As a new Christian all this kind of topics on "true church" caused me massive anxiety and stress. I prayed and prayed and read and read and basically came to the same conclusion you have brother.
@@maxonmendel5757 The other person does have a good point. The bible has to lead the church and the Christian. If we don't have the word of God to lead us to God what does any church or Christian have?
@@saintejeannedarc9460 the Ethiopian eunuch had Isaiah and he still needed an apostle to teach him. theres little sufficiency of scripture to teach new Christians who aren't already familiar with the text. New Christians don't need a book. they need good teachers. Scripture can be twisted even by the devil to teach terrible things, and has been for centuries. and the first Christians only had the apostles and didn't have the New Testament. and they were among the best Christians!
I found myself sinking under the pressure of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic assertion that i was outside and lost.. I was beginning to be quite confused, because the barriers to me joining the EO & RC Churches were the veneration of icons, the background of the Rosary, the elevated position of Mary minimising the graciousness of the Father and Jesus Himself.. Those all did not sit well in my spirit, and yet i was trying my best to squeeze myself into the idea of one of those traditions ultimately being where i was supposed to be.. I was requiring a clear, non adversarial discussion on this, and thankfully found your channel.. Your grace as you discuss this topic is welcomed, and your approach is entirely respectful.. I am so relieved, and my peace is returning to me.. Thank You for your ministry, i will continue to watch your videos.. 🙏
@@heyyo9828 Hey brother, I went through a similar phase. This might be the most generic response a Christian might give but here comes: Pray to Jesus that he will give you wisdom. Pray to Jesus that he will let you find him. In all the uncertainty of ecclesial anxiety (which Jesus made me overcome), there is a promise that is more certain than any rock. It is the promise of Jesus himself: Seek and you WILL find. I hope you can find comfort in that. Jesus will not let you down if you as him, otherwise he would be a liar and there is nothing that is further from the truth than that. Seek Jesus and you will find the right church tradition. Seek the right church tradition and it will be much much harder, if even possible, to find Jesus. May I ask what your biggest concerns are? What is your reason to consider that Jesus might only be found in the RC or EO tradition?
This is the main reason that I never considered the Catholic Church, among other troublesome doctrines. This reminds me of a controlling partner who tells you that if you leave them, you’ll never make it. I see no justification for using threats within a church other than manipulation.
@@mooretristan719You, as a Catholic, only think that because you put your man made institution (RCC) at the same level as God. Leaving the Church doesn't damn you, turning your back on Christ does.
@@JohnSmith-zs1bfso let’s put this another way: leaving the body of Christ doesn’t same you. Is that true? If so, then that is the same as saying, “leaving the church”. Because the body of Christ is the church.
@@TheB1nary the body of Christ is not the Roman Catholic Church that came to be after Paul's writing. Additionally you are saved by grace through faith not by your merit. If you have that faith given to you by the grace of God, you are saved. Even if you are wrong about the details, even if you picked the "wrong" denomination. Yes the church is the body of Christ and He is the head of the church, but that church is the entire body or Christ, not merely the Roman institution with all its modern inventions. If you leave the RCC to follow Christ more truly, you are blessed. If by leaving the church you mean turning your back on God, denying who he is, and elevate and celebrate sin, then maybe yeah you are damned, but like you said the church is about Christ, not about the rcc.
Just love your videos. I am a baptist too, converted in 1999 from orthodoxy, but saved only by the blood of Our Lord and Saviour,and I resonate intimately with your words. I find some of your videos deeply theological but what I found out was that I had the same answers and revelations given through the Holy Spirit. You are doing a great work brother and if someone wants to live in disunity let them be. We are called to unity in Christ through the Holy Spirit who was given to all those who believe!
It doesn't seem like many Orthodox come out of that. Not only does it make the most lofty claims to the only way, it seems to have such strong ethnic favouritism. Seems like more go into it, or try to. What drew you to becoming baptist? Maybe you can help me out w/ understanding Gavin's type of baptist. I guess there's many kinds now, but I thought they were against speaking in tongue, exorcisms and more pentacostal doctrines. Gavin seems more full gospel, and definitely pentacostal friendly. Not a bad thing at all, it just really surprised me.
Holy smokes, thank you! This video is an answer to prayer, and I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your ministry. I have a tremendous amount of respect for each of the traditions, and honestly one of the only things that I find really hurtful is that condescending pharisaical assumption that anyone who is not (as you said ) on Noah’s Ark is damned and certainly can’t receive the Eucharist in any valid format. The longer I have been walking with the Lord, The more I have come to recognize that there are true believers and make believers in every single tradition and denomination. You are such an incredible blessing. Thankful for all you do especially considering how busy you are!
@@Anastaecia I think that the Holy Spirit tells true believers that they are saved (as opposed to our own minds knowing it directly or figuring it out). If we feel we are saved, but we are not sure if it is the Spirit speaking to us, we could pray, read the relevant Scriptures, and receive encouragement and advice from church members and friends.
@@Anastaecia A true believer in the early Church was someone who loved God, loved Christ Jesus, loved the brethren and loved others. Christianity is about living for God (His kingdom/will) and living to bless others, rather than living for one’s life in this world. The confusion ramped up when the Church councils started hammering out their theology. Not because the theology is wrong but because the focus went from ‘you are my brother if you live for God/Jesus and others’ to ‘you are my brother if you affirm the latest councils claims’. God bless
@@Anastaecia I am always gently perplexed at comments like this. Does the scripture ever make mention of "true believe" vs "false believer"? I think the distinction is between "believer" and"non-believer". And it looks to me that a believer is someone who is convinced that Jesus is the messiah, the one who gives Life.
Wow. To be honest I’ve been wrestling with the this issue so much the last few months, finally started attending church as a born again Christian. I was baptized as a baby into the EOC and didn’t learn ANYTHING about who Christ was or how God operates. Just that I need to attend liturgy on holidays and kiss icons and take communion. I became agnostic and into spirituality in my teens well into the age of 23 when God literally caused a 180 degree flip in my heart and made me put my faith into Jesus. A truly unexplainable moment because it was so hard for so long for me to accept Jesus as my savior. I want to get rebaptized - mainly because my first baptism wasn’t even a full immersion into water- but because I’ve felt my entire life change from being worldly to becoming Godly. Praise the Lord, praise Jesus. 💗💗💗✝️
You have had a similar experience as me. I too never knew what Jesus actually did for us despite being brought to the Orthodox Church from birth, practically. Didn't even know that the Lord's Prayer was given to us by Jesus. Oh but icons, the Virgin Mary, the liturgy, the holidays? Yea, I knew all about those.
@@pitAlexx yeah! And then I look at kids who were brought up Protestant- they were taught everything! They know all the biblical stories and just what Jesus did for humanity.
This is interesting to hear of people who came out of the OC. We will get Orthodox come into comments such as these and they tend to despise protestants and not recognize them as Christians at all. There is no discussing w/ them that was have accept Jesus as Savior and Lord. They don't even see this as the central issue, or something we have in common. They just talk about how they are the only true church and apostolic succession. That seems to matter far more than Jesus as savior and Lord, and reacding the bible to renew our minds and sanctify our hearts so we can live the Christian way, convicted of sin, and led to produce good fruit. Where is the fruit, where is the brotherly love w/ these people, did you ever witness it?
Had the same experience but with the Catholic church, we were never taught anything. Just hearing Latin was creepy to me and people going up to take the Eucharists. Same monotonous songs. Till this day when I hear them I cringe. The words dead religion comes to mind. Then I became born again through reading the powerful word of God.
This is so good, Gavin!!! My wife and I are in the process of leaving the Orthodox Church and this is the absolute *core* issue for me. I could not in good conscience continue to claim that I was a part of the One True Church and that the other godly Christians I've known throughout my life were either, at best, missing out on "the fullness of the faith" (as the more generous Orthodox would put it), or at worse, outside of the ark of salvation altogether. This right here is what I keep coming back to. Christ *is* the fullness of the faith. He is sufficient. Whoever has Him, has the fullness. For what can be fuller than having Christ Himself?
For clarification: I realize the last few, short sentences I wrote above could be seen as overly-simplistic. I understand that. But there is a very real sense in which those are very accurate statements. Please also understand that I do not say "Christ is enough" in the spirit of "No creed but Christ" or "Me, Jesus, and the Bible." Far from it. I just mean to say that anyone who has Christ has the fullness of the faith. We could all argue about what that means, but it's still the truth.
Yes, in the end it is all about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He is the One Who saves--not the Church, even though she is His bride. That said, I can't go the route of the type of ecumenism that says if you claim Christ you are a Christian. Many false christs have gone out into the world.
Ryan, so why do so many Protestant Pastors teach Roman Catholics are not even Christian, and are not saved, and teach a false Gospel? Holy Scripture teaches we must cooperate with God's saving grace and repent and bear fruit and forgive others and love one another and persevere to the end to be saved, and that the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@melodysledgister2468 no one claims the Church saves, just that faith ALONE does not save, for even if one has ALL FAITH, but does not LOVE, IT IS USELESS, as Holy Scripture teaches we must cooperate with God's saving grace and repent and bear fruit and forgive others and love one another and persevere to the end to be saved! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
I love your narratives. I was raised Catholic but changed to born again Bible believer a little more than forty years ago after reading God's word, especially the book of Hebrews. The end of this year makes thirty-eight years I've read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation along with many studies including Biblical Hebrew taught by a Jewish professor. I decided to stop responding to Catholic videos claiming protestants are heretic's because it appears to be futile. Anyway, I stumbled upon one of your you tube videos and it's addictive. Your narratives are excellent. Everything I heard is spot on and you reach out to people with love. Thank you so much for your videos and I wish you only the best.
Thank you, Dr. Ortlund! This exclusivity in the RCC has always bothered me, even though I was raised Roman Catholic. The passage from Mark 9 is really eye opening.
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience, those too may achieve eternal salvation" - The church leaves all judgement to God. For these individuals, God administers the grace of salvation in ways known to him alone This is more inclusive than some "Christian Churches" that directly condemn people who do not believe in Christ..
And that "One, True Church" exclusivity and Triumphalism really caused a lot of anguish for me during my EO catechism. I had to quit because it was aggravating my OCD/Scrupulosity
I'm Catholic and I agree with you. While I haven't had any interest in leaving, I honestly don't feel confident that everyone would flourish better in the Catholic Church than in another group of their choice.
This is probably the nicest Catholic comment I've ever seen in regards to this topic. Everytime I tell a practicing Catholic I left the church and I'm now a non-denominational Christian they tell me I'm going to hell because I left the one true church. It kinda hurts when I hear them say that and honestly it just drives me further away from the Catholic church.
As a Catholic, I've personally met plenty of good Protestants (my girlfriend is such an amazing Christian despite her struggles with church) and I accept that yes, Christ is working in those other churches! :) I think I take a bit of umbrage with the Unam Sanctam point because V2 has already addressed that point while still being historically consistent. I also feel that, because of the CC's huge move towards ecumenism, I find that it is actually more probable (at least, compared to previous centuries) that the CC is a home for... Well not all, but definitely more Christians! Love yall :)
Catholic brother. Awesome. I agree with you. As a protestant I believe many Christians can be saved if we accept Christ and repent, regardless. No one institution gives salvation. Only Jesus.
Thank you for speaking on these things brother! I have been Catholic for a while, but have been going to a Baptist church for a couple months now. I have disagreed with a lot of RCC doctrines and practices for a while, but it was incredibly difficult to break free from because of this idea of no salvation outside the RCC. The worst part for me is that the official teaching in the Catechism is that other Christian's can be saved through the mystery of God's mercy, but that a Catholic who leaves the RCC is damned. The Catechism says that even a Hindu or Buddhist could be saved, but because I have left the RCC, I would be damned, even though I still worship Jesus and do my best to follow Him. Even though I could see that this didn't make sense on an intellectual level, it was hard to make sense of on a heart level. Hearing someone else point out the inconsistencies in these teachings is helpful.
@@Gailean26 I've read the Council of Trent and Catholic translations of the Bible, as well as the CCC. This was something I agonized over within the RCC for years. RCC teaching on justification doesn't align with what the Bible teaches.
There are different versions of Roman theology - from the 'hopeful universalism' of "bishop Barron' and the 'narrow way' of one of the conservative professors at Sacred Heart Seminary which trains American Romanist "priests." I don't think that Rome *is* the "one true Church founded by Christ" so their condemnations don't apply to me. Of course this is very different from the views and practices of the Counter Reformation Romanists, who rejoiced to see the 'heretics' executed and persecuted. Throughout Germany, Italy, France, England, Ireland, the thousands of Protestant martyrs bear witness. It is not necessary for salvation to submit to the "bishop of Rome." The Lord Jesus Christ, the only Head of the Church, is the only Name given among men by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12). If you study early Baptist history in the 1600s, who considered themselves Protestants, who considered themselves part of the one true Catholic (universal) church. Remember that not everyone followed Rome before Luther - Lollards, Hussites of Waldenses, plus the Russians, Greeks, Egyptians, Persians, Ethiopians, etc. Americans Romanists will often say things like everybody was Roman Catholic before Luther' which is obviously false. The Scriptures always have been the Word of God and always have brought sinners to faith in Jesus. The scriptures were read in the Latin West and Greek Eas
@@movingamountain I would also add to the point that Luther and Calvin both considered the Papacy the Antichrist spoken of in prophecy. Confessional Reformed and Lutherans still hold to this. The early British Reformation held to this too, for example Cramner held the Papacy was Antichrist. The Pope claims to be the Head of the Church, but Scripture says that Christ is the Head of the Church and never teached that the bishop of Rome is the Head of the Church, even though Scripture is ABLE to make one wise for salvation which is through faith in Jesus Christ (2 Timothy chapter2) and Scripture equips the man of God for EVERY good work, including teaching and rebuking. You sound a little like myself more then 10 years ago. I encourage you Read the New Testament, esp the Epistles and Gospels and Acts. Repent of sin. Trust in Jesus for salvation. Get around good Christian brothers. Stay away from false teachers that deny the Trinity or claim false miracles or special knowledge that isn't in Scripture. If you don't have a copy of 'Roman Catholic Controversy' by James White, it covers the most common arguments that Romanist apologists use, from the debates White did with various Romanists. Realize that Rome wasn't built in a day and Romanism developed slowly over centuries. Realize there is disagreement within Rome over theology - inerrancy vs limited Inerrancy Predestination - Molinis. Vs thomism, young earth vs theistic evolution, global flood vs local flood, literal Adam and Eve or not, hopeful universalism vs narrow road, the status of 3rd Esdras, Moses as author of Exodus or not, Paul as author of his epistles or not, whether the death penalty is absolutely morally wrong in every sense, etc. Rome disagrees amongst themselves over Salvation, Scripture, and Creation. And you may already be familiar with differences in practices - charismatic, Latin Mass, the Catholic Left (pacifism), etc. And of course the debates within Rome over homosexuality (the German Synod). Just something to remember when you see Protestants disagreeing on something. On TH-cam, the defense of the Ausburg Confession' by Melancthon is free to listen to, and he makes some good points that are helpful.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 I've now come to similar conclusions. I'm almost finished reading a book called Romanism and the Reformation that lays it out extremely well. It's a great read, but it also sounds like you know your stuff. Reading the Bible is the most important part. That is definitely the reason I've been able to resist Rome under the heavy psychological pressure they put on people over any other reason. When you know the Word, you can spot the counterfeits. Maranatha brother!
This was so good. As someone who is wrestling with a lot of the claims made by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, this is extremely helpful. It's something I've said before and had slipped my mind as I've been getting deeper and deeper into Church history and all that. God does do miracles in all denominations.
@Marygladis Chidozie Instead of resting and trusting in God, Martin Luther allowed his fear and feeling of unworthiness to entice his ego. The sower of doubt is temper, who even tempted our Lord Jesus in the desert not to mention his unfortunate relationship with his biological father. It seems pretty clear that Luther’s relationship with his father influenced his relationship with God, ultimately exposing his ego through his sense of unworthiness, in the waning years of his priesthood. His personal division has been the source of further division in the church.
Elizabeth Rene two great reads: 1.) Have you read Trent Horns book? th-cam.com/video/rSV0C8UR1Hg/w-d-xo.html 2.) Patrick Madrid also have a book called Why Be Catholic?
@@australopithecusafarensis8927 Interesting. The scars of his youth definitely shaped Luther’s Life. He couldn’t silence the doubt within him, to rest in the Lord’s goodness.
You were a big help in my figuring out wich church (institution) is the "true church". My faith was renewed recently after being "smacked by the holy spirit". I had a longing for returning to church after those smackdowns but I was lost between all those "we, insert some institution here, are the one true church" statements. "Which to choose !?" "Why is God only in one of them !?" I realised, with your help and by reading the bible, that the church as nothing to do with institutions. Like you said, it's much bigger then what we can understand. I ended up choosing by the fruits and that had everyting to do with the people in the church, not with the name written on the panel outside the building. Thank you !
I agree with you generally, I don't know if I'd say the Church has "nothing to do with institutions"... The Reformers were at pains to stress the 'true marks' of the Visible Church, which primarily revolved around 1) purity of teaching (succession of doctrine), and 2) continuity of sacraments and ministry (succession of office). If we emphasize either but especially the latter, than the Church as instituted body existing in and through time actually becomes very important: the sacraments ground faith and spirituality to concrete event and sacred space (this is most stressed in Lutheranism/Anglicanism where sacraments are actually seen as means of salvation). Now, that isn't to say that that means they thought one particular body was necessarily bound up with the identity of 'The True Church', (such as Rome or the East), but the true Church -- wherever she is -- will necessarily be and participate in certain visible signs and teaching: the creeds, the scriptures, sacraments, ministry, etc.
Thank you Pastor Gavin for refuting the lie of “being deep in history is to cease being Protestant.” Thank you, for being a living example, that this statement is simply not true.
@@crobeastness You're using a false equivocation here. It's the same as saying since Islam is fastest growing religion, it means Islam is true! That's the most illogical statement I've heard and you just stated it like a Muslim. People are converting to Jehovah witness, Mormonism, etc everyday. Doesn't automatically makes their ideology true! Everyone isn't forced to believe, however, their belief is independent on the reliability of that ideology, same goes for the ideology. You can convert to Catholicism, but it doesn't change the fact that the early church history never taught what is being taught in your church. You can be emotional about it, or decide to make research for yourself. That's up to you!
@@raphaelfeneje486 your analysis of what I said is incorrect. You initially said that Catholicism has been "proven" to be incorrect. I replied by saying that if that were true there wouldn't be new converts every day. Catholicism could be false, but it is not "proven" to be so. Imagine if there were new flat earth converts every day. The reason that's a very niche belief is because that has ACTUALLY been proven to be false. Mormonism and Jahovas witness has also not been proven to be false. There is substantial evidence against those religions but again, we are using the word "proven" here. Explain to me how the early Church, the Catholic Church, the east Orthodox churches, AND the Coptic churches all believe in the real presence of the eucharist but most protestants don't? Please explain to me how the Catholic Church has been "proven" false. The real presence is just one example of how it's not, not the only example.
Great video, mirrors my thoughts almost perfectly! The kind of petty legalism "you aren't the true church", "if you dont kiss icons, anathema!", "you're going to hell if you don't submit to the pope" is totally opposite to the spirit of Christ, who preached against legalism and petty division. Putting up barriers and causing division because of earthly desires to be in the 'true church tm' is just the kind of sectarian legalism that Jesus criticised in his contemporaries. Theres not enough appreciation that all those who strive for Christ are brothers, regardless of which earthly structures they come under.
I agree in a general sense but then what do you make of people like Jehovah witnesses or Mormons? Surely a line has to be drawn somewhere as to what constitutes Christianity and what doesn’t?
This truly highlights how ignorant you are of Scripture and the Church. Can you provide a source for your claim that failing to kiss icons is an anathema? On the other hand, you are probably correct about going to hell if you don’t submit to the Pope. Jesus made it very clear that He is the Good Shepherd, then he goes and makes Peter a Shepherd. Jesus makes it clear that he can forgive sins, then he gives that authority to the Apostles. Jesus makes it clear that he has authority to change rules, laws and customs, then he gives the Apostles the authority to bind and loose. Jesus is the cornerstone, but then makes Simon a “Rock”. Jesus did preach against traditions of men that contradict the laws of God. But the Church is not a tradition of men, and does not bind believers to traditions of men, only to Truth revealed by God. You see, Jesus didn’t soften the laws of God, he made it much more strict. He was teaching us that it is not enough to do this thing or that thing, instead we must completely transform our hearts so that we conform to Him and do those things out of love instead of out of knowledge. Additionally, the part people seem to miss is that Jesus is the Church his body is mysteriously (Sacramentally) the Church. If you reject the Church Jesus established, you are therefore rejecting Jesus.
My struggle is in thinking that my particular “flavor” of Protestantism is the correct one. I don’t want to be unnecessarily rigid, but I also don’t want to be so minimalistic that I am wish washy. I’m in my third semester of seminary so I’m probably in a “crisis of belief” stage where I’m trying to nail down the non-negotiables and have well-thought-out opinions about peripherals. Kinda makes my head hurt, but it’s all so worth it.
God gives so much grace as to how and where we serve him. It makes my head spin to try and figure out which doctrines are most correct. I think it largely depends on our comfort zone and what is available to us. Those born into Orthodoxy are only going to know that. Those born into a branch of protestantism are only going to know that. Having Jesus as savior and Lord, repenting of our sins and seeking to be renewed into living a life for God are what we are called to do as Christians.
Thanks Gavin. Agreed. An anecdote which I hope some find helpful as relating to some of your points: Thirty years ago I was working as a missionary doctor in southern Pakistan. Our hospital was under the auspices of the Church of Pakistan. ( Union of Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian.) By conviction I'm a Baptist. Immediately adjacent to our hospital was a Catholic mission. We got on well and , to avoid duplication and confusion, concentrated our evangelism in different tribes. ( Unusually for Pakistan we were in an area of predominantly Hindu/ animist tribal people.) Our area was materially extremely poor. One day Father Joe - a delightful Irish Catholic priest - brought along a young woman to see me. She had horrible lung disease ( emphysema) which was, in my view, terminal. I did what I could with our meagre facilities and prayed for her, as Joe had already done. She got no better and left. I was sure she would die. Months later I met Joe. He told me that the woman had come back to see him in perfect health. She had spent the last of her substance paying a local 'magician' to perform some rituals for her after which her lungs got better. She now told Joe that she wanted to become a Christian. 'Hang on,' said Joe. ' I prayed for you and you didn't get better. I took you to the Christian hospital. The Christian doctor treated you and prayed for you and you didn't get better. You went to the magician and are now cured. So why do you want to become a Christian?' Answer: 'You were kind to me '
Gavin - thank you for this. In a day and age of countless doctrines and explanations and opinions and information coming from all directions, your voice cut through in a moment I needed it. God bless
As a Catholic, I would like to commened you on your well thought out videos and in the Charity on which you speak on other Christians. Current Catholic teaching is that there is one true Church, but many folds who are not in perfect communion. The catechism refers to Protestants as our Christian brother's and Sister's who are in imperfect communion with us. I'm sure you would agree that any Christian of a different denomination is in "imperfect" communion with eachother, but in communion nonetheless.
We have come a long way as Christians and small c catholics that the RCC has revamped its position this way. Now for more of the protestant side to understand that Catholics and Orthodox are as much a part of the church as we all are. There's been much historical arrogance and vying for one upmanship on both sides. Gavin is certainly doing his part and leading the way to change the protestant mind. Then there little sheep on the ground like myself who work on this in our daily lives as well.
Thank you for this video. I've had partially formed peices of this argument floatimg around in my thoughts lately, as a protestant who loves liturgy and loves all the richness of church history, but yet still sees real issues with the Catholic claims. I believe that you've hit on an essential truth here.
@@Mygoalwogel I go to an Anglican church. Grew up Congregational. All of us - low church protestant, high church protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Assyrian - all of us are brothers and sisters in Christ.
Excellent video in my humble opinion. It was helpful for me because as a Lutheran, i have been recently considering Marian dogmas and almost felt that i would become Roman Catholic. Thank you so much for your videos. I have been binging on them and this video here was very helpful for me. I also want to be a renewing force as a Protestant for the one true visible church as you suggest. God bless you brother.
I'm on a journey back to faith after years in the wilderness. Was in a Charismatic non denomination church before this. Have been exploring EOC and RC as sime pisitive theology and practices attracted me but then discovered a lot of troubling things too, and was getting very dispirited and confused at times. Then I came across your channel. Has given me clarity and confirmed and answered some of my own concerns too. Your in depth, fair and balanced explanations and explorations are helping me a lot. I am in the UK and have been thinking about attending an Anglican church as that is where my heritage and my early childhood experiences of Christianity were formed. I think this could be the "home" I need (despite all its faults and current difficulties) and its been here all the time. Thank you for giving me confidence in the protestant way and my indebtedness to it. 😊
Struggled with this issue of exclusivity for a long time. It had an existential element to it. I questioned my salvation over it and accused myself of resisting the Spirit over it. But it came down to this: how can I, a frail, broken human judge which of these traditions who all claim to be the only true church, how can I judge between them? I wasn't at the councils, I couldn't observe over the eons of time the flow of the church. I can't look into the hearts of the various actors to see motives. How can I judge between them? I felt like a child between divorced parents. In the end, since I find it impossible to judge between them, their claims cancel each other out. RC, and EOC believers love the Virgin born, crucified, risen Christ. They are my brethren. But I embrace the whole church. The Anglican Church is my home. But it is only one of the many parts of the body of Christ. LOVED this video. Thank you Gavin.
But you still are judging the and deciding on what you believe the Church is. This is what I don’t get, many Protestants seem to think that being neutral, vague, and inclusive on what they define the Church as and what are the Doctrinal and ecclesial boundaries of the Church. Is somehow an abstaining from making a determination on the question at hand. This is not the case as your comment has shown, you have looked at everything as you said and come to the conclusion that certain christian traditions of Christianity are one of many parts of the Body of Christ. This is positive affirmation of you and Dr. Ortlund’s view. And you are making a determination on the evidence. This is not a neutral stance. Which is fine. But let’s not pretend that it is.
I understand completely what you are saying. I have been in same situation. I find many good things about Orthodoxy. And I can say that many Orthodox Christians are my brothers and sisters because we both worship the one true King. But I had the same internal struggle and was considering converting to Orthodoxy. My Orthodox friends want me to accept all of the nuances within the tradition or else I am excluded from the "true" church. So I had to choose Jesus without being bound by the traditions of men. Stay with Him!
@@pochomano I don't believe I was trying to be neutral. I was expressing that being faced with two monolithic institutions, both making the same claim as to being the One, True Church, they both can't be right. Please believe me when I say I agonized over the issue. It got to the painful point of immobilizing me. When I used the word "judge" I was meaning it was impossible to choose. I decided (judged) that I'll let those two monolithic institutions battle that one out. It involves knowledge that is beyond me. I'm a simple layman. But I recognize that members of those churches love Jesus Christ, whom I also love. Therefore I count them as brethren in Christ. I don't think that is being "vague." Besides, if I were to convert to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, I wouldn't have to be re-baptized. If my trinitarian baptism is accepted, what was I baptized into? We are baptized into Christ. (Gal 3:27) How wonderful! You were baptized into Christ! I was baptized into Christ! We are both in the One Christ. How could we not be brethren? Therefore I think Dr. Ortlund expressed well the Protestant view of the Church, that all believers are one in Christ, regardless of institutional affiliation. Besides, "The Lord knows those who are his." (2 Tim 2:19) After roughly 30 years of struggle over the issue, I am at joyful peace, and I'll say it again: I love the whole body of Christ. And Dr. Ortlund's videos have been a huge help to get me to this place. I pray brother, that you never have the same painful struggle I had! Blessings to you.
@@dreamsideout7831 I truly get where your coming from but you are still bounding yourself to a tradition. Whether it be by the Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, one of the Protestant Traditions, or even your own understanding of scripture and Church history it is a tradition because the scriptures we have are part of a tradition and concepts like sola Scriptura are part of a tradition. God reveals things through men by the Power of the Holy Spirit, which we all believe. The question is which is the tradition that has been passed down by Christ to the Apostles and then to the Church and how did that tradition operate. Because if it just comes down to saying I trust in Christ, and that is all. Well what do you say to Mormons and Jehovah witness believe and trust In Christ, they just have a different interpretation and tradition as to who exactly Christ is and so on. This is my problem with Anyone who finds fault with exclusivist claims. They do not realize that they’re rejection of another exclusivity claim and being more inclusive is an exclusive claim, and it also created chaos and subjectivity on the matter. And I find it intellectually dishonest when many Protestants act as if they agree on even primary doctrinal issues, and the fact that each tradition and individual (in evangelical churches) seems to have their own view of what is and isn’t a primary doctrine. Ask yourself why the Historic mainline Protestant Church’s are dying and most Are either Turing to evangelical(non-denominationalism) which is just more denominations by different names, or Lone wolf Christianity( the Relationship/spirituality over religion crowd)? While many like Dr. Ortlund has a very well balanced approach to Church History and Tradition. It is his very Tradition that has paved the way for these sorts of christian sects that fully detach from the early church under the doctrine of sola scriptura. And while Gavin and many historically minded Protestants hold to the more traditional view of Sola scriptura the fact remains that not all Protestants hold to the historical view of Protestantism on that doctrine. And the doctrine itself has nothing built into it that restricts evangelical and more individually minded sects and individuals from rejecting all tradition. Even at their own detriment, which is what most identifying Christians in the US does as evangelical Christianity and lone wolf Christianity is the pre-dominant view of Christianity in the US. The critique I’m making is Dr. Ortlunds view and argument that leaving Protestantism is somehow a safe bet. The problem with this view is it presupposes a certain tradition as to soteriology as well as ecclesiology. This is my issue with it. While Dr. Ortlund himself is an intelligent and kind man that has a lot of knowledge. The basis For the world view of Protestantism is founded upon Sola Scriptura which is the pre-cursor for individual interpretation of scripture, evangelicalism, and lone wolf Christianity which is definitely detached and removed from the majority of Christianity.
Here's my view, I came from a Greek Orthodox Church, got saved outside it, and attended a Non Denominational Church (AGC) for 22 years. I have come to grow and understand that people who attended the Catholic or Orthodox can be saved ( though may be more difficult )even though I don't agree with all their doctrine.
@saintejeannedarc9460 as someone very knowledgeable with EO, there is more focus on icon veneration and going through their "sacraments" (aka pagan rituals) than actually forming a relationship with God. The bible is emphasized but only as an other instrument of the church. The holy spirit is synonymous with the church and so having the holy spirit isnt really a relationship (though some EO deceitfuly use that term) and more about just doing the sacraments and the other man-made church things
It's not what the church believes but what the individual believes that counts for that individual. I assure you there are plenty of catholics who don't believe in venerating Mary and saints etc but still go to that church. Nobody checks you out to see what you believe.
I knew a man from Romania who had been working in the US for a while. I was an E.O. at the time. He had a spiritual father who was a monk in Romainia and with whom he was in frequent contact. This man told me a story about a Romanian Orthodox, living in Romania; he was a drunkard and cared nothing for God. One day this man went to a Baptist Church and was saved; he stopped drinking, read the Bible with joy, and glorified God. The monk told my friend that the convert to the Baptist church was damned and that he should have remained a drunkard in the Orthodox Church. American Orthodox have the watered-down version of the faith and would be scandalized to know what the real deal is.
That’s what I wish Protestants would bring up in these debates. That the Spirit is clearly at work amongst Protestant churches. And they are things that happen that funny enough happened in the early church in the book of acts
Thank you for this, I’ve always feared making the claim that certain miracles that happen outside my circles aren’t true but now I’m convinced that indeed that was the Holy Spirit at work. You just showed something I’ve been battling for 3 years. Pastor, God bless you, you are truly a blessing. And the passage where Christ says that if someone is not against us but is for us, always came to mind and you just confirmed that it means what it says and it says what it means.
Me and my whole family, some are still Catholic, came out of Catholicism, my main reason is that I came to be saved through reading the Bible in a desperate hard time, the Holy Spirit guiding me. The power of God's word. Nothing to do with the Catholic church. My Catholic friends and most i personally know are not saved. They frankly are worldly people and know hardly anything about the Bible. So God made himself real to me. The scriptures became alive in my life. Christ freed me from my afflictions and healed me heart. Reading the truth of the Bible set me free. When I hear about Catholicism, it's just repugnant to me. It's so far off from the truth of the Bible in things added, it's just foreign to me. So my main reason is Christ Jesus and His word that I'm not Catholic, nobody needs it to be saved or to be accepted by Christ. It just creates hoops for people or imo can become a actual a stumbling block for people.
God can provide salvation to those who are righteous without religion" This is the gold standard example i use when i ask people if they need a religion to enter heaven. For example : a woman on some far away polynesian island, with NO RELIGION, who was widowed young and raised her 3 children alone lived with the highest moral standards. When she dies, will she enter heaven ?? If a simple person like me has enough compassion to say let her in ; will the God of the universe then have less compassion than me, or more compassion than me? People need to be holy. Abraham and Noah had no religion but they walked with God. Catholic priest says moral atheist can go to heaven. Salvation is a function of holiness not religion th-cam.com/video/pFpt84Ov1p4/w-d-xo.html "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him stand (Rom 14:4)." We may be bound to Gods laws as believers, but God is not bound to them. I recall a good homily a few years ago where the Priest had posed the rhetorical question, "How does the Holy Spirit work?" He then answered the question stating, "Any way he wants to." Catholics on the other hand have a very high rank in the army of God. They are Eucharistic instruments of reparation. They are to consume the Eucharist in a state of grace for all the people in the world with no access to the eucharist ( read atheists, etc etc) .Failure of adequate preparation/confession before to consuming the eucharist means you are eating your own condemnation. You are dragging Christ thru the latrine of satan. We are to be CLEAN vessels for christ. How Trent Horn describes it is better than how Bishop Barron does. Imagine Salvation is crossing a mile wide river with raging rapids and it’s filled with crocodiles. The Catholic Church is a bridge across the river and we know many saints who have crossed that bridge. We don’t know if someone has ever swam across the river, but it is theoretically possible.
Wow, Dr. Ortlund, I've never seen you being so passionate in a Protestant-Catholic-Orthodox debate before! It's refreshing to see a more pointed video like this in this channel once in a while, not a lot of nuance, a strong point is made, but still historically grounded and (in a limited sense) still maintains irenicity. Hopefully this video does not blow up bigger than your more irenic videos, I don't want you to devolve into one of those divisive discernment ministries due to audience demands. Hope you can maintain your irenic vision. Love and support from Indonesia. God bless you and your ministries.
This is a significant reason why I am now Protestant. I believe that Protestant ecclesiology is necessary in order to be catholic. I suspect that it is the catholicity of Protestantism, where a Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc can see in each other no less than themselves, a member of Christ's Body, is the reason why it is easy to lump them all together and say pointing, "Look, division!" The fact that Protestantism is so multiform and yet, we are able to see in each other a member of Christ's Church, is the uniquely Protestant emblem of catholicity which does not rest in uniformity, but can hope for convergence upon the truth hand-in-hand as brothers and sisters.
Well said. I live, work, and interact with Christian’s from multiple traditions and we treat each other like we are all in the church together. Only the Protestant tradition can have such unity among diversity. Many Protestants happily accept Roman Catholics and Orthodox as well. Kinda makes one think that division may not be coming from the Protestant side so much.
I don t think Babptists think of every other protestants as saved and Christians. Go watch Mc Arthur and you ll change you mind. Catholic don t see protestantd as not Christians, but the opposite happens most often. They are the most hated, criticized and lied on.
@@Joliebebe2001 Do baptists think of any non-baptists as true Christians, in the Church of Jesus Christ? Yes. Even John Macarthur. Do Catholics think of any non-Catholics as in the Church of Jesus? No. Because only the Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus. Non-Catholic churches are not even considered truly part of the Catholic Church. Some Protestants may be considered as true Christians, but still outside the "Church" For Baptists and other Protestants, there are atleast some outside their group who are part of the universal Church of Jesus. Do you disagree with this assessment?
@@TheologiaEvangelica not true, Catholics cqll other Our Brothers and Sisters in Christ, the Church recognize that the Holy Spirit is working through them and they are part of the Body of Christ and also benefit from Salvation. You can search in the official teachings of the Church. The Church says they have fallen away from the True Church because they don t have access to all the Sacraments given by Christ to help with sanctification , they don t have the FULL TRUTH Of The GOSPEL and simetimes even hold false teachings, but the Catholics never reject their appartenance to Christ. Thx.
@@Joliebebe2001 exactly, they are considered outside of 'The Church of Jesus Christ.' Protestants can consider others as part of the Church, because what defines the Church for us is that we are united in the same Christ, by one Holy Spirit, by which we each call God our One Father and have been adopted into the one family of God. The Church just is the family of God, and Catholic theology divides the Body of Christ on Earth because it says that some members are IN the Church (Catholics), and maybe some members are OUT the Church (Protestants, Orthodox etc).
As a Catholic, I'd like to clarify that Catholics do not believe that there is salvation outside of the Catholic Church, but we don't believe that means that everyone who isn't manifestly a member of the local Catholic parish is ipso facto going to hell. Let's consider: 1. Those who have been baptized into the Church, who belong to a particular Church which does not share communion with the Church of Rome. (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East) From the Catholic perspective, these people are obviously members of the Church as they have been baptized, have the word preached to them, have the sacraments administered to them and are subject to a Bishop. The Roman Church doesn't view these as any less Catholic than the See of Constantinople views Russian Orthodox Christians. 2. Those who have been baptized into the Church, who do not belong to a particular Church but do belong to a community of other Christians. (Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, etc.) From the Catholic perspective, these people are obviously members of the Church as they have been baptized and have the word preached to them. The Roman Church doesn't view these as any less Catholic than she would view a collection of baptized Catholics who live hundreds of miles from the nearest Church and so cannot attend Sunday Mass but who gather each week for prayer, fellowship and to read the word.
Great video Gavin. I always enjoy watching your videos because it helps put language to some of the thoughts I’ve had over the years, but never have been able to articulate. I also appreciate your gentleness as you approach your concerns with our brothers and sisters who are Catholic or Orthodox. Keep the conversation going.
“Just because there’s one true church doesn’t mean She has to be restricted within one set of institutional parameters” Or more simply “The Church is not restricted to one institution”. Man God used this as I have been wrestling with the RCC’s claim of exclusivity. Thanks, Dr.
All of Scripture speaks of one church, singular. They are the oldest institution in the world. Let that sink in. They have survived bad popes, tyrants, dictators, heretics, and armies set on destroying them. The Catholic church marches forward. You cannot say that about ANY of the Protestant churches, either collectively or singular. Non-catholics love to sever "institution vs church" "invisible vs visible church" "justification vs sanctification" etc...just to attempt to rebut Catholicism. The Catholic Church is the one group among all who suffers thee greatest attacks. Ever wonder why all of this is the case? I think you already know: because Jesus is the founder and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her.
Wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. I am in a constant butting of heads with my husband. He doesn’t realize how intensely he looks down on Protestantism and holds the high horse to the Roman Catholic Church being the historical “true” church and he’s so on the defensive he hears nothing that is said in defense of my Protestant beliefs. But thank God The everydayfor his faith and I trust and I pray every day that the Lord will open his eyes to see Hospice truths and to me if I have missed something. Thank you so very much for articulating what I know in my heart and mind 💕🙏 praise the Lord.
"...it is not as Romanists, Greeks, Armenians, Abassines, Jacobines, Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminians, &c., that men are saved, but as Catholic Christians, aspiring to the highest perfection. - Richard Baxter,Christian Unity, p.80 (Lexham Press)
This basic concept has been something that has been huge in my spiritual journey. It was the very issue I once took in debating some Apostolics who were saying that anybody who doesn't speak in tongues doesn't have the Holy Spirit. I argued that turning from sin is a greater sign than speaking what could be gibberish acting like divine speech. Yet even in my debate with them, I recognized a genuine love for God and belief in Jesus. From growing up in a house that taught Catholicism was demonic, to having a Catholic aunt with whom I feel the same Spirit of God as those Apostolics, -I have come to believe that dogmatism doesn't teach good doctrine. God works across the board, -in Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Messianic, African Christianity, Asian Christianity, Aramaic Christianity, and every other sect. The Kingdom of God is one of every tribe, nation, people, and tongue; should it be dominated by European tradition?
That's why I've always been non-denominational. That seems to take a lot of hits these days, but I've always seen the church body as scattered through out the denominations. I almost never see pastors or priests teach on the scriptures about the body of Christ, and not to say that an ear is less comely or needful, unless it's to teach that's just a congregation. They definitely don't ever talk about the scriptures that talk about differences of observing a Holy day, or not observing a day, eating meat offered to idols, etc as done sincerely unto the Lord. I sadly never see teaching on that. It's ignored while the constant infighting goes on, but I always really, really took them to heart. God had to deal w/ me eventually that that applied to Catholics as well.
"Any reasonable, generous hearted person, who travels, reads, or gets to know people, will just recognise that Christ is at work outside of just one institution in such a way that manifestly evidences His Church in word and sacrement." -Gavin Ortlund
I just dont agree with this completely. there are so many wolves in sheep's clothing in the evangelical church that its hard to believe God is doing anything there at all. I think God is mostly absent on a Sunday at an evie church
@@maxonmendel5757evangelicals would say the same thing about catholics. If there’s one blanket statement I can make about Christians, it’s that most of us are incredibly close minded.
@@countryboyred sure. maybe I was close minded a year ago. let me restate it a little.... since many evangelical churches don't have the covering of the magisterium to protect their doctrine (such as the nicene creed), many evangelical teachers and very many innocent evangelical believers are liable to fall into heresy or personality cults. compare Montanism with NAR or Stone-Cambellite churches. because so many reject the doctrine of apostolic succession, they find themselves re-inventing something the Catholic church has already mastered, which global presence and global unity. and sorry for offending anybody. no need to accuse me of the unforgivable sin and condemn me to hell without any chance of retribution.
@@maxonmendel5757 thanks for your kind response. I agree with much of what you say. What is your opinion on other churches that affirm apostolic succession, such as the Orthodox?
"Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness. Know ye therefore that those who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham" (Galatians 3:6-7). Seems like we are united to the one true churh by faith, not by belonging to one institution. God Bless you Gavin😉
So good!!! Thank you Gavin 🙏 Just yesterday a nominal catholic aquaintance told me that we protestants are "blaspheming" by saying "God" so often... 😳... I just listened in horror trying to understand his position, thinking of how the Pharasees acused Jesus of blasphemy, because their hearts were hardened.
Proof Eucharist is body of Jesus Christ and Virgin Mary is his mother. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;z 50this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”a 52The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?” 53Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” Eucharistic miracle.. th-cam.com/video/soCkftBBsBo/w-d-xo.html (medical reports-living heart tissue, blood type AB) th-cam.com/video/oogJ-cdi7yI/w-d-xo.html (Rome Reports) th-cam.com/video/whbzLYi7cyc/w-d-xo.html (Lanciano) th-cam.com/video/6PJ8BORx1p8/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/bd16tBRbLXw/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/PvxTDAVypxs/w-d-xo.html (levitating eucharist) Incorruptible bodies of saints due to the Eucharist - only happens in the Catholic church. No other religion has this miracle th-cam.com/video/GSCk0qs-2-M/w-d-xo.html (Padre Pio) th-cam.com/video/40UZLnIdplo/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/jN4SvtRje2I/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/-TrR1CEWdbc/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/XCDBekAQ-FI/w-d-xo.html (Carlo Acutis) th-cam.com/video/33vlkJh2iJc/w-d-xo.html Apparition of Virgin Mary th-cam.com/video/GQnKS7YUE7Q/w-d-xo.html (Virgin Mary apparition in Ivory Coast) th-cam.com/video/0PPGuMmn6TQ/w-d-xo.html (Virgin Mary statue moving) th-cam.com/video/tVU8bhbQInw/w-d-xo.html (Virgin Mary apparition in Egypt) th-cam.com/video/nMEWxRB-1dc/w-d-xo.html 1968 Egypt th-cam.com/video/8YR6INkTK7Q/w-d-xo.html (Miracle of the sun) th-cam.com/video/yF0_ysUivxE/w-d-xo.html (Miracle of the sun) th-cam.com/video/76qAMB3qUpA/w-d-xo.html Medjugorje Sun miracle on Easter Sunday th-cam.com/video/RyYNIulxIbc/w-d-xo.html Virgin Mary appears in Egypt & Spain-Eye Witnesses
That particular Catholic sounds a bit loopy. I doubt that would be a normal Catholic claim. I'm pretty stunned on their emphasis on works, to the point where Jesus' atonement isn't enough, and most will have to do hard and painful time in purgatory.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Hello. That doesn’t sound like Catholic teaching. What is your understanding of the Catholic model of salvation? What do Catholics see as “works”?
@@PatrickSteil Hi Patrick. I've been watching Catholic channels and interacting in comments and it seems solid to me that infant baptism only removes origin sin, but then you need grace doled out through the church byway of sacraments. Even so, if you commit sin before your next confession, then that sin is on you if you die and you have to burn it off in purgatory. I see Catholics argue against the scripture (which is one of the bulwarks of the reformation): 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. Of course we understand that a regenerated life will show good works as well, but not that those works earn us grace or salvation.
I'm always so excited for your posts addressing protestantism/catholicism/EO... I just read you are a continuist. I'd love to hear some of your stories and experiences that have you in that camp!
I’m sure you’re right in saying that a lot of people won’t like what you said but I’m not one of them. I couldn’t agree more with what you said. I admit that I have seriously considered becoming Orthodox or Catholic at different times. There is much that I admire about both and I definitely consider them part of the family of Christ. But when it comes right down to it, I see God moving among His people from many denominations. I myself am a non-denominational Pentecostal. When I see how God works through my pastor and others and how lives are being transformed in my own church, and even after seeking God for direction, I just can’t see myself leaving to join one of the “True” churches. I’m so glad that you said you believe in a physical church but that it’s not restricted to one particular institution. That’s how I see it as well. As Protestants we are often accused of believing in the “invisible” church. I think the early church was right in clearly defining true Christian doctrine when heresies arose but somewhere along the way it seems to have turned into straining out gnats while swallowing camels! I’ve said enough. Just wanted express appreciation for you sharing this.
I'd be the same stripe of non-denominational. Can't say I've ever considered becoming Orthodox, it seems like a very cold traditional and the most egotistically bound to claim exclusivity. I know RCC claims to be the true and original church as well, but they've opened up far more to considering us as brethren, just not "w/ the full truth", like they claim to have. I did briefly consider becoming Catholic, was willing to wipe the slate clean on what I thought I knew and just learn. Unfortunately, the more I did learn over months of listening to them and reading directly, some doctrines are worse than I ever thought. No one fully understands the bible and doctrines, mistakes are rife, and yet the bible itself makes allowance for our fallibility in key scriptures.
I'm not Catholic. I'm also not a "protestant". I'm not protesting anything. I am simply a Christian, a member of the holy catholic church, the body of all believers. I agree with you that there are "many institutional expressions" of the church. I like how you put that.
Howdy Dr. Ortlund, I really appreciate your honesty and kindness in all your videos. I recently converted to Catholicism, and you were one of the only Protestants I felt I could trust to give a truthful, interactive criticism of Catholicism, mainly because you were open to civil dialogue with Catholics. I'm not super super educated on the history of the Faith, most of my reasonings for converting came from arguments from Scripture, but I would say that because the Catholic Church has this intrinsic hierarchy, we must pay attention to what that is saying in regards to final doctrinal statements, not what various saints say. I know you know all of this, but I just think we can get caught up in what saints say, and go "Ope, contradicts what the Church in the future said!" and it's just not so. Also, couldn't someone use your arguement and apply it to all religions and just say, "Well, there are some Buddhists or Hindus or Muslims who have the implicit desire for Christ and they've got some stuff right and they do really good works (or however you'd like to say it), and they're probably saved, so you really don't even need to be a Christian"? It seems like the problem at hand isn't that some people can be saved or members of the Church without being visibly, explicitly a part of it; the problem, for me, was 'What is the fullness of the Faith?' and I think I'd tell you it's Catholicism, just like I'd tell the Buddhist or Hindu. In regards to your statements about the Eucharist, I think that their could be some graces attached to what Prostestants do during communion, though I'm not sure what the Church officially teaches about that. It seems reasonable to say that anytime someone is making some sort of memorial to Christ's crucifixion, they could be making a sort of spiritual communion, even if it's not the full, valid, sacramental Eucharist under a Catholic priest. But that's just my personal opinion. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but I will say I watched this video a week before making a comment. Thank you very much for all that you do. If anybody wants to chime in here, I'd love that. Pray for me, as I pray for you!
That is interesting that your converting came from arguments from scripture. That is usually more why Christians leave the Catholic faith. The usual reasons why Christians go to has always been looking into church fathers, history and believing that the traditions are true. The scriptural basis for Catholicism is usually the weakest link. It would be great if you would explain that more.
Already in the 4th C. John Chrysostom wrote that the virginity of heretics is fornication and the martyrdom of heretics is suicide. Very harsh, indeed. How did it go from Jesus's saying 'Forbid him not' (who follows not with us but casts out demons in my name) and 'the Spirit bloweth where it listeth' and many other things from Scripture to such exclusivity?! Thank you, Gavin, for all your very well-researched studies and discussions on this.
Fan of Gavin Ortland and how thoughtful, and respectful he is when it comes to these kinds of discussions. However I do have a few problems with this video/Gavin's logical flow: 1. I would like to say Catholics right now probably have more inclusivity than any other denomination and has been discounted in the video. Catholics actually recognise baptism from any denomination as being baptised into Christ's Church (although partially in communion). That is why when a baptised Baptist, , Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist etc converts to the Catholic Church, they don't need to baptise them again if they are baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Contrary to this if a methodist were to convert to be Baptist, many need to be rebaptised. I feel this means Protestant churces don't truly believe that they ALL are the One True Church. 2. There was no definition of some terms. Like for example, "Valid Eucharist". What is a valid Eucharist? Is it just taking bread as a symbol of your communion with the Church? Or Is it the real presence of Jesus' flesh in the form of bread. Jumping the gun and saying something like "Orthodox/Catholic are too exclusive to say others don't have Valid Eucharist" is not a matter of exclusivity. its a matter of truth because if valid eucharist is the true presence of Christ's flesh, then even many protestants would say it isn't a valid eucharist because they don't even believe in it. 3. Definition of "One True Church". I think it would benefit everyone if we are to examine what is the criteria for determining what makes a church ONE, and TRUE. I don't see how someone can say all protestant churches are a part of the One True Church, because you can't exchange Unity for Truth. If Calvinists believe in eternal security contrary to Armenians, and Lutherans say Baptism actively saves vs Baptists who oppose etc. on issues concerning salvation, how are they all ONE? and how are they BOTH TRUE if they contradict one another? Having sola scriptura as an authority structure encourages churches to not be one anymore when interpretations oppose one another. Whats the point of an Infallible Book with a Fallible interpreter? You can end up getting fallible teaching that contradict one another. Rather I believe when Jesus established His Church it makes sense to provide an Infallible Book with an Infallible interpreter so that they remain One AND true. 4. Unum Sanctam is commonly taken out of context and misinterpretted. Firstly, it was written at a time when Protestants don't exist so its not addressing protestants in particular. Unam Sanctam is written in such a way that it was attempting to achieve a particular purpose, which was to discourage King Phillip from trying to dominate and take over the Church. It also is misinterpreted in the following way: It is true that outside the Church there is no salvation, and one must be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved. Unum Sanctam is addressed to French Catholics at the time. Baptised Roman Catholics are FORMALLY in communion with this church and must be subject to the Roman Pontiff. If they think they are not, then they are not Catholic and hence excommunicated. (keep in mind excommunication isn't damnation. It is just being cut off. The Church doesn't have power to damn people to hell.) That's all Unum Sanctam is saying. However, we develop our understanding with the help of Aquinas and Vatican II that it is possible that Christians of other denominations (especially if baptised) can be saved since they are connected to the Catholic Church informally. One can have an informal connection to the Catholic Church, although they are not aware. Vatican II states: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation. Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life. . . . But very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the world rather than the Creator (cf. Rom. 1:21 and 25)" this extends out to non Christians too, someting called baptism of desire. Hence this is why Catholics believe you can be saved and have gifts of the Holy Spirit, especially when they have been baptised formally or by desire/blood. From this, I feel Catholicism is more universal. I can't speak on behalf of Orthodox as I don't know much about their views on this but it does sound like they are more exclusive from your video. I look forward to these kinds of dialogues and its good to have conversations about these issues in respectful and thoughtful means.
Thanks for the comments. A few replies: 1. I follow Charles Hodge's view in recognizing all Trinitarian baptisms. A Methodist becoming Baptist would not need to be rebaptized. My view is not uncommon. 2. Valid Eucharist is the Catholic terminology. It is true that the meaning of this phrase is disputed. But generally, on the Catholic view, in an invalid Eucharist real presence is not happening even among Protestants who affirm it (e.g., Lutherans). 3. On the "one" true: I reject the idea that you cannot have ONE church while there are disagreements within it. That is not even true for the Catholic Church. The church in Corinth, which was many factions, but was still one church. Or, as I mentioned, Israel and Judah. Schisms are bad but not every schism ruptures our underlying unity in the basic gospel message, and basic churchly identity. 4. Unam Sanctam was occasioned by the dispute with the French king, but not limited to that context. It uses universal language and earlier references the Eastern Orthodox. The general medieval Western view, without exception to my awareness till the 19th century, is that the Eastern Orthodox are damned. I do feel that this is at odds with the Vatican 2 way of thinking. There are ways of reconciling them but they are very labored, in my opinion. Thanks again for the thoughtful comments.
@@TruthUnites Thanks for your reply :) Big fan :D Will take your comments to thought! Just a few points: 1. I'm glad to hear that baptisms are recognised more frequently than I thought. However I don't think it can speak for all Protestant Churches especially when it comes to being baptised as an infant in another church. I'm curious now, do Catholics need to be rebaptised when they convert to become a Baptist? 2. With the Argument for valid Eucharist, Catholics do accept the Orthodox Eucharist as valid because the holy orders can be traced back in an unbroken chain to one of the apostles. For Lutherans there is a broken chain of succession. I guess with this Catholics have to draw the line somewhere? otherwise if there is no line, anyone can just claim they have the true prescence of Christ in their church, and with such a bold claim, it has to be safeguarded and can't be a free for all when it comes to something as heavy and consequential as the true presence of Christ. However this is all dependent on what we define as valid eucharist. IF this isn't the definition, then maybe talking about this is not really productive unless it is actually defined first haha 3. I guess the definition of ONE true church needs to be defined still. What makes a church one AND true? Jesus Christ is what makes the all Christians ONE as he is the Head of the church. united as one body, to the body of Christ. As The Catholic Church states, one has to be apart of the Church to be saved and this extends to all Christians since they are part of the ONE body. The fruits of all true Christians cannot be denied. They all have good fruit because they are in the body of Christ and Catholics believe this too. Jesus doesn't have many bodies, just the one body and I believe Catholics affirm this. However if we are looking for a church to be One AND TRUE, then it can't True if two churches teach contradictory doctrines? That is contradictory to the word True? I guess it all depends on what our definition of a ONE TRUE church is so maybe this isn't your criteria. in summary I believe faith in Jesus makes us all One Body, one church, however, not all churches are completely one AND TRUE. If one teaches a false doctrine it contradicts the very definition of being True. 4. I can agree with you the explanation can be made but is very laborious and I have been reflecting on this. Thank you :)
@@danielpoon2478 thanks for this reply! I don't have time to respond just not, but wanted to acknowledge your comment and say thanks for the interaction.
1. Just isn’t true in my experience. As a Methodist I’ve been more than welcomed to worship alongside Baptist, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, etc and would not have to have been rebaptised to join their sect. Generally speaking as long as you are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirt then your baptism is seen as valid.
Love and appreciate your work, Dr. Ortlund. I’ve been gnawing on the idea of Protestantism being a “conservative renewal effort” within Christianity and I’m not sure which Protestants are actually holding the original Way. I’ve been leaning toward the Catholic faith for a while but haven’t fully crossed the Tiber. Thank you again for what you do and please pray for me!
@@MelaniesManicures Not exclusively a Romanist teaching. And the only witness to the idea that Protestants lack valid sacraments are Romanists themselves. Many Protestant groups believe in the real presence and there's no objective reason why it's only legitimate in a Roman context.
@Zane Courtney--I was at the point where you are about 10 years ago, so I understand the appeal of Rome. A couple of decades earlier I did a serious investigation of Orthodoxy, and before that, LDS (Mormonism). All three were because I had friends who were converts and I could not answer them. I'm one of those people who HAS TO KNOW!
I do not fully agree with Luther and I despise Calvinism, but I have looked into Orthodoxy for many years now, I have 5,401 books and many of those in Patristic studies. Luthers renewal of the early church was simply bringing the church back into its more Jewish roots (not Judaism). With the Orthodox it developed over 800 years. Two 7th ecumenical councils took place, yes things happened, but when icons triumphed many who were anti-icon ended up being impaled on stakes. The Christians actually fled to the Muslims to receive better treatment at the time, the saying was also coined ' the worst devils dressed in the garb of a monk'. I personally believe what was deemed the fake council was the true council because it was better represented (you really need to study this from both sides of the fence)......also I had many questions about the fall of the church of Ephesus. This primarily took place after the council set up by Cyril and the excommunication of Nestorius in 431AD. Also Basil and Athanasius when talking about icons and the prayers of the saints are proven forgeries from a later date. If it was agreed on by the church i see no need for ancient documents to be forged. The Doctrine of Addai gives good examples of interpolation of text for the issue of 'relics' as it takes on the story of Constantine and Helena suddenly and then goes back into the true writings, however these BLATANT forgeries were known at the time as forgeries. I could not reconcile how the Orthodox keep proclaiming them as truths. If they were true the Apostle Addai would have contradicted everything he wrote about concerning paintings and relics receiving veneration. I can not go with a group that boldly proclaims forgeries to be true. It it was true, their would be no need to lie and forge older documents. Also a book was in circulation called the 'Acts of John' it was used to go against icons in what was later deemed as the 'fake council', however this book for many was widely received, at a later date a whole portion was added that turned the book 'gnostic' these were also blatant forgeries, however it is very easy to detect the change in writing styles. The verse where John rebukes the person for painting him and making a prayer corner with his painting is NOT part of the later forgery, in fact much of these works was how the early church determined how each apostle of Christ had died.
Very good exposition. A few things, thanks for mentioning Richard Wurmbrand, as a Lutheran myself, I point to him as a modern inspiration. His experienced showed that when the world persecutes Christians, they won't care what tribe or section of Christianity you come frome, therefore be aware how you judge others especially those who name Christ. His life also amplified what my Classic Greek professor told us. During the early years of Christianity there is a document illustrating the burning of two Christians. The story went that the Roman soldier tied them facing each other before they were to be burned. Each asked the Roman soldier if they can be burned not facing each other, why? Because each looked at the other as a heretic. The soldier obliged, but burned them together anyway.
There was a video on Remnant Radio yesterday on where denominations come from in the church. I love that one of the 3 speakers said he was not comfortable calling Coptic Christians as heretics. There was apparently some split where they were labeled as such. He mentioned the very thing you mentioned when it comes to being martyred for your faith. We saw videos of those Coptics Christians being beheaded by Muslims for their stance that they would not deny Christ. He said that anyone that is willing to die for their faith is a faithful Christian, whatever theological disputes their branch has had in the past. It is too bad that they martyred Christians could not realize in their final hour that all their little doctrinal debates did not matter at all, as they were about to be martyred for their mutual faith in Jesus.
Great video. I've been an inquirer to orthodoxy for a while but haven't taken the jump yet. I've asked this question and I pretty much agree with you Dr. Ortlund. I saw and experienced the grace of God in my protestant churches no doubt about it. I think orthodox would say that those fathers and saints who said that everyone not orthodox is necessarily damned were simply wrong. The fathers can be wrong of course. Almost all of the orthodox I've talked to say they think Christ can save those outside of the church, though its safest to be on the ark and we can never who is saved ultimately in the end.
I think the challenge is that the historic Orthodox view is that everyone outside of Orthodoxy is damned, so changing on this point really takes some of the wind out of the sails of the Orthodox appeal to history and tradition.
Can you give citations for Which early church fathers were inclusive rather than exclusive to there approach to people outside of the Church ? I don’t need the quotes themselves just the citations. Because you said in the video you found some Church fathers expressing in early Christian history expressing more openness to those outside of a more exclusive view of the Church.
@Bb Dl That is not an accurate representation of Calvin. I gave several examples of the historic Orthodox view when debating Father Patrick. If you believe there are premodern Eastern Orthodox theologians who affirmed salvation outside the Orthodox Church, by all means list them.
@@TruthUnites I have tried to show you. You are correct that much of the rhetoric after the schism takes a hard line. those are individuals. the ecumenical councils are to be taken first. the ecumenical councils and their questions on rebaptizing should hold sway. please read Fr. John Morris in his criticism of Orthodox Fundamentalism. The worst part of this video is your statement that belief in the Orthodox Church as the Church is a product of being unread and untraveled. WOW!
@@TruthUnites what do you mean by Eastern Orthodox theologians. I’m assuming you mean Church Fathers(Saints specifically in both the RC and EO Church? I found this florilegium from someone on the EO side showing that the they’re were saints pre-modern era that while they are not inclusivist in the sense you laid out. They did seem to think that someone truly seeking after Christ within the revelation they have could possibly be saved but that it was by Gods grace and mercy. But the normative means amongst majority of the early Church seem to be that Salvation was In the Church the Body of Christ. ancientinsights.wordpress.com/2022/05/01/no-salvation-outside-the-church-a-florilegium/ My question for you would be isn’t this also an answer one who is more of inclusive, would give to an atheist with the question about those who have never heard who Christ was or the gospel message never reached them before they died?
Thank you Gavin, this teaching is having a profound impact on my understanding on how to view these different church institutions and God working throughout His church. Thank you!
Obviously your message in this video, Gavin, was directed by the Holy Spirit working through you because so many people I'm seeing in the comments, myself included, are in total agreement with you.😃 Thank you for taking the time to post this beneficial message to the world and I pray that the Spirit will direct many to "view and chew" on the facts you point to in the word of God. Have a blessed week.
Excellent presentation. Thank you. An example of some of the incoherence of the exclusivist “one true church” paradigm: I’ve always thought it was odd that the Orthodox and Catholic churches are not in Eucharist fellowship (at least officially in most instances) yet they both believe they are receiving the one body of Christ in communion. They receive the same Christ, but are separated from one another. That doesn’t make sense to me.
You have the right train of thought. The true Church crosses all denominations, and is much bigger than any group, including Protestantism. Those who have received Salvation through living faith in Jesus Christ comprise the true Church.
This is so helpful Gavin. As a humble Protestant with friends, yes brothers and sisters who are Roman Catholic & Orthodox, I affirm the works of Jesus for the glory of God in all the branches. May we bear more fruit in these days!
Really? I was a Protestant for 23 years and the only "Works of God" that I saw was equivalent to a magic show. I came back to the RCC and now I couldn't be happier. Finally, actual Christianity.
@@danieljoshua4352 Baptist, A and G, Non Denominational, Vineyard, Pentecostal, and Episcopalian. Is there some other fake version of Christianity that I missed?
@@rangers94ism Yes, you did. You missed adding your Marian church. When they say, "hocus pocus maeem" bread turns into human. They say that they are virgins but become dads and grand dads. They say that you can receive god's grace when you follow their Twitter handle. They say they are pro life but forcefully abort their nuns. They say that Jesus is their saviour but put all of their hope in Mary. Being in that church is experiencing the 8th wonder in life. Roller coaster experience. Where will you find the better magic show than the church that performs all these magics? I know you would definitely enjoy such a church. I'm glad you found your herd. Enjoy yourself for the rest of your life witnessing the magic your Marian children perform.
SO GOOD BRO! Thank you. I appreciate your spirit of gentleness and humility. Also, maybe you can get some Pentecostal friends on the channel! Love what you said about some of the most godly men being Pentecostal!
Hey Gavin! So I've had a couple of hours to spare to think about this video, I woke up super early :). I'd like to play devil's advocate as that's what I usually like to do with videos that I seriously consider, I hope to hear your reply! Warning, this comment is super long, I tried cutting it down to only 3 thoughts, sorry! So first issue I'd see is that you consider Protestantism a renewal effort amongst the Church, seeing that it is the most flexible of Christian traditions. I believe it sounds good on paper, but when you see what has actually been put into practice you could also argue the case that Protestantism has no renewal ambitions, even within its own denominational divisions. I grew up in Calvary Chapel where I was consistently taught that the Pope could be the Anti Christ, some missions trips were dedicated to places like Ireland to witness to Catholics since they were unsaved, Orthodox were considered superstitious and evidence that Christ is no longer with them. I dont believe Calvary Chapel is alone in this belief either, John MacArthur, RC Sproul, Wicked Radio, Apologia, James White, and many more notable Protestant Christians have themselves drawn doctrinal boundaries to the point where considerable effort is taken to evangelize the legalists, aka, Orthodox and Catholic people. This all falls behind the logical conclusions that Protestants find within doctrines like Sola Fide, that anyone who adds even one work to their faith is "preaching another gospel". Many Protestants today believe that Catholics and Orthodox have added works to the gospel, which is evidenced by their continual efforts to evangelize these groups. So I'd feel dishonest in thinking that Protestantism is somehow this denominational sanctuary, they themselves have drawn soteriological lines in the sand as well, they also judge who is part of the one true Church and who is not. You considered this way of thinking Pharisaical, would you then acknowledge that Protestants can be just as guilty? Second thing is, would you consider the significant movement of a number of Protestants going back to apostolic churches a renewal effort in itself? Perhaps it could also be argued that this type of renewal effort is Christ moving in the hearts of people to "come back home"? There is no denying that considerable doctrinal changes have occurred since the reformation, whether these changes were correct are argued on your channel, considering your efforts to look back in church history to find: a) Either justification from the church fathers in what you believe today or b) A defense against doctrines you don't believe in using the church fathers. You also argue from scripture for your case of your doctrines and I find this to be the case with every major Christian tradition. You've said before to let the church fathers be the church fathers, but that's the claim of the apostolic churches as well, wouldnt a fair assessment then that renewal efforts can look differently than your vision of renewel? Third and lastly, you considered the viewer to acknowledge the fruit of different Christian traditions, and I totally agree with you on this. I cannot deny the work of Christ in me in calvary chapel, even an Orthodox priest said it was lovely seeing me grow in Christ, because these churches have the holy scriptures. But there is an ugly side too, and one we cannot ignore, and that is schism upon schism upon schism within Protestantism. Sure there have been schisms previous to Protestantism, but we are on a whole new level. We practice schisms. And that is worrisome. We divide over everything, and the apostle Paul took that extremely seriously. That is a bad fruit to seriously consider. God certainly works in the individual, but is there a point where we should choose a "better" tradition? Think of Mormons, certainly God can move on a Mormon's heart, but should he just then remain in the LDS church? Is he then responsible and obligated to find a better tradition? Think of Apollos in Acts, what if he decided not to be under the apostles' teaching and authority? Once again sorry for the huge text, I understand if no one finishes this lol.
Catholic here. A few challenges I've put forth to my own Catholicism are: 1. To what extent did Christ come to start an institution? (you touch on this at 11:41) 2. Would the Church as described Biblically and in early Patristics qualify as an institution? Regarding 1., I think as moderns, we get a sour taste in our mouth when we hear the term "institution" as being necessarily corrupt and inefficient, but an Orthodox actually gave me an interesting though loose definition of "institution" as "something that exists for a purpose." If sacramentalism and apostolic succession is the correct way to understand Christianity, than an institution of some sort (whether the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, ACotE or Oriental/Ethiopian/Eritrean Orthodox) would make sense as a type of safeguard. 2. is a bit more challenging to me but I'd say yes, and I think Protestants, if they agree with the loose definition of institution I gave above, would probably agree. (If you're Protestant and disagree, please let me know, I don't mean to mischaracterize you) 9:10 is interesting in that I've heard Roman Catholic priests (an exorcist, Fr. Vince Lampert) claim that the RCC does not hold that it exclusively is the only church that can exorcise demons, but that it wields the fullness of the Faith confessed by Peter, which other institutions, though wielding some or even most of it, don't wield the fullness of it like the RCC does. Maybe the question isn't "where is the Church" but "where is the fullness of the Church". I do consider my Protestant and Orthodox friends to be part of the broader Christian church (with a lot to admire about both groups, there's a lot I learn from both of them and I aim to take the best parts of both groups in many ways), though I would still affirm that, if Sacraments and Apostolic Succession are truly necessary, then an institution would be necessary to safeguard the fullness of the faith, which I believe to be the Catholic Church. Good video as always Dr. Ortlund, thank you for the content.
Hello! Thanks for the kind comments. Defining "institution" simply as "something that exists for a purpose" seems too loose to me. In that sense, the Orthodox and Catholics and even the lowly Baptists could see themselves as part of the same institution. I do agree with you that institutions are good. If you consider Protestant and Orthodox friends as part of the church, would you acknowledge you are odds with Boniface VIII?
“Fullnes of the Church”, “fullness of the faith”? Christ did not die or resurrect in parts. He wasn’t given in piecemeal. He was given in full for the whole word.
@@ppac300 I don't dispute that. The term "fullness of the faith" is not piecemealing Christ's sacrifice. It recognizes that while some denominations have some truth, the Catholic Church has the full truth.
@@TruthUnites they're members of the overarching Christian church, which Protestants generally see as the "community of believers." A Catholic can affirm this, which is why the Catholic Church views baptisms as done by Trinitarian Protestants as being valid baptisms, and why the Catholic Church sees valid sacraments with apostolic succession in the Orthodox Church. With that said, the Catholic Church has the fullness of the faith and is the true Church. We consider the Protestant and Orthodox to be brothers and sisters in Christ and Trinitarians, but they lack the entirety of the faith in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Regarding Unam Sanctam, the Catechism gives a good explanation of this at CCC 846 - CCC 847. CCC 846: How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: "Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." CCC 847: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.. Benedict XVI's encyclical Dominus Iesus also affirms this: "On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church." So regarding Boniface VIII, saved Protestants would still be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
glof, Jesus Christ built His Church on Peter the rock and sole key holder, way before the new testament was ever written and that later determined the Canon. The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was, as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Agree 100 percent.Am from south India,seen demons cast out infact my great grandmother wasn’t able to walk at age of 70 and Lord sent a healer,when he prayed she started to walk and he is not a Roman Catholic.He is a Pentecostal Christian.And when Jesus told that ye shall do greater works than me,in the new year night it was raining very heavily here but I prayed and rebuked the storm and rain in the name of Jesus so that I would be able to go to church to begin my year with LORD and yes the Lord heard my prayer and stopped it.There are much God is doing through His spirit here in India.Praise the Lord!
I have had an embattled relationship with Protestantism and videos like this have helped me settle in and embrace where God has me - in a Confessional, Protestant tradition. Thanks!
Amen Gavin! I was raised in a small sect downstream of Protestantism, totally exclusive. Praise God for dealing with my prejudices, though it’s been painful. Keep up the great work you’re doing.
Your point about Israel being divided between north and south, Israel and Judah, yet still being one "people of God" was something I had never quite thought about it relation to fractures and denominations within the Church. It reminded of Ezekiel. In Ezekiel 23, Samaria and Jerusalem are described as sisters. But more than that I was reminded of how Ezekiel used the phrase "house of Israel" to refer to different subsets of Israelites, yet they were all the "house of Israel." Often in Ezekiel 'house of Israel' refers either to the exiles in Babylon or those left in the land of Judah (or both). But in Ezekiel 37ː16, he uses 'house of Israel' for those of the northern kingdom (represented by Joseph/Ephraim). Those of Judah are called by a parallel expression the 'people of Israel.' Then God says he will rejoin the two kingdoms. But the people of both are called 'Israelites.' And God will do this with the Church when he restores all things. Though fractured into different institutions now, God will restore his entire people into one. This, I presume, is the 'great multitude' of Revelation 7.
This theology that God will unite the different disagreeing Catholic and Protestant groups has literally no basis in scripture. The great multitude is made up of ppl who have _never_ known God before the Tribulation. The context in Rev. 7:13-14 makes that abundantly clear where it says that these ppl's sins will be forgiven.
@@decepticonxhunter4850 Regardless of who the multitude of Rev 7 is, which may depend on which particular eschatological view is correct, I think the things I referred to in Ezekiel, as well as the thread of reconciliation that runs throughout the Scriptures, lends credence to the idea that various groups of disagreeing Christans (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Coptic, etc.) will be united in the eschaton. In the post-resurrection, eternal presence of the Almighty God, it is difficult to imagine rifts remaining. Of course, one might say, "But only one group is the true Church that will be saved in the first place," but Gavin's point and mine are that the Scriptures already show God describing people who are fractured in some way(s) as still his people.
Thankful for this video!! Really helpful and well spoken ❤. I can’t accept that Jesus would say to so many millions of precious followers around the world who have been radically transformed and obey His teaching as clearly, simply laid out in scripture that more is required of them. That they are not “fully” living out their faith.. that they are missing something. The gospel is simple. A narrow road but it’s not as complicated as human tradition often makes it. I think of believers in third world countries, worshiping in the bush, of the underground church in China or Iran. Of precious friends saved by grace out of a life of drug use and worshipping in a simple church setting near skid row. Does Christ really require more of these ones? Does he place a burden on them, or tell them they are “missing out” on something beyond what is plainly taught in scripture? (The teaching that they are not worshiping in “fullness” would be SO confusing, hurtful and faith shaking to many many believers I know. It would not draw them to the tiber it would shake their belief altogether.) Does Jesus say their faith, their communion with His body the church is not “full” enough? This is not my only major concern with RC teaching but it’s a big one. Many believers find great fulfillment and beauty in RC mass and are discipled more closely to Christ in this iteration of faith. I praise God for this and am so deeply sorry for the fact that so many of my fellow evangelicals are so harsh in their judgement/dismissal of the Roman church. I just also praise God for the many millions more who are best discipled in their faith in Jesus through other expressions of the church gathered. I see it like fishnets. We are called to be fishers of men, to go into all the world and make disciples and God has ordained many many shapes and sizes of “nets” to bring in and disciple people to faith in Him. I think like Dr Ortlund that He is so much bigger than the boxes we place Him in. Humans will always be prone to both reduce His work/what He will do while simultaneously over complicating things. (Case in point: Judaism at the time of Jesus) This is true in both the RC and Protestantism. (All Protestant traditions I know of do have standards, creeds and basic orthodox truths that must be agreed upon to clarify which churches/fish nets 😉are teaching truth and which are not. These exist and are clear and consistent across denominational lines in all but the most liberal of churches… which would then not qualify as upholding orthodox truth.. They extend down from the very earliest days of church history.)
I'm so glad I discovered your channel. Kindred spirit right here. Grew up and still am non-denominational Pentecostal, so I'm used to always feeling like an outsider among the rest of the Protestant world. Nevertheless, we were decidedly Protestant as I only ever heard the strawman of Catholicism (and barely heard anything about Orthodoxy). Several years ago, I started studying the sacramental traditions in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and I discovered a new appreciation for these treasures in the universal church that most of us Protestants had long discarded and we're now ignorant of. But even with this newfound love, I've had no interest in "converting." The very idea of "converting" from one sect of Christianity to another is an oxymoron. We're all still Christians! That's why it so bothers me when I hear stories of people changing from Protestant to Catholic or Orthodox and the others say "welcome home." It's presumptuous and condescending, assuming the person was not already a part of the true church. In the same way, I've always hated when fellow Protestants view and treat Catholics by default as if they're not real Christians.
@@tomau.8267 you're assuming quite a lot. I've never called Catholics pagans or heretics, but you immediately start accusing me of that. No, Pentecostals don't believe the gift of tongues is necessary for salvation. Every Pentecostal denomination I know teaches that the charismatic gifts are an experience subsequent to salvation. Yes, I would say most Protestants believe praying to saints is unbiblical--maybe not pagan, but not biblically based. But as I've learned more about Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I now am fine with the practice. My comment was all about how the church should be more united, but you jumped to such negative conclusions.
@@tomau.8267 your first reply to my comment said "you." I asked who are you referring to. You proceeded to attack me or lump me together with whatever version of Protestantism that's offended you. You need to go back and re-read my original comment to this video because you're clearly missing the entire point I was making.
In my experience, it's always the Catholics that say, "welcome home", as in home to the one true holy and apostolic church. Protestants have their own smugness, and they equate that conversion to finally becoming saved. The protestants will usually back that up w/, "Come out of her my people, so that you are not partaker of her plagues". I'm not so sure of that interpretation now either. What I see when Christians upgrade from one branch of Christianity to another is that they have found a deeper faith and a renewal in their spirit in going to another faith tradition. I'm just glad for them that they have a deeper devotion to God.
Pastor Gavin you did a great job in explaining the so-called”one true church” concept. I do agree with you in your arguments of its exclusivity. I sensed that for many years, it is part of the church indoctrination, which the best way that I could sum it up. Read church history from the beginning of Constantine. I know that there are a lot of truth seekers within Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox and it is often very difficult to tear away. One of my own concerns is “the ever Virgin Mary”, Theotokos. This is inconsistent with the biblical teachings. But keep these videos coming. A note to Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, I am discussing my view based on learning and exploring my faith. God bless.
As a Catholic and a history teacher, I appreciate this video. Plenty here to consider, and I tend to agree with you. Some initial thoughts: Normal Catholic defense, which bugs me and has made me consider Orthodoxy: the innovations are developments which are in the authority of the living church, so any changes we make are infallible. The Newman assessment: Whatever the early church looked like, we can be sure that it didn't look like Protestantism. However, I think you're admitting to the movement being an innovation, so I don't think this would be problematic for you. My personal view: my students are almost entirely Protestant or Messianic. The Spirit is definitely with many of them and I think to degrade it at all would be wrong. However, even before I returned to Catholicism, I was glad that it existed. I was glad there was someone keeping those boundaries and administering the Eucharist and conducting the liturgy formally and holding confession like the Didache describes. I wouldn't accept, as I've been told by some (not by you, thank you!), that Catholics are pagans, that they're going to Hell, that they don't know Christ. To me, this whole concept is just like anything with rigid boundaries - I appreciate the boundaries AND the expression which takes place a bit outside of them. All that being said, I think the early church has plenty of exceptions, as you say (I can't recall in Augustine the reference you made, but I believe you). But, as described in Eusebius, there seemed to have always been a center of gravity. Catholics claim Rome, but Eusebius (in my reading at least) seems to indicate that it was Jerusalem. In fact, if I recall correctly, it was even Jerusalem and only ethnic Jews could be bishop there, and they were admired "for their purity of doctrine." So, I think that even Protestants should be on the lookout for that apostolic epicenter - whether they think it Catholic, Orthodox, or something else.
@@jonathanbontrager yes, my understanding of Vatican II was that the borders of Catholicism were widened to include all people who are baptized and profess Christ. I’ve heard it expressed by Barron as “the body of Christ is the church, but all our Protestant and orthodox brothers and sisters are part of the spiritual body of Christ.” So, I think that the catholic idea would be that there is a true church, the universal (catholic) church, which does have borders, but the Spirit extends past the borders and would make every Christian - on some level - catholic. So that’s me quoting priests and apologists, to further clarify I want to add my own opinion. In the early church there was a good deal of diversity, and definitely less exclusivity. However, as Eusebius writes, there was a church which was admired “for its purity of doctrine.” Unfortunately for RCC, that was Jerusalem to Eusebius. I haven’t heard a good refutation of that. But the principle still stands (in my mind) that there is an allowable diversity, but there’s an epicenter with a purity of doctrine and practice. Also, if any Catholics read this and correct me, I acquiesce to your knowledge! I did my graduate work in theology at a Nazarene school before I converted. So I’m only a few years deep into the sacred theology of the RCC!
Michael, "Peter was made Pastor of the Church, just as Moses was made RULER of Israel ". ( Augustine). The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! What is funny about Dr. Ortlund and so many Protestants, is they claim no one man was in charge,then they go on to claim, "but it was James who was in charge of the Council of Jerusalem!". So much for no one being in charge! John Chrysostom says, " Peter was made Shepherd of the Universal Church." The contradictory teachings of Dr. Ortlund have made me a stronger Catholic Christian! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink is
Proof Eucharist is body of Jesus Christ and Virgin Mary is his mother. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;z 50this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”a 52The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?” 53Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” Eucharistic miracle.. th-cam.com/video/soCkftBBsBo/w-d-xo.html (medical reports-living heart tissue, blood type AB) th-cam.com/video/oogJ-cdi7yI/w-d-xo.html (Rome Reports) th-cam.com/video/whbzLYi7cyc/w-d-xo.html (Lanciano) th-cam.com/video/6PJ8BORx1p8/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/bd16tBRbLXw/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/PvxTDAVypxs/w-d-xo.html (levitating eucharist) Incorruptible bodies of saints due to the Eucharist - only happens in the Catholic church. No other religion has this miracle th-cam.com/video/GSCk0qs-2-M/w-d-xo.html (Padre Pio) th-cam.com/video/40UZLnIdplo/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/jN4SvtRje2I/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/-TrR1CEWdbc/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/XCDBekAQ-FI/w-d-xo.html (Carlo Acutis) th-cam.com/video/33vlkJh2iJc/w-d-xo.html Apparition of Virgin Mary th-cam.com/video/GQnKS7YUE7Q/w-d-xo.html (Virgin Mary apparition in Ivory Coast) th-cam.com/video/0PPGuMmn6TQ/w-d-xo.html (Virgin Mary statue moving) th-cam.com/video/tVU8bhbQInw/w-d-xo.html (Virgin Mary apparition in Egypt) th-cam.com/video/nMEWxRB-1dc/w-d-xo.html 1968 Egypt th-cam.com/video/8YR6INkTK7Q/w-d-xo.html (Miracle of the sun) th-cam.com/video/yF0_ysUivxE/w-d-xo.html (Miracle of the sun) th-cam.com/video/76qAMB3qUpA/w-d-xo.html Medjugorje Sun miracle on Easter Sunday th-cam.com/video/RyYNIulxIbc/w-d-xo.html Virgin Mary appears in Egypt & Spain-Eye Witnesses
@@matthewbroderick6287 I think the problem is that if we're talking about 4th and 5th century theologians like Augustine and John Chrysostom, no doubt that the Bishop of Rome had primacy by then, but Protestants will say, "what did the early church have?" Catholics will say, "well sure, it had to develop nobody understood." Orthodox will say, "we've innovated nothing and the pope was a first among equals," every scholar on earth will say, "there wasn't unanimous agreement on doctrine or succession or primacy, in fact it took decades for offices like bishop to come into effect, which is why the pastoral letters of 'Paul' are pseudepigrepha." I mean I'm not a Protestant and I'm curious why we Catholics seem to have this odd silence about Jerusalem & James. Again, I don't think this is really a contradiction on their part, I think Orthodox and Protestants alike would recognize a special place for various apostles, but never have I heard them say "James was the Pope" in the sense we understand it, it seems to be another "first among equals" situation to them. I am with you and I'm Catholic too, but I think we should be really aware of our place. We defend theological, liturgical, and ecclesial innovations and openly admit that our church isn't equal to the earliest church, because they didn't understand everything. Then we represent the early church in a way which the only other group with apostolic succession (that we acknowledge), the Orthodox, agrees with. Additionally, the way we understand early Christian history is in contrast to nearly every bible scholar on earth! I still think we're right, but we've got a lot working against us, you know what I mean? God bless!
If catholicity is Protestantism’s great strength, then wouldn’t schismatics be its great weakness? I would love to hear you flesh out a Protestant Theology of schism.
Hey Gavin thanks for this video! Love your work and I appreciate all your work in these ecumenical discussions. I wanted to address the claim you made about not finding "anybody from the 9th century to the 19th" who affirms that there is salvation for Western Christians. It seems to me that, if baptism is salvation/confers salvation, then this question _can_ be reduced to a question of whether baptisms are valid outside the church. And on this question history is replete with Orthodox writers and councils affirming that Latins are not to be rebaptized on admittance to the Eastern churches, thereby signaling that baptisms outside the church are at least valid in part and counting Western Christians as therefore imperfect members of the church. This seems to be the position of the church and councils prior to the schism, though there are plenty of hardliners such as Cyprian who would have mandated rebaptism for all, and was the official position of the church throughout history despite many ecclesial writers holding to the mandatory rebaptism position. I'll provide a few quotes below: None other than Mark of Ephesus after a lengthy passage calling the Latins heretics: "'Have you not heard that they adopted not only customs but also dogmas which are strange to Orthodoxy (and that which is strange to Orthodoxy is most certainly a heretical teaching) and that according to the canons they must be catechized and united to Orthodoxy? If it is necessary to catechize then it is clear that they must be chrismated… Latins must not be re-baptized but only after their renunciation of their heresies and confession of sins, be anointed with Chrism and admit them to the Holy Mysteries and in this way bring them into communion with the holy, catholic Eastern Church, in accordance with the sacred canons.” Council of Constantinople, 1484: The Decision of the Great Synod of Constantinople in 1484. This Synod was summoned at the sacred Church of Pammakaristos by Patriarch Symeon (1472-75, 1482-1485) in 1482 and again in 1484. Ιn the first instance it issued an Horos denouncing the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438) and its doctrine of the Filioque, and in the second, it published an Acolouthy for the reception of Latin converts into the Orthodox Church. This Synod called itself Ecumenical presumably because all four Eastern Patriarchs were present. It denounced the Council of Florence and decided that [Text of the Council begins]: “the Latin converts to Orthodoxy should be received into the Church only by Chrismation and by signing an appropriate Libellus of faith which would include denunciation of Latin errors… The Service for the Reception of Latins into the Orthodox Church Published by the same holy and great Synod, for those who return from the Latin heresies to the orthodox and catholic Church of Constantinople, but also to the three most holy patriarchs of the East, i.e. those of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. This Acolouthy was published in Constantinople in the year 1484 during the patriarchy of the most holy Patriarch Lord Symeon. Let it be known, also, that this Synod, being ecumenical, is the first one with God’s help, tο bring down and overturn that most unlawful Synod that was summoned in Florence, as one that proceeded in an evil and unconstitutional manner; and as having failed tο follow the holy and ecumenical Synods which preceded it; therefore, we included the Statement (Horos) of this Orthodox and holy Synod of ours, i.e. that one of Constantinople, in the present sacred codex of Christ’s holy and great Church, since it was summoned during our days.” Council of Moscow, 1667: “At the time of Patriarch Nikon, upon the insistence of Patriarch Marcarius of Antioch, who was then in Moscow, it was twice decreed at the Council that Latins would not be re-baptized in the future, the deeply rooted custom of re-baptizing remained in practice. This is why Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich proposed that the Great Council should discuss and make a decision on this question. The Council fathers carefully reviewed Patriarch Philaret Nikitich’s statute and came to the conclusion that the laws were incorrectly interpreted and applied to the Latins. They then referred to earlier Council statutes whereby it was forbidden to re-baptize even Arians and Macedonians in the event of their coming into Orthodoxy, and even more so, the fathers said, Latins must not be re-baptized. They referred to the Council of the four Eastern Patriarchs held in Constantinople in 1484, which decreed not to re-baptize Latins upon their coming into Orthodoxy, but only to anoint them with Chrism, and which even composed the actual rite for their reception into the Church. They referred to the wise Mark of Ephesus who, in his epistle addressed to all Orthodox, offers the same teaching. [These decisions were ratified by another Synod in +1718 and applied to Protestants.]” Patriarch Marcarius III of Antioch: “To Patriarch Nikon that “the Latins must not be re-baptized: they have the seven sacraments and all seven Councils, and they are all baptized correctly in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit with an invocation of the Holy Trinity. We must recognize their baptism. They are only schismatics, and schism does not make a man unfaithful and unbaptized. It only separates him from the Church. Mark of Ephesus himself, who opposed the Latins, never demanded their re-baptism and accepted their baptism as a correct one.” St Philaret of Moscow: “Mark you, I do not presume to call false any Church which believes that Jesus is the Christ. The Christian Church can only be either purely true, confessing the true and saving divine teaching without the false admixtures and pernicious opinions of men, or not purely true, mixing with the true and saving teaching of faith in Christ the false and pernicious opinions of men… but I just simply look upon them; in part I see how the Head and Lord of the Church heals the many deep wounds of the old serpent in all the parts and limbs of his Body, applying now gentle, now strong, remedies, even fire and iron, in order to soften hardness, to draw out poison, to clean wounds, to separate out malignant growths, to restore spirit and life in the numbed and half-dead members. In this way I attest my faith that, in the end, the power of God will triumph openly over human weakness, good over evil, unity over division, life over death.” Curious to hear what your thoughts of on this are. Thanks!
This idea that Catholic doctrine changed after vatican 2 is a lie. The current Catechism says: "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." There is still no salvation for those who choose to be outside the church
Gavin, your videos have very much so helped me as of late. I’m currently a Senior Pastor (I’m soon to be 38 yrs old) and just started a ThD program. 5ish years ago I thought: why am I only listening to what Protestants say about Catholics? I should actually read their works for myself. Then, I soon ended up in the Fathers. And next I ended up studying Orthodoxy as well. Keeping it short, during this time I STRONGLY considered whether or not I should convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. But, I tend to study things out to the “inth” (or whatever) degree, so I didn’t make such a decision in haste. But adding to my problems and considerations as I’ve tried to work through these issues is the fact that some people, like James White, grossly misrepresent the teachings of the Fathers and Church History, and thus make Cath/Orthodoxy more appealing in a sense. Anyways, thankfully I have found in your videos a historically knowledgeable and honest representation of the issues, without the anachronism of most Protestant scholars, and thus you’ve helped me see that my faith is grounded in history. All of that being said, and keeping it as short as possible, thanks! God bless!
The more you study, the Reformed view of Church History is not wrong. Have you listened to White's church history course? I've been reading primary sources for almost 2 decades in patristics. There are certainly differences in interpretation and translations among different scholars. But the overall picture that mainstream scholarship has on the Papacy or the development of purgatory or the cult of saints or the Marian dogmas has hardly any significant difference then a Reformed view of Church History. I initially had the same type of view you mention, but only after studying church history and reading enough of the primary and secondary sources myself did I realize that the Reformed view is an acceptable and coherent view of Church History. Can you tell me what primary sources you have read and what secondary scholarly sources you have read? Remember there is also 500 years of polemical writings between Roman and Protestant scholars. some of it is available on Reformed Books Online under Reformed Catholicism. What have you read? Have you listened to at least Defense of the Augsburg Confession by Melancthon or read at least Volume 1 of the examination of the council of Trent by Chemnitz? I don't intend to come off as a know it all, but I'm thinking that your claim is based on only casual research in this area. Have you read the book Papalism, or the Birth of Purgatory, or anything by Stephan Shoemaker, the leading English modern scholar on the origins of the Assumption? Many of these books can be found in any university library or through interlibrary loan. Did you read either White's Roman Catholic Controversy or his the God who Justifies?
Also, which fathers exactly did you read, which English translation? Was it in primary scholarly editions or in quote books? I would also recommend you read A treatise on the Right Use of the Father's in the Decision of Controversies Existing at This Day in Religion, which you can order on Amazon, any university library or read for free on Internet Archive. It explains thr most common Reformed view of understanding church writers. Let me know how I can help.
Btw, I feel up Romanist, didn't leave until college after studying philosophy and history. I would also recommend William Goode, the evangelical Anglican of the 19th century, whose massive tomes deal with Anglo-Catholicism (a 'third way between Rome and Protestants). I think Apology of the Church of England by John Jewel would be helpful as well. Have you have seen the channels of 'BarelyProtestant' (Anglo-Catholic) who critiques Rome? Or 'A Goy for Jesus' or the channel 'The Other Paul' which gives more evangelical Anglican view on Rome? The book I recommended before 'Papalism' is a huge refutation of the Papacy from an Anglo-Catholic position, but the moderate Anglican or mainstream scholarly position is even worse, as a one man bishop didn't develop until the 2nd century in that view.
I agree with almost everything you said. That said, if we are a renewal force within the Church, then shouldn't we be trying to unite as one Church again? It seems like we aren't renewing anything if we just go our own way and each stay in their own denomination.
Thanks for posting this vid. I was raised Pentecostal but I’m inquiring into Orthodoxy and this is one issue I’m still thinking/praying over before I officially become a catechumen. All your videos have been extremely helpful!
I saw that the Pentecostal church has had a devastating impact against Islam in Indonesia. Growing so powerful. So many Muslim converting to Jesus. Orthodox Church has no impact. Tiny and very few churches not really growing over so many years. Orthodox will make you renounce everything Pentecostal as false and deception. Even though they can’t beat Islam in Indonesia but Pentecostal can. At least Rome is open to Pentecostal movement to some degree and has 300 million charismatics. Joining Orthodox is like saying your whole Christian life has been a lie. Hahaha 🤣
Protestants are often guilty of disunity, but I don't know how a church that forces you out if you don't believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, or if you believe in a real, but spiritual, presence of Christ in the Eucharist is any less guilty of disunity (adding to the exclusivity you mention between East and West even). Would Jesus really say that such people are not part of the one, true Church which is His body? Also, I've been trying to make the point for years that a visible Church doesn't necessarily mean a single institution, and even if it did, I wouldn't see what precludes that institution from preserving itself by separating from a group that's lost its way; people just can't seem to imagine what a visible Church would look like without being a single institution. How should one explain that to someone, since my way doesn't seem effective?
God clearly liked diversity judging by his creation, why would his Church be any different? We are all supposed to serve Christ as King now, not any mere human. Christ should be the only thing unifying us now, not any single human institution.
Liam, yet Protestant churches force you out if you don't believe in faith alone and Scripture alone!🤔 Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Jesus built His church on Peter, the Apostles/prophets are the foundation, Christ the cornerstone, and whatever the Leaders bind on earth will have been bound in heaven (Matt 16/18). Jesus gave the Spirit of Truth to lead the Church into all Truth, to be the pillar and buttress of Truth. There are clear boundaries for the moral life (1 Cor 5; Gal 5), and doctrine (1 Tim 4:16; 2 John; Gal 1:8). To live in unrepentant mortal sin, blasphemy, division, or heresy separates you from the God who is our Life and the Church. When the believers came into the Church through repentance and baptism on Pentecost “ they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42). In other words, this is the Life in Christ, the living Tradition, and to follow Christ the Way is to be United to Him and His Body, the Way. One cannot make up how they want to worship or what they want their Church to believe. As churches were “planted”, they had to have connection to the Apostles (see Acts 8-10). When the elders and Apostles met in Jerusalem, the Spirit led them into all truth (Acts 15). They sent a letter to the churches, and Paul et al delivered the dogmas to be observed (Acts 16:4). It is not optional to obey the Church in dogma and morals because it is Christ who speaks and the Spirit who has led the Church. A good question is who can ordain elders and deacons according to the NT? It is Apostles or those the Apostles have deputized (e.g. Titus and Timothy). My point is all this is to show that saying that groups are not part of the Church is not about being divisive or eschewing unity. It is about being faithful to Jesus and the Church through the ages.
@@KevinDay Yet, Holy Scripture teaches to submit to those over us in the Lord, ( Hebrews 13:17, 1 Thessalonians 5:12, Ephesians 3:10). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 Yes, it teaches us to submit to *ALL* who are in authority over us, not just one universal mediator chosen from among men. Christ is the only true mediator between us and God.
As a new Christian all this kind of topics on "true church" caused me massive anxiety and stress. I prayed and prayed and read and read and basically came to the same conclusion you have brother.
Where Jesus and the bible alone is supreme, you are safe. Remember it's Jesus ALONE that takes us to God. Jesus alone.
@@addjoaprekobaah5914 Christians worship Jesus, not the bible.
@maxonmendel5757 are you trolling? How do we know who Jesus is? Where do we go to learn about him and what he did, and what he expects of us?
@@maxonmendel5757 The other person does have a good point. The bible has to lead the church and the Christian. If we don't have the word of God to lead us to God what does any church or Christian have?
@@saintejeannedarc9460 the Ethiopian eunuch had Isaiah and he still needed an apostle to teach him. theres little sufficiency of scripture to teach new Christians who aren't already familiar with the text. New Christians don't need a book. they need good teachers. Scripture can be twisted even by the devil to teach terrible things, and has been for centuries.
and the first Christians only had the apostles and didn't have the New Testament. and they were among the best Christians!
I found myself sinking under the pressure of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic assertion that i was outside and lost..
I was beginning to be quite confused, because the barriers to me joining the EO & RC Churches were the veneration of icons, the background of the Rosary, the elevated position of Mary minimising the graciousness of the Father and Jesus Himself..
Those all did not sit well in my spirit, and yet i was trying my best to squeeze myself into the idea of one of those traditions ultimately being where i was supposed to be..
I was requiring a clear, non adversarial discussion on this, and thankfully found your channel..
Your grace as you discuss this topic is welcomed, and your approach is entirely respectful..
I am so relieved, and my peace is returning to me..
Thank You for your ministry, i will continue to watch your videos..
🙏
I’m going through this right now.
I’m so scared that I have multiple nightmares.
How is your faith now?
@@heyyo9828
Hey brother, I went through a similar phase. This might be the most generic response a Christian might give but here comes: Pray to Jesus that he will give you wisdom. Pray to Jesus that he will let you find him. In all the uncertainty of ecclesial anxiety (which Jesus made me overcome), there is a promise that is more certain than any rock. It is the promise of Jesus himself: Seek and you WILL find. I hope you can find comfort in that. Jesus will not let you down if you as him, otherwise he would be a liar and there is nothing that is further from the truth than that.
Seek Jesus and you will find the right church tradition. Seek the right church tradition and it will be much much harder, if even possible, to find Jesus.
May I ask what your biggest concerns are? What is your reason to consider that Jesus might only be found in the RC or EO tradition?
This is the main reason that I never considered the Catholic Church, among other troublesome doctrines. This reminds me of a controlling partner who tells you that if you leave them, you’ll never make it. I see no justification for using threats within a church other than manipulation.
That argument is self-refuting. Replace "Catholic" with "Christian" and you've got an argument that an atheist would use against Christianity.
@@mooretristan719 Exactly.
@@mooretristan719You, as a Catholic, only think that because you put your man made institution (RCC) at the same level as God. Leaving the Church doesn't damn you, turning your back on Christ does.
@@JohnSmith-zs1bfso let’s put this another way: leaving the body of Christ doesn’t same you. Is that true? If so, then that is the same as saying, “leaving the church”. Because the body of Christ is the church.
@@TheB1nary the body of Christ is not the Roman Catholic Church that came to be after Paul's writing. Additionally you are saved by grace through faith not by your merit. If you have that faith given to you by the grace of God, you are saved. Even if you are wrong about the details, even if you picked the "wrong" denomination. Yes the church is the body of Christ and He is the head of the church, but that church is the entire body or Christ, not merely the Roman institution with all its modern inventions. If you leave the RCC to follow Christ more truly, you are blessed. If by leaving the church you mean turning your back on God, denying who he is, and elevate and celebrate sin, then maybe yeah you are damned, but like you said the church is about Christ, not about the rcc.
Just love your videos. I am a baptist too, converted in 1999 from orthodoxy, but saved only by the blood of Our Lord and Saviour,and I resonate intimately with your words. I find some of your videos deeply theological but what I found out was that I had the same answers and revelations given through the Holy Spirit. You are doing a great work brother and if someone wants to live in disunity let them be. We are called to unity in Christ through the Holy Spirit who was given to all those who believe!
It doesn't seem like many Orthodox come out of that. Not only does it make the most lofty claims to the only way, it seems to have such strong ethnic favouritism. Seems like more go into it, or try to.
What drew you to becoming baptist? Maybe you can help me out w/ understanding Gavin's type of baptist. I guess there's many kinds now, but I thought they were against speaking in tongue, exorcisms and more pentacostal doctrines. Gavin seems more full gospel, and definitely pentacostal friendly. Not a bad thing at all, it just really surprised me.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 bump
I love the Baptist denomination! So loyal to the Word of God. God bless you richly!!😊
Holy smokes, thank you! This video is an answer to prayer, and I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your ministry. I have a tremendous amount of respect for each of the traditions, and honestly one of the only things that I find really hurtful is that condescending pharisaical assumption that anyone who is not (as you said ) on Noah’s Ark is damned and certainly can’t receive the Eucharist in any valid format. The longer I have been walking with the Lord, The more I have come to recognize that there are true believers and make believers in every single tradition and denomination. You are such an incredible blessing. Thankful for all you do especially considering how busy you are!
Thanks Heidi, so glad this was helpful to you!
What's a true believer? From what I've seen, every religious person thinks they are one. How do we know, since we are just simple creatures?
@@Anastaecia I think that the Holy Spirit tells true believers that they are saved (as opposed to our own minds knowing it directly or figuring it out). If we feel we are saved, but we are not sure if it is the Spirit speaking to us, we could pray, read the relevant Scriptures, and receive encouragement and advice from church members and friends.
@@Anastaecia
A true believer in the early Church was someone who loved God, loved Christ Jesus, loved the brethren and loved others.
Christianity is about living for God (His kingdom/will) and living to bless others, rather than living for one’s life in this world.
The confusion ramped up when the Church councils started hammering out their theology. Not because the theology is wrong but because the focus went from ‘you are my brother if you live for God/Jesus and others’ to ‘you are my brother if you affirm the latest councils claims’.
God bless
@@Anastaecia I am always gently perplexed at comments like this. Does the scripture ever make mention of "true believe" vs "false believer"? I think the distinction is between "believer" and"non-believer". And it looks to me that a believer is someone who is convinced that Jesus is the messiah, the one who gives Life.
Wow. To be honest I’ve been wrestling with the this issue so much the last few months, finally started attending church as a born again Christian. I was baptized as a baby into the EOC and didn’t learn ANYTHING about who Christ was or how God operates. Just that I need to attend liturgy on holidays and kiss icons and take communion. I became agnostic and into spirituality in my teens well into the age of 23 when God literally caused a 180 degree flip in my heart and made me put my faith into Jesus. A truly unexplainable moment because it was so hard for so long for me to accept Jesus as my savior. I want to get rebaptized - mainly because my first baptism wasn’t even a full immersion into water- but because I’ve felt my entire life change from being worldly to becoming Godly. Praise the Lord, praise Jesus. 💗💗💗✝️
You have had a similar experience as me. I too never knew what Jesus actually did for us despite being brought to the Orthodox Church from birth, practically. Didn't even know that the Lord's Prayer was given to us by Jesus. Oh but icons, the Virgin Mary, the liturgy, the holidays? Yea, I knew all about those.
@@pitAlexx yeah! And then I look at kids who were brought up Protestant- they were taught everything! They know all the biblical stories and just what Jesus did for humanity.
This is interesting to hear of people who came out of the OC. We will get Orthodox come into comments such as these and they tend to despise protestants and not recognize them as Christians at all. There is no discussing w/ them that was have accept Jesus as Savior and Lord. They don't even see this as the central issue, or something we have in common. They just talk about how they are the only true church and apostolic succession. That seems to matter far more than Jesus as savior and Lord, and reacding the bible to renew our minds and sanctify our hearts so we can live the Christian way, convicted of sin, and led to produce good fruit. Where is the fruit, where is the brotherly love w/ these people, did you ever witness it?
Had the same experience but with the Catholic church, we were never taught anything. Just hearing Latin was creepy to me and people going up to take the Eucharists. Same monotonous songs. Till this day when I hear them I cringe. The words dead religion comes to mind. Then I became born again through reading the powerful word of God.
I had a similar experience. Praise God!
This is so good, Gavin!!! My wife and I are in the process of leaving the Orthodox Church and this is the absolute *core* issue for me. I could not in good conscience continue to claim that I was a part of the One True Church and that the other godly Christians I've known throughout my life were either, at best, missing out on "the fullness of the faith" (as the more generous Orthodox would put it), or at worse, outside of the ark of salvation altogether. This right here is what I keep coming back to. Christ *is* the fullness of the faith. He is sufficient. Whoever has Him, has the fullness. For what can be fuller than having Christ Himself?
For clarification: I realize the last few, short sentences I wrote above could be seen as overly-simplistic. I understand that. But there is a very real sense in which those are very accurate statements. Please also understand that I do not say "Christ is enough" in the spirit of "No creed but Christ" or "Me, Jesus, and the Bible." Far from it. I just mean to say that anyone who has Christ has the fullness of the faith. We could all argue about what that means, but it's still the truth.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Ryan, glad to be connected to you!
Yes, in the end it is all about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He is the One Who saves--not the Church, even though she is His bride. That said, I can't go the route of the type of ecumenism that says if you claim Christ you are a Christian. Many false christs have gone out into the world.
Ryan, so why do so many Protestant Pastors teach Roman Catholics are not even Christian, and are not saved, and teach a false Gospel?
Holy Scripture teaches we must cooperate with God's saving grace and repent and bear fruit and forgive others and love one another and persevere to the end to be saved, and that the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@melodysledgister2468 no one claims the Church saves, just that faith ALONE does not save, for even if one has ALL FAITH, but does not LOVE, IT IS USELESS, as Holy Scripture teaches we must cooperate with God's saving grace and repent and bear fruit and forgive others and love one another and persevere to the end to be saved! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
I love your narratives. I was raised Catholic but changed to born again Bible believer a little more than forty years ago after reading God's word, especially the book of Hebrews. The end of this year makes thirty-eight years I've read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation along with many studies including Biblical Hebrew taught by a Jewish professor. I decided to stop responding to Catholic videos claiming protestants are heretic's because it appears to be futile. Anyway, I stumbled upon one of your you tube videos and it's addictive. Your narratives are excellent. Everything I heard is spot on and you reach out to people with love. Thank you so much for your videos and I wish you only the best.
Thank you, Dr. Ortlund! This exclusivity in the RCC has always bothered me, even though I was raised Roman Catholic. The passage from Mark 9 is really eye opening.
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience, those too may achieve eternal salvation" - The church leaves all judgement to God.
For these individuals, God administers the grace of salvation in ways known to him alone
This is more inclusive than some "Christian Churches" that directly condemn people who do not believe in Christ..
And that "One, True Church" exclusivity and Triumphalism really caused a lot of anguish for me during my EO catechism. I had to quit because it was aggravating my OCD/Scrupulosity
I'm Catholic and I agree with you. While I haven't had any interest in leaving, I honestly don't feel confident that everyone would flourish better in the Catholic Church than in another group of their choice.
This is probably the nicest Catholic comment I've ever seen in regards to this topic. Everytime I tell a practicing Catholic I left the church and I'm now a non-denominational Christian they tell me I'm going to hell because I left the one true church. It kinda hurts when I hear them say that and honestly it just drives me further away from the Catholic church.
As a Catholic, I've personally met plenty of good Protestants (my girlfriend is such an amazing Christian despite her struggles with church) and I accept that yes, Christ is working in those other churches! :) I think I take a bit of umbrage with the Unam Sanctam point because V2 has already addressed that point while still being historically consistent.
I also feel that, because of the CC's huge move towards ecumenism, I find that it is actually more probable (at least, compared to previous centuries) that the CC is a home for... Well not all, but definitely more Christians!
Love yall :)
@zzcando I haven't had to deal with that but I know others who have. Luckily for me my family seems to be straying away from the Catholic religion
Catholic brother. Awesome. I agree with you. As a protestant I believe many Christians can be saved if we accept Christ and repent, regardless. No one institution gives salvation. Only Jesus.
@@VinceOlson96I hear the same thing
Thank you for speaking on these things brother! I have been Catholic for a while, but have been going to a Baptist church for a couple months now. I have disagreed with a lot of RCC doctrines and practices for a while, but it was incredibly difficult to break free from because of this idea of no salvation outside the RCC. The worst part for me is that the official teaching in the Catechism is that other Christian's can be saved through the mystery of God's mercy, but that a Catholic who leaves the RCC is damned. The Catechism says that even a Hindu or Buddhist could be saved, but because I have left the RCC, I would be damned, even though I still worship Jesus and do my best to follow Him. Even though I could see that this didn't make sense on an intellectual level, it was hard to make sense of on a heart level. Hearing someone else point out the inconsistencies in these teachings is helpful.
Read through the Counsil of Trent on Justification and a Catholic Bible. Read it like 2x so that it will be clear to you.
@@Gailean26
I've read the Council of Trent and Catholic translations of the Bible, as well as the CCC. This was something I agonized over within the RCC for years. RCC teaching on justification doesn't align with what the Bible teaches.
There are different versions of Roman theology - from the 'hopeful universalism' of "bishop Barron' and the 'narrow way' of one of the conservative professors at Sacred Heart Seminary which trains American Romanist "priests."
I don't think that Rome *is* the "one true Church founded by Christ" so their condemnations don't apply to me. Of course this is very different from the views and practices of the Counter Reformation Romanists, who rejoiced to see the 'heretics' executed and persecuted. Throughout Germany, Italy, France, England, Ireland, the thousands of Protestant martyrs bear witness. It is not necessary for salvation to submit to the "bishop of Rome." The Lord Jesus Christ, the only Head of the Church, is the only Name given among men by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12). If you study early Baptist history in the 1600s, who considered themselves Protestants, who considered themselves part of the one true Catholic (universal) church. Remember that not everyone followed Rome before Luther - Lollards, Hussites of Waldenses, plus the Russians, Greeks, Egyptians, Persians, Ethiopians, etc. Americans Romanists will often say things like everybody was Roman Catholic before Luther' which is obviously false. The Scriptures always have been the Word of God and always have brought sinners to faith in Jesus. The scriptures were read in the Latin West and Greek Eas
@@movingamountain I would also add to the point that Luther and Calvin both considered the Papacy the Antichrist spoken of in prophecy. Confessional Reformed and Lutherans still hold to this. The early British Reformation held to this too, for example Cramner held the Papacy was Antichrist. The Pope claims to be the Head of the Church, but Scripture says that Christ is the Head of the Church and never teached that the bishop of Rome is the Head of the Church, even though Scripture is ABLE to make one wise for salvation which is through faith in Jesus Christ (2 Timothy chapter2) and Scripture equips the man of God for EVERY good work, including teaching and rebuking.
You sound a little like myself more then 10 years ago. I encourage you Read the New Testament, esp the Epistles and Gospels and Acts. Repent of sin. Trust in Jesus for salvation. Get around good Christian brothers. Stay away from false teachers that deny the Trinity or claim false miracles or special knowledge that isn't in Scripture.
If you don't have a copy of 'Roman Catholic Controversy' by James White, it covers the most common arguments that Romanist apologists use, from the debates White did with various Romanists. Realize that Rome wasn't built in a day and Romanism developed slowly over centuries. Realize there is disagreement within Rome over theology - inerrancy vs limited Inerrancy Predestination - Molinis. Vs thomism, young earth vs theistic evolution, global flood vs local flood, literal Adam and Eve or not, hopeful universalism vs narrow road, the status of 3rd Esdras, Moses as author of Exodus or not, Paul as author of his epistles or not, whether the death penalty is absolutely morally wrong in every sense, etc. Rome disagrees amongst themselves over Salvation, Scripture, and Creation. And you may already be familiar with differences in practices - charismatic, Latin Mass, the Catholic Left (pacifism), etc. And of course the debates within Rome over homosexuality (the German Synod). Just something to remember when you see Protestants disagreeing on something.
On TH-cam, the defense of the Ausburg Confession' by Melancthon is free to listen to, and he makes some good points that are helpful.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 I've now come to similar conclusions. I'm almost finished reading a book called Romanism and the Reformation that lays it out extremely well. It's a great read, but it also sounds like you know your stuff. Reading the Bible is the most important part. That is definitely the reason I've been able to resist Rome under the heavy psychological pressure they put on people over any other reason. When you know the Word, you can spot the counterfeits. Maranatha brother!
This was so good. As someone who is wrestling with a lot of the claims made by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, this is extremely helpful. It's something I've said before and had slipped my mind as I've been getting deeper and deeper into Church history and all that. God does do miracles in all denominations.
@Marygladis Chidozie Instead of resting and trusting in God, Martin Luther allowed his fear and feeling of unworthiness to entice his ego. The sower of doubt is temper, who even tempted our Lord Jesus in the desert not to mention his unfortunate relationship with his biological father. It seems pretty clear that Luther’s relationship with his father influenced his relationship with God, ultimately exposing his ego through his sense of unworthiness, in the waning years of his priesthood. His personal division has been the source of further division in the church.
Hey Elizabeth what is your current state?
Elizabeth Rene two great reads:
1.) Have you read Trent Horns book?
th-cam.com/video/rSV0C8UR1Hg/w-d-xo.html
2.) Patrick Madrid also have a book called
Why Be Catholic?
@@australopithecusafarensis8927 Interesting. The scars of his youth definitely shaped Luther’s Life. He couldn’t silence the doubt within him, to rest in the Lord’s goodness.
@Marygladis Chidozie and being rooted in the Bible makes you Protestant.
Gavin, I believe your channel is well named. That is what I think. Thank you for the work you do.
You were a big help in my figuring out wich church (institution) is the "true church".
My faith was renewed recently after being "smacked by the holy spirit".
I had a longing for returning to church after those smackdowns but I was lost between all those "we, insert some institution here, are the one true church" statements.
"Which to choose !?"
"Why is God only in one of them !?"
I realised, with your help and by reading the bible, that the church as nothing to do with institutions.
Like you said, it's much bigger then what we can understand.
I ended up choosing by the fruits and that had everyting to do with the people in the church, not with the name written on the panel outside the building.
Thank you !
so glad to hear I could be of help! God bless you.
I agree with you generally, I don't know if I'd say the Church has "nothing to do with institutions"...
The Reformers were at pains to stress the 'true marks' of the Visible Church, which primarily revolved around 1) purity of teaching (succession of doctrine), and 2) continuity of sacraments and ministry (succession of office). If we emphasize either but especially the latter, than the Church as instituted body existing in and through time actually becomes very important: the sacraments ground faith and spirituality to concrete event and sacred space (this is most stressed in Lutheranism/Anglicanism where sacraments are actually seen as means of salvation).
Now, that isn't to say that that means they thought one particular body was necessarily bound up with the identity of 'The True Church', (such as Rome or the East), but the true Church -- wherever she is -- will necessarily be and participate in certain visible signs and teaching: the creeds, the scriptures, sacraments, ministry, etc.
@@sebastienberger1112 Glad to hear!
Thank you Pastor Gavin for refuting the lie of “being deep in history is to cease being Protestant.” Thank you, for being a living example, that this statement is simply not true.
How do you know it's not true?
@@crobeastness Because it has been proven not to be true!
@@raphaelfeneje486 proven how? If that were true, there wouldn't be new conversions of Catholics every day, like myself 3 years ago.
@@crobeastness You're using a false equivocation here. It's the same as saying since Islam is fastest growing religion, it means Islam is true! That's the most illogical statement I've heard and you just stated it like a Muslim.
People are converting to Jehovah witness, Mormonism, etc everyday. Doesn't automatically makes their ideology true! Everyone isn't forced to believe, however, their belief is independent on the reliability of that ideology, same goes for the ideology. You can convert to Catholicism, but it doesn't change the fact that the early church history never taught what is being taught in your church. You can be emotional about it, or decide to make research for yourself. That's up to you!
@@raphaelfeneje486 your analysis of what I said is incorrect. You initially said that Catholicism has been "proven" to be incorrect. I replied by saying that if that were true there wouldn't be new converts every day. Catholicism could be false, but it is not "proven" to be so. Imagine if there were new flat earth converts every day. The reason that's a very niche belief is because that has ACTUALLY been proven to be false.
Mormonism and Jahovas witness has also not been proven to be false. There is substantial evidence against those religions but again, we are using the word "proven" here.
Explain to me how the early Church, the Catholic Church, the east Orthodox churches, AND the Coptic churches all believe in the real presence of the eucharist but most protestants don't? Please explain to me how the Catholic Church has been "proven" false. The real presence is just one example of how it's not, not the only example.
Great video, mirrors my thoughts almost perfectly! The kind of petty legalism "you aren't the true church", "if you dont kiss icons, anathema!", "you're going to hell if you don't submit to the pope" is totally opposite to the spirit of Christ, who preached against legalism and petty division. Putting up barriers and causing division because of earthly desires to be in the 'true church tm' is just the kind of sectarian legalism that Jesus criticised in his contemporaries. Theres not enough appreciation that all those who strive for Christ are brothers, regardless of which earthly structures they come under.
I agree in a general sense but then what do you make of people like Jehovah witnesses or Mormons? Surely a line has to be drawn somewhere as to what constitutes Christianity and what doesn’t?
This truly highlights how ignorant you are of Scripture and the Church.
Can you provide a source for your claim that failing to kiss icons is an anathema?
On the other hand, you are probably correct about going to hell if you don’t submit to the Pope. Jesus made it very clear that He is the Good Shepherd, then he goes and makes Peter a Shepherd. Jesus makes it clear that he can forgive sins, then he gives that authority to the Apostles. Jesus makes it clear that he has authority to change rules, laws and customs, then he gives the Apostles the authority to bind and loose. Jesus is the cornerstone, but then makes Simon a “Rock”.
Jesus did preach against traditions of men that contradict the laws of God. But the Church is not a tradition of men, and does not bind believers to traditions of men, only to Truth revealed by God. You see, Jesus didn’t soften the laws of God, he made it much more strict. He was teaching us that it is not enough to do this thing or that thing, instead we must completely transform our hearts so that we conform to Him and do those things out of love instead of out of knowledge.
Additionally, the part people seem to miss is that Jesus is the Church his body is mysteriously (Sacramentally) the Church. If you reject the Church Jesus established, you are therefore rejecting Jesus.
My struggle is in thinking that my particular “flavor” of Protestantism is the correct one. I don’t want to be unnecessarily rigid, but I also don’t want to be so minimalistic that I am wish washy. I’m in my third semester of seminary so I’m probably in a “crisis of belief” stage where I’m trying to nail down the non-negotiables and have well-thought-out opinions about peripherals. Kinda makes my head hurt, but it’s all so worth it.
God gives so much grace as to how and where we serve him. It makes my head spin to try and figure out which doctrines are most correct. I think it largely depends on our comfort zone and what is available to us. Those born into Orthodoxy are only going to know that. Those born into a branch of protestantism are only going to know that. Having Jesus as savior and Lord, repenting of our sins and seeking to be renewed into living a life for God are what we are called to do as Christians.
Everyone thinks their particular religious sect has the “correct” flavor. It’s maddening trying to figure out the truth.
I wonder how the earliest Christians mounted these hurdles. Have you studied the apostolic fathers yet in seminary to see?
Amen brother I’m very glad to have found your channel. In perfect timing also. You’re standing boldly for TRUTH.
Welcome aboard!
Born and raised Catholic and I loved this
thank you Gavin - how charitable, wise and sensible Bless you
You are indeed a blessing for protestants!!!
I want to like this 10 times! Saving, taking notes, sharing. Thank you.
Yeah, that discussion/debate you did w/ "According to John" was what shook the magic appeal of EO from me.
Glad it was helpful!
Thanks Gavin. Agreed. An anecdote which I hope some find helpful as relating to some of your points:
Thirty years ago I was working as a missionary doctor in southern Pakistan. Our hospital was under the auspices of the Church of Pakistan. ( Union of Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian.) By conviction I'm a Baptist. Immediately adjacent to our hospital was a Catholic mission. We got on well and , to avoid duplication and confusion, concentrated our evangelism in different tribes. ( Unusually for Pakistan we were in an area of predominantly Hindu/ animist tribal people.) Our area was materially extremely poor.
One day Father Joe - a delightful Irish Catholic priest - brought along a young woman to see me. She had horrible lung disease ( emphysema) which was, in my view, terminal. I did what I could with our meagre facilities and prayed for her, as Joe had already done. She got no better and left. I was sure she would die.
Months later I met Joe. He told me that the woman had come back to see him in perfect health. She had spent the last of her substance paying a local 'magician' to perform some rituals for her after which her lungs got better. She now told Joe that she wanted to become a Christian.
'Hang on,' said Joe. ' I prayed for you and you didn't get better. I took you to the Christian hospital. The Christian doctor treated you and prayed for you and you didn't get better. You went to the magician and are now cured. So why do you want to become a Christian?'
Answer: 'You were kind to me '
Praise God.
Oh, Lord! This made me cry.
Gavin - thank you for this. In a day and age of countless doctrines and explanations and opinions and information coming from all directions, your voice cut through in a moment I needed it. God bless
glad to hear that! God bless.
As a Catholic, I would like to commened you on your well thought out videos and in the Charity on which you speak on other Christians. Current Catholic teaching is that there is one true Church, but many folds who are not in perfect communion. The catechism refers to Protestants as our Christian brother's and Sister's who are in imperfect communion with us. I'm sure you would agree that any Christian of a different denomination is in "imperfect" communion with eachother, but in communion nonetheless.
We have come a long way as Christians and small c catholics that the RCC has revamped its position this way. Now for more of the protestant side to understand that Catholics and Orthodox are as much a part of the church as we all are. There's been much historical arrogance and vying for one upmanship on both sides. Gavin is certainly doing his part and leading the way to change the protestant mind. Then there little sheep on the ground like myself who work on this in our daily lives as well.
Thank you for this video. I've had partially formed peices of this argument floatimg around in my thoughts lately, as a protestant who loves liturgy and loves all the richness of church history, but yet still sees real issues with the Catholic claims. I believe that you've hit on an essential truth here.
Liturgical protestant? What denomination?
@@Mygoalwogel I go to an Anglican church. Grew up Congregational. All of us - low church protestant, high church protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Assyrian - all of us are brothers and sisters in Christ.
Excellent video in my humble opinion. It was helpful for me because as a Lutheran, i have been recently considering Marian dogmas and almost felt that i would become Roman Catholic. Thank you so much for your videos. I have been binging on them and this video here was very helpful for me. I also want to be a renewing force as a Protestant for the one true visible church as you suggest. God bless you brother.
I'm on a journey back to faith after years in the wilderness. Was in a Charismatic non denomination church before this. Have been exploring EOC and RC as sime pisitive theology and practices attracted me but then discovered a lot of troubling things too, and was getting very dispirited and confused at times. Then I came across your channel. Has given me clarity and confirmed and answered some of my own concerns too. Your in depth, fair and balanced explanations and explorations are helping me a lot. I am in the UK and have been thinking about attending an Anglican church as that is where my heritage and my early childhood experiences of Christianity were formed. I think this could be the "home" I need (despite all its faults and current difficulties) and its been here all the time. Thank you for giving me confidence in the protestant way and my indebtedness to it. 😊
Struggled with this issue of exclusivity for a long time. It had an existential element to it. I questioned my salvation over it and accused myself of resisting the Spirit over it. But it came down to this: how can I, a frail, broken human judge which of these traditions who all claim to be the only true church, how can I judge between them? I wasn't at the councils, I couldn't observe over the eons of time the flow of the church. I can't look into the hearts of the various actors to see motives. How can I judge between them? I felt like a child between divorced parents. In the end, since I find it impossible to judge between them, their claims cancel each other out. RC, and EOC believers love the Virgin born, crucified, risen Christ. They are my brethren. But I embrace the whole church. The Anglican Church is my home. But it is only one of the many parts of the body of Christ. LOVED this video. Thank you Gavin.
But you still are judging the and deciding on what you believe the Church is. This is what I don’t get, many Protestants seem to think that being neutral, vague, and inclusive on what they define the Church as and what are the Doctrinal and ecclesial boundaries of the Church. Is somehow an abstaining from making a determination on the question at hand. This is not the case as your comment has shown, you have looked at everything as you said and come to the conclusion that certain christian traditions of Christianity are one of many parts of the Body of Christ. This is positive affirmation of you and Dr. Ortlund’s view. And you are making a determination on the evidence. This is not a neutral stance. Which is fine. But let’s not pretend that it is.
@@pochomano We have to be able to think and make decisions as Christians. Yes, those can be judgments. "Judge righteous judgement".
I understand completely what you are saying. I have been in same situation. I find many good things about Orthodoxy. And I can say that many Orthodox Christians are my brothers and sisters because we both worship the one true King. But I had the same internal struggle and was considering converting to Orthodoxy. My Orthodox friends want me to accept all of the nuances within the tradition or else I am excluded from the "true" church. So I had to choose Jesus without being bound by the traditions of men. Stay with Him!
@@pochomano I don't believe I was trying to be neutral. I was expressing that being faced with two monolithic institutions, both making the same claim as to being the One, True Church, they both can't be right. Please believe me when I say I agonized over the issue. It got to the painful point of immobilizing me. When I used the word "judge" I was meaning it was impossible to choose. I decided (judged) that I'll let those two monolithic institutions battle that one out. It involves knowledge that is beyond me. I'm a simple layman. But I recognize that members of those churches love Jesus Christ, whom I also love. Therefore I count them as brethren in Christ. I don't think that is being "vague." Besides, if I were to convert to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, I wouldn't have to be re-baptized. If my trinitarian baptism is accepted, what was I baptized into? We are baptized into Christ. (Gal 3:27) How wonderful! You were baptized into Christ! I was baptized into Christ! We are both in the One Christ. How could we not be brethren? Therefore I think Dr. Ortlund expressed well the Protestant view of the Church, that all believers are one in Christ, regardless of institutional affiliation. Besides, "The Lord knows those who are his." (2 Tim 2:19) After roughly 30 years of struggle over the issue, I am at joyful peace, and I'll say it again: I love the whole body of Christ. And Dr. Ortlund's videos have been a huge help to get me to this place. I pray brother, that you never have the same painful struggle I had! Blessings to you.
@@dreamsideout7831 I truly get where your coming from but you are still bounding yourself to a tradition. Whether it be by the Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, one of the Protestant Traditions, or even your own understanding of scripture and Church history it is a tradition because the scriptures we have are part of a tradition and concepts like sola Scriptura are part of a tradition. God reveals things through men by the Power of the Holy Spirit, which we all believe. The question is which is the tradition that has been passed down by Christ to the Apostles and then to the Church and how did that tradition operate.
Because if it just comes down to saying I trust in Christ, and that is all. Well what do you say to Mormons and Jehovah witness believe and trust In Christ, they just have a different interpretation and tradition as to who exactly Christ is and so on.
This is my problem with Anyone who finds fault with exclusivist claims. They do not realize that they’re rejection of another exclusivity claim and being more inclusive is an exclusive claim, and it also created chaos and subjectivity on the matter.
And I find it intellectually dishonest when many Protestants act as if they agree on even primary doctrinal issues, and the fact that each tradition and individual (in evangelical churches) seems to have their own view of what is and isn’t a primary doctrine.
Ask yourself why the Historic mainline Protestant Church’s are dying and most Are either Turing to evangelical(non-denominationalism) which is just more denominations by different names, or Lone wolf Christianity( the Relationship/spirituality over religion crowd)?
While many like Dr. Ortlund has a very well balanced approach to Church History and Tradition. It is his very Tradition that has paved the way for these sorts of christian sects that fully detach from the early church under the doctrine of sola scriptura.
And while Gavin and many historically minded Protestants hold to the more traditional view of Sola scriptura the fact remains that not all Protestants hold to the historical view of Protestantism on that doctrine. And the doctrine itself has nothing built into it that restricts evangelical and more individually minded sects and individuals from rejecting all tradition. Even at their own detriment, which is what most identifying Christians in the US does as evangelical Christianity and lone wolf Christianity is the pre-dominant view of Christianity in the US.
The critique I’m making is Dr. Ortlunds view and argument that leaving Protestantism is somehow a safe bet.
The problem with this view is it presupposes a certain tradition as to soteriology as well as ecclesiology.
This is my issue with it. While Dr. Ortlund himself is an intelligent and kind man that has a lot of knowledge. The basis For the world view of Protestantism is founded upon Sola Scriptura which is the pre-cursor for individual interpretation of scripture, evangelicalism, and lone wolf Christianity which is definitely detached and removed from the majority of Christianity.
Here's my view, I came from a Greek Orthodox Church, got saved outside it, and attended a Non Denominational Church (AGC) for 22 years. I have come to grow and understand that people who attended the Catholic or Orthodox can be saved ( though may be more difficult )even though I don't agree with all their doctrine.
Why would it be more difficult for them to be saved?
Why would it be more difficult? Expound
@saintejeannedarc9460 as someone very knowledgeable with EO, there is more focus on icon veneration and going through their "sacraments" (aka pagan rituals) than actually forming a relationship with God. The bible is emphasized but only as an other instrument of the church. The holy spirit is synonymous with the church and so having the holy spirit isnt really a relationship (though some EO deceitfuly use that term) and more about just doing the sacraments and the other man-made church things
It's not what the church believes but what the individual believes that counts for that individual. I assure you there are plenty of catholics who don't believe in venerating Mary and saints etc but still go to that church. Nobody checks you out to see what you believe.
I knew a man from Romania who had been working in the US for a while. I was an E.O. at the time. He had a spiritual father who was a monk in Romainia and with whom he was in frequent contact. This man told me a story about a Romanian Orthodox, living in Romania; he was a drunkard and cared nothing for God. One day this man went to a Baptist Church and was saved; he stopped drinking, read the Bible with joy, and glorified God. The monk told my friend that the convert to the Baptist church was damned and that he should have remained a drunkard in the Orthodox Church. American Orthodox have the watered-down version of the faith and would be scandalized to know what the real deal is.
That’s what I wish Protestants would bring up in these debates. That the Spirit is clearly at work amongst Protestant churches. And they are things that happen that funny enough happened in the early church in the book of acts
Thank you for this, I’ve always feared making the claim that certain miracles that happen outside my circles aren’t true but now I’m convinced that indeed that was the Holy Spirit at work. You just showed something I’ve been battling for 3 years. Pastor, God bless you, you are truly a blessing. And the passage where Christ says that if someone is not against us but is for us, always came to mind and you just confirmed that it means what it says and it says what it means.
Me and my whole family, some are still Catholic, came out of Catholicism, my main reason is that I came to be saved through reading the Bible in a desperate hard time, the Holy Spirit guiding me. The power of God's word. Nothing to do with the Catholic church. My Catholic friends and most i personally know are not saved. They frankly are worldly people and know hardly anything about the Bible. So God made himself real to me. The scriptures became alive in my life. Christ freed me from my afflictions and healed me heart. Reading the truth of the Bible set me free. When I hear about Catholicism, it's just repugnant to me. It's so far off from the truth of the Bible in things added, it's just foreign to me. So my main reason is Christ Jesus and His word that I'm not Catholic, nobody needs it to be saved or to be accepted by Christ. It just creates hoops for people or imo can become a actual a stumbling block for people.
Your work is really helpful, dr. Ortlund! Greetings from Brazil!
Glad to hear that! So happy you found it useful!
God can provide salvation to those who are righteous without religion"
This is the gold standard example i use when i ask people if they need a religion to enter heaven.
For example : a woman on some far away polynesian island, with NO RELIGION, who was widowed young and raised her 3 children alone lived with the highest moral standards. When she dies, will she enter heaven ??
If a simple person like me has enough compassion to say let her in ; will the God of the universe then have less compassion than me, or more compassion than me?
People need to be holy. Abraham and Noah had no religion but they walked with God.
Catholic priest says moral atheist can go to heaven. Salvation is a function of holiness not religion
th-cam.com/video/pFpt84Ov1p4/w-d-xo.html
"Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him stand (Rom 14:4)."
We may be bound to Gods laws as believers, but God is not bound to them. I recall a good homily a few years ago where the Priest had posed the rhetorical question, "How does the Holy Spirit work?" He then answered the question stating, "Any way he wants to."
Catholics on the other hand have a very high rank in the army of God. They are Eucharistic instruments of reparation. They are to consume the Eucharist in a state of grace for all the people in the world with no access to the eucharist ( read atheists, etc etc) .Failure of adequate preparation/confession before to consuming the eucharist means you are eating your own condemnation. You are dragging Christ thru the latrine of satan. We are to be CLEAN vessels for christ.
How Trent Horn describes it is better than how Bishop Barron does. Imagine Salvation is crossing a mile wide river with raging rapids and it’s filled with crocodiles. The Catholic Church is a bridge across the river and we know many saints who have crossed that bridge. We don’t know if someone has ever swam across the river, but it is theoretically possible.
Wow, Dr. Ortlund, I've never seen you being so passionate in a Protestant-Catholic-Orthodox debate before! It's refreshing to see a more pointed video like this in this channel once in a while, not a lot of nuance, a strong point is made, but still historically grounded and (in a limited sense) still maintains irenicity.
Hopefully this video does not blow up bigger than your more irenic videos, I don't want you to devolve into one of those divisive discernment ministries due to audience demands. Hope you can maintain your irenic vision.
Love and support from Indonesia. God bless you and your ministries.
I noticed the same thing and not in a good way. I was a big admirer of Gavin .
This is a significant reason why I am now Protestant. I believe that Protestant ecclesiology is necessary in order to be catholic. I suspect that it is the catholicity of Protestantism, where a Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc can see in each other no less than themselves, a member of Christ's Body, is the reason why it is easy to lump them all together and say pointing, "Look, division!" The fact that Protestantism is so multiform and yet, we are able to see in each other a member of Christ's Church, is the uniquely Protestant emblem of catholicity which does not rest in uniformity, but can hope for convergence upon the truth hand-in-hand as brothers and sisters.
Well said. I live, work, and interact with Christian’s from multiple traditions and we treat each other like we are all in the church together. Only the Protestant tradition can have such unity among diversity. Many Protestants happily accept Roman Catholics and Orthodox as well. Kinda makes one think that division may not be coming from the Protestant side so much.
I don t think Babptists think of every other protestants as saved and Christians. Go watch Mc Arthur and you ll change you mind. Catholic don t see protestantd as not Christians, but the opposite happens most often. They are the most hated, criticized and lied on.
@@Joliebebe2001 Do baptists think of any non-baptists as true Christians, in the Church of Jesus Christ? Yes. Even John Macarthur.
Do Catholics think of any non-Catholics as in the Church of Jesus? No. Because only the Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus. Non-Catholic churches are not even considered truly part of the Catholic Church. Some Protestants may be considered as true Christians, but still outside the "Church"
For Baptists and other Protestants, there are atleast some outside their group who are part of the universal Church of Jesus.
Do you disagree with this assessment?
@@TheologiaEvangelica not true, Catholics cqll other Our Brothers and Sisters in Christ, the Church recognize that the Holy Spirit is working through them and they are part of the Body of Christ and also benefit from Salvation. You can search in the official teachings of the Church. The Church says they have fallen away from the True Church because they don t have access to all the Sacraments given by Christ to help with sanctification , they don t have the FULL TRUTH Of The GOSPEL and simetimes even hold false teachings, but the Catholics never reject their appartenance to Christ. Thx.
@@Joliebebe2001 exactly, they are considered outside of 'The Church of Jesus Christ.'
Protestants can consider others as part of the Church, because what defines the Church for us is that we are united in the same Christ, by one Holy Spirit, by which we each call God our One Father and have been adopted into the one family of God. The Church just is the family of God, and Catholic theology divides the Body of Christ on Earth because it says that some members are IN the Church (Catholics), and maybe some members are OUT the Church (Protestants, Orthodox etc).
As a Catholic, I'd like to clarify that Catholics do not believe that there is salvation outside of the Catholic Church, but we don't believe that means that everyone who isn't manifestly a member of the local Catholic parish is ipso facto going to hell. Let's consider:
1. Those who have been baptized into the Church, who belong to a particular Church which does not share communion with the Church of Rome. (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East)
From the Catholic perspective, these people are obviously members of the Church as they have been baptized, have the word preached to them, have the sacraments administered to them and are subject to a Bishop. The Roman Church doesn't view these as any less Catholic than the See of Constantinople views Russian Orthodox Christians.
2. Those who have been baptized into the Church, who do not belong to a particular Church but do belong to a community of other Christians. (Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, etc.)
From the Catholic perspective, these people are obviously members of the Church as they have been baptized and have the word preached to them. The Roman Church doesn't view these as any less Catholic than she would view a collection of baptized Catholics who live hundreds of miles from the nearest Church and so cannot attend Sunday Mass but who gather each week for prayer, fellowship and to read the word.
Great video Gavin. I always enjoy watching your videos because it helps put language to some of the thoughts I’ve had over the years, but never have been able to articulate. I also appreciate your gentleness as you approach your concerns with our brothers and sisters who are Catholic or Orthodox. Keep the conversation going.
thank you Joe.
I need to learn to be "irenic" like Gavin.
Thank you very much. I've been laboring over these very questions lately under much consternation, and this was a godsend. God bless.
“Just because there’s one true church doesn’t mean She has to be restricted within one set of institutional parameters”
Or more simply
“The Church is not restricted to one institution”.
Man God used this as I have been wrestling with the RCC’s claim of exclusivity. Thanks, Dr.
All of Scripture speaks of one church, singular. They are the oldest institution in the world. Let that sink in. They have survived bad popes, tyrants, dictators, heretics, and armies set on destroying them. The Catholic church marches forward. You cannot say that about ANY of the Protestant churches, either collectively or singular. Non-catholics love to sever "institution vs church" "invisible vs visible church" "justification vs sanctification" etc...just to attempt to rebut Catholicism. The Catholic Church is the one group among all who suffers thee greatest attacks. Ever wonder why all of this is the case? I think you already know: because Jesus is the founder and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her.
Wholeheartedly agree with everything you said. I am in a constant butting of heads with my husband. He doesn’t realize how intensely he looks down on Protestantism and holds the high horse to the Roman Catholic Church being the historical “true” church and he’s so on the defensive he hears nothing that is said in defense of my Protestant beliefs. But thank God The everydayfor his faith and I trust and I pray every day that the Lord will open his eyes to see Hospice truths and to me if I have missed something. Thank you so very much for articulating what I know in my heart and mind 💕🙏 praise the Lord.
You've answered many questions just in one video!.Thank you very much !
"...it is not as Romanists, Greeks, Armenians, Abassines, Jacobines, Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminians, &c., that men are saved, but as Catholic Christians, aspiring to the highest perfection. - Richard Baxter,Christian Unity, p.80 (Lexham Press)
This basic concept has been something that has been huge in my spiritual journey. It was the very issue I once took in debating some Apostolics who were saying that anybody who doesn't speak in tongues doesn't have the Holy Spirit. I argued that turning from sin is a greater sign than speaking what could be gibberish acting like divine speech. Yet even in my debate with them, I recognized a genuine love for God and belief in Jesus.
From growing up in a house that taught Catholicism was demonic, to having a Catholic aunt with whom I feel the same Spirit of God as those Apostolics, -I have come to believe that dogmatism doesn't teach good doctrine. God works across the board, -in Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Messianic, African Christianity, Asian Christianity, Aramaic Christianity, and every other sect. The Kingdom of God is one of every tribe, nation, people, and tongue; should it be dominated by European tradition?
That's why I've always been non-denominational. That seems to take a lot of hits these days, but I've always seen the church body as scattered through out the denominations. I almost never see pastors or priests teach on the scriptures about the body of Christ, and not to say that an ear is less comely or needful, unless it's to teach that's just a congregation. They definitely don't ever talk about the scriptures that talk about differences of observing a Holy day, or not observing a day, eating meat offered to idols, etc as done sincerely unto the Lord. I sadly never see teaching on that. It's ignored while the constant infighting goes on, but I always really, really took them to heart. God had to deal w/ me eventually that that applied to Catholics as well.
"Any reasonable, generous hearted person, who travels, reads, or gets to know people, will just recognise that Christ is at work outside of just one institution in such a way that manifestly evidences His Church in word and sacrement." -Gavin Ortlund
I just dont agree with this completely. there are so many wolves in sheep's clothing in the evangelical church that its hard to believe God is doing anything there at all. I think God is mostly absent on a Sunday at an evie church
@@maxonmendel5757 I think that could be true, but I also don’t think that refutes the statement if it is.
@@maxonmendel5757evangelicals would say the same thing about catholics. If there’s one blanket statement I can make about Christians, it’s that most of us are incredibly close minded.
@@countryboyred sure. maybe I was close minded a year ago. let me restate it a little....
since many evangelical churches don't have the covering of the magisterium to protect their doctrine (such as the nicene creed), many evangelical teachers and very many innocent evangelical believers are liable to fall into heresy or personality cults.
compare Montanism with NAR or Stone-Cambellite churches.
because so many reject the doctrine of apostolic succession, they find themselves re-inventing something the Catholic church has already mastered, which global presence and global unity.
and sorry for offending anybody. no need to accuse me of the unforgivable sin and condemn me to hell without any chance of retribution.
@@maxonmendel5757 thanks for your kind response. I agree with much of what you say. What is your opinion on other churches that affirm apostolic succession, such as the Orthodox?
"Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness. Know ye therefore that those who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham" (Galatians 3:6-7). Seems like we are united to the one true churh by faith, not by belonging to one institution. God Bless you Gavin😉
This was very helpful, brother. God bless all your effort for His Kingdom. Keep it coming. Hugs in Christ. (Presby here)
Great video man, you and Mike winger have become my favorite guys to watch.
Glad you enjoyed!
So good!!! Thank you Gavin 🙏
Just yesterday a nominal catholic aquaintance told me that we protestants are "blaspheming" by saying "God" so often... 😳... I just listened in horror trying to understand his position, thinking of how the Pharasees acused Jesus of blasphemy, because their hearts were hardened.
Proof Eucharist is body of Jesus Christ and Virgin Mary is his mother.
48I am the bread of life.
49Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;z
50this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”a
52The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?”
53Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b
58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
Eucharistic miracle..
th-cam.com/video/soCkftBBsBo/w-d-xo.html (medical reports-living heart tissue, blood type AB)
th-cam.com/video/oogJ-cdi7yI/w-d-xo.html (Rome Reports)
th-cam.com/video/whbzLYi7cyc/w-d-xo.html (Lanciano)
th-cam.com/video/6PJ8BORx1p8/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/bd16tBRbLXw/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/PvxTDAVypxs/w-d-xo.html (levitating eucharist)
Incorruptible bodies of saints due to the Eucharist - only happens in the Catholic church. No other religion has this miracle
th-cam.com/video/GSCk0qs-2-M/w-d-xo.html (Padre Pio)
th-cam.com/video/40UZLnIdplo/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/jN4SvtRje2I/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/-TrR1CEWdbc/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/XCDBekAQ-FI/w-d-xo.html (Carlo Acutis)
th-cam.com/video/33vlkJh2iJc/w-d-xo.html
Apparition of Virgin Mary
th-cam.com/video/GQnKS7YUE7Q/w-d-xo.html (Virgin Mary apparition in Ivory Coast)
th-cam.com/video/0PPGuMmn6TQ/w-d-xo.html (Virgin Mary statue moving)
th-cam.com/video/tVU8bhbQInw/w-d-xo.html (Virgin Mary apparition in Egypt)
th-cam.com/video/nMEWxRB-1dc/w-d-xo.html 1968 Egypt
th-cam.com/video/8YR6INkTK7Q/w-d-xo.html (Miracle of the sun)
th-cam.com/video/yF0_ysUivxE/w-d-xo.html (Miracle of the sun)
th-cam.com/video/76qAMB3qUpA/w-d-xo.html Medjugorje Sun miracle on Easter Sunday
th-cam.com/video/RyYNIulxIbc/w-d-xo.html Virgin Mary appears in Egypt & Spain-Eye Witnesses
@@Raverraver9999 Copy pasting such robotic replies isn't helpful to most people.
That particular Catholic sounds a bit loopy. I doubt that would be a normal Catholic claim. I'm pretty stunned on their emphasis on works, to the point where Jesus' atonement isn't enough, and most will have to do hard and painful time in purgatory.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Hello. That doesn’t sound like Catholic teaching. What is your understanding of the Catholic model of salvation? What do Catholics see as “works”?
@@PatrickSteil Hi Patrick. I've been watching Catholic channels and interacting in comments and it seems solid to me that infant baptism only removes origin sin, but then you need grace doled out through the church byway of sacraments. Even so, if you commit sin before your next confession, then that sin is on you if you die and you have to burn it off in purgatory. I see Catholics argue against the scripture (which is one of the bulwarks of the reformation): 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. Of course we understand that a regenerated life will show good works as well, but not that those works earn us grace or salvation.
I'm always so excited for your posts addressing protestantism/catholicism/EO... I just read you are a continuist. I'd love to hear some of your stories and experiences that have you in that camp!
I’m sure you’re right in saying that a lot of people won’t like what you said but I’m not one of them. I couldn’t agree more with what you said. I admit that I have seriously considered becoming Orthodox or Catholic at different times. There is much that I admire about both and I definitely consider them part of the family of Christ. But when it comes right down to it, I see God moving among His people from many denominations. I myself am a non-denominational Pentecostal. When I see how God works through my pastor and others and how lives are being transformed in my own church, and even after seeking God for direction, I just can’t see myself leaving to join one of the “True” churches. I’m so glad that you said you believe in a physical church but that it’s not restricted to one particular institution. That’s how I see it as well. As Protestants we are often accused of believing in the “invisible” church. I think the early church was right in clearly defining true Christian doctrine when heresies arose but somewhere along the way it seems to have turned into straining out gnats while swallowing camels! I’ve said enough. Just wanted express appreciation for you sharing this.
I'd be the same stripe of non-denominational. Can't say I've ever considered becoming Orthodox, it seems like a very cold traditional and the most egotistically bound to claim exclusivity. I know RCC claims to be the true and original church as well, but they've opened up far more to considering us as brethren, just not "w/ the full truth", like they claim to have. I did briefly consider becoming Catholic, was willing to wipe the slate clean on what I thought I knew and just learn. Unfortunately, the more I did learn over months of listening to them and reading directly, some doctrines are worse than I ever thought. No one fully understands the bible and doctrines, mistakes are rife, and yet the bible itself makes allowance for our fallibility in key scriptures.
New Sub and have really enjoyed your take on church history
I'm not Catholic. I'm also not a "protestant". I'm not protesting anything. I am simply a Christian, a member of the holy catholic church, the body of all believers. I agree with you that there are "many institutional expressions" of the church. I like how you put that.
thanks for commenting; just curious, do you attend a local church, and if so, what kind is it?
Howdy Dr. Ortlund,
I really appreciate your honesty and kindness in all your videos. I recently converted to Catholicism, and you were one of the only Protestants I felt I could trust to give a truthful, interactive criticism of Catholicism, mainly because you were open to civil dialogue with Catholics. I'm not super super educated on the history of the Faith, most of my reasonings for converting came from arguments from Scripture, but I would say that because the Catholic Church has this intrinsic hierarchy, we must pay attention to what that is saying in regards to final doctrinal statements, not what various saints say. I know you know all of this, but I just think we can get caught up in what saints say, and go "Ope, contradicts what the Church in the future said!" and it's just not so. Also, couldn't someone use your arguement and apply it to all religions and just say, "Well, there are some Buddhists or Hindus or Muslims who have the implicit desire for Christ and they've got some stuff right and they do really good works (or however you'd like to say it), and they're probably saved, so you really don't even need to be a Christian"? It seems like the problem at hand isn't that some people can be saved or members of the Church without being visibly, explicitly a part of it; the problem, for me, was 'What is the fullness of the Faith?' and I think I'd tell you it's Catholicism, just like I'd tell the Buddhist or Hindu. In regards to your statements about the Eucharist, I think that their could be some graces attached to what Prostestants do during communion, though I'm not sure what the Church officially teaches about that. It seems reasonable to say that anytime someone is making some sort of memorial to Christ's crucifixion, they could be making a sort of spiritual communion, even if it's not the full, valid, sacramental Eucharist under a Catholic priest. But that's just my personal opinion. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but I will say I watched this video a week before making a comment. Thank you very much for all that you do. If anybody wants to chime in here, I'd love that. Pray for me, as I pray for you!
I would watch several times all of Gavin's videos on all the topics concerning Catholicism to be fully persuaded one way or another
Let me know how you thing about this video: th-cam.com/video/jdlczbO5Csc/w-d-xo.html
That is interesting that your converting came from arguments from scripture. That is usually more why Christians leave the Catholic faith. The usual reasons why Christians go to has always been looking into church fathers, history and believing that the traditions are true. The scriptural basis for Catholicism is usually the weakest link. It would be great if you would explain that more.
This was excellent. Thank you for saying this.
Already in the 4th C. John Chrysostom wrote that the virginity of heretics is fornication and the martyrdom of heretics is suicide. Very harsh, indeed. How did it go from Jesus's saying 'Forbid him not' (who follows not with us but casts out demons in my name) and 'the Spirit bloweth where it listeth' and many other things from Scripture to such exclusivity?! Thank you, Gavin, for all your very well-researched studies and discussions on this.
Excellent message. Mark 9:38 always comes into my mind when I'm tempted to judge a particular denomination or preacher.
Fan of Gavin Ortland and how thoughtful, and respectful he is when it comes to these kinds of discussions. However I do have a few problems with this video/Gavin's logical flow:
1. I would like to say Catholics right now probably have more inclusivity than any other denomination and has been discounted in the video. Catholics actually recognise baptism from any denomination as being baptised into Christ's Church (although partially in communion). That is why when a baptised Baptist, , Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist etc converts to the Catholic Church, they don't need to baptise them again if they are baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Contrary to this if a methodist were to convert to be Baptist, many need to be rebaptised. I feel this means Protestant churces don't truly believe that they ALL are the One True Church.
2. There was no definition of some terms. Like for example, "Valid Eucharist". What is a valid Eucharist? Is it just taking bread as a symbol of your communion with the Church? Or Is it the real presence of Jesus' flesh in the form of bread. Jumping the gun and saying something like "Orthodox/Catholic are too exclusive to say others don't have Valid Eucharist" is not a matter of exclusivity. its a matter of truth because if valid eucharist is the true presence of Christ's flesh, then even many protestants would say it isn't a valid eucharist because they don't even believe in it.
3. Definition of "One True Church". I think it would benefit everyone if we are to examine what is the criteria for determining what makes a church ONE, and TRUE. I don't see how someone can say all protestant churches are a part of the One True Church, because you can't exchange Unity for Truth. If Calvinists believe in eternal security contrary to Armenians, and Lutherans say Baptism actively saves vs Baptists who oppose etc. on issues concerning salvation, how are they all ONE? and how are they BOTH TRUE if they contradict one another? Having sola scriptura as an authority structure encourages churches to not be one anymore when interpretations oppose one another. Whats the point of an Infallible Book with a Fallible interpreter? You can end up getting fallible teaching that contradict one another. Rather I believe when Jesus established His Church it makes sense to provide an Infallible Book with an Infallible interpreter so that they remain One AND true.
4. Unum Sanctam is commonly taken out of context and misinterpretted. Firstly, it was written at a time when Protestants don't exist so its not addressing protestants in particular. Unam Sanctam is written in such a way that it was attempting to achieve a particular purpose, which was to discourage King Phillip from trying to dominate and take over the Church. It also is misinterpreted in the following way: It is true that outside the Church there is no salvation, and one must be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved. Unum Sanctam is addressed to French Catholics at the time. Baptised Roman Catholics are FORMALLY in communion with this church and must be subject to the Roman Pontiff. If they think they are not, then they are not Catholic and hence excommunicated. (keep in mind excommunication isn't damnation. It is just being cut off. The Church doesn't have power to damn people to hell.) That's all Unum Sanctam is saying. However, we develop our understanding with the help of Aquinas and Vatican II that it is possible that Christians of other denominations (especially if baptised) can be saved since they are connected to the Catholic Church informally. One can have an informal connection to the Catholic Church, although they are not aware. Vatican II states: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation. Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life. . . . But very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the world rather than the Creator (cf. Rom. 1:21 and 25)" this extends out to non Christians too, someting called baptism of desire. Hence this is why Catholics believe you can be saved and have gifts of the Holy Spirit, especially when they have been baptised formally or by desire/blood. From this, I feel Catholicism is more universal.
I can't speak on behalf of Orthodox as I don't know much about their views on this but it does sound like they are more exclusive from your video.
I look forward to these kinds of dialogues and its good to have conversations about these issues in respectful and thoughtful means.
Thanks for the comments. A few replies:
1. I follow Charles Hodge's view in recognizing all Trinitarian baptisms. A Methodist becoming Baptist would not need to be rebaptized. My view is not uncommon.
2. Valid Eucharist is the Catholic terminology. It is true that the meaning of this phrase is disputed. But generally, on the Catholic view, in an invalid Eucharist real presence is not happening even among Protestants who affirm it (e.g., Lutherans).
3. On the "one" true: I reject the idea that you cannot have ONE church while there are disagreements within it. That is not even true for the Catholic Church. The church in Corinth, which was many factions, but was still one church. Or, as I mentioned, Israel and Judah. Schisms are bad but not every schism ruptures our underlying unity in the basic gospel message, and basic churchly identity.
4. Unam Sanctam was occasioned by the dispute with the French king, but not limited to that context. It uses universal language and earlier references the Eastern Orthodox. The general medieval Western view, without exception to my awareness till the 19th century, is that the Eastern Orthodox are damned. I do feel that this is at odds with the Vatican 2 way of thinking. There are ways of reconciling them but they are very labored, in my opinion. Thanks again for the thoughtful comments.
@@TruthUnites Thanks for your reply :) Big fan :D Will take your comments to thought! Just a few points:
1. I'm glad to hear that baptisms are recognised more frequently than I thought. However I don't think it can speak for all Protestant Churches especially when it comes to being baptised as an infant in another church. I'm curious now, do Catholics need to be rebaptised when they convert to become a Baptist?
2. With the Argument for valid Eucharist, Catholics do accept the Orthodox Eucharist as valid because the holy orders can be traced back in an unbroken chain to one of the apostles. For Lutherans there is a broken chain of succession. I guess with this Catholics have to draw the line somewhere? otherwise if there is no line, anyone can just claim they have the true prescence of Christ in their church, and with such a bold claim, it has to be safeguarded and can't be a free for all when it comes to something as heavy and consequential as the true presence of Christ. However this is all dependent on what we define as valid eucharist. IF this isn't the definition, then maybe talking about this is not really productive unless it is actually defined first haha
3. I guess the definition of ONE true church needs to be defined still. What makes a church one AND true? Jesus Christ is what makes the all Christians ONE as he is the Head of the church. united as one body, to the body of Christ. As The Catholic Church states, one has to be apart of the Church to be saved and this extends to all Christians since they are part of the ONE body. The fruits of all true Christians cannot be denied. They all have good fruit because they are in the body of Christ and Catholics believe this too. Jesus doesn't have many bodies, just the one body and I believe Catholics affirm this. However if we are looking for a church to be One AND TRUE, then it can't True if two churches teach contradictory doctrines? That is contradictory to the word True? I guess it all depends on what our definition of a ONE TRUE church is so maybe this isn't your criteria. in summary I believe faith in Jesus makes us all One Body, one church, however, not all churches are completely one AND TRUE. If one teaches a false doctrine it contradicts the very definition of being True.
4. I can agree with you the explanation can be made but is very laborious and I have been reflecting on this. Thank you :)
@@danielpoon2478 thanks for this reply! I don't have time to respond just not, but wanted to acknowledge your comment and say thanks for the interaction.
@@TruthUnites thanks for your reply keep up the good work! :) I’m sure you’re very busy
1. Just isn’t true in my experience. As a Methodist I’ve been more than welcomed to worship alongside Baptist, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, etc and would not have to have been rebaptised to join their sect. Generally speaking as long as you are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirt then your baptism is seen as valid.
Love and appreciate your work, Dr. Ortlund. I’ve been gnawing on the idea of Protestantism being a “conservative renewal effort” within Christianity and I’m not sure which Protestants are actually holding the original Way. I’ve been leaning toward the Catholic faith for a while but haven’t fully crossed the Tiber. Thank you again for what you do and please pray for me!
Thanks for the kind words. Just prayed for you.
Yes I like how you said gnaw, because we are told to gnaw on the body of Christ which you can receive in the Catholic Church every day.
@@MelaniesManicures Not exclusively a Romanist teaching. And the only witness to the idea that Protestants lack valid sacraments are Romanists themselves.
Many Protestant groups believe in the real presence and there's no objective reason why it's only legitimate in a Roman context.
@Zane Courtney--I was at the point where you are about 10 years ago, so I understand the appeal of Rome. A couple of decades earlier I did a serious investigation of Orthodoxy, and before that, LDS (Mormonism). All three were because I had friends who were converts and I could not answer them. I'm one of those people who HAS TO KNOW!
I do not fully agree with Luther and I despise Calvinism, but I have looked into Orthodoxy for many years now, I have 5,401 books and many of those in Patristic studies. Luthers renewal of the early church was simply bringing the church back into its more Jewish roots (not Judaism). With the Orthodox it developed over 800 years. Two 7th ecumenical councils took place, yes things happened, but when icons triumphed many who were anti-icon ended up being impaled on stakes. The Christians actually fled to the Muslims to receive better treatment at the time, the saying was also coined ' the worst devils dressed in the garb of a monk'. I personally believe what was deemed the fake council was the true council because it was better represented (you really need to study this from both sides of the fence)......also I had many questions about the fall of the church of Ephesus. This primarily took place after the council set up by Cyril and the excommunication of Nestorius in 431AD. Also Basil and Athanasius when talking about icons and the prayers of the saints are proven forgeries from a later date. If it was agreed on by the church i see no need for ancient documents to be forged. The Doctrine of Addai gives good examples of interpolation of text for the issue of 'relics' as it takes on the story of Constantine and Helena suddenly and then goes back into the true writings, however these BLATANT forgeries were known at the time as forgeries. I could not reconcile how the Orthodox keep proclaiming them as truths. If they were true the Apostle Addai would have contradicted everything he wrote about concerning paintings and relics receiving veneration. I can not go with a group that boldly proclaims forgeries to be true. It it was true, their would be no need to lie and forge older documents. Also a book was in circulation called the 'Acts of John' it was used to go against icons in what was later deemed as the 'fake council', however this book for many was widely received, at a later date a whole portion was added that turned the book 'gnostic' these were also blatant forgeries, however it is very easy to detect the change in writing styles. The verse where John rebukes the person for painting him and making a prayer corner with his painting is NOT part of the later forgery, in fact much of these works was how the early church determined how each apostle of Christ had died.
Very good exposition. A few things, thanks for mentioning Richard Wurmbrand, as a Lutheran myself, I point to him as a modern inspiration. His experienced showed that when the world persecutes Christians, they won't care what tribe or section of Christianity you come frome, therefore be aware how you judge others especially those who name Christ. His life also amplified what my Classic Greek professor told us. During the early years of Christianity there is a document illustrating the burning of two Christians. The story went that the Roman soldier tied them facing each other before they were to be burned. Each asked the Roman soldier if they can be burned not facing each other, why? Because each looked at the other as a heretic. The soldier obliged, but burned them together anyway.
wow, gripping story. thanks.
There was a video on Remnant Radio yesterday on where denominations come from in the church. I love that one of the 3 speakers said he was not comfortable calling Coptic Christians as heretics. There was apparently some split where they were labeled as such. He mentioned the very thing you mentioned when it comes to being martyred for your faith. We saw videos of those Coptics Christians being beheaded by Muslims for their stance that they would not deny Christ. He said that anyone that is willing to die for their faith is a faithful Christian, whatever theological disputes their branch has had in the past.
It is too bad that they martyred Christians could not realize in their final hour that all their little doctrinal debates did not matter at all, as they were about to be martyred for their mutual faith in Jesus.
Great video. I've been an inquirer to orthodoxy for a while but haven't taken the jump yet. I've asked this question and I pretty much agree with you Dr. Ortlund. I saw and experienced the grace of God in my protestant churches no doubt about it. I think orthodox would say that those fathers and saints who said that everyone not orthodox is necessarily damned were simply wrong. The fathers can be wrong of course. Almost all of the orthodox I've talked to say they think Christ can save those outside of the church, though its safest to be on the ark and we can never who is saved ultimately in the end.
I think the challenge is that the historic Orthodox view is that everyone outside of Orthodoxy is damned, so changing on this point really takes some of the wind out of the sails of the Orthodox appeal to history and tradition.
Can you give citations for Which early church fathers were inclusive rather than exclusive to there approach to people outside of the Church ? I don’t need the quotes themselves just the citations. Because you said in the video you found some Church fathers expressing in early Christian history expressing more openness to those outside of a more exclusive view of the Church.
@Bb Dl That is not an accurate representation of Calvin. I gave several examples of the historic Orthodox view when debating Father Patrick. If you believe there are premodern Eastern Orthodox theologians who affirmed salvation outside the Orthodox Church, by all means list them.
@@TruthUnites I have tried to show you. You are correct that much of the rhetoric after the schism takes a hard line. those are individuals. the ecumenical councils are to be taken first. the ecumenical councils and their questions on rebaptizing should hold sway. please read Fr. John Morris in his criticism of Orthodox Fundamentalism. The worst part of this video is your statement that belief in the Orthodox Church as the Church is a product of being unread and untraveled. WOW!
@@TruthUnites what do you mean by Eastern Orthodox theologians. I’m assuming you mean Church Fathers(Saints specifically in both the RC and EO Church?
I found this florilegium from someone on the EO side showing that the they’re were saints pre-modern era that while they are not inclusivist in the sense you laid out. They did seem to think that someone truly seeking after Christ within the revelation they have could possibly be saved but that it was by Gods grace and mercy. But the normative means amongst majority of the early Church seem to be that Salvation was In the Church the Body of Christ.
ancientinsights.wordpress.com/2022/05/01/no-salvation-outside-the-church-a-florilegium/
My question for you would be isn’t this also an answer one who is more of inclusive, would give to an atheist with the question about those who have never heard who Christ was or the gospel message never reached them before they died?
Thank you Gavin, this teaching is having a profound impact on my understanding on how to view these different church institutions and God working throughout His church. Thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
Obviously your message in this video, Gavin, was directed by the Holy Spirit working through you because so many people I'm seeing in the comments, myself included, are in total agreement with you.😃 Thank you for taking the time to post this beneficial message to the world and I pray that the Spirit will direct many to "view and chew" on the facts you point to in the word of God. Have a blessed week.
Thank you Patrick.
I needed to hear this! Thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
Excellent presentation. Thank you. An example of some of the incoherence of the exclusivist “one true church” paradigm: I’ve always thought it was odd that the Orthodox and Catholic churches are not in Eucharist fellowship (at least officially in most instances) yet they both believe they are receiving the one body of Christ in communion. They receive the same Christ, but are separated from one another. That doesn’t make sense to me.
You have the right train of thought. The true Church crosses all denominations, and is much bigger than any group, including Protestantism. Those who have received Salvation through living faith in Jesus Christ comprise the true Church.
Great video brother.
This is so helpful Gavin. As a humble Protestant with friends, yes brothers and sisters who are Roman Catholic & Orthodox, I affirm the works of Jesus for the glory of God in all the branches. May we bear more fruit in these days!
Really? I was a Protestant for 23 years and the only "Works of God" that I saw was equivalent to a magic show. I came back to the RCC and now I couldn't be happier. Finally, actual Christianity.
@@rangers94ism Equivalent to magic show?? what church you went all those 23 years??
@@danieljoshua4352 Baptist, A and G, Non Denominational, Vineyard, Pentecostal, and Episcopalian. Is there some other fake version of Christianity that I missed?
@@rangers94ism Yes, you did. You missed adding your Marian church. When they say, "hocus pocus maeem" bread turns into human. They say that they are virgins but become dads and grand dads. They say that you can receive god's grace when you follow their Twitter handle. They say they are pro life but forcefully abort their nuns. They say that Jesus is their saviour but put all of their hope in Mary. Being in that church is experiencing the 8th wonder in life. Roller coaster experience. Where will you find the better magic show than the church that performs all these magics? I know you would definitely enjoy such a church. I'm glad you found your herd. Enjoy yourself for the rest of your life witnessing the magic your Marian children perform.
@@rangers94ismother denominations have documented miracles. It’s not a RCC exclusive thing.
Amazing as always Dr. Gavin!
SO GOOD BRO! Thank you.
I appreciate your spirit of gentleness and humility.
Also, maybe you can get some Pentecostal friends on the channel! Love what you said about some of the most godly men being Pentecostal!
Hey Gavin! So I've had a couple of hours to spare to think about this video, I woke up super early :). I'd like to play devil's advocate as that's what I usually like to do with videos that I seriously consider, I hope to hear your reply! Warning, this comment is super long, I tried cutting it down to only 3 thoughts, sorry!
So first issue I'd see is that you consider Protestantism a renewal effort amongst the Church, seeing that it is the most flexible of Christian traditions. I believe it sounds good on paper, but when you see what has actually been put into practice you could also argue the case that Protestantism has no renewal ambitions, even within its own denominational divisions. I grew up in Calvary Chapel where I was consistently taught that the Pope could be the Anti Christ, some missions trips were dedicated to places like Ireland to witness to Catholics since they were unsaved, Orthodox were considered superstitious and evidence that Christ is no longer with them. I dont believe Calvary Chapel is alone in this belief either, John MacArthur, RC Sproul, Wicked Radio, Apologia, James White, and many more notable Protestant Christians have themselves drawn doctrinal boundaries to the point where considerable effort is taken to evangelize the legalists, aka, Orthodox and Catholic people. This all falls behind the logical conclusions that Protestants find within doctrines like Sola Fide, that anyone who adds even one work to their faith is "preaching another gospel". Many Protestants today believe that Catholics and Orthodox have added works to the gospel, which is evidenced by their continual efforts to evangelize these groups. So I'd feel dishonest in thinking that Protestantism is somehow this denominational sanctuary, they themselves have drawn soteriological lines in the sand as well, they also judge who is part of the one true Church and who is not. You considered this way of thinking Pharisaical, would you then acknowledge that Protestants can be just as guilty?
Second thing is, would you consider the significant movement of a number of Protestants going back to apostolic churches a renewal effort in itself? Perhaps it could also be argued that this type of renewal effort is Christ moving in the hearts of people to "come back home"? There is no denying that considerable doctrinal changes have occurred since the reformation, whether these changes were correct are argued on your channel, considering your efforts to look back in church history to find: a) Either justification from the church fathers in what you believe today or b) A defense against doctrines you don't believe in using the church fathers. You also argue from scripture for your case of your doctrines and I find this to be the case with every major Christian tradition. You've said before to let the church fathers be the church fathers, but that's the claim of the apostolic churches as well, wouldnt a fair assessment then that renewal efforts can look differently than your vision of renewel?
Third and lastly, you considered the viewer to acknowledge the fruit of different Christian traditions, and I totally agree with you on this. I cannot deny the work of Christ in me in calvary chapel, even an Orthodox priest said it was lovely seeing me grow in Christ, because these churches have the holy scriptures. But there is an ugly side too, and one we cannot ignore, and that is schism upon schism upon schism within Protestantism. Sure there have been schisms previous to Protestantism, but we are on a whole new level. We practice schisms. And that is worrisome. We divide over everything, and the apostle Paul took that extremely seriously. That is a bad fruit to seriously consider. God certainly works in the individual, but is there a point where we should choose a "better" tradition? Think of Mormons, certainly God can move on a Mormon's heart, but should he just then remain in the LDS church? Is he then responsible and obligated to find a better tradition? Think of Apollos in Acts, what if he decided not to be under the apostles' teaching and authority?
Once again sorry for the huge text, I understand if no one finishes this lol.
Catholic here. A few challenges I've put forth to my own Catholicism are:
1. To what extent did Christ come to start an institution? (you touch on this at 11:41)
2. Would the Church as described Biblically and in early Patristics qualify as an institution?
Regarding 1., I think as moderns, we get a sour taste in our mouth when we hear the term "institution" as being necessarily corrupt and inefficient, but an Orthodox actually gave me an interesting though loose definition of "institution" as "something that exists for a purpose." If sacramentalism and apostolic succession is the correct way to understand Christianity, than an institution of some sort (whether the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, ACotE or Oriental/Ethiopian/Eritrean Orthodox) would make sense as a type of safeguard.
2. is a bit more challenging to me but I'd say yes, and I think Protestants, if they agree with the loose definition of institution I gave above, would probably agree. (If you're Protestant and disagree, please let me know, I don't mean to mischaracterize you)
9:10 is interesting in that I've heard Roman Catholic priests (an exorcist, Fr. Vince Lampert) claim that the RCC does not hold that it exclusively is the only church that can exorcise demons, but that it wields the fullness of the Faith confessed by Peter, which other institutions, though wielding some or even most of it, don't wield the fullness of it like the RCC does. Maybe the question isn't "where is the Church" but "where is the fullness of the Church".
I do consider my Protestant and Orthodox friends to be part of the broader Christian church (with a lot to admire about both groups, there's a lot I learn from both of them and I aim to take the best parts of both groups in many ways), though I would still affirm that, if Sacraments and Apostolic Succession are truly necessary, then an institution would be necessary to safeguard the fullness of the faith, which I believe to be the Catholic Church.
Good video as always Dr. Ortlund, thank you for the content.
Hello! Thanks for the kind comments. Defining "institution" simply as "something that exists for a purpose" seems too loose to me. In that sense, the Orthodox and Catholics and even the lowly Baptists could see themselves as part of the same institution. I do agree with you that institutions are good. If you consider Protestant and Orthodox friends as part of the church, would you acknowledge you are odds with Boniface VIII?
“Fullnes of the Church”, “fullness of the faith”? Christ did not die or resurrect in parts. He wasn’t given in piecemeal. He was given in full for the whole word.
@@ppac300 I don't dispute that. The term "fullness of the faith" is not piecemealing Christ's sacrifice. It recognizes that while some denominations have some truth, the Catholic Church has the full truth.
@@TruthUnites they're members of the overarching Christian church, which Protestants generally see as the "community of believers." A Catholic can affirm this, which is why the Catholic Church views baptisms as done by Trinitarian Protestants as being valid baptisms, and why the Catholic Church sees valid sacraments with apostolic succession in the Orthodox Church.
With that said, the Catholic Church has the fullness of the faith and is the true Church. We consider the Protestant and Orthodox to be brothers and sisters in Christ and Trinitarians, but they lack the entirety of the faith in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Regarding Unam Sanctam, the Catechism gives a good explanation of this at CCC 846 - CCC 847.
CCC 846: How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."
CCC 847: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation..
Benedict XVI's encyclical Dominus Iesus also affirms this:
"On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church."
So regarding Boniface VIII, saved Protestants would still be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
glof, Jesus Christ built His Church on Peter the rock and sole key holder, way before the new testament was ever written and that later determined the Canon. The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was, as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Thank you, brother. Very helpful
Agree 100 percent.Am from south India,seen demons cast out infact my great grandmother wasn’t able to walk at age of 70 and Lord sent a healer,when he prayed she started to walk and he is not a Roman Catholic.He is a Pentecostal Christian.And when Jesus told that ye shall do greater works than me,in the new year night it was raining very heavily here but I prayed and rebuked the storm and rain in the name of Jesus so that I would be able to go to church to begin my year with LORD and yes the Lord heard my prayer and stopped it.There are much God is doing through His spirit here in India.Praise the Lord!
I appreciate your perspective very much.
I have had an embattled relationship with Protestantism and videos like this have helped me settle in and embrace where God has me - in a Confessional, Protestant tradition. Thanks!
What a great video, glory to Jesus.
Amen Gavin! I was raised in a small sect downstream of Protestantism, totally exclusive. Praise God for dealing with my prejudices, though it’s been painful. Keep up the great work you’re doing.
Same here, brother. May God bless you in your journey!
He has no authority.
Your point about Israel being divided between north and south, Israel and Judah, yet still being one "people of God" was something I had never quite thought about it relation to fractures and denominations within the Church. It reminded of Ezekiel. In Ezekiel 23, Samaria and Jerusalem are described as sisters. But more than that I was reminded of how Ezekiel used the phrase "house of Israel" to refer to different subsets of Israelites, yet they were all the "house of Israel." Often in Ezekiel 'house of Israel' refers either to the exiles in Babylon or those left in the land of Judah (or both). But in Ezekiel 37ː16, he uses 'house of Israel' for those of the northern kingdom (represented by Joseph/Ephraim). Those of Judah are called by a parallel expression the 'people of Israel.' Then God says he will rejoin the two kingdoms. But the people of both are called 'Israelites.' And God will do this with the Church when he restores all things. Though fractured into different institutions now, God will restore his entire people into one. This, I presume, is the 'great multitude' of Revelation 7.
great observations about Ezekiel
This theology that God will unite the different disagreeing Catholic and Protestant groups has literally no basis in scripture. The great multitude is made up of ppl who have _never_ known God before the Tribulation. The context in Rev. 7:13-14 makes that abundantly clear where it says that these ppl's sins will be forgiven.
@@decepticonxhunter4850 Regardless of who the multitude of Rev 7 is, which may depend on which particular eschatological view is correct, I think the things I referred to in Ezekiel, as well as the thread of reconciliation that runs throughout the Scriptures, lends credence to the idea that various groups of disagreeing Christans (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Coptic, etc.) will be united in the eschaton. In the post-resurrection, eternal presence of the Almighty God, it is difficult to imagine rifts remaining. Of course, one might say, "But only one group is the true Church that will be saved in the first place," but Gavin's point and mine are that the Scriptures already show God describing people who are fractured in some way(s) as still his people.
Appreciate your hard work Gavin! 😊
Thankful for this video!! Really helpful and well spoken ❤. I can’t accept that Jesus would say to so many millions of precious followers around the world who have been radically transformed and obey His teaching as clearly, simply laid out in scripture that more is required of them. That they are not “fully” living out their faith.. that they are missing something. The gospel is simple. A narrow road but it’s not as complicated as human tradition often makes it. I think of believers in third world countries, worshiping in the bush, of the underground church in China or Iran. Of precious friends saved by grace out of a life of drug use and worshipping in a simple church setting near skid row. Does Christ really require more of these ones? Does he place a burden on them, or tell them they are “missing out” on something beyond what is plainly taught in scripture? (The teaching that they are not worshiping in “fullness” would be SO confusing, hurtful and faith shaking to many many believers I know. It would not draw them to the tiber it would shake their belief altogether.) Does Jesus say their faith, their communion with His body the church is not “full” enough? This is not my only major concern with RC teaching but it’s a big one.
Many believers find great fulfillment and beauty in RC mass and are discipled more closely to Christ in this iteration of faith. I praise God for this and am so deeply sorry for the fact that so many of my fellow evangelicals are so harsh in their judgement/dismissal of the Roman church. I just also praise God for the many millions more who are best discipled in their faith in Jesus through other expressions of the church gathered. I see it like fishnets. We are called to be fishers of men, to go into all the world and make disciples and God has ordained many many shapes and sizes of “nets” to bring in and disciple people to faith in Him. I think like Dr Ortlund that He is so much bigger than the boxes we place Him in. Humans will always be prone to both reduce His work/what He will do while simultaneously over complicating things. (Case in point: Judaism at the time of Jesus) This is true in both the RC and Protestantism.
(All Protestant traditions I know of do have standards, creeds and basic orthodox truths that must be agreed upon to clarify which churches/fish nets 😉are teaching truth and which are not. These exist and are clear and consistent across denominational lines in all but the most liberal of churches… which would then not qualify as upholding orthodox truth.. They extend down from the very earliest days of church history.)
I'm so glad I discovered your channel. Kindred spirit right here. Grew up and still am non-denominational Pentecostal, so I'm used to always feeling like an outsider among the rest of the Protestant world. Nevertheless, we were decidedly Protestant as I only ever heard the strawman of Catholicism (and barely heard anything about Orthodoxy). Several years ago, I started studying the sacramental traditions in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and I discovered a new appreciation for these treasures in the universal church that most of us Protestants had long discarded and we're now ignorant of. But even with this newfound love, I've had no interest in "converting." The very idea of "converting" from one sect of Christianity to another is an oxymoron. We're all still Christians! That's why it so bothers me when I hear stories of people changing from Protestant to Catholic or Orthodox and the others say "welcome home." It's presumptuous and condescending, assuming the person was not already a part of the true church. In the same way, I've always hated when fellow Protestants view and treat Catholics by default as if they're not real Christians.
@@tomau.8267 who are you referring to?
@@tomau.8267 you're assuming quite a lot. I've never called Catholics pagans or heretics, but you immediately start accusing me of that.
No, Pentecostals don't believe the gift of tongues is necessary for salvation. Every Pentecostal denomination I know teaches that the charismatic gifts are an experience subsequent to salvation.
Yes, I would say most Protestants believe praying to saints is unbiblical--maybe not pagan, but not biblically based. But as I've learned more about Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I now am fine with the practice.
My comment was all about how the church should be more united, but you jumped to such negative conclusions.
@@tomau.8267 where on earth are you getting that from? I just disputed everything you said.
@@tomau.8267 your first reply to my comment said "you." I asked who are you referring to. You proceeded to attack me or lump me together with whatever version of Protestantism that's offended you. You need to go back and re-read my original comment to this video because you're clearly missing the entire point I was making.
In my experience, it's always the Catholics that say, "welcome home", as in home to the one true holy and apostolic church. Protestants have their own smugness, and they equate that conversion to finally becoming saved. The protestants will usually back that up w/, "Come out of her my people, so that you are not partaker of her plagues". I'm not so sure of that interpretation now either.
What I see when Christians upgrade from one branch of Christianity to another is that they have found a deeper faith and a renewal in their spirit in going to another faith tradition. I'm just glad for them that they have a deeper devotion to God.
Pastor Gavin you did a great job in explaining the so-called”one true church” concept. I do agree with you in your arguments of its exclusivity. I sensed that for many years, it is part of the church indoctrination, which the best way that I could sum it up. Read church history from the beginning of Constantine. I know that there are a lot of truth seekers within Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox and it is often very difficult to tear away. One of my own concerns is “the ever Virgin Mary”, Theotokos. This is inconsistent with the biblical teachings. But keep these videos coming. A note to Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, I am discussing my view based on learning and exploring my faith. God bless.
As a Catholic and a history teacher, I appreciate this video. Plenty here to consider, and I tend to agree with you. Some initial thoughts:
Normal Catholic defense, which bugs me and has made me consider Orthodoxy: the innovations are developments which are in the authority of the living church, so any changes we make are infallible.
The Newman assessment: Whatever the early church looked like, we can be sure that it didn't look like Protestantism. However, I think you're admitting to the movement being an innovation, so I don't think this would be problematic for you.
My personal view: my students are almost entirely Protestant or Messianic. The Spirit is definitely with many of them and I think to degrade it at all would be wrong. However, even before I returned to Catholicism, I was glad that it existed. I was glad there was someone keeping those boundaries and administering the Eucharist and conducting the liturgy formally and holding confession like the Didache describes. I wouldn't accept, as I've been told by some (not by you, thank you!), that Catholics are pagans, that they're going to Hell, that they don't know Christ.
To me, this whole concept is just like anything with rigid boundaries - I appreciate the boundaries AND the expression which takes place a bit outside of them.
All that being said, I think the early church has plenty of exceptions, as you say (I can't recall in Augustine the reference you made, but I believe you). But, as described in Eusebius, there seemed to have always been a center of gravity. Catholics claim Rome, but Eusebius (in my reading at least) seems to indicate that it was Jerusalem. In fact, if I recall correctly, it was even Jerusalem and only ethnic Jews could be bishop there, and they were admired "for their purity of doctrine."
So, I think that even Protestants should be on the lookout for that apostolic epicenter - whether they think it Catholic, Orthodox, or something else.
@@jonathanbontrager yes, my understanding of Vatican II was that the borders of Catholicism were widened to include all people who are baptized and profess Christ.
I’ve heard it expressed by Barron as “the body of Christ is the church, but all our Protestant and orthodox brothers and sisters are part of the spiritual body of Christ.” So, I think that the catholic idea would be that there is a true church, the universal (catholic) church, which does have borders, but the Spirit extends past the borders and would make every Christian - on some level - catholic.
So that’s me quoting priests and apologists, to further clarify I want to add my own opinion. In the early church there was a good deal of diversity, and definitely less exclusivity. However, as Eusebius writes, there was a church which was admired “for its purity of doctrine.”
Unfortunately for RCC, that was Jerusalem to Eusebius. I haven’t heard a good refutation of that. But the principle still stands (in my mind) that there is an allowable diversity, but there’s an epicenter with a purity of doctrine and practice.
Also, if any Catholics read this and correct me, I acquiesce to your knowledge! I did my graduate work in theology at a Nazarene school before I converted. So I’m only a few years deep into the sacred theology of the RCC!
Thanks for the thoughts Michael. Definitely food for thought!- fellow catholic.
Michael, "Peter was made Pastor of the Church, just as Moses was made RULER of Israel ". ( Augustine). The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! What is funny about Dr. Ortlund and so many Protestants, is they claim no one man was in charge,then they go on to claim, "but it was James who was in charge of the Council of Jerusalem!". So much for no one being in charge! John Chrysostom says, " Peter was made Shepherd of the Universal Church." The contradictory teachings of Dr. Ortlund have made me a stronger Catholic Christian! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink is
Proof Eucharist is body of Jesus Christ and Virgin Mary is his mother.
48I am the bread of life.
49Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;z
50this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”a
52The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?”
53Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b
58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
Eucharistic miracle..
th-cam.com/video/soCkftBBsBo/w-d-xo.html (medical reports-living heart tissue, blood type AB)
th-cam.com/video/oogJ-cdi7yI/w-d-xo.html (Rome Reports)
th-cam.com/video/whbzLYi7cyc/w-d-xo.html (Lanciano)
th-cam.com/video/6PJ8BORx1p8/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/bd16tBRbLXw/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/PvxTDAVypxs/w-d-xo.html (levitating eucharist)
Incorruptible bodies of saints due to the Eucharist - only happens in the Catholic church. No other religion has this miracle
th-cam.com/video/GSCk0qs-2-M/w-d-xo.html (Padre Pio)
th-cam.com/video/40UZLnIdplo/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/jN4SvtRje2I/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/-TrR1CEWdbc/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/XCDBekAQ-FI/w-d-xo.html (Carlo Acutis)
th-cam.com/video/33vlkJh2iJc/w-d-xo.html
Apparition of Virgin Mary
th-cam.com/video/GQnKS7YUE7Q/w-d-xo.html (Virgin Mary apparition in Ivory Coast)
th-cam.com/video/0PPGuMmn6TQ/w-d-xo.html (Virgin Mary statue moving)
th-cam.com/video/tVU8bhbQInw/w-d-xo.html (Virgin Mary apparition in Egypt)
th-cam.com/video/nMEWxRB-1dc/w-d-xo.html 1968 Egypt
th-cam.com/video/8YR6INkTK7Q/w-d-xo.html (Miracle of the sun)
th-cam.com/video/yF0_ysUivxE/w-d-xo.html (Miracle of the sun)
th-cam.com/video/76qAMB3qUpA/w-d-xo.html Medjugorje Sun miracle on Easter Sunday
th-cam.com/video/RyYNIulxIbc/w-d-xo.html Virgin Mary appears in Egypt & Spain-Eye Witnesses
@@matthewbroderick6287 I think the problem is that if we're talking about 4th and 5th century theologians like Augustine and John Chrysostom, no doubt that the Bishop of Rome had primacy by then, but Protestants will say, "what did the early church have?"
Catholics will say, "well sure, it had to develop nobody understood." Orthodox will say, "we've innovated nothing and the pope was a first among equals," every scholar on earth will say, "there wasn't unanimous agreement on doctrine or succession or primacy, in fact it took decades for offices like bishop to come into effect, which is why the pastoral letters of 'Paul' are pseudepigrepha."
I mean I'm not a Protestant and I'm curious why we Catholics seem to have this odd silence about Jerusalem & James. Again, I don't think this is really a contradiction on their part, I think Orthodox and Protestants alike would recognize a special place for various apostles, but never have I heard them say "James was the Pope" in the sense we understand it, it seems to be another "first among equals" situation to them.
I am with you and I'm Catholic too, but I think we should be really aware of our place. We defend theological, liturgical, and ecclesial innovations and openly admit that our church isn't equal to the earliest church, because they didn't understand everything. Then we represent the early church in a way which the only other group with apostolic succession (that we acknowledge), the Orthodox, agrees with. Additionally, the way we understand early Christian history is in contrast to nearly every bible scholar on earth! I still think we're right, but we've got a lot working against us, you know what I mean?
God bless!
If catholicity is Protestantism’s great strength, then wouldn’t schismatics be its great weakness? I would love to hear you flesh out a Protestant Theology of schism.
Hey Gavin thanks for this video! Love your work and I appreciate all your work in these ecumenical discussions.
I wanted to address the claim you made about not finding "anybody from the 9th century to the 19th" who affirms that there is salvation for Western Christians. It seems to me that, if baptism is salvation/confers salvation, then this question _can_ be reduced to a question of whether baptisms are valid outside the church. And on this question history is replete with Orthodox writers and councils affirming that Latins are not to be rebaptized on admittance to the Eastern churches, thereby signaling that baptisms outside the church are at least valid in part and counting Western Christians as therefore imperfect members of the church. This seems to be the position of the church and councils prior to the schism, though there are plenty of hardliners such as Cyprian who would have mandated rebaptism for all, and was the official position of the church throughout history despite many ecclesial writers holding to the mandatory rebaptism position. I'll provide a few quotes below:
None other than Mark of Ephesus after a lengthy passage calling the Latins heretics:
"'Have you not heard that they adopted not only customs but also dogmas which are strange to Orthodoxy (and that which is strange to Orthodoxy is most certainly a heretical teaching) and that according to the canons they must be catechized and united to Orthodoxy? If it is necessary to catechize then it is clear that they must be chrismated… Latins must not be re-baptized but only after their renunciation of their heresies and confession of sins, be anointed with Chrism and admit them to the Holy Mysteries and in this way bring them into communion with the holy, catholic Eastern Church, in accordance with the sacred canons.”
Council of Constantinople, 1484:
The Decision of the Great Synod of Constantinople in 1484. This Synod was summoned at the sacred Church of Pammakaristos by Patriarch Symeon (1472-75, 1482-1485) in 1482 and again in 1484. Ιn the first instance it issued an Horos denouncing the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438) and its doctrine of the Filioque, and in the second, it published an Acolouthy for the reception of Latin converts into the Orthodox Church. This Synod called itself Ecumenical presumably because all four Eastern Patriarchs were present. It denounced the Council of Florence and decided that [Text of the Council begins]: “the Latin converts to Orthodoxy should be received into the Church only by Chrismation and by signing an appropriate Libellus of faith which would include denunciation of Latin errors… The Service for the Reception of Latins into the Orthodox Church Published by the same holy and great Synod, for those who return from the Latin heresies to the orthodox and catholic Church of Constantinople, but also to the three most holy patriarchs of the East, i.e. those of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. This Acolouthy was published in Constantinople in the year 1484 during the patriarchy of the most holy Patriarch Lord Symeon. Let it be known, also, that this Synod, being ecumenical, is the first one with God’s help, tο bring down and overturn that most unlawful Synod that was summoned in Florence, as one that proceeded in an evil and unconstitutional manner; and as having failed tο follow the holy and ecumenical Synods which preceded it; therefore, we included the Statement (Horos) of this Orthodox and holy Synod of ours, i.e. that one of Constantinople, in the present sacred codex of Christ’s holy and great Church, since it was summoned during our days.”
Council of Moscow, 1667:
“At the time of Patriarch Nikon, upon the insistence of Patriarch Marcarius of Antioch, who was then in Moscow, it was twice decreed at the Council that Latins would not be re-baptized in the future, the deeply rooted custom of re-baptizing remained in practice. This is why Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich proposed that the Great Council should discuss and make a decision on this question. The Council fathers carefully reviewed Patriarch Philaret Nikitich’s statute and came to the conclusion that the laws were incorrectly interpreted and applied to the Latins. They then referred to earlier Council statutes whereby it was forbidden to re-baptize even Arians and Macedonians in the event of their coming into Orthodoxy, and even more so, the fathers said, Latins must not be re-baptized. They referred to the Council of the four Eastern Patriarchs held in Constantinople in 1484, which decreed not to re-baptize Latins upon their coming into Orthodoxy, but only to anoint them with Chrism, and which even composed the actual rite for their reception into the Church. They referred to the wise Mark of Ephesus who, in his epistle addressed to all Orthodox, offers the same teaching. [These decisions were ratified by another Synod in +1718 and applied to Protestants.]”
Patriarch Marcarius III of Antioch:
“To Patriarch Nikon that “the Latins must not be re-baptized: they have the seven sacraments and all seven Councils, and they are all baptized correctly in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit with an invocation of the Holy Trinity. We must recognize their baptism. They are only schismatics, and schism does not make a man unfaithful and unbaptized. It only separates him from the Church. Mark of Ephesus himself, who opposed the Latins, never demanded their re-baptism and accepted their baptism as a correct one.”
St Philaret of Moscow:
“Mark you, I do not presume to call false any Church which believes that Jesus is the Christ. The Christian Church can only be either purely true, confessing the true and saving divine teaching without the false admixtures and pernicious opinions of men, or not purely true, mixing with the true and saving teaching of faith in Christ the false and pernicious opinions of men… but I just simply look upon them; in part I see how the Head and Lord of the Church heals the many deep wounds of the old serpent in all the parts and limbs of his Body, applying now gentle, now strong, remedies, even fire and iron, in order to soften hardness, to draw out poison, to clean wounds, to separate out malignant growths, to restore spirit and life in the numbed and half-dead members. In this way I attest my faith that, in the end, the power of God will triumph openly over human weakness, good over evil, unity over division, life over death.”
Curious to hear what your thoughts of on this are. Thanks!
This idea that Catholic doctrine changed after vatican 2 is a lie.
The current Catechism says: "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."
There is still no salvation for those who choose to be outside the church
Gavin, your videos have very much so helped me as of late. I’m currently a Senior Pastor (I’m soon to be 38 yrs old) and just started a ThD program. 5ish years ago I thought: why am I only listening to what Protestants say about Catholics? I should actually read their works for myself. Then, I soon ended up in the Fathers. And next I ended up studying Orthodoxy as well. Keeping it short, during this time I STRONGLY considered whether or not I should convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. But, I tend to study things out to the “inth” (or whatever) degree, so I didn’t make such a decision in haste. But adding to my problems and considerations as I’ve tried to work through these issues is the fact that some people, like James White, grossly misrepresent the teachings of the Fathers and Church History, and thus make Cath/Orthodoxy more appealing in a sense. Anyways, thankfully I have found in your videos a historically knowledgeable and honest representation of the issues, without the anachronism of most Protestant scholars, and thus you’ve helped me see that my faith is grounded in history. All of that being said, and keeping it as short as possible, thanks! God bless!
So glad the videos have been helpful, thanks for this update
@@TruthUnites 👍🙌👍
The more you study, the Reformed view of Church History is not wrong. Have you listened to White's church history course? I've been reading primary sources for almost 2 decades in patristics. There are certainly differences in interpretation and translations among different scholars. But the overall picture that mainstream scholarship has on the Papacy or the development of purgatory or the cult of saints or the Marian dogmas has hardly any significant difference then a Reformed view of Church History. I initially had the same type of view you mention, but only after studying church history and reading enough of the primary and secondary sources myself did I realize that the Reformed view is an acceptable and coherent view of Church History. Can you tell me what primary sources you have read and what secondary scholarly sources you have read?
Remember there is also 500 years of polemical writings between Roman and Protestant scholars. some of it is available on Reformed Books Online under Reformed Catholicism. What have you read? Have you listened to at least Defense of the Augsburg Confession by Melancthon or read at least Volume 1 of the examination of the council of Trent by Chemnitz? I don't intend to come off as a know it all, but I'm thinking that your claim is based on only casual research in this area. Have you read the book Papalism, or the Birth of Purgatory, or anything by Stephan Shoemaker, the leading English modern scholar on the origins of the Assumption? Many of these books can be found in any university library or through interlibrary loan.
Did you read either White's Roman Catholic Controversy or his the God who Justifies?
Also, which fathers exactly did you read, which English translation? Was it in primary scholarly editions or in quote books?
I would also recommend you read A treatise on the Right Use of the Father's in the Decision of Controversies Existing at This Day in Religion, which you can order on Amazon, any university library or read for free on Internet Archive. It explains thr most common Reformed view of understanding church writers. Let me know how I can help.
Btw, I feel up Romanist, didn't leave until college after studying philosophy and history. I would also recommend William Goode, the evangelical Anglican of the 19th century, whose massive tomes deal with Anglo-Catholicism (a 'third way between Rome and Protestants). I think Apology of the Church of England by John Jewel would be helpful as well.
Have you have seen the channels of 'BarelyProtestant' (Anglo-Catholic) who critiques Rome? Or 'A Goy for Jesus' or the channel 'The Other Paul' which gives more evangelical Anglican view on Rome? The book I recommended before 'Papalism' is a huge refutation of the Papacy from an Anglo-Catholic position, but the moderate Anglican or mainstream scholarly position is even worse, as a one man bishop didn't develop until the 2nd century in that view.
I agree with almost everything you said. That said, if we are a renewal force within the Church, then shouldn't we be trying to unite as one Church again? It seems like we aren't renewing anything if we just go our own way and each stay in their own denomination.
As Peter Leithart says, "I'm too catholic to be Catholic."
Liked the approach on this one!
Thanks for posting this vid. I was raised Pentecostal but I’m inquiring into Orthodoxy and this is one issue I’m still thinking/praying over before I officially become a catechumen. All your videos have been extremely helpful!
glad to hear that!
I saw that the Pentecostal church has had a devastating impact against Islam in Indonesia. Growing so powerful. So many Muslim converting to Jesus. Orthodox Church has no impact. Tiny and very few churches not really growing over so many years. Orthodox will make you renounce everything Pentecostal as false and deception. Even though they can’t beat Islam in Indonesia but Pentecostal can. At least Rome is open to Pentecostal movement to some degree and has 300 million charismatics. Joining Orthodox is like saying your whole Christian life has been a lie. Hahaha 🤣
Nice I'm a pentecostal
Great video! This is one of the big issues that caused me to pull back from swimming the Bosphorus about 15 years ago… I became Anglican instead.
Thanks for sharing that, glad it was helpful!
Protestants are often guilty of disunity, but I don't know how a church that forces you out if you don't believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, or if you believe in a real, but spiritual, presence of Christ in the Eucharist is any less guilty of disunity (adding to the exclusivity you mention between East and West even). Would Jesus really say that such people are not part of the one, true Church which is His body? Also, I've been trying to make the point for years that a visible Church doesn't necessarily mean a single institution, and even if it did, I wouldn't see what precludes that institution from preserving itself by separating from a group that's lost its way; people just can't seem to imagine what a visible Church would look like without being a single institution. How should one explain that to someone, since my way doesn't seem effective?
God clearly liked diversity judging by his creation, why would his Church be any different? We are all supposed to serve Christ as King now, not any mere human. Christ should be the only thing unifying us now, not any single human institution.
Liam, yet Protestant churches force you out if you don't believe in faith alone and Scripture alone!🤔 Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Jesus built His church on Peter, the Apostles/prophets are the foundation, Christ the cornerstone, and whatever the Leaders bind on earth will have been bound in heaven (Matt 16/18). Jesus gave the Spirit of Truth to lead the Church into all Truth, to be the pillar and buttress of Truth. There are clear boundaries for the moral life (1 Cor 5; Gal 5), and doctrine (1 Tim 4:16; 2 John; Gal 1:8). To live in unrepentant mortal sin, blasphemy, division, or heresy separates you from the God who is our Life and the Church. When the believers came into the Church through repentance and baptism on Pentecost “ they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42). In other words, this is the Life in Christ, the living Tradition, and to follow Christ the Way is to be United to Him and His Body, the Way. One cannot make up how they want to worship or what they want their Church to believe. As churches were “planted”, they had to have connection to the Apostles (see Acts 8-10). When the elders and Apostles met in Jerusalem, the Spirit led them into all truth (Acts 15). They sent a letter to the churches, and Paul et al delivered the dogmas to be observed (Acts 16:4). It is not optional to obey the Church in dogma and morals because it is Christ who speaks and the Spirit who has led the Church. A good question is who can ordain elders and deacons according to the NT? It is Apostles or those the Apostles have deputized (e.g. Titus and Timothy). My point is all this is to show that saying that groups are not part of the Church is not about being divisive or eschewing unity. It is about being faithful to Jesus and the Church through the ages.
@@KevinDay Yet, Holy Scripture teaches to submit to those over us in the Lord, ( Hebrews 13:17, 1 Thessalonians 5:12, Ephesians 3:10). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 Yes, it teaches us to submit to *ALL* who are in authority over us, not just one universal mediator chosen from among men. Christ is the only true mediator between us and God.
I agree 100% Dr. Ortlund! Thank you for making this video!
Glad it was helpful!
Great video Dr. Ortlund. Thanks
Glad you enjoyed it!
best video yet, not saying you dont do good videos love ya brother