I don’t think Ortlund would do it. He’s steered away from the more scholarly Catholics and seems more interested in the pop-lite Catholic Answers apologist types. I think Albrecht and Ybarra have bodied him one too many times for him to do it.
Ybarra mopped the floor with Jay Dyer on the papacy so it also probably wouldnt go well for Ortlund. Or maybe it will...if he keeps getting obliterated by catholic apologists maybe he will eventually abandon his incoherent protestant position and convert.😂
I watched the whole 2 hours, but the first 30 minutes settled it for me. Secondly, people forget that there is a whole video out there on this very topic in this very channel, round table style. I still recommended that video to everyone. At this point let’s just accept that it is there and keep it moving.
Papal supremacy isn’t open and shut. Papal primacy absolutely is. I see how RC and EO have a legitimate open debate about this but the idea that the papacy has no primacy is so absurd and I go to an Orthodox Church and am saying that.
@@milagroman75 my biggest issue with the orthodox position is that it changes. If it’s to stop a heresy they sign off on it, if it’s not convenient for them they reject it, some believed it was a divine institution, others didn’t. Even within what primacy means, that’s open for debate for some EO. Then you have the reality of not having a Pope in the EO world, no councils at least not ones that all feel binds them all, since the split from Rome. Rome on the other hand, has been consistent in her position. For me it has always made sense to have one who can bind all, it was true in ancient Israel, it was true during the time of the Sanhedrin, and I believe it is true for the Church.
@@Gruenders well they could bind the people of Israel back when it was in existence. You would have within the Sanhedrin a prince and a vice prince, and then the rest of the ruling body. The prince basically had the power to bind and loose on his own but typically worked with his fellow judges to bind and loose.
Erick you have been a huge influence in my study of catholicism and church history! Thank you for this response to Gavin's video! I just got your book and can't wait to start it "it's not IF vat I is in the firt millennium, it's THAT vat I is in the first millennium" 👏🏻 well put Suan!
With all this documentation and it's history until today I'm convinced what the bible teaches regarding papacy beginnings. Thanks for taking the time to teach us regarding this important matter.
Great presentation Erik thank you for taking time to respond to Dr. Gavin. What I enjoy about your presentations is that you take time to site so many different sources even the ones that may not necessarily be aligned with the Catholic teachings. 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
He really gives fair-minded presentations of Catholic theology and doesn't devolve into emotional strawmen arguments like most anti-Catholic Protestant polemicists.
he and Austin for gospel simplicity have studied the church enough to have adapted some form of real presence in Eucharist. That makes them alot closer to where Catholics and Orthodox are than most Protestants. Plus they seem engaged in the early church writers which is typically where Catholics and Orthodox make our claims the most strongest.
What the other side does is try to present Pope Vigilius, who was under duress, as making contradictory dogmatic definitions about the Three Chapters. Hopefully IC and Ybarra will address the issue in a way that's easy to understand.
John, I wish to contact you since I appreciate that you are someone who knows his sources based on the primary sources and would like to occasionally ask you this and that, but I couldn't find a way to get to you. Can you give me your email? With respect.
Wow! Just overwhelming evidence. As someone who grew up an atheist I came to faith because I saw that the Bible predicts that Jesus would start a church that he said would be persecuted, would be unified, and would grow to all nations. And when I looked at what church did that, the only church I saw for at least 600 years was the Catholic Church. If Jesus said he would build a church and the gates of hades would not prevail against it; then if the Catholic Church was totally false then that means that Jesus started a church and then immediately let it fail. Gavin frustrates me because he obfuscates things by saying that not all the church fathers agreed on Catholic principles almost like a prosecutor with a guilty client (Protestantism) who is just trying to sow just enough reasonable doubt in unknowing people like me by saying things like "Papal supremacy" was a very late accretion and quoting the one scholar out of 20 that believe it. I watch those videos from Gavin and he seems to polished an so well read and it sows seeds of doubt. And then I see this overwhelming evidence that Eric provides! And thank God for that. I also watched Eric give overwhelming evidence for the Biblical case for Transubstantiation. If non Catholics want to argue against Catholicism then they should do a point by point refutation of Eric's (and Suan in this case) but I never see it. Thank you for this thorough presentation of nearly overwhelming evidence. God bless you both.
No need to be insulting. I’m still working my way through this presentation, but as someone on the fence I will say that I don’t see the very quotes featured here as settling it. It’s a lot of walls of text, sure, but each time I’m going, “ok what about any of this has to do with the core objections Dr. Ortlund raised?” Yes, the bishop of Rome was always a bishop and commanded respect-we all knew that. That’s a far cry from being God’s avatar on earth. But I’ll keep watching.
@@MaryJoseph-oz4zb I was replying to “unbelievable Jack Chick scholarship” in reference to Dr. Ortlund-which was a pretty rotten comment. Do you have any scolding for that person or are they on the same team?
If Gavin is Ybarra’s friend then most likely Ybarra threw all this in his face already and Gavin reacted just like Tierney: “Yeeeaah I just don’t see it”. Lol
Gavin Ortlund has a bad habit of leaving out the complete writings of the Church Fathers and Popes! Gavin Ortlund has made me a stronger Catholic Christian! Two Catholic Giants right here! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
What did the Early Church think about the canon? Let’s take a look at St. Jerome and nobody else, and let’s not read anything else Jerome ever wrote. 😂
@bman5257 LOL, so true! Plus, Saint Jerome submitted to Peter's successor on the matter of the canon!🤣🤣 Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
He also is very charitable to the living faithful but uncharitable to the sleeping faithful. He presumes his belief framework and reads it into others, then says “it was an accretion” when the early Christians do agree with him. Or that they don’t make sense or contradict themselves.
@michaelandrews4424 Yes, Gavin Ortlund doesn't believe we shall each be judged as we have judged others and we shall each be held accountable for every careless word we have uttered and shall each be liable to judgment if angry with others and we shall each receive recompense for BOTH the good AND THE BAD we have done in the body and we must all strive for that holiness without which no one shall see the Lord, even though Holy Scripture teaches we will! 🤔 Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
What do you think it would take to convince Gavin of Catholicism? It seems like he went full spectrum arguing his points against the Catholic Church, but I’m curious if there is one big thing holding him back or if he’s too attached to reformed theology right now.
@@PuzzlesC4M true. And I mean when you think of the amount of schooling they went through, just to throw that out the window…… I got my undergraduate in baptist theology and that sucked enough to realize it was a waste of time. I can’t imagine getting a doctorate.
I’m slightly favoring the Catholic side of this debate but I really think that’s a mischaracterization of what’s at stake for Ortlund. I think there is plenty to gain for him becoming Catholic. Imagine the hype around his new books if he came out in support of the papacy. He’d be heralded as THE guy for Catholic apologetics since he was once one of the most convincing Protestant apologists. I think he stays Protestant cause he’s convinced
I’m so confused. Gavin says we have some evidence of special power but no supremacy in the first 1,000 years, he asks why popes aren’t exercising authority in the ecumenical councils. Ybarra gives us dozens of quotes and none of them show supremacy. No cases were cited where the pope rules over others that disagree on theology and acts like he is supreme. If he is supreme why can’t you show him exercising supremacy? Why is it just quotes about how Peter (not the Roman bishop) has authority?
Because it was never a doctrine within Scripture nor was it doctrine in the first 1000 years of the church. Infallibility is never suggested and certainly not clearly promised by Christ. It is an unbiblical dogma in the never ending struggle for power from Rome, against the rest of the church, both Catholic and the true body of Christ. Catholic dogma: if 1 + 1 = 2 then 985 🦖
All of these quotes are so indirect. Where is the case of a Roman bishop exercising supreme power over the universal church like he claims he has always done in Vatican 1? If this is the constant custom for 1,000 years I would think you would have hundreds of examples…can you give us ten with specific dates and the issues where Rome exercised universal supremacy?
@@intellectualcatholicismfull power in himself alone to rule the entire church (explicitly stated in Vatican 1). So if there is a dispute he can overrule all other bishops and councils alone and the church universally would recognize that it is his right to exercise this jurisdictional power. Over 1,000 years I would think this would have happened dozens or hundreds of times even if the pope is not required to use all of the authority he has. If he really had this power at all times why don’t we see him frequently using it to force all others by his jurisdictional power to obey?
I think RC intellectuals know that the Roman bishop was not always understood by everybody at all times universally to have this kind of power. So, in other words, they understand that Vatican 1's statements are false. The words must be tortured beyond recognition before anybody can defend them as "true." But RC intellectuals are terrified of the relativism that could result from admitting it! The truth is that sinful men came up with this over time in a messy, contingent process. It's simply not plausible that Jesus gave this supremacy power to Peter and his direct successors in Rome, but we don't see it being used in any clear way that is similar to what is described in Vatican I for hundreds of years (or maybe even for one thousand years as Gavin claims!) These quotes from Ybarra AT MOST suggest that people were STARTING to talk about popes having this power (but no popes were actually exercising it) hundreds of years after Christ...you're not even TRYING to say Peter and his immediate successors had the kind of supreme jurisdictional power that Vatican 1 describes. Why shouldn't I conclude that you have basically conceded the argument? We both know Vatican 1 papal power is not found in 200AD or 300AD. What does it matter if it emerges in 1200 or 500? Either way, the Vatican 1 definition of papal power is not apostolic. I'm sorry but I think you all know this story ("Peter and his immediate successors had supremacy immediately but no pope ever exercised his supreme power to force other bishops and councils to submit to his will for hundreds of years") isn't plausible...UNLESS you're already committed to the RC system for other reasons...in that case, you are satisfied with these piles of quotes from Ybarra.
@@jfoflyer1You would expect hundreds of times for the Pope to but heads with an ecumenical council in the first 1000 years!?!! Dude there was only 8 ecumenical councils in total in the first 1000 years. 😂
I wish I could meet Erick in person. I’m converting to Orthodoxy but I can’t have a single conversation with a Roman Catholic on the papacy that is proper. Erick is successful because he’s loving and earnest. I really respect that despite disagreeing with him on the papacy. He’s a good role model for Christians of all types on how to engage in invitational rhetoric. I personally believe he doesn’t want to let go of a bone he has been holding his entire life (I didn’t want to let go of that bone either, but I realized it was time to acquiesce).
It's always hilarious to me when protestants point out "lack of evidence in the first millennium" for Catholicism as if any of their positions are found in the first millennium. They don't seem to have the same interest on what the first millennium figures have to say about ecclesiology, the Eucharist, or baptismal regeneration for a few examples
"Woe is me, if I cover over with silence the truth which I am bidden to give to the exchangers, i.e., to teach to the Christian people and imbue it therewith. What shall I say in the future examination by Christ himself, if I blush (which God forbid!) to preach here the truth of his words? What satisfaction shall I be able to give for myself, what for the souls committed to me, when he demands a strict account of the office I have received?" Pope St. Agatho
“Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more” (Lk 12, 48). Of course Pope St Agatho believed he has received a hugely important office - among plenty of fellow bishops hearing him -, otherwise his words would be meaningless.
All of the popes mentioned are in the medieval times 900-1200 not the beginning of the church. I don’t think showing those popes indicates that the church was ALWAYS like this (Pray for me and search for truth)
This is literally not true. He goes all the way back to Popes of the early 5th century. You should watch the whole video and then comment. I will pray for you.
Watch the video bro. It goes a lot earlier than the 13th century. “Fight to the death for the Truth. And the Lord your God will fight for you.” -Jesus Ben Sirach
@@fantasia55 Actually he genuinely believes that St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom subscribed to it. I can’t speak to the Chrysostom quote but Dave Armstrong have a good response to Ortlund’s citation of Augustine.
can one imagine the apostles, Peter and Paul, for example, saying the Church of Christ was roman while being prosecuted, tortured, and killed by Romans and the Roman empire? Absolute nonsense !!!!
Erick and Suan really should stop genuflecting to Gavin Ortlund. His nice-guy demeanor is a manipulate shtick. Look at comments to his videos. He has led many Catholics away from the Church.
Ok what about other people, like the atheist channels who do put out some really good content and debate or fine rebuttals to other channels claims. A good channel for freedom but more on the Atheist side is “Liberty in our lifetime” and look at their channels tab. (Also their playlist tab.) There is plenty of atheists there who have debunked many claims by some of the biggest Religious channels on here and these Christian channels don’t allow debate on their channels as they don’t allow commenting. As much as it hurts, The Atheist clearly has more thoughtful thinking and evidence to back up what they say. So religious channels really don’t stand a chance this is why I think they don’t try to rebuttal them. I’m really having doubts about religion and such.
@@KyleTheDalek The great flood? Really? Barely any catholic believes it, I don't. It's an allegory. So can you name one thing related to religion rather than science that's been debunked? I'm more than confident in my research, I don't need to go watch those channels since I don't doubt I'd spot a flaw or 100 in any of their videos, atheism makes no sense and the attempts of atheists to attack religion are always very bad, in my experience. I'm asking to help you. What upset you the most, about these videos? You said "I'm really having doubts", the solution is to talk these doubts over! Jesus rose, He won over death, there's nothing to fear in the Truth, it's wonderful!
@@eugene7989 Yeah that sort of is my point some channels make rebuttals but they don’t wipe the floor and it’s rare. These atheist channels are constantly putting out content.
@kylethedalek "wipe the floor"? In that particular video, Mathoma clearly demonstrates RR's lack of knowledge on the subject matter which he was critiquing ( which is what many atheists display when they do these "rebuttals")
Honestly, atheists have more appealing rhetoric on first blush because theism is actually incredibly complicated, and most of the best reasons for believing in it are, of necessity, highly abstract logical deductions from examining reality at its most fundamental level. If you’re a Catholic, I strongly suggest checking out Pat Flynn’s work on TH-cam. He has a few interviews on why he left atheism, and his Philosophy for the People channel is top tier Catholic content. To me, it comes down to this: classical theism posits the most simple foundation for reality possible. That is, a single being without any arbitrary limits, no parts, and who never undergoes any change. We can derive the existence of this being through several different independent lines of reasoning about change, various features of our world, the distinction between essence and existence, etc. The atheist typically never actually puts forward an alternative view for what is at the foundation of reality, and it varies according to their version of naturalism. Regardless of their version, it explains less, introduces “brute facts” where we have alternative explanations, and the more explanatory power it gains, the more it loses to theism in complexity. Therefore, we should accept theism. But none of what I just said is nearly as immediately convincing as “haha sky daddy I believe in science where’s the evidence”
Asked- Answered. Thanks Erick!
Now we need Erik and Gavin to have a live interaction together on the subject of the papacy, or Erik’s new book 👍
Why
……why don’t you take some time and think about it bruv 👍
I don’t think Ortlund would do it.
He’s steered away from the more scholarly Catholics and seems more interested in the pop-lite Catholic Answers apologist types.
I think Albrecht and Ybarra have bodied him one too many times for him to do it.
@@imjustheretogrill9260 tbh he is friends with Ybarra so I think it’s gonna happen
Ybarra mopped the floor with Jay Dyer on the papacy so it also probably wouldnt go well for Ortlund. Or maybe it will...if he keeps getting obliterated by catholic apologists maybe he will eventually abandon his incoherent protestant position and convert.😂
Man, Erick is a titan of a man. Both physically and intellectually. Amazing presentation.
I watched the whole 2 hours, but the first 30 minutes settled it for me. Secondly, people forget that there is a whole video out there on this very topic in this very channel, round table style. I still recommended that video to everyone. At this point let’s just accept that it is there and keep it moving.
Papal supremacy isn’t open and shut. Papal primacy absolutely is. I see how RC and EO have a legitimate open debate about this but the idea that the papacy has no primacy is so absurd and I go to an Orthodox Church and am saying that.
@@milagroman75 my biggest issue with the orthodox position is that it changes. If it’s to stop a heresy they sign off on it, if it’s not convenient for them they reject it, some believed it was a divine institution, others didn’t. Even within what primacy means, that’s open for debate for some EO. Then you have the reality of not having a Pope in the EO world, no councils at least not ones that all feel binds them all, since the split from Rome. Rome on the other hand, has been consistent in her position. For me it has always made sense to have one who can bind all, it was true in ancient Israel, it was true during the time of the Sanhedrin, and I believe it is true for the Church.
How's about a link?
@@simplydannywho could bind all in the Sanhedrin? Genuine question. Would be a strong point if true.
@@Gruenders well they could bind the people of Israel back when it was in existence. You would have within the Sanhedrin a prince and a vice prince, and then the rest of the ruling body. The prince basically had the power to bind and loose on his own but typically worked with his fellow judges to bind and loose.
This is the best presentation I've watched on the papal claims. so much depth and so many resources.
Erick you have been a huge influence in my study of catholicism and church history! Thank you for this response to Gavin's video! I just got your book and can't wait to start it
"it's not IF vat I is in the firt millennium, it's THAT vat I is in the first millennium" 👏🏻 well put Suan!
This is incredible. Coudos Erik.
With all this documentation and it's history until today I'm convinced what the bible teaches regarding papacy beginnings. Thanks for taking the time to teach us regarding this important matter.
This is one of the best presentations I’ve seen so far from you Erick. This was great!
Thanks Suan for the little appreciated work of doing really good time stamps for this video!
Fantastic job by Erick. Hopefully this will help Mr. Ortlund to finally decide to come back home.
It won't, because he's not intelectually honest in his approach.
@@ghostapostle7225 We can always pray and hope.
Great work on Vigilius.
God bless both of you. Deus Vult!
2 of the best Catholic apologists. Thanks.
Great presentation Erik thank you for taking time to respond to Dr. Gavin. What I enjoy about your presentations is that you take time to site so many different sources even the ones that may not necessarily be aligned with the Catholic teachings. 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
Best presentation yet. 💪
Outstanding work! I especially appreciate that the guests cite their sources and in so doing you elevate your conversation!
Goofy is a Disney characters.
@@JayEhm1517 you a goof ball troll lol. Ortlund is so out of touch. He got checkmated.
Well done Erick, fantastic work!
Gavin Ortlund must be amaze and shock watching this. A wealth of information.
Erick's power point was very aesthetically pleasing! The facts were nice too
How do we even begin to work on these topics, I’m so grateful for those that dedicate themselves to our education!
Superb.
Erick Ybarra needs to be more well known!!!!
No, he doesn't. He sounds half baked....like a ______
He will be
It takes time, he will get there. I’ve been following him for a few years now
Amazing. Thank you!
Just a little curious why Gavin Ortlund appears to be the default go to Protestant nowadays for Catholic apologists?
He engages with the responses rather than dwelling on factually incorrect stuff
He's really the only one worth engaging nowadays lol the rest is low hanging fruit.
He's the only one with a good attitude.
He really gives fair-minded presentations of Catholic theology and doesn't devolve into emotional strawmen arguments like most anti-Catholic Protestant polemicists.
he and Austin for gospel simplicity have studied the church enough to have adapted some form of real presence in Eucharist. That makes them alot closer to where Catholics and Orthodox are than most Protestants. Plus they seem engaged in the early church writers which is typically where Catholics and Orthodox make our claims the most strongest.
Great stuff
What the other side does is try to present Pope Vigilius, who was under duress, as making contradictory dogmatic definitions about the Three Chapters. Hopefully IC and Ybarra will address the issue in a way that's easy to understand.
John, I wish to contact you since I appreciate that you are someone who knows his sources based on the primary sources and would like to occasionally ask you this and that, but I couldn't find a way to get to you. Can you give me your email? With respect.
Do you have something else than email where I could contact you so as to get your email?
Wow! Just overwhelming evidence. As someone who grew up an atheist I came to faith because I saw that the Bible predicts that Jesus would start a church that he said would be persecuted, would be unified, and would grow to all nations. And when I looked at what church did that, the only church I saw for at least 600 years was the Catholic Church. If Jesus said he would build a church and the gates of hades would not prevail against it; then if the Catholic Church was totally false then that means that Jesus started a church and then immediately let it fail. Gavin frustrates me because he obfuscates things by saying that not all the church fathers agreed on Catholic principles almost like a prosecutor with a guilty client (Protestantism) who is just trying to sow just enough reasonable doubt in unknowing people like me by saying things like "Papal supremacy" was a very late accretion and quoting the one scholar out of 20 that believe it.
I watch those videos from Gavin and he seems to polished an so well read and it sows seeds of doubt. And then I see this overwhelming evidence that Eric provides! And thank God for that. I also watched Eric give overwhelming evidence for the Biblical case for Transubstantiation. If non Catholics want to argue against Catholicism then they should do a point by point refutation of Eric's (and Suan in this case) but I never see it.
Thank you for this thorough presentation of nearly overwhelming evidence. God bless you both.
There’s a new Ortlund response. Are you guys going to respond?
I'm hoping that a dialogue get sets set up or something
Fantastic job! I can’t believe this argument is still alive. Unbelievable, Jack Chick scholarship.
No need to be insulting. I’m still working my way through this presentation, but as someone on the fence I will say that I don’t see the very quotes featured here as settling it. It’s a lot of walls of text, sure, but each time I’m going, “ok what about any of this has to do with the core objections Dr. Ortlund raised?” Yes, the bishop of Rome was always a bishop and commanded respect-we all knew that. That’s a far cry from being God’s avatar on earth. But I’ll keep watching.
@@MaryJoseph-oz4zb I was replying to “unbelievable Jack Chick scholarship” in reference to Dr. Ortlund-which was a pretty rotten comment. Do you have any scolding for that person or are they on the same team?
@@dylan3456 th-cam.com/video/G39_Jf2PYnM/w-d-xo.html
@@dylan3456 "No need to be insulting..."
also @Dylan: "doesn't mean the Pope is God's Avatar on earth."
🤔
@@stevenstuart4194 Kick rocks.
If Gavin is Ybarra’s friend then most likely Ybarra threw all this in his face already and Gavin reacted just like Tierney: “Yeeeaah I just don’t see it”. Lol
Gavin Ortlund has a bad habit of leaving out the complete writings of the Church Fathers and Popes! Gavin Ortlund has made me a stronger Catholic Christian! Two Catholic Giants right here! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
That’s what I noticed too.
What did the Early Church think about the canon? Let’s take a look at St. Jerome and nobody else, and let’s not read anything else Jerome ever wrote. 😂
@bman5257 LOL, so true! Plus, Saint Jerome submitted to Peter's successor on the matter of the canon!🤣🤣 Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
He also is very charitable to the living faithful but uncharitable to the sleeping faithful. He presumes his belief framework and reads it into others, then says “it was an accretion” when the early Christians do agree with him. Or that they don’t make sense or contradict themselves.
@michaelandrews4424 Yes, Gavin Ortlund doesn't believe we shall each be judged as we have judged others and we shall each be held accountable for every careless word we have uttered and shall each be liable to judgment if angry with others and we shall each receive recompense for BOTH the good AND THE BAD we have done in the body and we must all strive for that holiness without which no one shall see the Lord, even though Holy Scripture teaches we will! 🤔 Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Erick is a luminary scholar.
"Do not give the mic to Rome" Haha.
What do you think it would take to convince Gavin of Catholicism? It seems like he went full spectrum arguing his points against the Catholic Church, but I’m curious if there is one big thing holding him back or if he’s too attached to reformed theology right now.
These guys who are pastors just have so much on the line to lose.
That is so true. Sometimes I wonder if it's just the community around them keeping them there. @@Gruenders
@@PuzzlesC4M true. And I mean when you think of the amount of schooling they went through, just to throw that out the window…… I got my undergraduate in baptist theology and that sucked enough to realize it was a waste of time. I can’t imagine getting a doctorate.
Gavin has a good gig.
I’m slightly favoring the Catholic side of this debate but I really think that’s a mischaracterization of what’s at stake for Ortlund. I think there is plenty to gain for him becoming Catholic. Imagine the hype around his new books if he came out in support of the papacy. He’d be heralded as THE guy for Catholic apologetics since he was once one of the most convincing Protestant apologists. I think he stays Protestant cause he’s convinced
Is there a download fot his PP, it would be helpful.
16:55 Tierney sus at that point. Holy Moly!
Ortho Bros about to lose their minds lol
Jay Dyer WREkt!
😂😂
Papacy is always hot copy! 🔥 Love it.
Erick Ybarra
Elvis Presley.
Michael Jackson
Bruno Mars
The Weeknd
I’m so confused. Gavin says we have some evidence of special power but no supremacy in the first 1,000 years, he asks why popes aren’t exercising authority in the ecumenical councils. Ybarra gives us dozens of quotes and none of them show supremacy. No cases were cited where the pope rules over others that disagree on theology and acts like he is supreme. If he is supreme why can’t you show him exercising supremacy? Why is it just quotes about how Peter (not the Roman bishop) has authority?
Popes ultimately have the last word, but one should not expect them to act like dictators.
Because it was never a doctrine within Scripture nor was it doctrine in the first 1000 years of the church. Infallibility is never suggested and certainly not clearly promised by Christ. It is an unbiblical dogma in the never ending struggle for power from Rome, against the rest of the church, both Catholic and the true body of Christ. Catholic dogma: if 1 + 1 = 2 then 985 🦖
If anyone can get Gavin to become Catholic, it's Erick.
All of these quotes are so indirect. Where is the case of a Roman bishop exercising supreme power over the universal church like he claims he has always done in Vatican 1? If this is the constant custom for 1,000 years I would think you would have hundreds of examples…can you give us ten with specific dates and the issues where Rome exercised universal supremacy?
What do you mean by "supreme power"? What exactly are you expecting to see?
@@intellectualcatholicismfull power in himself alone to rule the entire church (explicitly stated in Vatican 1). So if there is a dispute he can overrule all other bishops and councils alone and the church universally would recognize that it is his right to exercise this jurisdictional power. Over 1,000 years I would think this would have happened dozens or hundreds of times even if the pope is not required to use all of the authority he has. If he really had this power at all times why don’t we see him frequently using it to force all others by his jurisdictional power to obey?
I think RC intellectuals know that the Roman bishop was not always understood by everybody at all times universally to have this kind of power. So, in other words, they understand that Vatican 1's statements are false. The words must be tortured beyond recognition before anybody can defend them as "true." But RC intellectuals are terrified of the relativism that could result from admitting it! The truth is that sinful men came up with this over time in a messy, contingent process. It's simply not plausible that Jesus gave this supremacy power to Peter and his direct successors in Rome, but we don't see it being used in any clear way that is similar to what is described in Vatican I for hundreds of years (or maybe even for one thousand years as Gavin claims!) These quotes from Ybarra AT MOST suggest that people were STARTING to talk about popes having this power (but no popes were actually exercising it) hundreds of years after Christ...you're not even TRYING to say Peter and his immediate successors had the kind of supreme jurisdictional power that Vatican 1 describes. Why shouldn't I conclude that you have basically conceded the argument? We both know Vatican 1 papal power is not found in 200AD or 300AD. What does it matter if it emerges in 1200 or 500? Either way, the Vatican 1 definition of papal power is not apostolic. I'm sorry but I think you all know this story ("Peter and his immediate successors had supremacy immediately but no pope ever exercised his supreme power to force other bishops and councils to submit to his will for hundreds of years") isn't plausible...UNLESS you're already committed to the RC system for other reasons...in that case, you are satisfied with these piles of quotes from Ybarra.
@@jfoflyer1You would expect hundreds of times for the Pope to but heads with an ecumenical council in the first 1000 years!?!! Dude there was only 8 ecumenical councils in total in the first 1000 years. 😂
Popes were issuing orders to Catholics in other countries as early as AD 70.
Would Ortlund be open to running his points/arguments/sources/etc by people like Ybarra, Lofton, etc. before publishing a video?? Why or why not?
Michael Lofton is an intellectual lightweight.
I wish I could meet Erick in person. I’m converting to Orthodoxy but I can’t have a single conversation with a Roman Catholic on the papacy that is proper. Erick is successful because he’s loving and earnest. I really respect that despite disagreeing with him on the papacy. He’s a good role model for Christians of all types on how to engage in invitational rhetoric. I personally believe he doesn’t want to let go of a bone he has been holding his entire life (I didn’t want to let go of that bone either, but I realized it was time to acquiesce).
Please start using 'quotation' for the noun and 'quote' only for the verb.
It's always hilarious to me when protestants point out "lack of evidence in the first millennium" for Catholicism as if any of their positions are found in the first millennium. They don't seem to have the same interest on what the first millennium figures have to say about ecclesiology, the Eucharist, or baptismal regeneration for a few examples
"Woe is me, if I cover over with silence the truth which I am bidden to give to the exchangers, i.e., to teach to the Christian people and imbue it therewith. What shall I say in the future examination by Christ himself, if I blush (which God forbid!) to preach here the truth of his words? What satisfaction shall I be able to give for myself, what for the souls committed to me, when he demands a strict account of the office I have received?"
Pope St. Agatho
the author of half the New Testament said that
“Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more” (Lk 12, 48). Of course Pope St Agatho believed he has received a hugely important office - among plenty of fellow bishops hearing him -, otherwise his words would be meaningless.
Ortlund argues like an atheist lol.
Gavin doesn't seem to believe in Christianity. It's just word games to him.
Galvin response to this: only argues against St. Anselm quote. lol
All of the popes mentioned are in the medieval times 900-1200 not the beginning of the church. I don’t think showing those popes indicates that the church was ALWAYS like this
(Pray for me and search for truth)
This is literally not true. He goes all the way back to Popes of the early 5th century. You should watch the whole video and then comment.
I will pray for you.
The Roman church has always been wrong about papal infallibility, whether it was developed in the 13th century or earlier.
Watch the video bro. It goes a lot earlier than the 13th century.
“Fight to the death for the Truth. And the Lord your God will fight for you.” -Jesus Ben Sirach
Gavin has no problem with his central doctrine, Bible Alone, being invented in the 16th century.
@@fantasia55 Actually he genuinely believes that St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom subscribed to it. I can’t speak to the Chrysostom quote but Dave Armstrong have a good response to Ortlund’s citation of Augustine.
@@bman5257 Augustine said he believed Scripture because the Catholic Church said so. That is the opposite of Bible Alone.
and this why we need papal infallibility because people will disagree on church fathers
can one imagine the apostles, Peter and Paul, for example, saying the Church of Christ was roman while being prosecuted, tortured, and killed by Romans and the Roman empire? Absolute nonsense !!!!
Erick and Suan really should stop genuflecting to Gavin Ortlund. His nice-guy demeanor is a manipulate shtick.
Look at comments to his videos. He has led many Catholics away from the Church.
Haha this is Catholic scholarship? Ortlund smokes y'all.
@JM 1517 actually ortlund looks foolish lol.
@@franciscoguzman1065 is the Pope Catholic, hummm.... blahahahahaha goof
@@JayEhm1517 🤡 what is he to you 🤡? You tell me
@@JayEhm1517 the only goofball here is you along with ortlund.
Please man have some charity.
Ok what about other people, like the atheist channels who do put out some really good content and debate or fine rebuttals to other channels claims.
A good channel for freedom but more on the Atheist side is “Liberty in our lifetime” and look at their channels tab. (Also their playlist tab.)
There is plenty of atheists there who have debunked many claims by some of the biggest Religious channels on here and these Christian channels don’t allow debate on their channels as they don’t allow commenting.
As much as it hurts, The Atheist clearly has more thoughtful thinking and evidence to back up what they say.
So religious channels really don’t stand a chance this is why I think they don’t try to rebuttal them.
I’m really having doubts about religion and such.
can you name one such claim?
@@KyleTheDalek The great flood? Really? Barely any catholic believes it, I don't. It's an allegory.
So can you name one thing related to religion rather than science that's been debunked? I'm more than confident in my research, I don't need to go watch those channels since I don't doubt I'd spot a flaw or 100 in any of their videos, atheism makes no sense and the attempts of atheists to attack religion are always very bad, in my experience. I'm asking to help you. What upset you the most, about these videos? You said "I'm really having doubts", the solution is to talk these doubts over! Jesus rose, He won over death, there's nothing to fear in the Truth, it's wonderful!
@@eugene7989 Yeah that sort of is my point some channels make rebuttals but they don’t wipe the floor and it’s rare.
These atheist channels are constantly putting out content.
@kylethedalek "wipe the floor"? In that particular video, Mathoma clearly demonstrates RR's lack of knowledge on the subject matter which he was critiquing ( which is what many atheists display when they do these "rebuttals")
Honestly, atheists have more appealing rhetoric on first blush because theism is actually incredibly complicated, and most of the best reasons for believing in it are, of necessity, highly abstract logical deductions from examining reality at its most fundamental level.
If you’re a Catholic, I strongly suggest checking out Pat Flynn’s work on TH-cam. He has a few interviews on why he left atheism, and his Philosophy for the People channel is top tier Catholic content.
To me, it comes down to this: classical theism posits the most simple foundation for reality possible. That is, a single being without any arbitrary limits, no parts, and who never undergoes any change. We can derive the existence of this being through several different independent lines of reasoning about change, various features of our world, the distinction between essence and existence, etc. The atheist typically never actually puts forward an alternative view for what is at the foundation of reality, and it varies according to their version of naturalism. Regardless of their version, it explains less, introduces “brute facts” where we have alternative explanations, and the more explanatory power it gains, the more it loses to theism in complexity. Therefore, we should accept theism.
But none of what I just said is nearly as immediately convincing as “haha sky daddy I believe in science where’s the evidence”