INTENSE Discussion on the Papacy (Cordial Catholic x Gospel Simplicity Crossover)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ส.ค. 2024
- Do Catholic arguments for the papacy hold up under scrutiny? In this passionate yet cordial dialogue between Dr. Gavin Ortlund and Joe Heschmeyer, the arguments for the papacy are examined in detail, including was there was a bishop in Rome in the first century? Is apostolic succession valid? What evidence is there for a three-fold office in the church? Was Peter head of the apostles? And so much more. These two were able to go back and forth, delving into Scripture, the Church Fathers, and the modern definitions of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction.
Dr. Gavin Ortlund:
Books and Blog: www.gavinortlun...
TH-cam Channel: / @truthunites
Joe Heschmeyer:
Blog: www.shamelesspo...
Book: amzn.to/3k4mcHP
The Cordial Catholic:
Podcast: podcast.thecor...
TH-cam: / @thecordialcatholic
Support Gospel Simplicity:
Patreon: / gospelsimplicity
Merch: gospelsimplici...
Follow Gospel Simplicity on Social Media:
Facebook: / gospelsimplicity
Instagram: / gospelsimpli...
Twitter: / gsplsimplicity
About Gospel Simplicity:
Gospel Simplicity began as a TH-cam channel in a Moody Bible Institute dorm. It was born out of the central conviction that the gospel is really good news, and I wanted to share that with as many people as possible. The channel has grown and changed over time, but that central conviction has never changed. Today, we make content around biblical and theological topics, often interacting with people from across the Christian tradition with the hope of seeking greater unity and introducing people to the beautiful simplicity and transformative power of the gospel, the good news about Jesus.
About the host:
Hey! My name is Austin, and I'm a 22 year old guy who’s passionate about the beautiful simplicity and transformative power of the gospel. I believe that the gospel, the good news about Jesus, is really good news, and I’m out to explore, unpack, and share that good news with as many people as possible. I'm a full blown Bible and Church History nerd that loves getting to dialogue with others about this, learning as much as I can, and then teaching whatever I can. I grew up around Frederick, MD where I eventually ended up working my first job at a church. They made the mistake of letting me try my hand at teaching, and instantly I fell in love. That set me on a path for further education, and I'm currently a student at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, IL, studying theology. On any given day you can find me with my nose in a book or a guitar in my hands. Want to get to know me more? Follow me and say hi on Instagram at: @austin.suggs
Send Me Books or Other Things if You’d like:
Austin Suggs
820 N. La Salle Dr.
CPO 123
Chicago, IL 60610
About our sponsor:
KINDRED exists to encourage more acts of faith. We believe this begins with reclaiming sacred time for God in our daily life. KINDRED Bibles are a beautiful presentation of the biblical books. Sacred scripture is preserved and composed in an approachable and engaging format to support daily prayer, reflection and discernment. Whether you are discovering scripture for the first time or rediscovering it for the 100th time, the time spent with God is time well spent. We invite you to encounter the Bible in a reflective new way. We invite you to experience The Word renewed.
Use promo code GOSPEL10 for 10% off your KINDRED order at: www.kindredapo...
Watch my review of KINDRED’s The Gospel According to Mark at: bit.ly/3rbbhP8
Video Stuff:
Camera: Sony a6300
Lens: Sigma 16mm F1.4 amzn.to/2MjssPB
Edited in FCPX
Music:
Bowmans Root - Isaac Joel
*Links in the description may include affiliate links in which I receive a small commission of any purchases you make using that link.
I love how humble Dr. Ortlund is. It amazes me how strongly someone can disagree on such important matters and still be so kind and loving. I definitely can see Christ working in and through him. I so appreciate his call to us listeners to read for themselves, in the bible and the church fathers! To me(and that’s obviously subjective) it feels like he is really trying to see Catholicism at its best, while Protestantism is not seen at it’s best...overall I am so thankful for you guys and would love to learn more through your ongoing conversation with Dr. Ortlund. Glory to god
He's wonderful
Four of these guys r all humble not only dr. Ortland Christ is working through catholic church and r able to keep her family united after protestant reformation but protestant churches after the reformation divided into thousands of pieces which tells the absence of christ....
@@luvall293 That's rich considering the clearly satanic things the catholic church has done. Unity by threat of death or torture in demonic ways, surely that's what Christ wanted!
@@luvall293 By the way all major protestant churches are united in the one thing that matters: Jesus Christ is Lord and savior of all and the only inerrant and Holy human being to have walked the earth. Catholicism says "yes but follow our half christian half pagan Cult of THE CHURCH".
@@ncw543 who knows! May be catholics r right because protestant churches r always busy judging their own pastors and churches they don't have what christ taught....even a most disciplined pastors have something to say about their fellow pastors
I grow up in a small town of Mexico were all my generation were and are Catholic. It was when I moved to USA that I found out all different Christian denominations. I thank God that I didn't get confused and stay with my faith strong. I wouldn't play with that.
Amén 🙏
Same here , i grow up In philippines i thought all in the world are Catholic 🤣🤣🤣. Never knew this so called protestants exist but thanks to them because when they attack mama mary there it trigger me to study Catholic more deep.
Here in US you get crazy seeing so many denominations, all teaching whatever they feel like, is scary.
Bien hecho Marta, en el protestantismo hay mucha confusión.
I was born in Brazil, in a very confusing evangelical church, and I admitt that protestantism gave us a divisive kind of faith sometimes, but I thank God I became a Reformed Protestant after studying the Bible. It never crossed my mind to become a catholic, so I recommend you to study deeper and deeper your bible, to pray and to experience an God's intimacy. Nowadays there is no more any kind of excuse not to know good theology, thanks to the internet.
Austin's icon collection keeps getting progressively larger. Before long he will no longer have a bookshelf, but an iconostasis.
Whats his reasoning? Does he just happen to like them despite being protestant?
@@Wilkins325 Not sure. But not all those not in communion with the Catholic or the Orthodox communions reject icons, so maybe he venerates them!
Dr. Ortlund has raised the esteem of Protestantism as a whole in my Catholic eyes by his strong endorsement of Christian history as a whole. This channel (and some of the related ones) have convinced me to subscribe for future content, cross-tradition, Protestant, or otherwise!
I'm so glad to hear that!
I'm 7 months late and I don't care bc this is SUCH a good discussion and as a Protestant considering Catholicism I'm so thankful for dialogs like this.
Glad you enjoyed it!
What did you end up doing? I can’t outsource my spiteful wellbeing to others. Also an infallible church can’t repent. Can’t quite cross to the other side. I don’t believe everything the Catholic Church teaches hence I can’t even qualify to become one. I have tied!
I’ve been completely disillusioned by my ten years in the Roman church. It’s full of idolatry and man made traditions that have usurped the word of God. My faith is in Christ and I follow him, not Francis.
I am incredibly blessed to be alive at a time when there is so much great Christian content that I will never have enough time to listen to.
Also, cool sweater.
Thanks!
I was away from the Catholic Church for 25 years until I got to the place where I got low enough to really seek the Lord. I started listening to Pastor Fred Price who just passed away---rest in peace Pastor. He said, "it's not enough to follow me on television, but you have to be part of a local church". I started looking with no intention of returning to the Catholic Church; however, He led me to a Catholic Charismatic prayer group and the praise and worship practice therein. A year later I returned to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass during Holy Week. The Lord along the way revealed various things like the importance of the Brown Scapular devotion, the Rosary and the importance of the truths of the Catholic Faith and the teachings of the Holy, Apostolic Church. One thing I have learned, is that if there is anything about the Catholic Church that I'm struggling with, I ask Jesus and He has shown me clearly the truth. Otherwise, you will just spend a lot of time arguing over words. God bless!
Sherry, the brown scapular devotion is entirely made up. Apparently Mary promises final perseverance to those who wear it and keep the devotion, unless they fail in some point.
This is exactly the same outcome as NOT wearing the brown scapular.
@The Amazing Grace The brown scapular does not save you from hell because of it's special power, the brown scapular requires of you chastity, prayer and devotion. These things lead you to Heaven, but not some special power from it.
Secondly the promise is remission from Purgatory, so if you aren't saved to begin with, it does nothing.
Welcome back Christ Sacraments are in the Catholic church in John 6:51-58- Baptism Confession John 20:21-22-23) We need Christ Sacraments & His Holy Mother in Luke & the Saints do Pray for Us 🙏 Jesus Christ Saves us through the Sacraments & in Matthew 16:18-19🗝️🗝️📖 God bless 💯 Catholic And We have The Bible & Church Father's 😇🛐
@The Amazing Grace We are also Saved by Christ Sacraments as stated in the book of John 6:51-58- The Eurcharist Confession John 20:21-22-23) Grace & In Luke The Angel Gabriel said hail Full of Grace When the Holy Sprit came in Christ Mother Mary We honor Mary & the Saints! Christ saves He said we need his Sacraments God bless 🗝️🗝️📖😇🛐💯 Catholic
@The Prodigal Daughter Bashcutter gave you a proper respectful answer. Hope you learned form it and realise that, now that you know, your lies won't be justified by ignorance.
Gavin standing his ground. I was waiting for this.
Cordial Catholic is THE definition of enthusiasm
He’s fantastic
epitome, not definition
Thick eyebrows, too. I respect a man more if his eyebrows are thick.
Gavin Ortlund is such a gift to us Catholics. One sword sharpens the other ⚔️
He makes Orthodox arguments that defeat your position, how is he a gift to you?
Because his position always falls short, proving Catholicism true. Please read Mat 16:18-19 and understand the symbolism of keys within the context of scripture (Isaiah 22:22-23) also understand that Christ spoke Aramaic NOT Greek, Peter's name was "Cepha" meaning "Rock". There can't be "wordplay" between "Petra" and "Petros" (Big Rock, little Rock). Also, note that name changes had a meaning behind it, for example, Abram changing to Abraham. So why would Christ name Peter "Rock", give him the keys, and make him the head of the church ("feed my lambs") for no reason? @@TommyGunzzz
@@TruLuanLogical fallacy, the RC position is not a default, no position is the default, it must also still be proven.
Also, Peter is the architype of bishops, he could even be first among equals if you prefer along with Paul. Yes the Antiochian Orthodox church was founded by Peter if you believe he had the mystical keys. The Holy Spirit was breathed on all of the disciples, not just Peter, so that logic fails there, Plus James oversees the first council. Yeah Peter and Paul are authoritative, but to read Vatican 1 into the text is laughable when the Vatican itself admits universal jurisdiction was not the case and synodality of bishops was always the case for the first 1000 years.
I dont really understand how Catholics even argue anymore when their pope and vatican admit Vatican 1 is no longer the case in two recent encyclicals and that the Orthodox position is the case for the first 1000 years. Also if you werent clear on the understanding, you should look at hte council of Nicea for clarity (and most councils afterwards that the Vatican almost universally does not hold to). The papal authority is based on admitted forgeries. Repeat, they admit the forgeries. So there really isnt an argument here anymore now that your authority itself admits the Orthodox position.
@@TommyGunzzz Symbol of the keys literally went right over your head. Did you even watch this video?
@@TruLuanyes, but if you dont find Vatican / papally approved encyclicals valid, then how are you even Catholic? They admit synodality and very explicitly say the Orthodox position is true.
Loved this conversation!! I would love to see a conversation regarding the Eucharist specifically. Thanks so much to you all for taking the time to do this!
That could be a fun one!
@@GospelSimplicity yes Austin please make that happen..the Eucharist would be great. I am Catholic..and love what you and Gavin do ..God Bless
!a😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊a😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊qaaaaa😊😊😊😊!1 Q 1AAA❤❤❤❤!1@@GospelSimplicity
Outstanding discussion moderated by Gospel Simplicity and Cordial Catholic! Joe and Gavin’s discussion was spectacular! Time really flew! Kudos to y’all!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Hello everyone, Protestant here.
Was really glad to see this dialogue, between a Catholic and Protestant having a civil argument.
Which I have seen angry Catholics and Protestants just lash out in anger which will help no one in the end.
Take RCIA
Thank God for Church History. It really strengthen my catholic faith. Joe Heschmeyer appreciate your work my brother in Christ.
Cordial Catholic is looking at the camera in such a way that every single Catholic watching knows exactly what's going down. It's great.
Ha ha ha. Wait. What's going down?!
Uh oh, someone must not be Catholic😬
@@GospelSimplicity Very sound observation except that, you see, well, it comes down to a distinction. Now distinction started all the way back 5000 years ago with Saint Thomas Aquinas, and because of the manifestly plain observation that we find in the distinctions of magisterial propositions, it turns out that in actual fact - your reasoning is unsound. Because there is a distinction between materially not knowing what's going down, and formally not knowing what's going down. So you see, Papacy true. I shall allow you to dwell with the revelation that has been given unto you, as I sit in my cathedra and spit facts. /s xD
@@TheCordialCatholic To be honest and serious, maybe I was reflecting my own biases onto the conversation and seeing myself in your eyes, literally you like dead stare at the camera, but I read your expression as "I am watching a beating going on right here by Joe xD and this is so great for Catholicism". To put it crudely of course, great conversation on both sides.
@@TheCordialCatholic to me, the look on your face said listening to inaccuracies on Catholicism being stated, and formulating the reply based on facts. Which you did a great job of.
I have to say, I much prefer discussions like these to antagonistic debates. Keep up the good work!
Awesome discussion. I am a cradle Catholic gramma! I think some of this has to be accepted on faith. So much scrutiny can cause disbelief anyway. Don’t we just have to do our best to understand it and make our choice and have trust in God’s directive for our faith?
So great that you are having a respectful discussion and disagree politely! Love this! Thank you.👍✝️
Man, I would like to see Trent Horn/Jimmy Akin with dr. Ortlund
p.s. I must say, Joe did a great job. Defending catholic position is harder than vice versa, wether you discuss orthodox or protestants.
Nice job Joe!
Dr. Ortlund has a background in debate. He might be open to it
@@GospelSimplicity check it please. If that happens.. it would be one of the most brilliant discussions. You and cordial are going to smile even more :D
Thanks for your great work, God bless!
@@GospelSimplicity I would rather have it be a discussion like this than a debate. It seems there are more constraints to the argues when they are in a structured debate.
How about Scott Hahn and an equivalent Protestant. Maybe an ex Catholic with the same credentials? Brilliant Christian people-huh?
Love it!!
I would love to see Dr. Gavin Ortlund discuss such topic with William Albrecht or Dr. Christian Kappas or Eric Ybarra..
If this went 3 hours long, I would still be all like... It's over already?!?
Glad to hear that! I was worried how people would take to the length of this one
Me, an Orthodox: Sips coffee ☕️
Same 😂
Ditto
You were Catholic but you split off. Now I am sipping coffee 😀
If the Pope were infallible, the Western Church would still be using the Septuagint for their Old Testament, but Jerome and his pope messed that up big time ! I'm an Anglo Catholic that sides with the Orthodox on issues of descent from Rome.
Lol
Conversation aside, I appreciate your incorporation of iconography into your devotional life. Seeing as you hail from a protestant background, I think it demonstrates growth and discernment and lends a great deal of credibility to the sincerity of yourself and your channel.
It has INTENSE in the title so I'm looking forward to it haha. You've been putting in that work Austin!
Thanks! Hope you enjoy it
@@GospelSimplicity Hi its a great discussion!
Excellent video, Austin! I've been looking forward to this for a long time. Both Joe and Gavin are knowledgeable and respectful. I would love to see another one of these where the two discuss the Marian Dogmas :)
I wish all debates and discussions are like this; Respectful.
Thanks!
Jesus didn’t respect nobody check Matthew 23
@@davidbermudez7704 Amen because He love us and that is the definition of love that is to tell the Truth and it'll hurt people which why the prophesy of Simon upon the presentation of the Child Jesus in the temple was absolutely correct and it happens to this day!
Yes, He did. He was respectful. He was harsh at times, but never treated anyone as lowly or beneath Him. @@davidbermudez7704
@@Rob-mr1vkLove means telling the truth. It doesn't mean to be disrespectful. Don't agree with that.
This is really great! Thanks Austin. I'm mind blown right now.
Hope you enjoy it!
Thanks for making this discussion happen. So enriching. Joe would have to be one of the best defenders of the papacy I’ve heard. Such a quick and sharp mind, with clear analogies to bring home his points.
My pleasure!
Ok, if you aren’t on Patreon with these guys, GO!!!! This is 🔥🔥
Thanks Colleen!
This was a wonderful (and cordial) debate about the Papacy, the apostolic succession, and Christian unity as a whole. Thank you all so much for providing a great example of loving one another even in our differences. As an Orthodox catachumen, I find the question of the papacy of extreme importance, because (as was said) it is sort of the defining question of Catholicism as opposed to non-Catholicism. I appreciate the thorough discussion and presentation of both sides. Very well done. To God be the glory.
Glad you enjoyed it!
The living memory argument from Irenaeus' preeminence and listing of the Popes is case and point. There is no arguing against those concrete facts.
Very nice to see so much information about the early church. Glad to see people who are of different religions openly discussing their views so others might be saved in a calm manner. Great podcast!
It's the same religion!
Joe Heschmeyer is amazing.
why is he laughing at everyone? stop smirking it is kinda rude. does he just do that without bad intent or is he mocking everyone? I can't tell.
@@danglingondivineladders3994 you're clueless
@@danglingondivineladders3994 it's the joy of Jesus
@@danglingondivineladders3994 the conversation was cordial, Gavin made quite a few jokes, he was great and everybody smiled or laughed at. Joe's *very* respectful and charitable. Please clean your glasses
This is the most wholesome debate I have ever watched
In my opinion , JOE makes very strong arguments for the papacy.
Well done Bro JOE....Excellent Job 👍
Really? I thought the arguments were not convincing, and the evidence shows the opposite. The case for Peter being the chief apostle is strong though.
@Dusun Prince
No. Its because there isn't any actual evidence.
@@Solideogloria00 if you read for yourself the sources dr Ortlund draws from you would see his interpretation is laden with forced distinctions. Ie text saying prebyters are chosen if they are blameless because the bishop is blameless. This is not confusion on the part of the writer of what to call an office. It merely acknowledges that the bishops are normally chosen from among the priests(presbyters).
Joe’s passion and Austin’s sweater are fantastic
Haha thanks!
I love Gavin´s way to approaching this discussions!
Gavin is great. Such a charitable and grace filled guest. I love his show. And I'm Catholic.
This is very strange to me. I've never heard a Protestant so articulate and knowledgable, even on Catholicism. I was really impressed by him. Most of the Evangelicals I've heard, are just about reading the Bible. Not at all interested in history.
Glad Gavin could surprise you in this way!
Agreed! It was an amazing debate.
@@GospelSimplicity If you haven't already. Read st Justin Popovich's essay, "Papism as the Oldest Protestantism".
It's essential reading for anyone trying to understand the controversy behind the Roman Catholic Church's problematic understanding of the Pope's authority.
This is very disturbing what Gavin is saying... he is giving an option to live with cognitive dissonance.. he knows church authority is right but he does not want to give what he has .. so he is making a way to live with both.. this is very dangerous stuff..
@Eucharist Angel ok .. I am convinced
These two are awesome, I m sorry the discussion ended.
For anyone interested, here are a few thoughts by way of follow up! th-cam.com/video/eP2U_bC-oUI/w-d-xo.html
Why was I alone in thinking that Joe provided an obviously superior case for his position?
First, I want to say the level of depth and knowledge on these two participants is staggering. Both, at various points, had me saying, "Wow, that's a great point."
Mr. Gavin is correct that an argument from silence can be a good one IF you can show that the person absolutely would have mentioned something given the context. But such argument can be significantly weakened if one can come up with a good reason why an author might not have mentioned something.
On the historical data: In support of his argument from historical silence, Mr. Gavin cited the Shephed of Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp.
Shepherd of Hermas: In Book 1, Vision 2, Chapter 4 he only mentions presbyters when he is asked if he'd given the book to the Church's leadership. However, in book 1, vision 3, chapter 5 he mentions the following offices; Apostles, bishops, teachers, and deacons. I don't think either of these citations represents a clean two-office standard which Gavin says it does. My understanding of that (as a Catholic) is that in the first citation he uses "Presbyters" the way we'd use the word "clergy" - an all-encompasing word. And in Vision 3 we arguably see the same structure as we do in Ignatius, only with the word "teacher" being used to describe priests.
In Ignatius, Ignatius makes it clear that a legitimate church is one which follows the leadership of its Bishop. It is true that Ignatius does not mention the Bishop of Rome in his letter, but he does praise the Roman church as being exemplary. It seems unlikely to me that Ignatius would regard the Roman church as exemplary of it didn't meet his most basic criterion for discipleship. This letter doesn't mention the Bishop, but it is also very different from his letter in other respects. Whereas all the others were meant to be teaching documents, in this one he says he has no teaching for them.
In Polycarp, we do see him making criteria for deacons and then for presbyters. One could interpret that as Polycarp asserting that there are only two offices in the Church. Or maybe not. I don't think it has ever been the case that someone becomes bishop right out of the gate. All bishops were at one time priests. So when giving the criteria for entry into these offices, perhaps Polycarp is only mentioning the entry-level offices.
In regard to the Biblical data: Mr. Gavin's approach to the question is a sound one. He wants evidence that Peter had a special office, and he wants evidence that it was successive. He sees evidence that Peter had a special leadership role, but doesn't see evidence that it is successive. I agree that there isn't explicit attestation that it is. However, I'm not sure that we should expect to find it because most of the New Testament was written while Peter was still alive. Instead, I think one can look at how the Apostolic authority was continued in something like the apostles - the bishops. From there a person can ask, "If Jesus saw fit to establish Peter in a special office, is there a reason why that office would no longer be necessary after Peter? The apostolic offices continue (with modification) in the bishops. Isn't it logical that Peter's role would continue (with modification) as well?" It is a plausibility argument, and perhaps not the strongest, but I think it is more plausible than saying Jesus established a special role for Peter and intended it to only last 30 years.
In regard to Mr. Joe's arguments: I think his strongest argument is from the second century lists. That is: If the regional mono-episcopacy is a development of the mid-to-late second century, why are people claiming in the late second century that this goes back to the Apostles and they can produce the lists of names. If the mono-episcopacy is something which had only developed in the previous 40 years... then what the devil are they all talking about? Where did they all get this idea? Mr. Gavin's only reply to this, it seems, is to repeat the claim that we cannot rely on second century evidence because it lays on the other side of some development (46:25) and when the first century is so silent. But that isn't a proper answer. The question is why all those churches would then turn around and say that's the way it has been all along. That question got no answer.
@1:42:58 - Mr. Gavin says it is unfair to compare the "Protestant Church" to the Catholic Church, but rather that we should compare the Catholic Church to a single Protestant denomination. Absolutely not. What is under discussion is the fact that we need a visible, infallible authoritative teaching office (a magisterium) to maintain Christian unity and orthodoxy simultaneously. Therefore is it completely appropriate to compare the Christian worldview which says it has one (Catholicism) to the one which says it doesn't need one (Protestantism). Mr. Gavin has not hesitated on other occasions to compare Protestantism to Catholicism when saying Protestantism confers advantages. Balking in this instance seems a bit situational.
In the end, he leaves Mr. Joe's thesis rather untouched. Does the dual command of unity and orthodoxy demand something like an infallible magisterium, or not? If not, then what is the alternative which gets the job done? Sure, the Magisterium only works if people adhere to it... but that is self evident and true of literally every authority, even God's authority. The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church is united in a way which the Protestant world is not, and there's a real difference at the heart of it. Perhaps one shouldn't say, "The Catholic Church is united and Protestantism is divided." Perhaps a better way of saying it is that the Catholic world has (or at least claims to have) the thing which is needed if the Church is to feasibly be both united and orthodox. And this has enabled the Church to hold the center far better than the Protestant world has been able to while operating sans magisterium.
Either way, I would have liked to see Mr. Gavin grapple with Mr. Joe's thesis directly. Do those dual commands necessitate God also leaving us an infallible magisterium, or not? And if not, what is the alternative which accomplishes the goal? A person can say, "Jesus and the Gospel will unite us", but if one would pardon me for having the practicallity of an engineer, until Jesus comes again in glory to claim the obedience of the nations, that's more of a sentiment than a practical answer.
Well put
Great comment and analysis so far ...
The truth is protestantism is kept on protesting. It is funny when Mr Gavin talks about plurality he mentioned bishops as church leader in particular area which we can easily trace back their history. Isn’t he noticed upon talking about the councils that is the Catholic councils and still is today handed down?! It seems to me Gavin is missing a whole lot of catholicism. Why not ask Gavin if his faith is based in Spirit or more of evidence like what scientist do? Doesn’t the bible say we walk in faith not by our eyes? So Gavin instead of concentrating those flaws in the past why not concentrate on how those bishops you mentioned WAY OF WORSHIPING JESUS? Perhaps you’ll some clues right after then!
Amazing simply amazing !
Sorry for the late reply. But I think Ambrose Bishop of Milan is a counter example for a clergy man that skipped priesthood and became bishop right out of the gate. He was also baptized only one week before he became a bishop.
But take it with a grain of salt, because I have only read the Wikipedia article (not the primary sources).
These guys have really done their homework. Incredible
I think it is important to note that Jesus gave all the apostles authority to bind and loose. However, he only gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. This references Eliakim and the keys to the house of David, a prime minister-ship which was a perpetual office.
Wonderful example of two things:
1) how Christ followers should discuss differences - cordially and in humility, and
2) of the key point of disagreement: the Catholic brother takes Tradition and reads it back into the New Testament; conversely, the Protestant brother starts with the New Testament and brings it to the Traditional of the church. THIS is the key point of separation between these two Christian family branches.
Oooh yay! They’re back!!!
Yeah! It was a GREAT conversation. Hope you enjoy it!
@@GospelSimplicity I’m sure I will. Why are you making us wait until next week though? This patience thing is hard 😂
@@margocatholic haha, part of it is just my upload schedule and I always get it out to patrons first
@@margocatholic patrons get the first view as they should. They help support the channel.
This comment section is so wholesome. Love it.
Thank you Austin and Keith? /Cordial Catholic. I agree with Joe that the faith of a convert adds much energy and wisdom to the Church. If I followed the bouncing ball tonight Gavin's premise was that if the Papacy and infallibility are not in the New Testament they are contrived. I submit that Christ did not work w flip charts and explain His message explicitly at all times. Several times He expressed his frustration at the Apostles' failure to understand. While references were made to extra biblical sources I didn't hear Tradition discussed. It has always confused me that Sola Scriptura is the only foundation, yet it wasn't put together as a canon until the 380s and 390s. Prudence and discretion were required in that editing. Thus is not Tradition an integral part of the deposit of faith? I would ask each man to state at the beginning what are the premises from which he proceeds. Thank you again for all your hard work. Where do you find time for your studies?
Great video! Loved seeing the cordial debate and discussion. We need more of this! Would love to see you have Dr. Brant Pitre on at some point or Dr. John Bergsma.
Austin, perhaps after each discussion you should have Dr. Ortlund and Mr. Heschmeyer give suggested reading in the comments, to point us in the right direction for us to dig deeper, and if they suggest primary documents, which specific passage should be of special interest. In fact, I would very much appreciate it if they both do so for this debate! God bless!
That’s a great idea!
@@GospelSimplicity Yes it helps to get us less read people a direction to go in our personal research. Thanks!
What a great convo all around - great work guys!
Glad you enjoyed it!
So a person who doesn't know about the existence of the Pope and the Catholic church, and is reading the Bible for the 1st time, would that person walk away thinking that they need a human representative of Jesus on earth in charge of a hierarchical church that he now needs to visit in order to receive the grace of God and confess his sins to a priest that will intercede before God for forgiveness? Does anyone, without being told by another person, feel the need to look for the Catholic Church and the Pope on earth after reading the Bible?
Is he a Jew living in the first century. Or a gentile in that same time period? Or is he an English speaking American from this generation. Is it a rabbi from the first century? We all color the scriptures with our own markers. It’s hard to say because it depends on the person.
I am sure people see that they need teachers and don't just read the bible in a vacuum. The Bible wasn't made to be read that way anyway.
If I read the Bible for the first time, my question would be “I wonder if this church is still around somewhere. I believe this Jesus guy and want to be part of it”.
From there, I’d probably decide to be Catholic since they reconcile scripture to their theology better. Like when Jesus tells the apostles whoever sins they forgive are forgiven, or when Jesus instructs us how to take a gift to the altar in Matthew 5:23 (where is the Protestant altar???), or when Mary says that all generations will call her blessed.
There’s more examples than these.
@@andrevaca6700obviously Catholic .. reading Catholicism into the text.
@@WORLD-MINISTRY I haven’t even started RCIA yet. But I’m about to be Catholic
Abstracting the Gospel from the people? From the Church? What is the Gospel without the Church? If there are no people there is no Gospel. Making that distinction that Dr. Galvin makes seems to me to be a very dangerous distinction.
You can distinguish a heart (the physical organ) from a person, but you cannot separate them, as that would result in death. I do not think you understand what a distinction is.
@@philagon I’ll correct my comment; it’s not that the distinction can’t be made - clearly it is being made. The point I was trying to accentuate is what you so clearly articulated. The Gospel cannot exist without the Church as a heart is dead without a person. To abstract the Gospel as if it could exist independently from the Physical body of believers, is to preach a form of Gnosticism.
@@delbertclement2115 You are right- and Galvin would not disagree with you on that point. The question is whether the physical body of believers is identical with the RCC, and he (and I) would disagree that it is.
@@philagon I’m not RC, however I am simply curious; how do you plot the unbroken chain of believers from the beginning of the faith? On what criteria do you determine whether a development is an improper development? And has the criteria you use been universally taught and used by others throughout Church history?
I watched both of the videos that have been done and hope to see a third one soon. 😁
Gavin is 🎯
Joe is 🎯
Gavin cannot see the food through the trees. The historical evidence for Catholicism is absolutely overwhelming.
When Joe gave the Civil War analogy, I went nuts because it was so similar. 💗
@Greco Cabanero
Sure, if you want to be superficial about it. Union good. Confederacy bad.
But maybe not so much if one takes a nuanced approach…
South legitimately secedes and is clobbered by a wealthier, more populous North. 600,000 dead at the hands of a bully forcing unity.
Kind of like the Catholics in the wars of religion. Genocidal thugs, more or less. Germany left decimated after the Thirty Years’ War. Like the destitute American South after the “War of Yankee Aggression.”
Yay, unity!
@@HannahClaphamAmen.
@@countryboyred To be fair to Joe, we do need a consensus to rally around in order to be united. But why exactly does it need to be Rome? Or to take place within the parameters of Rome? That seems to beg the question. (Perhaps we should all become Orthodox Presbyterians or Evangelical Free or something.)
Let’s take another lesson from American History: the established British Empire under George III against the upstart, schismatic colonists. Are we supposed to root for England because they’re bigger and older? Wasn’t it a godsend for the reform-minded Americans to take charge? What would the world even look like without the emergence of the U.S.? (Sunk beneath the waves of unrestrained tyranny? It’s possible.)
Catholicism is far better off BECAUSE of the Reformation. Maybe it’s time they took the time to look at the rules under which we schismatics play kickball. They might actually learn something!
Catholics, for some reason, cannot see it, but they are the biggest impediment to Christian unity. Others speak of a negotiated peace. Only they speak of unconditional surrender.
By God’s mercy, maybe one day they will see that “my way or the highway” is not a very effective slogan for achieving any kind of widespread or long-lasting unity!
@@ericcarlson9885 You tell ‘em Eric! Right on man. I have actually considered becoming Catholic before but I just can’t bring myself to do it. They have too many doctrines that are accretions and frankly unbiblical. Papal infallibility, treasury of merit, the Marian dogmas, purgatory, the list goes on and on. I have Catholic friends and family. And I love them deeply. But something is wrong over there in Rome. I have heard stories of people saying they literally sense an evil presence within the Vatican. Lord I pray for their souls 🙏🏼 that they might know Christ personally and grow in Him every day. I pray for Christian unity. But not a false unity. A unity in TRUTH.
@@HannahClaphammy understanding was that the constitution sets up a government, not a league. Can’t remember which us president said this. What was the South’s legitimate reasoning behind secession?
I had never heard of Joe until this video. (I came for Gavin) Wow I am impressed. So many points Ive never thought of before.
It would have been great if it was posted 2 days ago on the feast of the Chair of Peter. lol
Rev. Ortlund - Peace to you from a romanist. God love you!
I loved this discussion, thank you Austin for hosting it.
I do have to admit my secret shame, though. When Dr. Ortland’s camera went black my COVID total lockdown brain immediately filled in that space with a kitten filter, and Dr. Ortland saying “I’m prepared to go forward. I’m live and I’m not a cat.” I’m sorry. I apologize for inserting my stupidity into a wonderful discussion.
Killing it Joe!
I'm just here to see what names I'm called. My favorites: (1) Dr. Galvin; (2) Dr. Givin; (3) Mr. Ortland. :)
To be fair, I keep calling Austin "Gavin." For some reason those names are just too similar in my mind. ;)
@@TheCordialCatholic haha, does this give me license to deflect any difficult questions to him?
Lol. You’re lucky. Try having McElhaney as a last name. As far as the conversation, please continue to keep dialogue open with us Catholics. It’s important that those who want to consider Catholicism to know why we are Catholic. There are already enough under catechized Catholic weaklings in the Church now. As a convert (2016) from the Southern Baptist Denomination we need much Iron sharpening. And that’s where you, Dr. Galvinze (jk) can help us. Thanks for your time
In Christ
😂
Gr. Davin
I like the icons ;)
Thanks!
Cant wait to watch this on Patreon!
It’s out now!
I'm on to you Mr.Gospel Simplicity dude! You figured out that a channel is the best way to get some free high-level theology lessons, ha! Jokes aside, this was a very good listen indeed.
I'll leave you with this one, that I heard a long time ago - "To think that truth needs no believers to be true seems scary; to know that believers often need no truth to believe is terryfing"
Interesting quote! Haha, I often joke that preparing for and doing all these interviews is my second undergrad. It’s a joy though!
Can't wait to see this one!! 😄
I think you’ll enjoy it!
@@GospelSimplicity 😅 i already enjoy it!!
This has been a great show!
These guys put forth a respectful, and super informative conversation.
I really enjoyed it.
I think the pastor had a lot of intelligent pushback....but I think Joe fired back with intelligent answers...which is why it was fruitful to sit in on.
I would love to see more shows like this.
Thank you Austin and Keith! 🌷
If they leave the church, they aren't Catholic. So unity in the church still stands. Those people who leave have committed a mortal sin.
Amazing and unsettling how two highly intelligent men can come to such different conclusions. If one is right and one is wrong, there would seem to be something almost mysterious/spiritual about having the truth of the matter. Almost as though God is keeping one in truth and letting the other remain blind. What else can one think when surely God did not design every person to know the argumentative intricacies of all things about Him.
Very interesting- I am a bit perplexed about this myself- could pride play a role in this?
@@dreamweaver3406 I think without God driving our lives and His Spirit driving our minds it's ourselves in the driver's seat. Call it pride or not, but it sure seems a recipe for taking some really smart-sounding, but disastrous intellectual positions.
@@nametheunknown_ humans are real good at deceiving themselves
@@dreamweaver3406 you've got that right! We aren't too bad at being deceived by others for that matter.
This episode was just so so good
It was only “intense” because the guy in the top left just kept talking and interrupting. It felt like the shotgun approach where you throw a million things at the other person making it impossible for them to respond. As a Protestant I have to say the Catholic claims seem convoluted and overly complicated.
I am shocked no one is mentioning this. Heschmeyer is exhausting to listen to! This is someone I avoid in conversation. It's not that he has a ton of knowledge, it's just draining when someone throws up a wall of information without break.
Thanks, Austin for bringing these dialogs forward - it seems to me there is a great hunger to know the answer to the question Pilot posed to Jesus; "What is Truth?"
My pleasure!
A first century Jew would have know Peter was given a successive office because a first century Jew would have understood Isaiah 22 and that Shebna and Eliakim held a successive role in the Kingdom of David. That is spelled out enough for me...
15:50 umm, yes, the majority of prodestants reject the pope and the concept of the pope. That doesnt mean they think he's evil or bad, but they dont believe he speaks authoritatively or infallibly.
Joe had Gavin on his heels in this.
I enjoyed this, but I'd like to say: The moderators need to be less cordial. Dr. Ortlund is much more conscientious of the time he takes. Mr. Heschmeyer was given quite a bit of space to steamroll. I don't think this has anything to do with an intent to be disrespectful to Dr. Ortlund and seems to occur as a phenomenon of their respective personalities, which is why there is a need for interjecting moderators.
That’s really good feedback! Keith and I have already discussed some structural changes we’ll be making for the next conversation😁
@@GospelSimplicity No I don't think you need to, from what I observed. Gavin played his cards well . The Catholic guy seemed much more versed on the subject matter than him. I'm not passing a judgment on who is right .I'm only pointing that Mr Gavin displayed tact and did not shoot himself on the foot by simply raising his objection and allowing him answer it.
I suspect on several occasions Gavin simply had no well thought out come back and his politeness was a cover for that. In fact I wanted to hear his response to things Joe said but he refrained from giving one. Nothing was preventing him from challenging Joe. The moderators made it clear they were happy for them to go back and forth freely. Joe simply had a strong counter argument or reply to everything Gavin put forth and had to work hard to contain himself.
@@peter_hobbs Pft.
I love how Austin shows the books of both of the speakers during their introductions 😂
I felt like Vanna White hahahah
43:00 comparing blockchain to apostolic succession is actually kind of genius
Whilst one might like to argue for early church monoepiscopacy, the papacy forfeited its right to authority because of later behaviour, doctrine and anathemas. Some recent Popes have shown a measure of integrity but this has not given papacy the unique authority that it claims.
Gospel simplicity. Sounds like EXACTLY WHY the Protestant Reformation began-- to get back to the simple power of the Gospel!
The Roman Catholic church has, however, through slow accretion, built rule upon rule, until the Gospel in their hands is neither simple nor powerful.
"For it is:
Do this, do that,
a rule for this, a rule for that;
a little here, a little there.” -- Isaiah 28:10
Hi, Interesting discussion. I can appreciate both the Catholic and the Orthodox claims with their bishops, councils, and apostolicity aiding in illuminating them in the true interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. Dr. Ortlund, where are your bishops and your councils in interpreting the Bible correctly? Is there any one Protestant denomination that can make such claims? Which one would it be?
To be a little bit facetious here, certainly one that does not hold the Marian dogmas of perpetual virginity immaculate conception and her being sinless. Those are in direct contradiction to the scriptures.
Austin,
I recommend that from the Catholic perspective you do a show on the Communion of the Saints, on the mystical Body of Christ.
Their is a fundamental difference between Catholicism and Protestantism on this point. So many testimonials of super natural events within Catholicism must be given a verdict. Take for example Padre Pio. Its beyond a doubt his life of service and the charisma's he manifested...so this verdict for these type of supernatural manifestations must either be ordained by God according to his Grace or by the Devil and his "holy" deception.
This aspect of Catholicism is rarely discussed...which is also true for the appearances of Mary as with Lourdes, Fatima, etc...not just the event and the supernatural post manifestations, but also her message. It all must be in sink with The Holy Apostolic Catholic Church and the Holy Scriptures.
Thanks for your attention to this aspect of our Faith.
Mary of Fatima's message sounded like the devil to me. Same explanation as alien invasion stories. The devil!
Miracles happen in other churches too though. This isn’t a claim that’s exclusive to Catholics. The Orthodox have plenty of saints and documented miracles. I personally know a Baptist man who was healed during a tent revival. Catholics don’t have an exclusive claim on miracles.
Greetings to all, I have pretty much given up on these discussions. There really is no new light to be shed. In the end it comes down to authority. Where does it reside,who has it and how is it exercised. Dr. Brant Pitre was crucial in my return to the Church as was Steve Ray. Sometimes it’s messy and sometimes I need to hold my nose when our leaders go off the rails with their personal opinions but Magisterially speaking I have been persuaded.
Listening on Patreon and this has been awesome! Have you ever considered interviewing Fr. Spyridon? He is a pretty cool priest. Possible topics could be the Jesus Prayer, relics, and icons, or maybe all three!
Glad you’re enjoying it! I’ve come across his name but haven’t put much thought into an interview. I’d be open to it though
Great video guys. Im a protestant but appreciate the conversation.
One thought. I agree with Gavin except for on one item. It is actually a THREE wheeled vehicle. 1) Peter as supreme authority 2) clear instruction that his authority is passed on and 3) an understanding that this office was incorruptable.
He alludes to it but scrupturaly we see the Levites get a very similar position as a priesthood directly from God in the scripture. Their election is MUCH more strongly support than the office of the Papacy. Yet in Jeremiah he laments that there is not one single priest left who is uncorrupted and still follows God.
Its counter biblical to believe that mankind would hold any office without corruption. And when protestants and orthodox Christians point to clear corruption in Rome, it removes the third wheel. The office can still exist but it would need to be reformed minus heresies.
Why must we understand the office to be incorruptible? Not saying it doesn’t but I want to be clear on what you are saying.
@@IG88AAA because if the office is corruptible then there is nothing saying that we must obey all of its dictates for all time.
If what the current pope says is corrupted, then I shouldn’t listen to it. Even if he is the pope and his office is legitimate.
the sad thing is that the Protestant side is always the side of skepticism, of doubt in God's divine providence and guidance. It is quite ironic that their main doctrine is "faith alone"
Seeing if something is true is a virtue, not a vice. In fact not determining whether the pope and the magisterium are true is the vice of credulity. See Acts 17:11 " Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."
@@philagon If I were a protestant I will certainly not accuse any Catholic of the vice of credulity. The reason is that your main doctrine, which is this idea of "extra nos" justification requires way more of the "vice of credulity" that the doctrine of the Papacy. Let me give you some reasons:
1. Luther said that it was "the article by which the Church stands or fall", and yet Paul never explicitly articulates the protestant idea of Justification. This has been argued not by Catholics but by the top protestant Pauline scholars like N.T Wright, Alister McGrath or Matthew Bates.
2. This idea is nowhere to be found in the early Church. In fact, both the latin and greek early Fathers held a substantially different idea of Justification, which is pretty much in line with the one affirmed infallibly by the Church at the Council of Trent.
3. You can clearly see the Papacy as the primacy of the Roman See in the early Church and its ecumenical councils. But your main doctrine is not there.
4. Since "extra nos" righteousness is a theological innovation of the middle ages, then you have to affirm that Protestantism found the gospel as opposed to recovering it (since it follows logically that they didn't really had it or understood it).
So, now who's is more guilty of the "vice of credulity"?
@@HosannaInExcelsis Paul certainly does articulate the doctrine of justification which Protestants do adhere to:
"Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, " Romans 5:1
@@Justas399 well, unless we go deep into your doctrine of justification then you will have to admit that there was no reason for the reformation, because that is exactly what Catholics believe. This is from the 6th session from the Council of Trent:
"And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification"
do you disagree with anything in that statement?
@@HosannaInExcelsis Trent denied the gospel:
"CANON 9: “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”
Here is what Scripture says:
“because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin,” (Rom. 3:20).
“being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,” (Rom. 3:24).
“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law,” (Rom. 3:28).
I've listened to approximately 10 debates on catholic vs protestant and I found out of 10debate protestant winning only 1...but now m fed up with these debate thing these r just how logical u sound. Therefore I suggest Gospel simplicity to work on miracles that God has done through catholic church and protestant church....I don't know much about protestant miracles but there r miracles in the catholic church 1. Uncorrupt bodies of saints because of which thousands of sinners r coming back to christ 2. Eucharistic miracles also have brought thousands of sinners back to the church 3. Gifts of saints like Padre pio who can be present both the places at a time etc etc 4. Icons of Jesus profusely shredding tears of blood even the atheist r coming back to christ..5. Marian apparition eg. Fatima, Lourdes and many more which r bringing people back to Jesus...6. Confession miracles. 7. And to have an idea of having a Christian scripture called Bible by the catholic church through pope damasus and st. Jerom............which cannot be neglected where there is Jesus there is miracles.
“It was different when the Apostles were alive.”
Also
“And while John was still alive Clement was monoepiscipate.”
Wow... enthralling Joe answered it all for me. Such intellectual integrity and charity. Truth in Love. The prayer of unity was for all, and if all would be united it would be to return. May we all be one. I really enjoyed this one. Well done fellas. God bless you all.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Amazing how people can have such incredibly different takeaways. I thought Gavin’s answers were way more coherent and truthful.
Great discussion. I’m a convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism (Baptist mainly), and I really enjoy Catholic vs Protestant apologetics.
I like Joe’s point at the start, which is something Trent Horn talks about as well, which is that a lot of Protestant Christians have a “Protestant until proven Catholic” mindset. I don’t think this is fair because when a Protestant dismisses the positive claim of the papacy, it doesn’t prove protestantism, it just rejects the Catholic claim. To be a Protestant rather than Catholic, requires positive evidence just as much, I would even argue more so.
To be a Protestant requires you to hold a canon (66 Books - 7 less than the Catholic canon), which is not found listed by any Church Father. It’s not even the same as Calvin’s Bible because he regarded Baruch as Scripture, which modern day Protestants reject.
I believe the question on the canon is the achilles heel of Protestantism, because you’d have to believe that God allowed his Church to include uninspired texts (deuterocanonicals) for more than 1,500 years.
The Catholic church did not even dogmatically define their canon list as a whole church until the council of Trent. Which is over 1500's after Christ. You have the council of Carthage with the same lists of Catholic books but it was only a regional council and not binding on the whole Catholic church. So Catholics also did not have a dogmatically defined list of books by the church until trent. The list of what books of the bible should be included was still being debated even before the reformation. So no the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the list of what books constitute canon.
@@BibleFanatics The Council of Rome (382) promulgated the 46 OT canon and the 27 NT canon. The Council of Hippo (393) was another regional council and reaffirmed the canon, then again at the Council of Carthage (397).
In 1442 at the ecumenical Council of Florence the canon was definitively declared. Then a century later the Council of Trent responded to the Protestant Rebellion because Christians were rejecting the authority of the Church.
@@daniellennox8804 Again for that list of scripture to be dogma and de fide it must be accepted by the whole church not just regional councils. I know you know that. So your scriptures were not even dogmatically and de fide accepted until trent which again is 1500 years after Christ. So Roman Catholics didn't even have an official list of books until Trent. Even many of the Cardinals and Bishops in Luther's day were debating what books should be accepted. So it is not so shut and closed as one would like to think. So to accuse protestants of "corrupting the lists of scriptures" is a far shot considering the "church" was still debating what books belonged in the canon.
@@BibleFanatics The Church declares a dogma to define a belief, usually in the face of heresy. Saying the Church didn’t have a defined canon before the 16th century would be like saying the Church didn’t believe in the Trinity until the 4th century because that’s when it became dogmatised. The Catholic Church clarifies doctrine when heretics arise (e.g. Luther).
Luther threw out 7 books and wanted to throw out Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the NT.
By your statements you seem to suggest that people can add or take away books as they please.
How did you arrive at the belief that the Protestant canon is the real canon?
@@daniellennox8804 See this is the problem with Rome because after the first three councils your mentioned. Both Athanasius and Jerome had different lists of canon than the church. Also Luther retained all those books and the deuterocanocial books. Erasmus also did not believe Revelation was scripture as well or that it was on par with other scriptures. The church does not make the canon it recognizes the canon. God makes and knows the canon.
I converted from ND Evangelical to Catholic almost 20 years ago. It’s wonderful to see balanced discussion without rancor. Thanks, guys!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I predict that Dr Ortland will soon or later come home in the Catholic Church and will draw many souls with him. The Holy Spirit is very active in him.
I'm a Catholic and I don't see it happening
Dr. Ortlund is solidly Protestant and proud of it. I doubt he’s going anywhere.
I couldn't help but notice a particular theme that kept popping up, a difference in the way Joe and Dr. Ortlund (and, by extension, Catholics and Protestants respectively) will interpret the witness of the Fathers. Catholics will generally find it sufficient when, even if there's not much early evidence for a teaching (in the 100s or 200s), the evidence that IS there points in the Catholic direction, we can't really find any evidence that CONTRADICTS the Catholic position, and especially if by the time of the 4th century onward those doctrines are made more explicit. Whereas the Protestant will generally be more skeptical of a doctrine if it isn't pretty explicitly taught in the first few centuries. I'd be interested to see these four fine gentlemen discuss this interpretive lens and the merits and demerits of each viewpoint.
Getting into interpretive lenses would be really interesting
@@GospelSimplicity agreed! Especially if Joe and Dr. Ortlund are going to have recourse to the Fathers for their arguments. Each one could be presented with the same data, but come up with different conclusions.
@@tylerrossjcl The problem is many Protestants will always default to “their understanding” of Scripture and use that as the Trump card to undercut anything the early church taught unambiguously.
Case in point baptismal regeneration -
This was believed and taught unambiguously in the early Church but I’ve had many discussions with Protestants - who are completely dismissive of this idea because in their eyes the Scripture does not teach this. I can show them how / where this is found in scripture but unfortunately many are not open to this interpretation no matter how well it is presented from a scriptural perspective.
Bottom line it really takes grace to see these things.
I do find these discussions enlightening and thought provoking though ! Cudo s to Gospel simplicity and the Cordial Catholic
@@mikeoconnor4590
You seem to be stuck in a caricature of protestantism.
Ortlund and Trent discuss on another YT video the issue of baptism a little more in depth. The reality is that both in the narrative of the Book of Acts and in the epistles, the majority of cases of conversion are associated with belief first. A Catholic monologue might seem persuasive but when you see Ortlund going at it with Trent, Trent has to concede the exceptions to baptism, and how God was changing people before baptism.
Ortlund keeps the importance of baptism in God's work of regeneration, while at the same time not ignoring the importance of belief in conversion, and as critical to conversion.
@@carlosrodas423I believe Trent has also made the point that baptism being necessary is normative or ordinary (the normal way in which we are saved, along with faith) but God is not bound by the sacraments. God can choose extraordinary ways to save people, it does not nullify the ordinary.
Even in the Old Testament (OT) you were not simply saved by circumcising only, but it was required ordinarily. See the example of Moses almost losing his son because he hasn’t circumcised him. Meanwhile the verses saying where God desires mercy, not sacrifice. Or in various parts of the OT where God greatly desires people to repent and turn to Him, and do good works of mercy in partnership with God. It was a “both and” rather than “either-or” as many Protestants will try to make it seem with baptismal regeneration. Catholics think you need both faith (evidenced by works) and also baptism (ordinarily). Hope this clarifies a bit, I myself am still Protestant but strongly considering becoming Catholic.
Wow,that was awesome!!! I love it!!💯💯😍
I’ve been seeing Gavin on a lot of Catholic TH-cam. I COULD NOT have my views criticized as long as he has without losing it. He is a very patient man. We hope you come to Rome Gavin and Austin.
Laudetur Jesus Christus
HIs patience is remarkable
Why Rome though?
Of the many things I learnt in this insightful video, one thing is that I need to occasionally take sips of water throughout the day. :)
GOD BLESS HIS ONE AND ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH💗💗💗
🙂🙂🙂 Jesus died actually for His Church. JUST saying. In the house church that paul started how beleivers worshipped was not stated explicity and mattered little. It matyered that they built their lives around jesus
At the end of the day, Protestants demand that Catholics play on their turf by proposing arguments that simply appeal beyond a variety of personal historical-scriptural hermeneutical roadblocks. At that point we are out of the vein of Irenaeus, Augustine, and Aquinas who were more concerned demonstrating the reasonableness of doctrine/dogma qua dogma.
As a protestant, I am sure I would disagree, if I only I could make sense of any of what you said.
@@philagon I’m pointing out a distinction between defending a teaching with scripture (Catholics) and deriving a teaching from scripture (Protestant). Catholics are better equipped, as it were, to demonstrate how an existing teaching is reasonable and scriptural. Protestants hold some variety of personal interpretation of scripture, and so, in order for a Catholic dogma to be “affirmed”, personal criteria of truth and reasonableness have to be not only met, but also exceeded.
@@Abraham-yq2wz No- I do not agree, nor do I think would most protestants.You too have a personal interpretation of the scriptures, if, in any way, you belong to the Catholic church for considered reasons, and not merely because the Church tells you to. That is, you are convinced to the follow the Catholic tradition, and this requires you take their dogmatic teaching in the bargain. We do not hold to a personal interpretation of scrpture if you mean some kind of hermeneutic relativism. We believe the bible is authoritative but also perspicuous. This means we think the bible actually is clear on the central issues of salvation. One implication is that God’s word is clearer than the words of your magisterium. For there is no reason why the language of the RCC should bring with it an inability to be misinterpreted while the word of God himself lacks such security.
@@philagon I can’t help but think that you are making my point as you try to reframe this discussion into a dispute over the primacy of Scripture in deriving doctrines. I would, however, caution against your presumption that Catholics ought to weigh “considered reasons” for being Catholic against conversion by God’s grace and submission to authority. Regarding Protestantism: Having been an Evangelical seminarian who belonged to a sect that believed every other Protestant sect was wrong about the essentials, I would have to say that I disagree with you about your church. And perhaps the most perspicuous doctrine of all is that Jesus founded a church which assumed His authority on earth, interpreted His own teachings, and defended (not derived) those doctrines with the Scriptures.
@@Abraham-yq2wz Defending vs. deriving is a good distinction, unless, as it seems as you are doing, you make them into some kind of logical opposition. I find no mention of Jesus founding an institutional church in the NT, least one with the trappings, traditions, pomp, and ritualism so foreign to the simplicity of the NT church.
All 4 wonderful guests! Love it. More of this.
Great argument by Joe re: Luke 22:31. We have heard before about Jesus praying for Peter, but not the fact of the preceding context. I think that's a really, really good argument. Even if not by itself absolute proof.
It will be very interesting to see the angle Dr. Ortlund takes when arguing this. Being Orthodox, I believe in Holy Tradition as authoritative, so I imagine I will disagree with both of them. The EO arguments against the papacy tend to be the most potent to me because they at least argue from the same footing. But I'm excited!
Hope you enjoy it! It would’ve been interesting to have an orthodox perspective on this too
@@GospelSimplicity UbiPetrus on youtube would be a good person to have on if you want a more studied Orthodox view of the papacy. Fr. Christian Kaapes also, as you probably know.