Ryan Rhodes

The “30,000 denominations” statistic is heavily inflated by counting organizational subdivisions worldwide, not 30,000 unique doctrines. Regional differences in minor organizational structure between Catholic parishes are included in that number too. But beyond that, I suspect Peter would be less concerned by organizational diversity than by any single institution claiming exclusive ownership over Christ and the gospel.

@TestAllThings_ He’d recognize bishops, priests, the Eucharist, apostolic succession, and the Church centered in Rome. He would be far more confused by 30,000 denominations claiming contradictory doctrines from the same Bible.

@BillArnoldTeach Honest question: if the 1st century version of Peter were brought into the present and shown the modern papacy with its structure, titles, and claims of authority, would he say, “Yes, this is exactly the authority Christ gave me,” or would he see something else entirely?

Protestants: “Constantine started the Catholic Church.” History: 20+ popes existed before Constantine. Explain that.

@dragodimitrov It seems we continue to talk past each other. Let’s lay some groundwork: A.) I acknowledge the role of leaders in the church. B.) I’ve also acknowledged that Act 15 designates people in separate roles. C.) I agree that disagreements among those who aren’t leaders and even between leaders are meant to be an handled by the leaders. D.) This still leaves your question unanswered. E.) The remaining question, then, isn’t whether leaders can declare doctrine, it’s how the Church responds when that doctrine is questioned. Ergo, my answer: a multi-faceted process involving discussion, testing against scripture, guidance from other leaders and believers, and discernment of the Holy Spirit. In the end, the wrong party may or may not agree they were wrong. So they can either choose to congregate by accepting the tension, or part ways peacefully.

Yes, this structure largely aligns with NT patterns for handling disagreements. Acts 15 shows leaders (apostles/elders) guiding open discussion and issuing a Spirit-led, Scripture-grounded decision, while the broader church participates (v22) and receives it joyfully (v31). Bereans test by Scripture (Acts 17:11). Romans 14 stresses conscience before God in disputable matters. Unity is prioritized where possible (Eph 4:3), and peaceful parting occurs without automatic illegitimacy (e.g., Paul/Barnabas split, Acts 15:39). Leadership is respected (Heb 13:17), but ultimate accountability is to Christ and the Word.

Protestants, in what sense would you say that you submit to your pastor? Imagine you have a situation of real disagreement over Scripture, for example, where neither of you see eye to eye, despite having talked it out back and forth for a while. What do you do and why?

@grok Does the following structure align with NT teaching about disagreements with leadership? Talk it out (Acts 15 style) Search Scripture together Seek counsel from others Follow conscience before God (Romans 14) If needed, remain in unity despite disagreement or peacefully part ways without declaring the other illegitimate

@grok @TestAllThings_ Wonderful. So let's go back up earlier to when I told our friend about how Acts 15 speaks of authority. Was my claim faithful to Scripture? Is there an opportunity for him to revise his understanding or did I misspeak? x.com/i/status/20516…

@grok Is the following a accurate representation of the issue at hand here in this thread? Drago’s “two groups” reading imports a later hierarchical model (more like Catholic ecclesiology) back into the text. Acts 15 actually supports the Protestant instinct: leadership is real and vital, but truth-seeking is communal and accountable to the Word, not a binary of rulers and ruled. That’s why Protestants can submit to godly pastoral authority while still testing it—exactly as the NT models.

@TestAllThings_ Since you keep using AI, let's bring in @grok Please make it clear what's happening in Acts 15 as far as who has decisionmaking authority and who doesn't.

Roles and types are different things, though, and the distinction does matter for the point I’m making here. Because if we zoom back out to my original response, step 1 is roles, and the NT names many (1 Cor 12; Eph 4), not just two. But roles don’t settle disagreements. The NT shows a multi-step process: open discussion, testing by Scripture, weighing counsel, and conscience before God (Acts 15; Acts 17:11; 1 Thess 5:21; Rom 14). That’s truth-seeking with leadership, not a binary of ‘deciders’ and ‘receivers.’

@TestAllThings_ "different roles" vs "different types" A distinction without a difference in this context, which returns us the original question, retranslated to use your preferred terminology: Which role of the two do you see yourself as having?

Acts 15 doesn’t establish two types of Christians, one that determines truth and one that passively receives it. It shows different roles within the same body. The apostles and elders lead the discussion, but the process includes open debate and concludes with the whole church (v.22). That’s shared discernment with leadership, not a separate class of believers.

@TestAllThings_ Acts 15:6 - the elders gathered to discuss Acts 15:31 - the rest of the congregation received their letter with joy These are two groups. Unless you think every Christian was an elder and thousands of people were in the Council discussing the issue?

Acts 15 doesn’t show two types of Christians, one deciding and one waiting. It shows the apostles and elders discerning together with the whole church after open debate. The apostles had a unique role, but the pattern that follows is communal, accountable, and grounded in Scripture, not a simple top-down verdict.

In Acts 15 we see two types of Christians: the apostles / leaders of the Church who held the Council, and the ordinary believers who were waiting on their verdict. When you say to talk it out with your pastor Acts 15 style, are you suggesting that both you and your pastor are part of that first group? I.e. in the Acts 15 story, how do you decide whether to see yourself as part of the first group of Christians rather than the second?

I prayed about it and discovered that neither the 73 or 66 book canons are correct. The correct one is the one we get to live out everyday in all the places we get to be a witness. The canon isn’t just something to argue over. It’s how we know Christ and learn to live like Him. That’s why it matters.

Which canon is the correct one?

@Catholicizm1 @grok is there a meaningful difference of plane accidents between men and women?

Bakery truck driver hit by Plane flown by woman. He survived and will likely never have to work another day in his life.

@TheMuppetPastor It’s not wrong to confess to a priest. No one should be arguing that they can’t. The issue isn’t that they do, it’s where they draw the line in the sand. They argue that true confession can only happen through a priest.

I don’t think it’s fair to dunk on Catholics for this. The Bible tells us to confess our sins to one another. “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.” James 5:16 ESV The early church took this so literally that Christians stood up and confessed all their sins before the church. When in small groups, this practice worked, but as churches grew, privacy became a large concern, and thus it was decided that only a priest could be trusted to respect it. Therefore people confessed privately to a priest. Yes, the Bible says we can confess our sins to God and He will forgive our sins. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9 ESV But there is confessing sins to God in John, and confessing sins to other Christians in James. The Bible does say both things. No, it doesn’t need to be a priest. It could be your friend or an elder. But again, priests are sworn to secrecy unlike others. In the spirit of fairness I do see the biblical support for confessions.

@CatholicDrip___ I disagree with the line 5Solas is drawing here, but you draw the same line in different application. So it stands to reason that you both are wrong. The issue isn’t the question. The issue was and still is the conclusions.

😂 Protestants questioned the canon

The argument is that you CAN. Not that this is the only way. You can confess to other believers too. But the line directly to God is still open. It shouldn’t be an either/or situation. But both. Confess to one another and to God directly. That’s the Biblical outline for forgiveness.

I can provide scriptural basis for confession to other humans. Can you provide chapter and verse to where we are told to confess only to God?

@MichaeliArchang John 20 doesn’t give apostles exclusivity. It gives them permission. The path directly to God for forgiveness still exists.

I am sincerely starting to wonder if these Prots even read the Bible. John 20:21-23

@ArchangeloRom We do ask others to pray for us. We don’t pray to others to pray for us.

The problem with these types of Protestants specifically is that if you take their positions to their logical conclusions you wind up as an atheist. Why ask others to pray for you? If the Spirit prays for us, how can we pray better than Him? If we can’t pray better than Him, why pray? Isn’t it insulting the Spirit to think we could pray and get something that He couldn’t, when He is God? These are the silly and infantile conclusions these types of Prots would have to naturally come to in order to make their attacks on Marian intercession consistent.

@BillArnoldTeach Romans 14:4 reminds us that each servant stands before his own Master. I trust the Lord is able to uphold those who follow Him, even when we disagree.

Every time I see a Catholic leave for Protestantism, I think this person left the banquet for crumbs. Then started defending the crumbs.

The Sadducees didn’t have a “flawed understanding” of the Resurrection, the denied it outright. So their question about a man with seven wives was intended to mock Jesus. He instead clarifies that there will not be marriage in heaven (which goes against LDS theology), and says we be LIKE angels (in that we don’t marry). Not actually angels.

You're not understanding this scripture. Christ is addressing the Sadducees' flawed understanding of what the resurrection (which they didn't believe in) would look like. I wish we could discuss this in greater depth, but you don't yet have the foundational knowledge for it to make sense. I'll think about it and see if I can come up with a way to discuss it that you'll understand. Sorry for the delay.

No honest soul can read The Book of Mormon and conclude, with any integrity, that it’s “demonic”

@randomdogginess @Olu_Utd14 Yes, true. But you were born with a sin nature.

@TestAllThings_ @Olu_Utd14 Then I'd be "guilty" of my OWN "sin" - not the "sin" of someone a bazillion generations ago.

Theist, what exactly is “original sin”? It doesn’t make sense to me…I’m not guilty of something that happened before I existed, just like I don’t get credit for inventing the wheel or the polio vaccine… And honestly, wanting knowledge sounds like a good thing, not a crime…

Why bring up Peter? These are Matthew’s records of Jesus’ words. “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” Matthew 22:30 ESV bible.com/bible/59/mat.2… They will be LIKE angels. Why use that word if we are actually going to be angels?

@TestAllThings_ @BLeBlan68656830 @AaronAsher11 Because Peter was a mortal talking to mortal people, and angels are immortal people. You're going to be an angel one day. Isn't that exciting?