I’m a hardly practicing Catholic moving towards Protestantism. Pastor Gavin has been the most influential voice I’ve come across on TH-cam and and I’d only just begun to scratch the surface of his content. Intellectual, calm and kind. Seems to hold traditional beliefs on certain hot topic issues (as do I) without being caustic. The last thing I’m working out is which church. Lutheran? Presb? Baptist? Where am I likely to receive teachings of the sort Pastor Ortlund would impart?
Nice to be in touch with you David! In my experience, there are really healthy and wonderful Protestant churches in numerous traditions, and it will often come down to the local options present where you happen to live. May the Lord guide you and direct you.
A baptist or reformed church would be closer to Pastor Ortlund's teachings, since he seems to have an overlap. He's a unique and gifted shepherd in his soft yet passionate and always gentle approach. He seems more full gospel and seems to have almost pentacostal leanings in his beliefs as well, as he believes in healing, miracles and that it's not just in the past. He doesn't seem to be a cessationist as most baptists and reformed are. Lutheran would be very close to what you are used to as a Catholic. It's always going to depend on the pastor, but I've found Lutheranism is pretty legalistic and not as soft as most priests. I attend mass, even though I'm not Catholic and there's a softness there, though not as much as a typical protestant church. I think Presbyterian is also a high church w/ formal liturgy, that would be more familiar to a Catholic as well. I don't know the Presbyterian denomination well.
I've found the channel "Ready to Harvest" to be similarly helpful in working out what positions different denominations hold. But in my experience, it really does come down to what is locally available, and what the local churches are like. A denomination can look great "on paper" but have a local congregation that is a poor example. Or the statement of faith may raise some red flags, while the church itself turns out to be a thriving congregation with wonderful people.
As a Catholic, I would say that I agree that Gavin is very thoughtful and I respect him. But I would say to not discard Catholicism without looking into it more, especially the church fathers and church history. “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” - John Henry Newman (Anglican who converted to Catholicism)
Great word to the gay audience member asking about "reforming" our view of sexuality. My primary worry about the softer approach to modernist challenges to Christianity is that they make it easier to open the door to these changes under the guise of reform, so I am glad you were a bit firmer in saying that no, changes to the universal witness of the church are not on the table. That said, I wish you were a bit firmer at the end when saying that you would keep listening and are open to personal experiences on the matter. I understand where you are coming from in not wanting to shut people out who have had negative experience, but I worry that the use of experiential language and having a stance that appears open to change on the issue, even if it is not truly open to changing, has negative impact on the conversation.The pastors I know that have buckled their orthodoxy to the societal pressure have always talked about their views being shaped by personal experiences, and I worry that if our side is the only side that is open to listen to the other will weaken our orthodoxy in the long run. There are times to be open to having your mind changed, but if only one side of a conversation is willing to do this then that is the direction the conversation will shift. We need to hold firm in love against the normalisation of sexual immorality, even when it is coming from the people we are called to love and minister to. Thanks for the talk over all Dr. Ortlund!
That’s a fair point, Ryan. My intention in speaking about remaining open was about the nuances of relationship, not the actual issue, but I probably could have answered that more clearly. Thanks for the feedback.
Can I ask a response to my question, following this intro? Let's try a thought experiment, assuming most traditional Christian thoughts and their equal implications in other scenarios. For example, you are in 2 communities in the world and church, but you prioritize one over the other, so is in it the same response correctly used when similar discrimination is given by the people inside the sub community? Wouldn't the government be able deny you something because you don't fit orthodoxy. The you would be by proxy, Jesus when he decides not to heal ,but the followers are not rejected at every but limited government rights established in the world. Isn't this unusual?
@@madra000 The interplay between government rights and religious orthodoxy is intriguing. Governments often grant rights based on legal frameworks, which may or may not align with religious beliefs. When someone deviates from the majority belief (religious orthodoxy), the government typically doesn’t deny them basic rights. However, conflicts can arise when religious practices clash with secular laws (such as conscientious objection to war or specific medical procedures). The ongoing debate about religious freedom versus government regulations has persisted worldwide for centuries, and a universally satisfying resolution remains elusive, at best. Regarding the parallel you mentioned between Jesus’ decisions not to heal everyone and limited government rights. In the biblical context, Jesus’ healing was more than physical; it often involved teaching and internal spiritual transformation. His decisions were spiritually purposeful, not arbitrary, and not legalistic. Jesus focus was on inward behavior and spiritual relationship with the Father. Principally, government rights stem from legal principles, societal norms, and practical considerations. They operate quite differently from divine healing, or spiritual outcomes with an entirely different focus, our outward behavior. Comparing Jesus’ actions directly to government policies is indeed unusual, as they really exist in separate realms. While we can learn from Jesus’ teachings, directly applying them to government decisions poses challenges due to the differing contexts.
Very interesting and engaging message, thank you! I was thinking about the word "careful", maybe I'd say we need more intellectual (and moral, etc.) dilligence. I fear modern way of life sometimes produces this sort of laziness, which very often leads to enormous simplification in narratives. I immensely appreciate that you take the effort and time to try to come closer to the truth, even if it may be a little more complicated and in shades of gray. Also, to my Czech Evangelical ear, I was pleasantly surprised about your suggestion to look wider both in time and space. I think that Christianity as a whole, but especially Evangelicalism, would greatly benefit from considering the experiences of fellow believers outside of the local bubble. It very much adds to the catholicity that we should strive for.
I deeply appreciate your content Gavin. It has encouraged and strengthened my Protestant faith, while also helping me understand and appreciate other Christian traditions. I'm a PhD history student at Baylor and as someone who studies American religious history I would love to know how you characterize evangelicals. I identify primarily as an historic, confessional Protestant (Presbyterian). I know you've identified as an historic Protestant, but you've also defended evangelicalism. How would you distinguish the 2? It's a fairly major debate among historians and I'm still sorting out what I think about it.
Thanks a lot Isaac, so glad my videos have been useful. The question of definition is a tricky question, isn't it? I know Bebbington's quad gets a lot of flack but I honestly find it still useful as a description. But I recognize this is a hotly contested question and probably not one I can resolve in a youtube comment. God bless you in your studies at Baylor!
No worries, I completely understand. I'm actually in a class with Bebbington right now on the History of Evangelicalism. Cultural arguments that downplay theology are certainly in vogue at the moment, but I think they face some serious problems.
He has talked to orthodox brothers. You know, you orthodox guys should have more conversations with us and not only condemned us so strongly. The Holy Spirit is present in our churches and you shouldnt just condemned. Im working through my own Journey of faith thinking about the calling of God in my life of being a pastor. Pray for me, im confessional lutheran here in Mexico but we are a small church. There is few lutheran churches and Roman Catholicism pervades in our country. The claim of apostolic authority makes me nervous and feeling like if our church was a David going against a Goliath.
@@gustavorvalderrama625 To be fair, VanderKlay is a reformed Protestant. I am Protestant as well. I believe there needs to be a greater representation from Protestantism than only VanderKlay. Gavin seems to have the level of openness necessary to engage in those types of conversations. Honestly, I believe that what those guys are doing transcends any particular denomination.
@@australopithecusafarensis8927 Comments like this have no place in these conversations. This corner of the internet is seeking truth and unity. Many Protestants' eyes are being opened to what we have lost and are working through it.
@@australopithecusafarensis8927 Not all Protestants believe that religion is only propositional. Again, the conversations I listen to are all about recapturing the pre-enlightenment worldview. Modernism makes everything rational and propositional. This is not a pitfall reserved for Protestants only.
@@australopithecusafarensis8927 Being a Protestant, none of what you are asking about has ever been taught. That is the point of what I'm saying. There has to be dialogue before anything can be learned. Faith cannot be reduced to simply pulling out the checklist of doctrines and weeding out everyone that doesn't sign their name to them all. Faith begins as a seed and grows. It also comes from hearing, and I have never heard any doctrines involving Mary taught. I am being exposed to Catholic theology through good-faith conversations, and much of what I thought was completely bogus before makes sense when I understand it as Catholics do. I believe that if we are all seeking Christ, then he will gather his sheep and makes us one. I truly believe we are tasting that, even now, as we dialogue.
So I haven't heard of you till I saw the Remnant Radio interview however long ago and I've been a subscriber ever since. Then I was in my dad's office (He's been in family ministry for about 30 years) for a meeting last night, and I happened to look over at the book shelf. A book with the name "Ortlund." So I picked it up. But it wasn't "Gavin;" It was "Anne." I suppose I haven't really listened much to you talk about your upbringing or anything but it was a cool connection for me.
Ok...was anyone else a little uncomfortable with the enneagram references? OTT, thanks for the gentle approach, Gavin. I learn more from you in 10 minutes than from most other folks in an hour.
Gregory of Nyssa was mistaken because the Bible cleary states that slavery is not always a sin in every case, and that it is possible for one person to "own" another..."Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever..." Leviticus 25:45-46.
I wonder if you took “sexuality” and replaced it with any other sin which we are susceptible to or conditioned towards if there would be as much push back. The problem is we connect our identity to our sexuality.
I’m learning so much from you, especially church history and it’s case for Protestantism. May be careful with the hand gestures. Some will believe you’re a Freemason. 😂
Dr. Ortland is there any chance you would be willing to share a link to the text of this message? I know several people who should read this that I don't think will watch the video.
Dr. Ortlund, fist off I want to say that I admire you so much. You are truly a genuinely kind soul, and your channel has brought me closer to God on so many levels. However, I do want to challenge a few of your ideas that you present, especially as it relates to women's ordination and gay marriage. I liked the question from the young man in the audience, where he tried to articulate that descendants of the Protestant Reformation might come across as hypocritical when appealing to history and tradition as an argument. In fact, the reformers (especially the Calvinist camp), radically departed from the theological and organizational tradition of the church. The move away from the historic Apostolic succession (i.e. episcopal structure) was one huge step. Sure, one can say that the biblical era church had a variety of ecclesiologies (i.e., congregational, presbyterian, etc...), but that was very short lived. And, one can argue that these other ecclesiologies existed at the time, because the Apostles themselves existed, and as they started to pass on, the leaders were people who kept the actual company of the Apostles. However, shortly after that generation, the epsicopal structure was fairly normative across Christianity and stayed that way for 1400/1500 years until the reformation. And, in some reformed churches, they still kept the episopal structure because they saw that as the authentic tradition of the Church. And, to reference the groups that you referenced in your talk as somehow having historical legitimacy (i.e., Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Church, Roman Catholic Church, and Churches of the East), ALL preserve the historical episcopate with the understanding it is Apostolic succession. The reformers pretty much junked that after it had been the norm in Christianity for well over a thousand years. They did the same thing with the Eucharist. Sure, Martin Luther maintained that the elements of the Eucharist were the mystical body and blood of Christ, but he denied that the eucharist was a bloodless sacrifice (viz. propitiatory). The Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice was a doctrine accepted very early in the Church and is the norm today in the Catholic, Orthodox, Eastern, Coptic, and Assyrian churches to name a few. These are two things I just mentioned, but those two things were radical, as they were the normative practice of all Christian churches for a millennia and a half after Christ. Those ideas of the time were more controversial than gay marriage or women's ordination today. Also, in your answer to the first questioner, you tried to say to the effect that if there is no tradition of something, then it is really closed off as a future topic. However, from a logical perspective this is fallacious. What you are saying then is that if one could locate a practice or idea within the history of the church, then that is open for exploration and possible inclusion in the Church today. Unfortunately, that is a very troublesome idea for multiple reasons. The first reason is who defines the historical period in the church that allows for this type of innovation? Can we go back to the old testament? The Early Christians certainly practices OT law and traditions. Is that something we can use for innovation in the church? Also, perhaps there was a tradition in a particular time of the church that was suited for that time only, and church practice evolved away from that for a reason? One last thing I want to mention is that you seemed to say that the reformation was not really a restorationist movement, per se, but it sounded like you were saying that the reformers were motivated to reform the Church based upon the Patristic period and the fathers of the Church. No doubt that some of the reformers quoted from the ideas of the fathers, but the reformers certainly didn't rely on them for their reformed theological and ecclesiastical innovations. Although the theology of the church was changed/reformed, the reformation was not predicated by theology. The reformation was predicated by the fact that the Roman church became abusive to her people, Christ's people, and that was why the reformers had enough buy-in from the people to be able to reform the structure, and subsequent theology, of the Church. The Church, as an organization, is supposed to unite people to God. The Catholic church at the time (and probably the orthodox church to a certain extent. The only difference is the orthodox church was not nearly as expansive or powerful as the Roman church in the West. Therefore, the people didn't feel as abused by the orthodox church as the West felt by the Roman church despite the Roman and orthodox churches sharing very similar beliefs. Hence, there was no reformation in orthodox lands). If the Roman church had not become so corrupt, there never would have been a reformation or protestant church in the West - just like there never was in the East. So, this brings me back to the issues of today. Is the evangelical church of today like the Roman church of old? Is the evangelical church saying who can and who cannot access Christ and His body the church? Sure, there is no gay marriage in the bible that we are aware of, but there were no gay people in biblical times like there are today. Sure, there has always been same sex attraction, but the bible focused on certain sexual acts being sinful. In biblical times gay people most likely led regular heteronormative lives for the time, but engaged in illicit sex. As a group of people committing sexual sin, the bible speak of prostitutes (men and women), but there never was LGBT people then as we know them now. Is that enough to visit the issue? Or do we assume that just because someone is same-sex attracted that he or she is inherently sinful and has no place in the life of the church? If we do that, are we creating barriers to these people to salvation or the mercy of the Lord? I would much rather err on the side of bringing sinners into the church than keeping non-sinners out especially when there is some confusion about the sin and the sinner. The reality is that gay people exist, and they are not a monolithic group. Some yearn for community and for a relationship with God and others do not. They are people in every sense of the word. My last note here is that as the representative of the body of Christ on earth, we should ask ourselves not whether LGBT people should be welcomes to participate in the full life of the church, but how can they participate in the full life of the church that is dignified and realistic? Thanks, Dr. Ortlund...please don't take any of this the wrong way. I love you, your teaching, and your work so much. Even if we ultimately disagree on this issue, I will still see you as a role model.
Thomas, thank you for this very thoughtful comment. I don’t have time to respond just now, but shoot me an email if you want to dialogue further. Thanks again
Just curious.. Could you explain as to why you used the words of an ANTICHRIST figure like Barack Obama to make a point on how we all need to come together and sing kombaya?
The "Eneagram vibes" comment the presenter made are concerning to Church members who see this trend as unbiblical means to determine one's so called personality traits. Eneagram seems like a very odd mixture of psuedo-science and unbiblical mysticism that is much more akin to the occult than a biblical discipline that edifies the soul. Also, Using B. Obama's past political maneuverings in 2008 as an good example for Christians to follow is also worrisome. Obama is or was a member of the United Church Of Christ and where or what is the good fruit in that group? The Bible gives far many more warnings against false teachers than it does admonitions to be charitable to those who hold spurious or false doctrines. Jeremiah Wright (Obama's pastor) is a Liberation Theologian and holds to a different gospel which Paul anathematizes (Galations 1 and others).
@@koba2955 Yes, false teachers are conceited and understand nothing. They sow division and discord, as well as feeding the evil desires of men. This is the attitude that Gavin speaks against, and is instead trying to bring unity to a fragmented body. Obama was simply an illustration of an attitude that in principle should lead to just that. Political speeches, in their content, tend to speak of ideals that we should all aspire to. Obviously politicians do not always practice what they preach lol.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I’m a hardly practicing Catholic moving towards Protestantism. Pastor Gavin has been the most influential voice I’ve come across on TH-cam and and I’d only just begun to scratch the surface of his content. Intellectual, calm and kind. Seems to hold traditional beliefs on certain hot topic issues (as do I) without being caustic.
The last thing I’m working out is which church. Lutheran? Presb? Baptist? Where am I likely to receive teachings of the sort Pastor Ortlund would impart?
Nice to be in touch with you David! In my experience, there are really healthy and wonderful Protestant churches in numerous traditions, and it will often come down to the local options present where you happen to live. May the Lord guide you and direct you.
A baptist or reformed church would be closer to Pastor Ortlund's teachings, since he seems to have an overlap. He's a unique and gifted shepherd in his soft yet passionate and always gentle approach. He seems more full gospel and seems to have almost pentacostal leanings in his beliefs as well, as he believes in healing, miracles and that it's not just in the past. He doesn't seem to be a cessationist as most baptists and reformed are.
Lutheran would be very close to what you are used to as a Catholic. It's always going to depend on the pastor, but I've found Lutheranism is pretty legalistic and not as soft as most priests. I attend mass, even though I'm not Catholic and there's a softness there, though not as much as a typical protestant church. I think Presbyterian is also a high church w/ formal liturgy, that would be more familiar to a Catholic as well. I don't know the Presbyterian denomination well.
I've found the channel "Ready to Harvest" to be similarly helpful in working out what positions different denominations hold. But in my experience, it really does come down to what is locally available, and what the local churches are like. A denomination can look great "on paper" but have a local congregation that is a poor example. Or the statement of faith may raise some red flags, while the church itself turns out to be a thriving congregation with wonderful people.
Former orthodoxy here...Gavin has also influenced me in many ways to learn about protestantism!!
As a Catholic, I would say that I agree that Gavin is very thoughtful and I respect him. But I would say to not discard Catholicism without looking into it more, especially the church fathers and church history. “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” - John Henry Newman (Anglican who converted to Catholicism)
Great word to the gay audience member asking about "reforming" our view of sexuality. My primary worry about the softer approach to modernist challenges to Christianity is that they make it easier to open the door to these changes under the guise of reform, so I am glad you were a bit firmer in saying that no, changes to the universal witness of the church are not on the table.
That said, I wish you were a bit firmer at the end when saying that you would keep listening and are open to personal experiences on the matter. I understand where you are coming from in not wanting to shut people out who have had negative experience, but I worry that the use of experiential language and having a stance that appears open to change on the issue, even if it is not truly open to changing, has negative impact on the conversation.The pastors I know that have buckled their orthodoxy to the societal pressure have always talked about their views being shaped by personal experiences, and I worry that if our side is the only side that is open to listen to the other will weaken our orthodoxy in the long run.
There are times to be open to having your mind changed, but if only one side of a conversation is willing to do this then that is the direction the conversation will shift. We need to hold firm in love against the normalisation of sexual immorality, even when it is coming from the people we are called to love and minister to. Thanks for the talk over all Dr. Ortlund!
That’s a fair point, Ryan. My intention in speaking about remaining open was about the nuances of relationship, not the actual issue, but I probably could have answered that more clearly. Thanks for the feedback.
Can I ask a response to my question, following this intro?
Let's try a thought experiment, assuming most traditional Christian thoughts and their equal implications in other scenarios. For example, you are in 2 communities in the world and church, but you prioritize one over the other, so is in it the same response correctly used when similar discrimination is given by the people inside the sub community?
Wouldn't the government be able deny you something because you don't fit orthodoxy. The you would be by proxy, Jesus when he decides not to heal ,but the followers are not rejected at every but limited government rights established in the world. Isn't this unusual?
@@madra000 The interplay between government rights and religious orthodoxy is intriguing.
Governments often grant rights based on legal frameworks, which may or may not align with religious beliefs.
When someone deviates from the majority belief (religious orthodoxy), the government typically doesn’t deny them basic rights. However, conflicts can arise when religious practices clash with secular laws (such as conscientious objection to war or specific medical procedures).
The ongoing debate about religious freedom versus government regulations has persisted worldwide for centuries, and a universally satisfying resolution remains elusive, at best.
Regarding the parallel you mentioned between Jesus’ decisions not to heal everyone and limited government rights.
In the biblical context, Jesus’ healing was more than physical; it often involved teaching and internal spiritual transformation. His decisions were spiritually purposeful, not arbitrary, and not legalistic. Jesus focus was on inward behavior and spiritual relationship with the Father.
Principally, government rights stem from legal principles, societal norms, and practical considerations. They operate quite differently from divine healing, or spiritual outcomes with an entirely different focus, our outward behavior.
Comparing Jesus’ actions directly to government policies is indeed unusual, as they really exist in separate realms.
While we can learn from Jesus’ teachings, directly applying them to government decisions poses challenges due to the differing contexts.
i think the correct term is anti-disestablishmentarianism-evangelicalexpialidocious
Great video!
I agree with Dr Ortlund that the entire Christian tradition is in need a a reformation.
Love the explaining of use of “careful”. If I were to replace that better word to fit that definition might be “precise”.
Very interesting and engaging message, thank you!
I was thinking about the word "careful", maybe I'd say we need more intellectual (and moral, etc.) dilligence. I fear modern way of life sometimes produces this sort of laziness, which very often leads to enormous simplification in narratives. I immensely appreciate that you take the effort and time to try to come closer to the truth, even if it may be a little more complicated and in shades of gray.
Also, to my Czech Evangelical ear, I was pleasantly surprised about your suggestion to look wider both in time and space. I think that Christianity as a whole, but especially Evangelicalism, would greatly benefit from considering the experiences of fellow believers outside of the local bubble. It very much adds to the catholicity that we should strive for.
Brilliant!!
I deeply appreciate your content Gavin. It has encouraged and strengthened my Protestant faith, while also helping me understand and appreciate other Christian traditions. I'm a PhD history student at Baylor and as someone who studies American religious history I would love to know how you characterize evangelicals. I identify primarily as an historic, confessional Protestant (Presbyterian). I know you've identified as an historic Protestant, but you've also defended evangelicalism. How would you distinguish the 2? It's a fairly major debate among historians and I'm still sorting out what I think about it.
Thanks a lot Isaac, so glad my videos have been useful. The question of definition is a tricky question, isn't it? I know Bebbington's quad gets a lot of flack but I honestly find it still useful as a description. But I recognize this is a hotly contested question and probably not one I can resolve in a youtube comment. God bless you in your studies at Baylor!
No worries, I completely understand. I'm actually in a class with Bebbington right now on the History of Evangelicalism. Cultural arguments that downplay theology are certainly in vogue at the moment, but I think they face some serious problems.
This was so good and needed. Thank you for your work!
So meaningful. Great delivery, Pastor 👌
I think Gavin needs to visit the corner of the internet with VanderKlay and Pageau.
He has talked to orthodox brothers. You know, you orthodox guys should have more conversations with us and not only condemned us so strongly. The Holy Spirit is present in our churches and you shouldnt just condemned. Im working through my own Journey of faith thinking about the calling of God in my life of being a pastor. Pray for me, im confessional lutheran here in Mexico but we are a small church. There is few lutheran churches and Roman Catholicism pervades in our country. The claim of apostolic authority makes me nervous and feeling like if our church was a David going against a Goliath.
@@gustavorvalderrama625 To be fair, VanderKlay is a reformed Protestant. I am Protestant as well. I believe there needs to be a greater representation from Protestantism than only VanderKlay. Gavin seems to have the level of openness necessary to engage in those types of conversations. Honestly, I believe that what those guys are doing transcends any particular denomination.
@@australopithecusafarensis8927 Comments like this have no place in these conversations. This corner of the internet is seeking truth and unity. Many Protestants' eyes are being opened to what we have lost and are working through it.
@@australopithecusafarensis8927 Not all Protestants believe that religion is only propositional. Again, the conversations I listen to are all about recapturing the pre-enlightenment worldview. Modernism makes everything rational and propositional. This is not a pitfall reserved for Protestants only.
@@australopithecusafarensis8927 Being a Protestant, none of what you are asking about has ever been taught. That is the point of what I'm saying. There has to be dialogue before anything can be learned. Faith cannot be reduced to simply pulling out the checklist of doctrines and weeding out everyone that doesn't sign their name to them all. Faith begins as a seed and grows. It also comes from hearing, and I have never heard any doctrines involving Mary taught. I am being exposed to Catholic theology through good-faith conversations, and much of what I thought was completely bogus before makes sense when I understand it as Catholics do. I believe that if we are all seeking Christ, then he will gather his sheep and makes us one. I truly believe we are tasting that, even now, as we dialogue.
57:37 felt this same way about Jesus and John Wayne.
Also would love to hear a church history series or video on the LGBTQ+ issue.
🤨
Great talk Gavin! Looking forward to your session on Christianity and the Natural Sciences at ETS in a couple weeks.
hope to see you there!
So I haven't heard of you till I saw the Remnant Radio interview however long ago and I've been a subscriber ever since. Then I was in my dad's office (He's been in family ministry for about 30 years) for a meeting last night, and I happened to look over at the book shelf. A book with the name "Ortlund." So I picked it up. But it wasn't "Gavin;" It was "Anne." I suppose I haven't really listened much to you talk about your upbringing or anything but it was a cool connection for me.
happy to be connected, Aaron! Anne was my grandmother -- a wonderful woman of God and servant of Christ.
@@TruthUnites that's so awesome! What a great heritage. Thanks for everything you do.
Ok...was anyone else a little uncomfortable with the enneagram references?
OTT, thanks for the gentle approach, Gavin. I learn more from you in 10 minutes than from most other folks in an hour.
Gregory of Nyssa was mistaken because the Bible cleary states that slavery is not always a sin in every case, and that it is possible for one person to "own" another..."Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever..." Leviticus 25:45-46.
I wonder if you took “sexuality” and replaced it with any other sin which we are susceptible to or conditioned towards if there would be as much push back. The problem is we connect our identity to our sexuality.
I haven't watched your sermon yet, but my initial response is ... 100% yes (maybe detangled is a better term)
I’m learning so much from you, especially church history and it’s case for Protestantism. May be careful with the hand gestures. Some will believe you’re a Freemason. 😂
Was this message in manuscript? If so, is that how you tend to prepare messages?
👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
Dr. Ortland is there any chance you would be willing to share a link to the text of this message? I know several people who should read this that I don't think will watch the video.
Sorry, the text is not available but the podcast version is, in addition to the video.
@@TruthUnites thanks anyway great talk.
Nobama
Dr. Ortlund, fist off I want to say that I admire you so much. You are truly a genuinely kind soul, and your channel has brought me closer to God on so many levels. However, I do want to challenge a few of your ideas that you present, especially as it relates to women's ordination and gay marriage.
I liked the question from the young man in the audience, where he tried to articulate that descendants of the Protestant Reformation might come across as hypocritical when appealing to history and tradition as an argument. In fact, the reformers (especially the Calvinist camp), radically departed from the theological and organizational tradition of the church. The move away from the historic Apostolic succession (i.e. episcopal structure) was one huge step. Sure, one can say that the biblical era church had a variety of ecclesiologies (i.e., congregational, presbyterian, etc...), but that was very short lived. And, one can argue that these other ecclesiologies existed at the time, because the Apostles themselves existed, and as they started to pass on, the leaders were people who kept the actual company of the Apostles. However, shortly after that generation, the epsicopal structure was fairly normative across Christianity and stayed that way for 1400/1500 years until the reformation. And, in some reformed churches, they still kept the episopal structure because they saw that as the authentic tradition of the Church. And, to reference the groups that you referenced in your talk as somehow having historical legitimacy (i.e., Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Church, Roman Catholic Church, and Churches of the East), ALL preserve the historical episcopate with the understanding it is Apostolic succession. The reformers pretty much junked that after it had been the norm in Christianity for well over a thousand years. They did the same thing with the Eucharist. Sure, Martin Luther maintained that the elements of the Eucharist were the mystical body and blood of Christ, but he denied that the eucharist was a bloodless sacrifice (viz. propitiatory). The Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice was a doctrine accepted very early in the Church and is the norm today in the Catholic, Orthodox, Eastern, Coptic, and Assyrian churches to name a few. These are two things I just mentioned, but those two things were radical, as they were the normative practice of all Christian churches for a millennia and a half after Christ. Those ideas of the time were more controversial than gay marriage or women's ordination today.
Also, in your answer to the first questioner, you tried to say to the effect that if there is no tradition of something, then it is really closed off as a future topic. However, from a logical perspective this is fallacious. What you are saying then is that if one could locate a practice or idea within the history of the church, then that is open for exploration and possible inclusion in the Church today. Unfortunately, that is a very troublesome idea for multiple reasons. The first reason is who defines the historical period in the church that allows for this type of innovation? Can we go back to the old testament? The Early Christians certainly practices OT law and traditions. Is that something we can use for innovation in the church? Also, perhaps there was a tradition in a particular time of the church that was suited for that time only, and church practice evolved away from that for a reason?
One last thing I want to mention is that you seemed to say that the reformation was not really a restorationist movement, per se, but it sounded like you were saying that the reformers were motivated to reform the Church based upon the Patristic period and the fathers of the Church. No doubt that some of the reformers quoted from the ideas of the fathers, but the reformers certainly didn't rely on them for their reformed theological and ecclesiastical innovations. Although the theology of the church was changed/reformed, the reformation was not predicated by theology. The reformation was predicated by the fact that the Roman church became abusive to her people, Christ's people, and that was why the reformers had enough buy-in from the people to be able to reform the structure, and subsequent theology, of the Church. The Church, as an organization, is supposed to unite people to God. The Catholic church at the time (and probably the orthodox church to a certain extent. The only difference is the orthodox church was not nearly as expansive or powerful as the Roman church in the West. Therefore, the people didn't feel as abused by the orthodox church as the West felt by the Roman church despite the Roman and orthodox churches sharing very similar beliefs. Hence, there was no reformation in orthodox lands). If the Roman church had not become so corrupt, there never would have been a reformation or protestant church in the West - just like there never was in the East.
So, this brings me back to the issues of today. Is the evangelical church of today like the Roman church of old? Is the evangelical church saying who can and who cannot access Christ and His body the church? Sure, there is no gay marriage in the bible that we are aware of, but there were no gay people in biblical times like there are today. Sure, there has always been same sex attraction, but the bible focused on certain sexual acts being sinful. In biblical times gay people most likely led regular heteronormative lives for the time, but engaged in illicit sex. As a group of people committing sexual sin, the bible speak of prostitutes (men and women), but there never was LGBT people then as we know them now. Is that enough to visit the issue? Or do we assume that just because someone is same-sex attracted that he or she is inherently sinful and has no place in the life of the church? If we do that, are we creating barriers to these people to salvation or the mercy of the Lord? I would much rather err on the side of bringing sinners into the church than keeping non-sinners out especially when there is some confusion about the sin and the sinner.
The reality is that gay people exist, and they are not a monolithic group. Some yearn for community and for a relationship with God and others do not. They are people in every sense of the word. My last note here is that as the representative of the body of Christ on earth, we should ask ourselves not whether LGBT people should be welcomes to participate in the full life of the church, but how can they participate in the full life of the church that is dignified and realistic?
Thanks, Dr. Ortlund...please don't take any of this the wrong way. I love you, your teaching, and your work so much. Even if we ultimately disagree on this issue, I will still see you as a role model.
Thomas, thank you for this very thoughtful comment. I don’t have time to respond just now, but shoot me an email if you want to dialogue further. Thanks again
Are you the villain in Walking Tall?
Just curious.. Could you explain as to why you used the words of an ANTICHRIST figure like Barack Obama to make a point on how we all need to come together and sing kombaya?
Is Trump also an Anti-Christ figure?
Comments like this create the necessity of talks like the one in this video.
The "Eneagram vibes" comment the presenter made are concerning to Church members who see this trend as unbiblical means to determine one's so called personality traits. Eneagram seems like a very odd mixture of psuedo-science and unbiblical mysticism that is much more akin to the occult than a biblical discipline that edifies the soul. Also, Using B. Obama's past political maneuverings in 2008 as an good example for Christians to follow is also worrisome. Obama is or was a member of the United Church Of Christ and where or what is the good fruit in that group? The Bible gives far many more warnings against false teachers than it does admonitions to be charitable to those who hold spurious or false doctrines. Jeremiah Wright (Obama's pastor) is a Liberation Theologian and holds to a different gospel which Paul anathematizes (Galations 1 and others).
@@koba2955 Yes, false teachers are conceited and understand nothing. They sow division and discord, as well as feeding the evil desires of men. This is the attitude that Gavin speaks against, and is instead trying to bring unity to a fragmented body. Obama was simply an illustration of an attitude that in principle should lead to just that. Political speeches, in their content, tend to speak of ideals that we should all aspire to. Obviously politicians do not always practice what they preach lol.
This is why we can't have nice things