Sola sciptura and sola fide are not biblical, ill become Catholic soon 🙏

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Praise God!! :)

@zachariahcraven2209

Ай бұрын

As Lutheran (unsure how exactly other denominations see it) I think scripture alone faith alone may be a bit of misunderstanding between Catholics and Protestants as scripture alone means to emphasize what scripture says not that we ignore or disregard tradition and faith alone to emphasize faith in Christ not that you shouldn’t be preforming good deeds as a Christian.

@kevinkent6351

Ай бұрын

"Scripture alone" is a misrepresentation of the non-Catholic position. Scripture is simply the highest authority on Earth whereas Catholics make scripture co-equal with tradition and Church authorities.

@My10thAccount

Ай бұрын

@@zachariahcraven2209 Generally speaking I believe that is the case. The issue is that the initial premise spiraled out into insanity, which is the inevitable result of any theology that exists outside of the bounds prescribed by the Catholic Church.

@brucewmclaughlin9072

Ай бұрын

Hopper will you be a believer in Christ or a catholic that obeys a group? You obviously don't understand Sola Scriptura. It doesn't mean that you can interpret any passage any way that you wish. Romans 15:4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope. Written not oral , not traditions , written. Sola Scriptura is saying that The New Testament is the Life and Teachings of Jesus and the original Apostles and the First Churches.. Sola Scriptura just points to THEM not just the Holy Spirit inspired Words, but the Holy Spirit inspired Authors/leaders and their Proven Authority as the true source to prove or test or Disprove future so called 'leaders' or future claims and teachings. Sola Scriptura means going all the way back directly to Jesus, John, Paul, James, Peter, Mark, Luke, Matthew, Moses, David, etc.. and going back to Their Lives, and Their preserved written teachings and traditions. Sola scriptura skips the questionable 'middle-men'.... thousands of years of Post New Testament groups and so called 'leaders' and takes you back to the first Source Leaders that were confirmed and are not questionable. This is the best way. Skip Luther and Skip the Vatican and just Learn the Truth Directly from Moses, David, Jesus, John, Paul, James, Peter, Etc... Please read the whole New Testament... you will find no popes, no cathedrals, no Statues, no Marian dogmas, no prayers to dead saints, No Vatican, No wafers, No fancy Robes, No Christian thrones. Please Follow Jesus and Him Alone.

Will be in OCIA this Fall, God-willing. Pray for me.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

God bless you! I will pray for you :)

Hi Cameron, I just stumbled upon your channel. Would you mind if I used clips from this video and analyzed it on my channel?

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Have at it brother! God bless!

@CriticalDisciple

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Thank you! I appreciate it.

@CriticalDisciple

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Hi Cameron, I've just published the video. Let me know your thoughts if you watch it. Thank you and God bless!

I am curious how you define unity when 30% of Catholics based on various polls show they do not believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. With that seemingly being a generous interpretation with the actual number being higher? I say this recognizing as a Lutheran we also probably have a similar problem but for it to be called a sacrament and yet it seems people who I would presume have gone through the catechism to become catholic don’t even understand the Eucharist seems to be a major failure. From my point of view I would probably sadly agree with you on the disunity within many Protestant churches but see the Catholic Church as the same.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment :) Many Catholics sadly do not believe what the Church teaches. This is true for all religions to some extent. However, whenever one of those Catholics who does not believe rejects the teaching of the Church, they know they are not in union with her. Those who are "real" Catholics (meaning they accept all of the Church's dogmas) are united in faith.

@zachariahcraven2209

Ай бұрын

Thank you, I see you what you mean.

@shanahendricks9831

Ай бұрын

Just to add to the answer, I think with all things God related we should always be in pursuit of truth. There were many times my flesh wanted to reject the church only because I couldn't believe the so called Catholics around me who are actually just hypocrites. But every time I think that I'm convicted in my ways because there are many things I have to do first as part of the body of Christ before I judge. What makes the church true is its tradition, history and the promises of Jesus not the understanding of man or the lack of understanding.

To counter your points, Yes unity in doctrine is necessary. Nobody denies this, this is why we separate from one another, there is no such thing has “Protestant unity” because that’s not what Protestantism is. Protestantism isn’t a “one true church” we are different groups of people who had different issues (real, delusional and perceived) with the papist church. Not one group where everyone believes the same thing. The reformation wasn’t 1 unified push, there was the radical reformation and conservative reformation. You are pretending like Protestants see the church and themselves in the same way Rome does but we don’t make that claim. You seem to have a strawman of Protestantism. For example us Lutherans have a belief that part of valid participation in the sacrament in unity of doctrine. Lutherans stick to the book of concord for this reason, and up until liberals or modernists took over most of the reformed churches the reformed did the same with their confessions. Also you seem to be confusing faith with “what I know” faith is not what you know. You are not saved by knowing all the right things, you are saved by faith in Christ. Also you seem to mention “some Protestants say baptism isn’t necessary” as a Protestant I object to that, classical Protestants would consider all those who say such a thing as an Anabaptist. Those people are part of the radical reformation and aren’t associated with us, but papal apologetics has seemingly forgotten the term and category exists and is associating us with people we have nothing to do with. Also your entire argument is fallacious, just because one accepts other authorities doesn’t mean we believe other authorities are infallible. No Protestant believes that, you seem to have a very bad strawman where you think Protestants believe in the very same principles of infallibility that you do, just because I can submit to an authority doesn’t mean I believe that authority is infallible, when that authority contradicts God’s plain word you can disagree with it. “How do I know what God’s word is” because His word is first off clear and easily understood, and second of all because of consensus in the church and early church.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment :) But, if you do not accept a magisterium of some kind, how do you know the anabaptists are wrong?

@nodroj31

Ай бұрын

@CameronRiecker Because we test what they say against the scriptures, and yes, we ultimately have to discern if they are correct or not, with the help of the holy spirit. How do you know that the Catholic Magesterium is correct in saying that the Anabaptists are wrong? You have discerned yourself that the Catholic Magesterium has authority over interpretation of the scriptures and have thus, submitted to Rome based on your own discernment.

@scordova98

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Anabaptism is wrong because it's completely novel, and because it's fruits have been evil, and because it's interpretations of scripture can be easily refuted by other scripture. I as a Lutheran do not have a magisterium, I as a Lutheran also know the church history and teaching of the lutheran confessions from this I know that anabaptists are wrong. once again you keep doing the thing where you seem to think we have the same concept of authority that you do.

@windyday8598

Ай бұрын

yes- the word is clear and easily understood. in debating whether the pope or the bible is the ultimate authority for religious belief and practice, tyndale said: "he would cause a boy that driveth a plough, to know more of the scripture than the priest did." still today the catholic church discourages anyone to read and study the bible on their own. see the movie "luther" 2003. excellent.

@scordova98

Ай бұрын

@@windyday8598 the papist church does not discourage people from reading their bible anymore. That’s false.

Well said Cameron

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thank you! :) God bless you!

Yes, I often point that out to protestants in "discussions"

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment :) You've been with me since day 1!

@BensWorkshop

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker You are welcome.

@christafarion9

Ай бұрын

@BensWorkshop have you read just a few verses later, Matthew 16:21-23? Read it and type it out in the comments as a reply if you have the courage.

@BensWorkshop

Ай бұрын

@@christafarion9 Yes. It says: 21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. 22 And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” 23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance[a] to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men.” But then Jesus also says in many places, that Peter is to lead the Apostles: That dialogue in full is Matthew 16:13-20. In that Jesus is clearly talking to Peter, he first blesses him, not what he just said. He says he will build his Church on him, and that the powers of hell will not prevail against it. That he will give Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and what ever he binds on earth shall be bound in Heaven etc. Later in John 21:15-19, Jesus asks Peter (not all the disciples) "Do you love me" 3 times. 3 times Peter says he loves him. Each time Jesus says to Peter "Feed/tend my sheep/lambs" The only actual sheep Jesus had were the body of believers who existed then and would come to be. In Luke 22:31-34, again Jesus talks directly to Peter saying he has prayed for Peter's faith, and telling him to, when he has turned again strengthen the brethren. (Also Jesus said Peter would deny him 3 times before the cock crowed). Peter is also mentioned 139 times in the Gospels, the next most mentioned is around 26 times. So clearly taking a snippet out of the full context gets you nowhere. May God bless you and guide you. Christopher Ryan Wrote have you read just a few verses later, Matthew 16:21-23? Read it and type it out in the comments as a reply if you have the courage.

1:15 love this quote from Venerable Fulton Sheen

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

I do too! He was a wise man :) Thanks for the comment!

For someone that is not going to pick on protestants, you sure make a good job of it. Do you really think every Catholic person believes exactly everything that the pope says, are they not allowed to read for themselves? I have many Catholic friends and know several that have left the Catholic church for one reason or another. Does this mean they are no longer a Christian or they are not saved? I think not. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the guides and yes, some protestants do practice outside teaching of the Bible as I'm sure some Catholics do. I personally do not believe we (all Christians) need a Pope to tell us everything to believe. But that everything preached should be able to be confirmed in the Bible. We all have to be careful when chastising each other due to their faith, see Matthew 7:5.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

God will judge :) for my part, I want to be a member of the Church Jesus Christ founded.

You make some good arguments, but here is my question. Can you take the fundamental catholic teaching and apply them to independent house churches in closed nations?

Based.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the support :)

@TimSpangler-rd6vs

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker after the REAL NT Church began at Pentecost....NO Queen of Heaven.....NO Rosaries.....NO Jesus sacrificed on an Altar in an unbloody manner........NO Monstrance.....NO Indulgences....NO HOly Water.....NO Scapulars......NO Pope......NO Nuns.....NO Altar Boys.......NO Immaculate Heart of Mary.......NO Co Redeemer....NO Mediatrix.......NO Immaculate Conception....NO Priests absolving sin, then imposing penance for the confessed sins of the penitent.....

@essafats5728

Ай бұрын

@@TimSpangler-rd6vs oh once again, stop with your typical PRoT VOMIT

I don't know what protestants do not understand when Jesus calls Simon Peter a rock on which He will build His Church

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

They interpret that passage as meaning either that Christ is the rock or Peter's faith is the rock. Both interpretations are found in the fathers. But even if those interpretations are correct, it does not negate the fact that Peter was made head of the Church on earth :)

@7Word

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker I think these interpretations are far fetched and so should not be preferred unless proven otherwise. To me it's like finding excuses not to believe something out of comfort

Great vid! I have found Protestants have the “what” right and the how wrong. For example, “Jesus made a way for us to go Heaven” (what) He gave the keys to the gate to Peter (how). “God forgives our sins” (what) Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them and whose sins you retain are retained to them (how).

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment :) Well said. God bless you!

As an Anglican I don’t understand myself to have anymore unity with the Baptists than you do, furthermore Rome allows for several different doctrinal interpretations, Molinism, Thomism, and Scotism, are all very different approaches to systematic theology. A more practical disagreement within Rome is the fact that your own canon lawyers cannot come to an agreement on whether attending an SSPX chapel fulfills the Sunday Obligation. As for where I draw authority from I believe scripture itself to be the highest authority, and that the Holy Ghost leads the WHOLE Church into all truth, so having a scriptural interpretation that is consistent with the fathers is essential. I don’t see many of the modern claims made of the papacy in scripture or the early church. Rome has placed its teaching authority above that which it is actually teaching, which I believe to be an error.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Those different schools of thought are different way of explaining the same doctrines. All of those schools of thought are united in the dogmas, they just go about theology differently. The SSPX is a difficult situation, but Benedict the XVI ruled that they are in communion but with and irregular canonical status. You should read John Henry Newman’s book on the Development on Christian Doctrine. He says there are more Church Fathers who write about the papacy than the Eucharist. And that the Primacy of Rome is one of the easiest doctrines to prove from studying the Fathers and History. And he began writing that book as an Anglican.

People overthink "Born of water and spirit" it's just making reference to being born the first time in sin (mothers womb) and being born the second time of the spirit a.k.a just being saved. If baptism was a requirement Paul would have mentioned it in Ephesians 1:13-14 "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye BELIEVED (baptism?), ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the GUARANTEE our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory." Not only does Paul not mention baptism. He doesn't mention works at all which is kinda the point of grace. Grace in the Greek translates to CHARIS meaning "unmeritted favor" the favor is meritless. It doesn't require baptism, the same way it doesn't require works. Baptism is simply an outward act of faith representing Christs death, burial and resurrection. In fact, works are the complete opposite of grace according to Romans 11:6. John's gospel is the only new testament letter written for the purpose of saving the lost according to john 20:30 and he gives a single requirement over 20 times, which is to "believe on the son" for everlasting life. He never tells a single person to "believe and be Baptisted" as a secondary requirement. The thief on the cross was never baptised and neither did Paul tell the philippian jailer who literally asked "what must I do to be saved?" Why did Paul only say "believe on the lord Jesus Christ and though shalt be saved?" Why didn't he add anything? Of course the jailer latter on got baptised with his family but nowhere did it say they did that because they had to. Again it's just an outward show of faith. Lastly if baptism was necessary to go to heaven. Why wasn't Paul sent to baptise people if it's the only way they are getting to heaven? 1 Corinthians 1:17 "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power"

@kainech

Ай бұрын

"Grace" cannot mean "unmerited favor." Do you believe Paul is defining the word by legal categories that wouldn't arise for hundreds of years? The category arose form letters written by martyrs about the "merit" or "virtue" of the individual, and that evolved into later categories of merit. If it means "unmerited favor" how would his readers have even known what he meant? And how would that work when the word is used in contexts that explicitly denote favor as a result of what people did? Two examples are Gen 50.4 and I Sam 16.22. In almost every case like this, the word was translated as charis into Greek. This is the Bible the Apostles used, so it indicates what the terms meant, and that meaning is not compatible with the one you gave.

@YaksoHD

Ай бұрын

Just remember, your interpretation of John 3:5 is a reinterpretation by men from the 1500’s that has nothing to do with authentic Christianity or Biblical truths. You are following traditions of men, we are following the Church Christ himself set up and promised to never fail.

@jsam1997

Ай бұрын

@kainech explain why the gospel of john only tells you to believe and is written to the lost. Did john fail? His purpose statement is in jn 20:30. Explain why Paul states in Ephesians 2:8-9, "for by grace you have been saved through faith, and NOT OF YOURSELVES it is a GIFT of God. NOT....AS.....A.....RESULT....OF.....WORKS so that no one can boast." Or Ephesians 1:13-14" In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye BELIEVED, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the GUARANTEE our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory." Guarantee? And yet it's based on your efforts.....right. Or maybe explain why Paul told the jailer who asked to be saved "believe on the lord Jesus Christ and you WILL be saved." The opposite of no merit is merit, which the Bible clearly preaches against. Do you really need me to type every single verse about how our salvation is free and requires no works. I'll give you another one. Romans 4:5 "And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness"

@jsam1997

Ай бұрын

@@YaksoHD answer the comment I made to @kainech

@jsam1997

Ай бұрын

@@stingingnettle9726 answer the comment I made to @kainech

This is a very interesting and persuasive argument however it has a few big flaws. 1.Just because your in the same church as someone including the catholic church does not mean that we agree or look at everything the same way I am sure at some level you have disagreements with catholic friends over different doctrinal disagreements and i know Catholics that have disagreements like this 2. I don't "appoint myself the pope" I think the reason for so many doctrinal disagreements is the lack of people understanding of the context, structure and The dependence on other scripture. And people are flawed so that can also affect interpretation I don't know if anyone has a perfect interpretation of scripture 3. There is no scriptural evidence for the pope Matthew 16:13 is referenced a lot however there is no evidence in scripture of this authority being passed down and peter was wrong sometimes as you see when Paul calls him out for changing when jews come to see the church peter joins them fearing them Galatians 2:11. Peter was also more evangelically important to building the church and James took main leadership in Jerusalem. He also gives other disciples the power not just peter john 20:19. And if he was the only one who could correctly interpret scripture than 90% of the new testament is thrown out the window. 4.If popes our divinely chosen by God why would he choose some truly bad people that clearly misinterpreted scripture. I do like the idea of seeking counsel from people more advanced in their faith however there is no biblical or other evidence that the pope is from God I liked your arguments and think they are important to consider i would however like more evidence for why the pope has the authority to interpret scripture Matthew says that this authority is given to peter however where does it say this is passed down and why have there been corrupt popes that have contradicted one another?

Pastor Brandan Robertson is the inevitable result of sola scriptura. When there is no magesterium or tradition informing faith, then it is 100% up to the reader.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment! Who is Pastor Brandon?

@PatrickBurdine

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Oh he is a very outspoken LGBTQ TikTok pastor who has said things like God is queer and other terrible things.

👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the support :) God bless you!

This "here's a question you or your church can't answer" is really a stupid form of apologetics, to put it nicely.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment :) It was meant to be intriguing, not divisive. Sorry if I missed the mark!

Option D You recognize that man by themselves cannot understand the scriptures and thus listen to the Holy Spirit. But for one reason or another God uses man to send out his word. So you’re open to hear any and everyone out on biblical matters. You have the openness to be corrected and rebuke. And the wisdom to know we are tackling primary or secondary biblical matters So you’d never hand wave away someone’s theology simply based on denominational differences but by the words you judge if it’s righteous our not And even take self examined stock to see what beliefs you hold on that while helpful for your walk, are secondary and not essential Roman Catholic Church has the history to back itself up but we act like Peter was the only apostle who planted churches. Or himself was never rebuked or little-homied by other apostles. The book of acts and Paul is a great indicator that iron sharpens iron. What about my orthodox homies, what about the Coptic church or the Eastern Orthodox church?

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment! I'd love to discuss the Orthodox position with someone who knows it well. Any recommendations?

@quesostuff1009

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker unfortunately not at this moment. It wasn’t until this year where I learnt about the orthodox , east orthodox, Coptic and Ethiopian traditions. I wish you luck on your journey of discovery and may god be with you

You say that Protestants cannot achieve unity, yet here in Europe Anglicans, Methodists and Lutherans have full altar & pulpit communion. Anglicans and Methodists in the U.K. & Ireland via their shared heritage (they are also working on full reunification), and Anglicans and Lutherans through the Porvoo Communion (which requires, among other things, an Episcopal polity with Apostolic Succession). I feel that Sola Scriptura (and to a lesser extent, Prima Scriptura) is sorely misunderstood. It does not mean that nothing can be done that is not in Scripture. It means that nothing found outside Scripture is required for salvation or justification. Anglicans have the so-called 'three-legged stool', with Scripture + Tradition (of the Early Church) + Reason, with the latter two being permitted only for Christian practice, not as requirements for salvation, and only where they do not conflict with Scripture (i.e. Prima Scriptura). Anglicans also 'sort of' have 7 Sacraments. Two Major Sacraments (also called 'Sacraments of the Gospel'): Baptism and Holy Communion; and five Minor Sacraments (also called 'Sacramental Rites'): Confirmation, Confession and absolution (Anglo-Catholics might also add Penance), Ordination (Holy Orders), Holy Matrimony & Annointing of the Sick (also called 'Extreme Unction'). One could even add an 8th: Coronation.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment! If it's true that the Bible teaches all that is necessary for salvation, shouldn't the bible teach that?

@DadoMac

Ай бұрын

Why unite only now? Why not long ago? Unite for convenience? If sola scriptura is sorely misunderstood, it is because it is deceiving. That principle has been used by the protestants against the church and worst , against Mary the Mother of God. They claim she committed sin. What sin, they (perhaps you included) won't say.

@daithimcbuan5235

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker I'm afraid that that is circular reasoning, and a somewhat unnecessary argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, but nothing in modern Catholic doctrine requires anything that isn't found in the bible for salvation or justification. Things outside the bible are only for Christian practice, right? And there Anglicans (and Lutherans if they'd care to admit it) are in at least partial agreement.

@daithimcbuan5235

Ай бұрын

@@DadoMac "Sola Scriptura" is no more deceiving than any other 'sound-bite'. It's a distillation of a concept. As for Mary, we do not claim that she sinned (she may have, she may not have), just that, as a human like everyone else, she was born with a sinful nature, as a result of the Fall. Please bear in mind that I'm coming from an Anglican perspective, not an 'Evangelical' or Pentecostal perspective.

@DadoMac

Ай бұрын

@@daithimcbuan5235 Thank you for being honest. Not too may protestants reveal where they are coming from. Embarrassed to name their sects. Now almost all protestants who criticize the Catholics are citing the verse "all have sinned", and Mary's words " ..my savior.." The last quotation according to them is proof that Mary sinned. Now what is you stand on this , is she a sinner like anyone else, or free of sin as the Catholics believe?

4:40 Infallibly? Never met a Protestant who said, claimed, suggested that

@DadoMac

Ай бұрын

Yeah, but the generally claim the Holy Spirit guides them in the interpretation of the scriptures.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Either there is an infallible interpreter or the Scriptures are only as useful as the interpretation :)

@TimSpangler-rd6vs

28 күн бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Either The Scriptures can correct or they cant. What is your verdict?

Jude 11 warns the Orthodox and protestants of Korah's rebellion. Numbers 16: 3 is what they all say to the authority that Christ left over His church.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Good point! God given authority can be abused, but it can't be done away with.

@John_Six

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Yes. Moses was the only one in charge when Korah rebelled. Why would Jude even bring that up if everyone can be in charge or be equals? If Jesus is a Davidic King then He has an Asher Al Habayit/Royal Steward over His house. Luke 12 41 Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” 42 And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? John 21 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. That authority of Moses was passed down to Joshua. it wasn't done away with just because Moses could not enter the promised land.

If you are wondering about the question of whether your sexuality is a sin or not, I welcome you to consider the following thoughts for clarification. Let’s look at some basic fundamental facts based on extensive research & ongoing R&D. During fetal development a verity of biochemical agents are introduced which determine the total development of the fetus. Major agents such as testosterone & estrogen & a host of others agents determine size, weight, hair color, eye color & sexuality along with a host of other traits. Variations in the amount & timing of the introduction of these agents have a major effect in our development. The fetus is a passive participant & has no influence in these matters. Sexuality, for example, & all other secondary traits are thus given to us. Well, this begs the question, is homosexuality a sin. If your religion or belief system states that it is, then there can be no argument. These are the rules based on this system’s dogma. If you accept this system, you must accept the rules. This is your only choice which doesn’t include options & exceptions . Rules are rules ! If, however, you are in a belief system based on logic, reason, observation & common sense, & no reliance on spirituality, the conclusion is totally different. Replacing ancient religion & mythology & superstition with reason leads to another conclusion. Leaving religions that use condemnation & ridicule for control, can be the first step in becoming a true human being minus any imposed or fabricated guilt. There exist many variations of human sexual expression. When you leave various ancient religious beliefs behind & chose knowledge based in research, you can see & understand the true nature of humanity. You leave ignorance, hatred, & prejudice behind. In the book Gay Straight & the Reason Why by Simon Levay PhD, explanations regarding this aspect of humanity are clearly explained & is based on research. While I am not gay, I highly recommend this book. Being gay is no more of a sin than having red hair. They are both based on genetics & clearly not a sin. There is nothing wrong with you. This is the true choice. Peace

@CameronRiecker

27 күн бұрын

Thanks for the comment :) God bless you!

@geoffjs

5 күн бұрын

Do you deny that the bible teaches that the practice of homosexuality is sinful? Like people of all flavours of sexuality, we are also called to celibacy unless married, heterosexual that is.

@dan69052

4 күн бұрын

@@geoffjs I can tell by your response; you didn’t read the book. Nor understood or comprehend what I wrote. Thank you however. You helped me realized that while I was brought up as a Catholic with 12 years of educational indoctrination, I know I made the right decision to leave any religious affiliation I had. I started to think for myself & not follow the herd. Additionally, while I am not gay, I accept those who are. I embraced reason, logic, acceptance, & love to understand the world & humanity. I no longer feel compelled to judge or condemn others especially when it is based the ignorance & hate found in religions. If your choice is religion, good for you but keep it to yourself! Thank you for showing me I made the right decision to leave & prove me right. Peace & again thank you very much.

I think it's interesting that the interpretation is that one faith should be ruled by one pope when that is not how the church worked for the first 400 years of it's existence. And even after that 400 years the Orthodox has existed just as long as the Catholic church and still, they are not ruled by one Pope. Remember, the Catholic church was just the church of Rome until the Great Schism. Before that the leader of the church of Rome had just as much say as the leader of the church of Alexandria, or Greece, or any of the other Arch-Bishops of that time. And decisions were made, not by the say of one, but the conference of many, just as it was in the book of Acts.

@geoffjs

5 күн бұрын

Mt 16 18-19 is clear to those of goodwill & can read. St Peter was the first pope or Prime Minister Isa 22:22 & was given authority by Jesus. There is an unbroken line of apostolic succession from the first pope to Francis. The CC has existed for 2000 yrs, in spite of sinful men, proof of its divine origin! Other Churches that you refer to in the early centuries were dioceses in different regions but Catholic & loyal to Rome.

How do you know that the interpretation is that Peter himself has the keys and not Peter's proclamation that Jesus is God is the key given that Jesus was pointing out, the faith and the proclamation that Jesus is God is the rock upon which Jesus builds his Church?

@geoffjs

5 күн бұрын

Protestantism gymnastics knows no limits, bonus marks for creativity, but overall fail!

@Mortyrian

5 күн бұрын

@@geoffjs Read chapter 1 of 1 Corinthians, there you will see Paul bringing up the topic of the church arguing about who they follow and who baptized them. It does not matter what person you follow, above all follow Christ. Paul didn't die for you, Cephas didn't die for you, Peter didn't die for you, follow Christ.

This is just an examined set of thoughts from a Protestant, but... The question is not whether baptism is regenerative. It's whether the water has power. For the Catholic, the water is infused. For the Protestant, the power is in the doing of the baptism (as with the eucharist-the power, the meaning, the real presence is in the participation, not in the material-that's a difference; there are many who see it as merely symbolic, for sure, but that's not universal and needs to be corrected where it's not). As such, the question of what baptism is for is meaningful. It is a testimony of death to self and a desire to be washed by Christ. As such, it says something to others, and it says something of and to the one being baptized. This is why Catholics and liturgical Protestants are correct in representing that the amount of the water isn't the issue (although all seem to agree that immersion is ideal). It's also the backdrop for Protestant essentializing of the faith-that the testimony of the will, that the individual wants to proclaim receipt of Christ and of the passive being washed by him is baptism's purpose associated with salvation. Of course the common example is Dismus, without regard to the Catholic position that this was a special circumstance. But if that's the case, then, in essentializing, baptism isn't required by the grace of God for salvation. I know the argument is that applying a sort of commutative sense of the Dismus case is considered improper. But the evangelistic instinct among Protestants is to win people via the assent of their wills to faith, like the Ethiopian eunuch. Also, the serious Protestant (both sides have casual unthinking attendees) is not trusting Pastor Bob's interpretation to get to heaven. Nor does the Protestant trust his own ability to interpret. Protestants have a Berean perspective, investigating a pastor's claims or their own personal preference against the word, against historical understanding, against church fathers' (misnomer) understanding. When this isn't done, it causes problems, yes. But that's common to all Christians-taking what they/we want to accept and rejecting other things either casually or purposely.

@geoffjs

5 күн бұрын

The power of baptism for Catholics is in the words or format whereas the water is symbolic & hence why both immersion & pouring are valid. An equally big issue is baptism of children, including infants which Acts 2 38-39 confirms as baptism replaces circumcision & washes away original sin or the sin of Adam. In the book of Acts, five households were baptised, all of which could have included children.

We are all sinful and prideful. Total unity is impossible with those characteristics.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment :) That is true in some ways!

"There is ONE faith." Yes, and just like in the early church, there were endless disagreements about doctrine, which the Apostle Paul addresses and guides us in how to behave with such disagreements. But there was agreement on the core fundamentals. Repeating the word "one" loudly does not make the point you think it makes. What you're saying is also full of so many false premises, such as the premise that Protestants think of themselves as a unified entity--all it means is that we reject the authority of the Catholic Church--that's the extent of our unity. Many Protestant churches teach heresy and apostasy and we reject them as brothers and sisters in Christ. There is also this bizarre premise that Catholics agree with each other on doctrine--well, hello, the two most famous Catholics in America are Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi. Are you in communion with those two apostates?

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment! Nancy Pelosi is formally excommunicated by her bishop :)

@kevinkent6351

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker 1 down, about 5 million to go in the United States alone.

@windyday8598

Ай бұрын

well said

@He_who_lives_forever

Ай бұрын

Respectfully i would disagree Biden is not a catholic he asked trump mockingly what the Bible he reads is all about. How can you claim catholic and not know what the Bible is about let alone mock the Bible 😂

@kevinkent6351

Ай бұрын

@@He_who_lives_forever there are over 1 billion Catholics. Tens of millions-if not hundreds of millions-are equally as Biblically illiterate as Biden and support equally wicked policies. Sorry, you don’t get to criticize Protestants for their many shortcomings and disunity and then deny the countless tens of millions of dissenting Catholics.

The fundamental basics mistake you make is by putting everyone outside the Catholic church a protestant .You need to do your homework and address each denomination separately with whatever you disagree re that denomination belief !!! It is rather like a football fan saying that every other club is rubbish except the one they follow

On Unity: What good is unity if you're all wrong? How uniform do you have to be? Aren't you guys already united under the central doctrine that Christ is the Lord and Savior? On Authority: If you lived in a nation whose authoritative figures as well as the majority espoused Hindu beliefs, would you accept those beliefs thinking you would be 'self-poping' and narcissistic to you're correct over the prevailing authority as well as the majority? No, you'd probably still know in your heart that Christ is King and continue to follow the authority you have the most trust in. On the Bible: In the same chapter (Matthew 16), Jesus calls Peter "Satan," "a stumbling block" who does "not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns." Going from "Peter has the keys to Heaven" to "All Christians must worship in accordance with a pope that isn't even Peter" is a pretty large logical leap. You recognize that don't you?

@geoffjs

5 күн бұрын

His est His One True Church with hierarchy & authority, appointing Peter as His first earthly representative or Prime Minister Isa 22:22 with keys symbolising authority. Such authority has been handed down, for 2000 yrs in an unbroken line of apostolic succession, in spite of sinful men, to the current pope, proof of her divine origin.

@granthagen3207

3 күн бұрын

@@geoffjs what are you saying? You having a stroke or something?

Matthew 14:23-27 Matthew 17:24-27 Luke 5:1-10 Luke 22:-24-32 John 10:16 Acts 10:1-48 Acts 15:1-12 Matthew 10:2 relate to the primacy of peter

O boy Ray comfort is bragging about keeping a young man from the priesthood topic called He Was Training To Be a Catholic Priest Then This Happened Ray Comfort: Just Witnessing

@mrjeffjob

Ай бұрын

He knows he’s wrong because he allows no comments on his claims.

@kevinkent6351

Ай бұрын

Ray Comfort preaches the gospel of Jesus Christ in the streets routinely. When was the last time you shared the gospel of Jesus Christ with anyone?

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

If God wants them to be priests, not even Ray will stop them :)

You have rightly said that there is one faith. This means that there is only Christianity and not Catholic or Protestant. The unity of christianity of what is to be desired and not just the unity among various divisions within the body of Christ. Christianity as a whole lacks unity regardless of what denomination or practice a person claims as their own.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

That is why I see a need for a visible leader :) It's the only way to unify Christians.

7:25 "You HAVE a Pope". NO I DONT

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Then you are your own ultimate interpreter of the Scriptures :) And, that is what I meant by Pope.

@TimSpangler-rd6vs

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Where did I claim to be the ultimate interpreter of Scriptures?

@mrjeffjob

Ай бұрын

@@TimSpangler-rd6vsyour attitude says so.

@TimSpangler-rd6vs

Ай бұрын

@@mrjeffjob How so?

Unity is often just bowing to those with the loudest voices, and was never really taught by Christ...if anything he taught us to be against the world. Your argument seems to be if we want unity, we should go with the option with the most vocal support. So we should except LGBT ideology and a pro-choice stance because that is the most decisive stance we have, and would help us achieve unity by being more inclusive, and understanding. Many of the largest protestant mainline churches already preach this kind of unity. I would say unity is not always a good thing, often it can steer us in very wrong directions. As for who my pope is I don't think it is me, but I try to listen to everyone with a good head on their shoulders and a love of Christ. I listen to you, watch catholic masses, and other Catholic sources. But I also listen to protestant sermons, Calvinists, non-Calvinists, there is even a very good Orthodox priest that imparts a lot of wisdom here on youtube. I also do just as much of my own reading and studying the bible to make sure when all the people I watch say something that disagrees with me, or each other, I can find reasons why in the bible, and help determine who is most likely correct. But I do always watch people that give me a better understanding of scripture and Christ, and would reject anyone that leads me towards them, as even the pope is still human and not infallible. I will add from my diverse look at Christianity, I will say most bible believing protestants do a really good job preaching the bible. Both a Catholic mass and a Sunday sermon at a good Protestant church, tend to be just over an hour long. The Catholic mass usually has a 15 minute sermon where they look at a few passages and apply them to modern ideas, everything else is prayer and ceremony often the same week in and week out. That 15 mintute Sermon is what is new and valuable to me. But a protestants sermon tends to be around 40 minutes, mostly on a deep dive into scripture, what it meant at the time of writing, what other passages relate to it, and lastly how it can be applied today. They may not be 100% right, I may doubt some of this interpretations but the best pastors still give interpretations of people who disagree with them. For me, that is one of the weaknesses of the Catholic church, just how little there is to learn. Protestant pastors are out there outlining their sermon to help the congregation take notes and often gives them passages to read when they get home, they just don't do that in any Catholic mass I have seen. Of course protestant churches split near daily it seems, where the Catholic Church does seem stable, just to not beat on you guys too much here. :)

@alonamaria279

Ай бұрын

Actually , the Catholic church has a ton to learn, starting with the scriptures we have scared tradition , history etc ..but the reason why homilies are short compared to the amount of prayers and ceremonies in the mass is because the homily is not the center of the mass . The centre of the mass is body , blood , soul, and divinity of Christ. I don't know if you see it but the mass is structured after the feast of the Lamb in book of revelation.

@alonamaria279

Ай бұрын

Of course homilies are wonderful. Learning is the scriptures are vital to a Christian's life but the source and summit of The catholic church is the Eucharist , The true divine manna ..Christ Himself . It is the feast of the Lamb of God on Earth .

@alonamaria279

Ай бұрын

We do have other bible study, catechism classes, etc but nothing compares to the Eucharist . Eucharist is the union of one with Christ in the most intimate way. It is the sharing of hearts , Christ's divine sacred heart with ours . That is why Eucharist is called Holy Communion. The scriptures are God's own words but ultimately , the Scriptures lead to Eucharist which is the ultimate union of man and God on earth . Thank you so much for reading. I hope you understand the true life giving meaning of the Mass and the Eucharist which will change your whole life . I left the catholic church 3 years ago without truly understanding the church's teaching etc .I was a protestant since 2020 . I loved it and the passion of preaching the Gospel in the protestant churches . You guys are always 10x faster and stronger in evangelisation . I really appreciate that . But something is soooo missing in the Church ..that's what lead me to the Catholic church . Then I came to know what I was missing ..the communion of saints (as in heaven and earth ) and the Eucharist are 2 of the main reasons I left protestantism. Eucharist is who completely reverted me back to the Catholic church. Man , nothing compares to the Eucharist ( Which is Christ Himself) .

@colmortimer1066

Ай бұрын

@@alonamaria279 You give me a Catholic Sunday mass that is 70% bible study, through expository preaching, I am there. Nothing I said here negates Catholicism, it's just, for me, I like the nerdy aspects of learning a deep understanding of scripture, and Catholics can do that with the best of them. There are a lot of protestant churches that do not do the sermons even as well as the 15 minute Catholic ones, some don't even read the bible in church. And there are even some good churches for some people that do things more the Catholic way as we all learn differently Many good protestants and Catholics would hate the style I prefer, at the end of the day, it is what speaks to you, and what can you learn from. I learn much more from History, Scripture, Theology and less from repetition of the same songs, chants, prayers, and repeating what the church thinks I should believe every weak. It would be much better for me to learn those kinds of things through deep dives into scripture and applying them to what we should believe. As it is, most Catholics I have seen, and point me to any that differ, will say something like "a reading from the Book of Daniel" Where an actual sermon form yesterday was a 40 minute study of Daniel 4:13-33, I am assuming next week they will end Daniel Chapter 4 and then start on Chap 5 the following week. I do not know for sure where I am as a faith, other than I am not Calvinist, but this Presbyterian church does sermons so well I watch them while condemning their Calvinist stance...it also means I won't make the head nor assistant pastor my Pope as I clearly reject that aspect of their faith, while I respect their style of nerdy deep dives into scripture, that really challenge and deepen my understanding of scripture beyond my own readings.

@colmortimer1066

Ай бұрын

@@alonamaria279 When you read the bible and see the Eucharist is only a symbolic remembrance of Christ and his sacrifice, making mass only about the Eucharist turns me away a bit. The focus seems off there, it's best to learn theology, than to just hammer home the Eucharist every week. A least the Calvinist Presbyterian Church, gives me a lot of think about every sermon with all they study, even though they too believe the the literal transformation of the bread an wine, and believe in total depravity and you can never do good works, one thing I actually side with you all on. And if I am wrong, hopefully the Catholic church will give me enough nerdy theology, until I am ready to put some faith in the Eucharist, beyond the symbolic remembrance of the last super. I can say in the last 3 months or so watching at least one catholic mass a week, I have not really come closer to becoming Catholic..but I do think a 40 minute catholic sermon in between the traditional aspects of the mass, would probably be better than the 40 minute Presbyterian ones. And that might sway me more in the long run. Also if the Eucharist is so important, why have I not seen wine in the communion given to the people? It only seems to be the bread, nobody other than the priest seems to get wine...at least this is from what I have seen, your church may do it all...which I would have more respect for.

Have you done any podcasts where you directly discuss these things with Protestants? Having grown up and having remained a Protestant (Baptist) my entire life, when you were discussing Protestant beliefs it was as if you'd never set foot in the doors of a protestant church. I'm not saying you have no experience, I'm just saying that some of the hardline "issues" you think are foundational are not even on the radar as a concern for us. For instance, we don't believe we are our own pope. We don't believe Peter holds the keys. We don't believe that baptism is required (Jesus would be a liar if this were true, btw). I would definitely watch you discuss some of these things with multiple different Protestant theologians. (Not all at once, but one at a time like a tour of the other side.)

@andrewpatton5114

Ай бұрын

How we become Christians is a foundational issue, whether you like it or not. If you get that wrong, then first, you may not actually be a Christian even though you think you are, and second, you can lead others astray and become responsible for their damnation, which God will hold you accountable for. Picture yourself on Judgment Day, having to answer for teaching another that baptism was not necessary for salvation, and he was damned because God says it is necessary for salvation. Christ will convict you of murdering a man's soul and sentence you to fiery Gehenna for it, as it is written, "No murderer has eternal life abiding in him."

Hey Brother, I hear you and respect what you're saying. I think the major assumption you're making is that just because Catholicism agrees on its doctrine means it's correct. I'd say if we'd all stick to being biblical we'd be in better shape as a body of believers. The Bible always interprets itself and if you're confused it's because you didn't read far enough. The thing I struggle most with Catholicism is that the doctrine that they agree on contradicts the Bible in important and meaningful ways. Like switching the Sabbath to Sunday and manipulating the 10 commandments for example. Yeshua is the only spiritual authority and only his laws are perfect (he is the way, the truth and the life). He wrote the 10 commandments and the law. Doctrines of man will only mislead you. Pharisees had the same problem but just in the other direction and Yeshua called them out on it. Respectfully, Aaron

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the respectful comment! I think unity is a principle mark of the Church Jesus started. Jesus wants us to be one as He and the Father are one. I do not see that unity be possible is Sola Scriptura is employed.

@DadoMac

Ай бұрын

The bible interprets itself? You must be kidding.

@portalend

Ай бұрын

@@DadoMac What I mean is that the Bible will either go on to further explain (Like Peters vision on the roof) or the Holy Spirit will help you too understand if you seek the truth. This is what Yeshua meant by "He who has ears to hear let them hear". It's also why he spoke in parables. 🙏

@DadoMac

Ай бұрын

@@portalend If that's the case why the different interpretations among the protestant sects? They all claim to be guided by the holy spirit and reading the bible for further explanation.

@portalend

Ай бұрын

@@DadoMac Only the lord knows the answer to that question. Claiming to be led by the holy spirt doesn't mean you are. (Mat 7:21) The only thing we know for sure is that there is only one truth. We also must keep in mind that "the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Mat 7:14) I think the biggest problem is not reading the bible. If you don't know your bible you'll be easily deceived. To be clear I'm neither protestant or catholic. I'm biblical, the whole bible is the truth.

Okay, you seem like you're operating in good faith, so I'll take the time to answer: Your argument begs the question - because you're assuming a particular interpretation of Matthew 16 (the Catholic interpretation) in order to reach the conclusion that Catholicism is true... but that interpretation of having a single bishop as the universal head of the church is the very thing in question when debating whether or not we should become Catholic or remain Protestant. You're basically saying, "If the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16 is correct, then Catholicism is true!" But that doesn't tell us anything. We first have to ask: How do we interpret Matthew 16? What is the correct interpretation? And you can't appeal to Rome for that, because then you'd just be arguing in a circle. Why is Rome's interpretation correct? Once we ask questions like this, you'll see that Catholics are in the same boat we Protestants are. You have to use your own private interpretation and private judgment to come to the conclusion that Roman Catholicism is true logically prior to submitting to the pope's interpretation of the Scriptures. The problem of private judgment and private interpretation is unavoidable. If that makes me my own pope, then you are yours, too, because you are using your own private judgment to come to the conclusion that Catholicism is true, and thus submitting to the Roman bishop rather than Pastor Bob. The only difference between us is that I have used my private judgment and came to a different conclusion than you - that the Catholic Church has teachings absent from the apostolic deposit, and I believe we should go back to the Scriptures in order to surrender to the teachings of Christ and the apostles alone, and not the theological speculations of men who lived centuries later... God bless, and I hope this helps.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment :) Whenever you surrender your judgement of religious truth to a higher authority, that is when you stop being your own pope. If you submit your judgement to a local pastor, then he in essence becomes your pope. If you keep it for yourself, then you are your own pope. If you submit it to the Pope then the pope is your pope.

@kevinkent6351

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker And what qualifies a Latin American socialist to be your Pope? And why is Pope Francis, a person of the political left, more qualified than Pastor Bob to interpret scripture? Presumably, because you believe the Holy Spirit selected Francis, but how is that premise proved? Because of Matthew 16, where the Catholic Church judges itself to be the one true Church? That very much reminds me of how Attorney General Garland assessed the evidence against him and found himself not to be in contempt of Congress and therefore innocent of the charges.

@nodroj31

Ай бұрын

Former Catholic, now Protestant here. Thank you for this response, it is well written and has saved me the time of having to respond in a similar way. We all will ultimately have to be an arbiter in one way or another in the way you just laid out. Yes, one can be led astray by reading what they want into the text, but one can also be led astray by a corrupted church authority. If the pope/magisterium stated that adultery was now permissible based on their interpretation of the scriptures are we free to commit adultery? No. If the pope states that we are free to pray to Mary and the Saints based on their interpretation of scripture are we free to do that? No. The idea that a high church structure controlling interpretation will somehow prevent people from falling into error is a ridiculous idea to me, and I believe that the history of the Roman Catholic Church has only proven that corruption can and will happen in a church even at the highest level and begin to lead people astray. Hence the need for the reformation and the correction based on the scriptures. The truth of the scriptures remain true, whether someone errs in their interpretation of them or not. It is our duty to read them, and to hold our church bodies to their standard. Not the other way around.

@My10thAccount

Ай бұрын

@@kevinkent6351​​⁠ Jesus Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail over his Church and he promised that the Church would be guided to all Truth. To put it simply if the Church ever teaches error that puts souls in danger, then Hell has prevailed and The Holy Spirit failed to guide people to the Truth. If this is the case then Christ would be a Liar and a False Prophet. The point is you cannot separate Christ from his Church nor the Church from Christ. There’s only one Church that has an unbroken connection to the past, with a continued ability to perform all its functions without and a possession of all the offices of the Early Church. That is The Catholic Church. Protestants cannot perform valid sacraments nor make inarguable decisions on the practice of the Faith. The Orthodoxy rejects the Office of the Papacy and the God given authority that comes with the Chair of Peter, so they’ve all been frozen in time with no ability to actually act in accordance with time period they exist in. To put it another way Francis is qualified to be the Pope, because if he wasn’t he wouldn’t be in the position in the first place. All Authority is granted first by God. You do not gain authority while being in opposition to the will of God. Personally I don’t necessarily like the guy any more than you do and every document he puts out has a risk of giving me a heart attack. However I have faith that no matter what he teaches, the Truth will prevail and error will never be allowed to take root. Anything he teaches that is false will fall away and whatever remains is true.

@kevinkent6351

Ай бұрын

@@My10thAccount this is circular reasoning. You’re saying the Catholic Church cannot be deceived theologically because the Catholic Church claims to be the one true Church. But if we non-Catholics believed the Catholic Church was the one true Church then we would be Catholic. So I’m going to need more evidence of the RCC’s claims to infallibility than “Catholics say so”. Your argument is suitable to mollify only Roman Catholics.

There is an Old Testament prophecy that even Christ himself mentioned in his gospels that could explain what is happening to his church body now and shed a light on what some of these churches are experiencing. It’s bothersome how much you believe the papacy is apostolic in nature that you would trust your salvation unto their direction. The infallibility doctrine alone within the history of the church is self-refuting. I’ll cite just one example: look up trial of Pope Formosus. I’ll ask my next question as someone who is raised a Catholic, educated in Catholic schools, taught in all Catholic doctrines so we could rule out the misinformation on my end. And this question is for you to think about. I will let scriptures be the evidence for you to examine. If the papacy is apostolic in nature, and Peter truly was the first pope, he would then have more authority than Paul. So all the churches established by Paul ie Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica were all under the main tutelage of Peter. And because he was the Pope he would be infallible. Explain and justify Galatians 2:11. If Paul wasn’t lying then Peter erred. This is the main apostle to Jews, eyewitness to the death and resurrection of Christ, yet according to Paul he was wrong at something. What makes you so sure then that those that followed after him hundreds of years later were incapable of error? And if the papacy were established by the apostles, the seven churches addressed in the book of Revelation more than 50 years after the death of both Peter and Paul must already have a pope, Peter’s successor and a unified church while John the apostle was still alive to send the message to those seven churches. And if they were unified under one pope, one teaching, one faith, why then did some of those churches have completely the wrong belief? Can you see the pattern of how the papacy was never an apostolic teaching. All those churches have different elders, similar to the churches at the time of Paul, similar to the churches before the divide between the Roman and Eastern Orthodox which brought about solely by a man made doctrine that was the Papacy. If the leader is blind those that are lead will not be able to see as well. Examine your leader. Examine him well. It’s a long time now since 1536 when Tyndale was burnt by the Catholic Church for translating the Bible. The Bible is now free for anyone to read. Read it. Let the teachings of Christ and his apostles show you the truth. And not the church fathers who would comparably be less trustworthy than Christ and his eyewitnesses.

I do wonder why little pebble is the one people are making so much fus about.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Peter has the keys :)

@arno_groenewald

29 күн бұрын

@CameronRiecker , if he received the keys, who hosted the keys before him. For it is depicted that he has the keys by one of the 4 lines of traditions, despite that he was amongst equals amongst his brothers under the tutelage of Yeshua. For no man is to be the rock, for what does it mean to be the rock which the Church is placed upon, God alone is the rock which even Pebble is resting on, for if God was to have handed over such presure over to Peter, it is to account unrighteous behavior onto God, to hand over such responsibility. Such a notion is not made cognitively by those who give the impression that God has done this to Peter, but it is in absence of what is stated before and after. It is dangerous to confuse tradition which is not sanctified by itself, but by the faith, the trust those within the tradition hosts towards the Lord High Priest above all missionaries, all ministers. For what was accounted to Abraham, to the disciples and the Bereans? For was it the traditions, traditions those sanctified did not host, traditions not upheld by our brothers and sisters and traditions that is unable to withstand direct bellacos behavior, I say to you, no, for it is faith in the foundation which the dwelling place of God is placed upon. Blessed is the Catholic, Apastolic, Protestant and Orthodox traditions, but to equivicate them with what faith in God does, is unsupported, and shall remain so, for they are all dependents of those who make use of those traditions, for it is their faith in He who is Holy Holy Holy. God bless you brother, may you heed God's call to all those who cling to tradition, casting duel understanding, instead of looking beyond the Christian world, to look at how our brothers and sisters persevere in underground churches, not dependent on those traditions, but on their faith in Yeshua as they proceed forward, back to behavior according to design, the original design God has decreed upon the first patriarch and matriarch in paradise. Look onto them as we look onto those in the early years of Rome. Look at the Church at work in Iran, China, India and North Korea. Stay clear of the heresy of pharisees, hold them accountable as professing members in the Body of Christ. Peter holds the keys just as much as Thomas, Matthew and the rest of the faithful does. It will be difficult for you to understand, this is understandable, but if we do not pay attention to how the pharisees became what they are known to have become and how they are today with the legacy of righteousness, but a lack of Holyness, then we will become the same.

@geoffjs

5 күн бұрын

@@arno_groenewaldYou make something simple, very complicated. Of course Jesus gave His authority or the keys to Peter who was the first among equals as Jesus’s earthly representative or Prime Minister Isa 22:22. Peter had a primary role, is mentioned more in the bible than any other apostle & is described often in a leadership role. Jesus planned His Church with hierarchy & authority, without which, no entity from family to govt & corporate can survive, accordingly, without these attributes, Protestantism is unsustainable as is evidenced by confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-23

Cameron, there is a lot of misinformation as well as disinformation in Christianity. Let me say this, in Hebrews 11:6, we see God is a rewarder of those who diligently seeks Him. Does this mean diligently seeking “church fathers”? Does this mean diligently seeking a pope or Magesterium? Does this mean diligently seeking the church? I even disagree with you on born of water, it was not referring g to baptism, but the first birth, and the second birth is spiritual. The HS does not teach all things today btw. This only applied to the house of Israel until the canon was closed in AD66. After this, the HS reminded them of the things Jesus said during g their 1335 day prophecy of Daniel 12:12 as well as during their final days at their gathering. The scripture had no Magesterium. They all leaned on the scriptures, as well as the divine revelation an apostle was receiving. The apostles did not privately interpret the divine revelation, since they knew they were fallible. No where in the Bible did Joe Smoe say go over to this person or that person to interpret for you. We are to study diligently. The keys btw were for binding and loosen. This only applied to the house of Israel. They were to do this all the way until Christs judgment coming, which occurred from AD66-AD73 (Matthew 10:23). Paul, who was an apostle to the Gentiles, never used that phrase to the Gentiles. Part of the problem, is there is a rewrite of history through “church fathers”. This naturally creates what we call “eisegesis”.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment :) If there is no magisterium, why did Paul appoint so many teachers and forbid others to teach? And why do the Apostles meet to make a binding decision on the faithful in Acts 15?

@TimSpangler-rd6vs

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Where did Paul forbid others to teach?

@soteriology400

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Thanks Cameron, in Acts 15:16-18, we see they were leaning on the scriptures, not a magisterium. Also, they relied on the HS as we see in verse 28 (less burden to the Gentiles, they can still circumcise, but the burden was removed). As far as the comment Peter made, he was referring to what happened 33 years prior, in Acts 10 with the Cornelius household. He withdrew from the Gentiles shortly after Acts 10, (Acts 11:1-18, Galatians 2:7-12). Wondering, who did Paul forbid to teach?

@andrewpatton5114

Ай бұрын

@@soteriology400 By Scripture alone, the circumcisers were right. Exodus 12:48-49 requires male converts to be circumcised. Where did the Apostles get the authority to overrule the Torah?

@soteriology400

Ай бұрын

@@andrewpatton5114 In Acts 15:16-18 it says; ‘After these things I will return, And I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, And I will rebuild its ruins, And I will restore it, 17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’ 18 Says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago. They were actually looking to scripture. Peter in Acts 15:9-1 Peter recalls what happened with the Cornelius household in Acts 10, which occurred 17 years prior. Cornelius was made clean, and seeked the Lord, but did not know Him by name (later in the chapter, Peter preached the gospel to the Cornelius household, which was the official transition of the gospel going from Jews to Gentiles). This is verse 17 above, He seeked the Lord. Man in general does not seek the Lord, unless one has been made clean (Romans 3:11). The circumcision was a sign of a covenant already in place, Genesis 17:11. Once Jesus came, the sign had been fulfilled, John 8:56. This circumcision was really a foreshadow of the circumcision of the heart, which only God does. They got it from scripture, knowing the rebuild of the tabernacle was by Jesus, restore of the tabernacle by Jesus. Hebrews 9-10 goes over this more in detail. It came down to their understanding of scripture, lead by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28). They did not overrule the Torah, it had more to do with timing before vs after Jesus came and restored to the heavenly tabernacle.

The Protestant Christian's Pope is Papa God. The Protestant Christian's infallible written authority is the Bible. They also have tradition as a fallible source of authority. The reason all people have differing views on scripture (and on other things) is the same reason for Catholics and Protestants alike: none of us, not even bishops or popes, _infallibly listen to God._ In Matt. 16:18-19, Jesus never said to anyone, "I will make you infallible." 😛 Catholics are in category #2, they listen to a source that doesn't have infallibility (although the source, the RCC, lies to their people by claiming they do have infallibility). Heck, Catholics don't even infallibly listen to their Magisterium! A billion Christians will always have a billion-and-one opinions. So, my advice is: get over it. When Cameron interprets the Protestants' situation _as he sees it,_ he appoints himself his own pope so he can decree something that is not a Catholic dogma: namely, that Protestants appoint themselves as their own pope. 😁 I hope you see the humor in that. Unity in doctrine is not entirely necessary for unity in faith; the One who unifies us in our Christian faith is God. To be born again is to be in Christ and to have the Holy Spirit indwelling. God is the One who makes brethren of all who have living faith in Him. It would be false to claim that Protestant denomination's differences of opinion on non-essential doctrines (such as, the best form of church governance) prevents them from being unified in Christ. Don't forget, Catholics differ greatly on doctrines, too; for example, about 1/2 of all US Catholics have a memorialist view of Communion, and Catholics differ in opinion as to whether Francis is a valid pope. Your constructed requirement of 'unity in doctrine' eliminates your own denomination along with all the others. The papacy has failed to ensure the sort of unity you describe. You latched onto John 3:5 to argue that an essential salvific doctrine faces a difference of opinion among Protestants. Yes and no. All Protestants agree that a Christian definitely _should_ and _is supposed to_ get baptized. All Protestants probably agree that baptism is _commanded._ Yet I know of no Protestant denomination that teaches baptism is the means by which God bestows saving grace. Even the ones which retained the practice of paedobaptism (due to the heavy influence of Roman Catholic doctrinal errors which still beset the thinking of many in the early years of the Reformation) still teach that saving grace is received through faith.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment :) Seems like we disagree on a fundamental interpretation of the Scriptures... If only God had given us an infallible interpreter! lol

@TimSpangler-rd6vs

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Can the Bible correct?

The keys to the kingdom are not what Roman Catholics think. The LORD commanded Peter three times, "Feed My sheep" (John 21:15-17). Therefore, Peter gave the keys to the kingdom directly to the sheep and not to a totalitarian organization. And Peter wrote directly to the sheep (2 Peter 1:5-11) and said, “...add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:5-11). In other words, Peter says that if we (the sheep) do what he says to do that this will open the doorway to heaven "abundantly" to the sheep. Peter by his personal example never acted as if having the keys to the kingdom meant asserting authority over other people. For example in Acts 15 when a very important matter was to be decided before the assembly the final verdict was given by James and not by Peter (Acts 15:19). Paul gave commandments to the churches he established and not Peter (1 Corinthians 7:17 and 16:1). Also, Paul did not take his orders from Peter. In fact Paul rebuked Peter to his face. “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed” (Galatians 2:11). If you are willing to give totalitarian control of your thinking to the magisterium or to any religious group you have blinded yourself and cannot even see the scriptures that are right in front of you. On the day of judgment you will not be able to point at someone else and say, "It's their fault." It is your individual responsibility to know the scriptures. "And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest" (Hebrews 8:11). The LORD commanded us saying, "...Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. BUT SO SHALL IT NOT BE AMONG YOU: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all" (Mark 10:42-44). .

@geoffjs

5 күн бұрын

In charity, your belief system is wrong, try reading the early fathers for clarity!

Peter has the keys, Amen 🙏🏽

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

I completely agree 😄 God bless you!

@brucewmclaughlin9072

Ай бұрын

Peter had the keys to open the gospel to the gentiles and the Jews .

@christafarion9

Ай бұрын

Jesus's spoken word > Peter's keys

@jagc264

Ай бұрын

@@christafarion9so you would follow what Jesus said to Peter. I give you the keys to heaven. Unless you want to make your own Jesus and who you think Jesus is suppose to be then that’s ignorance and prideful.

@christafarion9

Ай бұрын

@jagc264 Again, Jesus's Word > Peter's keys. It's just as simple as that. Jesus is infallible, Peter was a sinner. So were all of the Pope's. Sorry dude, you just gotta come back to the Word. And you need to stop adding your own footnotes. This has gotten way out of hand. Stop cutting in line in front of Jesus.

LOL! whose Bible? the Ethiopian Bible, King James, etc. Marin Luthers? or the First Bible that came over with the Pilgrims-The Geneva 1566 Bible.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

The Vulgate actually :)

@kingjehukhan8541

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Oh the Vulgate, written by the Roman Catholic Church to bring UNIVERSALISM to the Bible how interesting..Laughs in there is a reason why the Catolico Church put a hit on Martin Luther..LOL!

The problem Protestants have with the Pope/Magisterium is that they hold out their interpretations as infallible/irreformable. That's the primary issue. And because no Protestant I've ever met has believed that their interpretation of the Bible was infallible, I don't understand how you can say that "every Protestant is their own Pope."

@geoffjs

5 күн бұрын

The problem with personal interpretation is that it leads to relativism with the scourge of its many “truths” that plague our modern world.

Peace be with you. I have a simple question that I want truthful answer. My question is why you changed the teaching of Jesus and the disciples about the only true God? Because Jesus taught me that his Father is the only true God like also Jesus said written by John said: John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. Also Paul teaches the people in their time about the only true God. Like he said: 1cor 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father(not the Trinity God or Oneness God), of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Why you changed it? If that is their teaching about who is the only true God. Because of that the sign of rebellious spirit is found in your church God. Trinity is simple and effective tactics of Satan to disagree or to reject the teaching of Christ. It means if you are opposed to what Jesus teaching the sign of anti Christ is within you. I hope my question is answer now because before the book of new testament collected, before the apostle writes their letters, the anti Christ was there in their time. They are believers also but they changed their teaching about who is the only true God and the other they don't accept the truth that before the earth made Jesus is already there. Like John said: 1john 2:18-19.

Just some thoughts: 1. Paul had disagreements with others over serious doctrinal issues. These provide the subject matter for many of the Pauline epistles. Does this mean that Paul lacked unity in the faith and was therefore in violation of scripture? 2. Paul at once point rebuked Peter over his interaction with gentile believers. Does this make Paul Peter's pope? He appears to stand as a spiritual authority to Peter, at least in this instance. (And incidentally, how could he do this if Peter is the first pope?) 3. How is choosing "pastor Bob" as your "pope" different than choosing the Catholic pope for that position? He is still a man, and the protestant could just as easily argue that "pastor Bob" has been given to him by God as a delegated spiritual authority as the Catholic could about the pope.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Good point! Thanks for the comment! However, it seems like their issues are less about doctrine and more about discipline. Peter never teaches anything contrary to Paul, he just fails to live up to his own teaching.

@windyday8598

Ай бұрын

well said.

The Catholic Church is full of conflict within itself, popes, counsels, and Scholars have often disagreed with each other; and there may be nearly as many varied views within the Catholic Church as the many differing Protestant churches. This is why it is gracious of God to give us some protection from this Catholic error, or grab for power, by such verses as Acts 15:19-21 James ruling at the Jerusalem council and not Peter, so that we might not think of Peter as pope. GAL 2:11-13 Paul confronted Peter to his face when Peter misrepresented the gospel in such a way that even Barnabas was carried away by his hypocrisy. It shows the authority was not Peter but was the gospel of Jesus the Christ of God. Acts 8:26-40 We see the Ethiopian eunuch going his way having all that he needed, given the Spirit in baptism, and went without the need to be tied to other authorities outside of scripture. Gal 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something-whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man-for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. Gal 2:9 and when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Paul was given the right hand of fellowship by James, Peter, and John. They are spoken of as those who "seem to be pillars." Paul doesn't see any of them as popes. And even stated that they added nothing to him and that God has no favorites. Peter wasn't Pope, though he seemed to be a pillar, listed second to James. And indeed he was, and is, a pillar in the church. He was sent to the circumcised while Paul was sent to the Gentiles. But even Paul said if any, and he included himself, preaches any other gospel that the one he preached, let him be accursed. If Paul could wish himself cursed if he preached another gospel then whoever we think of as "pillars" must be judged by that same gospel as Paul had to confront Peter. And if Paul must guard himself with such a strong warning then he subjects himself under the authority of the gospel and does not set himself as a Pope either.

@geoffjs

5 күн бұрын

This is what personal interpretation creates, confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-23

@steverentfrow2415

3 күн бұрын

@geoffjs , "I'm of the Catholic church!" "I'm of the Orthodox church!"..."I am of Peter."..."I am of Paul."... Who are these? They are ministers through whom we believed. There are so many teachings; right? So whom should we follow? Paul said, "Follow me as I follow the Lord." (1Co. 11:1) I think this goes for Peter too; right? But Barnabas followed Peter in his hypocrisy and had to be corrected by Paul, by the gospel. Follow the Spirit of the Lord that is taught by all the scriptures. But what does that Spirit of unity bring? One needn't despair; there is only one Holy catholic church. We were all baptized into one Body, the Body of Christ. The Apostle John writes in 1 John ‭I John 3:1 NKJV‬ [1] Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. And consider what John wrote just before that: ‭I John 2:20-27 NKJV‬ [20] But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. [21] I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. [22] Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. [23] Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. "You Know all things" and this is because of the anointing you've received from the Holy One. Christ comes from the Greek word χριστός (chrīstós), meaning "anointed one". He was anointed the Messiah in His Baptism. There, the Spirit came down upon Him, and there, the Father validated His Sonship. Where are we anointed (made disciples, made CHRISTians)? In our baptism. He knows us in Christ, and we Know all things because He is all things. "Christ is all" ‭Colossians 3:10-11 NKJV‬ [10] and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, [11] where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all. It is in baptism that we Know Him and He knows us. It is the anointing we have received from Him it is the assurance of the forgiveness of our sins, the taking away of the heart of stone and the giving to us of a (the) Spirit that does ALL His will. Think of all the things taught in the law, all the things we need to do and not do; and think of the things Jesus taught the people before He went to the cross... I'm giving just a brief example here. But please consider that everything the law and Jesus said before the cross, as things we are "To do", and notice that they are summed up by Peter on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38. "What shall we do?" Peter could have said, "Deny yourself, take up your cross, lose your life, do your works in the secret place where God alone sees, and do your works in public so that others may see and give glory to God, don't apear to be fasting, wash and anoint your head, let the dead bury their own dead you follow Jesus, sell all give it away take up your cross, cut off the offending member whether that's the right hand or right eye... be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect... The following is the Spirit's interpretation given to Peter and to the whole church: Peter said, "Repent and be baptized, and you shall receive the Spirit..." Because Jesus did all and fulfilled the law, so then baptism into Christ is the fulfillment of everything needed. It is the fulfillment of all that circumcision pointed to. The man of sin was cut off with Christ, and we are now free. It is FOR Freedom Christ has set us free. (Ga. 5:1) All the law, all the requirements, are fulfilled in what Jesus did and gives to us in Word and Sacrament. And He loses NONE the Father gives Him. Here's a question: How can an unbeliever become a believer? Paul early on in Romans establishes that we are all under sin and the heart of man is evil and his mouth full of poisones venum. How does that heart and that mouth believe and confess Christ? That's why Paul brings up baptism. You (That old man of sin) died. You were given a new heart. You were made (a new creation) a new man. It is in baptism that we believe (with the new heart) it is in baptism that we confess (with the mouth of the new man) "For ALL WHO CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL BE SAVED." Baptism is a calling on the Name of the Lord. The word (Gospel), given us in baptism, has done it all, the believing and the confessing. And you, the Christian, are credited as having done all the will of God. You have "obeyed from the heart that form of Doctrine delivered onto you" In baptism, you denied yourself, you washed your face and anointed you head with oil, you fasted your bread -your life; you did your works both in the secret place, His death; and you did you did your works for others to see that they were done in God, because Christ is your good works on that public cross; and others see those good works through Word and Sacrament. It is in baptism, you cut off, not just the right hand and right eye, but the whole man of sin. It is in baptism that you took up your cross and followed the Lord. We weren't baptized into the name of Peter or Paul or Apollos... we, the catholic church, are baptized into Christ, and are complete in Him, completely united in Him. So, if one is preaching Christ and giving Christ through Word and Sacrament then you have the unity, in Him. If one is preaching themselves and giving doctrines of demons, such as forbidding their clergy from marriage, then they are departing from the Spirit of Truth and leading you into error. For, again, consider that Peter led even a great man of God as Barnabas into error; but this was so that we, the church, could know not to follow men, but to follow the Lord. So let us follow the teachings of all the Apostles as they followed the Lord. We find that through their teachings, they are letting the Dead bury their own dead. For we, placed with Him who has died, and by Him who has died, into His death, die with Him to be raised as He is raised. Christ has risen!

How do you interpret 1john2:27? Ive never heard a catholic explain why we need a majesterium if this verse says we dont need someone to teach us

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

That’s a good counter argument 😄 Clearly that verse cannot be interpreted as meaning that we have no need for teachers. Paul constantly appoints teachers and leaders for local churches. He would not do that if they were otiose.

@JoshuaHumphrey-gh5cb

Ай бұрын

@CameronRiecker I don't disagree! I think the idea of the majesteruim is good (I'm not convinced as I am protestant, but the concept would help protestant in a practical manner) but what would a catholic assume this passage means?

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

@@JoshuaHumphrey-gh5cb here is a passage from St Thomas 😄 He means that that one is strictly speaking a teacher who has his teaching from himself and does not simply diffuse to others what has been handed on to him by someone else. Thus only one is the teacher, namely God, whose teaching is strictly his own. Others are “teachers” only as ministers of his teaching. . . . How can a man know that his teaching is not his own? It is very clear when he notices that it is not in his power to make others understand his teaching as he wills, but cannot. No, rather, only God can do that, who alone can enlighten the heart.

Where does one begin? That Peter has the keys is a jump in interpretation imo. The rock is the cornerstone is how I see it in scripture. Is baptism necessary for salvation? I believe Yes, and which baptism possibly COULD BE the one baptism? That would be the baptism of the Holy Spirit(I believe)and we know and agree who baptizes with the Holy Spirit(Jesus). As far as relationships, there is one intermediator recognized in scripture and that is Jesus. Cameron brings up good points regarding unity and does it in a manner as a christian would. But we should all as one body be aware of the fault in man made systems, especially those constructed by Pharisees. The building is the body of Christ and Jesus is the cornerstone. So how or why can those of us who were baptized with the Holy Spirit not see all things the same exact way? I am not sure, but perhaps it must be, so that we keep seeking truth and deepening our faith. 1 Corinthians 16:14 Let all that you do be done in love

6:46 Never met a Christian who said their Pastor's interpretation is infallible. Further..if My Pastor CLAIMED to be infallible I would leave immediately

@My10thAccount

Ай бұрын

Christ promised that The Holy Spirit would guide the Church to all truth. In effect this is a promise that the Church would have the authority to make infallible declarations on the meaning of scripture. If you can’t do that, then the fallen nature of man will inevitably produce thousands of interpretations of the same words all equally hollow and worthless. This is what happens to anyone outside of the Church, Truth stops being objective and becomes whatever I want it to be. The Papacy exercises authority that it was given to it by Christ to make binding statements that separate Christians from non Christians. This Authority has always existed, but has only been defined in the late 19th century. I’d argue that the reason for this is that simply the rebellious questioning of said authority only became truly intolerable within the last few centuries. When the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra, whatever claim he makes is true. Ex Cathedra statements exist to clearly define the Faith and Morals of the Church and apply in very select circumstances. They do not apply to the Magisterium, only to specific statements under specific circumstances. Since this has become official doctrine it has only been used twice and both times they have been used to combat slanderous heresy against the Mother of God. This authority is something that has precedent in both the Early Church and Ancient Israel which proceeded it. The High Priest Caiphas accurately prophesied the death of Jesus for the people in accordance with his god given authority that he had on the principle that he sat in the Chair of Moses. It was Peter who was integral in making the decision that Gentiles need not become Jews to become Christians and Paul later criticized him for softening on a position he had already decided upon. The Papacy is not only Biblical, it’s just a logical necessity for the continued stability and unity of Faith. History shows that those who separate from the Chair of Peter suffer fragmentation and are eventually overcome. Either by the world or from within.

@mdainko

Ай бұрын

May I ask, what is your understanding of Papal Infallibility?

@TimSpangler-rd6vs

Ай бұрын

@@My10thAccount That doesnt say or imply infallibility in any human or human organization.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment :) Why do you follow him if he's just another Christian?

@My10thAccount

Ай бұрын

@@TimSpangler-rd6vs I genuinely have no idea why I waste my time doing this…

"I'm of the Catholic church!" "I'm of the Orthodox church!"..."I am of Peter."..."I am of Paul."... Who are these? They are ministers through whom we believed. There are so many teachings; right? So whom should we follow? Paul said, "Follow me as I follow the Lord." (1Co. 11:1) I think this goes for Peter too; right? But Barnabas followed Peter in his hypocrisy and had to be corrected by Paul, by the gospel. Follow the Spirit of the Lord that is taught by all the scriptures. But what does that Spirit of unity bring? One needn't despair; there is only one Holy catholic church. We were all baptized into one Body, the Body of Christ. The Apostle John writes in 1 John ‭I John 3:1 NKJV‬ [1] Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. And consider what John wrote just before that: ‭I John 2:20-27 NKJV‬ [20] But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. [21] I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. [22] Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. [23] Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. "You Know all things" and this is because of the anointing you've received from the Holy One. Christ comes from the Greek word χριστός (chrīstós), meaning "anointed one". He was anointed the Messiah in His Baptism. There, the Spirit came down upon Him, and there, the Father validated His Sonship. Where are we anointed (made disciples, made CHRISTians)? In our baptism. He knows us in Christ, and we Know all things because He is all things. "Christ is all" ‭Colossians 3:10-11 NKJV‬ [10] and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, [11] where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all. It is in baptism that we Know Him and He knows us. It is the anointing we have received from Him it is the assurance of the forgiveness of our sins, the taking away of the heart of stone and the giving to us of a (the) Spirit that does ALL His will. Think of all the things taught in the law, all the things we need to do and not do; and think of the things Jesus taught the people before He went to the cross... I'm giving just a brief example here. But please consider that everything the law and Jesus said before the cross, as things we are "To do", and notice that they are summed up by Peter on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:38. "What shall we do?" Peter could have said, "Deny yourself, take up your cross, lose your life, do your works in the secret place where God alone sees, and do your works in public so that others may see and give glory to God, don't apear to be fasting, wash and anoint your head, let the dead bury their own dead you follow Jesus, sell all give it away take up your cross, cut off the offending member whether that's the right hand or right eye... be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect... The following is the Spirit's interpretation given to Peter and to the whole church: Peter said, "Repent and be baptized, and you shall receive the Spirit..." Because Jesus did all and fulfilled the law, so then baptism into Christ is the fulfillment of everything needed. It is the fulfillment of all that circumcision pointed to. The man of sin was cut off with Christ, and we are now free. It is FOR Freedom Christ has set us free. (Ga. 5:1) All the law, all the requirements, are fulfilled in what Jesus did and gives to us in Word and Sacrament. And He loses NONE the Father gives Him. Here's a question: How can an unbeliever become a believer? Paul early on in Romans establishes that we are all under sin and the heart of man is evil and his mouth full of poisones venum. How does that heart and that mouth believe and confess Christ? That's why Paul brings up baptism. You (That old man of sin) died. You were given a new heart. You were made (a new creation) a new man. It is in baptism that we believe (with the new heart) it is in baptism that we confess (with the mouth of the new man) "For ALL WHO CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL BE SAVED." Baptism is a calling on the Name of the Lord. The word (Gospel), given us in baptism, has done it all, the believing and the confessing. And you, the Christian, are credited as having done all the will of God. You have "obeyed from the heart that form of Doctrine delivered onto you" In baptism, you denied yourself, you washed your face and anointed you head with oil, you fasted your bread -your life; you did your works both in the secret place, His death; and you did you did your works for others to see that they were done in God, because Christ is your good works on that public cross; and others see those good works through Word and Sacrament. It is in baptism, you cut off, not just the right hand and right eye, but the whole man of sin. It is in baptism that you took up your cross and followed the Lord. We weren't baptized into the name of Peter or Paul or Apollos... we, the catholic church, are baptized into Christ, and are complete in Him, completely united in Him. So, if one is preaching Christ and giving Christ through Word and Sacrament then you have the unity, in Him. If one is preaching themselves and giving doctrines of demons, such as forbidding their clergy from marriage, then they are departing from the Spirit of Truth and leading you into error. For, again, consider that Peter led even a great man of God as Barnabas into error; but this was so that we, the church, could know not to follow men, but to follow the Lord. So let us follow the teachings of all the Apostles as they followed the Lord. We find that through their teachings, they are letting the Dead bury their own dead. For we, placed with Him who has died, and by Him who has died, into His death, die with Him to be raised as He is raised. Christ has risen!

"Unity of faith" doesn't mean "unity of doctrine." We walk in unity with people we disagree with for the sake of unity in Christ. Your presupposition is flawed. But that's okay - we can still walk together in Christ.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for your understanding :) How can two people with fundamentally different doctrines have the same faith?

@kevinraydawson

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Great question. My faith is in Christ, not in the certainty of biblical interpretations (mine or anyone else's). I have friends who have different views on the rapture, but we're still walking together. We all have faith in Christ, who is the author and perfector of our faith. My understanding of doctrine has grown over time, but my faith in Christ has been constant since my salvation.

If not for the Word, (sola scriptura) how does one get faith to accomplish salvation (Romans 10:17) how does the Spirit fit into this picture? To be born of the spirit, one needs to, repent, as the prophets and apostles preached: Not confess to a man on a weekly basis, take a wafer, drink some grape juice, say x number of hail Mary's x number of acts of contritions, x numbers of signs of the cross, then repeat the process over and over again!. Jesus died once, for our sins, and he's the authority as he is the high priest that baptizes once-in-a-lifetime, for the remission of sins, not the catholic church, not Peter, paul, or Mary, not the pope no I you or anyone else. You get the keys of the kingdom as a promise from Jesus! I as well as every born again beleiver has the keys, not just Peter? Do you know how to get the keys? Read Matthew 3:8-17.

@geoffjs

5 күн бұрын

Sola Scriptura is not biblical, unless you can prove otherwise? Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 that became known as Catholic or Universal in 110 which codified your bible in 382. His Church is the fullness of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 & has existed for 2000 yrs, in spite of sinful men, proof of its divine origin No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21 No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening! Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!

Yes, there must be unity. Absolutely! Jesus died for unity. Perfect unity can be achieved through 1) perfect submission to One (Christ) and 2) perfect communication with Christ. Without these two, we cannot be perfectly one as the Father and Son are one, which was Jesus's prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane the night before he died, in John 17. That perfect unity will be ours when we are made perfect in glorified bodies and vow to submit fully to Christ for eternity, granting us the glorified portion of the Holy Spirit enabling perfect communication and submission. If baptism were necessary for salvation, Christ could not have promised Paradise to the thief on the cross. But it is okay that not all believe this point. They will know the truth and the truth will set them free when we are all made perfect and given perfect knowledge, 1 Cor 13, and the 7-fold Spirit that is knowledge, understanding, wisdom, and counsel, among others. The one baptism comes in crossing the cosmic Red Sea on our journey from earthly Mount Zion to the heavenly, passing through the firmament of Gen 1:9 to reach the waters above the sky on our way to the heavenly Mount Zion and the assembly of the firstborn in heaven, as Hebrews 12:18-29 describe. Christ is the pope. Jesus is the Rock, the only one perfect enough to decide these issues for us. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no one comes to the Father except through him. Walt Whitman famously said, "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself. I am large: I contain multitudes." We all contradict ourselves. Just look at Paul in Romans 7:15-20. Has the pope ever changed his mind? Yes, of course! He is human. Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He will never change his mind, which is why he is the only true pope. If we are truly Christians, then we absolutely accept one common authority: Christ. If you cannot bend the knee to him, you ain't Christian. (Biden was wrong when he said "you ain't black," but this statement is right about what it fundamentally means to call him Lord, Lord.) You are absolutely right that I have a pope and that I am choosing who my pope is. My pope is Jesus Christ, the only true pope, the Rock that Christ gave me. "But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." --Matthew 23:8-12, ESV Peter denied Christ three times. Yes, Peter had a role in church leadership and will have an enormous role in leadership in the millennium once he is made perfect. But no one ever called him pope or teacher or father or rabbi or instructor. Why? Because Jesus told his disciples not to do exactly that. That role has been exclusively given to God in the form of Jesus Christ and his Holy Spirit. Period. I look forward to worshipping in one body with you in the kingdom, my brother, and I consider us even now to be one body because I know we someday will be perfectly one. Hallelujah! God bless you!

Your thinking is muddled . think of your walk as a Vine growing over time. 1. Accept Jesus as Lord and savior. Jesus said to be water baotized, so you have to pick a Church and set it up if you were not water baptised as a baby ect. Water Baptism can be before of after you accept Jesus. A child is protected by Jesus and goes to heaven if it dies before acceptance of birth. So, A man in the hospital talks to the Priest he is going home that day. He accepts Jesus as his Lord and savior. Two hours later he dies of a blood clot that moves from the leg to the heart. He ends up in heaven. A lady was baptised as a child accepted Jesus at age 11 and had confirmation. She was a good Catholic all her life, but she never grew and did not have the Baptism of the Holy Spirit even though Jesus told her 25 times not to block it. But she did what she thought her Church believed. She dies and goes to he'll We have to stay in the Light of the Father and grow until our death. We are judged on this walk with Jesus.

@iggyantioch

Ай бұрын

Your scenarios are convoluted.

@kennethprather9633

Ай бұрын

@@iggyantioch You can't understand them?. The man in the first story if my Father in law. He was a JW and my wife and I visited him on the day he died. He took my mother in law to work every day due to her having to serious car wrecks from exhaustion. So, he sat in the chapel a non denomination Chapel in St. Vincent Hospital. He talked to the Priest often. After we left for a three hour drive home , the Priest visited my Father in law and he believed in Jesus becoming a Christian. He was leaving that day he would have to be Baptized with water later. A blood clot broke loose from his leg and went to his heart and killed him. An hour after our three hours drive I received the call that he was dead. Years later my mother in law was having family issues and I prayed to Jesus and the Father and for intercession from my Father in law. Not knowing if he was in heaven for sure. I had a motorcycle accident and two angels took me to a room and I could see heaven , but the angels were between me and heaven. A 19 year old sat down across from me and started talking about the issue with my mother in law. At the end he said it is taken care of . And you have to go back and take care of my (Birdie)daughter. Then I realized it was my Father in law in his new body. He was in heaven. The older lady did not follow what Jesus was saying and did not grow fruits of the Spirit. When we are mature Christians we need to stop drinking milk and move to solid food she didn't so the Father removed her from the Vine and she burned. The Vine and the Branches 15 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. 5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. 9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12 My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit-fruit that will last-and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. 17 This is my command: Love each other. Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit,. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned

@iggyantioch

Ай бұрын

Gotcha. Thanks for that memory. 🙏

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Baptism or the desire thereof is necessary for salvation :) Thanks for the comment!

cameron--sometime, you and your wife might want to watch the movie "luther" with joseph fiennes from 2003, it is excellent and informative.. you will not be bored. btw--jesus is the head of the church, which is his body, universal, born again believers, citizens of the kingdom of God. All authority in heaven and on earth is given to Him.

@CameronRiecker

29 күн бұрын

We will have to check it out :) God bless you!

@windyday8598

29 күн бұрын

@@CameronRiecker foxes book of martyrs

the problem is denominations, and their teachings. what they learn at cemetery, oops, i mean at seminary, is what they teach. the catholic church is just one of many denominations. denominations cause division, and these denominations differ on what they teach, because denominations were created by men. born again means the washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy spirit (titus 3). if anyone does not have the spirit of christ, he is not His. .....for as many as are led by the spirit of God, these are the sons of God.(romans 8) as for baptism, as commanded by jesus and taught by the apostles, it is for believers. "make disciples, baptizing them". disciples are made by preaching the gospel, those who gladly receive the good news are then baptized, which means immersion, in water. we are buried with him thru baptism, into death...united together in the "likeness" of his death, we also shall be in the "likeness" of his resurrection (colossians 2). as many as have been baptized into christ have put on christ. he who believes and is baptized will be saved. lutherans, methodists, baptists, calvinists, church of christ, seventh day adventists, catholics, protestants, it's all carnal and blindness. there is no doubt, from the scriptures, that jesus commands baptism for all who believe, and that is why the apostles preaching included the command, in jesus name, to be baptized, end of argument. either jesus is lord or he is not. either the apostles spoke by the authority of christ, or they did not. it's not rocket science. the just shall live by faith, "the simplicity of christ." pope?!? who needs a pope? a pope is not in scripture. peter was not a pope. paul had to rebuke him at one point. he was not infallible. no man on earth is infallible. are you paying attention to what your so called pope says? i was raised in the catholic church and schools thru high school. i know a thing or two. feed on the true bread and know the truth, whereby we then can recognize a counterfeit. solid food is for the mature, who by reason of "use", have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. scripture interprets scripture/exegesis. the word and the spirit are sufficient to feed the hunger and quench the thirst of any and all sincere followers of christ. anyone who teaches otherwise, "going beyond what is written", is a deceiver, puffed up. acts 20:28-32. savage wolves!

8:10 JESUS is the Gate

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Amen! Thanks for the comment :)

Here's a question for you: If the Catholic Church is not in error, explain why the Pope is blessing same-sex unions, contrary to God's clear and authoritative word? Why does the Catholic church, in many ways than just this, defame Christendom and spit on the cross for which Christ died for us, to bless and approve those who willfully live in sin? I went to one of the biggest cathedrals in New York recently, and they were flying the LGBT flag. Of course, one church does not represent all of Christ's body, but explain why the deacons, the archbishop, the bishop, and archdiocese, all the way up to the Cardinals and the Pope himself err so gravely in this way? I say to them as I say to the so called protestant churches who do the same: Repent, for we do not know when the Master of the house is coming. In the end, He is the head of the entire body of believers, not the pope, or the Orthodox patriarchs. Peter himself would've stood up from that throne that the pope sits on and would quickly give it to Christ. Let us have such a mind as Christ's and the apostles.

@geoffjs

5 күн бұрын

Individual popes can be in error as have been popes in the past, however none have ever officially taught error in faith & morals. The Church has been through bad times in the past, but has always emerged stronger.

@danniejay6769

5 күн бұрын

@@geoffjs I cannot agree with that, as historically it is not truthful of the Catholic Church. As for stronger, the current pope has made Christianity weaker than any other pope, and refuses to teach true faith, which is to turn from your sin to Christ, and true morals as found in the word of scripture.

Eh.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Good point lol

@grigoriyshcherbina9374

Ай бұрын

@CameronRiecker I'm reformed Presbyterian. Our pastor isn't our Pope, he's ruled by our elders/bishops. And on top of that he answers to our Presbytery, which is ran by elders/bishops from our other churches. Also as a Protestant I love my confessions of faith and all the catechism as well. As a Protestant I can truly love the church fathers. I can read them and test them according to the Scriptures, instead of blindly following every word they said.

@geoffjs

5 күн бұрын

@@grigoriyshcherbina9374Good for you, but outside the CC you still lack the fullness of Her faith. Other than the CC & Orthodox with their validly ordained priesthood, how can you receive grace via His Real True Presence Jn 6 53?

I'm Apostolic Pentecostal, I don't consider myself Protestant but maybe you do First off, you are disregarding the Spirit of Discernment. This is why I will never be a Catholic. Just because I surrender my authority to the Messenger of God (Pastor/Pope) that doesn't mean EVERYTHING that MAN says is infallible. The Spirit of Discernment is how you judge whether that man is true or false. Now what we see from Catholicism is an extreme of this. It doesn't matter who the congregation elects, that man is immediately fallible because he is a sinner. Study to show thyself approved. We also don't agree on what the Apostolic Church is and it definitely isn't the Catholic Church. Denomination means nothing in the eyes of Scripture. When Jesus used Peter to create The Church, it wasn't a specific denomination. This is absolutely and without a doubt the most blasphemous claim the Catholic Church tries to pitch. You sell your denomination like a car salesman. Peter never called himself a Pope. Peter never said there is a true denomination. These false claims from the Catholic Church are blasphemous and filled with self righteousness. You can fool the ones who don't know how to discern and judge rightly but true Spirit filled people see right through the lies of the Catholic Church

@CameronRiecker

29 күн бұрын

The Bible came from the Catholic Church :) That's hard to explain if you are a Protestant

@civilchaos-

29 күн бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Yet another blasphemous claim from the Catholic belief. Moses wasn't Catholic and the Law of Moses was never Catholic. You are completely blinded by man. The Bible is the infallible Word of God and guess what? The Council of Nicaea isn't Catholic. The Nicene Creed isn't Catholic. I dare you to show proof besides using empty words and false claims because you want your religion to be true. Catholic isn't even in the Bible so I can actually claim Catholicism is false if we're going to start using false claims. Humble yourself, Pharisee.

@civilchaos-

29 күн бұрын

@@CameronRiecker I can actually prove Apostolic biblically and I can prove being Pentecostal biblically. You can't prove Catholicism biblically. Don't start a righteous war you won't finish.

@geoffjs

5 күн бұрын

@@civilchaos-Jesus est His One True Church which is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 which codified your bible in 382. He appointed Peter as His first earthly representative or Prime Minister Isa 22:22 giving Him authority. Without hierarchy & authority, no entity from family to govt & corporate can survive, hence the confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of Protestant sects. Without altars & liturgical sacrificial worship, they certainly aren’t “churches”, more like synagogues with prayer & teaching.

@civilchaos-

5 күн бұрын

@@geoffjs It isn't biblical that The Bride is the Catholic Church. This is a lie you're believing because you want your denomination to be the Holy doctrine. But the Holy doctrine isn't put in a box that you can assign measurements to. This is where the Catholic Church turns self righteous. The Bride is meant for the entire Earth. I've argued and fought with more Christians as a Christian myself than I ever have with people of false religions. Which is proof that God's power and the fruits of the Spirit extends way beyond the righteous. I am the Bride. You are the Bride. We are the Bride. Every human that isn't God himself is the Bride, but we must humble ourselves and receive The Groom. Not everyone accepts The Groom and not everyone wants to be apart of The Bride. This has nothing to do with denomination. As long as you abide by the Apostolic Creed and the teachings of the Apostles, you are a part of The Bride.

There’s a lot to unpack here- but I would suggest read the early church fathers on Matthew 16:18. It is nearly unanimous that their interpretation is that Peter himself wasn’t the rock, but rather his confession of Christ. Also, there have been less than 10 verses that have been explicitly and infallibly interpreted by the RCC (ironically Matthew 16:18 being one of them) so how are RC laypeople supposed to read and understand their Bibles? I think this is why personal Bible study and preaching is not encouraged much in the RCC (see the popes recent comments to priests to “keep homilies under 8 min” bc people get bored) You bring up some valid issues so I’m not bashing you- I think the best defense of Sola Scriptura can be found in William Websters “Holy Scriptures” if you’re interested. Blessings to you bro

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thank you for the thoughtful comment :) I've read multiple of the Church Fathers on Matthew 16. They do have varying interpretations of that text. However, regardless if they see that verse specifically as a reference to the papacy, they do submit to the bishop of Rome. “Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]). Ignatius of Antioch “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). Irenaeus Here is a more extensive list if you are interested! www.churchfathers.org/authority-of-the-pope

@My10thAccount

Ай бұрын

Yes his confession was the Rock, but you can’t separate the confession from the confessor. Once Peter made that statement he became the Rock and Christ gave him authority over his Church.

@JuanGonzalez-kb3gm

Ай бұрын

Would like to see the list of church fathers that claim Peter wasn’t the rock?

@gabesmith9171

Ай бұрын

Hey there- I will find a list for you as soon as I can. But you can look it up for yourself. Augustine had some very strong statements about this. Also important to think about John Henry Newmans development hypothesis- which is necessary in explaining the papacy in terms of the developing view of primacy and ultimately infallibility of the pope pronounced at Vatican 1.

Jehovah's Witnesses have unity

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment :) I don't know much about them, but if they have a visible hierarchy then they probably have more than many branches of Protestantism.

@TimSpangler-rd6vs

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Obviously the point is there is more to "unity" that is to be considered

@m1cha3l0

Ай бұрын

jehova witness r not christians tho

@coil8906

Ай бұрын

Jehovah’s Witnesses may have unity but the god they worship sure doesn’t. Anti-Trinitarian is anti-scripture.

@CocoWynn

Ай бұрын

Jehovah’s Witnesses have a “cult-like” unity.

1 John 2:27 1 Timothy 2:5 The bible is the authority, and the bible answers its question for us. To walk in obedience is to be baptized, but the theft on the cross wasnt; it is God who Judges the inner man not man; if you accept and die its as the theft on the cross; if you are miraculously saved, then go and walk in obedience. One of problem with the organised church today is man is playing holy spirit mediator for others; to busy on pointless arguments instead of going out into the world planting and watering; God brings Growth not man. The divine ground of gethering doctrine is a false teaching, simply by reading about melchizedek.

I'm not entirely sure what kind of "unity" you are arguing for here. I think you need to provide a definition for "unity" if you are going to claim its out of reach for all Protestants. From the start you politely express that you, a catholic, and your protestant viewers ARE united in some way. But you then proceed to suggest that 2 protestant churches disagreeing on baptism can't be united? What kind of unity are you arguing for? You seem to be proposing that Protestants can't be united because of a lack of one-doctrine and one-interpretation. You are right that all Protestants won't be united in faith in this way. The term protestant includes a wide variety of major and minor disagreements. It also includes plenty of sheep and wolves. The term Protestant doesn’t inherently affirm every church that claims its label. No one protestant church will ever be fully unified with every other protestant church. We don’t wear the Protestant label like the Catholics do because we are NOT a centralized entity. Neither should anyone argue against it as if it is. The unity I seek is founded in "the church" as known and owned by Jesus, without denomination labels, and yet to be fully revealed. So yes, I am unified in one faith today. Until the day this church is realized I secondarily hope to regularly pursue unity in my local church. In my local church YES agreement on a set of doctrine is necessary for unified growth, healthy living, and effective teaching as a community. Membership in a specific church requires that you are united in the major doctrines. Locally, yes, doctrine is important for unity, and yes unity is absolutely achievable in a local church. Putting one church against another in a sea of varying doctrines misses the mark about the power of the “one faith” that is the gospel message. Many of your arguments seem to be imposing Catholic doctrines onto Protestant churches. 1. “Protestants make themselves their own pope believing they can interpret scripture accurately.” The supposition here is that the role of pope is applicable outside of the Catholic church. You need to define the role of a pope first before claiming that protestants are taking on the role themselves or attributing it to their current pastor. Protestants don’t subscribe to the concept of Peter’s authority (papal supremecy) persisting through the ages. Therefore protestants don’t make revelatory truth claims nor assume their lead pastors can interpret scripture at an infallible supernatural level. These are Catholic concepts. Imposing this on protestants and then judging them for doing it is insincere. Until protestants agree that such a role exists there is no point in accusing a protestant of ascribing the role to themselves or a pastor. We search the scriptures for truth, and when our understanding is questioned we should humbly return to the scriptures. There is no papal authority revealing something in scripture that we can’t, with sufficient study, check and verify ourselves. God's Word is the double edge sword that puts things right. Do some protestants go off the rails, yes, but I’m not here to defend the wolves claiming to be sheep. 2. “They don’t accept any common authority” - Yes we do, at least the genuine churches do. The authority is Jesus and God’s Word. Some doctrinal issues are difficult no doubt but the doctrines critical to salvation are pretty clear throughout scripture. The idea that God made the gospel message so cryptic that the average person can’t be trusted to clearly read, accept, and follow the bare bones gospel for immediate salvation is a troubling argument. 3. “where do protestants go to infallibly interpret scripture?” - Again, that is a Catholic concept. Where is infallible interpretation guaranteed in scripture? God says his Word goes out and accomplishes what he wills and doesn’t return empty. Ie. God uses His perfect Word in the hands of imperfect people to accomplish His perfect goals. He wrote the entirety of scripture through fallible men so I don’t know why that would be a problematic concept. Scripture is infallible, I am not, and therefore I read and study it by God’s grace. 4. “Surrendering interpretation authority to someone else” - no, no mature Christian assigns all interpretive authority to a single pastor. We take the Berean approach. We trust a pastor to bring God’s Word each week and teach us, but if there is doubt in his words we are encouraged to research (test and approve) the scripture ourselves. Paul applauded the Bereans when they didn’t immediately accept his gospel message and went to investigate it themselves. (Acts 17:11) Our pastors are not infallible. Neither are we. But most importantly God’s Word is not hindered by my fallibility.

@geoffjs

5 күн бұрын

The unity that Cameron is referring to is that of Jesus Jn 17 11-23, something that is impossible for Protestantism which is caused by personal interpretation resulting in confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects

"If you think the Catholic Church is evil and wrong..." Everyone is evil, and everyone is wrong about many things, which is why I reject the claim of infallibility by the Catholic Church.

@thisisbasketball3943

Ай бұрын

What is your understanding of the Catholic Church's doctrine of infallibility?

@kevinkent6351

Ай бұрын

@@thisisbasketball3943 That the Church and/or the Pope are infallible in their interpretation of scripture and in their doctrinal pronouncements.

@thisisbasketball3943

Ай бұрын

@@kevinkent6351 And why do you reject it?

@kevinkent6351

Ай бұрын

@@thisisbasketball3943 As I originally stated, people are inherently wicked and they are wrong about things all the time. You might say, "Well, the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit" but that's a premise that I don't accept. If I believed that premise, I'd be a Catholic.

@thisisbasketball3943

Ай бұрын

@@kevinkent6351 Well then, so the Holy Spirit does not guide the Church? So Jesus did not keep his promise to be with his church always?

When you cease to think of them as doctrines, and begin to see them as techniques, you will have something.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

But they are teachings aren't they? :)

@NoelMckinney

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker for the outer layer of the circle of babel.

Being that there are 24 different sects of Catholic Churches, wouldn’t the same argument apply?

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment! The different Rites in the Church are all united in doctrine. The different Rites celebrate different liturgies, many of which have Apostolic origins, but they all profess the exact same dogmas.

@tabloyd9986

Ай бұрын

Thank you for the quick and cordial reply! What about the various dogmas that have changed? Wouldn’t this at least cause some pause as to figuring out why? If they are ruling infallibly shouldn’t we expect to see consistent unchanging dogma? I agree with much of your video that we Protestants do rely on the Holy Spirit as well as scripture to interpret scripture and therefore bias, presuppositions and ignorance will come into play. But putting all of your eggs in one basket through a (possibly) changing doctrine relying on one person to make these decisions without accountability seems very dangerous as well. I really appreciate the video, your knowledge, and I’m sure there’s a lot you could educate me on so I look forward to it. Thank you for your time!

@DadoMac

Ай бұрын

@@tabloyd9986 what dogma has changed?

In a critique of Protestantism I wrote I said this: "The individual interpretation inherent in Protestantism can logically result in each believer forming their own conception of Jesus, based on their personal beliefs. This could potentially lead to the existence of thousands of different versions of Jesus. However, it's important to remember that Jesus imparted one set of true teachings, as there is only one truth. When each believer creates their own version of Jesus based on their comfort level, it could possibly lead to a form of Christianity that diverges significantly from what Jesus originally intended and into heresy. This highlights the importance of adhering to the original teachings and understanding their true essence"

@kevinkent6351

Ай бұрын

Umm, hello? There are tons of Catholics who believe and teach things that are in disagreement with Rome. There are progressive, left-wing priests and traditionalists right-wing priests. The Catholic Jesuits are barely Christian. Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are professing Catholics. Any honest assessment of the Catholic Church today clearly shows there are de facto denominations within the Catholic Church.

@CameronRiecker

29 күн бұрын

Well said :) Interesting point.

there are plenty of questions these cultists can't answer, and neither's version is any better than the other. No one needs this religion that has so many splintered parts where they contradict each other's nonsense.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

St. Peter says "Baptism now saves you." In 1 Pet 3:21.

@TimSpangler-rd6vs

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Typical Catholic...you conssciously and deliberately refuse to include the "water REPRESENTS " part. At least Scholastically dishonest or worse

@velkyn1

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker yep, and curious how christians dont' agree with that either. "There are differences in views about the effect of baptism for a Christian. Catholics, Orthodox, and most mainline Protestant groups assert baptism is a requirement for salvation and a sacrament, and speak of "baptismal regeneration".[114] Its importance is related to their interpretation of the meaning of the "Mystical Body of Christ" as found in the New Testament.[115] This view is shared by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox denominations, and by churches formed early during the Protestant Reformation such as Lutheran and Anglican.[citation needed] For example, Martin Luther said: To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save. No one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, to "be saved". To be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil and to enter into the kingdom of Christ and live with him forever. - Luther's Large Catechism, 1529 The Churches of Christ,"[116]: 66 [117]: 112  Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints espouse baptism as necessary for salvation.[citation needed] For Roman Catholics, baptism by water is a sacrament of initiation into the life of the children of God (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1212-13). It configures the person to Christ (CCC 1272), and obliges the Christian to share in the church's apostolic and missionary activity (CCC 1270). The Catholic holds that there are three types of baptism by which one can be saved: sacramental baptism (with water), baptism of desire (explicit or implicit desire to be part of the church founded by Jesus Christ), and baptism of blood (martyrdom). In his encyclical Mystici corporis Christi of June 29, 1943, Pope Pius XII spoke of baptism and profession of the true faith as what makes members of the one true church, which is the body of Jesus Christ himself, as God the Holy Spirit has taught through the Apostle Paul: 18...Through the waters of Baptism those who are born into this world dead in sin are not only born again and made members of the Church, but being stamped with a spiritual seal they become able and fit to receive the other Sacraments. ... 22 Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. 'For in one spirit' says the Apostle, 'were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.' As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered-so the Lord commands-as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. - Mystici corporis Christi[118] By contrast, Anabaptist and Evangelical Protestants recognize baptism as an outward sign of an inward reality following on an individual believer's experience of forgiving grace. Reformed and Methodist Protestants maintain a link between baptism and regeneration, but insist that it is not automatic or mechanical, and that regeneration may occur at a different time than baptism.[119] Churches of Christ consistently teach that in baptism a believer surrenders his life in faith and obedience to God, and that God "by the merits of Christ's blood, cleanses one from sin and truly changes the state of the person from an alien to a citizen of God's kingdom. Baptism is not a human work; it is the place where God does the work that only God can do."[116]: p.66  Thus, they see baptism as a passive act of faith rather than a meritorious work; it "is a confession that a person has nothing to offer God".[117]: p.112 "" - baptism wikipedia

The problem is that options 2 and 3 are in fact the same option - Catholics believe their Pastor Bob really is infallible, because Pastor Bob says that he is - but he is still ultimately just another sinner whos interpretation is subject to error. If the Popes really were infallible, they would all teach the same things down through the centuries, but history shows that is not the case - some Popes have even excommunicated each other. So the options are, read the Bible for yourself and trust the Holy Spirit to guide you, or let someone else that you believe in guide you in place of God. As for errors, while we can all agree that the Holy Spirit is infallible, those who are guided by Him are not, and still err on occasion, and not all who claim to be guided by Him really are. Just as not all Catholics always do everything the Pope says, nor do all Protestant faithuful obey their personal Pastor Bob.

@Doppelier

Ай бұрын

When he said people hate what they think the church is, this is a perfect example of what he means. The fact you think papal infallibility applies to everything a pope has ever done or said simply means you don't understand church doctrine, or is knowingly misrepresenting it. So which is it? Also, there is no catholicism without obedience to the pope, whether you pejoratively call him "Pastor bob" or not. "Catholics" who don't obey church doctrine are, simply put, not catholic at all.

@xaelath7771

Ай бұрын

@@Doppelier I don't think it applies to everything a Pope does or says, I believe it refers to "ex cathedra" statements on faith and morals. The problem is Popes contradict each other even on these things, which has led to some Pope to be excommuncated by their sucessors, for heresy. Not just private errors or minor disagreements. Does that mean a Catholic ceases to be a Catholic every time they sin? I'm sure all true Catholics do their best to obey the Pope, but I'm not conviced they all succeed at all times to do so.

@jamesmessina436

Ай бұрын

We dont believe our priests to be infallible but they teach based around our doctrines and dogmas

@Doppelier

Ай бұрын

​@@xaelath7771 tl/dr: 1st and 2nd points are demonstrably false. 3rd equates sin and rebellion against church doctrine, and while there can be some overlap, it is ultimately a false equivalency. While there has only been two occasions in which a pope has spoken "Ex Cathedra", there are numerous infallible documents written by popes over the last 2000 years, and all of them remain as church doctrine to this day, so your first point is demonstrably false. To your second point, there weren't "popes", plural, excommunicated. There was single excommunication in the later 9th century of Pope Formosus, which was done due to his meddling in european politics, and was itself a political move, which is why it was later revoked by Pope Marinus I. Again, nothing to do with any infallible teachings, since Formosus had made none. As for your last point, no, one does not cease to be catholic when they fall in sin. That would be, in fact, quite weird, given that the whole purpose of the church is the salvation of souls, and it's not saints, but sinners who need the church the most. Catholicism, however, isn't a self service buffet where one picks what strikes his fancy while leaving the rest. We are all encouraged to grow in our faith and understanding of church doctrine and to follow it. To not know church doctrine and therefore not follow can sometimes be simple ignorance, but to know church doctrine and choose not to follow is, simply put, rebellion, and there can be no communion in a state of rebellion. Saint Gregory of Nyssa warns us in one of his letters not to label ourselves as something if we do not live out what that label entails.

@trudyfriedrich7416

Ай бұрын

Your third paragraph states that no one who is guided by the Holy Spirit is infallible. Hmmm.....the writers of the scripture were guided by the Holy Spirit. They were infallible when writing were they not ? The Catholic Church made an infallible decision when determining which books are inspired scripture and therefore are considered biblical texts. The Catholic Church continues today, by the power of the Holy Spirit given it by Jesus himself, (it is the church founded by Christ) to be free from teaching error. God is the author of order.

Yikes!

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment :) God bless you!

5:00 "appointing ourself our own pope"? I've heard Catholics levy this accusation many times....but it isnt just WRONG....its IMPOSSIBLE. NOBODY who doesnt believe in any Popes has declared themself a Pope. Not one single person EVER

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

I'm using the word pope to signify the ultimate interpreter of Scripture :) each Protestant does that for themselves unless they unite themselves to a specific church.

@TimSpangler-rd6vs

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker I know what a Pope is

Sola Scriptura: Understanding the Protestant emphasis on individual interpretation of the Bible. Individual interpretation? well that is an interesting sentence to put in your notes but is it true? You obviously don't understand Sola Scriptura. It doesn't mean that you can interpret any passage any way that you wish. Romans 15:4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope. Sola Scriptura is saying that The New Testament is the Life and Teachings of Jesus and the original Apostles and the First Churches.. Sola Scriptura just points to THEM not just the Holy Spirit inspired Words, but the Holy Spirit inspired Authors/leaders and their Proven Authority as the true source to prove or test or Disprove future so called 'leaders' or future claims and teachings. Sola Scriptura means going all the way back directly to Jesus, John, Paul, James, Peter, Mark, Luke, Matthew, Moses, David, etc.. and going back to Their Lives, and Their preserved written teachings and traditions. Sola scriptura skips the questionable 'middle-men'.... thousands of years of Post New Testament groups and so called 'leaders' and takes you back to the first Source Leaders that were confirmed and are not questionable. This is the best way. Skip Luther and Skip the Vatican and just Learn the Truth Directly from Moses, David, Jesus, John, Paul, James, Peter, Etc... Please read the whole New Testament... you will find no popes, no cathedrals, no Statues, no Marian dogmas, no prayers to dead saints, No Vatican, No wafers, No fancy Robes, No Christian thrones. Please Follow Jesus and Him Alone.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment :) I see many of those things referenced in the New Testament. Funny how we can read the same text and come to such wildly different interpretations! If only we had an authoritative interpreter!

@brucewmclaughlin9072

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture--we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. Since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected.

7:59 Jesus didnt give Peter keys at Mt.16

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment! I'm not sure what you mean? Because it's in the future tense?

@TimSpangler-rd6vs

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker Yep

@trudyfriedrich7416

Ай бұрын

​@@TimSpangler-rd6vs When DID Peter receive the keys ?

@TimSpangler-rd6vs

Ай бұрын

@@trudyfriedrich7416 Beats me.

@trudyfriedrich7416

Ай бұрын

@@TimSpangler-rd6vs I don't suppose you care.....but.....according to Jewish custom there was a #2 position of authority after the King. See 1Kings 18:1-5. This was an office. The office holder was called the al habayit. This office was established by Solomon (1Kings 4:6). The Kingdom of David included this office. The old testament parallel to this key designation giving authority is Isaiah 22:19-23. This transfer of power was given to the al habayit when the King would be away, so someone was in charge in his absence. It is probable that Peter was given the keys when Jesus met the 7 apostles at the waters edge in the gospel of John. Jesus asked Peter three times do you love me. Then three times said feed my sheep. This transpired just prior to Jesus Ascension (his departure). Immediately thereafter beginning in the book of Acts Peter took over. His leadership is obvious. As this was an office, it always had someone in the position. See 1Kings 18:1-5 shows a transfer of position so the office would always be filled until the return of the King.

You’re defending religion not a relationship with God. The thief on the cross was told today you will be with me in paradise unbaptized. Catholics don’t all agree on doctrine either and your Pope approves of gay marriage. As far as I’m concerned the believers of Christ have no religion. I’m of Paul I’m of Cephas, I’m of Apollos. Only Jesus Christ died for your sins.

4:50 "THE correct interpretation"? Never met such a protestant

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment! Are you saying that there is no correct interpretation of Scripture?

@TimSpangler-rd6vs

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker No

6:57 "You appointed Pastor Bob to be YOUR Pope". This NEVER...EVER happens.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

You appoint Pastor Bob to be the ultimate interpreter of Scripture for you. That's what I meant by Pope :)

@TimSpangler-rd6vs

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker No I dont. Your assumptions are wrong and inconsequential

@39knights

Ай бұрын

Actually Cameron; Tim has actually appointed himself pope of his one-man church; the church of TimSpangler. He likes to hear other people speak; but he compares what they say to what he has determined to be true in his own mind. The highest authority for TimSpangler is TimSpangler based on what he interprets for himself. That is why he is above his pastor bob, the real Pope, and every other person on this Earth.

@TimSpangler-rd6vs

Ай бұрын

@@39knights Feel free to be insultingly dishonest. Enjoy

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

@@39knights thanks for the support 😁

5:05 "appointing youSELF your own magisterium". NOBODY has EVER done that. Pure dishonesty on your part

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the comment :) What I mean is that each person interprets the Scriptures for themselves instead of appealing to another.

@TimSpangler-rd6vs

Ай бұрын

@@CameronRiecker The reality is you make a LOT of obviously false charges. We BOTH know what a Pope is. We BOTH know what the Magisterium is. Maybe you should be more careful with your claims?

Easy. I’m not my pope. My pastor is not my pope. There is no pope at all. It is my responsibility to properly interpret scripture and it could be wrong if I do it wrong. And in Ephesians 4:5, one faith doesn’t mean one organization or creed. It means one faith in Christ. As well as, Peters key was his faith. That is the key every Christian will inherit to be welcomed into the kingdom of heaven.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

How do you interpret it when Paul calls the Church the pillar and bulwark of truth? (1 Tim 3:15) He clearly doesn't mean the local church.

@peaceribbon8322

Ай бұрын

If it’s totally on us to interpret the scriptures in the way you suggest, then the entire Christian faith is picking up a Bible, coming to whatever conclusion, and hoping beyond hope that your interpretation doesn’t land you in hell. Probably not the best picture to paint when eternity is on the line.

Rome says, “We will use the word “Father” as a formal and professional title for our clergy.” But Scripture says, “call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” (Mat_23:9 ). Rome says, “Our bishops cannot be the husband of a wife.” But Scripture says, “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...” (1Timothy 3:2 ). Rome says, “There is nothing wrong with having statues and icons.” But Scripture says, “Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the Yahweh your God.” ( Lev. 26:1). Rome says, all our saints are dead. But Scripture says that EVERY member of the congregation must be a saint while they are still living. Romans 16:15, 1 Corinthians 1:2, 1 Corinthians 6:2, Ephesians 2:19, Ephesians 4:12, Ephesians 5:3, Philippians 1:1, Philippians 4:22, etc. Rome says to honor Astarte (Easter) and Saturnalia (December 25th). These were already pagan holidays of Rome before Christianity got there. But Scripture says, “And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.” (1 Corinthians 11:24-26). In other words, when He said, “this do ye as often as ye drink it” He was referring to the cup of Passover wine and the unleavened bread of the Passover meal that He was having with His disciples. Rome says, “You need to submit to our authority if you want to go to heaven.” But scripture says, “... If a man love Me, he will keep My words: and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him.” (John 14:23). The Father and Son want to abide in you. Your body is supposed to be the temple of the Holy Spirit and not a church building or a church altar (1 Corinthians 6:19). There is absolutely no room for any religious organization to insert itself into this equation. They have no right to make this kind of spiritual power grab.

Oh my friend brother in christ it's true that Saint Pete had the authority that was passed on to him so did other disciples all those that Jesus had commanded in his last supper are all had the quote """KEYS"""YOU are talking about listen it's really very simple and I speak from both different point of views to where your human understanding can comprehend both from an atheist point of view and from supernatural experiences, from thinking scientific laboratory microscope research observation and experiments point of view to total supernatural phenomena here it is I will lay it out for all of you so you can all stop bickering about your faith in God it is really all that simple do not turn it into a scientific physics UNDERSTAND WHAT THE LAST SUPPER MEANS WHO AND WHAT IS THE WATER OF LIFE ""WHO BAPTIST WHAT"" AND WHAT BAPTIST WHO??? THE ANSWER IS RIGHT ON YOUR FACE, JESUS IS WHO??? THE BODY (JESUS) OF WATER OF LIFE BAPTIZES YOU HUMANS, WHAT YOU SAY???BY CLAIMING HIM AS YOUR SAVIOR YOU DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF HIS SUFFERING AND RESURRECTION HIS GLORY THAT HE IS SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER IN HEAVEN AND ASK HIM FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SIN AS YOU DO TO YOUR BROTHERS IN HIM... HE ALREADY GAVE YOU HOW TO PRAY YOU ONLY NEED TO FOLLOW IT. It's REALLY ALL THAT SIMPLE I CAN TELL YOU SOOO MUCH STORIES THAT YOU ONLY DREAM IT EXIST IN HORROR MOVIES AND FANTASIES SO FOR THE CATHOLICS KEEP YOUR PRAISE AND GLORIFY AND THANK JESUS AS YOU HAVE ALWAYS DONE IN YOUR CHURCHES THE SIGN OF THE CROSS PUT A SMILE IN JESUS AS YOU CLAIM AND ACKNOWLEDGE HONOR HIS SUFFERING AND SACRIFICE AND ASCENDED ALL THAT WAS FOR YOU HUMANS DO ACKNOWLEDGE IT LIGHT UP AS MANY CANDLES AND KNEEL AS LONG AS YOU CAN AS YOU WANT THESE ARE ALL SIMPLE GESTURES THAT BRINGS HONR AND GLORY TO GOD THE FATHER GOD THE SON JESUS CHRIST AND GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT. TO THE PROTESTANT BROTHERS YOU BELIEVE IN JESUS BUT YOU STILL DO NOT COMPLETELY DO YOU MISREAD MISUNDERSTAND WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF LESSONS WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN THE BOOK SAY GOD CREATED ALL THINGS SEEN AND UNSEEN VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT IS ""INVISIBLE"" THIS YOU DON'T SEEM TO ACCEPT TO BELIEVE YET YOU CLAIM YOU BELIEVE IN JESUS HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE IN JESUS AT THE SAME TIME THINK OF HIM AS AN ALLEGORICAL METAPHORICAL PHILOSOPHICAL STORY FOR CHILDRENS BED TIME STORIES NOTHING ABOUT THE LIGHT JESUS AS A METAPHOR THE LIGHT IS SIMPLY BRIGHT DARN LIGHT BRIGHTER THAN THE SUN HOW MANY TIMES CAN I HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS I DON'T KNOW BUT I WILL EXPLAIN AS MANY AS I CAN AND STOP QUESTIONING IT. WHEN ANGELS ARE FORMED THEY WERE FORMED FROM THE LIGHT THEY CAN TAKE FORMS OF HUMANS, BUT THEY ALSO VARIES FROM A GUIDING ANGELS TO WARRIOR ANGELS WHO ARE GIANTS 12 TO 15 FEET TALL SO WAS FORMER lucifer, when angels suddenly falls from heaven it does not mean they had done or turned evil sometimes God commanded them to go down to earth, to human leaving to help protect you, to help guide you specially if you are born gifted with specific purpose when angels suddenly falls out of heaven sometimes they are not given any heads up but They obey nonetheless even if it makes them feel bad and wonder what they did wrong they do cry and sometimes they ask themselves why were they kicked out of heaven without warning because God only knows not even angels know what happens next unless God the Father tells them to. Ok so just do ok catholic say your ""Credo in Deum""" say your """in nominee Patris and Pater nostris do the sign of the cross as always the three fingers thumb pointer and middle finger as the bright angels sings Hosanna Hosanna Hosanna in the highest I do not know the song I am not catholic I was an atheist but I learned what those gestures mean from you catholic depiction of MOTHER MARY JESUS TRANSUBSTANTIATIONAL DEPICTION JUST KEEP DOING WHAT YOUR DOING SAY GRACE GIVE GLORY ASK FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SIN BE THANKFUL TO THE LORD JESUS THANK THE ANGELS AND SAINTS YES MOTHER MARY IS WATCHING YOU TOO SO AS THE OTHER SAINTS BELIEVE BELIEVE BELIEVE YOU ME MARK MY WORD YOU CAN TAKE IT LITERALLY TO THE GRAVE PUN INTENDED NO LIES HOW DO I I KNOW WELL JUST ASK THOSE WHO EXPERIENCED LIFE AND DEATH SOMETIMES SUPERNATURAL EXPERIENCED LIKE I DID. I DON'T KNOW WHY AND HOW I WONT ASK QUESTION I JUST DO ITS THE VERY REASON I ACT LIKE A ROBOT AND CAN NOT DIVULGE GODS NAME BECAUSE YOU PEOPLE OPERATE WITH YOUR EMOTIONS AND YOU TEND TO MAKE A MOCKERY OF GODS NAME HIS NAME EXIST IN EVERY LETTER AND EVERY VOWEL SOUND YOU HUMANS MAKE I CAN NOT REVEAL THEM TO YOU GO READ YOUR BOOK OF LESSON HUNDRED MORE TIMES I READ SOMETHING NONE OF YOU HUMANS CAN UNDERSTAND.unless you purposely dabble in spiritual realm forceably...which goes against God's rule of law.

@alexdetagxi8148

Ай бұрын

Listen up people there's all kinds of things you all don't know that exist all around you everyday it's been there since the beginning of lucifers rebellion there's a war that has been going on for the longest human times between darkness and light literally the light the source of all things in light. He was there before times in the beginning he was and is will always be THE OMNIPOTENT OMNISCIENT transcendental God....learn all this words because HE is and was YOU PEOPLE HAVE NO CLUE WHAT SUPERNATURAL MEANS SPECIALLY THE CALVINISTIC LUTHERAN METAPHORICAL PHILOSOPHICAL ALLEGORICAL THINKING NOTHING ABOUT GOD IS CHILDRENS STORY MARK MY WORD YOU WILL ALL KNOW IT WHEN YOU ENTER THE SPIRIT REALM AT THE TIME OF YOUR PASSING AND LEAVE YOUR HUMAN VESSEL BEHIND. I ONE MILLION PERCENT PROMISED YOU THAT GO AHEAD MARK MY WORD ETCH IT IN A STONE.

jesus gave peter the keys. moments later he calls him Satan. plesse snap out your brain washed mind.

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Just proves that the Pope is not impeccable!

Well said Cameron

@CameronRiecker

Ай бұрын

Thanks for the support :) God bless you!