DEBATE: Is the Papacy in the Bible? JesusandWhatNot vs RedeemedZoomer

will send you both this afterwards. Uh, Zoomer, if you just send your email, I'll send it over to you.

>> I will give a little introduction. Okay, welcome everybody to the long awaited debate between Jesus and whatnot and redeem Zoomer. Today they will be debating is the papacy taught in the Bible. There is much discussion among the early church and councils on this topic. But today we are going straight to the Bible. Jesus and whatnot is the affirmative and redeem Zoomer will be trying to debunk his claim. We will have a 20 minute opening statement from both people, 10-minute rebuttals, 15minute cross-examinations, 15-minute open dialogue, and 10 minute closing. Oh, wait. Sorry. I'll redo that. I don't know why I had that wrong in my thing. Okay. Welcome everybody to the long-awaited debate between Jesus and whatnot and redeem Zoomer. Today they will be debating is the papacy taught in the Bible. There is much discussion among the early church and the councils on this topic. But today we will go straight to the Bible. Jesus and whatnot is the affirmative and redeem Zoomer will be trying to debunk his claim. We will have 20-minute opening statements, 10-minute rebuttals, 15-minute cross-examinations, 15-minute opening dialogue and a 7-minute closing statement. With that being said, Jesus and whatnot, take it away.

Thank you, Sam. Okay, today we're discussing whether or not Jesus instituted the Roman papacy within the Bible. Uh, before we begin, I would like to discuss what the pope actually is according to the Catholic Church. This is from Lumenentium 22. um where it says the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is simultaneously conceived of in terms of its head. The Roman pontiff Peter's successor without any lessening of his power of primacy over all pastors as well as the general faithful for in virtue of his office that is the vicor of Christ and the pastor of the whole church. The Roman pontiff has full supreme and universal power over the church and he can always exercise this power freely. So in summary, we believe that the pope is the head of the church. He's the vicor or image of Christ. He's the pastor of the whole church. Um, whatever he teaches or binds on earth will be taught or uh oh is everything okay?

>> Can you guys hear me? Can Can anybody hear me >> really quick? I think you were lagging for a sec. I paused your time. Um, if you want to go back to your last slide and start again so I can start the time.

>> Crap. Here. Uh, dude, this is so annoying. Okay. Um, what >> do you want to restart your whole thing?

>> Yeah, I can just restart and then we can we can edit. That sounds good. Zoom that. Okay.

>> Awesome. Okay. Thank you.

>> Okay. Sorry about that. Zoom.

>> Uh, can you guys I can't see my slideshow like at all. Okay. Today we are discussing whether or not Jesus started the Roman papacy. Before we begin, I would like to clarify what the papacy is. We believe um according to Lumenium 22, the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is simultaneously conceived of in its terms of its head. The Roman pontiff, Peter's successor, and without any lessening of his power of primacy over all pastors as well, have the of the general faithful for in virtue of his office that is the bicker of Christ and the pastor of the whole church. The Roman pontiff has full supreme and universal power over the church. He c he can and always exercise uh this power freely. So in summary, the pope is the head of the church. He's the vicer or image of Christ. Uh, he's the pastor of the whole church and whatever he teaches or binds on earth will be taught or bound in heaven. We also believe that Peter was the first pope. So to kind of give an overview of Christ's promises to Peter that lead us to believe this, um, I have a couple of verses that I would like to read. First, in Matthew 16, Jesus says, "Uh, blessed are you, Simon Barjonah, which is Peter, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." I would also like to read from Luke 22 where it says, "Simon, Simon or Peter, behold, Satan demanded to have you that he might sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." Finally, in John 21, Christ clearly says to Peter and Peter alone, "Feed my lambs, tend my sheep, and feed my sheep."

So, there's a lot of uh very explicit claims as we have shown about Peter being the first pope. But I actually want to start off with the core of my argument using typology. So there's a couple typological claims I'm going to make. One, Peter is the new Eliakim. Two, Peter is the new Jonathan. Three, Peter is the new Aaron. Also throughout this presentation, pay attention to almonds and to staffs.

Uh, so type one, Peter is the new Eliakim. In order to prove that Peter is the new Eliakim, we have to start off by talking about David. King David led all of Israel. We are taught that his throne will never be empty and then that King David is fulfilled by Christ. So in 1st Chronicles 17:11-14 we read, "When your days are fulfilled, so when David's days are fulfilled and he rests with his fathers, I will raise up an offspring after you, Jesus Christ, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son." The Bible clearly teaches us that David will be fulfilled by the son of God, or Jesus Christ. Um, Peter himself actually points back to Christ being the fulfillment of David's throne. It says David would set one of his descendants on his throne. This is Jesus God raised up. Um, so why am I talking about David if we're trying to prove that Peter is a type of Eli? Well, the importance of Christ being the new David is that David had a special role in the kingdom of God as a leader just like Jesus does. David also appointed a prime minister named Eliak. So uh in Isaiah 22 we read, "I will place on his shoulders Eliakim the keys to the house of David. Eliakim is given keys by David to become the prime minister of Israel. He leads and teaches the kingdom and is called a father to all because of the keys." Does that does that phrase sound familiar? I will place on his shoulders the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Well, it it should because we just read it. Peter is also given the keys. It says, "I will give you Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on there shall be bound in heaven." So David gives Eliakhim the keys to the house of David to lead the 12 tribes of Israel. In Christ, the new David gives the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter, the new Eliakim to lead the church. So when Peter is given the keys by Christ in Matthew 16, it fulfills the prophecy of David passing on his keys to Eliakim. When Eliakim was given the keys in Isaiah 22, he was appointed pastor of the church and father to the people of Israel. Likewise, Peter is now the father of the church on earth.

The second type that I want to talk about is Peter as the new Jonathan. So, Jonathan was the governor over Israel. Um, so immediately after receiving the keys from Christ, Peter does something that nobody else in the Bible ever does. Without asking anyone else, Peter speaks on the behalf of God. So it says when they came to Capernaum the collectors of the two drama tax came to Peter first and said does your teacher not pay the tax he says yes a one-word answer speaking on behalf of Christ and when he came into the house Jesus spoke first so this means that Peter is coming back to the house where Jesus was meaning that Jesus was not there when Peter spoke on his behalf so a similar thing happens where Jonathan speaks on behalf of David without consulting anyone else. Remember David is a type of Christ. So David allows for Jonathan to speak on his behalf just as Jeter Jesus allows Peter to speak on his behalf. Says David said to Jonathan, "Behold, tomorrow is the new moon and I should not fail to sit at the table with the king." So remember that verse about the two drama tax. It says that those tax collectors came to Peter first. It says prothasan that actually means the primary speaker. Not just that they came to him first. It says they came to Peter as the primary speaker. The same Greek word is used in the Septuagent to describe Jonathan when he sits opposite of his father Proeththasa. So the same Greek word, it's obviously drawing a connection between Peter and Jonathan.

The third type and in my opinion the most robust type is Peter as the new Aaron. So to get into why Peter is the new Aaron, we're going to talk about the priestly staffs. Staffs are of extreme importance all throughout the Bible. A staff represents and is actually synonymous with dominion or authority throughout the Bible. Um, and anytime something important happens in the Old Testament, a staff is usually present. Um, we see this in Genesis 49, in Psalm 110, Micah 7:14, Zechariah 11:10, and many, many other places. There's over a hundred times where a staff is mentioned in a uh terms of of power. We actually see that in Micah 7:14, the staff is used to shepherd a flock. Remember that. So um why I'm talking about staffs is because in Mark 6 7-8 a staff is given to the apostles. In fact the only thing given to the apostles in this situation is a staff. It says remember that Christ specifically tells the apostles uh to to carry the staff and nothing else. It says take nothing for their journey except a staff. And upon the very mission of starting the church Jesus makes sure that this staff is present with the apostles. So this staff is actually talked about in number 17, right? We read um that all of the tribes of Israel get together, they put a staff before the tent of God and only one of the staffs, one out of the 12 bears almonds. And almonds are um very important as we'll talk about. So all of the 12 tribes have a staff, but only one out of the 12 bears almonds on it. The one that bears almonds, the one out of 12, is from the high priest, Aaron. Aaron the one out of 12 is the leader of all of the other priests and remember that he alone bears almonds. So the significance of almonds comes from two sources that I would like to quote. One is from Basil the great in homaly 5 section 7 where um I I I won't read all of this but it says that almonds are representative of triumph over all infirmities for a sinner. That's really important. Um, it's also in Genesis 30 where Jacob, he takes a rod or a staff that bears almonds on it and he uses the staff with almonds to shepherd his entire flock. Um, it says that because they were following the staff with almonds on it, um, they they multiply and the flock flourishes. So, that's how important the the staff with almonds is. Uh, Genesis 30 clearly shows us that the rod holding almonds is what causes the flock to the flock to flourish. um and go the flock grows and advances because they're following the staff with almonds on it. Remember, one out of the 12 will hold this staff with almonds on it. So, one man, Aaron, is chosen by his staff, the one out of 12, to have access to the staff to be triumphant over error. Likewise, all of the apostles have the staff, but only Peter who has the keys to the kingdom of heaven will bud and send forth a men's or triumph over error. Notice the picture to the left as well. That is of Aaron the high priest holding the staff with almonds on it. But notice on his chest he has 12 gems and those represent the 12 tribes of Israel. We read that explicitly in Exodus 28 lists out all of the twelves and it says they are engraved with the names of the son of Israel. 12 according to their names with the uh engravings of the signate. Very clear. Um, so we actually see these stones reappear in the New Testament. We see this in Revelation 21 where it lists out the the gems again. um and it's used uh to obviously draw um the eyes to the apostle. So the 12 tribes of Israel represented by stones are led by Aaron the high priest and they're directly connected to the 12 apostles of the church. The stones which are led by Peter. This is not a mistake. The Bible is purposefully connecting Aaron to Peter. Peter is the high priest on earth. It's abund abundantly clear. Um, so going back to almonds and the one out of 12, there's also a man named Jacob. So Jacob leads his flock with a staff of almonds. We see that in Genesis 30. He also has 12 sons. Remember this theme of the one out of 12. One out of his 12 sons was special and his name is Levi who is set aside by God for priestly service. Levi holds a staff as a sign of this great authority. And later Levi's tribe is the only one to bear almonds on their staff. As we already read, the staff for the house of Levi, the one out of 12 sons in the one out of 12 tribes, puts forth buds and produces and bears almonds. It's very, very clear. So, consistently, there's only one out of 12 leaders set apart for a special role. The Levites, who were specially priests, are set apart from the other tribes, and they alone bear almonds from their staff. Jesus chooses Peter, specially a priest, as one out of the 12 apostles, and hands them a staff. Peter alone is singled out and constantly uh made the leader of the apostles. He will bear almonds and have quote from Basil the great triumph over all infirmities of sin.

So um the staff given to Aaron is also represented by shepherds. We kind of touched on this a little bit. The staff with almonds is used to lead the flock to shepherd the flock. But then Jesus says something strange to Peter. He says feed my lambs. Tend my sheep and feed my sheep. The one out of 12 apostles is appointed the shepherd of the flock. Only Peter, this is obviously a connection to the staff with the almonds. The Old Testament says that one out of 12 will have a staff with almonds. The staff with almonds is represented by the shepherd. Jesus then gives the twel apostles a staff. Christ calls Peter, the one out of 12, a shepherd of the flock. Peter alone has the staff with almonds on it. And this means that Peter alone has the power over all infirmity of sin and will not fail. So I just said that Peter will not fail. That's quite the claim to make, but it's from the Bible. Simon, Simon, Peter, Behold, Satan demanded to have you that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail, and when you have turned again, strengthen your brother. So, I want to kind of get into the Greek a little bit, not too deep. It says, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan desires to have you, but the U in that phrase is plural, meaning all of the apostles. He says, Simon, Simon, Satan desires to have all of the apostles. Then he says,"I have prayed for you singular," meaning just Peter. Satan desires to take all of the apostles, but only Peter has been prayed for to never fail. It's no coincidence that one out of the 12 tribes of Israel, has a staff and will not fail, or almonds. And then Peter, one out of 12, is given a staff and told he will not fail, almonds. Christ read the Old Testament, was clearly intending for these connections to be made when he mentions the staff and the shepherd. It's so clear.

We can also get into Matthew 16:17-19 a little more. Um, blessed are you, Simon Barjonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Haiti shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. So that first phrase, blessed are you, Simon Barjonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father who is in heaven. Christ calls Peter here by his birth name, Simon. He claims that Peter is not being revealed things by his own power, but rather by God himself. That's the divine assistance of the papacy. The father is guiding Peter and the church to truth. Okay, remember he called him Simon, but then he changes his name. He says, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." Christ stops calling him Simon and now calls him Peter. Peter in Aramaic, which is Christ's original language, is kaya. Kaya literally translates to rock. He says, "And I tell you, you are kaya and on this kaya I will build my church." Quite literally he says, "You are rock and upon this rock I will build my church." Christ likens Peter to the very foundation of the church. After that, he says, "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." As we discussed, this points back to the prophecy of the new kingdom with Eliakim having the keys. But what about this binding and loosing? Christ says that whatever Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven. And binding is a term used for Judeaic leaders to to describe applying rules to Israel. So whatever rules that Peter applies on earth will be applied in heaven. This is also an outstanding parallel to Eliakim. It says, I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. This verse is shockingly similar to Isaiah 22. I will place on Eliakhim's shoulder the keys to the house of David. He shall open and none shall shut. He shall shut and none shall open. Peter is the fulfillment of the prime minister Eliakim. And remember what the Bible tells us about this role. It says that the prime minister will be clothed with the robe of David. It says and will bind your sash on him and commit your authority into his hand. That's what the keys mean. He will be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and will hold the keys to the house of David. The entire point of the keys is to pass on authority. Peter is given the keys with the same formula as Eliakim, meaning that he is the prime minister of the church with the authority of the person that gave it to him, Jesus, the fulfillment of David.

The last point that I want to make is this fishers of men dialogue. This is in Luke 5 before Jesus really starts his ministry. It says that Jesus goes to the apostles. He tells them to put a net a net over the side of the boat. They get a large number of fish. They bring it up. They're astonished at the the large amount of fish and then uh their their net begins to break because of this. So the symbolism here is very important. The fish represent the people of God. The water represents death and the boat represents the church. So to prove that the fish represent the people of God, we can turn to verses like Matthew 14:18, uh Mark 1, Luke 5, where it literally explicitly says that. That's not one that we need to spend a lot of time in. The fish are obviously the people of God. Water represents death all throughout the Bible. In Genesis 7:8, God uses flood water to destroy the earth. In Exodus 14:21, God uses water to bring death in judgment. In Psalm 61, David describes being close to death as sinking in the water. In Job 7:12, water is used as imagery for death. It's very clear, it's a biblical fact, water represents death. Um, in Genesis 6:9, God uh brings people safe uh to safety through a boat. Uh Zoomer has actually agreed with me in past videos that the the ark does indeed represent the church. Um, in Jonah 1 1-17, Jonah is safe from the storm on the boat. In Mark 4:35-41, Jesus's presence in the boat guides the apostles to safety. Uh, boats are are constantly used to, uh, show God's promises and protection, in this case, the church. So, why why am I saying all of this? Well, the apostles pull the fish, God's people, out of the water, out of death into the boat, into the church. But Jesus in Luke 5 gets into one of the boats, and it says that the boat belongs to Simon Peter. Jesus is only willing to step into the boat that is commanded by Peter. And the gospels make sure to clarify that this boat belongs to Peter because the boat represents the church. The boat is under Peter's command. Likewise, the church is under Peter's command. Now, Jesus brings up the fishing of men again in John 21. It's a very similar dialogue. It says that Jesus tells them to throw the net over the side of the boat. They get a huge amount of fish um and and they bring it up. But read that last verse. And although there were many, the net was not torn. Remember the first time in Luke 5 it says they enclosed a large number of fish and their nets were breaking. But then in John 21 and although there were so many the net was not torn before Peter is made head of the church his net breaks under the weight of the fish. And after Peter is made head of the church his nets do not break under the weight of the fish. So it says very clearly that Peter as the new head of the church catches the fish, God's people, and brings them to Christ with his boat, his church. His net no longer breaks because of his power as head of the church. Let's take a closer look at the net not breaking, though. The word used for tearing when it says that the net will not tear is eskethe. Eskeisthe is the indicative ais form of the verb skiso. Skiso means to tear or to schism. Quite literally under Peter's control, the people of God will not schism. Also, in that John 21 passage, remember when they go out to fish for God's people, Peter says to the apostles, I'm going fishing. And the other apostles say to him, "We will go with you." And then they went out and got into the boat. Leading up to the very event of catching God's people for Christ, Peter leads the apostles into his boat, into his church to use a net that will not break or schism. All of this leads up to Peter's exaltation in the very same passage. Right after the fishing with men or the fishing for men dialogue, he says, "Feed my lambs. Tend my sheep and feed my sheep." It's abundantly clear. Directly after catching God's people, Peter is told that he must now feed Christ's lambs. Tend Christ sheep and feed Christ's sheep. Christ is calling Peter the shepherd. And that tells us a lot about his role. Remember how Peter is the type of Jonathan who represent the representative of King David. Well, Jonathan is also called a shepherd just like Peter is. It says, "But David said to Saul, your servant Jonathan used to keep his father's sheep." Remember how the staff of almonds represents Peter's authority out of the one out of 12? Well, the staff of almonds is also used to tend to a flock by a shepherd. Then Jacob took the fresh rods of pulp or almond and set the stick or the staff that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is the water places where the flocks came to drink. Remember how Christ is a type of David? Well, David is called a shepherd of the kingdom. and then chooses the others to and chooses another to shepherd the kingdom for him. It says, "Let the Lord appoint a man over the congregation who shall go out before them and come in before them so that the congregation of the Lord may not be as sheep that have no shepherd." Likewise, Jesus says, "I am the good shepherd." And then appoints Peter to shepherd the kingdom for him. It is not possible to deny the fact that Peter was a leader of the church. It is not possible to deny the fact that Peter had infallible binding authority. It is not possible to deny that Peter is the image of Christ the good shepherd. No matter which way you look at the scriptures, Peter always remains special, supreme, infallible, and authoritative. In the beginning, I claimed that Peter or the pope is the head of the church. He's the vicer or the image of Christ. He's the pastor of the church. And whatever the pope teaches on earth will be taught in heaven. The first pope was St. Peter. I have proven all of these things today. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Noah. You're actually 20 seconds before the 20 minute mark, so great job staying on time there. Um, I will remove you and then add Mr. Zoomer. Okay, take it away.

>> All right, thank you. Before we debate whether or not the papacy is in scripture, we need to define what the papacy is according to the Roman Catholic Church itself. I'm sure we can all agree it's best to go to the Roman church's official self-proclaimed infallible statements as well as their other magisterial documents to define what the Roman church means by the papacy. I will be referencing the infallible decree from Vatican 1 called pastor eternis as well as a few others. When arguing for the papacy, many fall into the trap of nonsequiter arguments, making logical leaps based on unproven assumptions. They'll say Jesus founded the church on Peter, therefore the Vatican 1 papacy. or Jesus gave Peter the keys. Therefore, the bishop of Rome is supreme over all other bishops, even when gathered in an ecumenical council. The Roman Catholic Church's doctrine of the papacy depends on four claims. So, to argue for the papacy from scripture, my opponent will need to demonstrate every single one of them. The first claim is that Jesus gave Peter supremacy over the other apostles. Not just primacy, leadership, or first among equals, but supremacy. As pastor eternis says in chapter 1, the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire church of God was promised and conferred by Christ the Lord immediately and directly to the blessed apostle Peter to this very clear teaching of the holy scriptures as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church are openly opposed the perverse opinions of those who perverting the form of government established by Christ the Lord and his church deny that Peter alone above the other apostles either individually or altogether was truly and properly endowed by Christ with the primacy of jurisdiction or who affirmed that this same primacy was not immediately and directly conferred on blessed Peter himself but on the church and through her on him as a minister of the church itself. If anyone therefore says that blessed apostle Peter was not appointed by Christ the Lord as the prince of all the apostles and the visible head of the entire church militant or that he received from the same Lord Jesus Christ the primacy of honor only but not of true and proper jurisdiction directly and immediately let him be anathema almost all juris almost all denominations including Eastern Orthodox oriental Orthodox and Protestant believe Peter was given some kind of primacy but primacy doesn't mean supremacy the difference is that under primacy, if two of the other apostles had a dispute, they could appeal to Peter to resolve it. But if all the apostles were to disagree with Peter on something, he couldn't overrule them. Under supremacy, he could have. The second claim is that Jesus established a perpetual Petrine office. Meaning that not only would Peter have successors, but that all of Peter's successors would possess the same distinctives that Peter had among all the other apostles. As pastor Ray Turnis says, "The holy and most blessed Peter, the chief and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, who up to this time and always lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors." The third claim is that the bishop of Rome is uniquely the successor of Peter. There were some church fathers like Cyprien who did believe Peter was supreme and had successors but believed that all bishops were successors of Peter not just the pope of Rome. Vatican 1 clearly equates the successors of Peter to the bishops of Rome saying hence whoever succeeds Peter in this sea according to the institution of Christ himself obtains the primacy of Peter over the universal church. It has always been necessary for the whole church that is those who are faithful everywhere to unite with the Roman church. The fourth claim is that the Petrine office or papacy has all the powers that Vatican 1 and other dogs dogmatic statements ascribe to us such as the power to contradict every other bishop in the world and still be obeyed, the power to make infallible statements when speaking ex Cathedra, earthly power over all kings of the world, and the ability to require submission to himself as absolutely necessary for salvation. As pastor Eternis says, the Roman pontiff when speaking from the cathedral, that is when he acts as pastor and doctor of all Christians defines by his supreme authority a doctrine on faith or morals to be held by the universal church is endowed through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter with that infallibility with which the divine redeemer willed that his church should be instructed. Again, any case for the papacy from scripture must include a sufficient demonstration of each of these claims from scripture. Amongst Roman Catholics, there are some who hold to a part team approach to revelation where they believe scripture and tradition are two distinct sources of revelation from the apostles that have different contents. However, there are other Roman Catholics which I believe includes my opponent Noah who believe scripture is materially sufficient. Meaning, while the church is necessary to interpret scripture, everything we need to know is contained in scripture. As St. Sirill of Jerusalem said, "For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the holy scriptures, nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artififices of speech. Even to me who tell you these things, give not absolute credence unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the divine scriptures. For this salvation, which we believe, depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the holy scriptures."

Regarding the first claim, there is nothing in scripture that states or implies that Peter had supreme authority over over the other apostles. Meaning that he at least hypothetically had the power to make binding decisions that contradicted all the rest of them. Peter makes many important decisions and is given great authority by Christ. But the first claim goes far beyond that. It claims that Peter's authority was greater than all of the other apostles put together. The one example in scripture we have of one apostle correcting another is when Peter was corrected by the apostle Paul. Galatians 2:1-14 is written by Paul saying, "When Peter came to Antioch, I told him to his face that he was wrong." Obviously, this is not a slam- dunk proof text against the papacy because even in the papal system, popes can receive corrections from other people. However, it does make it very hard to believe that scripture teaches Petrian supremacy even though he didn't say Simon says or rather Simon Peter says invoking papal infallibility. The implications that Peter was equal to the other apostles because there is a striking absence of any supremacy dynamics that Paul should have known about. Implications are all we have to go by here since scripture does not explicitly say Peter is supreme over the other apostles. Nor does it say Peter is not supreme over the other apostles. There is no example in scripture of Peter correcting another apostle. But there is an example of Peter being corrected by another apostle. If scripture did teach Petrine supremacy, this is not what we should expect to see. There are two common papal proof texts for Petrine supremacy. The first in Matthew 16 where Christ says, "And I tell you that you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. The two key details there are this rock and the keys, which we will address separately. Catholics believe that the rock upon which Christ built his church refers specifically to Peter. At face value, this interpretation makes sense, especially given that Peter literally means rock, which is why we say something is petrified if it turns to stone. And I just want to say that even if Peter is the rock, that does not necessarily mean petrine supremacy. It could simply mean that his faith will never falter. It doesn't necessarily mean that he has authority over all other apostles individually and collectively. However, there are many reasons to believe that the rock Jesus refers to does not refer to Peter himself to begin with. First of all, the church fathers were divided on this matter. Some of them believe the rock refers to Peter. Some believe it refers to Christ. And many of them believed it refers to Peter's confession of Christ that led Christ to say that. Based on many other statements of scripture, it makes much more sense to say that Christ is the rock. And Peter was named after his confession of Christ, the rock, rather than Peter himself being the rock. In Isaiah 44:8, God says, "Is there any other God besides me?" No, there is no other rock. I know not one. Ephesians 2:20 says, "The church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone." This passage lumps Peter in with the rest of the apostles and being foundations of the church, but sets Christ apart as the cornerstone, which means rock. 1 Corinthians 10:4 says, "And all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ." Peter himself confesses that the rock he is named after is not himself, but Christ, saying, "For it stands in scripture," "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame." 1 Peter 2:6. Psalm 62:2 says, "God alone is my rock and my salvation." There are endless passages that refer to God and Christ as the rock, often with exclusive language like he alone. If Peter really was the rock, then that would be the only passage in scripture that referred to anyone other than God as the rock upon which the church is built, which is very unlikely. In Matthew 7:24, Jesus says, "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock." After Peter confesses Jesus to be the Christ, Jesus says, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjonah. For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." It is much more compatible with the rest of scripture to say, "Christ is the rock." And Peter is named after the rock for building his faith upon the rock that is Christ.

Now, it is true that Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, which includes the power to bind and loose. But there is no reason to believe that the keys were given only to Peter or that Peter possesses the keys in any exclusive manner. Two chapters later in Matthew 18, Jesus gives the same binding and loosing power to all the disciples and tells the disciples to make decisions in the church by coming together in groups. Jesus says, "If they still refuse to listen, take it to the church. And if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them. Since Christ explicitly grounds ecclesial authority in collective judgment, not unilateral monarchy, there is no reason to believe that Peter has the keys in any unique sense. All bishops and elders of the church who have succession from the apostles possess the keys and have the power to exercise them when they come together in councils or senates. like Jesus said, not monarchially like the pope does. Many of the church fathers explicitly stated that Jesus gave the keys to all of the apostles, not just Peter. Jerome says, "But you say that the church is founded on Peter, although the same thing is done in another place upon all the apostles, and all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the solidity of the church is established equally upon all." Ambrose says, "Therefore, the Lord gave the apostles that which was previously part of his own judicial authority. hear him saying, "I will give thee the king the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." To thee, he says, I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven that you may bind and loose. What was said to Peter is said to the apostles. Theophil says, they who have obtained the grace of the episcopate as Peter had have authority to remit and bind. For though I will give thee was spoken to Peter alone, yet the gift has been given to all the apostles.

Another common biblical argument for the papacy is when Jesus tells Peter, "Feed my sheep." Implying that Jesus was giving Peter a role as shepherd over all Christians. But this alone says nothing about Peter's relations to the other apostles. There is no reason to believe that the other apostles did not also have a responsibility to all the sheep of Christ. St. Augustine commenting on this passage says, "What was commanded to Peter, what was enjoined to Peter, not Peter alone, but also all the other apostles heard and held preserved, and most of all the partner of his death and of his day the Apostle Paul. They heard that and transmitted it for our hearing. We feed you. We are fed together with you." Therefore hath the Lord commended his sheep to us because he commended them to Peter.

Now, let's see if the second claim is biblical. that Jesus established a perpetual Petrine office that there would always be people who were uniquely successors of Peter and would always have his unique powers as a result. Now, as far as I'm aware, scripture is completely silent on this point. Nowhere does scripture mention any successor of Peter specifically. Like I said, this claim is essential to the doctrine of pap of the papacy. Even if you can prove claim one from scripture that Peter was the supreme apostle, without a perpetual Petrine successor, you don't have the papacy. You could appeal to tradition on this point, but this debate is about whether the papacy is in scripture. And many church fathers tell us that everything we teach teach as dogma must be found in scripture. The third claim is also not in scripture. That the successor of Peter is uniquely the bishop of Rome. The Bible never explicitly mentions that Peter was in Rome at all, much less that he was the bishop of Rome, much less that whoever is the bishop of Rome today is endowed with the perpetual Petrine charism. I am not denying that Peter was in Rome or that he was the leader of the church there. But scripture never reveals that. And as St. Sirill of Jerusalem says, if we are going to teach something as a matter of faith, it must be found in the scriptures. Again, even if you can prove that scripture teaches Peter was the supreme apostle or given the keys in a unique way, which I don't grant, there is still no biblical reason to believe that the bishop of Rome is the unique successor of Peter instead of all bishops being successors of Peter like Cyprien believed. Peter didn't just found a church in Rome. He also founded the churches in Alexandria and Antioch. Where does scripture say that it's only the bishop of Rome who is endowed with the Petrine charrorism? The fourth claim is that the Petrine office includes everything that Vatican 1 ascribes to it, including infallibility when teaching on faith or morals. The problem is scripture never ascribes infallibility to any individual the way it does to scripture itself. 2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." Proverbs 35 says, "Every word of God proves true." Second Peter 1:20-21 says, "Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." Some might interpret the binding and loosing power given to Peter as giving him the ability to make infallible judgments. The problem is that Jesus gives this exa exact same power to people that the Roman Catholic Church does not believe are infallible. He says whenever two or more of the disciples are gathered to make a judgment, whatever they bind on earth will be bound in heaven and likewise whatever they loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. This means that local councils or senates have this promise from Christ which I as a Presbyterian obviously believe. However, not a single denomination believes that local or regional councils are infallible. Presbyterians take Jesus's instructions to the max, not making any authoritative decisions individually, but having councils to govern the church at every level. Again, even if you can somehow prove the first three claims from scripture, which I do not believe you can, without the fourth claim of infallibility, you do not have the papacy. There were tons of medieval Catholics that believed in the first three claims, but disputed papal infallibility due to its absence from scripture and due to historical examples of pope's teaching heresy, like Pope Anorius and his monolitist heresy. However, since Pastor Eternis infallibly dogmatized papal infallibility in the 1800s, this is an essential part of the Roman doctrine of the papacy without which you do not have it. So, to recap, my opponent needs to be able to prove all four of these claims from scripture in order to demonstrate that the Bible teaches the papacy. Thank you.

>> Thank you very much, Zoomer. I'm going to add Noah up for his rebuttal. There we go. And Noah, if you need me to add your screen, just tell me. He'll add it up.

>> All right. Well, Zoomer, thank you so much for for that wonderful opening statement. Um, he he listed out four claims that I need to prove. One, that Jesus gave Peter supremacy. Two, that uh the perpetual office of Petrine authority is indeed perpetual. Three, that the uh Petrine authority is to Peter alone. Um, and four, infallibility. I needed to prove all of those. Um, so going off of what he said first about Jesus giving uh Peter supremacy over the apostles, I I showed that only Peter is given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Only Peter is called the shepherd of a flock. Only Peter is the owner of the boat that is the church. I I've shown those very clearly. And and furthermore, remember all of the connections that I drew back to Aaron, right? To the Levitical priesthood where Aaron, the high priest, quite literally has supremacy over all of the other tribes. So, I I showed that one very clearly. Uh I I I'm very anxious to see what he says about that in his rebuttal to my rebuttal and my opening statement. Um I also needed to show that the office of Peter is um perpetual. I can show that in a few ways. I I believe I already have. Right. We know that the office of Aaron the high priest, as I already showed that Peter is a type of

Is perpetual, right? And that all of the successors of Aaron, the high priest, all of the Levitical priests, the high priests, um, will have the same authority that Aaron had. It's not just like, oh, you're a successor. You have some authority. They have the exact same authority that Aaron had. Um, and so the fact that I showed that Peter is a type of Aaron shows clearly that that is passed on.

Um, and I know that this is a discussion about the Bible, but like Redeem Zoomer did, where he brought up a bunch of church fathers, I would also like to bring up a bunch of church fathers. If you could throw my screen up, um, that would be very, very helpful. Um, let me scroll to, um, Peter doesn't go away. Um, I have a bunch of church fathers, um, talking about the succession, right? Uh, the same exact authority.

So, um, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, he's very, very clear. Um, he talks about Peter and Paul and them being the bishops, and you can see right there, "By means of the succession of bishops, it is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church." So it's continued, um, Roman succession is very clear from First Clement, um, as well. Um, so too, our apostles knew through the Lord Jesus Christ that strife would arise over the office of the bishop. So he says that the Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ knew that the office of the bishopric would cause division. Um, and he says that he knew perfectly well in advance that that would happen. And so he appointed, um, Peter, right? And he approved, uh, he approved of all this. He says, um, that the apostles succeed the same status. We read that in Jerome's letter. Um, and I know that, uh, Zoomer has a bunch of opinions on what Rome taught about the bishop. We can, we can talk about that, um, later if he wants. Um, let me, let me see. That's Jerome on the three degrees of clergy. Um, Peter being the rock. I have a bunch of church fathers on that. Um, we have, we have Clement. So, uh, for the, the succession of the apostles of Peter, um, I have all of these, uh, that confirm that, um, Peter ordained, uh, Clement, for example, um, that the Petrine succession. It names all of the the popes out, um, very clear. It's from Epiphanius. Uh, it says, uh, Clement and, uh, Peter are very clear. Peter and Paul, Clement and the Romans. Um, I have this also from Augustine when he confirms it. Linus, Linus came after Peter, Clement after Linus. And then it talks about Cletus as well. Um, this line of popes is very clear. Uh, you can, you can take that off for a second if you want, Sam. I appreciate that.

Um, so, uh, the next claim that the Petrine authority is given to Peter alone. Um, again, I've shown this, this very clearly. The keys are given to only Peter. If, if Zoomer can show me where the keys, the keys themselves are in scripture given to another apostle, by all means, show that to me. And that actually ties back to, um, the, the Petrine authority, right? U, the supremacy of Peter. We can see in 1 Chronicles 9 that the leader of all the other priests, the one out of 12, um, actually leads the others in gate opening. It says that there are 12 people who open gates, the, the east, south, north, and west gates, um, obviously with keys, and they're the gatekeepers, and the Levites, the priest, the high priest leads them in doing so. Um, so even if he does show me really that the other apostles have keys, um, it, it's kind of null and void because it, it doesn't really address the fact that the, the person who's given the keys initially still has power over anyone else who has the keys. The high priest had authority over all of the other gatekeepers. Um, so that, that's another very clear one.

Uh, and then he, he talks about infallibility. He pushed back on the, the claim of, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." He says, "Well, binding authority doesn't mean infallibility." Well, hold on. Yes, it does. When it's said in the way that Christ says it. So, if we go back to Eliakim, he says, "Whatever you open, none shall shut." So, it says, "Nobody else has authority over Eliakim to shut what he opens." But that's not the language that is used. It's not the same phrase that's used for Peter. It says, "Whatever Peter binds on earth will be bound in heaven." We know nothing is bound falsely in heaven. So if Peter, the Petrine authority, binds something on earth, it will also be bound in heaven. That, that's all you need for supremacy. If you think that something can be bound falsely in heaven, then we have a lot of theological problems. So Zoomer, please tell me why it, it's talked about in that way.

Um, let's see. I, I wrote down a couple other things that you said. You brought up, um, Honorius and Monothelitism, tried to say that he taught heresy. Um, and that's really not the case with Honorius. Um, he, he actually, in his letter on Monothelitism, he, he claimed that, no, I'm not teaching Monothelitism. Do not teach two wills or one will. In fact, he says, "Don't teach anything. I don't want to divide the church." Later in that passage, he says that yes, there's one will, but he doesn't teach it to anyone. And a lot of scholars actually think he's not even talking about the same question that was asked before, that he misunderstood what was being talked about, or that we are misunderstanding what he's talking about. So claiming that Honorius bound in the same way that Peter was binding a Monothelitism, Monothelitist heresy to the church. Um, I, I know that that Zoomer knows better than that.

Um, he also claims that nothing shows Peter is supreme. We, we all know from my opening statement that's not true. Um, he talks about where Paul corrects Peter. He, he actually said it perfectly himself. That doesn't really, that's not a slam dunk on anything. Um, because Peter was not binding something. It was a, a venial credential judgment that Peter was making for himself, not binding anything to the church. So he, he actually refuted that claim perfectly for me. Um, and he also quoted from Ambrose. I have a quote from Ambrose that I could bring up. Again, I don't want to get too hairy in the church fathers though here, because like we said, like, like Zoomer said, this is about the Bible, not what the church fathers taught, not what, um, you know, the church council said later. So, I can, we can talk on Ambrose, Zoomer, if you want to see that quote from Ambrose, um, where he talks about, um, you know, Peter being a supreme bishop over the other ones. We can totally do that. Um, but for now, I think I'm good.

>> All right. Awesome. Thank you so much. Um, we'll remove you and add up Mr. Zoomer. All right, 10 minutes starts now. Go right.

>> Okay, so a lot of papal apologetics fails to make the distinction between Peter as an apostle and Peter as a bishop, specifically the bishop of Rome. So, first, let's talk about how Jesus told Peter to feed my sheep. Um, Noah brought this up, how Jesus said, "Feed my sheep" to Peter, implying that Jesus made Peter shepherd over all Christians, therefore universal jurisdiction. This would be a decent argument if you could show that this was spoken to Peter as he was the bishop of Rome, because that would imply that bishops of Rome in general, or popes, have universal jurisdiction. However, given the fact that all the apostles had some degree of universal jurisdiction, since their written teachings are considered authoritative by all Christians, it is much more likely that these words were spoken to Peter as he was an apostle, not as he was the bishop of Rome. There is no reason to believe that the other apostles like Paul and John weren't also charged with shepherding the flock of the entire church, given that both of them gave infallible instructions to the universal church. Like I said, to show that Peter was a pope, you need to show from scripture that Jesus established a perpetual Petrine office distinct from the offices of apostle and bishop. It doesn't count just to prove that Peter had successors. Obviously, Peter ordained people like Linus and Clement. Everyone knows that. You need to show Jesus established a perpetual Petrine office. Presbyterians and Catholics agree that Peter had two distinct offices at the same time: the office of bishop or elder, and the office of apostle. We agree that the office of bishop is perpetual, since validly ordained bishops have succession from the apostles. But the office of apostle is not perpetual, since there are no capital A apostles today. Where we disagree is whether Peter had a third office, the office of pope, which is distinct from both bishop and apostle. Since Catholics do not believe that all bishops are popes or that all apostles are popes, every office in scripture is either perpetual, like bishops, or non-perpetual, like apostles. If the pope is a perpetual office, then the pope is a distinct type of bishop. If the pope is a non-perpetual office, then the pope is a distinct type of apostle. So to show from scripture that Peter was a pope, not only do you need to show that there exists a Petrine office in scripture, but you also need to show that this Petrine office is a perpetual office. Otherwise, and this is not my view, but one could take the view that Peter was the supreme super-apostle. But since there are no longer apostles, there are no longer any popes. However, that is not what Roman Catholicism believes. That's not how they define popes. I am still waiting on my opponent to show where scripture defines a perpetual Petrine office.

Now, I want to respond to the famous Eliakim typology argument for the papacy. But before I respond to it, I just want to remind everyone that this argument was not made by any of the church fathers, nor was it made by any Roman Catholic apologists during the Reformation. So, while it may work as a supplemental argument, it doesn't make sense historically to hinge your case for the papacy on this, especially because it's exegetically irresponsible to give too much weight to typological arguments, given how flexible and vague they can be. But, of course, I'm still going to respond. The reason Catholic theologians haven't historically used this argument is because it's very clearly not talking about Peter specifically. Revelation 3:7 clearly shows that Eliakim foreshadows Jesus, not Peter, saying, "These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens, no one can shut, and what he shuts, no one can open." Some might argue that David foreshadows Christ, and Eliakim foreshadows Peter. David gives the keys of his house to Eliakim, foreshadows Jesus giving the keys of his house to Peter. However, this passage says that Jesus receives the keys of David's house, putting Jesus, not Peter, in the place of Eliakim.

Now, let's talk about Peter strengthening the brethren. Again, this is what I'd consider a non-sequitur argument, where the conclusion is not demanded by the premises. Does Jesus telling Peter to strengthen his brethren imply some leadership role even amongst the apostles? Sure. Does it imply supremacy? Not necessarily. Like, I think we're all supposed to strengthen our brethren. Do you think you're not supposed to strengthen your brethren? Seriously. Uh, to respond to the ironic typology, I would say that Aaron was a high priest of the Old Testament sacrificial system, which Hebrews says has been abolished since Christ is our only high priest. Roman Catholicism has a tendency to do this, by the way, applying prophecies about Christ to the Pope. For example, the infallible papal decree, Unam Sanctam, takes Jeremiah's prophecy about "I have set thee above nations" to the Pope instead of Christ in order to justify their theology of the Pope as a world emperor. My opponent said Peter having the ability to bind and loose means that he is the fulfillment of Eliakim in a unique way. However, as we saw, Jesus also gives the other apostles the ability to bind and loose. Does that mean the other apostles are also popes? Does that mean the other apostles are also infallible? Does that mean all the successors of the apostles are infallible? Because Irenaeus says that presbyters are the successors of the apostles. I guess every presbyter is infallible. Now, I will say to conclude that arguments that rely too much on typology are exegetically weak. A doctrinally binding typology must be either explicitly identified in scripture or necessarily implied by inspired apostolic use in the New Testament. This is not some Protestant rule. St. Augustine said, "Those things which are said figuratively must not be turned into doctrines unless the rule of faith compels it." So, if you're going to prove from scripture that the bishop of Rome is the unique successor of Peter, who has supremacy over all the other apostles, is a world emperor, and has the authority to make infallible decisions, you're going to need more than almonds. Thank you.

>> Thank you so much for that, Zoomer. I'm going to keep you up on the screen because we're going right into the cross-examination. I'll just add Noah up here and then remove myself. Um, Noah, you're unmuted. Okay, awesome. Okay, so we got a 50-minute cross-examination with Noah being the affirmative first. Noah,

>> Could you, could you throw up my, my slides as well, just real quick?

>> Who's asking the questions first?

>> I'm asking the questions first.

>> Is the,

>> Yeah. Okay.

>> All right. I'm going to remove myself and add up your, your slides.

>> Sounds good.

>> Okay. So, uh, real quick, I just want to run a quote by you. In, in your rebuttal there, you said that there were no church fathers who made the connection between, um, Eliakim and Peter. I just want to ask, um, hold on. Oh, crap. There's a lot of, lot of church fathers here. Um, this is Theodore of Cyrus, uh, his commentary on Isaiah, article 6. He says that he will give the key of the house of David upon the shoulder of him, and he shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and there will be not someone opening it. And then he says, "On this matter, too, our own realities are prototypified, for he, Jesus, says, 'Whatever you should bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,' and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'" Were, were you aware of that quote?

>> I was not. But I don't think this is really, uh, arguing for the papacy in the modern Roman Catholic sense.

>> Okay. But you do agree that he, he connects those two passages?

>> Well, yeah, there's connections, but they weren't using this as an argument for Roman supremacy.

>> Okay. Yeah, that's fine. I just wanted to run that quote by you. Uh, Sam, you can, you can take that off, uh, real quick now, if you don't mind. Um, and then I'll ask you to put it back up in a second.

>> Um, so Zoomer, who is the high priest in heaven?

>> Christ.

>> Okay. So, in your video, "How Churches Became Ugly and Why That's a Problem," you stated, "Traditionally, people spread Christianity by showing what Jesus's kingdom is like. Traditional Christianity is the reality that heaven is colonizing the earth through the church. Therefore, the church's worship should reflect that." Do you still agree with that statement?

>> Yeah.

>> Okay. So, in your video, "The Problem with Non-Denominational Churches," you stated, "Biblical Christianity is not just about escaping this world and going to heaven. It's about heaven and earth becoming one and heaven colonizing the earth through the church." Uh, do you still agree with that statement?

>> Sure. Yeah.

>> Okay. So, if the kingdom of earth is supposed to mirror the kingdom of heaven, and the kingdom of earth is supposed to be, as you say, quote, "one with the kingdom of heaven," who is the high priest on earth?

>> I'd say the high priest, uh, is still Christ. Just because the church on earth mirrors the church in heaven doesn't mean we need two high priests, anymore than we need two gods. Like, you could say, "Oh, who is the god in heaven? Who is the god on earth?" Right?

>> Yeah. Uh, I agree. But, but you think that Christ is the high priest on earth?

>> Uh, he's the high priest on earth just as much as God is our God on earth. Yeah.

>> Okay. Uh, Sam, could you put up my slide real quick?

>> Like, is, is Christ on earth? I, I mean, you of all people should believe Christ is on earth because of transubstantiation. Okay. I should believe that Christ is on a. Could you read Hebrews 8:1-4 for me? If you want to read it, I can read it too if you don't want to.

>> Oh, you want me to read it? Sure. "Now, the point in what we are saying is this: We have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices. Thus, it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now, if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law."

>> Okay. So, you said that Christ is the high priest on earth, but this passage says that if Christ is on earth, he wouldn't be a priest at all.

>> Yeah. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Christ's authority still extends to the earth because God is the God on earth, even though we say, "Our Father who art in heaven." I agree with you what you're saying that the kingdom is one. There's not two kingdoms, not the kingdom in heaven, the kingdom on earth. It's one kingdom, and that means we only need one king.

>> Okay. But Hebrews is talking about a priest on earth. It's talking about an earthly priest.

>> Okay. Um, but in, in the very next verse, talking about the priests on earth, it says that they serve a copy and a shadow of the heavenly things. So if there's one monarchical, uh, head of,

>> When it's talking about the priests on earth, it's talking about the Levitical priesthood. They were imperfect priests offering imperfect sacrifices. Christ is the perfect priest who offers a perfect sacrifice. So when they're talking about the imperfection of priests on earth, they're not talking about why Christ can't be a priest on earth. They're talking about the imperfection of the Levitical priests.

>> Okay. So, but you agree that you would say that this is talking about the Levitical priests under Aaron.

>> Yeah.

>> Okay. So when it says in Exodus 29:9 that the, uh, the seat of Aaron and the statute and the promises of the, of Aaron's kingdom will never, uh, go away. It'll be a priesthood forever. Do you agree with that?

>> Yeah. Christ is the priest.

>> Well, Christ is the priest in accordance to, uh, Melchizedek. It actually says in Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 7, uh, 6, 7, that, um, that he's the, the priest in the order of Melchizedek rather than of Aaron.

>> Christ has many roles. Christ is the high priest in the order of Melchizedek. He's the king in the order of David. Uh, he's a prophet in the order of Moses and Elijah.

>> I, I agree. I'm not, I'm not saying that he's, he's that he doesn't have multiple roles, but it says he's the priest in the order of Melchizedek rather than of Aaron.

>> Can you show me that quote?

>> Uh, let me, I mean, I could, I could screen share real quick and I could pull it up on Bible Gateway. Uh,

>> I'm going to look it up myself.

>> Yeah, it's here. I can, I can read it to you from my screen. Um, let me see, let me see if I can get it up here for you.

>> Like, it, it is true that the, uh, there is no more ceremonial system, and there is the eternal priesthood of Melchizedek that Christ participates in. Um, but the high priestly role, like Jesus is not the, um, Aaronic priest in so far as it's Aaronic, because that has to do with the earthly sacrificial system, which is limited and imperfect. But he is in the role of the Aaronic priesthood in so far as he's a priest.

>> Yeah. I, I, I'm not, I'm not saying that he's not a priest, but it, it explicitly says rather than. I'm trying to find this quote for you. Um, "You are a priest according to the order of Melchizedek." They're on one hand, in abrogation of the commandment. I'm just confused. If you think, uh, Christ is not in the order of Aaron, then why is Aaron a type of Christ?

>> I said that Aaron's a type of Peter.

>> Oh, type of Peter. Sorry. Yeah.

>> Yeah. So now, "If perfection had been attainable," this is verse 11, "through the Levitical priesthood, for the people received the law under this priesthood, what further need would there have been to speak of another priest arising according to the order of Melchizedek rather than one according to the order of Aaron?"

>> Yeah.

>> So he's, he's not the high priest according to the order of Aaron.

>> Show, show that again. Uh, what? Hebrews 8:5? Is that you,

>> Pull the quote back up?

>> Uh, Hebrews 8:5.

>> Uh, yeah, sure.

>> Okay. Yeah. Sam, can you throw that back up for us?

>> Yeah. "The priests on earth, uh, serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. So when Moses was about to erect the tabernacle, he was warned, 'See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown to you on the mountain.'"

>> Yeah. I was, I was quoting 7:11. Hebrews 7:11.

>> Okay. Can we see? Um, I can pull that one up, or you can pull it up.

>> Yeah. Yeah. So it says, uh, actually, I mean, we, we can, we can just move on. I think I've, I've shown what I, I want to show here, if that's all right with you.

>> Okay.

>> Yeah. I mean, I don't want to rip you out of context. There's just a lot of questions I, I want to get to. People definitely read that verse for yourself, uh, if you have questions about it. Um, okay. So, you claim that Peter, uh, is not the rock that the church is built on. Do, do you still agree with that statement?

>> I tend to believe he's not. I still am open to being convinced that he is the rock, but I think a lot makes a lot more sense to say that Christ is the rock.

>> Okay. But you are, you're open to the idea of him being the rock.

>> I'm willing to be convinced. Like, I don't think that proves Petrine supremacy.

>> Okay. Um, that I was not expecting to say that. I'll be, I'll be completely honest. That's, that's very interesting to me. I'm trying to pull off the church fathers had a lot of flexibility. Um, they're like, "Yeah, maybe, maybe Peter's the rock. He's also Christ is the rock. All the apostles are the rock." So since the church fathers have a lot of flexibility, I, I think I can have some flexibility too. I think the most proper interpretation is Christ as the rock.

>> Yeah. Okay. Uh, we, we'll run with that. Uh, Sam, could you put up my slide again? I know we're making you do a bunch of stuff. Um, so do this is the verse where Peter's name is first changed, right? In John 1:42-50, or you're aware of this passage, I'm assuming?

>> Okay. Yeah. So it says, "He brought Simon to Jesus. Who looked at him and said, 'You are Simon, son of John. You are to be called Cephas,' which is translated to Peter or rock."

>> Yeah. We, we know Peter means rock.

>> Yeah. Awesome. I was, I was just, I was just reading it for you.

>> Yeah.

>> Um, okay. So, in that same passage, Nathaniel is talking to Christ. He says, "Rabbi, you are the son of God. You are the king of Israel." Jesus answered, "Do you believe because I have told you that I saw you under the fig tree? You will see greater things than these. The angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man." So I, I want to point out that ascending and descending verse, right? The Son of Man is to be ascended and descended upon. That's that same language is used for, for Jacob's ladder, right? The ladder that mediated earth and heaven. Um, which is obviously a type of Jesus Christ. It says, "And he dreamed that there was a ladder set up to earth, the top of it reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it." So this is obviously a typological connection. And I find it rather striking that in the same passage that Peter's name is changed, there's a, a rock whose name is changed. It says, "So Jacob rose early in the morning, and he took the stone that he put under his head and set up for a pillar and poured oil on top of it. He called that place Bethel, but the name of the city was Luz at first." Do, do you know what Bethel means literally?

>> Uh, what does Bethel mean literally?

>> Uh, House of God, right?

>> Mhm.

>> Um, so upon the rock that's in the same passage, right, of that Jesus is referencing when he talks about ascending and descending. The House of God is built upon the, the pillar and, and the, the stone, right? That's built upon the stone. Um, I, I find it also very striking that the name of the city was Luz at first. Do you know what Luz means in Hebrew?

>> It means almonds actually. Seeds of almonds or almonds. So there's this, there's this huge connection. Do you find, do you, do you see the connections that I'm making here?

>> I can see somewhat of connections, but again, I think typological arguments are sort of weak if they're not explicitly stated elsewhere.

>> Well, well, I believe that they are explicitly stated elsewhere. Like Matthew 16, uh, John 21. I know that you don't think that those are enough, but when the typology is backed up by these verses that seem to be backing up the claims that I'm making, it kind of all fits together. And typology, right, is how the Ethiopian eunuch came to know Christ, right? The typology of the servant. God can use any, God can use anything to bring people to Christ. But I don't think the infallible dogmatic definition, or really any dogmatic definition, should rely too much on typology. You have to be able to demonstrate it without the typology.

>> Well, I think I have demonstrated without typology.

>> Yeah. And that's what I'm going to ask you about in our cross-examination. So, but I'm still confused. How does this stuff with the almonds and stuff show that Peter uniquely is the rock?

>> Well, again, because Peter's the only one whose name is changed to rock, and then he, the, the same rock that Jesus is referencing from this passage, the House of God is built on it, and it makes a connection back to almonds. You don't have to agree. I'm just asking.

>> Be honest, like, I'm open to the idea of Peter being the rock, but I think if there's so many verses that say God alone is the rock, Christ alone is the rock, I think that's a much stronger, um, connection than some thing with Jacob and the ladders and the almonds. I'll look more into that. I'm open to the idea of Peter being the rock. I just don't see it here.

>> Yeah. There's also a passage in Isaiah 51 where, where in my opinion, it definitely seems like it's calling, uh, Abraham a rock, but that's neither here nor there. Um, but we, we, we can, we can definitely get into that, uh, in my cross-examination if you want. Um, the last, the last question I have here is, is Jesus a type of Moses?

>> You mean, is Moses a type of Jesus?

>> Either one.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. Okay. So, in Matthew 17:1, Jesus takes three men, John, James, and Peter, up to a mountain. Can you think of any time when Moses brings three men up to a mountain?

>> Well, yeah. Um, he does bring Aaron and the others up to the. And I, I know he gives like Aaron the staff, and there's the Aaron's rod blossoming. That's, that's an argument I haven't really heard before. Um, I think,

>> Well, we can get to that in my cross. I'm going down a different road. So, he brings Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu up. Just those three. So Moses and Jesus take three men up to a mountain very similarly. And then Hebrews 8:8, we actually just read it, says that Moses did a copy of what was seen on the mountain. Um, so Jesus actually talks to Moses at the top of the mountain. Do you think that this could possibly be connecting Jesus to Moses here?

>> Sure. I don't see why not.

>> Okay. So Moses brings three men up to the mountain, Abihu and Nadab, who were brothers and priests alongside the high priest, Aaron. Correct?

>> Yeah.

>> Okay. Do you think it's just a coincidence that Jesus also brings three men up to the mountain, James and John, who were brothers and priests along with Peter?

>> I don't think it's a coincidence. Like, I'm willing to see a lot of these parallels. I just think these parallels are insufficient to prove the papacy.

>> But would you agree that Peter is the high priest?

>> I think Christ is the only high priest that there is.

>> Okay. Well, that, that's what we're, we're disputing here. Is it a coincidence that only Peter speaks on the mountain, while Aaron is also singled out to come up halfway with Moses in Exodus 19:24?

>> I don't think that necessarily is a coincidence.

>> Okay. Uh, so again, this connection between Peter and Aaron. Is it a coincidence that Aaron and Peter use the same language to describe how they represent God, "by my mouth," and we see that in Acts 15 and when Peter addresses people?

>> Again, I'm willing to see that parallel. I just don't how see how any of those parallels prove the papacy.

>> Okay. Is it also a coincidence that Aaron is chosen, one out of 12, to give a staff that represents shepherding the flock, while Peter is chosen, one out of 12, and told to shepherd the flock?

>> Again, I'm willing to also see that parallel. I just don't see how that proves the papacy or supremacy.

>> Okay. Well, again, you're, you're disputing the fact that Aaron is the high priest. You're saying that these probably, it seems like you're saying,

>> I'm not disputing the fact that Aaron is the high priest.

>> Well, sorry, that Peter's the high priest. I misspoke. Um, it seems like,

>> Only because I don't think that there is a high priest in the order of the sacrificial system anymore. I think Hebrews is pretty clear that that system has been abolished because Christ does all of that on our behalf in heaven.

>> Well, according to, like, we, we obviously believe in the vicar of Christ, right? Christ is the good shepherd, and then Peter is an image of that as shepherding the flock in John 21. Likewise, Peter is an image of the high priest Jesus Christ. So, I'm not saying that he is, he's a second high priest and they're like rivaling each other. That's not what I'm saying at all, but I'm just saying that these passages are very clearly connecting Aaron to Peter. Um, what, what purpose do you think that's serving?

>> How would he not be a second high priest and how would they not rival each other?

>> Uh, you can ask me that in my cross-examination if you want. Uh, but, but you're seeing how Aaron is very clearly connected to Peter. Why would they be doing that?

>> I think Aaron is connected to Peter because, um, Peter is one of the main, probably the main person that is sent by Christ to lead the church. I am not disputing whether Peter is the head of the apostles. I'm not disputing whether Peter is the most important apostle, or that there's a lot of parallels between Jesus appointing the apostles, uh, with Peter as the head, and, you know, Moses appointing the priests with, um, Aaron as their head.

>> Yeah. Aaron, Aaron had, Aaron had supremacy over the other tribes. Agreed. Is there an example, I mean, I, I can't really, um, I guess I'll have to ask you this in the cross-examination, but I don't see an example of everyone else disagreeing with Aaron and Aaron still having the authority to override everyone else.

>> Well, I mean, in a, in a perfect world, obviously, the, the conciliar church, all of the other apostles would agree with Peter. I mean, we can get to the Great Schism. I'm sure that's where this is headed, but sounds like that's my time.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, you went a little bit over, but only 30 seconds because Zoomer was talking for the for the rest of it. But, um, so Zoomer, I'll give you an extra 30 seconds for your cross-examination as well. Uh, format stays the same. I will just start your time and remove my ugly face from the screen.

>> Okay. So, I want to ask you about something you said. You said that binding authority constitutes infallibility. You said that when, uh, Jesus gave Peter the power to bind and loose, that means he's giving him infallibility, right?

>> Well, I want, I want to clarify. When, when it's the binding that is bound in heaven, I believe that that is infallibility. And if you're going to try and connect it to Matthew 18 where the other apostles are told that they can bind, um, they receive those powers in my opinion, um, as a result of Peter as the, the prime, uh, leader.

>> Okay. But you believe that that implies infallibility when Jesus says, "binding and, uh, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven"?

>> I would, I would say, yeah, that would imply infallibility.

>> Okay. So then do you think local councils are infallible?

>> Um, I wouldn't believe that they're binding in the same way. No. I think there's obviously clarifications that need to be.

>> But Jesus says, "Wherever two or three are gathered, there I am with them."

>> Well, that doesn't do that in the context of giving them the power to bind and loose.

>> Yeah. But that doesn't necessarily mean that when they're gathering, they have the same binding and loosing power automatically. Um,

>> Why, why wouldn't it? Jesus, Jesus said they have that power.

>> Well, again, because we're, we're viewing this in the lens that Peter is the leader of the apostles. And so, we have to view what you're saying. You're trying to view it in the context of the binding and loosing. I'm saying we have to view the binding and loosing itself in the power of Peter receiving this first and as the leader of the apostles.

>> Even if Peter is the leader of the apostles, they, um, Jesus didn't say, "Whenever you come together with Peter as your leader." He said, "Whenever two or three are gathered."

>> Yeah. Well, again, context is, is very key here because Peter is given these first. It's the same exact language. So obviously,

>> Few of you on earth agree about anything. Where, where does Jesus say Peter needs to be included in the group?

>> Well, again, I, I think we're kind of taking these out of context because in Matthew 16:18, I know that I'm dangling the keys a little bit, as as the Eastern Orthodox would say, but he's given the keys first. He's given the binding and loosing authority first, and then only as a result of that do the others get this power. Actually, I brought it back to, uh,

>> I mean, I mean, sure, like, um, I, even, even if we grant your opinion that only Peter has the keys, which I don't grant. Jesus said, "If any two are gathered, they have the binding and loosing power." So are they, so does binding and loosing necessitate infallibility? Yes or no?

>> Yeah. Well, again, you're, you're taking this, this, uh, general,

>> Yes or no? Yes or no? Does binding and loosing necessitate infallibility?

>> I think it's fair to put a yes or no on something that has a lot of nuance and clarifications required. Like when, when it says that the will of the Father is that all men should be saved, we can't just say, "Oh, there we go. Universalism." I, I don't think that that's a fair thing to put a yes or no on.

>> Sure. Um, but, but if, if it's nuance, then you can say no. It does not necessarily mean infallibility. So do you just want to say that it does not necessarily mean infallibility?

>> It does not necessarily mean infallibility in the sense that it's given to the apostles in the, if two or three are gathered in my name. I think that when it's given to Peter, though, in the context of everything else, it's very clear that it's talking about infallibility.

>> So then you think it's the keys that grant infallibility, not binding and loosing?

>> Well, no, not necessarily. I wouldn't, that's not what I said.

>> The binding and loosing is given to the other apostles, and you don't think that grants infallibility?

>> Well, again, I think that their receiving of the binding and loosing is in context of Peter receiving it first. And like I was talking about, uh, Exodus 29 or, uh, in 1 Chronicles 9, I think is what I meant to cite there, um, that the gatekeepers are led by the high priest, and that they only have the power over the gates because they are led by the high priest. So I think that's, that's a very clear connection that's being made.

>> Sure. But even in the Roman church, when local councils only have authority because of the Pope, right?

>> Um, well, authority in what way?

>> Like, local councils, do you believe a local council has a binding and loosing authority?

>> Not in the same way that Jesus is talking about. No. I mean, obviously, you know, that that's not what I, what I believe.

>> Right? Um, again, we can move on, but I don't think you've sufficiently demonstrated why it would be different, um, why Peter would have infallible authority with binding and loosing, but why the other apostles wouldn't have authority with their binding and loosing. Uh, do, do you want to keep talking about that or do you want to move on?

>> Um, I, I mean, we can totally keep talking about. I think I think, uh, Matthew 17, actually, there's a lot of context in there that's in between Matthew 16 and 18 that I find very important to, uh, what follows, right, where where the drachma tax is paid, right? Jesus speaks, or Peter speaks on behalf of Jesus, and then, um, Jesus pays the tax for Peter and Jesus, but not for any of the other apostles. And then he says, "Hey, look, you guys also have this binding authority." So, uh, if, if you don't know about the drachma tax, um, usually the,

>> I know, I know about the drachma tax. Let's not, um, that sounds very interesting, but let's, uh, make sure we get to everything. So, uh, I think you misheard my third claim that I thought was necessary for the papacy. You said I needed to prove that the Petrine charism was given to to Peter. That's not what I said. I said you need to prove that the successors of Peter are limited to the bishops of Rome.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. Uh, you, you thought that what I, my claim was, I agree. I, I,

>> I misrepresented.

>> Good. All good. All good. Uh, so where in scripture does it say that the successors of Peter are limited to the bishops of Rome?

>> Um, well, again, I would say Rome as a place is slightly misleading for when we're talking about just scripture. I think that it's implied, uh, very heavily, that it's through Petrine succession, um, through the bishop of Rome, who is from Peter. I wouldn't, I wouldn't say that the scriptures say whoever is seated in Rome, they are the infallible. I would say it's the successors of,

>> Do you think the, do you think the doctrine of the papacy includes the infallibility of Rome specifically?

>> I would say when it says Rome in a lot of our documents, it, it's referring to the, the person who is on the seat of Peter, like, like a lot when it's talking about Alexandria, when it's talking about Antioch.

>> Sure. But there were some church fathers, like Cyprian, who believed that all bishops were successors of Peter. So why, why can't I be Catholic if I believe it's the Pope of Alexandria that has the Petrine charism, because that's what about the Pope of Alexandria disagree with the Pope of Rome?

>> Well, the scholarly consensus is that when, when it's said that all of the bishops have Peter within them or or are successors of Peter, it's talking about the sacramental, uh, power of the bishopric and not the authoritative power of the bishopric. So, I wouldn't, I wouldn't say that that's a very strong,

>> Where do, where do you find the distinction between the sacramental and authoritative power of, of the Petrine office in scripture?

>> Well, I would say in, in context of the other things that are written about in the fathers. Think even Cyprian himself talks quite a bit about Rome, um, being above others. I, I have a bunch of quotes if you want to go to those, but we, we can, I think Ignatius is the strongest case where his letter to Rome, I have a really cool Orthodox scholar who would be against the Roman papacy. His interpretations of Ignatius are very, very interesting to what we're talking about right now.

>> Sure. So do you grant that scripture does not establish the bishop of Rome specifically as the unique successor of Peter? Do you grant that?

>> Well, again, I think when we're saying the bishop of Rome, we have to add a, a clarification as to what we're talking about. Um, so we're saying,

>> The bishop of Rome. So that would be Pope Leo the First as opposed to Pope Dioscorus in Alexandria.

>> Well, again, are we talking about bishop of Rome as in where the bishop is, or as in who is the successor, or who is succeeding? Uh,

>> The bishop of the Roman See. There were several apostolic Sees. The bishop of the Roman See. And the Bible often does specify places. So, it's not like, um, you can't use places and when you're talking about scripture.

>> Yeah. Well, I'm not saying you can't use places, but I'm saying in this context, we definitely,

>> I'm just, I'm just saying, do you grant that scripture is silent on whether the bishop of Rome is the unique successor of Peter?

>> Yeah. The, the Bible does not say the bishop that is currently in Rome right now.

>> You, you grant that. Okay. Do you think it is essential to the doctrine of the papacy to believe that the bishop of Rome is the unique successor of Peter?

>> Well, again, I, I think you, you even see that there's a conflating of terms when we're talking about bishop of Rome. You're saying bishop of Rome as in the place, the place of Rome, when a lot of those, uh, doctrines of bishop of Rome is talking about the singular, um, authority that's passed down through the Petrine charism, um, to each succeed, uh, successor of Peter. And so when it says Rome, it's not saying Rome, Italy necessarily. Um, a lot of times that is how it's talked about.

>> Like Rome, Georgia. Like there, there's a Baptist pastor in Rome, Georgia. Is he the Pope?

>> Yeah. No. Again, that, that, that's kind of proving, uh, what I'm trying to, or not proving, but very well, um, shedding light on what I'm talking about right now, is that it's not the place, it's rather the successor through Peter, who just so happens to be in Rome.

>> So wherever the successor of Peter is, um, that would be, that would be infallible. The success, the successor of Peter, in the sense that the Roman bishop, and again, I know that we're, we're getting confused with the terms, but I, I totally understand that Antioch and, uh, Constantinople are are talked about.

>> The problem, the problem is not the geography. The problem is how do you establish who is the successor of Peter?

>> Um, those who are direct successors of Peter, um, as in he, um, established them as,

>> The reason, the reason the city, the reason the city matters is because like the successor of Peter is in Roman Catholicism, whoever is bishop of Rome. If Peter started multiple churches and ordained many bishops, how do you know which of those bishops in which of those churches is the successor of Peter?

>> Yeah. Well, again, that, that could totally get into, um, what, what we see with the church fathers interpreting the scripture. But again, all the papacy says, it doesn't say that the, uh, location is what matters. It says that there is a, a, um, infallible head, a pastor of the church who has passed down.

His successors. And so obviously, we should follow those successors. And you could kind of do the same, uh, word game situation that we're doing with the Bible. Like we'd be like, obviously the scriptures teach that the Bible's infallible, but which books? Like, Protestantism doesn't believe that canon is an is an infallible dogma. But >> that's not what I >> any anyway. Anyway, so where in scripture does it say Peter will have a successor? Um, well, like I showed with a lot of, um, the the connections to Aaron, obviously, we know that Aaron, um, had successors who shared his same authority. So >> yeah, had successors, but no, no typology is is a one-to-one correlation. There's always some things that are correlated and some that are not. I think you need to show from the New Testament that Peter has successors. >> Yeah, I was I was getting to that. I was just prefacing it with the typology that you said probably was not a coincidence. Um, but then we also see a lot of passages talking about the laying of hands. I think like 1 Timothy 4:14. >> No, the laying on of hands is episcopal succession. Where is there Petrine succession in scripture? >> Well, again, and that when it that's when it comes to, um, what we're talking about with interpretation of the Bible. So, a lot of the succession, you're you're conflating these two. >> Which passage of scripture do you interpret as Petrine succession distinct from episcopal succession? >> Well, we have a lot of early church fathers who talk about what >> we're talking about. We're talking about scripture here. You could be a Catholic and agree with me on the debate that the papacy is not in scripture. Where in scripture is Petrine succession mentioned as distinct from episcopal succession? >> Yeah. Again, but I I'm telling you that the passages that talk about the laying on of hands are often interpreted to not just be you have the Holy Spirit or you have leadership over the church, but rather the specific role. So if you're granting that Peter is the high priest and that Peter is the head of the church or the shepherd of the flock, well then if the early church fathers are teaching that that status and that role and that authority is passed on through the laying on of hands, well then I have to ask you where is that shepherd today? Where is the infallible authority today? Where is the high priest? Did >> Peter only ordain one person on by the laying on of hands? >> No, I I did not say that he only ordained one person. >> Okay. If if you're saying that that authority is passed on by the laying on of hands, where does scripture distinguish between how he ordains a bishop by the laying on of hands and how he ordains a pope by the laying on of hands? >> Yeah. Again, so when it comes to a direct successor, and this is where again we're talking about the interpretation of the passages I've supplied. So, for example, if there there's a passage in the Bible that says, um, just to make sure we're not burning through time, where does it distinguish papal succession and episcopal succession if they're both by the laying on of hands? Um, I can't think of any off the top of my head that distinguish those two, uh, langu- well, hold on.

>> But I think when you're trying to say, oh, well, there's no direct distinction, you're not disproving the papacy. You're maybe just saying, hey, we can't know where the papacy is at definitely if we exclude all of the church fathers. And I don't think that that's necessarily claiming or proving anything in this debate. I'm showing that there the scripture is insufficient for the doctrine of the papacy because the doctrine of the papacy includes a distinction between episcopal succession and papal succession. You mentioned the laying on of hands. When did Francis lay his hands on Pope Leo? Like, I don't think that's even part of the doctrine of papal succession necessarily.

>> Well, again, I wasn't saying it's directly through the laying on of hands, and that's that's a whole conversation for another time is how is this succession passed on? But all I need to show is that the Bible teaches that the papacy is a real thing and it's passed on through successors. That that that was within yours. You didn't say I have to show exactly how that succession is laid out and how, um, we can track it throughout history exactly where each successor is. And I >> I don't think you I don't think you need to establish all of that from scripture, but you do need to establish from scripture that there is a distinction between papal succession and episcopal succession if you think that you can establish the papacy from scripture. Well, I I could actually show you a few verses that do talk about, um, a a three-tiered authority where there's, you know, bishop, uh, priest, deacon, and then laity at the bottom. We could talk about those. >> Great. Great. Um, where is pope in that three-tiered authority? >> Well, the bishop would be above, and you were you were asking if I could provide a clarification there. >> Um, well, I I asked I didn't ask where he can distinguish bishops and and priests. I asked where he can distinguish bishops and popes. I know that all popes are bishops and not all bishops are popes. Where do you get that? >> I I think I think it's an obvious interpretation of the passage though that if or not the passage, the Bible that if one passage is saying that hey the certain bishop is above all the other bishops and then we're passing this on through successors, it's a very easy thing to assume.

>> Not necessarily because even if you believe a certain apostle is above all the other apostles, that doesn't necessarily mean a certain bishop is over all the other bishops. It's totally possible that, um, even if Peter was the supreme apostle, which I don't grant, uh, that since the apostles are gone, since there's no more apostles, there's no more supreme apostles. Where do you get the idea that there is a supreme bishop in scripture, not just a supreme apostle?

>> Yeah. Well, again, like I said, it it comes down to the interpretation of the passages that I'm I'm trying to cite for you. >> I mean, you can interpret anything to say anything. Like when Jesus said, uh, you can you can, uh, uh, remember everything I've commanded you. I could say, "Oh, um, Jesus was telling them the Westminster Confession of Faith." I can interpret that same.

>> But if I But if I'm quoting from church fathers, it's not like I'm pulling it out of my rear. I'm I'm giving some >> And and that's why I'm that's why I'm saying you could be a Catholic and believe that you can establish the papacy from the church fathers and still agree with me here that the Bible is insufficient to establish the doctrine of the papacy. Succession is part of the doctrine of the papacy according to Vatican 1.

>> But we're asking what does the Bible teach? And you and me right now are disagreeing on what the Bible teaches. And if there's an authority that you grant outside of the Bible that is talking about what the Bible teaches, I don't think it's unfair for me to talk about what those authorities are teaching. You you've said this in many videos that they have, um, very significant authority over how we interpret the Bible. And so when I'm telling you that they agree with me, you should see that authority and not just say, "Oh, I'm just interpreting whatever I way I want."

>> Uh do you know, and we might be running out of time, maybe we can talk more about this in the open discussion. Do you know which church father, what passages the church fathers would point to to show that papal succession is distinct from regular episcopal succession?

>> Yeah, I have a lot of that in our open discussion.

>> I think we're about to be cut off, but yeah. >> Yeah, sorry guys. So, yeah. So, cut off now, but 15-minute open dialogue. Um, I'll let you guys discuss who goes first and what, but another 15 minutes. Have fun.

>> Sure. Yeah. I I'm just I'm curious because that that's a big thing. If you can find church fathers that show a very clear early distinction between, uh, papal succession as distinct from episcopal succession, that'll be interesting.

>> Yeah.

>> Not not just that the office, not just that Peter has successors, but that the succession of the papacy is distinct from the succession of the episcopate.

>> Yeah. I'm I'm trying to find it here. Sorry, I'm like like right next to my my computer. Uh, so Sam, if you could throw it up for me. I have my my favorite person to point to for this. I'm sure you know about Clement of Rome.

>> Um >> Yeah,

>> but so so I often start off with the Shepherd of Hermas, right? Um, where we we see this passage about a bishop named Clement and a bishop named Grape. Um, and it says that the duty of Clement is to send forth teachings to foreign cities while Grape will admonish the widows and orphans. So they're both bishops. They're both of equal authority. This one Clement who is, um, you know, clearly a successor of Peter through all of the church fathers who show this significant line from Peter in a way that we don't see with any other bishops, this this u very very clear way that he's a successor of Peter, um, through this this bishopric, this supreme bishopric, we see that his duty is over that. Um, I have a bunch of, uh, quotes here if you want to go.

>> Just just going back to that, I'm confused how does that imply that this papal succession is distinct from episcopal succession?

>> Well, again, again, we're talking we're talking about it in the context of Shepherd of Hermas. So that's kind of like laying the ground for for the other quotes that I have. Um, and I do have a lot of quotes.

>> And also also, um, I was asking my specific question is like, you said the church fathers interpret scripture to teach a distinction between papal succession and Episcopal succession. I'm asking which scriptures do those church fathers point to so that we can talk about those scriptures.

>> Well, again, they don't necessarily need to say, hey, here's the passage that I'm interpreting, this is what it means because they all read the scriptures, right? They knew what the scriptures taught. And so when we hear their interpretations, it's like, "Okay, awesome. These these guys are are reading the Bible in the same way that we are and coming away with these interpretations."

>> Yeah. I know the church fathers read the Bible, but I'm wonder like if the papacy can be defended from scripture, you need to defend the distinction between the Petrine succession and the Episcopal succession in the scriptures. Now, uh, we could disagree on the interpretation of some passages, but I want to know which passages there are to disagree on the interpretation of.

>> Yeah. Um, here Sam, if you if you want to take my slides off so that I can I can, uh, see see, uh, Zoomer here better. Um, so so now now that I'm not necessarily in a cross-examination, I I would like to kind of extrapolate what I was talking about a little bit more.

>> Um, so a lot of church fathers interpret, um, you know, the the laying on of hands, which I'm I'm sure you know about this, as a succession of role, status, and authority, and not just a succession of, you know, you are succeeding from me. Um, and so when we see someone like Peter, >> who's obviously placed above the other apostles, which you you agree with, um, and then connected to the high priest Aaron, >> when we see something like that, and then we know that passages like, um, 1 Timothy 4:14 are talking about a succession of authority and role. When Peter is laying on his hands, and I know that he lays his hands on a bunch of people, but it's with the intention of setting up a successor to the Petrine office. When he does that, it's very safe to assume that he's passing on that authority, that role, and that status, especially when the Bible tells us that he's placed above and has the authority to lay on hands.

>> I don't think it is safe to assume that. I think a lot of this depends on unsafe assumptions. Um, it is a it makes a world of difference whether Peter is laying on his hand whether Peter's laying on laying his hands on someone and saying, "I'm making a bishop now and I'm making a pope now." Like that's a big difference. Like a pope is a world of difference from a bishop. One of them is pastor aeternus, one of them's a world emperor, and one of them's not. So, uh, I think if there is such a distinction in the ways in which Peter can touch people to make them into things, you need to, uh, establish that distinction in like I know I'm being tongue-in-cheek here, but I think that I think you're going to need more than a safe assumption to show that such a a big distinction exists. Again, you can be Catholic and believe in that distinction based on tradition. I just don't see where that distinction is in scripture. Yeah. Again, I feel like we are somewhat running in circles on on this point a little bit and and I don't mean to like, uh, like pull away from what we're talking about, but I think this is honestly because I've made all the points that I want to make about the succession that there's one apostle laid above the others. And we we even see with the establish even if that's true, that doesn't mean there's one bishop above the others because, uh, you need to show that the a pope, um, is a type of bishop, not just a type of apostle.

>> Yeah. Well, um, we we obviously see the apostles establishing bishops. Would you deny I know that you you talk about Jerome a lot with, you know, him claiming that, um, all of the the the bishop and the priest distinction wasn't actually there, um, by by God's, uh, initial determination. Um, and it's rather a practical judgment. But I I think that when we look at passages that are talking about a a successor of apostles, right? We see with with Matthias is is granted apostleship even though he wasn't one of the original 12. And we see something like that to replace >> Matthias was made an apostle, but there are no capital A apostles today. Do you think there are capital A apostles today?

>> I mean, I think I think it really Ignatius said Ignatius of Antioch said, "I do not give commands onto you as did Peter and Paul. They were apostles. I am not." Um, so I think it's pretty clear that the next generation, uh, did not believe that there were any actual capital A apostles. The bishops are successors of the apostles. They have apostolic succession in that way, but they're not actually apostles themselves because the apostles are a non-perpetual office and bishops are a perpetual office. You need to show that the papacy is a species of bishop, not just a species of apostle. Actually, I I find it very very interesting that you brought up that Ignatius quote where he says that he's not commanding them as Peter and Paul because he was writing that to the Romans and a lot of scholars think that that I I have a really cool one. If you want to see it, I if you don't, I could totally understand. There's a scholar, he doesn't interpret that passage specifically, but he says that, uh, Ignatius's entire letter to the Romans is pointing to a form of, uh, papal supremacy and Roman supremacy over all other bishops. And I think that that interpretation and those quotes are are very intriguing to what we're talking about right now.

>> I mean, we could do another debate some other time is like, do the church fathers believe in the papacy as the Catholic Church teaches it. I I was just bringing that up because you didn't seem to know whether there were modern-day apostles. I was just saying like Ignatius didn't think there were like like will you admit that there are no apostles today in the sense that Peter and Paul were apostles?

>> Yeah. And in the sense that they they can like have public revelation.

>> So that Yeah. So then we we agree there. We're cool there. Um, so then would you agree that if we're going to establish the papacy from scripture, we're going to need to show that the papacy is a type of bishop, not a type of apostle, because there are no more apostles, but there are bishops. Yeah. Okay. That that's an interesting point. Um, I've never I've never heard that that distinction made, but I think and again I I know that I I keep going back to church history, but we're in agreement on the authority of church history for the most part that when it comes to passages where we're not, you know, necessarily agreeing on this distinction that, um, it's very clear that when we're we're doing that, we need to look at some of the interpretations. So we see >> Yeah, show me a church father who says like who can point to a passage of scripture and say here the herein is established the distinction between episcopal succession and papal succession, then I would grant that the distinction between episcopal succession and papal succession can be defended from scripture, but I just don't see that. If I don't see any passage that even has a hint of a distinction between episcopal succession and papal succession, that's what I think this debate hinges upon.

>> Yeah. So I I'm I'm interested here. Do you think that the apostles established that the all of the apostles were bishops?

>> I don't know if all of them were. I know Peter was. Um, but even if they weren't, um, I still think that bishops have succession from the apostles.

>> Okay, gotcha. But as a Presbyterian, do you do you believe in bishops?

>> Yeah, we just believe bishops and elders are ontologically identical.

>> Okay, gotcha. Okay.

>> Call himself an elder. Now, that doesn't mean he wasn't a pope because he could have multiple offices. But I do need to see a distinction between the office of pope and the office of bishop.

>> Okay? But it let's assume that the other apostles for for the sake of what we're doing are bishops, right? Um, and then we're seeing that one of the bishops is above all the others. And then with all of the typology that we've shown, with all the the the laying on of hands with meaning authority, role, and status, if we're showing that one of those bishops has authority over the other bishops, wouldn't that kind of be proving what I'm talking about?

>> Not necessarily. It's not about whether one person who is a bishop has authority over other people who are bishops. It's whether one person has the authority of a supreme bishop. It's whether Peter had authority over the others in so far as he was a bishop or in so far as he was an apostle. Again, this is granting the first claim, which is that Peter even had supremacy to begin with, which I don't grant. I think you can make a much stronger case from scripture for Petrine supremacy than for Petrine succession, but I don't grant either of them. I I'll be I'll be perfectly honest. I didn't know about the Aaron ironic typology. I think that's a pretty decent argument for, uh, Petrine supremacy. Uh, but not for Petrine succession.

>> Okay. But but as far as as Petrine supremacy, if if and I'm not trying to like I know you didn't know about this. Sorry, I didn't I didn't answer your question. Just to answer your question, um, if Peter had supremacy over all the other apostles, all that would prove is that there exists a supreme apostle. It wouldn't prove that there exists a supreme bishop because there's a distinction between apostle and bishop.

>> Yeah. But but like you said or like we we granted for for the sake of what we're doing, the apostles were the bishops. I I think you would be especially as a Presbyterian, you would be a little bit out of line to say that the apostles weren't bishops and that they didn't establish bishops. They did establish bishops. I'm not sure whether each of the apostles was a bishop and I don't think it entirely matters. Um, like I'm I'm willing to believe they were. That's something I'd have to look more into. But either way, there is a distinction between apostle and bishop because even if all the apostles were bishops, we all agree not all bishops are apostles.

>> Well, yeah, that's that's not what I'm saying at all. Um, but the fact that again the bish the the apostles were at least presbyters. And you think that's ontologically equal to >> Again, I I don't I don't know if all the apostles were presbyters.

>> Do you believe that any of them other than Peter were?

>> Um, I I think yeah. I just don't know about each and every one. I don't know if scripture lists each and every one of them as a a presbyter. Maybe there's some smarter Presbyterian than me who's looking at this debate saying like, "Ah, Zoomer, you got it wrong. Of course they all were." But yeah, I just I just don't think it matters for for the context here because either way, um, bishop and apostle are distinct.

>> Yeah. Well, I I would I would like to point you to this is something you can look at after the debate. Um, when Jesus washes the feet in the upper room, it's actually like a fulfillment of the way that, um, people were granted as priests and presbyters over.

>> By the way, I'm I'm fully willing to believe all the apostles were bishops. So, for the sake of discussion, let's go with that. I'm I'm willing to believe either way. So, if we're showing that one bishop, um, is is supreme over the other bishops, the other apostles, wouldn't that kind of be everything that we're we're debating here?

>> No, because you have to ask, is he supreme in so far as he's a bishop or is he supreme in so far as he's an apostle? Uh, we're talking about whether the office of a supreme bishop exists. Yeah. Well, I don't I don't mean to cut you off, but when when the reason that I brought up the upper room and and them being established as priests or as you would say, bishops, um, in the line of Aaron is that the same line of Aaron had a supreme high priest over the other ones, not just as apostles, but as bishops. And so that's kind of showing that they were that he is indeed above them in the ontological sense of being a bishop.

>> Right? Um, we all agree that Peter was above, um, the other apostles in some way, um, either whether it's by a primacy of honor or by supremacy. Uh, but you have to understand that a bishop who is supreme doesn't mean he is a supreme bishop. Um, the modifier is not necessarily on bishop. So the fact that there is a bishop who at the time was over all other people who happen to be bishops at that particular time does not necessarily mean that there is an office of a supreme bishop that is perpetual the same way the office of bishop is.

>> Okay. Wait. So so just help me out here with what you're saying. I I'm I'm not, uh, very good at tracking big words. That >> Peter was a supreme bishop over the other bishops. Is that what?

>> No. No.

>> He He was a bishop that was supreme. Is that >> No, I'm not even granting he was supreme. But I'm just saying even if you believe that he was supreme, the fact that he was a bishop who was supreme doesn't mean that he's a supreme bishop because a supreme bishop means that there is a category of a thing called a supreme bishop that's going to end.

>> Well, you're not you're not granting that he was a supreme bishop. And I feel like we really need to get that. Well, let's say, um, let's say that, uh, there was a let's say there was a guy who's a a general and a president of a country and let's say that of all the generals he was the supreme general, um, or I guess president's not a good example. Let's say that he was a a senator and a general of all the generals he was the supreme general, uh, does that mean that he is also the supreme senator even if he was a senator and he was supreme over all the other generals who also happened to be senators? No, that doesn't mean there is ever like a supreme senator. You get what I'm saying there?

>> Yeah, I I see I see what you're talking about. I just don't think I necessarily agree, especially with what we're talking about about all the the priests being ordained.

>> You don't have to you don't have to you don't have to agree. I'm just wondering if you're going to show that there is a supreme bishop. It's not enough to show that there was a bishop who was supreme. You need to show that there was a distinction between, um, the office of bishop and the office of supreme bishop or pope. Do you get what I'm saying?

>> Yeah. Sure. I we can grant that for for time's sake that he was a bishop that was supreme, but not necess and you don't even grant that necessarily. Um, I I think I've I've shown it. I do want to talk about one last thing if you're willing to move on. Um, if that is that okay? I'm I'm going to move on, but first, uh, are you willing to grant that the distinction between Episcopal succession and papal succession is not in scripture, or at least you don't know where it is in scripture?

>> I wouldn't say it's explicitly in scripture, but I I would say even you would grant that I I've shown it's implicitly in scripture.

>> I I I wouldn't grant that. No. Um, I would >> I wouldn't grant that the distinction between, um, episcopal and papal succession is explicitly or implicitly in scripture at all.

>> Okay.

>> Like I'm talking with the upper room, right? The apostles are all ordained priests or in your case as a Presbyterian bishops in the line of Aaron through that washing of feet. Like that's that's not really something that's disputed. And then if we're saying that that Peter >> in the same line of Aaron that where Aaron is the high priest that he is supreme, he's a supreme priest, he's a supreme bishop, wouldn't Peter also be a supreme bishop over the apostles? I feel like that's a very clear, uh, implicit, possibly even explicit, um, doctrine of there being a supreme bishop.

>> Not really. You'd have to prove that all the Old Testament offices carry over and you'd have to prove like a one-to-one mapping if you're going to use Old Testament offices to argue for New Testament offices without a a distinction being made in the New Testament.

>> Well, I I think that I don't necessarily >> I think I think you could sort of argue for supremacy based on the Aaronic typology. Now again, I would appeal to Augustine saying a typology alone is not enough. So I think you can only use the Aaronic typology for Petrine supremacy if you're already convinced that the New Testament passages prove Petrine supremacy, which I would dispute. Um, but if you're going to talk about the specific distinctions between the offices from the New Testament, you're going to have to show there's a one-to-one mapping of Old Testament offices to New Testament offices.

>> Yeah. Well, again, I'm not I'm not using typology alone. I I'm using, you know, the catalyst of Matthew 16:18, of John 21, of all these different passages that are very clear in in the Catholic view. I know that you dispute them, but then when the the typology is backing that up, I think it only strengthens those claims.

>> I can see why those passages like Matthew 16 show, um, I can see how Catholics argue for Peter supremacy from those passages. I don't agree with their interpretation, but I can see where it comes from. I don't see how they get the distinction between episcopal succession and papal succession from those passages. All they show at the best, which I don't agree with, at best is that Peter was over the other apostles. But as we as we said, a bishop who is supreme is not the same as a supreme bishop. You have to show the distinction between episcopal and papal succession.

>> Okay.

>> Yeah, I we we can agree to disagree. Uh oh man, it looks like we're out of time there. That's a bummer.

>> Gave you guys an extra two minutes because you're having a great conversation. But, um, that being said,

>> Is that is that okay with you? We I don't want to add any time if you don't want to keep talking.

>> Sure.

>> Okay.

>> Well, I already gave you the extra two minutes. We can just make it five if you guys want. Add another three minutes.

>> I mean,

>> I think I think two is good. We don't want to go on forever in circles.

>> That's two more.

>> Okay.

>> Okay. Um, so there's one one more thing I wanted to ask you about that you haven't, in my opinion, really addressed, is, you know, that whole fishers of men dialogue? I just wanted to hear what you thought about that because that's not something I've ever presented to anyone before. I just really want to hear what you think about it.

>> Yeah, I mean, I've heard that Catholic argument before, the whole fishers of men thing, and yeah, Peter was probably the most important of all the apostles in his ministry to the church. I just don't see how the other apostles weren't to be fishers of men. Like, Jesus singles out Peter for and tells him to do a lot of things, but I don't see how the other apostles weren't also meant to do those things. Do you think Paul was not supposed to be a fisher of men?

>> Well, no. Again, you know, you know, Catholic theology teaches that all bishops are are actually >> Exactly. I I I I know the Catholic theology teaches that. So, um, I I just don't see how that shows the uniqueness of Peter.

>> Well, yeah, again, that that wasn't necessarily what I was addressing. I should have been more specific. Um, we would you agree that the the boat represents the church in that dialogue?

>> I agree that the boat represents the church in general. And, um, since he's bringing fish to the boat, I can see how the boat represents the church. Yeah.

>> Okay. So, when it says that the boat belongs to Simon Peter, what do you what do you make of that? I mean, the boat does belong to the bishops collectively. It belongs to the apostles. So does does Jesus say like it does not belong to the other apostles as well?

>> Well, I mean, Peter was a fisherman and and this was his boat. Like it says explicitly this is Peter's boat and then all of the other apostles get into his boat. So I feel that that's pretty clearly saying like like you granted that the church is represented by the boat. Peter owns the boat. Do do you see where I'm going with this?

>> A possible interpretation. A lot of church fathers think that like all the apostles were equal, but Peter sort of represents them because he's the fisherman. He's the guy who's going to be fishers of men. So, I agree he's singled out in importance. I just don't think you can get supremacy from that.

>> Yeah, I'm not necessarily talking about supremacy, but but would you grant that that the church belongs to Peter in the sense that the boat belonged to Peter? Not in an exclusive way, but I would say the church does belong to Peter the same way it belongs to all the apostles.

>> Well, again, but the boat didn't belong to all the apostles. It belonged to Peter, like it was his property.

>> Sure, Peter is sort of the representative of the apostles, but when you're talking about fishers of men, when you're talking about, you know, feeding the sheep of the flock, like I agree that Jesus often singles out Peter because he does have a primacy. Nobody doubts Petrine primacy. Um, but it's like are would you would you say for example that you know the church doesn't would you say for example that John is not a fisher of men or that Paul is not a fisher of men?

>> No, I'm not doubting that any of them are fishers of men. But I'm saying that it certainly seems as though the boat belongs to Peter and I'm not saying that the apostles don't also have, you know, ownership over the church. That's not my claim at all. But >> Okay, then if if the apostles also have ownership over the church, then you know what are you trying to say here? Well, the fact that they come into the boat because Peter tells them to and that he owns the boat. And I I feel like that's a weird thing for the >> It could be paralleling the fact that Peter's like the first to receive the keys, the first to receive the binding and loosing power and then it sort of goes from Peter to the other apostles. Like that's something that lots of church fathers have seen. That's something that all the reformers would generally agree with that, you know, Peter is listed first among the apostles even though he was not the first one to be called. Um, I just don't I think that's a very big stretch to go from, hey, Peter's the one who owns the boat in this little thing that symbolizes the church, therefore pastor aeternus, therefore Vatican 1, therefore Peter can overrule all the other apostles even when gathered in an ecumenical council.

>> Yeah. Yeah. No, I would never use use the fishers of men dialogue alone to prove that. I was just asking what you think, but yeah, thank you for answering that.

>> What I think is Yeah, it shows Peter has an important leadership role. I just don't think you can get from that to Petrine supremacy.

>> Okay, that's fair enough. Yeah.

>> Awesome. We ran a little bit over there. Sorry, it was four minutes, but, um, over there. Okay, so we can move on to the, um, closing statements. Seven minutes each. I'm sure you guys don't need the full seven minutes. Just take however long you want. Um, and that will be Noah going first if I'm not mistaken. Okay, amazing. All right, Noah, take it away.

>> Well, I just want to say thank you so much to Sam, to Zoomer, uh, to to everybody who watched. Um, it's it's a real blessing to be able to talk about the church that I I love, the church that I attend, the church that I pledge my life to, um, in front of so many people. Um, so yeah, thank you again, Zoomer, for for coming on and debating me. Um, I I think that there have been a lot of good points made, but I I really don't think that a lot of my points have been addressed. Zoomer's main arguments against all of the typological arguments that the typology of Aaron, which he he he admitted he thought was good, um, and that Peter was a type of Aaron, he kind of just waves it off as, oh, that's just typology, and you need something explicit, but we would all agree that there are explicit things about this, we just debate over what the interpretation of those explicit passages is. Um, and so when we're talking about Aaron being the high priest and Peter being the high priest, the type of Aaron, that's something that needs to be addressed. I really hope that, uh, Zoomer does a little bit of that in his closing statement that Peter is ultimately supreme over the other apostles. And we see this through the apostolic succession. And the the debate is what does the Bible teach about the papacy? Does the Bible teach the papacy? Not does the Bible give us a tracking of how the papacy will follow throughout history. That's not what this debate is about. Um, so there's very clearly Peter is shown to be the head of the apostles, the head of the bishops, right? Because, um, Zoomer agrees that all of the apostles were bishops. So he's the head of the bishops. He's supreme over the bishops as Aaron was supreme over the entirety of Israel. Um, and and then we just don't really see him explaining why that doesn't continue today because Aaron had successors who shared his same exact power. Zoomer has not explained why he doesn't think that the head of the apostles, the bishop who is supreme, for example, doesn't continue today. So Zoomer, why isn't there a bishop that is supreme today if we're told in the Old Testament that Aaron has that same following of bishopric? Um, I would also like everybody to not forget about the staff argument, the almonds argument. Those kind of went under the rug because we didn't have a lot of time to talk about them. It's very clear that Peter is being singled out when when he's told that he will not fail. I mean, man, and Zoomer didn't really address that passage that Peter will not fail. And Peter alone is told that even though Jesus says that all of the other apostles will be sought after by Satan, but Peter alone will not fail. Remember that that plurality that is used for the first U and then the singularity that is used for Peter in the second view. That's unbelievable. It wasn't addressed. I wanted to bring it up. We just didn't have time. So, in in his closing statement, I would really like to see, uh, Zoomer address some of those arguments. I that would that would mean a lot to me. Uh, I think that would mean a lot to the viewers if we could see those arguments addressed. But ultimately, I don't think that Zoomer has dismantled the arguments that I've put forth. He hasn't provided very good arguments against the binding and loosing, right? Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. If Peter teaches something on earth, it will be taught in heaven. Think about the severity of that claim. I know it's given to all of the other apostles. But remember, Peter receives it first in the apostles as as shadowed by, you know, Eliakim and I think it's 1 Chronicles 9. The shadow of the keys being given to the other people. But still the first person who receives those keys being supreme over everyone else. That is papal supremacy. is papal infallibility. So all of these things, all these arguments that have been given against the arguments that I've shown, they don't really hold up. And again, I just want to thank everybody for watching. Um, I love every single one of you. Thank you so much and God bless. That's all I have to say. Thank you so much, Noah. I'm going to remove you and add Zoomer. Okay. Thank you. I want to thank you, Sam, for moderating. I want to thank you, Noah, for being a very respectful debater. Uh, Noah gave a wonderful demonstration of the importance of St. Peter in scripture and the various biblical symbols that could be interpreted as referring to him. But that's not the papacy. Petrine primacy or leadership doesn't count as the papacy. Even if Peter were the rock and even if he were foreshadowed by Eliakim or Aaron, you still would not have the Vatican 1 doctrine of the papacy in scripture. Roman Catholicism often makes a lot of logical leaps. My opponent also showed an interesting parallel between Aaron and Christ that I hadn't heard about before. And I will admit I will look more into this. However, just as with every typological connection, there are some things that continue and there are some things that that don't. I'm not waving it off just because it's typology. But we all agree that Peter's role is not identical to Aaron's role. He wasn't sacrificing goats. It's clear that there are some similarities and some differences. The reason I was unconvinced by the parallel is because you need more explicit passages to show which aspects of Aaron's role carry over to Peter's role and which don't. Does the succession of the Petrine office specifically carry over? We don't know unless there's another passage to specify that. As we said in the beginning, for Peter to be the first pope as the Roman Catholic Church understands the papacy, he must have supremacy over all the other apostles put together. He must be the first in a perpetual office that is distinct from the Episcopal office that is identical to the bishop of Rome. That office must include the ability to make infallible judgments. Otherwise, you might have something. You might have interesting parallels between Aaron and Peter, but you don't have the papacy in scripture. I also just want to point out that you can be Catholic but technically agree with what I'm saying in this debate that the developed Vatican 1 doctrine of the papacy as expressed in Pastor Aeternus cannot be found in scripture and that you need to rely on tradition for parts of it, particularly the parts about the distinction between episcopal succession and papal succession, especially the claims of a perpetual Petrine office centered in Rome. I could theoretically write about what I'm saying in this debate and Catholicism could be true. I know that if you're Catholic, you'll want to agree with the Catholic in this debate over the Protestant. But there are times when I have agreed with Catholics in debates, including Noah. For example, I agreed much more with Noah than with Ryan from NeedGod.net in their recent debate on justification, especially given Ryan's radical reductionistic view of salvation that contradicts all the Protestant reformers. I thought Noah did a very good job there. Noah did a good job today. But there are two important questions I don't think Noah sufficiently answered. One, where is the distinction between episcopal succession and papal succession in scripture? According to Pastor Aeternus, that is an indispensable part of the infallible Catholic doctrine of the papacy. If you can't find that distinction in scripture, you can't find the papacy in scripture. Um, if that's true, it doesn't matter how much you might think Peter is the rock or how significant his role in shepherding the other apostles and being the fisher of men and having the boat is. If you can't find that in scripture, you don't have the papacy in scripture. I also don't think Noah sufficiently addressed why Peter's binding and loosing is infallible, but why the binding and loosing of the other apostles is not infallible, if binding and loosing implies infallibility as he said. I know many Catholic theologians and apologists like Braden from the Catacuman who would take a partial approach to divine revelation where not every essential dogma can be defended from written tradition in scripture and some at least rely partially on unwritten oral tradition. In fact, I think this makes much more sense from a Catholic perspective since unlike Protestants, they have infallibly defined the canon of scripture, which of course is not itself listed in scripture. However, I know that Noah takes a material sufficiency view of scripture. So, with that in mind, he needs to show how every infallible dogma of the Catholic Church, including Pastor Aeternus, can be defended from scripture. However, since he has left out very key important aspects of the Vatican 1 doctrine of the papacy, such as papal succession, I would encourage him as well as all the Catholics watching this to admit not all their infallible dogmas are biblical and they need to rely on extra-biblical tradition for some of them. Personally, I think the only compelling arguments for the papacy are the ones that start with the theoretical necessity of something like the papacy and then proceed to show that the only that the modern Roman Catholic Church is the only church that has that in reality. However, that is not how the scripture and church fathers tell us to reason. They tell us not to be persuaded and carried away by cleverly devised arguments, but to hear the word of God and believe it. And the word of God never establishes anything like the Vatican 1 papacy. Thank you. Thank you so much for that. I just want to say thank you guys very much. It was a super cordial debate. That was absolutely amazing. And everybody watching this, make sure to like the video, comment down below who you think won, and always remember that Jesus Christ is Lord. May God bless you. All right, I will end the recording, uh, now.