@@stefanlaemers3053I respect that they anathematize us because as I understand it, they have a mandate from God to faithfully preserve the tradition (including practice and scripture) they believe has been passed down to them. Imagine if as a Protestant someone from a new sect told us that they don't like that we won't revise the Bible or change the words of the Bible for them to fit their new sect. We couldn't ever entertain complying 😅 We might even tell them they aren't "saved" based on their new theology that warps scripture. So perhaps we are doing the same things to others and then crying foul when it is done to us.
Eu achei a discussão maravilhosa! Todos vocês estão de parabéns. Sou Protestante Presbiteriano e após ver esse vídeo fiquei mais esperançoso com uma futura união (que graças a Deus e a internet já está em curso) fraterna entre Ortodoxos e Protestantes, ainda que, a princípio, não seja uma união doutrinal mas fraternal. Penso que a união fraternal não só é possível mas inevitável entre nós. Qual Protestante que após assistir esse vídeo não amou de ardente coração os Ortodoxos? E qual Ortodoxo, que após ver este vídeo, não amou mais ardentemente os seus irmãos Protestantes representados na figura do Pastor Dr. Ortlund? Que o Espírito Santo continue nos abençoado e promovendo entre nós essa saudade!
As a mom whose son converted to EO and entered the monastic life years ago, this discussion has helped me understand the differences in belief and where the beliefs come from.
I am a Protestant and I love YOU, my dear Orthodox brother!!! It's time to begin to declare this to one another. If it's not the time to have a doctrinal union, I think it's time to have, at least, a brotherly union. And this, for sure, is a good starting point.
As a Protestant I can testify that I felt a big love for all these guys involved in this conversation. How enriched we are when our Traditions opt to dialogue and lay their best arguments in a gentle (and honest at the same time) conversation. I think 21st Century will surprise us very positively concerning interdenominational dialogue between Christians, specially because we're living amidst of internet revolution. And if there is a historical claim that we both Prots and Orts can agree upon is that never existed a time where our traditions could dialogue so much as we do today! And I think that is fantastic and it will bring a lot of surprise for the future!
This conversation between Dr. Ortlund and Fr De Young was awesome. Having my favourite Protestant and Orthodox scholars in conversation with one another was great. I see the work of Christ in both these men. May you continue to have more fruitful and edifying conversations. God bless 😊
This ministry is awesome. As someone who is an ex Catholic monk and then was Orthodox you are helping to clear up so much confusion. By exposing strawmen arguments patiently and clearly, by exposing false claims of the historical monopoly-calling churches, by presenting the Gospel and how being a protestant does not mean starting in the 16th century, falling into easy believism or ignoring Church history. What joy to come home to giving Scripture absolute pride of place, allowing no council or patriarch to wallpaper over it! Thank you for your work and witness. So many people are falling for legalistic structures seeking Tradition, they barely even consider the Gospel neat and pure.
Fascinating story - would you consider yourself still Orthodox? I was close to becoming a Trappistine nun, fell away, and have been trying to get back into Catholicism’s good graces, but the difficulties caused me great pause because the more I learn, the more I realize that their stance of being the One True Church isn’t ironclad. I’m starting to open my mind and heart toward the type of Protestantism espoused and lived by Dr. Ortlund. Anyway, God bless!
@@nk-io3cf I pretty much concur with you. I can't really consider myself Eastern Orthodox anymore. But I'll take some time, like Paul in Arabia, to work through where it leaves me with it. I now attend my local baptist church. It's great. The Word preached, hymns, prayer, fellowship...no need for high liturgical frills that Jesus didn't leave us! 🙏
@@MessianicDiscipling ex-protetant of 7 years. If you can prove to me your cannon isn't a 16th century invention, and explain to me how we justify the greeks nearest in date to the new testament not making proper sense of their own language to the point they erred in nearly 90% of their religious practice. Would love to hear your thoughts on that.
You did such a great job with this, Gavin. I personally feel that your arguments were the strongest, especially from a logical and historical standpoint - but then again, what the heck do I know? You both were very cordial and respectful to one another, and that made this entire dialogue that much more enjoyable and interesting.
An important question to wrestle with is, what are the risks in creating or revising doctrine based off of historical evidence? We are constantly discovering new bits of history, and there is much that has been lost that can never be rediscovered. If archaeologists were to find an even earlier version of some book of the Bible than what is used today, with significant differences, should we revise the Bible that we use today or trust in the wisdom of our predecessors and in the Holy Spirit to have guided the Church to the truth?
I agree. De Young brought up some very interesting and important pushback, but ultimately, the case against early church iconodulia- while not infallible (wink)- is still strong. Is it possible it was common practice, and the records we have are just outliers? Yes it is. But they *are* all we have.
@@mattroorda2871 I don't think it's a question of revising the Bile or doctrines but rather keeping our practice of it in accord with what the Bible teaches, and the earliest Christians practiced. And when history and scripture both reveal that there has been a development we have every reason to reconsider it in light of scripture. At one point in the discussion for example Mr. De Young said something to the effect of "we don't believe in this because it is attested to at such and such a date by evidence... but because it happened". this sounds very powerful but under examination it totally falls apart. How do you know that the thing happened? How do you know that it isn't a development for example like the Papacy, and that like the Papacy, it isn't founded on spurious/forged documents? The only way you can is by examining scripture and history closely to see what is actually taught and what actually happened.
@@Draezeth Respectfully, I disagree that those are all that we have. That may be true for a modern secular person, but for a Christian, the Faith that has made its way down to us today is an important piece to consider in and of itself.
@@tategarrett3042 You have to be careful trying to determine what the earliest Christians believed via historical evidence, because there were heretics amongst the Christians from the very earliest days, as attested to in the Scriptures themselves, so depending on what bit of historical evidence is available, you can be misled. And yes, you can try and use the Bible to disprove these heretics, but heretics are almost always using the Scriptures themselves to justify their beliefs so it ends up being a question of who's interpretation is correct. The point that Fr. De Young was making with the statement about the Dormition of Mary was that the debates between Roman Catholics and Protestants tend to be very evidence-based, examining historical documents to try and prove or disprove whether or not this was a later invention. The Orthodox aren't terribly interested in giving proof from history. For us, it is enough that this is the Faith of our Fathers that has been passed down to us for us to cherish and preserve for our children.
That's the dream...but there should be a lot more unity. We have to transcend the false notion that any of us can box Christ in to our visible wee jurisdiction and call it the Church! It's an old game for elites that!
Gavin, thanks so much for presenting Sola Scriptura as a "modest position." Your explanation of how and why it matters just cuts through the haze and resonates both logically and spiritually, and I know I'm not alone in saying that. Blessings, brother.
Gavin, you're a powerful evangelist for the faith, and you also do it while exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit, something the Body AND TH-cam both desperately need. May God forever be with you and your family, brother.
"If something that is consonant with Scripture comes into the church and persists, then we can say that this is the guidance of the Holy Spirit." -Father Stephen That's about as good an articulation of Sola Scriptura as I've ever heard.
@@michaelvigil3436 Everything is brought to the test of Scripture. That, in essence, is Sola Scriptura. There must be an express command, a clear example, or a deduction by good & necessary consequence from the text of Scripture for something to be "consonant with Scripture". Once accept that principle and carry it out consistently, and you will arrive at something resembling Reformed theology.
@@stephenwright4973 But… scripture itself doesn’t even pass that test. Whether or not a certain piece of scripture is considered canonical or not is entirely based on church tradition, scripture itself is brought to the test of tradition. Furthermore there are things in scripture that are rejected by church tradition such as baptism for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29) that the vast majority of denominations reject outright, how do you explain this based on your understanding of Sola Scriptura?
I think one of the difficulties of these dialogues, is that at some point, an individual chooses where to place their faith and evidence to the contrary is dismissed. Protestants put their faith in understanding God through the Scriptures over and above everything else. While Orthodox place a great value on Scripture, that understanding is shaped by the church. Historical evidence or lack thereof is not significant. Appeals can be made based on authority by citing EO saints, but only where the church as a whole has already affirmed the saints position on a given matter. There are Orthodox saints that largely held on to the teachings of the church, but strayed in certain areas. Their sainthood is not dismissed, as Orthodox don’t require absolute perfection as a condition for sainthood and thus acknowledge that saints can err. Therefore the argument for church tradition really becomes circular at some point- church tradition is affirmed because the church has affirmed it. You either accept this at face value or you don’t.
Yes, ultimately people choose where to place their authority based on something other than just the good logical arguments on all sides. Thanks for pointing this out! I am frequently saying this. 😊
yes you should check out george salmon a historic reformer who actually popularized the circular argument against an infallible church. this argument actually has some fun history to it between a bunch of reformers and catholic dialogue. not to sure about orthodox even though they would take a similar position against the protestant.
Ultimately the question comes down to the evidence of the Holy spirit. Everyone appeals to the Holy Spirit as the source of authority (for scripture and/or Holy tradition) but we have different claims/evidence of where the work of the Spirit is confirmed. This is why I have stopped listening to people who are pure academics, or simply in a particular church role. Rather, I now require evidence that a person is manifestly working with the Holy spirit and with Gods charity before I receive their opinions as weighty.
@@BrianLassek I completely agree about not putting too much stock in academics vs. people who actually know God. Just curious, what would you consider to be evidence that a person is working with the Holy Spirit?
Why is it so difficult for protestants to grasp that they are not putting their faith in the scriptures, but their INTERPRETATION of the scriptures. Two individuals will just use scripture to understand God, and one will come out Trinitarian, and one Unitarian. The scriptures and not self-interpreting. Protestants will submit themselves to an authority (i.e. their pastor) in so far as their pastor preaches in agreement with THEIR interpretation of the scriptures. Protestants are an authority to themselves, not the scriptures. There is no way around it.
I am an oriental orthodox and LOVE both Gavin and Father De Young. I certainly find myself agree with Gavin sometimes and Gather Stephen some other times. Surprisingly father De Young goes against the current view in Orthodox Church of Genesis 6 and adopts the angelic view of the Sons of Elohim. To me that’s pretty honest and open minded and a demonstration of a living tradition that’s appealing to the truthfulness of the text. ❤
Great Job on this dialogue Gavin, I have really learned a lot from your channel. It is evident that Christ is using you in this area. Keep it up my brother.
It would be wonderful if we could have more dialogues like this! Hopefully either this channel, or others, will participate in more discussions in the future. I find them very insightful and interesting.
I love this conversation. HEALTHY, LOVING, HONEST, and GENUINE conversations between fellow Christians about their disagreements are so edifying to hear. Props to all parties here. Hosts had some great questions especially the very first questions to clearify Sola Scriptura and Sacred Tradition. Such an important baseline to set at the start of discussion! And im very glad Gavin caught himself at the end and addressed that he had inturupted a bit there. God bless you guys ✝️
This was so refreshing! The discussion was both charitable and firm. It really helped highlight where both sides are coming from and the sticking points for each. Great strides were made in my understanding of the issues. Thank you Gavin and Stephen for sharing your insights and for Jonathan and Luther for such great questions and for being such gracious hosts. I really look forward to their comments!
This was so good! I always struggled with defending sola Scripture until I discovered your videos. And this format was really enjoyable! Different perspectives and articulations emerge from debates vs conversations, so I really appreciate that you do both. Thank you so much for this! God bless!
As one who went on journey from Southern Baptist to almost Eastern Orthodox (got to the very brink of the Bosphorus) to becoming Anglican, I also enjoyed this discussion 👍🏻
My reading of Nicaea 2 is that the background matters. It seems iconoclasts were condemning and destroying icons (like what Luther condemned during the Reformation). The anathemas are directed at that division and destruction- because to NOT destroy an icon is to honor it. It was the dishonoring and condemnation that was being addressed - not that the anathema means you HAD to kiss, pray, etc.
Thank you for doing this Dr. Ortlund! I'm sorry the comments section got so toxic on the other channel. You and Fr. DeYoung are two of my favorites. I'm glad you two were able to have fruitful conversation, though I can't help but feel as if Fr. DeYoung couldn't satisfactorily answer your objections. History does not favor certain dogmas.
This is such an interesting part of discussions. How two people can watch the exact same thing and come away with two completely separate perspectives. I felt that Fr. Stephen De Young adequately answered the questions, though I have a feeling this may be because of my own familiarity with Fr. Stephen's work and being orthodox myself. As far as history favoring certain dogmas (boundary markers) is really a historical fact. As in that's how it is today, so that is how history favored it. He's discussed this kind of thing in others ways, like how arguing over what scriptures are truly "canon" is a bit of a weird question because canon is, in our perspective, a statement of reality. The books which are held to be authoritative in a given church is their canon. This is why the different national orthodox churches have different canons but are still one church. And being that our church has Apostolic succession back to christ, our canons are the canons of the Church of God. The idea is the Holy Spirit was poured out on the church from Pentecost and has guided it since then, so how the church receives that history, and has received that history to this day is what the Holy Spirit has guided our understanding towards. During certain periods in history, certain truths may be difficult to discern for many, but through the course of history, when the Holy Spirit deems it the right time, He will establish the Church in that truth and the church will continue forward. I hope that explanation is helpful in some way. I too enjoyed the discussion.
Saw the original video on Luther's channel. Really appreciated the dialogue, especially given Dr. De Young's academic credentials and irenic demeanor. It is best just to lay out the differences, debate the objective data, and then let the people decide.
Gavin is a defender of the faith. Every time he talks you can hear the love that he has for whoever he is talking to. His arguments that he makes are strong but I think the love he has for others is stronger.
An interesting conversation that went almost exactly like I thought it would, so I'm not sure that anyone's mind will actually be changed. That doesn't mean we shouldn't dialogue -- we should. But I'm doubtful that someone like Dr. Ortlund isn't walking away from this saying, "maybe I should reconsider Holy Orthodoxy?" Hopefully, but my hunch is no. And although it will probably be lost in the sea of comments here, I did want to offer something that could hopefully be constructive for Gavin. His line of questioning about what Fr. Stephen said regarding the Holy Spirit working in the church over time centers on what-ifs that didn't actually happen. He a couple of things like, "what if this emperor hadn't been in charge…" All of that can be answered by simply saying: but it _did_ happen. It happened the way it happened, and things worked out the way they did. It's like saying, what if George Washington hadn't been the first president? Well, that's a fun mental exercise, but… He was. Counterfactual History is a thing in some circles, but its intent is to work as an exercise to show the importance of what DID happen - not to call into question what happened. Challenging the way things work based on what could have happened is philosophically incoherent and leads down a rabbit trail of unanswerable what-ifs (which, ironically, is something monastics warn us not to do -- fantasy can be a dangerous trap). Being as charitable as possible, I think that line of questioning by Gavin was a way of simply stating skepticism about the workings of the Church over time and trusting too much to this organizational process. That is fair in some ways, but in the end, the exact same arguments can essentially be made against 1) any church body, and 2) _Sola Scripture_ itself. There is no real end-point of that line of thought.
Spot on. Counterfactual arguments presuppose (Ortland probably loves presuppositional apologetics) God did NOT guide history, which I doubt he believes.
@@paulsimmons3380 exactly. I'm not sure why someone who subscribes to the idea of _sola fide_ would make an argument that so openly questions the concept of having Faith in God working through history.
It’s a really interesting and edifying time for Christendom. Because of the Internet, protestants and orthodox Christians are able to have dialogues, and this is really good for the body of Christ
First off - great conversation. I really appreciate the dialogue on both sides. On the issue of icon veneration, it's also important to keep in mind the time period this controversy arose. Islam was the ascendant power and ate away at Christian lands. Islam forbids the use of images in worship, which they view as idolatry. Many viewed Islam's ascendency as divine chastisement. Not a "slam dunk" argument by any means, just noting the Islamic influences at the time. The timing of the controversy with Islams rise is not coincidental. Also, I can't find any Church fathers prior to 500AD explicitly denouncing icon veneration or the use of images in liturgical practices. I do find a lot of early church fathers denouncing many moral behaviors as corrupting the image of God. I'm not saying they don't exist, but "all early church fathers" speak negatively on the use of images as it relates to icon veneration is quite a claim, and I'd like to examine the evidence for my own understanding. Again, God bless you both, this was wonderful stuff!
This was so helpful in my own journey of trying to understand both sides and where we are today. I'm a big fan of both yours and Fr. Stephen De Young. Makes me wonder - would you be open to doing a video on ways the Protestant church has swung too far in the opposite direction? Often you represent the best version of a Protestant, which is important, but for me, I wonder if there are areas where you feel like the modern Protestant church needs to "reclaim" parts of church history that have been lost -- or even highlighting how different Protestant denominations have handled these issues. It feels like we're approaching an important reflection point in reconsidering the reformation, the following Enlightenment, and coming to terms with where we are today. Thanks!
I would have liked your point about the Pharisees yoking the people to tradition rather than scripture to be addressed properly. I think it's an apt comparison. And as someone from a "Church of Christ" background this idea sums up how we approach doctrines.
Really loved the one-on-one as a follow-up to the icon veneration debate. This should be mentioned somewhere in the heading. Fr. Stephen’s podcast, Lord of Spirits, is truly amazing. Thank you, Pastor Gavin!
I watched this on the other channel. What most stood out to me is how Father Deyoung kept appealing to authority by claiming that historical sources weren't to be bieved unless they had been declared a Saint.
I don't think he claimed that they shouldn't be believed ever, but he was pointing out that virtually all of Dr. Ortlund's sources against the use of iconography were historical figures who are not considered saints due to their embracing various heresies at one point or another.
@@mattroorda2871 The thing about saints is sometimes they were declared heretics when they were alive, and I wish I could remember the name, but he was even an excommunicated bishop. Then later canonized. It was lesser mentioned church father, and the issue he stood on, he was right about. It think it had to do w/ the trinity.
@@etheretherether No, pretty sure that wasn't the name. I was looking at a wiki list of church fathers and doing a shallow look into what they stood for and stumbled on this name that doesn't crop up in discussions, so I followed the links and it was interesting what happened in his life. Taking his stand, being right, but kicked out anyway and then later canonized, because by then the church had caught up w/ right doctrine.
This was an amazing discussion. Wow!! really loved it. And just for the record. I’m a Calvary chapel person raised Nazarene (turned off by denominations) and I stumbled upon Dr. Gavin learning about the apostolic fathers
I have the utmost love and respect for Fr. De Young. At the end of The Lord of Spirits Ep 28 - Leviathan, It's What's for Dinner, he has an incredibly piercing exhortation that the Holy Spirit used a few years ago to affect a momentous repentance in me. Everyone should go listen to it. I now refuse to see the division between the traditions of Christianity. I understand they are there, but I will not honor them. I will simply look for the wheat in the field and love all those who seek and preach Jesus. God bless you Dr. Ortlund and God bless Fr De Young!
Dr Ortlund, thanks so much for this debate where you clearly explained the Reformed tradition, going back to apostolic tradition. I’m learning so much. You’re an excellent communicator and teacher! God bless your ministry ❤
It's funny to me when Catholics and Orthodox claim that the New Testament mentions the existence of an oral tradition, because the times it is mentioned: 1) It is the Pharisees appealing to an oral tradition in order to defend false doctrines and being refuted by Jesus; 2) It is Paul saying in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, that the church must stand firm in what has been passed on to them whether by speech or writing. However, the consensus is that this letter from Paul was written between 51 - 52. Therefore, the following books had not yet been written: probably all the four gospels (for sure Luke and John); 1 and 2 Corinthians; Romans; Ephesians; Philippians; Philemon; Colossians; Acts; 1 and 2 Timothy; Titus; 1 and 2 Peter; Hebrews; Jude; 1, 2 and 3 John; and Revelation. Which means it had only been written: James, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians (and perhaps Mark and Matthew, but we would have to assume the earliest possible dates, which is unlikely). In other words, when Paul wrote this verse, it was in a context where practically the ENTIRE New Testament had not yet been written. Furthermore, after dealing with the two questions above, the person would still have to defend : 3) that the oral tradition has a content so different from the written tradition that it makes it insufficient for Christian life or even for salvation, which directly contradicts 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and; 4) that the Catholic or Orthodox Church preserved this "oral tradition", although it is highly questionable when studying Church history and observing the development of doctrine that both churches had (and that we can say that contradicts previously established doctrines), and the fact that, despite appealing to the same oral tradition, Catholics and Orthodox arrive at very different places (Canons, recognized Ecumenical Councils, doctrines and practices). 5) why the first church fathers placed scripture at a level above their ministries (Ignatius of Antioch) and ecumenical councils (St. Athanasius) and said that the scripture should be used to find which churches were following the truth (John Chrysostom).
The ODX don't defend anything with standard reasoning and logic. They just assert. They did not inherit our Western penchant for rational discourse and discursive reasoning. I.e., the don't practice any form of scholasticism, whatsoever, and actually scholastic thinking -- systematic theological thinking - isn't really highly valued in Orthodoxy today.
Well said. One can probably go further and suppose that the only NT writing that the Thessalonians had access to prior to the time they received Paul’s second epistle to them was FIRST Thessalonians. As far as what had been taught orally to them by Paul, one can compare statements Paul wrote in First Thessalonians to what Luke had recorded in Acts 17 in regards to Paul had originally preached in Thessalonica to get a general idea .
A good discussion can be had on the authority of tradition but I wish Gavin and others would quit mixing in the much weaker argument referencing the “teleohone game”. In fact, studies have shown that in various contexts oral tradition can be transmitted quite accurately . See the great Protestant scholar Richard Bauckham’s work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses chapters 10-13, especially chapters 11 and 13.
I watch your videos and I listen to The Lord of Spirits podcast, so this was a conversation I had been wanting for a long time. Great work. I just wish you two would have discussed anathema more.
@TruthUnites @Dr Gavin Ortlund can we please have a part 2 of this discussion / dialog adding a third scholar like @Trent Horn please 🙏🏼. Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷
As a Byzantine Catholic I find this discussion to be irenic and honest. In min 21:00 Gavin Ortlund pointed out to the elephant in the room by stating that as a Protestant he believes that tradition of men get corrupted overtime and he publicly said by the second century after the death of the last apostle the Church was corrupted. This is a crucial statement because had the Church didn't lapse into the Great Apostasy then there's no need for Protestantism. The whole premise of reformation is that it believes the Church as institution entirely already corrupted by man made traditions. You will not be able to find John Piper, John MacArthur, R C Sproul, or Al Mohler admitting this claim. But here you hear it from an honest man Gavin Ortlund saying that tradition of men is like telephone game that by the second century already corrupted. This is why by the Council of Nicaea you find St Athanasius the Great publicly teaching veneration of saints far earlier than Second Nicaea. In his disputations against Arius Athanasius pointed out that when people incense, bow, and kiss the icon of the Emperor they pass honor due to the prototype the Emperor himself. Notice this argument later dogmatized at Second Nicaea to venerate saints. From Protestants perspective even Athanasius had material heresies and only to be accepted when he agreed with Scripture alone. I respect Gavin Ortlund honesty. I hope more and more Protestants will be more open to publicly saying that Protestantism profess the Church had lapsed into Great Apostasy by the 2nd century. At Ephesus St Cyril gave seven Marian homilies extolling her mediatrix role in her Son's messianic role. Cyril closed the Ecumenical Council with an Akathist to Theotokos. At Chalcedon the fathers received apparition by St Euphemia. They venerated her tomb at Chalcedon during the session. St Leo praised Euphemia for her miracle at the Ecumenical Council. That's why Gavin Ortlund called 2nd century as the time when the Church lapsed into Great Apostasy not after Second Nicaea. The question then if the fathers lapsed how would we trust them on Trinity and Christology? I grew up in a Dutch Calvinist tradition and I pray for Gavin Ortlund may God give him blessings for his family and his ministry. God bless.
Great points. There is no answer, no matter how long you wait for one. All of us ex protestants know this. The acceptance of certain doctrines from the church is completely ad hoc to hold up their own views. There has never been a coherent answer to this question.
"he publicly said by the second century after the death of the last apostle the Church was corrupted." Absolutely not! How did you get a great apostasy or corruption out of the simple fact that Christians disagreed? Even in the century there were disputes.
@@TruthUnites brother did I misunderstand what you said? It's in min 21:00 you said it yourself using the telephone game comparison that the Church introduced errors by the second century. The reason I pointing this out is because many Protestants didn't say it out loud and for that I am praising you for being honest in pointing to the elephant in the room that no other Protestants dare to say publicly. Brother if the accretion is not soul damning there's no need to create parallel churches to reform her. You just need to be ordained and reform her from within. The only reason you need to reform from outside is only because she had lapsed no? How do you explain St Cyril's seven Marian homilies? How do you explain Cyril ended the Ecumenical Council with an Akathist to the most holy ever virgin Theotokos? How do you explain veneration at St Euphemia during Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon? When I was at Westminster Seminary Dr Carl Truman explained that the Church as a whole had lapsed very early. He discussed how St Justin Martyr wanted to die as martyr and asking no one helping him because he wanted to die. No Protestants would agree with Justin belief. That belief as Truman correctly pointed out is pagan belief on apotheosis. So he argued the Church had lapsed as early as second century. He taught this in class. That's why I am so excited that you're honest in saying this publicly on record. If the Church didn't lapse then why established another? John Calvin argued that entire Church East and West had lapsed. In his Institutio he argued the fathers were superstitious. The belief on the Great Apostasy is intrinsic for Protestantism without this belief it would not make any sense to oppose the Church unless she had lapsed and must be opposed. I am available on Facebook. If I misunderstood you can you help clarifying your statement on telephone game and explicit statement regarding second century in min 21:00? Please let me know if you're open to dialogue. I am in good friendship with Joshua Schooping he and I have been in conversation for years. I would like to be able to have an irenic dialogue with you too if you're open to it. God bless brother.
At bottom, every Protestant has to admit the church fell into the great apostasy well before the end of late antiquity. Augustine and Ambrose were venerating relics in the 4/5th century, something that every Protestant views as a utterly anathema to the gospel and a deeply grave heresy.
@@AdithiaKusno”…If the accretion is not soul damning there’s no need to create parallel churches to reform her.” Brilliant, I’ve been thinking the same thing recently. To be a Protestant is to engage in a deep hermeneutic of suspicion for well over 1000 years of accepted Christian practice. Purgatory/toll-houses? Heresy. Intercessory prayers for dead? Heresy. Prayers to saints and intercessions? Idolatry. Marian devotion? Wicked idolatry. Relic veneration? Necromancy and pagan idolatry. Icon veneration? Idolatry. Viatacum and Eucharist for sick not at liturgy? Superstition. (Most Protestants, if they even believe in the real presence [which is almost none excluding theologians] believe that our lords presence disappears after liturgy). Eucharistic adoration? Superstition. This list can be extended ad infinitum.
Great convo. Much knowledge on each side. Love to see more getting in all those weeds and working together to foster more understanding and agreement over time.
“It’s not mentioned in any of the fathers’ writings because everyone knew about it.” That’s a cop out IMO. So Paul thought everyone already knew about the perpetual virginity of Mary and iconography so he never wrote about them, but instead focused on the death and resurrection of Christ because those weren’t widely understood? That strains any and all credulity.
St Cyril, Augustin, and Chrysostom both teach the trinity in their catechetical homilies/writings. Not a SINGLE mention of venerating icons when teaching the faith? Interesting
The irony is the Pharisee argument is they were actually taking solo scriptura to an extreme, not traditional. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” - the Jews were simply taking the written, scriptural law of Moses and applying it plainly, their error was that they were *not* being guided by a tradition that understood not just the text of the law but the *spirit* of the law.
thank you for representing the Protesttant point of view Dr. Gavin. our brothers in the Orthodox beliefs should also consider that the "reformation' is the Holy Spirit work..
My questions is did the Holy Spirit stop leading the church to truth John 16:13? Did the church stop being the pillar and ground of truth 1 Timothy 3:15 if is not than that what is contradictory to the apostolic faith is not true the Holy Spirit cannot contradict in its nature so both can’t be true in some topics if it’s true the Bible lied than you condemn the Bible and the Bible has error for the church which the apostles tells us to follow 2 Thessalonians 2:15 want keep in all truth and fell into error so gods a lie in your view god
Right, but 2 Thess 2:15 outright states that tradition was passed on in two forms: oral and written. It is the Protestant assumption that the whole of tradition was recorded in writing. There is no evidence for that belief anywhere. We Orthodox do not believe we created any new traditions. In fact, we believe that Protestants have created new traditions and removed original ones.
Feel like if you lean toward Orthodoxy, you eventually run up against hard to believe claims like icon veneration. If you lean toward Protestantism, you run up against interpretive relativism with no notions of capital T truth, as all men are fallible, which includes their interpretive ability. Difficult. I am grateful for the dialogue. I would like more.
And yet you don’t question hard to believe claims like millions of Israelites crossing the Red Sea, talking animals, people being taken to heaven on chariots, etc. Only when it comes to faith in the body of Christ you behave like an atheist historiographer. See the two-minded double standard?
Where did you get the idea that Protestantism promotes "interpretive relativism with no notions of capital T truth"? Classical Protestantism is utterly opposed to relativism and absolutely believes in the Truth of the Triune God and the scripture which bears witness to his character and acts.
interpretive relativism is the inevitable consequence of protestantism whether you claim to promote it or not, or claim to be against it or not. it's an illogical system with no normative authority where everyone elevates their own interpretations to the status of "this is what scripture teaches", with no way to settle to a dispute. this is easily borne out by history where even the founders of the protestant movement all ended up with different churches and opposing doctrines. fast forward to today the number of protestant sects has grown into the thousands, all of them claiming they teach the word of God. this is clear as day to everyone, even many protestants @@Crucian1
@@Crucian1 Because the vast majority of Protestantism believes all men and all church systems are fallible, which means all interpretations of Scripture or of history produced by those fallible men and fallible systems are also fallible. If the interpretations are fallible, that means there are no capital T truths within the majority of Protestantism. The only Protestant group I am aware of outside this relativism are Anglicans like the APA, which have their roots in protest against Rome but are extremely similar to the Orthodox Church in their view of ecumenical councils as infallible. Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, etc., anyone who does not hold to the possibility of infallible interpretation is ultimately subscribing to relativism.
@@Crucian1 the majority of Protestants claim that all men, and all church systems are fallible. Therefore, all interpretations of Scripture or history made by men, and all interpretations of Scripture or history made by church systems, would be fallible. Therefore, there is not a notion of a capital T truth. The only protestants I am aware of that do not hold to this notion would be continuing Anglicans like the APA. They are protestant only in that they have history in the movement, but they ultimately are very similar to the Orthodox Church in their view that church councils are infallible.
I think the big thing people miss about Nicaea 2 is that all the evidence surrounding it, the conclusions, and the forgeries/lies are of one spirit. And the spirit behind Lying, killing, stealing, and destroying is not named Holy nor is he holy.
It seems like every discussion I've seen of Gavin, he's talking to three other guys who are not on his side. It's quite a humbling thing to witness over and over again from him, as well as humorus.
Orthodox Christian here with an honest question: If mechanisms of infallibility do not persist in the post-apostolic Church, how do we have confidence in each of the books of the Bible and how they were collected into what we call scripture today?
I’m not gonna take a stance for all Protestants but the way I see it is that just because only scripture is fallible doesn’t mean we don’t trust the early church father who compiled the New Testament. There’s a lot of evidence in church history proving the authorship as well as a trust in god. Of course if we didn’t at the very least accept the New Testament we wouldn’t be Christian. As well as agree with major points that the early church fathers agreed on major doctrines in like the first 6 ecumenical counsel tho 7 is where we differ (not condemning btw) but I wouldn’t put that as major doctrine. Not only that we have the entire Old Testament preserved by the Jews. I don’t think deuterocanonical/apocryphal books are canon (for reason I’ve assume you have heard) but I do think a lot of them are important especially for viewing Jewish thought before the time of Jesus. Such as even Enoch despite definitely not canonical has a lot messianic thought in it.
@@dezznutts1197 thank you for the response. I just watched the Gavin vs Horn debate and Gaven also answered my question there. He said that fallible people can point to infallible things. He gave the example of St. John the Baptist pointing to Christ (of which I think is a false analogy) to a precedent to the church pointing to scripture.
@@klw272 tbf there’s a lot me and Gavin differ especially because of his Calvinism. Despite being Protestant a lot of my thought coincides with orthodox doctrine and do not vehemently disagree with anything to a huge amount (tho most I am just unsure like the topic of most of the debate) . This dialogue between both of them had me nodding my head to both sides.
A telling point in this discussion was when the argument was made that if something was a common and accepted practice in the early church, then it makes sense that no one discusses it until someone starts opposing it. A couple thoughts on this argument: First, the parallel example given was the apostles not explicitly laying out the doctrine of the Trinity. However, this isn't truly parallel to the issue of icon veneration. The apostles certainly laid out all the relevant aspects of trinitarian doctrine in their writings. They identified the Father, Son, and Spirit as divine, they affirmed monotheism, and they distinguished between the persons. Sure, no one verse links it all together for us, but all the building blocks are there, and argued for in numerous ways. Turn now to icon veneration, and, as Gavin pointed out, nothing parallel to the apostles affirmations of trinitarian doctrine can be found in the early church. And it seems that the first things said about the practice are universally negative. Second, I'm concerned that by this line of reasoning, just about any aberrant practice could be justified. What accretion in doctrine or practice could be ruled out, since it could always be argued that the lack of discussion surrounding it proves that it was commonly accepted.
If icon veneration and praying to saints was meant to be a central doctrine, and the Orthodox have certainly made it that, there should have surely been some OT precedent for it. Jesus might have modeled it, and certainly the apostles should have.
That is hardly a telling argument when numerous people *are* saying "cover icons" or "move them out of the church." Honestly, that argument does not convince at all.
What is really wrong w/ the argument of it wasn't really discussed until someone opposed it, is icons, and any art in the early church was very strongly opposed. There were bloody battles fought over it. Esp. when it came to praying to them. The iconoclasts used to come in and destroy images. Somehow or another, the iconophiles finally won. I think it was Gavin who said in a talk once, that we have always had a struggle w/ idolatry as people. We see that leaning to go back to it again and again w/ the Israelites. I think we've done it as Christians, only now it's been entrenched for a good thousand years in over half of Christendom.
There are many saints in the church. People would pray to them, "seeing" their image in the minds and eyes makes their prayer more meaningful. Same thing when praying to Christ, you see Him in your mind and seeing his image makes a big difference from not seeing anything. Statues and pictures, arts are all part of the early church....bible stories in pictures. Most men were illiterate for more than 2000 years. Islam bans any image of their god and their prophet, they are cold and scary. Praying to a golden calf is a totally different thing. Why make a big fuzz of of this. Icons are beautiful art. A cathedral would be cold and sterile without them, it would be like a meeting hall.
My problem with Dr. Ortlund's argument against Icon Veneration: I think it is fundamentally a conflation of icon veneration and "graven images." The Church Fathers repeatedly speak against "images," but it is entirely possible that they are using "images" as shorthand for "GRAVEN images." Considering the early church did in fact have images in the literal sense, it is hard to believe that any of them were against just literal images rather than specifically graven images. The question is whether the early church would've considered showing any form of honor to an image at all to be the same as treating it as a graven image. Considering even the iconoclasts at Nicea II had no issue with showing honor to images, and co sidering that even protestants today do not have a problem with this, it is difficult for me to believe that they would've considered honored images to be the same as graven images. Indeed, this practice was and is today universal among people in all nations, so it is unlikely that the early church would've felt the need to write about it any more than they would've needed to defend their practice of breathing air. Not to mention, offering honor to images is literally the entire basis of treating other people kindly. They are images of the Father, and the greek word for "image" in scripture is "ikon."
Saw this on their channel and thought it was very good. As I’ve suggested before I would love to see Gavin dialogue with a Catholic scholar of the same type. As much as I respect the impressive non- accredited scholarship of Erick Ybarra , would love to see Matthew Levering or Lawrence Feingold . Bishop Barron would be a good guest as well.
I believe you may have misunderstood the point. What he was highlighting is that in various faiths, there is a foundational authoritative text or work that later discussions or traditions must align with before being accepted as the standard moving forward. That is not to say that other faiths’ ability to apply this practice is without error-no different than how Catholics place traditions and the Magisterium on par with the Bible.
@@Tramaine108 no I understand what he was saying, I'm just saying appealing to other world religions as evidence for why Sola Scriptura is normal (let alone correct) isn't at all a good arguement for it. Appealing to something like Islam and saying "see guys? The Muslims do it therefore it's normal for us to do it!" sounds more like an argument an online RC or EO apologist would make to smear Protestantism than anything else. Like they're literally debased heathens and that's who you're appealing to? What? Appeal to St. Augustine or reason or something not to the religions of demons and the practices of the children of satan. Pointing that out literally made me consider the papists again
Love this dialogue. Grateful for Fr Stephen’s knowledge and love Dr Gavin’s challenging questions. But as former Protestant for 30yrs I can see, it always depended upon how,” I SAW.” Or it always depended if,”I AGREED.” It was very difficult for me even to trust my Pastor at the time when I was a Protestant. It always depended on MY KNOWLEDGE. I never trusted. Though I would have said I was. I am now Orthodox and Trusting God leading His Church.
I am quite impressed with everyone's demeanor. Dr. O, your early church Fathers studies really shines in your discussions. Knowing their attitudes towards various subjects is quite refreshing.
Gavin, I know you've written some about why you left presbyterianism and became a baptist, I don't know if it is tiresome to talk about further about the topic. Even though you've debated Dr. Cooper on infant baptism, would you consider talking about the reformed (covenantal) view of infant baptism? I've recently read a book by Guy M. Richard on the subject and found some of his arguments really compelling. I greatly appreciate all of your content, keep up the good work sir!
I had Guy Richard as a professor during my seminary days. I think I got to read a prepub version of the book you mention. One question I asked him based upon the book, and one that seemed important to me, since it dealt with the crucial claim in dispute between the Reformed/Baptists was: "If you say that the children of believers are included in the New Covenant and experience Covenant blessings, which of the enumerated New Covenant blessings do they enjoy?" The point of the question was that in class, he and others would refer to the children of believers as Covenant members enjoying New Covenant blessings. But, when such blessings were mentioned, they were never any of the enumerated blessings of the New Covenant. So my question always became, how can we say that these are "members" of the Covenant if they don't participate in any of the enumerated blessings? Do you know if the question is answered in the published book?
I’m curious as to why the entire discussion was about icons and Nicaea II. I understand it was just a free form discussion but I don’t get why you never tried to defend the thesis of sola scriptura in that space. Also, on what grounds are we to accept Nicaea I? If Dr. Stephen’s argument of the biblical Unitarian wanting to revise it stands, what is the principled, non-circular way to affirm Nicaea I but deny Nicaea II against that Unitarian? And, going off another of Fr. Stephen’s points, how do you parse out the correct and incorrect theological interpretation of Scripture if it’s as subjective as the doctrine of the right of private judgement makes it?
I think the last topic explains why the scriptures are so important when building your basis of theology with scripture, then informing that comprehension further with respected teachers of the faith. When requested to find an affirmation of theology in the first 500 years of the church, our goal shouldn't be to empty the hands of our critics, but it should be to push forward scripture with some known church fathers. Otherwise, now we don't believe something due to a lack of evidence instead of negative propositions
I think De Young conceded to your view about the need for reformation when he said "the whole Church can get things wrong for short periods of time". I was surprised to hear that as I always thought that the Eastern Orthodox held the same view as Anglicans and Roman Catholics that, although individuals can err and councils can err, the whole Church cannot err. I wonder if De Young has a modernist view which is not typical of Eastern Orthodoxy. He seems to hold that the whole Church, the WHOLE Church, can defect into error. The fact is that even when the Arian heresy was dominant, the whole Church did not err, but continued to teach the truth and opposing the heresy, as we see in St Athanasius and the other faithful at that time.
Saying that the Reformation was reacting against real abuses is no problem for an EO. They freely admit that Rome had become cancerous by the 1500's, but they do not concede that the Reformers ended up with the correct cures (plural).
Perhaps Fr De Young wasn’t being precise in making statement. I would certainly think he would agree that the WHOLE Church never lapsed into Arianism or any other heresy that denied a fundamental aspect of the GOSPEL.
The church can never be in error in its doctrines on faith and morals for even a micro second. The church is human and can err in its discipline and practice, but never in its divine teaching of faith and morals. There are red lines that the true church can never cross..
@@bethlHe says in this discussion that the building blocks are in the Scriptures. He believes the practice is congruent with the revelation of Scripture.
Excellent video. Classy, Christian conversation. Very interesting about icon veneration towards the end - I take Dr Ortlund’s stance, great argument & historical support. Truth unites, indeed, amen ✝️🙏
Dear Gavin, One thing I think is so critical, but often missing from these discussions and that I was so thankful you touched on was how the identity of Holy Tradition is very nebulous compared to Holy Scripture. This is true not only of what is in the collection (the book/scroll or idea/doctrine), but also the content or definition of the book or doctrine. Because of the myriad of copies of Scripture and near total consensus on the Protocanon, we can point to and be sure of the content of Holy Scripture in a way that we simply cannot with Holy Tradition. This is true of both the writings of Church Fathers, I love Irenaeus but there are sketchy places where lines are likely missing or we are not quite sure what he wrote, and the declarations of Councils, we do not have records of everything Nicaea I produced. The other point you made that I think was so important is that the Church have a mechanism and standard for correction. King Josiah rediscovering the Book of the Law is a beautiful example of this principle in action. It seems a bit odd, but as Protestants the fallibility of the church is one of the most important and precious doctrines we hold to.
@jonathanhnosko7563 How is the identity of Sacred Tradition nebulous when all Apostolic Christians (Catholics / Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox) accept the Real Presence in the Eucharist, intercession of the saints, icon veneration, praying for the dead, sinlessness of Mary, bodily assumption of Mary into heaven? And this given there have been splits among these churches.
@@FideiDefensatrix Thank you for your question. Your points are well taken. All I am saying is that you can point to Holy Scripture as a concrete thing (what scrolls and what do they say) in a way that you cannot with Holy Tradition. What is Holy Tradition? What are its boundaries and contents? Sure, there are many commonalities, I would add making the sign of the cross to your list, but if things are going to be on the same level as Scripture, the very words of God, yet with less consensus, that is problematic. (purgatory vs toll houses, original vs ancestral sin, did Mary have a nature identical to ours or somehow different, did she die or fall asleep, were Jesus' "brothers" children of Joseph from a previous marriage or Jesus' cousins, did Mary and Joseph make mutual vows of virginity upon learning of the nature of her conception of Jesus or did Mary make a lifelong vow as a small child?)
@@FideiDefensatrix Also, the 3 communions you mention all use different versions of the Creed and none of them is the exact one produced by Nicaea I, not that I have a problem with that. I'm actually partial to the Armenian Creed. 😊
@@jonathanhnosko7563 Apostolic Christians obviously have some differences with each other which explains why we’re separated but we have far more common core beliefs with each other than what the thousands of Protestant sects have with each other. That really is the irony of Sola Scriptura, it creates more disunity than unity.
Loved these two talking together, hope for more of it - I personally appreciate the discussion and line of questioning that allows for a clear articulation of perspective/position. I think the key point made was when Fr. Stephen states - “ ultimately the answer to that question from an Orthodox perspective is the last 1200 years of history in which those findings have been affirmed and reaffirmed and reaffirmed not just buy another councils, but in practice by what we perceive to be the whole church.” I just don’t understand what you do with a catholic who would say the same exact thing? How do we determine “the whole church” I think a Protestant with a historic sola scriptura understanding would say the same thing as well. We read scripture in the community of the saints and believe what has been believed throughout all time by all Christians
I agree with your post. "The whole Church" (East and West) has been divided for a very long time on the Papacy, Purgatory, Filioque, etc. Time does not seem to affirm or reaffirm that which is disagreed about under various anathemas. Unless you think only your Church is correct, which is a source of the dis-unity that each RCC and EO perpetuates. The Protestant positions allows you to hold onto essential Christian doctrine that we share with the RCC and EO without having to anathametize other Christians who believe differently on some beliefs.
I agree. I appreciate the dialogue a ton in part because it showcases the differences between us. One thing that I can't wrap my head around with EO theology is that it basically seems circular in its appeals to authority: How do we know which councils are valid? The church accepted them. How do we know who is inside the church? They accepted the councils. How do we know which practices are heretical and which are Orthodox? They're the ones the whole church has accepted.
@@tategarrett3042-this. I explored Eastern Orthodoxy seriously for about 2-3 years and was very briefly a catechumen, but there were certain issues I couldn’t get past, including the messiness of much of Church history and the associated questions about how one defines ecumenical councils.
@@doubtingthomas9117 EOC had been frozen in time, at the 7th Ecumenical Council of 787AD. They have not been able to convene an EC since then. The 17 autocephalous churches have not been able to agree with each other. Ecumenical councils are a gathering of all bishops to discuss, clarify and settle matters of Church doctrine and practice, etc. This allows the church to keep up with the times by giving guidelines to new social issues that comes up as time progresses. Without the ability to convene a council (to gather all its bishops), the church would be frozen in time and would not be able to deal with issues that beset society.
@@doubtingthomas9117 There have been 21 Ecumenical Councils, throughout history. The Catholic Church holds that these 21 ecumenical councils are infallible when approved by the pope. Eastern Orthodoxy: Accept one to seven; some also accept eight and nine as authoritative. Anglicans and Lutherans: Accept the teachings of one to seven, but do not accept them with the same authority as the CC and the EOC. Other Protestants do not accept any authority beyond their local churches or pastors. ( The 7th Ecumenical Council is: The Second Council of Nicaea in 787AD ).
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
It was great connecting with you Dr.Gavin. We look forward to the future of Orthodox/Protestant dialogues. ☦️
likewise! Thank you for hosting a great discussion!
If only you could stop anathematizing us canonically....then again, if you do that you admit to development in doctrine
@@stefanlaemers3053I respect that they anathematize us because as I understand it, they have a mandate from God to faithfully preserve the tradition (including practice and scripture) they believe has been passed down to them. Imagine if as a Protestant someone from a new sect told us that they don't like that we won't revise the Bible or change the words of the Bible for them to fit their new sect. We couldn't ever entertain complying 😅 We might even tell them they aren't "saved" based on their new theology that warps scripture. So perhaps we are doing the same things to others and then crying foul when it is done to us.
@@stefanlaemers3053 We didn't anathematize you. Your tradition didn't exist until centuries later.
Eu achei a discussão maravilhosa! Todos vocês estão de parabéns. Sou Protestante Presbiteriano e após ver esse vídeo fiquei mais esperançoso com uma futura união (que graças a Deus e a internet já está em curso) fraterna entre Ortodoxos e Protestantes, ainda que, a princípio, não seja uma união doutrinal mas fraternal. Penso que a união fraternal não só é possível mas inevitável entre nós. Qual Protestante que após assistir esse vídeo não amou de ardente coração os Ortodoxos? E qual Ortodoxo, que após ver este vídeo, não amou mais ardentemente os seus irmãos Protestantes representados na figura do Pastor Dr. Ortlund? Que o Espírito Santo continue nos abençoado e promovendo entre nós essa saudade!
As a mom whose son converted to EO and entered the monastic life years ago, this discussion has helped me understand the differences in belief and where the beliefs come from.
God bless your son for his holy ascetic life and bless you for trying to understand his view more thoroughly.
Just would like to know, are you sad for your son?
@@gabrielgabriel5177 Why would she? Her Son has dedicated his life to God regardless. There are children of God everywhere.
@@dallasbrat81 well some parents are sad about that and many does not want their children to be monks
@@gabrielgabriel5177 agree, but we don’t have control over what our adult children do
I’m Orthodox but I love Gavin and appreciate everything he has done for my faith
I'm Protestant, and I love Fr De Young's work. I really enjoyed "The religion of the apostles" and "God is a man of war."
@@peteristevski3681Highly recommend those to works 🔥
I am a Protestant and I love YOU, my dear Orthodox brother!!! It's time to begin to declare this to one another. If it's not the time to have a doctrinal union, I think it's time to have, at least, a brotherly union. And this, for sure, is a good starting point.
@@josueinhan8436 amen to that!
th-cam.com/video/LyBheYcxkso/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
As a Protestant I can testify that I felt a big love for all these guys involved in this conversation. How enriched we are when our Traditions opt to dialogue and lay their best arguments in a gentle (and honest at the same time) conversation. I think 21st Century will surprise us very positively concerning interdenominational dialogue between Christians, specially because we're living amidst of internet revolution. And if there is a historical claim that we both Prots and Orts can agree upon is that never existed a time where our traditions could dialogue so much as we do today! And I think that is fantastic and it will bring a lot of surprise for the future!
This conversation between Dr. Ortlund and Fr De Young was awesome. Having my favourite Protestant and Orthodox scholars in conversation with one another was great. I see the work of Christ in both these men. May you continue to have more fruitful and edifying conversations. God bless 😊
God bless!
This ministry is awesome. As someone who is an ex Catholic monk and then was Orthodox you are helping to clear up so much confusion. By exposing strawmen arguments patiently and clearly, by exposing false claims of the historical monopoly-calling churches, by presenting the Gospel and how being a protestant does not mean starting in the 16th century, falling into easy believism or ignoring Church history. What joy to come home to giving Scripture absolute pride of place, allowing no council or patriarch to wallpaper over it! Thank you for your work and witness. So many people are falling for legalistic structures seeking Tradition, they barely even consider the Gospel neat and pure.
Amen!!!
Fascinating story - would you consider yourself still Orthodox? I was close to becoming a Trappistine nun, fell away, and have been trying to get back into Catholicism’s good graces, but the difficulties caused me great pause because the more I learn, the more I realize that their stance of being the One True Church isn’t ironclad. I’m starting to open my mind and heart toward the type of Protestantism espoused and lived by Dr. Ortlund. Anyway, God bless!
th-cam.com/video/LyBheYcxkso/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
@@nk-io3cf I pretty much concur with you. I can't really consider myself Eastern Orthodox anymore. But I'll take some time, like Paul in Arabia, to work through where it leaves me with it. I now attend my local baptist church. It's great. The Word preached, hymns, prayer, fellowship...no need for high liturgical frills that Jesus didn't leave us! 🙏
@@MessianicDiscipling ex-protetant of 7 years. If you can prove to me your cannon isn't a 16th century invention, and explain to me how we justify the greeks nearest in date to the new testament not making proper sense of their own language to the point they erred in nearly 90% of their religious practice. Would love to hear your thoughts on that.
You did such a great job with this, Gavin. I personally feel that your arguments were the strongest, especially from a logical and historical standpoint - but then again, what the heck do I know?
You both were very cordial and respectful to one another, and that made this entire dialogue that much more enjoyable and interesting.
An important question to wrestle with is, what are the risks in creating or revising doctrine based off of historical evidence? We are constantly discovering new bits of history, and there is much that has been lost that can never be rediscovered. If archaeologists were to find an even earlier version of some book of the Bible than what is used today, with significant differences, should we revise the Bible that we use today or trust in the wisdom of our predecessors and in the Holy Spirit to have guided the Church to the truth?
I agree. De Young brought up some very interesting and important pushback, but ultimately, the case against early church iconodulia- while not infallible (wink)- is still strong.
Is it possible it was common practice, and the records we have are just outliers? Yes it is. But they *are* all we have.
@@mattroorda2871 I don't think it's a question of revising the Bile or doctrines but rather keeping our practice of it in accord with what the Bible teaches, and the earliest Christians practiced. And when history and scripture both reveal that there has been a development we have every reason to reconsider it in light of scripture. At one point in the discussion for example Mr. De Young said something to the effect of "we don't believe in this because it is attested to at such and such a date by evidence... but because it happened". this sounds very powerful but under examination it totally falls apart. How do you know that the thing happened? How do you know that it isn't a development for example like the Papacy, and that like the Papacy, it isn't founded on spurious/forged documents? The only way you can is by examining scripture and history closely to see what is actually taught and what actually happened.
@@Draezeth Respectfully, I disagree that those are all that we have. That may be true for a modern secular person, but for a Christian, the Faith that has made its way down to us today is an important piece to consider in and of itself.
@@tategarrett3042 You have to be careful trying to determine what the earliest Christians believed via historical evidence, because there were heretics amongst the Christians from the very earliest days, as attested to in the Scriptures themselves, so depending on what bit of historical evidence is available, you can be misled. And yes, you can try and use the Bible to disprove these heretics, but heretics are almost always using the Scriptures themselves to justify their beliefs so it ends up being a question of who's interpretation is correct.
The point that Fr. De Young was making with the statement about the Dormition of Mary was that the debates between Roman Catholics and Protestants tend to be very evidence-based, examining historical documents to try and prove or disprove whether or not this was a later invention. The Orthodox aren't terribly interested in giving proof from history. For us, it is enough that this is the Faith of our Fathers that has been passed down to us for us to cherish and preserve for our children.
I like seeing the family, at large, getting along instead of flinging condemnation
100 percent! If we will share eternity together then we must learn how to get along and love one another in this life too.
That's the dream...but there should be a lot more unity. We have to transcend the false notion that any of us can box Christ in to our visible wee jurisdiction and call it the Church! It's an old game for elites that!
Amen!
Only one side has it considered infallible that the other is destined to hell for not following their traditions. It's not a "both sides" thing.
th-cam.com/video/yQaRVlh0KtY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=K_lf-zsTYefigp14
What a great conversation. Both sides were well informed and modeled how I wish all conversations online happen.
Gavin, thanks so much for presenting Sola Scriptura as a "modest position." Your explanation of how and why it matters just cuts through the haze and resonates both logically and spiritually, and I know I'm not alone in saying that. Blessings, brother.
Gavin, you're a powerful evangelist for the faith, and you also do it while exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit, something the Body AND TH-cam both desperately need. May God forever be with you and your family, brother.
I really appreciate this conversation. It is very respectful and thoughtful.
"If something that is consonant with Scripture comes into the church and persists, then we can say that this is the guidance of the Holy Spirit." -Father Stephen
That's about as good an articulation of Sola Scriptura as I've ever heard.
mmmmh. idk about that th-cam.com/video/yQaRVlh0KtY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=K_lf-zsTYefigp14
Except no church fathers actuslly supports sola scriptura.
You can't *honestly* read the fathers & continue to be protestant.
How so? Saying a tradition is consonant with Scripture doesn’t mean it’s expressed or written in the scripture
@@michaelvigil3436 Everything is brought to the test of Scripture. That, in essence, is Sola Scriptura. There must be an express command, a clear example, or a deduction by good & necessary consequence from the text of Scripture for something to be "consonant with Scripture". Once accept that principle and carry it out consistently, and you will arrive at something resembling Reformed theology.
@@stephenwright4973 But… scripture itself doesn’t even pass that test. Whether or not a certain piece of scripture is considered canonical or not is entirely based on church tradition, scripture itself is brought to the test of tradition. Furthermore there are things in scripture that are rejected by church tradition such as baptism for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29) that the vast majority of denominations reject outright, how do you explain this based on your understanding of Sola Scriptura?
I think one of the difficulties of these dialogues, is that at some point, an individual chooses where to place their faith and evidence to the contrary is dismissed. Protestants put their faith in understanding God through the Scriptures over and above everything else. While Orthodox place a great value on Scripture, that understanding is shaped by the church. Historical evidence or lack thereof is not significant. Appeals can be made based on authority by citing EO saints, but only where the church as a whole has already affirmed the saints position on a given matter. There are Orthodox saints that largely held on to the teachings of the church, but strayed in certain areas. Their sainthood is not dismissed, as Orthodox don’t require absolute perfection as a condition for sainthood and thus acknowledge that saints can err. Therefore the argument for church tradition really becomes circular at some point- church tradition is affirmed because the church has affirmed it. You either accept this at face value or you don’t.
Yes, ultimately people choose where to place their authority based on something other than just the good logical arguments on all sides. Thanks for pointing this out! I am frequently saying this. 😊
yes you should check out george salmon a historic reformer who actually popularized the circular argument against an infallible church. this argument actually has some fun history to it between a bunch of reformers and catholic dialogue. not to sure about orthodox even though they would take a similar position against the protestant.
Ultimately the question comes down to the evidence of the Holy spirit. Everyone appeals to the Holy Spirit as the source of authority (for scripture and/or Holy tradition) but we have different claims/evidence of where the work of the Spirit is confirmed. This is why I have stopped listening to people who are pure academics, or simply in a particular church role. Rather, I now require evidence that a person is manifestly working with the Holy spirit and with Gods charity before I receive their opinions as weighty.
@@BrianLassek I completely agree about not putting too much stock in academics vs. people who actually know God. Just curious, what would you consider to be evidence that a person is working with the Holy Spirit?
Why is it so difficult for protestants to grasp that they are not putting their faith in the scriptures, but their INTERPRETATION of the scriptures. Two individuals will just use scripture to understand God, and one will come out Trinitarian, and one Unitarian. The scriptures and not self-interpreting. Protestants will submit themselves to an authority (i.e. their pastor) in so far as their pastor preaches in agreement with THEIR interpretation of the scriptures. Protestants are an authority to themselves, not the scriptures. There is no way around it.
I am an oriental orthodox and LOVE both Gavin and Father De Young. I certainly find myself agree with Gavin sometimes and Gather Stephen some other times. Surprisingly father De Young goes against the current view in Orthodox Church of Genesis 6 and adopts the angelic view of the Sons of Elohim. To me that’s pretty honest and open minded and a demonstration of a living tradition that’s appealing to the truthfulness of the text. ❤
Excellent conversation! Lots to think about. Great job by both men. Coming from a Reformed Christian.
Great discussion, very cordial and respectful.. appreciated this 👏🏻🙏🏻
Very edifying conversation, please do more of these!
This is such an important conversation! Thank you.
Great Job on this dialogue Gavin, I have really learned a lot from your channel. It is evident that Christ is using you in this area. Keep it up my brother.
Thank you so much Dr. Ortlund. This is an amazing dialogue. Scripture should be the final authority of all Christian practices
What a great and respectful discussion. Very informative and I can understand the reasons behind the differing opinions.
Thank you all
I wish the conversation didn’t cut off when it did! Some interesting points were raised at the very end
Indeed, it was just getting VERY Interesting.
I agree. What a shame we were getting the the meat and potatoes!!
Took 6 years to get my BTS and MDiv at Toronto Baptist Seminary and Bible College. Met my wife there. Learned so much. Never regretted it.
This was a very enjoyable discussion to watch. Thank you for all the parties that were involved. I think all were edified 🙏
It would be wonderful if we could have more dialogues like this! Hopefully either this channel, or others, will participate in more discussions in the future. I find them very insightful and interesting.
I love this conversation. HEALTHY, LOVING, HONEST, and GENUINE conversations between fellow Christians about their disagreements are so edifying to hear. Props to all parties here. Hosts had some great questions especially the very first questions to clearify Sola Scriptura and Sacred Tradition. Such an important baseline to set at the start of discussion! And im very glad Gavin caught himself at the end and addressed that he had inturupted a bit there. God bless you guys ✝️
This was so refreshing! The discussion was both charitable and firm. It really helped highlight where both sides are coming from and the sticking points for each. Great strides were made in my understanding of the issues. Thank you Gavin and Stephen for sharing your insights and for Jonathan and Luther for such great questions and for being such gracious hosts. I really look forward to their comments!
This was so good! I always struggled with defending sola Scripture until I discovered your videos. And this format was really enjoyable! Different perspectives and articulations emerge from debates vs conversations, so I really appreciate that you do both. Thank you so much for this! God bless!
Book by Ben Witherington, Sola Scriptura. Blessings.
wonderful gavin beautiful conversation!
On my journey from being a Baptist to Orthodox. Love these gentleman.
Where on this journey are you? Are you a catechumen?
As one who went on journey from Southern Baptist to almost Eastern Orthodox (got to the very brink of the Bosphorus) to becoming Anglican, I also enjoyed this discussion 👍🏻
Whole family was orthodox evry last one is now protestant. Now I am training to be a minister
@@BarkotSentayehu apostasy is not good.
@doubtingthomas9117 you chose anglicainism over EO? Wow, thats terrible.
My reading of Nicaea 2 is that the background matters. It seems iconoclasts were condemning and destroying icons (like what Luther condemned during the Reformation). The anathemas are directed at that division and destruction- because to NOT destroy an icon is to honor it. It was the dishonoring and condemnation that was being addressed - not that the anathema means you HAD to kiss, pray, etc.
Thank you for doing this Dr. Ortlund! I'm sorry the comments section got so toxic on the other channel. You and Fr. DeYoung are two of my favorites. I'm glad you two were able to have fruitful conversation, though I can't help but feel as if Fr. DeYoung couldn't satisfactorily answer your objections. History does not favor certain dogmas.
True fact
100%!!!
This is such an interesting part of discussions. How two people can watch the exact same thing and come away with two completely separate perspectives. I felt that Fr. Stephen De Young adequately answered the questions, though I have a feeling this may be because of my own familiarity with Fr. Stephen's work and being orthodox myself.
As far as history favoring certain dogmas (boundary markers) is really a historical fact. As in that's how it is today, so that is how history favored it. He's discussed this kind of thing in others ways, like how arguing over what scriptures are truly "canon" is a bit of a weird question because canon is, in our perspective, a statement of reality. The books which are held to be authoritative in a given church is their canon. This is why the different national orthodox churches have different canons but are still one church. And being that our church has Apostolic succession back to christ, our canons are the canons of the Church of God. The idea is the Holy Spirit was poured out on the church from Pentecost and has guided it since then, so how the church receives that history, and has received that history to this day is what the Holy Spirit has guided our understanding towards. During certain periods in history, certain truths may be difficult to discern for many, but through the course of history, when the Holy Spirit deems it the right time, He will establish the Church in that truth and the church will continue forward.
I hope that explanation is helpful in some way. I too enjoyed the discussion.
I didn't see any toxic comments, let's not be ridiculous.
th-cam.com/video/LyBheYcxkso/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
Thank You all for this talk ! Keep up the great work y'all are doing !
Saw the original video on Luther's channel. Really appreciated the dialogue, especially given Dr. De Young's academic credentials and irenic demeanor. It is best just to lay out the differences, debate the objective data, and then let the people decide.
Could you point me to Luther's Channel? I'm not seeing a link, but would like to watch some of his videos. Thank you!
What is Luther's channel called?
@@emilyolson5624th-cam.com/video/GPqNu60tX30/w-d-xo.html
@@Anita-silver it's called "The Transfigured Life". He mentioned it in the first minute
Gavin is a defender of the faith. Every time he talks you can hear the love that he has for whoever he is talking to. His arguments that he makes are strong but I think the love he has for others is stronger.
An interesting conversation that went almost exactly like I thought it would, so I'm not sure that anyone's mind will actually be changed. That doesn't mean we shouldn't dialogue -- we should. But I'm doubtful that someone like Dr. Ortlund isn't walking away from this saying, "maybe I should reconsider Holy Orthodoxy?" Hopefully, but my hunch is no.
And although it will probably be lost in the sea of comments here, I did want to offer something that could hopefully be constructive for Gavin. His line of questioning about what Fr. Stephen said regarding the Holy Spirit working in the church over time centers on what-ifs that didn't actually happen. He a couple of things like, "what if this emperor hadn't been in charge…"
All of that can be answered by simply saying: but it _did_ happen. It happened the way it happened, and things worked out the way they did. It's like saying, what if George Washington hadn't been the first president? Well, that's a fun mental exercise, but… He was.
Counterfactual History is a thing in some circles, but its intent is to work as an exercise to show the importance of what DID happen - not to call into question what happened. Challenging the way things work based on what could have happened is philosophically incoherent and leads down a rabbit trail of unanswerable what-ifs (which, ironically, is something monastics warn us not to do -- fantasy can be a dangerous trap).
Being as charitable as possible, I think that line of questioning by Gavin was a way of simply stating skepticism about the workings of the Church over time and trusting too much to this organizational process. That is fair in some ways, but in the end, the exact same arguments can essentially be made against 1) any church body, and 2) _Sola Scripture_ itself. There is no real end-point of that line of thought.
Fantastic point!
Spot on. Counterfactual arguments presuppose (Ortland probably loves presuppositional apologetics) God did NOT guide history, which I doubt he believes.
@@paulsimmons3380 exactly. I'm not sure why someone who subscribes to the idea of _sola fide_ would make an argument that so openly questions the concept of having Faith in God working through history.
It’s a really interesting and edifying time for Christendom. Because of the Internet, protestants and orthodox Christians are able to have dialogues, and this is really good for the body of Christ
First off - great conversation. I really appreciate the dialogue on both sides. On the issue of icon veneration, it's also important to keep in mind the time period this controversy arose. Islam was the ascendant power and ate away at Christian lands. Islam forbids the use of images in worship, which they view as idolatry. Many viewed Islam's ascendency as divine chastisement. Not a "slam dunk" argument by any means, just noting the Islamic influences at the time. The timing of the controversy with Islams rise is not coincidental.
Also, I can't find any Church fathers prior to 500AD explicitly denouncing icon veneration or the use of images in liturgical practices. I do find a lot of early church fathers denouncing many moral behaviors as corrupting the image of God. I'm not saying they don't exist, but "all early church fathers" speak negatively on the use of images as it relates to icon veneration is quite a claim, and I'd like to examine the evidence for my own understanding.
Again, God bless you both, this was wonderful stuff!
This was so helpful in my own journey of trying to understand both sides and where we are today. I'm a big fan of both yours and Fr. Stephen De Young. Makes me wonder - would you be open to doing a video on ways the Protestant church has swung too far in the opposite direction? Often you represent the best version of a Protestant, which is important, but for me, I wonder if there are areas where you feel like the modern Protestant church needs to "reclaim" parts of church history that have been lost -- or even highlighting how different Protestant denominations have handled these issues. It feels like we're approaching an important reflection point in reconsidering the reformation, the following Enlightenment, and coming to terms with where we are today. Thanks!
I would have liked your point about the Pharisees yoking the people to tradition rather than scripture to be addressed properly. I think it's an apt comparison. And as someone from a "Church of Christ" background this idea sums up how we approach doctrines.
Really loved the one-on-one as a follow-up to the icon veneration debate. This should be mentioned somewhere in the heading. Fr. Stephen’s podcast, Lord of Spirits, is truly amazing. Thank you, Pastor Gavin!
I watched this on the other channel. What most stood out to me is how Father Deyoung kept appealing to authority by claiming that historical sources weren't to be bieved unless they had been declared a Saint.
All religion is an appeal to authority
I don't think he claimed that they shouldn't be believed ever, but he was pointing out that virtually all of Dr. Ortlund's sources against the use of iconography were historical figures who are not considered saints due to their embracing various heresies at one point or another.
@@mattroorda2871 The thing about saints is sometimes they were declared heretics when they were alive, and I wish I could remember the name, but he was even an excommunicated bishop. Then later canonized. It was lesser mentioned church father, and the issue he stood on, he was right about. It think it had to do w/ the trinity.
@@saintejeannedarc9460Maximos the Confessor?
@@etheretherether No, pretty sure that wasn't the name. I was looking at a wiki list of church fathers and doing a shallow look into what they stood for and stumbled on this name that doesn't crop up in discussions, so I followed the links and it was interesting what happened in his life. Taking his stand, being right, but kicked out anyway and then later canonized, because by then the church had caught up w/ right doctrine.
This was an amazing discussion. Wow!! really loved it. And just for the record. I’m a Calvary chapel person raised Nazarene (turned off by denominations) and I stumbled upon Dr. Gavin learning about the apostolic fathers
Really edifying. Thank you! Soli Deo Gloria
A very cordial and informative dialog.
Thank you for this informative exchange, Father Ortlund...um-um I mean Dr. Ortlund.
Great discussion! Love how intelligent Christian men discuss oftentimes difficult to discern subjects about Christian life
I have the utmost love and respect for Fr. De Young. At the end of The Lord of Spirits Ep 28 - Leviathan, It's What's for Dinner, he has an incredibly piercing exhortation that the Holy Spirit used a few years ago to affect a momentous repentance in me. Everyone should go listen to it. I now refuse to see the division between the traditions of Christianity. I understand they are there, but I will not honor them. I will simply look for the wheat in the field and love all those who seek and preach Jesus. God bless you Dr. Ortlund and God bless Fr De Young!
Dr Ortlund, thanks so much for this debate where you clearly explained the Reformed tradition, going back to apostolic tradition. I’m learning so much. You’re an excellent communicator and teacher! God bless your ministry ❤
Thank you, Gavin.
It's funny to me when Catholics and Orthodox claim that the New Testament mentions the existence of an oral tradition, because the times it is mentioned:
1) It is the Pharisees appealing to an oral tradition in order to defend false doctrines and being refuted by Jesus;
2) It is Paul saying in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, that the church must stand firm in what has been passed on to them whether by speech or writing. However, the consensus is that this letter from Paul was written between 51 - 52. Therefore, the following books had not yet been written: probably all the four gospels (for sure Luke and John); 1 and 2 Corinthians; Romans; Ephesians; Philippians; Philemon; Colossians; Acts; 1 and 2 Timothy; Titus; 1 and 2 Peter; Hebrews; Jude; 1, 2 and 3 John; and Revelation. Which means it had only been written: James, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians (and perhaps Mark and Matthew, but we would have to assume the earliest possible dates, which is unlikely). In other words, when Paul wrote this verse, it was in a context where practically the ENTIRE New Testament had not yet been written.
Furthermore, after dealing with the two questions above, the person would still have to defend :
3) that the oral tradition has a content so different from the written tradition that it makes it insufficient for Christian life or even for salvation, which directly contradicts 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and;
4) that the Catholic or Orthodox Church preserved this "oral tradition", although it is highly questionable when studying Church history and observing the development of doctrine that both churches had (and that we can say that contradicts previously established doctrines), and the fact that, despite appealing to the same oral tradition, Catholics and Orthodox arrive at very different places (Canons, recognized Ecumenical Councils, doctrines and practices).
5) why the first church fathers placed scripture at a level above their ministries (Ignatius of Antioch) and ecumenical councils (St. Athanasius) and said that the scripture should be used to find which churches were following the truth (John Chrysostom).
Excellent comment, bro :D
The ODX don't defend anything with standard reasoning and logic. They just assert. They did not inherit our Western penchant for rational discourse and discursive reasoning. I.e., the don't practice any form of scholasticism, whatsoever, and actually scholastic thinking -- systematic theological thinking - isn't really highly valued in Orthodoxy today.
Edit: Added Ephesians, Philippians, Philemon and Colossians, that were also written after 2 Thessalonians.
... and this goes into my Top Awesome Apologetics Answers file! Bravo!
Well said. One can probably go further and suppose that the only NT writing that the Thessalonians had access to prior to the time they received Paul’s second epistle to them was FIRST Thessalonians. As far as what had been taught orally to them by Paul, one can compare statements Paul wrote in First Thessalonians to what Luke had recorded in Acts 17 in regards to Paul had originally preached in Thessalonica to get a general idea .
A good discussion can be had on the authority of tradition but I wish Gavin and others would quit mixing in the much weaker argument referencing the “teleohone game”. In fact, studies have shown that in various contexts oral tradition can be transmitted quite accurately . See the great Protestant scholar Richard Bauckham’s work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses chapters 10-13, especially chapters 11 and 13.
I watch your videos and I listen to The Lord of Spirits podcast, so this was a conversation I had been wanting for a long time. Great work. I just wish you two would have discussed anathema more.
@TruthUnites @Dr Gavin Ortlund can we please have a part 2 of this discussion / dialog adding a third scholar like @Trent Horn please 🙏🏼. Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷
As a Byzantine Catholic I find this discussion to be irenic and honest. In min 21:00 Gavin Ortlund pointed out to the elephant in the room by stating that as a Protestant he believes that tradition of men get corrupted overtime and he publicly said by the second century after the death of the last apostle the Church was corrupted. This is a crucial statement because had the Church didn't lapse into the Great Apostasy then there's no need for Protestantism. The whole premise of reformation is that it believes the Church as institution entirely already corrupted by man made traditions. You will not be able to find John Piper, John MacArthur, R C Sproul, or Al Mohler admitting this claim. But here you hear it from an honest man Gavin Ortlund saying that tradition of men is like telephone game that by the second century already corrupted. This is why by the Council of Nicaea you find St Athanasius the Great publicly teaching veneration of saints far earlier than Second Nicaea. In his disputations against Arius Athanasius pointed out that when people incense, bow, and kiss the icon of the Emperor they pass honor due to the prototype the Emperor himself. Notice this argument later dogmatized at Second Nicaea to venerate saints. From Protestants perspective even Athanasius had material heresies and only to be accepted when he agreed with Scripture alone. I respect Gavin Ortlund honesty. I hope more and more Protestants will be more open to publicly saying that Protestantism profess the Church had lapsed into Great Apostasy by the 2nd century. At Ephesus St Cyril gave seven Marian homilies extolling her mediatrix role in her Son's messianic role. Cyril closed the Ecumenical Council with an Akathist to Theotokos. At Chalcedon the fathers received apparition by St Euphemia. They venerated her tomb at Chalcedon during the session. St Leo praised Euphemia for her miracle at the Ecumenical Council. That's why Gavin Ortlund called 2nd century as the time when the Church lapsed into Great Apostasy not after Second Nicaea. The question then if the fathers lapsed how would we trust them on Trinity and Christology? I grew up in a Dutch Calvinist tradition and I pray for Gavin Ortlund may God give him blessings for his family and his ministry. God bless.
Great points. There is no answer, no matter how long you wait for one. All of us ex protestants know this. The acceptance of certain doctrines from the church is completely ad hoc to hold up their own views. There has never been a coherent answer to this question.
"he publicly said by the second century after the death of the last apostle the Church was corrupted." Absolutely not! How did you get a great apostasy or corruption out of the simple fact that Christians disagreed? Even in the century there were disputes.
@@TruthUnites brother did I misunderstand what you said? It's in min 21:00 you said it yourself using the telephone game comparison that the Church introduced errors by the second century. The reason I pointing this out is because many Protestants didn't say it out loud and for that I am praising you for being honest in pointing to the elephant in the room that no other Protestants dare to say publicly. Brother if the accretion is not soul damning there's no need to create parallel churches to reform her. You just need to be ordained and reform her from within. The only reason you need to reform from outside is only because she had lapsed no? How do you explain St Cyril's seven Marian homilies? How do you explain Cyril ended the Ecumenical Council with an Akathist to the most holy ever virgin Theotokos? How do you explain veneration at St Euphemia during Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon? When I was at Westminster Seminary Dr Carl Truman explained that the Church as a whole had lapsed very early. He discussed how St Justin Martyr wanted to die as martyr and asking no one helping him because he wanted to die. No Protestants would agree with Justin belief. That belief as Truman correctly pointed out is pagan belief on apotheosis. So he argued the Church had lapsed as early as second century. He taught this in class. That's why I am so excited that you're honest in saying this publicly on record. If the Church didn't lapse then why established another? John Calvin argued that entire Church East and West had lapsed. In his Institutio he argued the fathers were superstitious. The belief on the Great Apostasy is intrinsic for Protestantism without this belief it would not make any sense to oppose the Church unless she had lapsed and must be opposed. I am available on Facebook. If I misunderstood you can you help clarifying your statement on telephone game and explicit statement regarding second century in min 21:00? Please let me know if you're open to dialogue. I am in good friendship with Joshua Schooping he and I have been in conversation for years. I would like to be able to have an irenic dialogue with you too if you're open to it. God bless brother.
At bottom, every Protestant has to admit the church fell into the great apostasy well before the end of late antiquity. Augustine and Ambrose were venerating relics in the 4/5th century, something that every Protestant views as a utterly anathema to the gospel and a deeply grave heresy.
@@AdithiaKusno”…If the accretion is not soul damning there’s no need to create parallel churches to reform her.”
Brilliant, I’ve been thinking the same thing recently. To be a Protestant is to engage in a deep hermeneutic of suspicion for well over 1000 years of accepted Christian practice. Purgatory/toll-houses? Heresy. Intercessory prayers for dead? Heresy. Prayers to saints and intercessions? Idolatry. Marian devotion? Wicked idolatry. Relic veneration? Necromancy and pagan idolatry. Icon veneration? Idolatry. Viatacum and Eucharist for sick not at liturgy? Superstition. (Most Protestants, if they even believe in the real presence [which is almost none excluding theologians] believe that our lords presence disappears after liturgy). Eucharistic adoration? Superstition. This list can be extended ad infinitum.
This video was extremely helpful. Thank you!
Great convo. Much knowledge on each side. Love to see more getting in all those weeds and working together to foster more understanding and agreement over time.
This was just an excellent discussion
That was a fascinating video!
“It’s not mentioned in any of the fathers’ writings because everyone knew about it.” That’s a cop out IMO. So Paul thought everyone already knew about the perpetual virginity of Mary and iconography so he never wrote about them, but instead focused on the death and resurrection of Christ because those weren’t widely understood?
That strains any and all credulity.
St Cyril, Augustin, and Chrysostom both teach the trinity in their catechetical homilies/writings. Not a SINGLE mention of venerating icons when teaching the faith? Interesting
The irony is the Pharisee argument is they were actually taking solo scriptura to an extreme, not traditional. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” - the Jews were simply taking the written, scriptural law of Moses and applying it plainly, their error was that they were *not* being guided by a tradition that understood not just the text of the law but the *spirit* of the law.
Bring on seraphim Hamilton to talk about icons
Or Michael Garten
@@deadalivemaniacMichael Garten was caught lying on Twitter recently.
I really love this discussion. So much so that I have watched it multiple times!
thank you for representing the Protesttant point of view Dr. Gavin. our brothers in the Orthodox beliefs should also consider that the "reformation' is the Holy Spirit work..
My questions is did the Holy Spirit stop leading the church to truth John 16:13? Did the church stop being the pillar and ground of truth 1 Timothy 3:15 if is not than that what is contradictory to the apostolic faith is not true the Holy Spirit cannot contradict in its nature so both can’t be true in some topics if it’s true the Bible lied than you condemn the Bible and the Bible has error for the church which the apostles tells us to follow 2 Thessalonians 2:15 want keep in all truth and fell into error so gods a lie in your view god
Holding fast to Paul's tradition does not mean it's a free license to create ANY or NEW tradition but rather to practice what HE taught.
Right, but 2 Thess 2:15 outright states that tradition was passed on in two forms: oral and written. It is the Protestant assumption that the whole of tradition was recorded in writing. There is no evidence for that belief anywhere.
We Orthodox do not believe we created any new traditions. In fact, we believe that Protestants have created new traditions and removed original ones.
Feel like if you lean toward Orthodoxy, you eventually run up against hard to believe claims like icon veneration. If you lean toward Protestantism, you run up against interpretive relativism with no notions of capital T truth, as all men are fallible, which includes their interpretive ability.
Difficult.
I am grateful for the dialogue. I would like more.
And yet you don’t question hard to believe claims like millions of Israelites crossing the Red Sea, talking animals, people being taken to heaven on chariots, etc. Only when it comes to faith in the body of Christ you behave like an atheist historiographer. See the two-minded double standard?
Where did you get the idea that Protestantism promotes "interpretive relativism with no notions of capital T truth"? Classical Protestantism is utterly opposed to relativism and absolutely believes in the Truth of the Triune God and the scripture which bears witness to his character and acts.
interpretive relativism is the inevitable consequence of protestantism whether you claim to promote it or not, or claim to be against it or not. it's an illogical system with no normative authority where everyone elevates their own interpretations to the status of "this is what scripture teaches", with no way to settle to a dispute. this is easily borne out by history where even the founders of the protestant movement all ended up with different churches and opposing doctrines. fast forward to today the number of protestant sects has grown into the thousands, all of them claiming they teach the word of God. this is clear as day to everyone, even many protestants @@Crucian1
@@Crucian1 Because the vast majority of Protestantism believes all men and all church systems are fallible, which means all interpretations of Scripture or of history produced by those fallible men and fallible systems are also fallible. If the interpretations are fallible, that means there are no capital T truths within the majority of Protestantism.
The only Protestant group I am aware of outside this relativism are Anglicans like the APA, which have their roots in protest against Rome but are extremely similar to the Orthodox Church in their view of ecumenical councils as infallible.
Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, etc., anyone who does not hold to the possibility of infallible interpretation is ultimately subscribing to relativism.
@@Crucian1 the majority of Protestants claim that all men, and all church systems are fallible. Therefore, all interpretations of Scripture or history made by men, and all interpretations of Scripture or history made by church systems, would be fallible. Therefore, there is not a notion of a capital T truth.
The only protestants I am aware of that do not hold to this notion would be continuing Anglicans like the APA. They are protestant only in that they have history in the movement, but they ultimately are very similar to the Orthodox Church in their view that church councils are infallible.
I think the big thing people miss about Nicaea 2 is that all the evidence surrounding it, the conclusions, and the forgeries/lies are of one spirit. And the spirit behind Lying, killing, stealing, and destroying is not named Holy nor is he holy.
Great discussion
It seems like every discussion I've seen of Gavin, he's talking to three other guys who are not on his side. It's quite a humbling thing to witness over and over again from him, as well as humorus.
Orthodox Christian here with an honest question: If mechanisms of infallibility do not persist in the post-apostolic Church, how do we have confidence in each of the books of the Bible and how they were collected into what we call scripture today?
I’m not gonna take a stance for all Protestants but the way I see it is that just because only scripture is fallible doesn’t mean we don’t trust the early church father who compiled the New Testament. There’s a lot of evidence in church history proving the authorship as well as a trust in god. Of course if we didn’t at the very least accept the New Testament we wouldn’t be Christian. As well as agree with major points that the early church fathers agreed on major doctrines in like the first 6 ecumenical counsel tho 7 is where we differ (not condemning btw) but I wouldn’t put that as major doctrine. Not only that we have the entire Old Testament preserved by the Jews. I don’t think deuterocanonical/apocryphal books are canon (for reason I’ve assume you have heard) but I do think a lot of them are important especially for viewing Jewish thought before the time of Jesus. Such as even Enoch despite definitely not canonical has a lot messianic thought in it.
@@dezznutts1197 thank you for the response. I just watched the Gavin vs Horn debate and Gaven also answered my question there. He said that fallible people can point to infallible things. He gave the example of St. John the Baptist pointing to Christ (of which I think is a false analogy) to a precedent to the church pointing to scripture.
@@klw272 tbf there’s a lot me and Gavin differ especially because of his Calvinism. Despite being Protestant a lot of my thought coincides with orthodox doctrine and do not vehemently disagree with anything to a huge amount (tho most I am just unsure like the topic of most of the debate) . This dialogue between both of them had me nodding my head to both sides.
I am Baptist BUT I thoroughly enjoy listening to Father Stephen De Young
A telling point in this discussion was when the argument was made that if something was a common and accepted practice in the early church, then it makes sense that no one discusses it until someone starts opposing it. A couple thoughts on this argument:
First, the parallel example given was the apostles not explicitly laying out the doctrine of the Trinity. However, this isn't truly parallel to the issue of icon veneration. The apostles certainly laid out all the relevant aspects of trinitarian doctrine in their writings. They identified the Father, Son, and Spirit as divine, they affirmed monotheism, and they distinguished between the persons. Sure, no one verse links it all together for us, but all the building blocks are there, and argued for in numerous ways. Turn now to icon veneration, and, as Gavin pointed out, nothing parallel to the apostles affirmations of trinitarian doctrine can be found in the early church. And it seems that the first things said about the practice are universally negative.
Second, I'm concerned that by this line of reasoning, just about any aberrant practice could be justified. What accretion in doctrine or practice could be ruled out, since it could always be argued that the lack of discussion surrounding it proves that it was commonly accepted.
If icon veneration and praying to saints was meant to be a central doctrine, and the Orthodox have certainly made it that, there should have surely been some OT precedent for it. Jesus might have modeled it, and certainly the apostles should have.
That is hardly a telling argument when numerous people *are* saying "cover icons" or "move them out of the church."
Honestly, that argument does not convince at all.
What is really wrong w/ the argument of it wasn't really discussed until someone opposed it, is icons, and any art in the early church was very strongly opposed. There were bloody battles fought over it. Esp. when it came to praying to them. The iconoclasts used to come in and destroy images. Somehow or another, the iconophiles finally won. I think it was Gavin who said in a talk once, that we have always had a struggle w/ idolatry as people. We see that leaning to go back to it again and again w/ the Israelites. I think we've done it as Christians, only now it's been entrenched for a good thousand years in over half of Christendom.
th-cam.com/video/LyBheYcxkso/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
There are many saints in the church.
People would pray to them, "seeing" their image in the minds and eyes makes their prayer more meaningful. Same thing when praying to Christ, you see Him in your mind and seeing his image makes a big difference from not seeing anything. Statues and pictures, arts are all part of the early church....bible stories in pictures. Most men were illiterate for more than 2000 years.
Islam bans any image of their god and their prophet, they are cold and scary.
Praying to a golden calf is a totally different thing.
Why make a big fuzz of of this. Icons are beautiful art.
A cathedral would be cold and sterile without them, it would be like a meeting hall.
My problem with Dr. Ortlund's argument against Icon Veneration:
I think it is fundamentally a conflation of icon veneration and "graven images." The Church Fathers repeatedly speak against "images," but it is entirely possible that they are using "images" as shorthand for "GRAVEN images." Considering the early church did in fact have images in the literal sense, it is hard to believe that any of them were against just literal images rather than specifically graven images.
The question is whether the early church would've considered showing any form of honor to an image at all to be the same as treating it as a graven image. Considering even the iconoclasts at Nicea II had no issue with showing honor to images, and co sidering that even protestants today do not have a problem with this, it is difficult for me to believe that they would've considered honored images to be the same as graven images. Indeed, this practice was and is today universal among people in all nations, so it is unlikely that the early church would've felt the need to write about it any more than they would've needed to defend their practice of breathing air.
Not to mention, offering honor to images is literally the entire basis of treating other people kindly. They are images of the Father, and the greek word for "image" in scripture is "ikon."
Saw this on their channel and thought it was very good. As I’ve suggested before I would love to see Gavin dialogue with a Catholic scholar of the same type. As much as I respect the impressive non- accredited scholarship of Erick Ybarra , would love to see Matthew Levering or Lawrence Feingold . Bishop Barron would be a good guest as well.
I really enjoyed this conversation
I think arguing that other worldly religions use a more Sola Scriptura model is more of an argument against it than for
I believe you may have misunderstood the point. What he was highlighting is that in various faiths, there is a foundational authoritative text or work that later discussions or traditions must align with before being accepted as the standard moving forward. That is not to say that other faiths’ ability to apply this practice is without error-no different than how Catholics place traditions and the Magisterium on par with the Bible.
@@Tramaine108 no I understand what he was saying, I'm just saying appealing to other world religions as evidence for why Sola Scriptura is normal (let alone correct) isn't at all a good arguement for it. Appealing to something like Islam and saying "see guys? The Muslims do it therefore it's normal for us to do it!" sounds more like an argument an online RC or EO apologist would make to smear Protestantism than anything else. Like they're literally debased heathens and that's who you're appealing to? What?
Appeal to St. Augustine or reason or something not to the religions of demons and the practices of the children of satan. Pointing that out literally made me consider the papists again
I normally watch kipp davis and josh bowen talk about gavin. Great to see him talking to priests from my tradition.
Great job Gavin
Love this dialogue. Grateful for Fr Stephen’s knowledge and love Dr Gavin’s challenging questions. But as former Protestant for 30yrs I can see, it always depended upon how,” I SAW.” Or it always depended if,”I AGREED.” It was very difficult for me even to trust my Pastor at the time when I was a Protestant. It always depended on MY KNOWLEDGE. I never trusted. Though I would have said I was. I am now Orthodox and Trusting God leading His Church.
He finally invited real Orthodox people! Nice
Thanks for being kind gentlemen.
Such a great discussion
Like many others... I have to say all participants showed Grace and professionalism. As it should be! Great job
I am quite impressed with everyone's demeanor. Dr. O, your early church Fathers studies really shines in your discussions. Knowing their attitudes towards various subjects is quite refreshing.
th-cam.com/video/LyBheYcxkso/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
Who’s David?
Dr. Gavin, I think you’d make a great Anglican! You’re welcome to join us anytime!
Gavin, I know you've written some about why you left presbyterianism and became a baptist, I don't know if it is tiresome to talk about further about the topic. Even though you've debated Dr. Cooper on infant baptism, would you consider talking about the reformed (covenantal) view of infant baptism? I've recently read a book by Guy M. Richard on the subject and found some of his arguments really compelling.
I greatly appreciate all of your content, keep up the good work sir!
What’s the name of the article that he wrote about becoming Baptist?
I had Guy Richard as a professor during my seminary days. I think I got to read a prepub version of the book you mention. One question I asked him based upon the book, and one that seemed important to me, since it dealt with the crucial claim in dispute between the Reformed/Baptists was: "If you say that the children of believers are included in the New Covenant and experience Covenant blessings, which of the enumerated New Covenant blessings do they enjoy?"
The point of the question was that in class, he and others would refer to the children of believers as Covenant members enjoying New Covenant blessings. But, when such blessings were mentioned, they were never any of the enumerated blessings of the New Covenant. So my question always became, how can we say that these are "members" of the Covenant if they don't participate in any of the enumerated blessings?
Do you know if the question is answered in the published book?
God bless you Dr.Ortlund!
I’m curious as to why the entire discussion was about icons and Nicaea II. I understand it was just a free form discussion but I don’t get why you never tried to defend the thesis of sola scriptura in that space. Also, on what grounds are we to accept Nicaea I? If Dr. Stephen’s argument of the biblical Unitarian wanting to revise it stands, what is the principled, non-circular way to affirm Nicaea I but deny Nicaea II against that Unitarian? And, going off another of Fr. Stephen’s points, how do you parse out the correct and incorrect theological interpretation of Scripture if it’s as subjective as the doctrine of the right of private judgement makes it?
I think the last topic explains why the scriptures are so important when building your basis of theology with scripture, then informing that comprehension further with respected teachers of the faith. When requested to find an affirmation of theology in the first 500 years of the church, our goal shouldn't be to empty the hands of our critics, but it should be to push forward scripture with some known church fathers. Otherwise, now we don't believe something due to a lack of evidence instead of negative propositions
I think De Young conceded to your view about the need for reformation when he said "the whole Church can get things wrong for short periods of time". I was surprised to hear that as I always thought that the Eastern Orthodox held the same view as Anglicans and Roman Catholics that, although individuals can err and councils can err, the whole Church cannot err. I wonder if De Young has a modernist view which is not typical of Eastern Orthodoxy. He seems to hold that the whole Church, the WHOLE Church, can defect into error. The fact is that even when the Arian heresy was dominant, the whole Church did not err, but continued to teach the truth and opposing the heresy, as we see in St Athanasius and the other faithful at that time.
Saying that the Reformation was reacting against real abuses is no problem for an EO. They freely admit that Rome had become cancerous by the 1500's, but they do not concede that the Reformers ended up with the correct cures (plural).
Perhaps Fr De Young wasn’t being precise in making statement. I would certainly think he would agree that the WHOLE Church never lapsed into Arianism or any other heresy that denied a fundamental aspect of the GOSPEL.
The church can never be in error in its doctrines on faith and morals for even a micro second.
The church is human and can err in its discipline and practice, but never in its divine teaching of faith and morals. There are red lines that the true church can never cross..
I’m pretty sure low church Anglicans believe that the church can make mistakes.
DeYoung is def a modernist.
This is beautiful. More of this please and less calling each other heretics. All Trinitarians should strive together in love for truth.
I’m hearing a lot of argument from silence and massive leaps in reasoning to justify anti-Biblical practices. Great discussion, gentlemen.
Along with appeal to authority, circular reasoning, begging the question and guilt by association.
I wish people didn't frame the opposing side's position as "anti-biblical." It's quite patronizing. As if Fr. Stephen hasn't read the Scriptures.
@@Josue-pi4ce I believe he’s read them . But that’s not where he stated venerating icons came from.
@@bethlHe says in this discussion that the building blocks are in the Scriptures. He believes the practice is congruent with the revelation of Scripture.
Jeremiah 29:13 "And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart."
Hi Gavin, great video. Do you know Dave Armstrong, he has blogs in response to you. Could you make a video response to him?
Excellent video. Classy, Christian conversation.
Very interesting about icon veneration towards the end - I take Dr Ortlund’s stance, great argument & historical support. Truth unites, indeed, amen ✝️🙏
Dr. Ortlund doesn't have a great stance or argument on Icons, in fact it is perhaps the weakest thing he brings up when it comes up.
Excellent!!!
Sending love from Saint Hermans of Alaska in Lake Worth. Love you Luther!
Dear Gavin, One thing I think is so critical, but often missing from these discussions and that I was so thankful you touched on was how the identity of Holy Tradition is very nebulous compared to Holy Scripture.
This is true not only of what is in the collection (the book/scroll or idea/doctrine), but also the content or definition of the book or doctrine.
Because of the myriad of copies of Scripture and near total consensus on the Protocanon, we can point to and be sure of the content of Holy Scripture in a way that we simply cannot with Holy Tradition.
This is true of both the writings of Church Fathers, I love Irenaeus but there are sketchy places where lines are likely missing or we are not quite sure what he wrote, and the declarations of Councils, we do not have records of everything Nicaea I produced.
The other point you made that I think was so important is that the Church have a mechanism and standard for correction. King Josiah rediscovering the Book of the Law is a beautiful example of this principle in action.
It seems a bit odd, but as Protestants the fallibility of the church is one of the most important and precious doctrines we hold to.
@jonathanhnosko7563 How is the identity of Sacred Tradition nebulous when all Apostolic Christians (Catholics / Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox) accept the Real Presence in the Eucharist, intercession of the saints, icon veneration, praying for the dead, sinlessness of Mary, bodily assumption of Mary into heaven? And this given there have been splits among these churches.
@@FideiDefensatrix Thank you for your question. Your points are well taken. All I am saying is that you can point to Holy Scripture as a concrete thing (what scrolls and what do they say) in a way that you cannot with Holy Tradition. What is Holy Tradition? What are its boundaries and contents?
Sure, there are many commonalities, I would add making the sign of the cross to your list, but if things are going to be on the same level as Scripture, the very words of God, yet with less consensus, that is problematic.
(purgatory vs toll houses, original vs ancestral sin, did Mary have a nature identical to ours or somehow different, did she die or fall asleep, were Jesus' "brothers" children of Joseph from a previous marriage or Jesus' cousins, did Mary and Joseph make mutual vows of virginity upon learning of the nature of her conception of Jesus or did Mary make a lifelong vow as a small child?)
@@jonathanhnosko7563 Ok sure but we can only know what books constitute the Bible b/c of Sacred Tradition.
@@FideiDefensatrix Also, the 3 communions you mention all use different versions of the Creed and none of them is the exact one produced by Nicaea I, not that I have a problem with that. I'm actually partial to the Armenian Creed. 😊
@@jonathanhnosko7563 Apostolic Christians obviously have some differences with each other which explains why we’re separated but we have far more common core beliefs with each other than what the thousands of Protestant sects have with each other. That really is the irony of Sola Scriptura, it creates more disunity than unity.
Loved these two talking together, hope for more of it - I personally appreciate the discussion and line of questioning that allows for a clear articulation of perspective/position.
I think the key point made was when Fr. Stephen states - “ ultimately the answer to that question from an Orthodox perspective is the last 1200 years of history in which those findings have been affirmed and reaffirmed and reaffirmed not just buy another councils, but in practice by what we perceive to be the whole church.”
I just don’t understand what you do with a catholic who would say the same exact thing? How do we determine “the whole church”
I think a Protestant with a historic sola scriptura understanding would say the same thing as well. We read scripture in the community of the saints and believe what has been believed throughout all time by all Christians
I agree with your post. "The whole Church" (East and West) has been divided for a very long time on the Papacy, Purgatory, Filioque, etc. Time does not seem to affirm or reaffirm that which is disagreed about under various anathemas. Unless you think only your Church is correct, which is a source of the dis-unity that each RCC and EO perpetuates. The Protestant positions allows you to hold onto essential Christian doctrine that we share with the RCC and EO without having to anathametize other Christians who believe differently on some beliefs.
I agree. I appreciate the dialogue a ton in part because it showcases the differences between us. One thing that I can't wrap my head around with EO theology is that it basically seems circular in its appeals to authority: How do we know which councils are valid? The church accepted them. How do we know who is inside the church? They accepted the councils. How do we know which practices are heretical and which are Orthodox? They're the ones the whole church has accepted.
@@tategarrett3042-this. I explored Eastern Orthodoxy seriously for about 2-3 years and was very briefly a catechumen, but there were certain issues I couldn’t get past, including the messiness of much of Church history and the associated questions about how one defines ecumenical councils.
@@doubtingthomas9117 EOC had been frozen in time, at the 7th Ecumenical Council of 787AD.
They have not been able to convene an EC since then.
The 17 autocephalous churches have not been able to agree with each other.
Ecumenical councils are a gathering of all bishops to discuss, clarify and settle matters of Church doctrine and practice, etc.
This allows the church to keep up with the times by giving guidelines to new social issues that comes up as time progresses.
Without the ability to convene a council (to gather all its bishops), the church would be frozen in time and would not be able to deal with issues that beset society.
@@doubtingthomas9117 There have been 21 Ecumenical Councils, throughout history.
The Catholic Church holds that these 21 ecumenical councils are infallible when approved by the pope.
Eastern Orthodoxy: Accept one to seven; some also accept eight and nine as authoritative.
Anglicans and Lutherans: Accept the teachings of one to seven, but do not accept them with the same authority as the CC and the EOC.
Other Protestants do not accept any authority beyond their local churches or pastors.
( The 7th Ecumenical Council is: The Second Council of Nicaea in 787AD ).