Part I · Installment Two

Discernment, Authority, Peter, and the Problem of “Biblical Christianity”

In the first installment of this investigation, we began with what seemed like a relatively simple question: Who gets to interpret the Bible?

It turned out not to be simple at all.

We examined the difference between Scripture and our interpretation of Scripture, the formation of the biblical canon, the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, and the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura. But beneath each of those questions was another one that became increasingly difficult to avoid:

Who corrects me when I am wrong?

That question matters because recognizing Scripture as the inspired Word of God does not automatically settle every disagreement about what Scripture means. Christians who sincerely affirm biblical authority disagree about Baptism, the Eucharist, salvation, predestination, Church government, spiritual gifts, eschatology, Mary, the saints, and countless other questions. The existence of disagreement does not make truth unknowable, nor does it make Scripture deficient. It does, however, establish something much more modest and much more uncomfortable:

The interpreter can be wrong.

And that is where we left off.

There is, however, an obvious Christian response to everything we have considered so far.

What about the Holy Spirit?

What about discernment?

The creator whose claims prompted this series repeatedly appeals to what she describes as “God-given discernment.” I do not want to dismiss that language merely because I disagree with some of the conclusions she reaches. Christianity is not a purely academic exercise, and biblical interpretation is not reducible to intellectual technique. Christians believe in the Holy Spirit. We are commanded to seek wisdom. Scripture itself warns about deception and tells us to discern.

So the question before us is not whether Christians should discern.

Of course we should.

The more difficult question is:

How do I know that what I am calling discernment is actually from God?

That question will take us somewhere important. Because if my personal interpretation is fallible, and my personal discernment is also fallible, then we have to ask whether Christ left His Church any real authority to teach, preserve, and interpret the faith entrusted to the apostles.

And if He did, what does that authority look like?

That brings us to the apostles. To the Church. To Peter. To the keys. To binding and loosing.

And eventually, back to the phrase underneath this entire investigation:

“True biblical Christianity.”

Who gets to define it?

IV. “God-Given Discernment”: Can Sincerity Guarantee Truth?

There is something deeply attractive about the idea of discernment. For a Christian, it expresses a conviction that faith is not merely intellectual assent to propositions about God. We believe that God is living and active, that the Holy Spirit guides His people, that wisdom can be sought in prayer, and that spiritual deception is real.

None of that is controversial to me.

What becomes more difficult is moving from:

“God gives discernment”

to:

“Therefore, what I have discerned must be from God.”

Those are not the same claim.

I can sincerely believe that God has shown me something and still be mistaken. I can recognize what appears to be a biblical pattern and misunderstand its significance. I can pray before reading Scripture, feel profoundly convicted by what I read, and nevertheless interpret the passage incorrectly.

Sincerity tells us something important about the person making the claim. It may tell us that she is not deliberately lying, manipulating evidence, or attempting to deceive anyone.

But sincerity cannot, by itself, establish whether the conclusion is true.

We know this for a very simple reason: sincere Christians disagree.

A Baptist can pray for discernment. So can a Pentecostal, Lutheran, Orthodox Christian, Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, or non-denominational Christian. Each can love Christ sincerely. Each can read Scripture seriously. Each can ask the Holy Spirit for guidance.

And they can still reach mutually incompatible theological conclusions.

The Holy Spirit cannot simultaneously reveal contradictory propositions as true. Therefore, at least sometimes, what Christians sincerely experience as divine guidance must also contain an element of human interpretation. That observation does not require us to deny the activity of the Holy Spirit. It simply requires us to acknowledge something Christianity has always known:

We remain human while discerning.

Our prior beliefs do not disappear when we pray. Neither do our expectations, fears, assumptions, theological formation, experiences, cognitive habits, or capacity for error.

That is precisely why discernment itself has to be discerned. Your script makes this the controlling question of Section Four: not whether discernment exists, but how the Christian tests what she believes she has discerned.

Scripture Does Not Tell Us to Believe Every Spiritual Claim

Interestingly, Scripture anticipates this problem.

First John does not tell Christians to accept every spiritual claim because it appears supernatural or because the person making it is sincere. Instead, John instructs believers to test the spirits to determine whether they are from God (1 John 4:1).

Paul gives us a similarly balanced principle in 1 Thessalonians 5:19–21. Christians are warned not to quench the Spirit or despise prophecy, but they are also instructed to test everything and hold fast to what is good.

The balance matters.

Christian discernment is not cynicism. We do not begin by assuming that every spiritual experience is fraudulent, every claim of divine guidance is delusional, or anything supernatural must be impossible.

But Christian discernment is not credulity either.

The fact that something presents itself as spiritual does not exempt it from examination.

The command to test spiritual claims would make little sense if the subjective experience of certainty were already sufficient to authenticate them.

And this principle is not something Catholics should apply only when evaluating Protestant claims.

It applies to us too.

Catholics Have to Test Spiritual Claims Too

Suppose someone tells me that the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to her and delivered a message.

My Catholic response is not:

“Mary?! Say no more. I believe you.”

😂

Catholicism does not require that.

The Church distinguishes the definitive public Revelation given in Christ from later private revelations. The Catechism explicitly teaches that private revelations do not belong to the deposit of faith and cannot improve, complete, surpass, or correct the Revelation fulfilled in Christ. (Vatican)

More importantly for our present discussion, alleged supernatural phenomena are subject to discernment.

The Church's current norms, issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2024, explicitly contemplate the possibility of doctrinal error, subjective human additions, fabrication, psychological factors, manipulation, and other problems when evaluating alleged supernatural phenomena. They also state that even a nihil obstat does not make the phenomenon an object of faith or require Catholics to believe in its supernatural authenticity. (Vatican Press)

That matters enormously for this investigation.

Because one of the claims we will eventually examine is that Marian apparitions may be part of a demonic deception. If Catholics actually believed:

“An apparition looks Marian, therefore it came from Mary,”

then the objection would expose a serious weakness in Catholic reasoning.

But that is not the Catholic standard.

An alleged apparition can be investigated. Claims can be rejected. A visionary can misunderstand an experience. A message attributed to a supernatural source can contain human elements. And even a private revelation permitted within Catholic life does not become a new chapter of the Gospel.

In other words:

Catholicism itself recognizes that spiritual experiences require testing.

And that gives me genuine common ground with the Christian creator whose argument I am examining.

She is concerned about spiritual deception.

So am I.

The disagreement is not over whether Satan can deceive.

The disagreement is over how we establish that a particular phenomenon is demonic.

Possibility Is Not Evidence of Identity

Second Corinthians 11:14 warns that Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light.

That is a serious biblical warning.

It establishes a genuine theological possibility:

Something that appears spiritually good can be deceptive.

But now watch what happens if we move too quickly.

Premise:

Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light.

Conclusion:

Therefore, this particular Marian apparition is Satan.

Something has happened between those two statements.

The first proposition is biblical.

The second is an identification of a particular phenomenon.

And the first proposition, by itself, does not establish the second.

If someone tells me:

“That apparition is demonic,”

I can reasonably ask:

“What evidence establishes that?”

Responding that Satan can appear as an angel of light demonstrates that demonic deception is possible. It does not identify this particular phenomenon as an instance of that deception.

Otherwise, the argument becomes infinitely transferable.

A preacher could be Satanic deception.

A conversion could be deception.

A dream could be deception.

A religious movement could be deception.

A theological insight could be deception.

A YouTube video could be deception.

All of those things are conceivable.

But conceivability is not identification.

And so we need a distinction that will become increasingly important when we eventually examine claims about Mary, apparitions, Revelation 12, and the Antichrist:

Possibility is not evidence of identity.

To establish identity, we need another argument.

And that argument needs evidence.

A Biblical Pattern Still Has to Be Demonstrated

This becomes especially important when arguments are constructed through biblical patterns.

Scripture absolutely contains patterns. Christianity itself depends upon recognizing them. Adam and Christ. Passover and the Cross. Exodus. Covenant. Temple. Davidic kingship. Sacrifice. Fulfillment. Typology is not an embarrassing Catholic invention that serious biblical interpreters should avoid.

The question is not whether patterns exist.

The question is:

What controls the pattern?

Does the text itself support the connection? Does another biblical author establish it? Does the larger canonical context make it plausible? Does the proposed interpretation contradict something Scripture states more clearly? And when the argument introduces historical events or persons, does historical evidence actually support the connection?

Those questions matter because human beings are extraordinarily capable pattern-makers.

Given enough symbols, numbers, names, historical events, prophetic imagery and biblical passages, we can construct relationships among almost anything.

That does not mean every perceived connection is false.

It means the existence of a connection in my mind is not yet evidence that the connection exists in the text.

Your script gives us a useful example. An argument may begin with Satan as “the prince of the power of the air,” move to phenomena in the sky, then to Revelation 12, then to the woman in heaven, Marian apparitions, Project Blue Beam, additional religious imagery, and finally arrive at the conclusion that Mary will somehow function within an Antichrist deception.

Some individual propositions within that chain may be true.

But proving the individual propositions does not prove the chain.

If an argument takes the form:

A → B → C → D → E

it is not enough to demonstrate that A, B, C, D and E exist.

We also have to demonstrate the arrows.

That is the point at which discernment becomes reasoning.

And it is also the point at which a spiritual interpretation becomes open to correction.

When a Theory Becomes Impossible to Correct

There is another danger here, and it extends far beyond religion.

Once we become convinced that we have discovered a hidden explanatory pattern, subsequent evidence can begin to pass through that pattern before we evaluate it.

Evidence that agrees with the theory confirms it.

Ambiguous evidence gets interpreted through it.

But something more troubling can happen: evidence against the theory can also be transformed into evidence for it.

Of course Catholics deny worshiping Mary. Their deception prevents them from seeing that they do.

Of course theologians reject this interpretation. They have been deceived.

Of course historical evidence contradicts the theory. The institutions controlling the history cannot be trusted.

At that point, the theory has acquired a remarkable property:

Nothing can count against it.

Every confirmation proves it.

Every objection also proves it.

Every disagreement becomes evidence of deception.

That is not a stronger theory.

It is an unfalsifiable framework.

And theologically, I think Christians should be particularly cautious about constructing systems that make our own interpretations functionally immune from correction.

Because Christianity already gives us reasons to distrust that impulse.

What Happens When I Remove Every External Corrective?

Institutions can fail.

Scholars can be wrong.

Theologians can be wrong.

Pastors can be wrong.

Priests and bishops can be wrong.

Catholic institutions have failed, sometimes terribly.

None of that should be minimized.

But suppose my response to human fallibility is to dismiss every possible external corrective: scholars, theologians, historical Christianity, teachers, institutions, councils, ecclesial authority, and eventually anyone who seriously challenges my interpretation.

What remains?

Me.

My reading.

My connections.

My discernment.

My interpretation.

And that should make me nervous, not only when someone else does it, but when I do it.

I do not trust myself enough to make Ollinka Equihua the final teaching authority of Christianity.

😂

I can study. I can reason. I can investigate sources. I can learn biblical languages and history. I can compare interpretations. I can build an argument and defend a conclusion.

And after doing all of that:

I can still be wrong.

That is not intellectual self-abasement.

It is intellectual humility.

Humility does not require us to pretend that we know nothing. It requires us to recognize that knowing a great deal does not make us incapable of error.

Which means that genuine discernment must preserve the possibility of correction.

The Question I Have to Ask Her, and Myself

This brings me back to the woman whose videos prompted this investigation.

Her familiarity with Scripture is one of the things I genuinely admired about her. Her desire to take spiritual deception seriously is not something I want to mock. If someone believes other Christians are being led away from Christ, concern for them is understandable.

But precisely because the claims are serious, I think one question has to be asked:

How are you testing your own discernment?

Not everyone else's.

Yours.

And I have to place myself underneath exactly the same question.

Because if I am going to investigate someone else's claims of deception honestly, I must leave open one uncomfortable possibility:

Perhaps I am the person being deceived.

Perhaps the thing I am warning everyone about is not actually the deception.

Perhaps my interpretation of it is.

That possibility cannot become forbidden merely because it makes me uncomfortable.

Especially when the conclusions at stake are enormous.

The claims we will examine throughout this series include that Catholicism is not Christianity, Catholic soteriology is unbiblical, Catholic veneration constitutes idolatry, the Catholic Church altered the Ten Commandments, the Church created Islam, Mary is connected to Satan and a future Antichrist deception, and Catholics should therefore “come out of the Catholic Church.” Your script rightly emphasizes that these are not minor theological disagreements.

If I am going to tell millions of Christians that the Church they believe was founded by Christ is actually leading them away from Him, the evidentiary burden should be correspondingly serious.

The larger the claim, the more carefully its premises and inferences should be examined.

Conviction Is Not Authority

And so we return to a distinction that has followed us throughout Part I:

Conviction is not authority.

A person can sound extraordinarily certain and be extraordinarily wrong.

Including me.

That is why I want the citations available. It is why I want the biblical passages read in context. It is why the research accompanying this series matters. It is why I want readers to distinguish carefully among four categories:

What Scripture explicitly says.

What a particular interpretation says the Scripture means.

What the historical evidence establishes.

What we infer from those things.

Those categories can overlap and support one another, but they cannot simply be collapsed.

I never want:

“Ollinka thinks…”

to quietly become:

“God says…”

Those statements are not interchangeable.

And once we admit that neither personal interpretation nor personal discernment is automatically infallible, we finally arrive at the question this entire investigation has been moving toward:

Did Christ leave His Church any real authority to teach?

Not authority to invent new revelation.

Not authority to contradict Scripture.

But authority to guard, transmit, teach, and interpret the faith entrusted to the apostles.

Because if He did, then the next question is no longer whether authority exists.

It is:

What did Christ actually give His Church?

And that is where we turn next.

V. Did Christ Give His Church Authority to Teach?

If personal discernment is fallible, that does not automatically prove Catholicism.

It does not prove the papacy.

It does not prove the Magisterium.

And it certainly does not mean that every Christian institution claiming authority therefore possesses divine authority.

It simply leaves us with a question we can no longer avoid:

Did Christ establish any continuing teaching authority in His Church?

Because if the answer is no, then Christianity ultimately has to function through some version of individual or communal interpretation of the biblical text. Churches can teach. Pastors can guide. Confessions and creeds can summarize doctrine. Historical Christianity can inform us. But none of those authorities can finally bind the Christian conscience if they remain, in principle, subject to correction by the individual believer’s reading of Scripture.

If the answer is yes, however, then we need to determine what kind of authority Christ established, where Scripture locates it, whether it was intended to continue beyond the apostles, and what relationship it bears to the Word of God.

That is a very different investigation.

And it begins not with Rome, but with Jesus.

“He Who Hears You Hears Me”

When Christ sends His disciples, He does not describe their mission as merely distributing information about Him. He gives them authority to teach in His name.

In Luke 10:16, Jesus tells those He sends:

“He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me.”

That is remarkably strong language.

Christ identifies the reception of His authorized messengers with the reception of Himself.

Now, we should immediately place limits around what this verse establishes. Jesus is not saying that every sentence spoken by every future Christian minister is divinely guaranteed. The passage does not give us permission to transform every pastor, priest, bishop, theologian, or pope into an oracle.

But it does establish something relevant:

Christ can authorize human beings to teach in His name in such a way that their teaching carries more than merely private authority.

That principle appears elsewhere in the New Testament.

Before His Ascension, Christ commands the apostles not merely to evangelize but to teach the nations to observe everything He has commanded them. And He accompanies that commission with a promise:

“Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”
— Matthew 28:20

Again, the passage does not hand us a complete doctrine of the Magisterium.

But the commission is ecclesial, missionary, and teaching-oriented.

Christ sends.

The apostles teach.

The nations receive.

And Christ promises His presence.

So the question becomes increasingly difficult to frame as though Christianity were intended to consist only of inspired texts and individual readers.

The New Testament repeatedly places authorized teachers inside the picture.

Authority That Can Actually Make Judgments

Matthew 18 gives us another important piece.

We touched on this passage in Installment 1, but now we can look at its implications more closely.

Jesus describes a process for dealing with serious conflict within the Christian community. If private correction fails, witnesses are brought. If that fails:

“Tell the church.”

And if the person refuses even to hear the Church, there are consequences.

Immediately afterward, Christ tells the disciples:

“Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.”

Whatever else we ultimately conclude about binding and loosing, the Church in this passage does not function merely as a voluntary Bible-study group whose judgment the believer may disregard whenever his personal interpretation differs.

It can hear a dispute.

It can judge.

Its judgment matters.

And that becomes even more significant when we remember Acts 15.

There, a doctrinal controversy threatens the early Christian community. The apostles and elders deliberate, interpret Scripture, hear testimony, reach a judgment, and communicate that judgment to the churches.

They do not write:

“Here is our interpretation. Pray about it and see whether the Holy Spirit gives you the same discernment.”

😂

They issue a decision.

Acts 16 then describes those decisions as decrees to be observed by the communities.

Once again, we should resist the temptation to jump too quickly.

This demonstrates real apostolic and ecclesial authority.

The next question is whether that authority died with the apostles.

What Happens When the Apostles Die?

This question is absolutely central.

A Protestant can grant everything we have established so far and respond:

Of course the apostles possessed unique authority. They were apostles. They had been commissioned directly by Christ. That does not mean their authority continued in later bishops or in the Catholic Magisterium.

That is a serious objection.

And it deserves more than:

“Apostolic succession. Next question.”

😂

We need evidence.

One of the places to begin is 2 Timothy 2:2.

Paul tells Timothy:

“The things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.”

The structure is worth noticing:

Paul → Timothy → faithful men → others.

We already encountered this passage when discussing oral Apostolic Tradition. But now another dimension becomes visible.

The apostolic teaching is not merely preserved as information.

People are entrusted with teaching it to other people.

There is continuity.

Paul is approaching the end of his ministry, and his response is not simply:

Make sure everyone has copies of my letters.

He entrusts what Timothy has received to reliable teachers who will themselves be capable of teaching others.

That does not yet establish every Catholic claim about apostolic succession.

But it makes the idea of continuing authorized transmission considerably less foreign to the New Testament.

Offices Do Not Necessarily Die With Their Holders

Acts 1 gives us another intriguing example.

After Judas's death, Peter speaks to the assembled disciples about replacing him.

The apostles do not simply say:

Well, now there are eleven.

They choose Matthias.

And Peter grounds the action partly in Scripture:

“His bishopric let another take.”
— Acts 1:20

The terminology varies among translations, but the underlying idea is that Judas possessed an office that another could take.

That distinction matters.

A person dies.

An office can continue.

Again, Acts 1 does not prove the entire later episcopal structure of Catholicism. Matthias replaces an apostle under circumstances connected to the foundational apostolic witness, and we should not pretend every later episcopal appointment is simply another Acts 1.

But the passage does challenge the assumption that authority personally entrusted to an apostolic minister must necessarily disappear when that particular man dies.

The New Testament already contains the concept of an ecclesial office continuing through another person.

So now our question becomes historical as well as biblical:

Did the earliest Christians understand the Church’s teaching offices as continuing the apostolic ministry?

And here the generations immediately following the apostles become especially relevant.

Clement and the Problem of Succession

Near the end of the first century, the Church of Rome wrote to the Christians at Corinth in a letter traditionally associated with Clement of Rome.

The situation itself is fascinating.

Corinth had experienced internal conflict involving its presbyters, and the Roman Church intervened from across the Mediterranean.

But for our immediate purpose, what matters is Clement's description of ministry.

He presents the apostles as having appointed ministers and then making provision so that, after those ministers died, other approved men would succeed to their ministry.

That is remarkably early.

We are not standing in medieval Europe.

We are still within the first generations of Christianity.

And already we encounter Christians describing ecclesial ministry in terms of continuity and succession.

Does Clement prove the entire modern Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession?

No.

Again, restraint matters.

But if someone argues that succession is a late Catholic invention completely foreign to apostolic Christianity, Clement becomes difficult to explain.

The concept is present extraordinarily early.

Ignatius and the Visible Church

Only a short time later, Ignatius of Antioch gives us an even clearer picture of structured ecclesial authority.

Writing on his way to martyrdom in the early second century, Ignatius repeatedly refers to the bishop, presbyters, and deacons of local churches. He urges Christians to remain united with their bishop and describes ecclesial unity in strikingly concrete terms.

Whatever conclusions we eventually draw about later Catholic structures, the Christianity of Ignatius is difficult to describe as a loose association of independent believers whose primary visible bond is agreement around a biblical text.

His Christianity is sacramental, communal, structured, and episcopal.

That historical evidence matters because Ignatius lived astonishingly close to the apostolic period.

Again, proximity does not equal infallibility.

An early Christian writer can be wrong.

But historical claims have to account for historical evidence.

If Christianity immediately after the apostles already contains bishops exercising recognizable ecclesial authority, then a theory in which hierarchical teaching authority emerged only centuries later has a significant historical burden to meet.

Irenaeus and the Public Transmission of Apostolic Teaching

By the late second century, Irenaeus of Lyons is confronting another problem: competing groups claiming access to authentic Christian truth.

His response is particularly relevant to our investigation because he does not simply tell his readers:

“Read the Bible and decide which interpretation seems right to you.”

He appeals to the public teaching handed down in the churches founded by the apostles and to the succession of their bishops.

Why?

Because competing interpreters could cite Christian texts too.

The question was already:

Whose interpretation represents the apostolic faith?

For Irenaeus, apostolic Christianity was not a hidden insight reconstructed privately from texts. It had been taught publicly and preserved within identifiable churches.

That does not mean we can take every later Catholic doctrine, point vaguely toward Irenaeus, and announce:

“See? Catholicism.”

😂

Historical theology deserves better than that.

But it does mean that the categories we are investigating, apostolic teaching, public transmission, ecclesial office, succession, doctrinal authority, are not inventions imposed upon Christianity from a distant medieval future.

They appear very early.

But Human Authorities Can Be Corrupt

And now we need to confront the obvious objection.

Because this entire argument can sound dangerously convenient coming from a Catholic:

“Trust the institution.”

No.

That is not the argument.

Institutions can become corrupt.

Church leaders can sin grievously.

Bishops can fail.

Popes can behave scandalously.

History gives us more than enough evidence of that.

The Catholic claim has never required the personal holiness, brilliance, or prudence of every officeholder.

And that distinction matters enormously.

If divine authority depended upon the moral perfection of the person exercising an office, Christianity would have had an authority crisis before the Crucifixion.

Judas was an apostle.

Peter denied Christ.

The apostles misunderstood Him repeatedly.

Their weakness did not mean Christ had never commissioned them.

So the relevant question is not:

“Have Catholic leaders ever been corrupt?”

Obviously.

The question is:

“Does human corruption prove that Christ could not establish an authoritative teaching office?”

Those are different propositions.

And if our answer is that sinful humans cannot possibly exercise genuine authority from God, we have created a much larger biblical problem.

Because Scripture is full of God exercising authority through sinful human beings.

Authority Is Not the Same as Impeccability

This distinction is worth making explicit:

Authority does not mean impeccability.

Nor does it mean omniscience.

Nor does it mean every statement made by an authority is protected from error.

Catholic theology itself makes distinctions regarding the exercise and limits of ecclesial teaching authority.

That is important because otherwise discussions of the Magisterium quickly become caricatures:

Catholics believe the pope can never be wrong about anything.

No.

A pope can be wrong about politics, science, prudential decisions, predictions, personal opinions, historical judgments, and countless other matters.

The Catholic claim about infallibility is much narrower and concerns particular conditions under which the Church is protected from definitively teaching error in matters of faith and morals.

We will eventually have to ask whether that claim is justified.

But first we need to understand what is actually being claimed.

Because once again:

We cannot refute a doctrine responsibly until we can describe it in a way its adherents recognize.

That standard applies to sola Scriptura.

It applies to Catholicism.

And it applies to me.

“The Church of the Living God”

This brings us back to 1 Timothy 3:15.

Paul describes the Church as:

“the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

If our theology of authority has room for an infallible Bible but essentially no meaningful doctrinal function for the Church, we have to account for language like this.

What does it mean for the Church to be the pillar and foundation of truth?

It cannot mean that the Church originates truth.

God does.

It cannot mean that every Christian leader is personally infallible.

The New Testament itself gives us examples of Christian leaders needing correction.

But it certainly sounds stronger than:

“The Church is a helpful collection of fallible interpreters whose judgments remain optional whenever an individual believes Scripture says otherwise.”

At minimum, Paul gives the Church a role in upholding, preserving, and presenting truth.

And when that description is placed alongside Matthew 18, Acts 15, Luke 10, Matthew 28, 2 Timothy 2, and the early Christian evidence for succession, a cumulative picture begins to emerge.

Not yet the entire Catholic Magisterium.

But something more substantial than a collection of independent interpreters.

The Holy Spirit and the Teaching Church

There is one more element we cannot leave out.

In John's Gospel, Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit will guide His disciples into truth.

Catholics sometimes cite these passages as though Jesus simply said:

“The Catholic Magisterium will be infallible.”

He did not.

We need to be more careful.

The immediate promises are made within Christ's final discourse to His apostles. Any application beyond them requires theological argument.

But notice how interesting this becomes when placed beside our earlier discussion of discernment.

Christians rightly appeal to the Holy Spirit.

The question is whether the New Testament depicts the Spirit's guidance as purely individual, or whether the Spirit also guides the Church corporately through the apostolic mission.

Acts 15 gives us an extraordinary answer.

After deliberation, the apostles and elders write:

“It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us…”

The Holy Spirit's activity and ecclesial judgment are not presented as competitors.

That should at least make us hesitate before assuming that the alternatives are:

Either the Holy Spirit guides me

or

I submit to external Church authority.

Biblically, those categories may not be opposites at all.

Perhaps part of the way Christ guides His people is through the Church He established.

That claim still has to be demonstrated.

But it deserves investigation.

So What Have We Actually Established?

At this stage, I want to resist the temptation to announce victory.

We have evidence that Christ gave real teaching authority to His apostles.

We have evidence of a visible Church capable of making judgments.

We have New Testament patterns of teaching being entrusted from one generation to another.

We have an apostolic office being filled after the death of its holder.

And very early Christian witnesses describe ecclesial ministry in terms of bishops, continuity, succession, and the public preservation of apostolic teaching.

That is significant.

But several questions remain.

Did Christ establish different kinds or degrees of authority among the apostles?

Did one apostle possess a distinctive role?

What exactly did Jesus mean by binding and loosing?

Why did He give keys to Peter?

What relationship, if any, exists between those keys and Isaiah 22?

And even if Peter possessed a distinctive authority, what evidence would justify believing that his office continued after his death?

Those are not side questions.

They determine whether the Catholic model of authority actually follows from the biblical and historical evidence or whether Catholics have built later structures onto something much simpler.

Which means we have finally arrived at the passage that has been waiting for us since Installment 1:

Matthew 16.

Not as a Catholic mic drop.

Not as:

“Peter means rock. Case closed.”

😂

But as a text we need to examine carefully.

Because if we are going to ask who has authority to interpret Christianity, eventually we have to ask why Christ gave one particular apostle a new name, keys to a kingdom, and the authority to bind and loose.

VI. Peter, the Keys & Binding and Loosing

If Christ gave His Church genuine teaching authority, the next question is whether that authority was distributed identically among the apostles or whether the New Testament presents one of them as having a distinctive role.

That question brings us to Peter.

Catholics can sometimes approach Peter as though merely saying “Matthew 16” ends the discussion. Protestants, understandably, are not impressed by that. 😂 Matthew 16 does not contain the words pope, papal succession, Vatican, or papal infallibility. If we are going to argue that the passage contributes to a Catholic understanding of authority, we need to show what the text actually establishes, what historical and biblical context may illuminate it, and where we are making theological inferences beyond its explicit words.

So let’s begin with the passage itself.

At Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asks His disciples who people say that He is. They give several answers: John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Then Christ turns the question toward them:

“But whom do you say that I am?”

Simon answers:

“Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus responds by blessing Simon and telling him that this knowledge has not come from “flesh and blood,” but from the Father. Then something extraordinary happens. Jesus addresses Simon personally:

“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”
— Matthew 16:18–19

There are several distinct elements here, and I do not think we should collapse them into a single Catholic proof-text. Simon receives a new name. Christ speaks of building His Church upon “this rock.” Peter personally receives the keys of the kingdom. And Christ speaks of binding and loosing, with earthly action corresponding to heaven. The Catholic argument is cumulative: what do all of those elements mean together?

Peter, Petros, Petra… and Aramaic

One of the oldest debates surrounding this passage concerns the relationship between Peter and rock.

In Greek, Matthew reads essentially: You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church. Because the words are not identical, some interpreters have argued that Jesus is deliberately distinguishing Peter from the rock. Peter may confess the truth, but the actual rock, they argue, is Peter’s confession, his faith, or Christ Himself.

There are legitimate theological reasons Christians have associated Christ with rock imagery elsewhere in Scripture, and Peter’s confession obviously matters enormously in this scene. So I do not think the responsible Catholic response is to pretend that every non-Catholic interpretation is linguistically absurd.

But there is an important Semitic context behind the Greek text.

Jesus and His disciples ordinarily spoke Aramaic, and the Aramaic word kepha does not create the same Petros/petra distinction. The name Jesus gives Simon is preserved elsewhere in the New Testament as Cephas, the Greek transliteration of Kepha. Paul repeatedly calls Peter Cephas. John even explains the naming explicitly: Simon will be called Cephas, which is translated Peter.

In Aramaic, then, the saying would carry the sense:

“You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church.”

The difference in Matthew’s Greek is readily explained by grammar: Petros functions as the masculine proper name given to Simon, while petra is the ordinary feminine noun for rock.

That does not mean we have now proven the papacy.

It means something much narrower and much more important:

The linguistic argument that Peter cannot be the rock simply because Matthew uses Petros and petra is not sufficient.

The relationship between Peter and the rock is much harder to dismiss than that.

A New Name Is Not a Trivial Detail

The naming itself deserves attention because biblical name changes are rarely decorative.

Abram becomes Abraham.

Jacob becomes Israel.

A new name can accompany a new vocation, identity, or role within God’s covenant purposes. We should not mechanically assume every biblical renaming means exactly the same thing, but neither should we treat Jesus renaming Simon as an incidental nickname.

John’s Gospel preserves the moment:

“Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.”
— John 1:42

Before Simon has accomplished anything extraordinary, Christ gives him this identity.

Then, in Matthew 16, the significance of that name appears in the context of Christ building His Church.

Again, none of this means:

New name = pope.

That would be terrible exegesis. 😂

But the naming belongs to the evidence. Jesus deliberately identifies Simon with rock imagery in a passage about the construction of His Church and then immediately gives him the keys of the kingdom.

Which brings us to the element I find even more interesting.

Why Keys?

Christ does not merely tell Peter:

“You will be an important leader.”

He gives him a symbol:

the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

And biblical symbols have contexts.

Keys represent authority. Someone possessing the key controls access. The person can open and shut. But the imagery becomes especially interesting when we remember that Jesus is not simply announcing a generic spiritual kingdom. He is the promised Davidic Messiah, the Son of David whose kingdom fulfills the promises made to David.

And within the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, we find another passage involving a key.

Isaiah 22 describes the removal of a royal official named Shebna and his replacement by Eliakim. God says of Eliakim:

“And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.”
— Isaiah 22:22

The parallel with Matthew 16 deserves examination.

In Isaiah, there is a Davidic kingdom.

There is a king.

There is an office beneath the king.

And the holder of that office receives a key representing delegated authority within the royal household.

Then, in Matthew, the Davidic Messiah speaks about His kingdom, singles out Peter, and gives him the keys of that kingdom.

Is Jesus deliberately invoking Isaiah 22?

The Catholic argument says yes.

And if that connection is real, the imagery becomes much richer than:

Peter gets to open heaven’s door.

The key represents delegated royal authority.

The king remains the king.

The steward is not replacing him.

The authority of the steward exists precisely because it comes from the king.

That distinction matters enormously for Catholic theology, because the Catholic claim has never been that Peter replaces Christ.

Christ is the King.

Peter’s authority, if Matthew 16 establishes it, is derivative.

It exists because Christ delegates it.

Typology Is an Argument, Not a Magic Trick

Here I want to apply our methodology to the Catholic side again.

Matthew 16 does not explicitly say:

“Jesus is recreating the office described in Isaiah 22.”

That is an interpretive claim.

More specifically, it is a typological argument.

So we have to test it.

Does the proposed connection arise naturally from biblical themes? Does Matthew present Jesus as the Davidic Messiah? Does Isaiah 22 involve delegated authority symbolized by a key? Does Matthew 16 also involve a kingdom, delegated authority, and keys? Are there enough correspondences to justify reading one text in light of the other?

Those are legitimate questions.

But once we recognize that the Isaiah connection is an argument rather than an explicit quotation, we must also be honest about what follows from it.

Even if Isaiah 22 illuminates Matthew 16, we have not yet proven every Catholic claim about the papacy.

We have established something more modest:

There is a serious biblical case that Christ gives Peter a distinctive form of delegated authority within the messianic kingdom.

Then we have to keep investigating.

But Wasn’t Peter’s Authority Shared With the Other Apostles?

Here comes an important Protestant objection.

Two chapters later, in Matthew 18, Jesus gives the authority to bind and loose to the disciples more broadly.

So if Catholics point to binding and loosing as proof that Peter possesses authority, doesn’t Matthew 18 undermine the claim that his authority is unique?

Not necessarily.

But it does force us to be more precise.

The Catholic position does not require Peter to be the only apostle possessing real authority.

Quite the opposite.

The apostles collectively possess authority.

They teach.

They govern.

They forgive sins.

They participate in the resolution of doctrinal disputes.

They are foundational to the Church.

Peter’s distinctive role does not require everyone else to become powerless.

The question is whether Peter receives something additional or distinctive within that shared apostolic authority.

And Matthew’s structure is interesting.

In Matthew 16, Peter individually receives the keys and the authority to bind and loose.

In Matthew 18, the broader apostolic body receives binding and loosing.

So the Catholic claim is not:

Peter has authority; the other apostles do not.

It is:

The apostles possess genuine authority together, while Peter is individually given the keys and singled out within that apostolic body.

That is a much more careful claim.

What Does “Binding and Loosing” Mean?

The phrase can sound mysterious to modern Christians, but it was not meaningless religious poetry.

Within Jewish usage, binding and loosing could carry juridical and teaching connotations. It could refer to authoritative decisions about what was forbidden or permitted and, more broadly, to the application and interpretation of religious law.

That context matters because Christ does not simply tell Peter that he will have good theological opinions.

He speaks of decisions made on earth that possess a corresponding reality in heaven.

And Matthew 18 extends similar language within the Church’s disciplinary context.

This makes binding and loosing difficult to reduce to:

“Peter is allowed to preach the Gospel.”

Preaching is certainly part of apostolic ministry, but the language here appears to involve real governing and adjudicative authority.

And again Acts 15 gives us a concrete example of what apostolic authority can look like in practice: a controversy arises, the Church deliberates, a judgment is made, and the decision is delivered to Christian communities for observance.

The New Testament picture begins to look increasingly coherent:

teaching authority, governing authority, doctrinal judgment, binding and loosing.

The question is no longer whether those categories exist.

The question is what structure they form.

Peter Outside Matthew 16

If the Catholic argument depended entirely upon one disputed passage, I would find that concerning.

So we should ask whether Peter actually behaves elsewhere in the New Testament as though he possesses some distinctive role.

There is certainly evidence worth considering.

Peter repeatedly appears first in lists of the apostles. He frequently speaks on behalf of the group. At Pentecost, Peter gives the sermon interpreting what has occurred and calling the crowd to repentance and baptism. In Acts, he plays a central role in the opening of the Church to Gentiles through Cornelius. In Acts 15, Peter’s intervention comes at a crucial moment in the circumcision controversy.

None of those observations alone proves papal supremacy.

Being prominent is not identical to possessing an office of universal jurisdiction.

But the cumulative pattern matters.

And there are two other Petrine texts that deserve particular attention.

“Strengthen Your Brethren”

On the night before the Crucifixion, Jesus tells Peter:

“Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”
— Luke 22:31–32

There is an important grammatical detail behind the English.

When Jesus says Satan has demanded to sift you, the Greek is plural: Satan desires the disciples.

But when Jesus says:

“I have prayed for thee”

the address becomes singular.

Christ prays specifically for Peter.

And then gives Peter a task:

strengthen your brethren.

Again, we have to avoid overclaiming.

Luke 22 does not say:

“Peter and all his successors will possess papal infallibility under precisely defined conditions.”

😂

But neither is Peter merely one indistinguishable apostle among twelve in this scene.

The whole group is threatened.

Christ singles out Peter.

Peter is then told to strengthen the others.

That belongs in the cumulative case.

“Feed My Sheep”

Then, after Peter’s spectacular failure during the Passion, John 21 gives us one of the most beautiful restoration scenes in Scripture.

Three times Jesus asks Peter whether he loves Him.

And three times He commissions him:

Feed my lambs.

Feed my sheep.

The shepherd imagery matters because the sheep remain Christ’s.

Jesus does not say:

Congratulations, Peter. They belong to you now.

😂

They are Christ’s flock.

Peter is commissioned to care for them.

This fits the pattern we encountered with the keys.

Delegated authority does not compete with Christ’s authority.

It depends upon it.

A steward does not cease to be a steward because the king remains king.

A shepherd appointed beneath Christ does not replace the Good Shepherd.

And this is important because one common objection to Catholic claims about Peter is:

“Christ is the head of the Church, not Peter.”

Catholics agree.

The question is not whether Christ is Head.

He is.

The question is whether Christ, precisely as Head and King, can appoint human ministers to exercise real authority beneath Him.

The New Testament clearly shows that He can.

The debate concerns the nature and continuation of that authority.

Peter Can Still Be Wrong

And then we reach Galatians 2.

Because if we are going to construct a serious Catholic argument about Peter, we cannot quietly skip the chapter where Paul confronts him.

Peter withdraws from table fellowship with Gentile Christians under pressure from the circumcision party, and Paul says:

“I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.”

This passage is sometimes presented as though it destroys Catholic teaching about the papacy.

Peter was wrong!

Yes.

Catholics know. 😂

The Catholic doctrine has never been that Peter was morally perfect, incapable of cowardice, incapable of bad judgment, or incapable of behaving inconsistently with what he knew to be true.

We met this Peter before the papacy discussion even began.

He denied Jesus three times.

The question in Galatians 2 is what kind of error Peter commits.

He is not depicted as formally defining a false doctrine for the universal Church.

His behavior contradicts the truth already recognized concerning Gentile Christians.

In fact, Paul’s criticism works precisely because Peter knows better.

His conduct is inconsistent with the Gospel.

That distinction matters because authority and impeccability are not the same thing.

Peter can possess real authority and still sin.

He can possess a distinctive role and still need correction.

And if the Catholic claim required otherwise, Galatians 2 would indeed be devastating.

It does not.

So Does Matthew 16 Prove the Papacy?

We can now answer more carefully than either side sometimes does.

Not by itself.

Matthew 16 does not hand us the entire developed Catholic doctrine of the papacy.

But it gives us significant pieces:

Peter is renamed.

He is associated with the rock upon which Christ builds His Church.

He individually receives the keys of the kingdom.

He receives authority to bind and loose.

Isaiah 22 provides a plausible Davidic background in which keys signify delegated royal authority.

Luke 22 singles Peter out and commissions him to strengthen his brethren.

John 21 commissions him to feed Christ’s flock.

Acts repeatedly depicts him in a prominent leadership role.

Taken together, those passages create a serious biblical case for a distinctive Petrine role within the apostolic Church.

But we still have a major gap.

And Catholics sometimes leap over it much too quickly.

Even if Peter possessed a distinctive office:

Why should we believe that office continued after Peter died?

That is the succession question.

Matthew 16 does not explicitly answer it.

So we cannot pretend that it does.

Do the Keys Imply an Office That Continues?

This is where Isaiah 22 becomes relevant again.

If the imagery truly invokes the Davidic royal steward, then we are not merely dealing with a personal compliment to Eliakim.

We are dealing with an office.

Shebna is removed.

Eliakim takes his place.

The individual changes.

The office remains.

That gives the Catholic argument another step:

If Christ deliberately invokes that office when giving Peter the keys of the messianic kingdom, perhaps Peter’s role is likewise not merely a personal privilege that disappears at death.

But notice my language:

perhaps.

We have moved into inference again.

Isaiah 22 can strengthen a succession argument, but it cannot carry the entire historical burden by itself.

We therefore need to ask what happened after the apostles.

Did the earliest Christians behave as though apostolic authority could be transmitted?

Did they understand bishops as successors to apostolic ministry?

Did Rome possess any distinctive relationship to Peter?

And how early does that evidence appear?

Those are historical questions.

Which means historical evidence gets a vote.

Scripture and History Have to Meet

This is one of the reasons I resist apologetics built entirely from isolated proof-texts.

Catholicism makes a historical claim.

It does not merely claim:

“Here is an interpretation of Matthew 16.”

It claims that Christ established a visible Church, entrusted authority to the apostles, gave Peter a distinctive role within that Church, and that this apostolic ministry continued historically.

If that claim is true, we should expect to find historical footprints.

Not necessarily a first-century document using every theological term Catholics employ today.

Development is real.

Vocabulary develops.

Structures can become more explicit as controversies force the Church to articulate what it believes.

But there should be continuity.

And if the historical record instead showed that the earliest Christians understood Church authority in a fundamentally incompatible way, Catholics would have a serious problem.

We do not get to appeal to history only when history is convenient.

So the Catholic case has to survive both:

the biblical evidence

and

the historical evidence.

That standard should apply to every Christian tradition making historical claims about itself.

What We Can Say So Far

At this point, I think the evidence justifies several conclusions without requiring us to pretend we have proven more than we have.

The New Testament does not portray Christianity as an authority-free religion.

Christ commissions apostles to teach.

The apostolic Church makes binding judgments.

Teaching is entrusted to subsequent teachers.

Early Christian evidence reflects continuing ecclesial offices.

And within the apostolic body, Peter is repeatedly singled out in ways that deserve theological explanation.

Matthew 16, Luke 22, John 21 and Acts do not make Peter a rival to Christ.

They present authority that remains derivative from Christ.

That distinction is essential.

The Catholic argument is not:

Peter instead of Jesus.

It is:

Peter because of Jesus.

And now we are finally in a position to return to the phrase that began this entire Part I.

Because whether one accepts the Catholic interpretation of these passages or ultimately rejects it, something has become increasingly difficult to maintain:

that the question “What is biblical Christianity?” can be answered merely by pointing toward the Bible without addressing who interprets it, how the canon is known, what role the Church possesses, and what Christ actually established.

Which brings us to the final section of Part I:

VII. So Who Gets to Define “Biblical Christianity”?

We can finally return to the phrase that started this entire investigation:

“Biblical Christianity.”

At the beginning, I said that I want biblical Christianity too.

I meant it.

If something I believe genuinely contradicts the Word of God, I do not want to preserve it simply because it is Catholic. Tradition does not become true because it is old. An institution does not become trustworthy merely because it claims authority. A theological argument does not become biblical because a Catholic theologian constructed it. And my own interpretation certainly does not become infallible because I happen to find it persuasive.

But after everything we have examined, I think we can also see why saying:

“I follow biblical Christianity”

does not resolve the disagreement.

Because the phrase contains an interpretation before the argument has even begun.

The Baptist believes his Christianity is biblical.

The Presbyterian believes hers is biblical.

The Pentecostal believes his is biblical.

The non-denominational Christian believes she is following biblical Christianity.

The Orthodox Christian believes his faith faithfully preserves apostolic Christianity.

And yes, the Catholic believes Catholicism is biblical.

Simply attaching the adjective biblical to one position does not establish that the position actually corresponds to Scripture.

It states the conclusion.

The conclusion still has to be demonstrated.

“The Bible Says” Can Hide an Interpretive Step

This distinction has followed us through both installments because I think it is one of the most important habits we can develop when discussing theology.

There is a difference between:

“The Bible says…”

and:

“I believe this is what the Bible means.”

Sometimes those statements are very close together. Scripture explicitly teaches that Jesus rose from the dead. Calling the Resurrection a matter of personal interpretation would be absurd.

But other questions involve considerably more interpretive work.

Does John 6 teach the Real Presence?

Does Romans 9 establish unconditional election?

Does Matthew 16 establish a distinctive Petrine office?

Does Revelation 12 identify the woman exclusively as Israel, exclusively as Mary, as the Church, or through multiple layers of biblical symbolism?

Does 2 Timothy 3 establish sola Scriptura?

Those are interpretive questions.

And saying “the Bible says” does not make the interpretive step disappear.

This is why I have repeatedly distinguished four categories throughout this investigation:

What Scripture explicitly says. What we interpret it to mean. What the historical evidence establishes. And what we infer from those things.

Good theology can bring all four together.

But intellectual honesty requires us to know when we have moved from one to another.

Nobody Reads the Bible From Nowhere

There is another reality worth acknowledging.

None of us approaches Scripture without a history.

Even the Christian who says:

“I don't follow a denomination. I just follow the Bible.”

still learned what Christianity is somewhere.

Someone taught that person what the Trinity means. Someone explained salvation. Someone supplied a Bible containing a particular canon. Someone translated the Hebrew and Greek into English. Someone taught which books belonged in that Bible. Someone influenced how words such as faith, works, church, baptism, tradition, worship, saved, and born again were understood.

That does not make interpretation hopelessly subjective.

It means interpretation requires humility.

We all bring something to the text.

The question is whether we are willing to discover what that something is.

Because sometimes what feels like:

“This is simply what the Bible says”

actually means:

“This is the interpretation of the Bible I inherited so early that I no longer recognize it as an interpretation.”

Catholics can do this too.

A Catholic can inherit an explanation of a doctrine, repeat it for twenty years, and discover upon investigation that the Church does not actually teach what she thought it taught.

Nobody receives an exemption from intellectual humility.

Then Who Has the Final Word?

At this point, someone might reasonably ask:

Fine. Everyone interprets. So who decides?

And this is where the Catholic claim becomes much more specific.

The Catholic answer is not:

Ollinka decides.

Thank God. 😂

It is not:

Every priest decides.

It is not even:

Whatever a pope happens to think today becomes Christianity tomorrow.

The Catholic claim is that Christ entrusted a deposit of faith to His apostles and established a Church with authority to preserve, teach, and authentically interpret that deposit through history.

Scripture belongs within that deposit as the inspired Word of God.

Sacred Tradition does not function as a competing pile of revelations beside Scripture.

And the Magisterium does not stand above God's Word with permission to rewrite it.

Its claim is one of service and custody: to guard what was received rather than manufacture a new Christianity.

That claim can be challenged.

But after everything we have examined, I do not think it can simply be dismissed with:

“That's not biblical.”

Because the question before us is precisely whether the Catholic structure of authority itself has biblical and historical foundations.

And we have already encountered evidence that has to be accounted for.

The Alternative Has an Authority Structure Too

This is something I think often gets lost in Catholic-Protestant conversations.

There is no option called:

“Authority”

versus

“No authority.”

Every Christian framework has some mechanism by which theological conclusions are reached.

A Protestant church may possess pastors, elders, denominational confessions, seminaries, theologians, creeds, councils, or statements of faith. A non-denominational congregation may reject formal denominational authority while still possessing a senior pastor whose interpretation significantly shapes what the community believes.

And ultimately, within a sola Scriptura framework, all of those authorities remain subject to the supreme norm of Scripture.

But Scripture still has to be interpreted.

So when the pastor and I disagree about what Scripture means, what happens?

Perhaps I study more.

Perhaps I consult commentaries.

Perhaps I compare interpretations.

Perhaps I conclude the pastor is wrong and leave for another church.

That may sometimes be entirely justified.

But notice what has happened structurally.

At the final point of disagreement, I have judged which interpretation of Scripture is correct.

That does not make Protestants arrogant.

Catholics exercise personal judgment too. I had to judge whether there were good reasons to be Catholic. Converts have to evaluate competing claims. Every act of faith involves the intellect.

The distinction lies elsewhere.

The Catholic claims that after making that judgment about where Christ's teaching authority resides, the believer encounters an authority that is not reducible to her continuing private judgment about every doctrine.

That is a fundamentally different ecclesiology.

And it is the ecclesiology we will continue testing throughout this series.

This Does Not Mean “Don't Read the Bible for Yourself”

Nothing we have discussed should be interpreted as an argument against personal engagement with Scripture.

Quite the opposite.

Catholics should read the Bible.

Study it.

Ask questions.

Learn its historical context.

Compare passages.

Read the Fathers.

Learn how other Christians interpret difficult texts.

Ask why the Church understands a passage the way she does.

And when something seems contradictory or troubling, investigate it rather than pretending the difficulty is not there.

Teaching authority should not require intellectual passivity.

If anything, truth should withstand investigation.

The distinction is between using reason and making myself the final doctrinal authority.

Those are not the same thing.

What Part I Has Actually Established

After two installments, I want to be careful about our conclusion.

We have not proven every Catholic doctrine.

We have not demonstrated that every Catholic interpretation of Scripture is correct.

We have not completed the historical case for every aspect of the papacy.

And we certainly have not established that a Catholic can simply respond to every objection with:

“The Church says so.”

That would defeat the purpose of this entire project.

What we have established is a framework for the investigation that follows.

We have seen that Scripture and our interpretation of Scripture are not automatically identical. We have seen that sincere Christians can reach contradictory conclusions while appealing to the same inspired text. We have examined the historical problem of the canon and the existence of apostolic teaching transmitted both orally and in writing. We have considered sola Scriptura in its stronger form rather than as a caricature. We have seen the New Testament depict a visible Church exercising real teaching and governing authority. We have examined the beginnings of succession in Scripture and early Christianity. And we have encountered a distinctive Petrine pattern involving the rock, the keys, binding and loosing, strengthening the brethren, and feeding Christ's sheep.

None of those pieces should be asked to carry the entire Catholic case by itself.

Together, however, they require an explanation.

And that is enough for where we are.

So Who Gets to Define It?

My answer at the beginning of this investigation might have been:

The Bible defines biblical Christianity.

I still believe that, but now I think the sentence needs greater precision.

Scripture is the inspired Word of God.

I am not.

Therefore, the real question has never been whether Scripture possesses authority.

The question is how Christ intended His revelation to be received, interpreted, preserved, and taught within the Church He founded.

The Catholic claim is that He did not leave that process to Scripture isolated from the apostolic Church, nor to an endless succession of individual Christians attempting independently to reconstruct Christianity from the biblical text.

He gave us Scripture within an apostolic Church.

He gave that Church teachers.

He gave the apostles authority.

He promised the Holy Spirit.

And He gave Peter the keys.

Whether Catholicism has faithfully preserved that structure is something this series will continue testing.

But if someone wants to say:

“This is true biblical Christianity.”

then I think we are entitled to ask:

According to whom?

What does the text actually say?

What interpretation are you bringing to it?

What did the earliest Christians believe?

What historical evidence supports your conclusion?

What authority structure are you assuming?

And perhaps most importantly:

What could correct you if you were wrong?

Those questions are not attacks on biblical Christianity.

They are necessary precisely because Scripture matters.

And Now We Can Finally Talk About Mary

Which brings us back to the claim that started this entire series.

“The Queen of Heaven is Satan.”

We could have started there.

Jeremiah 7.

Jeremiah 44.

Mary.

The title Queen of Heaven.

Apparitions.

Revelation 12.

And we could have spent hours throwing verses at one another without ever identifying the assumptions controlling our interpretations.

I did not want to do that.

Because before asking whether the Catholic understanding of Mary is biblical, we needed to establish what we mean when we call something biblical.

Before asking whether a Marian apparition could be demonic, we needed to ask how spiritual claims are actually discerned.

Before accusing Catholicism of contradicting Scripture, we needed to ask who possesses authority to interpret Scripture and how that authority can be recognized.

Now we have a method.

So in Part II, we will finally turn directly to the accusation:

Is Mary the “Queen of Heaven”?

We will begin where the objection begins: Jeremiah.

Who is the “queen of heaven” condemned there?

What exactly were the Israelites doing?

Does the existence of a pagan goddess bearing a royal title mean that the title itself is permanently demonic?

Does Scripture contain another concept of queenship within the Davidic kingdom?

Why do Catholics call Mary a queen at all?

And eventually:

Who is the woman clothed with the sun in Revelation 12?

This time, we will not begin with:

“Catholics say…”

or:

“Protestants say…”

We will begin where we should.

With the text.

With history.

With the argument.

And with enough humility to let the evidence correct all of us.

Because the goal was never to prove that I can win an argument about Catholicism.

The goal is truth.

And if the truth is from Christ, then I have nothing to fear from following it wherever it leads.

The Investigation Continues

Part I began with a deceptively simple question:

Who gets to interpret the Bible?

Across these two installments, that question took us much further than I initially expected. We had to distinguish Scripture from our interpretation of Scripture. We had to ask how Christians recognize the biblical canon, what sola Scriptura actually claims, whether sincerity or personal discernment can guarantee truth, whether Christ gave His Church real teaching authority, and what we can reasonably conclude from Peter, the keys, and the authority to bind and loose.

We have not answered every question about Christian authority. Nor have we proven every Catholic claim simply by raising difficulties for another model.

But we have established something necessary for everything that follows:

Calling an interpretation “biblical” does not exempt it from having to be demonstrated.

A biblical text can be inspired while my interpretation of it is mistaken. A spiritual warning can describe a genuine possibility without proving that a particular person, doctrine, or event fulfills it. A series of individually biblical premises can still contain an unsupported inference between them. And sincere discernment, whether Catholic or Protestant, must remain open to correction.

That gives us the method we need for the rest of this investigation.

And now we can finally apply it to the accusation that started this entire series.

Next: Part II · Is Mary the “Queen of Heaven”?

The claim is serious: Catholics call Mary the Queen of Heaven, while the prophet Jeremiah condemns worship offered to a figure bearing that same title. Therefore, the argument goes, Catholic devotion to Mary is not merely unbiblical. It is connected to the pagan worship Scripture explicitly condemns.

But does the conclusion actually follow?

In Part II, we will examine the “queen of heaven” in Jeremiah 7 and 44 within their biblical and historical context. We will ask what those passages actually condemn, whether a title can carry different meanings in different contexts, how queenship functioned within the Davidic kingdom, and why Catholic Christianity came to speak of Mary as Queen.

And eventually, we will have to confront one of the most symbolically dense passages in the New Testament:

the woman clothed with the sun in Revelation 12.

The purpose will remain the same.

Not to begin with the assumption that Catholics must be right.

Not to begin with the assumption that their critics must be wrong.

But to distinguish carefully between the text, the interpretation, the historical evidence, and the conclusion being drawn from them.

Because now that we have spent an entire Part asking who gets to interpret, we are finally ready to test an interpretation.

Part I · Who Gets to Interpret the Bible? — Complete

Continue to Part II · Is Mary the “Queen of Heaven”? →

Continue the Research

This written edition expands beyond the material presented in the original episode. If you would like to examine the sources behind the argument, I have provided the research separately so you can read the evidence in context and investigate the conclusions for yourself.

Research documentation for the original episode and the claims examined throughout Part I.

Sources and research notes for material added specifically to this expanded written edition, including discernment, early Christian authority, apostolic succession, Peter, the keys, and binding and loosing.

Study Companion

Don’t Just Read the Argument. Test It.

Part I has asked some difficult questions about interpretation, discernment, authority, and the way Christians determine whether a theological conclusion is actually supported by Scripture.

The Study Companion for Part I · Installment Two is an invitation to slow down and work through those questions for yourself.

Rather than giving you another summary of the essay, it will take you back to the evidence: Scripture to examine, arguments to map, distinctions to make, opposing positions to represent fairly, and questions designed to uncover where conviction ends and demonstration begins.

You will be invited to consider not only:

“Is this argument convincing?”

but also:

“What would I need to see to change my mind?”

Because apologetics should not simply make us better at defending what we already believe.

It should make us more willing to recognize truth when we encounter it.

For personal study, journaling, prayer, or thoughtful conversation.

A Personal Reflection

There is something uncomfortable about asking another person to examine her assumptions.

Eventually, you realize that intellectual honesty requires you to extend the same invitation to yourself.

Throughout this investigation, I have repeatedly asked whether a conclusion actually follows from the evidence offered for it. I have asked whether Scripture explicitly says something or whether we have interpreted it to mean something. I have questioned whether sincere conviction can be mistaken, whether spiritual discernment can be tested, and whether an argument remains trustworthy if nothing could ever count against it.

But those questions cannot belong only to the person whose argument I am examining.

They belong to me too.

If I am going to ask someone else, “What could convince you that you are wrong?” then I have to be willing to sit with that question myself.

What could convince me that I am wrong?

That is not always a comfortable question for a person of faith. Sometimes we fear that examining what we believe too closely somehow demonstrates a lack of trust in God. But I have increasingly come to believe almost the opposite.

God does not need me to protect Him from investigation.

Truth does not become fragile because I ask difficult questions about it.

And faithfulness to Christ cannot mean deciding beforehand that whatever I already believe must necessarily survive every examination exactly as I currently understand it.

I am Catholic. I am not pretending to approach these questions without convictions of my own. I love my faith. I believe there are profound biblical, historical, and theological reasons for Catholic Christianity.

But loving something does not give me permission to argue for it badly.

I do not want to defend Catholicism with a weak interpretation simply because the conclusion happens to favor Catholicism. I do not want to quote a Church Father beyond what his words can reasonably establish. I do not want to turn a possibility into proof, dismiss an objection because it makes me uncomfortable, or quietly demand a higher standard of evidence from someone else's theology than I demand from my own.

If the purpose of apologetics is truth, then the rules have to apply in both directions.

And perhaps that has been one of the most important lessons of Part I for me.

Humility in apologetics is not pretending that every position is equally convincing. Charity does not require us to abandon conclusions. And intellectual openness does not mean living forever in theological uncertainty because we are afraid to say that something appears true.

It means being willing to distinguish between what I know, what I believe the evidence supports, what I am inferring, and what I still need to investigate.

There is freedom in that.

I do not have to force every verse to prove everything at once.

I do not have to panic when an objection is difficult.

I do not have to make Catholicism look stronger than the evidence allows in order to trust that what is true will remain true.

And I do not have to assume that the Christian who disagrees with me is dishonest, spiritually blind, poorly educated, or less devoted to Christ.

Sometimes two people who sincerely love God can look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions.

That does not make truth relative.

It makes humility necessary.

So I am leaving Part I with a question that I hope remains with me throughout this entire series:

Am I asking the evidence to lead me toward truth, or am I asking it to protect the conclusion I already want?

I want to be able to answer that question honestly.

Not because I am afraid that investigation will take me away from Christ.

But because I trust Him enough to believe that wherever truth is found, I have nothing to fear from following it.

And perhaps that is what faith seeking understanding ultimately asks of us:

not a faith frightened by questions,

not a reason suspicious of faith,

but a mind willing to seek truth and a heart willing to be corrected,

so long as both are still moving toward Christ.

♡ Watch on Youtube