Awesome. Thanks for keeping the discussion going in a positive manner. I'll check it out. I will let you know what impact it has for me soon, if time allows.
@ErickYbarra2010 As someone who has been learning from Dr. Gavin for a while and just recently subscribed to your channel, it would mean a lot if you did respond to this video!
@@townshendwhite9309 I believe that was a mistake. All I was insisting upon is that the content of Vatican 1 can be traced back to the 1st millennium. So can Arianism, Pelagianism, and Iconoclasm. The intention here was not to boast over Dr. Ortlund, but just to insist on this simple point.
Gavin, thank you for mentioning that Vatican I was quoting from Ephesus 431. You made the right move (relative to your position) in then arguing that Ephesus isn’t making the Vatican 1 claims. Although that can be contested, your acknowledgement moves the ball forward. The citation of Ephesus 431 is important for understanding Vatican I and should not go unmentioned.
The way he said ‘I’m a Protestant, I can go back and rewrite history’ as if that is something a Protestant is thinking when they interpret the early church is so condescending; I completely agree with your interpretation of this as triumphalist.
Yeah I didn't understand that move at all, Mr. Ybarra and Mr. Sonna (atleast in the clip) simply asserted that Vatican 1 is in the first millennium and everyone needs to just accept that as fact. I don't see how that's not a form of begging the question...i.e their fallacious argument would look something like this ...Vatican 1 is first millennium THEREFORE if anyone wants to deny or disagree with Roman Catholicism they must offer a different explanation to account for this fact.
I agree it was triumphalistic and quite common from Roman Catholics (it's almost like they can't help themselves from doing it). That being said, these two men are some of the most charitable Catholics within Catholic Apologetics thar I have seen. I doubt these two men intend to be or to come off that way...
@@Adam-ue2ig "I don't see how that's not a form of begging the question" The claim of Vatican I is a literal word for word quotation of Ephesus - which isn't 'begging the question' by definition.
@Tyson Guess you would have to quote and source it, i don't know which quote your referencing off the top of my head...it wasn't mentioned in this video by Dr. Ortlund.
I was fortunate to grow up in a couple of churches that had Theologians and scholars leading our denominations. I believe it is important to align our hearts and minds. If we go “blindly” into a particular belief system without investigating the doctrine, it can be detrimental to our spiritual growth, and possibly lead us down the wrong path! There are many false teachers and churches that offer a “feel good” strategy - which should set off alarm bells! I welcome as much scholarship into our Christian communities, as there appears to be a lack thereof. This is the reason why myself and others remain subscribers to this channel. There are enough churches offering sermons and worship services online…countless videos on Apologetics…what we are in desperate need of is a focus on learning more about church history. The broader church is starved in this regard! Wishing everyone a great week!🇨🇦☺🇨🇦
YOU NEED TO BE SAVED TODAY: There Is only one God, in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. ONE God. Humans are ONE person ( in three parts) The body, soul and spirit. Three parts, ONE person. The Bible says that we are all sinners. As it is written: There is none righteous , no not one. Romans 3:10 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.Romans 3:23 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6 For the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23 (The word death in this verse means eternal separation from God in hell). Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. Isaiah 1:18 Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that He was buried and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures. 1Corinthians 15:3-8 In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:14 For by grace ye are saved, through faith; and not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Galatians 2:21 Realize that you are a hopeless sinner and trust in Jesus shed blood on the cross to pay for your sins. The moment you trust in Jesus and only Jesus, you are saved.
Hey Gavin! Just wanted to say thank you for your videos. I love how you take the time to not just discuss history but also how we should think about it. I was telling my cousin Nate about your videos and apparently you guys were at Fuller at the same time. He said you helped him figure out some of his PHD questions, small world!
@@TruthUnites Gavin, I have an accretions question. WHY has the Vatican confirmed all kinds of highly questionable miracles to confirm their accretions, but still haven't confirmed the most scientifically scrutinized and PROVABLE miracle of the shroud of Turin? Because it might affirm faith alone in Christ alone? And of course you also know about the message in PI which even protestants suppress to maintain the religious balance of power. I realize the Christian Industrial Complex is controlled by the Military Industrial Complex, but who will you serve?
Quoting Gavin: “one of the churches is saying ‘hey, everyone has to submit to us,’ ‘we can speak at the level of Scripture’ and so forth…” This is why you shouldn’t be surprised at the triumphalism and overstatements. When you claim infallibility for your side of an argument, triumphalist rhetoric is just built in.
Dr Ortlund uncharitably took Erick’s conclusion out of context there, in fact he himself was being triumphalist and projecting his own behavior onto Erick
Wow the statements by Suan and Eric were pretty shocking that we have to accept that Vatican 1 is found in the 1st millennium and that the only way to get around it is to edit and rewrite history 🙃 that’s so backwards to everything I have seen from this debate.
I strongly believe Emperor Constantine was behind rewriting a lot of history, including modifications to the writings of some of the people who have been labeled as “church fathers”.
It is undeniable that the claims of Vatican I are found in the first millennia. Erick demonstrated that decisively in the presentation and the assertive statements by Suan and Erick in the beginning is therefore justified.
Completely agree. Whenever Ive seen debates/engagement on this the situation is the exact opposite and Roman apologists pull essentially a motte and bailey with statements like gavin showed but then when context is provided and cuts the legs out of the claim they fall back to Newman's development theory.
I just finished watching your conversation with your brother Eric. Fascinating! Stimulating! So many things could be commented on, for example this statement : atmosphere and mood are more important than plot. The most graphic illustration of that in my experience with when I started reading That Hideous Strength. From the very first scene of Jane alone in her apartment I was afraid. And I never read anything it was more frightening to me then that book. I've read it many times since and was thrilled the first time I Came Upon Your commentary on it. I am a new friend just having discovered you recently.
I agree. I respect that you treat them so kindly. They misrepresented quite a bit of your position. They did go back and forth between church and pope. I also found Ybarra ‘s presentation a defense of your position. He proved what you said. It was weird to me.
@Christian BISHOLF the need to say? So, if I used the word refuted, that would have satisfied your need to not dismiss an argument. Seems very ignorant.
@@sorenrousseau it’s a bit like when US officials always say ‘Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine’- the constant insistence on using the word unprovoked when it’s not called for by the context suggests the opposite, they realize it is open to question that it was provoked. It’s using exaggerated language to protect a position the person realizes is actually weak. A tell
It's amazing to see men with so much knowledge on a topic turn around and be so dense when it comes to honest presentation of the one they're critiquing.
I wonder if the interlocutors here would be willing to concede that the Westminster Confession too was 'there in the first millenium' on the basis that no aspect of Reformed doctrine lacks precedent in the early church. Putting Vatican I in the early period of the church is such a brazen statement of anachronism that I don't know even really know what to do with that comment. It's simply a presupposition, it's not really a historical theory even; unless they are genuinely willing to prove this was held in common by all Church fathers from the earliest stage, which they can't. You can only infer that some people in history held some similar views to those that developed into Vatican I, which proves precisely that those individuals were part of said development...
@@enniomojica7812 I feel like I clarified my meaning in the above comment already, but I'll reiterate, hope it helps. I'm pointing out a double standard, not trying to say this is more sure than the RC argument. Can you name a single doctrine taught in the Westminster that isn't found anywhere in the patristics? I'm not required to prove every point when I'm suggesting this is *not* how you do historiography. The point is anyone can cherrypick, but saying 'it's there in the first millennium' in a historic sense requires more than an abductive argument which can be made for all sorts of things. This comes back to the circular reasoning of the Roman church saying they better practice the historic Christian faith and then defining which sources that fit 'the great tradition' in the first place... If Papists want to do that then why would it be bad for Protestants to do the same? I don't think either group should play these games, but as Protestants we freely acknowledge tradition is flawed and can be reformed so we can say the Church fathers had mixed views, Christian history is complicated and take that which aligns with Scripture most consistently.
@@zacdredge3859 I think if i were to want to learn about Christian history and know what Christ and the apostles taught I would want to learn it from the entity that was there from the beginning. So that would disqualify Protestantism and lead to the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox. Now between those two I would trust the Catholic Church since its centuries old reputation of staying true to the apostolic Tradition corroborates the words of Christ with regards to making Peter the leader of the apostles and entrusting him to strengthen his brethren and the three fold commission to feed and guide his sheep. And I figure yes it makes sense. 12 apostles 12 tribes of Israel. Jesus being king establishing his eternal kingdom his government with Peter whom he gives the Keys (being chief steward and leader of the apostles whom are governors of this kingdom). It just seems to fit like a glove.
Thanks Gavin for making these videos, they're awesome! Was never interested in theology until I started dating a Catholic girl about a month ago. I'm a non-denom Protestant and have never looked into anything outside of my Bible. The information provided and most importantly your tone and delivery of it are helping me immensely in communicating these differing ideas to my girlfriend. Looking forward to more content! Liked & Subbed!
Do you know what I think the single most impressive document outside of your Bible that I suggest is? One Clement or the letter of the church in Rome to the Corinthians. 100 AD and you're already getting a wellspring of information about justification righteousness freedom from envy and church leadership.
@@speedtofu2108 Welcome to our online community! Think of the “process” of sharing with your girlfriend as an open, truthful dialogue. She may never stop being Catholic…but…if she is ever to seriously consider Protestantism as an alternative…it will take time! Respect her and continue to be open with her. Others have mentioned that this isn’t about being “RIGHT”…rather…it’s about seeking “TRUTH” and having a relationship with God. I’m thrilled to hear you have begun you own path of seriously seeking Truth. May your heart become aligned with what our Lord desires for your life, and that of your girlfriend!🇨🇦☺🇨🇦
@@1984SheepDog right im not trying to win but she thinks I'm missing out on full salvation and grace because i don't believe that Jesus is in the cracker
It just goes to show us that when ANY group from any tradition begins to morph away from the Old Testament and New Testament teachings of Christ and His apostles, you will end up with unScriptural and contradictory doctrines created, not per the inspiration of God, but from the minds of men with agendas.
Gavin, as a Baptist myself and going into full time ministry, I was wondering if you had any good resources or books on how to properly run a biblical church as a pastor? I start at Southwestern in the summer but was hoping you would have any book recommendations like “oh I wish I would have read this early on in ministry!” Thank you for your takes on church history! It’s helped me process a lot of it!
I recommend Holy Rebellion: Redefining Excellence in Pastoral Ministry by Kevin J. Moore. It should be in Roberts Library at SWBTS. Dr. Moore is a SWBTS grad and it’s a great book, all about loving God’s people well.
Was thinking about this more. You make a lot of “this doesn’t mean infallibility” claims here, but didn’t really offer an alternative: what *were* these saints and ecumenical councils saying? I understand you don’t want to go through every statement-fine. But you still didn’t really offer an alternative. Also, in your discussion of scholarship, you said you like to show what scholars say and then show us why they believe that. Not an uncritical acceptance of scholarship, but just noting scholars think hard so they often have good reasons so we should discuss that. Cool. But Erick honestly showed the scholarly consensus is in his favor: he showed many saying infallibility was asserted in antiquity. You mostly focus on Tierney. Overall the video is good (minus my complaint about your complaining in another comment), but I think Erick is more compelling.
When it comes to Papal Infallibility and Protestants/Eastern Orthodox, it's like an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. Something's gotta give...
I'm sorry Gavin, but Anselm literally says in that quote that the Pope's decrees are equal to the decrees of St. Peter and Jesus Christ Himself. If that is not claiming papal infallibility, then I don't know what is. If you can't make basic logical deductions from indefectibility to infallibility, I sure hope you don't appeal to texts like 2 Tim 3:16 to support biblical infallibility...
I can feel some lyrics coming on to match the outro... the "Truth Unites" bit wrote itself. Did you do that on purpose? Mike Licona has the same effect!
As I see it, the biggest issue here isn’t the particular quotes themselves, but the different ways in which Catholics and Protestants view the Church of the past. When the Protestant looks to the Church of the past, he just sees people. People, like ourselves, with sinful desires, biases, temptations, ignorances, etc.. Protestants don’t look at their forefathers in the faith as an infallible repository of sacred traditions, and thus, when they see the development of offices like the papacy, and all its surrounding doctrines, they are free to question if such developments might not be attributable to human motivations and failings rather than divinely inspired tradition.
Bruh you are just using strawmans. That’s why you can’t answer this question, now please tell us is Vatican 1 in the first thousand years of the church ? If not then you have no right to judge protestants, since if this is a a development of doctrine not an stablished apostolic doctrine. If you can’t answer this please help us to grow this conversation.
Dr. Gavin Ortlund, Ok. First I want to make clear I am Protestant, though never a calvinist, and I appreciate your work in this area, but this video in particular I think you must explain how that quote from the Council of Ephesus, without hand waving it away, doesn’t support their claim? It seems obviously and self evidently to support succession Gavin? It seems obviously to suppose and support the Heavenly Peter our Patriach and Apostle actively guiding his successors, and they being named specifically as the Roman See? And last, reading it again and again it at least leans with strong support to the notion of supremacy of Peter as Prince and/also foundation for the other Apostles and Church, and therefore, you can explicitly derive from that the supremacy of the Bishops of Rome. You ended with an emotional plea saying it’s the hardest issue to deal with, but that is no answer sir, please answer? I respect your mood and deference and irenicism and even your defense of hall mark Protestant stances, but this here, you have an obligation to answer cogently, honestly, clearly, and succinctly. I’ve read that quote multiple times mulling it over and now have to read Ephesus to get to the bottom of it. You didn’t give enough proper attention to this quote. Please, do over, it’s expected of you. God rest
Look up * Did Rome Have Universal, Ordinary, and Immediate Jurisdiction at the Council of Ephesus? | Part I | Rebuttal to Catholic Apologist Erick Ybarra* This argument has already been answered, The papacy is clearly a lie and Gavin’s humility doesn’t allow him to destroy Ibarra.
@@internautaoriginal9951 Thank you sibling. I am sure it is a lie, but supposed humility in the long run will get people dead and in hell because of his stance is not thoroughly furnished in the truth I’ll look at that video explicitly, but recently, only last night it came to me that rc is worse than I could have ever imagined: the Kord even gave me a dream about it (though I don’t remember the specifics anymore) after I wanted to know how He felt about it and nothing about the dream was good. I and all have to be more firm against this wicked center-piece of a christian veneer of sin. God rest
@@TheChristianNationalist8692 why does the papacy bother you so much? Jesus established it for your very protection against the works of Satan through heresy.
Hi Dr. Gavin. There is so much to say but your content (and I appreciated your thoughts and kind of thkinkig through this complex matter) in the video but trying to be as brief as I can be I will point out to your comment about quote from the Council of Ephesus. I will my comment to this from my article in which I described in a broder way that Council of Ephesus is (and for me also was in my research) one of the most important historical example showing believe of the Eastern Church in papal supremacy. I am really interesting what is your thoughts about it :) - 'On the following day at the third session of the Council of Ephesus, the papal legate, presbyter Philip gave his famous speech to the Council Fathers, in which he clearly emphasized the supremacy of the apostle Peter as head and prince of the apostles. Referring to the passage from the Gospel of Matthew 16,18-19, he stated that Peter, who received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven from our Savior, is the foundation of the Catholic Church. In a special way, the papal legate linked the apostle Peter to the bishop of Rome, who is the successor and heir of Peter in a unique way, and through whom the prince of the apostles exercises his power to judge until Christ's second coming. The important thing is that the papal legate makes this statement at the ecumenical council to the Greek bishops in the context of the jurisdictional authority of the bishop of Rome, Celestine, who made the authoritative and final judgment on the eastern archbishop of Constantinople, Nestorius. The Council does not reject these words, does not protest against them, does not argue with them, but agrees with them and places them in the official conciliar acts. (...) "Philip, presbyter and legate of the apostolic see, said: ‘It is doubtful to no one, rather it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, the leader and head of the apostles, the pillar of the faith, and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of heaven from our Lord Jesus Christ the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and was given the power to bind and unloose sins, and that he lives and performs judgement, until now and always, through his successors. In accordance with this system, his successor and representative, our holy and most blessed pope Bishop Celestine, has sent us to this council as substitutes for his presence…" - (Third Session, 11 July; The Council of Ephesus of 431…, p. 378)
YOU NEED TO BE SAVED TODAY: There Is only one God, in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. ONE God. Humans are ONE person ( in three parts) The body, soul and spirit. Three parts, ONE person. The Bible says that we are all sinners. As it is written: There is none righteous , no not one. Romans 3:10 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.Romans 3:23 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6 For the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23 (The word death in this verse means eternal separation from God in hell). Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. Isaiah 1:18 Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that He was buried and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures. 1Corinthians 15:3-8 In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:14 For by grace ye are saved, through faith; and not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Galatians 2:21 Realize that you are a hopeless sinner and trust in Jesus shed blood on the cross to pay for your sins. The moment you trust in Jesus and only Jesus, you are saved.
Gavin, if it would be helpful, the book Papalism by Edward Denny is quite good, although polemical (against Vatican I). He was an Anglo-Catholic, so I don't agree with everything he says, but it's very informative. It was written in 1912, so it's available online. It analyzes an enormous amount of relevant quotes and history. It was funny to see the video on Vigilius just weeks after reading about him.
Vatican I's innovations must be some of the hardest to defend on a merely historical basis. Even many catholic historians admit it, and it's why people so usually use "doctrinal development"do depend it. Very odd take by Ybarra trying to pretend otherwise
Catholics usually seem to claim that Peter was handed the keys by Jesus, he could bind and loose. So therefore, he was a pope, there would always be a pope, all doctrine would be perfect and they have ultimate authority to do so for all Christians. Two scriptures make all that.
I appreciate your response Dr. Ortlund, especially given the mountain of info Erick presented. I just have to say your final statement on the papacy being THE barrier to unity is baffling to me! It seems to me the papacy is the ONLY path to eventual unity. People have too many opinions that they and their scholarship consider non-negotiable and who or what is going to parse those out? And what about the scholars and pastors that insist on opening up the lid on “essential” issues? Submission is actually a beautiful word here. Aside from maybe the Orthodox Church, (which I have hope will be reunited with Rome one day) the only alternative to real and tangible Catholic unity is more reform through division.
Its a barrier to unity between Protestants and Catholics. Protestants cannot accept it, especially because of all the extra Biblical dogmas that are attached to the Papacy. So thats what he meant.
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 I understand what he meant. I’m saying it’s perplexing that the main thing Protestants want to do away with is actually a thing that makes real unity, and even reform, possible.
Is top-down, institutional, coercion *really* the only (or best) way to achieve "real" unity? That's an assumption that could be contested before the papal claims are even considered.
@@LHWakefield We Reformed without the Pope. And the accretions are built on the false teachings concerning him especially. Remember when butchering Protestants, before and after the Reformation, was the way forward? If the Pope brings unity it is the unity of everyone who disagrees is killed.
I see your point, but it's not like that in real world discussion. What happened when Luther wanted to reform the Church? They said no sir... Even in Evangelical churches now, it's nearly impossible to reform back teaching or doctrine. This is why parting ways is healthy. I seem to remember a certain apostle parting ways with his close friend, which one is the schismatic?
In regards to infallibility explicitly mentioned, couldn’t somebody argue against the doctrine of the Trinity from the same logic? Trinity is only implied in scripture, not explicitly stated until centuries later. Yet it was still there
To touch on your point, someone certainly could argue against the Trinity saying it is not explicitly mentioned. If a claim is not explicitly mentioned within scripture we should be looking for strong evidence to show that it is true. Scripture never quite relates the Trinity it in a direct way such as "God exist in a 'Tri-unity' between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". This means we should be looking for strong evidence to back up that claim if we make it. The quote from 1 John 5: 8 "... testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." is clear but very likely a later addition. That being said, scripture does leave us with strong statements that are very hard to reconcile without the Trinitarian viewpoint. Examples would include: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being." John 1: 1-3 NASB "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus," Titus 2: 13 NASB "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:" 2 Peter 1: 1 NASB "and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man... When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades." Revelation 1: 13, 17-18 NASB “You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. I, only I, am the Lord, And there is no savior besides Me." Isaiah 44: 10-11 NASB "so that all will honor the Son just as they honor the Father. The one who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him." John 5: 23 NASB "And now You, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world existed." John 17: 5 NASB Claims such as in John 1: 1-3 are further highlighted when we consider: "This is what the Lord says, the Holy One of Israel and his Maker: “Ask Me about the things to come concerning My sons, And you shall commit to Me the work of My hands. It is I who made the earth, and created mankind upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands, And I ordained all their lights." Isaiah 45: 11-12 NASB The claims of the "son of man" within Revelation 1: 17 are further highlighted with the Lord's claim: “This is what the Lord says, He who is the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of armies: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.” Isaiah 44: 6 NASB Claims such as in John 17: 5 are further highlighted by verses such as: "I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to idols." Isaiah 42:8 NASB "For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And I will not give My glory to another." Isaiah 48:11 NASB I could certainly keep going, but the point is that scripture provides an exceptionally strong basis for understanding the Trinitarian claim. We don't necessarily need explicit statements from church fathers or other sources to evidence the Trinity because the Bible highlights aspects of it time and time again. In contrast the papacy is very poorly evidenced through scripture, even calling it implied is somewhat generous. Infallibility of a pope is certainly never mentioned. Evidence for the papacy has very strong reliance on quotations from church fathers or other sources (which are fallible) to argue the points. The existence, power, reverence, and infallibility of the papacy are aspects we can see growing over a long period of time, which hurts it credibility.
@@robertcampbell1343 Perhaps I am wrong, but I don’t think he was arguing against the Trinity, but rather he was trying to say (in some sense) that Gavin had flawed logic. He says infallibility does not need to be explicitly mentioned to be understood, and uses the Trinity as an example to show his point.
That’s different and the basis for the Trinity is clear in scripture. The basis for pope infallibility is not clear in scripture. There’s more pointing against it than for it. Gavin gets into that though so I encourage you to watch more of his videos.
Great Job Gavin! With all this confusion and non clarity on what the “church Fathers “ meant, maybe we should start the discussion over just using the The Bible . After all we all agree that The Bible is the word of God. A child with basic reading and comprehension skills can read the Bible and gain all that is needed for his salvation. Everything else above that would only be man made traditions and heresies.
You better return to the Church or your soul is in danger. Apostasy and heresy is bad. Quit listening to the Devil and the flattering messages he spoke into your ear
Gavin. 🔴🔴Please if you see this don’t ignore. Can you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE WRITE A BOOK ON THE PAPACY AS A WHOLE INCLUDING PETER. OR RECCOMEND SOME BOOKS ON THE PAPACY. I really don’t have any books against the papacy and do NOT know how to argue against it. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🔴🔴
I mentioned elsewhere the book Papalism by Edward Denny, if you want something going deep into the history. I can't say I agree with everything. He has a higher view of bishops than I would like, but he makes a pretty solid case. I'm sure there are more books out there. As to arguments, I think I tend to see three classes of arguments in favor of the papacy: 1. Arguments about the necessity of a papacy, because otherwise we'd be kind of lost on doctrine, and so on. I think there are a few things to be noted here. First, the pope's only made two statements that all the Catholics agree were infallible, and those were both about Mary. Second, there's pretty clearly division in the Roman Catholic Church (see liberals vs conservatives vs radical traditionalists) that hasn't gone away, so it doesn't necessarily even work. Third, just thinking about it, the arguments that an infallible interpreter is needed usually prove too much. Because what do we get after the pope says anything? More statements for you to interpret, before you can actually use them. They never manage to cut you out of the loop of interpreting. Also, the statement that protestants have 30000 denominations is arguably overcounting, and implicitly doesn't understand how protestant denominations view other protestant denominations. Its source lists hundreds of Catholic "denominations", which I'd imagine they aren't in favor of. 2.Arguments from scripture: There are three main places where they appeal to in scripture: Matthew 16, Luke 22, and John 21. Luke 22 and John 21 both don't seem terribly convincing to me, since the Roman Catholic interpretation feels like it's forcing it to say something the text isn't trying to say. The best is Matthew 16. But there, it's not clear that the rock, at least, refers to Peter instead of Peter's confession of Christ (indeed, the church fathers mostly take it as his confession-I don't know how much you care, but any Roman catholics you talk with might), and the reference to Peter binding and loosing is later said of all the apostles. The even bigger problem here is that there aren't really solid scriptural arguments for anything passing on from Peter, even if we supposed that they have everything about Peter right. Sometimes they'll point to Matthias being made an apostle in place of Judas, but that was kind of a one-off thing-we no longer have 12 apostles walking the earth. 3. Arguments from history: I can't really address all of these, since that would take forever. There are many quotes that will be pointed to, but they're often, like Gavin was saying, saying something less strong than what Roman Catholics want, since it developed over time. Many of the early quotes they'll point to will be something that the father speaking would say of all bishops-Cyprian, for example, uses "seat of Peter" to refer to what all bishops have, not just Rome. Sometimes fathers will be talking about the primacy of the bishop of Rome-the early councils decide to put Rome as the first Patriarchate (probably because it was the capital), but that doesn't mean that Rome can just decide whatever it wants, just that they were given the most honor. But if you actually look at the history, there is reason to think there might not have been bishops at the very beginning in Rome, there are popes who were heretics, and time and again you see people disregarding the pope and treating him like they would any other important bishop. This is kind of a problem for them, since Vatican I says that all the fathers believed in papal infallibility. It's also worth knowing that a bunch of forgeries were really influential in the development of papal infallibility. Aquinas used the forgeries (not knowing that they were forgeries, of course), and they were put into the church law when that was collected. I hope that's helpful?
This is now the 5th popular Roman Catholic apoligist who I have seen misrepresent your arguments and then present them as if you just don't understand the clear facts of Church history. Don't grow discouraged; keep confronting people with truth that they have to wrestle with!
@@Christiancatholic7 “Let’s not revise history to the point that we’re denying the facts.” After having watched Gavin’s video, and the arguments that each of the Roman Catholic scholars made, saying that they all are simply denying the obvious facts is not an accurate portrayal of their argument or the honest heart behind it.
I also think just practically speaking, if this statement meant that principle, why don't the people during that time or after behave that way? They don't act as though those statements mean more than what they plainly say so we must not important a later understanding onto them.
Dr Ortlund, You inspire me to be as charitable as possible to everyone who calls Jesus the son of God. Just as Jesus prays for us in John 17 Verse 20 My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one- 23 I in them and you in me-so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
Gavin says “There’s a big difference between saying, ‘This church will never fail to hand on the faith’ and ‘Pope Pius xii can say the bodily assumption of Mary is a divinely revealed dogma.’” I, for one, don’t see the big difference. I see hardly any difference actually. How can a church never fail to hand on the faith without divine aid? I’d really like Gavin to tease that out more and would like to see him talk with Erick exactly on that statement. @20:48
@@georgwagner937 So there’s big difference between- “Our doctrine is Jesus is the Son of God”? and “Jesus is the Son of God and it’s actually divinely revealed by the Holy Spirit”? Is that a good example?
@@cmac369 a better example would be: As Peter confessed, and scripture points out, and the whole church always believed and will never fail to believe, Jesus is both God and man. And: The church cannot err when defining dogma, Mary was bodily assumed into heaven, believe that or your outside the church.
@@georgwagner937 Ok, but when the church says it will not fail to pass the faith doesn't that mean a doctrine is true? I mean your pointing out an example of something that we all believe about Jesus. What about doctrines like baptism? How does the church insure it passes on the correct doctrine?
The infallibility of Peter is ultimately premissed on the infallible authority of Jesus Christ as in Mathew 16:18, Mathew 14:31 and Luke 22:32. The leadership of the one and only Church was given by Jesus to Peter and the Apostles and their validly anointed, ordained and united successors, not to John Smyth and his self-apointed and divided followers.
You might want to discard the specific definitions of infallibility, etc. by the Roman Church, but you still have to deal with the historical witness of the great authority and respect afforded Rome. In particular, how does this historical witness - however ***YOU*** define it - affect ***your personal relationship*** with this Church. Does it have ***any*** authority over you? If it does not, on what historical basis do you eschew it?
As a Presbyterian Protestant I would say the Roman church at times was orthodox but was through the centuries getting more and more heretical by adding later superstitious traditions that are foreign to scripture. The Roman Catholic Church has no authority over me as an evangelical Presbyterian.
@@brexiesus8213 Your problem is not with the Roman Church. It is with Jesus Christ who established a visible, hierarchical and Apostolic Church with real authority (as the New Testament clearly affirms) and which would exist until the end of time. Take it up with Him. The Roman Church has no authority over you by its own right, but it does have authority over you through Christ. There is only one Body and one Church. They cannot be separated from its Head, yet your theology teaches just that.
You're a good man Dr. Ortlund, and I know you love Christ, but the substantial idea, if not the exact modern description, of Roman primacy and infallible teaching authority was there in the 1st millennium. Please read Newman. It is clear to anyone without a personal dog in the fight. I converted from atheism and took a hard look at all 3 major branches, and it was very obvious from a historical and a logical standpoint that the Catholics were right, there is something different about the Roman church. Peter is the solution to the epistemological crisis that plagues other churches. Our Lord did not leave us orphans in disunity, he left us a Church with a vicar and supreme shepherd. The parallels from the OT are there. God is all about order and authority-he is a king and the divine Logos. Division and chaos are from Satan... Just something to reflect on. Many blessings to you all.
"Our Lord did not leave us orphans in disunity.." Meanwhile the present "vicar" of Christ is one of the most divisive ever. And this is coming from Catholics themselves! So much for seeing things through rose-colored glasses.
I appreciate your passion in your beliefs you clearly lay out. I think it’s great you are a believer now! I would like to suggest that scripture states we are not left as orphans but, if we ask, are freely given the Holy Spirit, the spirit of truth…not the church as you stated. According to scripture. In addition, one of the huge arguments against Roman Catholicism is how similar its structure is to Old Testament Judaism with a high priest, priests, passive laities, works based systems for atonement of sins, etc that reflect an “access based system” to God. Judaism and Roman Catholicism share a lot in terms of a structure believers must go through to have access to God and Christ. New Testament Christianity completely changes all of that. And that doesn’t eliminate order. Instead of Judaism’s high priest or Roman Catholicism’s high priest, the pope, Protestants have Christ himself as the head (Eph 5)Instead of Judaism’s and Roman Catholicism’s priests, Protestants believe we are all priests (1 Peter 2). Hope that helps you see part of our differences.
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 I don't think that it is accurate to present the vicar to be the most divisive in context of the argument for unity. One uniting factor of the pope is his ability to "settle truth" when needed, not that a pope cannot lead people to scandal. This ability to definitively "settle truth" isn't available in Protestantism (semper reformanda). Yes you can always reform, but with it you lose the ability to also settle on things. And no matter what people say, there IS unity in teaching, what is dogma is pretty clear and also unchanging. Also the teachings are consistent throughout history (I understand that not everyone agrees on this). A problem I have with a lot of protestant denominations (not all), is the lack of consistency throughout history, sometimes even total neglect of history. The teaching of the Eucharist and baptism for me really narrows down the options a lot. Apostolic succession is also an important one I think
The problem with this is that Vatican I clearly talks about how it was "known to all ages," "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." It's pretty hard for that ("most fully"!) to be compatible with a notion of development, I would think. That means it should be pretty clear in the 1st millennium, something Newmanesque won't cut it.
People do not realize that the papacy and the church had a vital role in the creation and development of the university, hospital, art, science and the justice system of the western civilization. The papacy led the struggle and survival of Christianity against the barbarians (Vikings, Visigoths, etc.) and Islam. The granting of a master's degree is a sign of qualification of his/her own profession. University degrees were approved by the pope, the king, or monarch. The Pope has authority in all Christendom and degrees approved by the pope are respected in all Christendom, while the kings approval was only valid in the kingdom in which they were issued. Likewise in Art and science were supported by the popes. Cathedrals were designed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to function as world-class solar observatories. Even atheist Stephen Hawking was a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (academy of sciences of the Vatican city). The Jesuits have been the single most important contributor to experimental physics in the seventeenth century. Christian Art created by the greatest artist/composers in the world like Michelangelo, Raphael, Botticelli, Leonardo da Vinci, Beethoven, Bach, Schumann, Vivaldi, Williams, etc. were all commissioned by the popes. What would western civilization be without the arts/music, science, universities and hospitals that were pioneered by the early church, led by the popes.
I think it’s a strange argument for them to say “ha! gotcha!! Papal infallibility was in the first millennium!” That’s a full 1000 years and it doesn’t prove anything but accretion…! If they can’t show it from the first century, or at least the first couple of centuries, then it’s absurd to argue for its originality!
I'm not sure why it's so important to establish papal infallibility from the first millenium. Does the fact that some church leader in 1000 A.D. wrote about papal infallibility make it more or less true?
YOU NEED TO BE SAVED TODAY: There Is only one God, in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. ONE God. Humans are ONE person ( in three parts) The body, soul and spirit. Three parts, ONE person. The Bible says that we are all sinners. As it is written: There is none righteous , no not one. Romans 3:10 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.Romans 3:23 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6 For the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23 (The word death in this verse means eternal separation from God in hell). Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. Isaiah 1:18 Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that He was buried and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures. 1Corinthians 15:3-8 In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:14 For by grace ye are saved, through faith; and not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Galatians 2:21 Realize that you are a hopeless sinner and trust in Jesus shed blood on the cross to pay for your sins. The moment you trust in Jesus and only Jesus, you are saved.
Right. They are arguing historical precedence to claim they have the most correct version of Christianity. Which is fine, but even as there is precedence in laws: there are also amendments, over rulings, appeals, etc. Correspondingly, correcting errors to be closer to Apostolic teachings (and Jesus) seems a worthy Christian goal! 😯
Gavin seems to either not want to acknowledge or not recognize how protestantism is in the vast minority, both at the present and especially in history. That's not an argument for protestantism being incorrect, just an explanation as to why so many people have a hard time giving credence to protestantism.
Where you are wrong is that Prostestants and EO join together on this issue. Vast minority is ridiculous. There is more of us than you. Check your statistics.
Hi Gavin,some questions about the idea of an “accretion”. How do you decide when a certain historical document in Church history contains what you would consider an accretion? For example, taking all of those early sources that Erick used, even if you deny them as proof of papal infallibility, they do point to something! Can you provide an alternate format for Christ’s church which can be seen throughout history? I’m not trying to be triumphalist I’m just saying that to call something an accretion there should be some right path or true Church that Catholicism deviates from. Also if you see it as an accretion than it shouldn’t matter to you how early or late it shows up. Also, 7:07 I don’t think indefectability and infallibility are as dissimilar as you claim. If anything indefectability is the stronger, more detailed claim since it takes “infallibility”into the future. Also I think the Anselm quote Erick used is actually better for papal supremacy than infallibility 😊
I kind of get the same feeling. It is one thing to critique the evidence presented, and saying that it doesn't necessarily entail papal infallibility (it still could though), but for me it seemingly steps over the evidence that IS found, how do we account for this?
When a pope is speaking in his official position on any issue of faith or morals, he is speaking infallibly, without error. But the apostles never regarded any man (except Jesus) to be infallible. Only the Word of God is without error. Paul rebuked Peter for being deceived by Judaizers (Galatians 2:11-14). Papal infallibility is seen to be false, as these events reveal: BTW, the Bible doesn't even speak of popes. That's just a Catholic teaching.
@@cronmaker2 "So the biblical writers were not infallible. Ok." Were the Bible writers infallible? Peter was a Bible writer. Was he infallible? Uh, no. Didn't he lie when he disowned Jesus three times? Anyway, no, none of the Bible writers, including Peter, was infallible.
@@cronmaker2 "Were the biblical writers infallible when writing scripture?" What do you think? One of those Bible writers wrote: "All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God." (Ro. 1:23) So, tell me, what Bible writer do you know of who was infallible? Oh, and another thing, where in your Bible does it say Peter was an infallible pope?
@@cbooth151 your biblical citation is self-refuting if you don't hold Scripture to be infallible. After all, according to you, that verse written by a biblical writer can be in error, as can all the verses you appeal to for Christs exclusive infallibility.
From reading the comments it looks like hardly any Protestants actually watched Ybarras presentation. I watched the full two hours it really is impressive and left me with no doubt that Vatican 1 was indeed accepted by east and west in the first millennium.
The claim that Vatican 1 "was indeed accepted by east and west in the first millennium" is false. The Orthodox almost immediately reacted negatively to Pastor Aeternus. For example, Patriarch Anthimos VII of Constantinople wrote in his Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, that the Orthodox were: "fully persuaded that the *Bishop of Rome was never considered as the supreme authority and infallible head of the Church,* and that every bishop is head and president of his own particular Church, subject only to the synodical ordinances and decisions of the Church universal as being alone infallible, the Bishop or Rome being in no wise excepted from this rule, as Church history shows. *Our Lord Jesus Christ alone is the eternal Prince and immortal Head of the Church."* Patriarch Anthimos continues: "...to the astonishment of the Christian world, [the papists have claimed] that the Bishop of Rome is even infallible" even though all Christians know that "no one is infallible upon earth." So I'm not sure where you or Erick Ybarra have come to the conclusion that the East accepted Vatican 1.
Gavin, you are nuancing terms to the point that they no longer have a clear or transparent meaning. All the quotes Erick provided are in the context of perseverance in orthodox faith. There is no conceptual difference between infallibility of faith, indefectability of faith, incorruptability of faith, perpetual safeguardance in faith, etc. Moreover, in each and every quote Mr.Ybarra provided the See of Rome is indistinguishable from the bishop of Rome, in that the monarchical episcopacy had been long established by every discernable metric. You are citing distinctions without a difference, and I invite everyone to watch the original presentation to see unequivocal evidence of such.
There is a big difference between the first claim that the Rome will never fail to hand on the deposit x and the second claim that something is part of that deposit x, especially when that what is supposed to be part of x is an accretion with possibly heretical roots. To verify if the claim that Rome will never fail to hand on x is true we simply need to look at x at the time of the statement and compare to what Rome now hands on as x. I'm not historian, I'm not fit for that task.
@@georgwagner937 The claims of the Roman See/ the Roman Pontiff, and the echoes of these claims throughout the 1st millennium by the early Church fathers are a different question from whether they are true. Gavin isn't merely asserting that Papal infallibility is false, he is asserting that Roman See never made explicit claims to be inafllible, nor did anyone recognize this unique charism, until the 13th century. This is an untenable position (as Erick Ybarra demonstrates).
@@mattaristone105 I think Gavin's claim is that there was a steady growth towards the statement of infallibility of the Roman bishop, which is a historical claim. He contrasts that with the understanding of "a constant practice".
@@georgwagner937 He forthrightly stated that he saw no "explicit" claims of Papal infallibility in the first millennium (or until the 13th century). Furthermore, he goes so far as to say that Erick's positon that the claims of Vatican 1 are clearly found in the first millennium are triumphalist- even though he demonstrated as much in his presentation, and has written a 1000 page book on the topic. I would invite you to review either.
@@mattaristone105 I agree. I think Gavin would be better off arguing why he thinks papal infallibility itself is an accretion instead of trying to disprove it’s early existence. The latter is a pretty futile attempt at ignoring history.
Dr Ortlund, in the clip you played at the beginning, this is the conclusion of their argument which you are picking out in isolation and putting at the beginning of your response and calling triumphalist. Well, if that’s how they started then it would be, but this is the conclusion not the beginning. This is an uncharitable act on your part.
@@internautaoriginal9951 did you even watch that video interview that Suan did with Erick? The citations he mentioned there which are earlier than 13 century (the century being argued by Gavin) are too many to ignore. Well... Gavin ignored them.
I don't think you showed that papal infallibility was not in the 1st century in this video. You more seemed to talk about that you don't believe it was there in this video. I'm not saying that it is,and I haven't been able to find that it is. I would like to find out more about the evidence for or against it.
It is becoming increasingly apparent to me that Ortlund has a peculiar argumentative take with doctrinal claims and their grounding in history. Common to these videos is the form: Catholics believe in X, let's try to problematize X through attrition by lumping in conjectures, showing in all the ways how X is falsifiable (without demonstration), or the occasional throws up hands "I can't see it". Zooming out, the larger argument then becomes one of a sort of attrition through skepticism, which begins to reveal a historiographic epistemology. The macro lens or probabilistic modes of argumentation are conveniently tossed aside via this method. This can be further demonstrated in the inverse scenario when Ortlund is pressed on his on view's characteristics and historical precedents, and what is commonly used in resort is either a sort of Motte and Bailey technique or some sort of historical cherry picking. Perhaps Ortlund's epistemological scruples are why he has landed in the Baptist tradition, which maintains a heavily reduced set of tenants.. My own thoughts here are of course conjectural and I can't speak to the interiors of Ortlund's mind -- but when looking at the last years worth of back and forth, this pattern or style is becoming increasingly apparent.
Are you saying that it’s not fair to analyze an argument’s premises? Or to peel back layers of an assertion to validate its truthfulness? Maybe I misunderstood your point. Help me understand. Let’s take the Roman Catholic doctrine of sacraments such as the Eucharist. If we were to time travel 500 years ahead and say “Catholics in 2023 believed in the Eucharist because the Cathedral Church says the Eucharist is a Catholic doctrine” then some brave soul retorted “Then why in 2023 did only 1/3 of US Catholics agree that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ while 69% believe the bread and wine are just symbols of Christ?”(August 2019 Pew Research poll). How else could someone argue doctrinal claims if not by closer examination? Help me understand what you’re saying please.
@@onepingonlyplease I am merely describing what I see as a pattern or method of _how_ Ortlund conducts argumentation. I of course agree that a proposition can be argued. The reason I used "X" above is to denote not a _particular_ proposition but any proposition with the shape that Ortlund is wanting to engage with (at least with Catholics). After watching Ortlund conduct argumentation against a set of X's across time, you can see his method or pattern of argumentation. Not everyone argues in the same way and not all forms of argumentation are equal. To that, Ortlund's mode of argumentation seems to presuppose a historiography that is different many of his Catholic interlocutors. I hope that helps to explain what I originally said.
@@scottsoneal when you say “the shape he wants to engage with”, what do you mean? I immediately think of the Areopagus sermon by Paul in Athens (ironically I’m an Athenian as well, though not the Greek kind). Paul very very very effectively reasons with the Athenians persuasively by quoting their philosophers, poets, even nameplates on statues. Of what they know, he selects particulars then reasons through to the points he wants to engage with. Maybe I don’t get your point at all…
I would equate both Erick and Suan as arguing from point A, natural reasoning, while you are presenting from point B, spiritual reasoning. Infant baptism does not get one from point A to point B.
You know. Catholics will say you are wrong. Protestants will say you are wrong. And someone else will say you are wrong. And this will go on...right or wrong. And by the that time, TRUST me JESUS will come. He will than ask us What do you say? And we will all say YOU ARE LORD. In conclusion i want to echo the words of St. Paul...What matters is faith expressing itself through LOVE. And somewhere else he says...LOVE is the fulfillment of the law. Jesus said Remain in my LOVE. Love one another as I have loved you. And again, He said...By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. So happy arguing, debating, fighting whatever. I have seen both the sides of this and i know only one thing JESUS IS LORD. Grace to all who have an undying love for Christ. Amen.
Gavin, please be respectful of those with epilepsy. Your intro has flashing lights with no warning, and this can cause seizures among those afflicted with epilepsy.
Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Peter, and Paul were not Roman Catholics. They were all Jewish. The first non-Jewish believer in the gospel is Cornelius in Acts chapter ten. Every believer before Acts chapter ten is 100 percent Jewish. When the LORD commanded Peter to go preach the gospel to Cornelius Peter didn't want to go because he knew that Cornelius was not Jewish. The Bible, Old Testament and New Testament, was written by Jews. The LORD commanded Peter three times, "Feed My sheep" (John 21:15-17). Therefore, Peter gave the keys to the kingdom directly to the sheep and not to the magisterium. And Peter wrote to the sheep (2 Peter 1:5-11) and said, “...add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:5-11). In other words, Peter says that if we (the sheep) do what he says to do that this will open the doorway to heaven "abundantly" to the sheep. Peter has been feeding the sheep by sharing the keys to the kingdom with anyone who will do what he tells them to do in 2 Peter 1:5-11 and the entrance to the kingdom will be abundantly ministered to them. And they will never fall. So, why doesn't the church that says that they hold the keys to the kingdom teach their people how to have the power to live holy and the power to never fall? If you are willing to give totalitarian control of your thinking to the magisterium or to any religious group you have blinded yourself and cannot even see the scriptures that are right in front of you. On the day of judgment you will not be able to point at someone else and say, "It's their fault." It is your individual responsibility to know the scriptures. "And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest" (Hebrews 8:11). Peter by his personal example never acted as if having the keys to the kingdom meant asserting authority over other people. For example in Acts 15 when a very important matter was to be decided before the assembly the final verdict was given by James and not by Peter (Acts 15:19). Paul gave commandments to the churches he established and not Peter (1 Corinthians 7:17 and 16:1). Also, Paul did not take his orders from Peter. In fact Paul rebuked Peter to his face. “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed” (Galatians 2:11). The LORD commanded us saying, "...Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. BUT SO SHALL IT NOT BE AMONG YOU: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all" (Mark 10:42-44). ... ... ...
@@joycegreer9391 hmm The Early church believed in the Eucharist, Apostolic Succession etc and don't sound like PROTESTant to me . More like Catholics and Orthodox.
I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favorable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases…. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely Lord Acton
Erick sure did put an end to yet another false claim by Gavin! Gavin Ortlund has a bad habit of leaving out the complete writings of the Church Fathers and Popes! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink and His Church built on Peter the rock
Sorry, but the Pope, his bishops, priest and nuns will never go away. The apostolic succession’s authority to “bind and loose” and so join heaven and earth. ....not even an angel, nor archangel, nor any other created power, can do. - “what you bind on earth is bound in heaven” The Bible, as the very Word of God, is true in itself, but not all the conclusions people choose to draw from it are necessarily right. It is through His apostles and His church that Christ orally left His teachings to develop canon/doctrines for Christianity as it goes forward in time "therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” He established a church to speak and guide us, as we encounter new social issues in the passage of time....
Oh they definitely will go away when they have fulfilled their purpose in prophecy. The Apostles' authority sure is not what anyone else can do, only those select 12 men. "not all the conclusions people choose to draw from it are necessarily right.---That is VERY evident in Catholicism. Yes, Jesus taught His Apostles orally, and then they wrote what we needed to know. HIS Church is not accessible on earth. ALL necessary doctrine/canon is in scripture. We are not to be conformed and adapt to the world and society. God's Word is unchanging. Where do you see anything in those instructions from Christ to His Apostles about any church??
This is sad to hear to be honest. A question to Gavin and any other Protestants or Orthodox that have their heels dug in, what would you need to see in order to accept that Christ established a kingdom and not a federation or democracy or republic? Do you value your autonomy and freedom over Christ and his church that much?
Concrete evidence for the claims made by the catholic church would be a good start. Something we can see and understand and upon which we can agree what it means. Read for example St. Agatho's epistle and then ask youself: What does it say? What does it not say? I think it is not possible to deduce papal infallibility from that letter. Christ is king.
There was no triumphalisme in Erick and Suan's response. If a statement like that were made about you, we would have never heard the end of it. You only quotes scholars who agree with your protestant views and failed to sufficiently engage the primary sources. There are many scholars (protestant and catbolic) who will contradict you on the matter, and Erick did a good job to show you that. Moreover, Erick engaged the scholars you quoted very well. In contrast, you have never engaged any protestant or catholic scholars who acknowledge vatican 1 in the first millennium. Instead you just quoted a few dissenting catholic scholars and gave the impression that their views are representative of all the scholarship which is flatly false. Mr. Gavin, you have a way of presenting yourself as a victim whenever your videos are critiqued, please man up and engage the arguments no matter how good or bad they are. Stop the victimisation play, noone is out there to get you.
The Quotes of Saint Anselm demonstrates supremacy not infaillibility. All must submit, tha s supremacy. Very quick to overnuance things in defence of your views, very quick also to suppress every nuance when critiquing the opponent. Lamentable !
Gavin: This is an incredibly strong claim, I don't believe its true Erick: (put a two hour video refutting his arguments) Gavin: Why dont you read it at face value (insisting his own interpretation of how he reads it instead of understanding the history behind the statement 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️) typical protestant.
Nobody takes Ybarra serious after he was destroyed by Dyer, Ortlund is just repeating the arguments but his humility doesn’t allow him to go crazy on him.
@@MajorasTime Who are “Most People” ? Do we win by what most of the people agree on? Ybarras arguments are funny at this point, they only stop debating because Ybarra was playing like he couldn’t understand.
@@HisLivingStone241 its a 30minutes of basically denying the evidences presented by Erick. Literally its a 30min video of Gavin basically saying to Erick's video "I don't see it that way".
Edit: if you say protestants argue like atheists, you are calling Thomas an atheist. All we do is act like Thomas: Except -I- we shall see -in his hands the print of the nails- the evidence for your claims about church history, and put -my- our finger -into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side- on the evidence, -I- we will not believe.
@@platospaghetti doesn't have to be "very good". I'm just annoyed by the claim we protestants argue like atheists or that we're just sceptical. It's OK to demand evidence, even Thomas did it.
While Gavin continues to attack the Catholic church, he fails to give you a better alternative… The truth is that the protestant ecclesial model is much less a good representation of the one in the new testament and the first millennium. In the bible we see one church(not many denominations) united under one ultimate authority(which are the apostles) and having one faith(not many professions of faith like the protestants have). In the 12 Apostles 1 is above the other: Peter(only Peter received the power of the key from Jesus, and its Peter only, with the key of the kingdom, who open the doors to the holy spirit to come (for the Jews, gentiles, and Samaritan). The church of the new testament is having the power to teach with infallibility through the councils (see Act chapters 15-16) and decrees(act 16:4 the word used in Greek is dogmata which should have been translated as dogma!). With the church, Jesus established a new Sanhedrin who had the power to bind and loose (give interpretation to the scripture in a way that is binding on the faithful, and to govern and discipline the community with authority), and just as the Pharisees were teaching in the chair of Moses (with his authority, see Matthew 23:2), The Popes teach in the chair of Peter (with his authority) in unity with the college of the bishops who now replace the apostles. The successor of Peter is the one who holds the power of the key, and the church considers the bishop of Rome as the legitimate successor of Peter, so the Case is close! For anyone who has eyes to see, the biblical ecclesial model is the Roman Catholic one, not the protestants many models with all their divisions and contradictions. To all my protestants friends remember well that the bible says division or schism is a sin and those who are doing that won't inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)
1. “Protestant” is not an ecclesial term. No Protestant (i.e. historic Protestant, Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, and others) says “we are part of the same Church united under the Protestant name”. Under that definition of disunity, we see in the New Testament Church one Church with an undivided Apostolate / later Episcopate. Since Rome, the Orthodox, the Assyrian, the Coptics, and the Oriental Church are divided in doctrine and the purity of that doctrine being rightfully maintained in the true faithful episcopate; we see that the Episcopal Churches do not mirror the unified Church of the Apostles. 2. Jesus used the future tense in telling Peter that Peter would receive the keys, which is only repeated with all the disciples present in Matthew 18. Moreover, Luke 22 and John 21 only show Peter had an elderly brother role (i.e. “Strengthen your brothers” and “Feed My Sheep”); and the effectiveness (particularly John) of those arguments rely on Matthew 16. Otherwise, “Feed My Sheep” is a function that all the Apostles can be said to have. Also, the Great Commission is the commissioning of all the Apostles to go out as effectively equals (since to all are said “go”) and this is repeated with the Acts 15 Council. Thus, to point to Peter’s preaching on Pentecost is to point to an explanation removed from prior context and to an explanation far less consistent. Peter had authority and a role, but not in a solely supreme sense. 3. The argument from mirroring succession Biblically fails because the Sanhedrin (the ruling Jewish Court) and the Pharisees (the teachers of the law) were in legitimate authority but collaborated with the Pharisees (the successors to Aaron) to have the Lord Himself be executed. Thus, to argue for papal infallibility based on the modeling of the Pharisees’ infallibility is to endorse that the Pharisees were right in their judgement. If they were not infallible and could be in error (as they were), then you do not have precedent to say Christ build His Church “just as the Pharisees [structure]”.
@@HisLivingStone241 You said ¨“Protestant” is not an ecclesial term. No Protestant (i.e. historic Protestant, Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, and others) says “we are part of the same Church united under the Protestant name” That’s exactly what is the problem, the protestants NEVER had any unity since the very beginning… not in the doctrines, and of course not in the leadership! They are divided since Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli! Division and contradiction in the teaching is not the work of the holy spirit but the work of the flesh! Jesus prayed(John 17:20-26) very clearly for his church to be one just like he is one with his father. The protestants reformation completely fails to be the answer to his prayer. So whiles you protestants guys have now thousands of denominations full of contradictions, on the other side the Catholic church is united in the doctrine(in the catechism) and under the same authority in Rome for more than 2000 years, and this fulfills the prayer Jesus…. that’s the difference. To say that the “purity of the doctrine was not being rightfully maintained in the Roman Catholic church” is your personal subjective protestant opinion. Your protestants denominations cannot even agree with each other on the doctrine of salvation, so really, you have no authority and credibility to judge the integrity of the catholic dogmas and doctrines.
@@HisLivingStone241 You said : “John 21 only shows Peter had an elderly brother role (i.e. “Strengthen your brothers” and “Feed My Sheep” The problem is that the New Testament said a lot more than that about the authority and role of Peter… did you ever noticed that only Peter name was changed from Simon to “the rock” Cephas (not the other 11 apostles) showing that he was going to be the rock on which Jesus was going to build his church? Did you ever notice that it was Peter who perform most of the miracles in the first 15 chapters of the book of Acts and talked/preached most of the time? Did you ever notice that even though Cornelius family believe, the holy spirit could not initially descend on the Gentiles until Peter was sent to open the door for the holy spirit? (Because he was the only one with the key) Even your comment on John 21 point out to the catholic model! Even though Peter deny Christ 3 times, it is to Peter that Christ asks to strengthen his brother, not to the 11 other apostles to strengthen Peter! Showing that Peter's Role and authority are above the other apostles. Concerning the power of the key: it is not relevant if Christ talks in the future tense in Matthew 16. The time when Peter officially received the key is unknown, but it was most likely at the Pentecost. The key of the kingdom are related not only to bind and lose but to an office. In the second temple Judaism, when a King was giving the key of the kingdom to someone that make him second to the king, a sort of vizier if you want. This is not an office the 12 apostles could assume but only one person! And Jesus gave it to Peter. Isaiah 22:20-21 is giving the proper interpretation of Matthew 16.
@@HisLivingStone241 Finally, concerning the Pharisees, scribes, and the Sanhedrin. The term “bind and loose” was well-known in first-century Judaism. It was understood by the Jewish leadership for having the power to rule spiritually the community and teach with an authority that will be binding on the faithful, and the power to discipline and excommunicate unfaithful Jews from the synagogue. Jesus never question that, on the opposite, he clearly said that they legitimately sit on the chair of Moses and told his disciple to listen to them but to not imitate their behavior because they were hypocrites (Matthew 23:1-3). So, The problem here is not one of authority but one of hypocrisy. After the Jewish leadership became totally apostate by rejecting Jesus as their Messiah, God took away from them the power to bind and lose and this power was given to the church with Peter as Vizier with the power of the keys. It is very simple to understand for someone who is not indoctrinated with a protestants tradition full of Anti-Catholic prejudice.
@@thefaiththatendures 1. If Protestants fail, then Rome fails because all the Episcopal "ancient" churches separated. You selectively choose one definition of unity while excluding Rome from that same definition, ignoring that the entire East is opposed to you while saying Protestants fail because "we consciously are not united"; and yet none of the Eastern / Eastern Orthodox are united under the Pope. And I never was making a claim on which Episcopal church had purity of doctrine, but by your loose logic, neither do you have the right to judge the Protestants because you also are one man.
Well, we know that faith alone and Scripture alone, were definitely not the constant teaching and practice of the early Church! Gavin Ortlund has a bad habit of leaving out the complete writings of the Church Fathers and the Popes! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@internautaoriginal9951 not at all! Again, Erick hurt Gavin by providing the complete writings of the Church Fathers and Popes that Gavin conveniently leaves out! 😄 peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
I really don‘t understand, why Catholics so often write in their comments, about the Eucharist😊. That it is the real body and the real blood of Christ. Many Protestants believe that. But we also believe it is real wine and real bread ☺️
@jacky b after a year of asking him. Dr. Ortlund finally admitted he can never know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ". Whose fallible Protestant interpretation do we listen to, as both Martin Luther and John Calvin disagreed with each other on what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ". Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 you don't understand Protestantism. We don't teach that our interpretation is infallible. We can make mistakes and correct our position with more understanding/learning. To put it simply, the 66 holy scriptures are infallible, our interpretations are not.
Hey.🇱🇰 Srilankan here.Hi Gavin : your videos are very informational thank you for your effort in put real protestantism in context.
My parents are missionaries in Sri Lanka. They love your country. I'll visit in the next years.
Hello! Question for you: do you worship the Holy Spirit?
God bless,
Enshala
Awesome. Thanks for keeping the discussion going in a positive manner. I'll check it out. I will let you know what impact it has for me soon, if time allows.
@ErickYbarra2010
As someone who has been learning from Dr. Gavin for a while and just recently subscribed to your channel, it would mean a lot if you did respond to this video!
@@wonderingpilgrim Hi! It would probably be best to do a live dialogue.
@ErickYbarra2010
That actually sounds wonderful! Thank you for replying in the midst of your busy schedule!
I hope that you take seriously his concerns with your triumphalism.
@@townshendwhite9309
I believe that was a mistake. All I was insisting upon is that the content of Vatican 1 can be traced back to the 1st millennium. So can Arianism, Pelagianism, and Iconoclasm. The intention here was not to boast over Dr. Ortlund, but just to insist on this simple point.
Gavin, thank you for mentioning that Vatican I was quoting from Ephesus 431. You made the right move (relative to your position) in then arguing that Ephesus isn’t making the Vatican 1 claims. Although that can be contested, your acknowledgement moves the ball forward. The citation of Ephesus 431 is important for understanding Vatican I and should not go unmentioned.
The way he said ‘I’m a Protestant, I can go back and rewrite history’ as if that is something a Protestant is thinking when they interpret the early church is so condescending; I completely agree with your interpretation of this as triumphalist.
That was how it struck me as well.
Yeah I didn't understand that move at all, Mr. Ybarra and Mr. Sonna (atleast in the clip) simply asserted that Vatican 1 is in the first millennium and everyone needs to just accept that as fact. I don't see how that's not a form of begging the question...i.e their fallacious argument would look something like this ...Vatican 1 is first millennium THEREFORE if anyone wants to deny or disagree with Roman Catholicism they must offer a different explanation to account for this fact.
I agree it was triumphalistic and quite common from Roman Catholics (it's almost like they can't help themselves from doing it). That being said, these two men are some of the most charitable Catholics within Catholic Apologetics thar I have seen. I doubt these two men intend to be or to come off that way...
@@Adam-ue2ig
"I don't see how that's not a form of begging the question"
The claim of Vatican I is a literal word for word quotation of Ephesus - which isn't 'begging the question' by definition.
@Tyson Guess you would have to quote and source it, i don't know which quote your referencing off the top of my head...it wasn't mentioned in this video by Dr. Ortlund.
Gavin, your responses are always so concise and respectful. Thank you
I love your humility. Thank you for engaging these topics with such grace and levelheadedness.
I was fortunate to grow up in a couple of churches that had Theologians and scholars leading our denominations. I believe it is important to align our hearts and minds. If we go “blindly” into a particular belief system without investigating the doctrine, it can be detrimental to our spiritual growth, and possibly lead us down the wrong path! There are many false teachers and churches that offer a “feel good” strategy - which should set off alarm bells! I welcome as much scholarship into our Christian communities, as there appears to be a lack thereof. This is the reason why myself and others remain subscribers to this channel. There are enough churches offering sermons and worship services online…countless videos on Apologetics…what we are in desperate need of is a focus on learning more about church history. The broader church is starved in this regard!
Wishing everyone a great week!🇨🇦☺🇨🇦
YOU NEED TO BE SAVED TODAY:
There Is only one God, in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. ONE God.
Humans are ONE person ( in three parts) The body, soul and spirit. Three parts, ONE person.
The Bible says that we are all sinners.
As it is written: There is none righteous , no not one. Romans 3:10
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.Romans 3:23
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6
For the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23 (The word death in this verse means eternal separation from God in hell).
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. Isaiah 1:18
Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that He was buried and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures. 1Corinthians 15:3-8
In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:14
For by grace ye are saved, through faith; and not of yourselves.
It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9
I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Galatians 2:21
Realize that you are a hopeless sinner and trust in Jesus shed blood on the cross to pay for your sins.
The moment you trust in Jesus and only Jesus, you are saved.
Thank you, Dr. Gavin! I'm trying to piece together this complex issue as carefully as I can, and really appreciate your work.
Hey Gavin! Just wanted to say thank you for your videos. I love how you take the time to not just discuss history but also how we should think about it. I was telling my cousin Nate about your videos and apparently you guys were at Fuller at the same time. He said you helped him figure out some of his PHD questions, small world!
Thanks Jack, what a cool connection! Say hi to him from me!
@@TruthUnites Gavin, I have an accretions question. WHY has the Vatican confirmed all kinds of highly questionable miracles to confirm their accretions, but still haven't confirmed the most scientifically scrutinized and PROVABLE miracle of the shroud of Turin? Because it might affirm faith alone in Christ alone? And of course you also know about the message in PI which even protestants suppress to maintain the religious balance of power. I realize the Christian Industrial Complex is controlled by the Military Industrial Complex, but who will you serve?
Wow that is cool.
Quoting Gavin: “one of the churches is saying ‘hey, everyone has to submit to us,’ ‘we can speak at the level of Scripture’ and so forth…”
This is why you shouldn’t be surprised at the triumphalism and overstatements. When you claim infallibility for your side of an argument, triumphalist rhetoric is just built in.
Dr Ortlund uncharitably took Erick’s conclusion out of context there, in fact he himself was being triumphalist and projecting his own behavior onto Erick
Wow the statements by Suan and Eric were pretty shocking that we have to accept that Vatican 1 is found in the 1st millennium and that the only way to get around it is to edit and rewrite history 🙃 that’s so backwards to everything I have seen from this debate.
I strongly believe Emperor Constantine was behind rewriting a lot of history, including modifications to the writings of some of the people who have been labeled as “church fathers”.
It is undeniable that the claims of Vatican I are found in the first millennia. Erick demonstrated that decisively in the presentation and the assertive statements by Suan and Erick in the beginning is therefore justified.
Completely agree. Whenever Ive seen debates/engagement on this the situation is the exact opposite and Roman apologists pull essentially a motte and bailey with statements like gavin showed but then when context is provided and cuts the legs out of the claim they fall back to Newman's development theory.
@@jakajakos He really didn’t, Gavin cut the arguments legs off.
@@internautaoriginal9951 yea he did
Gavin, I appreciate your sharpness, humility and paying attention to detail. 👍
I just finished watching your conversation with your brother Eric. Fascinating! Stimulating! So many things could be commented on, for example this statement : atmosphere and mood are more important than plot. The most graphic illustration of that in my experience with when I started reading That Hideous Strength. From the very first scene of Jane alone in her apartment I was afraid. And I never read anything it was more frightening to me then that book. I've read it many times since and was thrilled the first time I Came Upon Your commentary on it. I am a new friend just having discovered you recently.
I haven't watched the whole video yet but I'm so so so hoping that Gavin and Erick have a deep dialogue about the papacy sometime soon.
I agree. I respect that you treat them so kindly. They misrepresented quite a bit of your position. They did go back and forth between church and pope.
I also found Ybarra ‘s presentation a defense of your position. He proved what you said. It was weird to me.
I feel like I was sitting through a thesis defense. That’s how you know Gavin’s PhD is legitimate
thanks Gavin from a former catholic
You'll always be catholic
Love the insight Dr. Ortlund
Well done Dr. Ortlund. I would suggest anyone reading this look up ubi petrus. He has previously obliterated Eric's Ybarras position. Very insightful.
The need to say ‘obliterated’ suggests he didn’t actually
@Christian BISHOLF the need to say? So, if I used the word refuted, that would have satisfied your need to not dismiss an argument. Seems very ignorant.
@@sorenrousseau it’s a bit like when US officials always say ‘Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine’- the constant insistence on using the word unprovoked when it’s not called for by the context suggests the opposite, they realize it is open to question that it was provoked. It’s using exaggerated language to protect a position the person realizes is actually weak. A tell
It's amazing to see men with so much knowledge on a topic turn around and be so dense when it comes to honest presentation of the one they're critiquing.
I wonder if the interlocutors here would be willing to concede that the Westminster Confession too was 'there in the first millenium' on the basis that no aspect of Reformed doctrine lacks precedent in the early church.
Putting Vatican I in the early period of the church is such a brazen statement of anachronism that I don't know even really know what to do with that comment. It's simply a presupposition, it's not really a historical theory even; unless they are genuinely willing to prove this was held in common by all Church fathers from the earliest stage, which they can't. You can only infer that some people in history held some similar views to those that developed into Vatican I, which proves precisely that those individuals were part of said development...
Reformed is a heresy, you need to give up this heresy
How is the Westminster confession found in the 1st millennium?
@@enniomojica7812 I feel like I clarified my meaning in the above comment already, but I'll reiterate, hope it helps. I'm pointing out a double standard, not trying to say this is more sure than the RC argument.
Can you name a single doctrine taught in the Westminster that isn't found anywhere in the patristics? I'm not required to prove every point when I'm suggesting this is *not* how you do historiography.
The point is anyone can cherrypick, but saying 'it's there in the first millennium' in a historic sense requires more than an abductive argument which can be made for all sorts of things. This comes back to the circular reasoning of the Roman church saying they better practice the historic Christian faith and then defining which sources that fit 'the great tradition' in the first place...
If Papists want to do that then why would it be bad for Protestants to do the same?
I don't think either group should play these games, but as Protestants we freely acknowledge tradition is flawed and can be reformed so we can say the Church fathers had mixed views, Christian history is complicated and take that which aligns with Scripture most consistently.
@@zacdredge3859 I think if i were to want to learn about Christian history and know what Christ and the apostles taught I would want to learn it from the entity that was there from the beginning. So that would disqualify Protestantism and lead to the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox. Now between those two I would trust the Catholic Church since its centuries old reputation of staying true to the apostolic Tradition corroborates the words of Christ with regards to making Peter the leader of the apostles and entrusting him to strengthen his brethren and the three fold commission to feed and guide his sheep. And I figure yes it makes sense. 12 apostles 12 tribes of Israel. Jesus being king establishing his eternal kingdom his government with Peter whom he gives the Keys (being chief steward and leader of the apostles whom are governors of this kingdom). It just seems to fit like a glove.
Did you actually read my comments at all?
Thanks Gavin for making these videos, they're awesome! Was never interested in theology until I started dating a Catholic girl about a month ago. I'm a non-denom Protestant and have never looked into anything outside of my Bible. The information provided and most importantly your tone and delivery of it are helping me immensely in communicating these differing ideas to my girlfriend. Looking forward to more content! Liked & Subbed!
Do you know what I think the single most impressive document outside of your Bible that I suggest is? One Clement or the letter of the church in Rome to the Corinthians. 100 AD and you're already getting a wellspring of information about justification righteousness freedom from envy and church leadership.
@@dananussberger5675 cool. will it make my girlfriend not be a catholic anymore tho
@@speedtofu2108 I think it will edify you no matter what. And you should not be pursuing this to win, but to discover the truth.
@@speedtofu2108 Welcome to our online community!
Think of the “process” of sharing with your girlfriend as an open, truthful dialogue. She may never stop being Catholic…but…if she is ever to seriously consider Protestantism as an alternative…it will take time! Respect her and continue to be open with her. Others have mentioned that this isn’t about being “RIGHT”…rather…it’s about seeking “TRUTH” and having a relationship with God.
I’m thrilled to hear you have begun you own path of seriously seeking Truth. May your heart become aligned with what our Lord desires for your life, and that of your girlfriend!🇨🇦☺🇨🇦
@@1984SheepDog right im not trying to win but she thinks I'm missing out on full salvation and grace because i don't believe that Jesus is in the cracker
Outstanding as usual! Thank you!
It just goes to show us that when ANY group from any tradition begins to morph away from the Old Testament and New Testament teachings of Christ and His apostles, you will end up with unScriptural and contradictory doctrines created, not per the inspiration of God, but from the minds of men with agendas.
Gavin, as a Baptist myself and going into full time ministry, I was wondering if you had any good resources or books on how to properly run a biblical church as a pastor? I start at Southwestern in the summer but was hoping you would have any book recommendations like “oh I wish I would have read this early on in ministry!”
Thank you for your takes on church history! It’s helped me process a lot of it!
I recommend Holy Rebellion: Redefining Excellence in Pastoral Ministry by Kevin J. Moore. It should be in Roberts Library at SWBTS. Dr. Moore is a SWBTS grad and it’s a great book, all about loving God’s people well.
Your best bet for a biblical church would be baptising infants first.
Was thinking about this more.
You make a lot of “this doesn’t mean infallibility” claims here, but didn’t really offer an alternative: what *were* these saints and ecumenical councils saying? I understand you don’t want to go through every statement-fine. But you still didn’t really offer an alternative.
Also, in your discussion of scholarship, you said you like to show what scholars say and then show us why they believe that. Not an uncritical acceptance of scholarship, but just noting scholars think hard so they often have good reasons so we should discuss that. Cool. But Erick honestly showed the scholarly consensus is in his favor: he showed many saying infallibility was asserted in antiquity. You mostly focus on Tierney.
Overall the video is good (minus my complaint about your complaining in another comment), but I think Erick is more compelling.
you new intro is great! Do you think you could do a video on what it means to "participate in the divine nature" I would love to hear your thoughts.
"BobtheBuildest" 😅 do you follow Bob the Builder (of Speaker's Corner?)
Appreciate your ministry Gavin! I hope someday to meet you in person, we have a lot in common. God bless you soldier!
When it comes to Papal Infallibility and Protestants/Eastern Orthodox, it's like an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. Something's gotta give...
The great schism and The Reformation
Orthodoxy all the way☦️☦️
I'm sorry Gavin, but Anselm literally says in that quote that the Pope's decrees are equal to the decrees of St. Peter and Jesus Christ Himself. If that is not claiming papal infallibility, then I don't know what is. If you can't make basic logical deductions from indefectibility to infallibility, I sure hope you don't appeal to texts like 2 Tim 3:16 to support biblical infallibility...
Once again, different standards for catholics and different standards for prots :(
Further evidence that a dialogue would be extremely edifying and educational for the body👍. Let’s hope that schedules can line up for both of them
I can feel some lyrics coming on to match the outro... the "Truth Unites" bit wrote itself. Did you do that on purpose?
Mike Licona has the same effect!
Digging these new video intros! 😎
As I see it, the biggest issue here isn’t the particular quotes themselves, but the different ways in which Catholics and Protestants view the Church of the past.
When the Protestant looks to the Church of the past, he just sees people. People, like ourselves, with sinful desires, biases, temptations, ignorances, etc.. Protestants don’t look at their forefathers in the faith as an infallible repository of sacred traditions, and thus, when they see the development of offices like the papacy, and all its surrounding doctrines, they are free to question if such developments might not be attributable to human motivations and failings rather than divinely inspired tradition.
Bruh you are just using strawmans.
That’s why you can’t answer this question, now please tell us is Vatican 1 in the first thousand years of the church ? If not then you have no right to judge protestants, since if this is a a development of doctrine not an stablished apostolic doctrine.
If you can’t answer this please help us to grow this conversation.
@@internautaoriginal9951 I’m not sure you understood my comment if you think I’m judging Protestants.
They were just people with sinful desires, biases, temptations and ignorance though. It worries me that they don't see this.
@@HearGodsWord Yes.
@@gardyloogubbins hopefully that means I understood your comment 😊
Dr. Gavin Ortlund,
Ok. First I want to make clear I am Protestant, though never a calvinist, and I appreciate your work in this area, but this video in particular I think you must explain how that quote from the Council of Ephesus, without hand waving it away, doesn’t support their claim? It seems obviously and self evidently to support succession Gavin? It seems obviously to suppose and support the Heavenly Peter our Patriach and Apostle actively guiding his successors, and they being named specifically as the Roman See? And last, reading it again and again it at least leans with strong support to the notion of supremacy of Peter as Prince and/also foundation for the other Apostles and Church, and therefore, you can explicitly derive from that the supremacy of the Bishops of Rome. You ended with an emotional plea saying it’s the hardest issue to deal with, but that is no answer sir, please answer? I respect your mood and deference and irenicism and even your defense of hall mark Protestant stances, but this here, you have an obligation to answer cogently, honestly, clearly, and succinctly. I’ve read that quote multiple times mulling it over and now have to read Ephesus to get to the bottom of it. You didn’t give enough proper attention to this quote. Please, do over, it’s expected of you.
God rest
Look up * Did Rome Have Universal, Ordinary, and Immediate Jurisdiction at the Council of Ephesus? | Part I | Rebuttal to Catholic Apologist Erick Ybarra*
This argument has already been answered, The papacy is clearly a lie and Gavin’s humility doesn’t allow him to destroy Ibarra.
Look up “Vatican 1 contradicts the councils” by Jay Dyer
@@internautaoriginal9951 Thank you sibling. I am sure it is a lie, but supposed humility in the long run will get people dead and in hell because of his stance is not thoroughly furnished in the truth I’ll look at that video explicitly, but recently, only last night it came to me that rc is worse than I could have ever imagined: the Kord even gave me a dream about it (though I don’t remember the specifics anymore) after I wanted to know how He felt about it and nothing about the dream was good. I and all have to be more firm against this wicked center-piece of a christian veneer of sin.
God rest
@@internautaoriginal9951 did you watch Ybarras two hour presentation. It’s a slam dunk.
@@TheChristianNationalist8692 why does the papacy bother you so much? Jesus established it for your very protection against the works of Satan through heresy.
Hi Dr. Gavin. There is so much to say but your content (and I appreciated your thoughts and kind of thkinkig through this complex matter) in the video but trying to be as brief as I can be I will point out to your comment about quote from the Council of Ephesus. I will my comment to this from my article in which I described in a broder way that Council of Ephesus is (and for me also was in my research) one of the most important historical example showing believe of the Eastern Church in papal supremacy. I am really interesting what is your thoughts about it :) - 'On the following day at the third session of the Council of Ephesus, the papal legate, presbyter Philip gave his famous speech to the Council Fathers, in which he clearly emphasized the supremacy of the apostle Peter as head and prince of the apostles. Referring to the passage from the Gospel of Matthew 16,18-19, he stated that Peter, who received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven from our Savior, is the foundation of the Catholic Church. In a special way, the papal legate linked the apostle Peter to the bishop of Rome, who is the successor and heir of Peter in a unique way, and through whom the prince of the apostles exercises his power to judge until Christ's second coming. The important thing is that the papal legate makes this statement at the ecumenical council to the Greek bishops in the context of the jurisdictional authority of the bishop of Rome, Celestine, who made the authoritative and final judgment on the eastern archbishop of Constantinople, Nestorius. The Council does not reject these words, does not protest against them, does not argue with them, but agrees with them and places them in the official conciliar acts. (...)
"Philip, presbyter and legate of the apostolic see, said: ‘It is doubtful to no one, rather it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, the leader and head of the apostles, the pillar of the faith, and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of heaven from our Lord Jesus Christ the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and was given the power to bind and unloose sins, and that he lives and performs judgement, until now and always, through his successors. In accordance with this system, his successor and representative, our holy and most blessed pope Bishop Celestine, has sent us to this council as substitutes for his presence…" - (Third Session, 11 July; The Council of Ephesus of 431…, p. 378)
This is quite disappointing. Having watched the back-and-forth, it's quite sad that the sources that Eric and Suan brought up we're so glossed over.
Because there isn’t any response besides conversion to Catholicism
Yep Agreed
This is a short video and like he said the conversation will continue. I’d encourage you to watch his other videos and debates on the issue
This is a good example of how protestant presuppositions are the real issue.
The EO schism is a good marker that something has gone terribly wrong.
Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.
@@kiwisaram9373 Between the Kingdom and the World, not divisions in His body.
YOU NEED TO BE SAVED TODAY:
There Is only one God, in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. ONE God.
Humans are ONE person ( in three parts) The body, soul and spirit. Three parts, ONE person.
The Bible says that we are all sinners.
As it is written: There is none righteous , no not one. Romans 3:10
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.Romans 3:23
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6
For the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23 (The word death in this verse means eternal separation from God in hell).
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. Isaiah 1:18
Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that He was buried and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures. 1Corinthians 15:3-8
In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:14
For by grace ye are saved, through faith; and not of yourselves.
It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9
I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Galatians 2:21
Realize that you are a hopeless sinner and trust in Jesus shed blood on the cross to pay for your sins.
The moment you trust in Jesus and only Jesus, you are saved.
@@kiwisaram9373 The devil sow confusion, he is also known as the accuser.
Eric Ybarra's response was fantastic.
Gavin, if it would be helpful, the book Papalism by Edward Denny is quite good, although polemical (against Vatican I). He was an Anglo-Catholic, so I don't agree with everything he says, but it's very informative. It was written in 1912, so it's available online. It analyzes an enormous amount of relevant quotes and history. It was funny to see the video on Vigilius just weeks after reading about him.
Vatican I's innovations must be some of the hardest to defend on a merely historical basis. Even many catholic historians admit it, and it's why people so usually use "doctrinal development"do depend it. Very odd take by Ybarra trying to pretend otherwise
Catholics usually seem to claim that Peter was handed the keys by Jesus, he could bind and loose. So therefore, he was a pope, there would always be a pope, all doctrine would be perfect and they have ultimate authority to do so for all Christians. Two scriptures make all that.
I appreciate your response Dr. Ortlund, especially given the mountain of info Erick presented. I just have to say your final statement on the papacy being THE barrier to unity is baffling to me! It seems to me the papacy is the ONLY path to eventual unity. People have too many opinions that they and their scholarship consider non-negotiable and who or what is going to parse those out? And what about the scholars and pastors that insist on opening up the lid on “essential” issues? Submission is actually a beautiful word here. Aside from maybe the Orthodox Church, (which I have hope will be reunited with Rome one day) the only alternative to real and tangible Catholic unity is more reform through division.
Its a barrier to unity between Protestants and Catholics. Protestants cannot accept it, especially because of all the extra Biblical dogmas that are attached to the Papacy. So thats what he meant.
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 I understand what he meant. I’m saying it’s perplexing that the main thing Protestants want to do away with is actually a thing that makes real unity, and even reform, possible.
Is top-down, institutional, coercion *really* the only (or best) way to achieve "real" unity? That's an assumption that could be contested before the papal claims are even considered.
@@LHWakefield We Reformed without the Pope. And the accretions are built on the false teachings concerning him especially. Remember when butchering Protestants, before and after the Reformation, was the way forward? If the Pope brings unity it is the unity of everyone who disagrees is killed.
I see your point, but it's not like that in real world discussion. What happened when Luther wanted to reform the Church? They said no sir...
Even in Evangelical churches now, it's nearly impossible to reform back teaching or doctrine.
This is why parting ways is healthy. I seem to remember a certain apostle parting ways with his close friend, which one is the schismatic?
Why is it so hard for people to just engage the sources?
In regards to infallibility explicitly mentioned, couldn’t somebody argue against the doctrine of the Trinity from the same logic? Trinity is only implied in scripture, not explicitly stated until centuries later. Yet it was still there
To touch on your point, someone certainly could argue against the Trinity saying it is not explicitly mentioned. If a claim is not explicitly mentioned within scripture we should be looking for strong evidence to show that it is true. Scripture never quite relates the Trinity it in a direct way such as "God exist in a 'Tri-unity' between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". This means we should be looking for strong evidence to back up that claim if we make it. The quote from 1 John 5: 8 "... testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." is clear but very likely a later addition. That being said, scripture does leave us with strong statements that are very hard to reconcile without the Trinitarian viewpoint. Examples would include:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being." John 1: 1-3 NASB
"looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,"
Titus 2: 13 NASB
"Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:" 2 Peter 1: 1 NASB
"and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man... When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades."
Revelation 1: 13, 17-18 NASB
“You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord,
“And My servant whom I have chosen,
So that you may know and believe Me
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
And there will be none after Me.
I, only I, am the Lord,
And there is no savior besides Me."
Isaiah 44: 10-11 NASB
"so that all will honor the Son just as they honor the Father. The one who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him." John 5: 23 NASB
"And now You, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world existed." John 17: 5 NASB
Claims such as in John 1: 1-3 are further highlighted when we consider:
"This is what the Lord says, the Holy One of Israel and his Maker:
“Ask Me about the things to come concerning My sons,
And you shall commit to Me the work of My hands.
It is I who made the earth, and created mankind upon it.
I stretched out the heavens with My hands,
And I ordained all their lights." Isaiah 45: 11-12 NASB
The claims of the "son of man" within Revelation 1: 17 are further highlighted with the Lord's claim:
“This is what the Lord says, He who is the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of armies:
‘I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.”
Isaiah 44: 6 NASB
Claims such as in John 17: 5 are further highlighted by verses such as:
"I am the Lord, that is My name;
I will not give My glory to another,
Nor My praise to idols." Isaiah 42:8 NASB
"For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act;
For how can My name be profaned?
And I will not give My glory to another." Isaiah 48:11 NASB
I could certainly keep going, but the point is that scripture provides an exceptionally strong basis for understanding the Trinitarian claim. We don't necessarily need explicit statements from church fathers or other sources to evidence the Trinity because the Bible highlights aspects of it time and time again. In contrast the papacy is very poorly evidenced through scripture, even calling it implied is somewhat generous. Infallibility of a pope is certainly never mentioned. Evidence for the papacy has very strong reliance on quotations from church fathers or other sources (which are fallible) to argue the points. The existence, power, reverence, and infallibility of the papacy are aspects we can see growing over a long period of time, which hurts it credibility.
That is a classic and failed argument...if you actually value and read scripture, you'll see the Godhead very clearly.
@@robertcampbell1343 Perhaps I am wrong, but I don’t think he was arguing against the Trinity, but rather he was trying to say (in some sense) that Gavin had flawed logic. He says infallibility does not need to be explicitly mentioned to be understood, and uses the Trinity as an example to show his point.
That’s different and the basis for the Trinity is clear in scripture. The basis for pope infallibility is not clear in scripture. There’s more pointing against it than for it. Gavin gets into that though so I encourage you to watch more of his videos.
Great Job Gavin! With all this confusion and non clarity on what the “church Fathers “ meant, maybe we should start the discussion over just using the The Bible . After all we all agree that The Bible is the word of God. A child with basic reading and comprehension skills can read the Bible and gain all that is needed for his salvation. Everything else above that would only be man made traditions and heresies.
Ex-catholic here. Appreciate your work. Thank you.
You better return to the Church or your soul is in danger. Apostasy and heresy is bad. Quit listening to the Devil and the flattering messages he spoke into your ear
@@Christiancatholic7 your pope thinks ex-Catholics are just fine
@@Christiancatholic7 the Roman church left the Catholic Church
@@Christiancatholic7 the Devil’s message is the gospel? - that’s quite confusing.
@@rach9466 the Devil goes about like a roaring Lion seeking who he may devour.
Gavin. 🔴🔴Please if you see this don’t ignore. Can you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE WRITE A BOOK ON THE PAPACY AS A WHOLE INCLUDING PETER. OR RECCOMEND SOME BOOKS ON THE PAPACY. I really don’t have any books against the papacy and do NOT know how to argue against it. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🔴🔴
I mentioned elsewhere the book Papalism by Edward Denny, if you want something going deep into the history. I can't say I agree with everything. He has a higher view of bishops than I would like, but he makes a pretty solid case. I'm sure there are more books out there.
As to arguments, I think I tend to see three classes of arguments in favor of the papacy:
1. Arguments about the necessity of a papacy, because otherwise we'd be kind of lost on doctrine, and so on. I think there are a few things to be noted here. First, the pope's only made two statements that all the Catholics agree were infallible, and those were both about Mary. Second, there's pretty clearly division in the Roman Catholic Church (see liberals vs conservatives vs radical traditionalists) that hasn't gone away, so it doesn't necessarily even work. Third, just thinking about it, the arguments that an infallible interpreter is needed usually prove too much. Because what do we get after the pope says anything? More statements for you to interpret, before you can actually use them. They never manage to cut you out of the loop of interpreting. Also, the statement that protestants have 30000 denominations is arguably overcounting, and implicitly doesn't understand how protestant denominations view other protestant denominations. Its source lists hundreds of Catholic "denominations", which I'd imagine they aren't in favor of.
2.Arguments from scripture: There are three main places where they appeal to in scripture: Matthew 16, Luke 22, and John 21. Luke 22 and John 21 both don't seem terribly convincing to me, since the Roman Catholic interpretation feels like it's forcing it to say something the text isn't trying to say. The best is Matthew 16. But there, it's not clear that the rock, at least, refers to Peter instead of Peter's confession of Christ (indeed, the church fathers mostly take it as his confession-I don't know how much you care, but any Roman catholics you talk with might), and the reference to Peter binding and loosing is later said of all the apostles.
The even bigger problem here is that there aren't really solid scriptural arguments for anything passing on from Peter, even if we supposed that they have everything about Peter right. Sometimes they'll point to Matthias being made an apostle in place of Judas, but that was kind of a one-off thing-we no longer have 12 apostles walking the earth.
3. Arguments from history: I can't really address all of these, since that would take forever. There are many quotes that will be pointed to, but they're often, like Gavin was saying, saying something less strong than what Roman Catholics want, since it developed over time. Many of the early quotes they'll point to will be something that the father speaking would say of all bishops-Cyprian, for example, uses "seat of Peter" to refer to what all bishops have, not just Rome. Sometimes fathers will be talking about the primacy of the bishop of Rome-the early councils decide to put Rome as the first Patriarchate (probably because it was the capital), but that doesn't mean that Rome can just decide whatever it wants, just that they were given the most honor. But if you actually look at the history, there is reason to think there might not have been bishops at the very beginning in Rome, there are popes who were heretics, and time and again you see people disregarding the pope and treating him like they would any other important bishop. This is kind of a problem for them, since Vatican I says that all the fathers believed in papal infallibility. It's also worth knowing that a bunch of forgeries were really influential in the development of papal infallibility. Aquinas used the forgeries (not knowing that they were forgeries, of course), and they were put into the church law when that was collected.
I hope that's helpful?
The question is should not be whether papal infallibility is in the 1st Mill. Rather, is it in the 1st century?
This is now the 5th popular Roman Catholic apoligist who I have seen misrepresent your arguments and then present them as if you just don't understand the clear facts of Church history. Don't grow discouraged; keep confronting people with truth that they have to wrestle with!
That is a common catholic response given they accept all beliefs and can't justify them.
Nah Erick didn’t misrepresent anything. I don’t think you paid much attention
@@Christiancatholic7 “Let’s not revise history to the point that we’re denying the facts.” After having watched Gavin’s video, and the arguments that each of the Roman Catholic scholars made, saying that they all are simply denying the obvious facts is not an accurate portrayal of their argument or the honest heart behind it.
@@DanOcchiogrosso-uj4be i didn’t fully understand your reply. Are you saying you believe Erick misrepresented Gavin, or that he didn’t ?
I also think just practically speaking, if this statement meant that principle, why don't the people during that time or after behave that way? They don't act as though those statements mean more than what they plainly say so we must not important a later understanding onto them.
Dr Ortlund,
You inspire me to be as charitable as possible to everyone who calls Jesus the son of God. Just as Jesus prays for us in John 17
Verse 20 My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one- 23 I in them and you in me-so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
Gavin says “There’s a big difference between saying, ‘This church will never fail to hand on the faith’ and ‘Pope Pius xii can say the bodily assumption of Mary is a divinely revealed dogma.’”
I, for one, don’t see the big difference. I see hardly any difference actually. How can a church never fail to hand on the faith without divine aid? I’d really like Gavin to tease that out more and would like to see him talk with Erick exactly on that statement. @20:48
The difference is pretty simple:
The first says: Rome will never fail to hand on x.
The second says: this belief m is part of x.
@@georgwagner937 So there’s big difference between-
“Our doctrine is Jesus is the Son of God”?
and “Jesus is the Son of God and it’s actually divinely revealed by the Holy Spirit”?
Is that a good example?
@@cmac369 a better example would be:
As Peter confessed, and scripture points out, and the whole church always believed and will never fail to believe, Jesus is both God and man.
And:
The church cannot err when defining dogma, Mary was bodily assumed into heaven, believe that or your outside the church.
@@georgwagner937 Ok, but when the church says it will not fail to pass the faith doesn't that mean a doctrine is true? I mean your pointing out an example of something that we all believe about Jesus. What about doctrines like baptism? How does the church insure it passes on the correct doctrine?
Pope is just a man. There is a huge difference between anything he says and the church handing on the faith.
The infallibility of Peter is ultimately premissed on the infallible authority of Jesus Christ as in Mathew 16:18, Mathew 14:31 and Luke 22:32. The leadership of the one and only Church was given by Jesus to Peter and the Apostles and their validly anointed, ordained and united successors, not to John Smyth and his self-apointed and divided followers.
You might want to discard the specific definitions of infallibility, etc. by the Roman Church, but you still have to deal with the historical witness of the great authority and respect afforded Rome. In particular, how does this historical witness - however ***YOU*** define it - affect ***your personal relationship*** with this Church. Does it have ***any*** authority over you? If it does not, on what historical basis do you eschew it?
As a Presbyterian Protestant I would say the Roman church at times was orthodox but was through the centuries getting more and more heretical by adding later superstitious traditions that are foreign to scripture. The Roman Catholic Church has no authority over me as an evangelical Presbyterian.
@@brexiesus8213 Your problem is not with the Roman Church. It is with Jesus Christ who established a visible, hierarchical and Apostolic Church with real authority (as the New Testament clearly affirms) and which would exist until the end of time. Take it up with Him. The Roman Church has no authority over you by its own right, but it does have authority over you through Christ. There is only one Body and one Church. They cannot be separated from its Head, yet your theology teaches just that.
You're a good man Dr. Ortlund, and I know you love Christ, but the substantial idea, if not the exact modern description, of Roman primacy and infallible teaching authority was there in the 1st millennium. Please read Newman. It is clear to anyone without a personal dog in the fight. I converted from atheism and took a hard look at all 3 major branches, and it was very obvious from a historical and a logical standpoint that the Catholics were right, there is something different about the Roman church. Peter is the solution to the epistemological crisis that plagues other churches. Our Lord did not leave us orphans in disunity, he left us a Church with a vicar and supreme shepherd. The parallels from the OT are there. God is all about order and authority-he is a king and the divine Logos. Division and chaos are from Satan... Just something to reflect on. Many blessings to you all.
"Our Lord did not leave us orphans in disunity.."
Meanwhile the present "vicar" of Christ is one of the most divisive ever. And this is coming from Catholics themselves! So much for seeing things through rose-colored glasses.
I appreciate your passion in your beliefs you clearly lay out. I think it’s great you are a believer now! I would like to suggest that scripture states we are not left as orphans but, if we ask, are freely given the Holy Spirit, the spirit of truth…not the church as you stated. According to scripture. In addition, one of the huge arguments against Roman Catholicism is how similar its structure is to Old Testament Judaism with a high priest, priests, passive laities, works based systems for atonement of sins, etc that reflect an “access based system” to God. Judaism and Roman Catholicism share a lot in terms of a structure believers must go through to have access to God and Christ. New Testament Christianity completely changes all of that. And that doesn’t eliminate order. Instead of Judaism’s high priest or Roman Catholicism’s high priest, the pope, Protestants have Christ himself as the head (Eph 5)Instead of Judaism’s and Roman Catholicism’s priests, Protestants believe we are all priests (1 Peter 2). Hope that helps you see part of our differences.
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 I don't think that it is accurate to present the vicar to be the most divisive in context of the argument for unity.
One uniting factor of the pope is his ability to "settle truth" when needed, not that a pope cannot lead people to scandal.
This ability to definitively "settle truth" isn't available in Protestantism (semper reformanda).
Yes you can always reform, but with it you lose the ability to also settle on things.
And no matter what people say, there IS unity in teaching, what is dogma is pretty clear and also unchanging.
Also the teachings are consistent throughout history (I understand that not everyone agrees on this).
A problem I have with a lot of protestant denominations (not all), is the lack of consistency throughout history, sometimes even total neglect of history.
The teaching of the Eucharist and baptism for me really narrows down the options a lot.
Apostolic succession is also an important one I think
The problem with this is that Vatican I clearly talks about how it was "known to all ages," "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."
It's pretty hard for that ("most fully"!) to be compatible with a notion of development, I would think. That means it should be pretty clear in the 1st millennium, something Newmanesque won't cut it.
People do not realize that the papacy and the church had a vital role in the creation and development of the university, hospital, art, science and the justice system of the western civilization.
The papacy led the struggle and survival of Christianity against the barbarians (Vikings, Visigoths, etc.) and Islam.
The granting of a master's degree is a sign of qualification of his/her own profession. University degrees were approved by the pope, the king, or monarch.
The Pope has authority in all Christendom and degrees approved by the pope are respected in all Christendom, while the kings approval was only valid in the kingdom in which they were issued.
Likewise in Art and science were supported by the popes.
Cathedrals were designed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to function as world-class solar observatories.
Even atheist Stephen Hawking was a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (academy of sciences of the Vatican city).
The Jesuits have been the single most important contributor to experimental physics in the seventeenth century. Christian Art created by the greatest artist/composers in the world like Michelangelo, Raphael, Botticelli, Leonardo da Vinci, Beethoven, Bach, Schumann, Vivaldi, Williams, etc. were all commissioned by the popes.
What would western civilization be without the arts/music, science, universities and hospitals that were pioneered by the early church, led by the popes.
Great video!
I think it’s a strange argument for them to say “ha! gotcha!! Papal infallibility was in the first millennium!”
That’s a full 1000 years and it doesn’t prove anything but accretion…! If they can’t show it from the first century, or at least the first couple of centuries, then it’s absurd to argue for its originality!
I'm not sure why it's so important to establish papal infallibility from the first millenium. Does the fact that some church leader in 1000 A.D. wrote about papal infallibility make it more or less true?
YOU NEED TO BE SAVED TODAY:
There Is only one God, in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. ONE God.
Humans are ONE person ( in three parts) The body, soul and spirit. Three parts, ONE person.
The Bible says that we are all sinners.
As it is written: There is none righteous , no not one. Romans 3:10
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.Romans 3:23
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6
For the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23 (The word death in this verse means eternal separation from God in hell).
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. Isaiah 1:18
Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that He was buried and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures. 1Corinthians 15:3-8
In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:14
For by grace ye are saved, through faith; and not of yourselves.
It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9
I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Galatians 2:21
Realize that you are a hopeless sinner and trust in Jesus shed blood on the cross to pay for your sins.
The moment you trust in Jesus and only Jesus, you are saved.
Right. They are arguing historical precedence to claim they have the most correct version of Christianity. Which is fine, but even as there is precedence in laws: there are also amendments, over rulings, appeals, etc.
Correspondingly, correcting errors to be closer to Apostolic teachings (and Jesus) seems a worthy Christian goal! 😯
Gavin seems to either not want to acknowledge or not recognize how protestantism is in the vast minority, both at the present and especially in history.
That's not an argument for protestantism being incorrect, just an explanation as to why so many people have a hard time giving credence to protestantism.
Where you are wrong is that Prostestants and EO join together on this issue. Vast minority is ridiculous. There is more of us than you. Check your statistics.
Hi Gavin,some questions about the idea of an “accretion”. How do you decide when a certain historical document in Church history contains what you would consider an accretion? For example, taking all of those early sources that Erick used, even if you deny them as proof of papal infallibility, they do point to something! Can you provide an alternate format for Christ’s church which can be seen throughout history? I’m not trying to be triumphalist I’m just saying that to call something an accretion there should be some right path or true Church that Catholicism deviates from. Also if you see it as an accretion than it shouldn’t matter to you how early or late it shows up. Also, 7:07 I don’t think indefectability and infallibility are as dissimilar as you claim. If anything indefectability is the stronger, more detailed claim since it takes “infallibility”into the future. Also I think the Anselm quote Erick used is actually better for papal supremacy than infallibility 😊
I kind of get the same feeling.
It is one thing to critique the evidence presented, and saying that it doesn't necessarily entail papal infallibility (it still could though),
but for me it seemingly steps over the evidence that IS found, how do we account for this?
When a pope is speaking in his official position on any issue of faith or morals, he is speaking infallibly, without error. But the apostles never regarded any man (except Jesus) to be infallible. Only the Word of God is without error. Paul rebuked Peter for being deceived by Judaizers (Galatians 2:11-14). Papal infallibility is seen to be false, as these events reveal:
BTW, the Bible doesn't even speak of popes. That's just a Catholic teaching.
So the biblical writers were not infallible. Ok.
@@cronmaker2 "So the biblical writers were not infallible. Ok."
Were the Bible writers infallible? Peter was a Bible writer. Was he infallible? Uh, no. Didn't he lie when he disowned Jesus three times? Anyway, no, none of the Bible writers, including Peter, was infallible.
@@cbooth151 were the biblical writers infallible when writing scripture?
@@cronmaker2 "Were the biblical writers infallible when writing scripture?"
What do you think? One of those Bible writers wrote: "All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God." (Ro. 1:23) So, tell me, what Bible writer do you know of who was infallible? Oh, and another thing, where in your Bible does it say Peter was an infallible pope?
@@cbooth151 your biblical citation is self-refuting if you don't hold Scripture to be infallible. After all, according to you, that verse written by a biblical writer can be in error, as can all the verses you appeal to for Christs exclusive infallibility.
I pray for you
From reading the comments it looks like hardly any Protestants actually watched Ybarras presentation. I watched the full two hours it really is impressive and left me with no doubt that Vatican 1 was indeed accepted by east and west in the first millennium.
The claim that Vatican 1 "was indeed accepted by east and west in the first millennium" is false. The Orthodox almost immediately reacted negatively to Pastor Aeternus. For example, Patriarch Anthimos VII of Constantinople wrote in his Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, that the Orthodox were:
"fully persuaded that the *Bishop of Rome was never considered as the supreme authority and infallible head of the Church,* and that every bishop is head and president of his own particular Church, subject only to the synodical ordinances and decisions of the Church universal as being alone infallible, the Bishop or Rome being in no wise excepted from this rule, as Church history shows. *Our Lord Jesus Christ alone is the eternal Prince and immortal Head of the Church."*
Patriarch Anthimos continues:
"...to the astonishment of the Christian world, [the papists have claimed] that the Bishop of Rome is even infallible" even though all Christians know that "no one is infallible upon earth."
So I'm not sure where you or Erick Ybarra have come to the conclusion that the East accepted Vatican 1.
Gavin, you are nuancing terms to the point that they no longer have a clear or transparent meaning. All the quotes Erick provided are in the context of perseverance in orthodox faith.
There is no conceptual difference between infallibility of faith, indefectability of faith, incorruptability of faith, perpetual safeguardance in faith, etc.
Moreover, in each and every quote Mr.Ybarra provided the See of Rome is indistinguishable from the bishop of Rome, in that the monarchical episcopacy had been long established by every discernable metric.
You are citing distinctions without a difference, and I invite everyone to watch the original presentation to see unequivocal evidence of such.
There is a big difference between the first claim that the Rome will never fail to hand on the deposit x and the second claim that something is part of that deposit x, especially when that what is supposed to be part of x is an accretion with possibly heretical roots.
To verify if the claim that Rome will never fail to hand on x is true we simply need to look at x at the time of the statement and compare to what Rome now hands on as x.
I'm not historian, I'm not fit for that task.
@@georgwagner937 The claims of the Roman See/ the Roman Pontiff, and the echoes of these claims throughout the 1st millennium by the early Church fathers are a different question from whether they are true. Gavin isn't merely asserting that Papal infallibility is false, he is asserting that Roman See never made explicit claims to be inafllible, nor did anyone recognize this unique charism, until the 13th century.
This is an untenable position (as Erick Ybarra demonstrates).
@@mattaristone105 I think Gavin's claim is that there was a steady growth towards the statement of infallibility of the Roman bishop, which is a historical claim. He contrasts that with the understanding of "a constant practice".
@@georgwagner937 He forthrightly stated that he saw no "explicit" claims of Papal infallibility in the first millennium (or until the 13th century). Furthermore, he goes so far as to say that Erick's positon that the claims of Vatican 1 are clearly found in the first millennium are triumphalist- even though he demonstrated as much in his presentation, and has written a 1000 page book on the topic.
I would invite you to review either.
@@mattaristone105 I agree. I think Gavin would be better off arguing why he thinks papal infallibility itself is an accretion instead of trying to disprove it’s early existence. The latter is a pretty futile attempt at ignoring history.
Dr Ortlund, in the clip you played at the beginning, this is the conclusion of their argument which you are picking out in isolation and putting at the beginning of your response and calling triumphalist. Well, if that’s how they started then it would be, but this is the conclusion not the beginning. This is an uncharitable act on your part.
One thing from the first millennium is there we no protestants.
Gavin is just really denying for the sake of denying. Erick Ybarra just demolished his previous video.
Erick hasn’t demolished anything, this debate already happened a million times.
@@internautaoriginal9951 did you even watch that video interview that Suan did with Erick? The citations he mentioned there which are earlier than 13 century (the century being argued by Gavin) are too many to ignore. Well... Gavin ignored them.
@@Ternz_TV Yes dude I saw their debate with Jay Dyer and Ubi Petrus and he was demolished
@@internautaoriginal9951 not what i asked 😮💨. Read carefully before even responding.
I don't think you showed that papal infallibility was not in the 1st century in this video. You more seemed to talk about that you don't believe it was there in this video. I'm not saying that it is,and I haven't been able to find that it is. I would like to find out more about the evidence for or against it.
Please tell me that's a fountain pen!! 🖋️
It is becoming increasingly apparent to me that Ortlund has a peculiar argumentative take with doctrinal claims and their grounding in history. Common to these videos is the form: Catholics believe in X, let's try to problematize X through attrition by lumping in conjectures, showing in all the ways how X is falsifiable (without demonstration), or the occasional throws up hands "I can't see it". Zooming out, the larger argument then becomes one of a sort of attrition through skepticism, which begins to reveal a historiographic epistemology. The macro lens or probabilistic modes of argumentation are conveniently tossed aside via this method. This can be further demonstrated in the inverse scenario when Ortlund is pressed on his on view's characteristics and historical precedents, and what is commonly used in resort is either a sort of Motte and Bailey technique or some sort of historical cherry picking. Perhaps Ortlund's epistemological scruples are why he has landed in the Baptist tradition, which maintains a heavily reduced set of tenants..
My own thoughts here are of course conjectural and I can't speak to the interiors of Ortlund's mind -- but when looking at the last years worth of back and forth, this pattern or style is becoming increasingly apparent.
Are you saying that it’s not fair to analyze an argument’s premises? Or to peel back layers of an assertion to validate its truthfulness? Maybe I misunderstood your point. Help me understand. Let’s take the Roman Catholic doctrine of sacraments such as the Eucharist. If we were to time travel 500 years ahead and say “Catholics in 2023 believed in the Eucharist because the Cathedral Church says the Eucharist is a Catholic doctrine” then some brave soul retorted “Then why in 2023 did only 1/3 of US Catholics agree that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ while 69% believe the bread and wine are just symbols of Christ?”(August 2019 Pew Research poll). How else could someone argue doctrinal claims if not by closer examination? Help me understand what you’re saying please.
@@onepingonlyplease I am merely describing what I see as a pattern or method of _how_ Ortlund conducts argumentation.
I of course agree that a proposition can be argued. The reason I used "X" above is to denote not a _particular_ proposition but any proposition with the shape that Ortlund is wanting to engage with (at least with Catholics).
After watching Ortlund conduct argumentation against a set of X's across time, you can see his method or pattern of argumentation. Not everyone argues in the same way and not all forms of argumentation are equal. To that, Ortlund's mode of argumentation seems to presuppose a historiography that is different many of his Catholic interlocutors.
I hope that helps to explain what I originally said.
@@scottsoneal when you say “the shape he wants to engage with”, what do you mean? I immediately think of the Areopagus sermon by Paul in Athens (ironically I’m an Athenian as well, though not the Greek kind). Paul very very very effectively reasons with the Athenians persuasively by quoting their philosophers, poets, even nameplates on statues. Of what they know, he selects particulars then reasons through to the points he wants to engage with. Maybe I don’t get your point at all…
@@scottsoneal your critic of Ortlund was more confusing than the video you commented on.
I would equate both Erick and Suan as arguing from point A, natural reasoning, while you are presenting from point B, spiritual reasoning. Infant baptism does not get one from point A to point B.
I would say it’s the opposite. Dr Ortlund is attacking hence un spiritual
2:38 Eric is right, the facts are crystal clear.
You know. Catholics will say you are wrong. Protestants will say you are wrong. And someone else will say you are wrong. And this will go on...right or wrong. And by the that time, TRUST me JESUS will come. He will than ask us What do you say? And we will all say YOU ARE LORD.
In conclusion i want to echo the words of St. Paul...What matters is faith expressing itself through LOVE. And somewhere else he says...LOVE is the fulfillment of the law. Jesus said Remain in my LOVE. Love one another as I have loved you. And again, He said...By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
So happy arguing, debating, fighting whatever. I have seen both the sides of this and i know only one thing JESUS IS LORD.
Grace to all who have an undying love for Christ. Amen.
The Ark will deliver all who are inside to heaven.
Protestants will be battling the flood.
Arius was predominant. That doesn't make Dominical.
Gavin, please be respectful of those with epilepsy. Your intro has flashing lights with no warning, and this can cause seizures among those afflicted with epilepsy.
The complaining about triumphalism when they were honestly charitable as heck is kinda cringe tbh
People should read Erick’s book. It is the best single tome on this subject I have found.
Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Peter, and Paul were not Roman Catholics. They were all Jewish. The first non-Jewish believer in the gospel is Cornelius in Acts chapter ten. Every believer before Acts chapter ten is 100 percent Jewish. When the LORD commanded Peter to go preach the gospel to Cornelius Peter didn't want to go because he knew that Cornelius was not Jewish. The Bible, Old Testament and New Testament, was written by Jews.
The LORD commanded Peter three times, "Feed My sheep" (John 21:15-17). Therefore, Peter gave the keys to the kingdom directly to the sheep and not to the magisterium.
And Peter wrote to the sheep (2 Peter 1:5-11) and said, “...add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:5-11). In other words, Peter says that if we (the sheep) do what he says to do that this will open the doorway to heaven "abundantly" to the sheep.
Peter has been feeding the sheep by sharing the keys to the kingdom with anyone who will do what he tells them to do in 2 Peter 1:5-11 and the entrance to the kingdom will be abundantly ministered to them. And they will never fall.
So, why doesn't the church that says that they hold the keys to the kingdom teach their people how to have the power to live holy and the power to never fall?
If you are willing to give totalitarian control of your thinking to the magisterium or to any religious group you have blinded yourself and cannot even see the scriptures that are right in front of you. On the day of judgment you will not be able to point at someone else and say, "It's their fault." It is your individual responsibility to know the scriptures.
"And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest" (Hebrews 8:11).
Peter by his personal example never acted as if having the keys to the kingdom meant asserting authority over other people. For example in Acts 15 when a very important matter was to be decided before the assembly the final verdict was given by James and not by Peter (Acts 15:19). Paul gave commandments to the churches he established and not Peter (1 Corinthians 7:17 and 16:1). Also, Paul did not take his orders from Peter. In fact Paul rebuked Peter to his face. “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed” (Galatians 2:11).
The LORD commanded us saying, "...Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. BUT SO SHALL IT NOT BE AMONG YOU: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all" (Mark 10:42-44).
... ... ...
They aren't protestant either. 😃
@@calson814 More LIKE Protestant than Roman Catholic.
Great comment!! God bless you.
@@joycegreer9391 hmm The Early church believed in the Eucharist, Apostolic Succession etc and don't sound like PROTESTant to me .
More like Catholics and Orthodox.
@@calson814 No, the record of Acts does not show the beliefs you claim in the early churches.
Aren't several core Catholic apologetics points based on forged documents. Namely the donation of Constantine and the gelasian decree for example.
I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favorable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases…. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely Lord Acton
Another trent horn debate? Line it up
He has no idea what infallibility of the Pope is!
Peace out
Erick sure did put an end to yet another false claim by Gavin! Gavin Ortlund has a bad habit of leaving out the complete writings of the Church Fathers and Popes! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink and His Church built on Peter the rock
I should say Roman catholic
4:23 Gavin, you ignored almost all of the primary sources that Erick quoted.
🍷🗿
Sorry, but the Pope, his bishops, priest and nuns will never go away.
The apostolic succession’s authority to “bind and loose” and so join heaven and earth.
....not even an angel, nor archangel, nor any other created power, can do. - “what you bind on earth is bound in heaven”
The Bible, as the very Word of God, is true in itself, but not all the conclusions people choose to draw from it are necessarily right.
It is through His apostles and His church that Christ orally left His teachings to develop canon/doctrines for Christianity as it goes forward in time
"therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
He established a church to speak and guide us, as we encounter new social issues in the passage of time....
Where do we see that Christ left an oral tradition to the apostles that were not made scripture?
Oh they definitely will go away when they have fulfilled their purpose in prophecy. The Apostles' authority sure is not what anyone else can do, only those select 12 men.
"not all the conclusions people choose to draw from it are necessarily right.---That is VERY evident in Catholicism.
Yes, Jesus taught His Apostles orally, and then they wrote what we needed to know. HIS Church is not accessible on earth. ALL necessary doctrine/canon is in scripture. We are not to be conformed and adapt to the world and society. God's Word is unchanging.
Where do you see anything in those instructions from Christ to His Apostles about any church??
This is sad to hear to be honest. A question to Gavin and any other Protestants or Orthodox that have their heels dug in, what would you need to see in order to accept that Christ established a kingdom and not a federation or democracy or republic? Do you value your autonomy and freedom over Christ and his church that much?
Concrete evidence for the claims made by the catholic church would be a good start. Something we can see and understand and upon which we can agree what it means. Read for example St. Agatho's epistle and then ask youself: What does it say? What does it not say?
I think it is not possible to deduce papal infallibility from that letter.
Christ is king.
Christ is the King of the earth. Not the Pope!
@@georgwagner937 Look to scripture. They are clear on this issue.
@@georgwagner937 It isn't possible if your extra biblical set of presuppositions prevent you from seeing it. Just read the sources.
@@brexiesus8213 And Kingdom is defined by a hierarchy and a chief steward or prime minister.
There was no triumphalisme in Erick and Suan's response. If a statement like that were made about you, we would have never heard the end of it.
You only quotes scholars who agree with your protestant views and failed to sufficiently engage the primary sources. There are many scholars (protestant and catbolic) who will contradict you on the matter, and Erick did a good job to show you that. Moreover, Erick engaged the scholars you quoted very well. In contrast, you have never engaged any protestant or catholic scholars who acknowledge vatican 1 in the first millennium. Instead you just quoted a few dissenting catholic scholars and gave the impression that their views are representative of all the scholarship which is flatly false.
Mr. Gavin, you have a way of presenting yourself as a victim whenever your videos are critiqued, please man up and engage the arguments no matter how good or bad they are. Stop the victimisation play, noone is out there to get you.
The Quotes of Saint Anselm demonstrates supremacy not infaillibility. All must submit, tha s supremacy.
Very quick to overnuance things in defence of your views, very quick also to suppress every nuance when critiquing the opponent. Lamentable !
Gavin: This is an incredibly strong claim, I don't believe its true
Erick: (put a two hour video refutting his arguments)
Gavin: Why dont you read it at face value (insisting his own interpretation of how he reads it instead of understanding the history behind the statement 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️)
typical protestant.
Nobody takes Ybarra serious after he was destroyed by Dyer, Ortlund is just repeating the arguments but his humility doesn’t allow him to go crazy on him.
@@internautaoriginal9951 Jay Dyer lost that debate and even most people agree lol.
@@MajorasTime Who are “Most People” ?
Do we win by what most of the people agree on?
Ybarras arguments are funny at this point, they only stop debating because Ybarra was playing like he couldn’t understand.
That comment literally ignores that this is a near 30 minute response to Erick's strongest argument(s).
@@HisLivingStone241 its a 30minutes of basically denying the evidences presented by Erick. Literally its a 30min video of Gavin basically saying to Erick's video "I don't see it that way".
Edit: if you say protestants argue like atheists, you are calling Thomas an atheist.
All we do is act like Thomas: Except -I- we shall see -in his hands the print of the nails- the evidence for your claims about church history, and put -my- our finger -into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side- on the evidence, -I- we will not believe.
Hahaha what 😂
@@platospaghetti you don't understand?
@@georgwagner937 I understand but that comparison was not very good 😅
@@platospaghetti doesn't have to be "very good". I'm just annoyed by the claim we protestants argue like atheists or that we're just sceptical.
It's OK to demand evidence, even Thomas did it.
@@georgwagner937 oh my bad, I thought you were saying Protestants were arguing like atheists 😅
Gavin believes in Ortlund infallibility.
Actually, I don't. I have never said that. I'm fallible, not infallible. Why do you say that?
Gavin is the Pope of Ortlundism - and he’s infallible!
While Gavin continues to attack the Catholic church, he fails to give you a better alternative… The truth is that the protestant ecclesial model is much less a good representation of the one in the new testament and the first millennium. In the bible we see one church(not many denominations) united under one ultimate authority(which are the apostles) and having one faith(not many professions of faith like the protestants have). In the 12 Apostles 1 is above the other: Peter(only Peter received the power of the key from Jesus, and its Peter only, with the key of the kingdom, who open the doors to the holy spirit to come (for the Jews, gentiles, and Samaritan). The church of the new testament is having the power to teach with infallibility through the councils (see Act chapters 15-16) and decrees(act 16:4 the word used in Greek is dogmata which should have been translated as dogma!). With the church, Jesus established a new Sanhedrin who had the power to bind and loose (give interpretation to the scripture in a way that is binding on the faithful, and to govern and discipline the community with authority), and just as the Pharisees were teaching in the chair of Moses (with his authority, see Matthew 23:2), The Popes teach in the chair of Peter (with his authority) in unity with the college of the bishops who now replace the apostles. The successor of Peter is the one who holds the power of the key, and the church considers the bishop of Rome as the legitimate successor of Peter, so the Case is close! For anyone who has eyes to see, the biblical ecclesial model is the Roman Catholic one, not the protestants many models with all their divisions and contradictions. To all my protestants friends remember well that the bible says division or schism is a sin and those who are doing that won't inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21)
1. “Protestant” is not an ecclesial term. No Protestant (i.e. historic Protestant, Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, and others) says “we are part of the same Church united under the Protestant name”. Under that definition of disunity, we see in the New Testament Church one Church with an undivided Apostolate / later Episcopate. Since Rome, the Orthodox, the Assyrian, the Coptics, and the Oriental Church are divided in doctrine and the purity of that doctrine being rightfully maintained in the true faithful episcopate; we see that the Episcopal Churches do not mirror the unified Church of the Apostles.
2. Jesus used the future tense in telling Peter that Peter would receive the keys, which is only repeated with all the disciples present in Matthew 18. Moreover, Luke 22 and John 21 only show Peter had an elderly brother role (i.e. “Strengthen your brothers” and “Feed My Sheep”); and the effectiveness (particularly John) of those arguments rely on Matthew 16. Otherwise, “Feed My Sheep” is a function that all the Apostles can be said to have. Also, the Great Commission is the commissioning of all the Apostles to go out as effectively equals (since to all are said “go”) and this is repeated with the Acts 15 Council. Thus, to point to Peter’s preaching on Pentecost is to point to an explanation removed from prior context and to an explanation far less consistent. Peter had authority and a role, but not in a solely supreme sense.
3. The argument from mirroring succession Biblically fails because the Sanhedrin (the ruling Jewish Court) and the Pharisees (the teachers of the law) were in legitimate authority but collaborated with the Pharisees (the successors to Aaron) to have the Lord Himself be executed. Thus, to argue for papal infallibility based on the modeling of the Pharisees’ infallibility is to endorse that the Pharisees were right in their judgement. If they were not infallible and could be in error (as they were), then you do not have precedent to say Christ build His Church “just as the Pharisees [structure]”.
@@HisLivingStone241 You said ¨“Protestant” is not an ecclesial term. No Protestant (i.e. historic Protestant, Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, and others) says “we are part of the same Church united under the Protestant name”
That’s exactly what is the problem, the protestants NEVER had any unity since the very beginning… not in the doctrines, and of course not in the leadership! They are divided since Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli! Division and contradiction in the teaching is not the work of the holy spirit but the work of the flesh! Jesus prayed(John 17:20-26) very clearly for his church to be one just like he is one with his father. The protestants reformation completely fails to be the answer to his prayer. So whiles you protestants guys have now thousands of denominations full of contradictions, on the other side the Catholic church is united in the doctrine(in the catechism) and under the same authority in Rome for more than 2000 years, and this fulfills the prayer Jesus…. that’s the difference.
To say that the “purity of the doctrine was not being rightfully maintained in the Roman Catholic church” is your personal subjective protestant opinion. Your protestants denominations cannot even agree with each other on the doctrine of salvation, so really, you have no authority and credibility to judge the integrity of the catholic dogmas and doctrines.
@@HisLivingStone241 You said : “John 21 only shows Peter had an elderly brother role (i.e. “Strengthen your brothers” and “Feed My Sheep”
The problem is that the New Testament said a lot more than that about the authority and role of Peter… did you ever noticed that only Peter name was changed from Simon to “the rock” Cephas (not the other 11 apostles) showing that he was going to be the rock on which Jesus was going to build his church? Did you ever notice that it was Peter who perform most of the miracles in the first 15 chapters of the book of Acts and talked/preached most of the time? Did you ever notice that even though Cornelius family believe, the holy spirit could not initially descend on the Gentiles until Peter was sent to open the door for the holy spirit? (Because he was the only one with the key)
Even your comment on John 21 point out to the catholic model! Even though Peter deny Christ 3 times, it is to Peter that Christ asks to strengthen his brother, not to the 11 other apostles to strengthen Peter! Showing that Peter's Role and authority are above the other apostles.
Concerning the power of the key: it is not relevant if Christ talks in the future tense in Matthew 16. The time when Peter officially received the key is unknown, but it was most likely at the Pentecost. The key of the kingdom are related not only to bind and lose but to an office. In the second temple Judaism, when a King was giving the key of the kingdom to someone that make him second to the king, a sort of vizier if you want. This is not an office the 12 apostles could assume but only one person! And Jesus gave it to Peter. Isaiah 22:20-21 is giving the proper interpretation of Matthew 16.
@@HisLivingStone241 Finally, concerning the Pharisees, scribes, and the Sanhedrin. The term “bind and loose” was well-known in first-century Judaism. It was understood by the Jewish leadership for having the power to rule spiritually the community and teach with an authority that will be binding on the faithful, and the power to discipline and excommunicate unfaithful Jews from the synagogue. Jesus never question that, on the opposite, he clearly said that they legitimately sit on the chair of Moses and told his disciple to listen to them but to not imitate their behavior because they were hypocrites (Matthew 23:1-3). So, The problem here is not one of authority but one of hypocrisy. After the Jewish leadership became totally apostate by rejecting Jesus as their Messiah, God took away from them the power to bind and lose and this power was given to the church with Peter as Vizier with the power of the keys. It is very simple to understand for someone who is not indoctrinated with a protestants tradition full of Anti-Catholic prejudice.
@@thefaiththatendures 1. If Protestants fail, then Rome fails because all the Episcopal "ancient" churches separated. You selectively choose one definition of unity while excluding Rome from that same definition, ignoring that the entire East is opposed to you while saying Protestants fail because "we consciously are not united"; and yet none of the Eastern / Eastern Orthodox are united under the Pope. And I never was making a claim on which Episcopal church had purity of doctrine, but by your loose logic, neither do you have the right to judge the Protestants because you also are one man.
This guy has no clue anyone is talking about! He's talking circles, he's not even backing or citing anything!!!!!!
Well, we know that faith alone and Scripture alone, were definitely not the constant teaching and practice of the early Church! Gavin Ortlund has a bad habit of leaving out the complete writings of the Church Fathers and the Popes! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
He hurt y’all huh
@@internautaoriginal9951 not at all! Again, Erick hurt Gavin by providing the complete writings of the Church Fathers and Popes that Gavin conveniently leaves out! 😄 peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
I really don‘t understand, why Catholics so often write in their comments, about the Eucharist😊. That it is the real body and the real blood of Christ. Many Protestants believe that. But we also believe it is real wine and real bread ☺️
@jacky b after a year of asking him. Dr. Ortlund finally admitted he can never know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ".
Whose fallible Protestant interpretation do we listen to, as both Martin Luther and John Calvin disagreed with each other on what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ". Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 you don't understand Protestantism. We don't teach that our interpretation is infallible. We can make mistakes and correct our position with more understanding/learning. To put it simply, the 66 holy scriptures are infallible, our interpretations are not.