James White - Peter & The Papacy

Apologia Studios

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

00:00

the person of Francis. The doors may be open for conversation.

00:07

The first Vatican Council's dogmatic constitution entitled Pastor Aeternus given

00:13

April 24th 1870. Vatican 1, Vatican 2 is in the 60s, Vatican 1 is in 1870.

00:21

What Vatican 1 is known for is defining the infallibility of the Pope. 1870.

00:28

We therefore for the preservation, safekeeping, and increase the Catholic flock with the approval of the

00:34

Sacred Council do judge to be necessary to propose the belief and acceptance of all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the

00:44

Universal Church. I will not have time to demonstrate that that is a lie but I will say to you if you this evening hear things and you go

00:54

I want to know more. I want to dig more deeply into this. Many of you have

01:01

Roman Catholic neighbors, friends, family members, things like that. We have been blessed over the years to engage in almost 40 moderated public debates with the leading

01:13

Roman Catholic apologists on these subjects. In 1993 when Pope John Paul II visited

01:19

Denver I debated the first ordained PCA minister to ever convert to Roman Catholicism, a man by the name of Jerry Matitix, a student of John Gerstner, well -known

01:33

John Gerstner who was a mentor to R .C. Sproul. I debated him two nights, seven and a half hours on the subject of the papacy.

01:41

Much of what I'll have this evening was from that first debate at Denver seminary. So you can go, you can listen, you can hear many of these quotes again.

01:52

The nice thing is you can start and stop, get references, things like that at that particular point in time.

01:58

We did about three and a half hours on the early church and the papacy, which

02:04

I will not be able to cover in this sermon series, but that material is there. Church history is not friendly to the

02:13

Roman Catholic cause. They like to say the exact opposite. That's not the case.

02:19

And when we go toe -to -toe in debate you can see how that works. So you can look those those debates up.

02:26

But in accordance with the ancient and constant faith Universal Church, which is a lie, the doctrine touching the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred apostolic primacy goes on to say, we therefore teach and declare that according to the testimony of the gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the

02:45

Universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed

02:51

Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. For it was to Simon alone, above the other apostles, to whom he had already said,

03:01

Thou shalt be called Cephas, that the Lord, after the confession made by him, saying, Thou art the Christ, the

03:06

Son of the living God, addressed these solemn words, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonim, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my

03:16

Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

03:23

And I will give to thee the keys, the kingdom of heaven, and whatever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven.

03:29

And whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, bestowed the jurisdiction of chief pastor and ruler over all his fold in the words,

03:43

Feed my lambs, feed my sheep, at open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the

03:53

Catholic Church." Again, a statement of, a simple fraudulent statement.

04:01

No one who knows early church fathers could read those lines without stopping and choking.

04:08

Simply not true. But as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the

04:20

Lord and His Church, deny that Peter, in his single person, preferably to all the other

04:26

Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

04:34

Or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon the

04:42

Church and through the Church on Peter as her minister. If anyone therefore shall say that Blessed Peter the

04:48

Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles, and the visible head of the Church militant, or that the same directly and immediately received from the same our

04:57

Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction, let him be anathema, accursed.

05:09

This is de fide, of faith. It is a dogma.

05:15

It must, well, until recently, must be believed truly with the heart to be a

05:23

Roman Catholic. I'll be honest with you, I doubt Francis believes this.

05:30

And I can guarantee you almost everyone teaching at Boston College and many other such places do not believe this as it was enunciated by these people.

05:41

But there are still many Roman Catholics who do. This is the dogmatic teaching.

05:47

Rome is changing, and you need to find out when you're talking with someone what they believe.

05:53

The Roman Catholic writer Cardinal Gibbons wrote regarding the papacy, quote, the Catholic Church teaches that our

05:59

Lord conferred on St. Peter the first place of honor and jurisdiction in the government of his whole

06:04

Church, and that same spiritual authority has always resided in the Popes or bishops of Rome as being the successors of St.

06:13

Peter. Consequently, to be true followers of Christ, all

06:18

Christians, both among the clergy and laity, must be in communion with the See of Rome where Peter rules in the person of his successor.

06:27

That's from his book, The Faith of Our Fathers, page 78. So what do we need to understand? The Roman Catholic Church claims that Peter is placed in a position of primacy by the

06:38

Lord Jesus himself. This isn't something that develops over time. This was done by Jesus. The primacy is one of honor, jurisdiction, and rulership.

06:48

This primacy given to Peter is presented according to the dogmatic teachings of the Church of Rome in Matthew 16, 18 through 19, and in John 21, 15 through 17.

06:59

According to Roman teaching, Peter is the rock of Matthew 16, that Christ in conferring a primacy upon Peter intends this to be understood to apply to Peter's successors as well, and that hence

07:12

Christ is, in this passage, instituting the office of Pope for the

07:17

Christian Church. Rome further teaches that when Christ spoke to Peter and said, feed my sheep, he was by so doing setting

07:24

Peter apart as the pastor of all Christians in a way different from all the other apostles.

07:31

Thirdly, Peter is said to have been the bishop of Rome. Fourth, because of this his supposed primacy is passed on to his successors, the bishops of Rome, and finally, number five, this viewpoint has supposedly been the ancient and constant faith the

07:43

Christian Church. Suppose the churches always believe this to be true. Anyone who would express a different perspective is holding to perverse opinions and are in fact anathema.

07:56

So, for the Roman Catholic claims to be true, this is what must be proven on their part.

08:02

Can't just be assumed, must be proven on their part. Jesus is without question speaking to Peter in Matthew chapter 16.

08:11

So important is Matthew 16, 19 to 20. I visited Rome once. I went in the

08:17

Vatican. I looked up at the cupola up there, that huge dome, and around that in Latin are the words from Matthew chapter 16 in gold.

08:28

Not just gold -covered, it's gold, folks. I can tell you where that gold came from, and it's a tragedy in and of itself, but that's how seriously they take this.

08:39

And so, they must prove that Jesus is without question speaking to Peter in Matthew 16, and is in so doing identifying him as the rock upon which the church is built.

08:51

Secondly, that the words the Lord Jesus speaks establish Peter as the prince of the

08:57

Apostles, the very first Pope, the head of the Christian Church. Thirdly, that these words of Jesus necessarily indicate the creation of an office of Pope, replete with successors and associated powers.

09:09

And finally, the Christian Church has always held this to be her constant and unchanging faith.

09:15

I submit to you that Rome has never come close to establishing these things, and cannot do so.

09:23

Again, we can't do church history. I want to, but church history, the early writers, are clearly witnesses against everything that Rome teaches here.

09:36

But we want to look at the New Testament today. We must note, by the way, that Rome cannot merely demonstrate that their position is probably true, or that it's likely to be true, but that it is true beyond question.

09:54

Because they are claiming absolute ultimate authority in spiritual matters over all believers in Jesus Christ.

10:03

She claims infallible teaching authority. The papacy is not an issue upon which one can be neutral.

10:10

Pope Boniface made this clear in the papal bull Unum Sanctum, November 18, 1302.

10:16

I know Boniface would have burned Francis. There's no question of that. None. That's what they have to deal with.

10:24

But here is what Pope Boniface said in 1302. Consequently, we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the

10:42

Roman pontiff. You can't be much more clear than that.

10:48

So, with that in mind, think with me. We don't have a lot of time.

10:54

I have to move fast. Let's step back. Normally what happens in these situations is you end up having long, very often heated conversations with a

11:05

Roman Catholic on Matthew 16, and on John 21, and Luke 22, and a couple other, just a couple other passages.

11:14

Very rarely is what happens, is that people step back and they simply look at the New Testament as a whole and go, do we see that the early church, as testified in the documents of the

11:28

New Testament, was functioning under the idea of the supremacy of Peter, the

11:34

Bishop of Rome, and the concept of a papacy. Remember something. When people talk about women pastors, one of my first things

11:42

I say is, where does the Bible give the requirements and qualifications of a woman pastor?

11:50

Well, where does the Bible give the qualifications of a pope or a cardinal?

11:56

We have the qualifications for a bishop, elder, it's the same thing. We have qualifications for deacons, a low office in the

12:06

Roman Catholic concept of things, but we have nothing? No one thought it was important that we should know what a pope should be able to do?

12:15

Well, the fact of the matter is, when you look at the New Testament, there is not only no evidence of the idea of a papacy, there is tremendous evidence against it.

12:26

For example, in Matthew chapter 16, right after Jesus says these words, we'll get there, what happens?

12:35

Jesus has to rebuke Peter. Peter does not understand why it is that Christ must die upon the cross.

12:43

Peter takes him aside, begins to rebuke him. Jesus' response to Peter shows that Peter was not thinking through his statements before making them.

12:52

The same thing happens on the Mount of Transfiguration. I love it. Remember what happened on the Mount of Transfiguration?

12:58

Peter says, Master, it's good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters, one for you, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.

13:08

I've often wondered, I think Luke was very kind and gentle to report for us at that point, quote, he did not know what he was saying.

13:19

How would you like to have in the Bible recorded about you? He just didn't know what he was saying.

13:27

And that's not the that's not the first time that Peter did that. Peter speaks often in the

13:33

New Testament, but he often gets himself in trouble in the process. Now, Peter is very prominent in the gospel.

13:42

He's more prominent than anyone else in the gospel narratives. His name appears before anyone else's.

13:48

He was probably the oldest. That might be why that is. But he's very, very prominent.

13:54

But to leap from prominence to primacy is wholly unwarranted.

14:02

First, the Gospels themselves deny that any of the Apostles were in a position of primacy.

14:08

And secondly, the rest of the New Testament shows that Peter did not actually end up taking any supposed position of primacy.

14:15

Think with me about Luke chapter 22 verses 24 through 30. Now, I know I'm going fast. I know I'm going fast.

14:21

You can you can grab the video and slow it down if you need to, but we've got a lot to cover. Remember what happens as the disciples on the night of Jesus' betrayal are going to the

14:35

Garden of Gethsemane. What are they arguing about? Who's gonna be the greatest? Who's gonna be the greatest?

14:44

Who is gonna have authority? Weren't all these guys there when

14:49

Jesus gave Peter the authority in Matthew chapter 16? Somehow they didn't get that.

14:54

That is the answer. And in fact, you have to wonder, they had just finished the Lord's Supper, and who was it that was leaning back on Jesus' chest?

15:04

It wasn't Peter. It was John. So you think maybe there was a little bit of dissension?

15:12

They're arguing about who's gonna be the greatest. They don't understand that there is an office of the papacy that has already been established by the

15:20

Lord Jesus in any way, shape, or form. Now, the second reason that leaping from Peter's prominence in the

15:28

Gospel accounts to Roman concept of primacy is that the rest of the New Testament is very clear.

15:35

I mean, think about it. It hardly needs to be said that nowhere in the epistles of Paul or John or James or Jude do we find them ever referring their readers to Peter as a pope, to Peter as the shepherd of all the sheep.

15:54

At no time do they give any indication whatsoever of the existence of an institution known as the papacy.

15:59

Not once. Peter himself in his own letters fails to give us the slightest hint that he views himself as a pope.

16:07

Now, what's really ironic to me is that I can pretty much guarantee you that none of the people that Pope Francis has placed on the papal biblical commission believe that Peter wrote any of the epistles in the

16:22

New Testament himself. I'll bet you they don't even believe it. I believe they would probably take the standard position that these are late first century, early second century forgeries.

16:35

It's a different thing dealing with Roman Catholicism today. But for those that believe that Peter did write those letters, nothing in those letters gives any indication that he views himself as the head of the

16:46

Church on earth. In his first epistle he says the following, quote, to the elders among you

16:52

I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings, and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed.

16:58

Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers, not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be.

17:06

Not greedy for money, but eager to serve, not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples of the flock.

17:12

Peter doesn't speak as a pope, but as a fellow elder, a fellow servant. He does not speak as a chief pastor, but a fellow pastor.

17:20

There is no reference to Rome, the papacy, or any other element of Roman Catholic claims in this epistle.

17:26

The second epistle is also the same. You would think here at the end of his life this is where he would say, follow my successor, the

17:34

Bishop of Rome. Problem is one thing that, again

17:40

I keep bringing Church history things in here, but one of the things that has become more and more clear in the scholarship over the past number of years, even since I first wrote these notes for that debate in 1993, there was no singular

17:57

Bishop of Rome until about 140 AD. Rome had a plurality of elders, as the

18:04

New Testament teaches you should. That's seen in the epistles of Ignatius. There's other evidence of that. Somehow, for over a hundred years after the resurrection, the

18:17

Church at Rome didn't think they needed a single bishop. Huh. I had never heard of the papacy, had they?

18:24

No, they hadn't. That's true. So, remember in 2nd

18:34

Timothy 4 .16? Paul writes right at the end of his life that no one stood with him at his defense.

18:44

Where was Paul at the time? Rome. If Peter was the

18:51

Bishop of Rome, then Peter is accused by Paul of abandoning him when he stood before Caesar.

18:59

Hmm. That's not a good thing. It's not a good thing at all, but we don't actually have any evidence of Peter being there outside of later tradition.

19:10

Only later tradition places him there and makes him the first Bishop of Rome. In Paul, in Paul's epistles, for example, he says in 2nd

19:21

Corinthians 12 .11 that he is in no way inferior to the very chiefest of apostles.

19:27

Now, maybe he was talking about the super apostles there, but he writes to the

19:32

Corinthians that God had placed in the Church, first of all, apostles, second prophets, third teachers.

19:39

1st Corinthians 12 .28. Paul, no, isn't it first the Pope? No, he doesn't say anything like that.

19:47

That's not the biblical order. It hardly needs to be said that in all of Paul's letters in which we find discussions of apostles, bishops, deacons, all sorts of other positions of ministry in the

19:57

Church, never a word is said about the most important office of all, the supposed office of Pope, and the reasons plain no such office existed.

20:08

Now, let me stop for just a moment before I continue on with Paul. This is so plain in the

20:14

New Testament and in Church history that in the late 1800s a theory was developed.

20:24

John Henry Cardinal Newman, a convert to Roman Catholicism, developed what's called the development hypothesis.

20:31

And he, knowing Church history, knew there was no papacy in the early Church, knew that these things developed over time, and so he came up with the theory that Christian truth is like an acorn, and then it drops into the ground, and then over the years a mighty oak tree can grow out of this seed, but it has to develop over time.

20:56

Now, this was an abandonment of what Rome had been doing at that point in time, saying Jesus taught this from the beginning, he established

21:03

Peter as the Pope, everybody believed this, and Newman just realized that's just not true. You can't defend that.

21:12

And so today, if you go to ASU, and I'm not certain of this, but is there a

21:18

Newman Center at ASU? Thank you very much. I knew my bro back there would be the one to let me know.

21:25

Most major universities have a Newman Center, and they're named after John Henry Cardinal Newman.

21:31

In fact, I did a debate, the very sharp Roman Catholic apologists, on the Marian dogmas at one of the churches where Newman ministered long, long ago.

21:42

And so that's where the apologists are, and they will use that argumentation of the development theory.

21:49

But you need to understand, that's an abandonment of what Vatican I said, that's an abandonment of what the

21:57

Roman Catholic Church was saying from the Council of Trent onward. When John Paul II died,

22:04

I remember watching Fox News, and all these Catholic apologists, some of whom

22:09

I debated, are getting their five minutes of fame getting to talk about this the death of the

22:15

Pope. And what are they saying over and over and over again? The constant faith of the

22:21

Catholic Church for 2 ,000 years. No one who reads church history, no one who reads the dogma of the

22:31

Roman Catholic Church can ever honestly make that claim. The changes and evolution were clear when

22:41

John Paul II was Pope, and now with Francis, they are now lit up with neon lights.

22:49

And yet that is the teaching of the Church. Remember what happens in Galatians chapter 2?

22:57

Paul speaks to us about the encounter he has with Peter, and the fact that he has to rebuke

23:02

Peter, because Peter was taken away in the hypocrisy of the

23:10

Judaizers. And it's Paul who recognizes, look, if Peter withdraws from table fellowship with the

23:17

Gentiles in Antioch, the result is going to be two different Christian churches, a Jewish Christian Church and a

23:23

Gentile Christian Church, and that will be the end of the Christian Church. And so he rebukes

23:29

Peter publicly. He doesn't believe that Peter is the infallible head of the Church.

23:36

Remember in 2 Corinthians 11 28, Paul says, "...beside those things that are without, that which cometh on me daily, the care of all the churches."

23:45

Oh, Paul, you don't have to worry about that. That's not your job. That's Peter's job.

23:52

He never even thought of such an idea. That's not what he understood in any way, shape, or form.

24:00

Epistle after epistle can pass and review without the slightest evidence of Petrine primacy.

24:07

Even the pastoral epistles, with their extensive instruction on ecclesiastical matters, speak not a word about the papacy, or Peter, or anything even remotely similar to Roman claims.

24:20

But let's think about the book that gives us the most evidence, Acts. Think about it.

24:26

In Acts 8 14, when there is need to investigate what has happened in Samaria, do we find

24:32

Peter holding forth as a pope, directing the actions of the Church? No. Instead, quote, "...when

24:38

the Apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the Word of God, they sent

24:43

Peter and John to them." End quote. Here Peter does not function as a pope, but as one of the

24:51

Apostles who is sent to investigate the situation. Remember in Acts chapter 11,

24:58

Peter is called to answer for his actions in going to Cornelius's house. Does he give evidence of papal prerogatives in his response?

25:07

Does he answer as innocent the third would have answered, or Alexander the sixth? Hardly. There is no mention of his supposed position as pope.

25:15

Instead, rather than pleading his position as vicar of Christ, Peter relates the supernatural vision and direction he had been given to proclaim the gospel message to the

25:25

Gentiles. This no more makes Peter a pope than Paul's receipt of a guiding vision in Acts 16 makes him a pope.

25:32

Then you have an important section, Acts chapter 15, the supposed Jerusalem Council.

25:39

And here it's very, very interesting. I just have to be very brief. There's so much that we can say about this.

25:45

I did do a debate with Robertson Jenis on the bodily assumption of Mary, which ended up focusing very much on Acts chapter 15.

25:54

It was in New Mexico. I don't remember what year it was. You can look it up if you want to dig a little bit more deeper. But a lot of people will point to Acts chapter 15 and say, say,

26:02

Peter stands up and he says these things and that shows he's pope. Here's the problem. In verse 6 we read, the apostles and elders met to consider this question.

26:11

It is not said the Pope and the apostles and the elders met. Peter is plainly considered an apostle just as all the rest.

26:19

The council is not under the direction of Peter. It is plainly under the direction of James, who is the

26:25

Bishop of Jerusalem. Peter addresses the group, not as a Pope, but as an apostle used by God to bring the

26:32

Gospel of the Gentiles. He concludes his speech as follows, we believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that we are saved just as they are.

26:40

We note that the deliberations do not end with Peter's speech. Say that right?

26:46

Instead, we read in verse 12, the whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul, telling about the miraculous signs and wonders

26:57

God had done among the Gentiles through them. Paul and Barnabas address the group and confirm

27:04

Peter's opinion by relating God's wondrous work in their own ministries.

27:11

At this point, James speaks up and using the imperative mode, the mode of command, commands the assembly to listen to his words.

27:22

He confirms Peter's words, the citation of Scripture, and upon doing this gives his judgment in verse 19.

27:31

Here we have the conclusion of the affair. The letter is written at James's suggestion, but again in the name not of Peter the

27:39

Pope, but of the apostles and elders, no Popes seemingly being available.

27:45

The words of Peter in Acts 15 11 give us our final look at Peter in Acts.

27:53

From this point on, no mention is made of him. He who is allegedly the very head of the church universal, the founder of the church at Rome.

28:01

Even when Paul arrives in Rome at the end of the book, Peter is nowhere to be found.

28:08

Acts is not a friendly book to the concept of the papacy.

28:14

And so, remember, the defender of the papacy must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Matthew 16 and John 21 establish unequivocally

28:34

Petrine primacy and succession in the office of the Pope, because they've got nothing else in Scripture.

28:43

They've got nothing else in Scripture. So let's look at them. John 21, and believe me we have to have at least a few minutes to do

28:51

Matthew 16, so as you can tell I'm going as quickly as I possibly can. Matthew chapter 21 verses 15 through 17.

28:59

When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon son of Jonah, do you truly love me more than these?

29:06

Yes, Lord, he said, you know that I love you. Jesus said, feed my lambs. Again, Jesus said,

29:11

Simon son of Jonah, do you truly love me? He answered, yes, Lord, you know that I love you. Jesus said, take care of my sheep.

29:18

The third time he said to him, Simon son of Jonah, do you love me? Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, do you love me?

29:25

He said, Lord, you know all things, you know that I love you. Jesus said, feed my sheep. Now I am going to give you the interpretation of one of the early church fathers, because remember

29:38

I read to you the claim, the church has always believed what we're proclaiming in Vatican 1.

29:45

That's just simply a bold -faced lie. Cyril of Alexandria, who by the way was, is not my favorite early church father, but he commented on this passage and said the following words, if anyone asks for what cause, he asked

30:02

Simon only, though the other disciples were present, and what he means by feed my lambs and the like, we answered that St.

30:10

Peter with the other disciples had already been chosen to the apostleship, but because meanwhile

30:16

Peter had fallen, for under great fear he had thrice denied the Lord.

30:21

He now heals him that was sick and exacts a threefold confession in place of his triple denial, contrasting the former with the latter and compensating the fault with the correction.

30:37

That's what Cyril said. Here we have the gracious Lord restoring the Apostle who, in his brash impetuosity, had promised to follow him even to death, and yet had denied him three times.

30:52

The threefold question of Peter, followed by the command to feed or shepherd Christ's sheep is restorative in nature.

31:01

Nothing in the passage would even begin to suggest to us that this means that the other Apostles were not likewise commissioned to feed and pastor

31:09

Christ's flock on an equal basis with Simon Peter. There is no indication that only

31:15

Peter is told to shepherd God's flock, nor that all others who shepherd the flock do so derivatively from Peter's supremacy and authority.

31:25

Indeed, if such were the case, Paul seems to have been ignorant of this. For he instructed the

31:31

Ephesian elders in Acts 20 28 to keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the

31:37

Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the Church of God which he bought with his own blood.

31:45

Paul does not say, as Peter is the chief shepherd, you act as under shepherds of the flock of God.

31:51

No. The only way that such an understanding can be found is if we take a much later development and read it back into these texts, as our

32:01

Roman Catholic friends are forced to do. This passage in no way sets Peter apart as the

32:06

Prince of the Apostles. Instead, it shows that he was in need of special pastoral care on the part of Christ.

32:14

I can fully understand why, after those denials, why

32:19

Peter would think, after the resurrection, I will never be able to be a leader.

32:26

I will never be able to be one to feed Christ's sheep. I denied him. Jesus ministers to him and reestablishes him.

32:35

That doesn't make him a Pope. In Luke chapter 22, Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for you,

32:45

Simon, that your faith may not fail, and when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers. Again we see that Peter's denial of the

32:53

Lord is in sight. The Lord warns Peter specifically, he is in danger. Yet Peter replies rashly in verse 33,

33:01

Lord I'm ready to go with you to prison and to death, to which the Lord replies that Peter will in fact deny him three times.

33:10

Roman Catholics have cited this passage as pointing out yet once again the preeminence of Peter, and some have even gone so far as to say that the

33:18

Lord's prayer for Peter's faith extends to Peter's successors in the bishops of Rome.

33:26

Yet if there is any Petrine primacy here, it is Petrine primacy in denial of Christ, not being the

33:34

Vicar of Christ. This passage, like John 21, shows us that Peter was more in need of pastoral care by the

33:41

Lord due to his impetuosity, nothing more. The Lord's prayer was fulfilled for even having denied

33:48

Christ, Peter, unlike Judas, went out and wept bitterly. But his faith did not fail completely, and he was restored, humbled, but wiser.

33:59

To take this as indicating Petrine primacy, however, is to go far beyond anything the text says.

34:06

Now much more could be said about that, much could be said about how the early church interpreted these passages, and how they did not interpret them the way that Rome interprets them today, that Rome's interpretation is novel and new, that all of its claims otherwise are simply lies, and that's why many people who read the early church are surprised by these things.

34:29

But the key text, we're down to only one, there is only one. The key text is

34:37

Matthew chapter 16. Let's look at it. But what about you?

34:43

Verse 15. But what about you? He asked. Who do you say I am? Simon Peter answered,

34:50

You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Jesus replied,

34:57

Blessed are you, Simon the son of Jonah. For this was not revealed to you by man, but by my

35:04

Father in heaven. I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock

35:10

I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you, it is singular, you,

35:19

Peter, the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

35:27

Now, no one's going to deny that Matthew 16 is a singularly important passage. Here the

35:33

Lord Jesus leads his disciples to a confession of faith in himself. The Father from heaven reveals the true nature of his

35:40

Son, Jesus the Messiah. It's a pivotal passage in Matthew's gospel. Before we can discuss this passage, very briefly, much can be said,

35:50

I'm gonna do this very, very briefly. You need to understand that modern

35:56

Roman Catholic scholarship and apologetics asserts that the original of these words was in Aramaic, and therefore you can have kepha for cephas, and you build this whole case based upon the

36:12

Aramaic language. Well, here's the problem. We don't have an Aramaic original.

36:21

The canonized Scripture, and the gospel that was canonized was

36:27

Greek, not Aramaic, and so all the speculation that they put into what the

36:33

Aramaic would have been, and there are entire scholarly works that suggest different terms in the

36:40

Aramaic. One, Chris Karagounis' work from back in the 90s, suggested that minra should have been the term there, and not cephas, and it destroys all of the the parallelism that they bring up, so on and so forth.

36:54

It is amazing to me that if this is the key text that Rome literally has to say, we need to read it in a language other than it was written by Matthew, and in a form we've never seen.

37:12

That is amazing. It truly, truly is amazing, but we have to go past that.

37:21

We don't have time to deal with that. The central theme of this passage is the

37:27

Messiahship of Jesus Christ. Any interpretation that takes the focus off of Jesus as Messiah, and puts it on Peter, is completely missing the point.

37:42

Jesus' questions to the disciples about the opinions of the multitudes, and even their own understanding, are all directed toward his own purpose, his own identity.

37:54

When Peter speaks up and confesses that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of the Living God, he is confessing the faith of all the disciples, not merely himself.

38:03

He is speaking for them all, as he so often does. Jesus' pronouncement of blessing upon Peter is not due to any inherent goodness in Peter, but is due to Peter's being the recipient of a great blessing from the

38:17

Father. The Father has revealed to Peter the true identity of Jesus Christ. Now the other

38:22

Apostles aren't sitting there going, he's the Messiah? We never knew. We can hardly think that they all sat there amazed at Peter's words, never having even thought that Jesus was the

38:36

Messiah. The point of Jesus' words is that it requires the work of the Father to reveal the

38:42

Son. This same theme is struck in John chapter 6, where no man can come to the

38:47

Son unless drawn by the Father, in that same context when all the disciples turned away from Jesus except for the twelve.

38:54

It was Peter who spoke for the disciples, again saying, Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

39:00

We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God, John chapter 6 verses 68 through 69.

39:06

The subject of the passage remains the identity of Christ, found the confession of Peter. When the Lord says,

39:12

I tell you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it, the focus does not change.

39:20

Jesus is not here speaking of the identity of Peter. He is still talking about himself and his church.

39:26

This is plainly seen by continuing on through verse 20 where we read, then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the

39:34

Messiah, the Christ. Some modern scholars, having missed the fact the focus remains on Christ all the way through, are so puzzled by this passage they suggest that it's not original, but that conjecture is not necessary.

39:48

The rock of which the Lord speaks is the common confession made by all who are part of the church.

39:57

Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. This is seen, I believe, in the fact that while the

40:04

Lord is addressing Peter directly, he changes from direct address to the third person, this rock, when speaking of Peter's confession.

40:16

He does not say, upon you, Peter, I will build my church. Instead, you have a clear distinction between Peter, the

40:25

Petros, and the third person, Petra, the confession of faith upon which the church is built.

40:35

Now, by the way, there were many in the early church, despite Vatican I, who understood it in exactly that same way.

40:45

This statement is followed by the promise to, at some time in the future, it's in the future tense, at some time, it does not say,

40:53

I am giving you, Peter, alone, the keys. The statement is followed by the promise to, at some time in the future, give the keys, the kingdom of heaven, to Peter.

41:02

So what he binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever he loosens on earth will be loosened in heaven. I emphasize this is a promise, the verb is future tense, yet when we see this authority given in Matthew 18, 18, so two chapters later,

41:18

Matthew 18, 18, it is given not to Peter alone, or even primarily, but to all the

41:26

Apostles, and that using the exact same language, word for word, regarding binding and loosing.

41:36

So listen to me, if someone wishes to say that Peter receives the keys in distinction from the other

41:45

Apostles, and I just remind you, that's exactly what Vatican I said. That's a dogmatic teaching.

41:51

You deny that, and you are accursed by Rome. But, if someone wishes to say that Peter receives the keys in distinction from the other

42:03

Apostles, as their superior, they're also forced to admit that the giving of these keys is never recorded for us anywhere in Scripture.

42:16

A strange thing indeed for something supposedly so foundational to the Constitution of the

42:22

So, you either have to say, Peter received the keys in Matthew 18, 18, but that means he received it right along with the other

42:29

Apostles and is not their superior, or he received it some other time, maybe before Matthew 18, but no one thought it important enough to actually record it.

42:41

Okay? Now, you may look at that text, and a

42:48

Catholic will look at that and say, well, I just don't agree. Okay, but here's the problem.

42:58

You can't demonstrate that it's impossible that the reading I just gave is what

43:04

Matthew intended us to understand when he wrote the Gospel. It's contextual. It happens to be in perfect harmony with the rest of what the

43:13

New Testament says, what we've already seen in looking at when the New Testament starts talking about offices in the church.

43:21

There's nothing about a papacy or a Pope or anything like that at all.

43:26

It's perfectly consistent with everything else we've seen in the New Testament. But there's a problem.

43:34

If that is an appropriate and proper reading, and by the way, let me just, I remember so clearly, it was,

43:43

I think it was right before I did a debate on papal infallibility with Tim Staples in Fullerton.

43:49

I remember for some reason I was driving on the freeways in Los Angeles, and I was listening to either a live broadcast or a, back then probably a cassette tape, of Tim Staples, who was a convert to Roman Catholicism, an apologist for Catholic answers, talking about the fact that there are very, very few texts of Scripture that have been infallibly interpreted by the

44:15

Roman Catholic Church. And even more so, that even Matthew chapter 16, this text, while it has been infallibly interpreted, that doesn't mean that there could be other, that there could not be other interpretations that would be equally valid.

44:36

Think about that. That doesn't make a lick of sense. Yes, we have infallibly interpreted what

44:42

Matthew intended to communicate, but, you know, he might, he might interpret it some other ways which could likewise be valid as well.

44:50

What? That's impossible. Rome likes to say, you need us to interpret

44:56

Scripture, and then they just refuse to do it. And right now, I think there's a lot of Roman Catholics going, and we'd really hope that while Francis is

45:05

Pope, that he won't, because who knows what he's gonna come up with. I mean, what he just did with fiducia, last word misses my mind, with this statement that was just put out by the man who is the head of what used to be the

45:26

Inquisition. This statement about the blessing of people in irregular relationships that opens the door, just cracks it open a little bit, for the, for the blessing of same -sex unions.

45:43

All of Africa, all the Roman Catholic bishops in Africa said, nope, ain't doing it, supplicants, fiducia supplicants.

45:51

They've all said, nope, we're not doing it. Many other people said the same thing. There is scriptural interpretation in there.

46:00

Isn't he the one to give us the final word? Most people are going, let's hope not.

46:07

Let's hope not. It's a real mess. When you deny sola scriptura, you get yourself into a real mess, because you no longer have an objective, unchanging standard to appeal to.

46:23

The teaching of the bishops of Rome has changed over time, there is no question of that.

46:30

And right now, it's changing real fast, and could change even faster.

46:38

And there are many Roman Catholics who recognize this, by God's grace. So, if there is a meaningful, consistent, contextual interpretation of Matthew 16, that does not make

46:56

Peter a pope, that this rock is the confession, that was Augustine's view.

47:03

There were lots of people in your church took that view. In fact, the first people that took the other view were the bishops of Rome.

47:11

Oh, shocking. Really? Yeah. If you can present a meaningful interpretation of Matthew chapter 16, the

47:23

Roman position fails. It fails.

47:30

The very existence of viable, logical, rational, reasonable alternatives to the

47:35

Roman interpretation makes the Roman interpretation just one of many, and such is not supportive of the structure built upon the passage by Rome.

47:46

This is their last place. This is it. They cannot simply provide us with a possible alternative.

47:55

Well, it might mean this. Instead, they must be able to prove beyond all question the impossibility of all other interpretations.

48:07

And yet, they cannot do it, and will not even try to do it. In fact, it's interesting that about a year and a half ago, one of the gentlemen that I will be debating in just a few weeks in Houston, put out a video where he basically said, you know, we shouldn't really be doing debates on other topics.

48:28

The only topic really worthwhile debating is solo scriptura. Because if the church is right, and if the church is the final authority, all those other topics, they just don't really matter.

48:43

The church has already said, you know, debate purgatory? Well, the church has said. Debate the

48:48

Marian dogmas? Well, the church has already said. And so they understand that that is central to their assertions.

48:59

The problem is, while they want to debate, it's interesting, he offered to debate me on apostolic succession, not on whether Francis is the infallible

49:12

Vicar of Christ. The apostolic succession is a nice nebulous idea, and you don't have to get specific about it.

49:21

But I can't find any of these guys that want to defend the leading guys, the guys who published books, things like that.

49:28

I can't find any of them that want to touch Francis with a 10 -foot pole. They don't want to do it.

49:35

And I understand why. And what's going to be really, really fascinating is who's the next

49:42

Pope going to be? Who's the next Pope going to be? Francis is already changing the mechanism by which that's going to take place.

49:53

He's stacking the deck. He's stacked the Cardinals. He's forced the conservatives to retire.

50:01

In fact, it's fascinating. I just yesterday was talking to the head, the president of a seminary outside of Tyler, Texas, and I'm going to be in that area for two days on my way back to Houston after three debates and teaching at the seminary.

50:23

Anyway, I'm going to be in that area. Tom Buck's in that area, so I stop. And I will have to say publicly,

50:31

Tom Buck is a dear friend. He really is. Wonderful, wonderful pastor there in Lindale, Texas.

50:38

But anyways, he put me in touch with this president of a seminary in the area, and he was going, well, what topics do you think would work to where we could draw a good crowd to hear you speak?

50:50

And I suggested a few things. One of the things I suggested was, well, you know, with Pope Francis right now. But this is

50:57

Texas. You know, Louisiana, I get it. Lots of Roman Catholic Cajuns, you bet.

51:04

But East Texas? The president of the seminary said, well, remember something.

51:11

Bishop Strickland. Strickland was a very conservative, old -style Roman Catholic. Bishop of Tyler, Texas, which is a city just south of Lindale.

51:21

For those of you who are interested, Keith Green and his two kids are buried right between those two cities.

51:27

If you know Keith Green, what a tremendous talent he was, and what a witness he was to the grace of Christ. Anyway, Pope Francis removed

51:37

Bishop Strickland there in Tyler. And that has gotten, from what this gentleman is saying, and it's a very conservative seminary, he says, that's all the talk right now.

51:51

I think we need to talk about Roman Catholicism. He agreed with me. This is unusual. But the fact that the

51:57

Pope removed that bishop right there in East Texas, would focus upon him, has gotten a lot of people talking about this.

52:06

And for you and I, I don't need to tell Apologia that we need to be ready to give an answer of the hopeless within us.

52:17

And let me just ask, let me just, this is an easy one. How many of you have

52:24

Roman Catholic relatives or co -workers or neighbors? Okay, that's 90%.

52:30

That's 90%. So we all know

52:35

Roman Catholics. You may be the most opportune person, the person the

52:45

Lord in his providence has put in that place. But the problem is, just as we talk about Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses or Islam or whatever else it might be, the opportunity can arise and we hesitate because we don't feel prepared.

53:07

Now I don't believe that one hour of running through these texts is a full preparation.

53:15

But what it does is it gives you a foundation. It gives you something you can go back and listen to.

53:21

And it gives you an idea, okay, these are the issues I'd be dealing with. And so our desire in this series, however long it takes, because I leave the 9th of February and I'm gone for well over a month, this series is intended to equip you and to encourage you to be one who brings the gospel of grace.

53:50

Now I know we're gonna be talking about other issues, but like I said, those are the speed bump issues. Those are the things that can get in the way, that you have to deal with.

53:59

Mary, wow. Mary can be a huge barrier, but Mary is also one of the clearest examples of the utterly unbiblical, non -apostolic nature of the de fide dogmas of the

54:13

Roman Catholic Church. And so to understand them, most

54:18

Roman Catholics you'll talk to do not understand them. I've talked to Roman Catholics who thought the

54:25

Immaculate Conception had to do with the virgin birth, and it's about Jesus. Nope. Nope, it's about Mary.

54:33

They don't understand. We need to understand. We need to be the ones to build the bridges.

54:40

And so when it comes to Peter and the papacy, what you need to understand today, like I said, what did

54:47

I say at the beginning? The Bishop of Rome today would have been burned at the stake in the 16th century as a heretic.

54:59

What does that mean? And when we look at the New Testament, we see there is no evidence whatsoever that the

55:09

Apostles believed that the Church was to be headed up by the Bishop of Rome, who were the successors of Peter.

55:18

Church history says that's not how it worked. The New Testament says that's not how it worked. There's so much more

55:24

I could say. Believe me, we could do hours on this topic. I hope

55:29

I have given you some interest to dive into the information that is available. It is there.

55:35

It won't be at your local Christian bookstore, unfortunately. Most of the real good books on this subject, not gonna find them there, but they are there, and we can direct you to those if you especially want to get more into that particular topic.

55:51

Let's pray together. Father, this time we have taken in your presence to speak about error and falsehood because we want to be used of you.

56:03

We want to be used of you as witnesses. We want to be used of you to bring light and understanding.

56:11

And right now, Lord, things are happening in this world and things are happening in the Roman Catholic Church that are opening up opportunities.

56:18

Make us to be a bold people. Make us to be instruments of peace and grace in your hands to bring this message to the