@@hamidrabiipour9707 *I agree ... ROman religion teachse gb. God and His Words are antiRomanreligion and antiRCdoctrines. Wonder why?* 1. Catholics say Mary was forever virgin. Yet Bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mary was not perpetually virgin. Mk 6:3, Mat 13:55, Mat 27:56, Mar 6:3, Mar 15:40, Mar 15:47. 2. Catholics say clergies must be celibate. Yet BIBLE says Peter (supposed R Church first leader) had mother in law. Bible says celibacy is not a qualification for clergies. Mat 8:14-15, Mar 1:30-31, Luk 4:38-39. 3. Catholics say Mary was sinless. But Bible says Mary offered a sinner's offering. She was a sinner. Bible says Mary needed a Saviour. Lk 2:23-24, Lev 12:6-8, Rom 3:10. 4. Catholics say confess to R priests in a box. BIBLE says nothing about confessing to priests in a box. Bible says confess to God only. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6, Romans 10:9-10. 5. Catholics say drink of the physical blood of Jesus. Yet OT and NT both say do not drink blood. Acts 15, Lev 7:26. 6. Catholics say pray to passed on Mary and "saints". Yet Bible says do not contact the dead. NT Church did not record a single case of NT believers asking passed on saints to pray for them. Deut 18:11, Isaiah 8:19. 7. Catholics make and bow down to statues. Bible says do not bow down to graven images (statues). Deut 4, Exo 20:4-5. 8. Catholics sprinkles “holy water”. But NT Church of the Bible mentioned nothing about “holy water”. There was no record of any Apostles sprinkling “holy water” on believers. Catholics claimed “holy water” came from OT. Yet Num 5:17 says “holy water” was water used to test adulterous women in OT temple. Hardly the same. Those were for Old Covenant Jews. Not New Testament Christians. 9. Catholics say Peter was pope - bishop of all bishops. Yet Bible says Peter was just a leader of the Jerusalem Church. Bible says nothing of the office of bishop of bishops. Gal 2:9, Mat 16:18. 10. Catholics say there is a seat of Peter. Yet BIBLE says nothing about it. Jesus said “not to lord over others”. 11. Catholics has clergy priesthood. Bible says clergy priesthood was done away with in New Testament. There is no clergy priesthood in NT. Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:10. 12. Catholics preaches Works Salvation (faith + good works + partake R sacraments + submit to R pontiff + be in R Church + devote to Mary = to be saved). Yet Bible says “believe in Jesus to be saved”. Bible says Works Salvation is cursed. Gal 1:8-9. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10. 13. Catholics says they must do Penance to atone for their sins. Yet Bible says repent, confess and sins will be forgiven. Catholic Bible changes the word “repentance” in NT into “penance”. Original Greek NT does not use or mean the word penance. Penance = work to atone for sins. Repentance = change of heart. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6. 14. Catholics say Mary went straight to heaven without dying. Yet Bible says nothing about it. 15. Catholics say Islam and Christianity have the same God. Yet Islam doesn't believe in death and resurrection of Jesus and Trinity.
@@jediv9910 please stop posting nonsense day in day out. Your understanding of the scripture is inadequate & I hope you watch a few videos by Dr John Bergsma, Dr Keith Nester or Dr Scott Hahn, as these educated men explain true Christianity & why they left their old denominations and became Catholic. Do it for your own scrutiny and spiritual growth & don't act like a fool displaying your memorized scripture. Peace
@@hamidrabiipour9707 *Two or more Scriptures saying the same teachings proves a doctrine. Scriptures is the final authority. Not Roman religion. Not Scotty Hahn Roman pagan false teachers.* you said please stop posting nonsense day in day out. Your understanding of the scripture is inadequate & I hope you watch a few videos by Dr John Bergsma, Dr Keith Nester or Dr Scott Hahn, as these educated men explain true Christianity & why they left their old denominations and became Catholic. Do it for your own scrutiny and spiritual growth & don't act like a fool displaying your memorized scripture. Peace
For by God's power I was made an apostle to the Gentiles, just as Peter was made an apostle to the Jews. - Galatians 2:8 And I have been chosen as a preacher and apostle to teach the Gentiles this message about faith and truth. I’m not exaggerating-just telling the truth. - 1 Timothy 2:7
Galatians 2:7-8 says nothing about "Jews" (a false translation of Ioudaioi anyway) it says to the circumcision and uncircumcision. The circumcision was the remnant of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL who remained in Judaea and Galilee following the Law, the uncircumcision was the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL who had been scattered among the nations in 742-721 BC who had ceased following the law. God's people are the children of Israel, never "the Jews". The word now rendered as "Jews", Ioudaioi, simply means inhabitants of Ioudaia (Judaea), and only a fraction of Israelites from only 2 of the 12 tribes ever inhabited Ioudaia, and only did so for a brief time, so it's completely ridiculous to think the Ioudaioi, regardless of how the word is translated, represent "God's chosen people". Moreover, many non Israelites including the accursed Canaanites and Edomites lived in Judaea, and were also called Ioudaioi. One group of Israelites still practiced circumcision at the time of the Apostles, and the other group didn't. The circumcision and the uncircumcision, it's that simple. Paul used the word ETHNOS for the uncircumcision, meaning nations, which is now rendered as "Gentiles". Not a single apostle used the word "Gentiles", that's a carryover from the Latin translation of scripture, and Gentilis has always meant "OF THE SAME FAMILY, TRIBE, OR NATION". It has never meant "non Jews" as so many of today's pulpit masters wrongly insist. Hence the prefix gen-, as in GENES, GENETICS, etc. These were KINSMAN NATIONS to the apostles, that's why the Latin translators chose a word denoting people with the same genes. Jesus is the KINSMAN REDEEMER. Sadly the true biblical narrative has little by little been altered and hidden over the centuries, to the point where we now have Christians adhering to what is essentially the Communist doctrine of "the brotherhood of all mankind", a Satanic doctrine that contradicts the scriptural teaching that rebellious angels sought to destroy God's creation Adam by adulterating his seed and corrupting his race, with the added benefit of preventing the Savior from being one of his direct descendants. Which is why the Hebrew speaking prophets has at least 4 different words for people, only one of which was Adam, but now all of those words are rendered as "man" in translations. Utter confusion. The fact that Christians refer to Jesus as "the son of man" is a perfect example of this confusion, as the phrase is a reference to the phrase used in Ezekiel, "SON OF ADAM", and also in Daniel "ONE LIKE A SON OF ADAM". Of course these phrases now appear as "son of man" and "one like a son of man", thus the word anthropos in the NT, which had a very specific meaning and scope to the ancients, only ever referring to the inhabitants of what we call the Graeco-Roman world, has been ignorantly rendered as "man" - causing most people to assume these passages of scripture refer to every homoid on earth, when nothing could be further from the truth. The Bible in no way teaches that everyone on 2 legs is a child of God, just the opposite, as Jesus perfectly clarifies in Matthew 13:24-30 & 36-40. "Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn." ... "Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world." Clearly an explanation of the serpent in the garden planting his seed, resulting in the birth of Cain and his satanic descendants - however, since Christians on the whole have been poor stewards of rightly transmitting the apostolic teachings - allowing countless mistranslations and errors to creep into translations of scripture over the centuries, to the point where we have over 30,000 competing Christian denominations presenting contradictory teachings, most Christians have no idea that Cain was not Adam's son. And since so few Christians have undertaken to thoroughly study the Old Testament scriptures, or to understand the world of antiquity in which the events recorded in scripture took place, almost none are aware of the numerous places in scripture where this fact is attested to and affirmed. To top it off we find in 1Chr 2:55 that Cain's descendants were allowed to become the scribes, so it's no wonder that the portions of scripture that deal with Cain's origin have been tampered with and the truth obscured. Genesis 4:1, which so many use to reject Cain's satanic parentage, is actually not a translation from ancient manuscripts, but rather an interpolation due to what scholars refer to as a "gloss", a scribal notation that became part of the text due to inattention. Anyways this reply has grown long enough...
@@doxholiday1372 Israel divided into the Southern Kingdom and Northern Kingdom... Then he said to Jeroboam, “Take ten pieces for yourself, for this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘See, I am going to tear the kingdom out of Solomon’s hand and give you ten tribes. But for the sake of my servant David and the city of Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, he will have one tribe. I will do this because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Molek the god of the Ammonites, and have not walked in obedience to me, nor done what is right in my eyes, nor kept my decrees and laws as David, Solomon’s father, did. “‘But I will not take the whole kingdom out of Solomon’s hand; I have made him ruler all the days of his life for the sake of David my servant, whom I chose and who obeyed my commands and decrees. I will take the kingdom from his son’s hands and give you ten tribes. - 1 Kings 11:31-35 For I am not ashamed of this Good News about Christ. It is the power of God at work, saving everyone who believes - the Jew FIRST and also the Gentile. - Romans 1:16 Then Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and declared, It was necessary that we first preach the word of God to you Jews. But since you have rejected it and judged yourselves unworthy of eternal life, we will offer it to the Gentiles. - Acts 13:46 But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” - Acts 18:6
Whenever someone says they are not lying it means they are, Paul is self proclaimed, just read Acts 9 about his conversion afterwards no one believes him he has to be removed and sent to Tarsus and verse 31 takes the cake, the church began well before Paul, as a former Reformed Baptist, what we were taught about Paul doesn't line up with scripture
Regarding why Catholics believe that Peter was the 1st Pope, we have Apostolic Succession whereby the church continues after Jesus' Heavenly ascension and the death of the Apostles. The Bible indicates that Jesus had an " inner circle " comprising Peter, James and John whom He took alone to select places like His Transfiguration, the raising of Jairus' daughter to life, and the Garden of Gethsemane before His Passion and Death. Even in this " inner circle " the Bible always ranks Peter ahead of James and John
Catholics believe that Papal authority was given to Peter, the 1st Pope, on Peter's declaration of Jesus' Divinity and Son of the Living God - Matthew 16:16 and Jesus' response of - You are Rock on which I will build My church - Mat. 16:18 - together with Jesus' entrustment of the Keys to the Kingdom to Peter alone- Matthew 16:18-19. It was confirmed after Jesus' Resurrection, when Jesus questioned Peter's love 3 times, firstly to assuage Peter's guilt regarding his thrice betrayal, but most importantly to seal Peter's pastoral role of spiritually feeding Jesus' followers - His lambs and sheep - John 21. In John 21 verse 19 concludes with Jesus, the Good Shepherd. who directed Peter - FOLLOW ME. This directive made only to Peter can only be interpreted as Jesus' successor. Note: Jesus entrusted the keys of Heaven *only to Peter - Mat. 16:19 - and empowered Peter that whatever, he bound and loosed on earth, would also be bound and loosed in Heaven. On the other hand, on the very day of his resurrection from the dead - John 20:22-23 - Jesus breathed on His Apostles, including Peter, His own Spirit, and empowered them to forgive - or bind - sins. Jesus' breath was similar to the one which gave the life-force to the earth-created Adam - Genesis 2:7 Of the 12 Apostles, only Peter had his name changed from Simon to represent his new authority and role from being a fisherman to being a Fisher of Men - Matthew 4:19. It is true that Paul also had his name changed from Saul - a Persecutor of the church to becoming its Promoter among the pagans. Moreover, of all the Apostles - excluding Judas - the Resurrected Jesus appeared to Peter first - Luke 24:34. Peter was the 1st to perform the miracle of healing - Acts 3 When the couple Ananias and Sapphira lied to the 1st Christian community, it was Peter who confronted them and God " executed " them - Acts 5 Peter was the 1st to raise the dead Tabitha to life - Acts 9 Peter was the 1st to introduce Gentiles to the church - Acts 10 Without a Magisterium, Protestant ministers have become their own teaching authority which has resulted in thousands of denominations. Protestant ministers have become dependent on the " itching ears " of their congregations and can be voted out of office - something which is not Biblical. The "Prosperity" doctrine, now in vogue, is one of the results despite Jesus' declaration that - To be My disciple, you MUST take up your Cross daily, deny yourself, and follow Me.
Why waste your time sharing your opinion which doesn’t matter because you aren’t the magisterium. Why try to use reason, do you learn through reason, or through the obedience to the magisteriums teaching on the scriptures and tradition? You just admitted you have no authority to teach. So why are you trying to?
And do you think that Peter, with all the privileges that you have listed of being the 'first', do you think he would deny it all by being the head of a corrupt system under the influence of Satan. Remember, the Head of the Church is Christ and He is in Heaven. We are joined to Him by the indwelling Holy Spirit. So why would you want a sinful man on the earth, usurping Christ by taking His place as 'head' of the church, and men claiming to succeed the apostles and forming additional doctrine contrary to the Bible.
If Peter was alive now, he would curse the Catholic Church for how they treat him, and the church would execute him. If Paul, James, John, Mary and Jesus were among us, they would also curse the Catholic Church, and they would also be executed.
Please do some research. Listen to some Catholic answers, Trent horn, Matt frad etc. As a general heuristic if a claim is “so impossibly outlandish and obviously false” it’s more likely you don’t know the issue well. I was prot and now am Catholic and even I see some evidence for the Protestant claim (not nearly enough to convince me but some for sure). If you think NO WAY BRO THIS IS CRAZY AND SO FALSE it’s more likely you don’t know the issue rather than the 1.3 billion Catholics have never heard of All this insurmountable evidence
Lol Mary who has used to saints to speak to catholic over the years n u guys say that she would want nothing to do with the church . You guys r just jealous u cannot Conner your faith to the apostles peace catholic forever 😂😂😂😂😅
No evidence? Said the preacher The Papacy is evil ? No bible will defend? What became of Shebna then, The keeper of the keys? He was once prime minister But God revoked his peace Eliokim would replace him As the keeper of the Keys Shebna was found unworthy What a biblical disgrace then God once spoke to Peter And gave to him the keys Jesus formed His kingdom He was the Great high priest Peter was His steward The keeper of the Keys
Jesus started the Catholic Church, a teaching and preaching authoritative Church on Peter and the apostles (Mt. 16:18-19, Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28-30; Mt. 18:15-18). He did not start a bible only church which removes all of the Protestant denominations. Rather, he trained the disciples to be the leaders of the Church and gave them his authority (Mt. 28:19-20, Jn. 20:21-23) and said we 'must' listen to their authority. If we don't listen to their authority, then we reject Christ himself (Lk. 10:16, Heb. 13:17, 1 Thess. 5:12-13). They also passed on their authority to others through the laying on of hands. The church that Jesus started was teaching and preaching, correcting and reproving, and making doctrine before the New Testament even begun to be written (Acts. 16:4-5; Acts. 11:1-15; 1 Tim. 5:11; Eph. 4:11-12 and many more). When you realize that Jesus didn't start a Bible only religion but started a teaching and preaching church, you will realize that it's the Catholic Church, the only church that goes back 2000 years to the first century. This was the same church that made and canonized the Bible in the first place. Peter is mentioned in the bible 195 times. Saint John, 29 times, St. James 16 times. Peter does first miracle and the first speech. Peter receives the revelations from God. He has a special relationship with Christ who trains him. Acts 15:11. Peter alone settled the dispute. Lists of apostles are always Peter and 11. Peter and the others. Peter and the Apostles. He is always listed 1st and Judas last. Luke 5:1-10: Peter chosen for ministry as fisher of men. Luke 22:24-32. Leader of the brothers. John 21:1-17: chosen as shepherd of church under Christ.
Amen, amen. Peter is given authority on top of a pagan rock temple of Pan. Jesus clearly gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, aka the church. The church and teachings and traditions have and will always be before the Bible. The bible learned its teachings and understanding from the church and it's people starting from Peter and the apostles and to all the bishops and priest appointed later on in the NT. These will never go away yet it's still here, and most Christians don't realize this. It's funny how even a true Muslim believes in Mary as blessed and holy and sinless. It's a shame that the majority of Christians don't know this, but Muslims do.
@catholictruthofficial Your first bible quotes…. So essential… is Peter The Rock? Oh no, he’s not The Rock, Christ is the Rock, and the cornerstone which everything is built on. But is Peter a Rock? Yes, just like all the apostles, who together create the foundation of the spiritual temple. So with the Bible you disproved the Catholic position on the papacy. Welcome to a Bible based communion.
@rickydavis7391 that's cute Ricky Bobby. You basically made yourself a bishop, aka pope from your statement alone from personal interpretation and guidance from false teachings of original scriptures. See 1 Tim. 3v14 what Paul writes. You will understand that the Pillar and Foundation is the Church and not the bible/scriptures. Also, apostles are the Pillars, and they teach as that without a bishop, you don't have a church of God. Does your church have a bishop? Welcome to the knowledge of the truth, which is the universal aka Catholic church, who put the bible together. While you are at the table looking at the menu, we are enjoying the feast. Please come join the feast of truth and knowledge. Hint I don't want to seem like Peter in Galatians when he acted bad at the table. But that is moral and not doctrine. Have a blessed, fruitful day, brother.
@@PatrickC-x4p 1 Peter 2:5: Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood… John 14:26 the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all that I have said to you. Romans 8:14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons and daughters of God. Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. John 14:21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight. If an organization claims to be The Word of God, how do we discern whether it’s true or a false gospel? Do we just go to the authority of that organization and obey its leaders? Or do we obey the one true leader, teacher, and mouth of truth, Jesus Christ, testing the spirit of the organization, guided by the Holy Spirit and the Word of God?
I would like to point out that according to the word of God the lord placed in the church the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to edify the believers, see Ephesians 4:11-13, no mention of a pope here! The catholic church has cast aside and buried the word of God under mountains of man made docrtines! What will these catholics say to their Lord when they meet him face to face? What will our Lord say to them?
1 Peter 4:16 16 However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. Yet they call themselves Catholics!?😅😅 They're so backwards..
Read this please ! Because Peter was made the foundation of the Church, there were practical implications: it gave him a special place or primacy among the apostles. As the passages below demonstrate, the early Church Fathers clearly recognized this. Clement of Alexandria “[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]). Tertullian “For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]). “[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]). The Letter of Clement to James “Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed” (Letter of Clement to James 1 [A.D. 221]). Origen “[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]). Cyprian of Carthage “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). Cyril of Jerusalem “The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]). “[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there-he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14). “In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32-34]” (ibid., 17:27). Ephraim the Syrian “[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]). Pope Damasus I “Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]). Jerome “‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]). Pope Innocent I “In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]). Augustine “Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]). “Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]). “Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]). Council of Ephesus “Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]). “Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (ibid., session 3).
@@layupnation Catholics shouldn’t even be rebutting anything. They don’t have the teaching authority. Only the magisterium does. They don’t think, they obey. And if they obeyed God then amen. But they obey the man made doctrines of the magisterium.
@@uncatila Interesting comment. Do you know the history of the Catholic Church? Murdering Christian’s who don’t obey the church. Selling salvation. Worshipping Mary. Killing those who tried to bring the Bible into the understanding of native speakers. Requiring the laity to refrain from reading the Bible. Using the high positions of the church to exploit the laity sexually, financially, and laboriously. You may tell the spirit by its fruits. I pray that you realize your pride has bound you into your Christian tribalism, guiding you to reject Christian unity. Read the church history before romanization, people converted from the model of humility and piety from Christians. Do you reflect that same spirit, or do you reflect a level of superiority in your Christian faith which allows you to justify attacking your brothers?
My dear Protestant brothers and sisters, MacArthur is intentionally deceiving you all. I only became Catholic Christian last year in April. Before that I was a non-denominational Christian beginning from 2018, and in fact in 2021 I was studying at a Protestant College here in my country South Africa to be a non-denominational pastor. Also, like many of you, I was impressed by MacArthur even though I highly suspected he was, and still is, a Freemason (plenty to say for this actually, particularly considering that Freemasonry regards the Catholic Church as its arch-nemesis). Oh and I was an anti-Catholic. I used to constantly exhort my Catholic mother to leave the Catholic denomination because Paul warned about divisions (denominations) in 1 Cor. ch.1 in the Body of Christ. Here's are basic mind-hacks (simple logical reasons) why MacArthur, and all anti-Catholics are wrong: - The Roman Emperors, Constantine the Great and Theodosius, each convened Church councils in AD 325 and 381 respectively which officially declared many crucial things for the faithful, most significantly that Jesus is God (AD 325), including the consubstantiality of the Three Most Blessed Persons of the Holy Trinity (i.e. in AD 381 the doctrine of the Trinity, that each Person in the Trinity is divine, viz. God, and equal and to be adored/worshipped). If the Catholic Church were a satanic movement, as MacArthur alluded to in the first few minutes of this video, then by default we are all compelled to abandon any traditional Christian doctrines that derive from these church councils originally convened by two Catholic Christian Emperors in union with all the other churches of the world (i.e. Oriental and Eastern Orthodox churches). In Lk. 11:17-18 Our Blessed Lord says the following: "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand?" In other words, the Roman Catholic Empire cannot simultaneously be a weapon of satanic deceit and a servant of Jesus Almighty. It can only be one or the other. There are numerous significant heresies that the Church has defeated over the last two thousand years, you can read St Alphonsus Liguori's 'History of Heresies...' to learn more. If you reject the Roman Catholic Church then to be consistent you must reject the doctrines that Jesus is God, including the doctrine of the Trinity. You cannot have it both ways. Further, to quickly refute one claim of MacArthur when he said that Peter had no role in pastoring the Gentiles, which was allegedly exclusive to Paul only, well in Acts 15:7 Saint Peter explicitly mentions his God give ministry to the Gentiles. This is why Christ the King in John ch.21:15-17 gave explicit command to Peter to look after His "sheep" (who are Christ's sheep? Only the Jews? Please!). I can easily refute each false claim by MacArthur however it takes far more time to refute a claim than to make one. For that reason my best advice to you is to stop listening only to non-Catholic arguments against Catholicism and begin learning what the Catholic Church and apologists actually teach for a truly equitable understanding of the Catholic position. Proverbs 18:17 tells us in principle that there are two sides to a story, not just one. So listen to both. In court of law both sides get to be heard, not just one side. MacArthur is not stupid, we know that, thats why he is intentionally leading you astray with sophistry. He knows that as long as he keeps you out of the Catholic Church you are not assured salvation because all Christians throughout history have always known that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church because only we Catholics are part of the Body of Christ since we alone eat the literal Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ as He wanted it (see Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, especially with regard to John ch.6 etc). This is why if anyone rejects the Catholic Church they end up rejecting Christ's actual Body too. Lastly, I became a Christian in 2018 due to conspiracy theories, I learned that all the rich, powerful and famous worship satan. Then I became a Catholic in large part because I learned all these satanists hate the Catholic Church above all. Ive given you a lot ponder but I pray Our Lord Jesus Christ Almighty wakes you up. God love you.
I'm Apostolic Pentecostal and Apostle Peter was not Catholic, he was no pope, Apostle Peter walked hand in hand with Jesus Christ, he never swayed away from Jesus Christ teachings, the Catholic Church is a demonic false Christian religion, they do not follow the laws of Jesus Christ, they committed murders in the name of Christ, they molested millions of kids and covered it up all the way up to the Pope, you are lost and will end up in Hell with the rest of the Popes
Peter preached what Jesus preached. Repent and speak in tongues as the gift of the HOLY GHOST, no other way around it, Peter taught what Jesus Christ taught, the Catholic Church dies not believe you have to speak in tongues and be filled with the Holy Ghost to get to Heaven, if they don't teach the teachings of speaking in tongues and being filled with the Holy Ghost to get to Heaven they are not of God
No he's not ,you are ,Roman' catholicism is not biblical Christianity, show me in scripture the justification for praying to Mary, the apostles who are dead praying the rosary, take the eucharist for example Jesus does not inhabit the eucharist read your Bible he's at the right hand of the Father intercesseding for his children Hebrews 7:25 says he ever lives to make intercession for them, Hebrews 12:2 he is seated at the right hand of God, Roman's 8:34 Says Jesus is at the right hand of God intercesseding for us ,that's where Jesus is as our high priest
Lol, “Truly truly I say unto you this IS my body and this IS my blood. He whoever does not drink of my blood and eat of my flesh has NO LIFE WITHIN HIM”. Yeah bro just a symbol. A symbol that dictates whether or not you have life within you
As an convert from Pentecostalism to the Catholic Church I must say, that this misrepresentation borders not only on evil but is indeed evil. If you care about truth read „Pope Peter“ from J. Heschmeyer. 🙏📿😘
Pentecostalism is simply Catholic mysticism just as Lutheranism is Catholic-lite. Your still in Babylonian captivity. Revelation 18:4 - "...Come out of her..."
So you went from speaking in tongues and having the Holy Ghost to worshipping a Pope smh, calling a Pope Father, you will be beat with many stripes for abandoning the teachings of Jesus Christ, now the Catholic Church has opened the doors to LBGTQ, you will have to answer to Jesus Christ, YOU KNOW BETTER
The Protestant church has opened its doors to gays for a long time. And no the Pope didnt allow gay relationships or anything of the sort. Please read his quotes and letters rather than news headlines. He always states the Catholic position, that those who repent can become saved and that we should bless people not their sin; and we wish to support the well being of all even if we disagree with the actions of men
@@Napolean-tq3zs Romans 14:4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand did Jesus not open up to prostitutes, tax collectors, murders? Luke 5:31 Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Catholic Church has been pro life since day one, not even accepting contraception in married couples like Protestants did. Allowing a gay person in church is not against Jesus teachings. Rome has not accepted homosexuality, pride, we don’t celebrate that. But we are here for the church that is the people that make the church. Stop reading fake news. And headlines. Look for the full video.
@rappmasterdugg6825 *Yes again nice fairy tales. You are just using your man made narratives as Scriptures and doctrines. Still not a single verse ever said "Davidic Kingdom = the Church". So where did RCs get all your ns? Lol* you said This is an interesting question, thank you, and I would really like a meaningful and respectful counter-argument or questions from you. David was king of Israel and Judah, reigning for about 40 years. David is anointed as the future king of Israel, at God’s direction, in 1 Samuel 16:1-13. In 2 Samuel 2:4 David is anointed as king of Judah. In 2 Samuel 5:3, David is anointed king of Israel by the elders in a covenant made “in the presence of the Lord.” This evidence very clearly shows that David is the king of Israel and Judah, at God’s direction, and by definition David is a “Davidic” king. The successors to David as king, with the exception of Athaliah, were direct descendants of David, and are considered “Davidic” kings. In 2 Samuel 7:8-16: Yahweh promises David an eternal kingdom. In 2 Samuel 7:11b-16: Yahweh promises to build David a dynasty after his death. In 2 Samuel 7:13, 16: Yahweh promises that the royal son's throne will last forever. Despite these promises, the Davidic Kingdom fell to the neo-Babylonians in 587/586 BC, as described in 2 Kings 24:8-12 (end of the first Temple Period). The Jews returned to Israel in 538 BC, as described in the OT books Ezra-Nehemiah (hooray for Persian King Cyrus!). Although the Davidic bloodline continued the kings didn’t reign as kings-essentially the kingship and the throne were underground. The Jews began to anticipate the coming of the Messiah who would re-establish the Davidic kingdom. The Messiah would be from the line of David -Matthew 1:1-17 gives Jesus’ genealogy showing that he is a descendant of David through Joseph. In Luke we have another lineage tying Jesus to David’s line. In Luke 2:4, 10-11 we have the angel saying in reference to Jesus “Do not be afraid; for see - I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord.” In Matthew 16:15 Peter says in response to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Christ and Messiah are synonyms, both meaning “anointed one”-Messiah is Hebrew and Christ is Greek. Jesus was anointed three times. In Luke 2:25-35 we have Simeon recognizing Jesus as the Christ in the temple. There’s really no doubt that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, and as such is the Davidic king the Jews have been waiting for. Further, Jesus is the last of the Davidic kings as he is eternal-there would be no successor kings and he reigns forever. In the Old Testament God makes several covenants with the Jewish people through Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jeremiah (the New Covenant). Jesus is the fulfillment of the New Covenant. In Matthew 26:27-28 we have Jesus saying Then he took a cup, gave thanks,* and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.” The entire Old Testament points to Jesus, to this moment and the founding of his Church. God chose Israel. He chose David to lead Israel. He promised David that his line would be eternal. Jesus is of the line of David. Jesus is identified in numerous places as the Christ/Messiah, the anointed one and fulfillment of God’s promise to provide an eternal king. Jesus is the last and eternal Davidic king. Everything Jesus did, including founding and eternally shepherding his Church is Davidic. I have been respectful for you and only cited scripture. Please be respectful of me in the same manner.
Why this man hate the church that Jesus himself started only one church through Peter not so many churches. Jesus say you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the key of 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. So the successor of Peter are the popes and it still continue till now because Jesus himself promise that the powers of death shall not prevail against his church. And Jesus say Mathew 10:22 and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. Mark 14 Jesus say to his disciples "take heed that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my name, and they will leads you astray.
Why did orthodox separate from the catholic church. Why did Pope's kill people all through there history while orthodox didn't. You can say Catholic is the oldest church but Orthodox was there the whole time. Even before the Roman church. Roman's killed all the Christians before they made the Roman Catholic church. Roman's worship women why do you think Marry is worship. Why the separation in 1600's because Pope was losing money so he said you can buy your unsaved family members into heaven.( Not in the Bible). When you argue for the Catholic Church know the whole history. Now your Pope wants to bless same sex that will lead to more separations of the church. I will never worship or fall to my face to no man including the Pope. Only to Jesus.
@@tony1685 Luke 10:16 - Jesus told to His Apostles "he who hears you hears me and he who rejects you rejects me and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me". Mathew 12:30 - Jesus warned us "he who is not with me is against me and he who does not gather with me scatters". Mark 13:22-23 - Jesus warned us "false christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray if possible, the elect. But take heed, I have told you all things beforehand". Mark 13-31- Jesus say "heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away". Mathew 18:3-4 - Jesus say "truly I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven".
@@marymargarette4289 i agree 100% with the Scriptures you've posted Ma'am, but you have not proven anyone is against Jesus. it's just not possible that the Scripture was referring to any other than Jesus Himself as Messiah and Son of Living God. it is called _'Peter's Confession'_ - what is the confession?
The Prophet Daniel says there will be 4 Kingdoms, One of Gold, One Silver, One Bronze, and One of Iron & Clay, and in the time of the 4th Kingdom the Messiah will come, He will send a stone that will break the 4th Kingdom, the Gold was Babylon, the Selver was Medo-Persians, the Bronze was the Greeks, the Iron & Clay, was the Roman Empire, Caesar Augustus hade a Census and Jesus was born under that Census in Bethlehem. The Kingdom of GOD, entered during that 4th Kingdom, He also renamed one of his Apostles STONE and sent that Apostle to where? ROME the capitol of that pagan evil empire that had seduced Jerusalem. And in Daniel said but the stone that struck the statue, became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth” -Daniel 2:35. The Pagan Kingdom will become the Kingdom of Christ, he will win it back, he made it the Capital and Epicentre of his Kingdom on earth that’s why we’re Roman Catholics.
Christian brothers and sisters, please remember Catholicism is a different gospel than the true gospel of Jesus Christ. Catholics are part of our mission field. Romans 3:28 ESV - For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Romans 5:1 ESV - Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 4:5 ESV - And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness Galatians 2:16 ESV - Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. Romans 4:3 ESV - For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV - For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
If Catholicism “is a different gospel” then please explain why ALL Bible believing people receive their rule of faith, the Bible, from her… 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 individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time, growing in numbers of hundreds of “inspired” NT writings. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved it 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?
I agree there is no scriptures from the Bible supporting that Peter was a pope, ,The other writings has to be measured by the Bible and everything that not Biblically should be prone, removed and let's stick to the Bible please 'Christians'❤❤❤
Exactly. Unfortunately, the RCC has their private interpretations which the Bible commands us not to use to interpret the Bible. The Bible interprets the Bible. Period.
@@jmo900 Funny that ... 3 Church of England Bishops in just the last 2 years have become Catholics cos the Catholic Church is at one with the bible even the KJV bible !!
*First Occurrence of the term “Roman Catholic”* *Quote:* "Formulations such as the "Holy Roman Church" or the "Roman Catholic Church" have occurred by officials of the Catholic Church before[8][9] and after the Reformation.[10][11][12][13][14] It is also used in the context of ecumenical dialogue. The first known occurrence of "Roman Catholic" as a synonym for "Catholic Church" was in communication with the Armenian Apostolic Church in 1208, after the East-West Schism.[15][16]" Source: 15 Salvation outside Church. Boston, Massachusetts (USA): Brill; Lam. 2016-10-07. p. 116. ISBN 978-9004326842. Archived from the original on 2023-02-15. Retrieved 2021-04-18. 16 Pacheco, John. "Ultra-Traditionalism". The Catholic Legate. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 23 December 2016.
@leobaltazar *Very interesting claims. Except there is no office of bishop of bishops - pope in the Bible. So you are just proving it's self recognition and self invention of Rome. Self invented traditions is not doctrines according to Scriptures. Col 2:8, Mark 7:8, Mat 15, Mat 23.* you said The recognition of the papacy, or the authority of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), developed over time in the Catholic Church. Here's a brief overview: 1. *Early Christianity (1st-3rd centuries)*: The Bishop of Rome was respected as one of the prominent leaders in the early Christian Church, but not yet recognized as the supreme authority. 2. *Council of Nicaea (325 AD)*: The Bishop of Rome was recognized as having a special role in resolving disputes and maintaining unity among churches. 3. *Council of Constantinople (381 AD)*: The Bishop of Rome was acknowledged as having a primacy of honor among bishops, but not yet a formal authority over the entire Church. 4. *Pope Leo I (440-461 AD)*: Leo I, also known as Leo the Great, played a significant role in establishing the papacy's authority. He asserted the Bishop of Rome's supremacy and was recognized as the first Pope in the modern sense. 5. *Council of Chalcedon (451 AD)*: The Council recognized the Bishop of Rome's authority and primacy, stating that "the Bishop of Rome has the primacy of honor and authority." 6. *Middle Ages (5th-15th centuries)*: The papacy's authority grew, with Popes exercising significant influence over the Church and secular affairs. 7. *Council of Trent (1545-1563 AD)*: The Council reaffirmed the papacy's authority and defined the doctrine of papal infallibility, which was later formally defined at the First Vatican Council. 8. *First Vatican Council (1869-1870 AD)*: The Council formally defined the doctrine of papal infallibility, stating that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra (in his official capacity as the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church). Over time, the recognition of the papacy evolved, with the Bishop of Rome's authority growing from a respected leader to the supreme authority in the Catholic Church.
was the bible written in English? if so was it Old, Middle, or Modern English? I'm with you. I like modern English. I think it's superior to all the other versions.
The problem that protestants have is the same as Mormonism based on the following 3 arguments. (1) Mormons (Latter-Day Saints, or LDS) believe that after the death of the last Apostle, there was a “Great Apostasy.” Priesthood authority ceased, doctrine began to degenerate, and the true Gospel was lost (necessitating its “restoration” by Joseph Smith in the 19th century). (2) The vast majority of protestants reject multiple doctrines that were believed unanimously by ancient Christians, beginning with the very first Church Fathers who were discipled by the Apostles themselves. Specifically, these protestants reject three key doctrines: a. Baptismal regeneration (how we become Christians); b. Apostolic succession (how the Church is governed); and c. The sacrifice of the Eucharist (how Christians worship). (3) Therefore, whether they realize it or not, most protestants believe in a “Great Apostasy” theory of history that is virtually identical with that of the LDS. If all Christians of which we have any record-including the disciples of the Apostles-were unanimously wrong about how we become Christians, how the Church is governed, and how we worship as Christians (the “Three Doctrines”), there is no more fitting description of this massive falling away than a “Great Apostasy.” This necessarily means that creatures (the protestant “reformers,” or the LDS’s “prophet” Joseph Smith) outperformed the Creator, since their “gospels” and “churches” have now in one form or another lasted for centuries, whereas when Jesus originally established them, they fell apart immediately. In the writings of the Church Fathers every time they spoke about heresy and heretics, they were describing Protestantism. Protestantism is all over the place on the different positions. You can’t speak about the Protestant position on something, except perhaps in the form of a negative, like they’re contrary to the Catholic Church, they’re contrary to the Roman Pontiff. But the methods, the means, by which Protestants arrive at their theological conclusions were common in virtually all the heresies and the heretics that the Fathers talked about.
Your problem is that, you put men's word above that of God. This video spoke from the position of Scriptures, which will forever reign supreme over any piece of cooked up history. Just support your comment with scriptures
@@fredowusu22 Gladly, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to reply... It's sort of a long reply for UA-cam standards, but I really hope you read the entire reply in good faith. It's a common misconception that the Catholic Church favors traditions of MEN over the word of God quoting some passages in the gospels that say not to replace God’s word with the traditions of MEN particularly in Matthew and Mark’s gospel. This is one of the big mistakes that some of our friends, particularly in the Protestant community, make in looking at these passages, they will see Jesus criticizing the Pharisees for holding two traditions of men, and then they skip over passages in the New Testament that talk about traditions in a positive way. So it’s not all tradition is a bad thing. The English word, tradition, comes from the Latin word trādere, which means something that is handed on. So tradition itself is a neutral concept and that’s why you find both passages in the New Testament that speak positively of tradition and passages that speak negatively of tradition, because some traditions are good and some traditions are bad. It’s when it conflicts with the word of God that a tradition of men becomes bad. But not all traditions are even traditions of men. There are also traditions that come to us from God and were passed down to us by Jesus to the apostles. All of that oral teaching Jesus did - it wasn’t written. Jesus didn’t write any kind of theological manual for the disciples, He trained them orally, and that means that what he gave them was a body of traditions. We called it APOSTOLIC traditions. And they were passed on through the apostles to the church. And so, consequently today, Catholics and other Christians will refer to them as an APOSTOLIC tradition because they were traditions that were endorsed and passed on by the apostles, and those traditions are the ones that the New Testament commends. The biggest problem with the doctrine of sola scriptura, from this perspective, is that nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible should be used by Christians as the sole authority, the sole rule of faith, in matters of belief and practice - NOWHERE! The Bible does, however, very clearly support the Catholic Church’s teaching that it is Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition that make up the deposit of faith; it is Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition that comprise the Christian rule of faith. Scripture says: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS which you were taught by us, either BY WORD OF MOUTH or by letter” (2 Thess 2:15). Traditions! Oral traditions and written traditions. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, both of which the Thessalonians are being told to “stand firm and hold to.” And how does Paul refer to these oral traditions elsewhere? : “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the WORD OF GOD which you HEARD from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers” (1 Thess 2:13). The Thessalonians received as the word of God that which they heard from Paul, not simply that which they read in his letters. Or...“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor 11:2). Paul is commending the Corinthians because they maintain the traditions that he passed on to them. Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. “…and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim 2:2). What we have here in 2 Timothy is an instance, in Scripture, of Paul COMMANDING the passing on of Sacred Tradition. So, we see that the Bible clearly supports the Catholic Church’s teaching that the word of God is contained in both Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. Tradition is something we need to take very seriously, and in fact, everybody does. If you look in the Protestant world, do Protestants hand on ideas or things from one person to another? YES - such as phrases like Sola Scriptura. When you are a Protestant and you get your first Bible, just like being a Catholic when you get your first Bible, someone gives it to you. That’s literally handing on a tradition. And if it’s a Protestant Bible and you’re a Protestant and you open it and you see, “Oh, it has these 66 books in it.” You just accepted the canon of scripture based on something that was physically handed to you. So this isn’t just Catholics, it’s also Orthodox and Coptic and so forth, I would say, “Actually that’s an imperfect tradition because there should be more than 66 books there.” But how do you know WHICH TRADITION IS RIGHT? The Bible does not tell you which understanding of the canon is right, and there is no divinely inspired contents page. The publisher decided which books to put on the contents page and how to classify them. So, this itself points to the role of tradition even in Protestant life. And it’s fortunate that these days you have a growing number of Protestant scholars who are much more comfortable talking about tradition. They’ll talk about, “Our tradition as Lutherans,” or, “Our tradition as Calvinist,” or, “Our tradition as Baptist.” And even more than that, they recognize the role that tradition played in the early church. In fact, a Protestant friend of mine recommended me to read a set of book on the early Church Fathers. Another scriptural problem with the doctrine of sola scriptura is that it teaches that every individual has the right - the duty, in fact - to read the Bible and decide for him- or herself what is and what is not the truth in all things concerning the Christian Faith. Yet, that is decidedly unscriptural. The Bible quite plainly teaches us that individuals, reading the Bible on their own, do not have the authority to simply decide, on their own, what is true or false doctrine. 2 Peter 3:16, for example, tells us that there are some things in Scripture that are “hard to understand” and that, because of this, the “ignorant” twist these Scriptures to “their own destruction.” Which of us could say that we are not ignorant of Scripture in at least one way or another? This means that we are at risk of twisting the Scriptures to our own destruction. This is serious business! So, how do we get around the problem of our own ignorance? Does the Bible give us a clue? Indeed it does: Acts 8:31. Here the Ethiopian eunuch is reading Scripture and Philip comes up and asks him if he understands what he is reading. What does the eunuch say, “Of course I understand it. I don’t need any help from anyone to understand the Bible”? No, he doesn’t say that! He says, “How can I [understand the Scriptures], unless someone guides me?” So the pattern of looking both to apostolic scripture and apostolic tradition is meant to be used by us today. Because the apostles never put a sunset clause on this principle that they were using. Also, one principle that they also used was turning to authoritative teachers to settle questions, the apostles, for example, in the council at Jerusalem in Acts 15. And so when difficult questions arose like, “Which tradition should we follow? Do people have to be circumcised to become a Christian or not?” So in settling that question, the Holy Spirit directed them to have a council, and that shows that God’s will is for sometimes questions to be settled by humans in discussions in AUTHORITATIVE teaching moments. And that’s what we Catholics refer to as the magisterium. And so we also see the word of God as expressed in scripture and tradition with hard questions being ruled on by the magisterium. And by using those three bodies, we can sort out, or those three elements, we can sort out the question of which particular traditions conflict with God’s word and which don’t. The Bible tells us that we need a guide - some authority other than ourselves - in order to be sure we don’t twist the Scriptures to our own destruction. Not that we can’t understand a lot of Scripture on our own, because we can. But, as the Bible itself tells us, there are things in the Bible that are indeed hard to understand, things that are important enough that one could lose their salvation over them. Which is why God gave us, the Church founded by Jesus Christ. The twelve apostles became the first leaders of his Church, appointing in time one of the twelve apostles-St. Peter-as the leader of the Twelve, telling him, "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 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 (Matt. 16:18-19), and he promised that the Holy Spirit would lead the disciples "into all the truth" (John 16:12) and that “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” (Luke 10:16). When Satan demanded to have the apostles sift them like wheat, Jesus prayed for Peter that his faith may not fail, and Jesus commanded Peter as leader of the Church to "strengthen [Peter's] brethren" (Luke 22:34). Finally, Jesus told the Apostles “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20). So, the Bible gives us a different rule of faith; it doesn’t give us the Bible Alone. Pray for me please as I pray for all of you.
@@fredowusu22 May I add this to my previous reply? I just received it from a Catholic publisher >>> The four Gospels-Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John-are our principal sources of information about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. For two thousand years, they have nourished the faith of Christians across the world. In our own, skeptical age, the Gospels still have a unique place. Even those who don’t regard Jesus with the eyes of faith acknowledge that he is the most influential man ever to have lived, having left a major mark on history, culture, and language. There is tremendous confusion about the Gospels themselves. How are they different from one another? Do they contain contradictions or falsehoods? Who wrote them? When? Weren’t there other gospels in the early Church? How much authority should they be given? Let us start at the beginning. What is a Gospel? In the simplest terms, a Gospel is an ancient Christian book about Jesus. When people refer to “the Gospels,” they’re typically referring to the four canonical ones. However, there also are non-canonical gospels that are not included in the New Testament. The Greek term for gospel (euangelion) means “good news,” and it could be used in a variety of senses. Naturally, it could refer to hearing about any good thing that had happened. However, it often was used to refer to announcements by or about the Roman emperor. The emperor often was regarded as the son of a god, and his person represented the peace and security of the empire. Whatever he announced was at least supposed to be good news for the people, and so it would be declared to be “good news” (whether it really was or not). It thus was natural for Christians to announce the coming of the true Son of God and his kingdom as good news, and so St. Mark begins his book with these words: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” It is probably from this verse that the book of Mark came to be known as a “Gospel,” and from there the term spread to other canonical and non-canonical works. Because the canonical ones are known as Gospels (Greek, Euangelia), their authors are known as the four Evangelists-with a capital E, to distinguish them from ordinary evangelists, who share the message of Jesus generally. When it comes to the kind of books the canonical Gospels are, they are essentially biographies. That is, they tell us about the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. There are differences between modern biographies and ancient lives. Today, authors may write biographies about people just because they’ve had interesting lives. However, ancient lives had an instructional purpose. Readers were meant to learn lessons from the lives of the people they read about. Thus, in his Parallel Lives, Plutarch wrote about similar noble figures-a Greek in parallel with a Roman-so that his readers could learn what made the men great and what they might want to imitate. Similarly, in Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Suetonius discusses both the good things and the bad things the first twelve Roman emperors did-partly so that people would know what good rulers should and should not do. The four Gospels share this instructional quality, and we are meant to take away important lessons for our lives. John states, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are NOT written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name” (20:30-31). Similarly, in Matthew, Jesus says, “Everyone then who HEARS these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock” (7:24). Sometimes people wonder whether the Gospels were meant for Christian audiences or whether they were evangelistic documents meant to convince people to become Christian. The answer is the former, and the reason is the cost involved in producing copies of the Gospels. Today, individual Gospels and even entire New Testaments can be mass-produced cheaply and given away for free, making them usable as evangelistic tools. But before the printing press, every word had to be handwritten by a scribe, and every sheet of papyrus or parchment had to be painstakingly manufactured by hand. As a result, a single copy of one of the Gospels was fantastically expensive, with Matthew costing the equivalent of around $2,200, Mark around $1,400, Luke around $2,400, and John around $1,900. Only rich people and congregations that pooled resources could afford them, making it clear that they could not be handed out as evangelistic tracts, so they were meant for people who were already committed Christians.
It does not matter if Peter was the first pope or not, but what does matter is what the Catholics are trying to obtain or claim thru that claim. Peter would Never want someone to say he was the Holy Father, but the pope allows people to call himself that. The pope's word is supposed to be infallible, meaning is { incapable of being wrong or making a mistake}, but according to the Bible, Peter did indeed made several mistakes, as we all do because we are human and we would probably make some of the same mistakes Peter did. Peter would Not want to be considered the vicar of Christ, vicar means{ representative, agent, substitute or acting in the person of} so put that in front of Christ. Substitute or acting in the person of Christ. That looks alot like the anti-Christ. Peter Did Not want that, Peter wanted to be hung upside down because he did not want to be crucified like Christ.
Hey Darryl, you write as if Peter is your cousin & you know exactly what he wants or doesn't want!🤔 FYI, we as Christians are called to be a representative of Jesus & carry on his ministry. Fake & misguided preachers like MacArthur have polluted the gospel of Christ & are an embarrassment to the Christian faith.
@@hamidrabiipour9707 Apostles like Peter walked with Jesus, No man on earth is worthy to put his self in the place of Jesus, as Christians, we are to teach and testify of Jesus. Not be his replacement, Jesus don’t need a replacement, Jesus is alive and well. Jesus is in the right hand if God, not in a wafer and not in wine. The bread and wine at the last super was a parable, it respresented the things that was to come. The wine was the blood that he would shed for our sins and the bread was his body that would be broken and would be raised from the dead. Catholics are Christians, some of what they go by is in the Bible and some of it is man made doctrines created by popes, bishops,priests and maybe a few monks of old time, so old of a doctrines, it is accepted as traditions.
The problem that protestants have is the same as Mormonism based on the following 3 arguments. (1) Mormons (Latter-Day Saints, or LDS) believe that after the death of the last Apostle, there was a “Great Apostasy.” Priesthood authority ceased, doctrine began to degenerate, and the true Gospel was lost (necessitating its “restoration” by Joseph Smith in the 19th century). (2) The vast majority of protestants reject multiple doctrines that were believed unanimously by ancient Christians, beginning with the very first Church Fathers who were discipled by the Apostles themselves. Specifically, these protestants reject three key doctrines: a. Baptismal regeneration (how we become Christians); b. Apostolic succession (how the Church is governed); and c. The sacrifice of the Eucharist (how Christians worship). (3) Therefore, whether they realize it or not, most protestants believe in a “Great Apostasy” theory of history that is virtually identical with that of the LDS. If all Christians of which we have any record-including the disciples of the Apostles-were unanimously wrong about how we become Christians, how the Church is governed, and how we worship as Christians (the “Three Doctrines”), there is no more fitting description of this massive falling away than a “Great Apostasy.” This necessarily means that creatures (the protestant “reformers,” or the LDS’s “prophet” Joseph Smith) outperformed the Creator, since their “gospels” and “churches” have now in one form or another lasted for centuries, whereas when Jesus originally established them, they fell apart immediately. In the writings of the Church Fathers every time they spoke about heresy and heretics, they were describing Protestantism. Protestantism is all over the place on the different positions. You can’t speak about the Protestant position on something, except perhaps in the form of a negative, like they’re contrary to the Catholic Church, they’re contrary to the Roman Pontiff. But the methods, the means, by which Protestants arrive at their theological conclusions were common in virtually all the heresies and the heretics that the Fathers talked about.
@@SNS-f6g The problem is: It is Not just Catholics, but also other denominations also, They are Not going completely by the Bible. It is like they never even read a Bible, it is like they made it up as they went, so now it (the church) don’t resemble what is in the Bible. Until a church goes by the Bible (God’s Word) That Church Can Not be the true church of Christ. The traditions and doctrines of men Can Not take the place of God’s word.
@uncatila *RCs claimed "Eliakim replaced Shebna (that unfaithful servant)". So which unfaithful servant did Peter replace? RCs think it's Jesus?* *Where in Isaiah 22 ever said Peter = pope? Lol. Self claims cannot prove doctrines RC.* you said if Peter was'nt the Pope then Shebna never controled the keys of the temple and Eliackim never replaced him in the Old Testement.
The most compelling evidence is that the Gospel of Matthew was written PRIMARILY for the Chosen peoples of YAHWEH who are the JEWS and NOT addressed for the Gentile world. In this proposition, was the writer of Matthew declaring to the JEWS that PETER, only a small stone like any other disciples of YESHUA, was the PROMISED ONE as mentioned in the BOOK of ISAIAH, Chapter 53??? IF I was alive at that time..., as an ELECT Jew, predestined for ETERNAL salvation, would I have even envisaged that Peter, the Sanguine who DENIED knowing and FOLLOWING the "man" whom the rest of the Jews (except for His ELECT/own..) REJECTED as their PROMISED HaMashiach, and who (Peter) CURSED himself for even being a disciple of YESHUA / JESUS?? Should I have believed the ROCK to be Peter the Sanguine (who was deemed a "TRAITOR" to his Lord and Messiah by even CURSING himself for knowing Him as such???) to be my PROMISED Messiah instead of YESHUA/JESUS?? The prophet John the Baptist and all the other Disciples of YESHUA / JESUS (even including that brigand son of the devil called Judas the Iscariot...) believed YESHUA / JESUS to be the ROCK of SALVATION. Didn't they all STUDY the Old Testament Bible where the LORD YAHWEH is mentioned more than DOZEN times as the ROCK of AGES?? Search the BOOK Of Psalms and count how many times the phrase "The LORD God is my ROCK" was written therein (the Psalms). Are you absolutely SURE that all the writers who mentioned the word "ROCK" were actually designating that phrase to the a mere man and a "hopeless" one who DENIED knowing and following his "ROCK of Salvation" YESHUA 3 TIMES?? I think that PETER, the Sanguine, deserved to be CAST out from the Team for his belligerent denial of YESHUA / JESUS to the Jews (what more the fact that he even DENIED YESHUA . JESUS as his MASTER!!!). The ONLY reason WHY the ROMAN CATHOILIC religion of the popes of Pagan Rome CANNOT and WOULD NOT remove their age-old belief and institutionalized such a FALSE belief system from their CATECHISM is that...IF THEY DID SO.., THAT WOULD MEAN THE DESTRUCTION OF THEIR RELIGION! Because...., the religion of pope(s) of ROME has its FOUNDATION bases SOLELY upon their BELIEF that PETER (the Sanguine who CURSED himself if he ever KNEW the Son of man called YESHUA...) was the "ROCK" of their SALVATION and NOT the YESHUA of Nazareth whom His FOLLOWERS who were alive at that time (when He referred to Himself as the ROCK of SALVATION...)! NONE of the Disciples / Apostles (including Peter himself) would have even believed that YESHUA was referring to Peter as the ROCK of Ages, the ROCK of SALVATION and the Elohim of David, Moses, and particularly the Prophet Isaiah who dedicated his Book on CHAPTER 53 for the TRUE Messiah of the JEWS and the ROCK of their SALVATION! READ all the other VERSES in the OT and NT that clearly AFFIRMED that there is NO ONE that can hold the TITLE of the ROCK except the TRUE Elohim Himself, YAHWEH and the Son of YAHWEH named YESHUA (affectionately called by more than 90 % of GENUINE Christians today as JESUS the CHRIST, not the ISA of the Koran of Mohammed)!
Very well said but then Roman Catholicism is heretical and apostate for myriad reasons. Denying the true Gospel in Ephesians 2:8-9 'For by GRACE are ye saved through FAITH and that NOT of yourselves. It is the gift of God NOT works, lest any man should boast. " Pure, clean & simple to grasp. Praying to Mary? "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Calling priests & popes Father. Matthew 23:9 " And call no man your Father upon the earth; for one is your Father which is in heaven."
@@Ken-dh2te so you call your father "hey dude i need some money" though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If faith alone saves read the sheeps and the goats. Yes our work is not enough to be saved to boast about in the first place and no matter how righteous you are you cant be saved if God is not willing. Thats the point you cant be saved. Nothing unclean shall enter the Kingdom of God. How God will be just if he save a rapist, murderer, molester, just because he believes. For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
your claim falls apart when you understand 1/ Jesus spoke in Aramaic and there is no term in Aramaic which distinguishes small rock with large rock 2/ Christendom - Orthodox and Catholic have accepted the interpretation for 2000 years without controversy. It only became an issue when Protestantism was being created by men 500 years ago. So in addition to cutting books out from the Bible - from 73 to 66 and cutting passages from the bible they also needed a lot of reworking 3/ Next we have the absurdity of saying that because we use the term Rock (amongst dozens of other titles and descriptions) we can not use one of these titles to explain Peter ! If I was to call my brother a wonderful person it does not mean that I can not use the term for someone else !! 4/ Obviously being the Rock does not mean that Peter is the same as Jesus Nowhere do you find Catholics saying Peter is the Messiah 5/ About half of Christians in the World today are Catholic Christians and YAHWEH is a term commonly used by Catholics in Bible / Catholic Christian study courses
Complete lie that no historical evidence exists from the early fathers that Peter was in Rome or died there. Irenaeus “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3, 3, 2). “The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (ibid., 3, 3, 3). Clement of Alexandria “The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed” (Sketches [A.D. 200], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1). Cyril of Jerusalem “[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . .While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there-he that carries about the keys of heaven” (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).
@@thejohnmarkprojecta little concerned your questioning this comment based on this video. Filled with straw arguments lol. So let’s just begin with the first ten seconds, “there’s not one tiny shred of evidence in scripture for the papacy.” This is a straw man because it is arguing a position the Catholic Church doesn’t hold so in a way it could also be a red herring Let me show you what another straw argument is, “sola scriptura is not found anywhere in the Bible”. Although this is a fact this a star man argument
@@MidSpectrumThoughts False. It is a position that the catholic church holds. They say that the first pope is Peter, and that this comes from the Bible. . This of course is just not knowing how to read on the part of the Catholic church. . . Sola scriptura is found in the Bible however. . . ***2:Tmothy 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
@@thejohnmarkproject oh no. Questions like that will get you in trouble. Atheists will corner you. The church doesn’t claim the word “pope” is in the Bible. Just like the church doesn’t claim the word “Trinity” is in the Bible. Do you believe in the Trinity? If you do show me in the Bible where it says Trinity. Oh you can’t? Of course you can’t but you can defend this argument by showing evidence of the Trinity in the Bible. The word Trinity derives from scripture. Just like the word Pope derives from scripture. So this is why I believe this is a straw man argument because realistically these weak arguments are meant to deceive. Finally, in regards to the verse you are referencing. What scripture was available to the people of that time? I’ll let you think about that… I’ll give you hints. The New Testament to that point was not put together yet into the tiny library called the Bible. So that leaves us the Old Testament. So using the verse you referenced and now knowing the Old Testament was the only scripture available… should we only be following Old Testament laws? Just something to think about brother. Search and you will find.
@@thejohnmarkproject and also you have yet to defend your stance on saying sola scriptura is in the Bible . That verse you showed me doesn’t state the words “Sola Scritpura” furthermore, the substance of that verse itself doesn’t say read scripture alone.
@@mytwocents777 Ohhh okay. Yup it's just a threat and scare tactic by Rome. Yet again. No one wants to be cut off and condemned by the one true church and I'm sure plenty some who were tempted to become Protestants or had doubts about Rome, would've felt compelled to stay due to the threat of anathema.
What lies . There are dozens of Early Fathers who say Peter was in Rome and died there. Very Early sources like 1200 or 1300 years before the Protestants revolt. 2 or 3 reliable sources from history, makes it a fact. And the fact there were no schisms, why would these Fathers say it? The bible wasn't available to anyone until the council of Carthage 397 a.d. ua-cam.com/video/2wCXqh3VpW8/v-deo.html
Of course, Peter was NEVER a pope. Never called a Pope in the Bible. Peter was an APOSTLE and so were at least 23 others in the NT. Peter wrote 2 epistles. Paul wrote 13-14 books and epistles if you include Hebrews. All the the Roman Catholic has is tradition. The Church is built upon Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living and not Peter. Jesus is the head of the Church not Peter. Is Peter an important figure in the NT? YES!! But, a certain denomination has made him God. If you are in the RCC, please leave. They worship dead saints. Believe that Mary was immaculately conceived and never had children other than Jesus. The office of Pope, Cardinal, Priest is not found in the Bible. The RCC votes to declare someone a saint. The worst one is they believe in faith + works for salvation. Lets take these in order. First, Mary was a sinner like all of us, She went through her days of purification after she have birth to Jesus. Mary had at least 6 children after Jesus was born. Jesus is called her first born son. Do not pray to Mary. Do not say the hail Mary. There are five offices in the Church: Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor, Teacher. The Holy Spirit is God on earth, not the Pope. If you are born-again, you are instantly made a saint. We were washed in the blood, sanctified, and then justified in the name of Jesus Christ. Finally, salvation is by Grace through Faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ; it is NOT of work, it is a GIFT - 1 Cor. 15:1-4, Eph. 1:13, and Eph. 2:8-9. Make the right decision. Read the Bible and do not rely on the traditions of men. That was the problem with the Pharisees.
@JuanGonzalez-kb3gm *Again full of incoherences. Two or more Scriptures saying the same teachings proves a doctrine. No need interpretations. Scriptures is the final authority. Of course Scriptures is always correct!* *Jesus and Apostles called Scriptures Scriptures. That's Scriptures. You lack knowledge.* *"does not say" is not proof for doctrines. So your question is a ruse. Doctrines come from what scriptures Does Say. Not from what Scriptures Does Not Say or Speculations or Self claims.* *Nowhere says Peter was pope. That suffices. There is no office of bishop of bishops - pope in the Bible.* you said I want some of this ! Where in the Bible does it say your interpretation of scripture is correct? Where in the Bible does it say what’s scripture? Where in the Bible does it say Peter was not the Pope? One verse that says Peter was not the pope..
MacArthur's attempt to refute the papacy is it best laughable. For example he says that Peter never went to Rome despite the biblical evidence when Peter himself says he was in Rome. "The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13). Biblical scholars have noted that Babylon was a code word for Rome. Even though Paul may not have mentioned Peter, this in itself does not prove Peter was never in Rome. Peter could of been gone at the time, to conclude that this disproves Peter was never in Rome is reading more than is warranted and is fallacious, because even if that was the case, he was still the first Pope regardless. Using this as an argument against the papacy demonstrates MacArthur's lack of understanding of Roman Catholic theology and the Bible.
You say it's laughable but you've failed to respond to his best arguments and your response to two lesser arguments is super speculative and excuse-oriented. Your translation of 1 Peter 5:13 is false. Where's the word "here" in the Greek? Or even "church"? Where does Peter actually say he was in this "Babylon" or with them? Does anyone know for sure that Babylon is Rome? Please don't exaggerate. And your other response is full of excuses and speculation. Why would the Bishop of Rome be away from Rome and at the exact moment Paul wrote to Rome? Is he neglecting his duties? Why would an apostle to the Jews be the bishop of a Gentile Roman church? What about Romans 15:20, Galatians 2:8 and 1 Peter 5:1? Again, you've ignored his best arguments.
@@ETHANGELIST Are you kidding me, does anyone know that Babylon is Rome? The vast majority of Biblical commentators all say Babylon was a code word for Rome. Even your own reformed camp says so. For example in Table Talk, a Bible study magazine from Ligonier ministries says: "Babylon almost certainly stands in for Rome and its empire. First-century Jews sometimes used Babylon as a code word for “Rome,” including Christian Jews such as Peter, who uses it that way in 1 Peter 5:13." Even more so I have a John Macarthur study Bible and in his commentary even he ironically wrote: "she who is at Babylon, refers to a church in Rome." If you go to other protestant biblical commentaries they will say this shows Peter was in Rome when he wrote this. For example in the Nelson Study Bible it's reads: "she indicates the people who comprised the local church in the city from which Peter was writing." So why are you exaggerating trying to call into question and give the impression 1 Peter 5:13 is not clear about Peter being in Rome, and what Babylon means? And I'm sure your aware that the Pope is not bound to stay in Rome. As the sheppard of the universal church, his job is to tend to the flock and feed them, just as Christ commanded Peter to do. It is completely reasonable to believe Peter traveled around, just as Paul did. What's unreasonable is to assume that, because Paul does not mention Peter in the book of Romans means Peter was never there. That is super speculative and excuse oriented.
@@ETHANGELIST You don't know ancient history, or maybe ignoring it. Peter was an Apostle to the Jews and there was a very large number of Jews in Rome at the time, so this is why he would have been there along with Paul.
@GR65330 *More hilarious claims. Where in the Mat 18 ever said "Roman pope = Eliakim and Roman Catholic Church = House of David"? RCs simply love self claims.* you said Matthew 18:18. The entire weight of the Catholic Church rests on the Pope and his teachings, just like the entire weight of David's house rested on Eliakim.
@karlchristie1856 *It does not matter what Jesus meant. Nowhere says Roman religion inherited the authority of Peter. That's the crux of the issue isn't it?* you said On top of all this: the language Jesus uses in Matthew 16:18 clearly shows that Jesus is building the church on a rock that isn't Peter. The Greek genders are different. Peter is a masculine rock and the rock that the church is built on is feminine (which it always is in Greek grammar). Maybe you'd argue that Jesus used a masculine form of the word just because Peter was masculine. Fair enough. But that still doesn't change the fact that he switches genders to refer to the rock that the church is built off of. Maybe you'll argue that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, not Greek. (I've seen that argument before.) Aramaic has genders. At some point someone would have translated it into Greek. Of all the Greek manuscripts we have for Matthew, NONE of them disagree about the gender of the rocks. They are different. The Greek word Πέτρος seems to have been made up specifically as a Greek approximation of Peter's Aramaic name Cephas. (Peter is a man, so we can't call him a feminine noun) Whoever wrote the original Greek or translated the supposed original Aramaic into Greek would have lived at a time when people would have known if Peter was the pope. If they made up the term Πέτρος to specifically refer to Peter, and they knew that Jesus was referring to Peter for the foundation of the church then they would have used Πέτρος again. But they don't. The context of the entire conversation is answering the question "Who is Jesus?" Peter said "you are the Christ the Son of God." That's what the church is built on. Peter's confession about who Jesus is. If you confess that then you are part of the church. Is the rock the source of the confession, or the confession itself? Well when you see that the confession answers the question "who is Jesus?" which is on topic with the whole conversation, this is far and away the most logical answer.
@jediv9910 Jesus gave Peter on top of the pagan Pan's church the keys of the new Church. And later in the chapter of Matthew, Jesus says to Peter, "Feed my lambs and flock". Jesus says it 3x. AMEN. AMEN
@@PatrickC-x4p *Nice fairy tales. Where in the Bible says "keys to the new Church" and "feeding the lamb made Peter pope"?* you said Jesus gave Peter on top of the pagan Pan's church the keys of the new Church. And later in the chapter of Matthew, Jesus says to Peter, "Feed my lambs and flock". Jesus says it 3x.
@jediv9910 before you speak. Why don't you look more into the lineage and connect the dots. It's so sad for Christians don't understand traditions, which is the Church that is before the Bible. Actions and works before a book are a good way to see in perspective so your eyes can see mysteries of faith. You need to learn history and connections with traditions with the guide of the Bible
@jediv9910 Amen, amen. Peter is given authority on top of a pagan rock temple of Pan. Jesus clearly gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, aka the church. The church and teachings and traditions have and will always be before the Bible. The bible learned its teachings and understanding from the church and it's people starting from Peter and the apostles and to all the bishops and priest appointed later on in the NT. These will never go away yet it's still here, and most Christians don't realize this. It's funny how even a true Muslim believes in Mary as blessed and holy and sinless. It's a shame that the majority of Christians don't know this, but Muslims do.
@JuanGonzalez-kb3gm *What use is a Church with doctrines not from God's Word? Bible says God's WOrd is truth, Jn **17:17**.* you said 1 Timothy 3:15 JV But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
When you are Catholic you are usually indoctrinated from the time you are born to believe that this is the way, this is the one, true church. Only the power of the Holy Spirit can lift that veil and I am forever grateful to God that He saved me! Cried for three days and three nights reading that Bible for the first time and able to understand it, not finding my “one, true church” anywhere in there.😢 I left and never looked back. If I wrote out all the discrepancies and conflicts of the RCC with the scriptures, it would take PAGES and PAGES.💔
John MacArthur is a false teacher. He said it himself, that God did not give him authority over his church members. Our Lord Jesus, gave authority to His apostles over the flock of His church.
@JuanGonzalez-kb3gm *Christian Churches have bishops and deacons. Just no bishop of bishops - pope; a man made invention of rome.* you said He left bishops priests and deacons . I can guarantee your sect has none of the above..
It astonishes me that people who actually can’t see the pope and most or the others in the past for what they really are, actually believe he is of Christ. Spiritual discernment within the Catholic community is non existent if they think bowing to another man and kissing his golden ring is anything but blasphemous and evil.
@@PInk77W1 lol it’s all made up Pope Cardinals Priests Nuns Purgatory Holy water Confession to a priest in a booth Rosary Mary sinless Etc etc etc None of it in the Bible
@@PhilIsaak do you know what else in NOT in the Bible, the list of books that belong in the Bible itself, and why does the pope OR Mac himself not talk about that… 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 individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time, growing in numbers of hundreds of “inspired” NT writings. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved it 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?
@@srich7503 is God sovereign??? This is not a trick question. The Psalms make it clear that He is. Can He preserve His Word? Psalm 12:7 says He can. Is His Word even more important than His name? Psalm 138:2 says so. Is His Word inspired? Timothy said so. Is Genesis 1:1 true? How about the resurrection? If they are then the idea that ALMIGHTY omnipotent Jehovah can easily preserve what He wanted preserved From the original autographs until today. 171 out of 176 verses of Psalm 119 refer to the Word of God. It is alive(Hebrews 4:12) and will never pass away. Like Mormons most Catholics believe their leaders over the Word of God. The Word of God has been preserved by a sovereign Almighty God. The only way groups who differ in doctrine from bible believing Orthodox churches make a case for their doctrines is to paint the Word of God in a bad light compared to their “prophet” or leaders. The new pope is down with Islam and says we are all children of God. Wrong….a person becomes a child of God by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (Romans 6:23, 10:9-13) Ephesians 2:8-9 Only Jesus saves, not an organization. Popes Nuns Priests Holy water Purgatory Indulgences Sprinkling newborns at 7 days old and calling it baptism ( the Greek word for baptize mean to immerse. Baptism by sprinkling and baptizing newborns incapable of believing in Christ is unbiblical. The New Testament admonishes us to believe and be baptized. Sprinkling water on a baby’s head does nothing but get it wet. So many false doctrines, it is practically endless.
Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom making him second in authority in the church after Jesus. Peter is Latin for Rock and all through the New Testament Simon is always referred to as Peter meaning Rock. Why did all the New Testament writers always write Peter and not with Simon. And there is documentation on every successor of Peter. One thing that’s very apparent in all of your post is that you say anything that is ment to destroy the Catholic Church. The main goal of Satin is also to destroy the Catholic Church. Therefore both you and Satin work hand in hand for the same goal. Except Satin has been hard at work for 2,000 years and has not succeeded even acquiring you as an accomplice. Well we all know your destiny, Same as Lucifer.
Were you there and you saw Jesus giving the keys to peter? Besides peter rejected Jesus 3 times. Also Jesus did not say and on you Peter i will built my church. Jesus said and on this Petra i will built my church the Word Petra is Greek for rock it is not latin. Again we have the Roman Catholics who are trying to hide their heresies, inventions, and some time falsehoods to feel important. How can Rome be more important than Jerusalem? That is why Roman Catholics are in such a caos now🥲🥲
@danielswartz6818 The the keys to heaven were tangible you'd think that the idiots from Knight to Nazis would be looking for them rather than the so called Holy Grail. Jesus also told Peter that what he, Peter, allowed on earth he would allow in Heaven, and if you believe in the succession of Popes heaven is the place to be for debauchery and deceit.
@billlee2194 *Based on the Chronology of Book of Acts, there is no way Peter was in Rome for 25 years. It was based on false claims.* *Catholics' narrative of Peter’s timeline directly contradicts Jerome's claim that Peter was in Rome and was bishop of Rome for 25 years from AD 42 to 67.* From thebiblejourney: Acts 10:9-23 Peter - praying on the flat roof of Simon the Tanner’s house in Joppa- also has a vision in which he is told not to call anything ‘unclean’ that God has made ‘clean’ (see Leviticus 11:46-47). Shortly after this, Cornelius’s two Gentile servants and his attendant arrive at Joppa. Peter invites them into the house to be his guests although Jews would not normally eat with Gentiles because they were regarded as ritually ‘unclean’ (see Deuteronomy 14:1-3) and eating with them would make a Jew ‘unclean’. AD35: Peter in Caesarea and Jerusalem Acts 10:23-48 Peter travels to Caesarea towards the end of 35AD and shares the Good News of Jesus’s death and resurrection with Cornelius’s Gentile family and friends (see 2 on Map 19). The Holy Spirit falls on all present and the six Jewish believers from Joppa (see Acts 11:12) are amazed that God has poured out his Spirit on the Gentiles - as they “heard them speaking in different languages and praising God” (Acts 10:46). The new Gentile believers are baptised as “They have received the Holy Spirit just as we did!” (Acts 10:47). Peter stays in the Gentiles’ house at Caesarea for several days. Acts 11:1-18 Peter reports back to the Jewish believers in Jerusalem(see 3 on Map 19). The more conservative Hebraic Jewish believers criticize Peter for eating with uncircumcised Gentiles, but most of the disciples agree to accept the new Gentile converts into the fellowship of believers. AD44: Peter hands over the leadership to James Acts 12:1-19 The narrative now skips a few years to 44AD. Peter (who is regarded as a radical Jew for mixing with Gentiles) is arrested in Jerusalem during the Passover festival on the orders of King Herod Agrippa I, who has recently beheaded the apostle James, the brother of John. Peter is miraculously freed from prison during the night by an angel. He rejoins the believers - who are meeting at the home of John Mark in Jerusalem. He hands over the leadership of the Jerusalem church to the more traditional James (the brother of Jesus - see Galatians 1:19) and flees elsewhere for safety. St Mark’s Church, in the Armenian Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, is believed to mark the site of John Mark’s home. AD49-50: Acts 15:1-21 Peter addresses the assembly of believers in Jerusalem in 49/50AD. James- as leader of the church - concludes that the Jewish believers shouldn’t insist that Gentiles who have become believers in Jesus must adopt all the Jewish religious traditions (see Acts 15:12-21). Gal. 2:11-14 Peter meets Paul in Antioch in 50AD, shortly after the Council of Jerusalem (see 4 on Map 19). Paul accuses Peter of changing his mind and drawing back from eating with Gentiles - under pressure from the more traditional Hebraic Jewish believers from Jerusalem. (Antioch was in Galatia, modern days Turkey)
John 1:42 "Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas; which by interpretation, is a stone." NOT A ROCK. JESUS CHRIST IS THE ROCK which is substantiated all over the NT. But then Roman Catholics eliminated the 2nd Commandment & then split up the 10th Commandment so they could have 10. The heresies & apostasies of Roman Catholicism is myriad.
The Roman Catholic Church crumbles without church authority. Disprove the idea of the papacy, everything that has ever come from Catholic Church must be questioned… That is why Protestants focus so much on this topic.
Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” --Matthew 16:17-19 Never gets clearer than this. Whatever the Pope binds on earth shall be accepted in Heaven. For Jesus handed the Keys starting fron Peter. No person in Christianity have a central world authority than the Pope does. not your pastor have this kind of world authority 👍
Mt 16:23 "But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan:.." By your logic then Peter is also Satan. You won't be able to understand scripture without the Comforter. You must be born again. Accept the Lord Jesus Christ and His one time sacrifice for You. The GIFT of salvation is right there just accept it as a you would any Gift.
@@guenzel2 understand that Peter doesnt want Jesus to die, and is confused how He will fulfill the Messianic Prophecy through suffering and death. understand that without God's revelation to High Priest Caiaphas, Jesus will not be put to death and glorify the name of Father. understand that Judas is all part of God's plan to be a traitor, so Jesus will die and fulfill all the prophecies.
@@guenzel2 Matthew 16:16 In-Context 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. ------- John 21:15-25 Jesus Reinstates Peter 15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” 16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18 Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!” 20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” 22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” 24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
Maybe John MacArthur could do a video on how he is going to compensate the hundreds who were defrauded by his Son out of millions of $$$. (following his criminal conviction) . Given that John endorsed his Son .... Maybe this could come from John Mc s vast wealth ( 3 houses in the US + millions passed onto his other siblings and relatives !!!
I am so sorry for Mr MacArthur ... He has had his reward in this World...... Of course Peter is under Christ The first Pope and the titles of the Popes ?? "Servant of the servants of Christ" ........Petros--- rock -- Petrus -- JESUS did not speak in Greek !! In Aramaic -- kepha -- there is no distinction !!! .... You ended up rejecting the most comprehensive case for the bible .... AND the GOD appointed authority of his servant the Pope ...... Although Jesus’ authority as the Son of God is unique to him, he chose to associate human beings with his mission and gave them a share of authority. Thus, when he appoints the Twelve, we read: And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity (Matt. 10:1). The authority he shared was not just that to work miracles. The twelve disciples were his students (that’s what “disciple” means), and he prepared them to become teachers and sent them on preaching missions: These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand’” (Matt. 10:5-7). Later, when sending out an even larger group, he underlined the teaching authority he had given them, stating: He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me (Luke 10:16). Jesus also gave the Twelve the authority to govern his Church. He first gave Peter the authority “to bind and loose” (Matt. 16:19), and later he shared this with the other disciples (Matt. 18:18). As the Church grew, authority to teach and govern was transmitted to others in the local churches. Thus Paul writes, “God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Cor. 12:28; cf. Eph. 4:11). It is because of its teaching function that the Church serves as “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Similarly, there are those with governing authority in the Church. The letter to the Hebrews exhorts Christians to “obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account” (Heb. 13:17; cf. 1 Thess. 5:12). Teaching and governing authority are therefore intrinsic to the structure of the Church.
Hypocrites like MacArthur cherry pick for their own dishonest means. It's so obvious with anybody with half a brain. But unfortunately our Protestant friends are so easily deceived and consumed by satan's lies. Jesus was right in establishing authority and hierarchy. You see it in nature and in society because it works. The 2,000 year old Catholic Church and the 45,000 new and conflicting denominations of Protestantism are testament to that. Jesus is not the author of division - angry Protestants tampering with the truth are.
you don't know nothing about your topic Tatian the Syrian “Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]). Tertullian “Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]). “[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys” (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]). The Letter of Clement to James “Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
Maybe Abraham Lincoln said: The government of the people, for the people, by the people. it is not on US soil, not by the (pilgrims?) The United States of America is built, surprise, by the belief that all men are created equal (in front of God, on the dollar bill, in God we trust)! The Church is built, it is not by Peter, surprise, not Christ either, but by Faith in Christ (by Revelation from the Father in Heaven to Peter as a witness) stated as The Command from The Son. When we don't see Christ, we look and follow the church, the Body of Christ. The church only exists as long as The Faith exists. For those who reject Christ, there is no Faith in him, he does not belong to the church.
8 minutes of simplicity ... Sure Peter was never called "the Pope" when he was alive but the structure of the Church changed as the Church grew Jesus said lots to Peter in particular and generally to the disciples about what he wanted after the death and resurrection. "On this rock I will build my church " "whatever you bind on Earth will be considered bound in heaven " When it comes to Protestantism and all their 30 000 churches I dont see in the bible anywhere where it says make up your own Church !!!
The people are the church. Not a building or organization, the church is in you, where 2 or more are gathered in the name of Jesus Christ you have a church
Peter (Rock) YOU are the rock and on THIS rock I build my church. He calls Peter the rock, after LITERALLY naming him rock; and then says on this rock after referring to Peter both in name and title as rock as the rock on which the church will be built. And we know Peter was the chief apostle even if you disagree with the papacy. Please do some research I pray for you
@@butter__boi703 The chief apostle? See that's your theological problem right there. You honor man and not God to who belongs all the glory, honor and praise. Stop your man worship i'm praying for you to see who Jesus really is and who we (mankind) really are.
Let tell you this, listen: Jesus said: "Even the gates of hell shall withstand the church He built" For 2000+ years the Catholic church has been under attack. NONE prevailed. Even Hitler failed to stop it. How about you? can you? Jesus passed the keys/authority to St. Peter. and from Rome he established the Church there. his own burial site was erected the St. Peter Basillica square, ordered to be built by Emperor Constantine (the first Roman Christian). Documents show Peter was the FIRST Pope, therefore the REASON why the Pope has a central authority to the whole world. No pastor who read the bible first time and started to criticize us will ever be the center authority of Christian all over the nations. Only the Pope does. Because Jesus started it. not a pastor. 👍
There's a great video l saw this week called "The Catholic Church: Masterpiece of Deception." on a UA-cam channel called Servus Christi...he goes in depth. 🔥
I saw it as well just more lies about Catholicism cos you can not fault the Church God created from any truth ... that is why 3 Church of England Bishops have come to Catholicism in just the last 2 years !!
The problem that protestants have is the same as Mormonism based on the following 3 arguments. (1) Mormons (Latter-Day Saints, or LDS) believe that after the death of the last Apostle, there was a “Great Apostasy.” Priesthood authority ceased, doctrine began to degenerate, and the true Gospel was lost (necessitating its “restoration” by Joseph Smith in the 19th century). (2) The vast majority of protestants reject multiple doctrines that were believed unanimously by ancient Christians, beginning with the very first Church Fathers who were discipled by the Apostles themselves. Specifically, these protestants reject three key doctrines: a. Baptismal regeneration (how we become Christians); b. Apostolic succession (how the Church is governed); and c. The sacrifice of the Eucharist (how Christians worship). (3) Therefore, whether they realize it or not, most protestants believe in a “Great Apostasy” theory of history that is virtually identical with that of the LDS. If all Christians of which we have any record-including the disciples of the Apostles-were unanimously wrong about how we become Christians, how the Church is governed, and how we worship as Christians (the “Three Doctrines”), there is no more fitting description of this massive falling away than a “Great Apostasy.” This necessarily means that creatures (the protestant “reformers,” or the LDS’s “prophet” Joseph Smith) outperformed the Creator, since their “gospels” and “churches” have now in one form or another lasted for centuries, whereas when Jesus originally established them, they fell apart immediately. In the writings of the Church Fathers every time they spoke about heresy and heretics, they were describing Protestantism. Protestantism is all over the place on the different positions. You can’t speak about the Protestant position on something, except perhaps in the form of a negative, like they’re contrary to the Catholic Church, they’re contrary to the Roman Pontiff. But the methods, the means, by which Protestants arrive at their theological conclusions were common in virtually all the heresies and the heretics that the Fathers talked about.
@@SNS-f6g Show 1 historical record of Papacy in the 1st, 2nd AD. By That I mean a writings that points to existence of such offices before 3rd of 4th century. Not a Bishop, Not a Priest, But a Pope!!
What a load of silly extrapolation. "Benjamin Franklin wasn't in the US in 1776 (he wasn't, he was in France) therefore he was NEVER in the US". That's pretty much his silly argument. We have early Church letters that state, from the BISHOP of Rome (Clement), as an example who wrote to the Corinthians with direction, and references Peter and Paul with him. Some other things that "The Bible" never even remotely mentions. The Bible never states "Add the New Testament to The Bible", it never stated "Jesus is eternal"(in the past tense), it never says the word "Trinity" or "three in one", it never says a lot of things. Truly, Christianity stands and falls with The Catholic Church, and a bunch of bishops and popes. This man is a "scholar", in the same sense as Peewee Herman was a "scholar".
John MacArthur has historically taught that a church elder must have children who are “not involved in dissipation and rebellion” and “will never bring scandal upon his good name and the integrity of his spiritual leadership.” In the past, some elders at Grace Community Church have reportedly been asked to step down from leadership because of the misconduct of their children." But MacArthur remains in his role, despite his son being guilty of actual fraud. It's pretty clear the son only was able to get into wealth management due to MacArthur's wealth. I wonder how many victims were Grace Community Church congregants?
You mean how many victims of the catholic church were molested by priests. It has been going on for years and years . Now you're pope is blessing lgbtq. And don't get me started on the 600 year catholic inquisition
Pourtant Pierre bâtit l’Eglise de son Maître le Christ. McArthur , lui , ne bâtit rien : il sait seulement quoi faire pour s’en mettre plein les poches avec de purs mensonges ! Honte à ce boniment !
John MacArthur speaks the truth. Roman Catholicism is clearly heretical & apostate. Anyone with an honest look at it can't help but come to that conclusion. My grandfather was a Catholic & the Lord pulled him out of the false teaching of this evil. It was amazing listening to his studied analysis of Roman Catholicism. What is so obvious can't be seen by the unelect. Simple verses like Ephesians 2:8-9 & 1 Timothy 2:5 & Matthew 23:9 to name a few should open a mind but not for those not chosen, "predestinated before the foundation of the world."
Because Peter was made the foundation of the Church, there were practical implications: it gave him a special place or primacy among the apostles. As the passages below demonstrate, the early Church Fathers clearly recognized this. Clement of Alexandria “[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]). Tertullian “For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]). “[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]). The Letter of Clement to James “Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed” (Letter of Clement to James 1 [A.D. 221]). Origen “[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]). Cyprian of Carthage “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). Cyril of Jerusalem “The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]). “[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there-he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14). “In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32-34]” (ibid., 17:27). Ephraim the Syrian “[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]). Pope Damasus I “Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]). Jerome “‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]). Pope Innocent I “In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]). Augustine “Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]). “Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]). “Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]). Council of Ephesus “Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]). “Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (ibid., session 3).
@@vman9347 Why are you leaping to such a strange conclusion? . Peter is real. Popes are not. . There's no such thing as popes. The Catholic church made it up.
@@vman9347hey bro, are you really confused or just playing dumb, devil's advocate? 😅 Every important organization on earth has a leader & it's the same with the church. The Pope is a representative of Jesus, making sure the church is always going in the right direction, plain & simple. Idiots like MacArthur have polluted the issue & have their own demonic agendas. 🤔
@@bettymofokeng3404 like Jesus did when he told people they were the children of Satan. If the shoe fits wear it. Macarthur doesnt have a loving bone in his body
Really? NO mention of bishops, priests or nuns? Either he is very ignorant of what the bible actually says, or he is acting out of malice. There are many mentions of bishops (Episcopo or overseer), priests (presbyters), and people who live consecrated lives (Nazarites, Anna the prophetess).
Pray for soul. He is outside the church and there is no salvation outside the Church. His hatred will condemn him. He is in formal heresy run away from this man now
There is no salvation outside of faith in Christ. Catholics always point to the church fathers, the disciples, the Pope, the saints, Mary, physical buildings, Catholic Church membership etc. You guys always forget to point to Jesus. Talk about Jesus, point to Jesus. Catholics say you must go to Mary and she will point to Jesus. Yet Jesus is usually the last thing Catholics are talking about.
As my Catholic Mom said “We are able to read Scripture on our own now. We don’t need some fallible man to explain them to us”. This comment is proof positive that Rome has a False Gospel. Rome seems to always want people to follow “The Church”. Scripture says to have faith in Jesus for Salvation.
In Mark 16:7 an angel on behalf of Jesus told the women, "Go tell his disciples AND Peter" because Peter had 3 times denied knowing Jesus, giving up his apostleship. But in John 21:15-17 Jesus asks Peter 3 times if he still loves Him. (Why?) To restore Peter's apostleship. Praise the Lord! I hope this is of use to you Pastor John! A superb post!!!
How about Calvinism was not a religion until after Luther started his own version of a church? How about Calvin, just another guy, who thought if Luther could start his own church, and interpret the word of God in his own interpretation, I will also do it, however I will make enmity my greatest tool, turning my people to judge ridicule, and hate anyone who does not hold to my version of my bible?
Really I have read the Apocryphal books. There is nothing more tht I need then the Bible, the inspired Word of God for salvation. The Bible tells me how to be saved, we are to be of 1 mind, 1 baptism, 1 accord. We are to worship in spirit now, we are saved by Grave we have been saved thru faith and not of ourselves. JESUS was crucified he is the only perfect human/God and imputed his righteousness to me and he nailed my filthy sins on tht cross. I repent and believe. I DONT need any other book to tell me any other thing. I don't have to burn insence kill a goat, pray to a rosary. Jesus is now our propritiation I confess my sins to Him and no one else. He forgives me. No longer do I need a go between to talk to my Lord .
Kindly review my comment above with the following heading = CHALLENGE = Can = any = Protestant, including John MacArthur, present an answer to this most = basic = and necessary Question = Why did Jesus incarnate as a Man and die on the Cross ?? (( Note = a review of the following points is helpful before answer )) Read the 26 points numbered from A to Z and give me your answer = if you are able =
What is the motive of MacArthur denying Jesus appointing Simon?Jesus said Simon is the rock, Simon is Peter. Jesus is the church. Jesus built the church on the rock, head by Simon, by Peter. Jesus handed over the keys of heaven to Simon, to Peter. The RC believes that Peter is the first RC leader, the first Pope of the church that Jesus built on the rock.
Jesus is the Rock. Look at the context. The only one who has the keys to heaven and hell is God. 1°Co 3:10-11; 10:4 1°Pt 2:4-8. There's no other foundation besides God
Try actually reading the Bible. Roman Catholicism is rife with pagan influence: Transubstantiation/Mass,Relics, Limbo, Purgatory, Worship of Mary & much more. Your popes, bishops, cardinals, priest are all sinners who can't save anyone. WAKE UP
Sulo...I know you and I are on the same page but to clarify for others, Jesus is the head of His body the church and the 'R' in RC was first coined by 16th C. Anglicans as a slander against the Catholic Church. The word Roman best describes the particular 'Rite' of The Catholic Church based in Rome. There are 23 other Catholic churches under various other Rites but all in union with their mother church in Rome.
I'm going to tell you right now I'm a Baptist and I would never speak a word against the Saints like you have today Spirit of Antichrist. Exposure of the Catholic church is one thing but calling Saint Peter cowardly... do you know how Brave it is to be crucified upside down to be persecuted while you're preaching the gospel that takes balls of steel. No you don't get to do that you don't get to take one of my brothers and bring him down to your level. That man right there met with Jesus communed with Jesus and walked the walk of saint hood better than any American Gentile today. I will give the Saints their Credence in mastery. And I myself won't think highly of myself. Speak against the church go ahead if it's apostasy but don't you harm one hair on the head of that Legacy of our Saints.
I used to be an avid listener of John MacArthur, I believed pretty much anything he said. I started reading church history and found that MacArthur's theology is not present at all. I became Catholic in 2020. In part thanks to him for encouraging me to educate myself and the factual and biblical truths of the matter.
Been reading church history and the fathers and I was very swayed initially by the beauty the Catholic Church has created and its reach but then I had to face papal infallibility and the politics and influence of Charlemagne/others and now I’m looking to find an Orthodox Church to become a catechumen. The pope’s recent heresies put it over the top sadly but my dream is a united catholic Orthodox Church.
John MacArthur would have to have met Jesus amd asked him personally to verify the claim in this video. It should be called: a Protestant defends his dogma.
Brother read it for yourself, this man clearly makes mistakes. He claims Peter was never called to preach to the gentiles, that is found twice in scripture. Acts. Don’t be deceived by someone that hates Catholics.
Mr MacArthur has got those blinkers on again. If you do little research and confine yourself to ten minutes of simplistic reasoning you will stand a good chance of getting it wrong!!!! The Bible nowhere explicitly says Peter was in Rome; but, on the other hand, it doesn’t say he wasn’t. In fact, very little is said about where he, or any of the apostles other than Paul, went in the years after the Ascension. For the most part, we have to rely on books other than the New Testament for information about what happened to the apostles in later years. John is wrong to dismiss these early documents as conveyors of mere “legend.” They are genuine historical evidence, as every professional historian recognizes. What the Bible Says Mr MacArthur is also wrong when he claims, “there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peter’s] epistles.” There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.” Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21). These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem. “But there is no good reason for saying that ‘Babylon’ means ‘Rome,’” insists John MacArthur. But there is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (see Rev. 11:8). But let us be generous and admit that it is easy for an opponent of Catholicism to think that Peter was never in Rome, at least if he bases his conclusion on the Bible alone. But restricting his inquiry to the Bible is something he should not do; external evidence has to be considered, too. Early Christian Testimony William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that “Peter came to Rome and died there” and that “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.” A few examples must suffice, but they and other early references demonstrate that there can be no question that the universal-and very early-position was that Peter certainly did end up in the capital of the empire. A Very Early Reference Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Protestants admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his. In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome. Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.” (THANKS TO CA)
Because Peter was made the foundation of the Church, there were practical implications: it gave him a special place or primacy among the apostles. As the passages below demonstrate, the early Church Fathers clearly recognized this. Clement of Alexandria “[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]). Tertullian “For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]). “[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]). The Letter of Clement to James “Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed” (Letter of Clement to James 1 [A.D. 221]). Origen “[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]). Cyprian of Carthage “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). Cyril of Jerusalem “The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]). “[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there-he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14). “In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32-34]” (ibid., 17:27). Ephraim the Syrian “[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]). Pope Damasus I “Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]). Jerome “‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]). Pope Innocent I “In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]). Council of Ephesus “Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]). “Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (ibid., session 3). Pope Leo I “Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it” (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445). “Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery” (ibid., 10:2-3). “Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head” (ibid., 14:11).
Paul also places Peter elsewhere when Catholics place him on his first sojourn in Rome. Paul also states that the converts in Rome never heard of the Holy Ghost, odd since Peter knew since Pentecost in Jerusalem.
1/ Peter was in Rome. 2/ Nobody claimed he went anywhere different. 3/ St Augustine " What had the Chair of the Roman Church done to you in which Peter sat and in which And in which Anastasius sits today..... " Augustine (5th Century)...... 4/ Jerome (2nd Century) says "Simon Peter in the second year of Claudius pushed on to Rome. He held the sacerdotal chair there for 25 years until the 14th year of Nero when he was crucified upside down with his head near the floor..... " 5/ See the you tube video "Was Peter in Rome ? (Yes Peter was in Rome!) "
The Bishop of Rome wasn't the Leader of the Church. The Bishop of Jerusalem was infact the Early Leader of the Church. The First Leader after Jesus was James "The Just" Brother of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Bro have you never read Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Iranaeus, Tertullian, Jerome???? All these guys were calling the bishop of Rome or Rome (the Church their) where all the church is centered to visibly (in so to speak words)
I don't agree with everything John MacArthur preaches but all he says here is on point! Christ is pointing to himself as the Rock upon whom his church would be built. The gates of hell did prevail against Peter when he denied his lord! At one point Jesus rebuked Peter as an instrument who Satan was able to use to try to tempt Him in avoiding his sacrificial mission.
The fathers of the church don't agree with you! Because Peter was made the foundation of the Church, there were practical implications: it gave him a special place or primacy among the apostles. As the passages below demonstrate, the early Church Fathers clearly recognized this. Clement of Alexandria “[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]). Tertullian “For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]). “[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]). The Letter of Clement to James “Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed” (Letter of Clement to James 1 [A.D. 221]). Origen “[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]). Cyprian of Carthage “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). Cyril of Jerusalem “The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]). “[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there-he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14). “In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32-34]” (ibid., 17:27). Ephraim the Syrian “[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]). Pope Damasus I “Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]). Jerome “‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]). Pope Innocent I “In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]). Augustine “Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]). “Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]). “Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]). Council of Ephesus “Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]). “Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (ibid., session 3).
Just a thought, Peter, who comprised... Is the example of the pope's who followed. Now there is a pope who calls for blessing to homosexuals. What happened? God save us, please!!
No it’s not. You guys are deceived. You guys do faith + works= salvation rather than faith = salvation + works. Also you guys practically worship Mary which is unbiblical and idolatry. You guys also have broken the second commandment and made graven images of the host of heaven as idols. Also you guys believe that the pope is on the same authority as Christ, which is heresy. Also during the mass you guy’s literally take Christ from His throne and sacrifice Him continually cause ig to you His first and only sacrifice want enough. I could go on
Strange that - given the fact that they are encouraged to go to Mass daily if possible and have at least 3 readings (including the Psalm ) in the Mass which it self is based on the Word of God (recounted in 7 scripture John 6 etc)
The bible exists because the catholic church assembled it, you realize this right? And it's books, especially its gospels, are expressed heavily at masses
The devil is good in claiming things, first he showed Jesus the world and claimed to be his but in fact God made it, now he is claiming Peter's tomb and Peter's bones, if Peter is still alive he would have cut this devil's ear too.
I'm not defending Catholicism, but want to say Satan was not claiming to have created the world. He said it had been "given" to him, which is true. Jesus did not call him a liar because He knew what had happened.
c'omn guys, stop protesting ! enough of protest. Please seek the truth. Seek the one church that God created. It can not fail because Jesus told so, if you believe Jesus and his words then where is that Church?? it is One Holy Catholic Church. You know that, but still you chose to protest.
Paul hated the Apostle Peter... you cannot use Paul as a testimony because of his jealousy of St Peter! Therefore was Peter the Pope? No! But! Peter was the foremost disciple of Jesus, Peter was the PETRA ROCK of the church, Peter had the keys to open the kingdom of heaven to Jews & Gentiles! Peter bound up and released the Holy Spirit on Jews & Gentiles! Death did not contain these people that belonged to Christ in Hades! These are those that are of the first resurrection that escaped death by resurrection in AD 70. PETER WAS THE ROCK. None of there bones remain in any grave on earth because they ascended into heaven.
Did Christ give his life for the dogma of papal infallibility which was voted in by a split vote in 1870? Stop being so foolish. Repent my friend. You're living in darkness
@@ETHANGELIST I was a protestant and John Mcarthur was my favorite preacher. I, too, hated the catholic church before I knew her. But then I got to know her and fell completely in love with her. This was the beginning of real faith in Jesus. You cannot have a living connection with Jesus unless you become catholic and participate in the mass. I prayed for you, my friend 🙏
@@MeisterEck My wife and mother are ex-Roman Catholics, now Protestants. They hate Rome and its idolatry. Conversion is not evidence. It seems you were discontent with simple God-ordained worship and commandments and so you wanted the prideful, showy pomp of Rome and its idolatrous mass and graven images. You've turned a piece of bread into Christ to bow down and worship. This is disgraceful and you will face judgment for your idolatry one day if you do not repent. You being "completely in love" with a church institution says it all my friend. You don't love Christ, but the church.
@joeblogs-vx4ep *You will have to cite examples to be more convincing.* 1 2 3 you said John McArthur twists scripture to mean whatever he wants it to mean he's doing the same manipulation techniques of the false prophets
Pastor John MacArthur is just a false teacher. Premise - 1 Preachers are saying only JESUS was born WITHOUT SIN, that's absolutely TRUE. Premise -2 SEX isn't a Sin inside marriage between a Husband and Wife, Preachers are saying. Premise - 3 If it's then what about children born of such marriage without sin or with sin? Therefore, If they say without sin, then they contradicts 1st Premise. If they say with sin then they contradicts 2nd Premise. So, without resolving this issue, embarking on the ministry for JESUS is something unfruitful, & this is what they're doing so far.
You don't make a coherent argument. After reading it thrice, I still have no clue what your argument is to come to the conclusion that John MacArthur teaches falsehoods.
@@SojournerDidimus Why don't he say that sex between husband and wife inside marriage is sin when it produces only sinful offspring? Only JESUS was born without sin that simply proves the rest of all are born with sin.
False religion? Wow maybe go slow for a bit, I also dont compell getting catholic but catholics who believe in Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour are our brothers and sisters. Jesus did not forbid to follow tradition, only to put it above scripture which of course a lot of Catholics do and some of their teachings are deeply wrong but I wouldnt go that far and call them all satanic dude what the actual heck
Please like and follow my new page for good Reformed quotes:
facebook.com/trulyreformed/
Hey Ethangelist, why would you waste time & effort posting garbage like this that brings division amount Christians? You can do better !
@@hamidrabiipour9707 *I agree ... ROman religion teachse gb. God and His Words are antiRomanreligion and antiRCdoctrines. Wonder why?*
1. Catholics say Mary was forever virgin. Yet Bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mary was not perpetually virgin. Mk 6:3, Mat 13:55, Mat 27:56, Mar 6:3, Mar 15:40, Mar 15:47.
2. Catholics say clergies must be celibate. Yet BIBLE says Peter (supposed R Church first leader) had mother in law. Bible says celibacy is not a qualification for clergies. Mat 8:14-15, Mar 1:30-31, Luk 4:38-39.
3. Catholics say Mary was sinless. But Bible says Mary offered a sinner's offering. She was a sinner. Bible says Mary needed a Saviour. Lk 2:23-24, Lev 12:6-8, Rom 3:10.
4. Catholics say confess to R priests in a box. BIBLE says nothing about confessing to priests in a box. Bible says confess to God only. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6, Romans 10:9-10.
5. Catholics say drink of the physical blood of Jesus. Yet OT and NT both say do not drink blood. Acts 15, Lev 7:26.
6. Catholics say pray to passed on Mary and "saints". Yet Bible says do not contact the dead. NT Church did not record a single case of NT believers asking passed on saints to pray for them. Deut 18:11, Isaiah 8:19.
7. Catholics make and bow down to statues. Bible says do not bow down to graven images (statues). Deut 4, Exo 20:4-5.
8. Catholics sprinkles “holy water”. But NT Church of the Bible mentioned nothing about “holy water”. There was no record of any Apostles sprinkling “holy water” on believers. Catholics claimed “holy water” came from OT. Yet Num 5:17 says “holy water” was water used to test adulterous women in OT temple. Hardly the same. Those were for Old Covenant Jews. Not New Testament Christians.
9. Catholics say Peter was pope - bishop of all bishops. Yet Bible says Peter was just a leader of the Jerusalem Church. Bible says nothing of the office of bishop of bishops. Gal 2:9, Mat 16:18.
10. Catholics say there is a seat of Peter. Yet BIBLE says nothing about it. Jesus said “not to lord over others”.
11. Catholics has clergy priesthood. Bible says clergy priesthood was done away with in New Testament. There is no clergy priesthood in NT. Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:10.
12. Catholics preaches Works Salvation (faith + good works + partake R sacraments + submit to R pontiff + be in R Church + devote to Mary = to be saved). Yet Bible says “believe in Jesus to be saved”. Bible says Works Salvation is cursed. Gal 1:8-9. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10.
13. Catholics says they must do Penance to atone for their sins. Yet Bible says repent, confess and sins will be forgiven. Catholic Bible changes the word “repentance” in NT into “penance”. Original Greek NT does not use or mean the word penance. Penance = work to atone for sins. Repentance = change of heart. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6.
14. Catholics say Mary went straight to heaven without dying. Yet Bible says nothing about it.
15. Catholics say Islam and Christianity have the same God. Yet Islam doesn't believe in death and resurrection of Jesus and Trinity.
@@jediv9910 please stop posting nonsense day in day out. Your understanding of the scripture is inadequate & I hope you watch a few videos by Dr John Bergsma, Dr Keith Nester or Dr Scott Hahn, as these educated men explain true Christianity & why they left their old denominations and became Catholic. Do it for your own scrutiny and spiritual growth & don't act like a fool displaying your memorized scripture. Peace
@@hamidrabiipour9707 *Two or more Scriptures saying the same teachings proves a doctrine. Scriptures is the final authority. Not Roman religion. Not Scotty Hahn Roman pagan false teachers.*
you said
please stop posting nonsense day in day out. Your understanding of the scripture is inadequate & I hope you watch a few videos by Dr John Bergsma, Dr Keith Nester or Dr Scott Hahn, as these educated men explain true Christianity & why they left their old denominations and became Catholic. Do it for your own scrutiny and spiritual growth & don't act like a fool displaying your memorized scripture. Peace
@@hamidrabiipour9707 *John Bergsma that lack of knowledge cannot even go one round of debate with me. He dodged all questions. Lol*
For by God's power I was made an apostle to the Gentiles, just as Peter was made an apostle to the Jews.
- Galatians 2:8
And I have been chosen as a preacher and apostle to teach the Gentiles this message about faith and truth. I’m not exaggerating-just telling the truth.
- 1 Timothy 2:7
Galatians 2:7-8 says nothing about "Jews" (a false translation of Ioudaioi anyway) it says to the circumcision and uncircumcision. The circumcision was the remnant of the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL who remained in Judaea and Galilee following the Law, the uncircumcision was the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL who had been scattered among the nations in 742-721 BC who had ceased following the law. God's people are the children of Israel, never "the Jews". The word now rendered as "Jews", Ioudaioi, simply means inhabitants of Ioudaia (Judaea), and only a fraction of Israelites from only 2 of the 12 tribes ever inhabited Ioudaia, and only did so for a brief time, so it's completely ridiculous to think the Ioudaioi, regardless of how the word is translated, represent "God's chosen people". Moreover, many non Israelites including the accursed Canaanites and Edomites lived in Judaea, and were also called Ioudaioi.
One group of Israelites still practiced circumcision at the time of the Apostles, and the other group didn't. The circumcision and the uncircumcision, it's that simple. Paul used the word ETHNOS for the uncircumcision, meaning nations, which is now rendered as "Gentiles". Not a single apostle used the word "Gentiles", that's a carryover from the Latin translation of scripture, and Gentilis has always meant "OF THE SAME FAMILY, TRIBE, OR NATION". It has never meant "non Jews" as so many of today's pulpit masters wrongly insist. Hence the prefix gen-, as in GENES, GENETICS, etc. These were KINSMAN NATIONS to the apostles, that's why the Latin translators chose a word denoting people with the same genes. Jesus is the KINSMAN REDEEMER.
Sadly the true biblical narrative has little by little been altered and hidden over the centuries, to the point where we now have Christians adhering to what is essentially the Communist doctrine of "the brotherhood of all mankind", a Satanic doctrine that contradicts the scriptural teaching that rebellious angels sought to destroy God's creation Adam by adulterating his seed and corrupting his race, with the added benefit of preventing the Savior from being one of his direct descendants. Which is why the Hebrew speaking prophets has at least 4 different words for people, only one of which was Adam, but now all of those words are rendered as "man" in translations. Utter confusion. The fact that Christians refer to Jesus as "the son of man" is a perfect example of this confusion, as the phrase is a reference to the phrase used in Ezekiel, "SON OF ADAM", and also in Daniel "ONE LIKE A SON OF ADAM". Of course these phrases now appear as "son of man" and "one like a son of man", thus the word anthropos in the NT, which had a very specific meaning and scope to the ancients, only ever referring to the inhabitants of what we call the Graeco-Roman world, has been ignorantly rendered as "man" - causing most people to assume these passages of scripture refer to every homoid on earth, when nothing could be further from the truth.
The Bible in no way teaches that everyone on 2 legs is a child of God, just the opposite, as Jesus perfectly clarifies in Matthew 13:24-30 & 36-40.
"Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."
... "Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world."
Clearly an explanation of the serpent in the garden planting his seed, resulting in the birth of Cain and his satanic descendants - however, since Christians on the whole have been poor stewards of rightly transmitting the apostolic teachings - allowing countless mistranslations and errors to creep into translations of scripture over the centuries, to the point where we have over 30,000 competing Christian denominations presenting contradictory teachings, most Christians have no idea that Cain was not Adam's son. And since so few Christians have undertaken to thoroughly study the Old Testament scriptures, or to understand the world of antiquity in which the events recorded in scripture took place, almost none are aware of the numerous places in scripture where this fact is attested to and affirmed.
To top it off we find in 1Chr 2:55 that Cain's descendants were allowed to become the scribes, so it's no wonder that the portions of scripture that deal with Cain's origin have been tampered with and the truth obscured.
Genesis 4:1, which so many use to reject Cain's satanic parentage, is actually not a translation from ancient manuscripts, but rather an interpolation due to what scholars refer to as a "gloss", a scribal notation that became part of the text due to inattention.
Anyways this reply has grown long enough...
@@doxholiday1372
Israel divided into the Southern Kingdom and Northern Kingdom...
Then he said to Jeroboam, “Take ten pieces for yourself, for this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘See, I am going to tear the kingdom out of Solomon’s hand and give you ten tribes. But for the sake of my servant David and the city of Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, he will have one tribe. I will do this because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Molek the god of the Ammonites, and have not walked in obedience to me, nor done what is right in my eyes, nor kept my decrees and laws as David, Solomon’s father, did.
“‘But I will not take the whole kingdom out of Solomon’s hand; I have made him ruler all the days of his life for the sake of David my servant, whom I chose and who obeyed my commands and decrees. I will take the kingdom from his son’s hands and give you ten tribes.
- 1 Kings 11:31-35
For I am not ashamed of this Good News about Christ. It is the power of God at work, saving everyone who believes - the Jew FIRST and also the Gentile.
- Romans 1:16
Then Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and declared, It was necessary that we first preach the word of God to you Jews. But since you have rejected it and judged yourselves unworthy of eternal life, we will offer it to the Gentiles.
- Acts 13:46
But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”
- Acts 18:6
@@doxholiday1372could you suggest further reading in this vein
Whenever someone says they are not lying it means they are, Paul is self proclaimed, just read Acts 9 about his conversion afterwards no one believes him he has to be removed and sent to Tarsus and verse 31 takes the cake, the church began well before Paul, as a former Reformed Baptist, what we were taught about Paul doesn't line up with scripture
Jesus is the cornerstone, plain and simple.@aaronmyers4665
Regarding why Catholics believe that Peter was the 1st Pope, we have Apostolic Succession whereby the church continues after Jesus' Heavenly ascension and the death of the Apostles. The Bible indicates that Jesus had an " inner circle " comprising Peter, James and John whom He took alone to select places like His Transfiguration, the raising of Jairus' daughter to life, and the Garden of Gethsemane before His Passion and Death. Even in this " inner circle " the Bible always ranks Peter ahead of James and John
Catholics believe that Papal authority was given to Peter, the 1st Pope, on Peter's declaration of Jesus' Divinity and Son of the Living God - Matthew 16:16 and Jesus' response of - You are Rock on which I will build My church - Mat. 16:18 - together with Jesus' entrustment of the Keys to the Kingdom to Peter alone- Matthew 16:18-19. It was confirmed after Jesus' Resurrection, when Jesus questioned Peter's love 3 times, firstly to assuage Peter's guilt regarding his thrice betrayal, but most importantly to seal Peter's pastoral role of spiritually feeding Jesus' followers - His lambs and sheep - John 21. In John 21 verse 19 concludes with Jesus, the Good Shepherd. who directed Peter - FOLLOW ME. This directive made only to Peter can only be interpreted as Jesus' successor.
Note: Jesus entrusted the keys of Heaven *only to Peter - Mat. 16:19 - and empowered Peter that whatever, he bound and loosed on earth, would also be bound and loosed in Heaven. On the other hand, on the very day of his resurrection from the dead - John 20:22-23 - Jesus breathed on His Apostles, including Peter, His own Spirit, and empowered them to forgive - or bind - sins. Jesus' breath was similar to the one which gave the life-force to the earth-created Adam - Genesis 2:7
Of the 12 Apostles, only Peter had his name changed from Simon to represent his new authority and role from being a fisherman to being a Fisher of Men - Matthew 4:19. It is true that Paul also had his name changed from Saul - a Persecutor of the church to becoming its Promoter among the pagans.
Moreover, of all the Apostles - excluding Judas - the Resurrected Jesus appeared to Peter first - Luke 24:34.
Peter was the 1st to perform the miracle of healing - Acts 3
When the couple Ananias and Sapphira lied to the 1st Christian community, it was Peter who confronted them and God " executed " them - Acts 5
Peter was the 1st to raise the dead Tabitha to life - Acts 9
Peter was the 1st to introduce Gentiles to the church - Acts 10
Without a Magisterium, Protestant ministers have become their own teaching authority which has resulted in thousands of denominations. Protestant ministers have become dependent on the " itching ears " of their congregations and can be voted out of office - something which is not Biblical. The "Prosperity" doctrine, now in vogue, is one of the results despite Jesus' declaration that - To be My disciple, you MUST take up your Cross daily, deny yourself, and follow Me.
Why waste your time sharing your opinion which doesn’t matter because you aren’t the magisterium. Why try to use reason, do you learn through reason, or through the obedience to the magisteriums teaching on the scriptures and tradition?
You just admitted you have no authority to teach. So why are you trying to?
And do you think that Peter, with all the privileges that you have listed of being the 'first', do you think he would deny it all by being the head of a corrupt system under the influence of Satan. Remember, the Head of the Church is Christ and He is in Heaven. We are joined to Him by the indwelling Holy Spirit. So why would you want a sinful man on the earth, usurping Christ by taking His place as 'head' of the church, and men claiming to succeed the apostles and forming additional doctrine contrary to the Bible.
If Peter was alive now, he would curse the Catholic Church for how they treat him, and the church would execute him.
If Paul, James, John, Mary and Jesus were among us, they would also curse the Catholic Church, and they would also be executed.
Please do some research. Listen to some Catholic answers, Trent horn, Matt frad etc.
As a general heuristic if a claim is “so impossibly outlandish and obviously false” it’s more likely you don’t know the issue well. I was prot and now am Catholic and even I see some evidence for the Protestant claim (not nearly enough to convince me but some for sure). If you think NO WAY BRO THIS IS CRAZY AND SO FALSE it’s more likely you don’t know the issue rather than the 1.3 billion Catholics have never heard of All this insurmountable evidence
both Peter and Mary would have nothing to do with the catholic church.
Catholic Church doesn’t execute people
Lol Mary who has used to saints to speak to catholic over the years n u guys say that she would want nothing to do with the church . You guys r just jealous u cannot Conner your faith to the apostles peace catholic forever 😂😂😂😂😅
@@katanaevelyn6813
You mean the imaginary stories that have all been debunked about Mary appearances?
No evidence? Said the preacher
The Papacy is evil ?
No bible will defend?
What became of Shebna then,
The keeper of the keys?
He was once prime minister
But God revoked his peace
Eliokim would replace him
As the keeper of the Keys
Shebna was found unworthy
What a biblical disgrace
then God once spoke to Peter
And gave to him the keys
Jesus formed His kingdom
He was the Great high priest
Peter was His steward
The keeper of the Keys
Jesus started the Catholic Church, a teaching and preaching authoritative Church on Peter and the apostles (Mt. 16:18-19, Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28-30; Mt. 18:15-18). He did not start a bible only church which removes all of the Protestant denominations. Rather, he trained the disciples to be the leaders of the Church and gave them his authority (Mt. 28:19-20, Jn. 20:21-23) and said we 'must' listen to their authority. If we don't listen to their authority, then we reject Christ himself (Lk. 10:16, Heb. 13:17, 1 Thess. 5:12-13). They also passed on their authority to others through the laying on of hands. The church that Jesus started was teaching and preaching, correcting and reproving, and making doctrine before the New Testament even begun to be written (Acts. 16:4-5; Acts. 11:1-15; 1 Tim. 5:11; Eph. 4:11-12 and many more).
When you realize that Jesus didn't start a Bible only religion but started a teaching and preaching church, you will realize that it's the Catholic Church, the only church that goes back 2000 years to the first century. This was the same church that made and canonized the Bible in the first place.
Peter is mentioned in the bible 195 times. Saint John, 29 times, St. James 16 times. Peter does first miracle and the first speech. Peter receives the revelations from God. He has a special relationship with Christ who trains him. Acts 15:11. Peter alone settled the dispute. Lists of apostles are always Peter and 11. Peter and the others. Peter and the Apostles. He is always listed 1st and Judas last. Luke 5:1-10: Peter chosen for ministry as fisher of men. Luke 22:24-32. Leader of the brothers. John 21:1-17: chosen as shepherd of church under Christ.
Amen, amen. Peter is given authority on top of a pagan rock temple of Pan. Jesus clearly gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, aka the church. The church and teachings and traditions have and will always be before the Bible. The bible learned its teachings and understanding from the church and it's people starting from Peter and the apostles and to all the bishops and priest appointed later on in the NT. These will never go away yet it's still here, and most Christians don't realize this. It's funny how even a true Muslim believes in Mary as blessed and holy and sinless. It's a shame that the majority of Christians don't know this, but Muslims do.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial repent of this insanity
@catholictruthofficial Your first bible quotes…. So essential… is Peter The Rock? Oh no, he’s not The Rock, Christ is the Rock, and the cornerstone which everything is built on. But is Peter a Rock? Yes, just like all the apostles, who together create the foundation of the spiritual temple.
So with the Bible you disproved the Catholic position on the papacy.
Welcome to a Bible based communion.
@rickydavis7391 that's cute Ricky Bobby. You basically made yourself a bishop, aka pope from your statement alone from personal interpretation and guidance from false teachings of original scriptures. See 1 Tim. 3v14 what Paul writes. You will understand that the Pillar and Foundation is the Church and not the bible/scriptures. Also, apostles are the Pillars, and they teach as that without a bishop, you don't have a church of God. Does your church have a bishop? Welcome to the knowledge of the truth, which is the universal aka Catholic church, who put the bible together. While you are at the table looking at the menu, we are enjoying the feast. Please come join the feast of truth and knowledge. Hint I don't want to seem like Peter in Galatians when he acted bad at the table. But that is moral and not doctrine. Have a blessed, fruitful day, brother.
@@PatrickC-x4p
1 Peter 2:5: Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood…
John 14:26 the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything
and remind you of all that I have said to you.
Romans 8:14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons and daughters of God.
Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.
John 14:21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”
Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
in all your ways submit to him,
and he will make your paths straight.
If an organization claims to be The Word of God, how do we discern whether it’s true or a false gospel? Do we just go to the authority of that organization and obey its leaders? Or do we obey the one true leader, teacher, and mouth of truth, Jesus Christ, testing the spirit of the organization, guided by the Holy Spirit and the Word of God?
I would like to point out that according to the word of God the lord placed in the church the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to edify the believers, see Ephesians 4:11-13, no mention of a pope here! The catholic church has cast aside and buried the word of God under mountains of man made docrtines! What will these catholics say to their Lord when they meet him face to face? What will our Lord say to them?
Also, no mention of priests!
Do they not have faith? What happened to faith alone?
@dorinamary7863 if you look up the etymology of priest and bishop you will realize they are mentioned throughout the New Testament.
1 Peter 4:16
16 However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.
Yet they call themselves Catholics!?😅😅 They're so backwards..
Lots of angry catholics in the comments... not alot of rebuttals though
@@layupnation it is difficult to rebuke just anger. Catholics are fed up with Luther , the devil's bagpipe himself.
Read this please !
Because Peter was made the foundation of the Church, there were practical implications: it gave him a special place or primacy among the apostles. As the passages below demonstrate, the early Church Fathers clearly recognized this.
Clement of Alexandria
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
Tertullian
“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
The Letter of Clement to James
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed” (Letter of Clement to James 1 [A.D. 221]).
Origen
“[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).
“[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there-he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14).
“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32-34]” (ibid., 17:27).
Ephraim the Syrian
“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
Jerome
“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
Pope Innocent I
“In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).
Augustine
“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).
“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
Council of Ephesus
“Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (ibid., session 3).
@@layupnation Catholics shouldn’t even be rebutting anything. They don’t have the teaching authority. Only the magisterium does. They don’t think, they obey. And if they obeyed God then amen. But they obey the man made doctrines of the magisterium.
@@uncatila Interesting comment. Do you know the history of the Catholic Church? Murdering Christian’s who don’t obey the church. Selling salvation. Worshipping Mary. Killing those who tried to bring the Bible into the understanding of native speakers. Requiring the laity to refrain from reading the Bible. Using the high positions of the church to exploit the laity sexually, financially, and laboriously.
You may tell the spirit by its fruits. I pray that you realize your pride has bound you into your Christian tribalism, guiding you to reject Christian unity.
Read the church history before romanization, people converted from the model of humility and piety from Christians. Do you reflect that same spirit, or do you reflect a level of superiority in your Christian faith which allows you to justify attacking your brothers?
And all the brainwashed Catholics reply…
The ENTIRETY of Catholic Hierarchy is DIRECTLY related to the SENATE of Rome, with the Pope being Emperor!😱
According to my research, the pagan Roman Empire with the Caesars as head essentially morphed into the Holy Roman Empire with the Pope as head.
@@benz8421: that's what I said!😜
Well I think you’re spot on with your assessment 😃
Would be interesting to research and study this claim and see if it's truly valid or not
@@benz8421
Your research? What about the research that refutes what you are saying?
My dear Protestant brothers and sisters, MacArthur is intentionally deceiving you all.
I only became Catholic Christian last year in April. Before that I was a non-denominational Christian beginning from 2018, and in fact in 2021 I was studying at a Protestant College here in my country South Africa to be a non-denominational pastor. Also, like many of you, I was impressed by MacArthur even though I highly suspected he was, and still is, a Freemason (plenty to say for this actually, particularly considering that Freemasonry regards the Catholic Church as its arch-nemesis). Oh and I was an anti-Catholic. I used to constantly exhort my Catholic mother to leave the Catholic denomination because Paul warned about divisions (denominations) in 1 Cor. ch.1 in the Body of Christ.
Here's are basic mind-hacks (simple logical reasons) why MacArthur, and all anti-Catholics are wrong:
- The Roman Emperors, Constantine the Great and Theodosius, each convened Church councils in AD 325 and 381 respectively which officially declared many crucial things for the faithful, most significantly that Jesus is God (AD 325), including the consubstantiality of the Three Most Blessed Persons of the Holy Trinity (i.e. in AD 381 the doctrine of the Trinity, that each Person in the Trinity is divine, viz. God, and equal and to be adored/worshipped).
If the Catholic Church were a satanic movement, as MacArthur alluded to in the first few minutes of this video, then by default we are all compelled to abandon any traditional Christian doctrines that derive from these church councils originally convened by two Catholic Christian Emperors in union with all the other churches of the world (i.e. Oriental and Eastern Orthodox churches).
In Lk. 11:17-18 Our Blessed Lord says the following:
"Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand?"
In other words, the Roman Catholic Empire cannot simultaneously be a weapon of satanic deceit and a servant of Jesus Almighty. It can only be one or the other. There are numerous significant heresies that the Church has defeated over the last two thousand years, you can read St Alphonsus Liguori's 'History of Heresies...' to learn more.
If you reject the Roman Catholic Church then to be consistent you must reject the doctrines that Jesus is God, including the doctrine of the Trinity. You cannot have it both ways.
Further, to quickly refute one claim of MacArthur when he said that Peter had no role in pastoring the Gentiles, which was allegedly exclusive to Paul only, well in Acts 15:7 Saint Peter explicitly mentions his God give ministry to the Gentiles. This is why Christ the King in John ch.21:15-17 gave explicit command to Peter to look after His "sheep" (who are Christ's sheep? Only the Jews? Please!).
I can easily refute each false claim by MacArthur however it takes far more time to refute a claim than to make one. For that reason my best advice to you is to stop listening only to non-Catholic arguments against Catholicism and begin learning what the Catholic Church and apologists actually teach for a truly equitable understanding of the Catholic position. Proverbs 18:17 tells us in principle that there are two sides to a story, not just one. So listen to both. In court of law both sides get to be heard, not just one side.
MacArthur is not stupid, we know that, thats why he is intentionally leading you astray with sophistry. He knows that as long as he keeps you out of the Catholic Church you are not assured salvation because all Christians throughout history have always known that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church because only we Catholics are part of the Body of Christ since we alone eat the literal Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ as He wanted it (see Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, especially with regard to John ch.6 etc). This is why if anyone rejects the Catholic Church they end up rejecting Christ's actual Body too.
Lastly, I became a Christian in 2018 due to conspiracy theories, I learned that all the rich, powerful and famous worship satan. Then I became a Catholic in large part because I learned all these satanists hate the Catholic Church above all. Ive given you a lot ponder but I pray Our Lord Jesus Christ Almighty wakes you up.
God love you.
I'm Apostolic Pentecostal and Apostle Peter was not Catholic, he was no pope, Apostle Peter walked hand in hand with Jesus Christ, he never swayed away from Jesus Christ teachings, the Catholic Church is a demonic false Christian religion, they do not follow the laws of Jesus Christ, they committed murders in the name of Christ, they molested millions of kids and covered it up all the way up to the Pope, you are lost and will end up in Hell with the rest of the Popes
Peter preached what Jesus preached. Repent and speak in tongues as the gift of the HOLY GHOST, no other way around it, Peter taught what Jesus Christ taught, the Catholic Church dies not believe you have to speak in tongues and be filled with the Holy Ghost to get to Heaven, if they don't teach the teachings of speaking in tongues and being filled with the Holy Ghost to get to Heaven they are not of God
No he's not ,you are ,Roman' catholicism is not biblical Christianity, show me in scripture the justification for praying to Mary, the apostles who are dead praying the rosary, take the eucharist for example Jesus does not inhabit the eucharist read your Bible he's at the right hand of the Father intercesseding for his children Hebrews 7:25 says he ever lives to make intercession for them, Hebrews 12:2 he is seated at the right hand of God, Roman's 8:34 Says Jesus is at the right hand of God intercesseding for us ,that's where Jesus is as our high priest
@@johnbostic4063 So then God has a right hand?
Lol, “Truly truly I say unto you this IS my body and this IS my blood. He whoever does not drink of my blood and eat of my flesh has NO LIFE WITHIN HIM”. Yeah bro just a symbol. A symbol that dictates whether or not you have life within you
As an convert from Pentecostalism to the Catholic Church I must say, that this misrepresentation borders not only on evil but is indeed evil. If you care about truth read „Pope Peter“ from J. Heschmeyer. 🙏📿😘
No thanks. I’ll read the Bible.
Pentecostalism is simply Catholic mysticism just as Lutheranism is Catholic-lite. Your still in Babylonian captivity. Revelation 18:4 - "...Come out of her..."
So you went from speaking in tongues and having the Holy Ghost to worshipping a Pope smh, calling a Pope Father, you will be beat with many stripes for abandoning the teachings of Jesus Christ, now the Catholic Church has opened the doors to LBGTQ, you will have to answer to Jesus Christ, YOU KNOW BETTER
The Protestant church has opened its doors to gays for a long time. And no the Pope didnt allow gay relationships or anything of the sort. Please read his quotes and letters rather than news headlines. He always states the Catholic position, that those who repent can become saved and that we should bless people not their sin; and we wish to support the well being of all even if we disagree with the actions of men
@@Napolean-tq3zs
Romans 14:4
Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand
did Jesus not open up to prostitutes, tax collectors, murders?
Luke 5:31
Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Catholic Church has been pro life since day one, not even accepting contraception in married couples like Protestants did. Allowing a gay person in church is not against Jesus teachings. Rome has not accepted homosexuality, pride, we don’t celebrate that. But we are here for the church that is the people that make the church.
Stop reading fake news. And headlines. Look for the full video.
@rappmasterdugg6825 *Yes again nice fairy tales. You are just using your man made narratives as Scriptures and doctrines. Still not a single verse ever said "Davidic Kingdom = the Church". So where did RCs get all your ns? Lol*
you said
This is an interesting question, thank you, and I would really like a meaningful and respectful counter-argument or questions from you. David was king of Israel and Judah, reigning for about 40 years. David is anointed as the future king of Israel, at God’s direction, in 1 Samuel 16:1-13. In 2 Samuel 2:4 David is anointed as king of Judah. In 2 Samuel 5:3, David is anointed king of Israel by the elders in a covenant made “in the presence of the Lord.” This evidence very clearly shows that David is the king of Israel and Judah, at God’s direction, and by definition David is a “Davidic” king. The successors to David as king, with the exception of Athaliah, were direct descendants of David, and are considered “Davidic” kings. In 2 Samuel 7:8-16: Yahweh promises David an eternal kingdom. In 2 Samuel 7:11b-16: Yahweh promises to build David a dynasty after his death. In 2 Samuel 7:13, 16: Yahweh promises that the royal son's throne will last forever. Despite these promises, the Davidic Kingdom fell to the neo-Babylonians in 587/586 BC, as described in 2 Kings 24:8-12 (end of the first Temple Period). The Jews returned to Israel in 538 BC, as described in the OT books Ezra-Nehemiah (hooray for Persian King Cyrus!). Although the Davidic bloodline continued the kings didn’t reign as kings-essentially the kingship and the throne were underground. The Jews began to anticipate the coming of the Messiah who would re-establish the Davidic kingdom. The Messiah would be from the line of David -Matthew 1:1-17 gives Jesus’ genealogy showing that he is a descendant of David through Joseph. In Luke we have another lineage tying Jesus to David’s line. In Luke 2:4, 10-11 we have the angel saying in reference to Jesus “Do not be afraid; for see - I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord.” In Matthew 16:15 Peter says in response to Jesus, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Christ and Messiah are synonyms, both meaning “anointed one”-Messiah is Hebrew and Christ is Greek. Jesus was anointed three times. In Luke 2:25-35 we have Simeon recognizing Jesus as the Christ in the temple. There’s really no doubt that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, and as such is the Davidic king the Jews have been waiting for. Further, Jesus is the last of the Davidic kings as he is eternal-there would be no successor kings and he reigns forever. In the Old Testament God makes several covenants with the Jewish people through Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jeremiah (the New Covenant). Jesus is the fulfillment of the New Covenant. In Matthew 26:27-28 we have Jesus saying Then he took a cup, gave thanks,* and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.” The entire Old Testament points to Jesus, to this moment and the founding of his Church. God chose Israel. He chose David to lead Israel. He promised David that his line would be eternal. Jesus is of the line of David. Jesus is identified in numerous places as the Christ/Messiah, the anointed one and fulfillment of God’s promise to provide an eternal king. Jesus is the last and eternal Davidic king. Everything Jesus did, including founding and eternally shepherding his Church is Davidic. I have been respectful for you and only cited scripture. Please be respectful of me in the same manner.
Why this man hate the church that Jesus himself started only one church through Peter not so many churches. Jesus say you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the key of 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. So the successor of Peter are the popes and it still continue till now because Jesus himself promise that the powers of death shall not prevail against his church. And Jesus say Mathew 10:22 and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. Mark 14 Jesus say to his disciples "take heed that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my name, and they will leads you astray.
show me a verse from bible that wrote that the catholic is the first church in the whole world
Why did orthodox separate from the catholic church. Why did Pope's kill people all through there history while orthodox didn't. You can say Catholic is the oldest church but Orthodox was there the whole time. Even before the Roman church. Roman's killed all the Christians before they made the Roman Catholic church. Roman's worship women why do you think Marry is worship. Why the separation in 1600's because Pope was losing money so he said you can buy your unsaved family members into heaven.( Not in the Bible). When you argue for the Catholic Church know the whole history. Now your Pope wants to bless same sex that will lead to more separations of the church. I will never worship or fall to my face to no man including the Pope. Only to Jesus.
the Focus of that passage isn't Peter, it's Jesus Christ -- back up to verse :13 and try to keep it into context.
@@tony1685 Luke 10:16 - Jesus told to His Apostles "he who hears you hears me and he who rejects you rejects me and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me".
Mathew 12:30 - Jesus warned us "he who is not with me is against me and he who does not gather with me scatters".
Mark 13:22-23 - Jesus warned us "false christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray if possible, the elect. But take heed, I have told you all things beforehand".
Mark 13-31- Jesus say "heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away".
Mathew 18:3-4 - Jesus say "truly I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven".
@@marymargarette4289 i agree 100% with the Scriptures you've posted Ma'am, but you have not proven anyone is against Jesus.
it's just not possible that the Scripture was referring to any other than Jesus Himself as Messiah and Son of Living God.
it is called _'Peter's Confession'_ - what is the confession?
The Prophet Daniel says there will be 4 Kingdoms, One of Gold, One Silver, One Bronze, and One of Iron & Clay, and in the time of the 4th Kingdom the Messiah will come, He will send a stone that will break the 4th Kingdom, the Gold was Babylon, the Selver was Medo-Persians, the Bronze was the Greeks, the Iron & Clay, was the Roman Empire, Caesar Augustus hade a Census and Jesus was born under that Census in Bethlehem. The Kingdom of GOD, entered during that 4th Kingdom, He also renamed one of his Apostles STONE and sent that Apostle to where? ROME the capitol of that pagan evil empire that had seduced Jerusalem. And in Daniel said but the stone that struck the statue, became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth” -Daniel 2:35. The Pagan Kingdom will become the Kingdom of Christ, he will win it back, he made it the Capital and Epicentre of his Kingdom on earth that’s why we’re Roman Catholics.
It was all developed just like any organization that precedes to lead as a teaching entity ie; universities and such. Why is that so complicated?
Over-complication is a way to confuse people and keep them from the clear truth.
@@megrose711 It's not complicated. That's my point !
@@kevinwerner5500 yep, I was agreeing with you!
@@megrose711 O . Thanks for your support. Take care !
I don’t understand what you’re saying? Do you agree with the video or disagree?
Christian brothers and sisters, please remember Catholicism is a different gospel than the true gospel of Jesus Christ. Catholics are part of our mission field.
Romans 3:28 ESV - For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Romans 5:1 ESV - Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 4:5 ESV - And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness
Galatians 2:16 ESV - Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Romans 4:3 ESV - For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV - For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
If Catholicism “is a different gospel” then please explain why ALL Bible believing people receive their rule of faith, the Bible, from her…
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 individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time, growing in numbers of hundreds of “inspired” NT writings. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved it 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?
I agree there is no scriptures from the Bible supporting that Peter was a pope, ,The other writings has to be measured by the Bible and everything that not Biblically should be prone, removed and let's stick to the Bible please 'Christians'❤❤❤
Exactly. Unfortunately, the RCC has their private interpretations which the Bible commands us not to use to interpret the Bible. The Bible interprets the Bible. Period.
@@jmo900 Funny that ... 3 Church of England Bishops in just the last 2 years have become Catholics cos the Catholic Church is at one with the bible even the KJV bible !!
@@1234poppycat Those C of E bishops went to the CC because the protection of homopedophiles is much better there.
@@1234poppycatJohn Henry Newman scandalous UA-cam
@@1234poppycat not all believe the Bible. There will be apostates. They love religion more.
*First Occurrence of the term “Roman Catholic”*
*Quote:*
"Formulations such as the "Holy Roman Church" or the "Roman Catholic Church" have occurred by officials of the Catholic Church before[8][9] and after the Reformation.[10][11][12][13][14] It is also used in the context of ecumenical dialogue. The first known occurrence of "Roman Catholic" as a synonym for "Catholic Church" was in communication with the Armenian Apostolic Church in 1208, after the East-West Schism.[15][16]"
Source:
15 Salvation outside Church. Boston, Massachusetts (USA): Brill; Lam. 2016-10-07. p. 116. ISBN 978-9004326842. Archived from the original on 2023-02-15. Retrieved 2021-04-18.
16 Pacheco, John. "Ultra-Traditionalism". The Catholic Legate. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 23 December 2016.
This is revolting ignorance. Kindly read Daniel 2; 44- 45 which rhyme with Matthew 16: 16- 19.
@@cyrusm123 *Revolting ignorance. Daniel 2 and Mat 16 did not even say Roman religion = the Church or kingdom of God. So?*
@leobaltazar *Very interesting claims. Except there is no office of bishop of bishops - pope in the Bible. So you are just proving it's self recognition and self invention of Rome. Self invented traditions is not doctrines according to Scriptures. Col 2:8, Mark 7:8, Mat 15, Mat 23.*
you said
The recognition of the papacy, or the authority of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), developed over time in the Catholic Church. Here's a brief overview:
1. *Early Christianity (1st-3rd centuries)*: The Bishop of Rome was respected as one of the prominent leaders in the early Christian Church, but not yet recognized as the supreme authority.
2. *Council of Nicaea (325 AD)*: The Bishop of Rome was recognized as having a special role in resolving disputes and maintaining unity among churches.
3. *Council of Constantinople (381 AD)*: The Bishop of Rome was acknowledged as having a primacy of honor among bishops, but not yet a formal authority over the entire Church.
4. *Pope Leo I (440-461 AD)*: Leo I, also known as Leo the Great, played a significant role in establishing the papacy's authority. He asserted the Bishop of Rome's supremacy and was recognized as the first Pope in the modern sense.
5. *Council of Chalcedon (451 AD)*: The Council recognized the Bishop of Rome's authority and primacy, stating that "the Bishop of Rome has the primacy of honor and authority."
6. *Middle Ages (5th-15th centuries)*: The papacy's authority grew, with Popes exercising significant influence over the Church and secular affairs.
7. *Council of Trent (1545-1563 AD)*: The Council reaffirmed the papacy's authority and defined the doctrine of papal infallibility, which was later formally defined at the First Vatican Council.
8. *First Vatican Council (1869-1870 AD)*: The Council formally defined the doctrine of papal infallibility, stating that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra (in his official capacity as the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church).
Over time, the recognition of the papacy evolved, with the Bishop of Rome's authority growing from a respected leader to the supreme authority in the Catholic Church.
was the bible written in English? if so was it Old, Middle, or Modern English?
I'm with you. I like modern English. I think it's superior to all the other versions.
@@uncatila *Why? C feelers? Where do you come from? Outer space?*
The problem that protestants have is the same as Mormonism based on the following 3 arguments.
(1) Mormons (Latter-Day Saints, or LDS) believe that after the death of the last Apostle, there was a “Great Apostasy.” Priesthood authority ceased, doctrine began to degenerate, and the true Gospel was lost (necessitating its “restoration” by Joseph Smith in the 19th century).
(2) The vast majority of protestants reject multiple doctrines that were believed unanimously by ancient Christians, beginning with the very first Church Fathers who were discipled by the Apostles themselves. Specifically, these protestants reject three key doctrines:
a. Baptismal regeneration (how we become Christians);
b. Apostolic succession (how the Church is governed); and
c. The sacrifice of the Eucharist (how Christians worship).
(3) Therefore, whether they realize it or not, most protestants believe in a “Great Apostasy” theory of history that is virtually identical with that of the LDS.
If all Christians of which we have any record-including the disciples of the Apostles-were unanimously wrong about how we become Christians, how the Church is governed, and how we worship as Christians (the “Three Doctrines”), there is no more fitting description of this massive falling away than a “Great Apostasy.”
This necessarily means that creatures (the protestant “reformers,” or the LDS’s “prophet” Joseph Smith) outperformed the Creator, since their “gospels” and “churches” have now in one form or another lasted for centuries, whereas when Jesus originally established them, they fell apart immediately.
In the writings of the Church Fathers every time they spoke about heresy and heretics, they were describing Protestantism. Protestantism is all over the place on the different positions. You can’t speak about the Protestant position on something, except perhaps in the form of a negative, like they’re contrary to the Catholic Church, they’re contrary to the Roman Pontiff. But the methods, the means, by which Protestants arrive at their theological conclusions were common in virtually all the heresies and the heretics that the Fathers talked about.
Your problem is that, you put men's word above that of God. This video spoke from the position of Scriptures, which will forever reign supreme over any piece of cooked up history. Just support your comment with scriptures
@@fredowusu22 Gladly, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to reply... It's sort of a long reply for UA-cam standards, but I really hope you read the entire reply in good faith.
It's a common misconception that the Catholic Church favors traditions of MEN over the word of God quoting some passages in the gospels that say not to replace God’s word with the traditions of MEN particularly in Matthew and Mark’s gospel. This is one of the big mistakes that some of our friends, particularly in the Protestant community, make in looking at these passages, they will see Jesus criticizing the Pharisees for holding two traditions of men, and then they skip over passages in the New Testament that talk about traditions in a positive way. So it’s not all tradition is a bad thing. The English word, tradition, comes from the Latin word trādere, which means something that is handed on.
So tradition itself is a neutral concept and that’s why you find both passages in the New Testament that speak positively of tradition and passages that speak negatively of tradition, because some traditions are good and some traditions are bad. It’s when it conflicts with the word of God that a tradition of men becomes bad. But not all traditions are even traditions of men. There are also traditions that come to us from God and were passed down to us by Jesus to the apostles. All of that oral teaching Jesus did - it wasn’t written. Jesus didn’t write any kind of theological manual for the disciples, He trained them orally, and that means that what he gave them was a body of traditions. We called it APOSTOLIC traditions. And they were passed on through the apostles to the church. And so, consequently today, Catholics and other Christians will refer to them as an APOSTOLIC tradition because they were traditions that were endorsed and passed on by the apostles, and those traditions are the ones that the New Testament commends.
The biggest problem with the doctrine of sola scriptura, from this perspective, is that nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible should be used by Christians as the sole authority, the sole rule of faith, in matters of belief and practice - NOWHERE! The Bible does, however, very clearly support the Catholic Church’s teaching that it is Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition that make up the deposit of faith; it is Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition that comprise the Christian rule of faith. Scripture says:
“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS which you were taught by us, either BY WORD OF MOUTH or by letter” (2 Thess 2:15). Traditions! Oral traditions and written traditions. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, both of which the Thessalonians are being told to “stand firm and hold to.” And how does Paul refer to these oral traditions elsewhere? :
“And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the WORD OF GOD which you HEARD from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers” (1 Thess 2:13). The Thessalonians received as the word of God that which they heard from Paul, not simply that which they read in his letters.
Or...“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor 11:2). Paul is commending the Corinthians because they maintain the traditions that he passed on to them. Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition.
“…and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim 2:2). What we have here in 2 Timothy is an instance, in Scripture, of Paul COMMANDING the passing on of Sacred Tradition.
So, we see that the Bible clearly supports the Catholic Church’s teaching that the word of God is contained in both Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition.
Tradition is something we need to take very seriously, and in fact, everybody does. If you look in the Protestant world, do Protestants hand on ideas or things from one person to another? YES - such as phrases like Sola Scriptura. When you are a Protestant and you get your first Bible, just like being a Catholic when you get your first Bible, someone gives it to you. That’s literally handing on a tradition. And if it’s a Protestant Bible and you’re a Protestant and you open it and you see, “Oh, it has these 66 books in it.” You just accepted the canon of scripture based on something that was physically handed to you. So this isn’t just Catholics, it’s also Orthodox and Coptic and so forth, I would say, “Actually that’s an imperfect tradition because there should be more than 66 books there.” But how do you know WHICH TRADITION IS RIGHT? The Bible does not tell you which understanding of the canon is right, and there is no divinely inspired contents page. The publisher decided which books to put on the contents page and how to classify them. So, this itself points to the role of tradition even in Protestant life. And it’s fortunate that these days you have a growing number of Protestant scholars who are much more comfortable talking about tradition. They’ll talk about, “Our tradition as Lutherans,” or, “Our tradition as Calvinist,” or, “Our tradition as Baptist.” And even more than that, they recognize the role that tradition played in the early church. In fact, a Protestant friend of mine recommended me to read a set of book on the early Church Fathers.
Another scriptural problem with the doctrine of sola scriptura is that it teaches that every individual has the right - the duty, in fact - to read the Bible and decide for him- or herself what is and what is not the truth in all things concerning the Christian Faith. Yet, that is decidedly unscriptural. The Bible quite plainly teaches us that individuals, reading the Bible on their own, do not have the authority to simply decide, on their own, what is true or false doctrine. 2 Peter 3:16, for example, tells us that there are some things in Scripture that are “hard to understand” and that, because of this, the “ignorant” twist these Scriptures to “their own destruction.” Which of us could say that we are not ignorant of Scripture in at least one way or another? This means that we are at risk of twisting the Scriptures to our own destruction. This is serious business!
So, how do we get around the problem of our own ignorance? Does the Bible give us a clue? Indeed it does: Acts 8:31. Here the Ethiopian eunuch is reading Scripture and Philip comes up and asks him if he understands what he is reading. What does the eunuch say, “Of course I understand it. I don’t need any help from anyone to understand the Bible”? No, he doesn’t say that! He says, “How can I [understand the Scriptures], unless someone guides me?”
So the pattern of looking both to apostolic scripture and apostolic tradition is meant to be used by us today. Because the apostles never put a sunset clause on this principle that they were using. Also, one principle that they also used was turning to authoritative teachers to settle questions, the apostles, for example, in the council at Jerusalem in Acts 15. And so when difficult questions arose like, “Which tradition should we follow? Do people have to be circumcised to become a Christian or not?” So in settling that question, the Holy Spirit directed them to have a council, and that shows that God’s will is for sometimes questions to be settled by humans in discussions in AUTHORITATIVE teaching moments. And that’s what we Catholics refer to as the magisterium. And so we also see the word of God as expressed in scripture and tradition with hard questions being ruled on by the magisterium. And by using those three bodies, we can sort out, or those three elements, we can sort out the question of which particular traditions conflict with God’s word and which don’t.
The Bible tells us that we need a guide - some authority other than ourselves - in order to be sure we don’t twist the Scriptures to our own destruction. Not that we can’t understand a lot of Scripture on our own, because we can. But, as the Bible itself tells us, there are things in the Bible that are indeed hard to understand, things that are important enough that one could lose their salvation over them. Which is why God gave us, the Church founded by Jesus Christ. The twelve apostles became the first leaders of his Church, appointing in time one of the twelve apostles-St. Peter-as the leader of the Twelve, telling him, "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 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 (Matt. 16:18-19), and he promised that the Holy Spirit would lead the disciples "into all the truth" (John 16:12) and that “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” (Luke 10:16). When Satan demanded to have the apostles sift them like wheat, Jesus prayed for Peter that his faith may not fail, and Jesus commanded Peter as leader of the Church to "strengthen [Peter's] brethren" (Luke 22:34).
Finally, Jesus told the Apostles “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20).
So, the Bible gives us a different rule of faith; it doesn’t give us the Bible Alone.
Pray for me please as I pray for all of you.
@@fredowusu22 May I add this to my previous reply? I just received it from a Catholic publisher >>>
The four Gospels-Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John-are our principal sources of information about Jesus Christ, the Son of God. For two thousand years, they have nourished the faith of Christians across the world.
In our own, skeptical age, the Gospels still have a unique place. Even those who don’t regard Jesus with the eyes of faith acknowledge that he is the most influential man ever to have lived, having left a major mark on history, culture, and language.
There is tremendous confusion about the Gospels themselves. How are they different from one another? Do they contain contradictions or falsehoods? Who wrote them? When? Weren’t there other gospels in the early Church? How much authority should they be given?
Let us start at the beginning.
What is a Gospel?
In the simplest terms, a Gospel is an ancient Christian book about Jesus. When people refer to “the Gospels,” they’re typically referring to the four canonical ones. However, there also are non-canonical gospels that are not included in the New Testament.
The Greek term for gospel (euangelion) means “good news,” and it could be used in a variety of senses. Naturally, it could refer to hearing about any good thing that had happened. However, it often was used to refer to announcements by or about the Roman emperor.
The emperor often was regarded as the son of a god, and his person represented the peace and security of the empire. Whatever he announced was at least supposed to be good news for the people, and so it would be declared to be “good news” (whether it really was or not).
It thus was natural for Christians to announce the coming of the true Son of God and his kingdom as good news, and so St. Mark begins his book with these words: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” It is probably from this verse that the book of Mark came to be known as a “Gospel,” and from there the term spread to other canonical and non-canonical works.
Because the canonical ones are known as Gospels (Greek, Euangelia), their authors are known as the four Evangelists-with a capital E, to distinguish them from ordinary evangelists, who share the message of Jesus generally.
When it comes to the kind of books the canonical Gospels are, they are essentially biographies. That is, they tell us about the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
There are differences between modern biographies and ancient lives. Today, authors may write biographies about people just because they’ve had interesting lives. However, ancient lives had an instructional purpose. Readers were meant to learn lessons from the lives of the people they read about.
Thus, in his Parallel Lives, Plutarch wrote about similar noble figures-a Greek in parallel with a Roman-so that his readers could learn what made the men great and what they might want to imitate. Similarly, in Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Suetonius discusses both the good things and the bad things the first twelve Roman emperors did-partly so that people would know what good rulers should and should not do.
The four Gospels share this instructional quality, and we are meant to take away important lessons for our lives. John states, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are NOT written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name” (20:30-31).
Similarly, in Matthew, Jesus says, “Everyone then who HEARS these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock” (7:24).
Sometimes people wonder whether the Gospels were meant for Christian audiences or whether they were evangelistic documents meant to convince people to become Christian.
The answer is the former, and the reason is the cost involved in producing copies of the Gospels.
Today, individual Gospels and even entire New Testaments can be mass-produced cheaply and given away for free, making them usable as evangelistic tools. But before the printing press, every word had to be handwritten by a scribe, and every sheet of papyrus or parchment had to be painstakingly manufactured by hand.
As a result, a single copy of one of the Gospels was fantastically expensive, with Matthew costing the equivalent of around $2,200, Mark around $1,400, Luke around $2,400, and John around $1,900. Only rich people and congregations that pooled resources could afford them, making it clear that they could not be handed out as evangelistic tracts, so they were meant for people who were already committed Christians.
It does not matter if Peter was the first pope or not, but what does matter is what the Catholics are trying to obtain or claim thru that claim. Peter would Never want someone to say he was the Holy Father, but the pope allows people to call himself that. The pope's word is supposed to be infallible, meaning is { incapable of being wrong or making a mistake}, but according to the Bible, Peter did indeed made several mistakes, as we all do because we are human and we would probably make some of the same mistakes Peter did. Peter would Not want to be considered the vicar of Christ, vicar means{ representative, agent, substitute or acting in the person of} so put that in front of Christ. Substitute or acting in the person of Christ. That looks alot like the anti-Christ. Peter Did Not want that, Peter wanted to be hung upside down because he did not want to be crucified like Christ.
Hey Darryl, you write as if Peter is your cousin & you know exactly what he wants or doesn't want!🤔 FYI, we as Christians are called to be a representative of Jesus & carry on his ministry. Fake & misguided preachers like MacArthur have polluted the gospel of Christ & are an embarrassment to the Christian faith.
@@hamidrabiipour9707 Apostles like Peter walked with Jesus, No man on earth is worthy to put his self in the place of Jesus, as Christians, we are to teach and testify of Jesus. Not be his replacement, Jesus don’t need a replacement, Jesus is alive and well. Jesus is in the right hand if God, not in a wafer and not in wine. The bread and wine at the last super was a parable, it respresented the things that was to come. The wine was the blood that he would shed for our sins and the bread was his body that would be broken and would be raised from the dead. Catholics are Christians, some of what they go by is in the Bible and some of it is man made doctrines created by popes, bishops,priests and maybe a few monks of old time, so old of a doctrines, it is accepted as traditions.
The problem that protestants have is the same as Mormonism based on the following 3 arguments.
(1) Mormons (Latter-Day Saints, or LDS) believe that after the death of the last Apostle, there was a “Great Apostasy.” Priesthood authority ceased, doctrine began to degenerate, and the true Gospel was lost (necessitating its “restoration” by Joseph Smith in the 19th century).
(2) The vast majority of protestants reject multiple doctrines that were believed unanimously by ancient Christians, beginning with the very first Church Fathers who were discipled by the Apostles themselves. Specifically, these protestants reject three key doctrines:
a. Baptismal regeneration (how we become Christians);
b. Apostolic succession (how the Church is governed); and
c. The sacrifice of the Eucharist (how Christians worship).
(3) Therefore, whether they realize it or not, most protestants believe in a “Great Apostasy” theory of history that is virtually identical with that of the LDS.
If all Christians of which we have any record-including the disciples of the Apostles-were unanimously wrong about how we become Christians, how the Church is governed, and how we worship as Christians (the “Three Doctrines”), there is no more fitting description of this massive falling away than a “Great Apostasy.”
This necessarily means that creatures (the protestant “reformers,” or the LDS’s “prophet” Joseph Smith) outperformed the Creator, since their “gospels” and “churches” have now in one form or another lasted for centuries, whereas when Jesus originally established them, they fell apart immediately.
In the writings of the Church Fathers every time they spoke about heresy and heretics, they were describing Protestantism. Protestantism is all over the place on the different positions. You can’t speak about the Protestant position on something, except perhaps in the form of a negative, like they’re contrary to the Catholic Church, they’re contrary to the Roman Pontiff. But the methods, the means, by which Protestants arrive at their theological conclusions were common in virtually all the heresies and the heretics that the Fathers talked about.
@@SNS-f6g The problem is: It is Not just Catholics, but also other denominations also, They are Not going completely by the Bible. It is like they never even read a Bible, it is like they made it up as they went, so now it (the church) don’t resemble what is in the Bible. Until a church goes by the Bible (God’s Word) That Church Can Not be the true church of Christ. The traditions and doctrines of men Can Not take the place of God’s word.
@uncatila *RCs claimed "Eliakim replaced Shebna (that unfaithful servant)". So which unfaithful servant did Peter replace? RCs think it's Jesus?*
*Where in Isaiah 22 ever said Peter = pope? Lol. Self claims cannot prove doctrines RC.*
you said
if Peter was'nt the Pope then Shebna never controled the keys of the temple and Eliackim never replaced him in the Old Testement.
The most compelling evidence is that the Gospel of Matthew was written PRIMARILY for the Chosen peoples of YAHWEH who are the JEWS and NOT addressed for the Gentile world. In this proposition, was the writer of Matthew declaring to the JEWS that PETER, only a small stone like any other disciples of YESHUA, was the PROMISED ONE as mentioned in the BOOK of ISAIAH, Chapter 53???
IF I was alive at that time..., as an ELECT Jew, predestined for ETERNAL salvation, would I have even envisaged that Peter, the Sanguine who DENIED knowing and FOLLOWING the "man" whom the rest of the Jews (except for His ELECT/own..) REJECTED as their PROMISED HaMashiach, and who (Peter) CURSED himself for even being a disciple of YESHUA / JESUS?? Should I have believed the ROCK to be Peter the Sanguine (who was deemed a "TRAITOR" to his Lord and Messiah by even CURSING himself for knowing Him as such???) to be my PROMISED Messiah instead of YESHUA/JESUS??
The prophet John the Baptist and all the other Disciples of YESHUA / JESUS (even including that brigand son of the devil called Judas the Iscariot...) believed YESHUA / JESUS to be the ROCK of SALVATION. Didn't they all STUDY the Old Testament Bible where the LORD YAHWEH is mentioned more than DOZEN times as the ROCK of AGES?? Search the BOOK Of Psalms and count how many times the phrase "The LORD God is my ROCK" was written therein (the Psalms). Are you absolutely SURE that all the writers who mentioned the word "ROCK" were actually designating that phrase to the a mere man and a "hopeless" one who DENIED knowing and following his "ROCK of Salvation" YESHUA 3 TIMES??
I think that PETER, the Sanguine, deserved to be CAST out from the Team for his belligerent denial of YESHUA / JESUS to the Jews (what more the fact that he even DENIED YESHUA . JESUS as his MASTER!!!). The ONLY reason WHY the ROMAN CATHOILIC religion of the popes of Pagan Rome CANNOT and WOULD NOT remove their age-old belief and institutionalized such a FALSE belief system from their CATECHISM is that...IF THEY DID SO.., THAT WOULD MEAN THE DESTRUCTION OF THEIR RELIGION! Because...., the religion of pope(s) of ROME has its FOUNDATION bases SOLELY upon their BELIEF that PETER (the Sanguine who CURSED himself if he ever KNEW the Son of man called YESHUA...) was the "ROCK" of their SALVATION and NOT the YESHUA of Nazareth whom His FOLLOWERS who were alive at that time (when He referred to Himself as the ROCK of SALVATION...)!
NONE of the Disciples / Apostles (including Peter himself) would have even believed that YESHUA was referring to Peter as the ROCK of Ages, the ROCK of SALVATION and the Elohim of David, Moses, and particularly the Prophet Isaiah who dedicated his Book on CHAPTER 53 for the TRUE Messiah of the JEWS and the ROCK of their SALVATION!
READ all the other VERSES in the OT and NT that clearly AFFIRMED that there is NO ONE that can hold the TITLE of the ROCK except the TRUE Elohim Himself, YAHWEH and the Son of YAHWEH named YESHUA (affectionately called by more than 90 % of GENUINE Christians today as JESUS the CHRIST, not the ISA of the Koran of Mohammed)!
Very well said but then Roman Catholicism is heretical and apostate for myriad reasons.
Denying the true Gospel in
Ephesians 2:8-9
'For by GRACE are ye saved through FAITH and that NOT of yourselves. It is the gift of God NOT works, lest any man should boast. "
Pure, clean & simple to grasp.
Praying to Mary?
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
Calling priests & popes Father.
Matthew 23:9
" And call no man your Father upon the earth; for one is your Father which is in heaven."
@@Ken-dh2te so you call your father "hey dude i need some money" though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If faith alone saves read the sheeps and the goats. Yes our work is not enough to be saved to boast about in the first place and no matter how righteous you are you cant be saved if God is not willing. Thats the point you cant be saved. Nothing unclean shall enter the Kingdom of God. How God will be just if he save a rapist, murderer, molester, just because he believes. For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
your claim falls apart when you understand 1/ Jesus spoke in Aramaic and there is no term in Aramaic which distinguishes small rock with large rock 2/ Christendom - Orthodox and Catholic have accepted the interpretation for 2000 years without controversy. It only became an issue when Protestantism was being created by men 500 years ago. So in addition to cutting books out from the Bible - from 73 to 66 and cutting passages from the bible they also needed a lot of reworking 3/ Next we have the absurdity of saying that because we use the term Rock (amongst dozens of other titles and descriptions) we can not use one of these titles to explain Peter ! If I was to call my brother a wonderful person it does not mean that I can not use the term for someone else !! 4/ Obviously being the Rock does not mean that Peter is the same as Jesus Nowhere do you find Catholics saying Peter is the Messiah 5/ About half of Christians in the World today are Catholic Christians and YAHWEH is a term commonly used by Catholics in Bible / Catholic Christian study courses
Complete lie that no historical evidence exists from the early fathers that Peter was in Rome or died there.
Irenaeus
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3, 3, 2).
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (ibid., 3, 3, 3).
Clement of Alexandria
“The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed” (Sketches [A.D. 200], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . .While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there-he that carries about the keys of heaven” (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).
The most straw man arguments I could ever hear.
I'm not sure you know what strawman means.
@@thejohnmarkprojecta little concerned your questioning this comment based on this video. Filled with straw arguments lol. So let’s just begin with the first ten seconds, “there’s not one tiny shred of evidence in scripture for the papacy.” This is a straw man because it is arguing a position the Catholic Church doesn’t hold so in a way it could also be a red herring
Let me show you what another straw argument is, “sola scriptura is not found anywhere in the Bible”. Although this is a fact this a star man argument
@@MidSpectrumThoughts
False. It is a position that the catholic church holds. They say that the first pope is Peter, and that this comes from the Bible.
.
This of course is just not knowing how to read on the part of the Catholic church.
.
.
Sola scriptura is found in the Bible however.
.
.
***2:Tmothy 3:16-17
16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17
that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
@@thejohnmarkproject oh no. Questions like that will get you in trouble. Atheists will corner you. The church doesn’t claim the word “pope” is in the Bible. Just like the church doesn’t claim the word “Trinity” is in the Bible. Do you believe in the Trinity? If you do show me in the Bible where it says Trinity. Oh you can’t? Of course you can’t but you can defend this argument by showing evidence of the Trinity in the Bible. The word Trinity derives from scripture. Just like the word Pope derives from scripture. So this is why I believe this is a straw man argument because realistically these weak arguments are meant to deceive.
Finally, in regards to the verse you are referencing. What scripture was available to the people of that time? I’ll let you think about that…
I’ll give you hints. The New Testament to that point was not put together yet into the tiny library called the Bible.
So that leaves us the Old Testament. So using the verse you referenced and now knowing the Old Testament was the only scripture available… should we only be following Old Testament laws?
Just something to think about brother. Search and you will find.
@@thejohnmarkproject and also you have yet to defend your stance on saying sola scriptura is in the Bible . That verse you showed me doesn’t state the words “Sola Scritpura” furthermore, the substance of that verse itself doesn’t say read scripture alone.
I gotta say, "Let him be anathema" is pretty solid proof. I don't know how anyone could possibly refute that fact.
What do you mean?
@@ETHANGELIST Just being sarcastic. It's like "or else you are cursed" is their final jutification for every point of their doctrine.
@@mytwocents777 Ohhh okay. Yup it's just a threat and scare tactic by Rome. Yet again. No one wants to be cut off and condemned by the one true church and I'm sure plenty some who were tempted to become Protestants or had doubts about Rome, would've felt compelled to stay due to the threat of anathema.
What lies . There are dozens of Early Fathers who say Peter was in Rome and died there. Very Early sources like 1200 or 1300 years before the Protestants revolt. 2 or 3 reliable sources from history, makes it a fact. And the fact there were no schisms, why would these Fathers say it? The bible wasn't available to anyone until the council of Carthage 397 a.d. ua-cam.com/video/2wCXqh3VpW8/v-deo.html
@@ETHANGELIST
This Catholic law ruling also goes against the Spirits advice...
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Romans 12:14
Of course, Peter was NEVER a pope. Never called a Pope in the Bible. Peter was an APOSTLE and so were at least 23 others in the NT. Peter wrote 2 epistles. Paul wrote 13-14 books and epistles if you include Hebrews. All the the Roman Catholic has is tradition.
The Church is built upon Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living and not Peter. Jesus is the head of the Church not Peter. Is Peter an important figure in the NT? YES!! But, a certain denomination has made him God. If you are in the RCC, please leave. They worship dead saints. Believe that Mary was immaculately conceived and never had children other than Jesus. The office of Pope, Cardinal, Priest is not found in the Bible. The RCC votes to declare someone a saint. The worst one is they believe in faith + works for salvation.
Lets take these in order. First, Mary was a sinner like all of us, She went through her days of purification after she have birth to Jesus. Mary had at least 6 children after Jesus was born. Jesus is called her first born son. Do not pray to Mary. Do not say the hail Mary. There are five offices in the Church: Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor, Teacher. The Holy Spirit is God on earth, not the Pope. If you are born-again, you are instantly made a saint. We were washed in the blood, sanctified, and then justified in the name of Jesus Christ. Finally, salvation is by Grace through Faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ; it is NOT of work, it is a GIFT - 1 Cor. 15:1-4, Eph. 1:13, and Eph. 2:8-9.
Make the right decision. Read the Bible and do not rely on the traditions of men. That was the problem with the Pharisees.
@JuanGonzalez-kb3gm *Again full of incoherences. Two or more Scriptures saying the same teachings proves a doctrine. No need interpretations. Scriptures is the final authority. Of course Scriptures is always correct!*
*Jesus and Apostles called Scriptures Scriptures. That's Scriptures. You lack knowledge.*
*"does not say" is not proof for doctrines. So your question is a ruse. Doctrines come from what scriptures Does Say. Not from what Scriptures Does Not Say or Speculations or Self claims.*
*Nowhere says Peter was pope. That suffices. There is no office of bishop of bishops - pope in the Bible.*
you said
I want some of this !
Where in the Bible does it say your interpretation of scripture is correct?
Where in the Bible does it say what’s scripture?
Where in the Bible does it say Peter was not the Pope?
One verse that says Peter was not the pope..
MacArthur's attempt to refute the papacy is it best laughable. For example he says that Peter never went to Rome despite the biblical evidence when Peter himself says he was in Rome.
"The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13). Biblical scholars have noted that Babylon was a code word for Rome. Even though Paul may not have mentioned Peter, this in itself does not prove Peter was never in Rome. Peter could of been gone at the time, to conclude that this disproves Peter was never in Rome is reading more than is warranted and is fallacious, because even if that was the case, he was still the first Pope regardless.
Using this as an argument against the papacy demonstrates MacArthur's lack of understanding of Roman Catholic theology and the Bible.
You say it's laughable but you've failed to respond to his best arguments and your response to two lesser arguments is super speculative and excuse-oriented.
Your translation of 1 Peter 5:13 is false. Where's the word "here" in the Greek? Or even "church"? Where does Peter actually say he was in this "Babylon" or with them? Does anyone know for sure that Babylon is Rome? Please don't exaggerate. And your other response is full of excuses and speculation. Why would the Bishop of Rome be away from Rome and at the exact moment Paul wrote to Rome? Is he neglecting his duties? Why would an apostle to the Jews be the bishop of a Gentile Roman church? What about Romans 15:20, Galatians 2:8 and 1 Peter 5:1?
Again, you've ignored his best arguments.
@@ETHANGELIST Are you kidding me, does anyone know that Babylon is Rome? The vast majority of Biblical commentators all say Babylon was a code word for Rome. Even your own reformed camp says so.
For example in Table Talk, a Bible study magazine from Ligonier ministries says: "Babylon almost certainly stands in for Rome and its empire. First-century Jews sometimes used Babylon as a code word for “Rome,” including Christian Jews such as Peter, who uses it that way in 1 Peter 5:13."
Even more so I have a John Macarthur study Bible and in his commentary even he ironically wrote: "she who is at Babylon, refers to a church in Rome."
If you go to other protestant biblical commentaries they will say this shows Peter was in Rome when he wrote this. For example in the Nelson Study Bible it's reads: "she indicates the people who comprised the local church in the city from which Peter was writing."
So why are you exaggerating trying to call into question and give the impression 1 Peter 5:13 is not clear about Peter being in Rome, and what Babylon means?
And I'm sure your aware that the Pope is not bound to stay in Rome. As the sheppard of the universal church, his job is to tend to the flock and feed them, just as Christ commanded Peter to do. It is completely reasonable to believe Peter traveled around, just as Paul did. What's unreasonable is to assume that, because Paul does not mention Peter in the book of Romans means Peter was never there. That is super speculative and excuse oriented.
@@ETHANGELIST
You don't know ancient history, or maybe ignoring it. Peter was an Apostle to the Jews and there was a very large number of Jews in Rome at the time, so this is why he would have been there along with Paul.
Nice red herring you got there fred.
@@friendlyfire7509 nice rebuttal friendly fire you got me
@GR65330 *More hilarious claims. Where in the Mat 18 ever said "Roman pope = Eliakim and Roman Catholic Church = House of David"? RCs simply love self claims.*
you said
Matthew 18:18. The entire weight of the Catholic Church rests on the Pope and his teachings, just like the entire weight of David's house rested on Eliakim.
@karlchristie1856 *It does not matter what Jesus meant. Nowhere says Roman religion inherited the authority of Peter. That's the crux of the issue isn't it?*
you said
On top of all this: the language Jesus uses in Matthew 16:18 clearly shows that Jesus is building the church on a rock that isn't Peter. The Greek genders are different. Peter is a masculine rock and the rock that the church is built on is feminine (which it always is in Greek grammar). Maybe you'd argue that Jesus used a masculine form of the word just because Peter was masculine. Fair enough. But that still doesn't change the fact that he switches genders to refer to the rock that the church is built off of. Maybe you'll argue that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, not Greek. (I've seen that argument before.) Aramaic has genders. At some point someone would have translated it into Greek. Of all the Greek manuscripts we have for Matthew, NONE of them disagree about the gender of the rocks. They are different. The Greek word Πέτρος seems to have been made up specifically as a Greek approximation of Peter's Aramaic name Cephas. (Peter is a man, so we can't call him a feminine noun) Whoever wrote the original Greek or translated the supposed original Aramaic into Greek would have lived at a time when people would have known if Peter was the pope. If they made up the term Πέτρος to specifically refer to Peter, and they knew that Jesus was referring to Peter for the foundation of the church then they would have used Πέτρος again. But they don't.
The context of the entire conversation is answering the question "Who is Jesus?" Peter said "you are the Christ the Son of God." That's what the church is built on. Peter's confession about who Jesus is. If you confess that then you are part of the church. Is the rock the source of the confession, or the confession itself? Well when you see that the confession answers the question "who is Jesus?" which is on topic with the whole conversation, this is far and away the most logical answer.
@jediv9910 Jesus gave Peter on top of the pagan Pan's church the keys of the new Church. And later in the chapter of Matthew, Jesus says to Peter, "Feed my lambs and flock". Jesus says it 3x.
AMEN. AMEN
@@PatrickC-x4p *Nice fairy tales. Where in the Bible says "keys to the new Church" and "feeding the lamb made Peter pope"?*
you said
Jesus gave Peter on top of the pagan Pan's church the keys of the new Church. And later in the chapter of Matthew, Jesus says to Peter, "Feed my lambs and flock". Jesus says it 3x.
@jediv9910 before you speak. Why don't you look more into the lineage and connect the dots. It's so sad for Christians don't understand traditions, which is the Church that is before the Bible. Actions and works before a book are a good way to see in perspective so your eyes can see mysteries of faith. You need to learn history and connections with traditions with the guide of the Bible
@jediv9910 where? Please Google it. Obviously, you have not read Matthew
@jediv9910 Amen, amen. Peter is given authority on top of a pagan rock temple of Pan. Jesus clearly gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, aka the church. The church and teachings and traditions have and will always be before the Bible. The bible learned its teachings and understanding from the church and it's people starting from Peter and the apostles and to all the bishops and priest appointed later on in the NT. These will never go away yet it's still here, and most Christians don't realize this. It's funny how even a true Muslim believes in Mary as blessed and holy and sinless. It's a shame that the majority of Christians don't know this, but Muslims do.
@JuanGonzalez-kb3gm *What use is a Church with doctrines not from God's Word? Bible says God's WOrd is truth, Jn **17:17**.*
you said
1 Timothy 3:15 JV
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
wow, I am disappointed by all the Pro Catholic comments. You can't see the truth. and obviously don't want to.
You hit the nail on the head brother. Stay strong in the gospel truth. Blessed Holidays to you and yours.
When you are Catholic you are usually indoctrinated from the time you are born to believe that this is the way, this is the one, true church. Only the power of the Holy Spirit can lift that veil and I am forever grateful to God that He saved me! Cried for three days and three nights reading that Bible for the first time and able to understand it, not finding my “one, true church” anywhere in there.😢 I left and never looked back. If I wrote out all the discrepancies and conflicts of the RCC with the scriptures, it would take PAGES and PAGES.💔
Take a look a pat madrids lecture on the biblical roots of the papacy
John MacArthur is a false teacher. He said it himself, that God did not give him authority over his church members. Our Lord Jesus, gave authority to His apostles over the flock of His church.
@JuanGonzalez-kb3gm *Christian Churches have bishops and deacons. Just no bishop of bishops - pope; a man made invention of rome.*
you said
He left bishops priests and deacons .
I can guarantee your sect has none of the above..
Ah yes, anti catholic nonsense with a severe lack of historical knowledge. Cool.
The Pope literally contradicted Jesus last month.
Not cool. He is the only way, the only path to salvation. Not cool man.
@Rolando_Cueva i don't recall that being the topic of conversation here. You're not wrong, but you're WAY off topic
It astonishes me that people who actually can’t see the pope and most or the others in the past for what they really are, actually believe he is of Christ. Spiritual discernment within the Catholic community is non existent if they think bowing to another man and kissing his golden ring is anything but blasphemous and evil.
The pope NEVER talks about MacArthur.
LoL
Because he doesn’t understand orthodoxy and basic hermeneutics. You think the pope could exegete a passage? I don’t
@@PhilIsaak
He’s the pope. He don’t need to
@@PInk77W1 lol it’s all made up
Pope
Cardinals
Priests
Nuns
Purgatory
Holy water
Confession to a priest in a booth
Rosary
Mary sinless
Etc etc etc
None of it in the Bible
@@PhilIsaak do you know what else in NOT in the Bible, the list of books that belong in the Bible itself, and why does the pope OR Mac himself not talk about that…
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 individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time, growing in numbers of hundreds of “inspired” NT writings. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved it 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?
@@srich7503 is God sovereign???
This is not a trick question. The Psalms make it clear that He is. Can He preserve His Word? Psalm 12:7 says He can. Is His Word even more important than His name? Psalm 138:2 says so. Is His Word inspired? Timothy said so. Is Genesis 1:1 true?
How about the resurrection? If they are then the idea that ALMIGHTY omnipotent Jehovah can easily preserve what He wanted preserved
From the original autographs until today. 171 out of 176 verses of Psalm 119 refer to the Word of God. It is alive(Hebrews 4:12) and will never pass away. Like Mormons most Catholics believe their leaders over the Word of God. The Word of God has been preserved by a sovereign Almighty God. The only way groups who differ in doctrine from bible believing Orthodox churches make a case for their doctrines is to paint the Word of God in a bad light compared to their “prophet” or leaders.
The new pope is down with Islam and says we are all children of God.
Wrong….a person becomes a child of God by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (Romans 6:23, 10:9-13)
Ephesians 2:8-9
Only Jesus saves, not an organization.
Popes
Nuns
Priests
Holy water
Purgatory
Indulgences
Sprinkling newborns at 7 days old and calling it baptism ( the Greek word for baptize mean to immerse.
Baptism by sprinkling and baptizing newborns incapable of believing in Christ is unbiblical. The New Testament admonishes us to believe and be baptized.
Sprinkling water on a baby’s head does nothing but get it wet. So many false doctrines, it is practically endless.
Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom making him second in authority in the church after Jesus. Peter is Latin for Rock and all through the New Testament Simon is always referred to as Peter meaning Rock. Why did all the New Testament writers always write Peter and not with Simon. And there is documentation on every successor of Peter. One thing that’s very apparent in all of your post is that you say anything that is ment to destroy the Catholic Church. The main goal of Satin is also to destroy the Catholic Church. Therefore both you and Satin work hand in hand for the same goal. Except Satin has been hard at work for 2,000 years and has not succeeded even acquiring you as an accomplice. Well we all know your destiny, Same as Lucifer.
Were you there and you saw Jesus giving the keys to peter? Besides peter rejected Jesus 3 times. Also Jesus did not say and on you Peter i will built my church. Jesus said and on this Petra i will built my church the Word Petra is Greek for rock it is not latin. Again we have the Roman Catholics who are trying to hide their heresies, inventions, and some time falsehoods to feel important. How can Rome be more important than Jerusalem? That is why Roman Catholics are in such a caos now🥲🥲
@danielswartz6818
The the keys to heaven were tangible you'd think that the idiots from Knight to Nazis would be looking for them rather than the so called Holy Grail.
Jesus also told Peter that what he, Peter, allowed on earth he would allow in Heaven, and if you believe in the succession of Popes heaven is the place to be for debauchery and deceit.
Popes were never mentioned in the bible
You are morbid.
@billlee2194 *Based on the Chronology of Book of Acts, there is no way Peter was in Rome for 25 years. It was based on false claims.*
*Catholics' narrative of Peter’s timeline directly contradicts Jerome's claim that Peter was in Rome and was bishop of Rome for 25 years from AD 42 to 67.*
From thebiblejourney:
Acts 10:9-23 Peter - praying on the flat roof of Simon the Tanner’s house in Joppa- also has a vision in which he is told not to call anything ‘unclean’ that God has made ‘clean’ (see Leviticus 11:46-47).
Shortly after this, Cornelius’s two Gentile servants and his attendant arrive at Joppa. Peter invites them into the house to be his guests although Jews would not normally eat with Gentiles because they were regarded as ritually ‘unclean’ (see Deuteronomy 14:1-3) and eating with them would make a Jew ‘unclean’.
AD35:
Peter in Caesarea and Jerusalem
Acts 10:23-48 Peter travels to Caesarea towards the end of 35AD and shares the Good News of Jesus’s death and resurrection with Cornelius’s Gentile family and friends (see 2 on Map 19). The Holy Spirit falls on all present and the six Jewish believers from Joppa (see Acts 11:12) are amazed that God has poured out his Spirit on the Gentiles - as they “heard them speaking in different languages and praising God” (Acts 10:46).
The new Gentile believers are baptised as “They have received the Holy Spirit just as we did!” (Acts 10:47). Peter stays in the Gentiles’ house at Caesarea for several days.
Acts 11:1-18 Peter reports back to the Jewish believers in Jerusalem(see 3 on Map 19). The more conservative Hebraic Jewish believers criticize Peter for eating with uncircumcised Gentiles, but most of the disciples agree to accept the new Gentile converts into the fellowship of believers.
AD44:
Peter hands over the leadership to James
Acts 12:1-19 The narrative now skips a few years to 44AD. Peter (who is regarded as a radical Jew for mixing with Gentiles) is arrested in Jerusalem during the Passover festival on the orders of King Herod Agrippa I, who has recently beheaded the apostle James, the brother of John.
Peter is miraculously freed from prison during the night by an angel. He rejoins the believers - who are meeting at the home of John Mark in Jerusalem. He hands over the leadership of the Jerusalem church to the more traditional James (the brother of Jesus - see Galatians 1:19) and flees elsewhere for safety. St Mark’s Church, in the Armenian Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, is believed to mark the site of John Mark’s home.
AD49-50:
Acts 15:1-21 Peter addresses the assembly of believers in Jerusalem in 49/50AD. James- as leader of the church - concludes that the Jewish believers shouldn’t insist that Gentiles who have become believers in Jesus must adopt all the Jewish religious traditions (see Acts 15:12-21).
Gal. 2:11-14 Peter meets Paul in Antioch in 50AD, shortly after the Council of Jerusalem (see 4 on Map 19). Paul accuses Peter of changing his mind and drawing back from eating with Gentiles - under pressure from the more traditional Hebraic Jewish believers from Jerusalem. (Antioch was in Galatia, modern days Turkey)
John 1:42
"Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas; which by interpretation, is a stone."
NOT A ROCK. JESUS CHRIST IS THE ROCK which is substantiated all over the NT.
But then Roman Catholics eliminated the 2nd Commandment & then split up the 10th Commandment so they could have 10. The heresies & apostasies of Roman Catholicism is myriad.
Obviously, MacArthur is not convinced Peter is not the pope - otherwise, this protestant wouldn't be obsessing about it.
The Roman Catholic Church crumbles without church authority. Disprove the idea of the papacy, everything that has ever come from Catholic Church must be questioned… That is why Protestants focus so much on this topic.
As a Muslim I believe and have faith what you said.
Why do you what he said?
Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
--Matthew 16:17-19
Never gets clearer than this.
Whatever the Pope binds on earth shall be accepted in Heaven.
For Jesus handed the Keys starting fron Peter.
No person in Christianity have a central world authority than the Pope does. not your pastor have this kind of world authority
👍
Amen
Mt 16:23 "But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan:.." By your logic then Peter is also Satan. You won't be able to understand scripture without the Comforter. You must be born again. Accept the Lord Jesus Christ and His one time sacrifice for You. The GIFT of salvation is right there just accept it as a you would any Gift.
@@guenzel2 that verse is out of context. i suggest read it again why Jesus said that.
@@guenzel2 understand that Peter doesnt want Jesus to die, and is confused how He will fulfill the Messianic Prophecy through suffering and death.
understand that without God's revelation to High Priest Caiaphas, Jesus will not be put to death and glorify the name of Father.
understand that Judas is all part of God's plan to be a traitor, so Jesus will die and fulfill all the prophecies.
@@guenzel2 Matthew 16:16 In-Context
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.
17
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.
-------
John 21:15-25
Jesus Reinstates Peter
15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18 Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”
20 Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”
22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”
24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
Maybe John MacArthur could do a video on how he is going to compensate the hundreds who were defrauded by his Son out of millions of $$$. (following his criminal conviction) . Given that John endorsed his Son .... Maybe this could come from John Mc s vast wealth ( 3 houses in the US + millions passed onto his other siblings and relatives !!!
The man has written over 400 books and done many study bibles…. Yet still has less money in his bank than the pope 😂
Yeah he’s got issues I’ve met him. Not a huge fan but the Catholic Church isn’t biblical
@@PhilIsaakyou have issues....great man
Get lost troll
I am so sorry for Mr MacArthur ... He has had his reward in this World...... Of course Peter is under Christ The first Pope and the titles of the Popes ?? "Servant of the servants of Christ" ........Petros--- rock -- Petrus -- JESUS did not speak in Greek !! In Aramaic -- kepha -- there is no distinction !!! ....
You ended up rejecting the most comprehensive case for the bible .... AND the GOD appointed authority of his servant the Pope ......
Although Jesus’ authority as the Son of God is unique to him, he chose to associate human beings with his mission and gave them a share of authority. Thus, when he appoints the Twelve, we read:
And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity (Matt. 10:1).
The authority he shared was not just that to work miracles. The twelve disciples were his students (that’s what “disciple” means), and he prepared them to become teachers and sent them on preaching missions:
These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand’” (Matt. 10:5-7).
Later, when sending out an even larger group, he underlined the teaching authority he had given them, stating:
He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me (Luke 10:16).
Jesus also gave the Twelve the authority to govern his Church. He first gave Peter the authority “to bind and loose” (Matt. 16:19), and later he shared this with the other disciples (Matt. 18:18).
As the Church grew, authority to teach and govern was transmitted to others in the local churches.
Thus Paul writes, “God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Cor. 12:28; cf. Eph. 4:11). It is because of its teaching function that the Church serves as “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
Similarly, there are those with governing authority in the Church. The letter to the Hebrews exhorts Christians to “obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account” (Heb. 13:17; cf. 1 Thess. 5:12).
Teaching and governing authority are therefore intrinsic to the structure of the Church.
Hypocrites like MacArthur cherry pick for their own dishonest means. It's so obvious with anybody with half a brain. But unfortunately our Protestant friends are so easily deceived and consumed by satan's lies.
Jesus was right in establishing authority and hierarchy. You see it in nature and in society because it works. The 2,000 year old Catholic Church and the 45,000 new and conflicting denominations of Protestantism are testament to that. Jesus is not the author of division - angry Protestants tampering with the truth are.
you don't know nothing about your topic Tatian the Syrian
“Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).
Tertullian
“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys” (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
The Letter of Clement to James
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
Great video, thanks for the upload!
Maybe Abraham Lincoln said: The government of the people, for the people, by the people. it is not on US soil, not by the (pilgrims?) The United States of America is built, surprise, by the belief that all men are created equal (in front of God, on the dollar bill, in God we trust)! The Church is built, it is not by Peter, surprise, not Christ either, but by Faith in Christ (by Revelation from the Father in Heaven to Peter as a witness) stated as The Command from The Son. When we don't see Christ, we look and follow the church, the Body of Christ. The church only exists as long as The Faith exists. For those who reject Christ, there is no Faith in him, he does not belong to the church.
8 minutes of simplicity ... Sure Peter was never called "the Pope" when he was alive but the structure of the Church changed as the Church grew Jesus said lots to Peter in particular and generally to the disciples about what he wanted after the death and resurrection. "On this rock I will build my church " "whatever you bind on Earth will be considered bound in heaven " When it comes to Protestantism and all their 30 000 churches I dont see in the bible anywhere where it says make up your own Church !!!
Jesus is the rock the church is built upon. The cornerstone the builders rejected. This miss interpretation is pretty obvious.
@@sad1th Yes many protestants reject the Words of Jesus to excuse their own man made churches
The people are the church. Not a building or organization, the church is in you, where 2 or more are gathered in the name of Jesus Christ you have a church
Peter (Rock) YOU are the rock and on THIS rock I build my church. He calls Peter the rock, after LITERALLY naming him rock; and then says on this rock after referring to Peter both in name and title as rock as the rock on which the church will be built. And we know Peter was the chief apostle even if you disagree with the papacy. Please do some research I pray for you
@@butter__boi703 The chief apostle? See that's your theological problem right there. You honor man and not God to who belongs all the glory, honor and praise. Stop your man worship i'm praying for you to see who Jesus really is and who we (mankind) really are.
Let tell you this, listen:
Jesus said: "Even the gates of hell shall withstand the church He built"
For 2000+ years the Catholic church has been under attack. NONE prevailed. Even Hitler failed to stop it. How about you? can you?
Jesus passed the keys/authority to St. Peter. and from Rome he established the Church there. his own burial site was erected the St. Peter Basillica square, ordered to be built by Emperor Constantine (the first Roman Christian).
Documents show Peter was the FIRST Pope, therefore the REASON why the Pope has a central authority to the whole world.
No pastor who read the bible first time and started to criticize us will ever be the center authority of Christian all over the nations.
Only the Pope does. Because Jesus started it. not a pastor.
👍
Same arguments can be made for Orthodoxy. Womp womp.
There's a great video l saw this week called "The Catholic Church: Masterpiece of Deception." on a UA-cam channel called Servus Christi...he goes in depth. 🔥
I saw it as well just more lies about Catholicism cos you can not fault the Church God created from any truth ... that is why 3 Church of England Bishops have come to Catholicism in just the last 2 years !!
That guy like MacArthur misrepresent the Catholic faith. Watch Trent Horns correction of this video for the truth.
@@mikegski7943 Yes I saw that Totally agree
The problem that protestants have is the same as Mormonism based on the following 3 arguments.
(1) Mormons (Latter-Day Saints, or LDS) believe that after the death of the last Apostle, there was a “Great Apostasy.” Priesthood authority ceased, doctrine began to degenerate, and the true Gospel was lost (necessitating its “restoration” by Joseph Smith in the 19th century).
(2) The vast majority of protestants reject multiple doctrines that were believed unanimously by ancient Christians, beginning with the very first Church Fathers who were discipled by the Apostles themselves. Specifically, these protestants reject three key doctrines:
a. Baptismal regeneration (how we become Christians);
b. Apostolic succession (how the Church is governed); and
c. The sacrifice of the Eucharist (how Christians worship).
(3) Therefore, whether they realize it or not, most protestants believe in a “Great Apostasy” theory of history that is virtually identical with that of the LDS.
If all Christians of which we have any record-including the disciples of the Apostles-were unanimously wrong about how we become Christians, how the Church is governed, and how we worship as Christians (the “Three Doctrines”), there is no more fitting description of this massive falling away than a “Great Apostasy.”
This necessarily means that creatures (the protestant “reformers,” or the LDS’s “prophet” Joseph Smith) outperformed the Creator, since their “gospels” and “churches” have now in one form or another lasted for centuries, whereas when Jesus originally established them, they fell apart immediately.
In the writings of the Church Fathers every time they spoke about heresy and heretics, they were describing Protestantism. Protestantism is all over the place on the different positions. You can’t speak about the Protestant position on something, except perhaps in the form of a negative, like they’re contrary to the Catholic Church, they’re contrary to the Roman Pontiff. But the methods, the means, by which Protestants arrive at their theological conclusions were common in virtually all the heresies and the heretics that the Fathers talked about.
@@SNS-f6g Show 1 historical record of Papacy in the 1st, 2nd AD. By That I mean a writings that points to existence of such offices before 3rd of 4th century. Not a Bishop, Not a Priest, But a Pope!!
What a load of silly extrapolation. "Benjamin Franklin wasn't in the US in 1776 (he wasn't, he was in France) therefore he was NEVER in the US". That's pretty much his silly argument.
We have early Church letters that state, from the BISHOP of Rome (Clement), as an example who wrote to the Corinthians with direction, and references Peter and Paul with him.
Some other things that "The Bible" never even remotely mentions. The Bible never states "Add the New Testament to The Bible", it never stated "Jesus is eternal"(in the past tense), it never says the word "Trinity" or "three in one", it never says a lot of things. Truly, Christianity stands and falls with The Catholic Church, and a bunch of bishops and popes.
This man is a "scholar", in the same sense as Peewee Herman was a "scholar".
John MacArthur has historically taught that a church elder must have children who are “not involved in dissipation and rebellion” and “will never bring scandal upon his good name and the integrity of his spiritual leadership.” In the past, some elders at Grace Community Church have reportedly been asked to step down from leadership because of the misconduct of their children."
But MacArthur remains in his role, despite his son being guilty of actual fraud.
It's pretty clear the son only was able to get into wealth management due to MacArthur's wealth.
I wonder how many victims were Grace Community Church congregants?
You mean how many victims of the catholic church were molested by priests. It has been going on for years and years . Now you're pope is blessing lgbtq. And don't get me started on the 600 year catholic inquisition
Pourtant Pierre bâtit l’Eglise de son Maître le Christ. McArthur , lui , ne bâtit rien : il sait seulement quoi faire pour s’en mettre plein les poches avec de purs mensonges ! Honte à ce boniment !
John MacArthur speaks the truth. Roman Catholicism is clearly heretical & apostate. Anyone with an honest look at it can't help but come to that conclusion. My grandfather was a Catholic & the Lord pulled him out of the false teaching of this evil. It was amazing listening to his studied analysis of Roman Catholicism. What is so obvious can't be seen by the unelect.
Simple verses like Ephesians 2:8-9 & 1 Timothy 2:5 & Matthew 23:9 to name a few should open a mind but not for those not chosen, "predestinated before the foundation of the world."
So grandfather is dragging you to Hell with him. Satan gets a two-for.
Because Peter was made the foundation of the Church, there were practical implications: it gave him a special place or primacy among the apostles. As the passages below demonstrate, the early Church Fathers clearly recognized this.
Clement of Alexandria
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
Tertullian
“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
The Letter of Clement to James
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed” (Letter of Clement to James 1 [A.D. 221]).
Origen
“[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).
“[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there-he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14).
“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32-34]” (ibid., 17:27).
Ephraim the Syrian
“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
Jerome
“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
Pope Innocent I
“In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).
Augustine
“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).
“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
Council of Ephesus
“Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (ibid., session 3).
I’m confused how is he never the Pope? Does that means Francis isn’t the current Pope?
The first pope was actually Bishop Vitalian of Rome, when he was put in charge of the churches in Rome by emperor Constans II. In the late 600s.
@@thejohnmarkproject so was Peter just make belief or something?
@@vman9347
Why are you leaping to such a strange conclusion?
.
Peter is real. Popes are not.
.
There's no such thing as popes. The Catholic church made it up.
@@vman9347hey bro, are you really confused or just playing dumb, devil's advocate? 😅
Every important organization on earth has a leader & it's the same with the church. The Pope is a representative of Jesus, making sure the church is always going in the right direction, plain & simple. Idiots like MacArthur have polluted the issue & have their own demonic agendas. 🤔
@@thejohnmarkprojectthere were 33 popes before Constantine
We don't give people of God Anathema, curse, no ❤❤❤, speak the truth in love , thanks to Pastor John MacThur
@@bettymofokeng3404 like Jesus did when he told people they were the children of Satan. If the shoe fits wear it. Macarthur doesnt have a loving bone in his body
Should have titled it "John Macarthur denies Jesus is a David King. Davidic Kings didnt have an Asher Al Habayit."
Really? NO mention of bishops, priests or nuns? Either he is very ignorant of what the bible actually says, or he is acting out of malice. There are many mentions of bishops (Episcopo or overseer), priests (presbyters), and people who live consecrated lives (Nazarites, Anna the prophetess).
@leoashura8086 *Self claims cannot be "amen ed". Prove your self claims.*
you said
Peter is the first Pope. Amen
Pray for soul. He is outside the church and there is no salvation outside the Church. His hatred will condemn him. He is in formal heresy run away from this man now
There is no salvation outside of faith in Christ. Catholics always point to the church fathers, the disciples, the Pope, the saints, Mary, physical buildings, Catholic Church membership etc. You guys always forget to point to Jesus. Talk about Jesus, point to Jesus. Catholics say you must go to Mary and she will point to Jesus. Yet Jesus is usually the last thing Catholics are talking about.
@@ekatrinya you are dead wrong.
The Catholic Church is the only legitimate Christian church all the others are Fake
@@ekatrinya A fool will look wise if they keep their trap shut Proverbs 17
As my Catholic Mom said “We are able to read Scripture on our own now. We don’t need some fallible man to explain them to us”. This comment is proof positive that Rome has a False Gospel. Rome seems to always want people to follow “The Church”. Scripture says to have faith in Jesus for Salvation.
In Mark 16:7 an angel on behalf of Jesus told the women, "Go tell his disciples AND Peter" because Peter had 3 times denied knowing Jesus, giving up his apostleship. But in John 21:15-17 Jesus asks Peter 3 times if he still loves Him. (Why?) To restore Peter's apostleship. Praise the Lord! I hope this is of use to you Pastor John! A superb post!!!
Simon Magus was the first bishop of Rome. Simon the sorcerer. There were even statues made of him declaring him God in rome in that time.
Sauce?
@@friendlyfire7509 ua-cam.com/video/kYH0ZmG7cpE/v-deo.html
Just another MacArthur type lie
How about Calvinism was not a religion until after Luther started his own version of a church? How about Calvin, just another guy, who thought if Luther could start his own church, and interpret the word of God in his own interpretation, I will also do it, however I will make enmity my greatest tool, turning my people to judge ridicule, and hate anyone who does not hold to my version of my bible?
Yeah for pastor John MacArthur. ❤
Where in the bible are thr canon of books?
Tell me so i can chose a binle that is biblical so i can go off to my desert island.
Really I have read the Apocryphal books. There is nothing more tht I need then the Bible, the inspired Word of God for salvation. The Bible tells me how to be saved, we are to be of 1 mind, 1 baptism, 1 accord. We are to worship in spirit now, we are saved by Grave we have been saved thru faith and not of ourselves. JESUS was crucified he is the only perfect human/God and imputed his righteousness to me and he nailed my filthy sins on tht cross. I repent and believe. I DONT need any other book to tell me any other thing. I don't have to burn insence kill a goat, pray to a rosary. Jesus is now our propritiation I confess my sins to Him and no one else. He forgives me. No longer do I need a go between to talk to my Lord .
To be accursed from the Catholic Church is the first step towards receiving the true blessing of Christ.
Kindly review my comment above with the following heading =
CHALLENGE = Can = any = Protestant, including John MacArthur, present an answer to this most = basic = and necessary
Question = Why did Jesus incarnate as a Man and die on the Cross ??
(( Note = a review of the following points is helpful before answer ))
Read the 26 points numbered from A to Z and give me your answer = if you are able =
John MacArthur is so off on this subject it makes me my head hurt. It is dangerous to speak of the church Jesus founded as “evil”.
What is the motive of MacArthur denying Jesus appointing Simon?Jesus said Simon is the rock, Simon is Peter. Jesus is the church. Jesus built the church on the rock, head by Simon, by Peter. Jesus handed over the keys of heaven to Simon, to Peter. The RC believes that Peter is the first RC leader, the first Pope of the church that Jesus built on the rock.
Ephesians 5 says even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. Christ is the bridegroom and the church is his bride
Jesus is the Rock. Look at the context. The only one who has the keys to heaven and hell is God. 1°Co 3:10-11; 10:4
1°Pt 2:4-8. There's no other foundation besides God
@@murilolinsdacruz4110 Did Jesus love the rock or the church?😀
Try actually reading the Bible. Roman Catholicism is rife with pagan influence: Transubstantiation/Mass,Relics, Limbo, Purgatory, Worship of Mary & much more. Your popes, bishops, cardinals, priest are all sinners who can't save anyone. WAKE UP
Sulo...I know you and I are on the same page but to clarify for others, Jesus is the head of His body the church and the 'R' in RC was first coined by 16th C. Anglicans as a slander against the Catholic Church. The word Roman best describes the particular 'Rite' of The Catholic Church based in Rome. There are 23 other Catholic churches under various other Rites but all in union with their mother church in Rome.
I'm going to tell you right now I'm a Baptist and I would never speak a word against the Saints like you have today Spirit of Antichrist. Exposure of the Catholic church is one thing but calling Saint Peter cowardly... do you know how Brave it is to be crucified upside down to be persecuted while you're preaching the gospel that takes balls of steel. No you don't get to do that you don't get to take one of my brothers and bring him down to your level. That man right there met with Jesus communed with Jesus and walked the walk of saint hood better than any American Gentile today. I will give the Saints their Credence in mastery. And I myself won't think highly of myself. Speak against the church go ahead if it's apostasy but don't you harm one hair on the head of that Legacy of our Saints.
I used to be an avid listener of John MacArthur, I believed pretty much anything he said. I started reading church history and found that MacArthur's theology is not present at all. I became Catholic in 2020. In part thanks to him for encouraging me to educate myself and the factual and biblical truths of the matter.
Well done🎉
Been reading church history and the fathers and I was very swayed initially by the beauty the Catholic Church has created and its reach but then I had to face papal infallibility and the politics and influence of Charlemagne/others and now I’m looking to find an Orthodox Church to become a catechumen. The pope’s recent heresies put it over the top sadly but my dream is a united catholic Orthodox Church.
@@TC-jo2vj
Good luck
All churches have issues. Orthodox have quite a list also.
Stay on the Catholic Church.
Try the Byzantine Catholic Church
How can MacArther's theology not be present...when he is rooted in Scripture?
@@spacecoastz4026
Present?
Explain ty
James wasnt the head of the church at Jerusalem. He was 1 of the elders but not a singular head
Lord, have mercy on this man for his pride and willful ignorance.
Sounds like you are the one that is prideful and willfully ignorant.
Sorry folks this is truth Jesus is the way the truth and our only mediator not the pope or Mary u need to follow the truth
We Catholics agree. Thats why we eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus Christ ONLY. 👍🏻 You should too.
John MacArthur would have to have met Jesus amd asked him personally to verify the claim in this video. It should be called: a Protestant defends his dogma.
If John MacArthur had met Jesus he would have called him the Anti - Christ and His words anathema and anti biblical
Cool! I never heard biblical evidence that Peter cannot be the pope, great way of reading the greetings of the epistles!
Brother read it for yourself, this man clearly makes mistakes. He claims Peter was never called to preach to the gentiles, that is found twice in scripture. Acts. Don’t be deceived by someone that hates Catholics.
Mr MacArthur has got those blinkers on again. If you do little research and confine yourself to ten minutes of simplistic reasoning you will stand a good chance of getting it wrong!!!! The Bible nowhere explicitly says Peter was in Rome; but, on the other hand, it doesn’t say he wasn’t. In fact, very little is said about where he, or any of the apostles other than Paul, went in the years after the Ascension. For the most part, we have to rely on books other than the New Testament for information about what happened to the apostles in later years. John is wrong to dismiss these early documents as conveyors of mere “legend.” They are genuine historical evidence, as every professional historian recognizes.
What the Bible Says
Mr MacArthur is also wrong when he claims, “there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peter’s] epistles.” There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”
Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).
These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.
“But there is no good reason for saying that ‘Babylon’ means ‘Rome,’” insists John MacArthur. But there is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (see Rev. 11:8).
But let us be generous and admit that it is easy for an opponent of Catholicism to think that Peter was never in Rome, at least if he bases his conclusion on the Bible alone. But restricting his inquiry to the Bible is something he should not do; external evidence has to be considered, too.
Early Christian Testimony
William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that “Peter came to Rome and died there” and that “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.” A few examples must suffice, but they and other early references demonstrate that there can be no question that the universal-and very early-position was that Peter certainly did end up in the capital of the empire.
A Very Early Reference
Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Protestants admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there.
In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.
In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.
Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.” (THANKS TO CA)
Because Peter was made the foundation of the Church, there were practical implications: it gave him a special place or primacy among the apostles. As the passages below demonstrate, the early Church Fathers clearly recognized this.
Clement of Alexandria
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
Tertullian
“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
The Letter of Clement to James
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed” (Letter of Clement to James 1 [A.D. 221]).
Origen
“[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).
“[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there-he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14).
“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32-34]” (ibid., 17:27).
Ephraim the Syrian
“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
Jerome
“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
Pope Innocent I
“In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).
Council of Ephesus
“Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (ibid., session 3).
Pope Leo I
“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it” (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445).
“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery” (ibid., 10:2-3).
“Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head” (ibid., 14:11).
Mary was not a blonde or European.????
Jewish
With all do respect but, Everything he said is just B.S. John mc. Matthew 16:18…read it without your bias editing.
Paul also places Peter elsewhere when Catholics place him on his first sojourn in Rome.
Paul also states that the converts in Rome never heard of the Holy Ghost, odd since Peter knew since Pentecost in Jerusalem.
You can not honestly believe any word coming from the Vatican they will say anything true or false to bring Rome as superior to other 4 Patriarchates.
1/ Peter was in Rome. 2/ Nobody claimed he went anywhere different. 3/ St Augustine " What had the Chair of the Roman Church done to you in which Peter sat and in which And in which Anastasius sits today..... " Augustine (5th Century)...... 4/ Jerome (2nd Century) says "Simon Peter in the second year of Claudius pushed on to Rome. He held the sacerdotal chair there for 25 years until the 14th year of Nero when he was crucified upside down with his head near the floor..... " 5/ See the you tube video "Was Peter in Rome ? (Yes Peter was in Rome!) "
This is why this man is wrong. Read John last chapter not everything is in the bible.
Everything we NEED is in the Bible.
Spoiler Alert: He did not disprove the papacy. Just blabbering, intellectual dishonesty, and a bunch of mental gymnastics.
The Bishop of Rome wasn't the Leader of the Church. The Bishop of Jerusalem was infact the Early Leader of the Church. The First Leader after Jesus was James "The Just"
Brother of the Lord Jesus Christ.
the peculiar alexandrian philosopher folk don't like that version of history
Bro have you never read Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Iranaeus, Tertullian, Jerome???? All these guys were calling the bishop of Rome or Rome (the Church their) where all the church is centered to visibly (in so to speak words)
I don't agree with everything John MacArthur preaches but all he says here is on point! Christ is pointing to himself as the Rock upon whom his
church would be built. The gates of hell did prevail against Peter when he denied his lord! At one point Jesus rebuked Peter as an instrument who Satan was able to use to try to tempt Him in avoiding his sacrificial mission.
The fathers of the church don't agree with you!
Because Peter was made the foundation of the Church, there were practical implications: it gave him a special place or primacy among the apostles. As the passages below demonstrate, the early Church Fathers clearly recognized this.
Clement of Alexandria
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
Tertullian
“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
The Letter of Clement to James
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed” (Letter of Clement to James 1 [A.D. 221]).
Origen
“[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).
“[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there-he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14).
“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32-34]” (ibid., 17:27).
Ephraim the Syrian
“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
Jerome
“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
Pope Innocent I
“In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).
Augustine
“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).
“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
Council of Ephesus
“Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (ibid., session 3).
He has hatred for the church of Christ, hence, a false teacher.
Just a thought, Peter, who comprised... Is the example of the pope's who followed. Now there is a pope who calls for blessing to homosexuals. What happened? God save us, please!!
Other devils, evils, satan try to rock the Catholic Church and its unity in Jesus Christ!
No it’s not. You guys are deceived. You guys do faith + works= salvation rather than faith = salvation + works. Also you guys practically worship Mary which is unbiblical and idolatry. You guys also have broken the second commandment and made graven images of the host of heaven as idols. Also you guys believe that the pope is on the same authority as Christ, which is heresy. Also during the mass you guy’s literally take Christ from His throne and sacrifice Him continually cause ig to you His first and only sacrifice want enough. I could go on
Well at first they had incest but changed.
Did hou know that Catholics have very little regard for the written revealed word of the God?
Oh Harold, you've never read the whole Bible yourself. In your defense a guy named Harold probably has poor comprehension skills.
😂
Strange that - given the fact that they are encouraged to go to Mass daily if possible and have at least 3 readings (including the Psalm ) in the Mass which it self is based on the Word of God (recounted in 7 scripture John 6 etc)
The bible exists because the catholic church assembled it, you realize this right? And it's books, especially its gospels, are expressed heavily at masses
Not a fan of Mac-y boy or Catholicism but Mac laid down the smack on the cats
Full of Gabbage
The devil is good in claiming things, first he showed Jesus the world and claimed to be his but in fact God made it, now he is claiming Peter's tomb and Peter's bones, if Peter is still alive he would have cut this devil's ear too.
I'm not defending Catholicism, but want to say Satan was not claiming to have created the world. He said it had been "given" to him, which is true. Jesus did not call him a liar because He knew what had happened.
c'omn guys, stop protesting ! enough of protest. Please seek the truth.
Seek the one church that God created. It can not fail because Jesus told so, if you believe Jesus and his words then where is that Church??
it is One Holy Catholic Church. You know that, but still you chose to protest.
Paul hated the Apostle Peter... you cannot use Paul as a testimony because of his jealousy of St Peter! Therefore was Peter the Pope? No! But! Peter was the foremost disciple of Jesus, Peter was the PETRA ROCK of the church, Peter had the keys to open the kingdom of heaven to Jews & Gentiles! Peter bound up and released the Holy Spirit on Jews & Gentiles! Death did not contain these people that belonged to Christ in Hades! These are those that are of the first resurrection that escaped death by resurrection in AD 70. PETER WAS THE ROCK. None of there bones remain in any grave on earth because they ascended into heaven.
jesus gave his life for this dogma. the apostles gave their life for this dogma. and so I would give my life for any catholic dogma
What?
@@mikemorth9737 like you said what?
Did Christ give his life for the dogma of papal infallibility which was voted in by a split vote in 1870? Stop being so foolish. Repent my friend. You're living in darkness
@@ETHANGELIST I was a protestant and John Mcarthur was my favorite preacher. I, too, hated the catholic church before I knew her.
But then I got to know her and fell completely in love with her. This was the beginning of real faith in Jesus. You cannot have a living connection with Jesus unless you become catholic and participate in the mass.
I prayed for you, my friend 🙏
@@MeisterEck My wife and mother are ex-Roman Catholics, now Protestants. They hate Rome and its idolatry. Conversion is not evidence.
It seems you were discontent with simple God-ordained worship and commandments and so you wanted the prideful, showy pomp of Rome and its idolatrous mass and graven images. You've turned a piece of bread into Christ to bow down and worship. This is disgraceful and you will face judgment for your idolatry one day if you do not repent. You being "completely in love" with a church institution says it all my friend. You don't love Christ, but the church.
John McArthur twists scripture to mean whatever he wants it to mean he's doing the same manipulation techniques of the false prophets
@joeblogs-vx4ep *You will have to cite examples to be more convincing.*
1
2
3
you said
John McArthur twists scripture to mean whatever he wants it to mean he's doing the same manipulation techniques of the false prophets
Pastor John MacArthur is just a false teacher.
Premise - 1
Preachers are saying only JESUS was born WITHOUT SIN, that's absolutely TRUE.
Premise -2
SEX isn't a Sin inside marriage between a Husband and Wife, Preachers are saying.
Premise - 3
If it's then what about children born of such marriage without sin or with sin?
Therefore, If they say without sin, then they contradicts 1st Premise. If they say with sin then they contradicts 2nd Premise.
So, without resolving this issue, embarking on the ministry for JESUS is something unfruitful, & this is what they're doing so far.
You don't make a coherent argument. After reading it thrice, I still have no clue what your argument is to come to the conclusion that John MacArthur teaches falsehoods.
Sin is passed down from Adam (Roman's 5). Jesus didn't have an earthly father so no sin nature.
@@mikemorth9737 So, why don't you say sex between husband and wife inside marriage is sin?
@@SojournerDidimus Why don't he say that sex between husband and wife inside marriage is sin when it produces only sinful offspring?
Only JESUS was born without sin that simply proves the rest of all are born with sin.
@@godevidence2834 because it isn't? Where did you get that becoming one flesh is sin?
False religion? Wow maybe go slow for a bit, I also dont compell getting catholic but catholics who believe in Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour are our brothers and sisters. Jesus did not forbid to follow tradition, only to put it above scripture which of course a lot of Catholics do and some of their teachings are deeply wrong but I wouldnt go that far and call them all satanic dude what the actual heck