I found that your pastoral counsel resonated with what John Chrysostom offers to seekers who are unsure of how to navigate the faith despite contradictory arguments and factions within the church. He ironically points the seeker back to the simple truths of scripture- not an ecclesiastical teaching office or the certainty of tradition but the scriptures. There comes a heathen and says, "I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?" How shall we answer him? "Each of you" (says he) "asserts, I speak the truth.'" No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Chris-tian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule. (Homily 33 in Acts of the Apostles Nicene and Post Nicene Fatbers 1,11:210-11; PG 60.243-44|)
In all charity I do suggest finishing that quote.... "...As when a carpenter, or a painter, or any other such craftsman, wishes to test his work, he has a rule by which he measures everything- so have we the rule of the Scriptures. And whoever agrees with them is in the right, and he who fights against them is in error. That is the straight rule, that is the exact balance. But what if the heretics say that they too agree with the Scriptures? They do indeed say so, but they are convicted by what they say. For if they speak contrary to what is written, even while they say they agree with it, they stand self-condemned. For the judgment is not theirs, but the Scriptures'. Therefore, let us not believe the multitude, nor be led away by eloquence, nor be influenced by wealth, nor by the weight of power, but let us keep to the Scriptures. And what is even greater, let us follow the consent of the Fathers, who, from one end of the earth to the other, have kept this rule. The truth is clear and open; and though a man be simple and unlearned, if he take pains, he shall learn what is needful, for the divine words are true and cannot lie…" Not saying Protestants are heretics at all, but John Chrysostom's idea of the primacy of Scripture is not at the expense of the Church or the Fathers. He cannot be cited as an argument for Scripture *as if* it is somehow set up against the Holy Tradition. The Holy Tradition and Scripture are not set against one another. They are part of one revealed whole. The Scriptures reveal a Person, the Fathers teach the meaning and interpret the Scriptures so that they may properly reveal the Person Himself. "And what is even greater, let us follow the consent of the Fathers, who, from one end of the Earth to the other, have kept this rule." What rule? The rule of the Scriptures. Understood, believed in, lived, experienced, and taught by the Holy Fathers and the Church which they were and are a part of.
@@LoveIncarnate What you posted still doesn't support your argument though. He points the seeker to the scriptures and said the scriptures is the yard stick. He didn't say "holy traditions and scriptures." You're trying to read into it your traditions as though he was making the argument that church traditions don't have a place. Church traditions have a place, however that tradition must be measure with the scriptures! That's his point
@@LoveIncarnate Yes thanks for finishing the quote even if it actually don't say what you're claiming. Lets take a closer look at your quote: "let us follow the consent of the Fathers, who, from one end of the earth to the other, have kept this rule . The truth is clear and open" What exactly is this rule John Chrysostom is appealing to? "As when a carpenter, or a painter, or any other such craftsman, wishes to test his work, he has a rule by which he measures everything- so have we the *rule of the Scriptures* . And whoever agrees with them is in the right, and he who fights against them is in error. *That is the straight rule, that is the exact balance* . " *The rule IS the Scriptures* . The rule is not scripture plus something else. The consent of the Fathers applies to the longstanding usage of the rule (i.e. the scriptures) but does not imply that the Father's writings, or anything else, are part of the rule itself. Rather, the Scriptures alone are the ultimate measure for determining doctrinal correctness, akin to a carpenter's rule for measuring his work.
@@drjanitor3747 as much as you might hate to admit, the Magisterium has for years recognized Protestant churches as "separated brethren" which "have been by no means deprived significance and importance in the mystery of salvation"
Hey Gavin, I'm an Eastern Catholic but sometimes watch your videos. Just want to commend you for how fair and thoughtful you are in reviewing this debate. Hope to see more of that on the internet.
It's easy to get spiritual anxiety when looking at all of the arguments among the different branches of the faith, but Dr. Gavin always helps put my mind at ease
Thanks for that Gavin, it spoke right to things i have been thinking about for Months now. I will trust in the Lord completely and he will direct my path. God Bless
But to re-emphasize a previous criticism: On the question of whether “Protestant” is an affording category for analysis or criticism, one could say “Solvitur ambulando.” “A Protestant View of the Church” is an argument heading here.
Exactly, VAT 1 claims "its always been this way", in the metaphor it would be, "Lands you in the same house", not "lands you on a house on the same street". VAT 1 was disproven when Erick said that.
Indeed. Here's Vatican I: "And, indeed, *all* the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed, their Apostolic doctrine; *knowing most fully* that this See of holy Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error" This is just historically wrong.
@@BernardinusDeMoor No, it's a general statement. You're new to litterature apparently, you've never read such broad statements in the Bible or any other book ? It's just a general claim. And if you read the Fathers it's obvious they held to this generally, there is no see superior to Rome and it is Rome which holds the last word on theological disputes as St. Irenaeus says.
23:05 "The Church is not an infallible north star" and 23:12 "we have to go back to what God has said!" Okay, let's do that: "The CHURCH of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the TRUTH." (1 Timothy 3:15) and "The Spirit of truth shall guide you into all the TRUTH" (John 16:13).
None of that means infallability nor supports that's what God says in greater context. Especially since Protestents believe the church is the place of truth but it's not infallable and it's only the pillar of truth due to its relationship with God.
@@Justeelisjust “The pillar and the buttress of the truth” does not mean the same thing as “the truth “. A pillar and a buttress supports something. The church is supposed to support the truth, it is in itself not the truth. Jesus is the truth. The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of truth. And the word of God is the truth.(John 17:17). The Holy Spirit did lead us into all truth by giving us the word of God and “the faith that was once for all time handed down to the saints ” (Jude 3).
Really enjoyed this video! I have to admit, I did not watch the debate and honestly I don’t intend to. But the admonition to seek the truth with your heart, guided by the word and faithful counsel was an encouragement and an exhortation to me this morning! Grateful for your work: you are a balanced, godly, and careful presenter - no doubt founded through your work as a minister. Keep up the good work!
@@paul_321as in the old calendarists? They are not Orthodox, look up canonical Orthodox jurisdictions and go from there. The canonical ones are the ones that are fine to attend church at.
I wish I could leave a super chat, your work has relieved of so much ecclesial anxiety. Your heart for the Lord has helped you do great work for him. Glory to Jesus Christ, you are a great brother.
Check the description. Plenty of way to support his ministry. If not the tax deductible donation you could purchase his books if you don't already own them. If you don't read you can always donate them to Goodwill or Providence Ministries. I go through there all the time looking for treasure.
Great analysis. As a lapsed Protestant who became progressively disillusioned with the secular and modernist cult of self-worship and apathy, I started to try and slog my way back to the faith about 4 years ago, and 4 years later I find myself in the boat a lot of people seem to be in. People like me want to come back, but don't want to inadvertently make the wrong decision and end up damned for eternity, so we end up in this cycle of constant reading and studying in order to figure out the correct path. You can read and study every aspect of Church history and still be paralyzed with doubt and indecision, and debates like this one seem to encompass what so many have noted: "surely if there is a true path God doesn't require one to have 5 PhDs in order to find it." So the answer given by Gavin here seems refreshing, and that we should just put our faith in Jesus and the Scripture and accept that there is no "one" true Church. However, one could just as easily apply Gavin's view of Church history to the Scriptures, the Resurrection, etc and thus shift the whole issue one frame backwards. How can one know that the Scriptures are authoritative in and of themselves? This seems to be a matter of faith. How can one know that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead? Is this just a matter of faith as well? Some would say that one only needs to examine the historical evidence and the answer is clear. Except this isn't so simple as it turns out. If it was, why did Gary Habermas just write a 1000-page tome where he tries to convince others on the historical evidence for the Resurrection? Why did NT Wright write a 1000-page tome trying to support the Resurrection through arguments from a historical Jewish context? Why did Dale Allison write his own lengthy book trying to settle the question once and for all, and his honest conclusion is, at best, "I don't know, and we can't say for sure." So again, we seem to be at an impasse when analyzing these theological questions cerebrally. So then is it just a matter of faith? If that is the case, who is to say that the Mormons or the Muslims are wrong. After all, they have their share of historical issues, but if it's a matter of faith then who cares? Some would then say that it's a mix of faith and reason, a la WL Craig, and that you need a "reasonable" basis to accept the tenets of Christianity and that the rest of the difficult questions are a matter of faith. Ok, fair enough, but then we're right back to where we started with "what is the true faith?" As Gavin has, correctly in my opinion, previously pointed out, the EO and RC have historically anathematized one another up until recently (i.e. they, or at least the RC, have made a 180-- so much for being infallible and non-contradictory, does this alone nullify the papacy?). Both have anathematized Nestorianism and monophysitism, but Gavin here says that these early branches of Christianity may be valid? What about the Arians? Is a church only a church if there are valid sacraments? Does this rule out Baptists, then? Clearly there are eternal questions at stake. My point is that it seems very comforting to say "just trust Jesus and Scriptures" but that this itself is based on an underlying assumption that these are a given, and one must apply a similar level of critical analysis to the historical basis of Scripture and the Resurrection in order to be able to even say this statement, where very intelligent people with multiple degrees who have spent their lives studying them can still arrive at conflicting conclusions. I guess at the end of the day you just need to get off the fence and pick something that seems truest given the limited information you have. You'll either find out that you were correct in the end... or not.
I always thought the same thing, why not go one step back and apply the same reasoning there. I guess there is a distinction between choosing the right religion and then choosing the right denomination. You can have much more wiggle room to suspend your judgement on which denomination as compared to which religion. I guess you have to wager through the major options, where I find Christianity has a clear edge. Also, Gavin's conclusion in this video is further warranted by the unique salvific route of Christianity, that is by grace through faith, so we can hang up our hands on which 'church' and place our confidence in this common core.
@@sathviksiddI think the very distinctives of denominational difference vs religion difference is on trial in this analysis. Why cannot modern Unitarians, Arians, Mormon, or even Atheists qualify for the status of denomination if all of them can and have synthesized an interpretation of Scriptures that makes sense to them? What is to be done with those who disagree about the very content to include in Scripture? We must settle on who has the authority to interpret and govern the Church. Who is going to retain and govern what the Scriptures are and what correct preaching of them constitutes? Who decides what the Sacraments are and how to administer them? How else can any meaning be had from the statement, “where the word is preached and the Sacraments administers” as a definition of a church? And that is assuming the historic Protestant definition of church Gavin used, which is a regularly contested definition within Protestants circles today.
This is a wonderful and well thought-out comment. I have thought the same things myself. At the end of your reasoning, I was expecting the conclusion that it most naturally led to: literally everything in life, including the question of whether we can know anything at all, has had thousands of pages written on it at this point. To understand anything, including understanding itself, you are going to have to work hard and do a lot of research. There is no lazy option. You have to think critically, think well, be trained in logic, have access to good knowledge sources, and identify your own biases. Even after all that hard work, you may still miss something. That is not to say that knowledge is impossible. It is simply to note that it takes a lot of work. It has always taken a lot of work, and it always will. Part of this is that the nature of lies is to complicate things. Once things become complicated, they cannot be made simple again. You took it for granted that you could know things? You thought things like gravity were established? Think again. Now 500 tomes will be written on that topic because some guy somewhere wrote a tome against that concept that was just compelling enough to make people think deeper about it. The truth is that reality is infinitely complex, which means the more we explore it, the more complicated everything will get. Right now people have an epistemic crisis. This is not going to get better, and at the end of this road we are not going to discover that everything was simple all along. We are going to discover that it was way more complicated than we could even begin to grasp. So the answer is don't be lazy, and trust in the mercy of God, since most of your ability to think critically and the sources you have access to are determined in his sovereignty. Pray for mercy and wisdom. This isn't the answer anyone wants to hear, but I have thought frankly about this as you have, and it's about the only answer I can find. "Just pick one and cross your fingers" doesn't work. You must work hard, pray hard and trust in the mercy of God.
@@crazycoolkids00 I greatly appreciate the response and think there is likely a lot of truth in what you said: "So the answer is don't be lazy, and trust in the mercy of God, since most of your ability to think critically and the sources you have access to are determined in his sovereignty. Pray for mercy and wisdom." I guess my only issue with this is how one actually acts upon this from a practical standpoint. Ultimately, unless one just decides to be perpetually indecisive and never go to church again until one has "the correct answer" then one does have to just make a decision at a given point in time with the available information one has. Because otherwise you can always say, "well, I'm not sure, but I don't want to commit to a specific denomination prematurely and make a mistake, so I'll just keep studying a little longer." I guess the third alternative is to pick something now, and then if confronted by other evidence that makes it apparent that your choice was wrong, you can switch, but in this case this would lead to the possibility of constantly switching between denominations throughout one's life, which seems suboptimal.
I completely agree with the advice at the end about trusting in God. Usually I find I am trying to feel safe based on my own ability to reason. In reality the solution is to trust in the actual person of Christ. This is something I've had to learn facing OCD and it is very applicable in this area as well. I like this quote from The Bruised Reed, by Richard Sibbes: "Cast yourself into the arms of Christ, and if you perish, perish there. If you do not, you are sure to perish. If mercy is to be found anywhere, it is there."
As a catholic I want to ask a few questions to protestants: If you affirm schisms, how do you affirm and reconcile with the idea that there’s no infallible teaching (doctrine or dogma)? And when the bible talks about obeying the church and that the church is the pillar of truth, how do you affirm those things? How do you believe that there’s NO infallible doctrine or dogma, but the church is also the pillar of truth? How is the church the pillar of truth? It’s sounds like there’s an institution that’s preaching the truth. And how do you believe in obeying the church if you also affirm you can leave the church (a denomination) and go elsewhere? For me this whole situation is resolved easily by looking at scripture. What’s the point of building the church if everyone is essentially the church? What’s the point of obeying the church if your church doesn’t affirm infallible teachings? That is to say, are you learning anything true or are you just always on a journey hoping to discover out the truth? How do you protestants or people who don’t know which way to go, people who are on the fence, make sense of these passages/issues?
While I agree that private judgment is necessary in all forms of Christianity, there’s still a significant difference in the degree of private judgment between Catholicism/Orthodoxy and Protestantism. In the former, there’s really only one private judgment that needs to occur; whereas with Protestantism, there is a private judgment that must be made with every Christian doctrine and no one to adjudicate orthodoxy from heterodoxy or heresy. Big difference.
Good video once again! I have had church anxiety for a long time - several years now, sometimes it has been better, sometimes it has been worse. Now it has been worse again. However, I have begun to understand that I will never find the truth by reading some obscure documents from the fifth century (which 99% of Christians have not heard of), and I do not think that one more work by this and that church father and theologian will really move me forward. One real strength of Protestantism is that it is possible to build Christian unity on the simple gospel, even if we are in different institutions. Of course, I understand the criticisms that can be made of this model: where do we draw the line? I know Arians, LDS and other so-called "heretics" who are really smart and completely sincere seekers of truth. I understand that the questions they are thinking about are also historically complex (like these church questions). I don't have a completely flawless and problem-free answer to these concerns. Perhaps in the end it's a matter of what kind of problems one is willing to live with. Each paradigm understands the church (RC, EO, various Protestant models) has its own strengths and weaknesses. Another strength of Protestantism has emerged for me through ecumenism, which is also related to the first strength: I can consider Christians in different denominations as my brothers and sisters with relative ease. I can believe that Oriental Orthodox martyrs are saved, I can draw wisdom from Eastern Orthodox monks, I can learn from RC philosophers, I can enjoy Lutheran liturgy, I can encourage Baptist friends when they evangelize... I am not a radical liberal inclusivist, but I genuinely feel that I have seen the Holy Spirit at work in different churches and Christians from different backgrounds. Protestantism offers a paradigm to understand this very real phenomenon.
I found the Ybarra vs. Petrus debate to be one of the most technical debates I've seen online so far regarding church doctrine. That was truly a top-level discussion. In that regard I have a lot of respect for those two, who clearly have put in the time and effort reading the primary sources. At the same time, I think anyone who studies church history enough, when pressed, and if honest, would admit that the historical data is ambiguous. The fact that there are such high-level debates over doctrines like Petrine primacy as this one, where the viewer can walk away still unsure, is evidence that there is no obvious answer to these contrary positions. The Protestant seems to be more willing to admit this than the EO or RCC adherent. That is why sola scriptura is,, with all its deficiencies, still the most conservative and safest doctrine to hold, since we all agree that the material content of the scriptures is divinely revealed knowledge.
I guess my problem is that I don't see sola scriptura to be reconciliable with a denial of the Petrine supremacy, at least not after learning Ancient Greek.
But SS isn't the most conservative doctrine. It's entirely relativistic. The epistemic flaw of the Reformation is that we 1) can't know infallibly what the contents of the Scriptures are and 2) we don't have an infallible way to interpret them. We might all agree that the content of the Scriptures are divinely revealed, but you can't say that without relying on an external authority, an authority that you ad hoc allow to identify the Scriptures but ignore when that same authority hands down (traditions) an interpretation (sound doctrine) that you disagree with.
The problem is that sola scriptura explicitly contradicts scripture itself and utterly fails upon encountering the word “is”. Sola scriptura is a mirage, not an oasis.
@@thekirkwoodcenter “that is why sola scriptura is, with all its deficiencies, still the most conservative and safest doctrine to hold.” Ehh, that doesn’t make it true, though. This seems like a lazy way out. More than once, the Bible talks about seeking knowledge. In terms of worldviews, agnosticism is the most conservative and safest doctrine to hold. Therefore should we all just be agnostic?
1. Apostolic succession. 2. Who walked away from truth or true faith. And which Church is still following the true faith since the beginning of Church.
I would encourage everyone to read Joshua shcooping's book, "Why left the eastern orthodox priesthood and church". He made some salient points when it comes to epistemic difficulties in examining the claims of the RCC or EO churches. He says: "The absurdity of what could perhaps be called the Imperialist ecclesiological position (which includes the Romanist and Orientals together with the Orthodox) is made all the more clear when one must realize that each schismatic branch says substantially the same thing about themselves being right and the others being wrong, and using the same kinds of proofs, thus putting impossible pressure on those outside the Church to be able to make accurate enough historical judgments concerning the vicissitudes of Church history in order to enter the right, salvific Church. According to this extreme and externalist ecclesiology, a person outside the Church, and therefore a non-recipient of God’s saving grace, could not reasonably or perhaps even in principle make such a determination. The genius of Protestantism, however, is that despite what is claimed by the Orthodox, Romanists, and Orientals, Protestants are not in principle schismatic or factious. Why? Because they do not presuppose in the midst of inevitable differences between administrative and organizational bodies that those outside of their administrative bodies are necessarily outside the Church considered as the Body of Christ. For example, the mere fact of being, say, a Confessional Lutheran does not necessitate a claim by a Confessional Presbyterian that said Lutheran is outside of the Body of Christ and therefore damned, and vice versa. In other words, merely being “not Presbyterian” does not mean that one is outside of the Church, not Christian, or not saved. That is why and how Protestantism is not sectarian, factious, or schismatic, for a Spurgeon can praise a Wesley. A Protestant can even logically hold according to the doctrine of the Invisible Church that a Catholic or an Orthodox can be in the Body of Christ and so saved. But the presupposition of the exclusivist ecclesiology as found in the Eastern Church makes it an institutionally ingrained impossibility for understanding unity in any other way than externally. For in their case unity must be outwardly visible and within the same administrative and canonical structure. Protestants, however, can create different bodies within a larger Evangelical unity that allows for such differences of administrations, and even on what might be considered important doctrines. This allows for vigorous disagreement to exist within the framework of a deeper evangelical sense of unity. Obviously, this doesn’t answer all possible ecclesiological difficulties related to an Evangelical approach to unity and catholicity, nor whitewash all historic tensions, but it certainly moves beyond the impasse created by the Romano-Byzantine Church-State external unity models"
@@ismaelsilveira2316 Luke 9:49-50" And John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to hinder him because he does not follow along with us. But Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him, for he who is not against you is for you.”
@@ismaelsilveira2316no, it’s more like EO, OO, RC literally all claim the same thing using the same evidence and therefore it’s impossible to know which one is true hence they are all wrong and totally missing the point.
@@KnightFel none of them claim the same thing. If they did, they would all be one church, wouldn't they? All of them have different claims in regards to different topics and they're all different churches.
Regarding technicality and personal interpretation, there’s a quote from St. Augustine that I think address the substance of such a point even if indirectly at times. I really pray you see my comment and read it, here’s the quote: “For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)- not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.”
“I was tired of giving more than you gave to me And I desired a truth I wouldn’t have to seek And in the silence, I heard you calling out to me.” - The Oh Hellos, The Truth is a Cave
Question: In light of your final comments about praying and seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what do you say to 3 people, given the same evidence, and right minded motivation, who, while not forsaking prayer, end up in different places. One becoming Catholic, one becoming Orthodox, and the last Protestant. To an extent it would be foolish of Christians from any of these traditions to simply say the Holy Spirit is not working in the other traditions, but how do we compare this with the nature of the Holy Spirit to be that of Truth, to lead us to Christ? Although I don't see an alternative, I don't rationally understand how the Spirit of Truth can lead people in directions that are contradictory on various levels. Romans 9 14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[b] but on God, who has mercy. 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 2 Timothy 3:7 always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. Ecclesiastes 1:18 For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow. Lord have mercy
In the Reformation, Protestants were faced with similar Roman Catholic arguments about their God-give. authority and supremacy, and responded (as seen in the Book of Concord) with systemic-level arguments of what the Early Church actually looked like, and how the Papacy developed over time instead of being an apostolic establishment. It was complex, time-consuming but also necessary Many of the arguments made by Ubi would be familiar to, say, Gerhard.
As someone confused over several things about this topic - i apply Proverbs to my own position. I know i cannot bail myself out - but i also know who can? Come Lord Jesus.❤
This was a great Protestant perspective and very kindly spoken. There are rude and condescending people on all sides of this and I hope more voices like Dr. Ortlund’s prevail. I do have three quick thoughts as someone preparing to come into the Catholic Church: - I think the question that has to be asked prior to the Papacy is the one of apostolic succession. What is it? Is it one of these “essential” components of the Church Gavin talks about and what does it mean? I don’t really plan on debating this in the comment section unless someone wants to, but I think asking the question of the Papacy is putting the Cart ahead of the horse a bit if you are unconvinced about Apostolic succession. This is by no means directed towards Gavin but rather towards those who are discerning this issue. I think if you come anywhere close to the early Churches position on apostolic succession, the Papacy becomes more relevant and more tenable. - I understand this argument was not actually made and was actually condemned in the video, but I hear many people speak of “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” in regard to Vatican 1 Papacy. However, I would argue that from a historical perspective we are in a similar epistemic perspective with the resurrection of Jesus. We basically have a somewhere over 50 percent of the evidence but less than 100 pointing towards his resurrection. Yes, I also believe we have other reasons than the historical data to believe in Christ which leads me to: - Reasons other than historical/empirical to believe in the Papacy and the Catholic Church. Although the question of scripture is not entirely separate from history or Church authority either, one can certainly look to scripture to see the type of Church that was prophesied about. Augustine proves the Catholic Church is the true Church based on biblical prophecy and I think this might be an interesting angle to explore as well it certainly helped me. Though again we must rely on human judgment. I think what Gavin said is a crucial point though. We are all limited and I believe if we seek after Jesus Christ with all our heart, he will reward us as is promised in Hebrews 11:6.
Re: the papacy vs Jesus, it's built into the core of Christianity that you have to have faith in Jesus, and faith by its nature is the assurance of that which is unseen. Scripture calls for us to believe in Jesus how many times? Whereas the papacy's whole shtick is that it's supposed to be historically validated and that it resolves to epistemic uncertainties that would arise from sola scriptura/private judgement/etc.
@ I don’t think that is its whole schtick. The schtick is that it is a divinely established office. The uncertainty of sola Scriptura is only one reason to believe in it. A What scripture tells us to believe? The Christian scripture. Preserved and passed down to us by who? The Church. So one cannot entirely separate scripture from tradition because scripture itself is a product of tradition. The demarcation seems to be a false one to me. “You can fully trust the scriptures, these ones in my Bible, but not the ones with the apocrypha in it” is simply an assertion that requires an appeal to history as well just like the papacy does. The Protestant is essentially borrowing from the Catholic worldview in a similar way to how an atheist will borrow logic and morality from a theist worldview and argue against it. Scripture requires an appeal to tradition and history as well unless you just a priori grant it to yourself in which case you’ve given up any right to give a historical critique of the papacy because your faith is no longer grounded in history, but in your assertions. Another thing that frustrates me about the Protestant position is it really gives no cohesive account to what criteria is necessary to develop doctrine historically or scripturally. Do we need explicit references in the first few centuries? Okay then what about the hypostatic union or the canon. Is there only one possible interpretation of a text in scripture? If not, how do we know who is right?
@TruthUnites 17:30-17:35 “You don’t even have a single bishop there [i.e. EO/RC view of Bishops is an accretion]” Is that true though? Isn’t Titus made an overseer of the elders/presbyters in Titus 1:5 “This is why I [Paul] left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you” Isn’t this a scriptural example of an apostle appointing Titus as a bishop over the elders/presbyters? What about Acts 14:23 “And when they [Paul and Barnabas] had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting, they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed”? What about Timothy being warned personally not to be “hasty at the laying on of hands [giving of the Holy Spirit/Ordination]”? Do you believe that anyone had the prerogative to ordain elders/presbyters or does scripture seem to imply that only the Apostles or those hand selected by the Apostles [i.e. apostolic succession/bishops] could do this? IMO Scripture seems to align much more with Ignatius’ ecclesiology (Bishop, Presbyter, Deacon) and the EO/RC view of the bishop alone being able to ordain other presbyters/elders through Apostolic Succession.
@@donatist59 actually it was essential from the beginning. The apostles appointed elders. In the next generation one of the main characteristics of a true church was that their bishops, elders and deacons came from the apostles.
@fr.davidbibeau621 No, in some areas elders were chosen by other elders as overseers. It wasn't a case of bishops ordaining bishops, it was priests ordaining priests to be bishops. The Lutherans especially have analyzed this point to death. That being said, by the time of Nicaea apostolic succession as we know it had indeed become an essential part of the undivided Church.
As something I raised with both Ubi and Erick 3(4?) years ago, Erick's arguments only land in the ballpark of Vatican 1 in the sense that a bomb lands on a house. Because there is no qualification to avoid a maximalist view of infallibility in the patristic literature, any argument for infallibility will by implication be an argument for maximalist infallibility -- the kind of infallibility which undermines V1 by clear historical examples. And in order to avoid the arguments which land square against maximalism, a nuanced qualified view of infallibility will have to be anachronistically inserted into the patristic literature. The options are either maximalism which everyone agrees is falsified by history, or anachronistic reading of V1 categories into the patristic writings. The only way to argue for papal infallibility in the church fathers is to say the principles from which V1 can be derived are not only present but also effective throughout Church history, such that although the fundamental principle is there, the model for how to understand it was imperfect. Ofcourse then this undermines infallibility in the sense that a clock which is always correct twice a day is only helpful insofar we know both when it is infallible, and what the time happens to be now.
I was raised Protestant, then converted to Catholicism and ultimately left both. I truly appreciate your spirit of genuine ecumenism and your commitment to the truth!!!
I think it's a good point that we all, inevitably, have to use our private judgement. Some use it to arrive at a protestant viewpoint, others use it to arrive at an ecclesial viewpoint. HOT (very protestant) TAKE: As someone who has studied a lot of church/Christian history, it seems obvious to me that churches are very human institutions and don't seem to have any special divine authority or guidance. At least they sure don't act like it consistently.
7:50 that is question begging and arbitrary...how "long" the journey is depends on a lot of factors, including asking the historical question at all, which by default would exclude ALL protestant/evangelical/none denominational churches. But for the sake of argument, lets say it was an issue, how in world can protestantism even attempt to solve it, giving its "inherent nature" of being ever reforming, thereby excluding absulte certanty in dogma by definition? It's already quite of misleading of speaking of "THE protestant church ", as if it was a homogenous group
For me, one of most significant issues is the Roman Catholic Church's claim to ultimate authority. For example, any believer in Christ can go to any Protestant church (including any Catholic, for I have known many who do) and if the church is a Bible based fellowship, that believer can enjoy full fellowship and participate in all sacraments, including and especially communion. On the other hand, the RCC considers Protestants "outside" of the fellowship and prohibits participation, including in communion. This is an important difference which reveals a much bigger story about the divide between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Gavin, I would like to hear your thoughts on this difference.
The RCC also has rules against participation in Protestant weddings. On the other hand, I'd disagree that "all sacraments" are available in all Protestant sects. For one thing, Protestants do not consider marriage a sacrament.
Just my two cents, but I just don't think this is historically true and while common today not universally true amongst Protestants, especially those that are historically grounded. The English civil war was Anglicans and Puritans killing each other. In the 19th century I doubt there was any Presbyterian who would commune a Lutheran. Even today, most of the Lutheran denominations other than the ELCA will not even commune other Lutherans, let alone other flavors of Protestants. The Presbyterian denomination I was in before converting to EO would never have communed an RC or EO. To me I don't see it as a feature, but a bug in Protestantism that over time they give up more and more ground and become more and more ecumenical.
This is scandalously untrue. Many, many Protestant denominations have strict rules excluding those from other Protestant denominations from sacramental participation.
The Catholic Church dearly desires that all departed brethren be able to receive Holy Communion in a state of Grace. So much so, they’re willing to take a whole year to teach you everything you need to know to do just that… For FREE!
@@joeoleary9010 Please name some. Remember, I stipulated that the church is a Bible based fellowship. There are many dead Protestant denominations that have fallen away from Biblical teaching and are truly apostate.
Thank you for your always irenic and anxiety-settling approach, Dr. Ortlund. I don't find much of the debating that is done to be fruitful to the Church. "Can't see the forest through the trees" in a nutshell
As a reflection on Gavin's discussion about essential vs. accidental qualities of the Church: My wife is currently decluttering our house with a merciless efficiency. She is always asking me, "Can we live without this?" and "Will we really miss this?". This seems to me to be kind of similar to the Protestant mindset with regard to theological commitments. What are the minimum possible number of things that one must do or believe in order to still be called a Christian? And it makes sense to some extent that this would be a feature of Protestantism since there is a lot of liturgical and theological diversity between Protestant groups and they have to make sense of one another. I don't think that Orthodox Christians have ever really felt that they had to define what the minimum possible number of things are that must be done or believed to be Orthodox or to be saved. It's more like, "We are a part of this family, so let's keep doing things the way that our family does them." I'm not sure I'd call it maximalistic necessarily, but it's more like we don't feel we need to constantly reevaluate why we do what we do, though there is certainly periodic reformation within Orthodoxy.
Although I disagree with your sort of flippant disregard for the value of apostolic succession, I agree with the main thrust of your appeal, and always appreciate your videos. One thing I wonder is why, when you mention how popular views can go wrong, you didn't mention Newman's book on Arianism in the 4th century, and it's famous claim that some 80% of bishops globally embraced Arianism or semi-Arianism during that time (well, the exact number comes from an introduction to the book, but Newman's description is the basis for the number). It would seem like that might be the best example you could have used there, and also just makes a ton of sense in the context in which you were speaking, having just mentioned Newman.
What's your contention, that Arianism wasn't very popular in the 4th century? According to Jerome: "At that moment the term ousia was abolished: the Nicene Faith stood condemned by acclamation. The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian." (Dialogue against the Luciferians 19) At any rate, Arianism was not a small sect. The battle over it was a huge defining period for Christianity, and Arianism persisted in the West for a couple centuries among the Goths.
@@taylorbarrett384 You aren't making yourself clear. If your point is that apostolic succession guards against heresy, then why did 80% of 4th-century bishops (if you believe that claim of Newman is correct) accept some form of Arianism? Even more to the point, on what basis do you know that Arianism is unsound?
@joeoleary9010 I think the problem here is you are looking for an argument and assuming I am some kind of tribalist apologist. My comment about apostolic succession is unrelated to my question about why Gavin didn't bring up Arianism. On the one hand, I disagree that apostolic succession is superfluous (as Gavin said, "who cares!?"). On the other hand, I appreciate and agree with the general thrust of the video. And I wonder why he did not mention Arianism, because it would have been a very good, perhaps the best, example for what he was trying to argue. As for the epistemic basis on which we can know things, the answer is the same for everyone, and for every question: faith and reason.
@@taylorbarrett384 Argument? I merely asked for clarity on what you're trying to say. And that's because, by intent or accident, all 3 of your comments are wholly coy and nebulous. Somehow I suspect I'm not the first person who's told you that. I'll try again: Is your contention that Arianism is wrong, and if so, what does that have to do with the quote you offered from Cardinal Newman's book? Is Arianism wrong (if that's what you believe) because the church outlawed it....despite 80% of apostolically appointed bishops siding with some form of Arianism? Or did you discover a means to privately discern that Arianism is fundamentally wrong through (as Gavin suggested) your own intellect and conscience?
A lot here seems to trade off a non sequitur. Private judgment is so messy for figuring out the church, that we should figure everything out by private judgement.
The simple element of Protestantism is under-emphasized. Luther expresses it by his refusal to debate Aristotelian definitions of the Eucharist. Richard Hooker expresses it when he states that RC soteriology and its connection to the institutional church is wrong primarily because of its complexity. So when Reformed circles endlessly debate the finer points of “Calvinism”, we can legitimately ask if that is proper for the Protestant. This has its limits and can argue against valuable scholarship and theology. But the principle remains.
“1. Don't over-rely on private judgment; trust the Church Christ founded 2. To determine WHICH is the Church Christ founded, use your private judgment.” I’m assuming you’re portraying #2 as a problem, but I don’t think it is. Ultimately, we have to use private judgment to determine Christianity to be true, and every other religion to be false. We can’t just throw up our hands and say “God didn’t intend for it to be this difficult, it’ll be cool to be Muslim or any religion that preaches monotheism.” So if private judgment is used to pick Christianity, then it being used to pick the true church isn’t an issue since it’s historically clear that Jesus did establish ONE church.
Great point. To add on, I think the main problem Catholics have with Sola Scriptura is that it allows folks to use private judgement on EVERYTHING if they want to. If you're a Lutheran and decide you don't like a Lutheran doctrine, you can either disregard it, or go find another church that fits your private judgement. Under the view that there's only one true church, however, you can only do so much when you disagree with its teachings. You could go from Catholic to Eastern Orthodox/Oriental Orthodox, but as long as you believe in the idea of one true church that Christ guides into ALL the truth, you can't just go off on your own and come up with your own thing. You have to submit to certain teachings. This turns private judgement from a unique decision for every single doctrine and teaching to just private judgement for which church you'll follow. It's a lot smaller of a step.
@@IridiumAxle There has been plenty of disagreement, even among Catholics. Take the council of Trent for example. The tridentine view was that their doctrines had unanimous consent among the fathers, yet Cardinal Newman, who was more honest, denys this principle and introduced a development hypotheses that was rejected in principle by Trent. You have the issue of Vatican 2 affirming the possibility of salvation outside of the church where vatican 1 denys it. Many other such contradictions are found within your church, and contradictory explanations of these councils abound even to this day.
You seem to miss the point. The protestants do not reject that Christ established one church, we reject the idea that the "one church" is institutionally confined to one sect or denomination. If you believe this is a protestant invention, I invite you to read the "Philocalia of Origen ". In this book, Gregory and Basil compiled and republished the works of Origen they agreed with, and in chapter 16, Origen, and by extension Gregory and Basil, affirm the legitimacy and even the divine appointment of distinct, yet Catholic sects.
@ “we reject the idea that the one church is institutionally confined to one sect or denomination.” Yes, that’s quite obvious given how many Protestant denominations there are today. The original church is PRE-denominational. The creed says “I believe in ONE, holy Catholic and apostolic church”. You can change the definition of “one” all you want. That doesn’t make it okay, and the fruits are obvious. How many different Protestant denominations are there again?
@@jeremybamgbade I don't deny that there has been disagreement among Catholics, and any serious Catholic shouldn't deny that either. The point is that Catholic doctrine has remained whole over the past 2000 years, regardless of whether or not Catholic *people* have disagreed. As far as the contractions you pointed out, I'd need to see you address specifically the Catholic explanations for those in order to believe that they are indeed contradictions. For example, the concept of no salvation outside of the Church still remains after vatican 2, but it's understanding has been modified based on the different world which we now live in. Salvation comes from Christ through His Church, but different people can have different connections to Christ's Church in mysterious ways known to God alone.
7:00 again this is ridiculous, the normal person didn’t need to figure it out, they were either catholic in the west, orthodox or Coptic in the east, the Catholic view is that they are all true churches in schism, which means the churches that existed before and after Luther were these churches, there was no need to figure this stuff out because that was Christianity until Luther, now that Luther comes along, you must either admit that all Christian’s properly practising their faith went to hell before Luther or they had salvation, if they had salvation than why be Protestant
I agree with the point on private judgement; one cannot escape private judgment and one needs to take responsibility for what one believes. In the search for the "True Church" or the true understanding of the Church, one doesn't have that many options. Of the continuing ecclesiastical bodies now, there are the Assyrian Church of the East, the various "Miaphysite" churches such as the Copts, the Orthodox Church(es), the Papacy, and a variety of mutually recognising Protestant churches as well as a scattering of minor sectarian groups To shift between these groups, one can study the decrees of the so-called Seven Ecumenical Councils. Setting aside forming one's own sect, if one does not accept any of these then one should join a sectarian Protestant group such as Baptists or Pentecostals. If one accepts only the first two as correct then one should be Nestorian. If one accepts only the first three then one should be "Miaphysite", e.g. Copt or Syriac. If one accepts only the first four then one should be traditional Protestant of whatever flavour one fancies depending on level of progressive, liberal leaning or priority of free will. If one accepts all Seven then one is either Papal or Orthodox. If one accepts also the canons of the councils as true then one is Orthodox. Alternatively, if one accepts the "filioque" clause in the "Nicene" Creed (actually the Creed of Constantinople AD381) then one is Papal or if one accepts that the Creed cannot be changed once written then one is Orthodox. The debate in question was about the primacy of Rome that is also a separation between Papal and Orthodox as an alternate route to decision between them, which can get technical. Overall, the choices are not dependent on a singular technicality, but on a wide range of issues. This exploration is not simplistic, reality does not lend itself to that, but it is not down to an obscure technicality either. Personally, I just looked as Scriptural consistency with formal doctrines and working through many Protestant denominations, the Papacy, and the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church, in their formal declarations, was the only option where I could not find a Scriptural inconsistency in doctrine and practice given a desire to maintain the traditions (practices and beliefs) just as they were handed down.
The complexity of the issue has no bearing on which Church is the true Church. Yes the issue is complicated, but would we say the same thing for God's existence after watching a debate between a Christian and atheist philosopher? Of course it would go into the weeds, but would one be justified in saying "well, if their were a God, I don't think He would place the truth of His existence at the end of extremely complicated metaphysical arguments"? Certainly not.
I think the difference is that we don't believe one can only come to a knowledge of God's existence at the end of extremely complicated metaphysical arguments, since his existence is plain to every human (Rom 1:19-20). However, knowledge of the true church is not presented in Scripture as being so innately clear.
But Paul isn't talking about scriptural evidence for God. He's talking about the natural evidence in the world. The same was true for the Church prior to the great schism. One could look at the Christian Church and there it was, apart from any Scripture. You're assuming sola scriptura as the basis of your evidence for proof of the Church, but the Church preceded the scriptures.
@@Crucian1 The church precedes the NT and Israel precedes the OT. Since the Church is a continuation of faithful Israel, in some sense, yes, the Church does precede the OT. It's one long, faithful line in continuity.
The reformers tried that and were kicked out. Bad leadership makes change difficult. That being said, I agree with your comment. I think it would be nice if people at least tried first.
@@zzzzppppooooo EOs and Catholics often argue that private judgement is a problem for Protestants (and only Protestants) because of our lack of infallible magisterium / authoritative church.
Wait! Did Dr. Gavin use the Aristotelian arguement that Catholics use for transubstantiation in order to explain the essences vs. the accidents of the church??!!! Dr. Gavin, you've kept me Protestant thus far in my 6 year journey, but if you apply Aristotle's philosophical explanation of essences vs. accidents to the church, then could it not also be applicable to Transubstantiation? I'm no philospher or theologian, so perhaps I'm confused on how this works!
sorry to confuse. the terms can be used outside of Aristotle much more broadly. essence is the core identity, accidents are non-essential features that may (but need not) obtain
Essences and accidents were normal in Protestantism too. In fact, a bunch of Protestants critiqued Rome for using them badly and in a way that didn't make sense, rather than the proper way.
Faced with ecclesial anxiety, why not apply Pascal’s Wager? Most Protestants agree that Rome and Orthodoxy are true churches. Rome agrees that it and Orthodoxy are the two ‘wings’ of the Church. Orthodoxy says that it IS the Church. Christ says, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Me.’ Wouldn’t we expect His Church to sound like Him?
Because the process of thinking that faith in Christ is insufficient and that it might be necessary to improve on it is itself far riskier than not. Taking this wager is itself damning. (PS: No. Things that are applicable to Christ himself may or may not be applicable to his bride/body/church. The church is not the Son of Man, the church is not the head of the church, the church is not the door, or the true vine, or the I AM.)
Throw out all the heretical accretions and most probably would join with them. But then, the RCC and Orthodox churches would look pretty much like any run-of-the-mill protestant church.
A lot good here. Certainly one can see growth of papal primacy (Orthodox) vs supremacy (R.Catholic) as an "accident." But is episcopacy itself an accident? Who were Titus, Timothy, Ignatius? Is the Eucharist and "accident"? Were Arians part of the Church or tares rowing within it?
The Eucharist is essential and Arianism is heresy; Titus and Timothy are nowhere called bishops; Ignatius uses the term "bishop" in its earliest emergence (not as a successor of apostles or diocesan).
@@TruthUnites Titus 1:5-9 American Standard Version (ASV) "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge" He's in charge of other elders (presbyters) and appoints them. Sure sounds like an overseer (episcopos) to me.
@@jimjatras1448 This is something that Perry Robinson has said. Crete isn't very large. If presbyters could appoint other presbyters, then why not have Titus appoint a couple and leave it those presbyters to appoint other presbyters? It does indeed seem like Titus himself needs to do the act of ordination, not presbyters.
@@TruthUnites Gavin, how can you say that the Eucharist is essential, but believing in transubstantiation vs consubstantiation vs Calvinist spiritual real presence (or all the other views) is not? You have Catholics and Orthodox saying that intimacy with Christ in the Eucharist is necessary for theosis/divinization/diefication, yet you have many Evangelicals saying it's just a symbol and doesn't contribute anything to salvation. I know you would not say that non-denominational memorialists are outside the Church, but how can you have all these competing views in the Church when Ignatius says to have but one Eucharist and Paul speaks in a similar way? It seems that you can reconcile your personal view on the Eucharist by saying that the Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans are going too far, and they actually have a mere spiritual presence of Christ as you believe (same for the memorialists, they just don't recognize it). But for someone who believes in the Catholic/Orthodox view of the Eucharist, this is a huge deal. If we say that memorialists have a valid Eucharist, then potentially millions of people are eating and drinking condemnation upon themselves for rejecting the real presence (as it would be ex opere operato, not based on individual faith). In this case, the body of Christ would be put in little plastic cups under their chairs at Church instead of exalted on the altar where it belongs, completely profaning the sacrament and making a mockery of Christ's institution. These people are, of course, not condemning themselves in this way because they don't have a valid Eucharist. But then they don't have both the word and sacrament anymore, so they aren't a part of the Church. Thus, I don't see how the Catholic/Orthodox view is at all reconcilable with your ecclesiology. Please clarify. God bless!
I think the best Orthodox argument against the papacy is that it is simply unnecessary. What irks me is when Evangelicals talk about denominations in this way and focus only on doctrine, as if that was the only difference between denominations, and ignore spiritual practices. I have spent years immersed in Eastern Orthodox liturgics and prayer and it is unbelievably incredible; there is nothing like it in the Evangelicalism I grew up with. Evangelicals suggest that none of it matters one bit and you can flush it all down the toilet and replace it with nothing, and that it would not diminish the faith in any way, and then they are surprised that Orthodox Christians don't take them seriously. Keep these videos coming. It would be great to see Gavin, Redeemed Zoomer, and the Gospel Simplicity guy have a long conversation about things.
Ironic post because the Papacy and the Liturgy/Sacraments are both, in their own ways, unnecessary, and yet both are also Christ instituted and profitable.
Unneecessary ? A head is unecessary for the body ? Orthodoxy is in major schisms right now as we speak with Russia and Constantinople refusing to commune the Eucharist together or their congregations, you have no idea what's going on.
@@taylorbarrett384 You contradict yourself! He instituted His sacraments, two of which are necessary for salvation baptism Jn 3:5 & His Real True Presence in the Eucharist Jn 6:53
At no time in my 47+ years of Christianity has any revelation by God to me contained instruction on which church to attend. My early private judgment has kept me from errant sects though. I see the Church as the wholescale believing faithful body of Christ, wherever they exist.
I think any fine point of religion and philosophy can get finely detailed and complex if you go deep enough. An agnostic might say the issue between theists and atheists rests on complex fine points of philosophy so obviously those can’t be true.
I’m EO. I fell in love with Christ’s Church in the Divine Liturgy at an Eastern Catholic Monastery. I am a former Protestant. Through some economy we were directed by the Abbott to the EO church. Craig Truglia reviewed the Catholic apologetic work “Keys Over the Christian World” Butler, Collorafi and said this, “Had I not been predisposed to EO I would find ‘Keys’ compelling enough to convert.” pp The Catholic argument for papacy is superior and conclusive. Whether or not that is V1 and V2 conclusive is questionable. The papacy before the schism is irrevocably clear. The chair and see of St Peter is more than honorific primacy. It is a humble hierarchy. Sola Scriptura and Church history led me to Catholicism and wisdom showed me how violent and anthropocentric Protestantism was and is.
That’s a misreading of what Craig says. He says that speaking as if he were new to the subject, not as someone who’s thoroughly studied the issue. Craig does not agree with Collorafi, he doesn’t think RCs have a superior argument, and he just published his own book on the schism to demonstrate why.
The Catholic Church itself doesn't even believe that papal supremacy existed in the first 1000 years. Just read the following 2 recent papal approved Vatican documents titled: "Cheiti Document" and "Alexandria Document"
I understand the distinctive that you are making but no onewas preaching "gospel assurance" in the 6th century. So is once saved always saved a primary or secondary doctrine? If its primary why don't you see it preached? Usually when i see protestants go to "preach the gospel" to already churched Orthodox or Catholics and they say "these people dont even have the gospel" what they usually meam is they dont believe in whatever number of "solas" that protestant personally holds to.
It matters more whether the Bible preaches gospel assurance. And "once saved always saved" is not a primary doctrine, in that you don't need to believe in it to be saved. And yes, Galatians 1:8-9 makes it abundantly clear that it is of the utmost importance whether a person or church presents the true Apostolic Gospel or not. It is not belief in the Solas themselves which saves, but the Solas describe what saving faith looks like.
@@mrjustadude1 1 Corinthians 15:1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: *that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.* 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters... Romans 1:17 in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed-a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.” Ephesians 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit... Galatians 2:7 [The other Apostles] recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of *preaching the gospel* to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.
@Crucian1 ok, I mean if you quote a selection of theme, I'm going to say yes, I agree, it's the NT, but you need to explain what you think or why you are quoting those at the exclusion of everything else.
@@Crucian1 Before we go down a rabbit hole let me explain to you why this is a waste of time. When you talk to a protestant (as a non protestant) and they just quote dump scripture on you its mostly unhelpful. We ultimately have a different understanding of authority. Protestants assume sola scriptura, no one else does. So the question becomes how do you interpret them. So you need to offer your interpretation of what you think those quotes mean otherwise whats the point?. Like yes, I agree 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 is a great summery of what is of first importance. That Christ Died for our Sins and rose on the 3rd Day. Yes, that is the key point of the Gospel. But what does that accomplish for this conversation unless you think we don't also believe that? If you just give me bibical quotes I'll just say yeah, I agree those are all true. If that was why would protestants have any issue with the Gospel thats preached by Catholics or Orthodox, as Corinthians 15:1-5 is the key point of both faiths. We all read the same NT and believe it is 100% True. We could go back and forth defending with scripture our interpretation of scripture. It would pretty much be a waste of time. At the end of the day you believe doctrine of sola scriptura and i believe that the scriptures need to be understood in the context of the Church in Holy Tradition. If you did that I could offer my own list of bible quotes that I think are not being considered and offer my interpretation of them. I would also offer the traditional interpretations of these, which I take as authoritative and which you do not. So you can offer me any "Proof Text" from the scriptures you want, I'll agree that it is authoritative and inspired, but we will likely disagree about how to correctly interpret them. We don't have an agreed on source of athority.
I don’t know how closely you read comments Dr Ortlund, but I highly recommend reading In Search of Ancient Roots by Dr. Kenneth Stewart on the topic of church history and evangelism. If you like the book, I might be able to get you an interview with the author ;)
Great video’! But, what makes you accept the Nicene Creed but not the following ones? I understand that the faith of Christianity has the Nicene Creed as it’s foundation but I don’t see how that matters if the worry is human error in interpretation and understand?
I heard from another of your videos that you are familiar with Pascal's "Pensées," so I wanted to mention that the illustration at 10:44 of this video, the one that shows the protestant relationship to church history, reminds me very much of Pascal's "pensée de derrière la tête" / "thinking behind the head." Here is the passage from "Pensées:" "Raison des effets. Gradation. Le peuple honore les personnes de grande naissance. Les demi‑habiles les méprisent, disant que la naissance n’est pas un avantage de la personne, mais du hasard. Les habiles les honorent, non par la pensée du peuple, mais par la pensée de derrière. Les dévots, qui ont plus de zèle que de science, les méprisent, malgré cette considération qui les fait honorer par les habiles, parce qu’ils en jugent par une nouvelle lumière que la piété leur donne. Mais les chrétiens parfaits les honorent par une autre lumière supérieure. Ainsi se vont les opinions succédant du pour au contre, selon qu’on a de lumière." (I am not sure whether you speak French, but I know that TH-cam will automatically provide a translation if you don't.) EDIT: I've just checked and Pascal does not come out too well when put through an automatic translator. The paragraph that I posted is from the section "raison des effets," but I do not know what the organizational system is in the English translations (Even the reference systems of the French editions are rather complicated), so I cannot give you a specific reference. I hope that you'll be able to find it.
A point of note: the modern Nestorian church (the Assyrian Church of the East) would really be better classified as a splinter off of Roman Catholicism rather than a true continuation of the Nestorian Church. This is because their line of bishops derive from a group that fully united with Rome and later changed their minds (on the other hand, the current Chaldean Uniates were the line that originally did not Unite with Rome). Thus, there is no unbroken continuation of the Nestorian Church. That puts the current one on similar ecclesiological footing as the Old Catholics. Besides, their practice of open communion with all confessors of real presence is a de facto surrendering of their claim to be the exclusive successors of the Church. But how far are you going to go with all the different heresies composing the Church? You mention the Severians (Orientals) probably because they exist today; back then, the Arians were still around; would you consider them a part of the Church? What about the Gnostics? And today, what about the Mormons? They claim to be part of the church just as well. They have some extra books to be sure, but as you know Orthodox, Severians, Roman Catholics, and Protestants don't all have the same books as well. Where is the line getting drawn here exactly?
Um, the meme at 10:51 seems belied by Gavin's protestations, from 4:00 to 4:30. It appears that the folk in the middle portion of the Bell-Curve might very well be the Catholics and XYZ-Orthodox who treat the topic as trivially obvious. But it looks like the folk on the right-hand side ought properly to be those who're _even deeper_ in history, grant that it has ambiguities, and _still_ can see that the evidence more strongly favors something on the Catholic-to-*-Orthodox spectrum, than someone who says, "Eh, this is too much, I'm out." By the way, isn't the very complexity an excellent argument in favor of something minimally like XYZ-Orthodoxy, and even more like Catholicism? Here's what I mean: We all want a working "Epistemology of Faith": That is, a usable, functioning, deterministic, and plausibly Dominical method of _coming to know_ what the Required Content of the Christian Religion is. "Usable" means that a plumber or stockbroker can use it, maybe not to indulge every curiosity, but certainly to obtain safe answers to actionable questions like "Is artificial contaception moral?" and "I'm divorced from a Christian ex-wife, am I free to remarry?" and "My first child was just born; ought I have her baptized?" and "Which local church should I be attending?" "Functioning" means that when you use the Epistemology of Faith, _if_ it gives you an answer, you can not only _know_ what the answer was, but _know that you know_ what it was, with well-founded principled confidence ...and, if it doesn't give you an answer, you can not only _know,_ but _know that you know,_ that you are unanswered, and thus are not morally obligated to any action that would presume you _did_ know the answer. "Deterministic" means that if three people (or one person on three occasions) use the method, it gives the same response each time; or, if the response differs, it differs merely in wording, emphasis, cultural nuances, but never _reverses itself._ "Plausibly Dominical" means that there's some evidence this is how Jesus _intended_ us to come to know the Required Content of the Christian Religion. What we want is an Epistemology of Faith that fulfills those criteria, precisely because _without that,_ we can't have any well-founded confidence that we know what the Required Content of the Christian Religion is. And in that case, either Real Christianity is lost in the mists of time; or, if someone randomly happens to be practicing it _today,_ he _can't possibly know that he is,_ and we can't _either._ Now, here's the thing: 1. The Catholic Epistemology of Faith provides Epistemology of Faith, whenever the Catholic hierarchy is playing to their strong suit. When they get lily-livered, everything gets cloudy and doubts emerge about where things are going...but even then, nobody doubts that the Catholic Church teaches the Immaculate Conception, or Baptismal Regeneration, or the Eucharist as a Sacrifice, do they? 2. The *-Orthodox Epistemologies of Faith vary. None have either perfect consensus or perfect historical continuity back to the ante-Nicene era. BUT, they all lean heavily enough on tradition and conciliarism that the various Orthodoxies look and sound _markedly similar_ to one another. There are embarrassing points re: whether the Ecumenical Patriarch can declare the Ukrainian Orthodox church autocephalous, or whether Protestant converts need to be rebaptized. But on the whole, there's comparatively narrow variability. 3. The Protestant Epistemologies of Faith claim to all be Sola Scriptura, but clearly that means different things to different people. Yet even among those whose epistemic _methods_ are most-similar (e.g. particularly literally-minded groups), these similar methods produce radically-varying doctrinal opinions, on important, actionable topics! None of the variations seem deterministic or functional; and the evidence is against Dominical foundation. It's not even obvious how the individual is expected to make use of these methods, to know which church to attend, whether to baptize a newborn, etc. The more confusion-generating a proposed Epistemology of Faith is, the less plausible it is, that Jesus wanted us to use _that_ means, to come to know the Required Content. Yet, by definition, we _need_ to know the Required Content. That's why it's called "Required." So, if we encounter confusion, we must either say that God is the author of confusion, or assume that _man_ is, and the reason we're in this predicament is because _we screwed up_ by using an incorrect Epistemology of Faith. Makes sense, right? Well, it appears that Gavin acknowledges the complexity of the historical debate, and then concludes, "Therefore, let's adopt the Epistemology of Faith that has historically yielded the _most_ confusion about doctrine." Does that make sense? Does it not make more sense to say, "For the average plumber or stockbroker, this stuff can get complex. It becomes a realm for specialists; and we can't all be specialists. God knows this. Therefore we can reasonably conclude that the Epistemology of Faith which He intended us to use is one capable of generating relatively clear-cut answers, and keeping all the faithful on the same reservation, at least roughly." ...? If not the _most_ successful EoF (the Catholic), then at least one of the top two, appears to be the natural best option, given the complexity.
@@SeanusAurelius: Respectfully, your response puzzles me. Faith is the settled disposition (by supernatural gift) to trust that what God has said is true. But one isn't supposed to exercise faith in things God hasn't said. Therefore, one must first be able to distinguish between what _has_ and _hasn't_ been said by God. That's the purpose of an EoF. Far from "not leaving room" for faith, a working EoF is what provides you the _opportunity_ to exercise faith. You'll never have that opportunity, without one. That's why the term Functioning (in the context of an EoF) makes so much sense: If some Random Preacher R comes to you and says Assertion ABC is a divinely-revealed truth, to which one is morally obligated to give the full assent of your intellect, what will you do? Just blithely assume that Pastor R is correct? Nope, you'll want to authenticate, and error-check the message. But if your error-checker/authentication-checker _doesn't function,_ then you'll be stuck. You need it "up and running." So, why _wouldn't_ you want your Epistemology of Faith to be functioning? I'm sure you have your reasons, but the "hard pass" comment leaves me puzzled.
5:45 it’s not that you can’t figure things out, it’s that there no guarantee that you’ll fully understand the bible, there’s a difference between being a able to figure out what denomination or religion is correct vs being able to interpret the bible in the correct way, because the bible isn’t just a true thing, it’s gods word, that’s different then knowing 1+1=2, I’m not saying it’s that simple but I am saying interpreting the multiplicity and multi meanings of the bible is vastly different and unachievable without the church compared to knowing that Catholicism is correct, if you can’t see the difference then your just being dishonest, it’s not a matter of interpretation of true or false but rather an interpretation of hundreds of passages that can be taken in 10 different ways with 50 different implications vs knowing that the pope is the head of the church or not
Even within the developed episcopal polity of the second century CE and after, the relationship between the bishops was equality and collegiality. Individuals might have a stronger voice as they were respected by the other bishops for their spiritual attributes. But there was no claim of supremacy for the bishop of Rome in the West until much, much later.
@@jonathanstensberg Even after Christianity was raised to the level of Rome's state religion at the end of the fourth century CE, the historical record is still one of bishops sharing equality of voice. Even Rome's role as an important geographical center with large population was by then on the decline, with imperial power and wealth shifting to the East. Were there important and respected bishops of Rome over the years? Yes. Just as from Alexandria or Antioch or other centers of Christian education. As state religion, it was the emperors who arbitrated when bishops could not come to agreement on important matters. Sometime after the fall of the empire in the West, the idea of the bishop of Rome's supremacy began to be championed. In the East, of course, the church remained tied to the Byzantine emperors who denied such a claim.
Anytime I watch a catholic or orthodox apologist it really causes me a lot of anxiety. I'm really glad to have found you and thank you for all the things you do as far as making us (protestants) feel that we can indeed be secured in our faith
@@geoffjswhich is to repent and believe in Christ. The reason it causes anxiety (if you actually take it seriously) is because they both claim to be the one true church and both use the same evidence and make the same arguments yet anathematize anyone that’s not them. It’s not Christian.
@@KnightFel As harsh as it may seem in our modern day soft world, people reject the Truth of His One Catholic Church. To Anathematise someone is being cruel to be kind. In other words, a spiritual medicine to wake up to error with a call to change. Being rejected is not necessarily permanent provided that the person changes. Nancy Pelosi is banned from receiving communion because of her support for abortion as should also apply to Biden. Unless Pelosi changes, she brings condemnation on herself. The Church is always pastoral & rarely invokes anathema. The lack of obedience esp by Protestants has resulted in the confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17:11-23 Personal interpretation with its many @truths” has resulted in the scourge of relativism & wokeism. Tks!
I am Ex Protestant now I am Catholic, I wouldn’t be scared. Really I would follow truth wherever it leads, and truth is God so it will lead you there. That’s how I’m Catholic now!
Ex Protestant as well here, now Catholic. The channel Shameless Popery is a good place to break down the information but essentially you have to understand that Orthodox are playing pretend. They pretend they're united but right now they just got done ordaining female deacons, and there is major schism between Constantinople and Russia. The One True Church is that against which the gates of hades cannot prevail, but they have prevailed over all individual Protestant churches not one has kept its doctrines pure of error they all contradict the 1st Millenium united Church. Also consider that Orthodox accept Rome as the Highest See, they just refuse to accept like bickering children the implications of the title.
When you say orthodox and Roman Catholic it is very confusing. There is not just 1 Orthodox Church. On the other hand there is 1 Catholic Church but not all of it is under the Roman rite. So either you know this and are being disingenuous or you don’t know this so shouldn’t be speaking as though you do. If Trinitarianism is the standard for a church to be Christian then there wasn’t a schism until 1054. Unless you want to accept the Gnostics, a 2 Willed Jesus or Oneness theology?
This is what Newman wrote prior to his conversion to Rome... John Henry Newman: Now, if a man is in a state of trial, and his trial lies in the general exercise of the will, and the choice of religion is an exercise of will, and always implies an act of individual judgment, it follows that such acts are in the number of those by which he is tried, and for which he is to give account hereafter. So far, all parties must be agreed, that without private judgment there is no responsibility; and that in matter of fact, a man’s own mind, and nothing else, is the cause of his believing or not believing, and of his acting or not acting upon his belief. John Henry Newman, Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church: Viewed Relatively to Romanism and Popular Protestantism, 2nd ed. (London: Gilbert & Rivington, 1838), p. 157.
Catholic here. Man I would love to sit down and talk sometime! Just one comment: Error is death, but there are varying degrees of death. Error, or sin, or schism is to miss the mark or to misapprehend the purpose that holds you together. That's what death is, whether at the cellular or the human or the national level. To stick with your analogy, a cold is death, but it is a small death because a healthy body has the faculties to overcome it. If your body does not have those faculties in order, that cold will become something more serious and could very well become a big death, whether that's permanent damage or your body actually ceasing to hold together. A big criticism of Protestantism is that it does not have the ontological or epistemological faculties to fight the little deaths that invade the Christian body and so they become big deaths. It seems to me that is why Catholics and Orthodox get "stuck" on that. I hope that is a helpful answer!
…even Clement of Rome was in error when he wrote about the Phoenix. He knew the apostles and still had an error. None of us are without error. If we say we are without error, we are in error. When Christ appears, he will teach us and we will know and understand.
And let's not forget about the _Shepherd of Hermas_ claiming that: • hares grow a new anus every year; • hyenas have annual sex changes: and • weasels get pregnant through oral sex...
Gavin has stated that one of his purposes is to help people deal with what he calls “ecclesial anxiety.” However, he seems to take issue with people whose anxiety is alleviated by Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Why is that? If those two groups are “a part of the Church” as he says in this video, then what’s the problem with people converting to them?
@@cassidyanderson3722 He doesn't take issues with those people whose anxiety are alleviated by either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, but that people shouldn't convert out of fear of wanting to be in the "one true Church." He also tries to let them know of what they're committing and binding their conscience to. I don't know where you get the having issue with those that their anxiety is being dispelled by these churches.
The way I see it, the criticism “you have to use personal judgment to discern which church is true” is anachronistic - it doesn’t exist for most of Church history, and only exists now because humans have disobeyed God and scripture to split off and establish their own man-made churches in competition with Christ’s Church. Scripturally, Jesus placed enormous importance on unity, it’s cited by Jesus himself as the sign that the Church is of God (John 17:20-23). Division and schism is repeatedly condemned, and this doctrine of unity is so essential that 1 John 2:19 is able to say that all who leave are by definition antichrist and that by leaving they demonstrate they are not of God. Biblically, unity is a quintessential doctrine reflecting the Unity of God; the fact that Protestantism categorically shrugs off the Biblical condemnation of division, and takes such a blatantly unbiblical position here, means it manifests as exactly the same sort of human corruption of doctrine they were claiming to protest. “Meh, unity is an ideal that can’t really be achieved this side of heaven; division is not only ok but sometimes absolutely essential to pursuing Truth - especially when the gates of hell HAVE prevailed over a church such that continued unity would require compromise on Truth.” If Jesus was wrong about Unity, he could be wrong about anything; and this is why, for every possible doctrine taught by Christ, you can find a Protestant church that rejects it. Now, unity in the Biblical sense doesn’t require everyone will agree on everything; it only means they are united on the essentials, they all recognize the same baptism, the same spirit, and all partake of the same loaf and the same cup (1 Corinthians 12): they are all bound together in unity by the authoritative structure built by Jesus himself, the Church. Whatever diversity of belief can exist in harmony with that unity is permissible. Whatever breaks that unity is not permissible. The divine authority bestowed on the Church exists to arbitrate over matters that threaten division, to define what is allowed in and what must be kept out, to protect the essentials of the faith without squelching diversity of expression: to bind, and to loose. Whatever beliefs ultimately win the day within the Church are of God, for what is of God cannot and will not fail (Acts 5:38, 39).
The Book of Revelation is acknowledged by the Roman Church and the Greek Church as Holy, Apostolic Scripture. The Book of Revelation is not strictly a treatise on ekklesiology, but chapters 2-3 ought to give plenty of food for thought. None of the Seven Churches are told to look to the holy Papa, or a Magisterium for universal guidance. None are told to look to the Metropolitan Bishop. None are told to excommunicate each other, as the Roman and Greek churches did in 1054. All churches are told to directly heed the direction of the Holy Spirit and to repent. Interesting that throughout the Book of Revelation, we are only told of “the churches” (plural and autonomous), not “the Church” (singular and all encompassing). If anyone could actually hear what the Holy Spirit is saying to so many “Laodicean” churches of modern times, I think many people would tremble. When historical, top-heavy, establishment religious societies describing themselves as churches argue over “primacy” I seriously doubt they regularly contemplate ever standing before the Son, whose eyes are a flame of fire.
I found that your pastoral counsel resonated with what John Chrysostom offers to seekers who are unsure of how to navigate the faith despite contradictory arguments and factions within the church. He ironically points the seeker back to the simple truths of scripture- not an ecclesiastical teaching office or the certainty of tradition but the scriptures.
There comes a heathen and says, "I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?" How shall we answer him? "Each of you" (says he) "asserts, I speak the truth.'" No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Chris-tian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule.
(Homily 33 in Acts of the Apostles Nicene and Post Nicene Fatbers
1,11:210-11; PG 60.243-44|)
In all charity I do suggest finishing that quote....
"...As when a carpenter, or a painter, or any other such craftsman, wishes to test his work, he has a rule by which he measures everything- so have we the rule of the Scriptures. And whoever agrees with them is in the right, and he who fights against them is in error. That is the straight rule, that is the exact balance. But what if the heretics say that they too agree with the Scriptures? They do indeed say so, but they are convicted by what they say. For if they speak contrary to what is written, even while they say they agree with it, they stand self-condemned. For the judgment is not theirs, but the Scriptures'. Therefore, let us not believe the multitude, nor be led away by eloquence, nor be influenced by wealth, nor by the weight of power, but let us keep to the Scriptures. And what is even greater, let us follow the consent of the Fathers, who, from one end of the earth to the other, have kept this rule. The truth is clear and open; and though a man be simple and unlearned, if he take pains, he shall learn what is needful, for the divine words are true and cannot lie…"
Not saying Protestants are heretics at all, but John Chrysostom's idea of the primacy of Scripture is not at the expense of the Church or the Fathers. He cannot be cited as an argument for Scripture *as if* it is somehow set up against the Holy Tradition. The Holy Tradition and Scripture are not set against one another. They are part of one revealed whole. The Scriptures reveal a Person, the Fathers teach the meaning and interpret the Scriptures so that they may properly reveal the Person Himself. "And what is even greater, let us follow the consent of the Fathers, who, from one end of the Earth to the other, have kept this rule." What rule? The rule of the Scriptures. Understood, believed in, lived, experienced, and taught by the Holy Fathers and the Church which they were and are a part of.
Thank you for this comment
@@LoveIncarnate What you posted still doesn't support your argument though. He points the seeker to the scriptures and said the scriptures is the yard stick. He didn't say "holy traditions and scriptures." You're trying to read into it your traditions as though he was making the argument that church traditions don't have a place. Church traditions have a place, however that tradition must be measure with the scriptures! That's his point
@@LoveIncarnate Yes thanks for finishing the quote even if it actually don't say what you're claiming. Lets take a closer look at your quote:
"let us follow the consent of the Fathers, who, from one end of the earth to the other, have kept this rule . The truth is clear and open"
What exactly is this rule John Chrysostom is appealing to?
"As when a carpenter, or a painter, or any other such craftsman, wishes to test his work, he has a rule by which he measures everything- so have we the *rule of the Scriptures* . And whoever agrees with them is in the right, and he who fights against them is in error. *That is the straight rule, that is the exact balance* . "
*The rule IS the Scriptures* . The rule is not scripture plus something else. The consent of the Fathers applies to the longstanding usage of the rule (i.e. the scriptures) but does not imply that the Father's writings, or anything else, are part of the rule itself. Rather, the Scriptures alone are the ultimate measure for determining doctrinal correctness, akin to a carpenter's rule for measuring his work.
Bookmarking discussion
I love how fair, balanced and ecumenical you are. I respect you tremendously!
thanks for watching, God bless you!
The term Ecumenism applies to Christian churches (Catholic), not Protestant sects.
@@drjanitor3747 as much as you might hate to admit, the Magisterium has for years recognized Protestant churches as "separated brethren" which "have been by no means deprived significance and importance in the mystery of salvation"
Hey Gavin, I'm an Eastern Catholic but sometimes watch your videos. Just want to commend you for how fair and thoughtful you are in reviewing this debate. Hope to see more of that on the internet.
I’m Eastern Orthodox and watch him too, he’s great
I'm in the middle of live streaming the World Chess Championship, see a Gavin Ortlund upload, switch immediately. Sorry, Gukesh.
Gavin to E4, takes bishop.
@@ottovonbaden6353 that's brilliant!
This is good!
Gukesh called an arbiter about you. 🙂
@@ottovonbaden6353hahahahah
It's easy to get spiritual anxiety when looking at all of the arguments among the different branches of the faith, but Dr. Gavin always helps put my mind at ease
Love Gavin’s pastoral approach to these topics. EO’s and RC’s can’t say that he’s ever dealt harshly with things dear to them. Beautiful, brother.
Gosh I love this channel
Thank you for your work Pastor Ortlund.
You have helped me remain moored to Christ above all else. Soli Deo gloria
Thanks for that Gavin, it spoke right to things i have been thinking about for Months now. I will trust in the Lord completely and he will direct my path. God Bless
Another excellent video. Thank you for making, Dr. On
But to re-emphasize a previous criticism: On the question of whether “Protestant” is an affording category for analysis or criticism, one could say “Solvitur ambulando.”
“A Protestant View of the Church” is an argument heading here.
"Lands you in the neighborhood" does not justify the massive claims put forth by Vatican 1, Unam Sanctam, Dictatus Papae, and Satis Cognitum.
Exactly, VAT 1 claims "its always been this way", in the metaphor it would be, "Lands you in the same house", not "lands you on a house on the same street". VAT 1 was disproven when Erick said that.
RC apologists can justify anything through a series of ball park landings going back to the apostles
Eric gave the minimalist case for the papacy and succeeded at defending it imo
Indeed. Here's Vatican I:
"And, indeed, *all* the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed, their Apostolic doctrine; *knowing most fully* that this See of holy Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error"
This is just historically wrong.
@@BernardinusDeMoor No, it's a general statement. You're new to litterature apparently, you've never read such broad statements in the Bible or any other book ? It's just a general claim. And if you read the Fathers it's obvious they held to this generally, there is no see superior to Rome and it is Rome which holds the last word on theological disputes as St. Irenaeus says.
23:05 "The Church is not an infallible north star" and 23:12 "we have to go back to what God has said!" Okay, let's do that: "The CHURCH of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the TRUTH." (1 Timothy 3:15) and "The Spirit of truth shall guide you into all the TRUTH" (John 16:13).
None of that means infallability nor supports that's what God says in greater context. Especially since Protestents believe the church is the place of truth but it's not infallable and it's only the pillar of truth due to its relationship with God.
@JesusRodriguez-gu1wv You think Truth can be sometimes false 🫵
@@Justeelisjust “The pillar and the buttress of the truth” does not mean the same thing as “the truth “. A pillar and a buttress supports something. The church is supposed to support the truth, it is in itself not the truth. Jesus is the truth. The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of truth. And the word of God is the truth.(John 17:17). The Holy Spirit did lead us into all truth by giving us the word of God and “the faith that was once for all time handed down to the saints ” (Jude 3).
He said that church history is not an infallible north star. You have misquoted him. "The church never died" was clearly a parenthetical statement.
Which church ?
Really enjoyed this video! I have to admit, I did not watch the debate and honestly I don’t intend to. But the admonition to seek the truth with your heart, guided by the word and faithful counsel was an encouragement and an exhortation to me this morning! Grateful for your work: you are a balanced, godly, and careful presenter - no doubt founded through your work as a minister. Keep up the good work!
It was a good debate imo, just hard to sit through three hours of it. Felt kinds flat to me, got kinds bored and hard to pay attention at times.
Awesome video as always, Gavin! This was encouraging
I do struggle with the Orthodox vs Protestant arguments and this video is helpful and encouraging. Thank you!
Which Orthodox sect?
@@paul_321 Hi, I'm not sure what you mean by Orthodox sect, but I'm referring to Eastern Orthodoxy.
@@clarity-and-peace there are different orthodox sects with different leaderships and different beliefs.
@@paul_321as in the old calendarists? They are not Orthodox, look up canonical Orthodox jurisdictions and go from there. The canonical ones are the ones that are fine to attend church at.
@@SeVeN-yd2tq huh?
I wish I could leave a super chat, your work has relieved of so much ecclesial anxiety. Your heart for the Lord has helped you do great work for him. Glory to Jesus Christ, you are a great brother.
Check the description. Plenty of way to support his ministry. If not the tax deductible donation you could purchase his books if you don't already own them. If you don't read you can always donate them to Goodwill or Providence Ministries. I go through there all the time looking for treasure.
Great analysis. As a lapsed Protestant who became progressively disillusioned with the secular and modernist cult of self-worship and apathy, I started to try and slog my way back to the faith about 4 years ago, and 4 years later I find myself in the boat a lot of people seem to be in. People like me want to come back, but don't want to inadvertently make the wrong decision and end up damned for eternity, so we end up in this cycle of constant reading and studying in order to figure out the correct path. You can read and study every aspect of Church history and still be paralyzed with doubt and indecision, and debates like this one seem to encompass what so many have noted: "surely if there is a true path God doesn't require one to have 5 PhDs in order to find it." So the answer given by Gavin here seems refreshing, and that we should just put our faith in Jesus and the Scripture and accept that there is no "one" true Church. However, one could just as easily apply Gavin's view of Church history to the Scriptures, the Resurrection, etc and thus shift the whole issue one frame backwards. How can one know that the Scriptures are authoritative in and of themselves? This seems to be a matter of faith. How can one know that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead? Is this just a matter of faith as well? Some would say that one only needs to examine the historical evidence and the answer is clear. Except this isn't so simple as it turns out. If it was, why did Gary Habermas just write a 1000-page tome where he tries to convince others on the historical evidence for the Resurrection? Why did NT Wright write a 1000-page tome trying to support the Resurrection through arguments from a historical Jewish context? Why did Dale Allison write his own lengthy book trying to settle the question once and for all, and his honest conclusion is, at best, "I don't know, and we can't say for sure." So again, we seem to be at an impasse when analyzing these theological questions cerebrally. So then is it just a matter of faith? If that is the case, who is to say that the Mormons or the Muslims are wrong. After all, they have their share of historical issues, but if it's a matter of faith then who cares? Some would then say that it's a mix of faith and reason, a la WL Craig, and that you need a "reasonable" basis to accept the tenets of Christianity and that the rest of the difficult questions are a matter of faith. Ok, fair enough, but then we're right back to where we started with "what is the true faith?" As Gavin has, correctly in my opinion, previously pointed out, the EO and RC have historically anathematized one another up until recently (i.e. they, or at least the RC, have made a 180-- so much for being infallible and non-contradictory, does this alone nullify the papacy?). Both have anathematized Nestorianism and monophysitism, but Gavin here says that these early branches of Christianity may be valid? What about the Arians? Is a church only a church if there are valid sacraments? Does this rule out Baptists, then? Clearly there are eternal questions at stake. My point is that it seems very comforting to say "just trust Jesus and Scriptures" but that this itself is based on an underlying assumption that these are a given, and one must apply a similar level of critical analysis to the historical basis of Scripture and the Resurrection in order to be able to even say this statement, where very intelligent people with multiple degrees who have spent their lives studying them can still arrive at conflicting conclusions. I guess at the end of the day you just need to get off the fence and pick something that seems truest given the limited information you have. You'll either find out that you were correct in the end... or not.
I always thought the same thing, why not go one step back and apply the same reasoning there.
I guess there is a distinction between choosing the right religion and then choosing the right denomination. You can have much more wiggle room to suspend your judgement on which denomination as compared to which religion. I guess you have to wager through the major options, where I find Christianity has a clear edge.
Also, Gavin's conclusion in this video is further warranted by the unique salvific route of Christianity, that is by grace through faith, so we can hang up our hands on which 'church' and place our confidence in this common core.
It’s important to remember that, while Jesus was incarnate, He started a church, He didn’t write a book.
@@sathviksiddI think the very distinctives of denominational difference vs religion difference is on trial in this analysis. Why cannot modern Unitarians, Arians, Mormon, or even Atheists qualify for the status of denomination if all of them can and have synthesized an interpretation of Scriptures that makes sense to them? What is to be done with those who disagree about the very content to include in Scripture?
We must settle on who has the authority to interpret and govern the Church. Who is going to retain and govern what the Scriptures are and what correct preaching of them constitutes? Who decides what the Sacraments are and how to administer them? How else can any meaning be had from the statement, “where the word is preached and the Sacraments administers” as a definition of a church?
And that is assuming the historic Protestant definition of church Gavin used, which is a regularly contested definition within Protestants circles today.
This is a wonderful and well thought-out comment. I have thought the same things myself.
At the end of your reasoning, I was expecting the conclusion that it most naturally led to: literally everything in life, including the question of whether we can know anything at all, has had thousands of pages written on it at this point. To understand anything, including understanding itself, you are going to have to work hard and do a lot of research. There is no lazy option. You have to think critically, think well, be trained in logic, have access to good knowledge sources, and identify your own biases. Even after all that hard work, you may still miss something.
That is not to say that knowledge is impossible. It is simply to note that it takes a lot of work. It has always taken a lot of work, and it always will.
Part of this is that the nature of lies is to complicate things. Once things become complicated, they cannot be made simple again. You took it for granted that you could know things? You thought things like gravity were established? Think again. Now 500 tomes will be written on that topic because some guy somewhere wrote a tome against that concept that was just compelling enough to make people think deeper about it.
The truth is that reality is infinitely complex, which means the more we explore it, the more complicated everything will get. Right now people have an epistemic crisis. This is not going to get better, and at the end of this road we are not going to discover that everything was simple all along. We are going to discover that it was way more complicated than we could even begin to grasp.
So the answer is don't be lazy, and trust in the mercy of God, since most of your ability to think critically and the sources you have access to are determined in his sovereignty. Pray for mercy and wisdom.
This isn't the answer anyone wants to hear, but I have thought frankly about this as you have, and it's about the only answer I can find. "Just pick one and cross your fingers" doesn't work. You must work hard, pray hard and trust in the mercy of God.
@@crazycoolkids00 I greatly appreciate the response and think there is likely a lot of truth in what you said: "So the answer is don't be lazy, and trust in the mercy of God, since most of your ability to think critically and the sources you have access to are determined in his sovereignty. Pray for mercy and wisdom." I guess my only issue with this is how one actually acts upon this from a practical standpoint. Ultimately, unless one just decides to be perpetually indecisive and never go to church again until one has "the correct answer" then one does have to just make a decision at a given point in time with the available information one has. Because otherwise you can always say, "well, I'm not sure, but I don't want to commit to a specific denomination prematurely and make a mistake, so I'll just keep studying a little longer." I guess the third alternative is to pick something now, and then if confronted by other evidence that makes it apparent that your choice was wrong, you can switch, but in this case this would lead to the possibility of constantly switching between denominations throughout one's life, which seems suboptimal.
I completely agree with the advice at the end about trusting in God. Usually I find I am trying to feel safe based on my own ability to reason. In reality the solution is to trust in the actual person of Christ. This is something I've had to learn facing OCD and it is very applicable in this area as well. I like this quote from The Bruised Reed, by Richard Sibbes:
"Cast yourself into the arms of Christ, and if you perish, perish there. If you do not, you are sure to perish. If mercy is to be found anywhere, it is there."
As a catholic I want to ask a few questions to protestants:
If you affirm schisms, how do you affirm and reconcile with the idea that there’s no infallible teaching (doctrine or dogma)?
And when the bible talks about obeying the church and that the church is the pillar of truth, how do you affirm those things? How do you believe that there’s NO infallible doctrine or dogma, but the church is also the pillar of truth? How is the church the pillar of truth? It’s sounds like there’s an institution that’s preaching the truth. And how do you believe in obeying the church if you also affirm you can leave the church (a denomination) and go elsewhere?
For me this whole situation is resolved easily by looking at scripture.
What’s the point of building the church if everyone is essentially the church?
What’s the point of obeying the church if your church doesn’t affirm infallible teachings? That is to say, are you learning anything true or are you just always on a journey hoping to discover out the truth?
How do you protestants or people who don’t know which way to go, people who are on the fence, make sense of these passages/issues?
I resonate with “bell curve” so much. That has been exactly my experience.
God bless you brother.
I find that you make the better argument, pastor gavin!!
While I agree that private judgment is necessary in all forms of Christianity, there’s still a significant difference in the degree of private judgment between Catholicism/Orthodoxy and Protestantism. In the former, there’s really only one private judgment that needs to occur; whereas with Protestantism, there is a private judgment that must be made with every Christian doctrine and no one to adjudicate orthodoxy from heterodoxy or heresy. Big difference.
Good video once again!
I have had church anxiety for a long time - several years now, sometimes it has been better, sometimes it has been worse. Now it has been worse again.
However, I have begun to understand that I will never find the truth by reading some obscure documents from the fifth century (which 99% of Christians have not heard of), and I do not think that one more work by this and that church father and theologian will really move me forward.
One real strength of Protestantism is that it is possible to build Christian unity on the simple gospel, even if we are in different institutions. Of course, I understand the criticisms that can be made of this model: where do we draw the line? I know Arians, LDS and other so-called "heretics" who are really smart and completely sincere seekers of truth. I understand that the questions they are thinking about are also historically complex (like these church questions). I don't have a completely flawless and problem-free answer to these concerns.
Perhaps in the end it's a matter of what kind of problems one is willing to live with. Each paradigm understands the church (RC, EO, various Protestant models) has its own strengths and weaknesses.
Another strength of Protestantism has emerged for me through ecumenism, which is also related to the first strength: I can consider Christians in different denominations as my brothers and sisters with relative ease. I can believe that Oriental Orthodox martyrs are saved, I can draw wisdom from Eastern Orthodox monks, I can learn from RC philosophers, I can enjoy Lutheran liturgy, I can encourage Baptist friends when they evangelize... I am not a radical liberal inclusivist, but I genuinely feel that I have seen the Holy Spirit at work in different churches and Christians from different backgrounds. Protestantism offers a paradigm to understand this very real phenomenon.
Charity and nuance pilled
11:05 dog
W Gavin
extra treats for not being noisy while walking around! :)
Blessings from Finland !
I found the Ybarra vs. Petrus debate to be one of the most technical debates I've seen online so far regarding church doctrine. That was truly a top-level discussion. In that regard I have a lot of respect for those two, who clearly have put in the time and effort reading the primary sources. At the same time, I think anyone who studies church history enough, when pressed, and if honest, would admit that the historical data is ambiguous. The fact that there are such high-level debates over doctrines like Petrine primacy as this one, where the viewer can walk away still unsure, is evidence that there is no obvious answer to these contrary positions. The Protestant seems to be more willing to admit this than the EO or RCC adherent. That is why sola scriptura is,, with all its deficiencies, still the most conservative and safest doctrine to hold, since we all agree that the material content of the scriptures is divinely revealed knowledge.
I guess my problem is that I don't see sola scriptura to be reconciliable with a denial of the Petrine supremacy, at least not after learning Ancient Greek.
But SS isn't the most conservative doctrine. It's entirely relativistic. The epistemic flaw of the Reformation is that we 1) can't know infallibly what the contents of the Scriptures are and 2) we don't have an infallible way to interpret them.
We might all agree that the content of the Scriptures are divinely revealed, but you can't say that without relying on an external authority, an authority that you ad hoc allow to identify the Scriptures but ignore when that same authority hands down (traditions) an interpretation (sound doctrine) that you disagree with.
The problem is that sola scriptura explicitly contradicts scripture itself and utterly fails upon encountering the word “is”. Sola scriptura is a mirage, not an oasis.
@@jonathanstensberg What is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Please spell it out.
@@thekirkwoodcenter “that is why sola scriptura is, with all its deficiencies, still the most conservative and safest doctrine to hold.” Ehh, that doesn’t make it true, though. This seems like a lazy way out. More than once, the Bible talks about seeking knowledge.
In terms of worldviews, agnosticism is the most conservative and safest doctrine to hold. Therefore should we all just be agnostic?
I enjoyed this debate quite a bit. It’s fun from a Protestant perspective, which is a bit removed though not entirely from the prompt.
Thank you, brother
1. Apostolic succession.
2. Who walked away from truth or true faith. And which Church is still following the true faith since the beginning of Church.
I would encourage everyone to read Joshua shcooping's book, "Why left the eastern orthodox priesthood and church". He made some salient points when it comes to epistemic difficulties in examining the claims of the RCC or EO churches. He says:
"The absurdity of what could perhaps be called the Imperialist ecclesiological position (which includes the Romanist and Orientals together with the Orthodox) is made all the more clear when one must realize that each schismatic branch says substantially the same thing about themselves being right and the others being wrong, and using the same kinds of proofs, thus putting impossible pressure on those outside the Church to be able to make accurate enough historical judgments concerning the vicissitudes of Church history in order to enter the right, salvific Church. According to this extreme and externalist ecclesiology, a person outside the Church, and therefore a non-recipient of God’s saving grace, could not reasonably or perhaps even in principle make such a determination.
The genius of Protestantism, however, is that despite what is claimed by the Orthodox, Romanists, and Orientals, Protestants are not in principle schismatic or factious. Why? Because they do not presuppose in the midst of inevitable differences between administrative and organizational bodies that those outside of their administrative bodies are necessarily outside the Church considered as the Body of Christ. For example, the mere fact of being, say, a Confessional Lutheran does not necessitate a claim by a Confessional Presbyterian that said Lutheran is outside of the Body of Christ and therefore damned, and vice versa. In other words, merely being “not Presbyterian” does not mean that one is outside of the Church, not Christian, or not saved. That is why and how Protestantism is not sectarian, factious, or schismatic, for a Spurgeon can praise a Wesley. A Protestant can even logically hold according to the doctrine of the Invisible Church that a Catholic or an Orthodox can be in the Body of Christ and so saved. But the presupposition of the exclusivist ecclesiology as found in the Eastern Church makes it an institutionally ingrained impossibility for understanding unity in any other way than externally.
For in their case unity must be outwardly visible and within the same administrative and canonical structure. Protestants, however, can create different bodies within a larger Evangelical unity that allows for such differences of administrations, and even on what might be considered important doctrines. This allows for vigorous disagreement to exist within the framework of a deeper evangelical sense of unity. Obviously, this doesn’t answer all possible ecclesiological difficulties related to an Evangelical approach to unity and catholicity, nor whitewash all historic tensions, but it certainly moves beyond the impasse created by the Romano-Byzantine Church-State external unity models"
So basically "Orthodoxy is exclusivist and I think exclusivism is bad"
@@ismaelsilveira2316 Luke 9:49-50" And John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to hinder him because he does not follow along with us. But Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him, for he who is not against you is for you.”
@@ismaelsilveira2316no, it’s more like EO, OO, RC literally all claim the same thing using the same evidence and therefore it’s impossible to know which one is true hence they are all wrong and totally missing the point.
@@KnightFel none of them claim the same thing. If they did, they would all be one church, wouldn't they? All of them have different claims in regards to different topics and they're all different churches.
@@1988pugslee It's almost like Jesus knew that person would eventually join the Church and wouldn't go on their own to create their own church
Regarding technicality and personal interpretation, there’s a quote from St. Augustine that I think address the substance of such a point even if indirectly at times. I really pray you see my comment and read it, here’s the quote:
“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)- not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.”
Thanks much for this video.
“I was tired of giving more than you gave to me
And I desired a truth I wouldn’t have to seek
And in the silence, I heard you calling out to me.” - The Oh Hellos, The Truth is a Cave
Question: In light of your final comments about praying and seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what do you say to 3 people, given the same evidence, and right minded motivation, who, while not forsaking prayer, end up in different places. One becoming Catholic, one becoming Orthodox, and the last Protestant. To an extent it would be foolish of Christians from any of these traditions to simply say the Holy Spirit is not working in the other traditions, but how do we compare this with the nature of the Holy Spirit to be that of Truth, to lead us to Christ? Although I don't see an alternative, I don't rationally understand how the Spirit of Truth can lead people in directions that are contradictory on various levels.
Romans 9
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[b] but on God, who has mercy.
20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
2 Timothy 3:7
always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.
Ecclesiastes 1:18
For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.
Lord have mercy
Love seeing all this content around the hot button issues of Christianity
In the Reformation, Protestants were faced with similar Roman Catholic arguments about their God-give. authority and supremacy, and responded (as seen in the Book of Concord) with systemic-level arguments of what the Early Church actually looked like, and how the Papacy developed over time instead of being an apostolic establishment. It was complex, time-consuming but also necessary
Many of the arguments made by Ubi would be familiar to, say, Gerhard.
As someone confused over several things about this topic - i apply Proverbs to my own position. I know i cannot bail myself out - but i also know who can? Come Lord Jesus.❤
The irony of the tweet you called out is the vanity and the parsing of old documents is why churches fell away from the one church
This was a great Protestant perspective and very kindly spoken. There are rude and condescending people on all sides of this and I hope more voices like Dr. Ortlund’s prevail. I do have three quick thoughts as someone preparing to come into the Catholic Church:
- I think the question that has to be asked prior to the Papacy is the one of apostolic succession. What is it? Is it one of these “essential” components of the Church Gavin talks about and what does it mean? I don’t really plan on debating this in the comment section unless someone wants to, but I think asking the question of the Papacy is putting the Cart ahead of the horse a bit if you are unconvinced about Apostolic succession. This is by no means directed towards Gavin but rather towards those who are discerning this issue. I think if you come anywhere close to the early Churches position on apostolic succession, the Papacy becomes more relevant and more tenable.
- I understand this argument was not actually made and was actually condemned in the video, but I hear many people speak of “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” in regard to Vatican 1 Papacy. However, I would argue that from a historical perspective we are in a similar epistemic perspective with the resurrection of Jesus. We basically have a somewhere over 50 percent of the evidence but less than 100 pointing towards his resurrection. Yes, I also believe we have other reasons than the historical data to believe in Christ which leads me to:
- Reasons other than historical/empirical to believe in the Papacy and the Catholic Church. Although the question of scripture is not entirely separate from history or Church authority either, one can certainly look to scripture to see the type of Church that was prophesied about. Augustine proves the Catholic Church is the true Church based on biblical prophecy and I think this might be an interesting angle to explore as well it certainly helped me. Though again we must rely on human judgment.
I think what Gavin said is a crucial point though. We are all limited and I believe if we seek after Jesus Christ with all our heart, he will reward us as is promised in Hebrews 11:6.
Re: the papacy vs Jesus, it's built into the core of Christianity that you have to have faith in Jesus, and faith by its nature is the assurance of that which is unseen. Scripture calls for us to believe in Jesus how many times?
Whereas the papacy's whole shtick is that it's supposed to be historically validated and that it resolves to epistemic uncertainties that would arise from sola scriptura/private judgement/etc.
@ I don’t think that is its whole schtick. The schtick is that it is a divinely established office. The uncertainty of sola Scriptura is only one reason to believe in it. A
What scripture tells us to believe? The Christian scripture. Preserved and passed down to us by who? The Church. So one cannot entirely separate scripture from tradition because scripture itself is a product of tradition. The demarcation seems to be a false one to me. “You can fully trust the scriptures, these ones in my Bible, but not the ones with the apocrypha in it” is simply an assertion that requires an appeal to history as well just like the papacy does. The Protestant is essentially borrowing from the Catholic worldview in a similar way to how an atheist will borrow logic and morality from a theist worldview and argue against it. Scripture requires an appeal to tradition and history as well unless you just a priori grant it to yourself in which case you’ve given up any right to give a historical critique of the papacy because your faith is no longer grounded in history, but in your assertions.
Another thing that frustrates me about the Protestant position is it really gives no cohesive account to what criteria is necessary to develop doctrine historically or scripturally. Do we need explicit references in the first few centuries? Okay then what about the hypostatic union or the canon. Is there only one possible interpretation of a text in scripture? If not, how do we know who is right?
Great comment. Blessings on your journey
@TruthUnites 17:30-17:35 “You don’t even have a single bishop there [i.e. EO/RC view of Bishops is an accretion]” Is that true though? Isn’t Titus made an overseer of the elders/presbyters in Titus 1:5 “This is why I [Paul] left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you” Isn’t this a scriptural example of an apostle appointing Titus as a bishop over the elders/presbyters? What about Acts 14:23 “And when they [Paul and Barnabas] had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting, they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed”? What about Timothy being warned personally not to be “hasty at the laying on of hands [giving of the Holy Spirit/Ordination]”? Do you believe that anyone had the prerogative to ordain elders/presbyters or does scripture seem to imply that only the Apostles or those hand selected by the Apostles [i.e. apostolic succession/bishops] could do this? IMO Scripture seems to align much more with Ignatius’ ecclesiology (Bishop, Presbyter, Deacon) and the EO/RC view of the bishop alone being able to ordain other presbyters/elders through Apostolic Succession.
Apostolic succession is not accidental. It is essential.
Lord Lord, Gavin's doing things in your name without our permission!
It was not essential at the beginning but I'm willing to consider that it became essential over time.
@@donatist59 actually it was essential from the beginning. The apostles appointed elders. In the next generation one of the main characteristics of a true church was that their bishops, elders and deacons came from the apostles.
@fr.davidbibeau621 No, in some areas elders were chosen by other elders as overseers. It wasn't a case of bishops ordaining bishops, it was priests ordaining priests to be bishops. The Lutherans especially have analyzed this point to death. That being said, by the time of Nicaea apostolic succession as we know it had indeed become an essential part of the undivided Church.
@@fr.davidbibeau621 did the papacy supreme leader give you permission to make that comment?
As something I raised with both Ubi and Erick 3(4?) years ago, Erick's arguments only land in the ballpark of Vatican 1 in the sense that a bomb lands on a house. Because there is no qualification to avoid a maximalist view of infallibility in the patristic literature, any argument for infallibility will by implication be an argument for maximalist infallibility -- the kind of infallibility which undermines V1 by clear historical examples. And in order to avoid the arguments which land square against maximalism, a nuanced qualified view of infallibility will have to be anachronistically inserted into the patristic literature. The options are either maximalism which everyone agrees is falsified by history, or anachronistic reading of V1 categories into the patristic writings.
The only way to argue for papal infallibility in the church fathers is to say the principles from which V1 can be derived are not only present but also effective throughout Church history, such that although the fundamental principle is there, the model for how to understand it was imperfect. Ofcourse then this undermines infallibility in the sense that a clock which is always correct twice a day is only helpful insofar we know both when it is infallible, and what the time happens to be now.
“Church history is not the words of God” slaps.
I was raised Protestant, then converted to Catholicism and ultimately left both.
I truly appreciate your spirit of genuine ecumenism and your commitment to the truth!!!
You need Jesus above all, brother. May you find a bible based church. God bless
@ I have found Jesus. I pray that you will find Him too.
I think it's a good point that we all, inevitably, have to use our private judgement. Some use it to arrive at a protestant viewpoint, others use it to arrive at an ecclesial viewpoint. HOT (very protestant) TAKE: As someone who has studied a lot of church/Christian history, it seems obvious to me that churches are very human institutions and don't seem to have any special divine authority or guidance. At least they sure don't act like it consistently.
7:50 that is question begging and arbitrary...how "long" the journey is depends on a lot of factors, including asking the historical question at all, which by default would exclude ALL protestant/evangelical/none denominational churches.
But for the sake of argument, lets say it was an issue, how in world can protestantism even attempt to solve it, giving its "inherent nature" of being ever reforming, thereby excluding absulte certanty in dogma by definition?
It's already quite of misleading of speaking of "THE protestant church ", as if it was a homogenous group
For me, one of most significant issues is the Roman Catholic Church's claim to ultimate authority. For example, any believer in Christ can go to any Protestant church (including any Catholic, for I have known many who do) and if the church is a Bible based fellowship, that believer can enjoy full fellowship and participate in all sacraments, including and especially communion. On the other hand, the RCC considers Protestants "outside" of the fellowship and prohibits participation, including in communion. This is an important difference which reveals a much bigger story about the divide between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Gavin, I would like to hear your thoughts on this difference.
The RCC also has rules against participation in Protestant weddings. On the other hand, I'd disagree that "all sacraments" are available in all Protestant sects. For one thing, Protestants do not consider marriage a sacrament.
Just my two cents, but I just don't think this is historically true and while common today not universally true amongst Protestants, especially those that are historically grounded. The English civil war was Anglicans and Puritans killing each other. In the 19th century I doubt there was any Presbyterian who would commune a Lutheran. Even today, most of the Lutheran denominations other than the ELCA will not even commune other Lutherans, let alone other flavors of Protestants. The Presbyterian denomination I was in before converting to EO would never have communed an RC or EO. To me I don't see it as a feature, but a bug in Protestantism that over time they give up more and more ground and become more and more ecumenical.
This is scandalously untrue. Many, many Protestant denominations have strict rules excluding those from other Protestant denominations from sacramental participation.
The Catholic Church dearly desires that all departed brethren be able to receive Holy Communion in a state of Grace. So much so, they’re willing to take a whole year to teach you everything you need to know to do just that… For FREE!
@@joeoleary9010 Please name some. Remember, I stipulated that the church is a Bible based fellowship. There are many dead Protestant denominations that have fallen away from Biblical teaching and are truly apostate.
Thank you for your always irenic and anxiety-settling approach, Dr. Ortlund. I don't find much of the debating that is done to be fruitful to the Church. "Can't see the forest through the trees" in a nutshell
10:50 It's so strange to see Dr. Ortlund embrace meme culture. A real mixing of low and high culture. I like it!
That bell curve meme was brutal 😂😂😂. I’m the grug brain (left end of the bell curve)
As a reflection on Gavin's discussion about essential vs. accidental qualities of the Church:
My wife is currently decluttering our house with a merciless efficiency. She is always asking me, "Can we live without this?" and "Will we really miss this?". This seems to me to be kind of similar to the Protestant mindset with regard to theological commitments. What are the minimum possible number of things that one must do or believe in order to still be called a Christian? And it makes sense to some extent that this would be a feature of Protestantism since there is a lot of liturgical and theological diversity between Protestant groups and they have to make sense of one another.
I don't think that Orthodox Christians have ever really felt that they had to define what the minimum possible number of things are that must be done or believed to be Orthodox or to be saved. It's more like, "We are a part of this family, so let's keep doing things the way that our family does them." I'm not sure I'd call it maximalistic necessarily, but it's more like we don't feel we need to constantly reevaluate why we do what we do, though there is certainly periodic reformation within Orthodoxy.
Although I disagree with your sort of flippant disregard for the value of apostolic succession, I agree with the main thrust of your appeal, and always appreciate your videos. One thing I wonder is why, when you mention how popular views can go wrong, you didn't mention Newman's book on Arianism in the 4th century, and it's famous claim that some 80% of bishops globally embraced Arianism or semi-Arianism during that time (well, the exact number comes from an introduction to the book, but Newman's description is the basis for the number). It would seem like that might be the best example you could have used there, and also just makes a ton of sense in the context in which you were speaking, having just mentioned Newman.
What's your contention, that Arianism wasn't very popular in the 4th century? According to Jerome: "At that moment the term ousia was abolished: the Nicene Faith stood condemned by acclamation. The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian." (Dialogue against the Luciferians 19) At any rate, Arianism was not a small sect. The battle over it was a huge defining period for Christianity, and Arianism persisted in the West for a couple centuries among the Goths.
@joeoleary9010 You interpreted my comment in the opposite sense of what my words explicitly say 😂
@@taylorbarrett384 You aren't making yourself clear. If your point is that apostolic succession guards against heresy, then why did 80% of 4th-century bishops (if you believe that claim of Newman is correct) accept some form of Arianism? Even more to the point, on what basis do you know that Arianism is unsound?
@joeoleary9010 I think the problem here is you are looking for an argument and assuming I am some kind of tribalist apologist. My comment about apostolic succession is unrelated to my question about why Gavin didn't bring up Arianism. On the one hand, I disagree that apostolic succession is superfluous (as Gavin said, "who cares!?"). On the other hand, I appreciate and agree with the general thrust of the video. And I wonder why he did not mention Arianism, because it would have been a very good, perhaps the best, example for what he was trying to argue. As for the epistemic basis on which we can know things, the answer is the same for everyone, and for every question: faith and reason.
@@taylorbarrett384 Argument? I merely asked for clarity on what you're trying to say. And that's because, by intent or accident, all 3 of your comments are wholly coy and nebulous. Somehow I suspect I'm not the first person who's told you that. I'll try again: Is your contention that Arianism is wrong, and if so, what does that have to do with the quote you offered from Cardinal Newman's book? Is Arianism wrong (if that's what you believe) because the church outlawed it....despite 80% of apostolically appointed bishops siding with some form of Arianism? Or did you discover a means to privately discern that Arianism is fundamentally wrong through (as Gavin suggested) your own intellect and conscience?
A lot here seems to trade off a non sequitur.
Private judgment is so messy for figuring out the church, that we should figure everything out by private judgement.
This is yet another reason why I'm at home with the evangelical catholic faith of the Book of Concord.
You mean the church of women priests and bishops ? Interesting how the gates of hades prevailed against it.
Incredible to see Ybarra admit to Papal circularity
What?
@@Erick_Ybarra church history is not the Word of God. It's not infallible. Only the Word of God is infallible
I started watching the papacy debate. I really like the protestant arguments :)
The simple element of Protestantism is under-emphasized. Luther expresses it by his refusal to debate Aristotelian definitions of the Eucharist. Richard Hooker expresses it when he states that RC soteriology and its connection to the institutional church is wrong primarily because of its complexity. So when Reformed circles endlessly debate the finer points of “Calvinism”, we can legitimately ask if that is proper for the Protestant. This has its limits and can argue against valuable scholarship and theology. But the principle remains.
“1. Don't over-rely on private judgment; trust the Church Christ founded
2. To determine WHICH is the Church Christ founded, use your private judgment.”
I’m assuming you’re portraying #2 as a problem, but I don’t think it is. Ultimately, we have to use private judgment to determine Christianity to be true, and every other religion to be false.
We can’t just throw up our hands and say “God didn’t intend for it to be this difficult, it’ll be cool to be Muslim or any religion that preaches monotheism.”
So if private judgment is used to pick Christianity, then it being used to pick the true church isn’t an issue since it’s historically clear that Jesus did establish ONE church.
Great point. To add on, I think the main problem Catholics have with Sola Scriptura is that it allows folks to use private judgement on EVERYTHING if they want to.
If you're a Lutheran and decide you don't like a Lutheran doctrine, you can either disregard it, or go find another church that fits your private judgement.
Under the view that there's only one true church, however, you can only do so much when you disagree with its teachings. You could go from Catholic to Eastern Orthodox/Oriental Orthodox, but as long as you believe in the idea of one true church that Christ guides into ALL the truth, you can't just go off on your own and come up with your own thing. You have to submit to certain teachings. This turns private judgement from a unique decision for every single doctrine and teaching to just private judgement for which church you'll follow. It's a lot smaller of a step.
@@IridiumAxle There has been plenty of disagreement, even among Catholics.
Take the council of Trent for example. The tridentine view was that their doctrines had unanimous consent among the fathers, yet Cardinal Newman, who was more honest, denys this principle and introduced a development hypotheses that was rejected in principle by Trent.
You have the issue of Vatican 2 affirming the possibility of salvation outside of the church where vatican 1 denys it. Many other such contradictions are found within your church, and contradictory explanations of these councils abound even to this day.
You seem to miss the point. The protestants do not reject that Christ established one church, we reject the idea that the "one church" is institutionally confined to one sect or denomination.
If you believe this is a protestant invention, I invite you to read the "Philocalia of Origen ". In this book, Gregory and Basil compiled and republished the works of Origen they agreed with, and in chapter 16, Origen, and by extension Gregory and Basil, affirm the legitimacy and even the divine appointment of distinct, yet Catholic sects.
@ “we reject the idea that the one church is institutionally confined to one sect or denomination.” Yes, that’s quite obvious given how many Protestant denominations there are today. The original church is PRE-denominational.
The creed says “I believe in ONE, holy Catholic and apostolic church”. You can change the definition of “one” all you want. That doesn’t make it okay, and the fruits are obvious. How many different Protestant denominations are there again?
@@jeremybamgbade I don't deny that there has been disagreement among Catholics, and any serious Catholic shouldn't deny that either.
The point is that Catholic doctrine has remained whole over the past 2000 years, regardless of whether or not Catholic *people* have disagreed.
As far as the contractions you pointed out, I'd need to see you address specifically the Catholic explanations for those in order to believe that they are indeed contradictions. For example, the concept of no salvation outside of the Church still remains after vatican 2, but it's understanding has been modified based on the different world which we now live in. Salvation comes from Christ through His Church, but different people can have different connections to Christ's Church in mysterious ways known to God alone.
The only bad thing about the debate is it went over 99% of peoples heads
7:00 again this is ridiculous, the normal person didn’t need to figure it out, they were either catholic in the west, orthodox or Coptic in the east, the Catholic view is that they are all true churches in schism, which means the churches that existed before and after Luther were these churches, there was no need to figure this stuff out because that was Christianity until Luther, now that Luther comes along, you must either admit that all Christian’s properly practising their faith went to hell before Luther or they had salvation, if they had salvation than why be Protestant
I agree with the point on private judgement; one cannot escape private judgment and one needs to take responsibility for what one believes.
In the search for the "True Church" or the true understanding of the Church, one doesn't have that many options. Of the continuing ecclesiastical bodies now, there are the Assyrian Church of the East, the various "Miaphysite" churches such as the Copts, the Orthodox Church(es), the Papacy, and a variety of mutually recognising Protestant churches as well as a scattering of minor sectarian groups To shift between these groups, one can study the decrees of the so-called Seven Ecumenical Councils. Setting aside forming one's own sect, if one does not accept any of these then one should join a sectarian Protestant group such as Baptists or Pentecostals. If one accepts only the first two as correct then one should be Nestorian. If one accepts only the first three then one should be "Miaphysite", e.g. Copt or Syriac. If one accepts only the first four then one should be traditional Protestant of whatever flavour one fancies depending on level of progressive, liberal leaning or priority of free will. If one accepts all Seven then one is either Papal or Orthodox. If one accepts also the canons of the councils as true then one is Orthodox. Alternatively, if one accepts the "filioque" clause in the "Nicene" Creed (actually the Creed of Constantinople AD381) then one is Papal or if one accepts that the Creed cannot be changed once written then one is Orthodox. The debate in question was about the primacy of Rome that is also a separation between Papal and Orthodox as an alternate route to decision between them, which can get technical.
Overall, the choices are not dependent on a singular technicality, but on a wide range of issues. This exploration is not simplistic, reality does not lend itself to that, but it is not down to an obscure technicality either.
Personally, I just looked as Scriptural consistency with formal doctrines and working through many Protestant denominations, the Papacy, and the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church, in their formal declarations, was the only option where I could not find a Scriptural inconsistency in doctrine and practice given a desire to maintain the traditions (practices and beliefs) just as they were handed down.
11:45 awwwwww dog in background!
The complexity of the issue has no bearing on which Church is the true Church. Yes the issue is complicated, but would we say the same thing for God's existence after watching a debate between a Christian and atheist philosopher? Of course it would go into the weeds, but would one be justified in saying "well, if their were a God, I don't think He would place the truth of His existence at the end of extremely complicated metaphysical arguments"? Certainly not.
I think the difference is that we don't believe one can only come to a knowledge of God's existence at the end of extremely complicated metaphysical arguments, since his existence is plain to every human (Rom 1:19-20). However, knowledge of the true church is not presented in Scripture as being so innately clear.
But Paul isn't talking about scriptural evidence for God. He's talking about the natural evidence in the world. The same was true for the Church prior to the great schism. One could look at the Christian Church and there it was, apart from any Scripture. You're assuming sola scriptura as the basis of your evidence for proof of the Church, but the Church preceded the scriptures.
@@fredhass202 Really? The Church preceded the Old Testament?
@@Crucian1 The church precedes the NT and Israel precedes the OT. Since the Church is a continuation of faithful Israel, in some sense, yes, the Church does precede the OT. It's one long, faithful line in continuity.
@@JohnMaximovich-r8x But what has temporal priority got to do with authority?
I wish people who are yearning for this things would actually attempt to make a change in their local church rather then jumping churches
The reformers tried that and were kicked out. Bad leadership makes change difficult.
That being said, I agree with your comment. I think it would be nice if people at least tried first.
No escaping private judgment. We all need to acknowledge that.
@@carolc6364 but who is denying that and how does that help the protestant case?
@@zzzzppppooooo EOs and Catholics often argue that private judgement is a problem for Protestants (and only Protestants) because of our lack of infallible magisterium / authoritative church.
@@zzzzppppooooo Some implicitly deny it when they treat private judgment as such as a unique defeater of Protestantism.
Wait! Did Dr. Gavin use the Aristotelian arguement that Catholics use for transubstantiation in order to explain the essences vs. the accidents of the church??!!!
Dr. Gavin, you've kept me Protestant thus far in my 6 year journey, but if you apply Aristotle's philosophical explanation of essences vs. accidents to the church, then could it not also be applicable to Transubstantiation?
I'm no philospher or theologian, so perhaps I'm confused on how this works!
sorry to confuse. the terms can be used outside of Aristotle much more broadly. essence is the core identity, accidents are non-essential features that may (but need not) obtain
@TruthUnites
Thank you, Dr. Gavin!
Essences and accidents were normal in Protestantism too. In fact, a bunch of Protestants critiqued Rome for using them badly and in a way that didn't make sense, rather than the proper way.
11:43 your dog in the right corner! ❤
Faced with ecclesial anxiety, why not apply Pascal’s Wager? Most Protestants agree that Rome and Orthodoxy are true churches. Rome agrees that it and Orthodoxy are the two ‘wings’ of the Church. Orthodoxy says that it IS the Church. Christ says, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by Me.’ Wouldn’t we expect His Church to sound like Him?
Because the process of thinking that faith in Christ is insufficient and that it might be necessary to improve on it is itself far riskier than not. Taking this wager is itself damning.
(PS: No. Things that are applicable to Christ himself may or may not be applicable to his bride/body/church. The church is not the Son of Man, the church is not the head of the church, the church is not the door, or the true vine, or the I AM.)
@ The early Christians sure seemed to think there were things essential alongside belief in Christ. For instance: being in the true Church.
Throw out all the heretical accretions and most probably would join with them. But then, the RCC and Orthodox churches would look pretty much like any run-of-the-mill protestant church.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh Run-of-the-mill protestant isn’t a denomination I’ve ever heard of. Is it new?
@norala-gx9ld They're more commonly known as the one holy catholic and apostolic church mentioned in the creeds...
Who decides what is substantial and accidental?
A lot good here. Certainly one can see growth of papal primacy (Orthodox) vs supremacy (R.Catholic) as an "accident." But is episcopacy itself an accident? Who were Titus, Timothy, Ignatius? Is the Eucharist and "accident"? Were Arians part of the Church or tares rowing within it?
"growing," not "rowing"
The Eucharist is essential and Arianism is heresy; Titus and Timothy are nowhere called bishops; Ignatius uses the term "bishop" in its earliest emergence (not as a successor of apostles or diocesan).
@@TruthUnites Titus 1:5-9 American Standard Version (ASV)
"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge" He's in charge of other elders (presbyters) and appoints them. Sure sounds like an overseer (episcopos) to me.
@@jimjatras1448 This is something that Perry Robinson has said. Crete isn't very large. If presbyters could appoint other presbyters, then why not have Titus appoint a couple and leave it those presbyters to appoint other presbyters? It does indeed seem like Titus himself needs to do the act of ordination, not presbyters.
@@TruthUnites Gavin, how can you say that the Eucharist is essential, but believing in transubstantiation vs consubstantiation vs Calvinist spiritual real presence (or all the other views) is not? You have Catholics and Orthodox saying that intimacy with Christ in the Eucharist is necessary for theosis/divinization/diefication, yet you have many Evangelicals saying it's just a symbol and doesn't contribute anything to salvation. I know you would not say that non-denominational memorialists are outside the Church, but how can you have all these competing views in the Church when Ignatius says to have but one Eucharist and Paul speaks in a similar way? It seems that you can reconcile your personal view on the Eucharist by saying that the Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans are going too far, and they actually have a mere spiritual presence of Christ as you believe (same for the memorialists, they just don't recognize it). But for someone who believes in the Catholic/Orthodox view of the Eucharist, this is a huge deal. If we say that memorialists have a valid Eucharist, then potentially millions of people are eating and drinking condemnation upon themselves for rejecting the real presence (as it would be ex opere operato, not based on individual faith). In this case, the body of Christ would be put in little plastic cups under their chairs at Church instead of exalted on the altar where it belongs, completely profaning the sacrament and making a mockery of Christ's institution. These people are, of course, not condemning themselves in this way because they don't have a valid Eucharist. But then they don't have both the word and sacrament anymore, so they aren't a part of the Church. Thus, I don't see how the Catholic/Orthodox view is at all reconcilable with your ecclesiology. Please clarify. God bless!
I think the best Orthodox argument against the papacy is that it is simply unnecessary.
What irks me is when Evangelicals talk about denominations in this way and focus only on doctrine, as if that was the only difference between denominations, and ignore spiritual practices. I have spent years immersed in Eastern Orthodox liturgics and prayer and it is unbelievably incredible; there is nothing like it in the Evangelicalism I grew up with. Evangelicals suggest that none of it matters one bit and you can flush it all down the toilet and replace it with nothing, and that it would not diminish the faith in any way, and then they are surprised that Orthodox Christians don't take them seriously.
Keep these videos coming. It would be great to see Gavin, Redeemed Zoomer, and the Gospel Simplicity guy have a long conversation about things.
Ironic post because the Papacy and the Liturgy/Sacraments are both, in their own ways, unnecessary, and yet both are also Christ instituted and profitable.
Protestantism has no clue about belonging to & truly understanding the real meaning of His One True Church, they kid themselves without realising it
Unneecessary ? A head is unecessary for the body ? Orthodoxy is in major schisms right now as we speak with Russia and Constantinople refusing to commune the Eucharist together or their congregations, you have no idea what's going on.
@@VirginMostPowerfull the people of God existed for thousands of years before Christ instituted the Papacy - clearly the Papacy is not "necessary"
@@taylorbarrett384 You contradict yourself! He instituted His sacraments, two of which are necessary for salvation baptism Jn 3:5 & His Real True Presence in the Eucharist Jn 6:53
At no time in my 47+ years of Christianity has any revelation by God to me contained instruction on which church to attend. My early private judgment has kept me from errant sects though. I see the Church as the wholescale believing faithful body of Christ, wherever they exist.
It’s the “private judgment” of Christians which has led to the extreme disunity in The Church.
I think any fine point of religion and philosophy can get finely detailed and complex if you go deep enough. An agnostic might say the issue between theists and atheists rests on complex fine points of philosophy so obviously those can’t be true.
Which is where faith comes in; pure reason is as limited as the cognition of the person using it.
I’m EO. I fell in love with Christ’s Church in the Divine Liturgy at an Eastern Catholic Monastery. I am a former Protestant. Through some economy we were directed by the Abbott to the EO church.
Craig Truglia reviewed the Catholic apologetic work “Keys Over the Christian World” Butler, Collorafi and said this, “Had I not been predisposed to EO I would find ‘Keys’ compelling enough to convert.” pp
The Catholic argument for papacy is superior and conclusive. Whether or not that is V1 and V2 conclusive is questionable.
The papacy before the schism is irrevocably clear. The chair and see of St Peter is more than honorific primacy. It is a humble hierarchy.
Sola Scriptura and Church history led me to Catholicism and wisdom showed me how violent and anthropocentric Protestantism was and is.
So are you EO or RC? Your comment is very interesting but it's hard to tell if you're saying the end result was EO or Eastern Rite Catholic
That’s a misreading of what Craig says. He says that speaking as if he were new to the subject, not as someone who’s thoroughly studied the issue. Craig does not agree with Collorafi, he doesn’t think RCs have a superior argument, and he just published his own book on the schism to demonstrate why.
The Catholic Church itself doesn't even believe that papal supremacy existed in the first 1000 years. Just read the following 2 recent papal approved Vatican documents titled: "Cheiti Document" and "Alexandria Document"
I understand the distinctive that you are making but no onewas preaching "gospel assurance" in the 6th century. So is once saved always saved a primary or secondary doctrine? If its primary why don't you see it preached? Usually when i see protestants go to "preach the gospel" to already churched Orthodox or Catholics and they say "these people dont even have the gospel" what they usually meam is they dont believe in whatever number of "solas" that protestant personally holds to.
It matters more whether the Bible preaches gospel assurance. And "once saved always saved" is not a primary doctrine, in that you don't need to believe in it to be saved. And yes, Galatians 1:8-9 makes it abundantly clear that it is of the utmost importance whether a person or church presents the true Apostolic Gospel or not. It is not belief in the Solas themselves which saves, but the Solas describe what saving faith looks like.
@Crucian1 so what is the "true Apostolic gospel?"
@@mrjustadude1 1 Corinthians 15:1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: *that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.* 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters...
Romans 1:17 in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed-a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
Ephesians 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit...
Galatians 2:7 [The other Apostles] recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of *preaching the gospel* to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.
@Crucian1 ok, I mean if you quote a selection of theme, I'm going to say yes, I agree, it's the NT, but you need to explain what you think or why you are quoting those at the exclusion of everything else.
@@Crucian1 Before we go down a rabbit hole let me explain to you why this is a waste of time. When you talk to a protestant (as a non protestant) and they just quote dump scripture on you its mostly unhelpful. We ultimately have a different understanding of authority. Protestants assume sola scriptura, no one else does.
So the question becomes how do you interpret them. So you need to offer your interpretation of what you think those quotes mean otherwise whats the point?. Like yes, I agree 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 is a great summery of what is of first importance. That Christ Died for our Sins and rose on the 3rd Day. Yes, that is the key point of the Gospel. But what does that accomplish for this conversation unless you think we don't also believe that?
If you just give me bibical quotes I'll just say yeah, I agree those are all true. If that was why would protestants have any issue with the Gospel thats preached by Catholics or Orthodox, as Corinthians 15:1-5 is the key point of both faiths. We all read the same NT and believe it is 100% True.
We could go back and forth defending with scripture our interpretation of scripture. It would pretty much be a waste of time. At the end of the day you believe doctrine of sola scriptura and i believe that the scriptures need to be understood in the context of the Church in Holy Tradition.
If you did that I could offer my own list of bible quotes that I think are not being considered and offer my interpretation of them. I would also offer the traditional interpretations of these, which I take as authoritative and which you do not. So you can offer me any "Proof Text" from the scriptures you want, I'll agree that it is authoritative and inspired, but we will likely disagree about how to correctly interpret them.
We don't have an agreed on source of athority.
Never expected Dr Ortlund to cite such a deep theology take from a guy with an anime pfp at 7:00
let him cook
I don’t know how closely you read comments Dr Ortlund, but I highly recommend reading In Search of Ancient Roots by Dr. Kenneth Stewart on the topic of church history and evangelism. If you like the book, I might be able to get you an interview with the author ;)
Great video’! But, what makes you accept the Nicene Creed but not the following ones? I understand that the faith of Christianity has the Nicene Creed as it’s foundation but I don’t see how that matters if the worry is human error in interpretation and understand?
I heard from another of your videos that you are familiar with Pascal's "Pensées," so I wanted to mention that the illustration at 10:44 of this video, the one that shows the protestant relationship to church history, reminds me very much of Pascal's "pensée de derrière la tête" / "thinking behind the head." Here is the passage from "Pensées:"
"Raison des effets.
Gradation. Le peuple honore les personnes de grande naissance. Les demi‑habiles les méprisent, disant que la naissance n’est pas un avantage de la personne, mais du hasard. Les habiles les honorent, non par la pensée du peuple, mais par la pensée de derrière. Les dévots, qui ont plus de zèle que de science, les méprisent, malgré cette considération qui les fait honorer par les habiles, parce qu’ils en jugent par une nouvelle lumière que la piété leur donne. Mais les chrétiens parfaits les honorent par une autre lumière supérieure.
Ainsi se vont les opinions succédant du pour au contre, selon qu’on a de lumière."
(I am not sure whether you speak French, but I know that TH-cam will automatically provide a translation if you don't.)
EDIT: I've just checked and Pascal does not come out too well when put through an automatic translator. The paragraph that I posted is from the section "raison des effets," but I do not know what the organizational system is in the English translations (Even the reference systems of the French editions are rather complicated), so I cannot give you a specific reference. I hope that you'll be able to find it.
anime avatar quoted favorably, awesome
A point of note: the modern Nestorian church (the Assyrian Church of the East) would really be better classified as a splinter off of Roman Catholicism rather than a true continuation of the Nestorian Church. This is because their line of bishops derive from a group that fully united with Rome and later changed their minds (on the other hand, the current Chaldean Uniates were the line that originally did not Unite with Rome). Thus, there is no unbroken continuation of the Nestorian Church. That puts the current one on similar ecclesiological footing as the Old Catholics. Besides, their practice of open communion with all confessors of real presence is a de facto surrendering of their claim to be the exclusive successors of the Church.
But how far are you going to go with all the different heresies composing the Church? You mention the Severians (Orientals) probably because they exist today; back then, the Arians were still around; would you consider them a part of the Church? What about the Gnostics? And today, what about the Mormons? They claim to be part of the church just as well. They have some extra books to be sure, but as you know Orthodox, Severians, Roman Catholics, and Protestants don't all have the same books as well. Where is the line getting drawn here exactly?
I would argue that you DO have a "sixth sense" guiding you a certain way. It takes prayer to function properly.
Um, the meme at 10:51 seems belied by Gavin's protestations, from 4:00 to 4:30.
It appears that the folk in the middle portion of the Bell-Curve might very well be the Catholics and XYZ-Orthodox who treat the topic as trivially obvious. But it looks like the folk on the right-hand side ought properly to be those who're _even deeper_ in history, grant that it has ambiguities, and _still_ can see that the evidence more strongly favors something on the Catholic-to-*-Orthodox spectrum, than someone who says, "Eh, this is too much, I'm out."
By the way, isn't the very complexity an excellent argument in favor of something minimally like XYZ-Orthodoxy, and even more like Catholicism?
Here's what I mean: We all want a working "Epistemology of Faith": That is, a usable, functioning, deterministic, and plausibly Dominical method of _coming to know_ what the Required Content of the Christian Religion is.
"Usable" means that a plumber or stockbroker can use it, maybe not to indulge every curiosity, but certainly to obtain safe answers to actionable questions like "Is artificial contaception moral?" and "I'm divorced from a Christian ex-wife, am I free to remarry?" and "My first child was just born; ought I have her baptized?" and "Which local church should I be attending?"
"Functioning" means that when you use the Epistemology of Faith, _if_ it gives you an answer, you can not only _know_ what the answer was, but _know that you know_ what it was, with well-founded principled confidence ...and, if it doesn't give you an answer, you can not only _know,_ but _know that you know,_ that you are unanswered, and thus are not morally obligated to any action that would presume you _did_ know the answer.
"Deterministic" means that if three people (or one person on three occasions) use the method, it gives the same response each time; or, if the response differs, it differs merely in wording, emphasis, cultural nuances, but never _reverses itself._
"Plausibly Dominical" means that there's some evidence this is how Jesus _intended_ us to come to know the Required Content of the Christian Religion.
What we want is an Epistemology of Faith that fulfills those criteria, precisely because _without that,_ we can't have any well-founded confidence that we know what the Required Content of the Christian Religion is. And in that case, either Real Christianity is lost in the mists of time; or, if someone randomly happens to be practicing it _today,_ he _can't possibly know that he is,_ and we can't _either._
Now, here's the thing:
1. The Catholic Epistemology of Faith provides Epistemology of Faith, whenever the Catholic hierarchy is playing to their strong suit. When they get lily-livered, everything gets cloudy and doubts emerge about where things are going...but even then, nobody doubts that the Catholic Church teaches the Immaculate Conception, or Baptismal Regeneration, or the Eucharist as a Sacrifice, do they?
2. The *-Orthodox Epistemologies of Faith vary. None have either perfect consensus or perfect historical continuity back to the ante-Nicene era. BUT, they all lean heavily enough on tradition and conciliarism that the various Orthodoxies look and sound _markedly similar_ to one another. There are embarrassing points re: whether the Ecumenical Patriarch can declare the Ukrainian Orthodox church autocephalous, or whether Protestant converts need to be rebaptized. But on the whole, there's comparatively narrow variability.
3. The Protestant Epistemologies of Faith claim to all be Sola Scriptura, but clearly that means different things to different people. Yet even among those whose epistemic _methods_ are most-similar (e.g. particularly literally-minded groups), these similar methods produce radically-varying doctrinal opinions, on important, actionable topics! None of the variations seem deterministic or functional; and the evidence is against Dominical foundation. It's not even obvious how the individual is expected to make use of these methods, to know which church to attend, whether to baptize a newborn, etc.
The more confusion-generating a proposed Epistemology of Faith is,
the less plausible it is, that Jesus wanted us to use _that_ means,
to come to know the Required Content.
Yet, by definition, we _need_ to know the Required Content. That's why it's called "Required."
So, if we encounter confusion,
we must either say that God is the author of confusion,
or assume that _man_ is, and the reason we're in this predicament is because _we screwed up_ by using an incorrect Epistemology of Faith.
Makes sense, right?
Well, it appears that Gavin acknowledges the complexity of the historical debate,
and then concludes, "Therefore, let's adopt the Epistemology of Faith that has historically yielded the _most_ confusion about doctrine."
Does that make sense?
Does it not make more sense to say, "For the average plumber or stockbroker, this stuff can get complex. It becomes a realm for specialists; and we can't all be specialists. God knows this. Therefore we can reasonably conclude that the Epistemology of Faith which He intended us to use is one capable of generating relatively clear-cut answers, and keeping all the faithful on the same reservation, at least roughly." ...?
If not the _most_ successful EoF (the Catholic), then at least one of the top two, appears to be the natural best option, given the complexity.
You seem to be requiring your EoF's to leave no room for faith whatsoever. Look at your definition of functioning. Hard pass.
@@SeanusAurelius:
Respectfully, your response puzzles me.
Faith is the settled disposition (by supernatural gift) to trust that what God has said is true. But one isn't supposed to exercise faith in things God hasn't said.
Therefore, one must first be able to distinguish between what _has_ and _hasn't_ been said by God. That's the purpose of an EoF. Far from "not leaving room" for faith, a working EoF is what provides you the _opportunity_ to exercise faith. You'll never have that opportunity, without one.
That's why the term Functioning (in the context of an EoF) makes so much sense: If some Random Preacher R comes to you and says Assertion ABC is a divinely-revealed truth, to which one is morally obligated to give the full assent of your intellect, what will you do? Just blithely assume that Pastor R is correct?
Nope, you'll want to authenticate, and error-check the message. But if your error-checker/authentication-checker _doesn't function,_ then you'll be stuck. You need it "up and running."
So, why _wouldn't_ you want your Epistemology of Faith to be functioning? I'm sure you have your reasons, but the "hard pass" comment leaves me puzzled.
12:53 what does it mean for the Body of Christ to be in error?
Dog, bottom right corner, 11:45. haha
5:45 it’s not that you can’t figure things out, it’s that there no guarantee that you’ll fully understand the bible, there’s a difference between being a able to figure out what denomination or religion is correct vs being able to interpret the bible in the correct way, because the bible isn’t just a true thing, it’s gods word, that’s different then knowing 1+1=2, I’m not saying it’s that simple but I am saying interpreting the multiplicity and multi meanings of the bible is vastly different and unachievable without the church compared to knowing that Catholicism is correct, if you can’t see the difference then your just being dishonest, it’s not a matter of interpretation of true or false but rather an interpretation of hundreds of passages that can be taken in 10 different ways with 50 different implications vs knowing that the pope is the head of the church or not
Even within the developed episcopal polity of the second century CE and after, the relationship between the bishops was equality and collegiality.
Individuals might have a stronger voice as they were respected by the other bishops for their spiritual attributes.
But there was no claim of supremacy for the bishop of Rome in the West until much, much later.
You’ve given your bias away with your use of CE, should be AD! You won’t believe anything that I have to offer!
False, even Ubi admits it 😂
@@t.d6379 The documentary evidence says otherwise.
Not true. All evidence points to Rome having a leadership role among bishops. The dispute is to the precise nature of that leadership role.
@@jonathanstensberg Even after Christianity was raised to the level of Rome's state religion at the end of the fourth century CE, the historical record is still one of bishops sharing equality of voice. Even Rome's role as an important geographical center with large population was by then on the decline, with imperial power and wealth shifting to the East.
Were there important and respected bishops of Rome over the years? Yes. Just as from Alexandria or Antioch or other centers of Christian education.
As state religion, it was the emperors who arbitrated when bishops could not come to agreement on important matters.
Sometime after the fall of the empire in the West, the idea of the bishop of Rome's supremacy began to be championed. In the East, of course, the church remained tied to the Byzantine emperors who denied such a claim.
Anytime I watch a catholic or orthodox apologist it really causes me a lot of anxiety. I'm really glad to have found you and thank you for all the things you do as far as making us (protestants) feel that we can indeed be secured in our faith
Why does Catholic & Orthodox teaching cause you anxiety? Seriously, for your salvation, listen to the Truth!
@@geoffjswhich is to repent and believe in Christ. The reason it causes anxiety (if you actually take it seriously) is because they both claim to be the one true church and both use the same evidence and make the same arguments yet anathematize anyone that’s not them. It’s not Christian.
@@KnightFel As harsh as it may seem in our modern day soft world, people reject the Truth of His One Catholic Church.
To Anathematise someone is being cruel to be kind. In other words, a spiritual medicine to wake up to error with a call to change.
Being rejected is not necessarily permanent provided that the person changes. Nancy Pelosi is banned from receiving communion because of her support for abortion as should also apply to Biden.
Unless Pelosi changes, she brings condemnation on herself. The Church is always pastoral & rarely invokes anathema.
The lack of obedience esp by Protestants has resulted in the confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17:11-23
Personal interpretation with its many @truths” has resulted in the scourge of relativism & wokeism. Tks!
I am Ex Protestant now I am Catholic, I wouldn’t be scared. Really I would follow truth wherever it leads, and truth is God so it will lead you there. That’s how I’m Catholic now!
Ex Protestant as well here, now Catholic. The channel Shameless Popery is a good place to break down the information but essentially you have to understand that Orthodox are playing pretend. They pretend they're united but right now they just got done ordaining female deacons, and there is major schism between Constantinople and Russia.
The One True Church is that against which the gates of hades cannot prevail, but they have prevailed over all individual Protestant churches not one has kept its doctrines pure of error they all contradict the 1st Millenium united Church.
Also consider that Orthodox accept Rome as the Highest See, they just refuse to accept like bickering children the implications of the title.
When you say orthodox and Roman Catholic it is very confusing. There is not just 1 Orthodox Church. On the other hand there is 1 Catholic Church but not all of it is under the Roman rite. So either you know this and are being disingenuous or you don’t know this so shouldn’t be speaking as though you do.
If Trinitarianism is the standard for a church to be Christian then there wasn’t a schism until 1054. Unless you want to accept the Gnostics, a 2 Willed Jesus or Oneness theology?
This is what Newman wrote prior to his conversion to Rome...
John Henry Newman: Now, if a man is in a state of trial, and his trial lies in the general exercise of the will, and the choice of religion is an exercise of will, and always implies an act of individual judgment, it follows that such acts are in the number of those by which he is tried, and for which he is to give account hereafter. So far, all parties must be agreed, that without private judgment there is no responsibility; and that in matter of fact, a man’s own mind, and nothing else, is the cause of his believing or not believing, and of his acting or not acting upon his belief. John Henry Newman, Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church: Viewed Relatively to Romanism and Popular Protestantism, 2nd ed. (London: Gilbert & Rivington, 1838), p. 157.
11:04 Doggo
Ubi killed Ybarra. He literally stumped him, and Ybarra admitted to it.
See Canons 4, 6 and 7 Nicea 325AD. There never was papal Supremacy.
Catholic here. Man I would love to sit down and talk sometime! Just one comment: Error is death, but there are varying degrees of death. Error, or sin, or schism is to miss the mark or to misapprehend the purpose that holds you together. That's what death is, whether at the cellular or the human or the national level. To stick with your analogy, a cold is death, but it is a small death because a healthy body has the faculties to overcome it. If your body does not have those faculties in order, that cold will become something more serious and could very well become a big death, whether that's permanent damage or your body actually ceasing to hold together. A big criticism of Protestantism is that it does not have the ontological or epistemological faculties to fight the little deaths that invade the Christian body and so they become big deaths. It seems to me that is why Catholics and Orthodox get "stuck" on that. I hope that is a helpful answer!
Please read the book on the papacy by Steve Ray.
…even Clement of Rome was in error when he wrote about the Phoenix. He knew the apostles and still had an error. None of us are without error. If we say we are without error, we are in error. When Christ appears, he will teach us and we will know and understand.
And let's not forget about the _Shepherd of Hermas_ claiming that:
• hares grow a new anus every year;
• hyenas have annual sex changes: and
• weasels get pregnant through oral sex...
🙏
Gavin has stated that one of his purposes is to help people deal with what he calls “ecclesial anxiety.” However, he seems to take issue with people whose anxiety is alleviated by Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Why is that? If those two groups are “a part of the Church” as he says in this video, then what’s the problem with people converting to them?
Iirc he’s said that he’s more concerned about people converting to them out of fear, not out of a clear conscience.
Unless I’m mistaken?
You should represent his view instead of the strawman.
@@raphaelfeneje486bingo
@@raphaelfeneje486 Please elaborate on how I’ve misrepresented his view.
@@cassidyanderson3722 He doesn't take issues with those people whose anxiety are alleviated by either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, but that people shouldn't convert out of fear of wanting to be in the "one true Church." He also tries to let them know of what they're committing and binding their conscience to. I don't know where you get the having issue with those that their anxiety is being dispelled by these churches.
The way I see it, the criticism “you have to use personal judgment to discern which church is true” is anachronistic - it doesn’t exist for most of Church history, and only exists now because humans have disobeyed God and scripture to split off and establish their own man-made churches in competition with Christ’s Church. Scripturally, Jesus placed enormous importance on unity, it’s cited by Jesus himself as the sign that the Church is of God (John 17:20-23). Division and schism is repeatedly condemned, and this doctrine of unity is so essential that 1 John 2:19 is able to say that all who leave are by definition antichrist and that by leaving they demonstrate they are not of God. Biblically, unity is a quintessential doctrine reflecting the Unity of God; the fact that Protestantism categorically shrugs off the Biblical condemnation of division, and takes such a blatantly unbiblical position here, means it manifests as exactly the same sort of human corruption of doctrine they were claiming to protest. “Meh, unity is an ideal that can’t really be achieved this side of heaven; division is not only ok but sometimes absolutely essential to pursuing Truth - especially when the gates of hell HAVE prevailed over a church such that continued unity would require compromise on Truth.” If Jesus was wrong about Unity, he could be wrong about anything; and this is why, for every possible doctrine taught by Christ, you can find a Protestant church that rejects it. Now, unity in the Biblical sense doesn’t require everyone will agree on everything; it only means they are united on the essentials, they all recognize the same baptism, the same spirit, and all partake of the same loaf and the same cup (1 Corinthians 12): they are all bound together in unity by the authoritative structure built by Jesus himself, the Church. Whatever diversity of belief can exist in harmony with that unity is permissible. Whatever breaks that unity is not permissible. The divine authority bestowed on the Church exists to arbitrate over matters that threaten division, to define what is allowed in and what must be kept out, to protect the essentials of the faith without squelching diversity of expression: to bind, and to loose. Whatever beliefs ultimately win the day within the Church are of God, for what is of God cannot and will not fail (Acts 5:38, 39).
The Book of Revelation is acknowledged by the Roman Church and the Greek Church as Holy, Apostolic Scripture. The Book of Revelation is not strictly a treatise on ekklesiology, but chapters 2-3 ought to give plenty of food for thought. None of the Seven Churches are told to look to the holy Papa, or a Magisterium for universal guidance. None are told to look to the Metropolitan Bishop. None are told to excommunicate each other, as the Roman and Greek churches did in 1054.
All churches are told to directly heed the direction of the Holy Spirit and to repent. Interesting that throughout the Book of Revelation, we are only told of “the churches” (plural and autonomous), not “the Church” (singular and all encompassing). If anyone could actually hear what the Holy Spirit is saying to so many “Laodicean” churches of modern times, I think many people would tremble. When historical, top-heavy, establishment religious societies describing themselves as churches argue over “primacy” I seriously doubt they regularly contemplate ever standing before the Son, whose eyes are a flame of fire.
One thing I agree with Ehman on: Including the uber-cryptic BOR in the Bible was a mistake.
Perhaps the papacy is not very explicit in Revelations 2 & 3, but certainly is extremely glaring and obvious in other parts of the New Testament.