The Roman Catholic Controversy Part 11

Give us your spirit to grant us insight into the mysteries of your word.

Father, help us to approach this topic of papal invalidity with a sense of reverence and a sense of sacredness as we look at the one who truly inspires all things, the

Lord Jesus Christ, by whom a scripture is received to serve our prophecy.

So Father, we pray that you would grant us your peace, your insight and all these things and more for the glory of your name.

We demand it in your kingdom, in Jesus' name. Amen. Beloved, we are still in chapter 8.

We're going to be looking at some of the pretexts used to justify the doctrine of papal invalidity.

And the first verse we're going to look at is in John 21, verse 15 -17.

So we have to look at page 113. And the scripture is quoted there.

And so all we're going to do is look at some apologetic words for the

Catholics. On the subject that I'm going to read to you from, this is a pretty official source.

It's not in the Catholic analysis. The Catholic Catholics, as I showed you before, this is kind of the rule of faith for the

Catholics. If you are willing to be confirmed to the Roman Catholic Church, you're going to get your book. This is

Catholicism. These are all official, you know, doctrinal units of the

Roman Catholic Church. But what's the next best option, I'll tell you, this is probably the most straightforward one, which is

Catholic .com. Okay, so pretty official in terms of the internet.

And here's what they write about this text in particular. In regard to that, there's an explanation on it.

Now, let's process this first. What do we mean by, or what is supposed to be papal infidelity?

What is that? Okay, in the context, in the context, right?

Okay, so papal infidelity means that when the pope is speaking ex cathedra, he's in his apostate capacity.

He is infallible because he's speaking in a sense that we're trying to work it out.

But this doesn't mean that every single thing that comes out of the pope's mouth crosses off and confuses. Not everything that comes out of the pope's mouth is inherently infallible.

Again, all I do is look at Roman Catholic issues because they're just constantly conflicting posts.

Pope Benedict was viewed as very moderate. Conservative?

Conservative. But in the Roman Catholic world, he was viewed as very conservative.

Pope Francis is viewed as moderate. Liberal? Very liberal. Now, the reason why

Benedict was viewed as conservative was because he was on a hard line, not necessarily on important doctrinal issues or even social issues, but on ecclesiastical issues.

Okay? He was very conservative as to his ecclesiastical understanding of the Church, meaning that he vested a lot of power and authority within the usual channels of the

Church, versus Pope Francis, who usually usurps his ecclesiastical authority.

And so he's constantly conflicting. He's on a hard line. He's constantly conflicting with official Roman Catholicism.

He says that you need to go to heaven. When he actually probably means that there's an opportunity for them to go to heaven, that's what his position would be.

But he says a lot of things that maybe can look a little bit liberal and progressive. But really the only difference was how conservative or moderate they were on ecclesiastical issues.

But they do often conflict themselves in certain areas. So this doesn't mean that everything that a

Pope says in an interview or anyone who's preaching a sermon doesn't mean that it's infallible.

That makes you a liberal Catholic. Simply put, when an official channels, when he's doing something in what he refers to as cathedra, that's when he is exercising his infallibility.

And here's what they say in regards to this text that we're examining from John 21.

It's one of the texts as well. The infallibility, and again we're going to count on this as apologetic work in regards to the infallibility of the

Pope. The infallibility of the Pope is not a doctrine studied here in church teaching specifically.

Rather it is a doctrine that was implicit in the early church.

What's the difference between implicit and explicit? Yes?

Implicit, you kind of have to read between the lines. Say again? Implicit, you kind of have to read between the lines.

Okay. Whereas explicit is... You tell your kid, go clean your room.

Is that explicit or implicit? Explicit. You say, be nice in your room.

Explicit or implicit? Now let's see if these scriptures meet that criteria.

Again, it's interviewed as a doctrine that is implicit in the early church.

It is only our understanding, as I continue my quote, of infallibility that...

So they're saying this is something that was already in the scripture. But our understanding of it grew and became...

And this is the claim. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these metric texts.

John 21, 15 -17, where Jesus tells Peter, feed my sheep.

Luke 22 -32, where it says, I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail in relation to Peter.

And Matthew 16 -18, where it says, before Peter, this rock I will build in my church.

Let's see if these texts are implicit or explicit. Or maybe something else is higher in relation to the claims of the

Roman Catholic Church. So again, page 113. Turn and look. We're going to be full.

We're going to read all of John 20. So they had finished breakfast.

Jesus said to Simon, Peter. Simon said unto John, do you love me more than these?

The these being who? The other apostles that I've written in this case. He said to them, yes

Lord, you know that I love you. He said to them, thank my lambs. He said to them again a second time,

Simon said unto John, do you love me? He said to them, yes Lord, you know that I love you. He said to Simon, shepherd my sheep.

He said to him a third time, Simon said unto John, do you love me? Peter was grieved as he said to him the third time, do you love me?

He said to them, Lord, you know all things. You know that I love you. And Jesus said to them, attend my sheep.

A lot of the religiously authorizations that we can draw off this text. One of the things is that this is a clear, you know, talking back to what

Peter did in the Gospels and all of that. What did Peter do three times?

He died first. Denied Christ three times. Now here is being asked twice more three times, do you love me?

Do you love me? Do you love me? And Peter being a hothead, he is a goodhead. Like he is not sinning through it, right?

He is like that petulant child who is just ambitious. Like you know everything, right?

Like why am I going to have this conversation when you know all things? And he is not sinning less than Jesus is trying to produce in him.

If Peter was indeed a fool, the one thing he had in common with all of those is that they are all hothead and they are all kind of fooling themselves.

And Peter had a little bit of that in himself as well. But what is interesting about the text is that nowhere here in my view, explicit or implicit, is there any value in it.

Do you see the text? Can you draw that conclusion anywhere from the text just by reading it?

So if you are in a text file, file stand two, what does the conclusion you would like to draw?

Now that doesn't mean that that is just because you want to draw that conclusion that it is not a right conclusion. Let's make that clear.

But typically the simple just baseline reading of the text is usually the right answer.

It is basically the right answer to the text. So nowhere do we see explicit or implicit anything about infallibility of Peter and actually sort of rebuke to Peter in a sense to show that he is in fact fallible.

Part of the fact is that you are going to deny Christ. And so that is why again the three rights question in the end, do you love me?

If you do, feed my sheep. Tend my sheep. Feed my sheep. It is a similar view actually to Peter because he denied

Christ. Now he is saying do not deny my body. Do not deny my people. Feed them.

Take care of them. Shepherd them. Pastor them. Because Peter is not a pope, but Peter is a pastor.

How do we know that in the text? Feed my sheep. Shepherd my sheep.

What is a pastor? It is a shepherd. Literally what the word actually means. It is a shepherd. So he is not a poor pope.

He is certainly a monk or a pastor of a traditional church. In fact, Peter is the one who steps up on the day of Pentecost and preaches the grace of the

Lord and leads the salvation of 3 ,000 people. And so Peter is indeed a monk or a pastor of a traditional church, not a poor pope.

There is nothing here in the text that would implicitly or implicitly negate this kind of position. Any questions on this text?

Yes. Why does Jesus ask if Simon loves me more than he is?

Why does he ask that question? Because in Matthew Chapter 16, there is an argument about who is the best amongst the apostles.

That is where he denies. He ends up saying Jesus is more fortunate than I am. So the review is subtle.

He is saying, do you love me more than he is? Remember you are the one who says, do you love me more than he is? And so then feed my sheep.

Prove it. Demonstrate your love. And Jesus says, John, continue to love me and you will obey your sheep in my hands.

And so he is challenging Peter to arise into the education. Any other thoughts or questions?

We'll take a break. We'll be back in 15. We're going to be examining John 21, verses 15 to 17 on the papal plates.

Now, when we examine some of the inter -church law, we're still on the text. You have people like Sir Alexander, who is a 3rd or 4th century

Christian writer. And he does not view this text as establishing

Peter as a person of God. And so it may be that he has a very far -off understanding of this text.

In fact, I have not read the whole quote. I'll just read the papal plate through.

He had already been chosen to be an apostle. But because he was an apostle, he now feels that he's sick.

And in his Acts of Griefful Confession, it lays a scriptural line that takes you to that parallel that is drawn there.

Contrasting the fall of the ladder, contrasting the fall of the direction. That's the point of this text.

That's the point of this text. And that's the point why, again, Jesus asks us three times, do you love, do you love, do you love us?

You deny them three times. This is a kind of a compensation for that. And a compensation for the fall of the direction.

So, very cross -interpreting. So, again, you would draw the conclusion that, from the text of John 21, that Peter is a person of God.

Again, a fabulous argument that he's a person of God. It's clear. It's very clear. But if you're a pastor, you need to hold an authority, and you need to claim that he's valuable.

And this is, again, why I shy away from Paul and from Paul's literature. And since we have to,

I'm going to call it as I see it. Now, because of the fact that Peter was a pet, a pastor, a shepherd, it's no surprise then that Paul's being sheep is no different than the job of a pastor.

The job of a pastor today is also to feed, guard, protect the sheep. It's our responsibility, it's our duty.

And it's not unique to St. Peter by any means. How do we know this? Well, Acts chapter 20 verse 28, where we see this instruction.

To be on guard for yourself and for all the flock. This is a particular instruction to pastors.

Be on guard for yourself and for all the flock. Now, among which the Holy Spirit made you overseers, there were overseers, is all times and centuries later,

King James Bishop. And there are those who would distinguish

Bishop Elder, and there are those who would say there's no distinction between Bishop Elder. Is that the same?

I made you overseers. And this is one of the reasons why it's the same. To what? To shepherd, pastor, the church of God which he purchased with his own blood.

So the overseers equated pastors to this text. And this is the responsibility of all pastors, of all worshipers, of all bishops, not just one person.

The Holy Spirit has made you. That's right. It's like he's in you. That's right. There was no technical counsel that established that person as an overseer is a bolster.

Right? Any thoughts or questions on that? So we see here, yeah. When Peter says, do you love me more than he is, what was the cross -reference?

I think it was in Matthew 6. I'm not sure if it was in that text, but when they start picking up on who is the greatest among them.

So here's the text again. From John. We stand in very clear contrast between what the

Prophets also claim to teach us along the years. And it's a confessional stance on the infallibility of the

Lord. Now again, when you guys walk in the door, you get to hear this quote over and over again.

And this is from Catholic .com. It's a kind of apologetic response to the

Prophets in regards to keeping the infallibility. And it says again, the infallibility of the Lord is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in church teaching.

Rather, it is a doctrine that was implicit in the early church. Again, we're discussing the difference between explicit and implicit.

Explicit is a commandment in your room. Implicit is a commandment in your room. And the difference is there.

And it says, it's only our understanding of infallibility. It is only our understanding of infallibility that was implicit.

This is something that was established in the early scriptures. But our understanding of it kind of grew and became more established.

It says, in fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these pre -tribute texts. John 21, verse 17, which we just read.

Luke 22, verse 22, which we're reading along with. Matthew 16, verse 18, which is another text that they claim.

Where you have an implicit statement. Or at least at the base of the seed.

Or a building block for this doctrine of understanding of infallibility. The third for Peter's confession.

Constant need for correction. Even an apostle. As we see in Acts chapter 10. Was Peter always that one?

No. But, 2 Peter chapter 1. He was inspired.

And carried along by the Holy Spirit. To bring forth the minor proclamations. The minor pre -tribute teaching.

And of course, scripture. Right? And so, you know. The Catholics would draw that parallel. They would say, look at what

Peter told us. Or said. It was perfect. Clearly. But, he's still inspired by the

Holy Spirit. That's the parallel that they were trying to draw. And it's not a bad parallel actually.

There's truth in that. In relation to Peter. The question is. Is that also true?

Of all the other posts. Of all the other men. Peter.

Let's continue to examine scripture. If you have any questions. The word of the Lord. You sound a little bit nitpicky.

But, I think we have to remind ourselves of that. It's the text of scripture that's inspiring.

You could say the Holy Spirit carried him along to say that. Correct. Because, it inspired Bartholomew Latin. When Dionysus needs to breathe down.

That's right. Scripture is, obviously, the father of the world.

The anchor of the Christian. Again, we're in the Catholic Church. And you have that. Because they're Bartholomew Latin. What's that?

Because they're Bartholomew Latin. Yeah. I mean. There's a miracle. We can think that.

Of course. Our thing. Our study. Is to. This group. Is to. See what is actually true.

In accordance with scripture. But, in Luke chapter 22. This is the beginning of the 14th book.

Supposedly, this also teaches people authority. But, they say to us.

When it says. Sign something. The old saying is. The man of the nation is swiftly like me. But, I pray for you.

That your faith may not fail. And, you. Would want to serve in the industry with your brothers.

And so. This is a reading here. From. Peter's model.

Lord is mentioned. The Lord warns Peter. To say that he's in danger. He replies. Yet, Peter replies.

Rashly. First church. Three. Lord. With you. I'm ready to go. Both. To prison. And, to death.

So, they can see. The rashness of Peter. Always. Wanting to be the hero of the story.

He says. To which. The Lord replies. That Peter. Will get a guideline. He replies. For Maccabus.

I've cited this passage. To confirm. That Peter. Will get a guideline.

For Maccabus. I've cited this passage.

To confirm. That Peter. Will get a guideline. For Maccabus.

For Maccabus. For Maccabus. I've cited this passage. For Maccabus. I've cited this passage. Will get a guideline. Will get a guideline. By its assertions here.

It is almost as rash. As some of the paintings made. As. The paintings made.

In regard to. Their earliest. I've. Who freeze.

To the gospel. Mother of God. You've heard of that, what, the scripture? And so there's one of the

Godhead, I think they're Korean or something, and they believe that if the scripture is teaching the

Godhead, it's dealing with the Father, Son, and God Almighty. And they base this off literally these two scriptures.

And one of the main reasons for it is our mother is Jesus Christ.

And from that, they've done this huge job to change the Godhead. And that's bold.

And that would require a lot of just these two verses of scripture that are very vague, not even on the theological subject that they're thinking it is.

And they do this huge job. And I feel like that's where we count churches in relation to people of authority.

They're taking that text that is unique to an individual at a unique point in time, here, right before the suffering of Christ, and they say, well, this actually exists.

And they balloon this as something that is way bigger than what was originally intended. And then as they call upon it, they have false teachers and false, they will take a scripture that is sometimes vague, sometimes not very well understood, and they will make a huge doctrinal dogma out of it.

And so that is a very strange thing. It's like the Mormons do with the baptism of the dead.

Oh, yeah, that's right. There's one text of scripture in 1 Corinthians 13 where Paul mentions baptism of the dead.

And they say, oh, there you go, because we're baptism of the dead people. Having now read that you all are dead, and you're trespassing the sins in which you used to walk, and so the baptism of the dead is not the actual dead people, but those who are spiritually suffered with Christ, who are now in the life of Christ, which is the whole topic of 1

Corinthians 15 is the resurrection of Christ, and are joined in him in that resurrection. And so, again, just really bad imperatives and exegesis all around when it relates to the moralist and moralist consensus, and especially among Catholics, especially when we're talking about people and people authority.

So this is a text that just leaves me perplexed. I guess their reasoning is, as I agree,

Catholic apologists, is that this conversation between Jesus and Peter, you know,

Jesus is singling out Peter, specifically Peter, and he's calling him, you know, saying, you know, saying he's wanting his foot to be like wheat, and I'm praying that they may not fall.

And the reason for that, as was explained by James 1, is because he's about to bind the three mothers. So why this special conversation with Peter?

Again, we want to talk about the special. What does John, you know, the disciple, say of himself in the

Gospels? That's right. So, you know,

Peter's always like, I'm kidding, I'm kidding, kidding, kidding, right? But Jesus, you know, where John, God says, well,

I'm actually excited that Jesus loved, right? You know, how is this question, how is it going to, you know, add its part?

And so, if people notice, we have kids, you know, and every father and every mother should have said this, okay?

I love you all the same, right? And it's true. We should love our children the same.

But you go to the Protestant libraries, sometimes we love them a little bit different, okay? Because none of their kids, and some kids need a different approach, love, care, discipline.

Because not all kids are reading, and I think that's how Christ views us, and that's how he views his disciples. He viewed them all different.

He loved them all, of course. But John said, hey, there's a special relationship here, that was maybe just a little bit different.

And Peter also wants that, and I think he's oftentimes jealous of that, because he's the one, I think, who was the greatest of the

Apostles. But again, this is a horror product from what the Catholics came claiming.

And I would say that this is among any group that claims to be the true church are making a claim of authority.

And so, to know whether a church is true or not, one must claim, one must look at their claims of authority, and if those claims are not backed up by Scripture, and they're found to be untrue, then by virtue, the church is untrue.

So it's very dangerous when a church says, we alone are the true church because of our execution.

And so it's a very dangerous thing. We don't claim to be the only true church, do we?

Yeah. That'd be pretty bold. Now, do we claim to be part of the true church?

Yes. But there's a difference there, because the level of exclusivity and authority that we're claiming are different volumes here.

We say, hey, we're part of the true church. We are making a pretty bold claim. But if we said, hey, only this church with 39 members is the true church, that is a stretch.

More than that, actually. Because Christ's church is not limited to one's claim of authority around the

Scripture claim of authority. Christ is the head of this church. So again, we're examining a novel page.

We've got several verses, too, we can look at, as well, in regards to the big one being

Matthew 16. Actually, I want you to just turn your bibles. This is a text that comes up often in the church.

We have a very unique understanding of the creation of this verse, and so do the early

Catholics. It's Matthew 16.

Let's start again with this confession, starting in verse 13. This is a text that's come down to us all.

It says, now, when Jesus came to the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, who do people say that the

Son of Man is? And they said, some say John the Baptist, others say

Elijah, others say Jeremiah or one of the prophets. He said to them, well, who do you say that I am?

First of all, what an interesting concept here. Some say that you are

John the Baptist, who was just beheaded not that long ago and we're clearly two distinct people.

Some say that you're Elijah. Well, that's interesting. Well, there's an expectation of Elijah returning back now, right?

Elijah will come from a very different day of war. There's that expectation. And then it says, okay, you are someone saying

Jeremiah or one of the prophets. Now, this is kind of surprising to me actually.

There's a group that we associate with Easter religions.

You know, who is it? It takes some form of reincarnation. And we usually associate it with Easter religions.

And there are some who believe in the Christian faith who say, well, the Scripture is actually key to the

Christian faith. I don't think that's what the text is pointing to. That's per se.

Clearly, people had some wrong expectations. People had some really weird eschatology.

And so what's the difference? Right? People had some really weird eschatology.

I'm researching my wife is traveling in the South right now. And I'm trying to find a good church.

You know how hard it is to find a good church in the South? You would think otherwise. In the South, man, it's hard out there to find a good church.

And so, you know, I was pretty good. But then they're like, okay, stick with faith. First thing.

We believe in pre -tribulation and rapture. This is the first year I've been out here. I'm going to stick with faith.

That's where you're going to go. That's the little island. I don't care.

But bad eschatology has been around for a long, long time. And so here's some pretty bad eschatological expectations that some of you had at the time.

Was that someone projecting Jesus to become Baptist or Elijah or Jeremiah or one of the prophets?

But Jesus isn't hardly of the matter. It isn't correct. This bad eschatological understanding gets to the heart of the issue.

Who do you say that I am? In Simon Peter replied, you are the Christ, Messiah, Messiah, the

Son of the living God. And Jesus answered, Lester, are you son of Arjuna? For flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, my father who is in heaven.

So again, this is a pretty unique statement because Jesus praises us all in Peter's confession and blesses

Peter and says that his understanding was not drawn from flesh and blood but is said from heaven.

So pretty, pretty powerful statement in regards to Peter's confession.

Notice who he was going to say in the first statement. And I tell you, you are Peter. Last week

I talked about the different degree words that were used here, Petra, Petraus, Little Rock, Big Rock, and I used to say also that if we're thinking of Protestantism, it's not a product of Christian or Greek interpretation.

Some people feel that it's more, there's a grammatical reason for the distinction and I say obviously that one is a name and one is a description.

So there's an absolutely grammatical difference but there's also a theological difference in that as well that Jesus is drawing.

So I believe that there is an intentional use of the language you are Peter, small stone, and on this rock, rock mass, you know,

I'm a little bit church, Petraus, Petraus, the distinction is there. And so you are

Peter, small rock, and on this rock, rock mass, as a matter of fact there's a quote up here, there's three words for Peter, rock mass, and that's it.

But the rock that Jesus says, you are Peter, small rock, and on this rock literally in terms of rock mass, it's not just like a rock, it's like a mountain, it's like huge.

So he's not saying that Peter is that huge rock mass, rather he is a small piece of that overall rock mass that Jesus is pointing to.

And it says that you are, and notice there's significance here in that we're actually gathered and it says so right there by where we're at.

Where Jesus was laying the mat here was at the top of a cave that was known as the gates of Hades in ancient times, especially by the

Indians who lived there. And so Jesus is making a pretty bold theological claim here.

In front of what was viewed as the gates of Hades in ancient times.

And so he says, you are Peter, small rock, and on this rock literally in terms of the gates of Hades, shall not prevail against it.

And he says, I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven from wherever you find it. And he told, he surely charged himself to tell them the key was for us.

Well, this is a pretty bold text. This is where the reasoning all boils down to, is who has the keys of the kingdom?

Who has the power to lose the body? Now, clearly what is not, which don't deny the cross of Calvary, is that Peter had these keys.

We can't deny that. Now the question is, does Peter now hold an office that is distinct from the other apostles?

That is out of the way of the other apostles, and does he alone have these keys, and are these keys transferable only in an office?

You see where the problem begins? If we make this an exclusive mandate and authority and power vested in Peter, then it's a lot of silence because nowhere else in Scripture do we see these keys expressly conferred from Peter to then another person or another pope and then now a succession of popes.

We don't see even a hint of that in Scripture. So what is the Scripture actually saying here?

Well, again, what's the main point? What's the headline that usually follows the paragraph?

Or what does it say before the paragraph? What does the little headline say?

Peter declares he is the Messiah. Peter makes a confession of faith, right? So is the point here

Peter, or is it the confession that Peter makes? Is it the confession?

The whole point of this text is that you are here, now you have a piece of kingdom.

The point here is that you are Christ, the Son of the Living God. That's where the emphasis is. That's the main idea of, you know, you're taught in rarest of people when you try to put the main idea kind of in the middle.

That's what you want to really grasp onto. Like the studies by Paul, you shouldn't really take those...

Which times? Right, right.

I'm definitely not saying that whatever additions to Scripture that those would always be right, but what's interesting is that almost every headline agrees that the point of this is going to be the confession.

This is the confession that Peter is making. And so ultimately here what's at significance here is not

Peter, but rather the confession that Peter makes. So then, to whom are we in here?

We would argue it is all those who make that confession. All those who make that same -like confession share that same authority.

That is different, obviously, from what Calvin stands to say. This was conferred to Peter and only his successors would have access to this authority.

Then the argument is going to be on both sides. Where's the beef? Where's the data?

Who's right? What does Scripture say on this time? So I will ask you the question and I will have you prove to me that this is not about post.

How can you demonstrate that in Scripture? What argument, what

Scripture? Peter was never put in a position.

Everything's stopped and he's now in charge. Yeah, there were always councils and we were always talking together.

That's right. John? What you said hit the nail on the head.

It's not that Peter is being emphasized. The Lord Jesus is being emphasized.

And the confession is the point when I think about what you're saying, it seems that the

Catholics have taken that and just reversed it. They've somehow put Peter as the emphasis here and made him a special object.

Jesus has always been the special object of our faith. It's never been transferred to any man.

And to do that is just so wrong. And another thing, too, the idea that you pointed out that the church being built on the rock, it's in context.

It rings true what you were saying that it's talking about that rock and what that represented to those people during that time and what they viewed that mountain, that rock as the gates of hell, literally.

So that had a contextual ramification to the people, to the citizens of that space.

They knew that rock. That's, don't go near there.

And the idea of the words here is, it's kind of misleading. The gates of hell will not prevail against it.

But it's almost as if Satan has put a position of, we're put in the position of defending, and Satan's been put in the position of attacking with his gates.

That doesn't even make any sense. I think

I've heard this said, and I've heard it said of a number of people, the rendering is more true to the idea that the gates of hell will not withstand it.

They can't prevent the church from penetrating and from making an entrance and from preventing the evil that they want to perpetrate.

So if we're the ones on the offensive, the Christians, and the idea of the keys, you have the authority now, as a believer who confesses to me, to utilize the power of heaven to hold these evils at bay.

That's right. I totally agree with that. Yeah. But we'll let you know.

Actually, I've got a little stuff here. I've always heard how in Acts 15, to make

Peter the Pope, when that controversy occurred, it was James who seemed to preside.

This is Peter's evidence. It looked like James had had enough and knew what to do. He said, here's what I've decided.

Write it and bring it back to India. It wasn't Peter. It was James. I don't know what his position was, but it certainly wasn't this

Pope who rose up and said, no, I've got the authority. He seemed somehow exquisite to James.

And James was likely the pastor of the church in Jerusalem. And the church in Jerusalem had a prophet who was the leader of the church in the world.

So the Jerusalem church was far more prominent. And that obviously changed the church's history after the destruction of Jerusalem.

So a few more folks have their hands up. Yes, I was just following that. You know, 18, that's wrong.

Bill, Bill. It has, you know, some similarities to the past in regards to Peter's confession that he gives ministry as well, but this is not about Popes or Peter having some special authority.

And I mean, if you look at verse 18, chapter 18 of Matthew, and go to Proverbs, it truly says, whatever you find on earth shall be found in heaven.

Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again, I say to you, if two of you agree on earth on anything,

I ask that you judge me on my father in heaven. Or two or three are judging my name and my money.

And the audience here is the disciples, it's not just Peter that he's talking to here by saying, you guys are able to find anything on earth that you haven't found in heaven.

And the context is also this church system, right? This is the context that establishes the authority of the church members to find who's behalf is agreeable.

This is exactly what Peter in his kingdom says he has that.

So from the context that he's making it clear that this is not an authority that is uniquely to Pope rather than share amongst all of us who have a prophet in Christ.

So this is the text that demonstrates the keys of the kingdom all work through Christ.

Yes? He was asking both questions.

Would he have the new testament also?

Yeah, Christ is a testicle for the church and built on the prophets and apostles by which we are all living and still members of it.

So Ephesians 2, second chapter 1, 1 and 2 points to the living and still members of this grand theophial faith.

But really what it boils down to is the terms of Matthew. Matthew 16, 18. Yeah, so always interpret the scripture of the church as a principle.

Interpreting the scripture means you do the right thing.

Versus what Roman Catholics tend to do which is not necessarily interpret the scripture in light of authority.

So they're saying this isn't right because they say so. And so that's interpreting the scripture in light of authority.

Versus interpreting the scripture in light of the scriptures. Because we draw from the scripture the right and true understanding of the facts.

This is a very, very important principle. Would that be considered the idea of eisegesis and exegesis reading into the scripture or what do you think, what you believe to say from the scripture when it's actually saying

Yeah, so we want to draw from the scripture exegesis to draw out versus eisegesis to put in, and so we don't want to, again, that's what the

Josephuses do. And I use this story often because I remember using this with my sister when a couple years ago she's

Josephus and for the first time in 10 years Paul came to my house and we were talking and we had a long discussion and I said, listen,

I know that the Watchtower interprets, for example, where Paul says that the

Watchtower says what Paul was actually seeing was the piece of heart of the organization that each of you are in today, right?

And it's like, and I said, really? You think all, when he's saying this, and reading this, it's times and times and times.

I can't wait for this for the brotherhood in the year 2000, where he's been in New York and meeting thousands of people.

That's the furthest thing he's taken from his mind. And for him to come to that conclusion, it's like, clearly, you have to do a little bit of reading into the text.

Clearly, you have to kind of put that framework on top of the Bible, on top of the Bible, and for you to even think that conclusion would be anywhere near possible.

It's similar to how the Jewish system says, and I would also say, I don't think we have any dispensation of sacrifices for all of us, dispensation of sacrifices is the same thing we read in the

Revelation, right? So, there was an interpreter in the 1800s, who interpreted the locusts in Revelation 11,

I think, or Revelation 11, I don't know which one it was, too. There's locusts that come from the

Abyss, and one interpreter said in the 1800s, this is the locum mortis.

This is the locum mortis. You don't think of locum mortis, do you, do you? No. But you know what 21st century, 21st century say it is?

It's the weapons. Ah, now we've got it. So, war, war, war, if you're maybe in the 1st century, or if you're referring to the invention of modern, modern invention, maybe you're talking about an army of chariots, then maybe you think it's a locomotive, now it's in the world of warfare, this is eisegesis, reading into the text with your lens, right?

So, we don't do that. We don't do that. We have a scripture, a scripture, a scripture, a scripture, a scripture, a scripture, a scripture, a scripture, a scripture, a scripture, a scripture. And so,

I think again, it comes down to this principle of all things, and especially in relation to capability and compatibility.

There is no, and I'm reading my brief left hand reading through the

Kafka, Kafka .com, and they're all a bottle, and it's just, there's just no scripture.

You know, I'm looking at the last couple paragraphs, and there is no scripture that explains the

Pope's letter from the 2nd century where it says this and this is from Ignatius of Maninoc Ignatius of Maninoc wrote this verse where should the bishops be?

Jesus Christ there is the Catholic Church now of course the

Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Church see, they use their name so clearly we're that church we're that people but I don't understand any universal and again it says where the bishop is

I would argue that Ignatius of Maninoc had a similar understanding to the bishop we have today that the bishop was in particular a successor to Peter rather the bishop was a master or a foreteacher so when the pastor came, the bishop came to gather people to hear the message just as wherever Jesus Christ is there the

Catholic Church is from Matthew 18 where two other gatherings there he is so I wouldn't see this in any way affirming the

Roman Catholic dogma but we have to look at the Pope so that's the gap I think we need to go to Scripture amen amen that's pretty much it for this chapter any other thoughts or questions that you guys have in this chapter chapter 8 it's good material there's so much more that we need to look into and again the

Roman Catholic Church the Catholic Church that is more appropriate makes pretty incredible claims in relation to this office in particular and also to which is going to set the conversation on Pope Ezekiel that's probably my last lesson this whole book is going to be about Pope Ezekiel but keep all these things in mind as clearly as it can be that the

Roman Catholic Church has indeed misinterpreted the Church's history in order to abide by this dogma of papal authority there's one who's found the value of the

Church and it's the Word of Jesus Christ follow his words and trust in the power of salvation we pray

Father we come before you knowing Lord that you have given in the

Church during the great confession of faith these precious keys to hold back the powers of darkness to push back against the attacks of the enemy so that Lord men and women who are bound to hell may hear the music of salvation repent and turn to Christ for salvation of their souls to continue this work to call all those who are of the elect and Lord that we would follow your footsteps and your command and the disciples of all nations now and at the end of time we pray