Apostolic Succession & Salvation (Audio) | Protestantism vs Catholicism Pt.2 | Debate

This debate took place in 2019 and was hosted by Cy Kellet, host of the Catholic Answers Live radio program.

[LuisGomez-gdpp]

Steve Gregg thank you. Because of you I will remain a devout Catholic.

[mariomene]

28:16 I actually hold that Peter is #1 (John got to the tomb first, but did not go in until Peter went first; Peter was walking with Jesus up ahead, and John puts himself behind them; Peter is the rock), but I don't think Catholicism follows from that--much less am I convinced by (a Catholic argument I've heard) an idea thst he inherits the "seat of Moses", bc we're not even under the Law, so how could it be relevant?

Akin complains the argument isn't in "immediate context" : my guy, John's Gospel is HIGHLY self referential! You mean to say, "You're not letting me eisegete!"

[mariomene]

28:16 Akin knows it's a good argument, but has to try to suppress it with mealy mouthed mumbo jumbo. "It's too distant for my comfort". 😂

[eduardobauche]

In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt 16:19, 18:18).  By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who ‘bind heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers’; that is, ‘loose them, ’ as the have the power to do (Matt 23:2-4).  In the same sense in the second epistle of Clement to James II (‘Clementine Homilies, ’ Introduction), Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying:  ‘I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the church.”

-Jewish Encyclopedia (as quoted by David Stern in The Jewish New Testament Commentary)

[eduardobauche]

The various schools had the power ‘to bind and to loose’; that is, to forbid and to permit (Talmud: Chagigah 3b)… This power and authority,  vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the Sanhedrin, received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of Justice.

(Sifra, Emor, ix; Talmud: Makkot 23b).

[mariomene]

1:19:07 Couldn't it have been that they were in town only for John's baptism, then had to leave town, and never partook of the New Covenant?

[philipmarchalquizar]

In a team there should be a Team Manager, Team Captain, Team Best player and it's supporting cast.. To be a winning Championship team.

Protestants can't understand that it builds UNITY to able to WIN.

Without a Leader look at PROTESTANTS NOW...D I S U N I T Y..

Cephas: means HEAD, OR ROCK.

[mariomene]

1:02:01 Yes, "traditional" hell seems Scripturally indefensible.

1. After sacrificial atonement is made, God forgives (Lev 4); this process may also indicate that after "personal" payment is made, forgiveness can come ("you will not get out until you have paid the uttermost farthing" : sinners "owe" glory; by being objects of God's wrath, they "glorify" God... until they repay their "glory" debt?).

"Whoever blasphemes the Spirit is guilty of an eternal offense, and will not be forgiven either in this age or the age to come" : forgiveness may follow hell, but, also, bc this sin differs, can't be satisfied, forgiveness can't appear for them.

2. "Invariably eternal torment" demolishes the distinction between the unforgivable sin and all other sins.

3. How are we taught varying degrees of tolerability (Mt 10), or of duration (Lk 12), at the Judgment?

[mariomene]

1:28:58 John's Gospel is highly self-referential : He described His "food" as obeying the One Who sent Him (Jn 4), so, here, bc "as I was sent, so I send you", our "food" (the "flesh" and "blood" of "the Word... made flesh") would be to do the will of the One Who sends us to represent Him (eg, the blind He "sent" to "Siloam", or "Sent"; the Samaritan immediately harvests souls, etc), and this is explained by Jesus Himself :

John 6:57"Just as the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father ["Your command is eternal life"], so, also, the one who FEEDS ON ME will have life because of Me".

Who is qualified as "eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood"? The one who seeks the glory of the One Who sent him, in whom there is no unrighteousness, bc only doers of good will be raised to eternal life.

[TaxEvasin]

Peter is not the rock which Jesus established the church, Matt 16:18. No one believes this except Catholics. Go read the commentary on this matter.

[leslieahill]

Matthew 18:18 gave the keys power 🎯 🔑 to all in Christ . Paul & the brethren did use it with Peter .
Matthew 18:1, 18-19 KJVS
At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

[18] Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind 🔑on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose🔑 on earth shall be loosed in heaven. [19] Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.



Galatians 2:8, 11 KJVS
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
[11] But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because...

[michaelbledsoe]

Peter as the Rock
"Then Simon Peter answered and said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but My Father, Who is in heaven. And I say also to you, that you are Peter [petros, a pebble or small stone]; but upon this Rock [petra, a boulder or large rock—Christ] I will build My church, and the gates of the grave shall not prevail against it. And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you may bind on the earth will have already been bound in heaven; and whatever you may loose on the earth will have already been loosed in heaven' " (Matthew 16:16-19).

From the above passage we may conclude:
1) Jesus was referring to Himself (this Rock, Christ) upon which He would build His church,  not on Peter. The disciples, familiar with the Old Testament, knew Rock to be a name of God.
a) "The LORD is my Rock, and my fortress" (Psalms 18:2). "He is the Rock" (Deuteronomy 32:4). "Who is a Rock except our God?" (Psalms 18:31). We see here that there is no other rock but God—not even Peter.
b) Christ is the foundation Rock on which the church is built, not Peter. Jesus referred to Himself when He said: "The Stone that the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner" (Matthew 21:42). Paul wrote of "the spiritual Rock that followed them"—saying that "that Rock was Christ" (I Corinthians 10:4). Peter referred to Jesus as a "living Stone, " "the Cornerstone, " a "Stone of stumbling, " and a "Rock of offence" (I Peter 2:4-8).
c) When Peter tried to stop Jesus from going to the cross, Jesus rebuked him, saying: "Get behind Me, Satan!" (Matthew 16:23). Jesus wouldn't build His church on Satan.
d) In Mark 9:33-35, the disciples argued about who was the greatest among them. If Jesus had given Peter the rank of Pope, then He would have referred to Peter as the greatest, but He didn't. Thus, Jesus gave no special papal leadership to Peter. Nor should we.
2) Peter was given the keys of the kingdom, but only in the sense that it was Peter who opened the door to preaching the Gospel to Israel on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38-42) and to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:34-46). Still, everyone enters the kingdom through Christ, not Peter.
3) Priests do not have the power to bind, loose, forgive, or not forgive sins—because only God has this power.

6. Was Peter the First Pope? No, because:
1) Peter was married (Matthew 8:14, 15; I Corinthians 9:5). Popes cannot be married.
2) Peter wore no crown,  as the pope does.
3) Peter had no wealth (Acts 3:6), as the pope has.
4) Peter rejected the "traditions" of the fathers (I Peter 1:18), yet Catholic teachings are based on human traditions.
5) Peter would not allow men to bow down to him (Acts 10:25-26), as the pope does.
6) Peter never took the title "PONTIFIX MASIMUS" or "PONTIFF, " as all popes do. This was the title of pagan Roman emperors, meaning "chief bridge-builder between earth and heaven." Only Jesus can claim this title (John 1:51). For a pope to take this title is blasphemy against Christ. Peter never spoke like a pope, never acted like a pope, never dressed like a pope, and people never approached him as a pope.

in 1870)
When a pope is speaking in his official position on any issue of faith or morals, he is speaking infallibly, without error. But the apostles never regarded any man (except Jesus) to be infallible. Only the Word of God is without error. Paul rebuked Peter for being deceived by Judaizers (Galatians 2:11-14). Papal infallibility is seen to be false, as these events reveal:
1) Five popes—Innocent III, Gregory XI, Clement IV, Hadrian VI, and Paul IV—all disagreed with papal infallibility.
2) Pope Eugene IV (1431) had Joan of Arc burned alive as a witch, but later Pope Benedict (1919) declared her to be a saint.
3) Pope Stephen VI (896) had the dead Pope Formosus (891-896) dug up, tried, questioned, fingers hacked off, dragged through the streets of Rome, and thrown into the Tiber River.
4) Pope Hadrian II (867) declared civil marriage to be valid, but Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) declared it to be invalid.
5) The pope and the Vatican advised the German Catholic Party to vote for Nazi candidates. In 1933, the Vatican and Hitler signed a Concordat where the Catholic Church swore allegiance to the Nazi government. Later on, when Hitler was losing World War II, Pope Pius XI condemned him. Surely, these errors of judgment and contradictions between popes disproves papal infallibility to any honest, open-minded person.

[lukeedison]

I have listened to and answered Akin many times, and the problem with him is that he will just lie and obfuscate. He's a good debater (not a good teacher) because of this - any time he is backed into a corner, he just spins some false narrative which, indeed, sounds good. The sad part is that the majority of people - especially Catholics - accept him in the moment and don't track down his falsehoods.