I’m a Protestant (Lutheran) who holds a high view of Mary watching this on the day of the feast of the assumption to try and figure out what I believe about this. Thanks for the video!
Another great video which equals heat with light. We really need more like this, thoughtful and well presented from both sides. Everyone can benefit from this video because it’s quality content from both sides which greatly benefits us as viewers. May God continue to bless the ministries of both of these men.
Yay!! Congratulations!! I was a Protestant Anglican since 2009 And joined the Church (after many, many years on the fence) at Pentecost. ☺️ It’s so wonderful to be in the Lord’s Church and receive Him in the Eucharist!
I'm truly sad for you. My mom died because she chose to worship Mary instead of giving all the praise to God for her healing. Praise be to God He is omniscient, sees our heart and makes teachers teaching wrong doctrine accountable. She was raised by nuns in a boarding school, that worshipped Mary every single day more than Jesus completely failing the second commandment - Exodus 20.
O I just love our Blessed Mother so much, how can you not? She's just so lovable🕊 I was an atheist and fully entrenched in the evils of the world for many years, but praise God the rosary and Our Lady of Guadalupe lead me to Christ and to truly love and believe in her Son.
Amen on coming out of the darkness. Luke 15:7 I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance. Allow me to understand, though, how you came to faith in Jesus through Mary...if that is what you are saying. Forgive the question if it is not what you are saying. My concern: John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. Perhaps you mean that you came to Faith from God, by the means of something to do with Mary. I'm trying to understand what you mean by "Our Lady of Guadalupe lead me to Christ".
@@tony1685 You are talking about biological motherhood. when he said that Mary is his mother, he wasn't specifically refer to her as his BIOLOGICAL Mother. Mary doesn't have to physically give birth to someone in order to be that person's mother. For instance, Jesus declared that Mary had become the Mother of His beloved disciple (John 19:26 - 27) even though we all know that she didn't physically give birth to him.
@@tony1685 surely you aren't suggesting there is no motherhood outside of biological? Even in our mere earthly existence we understand that biological motherhood isn't the only type we recognize.
I always appreciate it when protestants can disagree with Catholics and Orthodox without being dishonest. The "fight me IRL" tough-guy way of argumentation, that has become disturbingly popular, is extremely off-putting and uncharitable, and Dr. Ortlund stays away from that, so props to him.
@@brittoncain5090 Ive seen those videos. What Trent does is embellish a topic and fabricate a alternate meaning to suit Trent's agenda. Trent is a chronic unrepentant Lier in those Videos. Here's a case and point re-rebuttal of Trent's rebuttals. Mike calls him out several times and even links trents original video below because mike has nothing to hide, unlike Trent who doesn't do in kind. th-cam.com/video/hIAVbck93pc/w-d-xo.html
@@bobbyrice2858 Mike Winger? You mean the James White devotee? 😂😂😂😂😂 No, thanks. He may be a decent fellow, I've never met the man, but his theology is hilariously bad.
I'm a recent convert. Ortlund's points are well articulated and reflect what my concerns were when joining the church. Sometimes I still experience these concerns. However, as Trent (person not the council) mentioned, pretty much everything that Ortlund said about Mary's assumption can be said about the New Testament canon, both in its lateness, the diversity of opinion as to which books were inspired, and so on. Moreover, while it was in the 4th Century that we see Athanasius give the exact NT canon, the church did not dogmatically declare the canon until the Reformation some 1200 years later.
Actually, the enumerated 27 book NT canon can be dated back to the early 3rd Century by Origen (as well as the enumerated 39 book Protestant OT canon, and even enumerated earlier to the second century). But the canon wasn't "declared" by councils or men (which would be subjective to will of men), but rather a divine "revelation" by God, meaning it was canon the moment it was penned, which He allowed His people to recognize. This self-authenticating model is the most objective, because it is not dependent on the subjectivity of men to "declare" what is & what is not Divinely Inspired. Mary's Assumption the other had was not a "universal" belief in the church until centuries later, and wasn't dogmatized with an anathema for denying it until the 20th Century, despite Catholics & Orthodox believing in it before that. So, to compare the canon to the Assumption is like comparing apples & oranges. If you haven't read Dr. Michael Kruger's book, "Canon Revisited," I HIGHLY encourage you to read it, because it explains - objectively, and without being circular - why only the self-authenticating model can give us certainty to what the canon contains & is limited to.
@@BornAgainRN I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your response and may check out Kruger's book. But I'm very familiar with the Protestant presuppositional approach to the Canon and don't see any way out of the circularity cul-de-sac. And the other foundation upon which sola scriptura if founded, that is perspecuity, is even more "sandy."
@@ericholmberg2963 That is why I made it a point to mention that by “self-authenticated” this does not equate with circular. Yes, definitely check out Dr. Kruger‘s book. it is not an easy read, but it is very objective, and certainly not circular. As far as sola Scriptura goes, it’s important to have an accurate understanding of it, before thinking it is “sandy.” In my experience with those who deny it, including Trent Horn, most begin with a misunderstanding of what the term means. Passages like Luke 16:19 and Mark 7 are good starting points in understanding how the term is applied.
Ortlund's points still stand. I think trying to shift the focus to the canon doesn't really help the assumption. The points he raised still stand. The RCC shouldn't be forcing people to believe things that are not even close to consensus in church history. You have to ask why they have decided to make it dogma ultimately? I sure wonder.
@@BornAgainRN Except "self-authenticating" also applies to Divine Tradition. It's begging the question to give an abstract account of how divine revelation works in general and then simply assume it would only ever apply to written documents. Yes, God's word is self-authenticating to His people. That is why the church is able to know which truths are divinely revealed. But this would apply to any belief held by the church, whether or not it's directly contained in Scripture.
It's funny when evangelicals take the pretense of being closer to the Bible and early Church without all these silly RC accretions when they always change quite substantially to be particular to their place and time, in this case 21st century America. They would look totally bizarre to Christians at any other time and place
So would Catholic. Only Orthodox can even begin to claim to be stable here. 70 years ago you'd go to hell if you had sex with your wife without an explicit intent of having children. Now NFP is basucally the core structure of every faithful catholic marriage. Catholics change their doctrine all the time.
You make a valid point. It seems fair to claim that none of us look exactly like those of the 1st Century. I think that when thoughtful non-(Roman) Catholics say things about trying to be "close to the early church"...they mean so in Theology, rather than the physical observations of a worship experience; which I admit are often a manifestation of their/our theology.
@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 The problem I see is that protestants have no way to distinguish between what is perspicuous because it is essential doctrine, not that it necessarily would be anyway, and what is perspicuous because of their tradition. A lack of willingness to see this and to understand semantics means they may nominally agree with Luther, Calvin, and even many Church fathers but deviate in the essence of their teachings. Ortland is especially egregious at the latter where he seems willfully ignorant to the Catholic argument that the fathers taught essentially the same doctrine even if it has different language. He does this to such an extent it's hard to see him as anything other than dishonest
@@tony1685 You we’re never a Catholic it takes more than baptism to be Catholic; true Catholics don’t leave the faith because they know this is the true faith.
@@tony1685 Faith alone and Scripture alone are man made traditions not found in Holy Scripture, or the Church authority that existed way before the new testament was ever written! Even though you preach another Gospel, I still love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth
@@tony1685 your lack of Biblical knowledge is quite evident sadly! Even though you preach another Gospel, I still love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth
@@tony1685 Your lack of Biblical knowledge is quite evident sadly! Even though you preach another Gospel, I still love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth
Thank you Trent for responding to this Gavin video. When I was listening to his video last week, inside I was hoping that you would do a rebuttal to it and you didn’t disappoint haha! Please always do these Gavin rebuttals (when of course they’re needed)!! 🙏🏽
This was an excellent, well-researched response! Thanks for posting this Trent. I was glad to hear you bring up Jude 9 as I've found that to be quite a relevant point.
I am in RCIA right now and struggling with this. This video made me feel the arguments are even weaker than I had hoped- I really hope I'm able to overcome this disbelief in the official dogma.
Sean, i have practical questions for you: why is it that the remains of the apostles can be located while Mary’s remains cannot? Why is it that we know where Mary Magdalene’s remains are as well, while we don’t know where the Virgin Mary’s remains are? Where is the Virgin Mary’s remains? Why can’t anyone locate it?
@@sean5388, sounds good! That may be was divine inspiration for you... What a blessing! The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is ultimately about the deity of Christ: Mary being the vessel of God and therefore is clean and immaculate, just like the ark of the covenant in the Old Testament. And that's why the Early Fathers preached that Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant, as typologically shown to us in the Bible... God bless, welcome home to the Church, the Body of Christ!
@@sean5388I know I'm posting late, but if you ever feel you want more information about the Marian dogmas, I think "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary" by Brant Pitre is a great resource.
Your rebuttals are so helpful! So often I encounter these types of videos from intelligent, open-minded, well-intentioned Protestants and don’t have a way to refute what they are saying. Thankful apologists like you exist, Trent.
I think this was a weak rebuttal from Trent. As should be obvious from the full video, the evidence from historical texts for the Assumption/Dormition is just not that strong. There are other reasons to believe in it, but the historical texts are not favorable. Pretty much all of Trent's comments boil down "well, it's not quite as bad as he says it is". If this were a debate, Ortlund would have been the clear and obvious winner.
That's why i didn't make an historical argument for the assumption. My argument was that if Christ established the Catholic Church then we can trust what it says about Mary's assumption. If Christ didn't establish the Church, then the assumption is the least of our concern. And since Gavin did not prove it is false, only that the historical evidence is not very strong, then this doesn't refute anything. That's also why i said Christians are justified in believing historical events in the Bible that have weak non-biblical evidence because of the Bible's divine authority.
@@TheCounselofTrent I think you can appreciate, then, that your conventional method of rebuttal is ill-suited to this topic. The positive argument you have stated is largely lost amid the jumble of mostly-conceded points, and when the argument does stand out, it sounds much more like making weak excuses than making a positive argument. Dwelling upon every last detail of the other side's argument just to nitpick is a waste of time when the rebuttal boils down to, "yes, that's largely correct, but that also largely misses the point. What we should actually be focused on is x, y, and z."
@@TheCounselofTrent did you know that William Albrecht also made a video attempting to rebut Dr. Ortland's video on the Assumption? I don't know if you are aware, but I made a rebuttal on Albrecht's rebuttal. It's not long - only about 50 minutes, and includes addressing some of your arguments, such as Epiphanius & Tertullian. It's titled "A response to William Albrecht's refutation of Dr Gavin Ortland on Mary's Assumption." I am not planning on responding to yours, since most of your arguments I have heard so far (I'm only an hour in), come up in my video.
Thank you, Trent, for your content. I love the comments section of these videos. Seeing so many Jesus lovers getting excited about the Catholic faith is great. Even if people disagree, it's fantastic that so many good conversations pop up from these rebuttals. May God have mercy on us and bless us!
im personally more excited about the Jesus faith than a church faith. I love conversing with Believers in Christ alone. Remember, the church makes it plain in CCC 970 that before all other intercession routs, Christ is held above all and #1. (paraphrasing, not quoting) we must be believers in Christ first, then all other priorities come second like church, family, etc. We put Jesus first we do not hold barriers between him and us so that on judgement day we do not hear those dreaded words "depart from me, i did not know you".
@@bobbyrice2858 Jesus lived thru human history. I will have to follow His history and story. If first century christians (Catholics) made up his history, than who else could not have made up his history.
@@jamesm5462 There’s a clear gap where we know very little between 70 and 320ad in terms of Church history. We know Nero and his successors were ruthless and merciless in Christian killings and persecutions. We are talking ROME did this. ROME! Then suddenly Rome is “ok” with Christianity????? No, this has Satan’s MO all over it. What he can’t destroy he will instead skew. So what we have is an early church from 320 to 1500, 1200 years of Catholic church with skewed bastardized teachings. What did the church do over that time? They caused war. They made war with anyone that would deny them. Just as Rome acted towards them before 320ad. Then Martin Luther comes along and tips the scales. Brings to light biblical truth, prints a German translation of the Bible the church horded for 1200 years. Changes everything. And Catholics want us Protestants to BOW to the ROMAN Catholic Church's and no other. Not Christ, not Jesus teachings but FIRST the HOLY ROMAN church. They haven't changed, they just don't have power today. But they have a history of Violence and unChrist like behavior.
The Greek Orthodox Church shares the same belief, but calls it "The Dormition of the Theotokos". It's another example of the many things we share with our Catholic brethren.
"Catholic brethren" official stance of the EO is that Roman Catholics are condemned to hell, that if anyone doesnt kiss icons or feel a desire to kiss icons, they are "condemned to the fires of Gehenna" (synod of Jerusalem, Nicea ii, et al.)
Good news, they just found an inscription, in the church of the Apostles in Israel, that proves Catholicism is the real/original religion. The inscription states "Head and Leader of the Heavenly Messengers,' a term for Peter, first disciple of Jesus"
This is the 3rd rebuttal of Gavin Ortland that I've listened to. I do appreciate his reasonable and charitable way of presenting his case. But in each of these videos, he seems to cherry-pick quotes. He does that with Schumacher here, quoting what supports his view, but omitting those passages which blatantly contradict him. This undercuts his arguments.
I am not cherry picking quotes. The passages I quoted are summaries of his argument from the conclusion and introductions where he is summarizing his overall argument. I emailed Shoemaker after the video to confirm he felt I was representing him well. The other passage being referenced that goes back to the 3rd century is not contradictory to the passages I cited, and refers to a Gnostic legend. To the extent that it comes into the discussion it creates a greater problem for the Catholic side. But it is not inconsistent with the general time Shoemaker and the general scholarship offers. Hope that clarifies.
@@TruthUnites > I'm not trying to make a serious charge, let me see if I can clarify. > Congratulations on your newborn baby girl!! > The OP said "cherry-pick" and I said suspicious. Both come with strong negative connotations, let me see if I can clarify where I at least am coming from. > I don't think you are cherrypicking Shoemaker per se. Its more of that the person themselves seems cherrypicked to make the point. Trent refers to this without the term cherrypicking when he says that a certain Theologian you quoted also throws in doubt about historicity of the Trinity and he says it would be more efficacious to just debate the arguments themselves. > I say suspicious, but because you are an enigma to me. Not because you are protestant knowledgeable abouf church history, thats not very mysterious. Its just the way you define your position and make your case, I can't quite put my finger on it, which is highly unusual for me. I think my chief example would be your position and commentary on baptismal generation. I can see and hear you on each isolated point in a sense, I am just struggling to see where you are coming from on how you are building all the points together, and when you quote certain passages or scholars it can come off as suspicious to me because I don't honestly see how you are building that into your larger case outside of some sort of gotcha moment. To be clear, I dont think you are intending to do that, so I will keep trying to crack the enigma until it makes sense.
@@MathAdam some fundamentalist claim everyone catholic (ie. heretic in their mind) who dare to open any other book than the bible (one specific translation, per se), let alone drawing conclusions from other sources.
Our Protestant brethren embrace contraception and see nothing morally wrong with it because “there’s nothing in the Bible that mentions it”. The fact that it actually does notwithstanding, why can’t Catholics believe in the Assumption? Since the Bible doesn’t say Mary was NOT assumed and there are indeed three examples where people are assumed, I submit the truth of the Assumption is supported more so than the contrary.
As the late, great Fr. Malachi Martin pointed out, nowhere does it say in the Bible that it is the sole source of revelation. We Catholics (and Orthodox) believe that Scripture AND Tradition are sources of revelation. And therein lies the source of most all of Protestantism's errors.
Yes, they play a game of "Catholics add all this stuff to the Bible" as if you can only have things that are explicitly in the Bible. But when you press them they admit they are fine with things so long as they do not contradict the Bible, unless they're Catholic of course
It seems wise to avoid casting wide assertions like "protestants embrace contraception". I'm not (Roman) Catholic, and I do not "embrace" contraception. An alternative consideration on the fact that there are examples of bodily assumptions: why are we so focused on one that is not mentioned in the text that obviously play some role in our decision to discuss that it is recorded to happen. It also seems like a very slippery slope to adopt things that are NOT stated to NOT happen. The list of things that are NOT mentioned to NOT happen seems almost infinite. Not trying to be argumentative, just giving you some other considerations.
@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 The Assumption of Mary was already a belief in the early church. There is no debate nor argument raised in the history of church councils in its 2000 year history including The Immaculate Conception. Marian dogmas never posed problems for the early church fathers and theologians. 2ND. Mary was seen in heaven as The Ark of the New Covenant and the Woman of Revelation / Queen mother (NT Gebirah) by Apostle John himself in his Book of the Apocalypse in APO / REV 12 battling the dragon in the end times.
@@alfray1072 Are you under the impression that the Assumption was a belief in the 1st Century, but just wasn't discussed much? How do we reconcile the lack of early evidence of something that is binding in the sense of Dogma? I'm trying to reconcile the lack of "debate or argument" in the earliest church...as this topic is seemingly not discussed. It doesn't seem reasonable to expect to find debate or argumentation against a concept that is not being discussed. Regarding the Revelation 12 verse: There are alternative interpretations to that verse, but I don't want to send us down the rabbit hole of the authoritative nature of the translation you presented.
Gavin's core objection seemed to be: "I just don't think it's reasonable for a Church to *demand* that people believe a doctrine which I don't think has enough evidence." This is what JWs and Oneness Pentecostals say about the Trinity, etc. He's bringing up the ever-present issue of Authority, but wrapping it up in a specific dogma and using his opinion of that dogma to attack Authority obliquely instead of directly.
@@JubalBed Papal justification for 27 books of the New Testament is equally weak. I don't see the justification for declaring non-Apostolic writings of Mark and Luke to be Scripture while 1st Clement is not - even though all three were at one point widely considered Scripture, and Revelation was not. Either Apostolic Succession makes sense, and the authority of Church councils is binding - or it is not, and each individual can interpret Scripture as he chooses.
@@cactoidjim1477 That's a false dichotomy. Just because I reject papal authority doesn't mean that I believe each individual should have equal validity in interpreting scripture and that we should discard the wisdom from Christians in all generations especially the apostolic age first and foremost. I also believe the holy Spirit is not limited within the confines of the RCC.
@@cactoidjim1477 Nobody considers every Church council ever held to be binding. All trinitarian churches reject the Council of Antioch, for example. Luke is declared to be scripture within scripture (1 Timothy 5:18), whilst the vast majority of Mark is simply a record of the teachings of Peter, with just a handful of sections where Mark records information from another eyewitness. I've never seen any list of the New Testament canon which includes 1st Clement, so perhaps you could clarify what your source is for the claim that 1st Clement was once widely considered to be scripture. Regardless of what somebody thinks of the authority of the Magisterium, or the Papacy it remains true that each individual will interpret Scripture as he chooses. The only way to prevent that happening is to prevent any individual from being able to read Scripture for themselves. It is also true that each Catholic will interpret the teachings of the Papacy and the Magisterium for themselves. Regardless of what we say the ultimate authority on doctrinal matters is, we still have to interpret its teachings in order to get them from the page/mouth into our minds and hearts.
@@cactoidjim1477 "Papal justification for 27 books of the New Testament is equally weak" Of course, because the books of the New Testament were not chosen on authority but according to sensus fidelium as to what was Inspired, as well as being connected to the authors.
Though even as a child being raised Baptist - I always saw Mary as this perfect Christian (wasn't too far off) and wanted to be like her... Now that I'm 17 and converted to Catholicism I must say in 50 days THE ROSARY HAS COMPLETELY CHANGED MY LIFE truly!!! ❤❤🥹
@addisonstanifer look into the book the life of mary as seen by the mystics. Its very profound book and shows the role Mary played from beginning to end.
"but nothing was written...." Well when you consider that Christianity was illegal until 313 AD and only became the official religion of the Roman Empire after 380 AD it seems kind of a miracle anyone would write something down so they could be discovered before this time. Or that anything survived the book burnings of the Romans.
We have fathers in the 200s talking about Elijah & Enoch & failing to mention Mary. But over and beyond that you want to make it mandatory on believers, not just say it is possible
@@geoffrobinson I was only stating that people will say "where does it say this" about something so ancient and during such a troubling time. It is literally a miracle that we have what we have. As long as you bring it up... Where is the list of mandatory requirements to be a believer written in the Bible? Just to start do you have to believe in the Trinity? It is also mandatory of believers to eat the Body and Blood of Jesus. It is in the Bible in multiple places is recorded by early writers it is Tradition it is taught by the Church The majority of Christians deny this. They don't believe this basic requirement of a believer in Christ.
@@bobbyrice2858 we are are soldiers of Christ, and Trent is doing a phenomenal job bringing people to the Lord, and the bride of Christ- the Church, which He gave us- the “household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15)
@@Grantthecatholic yes but remember that never implies authority granted to leadership. it means we the body of believers hold the keys to heaven and authority. Its because of guys Like Trent that this is echoed. Trent is apart of the Body of Christ witnessing to others. That's our job to. To bring Christs message to everyone. The Organization does not matter. Its the body that does. as long as we stay faithful, the devil can never come against us. That's the meaning here. Not a church structure authority.
@@bobbyrice2858 the Catholic Church was promised the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, not ordinary believers; this was given actually to St Peter alone and his successors. The apostles were promised the Holy Spirit and teaching authority in a way much different than we through baptismal regeneration, and their successors as well through apostolic succession. The authoritative Church was promised the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail, not individual believers, since a number obviously fall away from the faith. Your view of the believers only being the Church and not subject to the authoritative Church Christ and His apostles left us is wrong
Man I have been getting the "Protestants debunk Catholicism" TH-cam algorithm lately and I was JUST praying to God about it earlier. Was hoping I could get a rebuttal of Dr Ortlunds critique and what do you know, boom, this comes up today. Thank you!
Archeologist just found an inscription, in the church of the Apostles in Israel, that proves Catholicism. The inscription states "Head and Leader of the Heavenly Messengers,' a term for Peter, first disciple of Jesus"
The more I listen to these objections the more apparent it is to me the core objection is Authority. The irony, Gavin doesn't explicitly make the claim that he is an authority but it is implied. Why should Gavin believe Gavin?
There isn't much to talk about when it comes to the justifications for the Marian dogmas, it mostly depends on papal supremacy. The difference is that Gavin is not damning people to hell over believing these things about Mary. It all comes down to authority because debate within the RCC is okay but not outside of it. Which would also fall under self appointed authority by your logic.
@@Doug8521 I hear this a lot. I find it astonishing that people think non (Roman) Catholics want to be a “pope”, while simultaneously (as Gavin does) rejecting the office of “Pope”, as defined by the Vatican Council.
@@JubalBed I disagree that the Assumption of Mary, or any other truth relies solely on Papal authority. I would say, like the Council of Jerusalem, this pronouncement was only made after careful deliberation and research. Between 1849 and 1950, numerous petitions for the Church to officially proclaim the Assumption of Mary as a dogma arrived in Rome. They came from One hundred and thirteen Cardinals, eighteen Patriarchs, twenty-five-hundred-and five archbishops and bishops, thirty-two-thousand priests and men religious, fifty-thousand religious women, and eight million lay people. From " APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF POPE PIUS XII MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION (November 1, 1950)" Consequently, while we sent up earnest prayers to God that he might grant to our mind the light of the Holy Spirit, to enable us to make a decision on this most serious subject, we issued special orders in which we commanded that, by corporate effort, more advanced inquiries into this matter should be begun and that, in the meantime, all the petitions about the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven which had been sent to this Apostolic See from the time of Pius IX, our predecessor of happy memory, down to our own days should be gathered together and carefully evaluated. And, since we were dealing with a matter of such great moment and of such importance, we considered it opportune to ask all our venerable brethren in the episcopate directly and authoritatively that each of them should make known to us his mind in a formal statement. Hence, on May 1, 1946, we gave them our letter "Deiparae Virginis Mariae," a letter in which these words are contained: "Do you, venerable brethren, in your outstanding wisdom and prudence, judge that the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith? Do you, with your clergy and people, desire it?" The document goes on to highlight the historical evidence, from Church names, ancient homilies, to theological writings. If you read the document, i think you would find that although the pronouncement was guided by the holy spirit, this official proclamation was thoroughly discussed and evaluated www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html
There's a protestant arguing like an athiest again. You can't say you doubt the validity of the early Christian evidence, but believe in the biblical evidence. When atheists use the same arguments against the bible
@@bn8268 Mary had nothing to do with it, but I don't doubt you believe it. If I became a tree huger today and things went as smooth as could be I would praise the tree. Nowhere in the bible does Mary have any power. Don't forget Satan has power.
@@sammygomes7381 You hold Satan to a to high of a power, he can't change life's for the better like he Mary has you fail to realize she always recomend us to Jesus and all the prayers we give to her go back to Jesus as well that's why in the Hail Mary it says pray for us sinners.
This is another excellent rebuttals. I wonder if you also do academic rebuttals in theological Journals to advance ecumenical dialogues? Your approach is really irenic and really suitable for both platform (popular and academic).
At around 45:38 does Gavin just skip over that fact that his 5th century source that he is using clearly state that Mary was a virgin until the end of her life saying that if she did die she was crowned with virginity?
03:21: "I have no interest in debating the assumption in particular because I don't debate subjects where I"m too far removed from the other person theologically on the subject." Umm....didn't we just debate not only the bodily Assumption of Mary, but also her Perpetual Virginity & Immaculate Conception on whether or not they contradict Scripture, specifically, this past April? You can't get more "far removed theologically" than that. And the topic didn't have to do with sola scripture or church authority, either. Just saying, Trent....... 🙂
Steve, the specific prompt we debated was whether the Bible *contradicts* these dogmas. That's much different than trying to prove these dogmas in the context of someone committed to sola scriptura. When it comes to the Assumption, Ortlund would probably agree it does not contradict the Bible even if, in his opinion, it is not contained in the Bible.
@@TheCounselofTrent I was responding to the latter half of your statement: “…where I’m too far removed from the other person ON THE SUBJECT.” The subject being Mary’s bodily assumption. Are we “too far removed from the Assumption”? Yes, we are. Did we debate it (along with other two Marian dogmas we are “far too removed” from)? Yes, we did.
@@BornAgainRN Yes, the subject of our debate was whether the dogmas contradict scripture. That's much more narrow and workable where other issues like Church authority and sola scriptura don't have to be addressed beyond just asking if these dogmas are true, which would entail discussing those issues.
1:20:15 "It's so important not to yoke the consciences of Christians to believe this - that are beyond what the Gospel requires...Can you see the bind you put us in?" This is the same position that critics take on contraception, abortion, IVF, divorce, homosexual marriage, Mary's Perpetual Virginity, or even the Virgin Birth. Now they may or may not think they have good reasons to reject those things - but in any instance it *presumes* that understanding or liking those doctrines are the sole reason for accepting or rejecting them. It is strange that the vast majority of Protestants (except Anglicans) *reject* the Intercession of the Saints, for example -- even though the evidence for that doctrine is ancient and overwhelmingly well attested. That suggests that acceptance or rejection of a doctrine isn't solely about the historical evidence or ancient practice.
Our only concern should be whether it is true or not. Not how a certain doctrine makes us feel. I didn't like the teaching against contraception because emotions. But when I looked into it there are very good reasons through natural theology and secular reasoning that can show the harm it does to our bodies and minds. Now I argue very strongly against the use of contraceptions so much so that I know that any church that allows them is false by default.
You need to separate "faith" and "morals", morals does not allow for any put for liking, whereas faith presumes that understanding is necessary for assent of intellect. "contraception, abortion, IVF, divorce, homosexual marriage," Ethics "Mary's Perpetual Virginity, or even the Virgin Birth" Doctrine
"doctrine is ancient" This is a requirement for it being plausible that it comes from the early church and it possible it could be apostolic "overwhelmingly well attested" This is just a proxy for how credible people thought the doctrine was at that point in time, Protestants think the majority can be wrong currently, so they have no issue with thinking the majority can be wrong in the past.
@@yajunyuan7665 Eternal security has zero attestation for nearly 1,500 yrs and yet many believe this. Likewise things were well attested to are denied by some. Such as baptismal regeneration. If there was a "christian" group that was defending abortion would you say that belief system is valid or viable?
@@jon6car Sure, and the question is do you reject Eternal security on the word of the Magisterium alone or because you think it is non-sensical. If you reply the latter, my answer would be the same for your abortion question. The viability of a system is how many people it convince. The only way to determine is a system is valid is to compare it to an unchangeable standard, the principles contained in the word of God.
I agree "there is no way on earth to believe that" but I do have reason from HEAVEN to believe it. God is good and much better and more generous than many people think.
Brother Trent, Lutheran here, trying to figure things out. Is the Assumption of Mary a salvation issue according to the Catholic Church? Thanks so much!
I know that if the whole argument from tradition is true that this means that the assumption of Mary is necessarily true, but it's very difficult to get over my skepticism of claims like these. It's hard to genuinely believe that the apostles would have taught this and if it were another religion I think alot of people would be more skeptical of the authenticity of this claim, and the other marian dogmas.
@@austinapologetics2023 think of their writings as witnesses to what was believed in the early Church. They are historical sources, even if not authoritative.
A dogma revealed by God in the New Testament doesn't have to come from an Apostle. Just noting that fact. The Apostles aren't required for God to assume Mary and for it thus to be true and spread as a belief in the primitive church, whether the Apostles were alive or not. Even though everyone agrees that revelation essentially ended with the last Apostle, it doesn't mean, nor is it a doctrine, that God must revealed only through Apostles (i.e. they must write it in an epistle or gospel - or even in any written form!).
The Assumption of Mary was already a belief in the early church. There is no debate nor argument raised in the 2000 history of church councils about the Assumption and The Immaculate Conception of Mary. Marian dogmas never posed problems for the early church fathers and theologians. 2ND. Mary was seen in heaven as The Ark of the New Covenant and the Woman of Revelation / Queen mother (NT Gebirah) by Apostle John himself in his Book of the Apocalypse in APO / REV 12 battling the dragon in the end times.
The Dogma of Mary’s Assumption in to Heaven is grounded on the Biblical Typology of Mary being the New Ark of the Covenant. Exodus 37:1 (acacia wood was considered incorruptible) Hebrews 9:4 (Christ is the Word made flesh, the High Priest, and the Eucharist), 2 Samuel 6:9/Luke 1:43, Rev. 11:19, Rev. 12:1. Since it was Mary’s body that contained Christ, Scripture Alone tells us that both the soul and incorruptible body of Mary were placed in the Heavenly Temple.
I came to Christ late in life. My conversion began within Catholic circles. But it was the doctrines around Mary, including praying the "Ave Maria", which in my spirit I found troubling. So, I took a different path and focused on Christ alone. It was there in the embrace of the Lord's grace that peace came. It was afterward that I discovered from scripture and the earliest church fathers that there is no warrant for the extreme Mary dogmas held by Roman Catholicism.
During the first century there was no Bible. Christians relied on what leaders off the church told them and the letters of the apostles but there was no biblical cannon. The church had the number one authority. The first about 300 years of Christianity there was no set biblical cannon. The church had authority. The biblical cannon comes from the Catholic Church so it’s their book. The oldest bible we have is from the 4th century. So the first three centuries people relied on the church. God himself didn’t pick the cannon it was the Catholic Church. You trust the Catholic Church to tell you what books are the word of God but reject other beliefs? If the Catholic Church is wrong in areas it would make no sense for you to accept they have the word of God right. To reject the Catholic Church you need to reject their book the Bible. As long as you accept their bible you are under the Catholic Church authority. The original bible the apocrypha books in it until the 16th century until Luther chose to remove it. Protestants have changed the Bible by removing books. What gives Luther the right? The Bible cannon was picked by the early Christian leaders in the Catholic Church. These people were taught by people who learned from the original disciples then centuries later Protestants believe a man who never learned from the disciples or the disciples disciples. In conclusion why do Protestants trust the Catholic Church bible but not the Catholic Church. It was the church authority that picked the Bible cannon so the church has authority over the Bible because before the Bible was put together people only relied on the church. The Catholic Church is the only one that can interpret the Bible they put it together. If it weren’t for the Catholic Church Protestants wouldn’t even have their religion. You’re entire religion is based off the Bible the Catholic Church put together. To reject Catholicism you need to reject their book.
One of the things I noticed Trent does in his argumentation, he uses two logical fallacies. When he was talking about Duffy specifically he brought up how Atheists or Muslims would quote Duffy. That is called poisoning the well: the use of unfavorable information (whether it is correct or false) as proof for why the opponent is false. Example: Hitler was against smoking, so you’re a Nazi if you’re against it. He also presented it as a false dilemma. An argument that is “either you’re with us or against us.” In Trent’s case he set up his Duffy argument to say either “either you’re Catholic or you’re an Atheist/Muslim.” He also set up to say, “Either you completely agree with Duffy on everything, or you can’t cite.” That is obviously wrong because you can agree and disagree with the same person about different things. Example: Trent and Gavin agree about the Trinity but disagree about papal authority. This is not an honest way to argue
I often wonder if they believe that John the Baptist is exhibiting some form of false modesty when he says he’s not worthy of even carrying Jesus’s sandals. Taken literally than who is worthy of bearing him in the Womb?
Who is worthy to sit and eat with Him? Who is worthy to travel with Him? Who is worthy to rest their head on His lap? Considering “who is worthy” seems to be a wide concern
@@duckymomo7935 Thats like saying best friend is in better glory then your mother. God throws vengeance on those who willingly deny his mother he gave to us as a gift and this is one of the many reasons she cries tears of blood in statues or paintings all across the world not only for the sin we do but the blashphemes Christian larpers toss at her left and right.
I'm Assemblies of God, feeling drawn more and more to the Catholic Church. I'm having a really hard time getting past the Mary dogmas. I can get on board with the bodily assumption, even perpetual virginity. But sinless since birth? I'm having a hard time with that one. I know I'm on the right path, because I speak in tongues, and have been more active then ever in my faith, and even had a vision that helped me get past the communion of saints through the eucharist. But this one is tough for me, just waiting for confirmation I guess. Excellent video.
So you would understand That Jesus can do anything. A simple argument and you can tell me if this makes sense So Jesus has decided that He will become incarnate and empty himself out according to the Christ Hymn in Philippians 2:5-11. Jesus knowing He will live with parents wishes to perfect His Mother Jesus has applied His merits to Mary at her conception to prepare her for her motherhood You said you believe in the perpetual virginity...Ezekiel 44:1-3 talks about the gate that remains shut. You can see the parallel there between the perpetual virginity Genesis 3:15 has often been implicitly used to argue the Immaculate Conception Combined with Mary-Eve parallels this can make sense I hope this makes sense I'm fallible but hopefully this proof is helpful In short, Mary is immaculately conceived because she had to be to be the Mother of God
That was a thing of disagreement and held me in the middle as an Anglican Christian for almost 20 Years. Ha. There are many books and lectures and talks and early fathers discussing all of this including the Blessed Mother’s emasculate conception. As a starting point maybe you can read Brant Pitre’s book Jesus and the OT Roots of Mary. It’s an excellent starting point on all the dogmas. Prof Pitre’s is a cradle Catholic who specializes in the NT and Jewish history I believe. Maybe read the early Fathers regarding Mary as the new Eve as well as the Arc of the Covenant. St Augustine discussed Mary’s sinless state as well as many Others… ☺️
At 40:00 Trent mentions the name of Theotokos being applied to Mary and how Gavin wouldn’t believe it even if it is early, but Gavin explicitly affirms Mary being the mother of God. Also there is a difference between understandings of doctrines such as justification and reports of historical events. One of the reasons people believe the resurrection is because of the accounts of witnesses, which Mary’s assumption doesn’t have for 400 years, which is pretty damning for a historical event.
Not really actually, also that may not even be the case. Also nobody knows there was silence for that length of time, there’s very little documentation about the past that’s survived to the present day. As Trent pointed out at the beginning, there is a major issue of double standards here
@@l21n18 oh so you were saying there may have been witnesses to the assumption, it just wasn’t really written down or discussed by anyone except the gnostics? You’d think a big deal like that would be discussed more if it really happened!
If we can say the Church can affirm the scriptures and particular interpretations of the scriptures, then something Ortland views as such a secondary issue should be no problem. That is how it should be viewed, but protestants see it as rhetorically expedient to attack what they view as a soft spot to undermine the whole authority of the Church. It's funny Ortland admits this himself, and for his congregation, why shouldn't they just say his particular interpretation of the essentials is nonsense and leave? And from his view of authority, this is exactly what they should do and he can have no recourse. He sees many of the problems for protestants lacking historical credibility including from the Fathers and their problems of authority, but he just puts a band-aid on a bullet hole having to necessarily adopt such tenuous positions like RC Sproul on the Canon and evangelicals generally on authority in the new testament not really being authority but some dubious sense of local authority. This gets me thinking that similar to the situation between the political right and left, Catholics can understand what protestants are saying but protestants can't understand what Catholics are saying, and for any given issue Catholics are more accurate in addressing how various protestants will respond than vice versa.
Mr. Horn: the mere fact you admitted that this dogma can't be traced back to the apostolic age is precisely the problem. The Gospel preached by them that saved those who believed upon hearing is the SAME gospel that saves us today! The mere fact a dogma comes attached with anathema or some other threat that can't be traced back to the Apostoles and the OT is evidence enough to doubt it. What did Christ say when he spoke to the jews about denying Christ as YWH? As is written in John if you deny that I AM you will die in your sins. Therefore, the only way we know the state a person is if they won't believe that Christ is I AM. The same I AM that spoke to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and then to Moses and the prophets. We can not add to thr gospel. You are saved by believing that Christ id I AM and as a result of that belief you do his command to love that is how we know that a person is Christs disciple or follower! By believing that Christ is LORD of hosts and doing his command!
For me, I always had this question: if Mary was not taken to Heaven in body and soul, then where is her burial site and how come there's no pilgrimage there?
There’s plenty of historical figures we don’t know the burial location of. We don’t know where Daniel was buried, that doesn’t mean he was bodily assumed into heaven.
Steve Ray a Catholic apologist wrote " It seems clear that Luke has used typology to reveal something about the place of Mary in salvation history. In the Ark of the Old Covenant, God came to his people with a spiritual presence, but in Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, God comes to dwell with his people not only spiritually but physically, in the womb of a specially prepared Jewish girl"....so if we admit Mary is the Ark of the New Convenant would it appear or logically follow that the immaculate conception the virgin Mary would be lifted up by God and preserved from rotting in an earthly grave because of her individual holiness by saying yes to God to bear His Son the Mesiah and the grace....the fullness of grace God gave within her to transform her like he transforms all of us when we submit to God to be bodily assumed into heaven?
@@tony1685 Interesting...could you share what you asked him from the bible and the argument from Paul you used and what you remember his reponse was for context? What was he trying to argue? Thanks
@@tony1685 man you a phony you called Catholic answer and you got own my boy, must be a Seven day nut 🥜go back to your mama Ellen G. White can’t take a sect that try to predict the coming of Christ serious!
I can’t remember where I saw this asked recently, but maybe someone in the comments can help. If I become Catholic, do I have to pray the rosary? I can accept the 4 Marian dogmas, but I don’t get anything out of the rosary. If feels too distant and formulaic. I’ve enjoyed connecting and praying with Mary in other ways. I just don’t understand the need for someone else’s prayer strategy if it doesn’t draw me closer to God.
I highly recommend it but not you do not need to. The thing with the rosary is when you start praying it seems like it more about Mary than Jesus but this isn’t true. If you pray it correctly, often times the words of the Hail Mary fade into the background because the most important part of it is meditating on Jesus life and the mysteries of the Rosary. I can’t remember who said it but there was a Saint who said that the rosary is like the gospel on beads. My biggest piece of advice if you’re coming from a Protestant background would be to pray the scriptural rosary. You can find it on TH-cam. It’ll help you meditate on Jesus life with each Hail Mary prayer.
You are not obligated to pray the Rosary as a Catholic. The Sub Tuum Praesidium is the oldest known prayer for intercession of the Θεοτόκος(Mary), and it’s not mandatory.
Thanks for this program. I'm a High Church Anglican or Anglo-Catholic and I believe in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I guess I would probably be considered a Protestant, but I consider myself an Anglo-Catholic.
You might be interested in Christian Wagner's content. He's a former Anglican. Even if you don't plan on becoming Catholic he has some great content that could help bolster your faith in views held by both Catholics and Anglicans.
It was easier to watch rebuttals of Dr. Ortlund before I saw a post debate video with him and Trent on Pints with Aquinas because now I like him and had to unblocked his channel. With so many things spinning around in my head, my question remains: How can the opposite conclusions on central doctrines be drawn when two honest and brilliant minds examine the same historical and exegetical information?
You are correct. There is one catholic church. And it includes the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Eastern Churches and Protestants. We are all in the one true church.
@@metrx330no. One true church is the Catholic Church. Can a Protestant be saved? Yes but it’s a more complex topic than if a Catholic can be saved. A Catholic has no excuse if they don’t make it to heaven. We have Sacred scripture, Sacred tradition and the magisterium and all the sacraments. And the authority of the church. Catholics believe no salvation outside the church. Orthodox atleast have all the sacraments. There’s a video on Sensus fidellium about this very topic. Protestants (not objectively) could be saved. But if they come to learn the full knowledge of the Catholic Church that it is the true church and still reject it, they are condemned. It’s different if a Protestant ignorantly doesn’t accept Catholicism they could potentially be saved but if they willingly choose to reject after being enlightened in the truth, that’s a no no.
I've watched quite a few of these Ortlund / Trent rebuttals of rebuttals now on multiple issues. As someone working toward converting to the Catholic Church, I find a lot of the discourse helpful in conjunction with my own reading of the historic church's beliefs and practices, and scriptural basis for what were and sometimes are originally suspect ideas for me. But I'm so confused about the comments I see on Gavin's videos and how it echoes people in my own life to the point I need to ask anyone who will reply. I watch his content and before I can even listen to an obviously better researched rebuttal that I'd come up with, I'm already thinking about how uncharitable, cherry-picking, and sometimes just downright mean Gavin can come across on issues. But then all the comments are universally "Even as a Catholic you make great points!", "Wow so charitable!", "A true defender of the faith", "Wow look at how horrible Trent / Jimmy are with their ad hominems", etc. and it just baffles and confuses me. I'd love for there to continue to be good discussions about points of doctrinal difference but is this really a case of battle lines are drawn so people will just stick to their side with biases that make being charitable impossible? I don't know. I've seen echo chamber mentality from both Protestants and Catholics on social media, but I've definitely been seeing it more tipped, at least to me, on the Protestant heavy side the more I've opened up the pandora's box that is researching what I believe and why I believe it. My biggest gripe seems to be the refusal of some Protestants (including in my own personal life) to believe Catholics when they say "We believe X and don't believe Y", as if they would know Catholicism better than my priest or these researched Catholic apologetics who can clearly explain what they believe. Why are there so many Protestants ready to die on seemingly the stupidest hills? Like the insistence that Catholics worship Mary and the saints and just reject any pushback? I don't know. It's all very discouraging to have family members seemingly hellbent on deliberately misunderstanding Catholic beliefs to the point that it makes me wonder if I'm crazy for not just agreeing with them unquestioningly. Does anyone have any encouragement or insight into this kind of division and maybe some advice on how to handle the people in their personal lives who are zealously opposed to you joining the Catholic Church as if it was Satan's personal pet project?
@@victorreyno6187 To me it appears to be a team sport mentality, and you can be any kind of Protestant and it's ok. But not Catholic because Protestantism is a rebellion against it. So you'll have Protestants saying that you only need to believe in Christ to be saved, and when Catholics say we believe, they then say you also have to be Protestant. Total team sport mentality. Also heavy in teaching falsehoods, and to find out you were lied to is incredibly jarring. No one wants to have to go down that path because your whole world can get turned upside down. Family will start to resent you, your church you love becomes a place you trusted and no longer can, etc. It's hard. I was once told by a Calvinist Protestant that Catholics don't believe Jesus is the Messiah. It didn't matter what I said, didn't matter that I pointed out I was Catholic and know my faith, and that the people he learned from were anti-Catholics, which matters. He was stuck on his lie as truth. I even pointed out that he wouldn't want his worst enemy to explain his beliefs or actions to others, so why wouldn't he extend that analogy to his trusting enemies of the Church? None of it mattered. I pointed him to catholic.com when he asked more and more questions, but I doubt he read anything I gave him. He's too invested in being one of the "elite" and wanting to prove me wrong.
The simplest proof of the Theotokos’ Dormition/Assumption is that there are no relics of her. If there were, we Orthodox and Catholics would know EXACTLY where she is. But since she left us no bodily relics, it’s only sensible that God took her into glory.
There are relics from Mary. They were more popular during the 16th century and prior. Things such as her hair, and her breast milk were kept as relics.
Heres what i never understood about this whole thing: Protestants seem to recoil at the idea of the Assumption because some how it deifies Mary, yet are perfectly fine with Enoch and Elijah...like what gives?? Why be SO resistant to the idea? I mean if anyone is going to be assumed into heaven its Mary 😂 they start with a strange preconceived notion that its just absolutely blasphemous on face value and its just not
Because the bible explicitly states the Elijah and Enoch were assumed into heaven. There is nothing in the Bible that states or even insinuates that Mary was ever assumed into heaven.
@@canine_delight Well, Catholics are a people of the Word and not of the book. Everything is not in the bible, and as a quick point, the bible never states that all things are in the Bible. I get so tired of Protestants claiming the Catholic Church is so wrong and evil, my Church, the Catholic Church is about 2000 years old, we have the Word, the mystics, martyrs, the mass, and the early church fathers the deposit of faith and the Eucharist. Before about 500 years ago all Christians were Catholic.
@@canine_delight That's a non-sequitor. He's saying that a reason Protestants don't like it is because it "deifies" Mary. So does the Bible deify Enoch and Elijah? Otherwise, we don't subscribe to the unbiblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura, so the absence of explicit mention in the Bible does not count against Mary's assumption, especially if she was assumed after the writing of the New Testament books.
@@EmberBright2077 Roman Catholicism is fraught with superstition and blasphemous. It deifies Mary in a number of was including the belief that she was sinless. That's utter bunk.
@@timcarr6401 That is a series of claims, and are baseless. Regarding the one claim you elaborate on: It is not "deifying" Mary to believe that she is without sin. Or do all Christians deify Adam and Eve for believing they were created without sin?
Love Trent's application of Protestant standards regarding Marian evidence to Protestant doctrines! Check out William Albrecht's refutation/rebuttal on Patristic Pillars too. While Trent's authority-centered perspective is valid and useful, Albrecht's engagement of the scholarship and early Fathers is a bit more thorough (he also plays clips from interview of Fr Daley) and visual.
@@JubalBed so you're upset because someone said your salvation depends on this? If you don't believe this, why are you here in the first place? If you don't think it matters, then why the comment. Don't they teach you to not go to other denominations or learn other Gospels that are not of your own? Just asking
@@user-fb2jb3gz1d I'm here because I love learning, challenging my own beliefs and challenging the beliefs of others. Don't assume things about me. I believe the concept of denominationalism drives divisions at the heart of Christianity.
Wait, is Trent using the Book of Mary’s Repose as evidence for the assumption? I thought it was a gnostic book that denied the sonship of Christ and had a gnostic creation myth. Are there really no better sources for the belief’s historicity?
No, at 32:17 Trent quotes from the scholar Shoemaker-the scholar that Dr. Ortlund respects as the leading authority on this issue. Shoemaker says it is undeniable that the heretical narratives are not the first iterations of this belief and that it is almost certain that the belief can be traced before them to non-heretical groups. Trent explains that Dr. Ortlund should agree with Shoemaker if Shoemaker is a reliable source. He goes on to say that the gnostic texts, therefore, are not the driving factor behind belief in Mary’s Assumption. They happen to know that detail, but it’s not from their texts that we need to trace the history of the belief.
Mary is considered the new arc of the covenant and in revelation John sees the arc in the heavens then it's the woman covered in the stars who gives birth to what we know is the Lord, Jesus. Look how the early church fathers thought of Mary. You'll see how the Catholic Church comes to the conclusion of Mary's assumption. I had a hard time with that teaching until I read the early church fathers works
“This issue alone is enough to make someone a Protestant” ~Gavin Ortlund Really??? What issues are “enough” to reject Protestantism I wonder? Gavin plays nice and sweet talks very well but his deceitful and dishonest anti Catholic bias always comes out in the end.
Consider that he may be saying that based on the “house of cards” theory: Since the (Roman) Catholic position is that there can be zero error in teaching, it only takes one error to bring down all the rest of it. I’ve had (Roman) Catholics tell me to “not throw out the baby with the bath water”, but it really seems that a system that claims infallibility should not even throw out a drop of water. I can’t speak for Gavin, but I suspect his may be why he said what you pointed out. The “Protestant” position allows for potential error and “reform”, so if there were something that someone argued as a point to reject Protestantism….it could be that this something just needs reform. Just possible scenarios to your point
@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 There’s no such “house of cards” in true Catholicism; the church has the authority therefore the dogma is infallible. 1 Tim 3:15 - the church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
@@RedWolf5 I have much difficulty seeing the relationship between “pillar and foundation of truth” and “complete infallibility”. I understand that somehow (Roman) Catholics have no problem seeing this, as this is what The (Roman) Catholic Church says “pillar and foundation” means.
@@RedWolf5 Interesting assertion to make to someone in whom you have zero knowledge. It seems wise to avoid casting such claims on people you don’t know intimately. I’m happy to know that I do in fact adhere to Tota Scriptura. Whether you know my conviction on this matter is out of my control.
So, I am on team Catholic but I do love me some Dr. Ortlund commentaries. I think this man loves Christ with a passion and I bet he is a fantastic pastor. And no doubt he has much deeper theological training than me, and although I'm sure he wouldn't out of charity, I bet he could run academic circles around me. With that said, I find two points interesting off the top of my head. First, the idea of giving Revelation 12 to 10,000 people to find the Assumption. One could probably say the same for the doctrine of the Trinity and homoousios. To my mind this is a moot point since the Church is guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit, not 10, 000 randomly drawn individuals. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Dr. O here. Secondly, with the idea of the timeline of Revelation 12, a woman giving birth in heaven etc. My background is more in the arts, music, poetry, literature. This just isn't an issue for me. Apocalyptic visions... one would think anyhow, follow more of an ecstatic, poetic path and not a chronological timeline. I'm not saying this is a lack of imagination on his part, but simply a lack of a poetic or literary way to view the passage. Anyhow, if I lived on the west coast and was looking for a Reformed Baptist church to attend, I suspect his would be a fantastic one to call home.
Given your background, why do Catholics insist the birth a literal birth in Revelation 12:2 but not in Revelation 12:17? I see both as symbolic births.
@@yajunyuan7665 I'm certainly open to being corrected...I don't pretend to be a scholar by any stretch of the imagination. But, if I am understanding your question correctly, it seems to me the answer is in the text, at least as I read it albeit in English and not Greek. The first example you gave mentions a woman giving birth to a child. And a child that would rule the nations with an iron rod. Seems possible for a woman to give birth to a male child, happens every day. The second verse you mentioned talks about the dragon waging war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus. That seems to me to be fairly impossible for that to be a literal birth, that's a whole lot of children. My understanding of Catholic readings of this text is that there is no reason to make this an either/or situation. I wish I could recall the sources for you, but I have read interpretations of this chapter that speak of the woman clothed with the sun as the Virgin Mary and as the new Israel. Anyhow, that's the way I understand it from here in the cheap seats. Back to reading through the book of Judges for me, I hope you have a great evening.
@@johnsayre2038 "My understanding of Catholic readings of this text is that there is no reason to make this an either/or situation" The problem is this introduces relativism into the text. It leads to Catholics saying Protestants are wrong, not because they have the wrong interpretation but because the exclude other "right" interpretations. Thanks for your answer, have a great evening. My follow-up question once you finish reading the book of Judges would be okay lets for arguments sake say it is a literal birth, then why do Catholics say "she *cried* out, being in labor and in *pain* to give birth" is not literal? It seems like cherry picking to me, especially since this happens every day.
@@yajunyuan7665 yeah, the book of judges is fantastic. The last line gets me every time. Thank you for your response. I respectfully disagree that it introduces relativism. Again we could look at the Eucharist, is it bred and wine? Yes. From the Catholic perspective is it also the body blood soul and divinity of Christ? Also, yes. Regarding the labor pains of the Virgin Mary. Again, I might be mistaken and am open towards correction but I do not believe the church's magisterium has made a definitive statement on this. I believe some theologians believe Mary did not suffer any labor pains, but some going off of the curse from Genesis note that Eve was only told her labor pains went increase implying that women already endured labor pains. So then, if Mary endured labor pains that would have been not associated with the curse of Eve, only an increase in labor pains. I'm firing this off quickly with talk to text and running out the door to work so please excuse any typos. Viva Cristo Rey.
Why would you ever have relics? Why is an empty tomb proof that there was an assumption? You are really taking incredible leaps of logic to justify a demonic religion.
The two tombs are fascinating. For long only one tomb was widely known until a mystic saw the second tomb and guided people to discover it on a secluded island. And there was evidence there near Ephesus of the other tomb.
31:19 I'm a protestant and I don't believe all doctrine is found in scripture alone. But if you say: "Believe this or else you go to hell" - you better find that doctrine in scripture. Sola scriptura does not mean, that scripture is the only source of doctrine, but it's the only infallible source.
@@TheCounselofTrent I think scripture is clear as hell (pun intended) that loving God is my first duty and that there is nothing that can save me from God's wrath, except God himself, that is Jesus Christ. I have to trust and love him more than myself, my family and everything I am, in order to be saved. And even that I will fail to do, unless God himself enables me to do so, that is God, the Holy Spirit. To answer your question, I am not concerned, I have the church that teaches me how to be saved. Scripture teaches us to trust the church Jesus established, but also to be alert when she goes to far.
@@georgwagner937 Not. It's not clear as hell. The evidence of this is the Epistle of Peter about St Paul writings and of course the multiple and contradictory interpretations in the protestant field when there is not a solid Magisterium.
@@Fasolislithuan your "solid magisterium" is interpreted in a myriad of contradictory ways. Is it therefore wrong? Or is your method wrong because people misunderstand what is being taught?
15 years ago when i was a catholic it really bothered me when I went to the apologetics and found contrived answers about papacy, Mary and all the catholic particular beliefs. Some months ago I knew about sort of a new wave of catholic apologists and checked your responses to Gavin. Now I found that the catholic apologists are even worse! The contrived answers, appeals to Newman concept of doctrinal development and the way you read your ideas into the scripture and into the fathers is simply unbelievable. Dr Gavin has a strong case about these deviant belief from scripture and now I know Rome is exactly the same. Every catholic apologist has surrendered his mind to the Pope: No matter how contrived, how far fetched the response needs to be, Rome and the Pope needs to be defended
So sad Catholic church added all this Mariology in their tradition when it's not Biblical at all but then again they added many other doctrines that are not Biblical either just like what Calvanists did.
@@thinkerj Correct. But what we do have is history, reason, and the infallible teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in support of the belief that Mary was assumed. IOW, there are solid reasons to believe that Mary was assumed. Since there is NO scriptural evidence against it, Protestants have nothing but their own prejudice against the Catholic Church.
@@randycarson9812 Well, I do not believe in any "infallible Magisterium", so that's that. And what do you mean by an argument from history in this case? That there are historical records of her assumption?
@@thinkerj You should believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church since it follows from scripture. Yes, FROM SCRIPTURE. Here's how: 1.Jesus does not teach error. (cf. Jn 14:6) 2. Jesus said to His apostles, "He who hears you hears me." (cf. Lk 10:16) 3. Therefore, the apostles do not teach error. 4. Jesus said to His apostles, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (cf. Mt 16:19, 18:18) 5. By this God-given authority, the apostles appointed successors, the bishops, in the Church (cf. Acts 1:12-26, 2 Tim 2:2). 6. Therefore, the bishops in the Church are the successors of the Apostles. 7. Therefore, the bishops of the Catholic Church, led by the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) and accompanied by Jesus until the end of time (cf. Mt 28:20), continue to teach in the name of Jesus without error. 8. Therefore, anyone who hears the bishops in the Church, guided by their apostolic authority (cf. Acts 20:28, Titus 1:7-9), will not hear error. Just to drive this point home, consider the promises and assurances Jesus gave to His Church which would be: 1. built it upon solid rock (Mt 16:18), 2. led by a steward acting with Jesus’ authority (Mt 16:19, Is 22:20-22), 3. authorized speak in His name and to bind and loose (cf. Mt 16:19), 4. endowed with the Holy Spirit (cf. John 14:26), 5. safeguarded by the charism of infallibility, preventing it from teaching error (cf. Mt 10:40), and 6. accompanied by Jesus until the end of time (cf. Mt 28:20), Given these divine guarantees, how could such a Church deviate from the truth? Is Jesus incapable of protecting and guiding His Church? Isn't it more plausible that those who broke away 1500 years later either misunderstood or simply rejected the Church's teachings?
If Elijah was caught up, and Enoch was caught up, what makes anyone think anything other than the Mother of our Lord being caught up? Would God allow the womb that held Christ to decay? Anything other than the Assumption of Mary sounds strange and foreign.
I absolutely love being catholic… that being said, I still sometime struggle with Marion doctrines because for so many years I had Protestant doctrines shoved down my throat
Great discussion. I seriously doubt he’ll take you up on the issue of authority. Protestants even dodge a piker like me on that one. They always want to stay subjective so they can apply their own creative interpretations to both scripture and tradition. The moment you pin them down on their authority, and contrast it with even scriptural support like the great commission and the giving of the keys to Peter, or what scripture itself defines as the pillar and bulwark of truth, (hint, it isn’t scripture or a Protestant theologian), they run for cover. But I hope he will take you up on it, I would love to hear that one!
@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 I don’t have to interpret anything. I just need to follow the teachings of the Church Jesus founded and gave authority to teach in his name. Matthew 28: 18-20 makes things pretty clear; “18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
@@thedomesticmonk772 How do you “follow the teachings”? Do you read them? Does this not require interpretation? Do you listen to them? Does this not require interpretation?
@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 Please spare me the death by 1000 cuts and get to your real point. This is going exactly where most discussions with Protestant’s go. I provided you chapter and verse for the authority given by Christ to his church and now you’re trying to change the subject. The Church was given authority by Christ to preach and teach in his name. Was it not?
@@thedomesticmonk772 Ok. Sorry to get you so frustrated. You must personally interpret the teachings of the (Roman) Catholic Church in the exact way that you appear to be chastising anyone who would use the Word of God as their final guide. You interpret the teachings of the (Roman) Catholic Church without question, as if the language of men is more valuable or understandable than the Language of God. One could argue that you are using “Man” as your final authority, while someone who relies on “The Bible” is using GOD as their final authority. Lastly, can we drop calling anyone who is not (Roman) Catholic as “Protestant”. I’m a Christian.
Can someone tell Ortland that he has no way to differentiate whether the text is actually perspicuous and he's doing good exegesis vs just importing his pre-existing tradition to the text. This isn't the first time he's done a "ask 10,000 people." Yes, they will all bring their implicit knowledge with them to the text. Catholicism actually recognizes this reality whereas protestantism pretends everything is perspicuous and if you're good the meaning should be beamed into you upon reading it, which is of course why there are so many interpretations that tracks perfectly to a common descent and evolution from a shared tradition
As an Orthodox, this is a perfect argument not just of Protestantism, but of Romanism, where encyclicals and clarifications are needed in order to interpret the Pope, discern what is ex cathedra, and so on, but those must be interpreted as well, and the divergence of interpretation has lead to almost a dozen major theological schools within one "communion."
@ZachCICM No, it can't be, because who interprets the clarification? Think about the death penalty: Francis called it "against the gospel" like his predecessors, but trads are dead set with their strong argument for it being allowable as part of Holy Tradition. Where's the clarification? Well, it's right there. Death penalty is against the gospel, and as per Trent and V1, all Romanists must assent to that even if it's not extraordinary magisterium (and zero Roman Catholics can even reliably discern what is extraordinary magisterium, so it's a useless doctrine in the first place). HAHAHAHA Watch Jay Dyer's 9-hour ending of Trent Horn's career. He distills things simply and cites exhaustively. I was educated in Rome, so unfortunately not much was new to me, but it's remarkably useful for those that know Romanism a bit less. And no, there is absolutely zero Orthodox belief in ADS, and zero in Filioque, except for that of an energetic procession. We don't go by individuals, but by Vincentian dogma, councils, Scripture, and Liturgy. This is basic, basic stuff, and I've yet to find a Romanist who understands the basics and doesn't end up leaving! Smartest RC I've ever interacted with on the internet just left. Top 5 all have. The ship is leaking!
@@cyriljorge986 No lmao. A living magisterium that is there to keep up with the ever changing world is good actually. That the interpreter needs an interpreter needs an interpreter is not something that uniquely cuts against everyone but the Orthodox
My pre-listen material is that Mary’s assumption has precedent in Elijah as a sign of divine favor from suffering death, consistent with prefiguring the resurrection that we should not suffer death, and that Mary assumption is a logical conclusion of another dogma, immaculate conception. Immaculate conception being appropriate for Mary to be a Queen of Heaven, that is the mother of a King, and appropriate as a feminine New Eve to Jesus the new Adam as they take on a more perfected role of being “parents” of humanity in the sense of reconciling what Adam and Eve did/do. It’s something on the mysticism realm that’s more directly referenced in the more mystical elements of scripture (like revelations and Genesis) so for the less-mystically minded it’s harder for them to accept except by authority.
Regarding Trent’s comparison to the “late” acceptance of the book of Revelation to the “late” tradition of the Assumption, he is leaving out key details. The fact was with Revelation you at least HAD acceptance of it within the Church community, very early on, and in Rome. Justin Martyr being one the early ones to mention this. You see it in the Muratorian Canon, and Iraneus mentions it as well. Whereas you have no such thing with the Bodily Assumption. The only mention of it was within heretical groups for the first 5 centuries.
The most obvious reason would be that when Gnostics, who were some of the main enemies of the Faith in the early centuries of the Christian era, agreed with the Church on the matter, there would have been no need to defend the teaching. In other words, there is no record of anyone disagreeing on the matter. We don’t find works from the earliest Fathers on Jesus’ celibacy either, but that too was most likely due to the universal agreement on the topic. Much of early Christian literature was apologetic in nature. Like the New Testament, it mostly dealt with problem areas in the Church that needed to be addressed. Even so, it is not as though there is no written evidence to support the Assumption either. According to Fr. O’Carroll (Theotokos, 388), we now have what some believe to be a fourth-century homily on the prophet Simeon and the Blessed Virgin Mary by Timothy, a priest of Jerusalem, which asserts Mary is “immortal to the present time through him who had his abode in her and who assumed and raised her above the higher regions.” Evidently, there was disagreement in the circulating stories of the Assumption of Mary as to whether she was taken up alive or after having died. But whether or not she was assumed was not in question. Indeed, the Church even to this day has not decided definitively the matter of whether Mary died or not, though at the level of the Ordinary Magisterium it does teach that Mary died-for example, in Pope Pius XII’s Munificentissimus Deus, 17, 20, 21, 29, 35, 39, and 40.
@@noahgaming8833 so your argument appears to be, you don’t see the Fathers arguing against gnostics over the assumption, therefore it’s because the Fathers agreed with them on it. This explains their silence.
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 most of the writings of the apostles and early church fathers were apologetic, like when Paul talks about baptism is the inward circumcision, he is addressing the judaizers, because that problem needed to be addressed,I don’t think he would need to say those things if there weren’t any people who thought you had to be circumcised to be baptized.
@@Coastie4 Jesus fulfilled the law. Our traditions and practices are different because of what Jesus did. But there still were traditions before that we discarded.
Since the RCC told at least a couple of differing stories on "The Death of Mary" for something like 1500 years before she was suddenly "assumed bodily into heaven" the RCC itself debunks your mythology.
Here we go again. I want to give Horn the benefit of the doubt but it is just too embarrassing when he starts to do the whole "you argue like an atheist" to every Protestant objection as a blanket statement. Had he been generous he would have admitted that Ortlund meant there was no "textual" evidence to support the Assumption. Throughout Ortlund's case it is very clear that he is speaking of textual evidence, not just evidence per se. If one wants to argue that there is evidence based on precedent (i.e. papal dogma) or philosophical interpretation that is fine, but don't conflate it with "evidence" of all kinds. The reason early Protestants rejected the belief was because it IS NOT FOUND in pre-nicene Christianity. That is what Protestants argue from. Nothing more, nothing less. So please, enough with the straw men. Please.
Even by that standard this is a stretch because he's completely dismissing the textual evidence from things like the palm narratives. You can say it's weak but there isn't *no textual evidence*. Same would be true of the citation from Ephraem the syrian I mentioned.
Protestant here, doing some exploration. I've been watching a lot of Gavin's videos and some of yours, and I want to commend you for engaging with him in the same spirit of thoughtfulness and respect that I see in his videos. Y'all actually give me some hope in humanity's better angels, so to speak. Further, out of the Catholic apologists I've watched, I think I find more value in your videos because of this. Some of the others I've seen seem rather disingenuous, unfortunately.
I’m a Protestant (Lutheran) who holds a high view of Mary watching this on the day of the feast of the assumption to try and figure out what I believe about this. Thanks for the video!
Awesome!
Another great video which equals heat with light.
We really need more like this, thoughtful and well presented from both sides.
Everyone can benefit from this video because it’s quality content from both sides which greatly benefits us as viewers.
May God continue to bless the ministries of both of these men.
After 14 years as a protestant I've decided to become Catholic in part because of your videos thank you so much! 💯🙏😁
🤗 welcome
Thanks be to God 🫶🏼
Yay!! Congratulations!! I was a Protestant Anglican since 2009
And joined the Church (after many, many years on the fence) at Pentecost. ☺️ It’s so wonderful to be in the Lord’s Church and receive Him in the Eucharist!
That's great to hear Raul! Welcome home 🏡
I'm truly sad for you. My mom died because she chose to worship Mary instead of giving all the praise to God for her healing. Praise be to God He is omniscient, sees our heart and makes teachers teaching wrong doctrine accountable. She was raised by nuns in a boarding school, that worshipped Mary every single day more than Jesus completely failing the second commandment - Exodus 20.
O I just love our Blessed Mother so much, how can you not? She's just so lovable🕊
I was an atheist and fully entrenched in the evils of the world for many years, but praise God the rosary and Our Lady of Guadalupe lead me to Christ and to truly love and believe in her Son.
Welcome Home ❤
Amen on coming out of the darkness.
Luke 15:7
I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance.
Allow me to understand, though, how you came to faith in Jesus through Mary...if that is what you are saying. Forgive the question if it is not what you are saying.
My concern:
John 6:44
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
Perhaps you mean that you came to Faith from God, by the means of something to do with Mary.
I'm trying to understand what you mean by "Our Lady of Guadalupe lead me to Christ".
@@tony1685 You are talking about biological motherhood. when he said that Mary is his mother, he wasn't specifically refer to her as his BIOLOGICAL Mother. Mary doesn't have to physically give birth to someone in order to be that person's mother. For instance, Jesus declared that Mary had become the Mother of His beloved disciple (John 19:26 - 27) even though we all know that she didn't physically give birth to him.
@@tony1685 Tony tone tone
@@tony1685 surely you aren't suggesting there is no motherhood outside of biological? Even in our mere earthly existence we understand that biological motherhood isn't the only type we recognize.
I always appreciate it when protestants can disagree with Catholics and Orthodox without being dishonest. The "fight me IRL" tough-guy way of argumentation, that has become disturbingly popular, is extremely off-putting and uncharitable, and Dr. Ortlund stays away from that, so props to him.
He doesn’t “stay away”, he avoids it because of his inability to defend his points.
check out Mike Winger some time. He is a fantastic loving and logical pastor of the Faith. He's a great guy.
@@bobbyrice2858 Trent has made plenty of rebuttals to him in the past
@@brittoncain5090 Ive seen those videos. What Trent does is embellish a topic and fabricate a alternate meaning to suit Trent's agenda. Trent is a chronic unrepentant Lier in those Videos. Here's a case and point re-rebuttal of Trent's rebuttals. Mike calls him out several times and even links trents original video below because mike has nothing to hide, unlike Trent who doesn't do in kind.
th-cam.com/video/hIAVbck93pc/w-d-xo.html
@@bobbyrice2858 Mike Winger? You mean the James White devotee? 😂😂😂😂😂 No, thanks. He may be a decent fellow, I've never met the man, but his theology is hilariously bad.
I'm a recent convert. Ortlund's points are well articulated and reflect what my concerns were when joining the church. Sometimes I still experience these concerns. However, as Trent (person not the council) mentioned, pretty much everything that Ortlund said about Mary's assumption can be said about the New Testament canon, both in its lateness, the diversity of opinion as to which books were inspired, and so on. Moreover, while it was in the 4th Century that we see Athanasius give the exact NT canon, the church did not dogmatically declare the canon until the Reformation some 1200 years later.
Actually, the enumerated 27 book NT canon can be dated back to the early 3rd Century by Origen (as well as the enumerated 39 book Protestant OT canon, and even enumerated earlier to the second century). But the canon wasn't "declared" by councils or men (which would be subjective to will of men), but rather a divine "revelation" by God, meaning it was canon the moment it was penned, which He allowed His people to recognize. This self-authenticating model is the most objective, because it is not dependent on the subjectivity of men to "declare" what is & what is not Divinely Inspired. Mary's Assumption the other had was not a "universal" belief in the church until centuries later, and wasn't dogmatized with an anathema for denying it until the 20th Century, despite Catholics & Orthodox believing in it before that.
So, to compare the canon to the Assumption is like comparing apples & oranges. If you haven't read Dr. Michael Kruger's book, "Canon Revisited," I HIGHLY encourage you to read it, because it explains - objectively, and without being circular - why only the self-authenticating model can give us certainty to what the canon contains & is limited to.
@@BornAgainRN I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your response and may check out Kruger's book. But I'm very familiar with the Protestant presuppositional approach to the Canon and don't see any way out of the circularity cul-de-sac. And the other foundation upon which sola scriptura if founded, that is perspecuity, is even more "sandy."
@@ericholmberg2963 That is why I made it a point to mention that by “self-authenticated” this does not equate with circular. Yes, definitely check out Dr. Kruger‘s book. it is not an easy read, but it is very objective, and certainly not circular.
As far as sola Scriptura goes, it’s important to have an accurate understanding of it, before thinking it is “sandy.” In my experience with those who deny it, including Trent Horn, most begin with a misunderstanding of what the term means. Passages like Luke 16:19 and Mark 7 are good starting points in understanding how the term is applied.
Ortlund's points still stand. I think trying to shift the focus to the canon doesn't really help the assumption. The points he raised still stand. The RCC shouldn't be forcing people to believe things that are not even close to consensus in church history. You have to ask why they have decided to make it dogma ultimately? I sure wonder.
@@BornAgainRN Except "self-authenticating" also applies to Divine Tradition. It's begging the question to give an abstract account of how divine revelation works in general and then simply assume it would only ever apply to written documents. Yes, God's word is self-authenticating to His people. That is why the church is able to know which truths are divinely revealed. But this would apply to any belief held by the church, whether or not it's directly contained in Scripture.
Thank you so much for your rebuttal! I’ve been waiting for it. God Bless you and your family!
It's funny when evangelicals take the pretense of being closer to the Bible and early Church without all these silly RC accretions when they always change quite substantially to be particular to their place and time, in this case 21st century America. They would look totally bizarre to Christians at any other time and place
So would Catholic. Only Orthodox can even begin to claim to be stable here. 70 years ago you'd go to hell if you had sex with your wife without an explicit intent of having children. Now NFP is basucally the core structure of every faithful catholic marriage. Catholics change their doctrine all the time.
You make a valid point.
It seems fair to claim that none of us look exactly like those of the 1st Century.
I think that when thoughtful non-(Roman) Catholics say things about trying to be "close to the early church"...they mean so in Theology, rather than the physical observations of a worship experience; which I admit are often a manifestation of their/our theology.
There was no New Testament for 70 years or more. So I guess in a Protestant mind there were no Christians at the cross.
@@beorbeorian150
Yikes.
What a terrible caricature.
@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 The problem I see is that protestants have no way to distinguish between what is perspicuous because it is essential doctrine, not that it necessarily would be anyway, and what is perspicuous because of their tradition. A lack of willingness to see this and to understand semantics means they may nominally agree with Luther, Calvin, and even many Church fathers but deviate in the essence of their teachings. Ortland is especially egregious at the latter where he seems willfully ignorant to the Catholic argument that the fathers taught essentially the same doctrine even if it has different language. He does this to such an extent it's hard to see him as anything other than dishonest
Thanks for making this video. God bless!!
"The Bible says if you have 6 children, you have to become Catholic or Mormon" Trent just casually dropping facts.
The baptists I know as well.
Our local Mennonite and Amish.
Wow and I never saw the word Mormon or catholic in the bible.
@@sammygomes7381 it's a joke
Can confirm. 6 Kids. Church of Jesus Christ.
People on CC's channel were saying that Trent would definitely make a rebuttal to that video.
And Trent did not fail us, once again.
@@tony1685 just chill dude. You clearly don't want to know the Truth😊
@@tony1685 You we’re never a Catholic it takes more than baptism to be Catholic; true Catholics don’t leave the faith because they know this is the true faith.
@@tony1685 Faith alone and Scripture alone are man made traditions not found in Holy Scripture, or the Church authority that existed way before the new testament was ever written! Even though you preach another Gospel, I still love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth
@@tony1685 your lack of Biblical knowledge is quite evident sadly! Even though you preach another Gospel, I still love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth
@@tony1685 Your lack of Biblical knowledge is quite evident sadly! Even though you preach another Gospel, I still love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth
Thank you Trent for responding to this Gavin video. When I was listening to his video last week, inside I was hoping that you would do a rebuttal to it and you didn’t disappoint haha! Please always do these Gavin rebuttals (when of course they’re needed)!! 🙏🏽
William Albrecht will be responding on my channel as well in the upcoming week, Lord willing.
I was anxiously waiting for this video!
This was an excellent, well-researched response! Thanks for posting this Trent. I was glad to hear you bring up Jude 9 as I've found that to be quite a relevant point.
I am in RCIA right now and struggling with this. This video made me feel the arguments are even weaker than I had hoped- I really hope I'm able to overcome this disbelief in the official dogma.
Sean, i have practical questions for you: why is it that the remains of the apostles can be located while Mary’s remains cannot?
Why is it that we know where Mary Magdalene’s remains are as well, while we don’t know where the Virgin Mary’s remains are?
Where is the Virgin Mary’s remains? Why can’t anyone locate it?
Read Scott Hahn books or see his talks
@@voxangeli9205 This sounds weird but attending mass on the feast of the immaculate conception resolved all Mary related issues for me.
@@sean5388, sounds good!
That may be was divine inspiration for you...
What a blessing!
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is ultimately about the deity of Christ: Mary being the vessel of God and therefore is clean and immaculate, just like the ark of the covenant in the Old Testament.
And that's why the Early Fathers preached that Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant, as typologically shown to us in the Bible...
God bless, welcome home to the Church, the Body of Christ!
@@sean5388I know I'm posting late, but if you ever feel you want more information about the Marian dogmas, I think "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary" by Brant Pitre is a great resource.
Your rebuttals are so helpful! So often I encounter these types of videos from intelligent, open-minded, well-intentioned Protestants and don’t have a way to refute what they are saying. Thankful apologists like you exist, Trent.
I think this was a weak rebuttal from Trent. As should be obvious from the full video, the evidence from historical texts for the Assumption/Dormition is just not that strong. There are other reasons to believe in it, but the historical texts are not favorable. Pretty much all of Trent's comments boil down "well, it's not quite as bad as he says it is". If this were a debate, Ortlund would have been the clear and obvious winner.
That's why i didn't make an historical argument for the assumption. My argument was that if Christ established the Catholic Church then we can trust what it says about Mary's assumption. If Christ didn't establish the Church, then the assumption is the least of our concern. And since Gavin did not prove it is false, only that the historical evidence is not very strong, then this doesn't refute anything. That's also why i said Christians are justified in believing historical events in the Bible that have weak non-biblical evidence because of the Bible's divine authority.
@@TheCounselofTrent it’s not a case of “not very strong evidence”, it’s a case of “no evidence until the fourth century (to be generous)”.
@@TheCounselofTrent The universal church Jesus established is not the RCC.
@@TheCounselofTrent I think you can appreciate, then, that your conventional method of rebuttal is ill-suited to this topic. The positive argument you have stated is largely lost amid the jumble of mostly-conceded points, and when the argument does stand out, it sounds much more like making weak excuses than making a positive argument. Dwelling upon every last detail of the other side's argument just to nitpick is a waste of time when the rebuttal boils down to, "yes, that's largely correct, but that also largely misses the point. What we should actually be focused on is x, y, and z."
@@TheCounselofTrent did you know that William Albrecht also made a video attempting to rebut Dr. Ortland's video on the Assumption? I don't know if you are aware, but I made a rebuttal on Albrecht's rebuttal. It's not long - only about 50 minutes, and includes addressing some of your arguments, such as Epiphanius & Tertullian. It's titled "A response to William Albrecht's refutation of Dr Gavin Ortland on Mary's Assumption." I am not planning on responding to yours, since most of your arguments I have heard so far (I'm only an hour in), come up in my video.
Thank you, Trent, for your content. I love the comments section of these videos. Seeing so many Jesus lovers getting excited about the Catholic faith is great. Even if people disagree, it's fantastic that so many good conversations pop up from these rebuttals. May God have mercy on us and bless us!
im personally more excited about the Jesus faith than a church faith. I love conversing with Believers in Christ alone. Remember, the church makes it plain in CCC 970 that before all other intercession routs, Christ is held above all and #1. (paraphrasing, not quoting) we must be believers in Christ first, then all other priorities come second like church, family, etc. We put Jesus first we do not hold barriers between him and us so that on judgement day we do not hear those dreaded words "depart from me, i did not know you".
@@bobbyrice2858 Jesus lived thru human history. I will have to follow His history and story. If first century christians (Catholics) made up his history, than who else could not have made up his history.
@@jamesm5462 There’s a clear gap where we know very little between 70 and 320ad in terms of Church history. We know Nero and his successors were ruthless and merciless in Christian killings and persecutions. We are talking ROME did this. ROME! Then suddenly Rome is “ok” with Christianity????? No, this has Satan’s MO all over it. What he can’t destroy he will instead skew. So what we have is an early church from 320 to 1500, 1200 years of Catholic church with skewed bastardized teachings. What did the church do over that time? They caused war. They made war with anyone that would deny them. Just as Rome acted towards them before 320ad. Then Martin Luther comes along and tips the scales. Brings to light biblical truth, prints a German translation of the Bible the church horded for 1200 years. Changes everything.
And Catholics want us Protestants to BOW to the ROMAN Catholic Church's and no other. Not Christ, not Jesus teachings but FIRST the HOLY ROMAN church. They haven't changed, they just don't have power today. But they have a history of Violence and unChrist like behavior.
The Greek Orthodox Church shares the same belief, but calls it "The Dormition of the Theotokos". It's another example of the many things we share with our Catholic brethren.
It's not the same in Orthodoxy as it is in Roman Catholicism.
In Orthodoxy the Theotokos still experienced Death as we all do.
"Catholic brethren" official stance of the EO is that Roman Catholics are condemned to hell, that if anyone doesnt kiss icons or feel a desire to kiss icons, they are "condemned to the fires of Gehenna" (synod of Jerusalem, Nicea ii, et al.)
Hellfire is something else you will share, unless you repent.
Good news, they just found an inscription, in the church of the Apostles in Israel, that proves Catholicism is the real/original religion. The inscription states "Head and Leader of the Heavenly Messengers,' a term for Peter, first disciple of Jesus"
YAAAAS! Been waiting for this!
This is the 3rd rebuttal of Gavin Ortland that I've listened to. I do appreciate his reasonable and charitable way of presenting his case. But in each of these videos, he seems to cherry-pick quotes. He does that with Schumacher here, quoting what supports his view, but omitting those passages which blatantly contradict him. This undercuts his arguments.
I’ve been thinking the same thing recently! I love his demeanor, but wondering why things are left out of his consideration.
Starts to get suspicious with the consistency of this happening and his depth of knowledge tbh
I am not cherry picking quotes. The passages I quoted are summaries of his argument from the conclusion and introductions where he is summarizing his overall argument. I emailed Shoemaker after the video to confirm he felt I was representing him well. The other passage being referenced that goes back to the 3rd century is not contradictory to the passages I cited, and refers to a Gnostic legend. To the extent that it comes into the discussion it creates a greater problem for the Catholic side. But it is not inconsistent with the general time Shoemaker and the general scholarship offers. Hope that clarifies.
@@michaelharrington6698 consistency? What do you have in mind? That’s a pretty serious charge.
@@TruthUnites > I'm not trying to make a serious charge, let me see if I can clarify.
> Congratulations on your newborn baby girl!!
> The OP said "cherry-pick" and I said suspicious. Both come with strong negative connotations, let me see if I can clarify where I at least am coming from.
> I don't think you are cherrypicking Shoemaker per se. Its more of that the person themselves seems cherrypicked to make the point. Trent refers to this without the term cherrypicking when he says that a certain Theologian you quoted also throws in doubt about historicity of the Trinity and he says it would be more efficacious to just debate the arguments themselves.
> I say suspicious, but because you are an enigma to me. Not because you are protestant knowledgeable abouf church history, thats not very mysterious. Its just the way you define your position and make your case, I can't quite put my finger on it, which is highly unusual for me. I think my chief example would be your position and commentary on baptismal generation. I can see and hear you on each isolated point in a sense, I am just struggling to see where you are coming from on how you are building all the points together, and when you quote certain passages or scholars it can come off as suspicious to me because I don't honestly see how you are building that into your larger case outside of some sort of gotcha moment. To be clear, I dont think you are intending to do that, so I will keep trying to crack the enigma until it makes sense.
What a treat to wake up on August 15 to find this articulate discussion about the Assumption with these two brilliant Christian apologists.
Jay Dyer ended Trent's career, and Ortlund didn't really start one of his own.
@@tony1685 Gavin Ortlund is a Catholic? He'd be surprised to hear that!
@@tony1685 Catholics are christians
@@MathAdam some fundamentalist claim everyone catholic (ie. heretic in their mind) who dare to open any other book than the bible (one specific translation, per se), let alone drawing conclusions from other sources.
@@cyriljorge986 Jay Dyer's career has been on the tailspin. Meanwhile Trent is better than ever. I think you're mixed up
No problem re audio only. Most of the time I’m listening rather than watching.
Our Protestant brethren embrace contraception and see nothing morally wrong with it because “there’s nothing in the Bible that mentions it”. The fact that it actually does notwithstanding, why can’t Catholics believe in the Assumption?
Since the Bible doesn’t say Mary was NOT assumed and there are indeed three examples where people are assumed, I submit the truth of the Assumption is supported more so than the contrary.
As the late, great Fr. Malachi Martin pointed out, nowhere does it say in the Bible that it is the sole source of revelation. We Catholics (and Orthodox) believe that Scripture AND Tradition are sources of revelation. And therein lies the source of most all of Protestantism's errors.
Yes, they play a game of "Catholics add all this stuff to the Bible" as if you can only have things that are explicitly in the Bible. But when you press them they admit they are fine with things so long as they do not contradict the Bible, unless they're Catholic of course
It seems wise to avoid casting wide assertions like "protestants embrace contraception". I'm not (Roman) Catholic, and I do not "embrace" contraception.
An alternative consideration on the fact that there are examples of bodily assumptions: why are we so focused on one that is not mentioned in the text that obviously play some role in our decision to discuss that it is recorded to happen.
It also seems like a very slippery slope to adopt things that are NOT stated to NOT happen. The list of things that are NOT mentioned to NOT happen seems almost infinite.
Not trying to be argumentative, just giving you some other considerations.
@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 The Assumption of Mary was already a belief in the early church. There is no debate nor argument raised in the history of church councils in its 2000 year history including The Immaculate Conception. Marian dogmas never posed problems for the early church fathers and theologians. 2ND. Mary was seen in heaven as The Ark of the New Covenant and the Woman of Revelation / Queen mother (NT Gebirah) by Apostle John himself in his Book of the Apocalypse in APO / REV 12 battling the dragon in the end times.
@@alfray1072
Are you under the impression that the Assumption was a belief in the 1st Century, but just wasn't discussed much? How do we reconcile the lack of early evidence of something that is binding in the sense of Dogma? I'm trying to reconcile the lack of "debate or argument" in the earliest church...as this topic is seemingly not discussed. It doesn't seem reasonable to expect to find debate or argumentation against a concept that is not being discussed.
Regarding the Revelation 12 verse: There are alternative interpretations to that verse, but I don't want to send us down the rabbit hole of the authoritative nature of the translation you presented.
Gavin's core objection seemed to be: "I just don't think it's reasonable for a Church to *demand* that people believe a doctrine which I don't think has enough evidence."
This is what JWs and Oneness Pentecostals say about the Trinity, etc.
He's bringing up the ever-present issue of Authority, but wrapping it up in a specific dogma and using his opinion of that dogma to attack Authority obliquely instead of directly.
But that's the system that Rome holds to. The dogmas are propped up by Papal supremacy even when they have weak justifications.
@@JubalBed Papal justification for 27 books of the New Testament is equally weak. I don't see the justification for declaring non-Apostolic writings of Mark and Luke to be Scripture while 1st Clement is not - even though all three were at one point widely considered Scripture, and Revelation was not.
Either Apostolic Succession makes sense, and the authority of Church councils is binding - or it is not, and each individual can interpret Scripture as he chooses.
@@cactoidjim1477 That's a false dichotomy. Just because I reject papal authority doesn't mean that I believe each individual should have equal validity in interpreting scripture and that we should discard the wisdom from Christians in all generations especially the apostolic age first and foremost.
I also believe the holy Spirit is not limited within the confines of the RCC.
@@cactoidjim1477 Nobody considers every Church council ever held to be binding. All trinitarian churches reject the Council of Antioch, for example. Luke is declared to be scripture within scripture (1 Timothy 5:18), whilst the vast majority of Mark is simply a record of the teachings of Peter, with just a handful of sections where Mark records information from another eyewitness. I've never seen any list of the New Testament canon which includes 1st Clement, so perhaps you could clarify what your source is for the claim that 1st Clement was once widely considered to be scripture.
Regardless of what somebody thinks of the authority of the Magisterium, or the Papacy it remains true that each individual will interpret Scripture as he chooses. The only way to prevent that happening is to prevent any individual from being able to read Scripture for themselves. It is also true that each Catholic will interpret the teachings of the Papacy and the Magisterium for themselves. Regardless of what we say the ultimate authority on doctrinal matters is, we still have to interpret its teachings in order to get them from the page/mouth into our minds and hearts.
@@cactoidjim1477 "Papal justification for 27 books of the New Testament is equally weak"
Of course, because the books of the New Testament were not chosen on authority but according to sensus fidelium as to what was Inspired, as well as being connected to the authors.
Wonderful video! Thank you for an intelligent rebuttal.
I have to admit Mary was hard for me to accept, but the Rosary blew my mind
Good or bad way, lol? 😂
Though even as a child being raised Baptist - I always saw Mary as this perfect Christian (wasn't too far off) and wanted to be like her... Now that I'm 17 and converted to Catholicism I must say in 50 days THE ROSARY HAS COMPLETELY CHANGED MY LIFE truly!!! ❤❤🥹
@addisonstanifer look into the book the life of mary as seen by the mystics. Its very profound book and shows the role Mary played from beginning to end.
"but nothing was written...."
Well when you consider that Christianity was illegal until 313 AD and only became the official religion of the Roman Empire after 380 AD it seems kind of a miracle anyone would write something down so they could be discovered before this time.
Or that anything survived the book burnings of the Romans.
We have fathers in the 200s talking about Elijah & Enoch & failing to mention Mary. But over and beyond that you want to make it mandatory on believers, not just say it is possible
@@geoffrobinson I was only stating that people will say "where does it say this" about something so ancient and during such a troubling time. It is literally a miracle that we have what we have.
As long as you bring it up...
Where is the list of mandatory requirements to be a believer written in the Bible? Just to start do you have to believe in the Trinity?
It is also mandatory of believers to eat the Body and Blood of Jesus.
It is in the Bible in multiple places
is recorded by early writers
it is Tradition
it is taught by the Church
The majority of Christians deny this. They don't believe this basic requirement of a believer in Christ.
@@geoffrobinson so what, we don’t know what existed back then
Indeed
I'm not so sure about this. We have many writings that survived. You could use this reasoning to justify just about any belief
Thank you for your hard work defending the faith, Trent! You are a great hero for Catholicism
do you think he's a hero of Christ or is only relevant as a hero of the church?
@@bobbyrice2858 we are are soldiers of Christ, and Trent is doing a phenomenal job bringing people to the Lord, and the bride of Christ- the Church, which He gave us- the “household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15)
@@Grantthecatholic yes but remember that never implies authority granted to leadership. it means we the body of believers hold the keys to heaven and authority. Its because of guys Like Trent that this is echoed. Trent is apart of the Body of Christ witnessing to others. That's our job to. To bring Christs message to everyone. The Organization does not matter. Its the body that does. as long as we stay faithful, the devil can never come against us. That's the meaning here. Not a church structure authority.
@@bobbyrice2858 the Catholic Church was promised the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, not ordinary believers; this was given actually to St Peter alone and his successors. The apostles were promised the Holy Spirit and teaching authority in a way much different than we through baptismal regeneration, and their successors as well through apostolic succession. The authoritative Church was promised the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail, not individual believers, since a number obviously fall away from the faith. Your view of the believers only being the Church and not subject to the authoritative Church Christ and His apostles left us is wrong
I have no problem believing that if you can back it up contextually in scripture.
Man I have been getting the "Protestants debunk Catholicism" TH-cam algorithm lately and I was JUST praying to God about it earlier. Was hoping I could get a rebuttal of Dr Ortlunds critique and what do you know, boom, this comes up today. Thank you!
Archeologist just found an inscription, in the church of the Apostles in Israel, that proves Catholicism. The inscription states "Head and Leader of the Heavenly Messengers,' a term for Peter, first disciple of Jesus"
@@lucyangeles Cant wait for future finds they will try to snuff out!
@Thoska Brah Yeah thanks for the advice I totally was just not gonna watch or listen to either side
The more I listen to these objections the more apparent it is to me the core objection is Authority.
The irony, Gavin doesn't explicitly make the claim that he is an authority but it is implied.
Why should Gavin believe Gavin?
The core of the issue is most assuredly authority.
There isn't much to talk about when it comes to the justifications for the Marian dogmas, it mostly depends on papal supremacy.
The difference is that Gavin is not damning people to hell over believing these things about Mary.
It all comes down to authority because debate within the RCC is okay but not outside of it. Which would also fall under self appointed authority by your logic.
Exactly! He’s a pope wannabe! Prots in general are
@@Doug8521
I hear this a lot.
I find it astonishing that people think non (Roman) Catholics want to be a “pope”, while simultaneously (as Gavin does) rejecting the office of “Pope”, as defined by the Vatican Council.
@@JubalBed I disagree that the Assumption of Mary, or any other truth relies solely on Papal authority. I would say, like the Council of Jerusalem, this pronouncement was only made after careful deliberation and research.
Between 1849 and 1950, numerous petitions for the Church to officially proclaim the Assumption of Mary as a dogma arrived in Rome. They came from One hundred and thirteen Cardinals, eighteen Patriarchs, twenty-five-hundred-and five archbishops and bishops, thirty-two-thousand priests and men religious, fifty-thousand religious women, and eight million lay people.
From " APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF
POPE PIUS XII
MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS
DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION (November 1, 1950)"
Consequently, while we sent up earnest prayers to God that he might grant to our mind the light of the Holy Spirit, to enable us to make a decision on this most serious subject, we issued special orders in which we commanded that, by corporate effort, more advanced inquiries into this matter should be begun and that, in the meantime, all the petitions about the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven which had been sent to this Apostolic See from the time of Pius IX, our predecessor of happy memory, down to our own days should be gathered together and carefully evaluated.
And, since we were dealing with a matter of such great moment and of such importance, we considered it opportune to ask all our venerable brethren in the episcopate directly and authoritatively that each of them should make known to us his mind in a formal statement. Hence, on May 1, 1946, we gave them our letter "Deiparae Virginis Mariae," a letter in which these words are contained: "Do you, venerable brethren, in your outstanding wisdom and prudence, judge that the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith? Do you, with your clergy and people, desire it?"
The document goes on to highlight the historical evidence, from Church names, ancient homilies, to theological writings.
If you read the document, i think you would find that although the pronouncement was guided by the holy spirit, this official proclamation was thoroughly discussed and evaluated
www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html
listening is good too trent. you do yeomans work already so thanks to God for your work and ministry.
There's a protestant arguing like an athiest again. You can't say you doubt the validity of the early Christian evidence, but believe in the biblical evidence. When atheists use the same arguments against the bible
I LOVE the back and forth between my favorite apologists!
Both are your favorite apologists??
@@crossbearer6453 I meant between two of my favorite apologists.
@@krizilloo2538 well
I don’t know how u can love both given their polar views
Of course he releases this on the feast of the Assumption haha, perfect timing.
If one is going to lie, they might of well lie on the day the lie is celebrated.
@@sammygomes7381 I pray that the Immaculate Heart of Mary may guide you to the true Church established by her Divine Son. God bless.
@@sammygomes7381 Mary has done more good to me and my spiritual journey than any rich money hunger pastor ever will attempt to do!
@@bn8268 Mary had nothing to do with it, but I don't doubt you believe it. If I became a tree huger today and things went as smooth as could be I would praise the tree.
Nowhere in the bible does Mary have any power. Don't forget Satan has power.
@@sammygomes7381 You hold Satan to a to high of a power, he can't change life's for the better like he Mary has you fail to realize she always recomend us to Jesus and all the prayers we give to her go back to Jesus as well that's why in the Hail Mary it says pray for us sinners.
Absolutely loved this Trent.
Dr. Matthew Levering's book on the Assumption is an excellent read.
dang this is a powerful rebuttal. especially toward the end!
This is another excellent rebuttals. I wonder if you also do academic rebuttals in theological Journals to advance ecumenical dialogues? Your approach is really irenic and really suitable for both platform (popular and academic).
At around 45:38 does Gavin just skip over that fact that his 5th century source that he is using clearly state that Mary was a virgin until the end of her life saying that if she did die she was crowned with virginity?
03:21: "I have no interest in debating the assumption in particular because I don't debate subjects where I"m too far removed from the other person theologically on the subject."
Umm....didn't we just debate not only the bodily Assumption of Mary, but also her Perpetual Virginity & Immaculate Conception on whether or not they contradict Scripture, specifically, this past April? You can't get more "far removed theologically" than that. And the topic didn't have to do with sola scripture or church authority, either. Just saying, Trent....... 🙂
Steve, the specific prompt we debated was whether the Bible *contradicts* these dogmas. That's much different than trying to prove these dogmas in the context of someone committed to sola scriptura. When it comes to the Assumption, Ortlund would probably agree it does not contradict the Bible even if, in his opinion, it is not contained in the Bible.
@@TheCounselofTrent I was responding to the latter half of your statement: “…where I’m too far removed from the other person ON THE SUBJECT.” The subject being Mary’s bodily assumption. Are we “too far removed from the Assumption”? Yes, we are. Did we debate it (along with other two Marian dogmas we are “far too removed” from)? Yes, we did.
@@BornAgainRN Yes, the subject of our debate was whether the dogmas contradict scripture. That's much more narrow and workable where other issues like Church authority and sola scriptura don't have to be addressed beyond just asking if these dogmas are true, which would entail discussing those issues.
1:20:15 "It's so important not to yoke the consciences of Christians to believe this - that are beyond what the Gospel requires...Can you see the bind you put us in?"
This is the same position that critics take on contraception, abortion, IVF, divorce, homosexual marriage, Mary's Perpetual Virginity, or even the Virgin Birth. Now they may or may not think they have good reasons to reject those things - but in any instance it *presumes* that understanding or liking those doctrines are the sole reason for accepting or rejecting them.
It is strange that the vast majority of Protestants (except Anglicans) *reject* the Intercession of the Saints, for example -- even though the evidence for that doctrine is ancient and overwhelmingly well attested. That suggests that acceptance or rejection of a doctrine isn't solely about the historical evidence or ancient practice.
Our only concern should be whether it is true or not. Not how a certain doctrine makes us feel.
I didn't like the teaching against contraception because emotions. But when I looked into it there are very good reasons through natural theology and secular reasoning that can show the harm it does to our bodies and minds. Now I argue very strongly against the use of contraceptions so much so that I know that any church that allows them is false by default.
You need to separate "faith" and "morals", morals does not allow for any put for liking, whereas faith presumes that understanding is necessary for assent of intellect.
"contraception, abortion, IVF, divorce, homosexual marriage," Ethics
"Mary's Perpetual Virginity, or even the Virgin Birth" Doctrine
"doctrine is ancient"
This is a requirement for it being plausible that it comes from the early church and it possible it could be apostolic
"overwhelmingly well attested"
This is just a proxy for how credible people thought the doctrine was at that point in time, Protestants think the majority can be wrong currently, so they have no issue with thinking the majority can be wrong in the past.
@@yajunyuan7665 Eternal security has zero attestation for nearly 1,500 yrs and yet many believe this.
Likewise things were well attested to are denied by some. Such as baptismal regeneration.
If there was a "christian" group that was defending abortion would you say that belief system is valid or viable?
@@jon6car Sure, and the question is do you reject Eternal security on the word of the Magisterium alone or because you think it is non-sensical.
If you reply the latter, my answer would be the same for your abortion question.
The viability of a system is how many people it convince. The only way to determine is a system is valid is to compare it to an unchangeable standard, the principles contained in the word of God.
I'm Catholic and the points about her not having bodily corruption are really good evidence to me. I never heard that before.
How's the evidence for the points?
Are you saying they found where Mary was buried, dug her up and she had no corruption?
@@sammygomes7381 Actually her body wasn't found at all few days after being buried.
@@jerome8950 Mary has her own gospel? That's wild, man. Wild and blasphemous.
@@tony1685 hey buddy!
I agree "there is no way on earth to believe that" but I do have reason from HEAVEN to believe it. God is good and much better and more generous than many people think.
Brother Trent, Lutheran here, trying to figure things out. Is the Assumption of Mary a salvation issue according to the Catholic Church? Thanks so much!
You can’t be Catholic and not believe in the assumption of Mary.
@@Jo3K1n6 The assumption of Mary is nowhere found in scripture.
I know that if the whole argument from tradition is true that this means that the assumption of Mary is necessarily true, but it's very difficult to get over my skepticism of claims like these. It's hard to genuinely believe that the apostles would have taught this and if it were another religion I think alot of people would be more skeptical of the authenticity of this claim, and the other marian dogmas.
@@jpc9923 not if you think they are on the same level of modern day theologians
@@austinapologetics2023 think of their writings as witnesses to what was believed in the early Church. They are historical sources, even if not authoritative.
A dogma revealed by God in the New Testament doesn't have to come from an Apostle. Just noting that fact. The Apostles aren't required for God to assume Mary and for it thus to be true and spread as a belief in the primitive church, whether the Apostles were alive or not. Even though everyone agrees that revelation essentially ended with the last Apostle, it doesn't mean, nor is it a doctrine, that God must revealed only through Apostles (i.e. they must write it in an epistle or gospel - or even in any written form!).
The Assumption of Mary was already a belief in the early church. There is no debate nor argument raised in the 2000 history of church councils about the Assumption and The Immaculate Conception of Mary. Marian dogmas never posed problems for the early church fathers and theologians. 2ND. Mary was seen in heaven as The Ark of the New Covenant and the Woman of Revelation / Queen mother (NT Gebirah) by Apostle John himself in his Book of the Apocalypse in APO / REV 12 battling the dragon in the end times.
The Dogma of Mary’s Assumption in to Heaven is grounded on the Biblical Typology of Mary being the New Ark of the Covenant. Exodus 37:1 (acacia wood was considered incorruptible) Hebrews 9:4 (Christ is the Word made flesh, the High Priest, and the Eucharist), 2 Samuel 6:9/Luke 1:43, Rev. 11:19, Rev. 12:1. Since it was Mary’s body that contained Christ, Scripture Alone tells us that both the soul and incorruptible body of Mary were placed in the Heavenly Temple.
Cant wait to listen!
Best gift Trent could give us on the Solemnity of the Assumption
Yet it is false.
@Alan Hight 😃😃 it's all right brother, we are aware of the limitations. Peace and blessings.
@@mjramirez6008 You are aware of your religion's limitations, and that is alright with you? Huh?
Also, are you a teenager using all these emojis?
Teenager no, a child😃. Blessings
@@mjramirez6008 You are either a liar or out of your element.
Why is it so hard to believe that Our Lord’s mother was assumed into Heaven?
Deep-seated Sola Scriptura and denial of the Church's divine authority to bind and loose.
The fruit of sola Scriptura!
Because no one thought she did until over 3 decades after it apparently happened, and the first people to claim it were gnostic heretics
Thank you for this wonderful gift on Assumption Day. Great work and timing!
I came to Christ late in life. My conversion began within Catholic circles.
But it was the doctrines around Mary, including praying the "Ave Maria", which in my spirit I found troubling. So, I took a different path and focused on Christ alone.
It was there in the embrace of the Lord's grace that peace came.
It was afterward that I discovered from scripture and the earliest church fathers that there is no warrant for the extreme Mary dogmas held by Roman Catholicism.
During the first century there was no Bible. Christians relied on what leaders off the church told them and the letters of the apostles but there was no biblical cannon. The church had the number one authority. The first about 300 years of Christianity there was no set biblical cannon. The church had authority. The biblical cannon comes from the Catholic Church so it’s their book. The oldest bible we have is from the 4th century. So the first three centuries people relied on the church. God himself didn’t pick the cannon it was the Catholic Church. You trust the Catholic Church to tell you what books are the word of God but reject other beliefs? If the Catholic Church is wrong in areas it would make no sense for you to accept they have the word of God right. To reject the Catholic Church you need to reject their book the Bible. As long as you accept their bible you are under the Catholic Church authority. The original bible the apocrypha books in it until the 16th century until Luther chose to remove it. Protestants have changed the Bible by removing books. What gives Luther the right? The Bible cannon was picked by the early Christian leaders in the Catholic Church. These people were taught by people who learned from the original disciples then centuries later Protestants believe a man who never learned from the disciples or the disciples disciples. In conclusion why do Protestants trust the Catholic Church bible but not the Catholic Church. It was the church authority that picked the Bible cannon so the church has authority over the Bible because before the Bible was put together people only relied on the church. The Catholic Church is the only one that can interpret the Bible they put it together. If it weren’t for the Catholic Church Protestants wouldn’t even have their religion. You’re entire religion is based off the Bible the Catholic Church put together. To reject Catholicism you need to reject their book.
The term Roman Catholic was invented by Protestants, as an insult.
One of the things I noticed Trent does in his argumentation, he uses two logical fallacies.
When he was talking about Duffy specifically he brought up how Atheists or Muslims would quote Duffy. That is called poisoning the well: the use of unfavorable information (whether it is correct or false) as proof for why the opponent is false.
Example: Hitler was against smoking, so you’re a Nazi if you’re against it.
He also presented it as a false dilemma. An argument that is “either you’re with us or against us.” In Trent’s case he set up his Duffy argument to say either “either you’re Catholic or you’re an Atheist/Muslim.” He also set up to say, “Either you completely agree with Duffy on everything, or you can’t cite.” That is obviously wrong because you can agree and disagree with the same person about different things. Example: Trent and Gavin agree about the Trinity but disagree about papal authority.
This is not an honest way to argue
I often wonder if they believe that John the Baptist is exhibiting some form of false modesty when he says he’s not worthy of even carrying Jesus’s sandals. Taken literally than who is worthy of bearing him in the Womb?
Who is worthy to sit and eat with Him?
Who is worthy to travel with Him?
Who is worthy to rest their head on His lap?
Considering “who is worthy” seems to be a wide concern
@@bersules8
This is true.
She did a very special thing. Very special
John the Baptist is considered far greater than Mary…
@@duckymomo7935 Thats like saying best friend is in better glory then your mother. God throws vengeance on those who willingly deny his mother he gave to us as a gift and this is one of the many reasons she cries tears of blood in statues or paintings all across the world not only for the sin we do but the blashphemes Christian larpers toss at her left and right.
I'm looking forward to the debate on apostalic Succession Trent
I like the sound of this fella’s voice
I'm Assemblies of God, feeling drawn more and more to the Catholic Church. I'm having a really hard time getting past the Mary dogmas. I can get on board with the bodily assumption, even perpetual virginity. But sinless since birth? I'm having a hard time with that one. I know I'm on the right path, because I speak in tongues, and have been more active then ever in my faith, and even had a vision that helped me get past the communion of saints through the eucharist. But this one is tough for me, just waiting for confirmation I guess. Excellent video.
So you would understand That Jesus can do anything.
A simple argument and you can tell me if this makes sense
So Jesus has decided that He will become incarnate and empty himself out according to the Christ Hymn in Philippians 2:5-11.
Jesus knowing He will live with parents wishes to perfect His Mother
Jesus has applied His merits to Mary at her conception to prepare her for her motherhood
You said you believe in the perpetual virginity...Ezekiel 44:1-3 talks about the gate that remains shut. You can see the parallel there between the perpetual virginity
Genesis 3:15 has often been implicitly used to argue the Immaculate Conception
Combined with Mary-Eve parallels this can make sense
I hope this makes sense
I'm fallible but hopefully this proof is helpful
In short, Mary is immaculately conceived because she had to be to be the Mother of God
That was a thing of disagreement and held me in the middle as an Anglican Christian for almost 20
Years. Ha. There are many books and lectures and talks and early fathers discussing all of this including the Blessed Mother’s emasculate conception. As a starting point maybe you can read Brant Pitre’s book Jesus and the OT Roots of Mary. It’s an excellent starting point on all the dogmas. Prof Pitre’s is a cradle Catholic who specializes in the NT and Jewish history I believe.
Maybe read the early Fathers regarding Mary as the new Eve as well as the Arc of the Covenant. St Augustine discussed Mary’s sinless state as well as many
Others… ☺️
*immaculate* - sorry, my typos are too much these days! 😂
@southpawhammer8644 how are you doing? Still considering the Catholic Church? Praying for you!
Martin Luther venerated Mary more than most Catholics do today.
At 40:00 Trent mentions the name of Theotokos being applied to Mary and how Gavin wouldn’t believe it even if it is early, but Gavin explicitly affirms Mary being the mother of God. Also there is a difference between understandings of doctrines such as justification and reports of historical events. One of the reasons people believe the resurrection is because of the accounts of witnesses, which Mary’s assumption doesn’t have for 400 years, which is pretty damning for a historical event.
Not really actually, also that may not even be the case. Also nobody knows there was silence for that length of time, there’s very little documentation about the past that’s survived to the present day. As Trent pointed out at the beginning, there is a major issue of double standards here
@@l21n18 what may not even be the case? Sorry I had a few different points and don’t know what you’re disagreeing with 😅
@@TheRoark I mean the accounts of witnesses
@@l21n18 oh so you were saying there may have been witnesses to the assumption, it just wasn’t really written down or discussed by anyone except the gnostics? You’d think a big deal like that would be discussed more if it really happened!
@@TheRoark it wasn’t the “just the gnostics, nor is it a gnostic thing either. I’m simply making a point about our historical knowledge.
So much appreciation that a Protestant looks to Catholic sources...instead of spewing false, erroneously garbage. This man is awesome.
If we can say the Church can affirm the scriptures and particular interpretations of the scriptures, then something Ortland views as such a secondary issue should be no problem. That is how it should be viewed, but protestants see it as rhetorically expedient to attack what they view as a soft spot to undermine the whole authority of the Church. It's funny Ortland admits this himself, and for his congregation, why shouldn't they just say his particular interpretation of the essentials is nonsense and leave? And from his view of authority, this is exactly what they should do and he can have no recourse. He sees many of the problems for protestants lacking historical credibility including from the Fathers and their problems of authority, but he just puts a band-aid on a bullet hole having to necessarily adopt such tenuous positions like RC Sproul on the Canon and evangelicals generally on authority in the new testament not really being authority but some dubious sense of local authority.
This gets me thinking that similar to the situation between the political right and left, Catholics can understand what protestants are saying but protestants can't understand what Catholics are saying, and for any given issue Catholics are more accurate in addressing how various protestants will respond than vice versa.
Mr. Horn: the mere fact you admitted that this dogma can't be traced back to the apostolic age is precisely the problem. The Gospel preached by them that saved those who believed upon hearing is the SAME gospel that saves us today!
The mere fact a dogma comes attached with anathema or some other threat that can't be traced back to the Apostoles and the OT is evidence enough to doubt it.
What did Christ say when he spoke to the jews about denying Christ as YWH? As is written in John if you deny that I AM you will die in your sins. Therefore, the only way we know the state a person is if they won't believe that Christ is I AM. The same I AM that spoke to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and then to Moses and the prophets.
We can not add to thr gospel. You are saved by believing that Christ id I AM and as a result of that belief you do his command to love that is how we know that a person is Christs disciple or follower! By believing that Christ is LORD of hosts and doing his command!
For me, I always had this question: if Mary was not taken to Heaven in body and soul, then where is her burial site and how come there's no pilgrimage there?
There’s plenty of historical figures we don’t know the burial location of. We don’t know where Daniel was buried, that doesn’t mean he was bodily assumed into heaven.
@@colepriceguitar1153 Daniel was not the bearer of Christ. The incarnation of the word made flesh etc etc etc
@@patriciajohnson1894 So? he was just as important as Mary.
@@colepriceguitar1153 The deceived will go to great lengths to protect their demonic religion.
@@colepriceguitar1153 Man that is so bad theology it makes my head hurt.
Thanks much for this video.
Steve Ray a Catholic apologist wrote " It seems clear that Luke has used typology to reveal something about the place of Mary in salvation history. In the Ark of the Old Covenant, God came to his people with a spiritual presence, but in Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, God comes to dwell with his people not only spiritually but physically, in the womb of a specially prepared Jewish girl"....so if we admit Mary is the Ark of the New Convenant would it appear or logically follow that the immaculate conception the virgin Mary would be lifted up by God and preserved from rotting in an earthly grave because of her individual holiness by saying yes to God to bear His Son the Mesiah and the grace....the fullness of grace God gave within her to transform her like he transforms all of us when we submit to God to be bodily assumed into heaven?
@@tony1685 Interesting...could you share what you asked him from the bible and the argument from Paul you used and what you remember his reponse was for context? What was he trying to argue? Thanks
@@tony1685 man you a phony you called Catholic answer and you got own my boy, must be a Seven day nut 🥜go back to your mama Ellen G. White can’t take a sect that try to predict the coming of Christ serious!
I just came here from the podcast, to watch the video version. 😅 Oh well! Guess I’ll go back to my pod catcher!
I can’t remember where I saw this asked recently, but maybe someone in the comments can help. If I become Catholic, do I have to pray the rosary? I can accept the 4 Marian dogmas, but I don’t get anything out of the rosary. If feels too distant and formulaic. I’ve enjoyed connecting and praying with Mary in other ways. I just don’t understand the need for someone else’s prayer strategy if it doesn’t draw me closer to God.
Praying the hail Mary is praying to Mary.
You do not have to pray the rosary if that’s not your thing.
I highly recommend it but not you do not need to. The thing with the rosary is when you start praying it seems like it more about Mary than Jesus but this isn’t true. If you pray it correctly, often times the words of the Hail Mary fade into the background because the most important part of it is meditating on Jesus life and the mysteries of the Rosary. I can’t remember who said it but there was a Saint who said that the rosary is like the gospel on beads. My biggest piece of advice if you’re coming from a Protestant background would be to pray the scriptural rosary. You can find it on TH-cam. It’ll help you meditate on Jesus life with each Hail Mary prayer.
You are not obligated to pray the Rosary as a Catholic.
The Sub Tuum Praesidium is the oldest known prayer for intercession of the Θεοτόκος(Mary), and it’s not mandatory.
@@JasonN- A Christian should pray ONLY to God in the name of Christ. John 16:23-24
When I find myself in times trouble, Mother Mary comes to me, speaking words of wisdom...
Thanks for this program. I'm a High Church Anglican or Anglo-Catholic and I believe in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I guess I would probably be considered a Protestant, but I consider myself an Anglo-Catholic.
You might be interested in Christian Wagner's content. He's a former Anglican. Even if you don't plan on becoming Catholic he has some great content that could help bolster your faith in views held by both Catholics and Anglicans.
@@sebastianofmilan
I’m Orthodox (OCA), and I thoroughly enjoy Wagner’s content. Highly recommended!
@@permanenceaesthetic6545 Considering you watch Trent's content also, I approve of your taste
What is an anglo Catholic????
@@sebastianofmilan
Why thank you. I’m of the belief that it’s good to challenge yourself.
It was easier to watch rebuttals of Dr. Ortlund before I saw a post debate video with him and Trent on Pints with Aquinas because now I like him and had to unblocked his channel. With so many things spinning around in my head, my question remains: How can the opposite conclusions on central doctrines be drawn when two honest and brilliant minds examine the same historical and exegetical information?
I still don't get why Dr. Ortlund would still use the 10,000 people bible survey argument. That's like a double edged sword on his part.
GOD BLESS HIS ONE AND ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
One and only ? Think again!
@@fabiotuan5206 🥱🥱😴😴
You are correct. There is one catholic church. And it includes the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Eastern Churches and Protestants. We are all in the one true church.
@@metrx330no. One true church is the Catholic Church. Can a Protestant be saved? Yes but it’s a more complex topic than if a Catholic can be saved. A Catholic has no excuse if they don’t make it to heaven. We have Sacred scripture, Sacred tradition and the magisterium and all the sacraments. And the authority of the church. Catholics believe no salvation outside the church. Orthodox atleast have all the sacraments. There’s a video on Sensus fidellium about this very topic.
Protestants (not objectively) could be saved. But if they come to learn the full knowledge of the Catholic Church that it is the true church and still reject it, they are condemned. It’s different if a Protestant ignorantly doesn’t accept Catholicism they could potentially be saved but if they willingly choose to reject after being enlightened in the truth, that’s a no no.
I've watched quite a few of these Ortlund / Trent rebuttals of rebuttals now on multiple issues. As someone working toward converting to the Catholic Church, I find a lot of the discourse helpful in conjunction with my own reading of the historic church's beliefs and practices, and scriptural basis for what were and sometimes are originally suspect ideas for me. But I'm so confused about the comments I see on Gavin's videos and how it echoes people in my own life to the point I need to ask anyone who will reply. I watch his content and before I can even listen to an obviously better researched rebuttal that I'd come up with, I'm already thinking about how uncharitable, cherry-picking, and sometimes just downright mean Gavin can come across on issues. But then all the comments are universally "Even as a Catholic you make great points!", "Wow so charitable!", "A true defender of the faith", "Wow look at how horrible Trent / Jimmy are with their ad hominems", etc. and it just baffles and confuses me.
I'd love for there to continue to be good discussions about points of doctrinal difference but is this really a case of battle lines are drawn so people will just stick to their side with biases that make being charitable impossible?
I don't know. I've seen echo chamber mentality from both Protestants and Catholics on social media, but I've definitely been seeing it more tipped, at least to me, on the Protestant heavy side the more I've opened up the pandora's box that is researching what I believe and why I believe it. My biggest gripe seems to be the refusal of some Protestants (including in my own personal life) to believe Catholics when they say "We believe X and don't believe Y", as if they would know Catholicism better than my priest or these researched Catholic apologetics who can clearly explain what they believe. Why are there so many Protestants ready to die on seemingly the stupidest hills? Like the insistence that Catholics worship Mary and the saints and just reject any pushback?
I don't know. It's all very discouraging to have family members seemingly hellbent on deliberately misunderstanding Catholic beliefs to the point that it makes me wonder if I'm crazy for not just agreeing with them unquestioningly.
Does anyone have any encouragement or insight into this kind of division and maybe some advice on how to handle the people in their personal lives who are zealously opposed to you joining the Catholic Church as if it was Satan's personal pet project?
O oil
@@victorreyno6187 To me it appears to be a team sport mentality, and you can be any kind of Protestant and it's ok. But not Catholic because Protestantism is a rebellion against it. So you'll have Protestants saying that you only need to believe in Christ to be saved, and when Catholics say we believe, they then say you also have to be Protestant. Total team sport mentality.
Also heavy in teaching falsehoods, and to find out you were lied to is incredibly jarring. No one wants to have to go down that path because your whole world can get turned upside down. Family will start to resent you, your church you love becomes a place you trusted and no longer can, etc. It's hard.
I was once told by a Calvinist Protestant that Catholics don't believe Jesus is the Messiah. It didn't matter what I said, didn't matter that I pointed out I was Catholic and know my faith, and that the people he learned from were anti-Catholics, which matters. He was stuck on his lie as truth. I even pointed out that he wouldn't want his worst enemy to explain his beliefs or actions to others, so why wouldn't he extend that analogy to his trusting enemies of the Church? None of it mattered. I pointed him to catholic.com when he asked more and more questions, but I doubt he read anything I gave him. He's too invested in being one of the "elite" and wanting to prove me wrong.
Thanks Dr. Ortland
The simplest proof of the Theotokos’ Dormition/Assumption is that there are no relics of her. If there were, we Orthodox and Catholics would know EXACTLY where she is. But since she left us no bodily relics, it’s only sensible that God took her into glory.
That doesn't make sense. Mary had no prominent role in the Church. Aside from giving birth to Jesus she is rarely mentioned in the Gospels.
Or maybe it hadn't dawned on the earliest Christians to cut and fragment up the bones of Jesus's mother...
There are relics from Mary. They were more popular during the 16th century and prior. Things such as her hair, and her breast milk were kept as relics.
@@shallowlake shallow-words...... there are no nil zilch nada first class relics of Mary, but since you say there are just name your sources.
@@jimmys6566 Google it dude
I served this Vigil Mass on August 14. And I am 52 years old.
Heres what i never understood about this whole thing: Protestants seem to recoil at the idea of the Assumption because some how it deifies Mary, yet are perfectly fine with Enoch and Elijah...like what gives?? Why be SO resistant to the idea? I mean if anyone is going to be assumed into heaven its Mary 😂 they start with a strange preconceived notion that its just absolutely blasphemous on face value and its just not
Because the bible explicitly states the Elijah and Enoch were assumed into heaven. There is nothing in the Bible that states or even insinuates that Mary was ever assumed into heaven.
@@canine_delight Well, Catholics are a people of the Word and not of the book. Everything is not in the bible, and as a quick point, the bible never states that all things are in the Bible. I get so tired of Protestants claiming the Catholic Church is so wrong and evil, my Church, the Catholic Church is about 2000 years old, we have the Word, the mystics, martyrs, the mass, and the early church fathers the deposit of faith and the Eucharist. Before about 500 years ago all Christians were Catholic.
@@canine_delight That's a non-sequitor. He's saying that a reason Protestants don't like it is because it "deifies" Mary. So does the Bible deify Enoch and Elijah?
Otherwise, we don't subscribe to the unbiblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura, so the absence of explicit mention in the Bible does not count against Mary's assumption, especially if she was assumed after the writing of the New Testament books.
@@EmberBright2077 Roman Catholicism is fraught with superstition and blasphemous. It deifies Mary in a number of was including the belief that she was sinless. That's utter bunk.
@@timcarr6401 That is a series of claims, and are baseless.
Regarding the one claim you elaborate on:
It is not "deifying" Mary to believe that she is without sin. Or do all Christians deify Adam and Eve for believing they were created without sin?
Audio’s great my dude! Take your time off!
Love Trent's application of Protestant standards regarding Marian evidence to Protestant doctrines! Check out William Albrecht's refutation/rebuttal on Patristic Pillars too. While Trent's authority-centered perspective is valid and useful, Albrecht's engagement of the scholarship and early Fathers is a bit more thorough (he also plays clips from interview of Fr Daley) and visual.
So if I don't believe these inconsequential things about Mary I am damned to hell?
It just means you don't Jesus as well as you think.
It's not that easy of an answer to give.
What don't you believe?
@@user-fb2jb3gz1d It's unconvincing and it unsettles me that my salvation could be dependent on such things.
@@JubalBed so you're upset because someone said your salvation depends on this?
If you don't believe this, why are you here in the first place?
If you don't think it matters, then why the comment.
Don't they teach you to not go to other denominations or learn other Gospels that are not of your own?
Just asking
@@user-fb2jb3gz1d I'm here because I love learning, challenging my own beliefs and challenging the beliefs of others.
Don't assume things about me. I believe the concept of denominationalism drives divisions at the heart of Christianity.
Wait, is Trent using the Book of Mary’s Repose as evidence for the assumption? I thought it was a gnostic book that denied the sonship of Christ and had a gnostic creation myth. Are there really no better sources for the belief’s historicity?
I hope the faithful would not resort to using such sources to support any proposed Truth of God.
No, at 32:17 Trent quotes from the scholar Shoemaker-the scholar that Dr. Ortlund respects as the leading authority on this issue. Shoemaker says it is undeniable that the heretical narratives are not the first iterations of this belief and that it is almost certain that the belief can be traced before them to non-heretical groups.
Trent explains that Dr. Ortlund should agree with Shoemaker if Shoemaker is a reliable source.
He goes on to say that the gnostic texts, therefore, are not the driving factor behind belief in Mary’s Assumption. They happen to know that detail, but it’s not from their texts that we need to trace the history of the belief.
Historicity isn't the same as orthodoxy, what kind of complaint even is this?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj very true-well put!
Mary is considered the new arc of the covenant and in revelation John sees the arc in the heavens then it's the woman covered in the stars who gives birth to what we know is the Lord, Jesus.
Look how the early church fathers thought of Mary. You'll see how the Catholic Church comes to the conclusion of Mary's assumption.
I had a hard time with that teaching until I read the early church fathers works
“This issue alone is enough to make someone a Protestant” ~Gavin Ortlund
Really??? What issues are “enough” to reject Protestantism I wonder?
Gavin plays nice and sweet talks very well but his deceitful and dishonest anti Catholic bias always comes out in the end.
Consider that he may be saying that based on the “house of cards” theory:
Since the (Roman) Catholic position is that there can be zero error in teaching, it only takes one error to bring down all the rest of it.
I’ve had (Roman) Catholics tell me to “not throw out the baby with the bath water”, but it really seems that a system that claims infallibility should not even throw out a drop of water.
I can’t speak for Gavin, but I suspect his may be why he said what you pointed out.
The “Protestant” position allows for potential error and “reform”, so if there were something that someone argued as a point to reject Protestantism….it could be that this something just needs reform.
Just possible scenarios to your point
@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 There’s no such “house of cards” in true Catholicism; the church has the authority therefore the dogma is infallible.
1 Tim 3:15 - the church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
@@RedWolf5
I have much difficulty seeing the relationship between “pillar and foundation of truth” and “complete infallibility”.
I understand that somehow (Roman) Catholics have no problem seeing this, as this is what The (Roman) Catholic Church says “pillar and foundation” means.
@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 Your problem with understanding this comes from cherry picking scripture and not reading the Bible as a whole.
@@RedWolf5
Interesting assertion to make to someone in whom you have zero knowledge.
It seems wise to avoid casting such claims on people you don’t know intimately.
I’m happy to know that I do in fact adhere to Tota Scriptura. Whether you know my conviction on this matter is out of my control.
So, I am on team Catholic but I do love me some Dr. Ortlund commentaries. I think this man loves Christ with a passion and I bet he is a fantastic pastor. And no doubt he has much deeper theological training than me, and although I'm sure he wouldn't out of charity, I bet he could run academic circles around me. With that said, I find two points interesting off the top of my head. First, the idea of giving Revelation 12 to 10,000 people to find the Assumption. One could probably say the same for the doctrine of the Trinity and homoousios. To my mind this is a moot point since the Church is guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit, not 10, 000 randomly drawn individuals. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Dr. O here. Secondly, with the idea of the timeline of Revelation 12, a woman giving birth in heaven etc. My background is more in the arts, music, poetry, literature. This just isn't an issue for me. Apocalyptic visions... one would think anyhow, follow more of an ecstatic, poetic path and not a chronological timeline. I'm not saying this is a lack of imagination on his part, but simply a lack of a poetic or literary way to view the passage. Anyhow, if I lived on the west coast and was looking for a Reformed Baptist church to attend, I suspect his would be a fantastic one to call home.
Given your background, why do Catholics insist the birth a literal birth in Revelation 12:2 but not in Revelation 12:17?
I see both as symbolic births.
@@yajunyuan7665 I'm certainly open to being corrected...I don't pretend to be a scholar by any stretch of the imagination. But, if I am understanding your question correctly, it seems to me the answer is in the text, at least as I read it albeit in English and not Greek. The first example you gave mentions a woman giving birth to a child. And a child that would rule the nations with an iron rod. Seems possible for a woman to give birth to a male child, happens every day. The second verse you mentioned talks about the dragon waging war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus. That seems to me to be fairly impossible for that to be a literal birth, that's a whole lot of children. My understanding of Catholic readings of this text is that there is no reason to make this an either/or situation. I wish I could recall the sources for you, but I have read interpretations of this chapter that speak of the woman clothed with the sun as the Virgin Mary and as the new Israel. Anyhow, that's the way I understand it from here in the cheap seats. Back to reading through the book of Judges for me, I hope you have a great evening.
@@johnsayre2038 "My understanding of Catholic readings of this text is that there is no reason to make this an either/or situation"
The problem is this introduces relativism into the text. It leads to Catholics saying Protestants are wrong, not because they have the wrong interpretation but because the exclude other "right" interpretations.
Thanks for your answer, have a great evening. My follow-up question once you finish reading the book of Judges would be okay lets for arguments sake say it is a literal birth, then why do Catholics say "she *cried* out, being in labor and in *pain* to give birth" is not literal?
It seems like cherry picking to me, especially since this happens every day.
@@yajunyuan7665 yeah, the book of judges is fantastic. The last line gets me every time. Thank you for your response. I respectfully disagree that it introduces relativism. Again we could look at the Eucharist, is it bred and wine? Yes. From the Catholic perspective is it also the body blood soul and divinity of Christ? Also, yes. Regarding the labor pains of the Virgin Mary. Again, I might be mistaken and am open towards correction but I do not believe the church's magisterium has made a definitive statement on this. I believe some theologians believe Mary did not suffer any labor pains, but some going off of the curse from Genesis note that Eve was only told her labor pains went increase implying that women already endured labor pains. So then, if Mary endured labor pains that would have been not associated with the curse of Eve, only an increase in labor pains. I'm firing this off quickly with talk to text and running out the door to work so please excuse any typos. Viva Cristo Rey.
I'm on team Catholic too ❣️❣️❣️
We have relics of apostles but not of Mary. We have two tombs of Mary, no body. Why? Assumption is a fact. Get over it.
Why would you ever have relics? Why is an empty tomb proof that there was an assumption? You are really taking incredible leaps of logic to justify a demonic religion.
Yep!
The two tombs are fascinating. For long only one tomb was widely known until a mystic saw the second tomb and guided people to discover it on a secluded island. And there was evidence there near Ephesus of the other tomb.
31:19 I'm a protestant and I don't believe all doctrine is found in scripture alone. But if you say: "Believe this or else you go to hell" - you better find that doctrine in scripture. Sola scriptura does not mean, that scripture is the only source of doctrine, but it's the only infallible source.
Does it concern you that scripture never clearly delineates which doctrines are necessary for salvation and which are not?
@@TheCounselofTrent I think scripture is clear as hell (pun intended) that loving God is my first duty and that there is nothing that can save me from God's wrath, except God himself, that is Jesus Christ. I have to trust and love him more than myself, my family and everything I am, in order to be saved. And even that I will fail to do, unless God himself enables me to do so, that is God, the Holy Spirit. To answer your question, I am not concerned, I have the church that teaches me how to be saved. Scripture teaches us to trust the church Jesus established, but also to be alert when she goes to far.
@@georgwagner937 Not. It's not clear as hell. The evidence of this is the Epistle of Peter about St Paul writings and of course the multiple and contradictory interpretations in the protestant field when there is not a solid Magisterium.
@@TheCounselofTrent so how does the Catholic Church know that believing the bodily assumption of Mary is necessary for salvation?
@@Fasolislithuan your "solid magisterium" is interpreted in a myriad of contradictory ways. Is it therefore wrong? Or is your method wrong because people misunderstand what is being taught?
15 years ago when i was a catholic it really bothered me when I went to the apologetics and found contrived answers about papacy, Mary and all the catholic particular beliefs.
Some months ago I knew about sort of a new wave of catholic apologists and checked your responses to Gavin. Now I found that the catholic apologists are even worse! The contrived answers, appeals to Newman concept of doctrinal development and the way you read your ideas into the scripture and into the fathers is simply unbelievable.
Dr Gavin has a strong case about these deviant belief from scripture and now I know Rome is exactly the same. Every catholic apologist has surrendered his mind to the Pope: No matter how contrived, how far fetched the response needs to be, Rome and the Pope needs to be defended
So sad Catholic church added all this Mariology in their tradition when it's not Biblical at all but then again they added many other doctrines that are not Biblical either just like what Calvanists did.
What makes it "sad"? There is no verse of scripture which says that Mary was not assumed.
@@randycarson9812 And there is no verse saying that she was.
@@thinkerj Correct. But what we do have is history, reason, and the infallible teaching of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in support of the belief that Mary was assumed. IOW, there are solid reasons to believe that Mary was assumed.
Since there is NO scriptural evidence against it, Protestants have nothing but their own prejudice against the Catholic Church.
@@randycarson9812 Well, I do not believe in any "infallible Magisterium", so that's that. And what do you mean by an argument from history in this case? That there are historical records of her assumption?
@@thinkerj You should believe in the infallibility of the Catholic Church since it follows from scripture. Yes, FROM SCRIPTURE. Here's how:
1.Jesus does not teach error. (cf. Jn 14:6)
2. Jesus said to His apostles, "He who hears you hears me." (cf. Lk 10:16)
3. Therefore, the apostles do not teach error.
4. Jesus said to His apostles, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (cf. Mt 16:19, 18:18)
5. By this God-given authority, the apostles appointed successors, the bishops, in the Church (cf. Acts 1:12-26, 2 Tim 2:2).
6. Therefore, the bishops in the Church are the successors of the Apostles.
7. Therefore, the bishops of the Catholic Church, led by the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) and accompanied by Jesus until the end of time (cf. Mt 28:20), continue to teach in the name of Jesus without error.
8. Therefore, anyone who hears the bishops in the Church, guided by their apostolic authority (cf. Acts 20:28, Titus 1:7-9), will not hear error.
Just to drive this point home, consider the promises and assurances Jesus gave to His Church which would be:
1. built it upon solid rock (Mt 16:18),
2. led by a steward acting with Jesus’ authority (Mt 16:19, Is 22:20-22),
3. authorized speak in His name and to bind and loose (cf. Mt 16:19),
4. endowed with the Holy Spirit (cf. John 14:26),
5. safeguarded by the charism of infallibility, preventing it from teaching error (cf. Mt 10:40), and
6. accompanied by Jesus until the end of time (cf. Mt 28:20),
Given these divine guarantees, how could such a Church deviate from the truth? Is Jesus incapable of protecting and guiding His Church?
Isn't it more plausible that those who broke away 1500 years later either misunderstood or simply rejected the Church's teachings?
If Elijah was caught up, and Enoch was caught up, what makes anyone think anything other than the Mother of our Lord being caught up? Would God allow the womb that held Christ to decay? Anything other than the Assumption of Mary sounds strange and foreign.
Bishop Theoteknos sounds like the coolest DJ you have never heard.
😆
🤣
I absolutely love being catholic… that being said, I still sometime struggle with Marion doctrines because for so many years I had Protestant doctrines shoved down my throat
Great discussion. I seriously doubt he’ll take you up on the issue of authority. Protestants even dodge a piker like me on that one. They always want to stay subjective so they can apply their own creative interpretations to both scripture and tradition. The moment you pin them down on their authority, and contrast it with even scriptural support like the great commission and the giving of the keys to Peter, or what scripture itself defines as the pillar and bulwark of truth, (hint, it isn’t scripture or a Protestant theologian), they run for cover. But I hope he will take you up on it, I would love to hear that one!
How do you interpret the authority that you are referring to?
@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 I don’t have to interpret anything. I just need to follow the teachings of the Church Jesus founded and gave authority to teach in his name. Matthew 28: 18-20 makes things pretty clear; “18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
@@thedomesticmonk772
How do you “follow the teachings”?
Do you read them? Does this not require interpretation?
Do you listen to them? Does this not require interpretation?
@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 Please spare me the death by 1000 cuts and get to your real point. This is going exactly where most discussions with Protestant’s go. I provided you chapter and verse for the authority given by Christ to his church and now you’re trying to change the subject. The Church was given authority by Christ to preach and teach in his name. Was it not?
@@thedomesticmonk772
Ok. Sorry to get you so frustrated.
You must personally interpret the teachings of the (Roman) Catholic Church in the exact way that you appear to be chastising anyone who would use the Word of God as their final guide.
You interpret the teachings of the (Roman) Catholic Church without question, as if the language of men is more valuable or understandable than the Language of God.
One could argue that you are using “Man” as your final authority, while someone who relies on “The Bible” is using GOD as their final authority.
Lastly, can we drop calling anyone who is not (Roman) Catholic as “Protestant”.
I’m a Christian.
Thank you so much. It's so disturbing to rival Mary with her son
Can someone tell Ortland that he has no way to differentiate whether the text is actually perspicuous and he's doing good exegesis vs just importing his pre-existing tradition to the text. This isn't the first time he's done a "ask 10,000 people." Yes, they will all bring their implicit knowledge with them to the text. Catholicism actually recognizes this reality whereas protestantism pretends everything is perspicuous and if you're good the meaning should be beamed into you upon reading it, which is of course why there are so many interpretations that tracks perfectly to a common descent and evolution from a shared tradition
As an Orthodox, this is a perfect argument not just of Protestantism, but of Romanism, where encyclicals and clarifications are needed in order to interpret the Pope, discern what is ex cathedra, and so on, but those must be interpreted as well, and the divergence of interpretation has lead to almost a dozen major theological schools within one "communion."
@@cyriljorge986 Yes, the interpreter of scripture needs it own interpreter lol
@ZachCICM No, it can't be, because who interprets the clarification? Think about the death penalty: Francis called it "against the gospel" like his predecessors, but trads are dead set with their strong argument for it being allowable as part of Holy Tradition. Where's the clarification? Well, it's right there. Death penalty is against the gospel, and as per Trent and V1, all Romanists must assent to that even if it's not extraordinary magisterium (and zero Roman Catholics can even reliably discern what is extraordinary magisterium, so it's a useless doctrine in the first place). HAHAHAHA
Watch Jay Dyer's 9-hour ending of Trent Horn's career. He distills things simply and cites exhaustively. I was educated in Rome, so unfortunately not much was new to me, but it's remarkably useful for those that know Romanism a bit less.
And no, there is absolutely zero Orthodox belief in ADS, and zero in Filioque, except for that of an energetic procession. We don't go by individuals, but by Vincentian dogma, councils, Scripture, and Liturgy. This is basic, basic stuff, and I've yet to find a Romanist who understands the basics and doesn't end up leaving! Smartest RC I've ever interacted with on the internet just left. Top 5 all have. The ship is leaking!
@@cyriljorge986 what is ADS?
@@cyriljorge986 No lmao. A living magisterium that is there to keep up with the ever changing world is good actually. That the interpreter needs an interpreter needs an interpreter is not something that uniquely cuts against everyone but the Orthodox
My pre-listen material is that Mary’s assumption has precedent in Elijah as a sign of divine favor from suffering death, consistent with prefiguring the resurrection that we should not suffer death, and that Mary assumption is a logical conclusion of another dogma, immaculate conception.
Immaculate conception being appropriate for Mary to be a Queen of Heaven, that is the mother of a King, and appropriate as a feminine New Eve to Jesus the new Adam as they take on a more perfected role of being “parents” of humanity in the sense of reconciling what Adam and Eve did/do.
It’s something on the mysticism realm that’s more directly referenced in the more mystical elements of scripture (like revelations and Genesis) so for the less-mystically minded it’s harder for them to accept except by authority.
Regarding Trent’s comparison to the “late” acceptance of the book of Revelation to the “late” tradition of the Assumption, he is leaving out key details. The fact was with Revelation you at least HAD acceptance of it within the Church community, very early on, and in Rome. Justin Martyr being one the early ones to mention this. You see it in the Muratorian Canon, and Iraneus mentions it as well.
Whereas you have no such thing with the Bodily Assumption. The only mention of it was within heretical groups for the first 5 centuries.
The most obvious reason would be that when Gnostics, who were some of the main enemies of the Faith in the early centuries of the Christian era, agreed with the Church on the matter, there would have been no need to defend the teaching. In other words, there is no record of anyone disagreeing on the matter. We don’t find works from the earliest Fathers on Jesus’ celibacy either, but that too was most likely due to the universal agreement on the topic. Much of early Christian literature was apologetic in nature. Like the New Testament, it mostly dealt with problem areas in the Church that needed to be addressed.
Even so, it is not as though there is no written evidence to support the Assumption either. According to Fr. O’Carroll (Theotokos, 388), we now have what some believe to be a fourth-century homily on the prophet Simeon and the Blessed Virgin Mary by Timothy, a priest of Jerusalem, which asserts Mary is “immortal to the present time through him who had his abode in her and who assumed and raised her above the higher regions.”
Evidently, there was disagreement in the circulating stories of the Assumption of Mary as to whether she was taken up alive or after having died. But whether or not she was assumed was not in question. Indeed, the Church even to this day has not decided definitively the matter of whether Mary died or not, though at the level of the Ordinary Magisterium it does teach that Mary died-for example, in Pope Pius XII’s Munificentissimus Deus, 17, 20, 21, 29, 35, 39, and 40.
@@noahgaming8833 so your argument appears to be, you don’t see the Fathers arguing against gnostics over the assumption, therefore it’s because the Fathers agreed with them on it. This explains their silence.
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 most of the writings of the apostles and early church fathers were apologetic, like when Paul talks about baptism is the inward circumcision, he is addressing the judaizers, because that problem needed to be addressed,I don’t think he would need to say those things if there weren’t any people who thought you had to be circumcised to be baptized.
I strongly suggest that the videos show one image when you are speaking and another when your interlocutor is speaking.
Let's not forget that the Holy Bible came from Tradition. Explaining every doctrine and dogma is not "why" we have a Bible in the first place.
Very solid point.
Did we not break with tradition when we separated from Judaism?
No, we stayed the course and fulfilled Judaism.
@@Coastie4 Jesus fulfilled the law. Our traditions and practices are different because of what Jesus did. But there still were traditions before that we discarded.
@@JubalBed not many though. so what's your point?
Since the RCC told at least a couple of differing stories on "The Death of Mary" for something like 1500 years before she was suddenly "assumed bodily into heaven" the RCC itself debunks your mythology.
Here we go again. I want to give Horn the benefit of the doubt but it is just too embarrassing when he starts to do the whole "you argue like an atheist" to every Protestant objection as a blanket statement. Had he been generous he would have admitted that Ortlund meant there was no "textual" evidence to support the Assumption. Throughout Ortlund's case it is very clear that he is speaking of textual evidence, not just evidence per se. If one wants to argue that there is evidence based on precedent (i.e. papal dogma) or philosophical interpretation that is fine, but don't conflate it with "evidence" of all kinds. The reason early Protestants rejected the belief was because it IS NOT FOUND in pre-nicene Christianity. That is what Protestants argue from. Nothing more, nothing less. So please, enough with the straw men. Please.
Even by that standard this is a stretch because he's completely dismissing the textual evidence from things like the palm narratives. You can say it's weak but there isn't *no textual evidence*. Same would be true of the citation from Ephraem the syrian I mentioned.
>”Whoever can pronounce that should just immediately win the debate.”
Lmao I win!
Protestant here, doing some exploration. I've been watching a lot of Gavin's videos and some of yours, and I want to commend you for engaging with him in the same spirit of thoughtfulness and respect that I see in his videos. Y'all actually give me some hope in humanity's better angels, so to speak. Further, out of the Catholic apologists I've watched, I think I find more value in your videos because of this. Some of the others I've seen seem rather disingenuous, unfortunately.
I wish all my Protestant friends a happy Feast of the Accretions
That's funny. Roman Catholicism is filled to the brim with accretions.