THIS is Why Catholics Follow The Pope (And you should too)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- The Bible & the Pope: Did Jesus Choose Peter as the First Pope?
Why Do Catholics Have a Pope?
Where is the Pope in the Bible?
Do the Church Fathers Accept the Pope?
Where does the Pope Come from?
Is the Pope in the Bible?
Catholic here! Have questions about the papacy's biblical roots? This video dives deep into Scripture to explore how Jesus entrusted a special role to Peter, the first pope. We'll see how that leadership continues in the Church today, drawing on the beliefs of the early Church Fathers. We explore typology, Church Fathers, and the Gospel to conclude that Peter was the first pope and had successors all the way down to Pope Francis.
This video is designed for:
Catholics wanting a deeper understanding of the papacy's biblical foundation
Protestants or anyone curious about the historical development of Church leadership
Viewers interested in Peter's role in the early Church and the Church Fathers' perspective
Discover how the Bible and Church history support the papacy!
#catholicism #bible #papacy #christianity #churchhistory #churchfathers #petroleader #firstpope #scripture #earlychurch
References:
docs.google.co...
docs.google.co...
There is only one authority and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. If the catholic church would be true teachings would not change. But the teachings and rules change by the counsils. Theology changes, but God never changes.
The Church became what it is, inside the Church. Non-Catholics disagree wherever two or more are gathered 💫
The Church's teachings do not change. However, they may be expressed differently or emphasized more depending upon the needs of the people being governed.
did you even watch the whole video?
In OT it says explicitly TO repay eye for an eye and to kill your own family if they "blaspheme" and to kill anyone who broke sabbath.
In NT Jesus completely disagrees with that.
Something weird going on with the holey Bible?
Fundamental theological teachings do not change, but teachings regarding more temporal matters do change as we acquire more knowledge, as you would expect as beings with free will and the ability to acquire knowledge. This is why the RSV Bible has been revised based on the discovery of earlier manuscripts, such as the Dead Sea scrolls. Ironically, many Protestants use bibles translated from Latin vulgate, such as the King James, rather than bibles based on earlier Greek manuscripts.
I see Jesus being the Rock in His everlasting kingdom destroying the statue of Daniel.
Jesus is the rock! But, Peter participates in the "rockness" of Christ. They are complimentary :)
@@CameronRiecker yup. Agree.
@@CameronRiecker - St Augustine, the great doctor of the West made it CRYSTAL CLEAR that the rock was St Peter's FAITH. In none of his writings does he mention papal 'supremacy'. For the first thousand years of the Church there was no papal supremacy, let alone infallibility. The 'Vicar of Christ' nonsense is an anti-Biblical innovation. St Cyprian made it clear that St Peter REPRESENTS what a bishop is, he's not 'bishop of bishops'.
'Yes' there's a lot of flowery talk from the Fathers about the Bishop of Rome but an equal amount of such talk about the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch. Careful not to quote mine.
To be deep in the history of the Church is to be Orthodox.
@@nardforu131 - nope, disagree. St Augustine, the great doctor of the West made it CRYSTAL CLEAR that the rock was St Peter's FAITH. In none of his writings does he mention papal 'supremacy'. For the first thousand years of the Church there was no papal supremacy, let alone infallibility. The 'Vicar of Christ' nonsense is an anti-Biblical innovation. St Cyprian made it clear that St Peter REPRESENTS what a bishop is, he's not 'bishop of bishops'.
'Yes' there's a lot of flowery talk from the Fathers about the Bishop of Rome but an equal amount of such talk about the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch. Careful not to quote mine.
To be deep in the history of the Church is to be Orthodox
@@marcokite Wrong. In Sermons 295:2 St. Augustine said "Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of this representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear 'I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.'
In Tractateson John 56:1 St. Augustine said "Who can fail to know that the most blessed Peter was the first of the apostles?"
In Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundations" 4:5 St. Augustine writes "The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his Resurrection, put in charge of feeding his sheep, down to the present episcopate."
In Letters 53 St. Augustine writes "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 until we reach Peter himself, to whom, as a figure of the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' " St. Augustine goes on the list in order 38 successors of Peter.
Okay ... So do we send this link to Mike Winger or Inspiring Philosophy?
Asking for a friend.
I'd be happy to discuss it with them! :)
Hi Cameron, I have to say you did a great job on this video :) Not only did you succeed in your stated goal of explaining the Roman Catholic posistion on the papacy, but also made a convincing argument from the scriptures that Peter was given a special role. I was particularlly impressed by your use of Isaiah 22:19-25, as I was previously unsure what the keys in Matthew 16:19 referred too - it's a great example of scripture interpreting scripture, and I'm glad you brought it to my attention.
That said, you did make an error when you stated that it was Peter alone who declared the law of Moses was not binding on Gentile believers. While he did speak in favour of that posistion, it was James who, after Paul and Barnabus gave further evidence of the things God had done among the Gentiles, said: *"Therefore it is my judgement that we do not trouble those who are turning to God among the Gentiles"* - even then, it seemed none of the elders or apostles made a unilateral decision based on their own authority, but rather came to unanimous decision as a group after prolonged debate. The resulting letter was not written in the name of Peter or James, but jointly in the name of all the apostles and elders. (see Acts 15:13-23)
After careful consideration, I also noticed that Isaiah also seems to prophecy that the authority given to Peter would one day come to an end:
*"Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, when he opens no one will shut, when he shuts, no one will open. I will drive him like a peg in a firm place and he will become a throne of glory to his father's house. So they will hang on him all the glory of his father's house, offspring and issue, all the least of the vessels, from bowls to all the jars. In that day, declares the LORD of hosts, the peg driven in a firm place will give way; it will even break off and fall, and the loads hanging on it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken."* Isaiah 22:22-25
If this refers to the papacy, it appears to me to be a damning condemnation of what Rome has turned the papacy into: By hanging on Peter all the glory of his Father's house (i.e. making him an infallible monarch, instead of just first among equals) it seems the LORD is saying that the papacy itself will be cut off; and that this prophecy was fulfilled, starting with the great schism (just as the Davidic kingdom was torn in two pieces, Israel and Judah), and eventually culminating with the reformation (a type of exile?) I'd be very interested in hearing how Catholics understand this part of the passage.
Regarding John, Jesus told Peter to "Feed my sheep". But Ezekiel 34 says *"Son of man, prophesy against the shepards of Israel. Prophesy and say to those shepards 'Thus says the Lord GOD, Woe, shepards of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepards feed the flock?"* (verse 2) and *"Thus says the Lord GOD 'Behold, I am against the shepards, and I will demand My sheep from them and make them cease from feeding sheep'* (verse 10) and *"Then I will set over them one shepherd, My servant David, and he will feed them; he will feed them himself and be their shepard"* (verse 23) - if the those in authority over the church become corrupt, the Lord will replace them.
What a well thought out comment!
In the prophecies from the Old Testament there is something similar and something dissimilar. What is similar in Isaiah's prophecy is that someone is being elevated to the role of "prime minister." What is dissimilar is that Peter does not fail in his role.
Admittedly, these prophecies are notoriously difficult to interpret which is why I see so clearly a need for an interpreter instituted by Christ. :)
@@CameronRiecker How many difficult passages has the Catholic church actually infallibly interpreted that don't involve securing its own power?
Problem 1: Peter isn't the only person referred to as "rock" (which you admit)
Problem 2: While it is hard to deny that Peter is established as the foundation of the church post There is NO new testament verse which established a transfer of power or a method therof
Problem 3: No authority post Apostles which establishes any authority without unanimous consent of all churches UNTIL the pope (I forget which one, it's not the first, but its the pope that split the roman and orthodox churches) , so as far as I understand it, the dispute isn't even over the papacy, but over who the apostolic succession falls on and Rome was the ONLY sect of the church (at the time) that ever accepted a council without unanimous agreement. Rome set the precedence that unanimous agreement from the church was no longer inerrant. so the Roman catholic church were the ones who started the "we don't need the authority of the one apostolic church" and put TOTAL inarguable authority in one man, which was a clear contradiction with scripture where Paul "Withstood Peter to his face", which clearly indicates that the Pope a) is fallavle and b) can have his fallavility called out by the rest of the church. As far as I can tell, the real argument with the pope isn't about his office, but about his abuse of it and refusal to accept correction from the apostolic church.
To your point about Peter being fallible:
He is fallible in practice and as an individual man. The pope is fallible 99% of the time. He is only infallible in very select circumstances.
The pope is not impeccable and he is not infallible most of the time. Relatively few papal statements are considered infallible by Catholics.
@@CameronRiecker I am aware of this, and this ALSO has no standing in early church belief, but it actually has nothing to do with my point. I wasn't commenting on papal infallibility. I was commenting on Rome's doctrines that separate from the rest of the church and how they split after a council in which they didn't get the universal support that had ALWAYS been required by councils to adopt doctrine so they did it anyway and said everyone else was wrong.
I appreciate the video, this was nice to watch and get a good understanding of where you are coming from, I do disagree with the claims to authority but did learn in watching this, thank you!
I'm glad you enjoyed! Even if you don't believe the pope has authority, I hope you at least have a better understanding of why Catholics do :) God bless!
This was great. Comment for the algorithm!
Thank you for the feedback! Pray for me!
My wife and I have a baby due in 2 weeks!
@@CameronRiecker Absolutely! Count on my prayers.
Thank you Father!
@@CameronRiecker I will add you all to my prayers.
@@BensWorkshop thank you!! 🙏
Mike winger does a great dive into this subject and it is very clear that not only is the pope unbiblical, but so is purgatory, the catechism, and soterilogical theology almost as a whole in Roman Catholocism (and much of western Catholicism)
I'll have to take a look at that! Thanks for the comment!
Mike Winger? The same guy whose arguments already got debunked hard by Trent Horn? That Mike Winger?
@@justhair17 I think so lol
@justhair17 You do know that Mike did a response to Trents video right? You should go watch it.... Trent got destroyed
Thanks for the explanation of the papasy. I’m a Christian, but there are many things I like and agree with the Catholic church. However, that was 30 min of content about the Lord’s church and yet you mentioned Jesus’ name only a few times. Last time I checked, the founder of the church (catholic, orthodox, protestant) is our Lord Jesus, the Lamb of God who literally paid with his own blood for that privilege. Everyone else, including Peter, Paul, John followed on that example as a disciple to the Lord himself. He is the Shepard.
You mention patterns. But the Lord himself set a pattern for his disciples to follow. Lay down your life to serve God and men. Thus, our symbol is the CROSS and not a crown. The Lord himself demonstrated this by washing His disciple’s feet and ultimately laying down His own life for us. Thats what greatness looks like in His kingdom and thats what the first church did. Thats why people converted to Christianity like wild fire in the first few centuries. They laid down their lives for one another and most importantly to honor the Lord. Self sacrifice is a sweet aroma onto God.
Luke 7:28
“I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
John the Baptist the groomsmen of our Lord submitted to the Lord’s ministry and was willing to diminish so that He may increase. In God’s kingdom the least is greater than he.
Paul, the disciple picked out by the Lord himself. Who we can argue accomplished and influenced significantly more than the other disciples combined, denominated himself as a slave of Christ Jesus. Paul follows on that pattern set by the Lord and even submitted to the other disciples in Jerusalem. Peter follows that pattern by laying his life for the Lord!
Ephesians 2:19
“Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with CHRIST JESUS HIMSELF as the chief CORNERSONE. In Him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord…”
-CHRIST is the cornerstone. A cornerstone is laid underground before the foundation. To not be seen (thats what true power lookslike) Yet the whole building is founded on the cornerstone.
I agree, God uses men to build His kingdom but the pattern is set by Jesus Christ. The Lord Himself prayed over all of us for unity. That we may be united just like He is one with the Father and Holy Spirit. The only way for that to happen is if we cast our crowns, behold the LAMB, and declare Him as our banner.
So if thats the pattern set by Jesus, why did it change after Constantine?
Thanks for the comment!
I don't see that theme changing after Constantine.
Certainly the underground Church looks different than the Church after Constantine, but I see Christ as the center of both.
He talked primarily about Peter because thats literally the point of the video. It does not mean Catholics hold Peter in the same regard as Peter. Go to a mass, and you will hear about Christ all the time, and outside of the Scripture readings, you will hear the name of the Pope once and possibly Peter once
Love Jesus, follow the Pope!
Amen and amen!
'Follow the pope' even when he attacks the Roman Catholic teachings on Faith and Morals? not to mention his near suppression of the Mass of the Ages - 'follow this pope'? God forbid!
@@CameronRiecker - 'Follow the pope' even when he attacks the Roman Catholic teachings on Faith and Morals? not to mention his near suppression of the Mass of the Ages - 'follow this pope'? God forbid!
In the passage in Matthew, Christ refers to Peter as a small stone. After that when he says “On this rock, I shall build my church” He is referring to a belief in Christ made through faith. I believe that is the case because the whole key of the passage and Christ’s praise towards Peter hinges on his faith. As well as the words petra(used to name Peter) and Petros refer to two different types of rock. Typically in the Bible Petra is used to denote a large rock, a cliffside, or the foundation of a building. So I think that also applies to the nature of this being something bigger than Peter, where the Papacy and being the “Vicar of Christ” is hinged on the organization itself making a choice, not the legitimate calling of God.
Regardless of the Petra/Petros argument (which I don't think works due to the feminine gender of the word Petra) Peter still has the keys :)
@@CameronRiecker every born again Christian has the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Keys open doors, they don’t denote authority. I have keys to my parent’s home. I have no say as to what goes on in that house, I just have access to it. Same with my church, no authority, but I know the combination to the keypad on the front door. And the sentence following that: “…whatsoever ye shall bound on earth, shall be bound in heaven. And whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.” Which WOULD denote authority, is given to Peter, and to a congregation Jesus preached to in Matt 18. So is that entire congregation Pope’s? No. He is giving all people the freedom to learn doctrine and have a relationship with Him that would have previously been barred by the Pharisees.
@@Southernstereotype You have no idea what Biblically speaking the keys of the kingdom means.
The Petra/petros distinction makes no sense, because Jesus did not speak in Greek, Greek, he most likely spoke in Aramaic, while Matthew written the gospel down in Greek. Furthermore, unlike English, uses gendered nouns and petra is female, and Peter is the male equivalent.
Also, that line of interpretation is completelt illogal. He addressed Peter by name directly, and he gave the keys of Heaven to him directly. So to interpret the passage between and say its not actually about Peter, when there is nothing to indicate that, makes no sense. Just ask any non-Christian (who have no bias) and ask them what Matthew 16.18-19 says and all of them will say its specifically about Peter. You are just doing insane mental gymnastics to fit your biases
@@justhair17 no, I’m using the language it was written in and the context of other scripture. Saying petra and petros is masculine and feminine does not negate that important distinction made in the text. It still means small/large rock regardless of assumptions about the meaning therein. And Jesus was more than likely bi/multilingual, so saying he spoke Aramaic is not an argument. Every promise given to Peter is a promise later given to the entire congregation and the keys represent him opening the door for those promises to be fulfilled.
1. There is hierarchical leadership in every *local* church. So we agree. 2. Your interpretation of Daniel's is erroneous. 3. St Augustine's interpretation of Mt. 16:18 contradicts your interpretation. 4. Your interpretation of the Ark as a type of the church is fallacious. 5. O boy. Jesus never mentioned Isa 22::22. You are putting words into His mouth. 6. Luke 22 says Peter should strengthen his brothers. To stretch that out to refer to global influence is erroneous. 7. John 21 nowhere grants headship exclusively to Peter. You are wrong. Col. 1 says Jesus is the head. 8. Acts 15 shows James as the final decision maker, not Peter. You grant Peter way too much. 9. There is *no* papacy discussed for the first 2 hundred years. It was a development over time with no Biblical support. 10. Your claim of Clement being a pope is wrong. The latest reveals no such thing. 11. Ignatius and Irenaeus were not writing authoritatively. You are claiming too much. Victor was not a pope. Sorry.12. you are forcing tradition to say too much. 13. Cyprian was wrong about "the chair." So are you.
Rather than just telling me I'm wrong, can you pick one of those points that you mentioned and give me some evidence for your claim? :)
@@CameronRiecker Men like Whitaker, Goode, Salmon, Cullman, Allison, Furgeson, Calvin, Luther, and more already wrote about why you're wrong. You are passionate and that's admirable, but what you're doing is claiming that all Protestant seminaries are wrong, and that's just hybris. If I offer even one argument to refute your eisegesis, are you actually saying you want to hear me out? I don't think so.
It was Peter Kreeft who said "We know the Bible, after all, we wrote it." It's that kind of error and bad logic that causes us Protestants to speak up.
St. Augustine fully supports the Catholic interpretation of Matt 16:18. In Letters 53 St Augustine writes "For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken in account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back until we reach Peter himself, to whom, as a figure of the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall ot prevail against it.' "
🕊️Should Christians renounce religion❓ In order to properly understand this statement, we must dive deeper into scripture and allow our Father’s Holy Spirit to reveal his truth.
1. Did the Jewish community reject Jesus’ teachings❓
🕊️“When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. And they rose up and put him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong. But passing through the midst of them he went away.” Luke 4:28-30
2. Did the Jewish community reject Jesus’ as our Lord & Savior❓
🕊️”For those who live in Jerusalem and their rulers, because they did not recognize him nor understand the utterances of the prophets which are read every sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning him.” Acts 13:27
3. Did Jesus pick the Apostle Peter to build his church❓
🕊️“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18
4. Did Jesus’ request to the Apostle Peter to build his church lead the Apostle Paul to create a new religion amongst them❓
🕊️“Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.” 1 Timothy 3:16
5. Did the Apostles appoint elders (presbyters / priests) in every church❓
🕊️”And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting, they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.” Acts 14:23
6. Were decisions within the Christian religion made by the Apostles in conjunction with the Elders (presbyters / priests)❓
🕊️“As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem. So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily.” Acts 16:4-5
7. Did the Apostle Peter see himself equally with the elders (presbyters / priests)❓
🕊️”So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory.” 1 Peter 5:1-4
8. Did Deacons, Elders (presbyters / priests) & Bishops exist within the Christian religion prior to Rome’s adoption of it in 313 A.D.❓
🕊️“And let them also be tested first; then if they prove themselves blameless let them serve as deacons.” 1 Timothy 3:10
🕊️“These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them. And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.” Acts 6:6-7
🕊️“Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher,” 1 Timothy 3:2
9. Does the Christian religion with its Deacons, Elders (presbyters / priests) & Bishops remove Jesus as the head of the church❓
🕊️”He is the head of the body, the Church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” Colossians 1:18-20
10. Does the Christian religion recognize Jesus as having full authority over the church❓
🕊️”And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” - Matthew 28:18-20
11. Did the Apostles ask us to stand firm in the traditions we’ve been taught which included deacons, priests and bishops being a part of the church❓
🕊️“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15-17
12. Did the Apostles ask us to stay away from people who are not in accord with the traditions that we’ve received which included deacons, priests and bishops within the church❓
🕊️“Now we command you, brethren, 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. For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle when we were with you,” 2 Thessalonians 3:6-7
13. Did the Apostles approve of people passing down traditions which included deacons, priests and bishops being a part of the church ❓
🕊️Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” 1 Corinthians 11:1-2
14. Should we avoid people who hold the form of religion but deny the power of it❓
🕊️“But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people.” 2 Timothy 3:1-5
15. How is someone’s Christian religion demonstrated as vain❓
🕊️”If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man’s religion is vain.” James 1:26
16. Are we called to hold our Christian religion accountable❓
🕊️”Take heed to yourselves; if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him;” Luke 17:3
🕊️”Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Look to yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. For if any one thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.” Galatians 6:1-3
🕊️”As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without favor, doing nothing from partiality.” 1 Timothy 5:20-21
🕊️”For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the Church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.” 1 Corinthians 5:12-13
17. Does anyone within the Christian religion supersede our Father’s words❓
🕊️“And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.” Acts 5:27-29
18. Are we called to follow the Christian religion blindly❓
🕊️”Then the disciples came and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” He answered, “Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” Matthew 15:12-14
19. How is the Christian religion considered pure and undefiled by our Father❓
🕊️”Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” James 1:27
20. Should we renounce irreligion❓
🕊️”For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men, training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world, awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,” Titus 2:11-13
Thank you for sharing these insightful verses! Well thought out comment!
👍🏻👍🏻 Nicely Done. Subscribed
Thank you! I appreciate your encouragement :)
St Augustine, the great doctor of the West made it CRYSTAL CLEAR that the rock was St Peter's FAITH. In none of his writings does he mention papal 'supremacy'. For the first thousand years of the Church there was no papal supremacy, let alone infallibility. The 'Vicar of Christ' nonsense is an anti-Biblical innovation.
'Yes' there's a lot of flowery talk from the Fathers about the Bishop of Rome but an equal amount of such talk about the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch. Careful not to quote mine.
To be deep in the history of the Church is to be Orthodox.
Can you show me a father saying that the Patriarch of Alexandria is the head or that he is equal to the Pope?
Clearly you are not deep in history, as your claims are very historically inaccurate
One of the major reasons I can't agree with this is that it's just so obscure. If we're really ALL subject to the Pope, that's a MAJOR doctrine. Absolutely huge. I think Jesus would have been a lot clearer about it, not requiring us to piece things together from oblique OT and NT references.
The Church Fathers all show deference to the Bishop of Rome. In doctrine and discipline. It seems most logical to conclude that the bishops throughout the world learned this from the Apostles who started their churches.
I will make more videos on the papacy soon! So much history here!
@@CameronRiecker But that's my point. If Jesus wanted the Catholic church to be the only acceptable Christian institution, headed by a man who had spiritual authority over every single Christian worldwide, seems to me He would have made that very clear in Scripture, or at least have inspired the Apostles to make it very clear in Scripture, rather than left it to word of mouth. 🤷
@@toddthacker8258 if you look at how the early church treated Rome it seems like it was common knowledge.
The popes interfere in other diocese and excommunicate churches hundreds of miles away and no one disputes Rome’s authority to do so.
@CameronRiecker But when is the first time this happens? And the Eastern churches disputed Rome's primacy whenever it suited their interests, right?
So when he suddenly decides Jesus is not the only way then we just go with it?
You mean pope Francis?
Thats a hypothetical scenario that would never happen. It would be equivalent to an atheist asking you what would you do if you could go back in time and see Jesus was never resurrected
Anyone who doesn't believe the one rrue gospel of our salvation, will believe and follow anyone and anything else.
We must pray to God for guidance!
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the first three questions below?
Who is now the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary?
What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below.
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8, 3:16? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Who is the "chief cornerstone" of the New Covenant in the passage below, which was written by Peter? Who is the "royal priesthood" of the New Covenant in this passage?
1Pe 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
1Pe 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
Watch the RUclips videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
Interesting points! Christ is the rock, but Peter participates in Christ's authority :)
@@CameronRiecker
What did Jesus say to Peter right after He talked about the New Covenant Church in Matthew chapter 16? See verse 23 below.
Mat 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Mat 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Why did Paul have to correct Peter below in the Book of Galatians?
Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Peter's infallibility is not impeccability. He can still sin and fall short.
@@CameronRiecker Based on your answer here, the Pope is also not infallible. Why does the Pope allow people to bow down and kiss his feet, when Peter would not allow Cornelius to bow down to him?
Christ gave his apostles and their successors the authority to forgive sins in his name :"Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, whose sins you retain, they are retained".
The Lord made Simon alone, whom he called Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys to his Church and instituted him "shepherd of the whole flock" (Pope)The office of binding and loosing , which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head. This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope("leader of the whole flock")
Very well said! :) Thanks for the comment
Sorry I'm orthodox , if I wasn't and had to choose between being a catholic or orthodox , I would pick orthodox
Thanks for the comment :) Did my video help you understand the Catholic position on the Papacy?
You most likely wouldnt. Very very few people outside of Eastern Europe are actually Orthodox. Meanwhile, Catholicism is truly global and much more people convert to it than to Orthodoxy. You are most likely an Orthodox because you were raised in that culture
The question is not if a pope, the vicar of Christ has spiritual authority over all people on Earth. That's is fact. The question at hand is the current occupant of the chair of Peter a pope. Not all properly informed Catholics believe Jorge bergoglio is a pope. Objectively speaking they know that he is cannot be pope.
Certainly we live in interesting times!
You said you were going to make an argument for why Peter was the 1st pope.
But from scripture you made no such argument.
I accept that you appealed to the Catholic Church, saying that Peter was the first Pope. But that is the same as Muslims claiming Adam, Moses, Jesus were all Muslims, because Islam defines them as such.
From the Scripture I don't see an argument for Peter being anything beyond a Leader IN the Church. Like all the other Apostles and Elders.
Nothing in Peter's writings demonstrates a popehood.
Paul if we are making arguments for popehood may be considered to have more. Specifically and Specislly elected by Jesus.
Paul writes one follows Peter, one Paul another Apollos. Demonstrating their was no papacy.
When Peter sent to the Gentiles he submitted to the Jerusalem council for the collective ruling. He did not demonstrate papal authority.
He was Rebuked by Paul.
James was over him in Jerusalem.
Also the scripture states he was exclusively to minister to the Jews with the 12.
While Paul and Barnabus recognized as having Authority with the Gentiles.
This too would disqualify Peter as being Pope.
I see John 21 and Matthew 16 as indications that Peter was given the role of leader of the Apostles. That is what the pope is.
@CameronRiecker A leader is not what the Pope is. A Captain of a football team is a leader. A person orgazing a Bible study is a leader. And I can agree Peter is a leader. One of the leaders. But there is nothing about him being what the Pope is. That is the problem you have. It is not found in Scripture. Not just the word Pope. Neither is Omnipitent.
But the example or demonstration of Popehood.
James was the Leader of the Apostles over Peter in Acts.
Paul rebuked Peter.
Peter and those in Jerusalem agreed that their ministry was to the Jews.
Paul and Barnabus to the Gentiles.
How can you argue that Peter was a Pope, when he did not even have authority within Jerusalem let alone the Gentiles.
Cool, but how can you justify following a pope who has on multiple occasions done and endorsed things that are condemned in the Bible?
The Pope has God-given authority. Since that authority comes from God, it should be followed to the extent that it does not displease God.
Yes well said👍@@CameronRiecker
Church fathers did, but not the real church father, if you asked Peter back then if he has authority over the other apostles he would say no that we are all one
What makes you think that?
Where do you find that in the Bible?
Oh yeah? Did he 'reveal' it to you in your dreams? Because the Bible tells a very different story
Another solid video bro
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed :)
I have long been able to see why people see biblical authority with the pope. However, the same is true in reverse. There are many good reasons not to believe in it. In fact, if the claims of authority were extraordinary, mediated authority, I don't think that anybody can deny a form papal authority before it went into schism reasonably. That, however, is not the claim, and when the papacy started making claims beyond that, all the other patriarchs rejected it, and the papacy went into schism.
Almost every one of these verses have a strong contextual qualification. I'll focus on Matthew 16, because it is the strongest of the arguments used, and because I know that the best (I Clement being the next strongest).
The keys of Eliakim are not in view for Jesus. I don't mean that it's because the interpretation is about twenty years old; the reading of Mt 16 I find most persuasive is only slightly older. I don't want to pot, kettle that.
Rather, the keys of Eliakim faces three hurdles, which I'll list in increasing severity. First (and this may be overcome, I think), Eliakim does not receive priestly authority. That is precisely the authority that Jesus has in mind in Mt 16.
The second is that Matthew uses the Septuagint. However the LXX version does not have the keys language, so the argument is that Matthew's Gospel is alluding to a passage that's not in the Bible he followed. That's a very strong stretch. You can check these by checking any number of online LXX translations for free if you don't have one (NETS, LXX2012, Brenton, etc). Of those, NETS is the highest quality. It's a steep argument to say the passage was just lost, when we have a different reading and not just an omission. There's a composite text in the patristic Isaiah, but it's not the historic reading, and it's clear it's a composite because it contains both the alternative wording and the keys language.
The last is that the keys are defined in the text as the authority to bind and loose. This authority is granted to all the Apostles in 18. Eliakim never shares his keys. If the authority given to St. Peter is given to others, then it cannot serve as a proof for papal authority since it is shared.
In Matthew 16 itself, none of the historic readings can work. They all, without exception, have the Gates of Hell attacking the Church. Gates do not attack. They "prevail" by holding against attackers and repelling them. No interpretation that reads the Gates of Hell attacking the Church can be correct. Gates just don't attack, and the language in Matthew 16 is not unique in ancient warfare language.
Next, the verse is a word play or even pun. The structure is Peter => rock => Gates of Hell. Structurally rock must mediate between the two and relate to both. The rock, therefore, cannot be Peter, his confession, his faith, or Jesus.
What has happened is that every ancient interpretation is reading the passage in light of a missing detail. There was a fact lost in transmission, and so all these readings are trying to insert something to explain what was lost, and scholarship is the only way out. It would take too long for me to make the case for what that is, so I'm instead showing why the interpretations are consistently faulty and why they're unpersuasive to people who disagree.
These problems are endemic to all the proofs:
- They claim an authority showing a papal supremacy that is either explicitly given or reasonably understood to be given to all the Apostles (e.g. bind and loose; feed the sheep, etc.)
- They include an allusion or claim that is neither self-evident nor necessary for a coherent reading and which is persuasive only to the RC faithful.
- They are being read into passages to fill in an obscure detail that is not easily understood.
In Matthew 16, all three are happening. Then if you consider the nature of the authority being claimed, if the text doesn't unambiguously support it, people are not going to accept it. It's about like a man coming in and saying, "I have control of your house." The people disagree, and he can't make a clear proof, but he wants people to agree "Perhaps this one law can grant it." There's not one person that would find that a low bar, and they won't concede even that point.
In some cases, not in Matthew 16, the asserted claim is the polar opposite of what the text is intended to say. In the case of St. Cyprian, that you ended with, the meaning is quite literally the opposite of how you read it. He's in a dispute over baptism, and his point is that the papacy can't do the things it's doing, and one of his mike drop moments is that there is one chair and nobody may establish another. In St. Cyrpian he is arguing the pope is trying to establish another chair.
I'm trying to engage within your parameters. I'm not trying to prove the papal claims are false, nor persuade you to another position, but trying to explain why these types of proofs don't even get off the ground with most people.
Interesting points! Do you think all the Apostles were equals?
@@CameronRiecker Sacramentally? The text and early church seem to make no distinction. The keys are absolutely defined as the power to bind and to loose, and that power is given explicitly to all Apostles in 18. We have no evidence the keys were exclusive to St. Peter. The biblical text goes out of its way to both single him out and to give that authority to other Apostles.
I don't think that's the whole story. I think Peter received a real place of prominence over the others. It makes a point of both singling him out as special and giving the same authority he had to the other Apostles. The texts go out of their way to do that (another example is the story of St. Peter paying the Temple Tax, but that one doesn't specify authority, but it clearly singles him out as unique among the Apostles). However, we just don't know what all those are.
In most of the examples you cited, there are lots of qualifying details. Most aren't as bad as the point being the opposite of your own, as it was with St. Cyprian. And I don't think you're to blame for that, because later copyists couldn't stomach the staunch rejection of papal authority, so they edited the document to change it from a collegiality of bishops, as in the original, to something more like modern papal doctrine. It's a rare document in that we have both the original and edited versions still.
PETER is not the rock in Daniel. Daniel interprets his vision and clearly says the rock is the kingdom of God, not "Saint Peter" and not "the Pope." And Christ is the king of that kingdom, not Peter and not the Pope.
Daniel 2:44-45: "And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever, 45 just as you saw that a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure."
So, no, I don't see why you think the Pope is a man of God or that we should follow his heresies.
Even if Christ is the rock, Peter is still given the keys :)
Daniel never heard of the Romans actually... So you saying that this is how Daniel interpreted the statue, is ridiculous.
Daniel spoke by the Spirit of prophecy and God certainly knew who the Romas were :)
@@CameronRiecker sure, God knew, but you said that Daniel interpreted like x. Daniel could not have interpreted it that way. That's what I was pointing out, I was not questioning God.
The comments on the main videos are so much more positive than the shorts 😂
Why is that the case? lol people just go off in the shorts!
@@CameronRiecker I think there are two reasons… one: most of the clips are sort of out of context so people get triggered easily by them and two: I think a lot of the people who scroll all day on shorts tend to be pretty lonely and are just haters and keyboard warriors.
Lol you might be right!
Only Jesus has complete authority over all creation seen and not seen. Now people can have authority over demons in the name of Jesus. The thing is people want complete control. The other thing is if any person is guided by the Spirit of Truth, which is the Holy Spirit are not subject to the laws, but they walk within the laws. This is a spiritual boundary that a reborn person cannot cross.
But even among believers some men are given authority over others.
@@CameronRiecker Just because people are believers does not mean they are of God. This Flesh (Natural Perception) is without the Spirit unless their parents are born again of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, we all are born spiritless. It is written "Flesh gives birth to Flesh and The Spirit gives birth to the Spirit". "For the Spiritual didn't come first, but the Natural, Then the Spiritual". These people who feel this way are of this Flesh not the Spirit.
In NT you see the eldership is localized to the city churches. Then you have deacons who serve the physical needs of the church. We have one high priest who is Jesus.
We confess sins to each other. We confess sins to the elders.
Peter is the rock as told by Jesus but this is established in Acts 2 but its not the papacy.
Why do you think Peter is the rock but not the pope?
In that case what do you mean by Rock? Do you not think he has a special position? In that case, why did Jesus renaim only him, why did he tell him the Church will be built on him, why did he give him the keys to Heaven and why did he ask Peter specifically to feed his sheep? Also, why was Peter the spokesman of the apostles through the Gospels and especially Acts and why was he to whom God revealed his vision that lead to his conclusion that gentiles need not be circunsized?
@@justhair17 Peter is the rock that starts the Christian movement in acts two but also the fulfilment of Nebuchadnezzar's dream where the stone comes and crushes the idol. Also I wouldn't say he's the spokesperson of the gospels. Yes he's active in it but the gospel is all about Jesus not so much Peter. If anything the Pope fits more of the description of the man of lawlessness if you look at it.
And Acts is far more about Paul than Peter.
Jesus never done anything until he received permission from his heavenly father. God
Himself is our final authority, read jesus words in gospel of john chapter 17. The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord. Those who disobey his words are judged.
True! But God gives that authority to men :) cf. Rom 13:1-2
@@CameronRiecker those chosen from the foreknowledge of God. Predestination.
I got less than 10 minutes in and had to turn it off. What utter nonsense. The stone in Daniel 2 is Peter? Good grief. Its a prophecy of Jesus.
Dan 2:45 just as you saw that *a stone was cut from a mountain by no human hand,* and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure.”
Was Peter not made by human hands? And Petros isn't Latin, its greek. Almost 10 minutes in and nothing about a pope, seriously? If i'm doing a video on deacons do i need to ramble through the o.t. and try to make various associations first? Or, just go to the pastoral epistles and show this;
1Tim 3:8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.
If the papacy were a true office in the n.t. Paul or someone would have given it some ink. Nobody does, nobody. Peter isn't some prime minister, he is just part of the foundation.
Eph 2:20 built on the *foundation of the apostles* and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,
Apostles, plural. The papacy is a man made invention. There is nothing biblical about it.
Peter is the rock by participation :) Christ is the rock essentially
@@CameronRiecker *Peter is the rock by participation*
Where does the bible say this? It doesn't. You have to shoe horn this into the scriptures. The bible does not support a papacy or Peter being 'the' rock, by participation or any other way.
Point 2, regarding Daniel's vision. You are replacing Jesus with Peter. Saying Peter is the Fulfillment of the prophecy. When Clearly it is Jesus not Peter. Jesus explicitly says He/Himself is the fulfillment of the Scriptures and Prophets.
It is good that you acknowledged the understanding that Peter's statement of Faith, that Jesus is the Christ is understood as the Rock the Church is built. Though you said you disagree.
You can see this Truth demonstrated over and over again as that ROCK is repeated Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
Mark 1:1 Begins with that ROCK.
Further, it is interesting to note, that understanding Hebrew Further Highlights the point.
Father in Hebrew is AB ALEF BET
Son in Hebrew is BN
BET NUN
STONE in Hebrew is ABN
Alex Bet Nun
When the Father and Son are One that becomes STONE
The stone the builders rejected.
Also the Keys are given to the apostles. Not Peter.
This was demonstrated earlier as the Apostles went out and collectively had authority over Sickness and Demons.
This was, as you say a foreshadowing of the 12 having the keys.
Where are the keys given to the other Apostles? Of course the Apostles have authority over demons, but not keys.
@CameronRiecker Cameron, look at Matthew 18:18
Jesus is speaking to all the Apostles. Confirming what he said to all the Apostles in Matthew 16:19
Notice the Exact same Greek words are used for "You" in Matthew 18 addressing all the Apostles as the Words used in Mathew 16.
So one can't argue it is a singular form of "you" when we see the exact same Greek word used addressing all the Apostles.
Also it does not follow Logically that if Jesus is addressing all the Apostles regarding Binding in Heaven and Earth in Matthew 18.
That Matthew 16 was exclusively to Peter, excluding the other Apostles when it speaks of Binding in Heaven and Earth.
Matthew 18 ends any doubt or misunderstanding about Mthw 16 being about Peter Alone.
Many thanks for the notes. Have you done one on the sacramental priesthood of the New Testament.
No! That is a good idea though. Soon! :)
Upon this rock Peter's statement not peter. Which makes a lot more sense .jesus is the Rock.
If you think that Peter's confession of faith is the rock, that's fine. But, it's still Peter's. Either way union with Peter is necessary. :)
@@CameronRiecker union with christ. Be in christ and have christ in you. Peter was sent to the jews and Paul to the gentiles.
Peter like Paul like me is a sinner saved by grace. There is only was sinless One the Lord jesus christ.
@CameronRiecker you are creating idols out of men. You natural and carnal sensuality is deceiving you. May the Lord break the chains of the false religion in your life.
I hope he breaks my chains too :)
Where in the Bible does it mention that Peter was...
1.a pope? NOWHERE!!!
2. the vicar of Christ? NOWHERE!!
3. celibate? NOWHERE!!
Why do Catholics have a pope? Who knows?
Thanks for the comment!
Have you watched the full video??
1) In Matthew 16 Peter is given the Keys which no other Apostle has. In John 21 Peter is given charge over the sheep.
2) Peter is the prime minister of Jesus' kingdom. That's why Jesus references Isaiah 22:22.
3) Of course Peter wasn't celibate. Catholics don't even teach that. Jesus heals his mother in law. Clerical celibacy was not imposed until the 4th century if I remember correctly.
@@CameronRiecker Underneath the video frame, it says: "The Bible and the Pope." So, does the Bible say...
1. Peter was a pope? In your reply, you brought up Matthew 16 and John 21. However, does Matthew say Peter was a pope? You know the answer is NO!
2. Peter was the Vicar of Christ? In your reply, you mentioned Isaiah 22:22. However, does that verse say Peter was the Vicar of Christ? You know the answer is NO!!
3. Peter was celibate like Catholic popes? In your reply, you said "Peter wasn't celibate."
So, according to what you called "The Bible and the Pope," does the Bible say:
1. Peter was a Pope? NO!!
2. Peter was the Vicar of Christ? NO!!
3. Peter was celibate? NO!!
One other thing. Jesus did not put Peter in charge of the sheep. That was the responsibility of all followers of Jesus. As Jesus said to all of his faithful apostles and others before he returned to the spirit real: "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations...teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." (Matt. 28:19, 20) So, teaching new disciples of Jesus' teachings was not the sole responsibility of Peter, but of all true followers of Jesus' teachings.
One last thing, nowhere does it say Peter was the prime minister of Jesus' kingdom.
20:52 how do any of these passages relate to the papacy. Yes Peter was to feed the sheep, that is clear in Scripture. No one should deny that Peter was very important. But why should Peter have a line of successors that are infallible. Especially when they make grievous mistakes in the Vatican 2 and Council of Trent. So that you can remember his teaching he writes his Epistles. Paul says in Galatians to always test other Gospels even if Paul himself brings them to you.
Thanks for the comment!
I see the role of head Shepherd that is given to Peter as being the same as the Papacy.
@@CameronRiecker how dose these scriptures lead to putting new popes in Peter's place?
In the beginning of Acts we see that Judas office needed to be filled and so they chose Matthias. Why would Peter's office be any different?
@@CameronRiecker is there 12 Apostles continually in Roman Catholicism?
At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said, “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry.” (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For it is written in the book of Psalms,
‘Let his homestead be made desolate, And let no one dwell in it’; and, ‘Let another man take his office.’
Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us- beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us-one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.
Acts 1:15-26 NASB1995
bible.com/bible/100/act.1.15-26.NASB1995
There is no one who is alive after 100 ish AD that fits this role. You need to have followed Jesus from His baptism to fill the vacant spot. They did this because the scriptures say to fill the person who's homestead be made desolate, And let no one dwell in it’; and, ‘Let another man take his office. I don't think this applies to Peter.
In the context this passage seems to be descriptive and not prescriptive. If you just read this would you really assume the papacy?
@@upstairscandy0764 All bishops in the Catholic Church have an office that is in direct line with the 12 apostles. To think as big as the Catholic Church is today 12 bishops should suffice is outlandish.
Also Vatican II and Trent made no grievous mistakes.
I follow Christ. The Pope did not die for my sins, neither did Mary.
True, but Jesus does give men a share in his power!
Dark and Twisted lol
As catholics we also follows Christ because when Jesus came to this world HE BUILD THE CHURCH THROUGH HIS APOSTLE PETER, ONLY ONE CHURCH NOT THOUSAND OF CHURCHES BUT ONLY ONE CHURCH and the successors right from His Apostle Peter are the pope. Jesus gave the authority and the power to His Apostles and it still continue till today in His Church.
Luke 9:1-2 - "and Jesus called His 12 Apostles together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and Jesus sent them out to preach the Kongdom of God and to heal.
Luke 10:16 - Jesus told to His Apostles "he who hears you hears Me and he who rejects you rejects Me and he who rejects Me rejects HIM who sent Me".
Luke 10:19 - "behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you".
John 8:31-32 - Jesus said to us "if you continue in My Word, you are truly My disciples and you will know the truth and the truth will make you free".
John 6:51 - Jesus say "I am the living bread which came down from heaven, if any one eats of this bread he will live forever and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is MY FLESH".
John 15:5-6 - Jesus say "I am the Vine, you are the branches, he who abides in Me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart frome you can do nothing. If a man does not abide in Me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers and the branches are gathered thrown into the fire and burned".
John 10:25-26 - Jesus told us "I told you and you do not believe. The WORKS that I do in MY FATHER'S name, they bear witness to Me; but you do not believe because you do not belong to My sheep".
You follow yourself and then attribute your decisions to Jesus.
But Our Lord Jesus Christ give the power and authority through His Apostles and it still continue through the popes.
Luke 9:1-2 - Jesus called His 12 Apostles together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and Jesus sent them out to preach the Kingdom of God and to heal".
Luke 9:5 - Jesus told to His 12 Apostles "and wherever they do not receive you, when you leave that town shake off the dust from your feet as a testimony against them".
Luke 10:16 - Jesus told to His Apostles "he who hears you hears Me he who rejects you rejects Me he who rejects Me rejects HIM who sent Me".
Luke 10:19 - Jesus told to His Apostles "behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy and nothing shall hurt you".
Luke 10:21 - In that same hour Jesus rejoiced in THE HOLY SPIRIT and said "I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth that thou hast hidden these things from the WISE and understanding and REVEALED THEM TO BABES; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will".
John 10:25-26 - Jesus answered "I told you and you do not believe. THE WORKS THAT I DO IN MY FATHER'S NAME, THEY BEAR WITNESS TO ME; BUT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE, BECAUSE YOU DO NOT BELONG TO MY SHEEP".
Mark 13:5-6 - Jesus warned us "take heed that no one leads you astray. Many will come in My name, saying I am he and they will leads many astray".
Mark 13:13 - Jesus told to His Apostles "AND YOU WILL BE HATED BY ALL FOR MY NAME'S SAKE. BUT HE WHO ENDURES TO THE END WILL BE SAVED".
Mark 13:22-24 Jesus warned us "false christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, IF POSSIBLE THE ELECT. BUT TAKE HEED, I HAVE TOLD YOU ALL THINGS BEFOREHAND".
Father gave me a waking vision of in the clouds, HE let me see how FEW of you have a relationship with Jesus. Soon The Holy Spirit will be taken out and the pestilence comes down. Until then HE is still listening. Will you call out? Your choice.
I pray to God for mercy every day :) I need lots of it!
@@CameronRiecker I hope you have a relationship with Jesus!
But why believe anything in the bible, when every significant, testable claim it makes fails that test?
The Cruxifixction is certainly not fiction :)
@@CameronRiecker Says who? Or, more to the point, how do you know?
@@CameronRiecker even if the crucifixion was real and Jesus was a person and was crucifies, the bible is so full of falsehoods. Why believe anything? You need to bend the meaning to gross extend to make it somewhat humane.
@@ploppysonofploppy6066 You do not have to believe in the crucifixion, but the apostles except John and Judas Iscariot died as martyrs for this belief. They tried to kill John in a pot of boiling oil but God saved him.
@@twoody9760 So how do you know all this happened?
Always interested in learning more.
Your first point has a HUGE error. In that you say "Priests have spiritual authority"
Nowhere in the New Testiment are the leaders Priests.
In fact the priesthood is done away with, in the One Priest in the order of Melchizedek Jesus.
St. Paul saw his role as priestly. He spoke of his calling as “the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit” (Rom 15:15-16).
Paul participates in the priesthood of Jesus.
@CameronRiecker Cameron, Paul never called himself a priest. No example of Priest is found in the Christian Scriptures.
Other then the allusion to us representing God.
All of us by that definition, in Christ are Priests.
Not just Paul.
I am just as much a Priest as Paul.
Even Peter says this in 1 Peter 2:9
So just as Jesus says "You are to call no one Father"
Peter says their is no Exclusive title of Priest other then everyone in Christ man or women is a a Priest.
This is the Problem with you following rules taught by Men, not God
Follow pope Callixtus lll or Alexander Vl? Or the current pope who doesn’t agree with the scriptures? Peter wasn’t a pope. The apostles were not infallible, only God is.
I will make a video soon on Papal infallibility because it seems to be badly misunderstood by most people!
For now, we can agree that we should only follow the Pope insofar as it pleases God :)
Christ founded the church on Peter’s confession and not on Peter. The rock is Christ, see Peter 1.
If you want to know if the pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, check whether his statements are in line with the scriptures. If anything he says is not in the scriptures, then follow the Bible and not him.
This was a beautiful breakdown of why Catholics believe the church has an office of a pope. I attend a Pentecostal church. Loving church and I dearly care for our members. In some Pentecostal circles their is this claim to an apostolic gift which really in Pentecostalism is a person who can do deliverance and is a church planter. The true office of apostle is held through apostolic succession. Every denomination outside of the Catholic Church will deny the authority of pope but they never deny that the pope is the true apostolic successor of St Peter. It’s just fact Pope Francis is the apostolic successor of St. Peter. I pray that we as evangelical Pentecostal Christian’s will give the catholic view more consideration. Unity starts with me so In my own spiritual life I have attended mass over the last month and I really appreciate the veneration for Mary and the saints but also the beauty of the Eucharist. God bless all Christian’s around the world and may we all be more United and be one like Jesus said he wishes us to be!
God bless you! Let us all strive for unity and peace as you are!
@@CameronRiecker thank you and may God bless you as well!
Consider Holy Orthodoxy, it hasn't added innovations like the RCC.
@@marcokite thank you brother! Yes I gave orthodoxy a try and attended a few liturgies at my local Greek Orthodox Church. Everything about the service was very beautiful. The clergy and laypeople all were extremely nice and helpful. Orthodoxy actually helped me out of having a dominant Pentecostal mindset so I’m thankful to you all. But as I mentioned in my original reply no one in the Orthodox Church disputes the Pope being the true apostolic successor of St. Peter. I love how Pope Francis and the Pope John Paul II have made efforts with our orthodox brethren to reunite. So to me orthodoxy and Catholicism in comparison to evangelical Protestantism are at a higher truth scale and the Holy Spirit works in all three branches to bring unsaved men and women to repentance and back to Jesus and back to the Father. So me personally I am considering RCC because I see the love of Christ in the church but I also see the daily morning mass and I see the veneration of Mary and the saints just like orthodoxy but I also see the communion with the apostolic successor of St. Peter. Well God bless you and your family my brother and may we continue to preach Christ crucified and risen and declare the trinity to all who God sends us to preach too!
And just one last thing and then I’ll discontinue from replying. We as Christians today are living in a way more diabolical age than when our church fathers lived. Just looking at the pollution to our earth, our souls, our bodies, our mental health we can all agree that we are headed down the wrong trajectory. More people are leaving the church, all churches, than at any other time in the New Testament period. Sin is more acceptable than it has ever been before. It’s time we as Christians just stop arguing and debating over doctrinal differences. We as the full body of Christ need more unity to overcome the evil one. We all have a pulpit in some way or another it’s time to use that to call out lukewarm amongst us and get them on fire for God! We all have leaders in our churches and we should keep them in prayer that they lead us to taking up our cross daily and follow Him! We all have hungry born again believers who want to spread the good news to our fellow neighbor who is demonically oppressed. and yes orthodox and Catholics can also call themselves born again Christians. All of us are born again and we need to help others to experience this love of Jesus that we all have! We are all one! Let us be more loving to each other. Satan wants to keep us divided.
Do you have any idea about why did Apostle John did not become Pope? Since he was still alive around Pope clement era. Thank you for your answer.
Can you let me know the reason? as I’ve been getting closer to god and looking for truth. Instead of going straight to religion because my family is mixed so I started by reading my bible
Keep reading the Bible and praying for God's light :) I will pray for you. Just because John may have been favored, does not mean that he is fit for leadership. John was the youngest Apostle and probably was not naturally as fit for leadership as Peter. Jesus chose Peter for that role because he, despite his failings, has what it takes to lead the Apostles.
Just because John may have been favored, does not mean that he is fit for leadership. John was the youngest Apostle and probably was not naturally as fit for leadership as Peter. Jesus chose Peter for that role because he, despite his failings, has what it takes to lead the Apostles.
@@CameronRiecker
2 Peter 1:20-21 “knowing this first, that any prophecy of Scripture is not of its own interpretation. For no such prophecy was ever brought forth by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
O, FOLLOW HIM INTO HIS SNAKE CHAMBER AT THE VATICAN, AND ALL WEAR FISH HATS OF god Dagon, SHALOM
Huh? lol
Protestants have not given up a Pope; they just decide for themselves who their pope will be. Most of the time it is their local pastor, but when push comes to shove they appoint themselves an infallible pope in their lives. When their own interpretation of the bible contradicts everyone else; then their own infallible thoughts rule. It is NEVER Sola Scriptura but always Sola Self-Interpretation of Scripture. So we ALL follow an earthly authority whether it be the Pope or yourself. The real question is; are you following the one Jesus appointed?
Great Video. Keep the Faith.
Wow what an insightful comment! Thank you!
Yes, the main issue is authority. It all comes down to that.
"So Jesus answered them and said, “My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself. He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who is seeking the glory of the One who sent Him, He is true, and there is no unrighteousness in Him." John 7:16-19
While what you say is certainly true of some Protestants, it is not true of all. I am a fallible man, and I make mistakes - but that problem isn't solved by relying on the authority of another fallible man - if the blind lead the blind, will they not both fall into a pit? But if we truly willing to do the will of our Father in heaven, and seek his glory, He will guide us to the truth that sets us free.
@@xaelath7771If this was true, than protestants would not be saved as there are thousands of denominations that are different, because the meaning of Jesus' words also go in the opposite direction,
If anyone does not know his will, then he will not know his teaching, which explains the many denominations and splits within the protestant "church"
Because you guys do not know the truth, if Protestantism were true, they would be united since the truth is one
Sola Scriptura is not found in the bible and is a modern day invention by your own creation of your false pope, Martin Luther
@@user-hr5of7pi3j Jesus doesn't say "anyone who knows His will" but "anyone who is willing to do His will". Thus you don't need to already know, rather you must only be willing to serve Him, and then He will teach you what is from God and what is not.
I'm not sure saying "if this was true" is the right attitude to have about a direct quote from our LORD and saviour. If we are willing to do His will we'd not doubt His words. By contradicting the LORD in favour of the opinion of men, we are putting our faith in those men and not the LORD.
Notice, Jesus does not say "all denominations" or "all churches" but " *anyone* who is willing to do His will". He speaks of the heart of the individual believer who is willing to serve him, and who to seek His glory and not thier own. The true universal church are the set of those who do God's will, not the set of those who protest against Rome, nor the set who serve the Papacy. But is not written "he who serves two master will hate the one and love the other"? If our loyalty is to the Pope, or Luther, or Calvin or any other man, we cannot truly be willing to do His will.
The heart behind sola scriptura is treat the word of God as our highest authority. To deny that is to make men equal to or greater than God, and that clearly contradicts God's will. Deuteronomy 4:2 says we are not to take away from or add to God's words, and many other places say the same.
@@xaelath7771 You make two great assumptions which do not hold true:
1) "... if we truly willing to do the will of our Father..." First you assume you are doing the will of the Father. St. Thomas even pointed out those who sin often do it not because they know they are doing evil but are mis-guided into thinking what they are doing is good. Jesus prayed that the Church be ONE. By actively remaining apart from the Apostolic Faith for one of your own liking then you are not doing the will of Jesus/God.
2) "... He will guide us to the truth .." That may be so, but HOW? Again you are assuming the path you have taken is one in which the Holy Spirit is personally guiding you. Though this may happen in some lesser degree (ie. movements of a well-formed conscience toward the good); in terms of rightful doctrine, liturgy, and which Church, occurs on the macro-scale through the valid Apostolic Authority Christ Himself setup on Earth (and it ain't your sect or any of the 40,000 others which have gone into Apostasy with the same attitude as you).
YES I will agree that the catholic church IS part of the true church and YES I will even agree that the pope sits on the seat of Cephas and has legitimate authority.
But where I MUST DISAGREE is that the pope is infallible in any way, or that the words of men are equal to the Word of God in its divine authority and eternal perfection.
Especially when I hear stuff like the pope endorsing the "blessing of homosexual couples"! By no means!!
Yes even Peter the rock of the church, even after being named Cephas, DENIED Jesus Christ THREE times!!
Yes even Peter, after receiving the Holy Spirit, and yes even on matters of doctrine and of the faith, was publically CORRECTED by Paul according to Scripture.
YES even the Pharisees had REAL authority and really sat on the seat of Moses, but NO the traditions of man will NEVER equal the Word of God!!
All of these teachings were given to us clear as daylight in Scripture.
Yes, the pope has real authority. No, he is not infallible, and his words are NOT equal to the Word of God in any way, not in matters of doctrine or blessing homosexual couples or anything else!!
God is above and beyond ALL human authority!!
The Word of God is above and beyond the words of all men and institutions and traditions of men!
Return to a simple faith in Jesus Christ, and let His Word be your highest authority!
Yeah but Holy Scripture needs to be interpreted, the Bible is NOT a self explanatory document. The Bible says that the CHURCH is the ground and pillar of the truth, 'Bible alone' is unbiblical!!
There is nothing 'simple' about the Blessed Trinity and the Divine Person of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Examine Holy Orthodoxy.
@marcokite 1. I never said "Bible ALONE" (we need the church!) but I did say that the Word of God is ABOVE and BEYOND all words of men and councils of men. And I 100% stand by this, and I would stake my eternal life on it!
God is above and beyond ALL men. His Word is also above and beyond the words of all men!
2. YES and the church was still the "pillar of truth" when Peter the ROCK fell into false doctrines of the circumcision party and needed to be publically CORRECTED by Paul.
Yes even Peter, even Cephas the Rock, even on matters of faith, fell into errors and needed to be corrected according to Scripture.
How much more does your pope who sits on the seat of Peter need to be corrected according to Scripture and good biblical doctrines?
We must be in CONSTANT reformation to Christ, constantly reforming ourselves and conforming ourselves to His image, constantly checking our doctrines and traditions against what God gave us in His Holy Word.
God bless.
@marcokite and YES there is absolutely a SIMPLE and PURE faith in Jesus Christ.
Put away your graven images, turn away from praying to the deceased, and put all of your trust and all of your hope in the ONE Name above all names, Jesus Christ the Son of God.
Set Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, and set His eternal Word as your highest authority.
Infallibility is a gift given to the pope only in very select circumstances. The pope is not impeccable (sinless) and he is usually not infallible when he speaks. It is only in certain very specific times that a statement of a pope is infallible. Most of what most popes have said is not infallible.
Perhaps I'll do a video on that soon.
@CameronRiecker the eternal Word of God is a gift given to the pope. He should read it and obey it, and shepherd his sheep to obey the Word of God ABOVE the words of all men, yes even the words of himself the pope.
6:16 david kingdom was earthly. Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world. Therefore the Roman Catholic church used forged documents to establish full authority over all. The donation of Constantine and the pseudo isodorian Decretals Decretals . The rock was christ that came down from heaven . The Messiah was hidden in the Jewish tanakh,not the Catholic Bible. Without the preservation of the Jewish tanakh no gospel's would be understood. . The rock that Moses struck in anger was christ who was struck once and his death was for the living waters to the thirsty of those who hunger and thirst for rightousness sake. The promise of the holy spirit was the water from his crucifixion.
Do you have evidence to substantiate that claim from any primary sources?
@@CameronRiecker sure apparently a outsider always has no bias compared to those who are within any closed system.
Thank you!
You're welcome! I hope you found the video helpful!
Always new theology with these Christians
Gotta stick to the stuff from the Apostles!
also law is in the bible and we dont follow the scripture. God is Spirit. dont serve the law. you already forgot that your sins were fully paid. so dont make any more by following the emperor.
We should "Honor the emperor" (1 Pet 2:17) so long as it does not displease God.
nothing is owned by the emperor, or your kingdom is full of nasty spirits. your house is full of people pleasers. of law based righteousness works horror in front of God, why woul you be judged in front of fpeople. why do you even look at the law, brothers. this is not fine.@@CameronRiecker
Kids are innocent! Followers of the imaginary friend.. Please be mercy! 😂😂
I will do my best to be mercy lol
Brilliant brother.. You have given me some verses that supports theosis too. 😮 From minute 17:00
Glad you enjoyed! :) God bless you!
No. You make god of the pope. Repent.
I certainly do not make the pope into God! He is the representative of Jesus. He is not God.
@@CameronRiecker Jesus doesnt have a representative, He is the representative. Papal supremacy is unbiblical, which is why you catholics now believe you worship the same god as the muslims. Why you have clown and hip hop masses, why you take communion with christians you deem heretical, why the pope now blesses skittles marriages. Why the church didnt collapse when rome was without a pope for many many years, why the pope was overruled by the ecumenical councils, why the popes have been adulterous sinners, why you have popes that have been deemed heretics by your own church.
One at a time:
Heb 13: spiritual leaders> Deacons, elders, The only priests were the Jewish ones and those trying to get Christians to become Jews first, dispelled in Acts 15. Thus the sacerdotal priesthood in not biblical.
You are correct from Romans; however, if the magistrate tells you do do in opposition to what God commands, or calls what is evil, good, than resistance is mandatory.
Old/New Davidic-Kingdom_ Here you went anachronistic.
Col1- 15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation, 16because in Him were created all things in the heavens and upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through Him and unto Him. 17And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, firstborn out from the dead, so that He might be holding preeminence in all things, 19because all the fullness was pleased to dwell in Him, 20and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace by the blood of His cross through Him, whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens.
Church Structure - Head of the church
If we were to create an organizational chart, Jesus Christ would fill the positions of Founder, President, CEO, CFO, and Chairman of the Board. In biblical language, Christ is “head over everything for the church” (Ephesians 1:22; cf. Colossians 1:18). The church is “his body, of which he is the Savior” (Ephesians 5:23). Jesus’ relationship with the church is very close and loving, for “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Ephesians 5:25). He desires “to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless” (Ephesians 5:27).
Church Structure - Church offices
The pastor (literally, “shepherd”) is the human head of a church. In the early church, it seems there was a plurality of elders, also called “bishops” or “overseers.” It is the elders who lead the church and are responsible for teaching the Word and guiding, admonishing, and exhorting the people of God. (See 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Acts 14:23.) The man who fills the duties of a pastor/teacher is actually one of the elders.
The other office in the church is that of deacon. Deacons are men who handle the practical concerns of the church, such as caring for the sick, elderly or widowed and maintaining buildings or other property. (See Acts 6:1-6 and 1 Timothy 3:8-12.)
There was no monarchical episcopate for hundreds of years.
That doesn't seem to be what Ignatius of Antioch says in his letter to the Ephesians from the early second century.
"It is right for you to give glory in every way to Jesus Christ who has given glory to you; you must be made holy in all things by being united in perfect obedience, in submission to the bishop and the presbyters."
PT2-The Petrine Promise...
As ex-Roman, yet still Catholic, I get why you MUST anachronistically see Peter, else all the gold writing in the Vatican is a waste. Which it is. The text of Scripture is clear especially in the original language. Jesus just asked who He is. Peter, by the power of the Spirit answers. THIS Truth is the Rock , who Christ is. Also, you picked the most corrected apostle to choose, based on a mistranslation and a quest for Power. Peter himself testifies to this: 1Pet 1:4-12, 1Pet 2:25
Lastly in 1Pet 5:
1I exhort the elders among you, a fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory being about to be revealed: 2Shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but willingly according to God; and not for base gain but eagerly, 3not as exercising lordship over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4And the Chief Shepherd having been revealed, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
Peter never claimed supremacy,... The above PROVES who Peter saw as the Rock by the way. 1Pet 2: 4And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by people, but is [i]choice and precious in the sight of God, 5you also, as living stones, [j]are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6For this is contained in [k]Scripture:
“BEHOLD, I AM LAYING IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNERSTONE,
AND THE ONE WHO BELIEVES IN [l]HIM WILL NOT BE [m]PUT TO SHAME.” 7This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for unbelievers,
“A STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE [n]CHIEF CORNERSTONE,” 8and,
“A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE”;
PT3 _ REPENT....and be baptized. This was the way in the New Testament. Baptism during the Sacral days, was membership into the tax rolls and the church. That had nothing to do with admittance into The Church.
You contort your meaning when you can say it can be one OR the other, than turn around and say it MUST mean Peter is the Head, when the New Testament and the Epistle of Peter DENY or reject that claim.
In Isa 22:That I will summon My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,
21 And I will clothe him with your tunic
And tie your sash securely around him.
I will hand your [s]authority over to him,
And he will become a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
22 Then I will put the key of the house of David on his shoulder;
When he opens, no one will shut,
When he shuts, no one will open.
The House of David, yep, that is Jesus.
The authority of the keys is given to the whole church, for Matthew 18:15-20 tells us that the entire church, as represented by the elders, has the authority to bind people from entering the kingdom and loose them to come before the throne of grace. Furthermore, Peter, to whom the keys are initially given, later falls into error (16:21-23). This reveals that the covenant community can make mistakes and that its pronouncements are subject to a higher authority.
This higher authority, of course, is Scripture. Peter is given the keys only after proclaiming that Jesus is the Messiah (vv. 13-20); he receives authority only insofar as he faithfully represents the Word of God. By extension, this applies to all church authority. When church leaders are faithful to Scripture, their decisions are certified by the Lord Himself, and they bear His authority.
PT4 Sifted Wheat..This is where your leader denies Christ and withing a short time, Jesus calls him Satan. This is why the CLEAR reading is that it is who Christ is, as who is the Rock. This is why Rome is Christianized paganism. It seeks to elevate man. and a certain woman. Yet, who is it that brings strength? The Holy Spirit. Not only that, Paul had to correct Peter. James makes the decision in Acts 15. It is as though Peter believed himself in 1Pet than what Rome teaches.
PT5 NO, me genoito! May it never be. Christ not God share their divinity with ANY PERSON! That is why when the Pope claims for himself the tiles of God, we KNOW where his heart is....
That said, back to the video. Peter denied Jesus THREE TIMES, thus Jesus redeems Peter with THREE questions. It was not significant in how you allude to popery. John 10: “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I said you are gods’b? 35If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture is not able to be broken, 36do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am Son of God’?
Context! NO human is divine. we have the imago dei, but we are NOT divine. Stop worshipping the creature.
Speaking of CONTEXT in John 10:
18Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you dressed yourself and walked where you desired; but when you shall be old, you will stretch forth your hands, and another will dress you and will bring you where you do not desire.” 19Now He said this signifying by what death he will glorify God.
And having said this, He says to him, “Follow Me."
This isn't a video this is heresy! Holy Orthodoxy is the only true Christian faith!
Did you see the Church Fathers I referenced? Can you find any early Fathers supporting the idea that a council has the supreme power?
@@CameronRiecker Oh sure put one man in charge and make him "infallible". And it got to the point where the current Pope is perfectly fine with gays getting married. Completely against the teachings of Christ. All the councils in the past and in early Church history had to deal with the various heresies like Aryanism, Nestorianism etc. The Church is the body of Christ, not the Pope!
3:41
Thanks for the comment!
B and S
Which of my arguments did you find most compelling, and why do you not think it works? :)
So Jesus and Peter are both the rock, in different ways? 🤷♂️
Basically yes! Christ is the rock essentially and Peter by participation!
@@CameronRiecker - no!! wrong! St Peter represents the episcopacy, as the Church Fathers taught. ALL bishops are the 'rock' by participation.
Not quite no. The LORD Jesus Christ (or 'Jesus' as you call him) is THE rock. St Peter represents the episcopacy, as the Church Fathers taught. ALL bishops are the 'rock' by participation.
I’m a Protestant that isn’t happy with Protestantism. Just went to my first mass yesterday. Catholicism is so full of heresies and human made dogma it’s unbelievable. It’s not the authority that Protestants are avoiding it’s the twisting of scripture. The Orthodox Church does a much better job adhering to the text. I have a RUclips channel with 500 subs I’d love to debate this topic on a video call with you.
I'd love to! How can I contact you?
Hmmmmm since all the Orthodox are not in communion with each other, the logical question is, which Orthodox are you speaking about?
@@srich7503 I'm talking about the Catholic Church in this video!
@@CameronRiecker Yes sir. I was commenting on the poster that mentioned the Orthodox as the only truth. Not sure where it went.
@@srich7503 Got it :) Sorry for the confusion!
Jesus is the rock. Peter is NOT. You are misinterpreting the Word of God to justify false teachings. And "Vicar of Christ" has the same meaning as Anti-Christ. Vicar is related to "vicarious." A Vicar is a substitute for Christ. Nowhere does the Bible say there will be someone who holds the office of substitute of Christ EXCEPT for the Anti-Christ. The word "anti" can mean both "against" and "instead of" or "in the place of." The Old Testament and New Testament clearly refer to Jesus as the chief cornerstone, the stone of stumbling, the rock of offence, etc. There is not one clear verse that establishes Peter as "Pope" or "Vicar."
You haven't addressed the prophesy though, or the apostolic precedent. Did you watch the video?
Regardless of the words we use to describe Peter's role in the Church, he has the keys :)
Regardless of the words we use to describe Peter's role in the Church, he has the keys :)
This dude missed Hermeneutics 101
You keep saying “one…” as in chronicles or kings. Bro. I’m furious at your trash Catholic lay understanding
If that’s your biggest complaint, then you must have really resonated with my arguments! 🤭
@@CameronRiecker Hierarchy is one thing; to say the Papal authority is valid because of Peter’s leadership is where I take issue. If Peter is the sole successor of Christ, what happened at Pentecost? Is it not every believer the Holy Spirit dwells in? Do men not vote for the Pope? The assumption would be that the Cardinals are voting, so would they be infallible? How is one redeemed? How are we justified? My man, I appreciate you putting your two cents in, I honestly do. However, defending your position doesn’t help one grow. Read the arguments against your own. Read Luther’s commentary on Romans. Read the Westminster Confession. These men are a lot smarter than I will ever be. Blessings to you