Apostate Prophet Explains Catholicism

In the world of Islamic outreach, few people stand out more than David Wood and the Apostate Prophet (also known as simply "AP"). There are many great differences between these two, but recently, the gap has been slightly closed, as AP, an ex-Muslim himself, began his career as an atheist. However, following a trip to Israel, he confessed to becoming an agnostic, and now, in a final leap of faith, he has become a catechumen in an Eastern Orthodox church.

Naturally, the two have always been a controversial pair. Should a Christian really team up with an atheist, or even an agnostic? Following his conversion, the petty controversies shifted. Rather than "David, why are you working with an atheist?", people now complain that he is working with an Orthodox.

David's response is generally quite wise. He doesn't often speak about what he doesn't know, but also he doesn't tend to let divisions become distracting. Considering this attitude, I was pleasantly surprised by this clip from a recent livestream "SHOULD WE TRUST THE NEW POPE?", which was streamed on YouTube on May 12th 2025.

"SHOULD WE TRUST THE NEW POPE?" - 5/12/25

One of the most brilliant aspects of this iconic duo is the way in which they can poke fun at one another without getting remotely offended. But in this particular clip, David Wood shows himself to be both reasonably knowledgeable about the issue, and even in the sarcasm, perfectly capable of demolishing Rome and the East's claims to authority. I was particularly blown away when AP claimed "the Church still has authority and the Church is the one that provided the Bible and so on...", and David responded, very simply, "which Church?"

And that's an excellent point, which David continues to ask and expound upon throughout the clip. You've got two "Apostolic" Churches, both born out of the same schism, both claiming to have authority and excommunicating each other, and their arguments ultimately come down to, as David says, "trust me bro". Meanwhile, "Protestants" come later, yet we have the stronger case, because we're relying on the Bible. You'll notice AP ends up doing this himself. He goes back to Matthew 16:18, where Jesus supposedly grounds His Church on Peter. This is both deeply ironic, and ultimately circular.

It's ironic, because if we roll with this interpretation, the Eastern Orthodox are in the same state of rebellion as the Protestants, because they are rebelling against Peter's supposed successor. Yet, ironically, the Orthodox have some very powerful historical arguments to prove, indisputably, that the Papacy is an evolving doctrine.

The problem is they don't take that far enough, because the truth is, unless we accept the very authority under dispute, we don't have to roll with this particular interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Many Church "Fathers", including "Doctors of the Church" (like Augustine) rejected the interpretation that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16:18, either from the beginning, or later on in life. And this makes sense, because aside from the fact the Papacy hadn't evolved yet, the Church "Fathers" relied very heavily on the Bible.

But of course, AP makes the common claim that the Catholic Church, in his words, "provided the Bible". "Where'd you get that Bible?", he asks. Well, here's the thing: "God" is a legitimate answer to that question. According to the Apostle Paul, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17). And according to "Pope" Peter "And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 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." (1 Peter 2:19-21).

These are just two places in which the Holy Scriptures are confirmed to be a direct product of God Himself, to which we had better pay attention. This creates what I like to call the Islamic Dilemma. No, wait, sorry, that's one of David Wood and AP's more powerful arguments against Islam. But it presents the identical problem.

See, the Islamic dilemma rests on two vital facts:

1. The Qur'an affirms the Bible as inspired, preserved, and authoritative Scriptures.

2. The Qur'an contradicts the plain teachings of the Bible.

The result is that Islam cannot be true whether the Bible is the inspired word of God or not. If it is the word of God, Islam is false, because it conflicts with the word of God. If it is not the word of God, Islam is false, because it affirms, as the word of God, that which is not the word of God. There is no possible scenario in which Islam can be true.

In the same way, Rome and the East both affirm the Bible as the inspired word of the Living God. This is to the extent that when debating "Protestants" (a term I utterly reject for myself, because I do not grant Rome or the East the credibility of defining my beliefs in relation to theirs), they claim to have produced it. Yet, it contradicts these same Scriptures so frequently that the only way to circumvent them is to claim authority! This is circular, because if I do not presume the authority of Rome or the East, I am free to treat the Bible like the book it is. That is, I can treat the Bible in exactly the way AP treats the Qur'an, or the way the Bereans treated the Bible when Paul brought them the Gospel (Acts 17:10-12).

But when we are good Bereans and search the Scriptures daily to see if Rome or the East are true (v11), we find many things which are, at best, entirely absent from the word of God (to which He forbids us to add in several places), and at worst, in direct conflict with it. Thus, Rome and the East face the identical dilemma, with an added prong.

See, currently, Rome and the East do affirm Scripture. They affirm false Scriptures too, but they do affirm the true Scriptures. Therefore, if the Scriptures are the word of God, Catholicism is false, because it conflicts with the true word of God. By contrast, if the Scriptures are not the word of God, Catholicism is false, because it affirms as Scripture that which is not Scripture.

But unlike Muslims, who are locked in to affirming the Bible by Muhammad, Rome and the East have another way out. If, as they claim, they are the authority by which Scripture is canonised, they can as easily decanonise Scripture. Both claims should be unthinkable to anyone who recognises Scripture as "God breathed", but we're rolling with the Catholic view. Here's the problem: The moment you depart from Scripture as the word of God, you depart from the very Apostles upon whom you claim your authority is based! If Paul says all Scripture is God breathed, then you come along and tell me "no it isn't", how am I then supposed to take you seriously when you claim Paul as a founding figure in your religion? And if Peter claims men of God wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, what am I supposed to make of you if, in direct contrast to him, you claim the right to determine whether or not this particular document should be heeded as a light in a dark place?

AP would later ask, in the same livestream, then why did Paul directly appoint bishops? To which I simply ask in return, why did he warn those same bishops that "I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them"? (Acts 20:29-30). As David pointed out in the clip, we need a standard by which we can determine whether or not even our teachers - even Paul himself, much less those who came after his "departure" - are actually sticking to the truth.

So what is there? You have the standard of "trust me bro", which will never be sufficient for any thinking man. You have the standards of the Church "Fathers", but if we're being honest, that's another "trust me bro", yet not even the bros who cite them actually trust them unless it's convenient. But there is a thing we can all agree on: The "God-breathed" Scriptures. The 66 books of the "Protestant" canon are all affirmed to be a direct product of the Holy Trinity, penned by prophet and Apostle under His unimpeachable authority. No one, not even the Apostles, or an angel from Heaven (see Galatians 1:8-10), has any kind of a right to stand up against Scripture. To go against Scripture is to go against God, and the messengers He moved to write them, as surely as if those messengers, or God Himself, stood before us and spoke the words aloud.

And that is perhaps the greatest irony of the whole Catholic issue. As the Pharisees falsely swore by Moses, Catholics falsely swear by Apostles. As the Pharisees held to tradition over Scripture, Catholics lay aside Scripture that they may hold to their tradition. As the Pharisees sat in Moses' seat, Catholics claim to sit in Peter's, and yet, when we attempt to open Peter's epistles, Catholics bind the book with metal chains, burying the keys in Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and so on.

Here's the greatest irony. Even back in his atheist days, AP wielded the sword of God as effectively as any Christian. I may well be wrong, but never once do I remember him citing tradition over Scripture. Like many Catholics, he has neither qualm, nor deficiency in skill, of using Scripture when Scripture actually supports him. For example, I vaguely remember him striking down infamous Neo Nazi, Nick Fuentes, using a small portion from the book of Romans. Similarly, in a recent debate on whether Christians should be Zionists, he appealed to Scripture, and was flabberghasted when his opponent kept scoffing at him for believing in "magic Jew blood".

Overall, I was impressed with this clip. I do actually wonder if David is employing a strategy he is known to promote when it comes to sharing unpleasant truths with pleasant Muslims. AP is, undeniably, a pleasant character, and personally, I would hate to debate him, simply because if he told me he took comfort from knowing the sky was green, I would feel like a jerk for telling him it is blue. So, maybe David is trying to be gentle, framing the objection as a question, to which AP obviously had no answer. And there is no answer. There is no claim the Eastern Orthodox Church can make that the Roman Church cannot also make. And both are wrong in light of the simple fact that every word of Scripture comes not from any Church, but from the God to whom every knee will one day bow.

One thing I would love to see is a live stream in which David Wood and AP discuss these issues with Anthony Rogers. Rogers is to Catholics what David Wood and AP are to Muslims. He has a very particular set of skills, which causes Catholic apologists to back out of debates using Muhammad Hijab level absurdities. I have never had the pleasure of catching David Wood and AP live, but this is certainly one I would make extra effort to attend. In the meantime, I offer my blessings to David Wood as he fights for the faith, to AP as he joins it, and to Rome and the East in the hope and prayer that one day, we will all unite under the Name on all of our lips: Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God. Amen.

AI usage

No AI was used in the production of this article.