protestants test EVERYTHING against the Bible. The Bible is our greatest resource for determining what is or is not a tradition. That does not mean there cannot be traditions that were not recorded, however; if a supposed tradition is ever contradicted by the Scriptures, we should assume that the tradition became distorted or misremembered, much like the date of Easter did very early on, because the Bible is our best record, and is infallible. We follow Christ. You follow men who claim to follow Christ with varying degrees of accuracy; some most assuredly do, some might do and its difficult to judge, some do not, at least in certain regards. In Protestant circles, we argue that concepts like the veneration of icons are not found in Scripture and point to what the Bible teaches on idolatry; the EOs will bring up fringe arguments relating to the bronze serpent or the ark of the Covenant, which we would again are different and should not be used as justification for all icon veneration; however, I will concede that we cannot conclusively prove that you are wrong here. We can conclusively prove that you are wrong about anathematising people who do not practice icon veneration though, because while the Bible may not explicitly tell us what are accepted and not accepted forms of worship in reference to icons; it does explicitly and meticulously tell us what our salvation is dependent on. It is achieved by grace through faith, accepting that Jesus is our Lord and Saviour, and accepting Him as our Passover Lamb, who died in our place, and took our punishment, and therefore paid the wages of our sin; if we accept His gift and follow Him, we shall have our sins forgotten, and we shall be with Him in paradise. The Bible is very clear that we will not be separated from Christ because we did not venerate an icon, or because we never kissed a Slavic man's ring; those are nonsense traditions made up by men, and are in clear contradiction to the teachings of Christ and the Holy Bible.
Every time that you hear anti-Catholic rhetoric, ask yourself who are “Protestants” in protest against. Sorry prots, The Catholic Church was the only one founded by Christ, and Saint Peter was the first Pope. (And it’s Saint Augustine, not “Augustine”.)
The Catholics are the first protestants, against the Eastern Orthodox. But seriously, the first Christians were Baptists. The other groups came out of them 🤔
@@jonasaras Or Jesus was the first Protestant (against Judaism). Or Paul was the first Protestant (against the apostles who actually lived with Jesus. The "old school new school" or "orthodoxy reform of orthodoxy" dynamic has been a part of religion since religion began.
As a Protestant, I’ve wondered this too. I think there is a connection between this and what happens on the Galilee shore in John 21, where Jesus restores Peter after His Resurrection. Jesus had a very clear mission for Peter as leader of the Church, but was it as Jesus’ earthly representative? Supreme Leader of the Church? I am not sure.
@@AbetTorontoAdventure He also called James and John the sons of thunder. Should we therefore assume that when Jesus returns with a voice like thunder that James and John will be speaking for him?
Well we know as a matter of historical fact that while Augustine didn't have a Vatican 1 understanding of the Papacy he nevertheless did view the Pope as a unique Petrine leader of the Church and not simply equal with the other Bishops. The Pope for Augustine was the "apostolic see" with a special and unique authority. Also - re: Matt 16:18, the categories of singular and collective are not mutually exclusive. Peter can be both representative and head.
@charlesjoyce982 I assume you are referring to the sermon where he says something to that effect, ie, "letters have been sent to the apostolic see, the matter is closed." That whole incident is worth studying. Augustine's conflict with several Popes concerning Pelagianism reveals multiple things. First, Augustine feels no need to bow the knee to Pope Zosimus when he feels Pope Zosimus has erred. Second, Augustine nevertheless sees the Pope as a unique Petrine authority in the Church and not simply equal to other Bishops.
@@taylorbarrett384 yes, thats right. Augustine expressed frustration with Zosimus, but not open rebellion of any sort. This frustration is further evidence that Augustine knew the importance of the Pope's leadership.
@@charlesjoyce982 Well he did reject Zosimus' ruling quite openly, along with a council of African bishops, who together rebuked Zosimus and contradicted him - even when Zosimus had invoked his petrine authority to make the ruling. So we cannot say Augustine and these African Bishops held to Vatican 1. But they certainly didn't think the Pope was merely another Bishop, equal to all the others in every way. The Pope did possess a special and unique Petrine authority in the Church.
I'm Orthodox, but i have to say the catholics have the right interpretation of matthew 16. Yes christ and peters confession play a role as the rock in varying degrees, but the factor that simon had his name changed to Peter is the important part. Everytime in the entirety of scripture when God changed someones name it shows the role that character has in the biblical narrative....now where the papacy went wrong is going from supremacy to infallible. The first millennial papacy had more peoer than the rest of the bishops as someone who would settle disputes and such, but not the pwoer grabs he was making leading up to the schism.
The doctrine of papal Infallibility was defined at Vatican 1 in 1869. 800 years after the schism. If you're gonna say papal infallibilty is made up, then it wouldn't be at the schism. It would be during the 19th century. Actually you stating that there's evidence of papal Infallibility during the schism in 1054, gives evidence to the supremacy of the successor of Peter has always been within the Church. Peace, brother in Christ. Let me know what you think.
That's actually the chief complaint that the Lutherans make in the Treatise on the Papacy. It was that he ought to be able to be held accountable by the church at large or at least the bishops.
@@ratatoskr9366 Maybe I didn't speak well, I understand papal infallibility wasn't defined till Vatican 1. I'm saying we see the power consolidation starting around the time of the franks, and I think they used the disagreement over enzymes and the filioque as further justification for the pope taking more power than he had previously. Yes I believe the pope has supremacy, and not just a seat of honor, but nothing like the put forward in Vatican 1. I don't like the handpicking of cardinals and just other ecclesiastical stuff they do.
St. Augustine quote: “If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]). St. Augustine emphasizes the importance of apostolic succession, particularly the line of bishops of Rome starting from Peter. Augustine highlights that Peter, appointed by Christ, was succeeded by Linus, then by Clement, and so on. This succession is seen as a safeguard for the true teachings of the Church, contrasting it with the Donatist schism, which lacked such continuity.
@ seriously? The history of the Papacy is one of corruption and wickedness! The papacy has a history of bribery, extortion , I could name dozens of popes that were more corrupt and unbiblical than American politicians. Including Francis .
@@thejerichoconnection3473 how do you know they were saints? Only those who born again by an act of God and nothing else are saints and you can’t guarantee that they were all born again . Some of them acted like devils!
Gregory the Great: "Who could doubt that the Church is made firm by the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles, whose name is derived from a rock, and who was called Peter because he was the first to establish the foundations of faith?"
I am sorry - but God established the foundations of faith! When Peter confessed who Jesus was - Jesus said Peter only knew who Jesus was because GOD had revealed it to hime No one who comes to faith in Christ can do so unless God revealed the truth to them! Our understanding and our faith is a gift of God.
Gregory the Great says that whoever calls themselves things which, it turned out later popes used, the forerunner of the antichrist. I don't think he's the guy you want to trust here.
Gregory the Great was adamantly opposed to a monarchial papacy. He insisted that the authority of the church was held by the bishops collectively. Martin Luther even called him the last good Pope on that basis.
Ireneaus: "the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority"
Authority's a bad translation there. The latin is principalitatem, if I remember correctly, which a good bit broader of a word than authority-"firsthood" could work, perhaps, which is notably less than jurisdiction (and could even be referring to it being the capital of the Roman empire, I'd imagine). There's also a bit of that quote that you didn't include there about how it's because apostolic traditions from elsewhere should be gathered in Rome. It's not ascribing some power to it. For more on this, see Edward Denny's excellent book Papalism.
The early church definitely needed unity as it was a brand new faith with a lot of heresy from different groups. Has nothing to do with whether the Roman Catholic Church should have supreme authority today. Ireneaus’ opinion is not scripture and it’s very possible that opinion would be different had he known the history of the last several centuries. Many of the beliefs the Catholic Church hold now weren’t the position of the CC at the time or Ireneaus
As I watched this video, it just occurred to me that there is another passage in which Christ talked about "Rock" and "building"-the passage He portrays that man as wise who hears His words and does them. And the first step towards hearing Christ is accepting Him as Whom He claims to be, which is Precisely the Messiah, the Son of God and Son of Man of Daniel (or else, why should we listen to Him, much less do what He says?). So, in the other passage in which Christ talks about rock and building apart from Matt. 16, acknowledgement of Him as the Messiah appears again. And so, it strengthens the case that the Rock has to do with acceptance of Christ as the Messiah. Great video as always, Gavin.
So ,u equate Petros Masculine noun to Rock feminine noun. Doesn't even make sense from the language. It's a play on words by Jesus to emphasize that the Rock of the pagan worship site would NOT be able to resist the kingdom of God coming in the Church of Christ. Peter is this small Rock that will inisiate this with his Preaching on the Day of Pentecost.
@davidjanbaz7728 A few noteworthy points: 1. The normative rendering of the word is the feminine. Matthew (or the scribe who translated it to Greek) would have known this, and also would have known it's not normal to refer to a male with the feminine word, hence the change to the masculine when plainly referring to Peter. 2. Most New Testament scholars agree that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek. So the Petra/Petros distinction wouldn't have been in the original writing. 3. Jesus spoke Aramaic, and in Aramaic, the ONLY way to say "rock" is Kepha. So he would have used the same word twice, "You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church." And ironically, Cephas (the transliteration of Kepha) is exactly what Paul called Peter. 4. You didn't address my point. Every single time someone's name is changed in scripture, it marks an extremely big transformation in the person renamed. You're saying Peter IS the lone exception. This mean Jesus changed his name for no reason in the exact same passage where he said he would build his church on the same word Peter's name was changed to.
@@davidjanbaz7728 A few noteworthy points: 1. The normative rendering of the word is the feminine. Matthew (or the scribe who translated it to Greek) would have known this, and also would have known it's not normal to refer to a male with the feminine word, hence the change to the masculine when plainly referring to Peter. 2. Most New Testament scholars agree that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek. So the Petra/Petros distinction wouldn't have been in the original writing. 3. Jesus spoke Aramaic, and in Aramaic, the ONLY way to say "rock" is Kepha. So he would have used the same word twice, "You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church." And ironically, Cephas (the transliteration of Kepha) is exactly what Paul called Peter. 4. You didn't address my point. Every single time someone's name is changed in scripture, it marks an extremely big transformation in the person renamed. You're saying Peter IS the lone exception. This mean Jesus changed his name for no reason in the exact same passage where he said he would build his church on the same word Peter's name was changed to.
@@davidjanbaz7728 A few noteworthy points: 1. The normative rendering of the word is the feminine. Matthew (or the scribe who translated it to Greek) would have known this, and also would have known it's not normal to refer to a male with the feminine word, hence the change to the masculine when plainly referring to Peter. 2. Most New Testament scholars agree that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek. So the Petra/Petros distinction wouldn't have been in the original writing. 3. Jesus spoke Aramaic, and in Aramaic, the ONLY way to say "rock" is Kepha. So he would have used the same word twice, "You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church." And ironically, Cephas (the transliteration of Kepha) is exactly what Paul called Peter. 4. You didn't address my point. Every single time someone's name is changed in scripture, it marks an extremely big transformation in the person renamed. You're saying Peter IS the lone exception. This mean Jesus changed his name for no reason in the exact same passage where he said he would build his church on the same word Peter's name was changed to.
Okay, let’s unpack some things (as the Kids say): (1) So, the Fathers were not generally concerned with interpreting Mt. 16 in terms of “Petrine Ministry” or Papal Primacy or whatnot. And, why would they? Was that an issue? Did the Fathers generally talk about the Homoousion or Filioque or Hypostatic Union before those became issues? (2) Gavin’s somewhat selective in how he presents Dr. Sieciesnki’s work (08:36). What THE CONTEXT of Dr. Siecienski’s comments is: Neither Catholics (who argue Peter had a specific role/ministry in the Church apart from the other Apostles) nor Orthodox (who say Peter was no different and wasn’t the Church’s exclusive foundation) recognize *that that type of issue was not on the Fathers’ radar when they were commenting on Mt. 16* . That was not their focus. But, Gavin removes this context and presents Siecienski as implying that the Church Fathers did not see a “Petrine Ministry” AT ALL in Mt. 16. (3) Notice what Siecienski’s quotation says: “…with few exceptions…” The devil is in the details, . . . which means that there IS Patristic evidence then for seeing a “Petrine ministry” in Mt. 16. Just not a lot or universally. (4) Gavin is also selective with his use of Origen. Perhaps, he should have looked at his Commentary on John (5.3) in which declares: “And Peter, *on whom the Church of Christ is built,* against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left only one epistle of acknowledged genuineness.” He should also read further into Origen’s Commentary on Matthew (bk. 13.31), where he describes Peter’s commission of binding and loosing as different and superior (!) to that of other Christians.
Michael S. Heiser said that the rock is Mt Hermon, because that was the mountain where they physically were when Jesus said this. Mt Hermon was considered the gates of Hell because it was a primary place of pagan sacrifice. According to Heiser, Jesus was making a declaration of war against the pagan gods.
@@KnightFelMike was vehemently opposed to interpreting stuff from 2nd Temple Judaism using Christian lenses from the 2nd-4th centuries. A time period far removed from the contemporary realities in which New Testament Scripture was written.
Yup… the rock they were standing on was essentially the front porch in front of the gates of hell… setting up shop on the enemies doorstep was the ultimate boss move.
That was excellent. Peter denied Jesus three times and then repented obviously. I consider that also weighs on his confession and adds to the argument. What is a key thing that the church does or ought to do is help people overcome unbelief.
Also Gavin, I really do love your work and you're one of the best defenders of Protestantism out there, but please, please do a video on Jimmy Akin's argument for Matthew 16 where he breaks down the structure of the passage to show how it logically follows that Peter is the rock.
In a sermon to his flock, Augustine informed them that the pope had ratified the condemnations of the Pelagian heresy pronounced at the councils of Milevi and Carthage. He said “The two councils sent their decrees to the Apostolic See and the decrees quickly came back. Rome has spoken, the cause is finished.” (Sermon 131:10). Augustine was commenting on the authority of the pope and the fact that councils of the Church are authoritative only if approved by the bishop of Rome. In the 13th century, as Byzantine polemics against the Apostolic Primacy increased, the Angelic Doctor St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out the disastrous consequences of negating the Petro-centric structure of the Hierarchical Church: "And while they deny that there is one [visible] head of the Church, that is to say, the Holy Roman Church, they manifestly deny the unity of the Mystical Body, for there cannot be one body if there is not one head, nor one congregation of the faithful where there is not one rector. Hence, 'there shall be one flock and one shepherd." (Contra Errores Graecorum, Part lI). The logical result of denials of the Catholic dogmas of Papal Primacy and Infallibility has been, sadly, the abandonment of traditional ecclesiology stressing the visibility and infallibility of the hierarchical Church. The witness of the great Eastern Saints of the "undivided Church" similarly refuted the pretensions that only an empty "primacy of honor" was envisaged by the famous Petrine texts (Matt. 16: 18-19; Luke 22: 31-32' Jn. 21: 15-17) which singled Peter out to be the Rock-foundation of the Church, the Holder of the Keys of the Kingdom, the Confirmer of his brethren and the Chief Shepherd of the Church after Christ's Ascension into heaven. In a magnificent passage, St. Maximos the Confessor (622 AD), one of the greatest of the Byzantine doctors, thus defended the prerogatives of the Roman Church watered with the blood of the Chief Apostle: Patrologia Graeca Vol. 91, Pg. 137ff "For the extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of our fathers, according to what the six inspired and holy Councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the Incarnate Word among us, all the churches in every part of the world have possessed that greatest church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ our Savior, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it possesses the Keys of right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High." The witness of the pre-Schism Popes, Fathers, and Councils (whatever the historical and theological difficulties encountered) was overwhelming in their cumulative impact as supporting the dogma of Papal Primacy as defined in the decrees of Vatican I. -Dr. James Likoudis, ‘Eastern Orthodoxy and the See of Peter’ Pg. 12 (Find on app: Scribd) ANCIENT HERETICS CLAIMING THE PAPACY CORRUPTED THE GOSPEL: OLD NEWS Heretics have often claimed the Pope corrupted the Gospel. We have documents as ancient as the 200s showing this, specifically the heresy of a certain Artemon. Caius the Presbyter notes of him and his followers (from Fragment 2 of his writings): “For they say that all those of the first age, and the apostles themselves, both received and taught those things which these men now maintain; and that the truth of Gospel preaching was preserved until the times of [St. Pope] Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop in Rome from Peter, and that from his successor [St. Pope] Zephyrinus the truth was falsified.” So essentially, Artemon and his followers claimed some sort of “Great Apostasy” took place. Many protestants and others explicitly and implicitly claim essentially the same thing. Some will say it took place later than Artemon claims, but they ultimately agree with Artemon that it took place. The fact that these ancient heretics identified fidelity and lack of fidelity to the truth of the Gospel with the pontificates of various Popes implies that even in the 200s, they and others knew the Pope was not just an ordinary Bishop, but possessed some sort of higher authority. See: Dr. Alan Fimister, ‘The Iron Sceptre of the Son of Man’
I asked a Catholic one time if this verse was supposed to be him being made a pope, then why only a few verses later does Jesus say get behind me satan? The priest had no response for me. I find it odd that the guy who is supposed to be the head of christ on earth would be called satan
Good question! We as humans have weaknesses, one of which Peter displayed in Mt 16:22 by questioning Jesus & later by denying Him thrice. All popes are humans subject to weaknesses. However, on rare occasions, when teaching officially on faith & morals,they are protected by the HS from teaching error.
Can you do more short form videos like this on the topic of the views on the papacy by more church Fathers? And have you and redeemed zoomed talked about any collabs coming up?
Gavin is correct to use Retractions to show Augustine's final position -- because Augustine did seem to change his mind. But, Gavin leaves out an important point. He fails to cite the full text of the retractions which show that, while Augustine did ultimately opine that Peter is not the rock, but rather the confession is the rock, Ausgustine also says "let the reader make up his own mind." This shows that Augustine is admitting that either interpretation is possible and reasonable.
This is irrelevant. If Augustine opined that either was acceptable, his view would still consequently be a far cry from what Rome claims Christ was teaching matthew 16.
@@AnglicanCuriosity No? None of the Fathers support the interpretation that Matthew 16:18, even if it is interpreted as a reference to Peter, means that he held universal authority over the other apostles nor do they teach that those who would succeed him would have the same universal authority.
Peter received it first. 2 chapters later all the apostles were given it as equals. Thus you see that Peter is first among equals. That’s precisely how the bishop of Rome was intended to conduct his ministry to the church universal
The Apostles where given authority but none of them had the keys like Peter did. So your statement is false and not supported by scriptures. Please see Isaiah 22:22 as well to compare with Mat 16:18
Or is Jesus affirming Peter’s testimony or affirmation? Also later the apostle Paul had to correct Peter behavior with the Jewish dietary laws ! Lastly, there was no Roman Bishop (Papal) identity representative at some of the earliest councils.
Gavin, may I offer what I think is a way to move this debate forward? Discuss what you think Peter’s confession is. Is it merely the words that Jesus is the Son of the Living God? Is it “confessing Christ” in some generic, desiring to be Christian way? Is the Confession a stand-in for the Gospel as a whole? You gloss over this and I am starting to wonder if this is the real source of exegetical tension.
The Peter vs. Peter’s confession distinction is only useful as a disambiguation. Catholics constantly reiterate that the Pope is not infallible in his person, he is only infallible 1) representing/speaking for the bishops/teaching office of the church, and 2) speaking on faith and morals. This sounds a lot like the Pope only has this charism when, like Peter, he speaks in a “representational (I would say leadership/spokeman) capacity” and about matters of faith. Catholics don’t harp on this distinction because we aren’t making the confusion you are attributing to them not because they are. The role of offices in the church enter the argument for Catholics as a premise (one which Augustine accepts BTW). It isn’t proved by Matthew 16, and no one said it was. A proof text cannot prove every aspect of a doctrine.
Swim to what? Most Catholic intellectuals think the current pope is a heretic. That would indicate there's really no rock to swim to, that it's all just an empty ideal.
Reductionist protestantism works like this. Jesus said it to Peter, but then the Apostles but then all Christians. So there is no distinction its all the same. However there is a reason Jesus speaks to Peter in this way first and then all the Apostles then all of us. There is something in common for sure namely our Faith must be founded on the rock of Christ and we are infallible when in unity with the bishops and the Pope. However there is also something distinct ie the authority of Bishops and the authority of the Pope. Collapsing these diatinctions into a reductionist reading is not be faithful to Scripture and this is clearly seen in that Scripture has these three different instances. We must not collpase distinctions to form lowest common denominator theology.
Gavin cites (apologies if I missed any)...
1. 4:05, 5:52 - Augustine, _Retractions,_ 20.1
5:17 - Sermon 229
6:16 - Sermon 149.5-6
2. Scripture - Ephesians 2:20; I Corinthians 10:4; I Peter 2:8, Psalm 118:22; Galatians 2:9
3. 7:49 - Vatican I - _Pastor Aeternus_ 1.1-2
4. 8:18 - Hill, Edmund - _The Works of St. Augustine: v.1. Sermons on the Old Testament, 20-50_
5. 8:34 - Siecienski, Ed, _The Papacy and the Orthodox_ 116
6. 9:41 - Barth, Karl, _Church Dogmatics_ 1.1
Thank You John! You are a great Scribe! Blessings!!
Cited Barth. Immediately invalid.
(kidding, love Barth)
@onua3963 😂
@@jonhilderbrand4615 St Augustine was a Catholic bishop, he celebrated daily mass, administered confession, infant baptism, and every other Catholic sacrament and also had a high view of scripture which is very Catholic, he also submitted to the pope.
I feel it’s one things to cite certain individuals and Bible verses buts it’s another to represent their view correctly and appropriately
@@jonhilderbrand4615 the ones who claim baptism isn’t necessary for salvation have their citations as well, also the ones who say it’s necessary…
If you let Peter interpret Peter, we can see clearly what he understood in what Christ said,
"as lively stones, you are built up together as a spiritual house..." (1 Peter 2:5)
Christ is the living stone we are built upon. Our confession makes us a part of the house of God, and then we are built up together as co-confessors of that truth Christ preached.
agreed and throughout the NT the apostles are called the foundation as a collective. Peter is never given a greater place among the apostles.
@@thadofalltrades
Peter is referred to as a "so-called pillar of the church" in Galatians. But so were James and John in that instance. Seems as though Super Paul failed to recognize Peter as any singular Big Whoop.
It would seem as though Peter held prominence in the church, not preeminence.
God bless you pastor, sending love from Romania!
Now that Augustine called Peter Rocky, I'm imagining Sylvester Stallone in a Bible movie
Actually Rocky's box club in the movie was "Ressurection A.C."...
Rocky vs. Apollo Creed. Rocky vs. Apostles Creed. Rocky vs. Athanasian Creed. "Ain't gonna be no rematch."
I'd love that
@Zachymcsmacky I think Origen did too.
It blew my mind when I found out that the rock they were standing on was “the gate of hell”… Jesus essentially saying He’s starting His church on the front porch of Satan/the enemy and the gate is useless to stop the invasion. Major boss move and very loud and clear message to everyone who was standing there.
That’s the actual cultural, historical, geographical and religious context of that whole scene.
That's Dr.Michael Heiser's position as is mine.
@@davidjanbaz7728Yes sir… that’s where I learned it. 😊❤
No it's talking about the apostle He went out of His way to rename "Rock"
@@Testimony_Of_JTFhe renames Simon “Cephas” and then says “AND on this rock” so the case could be (and likely is) that he is talking about something separate. Jesus said he is the rock. He didn’t suddenly give that to Peter. Thats blasphemy. There was a deeper point to the renaming. Probably he was representative of Christ (just as all the Apostles) but was a leader of sorts. Not like a king or a president or a pope. But the rock the church is built in is certainly not Peter as is clarified later in the new nee testament and in other gospels. The catholics refusal to acknowledge scripture in its proper context and as your final authority has led to extreme biblical illiteracy
@ScribeAlicious In John 21:15-17 Our Lord is using singular verbs when telling Peter to "feed" His lambs, so clearly Our Lord is not asking the other apostles to do the same feeding (at least in the Koine).
Our Blessed Lord reaffirms Peter’s unique role in Matthew 17:27, where He tells Peter that his tax payment represents them both, insinuating that Peter is indeed His vicar (at the very least, on a legal level).
Luke agrees with the aforementioned in Acts 2:14 where it is written "Peter and the eleven". That's an odd way to refer to the apostles. I mean, if a band is called "Josey and the peppers" guess who's the lead singer?
Again, in Acts 15:7 Peter says that God chose "my mouth" which is singular... The scripture does not say God chose "our mouths" as in all of the apostles. It says "my" (μου) because Peter is referring to himself and only himself.
If you are still not convinced about the Petrine supremacy, when the apostles ask who's greater (Luke 22:24), Our Lord actually answers the question in Luke 22:31-32: *surprise* it's Peter. Again, in the original Greek, Our Lord claims to have prayed for Peter alone and not the other apostles, then He tells only Peter to strengthen his brothers. The Koine quotes Our Blessed Lord to tell Peter “I have prayed for ‘σοῦ’ (notice He doesn’t say ὑ̄μῶν)... that σύ strengthen your brothers” (notice He does not say ὑ̄μεῖς). Our Lord literally spells out to the apostles how singular Peter’s authority is over them, it cannot be more clear. So much so in fact, that when Clement of Rome decides who ought to be bishop in Corinth, no one bats an eye despite the apostle John still being alive. First century Chistians never questioned the successor to Peter having more authority than even a surviving apostle, thus to deny the papacy is to create your own brand-new version of Christianity, completely distinct from the faith of the first Christians.
Thanks for being a blessing to the body of Christ. You're very well needed in times like this ❤️✝️
I don’t think so
@TheresaCronin-kc6wz Keep thinking
He's distorting patristic texts to obscure church dogma while pushing for his own brand of christianity which has no apostolic lineage. not serving Christ
If he's wrong then he's keeping a lot of people from the Truth
@@EmmaBerger-ov9ni I agree and it's sad but we can't know for sure if he does it in full will or in ignorance. I empathize, there are many reasons to be dug into an ideology especially where changing your mind can cause massive ripple effects through your family and community. That being said, I have reviewed the same material and the arguments are simply preposterous. I have full faith that anyone doing the same and being genuinely open will all be convicted of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Great video as always brother! I always learn something I otherwise wouldn’t even think about.
Don't forget the following verse, protestants always have an answer about the rock but the following verse makes no sense in a protestant context :
Matthew 16:19
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
I always appreciate the nuance you bring to these topics Gavin!
Wow. I was JUST looking this up. It's crazy how this exact topic came up as a whole video.
Ask, seek, knock! ☺
Yeah, I was just wrestling with this the other day myself.
The algorithm is algorithming
Don't forget the following verse, protestants always have an answer about the rock but the following verse makes no sense in a protestant context :
Matthew 16:19
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
@@EmmaBerger-ov9ni most Protestants take Matthew 16:19 to apply to the episcopate in a broad sense rather than to the continual succession of a singular Peter figure. The Fathers (ergo, St. Irenaeus in Contra Haeresium) point out that numerous churches can trace their succession back to the Apostles in general and Peter specifically. To be true to the passage in particular and Holy Scripture in general, we Protestants must acknowledge the requisite existence of the episcopate in the church, but that does not compel the universal church to be subordinate to one earthly bishop. The only bishop qualified to lead the church in its entirety is Christ, which circles back to him being the rock.
Pope Hadrian in a letter to the 2nd Council of Nicaea also took the "confession" view of Matthew 16:18, describing Peter as "He, therefore, that was preferred with so exalted an honour was thought worthy to confess that Faith on which the Church of Christ is founded."
And if anyone needs it to support the papacy, it’s a pope.
@@OctagonalSquare The fact that there were historically Popes that exercised authority and Christians listened to them, albeit to sometimes relunctantly or with resistance, still points to that authority.
@@aloyalcatholic5785authority doesn’t equal infallibility. The pope is a legitimate authority but he has no capability to infallibility declare doctrine
Then there would be no point in listening to the Church at all. If the first council ever held on circumcision could have been wrong, then there would have been no point in obeying it. @@NyghtingMan
@@NyghtingMan So you're not Catholic?
But yuo see, Gavin, the magisterium cannot err, therefore even though nearly all early church fathers interpreted Matthew 16 as such the Roman Catholic Church can force a completely different interpretation of the passage and be correct. Checkmate
Only God can’t err … humans err everyday, especially the magisterium
@@rolandolugo5135 He was being sarcastic.
@@Spencizzle1 if he was than my apologies
Like Nicea 2 they can have errors in their reasoning but the conclusion is protected.
@@geoffrobinson That’s pretty spot on actually haha.
I like Heiser’s approach to this verse. Fighting right at hells door. And then the transfiguration immediately follows.
A key opens a door. And Peter accomplished that as documented in Acts. He opened the door to many unbelieving Jews with his discourse at Pentecost, the outpouring of the Spirit upon Samaritans, and the conversion and outpouring of the Spirit upon the first Gentiles with Cornelius and his family. Task accomplished and nothing more involved with it.
Later church fathers tried to generalize and add to what is essentially a very straightforward assignment from the Lord.
Add to that, Jesus says in Matthew 18 and that all the apostles have the keys
Let's be charitable to our RC brothers and sisters, folks. Protestants have made a lot of errors as well, and there's no need to become arrogant.
True but the RCC uses arguments like this to “prove” they have the “fullness of the faith” and “the Church JC started.” Seems arrogant to me.
@@lohi172 If anyone has the fullness of the faith, it is, beyond a reasonable doubt - not protestants lol. Protestants are just so individualistic. Maybe Gavin Ortlund has the fullness. But certainly not Protestantism as a whole. There's not tradition or history to even hold on to, because everyone is schismatic from the reformers.
@@lohi172 It can be, depending on what they mean by it. But it doesn't mean we should match someone else's attitude.
The issue becomes when they pronounce anathemas on anyone that doesn’t believe clear accretions. They claim infallibility on these clear accretions. It makes it difficult to find middle ground when the stakes are made that high. For example, they use this authority structure to declare anathema on anyone that doesn’t fully adhere to Marian Dogma. If they would make these beliefs less binding then it’d be easier to find unity.
@@loganpeck5084 True but I don’t think Gavin’s arrogant. Maybe some people are here but it seems mostly civil.
Thank you for so much clarity.
It would be helpful to present the other side of St. Augustine’s interpretation.
“Number the bishops from the See of Peter. And, in that order of fathers, see whom succeeded whom. This is the Rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer.”
Erick Ybarra has a great article in which he affirms both the diffusive understanding of Mt 16:18 by the fathers and then shows how the same fathers interpret Mt 16:18 with Peter as the rock, his primacy among the apostles and bishops, etc…
Can you point to anyone that said "rock" referred to an office or position of ultimate authority?
@@ReformingApologetics Sure, here you go:
Origen (c. 184-253)
“Peter, upon whom the Church is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail…”
(Commentary on Matthew, 12:10)
Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200-258)
"There is one God, and Christ is one, and there is one Church, and one chair founded by the voice of the Lord upon Peter. Another altar cannot be constituted or a new priesthood made, except the one altar and the one priesthood."
(On the Unity of the Church, Chapter 4)
Tertullian (c. 155-240)
“Was anything hidden from Peter, who was called the Rock on which the Church would be built, who obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?”
(De Praescriptione Haereticorum, Chapter 22)
Jerome (c. 347-420)
"But you say the Church is founded upon Peter, although the same thing is done in another place upon all the apostles, and all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends equally upon all the apostles. Nevertheless, among the twelve, one is chosen that he might be placed as the head over the others."
(Against Jovinianus, Book 1:26)
Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-395)
“Peter was declared blessed by the Lord and placed in charge of the foundation of the Church... He is called the rock of faith, the base of the faithful, the foundation of the Church.”
(Against Eunomius, Book 4:13)
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215)
"For Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with Himself the Savior paid the tribute..."
(Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?, Chapter 21)
Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202)
"The blessed apostles, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him Clement..."
(Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3:3)
Hilary of Poitiers (c. 310-367)
“Blessed Simon, who after his confession received the keys to the kingdom of heaven and was appointed the rock of the Church.”
(On the Trinity, Book 6:20)
Firmilian of Caesarea (c. 200-268)
“The power of binding and loosing was given to Peter alone, and the Church was established upon him as upon a foundation.”
(Epistle to Cyprian, 75)
He literally just did
Uh, no.
@@ReformingApologetics Ok, never mind. Here, let me give you one of hundreds of examples:
Council of Sardica, Canon 3c: if a bishop is convicted of an offence by a verdict in a case, and if the convicted bishop objects to the verdict and seeks recourse by asking for reconsideration, then the bishops who judged the case - the trial court - should "honour the memory of St. Peter the Apostle" and write to the bishop of Rome about the case;
The authority of The Bishop of Rome comes from St Peter, the Rock of Mathew 16.
"For, if the order of bishops succeeding to each other is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'” - St Augustine.
Our encyclopedia of Popes actually has a list of Roman Bishops going back to Peter all 266 of them when they can provide one then maybe we will take them seriously Augustine says that’s how we know who is that Catholic Church without a list they aren’t even in the discussion
gavin mentioned that he was referencing Augustines "mature" thoughts. Gavin mentions mature since he is aware of thoughts that pose differently to the idea he is speaking here but was spoken/written earlier than what Gavin is claiming his more matured view.
@@TheOppiterAugustine never retracted Peter having a list of successors to his Chair just changing his views on how the rock can be understood you conflated 2 different issues
@Ty9001 Not trying to start an argument, just curious about your thoughts:
Why would having an unbroken chain of Romans bishops make you more apostolic than a church that teaches apostolic doctrine but doesn't have an unbroken chain of Roman bishops? I think Gavin makes a fair point here.
Shouldn't doctrine matter more than who is teaching it? Though I guess if the presumption is that the Church is inerrant than that changes the answer. Either way, God bless!
@@Ty9001 providing an alternate Pope usually results in several decades of brutal warfare. That was the point of the Reformation: to distribute power so that only Christ can lead His church in its entirety. Producing an alternative Pope is antithetical to Protestantism. Producing a completely different form of governance with God as Father, Son, & Holy Spirit as the true head was the aim.
Just like we've seen in recent times with Pope Benedict and Tikon of Moscow: the only leader of the Church who cannot be leveraged out by the forces of corruption is Christ. The view of Peter as Rock leads us to an earthly man who can be circumvented quite handily. The view of Christ as Rock, the chief cornerstone, leads to a Church that is as undying as Christ.
Good video, clear explanations, thanks!
One thing that came to mind as I was watching was Peter's own writings in 1 Peter 2:5, where he calls the believers he's writing to "living stones" in their own turn. Christ is the Rock, Peter is rocky, and we also have a calling to be stones.
It’s been a long time since I looked it up in a lexicon, but as I recall, Christ is the Rock, a large boulder. Peter is a stone, like a fragment that was chipped off the boulder, which makes him one of the stones. This is due do the way the masculine and feminine genders of petros and petras, respectively, are used. Illustration: Petra, the mountain fortress.
@@ricksonora6656Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock and Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
Dan, yet, Jesus Christ refers to Himself as a mere servant as well! Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock and Jesus promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God! Even many Protestant scholars attest that Peter is the rock on whom Jesus built His Church!
"Peter is the Shepherd of the Universal Church ", ( John Chrysostom). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is is true food and Blood true drink!
@ If you could argue Rome’s claim from scripture, you would. But you have to argue from opinions of later authorities. That doesn’t cut it.
The worse error is your claims that Jesus did not give any of the authority to others, which the video already refuted, and you represent an order to serve as permanent, heritable authority, which is a straw man.
Even Protestants miss this: The keys of the kingdom wet used in accordance with the outline in Acts 1:8 and fulfilled in chapters 2, 8, 10, and 19. The kingdom and the gift of the Holy Spirit has been opened to all. The keys have served their purpose. The kingdom does not require perpetual opening.
Thus always with Rome. Sigh.
@ricksonora6656 i agree, why listen to fallible and unnecessary Protestant Pastors like James White and Gavin Ortlund, when we have the infallible Holy Scriptures?
Again, yet even many Protestant scholars attest that Peter is the rock on whom Jesus built His Church, as too many Church Fathers! Plus, you bear false witness against me, as I never stated that Jesus Christ did not give any authority to the other Apostles! I simply stated what Holy Scripture teaches, that Jesus Christ promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God! "Peter is the Shepherd of the Universal Church ", ( John Chrysostom).
"Peter that great Rock and firm foundation ", ( Ambrose). Protestants are so entertaining! Scripture ALONE is infallible as they claim, until of course they provide their own infallible interpretations! So entertaining are so many Protestants! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!!
Good video, very thoughtful!
Great video, Gavin. Thanks brother!
From St. Jerome:
Commentary on Matthew 16:18
"But you say that the Church is founded on Peter, although the same is elsewhere attributed to all the apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends equally on them all; yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head is appointed, the occasion of schism is removed."
Letter to Pope Damasus
"I speak with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the cross. I, following no one as my chief but Christ, am associated in communion with Your Blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church is built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Whoever is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails."
Good quotes. They all receive the keys of the kingdom through Peter
@@Testimony_Of_JTF Yes, but Peter as the head, where there is no schism. Who sit in the chair of Peter according to Jerome? Pope Damasus, bishop of Rome.
I'd want to look at Jerome again to be sure, but all of those things could be affirmed by Cyprian, who explicitly does not think that Peter had any greater power or authority than the other apostles. That is, that Peter was singled out specifically to indicate a principle of unity. The chair of Peter is applied to those who are successors of the apostles generally; not solely to the pope-Peter in Matthew 16 is in some way representative of the whole apostolic college.
@@BernardinusDeMoor There is NO collective chair of Peter .. and ONLY Simon had his name changed .. That's what I would call a unique and singular privilege .
@@paulywauly6063 It's pretty common among the church fathers to take Matthew 16 as treating Peter as a representative, and as signifying unity in the church, but not as actually conferring any special power or honor upon him. Cyprian, one of the earlier fathers, and in the west (North Africa), and so under the Roman patriarchate, says this explicitly. (Yes, you'll see RC apologists (mis)use Cyprian's quotes. Amusingly enough, some of the things they'll use are literally where he says this, because people don't read the context or try to understand his full position, but pattern-match it onto something modern.)
Is there a reason why I shouldn't follow the common patristic position that Peter is here acting as a representative here, without attributing to him personally special power?
Yet another thought-provoking video by Dr O. Thank you for directing your torrent of edifying output our way.
I learned a lot in such a short span. Love this. Feel free to exposit little chunks of text whenever you wish, especially with a historical lens.
Don't forget the following verse, protestants always have an answer about the rock but the following verse makes no sense in a protestant context :
Matthew 16:19
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
@ he addressed that part as well. I’m guessing you didn’t watch the video.
I was just working through this passage in my devotions yesterday. What great timing! Thanks for the helpful video which reinforced the conclusions I drew.
I was just looking through the comments on one of Trent’s videos and comparing them with the tone of the comments here and wow, the clear, seething hatred many Catholics have for Protestants is concerning. Meanwhile people in these comments aren’t making extreme jabs at Catholics
@sinkingrock. Institutions demand conformity to survive
The word of the Lord stands forever
Unless you consider protestantism itself as the extreme jab 🙂
Have you seen the hate many Protestants have for Catholic Church too, to be fair? Both in this channel and in Trent's channel? It goes both ways. If you notice, Trent defends the Catholic Church while Gavin attacks the Catholic Church as false. Trent does not make his channel about pointing out falsehood in other denominations. Whereas this channel is about pointing out falsehood in Catholic or Orthodox Church. How about pointing out some of your own falsehood as well? Oh no, you can't say your church is infallible right? That sounds like Catholics. 😂
@ you’re kinda proving my point. You jump straight to assuming worst of intentions in my post and left no room for nuance. This channel isn’t purely dedicated to falsehoods in Catholicism, though that’s a big topic. Mainly because many Protestants who trust that Christ is their Lord who died for their sins are being told by many Catholics online that they aren’t true Christian’s or that they aren’t truly saved and it’s causing a ton of distress. For what it’s worth as well, yeah that’s gonna be a bad seed in the comments here and there regardless the channel as well. But you look at the comments on any given video if Trents and compare with any given video from Gavin and there’s no denying that the group spewing more unnecessary hatred as a whole is Trent’s community
@ and I never, ever said I believe Protestants are infallible and perfect. No, no, no. Far from it, and I’m more than willing to admit that and point that out. We have plenty of issues that need correction and redirection. But the fact you made that assumption based on my comment, which had nothing to do with that, again proves my point that it seems many Catholics assume worst intentions for Protestants. But again, for sake of nuance and clearly I need to spell every little thing out, that does not mean Protestants don’t do that for Catholics too. Sometimes even worse! But the ratios just seem different based purely on anecdotal evidence I’m seeing in the comment sections.
I found it interesting that Peter denies Christ after the events in Matthew 16. To me that makes it quite clear that Peter is still capable of sin, is fallible, is flawed, and that there was not some mystical transference of infallibility taking place there.
However, if we look to John 21, we find that after Christ's resurrection He does come to speak to Peter and to re-instate him. While I see absolutely no evidence for Peter holding an office of leadership that can be passed on, it is quite clear that Jesus is giving him a role of leadership here, as He tells Peter to "feed my lambs", "take care of my sheep" and "feed my sheep".
I do find the typological argument of Peter being a representative of the whole Church interesting, and I think it makes his close relationship with Christ, as well as his denial of Christ, all the more poignant. It really shows that struggle that we all face in our servitude to Jesus; that while at times we are close, and we always see Him as our friend and master, that we can still make mistakes, we can still sin, we can even get caught up with the madness of the world and deny Him, at least in our deeds if not in our words. Despite this, Peter is his own person, and Jesus does give him duties that he does not specifically to give to the other disciples; not necessarily in Matthew 16 (as these privileges are given to all in Matthew 18), but arguably in John 21. I want to caveat that I do not see this as creating the position of the papacy; but perhaps it is a blend of these two verses that informs the RC position? That Peter is going to be leader due to John 21, and that he has the power to bind and loose as shown in Matthew 16; so if Peter passed on his position of leader, or caretaker of the lambs, that it would be done in heaven as on earth; is that the logic?
We could also interpret the passages about being a caretaker for Jesus' sheep as not a unique office, but rather something that all the other disciples knew they were to do; while at this point Peter is 'estranged' from Jesus after having denied Him 3 times, and that Jesus is simply re-instating the role that he had before as one of the disciples. In other words; Peter is not being given unique power, he is simply being returned to his old position, where he was equal in authority with the others. The purpose of John 21 then could be more to do with redemption than it is about creating an office; that Peter, despite failing Jesus with his three denials, is readily welcomed back by Jesus, showing that our Lord is loving and merciful, and that even when we fail Him, we can always return to Him and He will welcome us with open arms, and restore us; much like the story of the prodigal son.
We as humans have weaknesses, one of which Peter displayed in Mt 16:22 by questioning Jesus & later by denying Him thrice.
All popes are humans subject to weaknesses. However, on rare occasions, when teaching officially on faith & morals,they are protected by the HS from teaching error.
@@geoffjs Could it be argued that God can speak through any one of us though? Even if not all of us, certainly ALL of the twelve disciples. If we look to Mark 13:11, Matthew 10:19, etc, we see Christ gathering the twelve disciples and telling them not to worry about what to say in advance, but that the Holy Spirit will be sent and will speak through them.
Clearly when God is speaking directly through us, as shown in those passages with the Holy Spirit, our words ARE infallible. They may not be recognised by latter generations as having been directly from God; but they still are.
I think this actually can happen with all Christians, but even if not; it certainly applies to all the Apostles, Peter is not singled out for this.
So why do RCs specifically set out Peter and his successors as the only ones who can speak infallibly? If we understand that the Holy Spirit can be sent to speak through people, could not any Christian hold that power, or at least any Apostle? Other Apostles also held, at least according to traditions, certain Sees, for instance Alexandria is cited as being of Mark; by the logic that you argue the successor of Peter/Rome can speak infallibly, could we not also argue that the successor of Mark/Alexandria can speak infallibly?
This is all very interesting to think about. For my own view, I think God can at times speak through all people, and at times does send the Holy Spirit to speak through Christians when something important needs to be said. I think the way we can tell if it is from God or not, is to test it against the Scriptures. If it is supported by the Scriptures; it could very well be from God. If it goes against the Scriptures; it is not from God.
This would also be my reasoning for rejecting certain ideas from the papacy. While I do not know if Mary was assumed into heaven, and the Bible says nothing about it; I do know that my salvation is not dependent upon believing that Mary was assumed into heaven, because the Bible says a LOT about what is required for salvation, and it never mentions that. Therefore, when the RCs try to anathematise people for not believing Mary was assumed into heaven; I can be certain that they are wrong.
EDIT: I used Mark in one of my arguments above, but Mark is not an apostle/disciple so some might argue that Christ's teaching that the Holy Spirit will speak through them may not apply to him. However, James son of Alphaeus or James the Lesser is, and the apostolic see of Jerusalem is traditionally given to him, so the same argument can be made that James is a disciple and apostle who holds a bishopric and incontestably can speak infallibly should the Holy Spirit speak through him as Jesus stated will happen in Mark 13:11 and Matthew 10:19, so the same argument holds that Peter and Rome should have no greater authority than James and Jerusalem based upon the logic above.
@@geoffjs Was Francis's blessing of same sex couples not a teaching on faith and morals? Did he get that right?
During Vatican I, Archbishop Kenrick of St. Lewis discussed the research of Catholic Scholar Jean de Launoy in opposition to papal infallibility.
Launoy found that in 80% of cases this passage is discussed, Peter himself is not viewed as the rock by the early church.
Kendrick ultimately accepted V I's decision to make papal infallibility dogma.
@ of course he did, but that’s not the point
Did they do an analysis on the meaning of the keys and whether Peter alone holds them or if Peter holds them primarily?
@@MusculusPulveri Well it kind of is the point, because it implies that Kendrick didn't find Launoy's argument totally persuasive.
@@joeoleary9010During the First Vatican Council, Archbishop Kenrick opposed the doctrine of papal infallibility, which stated that the Pope is free of error when pronouncing dogma. Archbishop Kenrick argued that papal infallibility would keep non-Catholics away from the Church, cause a schism within the Church and could not be declared infallible until the bishops of the world agreed on the matter at hand. Kenrick was in the minority opinion and his views were not accepted by the majority.
The confession is the rock/foundation of our faith. Jesus and Peter are the rock in maintaining that foundational notion of our belief.
@roman727 - Peter as rock has lasting role - see Joshua 24:25-28 to **witness against those who don't hold to it**
I'm familiar with the Catholic interpretation of this passage and a general Protestant interpretation, but haven't seen it fleshed out like this. Thanks Gavin.
I love the appeal to exegete Matthew 16 alongside the rest of the NT rather than resting everything on this obscure passage. I say this all the time when speaking about this verse.
And, here I thought the scriptures were perspicacious.
@mwidunn The perspicuity of Scripture does not teach every Scripture is clear... only that the message of salvation is clear enough in Scripture to be known. 👍
You only have to look at the same passage of Scripture to be very wary of jumping to conclusions and the need to handle metaphors very carefully. In the same narrative Jesus calls Peter ‘Satan’!
Another
Against the Letters of Petilian (Book 2:51)
"Come, brethren, if you wish to be engrafted in the vine. It is grievous to see you lie cut off from it. Count up the bishops from the very seat of Peter, and in that order of fathers see who succeeded whom. This is the rock against which the proud gates of hell do not prevail."
And Cyprian says things like this while believing Peter was equal in honor and power to the other apostles. This isn't the strong quote you think it is.
@Gavin Ortlund What are your thoughts on Michael Heiser’s interpretation of the rock passage:
“This passage [Matthew 16:17-18] is among the most controversial in the Bible, as it is a focal point of debate between Roman Catholics and Protestants. The former argue that Peter is the rock upon which the church is established and thus the passage makes Peter the leader of the original church (and the first pope). Protestants insist the rock is a reference to God on analogy of passages like 1 Corinthians 10:4.
Both of these traditional understandings are incorrect. The reference to the rock is the place where they are standing-Caesarea Philippi at the foot of Mount Hermon. The apostate King Jereboam built an idolatrous worship center there (1 Kings 12) and the city adopted the worship of Baal practiced by the Canaanites since the days of Joshua in their city Baal-Gad (Joshua 11:17; cp. Judges 3:3). In Jesus’ day, Caesarea Philippi was also called Panias, having been dedicated to the worship of Pan.
When viewed from this perspective, the scene takes place on geography considered the gates of hell in Old Testament times, the domain of Baal, the lord of the dead, and at the mountain where the plot of the Watchers was hatched. Hell, of course, wouldn't be complete without the devil. It is well known to scholars that Baal is the Old Testament counterpart to the devil. In Ugaritic, one of Baal's titles is ba al zebul ars (Prince Baal of the Underworld"), from which the New Testament Beezebul and Beelzebub derive. This isn't about who gets to be pope (or not). Its a cosmic confrontation, with Jesus challenging the authority of the lord of the dead” (Reversing Hermon, 95)
This one has me scratching my head
@@michaelbush1374 The episode referred to was featured in the most recent Chosen series.
@@joeoleary9010 I just started watching that!
Woah 83k! Praise God for growth
Very helpful! Thank you!
I don't think this issue is clearly as "representative" as one might think on the surface. As someone who was raised Reformed Baptist, I respect you a ton so I really don't want this to come off rude! These quotes below seem to lean in the other direction so I would say that a both/and approach to the text is the most appealing.
“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.” (Saint Augustine, Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18, GCC 51 [A.D. 393]).
“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: "Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!" (Letter 53, St. Augustine)
Gavin misrepresents church fathers an awful lot. Saint Augustine did not disbelieve in papal authority like he is trying to say. Saint Augustine accepted a papal mission from Gregory the Great in his lifetime and also wrote what you quoted above, as well as more. So trying to say Protestants are in agreement with Augustine in their view of church authority is wild.
And what are you drawing out of those quotes exactly? Neither of those imply anything like Vatican I.
@@truthnotlies It's not a misrepresentation. Gregory himself said the pope was the leader of the bishops and that he ought to be able to be held accountable by them; that he did not have monarchial authority over them. This is Augustine's view, and TBH, Martin Luther's, at least at the time the Lutherans wrote the Treatise on the Papacy.
If Rome was to say, the pope is the leader but the papacy is not infallible and he can be overruled by the church as a whole (e.g. by the assembled bishops), I'd say: right, there's the #1 obstacle to unity removed.
You forget the following verse : "Matthew 16:19
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’"
@@EmmaBerger-ov9ni he didn’t forget that part. The point of the video was “who is Jesus giving the keys to” Peter, in confessing Christ, representing all the apostles.
@joshuareeves5103 that doesn't change the problem, it doesn't make sense in a protestant context. Who can bind and loosen? Where is that heavenly power? If you believe it's the apostles who have that key, then their successors have it today too, that's apostolic succession.
@@EmmaBerger-ov9niexactly. It really can’t be more clear. Not to mention that Saint Augustine has some very clear statements on his position of the papacy
“I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.” (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, 5)
“There is one God, and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the voice of the Lord, which the gates of hell shall not overcome.” (Sermon 131, 10)
"It is to the authority of your [Pope Zosimus] holy see that we are all bound by the bond of love." (Letter 174)
In Matthew 18:18 Jesus refers back to the power to bind and loose and he makes it clear that it belongs to all the Apostles, not just Peter.
@@chrisdoe2659 I am not saying it refers to just Peter, I agree it refers to all the apostles too. So who has that power now?
Great work, thanks.
Hey Gavin, i do have an honest question for you. Are you sure you are not coordinating with Trent Horn's video on Sola Scriptura? Both of you have a picture of Augustine, and it looks eerily coincidental how you guys post these videos so close in time with each other
just a coincidence, haha! Sola Scriptura and Matthew 16 are different topics, too.
But wait there is more from Augustine:
Sermon on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul (Sermon 295)
"For Peter himself, in many places in the Scriptures, appears to represent the Church, especially in that place where it was said, 'I give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' What, therefore, was given to Peter alone was given to the Church."
Isn't this just what Gavin is saying?
Greater Rock and lesser rock is a very good distinguishment. Just in the Greek when Jesus says, 'You are Peter' he uses a Greek word for a little stone and the word "rock" that the church is built on is 'petra' which is basically a mountain or craggy hill.
It is interesting that whenever this text is used as a proof, the context is largely ignored. I'm thinking specifically of the fact that right after calling Peter a "Rock" for the church, Jesus calls him "Satan" for his unbelief. It is an interesting way that Matthew unfolds this comment, as if he is trying to make it clear that Peter can be either a rock for the church or a satanic influence on her depending on his confession.
I've noticed that too. In both instances, Jesus is making distinctions. The first being that "hey Peter, your name is rock, BUT i don't wanna confuse you when I say this, I will build my church on your declaration of faith that I am the Christ." Paraphrasing, of course. The same can be said about Him calling Peter Satan.
Don't forget the following verse, protestants always have an answer about the rock but the following verse makes no sense in a protestant context :
Matthew 16:19
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
@@EmmaBerger-ov9niwhat do you mean that Protestants don’t have an answer for that? Ortlund literally addressed that in this video. Jesus in some verses shortly after gives the same authority and keys to the kingdom to all of the 12, not Peter alone.
and after he is called Satan and denied Jesus three times . He still leads the early church and Acts and is called Peter.
@TruthUnites Great inciteful video! Have you seen any clips of the recent discussion between Voice of Reason and Ruslan KD? It would be interesting to see a breakdown of their discussion on church attendance
Nice!! Glad to agree with Augustine. You defend protestantism intelligently, pastor😊
Augustine is not prot btw.
@@igorc.2245technically no one was at that time because the Roman Catholic church hadn’t schismed away from the true remnant yet that was preserved in Luther.
Do you also agree with Augustine on:
1. The canon of Scripture
2. Purgatory
3. Intercession of saints
4. Baptismal regeneration
5. Sacrificial offer of the Mass
6. Authority of the Sacred apostolic tradition
7. Authority of the Church
8. Sinlessness of Mary
9. Perpetual virginity of Mary
10. Mary’s bodily assumption into heaven
11….
?
@@thejerichoconnection3473 not everything but like the RCC does you also don’t prescribe to everything he nor any church father claimed. Do you agree with Augustine on slavery being ok and unbaptized babies go straight to hell - not limbo. Also where does Augustine talk about Mary’s bodily assumption? That is a genuine question
Weirdly St Augustine accepted a papal mission from Pope Gregory the Great... Doesn't really sound like he did not believe in the authority there.
Both interpretations-Peter as the rock and his confession as the rock-emphasize essential truths about the Church’s foundation. The Church is built on the revelation of Jesus as the Messiah and the leadership established by Jesus Christ (the head of the Church, the rock, and the cornerstone) through Peter.
St. Augustine’s writings reflect this balance. While he sometimes interpreted the “rock” as Peter’s confession of faith, he also recognized the importance of Peter’s role and the authority of the Bishop of Rome. This dual understanding enriches the theological significance of the passage (Matthew 16:15-19).
Both aspects are seen as complementary rather than mutually exclusive.
Would St. Augustine affirm the papacy?
Yes, St. Augustine did affirm the papacy. He recognized the authority of the Bishop of Rome and the importance of apostolic succession from Peter.
One Jesus. One Universal Apostolic Church. Amen
Excellent!
I was hoping you would do a video on Matthew 16 and 18. Thank you!
To my Catholic brothers and sisters... is the absence of the papacy (and the theological framework that accompanies it) from scripture at all concerning to you? I understand the 3-leggeed stool of Catholicism but you'd think Scripture, especially Peter himself, would have much to say about the single most important office of the Church. As I've read through scripture, here are some points on the matter I have jotted down. Curious to hear your responses. Thanks and blessings.
- The papacy is never mentioned in the writings of Paul, John, James, or Jude.
- Papacy is absent from Peters own letters
- No mention of the papacy or it’s theological framework in any pastoral epistle despite their extensive instruction on ecclesiastical matters
- No mention of the papacy or it’s theological framework in any of Paul’s letters despite their extensive systematic instruction on how to live a Christian life
- Peter never refers to himself as pope but rather calls himself an elder (1Peter 5:1)
- Peter never refers to himself as pope but rather calls himself an apostle (1Peter 1:1, 2Peter 1:1)
- Peter never claims primacy
- Peter gives no indication of papacy, in fact when Cornelius fell at his feet Peter says “Stand up; I too am a man”. He puts himself equal to Cornelius. He certainly does not exercise papacy. (Acts 10:25-26)
- Peter gives a beautiful sermon in Acts 2: quotes scripture, calls for repentance, say Christ forgives sins, and we are told 3,000 souls were saved that day. Where is Catholic theology in any of this? Where is the papacy, the warnings of purgatory, the foundation of papacy and apostolic tradition, etc?
- 2 Peter is sometimes seen as a farewell discourse as he knew his death was imminent. He reminds his followers of his teachings, commands them on how to live, and makes future predictions. This is his last chance to influence and guide his followers thereafter; not a single mention of his papal office, papal succession, or anything remotely close.
- In 2 Peter one of the major themes was false teachings vs Gods prophetic word. If the papacy and apostolic succession was Christs’ implementation to preserve and protect the truth of the Church as Catholics claim, are we not alarmed by its absence and omission from the first Pope?
I would love to see a reply your question. I think you raise excellent points particularly in reference to Peter's own words from 1 and 2 Peter. I would add that Peter does use the stone imagery even quoting Psalm 118 and refers to Christ as the cornerstone and the "rock of stumbling", and all believers as the stones that comprise the "spiritual house".
@@davidbartlett6746 Yup. I actually have like an entire page worth of similar points but figured these get the idea across well enough.
Excellent points. I genuinely desire intelligent debate vs. the vitriol and triumphalism here
I too await a reply.
@sharplikecheddar2 - Peter and the others KNEW exactly what JESUS meant at Mat 16:18 when HE also 'set THIS witness stone' (Peter/Rock) JUST like his forefather Joshua did (Joshua 24:25-28) set THIS stone/rock as witness that "HEARD God's Word and is to **witness against those who don't hold to it** , a permanent forever role/office!
It was TO PETER at Mat 16:19 that Jesus handed the 'keys of the kingdom' . . . Just as our Lord clearly once did to Eliakim in Isaiah 22:15-24 even saying "he will be AB[papa/father] to the people"v.21"
It was TO PETER at John:21:15-25 that Jesus said 'FEED MY LAMBS' . . .!
It was to Peter that JESUS said at John 21:15-25 to 'shepherd HIS flock'!
Scripture SHOWS us at John 21:11 that it was PETER **ALONE** who dragged the net (filled with every kind large fish) landing it on dry ground to the feet of Jesus - all without a single tear!
It was TO PETER at Luke 22:32 that Jesus told "Strengthen Your Brothers" . . .
Jesus even did all this KNOWING that Peter was not without personal fault!
By Jesus word @ Mat 20:26-28 Peter KNEW that He would be a SERVANT LEADER,
which is why YOU will not find ANY example in scripture of Peter 'Lording over others' & 'flaunting authority' = apparently the only definition of 'leadership' TO YOU that you demand scripture produce for you to submit to the authority Jesus established ?? ;)
@@garyr.8116 When you say, “Peter and the others knew exactly what Jesus meant” please be specific. Are you claiming they “knew” that Peter was being appointed to a church office that would serves for generations to come, be capable of infallible teaching, and have universal jurisdiction over the church on faith and morals? How are you arriving to that conclusion based on any of the verses you provided? Or are you simply saying that Peter seemed to have an authoritative status?
Joshua 24:25-28 - I am not sure I am following your point with this scripture reference. Are you contending that the people Joshua was leading away from Pagan practices “knew” that the stone which bared witness was representative of Peter and a future papacy/ permanent office? 9 times in Joshua we read of stones being used for various purposes. Are all 9 times symbolic of Peter and the papacy? What about all the other OT references to stones and rocks, all Peter? Help me understand how this passage is leading you to Peter and a “permanent office” and how the pagan people of that time “knew” this.
Your other examples follow much of the same reasoning. You seem to argue that any verse directed at Peter unequivocally means Peter/papacy and that everyone “knew” this. But you are not providing any evidence or scripture to bridge that gap. Scripture is littered with verses addressed to specific people for specific reasons… like when Jesus called Peter satan for example… that doesn't mean they are to be taken as theological frameworks and I'd need the exegesis that get’s us there, not mere presuppositional claims.
“apparently the only definition of 'leadership' TO YOU that you demand scripture produce for you to submit to the authority Jesus established”
Again, a claim without any evidence and a red herring at that. That is not my definition of leadership nor is it my prerequisite for submitting to authority.
It seems important that Christ only changed Peter's name, not the names of the other Apostles. He could have used the term "Peter" to refer to all Bishops, or all Christians, but did not.
This suggests that it is important for there to be a concrete, personal guardian of the confession, which is in danger of being corrupted or diluted by lies & sin. This is what Catholics believe about the office of the Papacy.
@huntersmith4201 - we are clearly shown that in scripture, JESUS also 'set THIS witness stone' (Peter/Rock) JUST like his forefather Joshua did (Joshua 24:25-28) set THIS stone/rock as witness that "HEARD God's Word and is to **witness against those who don't hold to it** , a permanent forever role/office!
Grace to you. Gavin
"In reaction to Cardinal Guidi's insistance that before issuing a definition, the pope must investigate the tradition of the church, Pope Pius broke out with the famos words, "I am tradition! I am the Church!" - John W. O'Malley, Vatican I: The Council and the Making of the Ultramontane Church, p. 212.
Thats a lie!
@@evanzanyswer6295nope he really said that
Pope Pius was only stating long established Catholic doctrine -- the living pope is the *only* arbiter of the meaning of Catholic tradition, teachings, doctrine and worship. There is no one in the church or in the past that has authority over the living pope. This is the practical application of Matthew 16:18 as the RCC has always understood it.
@@joeoleary9010 What do you make of Constance and Basel's decree in Haec Sancta that the council has its authority immediately from Christ, and the pope has to listen?
@@BernardinusDeMoor I think Haec Sancta is stating a presupposition of the definition of a pope: It's always assumed that a pope is acting in the best interests of Christ's church. My point is even many Catholics aren't aware that there's no loophole in Catholic teachings that allows the laity to deem the pope a heretic. Even the bishops can't do that. The proof of that is in the history of the church. 2000 years of Catholic history, even including "bad" popes, not once have the bishops ever vetoed or deposed a pope.
St Augustine:
"For, if the order of bishops succeeding to each other is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus... and so on to Anastasius, who now sits in the same place."
@@duckgrow he says in the video this last exegesis of Augustine is a result of multiple retractions. This was the last statement giving from him on this topic. So no, you're wrong
@@jj4829they don’t read the full body of work or listen to entire videos. They just copypasta Catholic answers and Trent Horn.
As Ortlund said in another video “there’s a lot of cope in the comments”
@@duckgrow …except that what Gavin cited was from his retractions, where he deliberately rejects the interpretation that modern RCs favor, saying that he was wrong to say something more like that earlier.
If you have something after his retractions, I'm all ears, but stuff earlier should be considered in light of his later rejection of it.
@@ScribeAlicious I am a protestant and I think the Catholic Church misuses tradition. However, what the universal church has universally believed throughout the centuries is important to consider.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
Edit: I just now realized you meant this specific tradition. Nevermind lol
@@ScribeAlicious Is taught by the Church.
I find it interesting that we are knit-picking interpretations of the text.. I wonder if you could grant that it would be POSSIBLE (not even probable, but possible), that the Church’s interpretation of this specific text is correct..?
The RC position is possible but unlikely.
@@mikeoxmaul1788 Without lies, Protestantism dies!
@ I respect that position.
@ I can respect that position even tho I disagree with it.. only slightly though. I would claim it’s more-likely-than-not that the RC position is true and fitting..
@@sloanjackson8 the RC views the papacy as a Salvation matter. If that was in reality the case there would be no disagreement among the church fathers about the interpretation of the passage as they would have known the fait of the worlds souls rest on it.
Gavin, thank you for your time and much needed attention to Matthew 16. Some of your readers should revisit [1Peter 2] from verse 4 onward. Pay special attention to the "living stone(s)" being built up, "the Stone the builders rejected", a "rock" of offense- the "Cornerstone"- lots of analogies for this word "petros". When it doubt, cling to this: On Christ the solid Rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand. Gavin, can you please do a video on the artifact publicized by the Frankfurt Archaeological Museum (December 2024), called "The Frankfurt silver inscription"- the engraving wrapped in a small silver amulet that scientists date back to between 230-260 AD? Thank you in advance!
😃
Agreed that the primary aspect of the passage is the confession of Faith and rightly confessing the Rock Christ. The Church is founded in a double manner though. Primarily the true confession of Faith, but also it is founded on the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20), that is men as well as doctrine. Christ is the chief cornerstone as God-man and not only as doctrine. So, both the confession is needed as well as the human foundation in a hierarchal manner because the Church is not founded on all the faithful as a collective, but on the apostles and prophets. The giving of the "keys" is important to draw this out because the authority and decisions to bind or loose can only be exercised by a man and not the doctrine as doctrine. Thus, St Peter is called rock after the Rock Christ and St Peter must both confess Christ as Rock in the true sense and, with the confession, be a rock on which the Church is founded. This foundation is to continue from generation to generation, so both the Faith, or more fully the Apostolic Tradition, must remain firm as to the men upon whom the Church is built from generation to generation, the successions of the ordained priesthood, that is bishop and presbyters. St Peter is singled out as a point of unity for the apostles both each has the keys in whole and not merely in collective but only in union with each other. Thus, there is a continuing need for sees of unity among the bishops, which converge to one See, the one Petrine See, which is in three bishops, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, with Rome standing first of these. To be in the Church, one needs both to have the Faith of St Peter as well as be founded on St Peter in the hierarchal sense. As St Ignatius of Antioch says, the Church is where the bishop(Christ) is with the presbyters (Apostles) and deacons and apart from these nothing can be called "Church'. Because the Faith is first and humans err, it is not on any hierarchy of bishop and presbyters that one is united to the Church, but only on that preaching and preserving the Faith or Apostolic Tradition without change, and that recognised by the Petrine See, which forms a tighter more protected core of stability to unite the churches, but nevertheless is still bound to preach the Faith truly and bishops of these sees can err, St Peter himself denied Christ, and be cast out, even if God preserves one or the other in the Faith just as He preserved and restored St Peter despite the denial.
Gavin could you rebutt Trent's recent video of "The Fallacy of Sola Scriptura?" Thank you
To your first reference of Mathew 16 vs Mathew 18. One is giving the authority to Peter as an individual and the other is giving the authority to a grouping of bishops (this is how the magisterium has always worked).
Also, if Augustine is how you draw your arguments, then quote all of Augustine including the more direct quotes on the matter…
"For if the order of bishops succeeding to each other is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'"
(Letter 53, to Generosus)
"There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church... the succession of priests, from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate."
(Against the Letter of Mani, 4:5)
"Peter, because he was the first among the apostles, and a zealous lover of Christ, was frequently spoken of as representing the whole Church."
(Commentary on Psalm 108)
"Among these [apostles], Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. On account of that representation which he alone bore, he deserved to hear, 'I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven' (Matthew 16:19). For these keys, not one man, but the unity of the Church received."
(Sermon 295)
"He [Peter] represented the Church universal. When it was said to him, 'I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by various temptations."
(Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5)
"Peter is named after the rock, not the rock after Peter. Peter was called from the rock; the rock was not called from Peter. And upon this rock the Church is built, which the gates of hell do not prevail against."
(Sermon 26.1)
"Peter was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by more abundant grace the first and chief apostle. But when it was said to him, 'I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' he represented the whole Church, which in this world is being loosened from sin and bound by godliness."
(Sermon 229M)
"If you are not in the body of Peter, you cannot have the keys of the kingdom. For Peter represents the Church as a whole, and it is the Church that has the authority to forgive sins."
(Sermon 295)
"Rome has spoken; the case is closed (Roma locuta est; causa finita est)."
(Sermon 131:10)
Great video Gavin. Thank you.
Question: Can you address the arguements made against Protestants concerning the canon (namely the "You all use our canon and say it's authority is infallable, but not the authortiy of those who canonized it" argument)?
I have thoughts but would enjoy hearing your opinions.
It's okay if we have a fallible list of infallible books. We can recognize the wisdom and diligence of those who were in the early church attempting to discern what is in the canon without thinking that they're infallible.
@BernardinusDeMoor Agreed.
He has done so. He looks back to figures like St Jerome and Cyril of Jerusalem, they give us the same Canon that the Hebrews followed, also with the book of Baruch and the letter to Jeremiah which was included in their book of Jeremiah, though the Hebrews did not necessarily have it. Jerome makes clear those are the Canon, and the others are less important; Cyril flat out tells us not to read the apocryphal books. Cyril also goes on to say that those were the books handed down by the Apostles and the bishops of old.
Martin Luther when retrieving the Canon went to what the Hebrews read due to his awareness that the RCs had made a lot up and written fraudulently, which is not to say everything out of the RC church is bad, but just that at his point in time it was difficult to trust what came from them, they were known to justify un-Biblical practices by just making stuff up; so he went to the Hebrews, figuring their Canon was far more likely to be pure and not altered for political reasons. The difference between the books he included, and those we are told by Cyril that the Apostles and Early Church read, is Baruch and the letter of Jeremiah. I did read Baruch and the letter of Jeremiah out of interest recently, I did not see either posing any problemsfor a Protestant; Baruch takes place during the Babylonian exile, and is telling the Hebrews that they deserve to be in exile, that they are being punished for their sin, and that they must repent. There is also an allusion to Jesus coming to save the world at one point. The letter of Jeremiah is very short, and is just on the idols in Babylon, saying that they are just lifeless wood and metal and there's nothing to fear or respect about them. I do not see anything supporting any of the RC or EO dogmas that Protestants traditionally disagree with, and there's not really anything new that is not found in other books, especially the Prophets. They are very short, I'd recommend giving them a read for yourself.
So the Protestant Canon is, according to Jerome and Cyril, the Canon that the Apostles followed. The Apostles did also read Baruch and the letter of Jeremiah, though there is noting that will change any Protestant perspectives in those two, and the reason why Martin Luther may not have deemed those Scripture is because he was going by the Hebrew Canon, which separated them from the book of Jeremiah, while Jerome and Cyril and the Early Church included them within that book.
Hope that helps! You can read these for yourself if you look up Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical lectures 4, right at the bottom between point 33 and 37 he has a bit 'Of the Divine Scriptures' where he lays this out. I cannot find the quotes by Jerome at the moment, when I google it just comes up with lots of Catholics trying to downplay his opposition to their Canon, I'm sure you can find it with a little digging but its time for me to have breakfast. God bless!
Your explanation makes the most sense in the full context of Scripture. When you accept "Development of Doctrine" it's amazing how elaborate and expansive a doctrine can become from just a single passage. While, in this instance it applies to the Roman Catholic Church, it can often apply to many branches of the Church, i.e., Pentecostal, EO, etc.
Yet, Protestantism, on other occasions denies the development of doctrine such as Marian devotion. Quite frankly, I’m tiered of the hypocrisy!
@@geoffjs It obviously developed; the question is just whether it's faithful to the apostolic faith. A bunch of the things are intrusions from gnostics and elsewhere, not apostolic in origin.
@@geoffjsIt's 'tired'. And also the Marian dogmas contradict clear scripture !!!
@@BernardinusDeMoor Of course Marian devotion was apostolic! Read the early fathers!
@@geoffjs In general you can find it. I meant things like the assumption.
Former Roman catholic here. The Papacy and Purgatory are the tw major issues I have with Catholicism. Thank you Gavin
Did you ever have any concerns with the veneration of Mary or icon veneration as a Catholic?
@turkeybobjr yes I definitely did. Especially the dogmas of the immaculate conception and assumption.
@@omarvazquez3355 Was it a gut feeling that, even though they argued valiantly for it, something just wasn't quite right about it?
@@turkeybobjr Yes. And also some of the alleged quotes from Mary like "Through the scapular and the rosary I will save the world."
Interesting!
The amount of hate towards Catholics in this comment section is sad.
Look up 3 comments from this comment in the newest comments… I haven’t seen any hate like that from any Protestants here.
@Clifford777 yea thats pretty sad he feels the need to comment in such a way. Seeing comments like "I can hear the romans crying already" is also sad and doesn't help move the conversation
@@A-ARonYeager true brother, I appreciate your desire for edification and I myself love my Catholic and orthodox brothers / sisters in Christ deeply!
Have you seen the one cursing the Satanic “sola Scriptura” confessors.
It’s sadly going both ways here
@Thatoneguy-pu8ty real charitable on both sides. If there's anything Jesus wants, it's for us to yell at each other online...
Love your channel-I hope you know some Catholic apologist somewhere is gonna have a field day with you saying "Peter is Rocky"😂 though
Thanks! Just quoting Augustine! :)
Yeah to me the argument that “the rock is Peter” never made sense and it makes less sense when we see in the rest of Scripture that when someone is referred to as the rock it is always referring to, and I’m pretty confident on this, YHVH or Jesus Christ. Verses like 1 Samuel 2:2, Psalms 18:2-3, Deuteronomy 32:4 and many others. I actually made a video on this subject because the study itself is fascinating in Scripture. Great video as always Gavin and Merry Christmas to you and to your family!!
It makes perfect sense when you realize Jesus would be speaking Aramaic. "Simon, you are 'Kepha' and on 'Kepha' I will build the Church." And also reading Matthew 16:19- Jesus literally says 'you.'
Why did Christ changed Simon's name to Peter?
Yet JESUS also 'set THIS witness stone' (Peter/Rock) JUST like his forefather Joshua did (Joshua 24:25-28) set THIS stone/rock as *witness* that "HEARD God's Word and is to **witness against those who don't hold to it** , a permanent forever role/office!
Notice the literary artistry of the 3 blessings given to Peter in Matthew 16:
- Blessed are you (a unique blessing, positive affirmation)
- You are Peter and on this rock.... (highlighting to Peter his task). Jesus was speaking in Aramaic to Peter. The name Cephas is a form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.”
- I will give you the keys (positive affirmation/instruction) which is why we know it's a man and not a 'deposit of faith'. You have to give the keys to a man - a steward and not 'an intellectual idea'.
Yet Jesus also gives the keys to all of the 12 shortly after. So it wasn’t exclusively Peter.
@@c2s2942 what other verse states KEYS given?
@@c2s2942 In Matthew 18 Christ does indeed give the other apostles the authority to bind and loose but not the keys. It is Peter therefore, who uniquely occupies the role of the 'prime minster' (with the other apostles being his 'ministers'). This is a reference to the Davidic Kingdom (see Isaiah 22 for context). So the king (Christ) holds the keys of the kingdom, but he delegates his power on earth to the steward (Peter) and the keys of the kingdom are the symbol of this delegated authority. Hence, from the very beginning, Peter was regarded as 'first among equals' amongst all the apostles/bishops. We also see in John 21 that Jesus once again gives his pastoral authority to Peter with three solemn commands: “Feed my lambs, take care of my sheep, feed my sheep.” The Catholic Church teaches that the three strands of rock, steward and shepherd are woven in and through the whole of Scripture, coming into focus when Christ hands his authority on earth to Peter, until He comes again at His Second Coming. Hope this makes sense. I was born and raised Protestant but once I studied the Catholic Church there was no going back - I had to be in the Church that Christ started. The other reason was the Eucharist but that's a whole other conversation! God Bless.
Notice what is lost! The keys! Gavin says thatvin matthew 18 the binding and loosing is noted in respect to all apostles. He says that Christ is also a rock. True, true. But conveniently drops the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and therefore loses the overall sense. Think about what it would mean for you to give your car and house keys to someone, thats what Jesus did with Peter. Always look fot what Gavin leaves out as he walks you down the protestant path!
As far as I know, the job of an apostle is to personally know Jesus face-to-face, and give, testimony, give confession of the truth about Jesus, to others.
So this posture of yours makes total sense. Otherwise, as you say, apostolicity is threatened.
This constant quote mining of the fathers has become frankly unbearable.
For any of Augustine’s quotes that seem to support the Protestant position, there are 10 that totally destroy it.
The fathers have written tons of tractates throughout their lives sometimes even contradicting themselves. You cannot pick one random quote and conclude that Augustine believed X.
You must consider the entirety of Augustine’s works and beliefs and ask yourself: did he sound more proto-Protestant or Catholic?
If you are honest, the answer is obvious. What are we even talking about?
Proto Protestant absolutely.
Augustine is quoted incessantly by Calvin.
Luther was an Augustinian Friar.
The strong Monergism of Protestants is Augustinian.
@ the fact that Calvin misused Augustine to invent his theology is irrelevant.
Augustine believed in:
1. OT canon including deuterocanonical books
2. Purgatory
3. Sacred oral apostolic tradition
4. Binding authority of the Catholic Church, founded on the rock of Peter
5. Real presence in the Holy Eucharist
6. Baptismal regeneration
7. Confession to a priest
8. Sacrifice of the Mass
9. Seven sacraments
10. Sinlessness of Mary
11. Perpetual virginity of Mary
12. Mary’s bodily assumption
13. Intercession of the saints
14. Prayers to the saints
15. Prayers for the dead
16. Etc etc etc
For some reason, these “proto-Protestants” look unbelievably Catholic.
We can't believe that Augustine taught that all unbaptized babies go to hell? Scholars would disagree.
As an Orthodox Christian this did NOT surprise me!! Don't make assumptions young Ortlund. Time for you to stop following the traditions of men, which is what all Baptists and protestants do - and join the Church founded by Christ ☦☦☦☦☦☦☦
You follow traditions that are 100% not in the Bible or the Early Church. Protestants test EVERYTHING against the Bible. The Bible is our greatest resource for determining what is or is not a tradition. That does not mean there cannot be traditions that were not recorded, however; if a supposed tradition is ever contradicted by the Scriptures, we should assume that the tradition became distorted or misremembered, much like the date of Easter did very early on, because the Bible is our best record, and is infallible.
We follow Christ. You follow men who claim to follow Christ with varying degrees of accuracy; some most assuredly do, some might do and its difficult to judge, some do not, at least in certain regards. In Protestant circles, we argue that concepts like the veneration of icons are not found in Scripture and point to what the Bible teaches on idolatry; the EOs will bring up fringe arguments relating to the bronze serpent or the ark of the Covenant, which we would again are different and should not be used as justification for all icon veneration; however, I will concede that we cannot conclusively prove that you are wrong here.
We can conclusively prove that you are wrong about anathematising people who do not practice icon veneration though, because while the Bible may not explicitly tell us what are accepted and not accepted forms of worship in reference to icons; it does explicitly and meticulously tell us what our salvation is dependent on. It is achieved by grace through faith, accepting that Jesus is our Lord and Saviour, and accepting Him as our Passover Lamb, who died in our place, and took our punishment, and therefore paid the wages of our sin; if we accept His gift and follow Him, we shall have our sins forgotten, and we shall be with Him in paradise. The Bible is very clear that we will not be separated from Christ because we did not venerate an icon, or because we never kissed a Slavic man's ring; those are nonsense traditions made up by men, and are in clear contradiction to the teachings of Christ and the Holy Bible.
The Short answer is yes, he would.
Glory to God
Every time that you hear anti-Catholic rhetoric, ask yourself who are “Protestants” in protest against. Sorry prots, The Catholic Church was the only one founded by Christ, and Saint Peter was the first Pope. (And it’s Saint Augustine, not “Augustine”.)
The Catholics are the first protestants, against the Eastern Orthodox. But seriously, the first Christians were Baptists. The other groups came out of them 🤔
@@jonasaras Or Jesus was the first Protestant (against Judaism). Or Paul was the first Protestant (against the apostles who actually lived with Jesus. The "old school new school" or "orthodoxy reform of orthodoxy" dynamic has been a part of religion since religion began.
I know this is completely irrelevant but the video commentary on The Silent Planet is missing
Peter’s name means stone/rock in Greek (Petros). Why did Jesus change Simon’s name to Peter? There has to be a reason.
Great video!
According to Protestant logic, he was trying to mock him. There’s no other explanation.
Because there was another Simon among the apostles and he wanted to be able to talk about them each without causing confusion.
@@HSuper_Lee and why Rock? Now it's causing more confusion because Protestants always say Jesus is the Rock Now you have two rocks now.
As a Protestant, I’ve wondered this too. I think there is a connection between this and what happens on the Galilee shore in John 21, where Jesus restores Peter after His Resurrection. Jesus had a very clear mission for Peter as leader of the Church, but was it as Jesus’ earthly representative? Supreme Leader of the Church? I am not sure.
@@AbetTorontoAdventure He also called James and John the sons of thunder. Should we therefore assume that when Jesus returns with a voice like thunder that James and John will be speaking for him?
Well we know as a matter of historical fact that while Augustine didn't have a Vatican 1 understanding of the Papacy he nevertheless did view the Pope as a unique Petrine leader of the Church and not simply equal with the other Bishops. The Pope for Augustine was the "apostolic see" with a special and unique authority. Also - re: Matt 16:18, the categories of singular and collective are not mutually exclusive. Peter can be both representative and head.
Rome has spoken.
@charlesjoyce982 I assume you are referring to the sermon where he says something to that effect, ie, "letters have been sent to the apostolic see, the matter is closed." That whole incident is worth studying. Augustine's conflict with several Popes concerning Pelagianism reveals multiple things. First, Augustine feels no need to bow the knee to Pope Zosimus when he feels Pope Zosimus has erred. Second, Augustine nevertheless sees the Pope as a unique Petrine authority in the Church and not simply equal to other Bishops.
@@taylorbarrett384 yes, thats right.
Augustine expressed frustration with Zosimus, but not open rebellion of any sort. This frustration is further evidence that Augustine knew the importance of the Pope's leadership.
@@charlesjoyce982 Well he did reject Zosimus' ruling quite openly, along with a council of African bishops, who together rebuked Zosimus and contradicted him - even when Zosimus had invoked his petrine authority to make the ruling. So we cannot say Augustine and these African Bishops held to Vatican 1. But they certainly didn't think the Pope was merely another Bishop, equal to all the others in every way. The Pope did possess a special and unique Petrine authority in the Church.
Sure, everyone recognized that Rome had primacy. That's not controversial. That's just extremely different from Vatican I's claims.
I'm Orthodox, but i have to say the catholics have the right interpretation of matthew 16. Yes christ and peters confession play a role as the rock in varying degrees, but the factor that simon had his name changed to Peter is the important part. Everytime in the entirety of scripture when God changed someones name it shows the role that character has in the biblical narrative....now where the papacy went wrong is going from supremacy to infallible. The first millennial papacy had more peoer than the rest of the bishops as someone who would settle disputes and such, but not the pwoer grabs he was making leading up to the schism.
The doctrine of papal Infallibility was defined at Vatican 1 in 1869. 800 years after the schism.
If you're gonna say papal infallibilty is made up, then it wouldn't be at the schism. It would be during the 19th century.
Actually you stating that there's evidence of papal Infallibility during the schism in 1054, gives evidence to the supremacy of the successor of Peter has always been within the Church.
Peace, brother in Christ. Let me know what you think.
That's actually the chief complaint that the Lutherans make in the Treatise on the Papacy. It was that he ought to be able to be held accountable by the church at large or at least the bishops.
@@ratatoskr9366 Maybe I didn't speak well, I understand papal infallibility wasn't defined till Vatican 1. I'm saying we see the power consolidation starting around the time of the franks, and I think they used the disagreement over enzymes and the filioque as further justification for the pope taking more power than he had previously. Yes I believe the pope has supremacy, and not just a seat of honor, but nothing like the put forward in Vatican 1. I don't like the handpicking of cardinals and just other ecclesiastical stuff they do.
St. Augustine quote:
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
St. Augustine emphasizes the importance of apostolic succession, particularly the line of bishops of Rome starting from Peter. Augustine highlights that Peter, appointed by Christ, was succeeded by Linus, then by Clement, and so on. This succession is seen as a safeguard for the true teachings of the Church, contrasting it with the Donatist schism, which lacked such continuity.
Any rational person that studies the history of Papacy would never conclude it a blessed and holy office
Thanks for trashing 2000 years of saints.
@ seriously?
The history of the Papacy is one of corruption and wickedness!
The papacy has a history of bribery, extortion , I could name dozens of popes that were more corrupt and unbiblical than American politicians. Including Francis .
Emotional blackmail.@@thejerichoconnection3473
@@thejerichoconnection3473 how do you know they were saints? Only those who born again by an act of God and nothing else are saints and you can’t guarantee that they were all born again .
Some of them acted like devils!
@@thejerichoconnection3473 He's got a point. It's pretty sordid. Many saints suffered (were "trashed") under the frequent corruption of Rome.
Ortlund! Thanks for the many, many, many, many, many, many naff adverts! great stuff.....if you love lots of tedious commercials.
No one loves commericals, which is I and thousands of others have Ublock Origin on my extensions.
Had to watch it twice. Too much info for 11 mins
Gregory the Great:
"Who could doubt that the Church is made firm by the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles, whose name is derived from a rock, and who was called Peter because he was the first to establish the foundations of faith?"
I am sorry - but God established the foundations of faith! When Peter confessed who Jesus was - Jesus said Peter only knew who Jesus was because GOD had revealed it to hime No one who comes to faith in Christ can do so unless God revealed the truth to them! Our understanding and our faith is a gift of God.
@@mikekayanderson408 This does nothing to disprove the former. Everything comes from God obviously.
Gregory the Great says that whoever calls themselves things which, it turned out later popes used, the forerunner of the antichrist. I don't think he's the guy you want to trust here.
Gregory the Great was adamantly opposed to a monarchial papacy. He insisted that the authority of the church was held by the bishops collectively. Martin Luther even called him the last good Pope on that basis.
Ireneaus:
"the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority"
Authority's a bad translation there. The latin is principalitatem, if I remember correctly, which a good bit broader of a word than authority-"firsthood" could work, perhaps, which is notably less than jurisdiction (and could even be referring to it being the capital of the Roman empire, I'd imagine). There's also a bit of that quote that you didn't include there about how it's because apostolic traditions from elsewhere should be gathered in Rome. It's not ascribing some power to it. For more on this, see Edward Denny's excellent book Papalism.
The early church definitely needed unity as it was a brand new faith with a lot of heresy from different groups. Has nothing to do with whether the Roman Catholic Church should have supreme authority today. Ireneaus’ opinion is not scripture and it’s very possible that opinion would be different had he known the history of the last several centuries. Many of the beliefs the Catholic Church hold now weren’t the position of the CC at the time or Ireneaus
As I watched this video, it just occurred to me that there is another passage in which Christ talked about "Rock" and "building"-the passage He portrays that man as wise who hears His words and does them. And the first step towards hearing Christ is accepting Him as Whom He claims to be, which is Precisely the Messiah, the Son of God and Son of Man of Daniel (or else, why should we listen to Him, much less do what He says?). So, in the other passage in which Christ talks about rock and building apart from Matt. 16, acknowledgement of Him as the Messiah appears again. And so, it strengthens the case that the Rock has to do with acceptance of Christ as the Messiah.
Great video as always, Gavin.
If Peter isn't the rock, then Jesus changed his name to rock in the same passage for absolutely no reason.
So ,u equate Petros Masculine noun to Rock feminine noun.
Doesn't even make sense from the language.
It's a play on words by Jesus to emphasize that the Rock of the pagan worship site would NOT be able to resist the kingdom of God coming in the Church of Christ.
Peter is this small Rock that will inisiate this with his Preaching on the Day of Pentecost.
@davidjanbaz7728 A few noteworthy points:
1. The normative rendering of the word is the feminine. Matthew (or the scribe who translated it to Greek) would have known this, and also would have known it's not normal to refer to a male with the feminine word, hence the change to the masculine when plainly referring to Peter.
2. Most New Testament scholars agree that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek. So the Petra/Petros distinction wouldn't have been in the original writing.
3. Jesus spoke Aramaic, and in Aramaic, the ONLY way to say "rock" is Kepha. So he would have used the same word twice, "You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church." And ironically, Cephas (the transliteration of Kepha) is exactly what Paul called Peter.
4. You didn't address my point. Every single time someone's name is changed in scripture, it marks an extremely big transformation in the person renamed. You're saying Peter IS the lone exception. This mean Jesus changed his name for no reason in the exact same passage where he said he would build his church on the same word Peter's name was changed to.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Jesus did not call him Patricia... any Greek speaking person would tell you this
@@davidjanbaz7728 A few noteworthy points:
1. The normative rendering of the word is the feminine. Matthew (or the scribe who translated it to Greek) would have known this, and also would have known it's not normal to refer to a male with the feminine word, hence the change to the masculine when plainly referring to Peter.
2. Most New Testament scholars agree that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek. So the Petra/Petros distinction wouldn't have been in the original writing.
3. Jesus spoke Aramaic, and in Aramaic, the ONLY way to say "rock" is Kepha. So he would have used the same word twice, "You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church." And ironically, Cephas (the transliteration of Kepha) is exactly what Paul called Peter.
4. You didn't address my point. Every single time someone's name is changed in scripture, it marks an extremely big transformation in the person renamed. You're saying Peter IS the lone exception. This mean Jesus changed his name for no reason in the exact same passage where he said he would build his church on the same word Peter's name was changed to.
@@davidjanbaz7728 A few noteworthy points:
1. The normative rendering of the word is the feminine. Matthew (or the scribe who translated it to Greek) would have known this, and also would have known it's not normal to refer to a male with the feminine word, hence the change to the masculine when plainly referring to Peter.
2. Most New Testament scholars agree that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, not Greek. So the Petra/Petros distinction wouldn't have been in the original writing.
3. Jesus spoke Aramaic, and in Aramaic, the ONLY way to say "rock" is Kepha. So he would have used the same word twice, "You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church." And ironically, Cephas (the transliteration of Kepha) is exactly what Paul called Peter.
4. You didn't address my point. Every single time someone's name is changed in scripture, it marks an extremely big transformation in the person renamed. You're saying Peter IS the lone exception. This mean Jesus changed his name for no reason in the exact same passage where he said he would build his church on the same word Peter's name was changed to.
Okay, let’s unpack some things (as the Kids say):
(1) So, the Fathers were not generally concerned with interpreting Mt. 16 in terms of “Petrine Ministry” or Papal Primacy or whatnot. And, why would they? Was that an issue? Did the Fathers generally talk about the Homoousion or Filioque or Hypostatic Union before those became issues?
(2) Gavin’s somewhat selective in how he presents Dr. Sieciesnki’s work (08:36). What THE CONTEXT of Dr. Siecienski’s comments is: Neither Catholics (who argue Peter had a specific role/ministry in the Church apart from the other Apostles) nor Orthodox (who say Peter was no different and wasn’t the Church’s exclusive foundation) recognize *that that type of issue was not on the Fathers’ radar when they were commenting on Mt. 16* . That was not their focus. But, Gavin removes this context and presents Siecienski as implying that the Church Fathers did not see a “Petrine Ministry” AT ALL in Mt. 16.
(3) Notice what Siecienski’s quotation says: “…with few exceptions…” The devil is in the details, . . . which means that there IS Patristic evidence then for seeing a “Petrine ministry” in Mt. 16. Just not a lot or universally.
(4) Gavin is also selective with his use of Origen. Perhaps, he should have looked at his Commentary on John (5.3) in which declares: “And Peter, *on whom the Church of Christ is built,* against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left only one epistle of acknowledged genuineness.” He should also read further into Origen’s Commentary on Matthew (bk. 13.31), where he describes Peter’s commission of binding and loosing as different and superior (!) to that of other Christians.
Michael S. Heiser said that the rock is Mt Hermon, because that was the mountain where they physically were when Jesus said this. Mt Hermon was considered the gates of Hell because it was a primary place of pagan sacrifice. According to Heiser, Jesus was making a declaration of war against the pagan gods.
That’s much more likely than the Roman Catholic interpretation. Spiritual geography.
@@KnightFelMike was vehemently opposed to interpreting stuff from 2nd Temple Judaism using Christian lenses from the 2nd-4th centuries. A time period far removed from the contemporary realities in which New Testament Scripture was written.
Yup… the rock they were standing on was essentially the front porch in front of the gates of hell… setting up shop on the enemies doorstep was the ultimate boss move.
Would he affirm credobaptism if we wanna be spineless?
If sola scriptura, then why apostles talk?
Is that question supposed to make any sense?
Huh??
@@raphaelfeneje486 Sarcasm
@@MrSeedi76 Sarcasm
LOL
That was excellent. Peter denied Jesus three times and then repented obviously. I consider that also weighs on his confession and adds to the argument. What is a key thing that the church does or ought to do is help people overcome unbelief.
Also Gavin, I really do love your work and you're one of the best defenders of Protestantism out there, but please, please do a video on Jimmy Akin's argument for Matthew 16 where he breaks down the structure of the passage to show how it logically follows that Peter is the rock.
Um, then why did Jesus (Mk. 3:16), Paul (Gal.), and John (1:42) call him "The Rock"?
In a sermon to his flock, Augustine informed them that the pope had ratified the condemnations of the Pelagian heresy pronounced at the councils of Milevi and Carthage. He said
“The two councils sent their decrees to the Apostolic See and the decrees quickly came back. Rome has spoken, the cause is finished.”
(Sermon 131:10).
Augustine was commenting on the authority of the pope and the fact that councils of the Church are authoritative only if approved by the bishop of Rome.
In the 13th century, as Byzantine polemics against the Apostolic Primacy increased, the Angelic Doctor St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out the disastrous consequences of negating the Petro-centric structure of the
Hierarchical Church:
"And while they deny that there is one [visible] head of the Church, that is to say, the Holy Roman Church, they manifestly deny the unity of the Mystical Body, for there cannot be one body if there is not one head, nor one congregation of the faithful where there is not one rector. Hence, 'there shall be one flock
and one shepherd."
(Contra Errores Graecorum, Part lI).
The logical result of denials of the Catholic dogmas of Papal Primacy and
Infallibility has been, sadly, the abandonment of traditional ecclesiology stressing the visibility and infallibility of the hierarchical Church.
The witness of the great Eastern Saints of the "undivided Church" similarly refuted the pretensions that only an empty "primacy of honor" was envisaged
by the famous Petrine texts (Matt. 16: 18-19; Luke 22: 31-32' Jn. 21: 15-17) which singled Peter out to be the Rock-foundation of the Church, the Holder of the Keys of the Kingdom, the Confirmer of his brethren and the Chief Shepherd of the Church after Christ's Ascension into heaven.
In a magnificent passage, St. Maximos the Confessor (622 AD), one of the greatest of the Byzantine doctors, thus defended the prerogatives of the Roman Church watered with the blood of the Chief Apostle:
Patrologia Graeca Vol. 91, Pg. 137ff
"For the extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of our fathers, according to what the six inspired and holy Councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith.
For from the coming down of the Incarnate Word among us, all the churches in every part of the world have possessed that greatest church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ our Savior, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it possesses the Keys of right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High."
The witness of the pre-Schism Popes, Fathers, and Councils (whatever the historical and theological difficulties encountered) was overwhelming in their cumulative impact as supporting the dogma of Papal Primacy as defined in the decrees of Vatican I.
-Dr. James Likoudis, ‘Eastern Orthodoxy and the See of Peter’ Pg. 12
(Find on app: Scribd)
ANCIENT HERETICS CLAIMING THE PAPACY CORRUPTED THE GOSPEL: OLD NEWS
Heretics have often claimed the Pope corrupted the Gospel. We have documents as ancient as the 200s showing this, specifically the heresy of a certain Artemon. Caius the Presbyter notes of him and his followers (from Fragment 2 of his writings):
“For they say that all those of the first age, and the apostles themselves, both received and taught those things which these men now maintain; and that the truth of Gospel preaching was preserved until the times of [St. Pope] Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop in Rome from Peter, and that from his successor [St. Pope] Zephyrinus the truth was falsified.”
So essentially, Artemon and his followers claimed some sort of “Great Apostasy” took place. Many protestants and others explicitly and implicitly claim essentially the same thing. Some will say it took place later than Artemon claims, but they ultimately agree with Artemon that it took place.
The fact that these ancient heretics identified fidelity and lack of fidelity to the truth of the Gospel with the pontificates of various Popes implies that even in the 200s, they and others knew the Pope was not just an ordinary Bishop, but possessed some sort of higher authority.
See:
Dr. Alan Fimister, ‘The Iron Sceptre of the Son of Man’
The difference is that Catholicism accepts multiple interpretations of the verse whereas Protestants can't accept the rock is Peter.
Catholicism accepts multiple meanings of matt 16:18, as long as the main meaning is that it confirms the papacy and apostolic succession.
Boss video
I asked a Catholic one time if this verse was supposed to be him being made a pope, then why only a few verses later does Jesus say get behind me satan? The priest had no response for me. I find it odd that the guy who is supposed to be the head of christ on earth would be called satan
Good question! We as humans have weaknesses, one of which Peter displayed in Mt 16:22 by questioning Jesus & later by denying Him thrice.
All popes are humans subject to weaknesses. However, on rare occasions, when teaching officially on faith & morals,they are protected by the HS from teaching error.
@@geoffjs Then what happened to Pope Honorius I? Was the Holy Spirit on vacation during his tenure?
@@joeoleary9010 As I said, there have been bad popes but none have officially taught error in faith & morals as the HS protects His One True Church!
Can you do more short form videos like this on the topic of the views on the papacy by more church Fathers? And have you and redeemed zoomed talked about any collabs coming up?
Gavin is correct to use Retractions to show Augustine's final position -- because Augustine did seem to change his mind.
But, Gavin leaves out an important point. He fails to cite the full text of the retractions which show that, while Augustine did ultimately opine that Peter is not the rock, but rather the confession is the rock, Ausgustine also says "let the reader make up his own mind." This shows that Augustine is admitting that either interpretation is possible and reasonable.
This is irrelevant. If Augustine opined that either was acceptable, his view would still consequently be a far cry from what Rome claims Christ was teaching matthew 16.
@@jeremybamgbade
If we are trying to establish what Augustine's views were then it is certainly relevant.
@@jeremybamgbadeBut does it all boil down to Augustine?
@@AnglicanCuriosity No? None of the Fathers support the interpretation that Matthew 16:18, even if it is interpreted as a reference to Peter, means that he held universal authority over the other apostles nor do they teach that those who would succeed him would have the same universal authority.
@ Do you mind providing references?
Peter received it first. 2 chapters later all the apostles were given it as equals. Thus you see that Peter is first among equals. That’s precisely how the bishop of Rome was intended to conduct his ministry to the church universal
The Apostles where given authority but none of them had the keys like Peter did. So your statement is false and not supported by scriptures. Please see Isaiah 22:22 as well to compare with Mat 16:18
@@a.ihistory5879 The standard patristic interpretation is that he received it representatively, and so it is common to the whole church.
Or is Jesus affirming Peter’s testimony or affirmation? Also later the apostle Paul had to correct Peter behavior with the Jewish dietary laws ! Lastly, there was no Roman Bishop (Papal) identity representative at some of the earliest councils.
Gavin, may I offer what I think is a way to move this debate forward? Discuss what you think Peter’s confession is. Is it merely the words that Jesus is the Son of the Living God? Is it “confessing Christ” in some generic, desiring to be Christian way? Is the Confession a stand-in for the Gospel as a whole? You gloss over this and I am starting to wonder if this is the real source of exegetical tension.
The Peter vs. Peter’s confession distinction is only useful as a disambiguation. Catholics constantly reiterate that the Pope is not infallible in his person, he is only infallible 1) representing/speaking for the bishops/teaching office of the church, and 2) speaking on faith and morals. This sounds a lot like the Pope only has this charism when, like Peter, he speaks in a “representational (I would say leadership/spokeman) capacity” and about matters of faith. Catholics don’t harp on this distinction because we aren’t making the confusion you are attributing to them not because they are.
The role of offices in the church enter the argument for Catholics as a premise (one which Augustine accepts BTW). It isn’t proved by Matthew 16, and no one said it was. A proof text cannot prove every aspect of a doctrine.
C’mon Gavin. Swim the Tiber. The water is nice. Turbulent, but nice.
He needs to come to Wittenberg
Swim to what? Most Catholic intellectuals think the current pope is a heretic. That would indicate there's really no rock to swim to, that it's all just an empty ideal.
Reductionist protestantism works like this. Jesus said it to Peter, but then the Apostles but then all Christians. So there is no distinction its all the same. However there is a reason Jesus speaks to Peter in this way first and then all the Apostles then all of us. There is something in common for sure namely our Faith must be founded on the rock of Christ and we are infallible when in unity with the bishops and the Pope. However there is also something distinct ie the authority of Bishops and the authority of the Pope. Collapsing these diatinctions into a reductionist reading is not be faithful to Scripture and this is clearly seen in that Scripture has these three different instances. We must not collpase distinctions to form lowest common denominator theology.