Where Protestants Are Closer to the Church Fathers
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.พ. 2025
- See full video: • What is Protestantism?...
Truth Unites exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
SUPPORT:
Become a patron: / truthunites
One time donation: www.paypal.com...
FOLLOW:
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Website: gavinortlund.com/
MY ACADEMIC WORK:
gavinortlund.c...
PODCAST:
anchor.fm/trut...
DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM
Striving Side By Side: / discord
CHECK OUT SOME BOOKS:
www.amazon.com...
www.amazon.com...
www.amazon.com...
www.amazon.com...
Gavin just released a video, cue 100 Roman Catholic channel creating 1 hr videos each to rebut his 2 talking points.
Um, that goes both ways my friend.
@@sproutfire8878 true words
@@justicebjorke2790Yeah, he can be a nuisance right? If only he could just be 'dealt with' like the inquisition did with heretics in the good old days!
@@justicebjorke2790 no u
@@justicebjorke2790. You Catholics just got to be the meanest Christians of all time. Obnoxious is too kind a word for you. Just proves the “Roman Catholic Church is steeped In error and beyond correction”!
Withholding the cup to the laity is perhaps the issue that gives the strongest testimony against the claims of Rome. Especially since Catholic apologetics right now is so incredibly Eucharist-centric. The fact is that, even though they now give the cup to the laity, it is still infallible church doctrine that the consecrated bread alone contains the Body, BLOOD, soul, and divinity of Christ. There is no scriptural or patristic support for this contrived reasoning that makes the cup superfluous. IF transubstantiation is true, you had better give both bread and cup at all times.
1 Corinthians 11:27: "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord."
Paul says that eating the bread OR the wine unworthily means you profane both the body AND the blood. This means you receive both under one species.
@@shlamallama6433very interesting. Does this mean I’m allowed to read John 6:53 figuratively now? “…except you eat the flesh of the son of man, AND drink his blood…” He didn’t mean “and” I guess? If we get the blood by solely eating, can we get the body by solely drinking? That makes BOTH “eat” and “drink” figurative. “Ah but Jesus frequently spoke in figures and parables” you might say. But we both know the conclusion you get when you read John 6 in a figurative sense.
@@shlamallama6433it simply is saying that both are important and receiving either bread or wine unworthily is sufficient for condemnation. Nothing about both of them being identical.
I was shocked when I found out about this recently.
My dad is a recovering alcoholic so he will only receive the Eucharist, not the wine. My son and I are gluten sensitive but some churches offer low gluten hosts and some don’t. If we’re at a church where we’re not sure if they offer low gluten hosts, we receive the wine only. These are all considered legitimate forms of receiving Our Lord.
It seems to me that the entire Roman Catholic system ultimately boils down to the question of magisterial authority. There are numerous topics where it is clear that post-Trent teaching is not the same as patristic teaching. But the Roman Catholic reply is always “well, the early saints didn’t have to believe this, but now that it has been defined by magisterial/papal authority, all good Christians have to believe it”. This raises the question of why a church that is guided by charity would ever create new dogmas with anathemas attached to them, since this has the practical effect of making it harder for people to be saved. But you see that, the fundamental belief at the root of all else is that Christian’s must believe whatever the magisterial authority led by the pope teaches. If they can be shown to be incorrect (and I think they can) about even one thing that they have taught, supposedly infallibly, then the entire system comes crashing down
This is why Catholic apologetics always ends up seeming circular to me. At some point, it always comes down to church authority.
If the other arguments don’t hold up (universal attestation of the early fathers, consistency of doctrine over time, etc), then it simply becomes “we know the church has authority because the church authoritively says so.”
Quite simply, the Catholic Church has a responsibility to continue to exist as a worldwide missionary organisation. The Pope is there to co-ordinate doctrine. The alternatives appear to be the church as a mass of sects (Protestants) or actually shooting at each other (Orthodox). There’s a lack of alternatives, but maybe the Church of South India has something to say.
Cardinal Hollerich says the Church has got it wrong about homosexuality. Watch this space.
True, any single error on its doctrine on it faiths and moral would be proof that it is a false church. It can never accept any form of abortion, artificial birth control, divorce, remarriage, euthanesia, etc....issues that continue to beset the 'modern world'.
@@repentantrevenant9776 Exactly!
@@david_porthouse I have great respect for the Catholic Church and am glad that it exists as an organization. My problem is that it denies the existence of Christ’s Church outside itself, and doesn’t enter into communion with other churches.
Please do more together! This is awesome.
Agreed
A good collaboration!
I appreciate your channel!
You should do more videos together
True.
Yes and amen!
4:10 That's interesting, that the Catholics claim there should be doctrinal development, as a way to get around the accretions. But that then accepts there are accretions.
1) 0:29 The system of salvation with indulgences and the treasury of merit.
2) 0:37 Transubstantiation as the particular mechanism for real presence.
3) 0:47 Papal infallibility.
4) 0:50 That there are seven sacraments particularly.
5) 1:00 The veneration of images.
6) 1:07 Masses for the dead to reduce time in purgatory.
7) 1:14 Withholding communion in both kinds.
8) 1:16 Withholding Scripture to the vernacular.
9) 1:18 Violence as justified by official church theology and magisterial teaching.
10) 1:24 The elaborate role of Mary in daily piety.
11) 1:29 Legalism in monasteries.
12) 1:32 The complete loss of rigor in church discipline.
1.) Indulgences: “The Church has the power to grant peace to the penitent through the intercession of the martyrs” (De Pudicitia, 22).
“It is sufficient for reconciliation that they observe the penance imposed by the Church, but it is permitted to remit part of it for the sake of mercy” (Council of Carthage). “The power of binding and loosing was granted to the Church, that what is done on earth is confirmed in heaven, and the penitence of the faithful is aided by the intercessions of the saints” (St. Leo). “The pains of purgatory are mitigated by the intercession of the living faithful and by the merits of the saints” (Dialogues, IV, 40).
2.) Transubstantiation: 1. St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-107)
• St. Ignatius wrote about the Eucharist as the true Flesh of Christ:
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6:2).
2. St. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165)
• In his First Apology, Justin Martyr describes the transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ:
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise, we have been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word is both the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh” (First Apology, 66).
3. St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202)
• St. Irenaeus affirmed the Real Presence in his work Against Heresies:
“He has declared the cup, a part of His creation, to be His own Blood, from which He gives to His own disciples to drink, and He has affirmed that the bread, a part of His creation, He has made His own Body, from which He gives to His own disciples to eat” (Against Heresies, 5.2.2).
4. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313-386)
• St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, instructs the faithful about the Real Presence:
“When you hear ‘This is My Body,’ do not doubt but take it as spoken by Christ. For His Body is given to you under the form of bread” (Catechetical Lectures, 4.22).
5. St. Augustine of Hippo (c. 354-430)
• St. Augustine wrote about the Eucharistic mystery, emphasizing the transformation:
“What you see is the bread and the cup; it is the body and blood of Christ. It is a sign of what you see, and what you see is the Body and Blood of Christ” (Sermon 272).
I was raised Catholic and have little understanding of Protestantism. For those like me who are curious about the question "why Protestantism, where did it come from" might join me in reading Will Durant's great history book The Reformation. It's a huge book but very well written and fascinating, and gives the Big Picture on the changes in Christianity in the late MIddle Ages. Your library probably has it.
You can also read the writings of the Reformers themselves and see how they think and teach and if it’s an ancient way of thinking or something novel.
I was raised protestant evangelical and have little understanding of protestantism(s) 😆. I am currently reading Bainton's biography of Luther.
Yep, and they're all written by imperfect fallible men, whereas the Catholic church has a library of documents and books written by those with the authority of the infallible Christ.
@@TruLuan Were the church fathers not men?
@@2Nickcdj Teachings passed down from the apostles whom were taught by Christ. Hence infallible.
It also reveals the expedient arguments from Catholics. Their positions is "it's the earliest church" and "it's the church founded by Jesus," using the age and history of the church as the principal basis for Catholicism being the true church, but the accretions (an accurate term) are much later. Then their argument changes. And those arguments didn't stand in the first place. The earliest church had to be corrected so often, the apostles visited and wrote the NT to confront the constant slide into, or preference for, error. Every church has that ongoing need, including Catholics. But they've got this doctrine (or dogma?) of infallibility to guard against criticism. Not humble, not biblical. Proud and self-justifying.
Proud? How so? The more general Christian claim is that the letters included in the New Testament are the infallible words of the Most High God himself. Is that also proud and lacking in humility?
Love this video title
Hi Dr. Ortlund,
I would question some of your 12 examples.
1. Transubstantiation. This is not a medieval doctrine. It was taught clearly by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century, in his "Lectures on the Christian Sacraments: The Procatechesis and the Five Mystagogical Catecheses":
"Since He Himself has declared and said of the bread: This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any more? And when He asserts and says: This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate and say it is not His Blood? … if Christ could change water into wine, can He not change wine into His own Blood? … They do not remain in their original condition, they have been changed, though the senses cannot tell us this … Do not think it mere bread and wine, for it is the Body and Blood of Christ, according to the Lord’s declaration."
That's all the doctrine says: what was bread and wine is now no longer bread and wine, but the body and blood of Christ. Only the appearances remain. Catholics are not obliged to believe in Aristotle's metaphysics of substance and accident. All they have to believe is that there's a distinction between appearance and reality, in the case of the Eucharist. This is common knowledge.
2. Seven sacraments. The Orthodox Church agrees that there are seven "major sacraments," though it also counts lesser acts, such as the consecration of a church, as being sacraments in some way. The seven sacraments are also accepted by Oriental Orthodoxy, including the Coptic Orthodox Church, Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, and the Armenian Orthodox Church. That means that the idea of seven sacraments must go back to around the fifth century.
3. Masses for the dead to reduce time in purgatory. This practice goes back to Pope Gregory the Great (c. 600 A.D.). See here:
www.ncregister.com/news/how-to-help-the-holy-souls-in-purgatory
4. Communion under one kind. Communion under both kinds was certainly the norm until the twelfth century. However, even in the fourth century, people used to often take the consecrated host back to their homes and reserving it there for private worship, but they never took the chalice. Also, communion to the sick was usually given under the species of bread alone.
5. Bible in the vernacular. There is no evidence of any official ecclesiastical decision in the Middle Ages to universally prohibit translations of the Bible into the vernacular. Certain heretical translations were prohibited, but the practice of translating into the vernacular was never forbidden as such. St. Bede translated the Gospel of John into Anglo-Saxon English shortly before his death in 735. Around 990, a full and freestanding version of the four Gospels in idiomatic Old English appeared, in the West Saxon dialect. Most religious texts were available in English by the eleventh century.
6. The elaborate role of Mary in daily piety. Let me quote from the "Axion Estin," an Orthodox hymn to Mary. The second part, which was composed by St. Cosmas the Hymnographer (d. 773), reads as follows: "More honorable than the cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim, who without corruption gavest birth to God the Word, the true Theotokos, we magnify thee." In Rome, the Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore was built under Pope Celestine I (422-432). St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), in his Homily IV, speaks of Mary as "the one through whom heaven is exalted, through whom angels and archangels are delighted, through whom demons are banished, through whom the tempting devil fell from heaven, through whom fallen human nature is assumed into heaven, through whom all creation, possessed by the madness of idolatry, came to a full knowledge of truth, through whom holy baptism came into being for all faithful, through whom is the oil of exultation, through whom the churches have been founded for all the world..." The cult of Mary certainly goes back to the fifth century.
Legalism in monasteries and the complete loss of Church discipline are not doctrinal issues. Many Catholics today would cheerfully grant your point on these questions. Cheers.
Point #5 is very true. One of the first translations for instance into Germanic language was by Wulfila. Martin Luther wasn't the first. I think what many people don't realize is how expensive a Bible was. Therefore some bibles were actually chained to the wall so it will not be stolen. Some say this was later misunderstood as "putting a chain around the Bible" so it cannot be read. While in fact the chain was there to prevent theft. In the middle ages one complete handwritten Bible was worth an insane amount.
So, I'd agree - the Protestant legend that the Bible was put in chains to prevent people from reading it, isn't true.
@@MrSeedi76 True, it takes15 months of painstaking labor to hand copy each word of the bible and since an animal has only one skin, it took flocks of animals to produce one bible...each bible must be costing a fortune.
Well put. However, I always have a problem with purgatory and specifically, if one follows Pope Francis on Twitter, people can reduce their time off of purgatory. Surely that is a con? The same goes for the Marian dogmas. For instance, if you do not attend Mass (willingly) on a holy day of obligation (let's just say the Assumption) you commit a mortal sin. If you die before seeking reconciliation via a Catholic priest (praying to God direct does not count) and do the required penance, you are told you will go to hell. This surely is another con? nowhere in Scripture does it say this. The RCC definitely has some questionable practices that shamelessly puts the fear of God into people who genuinely believe and trust in Jesus Christ. Personally, I would call that legalistic bondage which is not acceptable, under the new covenant.
Thank you for this thoughtful comment, which far surpasses most TH-cam comments! A few replies:
1. On transubstantiation, the Council of Trent specifically anathematizes articulations of real presence that affirm the bread and wine remain conjointly with the body and blood of Christ: "If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema."
I believe that in the patristic era this view anathematized here at Trent was actually the more common view (e.g., I find it in Augustine and Theodoret); certainly, there was no requirement for its rejection.
2. On 7 sacraments, the fact that multiple churches affirm that number does not prove the belief originated before formal rupture. Common developments can and often do occur after institutional rupture. As a metaphor: suppose in the year 2030 the state of California split up into three distinct states: Southern California, Central California, and Northern California. Subsequently, in the year 2100, a sociologist conducts a study of the culture, politics, and language of the three states. He should not be amazed by commonalities between them, since shared culture is exactly what would be expected, given the shared history. In the case of 7 sacraments, I cannot locate a single church father who articulated this number.
3. Scripture certainly was prohibited in the vernacular on occasion. E.g., The Council of Toulouse in the 13th century: "we prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."
4. Several of the other examples you mentioned were early medieval (8th century, 7th century, etc.), which does not overturn my point. I might have missed but there were several issues you didn't cover I think (violence as justified in magisterial teaching, e.g.). I didn't merely reference high praise to Mary, but her role in "daily piety." And the high praise certainly spiraled up intensity and frequency during the medieval era. In general Mariology grows massively in medieval Christianity. That is all I have time for at the moment; thank you again for the good comment.
@@candyclews4047 Purgatory...not everyone would die in a state of purity (zero sins), people commonly commit venial sins which are not a hindrance to their salvation, but no smudge of sin can enter heaven. Only the saints (purified souls), angels and God reside in heaven.
St. Catherine of Siena was permitted by God to see the beauty of a soul in the state of grace. It was so beautiful that she could not look on it; the brightness of that soul dazzled her.
Blessed Raymond, her confessor, asked her to describe to him, as far as she was able, the beauty of the soul she had seen.
St. Catherine thought of the sweet light of that morning, and of the beautiful colors of the rainbow, but that soul was far more beautiful. She remembered the dazzling beams of the noonday sun, but the light which beamed from that soul was far brighter.
She thought of the pure whiteness of the lily and of the fresh snow, but that is only an earthly whiteness.
The soul she had seen was bright with the whiteness of Heaven, such as there is not to be found on earth.
”My father,” she answered. “I cannot find anything in this world that can give you the smallest idea of what I have seen.
Oh, if you could but see the beauty of a soul in the state of grace, you would sacrifice your life a thousand times for its salvation.
I asked the angel who was with me what had made that soul so beautiful, and he answered me, “It is the image and likeness of God in that soul, and the Divine Grace which made it so beautiful.”
3:39 many practices post trent do not have patristic precedent
Then the argument becomes
It doesn't matter that these practices arent in the early chuch, because of there was doctrinal development
This is how i see it. Is there a longer video on this? It is excellent
Thank you for this video. Can we also add Eucharist adoration (giving worship to the bread and wine as if it were Christ himself) as a late development? And perhaps the one that most risks committing idolatry.
I’m very grateful for your channel 👍🏻
@@fredthe47th As a Catholic, yes it IS idolatry IF the bread and wine do not become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. The problem is that Jesus Christ Himself says:
"Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me." (John 6:51-58)
This is not pieced together, this is a straight quote. Nor is it taken out of context, read the whole context if you are concerned I am taking it out of context. I heard a Baptist pastor say about baptism, something along the lines of, "if Jesus says something once, it is important. If He says it twice, it is incredibly important. If He says it three times, it is absolutely essential!" In just seven verses, Jesus states and emphasizes his point FIVE times, making sure there is absolutely no doubt about what he is saying. He never, ever, stresses anything like this again with the exception of repentance from sins. What comes next? Thousands of people walk away from Jesus, many of them his followers, and not only does he not clarify He means something else, or that they misunderstood Him, but instead He turns to the Apostles and asks them, "Will you also go away?" He doesn't even give any more context, he just asks them if, even though this teaching is very hard, would they also abandon Him? Peter gives the response that we are also called to give. "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God." We don't understand how or even why Jesus has made this teaching essential, but it clearly is, and even if we don't want to accept it, the right thing to do is say "Yes Lord, I accept even in spite of my lack of understanding because I know you have the words of everlasting life, and if this is required for my salvation as you claim, then I will obey Lord."
And then in the at the last supper, Christ Himself says,
With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you, before I suffer. For I say to you, that from this time I will not eat it, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and said: Take, and divide it among you: For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come. And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. (Luke 22:15-20)
The question now is, can I accept what Jesus says? Please pray for us, we pray for you all.
@@fredthe47th ok fellas...enlighten me, what is the difference between worshiping/adoring the bread vs treating it as a "symbol", or whatever manner you happen to think of the Holy Eucharist?
We’re not adding that since Christians always taught it was truly Jesus, buddy. “No one eats that flesh without previously adoring it. We do not sin by adoring it.” - St. Augustine. That’s just a clear quote about adoring Jesus in the Eucharist but there are countless quotes from earlier centuries confirming that the elements truly become Jesus’s body and blood.
@@wayned803 they don't believe it's just a symbol but is Christ and therefore bow and worship the bread and wine.
Lutherans have a very nuanced position that is not like the Papists and I can't really state it.
The symbolic belief is just that.
@@fredthe47th Christians have always taught that the Eucharist is Jesus and Jesus is God so,no, that is not what idolatry is. What you mean to say is you do not understand so it makes you feel uncomfortable.
@TruthUnites, I love the church fathers, but their writings are ubiquitous. When you release a video like this, can you also post a list of the patristics you used to come up with it? I ask because you mention transubstantiation in this video, but I did a paper on transubstantiation in protestant seminary and I can tell you that it's a bit misleading to call transubstantiation an accretion because the seeds were WELL planted. And although the term might be medieval, the concept is not at all (also it's quite biblical in Jesus own words). I'd also like to know what you think of Eucharistic miracles like a bleeding host? If those aren't true, would you attribute those to demonic activity?
I find it interesting that in Carholicism communion under both kinds is a discipline. Also its interesting that agape feasts were instituted by the apostles and fell out of favor meaning they were a discipline as well.
@@fredthe47th "Nothing to support" I'm not an expert in this but my understanding is St. Paul talks about this in the second half of 1 Corinthians. It sounds like early communions were more like feasts with people getting drunk then a liturgy. When Jesus held the last supper eating a meal was the model. Perhaps there are other examples.
@@fredthe47th Your assumption is I didn't read it? :)
Enough material on this topic for a 5 minute video!
Pretty good video, but I don't think the Roman Catholic Church was withholding scripture from the vernacular. They certainly didn't see translating the Bible as a priority, as the first complete Roman Catholic Bible in English didn't come out until after the Reformation, but there were German translations before the Reformation.
Reading and printing the Bible was illegal for the common people at various times. Bibles burned with the martyrs at the hands of Papal Rome.
Dr. Walter Martin many years ago did a number debates and talks with different cults including the romanists. They are all on TH-cam and worth watching.
Its 2023 my friend, if you still think Catholicism is a “Romanian cult” then you need to research early Christian writings yourself and stop repeating what others told you. It also wouldn’t hurt to research where your New Testament canon was assembled and what city it was sent to for final approval.
@@TheHumbleGrumble1987its not a cult but catholicism today is not the same as the patristic era church
@myselfpoker88 Dr. Martin was much softer on Catholics towards the end of his life, even having Fr. Mitchell Pacwa sub for him at Melodyland. Dr. Martin vigorously debated Catholic theology but attempted to build bridges to have Protestants to recognize Catholics as brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ.
I watched this Protestant shindig on TV which involved the new King of England promising to be a faithful Protestant in the presence of another man’s wife whom he brought along to be his Queen. The Archbishop who crowned him has had the Freemasons in his cathedral. What were they up to? What would the early Christians make of this?
Still crying over your King then. The early Christians would say "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way." 1 Tim 2:1-4 you don't appear to be doing that and are therefore going against scripture.
@@HearGodsWord Something bogus about Protestantism.
@@david_porthouse if you want to go against scripture then there's something bogus about your supposed faith.
@@HearGodsWord Scripture is full of examples of kings being denounced by the prophets of the day. John Knox wrote a denunciation of the monarchs of his time. However Protestants evidently don't like to be on the receiving end.
@david_porthouse you offered hate and I offered scripture. I know which one wins.
I fail to understand the importance that some people place on the church fathers.
Apostasy was at work even during the time of the apostles.
So why should we expect the perfect faith to be practiced in 50-100-200 years after the resurrection?
And how certain can we be that the opinions etc voiced by the church fathers actually mirrored the beliefs held by the rank and file?
Imagine if certain ministers or bishops of today were selected and asked to write down their beliefs and practice of worship.
If someone were to read these writings in two hundred years time, would they get an accurate reflection?
Exactly. It’s why whenever I use a father, I use it as a basis of getting to the truth, not the truth. Although I think the Jew Josephus has a lot credibility regarding the Hebrew canon-22 books-Ruth to judges, lamentations to Jeremiah.
Some of the fathers like Irenaues claim direct line from the apostles themselves. I don't think we are certain but assuming things get worse over time it's at the very least more likely the fathers are much closer to what the apostles taught. But you're right they made mistakes too.
The Church Fathers give us insight into the beliefs and teachings of early Christians. I'm sorry you don't see why that should matter to you.
Why would we expect the faith to be articultated better in the 16th century by Germans, Swiss and Frenchmen who didn’t speak Greek natively? Look in the mirror, Protestant.
Dman, it might be of historical interest to learn how some within the early church thought and worshipped.
But you appear to have missed my point, even though I took the time to articulate myself.
The church fathers are not inspired.
They were sinners.
Sinners within the church even in Christ's time erred and were led astray.
So why should the church fathers be any different?
Pray tell Gavin, how are the idea of transubstantiation and the distribution of the Eucharist under one species farther from the Church fathers than a mere memorial view? I understand that you and Jordan don’t hold to that but many many Protestants do. Look at the comments under your Real Presence video. Not sure what you meant by your Church discipline point. You kind of threw that out there with no explanation. Also, the fact that the Protestant Reformation was all about going back to the origins and so quickly crumbled into disunity disproves this whole list. You know that for any of those points, one could easily go through and prove how one Protestant denomination or another falls much farther away from the fathers then the Catholic position.
So what? Protestantism isn’t monolithic, so a critique of one denomination doesn’t mean that other Protestant denominations or certain Protestant individuals aren’t closer to the Early Church Fathers.
@@danielboone8256Then maybe Gavin should clarify or change the title?
This is interesting.
in regards to the cup being withheld in some areas of extreme poverty where there are millions of Catholics like in the Philippines they don't have/can't afford enough wine for everyone. So they don't always distribute because of it's practicality.
also I dealt with this during Covid since the wine was not distributed and the explanation that satisfied me is that Christ is not divided into parts. It's not one part of Jesus is in the Blood and the other is in the Body. Any bit of Jesus in either species is the entire Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. It's the same logic that goes into why the church doesn't allow people to receive over and over again the same day. It's not like if one host of the Eucharist is good one hundred will be great. There is no extra dose of Jesus. You get everything in one host.
@@MrPeach1 why have both bread & wine, if both properties are fully in each? I don't mean this to be insulting. I'm genuinely curious!
@@austinmorris3422 Because we love both! We started receiving the blood again in my diocese a month and a half ago and It is amazing.
I see what you mean and that makes sense, but what Gavin is referring to is the doctrinal practice of withholding the cup. I'm sure there are many occasions in which a lack of funds, wine, or bread have led to communion being conducted with only one or the other and in those cases I'm sure no one would have any issue with that.
@@tategarrett3042 I would have to look at the history more. What they are suggesting here is that the church created a doctrine that said that only Priests can receive the Blood. If there was such a doctrine then I would have to see how they came up with that. In practice though as we saw with Covid and actually a parish here of elderly stopped distributing the Blood during flu season. So they way I see it in practice is that is a pastoral practice and not a doctrinal infallible rule. But I agree with you all that I always want the precious Blood and I will partake even during flu season or covid.
Hey Gavin… I just heard someone say that the early church fathers thought that the day of Pentecost was the 2nd coming of Jesus…. Have you ever seen that in your studies of the early church fathers? Thanks for all your work it’s been a blessing!
I don't recall seeing that in any of my reading of the early church fathers
Where the full video of this convo??
if you search "Jordan Cooper and Gavin Ortlund" it should come up. The title is "What is Protestantism?" You could also click the link in the video description.
I am literally, right now on FB, having this same discussion with an Orthodox priest. I am having to point out to him that the Orthodox, just like Caths and Prots, agree with the Fathers on certain things and disagree with them on others. ALL OF US pick and choose from the Fathers. Facts.
in what ways do catholics disagree with the church fathers?
I've heard people quote things from the church fathers and say that disproves Orthodoxy.
Orthodox don't quote mine quotes, you need to read the entire work and the context it is being said...
They definitely weren't protestants.
Complete loss of rigour in church discipline? What's that?
The claim that Protestant theology is closer to the Church Fathers than Catholic doctrine in certain key areas deserves a detailed examination. The points mentioned here criticize certain medieval developments in Catholic theology, suggesting that Protestants are more faithful to the early Church. Let's go through these claims one by one, providing clarity and refutation from the Catholic perspective:
### 1. **Indulgences and the Treasury of Merit**
The criticism of indulgences and the Treasury of Merit as "medieval" is oversimplified. While the formal development of these concepts took place in the medieval period, their roots are in the early Church's understanding of penance and the communion of saints. The practice of indulgences relates to the early Church's practice of public penance and prayers for the dead, as seen in Tertullian and St. Cyprian. The idea that the merits of the saints can benefit others is rooted in the biblical notion of the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:26), where the faithful support one another spiritually. The early Church already had a sense of shared merit through prayers, fasting, and almsgiving (James 5:16).
### 2. **Transubstantiation**
The claim that transubstantiation is a "medieval" invention overlooks the consistent belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist from the earliest days of Christianity. Church Fathers like St. Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd century) wrote explicitly about the Eucharist as the true flesh of Christ: “The Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” (*Letter to the Smyrnaeans* 6). St. Justin Martyr, in his *First Apology* (Chapter 66), affirms that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. While the precise term “transubstantiation” was clarified later, the belief in Christ’s real presence is clearly rooted in the Fathers.
### 3. **Papal Infallibility**
Papal infallibility, formally defined at the First Vatican Council (1870), is often misunderstood. The early Church recognized the special authority of the Bishop of Rome, as seen in St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who called the Roman Church the one with "preeminent authority" (*Against Heresies* 3.3.2). The idea that the Roman See had a unique role in preserving doctrinal purity is affirmed by several Fathers, including St. Augustine and St. Leo the Great. While the dogmatic definition came later, the underlying principle was present in the early Church's view of the papacy.
### 4. **Seven Sacraments**
The claim that no Church Father speaks of seven sacraments early on is misleading. The precise enumeration of the seven sacraments developed over time, but the early Church clearly recognized sacraments such as Baptism, the Eucharist, and Confirmation. St. Augustine speaks of these as means of grace. The full theology of seven sacraments developed later, but there is no contradiction between the early Church's practices and this later development.
### 5. **Veneration of Images**
The veneration of images became a contested issue, especially during the Iconoclast controversy in the 8th century, but the practice has roots in earlier Christian tradition. St. John of Damascus defended the veneration of images, citing the Incarnation as the theological basis: because Christ became visible in the flesh, it is fitting to depict Him and the saints in art. The Council of Nicaea II (787 AD) affirmed this practice as consistent with Christian tradition, and earlier examples of Christian art, such as catacomb paintings, show a long-standing tradition of sacred imagery.
### 6. **Masses for the Dead and Purgatory**
Praying for the dead is a well-established practice in the early Church. Tertullian mentions prayers for the dead in his work *The Crown* (Chapter 3), and St. Augustine speaks extensively about the benefit of the Eucharist for the dead (*Confessions* 9.12.32). The doctrine of purgatory, while developing formally later, is rooted in the early Church's understanding of purification after death, seen in practices like prayers for the dead and references to posthumous purification (2 Maccabees 12:46).
### 7. **Withholding the Cup from the Laity**
The practice of withholding the cup from the laity developed later in response to concerns about reverence and the possibility of spillage. However, this does not constitute a doctrinal shift but a pastoral decision. The Church teaches that Christ is fully present in both species, and the Council of Trent affirmed this, citing the longstanding belief that communion under one species does not diminish the grace received.
### 8. **Withholding Scripture in the Vernacular**
The claim that the Church deliberately withheld Scripture from the laity in the vernacular is historically inaccurate. The Church did restrict certain vernacular translations due to errors and heresies, but there were approved translations, such as the Vulgate in Latin. St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate itself was a translation from the original languages into a vernacular tongue of the time. The Church has always upheld the importance of Scripture, seen in the lectionary readings and the early Fathers' extensive use of Scripture in their writings.
### 9. **Violence Justified by Church Teaching**
The accusation of Church-sanctioned violence requires a nuanced view. While some individuals within the Church erred in justifying violence, the Church’s official doctrine does not promote violence. The Crusades and inquisitions, often cited in this context, were complex historical events involving political, social, and religious factors. They cannot be reduced to a simple endorsement of violence by the Church.
### 10. **Role of Mary in Piety**
Marian devotion is not a medieval innovation but is rooted in early Christian piety. The *Sub Tuum Praesidium*, a prayer to Mary for protection, dates back to the 3rd century. The early Church recognized Mary's special role as the Mother of God (Theotokos), affirmed at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD. Marian doctrines such as her perpetual virginity and sinlessness are consistent with early Christian understanding.
### 11. **Monastic Legalism**
While some monastic practices might have become overly legalistic in certain periods, monasticism itself is a development of the early Christian ideal of asceticism, seen in figures like St. Anthony the Great and the Desert Fathers. These early monastics sought to live out the Gospel in radical poverty, prayer, and self-denial.
### 12. **Church Discipline**
The suggestion of a complete loss of rigor in Church discipline during the medieval period overlooks the Church’s continuous effort to reform and maintain discipline, particularly through councils such as Lateran IV and Trent, which sought to correct abuses and clarify teachings.
### Conclusion
While it is true that certain theological developments and practices became more formalized in the medieval Church, this does not mean they are unfaithful to the patristic witness. Rather, the Catholic Church understands doctrinal development as a deepening of the same truth, guided by the Holy Spirit, and not a rupture with the early Church. The doctrine of development, articulated by Cardinal Newman, helps explain how doctrines that were implicitly believed in the early Church became more explicit over time without contradiction to the original faith.
there are verses that say not to associate or to even eat with the unrepentant, so withholding communion is not a new addition. the rest, yeah.
I’m orthodox, I don’t think you convinced a single RC to leave the church :/
I’m watching this as a Catholic to be neutral. Who knows, maybe these guys are right. I’ve heard how Dr. Cooper and Trent Horn are described as “when an infant (Horn) tries to explain cars to an F1 mechanic.” Either they’re right or that’s also biased.
@ well everyone’s biased, but that also seems like an ad hominem, trying to make Horn seem stupid without refuting them. I don’t agree with Trent on everything, especially his idea that the trinity isn’t in the Old Testament, but he definitely knows his history to a pretty decent extent. Most of my Orthodox brothers don’t like it when I say that, but like you said, trying to be unbiased
Everyone just forgets the traditional church still exists for some reason, catholics and reformations. Its really sad to see.
Traditional church, as in Eastern Orthodox?
Curious as to how many churches during COVID withheld communion (both “kinds”) and now want to take the high road. Or If communion is only offered quarterly isn’t that a form of withholding “both kinds” to the laity, relegated to a few times of year to maintain reverence as most Baptist churches I know do? “We’re going to withhold it (literally both kinds )except 4 times a year and then say we’re right in our practice because you got a cracker and grape juice. I’m supposed to applaud an awakened Protestant because they offer “both kinds” on a weekly basis this century? It’s strange to see a “traditional Protestant” in a Baptist setting. At least a Lutheran makes a better case.
What do we do with allergies? I have a relative who told me yesterday she doesn't take the cup because she's got an allergy to grapes. And I don't think I've wver thought about it. Other than "gluten free" options a lotnof churches have. But not "alternative to grape."
We had a Priest here who was a recovering alcoholic a he would abstain from the precious blood because of it. It was a personal choice he made.
I've been prompted by God to take communication during a prayer time, but all I had close at hand was Coca-Cola, ans chocolate biscuits. So that's what I used. The moment was as serious and moving as any I've done in a formal church service.
@@jbullforg I do not think you should do this - not because of the coca cola and biscuits but because communion is to be conducted as a part of a church service and provided by appointed elders of a church. I was just talking with a pastor friend of mine a few days ago and we happened to discuss this. In short, baring the most extreme of conditions (a plane crash has stranded you on a desert island and you have no access to any church where elder's, ordained by the laying on of hands by others who are a part of the church, for example), you must take communion as part of a proper church service as it is a communal observance, not a personal act of worship.
If I had only a small allergy to grapes, I would still continue to drink from the cup. Maybe I would take some medication. If the allergy was serious, then I would substitute with something similar to wine like cider.
@@rfv14 the issue for a Catholic is that the wine used in Eucharist is a very particular wine. It can't just be any old wine.
The overt, incessant appeal to patristic testimony is one reason why I am not yet a Roman Catholic. I say this respectfully--- I think there are a lot of sound logical arguments to be made for Catholicism--- such as the argument for unified authority, the argument for Apostolic succession, the logical and practical problems with Sola Scriptura, etc. BUT---I dont find these alone to be compelling enough to make me convert. That combined with the ambiguity of biblical/typological arguments for the papacy, the late appearance of certain binding dogmas and practices, and the questionable deuterocanon.
Protestantism has many problems, not least of which is our "diversity" of doctrine, but our heterogeneity, if you will, does not prove the primacy of the Catholic faith. It's an apologetic for an apostolic faith such as Catholicism, but not a priori proof.
My biggest problem with Catholicism is their idea that--once we've been saved--we move in and out of God's grace based on our works.
@@fredthe47th You dismiss Mt. 16:18 when the text is pretty clear. Would Jesus be changing Peter's name if not for a major gifting? Of course not. It is the Protestant who must twist Mt. 16:18 to get out of papal authority. And some disagreement over who is the valid Pope disproves apostolic succession? How exactly does that work? This is simply more attempts at poking holes.
@@fredthe47th Very interesting thoughts, thank you. I've really been trying to let Rome 'prove' itself right rather than me prove it wrong. I will admit I had some serious misconceptions about the Catholic church that needed correcting. BUT---the old issues are still the current issues. They practice a works-based righteousness. Their arguments for succession are bewildering and frankly out of most of the laity's league to even verify. They claim any Eucharist not consecrated by a valid successive priest is not, in fact, a valid Eucharist. This for me is a bridge too far. Are you telling me that when my Lutheran pastor(s) say the words of the institution, as they are in scripture, they believe in and serve the TRUE body and blood of our Lord for the forgiveness of sins on Sunday to believing souls, that is somehow invalid because the Lutherans broke this convoluted concept of 'succession' 500 years ago??? Come on.
Additionally, like you said Mary is treated as a de facto deity in the RCC. All respect and honor to the Lord's mother, but in practice what I see makes me uncomfortable. Throw in the veneration of icons (an accretion if there ever was one), the unbiblical doctrine of purgatory (softened and vague these days but this was NOT how they taught it historically), and some other oddball dogmas and I just cant in good conscience get on board with Rome.
I am humble enough to be wrong, but after 2 years of exploring this I'm starting to see a pattern here: relentless, almost circular appeal to the fathers (especially when it comes to quasi-biblical doctrine), a remarkable tenacity to look us protestants with a STRAIGHT FACE and claim they have never had wrong teachings, and when that is hard to uphold, they appeal to doctrinal development.
Lord, forgive me if I'm wrong. I will go where you want me to go.
People do not realize that the papacy and the church had a vital role in the creation and development of the university, hospital, art, science and the justice system of the western civilization.
What would western civilization be without the arts/music, science, universities and hospitals that were pioneered by the early church, led by the popes.
Dismissing the papacy is not a simple matter.
The papacy led the struggle and survival of Christianity against the invasion of the barbarians (Vikings, Visigoths, etc.) and Islam.
It has protected and preserved the bible for centuries.
The church as we know it today would not have survive (the major heresies, the barbarians, Islam, east/west schisms, the reformation, 20th century secularism, etc.) in one piece if not for the papacy....it would have disintegrated into multiple pieces....
The granting of a master's degree is a sign of qualification of a profession.
University degrees were approved by the pope, the king, or monarch. - the papacy played a central role in establishing universities.
The granting of a charter to a university was one indication of this papal role.
The Pope has authority in all Christendom and degrees approved by the pope are respected in all Christendom, while the kings approval was only valid in the kingdom in which they were issued.
Likewise in Art and science were supported by the popes.
Cathedrals were designed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to function as world-class solar observatories.
Even atheist Stephen Hawking was a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (academy of sciences of the Vatican city).
Christian Art created by the greatest artist/composers that ever lived, like Michelangelo, Raphael, Botticelli, Leonardo da Vinci, Beethoven, Bach, Schumann, Vivaldi, Williams, etc. were commissioned by the popes.
Western Civilization is intertwined with Christianity, specifically with the Catholic Church led by the Popes.
Even today the Vatican (the smallest state in the world) has a powerful voice in the world.
You know, I can think of another religion that runs with this development of doctrine idea to explain discrepancies. "Line upon line, precept upon precept. Come follow me. Seeking further light and knowledge. Milk before meat."
What makes Dr. Ortlund’s claims true and the decisions/developments of the collective Church false?
Greetings Dr. Ortlund .
I am a Born again Christian , i recently Hearing your teaching for protastism and i am very impressed by your Knowledge, but then in hearing like Sam Shamoun in the Video he Make with Lloyd which Named the Didache About Sole fide etc. And i her confused .
Maybe you can Watch the 2 Part Video From Sam shamoun about The didache and Make a reply .
Sorry for my englisch im German
Sam Shamoun is a rotten individual of extremely low character. I wouldn’t trust him to shovel pig manure properly. Of course, that’s not an argument against his evidence or reasons, but I’d be very skeptical of Sam and his claims because he consistently acts anti-Christian.
The turn of the century had some very prominent protestant intellectuals that I've been heavily influenced by.. some more than others.. people of the like of RC Sproul (Presbyterian), John MacArthur (Baptist), Ravi Zacharias (despite his scandals), and William Lane Craig (Weslyian/Methodist). And I am slowly but happily seeing newer younger and even MORE intellectually stringent Protestant thinkers representing each of their historic Protestant traditions:
Gavin Ortlund for the Baptists
Jordan Cooper for the Lutherans
Steve Macias for the Anglican Episcopalians
..maaaaybe Matthew Everhard for the Presbyterians? ( I hesitate on Everhard because he is less scholarly in his studies and has not put his convictions to the test through public debate.. hopefully he grows into it because it is very edifying when Christians in good faith can do this).
And they should meet every now and then to discuss the issues and the state of the church AND to reiterate the unity that Protestantism truly does have in the faith with respects to differing convictions on the peripheral issues.
So basically.. many of us lost unity, the Eucharist, sound moral teaching, apostolic authority, multiple sacraments established by Jesus, and countless other things because of some bad practice and because some individuals personally disagreed with developments of doctrines almost entirely related to the communion of saints. Got it. Should’ve also mentioned Luther’s Marian devotion, Gavin.
Literally everything on that list is my reason for not going Orthodox or Catholic. The veneration of Mary and the saints is the largest one for me for modern times. Makes ZERO sense and no one, no matter how long their explanation, has been able to give a logical reason as to why it is required for salvation. I saw one explanation that was simply " You need to stop thinking and obey" Lol But when I read scripture I see "Test everything" Sooooo.......Yeaaaaaa....... Not going to just blindly believe something that the guy in the fancy robe tells me to believe. I'm reading the history of the inquisition now, nothing says the RCC was nothing but a corrupt mafia who was persecuting the REAL church like burning thousands upon thousands of people at the stake, imprisoning people, and torturing countless individuals into false confessions. I read a story where a guy was burned alive because he would not say prayers to Saint Anthony. Really? He believed in Jesus too! . I'm 100% convinced that the Protestant reformation that was sparked by John Wycliffe in the 14th century and then continued with many others as time progressed was God putting down the RCC and taking his church back. Man made Dogmas are a problem! I guarantee you that if the dogmas were not in place that were made SO LATE in church history as required beliefs for salvation we would not be seeing this split we see today. They are just ridiculous and have no place in early church history. The early church was simpler, 90% less ritualistic, and more loving.
I mean you can do the other way and read about Calvin and the Protestants after "bloody Mary" who ended more Catholic lived than the protestants who lost their lives under her.
The Protestants did the same things to the Catholics.
moreover the doctrine started because of two reasons. Mary as the ark of the covenant (and the biblical symbols foreshadowing this and Jesus.)
And under Jewish law the queen was the mother of the king and act as an intercessor/plead peoples cases to the king.
And yet you can look at the Syrian church, the earliest to split off and they are the most ritualistic out of any of the apostolic churches.
They split off in the fourth or five century. Well before those accretions in the western world.
Gavin came back swinging !
Do you consider that to be good? Should Catholics and Protestants be swinging at each other?
I used to think confessional Lutherans had the best understanding of the Fathers, but given that so many confessional Lutheran pastors and social media figures have pointed me to Dr. Ortlund's content I'm beginning to think I should probably give the Baptist church another chance. They seem to have a better way of incorporating the Apostolic doctrine into their faith and life than confessional Lutheranism does.
Gavin Ortlund stands out from the rest of baptists I know regarding the Early Church. He’s one in a few hundred as far as I’m concerned. So don’t expect much knowledge among other Baptist’s in this area.
@@r.j.franickScottish Baptist here. Just today I had a text from my pastor thanking me for pointing him to a fifth century homily by Cyril of Alexandria, very pertinent to a current pastoral situation. God bless you.
Catholics have the best incorporation of the fathers and it isn’t even a close call. Orthodox are the only other group with a seat at the table since nobody else existed for 1500 years. Baptists know the early church about as well as Mormons do. You should go Catholic since that’s where the Bible, creeds, liturgical calendar, trinity doctrine, incarnation doctrine, Sunday worship, and everything historically Christian springs from. Gavin would be Catholic too but he’s too attached to his own opinions of reality, history, and scripture.
@@derekmchardy8730 maybe you should send your pastor some intel about how that same church viewed Rome, Mary, sacraments, Eucharist, tradition, and more at that time. He’d get uncomfortable pretty quickly.
I just converted to Confessional Lutheranism from Baptist/Evangelicalism. Gavin is a maverick attempting to bring the Reformed Baptist back to a more traditional view. But that is such a monumental minority (my speculation) among Baptists you'll be hard pressed to find any, especially a pastor.
If you go to a Baptist church avoid Southern Baptists, Independent Baptist, any fundamental ones, dispensationalists, and even the Reformed ones like John Piper or McArthur.
Good luck on your journey though! I'll pray God gives you wisdom, and encouragement
Good Morning. I'm a Catholic. I watch your show periodically. Concerning the early church fathers, I would "argue" that concerning the withholding of the cup, many church fathers wrote about the holy Eucharist. Saint Paul advised against taking the body/blood of our Lord un an unworthy manner
"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." 1 COR 11:27
Lutherans typically practice closed communion.
Sure, but the priest isn’t the one who should be determining who is worthy and who is not. That should be left to the individual’s discretion, hence why Paul also writes for Christians to examine themselves prior to taking communion.
You did not undertand them. They are talking about the "Concomitance" issue, withholding the cup BUT NOT the bread.
Absolutely no Father taught you could give the bread, but not the cup. That's a medieval accretion.
How can you be worthy of the consecrated host and not the consecrated chalice?
@@anne.ominousthat is exactly how it is practiced, I have never seen someone denied communion unless living a open and blatantly sinful life in the public sector.
Treasury of merits:
Scripture does mentions treasurer in heaven (Mat. 19:21, Mar. 10:21, Luk. 12:33, 18:22) that comes from doing good works. Scripture is silent on the purpose of having that treasure in heaven. Non Catholics are entitled to disagree on on how the Catholic Church understands the purpose of treasury of merits of all saints in heaven but they should not turn blind eye on it.
According to Scripture merits (or demerit) can be imputed on others. In Gen. 18:32 God told Abraham that He would not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if there were ten righteous persons living there. How many they had? According to 2 Pe. 2:7 Lot was righteous person - they had one, and one is less than ten. Suppose there were ten, then God would destroy Sodom and Gomorrah while they remained wicked. In contrast Scripture says both righteousness and wickedness are NOT imputable in Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV): “The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” But double imputation is the core teaching of the Reformers.
The significance of the 10 persons relates to minyan.
If one's righteousness is on himself alone as you qouted Ezekiel then the merits of the saints cannot be imputed on you.Only Christ's righteousness can be yours and imputed.your only hope.Philippians 3:9.
@@markquioas6097 Righteousness and merit are NOT the same and neither are wickedness and demerit. Suppose there were ten righteous person in Sodom and Gomorrah, then God would not destroy those cities while the inhabitants remained wicked - the righteousness of those ten was NOT imputed on them.
Whatever a person do will either merit or demerit for oneself or others. Example of demerit for others is Lam. 5:7: “Our fathers sinned, and are no more; and we bear [סָבַל, Strong H5445] their iniquities” - they suffered from the iniquities of their fathers, but those iniquities were not imputed on them as Scripture says in Eze. 18:20: “The son shall not suffer [נָשָׂא, Strong H5375] for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer [נָשָׂא] for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself”. Scripture says in Deu. 24:16: “Each one shall be put to death for his own sin".
Here’s what I think protestants and evangelicals are missing… Catholics believe deeply all of Jesus’s words. When Jesus said Peter, there are many things I still need to tell you, but you cannot understand them now, after I am gone the Comforter will come, and He will “ guide” you (the church) into ALL truth. (Let that sink in!)
So the violent crusades including the children's crusade called by the Pope's were Spirit guided.when there were 2 Popes anathemizing each other over the seat they're guided by the Spirit.That The Spanish Inquisition was Spirit lead. The exhuming of the body of John Wycliffe and burned then thrown into the river was Spirit lead.the persecution of Galileo to recant his Heliocentric universe over against geocentric earth as held by the church which is now a shame is Spirit lead and many others.
If that applied in the way that the Catholic Church claims it does, it’s impossible to explain certain obvious massive errors in the history of the Catholic Church.. exploiting people for money with the threat of damnation, withholding scripture and Eucharist, murdering scientists with new ideas, you could go on and on. And it’s not like Protestants didn’t have big errors, but their beliefs can actually acknowledge that.
Withholding cup from laity:
In John 6:51 Jesus said that the bread He will give for the life of the world is His Flesh - Blood was not mentioned. Both His Flesh and His Blood were mentioned in John 6:53-56 but in Joh 6:58 He said who eats this Bread (= His Flesh) will live forever - Blood is not mentioned.
1 Cor. 11:27 says (ESV, emphasis in capital added): "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread OR drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body AND blood of the Lord." Pay attention of the words "OR" and "AND) - eating the bread OR drinking the cup in unworthy manner will be guilty on BOTH of them.
Stretching…
From what I've heard, dipping bread in wine was a common practice way back (see John 13:26). If this is the case, there is no need to always refer to the bread and the wine as separate entities.
@@TheB1nary What do you mean?
@@wabbit_07 John 13:26 does not say "dipping bread IN WINE" - Jesus might dip it in olive oil though we cannot verify it.
That's a bit too much emphasis on or over and.
So which of the 33k Protestant denominations do these guys belong to?
It truly blows my mind that he can make a video like this, claiming that protestants are closer to the early church fathers than the Catholics or orthodox. I watch this whole thing just shaking my head when you can actually just go talk to an orthodox priest, and be corrected.
Trent Horn debunked the source of this wild claim that there are 33k protestant denomination because same source says that there are 200+ Catholic groups.
I appreciate the replies(s) I'm quite familiar with the catechism of the Catholic church and it is my understanding that a priest or Bishop will not withhold the body or blood of our Lord, unless he knows with 100% certainty that the individual is living in sin i.e. a politician who aggressively promotes abortion then proceeds to get in the "communion line."
A priest or bishop however may/should educate the faithful for example, that if you are divorced or living together outside of marriage etc. etc., you should NOT present your self for Holy Communion but....if he/she presents themselves for communion in an "unworthy manner" the priest or bishop will not perform an interrogation while the distribution of bread/wine is taking place hence.....as you mentioned, it would be the individual who should examine "worthiness." God Bless
In more traditional latin masses, they stick to bread only for the laity. It apparently lowers the chance of sacrilege that spilling Jesus blood on the ground would be
I think you may have misunderstood the framing of the topic. When Gavin mentions withholding communion IN BOTH KINDS, he’s not referring to the priest judging the worthiness of the one taking communion. He’s talking about the Church’s teaching that the bread alone is sufficient, rather than bread AND wine. God Bless
lol...protestants REJECT the Church Fathers....who taught; we must be in communion with the Bishop, in the Real Presence, the vital importance of the sacramental priesthood and of course ENFANT BAPTISM
Lutherans believe in the true presence, infant baptism, and district presidents (bishops).
Catholics and orthodox are quick to condemn all Protestants as if they are all charismatics, when many confessional Lutheran churches are liturgical, sacramental, and focused around the Eucharist.
The Book of Hebrews demonstrates that Christ is the one, perfect Priest who once and for all brought salvation to the world through His reconciling blood. The Roman Catholic priesthood is nowhere even hinted at in the New Testament. When you read the Book of Acts, you see a simple but profound faith in Jesus, not the intricate, complex system of legalistic practice devised by Rome that often obscures the Gospel. And, be warned! Paul declared anathema to anyone who changed the Gospel, which is clearly described in Scripture as faith in the finished work of Christ. You had better be sure that your devotion to the Roman church is in the correct place; I have carefully studied the issues and come to a reasoned judgment that the Roman church is far, far away from authentic Christianity in so many ways.
(If I am wrong, may God have mercy on me and change my heart and mind, but it is dangerous to oppose one's conscience.)
@@thegearhouse5337sola fide is not in the fathers neither is sola scriptura
yeah and the main cry of the reformation which are sola fidei and sola scriptura are supposed to be in line with patristic writing??? 🤦♂️
What about once saved always saved??it didnt exist AT ALL in the early Church.not one important church figure
With all due respect, you are completely ignoring the witness of the most important church figures, the Apostles, who clearly taught that those who are saved will remain in Christ. Of course, you are also rejecting the words of Jesus who taught that we will never be taken from His hand. To say that salvation can be lost is to deny the sufficiency of Christ atoning sacrifice upon the cross.
@@jasonpoole2093 the earliest Christians followed the apostles and would have a better idea of doctrine the someone 1500 years later. There is NO DATA to show the apostles taught once saved always saved..i will wait for some. The audacity to believe 1500 years of Church History got it wrong.
First.
2nd
Fifth YouTubbians
If it’s so close, why not just drop Protestantism and affirm all the teachings of the early church (ante-nicene writers)? Was the faith not once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3), or did the Apostles tell us to wait for Luther and Calvin to discover their novel heresies? I know I am a better Christian the moment I decided to simply believe what Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus tell us the true Christian faith is and helped me remove all the false twistings of Scripture RC and EOs invented in the 4th through 15th century and Protestants invented in the 16th century.
What church do you go to
If you reject Protestantism, RC, and EO, what church do you attend?
@@connorauman6735
Online fellowship with Keith Wheeler of Y City Preachers in Ohio. Plenty of other good congregations that stick to the true faith if the ante-nicenes, like Only One Truth lead by Pastor Don Smith, David Bercot’s anabaptist congregation, etc.
@@IAmisMaster thank you, God bless!
@@IAmisMaster
...so you attend Protestant churches?
Also, "I decided to simply believe what Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus tell us the true Christian faith is and helped me remove all the false twistings of Scripture RC and EOs invented in the 4th through 15th century and Protestants invented in the 16th century."
Does that mean then that the gates of hell prevailed during the period between the 4th past the 16th century up until....when? the establishment of Y City Preachers?
Protestant churches are closer to the churches we find in Acts and those established by Paul than the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church is the one that strayed and morphed into something quite different than the early church.
So which protestant denomination should the Catholic church turn into to meet your approval?
Yes, with their vast differences, which of the many protestant churches should the CC conform to?
if the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed would you say that your church mostly resembles the mustard seed and the Catholic church looks more like the Tree?
@@caseycardenas1668Exactly. They don't want us to be Catholic but won't say what version we should be next.
@@dman7668 I've brought up this objection before, most of their supposed similarities between one another are all superficial while their only fundamental agreement is disdain regarding the Catholic Church.
This is why you'll never see inter-denominational critique because they put all their marbles into one basket. You'll never seen them make a video of why be Baptist and not Lutheran. Dr. Cooper and Gavin have as many disagreements theologically as one of them does with the Catholic Church but it's veiled behind a facade of the five solas. The same five solas from which none of these men deduce the same theological conclusions, doctrines, or dogmatic stances.
Sure, now an anabaptist, who rejects infant baptism, and an american Lutheran who hold the regenerative infant baptism, both 16th century inventions in Europe, they both claim are "closer" to the church fathers...good grief, next will be, "Calvin was the professor of St Augustin."😂
Gavin, do you believe people who adhere to catholic beliefs are saved? If yes, why single us out so much? How about we focus our efforts on the non-trinitarian cults and atheists…
If no, what specifically from the CCC forfeits salvation?
This channel comes to Protestants (two of innumerable) united to talk thrash about Catholicism as always, like obsessed; is it for faith or for channel growth?
Yet there's Catholics talking trash on Gavin's videos and making loads of rebuttal videos every time he posts. Seems like he's not the one with the obsession.
@@HearGodsWord This channel starts thrashing Catholicism; so, out of necessity, other clean it; no need of rebuttal if Gavin and company doesn't talk Catholicism always pretending to debunk it; obsessed
@@rem7794 thanks for proving my point. 🤣
@@HearGodsWord if you think so, you are wrong
@@rem7794 you can't even see it. No-one is forcing you to watch and comment. The fact you feel the need to and be triggered confirms that you have the problem.
Sola scriptura and sola fide is the late development. It is the fruit of Protestantism. None of the church fathers hold to that.
I would say Lutheran are more closer to the early church fathers than Calvinists because of the concept of Baptimal regeneration. Baptismal regeneration was universal among the early church fathers.
Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide both pre-date the Reformation
@@manicchristian 2 Timothy 3:16-17
Doesn't teach sola scriptura..
Even Galvin himself admit in his video...
Paul never taught sola scriptura..
@@manicchristian To you, sola scriptura is correct but the fact is that it is not true. No one taught it before the 16 century
Protestantism is just virus that will keep on spreading. Each protestant believe sometimes different but they fellow the same scripture which they say it is ontologically unique.
You are trying to correct me when I know that you in error with the way you are interpreting scripture. You can fool other people but you can't fool the me. I am already born again. I don't need you to remind me what the gospel is because it is written in my heart. I departed from the heresy of Protestantism a long time. And I can not go back because my conscious tells me that the system is false and it is from God
Why do you deny the clear teaching of Scripture, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:8-9?
@@jasonpoole2093 we do believe in Ephesians 2:8-9. Catholics are aware of that verse though. We don't merit initial justification. It is a free gift. Where we disagree with protestants is whether justification is a one time event or not. And whether is forensic or not..
Scripture is not as clear as you think
Development of doctrine did not begin with Newman.
Gavin-“I don’t see it”. I don’t think”, “I can’t find it”, “I don’t know of any”! ….contrasted by GK Chesterton, John Henry Newman “ I think”, “I find” “I know”, “I see”,. Someone’s thinker, knower and seer is off.
Sam Shouman would destroy Gavin Oatland.
He doesnt have a fancy phd or master's but hes the best Catholic Apologist out there, even lightyears ahead of Trent Horn.
James White n Gavin Orland tremble in their boots on the thought of dialogue with Sam Shouman
Sam Shamoun is very knowledgeable, but the spirit that he operates in is a shame to Christians of all traditions
Sam Shamoun thinks being abusive and derisive counts as apologetics.
I've had him calling me a 'female d0g' and demanding I do an online session with him so he could 'bury' me. Why? Because I had the temerity to point out that he deceptively used a JW bible to 'prove' a point against a 7th-day Adventist and that he'd misunderstood a passage from Hebrews.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh As a Catholic, this is why I am always confused as to why people are so fond of Shamoun. All the knowledge in the world means nothing when we can't communicate it well or in a spirit it will be well-received in.
Absurd.
The departure from Christ's clear teaching is what they described and discussed. It would be interesting to hear what you think of the "bread alone" claim of the Catholic Church.
CCC 1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite.
There have been Eucharistic miracles where consecrated hosts have bled and/or became human tissue. These miracles are not automatically approved by the Catholic Church - they are evaluated by scientists before they can be approved. There are other miracles where Jesus’s face appears on the host, or hosts are miraculously multiplied, and so on. These miracles appear to validate the Catholic Church’s teaching that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.
Your assumption is that’s where God currently wants His Church, which a terrible assumption.
Gavin is saying like the early Church had not yet fully developed theology on such and such topics and protestestants too don't subscribe to these teachings and therefore, protestants are closer to the early Church than the present Catholic Church.
No. Gavin. That natrative is not convincing.
To prove your point, you should actually be saying the early Church did this and that and protestant Churches too does them; the early Church believed in this and that doctrines and protestants too believed in those doctrines. Protestants believe and practice these things and the early Church too belueved and practised them.
When we look at the early Church's practices and beliefs, protestants can't be termed as Christians.
For example, heretics excommunicated by the Church are no longer considered Christians. All protestant founding fathers were excommunicated ones. Hence they and their followers are not valid Christians
Protestants don't believe water baptism causes a person yo be born again in spirit while the early Church believed water baptism regenerates a person.
The early Church had an altar and they eat the sacrifice offered on their altar. Protestants don't have altars. Instead they have pulpits.
The early Church had priests such that they could offer the sacrifice on the altar. But protestants don't have priests. they have abolished sacerdotal priesthood.
The early Church had Bishops who have teaching authority, governing authority and sanctifying authority. Protestants don't have Bishops. Each of them has the authority to interpret scripture. There is no need of Bishops in their churches
Sola scriptura and sola fide were not taught by the early Church but this is the fundamental principle of protestantism.
Consistent with Scripture and early church practice, many protestants reject infant baptism. It is a clear breach of Matthew 28:19-20. Although Roman Catholics, Orthodox churches, Lutherans and Anglicans all practice infant baptism and try to defend it on the basis of the 'household' texts of the New Testament (amongst others), none of those texts (e.g. Acts 10:2-48; 16:14-15, 25-33; 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:16) supports the practice:
• Acts 10:2 portrays Cornelius as a devout man who feared God _with all his household,_ implying everyone in that household was mature enough to ‘fear God’. Additionally, they were all present to hear (ἀκούω - akouó, meaning to hear with understanding) Peter (Acts 10:33) and all received the Holy Spirit with praising God and speaking in tongues and it is only the people who did so that were baptized (Acts 10:44-48);
• Lydia (Acts 16:14-15) is not said to have been married (the fact she prevailed upon the apostles in her own right suggests not) or, even if she was, to have had infants or children too young to have repented of their sins nor expressed saving faith, so there is no reason to suppose such infants or children were part of her household. It is also difficult to see how she might have been engaged in trade over 600km from home (the distance from Philippi to Thyatira) with an infant or young child;
• Paul told the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:25-33) that salvation was available to all in his household who believed, and all of whom are said to have been baptized and to have rejoiced in their belief. Evidently, even the youngest person in that household was mature enough to believe in the Lord;
• Crispus (Acts 18:8) believed in the Lord, together with all his household. Evidently, even the youngest person in that household was mature enough to believe in the Lord; and
• Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:16) and his household were baptized but 1 Corinthians 16:15 clarifies that his whole household had “devoted themselves to the service of the saints”. Evidently, even the youngest person in that household was mature enough both to: convert to Christianity; and devote themselves to serving.
Consistent with Scripture and early church practice, most protestants reject the idea of an ordained priesthood. The only Christian priesthood the New Testament recognizes is the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:4-9; Revelation 1:6), with Jesus Christ as our High Priest (Hebrews 2:17; 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:1-10, etc). Christians' sacrifices to God are their bodies (Romans 12:1), yet have a spiritual quality (1 Peter 2:5). Christians, are also the temple, individually and collectively (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19, 2 Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 2:19-22). Sacerdotal priesthoods, altars, vestments, incense and so on of the RC & orthodox churches and their offshoots, were later syncretistic developments drawn from paganism and Judaism, being introduced by Cyprian of Carthage c.250-258AD. Christians were persecuted for being atheists, for no other reason than that they didn’t have an ordained priesthood, altars, sacrifices and so on. Origen, in Book 8 of _Against Celsus_ (~170AD), defended the fact that Chrstians didn't have altars, saying:
_It is not therefore true that we object to building altars, statues, and temples, because we have agreed to make this the badge of a secret and forbidden society; but we do so because we have learnt from Jesus Christ the true way of serving God, and we shrink from whatever, under a pretence of piety, leads to utter impiety those who abandon the way marked out for us by Jesus Christ._
As for the RCC's Marian dogmas, they're totally devoid of scriptural or historical merit. For example, the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity is contrary to the plain meaning of: Matthew 1:24-25; 12:46; 13:55-56; Mark 3:31; 6:3; Luke 8:19; John 2:12; 7:3-10; Acts 1:14; 1 Corinthians 5:9; Galatians 1:1, etc. It is based on the late 2nd-century heretical forgery known as the _Protoevangelium of James,_ which was condemned as such by Pope Innocent I in 405. No church father before Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215) made mention of it. It is not acknowledged by:
• Clement of Rome (?-c.100)
• Ignatius of Antioch (c.35-c.110)
• Polycarp of Smyrna (c.69-c.155)
• Papias of Hierapolis
• Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165)
• Irenaeus of Lyons (130-212)
• Tertullian (c.155-c.220)
• Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215)
Although Tertullian, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr all mentioned the virgin birth, none of them said anything about Mary being a perpetual virgin. Tertullian (c.200) rejected the _Protoevangelium_ and, along with it, Mary's _virginitas in partu_ and her _virginitas post partum_ (cf. _De carne Christi_ 23). Tertullian even went so far as to describe Mary as imperfect, thus denying her sinlessness. Clement of Alexandria, writing soon after the _Protoevangelium_ appeared, relied on its account of a midwife examining Mary immediately after the birth ("after giving birth, she was examined by a midwife, who found her to be a virgin"), saying "These things are attested to by the Scriptures of the Lord", referring to the apocryphal Gospel as if it were legitimate ( _Stromata_ 7.16). Even so, Clement says nothing about Mary never having sexual relations with Joseph or bearing other children after Jesus was born. Hence the doctrine has its roots in a condemned forgery produced by a heretic, yet these are the very claims you've been fed. As for the 'Blessed Assumption', that doctrine was invented in the 6th century. The doctrine of the 'Immaculate Conception' was invented even later - in the 11th century.
Would you like more? I could demolish the RCC's claims of Papal Succession and Peter being the first bishop of Rome if you like.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh You are right Berean. And when the texts talk about "household", they include the servants, thats the meaning of household.
The Gospel of Salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ is so simple, but somehow people dont understand it and want to add or remove from Gods word.
The main problem in the interpretation of "baptism" is, that a lot of people dont recognize the different kinds of baptism. The baptism of John is not the same like the one of Jesus is not the same as the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Its a misunderstanding that "born of" does not mean "baptized". Born of water is our physical birth. Born of spirit is the spiritual birth as a follower of Christ
Nowhere. There, no need to watch.
Close counts with handgranades not truth or one faith.
The Church is the Bride of Christ and the wedding between the Groom (Christ) and His Bride will take place at the end of age (Rev. 22:17). As married man Dr. Ortlund should realize that his bride (who is now his wife) did not come into this world fully grown as on the day he married her. She started as infant who grew up to be his bride - she looks different, not only in size but on other aspects as well, when she was born and when she was younger. For the same reason the early Church neither resembled the present day Catholic Church nor any of Protestant denomination. According to Acts 2:44-45, 4:24-25 the first believers lived communally and shared all they had with others. Today only some Anabaptist groups like Amish, Old Mennonite and Hutterite still practise this life style. The first Christians were forbidden to consume blood and food sacrificed to idols in Acts 15:29. No Christians of today follow this rule - even Paul himself "revised" restrictions of eating food sacrificed to the idols in 1 Cor. 8.
Well you condemn yourself admittinf neither RC nor Protestants believe or do what early Christians believe. The faith was once for all delivered to the saints as Jude 3 says. Nice try twisting the bride of Christ teaching. Christ is coming for a pure bride that has not strayed from the truth that Justin Martyr, irenaeus etc. taught plainly.
@@IAmisMaster That is your interpretation of what I wrote, which you are entitled. You missed the point that any Bride will grow from infant to adulthood. She is still the same person with the same DNA, same blood type, same finger prints while she differs as she grows in many aspects.
@@justfromcatholic
Nice obfuscation. You are saying the faith changes. It doesn’t. It was delivered once for all to Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, etc. They died for it, stating plainly the Apostles held the entire truth and heretics will come in to add to the truth. That’s the same heresy you believe.
@@justfromcatholic you remind me of a Mormon accepting any new " Revelation " that your infallible leader comes up with irregardless of the Authentic teachings of Jesus Christ found in the Bible.
Jesus condemned the Jewish traditions that usurped and blocked God's true instructions.
I see you supporting human traditions over Jesus instructions .
Satan cannot destroy the Church of Christ but he can obviously cause it to teach Unscriptural things as the 7 churches in Revelation were guilty of and why Protestants view "Sola Scriptura" as the highest authority instead of a fallible human being.
@@IAmisMaster I did not write "faith changes". The bride does not change her DNA, her blood type, her finger prints while she grew up.
This is utterly unconvincing. You have to do some serious mental gymnastics to come up with this.
What was unconvincing?
@bernardordiz3089 it's funny how you're comment shows that the pride isn't with the Protestants but with others.
@bernardordiz3089 seems like you're worshiping an organisation and their man made traditions instead of worshiping the Lord like Protestants do. Don't forget the horrors and schism caused by the sinners leading your group into heresy. Drop your pride and on to your knees.
Cucklaboration 😂
Very uplifting. Great language towards brothers in the Lord.
@@Particularly_John_Gill I agree they are brethren, but my words are not said in a vacuum. Cooper has been instrumental in getting a lot of young Lutherans doxxed and smeared as Nazi's just for being to the right of Mike Pence. Ortlund has also completely cucked and sided with the Marxists on issues like systemic racism. They deserve to be mocked
@@gianthebaptist Then perhaps leave a more constructive comment about your concerns with their methods instead of just mocking for the sake of it.
@@Particularly_John_Gill No
Sorry but Gavin is so laughably mislead.... just sad he isn’t listening to the catholic brothers who try to get him out of his nonsense
The veneration of icons is not a late accretion, Gavin stop being uncharitable.
the scholarly consensus is that it is; I have a video on it; whether this is right or wrong, why would advancing that position be uncharitable?
Consensus aka truth decided by majority? And your claim is uncharitable since Serro and co. made videos on this topic clearly showing icon veneration pre-Nicene, to which you've yet to respond.
@@navienslavement so not responding to critique videos is now a lack of charity? Are you aware there have been over 40 such videos? Am I obligated to respond to all of them?
@@navienslavement looks like the one being uncharitable is actually you.
Coward