The Roman Catholic Controversy Part 10

Prayer? I won't do it this morning because I have to be talking and singing in the morning.

Sorry for you. I don't have a prayer at all. Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world. Love you, pray for you.

Father, thank you for giving us grace, mercy, peace, and God's will.

Jesus Christ is our Father. I hope this is Lord's Day. Today we are going to do these expressions of truth.

As I examine the agency and the meaning of this authority, we can find that it is a truth authority that is vested within each saint, each member of the living and true

Church of Jesus Christ. So, Father, we pray, God, that your truth prevail in these matters as all things.

In Jesus' name, amen. Amen. Okay. So, we've been on a loop for a couple of weeks.

We're still going through the Catholic Conference. We kind of take a detour as it has gone on traveling.

And then, not just on the time for some other issues, but just to be sure, we didn't go to the

Catholic Rite yet, right? Okay. So, that's where we left off. And I want to do an overview of where we've been so far in the early

Catholic controversy and then share with you kind of a recent experience like that, and use that as a springboard to a conversation on apologetics, as we kind of do this quick overview and then start the chapter on the pagan system.

What it really comes down to is that there are some serious distinctions between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.

If you ask the average person who is Roman Catholic, and this question is asked often, you ask a

Roman Catholic, or someone who I've later on learned to be Roman Catholic, are you a Christian or are you

Catholic? What is presupposed in that question? They're different.

There's a difference. And you know what? Almost every Roman Catholic I've spoken to affirms that difference.

Have you noticed that? They say, no, I'm not a Christian, I'm a Catholic. Where according to Catholic dogma, they are the true

Christian Church, they are the true and mighty Christian, because of the claims of authority, and the baby -sitting order by St.

Peter. Why is it important that we also affirm the distinction? Should we correct the distinction or account it as a

Christian distinction? Or should we affirm the distinction and leave it solitary? Affirm it.

Why do you think that the Bibles seem to do it? I mean, they essentially, they don't believe in the good news, the gospel.

It's different. That's right. I've referred to a gentleman, he was with San Jose, and he is a

Catholic. And I spoke to him yesterday, actually, and I asked him that question.

You know, do you consider yourself a Catholic or a Christian? He says, I'm a Catholic. And you know what his response was?

He says, there's too much hypocrisy within Christianity.

And also some other folks, too. And he says, oh yeah, that's right. It's almost as if he was saying something enlightening.

Oh, what a brilliant statement. Yes, you're right. And I said to him, I haven't met someone who isn't a hypocrite yet.

Because every single person on the face of this earth is a hypocrite, in one facet of life or the other.

And I said, you know, I would stop going to Walmart because there's hypocrites there. I'm asking you, if you apply that reason, if you apply that logic to every other facet of life, where would you go?

Where would you be? You'd be left alone on your own private island with no one to speak to because, apparently, you aren't on that standard of perfection.

Everyone's a hypocrite in one way or another. We all are called. We're all sinful. And we got into this really interesting conversation.

And he says, the one problem with Christianity is that you can live your life how you want to, sinning, and then at the last moment, if you say,

I'm going to ask Jesus on earth, and all that is, why don't we forgive and you can go to that? I don't think that's fair.

And, of course, as you can tell, this isn't fair. Okay? Can we talk about fair for a moment and justice?

We're just speaking in Spanish. He was saying that's not just.

He uses the word just in Spanish. It's not justo. It's not just. It's not fair.

And I said, okay, let's talk about that for a moment. In my view, if God were to be just and God were to be fair, we would all go to hell.

And the gospel came to the world with a prophecy that says, no, you can earn your salvation. That there are good people.

That there is a way for us to be justified by our works. And he said, it doesn't seem fair to me that a person can live their whole life doing good things, helping the poor, doing just causes, and then someone who has been living their lives is completely contrary, but at the last moment, they repent, and then they get to what happened while the other one doesn't.

He said, it doesn't seem fair to me. It doesn't seem just. And he asked me, what is just, you know, to you?

And I said, justice to me would be that they would all go to hell. And I started to quote

Mr. Richardson. Ronald Mr. Richardson, I'm not even lying. He says, no, no, no, no, you're getting ahead of the book.

I'm asking you, what would be justice for you? And I said, but sir, by what standard are we talking about here?

By what standard? And this is the famous line of apology that's going to be heard from Jeffrey and others in the audience, but it's so true.

By what standard are we talking about? He says, you, what's your standard? I said, no, well, my standard is the

Bible's standard. That's my standard. No, you're getting ahead of the book. No, Mr. Richardson, I can't settle with this book.

I will believe in this book. And this is what tells me what the standard is.

Or I can tell you what the standard is. And quickly, all of the folks around started getting really frustrated with me.

They started getting really upset and stuff. You know, you just have to accept that not everyone believes that you should leave. Not everyone has the same thoughts.

Like, yeah, I said that. That's fine. But you just said something that is kind of outlandish, that all

Christians, the reason why you're not a Christian is because all Christians are hypocrites. It's kind of an outlandish statement. You all guys kind of affirmed it.

And that's kind of an ignorant thing to say. And I don't understand why you're celebrating ignorance. And when my perspective is shared, you feel attacked.

It's interesting how that works, isn't it? And you know what? It dawned on me in that person's suggestion that the world sees ignorance as virtue.

Think about that for a moment. The world looks at ignorance as virtue. And you say something totally ignorant, but it sounds nice.

You are celebrating it. You are elevating it. It's like, wow, you know what I think? No one's ever said something so profound.

All Christians are hypocrites. They're all hypocrites. Really insane. But there's really no substance to that.

And things like that are elevated and celebrated as if it is a virtue. And I'm sorry.

I don't think it's virtuous to be ignorant. I don't think it's virtuous to affirm things that aren't true.

And that was one of the parts of my critique that argument became, well, is that a truth?

I said to me, I respect you in that perspective. And I affirm your freedom to live by what you believe.

But at the same time, I believe that truth outweighs all those things. So is there an objective standard?

Is there an objective truth by which we can delineate between something that is true and something that is false?

And I believe an objective standard. And that objective standard is something about the Word. That's the standard.

And so I think when we're speaking to our own Catholics, you have to bring back to that, by what standard are we affirming things that are true or false?

And so I brought that conversation back to the person of Jesus. I said, Jesus is the standard of truth.

He said of himself, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one is his father but by me. He said of the

Word of God in John 17, 17, Father, your Word is truth. And so I said to this gentleman, my

Roman Catholic friend, I said, what are your words to affirm here? Your subjective feeling and your subjective knowledge or the sure foundation of Christ as God in heart according to both

Protestant and Roman Catholic doctrine? What are we going to hold as true? And I base my life on Christ as he teaches.

What do you base yours? What's your standard? And what's interesting is that most people who are nominally or culturally

Roman Catholic, they don't live by the standard of the Word of God. They live loosely on traditions and their subject emotions.

But they're not basing their lives on the authority of the Word of God. Which is why I think it's important that we actually do affirm the distinction between Roman Catholics and Christians.

And the question is raised, are you a Christian or are you Catholic? I think that's a good question. Because it also exposes the reality of their whole thought process.

They themselves are understanding that there is a Christian distinction. And I think that we need to affirm that as well.

And so the first part of my Christian history was pretty much on justification. How is a man a

God? How is a man justified by the Word of God? And he says, it's not fair that the Son of the

Lord at the last moment reprehends them and then all they did in their life are absolved.

And he says, what about the heathen prophets? Of course, they don't have an answer to those things.

And especially the Abbot of Joppa doesn't know a lot about their gospels. It's a very different place. And what's interesting about the

Adam and Eve Gospels is that Luke's kind of Gospels, this is where he says, you know,

Remember when we were in the Kingdom of Jesus? We were in Paradise. But did you know that Matthew's account of the cross, the

Mark's account of the cross, says that they were both mocked in Jesus? Think about that for a moment.

Both men, in the Christ's cross, were mocked in Jesus, including the fact that they didn't ask for forgiveness.

So for the standard of about $6 in Jesus' 11th cross, the man goes from a persecutor and one of those parallel insults to Christ, to then a begging for mercy.

Just at the standard of $6. And what does Jesus do? He says, you'll be with me in Paradise.

So what happened in those $6? Can a person truly repent and give their life over to Jesus on their deathbed?

The answer is yes. And I know that it frustrates people and their sense of justice, but it is because they have not come to the true justice of God and grace.

And so I said to him, he says, is that justice? I said, no, it's grace. It's grace.

And that's a concept that is surely lacking in worldly Catholic circles.

They do not have a good concept of grace. Has anyone ever had an experience similar to this, or anything like that in the past or had, in regards to this conversation so far?

Yes. Very similar conversation. Same. It all goes back to authority.

Right? On what standard do you judge this to be wrong by? And when a person tells me, so what about my standard?

Okay, so based off your knowledge, experience, and reasoning, you confirm this to be true. They say, yes, okay.

Well, let me ask you this. Would you agree that there are people out there who are invalid, thoughts of reason, like the thought process of a pedophile, or a rapist, or a murderer?

Well, me, they're like, well, yeah. I would agree that they're not reasonable. Well, how do you know you're not one of those people that has an invalid reason?

Well, by my own reasoning. I know myself to be valid. And that's when I point them to the following ways.

So by your own reasoning, you know your reasoning to be correct. Right? Right? That's right.

You know, I learned yesterday from my conversation yesterday that even I, I've been doing this for a long time.

I've done moderated debates. I've spoken to many people in various capacities.

And so I grew up doing it. Generally. But, I must say, even with my years of experience of apologetics and ministering to people,

I don't think anyone here would accuse me, generally, of being harsh. But any time you're in a worldly context, and you're standing up for truth, you may come across them as harsh and uncaring.

Even if you really try to seize new words of the soul. Truth, to a world where society is true, is like a sharp knife that cuts.

And so it's precious to me to really try to do this as gracefully as possible.

But at the same time, I'm kind of a person that I can be maybe too blunt, too straightforward.

And it really offends people. And so I find that sometimes people are more offended with the delivery than the truth itself.

And I find that to be ridiculous. I'm a truth teller, and so if I were to hear truth, it could be blunt or it could be soft.

If I were to get that truth, I want the substance of what's being said over the delivery. And people would overemphasize the delivery rather than the substance of our argument.

And so people will often feel, well, maybe the person who is nicer, kinder, or who seems to be more open, that's the person who generally is right forward, wins the debate over the delivery, passionate, and delivers a substantive issue, but maybe not as gracefully as the other person.

And so substance matters, and I think substance matters over delivery. But delivery is still very important in the way that we bring things across to other leaders.

Do you have any thoughts or questions about those criticisms? Well, I guess on the other side, could we also say that we're also

Catholic with a little c? Because we believe in the Apostles' Creed and we've been affected, we've been influenced by Augustine and other people.

Yeah, a good thing to say to a Catholic is to say, hey, I'm a

Catholic. You want to see them really, like, confusing. I'm a Christian, I'm a Protestant, and I'm a Catholic.

I'm like, I don't think those go together. And you can then explain what the word Catholic means, and then it's fine.

That might even actually open up more of an opportunity for there to be some grace and camaraderie in that conversation when you're coming at them from a place of seemly openness and people -ground.

I think the same thing with Christians. I always get in the room with Jews, and I tell them, hey,

I'm a JW, too. I'm just a Christian, I'm a JW. I'm a Jesus witness. And so, that's always usually what our conversations have.

That's also a question before we move on. You know, the person you're talking to, they're saying, like, by what standard, but they're saying, like, what's just to you?

A lot of times in these conversations, because of Romans 1, right, the law of God is written on everyone's hearts.

Like, if you can probe at any level, we don't even live up to our own standards.

You know, everyone driving faster than you is a maniac. And everyone driving slower than you doesn't know how to drive. Right? And that's why

I said, everyone's a pervert. Everyone's a pervert. Everyone's a pervert.

I said, I haven't met a person who isn't. Because we don't measure our own standards.

We always give ourselves a pass. Like, oh, if I need to break the speed limit, I have good reason. If he does it, he does not.

That's right. That's a great point. So we don't even live up to our own standards.

That's why I say, we are all hypocrites. Jesus came as a same hypocrite.

Jesus came as a same sinner. And just like Jesus saw the world in a war, because there's hypocrites there, neither

Jesus saw the church, because there's hypocrites there. This is what hypocrites should follow. This is where we find grace, this is where we find truth, this is where we find reconciliation, and peace with God.

And so, that's a really, really important thing to talk about and find out the whole notion.

And, of course, you know, the usual accountants who bring this up ignore sometimes the very hypocrites that are in their own church.

And they give you some all -night info. The papacy itself has an office.

There is no greater hypocrite than the papacy. The papacy is the greatest hypocrite I believe on the face of the earth, because it claims authority and representation, but it doesn't belong to it.

It claims to be something that is true or not. That's the greatest form of hypocrisy, is pretending to be something that you're not.

And there's a greater office of hypocrisy than that of a Catholic Pope, which, in my understanding of Scripture and theology, fits the perfect description of the antichrist and the

Catholicism. And so, we're going to examine some of the things that go with Catholicism in terms of A, because you have to remember, since you have

A, we're going to pick up where we left off a few weeks ago. And, again, from what that was, this is the first time we've been talking about authority and standards.

So, what's the standard? What's the authority? The process is very clear that the authority, that the power that we follow and trust in Scripture, that's the standard that we live by.

Early Catholics would affirm that on the surface, but if you dig deep, it doesn't have any other hold. And, again, one of the controversial things, it's probably the most controversial thing

I've said, in regard to Catholicism, is that I believe it is a hold. It's just a very big hold, but it is a hold nonetheless.

And, what separates an established Orthodox religion versus a cult is where the authority is vested.

And, so, the authority within high churches and schools are usually vested in one person or one group.

That fits perfectly with the Roman Catholicism. It is a cult that has invested all of the authority within the

Catholicism they exist in versus a Catholicism, for instance, where is the authority vested?

It's really vested in three places. Apparently, we have three branches of government as a government.

We have three main branches for the believer in terms of authority.

Do you know what those are? What's that? Well, the Trinity, for sure.

Let's not generalize the Trinity as one of those. It's God being the ultimate authority. What follows from that is

Scripture and then the Church. Right? So, you have three areas of authority.

God, Scripture, and then you have the Church, meaning all individual believers have the authority that is vested in us by the

Lord through Scripture for the preservation of truth. And so, again, there's three layers here that we're talking about.

Versus the Roman Catholic way which they would say is Scripture is there, tradition, and the offices of the

Church. And so, I wouldn't say the offices of the Church are the offices of the Protestant. I'd say the

Church, meaning all of us, members of the body of Christ. Where the Roman Catholic would say the authority is vested in the offices of the

Church, not in the Church itself, but in the offices of the Church, namely Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests.

And that's the main distinction. And so, what does it mean that Pope or Roman Catholics make up the

Pope group? That Christ said to be in charge.

That's right. And they call this apostolic presidency. I want to read to you what it says in the

Riverside Council's Doctrine and Covenants. This is a quote from the book in chapter 8.

We therefore, for the preservation, safekeeping, and increase of the Catholic law, with the approval of the sacred council, do judge it necessary to propose the belief and acceptance of all the faithful.

So, here's a very powerful declaration. You do not have to hold this to be part of the

Universal Church in the Roman Catholicism. In accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the

Universal Church, the doctrine touching the institution, the gratuity, and nature of the sacred apostolic presidency.

And so, in order for you to be within the orthodox, orthodox Catholicism, you must accept what is called the sacred apostolic presidency, which is the

Pope. Specifically, the atheistic. So, it's not just able, but the also spoke.

And it continues on. I think you're going to remember from all of this, one of our weaknesses and sections here, in the next page, regarding a kind of astounding one that says,

We therefore teach in America that where was the testament, the gospel, and the promises of your jurisdiction over the Universal Church of God, was immediately and directly promised and given to us by Peter and also by Christ the

Lord. So, here's the thing. Christ had given privacy, jurisdiction, and authority over the

Universal Church to St. Peter. So, Matthew 16, who do you say that I am?

You remember Christ as an apostolic, and then he says, and you are

Peter. You don't know what Peter means? Other way. It means little rock.

And he says, you are Peter, little rock, and all this rock, this is

Petro, Petra, two words rock, one means little, one means big, mass, called mass, which is what means small rock.

And he says, you are Peter, small rock, and all this rock, big rock,

I will build a church. And so, is the Roman Catholic saying, well,

Peter, Peter is called a rock. That's not true. According to the

Greek, Peter is a small rock, which is part of, that is what he apparently was on the right in 1

Peter 2, that we are all living souls, little rocks, that are making up what?

This spiritual house for Christ, built on the foundation of Peter, but of Christ Jesus himself, and so we are this living temple.

Each of us are little Petras, little rocks, that make up this Petro, this rock mass, this house that is the church.

And so, St. Peter is not, in Scripture, spoken of as being the rock by which the church is built.

Peter himself affirms in 1 Peter 2, that Christ is the rock.

Christ is the foundation of the church, not himself. What a perfect opportunity Peter had.

He wrote two letters to declare his supremacy over the people of God. He didn't.

He doesn't. Nowhere in Scripture is Peter the supreme apostle or the supreme pope.

You won't see, you won't find it in the central concept. But here, according to the Catholic dogma,

St. Peter is given his supremacy over any premises of jurisdiction, which is to say, that he has authority over the throne of the church on earth.

It goes on to highlight a little program that says, quoting from the Scripture, I will build my church, and I say unto thee,

Thou art Peter, the small rock, and you are

Peter. And upon this rock will my church be established, and I will announce it.

I will give you to be the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and wherever thou shalt land on earth, it shall be found also in heaven.

And wherever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall loose also in heaven. And it says in Scripture to justify the authority and the primacy of St.

Peter. But when we understand correctly, this is not talking about St. Peter as an individual rock, this is talking about the church.

I have the keys of the kingdom. Not only the individual, but rather the whole church, the whole of the leaders, priestly, kingly, authority in the kingdom of God.

So it's not the Pope who has supremacy, and it's not even the leader who has supremacy, it's

God who has supremacy, and he's giving it to us. He's the divine who has this agreement on earth, that whatever we agree on,

God will honor. What would we need to be in agreement with if there's only one person? Who are we in agreement with?

Right? If the Pope is the one who has this authority alone, where is he in agreement?

Where is the agreement? Preachers told us it was already. Preachers told us it was already alone. So clearly, this is what we have to have a good understanding of this.

It says ... ...

... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ... ... ...

... ... ... ...

... ... ... ...

... ... but that it was going to the church. And then he's trying to say that Peter stood above the rest, stood above all the other apostles.

But again, where do you find that in Scripture? You don't see it in Scripture. Remember, that all challenges

Peter and reproduces in Acts chapter 10, where Peter's not dining with the

Gentiles. Right? And later on in Galatians, he kind of sends a kind of jab at Peter, which is respectful of him.

OK? But he sends kind of another jab at Peter than those who have that same mentality of seeing those who were part of the

Jewish brethren as superior to those who were Gentile brethren. And looking at circumcision as a condition, because that was one of the early debates between the

Christian church, between the Jewish Christians and those who were Gentile believers, was the issue of circumcision.

In Paul's experience, one of the main arguments in Galatians is about the issue of circumcision, really looking past circumcision, really talking about justification.

Are we justified by the worship of the law, or are we justified through the image of Jesus Christ? And so here, all of a sudden, affirms justification through Christ, and not by the worship of the law, not by circumcision.

And we know this because in Acts 15, Peter and James and others affirm justification by faith.

That's what they call all Jerusalem councils. They call all the law community, all the agents of this matter, and they affirm by faith.

They are justified by faith. But the Roman Catholics, again, say that this crime of circumcision was given not to the apostles of the law, not to the church of the law, but rather to the person of St.

Peter. It says, if anyone there were to say that the security of the apostles was not with the prince of all apostles, and that the disciple head of the whole church was relented, or that the same great right to be in the

Church of the Lord was with Jesus Christ, the crime of circumcision are only and not are strictly upon your justification, let it be not done.

Do you know what the word not done means? Cursed, sacrificed, casted off.

That's what they mean by that. So if you affirm the supremacy of St. Peter, or of Hades, you are not an anathema.

An anathema is not just like a slap on the wrist. It is a high form of judgment that would not capture a church in the groundhouses.

It means that you are out of the Son of the Church, that you are a heretic, that you are a boss. There's no salvation for you.

And so to be anathematized is a pretty big deal in Roman Catholic service.

And if you don't affirm the supremacy of Hades, you are an anathema. What they don't know, unfortunately, is that Paul did not anathemize them in relationship to one another.

Let's go there for a moment. In 2

Corinthians, verse 6, Paul is sharing his dismay with the church in that they are so quickly falling away in the truth of the priesthood.

He says in verse 6, I am astonished that you are so quickly deserving them, who call you in the grace of Christ, and are referring to a different gospel.

Not that there is another one, but that there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

It's really important what Paul says here. He says, you know, some of you may fall to, maybe run away from the gospel to a different gospel.

Not that there isn't a different gospel. That is to say that surely there are gospels that can be used.

There is only one that can be used. And there are those that can be used to distort the gospel, which they don't know can be used at all.

He goes on to say, in verse 8, that even if we or angels of heaven should preach to you of a gospel or call the church to one we preach to, let that be the first.

But if we probably refer to the family of the apostles or to his companions, or the angels of heaven, because these are church authorities, right?

You have the apostolic authority, but then you have the family authority, the angels. So either the apostles start preaching something different, or if an angel came to heaven, don't believe it.

Because that which was preached to you first is what was true, and that is the supreme rule of faith, is what was originally preached to you, and that's the gospel.

It says, let it be a curse. That is anathema. Let it be anathema.

So if anyone comes to you preaching a gospel, a gospel that is outside of the gospel of grace, outside of justification, by grace of grace, outside of death, or resurrection of Christ, let that verse be anathema.

Does the Holy Catholic Church teach justification, salvation, outside of grace? Yes. Yes.

Do they affirm or do they assort the gospel of Christ according to Church Tidings?

Yes. So the true ones who are anathemized, according to Paul, are those who preach contrary gospel.

And how bold of them to assert that the anathemizing power is vested in Peter and his successors, the

Pope, and that if you are to disagree with his authority, then you are anathemized.

The authority here is different. Paul is saying, if you disprove the gospel of Christ, you're anathemized.

Anything that's with the gospel is free. But the Holy Catholics say, if you even dare talk about dear leader, it's almost like North Korea.

If you see Dr. Mitchell in North Korea, you have to have a picture of the dear leader everywhere, in each room.

And you can't even have a second guess at it. You always have to buy into what dear leader says. And if you don't listen to dear leader, you're going to be cut off.

You're going to be anathemized. You're going to be sent to the diversion of the gulag. And the

Holy Catholics have a spiritual version of this, where if you don't agree with your leader, you are not anathemized.

You're anathemized. You're outside of the camp. So quickly, we can see what the

Holy Catholics believe in regards to the authority of the

Holy Catholic pope. I'm going to jump over here to the

Roman Catholic writer, Barbara Gibbons, who wrote this. This is important, I think. The Catholic Church teaches that our

Lord would confer upon singing any of the virtues of our own jurisdiction and government of the whole Church, that the singing spiritual authority has always resided in the posts of the bishops of Rome.

So the pope is basically the bishop of Rome, the archbishop of Rome, the prime bishop of all that place.

And his successor, St. Peter, comes from being a true follower of the Christ. All Christians, both from the clergy and the antiquity, must be in the seat of Rome where Peter rules and in the person of his successor.

So what they've done is they've made a cult surrounding the successor of Peter, Peter's successor.

Let me ask the same question that James White raises here. What do these statements mean?

And what is Rome claiming concerning the Pentecost? What do these statements mean?

And what are the claims that are being made concerning the Pentecost? Does that sound like a cult?

I reflect on this in a lot of circles, because it's a major religion, because there's 1 .2

million adherents to it. I'm going to call it maybe more of a herculean cult. Peter Joseph says,

Is that even not a cult?

I think they're just growing and growing. What else do you see in regards to the claims being made concerning the

Pentecost? Basically, if you're not of Rome, you're not a true follower of Christ.

It's a kind of terrible new state of salvation. What does it say? If you're true followers of Christ, all

Christians, both in the clergy and the atheism. Do you know what clergy and atheism are? Yes, so clergy usually refers to church oratory, priests, even people who have been brought up in this way.

So people who have been brought up in the church, whether they be a pastor, a bishop, a secretary. Churches are usually referred to as clergy.

As a minister, I am a clergy. I am a clergy.

And I have clergy privileges. And I have government. And the laity is usually referenced to the congregation.

There's a distinction. We're looking at all those immigration forms that are in the church, between the laity and the clergy.

There are two classes of Christians, essentially. We see a distinction, a very small distinction, in that we're just simple servants of Christ.

We are unremissionable servants of Christ. We are unremissionable servants of Christ. We are unremissionable servants of Christ.

We are unremissionable servants of Christ. But we don't see that distinction as strongly as we have in the past.

And I probably am not allowed to comment on this because I think it's critical. But I would actually say all

Christians, all ordinary Christians are ministers of the gospel. Right? So in a sense, you're all clergy.

You're all ministers. You're all ministers of the gospel. You are not a minister. You are a church laity.

You are a member of the church. You don't have any teaching authority because you've already invested within the succession of your own.

Anyone know what that phrase means, the succession of your own? S -E -E -N -I -S -E -A.

The succession of your own. This is a historical phrase that I think has been used for hundreds of years in reference to the succeeding and gaining of a woman, of a relationship for a woman.

Now, when we talk about the succeeding of a woman, it's referred to as, he's the final pastor.

So the book of his wife is his succeeding pastor. He's the one who sees everything. So I'm thinking of someone who's as high as a point.

That's what the word arch means. I think it's a Greek word. The term archbishop. Arch is supposed to be a

Greek word. Archanean means sheathed, sewn, and there's a, what are these, archways, and there's a sewn thing that kind of connects it to, and that's where we get the word archanean, because it's created, it holds all things together.

And Christ is actually referred to in 1 John 1 as the archaic of creation.

He's the archaic of creation. Also in Revelation chapter 14, Christ is referred to as the archaic of all creation, meaning that he is the center of all.

He's the one that's holding all things together in creation. And yet they use this as a description of the book.

He's the archaic of the church. He's the one who sees everything. He's the final authority of the invisible church.

That is blasphemous. Amen? That's blasphemous. This is another subtle way in which they are claiming the, well, truly the most

Christ -like office, and they're claiming it for the book itself. So that is literally the definition of antichrist.

It's literally the definition of antichrist. So in other words, it's kind of saying that if you want to see a realm, you need to be in communion with the sea of Rome, meaning that your vision must be the vision of the pope in regards to all who say

Rome and all those who are outside of Rome. Your vision must be in line with the pope's vision. He's the seat of the

Roman Catholic church. He's the one who oversees everything. He's the archaic of the church.

pretty dangerous things there, obviously. And so, this is a clear teaching in Roman Catholicism.

And I'm not going to take time for a while, but I've got so many resources and quotes in the

New York Times to some of the claims that are made about the papacy. From their old, you know, catechism, for instance, that they can take the claim regarding the pope.

And so, one of the things that's important here is dissecting the remaining text. So let's go to Matthew chapter 16 real quick.

This is a verse of scripture that we use often in this church because I think it's one that is often misunderstood.

It says in verse 15, Jesus asked

David a question. He said to them, But whom do you say that I am? Said Peter, replied,

You are what the Christ is, a son of the living God. And Jesus answered him, Lest ever you should have knowledge of the profession.

But, as they were able to see, my father was his head. But I tell you, you are a heathen.

A heteros. A small flock. But, and on this walk, meaning heteros, so this is no walk mass.

Other translations would be actually walk mass, not just walk. It means something that's bigger.

And on this walk, or this walk mass, I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not go against it.

And I will give you the keys of the kingdom. But the question is, who is he to you?

Okay? Because Roman Catholics say that you is Peter, meaning that Peter secretly has the keys of the kingdom.

So he says, you, I will give you the keys of the kingdom,

Adam. Whatever you buy on earth shall be found in Adam. Whatever you lose on earth shall be lost in Adam. And so the question is, who is he?

I think the you is clearly the church that he just spoke of.

I will give, he says, I will build my church on this walk, the walk mass.

So it's not just the little walk, the Peter, but it's rather on this grand walk, the singular church of Christ.

I will give you the keys of the kingdom, Adam. Whatever you buy on earth shall be found in Adam, meaning the priestly, kingly authority that is vested in the people of God, collectively.

Collectively. Which is why, here in this church, we have a pretty serious view of church membership. You're our last arm's remaining.

We had a very robust discussion on this subject as well. And we're going to continue to have that discussion because it is very relevant.

Not just to the people in the house, but where we come to the right understanding of our rightful place as the people of God.

And so when we come together, we share in this authority that we buy and we lose.

This is not something that I left to Peter singularly as an individual at all, but rather to the whole kingdom of God.

And we know this is to be true, so I want you to turn now to 1 Peter chapter 2.

Again, here, this is not a verb, this is a parenthesis, but rather note what he says in 1

Peter 2 verse 4. He says, As you come to him, a living stone is clearly in Matthew 16, when the

Lord spoke of him and said, You are our Peter, small stone, you know, this is a big stone, this is a big rock.

What would my church insist on? As you come to him, a living stone, where you reject the land of the Son of God, chosen to be precious.

You yourselves, like living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house to be a holy place to offer spiritual sacrifice to the

Son of God through Jesus Christ. What is the difference between what Peter is saying and what the painting says?

The painting says that the Pope is that one God, that God is chosen and precious.

That the Pope is that living stone. That the Pope is that spiritual house. That the

Pope is that holy place. That's what Peter says. Peter says, You are that living stone.

You are that chosen and precious nation. You are that living stone that is being built up as a spiritual house.

You are that holy place to offer spiritual sacrifice to the Son of God through Jesus Christ. He goes on to say in the

Scripture, He goes on to say in the Scripture, The Son of the former stone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.

So what the Scripture points to is that the Pope versus Christ. Christ, Christ is that precious cornerstone by which we place our faith in him.

We will not be put to shame. This is our contrast from putting our faith in the Pope. Because if you put your faith in one

Pope, another Pope may come later and come quickly. And you won't be put to shame. But rather, we who are faithful to Christ are not put to shame.

It says in verse 7, for the honor is for you to believe. And for those who do not believe, the stone in the middle of your church will become a cornerstone, and a stone stumbling, and a rock will fence.

No wonder, as I opened up this morning and looked at the session on the Roman Catholic, they quickly took the fence.

Why? Because Christ is that rock that will fence. And people will be fed.

People will be fed. And they stumble. So why do people stumble?

And not accept the gospel? Because they disobeyed the word.

And that was their destiny. As they were destined to do. So here you have a perfect dichotomy that shows the truth of Catholicism, for instance.

You have your personal responsibility. You disobeyed the word. You were responsible.

But you were also destined to destruction. Destined to it.

So they stumbled because they disobeyed the word. So it's a personal rejection. Personal agency there.

But they were destined to do so. Why? Because the reality is, brothers and sisters, we according to our fallen nature are all hungry.

We're all lost. Every single person. But it's only in the gospel.

It's only through Jesus Christ. It's only through God's solemn work of redemption and his grace that he pulls us out of that path of destruction.

And he grants us eternal life. It is the total work of God. You are totally deprived.

And the only thing that will save you of your total depravity is the total work of Christ.

It's not your work. It is his work. And it says, it continues to say in verse 9,

That's the true priesthood of Christ. It is the believer. We are the priesthood of Christ.

Not the pastor. Nowhere here do you see the supremacy of Peter. But rather you see the supremacy of Christ and his people.

That's where the glory of God is at. And so I think Peter is actually, he does us a great favor in that he's exegeting

Matthew 16 for us. He's showing the imagery. Who is that priestly nation? Who has the authority?

Who can bind and loose things on heaven and on earth? It's the people of God. He's saying it here.

And what an opportunity he has to say otherwise. To say that he has that authority.

But Peter never claims that authority himself. Rather, he makes it clear that this is his form of the church.

And this is what all people have done. So again, this is not teaching.

This is the supremacy of Jesus. Pretty clear. And again, here, that we're in trust here.

If Peter is that first of all, we should probably listen to him, right? And what does he teach?

Anything opposite to what we just said. So I think that fills the vacancy, the idea of the vacancy right away.

Because the vacancy does not have any verbal proof. It does not have any exegetical or historical proof in the words of the

Church. That show that Peter's successors were that great.

You know, as the Sermon on the Cross. The idea of the vacancy really starts coalescing.

We're on the same time as the fall of Rome. So Rome has its own power. We get into the weekend.

And we're the emperor of Rome as well. And great Rome. What city?

Vatican. Yes. But also the Vatican. But if we're

Rome. Rome is the successor. The emperor of great

Rome. And as the political system of Rome started to deteriorate. What started to come into place was the spiritual institution and political institution of Rome.

Which is what we have today. So as the emperor began losing political power. The spiritual head of Rome started gaining more power.

And so what essentially happened was a swap between the political emperor. And now the spiritual emperor of Rome.

But it's the same office. It's the same thing. The Vatican is the ancient place where literally the emperor reigned.

So if you ever look at St. Peter's Basilica. St. Peter's Basilica was actually finished.

Maybe completely. I don't remember. It took several hundred years for St. Peter's Basilica to be built.

I went back to Martin Luther. One of the reasons that he got very upset was because they were trying to sell gold.

And it's age for St. Peter's Basilica's completion. But if you ever look at St.

Peter's Basilica. Which is at the place where the pope gives his mass. Which is in front of that famous place where there's this huge public library.

That's where everyone gathers. There's this huge obelisk in the middle. Okay. You know who wrote about the obelisk?

Nero. Okay. This was erected in the time of Nero. To celebrate what was called the.

I'm going to butcher this. Because it's not great. But it was a huge tradition. The Nero Circus. Circus Neronius.

I think that's what it was called. And so the. You can have these games. These circuses.

It's all nice and fun. And family friendly. Circuses in ancient

Rome were very barbaric. And in Nero's circus. Christians were being murdered and martyred.

So the very place in which Christians were murdered. And their blood was spilled. And the very obelisk that was erected to commemorate such a thing.

Is now the center of the authority. And the seat of the pope of Rome.

Pretty interesting stuff, huh? These are one of many reasons why

I believe that the pope. Is the son of tradition. Man of lawlessness. The antichrist.

Because as Charles Spurgeon puts it. If the pope is the antichrist. No one else could be.

Because it's so clear. From history and scripture. That it's all the.

Criteria for this. Son of tradition. Any thoughts or questions?

I can't get the word of truth all over Rome. To demonstrate something other than. What the scripture says.

And what the claims of a pope. There are no claims. Maybe in the scripture of one.

Or all. Other than the office of Christ. And how do we know this? In the book of Hebrews.

Christ is. One of the things that is emphasized in the book of Hebrews. Is the grand supremacy of Christ as a whole.

He's a supreme over creation. He's a supreme over the angels. And then he's also. In chapter 5.

Through 8 of Hebrews. Christ is also shown. As a supreme office. He is supreme.

Over all the offices. And it says. He is. He is.

He is. He is. He is.

He is. He is. He is.

He is. He is. He is.

He is. He is.

He is. He is. He is.

He is. He is.

He is. He is. He is.

He is. He is. He is. The rest of this chapter.

Is essentially. Jesus. Announcement of scripture. Which is the system we just announced.

In regard to. The claims of. And so again. The scriptures.

Point to such a figure. That. We can hear and invoke.

And for us. It's almost like. It's almost. Too obvious.

It's almost. Too obvious. And it's almost like. I don't have to spend a lot of time there.

But I would encourage you. To look at some dates. That I have. With James White.

And father Michael. Where they go deep.

And have a three hour debate. On pagans. And this is really old, so it's probably from the 90s.

So James White had hair back then. And he's a little bit bigger than he is now.

But a really great debate between him and I think it's maybe, yeah,

Arthur Michaels is his name. Mitch Peckwell? No, Mitch Peckwell is his name.

I think that's a scientist. He's not the Asian guy with the pink hair. But I think it's

Peckwell is the last name. And they have a great three -hour debate on the issue.

And there are certain things that the previous ones that almost sound like they're on the onset, but are critically detriorating under the weight of research.

Critically detriorating. And it's almost too obvious.

But I still think we should just dismiss it altogether.

And I think the reason why we shouldn't dismiss it is because I think there's a prophetic significance here.

Again, I made my position known pretty clearly. I alluded to the phobias of the anthrax, the phobia of disease, the insensitivity, the sense of depreciation, the phobia of insurgency and paralysis.

And I think there's a process of indifference here. So I don't want to just say, oh, we're going to do the wrong.

There's a really powerful reason this is my microphone. It's because there's a spiritual perception of what we're susceptible to, that's overlooked here.

And it's blinding the minds of our readers to accept this ability as being true. So there's a spiritual perception that's overlooked here.

And because there's a discernment of the system that's overlooked here, I don't think we should quickly dismiss some of the things that are being made.

Does that make sense? Mm -hmm. So, yeah. What would be Rome's view in regards to Eastern orthodoxy?

Because Eastern orthodoxy would be more closer to Rome compared to us as Protestants. So what's

Rome's view in regards to the state of Eastern orthodoxy and so forth? Yeah, I mean, there's fascinating similarities between the orthodox church, but that doesn't matter because you're asked.

Because I think that Roman Catholicism has over -complicated and out -of -the -box

Eastern church here. But more recent discussion around Eastern orthodoxism and Protestantism is that what

I see Rome doing is they're really trying to reel in the back end and take the trigger for the

Protestants. So you have the whole column of Christian organizers that say, oh, we just want to come together again.

And there's a softer tone from the native society in regards to kind of welcoming people back into the love of the protestants, or what we call them.

And so the meaning of the distinction between orthodoxism and Catholicism is the meaning of the

Roman church. So in Eastern orthodoxism, they don't have a cult.

They don't have an archbishop, which doesn't mean there's a main pope. Which isn't quite the same, all the powers and authority that the pope would.

But it's still very similar. And so Roman Catholicism sees them as, I think

I remember they used the term sister church, that they came from the same vein, that they departed on how the orthodox were saying, this is the

Roman Catholic church departing. They're actually more right than that. And that really, you can see the Roman Catholic church as a somewhat more powerful agency, versus the orthodox church, more being aimed at what seemed to be the government of the ancient church, which was bishops and pastors having authority.

And I think the orthodox, Eastern orthodox church, I think their main bishop was the bishop of Egypt, not of the state.

So that's how those ancient churches ended the change, because they kept going around. But yeah, they would, in some circle, refer to the orthodox church as the sister church, that needs to be brought back.

So, any last thoughts or questions? I want to move to the third. What I do want to do is

I just want to spend a little bit more time in this chapter, because there's some stricture that I want to examine. And so kind of starting first in page 113, we're going to come back to that next week, and look at some more of the strictures and some more of the claims that we've made.

So let me close with a prayer, and then we can get ready to start. Father, we thank you that you are indeed God, and have given us clarity through your word.

You have given us this truth and stricture that we should hold on to, no longer that we are not true, that precious song, that people of God, that you have spoken of in the stricture, that we are indeed a holy nation, and a loyal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices through Jesus Christ.

Father, we want us to recognize who you are in Jesus, and also lovingly, but boldly proclaim the truth of the gospel to those who are parishioners.

pray this in Jesus' name, amen. Amen. All right, we'll see you guys. Service.