Your critiques of Rome are among the best I've found, both on logical and historical grounds. Your comeback to "Where is Sola Scriptura in the Bible?" is so simple I'm kicking myself for not thinking about it. They have the burden to prove another divine source other than the Bible. I don't think it's a coincidence that you have a thorough knowledge of the fathers and can so easily dispatch of Roman claims. To be 'deep' in history is to cease to be Protestant. To be deepest in history is to cease being Roman.
in traditional churches we say "because the authority lies in the holy spirit, then, when the inspired text talks about a unifyed language, we take it as the agreement of the christian world". so... saints and fathers are not divine authority. but when the majority of them agree in a matter and it became the norm of the unified church (ie ecumenical councis), we follow them as true. if not at every point, at least in spiritual matters. i speak at least as eastern orthodox, that's the logic. now, that the modern orthodox and catholics are not the exact same thing as the old church every person with eyes and a mind can get that i hope. still, i dont find a reason to follow anyone that does not respect a long tradition. if people are agreeing with the theology and christology of the traditional church, then i could not care less what they like to follow.
This is so true. I have found that Dr. Cooper and the Lutheran sources he uses to counter Rome are absolutely top. I love my Lutheran brothers and sisters!
Proving a source outside the Bible is quite easy to do. Trivial in fact. There is no inspired table of contents in the Bible. Therefore, we must have an authority outside the Bible to determine what books should be in the Bible. If that authority is fallible, then they could've been wrong on which books went in the Bible, which means I can reject books I am skeptical of (as Luther did). If they were infallible, then I cannot do that, and Sola Scriptura is wrong.
I'm convert from Roman to Lutheran Church in Poland and a fan of your videos, Dr. Cooper :) I got interested in Church Fathers on my way to Lutheranism, after reading Augsburg Confession.
@@lad6524 “Christ was an adulterer for the first time with the woman at the well, for it was said, ‘Nobody knows what he’s doing with her’ [John 4:27]. Again [he was an adulterer] with Magdalene, and still again with the adulterous woman in John 8 [:2-11], whom he let off so easily. So the good Christ had to become an adulterer before he died.” Luther’s Work, 54:154
@@fantasia55 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 corinthians 5 21 Read the whole context,luther was saying that Jesus christ took upon himself all sins and that he became the worst of all sinners.
I've listened to most of your videos and I'm a happy Anglican. Both Anglicanism and Lutheranism have the best balance. We need a high view of the authority of scripture, with a respect for how the church has traditionally handled it.
Awesome comment. One thing I really wish could be done is a very thorough video on the differences between conservative Anglicanism and conservative Lutherans. I can't seem to find a really good resource on this. Perhaps Dr. Cooper could do one?!
@@wonderingpilgrim As a former Reformed-Baptist who is currently trying to decide between joining traditional Anglicanism or confessional Lutheranism, I would find such a resource very helpful!
@@grasshopper801 Read the Conservative Anglican Book of Common Prayer, and the 1662 edition of the B.O.C.P, Penguin Classics sells the 1662 version for $22. Also read the Book of Concord, you can also find audiobooks of Lutheran Classics on youtube. The major differences are that Confessional Lutheranism holds to the Real Presence, and Luther's Monergism; whilst the Anglicans are Reformed, and believe in Spiritual Communion.
I read that the oldest list of Apostolic Succession only goes back to the 14th century and that one is in the English Church. There is basically no proof of unbroken chains of bishops.
Dr. Jordan Cooper, congratulations on your honest teachings. It is for these and others things that I tend to say that the true apostolic succession is the succession of apostle's faith and doctrine wich are safe and objectively contained in the NT, as we can see it in Acts: "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." (Acts 2:42). This is the true and blessed Apostolic Succession. God bless you and carry on with your teachings here! Warm regards from your Presbyterian (almost Lutheran lol) brother
Why Apostolic Succession is NOT an option for the Church? It prevents heretics from accessing the pulpits, and from hurting the sheep with their apostate doctrines. “But the same writer (Clement of Rome), in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just (Half-brother of Jesus) and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the Seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.” Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, “Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.” ” ~Eusebius, Disciple of Pamphilus (influenced by Origen), Bishop of Caesarea 314 AD, Christian historian, polemicist, exegete. Ascension of Christ, Book II, 260-340 AD What Are Apostolic Traditions? 1. They are the interpretations of the Scriptures that Jesus taught His disciples and were passed on to faithful men. 2. They are teachings that protect the Church from heretical teachers. 3. They were preserved among the Ante-Nicene Fathers. 4. It must be held in high regard at the end of the age to protect the Church from the lawless one, Son of Perdition. Apostolic Tradition refers to the teachings, interpretations and revelations of scripture that were passed down from the first Apostles to the Early Church prior to 325 AD. The Apostles passed these down so that we might stay in alignment with the pattern and what Jesus taught to receive the same understanding and power of the Early Church. It is evident this is not the case in Christianity today with thousands of different denominations and interpretations. To truly follow the teachings of Jesus we need to follow the initial Apostolic understanding and teachings they received from Jesus himself.
Thank you for a very insightful comment. I agree with your logic as to why Apostolic succession in theory would be a wonderful thing that I would love to believe in. But it’s really hard to see apostolic origin in every single claim that Rome makes that seems so foreign to the NT and Apostolic Fathers (especially when anathemas get attached to them). It’s one thing to say that the apostles taught the 70 and so on, and another to claim that no error ever entered into that passing on of information. Doctrinal development seems to become the excuse as to why the NT looks so different from Trent. Just some thought from someone genuinely looking into the history of the Church. Thanks for reading!
With respect, you appear to be making a number of assumptions here which effectively reduce the RCC claim to circular logic. Imagine if you will, the doctrinal sum of the true first/Apostolic Church as a sort of representative shape on piece of paper, say a circle. In the time of Irenaeus (for example) a similarly shaped and sized circle representing the ordinations (call it a Bishopric) of that same church could be drawn which would have roughly overlaid the first circle identically. There may be small deviations in the circles over time as regional churches wrestle with unique cultural questions of Christian freedom or adiaphoria, but generally the circles were the same. The first assumption make by Catholics seems to regularly be that there is and would remain in fact only one circle (because of Christ's promise to preserve the church) and/or that the two circles if we grant that, are invariably linked. Your statement that it "prevents heretics from accessing the pulpits, and from hurting the sheep with their apostate doctrines" suggests this assumption. The second one similarly, perhaps better called an omission (due to the first) is that there can not be any sort of collective "drift" of the second circle from the first. If the circles are not absolutely linked, then the true church exists wherever the Apostolic faith exists; EVEN IF the second circle has drifted off (for instance in times of significant divergence from the Apostolic truth due to other pressures like strife, oppression or corruption from without or within). There is one additional presumption it seems, made just as often to try and ensure the argument and assure people that such a drift could never happen: namely that Christ's church MUST be like Rome is today; visible and identifiable to the world on the surface or on its outward-facing facets. I would just say this in response...the "church" existing at the time of Jesus' birth and life was likewise and indisputably "worldly" in the same way as it was outwardly perceived; the Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees were seen and known by all as distinctly being the priestly and recognizable face of Judaism. And yet Jesus' infallible perspective of them and their tradition was that all their "outwardness" was not synonymous with truth. They possessed and sought the letter of the law but missed its very heart...they invalidated the word of God by their abuse of traditions and while they searched the scriptures for eternal life they missed that it was there in which was testified of Jesus Himself. I say none of this to judge Catholics, only to point out that the arguments often brought forward to support Rome, are suspect at best. The church of Trent, doctrinally, was not that of Irenaeus nor is it that of post Vatican II. Has the first circle shifted or only the second...
I don't want your channel to just become a counter-RC apologetical ministry, but I do appreciate your critique of Rome and always welcome it. I like your emphasis on Lutheran piety, confessionalism and sacramentalism. I have enjoyed learning more about Lutheranism, especially as so much of theological discussion in evangelicalism ends up revolving around Calvinism vs. Arminianism. I do think we need more nuanced information and pastoral application of historic, confessional Protestantism.
I became Anglican partly because of your videos on the Fathers and the sacraments. The placing of Tradition on the same plane with Scripture and medieval theological inventions dispel me from turning to Rome or Constantinople. I think Canterbury and Augsburg get it mostly right, although I do find Orthodox liturgy beautiful.
You said we don't really know if they laid hands 6:57. It's mentioned in 1 Tim. 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Other translations say elders, council of elders, eldership. Other scriptures seem to use presbytery and bishop interchangeably.
Tertullian referenced churches in his day that were not founded by "apostles or apostolic men." See ANF: Vol. III, The Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 32.
We converted to Lutheranism (LCC) after watching almost all of your videos. Having done so, we have no idea how your teaching could lead anyone to Rome. Selectively?
I think it is Dr. Cooper's view on justification and deification that leads people to Rome. Dr. Cooper says "You can't base your faith on the Father" then does videos about how Lutherans are real early church. If you can't trust the fathers don't accept the canon. The history of church may be complicated but it isn't protestant.
Piepkorn participated in “Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue” - which yielded some surprising conclusions (see Volume IV on Eucharist and Ministry). One of the Roman participants (Fr. George Tavard) concluded that presbyterial successions are a matter of history, and said: I would be prepared to go further, and to admit that episcopal succession is not absolutely required for valid ordination…. The main problem, in our ecumenical context, does not lie in evaluating historical lines of succession, but in appreciating the catholicity of Protestantism today. Fellow participant Fr. Harry McSorley concluded, after a thorough study of the Council of Trent: We can say without qualification that there is nothing whatever in the Tridentine doctrine on sacrament of order concerning the reality of the eucharist celebrated by Christians of the Reformation churches. Catholic theologians who have maintained that there is no sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in Protestant churches because Protestant ministers are radically incapable of consecrating the eucharist are incorrect if they think this opinion is necessitated by the teaching of Trent.
I am actually currently reading City of God, and I can only imagine Augustine's reaction to stuff like the Treasury of Merit, modern Catholic marian doctrine, and purgatory. Yeahhhhhh. Augustine, of all people, wouldn't accept modern Catholicism. Not even close.
In fairness, I don’t think Augustine would recognize any of today’s many flavors of Christianity as his own. All Christian Traditions have to recognize that they are traditions, even my beloved Reformed tradition.
@@shaunschulte2258 I agree in terms of literally recognizing it. But there is also his desire to, well, anathemaized them *in their doctrine* that should somewhat be considered.... I'm not Lutheran at all, but I really don't think that he would feel TOO out of place with the Wisconsin synod's theology...or a even liturgical service and homily, if they'd go for monophonic singing. He might have serious concerns about the music otherwise, and I think the Western church was still a bit skeptical of candles at that time, which I think were just coming into use. I do believe that articulating doctrine takes time and is more complicated than "read the Bible!" But the Bible and the beliefs and practices of the early church should not be actively inimical to whatever doctrine develops later. I grew up OSAS nondenom but really Baptist. Lol. I threw out a lot of that based on the plain reading of the Bible and the early church. There are errors that are natural and those that would be unnatural. It could not be a natural error to forget OSAS and develop early church soteriology from that starting point. It could literally not be what the apostles taught.
@@toomanymarys7355 I would agree that OSAS is an error if by that you mean the common modern evangelical understanding of “pray a prayer and that’s it”. However, I believe in the perseverance of the saints, and that God certainly knows His elect.
The Didache seems to admonish bodies of believers to choose Godly leaders - it doesn't preface it with anything like, "and now I'm speaking to your bishops," rather it's written to the general body. Would seem to indicate that at least when the Didache was written (somewhere between 60 and 150 AD), bishops were not expected to the choosing their own successors. If so, then apostolic sucession is not itself apostolic.
Ignatius' letters have been questioned as the product of someone in the middle or late 2nd century trying to establish greater legitimacy for the roles of bishops... Reading them, it seems that all he cares about is that people listen to their bishops, so that's an understandable point of question. The congregation electing elders seems quite wildly out of place in an ancient context, regardless. Not that I'm absolutely tied to a 1st or 2nd century church structure.
I am not aware of any reputable scholars who question the authenticity of all seven epistles. A few have tried to make the case that only four are authentic, but even that is very much a minority view.
@@DrJordanBCooper I admit I need to read more about it. :) They were considered legitimate by Eusebius, for sure. I think it may be because the "extended" and spurious letters (probably from the 4th century?) that the seven in their condensed forms drew a bit of additional eyebrow raising. I think it's kind of interesting that the bishops were sometimes appointed as young men, according to Ignatius. So what was Timothy? An overseer also? Kinda interesting how Clement makes a big deal about the age of the leadership of the Corinthians--that the young are defying the old and upsetting the proper order of things--and that Ignatius then takes it as normal that a bishop could be really young. But again, of course, the fathers are not unanimous of many things.
We do have evidence of Apostolic Succession and authority since the apostolic times and of course this authority (doctrinal and Sacramental) are together part of the apostolic ordination. All we have to look at is the writings of the Church fathers: “Our Apostles, too, were given to understand by our own Lord Jesus Christ the office of the bishop would give rise to intrigues. For this reason, they appointed the men mentioned before, and afterwards laid down a rule once for all to this effect: when these men die, other approved men shall succeed to their sacred ministry”. - Clement of Rome (a disciple of Peter and Paul), “Epistle to the Corinthians”, 96 AD. Part of their sacred ministry involved celebrating the sacraments. The Church fathers indeed recognized the authority of the Bishop of Rome as the one who holds the keys to the kingdom. In fact, not one Church father renounced the Papacy. Irenaeaus clearly taught the primacy of the Church at Rome and to affirm the primacy, he named the successors of Peter up to Irenaeaus' time: “…by indicating that tradition derived from the Apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached by men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere (Ireneaus [180 AD], “Against Heresies”, 3,3,2). And of course other Church fathers affirm that Peter is rock and has preeminent authority because he and his successors possess the keys to the kingdom: "[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys." - Tertullian, Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220] "Peter, the Rock of the faith, whom Christ our Lord called blessed, the teacher of the Church, the first disciple, he who has the keys of the kingdom." - Hippolytus, Exfabrico. n.9, 225AD. "In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head - that is why he is also called Cephas [Rock] - of all the Apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the Apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would presume to set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner.... Recall then the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church." - Optatus, The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2, 367AD
Apostolic succession was probably a way to ensure that what was being taught by the Bishop was a valid apostolic teaching. After formalizing the canon, I see this as being unnecessary. Ironically, those who hold to apostolic succession, the institution designed to preserve truth, have deviated from the clear teaching of scripture.
More than anything, I think it had to do with the rarity of books. 99 percent of Christians never were in a position to read their own copy of the Bible, canonized or not. They relied on being told. So how do you know the person claiming to teach you is legitimate? Because they learned from someone who was and is recognized by all the other people who did also as legitimate.
You seem to be stuck in a place between the Bible and tradition. If there is no evidence of the apostles handing down their apostolic office then to believe in it is just faith. Your accept that elder, overseer and pastor are really all the same thing yet when the word overseer is used in 1 Tim 3:1 you want to make out that it means something more. To provide a means of giving religious authority without Biblical warrant, even to the extent of being mediators between men and God! I can easily understand why your teaching on this issue may encourage people to join the RC or even orthodox churches because you are supporting a mystical sacerdotalism, and the RC churches are more conservative generally than Anglicans or Lutherans. The mess in the evangelical world surely gives a big push too. I have learned such a lot from your videos, and I appreciate your learning and teaching. I will continue to watch when interesting things pop up. Thanks.
There is no evidence that the Apostles passed down their inerrancy to others, but they certainly passed down the "appoint"ed offices of presbyter-overseer and deacon.
@@Mygoalwogel Thanks for your reply. in 1 Pet 5:1-2 Peter is an elder (Πρεσβυτέρους) and he addresses his fellow elders. He instructs them to shepherd and oversee the flock. Shepherding (pastoring) and overseeing are functions, they are what elders do. Elders can't do eldering. So elder (presbyter) is the correct name for the office. It is possible to be old and not be in the office of elder, just as it is to be a servant (as we all should be) without being in the office of deacon. It is also possible to shepherd and oversee without having an office, as we all try to do for those we love, and in doing so the gifts that God has given may be recognised, especially the gift of shepherding (Eph 4:11) whereby a congregation may elect them to an eldership office. Throughout history, at least until recent times, the elders of most people groups or tribes have excercised the functions of shepherding and overseeing, whether in Africa, the Americas, Lapland, India, or almost anywhere else, including Israel. In the OT elders were leaders or rulers in the community. In 1 Kings 20:7 even the King had to consult the elders. There were town elders and country/kingdom elders etc. So what you said is correct but incomplete. The elder (or bearded one) is the office, and is clearly instituted in the NT along with the functions of this office which were already standard practice in Israel and the rest of the world at the time. There was never any separate office of shepherd or overseer in the NT, as Dr. Cooper admits. This doesn't mean that other religious offices are wrong or unnecessary, but the justification does not come from the Bible, rather from tradition alone.
Hello. I love your channel! Thank you for your thorough details and citing sources! Today I watched several of your videos about authority, ordination and succession. Most Christians avoid those topics. Thank you for taking them on seriously. I have a question. You mentioned sacramental authority. Do Lutherans believe that someone must be ordained to perform sacraments? I understand that Roman Catholics believe that anyone can baptize someone and it will still be efficacious. Do Lutherans believe that or do they believe someone needs to be ordained? Thank you for all you do for the gospel!
This doctrine is the main reason I see absolutely no reason to be a Catholic or orthodox. Even if I wanted to I just don't have any reason to think I need to so I simply don't care. Being a protestant allows me to be open to Catholic and orthodox theology without buying into any of them.
If one examine the question of the essential necessity of episcopacy ("esse") to the Church, from the essence of authority, vs. its desirability ("bene esse" or even "plene esse"), one has to wonder, given the crud that various episcopal systems "gone to seed" have reigned down upon the Church, why is episcopacy even needed? I think that the Lutheran answer, that episcopacy is desirable so long as it is uncorrupted and actually of use to the Church, rather than to be detrimental to it, but is not essential, is a good one. The episcopacy is desirable so long as it fulfils its fuction for good order and when it does not fulfil that need, one either deposes the current bishops, or one operates without them, placing authority in the ministerium that CAN maintain good order AND to promote right teaching.
Be encouraged, Dr. Cooper...this ex-Catholic finds your research on the early church fathers very useful in my work with Catholics who find my reformed theology "heretical," according to the RCC. Thank you, and the RCC is much better at salesmanship than they are actual systematic theology. It's not you... :P
I think there is a mistake in the understanding of the roman catholic position. They consider the anglican successions invalid because they lack in form and intention according to Pope Leo XIII who decided about it. Other groups, who are considered excommunicated or schismatic, for example eastern orthodoxy or FSSPX are considered to have valid ordinations.
I love your videos, though I mainly watch in order to hear the smarts of an alternative perspective, my being a Catholic. You say that apostolic succession shows up with Irenaeus, but it is actually a bit earlier, even before the whole of the bible was written. Clement (96 AD) speaks of it pretty clearly (albeit, without a mono-episcopacy) and Ignatius of Antioch implies sacramental authority residing in the bishop (with a mono-episcopal structure). In both Clement and Ignatius, predating Irenaeus (177 AD), you have church leadership as being primarily priestly and sacramental. Clement, for example, writes to the Corinthians specifically to urge church unity based on apostolic authority residing in the episcopal leadership. The schismatic element of the Corinthian church is urged to submit to their leaders (the leadership being modeled largely on their priestly function, echoing the Old Testament priesthood). "And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons…. Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, since they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." - Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5; 44:1-2 (96 A.D). I won't quote Ignatius, but peppered throughout his letters, he speaks of no one doing anything pertaining to the church apart from the bishop, including "love feasts" which are clearly sacramental.
I've considered Roman Catholicism as a possibility for a Protestant, but the more I study it, the less attractive it seems to me. I find it so untenable that I can't understand why anyone Protestant (especially a Reformed Presbyterian or Lutheran) would want to join Roman Catholicism. It is clear that the RCC (and Orthodox Church) is full of innovations, a mixture of paganism and extra biblical practices that crept into the church through the centuries. One has to set the Bible aside or put it in secondary "suggestion" category to become an RC or Orthodox. That's a LOT worse than the modern charismatic neo Pentecostal movements who at least tries to find or base their claims and practices in the Biblical record. That's not the case with the RCC or OC which contain not only extra biblical, but contra biblical practices and doctrines. Thanks.
@@d.rey5743 Hell has not prevailed against the church. An argument for apostolic succession just isn't part of that. It's a huge stretch based on one scripture.
Why claim, “by the MID 2nd century, according to St Ignatius” there seems to be bishops in major Christian cities? If Ignatius is dated to about 110ad, it seems likely that Bishops were in place at latest the end of the 1st century.
I think that is the point It’s the validity of the teaching that is the issue for non Catholics/orthodox Claiming “unbroken succession” doesn’t convince people of the validity of your teaching Claiming “unbroken succession” doesn’t somehow convince me that Peter or Paul were instructing people to ask for intercession from the dead or about indulgences
There is absolutely nothing in the NT about intercession from the dead or indulgences, which is money changing in the temple. It is expressly forbidden in the OT to have communication w/ the dead. So is idolatry, which is an often broken commandment in the Catholic and Orthodox churches.
Good stuff as usual Dr. Cooper! Would be great if you can also think about doing the following: 1) How did marriage as a Sacrament in the Roman Church develop? Is there any basis for it in the early church fathers or is it just a later development due to other things? 2) Have a dialogue with Matt Fradd. He's been my favourite Roman Catholic on TH-cam, and although as a Protestant I disagree with him on some stuff, would be great if you both could dialogue with one another Anyways, God bless and I pray your ministry will continue to flourish!
@@DrJordanBCooper That's great! Also about the marriage part, I'm interested in it due to researching sexual ethics and I've had a hard time finding a distinctive and strong Protestant one. Whereas I've found Rome's one rather strong but I recognise it partly has to do with their view of it as a sacrament. So it'd be great to know the history behind that development in the early church and know your thoughts on the matter
@@jimmyking8074 Protestant sexual ethics was really no different from Catholic sexual ethics, with the exception that marriage was viewed more highly as the ascetic life was viewed as self-centered, until the 20th century, when Protestants fell under the sway of eugenicists, the "population bomb" scare tactic crowd, and women's liberation that denigrated motherhood as settling for less. This is related to the widespread Protestant self-conception of being in harmony with Science(tm). Catholics really never abandoned their scholastic roots, and so subscribed to natural law theology, so their view of sexuality was less influenced by trendy intelligenistas. The Protestants who feel that this is wrong in Protestantism usually lack the metaphysical language for expressing what's wrong with it, and so they even see themselves as primarily in opposition to something instead of having a positive view of what is right and the language to defend it.
@@toomanymarys7355 Really huh? That is news to me, but I guess I haven't gone that far back to study the history behind those developments in Protestantism. Thanks
The seven sacraments was a Middle Ages concept. The Latin Church pressured this on both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox. Which is why they have pretty much the same sacraments. Second Council of Lyons - 13th century. Read about this from an Assyrian Church of the East bishop's history write up. As the Church of East although has 7 sacraments, they don't consider marriage to be a sacrament.
Even in the New Testament, there were three levels of clergy: Apostles, elders/bishops, and deacons. When the Apostles passed on, they were replaced by people, and that position came to be known as "bishop."
The office of the apostle can't be understood in the NT to be of the same kind but greater degree than that of the elder, or it would make no sense for both Paul and Peter to refer to themselves as presbyters. Rather the apostle was a separate vocation to that of serving a congregation. Bishops it seemed emerged as an outgrowth of the presbyter's office, and it's very difficult at the very least to reconcile an unbroken monepiscopal succession from the apostles with e.g. Alexandria's bishop being appointed and ordained of the presbyters of its very extensive diocese for centuries (and is generally now believed to have been the case in Rome for a shorter time).
@@stallard9256 If you read the epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was martyred in 112 a.d., and was a disciple of the Apostle John, he clearly makes a distinction between the office of bishop and presbyter. The terminology changed, but the 3 levels of authority did not change.
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 Hello Sir I don’t think anyone says “I don’t want to follow apostolic tradition!!” I think we all want to I think hopefully we all truly want that As much as I would love to find a church and say “that’s it! That’s the apostolic tradition!” My mind can’t believe that Can’t loook at the teachings of Catholics or Orthodox and make my mind believe that the apostles taught some of the things they teach That seems to be the issue We all want apostolic tradition (hopefully) But we don’t think Catholics/Orthodox line up
When Papists talk about Succession and valid Sacraments, I always give them the following: So who has the correct Ordination? The Eastern Orthodox is not the same as Roman Catholic, which is different from Anglican. If the gift given in Ordination happens because of the ceremony ex opere operato, who has the correct form? Even the RC admit that EO have valid Sacraments. If Apostolic Succession is lost due to heresy, what of the Great Schism of 1054? Who has it? Again, if the RC admits that the EO have valid Sacraments, then this is a double standard against Protestants. In terms of Ordination, Luther was ordained a priest, and Lutherans kept Ordination. Therefore, Lutherans have a Presbyteral form of succession rather than an Episcopal one. Some Lutherans also maintained the episcopate. If Apostolicae Curae condemned the Anglican rite of Ordination, how would that criterion apply to the Novus Ordo Ordination? It removes the words regarding Sacrifice, so one could argue that the intent is not the same either, namely the intent to perform the Sacrifice of the Mass. In the end, looking for Apostolic Succession is just a cope for the fact that the Pope is an apostate heretic and idolater.
Could you give me some church fathers that don’t portray Peter as the rock because from what I’ve seen they all affirm the papacy that Peter is the rock
Gavin Ortlund on Truth Unites did a presentation on a vote in a council where the bishops were split somewhere around 50% that Peter was not the rock, that Jesus is always the rock. Catholics extrapolate far too much from that one spare scripture. They make him the rock, instead of Jesus, who is always the rock and the chief cornerstone from OT to new. They make him the first pope. They institute apostolic succession. They also claim the church carries doctrine w/out error, because somehow, "the gates of hell will not prevail against her (the church), means that there will be no error in doctrine. Rather than simply that hell and the devil will not be able to stop the church from existing to this time and beyond, as battered and erroneous as she is. This is both sides, CAtholic and protestant.
Theology was always an issue from Arius and the Gnostics. What was never Challenged until the 16th century? The liturgy and the Sacraments. If the Bible is inspired and inerrant in the face of all the controversy how could the non controversial Traditions of the Church not be similarly inspired? It defies logic especially when you know the Bible is a Product of the Church. There is no unanimous Consent in Eastern Orthodoxy the Church Fathers didn’t always agree with each other they didn’t even agree with themselves. Chrysostom’s views of marriage turned 180 degrees over his ministry does that invalidate his contributions, of course not. The Apostles didn’t agree in the first Century and had to confront the teaching that you had to become Jewish before you Could become Christian and it’s precisely how they dealt with that that established the fundamental organizational principles of the Church, enduring Consensus that was held to until Pope Leo IX turned his back on it.
Catholics generally do recognize schismatic ordimation as "valid but illicit" the highest profile example of this is the SSPX, but there are other (including some "old Catholic" groups). They stopped recognizing Anglican ordinations because of a change in the form ordination during the 1700's
I'm aware of this with SSPX and some other groups, but it was my understanding that Protestant groups (Lutheran, Anglican, or otherwise) who have Apostolic Succession were still not recognized as having legitimate ordinations.
@@toomanymarys7355 This video is a quick summary of the general Catholic view of ordination but it doesn't get into the nitty gritty th-cam.com/video/kuNiwOv_lro/w-d-xo.html Regarding the controversy with the Anglicans this is a recent review by the American Catholic Bishops on the history www.usccb.org/committees/ecumenical-interreligious-affairs/anglican-orders-report-evolving-context-their and what list of references would be complete without wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolicae_curae apparently its the 1500's instead of 1700's, but the gist of it is that there was a change of intent and form in the "edwardine ordinals", but there is a lot of theological and historical debate arising from it
@@toomanymarys7355 " the Church of England intended to introduce a radically new rite into England, one markedly different from those approved by the Roman Catholic Church. By 'defect of form' Leo XIII meant that the words of the Anglican ordination prayer, 'Receive the Holy Ghost', did not signify definitely the order of the Catholic priesthood with its power to consecrate and offer the body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic sacrifice. This is the position of Apostolicæ Curæ in 1896: the exclusion of the concept of sacrifice from eucharistic worship in 1552 signified that the Church of England did not intend to ordain bishops and priests in the way that such ordinations had taken place before the Reformation, in the Catholic Church in England. The exclusion of a sacrificing priesthood nullified any Anglican intention to do what the Catholic Church does at an ordination." this is the short version taken from the USCCB article
Matthew 3:15 Jesus insisted that even John's baptism was fitting for them to fulfill all righteousness. A servant is not greater than his Lord. Matthew 3:16 In baptism, the Father claims the Son. The Spirit rests on the Son. Matthew 21:25 Mere water baptism is a gift from Heaven. Matthew 28:19 Make disciples by baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and by teaching. Mark 1:4 Mere water baptism = repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Mark 16:16 *Baptized believers are saved, unbelievers condemned.* Luke 7:29 Even water baptism is a public declaration that God is righteous. Luke 7:30 *Rejecting even mere water baptism = rejecting God's purpose for you.* John 1:31, 33 John knew beforehand that God would reveal the Christ through baptism. Acts 2:38 *Repentance and baptism = forgiveness and the Spirit.* Acts 2:39-41 3000 bachelors, virgins, wives, husbands, and *children of all ages received forgiveness and the Spirit in baptism.* The smallest can't have decided to repent in a mature way, but they were not excluded. Acts 8 Many early church Bible readers saw a distinction between the Spirit's invisible gift of repentance/forgiveness and the Spirit's visible gift of leadership/ordination. Philip the Evangelist could baptize but not bestow spiritual authority. Only the apostles could do that. Acts 22:16 *Baptism washes away sins.* Romans 6:3, 4 *Baptism is death to sin, death with Christ, and newness of life in Christ.* 1 Corinthians 1 Baptism must not turn into hero worship, cliques, and factionalism. 1 Corinthians 12:22, 13 On the contrary, baptism is unity in the one Holy Spirit in Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:29 Even superstitious baptism declares the resurrection of the dead. Galatians 3:27, 28 Baptism clothes every member of the body of Christ in equality. Ephesians 3:5 There is one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. Ephesians 5:26 Baptism sanctifies the Church because it is the washing of water with the word. Colossians 2:11 Baptism is a works-free death, a cutting off of the flesh. Colossians 2:12 Christ was buried. You were buried with Christ *in baptism.* God raised Christ from the dead. You believe God raised Christ from the dead. Therefore, God raised you with Christ *in baptism.* This is all *God’s powerful work.* Hebrews 6:1-2 *Baptism is a basic foundational teaching. You can't say you believe in Jesus while rejecting his basic teachings.* 1 Peter 3:20 Noah was saved by water, not from water. The flood waters washed away much evil. 1 Peter 3:21 Baptism now *saves you!* Baptism is assurance/demand of a good conscience before God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This verse summarizes all that has been said above.
The Bible does not only say that the Lord's Supper is done in remembrance: Matthew 26:28 Jesus calls it the blood of the covenant. Hebrews 9:20 The author quotes Moses saying the exact same words about real blood. There is no precedent here for saying "is" means "represents." 1 Corinthians 10:16 The bread and the cup are a koinonia (co-union/intimacy/participation/contribution/distribution) of the body and blood of Christ. 1 Cor 11:20 There is an objectively true Lord's Supper. Unreconciled schism within the congregation make it objectively not the Lord's Supper. 1 Cor 10:21-22 The Lord, whose name is Jealous, is jealous of his cup and his table. 1 Cor 11:23 The Lord specifically and personally revealed the Supper to Paul. 1 Cor 11:27 Misuse of the Lord's Supper is not just a bad reenactment. It makes you guilty of sin against the very body and blood of the Lord. 1 Cor 11:28-30 Mere reenactments do not require earnest soul searching on pain of punishment and death. Therefore true Christian faith in these words: "This is my body which is for you, … This is my blood of the new covenant," must take all into account. 1 Cor 5:11 We are not to eat even secular food with christians who do not accept correction. Guests, whose lives are unknown to the pastor, should be catechised first. "Revilers" (who insult our face value belief) are rightly excluded.
@@Mygoalwogel sacraments are the communion and baptism? Are there other sacraments? Maybe it’s just a loaded term in my experience somehow special grace is extended through sacraments? I practiced the communion supper and have been baptized. If anything I think those are the only two represented in the Scriptures.
I have been tempted many times to cross the Tiber or the Bosphorous, but I just have to keep reminding myself that I can’t work for my own salvation. I did that before in American Evangelicalism, and my soul was starved of the true Law and Gospel. Their liturgies are beautiful (and much is scriptural), and certainly their traditions and claims to antiquity may have weight, but I can’t accept the many doctrines that don’t align with Holy Scripture. Semper Virgo, sure. Co-mediatrix, no way. (Since the Eastern Church hasn’t dealt with the same conflicts that the Western Church has, I can’t speak much to their traditions/dogma. They largely seem like Calvinists in that everyone you ask will give a different answer. I’m definitely painting with a broad brush, though.)
Calvinists can give you different answers (particularly if "Calvinist" means "Baptist who believes in predestination"), but the Reformed confessions (the Westminster Confession of Faith of course being the best known and comprehensive) are not exactly vague as to what is professed. Navigating what the East believes is a labyrinth because, much like with Rome, there has been quite a bit of revision throughout the 20th century, and even things that are fairly obviously dogma will be proclaimed by someone to actually be a Western/Latin/Augustinian/Protestant/Jesuit corruption. Nevertheless, if you cut through all that, there is quite obviously most all of Rome's problems in full display there, and blasphemous prayers like "Most Holy Mother of God, save us!", or "O Virgin Mother of our Lord, be my helper, and save me from eternal torments. I have you as Mediatrix with the philanthropous God" ring through their churches.
@@ronfeledichuk531 fair point, more research is always good, especially when it comes to the Orthodox. Fortunately, the Lutheran Confessions seem to align the best with Holy Scripture, so I will stick to being a Confessional Lutheran. There is a popular position in Roman Catholicism that sees her as a co-mediatrix with Our Lord. I don’t know if it’s dogma yet, but it is prevalent enough to get on my radar as I was researching. The argument goes that since she was sinless, her merit can bestow salvation to sinners. This feeds into a sister doctrine of the Blessed Mother as co-redemptrix.
@@juliasaurus-wrecks1995 Roman Catholicism isn't Orthodoxy. We have no such teaching. May I ask which points of Lutheranism align better with Scripture?
Just came across this. Very interesting, but. It's very "if", "seems like", "possibly", etc: very speculative. I don't mean to criticise but you cut lost of slack towards your preferred interpretation and scepticism/doubt to alternatives. Understandable, as I do the same, but sadly unconvincing. Church structure as it happened does not in anyway even begin to justify what we have. The church was quite corrupted during the apostolic period, so give a hundred years and of history and there's no way we can have any confidence. I mostly like what you say 😀
Succession of the position/office (Acts 1) of the apostle, special powers like forgive sins (John 20:23), Primacy of Peter (everywhere) = single dude at the top. "Bishop of Rome" is a red herring
Apostolic Succession does NOT start with the St. Irenaeus and his explanations as it can be found in the Bible. I do not know who gave you "dr" title...
At 1:36 he puts his hand on his glasses. Psychologists know that this is a typical sign of when someone is not telling the truth. People need to become Catholic.
Wrong on both points. It is in the Bible, and Latins do not fulfill the requirements as set in the Bible. Only one that truly meets requirements is Eastern Orthodox Church.
Problems arise immediately when people fail to pay attention to Jesus. Jesus said we are all equal. Call each other brothers. That's what JESUS said. Even his very own closes disciples didn't pay attention. The Sons of Thunder and their mom, Peter get behind me satan, he who is not against us is for us... We have one leader the Christ. So it is no surprise that people are grabbing for power in their false churches. The closest 12 were doing the same thing but Jesus always rebuked them.. Because we are all brethren on one level, with one leader. This is why I follow Jesus and not Paul, Peter, James whoever and certainly no pope or "church father" who exalt themselves over me.
*APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE* 1. In the Bible, Joseph and Eliakim were given symbols of their unique authority and stewardship in their respective kingdoms (cf. Genesis 41:40-44, Isaiah 22:20-22). 2. The symbols of authority given to Joseph and Eliakim were a signet ring and a key, respectively. 3. The office of steward passed from Shebna to Eliakim, indicating that while the person holding this office may be replaced or die, the office itself continues under the authority of the king, even if the individual officeholder changes. 4. Jesus is the King of kings (cf. 1 Timothy 6:15, Revelation 17:14). 5. Jesus alluded to Isaiah 22:20-22 when speaking to Peter in Matthew 16:18-19, indicating a parallel between Eliakim's role and Peter's role. 6. Jesus gave Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 16:19) as a symbol of his unique authority and stewardship. 7. Therefore, Jesus established the office of steward in His kingdom, the Church. 8. Therefore, Peter holds a unique authority and stewardship role within the kingdom of heaven, analogous to Eliakim's role in the kingdom of Israel. 9. Jesus' kingdom, the Church, is eternal and will never end (cf. Daniel 7:14, Luke 1:33). 10. The office of steward within the Church has continued and will continue until Christ's return. 11. The office of steward passed from Peter to his successors sequentially, as evidenced by the early Church's recognition of the bishops of Rome as Peter's successors. 12. Therefore, Peter's successors, the Popes of the Catholic Church, have continued serving in this office, ensuring continuity in leadership and the preservation of Christ's authority within the Church.
The only reason you buy that convoluted, motivated reasoning is because you want to. Arthur's claim to the throne based on pulling a sword out of a stone is more secure than that exegetical maze.
@@randycarson9812 1: no symbols of authority given to Peter 2: no signet ring or key given to Peter 3: irrelevant to the argument 6: not clearly true 7: non sequitur -- does not follow preceding premises; even if true, the steward was not the "vicar" of the king. 8: invalid inference based on 7, above; therefore also non sequitur; even if true where the steward given authority to render legal and doctrinal judgments over Israel? 9: true, but irrelevant to the argument 10: irrelevant to the argument 12: non sequitur The reasoning in Roe v Wade was tighter. Since you all want to insist on the Real Presence such that the elements MUST be the real flesh and the real blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, then show us a REAL signet ring and a REAL key. Then, be prepared to establish the provenance of that ring and that key.
@@noxvenit I'm just going to hit a few points in response. 1. In Gen 41:41. Joseph was given a ring. In Isaiah 22:20-22, Eliakim was given a key. In Mt. 16:19, Peter received keys. 2. Peter received the keys in Mt. 16:19: *I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,[a] and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.* The rest of your arguments simply fall apart once you really that yes, Peter did receive the keys from Jesus. 7. A vicar is someone who acts in the place of someone of higher rank. Jesus is the Good Shepherd of the one flock. However, in Jn 21, Jesus leaves Peter in charge of that flock telling Peter to feed (teach) and tend (govern) the sheep. Peter acts as the vicarious shepherd now that Jesus has ascended to heaven. 10. How can you say that it is irrelevant when Jesus is an eternal king and established the office of steward in His kingdom (which must be a perpetual office since men are mortal)? The office of the President of the United States continues even when the man holding the office changes or dies in office. Same with the Chief Steward in an eternal kingdom. I don't think you've actually thought this through. Start by explaining why Jesus alluded to Isaiah 22:20-22.
@@randycarson9812 I don't think you've actually thought this through. I have been thinking about it since I was still Roman Catholic. 1. Joseph received a real, physical signet right. Eliakim received a real, physical key. Where is the real, physical signet that Christ put into Peter's hand? Where is the real, physical key that Christ put into Peter's hand. 2. Peter received the keys in Mt. 16:19. The text does not record that Peter received any keys, only that he would receive some keys. Where are those keys? "The rest of your arguments simply fall apart once you really that yes, Peter did receive the keys from Jesus." ~ Not really, because no one has produced these keys. If you are going to appeal to real, physical signet rings and keys given to Joseph and Eliakim, then you should produce a real, physical signet ring and keys for Peter. 7. "A vicar is someone who acts in the place of someone of higher rank. Jesus is the Good Shepherd of the one flock. However, in Jn 21, Jesus leaves Peter in charge of that flock telling Peter to feed (teach) and tend (govern) the sheep. Peter acts as the vicarious shepherd now that Jesus has ascended to heaven." ~ Yes, but a vicar is not a viceroy. 10. "The office of the President of the United States continues even when the man holding the office changes or dies in office. Same with the Chief Steward in an eternal kingdom." The office of the President is explicitly set forth in a singe document for all to read, all at once. It is not justified by poring over the pages of multiple documents, compiled over centuries, with sentences from this or that document strung together into an argument no one would buy if we were talking about any other office. " Start by explaining why Jesus alluded to Isaiah 22:20-22." Given the context, I have never been sure Jesus is alluding to Isaiah. Even if he were, you still have an argument for a very important office that relies on some shakey exegetical foundations.
Maybe the laying on of hands was just a misunderstanding when Greco/Romans invented Christianity to separate their religion from the Messianic Jews. The Jews used laying on of hands when blessing someone so they would quite naturally lay hands on someone when sending them on a mission or appointing them to an office. One must understand the way of the Apostolic ekklesia prior to its being hijacked for Greco/Roman purposes.
"The writings of the Apostle do not agree entirely with the hierarchy which is now in the Church, because they were written at the very beginning. He even calls Timothy, whom he himself made a presbyter, the bishop, because first presbyters were being called bishops becuase when a bishop passed away, a presbyter succeeded him. In Egypt, presbyters even do confirm if the bishop is absent." --Ambrosiaster commenting on Ephesians 4:11-12 St. Willehad the presbyter built churches and ordained presbyters in Lower Saxony starting in 781. He was not made bishop until 787. Nobody thought he was acting wrongly or reconsecrated his presbyters. Paphnutius the presbyter ordained his own successor, Daniel, according to Cassian. There's also the famous Letter 146 of Jerome. These examples have led several Papist scholars to conclude that Presbyterial ordination is not entirely invalid. Fr. George Tavard concluded that presbyterial successions are a matter of history, and said: "I would be prepared to go further, and to admit that episcopal succession is not absolutely required for valid ordination…. The main problem, in our ecumenical context, does not lie in evaluating historical lines of succession, but in appreciating the catholicity of Protestantism today." Fr. Harry McSorley concluded, after a thorough study of the Council of Trent: "We can say without qualification that there is nothing whatever in the Tridentine doctrine on sacrament of order concerning the reality of the eucharist celebrated by Christians of the Reformation churches. Catholic theologians who have maintained that there is no sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in Protestant churches because Protestant ministers are radically incapable of consecrating the eucharist are incorrect if they think this opinion is necessitated by the teaching of Trent." th-cam.com/video/-0w1TtfTIlU/w-d-xo.html
@@Mygoalwogel Elder, bishop, pastor and presbyter were used interchangeably until later inventions separated them into a hierarchy established for the concept of Christianity being a new religion. The Apostles wouldn't recognize the church of today as springing from their ekklesia. Everyone seems to refer to history or tradition that began after everything Jewish was excised.
sorry, not very clear, not very concise, convoluted, no definition of terms, no clarification of Greek terms, the roles of such positions, no historical context, and spoken very rapidly.
![NISAMANEE - TADA (ท้าดา) [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hcQHEPMmJpU/mqdefault.jpg)
Your critiques of Rome are among the best I've found, both on logical and historical grounds. Your comeback to "Where is Sola Scriptura in the Bible?" is so simple I'm kicking myself for not thinking about it. They have the burden to prove another divine source other than the Bible.
I don't think it's a coincidence that you have a thorough knowledge of the fathers and can so easily dispatch of Roman claims. To be 'deep' in history is to cease to be Protestant. To be deepest in history is to cease being Roman.
in traditional churches we say "because the authority lies in the holy spirit, then, when the inspired text talks about a unifyed language, we take it as the agreement of the christian world". so... saints and fathers are not divine authority. but when the majority of them agree in a matter and it became the norm of the unified church (ie ecumenical councis), we follow them as true. if not at every point, at least in spiritual matters. i speak at least as eastern orthodox, that's the logic. now, that the modern orthodox and catholics are not the exact same thing as the old church every person with eyes and a mind can get that i hope. still, i dont find a reason to follow anyone that does not respect a long tradition. if people are agreeing with the theology and christology of the traditional church, then i could not care less what they like to follow.
I never thought of that argument either *scratches head*
Their divine source is always them. They are the authority, because they have apostolic succession.
This is so true. I have found that Dr. Cooper and the Lutheran sources he uses to counter Rome are absolutely top. I love my Lutheran brothers and sisters!
Proving a source outside the Bible is quite easy to do. Trivial in fact.
There is no inspired table of contents in the Bible. Therefore, we must have an authority outside the Bible to determine what books should be in the Bible. If that authority is fallible, then they could've been wrong on which books went in the Bible, which means I can reject books I am skeptical of (as Luther did). If they were infallible, then I cannot do that, and Sola Scriptura is wrong.
I'm convert from Roman to Lutheran Church in Poland and a fan of your videos, Dr. Cooper :) I got interested in Church Fathers on my way to Lutheranism, after reading Augsburg Confession.
Luther said Jesus was an adulterer.
@@fantasia55proof?
@@lad6524 “Christ was an adulterer for the first time with the woman at the well, for it was said, ‘Nobody knows what he’s doing with her’ [John 4:27]. Again [he was an adulterer] with Magdalene, and still again with the adulterous woman in John 8 [:2-11], whom he let off so easily. So the good Christ had to become an adulterer before he died.”
Luther’s Work, 54:154
@@fantasia55 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 corinthians 5 21
Read the whole context,luther was saying that Jesus christ took upon himself all sins and that he became the worst of all sinners.
@@fantasia55 if you work with that logic then you could say that Paul called Jesus a cursed and a sinner see galatians 3:13
I've listened to most of your videos and I'm a happy Anglican. Both Anglicanism and Lutheranism have the best balance. We need a high view of the authority of scripture, with a respect for how the church has traditionally handled it.
Awesome comment. One thing I really wish could be done is a very thorough video on the differences between conservative Anglicanism and conservative Lutherans.
I can't seem to find a really good resource on this.
Perhaps Dr. Cooper could do one?!
@@wonderingpilgrim As a former Reformed-Baptist who is currently trying to decide between joining traditional Anglicanism or confessional Lutheranism, I would find such a resource very helpful!
@@wonderingpilgrim I keep hoping he will haha
@@grasshopper801 I'm a former Baptist who became Anglican about a year ago
@@grasshopper801
Read the Conservative Anglican Book of Common Prayer, and the 1662 edition of the B.O.C.P, Penguin Classics sells the 1662 version for $22. Also read the Book of Concord, you can also find audiobooks of Lutheran Classics on youtube.
The major differences are that Confessional Lutheranism holds to the Real Presence, and Luther's Monergism; whilst the Anglicans are Reformed, and believe in Spiritual Communion.
Well thanks to you I have been convinced of Sacramental Theology, now I attend an ACNA and my first son was baptized last month.
Glad to hear it!
I read that the oldest list of Apostolic Succession only goes back to the 14th century and that one is in the English Church. There is basically no proof of unbroken chains of bishops.
One of the single-most balanced presentations on the topic.
Dr. Jordan Cooper, congratulations on your honest teachings. It is for these and others things that I tend to say that the true apostolic succession is the succession of apostle's faith and doctrine wich are safe and objectively contained in the NT, as we can see it in Acts:
"And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." (Acts 2:42).
This is the true and blessed Apostolic Succession.
God bless you and carry on with your teachings here!
Warm regards from your Presbyterian (almost Lutheran lol) brother
Why Apostolic Succession is NOT an option for the Church?
It prevents heretics from accessing the pulpits, and from hurting the sheep with their apostate doctrines.
“But the same writer (Clement of Rome), in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just (Half-brother of Jesus) and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the Seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.” Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, “Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.” ”
~Eusebius, Disciple of Pamphilus (influenced by Origen), Bishop of Caesarea 314 AD, Christian historian, polemicist, exegete. Ascension of Christ, Book II, 260-340 AD
What Are Apostolic Traditions?
1. They are the interpretations of the Scriptures that Jesus taught His disciples and were passed on to faithful men.
2. They are teachings that protect the Church from heretical teachers.
3. They were preserved among the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
4. It must be held in high regard at the end of the age to protect the Church from the lawless one, Son of Perdition.
Apostolic Tradition refers to the teachings, interpretations and revelations of scripture that were passed down from the first Apostles to the Early Church prior to 325 AD. The Apostles passed these down so that we might stay in alignment with the pattern and what Jesus taught to receive the same understanding and power of the Early Church. It is evident this is not the case in Christianity today with thousands of different denominations and interpretations. To truly follow the teachings of Jesus we need to follow the initial Apostolic understanding and teachings they received from Jesus himself.
Thank you for a very insightful comment. I agree with your logic as to why Apostolic succession in theory would be a wonderful thing that I would love to believe in. But it’s really hard to see apostolic origin in every single claim that Rome makes that seems so foreign to the NT and Apostolic Fathers (especially when anathemas get attached to them). It’s one thing to say that the apostles taught the 70 and so on, and another to claim that no error ever entered into that passing on of information. Doctrinal development seems to become the excuse as to why the NT looks so different from Trent. Just some thought from someone genuinely looking into the history of the Church. Thanks for reading!
With respect, you appear to be making a number of assumptions here which effectively reduce the RCC claim to circular logic. Imagine if you will, the doctrinal sum of the true first/Apostolic Church as a sort of representative shape on piece of paper, say a circle. In the time of Irenaeus (for example) a similarly shaped and sized circle representing the ordinations (call it a Bishopric) of that same church could be drawn which would have roughly overlaid the first circle identically. There may be small deviations in the circles over time as regional churches wrestle with unique cultural questions of Christian freedom or adiaphoria, but generally the circles were the same. The first assumption make by Catholics seems to regularly be that there is and would remain in fact only one circle (because of Christ's promise to preserve the church) and/or that the two circles if we grant that, are invariably linked. Your statement that it "prevents heretics from accessing the pulpits, and from hurting the sheep with their apostate doctrines" suggests this assumption. The second one similarly, perhaps better called an omission (due to the first) is that there can not be any sort of collective "drift" of the second circle from the first. If the circles are not absolutely linked, then the true church exists wherever the Apostolic faith exists; EVEN IF the second circle has drifted off (for instance in times of significant divergence from the Apostolic truth due to other pressures like strife, oppression or corruption from without or within). There is one additional presumption it seems, made just as often to try and ensure the argument and assure people that such a drift could never happen: namely that Christ's church MUST be like Rome is today; visible and identifiable to the world on the surface or on its outward-facing facets. I would just say this in response...the "church" existing at the time of Jesus' birth and life was likewise and indisputably "worldly" in the same way as it was outwardly perceived; the Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees were seen and known by all as distinctly being the priestly and recognizable face of Judaism. And yet Jesus' infallible perspective of them and their tradition was that all their "outwardness" was not synonymous with truth. They possessed and sought the letter of the law but missed its very heart...they invalidated the word of God by their abuse of traditions and while they searched the scriptures for eternal life they missed that it was there in which was testified of Jesus Himself. I say none of this to judge Catholics, only to point out that the arguments often brought forward to support Rome, are suspect at best. The church of Trent, doctrinally, was not that of Irenaeus nor is it that of post Vatican II. Has the first circle shifted or only the second...
I don't want your channel to just become a counter-RC apologetical ministry, but I do appreciate your critique of Rome and always welcome it. I like your emphasis on Lutheran piety, confessionalism and sacramentalism. I have enjoyed learning more about Lutheranism, especially as so much of theological discussion in evangelicalism ends up revolving around Calvinism vs. Arminianism. I do think we need more nuanced information and pastoral application of historic, confessional Protestantism.
I became Anglican partly because of your videos on the Fathers and the sacraments. The placing of Tradition on the same plane with Scripture and medieval theological inventions dispel me from turning to Rome or Constantinople. I think Canterbury and Augsburg get it mostly right, although I do find Orthodox liturgy beautiful.
You said we don't really know if they laid hands 6:57. It's mentioned in 1 Tim. 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
Other translations say elders, council of elders, eldership. Other scriptures seem to use presbytery and bishop interchangeably.
Tertullian referenced churches in his day that were not founded by "apostles or apostolic men." See ANF: Vol. III, The Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 32.
We converted to Lutheranism (LCC) after watching almost all of your videos. Having done so, we have no idea how your teaching could lead anyone to Rome. Selectively?
I think it is Dr. Cooper's view on justification and deification that leads people to Rome. Dr. Cooper says
"You can't base your faith on the Father" then does videos about how Lutherans are real early church. If you can't trust the fathers don't accept the canon. The history of church may be complicated but it isn't protestant.
@@herculeflambeau7476 being very very honest? It isn't Roman Catholic either.
@@josueinhan8436 True. Honesty and Rome parted company almost a millennium ago.
Piepkorn participated in “Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue” - which yielded some surprising conclusions (see Volume IV on Eucharist and Ministry). One of the Roman participants (Fr. George Tavard) concluded that presbyterial successions are a matter of history, and said:
I would be prepared to go further, and to admit that episcopal succession is not absolutely required for valid ordination…. The main problem, in our ecumenical context, does not lie in evaluating historical lines of succession, but in appreciating the catholicity of Protestantism today.
Fellow participant Fr. Harry McSorley concluded, after a thorough study of the Council of Trent:
We can say without qualification that there is nothing whatever in the Tridentine doctrine on sacrament of order concerning the reality of the eucharist celebrated by Christians of the Reformation churches. Catholic theologians who have maintained that there is no sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in Protestant churches because Protestant ministers are radically incapable of consecrating the eucharist are incorrect if they think this opinion is necessitated by the teaching of Trent.
I am actually currently reading City of God, and I can only imagine Augustine's reaction to stuff like the Treasury of Merit, modern Catholic marian doctrine, and purgatory. Yeahhhhhh. Augustine, of all people, wouldn't accept modern Catholicism. Not even close.
In fairness, I don’t think Augustine would recognize any of today’s many flavors of Christianity as his own. All Christian Traditions have to recognize that they are traditions, even my beloved Reformed tradition.
@@shaunschulte2258 I agree in terms of literally recognizing it. But there is also his desire to, well, anathemaized them *in their doctrine* that should somewhat be considered....
I'm not Lutheran at all, but I really don't think that he would feel TOO out of place with the Wisconsin synod's theology...or a even liturgical service and homily, if they'd go for monophonic singing. He might have serious concerns about the music otherwise, and I think the Western church was still a bit skeptical of candles at that time, which I think were just coming into use.
I do believe that articulating doctrine takes time and is more complicated than "read the Bible!" But the Bible and the beliefs and practices of the early church should not be actively inimical to whatever doctrine develops later.
I grew up OSAS nondenom but really Baptist. Lol. I threw out a lot of that based on the plain reading of the Bible and the early church. There are errors that are natural and those that would be unnatural. It could not be a natural error to forget OSAS and develop early church soteriology from that starting point. It could literally not be what the apostles taught.
@@toomanymarys7355 I would agree that OSAS is an error if by that you mean the common modern evangelical understanding of “pray a prayer and that’s it”. However, I believe in the perseverance of the saints, and that God certainly knows His elect.
Good observation, guys. I'm a Presbyterian and a think the same as you
@@toomanymarys7355 What Denomination do you now belong to?
The Didache seems to admonish bodies of believers to choose Godly leaders - it doesn't preface it with anything like, "and now I'm speaking to your bishops," rather it's written to the general body. Would seem to indicate that at least when the Didache was written (somewhere between 60 and 150 AD), bishops were not expected to the choosing their own successors. If so, then apostolic sucession is not itself apostolic.
Ignatius' letters have been questioned as the product of someone in the middle or late 2nd century trying to establish greater legitimacy for the roles of bishops... Reading them, it seems that all he cares about is that people listen to their bishops, so that's an understandable point of question.
The congregation electing elders seems quite wildly out of place in an ancient context, regardless. Not that I'm absolutely tied to a 1st or 2nd century church structure.
I am not aware of any reputable scholars who question the authenticity of all seven epistles. A few have tried to make the case that only four are authentic, but even that is very much a minority view.
@@DrJordanBCooper I admit I need to read more about it. :) They were considered legitimate by Eusebius, for sure. I think it may be because the "extended" and spurious letters (probably from the 4th century?) that the seven in their condensed forms drew a bit of additional eyebrow raising.
I think it's kind of interesting that the bishops were sometimes appointed as young men, according to Ignatius. So what was Timothy? An overseer also?
Kinda interesting how Clement makes a big deal about the age of the leadership of the Corinthians--that the young are defying the old and upsetting the proper order of things--and that Ignatius then takes it as normal that a bishop could be really young. But again, of course, the fathers are not unanimous of many things.
Lutheran will do me. Thank you for these insights.
We do have evidence of Apostolic Succession and authority since the apostolic times and of course this authority (doctrinal and Sacramental) are together part of the apostolic ordination. All we have to look at is the writings of the Church fathers:
“Our Apostles, too, were given to understand by our own Lord Jesus Christ the office of the bishop would give rise to intrigues. For this reason, they appointed the men mentioned before, and afterwards laid down a rule once for all to this effect: when these men die, other approved men shall succeed to their sacred ministry”.
- Clement of Rome (a disciple of Peter and Paul), “Epistle to the Corinthians”, 96 AD.
Part of their sacred ministry involved celebrating the sacraments.
The Church fathers indeed recognized the authority of the Bishop of Rome as the one who holds the keys to the kingdom. In fact, not one Church father renounced the Papacy. Irenaeaus clearly taught the primacy of the Church at Rome and to affirm the primacy, he named the successors of Peter up to Irenaeaus' time:
“…by indicating that tradition derived from the Apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached by men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere (Ireneaus [180 AD], “Against Heresies”, 3,3,2).
And of course other Church fathers affirm that Peter is rock and has preeminent authority because he and his successors possess the keys to the kingdom:
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys."
- Tertullian, Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]
"Peter, the Rock of the faith, whom Christ our Lord called blessed, the teacher of the Church, the first disciple, he who has the keys of the kingdom."
- Hippolytus, Exfabrico. n.9, 225AD.
"In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head - that is why he is also called Cephas [Rock] - of all the Apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the Apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would presume to set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner.... Recall then the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church."
- Optatus, The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2, 367AD
Catholic quote-mining from random early writings they've probably never actually read will never get old.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl lol you guys are Nr.1 random quoting the bible haha
Interestingly, St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine among others say that the Rock was not Peter himself, but rather Peter's confession itself.
@@dave1370 That is not accurate.
Apostolic succession was probably a way to ensure that what was being taught by the Bishop was a valid apostolic teaching. After formalizing the canon, I see this as being unnecessary. Ironically, those who hold to apostolic succession, the institution designed to preserve truth, have deviated from the clear teaching of scripture.
More than anything, I think it had to do with the rarity of books. 99 percent of Christians never were in a position to read their own copy of the Bible, canonized or not. They relied on being told. So how do you know the person claiming to teach you is legitimate? Because they learned from someone who was and is recognized by all the other people who did also as legitimate.
You seem to be stuck in a place between the Bible and tradition. If there is no evidence of the apostles handing down their apostolic office then to believe in it is just faith. Your accept that elder, overseer and pastor are really all the same thing yet when the word overseer is used in 1 Tim 3:1 you want to make out that it means something more. To provide a means of giving religious authority without Biblical warrant, even to the extent of being mediators between men and God!
I can easily understand why your teaching on this issue may encourage people to join the RC or even orthodox churches because you are supporting a mystical sacerdotalism, and the RC churches are more conservative generally than Anglicans or Lutherans. The mess in the evangelical world surely gives a big push too.
I have learned such a lot from your videos, and I appreciate your learning and teaching. I will continue to watch when interesting things pop up. Thanks.
There is no evidence that the Apostles passed down their inerrancy to others, but they certainly passed down the "appoint"ed offices of presbyter-overseer and deacon.
@@Mygoalwogel Thanks for your reply.
in 1 Pet 5:1-2 Peter is an elder (Πρεσβυτέρους) and he addresses his fellow elders. He instructs them to shepherd and oversee the flock. Shepherding (pastoring) and overseeing are functions, they are what elders do. Elders can't do eldering. So elder (presbyter) is the correct name for the office. It is possible to be old and not be in the office of elder, just as it is to be a servant (as we all should be) without being in the office of deacon. It is also possible to shepherd and oversee without having an office, as we all try to do for those we love, and in doing so the gifts that God has given may be recognised, especially the gift of shepherding (Eph 4:11) whereby a congregation may elect them to an eldership office.
Throughout history, at least until recent times, the elders of most people groups or tribes have excercised the functions of shepherding and overseeing, whether in Africa, the Americas, Lapland, India, or almost anywhere else, including Israel. In the OT elders were leaders or rulers in the community. In 1 Kings 20:7 even the King had to consult the elders. There were town elders and country/kingdom elders etc.
So what you said is correct but incomplete. The elder (or bearded one) is the office, and is clearly instituted in the NT along with the functions of this office which were already standard practice in Israel and the rest of the world at the time. There was never any separate office of shepherd or overseer in the NT, as Dr. Cooper admits.
This doesn't mean that other religious offices are wrong or unnecessary, but the justification does not come from the Bible, rather from tradition alone.
Hello. I love your channel! Thank you for your thorough details and citing sources! Today I watched several of your videos about authority, ordination and succession. Most Christians avoid those topics. Thank you for taking them on seriously. I have a question. You mentioned sacramental authority. Do Lutherans believe that someone must be ordained to perform sacraments? I understand that Roman Catholics believe that anyone can baptize someone and it will still be efficacious. Do Lutherans believe that or do they believe someone needs to be ordained? Thank you for all you do for the gospel!
This doctrine is the main reason I see absolutely no reason to be a Catholic or orthodox. Even if I wanted to I just don't have any reason to think I need to so I simply don't care. Being a protestant allows me to be open to Catholic and orthodox theology without buying into any of them.
How would you respond to Clement of Alexandria's mentioning priests can't ordain only lay on hands?
If one examine the question of the essential necessity of episcopacy ("esse") to the Church, from the essence of authority, vs. its desirability ("bene esse" or even "plene esse"), one has to wonder, given the crud that various episcopal systems "gone to seed" have reigned down upon the Church, why is episcopacy even needed? I think that the Lutheran answer, that episcopacy is desirable so long as it is uncorrupted and actually of use to the Church, rather than to be detrimental to it, but is not essential, is a good one. The episcopacy is desirable so long as it fulfils its fuction for good order and when it does not fulfil that need, one either deposes the current bishops, or one operates without them, placing authority in the ministerium that CAN maintain good order AND to promote right teaching.
Be encouraged, Dr. Cooper...this ex-Catholic finds your research on the early church fathers very useful in my work with Catholics who find my reformed theology "heretical," according to the RCC. Thank you, and the RCC is much better at salesmanship than they are actual systematic theology. It's not you... :P
There are differing views within Presbyterianism about the role of the bishop. See the debates between two and three office church government.
I heard a ELCA Pastor say Lutheran Church is the Catholic prior to the Heresy of Vatican 2 😂
I think there is a mistake in the understanding of the roman catholic position. They consider the anglican successions invalid because they lack in form and intention according to Pope Leo XIII who decided about it. Other groups, who are considered excommunicated or schismatic, for example eastern orthodoxy or FSSPX are considered to have valid ordinations.
I love your videos, though I mainly watch in order to hear the smarts of an alternative perspective, my being a Catholic.
You say that apostolic succession shows up with Irenaeus, but it is actually a bit earlier, even before the whole of the bible was written. Clement (96 AD) speaks of it pretty clearly (albeit, without a mono-episcopacy) and Ignatius of Antioch implies sacramental authority residing in the bishop (with a mono-episcopal structure). In both Clement and Ignatius, predating Irenaeus (177 AD), you have church leadership as being primarily priestly and sacramental. Clement, for example, writes to the Corinthians specifically to urge church unity based on apostolic authority residing in the episcopal leadership. The schismatic element of the Corinthian church is urged to submit to their leaders (the leadership being modeled largely on their priestly function, echoing the Old Testament priesthood).
"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons…. Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, since they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." - Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5; 44:1-2 (96 A.D).
I won't quote Ignatius, but peppered throughout his letters, he speaks of no one doing anything pertaining to the church apart from the bishop, including "love feasts" which are clearly sacramental.
well done
I've considered Roman Catholicism as a possibility for a Protestant, but the more I study it, the less attractive it seems to me. I find it so untenable that I can't understand why anyone Protestant (especially a Reformed Presbyterian or Lutheran) would want to join Roman Catholicism.
It is clear that the RCC (and Orthodox Church) is full of innovations, a mixture of paganism and extra biblical practices that crept into the church through the centuries. One has to set the Bible aside or put it in secondary "suggestion" category to become an RC or Orthodox. That's a LOT worse than the modern charismatic neo Pentecostal movements who at least tries to find or base their claims and practices in the Biblical record. That's not the case with the RCC or OC which contain not only extra biblical, but contra biblical practices and doctrines.
Thanks.
After the Apostles die, is there another role that takes that place.
No. That’s why a Restoration was needed.
I thought the gates of hell will never prevail against the church?
@@d.rey5743 Hell has not prevailed against the church. An argument for apostolic succession just isn't part of that. It's a huge stretch based on one scripture.
Thou aren’t Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
Why claim, “by the MID 2nd century, according to St Ignatius” there seems to be bishops in major Christian cities?
If Ignatius is dated to about 110ad, it seems likely that Bishops were in place at latest the end of the 1st century.
I think that is the point
It’s the validity of the teaching that is the issue for non Catholics/orthodox
Claiming “unbroken succession” doesn’t convince people of the validity of your teaching
Claiming “unbroken succession” doesn’t somehow convince me that Peter or Paul were instructing people to ask for intercession from the dead or about indulgences
There is absolutely nothing in the NT about intercession from the dead or indulgences, which is money changing in the temple. It is expressly forbidden in the OT to have communication w/ the dead. So is idolatry, which is an often broken commandment in the Catholic and Orthodox churches.
There is the possibility that there was no bishop in Rome at the time of Ignatius's writing because the see was vacant at the time.
Good stuff as usual Dr. Cooper! Would be great if you can also think about doing the following:
1) How did marriage as a Sacrament in the Roman Church develop? Is there any basis for it in the early church fathers or is it just a later development due to other things?
2) Have a dialogue with Matt Fradd. He's been my favourite Roman Catholic on TH-cam, and although as a Protestant I disagree with him on some stuff, would be great if you both could dialogue with one another
Anyways, God bless and I pray your ministry will continue to flourish!
I'd be happy to talk with Matt Fradd.
@@DrJordanBCooper That's great! Also about the marriage part, I'm interested in it due to researching sexual ethics and I've had a hard time finding a distinctive and strong Protestant one. Whereas I've found Rome's one rather strong but I recognise it partly has to do with their view of it as a sacrament. So it'd be great to know the history behind that development in the early church and know your thoughts on the matter
@@jimmyking8074 Protestant sexual ethics was really no different from Catholic sexual ethics, with the exception that marriage was viewed more highly as the ascetic life was viewed as self-centered, until the 20th century, when Protestants fell under the sway of eugenicists, the "population bomb" scare tactic crowd, and women's liberation that denigrated motherhood as settling for less. This is related to the widespread Protestant self-conception of being in harmony with Science(tm). Catholics really never abandoned their scholastic roots, and so subscribed to natural law theology, so their view of sexuality was less influenced by trendy intelligenistas.
The Protestants who feel that this is wrong in Protestantism usually lack the metaphysical language for expressing what's wrong with it, and so they even see themselves as primarily in opposition to something instead of having a positive view of what is right and the language to defend it.
@@toomanymarys7355 Really huh? That is news to me, but I guess I haven't gone that far back to study the history behind those developments in Protestantism. Thanks
The seven sacraments was a Middle Ages concept. The Latin Church pressured this on both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox. Which is why they have pretty much the same sacraments. Second Council of Lyons - 13th century. Read about this from an Assyrian Church of the East bishop's history write up. As the Church of East although has 7 sacraments, they don't consider marriage to be a sacrament.
"We don't know if the apostles laid their hands"
That doesn't mean you can pull the Atheist card and say they didn't.
But the burden of proof would be on the affirmative claim.
Even in the New Testament, there were three levels of clergy: Apostles, elders/bishops, and deacons. When the Apostles passed on, they were replaced by people, and that position came to be known as "bishop."
The office of the apostle can't be understood in the NT to be of the same kind but greater degree than that of the elder, or it would make no sense for both Paul and Peter to refer to themselves as presbyters. Rather the apostle was a separate vocation to that of serving a congregation. Bishops it seemed emerged as an outgrowth of the presbyter's office, and it's very difficult at the very least to reconcile an unbroken monepiscopal succession from the apostles with e.g. Alexandria's bishop being appointed and ordained of the presbyters of its very extensive diocese for centuries (and is generally now believed to have been the case in Rome for a shorter time).
@@stallard9256 If you read the epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was martyred in 112 a.d., and was a disciple of the Apostle John, he clearly makes a distinction between the office of bishop and presbyter. The terminology changed, but the 3 levels of authority did not change.
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194
Hello Sir
I don’t think anyone says “I don’t want to follow apostolic tradition!!”
I think we all want to
I think hopefully we all truly want that
As much as I would love to find a church and say “that’s it! That’s the apostolic tradition!”
My mind can’t believe that
Can’t loook at the teachings of Catholics or Orthodox and make my mind believe that the apostles taught some of the things they teach
That seems to be the issue
We all want apostolic tradition (hopefully)
But we don’t think Catholics/Orthodox line up
When Papists talk about Succession and valid Sacraments, I always give them the following:
So who has the correct Ordination? The Eastern Orthodox is not the same as Roman Catholic, which is different from Anglican. If the gift given in Ordination happens because of the ceremony ex opere operato, who has the correct form? Even the RC admit that EO have valid Sacraments. If Apostolic Succession is lost due to heresy, what of the Great Schism of 1054? Who has it? Again, if the RC admits that the EO have valid Sacraments, then this is a double standard against Protestants.
In terms of Ordination, Luther was ordained a priest, and Lutherans kept Ordination. Therefore, Lutherans have a Presbyteral form of succession rather than an Episcopal one. Some Lutherans also maintained the episcopate.
If Apostolicae Curae condemned the Anglican rite of Ordination, how would that criterion apply to the Novus Ordo Ordination? It removes the words regarding Sacrifice, so one could argue that the intent is not the same either, namely the intent to perform the Sacrifice of the Mass.
In the end, looking for Apostolic Succession is just a cope for the fact that the Pope is an apostate heretic and idolater.
It also doesn't jive that Rome reconizes Orthodoxy's Eucharist as valid but doesn't recognize Lutherans or Anglicans who believe in the Real Presence
Could you give me some church fathers that don’t portray Peter as the rock because from what I’ve seen they all affirm the papacy that Peter is the rock
Both St Augustine and St John Chrysostom say that the Rock in Matthew was Peter's confession, rather than Peter himself.
Gavin Ortlund on Truth Unites did a presentation on a vote in a council where the bishops were split somewhere around 50% that Peter was not the rock, that Jesus is always the rock. Catholics extrapolate far too much from that one spare scripture. They make him the rock, instead of Jesus, who is always the rock and the chief cornerstone from OT to new. They make him the first pope. They institute apostolic succession. They also claim the church carries doctrine w/out error, because somehow, "the gates of hell will not prevail against her (the church), means that there will be no error in doctrine. Rather than simply that hell and the devil will not be able to stop the church from existing to this time and beyond, as battered and erroneous as she is. This is both sides, CAtholic and protestant.
Theology was always an issue from Arius and the Gnostics. What was never Challenged until the 16th century? The liturgy and the Sacraments. If the Bible is inspired and inerrant in the face of all the controversy how could the non controversial Traditions of the Church not be similarly inspired? It defies logic especially when you know the Bible is a Product of the Church. There is no unanimous Consent in Eastern Orthodoxy the Church Fathers didn’t always agree with each other they didn’t even agree with themselves. Chrysostom’s views of marriage turned 180 degrees over his ministry does that invalidate his contributions, of course not. The Apostles didn’t agree in the first Century and had to confront the teaching that you had to become Jewish before you Could become Christian and it’s precisely how they dealt with that that established the fundamental organizational principles of the Church, enduring Consensus that was held to until Pope Leo IX turned his back on it.
share to blow lds familys’ minds.
Listening to you brought me out of the reformed tradition, but ultimately pushed me to Orthodoxy.
Catholics generally do recognize schismatic ordimation as "valid but illicit" the highest profile example of this is the SSPX, but there are other (including some "old Catholic" groups). They stopped recognizing Anglican ordinations because of a change in the form ordination during the 1700's
I'm totally low church, and out of touch about this. Do you have a link about what makes it valid (and now invalid) to them? I'm curious.
I'm aware of this with SSPX and some other groups, but it was my understanding that Protestant groups (Lutheran, Anglican, or otherwise) who have Apostolic Succession were still not recognized as having legitimate ordinations.
@@toomanymarys7355 This video is a quick summary of the general Catholic view of ordination but it doesn't get into the nitty gritty th-cam.com/video/kuNiwOv_lro/w-d-xo.html
Regarding the controversy with the Anglicans this is a recent review by the American Catholic Bishops on the history
www.usccb.org/committees/ecumenical-interreligious-affairs/anglican-orders-report-evolving-context-their
and what list of references would be complete without wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolicae_curae apparently its the 1500's instead of 1700's, but the gist of it is that there was a change of intent and form in the "edwardine ordinals", but there is a lot of theological and historical debate arising from it
@@eammonful Thanks! I understood that Lutherans were thought to have no apostolic succession, but I thought Anglicans still were. This is helpful!
@@toomanymarys7355 " the Church of England intended to introduce a radically new rite into England, one markedly different from those approved by the Roman Catholic Church. By 'defect of form' Leo XIII meant that the words of the Anglican ordination prayer, 'Receive the Holy Ghost', did not signify definitely the order of the Catholic priesthood with its power to consecrate and offer the body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic sacrifice.
This is the position of Apostolicæ Curæ in 1896: the exclusion of the concept of sacrifice from eucharistic worship in 1552 signified that the Church of England did not intend to ordain bishops and priests in the way that such ordinations had taken place before the Reformation, in the Catholic Church in England. The exclusion of a sacrificing priesthood nullified any Anglican intention to do what the Catholic Church does at an ordination." this is the short version taken from the USCCB article
How and where is Sacramentalism taught in scripture? TY
Matthew 3:15 Jesus insisted that even John's baptism was fitting for them to fulfill all righteousness. A servant is not greater than his Lord.
Matthew 3:16 In baptism, the Father claims the Son. The Spirit rests on the Son.
Matthew 21:25 Mere water baptism is a gift from Heaven.
Matthew 28:19 Make disciples by baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and by teaching.
Mark 1:4 Mere water baptism = repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 16:16 *Baptized believers are saved, unbelievers condemned.*
Luke 7:29 Even water baptism is a public declaration that God is righteous.
Luke 7:30 *Rejecting even mere water baptism = rejecting God's purpose for you.*
John 1:31, 33 John knew beforehand that God would reveal the Christ through baptism.
Acts 2:38 *Repentance and baptism = forgiveness and the Spirit.*
Acts 2:39-41 3000 bachelors, virgins, wives, husbands, and *children of all ages received forgiveness and the Spirit in baptism.* The smallest can't have decided to repent in a mature way, but they were not excluded.
Acts 8 Many early church Bible readers saw a distinction between the Spirit's invisible gift of repentance/forgiveness and the Spirit's visible gift of leadership/ordination. Philip the Evangelist could baptize but not bestow spiritual authority. Only the apostles could do that.
Acts 22:16 *Baptism washes away sins.*
Romans 6:3, 4 *Baptism is death to sin, death with Christ, and newness of life in Christ.*
1 Corinthians 1 Baptism must not turn into hero worship, cliques, and factionalism.
1 Corinthians 12:22, 13 On the contrary, baptism is unity in the one Holy Spirit in Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:29 Even superstitious baptism declares the resurrection of the dead.
Galatians 3:27, 28 Baptism clothes every member of the body of Christ in equality.
Ephesians 3:5 There is one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.
Ephesians 5:26 Baptism sanctifies the Church because it is the washing of water with the word.
Colossians 2:11 Baptism is a works-free death, a cutting off of the flesh.
Colossians 2:12 Christ was buried. You were buried with Christ *in baptism.* God raised Christ from the dead. You believe God raised Christ from the dead. Therefore, God raised you with Christ *in baptism.* This is all *God’s powerful work.*
Hebrews 6:1-2 *Baptism is a basic foundational teaching. You can't say you believe in Jesus while rejecting his basic teachings.*
1 Peter 3:20 Noah was saved by water, not from water. The flood waters washed away much evil.
1 Peter 3:21 Baptism now *saves you!* Baptism is assurance/demand of a good conscience before God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This verse summarizes all that has been said above.
The Bible does not only say that the Lord's Supper is done in remembrance:
Matthew 26:28 Jesus calls it the blood of the covenant.
Hebrews 9:20 The author quotes Moses saying the exact same words about real blood. There is no precedent here for saying "is" means "represents."
1 Corinthians 10:16 The bread and the cup are a koinonia (co-union/intimacy/participation/contribution/distribution) of the body and blood of Christ.
1 Cor 11:20 There is an objectively true Lord's Supper. Unreconciled schism within the congregation make it objectively not the Lord's Supper.
1 Cor 10:21-22 The Lord, whose name is Jealous, is jealous of his cup and his table.
1 Cor 11:23 The Lord specifically and personally revealed the Supper to Paul.
1 Cor 11:27 Misuse of the Lord's Supper is not just a bad reenactment. It makes you guilty of sin against the very body and blood of the Lord.
1 Cor 11:28-30 Mere reenactments do not require earnest soul searching on pain of punishment and death.
Therefore true Christian faith in these words: "This is my body which is for you, … This is my blood of the new covenant," must take all into account.
1 Cor 5:11 We are not to eat even secular food with christians who do not accept correction. Guests, whose lives are unknown to the pastor, should be catechised first. "Revilers" (who insult our face value belief) are rightly excluded.
@@Mygoalwogel sacraments are the communion and baptism? Are there other sacraments? Maybe it’s just a loaded term in my experience somehow special grace is extended through sacraments?
I practiced the communion supper and have been baptized. If anything I think those are the only two represented in the Scriptures.
@@bradbrown2168 I'd count reconciliation as in John 20, 1 Corinthians 5, 2 Corinthians 2, Galatians 6.
I have been tempted many times to cross the Tiber or the Bosphorous, but I just have to keep reminding myself that I can’t work for my own salvation. I did that before in American Evangelicalism, and my soul was starved of the true Law and Gospel. Their liturgies are beautiful (and much is scriptural), and certainly their traditions and claims to antiquity may have weight, but I can’t accept the many doctrines that don’t align with Holy Scripture. Semper Virgo, sure. Co-mediatrix, no way.
(Since the Eastern Church hasn’t dealt with the same conflicts that the Western Church has, I can’t speak much to their traditions/dogma. They largely seem like Calvinists in that everyone you ask will give a different answer. I’m definitely painting with a broad brush, though.)
Calvinists can give you different answers (particularly if "Calvinist" means "Baptist who believes in predestination"), but the Reformed confessions (the Westminster Confession of Faith of course being the best known and comprehensive) are not exactly vague as to what is professed. Navigating what the East believes is a labyrinth because, much like with Rome, there has been quite a bit of revision throughout the 20th century, and even things that are fairly obviously dogma will be proclaimed by someone to actually be a Western/Latin/Augustinian/Protestant/Jesuit corruption. Nevertheless, if you cut through all that, there is quite obviously most all of Rome's problems in full display there, and blasphemous prayers like "Most Holy Mother of God, save us!", or "O Virgin Mother of our Lord, be my helper, and save me from eternal torments. I have you as Mediatrix with the philanthropous God" ring through their churches.
@@stallard9256 exactly! Thanks for elaborating. I think both Costantinople and Rome are more alike than they realize.
If this is your take on Orthodoxy, I humbly suggest more research....co mediatrix?
@@ronfeledichuk531 fair point, more research is always good, especially when it comes to the Orthodox. Fortunately, the Lutheran Confessions seem to align the best with Holy Scripture, so I will stick to being a Confessional Lutheran.
There is a popular position in Roman Catholicism that sees her as a co-mediatrix with Our Lord. I don’t know if it’s dogma yet, but it is prevalent enough to get on my radar as I was researching. The argument goes that since she was sinless, her merit can bestow salvation to sinners. This feeds into a sister doctrine of the Blessed Mother as co-redemptrix.
@@juliasaurus-wrecks1995 Roman Catholicism isn't Orthodoxy. We have no such teaching.
May I ask which points of Lutheranism align better with Scripture?
Just came across this. Very interesting, but. It's very "if", "seems like", "possibly", etc: very speculative. I don't mean to criticise but you cut lost of slack towards your preferred interpretation and scepticism/doubt to alternatives. Understandable, as I do the same, but sadly unconvincing. Church structure as it happened does not in anyway even begin to justify what we have. The church was quite corrupted during the apostolic period, so give a hundred years and of history and there's no way we can have any confidence. I mostly like what you say 😀
Succession of the position/office (Acts 1) of the apostle, special powers like forgive sins (John 20:23), Primacy of Peter (everywhere) = single dude at the top.
"Bishop of Rome" is a red herring
Apostolic Succession does NOT start with the St. Irenaeus and his explanations as it can be found in the Bible. I do not know who gave you "dr" title...
At 1:36 he puts his hand on his glasses. Psychologists know that this is a typical sign of when someone is not telling the truth. People need to become Catholic.
Citation, please?
Get professional help.
Apostolic succession exists only in the CATHOLIC church? Succession is not in the bible.
Wrong on both points. It is in the Bible, and Latins do not fulfill the requirements as set in the Bible. Only one that truly meets requirements is Eastern Orthodox Church.
Problems arise immediately when people fail to pay attention to Jesus. Jesus said we are all equal. Call each other brothers. That's what JESUS said.
Even his very own closes disciples didn't pay attention. The Sons of Thunder and their mom, Peter get behind me satan, he who is not against us is for us... We have one leader the Christ.
So it is no surprise that people are grabbing for power in their false churches. The closest 12 were doing the same thing but Jesus always rebuked them.. Because we are all brethren on one level, with one leader. This is why I follow Jesus and not Paul, Peter, James whoever and certainly no pope or "church father" who exalt themselves over me.
Who confirmed you to be a Christian?
Did you become Christian by historical research?
*APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE*
1. In the Bible, Joseph and Eliakim were given symbols of their unique authority and stewardship in their respective kingdoms (cf. Genesis 41:40-44, Isaiah 22:20-22).
2. The symbols of authority given to Joseph and Eliakim were a signet ring and a key, respectively.
3. The office of steward passed from Shebna to Eliakim, indicating that while the person holding this office may be replaced or die, the office itself continues under the authority of the king, even if the individual officeholder changes.
4. Jesus is the King of kings (cf. 1 Timothy 6:15, Revelation 17:14).
5. Jesus alluded to Isaiah 22:20-22 when speaking to Peter in Matthew 16:18-19, indicating a parallel between Eliakim's role and Peter's role.
6. Jesus gave Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 16:19) as a symbol of his unique authority and stewardship.
7. Therefore, Jesus established the office of steward in His kingdom, the Church.
8. Therefore, Peter holds a unique authority and stewardship role within the kingdom of heaven, analogous to Eliakim's role in the kingdom of Israel.
9. Jesus' kingdom, the Church, is eternal and will never end (cf. Daniel 7:14, Luke 1:33).
10. The office of steward within the Church has continued and will continue until Christ's return.
11. The office of steward passed from Peter to his successors sequentially, as evidenced by the early Church's recognition of the bishops of Rome as Peter's successors.
12. Therefore, Peter's successors, the Popes of the Catholic Church, have continued serving in this office, ensuring continuity in leadership and the preservation of Christ's authority within the Church.
The only reason you buy that convoluted, motivated reasoning is because you want to. Arthur's claim to the throne based on pulling a sword out of a stone is more secure than that exegetical maze.
@@noxvenit Each line is numbered. Go line by line and tell me which line is wrong. Thanks.
@@randycarson9812
1: no symbols of authority given to Peter
2: no signet ring or key given to Peter
3: irrelevant to the argument
6: not clearly true
7: non sequitur -- does not follow preceding premises; even if true, the steward was not the "vicar" of the king.
8: invalid inference based on 7, above; therefore also non sequitur; even if true where the steward given authority to render legal and doctrinal judgments over Israel?
9: true, but irrelevant to the argument
10: irrelevant to the argument
12: non sequitur
The reasoning in Roe v Wade was tighter.
Since you all want to insist on the Real Presence such that the elements MUST be the real flesh and the real blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, then show us a REAL signet ring and a REAL key. Then, be prepared to establish the provenance of that ring and that key.
@@noxvenit I'm just going to hit a few points in response.
1. In Gen 41:41. Joseph was given a ring. In Isaiah 22:20-22, Eliakim was given a key. In Mt. 16:19, Peter received keys.
2. Peter received the keys in Mt. 16:19:
*I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,[a] and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.*
The rest of your arguments simply fall apart once you really that yes, Peter did receive the keys from Jesus.
7. A vicar is someone who acts in the place of someone of higher rank. Jesus is the Good Shepherd of the one flock. However, in Jn 21, Jesus leaves Peter in charge of that flock telling Peter to feed (teach) and tend (govern) the sheep. Peter acts as the vicarious shepherd now that Jesus has ascended to heaven.
10. How can you say that it is irrelevant when Jesus is an eternal king and established the office of steward in His kingdom (which must be a perpetual office since men are mortal)?
The office of the President of the United States continues even when the man holding the office changes or dies in office. Same with the Chief Steward in an eternal kingdom.
I don't think you've actually thought this through. Start by explaining why Jesus alluded to Isaiah 22:20-22.
@@randycarson9812 I don't think you've actually thought this through.
I have been thinking about it since I was still Roman Catholic.
1. Joseph received a real, physical signet right. Eliakim received a real, physical key. Where is the real, physical signet that Christ put into Peter's hand? Where is the real, physical key that Christ put into Peter's hand.
2. Peter received the keys in Mt. 16:19.
The text does not record that Peter received any keys, only that he would receive some keys. Where are those keys?
"The rest of your arguments simply fall apart once you really that yes, Peter did receive the keys from Jesus." ~ Not really, because no one has produced these keys. If you are going to appeal to real, physical signet rings and keys given to Joseph and Eliakim, then you should produce a real, physical signet ring and keys for Peter.
7. "A vicar is someone who acts in the place of someone of higher rank. Jesus is the Good Shepherd of the one flock. However, in Jn 21, Jesus leaves Peter in charge of that flock telling Peter to feed (teach) and tend (govern) the sheep. Peter acts as the vicarious shepherd now that Jesus has ascended to heaven." ~ Yes, but a vicar is not a viceroy.
10. "The office of the President of the United States continues even when the man holding the office changes or dies in office. Same with the Chief Steward in an eternal kingdom."
The office of the President is explicitly set forth in a singe document for all to read, all at once. It is not justified by poring over the pages of multiple documents, compiled over centuries, with sentences from this or that document strung together into an argument no one would buy if we were talking about any other office.
" Start by explaining why Jesus alluded to Isaiah 22:20-22."
Given the context, I have never been sure Jesus is alluding to Isaiah. Even if he were, you still have an argument for a very important office that relies on some shakey exegetical foundations.
Maybe the laying on of hands was just a misunderstanding when Greco/Romans invented Christianity to separate their religion from the Messianic Jews. The Jews used laying on of hands when blessing someone so they would quite naturally lay hands on someone when sending them on a mission or appointing them to an office. One must understand the way of the Apostolic ekklesia prior to its being hijacked for Greco/Roman purposes.
"The writings of the Apostle do not agree entirely with the hierarchy which is now in the Church, because they were written at the very beginning. He even calls Timothy, whom he himself made a presbyter, the bishop, because first presbyters were being called bishops becuase when a bishop passed away, a presbyter succeeded him. In Egypt, presbyters even do confirm if the bishop is absent." --Ambrosiaster commenting on Ephesians 4:11-12
St. Willehad the presbyter built churches and ordained presbyters in Lower Saxony starting in 781. He was not made bishop until 787. Nobody thought he was acting wrongly or reconsecrated his presbyters.
Paphnutius the presbyter ordained his own successor, Daniel, according to Cassian.
There's also the famous Letter 146 of Jerome.
These examples have led several Papist scholars to conclude that Presbyterial ordination is not entirely invalid.
Fr. George Tavard concluded that presbyterial successions are a matter of history, and said:
"I would be prepared to go further, and to admit that episcopal succession is not absolutely required for valid ordination…. The main problem, in our ecumenical context, does not lie in evaluating historical lines of succession, but in appreciating the catholicity of Protestantism today."
Fr. Harry McSorley concluded, after a thorough study of the Council of Trent:
"We can say without qualification that there is nothing whatever in the Tridentine doctrine on sacrament of order concerning the reality of the eucharist celebrated by Christians of the Reformation churches. Catholic theologians who have maintained that there is no sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in Protestant churches because Protestant ministers are radically incapable of consecrating the eucharist are incorrect if they think this opinion is necessitated by the teaching of Trent."
th-cam.com/video/-0w1TtfTIlU/w-d-xo.html
@@Mygoalwogel Elder, bishop, pastor and presbyter were used interchangeably until later inventions separated them into a hierarchy established for the concept of Christianity being a new religion. The Apostles wouldn't recognize the church of today as springing from their ekklesia. Everyone seems to refer to history or tradition that began after everything Jewish was excised.
@@shofar-man thats garbage because Jesus clearly said, that he wont leave the church till the end of the world
Your joseph smith argument doesnt work
@@katholischetheologiegeschi1319 what in the world are you talking about?
@@Mygoalwogel Thats my point it all came later than the apostles.
sorry, not very clear, not very concise, convoluted, no definition of terms, no clarification of Greek terms, the roles of such positions, no historical context, and spoken very rapidly.