Why I Don't Accept The Papacy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Here I offer a biblical argument and a historical argument for why we should not accept the papacy. This is my latest in several videos addressing differences between Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Christians.
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
Website: gavinortlund.com/
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Become a patron: / truthunites
My books:
--Why God Makes Sense in a World That Doesn’t: The Beauty of Christian Theism: www.amazon.com...
--Retrieving Augustine’s Doctrine of Creation: Ancient Wisdom for Current Controversy: www.amazon.com...
--Anselm’s Pursuit of Joy: A Commentary on the Proslogion: www.amazon.com...
--Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage: www.amazon.com...
--Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals: Why We Need Our Past to Have a Future: www.amazon.com...
This is probably my favorite video you have made. I don’t see a lot of good content critiquing the RCC while still treating them as brothers in Christ. This was much needed!
What if RCC preaches heresy? How can people who believe a false gospel be brothers in Christ? Are Mormons? JW?
@@IvanAlvarezCPACMA I think even though RC teaching is not as clear on the gospel and gets some very important things wrong, but they believe that Jesus, fully man and fully God, died and rose again for our sins, and whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. They follow and trust in the same trinitarian God, which Mormons and JWs do not.
@@Qhaon Mormons make similar claims with significant nuances, just like RCC. How do we distinguish?
@@IvanAlvarezCPACMA well, obviously, we do not just take the claims for granted. We have to use our own mental faculties to determine which claims are true. Based on what we know the gospel to be from Scripture and using our reason to determine who lines up with that, we can have a rough idea of who real Christians are. I think there is an obvious, wide gap between the orthodoxy of Mormons and Roman Catholics.
But what if whatever Protestant church or denomination you go to does?
You are a brave man....This and related issues almost split apart my entire family. Thanks for wading in, and I hope folks are nice in their replies.
I pray for unity in your family despite doctrinal differences. I'm having this same problem brother
As usual, well done.
A thoughtful and compassionate critique for each of us is both helpful and necessary.
-An Orthodox brother in Christ.
I am gradually coming to a realization that you have filled, and are filling, a huge vacuum in this space and in the general defense of the Protestant faith. I admire your humility, your knowledge of Scripture and church history, and your ability to lay out your arguments in a logical and engaging way. I need to respond by remembering to like your uploads and by looking into your Patreon. I don't do the former very much here and I haven't done the latter at all.
May I provide encouragement in word, in the meantime. Your videos are preparing me for joining a congregation again on Sundays. I am certain they are speaking to a great many Christians who have lost their love and respect for the institution of the church. I believe, while it may be a gradual start, your voice will be prominent in the future. That said, I fear the traps the enemy will use to ensnare you. I don't mean Roman Catholic apologists. I mean the source of temptation. So many of our shepherds have gone astray. You must know the story of a well-known apologist, his massage businesses, his conduct that would be considered lewd by any standard, and his deception regarding his credentials. He had a significant following, although I never thought he explained anything well. We are all sinners, but the nature of his sins and indiscretions probably led many to disillusionment. We can all be tempted, by fame, by the desire for intimacy, by comfort in an uncertain world, by the enjoyment of things the world enjoys. I pray you will be guarded and that you will be strong in guarding yourself. Thank you for your work.
Birds lay eggs; some birds cannot fly (eg. Ostrich); a platypus lays eggs; a platypus cannot fly: therefore, the platypus is a type of bird.
Except it's not.
Logic and soundness are not necessarily equivocal.
There is no sound Christian theological or historical conclusion arriving at a refutation of the Papacy.
At least, if one is utilizing sound premises, then he arrives at the Orthodox pov, ie. "the pride of place" idea. Baptist theology? Well, there's a reason it doesn't formalize until just recent time. If there is no Apostolic heirarchy, then, duh, one isn't going to 'accept the Papacy.'
But that's the rub, not that the thinking proves too little but too much: good luck going back to the first century, second century, etc. and running around as a "Christian pastor" whilst asserting that there are no bishops, no ordained presbyters, no canonical mission, no legation.
A "Church" without bishops, without ordination, and where platypus are birds.
The church comprises those who believe in and follow Jesus Christ wherever that following may take them and no matter what obeying His teachings cost them.
@@LibertysetsquareJack Anglicanism for the win!
@@yeetoburrito9972-yep, as long as it’s traditional classical Anglicanism (not the “progressive” episco-pagan kind). 👍🏻
@@yeetoburrito9972I'm with you, but it feels more and more democratic rather than apostolic. All the Anglican stuff I love is actually Catholic and I'm having a harder time not being Catholic. Of course, a Catholic who struggles with the papacy but who sees apostolic succession as valid. Idk haha😊
One of your best videos. The Roman Catholic historic narrative is indeed something that one has to buy into. Like putting on a small shoe.
WORTH WATCHING MANY TIMES TO REALLY ABSORB EACH CRUCIAL POINT
I think you gave the main reasons I have for why I can't accept the papacy. I've even begun debating things with Catholics and I feel like they always end up relying on an interpretation of verses that's dependent on a Catholic context. I've drastically changed my thoughts on Catholicism and appreciate it immensely especially individuals like Pascal, Aquinas, Augustine, and the Scholastics and some of my favorite thinkers today like Peter Kreeft, Tom Woods, Gerard Casey, and Brad Birzer happen to be devout Catholics but at the end of the day I'm fairly comfortable with my solo scriptura non-denominational affiliation and seem to not see enough reason to make me leave that
Fan of Tom Woods, huh? Are you an ancap?
@@justingorman1068 eh depends on the day. More just a proponent of decentralization and "spontaneous order" more then anything else
@@bradleymarshall5489
Lol, I hear ya. I was an ancap before I became a Christian. There is so much overlap between the two, yet such a gulf at the time.
Without sounding too pretentious, Christian theologians might benefit from a better understanding regarding the anatomy of the current state; and Christian ancaps might benefit from a better understanding regarding God's word.
A discussion between Doug Wilson and Bob Murphy would be awesome.
@@justingorman1068oh ya no I agree which is why I'm writing a book trying to show the connection. One thinker in particular who I think has shown better than anyone that decentralization is Christian is Don Livingston (a man Tom Woods said was one of his top 10 influences) His lectures and writings on ideology and politics are mindblowing
@@bradleymarshall5489
RE Livingston and Christianity: Could you recommend resources? A quick internet search did not yield much.
Writing a book? Nice. If you want feedback from a random guy on TH-cam, I'd totally be that guy.
Fwiw I’m with you on your interpretation. I see our Catholic brothers and sisters as such in Christ, but the Papacy is based on false premises. And further, I see it as damaging. There is no ‘head’ of the Christian church, and it sure ain’t the Pope, whomever that may be throughout history. Thanks for your thoughtful insights.
Jesus Christ is the head of the Christian church and always will be 😊
@@merrym72veetee12 No Christian denies that Christ is the head of the church (including Catholics). The pope is the earthly head and without that you have endless splintering over opinions.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787you assert that the pope is the early head as though you didn't even listen to the video. Jorje Borgolio is the best example of why I reject the papacy. Add to that all the immoral and vicious behavior over the past 2 millenia and you have ample reason to see the scoundrels are not worthy of receiving such uncritical adulation.
@@johngeverett Why would you assume I didn’t watch the video, do you imagine Dr. Ortlund makes points that cannot be rebutted? Dr. Ortlund holds the papacy to an unreasonable standard. He says there is no strong evidence early enough but he is completely content believing Baptist doctrines that have no evidence from before the 1500s. The role of the pope has nothing to do with adulation of a man; if you want to claim that the Catholic Church makes too big a deal out of the pope, fine. That’s understandable. What is important to devout Catholics is that Christ’s teaching is preserved and carried through the centuries and without the papacy (as an office) there is no way to know where the true faith is. This is why Catholics today can look into every century in the past and see our faith there; we are not trusting a man, we are trusting Jesus to build his church and guide it. The pope is merely a man, a steward, a pawn on God’s chess board. Have there been bad popes? Absolutely. Has the Catholic Church ever left the earth or stopped teaching the same faith throughout the good, bad, and ugly? No, it has not.
@@johngeverett and yet Schism begets schism.
You do such a good job of being respectful while bringing up really good points. It's what youtube needs. No more of " stupid protestant argument gets destroyed by based Catholics' and vice versa. If western society is going to exist in the future it will be thanks to content like this. Thank you
Thanks Ben, appreciate the kind words.
As a Roman Catholic I can honestly say you've done a great job on this topic. However, I'm wondering if you've ever considered The Eastern Orthodox Churches claims of being the original church?
@@TruthUnites Where can I read the original version of the Ambrose of Milan quote, “Ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia”?
Gavin is a congregationalist, isn't he? But he admits Peter had a leadership role in this video. By cherry-picking church-father quotes (I could easily find other quotes of Ambrose in support of at least a high view of the pope - not necessarily infallibility) he makes his case, and also by zooming in on certain texts, picking them apart (they could easily be read in other ways of course). Coming back to my first point - Gavin acts like each congregation can be autonomous - but does he believe that it was how Jesus set it up? What's the point of Peter's "leadership role", a role Gavin readily accepts. The point I am making is that when zooming out of the text, one can see the broader picture. Jesus did have 70 disciples, of which 12 held closer, of which 3 he held even closer, of which 1 he chose as a leader.
Modern, democratic sensibilities may dislike the hierarchical nature, but the leap from such a divinely elected organization (which mirrors even the Trinity) to a modern congregationalist view is an anachronism. Therefore the critique is hollow. At best, he can perhaps critique the infallibility of the papacy.
I had this same thought. He doesn’t understand what was taking place in Matthew 16. Iirc he says the pope is the one to interpret and pass down new teachings. Okay, and the magisterium just decorated the church🤦♂️
Well-researched, thoughtful, and peaceable. Excellent video!
:)
Listening to you, I feel like I'm taking a theology course. As a Protestant who came out of Orthodoxy, I think you hit it right on the head .I believe the rock Jesus was referring to was the rock of faith Peter demonstrated. Never heard it explained that way.
I’m a Missouri Synod Lutheran. I’m interested in people’s views who became Protestant who were Orthodox. What church were you apart of and what made you leave?
I’m working my way slowly back to my Protestant roots from 25 years in Eastern Orthodoxy. This channel has the right series of messages at the right time. Literally a godsend! Thanks Pastor!
Hey costa, why did you come out of Orthodoxy?
@David Good Because I got saved 🤣. Prayed about it, went to the Orthodox Church with my mom, and what we heard confirmed that nope, this is definitely not where God wants me to be.
@@costa328 what did you hear? I've also seen people pray about things and they believe they were confident in what God said for it only to be confident in what they said to themsleves. This is after they had proved themsleves wrong after some time.
I'm protestant myself, but just curious
Catholic here, your content is very well thought out and charitable. I don't agree with everything but I appreciate your content and it gives me something to think about.
Subbed.
Dot fall for this false teacher. There’s only one truth not 35K+ versions of it like Protestants like to believe.
Thank you for a very helpful scriptural and historical analysis. I agree with your observations.
Nicely done. This is why Luther contended in his day from the Fathers. One faith and one mediator is where true catholicity resides.
It seems like Roman Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox) think they have a monopoly on the early church fathers-Anglicans and a Lutherans (and others) would disagree.
This is so good. Keep up the good fight, Gavin! Much love to my Catholic friends.
Thank you Dr. Ortlund.
I just subscribe to your channel. I love your videos in viewing our faith through the lens of history.
I'm an Indonesian Protestant.
There is a well known pastor here in Indonesia, Dr. Bambang Noorsena from Orthodox background, who use the same approach by tracing the history of the early church fathers. His teachings help me a lot to build up my faith.
I'm glad to know you are a Protestant, I hope I can learn to see the perspectives balanced from either side especially regarding the differences between the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant doctrines.
May Jesus bless you and your ministry.
So, I appreciate the irenic approach. I'll try to do the same in return.
The thought I kept having as I listened to this was: "Please define what you mean by 'the papacy'." That is, when you refer to it as a "massive doctrine", the first thing I want to know is what you think is entailed in the doctrine and what you regard as massive. When some people say, "The Papacy", what they imagine is a man dressed in fine robes in Rome, approving every bishop in the world, making infallible pronouncements every other Tuesday, and exclusively being called "the Pope". When all that isn't found, the doctrine is found to be lacking historical or exegetical merit. And for lack of knowing what you regard as the details of "the Papacy", I'm was never certain what you were expecting to find. For me, what I regard "the Papacy" is that Jesus established Peter as the leader of the Apostles (and thus the head pastor of the Church), and he intended for this role to continue in some kind of succession. So what I expect to find is somewhat modest.
For the Scriptural case, the first thought which came to mind was the subjectivity of saying something is slim, or unclear. Last year I was invited to a Calvinist Bible study which was studying Hebrews 10. When we got to the second half, they admitted that a cursory glance may lead one to think it was teaching a Christian could lose his/her salvation. But a more advanced look made it "unclear". I remarked that it didn't seem unclear to me, and I asked if they regard it as unclear out of necessity. (Then I politely was asked to never return).
I digress. What exactly constitutes something being unclear and scant? For many, myself included, the conjunction of Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 is pretty solid. Jesus's blessing in Luke 22 followed by the commissioning in John 21 is really persuasive. The fact that Peter is mentioned more than the other Apostles by wide margin seems significant. And in regard to Acts 15, it seems to me that there's a tendency in Protestant circles to over-emphasize James' role and to relegate Peter in this passage to the role of a secretary - rather than the guy who stood up and settled the core theological issue on behalf of the group, ending the debate.
For me (and others) the thing which grants it the best plausibility is the functional argument. Without some place where the buck stops, it seems that theological questions can have no universal resolution. There needs to be a man at the top who can stand up like Peter in Acts 15 and say what the case is. For lack of that, it seems to me that the project of theology either divides into multiple irreconcilable camps or stops entirely. For many, the prospect of getting the Protestant world together and asking a simple practical question like, "Can a Christian lose his salvation?" or going to the Orthodox world and asking, "Can a divorced Christian get remarried?" is enough to convince people about the necessity of the Papacy. Granted, this its an easier argument to make when its John Paul II standing athwart the Soviet Empire surrounded by a crowd screaming, "We want God" - compared to Pope Francis, who is truly like "The Last Jedi" of Popes. Terrible, but sadly canonical.
😂 I love the story of the Hebrews Bible study. That book is a major reason I'm not a Calvinist, even though I don't believe in loosing salvation. I think there is a middle ground there between the Calvinist and the Armenian approach to scripture.
@@BibelFAQ : It's always seemed to me that the possibility of disinheriting oneself from salvation is the most clearly taught doctrine in the New Testament. The most explicit among the two dozen or so passages would be Hebrews 10:19-39.
The passages which people use to assert the opposite, I think, can be plausibly taken in other ways. But the massive quantity of work one has to do find ways around those which say it can be lost should be an indicator that the Bible does indeed teach the possibility of disinheritance.
Among the others would be:
2Timothy 2:12 - Christians being told Christ might deny them. Luke 8:11-14 - the seeds which sprout life, but die. 1Cor 15:1-2 - the possibility of believing in vain. Galatians 5:4 - Christians being told they've fallen from grace. Hebrews 6:4-6 - Apostates being spoken of. James 5:19-20 - the mention of Christians falling away and in danger of spiritual death. John 15:1-6 and Romans 11:20-22 - The possibility of a grafted in vine being cut off. Romans 14:15, 1Corinthians 6:8, Ephesians 5:3-6, 1Timothy 5:7-8 - Christians being warned that immorality will result in disinheritance. 2Peter 2:20 - Apostate Christians being spoken of. 1Corinthians 9:27 - Paul saying he could possibly be damned.
I'm not saying that inventive ways cannot be found around all those passages. But the work necessary to do it should be an indicator that this is not the correct way.
Fancis my not be a stJPII but the last Jedi is way to harsh he is at worst mediocre imo.
@@JBlackjackp That's fair.
This is a reasonable take.
Good stuff and respectfully said. Thank you for your charitable tone and content.
Liked the video a lot and I appreciate your irenic approach. Would love to see the references when you quote the fathers so that we could look them up.
As someone who has had many seminary friends go Catholic it’s nice to see more thoughtful treatments of Catholic theology from a Protestant perspective.
Thanks!
Thanks Matthew!
419
My Remnant Church, inspired by the Prophet Enoch, will create hatred
Tuesday, May 8th, 2012 @ 19:00
My dearly beloved daughter, I come this evening to tell you that a great token of My Love and Mercy will now manifest within the hearts of believers everywhere.
They will feel My Presence within their hearts in a way they will not be able to explain and they will unite their hearts with Mine.
This Gift will make them strong in My Faith and they will hunger for My Presence daily.
I urge all of God’s children, who feel the Flames of My Love engulf their souls, to receive My Body and My Blood, in the Holy Eucharist, as often as they can.
You, My beloved disciples, will need the Gift of My Body, through the Holy Eucharist to give you strength, for you will need every ounce of strength, as you witness the falling apart of My Holy and Apostolic, Catholic Church.
My Holy Eucharist will be desecrated as I foretold some time ago.
Excuses will be made to render this Most Holy Gift as simply a gesture in remembrance of My Crucifixion.
Very soon My Real Presence will be denounced as part of a new modern catholic church, which will include other religious churches.
Once this happens, the love and devotion to the Holy Trinity will dwindle and fall away.
Instead false gods will take its place. While this will be difficult, you must remember, I will never forfeit My Church on Earth.
My allegiance is to the Church founded by Me before I ascended into Heaven.
The Church upon the Rock founded by My beloved Peter, cannot and will never die.
For I will lead My Church now in the end times, and will renew the prophecies, foretold long ago.
My Gospels will be preached by My Remnant Church, in every corner of the Earth.
My Remnant Church, will be inspired by the Prophet Enoch, and this will create hatred everywhere My Holy Word is heard.
The Holy Spirit will ignite the faith of My Remnant Church who will never give up proclaiming the Truth of the Gospels, till its dying breath.
Go now and prepare My Remnant Church, by following My Instructions.
Trust in Me always, for all will be well.
Your beloved Jesus
The Book of Truth
Much appreciated especially your even handed non hostile approach. Acts 20:28 ...Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
Even handed? He made no mention of Matthew 16:19 where we see only Peter was given the keys to Heaven. No other apostle was given the keys to Heaven. He also only gave Church fathers that were vague in their explanation of the primacy of Peter. He certainly didn't post cyprian of carthage on the primacy of Peter. Let's have a look why he might of left cyprian out of this video shall we.
cyprian of carthage wrote this in 251 a.d.
"[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, 👉🏻yet he founded a single Chair,👈🏻 and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; 👉🏻 *but a primacy is given to Peter👈🏻, whereby it is made clear that there is but ONE CHURCH AND ONE CHAIR* So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. 👉🏻 *If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church* 👈🏻(Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)
Great video, Gavin. Love all the research on the church fathers. One thing I would add is, even if you accept the RCC interpretation of Matt 16 that Peter is the rock in an official capacity, you still have the problem of connecting that to the church of Rome. There is zero evidence that Peter was the bishop of Rome. He was martyred there and buried there. Presumably he ministered and preached there prior to his martyrdom. But there is no evidence that he held any ecclesiastical office in the church of Rome, much less bishop. Then you have the further problem of the lack of evidence that Rome even had a bishop until the mid to late 2nd century. So there is at least a century gap between Peter and the first named bishop of Rome (I'm not sure who that is -- it might be Victor ca. 190s; I know Eusebius refers to him as the bishop of Rome when recounting the debate with the Asian churches over Easter). Medieval tradition (the Liber Pontificalis) claims that the first papal successors of Peter were Linus, Anacletus, Clement, etc., but we have no historical (from that time or near that time) evidence that they were actually bishops of Rome, much less popes with universal jurisdiction. It really does look like a case of reading history through the lens of later developments (like you said, the shift with Gregory the Great and following, especially the 8th century alignment of the papacy away from being under the thumb of the Byzantine emperor to the Carolingians).
Ignatius in his epistle to the Romans says that he does not command them "as Peter and Paul did" implying that Peter was a bishop there. Of course this does not prove him being the universal bishop of all the churches but I do think that should be noted.
@@alfredolebron1428 Ignatius wrote: "I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul: they were apostles, I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4.3). I wouldn't read this as suggesting that Peter was a bishop there. It only supports what we already know, that the two apostles, Peter and Paul, spent time in Rome and ministered there. And when they did so, their authority was that of apostle not bishop. If this sentence implies that Peter was a bishop of Rome, then it implies that Paul was as well, which is not part of the RCC claim.
@The Catholic Integralist the problem begins from apostolic succession a doctrine taught no where
Although you mentioned the rock aspect of Matthew 16, you barely mentioned the keys and the binding and loosing, which is just as important or even more important than the rock part of Matthew 16. Would God give this power to Peter and allow him to bind heresies on earth as in heaven, thus making God a liar?
I appreciate your loving approach to being truthful, loving and respectful at the same time. I too love Catholic people and aim to love them and encourage them in truth also.
This is the most reasonable explanation I’ve ever heard on this subject.
Most Protestants will vehemently argue that Christ was referring to himself instead of Simon (which is ridiculous) and take the verse out of context to provide evidence.
You should give a class on this.
As as catholic, I find it refreshing to understand why protestant have a hard time with the papacy as long as it is done in a respectable manner. still kinda curious to me why a person with your knowledge is a baptist instead of a protestant church that is more liturgical like lutherans or anglican. not sure if you have a video explaining it.
Baptists have their own liturgy, and they are also part of the reformed protestantism, though I'm not quite sure as per how do you vinculate fairly a certain liturgy tradition with being (or not) knowledgeable.
May be you have a wrong view of Baptist as not educated.
@@angelbonilla4243 maybe I have but it is not my fault there are different types of baptist churches. i have seen lot of southern baptist churches where I live.
I would think that the fact the Baptists weren't around until the 17th century would be an indicator that the Baptist Church isn't apostolic in origin but established by a man. In fact, all of the non-Catholic churches lack a pedigree that goes back to the apostles.
Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
This is great, thanks for this channel, it's direction and your willingness to share in love
glad it was useful to you!
Gavin, thank you for this. It is perhaps the best video on the subject I’ve yet to encounter.
Hi Gavin, as former Catholic, be careful when you say "grace," because to Catholics grace is the help God gives you through prayer and the sacraments to do the works you need to be saved. You have to cooperate with grace to be saved.
Literally "Grace is no more Grace." I appreciate Gavin's peaceful spirit, but the things that Rome does to the Gospel always make me angry.
@@AzariahWolf heterodox tend to get angry at orthodoxy.
@@coriesu9022 "Orthodox" is a weird way to say "in direct contradiction to their own founding documents"
@@AzariahWolf "in direct contradiction to what heretics from the 16th century started teaching."
Fixed that for you.
@@coriesu9022 Paul wasn't a 16th century heretic, but you are a 21st century one.
Thank you for your high quality teaching.
a great video, I learn alot historically... thanks Dr. Ortlund
Phenomenal! My father became Catholic about ten years and I’ve been trying to figure why in the world he did that ever since. Lol.
This helps fill in some missing pieces! Thank you so much. God bless
because your father is wise enough to know what is true, either Catholicism and early Christian History is true or Luther is true.
@@jamesrey3221that is a wildly false dichotomy.
@@Wilkins325 Luther rejected all Catholic teachings, it is either you believe in Luther or the Church
The early church was defined by the celebration of the mass, the Holy Eucharist, the apostles, the church fathers, the saints, the popes, the bishops, the bible and its sacred traditions.
@@jamesrey3221 Luther and the Reformers were right. Luther only rejected what was false and corrupted.
The early church was defined by the Gospel, scripture, the Apostles. NOT the mass, eucharist, "saints", popes, bishops, traditions. All of that developed over time, including church fathers.
@jamesrey3221 Luther was and is true, the rcc is not.
It would be nice to see more Orthodox Christians responding to this
This is a really great video, Gavin!
Great video! From a Protestant inquiring Eastern Orthodoxy
PETER HIMSELF ANSWERS THIS VERY WELL.
Peter, "the Rock" himself, had very telling things to say about what Jesus meant by "On this Rock"... Peter saw himself as just another rock, and we are said to be "living stones" as well, which make up the church:
1 Peter 2:4-6
"As you come to him, the living Stone-rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him- you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says:
'See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.'”
PETER CALLED JESUS "THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE." That's the final answer.
Isn’t it just like the Devil, who is an expert manipulator of the Word, to convince many within and outside of the Church to exalt one Apostle above all of his co-equals? And not only that, but to bow the knee to all subsequent Popes as a diversion from direct faith in Jesus Christ? There is absolutely no Biblical basis for the Papacy. If Jesus giving the keys to Peter was a promotional appointment to the Papacy, then Peter would have immediately began to serve as the ‘Director’ of the Apostles from that point onwards. Remember when Samuel the Prophet anointed Saul as Israel’s first King, which began the reign of the Davidic Dynasty with their next King? Well, as soon as Saul was anointed to Kingship, he immediately ascended the throne. Peter never assumed any position above Apostleship. Not a hint of Peter being the “Pope” is evidenced throughout any of the Gospels or even later in Acts. Simply because there is no Papacy. In Matthew 16, Jesus blessed Peter with personal Apostolic authority, not Papal infallibility. There is only one “Pope” who is our Heavenly Father-Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd.
I 💯 agree. But they'll never concede to those who debate/challenge that. No matter how many Bible verses u throw down, they'll either take a verse to prove their justified, so out of context (it'll make u wanna laugh) OR they claim "Sola Scriptura is not anywhere in the Bible, u Protestants make things up". Make it make sense.
They also often say that both tradition & the Bible are necessary/req'd for faith. They simply cannot understand that it's by "faith alone" that God saves us. They can't let it go & it's disheartening.
In the Greek text, Peter is the little rock and Jesus is the Big Rock. Jesus founded the church upon Himself, not Peter.
Great video! Thank you! Reading Roman Catholic literature on the topic was a bit confusing to me even though the data is there. Thank you for a clear, accurate and humble way to frame the argument!
Here’s a story of a struggling Protestant. In my walk of 10 years as being a Christian I’ve called 3 very different churches home as the first two turned out to be heretical - and ended up in a reformed Baptist church. Then moved to a new large country town and am trying to find a church to call home. The Presbyterian church we just went to on Sunday is very small, held in a school hall and the congregation is made up predominantly of people over 70. Also, the ordinances (communion) were not delivered during the service. What a let down. I now just visited the Roman Catholic Church which is open to visitors every day of the week all day, stands on the highest part of the town and has stood since 1887. I was awestruck.
The turmoil that lands on the Protestant when moving to a new town, when trying to find a church is immense. My question is Do you think God wants us to experience such turmoil that wouldn’t exist if we were one unified ecclesial body? There are many problems with the Roman Catholic church but I fear there are many more with the Protestant church such as the practical example I’ve just given. Ive been part of 3 very different churches in only 10 years because it’s easy to get very lost in Protestantism. Now I’m starting over in a new town. What the heck do I do?
The main option here appear to be either Pentecostalism, Catholicism, dying Baptist / Presby churches, or a few pop up churches that are likely heretical.
I would caution you not to seek ecclesial stability in exchange for personal stability. You will not experience assurance at a Catholic church.
@@ethanstrunk7698 agreed. I’m now comfortably a Berean (I.e reformed Baptist) 😂
Thank you for this great video, Gavin
Thank you for this nice analysis, very insightful to me! 😊 A debate with Steve Ray on this topic would be very interesting 😉
Well done Dr. Ortlund!
Thanks for your gracious introduction and for tackling this issue.
Thank you for this.
Thanks for appreciating the Catholic churches teaching on contraception. To me that is the evidence that the Catholic Church is truly built upon a solid rock. If it was man made then the teaching on contraception would certainly be the first thing to go...
So true lol
Yes, Pope Paul IV's Humanae Vitae which reaffirmed the church traditional teaching on sexual morality was largely ignored and rejected by other churches and look where we are now.
@@jamesrey3221 yeah and to be honest the impact of that rejection is felt in the Catholic faith. Under the hood we have many American Catholics who secretly adopt practices that align with the secular viewpoint.
@@MrPeach1 yes, it is the heresy of Modernism (Relativism and secularism. The idea that the truths of the ancient faith are viewed as outmoded and are now subject to adapt to secular "culture") that impacts deep in society including the church, the abuse scandals, etc. was in part caused by the rejection of Humanae Vitae.
Pope Paul's encyclical was opposed even by Catholics, but God in His wisdom see's the importance of family in our civilization that He has to do battle to save it for us.
“We must remember that life begins at home and we must also remember that the future of humanity passes through the family.”
From a letter of Sr. Lucia to Cardinal Caffarra “In that letter we find written: ‘The final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan will be about Marriage and the Family.’ Don't be afraid, she added, because whoever works for the sanctity of Marriage and the Family will always be fought against and opposed in every way, because this is the decisive issue. Then she concluded: ‘nevertheless, Our Lady has already crushed his head’.”
We see this 'battle' being wage in social media, politics and even in the supreme court. In the end God can never lose.
I'm watching this New Year's Eve 2021. One year on
Loved the video. Thank you so much! Hermann Sasse wrote a great article called “Peter and Paul”, tracing the historical development of Rome as a primary spot in the Christian Church.
Gavin is the Pope of Ortlundism.
Excellent! Wonderful resource.
So appreciate your videos!
Hi Gavin, have you started a podcast? I’d LOVE to have the audio versions of your videos to listen to when I’m on the move. Thanks for the amazing content.
Please don’t stop!
Thanks! Looking into this. 👍
I agree 100%. I don’t have time after work to watch TH-cam videos, but I do listen to podcasts while I am working. Thank you, Gavin.
What are your thoughts or Irenaeus book 3 chapter 3?
In response to the question - “Is Jesus the rock or is Peter the rock? The answers is simply YES!
This is not a zero-sum game. Jesus is the ultimate authority, and he bestowed that authority upon Peter. Isaiah 22 is clearly talking about Jesus, but when Jesus quotes it in Matthew 16, He makes it about Peter! Peter was made the representative of Christ on earth. The only reason Peter and his successors have authority on earth is because they received it from the ultimate authority in Heaven! Jesus is the authority, and the Pope is His representative (Vicar).
So the answer is yes! Jesus is the Rock and Peter is the rock!
God bless you for having the love of Christ, brother! A lot of Catholics can learn so much from you!
This is not to mention that if we are to assume the office of regent carries over from the Davidic kingdom to the Kingdom of God that Peter who was given the keys (a sign of rhe office in the Davidic kingdom) was the holder of a specific office and that that office would continue after his death is reasonable
@@JBlackjackp Absolutely. This is also supported in Acts 1 when the Apostles chose Matthias to replace Judas. Judas’s place as an Apostle is specifically called in “office.” So if Judas Iscariot, the least of the Apostles (always being last when the names of the Apostles are listed in the New Testament), had an office that HAD to be filled, then of course Peter, the primary Apostle (always being listed first when the names of the Apostles are listed) most definitely had an office as well that would have had to be filled with a replacement after Peter died.
@@JBlackjackp I know he didn't even mention Jesus quoting Isaiah which is a main Catholic argument for the continuation of Peters primacy. "In Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Isa. 22:21)." I took that from part from Catholic answers in the article Peter the Rock lol. Annoying how didnt bring that up i would have liked to here his take on it
Thank you.
The Septuagint, which the Fathers of the Church used and ratified as the Old Testament Canon of Scripture does not contain the same reference to keys in Isaiah 22:22. Even barring such, we cannot purport to assume that this is the exact idea Jesus was alluding to in Matthew 16, much less ascribing such a station to St. Peter. Hence the entire point of this video: we cannot assume or jump to conclusions without context and the interpretation of the Church Fathers considered: whether one is Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. Two of these groups have trouble with Historic Circumstances and the Teachings of the Fathers; One does not. Certainly, if you approach the sources with an honest and open heart, you can figure out that Orthodoxy is One, Protestantism and Catholicism are two.
Thank you for this video!
I agree with that opening sentiment on Catholics often being way ahead of Protestants in terms of being loving, writing great works (especially political), actually doing stuff, etc… We need to pick up the slack…
Regarding Peter,
There is not even confirmed data that he ever was in Roma. Paul was there, but we don't know about Peter for sure. The sources are not 100% reliable. . And if he did go to Rome, he did not go as a bishop but as a visiting apostle. Why? Because Peter was NOT a bishop. He was an apostle. Peter was NEVER bishop of Rome.
"So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up"
(Ephesians 4, 11-12)
The idea that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus established His church, is a completely wrong interpretation of Mathew 16, 18: " And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it."
The "rock" is not Peter, but the truth that Peter had just pronounced (v.16): "Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
PETER HIMSELF says that "Jesus is
“‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’ (Acts 4, 11) he repeats the idea in his 1st epistle (2, 6,).
He never considered himself to be that kind of rock.
PAUL also says that Jesus is the cornerstone of the church (ephesians 2, 20) (1 Co.3, 11).
From 77 CHURCH FATHERS, only 17 thought that the rock was Peter. The rest think it was Peter's affirmation.
In Mark 5, 33-35, the disciples argue for 1st place. Why should they if it has been given already?
Jesus also told them that no one of them was above the others: (Mathew 20, 26-27).
Paul mentions different OFFICES in the church: apostles, prophets & teachers. (1 Co 12, 28). No mention of a Pope.
It was James, & not Peter, who presided the 1st COUNCIL of the church in Jerusalem. (Acts 15).
In Acts 8, 14, the apostles sent Peter & John to Samaria. Waw! The Pope is sent in a mission by pple under him!
PETER refers to himself as an apostle & servant. No more than that (1 Peter 1, 1; 2 Pe 2, 11).
HISTORY does not prove the papacy right, just its huge corruption. Popes have been more political figures than anything else. The actual pope seems more concerned with saving the planet than saving souls!
I'm done with the bar exam, so I'm now able to catch up on alot of these videos. While biased, I agree with your arguments and hold to these same arguments. I find them much more persuasive on this topic, as well as some others you didn't mention.
A big question that should be answered from Protestants and hasn't is did Christ establish a kingdom or not?
And if it's not an actual Kingdom, if it's not a hierarchy with a visible structure as witnessed to in the scriptures, confirm throughout history, and still in existence today, what is it then? Is it a democracy? Is it a congregation? Is it a brotherhood? Is it a federation?
I would ask any any Protestants or Orthodox for that matter, of Goodwill that if they take this issue seriously to prove from scripture that Christ in fact did not establish a kingdom.
We can wait another 500-1000 years.
I read through the comments. All of our Catholic friends don’t address any of the arguments made in this video. They just attack the reformation. The truth is the reformation was just a return to the early church. There was no unanimous universal agreement in the early church, but the fathers agreed far more with the reformers than current Rome.
Thanks!
Pastor Gavin: Thank you for your video. In the sports world, a solid set of rules and a referee are needed for the fairest game possible….There must be someone with authority assuring a fair playing field. We as players cannot simply interpret our own rules. God Bless…I keep you in prayer.
Yes but what about the “unanimous consent of the fathers”? (tongue in cheek)
"A gentle answer turns away wrath,
but a harsh word stirs up anger."
Proverbs 15:1. This whole video this guy tried to act in love with his opinions but you are attempting to ruin it with blantent sarcasm. Let me respond to you anyway
Typically Protestants hold a view that the Catholic Church made up the concept of the papacy to get worldy power. Not saying all Protestants say that but as for me myself being an Ex Protestant this is what I believed and what many of my friends still believe and were taught. Going to the Church fathers is a way for Catholics to show that lots of early Christian's held to what they believe. The Eucharist being the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ (btw Luther himself agreed although he believed in consubstantiation over the Catholic view of transubstantiation but that's another story) the early church view on the importance of apostolic succession even later things like icons etc. I believe St John Henry Newman described the papcy as a development of doctrine but I haven't read his book yet so I could be off. But to my understanding as of now the Papacy is similar to the Trinity in the way that although it is true it took time to be fully realized. In the way the Trinity is not explicitly mentioned in scripture but is still accepted all major Christian traditions. I completely disagree with his position on Augstine not believing in the authority of the See of Peter but that would take all day for me to write.
@@donutsrgood4491 Your point is well taken and I apologize for my lack of sensitivity. I must say however that how one apprehends truth generally directs one’s path in these matters. If one depends on unchanging scripture as one’s truth source one will come to different conclusions versus depending on scripture and tradition, the latter having changed and/or evolved over time. I appreciate your spending time to evaluate these issues; the world needs more folks like you!
As a Catholic I respect your views. The first thing is that Jesus founded the Church before the scriptures were written down. The second thing is that the church is the Mystical Body of Christ (the people of God) and has produced some wonderful Saints and Scholars over the history of the Church as well as many sinners.. Everything that you are saying has been discussed and debated within the Catholic Church great scholars for over 2000 years. I also think there is a big difference between Evangelical view of the Papacy in the USA than our view in Europe.. The miracle is that the Papacy has survived with all its failings, faults, attacks and corruptions. I believe the Holy people of the church and of faith as well as the holy priests, monks, nuns, hermits, and Saints were the real reformers of the papacy and the Church despite the corruption, scandals and bad leadership.
I was recently in Belgium and went to visit the "Lamb of God" painting in Ghent which had a wonderful history. This was painted in the 14th Century before the reformation and tells a lot about the Church in the 14th century, there is also a copy of the gospels in Latin from a local monastery in the 8th Century on display in the Cathedral.. Have a look at it and look at the medieval monasteries to have a look their role they played in the Papacy and the church. I would say the monasteries were closer to the Catholic Church and people than the Papacy. The monks protected and transcribed the Gospels in Latin.
Not all Catholics are fans of the Current Pope Francis and previous Pope's. As all are human and are sinners and we have some very good Popes in the office as leader of the Church over the 2000 years. May God bless all seeking the Truth in the Person of Jesus Christ. 🙏
I would love to challene Dr. Gavin to a debate on Scripture alone or even faith alone, which not of the Church Fathers taught, if he ever feels up to the challenge! Or even the primacy of Peter or to debate on Mary. Would you be up to to a debate Dr. Gavin? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
What about St. Irenaeus of Lyons? He clearly describes the Roman monoepiscopacy, succession, and Primacy in 2nd century.
I thought this was an excellent question. It’s a shame. No one answered it yet. Hopefully it’s OK if I do.
Well, if you’re talking about this quote below, all this is really saying is that Peter and Paul are great men of the faith who started the Roman church. More so, Paul, given the letter of Romans to the Roman church, and the fact that in chapter 16 Peter is never mentioned. So obviously, Peter is a Later Development with this church because we know he died in Rome. There must’ve been a collaboration that just wasn’t written down. But that’s a far cry from creating a papacy argument here.
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
@@bobbyrice2858 I’m talking about book 3:3 in it’s entirety.
“It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority.
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”
Also, I was hoping Gavin could talk about how Irenaeus uses apostolic succession to prove a doctrine. In other words, when someone is propagating a certain interpretation of scripture, we should compare that interpretation to that of the ancient churches of apostolic origin and I haven’t found any such churches teaching sola scriptura, sola fide, eternal security, or most other popular Protestant theology. I was wondering his thoughts on that. What ancient churches of apostolic origin would have agreed with Luther or Calvin? I’m asking as a concerned Protestant.
As a protestant, I do deny the papacy from a linguistic aspect of the language in scripture, but I do not deny Roman catholicism because of the papacy. Like perpetual virginity, or her assumption, the papacy to me is very benign. I do believe an apostolic succession as it pertains to the continued passed on teachings of the church. But For instance, if Rome didn’t have mandated curses upon accretion practices then the church would be far more appealing to me because if it would be pure Gospel, without anything extra. It would then be the original patristic tradition.
Honest question: Can you apply these same standards on Sola Scriptura? Where are the "number of clear passages" to prove it? Where are the "explicit" verses that prove it? Ephesians 4 talks about "the unity within the church". Yes. Apply these standards to the Reformation itself. Did the Reformation go against Ephesians 4? The Reformers were Catholic and left the church. Where in the Bible can you find "explicit" and "a number of clear passages" to show the Reformers had the authority to go against Ephesians 4 ("unity") and leave the Catholic church? Where in the Bible do you see "explicit" and "a number of clear passages" to show Protestants have the authority to create their own churches? We definitely cannot use history to show Protestants can validly leave the Catholic Church and form their own churches as the only groups outside the Catholic Church were for the most part heretical groups. If we have to have this for the Papacy, don't Protestants need to apply the same standards to their own existence existing outside the Catholic Church? It's like videos on what books should be in the Old Testament. Time after time Protestants create criteria that would remove other books from the Old Testament if applied throughout it.History is hard to do because the early time it wasn't exactly wise to say, "Hey, here is our leader!" In the military now we do not salute our leaders in combat zones. The early church was a time where Christians were being fed to lions and Nero would absolutely love to have fed the Pope to lions. We don't see churches with signs saying, "Enter here to find lion treats". The Pope doctrine worked out over time. Is it to be said that the church had no authority to create effectively a high priest (on earth) when the Jewish religion had a high priest? This gets into binding and losing and the problem with Sola Scriptura. We do not see every example of binding and losing in the Bible. We see Jesus literally and "explicitly" give apostles the ability to forgive sins. This is after the Resurrection. This demonstrates the people needed this. So, where in Scripture does it say this need for Apostles is to end? Where does it say it ends with the death of the last Apostle? Apostolic succession. We see a church being organized in Acts with succession. OK. Where in the Bible does it say this succession ends? Yes, they were people that had witnessed Jesus. But where does it say happens to the church when the last witness is dead? If you are going to apply standards on us, I think it is mandatory that you apply them on your own beliefs first as a test to see if they are even valid points. Sola Scriptura is not explicit. And Sola Fide is even worse as Paul is saying people that believe in faith alone are basically "ignoramuses" for requiring proof that faith without works is worthless. Sola Fide is "explicitly" not a valid belief. No toes stepped on. It just doesn't appear that you can apply these standards on Catholicism when each standard you use cannot be used to support Protestant beliefs or event Protestants even existing. Protestant existence itself is based on two things that are against Biblical beliefs, disunity and worse in England, adultery and effectively polygamy (Henry VIII). The same things used against Catholic beliefs can be used against Protestant beliefs if standards are not well thought out.
Caesarea Philippi is home to the Gates of Hell. Jesus is building His church there and we are attacking that as the church and hell will never prevail.
In the Greek of Mt 16 the form of “you” that is used is the singular you form ( in Greek as in other languages there is a plural you). It becomes clear, then that Christ is addressing Peter. Additionally, Christ goes on to use that singular you 7 times in the same passage when speaking to Peter. That’s a difficult exegetical piece of evidence to ignore, but you seem to have done so here. It’s as if Christ himself anticipated the very confusion that is on display here.
Well done!!! 🙌
If you don't accept the papacy then build your own church .. pray the holy spirit will guide you and then off you go with your Bible
I also want to know what you think about Seventy Day Adventist?
I think in Peter's confession of Christ being the Messiah Jesus goes out His way to emphasize Peter as the Rock in this passage because it is as per Jesus the Father who willed it. Specifically when Jesus tells him the Father willed for Peter to know it. This in no way takes away from Christ being the Rock in other places in scripture.
Christ is the Cornerstone. But our lord did make St. Peter the rock. He handed down his authority to him and to his apostles. That’s clear from scripture & history. This guy just doesnt want to accept it
Nobody says Jesus didn’t give the Apostles authority.
@@deus_vult8111 yes he did. What Bible are you even reading?
Matt 16:18
Matt 18:15
Matt 28:18-20
Thanks Pastor Gavin. May your tribe increase. I pray that more protestants begin or continue to get deeper in Church history, especially on Patristic writings. By the way Dr Gavin, have you read brilliant catholic theologian Huns Kung? He has some divergent insights on papal infallibility.
I’m at a crossroads to be perfectly honest. I was born and raised Catholic. Yet I’m not completely sold on the infallibility of the pope.
I think it’s fair to say that the Roman church rose to power. I believe most of the RCC teaching is true (like you I don’t really know about the assumption, etc)
But co-signing the pope’s infallibility is a huge decision. I guess I’m a Protestant 😂
How does the infallibility of the pope affect you? The pope only used this "chair" twice in the history of the church, Assumption of Mary and her Immaculate Conception.
Catholics do not even think twice about the popes infallibility.
Also, Mary herself said that I am the "Immaculate Conception" when she appeared to St. Bernadette at Lourdes in 1858, four years after Pope Pius IX formally defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854.
Proving once again that the Pope was true in defining that dogma and the Catholic church is true.
@@jamesrey3221 Perhaps the answer to the dilemma lies in your statement. First, Catholics SHOULD think twice about the Pope (or any mortal man's) infallibility. In fact, even Peter made mistakes....
Second, the fact that a Pope USED his authority to create two doctrines (Assumption of Mary) and (Immaculate Conception) when NEITHER are in scripture shows just how fallible a Pope is. IF the Pope were to, for example, use Papal authority to settle something more meaningful, like salvation is by faith alone for example, which is scriptural, would make me, as a Protestant, have less of an argument. Wouldn't mean I'd agree with the concept, but in the legal sense, I'd lack standing as I couldn't point to a specific instance when that infallibility were tested and found lacking. I'd still have at least a dozen problems with the office of Pope but this wouldn't be high on my list.
@maddhatter1219 well that's just it, the problem with being a protestant is you only follow authority when you agree with it. The Bible doesn't teach Sola fide, it's not scripturally sound so the Pope confirming your bias would just be an example of a fallible Pope. The reality is that Christ's Church has the ability to teach the Bible infallibly, otherwise there is no point in an infallible book. I don't have a problem with Papal infallibility. Protestants do however have a problem thinking their interpretations of the bible ARE infallible!
@@maddhatter1219 Faith and reason must come together.
If you believe that the bible is without error, then you have to believe that the church that selected and made canon the books of the bible was also without error.
God gave the authority to the apostles and their successor to teach in His name, inherently, this ensured infallibly to the apostles and their successors. God cannot allow any teaching error in His church.
The infallibility of the Pope and the church is based on the infallibility of Christ.
“As the father has sent me I am sending you.” - He is sending His apostles and their successors, not Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Ellen White, Joseph Smith, etc.
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age” - He commanded the Apostles to teach the world to obey His commandments.
"I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." - He built only one church that would stand up against the forces of hell.
".....I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven - He gave the authority to His apostles to develop doctrines (sacraments, etc.) as time goes forward to help us endure “to remain firm in a commitment to be true to the commandments of God despite temptation, opposition, and adversity.”
@@vazgl100 Devil will not ask for prayers to her son and not convert millions of people.
What I don't understand about Dr. Gavin is that he says if the Church Fathers did not teach it, he is not going to accept it most likely. Yet, not one of the Church Fathers taught Scripture alone or faith alone! Ironic!
The Apostle Matthew acknowledges the primacy of Peter as he lists Peter as FIRST, ( Protos, which means chief, leader, Matthew 10:1,2), and not first called, as Andrew was.
Jesus Christ prayer for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren in Luke 22, and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God in John 21.
Peter alone received the keys of the Kingdom and the office of sole key holder is one of succession biblically!
Peter the rock and sole key holder, stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
While some try to use Mat 16 to give Peter (close to) absolute authority in the early church, there is no subsequent evidence that this was the case. Specifically:
1) Peter had to be rebuked by Paul in Gal 2:11-16
2) When Paul says that disputes arise, they are to be decided not be the authority of any one person but by the authority of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 5:4)
3) A perfect example of this is given in Acts 15 when the first Jerusalem council met to settle the debate about the Law and circumcision - Peter spoke at the meeting but it was the evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit that carried the final decision. James (not Peter) provided the final summing up and decision.
I’ve done a lot of study on Catholicism and I have lately been considering going but what bothers me the most is that the terminology they use for “Mother Church” and then talk of Mother Mary, conceived without sin and that you cannot have Jesus as Savior and Lord unless you have Mary as your mother.
So they rather condemn the rest of Christians who do not worship the Virgin Mary. I know they say they only venerate her, but the dictionary defines “veneration” as an archaic word for “worship”. This church has so many you can pray to and the one who actually receives the most devotion is Mary, being called “Mother of God”. They make the Lord Jesus’ death on the cross insufficient and this current pope, calling Jesus “a failure”. I believe that “Jesus Paid it All”, as the famous hymn says it.
But it is the crimes and persecutions of this church which this church rather tends to deny and that this is not important. These crimes are viewed as only “sins” which can be forgiven by the church.
I think about the First People of Canada’s children, required to attend the Residential Schools where many children died year after year, and the cover up. The Magdalene Laundries where women, often victims of rape, were sent to pay for their crimes of losing their virginity, kept as slaves, their names taken from them so that if their families came to get these girls or now women, they could not find the person because her identity was scrubbed. And the transferring of priests who were sent to other parishes who had sexually exploited their parish’s children. The worst, IMO, was the father who resided over a school for deaf boys. I have been used to translate for the deaf and have a heart for them.
That this church could wield such power and never deal with its corruption, and this is the “Mother” of all churches and out of her daughters came, just is sickening. The book of Revelation says to come out of her, calls this church a Great Harlot who is drunk with the blood of the martyrs. During the Reformation and Inquisitions, these terms very much were fulfilled. That we are told to “come out of her that we share not in her sorceries and crimes. That we would go back to this knowing how this image can apply to no other church, why would we do that?
It is one thing to be kind, but how do you when you are being “kind” overlook the crimes of this church. Pope Benedict was convicted in the International Court of crimes against children and instead of him being turned over, he has been let to live out his days as no International agency has jurisdiction to go into the Vatican.
During out own Civil War, the pope was incensed as he held slaves in the South who were likewise emancipated without the pope being compensated. The Jesuit conspiracy to assassinate President Abraham Lincoln, should we just forget about it? Or forget that Hitler’s pope turned his back on Jewish children? Or that Nazi gold went to the Vatican while top Nazis were funneled through the Vatican to South America, to Argentina mostly and isn’t Argentina where Pope Francis comes from? Isn’t he a Jesuit? Good Grief. Why do we have to kiss the hand in apologies. One of the things that WWII did was to eradicate Lutheranism in Germany as mostly Lutherans were sent to the Eastern Front.
What MOTHER seeks out to kill her children who have strayed away from her? No living Protestant has anything to do with the Reformation. As I grew up, many Catholics had great antipathy to Protestants and I witnessed this myself. It has eased up in this current day but shall we forget about Guy Fawkes and his plot to blow up Parliament?
That they say that their priests can transubstantiate Jesus’ body and blood in their Eucharist, no, I’m sorry because leftover Eucharist wafers have been genetically tested, they have no human blood. Crying statues tipped over spilling oil. So much fakery and quackery and robbing their people of the peace of knowing that they are redeemed and saved and that Jesus has saved them to the uttermost. Catholics have no assurance of salvation because indulgences make money.
We are redeemed not with silver or gold but the precious blood of Jesus our Savior who declared our debt was paid in full when He died on the cross. No church has the right or authority to overturn the words of our Savior!
Though the rest of the comments are full of praise for your gentleness, it is a whitewash and it does nothing to help Catholics see that Jesus is the ONE Mediator and there is None else who can or should rob Him of that title in any way shape or form.
Many Protestants in many centuries died with a similar confession on their lips. 70,000 French Protestants dead on and shortly after the bloodbath of St. Bartholomew’s Eve. Catholics like to say it was only 4,000. They like to diminish too the numbers killed in the Inquisitions too. NO MURDER can be done in the name of Jesus of Jesus. The one thing the Catholics stand up for is the murder of the unborn. On this I will agree, but for all the many murders, rapes and killing of the babies of nuns who were used for the priests as though a brothel, is again horrific.
If you are going to wash the cup, why not wash the inside of the cup and not just the outside?
The RCC has NEVER actually repented, instead, they forgave themselves, made all these things “not a crime”. If anyone else did all what I’ve written, no one would declare them “white as snow” either.
Countless Pogroms against Jews as “Christ Killers”, unconscionable. Republicans support and call Israel our “friend and ally” but Democrat, largely Catholic, champion the Palestinians. Mark Twain remarked of the complete desolation of Israel when he visited. It was worthless land. The Jews made it bloom. The Jews hold only 1% of the land and the Arabs have a fit over it.
I stand with the Jews and cannot applaud the Catholic Church on this at all. Does no one know that the Arab Muslims have a saying that “First comes Saturday and then comes Sunday”, which is that they will kill the Jews first and then the Christians. This is already begun and the Catholic Biden will not help Israel. Meanwhile France is burning and it is the Catholic Church’s Muslim allies doing it, the jihad is skipping the Channel to Britain. Due to the Nordstream Pipeline Biden blew up and the destruction of the Ukraines wheat harvest, Europeans will either freeze this winter or starve.
And who sits on the greatest gold reserve in the world? The RCC!!!
If the church wanted to, they could stabilize the world’s economy. No matter how anyone flatters them, they always are too poor to help but Catholics should give more.
Why oh why are people forgetting history????
In the end I think the strongest argument is Matt. 16:18 PLUS... Plus plus plus plus... The OT precedent of God having a single man, an executive head, lead over His people on earth, through an office of succession. Think, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon, the kings. It was almost always the case that God's people have a single patriarchal executive ruler who inherited his office through succession.
What do you think of the period of the judges where everything is done locally, and God gets annoyed by them wanting a king other than Himself? We could argue that the era of the church is the return to that age of local control since God (in Christ) is King once more.
@@Mygoalwogel there were still individual judges who had authority over the people under God
Thanks for putting out a calm video on this subject. Really interesting stuff.
As a Messianic regarding the papacy I tend to go back to the idea that there is only one city G-d placed his name, Jerusalem, so the veneration of any other holy city is problematic. Also, at least for the Jewish believers, it is incredibly important that the leadership be of the the nation of Israel, which rules out the Papacy.
Granted, you also kind of go back to the division between the priesthood (temple) and the rabbis (local synagogue) in ancient Judaism after the Babylonian exile. If you're building off the Rabbinic/Synagogue model of church as learning center and clergy as teacher (which protestants generally do), the leadership can be anyone (rabbis do not need to be Levites). However, if you are using the temple model of church as place of intermediation between heaven and earth and clergy as priesthood (Catholic and Orthodox model), then it becomes very problematic to do that anywhere other than the place where G-d put his name in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah.
Pastor Gavin, Thank you for your video. You mentioned @26:20 I want to be apart of that church too. How can we do that as Protestants? What about roles in church, church governments, jurisdictions etc? Are we stuck in the 21st century United States, with the Pastor-as-Visionary Startup CEO.
very helpful historic information
He's taken a lot of liberties with his history. Basically misleading those who've never studied church history
@@Sennen2008not at all. Even Henry Cardinal Newman disagreed with papal infallibility. But had to accept it and knew history wasn’t friendly to Rome, and thus had to invent the “Development Hypothesis.” Maybe you’re the one who needs to learn history.
Hendriksen's commentary on Matthew 16 is great. He was a Dutch Reformed (i.e., a Protestant), but still chose the view that the "rock" upon which Jesus built his church was Peter, BUT explained that it does not require accepting the papacy, papal infallability or supremacy, etc., etc.
Hendriksen's is a great exposition of the various views and why he holds to that view. I'm not entirely convinced, but I can see it as a viable interpretation.
Some food for thought:- for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
The revelation of the Father concerning the Son combined with Peters confession and a leadership role of the Apostles only…
Great video, Dr. Ortland. There has clearly been development of the doctrine of the Papacy over many centuries and the manner in which Rome understands it today is not at all primitive. Rome's understanding of history is certainly anachronistic. The burden is on Rome since Rome claims infallibility for its Magisterium and unbroken succession. If it fails in even one point, the claims for the whole system come crashing down since the church cannot err in her official teachings. Reading Schaff, the pronouncement of Papal Infallibility in 1870 caused great damage to ecumenical dialogue and scandalized even Roman Catholic scholars at the time. Regarding Johann Dollinger's refusal to accept Vatican I: "He knew too much of church history to believe in the infallibility of the Pope"--HCC, Vol. 1, section 7, pg. 36
Event, Jesus Christ promised to lead His Church into all Truth. Indeed. God can and does speak infallible Truth through sinful men. If not, then the Bible is also in error! You are in my prayers! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@matthewbroderick8756 Amen. Christ does lead his true Church, the fullness of the Elect, into all truth. He made us alive with Him by grace through faith not on the basis of works so that we may walk in those good works that He prepared for us to walk in beforehand (Ephesians 2:8-10). Praying for you too.
@@DrBob-gr5ru yet, "it is by WORKS and NOT BY FAITH ALONE THAT WE ARE JUSTIFIED ", ( James 2:14,24), as God shall render to everyone according to one's WORKS. To those who with patience in WELL DOING, seek Glory and honor and immortality, He shall give Eternal life ", ( Romans 2:6-8, Matthew 25:35-42), as Jesus Christ warns believers, " EVERY BRANCH IN ME THAT DOES NOT BEAR FRUIT, SHALL BE TAKEN AWAY ", ( John 15:2). The same Church authority that existed way before the new testament was even written and that later determined the canon! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
Amen. The kind of empty faith that does not produce works is justly condemned by James the Just, the brother of the Lord. Abraham's justifying faith (Gen 15) was evidenced by his good works (Gen 22). But his good works do not serve as the BASIS for his justification (Romans 3:23-28). That is found in God's divine, unconditional, and providential Election (Romans 9) that God presdestined before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:3-14). And Amen! Coming to snd believing in Jesus are partaking of his body and blood (John 6). But, the idea of the sacramental treadmill put forward by Rome that doesn't perfect anyone is a direct contradiction of Christ's once for all sacrifice that was performed in history and is done and over, never to be repeated or re-presented that actual perfects tjose for whom it is made (Hebrews 10-1:18).
If you have no teching Authority, how do you know the Doctrine you hold is correct? Can you do a video on this. Thanks ... God Bless....
We can't all be right when we're believing different things
Believing peter is the Petra is a simplistic reading of the passage. Just like the eucharist, taking "is" as literal, it's a lack of understanding of literary devices and Jewish customs. But when you've been taught something your whole life, the cognitive dissonance is to hard to overcome even in the face of hard evidence.
I'm regards the history of the Papacy, a couple things. First, I don't think you have to validate a conservative/traditional approach to Vatican 1 in order to validate Catholicism. But, there are some things that stick out to me. In regards Clement, the thing is, the Corinthians waited a long time to hear from Rome, when they could have gone to a closet to Bishop - perhaps even the apostle John who may have still been alive. Also, Ignatius doesn't say any explicit here, but his greeting to the Church at Rome is definitely unique and laudatory in comparison with his greetings to the other Churches, even perhaps saying it has a "presidency" - whatever that may mean. Then you have Irenaeus, who says "every Church must agree with Rome on account of its preeminent authority", and while there is some questions about the authenticity of that passage in Irenaeus, nevertheless the evidence seems to weigh in favor of its authenticity. On the Papacy and the ecumenical councils, I actually always sort of felt like the glaring absence of the Pope was a signal that the Pope was different than the rest of the Bishops. Not sure if that makes sense to you, but it does to me lol.
Have to say, the value of the "church" and the Papacy given by so many Catholics, makes me wonder, or certain that, they loose the focus on Jesus! It is evident of so many other things added by the "church" that took the focus off Jesus onto other things, like Maria, and works, and "paying" for grace!!! Really silly to say the least! I'll stick with the authority of the Word of God and stay away from any teaching from a specific church or denomination!!!
Regarding your favourite Catholic authors - I think you'll find CS Lewis wasn't Catholic; he was in the Church of England (although high Anglican liturgy is similar to Catholic)
I’d say the main passage for an office of infallible authority is actually Acts 15.
There is a theological dispute in the church.
Both parties argue from scripture.
The church settles it infallibly for all Christians, including Jewish Christians who are told there is no longer a covenant by circumcision of the flesh.
However, one would, if one rejects the infallible authority of the church, be left with 2 interpretations of scripture which would have to both be construed as biblical.
Which is exactly what Protestants do today with baptism.
I don’t see how Acts 15 helps you with papal infallibility. Peter did not act as a pope or make any infallible determination at the council, he was simply gave his testimony to the council. It was James who summed up and gave “my judgment” which was adopted by the council and formalized in the letter. Acts 15 is strong evidence against the infallibility of the bishop of Rome supposing that Peter was even the bishop of Rome.
@@Apologia14 seeing as I’m orthodox I’m not sure why you’d attack my position of an infallible teaching authority with an argument against papal infallibility.
@@EricAlHarb ok. I thought you were making an argument for papal infallibility. Believe it or not I have heard RC’s argue that Peter was presiding at the Council at Jerusalem.
Are you arguing that councils are infallible?
@@Apologia14 they must be. Unless you want to argue that st Athanasious’s defence of the Trinity is the arguments of men and NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit who raises men from amongst the faithful to teach His Truth.
@@EricAlHarb no, it is more complicated than that. Saying that councils are infallible is entirely different from saying there are councils that got it right.
The problem you have is that councils have contradicted councils. Eg the Council of Chalcedon contradicted the Second Council of Ephesus. There are others. That makes it impossible to state that Councils are infallible.
This is one of my new favorite TH-cam channels. I'm binge listening to your videos while I work. Could you get a podcast version going so that I don't have to drain my phone's battery so much by running TH-cam in my pocket?
ha, I am trying! Will keep at it. Thanks for engaging stuff!
“Hey Bishops stay in your own lane” I love that
Even if you look at the role Peter played in the church, he did not have the authority of a Pope. He, along with James and John, were the leaders of the church at Jerusalem. When Paul thought he was in error, he rebuked him to his face. If not even Peter had the authority of a Pope or was infallible, then how can his heirs be?
is Paul's statement that he is the apostle to the gentiles and Peter is the apostle to the jews relevant to this matter?
Maybe it does. It takes away the idea that Peter was a universal leader of all Christians. He was not.
The word of God cannot be bound
“The word of God is not bound!”
(2 Timothy 2:9)
Nor can one member (church denomination) of the body of Christ "bind" Christ to themselves as the only path to salvation.
Christ is the way! Just as He said "the sabbath day was made for man and not the man for the sabbath" the same as such "that the church was made for man not the man for the church"
Again.. The word cannot be bound.. to ANY specific organization nor can they alter its meanings, for it CANNOT be bound. Simply put, If you believe in Christ you are saved and are a Christian despite what these "catholic/orthodox" denominations try to say.
Great video
Can you address the correlation of Matthew 16 with Isaiah 22? That’s one compelling argument I’ve heard explaining the office or rank of the papacy.
We Byzantine-Rite Greek Catholics also accept the Pope as successor of Peter; it's not just Roman Catholics
We Orthodox do too, but we reject the Catholic Church's understanding of the authority of Peter and his successors in the Church.
@@tryingnottobeasmartass757 The Orthodox default position seems to be that the Pope is a malevolent megalomaniac grasping for power, rather than a benevolent bridgebuilder (Created by Jesus) who keeps the peace. There wouldn't be a war in Ukraine now if Orthodox accepted the authority of the Pope rather than the Patriarch of Moscow!
I’ve read articles claiming that Ignatius writings are later forgeries. Apparently some are already considered forgeries. Are you familiar with that view?
It is also interesting how a Jewish background can help us understand Peter's place in Acts 15, where Peter is clearly the Av Beit Din, which is 2nd in charge and brings issues to the leader, and James is the Nasi, the leader who issues the final decisions. No one with a Jewish background could nor did ever believe Peter was top dog.