Is Protestantism Heresy? Pt. 3 - The Pope | Collision w/ Jeff Durbin
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 10. 2023
- This is a portion of our show Collision. In the full episode Jeff responds to 5 common claims of Roman Catholics. We look at Mary, Sola Scriptura, The Eucharist and more. This is part 3 where we address the Roman Catholic view on the bishop of Rome as The Pope. Collision is exclusively available on All-Access at apologiastudios.com/shows/col.... To watch the full Hour long response follow the link and check it out.
Be sure to like, share, and comment on this video.
You can get more at apologiastudios.com :
You can partner with us by signing up for All Access. When you do you make everything we do possible and you also get exclusive content like Collision, The Aftershow, Ask Me Anything w/ Jeff Durbin and The Academy, etc. You can also sign up for a free account to receive access to Bahnsen U. We are re-mastering all the audio and video from the Greg L. Bahnsen PH.D catalogue of resources. This is a seminary education at the highest level for free.
#ApologiaStudios
Follow us on social media here:
Facebook: / apologiastudios
Instagram: apologiastu...
Check out our online store here:
shop.apologiastudios.com/ - Zábava
Want more content from Collision? Sign up for Apologia All Access! You won't regret it! apologiastudios.com
Jeff, would love to see you on Michael Knowle's show discussing protestant and catholic beliefs challenging his catholic roots. It would be such a great exchange. Year after year i see Michael's political content shifting more and more towards spiritual warfare and our fallen nature, which is at the heart of everything.
Interesting that all of the deep thinkers who are really at the forefront of the fight against communism, atheism, and wokeism are nearly all Catholics. Protestants are, yet again, absent from the fight.
You will never see this guy debate any serious Catholic. His rhetoric is for you guys only.
@@wordforever117 Rhetoric? The binding and loosing was clearly to all the apostles. Any other view is denial from mind control. Think for yourself.
@@juke1225If you think that the authority to bind and loose was given to all of the apostles then you agree with the Catholic Church. So do you?
@@wordforever117 Some things in Catholicism I agree with, but the changing traditions over the centuries and the modern Catholic Church have almost no resemblance to Jesus and the apostles.
Please, please PLEASE STOP the awful background auto noise. Your content is truthful, strong and effectively delivered. The CG "music" is an annoying distraction.
I agree
Looking forward to a response from How To Be A Christian
😂😂😂 ah geez, that dude. Probably the worst exegesis I’ve ever seen done.
HTBC is a master troll, full of snarks, scoffs, condescension, trying to be too cute, and not much else. I hope your comment was in jest!
Lol look at these Calvi bois haating all that cope
@@KnightFel 🤣 hahaha just keep telling yourself that!
@@jessebryant9233Coping hard, aren't you? Stop adding to the bible, naughty boy!!
I hope everyone had a good Reformation Day!
Holidays mean nothing in America anymore unless it's a months worth of celebrating whatever goofy thing they can come up with. I like what Paul writes in Romans 14:5-6 basically observe every day to the lord. Some say the reformation was bad, people don't realize Martin Luther saw first hand how bad the church was and it needed reforming.
What was the Reformation about? Have you read the reformers writing to see their aim of what the Reformation was about?
@@reformedcatholic457Reforming the Catholic Church....which they refused to do. They doubled down with their heresies at Trent.
@@reformedcatholic457crickets
And Luther wanted to burn down the houses of all the Jews. So ya know 🤷🏻♀️
Question: Wouldn't Jesus and Peter be speaking Aramaic not Greek though? So what would He have said in their language and not Greek?
How much longer can the Pope deny the never changing Word of God?
He's been doing it for thousands of years. I don't see him stopping any time soon.
For however long Satan will continue to reign until the day that he is cast into the lake of fire with him.
ROME NEVER CHANGES WHAT IT DEEMS INFALLIBLE!
Matthew 7:24-25 also tells us that Jesus is the Rock of foundation. 1 Corinthians 3:11 also tells us that Jesus is the only Rock of foundation, as well as 1 Corinthians 10:4.
Loving this series
Because it affirms all of your preconceptions without you having to do any of your own research?
@@wordforever117What is the minimum a person must do to be saved?
@@sly8926If you are interested in doing just the minimum in order to be saved then you have a serious problem
Go cry to your cult leader in Rome dude. We don't care about your lies here. @@wordforever117
My wife used to be a Catholic straight outta Italy, now she's trying to reach her family who are all Catholic
I’m about to speak to my all catholic family as well. It will be out of love but I’m worried things will go bad. I’m praying for her family to see truth
@@BluNinjaPigwhat truth should they know??
It's so sad to see people rejoice about and openly praise others for turning people away from the one true church.
Protestants base all of their critiques of the Catholic Church on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (i.e. scripture alone). They think that somehow this doctrine that scripture is the only and ultimate authority in determining Christian theology is infallible.
However, most don't even realize the self-defeating nature of a concept like Sola Scriptura. In order for Sola Scriptura to have a chance at even being remotely true, we would need to see an intra-scriptural reference as to how many and which books constitue the canon of scripture. However, we see that nowhere in the Bible. This would mean that one would have to appeal to an authority that is outside of and above scripture to determine the canon of scripture. This appeal to an extra-scriptural authority defeats the concept of Sola Scriptura altogether.
This is where non-Catholic Chirstian denominations fall short. They don't submit to the will and word of God. They submit to their will and their self-interpretation of God. This is why we see thousands of Protestant denominations. If someone disagreed on scripture, they just told themselves they had the proper interpretation and split ways.
Honestly, if you are Protestant, ask yourself this question: If two non-Catholic Christians disagree on the interpretation of scripture, how do they reconcile who has the correct interpretation? What authority do they appeal to?
@@henrybayard6574worshipping saints and Mary is pagan, Galatians 5 argues against infused Righteousness, Catholic mass is blasphemy because Christ died once for all and cleansed us for all time because Hebrews 10 argues against the continued murder of Jesus.
@@MrLegionofman your right worshiping Mary or the saints is wrong that's why the RCC condemned the colloridians in the 4th century for doing so. We do however ask Mary and the saints to intercede for us. That's entirely biblical.
...Jesus said - I WILL BUILD MY OWN CHURCH. It will not be Peter who will build it, but Jesus. And the church will not be Peter’s, but MINE. Here's another passage - John 21:17 ...Peter... Feed MY sheep... Not yours, but MINE! For ALL POWER belongs to GOD, and Jesus will return to take it away (Matthew 28:18). The question is - who herds the sheep? Pope? Holy father? (Matthew 23:9)? Or a shepherd? And Peter remained to tend the sheep of our Lord Jesus Christ.
ps: look at how the word “pastor” is translated from Latin...
Thank you for taking on this topic, and presenting the Lord's answers to these questions as recorded in Scripture. You always explain things so clearly and so beautiifully.
This is really good exegetical textual explanation.
Really enjoy this content. I am married to a woman who was raised Catholic. She turned from that belief, and we now attend a Baptist church together. We have three children we are raising as well. I have been witnessing to a Greek Orthodox for over six years. LONG story short, he has started attending our church services for the last two months. The first time he came, multiple friends of mine walked up to him and asked him if his name was Pants (short for Pantalies), he said yes, and they responded, "we have been praying for you for a long time"! So, MULTIPLE friends of mine at different times following the service walked up to him and said similar things. He was so emotional he literally ran out of the church. I saw him the next day and he said, "I have never had anyone other than you tell me that they were praying for me, I didn't even know those cats and they were praying for me?" I told him those are the kinds of men I roll with, they are my family and when they say they are praying, THEY ARE PRAYING! After over 45 years of the orthodox church, he has lots of questions about what he was raised to believe. Mary, Saints, Communion, Holy water, confession.... All of it. I simply point him to scripture and ask him to read it and tell me what it means. He says things like "here you go, just gonna get that Bible out"! It is so great to see the power of the word of God coming alive to a new believer. These vids are short and packed with a lot of power. I have used them often for my friend.... Sometimes he might get tired of me saying the same things to him, so to hear it from someone else is probably a good thing. If ONE of these shorts saves just ONE...... Well, there you go. The HS has drawn this man to itself and these have helped me and in turn helped Pants! God bless!!!!
Will you be honest enough to remind him of the following…
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century, just 75 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian doctrine and subsequent councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
Eastern Orthodox Church is the True Church ☦👏👏👏
@@firstnamelastname9141 Which one, since they are not all in communion with each other?
@@srich7503 Should we bow to Bartholomew proto-Papacy?
@@firstnamelastname9141 i dont know. Do you need me to answer before you can answer my question after such a strong claim of yours?
Thank you for clarifying this. Many people have misused these verses to worship someone besides Jesus.
I’m afraid this is the most argued text in the history of Christianity. It is a very weak argument that this protagonist makes, and frankly I, as a devout Catholic, prefer the traditional Catholic teaching. There has been a “ Petrine “ sense in the Catholic Church ab initio. Further the big differential between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, is actually in the Creed , associated with the procession of the Holy Spirit, in the Trinity. Before the rupture between East and West, the Papacy was not so much a bone of contention.
That was a great explanation! Thanks!
Thank you for the clarification of this verse. I never realized the shift from Jesus speaking to Peter and then about Himself.
Lol. That’s not in the text, those are Pastor Jeff’s hand signals. Lol you guys don’t believe in sola scriptura. 😆
@@bman5257Catholics don't believe in sola scriptura
@@gnarlsley I know but Jeff is adding hand signals to put his meaning into the passage. But his hand signals aren’t in the Bible.
@@bman5257 talking with your hands is a normal thing people do. You're weird
@@gnarlsley I’m not weird. Pastor Jeff used his hands to determine what the Rock meant in the passage. To distinguish the rock from Peter. Do you not understand that Jeff’s hand moves are not in the text. I’m not saying it’s weird to talk with your hands, I talk with my hands, but you can’t use your own vocal inflection and hands to determine the meaning of the text.
Brother Jeff or anyone who wa nts to learn more about the papacy and where they fit in prophecy please ho waych "from babylon to america". Please please go watch it brethern! I cant stress it enough. God bless...and yes i agree with Jeff. But its waaayy deeper than what ur mind can fathom. God bless
The Keys to the Kingdom are merely meant figuretively, the authority to declare that which is already bound in heaven or on earth.
It's like someone who is given the keys to a city, it's not meant for him to open every door in the city, it's meant as a token of honour bestowed upon him acknowledging his authority and importance.
Is this a fallible or infallible interpretation?
@@srich7503fallible, the Pope didn't say it
@@gnarlsley i agree “the” pope didnt say it. But “a”pope, and “many” popes say it, so im giving them their due “authority” should they choose to accept it.
What does binding and loosing mean? I have looked for this explanation but I haven’t found a clear answer.
What does Matthew 18:18 mean?
Prior verses outlined out a process for Christians to follow when dealing with a believer who refuses to repent of sinful behavior. That process ends, as a last resort, with the person being removed from the community and treated as an outsider (Matthew 18:15-17).
Now Jesus extends what He has said to Peter earlier in Matthew to include the rest of the disciples. After Peter's declaration that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God, Jesus said, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19).
In this context, Jesus seems to be telling the disciples that heaven will confirm their decisions to include or remove people from the community of believers in Jesus. It's important to see that this is a privilege and power given to the twelve disciples who will become the twelve apostles as the Holy Spirit comes and the church is born. For now, Jesus makes this promise to them and not to others. They will fill a unique and special role in the history of God's people and the church that will set them apart from most other people.
The Bible says your treasures are laid up in heaven I believe this is our loved ones your family is worth much more than gold so I believe that when you bind something, it means who you love shall be in heaven.
Hint: Isaiah 22:22
@@thejerichoconnection3473
I read that verse. Can you tell me more?
@@nicholaspatrick- great, you must have noticed that Jesus is clearly quoting from that verse in Isaiah then.
There the king was leaving his steward Eliakim in charge giving him full authority on his people (the house of David). Similarly, in Matthew Jesus is establishing Peter as his steward and conferring him the authority on his church.
The power of binding and losing is a synonym for full authority. Whatever rule Peter sets needs to be followed by the rest of the church. Whatever rule he annuls is not binding anymore. You can see Peter’s power to authoritatively set doctrinal disputes clearly playing out in Acts.
Hope this helps.
The most false premise is the uninterrupted apostolic succession from Peter to the Pope of Rome.
The most frustrating part is when much of history is riddled with the evidence proving this succession just based on the persecution alone. 🤷🏽♂
I have a protestant background and agree with the conclusions presented here but do not completely understand the concept of binding and loosing given to Peter and the apostles. It seems like this is how the catholic church justifies the pope etc creating new church doctrine outside the scriptures if one were to first buy into apostolic succession? Is the binding and loosing just referring to giving the apostles some authority for applying what Christ revealed and taught with regard to managing conflicts in the local churches?
Why does the name Peter in Greek sound so similar to the Greek word for rock? Is there any meaning or implications behind this?
Keep searching. I was a Calvinist who became Catholic 2.5 years ago. Look at Protestant converts to Catholicism. They're either strong Protestant lay people or their scholars. Look at the Catholics who become Protestant (this comment section is a perfect example) they think we worship Mary, etc. Ponder why Peter's name is also Kepha. What does Kepha mean in Aramaic? May God bless you in your inquiry.
@@jacobwoods6153 What you worship is what you pray to
"There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you." - Deuteronomy 18:10-12
"First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth." - 1 Timothy 2:1-7
"And when they say to you, “Inquire of the mediums and the necromancers who chirp and mutter,” should not a people inquire of their God? Should they inquire of the dead on behalf of the living? To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn." - Isaiah 8:19-20
"Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer." - 1 Timothy 4:1-5
The dead cannot speak to you and they care not for you, they are gone and have cease the regard of the living.
"Where shall I go from your Spirit?
Or where shall I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there!
If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
If I take the wings of the morning
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
even there your hand shall lead me,
and your right hand shall hold me.
If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me,
and the light about me be night,”
even the darkness is not dark to you;
the night is bright as the day,
for darkness is as light with you." - Psalm 139:7-12
"I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better." - Phillpians 1:23
"So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil." - 2 Corinthians 5:6-10
Lets ask a deeper question, would Koine Greek speakers have even understood such an implication at such a time? It very well could just be a name, or its meaning could be something we simply don't understand yet, (or it could also simply mean something else and we're making a false presumption) even so it makes little sense to presume that just because he is named such that it implies some specific interpretation, that's like saying my name is shoemaker and so I must make shoes, you can't presume the first idea that comes to your head upon reading any information that it immediately means that, especially when you're reading it from your modern lens.
Yes, Jesus renamed Simon to be Peter (rock)- and built his church on "rock". That is why the papacy is biblical, contrary to what non-catholics think.
@@daveforeman6931 why can't it be that Simon was renamed to (rock) because he was the one that first made the confession, the confession on which the church will be built? That's a pretty easy connection to draw if the rock is Peter's confession, especially with the wordplay in the original language (two different words for rock). That would also make sense with why Jesus says "on THIS rock (the confession Peter made)" rather than "on YOU rock"
Agree!! question, why do you and James wear a chain and cross? I know its not a crucifix!!
Pope’s also started to condemn Bible-believing followers of Christ, who taught salvation through Christ alone, as heretics.
Pope Innocent III decreed, “We prohibit laymen possessing copies of the Old and New Testament. …We forbid them most severely to have the above books in the popular vernacular.” (meaning in their country’s native language, as the Papal Church only allowed their priests to read it in Latin). (Source: The Council of Toulouse, Canon 14)
Jesus is the cornerstone, the rock. This is the foundation that the wind, rain and floods cannot wipe away.
I have struggled for a long time reconciling certain dogma within the Catholic Church and still do. Im seeking to learn more and this is a great channel. However, I am swayed when I listen to Sam Shamoun (lots of his videos here on CZcams). For someone so incredibly knowledgable on scripture, I can’t help but wonder how he has embarked on a journey which literally turned him from condemning Catholicism to utterly embracing and defending it. The scripture hasn’t changed - so could we (Protestants) actually be missing something?
I believe ANY denomination that has Christ our living God and His saving sacrifice on the cross which we are saved by through faith at the core of their beliefs front and centre IS a church bringing people to true salvation in Christ.
However when it comes to sharing our faith and even defending it, I do believe the questions over denominations is important. And I’m struggling with it.
Does any one else have thoughts on speakers like Sam Shamoun who I believe have been truly gifted through the Holy Spirit in their mental dexterity to recall and apply Scripture in defence of the many worldly attacks on our faith, being able to not just reconcile Catholicism in scripture but doing a complete 360 from there previous stance using the very same scripture?
Read Calvin and Luther, read Spurgeon, RC Sprouls, Bahnsen, or go read Augustine, many of the first four centuries of church fathers completely rejected a papacy entirely, let me ask what church father even in the first century believed everything that is necessary for a Catholic believe in order to be saved, that being the Bodily Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, and Papal Infallibility? Let me ask you a question of this, what does Jesus say in Matthew 16:23, which is literally right after the Catholics claim Peter was given the "keys" for which defines the Papacy as they claim? Its almost like Jesus planned an exact textual lead-in.
@@Spartan322
In the Bible, Christ is called the “Rock” 142 times, Peter 0 times.
I observe the Roman magisterium to be the worst entity ever, to interpret Scripture.
What say you?
@@richardurban2269 I agree, they're sola ecclesiae which really just means Popey decides their religion alone. And the Pope is a very fallible and wicked man.
How to refute a pagan who says we have no authority to interpret scriptures??
Amen!
Mary in scripture:
1.
Scripture does **not** teach the idea that we need to send anyone for us to the throne of God to ask for grace or mercy, anyone including Mary. On the contrary, we are warmly invited to approach God's throne.
Hebrews 4:14-16 ESV -
*Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.*
2.
That little word "until" shows that Mary was not perpetually a virgin. And, yes, it is in the original Greek. Grammar is not complex.
Matthew 1:24-25 ESV -
*When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.*
3.
Jesus exalted the word of God and obedience to it above his family members.
Matthew 12:46-50 ESV -
*While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.*
This is a companion passage to Matthew 12.
Luke 11:27-28 ESV -
*As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”*
4.
She herself glorified her savior. She was not a sinless person.
Luke 1:47 ESV -
*and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,*
Its so insane for me to hear that the Immaculate Concept is one of the most core doctrines of many "Christian" folks and yet they completely ignore the fact that Mary admits that she needs a Savior. Why would someone who is born without sin need a Savior? Her as a virgin in conceiving Christ by the Holy Spirit is itself a miracle, the corruption of sin into the human flesh comes by the seed of man, that was a pretty well understand presumption of how sin worked and hence that's why the body of Jesus was distinct, as it did not carry the seed of Adam, for which sin is inherited, it need not be any more complicated.
I’m so glad I came out of the pagan religion of Roman Catholicism. I’m a born again Christian! So blessed!
Glory to God 🙏
Who told you that Catholic Christianity is pagan?
@@wordforever117 Jesus took the veil off me.
@@martindj1988Jesus told you that his church is pagan? You sure this wasn't the devil trying to take you away from God?
You do understand reformed theology/ Calvinism is manichean gnosticism?
What’s the point of calling Peter, Peter if Jesus isn’t talking about peter? That makes no sense
You are forgetting that Jesus called/renamed Simon Peter. Kind of important.
Mark's and Luke's account makes no mention of Peter being anything. Indicating they knew nothing of the catholic claims of the supremacy of Peter.
In Matt 16:18 Simon Bar Jonah is called the "Rock" and in Matt 16:23 Peter is called "Satan", now he can't be both, but if Jesus is referring to the different confessions as many Fathers and Protestants believe, no problem. Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
@patriceagulu8315 Those who confess Jesus as Lord become the rock that Jesus builds His church on. Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
@patriceagulu8315 Matthew 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.
@patriceagulu8315 Galatians 2:11: But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
@patriceagulu8315
"When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.” - John 21:15-19
You do realize this is not only applying to Peter right? The whole point is to tell Peter that he must submit to Christ in order to love Him, he must give up in order to follow Christ. Its not about tending the flock as some special figure, its about following Christ, and to do so, you must be like Jesus who also tends to His flock, you must shepherd as Jesus had done, you must submit to follow after Jesus, Peter is not in an exegetical sense particularly special here, its very likely that Peter was given this instruction because he needed it foremost, and it was recorded for the sake of the hearing of others who also needed it who are like Peter.
@patriceagulu8315 You ask a Reformed Baptist or a Reformed Presbyterian on most verses, they'll agree in most cases, they only disagree on traditions, they don't disagree on doctrine, that's how the early church also worked, there aren't anywhere close to that many denominations, not like it matters anyway, denominations only separate for organizational reasons mostly, not for doctrinal disagreements, the current SBC and Westminster still agree on doctrine, they disagree on tradition and organization, they don't call each other heretics. Also we're not our own pope, the Holy Spirit's power has never left, He is still will us, and we can still receive Him just as even the Apostles could, though we may not be inspired like them, God has never limited access to Him, God is personal God, He comes to each of us and meets us where we're at, God is not an elitist. See Mark 7:7-8.
Peter is not a "this" he is a "you". Jesus is the Rock, not Peter.
Abortion pills are still for sale in every American state.
These pills account for 93% of cases.
They are taken almost exclusively between weeks 6 and 8
There is only one victim.
Do you think there's an adult human being in the world that doesn't know where they came from?
Is there an adult human being that actually believes that they were grown in a Cabbage Patch or they were delivered by a stork in a little cloth pouch.
Do you think there's a human being in the world that hasn't heard of an adoption?
There is only one victim.
Everyone else in the process is a conscious intelligent adult.
Storytime kids: The Ballad of HB 813.
Louisiana. May 2022.
Christians organize themselves and draft a "Bill of Abolition" for their state. This would criminalize anyone who willfully involves themselves in this activity, including the parents. It is a very simple bill declaring declaring that life begins at conception and ends by natural causes.
The bill receives wide the spread support within the legislature of Louisiana, HB 813, it is poised to pass.
What happens next?
71 of the largest and most influential *pro-life* organizations in America banned together and draft an open letter to the Louisiana legislature begging them not to pass any bill which which would actually place real penalties upon the parents.
The bill fails.
We need to stop supporting these organizations. Catholics control most of them.
Honest questions are welcome.
ὅτι is not a verb, Sir. Please talk to Pastor James White. I do agree with your overall point though, God bless
How does Protestantism ever propose to fulfill Christs priestly prayer?
“The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.”
John 17:22-23 ESV
Preservation/Perseverance of the Saints, Perseverance of the Scripture, and Spiritual Inspiration.
Boom
Why does the thumbnail of this video have to be comical? Just show a standard photo of the pope.
The invective in the video's content alone is more than sufficient.
7:10 False. He gives them the power to bind and loose. Not the keys. Just as bishops can teach definitively, only if they’re in communion with the pope.
Never surprise how they turned scripture into acrobatics😂😢
Totally untrue... No acrobatics - just Holy Scripture passed down from The Christ
4:56 Lol. Pastor Jeff, your hand signals to help you explain the passage are not in the Bible. How do you know to do the right hand signals by going sola scriptura. It’s not sola scriptura plus the hand signals you think Jesus is doing.
How do protestants not realize that the very false prophets Jesus warned about they follow? ie. Luther, Calvin
Except neither claimed to be prophets or infallibility
They are the “magisterial reformers.” They claim a magisterial teaching - in other words, their tradition and their interpretations of Scripture are infallible. Please, look into the Catholic Church. There is no hope in these magisterial reformers. The real magisterium that Jesus Christ established is that which goes back to St Peter and the Apostles themselves
@jeffreylillard1354 telling me to just look into the catholic church is exactly what the mormons say about their church. Why do you think I watch these videos?
But there's a huge difference between magisterial and infallibility. Just because one speaks with authority doesn't in a magisterial way doesn't mean he can't be disagreed with. However there's no room for disagreement when it comes to infallibility, that's a "My way or the highway" kind of deal
@@president234 I mean if ur a protestant can you even claim that your canon of scripture is infallible?
@@meathammer4230 sure. Why can't I?
A wonderful explanation thank you
A good explanation of what exactly?
@@wordforever117how catholics think we are heretics while holding heretical teachings.
@@Guy-xr8lj Guy, Jesus formed a church during his earthly ministry and gave it the authority to bind and lose and to forgive sins. Why should I believe that the original church lost that authority and why should I believe that your new version of Christianity has this divine authority?
@@wordforever117 because your perspective is that an official priest has that authority and we have Protestants who forgive sins and cast out demons as well. If you asked the average milk toast Evangelical Protestant about catholicism and orthodox Christianity they would tell you they are all denominations of Christianity. We don't think in the terms you think in because we see that we are all priest and kings to God. The Bible says the father is the priest of the home. There is a priest of the church. And there is Jesus our high priest who sits on the throne of heaven and earth. Jesus told his disciple if anyone asks him to forgive their sin he will forgive them. Jesus always forgives sin when we ask him. And we can confess sin to our brothers who can help us repent in a meaningful and definite way. Jeff Durbin has seen many people delivered from drugs. Those people are now part of his church.
@@Guy-xr8ljYeh not convincing in the slightest. Protestantism was started by a man who was ex-communicated for heresy.
You need to prove to me that the Church he started had divine authority from God - not self proclaimed by a man.
Protestants, orthodox, and Catholics are all brothers and sisters Christ even if we have major differences that must be reconciled. That being said as someone who was born as a Orthodox I’m leaning towards becoming Catholic. Not enormous change compared to if I was going to be Protestant BUT the differences is profound enough for me to become Catholic
The teachings of the catholics and orthodox scare me because they are far enough off the gospel that they may not possess Salvation. That being said God may still give grace to inperfect theology. And politically we can still band together to form a Christian society.
@@Guy-xr8lj how do Catholics not have salvation?
@@roshinvarghese6879I pray you complete your journey to the Catholic Church. May God bless you!
i think he refers to salvation by works.
The venerating of idols, as idolatry.
Praying to the dead, praying to mary, praying to saints.
Jesus is the only mediator.
But again, the most important thing is there, to put faith in Jesus is the number 1 thing to be saved. So i wouldnt say someone is saved or not because of our differences.@@roshinvarghese6879
@@roshinvarghese6879 Second Vatican Council 1964 “the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the creator, in the first place among who are MUSLIMS, for theY profess to hold the faith of Abraham and together with US they adore the one merciful god”
I love you guys, but that music you always play on these segments is just terrible. And distracting.
Pray for me brothers! Tomorrow I will bring the Gospel to as many of my Catholic family as I can at a sweet 16 party for my niece! Trying to snatch them from the flames of hell 😭😭😭
Why would you need others to pray for you? You claim that is unbiblical. According to Protestants, intercessory prayer is heretical.
You might want to straighten that out before spreading this alleged Gospel.
@CantStopTheMattWalsh Paul the Apostle asked for prayers, so we should do the same. I am going to pray for God to bless my Catholic family out of that idolatrous religion and to grant them repentance unto life and faith in The Lord Jesus Christ
@@danielmalo4097 Wait, so intercessory prayer is OK? Then why do Protestants critique Catholics over intercessory prayer?
Also, before you go do this, you should really think about the Protestant critiques of the Catholic Church and what they are based on.
All of Protestantism is based on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (i.e. scripture alone). Now, if this doctrine were true, then all of your critiques would have a chance at being accurate. However, the very foundational doctrine of Sola Scriptura is self-defeating. In order for a doctrine like Sola Scriptura to even have a chance at being true, there would need to be an intra-scriptural reference as to how many and which books constitue the canon of scripture. However, you and I both know that there isn't. This would mean that one would have to appeal to an authority that is outside of and above scripture to determine the canon of scripture. This appeal to an extra-scriptural authority defeats the concept of Sola Scriptura altogether, and by extension all Protestant critiques.
Ask yourself this question: If two non-Catholic Christians disagree on the interpretation of scripture, how do they reconcile who has the correct interpretation? What authority do they appeal to?
If you’re saved by faith alone, why would sinning doctrinally affect your salvation.
@@bman5257 I had a Protestant, of some denomination, tell me that belief in Christ is the only prerequisite for salvation. He said that Catholics were heretics for saying baptism and observance of the ten commandments are also prerequisites, along with faith.
I then pointed out that his bar for salvation is set to a level that even Satan could attain. This is evidenced by James 2:19 where it states "even the demons believe and tremble." Theologically speaking, I am curious that if the salvific bar is merely set at sola fide, how does that exclude demons? Because as the Bible states, "even they believe and tremble."
There’s a whole lot of people that want you to think how they want you to think. Love God and love your neighbor, In your own way and then you will have Jesus in your heart, without fail.
How and where do you define love?
@@jacobcolson6026 Dovotion ,adoration, caring, compassion is a good start. Treat others the way you would want to be treated. Love is not limited to a definition it’s a point of infinity and you are like Xeno’s arrow.
@@RRachwal21What gospel did the Apostles preach by which we are saved?
@@Nolongeraslave Mark 1:15.
@@RRachwal21 What is the good news aka the gospel? How did the Apostles preach it?
Jeff,
Dr. Michael Brown’s claim to still be a Jew and also that he is a believer in Christ Jesus is false.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
When I came into Christ Jesus, I had to leave my Greekness outside.
Dr. Brown thinks that he has brought his Jewishness in with him.
I am forever praising and believing Jesus is the Christ, and this is pleasing to God.
I'm over joyed with truth
Here's a simple question: Why would Jesus change Peter's name if there was no purpose behind the name change?
Also using Matthew 18:15-18 to refute Jesus giving only Peter the keys to the kingdom is terrible exegesis - show me where in the Bible it says that Jesus gave the keys to the other apostles too. Then Jeff goes on to say, bam - apostolic succession disproved. Even if Jeff was right about Jesus giving the other apostles the keys, how does this disprove apostolic succession, he gave no real reason or substance for that claim.
In Isaiah 22 we see that Eliakim (a singular person) was given the keys to David's royal house while he was away. In v22 we see the following text "And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open." which is very similar language to what Jesus uses to Peter when talking about binding and loosing.
Just as David's royal house is a foreshadow of Jesus' royal house (His church). Peter is given the keys and the authority in the same way that Eliakim was in the OT. It was a foreshadow of something greater (Jesus' church).
Matthew 18 actually does show the Apostles receiving the keys, and if you would actually be honest about that tradition you think is so sacred, then you'd see that the Church fathers unanimously agree that the Apostles received the keys as well.
Apostolic succession is a whole other discussion.
Eliakims office was not a successive office btw...a very obscure office. Stop trying to use Suan Sonnas favorite argument, even he has had to backpedal massively in the last six months on his claims. Eric Ybarra will barely touch the discussion lol, if that tells you something.
@@robertcampbell1343thanks you may be right about the keys part, you've got me thinking a bit. I'd say even if all the apostles had access to the keys, it doesn't rule out that Peter being the head of the church while Jesus has left earth by his ascension. After all - why would Jesus change Peter's name? We know that name changes in the Bible have significant meaning in that person's purpose right?
Okay but if that's the case then perhaps Jeff should know better then to make the claim that apostolic succession is wrong without really backing it up.
How do you know it wasn't a successive office? It's not ruled out by the text right? I don't know much about Suan Sonna's argument or his dialogues with others, but if you can link me to videos so I can learn about it that would be great thanks!
@@EatMyKos agreed, that Jeff and myself don't rule out some of these suppositions. I personally believe you see James as the more probable leader, if you want to call him that, especially of the Jerusalem council, whereas Peter would have primacy within his place of ministry in Rome. The Cephas thing is interesting, probably the strongest point in my opinion.
I don't see Jeff ruling out apostolic succession, but I don't see any proof texts for it either, so I'm simply neutral to the idea. However, If apostolic truly was real and only through the Roman Catholic Church, then there would be a mass of problem because I did some research into this and it all terminates into one person in the medieval era. Apostolic succession cannot be traced today to the apostles and that is actually a fact, So it's a problem for all churches in actuality. The Orthodox may be able to trace it back but I don't really know that for sure.
There was at least one more person that might have been in the position that Eliakim held but that's all I believe. Most scholars see that the fulfillment of Eliakim is actually Christ. Of course they're Roman Catholic would wholeheartedly disagree with this. Much like this issue, the Roman Catholic Church claims Mary is the ark of the New covenant, once again I see that Christ is the ark of the new covenant because the blood of the New covenant literally is in His own veins, not within the body of Mary.
Anyways all that to say, I don't think it's all very conclusive and I certainly wouldn't hinge my salvation on being in communion with the Pope and the dogmas considering it's unclear. But the Cephas thing is interesting for sure.
@@robertcampbell1343 I understand that you appeal to James being a more probable leader, but I would say that would make a lot more sense if it was Jesus having that dialogue with James in Matt 16:18. Peter was first to stand up and speak, James didn't also stand up, but he did speak up affirming and adding onto what Peter says, so I don't think James speaking out necessarily shows that he was the leader. Glad you acknowledge that point about Peter's name change :)!
That's interesting, what sources would you have regarding your point around the medieval era, I'd be interested to check that out.
I find that interesting because the way I look at it is that David was a foreshadow of Christ, and Eliakim was simply filling in David's spot while he was away. In the same way Peter would've when Christ left earth. Well in the most simplest terms I would say Mary is the ark because Jesus dwelt in Mary through pregnancy, meaning that Mary carried the presence of God inside her just as the ark of the covenant carried the presence of God in the OT.
One only has to look at some of the popes and their disgusting behaviour to see that these fallible men have not been chosen by God. Preaching doctrines of demons, celibacy and all the repercussions from that, illegitimate children of popes, popes committing incest, priests, bishops, homosexuality and paedophilia. Hush money paid to silence victims. Reformation and non-catholics slaughtered, homes and property confiscated, untold numbers.
Anathemas placed on other churches.
Can paedophile priests still have power to call Jesus down for every mass.
Rome's anti-semetic stance. Rome's popes failing to speak out against Hitler.
The current popes allowing pachamama to be used in a service. The wealth of the Catholic church in itself is obscene. The popes telling a small boy whose father had died, father not being a believed. Pope telling the boy because his father had allowed him to be baptised, his father would be in heaven.
Pope Pius IX said, “I alone… am the successor of the apostles, the vicar of Jesus Christ. I am the way, the truth, and the life…”
Pope Boniface VIII said “We declare, assert, define and pronounce to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is to every creature altogether necessary for salvation… I have the authority of the King of Kings. I am all in all, and above all, so that God Himself and I, the Vicar of Christ, have but one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do. What therefore, can you make of me but God?”
Pope Pius X declared, “The Pope is not simply the representative of Jesus Christ. On the contrary, he is Jesus Christ Himself, under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who is speaking, hence, when anyone speaks of the Pope, it is not necessary to examine but to obey.”
That’s all the proof you need right there to know that Catholicism is straight from hell.
I must say as a Protestant wanting to learn more about denominations I have recently been more open Catholicism - mainly having watched arguments advanced by a speaker called Sam Shamoun.
However, I have never heard this before!!!! That has to be the most terrifying blaspheme I have ever heard!
Have you seen any Catholic apologists try to defend this? I’d like to learn more.
Dude go double check this guys quotes before you make any conclusions.@@robertgroves8691
@@robertgroves8691 Don't forget that the official title of a Catholic priest is "Alter Christus" which is Latin for "Another Christ".
Michal of Cesena declared the Church of Rome to be the Whore of Babylon.
Michal (1270-1342) who came out of the Franciscan Order of the Catholic Church declared the Pope “to be Antichrist, and the church of Rome to be the whore of Babylon, drunk with the blood of the saints.” Foxes Book of Martyrs, op cit., p. 445
John Wycliffe said Antichrist, the head of all these evil men, is the pope of Rome.
John, (1330-1384), called the Morning Star of the Reformation, spent most of his life teaching at Oxford University and was recognized by John of Guant (The Duke of Lancaster) as extraordinarily gifted in theology. He translated the Latin Vulgate Bible into English and placed it in the hands of the people.
Wycliffe said of the Pope:
“When the western church was divided for about 40 years between two rival popes, one in Rome and the other in Avigon, France, each pope called the other pope antichrist - and John Wycliffe is reputed to have regarded them as both being right: “two halves of Antichrist, making up the perfect Man of Sin between them.”
The absolute weakest “refutation” of Matthew 16 I’ve ever heard. The text is clear. You are Peter. Petros. And upon this rock/Petros I will build my church. Doesn’t get clearer than that. You can downplay Peter’s role all you like but he’s clearly the second most important figure in the New Testament or at least the one we see most often mentioned in critical moments.
Jesus says to him that you are the rock and upon this rock I will build my church. That’s what the name Peter means in Greek. But suppose you’re not very clever and you fall for the dumb explanation in this video. Your whole argument falls apart when we look at John chapter 1.
In John chapter 1 we have John the Baptist, and the apostles Andrew, Phillip, and Nathanael all exclaim that Jesus is the Christ, the Son, the Lamb of God, he whose coming Moses and the prophets wrote about, and the King of Israel. Who was mentioned in John chapter 1 but didn’t say a single word? Peter. And still in John 1:42, despite Peter not saying a single word, Jesus anoints him as the rock. Cephas.
I’m sorry, folks, but the text is clear. Peter is given primacy over the apostles. And the Orthodox don’t disagree that Peter was singled out and became bishop of Rome. The Orthodox disagree with his position as first among equals. They disagreed with Rome’s position of first among equals. Yet they consider the Patriarch of Constantinople, the apostolic heir of St. Andrew, to be first among equals which is biblically unfounded. Anyway, yes. Matthew 16 is the start of the papacy. And it is reinforced in John 1. Apostolic succession is easy to prove too.
So glad I escaped Roman Catholicism, I'm born again since April and lately I've been getting confused if I should be a Catholic and this video just helped me realise the truth is just Jesus alone Amen
Be careeful with just taking this as the fact... Jesus DID establish the PAPACY with Peter, moreover speaking to the Apostles, he established the Priesthood. This is not weak dogma - it is literal and FROM Jesus... Written to you as a Catholic, hoping to see you back at Mass receiving the Eucharist. Yours in Christ as a borhter
@@kevinmottram1593
And you truly believe that Peter is “The Rock”? Am I right?
It is the whole reason, for the basis of your religious system, is it not?
A quick computer search of the Bible has Christ as the “Rock” 142 times, and Peter? Zero times! Zero!
Christ=142
Peter=0
Do you really trust your Magisterium for correct Biblical interpretations? Seems kinda foolish to me?
What say you?
@@richardurban2269 I do believe in the Magisterium's guidance. The Church has developed over centuries and I honestly believe that the truth is found in the Catholic Church. I love your Ministry and your videos but they have not made me want to renege on my Catholicism. If anything, I appreciate your videos so much becuase they enlighten me when I review my Catholic Faith. You strengthen me in Christ and for this I am so thankful. I think your Ministry is very important and I would love to see more Ecumenism from the channel and not just "Apologia is right and everyone else is apostate". Again, thank you for your Ministry.
@@kevinmottram1593
Seeking Christ, and following a religion are two very different things. Are you aware that God wants His children to have no idols, and to carve no images of anyone in Heaven? (Exodus 20)
For all the people of the entire, world, the number one main idol, and most damaging, most dangerous, and most difficult to get out of, is a religion. Religions keep more people from Christ than any other entity.
If you understand your Bible, than you know that Satan rules the world. (For a little while longer) Satan is a very clever and worthy enemy. Satan draws people away from Christ, by getting them to follow religions!
Next think you know, you will be worshiping a piece of bread! Oh wait, never mind you are already doing that! Someone told you it was God.
Nothing more. You didn’t read that in the Bible!
The magisterium that you trust, wrote in its book of official teachings (Catechism) in paragraph 2067 that when you die, you will be in the care of Mary, and that there is no Salvation without Mary! Are you sure you want to trust people who teach and profess such a demonic faith? My Bible says, when I die, I will be with Christ, and Christ is the only way.
My Bible says Mary is no different than anyone else in Heaven.
When a lady in the crowd said to Jesus, “See how blessed Mary was, as she carried You in her womb”. Jesus replied, “Blessed rather are those who keep my Commandments”
Note: God says those that love God, and keep His Commandments, will be with Him in Heaven.
Satan cannot manipulate the Bible. It is impossible. The Bible will never change. Satan can manipulate religions, because Satan can manipulate people. The Bible was not written by people. If it was, then it could not predict the future.
All religions, by definition add things that are not in the Bible. These added things come from man. Again, because no man is good, Satan can get his foot in the door; and, this is why Jesus never had a nice thing to say about religions.
The RCC does not want anyone to know about being “Born Again” an absolute requirement for going to Heaven. Why? Why would they not teach you that?
Obviously Satan does want anyone being Born Again! Examples like this, are how you know that all religions are corrupted by Satan.
Who are those in Christ’s Church?
Christ’s Church, by definition, are those fellowshipping with Christ. Those “Chosen” people that will spend all eternity with their Lord. Those Born of the Spirit. For the Roman Catholic Church to claim that the are in “Christ’s one true Church” would necessarily mean that every single Roman Catholic will be spending eternity with Christ in Heaven. This is strange, because every Roman that I have ever known, when asked, “Are you going to Heaven?” Most, almost all, reply, “I don’t know?”
Let’s take a look at 1 John 5:13
“I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may KNOW that you have eternal life.”
People that are in “Christ’s Church” those going to Heaven, KNOW they are going to Heaven! If you don’t know, it means that if you died in your present state of belief/sin, you probably would not go to Heaven. To be fair, there are some Roman Catholics that KNOW they are going to Heaven. I have met them, and I love to hear it! If you know you’re going to Heaven, and your being completely forthright, then, you will be so appreciative of being accepted into God’s Family, that good works will abound! This was the whole point of the book of James.
Are you going to Heaven?
Romans, believe the Bible is too difficult for the average person to understand properly, and they need help from the Magisterium for proper understanding. In many cases, they are instructed not to read the Bible outside of a Roman Catholic setting. They need help, because in most Romans there is no Holy Spirit for proper guidance. The Roman Catholic Church replaces the Holy Spirit.
God said this:
“All religions are playgrounds for Satan”
Are you really sure you want to follow a religion?
I follow Christ and Him Crucified; and I follow His Holy Word, and nothing else.
Explain to me how I am wrong?
May God bless you and show you the truth!
@@kevinmottram1593
Seeking Christ, and following a religion are two very different things. Are you aware that God wants His children to have no idols, and to carve no images of anyone in Heaven? (Exodus 20)
For all the people of the entire, world, the number one main idol, and most damaging, most dangerous, and most difficult to get out of, is a religion. Religions keep more people from Christ than any other entity.
If you understand your Bible, than you know that Satan rules the world. (For a little while longer) Satan is a very clever and worthy enemy. Satan draws people away from Christ, by getting them to follow religions!
Next think you know, you will be worshiping a piece of bread! Oh wait, never mind you are already doing that! Someone told you it was God.
Nothing more. You didn’t read that in the Bible!
The magisterium that you trust, wrote in its book of official teachings (Catechism) in paragraph 2067 that when you die, you will be in the care of Mary, and that there is no Salvation without Mary! Are you sure you want to trust people who teach and profess such a demonic faith? My Bible says, when I die, I will be with Christ, and Christ is the only way.
My Bible says Mary is no different than anyone else in Heaven.
When a lady in the crowd said to Jesus, “See how blessed Mary was, as she carried You in her womb”. Jesus replied, “Blessed rather are those who keep my Commandments”
Note: God says those that love God, and keep His Commandments, will be with Him in Heaven.
Satan cannot manipulate the Bible. It is impossible. The Bible will never change. Satan can manipulate religions, because Satan can manipulate people. The Bible was not written by people. If it was, then it could not predict the future.
All religions, by definition add things that are not in the Bible. These added things come from man. Again, because no man is good, Satan can get his foot in the door; and, this is why Jesus never had a nice thing to say about religions. The RCC does not want anyone to know about being “Born Again” an absolute requirement for going to Heaven. Why? Why would they not teach you that?
Obviously Satan does want anyone being Born Again! Examples like this, are how you know that all religions are corrupted by evil.
Who are those in Christ’s Church?
Christ’s Church, by definition, are those fellowshipping with Christ. Those “Chosen” people that will spend all eternity with their Lord. Those Born of the Spirit. For the Roman Catholic Church to claim that the are in “Christ’s one true Church” would necessarily mean that every single Roman Catholic will be spending eternity with Christ in Heaven. This is strange, because every Roman that I have ever known, when asked, “Are you going to Heaven?” Most, almost all, reply, “I don’t know?”
Let’s take a look at 1 John 5:13
“I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may KNOW that you have eternal life.”
People that are in “Christ’s Church” those going to Heaven, KNOW they are going to Heaven! If you don’t know, it means that if you died in your present state of belief/sin, you probably would not go to Heaven. To be fair, there are some Roman Catholics that KNOW they are going to Heaven. I have met them, and I love to hear it! If you know you’re going to Heaven, and your being completely forthright, then, you will be so appreciative of being accepted into God’s Family, that good works will abound! This was the whole point of the book of James.
Romans, believe the Bible is too difficult for the average person to understand properly, and they need help from the Magisterium for proper understanding. In many cases, they are instructed not to read the Bible outside of a Roman Catholic setting. They need help, because in most Romans there is no Holy Spirit for proper guidance. The Roman Catholic Church replaces the Holy Spirit.
God said this:
“All religions are playgrounds for Satan”
Are you really sure you want to follow a religion?
I follow Christ and Him Crucified; and I follow His Holy Word, and nothing else.
Explain to me how I am wrong?
Great job forcing the keys in Matthew 18 that aren't there.
Still: Yes
What power is represented by the first beast of Rev 13?-The Papacy.
What power is represented by the second beast?-The United States of America.
What is the defining characteristic of the Papacy, that which the second beast shall make an image of?-The union of Church and State-the Church using the power of the State for the furtherance of its own aims, and to wear out the saints of the most high.
That's quite the interpretation you've got there.
@@let_freedom_pingThis is what happens when you deny the authority of the church and give it instead to a book. The Word of God becomes a matter of opinion. This guy's interpretation is jut as valid as any other "sola scriptura" believer.
@@wordforever117 Why are so many interpretations from Catholics wrong? Because they look at scripture through traditions in an effort to validate the traditions. Same thing Mormons do with their doctrines.
@@juke1225The Catholic Church has the *ONLY* divine authority to interpret scripture. So it *CANNOT* be wrong.
No one is saved by simply believing a system of truth. The truth is the light that shows the sinner his way to the Saviour.
Neither the church of Rome, nor that of Christ rests upon a doctrine, but on a person, for it is upon whom we rest our faith that salvation is to be secured.
The Christian is united to Christ by his faith which takes hold of the Saviour, and by His Spirit which dwells in his heart by faith.
Thus he becomes a member of the Spiritual Body.
The Bible, His ministers, and the written ordinances are the channels through which the life of the Head flows into the members of the body.
Thus they are they built up a spiritual house, a holy temple -"built on the foundation of prophets, and apostles, Jesus Christ Himself the chief corner-stone."
All this is most adroitly counterfeited in the Pope's Church. It is only in the way of the members of that church resting on Peter, or what is the same thing, as on the Pope that they can be saved.
Romanists would have us believe that it is essential to the salvation of every human being that he be subject to the authority of the Pope. Peter -that is the Pope -is the one reservoir of grace; from him, it flows down through the grand conduit of apostolic succession to all the members of the "Church," and thus they are built up a spiritual house -built upon the foundation of traditions, sacraments, priests, bishops, cardinals, with the Pope himself being the chief corner-stone.
In this, we have two opposing systems whereby salvation is gained, one in which Christ is the true cornerstone, the other where the pope is the cornerstone, thereby styling himself as that of Antichrist.
The pope styles his office as that of the “vicar of Christ,” in this, the Papacy holds in its name the key of its meaning.
The origin of the word “Antichrist,” is the Greek word “än-te'-khre-stos,” and the word “Vicar,” is an English word; but the two are in reality one, for both words have the same meaning. Antichristos translated into English is Vice-Christ, or Vicar of Christ; and Vicar of Christ, rendered into Greek is Antichrist -Antichristos.
The Pope, as “Vice-Christ” takes the place of Christ on this earth, styling himself as the “Vicar of Christ,” as the vice-president would take the place of the president in his absence.
Thus, the title "Vicar of Christ" means "a substitute for Christ" or "another Christ."
Therefore, every time that the Pope claims to be the Vicar of Christ, he pleads at the bar of the world that he is the “Antichrist.”
Consensus among scholars is that the language of Jesus and his disciples was Aramaic and so your explanation on Mattew 16 based on Petros-Petra wordplay in Greek doesn’t hold because there’s no such distinction in Aramaic.
First, consensus means little because often decenting voices are censored. Second, Judea was occupied by Rome and the lingua de franca so to speak was Greek much like English is to the world now. The scriptures in the Torah were only permitted to be read and transmitted into Hebrew for religious ceremonies. The greek septuagent and Aramaic copies we have were for those who translated the scriptures to non jews to read. Therefore Jesus would have known Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin. It's not uncommon for people without formal education to be polygots and Jesus did receive training as he was a rabbi. Also Jesus was God eternal before time, remember the Holy Spirit gave the Christians the ability to speak in other languages at Pentecost? You think Jesus who was a member of the trinity and God who raised people from the dead was limited to only one language?
Show us a God-breathed Aramaic text of the Gospel of Matthew.
Until you do, we shall continue to go off the inspired Greek text.
Aramaic does not have a masculine or feminine word for rock (Cepha).
Calvinism is a tradition taught by John Calvin.
What's your point
@@firingallcylinders2949that it isn't Apostolic lol.
@@jacobwoods6153 Paul is very clear God chooses whom He will for salvation. It's not even cryptic or opaque. Paul literally spells out very plainly that salvation is all the work of the Trinity and not ours. To come to any other conclusion requires exegetical gymnastics.
@firingallcylinders2949 I was a Calvinist I know the arguments. They aren't convincing man
It's not about being convincing, it's about the truth. The Apostle Paul was crystal clear. If you've read the NT and come to a different conclusion, then that's on you just willfully looking to ignore a hard truth. @@jacobwoods6153
We all know that the first man and woman is Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:27)
Adam and Eve had many offspring; one is their third son, Seth. It is through the line of the third son, Seth, that Noah is born, and through Noah's line came Abraham. Furthermore, from Abraham came the line of Isaac until Jacob. These three "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" were collectively called the patriarchs of the Jewish people. Now, from these three patriarchs came the line of Moses, who, as we all know, received the Ten Commandments, which is the covenant between God and the people of Israel (Exodus 34:27-28). So, based on that, we could conclude that during this particular time, God favoured the Israelites. Now, as we all know, the Israelites are Jews. They follow the Old Testament (Torah). Now, from here, we should examine who is God in the eyes of the Jews. In (Exodus 3:6), God invokes the three patriarchs to identify Himself to Moses. From here, we can conclude that the God of Moses is the same God of the three patriarchs. Now, let us examine the Jews in this modern time; as we all know, they follow the Old Testament (Torah). Now, if you talk to any Jew that you know, they will tell you that there is only one God (i.e., the Father).
Now, let us identify who God is in the New Testament. In (Matthew 22:31 to 32), Jesus said to the Sadducees(i.e., members of a Jewish sect), (31 But about the resurrection of the dead-have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”). Now, from this statement, we can conclude that the God in the Old Testament and New Testament are the same.
From here, we can deduce that God is only one, and He is the "Father".
This is the same message that our Lord Jesus Christ wants us to know (John 17:3): "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” So the interpretation of Brother Joe, that there is only one God (i.e., the Father), and the Father sent our Lord Jesus Christ for us to know about it, is correct. God did not send our Lord Jesus Christ to be in the Trinity, but he sent our Lord Jesus Christ for us to know that there is only one God.
Reply
If you talk to your Eastern Orthodox friends, you might become one 😉
The same as how the Soviet Union used Pravda to start coercing people into knowingly spouting falsehood in order to conform them with the communist part?
There is no other Apostolic Church ☦
They still hold tradition over Scripture and interpret by tradition in blatant refusal of Mark 7.
@@Spartan322 Categorically erroneous. Jesus was rebuking Pharisaical tradition, not what would later become church teaching passed down through history. But besides that, Reformed Baptists like ya boy Jeff Durbin follow Augustinian tradition and the 17th century London confessions.
Jeff, can you respond to Ferris from how to be Christian? Seems like he refuted your arguments on his channel.
Jeff, I get the anti-Catholic stance, and I agree with you that they pervert the Gospel and lead people to hell. However, the image on the front of your video does no justice towards Francis, whom we should be praying for to repent and turn to Jesus Christ. For the sake of this ministry’s role in being an ambassador of Christ, please change it. Think of Catholics who would otherwise watch this video and believe the Gospel, but are turned off of watching it because they see a photoshopped picture of their “pope”.
Luke 6:28 “bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.”
Ephesians 5:4 “Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.”
Catholic Jesus is an exclusive club snob telling you to kick rocks at the door if you don’t have the right outfit on.
Catholics, just keep reading.
Peter:
Matthew 16:19 ESV -
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Two pages later...
Believers who are "gathered" in his name:
Matthew 18:15-20 ESV -
15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
All doctrine unique to the Catholic church is unnecessary if Christ's sacrifice is complete.
If Christ's sacrifice was perfect and he took away all sin past, present, and future than...
Penance has no purpose.
Purgatory has no point.
Absolution is unnecessary.
Need I go on?
Yes, Christ's sacrifice on the cross is complete and Final. The Bible confirms this repeatedly.
Flee this Anti-church.
Trust In Christ Alone.
Trust in him alone like you would trust a parachute. You can add nothing to a parachute by flapping your arms. Just as you can add nothing to the perfect and finished sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross for all of your sins. Do not cheapen the saviors work by adding mans tradition on to it.
Find a real church that does not withhold drinking from the cup from its lowly non-priest membership.❤
*Honest questions are welcome.*
Have you ever read the next 5 verses?
John 3:16
16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”
Not sure I followed any of this, but it seems you were saying that the early Christians didn’t believe that Peter was given any hierarchical authority, correct? I am confused then as to why the apostles brought St Paul to Peter in Acts? Isn’t Acts full of Peter’s authority? Wasn’t Peter crucified because of his position of authority? So confused.
No, merely Schismatic . . . .
All TRUE.
Hahaha....all cope
Sounds like Rasputin🙏...
0:22 Is absolutely hilarious. Also, Catholicism is idol worship.
Nah it's not. But obviously anti-Catholics would say this. You'd be better finding out for yourself.
@@wordforever117 An Idol is anything that gets between you and God whether that's a statue you pray to or a saint or Mary the devil always tries to steal God's prayers and worship.
@@muppetonmedsAh ok that's good then. You agree with the Catholic Church!! 😃
All doctrine unique to the Catholic church is unnecessary if Christ's sacrifice is complete.
If Christ's sacrifice was perfect and he took away all sin past, present, and future than...
Penance has no purpose.
Purgatory has no point.
Absolution is unnecessary.
Need I go on?
Yes, Christ's sacrifice on the cross is complete and Final. The Bible confirms this repeatedly.
Flee this Anti-church.
Trust In Christ Alone.
Trust in him alone like you would trust a parachute. You can add nothing to a parachute by flapping your arms. Just as you can add nothing to the perfect and finished sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross for all of your sins. Do not cheapen the saviors work by adding mans tradition on to it.
Find a real church that does not withhold drinking from the cup from its lowly non-priest membership.❤
*Honest questions are welcome.*
@patriceagulu8315
The transformation to sinless perfection will be instantaneous.
1 Corinthians 15:52-55 ESV - 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” 55 “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?”
@patriceagulu8315
This anti-church teaches us that we have to perfect ourselves over a long time.
In doctrines like illumination and purgatory.
@patriceagulu8315
Only Jesus Christ lived a life worthy of Heaven.
How many lies have you told in your life?
Have you ever taken anything that didn't belong to you?
Have you ever used God's holy name to curse, would you do that with your mother's name?
Jusus said:
Matthew 5:28
*_"but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."_*
Have you ever done that?
@patriceagulu8315
Not here to argue on that level.
The Apostle Paul specifically answered these questions in Romans, see the opening of chapter 6. Though, it is necessary to understand everything that came before chapter 6.
Romans 6:1-2 ESV - 1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
There is no beauty in truth like the holy Catholic Church innately. We all understand this.
I don't.
@@Nolongeraslave I don't 😂All hail the Pope🏳️🌈🤢🤮😂
First Comment
Yasssss
When do you think the concept of papacy was established then? You keep making baseless claims without evidence.
If it was not established by Christ or the apostles, it matters not when it was established; if you believe that the faith was once for all delivered to the saints in the 1st century.
Unless of course, the development hypothesis means that later developments are of equal authority to those matters that were delivered in the 1st century.
@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303You're doing the same thing as Jeff now. Please tell me when you think the pope was first the head of the Catholic (universal) church.
@@petros-estin-petra- ….never.
@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 You don't think the Pope is the Head of the Catholic church right now?
@@petros-estin-petra- Christ is the head of the church friend.
I can provide scripture references for this if you would like
King James LoFi channel
Jesus changed Simon's name to Cephas, indicating a change in office (like Abram or Saul). Simon became Cephas and on this Cephas, Jesus built his church. Compare Matthew 16 to Isaiah 22. Jesus delegated His authority to Peter much the same way that David delegated his to Eliakim.
With regard to Matthew 18, "The Church" refers to the one founded 2000 years ago at Caesaria Philippi and given to St. Peter as His earthly steward.
You literally did not watch Jeff's exegesis of the greek. You just butchered it yet again. You guys desperately need sound exegetical and hermeneutical understanding 🤦
I've read a multitude of church father's on Matthew 16:18 like Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, Origin, Tertullian, Cyprian and none of them connect that passage to the bishop in Rome. In fact Jerome had the idea that all the bishops shared in those keys.
@@caseycockerham3925Oh come on...Jeff doesn't know greek!
@@danielomitted1867 Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, Origin, Tertullian and Cyprian all acknowledge the Pope and the authority of the Church. It is only Luther and Calvin don't.
@@wordforever117 "acknowledge the Pope and authority of the church" that's so vague it doesn't mean anything. None of them saw the church at Rome or the bishop of Rome as the head of the church who had the ability to infallibly dictate doctrine.
I believe the Catholic Church is the one True Church that Jesus Christ established. Jeff can you explain why there are 30,000 protestant denominations?
What’s the obsessions with denominations? The obsession should be Jesus.
Just a question? Your right. It should be about Jesus. Just pointing out the fact that Jeff is making videos about the Church Jesus Christ established without making 1 video about how different churches believe different things and how to reconcile that.
@@rojo1031 very simple brother. Man and their obsession with power.
@@rojo1031You are confusing the church established by Christ with the roman catholic church that developed later and now has splintered off into about 40,000 different sects.
@@tricord2939whats the difference ?
It is therefore the very same priest, who is a bishop, and before there existed men who are slanderers by instinct, [before] factions in the religion, and [before] it was said to the people, " am of Paul, I am of Apollos, but I am of Cephas," the churches were governed by a common council of the priests. But after each one began think that those whom he had baptized were his own and not Christ's, it was decreed for the whole world that one of the priests should be elected to preside over the others, to whom the entire care of the church should pertain, and the seeds of schism would be removed.
If someone thinks that this is our opinion, but not that of the Scriptures-that bishop and priest are one, and that one is the title of age, the other of his duty-let him reread the apostle's words to the Philippians when he says, "Paul and Timothy, slaves of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons, grace to you and peace," and so on. Philippi is a single city in Macedonia, and at least in one city several were not able to be bishops, as they are now thought. But because at that time they called the same men bishops whom they also called priests, therefore he has spoken indifferently of bishops as if of priests.
This may still seem doubtful to someone unless it is proven by another testimony. In the Acts of the Apostles it is written that when the apostle came to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus and summoned the priests of that church to whom later he said among other things, "Watch yourselves, and the whole flock in which the Holy Spirit appointed you bishops to feed the church of God, which he acquired through his own blood." And observe here very carefully how, by summoning the priests of the single city of Ephesus, later he has spoken of the same men as bishops.
If anyone wants to receive that epistle which is written in Paul's name to the Hebrews, even there care for the church is shared equally by many.
For indeed he writes to the people, "Obey your leaders, and be in subjection; for they are the ones who watch over your souls, as those who will give a reckoning. Let them not do this with sighing; for indeed this is advantageous to you." And Peter, who received his name from the firmness of his faith, speaks in his own epistle and says, "As a fellow priest, then, I plead with the priests among you, and as a witness of Christ's sufferings, I who am a companion also of his glory that is to be revealed in the future, tend the Lord's flock that is among you, not as though by compulsion but voluntarily."
These things [have been said] in order to show that to the men of old the same men who were the priests were also the bishops; but gradually, as the seed beds of dissensions were eradicated, all solicitude was conferred on one man. Therefore, just as the priests know that by the custom of the church they are subject to the one who was previously appointed over them, so the bishops know that they, more by custom than by the truth of the Lord's arrangement, are greater than the priests. And they ought to rule the Church commonly, in imitation of Moses who, when he had under his authority to preside alone over the people of Israel, he chose the seventy by whom he could judge the people.
St. Jerome's Commentaries on Galatians, Titus, and Philemon, trans.
Thomas P. Scheck (University of Notre Dame Press, 2010), 289-90.
Augustine- "Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, Thou art Peter and not Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ, in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter."
John Chrysostom - "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church'; that is, on the faith of his confession."
Isidore of Seville - "The other apostles also became equal sharers with Peter in honor and authority."
Cyprian - "The remaining apostles were necessarily also that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership both in honor and of power."
There are no priests in the New Testament Church.
@@Nolongeraslave of course there are. Theres a high priest and lower priests.
@@Nolongeraslave
Low Priest -
1 Peter 2:9 ESV
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
High Priest -
Hebrews 8:1 ESV
Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven,
@@HillbillyBlack Very good! All believers are priests with Jesus Christ as the High Priest.
@@Nolongeraslave you should read more church history from Jerome. Dont assume just because of scripture. The Catholic wont except that. You have to argue on their playground. Trust me the patristic fathers are pure scripture. Some divergences but they are mostly pure.
Their position is 100% refutable from their own sources.
Matthew 18 is where Jesus gives all of the apostles the keys of the kingdom of heaven? Yeah? Show me the exact verse in matthew 18 that says all of the apostles received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. It discusses the ability to bind and loose, but doesn't say anything about keys to the kingdom of heaven.
Also, if this ability to bind and loose isnt just for the apostles, but is for "by extension, everyone in leadership in the church," then what happens when two pastors disagree with each other? Pastor Bob disagrees with Pastor Steve about something (be it doctrinal or whatever you gou believe they can bind or loose). Pastor Bob binds Pastor Steve. But then Pastor Steve binds Pastor Bob. But remember, "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," so that means God bound both pastor bob and pastor steve. Lol. The interpretation makes no sense and can't functionally be practiced.
This argument from pragmatism cuts both ways. How do you know the pope has the power to bind and loose? Who told you?
@@dartheli7400 because all of the successors of the apostles-- including eastern Orthodox -- agree that the bishop of Rome is unique, and even the eastern Orthodox bishops agree that the bishop of Rome is the "first among equals."
Your real question is whether or not the local bishop has the authority to bind and loose me. The answer is: he does.
When pastor Bob and pastor Steve disagree, they bind each other, and no one knows who's correct. When my bishop binds me, there is no argument about who has the authority. But what if bishops disagree with each other? Well, if bishops disagree with each other, the "first among equals" bishop of Rome has the Acts 15 authority as the final decision maker to call a council and settle the issue definitively.
@@KEP1983 Fair enough. But this wasn‘t my question. I‘m asking you who told you that this is the case? How do you know that the pope has such an authority?
The 4th Lateran Council, in canon 1, says that all the apostles received the Keys...if the Word of God isn't enough evidence for you.
@@dartheli7400 because Jesus wouldn't give people an authority to bind and loose and then no one actually has the ability to do it.
I looked through scripture and early church history to see if anyone had this authority and passed it on, as happened in Acts 1 with Matthias. I see both eastern Orthodox and Catholics accept that the apostles passed on their authority. I also saw that the Indian malankara church-- who date back to the first century but had no contact with the west until after the protestant revolt-- also had the same beliefs. I looked for early Christians with Protestant beliefs (not the NAME Protestant, but Protestant theology) who resisted these early bishops and denied their authority. Unfortunately, I couldn't find Protestant theology in the first 300 years of christian history.
So I looked to what all of the successors of the apostles taught, and they all identified the bishop of Rome as the first among equals. This includes the non-Catholic Eastern Orthodox.
Btw, I was a Protestant for a long time and was very active in "evangelizing" Catholics and Mormons. I had been on Protestant radio, not as a regular host, but to discuss and debate theology/evangelism. And when I put my own Protestant tradition to the side and really tested it, I found it was unbiblical and made historical presuppositions that HAD to be true for protestantism to be true, but were historically false.
As a Catholic after listening to this, I can understand why I need to obey St Paul's instruction concerning Protestants in Titus 3:10-11.
Maybe you should consider James 2.
Perhaps you should read Mark 7:7-8 first. Paul's instructions pertains to those who don't use Scripture, who ignore the Word of God, he explains this explicitly even in Titus 3, (it was most especially referenced in Titus 2) but from 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Hebrews, Galatians, Ephesians, I can go on and on, the Greek is available to you, there is no excuse to follow your traditions over Christ.
I disagree with much of romes appeals to authority. I have been recently reading up on the early church. They absolutely spoke of apostolic succession. The papacy wasn't talked about but regional bishops forming a council was. The council of bishops with knowledge passed down from Jesus seems to align with Jesus telling the apostles they judge the tribes makes sense to me. Just like Isrealites of the old testament men desire a singular authority. Just like Isreal the Roman catholics wanted a king.
@patriceagulu8315 the faith has expanded across the world. Did God fail the Jews when he let them have king. Why wouldn't God also allow Christians to make the same mistake. The success of Christianity as whole is way larger than Rome.
@patriceagulu8315 you only believe that believe that because you were told to. There are still many apostolic churches still in existence. He didn't fail them. Just like the jews of old that allowed their faith to waiver and appointed a king so did the Roman. They didn't trust the council of all the apostles and appointed one above all and created a new position.
@patriceagulu8315 not only a “claim” but proof in the reality of the existence of Bible itself…
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century, just 75 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian doctrine and subsequent councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
John Wayne, on his deathbed, converted to Catholicism. Israel Zolli, the Chief Rabbi of Rome during WWII, converted to Catholicism as well.
I have no idea why this man is arguing against the author of the Book of James. After all his running around the point that James makes still stands - you are not saved by faith alone.
Actually that's false because even in James 2 it makes a clarification that works do not save:
"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it." - James 2:10
So you are already guilty, but also too many have misunderstood James in what it actually says, when James says "faith" it is in fact more accurately described belief, or an affirmation but not trust, for as it says "the demons believe" this is not faith, to mark this statement is not a case of faith for it lacks trust. For lets see Hebrews 11:
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." - Hebrews 11:1-2
But what James speaks of is not faith as shown in Hebrews 11, for the demons do not have an assurance of things hope for, yet why mention this? Notice that the same word for "faith" in English is also used for the demons to "believe" (it is literally the exact same word) in James 2, so do you say the demons have faith? Or do they merely acknowledge God out of recognition of consequence? Now thing is there is little clear separation in the Greek for pistis (faith/belief) by itself, but by context we can know that the faith that Paul speaks about in Hebrews 11 shares nothing with the "faith" and "belief" that James speaks about in James 2, so we can know that James is never saying "by faith, not by works", for he is using a completely different word conceptually, a word that does not refer to an assurance of anything, but a mere recognition, that which is mere tacit knowledge without trust, without hope, without assurance, without true fear but instead a false fear that seeks merely of preference. James 2 makes it clear, pure recognition of God is not where salvation lies. Even more James is also saying that among men you will be recognized as sons of God by the works, for what justified means here is not a recognition by God, but instead it is an application of the eyes of men. James is not speaking of salvation, but justification, that by appearances they shall be judged, he is telling them to do good so that the message of the cross will be seen, not because it actually saves.
That is not at ALL what James 2 teaches. We see the works. The evidence and assurance are the works.
Viva Christus Rex 🇻🇦🇻🇦✝️
Many will not enter God's Kingdom:
Why? It is evident that many, if not most, people have their minds settled on thinking Jesus is God, which undermines God’s words through Jesus. The only way to eternal life is to know BOTH Jesus and the Father; there are no alternatives. Jesus made this very clear when he prayed to the Father, saying, “and this is life eternal, that they might know YOU, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3). Those who go against the words of God through Jesus and continue to blaspheme and undermine the Father will not enter the kingdom of God (Matthew 8:12).
Are you a Jehovah’s Witness, because this sounds like Arianism, and Jeff probably has some things to say against that. I will just point out John 10:30, and because Jesus said that, the Jews wanted to execute him for blasphemy (which would be the correct response, for any other man saying that). See also Hebrews 1, where Psalms are cited in a way that identifies the Son with God.
@@IslandUsurper Nowhere in scripture is Jesus claimed as God. Hebrews 1 shows the Father, who dwells and works through Jesus, glorifying himself through the Son, as He often does throughout scripture (John 13:32).
As John 10:29 states, Jesus aid "my Father is greater than all," meaning that Jesus is not equal to his Father. The Jews believed he was saying he was God. Jesus’ response is that "thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the *SON of God?"* Additionally, he further says that the Father works in and through him and that his works are not his own (John 10:36-39).
@@user-rj8py9ld3j What about John 1:1, John 8:58, Colossians 1:15-16? Contrast Revelation 5:13 with Isaiah 48:11. God will not give His glory to another, and yet both the One who sits on the throne of Heaven and the Lamb that was slain receive the same glory. They are two different Persons while being the same God.
@@IslandUsurper John 1:1 says Jesus is the Word of God, and John 1:14 says Jesus is the glory of the begotten of the Father. Jesus is also the only *begotten* Son of God (John 3:16-18). The Father is clearly God in this context, not Jesus. If Jesus is begotten, then he "came forth, had a beginning" from God.
Colossians 1:15-19 states that Jesus is the firstborn from the dead. How can Jesus be 1)the *firstborn* of anything if he wasn’t created or 2) "be raised from the dead" and then given life by the Father (John 5:26) if he always existed? Many people argue and say it is referring to divine position…but this doesn’t answer the question that Jesus was once "raised from the dead" even before the foundations of the world.
John 8:58 can be referenced to he previous verse John 8:54-55, where Jesus tells us that the Father is our God, but that we don’t know the Father because we believe he is God instead of God’s Son:
"Jesus answered, If *I honour myself, my honour is NOTHING:* it is my Father that honoureth me; *of whom ye say, that he is your God:"*
The Father placed ALL THINGS into his Son’s hands…but that does not mean Jesus will ever take the place of God the Father (John 3:35). Satan tried to take the Father’s position and was cast out of heaven…not by Jesus, but by God the Father himself. Revelation 5:7 makes it clear that both are separate entities that are in agreement, but act separately (this is why the Son doesn’t know the day or hour of his return…the Father must tell him when - Mark 13:32).
"And he came [Jesus] and took the book out of the right hand of him [God the Father] that sat upon the throne."
@@user-rj8py9ld3j John 1:1 also says the Word was with God *and* the Word was God. (Don’t tell me it says “a god”. This is an exception to how Greek grammar normally works, and the New World Translation is wrong.) Human experience does not fit with both of those statements being true at the same time, and yet the Bible says it is. Therefore, the Son is not the Father, yet both are fully the same Almighty God. (John 10:30)
Whenever someone tries to worship an angel, they get stopped pretty quickly because only God deserves worship. Yet the disciples worshipped Jesus and were never rebuked. (Luke 24:52) Why would Jesus not correct Thomas when he said, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28) unless it was true?
All the points you have brought up show that Jesus is not the same Person as the Father, but this fact has to be reconciled with all the texts that support that Jesus is divine, as well as the assertion there is only one true God. And no Christian will say Jesus is a false god.
There are also texts that ascribe divine attributes to the Holy Spirit, who is distinct in the same way from both the Father and the Son, which is why we have the doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible really does teach it, without saying it outright, if you look at everything together.
Outside the Catholic Faith, there is protestant confusion.
Can you specify what Protestants are 'confused' about?
@@bonivermectin4087 i would like to if i may…
Which one of these Protestant beliefs/Gospels are the truth? Is it the ones that believe infant baptism is salvific or the ones that do not? Or full immersion or not? Is it the Liberal Evangelical version or the Conservative Evangelical version? Could it be a Calvinist or Armenian or the Anglican viewpoint? Those that believe in woman ordinations or same sex marriages? Lord’s supper symbolic or sacramental? The once saved always always saved group or the not? Should women keep silent in church or speak and is this with or without their heads covered? Maybe Mormons, JWs, SDA’s, Christadelphians, or the Oneness Pentecostals position as they too preach from the same bible also??? Surely you cannot think all these positions are acceptable.
@@srich7503 What is salvific is Christ's work on the cross, nothing more, nothing less. Faith in this + repentance = salvation. Everything else is not a salvific issue, it's a secondary issue. I don't think any of the denominations you listed (barring thd obvious like Mormons or JWs) would say to anyone "You believe in Christ, accept His grace, and have/are repenting, but you're still going to hell because baptismal waters didn't fully cover your knuckles."
@@bonivermectin4087 no sir you dont get to tell me what i believe in. You may state what you have been wrongly told or wrongly believe or what it seems like we believe in but not what we believe. If you do then i get to listen to the Jehovahs Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims… or whom ever waht they say you believe an i can assure you you do not want that.
Now you asked what are Protestants confused about. I answered that question with a question that you have yet to answer. Until you do i cannot answer your question which you are proving yourself where the confusion is coming from. So either answer the question or live with the confusion. It makes no difference to me. And trying to divide yourself away from the cults wont work either because although they are not Trinitarians, they do operate from the same exact paradigm, Bible alone which is your authority and theirs which is the root of this confusion.
Loving
Every
Laugh at the goofy tryhard intro
Talking about errors of the church, just one point here, well not so little, Jesus did NOT die on a cross but rather an upright stake (Grk Stauros) or upright pole ! Remember what the Bible says that we MUST worship God "with spirit and with TRUTH" !
I don't worship a cross
Jesus spoke Aramaic 🙄 so there is no difference between Rock and Rock. In Greek rock ‘item’ and rock ‘name’ are Petros and Petra 🤦🏼♀️ so for writing it had to be changed.. this is an old argument I am surprised he’s still trying this.
It was written in greek so thats doesn't matter
Jesus speaks every language.
The NT was written in Greek.
Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek. Kepha means It means a rock in Aramaic, the same as petra. It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: "You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church." “Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings. Hence, the second Petra (feminine) changes to Petros (masculine).
In English: YOU are rock and on this rock I will build my church. I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven..."
When the Catholic Church teaches that the papacy and its jurisdiction existed from the beginning, it simply means that in its essential features, in its substance, the papacy of the earliest centuries is identical with the papacy of modern times. There are great outward differences between the first century papacy and the twentieth century papacy, but those differences are like the differences between the acorn and the oak. They are only differences in stages of normal growth. We know according Matthew 16:19 that Jesus gave Peter both the power of the keys and the power of binding and loosing. The first was given to Peter alone (Matt. 16:19), the second also to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18). Orthodox apologists claim that these two commissions to Peter are in fact identical. Whatever authority Christ gave to Peter, he gave to all the apostles. If the Orthodox belief is correct, then our study of early Church history should reveal that every bishop, wherever located, exercised the same authority as did the bishop of Rome. Instead, from the first century onward, the successors of Peter exercised authority unlike that of any other bishop. In the formative centuries the Roman bishops' exercise of unique authority as final arbiter of faith and morals was never condemned as unwarranted. Even those who vehemently opposed certain papal rulings did not deny the authority behind those rulings. In many instances bishops of churches in the Eastern part of the Empire requested - even begged - the bishop of Rome to banish heresies and settle theological disputes which the bishops themselves could not resolve. These facts constitute the early Church’s tradition about the universal jurisdiction of the successor of Peter.
The supremacy of Peter's chair is a factor of the church's unity or oneness in Christ, with Peter being Christ's vicar or deputy, bearing the key to the kingdom of heaven just like Eliakim in Isaiah 22:22. If you carefully read Isaiah 22:20-23 it might become clearer to you what Jesus was doing in Matthew 16:18-19. As the custodian of the keys to the kingdom of heaven, Peter serves the role of the vicar of Christ on earth, just like Eliakim (the vicar of David) who was the custodian of the keys to the kingdom of Jerusalem. A vicar is a representative, deputy or substitute; anyone acting "in the person of" or agent for a superior. Linguistically, vicar is cognate with the English prefix "vice", similarly meaning "deputy". Eliakim is the "Vicar of David" and Custodian of the "keys to the kingdom" of Jerusalem in the Old Covenant (Isaiah 22:22). In the New Covenant (Matthew 16:19), Peter is the "Vicar of Christ" and Custodian of the "keys to the kingdom" of Heaven (the new Jerusalem). Acting on Christ's stead, Peter is the lead pastor ("pastor" is from a Latin word meaning "shepherd") of Christ's flock on earth (John 21:16). Every first century Christian must be under the pastoral authority and care of Peter and his fellow apostles. Down the ages, successors of Peter have had that authority and it continues to be passed on within the Church. This is a mechanism Christ set up in his Church to ensure that his Church remains one and doesn't have cacophony of voices teaching different contradicting things.
According to the 4th century Bishop of Milevis in Numidia (now Mila in Algeria), St. Optatus, who is known for his writings against Donatism, Jesus Christ desired to attach unity to a definite center; to this end He made “Peter the head of all the Apostles; to him He first gave the episcopal see of Rome, in which sole see unity should be preserved for all".
St. Optatus writes: "You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim - each for himself - separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit."
Except in Matthew 18 the exact same doctrine is given to all the Apostles and the whole of the Church, not just Peter. Also that comes immediately before Jesus calls him Satan. This is not exegesis, first off those different gendered meanings separates the distinction of the text, it does not say he is the rock nor is it saying that he is receiving the keys singularly. Also Papal succession is not even present in the first century, there also is no record of Peter coming to Rome in any capacity to establish a church, there is no historical record of this, all his time was in Jerusalem, it actually violates the Historicity of the Scriptures to claim that Peter established or organized a church in Rome.
@@Spartan322 *"Except in Matthew 18 the exact same doctrine is given to all the Apostles and the whole of the Church, not just Peter."*
You clearly didn't read the entire post. I said, "We know according Matthew 16:19 that Jesus gave Peter both the power of the keys and the power of binding and loosing. The first (power of the keys) was given to Peter alone (Matt. 16:19), and the second (power of binding and loosing) was given to Peter and the rest of the apostles (Matt. 18:18). Peter is the new Eliakim (Isaiah 22:22). Have you read Isaiah 22:20-23 or not?
*"Also that comes immediately before Jesus calls him Satan."*
You're peddling the Donatist heresy again! God does not choose perfect people. To argue otherwise is to impose your misconceived notion onto God. John 21:16 came after Matthew 16:23, right? You are implying that Jesus was naive to entrust Peter his flock, making him the chief shepherd after the ultimate Chief shepherd himself, Christ Jesus.
*"This is not exegesis, first off those different gendered meanings separates the distinction of the text, it does not say he is the rock nor is it saying that he is receiving the keys singularly."*
You're wrong. Christ would have said in Aramaic, "You are Kepha (rock), and on this kepha (rock) I will build my Church."
*"Also Papal succession is not even present in the first century"*
The evidence contradicts your claim. We have letters of Clement I, who is listed by Irenaeus and Tertullian as the bishop of Rome from 88 AD to his death in 99 AD. In his letters Clement appealed to his rank/primacy as the bishop of Rome. It was Clement of Rome that wrote about the martyrdom of Peter and Paul in his First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 44 (c. 95-97 AD).
As one former Protestant pastor put it, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
@@Lerian_V
"As one former Protestant pastor put it, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
Majority of Protestants and Catholics, it is fact of most "Christians" are indistinguishable from atheists in their theology and belief, they don't have faith, they have knowledge, they delude themselves into the presumption because they think then they know, they eisegesis the text and disregard the Hebrew mindset entirely, that being the basis for the entirety of Christ and His Word, even by the third century they had already widely disregarded Hebrew manner of thinking for Greek thinking, and so they came to faulty conclusions. If you truly want to know history, the first thing you do is disregard tradition, you submit yourself to the text, I am not a Protestant by tradition, I was not brought up as one, but I simply read Scripture and in the reading the plain language I read later got me accused of Calvinism and being Reformed, and as I learned further about the Hebrew thinkers, not of the Latins and Greeks, I came to understand that even further that Rome never understand Scripture, as do neither the Eastern Orthodox, and even many Protestants who are false teachers themselves. You want to know what makes a good Reformed Christian? He comes to understand the Messianic Jews even when he does not practice their traditions, there are few people who are closer to God's people in thought then Messianic Jews, and their teachings utterly destroy everyone else's belief.
"You clearly didn't read the entire post. I said, "We know according Matthew 16:19 that Jesus gave Peter both the power of the keys and the power of binding and loosing. The first (power of the keys) was given to Peter alone (Matt. 16:19), and the second (power of binding and loosing) was given to Peter and the rest of the apostles (Matt. 18:18)."
This separation makes no sense.
"Peter is the new Eliakim (Isaiah 22:22). Have you read Isaiah 22:20-23 or not?"
Yes I've read it, you make a presumption of the text, it definitely alludes to Eliakim, (which I should add, that's not the only allusion made here) but Peter is absolutely not made the sole owner of this, in fact in Hebrew belief this would refer to a legislative, interpreter, or teacher, not a priest nor judge, and its not a position that could either be inherited. Hebrew listeners would see this (and they did) and know what it says, but it does not say that Peter is being charged with anything remotely unique of the other Apostles, the whole of the church was given this charge, specifically to be scribes and record these things. That's the point. Not even as an authority. There's also the clear case that John 20:23 dictates the power that all of those of the church had.
"You are implying that Jesus was naive to entrust Peter his flock, making him the chief shepherd after the ultimate Chief shepherd himself, Christ Jesus."
Jesus didn't entrust a flock to anyone, he told every member of the church body to take care of the flock. The Koine Greek disagrees with that interpretation of the text.
"You're wrong. Christ would have said in Aramaic, "You are Kepha (rock), and on this kepha (rock) I will build my Church."
And where is the Aramaic written? By what reference can you claim this? Do you know the reason why it was written this way? It was because it was God's intent by Perfect Inspiration that it be understood this way, there is no Aramaic writing of the New Testament, Matthew certainly wasn't written with it. (there is one case in one of the late epistles for which we're not entirely sure who the writer is that may have been originally written in Aramaic but the records of it in Aramaic were lost and the only recognized writing is in Koine Greek, Matthew however was never written in Aramaic) How the Bible is written in Koine Greek is how its meant to be understood, you don't get to make presumption of the text that do not exist.
"The evidence contradicts your claim. We have letters of Clement I, who is listed by Irenaeus and Tertullian as the bishop of Rome from 88 AD to his death in 99 AD. In his letters Clement appealed to his rank/primacy as the bishop of Rome. It was Clement of Rome that wrote about the martyrdom of Peter and Paul in his First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 44 (c. 95-97 AD)."
And how is that papal succession? Peter doesn't even reside in Rome and there is no historical account of Peter in Rome, if he was ever there which we aren't even sure of, he wasn't there long enough to establish a church, there is no reason to expect that he'd have authority over such a church when he doesn't even reside there. (his house was known and still resided at Capernaum and was converted into a church seemingly immediately after his death suggesting he still resided there) All the accounts for which claim this are over a century after he's already dead (and all those who could refute false claims were also dead) and nobody could attest to the authenticity of such claims. It be way more likely that Paul would've been responsible for the church that appears in Rome (but even that we don't know) and it is attested by Eusebius that Clement was more associated with Paul. (Eusebius is more reliable because he's an early 2nd century writer but even so he is writing after the death of every Apostle and pretty much every disciple, so everyone who could attest his claims is also dead) Eusebius' testimony is more reliable then Irenaeus and Tertullian because they're not even 2nd century writers, they're 3rd century writers. This is about the same time frame that the first attestations of Muhammad supposedly exist, being about 200 years after the fact and we don't have any first hand accounts, and only Eusebius seems to count as a second hand source. That's very flimsy evidence to make any claim on, especially when none of the historians can make an account to the cases.
Self-refuting! Brilliant.
The feminine distinguishes it from Peter.
Bro Calvinism is heresy!
How?
How?
@@caseycockerham3925It is non-Christian
@@wordforever117 how?
@@caseycockerham3925 Protestantism was founded by Martin Luther. He was a Catholic priest and Augustinian friar who was ex-communicated for heresy.
So that is why Protestantism is heresy.
Catholicism is true blasphemy.
Why?
Catholicism is true Christianity
@@petros-estin-petra-looking to your own obedience and to the sacraments for ultimate salvation isn’t the good news of the gospel. It’s awful news. You can’t have peace with God through Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1) with Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.
@@tricord2939
See video above for a clue...
@@KnightFel Jesus speaks more about Hell than about Heaven. If you believe that you can't lose your salvation, then that's definitely not good news for you on the day of judgement.
Yikes, this is bad Greek eisegesis. Jesus just named Simon "Petros" in the Greek; it has the same meaning as "Petra" except the suffix changes to fit the male gender. A "Petra" was a building foundation stone, meaning it was not a man made carved stone, but one raised up by God. Jesus is telling Peter "You are the foundation stone of the Church". The Keys given to Peter was the chief authority to declare the gospel; of course that authority was afterward delegated to the other Apostles. That's why Peter says in Acts 15:7 "Men and Brethren, you know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by MY MOUTH should hear the word of the gospel and believe. This is the first error Protestants make when discussing this issue with Catholics. It is simply intellectual dishonesty to claim otherwise.
Shamounian vs Jeff durbin 💪
Is Sam Shamoun officially Catholic?
The Catholic Church changed the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday they admit this in the catechism, and many other books (Exodus 20:8-11 Daniel 7:25) The S.D.A Church is the true church they keep God's true sabbath on Saturday the 7th day of the week!
Can you please point us to where is says this in the Catechism.
I pray that you will research the foundational pillars of the SDA pioneers, and compare them to the church of today. Sadly, the pioneers would not be permitted to be members of the SDA church today, nor would they wish to. The modern church is joining hands with Rome and is adopting her doctrines, so please be very careful.
@@watchmanofthenight2700 SDA is joining hands with the true Church? Not a chance bro!
But the Orthodox Christians are getting closer to re-joining the Catholic Church. That means it is just be true Christians and protestant heretics left.
That proves Catholic Church is the true church. We don’t celebrate the sabbath but the day of the Lord.