@@buurmeisje You say she never sinned, when the Mary herself said I rejoice in God my Saviour, why can you not accept what the Word of God says instead of trying to change it to suit your theology.
@@buurmeisje Why do you make images of her and pray to her when the Bible says we are only to pray to God, through Jesus Christ who is the One Mediator between God and men.
Hey Gavin, Idk if u will see this or not. But, You have made me stronger in my faith in Christ as a Protestant and helped me understand Protestantism better and a good and charitable way of how to counter challenging questions. Glory to God & God bless you and your family and your ministry
@Classical_Catholic If it were the case the Roman Catholic "emphasis on big C" church were the one true church, it's a shame that there is no explicit evidence this is the case within Church history. I think it's possible the Roman Catholic church may have more correct ideas than other denominations (I'm not qualified to argue either way), but I don't see how that leads to it being the one true Church.
Last summer I was invited by my coworker/friend to go to Catholic mass with his family. It set off an inner struggle I’ve been having ever since. I can’t help but think this so forgive me if it sounds misogynistic. As I sat there and listened to the Catholic sermon and all of the ceremonial proceedings they do, I was looking around at everything on the wall. Detailed wooden depictions of Jesus’s crucifixion in steps. When I was younger I thought it was terrible that they had those. Now I’m older, I’ve been through a few things, medical issues, difficult jobs, long hours without seeing my family so I can provide a comfortable life for them, among other typical things that guys experience as they grow out of being a naive young man. Those wooden depictions hit me differently now. They reminded me of what Jesus did for us, and the suffering and sacrifice He went through, not by hearing a preacher talk about it but forced right in my face, unable to be ignored. In the windows were stained glass saints and martyrs, one said “St. Ebba” who I looked up afterwards and read her story. It’s pretty gruesome. It was like being surrounded by reminders of what this faith was built on, how it persevered to this day and got to me over 1000 years later. The fearlessness of those who pushed it forward, all the way back to Jesus. I got this feeling like I’m almost not worthy to even participate, and the things I go through are meaningless and trivial in the face of the sacrifice that surrounded me. It also made me proud and feel a sense of strength and put the fight back into me. The priest gave a sermon and it was sober, calming. He didn’t try to rile up anyone’s emotions. He just calmly shared a piece of wisdom gleamed from the scripture they were on that week with a story about someone in his congregation at his previous church. …then the next week I went back to my home church. Everything felt cheap and way too happy. Vinyl walls and stage lights. It’s a place where you aren’t sure if you’re going to see a concert or a church service until they start talking. Music that I used to find soothing and nice, I feel bad for saying it but it felt lame. My pastor starts talking and I couldn’t help but resent the way he was carrying himself. He speaks with this big giant smile the whole time and he talks to the congregation like someone talks to a kindergarten class. It wasn’t 2 minutes in before he started getting all emotional from his own sermon. I sort of realized at that moment, this isn’t designed for me it’s designed for women. He’s trying to rile up women’s emotions and I see it happen every week now. All the women are hook line and sinker going along with this guy and it’s always some lightly scripture based self help reassurance speech. Nothing reminded me of the sacrifice that built the faith. It’s all way too overly happy. Instead of feeling unworthy to be there, that day I started feeling like these services shouldnt be co-opting Jesus to give weekly motivational affirmations. Although I still have issues with Catholicism and my roots and community and family are all a part of my church, these feelings haven’t subsided. I feel distant from it every week. It always feels artificial. I actually think more about sitting in that uncomfortable wooden bench looking at those depictions and the saints, what I felt in that moment, all the time since the summer. I can’t even remember my pastors sermon on Monday. It felt like that Catholic Church was made to speak to the man in me, and there’s something just feminine about my church that I can’t unsee or unfeel.
I go to a beautiful protestant church. Spirit filled. Zero need for fancy buildings or statues or dolls. Zero "femine energy". The main focus is a strong relationship with God. I love my pastors beautiful sermons😊 God bless! May you find a bible based church that is biblically sound and not focused on things outside of strong relationship with God 😊
It's amazing how the Holy Spirit can touch us differently. I had the exact opposite feeling going to a Catholic mass. I felt it was just going through the motions, that there was no Spirit movement at all. I've talked to many Catholics that definitely pray and venerate Mary and almost treat Jesus as almost second fiddle to Mary. I've been to certain protestant churches where I amazingly felt the Holy Spirit move freely and people on fire for Jesus. Not just going through the same motions every Sunday mass. Now, I'm talking about how I felt. Others might feel differently. I definitely believe there are Catholics that are saved, just as I believe there are "protestants" that think they are but aren't. I have many doctrinal issues with Catholicism, but I also believe many differences are non salvational.
An extremely beautiful comment, and it resonates with me completely. I went to Rome on a trip with my Dad, and the beauty of every single church was astounding. We would be ambling down backstreets and coincidentally finding these huge churches with carvings and inscriptions that moved me spiritually every single time. The tour of the Vatican was the coolest, as there was history everywhere. The feelings you describe of unworthiness I relate to completely; reading this comment literally felt like you had been spying on my thoughts. I also share the exact same views about charlatan protestant preachers, and i think your point about masculinity and femininity is genuinely true. My corny twist is that all of this makes me prouder to be a protestant, and I think Gavin embodies this so beautifully as a scholar and with his youtube ministry endeavour: “assurance in the gospel”. Gavin’s (and mine) thesis is this: we feel like that because its true for those specific churches. But that type of corny evangelical-type protestantism is not equivalent to, nor representative to, protestantism as a whole. Gavin has truly helped me see that protestantism has a claim to the historical base of the lowercase c catholic church. protestantism is a branch, not a separate movement like mormonism or something. the reformers veered off from capital C Catholicism the exact same way that Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy did, it just happened much layer and with very different (and bigger) disagreements. Gavin’s point is that protestants can have our cake and eat it too. You say you have issues with Catholicism doctrinally, which is an epistemically valid reason not to be in the Catholic church. But as a Christian that just so happens to have taken the route of protestantism, you are a part of the tradition of saints and martyrs, and your (our) feelings of deep resonance with older traditions, whether it be Catholicism or Orthodoxy, are valid. In my opinion, you should be part of a tradition that you agree with from both a doctrinal and historical perspective. For me I think that the evidence is just so much more in favour of protestantism as a religious movement, distinct from some of the modern day churches. My advice to you would be this: try other churches, and try other traditions, and leave protestantism if you feel compelled by the Catholic or Orthodox arguments. But you can still partake in the Christian tradition. For me, I have been lucky enough to travel lots and have good christian friends literally all over the world. certainly in every continent. most of them are protestant, and their churches completely lack the femininity problems that you talk about. It is the American/British lens on protestantism that is the problem. For me, I attend a Caribbean (Trinidadian specifically) church for the reasons I lay out. Their culture towards Christianity just doesn’t have these problems. Don’t get me wrong, money grabbing is a huge problem in the Caribbean protestant church, but that’s just the Caribbean spin on the fundamental issue of weak protestantism that your comment so skilfully picks out. I didn’t like the feel of those churches, but I could tell whether the pastor was good or not. This will (hopefully) be the crescendo of my argument, as I think all this ecclesiastical philosophy HAS to be rooted in scripture. When this clicked for me, my agonising longing for older churches was stopped instantly. I think Jesus explicitly affirms this. When he speaks to the pharisees, he speaks to those fake preachy pastors who run a church as a job and a business. A couple of specific themes of his dialogue with the pharisaical tradition are relevant for me: judging by fruits, and watching out for wolves in sheep’s clothing. There are a bunch of different verses that I could quote, particularly from Matthew and John, but my favourite is the last verse from the sermon on the mount, Matt 7:15 (if I remember the verse number correctly. The wolves masquerading as sheep message is just as valid for that type of protestantism as it is for the type of Catholicism that triggered the reformation in the first place: scamming the public through methods like their abuse of indulgences, which both protestants and Catholics agree was wrong. Even though the fake protestant spin is milder, the message is still as valid. And that means that Jesus’ repeated instructions to avoid wolves in sheep’s clothing (echoed particularly in 1 Peter and 1 John) is my litmus test for specific churches as a follower of Jesus. This is designed to be combined with the more philosophical/epistemological endeavour of choosing a tradition. The other message is more easy to apply in the real world when judging pastors (or whatever the main elder is called in the tradition you are currently exploring). Read Matthew 7:17-23. Jesus is commanding me to judge religious teachers by their fruits, in a way that so effortlessly and effectively weeds out charlatan pastors. Benny Hinn will be my example. If you haven’t heard of him, I would highly suggest watching Mike Winger’s first couple of long exposés on Benny Hinn. They were so good he is currently getting sued because Benny feels scared by having his true self exposed on the internet. I would suggest watching more of both Mike Winger and Gavin Ortlund’s stuff on the protestant defense, as they provide different but important angles that I am attempting to combine in this response. Benny works fake miracles, makes fake prophecies, and teaches fake theology, purely to get money and to be rich. It is an obvious fact. Clearly, his fruit are bad. According to my Lord and Saviour, that is the end of the discussion. Simple. No need to think about his truth claims, Jesus’ litmus test comes first. I really think this approach can serve as a genuine rule of faith. I don’t care whether you stay protestant as I have, but I at least hope that my kind of embarrassingly long reply has given you some epistemic food for thought. My only other advice would be to keep on watching Gavin’s stuff on this issue. He is a noble scholar who captures and exemplifies this point better than I could hope to. I don’t know your name, but above all, aside from any church or any tradition or any truth claim, I pray that your personal relationship with the beautifully triune God flourishes. That is true Christianity. I shall end with one of my favourite verses that makes me feel honoured to be a Christian in the same way that my Rome trip did. The ESV translates 1 Peter 4:16 as “Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.” This is the profound truth that calmed the sea of my denominational discomfort. I am a Christian, a follow of Christ, wayyyyy above anything else, in literally every facet of my life. The NLT is much more playful, with a cuter translation that captures the message perfectly: “But it is no shame to suffer for being a Christian. Praise God for the privilege of being called by his name!” Sorry for the rambly nature of this comment, I’m writing it kind of for myself so I can only apologise if I don’t make myself clear at times. God bless you and your journey with him. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Until your videos I had been a very naive Christian. 50 years old and not even knowing why I go to a Protestant church. I have been quite black and white in my thinking concerning other traditions and just uninterested in learning more…until now! Thank you for what you are doing for people like myself.
That is what the Bible says we should be, we are either for Jesus or against Him there is no middle ground. Roman Catholics do not believe the pure Word of God but add to which God forbids. Choose you this day whom ye will serve.
@@jensonharris3636 Well the pope says there are many ways to God, Jesus says He is the only way. So you cannot choose middle ground, who do you believe, Jesus or the pope.
I taught in Poland at a Bible conference for college students and Cru staff. I met many born-again Roman Catholics. I remain a small c catholic Protestant, but I am dismayed by the caricatures too many fellow Protestants have of all Roman Catholics. Like Protestantism, Roman Catholicism is hardly a monolith.
By good I’m assuming you mean consistent. If so, that gets to a tricky question about what doctrines count and what doctrines allow for a variety of interpretations. For example, we Protestants may hold that imputed righteousness is synonymous with a proper view of salvation but many Protestants of a non-Reformed stripe wouldn’t agree with that.
@@MOOREENGAGINGread the CCOC. That’s has the vast amount of official teachings and doctrines of the Church. It is pretty exhaustive. That’s the interpretation of the faith.
@@hc7385that’s just stupid. With Catholics you wouldn’t even have a Bible much less Christianity. It was Catholic Christians who defended the faith for over 1500 years and was almost snuffed out due to Islamic colonialism and multiple heresies.
@@catholicguy1073 I actually started doing a methodical study of the Catechism. I have read several parts in the past but am now going through the whole of it. I was raised in a conservative, Catholic home and attended Catholic schools up to college. Per the comment of my Protestant brother, I do find it confusing as to what doctrines count. Some Roman Catholics see the Catechism of the Catholic Church as binding on the consciences of Catholics, but I've talked to many who don't. And some of these are earnest believers. They can't be dismissed as fringe or non-committed to the Catholic church. Furthermore, I have had friendly conversations with Roman Catholic theologians where they admitted that maybe 10% of Roman Catholics have read the Catechism. I'm hardly casting aspersions here. Many "Bible-believing" Protestants have never read the Bible once. What I am underscoring is how challenging it is to have the kind of conversation where the real feet on the ground complexity is addressed. Gavin does a terrific job in that regard which is why he gets criticism from all corners!
Thank you, Dr Ortlund! I'm a Catholic seminarian and I think you're Christian, too! I appreciate your honesty and charity. God bless you and have a merry Christmas!
As a Protestant, I just want to say what a charitable, unifying call to Christian brotherhood! Your videos have given me a deeper level of respect for the historical knowledge rooted in Protestantism, while loving our non-Protestant brothers and sisters. Keep up this good work! God Bless ✝️
Yes I’m so thankful that this Protestant Pastor has declared Catholics Christian.I don’t know what I’d do if he hadn’t.Catholics who belong to the Church established by Jesus are OK according to a Protestant ?
Wow! In 15 minutes you articulate an answer to a question I have wrestled with so long! Your defenses of Protestantism are such a breath of fresh air in our low-church, ahistorical age of evangelicalism. Keep up the good work!
Whatever our differences, my protestant friends, I hope we can all agree that ''but I DESTROYED Gavin Ortlund online ..'' is not a winner when we have to give an account of ourselves to God.
Gavin, As a Catholic convert, I really enjoy your videos. The sacraments and church history are what drew me to Catholicism. Thank you for your charity.
A fair number of Lutherans and Anglicans practice private confession and absolution; Martin Luther and Philipp Melanchthon actually counted the absolution among the sacraments in the Lutheran Confessions.
For Confession which is a Sacrament you need Holy Orders which is bestowed upon a Priest of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church.”What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven “ To Peter.
Hi Gavin! Thank you so much for this message, im a protestant myself and for a bit i was damning Catholics and Orthodox but recently i started to repent of that, and i actually fell under the "Well you can be Christian under the Papacy if you don't understand the doctrine" But now i can put this to rest. Glory to God :)
I was a roman catholic my entire life. Since 2012 I've been Roman Catholic apologist and have close communication with Robert Sungenis and John Salza. I've met both in person and read their books. But as of November 1st I've become a presbyterian.
I think you didn’t choose the best mentors. Sungenis has a fake doctorate and believes in geocentrism. I think you should reevaluate your understanding of Catholicism.
I watched your video, including the section on justification. Honest question, how can the rejection of Sola Fide not be a damnable error? Isn't faith in the Gospel alone central to the definition of being a Christian (Eph. 2:8, Rom. 3:28, Gal. 2:16, Titus 3:5)? I know Romans Catholics believe in having faith in the Gospel, but don't they in practice nullify this belief by adding other merits to salvation besides faith? If Catholics do believe in faith alone than why does the council of Trent anathematize faith alone which is still binding to this day?
Really well put, and Galatians for me just cements it. Paul is not allowing for wiggle room for salvation to be with Christ plus works, he is saying that if you add on works to Christ, that you are denying Christ, in essence saying Christ is insufficient, and if you do that you will lose Christ and be judged only on your works; and as such, you are without hope, for all have fallen short of the glory of God. Christ Alone by Faith Alone is the Gospel.
The Council of Trent anathematizes one specific understanding of faith alone, T that being that we merely have to have intellectual assent to the truth of the Gospel to be saved. But as James tells us, even the demons believe and they shudder. The kind of faith that does actually save is faith working through love, as Paul says in Galatians. Hope this helps!
It is a dmanable error. Rome can never repent of it either; otherwise it would undo it's claim to infallible ecclesiastical authority as the one "true" church. Rome didn't spill protestant blood back in the day just because of some nuanced error, but as Jesus stated they will kill youi thinking they are serving God. If Rome is a true church; us protestants are not.
Former Catholic here: I mostly agree with what you're saying and think Ortlund is mostly wrong. That said, people's heart is not always where their intellectual understanding of doctrine is. This actually works for better as well as worse. You know how you can have someone who affirms the gospel but hasn't really trusted in Jesus for their salvation? That actually happens in reverse too.
@@AnthonyBruns Not so. These are only a few. Any sola fide is excluded. "Canon ix. If any one shall say, that by faith alone the impious is justified; so as to mean that nothing else is required to co-operate in order unto the obtaining the grace of justification, and that it is not in any respect necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema." "Canon xi. If any one shall say, that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, by which we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema." "Canon xii. If any one shall say, that justifying faith is nought else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or that it is this confidence alone by which we are justified; let him be anathema."
As a confessional, Reformed Protestant I pursue preaching of the true gospel and right celebration of the sacraments. Of all Christians, Protestants should be the first to defend and affirm that salvation is of God and God alone, and that we are not saved by our doctrinal positions. Yes, I firmly defend the gospel of justification by grace through faith, alone. But I cannot know who is among God’s elect. There are great errors in the church and there are apostates, in all denominations. Some are so filled with such that the teachings of that denomination are not Christian, but that does not mean that I can know that there is not a believer in their midst.
It also does not mean you assume a person is a Christian. As and elder and shepherd in my church, I don't make judgements about who is and is not saved. Instead I try to lead them in trusting in Christ alone and tell them to abandon any attempts to make themselves righteous before God. At the same time, I tell them that if they have been born of God, then they will grow in love for God and practice righteousness as a result. If a person persistently refuses to accept the truth regarding Christ, their sinfulness, and the means of their salvation according to the clear teaching of Scripture, I cannot in good conscience help assure them of their salvation. No, we are not saved by our doctrinal positions, but we are not saved apart from them either. Listen to what Jesus says to the Jews in John 8:24, "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.”
There are over 2,600 doctrines of Christ in the Catholic Catechism that covers all angles most think of, but they are there to ensure our full understanding of Who Christ is.
The challenging thing for me is this... 4:35 - "Who wants to restrict salvation more than we absolutely have to, right?" Yeah, but that's not really up to us is it? “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. - Matthew 7:13-14 Surely there are some doctrinal lines which must be drawn, but the hard part has always been that not all of the right lines are necessarily doctrinal. It may not matter all that much that some do not understand their faith as well as others. Perhaps they can still live it out just as faithfully, or even moreso. Being excessively doctrinal and traditional can even sometimes cloud our own faith. This is one of the great lessons of Scripture in fact. On the other hand, we know that there are lines, and that some must necessarily be purged from among us. This is why it's so important to raise up good spiritual leaders, and rebuke bad ones in the presence of all.
Purge? Who gave you the authority to purge anyone from anything? You have no authority to draw lines. My Holy Spirit is just as infallible as yours, and I disagree with the way you're interpreting both Scriptures. What gives you the right to interpret the Scriptures in such an erroneous way that is clearly not in line with the Spirit? If it were from the Holy Spirit, my Spirit would comport with it. Since it doesn't, it's clearly not from the Spirit. Come to think of it, this kind of argumentation you applied here seems a little self-serving. Wouldn't it be appropriate for you, in Christian humility, to recuse yourself and purge your divisive spirit from among us?
The CCC says in #88 that a Catholic is required (irrevocably obliged) to adhere to the official dogmas of the church. Consider the wording of the dogmas themselves. Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception: "... We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, *_must be_** firmly and constantly believed **_by all_** the faithful"* (DS 2803). When Pius XII declared the dogma of the Assumption, he included this warning as a part of the decree: “Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith....let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” Can you now see that the dogmas make belief in them a salvific issue? How is this not a legalism? By adding salvific requirements to the original Gospel, the Catholic Church is making it _more difficult_ for people to be saved than Jesus and the Apostles intended it to be. Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- Gal 1:7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (i.e., anathema) The specific salvific requirement added by the false teachers in Galatia was: you must also be circumcised. However, we can see from the warning in Chapter 1 that any addition to the original Gospel (of Christ crucified for our redemption and of salvation through firm belief in Him) is to be rejected and condemned. Thus the specific example flows to the general proposition, that whenever anyone claims that some legalism is a salvific requirement, _their claim must be rejected_ because it contradicts and conflicts with the pure Gospel which Jesus and the Apostles communicated to us.
@@sample479 Literally God gave us that authority. He commands us to do it in fact. He didn't give it to me alone, He gave it to His church. Which contrary to the pride of Rome, is all those who worship Him in spirit and truth. You seem to have placed yourself, independently and self-satisfactorily at the peak of all spiritual authority in your life, which is the height of pride. It's essentially the exact same thing the Papacy has done, you've just done it all unto yourself. If you think that you alone possess such perfect spiritual discernment as to always know and understand the will of God through the Holy Spirit, perfectly and inerrantly unto yourself, with no need for membership within the body of Christ, or spiritual correction from your brethren. Then you are not following Christ my friend, you are literally following Satan. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” - 1 Corinthians 5:12-13
@@rexlion4510 also Rome insists baptism saves. the teach it brings about regeneration and forgives sin. They insist upon attending mass & the Eucharist as they save as well. They insist on penance to pay for your own sin And confession to a priest They insist on works to help save and undermine the power of Christ to save completely. They insist you have to go to purgatory to work off all sin so as to mark yourself righteous enough to be accepted by God …… self righteousness. The teach that you can receive merits from other saints from the treasury of merits - more or less saying the merits of Christ are not enough. Surely all of this falls under Paul’s description of adding to the Gospel and subtracting from it and would be condemned by Paul and make the Gospel null and void and Christ of no value? Then its all the other teaching in praying to Many and looking to other patron saints for help -= superstition - apparitions etc. there is just so much that is wrong and and unbiblical - how can there be unity between them and Protestants? I really hope Gavin is not going to too far down the ecumenical path. I agree we shouldn’t be hateful in our comments - but we have to bring truth to bear in these discussions - we need to try and use Scripture to bring correction as we are told do.
"Men may be really saved by that grace which doctrinally they do deny; and they may be justified by the imputation of that righteousness which in opinion they deny to be imputed." -John Owen
This understanding really changed the way I look at all my Brothers and Sisters in Christ across Christendom. I love you all and am happy to have found the classical protestant position. Thank you Gavin for this video and your book, it really gave me reconciliation and mended a lot of my anxieties.
The first time I came across the idea that Catholics aren't Christians was when I started watching American content, and it made no sense to me. I am a former Protestant and now a Catholic. 🇻🇦✝️
What is a Christian? One who follows Christ. What does it mean to follow Christ? To accept Him as your risen Lord and Saviour. How is He our Saviour? He died on the cross as a sacrifice that through His death our sins would be washed away once for all. Do RCs believe that through Jesus' sacrifice our sins were forgiven once for all? I hope some do, but there are concerns that many put their trust in the sacraments, or in the intercession of saints, or that they feel they need to re-sacrifice Jesus over and over again via the Eucharist instead of His sacrifice being sufficient once for all. The danger is that if you say Jesus is insufficient, you are doing what the Galatians were doing in Galatians 5; and Paul tells us that if they say something other than Christ is required, that Jesus will be of no use to them, and that they will be alienated from Jesus. That is why we worry about our RC and EO brothers and sisters. We are saved by Christ Alone by Grace Alone through Faith Alone. That is the Gospel.
@@HaggisOfDeath We don't re-sacrifice Christ, though, and also we believe we are saved by Christ alone, through grace. Comments like this are why some of us Catholics grew up thinking Protestants were not very intelligent.
@@lellachu1682 If that is the case then you are a Christian. That is wonderful. There are people who can be led astray by RC doctrines that teach you stuff like: 'if anyone say the impious is justified by faith alone let him be anathema' and 'each mass is offering the sacrifice of Jesus to the Father' and so on, though. We need to be on guard against those kinds of dangerous doctrines.
@@lellachu1682 I'm glad, but I'd also recommend you look up what mass is defined as, and what was said at the council of Trent. God bless you though, and I am glad that you are a believer!
@@HaggisOfDeath I’m not sure why you feel qualified to judge Catholics salvation when you don’t even understand our theology. It’s the height of arrogance.
I hope you do know your ministry has been fruitful Dr.Ortlund. I feel so inspired to contribute to God's greater design when I listen to your stuff, not just apologetics. I'm currently reading your theological retrieval book and it's very refreshing to my soul. I want to contribute to my generation spiritually in whatever way the Lord may will. May God bless you this upcoming holiday!
I'm a little more worried about the local ELCA or PCUSA congregation-- the one with the female pastor wearing a rainbow colored halloween costume every Sunday at 10 AM. The same ones RZ is worried about.
Fortunately by all metrics those churches are dying out. Heresy and apostasy and hatred of children and family does not make for a long-lasting movement.
Gavin, your videos are always spiritually rich and cause me to reflect. In such a fast paced world of constant distractions, your videos are a tremendous blessing to me. May the Lord protect and keep you!
We certainly would like the rampant heresy, rejection of biblical reality, over a thousand years of interpretation, and other corruption going on on protestantism to stop. But we're not even asking this question. Yes you're Christian, if barely.
There is really no common ground between us because even when the Roman Catholics use the same words we use they mean something different. Take the word GRACE - we say we are saved by the grace of God = we mean by His kindness toward us. His mercy and compassion towards us when we do not deserve anything but His wrath and judgement. That He is doing something for us we do not deserve! It is something He does from outside of us - His goodness towards us. His love towards us. Roman Catholicism sees grace as something infused in us by God. Something God places or infuses into us. We then have to work along with it. Hence the emphasis on works in the Catholic teaching. An academic or theologian could explain the difference better than me - sorry! This is not the only term where there are different meanings. There are many. We can only be united in truth- there is no unity without truth! Until they stop misinterpreting the Word of God - until they get rid of all their extra- biblical teaching and rites and rituals - we cannot affirm them. But let’s face it they think we are wrong! ☺ Not to say that God in His mercy and grace ( as the Bible teaches it) and sovereignty cannot reach out and snatch a Roman Catholic from ending up in hell. But I would say He does this in spite of the Roman church’s unbiblical teaching and the person’s unbiblical beliefs. The Holy Spirit will convict them of sin and lead them to the truth. As some ex- Catholics have confirmed on this very page in the comments. I am convinced He has done this for many Catholics over the years - the famous ones we know about are Luther and Calvin! I also believe that in a case like this the Holy Spirit would lead the person out of that church and unbiblical environment into a solid bible teaching Church where they can learn the truth of Scripture and mature and grow in their faith. But this is what God does for everyone He saves! There are many within the Protestant community who are not saved - not necessarily because they are not getting correct teaching but because they have just not believed as they should,! Only by God’s goodness and grace - from outside of us - can anyone believe the Gospel! Many are within the very excessive charismatic churches and are not saved either because of incorrect and unbiblical teaching. Surely God reaches out in His grace and saves them out of those false churches too! Those outside any church environment can be saved by God! He brings them into contact with the preaching of the Gospel by some means and as it is the power of God unto salvation - He opens their ears and eyes and removes the darkness and HE brings them into HIS glorious light! that is grace! He sets the prisoners free and leads them to a solid bible preaching Church. And this is my testimony - I was not a church goer at all! But Christ came to seek and to save the lost! And He does! He saved a wretch like me 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏 I could not - with a clear conscience - attend a Roman Catholic Church because of their unbiblical beliefs and teachings. I could not attend many of the mega charismatic churches either! I pray God will continue to to save Catholics out of that institution - There is unity in truth and in Christ - and Jesus knows where His sheep are - those who have been regenerated are in unity. Not necessarily unity within denominations. Truth cannot be sacrificed on the alter of false manmade unity and ecumenism . Or love. To love in a biblical way is to tell the truth so any may be saved Unfortunately there is a strong ecumenical movement afoot - and we need to be on our guard not to get swept up in it.
@marymeyer - And which non-Catholic unity are you speaking about? Is it the ones that believe infant baptism is salvific or the ones that do not? Or full immersion or not? Is it the Liberal Evangelical version or the Conservative Evangelical version? Could it be a Calvinist, Armenian, Anabaptist, or the Anglican viewpoint, maybe one of the Lutheran versions, ELCA), (LCMS), or (WELS) Dispensationalism, Antinomianism? Those that believe in woman ordinations or same sex marriages? Lord’s supper symbolic or sacramental? Belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity or not? The once saved always saved group or the not? Should women keep silent in church or speak and is this with or without their heads covered? Prosperity gospel true or not? Maybe Mormons, JWs, SDA’s, Christadelphians, or the Oneness Pentecostals position…as they ALL preach their “truth” from the same Bible also??? Surely you cannot think all these positions are acceptable. If not then which one is correct and why do you get to be the one to choose? Is yours the infallible one? If not then who really cares? Peace!!!
These types of questions: "Are Catholics Christians or Protestants Christians or Mormons Christians?" are misleading. A Christian is not defined by a label or by membership in a particular religious organization. A more meaningful question would be: "Is the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church Christian?" Or "can there be Christians among members of the Roman Catholic Church despite its teachings?"
@@HighKingTurgon You cannot tell whether someone is a Christian by belonging to a denomination, nor even by claiming to profess a set of doctrines. Being a Christian does not depend on that and is more than that. I am sure Mr. Ortlund agrees with me.
@hc7385 I imagine I know what you mean based on this response; however, I'll share my metric with you. You and Mr. Ortlund can take or leave it. A Christian is any person baptized with water in the name of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Any doctrine is Christian that affirms the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Simple, objective, requires no knowledge of the human heart.
1:08 Just a linguistics question here for anyone who knows: If the Institutes is written in Latin, and Latin has no articles, how can Calvin in this quote be emphasizing the definite article?
[ 4 2 12 1 ] Quum ergo Ecclesiae titulum non simpliciter volumus concedere Papistis, non ideo Ecclesias apud eos esse inficiamur: Google Translate rendering: Since, therefore, we do not wish to simply grant the title of Church to the Papists, let us not therefore deny that there are Churches among them. I think it's unclear here if Calvin thinks the Catholic Church can be called a church or not. It's less ambiguous in McNeil's translation.
Great explanation Gavin! We need more grace towards each other in the world and being able to speak to each other even when we have disagreements within the Church. God bless.
With all due respect brother, I greatly disagree with you and think that your view is going to cause more confusion and continue to allow the RCC to gain ground amongst Protestant/Evangelicals and keep them in the dark about genuine salvation. So, does the Bible teach that Jesus's sacrifice must be re-represented by a sacerdotal priest praying a prayer of consecration (along with a host of other perfunctory rites that must take place before the wine and wafer transubstantiate into the body and blood of Jesus) that all faithful Christians must partake in (the Sacrifice of the Mass) else be damned for not partaking in the sacrifice of Christ? I would argue that this is a Jesus foreign to the Scriptures and therefore any religion that adheres to it (i.e. the RCC) is under the anathema of Galatians 1:6-8. You seem to give very little Scripture to justify your position and rely heavily on what those who you believe to be our "theological betters" believed throughout history; I thought we were Sola Scriptura? It doesn't matter to me what people throughout the history of the church believed if it falls foul of Scripture; we should eat the meat and spit out the bones. Thanks for reading, and as always, with all due respect!
In your view, what specifically about Transubstantiation and the rites the priest performs makes them outside of Christianity for doing that. And is that on the same level of error truly that Paul is addressing in Galatians 1?
@@WilliamMorrison-rp6ws Can you demonstrate (without heavy reliance on a literal reading of John 6) the doctrine of Transubstantiation in the NT, and the penalty according to Rome (at least Rome's classical teaching) that those not taking the Eucharist are damned? The lack of a sacerdotal priesthood in the NT, coupled with the works-righteous salvation of Rome, and the applying of Aristotelian forms to the supposed sacrifice of the Mass foreign to the original authors and audience of the NT all seem to strongly indicate that this is a different Jesus, ergo a different Gospel, therefore anathema according to Galatians 1:6-8, IMHO.
@@WilliamMorrison-rp6ws Hebrews 10:1-18. Christ's sacrifice atoned for our sins, once for all. Not once for one sin, and then a second time when you sin again, and so on. We are told that: "For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." What Jesus has done for us is amazing, He is our Saviour, our most merciful God and King. To Him be the glory for all time. His work is finished though; it is not on-going, He has won the battle, He has paid our ransom. Glory be to Him!
glad you are calling this out. Rome leaves many in darkness with its entourage of rites and rituals which obscure the simplicity and purity of the gospel
I’ve been wrestling with these issues for a long time now, and every time I come to one of your videos about Roman Catholicism and its relation to Protestantism, things get clearer and clearer. I was hoping for this exact video, a short and down to the point answer as to wether I can see catholics as fellow Christians or not. Thank you so much, Gavin!
I grew up in a very sheltered reformed Baptist context. I'm now a reformed Baptist pastor, but it's only recently that I've really been searching out what it means to be Protestant. One thing I keep coming back to is that protestantism is ecumenical by definition. It's one of the primary characteristics of protestantism. So when I see all these splinter groups calling each other heretics or nearly so, it seems to me to be actually falling back into the error of Roman Catholicism. I've always heard it said that, " If someone gets saved in the Roman Catholic Church, God will lead them out of it" as if this is a promise God made; that all of his people will eventually make it to the church that teaches everything 100% true (I dare not say I get everything right in the pulpit all the time!) The church is above all marked by faith in Jesus Christ, the Jesus of Scripture, and a faith that above all produces love. One thing that struck me as I was preaching through Matthew 5 a couple years ago was the way Jesus compares calling our brothers " fools" to murder, and even worse than murder. "Fool" there doesn't mean "stupid", it means foolish in the things of God. It means unbelief. If we take this passage seriously, we should be very careful to ever act like we know for sure that someone isn't saved if they confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
@@TruthUnites Protestantism does not save only Jesus does, there will be many protestants in the lake of fire one day because they where never born again of the Spirit of God.
@@TruthUnites Dr. Ortlund, this is Steve Christie. I don’t know if you saw my other post, but I made a response video to you arguing that I don’t believe most Roman Catholics are Christians. I tagged your channel in my video, and I only responded because you welcomed people to respond to you in your video if they disagreed with you that Catholics are Christians. My video is not that long, and I do respond to the things you said in yours, and I did so with “gentleness and reference“ for you. ❤️
Thank you for that, I'm reformed and minister at a local abortion mill and most of my fellow prolife laborers are Catholics. I do believe some are saved based on shared spiritual experience and faith in Jesus. However I do struggle with their praying to Mary which is serious and dangerous. I'm still trying to figure this out.
Don't allow the gospel message to be diluted by man's traditions. The accumulation of man's traditions as it pertains to what salvation is and ultimate authority clearly nullifies Roman Catholicism as a faithful church. Maryology is just one example of the bad fruit coming out of the damnable heresies of the false of gospel of Rome and its false ultimate authority. I too labor to save babies at my local baby killing mill, and the Catholics who are so diligent in their Catholicism to a tee all deny any saving knowledge of Christ--all hope to go to heaven, not one says they know they are going there.
I can't smash the like button enough, Gavin. Thank you for explaining works within Catholic theology. We do not earn salvation through works. We believe in grace that brings us into God's kingdom and grace that sustains until we see Him face to face. Thank you for doing this video. God bless you, brother!
Thank you brother. As a Christian evangelical, I really appreciate when someone tries to be nuanced, precise and fair with doctrine and theology and not be simplistic. I try to do the same in my channel but in Spanish 😃. Blessing🎉
I had a conversation about this topic with a dear friend, and what it comes down to is this: Catholics didn't anathematize just a caricature of Protestantism that is today known as "cheap grace" or "easy believism." No, Catholics anathematized the correct doctrines of imputed righteousness and perseverance of the saints, and they correctly defined those doctrines at Trent when they anathematized them. It's not a misunderstanding. They bold-faced looked at the basis for forgiveness (imputed righteousness) and the relationship between works and forgiveness (perseverance of the saints), and then they said, "If you believe that, then you're anathema. You don't have valid ordinations. You don't have valid sacraments. You don't have valid churches. You aren't in the Kingdom." How can we partner with that? How can we think any progress in reconciliation can be made when Trent is hailed as an infallible council by Catholics? It's impossible. There's only one solution going forward: Catholics must renounce Trent. For those who want receipts, here are the quotes from Trent concerning imputed righteousness and perseverance of the saints: "If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Spirit, and is inherent in them, or even that the grace whereby we are justified is only the favor of God, let him be anathema.” Council of Trent, session 6, canon 11 "If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works, but that the said good works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof, let him be anathema.” Council of Trent, session 6, canon 24
A clarification: there's a big difference between teaching something wrong and anathematizing what is correct. An example: someone can be ignorant of essential foundations of the gospel (Trinity, original sin, virgin birth, miracles of Christ, etc.) and be a wonderful Christian. However, that's way different from anathematizing the basis for justification (imputed righteousness), the means of justification (faith alone), and the relationship between justification and works (perseverance of the saints). We rightly denounce KJV onlyists who are wrong about the translation of the Bible, yet make it a litmus test of fellowship. How much more should we denounce Catholics, who are wrong about *justification*, yet make it a litmus test of fellowship. They are the definition of factious in Titus 3:10, even after Vatican II, since they will consider Protestants to be anathema and lacking valid ordinations, sacraments, and churches.
Thank you for the direct quotes from Trent, they are indeed difficult to get around. I'm in a lot of Catholic circles right now - many friends who are Catholic, currently going through OCIA to learn and have conversations - and the only Catholics I meet who walk around like these anathemas are relevant and active are the ones who strictly attend the Traditional Latin Mass parish in my city. The majority of mainstream Catholics I encounter (even those leading my OCIA class) espouse beliefs that are effectively a very written out, visible, and literal understanding of the role works play in true faith and justification, as a reaction to easy believism. Modern Catholic thought effectively takes what's defined in Trent and pushes it as close to Sola Fide as one possibly can. And I would hope that this is all guided by the Holy Spirit and is a good result of the effect Protestantism continues to have as a renewal movement in the greater true church. The core issue seems to be that Catholicism has no real process for refining or renouncing beliefs that have previously been declared infallible. Vatican I set a lot of theology in stone. So, it seems many Catholics, including clergy, take the approach of simply quietly ignoring and de-emphasizing these anathemas (or at least, attempting to re-contextualize what the councils taught or what "anathema" means, differently than how they were written) with the expectation that future clarifications will reflect this perspective. There is still the perspective that Protestant churches don't quite have valid ordinations or sacraments, for sure - but at the same exact time, Protestants are still regarded as Christians and as part of the Kingdom by most of whom I interact with. Even the Rite of Welcoming is worded in such a way that recognizes baptized non-Catholic Christians as Christians. It's a funny contradiction which they are still exploring. I think as the Catholic church continues opening its arms to the Orthodox (especially in this upcoming year of Jubilee) and recognizing their valid Eucharist, they are stepping towards theology that also recognizes the presence of Protestant churches in the Kingdom of God as well. Keep praying for it, but we can have fellowship together one day.
Peter Kreeft says that when Protestants talk about salvation they're describing justification; when Catholics talk about salvation they're describing sanctification.
The problem I have Dr Ortlund is they make part of the gospel “the Mariam, “the papacy, baptismal, and meritorious works doctrines”. Does this not bring to bear Paul’s very own warning to the Galatians.
Obviously, many Catholics have no clue that this is the formal teaching of the Catholic Church. But I think if you tell people that you must believe the Mariam doctrines to be in union with Christ, you have perverted the gospel to the point that it is not a saving gospel
Paul’s warning in Galatians is about adding legalistic requirements (like circumcision) to the gospel, not addressing developments of gospel truths. Catholic doctrines such as the Marian teachings, the papacy, baptism, and works don’t contradict the gospel but flow from it and deepen our understanding of its implications. Marian doctrines highlight God’s grace and Mary’s role in salvation history without replacing Christ. The papacy exists to preserve unity and fidelity to the gospel, based on Christ’s commission to Peter (Matthew 16:18). Baptism, explicitly affirmed in Scripture (Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:27), is not a human work but a means of receiving God’s grace. Catholic teaching on good works emphasizes that they are the fruit of grace, as James 2:24 and Philippians 2:12-13 show, not a means to earn salvation apart from Christ. These teachings align with Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as upheld by the Church throughout history (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Paul’s message in Galatians is not undermined by Catholic teaching but fully embraced, as Catholic doctrines aim to point us back to Christ and His saving work.
So, if a man in Texas believes in Jesus, believes in the Trinity, BUT Says you are not saved unless you submit to him, saying that he is Christ on earth, are he and his followers Christians? NO
As someone who has transitioned from Roman Catholicism to Protestantism, I deeply resonate with your video. It’s disheartening to witness the anti-Catholic sentiments that exist in some Protestant circles, as they often overlook the rich historical context. I hold a great deal of respect for many devoted Roman Catholics, and I genuinely appreciate the positive impact they have had on my spiritual journey.
I hold respect for many RCs too, we can learn from many historic RCs, and even some today, and depending on the time periods RCs may not necessarily have had views that were too egregious. The fact remains that today there are a lot of doctrines that they hold which are not just not found in the Scriptures, some actively deny the Scriptures, such as them anathematizing anyone who says that we are saved by faith alone made at the council of Trent. I do believe that many RCs are trusting in the Lord and following Christ, and that while intellectually their faith may be deficient; in their hearts, they are loving and trusting servants of God: I do believe those brothers and sisters will be saved, but the danger is that official RC doctrine will, according to Paul, damn you. I think what Gavin has said here is EXTREMELY dangerous; in his pursuit of establishing good relations, he is comprising what the Bible teaches; any temporal peace made on Earth is not worth it if it comes at the cost of eternal destruction. We do not argue with RCs and EOs because we hate them; but because we are trying to save them! Or at least that is the desire of many, I'm sure there are some bad actors here and there, but passions are high because the stakes are the highest; it is not good to be 'nice' if you are damning your brother by refusing to tell him a harsh truth that he needs to hear!! Again, I will caveat that I'm sure there are RCs and EOs that are true believers; but many have not heard the Gospel, and because of a video like this some who might have, now might not. Very dangerous. Generally I love Gavin's work and have been recommending him to lots of people, the desire for peace is good; but this video goes too far.
Gavin, I’ve been watching some of these videos faceless TH-cam channels have been putting out criticizing your content. I appreciate the high standards you hold yourself to and I love learning from your work. The greater your influence becomes, the more the target on your back grows-and the more these snarky videos try to discredit and demean you. I’ve learned a lot about productive conversation from watching you carry yourself these last few years. It’s amazing how you’ve kept your sanity.
Catholic here great, balanced and honest video 👍 “It’s almost Christmas, which means it’s time for carols, hymns, and singing our praise for the Lord! Happy Advent!”
I've studied with Catholics for 5 years...they think I'm going to hell because I haven't received the Eucharist. I attend a Brethren church and we believe in bible inerrancy. How can I be saved according to the Bible and damned according to Rome...it's not the same faith. We've got to stop leaning into this ecumenical thinking. What protestants need to be leaning into is more reverence before Almighty God. Biblical apathy is leading unsaved people right into Rome's hands.
No Catholic would say you are damned. The Lord meets you where you are. Gavin's point in this video is brilliant we have disagreements but neither of us think it is damnable
I was super close to converting to Orthodoxy after learning a bit about church history and listening to Orthodox priests on TH-cam. Gavin you convinced me out of it after teaching what the reformation was about in the first place. I just bought What it Means to be Protestant and Theological Revival for Evangelicals. Looking forward to reading them!
As a Catholic, I can say that most Protestants are indeed Christians, and I'm sure most Catholics would agree. However, there are many Protestants who claim that Catholics are not Christians and aren't saved, either because we don't believe in *sola fide* or simply due to anti-Catholic bigotry. That said, if faith alone is sufficient for salvation, then most Catholics are saved.
@@anycyclopediaFrom what I recall this: it calls anyone who believes that faith alone saves is condemned. That those who do not believe that Church tradition are just as infallible as scripture are condemned. And not recognizing Mary as coredemtrix are not saved. That’s all of protestant Christianity.
I'm so glad you made this video John 17:20-23 My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one- 23 I in them and you in me-so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me
Yes please pray for me. I put a lot before Him and now feel cut and seriously out and cut. Poison and had a surgery due to sins and that jab. Please pray. For me. Out of this path. Twice baptized This was foolish
If a professing Christian does not have a testimony of regeneration, sanctification, repentance and evidence of a changed life with fruit of the Spirit..... they are not a real Christians regardless of the denomination. It's not worth having a converstation about doctrine or anything else if a person is not saved.
@@lukemacmillan4030 By your reasoning then, If every baptised person is born again, then every baptised person is saved. As only one who is born again will enter God’s Kingdom. So those who won’t enter it, calling Jesus Lord Lord, saying did we not do this and that in your name are only unbaptised Christians?
@@lukemacmillan4030no water don’t do anything. It’s exactly what we are trying to tell you. You can’t be born again by WATER sprinkling God has to supernaturally enter you. ❤
@danielpasula6860 no I didn't say that every baptised person is saved. I said every baptised person is born again. That's what baptism is being born again by the power of the Holy Spirit not by our own power. Then you made a very good and Catholic argument for why it is not tenable to be baptised, born again, and then not follow "my commandments." Also, why St. Paul says "we work out our salvation with fear and trembling." In other words if we don't respond to the grace given he will say, "I never knew you." Let's hope we persist to the end then yeah.
I believe for the sake of fulfilling curiosity, the only things that matter is precisely that: Belief in Christ and the Trinity. Outside of that, that isn't for you or I to decide. We all must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling before God.
Thank you, Ortlund as a former protestant now a part of the roman catholic church, I think its important for our protestant brothers to know that we are Christians and can stand united worshiping God.
Hi Gavin. Is the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) a christian church? The answer to this question is yes and no. With the reformers, we affirm that there are true churches within the RCC because God saves people without regard to church affiliation. We affirm that there are true believers in the RCC. Consequently, where the people of God meet, no matter how deficient their understanding are on true doctrines, they are the church of God even as they are affiliated with the RCC. But, if we will assess the full and complete core beliefs of the RCC, I would say that she has deviated significantly from the Scriptures. Meaning, anyone who consistently and fully accept the RCC gospel is endanger of losing salvation. I agree that there are a lot of commonalities such as the need of grace. However, the issue is not the necessity of grace but its sufficiency. Regardless of how we define the term “justification”, the RCC gospel outlines the road to salvation through its sacramentalism which necessitates the “cooperation” of the believer to gain and retain salvation. The ground of our acceptance is our moral transformation (by our cooperation) which includes full doctrinal fidelity to the church’s dogmas. Consequently, purgatory is necessary and the believer has to perform atonement for any remnant of sins (venial in nature) before being admitted to the fellowship of Christ. The living can “merit” on behalf of the soul in purgatory given there is no more merit that can be performed if one is in purgatory. Added to this, worship is centred on the mass as the “unbloody sacrifice of Christ” - a real sacrifice by the priest and which elements are the object of true worship. The whole sacramental system and worship is so far removed from the Scriptural truth that anyone who fully embraces this system consistently endangers his soul of rejecting the true gospel of Christ found in the Scriptures. This is where I say, the RCC assessed as whole has significantly deviated from Scriptures that its gospel is not “christian” - i.e. it will lead someone to damnation if fully and consistently followed.
Gavin, perhaps a clarifying question: are the canons of Trent addressing justification "damnable error" according to your understanding? I know you briefly mention them in the video, but it would help all of us if you could work through the statements and explain why you feel they are or are not.
Follow up for further clarification based upon your comments in the video: Do you believe that Augustine's view of justification was the same as that expressed in Trent? Honestly, it would be most helpful on this topic, and work to most clearly address concerns with your view if you would work through the canons and explain how they can be seen as non-damnable.
Perhaps Gavin might say otherwise, but given that the canons of Trent have not been "abrogated" and that Gavin discussed the errors he sees in Catholicism as not being "damnable error", it would seem that his answer to your question is liable to be "No".
Gavin, I just went back and searched your book. You do not explain this issue there either. You simply note the differences and move on. Please, please...If you actually want to produce clarity among brothers and address those concerned about your views, offer an explanation for how, specifically, the canons of Trent regarding justification do not constitute "damnable" error.
@@gardyloogubbins Hopefully you get a response, but I think you can find most if it addressed in his work on theological triage. Many of the actual disagreements are ones that he would say many Protestants also agree with the 'Catholic' position, but are matters that Christians can reach different conclusions on in good faith. As Gavin discussed in this video, once you get past differences in the use of the words 'justification and 'sanctification', most of the canons of Trent concerning justification are actually affirming areas of agreement. For example, Canon 3 addresses the concern that many have thinking that Catholics believe they need works to enter into a state of grace; the canon says that even the faith itself to enter into a state of grace is a gift from God, not something that one can achieve on their own.
I like how you illustrated your point with the case of Tolkien and Lewis. Two men I admire greatly, though of course I am partial to Tolkien as a Roman Catholic. I think there's a significant portion of your viewers that are Catholics, so I'm glad you've made a video like this.
When Catholics are saved by God - regenerated - then they should really leave the Catholic Church so as not to be submerged in all the wrong teachings. They need a fresh start with a solid Protestant church which is teaching God’ s word truthfully.
Yet, they do not believe it is by grace through faith alone. To claim otherwise would be dishonest. Someone cannot trust in Christ and Buddha for salvation and still be a Christian. Trusting in Mary and the Roman Church is not much different from trusting in Buddha; it is still idolatry.
That is the ironic thing, even though they do not believe in salvation by faith alone, they receive the benefit of that true theology if they believe. And correct, those Catholics who worship Mary are idolaters, but that is not all Catholics.
@@deadeyeridge Dyer nor Trenham are members of the True Orthodox. Dyer is Russian and Trenham is Antiochian. Irrespective, neither are a Patriarch or Bishop, which are the only two positions which have any authority over the issue. Being against ecumenism is unrelated to being against the possibility of the non-Orthodox being capable of receiving salvation.
From your other videos you clearly disagree with a lot of other Catholic dogmas. So I’m not going to address those. As far as “justification” goes in that particular verse, I have to dig further. However, just like how we don’t build our doctrine based on only one verse for anything else (homosexuality, trinity, e.g.) We don’t base salvation on that verse alone. I know you have a heart for Catholics, I do too. But we have to be real pragmatic about the essence of what Catholics believe. And that’s this…”Jesus sacrifice was not enough”. You have no choice to believe that if you subscribe to the Faith+Works model. I’m sorry friend but I think you’re wrong in this one.
It's sad that this video needs to be made. Too many people are more interested in Christianity being a team sport, than they are in worshipping and submitting to God. Glory to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God bless you all, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestants!
Sad yes but needed, as you do have you do have many anti-catholic protestants who think like this. The extreme case would be Protestant Pastor, Steve Anderson.
@Swiftninjatrev well you do pray to Mary thinking she was perfect and a virgin when the Bible says she needed a Saviour and mary had other children after Jesus was born.
@AndrewMcBride-p5n my brother, love your brothers and let God judge. You quote Matthew 7:14, but continue through 7:21, "he who does the will of my Father in heaven will enter". We are "taught by God to love one another" (1 Thessalonians 4:9), so let's try to "lean less on our own understanding" (Proverbs 3:5), and put our faith and trust into God, "He will make our paths straight" (Proverbs 3:6) ♥️
I grew up in the Catholic Church. My family went every week. I went to a very conservative Catholic school from K-10th grade. I Never heard the gospel. I did have a strong foundation in the Trinity and Catholic tradition as well as being very pro-life. But I remember walking into the church and thinking I could never be holy enough for God Because I knew I was a sinner. Long story short, I attended a Bible believing church in my 20’s and heard and accepted the gospel. (Learned about God’s grace and forgiveness.) I never looked back at the Catholic Church again.
Bad Catholics are good Christians, yet Catholic theology does not believe in faith alone through Christ alone. It is faith and works. Even going “underneath” these definitions the Catholic Church uses are not biblical. They even anathematized the gospel. Love you Ortlund but you are in error.
You are certainly welcome to believe and profess whatever you want to believe, there are plenty of differing beliefs in the world today based on the Bible, just pick one. But to glean this from the historically decidedly Catholic Trinitarian book is just plain frivolous… History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books, and ONLY the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 4th century, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself? Peace!!!
Fantastic video, Gavin. I have often wondered and still do regarding what consequences or ramifications there are from false doctrines that are not central and essential to the gospel. Paul instructed Timothy to reprove and rebuke false doctrine, and seems to imply that false doctrine can turn someone away from the truth. Having been deceived into following the Word of Faith teachings many years ago (for about ten years), I began to see that that teaching resulted in what I call the "self-centered Christian." I suspect that any false doctrine has some consequences or ramifications. I look forward to your future videos on confession and on justification. God Bless...
I’m thinking that it would be more helpful to substitute the word “regenerate” for your usage of “Christian” here; likely every single usage. To be “Christian” can mean to follow a form of Christianity. Of course, the entirety of the RCC is “Christian”, as is EO, as are Protestants, etc. But who among each group are individually “regenerate”, meaning have been made alive by the Holy Spirit through faith and are united to Christ? This is the real question. I know Gavin has the same meaning in mind, but it may be today that being (a) “Christian” has become defined sociologically and historically, and has become too broad to use to get at the intended meaning: do these adherents know Christ? Or, in the end, will they finally be “saved” and inherit eternal life?
It is difficult for me to consider a Catholic who understands the doctrine is a true believer because of the anathema pronounce upon protestant believers. We can't both be heretics worthy of damnation. One of us is correct?
it's the same analogy by saying the 7 churches in Revelation are legitimate but not all of them are model churches❤ my personal beliefs and assurance of salvation, for one, have counterparts to other churches but that does not mean everything is ok. that is why correcting each other in love is important and growing in grace and truth, because in the end of the day, not doing so does not nullify God's control. I believe Divine supremacy and sovereignity is foundational to church life.
My concern with this topic is that the Catholics that I have met that understand the Gospel yet affirm Catholic teachings are academics, clergy, or apologists. But having grown up in a Catholic culture the Gospel is so far removed from the faith that gets passed down to the lay Catholic. What I have seen is “live your life however you want, then come confess, go to mass, and repeat, or if something goes terribly wrong in your life, then you can take it more seriously while you heal and then go back to it.” That’s really hard for me to understand as faithful to the Gospel. A friend of mine is currently in a majority Catholic country in which he has come across the same thing.
You're exactly right? What good is a 'church' that can't properly catechize its members and can't communicate the Gospel clearly & effectively? The church of Rome is like salt that has lost its saltiness. Matt. 5:13. The church of Rome has added many extra salvific requirements via their dogmas, and it has effectively anathematized itself. Gal. 1:8-9. I am a former cradle Catholic and I love the dear Catholic people, but I have no use for the hierarchic institution.
Few are the saved. People missing a standard does not invalidate a standard nor act as motive of discredit. Sometimes people are healed through faith healing, sometimes they aren't. The examples of non-healing do not discredit the healing power of God. Even then, the average Protestant isn't exactly an amazing moral example either. Just instead of the sacraments, it's: sinner's prayer, cross necklace, pancake breakfast, OSAS.
@@Malygosbluesmy point was not that your average Protestant is morally superior to your average Catholic or that the saved are many in every Protestant church. People are morally corrupt and The Way is narrow. My concern is when the standard is missed because the standard (Gospel) has been removed from the teaching. It is far more likely to hear the Gospel preached in your average Protestant or Evangelical church than in a Catholic church. This is all anecdotal of course. But that the Gospel is preached more often doesn’t make more people saved. It’s not uncommon to meet people who hear the Gospel regularly but aren’t saved in Protestant churches. But the Gospel is preached nonetheless.
The “Catholic” Church today is not the “Catholic” Church of Lither’s time. I was a cradle “Catholic” for 34 years. I was Saved by God’s Grace after He drew me out of her, and I finally heard and received the Gospel.
@@saenttor Can be. There are plenty of Protestant churches that don't really teach repentance and placing trust in Jesus. Not to mention millions of people who hear the gospel but never believe it for years or even their life. But: the RCC doctrine *as a whole* denies the gospel.
What a fantastic early Christmas present this is!!! What a joy and relief to know that Protestant Gavin Ortlund considers silly, confused Catholics like me to be a Christian!!! Oh my this is incredible!!! Where would we be without the brilliant Protestants to show us the way and hold our hands and help us along. We are so lucky they consider us Christians!! Does this count for the first 1500 years of the church before Protestants existed? Were we Christians then too?
Catholics can be saved just as Protestants can be saved. Every group contains those who are saved by the truth of Jesus Christ and those who are false converts.
@ I would suggest that no one can be saved through Mary or the sacraments, as I suppose you would agree. What I am saying is that Catholics who trust in Christ alone as Saviour and Lord can be saved. There are certainly problems with Catholicism, but every person who claims to be Christian, whether Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox or otherwise, is not necessarily in full agreement with every other Christian. Catholics are not all idolaters, and you need to talk to each individual to understand their positions. I myself certainly disagree with my church in some small issues. In summary, I would say Catholics can be saved, but that is not to say that all Catholics are saved. I hope I communicated this well.
Roman Catholicism teaches that salvation is by God’s Grace ALONE. I used to think they weren’t Christians but I’m glad I’ve changed my view. There are many points of unity between us and them Edit: I’ve noticed this comment seems unclear to some. Yes, Catholics believe works play a role at some point in our salvation, but those works are done through God’s Grace. This is how they view Philippians 2:12-13 which states: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.” Also, explore what Catholics mean by “initial justification” and you’ll notice substantial similarities to the classical Protestant view. I’m not minimising our differences, just pointing out similarities.
As a person who has experienced both Churches, namely Protestant (Anglican by birth, Pentecostal in my young years, and now free Mennonite Church by relocation) and Catholic (by School), I know the differences and the crucial point is how is the gospel that brings peace, real spirtial peace with God is found ~ i agree with Dr. White, that Catholic gospel does not bring peace. The uncertainty is so gross that those who truely believed that Jesus saves to the uttermost seems out of place. Not to mention other disputes and false teachings that were added and allowed into the Church. I don't think things that displeases God but are stubbornly held tightly on and bound to a believers conscience help anyone to walk properly with the Lord.
@@drjanitor3747 you left out the second half of the verse! It says “for it is GOD who works in you to Will and to do what pleases HIM” So it is not saying we work out our salvation but are led to good works by God who works in us because we are already saved and our walk is not an easy one! We battle daily with sin. So we do not work for our salvation. We do not add to the salvation God has already granted us at the time of regeneration - which is all His work! So do not misrepresent or misinterpret scripture to suit the Roman Catholic teaching of self righteousness or helping God save us. He does it completely on His own. Read the Scriptures that teach works do not save you! “ You are saved by Grace by faith not by works and faith not of yourself but a gift of God”.
Amen Gavin. I agree with your comments & your approach. Online heresy hunters & theological bullies have brought shame to the body of Christ. (I am convicted about some of my own past behavior.)
Could those Israelites who worshipped the golden calves which Jeroboam set up in Bethel and Dan, which were said to be the gods that brought Israel up out of the land of Egypt, be called true Israelites? The fact that someone woships YHWH according to his own traditions does not make him a true worshipper of YHWH, nor does the fact that someone claims Christ as Lord make him a true Christian.
False. Catholics believe we are saved by grace. I've never heard of "works righteousness." Are you referring to Ephesians 2:10, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them"?
Can someone tell me what is meant at 5:20 , "circumcision is still valid" ? Valid in what sense and what effect? Edit: And to be clear, I'm asking what is Dr. Ortlund's meaning here.
I understood him to mean that circumcision was still a valid sign of God choosing Israel, even though they were in the midst of gross sin and idolizing. I don’t think he meant circumcision is still valid as of the date of this video, but rather in the time of Israel’s sin
Is not circumcision a sign of God's permanent covenant with the Jewish people? It was superseded by Christ's baptism, ministry and atonement, but was not invalidated, if my understanding is correct. Romans provides data, in particular chapters 3-4.
Hey Gavin, if you have a spare 15 minutes I’d love to hear your thoughts on the most recent video I put out on my channel. It’s a sort of brief philosophical defense of Protestantism. In any event, Merry Christmas!
I’ve often heard my dad refuse to call the Catholic Church a “church”. He calls it a “system” or “cult”, which I never thought was quite right. I believe that all the different denominations err in some way or another, but none of them are “non-churches”, nor do I say that I am a legitimate Christian while the others are not. As long as an individual worships the Triune God of the New Testament, places their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation and tries to lead a holy life with fellow believers, that’s a Christian to me. And I hope it is so with Jesus Christ too.
Some good stuff here. Would you say the same thing about the Orthodox, Orientals, and Assyrians? And if so, how do you reconcile that with their practice of what you call idolatry, in light of 1 Cor. 6:9-11? I think it is important to note that Jeremiah says to keep to the truth, not what you think is true. I don’t read so much of as a hint of subjectiveness in the text you are referring to. What we “think” is immaterial.
There's also people that would draw the circle so tight as to exclude Gavin and Redeemed Zoomer, and Todd Freil and whoever, just for disagreeing a little bit on something. I don't want to anthamatize anymore people that I have to. Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, or otherwise. We should be willing to look and see if things are close enough to be in communion with one another instead of strawmaning the otherside. I used to think catholics were "evil". It's just immature and black and white thinking. Especially in light of learning what they actually believe instead of listening to pastor Billy Bob. They don't believe in works salvation. They just view sanctification and justification differently. And they don't worship Mary.
Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema. Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema. Canon 14. If anyone says that man is absolved from his sins and justified because he firmly believes that he is absolved and justified, or that no one is truly justified except him who believes himself justified, and that by this faith alone absolution and justification are effected, let him be anathema. Canon 24. If anyone says that justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely fruits and signs of justification obtained, not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema. Canon 30. f anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.
Although we don't judge people, we can judge organizations. The church of Rome has effectively anathematized itself by adding extra salvific requirements to the Gospel which Jesus and the Apostles taught. Jesus and the Apostles never taught the Marian dogmas, for example, but Roman Catholic doctrine makes belief in those dogmas a salvific requirement. Gal. 1:8-9 says if anyone adds to the Gospel, let him be anathema. That's Scripture.
Thank you. I’m still wrestling with this a lot especially considering most whom I meet (and my elders) are in the, “They aren’t Christians,” camp. Please make more on this topic especially on ways to continue growing in love for those other Christian traditions. It’s so hard because they have said in the past that we are anathema. What a great way to show the love of Christ to still love our enemies.
It’s very simple to me. A true Christian wouldn’t add works to what Jesus has already done. If there is a newly born again Christian who has these wrong beliefs, the Holy Spirit will lead them out of those beliefs and to repentance of them.
They got an vexplanation for this as well. But well, depending on the definition, of course you can call Catholics Christians. But then you could do this was most other cults that use the name of Jesus, etc.....Strictly spoken they have all moved away from the faith and Catholicism essentially Christianized plenty of the pagan traditions of the Roman empire....Not what Christ got in his mind....
Its pretty simple to me. You have presupposed your “own understanding” on others and you did so with OUR book, the Bible… You are certainly welcome to believe and profess whatever you want to believe, there are plenty of differing beliefs in the world today based on the Bible, just pick one. But to glean this from the historically decidedly Catholic Trinitarian book is just plain frivolous… History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books, and ONLY the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 4th century, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself? Peace!!!
As a Catholic, I pray for Church unity and I hope that we can stop trying to tear each other down as fellow Christians.
One way to God through Jesus alone, not Mary so you are not my brother.
@AndrewMcBride-p5n Do you think Catholics think Mary is God like Jesus?
@@buurmeisje You say she never sinned, when the Mary herself said I rejoice in God my Saviour, why can you not accept what the Word of God says instead of trying to change it to suit your theology.
@AndrewMcBride-p5n, did you even watch the video? It must be hard going through life with so much hate in one’s heart.
@@buurmeisje Why do you make images of her and pray to her when the Bible says we are only to pray to God, through Jesus Christ who is the One Mediator between God and men.
Hey Gavin, Idk if u will see this or not. But, You have made me stronger in my faith in Christ as a Protestant and helped me understand Protestantism better and a good and charitable way of how to counter challenging questions. Glory to God & God bless you and your family and your ministry
Christ started one true church brother, that is the catholic church. Ill be praying for you and hope that one day you come home
@Classical_Catholic If it were the case the Roman Catholic "emphasis on big C" church were the one true church, it's a shame that there is no explicit evidence this is the case within Church history. I think it's possible the Roman Catholic church may have more correct ideas than other denominations (I'm not qualified to argue either way), but I don't see how that leads to it being the one true Church.
Same here
@Classical_Catholic And yet your church looks nothing like what Jesus and the apostles started.
@AndrewMcBride-p5nwhich one of your 30 000 dénominations looks like what jesus established 2000 years ago
Give us its name
Last summer I was invited by my coworker/friend to go to Catholic mass with his family. It set off an inner struggle I’ve been having ever since.
I can’t help but think this so forgive me if it sounds misogynistic.
As I sat there and listened to the Catholic sermon and all of the ceremonial proceedings they do, I was looking around at everything on the wall. Detailed wooden depictions of Jesus’s crucifixion in steps. When I was younger I thought it was terrible that they had those. Now I’m older, I’ve been through a few things, medical issues, difficult jobs, long hours without seeing my family so I can provide a comfortable life for them, among other typical things that guys experience as they grow out of being a naive young man.
Those wooden depictions hit me differently now. They reminded me of what Jesus did for us, and the suffering and sacrifice He went through, not by hearing a preacher talk about it but forced right in my face, unable to be ignored.
In the windows were stained glass saints and martyrs, one said “St. Ebba” who I looked up afterwards and read her story. It’s pretty gruesome.
It was like being surrounded by reminders of what this faith was built on, how it persevered to this day and got to me over 1000 years later. The fearlessness of those who pushed it forward, all the way back to Jesus. I got this feeling like I’m almost not worthy to even participate, and the things I go through are meaningless and trivial in the face of the sacrifice that surrounded me. It also made me proud and feel a sense of strength and put the fight back into me.
The priest gave a sermon and it was sober, calming. He didn’t try to rile up anyone’s emotions. He just calmly shared a piece of wisdom gleamed from the scripture they were on that week with a story about someone in his congregation at his previous church.
…then the next week I went back to my home church.
Everything felt cheap and way too happy. Vinyl walls and stage lights. It’s a place where you aren’t sure if you’re going to see a concert or a church service until they start talking. Music that I used to find soothing and nice, I feel bad for saying it but it felt lame.
My pastor starts talking and I couldn’t help but resent the way he was carrying himself. He speaks with this big giant smile the whole time and he talks to the congregation like someone talks to a kindergarten class. It wasn’t 2 minutes in before he started getting all emotional from his own sermon. I sort of realized at that moment, this isn’t designed for me it’s designed for women. He’s trying to rile up women’s emotions and I see it happen every week now. All the women are hook line and sinker going along with this guy and it’s always some lightly scripture based self help reassurance speech. Nothing reminded me of the sacrifice that built the faith. It’s all way too overly happy. Instead of feeling unworthy to be there, that day I started feeling like these services shouldnt be co-opting Jesus to give weekly motivational affirmations.
Although I still have issues with Catholicism and my roots and community and family are all a part of my church, these feelings haven’t subsided. I feel distant from it every week. It always feels artificial.
I actually think more about sitting in that uncomfortable wooden bench looking at those depictions and the saints, what I felt in that moment, all the time since the summer. I can’t even remember my pastors sermon on Monday. It felt like that Catholic Church was made to speak to the man in me, and there’s something just feminine about my church that I can’t unsee or unfeel.
Bro what a beautiful comment. That is exactly part of the reason I became Catholic. May God bless your endeavor for the truth
I go to a beautiful protestant church. Spirit filled. Zero need for fancy buildings or statues or dolls. Zero "femine energy". The main focus is a strong relationship with God. I love my pastors beautiful sermons😊 God bless! May you find a bible based church that is biblically sound and not focused on things outside of strong relationship with God 😊
It's amazing how the Holy Spirit can touch us differently. I had the exact opposite feeling going to a Catholic mass. I felt it was just going through the motions, that there was no Spirit movement at all. I've talked to many Catholics that definitely pray and venerate Mary and almost treat Jesus as almost second fiddle to Mary. I've been to certain protestant churches where I amazingly felt the Holy Spirit move freely and people on fire for Jesus. Not just going through the same motions every Sunday mass. Now, I'm talking about how I felt. Others might feel differently. I definitely believe there are Catholics that are saved, just as I believe there are "protestants" that think they are but aren't. I have many doctrinal issues with Catholicism, but I also believe many differences are non salvational.
An extremely beautiful comment, and it resonates with me completely.
I went to Rome on a trip with my Dad, and the beauty of every single church was astounding. We would be ambling down backstreets and coincidentally finding these huge churches with carvings and inscriptions that moved me spiritually every single time. The tour of the Vatican was the coolest, as there was history everywhere. The feelings you describe of unworthiness I relate to completely; reading this comment literally felt like you had been spying on my thoughts.
I also share the exact same views about charlatan protestant preachers, and i think your point about masculinity and femininity is genuinely true.
My corny twist is that all of this makes me prouder to be a protestant, and I think Gavin embodies this so beautifully as a scholar and with his youtube ministry endeavour: “assurance in the gospel”.
Gavin’s (and mine) thesis is this: we feel like that because its true for those specific churches. But that type of corny evangelical-type protestantism is not equivalent to, nor representative to, protestantism as a whole.
Gavin has truly helped me see that protestantism has a claim to the historical base of the lowercase c catholic church. protestantism is a branch, not a separate movement like mormonism or something. the reformers veered off from capital C Catholicism the exact same way that Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy did, it just happened much layer and with very different (and bigger) disagreements.
Gavin’s point is that protestants can have our cake and eat it too. You say you have issues with Catholicism doctrinally, which is an epistemically valid reason not to be in the Catholic church. But as a Christian that just so happens to have taken the route of protestantism, you are a part of the tradition of saints and martyrs, and your (our) feelings of deep resonance with older traditions, whether it be Catholicism or Orthodoxy, are valid.
In my opinion, you should be part of a tradition that you agree with from both a doctrinal and historical perspective. For me I think that the evidence is just so much more in favour of protestantism as a religious movement, distinct from some of the modern day churches.
My advice to you would be this: try other churches, and try other traditions, and leave protestantism if you feel compelled by the Catholic or Orthodox arguments. But you can still partake in the Christian tradition.
For me, I have been lucky enough to travel lots and have good christian friends literally all over the world. certainly in every continent. most of them are protestant, and their churches completely lack the femininity problems that you talk about.
It is the American/British lens on protestantism that is the problem. For me, I attend a Caribbean (Trinidadian specifically) church for the reasons I lay out. Their culture towards Christianity just doesn’t have these problems. Don’t get me wrong, money grabbing is a huge problem in the Caribbean protestant church, but that’s just the Caribbean spin on the fundamental issue of weak protestantism that your comment so skilfully picks out. I didn’t like the feel of those churches, but I could tell whether the pastor was good or not.
This will (hopefully) be the crescendo of my argument, as I think all this ecclesiastical philosophy HAS to be rooted in scripture. When this clicked for me, my agonising longing for older churches was stopped instantly.
I think Jesus explicitly affirms this. When he speaks to the pharisees, he speaks to those fake preachy pastors who run a church as a job and a business. A couple of specific themes of his dialogue with the pharisaical tradition are relevant for me: judging by fruits, and watching out for wolves in sheep’s clothing. There are a bunch of different verses that I could quote, particularly from Matthew and John, but my favourite is the last verse from the sermon on the mount, Matt 7:15 (if I remember the verse number correctly. The wolves masquerading as sheep message is just as valid for that type of protestantism as it is for the type of Catholicism that triggered the reformation in the first place: scamming the public through methods like their abuse of indulgences, which both protestants and Catholics agree was wrong.
Even though the fake protestant spin is milder, the message is still as valid. And that means that Jesus’ repeated instructions to avoid wolves in sheep’s clothing (echoed particularly in 1 Peter and 1 John) is my litmus test for specific churches as a follower of Jesus. This is designed to be combined with the more philosophical/epistemological endeavour of choosing a tradition.
The other message is more easy to apply in the real world when judging pastors (or whatever the main elder is called in the tradition you are currently exploring). Read Matthew 7:17-23. Jesus is commanding me to judge religious teachers by their fruits, in a way that so effortlessly and effectively weeds out charlatan pastors. Benny Hinn will be my example. If you haven’t heard of him, I would highly suggest watching Mike Winger’s first couple of long exposés on Benny Hinn. They were so good he is currently getting sued because Benny feels scared by having his true self exposed on the internet. I would suggest watching more of both Mike Winger and Gavin Ortlund’s stuff on the protestant defense, as they provide different but important angles that I am attempting to combine in this response.
Benny works fake miracles, makes fake prophecies, and teaches fake theology, purely to get money and to be rich. It is an obvious fact. Clearly, his fruit are bad. According to my Lord and Saviour, that is the end of the discussion. Simple. No need to think about his truth claims, Jesus’ litmus test comes first.
I really think this approach can serve as a genuine rule of faith. I don’t care whether you stay protestant as I have, but I at least hope that my kind of embarrassingly long reply has given you some epistemic food for thought. My only other advice would be to keep on watching Gavin’s stuff on this issue. He is a noble scholar who captures and exemplifies this point better than I could hope to.
I don’t know your name, but above all, aside from any church or any tradition or any truth claim, I pray that your personal relationship with the beautifully triune God flourishes. That is true Christianity. I shall end with one of my favourite verses that makes me feel honoured to be a Christian in the same way that my Rome trip did. The ESV translates 1 Peter 4:16 as “Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.” This is the profound truth that calmed the sea of my denominational discomfort. I am a Christian, a follow of Christ, wayyyyy above anything else, in literally every facet of my life. The NLT is much more playful, with a cuter translation that captures the message perfectly: “But it is no shame to suffer for being a Christian. Praise God for the privilege of being called by his name!”
Sorry for the rambly nature of this comment, I’m writing it kind of for myself so I can only apologise if I don’t make myself clear at times.
God bless you and your journey with him. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
@@triuneicthus3524 You expressed the message of my reply super succinctly. I’m jealous!
Until your videos I had been a very naive Christian. 50 years old and not even knowing why I go to a Protestant church. I have been quite black and white in my thinking concerning other traditions and just uninterested in learning more…until now! Thank you for what you are doing for people like myself.
That is what the Bible says we should be, we are either for Jesus or against Him there is no middle ground. Roman Catholics do not believe the pure Word of God but add to which God forbids. Choose you this day whom ye will serve.
@AndrewMcBride-p5nWho said anything about middle ground between following Jesus or not? Also, did you even watch the video?
@@jensonharris3636 Well the pope says there are many ways to God, Jesus says He is the only way. So you cannot choose middle ground, who do you believe, Jesus or the pope.
God bless all Christians-Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant! ❤
amen
Amen.🙏
Amen
One way to God through Jesus Christ and it is a narrow way.
Now there's a sentiment I can get behind!
I taught in Poland at a Bible conference for college students and Cru staff. I met many born-again Roman Catholics. I remain a small c catholic Protestant, but I am dismayed by the caricatures too many fellow Protestants have of all Roman Catholics. Like Protestantism, Roman Catholicism is hardly a monolith.
It is possible that there are born-again Roman Catholics but they cannot be good Roman Catholics
By good I’m assuming you mean consistent. If so, that gets to a tricky question about what doctrines count and what doctrines allow for a variety of interpretations. For example, we Protestants may hold that imputed righteousness is synonymous with a proper view of salvation but many Protestants of a non-Reformed stripe wouldn’t agree with that.
@@MOOREENGAGINGread the CCOC. That’s has the vast amount of official teachings and doctrines of the Church. It is pretty exhaustive. That’s the interpretation of the faith.
@@hc7385that’s just stupid. With Catholics you wouldn’t even have a Bible much less Christianity. It was Catholic Christians who defended the faith for over 1500 years and was almost snuffed out due to Islamic colonialism and multiple heresies.
@@catholicguy1073 I actually started doing a methodical study of the Catechism. I have read several parts in the past but am now going through the whole of it. I was raised in a conservative, Catholic home and attended Catholic schools up to college.
Per the comment of my Protestant brother, I do find it confusing as to what doctrines count. Some Roman Catholics see the Catechism of the Catholic Church as binding on the consciences of Catholics, but I've talked to many who don't. And some of these are earnest believers. They can't be dismissed as fringe or non-committed to the Catholic church.
Furthermore, I have had friendly conversations with Roman Catholic theologians where they admitted that maybe 10% of Roman Catholics have read the Catechism. I'm hardly casting aspersions here. Many "Bible-believing" Protestants have never read the Bible once. What I am underscoring is how challenging it is to have the kind of conversation where the real feet on the ground complexity is addressed. Gavin does a terrific job in that regard which is why he gets criticism from all corners!
Thank you, Dr Ortlund! I'm a Catholic seminarian and I think you're Christian, too! I appreciate your honesty and charity. God bless you and have a merry Christmas!
So do you disagree with the council of Trent that says that anyone who believes that salvation is by grace alone, without works, is an anathema?
As a Protestant, I just want to say what a charitable, unifying call to Christian brotherhood! Your videos have given me a deeper level of respect for the historical knowledge rooted in Protestantism, while loving our non-Protestant brothers and sisters. Keep up this good work! God Bless ✝️
Yes I’m so thankful that this Protestant Pastor has declared Catholics Christian.I don’t know what I’d do if he hadn’t.Catholics who belong to the Church established by Jesus are OK according to a Protestant ?
Recent Catholic convert here. This is excellent. Thank you, Gavin.
Lies
Believe Jesus not men, only Jesus has the power and authority to save and keep, not men.
@AndrewMcBride-p5n Who says he doesn't?
@AndrewMcBride-p5n
If what you say is true, Andrew, then you should submit to the authority of Christ, which is in the Roman Catholic Church.
@AndrewMcBride-p5n🥴 Jesus isn’t here. Grow a brain
Wow! In 15 minutes you articulate an answer to a question I have wrestled with so long! Your defenses of Protestantism are such a breath of fresh air in our low-church, ahistorical age of evangelicalism. Keep up the good work!
Whatever our differences, my protestant friends, I hope we can all agree that ''but I DESTROYED Gavin Ortlund online ..'' is not a winner when we have to give an account of ourselves to God.
Rather like how "I followed everything my Bishop told me!" will go.
@@A.A.Rabbit I can assure you that, even when I was an altar boy, I never contemplated such folly.
Yes have you been born again as Jesus told Nicademas
This is called “a straw man argument”. Great job slaying that straw man.
It is if Gavin ortlund advocates that's which is contrary to God's will
Gavin,
As a Catholic convert, I really enjoy your videos. The sacraments and church history are what drew me to Catholicism. Thank you for your charity.
I would love to see protestant churches bring back confession. The sacrament of confession is helpful for all Christians.
@@zachdavis7536true repentence and change in lifestyle is superior .
I love bible based churches focused on a strong relationship with God.😊
We can confess straight to God.
And we can open up to leaders and friends!
A fair number of Lutherans and Anglicans practice private confession and absolution; Martin Luther and Philipp Melanchthon actually counted the absolution among the sacraments in the Lutheran Confessions.
For Confession which is a Sacrament you need Holy Orders which is bestowed upon a Priest of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church.”What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven “ To Peter.
Hi Gavin! Thank you so much for this message, im a protestant myself and for a bit i was damning Catholics and Orthodox but recently i started to repent of that, and i actually fell under the "Well you can be Christian under the Papacy if you don't understand the doctrine" But now i can put this to rest. Glory to God :)
I was a roman catholic my entire life. Since 2012 I've been Roman Catholic apologist and have close communication with Robert Sungenis and John Salza. I've met both in person and read their books. But as of November 1st I've become a presbyterian.
Why?
What a shame.
I think you didn’t choose the best mentors. Sungenis has a fake doctorate and believes in geocentrism. I think you should reevaluate your understanding of Catholicism.
Praise God!
Praise the Lord, you are not hoping to be in heaven, as a child of God you KNOW you will be in heaven.
I watched your video, including the section on justification. Honest question, how can the rejection of Sola Fide not be a damnable error? Isn't faith in the Gospel alone central to the definition of being a Christian (Eph. 2:8, Rom. 3:28, Gal. 2:16, Titus 3:5)? I know Romans Catholics believe in having faith in the Gospel, but don't they in practice nullify this belief by adding other merits to salvation besides faith? If Catholics do believe in faith alone than why does the council of Trent anathematize faith alone which is still binding to this day?
Really well put, and Galatians for me just cements it. Paul is not allowing for wiggle room for salvation to be with Christ plus works, he is saying that if you add on works to Christ, that you are denying Christ, in essence saying Christ is insufficient, and if you do that you will lose Christ and be judged only on your works; and as such, you are without hope, for all have fallen short of the glory of God. Christ Alone by Faith Alone is the Gospel.
The Council of Trent anathematizes one specific understanding of faith alone, T
that being that we merely have to have intellectual assent to the truth of the Gospel to be saved. But as James tells us, even the demons believe and they shudder. The kind of faith that does actually save is faith working through love, as Paul says in Galatians. Hope this helps!
It is a dmanable error. Rome can never repent of it either; otherwise it would undo it's claim to infallible ecclesiastical authority as the one "true" church. Rome didn't spill protestant blood back in the day just because of some nuanced error, but as Jesus stated they will kill youi thinking they are serving God. If Rome is a true church; us protestants are not.
Former Catholic here: I mostly agree with what you're saying and think Ortlund is mostly wrong.
That said, people's heart is not always where their intellectual understanding of doctrine is. This actually works for better as well as worse. You know how you can have someone who affirms the gospel but hasn't really trusted in Jesus for their salvation? That actually happens in reverse too.
@@AnthonyBruns Not so. These are only a few. Any sola fide is excluded.
"Canon ix. If any one shall say, that by faith alone the impious is justified; so as to mean that nothing else is required to co-operate in order unto the obtaining the grace of justification, and that it is not in any respect necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema."
"Canon xi. If any one shall say, that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, by which we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema."
"Canon xii. If any one shall say, that justifying faith is nought else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or that it is this confidence alone by which we are justified; let him be anathema."
As a confessional, Reformed Protestant I pursue preaching of the true gospel and right celebration of the sacraments. Of all Christians, Protestants should be the first to defend and affirm that salvation is of God and God alone, and that we are not saved by our doctrinal positions. Yes, I firmly defend the gospel of justification by grace through faith, alone. But I cannot know who is among God’s elect. There are great errors in the church and there are apostates, in all denominations. Some are so filled with such that the teachings of that denomination are not Christian, but that does not mean that I can know that there is not a believer in their midst.
It also does not mean you assume a person is a Christian. As and elder and shepherd in my church, I don't make judgements about who is and is not saved. Instead I try to lead them in trusting in Christ alone and tell them to abandon any attempts to make themselves righteous before God. At the same time, I tell them that if they have been born of God, then they will grow in love for God and practice righteousness as a result. If a person persistently refuses to accept the truth regarding Christ, their sinfulness, and the means of their salvation according to the clear teaching of Scripture, I cannot in good conscience help assure them of their salvation. No, we are not saved by our doctrinal positions, but we are not saved apart from them either. Listen to what Jesus says to the Jews in John 8:24, "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.”
There are over 2,600 doctrines of Christ in the Catholic Catechism that covers all angles most think of, but they are there to ensure our full understanding of Who Christ is.
Calvinism is from the pit of hell
The challenging thing for me is this...
4:35 - "Who wants to restrict salvation more than we absolutely have to, right?"
Yeah, but that's not really up to us is it?
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
- Matthew 7:13-14
Surely there are some doctrinal lines which must be drawn, but the hard part has always been that not all of the right lines are necessarily doctrinal. It may not matter all that much that some do not understand their faith as well as others. Perhaps they can still live it out just as faithfully, or even moreso. Being excessively doctrinal and traditional can even sometimes cloud our own faith. This is one of the great lessons of Scripture in fact. On the other hand, we know that there are lines, and that some must necessarily be purged from among us.
This is why it's so important to raise up good spiritual leaders, and rebuke bad ones in the presence of all.
Those doctrinal lines are either perspicuous in scripture or unanimously consented to by the church catholic.
Purge? Who gave you the authority to purge anyone from anything? You have no authority to draw lines. My Holy Spirit is just as infallible as yours, and I disagree with the way you're interpreting both Scriptures. What gives you the right to interpret the Scriptures in such an erroneous way that is clearly not in line with the Spirit? If it were from the Holy Spirit, my Spirit would comport with it. Since it doesn't, it's clearly not from the Spirit.
Come to think of it, this kind of argumentation you applied here seems a little self-serving. Wouldn't it be appropriate for you, in Christian humility, to recuse yourself and purge your divisive spirit from among us?
The CCC says in #88 that a Catholic is required (irrevocably obliged) to adhere to the official dogmas of the church. Consider the wording of the dogmas themselves.
Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception: "... We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, *_must be_** firmly and constantly believed **_by all_** the faithful"* (DS 2803).
When Pius XII declared the dogma of the Assumption, he included this warning as a part of the decree: “Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith....let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
Can you now see that the dogmas make belief in them a salvific issue? How is this not a legalism? By adding salvific requirements to the original Gospel, the Catholic Church is making it _more difficult_ for people to be saved than Jesus and the Apostles intended it to be.
Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-
Gal 1:7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (i.e., anathema)
The specific salvific requirement added by the false teachers in Galatia was: you must also be circumcised. However, we can see from the warning in Chapter 1 that any addition to the original Gospel (of Christ crucified for our redemption and of salvation through firm belief in Him) is to be rejected and condemned. Thus the specific example flows to the general proposition, that whenever anyone claims that some legalism is a salvific requirement, _their claim must be rejected_ because it contradicts and conflicts with the pure Gospel which Jesus and the Apostles communicated to us.
@@sample479 Literally God gave us that authority. He commands us to do it in fact. He didn't give it to me alone, He gave it to His church. Which contrary to the pride of Rome, is all those who worship Him in spirit and truth. You seem to have placed yourself, independently and self-satisfactorily at the peak of all spiritual authority in your life, which is the height of pride. It's essentially the exact same thing the Papacy has done, you've just done it all unto yourself. If you think that you alone possess such perfect spiritual discernment as to always know and understand the will of God through the Holy Spirit, perfectly and inerrantly unto yourself, with no need for membership within the body of Christ, or spiritual correction from your brethren. Then you are not following Christ my friend, you are literally following Satan.
For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
- 1 Corinthians 5:12-13
@@rexlion4510 also Rome insists baptism saves. the teach it brings about regeneration and forgives sin.
They insist upon attending mass & the Eucharist as they save as well.
They insist on penance to pay for your own sin
And confession to a priest
They insist on works to help save and undermine the power of Christ to save completely.
They insist you have to go to purgatory to work off all sin so as to mark yourself righteous enough to be accepted by God …… self righteousness.
The teach that you can receive merits from other saints from the treasury of merits - more or less saying the merits of Christ are not enough.
Surely all of this falls under Paul’s description of adding to the Gospel and subtracting from it and would be condemned by Paul and make the Gospel null and void and Christ of no value?
Then its all the other teaching in praying to Many and looking to other patron saints for help -= superstition - apparitions etc. there is just so much that is wrong and and unbiblical - how can there be unity between them and Protestants?
I really hope Gavin is not going to too far down the ecumenical path.
I agree we shouldn’t be hateful in our comments - but we have to bring truth to bear in these discussions - we need to try and use Scripture to bring correction as we are told do.
"Men may be really saved by that grace which doctrinally they do deny; and they may be justified by the imputation of that righteousness which in opinion they deny to be imputed." -John Owen
How are they saved though? These denials are equivalent to unbelief.
@@lukejaggers993 Do they still believe in the Apostle's creed?
@@lukejaggers993 Exactly he is quoting man's word not the Word of the Living God.
Catholics don’t deny salvation by grace alone, it’s in the Catechism.
@@lukejaggers993 Catholics don’t deny salvation by grace alone, it’s in the Catechism.
This understanding really changed the way I look at all my Brothers and Sisters in Christ across Christendom. I love you all and am happy to have found the classical protestant position. Thank you Gavin for this video and your book, it really gave me reconciliation and mended a lot of my anxieties.
It is because of you I became anglican and you have given me a heart and hope for the unity of the Church. God bless you
As a shameless Papist wolf, I appreciate you Gavin, God bless you and your channel.
You appreciate a guy who spreads anti Catholic propaganda and misleads thousands. You should get your head checked.
The first time I came across the idea that Catholics aren't Christians was when I started watching American content, and it made no sense to me. I am a former Protestant and now a Catholic. 🇻🇦✝️
What is a Christian? One who follows Christ. What does it mean to follow Christ? To accept Him as your risen Lord and Saviour. How is He our Saviour? He died on the cross as a sacrifice that through His death our sins would be washed away once for all.
Do RCs believe that through Jesus' sacrifice our sins were forgiven once for all? I hope some do, but there are concerns that many put their trust in the sacraments, or in the intercession of saints, or that they feel they need to re-sacrifice Jesus over and over again via the Eucharist instead of His sacrifice being sufficient once for all. The danger is that if you say Jesus is insufficient, you are doing what the Galatians were doing in Galatians 5; and Paul tells us that if they say something other than Christ is required, that Jesus will be of no use to them, and that they will be alienated from Jesus. That is why we worry about our RC and EO brothers and sisters.
We are saved by Christ Alone by Grace Alone through Faith Alone. That is the Gospel.
@@HaggisOfDeath We don't re-sacrifice Christ, though, and also we believe we are saved by Christ alone, through grace. Comments like this are why some of us Catholics grew up thinking Protestants were not very intelligent.
@@lellachu1682 If that is the case then you are a Christian. That is wonderful. There are people who can be led astray by RC doctrines that teach you stuff like: 'if anyone say the impious is justified by faith alone let him be anathema' and 'each mass is offering the sacrifice of Jesus to the Father' and so on, though. We need to be on guard against those kinds of dangerous doctrines.
@@lellachu1682 I'm glad, but I'd also recommend you look up what mass is defined as, and what was said at the council of Trent. God bless you though, and I am glad that you are a believer!
@@HaggisOfDeath I’m not sure why you feel qualified to judge Catholics salvation when you don’t even understand our theology. It’s the height of arrogance.
Great video, Gavin! I’ve been hoping you’d make a video like this for a while. Love the bit at the end about loving one another amid disagreement.
I hope you do know your ministry has been fruitful Dr.Ortlund.
I feel so inspired to contribute to God's greater design when I listen to your stuff, not just apologetics. I'm currently reading your theological retrieval book and it's very refreshing to my soul.
I want to contribute to my generation spiritually in whatever way the Lord may will.
May God bless you this upcoming holiday!
Fruitful in leading people astray and to the lake of fire, he will answer to God one day for it.
Good stuff, Gavin. I wholeheartedly agree. As an orthodox who constantly discusses with my Baptist brother, this is exactly what we need to remember.
I'm a little more worried about the local ELCA or PCUSA congregation-- the one with the female pastor wearing a rainbow colored halloween costume every Sunday at 10 AM. The same ones RZ is worried about.
Fortunately by all metrics those churches are dying out. Heresy and apostasy and hatred of children and family does not make for a long-lasting movement.
Gavin, your videos are always spiritually rich and cause me to reflect. In such a fast paced world of constant distractions, your videos are a tremendous blessing to me. May the Lord protect and keep you!
We want Catholics to be Christians, but until we can unite by doctrine, we can never affirm them.
Yes and the Roman Catholic church will never change there doctrine, they want Evangelical Christians to change their doctrine to conform to rome
We certainly would like the rampant heresy, rejection of biblical reality, over a thousand years of interpretation, and other corruption going on on protestantism to stop. But we're not even asking this question. Yes you're Christian, if barely.
There is really no common ground between us because even when the Roman Catholics use the same words we use they mean something different.
Take the word GRACE - we say we are saved by the grace of God = we mean by His kindness toward us. His mercy and compassion towards us when we do not deserve anything but His wrath and judgement.
That He is doing something for us we do not deserve!
It is something He does from outside of us - His goodness towards us. His love towards us.
Roman Catholicism sees grace as something infused in us by God. Something God places or infuses into us.
We then have to work along with it.
Hence the emphasis on works in the Catholic teaching.
An academic or theologian could explain the difference better than me - sorry!
This is not the only term where there are different meanings. There are many.
We can only be united in truth- there is no unity without truth!
Until they stop misinterpreting the Word of God - until they get rid of all their extra- biblical teaching and rites and rituals - we cannot affirm them.
But let’s face it they think we are wrong! ☺
Not to say that God in His mercy and grace ( as the Bible teaches it) and sovereignty cannot reach out and snatch a Roman Catholic from ending up in hell. But I would say He does this in spite of the Roman church’s unbiblical teaching and the person’s unbiblical beliefs. The Holy Spirit will convict them of sin and lead them to the truth. As some ex- Catholics have confirmed on this very page in the comments. I am convinced He has done this for many Catholics over the years - the famous ones we know about are Luther and Calvin!
I also believe that in a case like this the Holy Spirit would lead the person out of that church and unbiblical environment into a solid bible teaching Church where they can learn the truth of Scripture and mature and grow in their faith.
But this is what God does for everyone He saves!
There are many within the Protestant community who are not saved - not necessarily because they are not getting correct teaching but because they have just not believed as they should,!
Only by God’s goodness and grace - from outside of us - can anyone believe the Gospel!
Many are within the very excessive charismatic churches and are not saved either because of incorrect and unbiblical teaching. Surely God reaches out in His grace and saves them out of those false churches too!
Those outside any church environment can be saved by God! He brings them into contact with the preaching of the Gospel by some means and as it is the power of God unto salvation - He opens their ears and eyes and removes the darkness and HE brings them into HIS glorious light! that is grace!
He sets the prisoners free and leads them to a solid bible preaching Church.
And this is my testimony - I was not a church goer at all! But Christ came to seek and to save the lost! And He does! He saved a wretch like me 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
I could not - with a clear conscience - attend a Roman Catholic Church because of their unbiblical beliefs and teachings. I could not attend many of the mega charismatic churches either!
I pray God will continue to to save Catholics out of that institution -
There is unity in truth and in Christ - and Jesus knows where His sheep are - those who have been regenerated are in unity.
Not necessarily unity within denominations. Truth cannot be sacrificed on the alter of false manmade unity and ecumenism . Or love. To love in a biblical way is to tell the truth so any may be saved
Unfortunately there is a strong ecumenical movement afoot - and we need to be on our guard not to get swept up in it.
@marymeyer - And which non-Catholic unity are you speaking about? Is it the ones that believe infant baptism is salvific or the ones that do not? Or full immersion or not? Is it the Liberal Evangelical version or the Conservative Evangelical version? Could it be a Calvinist, Armenian, Anabaptist, or the Anglican viewpoint, maybe one of the Lutheran versions, ELCA), (LCMS), or (WELS) Dispensationalism, Antinomianism? Those that believe in woman ordinations or same sex marriages? Lord’s supper symbolic or sacramental? Belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity or not? The once saved always saved group or the not? Should women keep silent in church or speak and is this with or without their heads covered? Prosperity gospel true or not? Maybe Mormons, JWs, SDA’s, Christadelphians, or the Oneness Pentecostals position…as they ALL preach their “truth” from the same Bible also??? Surely you cannot think all these positions are acceptable. If not then which one is correct and why do you get to be the one to choose? Is yours the infallible one? If not then who really cares?
Peace!!!
As a Catholic we affirm you guys. Its a beautiful faith fouded by Jesus himself. 😊
These types of questions: "Are Catholics Christians or Protestants Christians or Mormons Christians?" are misleading. A Christian is not defined by a label or by membership in a particular religious organization. A more meaningful question would be: "Is the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church Christian?" Or "can there be Christians among members of the Roman Catholic Church despite its teachings?"
I mean, Mr. Ortlund repudiates that position in the video.
Exactly he is leading people astray
@@HighKingTurgon You cannot tell whether someone is a Christian by belonging to a denomination, nor even by claiming to profess a set of doctrines. Being a Christian does not depend on that and is more than that. I am sure Mr. Ortlund agrees with me.
@hc7385 I imagine I know what you mean based on this response; however, I'll share my metric with you. You and Mr. Ortlund can take or leave it.
A Christian is any person baptized with water in the name of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Any doctrine is Christian that affirms the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Simple, objective, requires no knowledge of the human heart.
@@hc7385the real question: is there a single protestant that isn’t mentally deficient?
1:08 Just a linguistics question here for anyone who knows: If the Institutes is written in Latin, and Latin has no articles, how can Calvin in this quote be emphasizing the definite article?
I think Latin did have definite articles by the time of Calvin. Idk
[ 4 2 12 1 ] Quum ergo Ecclesiae titulum non simpliciter volumus concedere Papistis, non ideo Ecclesias apud eos esse inficiamur:
Google Translate rendering: Since, therefore, we do not wish to simply grant the title of Church to the Papists, let us not therefore deny that there are Churches among them.
I think it's unclear here if Calvin thinks the Catholic Church can be called a church or not. It's less ambiguous in McNeil's translation.
Great explanation Gavin! We need more grace towards each other in the world and being able to speak to each other even when we have disagreements within the Church. God bless.
With all due respect brother, I greatly disagree with you and think that your view is going to cause more confusion and continue to allow the RCC to gain ground amongst Protestant/Evangelicals and keep them in the dark about genuine salvation. So, does the Bible teach that Jesus's sacrifice must be re-represented by a sacerdotal priest praying a prayer of consecration (along with a host of other perfunctory rites that must take place before the wine and wafer transubstantiate into the body and blood of Jesus) that all faithful Christians must partake in (the Sacrifice of the Mass) else be damned for not partaking in the sacrifice of Christ? I would argue that this is a Jesus foreign to the Scriptures and therefore any religion that adheres to it (i.e. the RCC) is under the anathema of Galatians 1:6-8. You seem to give very little Scripture to justify your position and rely heavily on what those who you believe to be our "theological betters" believed throughout history; I thought we were Sola Scriptura? It doesn't matter to me what people throughout the history of the church believed if it falls foul of Scripture; we should eat the meat and spit out the bones. Thanks for reading, and as always, with all due respect!
In your view, what specifically about Transubstantiation and the rites the priest performs makes them outside of Christianity for doing that. And is that on the same level of error truly that Paul is addressing in Galatians 1?
@@WilliamMorrison-rp6ws Can you demonstrate (without heavy reliance on a literal reading of John 6) the doctrine of Transubstantiation in the NT, and the penalty according to Rome (at least Rome's classical teaching) that those not taking the Eucharist are damned? The lack of a sacerdotal priesthood in the NT, coupled with the works-righteous salvation of Rome, and the applying of Aristotelian forms to the supposed sacrifice of the Mass foreign to the original authors and audience of the NT all seem to strongly indicate that this is a different Jesus, ergo a different Gospel, therefore anathema according to Galatians 1:6-8, IMHO.
@@WilliamMorrison-rp6ws Hebrews 10:1-18. Christ's sacrifice atoned for our sins, once for all. Not once for one sin, and then a second time when you sin again, and so on. We are told that: "For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified." What Jesus has done for us is amazing, He is our Saviour, our most merciful God and King. To Him be the glory for all time. His work is finished though; it is not on-going, He has won the battle, He has paid our ransom. Glory be to Him!
By your standard, the entirety of the first 1500 years of the Christian Church would be Anathema, as Sola Fide is a modern theological development.
glad you are calling this out. Rome leaves many in darkness with its entourage of rites and rituals which obscure the simplicity and purity of the gospel
I’ve been wrestling with these issues for a long time now, and every time I come to one of your videos about Roman Catholicism and its relation to Protestantism, things get clearer and clearer. I was hoping for this exact video, a short and down to the point answer as to wether I can see catholics as fellow Christians or not. Thank you so much, Gavin!
Love you Ortlund as a Catholic brother
I grew up in a very sheltered reformed Baptist context. I'm now a reformed Baptist pastor, but it's only recently that I've really been searching out what it means to be Protestant. One thing I keep coming back to is that protestantism is ecumenical by definition. It's one of the primary characteristics of protestantism. So when I see all these splinter groups calling each other heretics or nearly so, it seems to me to be actually falling back into the error of Roman Catholicism. I've always heard it said that, " If someone gets saved in the Roman Catholic Church, God will lead them out of it" as if this is a promise God made; that all of his people will eventually make it to the church that teaches everything 100% true (I dare not say I get everything right in the pulpit all the time!)
The church is above all marked by faith in Jesus Christ, the Jesus of Scripture, and a faith that above all produces love.
One thing that struck me as I was preaching through Matthew 5 a couple years ago was the way Jesus compares calling our brothers " fools" to murder, and even worse than murder. "Fool" there doesn't mean "stupid", it means foolish in the things of God. It means unbelief.
If we take this passage seriously, we should be very careful to ever act like we know for sure that someone isn't saved if they confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
"protestantism is ecumenical by definition" -- well stated! God bless.
@@TruthUnites Protestantism does not save only Jesus does, there will be many protestants in the lake of fire one day because they where never born again of the Spirit of God.
@AndrewMcBride-p5n and seemingly Gavin refuses to face that
Instead focusing on the Anti-Catholic stance
@@TruthUnites Dr. Ortlund, this is Steve Christie. I don’t know if you saw my other post, but I made a response video to you arguing that I don’t believe most Roman Catholics are Christians. I tagged your channel in my video, and I only responded because you welcomed people to respond to you in your video if they disagreed with you that Catholics are Christians. My video is not that long, and I do respond to the things you said in yours, and I did so with “gentleness and reference“ for you. ❤️
@@BornAgainRNAmen Brother... Galatians 1:8-9 The most important thing is the GOSPEL....📖✝️
Thank you for that, I'm reformed and minister at a local abortion mill and most of my fellow prolife laborers are Catholics. I do believe some are saved based on shared spiritual experience and faith in Jesus. However I do struggle with their praying to Mary which is serious and dangerous. I'm still trying to figure this out.
Praying to Mary is against the Word of God, it is blasphemous there is nothing to figure out, believe God and His Word, not the teaching of man
Don't allow the gospel message to be diluted by man's traditions. The accumulation of man's traditions as it pertains to what salvation is and ultimate authority clearly nullifies Roman Catholicism as a faithful church. Maryology is just one example of the bad fruit coming out of the damnable heresies of the false of gospel of Rome and its false ultimate authority. I too labor to save babies at my local baby killing mill, and the Catholics who are so diligent in their Catholicism to a tee all deny any saving knowledge of Christ--all hope to go to heaven, not one says they know they are going there.
I can't smash the like button enough, Gavin. Thank you for explaining works within Catholic theology. We do not earn salvation through works. We believe in grace that brings us into God's kingdom and grace that sustains until we see Him face to face. Thank you for doing this video. God bless you, brother!
Thank you brother. As a Christian evangelical, I really appreciate when someone tries to be nuanced, precise and fair with doctrine and theology and not be simplistic. I try to do the same in my channel but in Spanish 😃. Blessing🎉
Keep fighting the good fight brother. May the Lord bless you and your family. Merry Christmas.
I had a conversation about this topic with a dear friend, and what it comes down to is this: Catholics didn't anathematize just a caricature of Protestantism that is today known as "cheap grace" or "easy believism." No, Catholics anathematized the correct doctrines of imputed righteousness and perseverance of the saints, and they correctly defined those doctrines at Trent when they anathematized them. It's not a misunderstanding. They bold-faced looked at the basis for forgiveness (imputed righteousness) and the relationship between works and forgiveness (perseverance of the saints), and then they said, "If you believe that, then you're anathema. You don't have valid ordinations. You don't have valid sacraments. You don't have valid churches. You aren't in the Kingdom." How can we partner with that? How can we think any progress in reconciliation can be made when Trent is hailed as an infallible council by Catholics? It's impossible. There's only one solution going forward: Catholics must renounce Trent.
For those who want receipts, here are the quotes from Trent concerning imputed righteousness and perseverance of the saints:
"If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Spirit, and is inherent in them, or even that the grace whereby we are justified is only the favor of God, let him be anathema.” Council of Trent, session 6, canon 11
"If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works, but that the said good works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof, let him be anathema.” Council of Trent, session 6, canon 24
A clarification: there's a big difference between teaching something wrong and anathematizing what is correct. An example: someone can be ignorant of essential foundations of the gospel (Trinity, original sin, virgin birth, miracles of Christ, etc.) and be a wonderful Christian. However, that's way different from anathematizing the basis for justification (imputed righteousness), the means of justification (faith alone), and the relationship between justification and works (perseverance of the saints). We rightly denounce KJV onlyists who are wrong about the translation of the Bible, yet make it a litmus test of fellowship. How much more should we denounce Catholics, who are wrong about *justification*, yet make it a litmus test of fellowship. They are the definition of factious in Titus 3:10, even after Vatican II, since they will consider Protestants to be anathema and lacking valid ordinations, sacraments, and churches.
Thank you for the direct quotes from Trent, they are indeed difficult to get around. I'm in a lot of Catholic circles right now - many friends who are Catholic, currently going through OCIA to learn and have conversations - and the only Catholics I meet who walk around like these anathemas are relevant and active are the ones who strictly attend the Traditional Latin Mass parish in my city. The majority of mainstream Catholics I encounter (even those leading my OCIA class) espouse beliefs that are effectively a very written out, visible, and literal understanding of the role works play in true faith and justification, as a reaction to easy believism. Modern Catholic thought effectively takes what's defined in Trent and pushes it as close to Sola Fide as one possibly can. And I would hope that this is all guided by the Holy Spirit and is a good result of the effect Protestantism continues to have as a renewal movement in the greater true church.
The core issue seems to be that Catholicism has no real process for refining or renouncing beliefs that have previously been declared infallible. Vatican I set a lot of theology in stone. So, it seems many Catholics, including clergy, take the approach of simply quietly ignoring and de-emphasizing these anathemas (or at least, attempting to re-contextualize what the councils taught or what "anathema" means, differently than how they were written) with the expectation that future clarifications will reflect this perspective. There is still the perspective that Protestant churches don't quite have valid ordinations or sacraments, for sure - but at the same exact time, Protestants are still regarded as Christians and as part of the Kingdom by most of whom I interact with. Even the Rite of Welcoming is worded in such a way that recognizes baptized non-Catholic Christians as Christians. It's a funny contradiction which they are still exploring.
I think as the Catholic church continues opening its arms to the Orthodox (especially in this upcoming year of Jubilee) and recognizing their valid Eucharist, they are stepping towards theology that also recognizes the presence of Protestant churches in the Kingdom of God as well. Keep praying for it, but we can have fellowship together one day.
@@calebhonegger3787 Catholics have always recognized the validity of Orthodox Eucharist, because the Orthodox have valid ordinations. 😊
Peter Kreeft says that when Protestants talk about salvation they're describing justification; when Catholics talk about salvation they're describing sanctification.
The problem I have Dr Ortlund is they make part of the gospel “the Mariam, “the papacy, baptismal, and meritorious works doctrines”.
Does this not bring to bear Paul’s very own warning to the Galatians.
Obviously, many Catholics have no clue that this is the formal teaching of the Catholic Church. But I think if you tell people that you must believe the Mariam doctrines to be in union with Christ, you have perverted the gospel to the point that it is not a saving gospel
Are you a Jehovas Witness or Mormon?
@@definit1on119which cult are you in? Sedevacantist?
Paul’s warning in Galatians is about adding legalistic requirements (like circumcision) to the gospel, not addressing developments of gospel truths. Catholic doctrines such as the Marian teachings, the papacy, baptism, and works don’t contradict the gospel but flow from it and deepen our understanding of its implications.
Marian doctrines highlight God’s grace and Mary’s role in salvation history without replacing Christ. The papacy exists to preserve unity and fidelity to the gospel, based on Christ’s commission to Peter (Matthew 16:18). Baptism, explicitly affirmed in Scripture (Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:27), is not a human work but a means of receiving God’s grace.
Catholic teaching on good works emphasizes that they are the fruit of grace, as James 2:24 and Philippians 2:12-13 show, not a means to earn salvation apart from Christ. These teachings align with Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as upheld by the Church throughout history (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
Paul’s message in Galatians is not undermined by Catholic teaching but fully embraced, as Catholic doctrines aim to point us back to Christ and His saving work.
@mattwilliams3902 You are correct
So, if a man in Texas believes in Jesus, believes in the Trinity, BUT Says you are not saved unless you submit to him, saying that he is Christ on earth, are he and his followers Christians? NO
Protestant here. Pretty sure Vatican II basically says you’re imperfectly included in the Church if you at least have a Trinitarian baptism.
As someone who has transitioned from Roman Catholicism to Protestantism, I deeply resonate with your video. It’s disheartening to witness the anti-Catholic sentiments that exist in some Protestant circles, as they often overlook the rich historical context. I hold a great deal of respect for many devoted Roman Catholics, and I genuinely appreciate the positive impact they have had on my spiritual journey.
I hope the church you re in the established 2000 years ago by christ othewise you re lost
I hold respect for many RCs too, we can learn from many historic RCs, and even some today, and depending on the time periods RCs may not necessarily have had views that were too egregious. The fact remains that today there are a lot of doctrines that they hold which are not just not found in the Scriptures, some actively deny the Scriptures, such as them anathematizing anyone who says that we are saved by faith alone made at the council of Trent. I do believe that many RCs are trusting in the Lord and following Christ, and that while intellectually their faith may be deficient; in their hearts, they are loving and trusting servants of God: I do believe those brothers and sisters will be saved, but the danger is that official RC doctrine will, according to Paul, damn you. I think what Gavin has said here is EXTREMELY dangerous; in his pursuit of establishing good relations, he is comprising what the Bible teaches; any temporal peace made on Earth is not worth it if it comes at the cost of eternal destruction. We do not argue with RCs and EOs because we hate them; but because we are trying to save them! Or at least that is the desire of many, I'm sure there are some bad actors here and there, but passions are high because the stakes are the highest; it is not good to be 'nice' if you are damning your brother by refusing to tell him a harsh truth that he needs to hear!!
Again, I will caveat that I'm sure there are RCs and EOs that are true believers; but many have not heard the Gospel, and because of a video like this some who might have, now might not. Very dangerous. Generally I love Gavin's work and have been recommending him to lots of people, the desire for peace is good; but this video goes too far.
come back home. You dont leave the eucharist. Its Jesus. Where are you going to?
Thank you, Gavin. Merry Christmas to you and your family. Your Catholic brother in Christ.
Gavin, I’ve been watching some of these videos faceless TH-cam channels have been putting out criticizing your content. I appreciate the high standards you hold yourself to and I love learning from your work.
The greater your influence becomes, the more the target on your back grows-and the more these snarky videos try to discredit and demean you.
I’ve learned a lot about productive conversation from watching you carry yourself these last few years. It’s amazing how you’ve kept your sanity.
Thank you Mr. Ortlund you are doing invaluable job.
Catholic here great, balanced and honest video 👍 “It’s almost Christmas, which means it’s time for carols, hymns, and singing our praise for the Lord! Happy Advent!”
I've studied with Catholics for 5 years...they think I'm going to hell because I haven't received the Eucharist. I attend a Brethren church and we believe in bible inerrancy. How can I be saved according to the Bible and damned according to Rome...it's not the same faith. We've got to stop leaning into this ecumenical thinking. What protestants need to be leaning into is more reverence before Almighty God. Biblical apathy is leading unsaved people right into Rome's hands.
Exactly. This is one major issue I have with brother Gavin Ortlund.
@@SPCPinellas8035like his channel but he is soft.
The RCC can cut a Catholic off from the sacraments but we do not assign anyone to hell. It is not our job.
No Catholic would say you are damned. The Lord meets you where you are. Gavin's point in this video is brilliant we have disagreements but neither of us think it is damnable
@@sdboydCyprian & Gregory would like a word.
I was super close to converting to Orthodoxy after learning a bit about church history and listening to Orthodox priests on TH-cam. Gavin you convinced me out of it after teaching what the reformation was about in the first place.
I just bought What it Means to be Protestant and Theological Revival for Evangelicals. Looking forward to reading them!
Which. One of your 30 000 dénominations is the one established by christ
Or all are genuine
I bet you do not believe that
No: they have a different gospel of soteriology and anathema at Trent the reformed Gospel !
I was praying for this video 🙏🏻
As a Catholic, I can say that most Protestants are indeed Christians, and I'm sure most Catholics would agree. However, there are many Protestants who claim that Catholics are not Christians and aren't saved, either because we don't believe in *sola fide* or simply due to anti-Catholic bigotry. That said, if faith alone is sufficient for salvation, then most Catholics are saved.
So you disagree with the council of Trent, then?
@@shawnboahene5231 What does it say?
@@anycyclopediaFrom what I recall this: it calls anyone who believes that faith alone saves is condemned. That those who do not believe that Church tradition are just as infallible as scripture are condemned. And not recognizing Mary as coredemtrix are not saved. That’s all of protestant Christianity.
Thank you for this charity.
I'm so glad you made this video
John 17:20-23
My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one- 23 I in them and you in me-so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me
Yes please pray for me. I put a lot before Him and now feel cut and seriously out and cut. Poison and had a surgery due to sins and that jab. Please pray. For me. Out of this path. Twice baptized
This was foolish
Much love to you and your channel Dr. Gavin, God bless and Merry Christmas to you and your family❤
Never been this early to a video! Your videos have brought a lot of clarity to theology and question I've had. ✨️
Great content. Thanks for your insight. I have gone to the mats with my reformed brothers on this quite a bit
Thank you for the excellent video. Your work has helped to strengthen my faith.
If a professing Christian does not have a testimony of regeneration, sanctification, repentance and evidence of a changed life with fruit of the Spirit..... they are not a real Christians regardless of the denomination. It's not worth having a converstation about doctrine or anything else if a person is not saved.
Amen.
If one is not regenerated, Born Again,
One is not a follower of Jesus.
All Christians are "born again" in their baptisms.
@@lukemacmillan4030
By your reasoning then,
If every baptised person is born again,
then every baptised person is saved.
As only one who is born again will enter God’s Kingdom.
So those who won’t enter it, calling Jesus Lord Lord, saying did we not do this and that in your name
are only unbaptised Christians?
@@lukemacmillan4030no water don’t do anything. It’s exactly what we are trying to tell you. You can’t be born again by WATER sprinkling
God has to supernaturally enter you. ❤
@danielpasula6860 no I didn't say that every baptised person is saved. I said every baptised person is born again. That's what baptism is being born again by the power of the Holy Spirit not by our own power.
Then you made a very good and Catholic argument for why it is not tenable to be baptised, born again, and then not follow "my commandments." Also, why St. Paul says "we work out our salvation with fear and trembling." In other words if we don't respond to the grace given he will say, "I never knew you."
Let's hope we persist to the end then yeah.
The only question I have is not about their belief in Christ or the Trinity or the church. The question is are they genuinely born again.
Amen!
How do we know that about anyone? It's by their fruit and their confession.
I believe for the sake of fulfilling curiosity, the only things that matter is precisely that: Belief in Christ and the Trinity. Outside of that, that isn't for you or I to decide. We all must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling before God.
What does it mean to be “genuinely born again”?
If you are baptized you are born again period. There is no distinction between water and spiritual baptisms historically.
Thanks Gavin. You have strenghtened my faith in Protestantism all the more. 🙏🏼
Thank you, Ortlund as a former protestant now a part of the roman catholic church, I think its important for our protestant brothers to know that we are Christians and can stand united worshiping God.
The highest form of worship is the Holy Mass and it’s rejected by Protestants.
Hi Gavin. Is the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) a christian church? The answer to this question is yes and no. With the reformers, we affirm that there are true churches within the RCC because God saves people without regard to church affiliation. We affirm that there are true believers in the RCC. Consequently, where the people of God meet, no matter how deficient their understanding are on true doctrines, they are the church of God even as they are affiliated with the RCC.
But, if we will assess the full and complete core beliefs of the RCC, I would say that she has deviated significantly from the Scriptures. Meaning, anyone who consistently and fully accept the RCC gospel is endanger of losing salvation. I agree that there are a lot of commonalities such as the need of grace. However, the issue is not the necessity of grace but its sufficiency. Regardless of how we define the term “justification”, the RCC gospel outlines the road to salvation through its sacramentalism which necessitates the “cooperation” of the believer to gain and retain salvation. The ground of our acceptance is our moral transformation (by our cooperation) which includes full doctrinal fidelity to the church’s dogmas. Consequently, purgatory is necessary and the believer has to perform atonement for any remnant of sins (venial in nature) before being admitted to the fellowship of Christ. The living can “merit” on behalf of the soul in purgatory given there is no more merit that can be performed if one is in purgatory. Added to this, worship is centred on the mass as the “unbloody sacrifice of Christ” - a real sacrifice by the priest and which elements are the object of true worship. The whole sacramental system and worship is so far removed from the Scriptural truth that anyone who fully embraces this system consistently endangers his soul of rejecting the true gospel of Christ found in the Scriptures. This is where I say, the RCC assessed as whole has significantly deviated from Scriptures that its gospel is not “christian” - i.e. it will lead someone to damnation if fully and consistently followed.
Gavin, perhaps a clarifying question: are the canons of Trent addressing justification "damnable error" according to your understanding? I know you briefly mention them in the video, but it would help all of us if you could work through the statements and explain why you feel they are or are not.
Follow up for further clarification based upon your comments in the video:
Do you believe that Augustine's view of justification was the same as that expressed in Trent?
Honestly, it would be most helpful on this topic, and work to most clearly address concerns with your view if you would work through the canons and explain how they can be seen as non-damnable.
Perhaps Gavin might say otherwise, but given that the canons of Trent have not been "abrogated" and that Gavin discussed the errors he sees in Catholicism as not being "damnable error", it would seem that his answer to your question is liable to be "No".
@@John_Fisher I fully believe his answer is no. I want to hear his reasoning.
Gavin, I just went back and searched your book. You do not explain this issue there either. You simply note the differences and move on. Please, please...If you actually want to produce clarity among brothers and address those concerned about your views, offer an explanation for how, specifically, the canons of Trent regarding justification do not constitute "damnable" error.
@@gardyloogubbins Hopefully you get a response, but I think you can find most if it addressed in his work on theological triage. Many of the actual disagreements are ones that he would say many Protestants also agree with the 'Catholic' position, but are matters that Christians can reach different conclusions on in good faith. As Gavin discussed in this video, once you get past differences in the use of the words 'justification and 'sanctification', most of the canons of Trent concerning justification are actually affirming areas of agreement. For example, Canon 3 addresses the concern that many have thinking that Catholics believe they need works to enter into a state of grace; the canon says that even the faith itself to enter into a state of grace is a gift from God, not something that one can achieve on their own.
I like how you illustrated your point with the case of Tolkien and Lewis. Two men I admire greatly, though of course I am partial to Tolkien as a Roman Catholic. I think there's a significant portion of your viewers that are Catholics, so I'm glad you've made a video like this.
Great commentary here. Super helpful.
Would be great to listen to a discussion on this with someone like Dr. White.
Or Anthony Rogers
Or Todd Freil
Or R. C. Sproul if he was still here :(
Yes two non Christians debating whether actual Christians are christians.
Sure thing dude LOL@@drjanitor3747
The Catholic Church has numerous theological errors, but salvation is by grace through faith, so I agree Catholics can be Christians, but not all are.
When Catholics are saved by God - regenerated - then they should really leave the Catholic Church so as not to be submerged in all the wrong teachings. They need a fresh start with a solid Protestant church which is teaching God’ s word truthfully.
Yet, they do not believe it is by grace through faith alone. To claim otherwise would be dishonest. Someone cannot trust in Christ and Buddha for salvation and still be a Christian. Trusting in Mary and the Roman Church is not much different from trusting in Buddha; it is still idolatry.
That is the ironic thing, even though they do not believe in salvation by faith alone, they receive the benefit of that true theology if they believe. And correct, those Catholics who worship Mary are idolaters, but that is not all Catholics.
And they would not want anything associated with that NAME
I really can't get over the irony of the statement that Catholicism has the errors given that Catholicism was and is the definer of the theology.
Thank you Gavin!🙌🏼🙏🏼
Excellent breakdown. Thanks for the teaching.
I appreciate your video brother! God bless!
Who wants to restrict salvation more than we absolutely need to? Eastern Orthodoxy says a resounding "Us"
@@deadeyeridge Which Orthodox Patriarch or Bishop says this?
Everyone that isn't ecumenist, meaning most of ROCOR and all "True Orthodox" like Jay Dyer and Father Trenham
@@deadeyeridge Dyer nor Trenham are members of the True Orthodox. Dyer is Russian and Trenham is Antiochian. Irrespective, neither are a Patriarch or Bishop, which are the only two positions which have any authority over the issue. Being against ecumenism is unrelated to being against the possibility of the non-Orthodox being capable of receiving salvation.
No, ecumenism is very closely tied with the allowance of other Christian traditions. You seem to be ignorant of historical eastern orthodoxy.
@ Not at all. I am Orthodox. Do you not know a Patriarch or Bishop who maintains what you allege?
From your other videos you clearly disagree with a lot of other Catholic dogmas. So I’m not going to address those. As far as “justification” goes in that particular verse, I have to dig further.
However, just like how we don’t build our doctrine based on only one verse for anything else (homosexuality, trinity, e.g.) We don’t base salvation on that verse alone.
I know you have a heart for Catholics, I do too. But we have to be real pragmatic about the essence of what Catholics believe. And that’s this…”Jesus sacrifice was not enough”. You have no choice to believe that if you subscribe to the Faith+Works model. I’m sorry friend but I think you’re wrong in this one.
It's sad that this video needs to be made. Too many people are more interested in Christianity being a team sport, than they are in worshipping and submitting to God. Glory to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God bless you all, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestants!
Nope it is a narrow way to God few there be that find it, and it is through the Lord Jesus Christ and no one, or nothing else.
Sad yes but needed, as you do have you do have many anti-catholic protestants who think like this. The extreme case would be Protestant Pastor, Steve Anderson.
Catholics affirm that bro. 🤦♂️
@Swiftninjatrev well you do pray to Mary thinking she was perfect and a virgin when the Bible says she needed a Saviour and mary had other children after Jesus was born.
@AndrewMcBride-p5n my brother, love your brothers and let God judge. You quote Matthew 7:14, but continue through 7:21, "he who does the will of my Father in heaven will enter". We are "taught by God to love one another" (1 Thessalonians 4:9), so let's try to "lean less on our own understanding" (Proverbs 3:5), and put our faith and trust into God, "He will make our paths straight" (Proverbs 3:6) ♥️
I grew up in the Catholic Church. My family went every week. I went to a very conservative Catholic school from K-10th grade. I Never heard the gospel. I did have a strong foundation in the Trinity and Catholic tradition as well as being very pro-life. But I remember walking into the church and thinking I could never be holy enough for God Because I knew I was a sinner. Long story short, I attended a Bible believing church in my 20’s and heard and accepted the gospel. (Learned about God’s grace and forgiveness.) I never looked back at the Catholic Church again.
Bad Catholics are good Christians, yet Catholic theology does not believe in faith alone through Christ alone. It is faith and works. Even going “underneath” these definitions the Catholic Church uses are not biblical. They even anathematized the gospel. Love you Ortlund but you are in error.
You are certainly welcome to believe and profess whatever you want to believe, there are plenty of differing beliefs in the world today based on the Bible, just pick one. But to glean this from the historically decidedly Catholic Trinitarian book is just plain frivolous…
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books, and ONLY the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time.
Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 4th century, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
Peace!!!
Fantastic video, Gavin. I have often wondered and still do regarding what consequences or ramifications there are from false doctrines that are not central and essential to the gospel. Paul instructed Timothy to reprove and rebuke false doctrine, and seems to imply that false doctrine can turn someone away from the truth. Having been deceived into following the Word of Faith teachings many years ago (for about ten years), I began to see that that teaching resulted in what I call the "self-centered Christian." I suspect that any false doctrine has some consequences or ramifications.
I look forward to your future videos on confession and on justification.
God Bless...
I’m thinking that it would be more helpful to substitute the word “regenerate” for your usage of “Christian” here; likely every single usage.
To be “Christian” can mean to follow a form of Christianity. Of course, the entirety of the RCC is “Christian”, as is EO, as are Protestants, etc.
But who among each group are individually “regenerate”, meaning have been made alive by the Holy Spirit through faith and are united to Christ? This is the real question.
I know Gavin has the same meaning in mind, but it may be today that being (a) “Christian” has become defined sociologically and historically, and has become too broad to use to get at the intended meaning: do these adherents know Christ? Or, in the end, will they finally be “saved” and inherit eternal life?
It is difficult for me to consider a Catholic who understands the doctrine is a true believer because of the anathema pronounce upon protestant believers.
We can't both be heretics worthy of damnation.
One of us is correct?
Which is why this fake charitable ecumenism is a joke and shouldn't be taken seriously
@@OrthodoxTitan I'm all for no more fake charity towards the Orthodox. When do we start?
@Continentalphilosophyrules at least you're honest enough too admit its fake. I'd start today if I were you. Honesty is an important virtue too have
@@OrthodoxTitan It is. I do not wish to discuss anything with many Eastern Orthodox laity on the level of theology. That would be silly.
@@Continentalphilosophyrules what even are you a Thomist? That'd explain why
it's the same analogy by saying the 7 churches in Revelation are legitimate but not all of them are model churches❤
my personal beliefs and assurance of salvation, for one, have counterparts to other churches but that does not mean everything is ok. that is why correcting each other in love is important and growing in grace and truth, because in the end of the day, not doing so does not nullify God's control. I believe Divine supremacy and sovereignity is foundational to church life.
My concern with this topic is that the Catholics that I have met that understand the Gospel yet affirm Catholic teachings are academics, clergy, or apologists. But having grown up in a Catholic culture the Gospel is so far removed from the faith that gets passed down to the lay Catholic. What I have seen is “live your life however you want, then come confess, go to mass, and repeat, or if something goes terribly wrong in your life, then you can take it more seriously while you heal and then go back to it.”
That’s really hard for me to understand as faithful to the Gospel. A friend of mine is currently in a majority Catholic country in which he has come across the same thing.
You're exactly right? What good is a 'church' that can't properly catechize its members and can't communicate the Gospel clearly & effectively? The church of Rome is like salt that has lost its saltiness. Matt. 5:13. The church of Rome has added many extra salvific requirements via their dogmas, and it has effectively anathematized itself. Gal. 1:8-9. I am a former cradle Catholic and I love the dear Catholic people, but I have no use for the hierarchic institution.
Few are the saved. People missing a standard does not invalidate a standard nor act as motive of discredit.
Sometimes people are healed through faith healing, sometimes they aren't. The examples of non-healing do not discredit the healing power of God.
Even then, the average Protestant isn't exactly an amazing moral example either. Just instead of the sacraments, it's: sinner's prayer, cross necklace, pancake breakfast, OSAS.
@@Malygosblues OSAS is the view of only a small minority, mainly Baptists.
@@Malygosbluesmy point was not that your average Protestant is morally superior to your average Catholic or that the saved are many in every Protestant church. People are morally corrupt and The Way is narrow. My concern is when the standard is missed because the standard (Gospel) has been removed from the teaching. It is far more likely to hear the Gospel preached in your average Protestant or Evangelical church than in a Catholic church. This is all anecdotal of course.
But that the Gospel is preached more often doesn’t make more people saved. It’s not uncommon to meet people who hear the Gospel regularly but aren’t saved in Protestant churches. But the Gospel is preached nonetheless.
The “Catholic” Church today is not the “Catholic” Church of Lither’s time.
I was a cradle “Catholic” for 34 years.
I was Saved by God’s Grace after He drew me out of her, and I finally heard and received the Gospel.
All glory to God for His mercy and His gracious gifts!
Isn’t it the same for Protestantism?
Poorly informed Catholics become protestant.
Well informed protestants become Catholic.
@@saenttor Can be. There are plenty of Protestant churches that don't really teach repentance and placing trust in Jesus. Not to mention millions of people who hear the gospel but never believe it for years or even their life.
But: the RCC doctrine *as a whole* denies the gospel.
Glad to hear!
What a fantastic early Christmas present this is!!!
What a joy and relief to know that Protestant Gavin Ortlund considers silly, confused Catholics like me to be a Christian!!! Oh my this is incredible!!! Where would we be without the brilliant Protestants to show us the way and hold our hands and help us along. We are so lucky they consider us Christians!! Does this count for the first 1500 years of the church before Protestants existed? Were we Christians then too?
Catholics can be saved just as Protestants can be saved. Every group contains those who are saved by the truth of Jesus Christ and those who are false converts.
Explain to me how can idolaters that trust in Mary and church sacraments for salvation be saved.
@ I would suggest that no one can be saved through Mary or the sacraments, as I suppose you would agree. What I am saying is that Catholics who trust in Christ alone as Saviour and Lord can be saved. There are certainly problems with Catholicism, but every person who claims to be Christian, whether Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox or otherwise, is not necessarily in full agreement with every other Christian. Catholics are not all idolaters, and you need to talk to each individual to understand their positions. I myself certainly disagree with my church in some small issues. In summary, I would say Catholics can be saved, but that is not to say that all Catholics are saved. I hope I communicated this well.
Roman Catholicism teaches that salvation is by God’s Grace ALONE. I used to think they weren’t Christians but I’m glad I’ve changed my view. There are many points of unity between us and them
Edit: I’ve noticed this comment seems unclear to some. Yes, Catholics believe works play a role at some point in our salvation, but those works are done through God’s Grace.
This is how they view Philippians 2:12-13 which states:
“Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.”
Also, explore what Catholics mean by “initial justification” and you’ll notice substantial similarities to the classical Protestant view. I’m not minimising our differences, just pointing out similarities.
Correct, and it is God’s will that all his sheep be as unified as possible. That starts with mutual compromise of secondary issues.
Grace alone in Catholicsm? Since when?????
They do not
They teach that faith is necessary not sufficient which is the difference between a false and true gospel
And if by grace, then not by works…
Romans 11:6
Horseshit. They believe salvation is through Mary and sacraments.
As a person who has experienced both Churches, namely Protestant (Anglican by birth, Pentecostal in my young years, and now free Mennonite Church by relocation) and Catholic (by School), I know the differences and the crucial point is how is the gospel that brings peace, real spirtial peace with God is found ~ i agree with Dr. White, that Catholic gospel does not bring peace. The uncertainty is so gross that those who truely believed that Jesus saves to the uttermost seems out of place. Not to mention other disputes and false teachings that were added and allowed into the Church. I don't think things that displeases God but are stubbornly held tightly on and bound to a believers conscience help anyone to walk properly with the Lord.
“Work out your salvation with fear and trembling”. Gospel denier.
Ignorant assertions
@drjanitor3747 ????
@@drjanitor3747 you left out the second half of the verse! It says “for it is GOD who works in you to Will and to do what pleases HIM”
So it is not saying we work out our salvation but are led to good works by God who works in us because we are already saved and our walk is not an easy one! We battle daily with sin.
So we do not work for our salvation. We do not add to the salvation God has already granted us at the time of regeneration - which is all His work!
So do not misrepresent or misinterpret scripture to suit the Roman Catholic teaching of self righteousness or helping God save us.
He does it completely on His own.
Read the Scriptures that teach works do not save you!
“ You are saved by Grace by faith not by works and faith not of yourself but a gift of God”.
Amen Gavin. I agree with your comments & your approach. Online heresy hunters & theological bullies have brought shame to the body of Christ. (I am convicted about some of my own past behavior.)
Could those Israelites who worshipped the golden calves which Jeroboam set up in Bethel and Dan, which were said to be the gods that brought Israel up out of the land of Egypt, be called true Israelites? The fact that someone woships YHWH according to his own traditions does not make him a true worshipper of YHWH, nor does the fact that someone claims Christ as Lord make him a true Christian.
There has to be a work of regeneration brought about by God and all that goes along with that work of regeneration!
Lovely message Doc 🙏🏽
They believe in "works righteousness" and deny the sufficiency of grace through faith. What about that?
No they don’t.
@@drjanitor3747 Yes they do.
False. Catholics believe we are saved by grace. I've never heard of "works righteousness." Are you referring to Ephesians 2:10, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them"?
@@EverlastingLife-pl9ug Catholics don’t believe the once saved always saved garbage.
@@lellachu1682 No. Catholics believe that what they do contributes to their salvation. That's the definition.
Can someone tell me what is meant at 5:20 , "circumcision is still valid" ? Valid in what sense and what effect?
Edit: And to be clear, I'm asking what is Dr. Ortlund's meaning here.
I understood him to mean that circumcision was still a valid sign of God choosing Israel, even though they were in the midst of gross sin and idolizing. I don’t think he meant circumcision is still valid as of the date of this video, but rather in the time of Israel’s sin
Is not circumcision a sign of God's permanent covenant with the Jewish people? It was superseded by Christ's baptism, ministry and atonement, but was not invalidated, if my understanding is correct. Romans provides data, in particular chapters 3-4.
@@stephenwagner2688Okay, I see. Greater context has the 'is' inside of a greater 'was'.
Hey Gavin, if you have a spare 15 minutes I’d love to hear your thoughts on the most recent video I put out on my channel. It’s a sort of brief philosophical defense of Protestantism. In any event, Merry Christmas!
Sounds like a contradiction, how is heretical Protestantism defensible? Pls send link to your channel
I’ve often heard my dad refuse to call the Catholic Church a “church”. He calls it a “system” or “cult”, which I never thought was quite right.
I believe that all the different denominations err in some way or another, but none of them are “non-churches”, nor do I say that I am a legitimate Christian while the others are not.
As long as an individual worships the Triune God of the New Testament, places their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation and tries to lead a holy life with fellow believers, that’s a Christian to me. And I hope it is so with Jesus Christ too.
Nuanced, W Ortlund
Common Gavin W
W
Some good stuff here. Would you say the same thing about the Orthodox, Orientals, and Assyrians? And if so, how do you reconcile that with their practice of what you call idolatry, in light of 1 Cor. 6:9-11?
I think it is important to note that Jeremiah says to keep to the truth, not what you think is true. I don’t read so much of as a hint of subjectiveness in the text you are referring to. What we “think” is immaterial.
There's also people that would draw the circle so tight as to exclude Gavin and Redeemed Zoomer, and Todd Freil and whoever, just for disagreeing a little bit on something.
I don't want to anthamatize anymore people that I have to. Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, or otherwise.
We should be willing to look and see if things are close enough to be in communion with one another instead of strawmaning the otherside.
I used to think catholics were "evil". It's just immature and black and white thinking. Especially in light of learning what they actually believe instead of listening to pastor Billy Bob. They don't believe in works salvation. They just view sanctification and justification differently. And they don't worship Mary.
Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.
Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.
Canon 14. If anyone says that man is absolved from his sins and justified because he firmly believes that he is absolved and justified, or that no one is truly justified except him who believes himself justified, and that by this faith alone absolution and justification are effected, let him be anathema.
Canon 24. If anyone says that justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely fruits and signs of justification obtained, not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema.
Canon 30. f anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.
Although we don't judge people, we can judge organizations. The church of Rome has effectively anathematized itself by adding extra salvific requirements to the Gospel which Jesus and the Apostles taught. Jesus and the Apostles never taught the Marian dogmas, for example, but Roman Catholic doctrine makes belief in those dogmas a salvific requirement. Gal. 1:8-9 says if anyone adds to the Gospel, let him be anathema. That's Scripture.
Thank you. I’m still wrestling with this a lot especially considering most whom I meet (and my elders) are in the, “They aren’t Christians,” camp.
Please make more on this topic especially on ways to continue growing in love for those other Christian traditions. It’s so hard because they have said in the past that we are anathema. What a great way to show the love of Christ to still love our enemies.
It’s an ignorant comment. Total lack of understanding Christian history
It’s very simple to me. A true Christian wouldn’t add works to what Jesus has already done. If there is a newly born again Christian who has these wrong beliefs, the Holy Spirit will lead them out of those beliefs and to repentance of them.
They got an vexplanation for this as well. But well, depending on the definition, of course you can call Catholics Christians. But then you could do this was most other cults that use the name of Jesus, etc.....Strictly spoken they have all moved away from the faith and Catholicism essentially Christianized plenty of the pagan traditions of the Roman empire....Not what Christ got in his mind....
Its pretty simple to me. You have presupposed your “own understanding” on others and you did so with OUR book, the Bible…
You are certainly welcome to believe and profess whatever you want to believe, there are plenty of differing beliefs in the world today based on the Bible, just pick one. But to glean this from the historically decidedly Catholic Trinitarian book is just plain frivolous…
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books, and ONLY the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time.
Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 4th century, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
Peace!!!
Great video!