The Diving Board, Episode 15

ThornCrown Network iconThornCrown Network

0 views

We conclude our analysis of Cameron Bertuzzi's conversion to Roman Catholicism

0 comments

00:05
And this is very significant. Not one, not even one of those Eastern bishops disputed or questioned the
00:13
Pope's authority. I mean, the
00:19
Eucharistic, let's just say this, the Eucharistic abuses are abuses to Jesus' DNA, his body and blood.
00:35
As I continued to study my early church father, older brothers and sisters, I started to realize that God had a plan for me that was bigger than any plan that I'd ever had for myself.
00:47
And before you know it, it turned to the Catholic Church. When I made that decision to become
00:52
Catholic, everything began to fit. It was like a puzzle with the four sides that I put together with the papacy and the
01:01
Blessed Mother and tradition and the Eucharist. Let's say there's a person watching this program right now from where you were.
01:16
Why should they make the same journey home that you made? I would say investigate the history for yourself because the famous line from Cardinal Newman is to be deep in history is to cease to be
01:27
Protestant. And that's pretty much what happened to me. So I would say take the Catholic Church's claims, investigate them, and as my father always told me, go wherever Jesus leads you and maybe it would end up in the
01:41
Catholic Church. Hello to everyone.
01:47
This is your host, Timothy F. Kaufman, and you're listening to episode 15 of The Diving Board, the conversion of Cameron Bertuzzi, part four.
01:56
The Diving Board focuses on the testimonies of Protestants who convert to Roman Catholicism, thinking that to be deep in history is to cease to be a
02:05
Protestant. But getting deep in history is something a Roman Catholic cannot do because Roman Catholicism itself is a novelty 300 years removed from the
02:14
Church of the Apostles and their disciples. Its roots do not go back any further than the end of the 4th century.
02:21
And, as we continue to show with each episode, those Roman Catholics who think they are getting deep in history are actually very, very shallow in it, embracing a late 4th century and medieval novelty as if it were the church
02:34
Jesus Christ founded. It most certainly is not. If you remember in our previous three episodes,
02:43
Cameron Bertuzzi, an erstwhile Protestant online cultural commentator who recently converted to Roman Catholicism, identified two main reasons for his conversion, the
02:53
Eucharist and the papacy. Since Bertuzzi acknowledged that Roman apologist
02:58
Matt Fradd's understanding of the Eucharist was very influential in his conversion, we thus far have focused largely on Fradd's interpretation of John 6, that's episode 12, and Matt Fradd's understanding of 1
03:10
Corinthians 11, that's episode 13. In 1 Corinthians 11, 27, Paul says that to eat and drink of the
03:17
Lord's Supper unworthily makes one guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Matt Fradd said that since Protestants and Catholics disagree on the interpretation of that passage, we should go back to the early writers and see what they said.
03:30
But the early church does not support him. The early writers understood 1 Corinthians 11, 27 to be symbolic and interpreted it through the lens of 1
03:40
Corinthians 10 and 1 Corinthians 12, in which Paul says that we are the body of Christ and his members, which is why we ought to love and respect and defer to one another because of Christ.
03:52
And Matt Fradd said that the early church was unanimous on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, citing
03:58
Ignatius of Antioch and Cyril of Jerusalem. And, as if the evidence was abundant, he said that he could go on and on and on.
04:07
So, we went on and on and on ourselves. We walked through the ancient liturgies, not only of Ignatius and Cyril, but also of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Cyprian of Carthage, to show that all the go -to ancient writers of the early church work against the
04:24
Roman apologist and not for him. We also visited Jimmy Akin's argument for why there is no early evidence for the papacy.
04:31
As you recall, he argued that the early writers concealed the papacy to protect the occupants of the papal see, so it makes sense that there is no evidence of an early papacy.
04:42
That is really a convenient argument, an argument from silence, and Cameron Bertuzzi fell for it and accepted it at face value.
04:49
In truth, the early writers indicate not only that they were comfortable disclosing their beliefs and methods and personnel in their letters, but also were offended if the correct people were not named, and if there was any evidence of fraud and deceit and intentional omission in their communications.
05:06
As arguments go, it was a nice try, but it doesn't pass muster when you know how the early writers expressed themselves and what they said to each other.
05:15
Finally, because Cameron Bertuzzi was so persuaded by Sue and Sona's arguments on the Peter Eliakim typology, we reviewed the method
05:23
Sue and Sona used to arrive at Roman Petrine apostolic succession in the form of a papacy, to show how demonstrably ignorant he is of the original sources and how loose he is with the evidence.
05:36
What we have shown in this series is that Cameron Bertuzzi was foolish to fall for Matt Fradd's argument on the
05:41
Eucharist, foolish to fall for Jimmy Akin's argument on the utter lack of evidence for the papacy in the early church, and foolish for falling for Sue and Sona's Peter Eliakim argument on the papacy.
05:54
None of them, not one, are as deep in history as they think they are, and yet all of them would swear by Cardinal Newman's dictum, to be deep in history is to cease to be a
06:04
Protestant. Well, the truth will be hard for them to swallow, but the deeper in history you go, the more
06:10
Protestant the early church looks. Roman Catholics will laugh at that statement, but that is because they are not familiar with the evidence.
06:16
They are only familiar with the Roman Catholic arguments. Arguments are not a substitute for evidence.
06:24
Okay, now for our concluding episode on Cameron Bertuzzi, I will offer two things to the listener.
06:30
First, having listened to hours and hours and hours of Sue and Sona's defense of the
06:36
Peter Eliakim typology, and having sat at his feet in his school of typology,
06:41
I am going to demonstrate the foolishness of his methodology. Using Suan's methods,
06:47
I am going to construct my own typological argument in Matthew 16, namely that Peter is the new and greater
06:53
Job, and therefore, by his words, Jesus intended to establish a new and greater female priesthood after Peter.
07:00
And don't worry, my team and I have been hard at work on developing a typological hermeneutic that will make sense of all of this.
07:08
What we do, at least what my team and I have been doing, is we've been developing now hermeneutics for interpreting typology.
07:15
And remember, typology is not an exact science. It is intuitive. Typology is not a strict science.
07:23
So there's some intuition that's involved here. And trust me, it's just obvious enough that if it were any more obvious, it would be less obvious.
07:31
So let's not play down what God is plainly saying to us, okay? Yeah, but in a sense, it's already obvious, right?
07:38
You know, even if it could be made more obvious, but at that point then, it would just be wasted effort to make it more obvious.
07:44
It's like it's there. You don't want to miss the typology and therefore miss what he is communicating to us.
07:50
When we look at the typology here, we shouldn't dismiss it or even downplay it. Because what if the same situation is going on here?
07:57
Is if there's a pattern that is too noticeable to be considered a coincidence?
08:04
Of course, I'm making a facetious point here. But I do want to show just how dangerous and flawed and unreliable
08:11
Sue and Sona's methods are. Second, I will provide the actual typological reference
08:17
Jesus is making here in Matthew 16. And it is nothing at all like Sue and Sona suggests.
08:22
And certainly not, I must confess, about a female priesthood. Okay, so here's the typology of Matthew 16.
08:30
Peter is the new Job. That's right. Peter is the new Job in the New Testament.
08:36
It's right there in the text, people. Let's follow in Sue and Sona's footsteps and establish syntactical correspondence, that is, words, similar structure, using the same phraseology in both locations, and thematic coherence, that is, consistent and similar themes, between Matthew 16 and Job.
08:56
It gets really kind of uncanny once you start looking closely. For the next few minutes, my arguments will be entirely facetious.
09:05
In Matthew 16, Jesus is clearly making an allusion to God's last conversation with Job.
09:10
For example, Jesus mentions a foundation of stone, binding and loosing, the gates of hell, and decrees or ordinances in heaven and decrees and ordinances on earth.
09:20
Right? Where else does God say things like this? In his last conversation with Job.
09:25
Job 38 .6, Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened?
09:31
Or who laid the cornerstone thereof? He's speaking of the foundations and cornerstone of the whole world, of course, but the syntactical correspondence is undeniable.
09:41
It gets really kind of uncanny once you start looking closely. Job 38 .31,
09:47
Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades or loose the bands of Orion? See?
09:52
Bind and loose, both in Matthew 16 and in God's last conversation with Job. It gets really kind of uncanny once you start looking closely.
10:01
Job 38 .17, Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? See? Gates of hell.
10:08
Or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death? See? Keys aren't necessarily mentioned explicitly, but you definitely need keys to open a door.
10:17
It gets really kind of uncanny once you start looking closely. Job 38 .33,
10:22
Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? Canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth? See?
10:28
It's a plain reference to the ordinance of heaven determining the ordinance of earth, or whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven.
10:37
It gets really kind of uncanny once you start looking closely. Oh, it gets even better.
10:42
In Revelation 12 .14, the church is likened to an eagle, and in Job, the eagle abideth on a rock.
10:49
Revelation 12 .14, And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness.
10:57
So there's the church being described as an eagle. But in Job 39 .27 -28, in Job's last conversation with God, Doth the eagle mount up at thy command?
11:08
She dwelleth and abideth on the rock, upon the crag of the rock, in the strong place.
11:14
See? Notice the thematic and syntactical correspondence between Job 39 and Matthew 16.
11:22
It's clear that Jesus was making a textual allusion to it. It gets really kind of uncanny once you start looking closely.
11:28
But wait, there's more. Think about it. Job lost his houses, lands, children, sheep, camels, and oxen when he was tested, and then got them back twofold when he passed the test.
11:41
And just like Job, right after making his confession, Peter asked, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee.
11:48
What shall we have therefore? And Jesus responded that Peter would be restored one hundredfold.
11:55
Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
12:06
See? Job was only restored twofold, but Peter will be restored one hundredfold.
12:12
Peter is the new and greater Job. Fifty times greater, in fact. It gets really kind of uncanny once you start looking closely.
12:21
And at the transfiguration, right after Peter's confession, it says Peter did not know what he was talking about.
12:28
That's Luke 9 .33, where it says Peter was not knowing what he said. And the whole context of Job 38 -39 is
12:35
God rebuking Job for not knowing what he was talking about. Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
12:42
See? Just like Peter. And Job argued with God. That's Job 40, verse 2.
12:49
And Peter argued with God. That's Matthew 16, 22. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying,
12:56
Be it far from thee, Lord, this shall not be unto thee. Satan asked permission to torment
13:02
Job. That's Job 1, verse 11 and 2 -5. And Satan asked permission to torment
13:08
Peter. That's Luke 22 -31. And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desire to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.
13:16
It gets really kind of uncanny once you start looking closely. So, let's review the uncanny syntactical correspondence and thematic consistency between God's last conversation with Job and Jesus' conversation with Peter.
13:32
Bind, loose, gates of hell, stone foundation, ordinances in heaven and ordinances on earth.
13:38
There's a similar structure. Job is tested by Satan. Peter is tested by Satan. Job argues with God.
13:44
Peter argues with God. And thematic coherence. The Lord restores Job's property and children. The Lord promised to restore
13:49
Peter's property and children. Matthew 19, 29. Between Matthew and Job, it's pretty obvious that Jesus was making an allusion to Job in his conversation with Peter in Matthew 16.
14:00
The rock foundation, the gates of hell, binding, loosened, heavenly decrees, earthly decrees. The evidence in both quality and quantity is actually superior to anything that Sue and Sona produced in his halting attempt to force an
14:14
Isaiah 22 allusion and typology on Matthew 16. And it's so obvious.
14:20
And I think that Jesus didn't feel the need to make it more obvious, if you will. So, I think we can agree that authorial intent has been established.
14:29
The thematic coherence is uncanny. So, if the syntactical correspondence is beyond question, and it obviously is, and the allusion is obvious, if it were any more obvious, it would be less obvious, and the authorial intent is proven, who would doubt it?
14:44
Then there must be typology. And if there is typology, then Job is a type of Peter, and Peter is the new and greater
14:51
Job. But what are the implications of this typology? Well, Job was the chief priest of his family and offered sacrifices for his children.
15:00
That's Job 1, 5. Peter is a chief priest and head of a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices.
15:07
That's 1 Peter 2, 5. And Peter is the first pope, papa, if you will, commissioned to offer sacrifices for us, his children.
15:14
I think we can all agree with this, and let's be honest. Job's identity as a priest is far more obvious than Eliakim's.
15:22
Listen to Sue and Sona try to draw out the evidence of a priestly role for Eliakim, and then think about how obviously priestly
15:30
Job is. Well, if you notice in the earlier part of the passage, it talks about how Eliakim wears the tunic and the girdle and the sash of Shebna.
15:40
And then we also know that Old Testament priests wore tunic and sashes and girdles. See? Job's priesthood is way easier to establish.
15:49
But guess what? There's more, and this is the kicker. Remember, Job lost all of his cattle and all of his seven sons and three daughters in his trials.
15:58
That's Job 2, 19. What was Job's reward for withstanding the temptation of Satan?
16:04
As a reward for surviving faithfully, the Lord restored Job's fortunes double. Double the sheep, double the camels, double the oxen, and double the asses.
16:13
But the Lord did not double his children. He only gave Job seven replacement sons and three replacement daughters.
16:20
That's Job 42, 13. Why not fourteen sons and six daughters, just like he doubled all of his livestock?
16:27
Why just seven and three like he had before? Why did the Lord not give him double?
16:33
Well, instead he gave him something better. Job's three daughters, Jemima, Kezia, and Karenhapuk, got something women don't normally get.
16:42
And their father gave them inheritance among their brethren. That's Job 42, 15.
16:48
Now remember, in the Old Testament, except in dire circumstances, the inheritance always went to the sons.
16:54
When the daughters of Zelophehad appealed to Moses, the Lord changed the law from an all -male inheritance to a female inheritance in the case that there were no living sons.
17:05
If a man dies and has no son, then you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter.
17:10
That's Numbers 27, 8. So, under Moses, the right of inheritance was expanded to include women if there were not men.
17:19
But something crazy happened with Job. Job had living genetic hereditary sons, and his hereditary daughters still got to participate in the inheritance anyway.
17:29
It was an enormous expansion of the right of inheritance to include women. So let's just ask the obvious questions.
17:35
What else was also all -male and all -hereditary in the Old Testament? That's right, the priesthood.
17:44
In the Old Testament, the all -male priesthood succeeded from Aaron. That's Numbers 18, 1.
17:50
But according to Augustine, in the New Covenant, the hereditary priesthood comes from Peter. This is quoting from Against the
17:57
Letter of Mani, called The Foundation, 4, paragraph 5. The succession of priests comes from the very sea of the apostle
18:06
Peter. See, the New Testament priesthood comes from Peter. Therefore, since Peter is the new
18:13
Job, and Job was a sacrificing priest for his family, and because he overcame the trials of the devil, and the
18:19
Lord elevated his daughters to receive an equal inheritance with his sons, now Peter, the new high priest of the
18:25
Christian religion who overcame the trials of the devil, must have established a unisex sacrificial priesthood because the
18:32
Peter -Job typology is philogenous. That is, it favors the ordination of women as priests to offer the
18:38
New Testament sacrifice. The Lord could have given him double the amount of sons and double the amount of daughters, but instead he simply elevated his daughters to be equal with his sons in regard to the inheritance.
18:49
And get a load of those girls' names. Jemima, Kizia, and Karen -Herpuk mean Dove, Spice, and Icosmetic, respectively.
18:59
As it turns out, those are three very priestly names, because according to Leviticus 12, 6, a dove is a sin offering for a son and for a daughter.
19:07
That's Leviticus 12, 6. And according to Ezekiel 24, 10, Spice makes the sacrifice, pleasing to the
19:14
Lord. And what about Icosmetic? Isaiah 53, 11 says, Again, Isaiah 53, 11.
19:24
Notice that the girls' names all relate to things that have to do with the priestly sacrifice. I mean, it's really uncanny, isn't it?
19:34
It gets really kind of uncanny once you start looking closely. Yes, it is uncanny.
19:40
There can be only one possible conclusion here. Through this typology, it becomes clear that because Peter is the new
19:47
Job, and Job's daughters were elevated to an equal inheritance with the men, and the Old Testament priesthood was male and hereditary, and Peter is the new priest, and is the new and greater
19:57
Job, then women are supposed to be elevated to the priesthood to offer the New Testament Eucharistic sacrifice.
20:03
It is so obvious. So let's walk through the argument, and then we'll take a look at some of the scriptural and patristic support for this obvious textual allusion.
20:13
Premise 1. Allusion. There is a textual allusion between Matthew 16, 19 and Job 38 -39.
20:21
We'll just state it nice and clean like that. Premise 2. Typology. If there is a textual allusion, then there is a
20:28
Peter -Job typology. Premise 3. So there is a Peter -Job typology.
20:34
Premise 4. If there is a Peter -Job typology, it is phylogenous. That is, it favors the ordination of women as priests to offer the
20:41
New Testament sacrifice along with the men. Premise 5. So the Peter -Job typology is phylogenous.
20:49
Premises 6, 7, and 8 basically say that the Peter -Job typology is more expected if there are to be women priests.
20:55
See? It's a Loctite case. Is there any New Testament and patristic evidence for this obvious typology?
21:01
You bet there is. In John 1, Jesus invited the disciples to come stay with Him at His house, and it was about the tenth hour.
21:09
John 1, 38 -39 And they said to Him, Rabbi, which means teacher, where are you staying?
21:16
He said to them, Come, and you will see. So they came and saw where He was staying, and they stayed with Him that day, for it was about the tenth hour.
21:25
Well, who else in the New Testament invited the disciples of Jesus to stay with her at her house at about the tenth hour?
21:32
Lydia did. Acts 16, verses 13 -15 And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer.
21:42
One who heard us was a woman named Lydia. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying,
21:49
If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay. And she prevailed upon us.
21:56
Now, according to Acts 3, verse 1, the time for prayer is the ninth hour. And if Paul and Timothy spent an hour or so preaching to her until she believed, then she also would have invited disciples of Jesus to come stay with her about the tenth hour.
22:10
And since a New Testament priest is supposed to minister in the person of Christ, and because of this uncanny connection between Jesus and Lydia inviting disciples to their house at about the tenth hour, it's clear that in the
22:23
New Testament women are elevated to the same priesthood that the men are, in the person of Christ, or in persona
22:28
Christi as we say it in Latin. Clearly supporting the Peter Job typology, especially since Lydia was a cellar of purple, which is a color associated with the
22:38
Old Testament priesthood. See? It's uncanny. But there's more. The widows of the early church were called the altar of the sacrifice, and under the old covenant there is nothing holier than the altar, as it was called most holy.
22:51
In fact, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1383, the
22:57
Christian altar is the symbol of Christ himself. So when Christ offers himself to the
23:03
Father, he is acting in three roles, as the offerer, the sacrifice, and the altar.
23:09
And in the New Testament, Jesus said the altar and the gift that is offered on the altar are equally holy.
23:15
It's Matthew 23, 19. Now, according to Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians, mid -2nd century, widows are the altar of God.
23:24
That's what he said in to the Philippians, chapter 4. And the Didaskalia, chapter 26, in the mid -3rd century, clearly associates widows and virgins not only with the altar, but with the gift that is offered on the altar.
23:37
The Didaskalia says, Let the widows be esteemed as representing the altar of burnt offering, and let the virgins be honored as representing the altar of incense and the incense itself.
23:49
Again, widows and virgins are compared both to the altar and to what is offered on the altar.
23:55
And we know that what is offered on the altar is Jesus. So, there is very clear typological evidence, not only from the
24:01
Jesus -Lydia parallel, but also from the altar -offering parallel that we see in the Old and New Testaments and the patristics, showing that women are equated to Jesus, the high priest, and therefore a
24:11
Petrine priesthood would necessarily include women offering Christ in the person of Christ on the altar, because Jesus, too, is both the offered, the offerer, and the altar on which the offering is sacrificed.
24:23
Now, if Jesus' body and blood is what is offered on the altar, and widows and virgins of the New Testament are called the altar itself, then women, the altar, are equated to Jesus, the gift that is offered on the altar.
24:34
But is there any patristic evidence of the Peter -Job typology? You bet there is. Pope Gregory the
24:41
Great, in the 6th century, published one of his greatest works, Morals on the Book of Job. And in that work, the pope made an explicit connection between Peter, the rock foundation, in Matthew 16, and God's last conversation with Job in Job 38 -39, since both passages spoke of a house built upon a rock.
25:00
Gregory said, In Holy Scripture, when a rock is mentioned in the singular number, who else is understood but Christ?
25:09
As Paul witnesses, who says, But the rock was Christ. That's a reference to 1 Corinthians 10, verse 4.
25:15
But when rocks are spoken of in the plural number, his members are described, namely, holy men who are confirmed by his strength, whom the apostle
25:24
Peter doubtless calls stones, saying, Ye are as lively stones, built together as spiritual houses.
25:31
That's 1 Peter 2 -5. The eagle in Job, therefore, is said to abide in the rocks, because she is planted in the firmness of her mind in the sayings of the ancient and mighty fathers.
25:41
So that's Pope Gregory quoting Job 39 in relation to Peter, where Job says,
25:47
Is it at your command that the eagle mounts up and makes his nest on high? On the rock he dwells and makes his home, on the rocky crag and stronghold.
25:56
That's Job 39, verses 27 -28. See? It's the Peter -Job typology confirmed in the patristics.
26:04
Matthew 16 and Job 39 both refer to the church on a rock, and Pope Gregory makes that connection for us.
26:11
Now, I'm sure you're saying, Yes, but is there any other patristic evidence that Peter actually had daughters who could start the unbroken line of a feminine apostolic priesthood?
26:20
Why, yes, there is. Clement of Alexandria, in book 3 of the
26:25
Stromata, said, Peter and Philip begat children, and Philip gave his daughters to men.
26:31
The Latin for children here is filios, which translates as sons in English, but we know
26:36
Clement meant sons and daughters, because he immediately mentions Philip's daughters. So, clearly, he means
26:42
Peter and Philip both had sons and daughters. And then he only mentions the exception, that Philip's daughters got married, implying that Peter's daughters did not get married and were virgins, and therefore, priests.
26:56
Because, A, the Peter -Job typology says that Peter's daughters would have received the same inheritance as his sons, and B, we know that in the
27:04
Old Testament, Job's unmarried daughters got their father's inheritance. And in the New Testament, Peter not only had daughters, but we also know that they did not marry, and therefore were entitled to Peter's inheritance, right?
27:14
And what was Peter's inheritance? According to Augustine, it's the sacrificial priesthood of the New Covenant. So, when you see the whole typology, that is, the thing
27:23
God is trying to tell us here through the Peter -Job typology, it's clear that the Peter -Job typology was clearly intended to show that exactly like Job, Peter's unmarried daughters received the inheritance of a female priesthood equal to that of men, because the
27:38
Peter -Job typology makes this clear, and the women of the New Testament held equal positions as the men, ministering at the altar in the person of Christ, just like Lydia, not only equating women to the altar, but also to that which is offered on the altar, like Polycarp, Clement, and the
27:51
Didyscalia, and the only other person in the Bible who is most holy and is offered as the sacrifice on the most holy altar is
27:58
Jesus Christ. Now, you might be wondering, is there any actual early evidence within living memory of the apostles of this
28:08
Peter -Job typology? Oh, come on now, you're falling for sola patris. If you recognize independently that the arguments stand, then you're going to have to justify why you're only going to strictly go back to what the fathers themselves have strictly expressly, explicitly said.
28:27
Then this method is guilty of sola patris, because then it's saying you can only use the fathers, and you can only use their interpretations, right?
28:34
Besides, if you're going to make arguments like that and ask questions like that, the burden of proof is on you, not on me.
28:40
Independent of whether or not the fathers said it, does the argument hold up? So the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they would have mentioned every single iota in detail.
28:50
And I think if you get caught up on overanalyzing the typology, you're going to miss what God is plainly telling us through it.
28:56
One could be accused of overanalyzing the idiom at this point. I mean, typology is kind of intuitive.
29:03
It's not an exact science. Typology is not a strict science. So there's some intuition that's involved here.
29:11
But still, if you're going to ask questions like that, it's like criticizing the artist for not being more clear, even though it's already obvious.
29:18
So suppose you go into a museum and you see an artist. Now you could go up to this painting and say, well,
29:24
I mean, he could have made it more obvious. Well, here we will end our ridiculous illustration of Suanzona's methodology by which anything can be proven typologically if, first, you don't care about sober hermeneutics, and second, you assume that which you are attempting to prove so that all the evidence seems to point toward your assumption.
29:44
And for the record, I do not believe there is a Peter Job typology in Matthew 16, and I do not believe Jesus elevated women to the sacrificial priesthood in the
29:51
New Testament. My only point was to illustrate absurdity by being absurd, and Suanzona's arguments are exactly that, absurd.
30:01
So, what does Matthew 16 actually mean? Well, let's first understand the significance of Peter's confession.
30:09
We'll do that by analyzing what Jesus thought a valid confession was. John 15, 15,
30:15
Jesus says, For all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known to you. John 12, 44, he says,
30:22
He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And in John 17, 8, when he was making his high priestly prayer to his father, he said,
30:31
For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
30:41
So, the confession of Peter was that Jesus is the Son of God, and that God sent him, and I think that we can all agree on that.
30:50
But what did the rest of the apostles confess before Peter did? Andrew, in John 1, 41, said,
30:57
We have found the Messiah, that is, the Christ, the Lamb of God, because that's what he heard
31:02
John preaching about him just a couple verses earlier. Philip, in John 1, 45, confessed,
31:08
We have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
31:17
Keep in mind that Philip is making reference to Deuteronomy 18, 18, in which Moses, by the word of the
31:23
Lord, says that God would raise up a prophet like to them that they should listen to.
31:30
Nathanael, John 1, 49, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel.
31:36
So, we can say that from day one, at least three of the apostles were already on board and had already confessed
31:42
Christ. Others confessed Christ crossing the sea in the storm, saying, Of a truth, thou art the
31:49
Son of God. That's Matthew 14, 33. So, what did
31:54
Peter confess? He said, in Matthew 16, 16, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
31:59
God. Mark 8, 29, Thou art the Christ. Peter answering said, The Christ of God, in Luke 9, 20, and John 6, 69,
32:08
We have believed and come to know that you are the Holy One of God. In other words,
32:13
Peter confessed nothing more than what all the other disciples had already acknowledged, that Christ is the
32:19
Son of God and that God had sent him. In fact, Peter was not the first to confess, but was the last to confess.
32:26
That changes everything because Roman Catholics and even Protestants read Matthew 16 on the assumption that Peter was the first to confess, which keeps the focus on Peter and his confession, and the whole conversation is read through that lens.
32:39
But if Peter was the last to confess, that fact changes the fulcrum of the entire story.
32:44
So our focus turns away from Peter and his confession and turns back onto Christ and his mission.
32:51
What was his mission? John 17, 8, I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
33:03
When we change the focus from Peter to Christ's mission, the meaning of the subsequent phrases in the entire exchange changes as well.
33:10
Bind and loose here, for example, in Matthew 16 and 18, are almost always interpreted as priestly functions derived from rabbinic legal theory, in which to bind is to forbid and to loose is to allow.
33:24
But bind and loose were words Jesus used to describe his gospel preaching ministry, to bind up the brokenhearted and to loose the captives by the preaching of the gospel.
33:34
This we know from Isaiah 61, 1 and the Good Shepherd narrative in Ezekiel 34.
33:39
In Isaiah 61, 1, it says, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the
33:45
Lord hath anointed me to preach the good tidings to the meek. He hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them who are bound.
33:55
See, bind and loose. It's a preaching ministry Jesus had received from his Father and now would pass on to Peter and the rest of the apostles in Matthew 16 and in Matthew 18.
34:07
All the apostles would be commissioned to bind and to loose by the preaching of the good tidings. This was the focus of Jesus' first public sermon in Luke 4, in which he quoted
34:16
Isaiah 61, 1, saying that passage had been fulfilled that day in their presence.
34:22
Now, Ezekiel 34, 16, I will seek that which was lost and bring again that which was driven away and will bind up that which was broken.
34:30
And in verse 27, They shall be safe in their land when I have broken the bands of their yoke. See, bind and loose.
34:38
That's what the good shepherd came to do. And Paul reminds us that that mission would be accomplished by the foolishness of preaching.
34:45
That's 1 Corinthians 1, 21. Jesus' whole point here was not that the apostles would have the
34:50
Jewish rabbinical power of forbidding and allowing, but rather would be commissioned to do what
34:55
Jesus' Father had sent him to do, to preach. John 17, verses 17 to 18 says,
35:01
Thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have
35:06
I also sent them into the world. Jesus was commissioned by his Father to preach the good tidings in order to bind up the brokenhearted and to loose the captives.
35:16
The apostles would be commissioned by Christ to go into the world, preaching the good tidings, to bind up the brokenhearted and to loose the captives.
35:27
So, what do the words upon this rock refer to? Upon this rock necessarily refers to the word of the
35:33
Father, not to Christ, not to Peter, not to Peter's confession, not to the apostles and prophets. According to 1
35:41
Peter 1, 11, the Old Testament was composed by the Spirit of Christ in the prophets.
35:48
Peter wrote, Searching what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow.
35:58
According to Jesus, the New Testament would be composed by the Spirit of Christ in the apostles.
36:04
John 14, 26, But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever
36:14
I have said to you. But he says a couple chapters later that the Spirit does not speak on his own.
36:20
He speaks only what he has been told to say. John 16, 13, Howbeit when he, the
36:26
Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth, for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that he shall speak, and he will show you things to come.
36:37
But Christ testifies that he did not say anything except what the Father had told him to say.
36:44
Deuteronomy 18, 18 says, I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
36:56
And the New Testament repeatedly attests that Jesus indeed spoke only what his
37:01
Father told him to say. He could only speak the words that the Father had put in his mouth. John 3, 34 from John the
37:08
Baptist, For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God. John 12, 44,
37:14
He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. John 12, 49,
37:20
For I have not spoken of myself, but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say and what
37:25
I should speak. John 12, 50, And I know that his commandment is life everlasting.
37:30
Whatsoever I speak, therefore even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. John 14, 24,
37:37
The word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. John 15, 15, For all the things
37:42
I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. Paul says the foundation of the church is
37:47
Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles in Ephesians 2, 19 -20. The household of God built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
37:55
Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. What did they all have in common, Jesus, the apostles, and the prophets?
38:02
They were all commissioned to deliver the word of the Father. None could speak except that which he had been commanded to say.
38:09
The Spirit of Christ taught the prophets what to say, and the Spirit could not speak on his own, but he could only say what he had heard.
38:16
Jesus also could not speak anything but what he had heard from his Father. Then the Spirit was sent, reminding the apostles of everything
38:23
Jesus said, and, as we noted, Jesus could not say anything but what his Father had commanded. So the foundation of the church is not
38:30
Peter and his confession, nor the prophets, nor the apostles, nor Christ himself, but all of them together, and the only thing they could preach and record for us in the scriptures is the word of the
38:41
Father. That is the solid rock foundation of the church, the word of the Father.
38:46
How do we know this? By reading Peter's confession in John 6 and in Matthew 16 together.
38:53
John 6 begins with an allusion to Isaiah 55 2 -3. Wherefore do you spend money for that which is not bread?
39:01
Hearken diligently unto me, incline your ear and hear. Eating food, in this case, is a metaphor for listening to and hearing the word of the
39:10
Father. In John 6 45, when the Jews were murmuring about all these converts following Jesus, Jesus told them not to murmur because it is written in the prophets and they shall all be taught of God.
39:22
That's a reference to Isaiah 54 13. Every man therefore that hath heard and hath learned of the
39:28
Father cometh unto me. But let's look at Isaiah 54 a little bit closer. Verses 11 -13.
39:35
O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colors and lay thy foundations with sapphires.
39:43
And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord. And remember, this is the passage upon which
39:50
Jesus constructed the parable about the man who built his house on a rock. In Matthew 7 and Luke 6, a man who hears my words and does them is likened to a man who built his house on a rock.
40:02
But, as we know, Jesus could not say anything except what his Father had told him to say and therefore, he who listens to what
40:10
Christ says and does it is like a man who built his house on the rock foundation of the word of the Father.
40:15
That comes from Isaiah 54 which happens to be the verse Jesus quotes when the Jews were murmuring that all these people were converting to Christ.
40:23
What was Christ doing? He was building his church on the word of the Father. Matthew 16 verse 17 says,
40:31
For flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father which is in heaven. See, it's the
40:36
Isaiah 54 reference. Every man that hath heard and have learned of the Father cometh unto me, and they shall all be taught of God.
40:45
In this context, the word of the Father is the foundation that is laid and Jesus builds upon that.
40:51
Peter had been taught by the Father, which is an appeal to Isaiah 54, which says the foundation of the church is the teaching of the word of the
40:58
Father. The fulcrum of the entire discussion is not that Peter was the first to confess, he was not, but that Peter had been taught by the
41:06
Father. As Peter was the last to believe, one of Jesus' missions was complete to deliver the word of the
41:13
Father to the eleven. They would now be commissioned to deliver his Father's word to the world. And so Jesus says,
41:20
As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. Jesus was sent into the world to preach the word of the
41:27
Father, now the apostles would be sent into the world to preach the word of the Father. The church would be built upon the word of the
41:35
Father. Now, what about the other phrases of Jesus' response to Peter? All the succeeding phrases relate to the word of the
41:43
Father, starting with him saying, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my
41:50
Father which is in heaven. He continues and says, I say also unto thee, Thou art
41:55
Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Here in this passage about Simon Barjona and Thou art
42:05
Peter, Jesus is merely contrasting Peter's earthly generation by Jonah with Peter's heavenly generation by the word of the
42:12
Father. In his earthly generation, he is born of his father Jonah, but in his heavenly generation, he is born of the rock, of the
42:20
Father's words. Remember, Deuteronomy 32 .18 says, The rock is what begets us, of the rock that begat thee, thou art unmindful.
42:30
James 1 .18 says that of his own will he begat us with the word of truth, but the word of truth is referred to as the stone of stumbling, as we'll see in a moment.
42:42
In 1 Peter 1 .23, being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God.
42:49
Here, Peter is contrasting exactly the same thing Jesus did in Matthew 16. We're not born of the corruptible seed of our earthly parents,
42:57
Jonah in Simon's case, but of the incorruptible seed by the word of God, which is the rock in Peter's case.
43:04
Notice that Peter considered the word Jesus spoke to be the stone foundation.
43:09
1 Peter 2 verses 6 -8 says, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
43:21
But Peter goes on, and to the unbelieving, that stone foundation is a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word.
43:30
Notice that the word is the stone foundation that they stumble on. What about the gates of hell?
43:38
Isaiah 28 .16 says, Behold, I lay in Zion a foundation of stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation.
43:45
Two verses later, And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand.
43:51
See? The gates of hell shall not prevail over the foundation of the word of the Father. Recall that the house in Jesus' parable withstood the flood because the foundation was made of rock.
44:03
That foundation is the words of Christ which he had received from his Father. That is why the gates of hell cannot prevail over it, the foundation, the word of the
44:11
Father. Nothing can prevail over the word of the Father. What about the keys of the kingdom?
44:16
Well, we know from Matthew 23 and Luke 11 that knowledge is a key of the kingdom because Jesus says to the
44:23
Jews in Matthew 23 .13 together with Luke 11 .52 that they had shut up the kingdom of heaven by taking away the key of knowledge.
44:31
So, we know that knowledge is one of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. But faith is the other key.
44:38
We know this because God has imprisoned all in unbelief and in sin. He says this in Romans 11 .32
44:46
and in Galatians 3 .22. But Paul continues and says, A man is released from that prison only by belief.
44:54
Paul goes on in Galatians 3 .22 saying that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
45:01
The only way out of the prison of unbelief is the key of faith.
45:07
If Jesus came to release the prisoner and break their shackles, that's Isaiah 61 .1 and Ezekiel 34 .27,
45:13
and to preach the opening of the prison to them that are bound, which prison would that be? It's the prison of unbelief, and the key to escape that prison is faith, as Paul attests.
45:25
So, according to scripture, knowledge and faith both come by preaching. Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
45:32
Thus, knowledge and faith are the keys of the kingdom, and they are given to the apostles as a ministry of the foolishness of preaching the word of the
45:40
Father. That's what the keys of the kingdom refer to in Matthew 16. Now, we must discuss this as well because remit and retain are almost universally accepted as the same as bind and loose.
45:52
John 20 .23 says, Whosoever sins you remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosoever sins you retain, they are retained.
46:01
We can understand what remit and retain mean by understanding how Jesus used them in his preaching ministry.
46:08
Remit and retain are opposites, and they are not equal to bind and loose. Bind and loose, as we recall, refer to the same thing, that is, the effectual ministry of the gospel to the elect to bind up their broken hearts and to loose the captives.
46:24
But remit and retain are opposites. In one case, sins are remitted. In another, they are retained.
46:30
According to the Council of Trent, bind and loose and remit and retain define each other and go together, as if the priest had the power of binding and loosing such that priests alone are given the authority to remit and retain sins.
46:42
That's the Council of Trent 14th session, back in 1551. But, when
46:47
Jesus talks about the remission of sins, he entirely places the power of that in the word of his
46:53
Father. John 5, 24 He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death to life.
47:03
John 6, 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me, hath everlasting life.
47:10
John 12, 47 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
47:17
Just remember, when Jesus says that sins are remitted, he says that they are remitted by the preaching of the word, and the believing of the word.
47:26
What does he say about the retention of sins? Well, back in Deuteronomy 18, 18, where the
47:32
Lord said that a prophet would be raised up, and God would put his words in his mouth, he continued in the next verse and said,
47:38
It shall come to pass that whosoever will not hearken unto my words, which he shall speak in my name,
47:43
I will require it of him. In other words, who rejects his words, their sins will be retained.
47:50
John 5, 45 confirms this. He says, Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuseth you, even
47:57
Moses, in whom you trust. That's a reference to the fact that if someone rejects the words of the
48:03
Father, their sins are retained. By what? By the word of God. Jesus confirms that interpretation for us in John 12, verses 47 -48.
48:12
And if any man hear my words and believe not, I judge him not, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48:19
He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words, hath one that judges them. The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
48:27
So here we see that remit and retain are also a ministry of the preaching of the word of the
48:33
Father. So, there is something significant going on in Matthew 16, 19. It's just not
48:38
Jesus building his church on Peter, or on Peter's confession, or even on Christ, or the prophets and the apostles, and certainly not about Jesus alluding to Eliakim, or setting up a female priesthood by alluding to Job.
48:50
It's simply a reference to the fact that he would build his church upon the word of the Father. The very word
48:55
Moses prophesied Jesus would speak, in which John the Baptist confirmed he was speaking, and that the prophets received from the spirit of Christ, and what
49:03
Christ himself was constrained to teach, and what the apostles were reminded of by the spirit whom Christ sent, and for which
49:10
Christ prayed when he said, Neither pray I for these alone, but for them which also shall believe on me through their word.
49:16
That's John 17, 20. Jesus had been commissioned to build his church on one thing, the word of the
49:24
Father, and everything in Matthew 16, verses 17 to 19 was about that, the word of the
49:30
Father. It is the stone foundation. It is that over which the gates of hell cannot prevail.
49:36
It is that, the word of the Father, by which, through the foolishness of preaching, the keys of the kingdom, that is, knowledge and faith, are delivered to men.
49:44
For faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. And it is the means by which the brokenhearted are bound up, and the prisoners are loosed, through the preaching of the word of the
49:54
Father. That's all. The entire transaction in Matthew 16 is about the word of the
50:00
Father. For a more thorough analysis of this passage, I will refer to a
50:05
Trinity Review article I wrote recently called, A Broken Hearts and Broken Shackles. That title is taken from Ezekiel 34, in which the good shepherd binds up the brokenhearted and looses the captives by the preaching of the good tidings of the word of the
50:18
Father. Because the remit and retain of John 20, 23 are often confused for bind and loose,
50:24
I address remit and retain in that article as well. To summarize here only briefly, bind and loose refer solely to the ministry of the word to the elect, by which means the brokenhearts of the elect are bound up by the preaching of the word of the
50:38
Father, and the shackles of the elect are broken by the preaching of the word of the Father. Bind and loose, therefore, do not refer to a positive negative effect of the word, but rather to the positive effect the word has in the lives of the elect, to bind up their wounds and loose their shackles.
50:53
It refers to the gospel ministry of the good tidings. Whereas remit and retain also refer to a preaching ministry, but they refer rather to the general preaching of the word, by which sins are remitted through belief to the elect and are retained through unbelief to the reprobate.
51:10
As we have read, Jesus said sins are remitted through belief in his word. By that reading, sins are remitted by the preaching of the word to the elect, not by the priestly power of the minister who is preaching.
51:22
And contrarywise, sins are retained by not believing in his word. In this case, sins are retained by the preaching of the word to the reprobate, not by the priestly power of the minister.
51:33
So there you have it. Bind and loose is a very particular ministry of the word to the elect, by which their wounds are bound and their shackles loosed, not a power that resides in the priest to forbid and to allow.
51:45
Remit and retain is a general ministry of the word to the world, by which sins are remitted to the elect by the preaching and retained to the reprobate by preaching, not a power that resides in the priest to remit and retain.
51:57
This is why Paul could say in 2 Corinthians 2 verses 14 to 17 that the preaching of the word is an odor of life to those that are being saved and an odor of death to those who perish.
52:10
Now thanks be to God which always causeth us to triumph in Christ and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
52:19
For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ in them that are saved and in them that perish.
52:26
To the one we are the savour of death unto death and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
52:33
For we are not as many which corrupt the word of God, but as of sincerity, but as of God in the sight of God we speak in Christ.
52:41
So here is where we will wrap up our analysis of Sue and Sona's typological argument on Matthew 16 in particular which we covered in the last episode and Cameron Bertuzzi's conversion to Roman Catholicism which we have covered in these four episodes.
52:57
Cameron Bertuzzi believed that he had to convert to Roman Catholicism after being persuaded by Matt Fradd on the ancient interpretation of John 6 and the
53:05
Eucharist which is to say taking a literal interpretation of the bread of life and eat my flesh and drink my blood narrative in the
53:12
Synoptic Gospel of John and a literal reading of this is my body and this is my blood in the institution narratives of the
53:18
Synoptic Gospels and 1 Corinthians 11. In his debate with Matt Fradd Cameron was initially resistant to the
53:25
Roman Catholic interpretations but over time Matt Fradd's interpretations became more and more appealing because after his interactions with Fradd Bertuzzi started to read through John 6 from a literal perspective.
53:36
Matt Fradd made the claims that the symbolic figurative view of the passage was unheard of until the 11th century a remarkable blunder from a historical perspective.
53:45
Clement of Alexandria Tertullian of Carthage, Cyprian of Carthage origin of Alexandria, Hippolytus of Rome, Novation of Rome and Augustine of Hippo all differ from him on that point as they all took
53:56
John 6 figuratively and the institution narratives symbolically. Fradd also claimed that Jesus always corrected people who took his figurative language literally which is not true.
54:07
Fradd claimed that John 6 was the only time Jesus lost disciples because of his teachings which is not true.
54:13
Fradd claimed that Jesus was morally obligated to correct people who had misunderstood his teachings which was not true.
54:18
And Fradd claimed to be steeped in history which is definitely not true. And Cameron Bertuzzi fell for it all wanting to be like Fradd, to be deep in history.
54:30
We also discussed the early church fathers like Ignatius of Antioch and Cyril of Jerusalem showing how
54:35
Matt Fradd misunderstood the texts he cited and the texts he omitted. In truth, neither of the early writers believed in the literal reading of those passages.
54:45
What we find repeatedly is that the only way to convince people that the early church took the literal reading is to keep people in ignorance and darkness which is precisely what happened to Matt Fradd and now what has happened to Cameron Bertuzzi.
54:57
In this, our final episode on the conversion of Cameron Bertuzzi, we demonstrated the folly of Sue and Sona's methodology by which he tried to show that Jesus was alluding to the
55:07
Eliakim typology of Isaiah 22 in his conversation with Peter in Matthew 16.
55:13
By this means Peter, the rock, the keys, the gates of hell and bind and loose and therefore remit and retain in John 20 must all refer to Peter's supreme and prime ministerial role in the kingdom of heaven by which
55:27
Peter stands at the gates and determines who can enter. We showed that using Sue and Sona's methodology we could as easily prove that Peter was the new
55:35
Job and that the rock, the keys, the gates of hell and bind and loose are all references to God's last conversation with Job and through him the
55:43
Lord raised up a New Testament female priesthood that in the person of Christ offers and is offered on the altar just as in the case of the
55:52
Roman Catholic male priesthood, all of which of course is folly. Through an analysis of the gospel narratives and a parallel examination of John 6 and Matthew 16 we showed that it is not
56:04
Peter nor his confession, nor Christ nor the prophets, nor the apostles but the word of the
56:10
Father that is the rock upon which Christ will build his church and we see that the rock the keys, the gates of hell and bind and loose and for a different reason remit and retain all refer to the effectual power of the word of the
56:22
Father either to save the elect that is to bind and loose and remit or to reject the reprobate that is by the retention of their sins all of that power resides in the word of the
56:33
Father not in the office of the Roman Catholic priest as Sue and Sona and now
56:39
Cameron Bertuzzi would have us believe what we have shown in this four part series is that Cameron Bertuzzi was foolish to fall for Matt Frad's arguments on the
56:48
Eucharist foolish to fall for Jimmy Akin's argument on the utter lack of evidence for a papacy in the early church and foolish for falling for Sue and Sona's Peter Eliakim argument on the papacy none of them are deep in history and all of them would swear by Cardinal Newman's dictum, to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant well, the truth will be hard for them to swallow, but the deeper in history you go, the more protestant the early church looks stay deep in history and deep in the scriptures, stay protestant this is