The reason why we address issues like this and why we've discussed Catholicism is because the gospel is at stake.

Absolutely.

And while there are a lot of things that we can agree on in terms of the historicity of Christianity and some of the essential doctrines,

especially as it deals with the character of God, the deity of Christ, the triunity of God and so forth.

But there are gospel issues when it comes to,

especially the doctrine of soteriology in terms of how is one saved. And I believe the Catholic

Church has a different gospel. So the real question is, like, was Peter really the first pope? I believe

strongly that what happens in the Catholic Church is that they apply today's

structure into yesterday's church.

And so the idea of a singular authoritative papacy rooted and Peter is historically inaccurate.

It's sort of like revisionist history to go back and claim that Peter was the first pope.

And let me make an argument as to why.

The early church, as a summary, and I borrow a lot from church history in plain language,

the early church was cathedral, not hierarchical.

In other words, what ended up happening is without a doubt that early church

probably looked more like a presbytery that we would see today than it does like a non-denominational

church in the sense that if you looked at Asian minor, Rome, Alexandria, what we had is a collection

of churches and an established bishop.

And that established bishop would help lead those church leaders along the way.

And over time, what ended up happening as Rome gained in power,

so did the bishop that sat in Rome would gain not so much power, but influence.

And we have a lot of examples of like Clement historically is now considered an early pope.

...