Interesting take, Gavin, but it’s hard to ignore that Ignatius learned directly from Peter, Paul, and John and was the Bishop of Antioch-where Christians were first called ‘Christians.’ Relying on Calvin 1,500 years later and downplaying Ignatius’ firsthand experience feels like missing the forest for the trees. Ignatius’ testimony is foundational, and even the other Apostolic Fathers don’t undermine his emphasis on the bishop’s role.
As well , the churches of the New Testament received directly from the apostles - & we are well aware of how many issues needed to be “taken in hand” over & again Which is to say that we need to look at the whole “lay of the land”, while searching the scriptures , & imploring assistance of the HOLY SPIRIT as we look thru this glass darkly ~ hoping to be good Bereans
To say that Gavin is “Relying on Calvin” is gross misunderstanding of his argument. He quoted him one time near the end of the video, and it wasn’t really a part of his main argument. Whether Gavin is right or wrong (I believe right) his argument leans on Polycarp, Clement, the shepherd Hermes, the Didache, Jerome, and the Bible itself. (I’m not really commenting this to start a back and forth debate about the topic in general, but rather to clarify the video for future readers)
The Bereans @Ari-ih2nl , subscribed to material sufficiency opposed to those who they were compared to (the Thessalonians) who erroneously adopted a protestant version of formal sufficiency. Once you understand that and see it clearly brother, there is no going back to unbiblical protestantism.
This a gross misrepresentation of what Gavin says. He is not relying on Calvin. He quotes church fathers; this is what his argument relies on. The Calvin quote isn’t till the video is mostly over, and it’s not used to further Gavin’s argument.
To say that Gavin is “Relying on Calvin” is a gross misunderstanding of his argument. He quoted him one time near the end of the video, and it wasn’t really a part of his main argument. Whether Gavin is right or wrong (I believe right) his argument leans on Polycarp, Clement, the shepherd Hermes, the Didache, Jerome, and the Bible itself. (I’m not really commenting this to start a back and forth debate about the topic in general, but rather to clarify the video for future readers)
5:17 - Polycarp and a two-office view, presbyters and deacons 5:20 - Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians chapters 5 and 6 5:34 - Concerning Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians, Gavin says, “… there’s no mention of a third office” 5:39 and 6:20 and 6:38 - Clement’s first epistle 6:53 and 7:06 - Didache (Chapter 15) 7:50 and 8:00 “… there’s this evolution or development where you don’t see a single bishop in Rome until you get all the way further into the second century” 9:27 - “But if you go back to the New Testament, you don’t have any basis for a distinction between the office of bishop and elder” 9:40 , 9:48 , 9:56 - Titus 1:5-7 and Acts 20 10:10 - Oxford Dictionary and “bishop” Gavin says, “In the Oxford Dictionary, it will say that this was used interchangeably with the word ‘elder’ originally.” 10:27 - Quoting Jerome, “bishop and presbyter are one in the same” 12:11 - Concerning Jerome and the development of church government, “Jerome basically says that this came into existence to deal with the threat of schism” 12:31 - “Not all differences with respect to church government are the differences of truth vs error. Sometimes there are just different applications or responses to a particular time.”
I just recently discovered your videos. I appreciate a Protestants view on Church History. To often we have a low Church and bad attitude towards the early church fathers. You have wet my appetite for more study in this area. God bless 🙌🙏
@@TruthUnites Debunking catholicism I'm more blessed than mary Proof = Luke 11:27-28 27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” 28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen _________________________ CHRIST alone John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus _________________________ Work of God = John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” _________________________ 1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul. Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop _________________________ Jesus said Matthew 23:9 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father. Sad _________________________ Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God Use this to defeat the argument. Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Matthew 12:46-50 46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”. Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.” John 19:26-27 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards). By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26. _________________________ We should not pray to apostles Romans 1:25 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Acts 10:25-26 25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” Acts 14:15 15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, Revelation 19:10 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 22:8-9 8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." Colossians 2:18 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26 26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Hebrews 7:25 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles _________________________ There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. _________________________ Apostles are allowed to marry, 1 Corinthians 9:1-5 1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry? _________________________ The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic). 1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple 2)He sank down while walking on water 3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan 4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times 5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven 6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear 7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles. 8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land), 9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit), 10)King Soloman messed up, 11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11). Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up) 12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up. 13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20 14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9 If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up. _ Galatians 4:21-26 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. Sarah is mother of all, Not mary Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics Changed the 10 commandments by deleting 2nd commandment, and dividing the 10th into 2 commandments. Also changing the real Saturday Sabbath to fake sunday sabbath.
@@mynameis......23 You should read more. All of these so called "objections" have been debunked 100 times over. Just do a basic google search. We even have ChatGPT today, there is no reason to not be this uninformed.
I’m not sure how you get that Polycarp gives a two system leadership role in the church? Ignatius wrote to him and about him as being a Bishop. He was the third role. Polycarp also mentions Ignatius in his letter and confirms those letters that were written to them. He’s clearly on board with Ignatius and the formation of church leadership (chapter 9 and 13). As always, I appreciate your work, but this Anglican slightly differs from you on this one 🙂
For an explanation of the relationship between Polycarp and Ignatius, I would suggest you check out "The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious" by W.D. Killen (available from Project Gutenberg). He suggests that the Ignatius whom Polycarp refers to lived on the island of Syra in the Aegean Sea not far from Philippi. But that a bishop of Rome in the early 3rd century used that obscure reference to fabricate a number of letters from Ignatius of Syria with the hope of making it appear that the authority of a single bishop was a much older tradition than it appeared.
Same applies in the case of Timothy and Titus.... Paul only mentions their responsibilities towards presbyters and deacons. But they themselves are the bishops... Gavin is incorrect to say there is no evidence before the second century...
Jerome gave the exact same reason as Clement gave (Clement explicitly states that the Apostles knew exactly what Jerome was referring to-dangers of schism, etc.). And Clement said that the episcopacy was the seat of authority for those who succeeded the Apostles-who were *individuals.* We also know that Christ Himself told the apostles on several occasions they would judge the new Israel on “thrones” (cathedra), and that this number 12 was obviously derived from the 12 tribes, which were likewise headed by one tribal elder (hence all the lineages provided in various historical books of the Bible-the chief elder of each tribe, who “succeeded” to the original 12 sons of Jacob/Israel). The other point to consider is that St. Ignatius wrote to 7 churches spread across Asia, Greece, and Italy. He assumed the same model in each of them. Polycarp’s letter was, as far as we could tell, only addressed to one congregation. But even Polycarp begins his letter with “Polycarp, *and the presbyters with him*...” All this is quite clear. If Jerome himself though it was only a “human custom” and not of divine institution, he would never have referred to the various bishops (including the Bishop of Rome) with whom he corresponded in the way he did-namely as successors of the Apostles. Even centuries later, Pope St. Gregory the Great, who no one doubts had a high view of both papacy and episcopal authority, calls himself a presbyter, or “fellow presbyter” with some of his correspondents-because some presbyters (priests) are bishops, as is the case to this day. Likewise, when the Popes would write to various emperors, they would often speak of temporal rulers being “subject to priests (presbyters) in spiritual matters,” etc. Did that imply that the mono-episcopacy was somehow not clear to Damasus? To Gelasius? To Leo? To Ambrose? Of course not. Presbyters are simply priests. And bishops are priests (though of a higher degree). And Bishops/presbyters were distinguished from deacons because they had the authority to offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist. So distinguishing between “Priests” and deacons makes a ton of sense for that reason. So when someone says “be subject to the priests and the deacons,” it’s the same as when Deuteronomy 17 says to be subject to “the priests and the judges” but doesn’t go through the trouble of distinguishing the three orders of priesthood outlined in the Torah, etc. Everyone knew what it meant. You also completely left out all the early Church Historians, such as Eusebius and Sozomen, etc. All of them are able to provide a detailed list of names going all the way back to the Apostles. Those names didn’t come out of nowhere. Each church kept its list (they say this), and that provided those historians with documentation going all the way back to the 1st century. The same was true of Irenaeus, who was from the East, but settled in the West, and took the reality of episcopal authority as granted and normative. He likewise had to draw from these lists. They all speak of this as divine institution-which, for reasons I already stated, makes a lot of sense given the types with ancient Israel, and Christ’s words to the Apostles judging the new Israel on thrones (among others). Presumably all these people knew what was going on in the Church, and why. It’s not “unclear.”
Debunking catholicism I'm more blessed than mary Proof = Luke 11:27-28 27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” 28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen _________________________ CHRIST alone John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus _________________________ Work of God = John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” _________________________ 1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul. Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop _________________________ Jesus said Matthew 23:9 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father. Sad _________________________ Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God Use this to defeat the argument. Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Matthew 12:46-50 46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”. Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.” John 19:26-27 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards). By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26. _________________________ We should not pray to apostles Romans 1:25 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Acts 10:25-26 25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” Acts 14:15 15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, Revelation 19:10 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 22:8-9 8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." Colossians 2:18 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26 26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Hebrews 7:25 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles _________________________ There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. _________________________ Apostles are allowed to marry, 1 Corinthians 9:1-5 1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry? _________________________ The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic). 1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple 2)He sank down while walking on water 3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan 4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times 5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven 6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear 7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles. 8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land), 9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit), 10)King Soloman messed up, 11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11). Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up) 12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up. 13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20 14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9 If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up. _ Galatians 4:21-26 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. Sarah is mother of all, Not mary Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics Changed the 10 commandments by deleting 2nd commandment, and dividing the 10th into 2 commandments. Also changing the real Saturday Sabbath to fake sunday sabbath.
@mynameis......23 I pray that you realize what Jesus is talking about here (Luke 11: 27-28). He gave focus to the act that gave Mary the gift of being the blessed mother of Christ... listening to the word of God and obeying it instantly... without a doubt: "Be it unto me according to your word." Jesus advises us to obey the word and receive our own blessings instead of focusing on an exclusive blessing to his mother, which is unattainable to anyone else.
Jerome said what he said. You can't escape the fact that Jerome believed that a presbyterian form of church governance was superseded by the monarchical episcopate. The fact that the apostles were apparently okay with both forms of government (according to Jerome) should be evidence for Gavin's point.
I'm a protestant and am really eager to hear your thoughts on the Eucharist. The Eucharist is what is driving me to become catholic. Coming from a very non denominational low church, Ignatius was a huge eye opener to me on considering the catholic church especially his comments on the Eucharist. Thanks for stepping into this.
thanks for sharing that! Okay, I will do something on this. I currently have a 4:00 clip on the eucharist on my patreon as well, coming out in a week or two
@@Will-wu1gb Hi Will ! As a Catholic convert, I would like to share with you the following about the Eucharist and perhaps watch Scott Hahn's video too th-cam.com/video/67WmIGLPvEM/w-d-xo.html 1. The Jews on the night before the Exodus were instructed to eat an unblemished lamb so that their eldest can be spared biological death. It is insufficient to just smear the lambs' blood on the door post. They were then brought across the Red Sea into their Promised Land. Jesus being the unblemished Lamb of God gives us His true presence in the Eucharist so that He can save us from spiritual death. That is why he said in John 6:54 whoever eats my body and drinks my blood shall have everlasting life and be raised up on the last day. That is why he said the Jews' forefathers eat manna but die. However whoever eats Him shall have everlasting life. So like the Jews before Exodus needs to eat the unblemished lamb to be saved biologically, we need to eat the unblemished Lamb of God to be saved spiritually. Thus we have to eat the real presence of the Lamb of God - not symbolic - just as the Jews don't eat a symbolic lamb at the Passover Meal. After consuming the real presence, Jesus gives us eternal life, raise us up on the last day, brings us across the sea of sin into our Promised Land, Heaven. The Eucharist has to be the real presence for the above to work. That is why Jesus says He is the vine and we the branches - we draw from Jesus. That is how we are children of God as Jesus's blood is flowing in us. This is part 1. Part 2 - Believing in the true presence is one thing. How to consecrate the wafer into the true presence is another. Jesus instituted Holy Orders to the Apostles . Jesus is the High Priest and He bestowed the priesthood to the Apostles by asking them to celebrate Mass in memory of Him. Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit into the Apostles and gave them the authority to bind and loose and to teach whatever He taught them. The Apostles ordained bishops send deacons in Acts. Thus the authority and ability to consecrate the host, changing it to the true presence with the help of the Holy Spirit only lies with priests who have apostolic succession - ordained by the Apostles and who apostolically ordained the next successive generation of priests. So if I go and found my church today, I can't consecrate the host and there is no real presence because I am not validly ordained through apostolic succession
@ Will. The Apostles believed and taught the real presence. So do the Orthodox and even Luther. Thus for 1500 years, Christians believed in the true presence. Francis Chen the Evangelical pastor was amazed to discover this and he accepted and shared this discovery. St Paul taught the true presence of the Eucharist in 1 Cor 11:29 1 Corinthians 11:29, NIV: "For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves." If the Eucharist were mere symbolic, what is the problem with eating bread in a sinful state ? Why eat judgement by merely eating mere bread ? St Ignatius roundly declares that the bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . .St Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. Here are examples of what early Church Fathers had to say on the subject of the the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist: Ignatius of Antioch “I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]). “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]). Justin Martyr “For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). Irenaeus “If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33-32 [A.D. 189]). “He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life-flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2). Tertullian “[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]). Hippolytus “‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]). Origen “Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]). Cyprian of Carthage “He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned-[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15-16 [A.D. 251]). Aphraahat the Persian Sage “After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]). Cyril of Jerusalem “The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]). “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9). Ambrose of Milan “Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]). Theodore of Mopsuestia “When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]). Augustine “Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]). “I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]). “What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ” (ibid., 272).
@@jeremiahong248 I dont agree ...Im sorry! Im ex catholic and the comparison u make with the Lamb in OT and Jésus is flawd ....the essential Idea is the symbol of the SLAYING of the Lamb ....the SACRIFICE & BLOOD ....not the Eating of it!! And dont forget ...... Jesus is the bread that came down from Heaven is a METAPHORE with Manna ( bread) brought down to feed israelites in desert... And where does it say explicitly WE MUST ADORE THIS BREAD!! The Scriptures cannot contradict themselves ......Jésus said my true believers will worship me in SPIRIT & TRUTH ....No physical object suggested I AM convinced adoring saint sacrament as i did before is idolatry ......and also ....we must not add to the written Scriptures 1 Cor 4 :6 & Gal 1 :6-9
I dont understand why he encourages people who agree with Ignatius to "before you go all the way Catholic/Orthodox, look at Anglicanism" I have to belive in many ways low church Protestants like Gavin have more in common with Catholics e.g. traditional understanding of marraige, the sancity of life, etc. than they do with a much more progressive insitution like Anglicanism. Its like he has reduced it to a team sport and well "Anglicans are protestants so that's a point for my team". The implication being that there is some kind of unified body that is protestantism, when really theologically, liturgically, culturally and politically the only thing they really all have in common is they are not Catholic/Orthodox.
Polycarp doesn't mention a third office, however he himself held that third office as Bishop of Smyrnaea, so obviously he must have respected the utility of such an office.
The use of the word "bishop" asside. Titus is given "all" authority over the island of Crete. Paul is clear. Titus is appointed to go through the whole island appointing elders and setting right the churches. Paul even says that Titus is to let no one deny him. Seems straight forward to me.
I think this would be a stronger argument if it were clear that Titus is a bishop, but of course, that is a point of dispute. Protestants often understand him to be an apostolic delegate, acting on Paul's authority.
Right. That is the Orthodox view of bishops. That's what Ignatius and Ireneaus ment. However one looks at it this is a clear and Biblical president against congregationalism and for clear, orgainzed and universal authority. Also, when you say "protestants" you are being unclear. Protestants do not agree on this issue.
@@fr.davidbibeau621 thanks for following up. I said Protestants "often" take that view. Apostolic delegate is definitely not necessarily the same as bishop. The Orthodox could affirm that language, of course, but it's not what is meant by others who use it. I disagree about the evidence, but thanks for commenting.
The only problem with looking at the early church fathers, even ones from the late first or early second centuries, is that Paul warned the church that EVEN FROM AMONG THEIR NUMBERS wolves would rise up and take disciples away after themselves and preach false gospels. So heresy started EARLY--even during the lives of the apostles.
But you’re more inclined to follow a random man from the 1600s who thought he had the authority to remove books from the Bible? You don’t realize that Martin Luther is the fulfillment of Paul’s prophecy? My friend you’re stuck in a twisted evil and demonic delusion.
Yes, and yet God preserved His Scriptures through this institution. And this institution (even in the modern era) holds to the sanctity of life and marriage and the gospel despite socio-political pushback. And has been striving (imperfectly) to do so for 2000 years.
Paul explicitly stated that "all who are in Asia turned away from me" (2 Timothy 1:15), indicating that by the time of his later letters, heresy and abandonment of his teachings had taken root in the Asian churches. This reflects the theological and doctrinal struggles faced by the early church, particularly in Asia Minor. A few years later, the Didache surfaced, describing itself as "the teaching of the twelve apostles" but notably omitting any direct reference to Paul. This suggests that factions within the early church may have distanced themselves from Paul’s theology, possibly favoring teachings tied to the Jerusalem apostles or other early Christian traditions. Paul, however, gave explicit instructions for testing doctrine. He warned the Galatians: > "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8). Furthermore, Paul urged believers to evaluate all teachings against his writings, as he considered the gospel he proclaimed to be directly from Christ (Galatians 1:11-12). The writings of the early church fathers, while significant for historical and theological development, must be judged by the standard of Paul’s epistles. Peter himself affirmed the authority of Paul’s letters, referring to them as Scripture: > "…as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15-16). Thus, the writings of church fathers and subsequent traditions must align with the teachings of Paul, as affirmed by Peter, to ensure they are consistent with the gospel revealed by Christ.
I'm surprised you didn't bring up the doubtful nature of the 7 letter collection. Lightfoot had a lot of stake in arguing that the 7 letter collection was authentic since it asserted monarchical episcopacy, and he was a bishop. while the shorter collection is more like Paul, Clement and Polycarp. I mean, if you take a look at the short recension (which is probably as close as we can get to authentic Ignatius) he doesn't sound like a chalcedonian trinitarian either. anyway, there is currently no community that believes and practices the way the early and subapostolic christians did. they were subordinationists, liturgical sacramentalists, non-solafide-ists, likely presbyterian in governance, and the laity were relying not on themselves but on the hierarchy for teaching. whereas in modern times, if a community has a high view of the sacraments, they're certainly trinitarian. if they're not trinitarian, they will not celebrate the eucharist each sunday, etc. you get the picture.
It's amazing how many people go to Rome or Constantinople without fully reading about their dogmas. The host of Barely Protestant put it well when he said you should be prepared to adopt or move to adopting a traditions doctrines before moving traditions.
@@wesmorgan7729 who deleted my comment? I didn't swear or anything. The early church is St Clement of Rome writing to Corinth and instructing them on how to repent and move forward properly.
@@wesmorgan7729 we have 4 different gospels but you expect one exactly the same Divine Liturgy? The early church much like the modern Orthodox Church uses variable Liturgies that retain the same essence despite being different in parts or style.
Calvinism is a subset of the Reformed (Zwinglian) position, which differs with Lutheranism only in Sacramentology, as it is stated in the Marburg Articles signed by both of these Protestant Traditions.
Yeah-but, even in the modern R.C. and Orthodox churches, every bishop IS a priest, so couldn't that somewhat explain using presbyter and episkopos interchangeably even if the 3 tier organization was the expectation?
Thanks Gavin for your videos. It’s helpful to uncover some of the possible misconceptions that are commonly presented in Catholic/Protestant discussions.
I was a reformed protestant, mostly of the Calvinist doctrine, I converted to Catholicism last year, my relationship with Christ is more clear and stronger than ever, I will die before I ever leave Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
@@ShepherdMinistry idol worship is forbidden in the Catholic Church, as per in the Bible, the history of the churches tradition and the catechism, as for the the Papacy, simply looke Matthew 16:18-19, now do I think we have bad Pope's, sure but they still hold the keys given to them by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Also remember the Bible didn't exist in the first century, it was canonized in the 4th century during the council of Rome,under Pope Damasus I,in other words there is no Bible without the church contrary to what most protestants believe, that somehow the it just magically fell out of the sky out of thin air.
@@jesussotelo4775 You don’t think statues and pictures of Jesus are idol worship? They aren’t real pictures of Him. Shouldn’t we not worship a false image? You can’t say it’s not worshipping when it’s impersonating Him. I do disagree with the Matthew verse regarding it implying a pope but that is a highly debated passage. I appreciate your kind response!
@@ShepherdMinistry thanks for at least trying to understand the Catholic position, now to address the first issue, what would you say to someone if you were eating a bowl of spaghetti and they asked you, "why are you eating a bowl of earth worms?" You would probably explain that,you're not eating worms you're eating spaghetti, even though they perceive something different. Christian iconography dates back to the early century they're simply windowsinto heaven, and even in the old Testament God commands the Israelites to build inside the holy of holy the ark of the covenant which depict statue of charabim. If you want the best biblical and historical catholic teaching, I'll direct you to. 1. Early Church fathers 2. Dr Taylor Marshall 3 Trent Horn 4.Dr Scott Hahn. Taylor Marshall and Scott Hahn were both former protestants and the give detailed information on Catholic apologetics if you want scholarly information. Go ahead check these sources out even if you disagree, at least you'll get an intellectually honest response to your questions rather than imisconcepions. God bless.
Bishops work together with priests in that priests are an extension of the bishops to be able to properly celebrate the Eucharist among the other sacraments. Sure they are two separate offices but are really only one in that the priest is the authorized extension of the Bishop. Then there’s deacons which are not ordained to the priesthood (as bishops and priests are) but to ministry and service to assist the Bishops and priests. The three vs two issue seems to me an unnecessary hindrance. The Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses the topics enough I think to provide maybe some helpful guidance on this issue.
I spent over 40 years trying to figure out “is it this, or is it that” as an Evangelical Protestant & pastor involved in 21 different denominations, affiliations or sects. Most differed in small ways, but not all. This video pits church father against father, just like Protestants think with either/or reasoning. Catholicism approaches things as both/and. I studied more than anyone I knew for over 20 years. I realized at some point that after much hard work coming to a conclusion (“the truth”), that it would matter little to the Church as a whole. Some young teen would start the whole process I went through over for himself & another after him. That was profoundly saddening. As I studied Catholicism, I realized that men worked through hard issues & had Councils (or Synods). Once they decided a matter, that was it. It was a foundation to build on without looking back. A truth could be further unpacked as deeper implications were understood, but what was decided was final. Protestants don’t have that. Some things are assumed to be foundations to build on, but with no authority to say that a matter is settled, ANY doctrine or belief may be challenged. Evangelicals assume the progress of the past, but don’t have to. Even which books belong in the canon and what level of authority they will be recognized with is up for grabs. Luther threw out 7 OT books & questioned many more (including the NT books of James, Jude, Hebrews & Revelation, which he doubted were inspired). Some new movement can come along & reform anything the way they choose to interpret things (like nearly every group we call cults- the Millerite Adventist movement, for example, all Baptistic groups, had many offshoots including non-Trinitarian JW’s and Sabbatarians like the SDA’s). Concerning the evolving role of leadership, there was a transition in leadership roles, even in NT times. At first, only apostles founded churches. They trained & appointed elders (who functioned under the apostle’s authority). Deacons sprang up, as we see in Acts, out of need as helpers to the apostles. As apostles began dying & as the Church grew quickly, someone needed to exercise the role of the apostles in their absence. A role mimicking that of apostle was given to one of the elders raised up by the apostles.. He was called a bishop (over-seer). In Ignatius’ day, all the elders in a city who pastored many churches would go to a mass with the bishop and bring back Eucharist to share and mingle with their own. Even to this day, a piece of the consecrated bread is placed in the chalice as a reminder that all communion is under the authority of the apostolic representative, the bishop. The form has changed but the meaning remains the same as in the first century. Instead of viewing different documents and father’s as divergent ideas of a bunch of ragtag independent leaders, I see the common apostolic foundations & teaching testified to by St Irenaeus who said that all of the churches, though of many languages & vultures, taught the same things as if they had but a single mouth (and that they all were in harmony with the greatest church, Rome, who had superior training through the most preeminent apostles, Peter & Paul. He went on to show the lineage of the Roman bishops back to the apostles. That was important to his concept of authority.) Even at the Council of Nicea, when Arius was calling Christ a creature & not God, the bishops listened to Arius creatively twist scriptures to fit his views using scripture alone, the issue of the apostolic authority of the oldest & best taught churches was used to settle the issue. They asked the Arian party to show that their unique view was that taught by the apostles by asking if anything like this new view had ever been taught in any of the apostolic churches (most eminently, in Antioch, Rome or Alexandria where Peter & Paul had taught). When those churches denied that they had any such teaching from the apostles, the matter was settled.
Might save me a few years haha.. would love to hear about your conversion, particularly your thoughts/experience after converting? Any disappointments?
I don't want to take away from your diligent research. I'm a lifelong Christian myself and spent the last few years looking into Catholicism, and church history as well. You've left out the parts where the Roman church settled matter of doctrinal dispute by burning dissenters at the stake, or other a worse form of torture before they did. I think that's an important part of church history as well, which lends more to explaining how the Roman Catholic church became the central authority. Not so much because they were right, but might was right and dissent wasn't allowed.
@@felipeneves9571 The Albigensians, Waldensians, Hussites, Huguenots, and several early Reformers were put to death either by order of, or without any protest from, Roman bishops. Let's not forget the persecution of Jews who refused to convert. So yes, the church did indeed do that.
I’m realizing we as Protestants do such a poor job teaching our own history, the common person thinks low church non-denominationalism & Pentecostalism are all there is to Protestantism. When they then read Ignatius, the only other group they know of that uses his kind of language are Catholics, so they assume Ignatius is in agreement with contemporary Catholicism & act accordingly, in total ignorance of classical Protestant thought.
It’s not just Protestants. I grew up in Catholic schools and went to the Baptist Church on Sundays growing up. Most Christians are “Casual Christians” and don’t care to do their own research and get in their Bibles. I’ve been guilty of it most of my life, but now that I’m older I find I can’t read the Bible enough.
When Calvin read Ignatius’ letters he believed they were forgeries because of how Catholic they were. So it seems that it’s not just low information Protestants who think the early Church Fathers like Ignatius sound Catholic.
Contemporary Catholicism? Do you have any idea how old the Catholic Mass is? It’s remained mostly the same for over two thousand years. Classical Protestantism? What year was the Reformation? Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John. Ignatius was a bishop in the early Church with direct ties to the New Testament. Ignatius also used the word Catholic when referring to The Church. ACCORDING TO GOD, WORSHIP INVOLVES THESE THREE THINGS: 1. SACRIFICE 2. AN ALTAR 3. AN ORDAINED PRIEST SINCE THE VERY FIRST MASS AT THE LAST SUPPER, WHEN JESUS OFFERED TO GOD HIS BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, AND DIVINITY, EVERY CATHOLIC MASS HAS BEEN A SACRIFICE, ON AN ALTAR, OFFERED BY AN ORDAINED PRIEST. LISTENING TO A PREACHER READ FROM THE BIBLE, AND THEN EXPLAIN WHAT HE/SHE THINKS IT ALL MEANS ISN'T WORSHIP. IT'S A BIBLE STUDY. LISTENING TO A BAND PLAY CHRISTIAN MUSIC ISN'T WORSHIP. IT'S ENTERTAINMENT.
This was good Dr. Ortlund. I was one who came from low church Protestantism / Evangelicalism, but then was swayed by Eastern Orthodoxy. But I couldn't quite cross the Bosphorus. Their doctrine of Justification is just one I couldn't overcome. That wasn't the only reason but it was the main one for me. I thought I had to leave Protestantism to find a historic church. Now I've been exploring Lutheranism as you mentioned.
I have trouble with sola scriptura that makes it hard to become Protestant (although I think some Anglican denominations don't follow s. s.). Like humans choose canon of Bible, not Bible, so what authority is there for Protestant Bible as opposed to ones used before Protestants? Contradicting Old Testament with stuff allowing pork and optional circumcision before there's any New Testament written to back that up. Paul's verses about tradition 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Tim. 2:2, 2 Thess. 2:15 and Bible not saying when Christians had to give up traditions and start to >only< use the Bible implies we don't have to give up tradition. Would also help if the Bible said to >only< get your infallible religious doctrines/dogmas from the Bible, but it doesn't seem to. I too am questioning if I should become Orthodox.
@@GinaFisher-w3rI don’t think you properly understand sola scriptura, Gavin has some videos on it, you should watch a few to clear up your misunderstandings
Be careful! Once you get into the Church Fathers, and with all respect, I don't mean Luther and Calvin, there's just no going back! "Whatever you conclude (from reading Ignatius), it's not a reason to become Catholic." I'd like to focus on this most curious warning! Whenever I watch your channel, or any Protestant channel, I always approach with the mindset that today might be the day that I become convinced of the truth of Methodism or Lutheranism or Calvinism or Mormonism or Adventism or Baptism or Evangelicalism. It is possible that Luther and Calvin and Smith and the other Smith have all gotten it right, and I should take their claims seriously and stop being Catholic. I'd invite all Protestants to take the claims of Ignatius and the other Fathers and Doctors of the Church seriously and open mindedly as well. So, why the curious warning? Are you afraid that people are actually taking the claims of ancient writers seriously? Are you afraid that Protestantism might actually be wrong? To any Protestant reading this: don't fear the truth! If Ignatius surprises you by understanding that the Eucharist is truly the ACTUAL flesh and blood of our lord, and if he surprises you by describing the reality of the Church within the created order as a monarchical and tripartite form of government (among other things that might surprise!), this is not because Ignatius made these things up, but simply because these are things that Christ instituted for his Church from its beginning. Keep in mind that Ignatius was writing in the late first century. There was no Bible (because the Catholic Church hadn't yet compied it) yet he was well aware of the contents of Scripture and well informed by Tradition. He is writing as a teacher to whom the faith was handed down and who also hands down the faith to others. Just for example, when Jesus instituted the Eucharist, he said "this is my body, this is my blood" (touto estin to sōma mou ... touto gar estin to haima mou); people argued with him. He didn't respond by saying "yeah, you know what, chill, I'm just talking symbolic". No he came back, doubling down, with amen, amen, lego humin ean me phagete ten sarka ... kai piete to haima --- truly i say to you, if you shall not have eaten the meat and drunken the blood. I don't know about you, but when God says TRULY, I tend to believe what he says. There is no getting around the fact that the Eucharist is central to Christian worship, there is no getting around the priesthood that presides at the Eucharist and no getting around the symbolic vs Real Presence argument. Now Gavin is right when he says that there was a lot of discussion and debate over HOW Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist, and it is true that some Protestants have held on to the universal and ancient belief that Christ IS present in the Eucharist. But Jesus is not a theologian. Jesus did not explicitly say how, or in what manner, he was present in the Eucharist. This was left for the Church to determine. That same Church governed by a monarchical priesthood with all its bishops and priests and deacons. I'm a Catholic, so I truly believe that there is much grace to be found in the various Protestant denominations. When I listen to Gavin or Fr Brett Murphy or Rev Calvin Robinson --- I see in you guys a whole lot of faith and a whole of grace. But I have to say also that once you start reading anything earlier than the 1500s, and especially when you start getting into the Apostolic Fathers, you're taking a serious risk. You are just not going to find any universally accepted Protestant doctrines. You're not going to find the Tribulation or the Rapture. You're not going to find the "invisible church", you're not going to find "unity in diversity", you're not even going to find sola scriptura or sola fide. You are going to find an entire world full of what we would now call Catholic doctrines (and even dogmas) that are universally adhered to, in the east as well as in the west and even the south. My warning would be this: If you are a Protestant and you feel that you are convicted and convinced of the truth of your Protestant religion, just stay away from the Church Fathers! Stay away from Church history! Stay away from the controversies and the debates and the resolutions and their final determinations! When Jesus founded the Church, he didn't found the Baptist church or the Lutheran church or the Christian Science church. He founded the Catholic Church. So, when you read the likes of Ignatius, you're reading Catholicism plain and simple, and these works have to be read in the context of Catholicism for them to make sense. And this is perilous because it is not what you were taught as a Baptist or a Pentecostal. If you start ask questions like "why is Ignatius focused on the monarchical presbyterate" or "where is the Rapture" or "why wasn't I taught these things in vacation Bible school", then you're already opening yourself up to an awareness of Truth. Once you open yourself up to Truth that your religion does not teach, you will now be messing with your conscience. Can you in good conscience follow a teaching that you were given as a child or a youth and you know no serious alternative to? Of course! If you grew up in a church that teaches Rapture theology or once saved always saved, and everyone in your community accepts this as true and your teachers and ministers all accept it as true, then your conscience is safe! But if you start dabbling into Ignatius --- and Papias and Clement and Polycarp and Justin Martyr and John Chrysostom and Irenaeus and Clement and all the rest --- and find that your beliefs are simply nowhere to be seen and that a whole different set of beliefs are universally held, some of which you have been taught to outright despise, now can you in good conscience hold your old beliefs? No, you can't. At the very least, you now have to examine and deconstruct your own religion to determine which is true and why. If you then find that your Protestant beliefs do not accord with the faith of the Apostles, can you still follow with a good conscience? Can you stand in front of God and deny him? A famous Protestant said one time: "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
(1) The monoepiscopacy is implied in the Book of Revelation, specifically 7 angels of the 7 churches. Even protestant commentaries recognize this. (2) Not only did Ignatius believe that the Eucharist was the resurrected body of Jesus, but taught that the Eucharist was a propitiatory sacrifice. In his second letter to Timothy, St. Paul writes, “For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come” (2 Timothy 4:6; cf. Philippians 2:7). Generally, the term used for sacrifice in Greek is “thusia;” however, St. Paul uses the first person singular passive verb “spendomai,” which translated means “to pour out,” as in a libation or drink-offering. This expression is an allusion to the Jewish ritual of pouring wine into the altar after the sacrificial animal had been burnt (cf. Numbers 28:7). St. Paul employs this metaphor to cast his own martyrdom in a liturgical light. Thus, his death becomes a public act of worship, whereby he offers himself both bodily and spiritually to God, much in the same way that Christ offered himself on the cross. The Eucharistic overtones of the Greek verb are more clearly seen in the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who in his letter to the Romans, writes, “Do not seek to confer any greater favor upon me than that I be sacrificed to God while the altar is still prepared.”[1] Here, St. Ignatius picks up on the apostle’s metaphor, even employing the same Greek verb (spendomai). However, he expands on the sacrificial metaphor by referring to himself as the bread and wheat of Christ in the same letter. He writes, Allow me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body; so that when I have fallen asleep, I may be no trouble to any one. Then shall I truly be a disciple of Christ, when the world shall not see so much as my body.[2] (emphasis mine) The Letter to the Romans contains three essential elements of the Mass: an altar, an allusion to wine, and two explicit references to the Eucharist. St. Ignatius not only identifies himself with the Eucharist, but also parallels his martyrdom which the Eucharistic sacrifice, which is offered upon the altar of God. We also find Eucharistic allusions in three of Ignatius’ other letters.[3] Here, I will only cite his letters to the Philadelphians and Smyrnaeans. In his Letter to the Philadelphians, St. Ignatius compares the bread and wine to the flesh and blood of Christ which he says are offered upon the altar. He writes, Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth ] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God.[4] …. I flee to the Gospel as to the flesh of Jesus, and to the apostles as to the presbytery of the Church.[5] However, the most explicit statement in support of Eucharistic realism is found in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans. Ignatius writes, They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.[6] St. Ignatius says that the Eucharist is the self-same flesh of Christ which suffered and which the Father, of his goodness, raised up again. The article in Greek is neuter, so it's not merely that Jesus was raised, but that his flesh was raised. The flesh *which* suffered, and the flesh *which* was raised for our salvation. In essence, by emphasizing the literalism of the bodily resurrection, he is also emphasizing a particular view of the Eucharist, namely, the Real Presence (as opposed to a purely symbolic or pneumatological understanding of the Eucharist). The Real Presence of the Eucharist is also reaffirmed by the sufferings of the martyrs. St. Ignatius writes in the same letter, But if these things were done by our Lord only in appearance, then am I also only in appearance bound? And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But he who is near to the sword is near to God; he that is among the wild beasts is in company with God; provided only he be so in the name of Jesus Christ. I undergo all these things that I may suffer together with Him, He who became a perfect man inwardly strengthening me.[7] Here, Ignatius is writing in opposition to the Docetists (a Gnostic sect). The Docetists rejected the bodily sufferings of Christ because they denied he possessed a physical body. However, Ignatius argues that the physical sufferings of the martyrs would be rendered meaningless if Christ did not suffer bodily also. He incorporates the Eucharist into his argument in chapter 7 by suggesting that their refusal to participate in the Eucharist reflects their disbelief in the bodily sufferings and resurrection of Christ. By connecting the Eucharist to the bodily sufferings of Christ, Ignatius is not only emphasizing Eucharistic realism, but also the sacrificial nature of the Mass itself. The martyrs, through their sufferings and death, are not only united to Christ on the cross, but also the Eucharistic sacrifice itself, as Ignatius implies in his letter to the Romans. As Catholic theologian, Servais Pinckaers, writes Just as Christ truly suffered in his body, so Ignatius suffers in his own body to the point of shedding blood, and it is also the body and blood of Jesus that Christians receive in the Eucharist, as fortifying nourishment. It is for this reason that the Docetists, denying the reality of the Passion, did not participate in the celebration of the Eucharist and rendered the sufferings of the martyrs pointless.[8]
A Protestant can affirm that the Eucharist metaphorically represents Christ's sacrifice. But it's not actually another sacrifice. And nothing you've quoted from Ignatius necessitates that view.
Masterful explanation. If you read the Epistle to the Smyrnans and can't figure out that Ignatius believed that the Eucharist IS the Flesh of Jesus Christ, you need to go back and take reading comprehension again.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl The Catholic teaching is that the Eucharistic Sacrifice literally Re-presents Christ's sacrifice and that it isn't another sacrifice. It's in fact the same sacrifice that Christ offered on the Cross, except in an unbloody manner instead of a bloody manner. It's difficult to ready Ignatius in any other way than as he actually believed that the Eucharist IS the Sacrificial offering of Christ's flesh. In fact, it's impossible if you're being honest.
This is sure a different twist on the Book of Romans than that most of us have ever read. The early church at Rome, pastored or mentored by Paul, where he taught and they went soul winning through the Romans approach. Romans 3:10, 3:23, 5:8&9, 6:23, 10:9-10, 10:13 is all there and it’s from Rome.
You recommended people go Anglican before going Catholic. In this time of redefining marriage, you choose a religion that began the effort to redefine marriage as not being a sacrament and basically has a foundation in divorce? I really can't see how someone can be Anglican and not see that they began because their king divorced his wife. How can a Christian celebrate that?
The church had wanted freedom from Rome for centuries, so they used this political split to expedite the split from Rome. Henry VIII was fully Catholic outside of his divorce btw. He did not hold “Anglican” views himself
@@paulmualdeave5063 I’m not arguing if the reformation was justified or not, just saying it doesn’t make sense to throw out the third largest denomination in the world for a political reason. Clearly that “issue” has been resolved in the past
@@paulmualdeave5063 1 Corinthians 11:18 highlights that divisions are necessary. This is why groups like the Arians and Gnostics should not be part of the Church. Additionally, it's important to note that the Church of England ONLY separated from Rome under Henry VIII, but there were no changes in the Catholic doctrine at that time. BTW, it wasn't a divorce as you claim; rather, the marriage was annulled. The Anglican Reformation began with Edward VI, if you are going to criticize Anglicanism, you have to begin here.
@@luisr5577 His annulment was rejected, meaning he was a bigamist. He had two wives at once until he lopped one’s head off. This was also adultery. Ann Boleyn would have lived longer had he not rebelled against God in leaving the Church. The wages of sin. This is when Protestants gained power in England and it was made final with Queen Elizabeth. And yes, the foundation the Anglican Church rests on is divorce. Annulment means he would never have been married and then could have married Ann Boleyn.
The grows of the hierarchy in the Church is not a human custom. It is already in the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 12:27-31 St. Paul speaks of charismatic gifts in the Church and their hierarchy, apostles, prophets and teachers. These arethe gifts to which some of us are called to fulfill according to our calling. This is a hirarchy of spiritual gifts. But more specifically to the point made in this video we also have a hierachical structure of government in the Church that St. Paul addresses to Timothy. The difference between elder and epískopos, priest and bishop is easily explained. Priest is a clerical state. Bishop is an administrative title. Cardinal is a honorific title. All bishops and cardinals are priests. The pope is a priest. There is no confusion between priests and bishops, these terms are interchangeable because in the early Church the priest and the bishop are one and the same. The bishop is the original priest in charge of the community. As the community grows and the one bishop cannot take care of the community by itself he appoints other presbyters under him to do so. Ephesus is one of those growing churches that cannot be governed by just one person anymore. The hierarchy is seen explicitly in 1 and 2 Timothy where St. Paul leaves Timothy in charge and gives him instructions about heresy, order in the church, and hierarchy. St. Paul appointed and annointed St. Timothy as the leader of the Church of Ephesus (2 Timothy 1:6), and instructs him to do the same when ordaining others (1 Timothy 5:22). We see here several clerical orders in succession by laying on of hands (by ordination). St. Paul (apostle) to Timothy (bishop) to his presbyters (priests). We don't need to invoque Clement, Ignatius, Jerome and others. We see it already in the New Testament.
I heard someone talking about how they were converted to Catholicism by reading Ignatius' letters and knew Gavin would have something to say about that. I wasn't disappointed!
@@joycegreer9391 St. Ignatius of Antioch (110AD) who was the disciple of St. John the evangelist for nearly 20 years. “You must follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
@@jamesrey3221 So? The word catholic means universal, not any specific church. The Gospel is universal. All churches have leadership, bishops or elders etc.
@@joycegreer9391 St. Ignatius is bishop of Antioch, St. Augustine is a bishop of Hippo, St. Cyril is a bishop of Jerusalem. These church fathers all predate the "reformation" in 1517. The Catholic church has bishops, celebrates mass and the Eucharist. Catholic is universal in the sense that it is a church for all people of all culture and ethnicity, the church prays and speaks in all languages and its more than 200,000 parishes is all over the world. "Go and baptize all nations....." St. Augustine: 397AD: "I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so." St. Augustine: "This Church is Holy, the One Church, the True Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, She remains fixed in her root, in her vine, in her love. The gates of hell shall not conquer her." St. Cyril of Jerusalem 350AD: “And if you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s house is nor merely where the church is, but where the Catholic Church is. For this is the peculiar name of this holy Church, the mother of us all, the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.”
protestants don't have any bishops besides the anglicans, they don't have the eucharist and they don't have rome, he believed in catholicism@@joycegreer9391
In other words, just because a particular church structure developed, largely for pragmatic reasons, doesn't mean that it was originally intended to be infallibly established and binding for all time. The apostles and earliest church fathers did not necessarily invest their impramatur in perpetuity to the church structure that developed out of the times in which they lived.
After much research on this interesing subject I found my answer settled in 1st Samuel chaper 8. Due to the corrupting influences of church overseers (Judges) coupled with failure to trust in the Lord, the people turned to the way of the world by demanding a figurehead in the form of a King.
Also If you regulary answer your questions with fringe (meaning you only hold this particular view) Biblical typologies, then you're kinda leading yourself down a path of error. God Bless
@@Alex-ph2pw My point to you Is don't know what a pope Is. whether or not Christ established a pastoral priesthood with a high priest Is a different discussion
@@vasilias2230 Im well aware of the imposter known as Pontifex Maximus, Vicar of Rome, Papa, holy Roman Emperor. He seeks dominion to rule over the earth.
the problem I find with being called a protestant is: who am I protesting against? the Church? It doesn't seem to fit Jesus' prayer for unity in the body.
Along with the Reformers, we’re “protesting” against a church no longer following orthodox beliefs and practices being called an orthodox church. The so-called “Catholic” church was no longer catholic. To be truly unified, one has to be unified around a specific group of beliefs. We could be interpersonally warm and huggy-huggy with people we have nothing in common with. You could construct a “church” of nominal Christians, atheists, and Satan worshipers where everyone gave everyone else the handshake of fellowship! Biblical “unity” implies agreement on biblical issues. Otherwise, it’s just a word.
If by Protestant you mean ANYONE in the West splitting off from Rome after 1517, then yes, these churches are far flung and disparate. But then, by the same token, you will have to accept ANYONE in the West before that point. Let’s see, we have Albigensians, Catharis, Waldensians, Arians, Sabellians, Monarchians, Montanists, Novatianists, Donatists, Bogomils, Paulicians, Marcionists, Apollinarists, Docetists, Patripassians, Adoptianists, Collyridians, Nestorians, and Monophysites. And I guess we’d need to give you the Lollards and the Hussites, too. Quite the list! You’ll probably say these are all heretics. Ah, but they lived during an era when Rome was the only game in town (i.e., the only recognized church). They were bad, sure. But they were bad Catholics. I share your depiction of Protestantism as “all over the place.” But here’s the thing: the huge majority of them are bad Protestants. Mainstream (liberal) Protestants, for the most part, aren’t even Christian, let alone Protestant. The largest portion of “Evangelicals” believe in the Prosperity Gospel or they’re semi-Pelagians or Modalists or practitioners of Openness Theology or a hundred other modern heresies. I don’t see how I’m responsible for them, any more than you’re responsible for Socinians and Jansenists and Lefebvrists and other sedevacantists. Catholicism has its share of RadTrads to the far right and Liberation Theologians to the far left. Something like 80% of American Catholics don’t abide by the Church’s teaching on contraceptives. Thomas Howard, a Catholic apologist, estimates that nine out of ten American parishes don’t catechise properly and are to the left of the Vatican. (Well, maybe not so much anymore since the ascendency of Francis.) Most Catholics will point to the CCC as official teaching, but then Francis can just up and change it on a whim. C.S. Lewis chose not to join the Catholic Church partly because, in his eyes, its belief systems were too unstable. Anti-modernist vows give way to a very modernist Vatican II Council. And the leaders of Nouvelle Théologie are left to hold the line. John Paul II, thus, gets fashioned as a “conservative.” Less liberal than the other liberals, I guess. So yes, Evangelicalism is in a bad state of affairs. Almost a death spiral, if you ask me, but even so...people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Catholicism is in shreds. Will it even be here in a generation or two? It’s hemorrhaging members like crazy. The second largest religious group in the U.S. is former Catholics! And, by the way, magisterial Protestants, those who still follow the Reformers, those who still believe in the Solas, those still constrained by Augsburg and Heidelberg and Westminster and Dordt and the 39 Articles, do agree on the fundamentals, along with pretty much everything else. Today’s Charismatics might act as if they have eaten the Holy Ghost, feathers and all, as Luther once remarked. But today’s conservative Lutherans and Anglicans and Presbyterians have pretty much stuck to the Gospel “once delivered to the saints.” Remember, if we’re responsible for the errors of every last sect that splits off from us, then you’re responsible for the errors of...Protestantism!
@@HannahClapham Brother I appreciate your comment, it will help me understand church history better. I'm not a Catholic either...I think all these churches are a joke and compromised. It all boils down to our walk with Christ, that's all I care about nowadays. I think because Christian history is so rich we can use examples from all of the denominations, besides the obvious heresies. God bless
uyg7oftf- Walking with Christ is certainly more important than coming under the authority of one flawed church or another. But walking with Christ includes fellowship with his children. We are not in this alone, but part of a flock. A flock with but one shepherd. The Good Shepherd. Though there is much corruption out there, there are a lot of stalwart, genuine lovers of Christ, as well. Seek out the faithful churches. Seek out the faithful followers. Become a part of the unity of faithfulness.
I agree, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I've felt similarly hearing stories of barely thought-out, reactionary conversions to Catholicism or Orthodoxy based on the most superficial readings of the church fathers. Catholic apologists, unlike Catholic scholars, can be extremely disingenuous in their selective usage of patristic writings.
In 2022, 522K Germans left the Catholic Church. Wouldn’t you want to tell them to maybe read a bit further and discern more? I guess not because that would make seem like a call centre operator…
The early Church fathers were unanimous in their teaching of the Eucharist, meaning that Christ is truly present in the species of bread and wine. If you read the other Church fathers in context of Ignatius, you will see the early Church believed and taught apostolic succession and the Petrine Primacy. The writings of Clement confirms that the apostles themselves taught apostolic succession: “Our Apostles, too, were given to understand by our own Lord Jesus Christ the office of the bishop would give rise to intrigues. For this reason, they appointed the men mentioned before, and afterwards laid down a rule once for all to this effect: when these men die, other approved men shall succeed to their sacred ministry”. - Clement of Rome (a disciple of Peter and Paul), “Epistle to the Corinthians”, 96 AD. “When we refer to them that tradition which originated from the Apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of the presbyters in the churches, they object to tradition, saying they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even the Apostles”. - Ireneaus of Lyons (a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna), “Against the Heresies”, 3.2.2, 180 AD One point that I would like to make. You make the point that non-Catholics should consider other non-Catholic churches but this itself is problematic. The Catholic Church is the only Church that has a pedigree that goes back to the apostles themselves. All protestant churches were established by men during or after the 16th century and therefore not apostolic in origin.
There is plenty of evidence that there was plenty of debate as to whether communion was meant literally, or as a memorial. That's even among those early Christians we would consider the early RC church. Same w/ whether Peter was made head of the church, or equal w/ other apostles. Some of these disputes are laid out in Mike Winger's videos. He spent many months reading the catechism and the various RC councils and their recorded books. Now outside the early RC church, there was much more disagreement, but these early Christian churches were cruelly crushed and pogroms issued to route out dissenters. There were many more attempts at church reform before Luther. He was just the first to actually survive it.
Debunking catholicism I'm more blessed than mary Proof = Luke 11:27-28 27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” 28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen _________________________ CHRIST alone John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus _________________________ Work of God = John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” _________________________ 1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul. Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop _________________________ Jesus said Matthew 23:9 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father. Sad _________________________ Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God Use this to defeat the argument. Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Matthew 12:46-50 46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”. Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.” John 19:26-27 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards). By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26. _________________________ We should not pray to apostles Romans 1:25 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Acts 10:25-26 25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” Acts 14:15 15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, Revelation 19:10 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 22:8-9 8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." Colossians 2:18 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26 26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Hebrews 7:25 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles _________________________ There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. _________________________ Apostles are allowed to marry, 1 Corinthians 9:1-5 1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry? _________________________ The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic). 1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple 2)He sank down while walking on water 3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan 4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times 5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven 6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear 7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles. 8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land), 9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit), 10)King Soloman messed up, 11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11). Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up) 12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up. 13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20 14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9 If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up. _ Galatians 4:21-26 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. Sarah is mother of all, Not mary Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics Changed the 10 commandments by deleting 2nd commandment, and dividing the 10th into 2 commandments. Also changing the real Saturday Sabbath to fake sunday sabbath.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Debunking catholicism I'm more blessed than mary Proof = Luke 11:27-28 27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” 28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen _________________________ CHRIST alone John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus _________________________ Work of God = John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” _________________________ 1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul. Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop _________________________ Jesus said Matthew 23:9 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father. Sad _________________________ Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God Use this to defeat the argument. Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Matthew 12:46-50 46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”. Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.” John 19:26-27 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards). By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26. _________________________ We should not pray to apostles Romans 1:25 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Acts 10:25-26 25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” Acts 14:15 15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, Revelation 19:10 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 22:8-9 8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." Colossians 2:18 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26 26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Hebrews 7:25 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles _________________________ There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. _________________________ Apostles are allowed to marry, 1 Corinthians 9:1-5 1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry? _________________________ The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic). 1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple 2)He sank down while walking on water 3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan 4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times 5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven 6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear 7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles. 8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land), 9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit), 10)King Soloman messed up, 11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11). Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up) 12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up. 13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20 14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9 If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up. _ Galatians 4:21-26 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. Sarah is mother of all, Not mary Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics Changed the 10 commandments by deleting 2nd commandment, and dividing the 10th into 2 commandments. Also changing the real Saturday Sabbath to fake sunday sabbath.
Thank you for sharing. It's beautiful how Catholicism still practices all of this. It's sad we separated vs all practicing together our faith in Christ
The Catholic Church has a different gospel from traditional Protestant teachings (I.E Luther and Calvin). One of the two is apostate, and seeking to devour the sheep of Christ. The separation is good and necessary.
@@buffcommie942I think biblically the other commenters statement is actually correct... There will still be faithful sheep who will be saved though because of their faith, and they will be forgiven despite their wicked shepherds actions.
Something I thought when reading the letters of Ignatius was to wonder whether he had any comprehension that the Church was going to exist for thousands of years. The entire tenor of discussion from the Apostles regarding the return of Christ makes it sound like it was imminent. It's almost here. It could happen at any moment. If the early Christians took that view, it makes perfect sense to emphasize "listen to your bishop." We have to hunker down, stay faithful, perfect our holiness, and get ready. I simply don't see a compelling reason to suppose that Ignatius was consciously and intentionally commanding everyone to obey their bishop, in succession to the apostles, for the next 100,000 years or more--rather than trying to get everyone to stick together and not fall apart when Christ is just about to return.
Thats an interesting point, I never considered that. I confess I have not taken the time to thoroughly study any of this, but I have heard it said repeatedly all of my life that the earliest christians believed that Christ would return within their lifetime.
Hmmm... trying to think my way through this. My study of Church history also introduced me to the fact that the 3-office view developed over time... but a short amount of time. I understand that some would conclude (like me) that this is a spirit-led development and should be understood as normative... but others see it as purely prudential. I can see that. But I think one makes a qualitative leap if one applies that thinking to Apostolic succession. The New Testament shows us that current "elders" are the ones who are ordaining new elders. And this is treated as normative by the Fathers. The distinction between "apostolic succession" and "succession of apostolic doctrine" is one which deserves a great deal of skepticism, methinks. Irenaeus tied the two together for a very good reason: Because literally anyone can claim to have Apostolic doctrine. No one purporting to be a Christian teacher is going to say, "Yes, my teaching differs from that of the Apostles." So in a world where every teacher is going to claim the mantle of Apostolic doctrine, we need something tangible to be the guarantor thereof. And that is Apostolic succession. Overall I'd have received this video differently if you were, in fact, a high-church Episcopalian or Scandinavian Lutheran - for they hold to Apostolic Succession and a literal view of Eucharist. That minority may be able to read these early fathers and come away untouched, but most Protestants don't have that luxury. So what I was hoping to hear addressed was how a low-church Protestant who doesn't adhere to Apostolic Succession and has a mostly symbolic view of the Eucharist interacts with Ignatius. And unless I missed it (very possible), we didn't go there. The conclusion I hear in this video is: "Become Anglican or Scandinavian Lutheran if Ignatius troubles you." Alrighty, but you've not said you're doing that yourself.... so now what?
Friend, I don't have a "mostly symbolic view of the Eucharist," and my final comment about becoming Lutheran or Anglican don't summarize the earlier portions of the video.
@@TruthUnites : I do recall you saying in an interview with Mr. Suggs that you hold to a higher view of the eucharist. What I was pointing out was in a Protestant world dominated by Baptists and Evangelicals, the purely symbolic view is very common, if not a majority view. What are they to do with Ignatius? Are you saying that they are on shaky ground and need to make some changes? Apostolic succession is a different matter. While it is true that a person desiring a higher view of the Eucharist has a breadth of options, a person who becomes convinced of Apostolic succession from the Biblical and historical evidence has a far more limited menu of potential homes. Is your primary argument against Apostolic succession that it was a matter of practicality which is not binding on the Church universally?
@@actsapologist1991 Thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure how the average evangelical would respond to Ignatius; I was trying to give my own Protestant take. I'd say the purely symbolic view of the Eucharist has problems, even apart from Ignatius. As for apostolic succession, that is really beyond the purview of this video, which was focused on the monarchical episcopate (these are not the same thing -- for example, Ignatius links the apostles with the presbyters, not bishops). I'll have to do a video on apostolic succession sometime.
I appreciate you showing how the transition toward catholicism happened gradually. I agree that certain changes may have started with the best intentions and only later spiraled out of control. I found it fascinating that Luther believed both in Sola fide (faith alone) and infant baptism at the same time. It was also an incremental move away from Catholicism, and did not happen all at once.
Not to mention how far removed they are from the early reformers. Calvin and Luther both believed and used Scripture to defend Mary's perpetual virginity
Very clear and humble explanation. You present the proofs of the time and allow for whatever possibilities. That’s the problem with most Christians. They see right or wrong, Truth or False and they give no room debate among, the early church fathers, AND THATS JUST NOT HOW IT WAS.. yes the Gospel is the Gospel and is secure and fastened in the Holy Word of God…. But there are many aspects of the functionality of the early church that remained debatable fore centuries.
In Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus, as well as in early church documents like the Didache, it is made fairly clear that the authority of bishops / elders and deacons derived from their demonstrated character first, then from the office they held, rather than any sort of succession.
I am not necessarily opposed to a hierarchical episcopate just noting that some of the earliest writings we have seem to acknowledge a congregational model as perfectly legitimate and also point out that authority should be inseparable from character in the church context.
3:00 When I started reading The Puritans I was stunned by how high their view of The Sacraments were. I got unsettled. Then I realised they were quoting Scripture
Ignatius of Antioch doesn't sound like a Baptist because he wasn't! He was Catholic! Ignatius of Antioch is my Confirmation Saint because of the fact that he was martyred for the Catholic faith and for his adoration of the Eucharist. BTW, all of the Church fathers were Catholic, so Ignatius is just one example of all of the wonderful Saints in the Catholic Church!
@ktownbball ktownbball Actually, "catholic church" was used in the proper sense by Ignatius. He wasn't coining a new term so it was the common name of the church in the first century. Additionally, go read the First Epistle of Clement. The Church of Corinth appealed to Rome to help with a dispute instead of the Apostle John who was still alive and was actually closer geographically to them so letters would have taken less time to travel. So, it is your post which has no substance.
@ktownbball ktownbball lol. you obviously haven't read Ignatius of Antioch if you think he wasn't submitting to a certain theology. If you had read him you would see how Catholic he was. "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes." (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 107AD)) And from Augustine, "Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.” Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51.
@ktownbball ktownbball Ignatius in his epistles says many times "Peter and Paul laying the foundation of the THE church", he also mentions Clement of Rome's relationship with Peter. He explicitly calls the church the "Catholic Church". Peter like in the bible, is mentioned by far more than any other apostle in his epistles. You know what Ignatius says about the Eucharist in his epistles. And if you need another early church father. Irenaeus also was taught through the Apostle John from Polycarp, and makes this even clearer and lists the first 12 Popes and explicitly says this line of succession has the authority over other churches. I can cite exactly where you can read everything I just mentioned.
@@markrome9702Mark you are correct. Also check out Irenaeus wrote in "Against the Heresies" book III, Ch 3. He was taught by Polycarp who was taught by John the Apostle. he says church of Rome has the authority over other churches the way Jesus intended it to be. And lists the first 12 bishops of Rome. I'll provide this link if you can't find off a search www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
Yes, of course, amazingly all of the 1st and 2nd century church fathers were actually medieval Latin Romanists. Just like the Independent Fundamentalist Baptists would have you believe they were all suit-and-tie wearing Americans with King James Bibles. Let's all co-opt the earliest saints of Christ's Church for our own traditions! We love truth!
For those who are wanting to read the works of Ignatius I would suggest checking out the Syriac version. It only contains three epistles (Polycarp, Ephesians, and Romans) and the scribe makes it clear with the ending that those are the only three (or at least the only three legit) epistles that he knows of. Further, the earliest quotes we have of Ignatius (in the writing of Irenaeus and Origen) match the Syriac version where it differs from the Greek version. There's still something sketchy about the epistles of Ignatius. Irenaeus has a quote which is shared by Romans but he ascribes it to a martyr from his own community and doesn't ascribe it to Ignatius. This is really weird given that appealing to the authority of people who learned directly from the Apostles was his whole jam. He name-drops Polycarp, Clement, and Papias as people with extant works who learned from the Apostles but Ignatius' name never comes up. Further, the Ignatius Polycarp writes about in his letter is identified with two other named martyrs as well as other unnamed martyrs from the community in Phillipi. It sure sounds like Polycarp is writing about an Ignatius of Philipi, not an Ignatius of Antioch. Finally, we know what the Roman policy toward Christians was at the time. Christians who were Roman citizens were to be taken to Rome for trial and beheading (since torturing a Roman citizen to death was illegal). Christians who were NOT Romans were to be put to death in the fashion of the local authority's choosing. So if Ignatius were a Roman he would have been taken to Rome but he wouldn't have been fed to the lions. If he were NOT a Roman he could have been fed to the beasts but he wouldn't have been taken to Rome. It's possible that the three Syriac epistles are legit and there are plausible explanations for the above issues, but even then keep in mind that Ignatius' view of a monarchical bishop is unique in the early church. It's possible that Antioch was merely the first place where this practice was employed as a way to deal with the followers of heretics like Cerinthus.
I am surprised you are not Lutheran or Anglican yourself, it would be interesting to hear you speak on this (perhaps you will as you get into baptism/eucharist). While I am Lutheran myself, I still appreciate your coversations with Catholics etc. It would be cool to hear you have a conversarion with Jordan Cooper (Lutheran).
At the end of the day which church has the authority and which one was created by Christ and the simple and honest answer is the Catholic Church! It interesting how Protestants try to disprove what doesn’t align with their particular denomination. We should also know with authority is the interpretation! Why also are there over 40,000 Christian denominations and even with in specific Protestant denominations they have different interpretations!
Which Catholic Church? Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church, Union of Utrecht Catholic Church, Union of Catholic Apostolic Churches, Genuine Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church, Russian Old-Orthodox Church, Pomeranian Old-Orthodox Church, Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia, Old Calendar Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Syrian Church of the East, Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East?
Ignatius also didn't believe in the Protestant tradition of Scripture alone. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
Thanks for the video! Apart from the main topic of the video, I also appreciate how you brought up the early church’s relation to the Roman Empire. I have been reading 1 Peter lately and have been considering how Christians have considered submitting to governing authorities. Have you considered doing a video one how various people in the early church thought about this?
I'm late life convert RCC Gavin and absolutely love you. I'm learning so much from you. I want to make a comment about why Protestants chose Orthodoxy or RCC vs higher Protestant liturgies. The higher Protestant traditions (Anglican, Methodist) are really swinging hard left on social issues. I don't know how Lutherans are holding up? Anyway, great channel. Really look forward to learning more from you.
Honestly, Roman Catholicism is doing the same thing. As well, there are plenty of Anglican groups that are opposed to the liberalism we see in, for instance, the Episcopal Church (in fact, the majority of Anglicanism worldwide is opposed to gay "marriage" and women "Bishops"). German Roman Catholics are, today, literally allowing for gay "blessings".
@@barelyprotestant5365 that's a great point and I'm watching closely.. But the OFFICIAL stance of RCC on social issues still holds the line. , some comments by the pope not withstanding 🙂but you are very right that there are very liberal Catholics. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. I'm still learning!
@@barelyprotestant5365 just looked at your profile and saw you are Anglican so forgive me if I've misrepresented. CS Lewis was very instrumental in my return to the faith 10 years ago after a long hiatus, so Anglicans hold a special place in my heart!
@@dennischanay7781 Even in a Province as liberal as the Episcopal Church, they still aren't "officially pro-gay marriage". They haven't changed the Prayer Book. But yes: the stench of liberalism is everywhere in Christendom!
@@barelyprotestant5365 another good point. I'll follow you and hopefully learn more! This Christian life is difficult!! I'm always open to learn more so share whatever you want!!hope you and your family are well.
Hey Pastor Gavin, You were going to talk about your new book in which you were going to compel us about the beauty of apologetics this month. Please update your viewers on the same.
@@TruthUnites Great, thank you.! And please open up opportunities for Zoom calls or dialogues with you. I think we need the beauty of the apologetics concept to be drawn back in the 21st century as it was in the earlier days.
You bring up an interesting question when you mention Galatians 1, which says not even the angels can preach a gospel that is contrary to Apostolic doctrine. In Apostolic times, if we consider the fact that the Apostles were all teaching with authority in different regions before the existence of the new testament writings, doesn't that refute the idea of sola scriptura? Certainly, without any doubt, not one of the Apostles taught that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith - the writings either didn't exist yet or weren't universally available... think of Thomas in India or Simon and Jude who were probably in Egypt. It is certain that the Lord Jesus Christ didn't teach the doctrine of sola scriptura to the Apostles, rather, it is clear from Scripture that the Church was built on the Apostles themselves. How does sola scriptura find its way into doctrinal teaching, and is it therefore contrary to Apostolic doctrine?
Luke 1:4 Scripture is what gives certainty of doctrine. John 5:39 We have eternal life from the Scriptures only because they bear witness about Christ. John 10:35 Scripture cannot be broken or invalidated. John 15:20 No one may contradict or neglect the Apostles and be a Christian. John 17:20 The word of the Apostles is the source of true faith. John 20:31 The Gospel of John alone is enough to tell us what to believe so that we can have life in Jesus' name. John 22:24 The Gospel of John is a true testimony. No authority may contradict it. Acts 17:11 We are to examine the Scriptures daily to see if anything taught as doctrine is true. Acts 24:14 We are to believe everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets. Romans 15:4 Scripture was written for our instruction to encourage us and give us hope. 1 Corinthians 12:28 All other teachers and servants in the Church come after the Apostles in priority. 1 Corinthians 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he must acknowledge that the things Paul wrote to us are a command of the Lord. 2 Corinthians 1:13 Paul did not write anything other than what lay people of Corinth and Achaia could read and understand. Some partially understand; some fully understand. Paul will boast of all on the day of the Lord. Galatians 1:8 No one may contradict what the Apostles preached. Galatians 1:20 Paul did not lie in what he wrote. Galatians 3:22 The Scripture imprisoned everything else under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Eph 2:20 The Apostles and Prophets are the foundation of the Church and the faith with Christ as cornerstone. All other authorities must build on that foundation and no other. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 We are to firmly hold to the teachings of the Apostles. They are the only true standard by which other teachers and doctrines are to be judged. I challenge anyone to identify an oral Apostolic teaching that is not written in the New Testament. 1 Timothy 3:14-15 This letter tells us who may and may not become overseers and deacons, and how the Church is to be godly. This godliness is unchanging. 1 Timothy 4:13 We are to devote ourselves to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. 2 Timothy 3:15 The scriptures are able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. 2 Timothy 3:16 Scripture is profitable for correction in righteousness. No doctrine that isn't supportable by scripture may correct scripture or render it unprofitable. Scripture is the only true standard by which all teachers and doctrines are to be judged. 2 Timothy 3:17 Scripture makes preachers (men of God) complete. Scripture fully equips preachers for every good work. 1 Peter 5:12 This letter is the true grace of God. We must stand firm in it. 2 Peter 3:2 We are to obey the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through his apostles. 2 Peter 3:16 The ignorant and unstable who twist the scriptures do so to their own destruction. Paul's Epistles are Scripture. 1 John 1:3-4 The eye-wittness writings of the Apostles are what give us fellowship with the Apostles, with the Father, and with His Son. 1 John 4:6 The Apostles are from God. Whoever knows God listens to the words of the Apostles; whoever is not from God does not believe the Apostles. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error. James 2:8 Love of neighbor as taught by scripture is enough to keep us busy for the rest of our lives.
The Pope's church actually contradicts Scripture (and therefore the Apostles) shamelessly: Lateran Council 1 Canon 21: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage. Lateran Council 2 Canon 6: For since they should be and be called the temple of God, the vessel of the Lord, the abode of the Holy Spirit, it is *unbecoming* that they *indulge in marriage* and in *impurities.* 1 Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and *teachings of demons,* through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who *forbid marriage* 1 Corinthians 9:5 *Do we not have the right* to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Canon 21 continued: We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that *marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved,* and that the persons be condemned to do penance. Matthew 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. Innocent III, 1204 "We destine specially to this, that the material sword may be sanctioned to supply the defect of the spiritual sword, and you, besides the temporal glory which you will attain from so pious and praiseworthy a work, may obtain that pardon for sins, which we grant as an indulgence for the remission of their sins, since we want those who faithfully shall have laboured against the heretics to rejoice in the same indulgence as we grant as an indulgence for those crossing the sea for the aid of the Holy Land." Lateran Council 4 Canon 3: Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to *exterminate* in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church. _Ad extirpanda_ of Pope Innocent IV: We decree that the head of state [...] shall observe, both what is written herein, and other regulations and laws both ecclesiastical and civil, that are published against heretical wickedness. [...] No heretical man or woman may dwell, sojourn, or maintain a bare subsistence in the country, or any kind of jurisdiction or district belonging to it, whoever shall find the heretical man or woman shall boldly seize, with impunity, all his or their goods, and freely carry them off. [...] The head of state, or whatever ruler stands foremost in the public esteem, must cause the heretics who have been arrested in this manner to be taken to whatever jurisdiction the Diocesan, or his surrogate, is in, or whatever district, or city, or place the Diocesan bishop wishes to take them to. [...] *The head of state or ruler **_must force_** all the heretics whom he has in custody, provided he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs* to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know.
It may be hard to agree on anything within Christendom but I hope that at least our Catholic and Orthodox friends love the Word of God. At least they believe in the Word. Now some ‘Protestant’ denominations reject it or don’t believe in all of it anymore.
Hi Dr. Ortlund! Can you comment on the general trend over the last 40 or so years of educated and even high profile converts from various Protestant denominations to Catholicism or Orthodoxy who consistently claim that reading the ECF was a major part of their conversion process? I have spent significant time looking for and asking Protestants to provide counter examples (in which someone reads the ECF and decides to leave the Catholic or Orthodox faith for Protestantism) and have found or been provided none. What do you make of this? What do you think they are missing? Given that the evidence is the same, and perhaps all that has changed is access to it (with the advent of the Internet), it would seem that the biggest difference is the hermeneutic framework. But, I have a very difficult time figuring out what YOUR framework is from this video.
The interesting thing about Ignatius is that his comments on the Eucharist are not present in the Syriac manuscripts. I can only conclude that they are interpolations, because why would they be redacted from the other manuscripts? This issue needs more exposure, research and discussion. I’m a Protestant and my reading of the Apostolic Fathers solidified my views. You will not find evidence for Papuan, Mariology, and the evidence on the real presence is sketchy. I feel the same with Just Matyr, although not schooled directly by the Apostles was early 1st century and often lumped in with Apostolic Fathers. I believe his strong comments on the real presence in the 1st Apology are interpolated. You need only to compare them with his comments in the Dialogue with Trypho.
Hi, what do you think about Irenaeus in “Against the Heresies” book III, Ch. 3. Where he says the bishop of Rome has authority of very church, the way Jesus intended it to be. And lists the first 12 bishops of Rome. Irenaeus who was taught by Polycarp who was also taught by John the Apostle.
Irenaeus said churches "should" agree with the church of Rome, given that it is one of the most ancient and was founded by the 2 most reverenced Apostles, but He didn't say these churches "must" submit to Rome's authority as some sort of God's commandment. Iraeneus advice has more to do with trusting in the well known virtuous reputation and heritage of the Church of Rome at that time, than asserting some sort of divine right to govern all the other churches.
@@haroldgamarra7175 why does he have to say the language you want him to say. It says as a matter of necessity, every church should agree with this church. And calls it “preeminent authority “ and lists the succession, translated to English. It sounds clear to me. Sounds like the Bishop of Rome today.
@@JJ-cw3nf He says that Rome has preeminent authority in regards to its traditions yet read on and he says in that same chapter verse 3 that Rome sent a letter to the Corinthians explaining what those traditions are and in short it's basically the Oneness of God and the gospel ect. None of the Marian Dogmas or papal infallibility that you have now.
@@ReformedR Ireneaus couldn’t be any clear of the role of Bishop of Rome and office established by Jesus. If I were writing about the Pope I’d write something similar.. The Marian dogma of the “immaculate conception” was declared infallible way later, and four years later in “Our lady of Lourdes” Mary appeared identifying herself as “I am the immaculate conception”, thus confirming Papal infallibility
@@JJ-cw3nf mate actually read irenaus and don't read into him he isn't even talking about the bishop and if a supposed sighting of Mary equals infallibility then surely The Hindus who saw statues of Vishnu drinking milk are also infallibility. Do not look for things that tickle ears
Lutheran presbyter-bishops are bishops. Anglicans and Moravians have Episcopal bishops. "The writings of the Apostle do not agree entirely with the hierarchy which is now in the Church, because they were written at the very beginning. He even calls Timothy, whom he himself made a presbyter, the bishop, because first presbyters were being called bishops becuase when a bishop passed away, a presbyter succeeded him. In Egypt, presbyters even do confirm if the bishop is absent." --Ambrosiaster commenting on Ephesians 4:11-12 St. Willehad the presbyter built churches and ordained presbyters in Lower Saxony starting in 781. He was not made bishop until 787. Nobody thought he was acting wrongly or reconsecrated his presbyters. Paphnutius the presbyter ordained his own successor, Daniel, according to Cassian. There's also the famous Letter 146 of Jerome. The Assyrian Church of the East did not change from a presbyterial to an episcopal structure until the 300s. These examples have led several Papist scholars to conclude that Presbyterial ordination is not entirely invalid. Fr. George Tavard concluded that presbyterial successions are a matter of history, and said: "I would be prepared to go further, and to admit that episcopal succession is not absolutely required for valid ordination…. The main problem, in our ecumenical context, does not lie in evaluating historical lines of succession, but in appreciating the catholicity of Protestantism today." Fr. Harry McSorley concluded, after a thorough study of the Council of Trent: "We can say without qualification that there is nothing whatever in the Tridentine doctrine on sacrament of order concerning the reality of the eucharist celebrated by Christians of the Reformation churches. Catholic theologians who have maintained that there is no sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in Protestant churches because Protestant ministers are radically incapable of consecrating the eucharist are incorrect if they think this opinion is necessitated by the teaching of Trent." th-cam.com/video/-0w1TtfTIlU/w-d-xo.html
@@Mygoalwogel thanks I appreciate that. That was my whole point, to show that it is biblical 💯to have Bishops in the churches as leaders, to pass down their teaching just like tradition, &goes to Deacon's ,priests teaching the church. Not pastors as u see in Protestant churches 2day. Luther and Anglican churches took this teaching because they know it was biblical, As they took the sacraments as well. something Luther couldn't not let go, he knew bread and wine has the blood& body of Christ was biblical, but we don't see this in Protestant churches. so basically it's really hard for me now after my studies as an ex-protestant now, on how can such knowledgeable men who study so many Christian theologians be so intelligent to not see the true history of the holy Apostolic Catholic orthodox church, they still do not believe its the true church. R early church's were not Protestants @ all. So Catholics r right to say they r not in the body of Christ. So people that dont believe in the spiritual world & evil powers , all u have to do is look @ educated men like this YT, who study and still can't see the truth blinded by the devil. I pray he wakes up one day God bless u 🙏🏼💯☦
I recommend you check out "The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious" by W.D. Killen (available from Project Gutenberg). He gives a number of reasons why the letters of Ignatius do not fit well into the time period of the early 2nd century and a theory as to how and why they were created later at the beginning of the third century to try and give support for a mono-episcopal structure in the early church.
I am reading the writings of Ignatius currently. He seems to have a strange obsession with the title “bishop” regardless of the character of the person who fills that role. It would be like me writing, ‘respect your boss’ to a bunch of coworkers without referencing the bosses name. 5 months later, we get a new boss. What if the new boss is corrupt? Something just seems odd with Ignatius’s letters in regardless to the contents about “bishop”. Is it possible his writings were modified by a third party? If so, it would have happened under Emperor Constantine by Eusebius possibly?
@@koppite9600 It was about power and control, and his writings was modified under Constantine. Who wanted to centralize the church around him and Rome. I am making videos on this right now. Christians did not use altars at the time of Ignatias btw. That did not come in, until around Constantine’s time. Obvious modification to the writings.
@@koppite9600 Nope, plenty of evidence. I am not blinded by labels, such as “church fathers”. Some have used the name of an apostle to legitimize their church, others have used the name of an apostle to climb the corporate ladder within the church. I am not naive when reading. If you don’t want to study this in depth, no one is twisting your arm. This all removes specks from the eye and was very helpful.
I highly doubt that Ignatius would have approved of a corrupt or heretical bishop. The entire point of a bishop was to safeguard orthodoxy from corruption and heresy. In his mind, I'm sure he meant to qualify his views on bishops as those who were properly ordained and who taught the orthodox faith.
The first church was in Jerusalem had James as overseer and it appears there was a council of elders. They held to orthodoxy and Paul and Barnabus went to them to seek council concerning the mixed Jewish/Gentile congregation. I found 15 Overseers of this church. James until 62 and Judas until 135. Are there any records from this Jerusalem congregation concerning their practice on baptism and the Eucharist, did they Believe that those who had died could intercede for them? How much Greek Philosophy has influenced some of the early church and its formation? I don’t really see the Jerusalem church allowing any of that. I know their were Hellenistic Jews in the church at Antioch…. Did Greek culture and Philosophy enter into the early church during that time?
I do very much think that a high view of the Eucharist (whether that's Luther, Calvin, Rome, or Orthodox) and a high view of spiritual leadership (Presbyterian, Episcopal, and others) have a lot of value. Whatever the outcome is, that does butt up against some Protestant views that maybe have been less thought through, maybe. I don't want to assume. Also, from many if not most of the Fathers, apostolic succession, to be legitimate, requires adherence to apostolic doctrine as well as actual succession. Both are necessary. I think it was Gregory of Nazianzus who said something like "the road to hell is paved by the skulls of bishops".
Saint Irenaeus “Against Heresies, Book III Ch 3”is an early list of the bishops of Rome ca. 175 AD. Don’t know if it’s the earliest. There is 1 Peter 5:13, where Peter and Mark send greetings from “Babylon”, an allegory for Rome, where Peter was bishop; his first bishopric was Antioch tho. The constant witness from the beginning makes hard work for anyone who wants to say there was no bishop in Rome from Peter onward.
I don't see anything about Peter as bishop of Rome in I Peter 5:13, or even in Irenaeus. Also, a problem with Irenaeus' list is that it contradicts Tertullian's. I address that more fully here: th-cam.com/video/eP2U_bC-oUI/w-d-xo.html
@@TruthUnites is it that you don’t see him in Rome or that he was bishop? I wasn’t aware of Tertullian’s list, but that there are discrepancies in the order not surprising, especially between Cletus and Clement. What is universally believed however is that there were bishops in Rome since Peter. My proof for this isn’t very fancy, just search the web and see. Unless you claim access to some esoteric source That labels them differently, but then, what is the authority of that source?
@@mikelopez8564 its that I don't see him as the bishop. Discrepancies call the accuracy into question. Especially because its not just in order, but more more fundamental discrepancies (e.g., Irenaeus has no conception of Peter as the first bishop). Once the monarchical episcopate develops, of course people will claim its continuity with the past. But all the early evidence (e.g., Heb. 13, Shepherd 1.2.4) indicates a plurality of leaders at Rome early on. I think evidence from the time in question must be given due weight. I go into this more in the video I linked to. God bless.
Arguing that episcopos & presbyter are the same because the new testament qualifications for the 2 are similar fails because for both of those roles would you not want those qualifications? Being enlisted & being an officer have similar but they are not interchangeable. In both cases having a clean background with no ties to our enemies is a great qualification for both roles. Not today protestants
With regard to two or three orders of Clerics in the early Church. You do make a good point in mentioning that in some places we read Episcopos and Presbyteros being used interchangeably, I'd have to see where and what translation you use for Bishop and Deacon being interchangeable. The reality is there seems from the Scriptures that Christ only laid hands on the Apostles, Paul tells us of his doing likewise on Timothy and Titus. Deacons were a creation of the Apostles to assist the bishop or Apostles. It is a historical fact that the Bishops had the Presbyters as advisors and helpers, they would assist not just with the governing and advising him, but also celebrating the Eucharist with him. As the Church grew, and the Bishop could not be present at all the celebrations of the Eucharist, the members of the Presbyterium would go out to the expanding Church, taking with them a portion of the consecrated bread which they would place into the cup as a symbol of the communion or unity with the Bishop. As to Deacons, who were originally servants or assistants to the Bishop, there seems to be no evidence of them being tasked as the presbyters to celebrate the Eucharist, they would sometimes take communion to the sick, or those in prison, but not actually celebrate the Eucharist. In the West the three orders of Bishop, priest and deacon are seen as one Order, the Bishop having the fullness of the office, as he can ordain, a man as Bishop priest or deacon. At least in the time before the 1970s in the Roman Rite, this was symbolized by the bishop wearing his stole uncrossed, as a sign of his full unfettered authority, the priest would cross his stole a symbol of the limits of his authority, and the deacon with the stole on his left shoulder, and under his right, to symbolize the authority he was given is limited to that of his office. So the priest and deacon would share in the priesthood, but not be vested with the full authority Christ gave the Apostles, Just as in secular society, as ideas develop, one would not expect to see each and every idea fully expressed in the earlier description. In the same way that looking at an acorn and a mighty oak, one may not at first see the relation between the two. The DNA is the same, the potential to grow into the oak is there, but as a seed or even a sapling one would not know seeing them isolated from each other that they are the same plant at different stages of development. In the Modern Roman Rite, the Gospel read last Sunday tells us of the promise of the Holy Ghost who would lead and teach all things to the Apostles, I find that there are many who want the Scriptures to tell us everything we need to know, and reject anything not explicitly stated in it. Rather than accept that the promise of the Holy Ghost to guide the episcopate, (as successors of the Apostles) would continue to be guided by Him,
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? The quotes provided below are historical facts in reference to our early church which existed prior to Romes adoption of Christianity in 313 A.D. Church: * "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrneans 8 (c. A.D. 110)] Bishop, Priest & Deacon: * “Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, because he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ [St. Ignatius of Antioch- Letter to the Magnesians 2 (c. A.D. 110)]. Eucharist: * “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which have come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Ash that suffered for our sins and that the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6-7 (c. A.D. 110)]. Scripture: * “[W]hoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, is the firstborn of Satan. Let us leave the foolishness and the false teaching of the crowd and turn back to the word that was delivered to us in the beginning.” [St. Polycrap of Smyrna - Letter to the Philippians 7 (c. A.D. 135)]. Sunday: * “But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 67 (c. A.D. 151)]. Actions/Works: * “We have learned from the prophets, and we believe it is true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. If it is not so, then all things happen by fate, and nothing is in our own power. If it is fated that this man be good, and this other evil, the former is not meritorious nor the latter blameworthy [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 43 (c. A.D. 151)]. Apostolic Succession: * “It is within the power of all, 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 instituted bishops in the churches by the apostles, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew anything these [heretics] rave about.” [St. Irenaeus of Lyons - Against Heresies 3:3:1 (c. A.D. 189)] Baptism: * “The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. A.D. 215)]. Confession: * “After this, one of the bishops present, at the request of all, laying his hand on him who is ordained bishop, shall pray this way: O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. pour forth the power that is from you, of "the princely Spirit' that you delivered to your beloved Child, Jesus Christ, and that he bestowed on your holy apostles, who established the Church that hallows you everywhere, for the endless glory and praise of your name. Father, "who knows the hearts [of all]” grant this servant, who you have chosen for the episcopate, to feed your holy flock and serve as your high priest blamelessly night and day, and unceasingly turn away wrath from your face and offer to you the gifts of the holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority "to forgive sins" according to your command.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 2-3 (c. A.D. 215)]. Confirmation: * “The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, "Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen." After this he pours the oil into his hand, and laying his hand on each of their heads, says, "I anoint you with holy oil in God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." Then, after sealing each of them on the forehead, he shall give them the kiss of peace and say, "The Lord be with you." And the one who has been baptized shall say, "And with your spirit." So shall he do to each one [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21-22 (c. A.D. 215). Peter’s Authority: * “The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you,' he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. [Mt 16:18-19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair.... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?.” [St. Cyprian of Carthage - Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)]. These few topics (but a glimpse) were not only discussed but settled BEFORE Rome adopted Christianity (The Catholic Church) and eventually became The Roman Catholic Church as it also adopted its name after 313 A.D. Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? Yes! Does this excuse all its mistakes and sins from the record? Of course not! As Christians, we are called to hold the church accountable, not leave it and let evil flourish within it. This refusal of accountability within every Christian has led to over 40,000 diferente Christian churches and the ignorance which has flourished from it. “This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ. Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth. Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church.” Ephesians 4:13-15 We are called by God to unite! What better church to do it under than the one he started.
I was a low church Protestant, and Ignatius' letters convinced me of Episcopalianism and the salvific presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But I have stayed a Protestant. As you mentioned, it is not like the only two options are 1) low church Protestant or 2) Roman Catholic. You can be a Protestant and yet have an incredibly high view of the sacraments. In fact, I find it to be the most biblical and reasonable view.
In his second letter to Timothy, St. Paul writes, “For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come” (2 Timothy 4:6; cf. Philippians 2:7). Generally, the term used for sacrifice in Greek is “thusia;” however, St. Paul uses the first person singular passive verb “spendomai,” which translated means “to pour out,” as in a libation or drink-offering. This expression is an allusion to the Jewish ritual of pouring wine into the altar after the sacrificial animal had been burnt (cf. Numbers 28:7). St. Paul employs this metaphor to cast his own martyrdom in a liturgical light. Thus, his death becomes a public act of worship, whereby he offers himself both bodily and spiritually to God, much in the same way that Christ offered himself on the cross. The Eucharistic overtones of the Greek verb are more clearly seen in the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who in his letter to the Romans, writes, “Do not seek to confer any greater favor upon me than that I be sacrificed to God while the altar is still prepared.”[1] Here, St. Ignatius picks up on the apostle’s metaphor, even employing the same Greek verb (spendomai). However, he expands on the sacrificial metaphor by referring to himself as the bread and wheat of Christ in the same letter. He writes, Allow me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body; so that when I have fallen asleep, I may be no trouble to any one. Then shall I truly be a disciple of Christ, when the world shall not see so much as my body.[2] (emphasis mine) The Letter to the Romans contains three essential elements of the Mass: an altar, an allusion to wine, and two explicit references to the Eucharist. St. Ignatius not only identifies himself with the Eucharist, but also parallels his martyrdom which the Eucharistic sacrifice, which is offered upon the altar of God. We also find Eucharistic allusions in three of Ignatius’ other letters.[3] Here, I will only cite his letters to the Philadelphians and Smyrnaeans. In his Letter to the Philadelphians, St. Ignatius compares the bread and wine to the flesh and blood of Christ which he says are offered upon the altar. He writes, Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth ] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God.[4] …. I flee to the Gospel as to the flesh of Jesus, and to the apostles as to the presbytery of the Church.[5] However, the most explicit statement in support of Eucharistic realism is found in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans. Ignatius writes, They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.[6] St. Ignatius says that the Eucharist is the self-same flesh of Christ which suffered and which the Father, of his goodness, raised up again. The article in Greek is neuter, so it's not merely that Jesus was raised, but that his flesh was raised. The flesh *which* suffered, and the flesh *which* was raised for our salvation. In essence, by emphasizing the literalism of the bodily resurrection, he is also emphasizing a particular view of the Eucharist, namely, the Real Presence (as opposed to a purely symbolic or pneumatological understanding of the Eucharist). The Real Presence of the Eucharist is also reaffirmed by the sufferings of the martyrs. St. Ignatius writes in the same letter, But if these things were done by our Lord only in appearance, then am I also only in appearance bound? And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But he who is near to the sword is near to God; he that is among the wild beasts is in company with God; provided only he be so in the name of Jesus Christ. I undergo all these things that I may suffer together with Him, He who became a perfect man inwardly strengthening me.[7] Here, Ignatius is writing in opposition to the Docetists (a Gnostic sect). The Docetists rejected the bodily sufferings of Christ because they denied he possessed a physical body. However, Ignatius argues that the physical sufferings of the martyrs would be rendered meaningless if Christ did not suffer bodily also. He incorporates the Eucharist into his argument in chapter 7 by suggesting that their refusal to participate in the Eucharist reflects their disbelief in the bodily sufferings and resurrection of Christ. By connecting the Eucharist to the bodily sufferings of Christ, Ignatius is not only emphasizing Eucharistic realism, but also the sacrificial nature of the Mass itself. The martyrs, through their sufferings and death, are not only united to Christ on the cross, but also the Eucharistic sacrifice itself, as Ignatius implies in his letter to the Romans. As Catholic theologian, Servais Pinckaers, writes Just as Christ truly suffered in his body, so Ignatius suffers in his own body to the point of shedding blood, and it is also the body and blood of Jesus that Christians receive in the Eucharist, as fortifying nourishment. It is for this reason that the Docetists, denying the reality of the Passion, did not participate in the celebration of the Eucharist and rendered the sufferings of the martyrs pointless.[8]
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Eucharist and Mission: A Preliminary Consideration, trans. by Vincent Twomey, S.V.D., Irish Theological Quarterly 65 (2000), 257-259. III. Martyrdom, Christian Life, and Apostolic Ministry as the Actual Fulfilment of the Eucharist After considering in broad outline the specific sacramental level of eucharistic theology in the New Testament, specifically in the First Letter to the Corinthians, we must look, however briefly, at the third level. This level I should like to call the ’existential’ level, so as to draw some conclusions for the theme of Eucharist and mission. Here I will discuss three texts: Phil 2:17 (to which 2 Tim 4:6 once again briefly alludes); in addition : Rom 12:1 and 15:16 1. Martyrdom as the Christian becoming Eucharist ’ In the Letter to the Philippians, Paul, in prison and awaiting trial, speaks about the possibility of martyrdom, and he does so, astonishingly, in liturgical language: ’Even if I am to be poured as a libation on the sacrificial offering of your faith.’ The Apostle’s martyrdom is of a liturgical character, it is a pouring out of life as a sacrifice, allowing oneself to be poured out for humanity, What happens here is a becoming one with the self-gift of Jesus Christ, with his great act of love, which itself is the true adoration of God. The martyrdom of the apostle participates in the mystery of the Christ’s Cross and in its theological dignity. It becomes lived liturgy, which is recognised as such in faith and is itself a service for the faith. Because it is true liturgy, it also brings about what all liturgy aims at: joy, that joy which can only arise from the encounter between man and God, from the abolition of the limits of earthly existence. What Paul hints at here in one single, short sentence, is fully developed in the account of the martyrdom of Saint Polycarp. The entire martyrdom is depicted as liturgy, indeed, as the becoming Eucharist of the martyr, who enters into full communion with the Pasch of Jesus Christ and thus becomes Eucharist with him. To begin with, it is recounted how the great bishop is chained and his hands bound to his back. Thus he appears ’like a noble ram (lamb!), who is led to God from the great herd, a sacrifice pleasing to God and prepared for him.’ The martyr, who in the meantime has been placed on the pyre and tied up there, now utters a kind of Eucharistic Prayer: he gives thanks for the knowledge of God, which has been granted to him though his beloved Son, Jesus Christ. He praises God, because he has been found worthy to receive a share in the chalice of Jesus with a view to the resurrection. Finally, he prays with words taken from the Book of Daniel, which in all probability had at an earlier stage been taken up into the Christian liturgy: ’to be accepted before you today as a pleasing and rich offering ...’ The text ends in a great doxology, as liturgical Eucharistic Prayers do. After Polycarp had spoken the Amen, the slaves light the pyre, and now a threefold miracle is reported, in which once again the liturgical character of the occurrence is portrayed in its diverse significance. The fire first of all takes on the form of a sail enclosing the saint on all sides. The burning pyre appears like a ship with billowing sails that transports the martyr across the boundaries of the earth into the hands of God. However, his burnt body, it is said, appears not like burnt flesh but rather like baked bread. And finally, there is no smell of burnt flesh; what those present inhale is a sweet scent ’like that of incense or precious aromas’. The pleasant odour is, in the Old as in the New Testament, a constitutive ingredient of the theology of sacrifice. In Paul, it is an expression of a life become pure, no longer exuding the stench of the lie and corruption, the decaying smell of death, but rather the refreshing air of life and love, the atmosphere suited to God and healing to man. Thus the image of the pleasant aroma and that of becoming bread belong together: the martyr has become like Christ; his life has become an offering. Not from him the poison of the decomposition of the living caused by the power of death; from him radiates the power of life, he nurtures life, as good bread lets us live. Surrender into the body of Christ has triumphed over the power of death: the martyr lives and gives life, precisely through his death, and so he himself has entered into the eucharistic mystery. Martyrdom is a source of faith.
But you can't just make a new Church in the 16th century or later and claim to have a valid Eucharist, even if you view it highly. There is ONE Eucharist, ONE Church because Christ has ONE body. I can't just go start my own Church, claim to believe in baptismal regeneration and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and have it be so. No.. those "sacraments" that I perform will not have the grace that the True Church, Orthodoxy, has. Only one Church can have the sacraments, not thousands of different sects all claiming to have them whilst simultaneously believing different doctrines.
I mean it should just be common sense lol. As if Christ would want 1000's of different institutions, when all the Early Church Fathers were in the same ONE Church and condemned people who were outside of that, such as the gnostics sects who all claimed to follow Jesus too. St. Ignatius says in his epistles that if someone leaves the Church and joins a schismatic sect, they will not inherit the Kingdom of God. How Protestants reconcile this, I have no idea
The reason you're surprised at how quickly people move on from protestantism is because people realize how many sacred traditions were disregarded, and then no longer wish to cherry-pick whatever flavor of reformation fits their remaining views. And instead realize they made a more fundamental error. It's not "just" the Eurcharist, its the feeling of being duped into a protestant branch with no real authority itself that stands out the most. Its the realization that we shouldnt pick a church like its a vending machine. Its the craving for something that can teach us, not just us to select for it, as if we already know the criteria. That is why I'm becoming Catholic.
Matt. 20:25Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave- 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Those who love titles and authority and to be first are rejected.
It always seems interesting how we elevate the church "fathers" as if their proximity to the apostles is some sort of argument towards them having the correct views. So much of the Epistles of the NT are corrective, in spite of them being founded by Apostles and having people in charge who were appointed by them. We don't even know if those letters got things sorted, but they make it clear that they were required by people taught and appointed directly by apostles.
Yes let's trust modern Protestants over people who were direct students of the Apostles. Why do you choose to elevate Gavin and Protestant reformers over Church Fathers? Which one has the higher chance of being wrong? Hmmm idk
@@ThomasG_Nikolaj So you can't read to well, huh? The NT churches were "direct students of the Apostles" and that didn't stop them from believing heresies.
@@georgechristiansen6785 Those heresies have nothing to do with Orthodoxy lol, most of them were Judaizing, which is not Orthodoxy. Protestantism didn't exist for 1500 years pal, you believe in a false gospel created by unholy men
@@georgechristiansen6785 Imagine unironically believing that the first 1500 years of Christianity had it all wrong and the Reformers came and got it all right 😂
@@ThomasG_Nikolaj Yup. You genuinely suck at reading. Get that sorted and you might learn some things. Imagine not having read any of the reformers and thus not knowing they quoted the church "fathers" at least as much as scripture.
Hi Gavin, currently a reformed Baptist here. It’s easy to see why many Protestants convert to Catholicism after reading Ignatius. Because many Protestants are told that the authority of the bishops and the real presence were late first millennium accretions. When people realise they’ve been lied to they get annoyed. Also, in Protestantism the memorial view of the Eucharist is now THE dominant view despite Luther and Calvin not sharing this view. So in essence, Protestantism has had more accretions in this area than the Catholic Church. From one very frustrated Baptist.
The other thing is that Anglicanism and Lutheranism have become corrupted by having female priests and also blessing same sex unions. In this area, they’ve (again) had more accretions than the Catholic Church. 🤷🏼♂️
As Chesterton notes, "There are ten thousand reasons (why he is a Catholic) all amounting to one reason." The letters of St. Ignatius are but one of the reasons I converted after 32 years of being a protestant. I maintain that there is not, and cannot be, a criterion in protestantism. This was a massive problem for me. There is ultimately nothing that prevents me from discarding any ancient teaching. For example, it is generally agreed that the Fathers unanimously understood the water in John 3:5 to be a reference to baptism. John Calvin, in his commentary on John 3 admits this, then states the implications of this interpretation (baptism is the cause of salvation), but ultimately rejects the Father's understanding. He writes, "I cannot bring myself to believe that Christ speaks of baptism; for it would have been inappropriate." The weight of this argument is seldom felt by protestants. Can I be a monothelite? Can a reject that the Blessed Mother is the Mother of God? Can I believe that the water in John 3:5 is amniotic fluid? As a Catholic, I am not left to my own private interpretation on this matters. While I recognize the fair criticisms of certain Catholic dogmas, I usually find that these have more weight than what I recognized at first blush. Ultimately, I'm Catholic because I believe one needs to be in communion with the Successor of St. Peter, i.e., The Bishop of Rome. And this seems to me to have ample support among the patristics, and is undeniable as we move along in Church history. Whether I like him or not, the current Holy Father is that successor. Thank you for the honesty and charity that fill your remarks. May the Lord Jesus Christ light your path.
@@Democracyofthedead you realize that you can believe in baptismal regeneration WITHOUT believing that someone who - and I quote - says "all religions are ways to God" is the vicar of Christ?
@@D12Min No need to be condescending, friend. Yes, I realize this. Perhaps you’re missing the point. By what authority does a Lutheran tell a “Reformed” Baptist she is wrong about this?
The Great Gift which is the Eucharist involves priest who is a successor to the Apostles, as well as a prepared parishioner who has recently confessed. If these two things are present then the joy of the Eucharist is unspeakable. I wish everyone could enjoy this. Other than Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism, I am not aware of any "church" which has maintained Apostolic succession in its clergy. So.... makes sense to move to Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism rather than to some other Protestant tradition.
@kansashoneybadger7899 I recently learned that the word 'Eucharist' ... means simply "thanksgiving". You sound like a person who is experiencing Christ very closely through the mass, b/c you expressed how you are experiencing tremendous joy when celebrating Jesus' sacrifice in the Eucharist within your Church. That's something to rejoice over for sure. I have a question about what we do in our religious practices that pleases God. And so I wondered what your views are of 2 teachings / exhortations in the New Testament. One is from Jesus and one from James. [Quick side note: It seems that different Christian Denominations stand firmly on their personal high views of their own traditions - which they are certain are based on both sound doctrine and the most important doctrines. But over the ages we've been known to knee-jerk from strong opposition or separatists, the scars of which will shape a new emphasis on (1) what it actually takes to achieve right standing with God (regeneration), and then also how to actually maintain right standing before God (sanctification). Our religious methods seem to develop around these 2 key things: beliefs of how we add more members to our church and beliefs of how we grow the spiritual depth of each member. End side note] My question is: What do you think might be the reason for so few people today transformed by the Eucharist as say, like Mother Teresa? Her testimony is that it was her deep communing with Christ through the sacraments and prayer that brought about her transformed life. It produced tremendous humility and a capacity to love the least, show amazing mercy to the lost, and keep herself separated from worldly pursuits and impurity. Why don't we see and hear more of this kind of transformed life. Why does the Eucharist seem to impact and alter the lives of people at such drastically different levels? I think the heart and meaning in the following 2 verses are leading me toward possible answers. But was curious about your perspective. Matthew 12:7 [7] And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. James 1:27 [27] Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
@@mattnelms2522 That is more than I want to get into. Short answer: people put in differing levels of commitment and persistence across time. No disrespect but I am not a priest or a theologian. Cheers
You always seem to think presbyters hold more weight than Bishops do in early writings, yet I have never heard you mention any of the Presbyters by their name. Why not? Could you please give their names so I can compare their credentials to the Bishops. Thanks in advance. Forgive me if it sounds snarky it’s a genuine question and don’t mean it that way.
Good stuff 👍🏻 I grew up SBC and the epistles of Ignatius (along with the other apostolic fathers and Eusebius) propelled me on my journey out of low church evangelicalism to explore the claims of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, becoming a catechumen in the latter for a brief time. However for various reasons, I ultimately did not swim the Bosphorus nor the Tiber, but took the Canterbury Trail into traditional Anglicanism where I’ve basically been for the past 15 years. I agree with your advice that people seriously reading the early church fathers do not need to inevitably jump to Rome or Constantinople-classical Anglicanism and confessional Lutheranism are both solid alternatives.
Bersules -I know that straw man is convenient to erect for polemical purposes, but it’s not even close to accurately capturing the ethos and self-understanding of the reformed Church in England, a certain king’s sinful proclivities notwithstanding.
As a former Baptist now Anglican, I agree. I think the issue is most people see ELCA and TEC when they see Lutheranism and Anglicanism (which they're bigger than the actually orthodox counterparts so makes sense).
Thank you. Excellent insight. I have a different view of apostolic succession than most. I treat it like Abrahamic succession, by faith not birth, or by ordination succession. As we are sons of Abraham by having the faith of Abraham, so we are in apostolic succession by following the faith of the apostles. The one in physical apostolic succession can wander from the faith and not be in spiritual alignment with the apostles, thus not in any kind of spiritual apostolic succession.
Dr. Gavlin, as a protestant who has been diving deep into Catholicism, Orthodoxy, as well as considering Lutheranism and Anglicanism, you are the very first to come along and begin helping me sort things out from a Protestant perspective. Mostly because there are so few that actually care about the early church fathers and the sacredness of the Eucharist. But there is one thing you have said in another video and in this one that is incorrect. Lutherans do not believe in Consubstantiation. They reject that doctrine and get frustrated with people who misrepresent them. If you go to the LCMS website, it denounces it as well. What they will say, and what Jordan B. Cooper and Brian Wolfmueller will say is that they believe that it really is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, but they don't try to explain it through Aristotelian reasoning. It's a mystery to accept, not explain. Interestingly though, there are some Anglican groups, though not widespread, that do believe in Consubstantiation. I really look forward to watching your video on the Eucharist. It has been a big struggle for me for the last two years. Thanks so much!
Thanks, I'm glad the videos have been helpful! I have heard some Lutherans disavow the term consubstantiation. That is interesting -- I wonder how widespread that is? It's a pretty typical term for the Lutheran tradition. Either way, I think the more general point that Lutherans believe in a high account of real presence remains.
Thank you, Dr. Gavlin. Consubstantiation really took hold during the Oxford Movement among the high anglicans in particular. After researching a bit more, it seems like a common belief rather than one that only a fringe group of anglicans believe. I tried to send you a link to a Lutheran statement that rejects the doctrine but it didn't work. Will see if I can try again later!
The main reason I was keen to join the Ignatius-friendly Episcopal/Anglican Communion from Baptist is because I went to a Baptist high school, college and theological graduate school where I had to read Greek, and Origen and the apostolic fathers. The low sacramentalism, iconoclasm, trail of blood mythology, recent origins, cherry picking, proof texting, hostility and rancor in the evangelical wing of the church is outrageous. The stories I heard in seminary in the 1980's about how churches and church boards eat people alive is unbelievable, putting the Phar in pharisee and the sad in sadducee. Most of this is on account of the American middle class (church class) being inherently broken as a culturally illiterate desert, fixated on purity/punishment/judgment over mercy/kindness/peace. The more you read the gospels themselves, and the epistle of James, the apostolic fathers, the Didache, the Septuagint tradition, the Enochian literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the harder it is to put your head into the sand of Baptist heresy with its cheap grace and eternal security brand of Calvinism that flies in the face of 1,500 years of warnings against falling away. The best thing about the Episcopal/Anglican worship is that it is centered not in the Institutes or the Book of Concord but in the words of Scripture in the Book of Common Prayer, the liturgical genius of Cranmer and Peter Martyr, and the importance of prayer as a rule of life throughout the 24 hour day. Gavin Ortlund you're doing God's work out there, keep it up, even though I'm not a Baptist anymore, I think you're pretty terrific.
If Ignatius and Polycarp - two of the greatest and most revered Christians of the early second century - disagreed on something like church hierarchy so soon after they both studied under St. John the Apostle, it would stand to reason that the Church began to descend into error within the lifetime of the Apostles. Yet we get no push back anywhere in the historical record when Ignatius's view on church organization seemingly won out. I also doubt Polycarp and Ignatius would have been so buddy buddy with one another if they disagreed on something that seemed, at least to Ignatius, to be of the utmost importance to his theology. The man was so fanatical he begged the Christians in Rome not to attempt a rescue because he so wanted to be a martyr for Christ in the Coliseum. This is a classic argument from silence.
I think there is a major problem the moment you start to more away from the notion that spiritual revelation from God is somehow inferior to the status, office or calling of any kind of clergy or church leadership. For the moment you do that you are essentially forming the very thing Jesus criticized the Pharisees of doing. Its dangerous to put so much emphasis on the Bishop as a office, because of the power it gives the Bishop to do things contrary to the spirit of God where eventually you would be no better or worse of following a atheist or secular leader. Ignatius was no Paul or Peter, and I would take Paul and Peter's word and testimony over Ignatius's any day. The most interesting part for me is that perhaps the writings of Ignatius to some degree reveal what started to become the downward spiral of Christianity, which opened the door for the Catholic church to try to make Christianity a sign seeking, saint worshipping, wealth loving, blindly obedient practice where people stopped listening to the spirit and being able to reason and think for themselves.
Hey I just came across this topic, and like you said in the video. I heard it mostly as a argument against Protestantism, I was wondering if there are any books you recommend to someone getting into early church history I am really interested in this topic in general.
I don't think Popes were always under sway of Emperors. Constantine was probably an Arianist and for sure his successor was but I don't think the Pope(s?) started to accept Arianism (correct me if I'm wrong).
I am a Catholic, mostly due to what I view as compelling logic found in the writings of the apostolic fathers. But this video is good. It's a nice and logical summary of the tenable Protestant interpretation of these writings. 👍
Also, there is the possibility that people can be mistaken and that other influences can creep in. The "church fathers" were human they can be wrong about many things just as we can be.
I was raised non-denominational attending a local Baptist Church. I lost my faith studying science but encountered God by very supernatural experiences that merged well with my naturalism and while I tried to avoid Christianity in favour of exploring less familiar narratives and disciplines, God had other ideas. Long story short I felt like a prodigal son led out of the wilderness by our Good Shepherd only to find the flock was scattered. However... one theme that has developed for me as an ecologist appraising a diverse but singular humanity struggling to face up to our faults as nature's stewards is the constant realisation that most disagreements are imaginary observer effects rather than actual conflicts in reality and I am only feeling more and more like this same theme is developing now as I reassess the Church. In almost every issue there is room for each perspective to be correct without contradicting the other. God's ways are higher than our ways. I have found myself far more in agreement with Catholicism than most Protestants are comfortable with but while I can accept the Pope's validity as a Church leader of renown amongst men, I cannot accept the claim of primacy above Orthodox and Protestant elders. Jesus said where two or three come together in His name, there He is in our midst. So I am currently very much in agreement with you and you have been invaluable in my exploration along with others, most notably Father Serafim Aldea of Mull Monastery who is the closest to a spiritual guide I have on the deepest level. However, I do not feel like my attraction to the Orthodox traditions is me leaving my Protestant traditions. I am growing in certainty that the Church IS unified and that the only disunity is in imagining that our opinions and evolved theological doctrines have any greater import than their role in each step each person takes toward Christ. God bless you.
I would ask that you may rethink on considering theological differences as opinions instead of essentials to the faith. The scripture is God’s wisdom and message to his people. We need to address all matters with awe and reverence. The scripture does distinguish critical and less critical, but never essentials and non-essentials like you would with opinions.
Another thing to consider is that the current generation who can safely practice religious freedoms forget that this benefit was free to us, but it was at the cost of millions of lives of our ancestors. They didn’t just think about their souls, but souls of their descendants. Jesus didn’t say to religious leaders “you have your opinions and I have mine”. He was willing to die on the cross and his disciples died for the truth as well, so future generations may know God and be saved from eternal hell.
It’s easy to say why they didn’t just talk cordially. That’s like asking why didn’t people just surrender to Nazis and avoid the war where so many have died. Once false teachings take root in the church, Satan does not just leave it at that, his desire is to wipe out all true followers of Christ.
Just quick facts. I am not trying to belittle Roman Catholics, but to point out how important faiths were to our ancestors.
500 years ago when Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Tyndale protested against the Church abuses, they protested with the understanding that the Inquisition would catch up to them and they may be burnt at the stake. Zwingli was killed by the invading Catholic army in Zurich and Tyndale was burnt at the stake for translating the bible into English. Remember that the Church Inquisition didn't end till the19th century.
The separation of church and state is Calvin’s contribution that was exported to the English Reformation, then shipped over to America. We enjoy religious freedoms because of Calvin’s Swiss Reformation. Before that the church and state were tightly entangled where religious deviation was punishable by death in many cases.
One third of Germanic territory men and boys died in the Thirty Years’ War.
In England, two Civil Wars were fought even between Protestants. Back then, if you are not part of the Church of England, you can be put in jail or burnt at the stake. Even among Protestants, it was brutal. One side just won’t leave the other side alone till it has been wiped out. When Roman Catholics spoke out against South American natives slavery, it cost them great influences to kings and nobles.
@@thomasc9036 I didn't mean ALL doctrinal differences were just opinions (although technically even correct and incorrect arguments are opinions) but just that an awful lot of different descriptions that split denominations appear to be equally valid even though people act as if they're contradictory. I would include justification/salvation through faith/works in this, after listening carefully to Protestant and Catholics describe the Biblical basis for their positions, for example. Catholics do agree (officially according to their catechism) that only faith is enough for the initial moment of justification/salvation and Protestants do heed James stating that faith is empty without the fruit of works to actually continue sanctification. Catholics simply see this process as salvation and Protestants focus on a moment. It's very much akin to observing light as a wave or a particle. Both are valid but depend on each observer's point of view. There are other examples such as the presence of God in the eucharist but as far as I can see unity is there in God's eyes regardless if we want to panic and argue and disagree as we always have done since the fall.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 I think I may not have made my point clear. This will be a bit long, so please forgive me. It is sad that Protestants have developed disdain for the church tradition and history, but correct understanding of the Five Solas is necessary from historical perspective.
The best explanation of the Protestant Five Solas was from a theologian who used an example of Michelangelo’s Pieta. If you ever see Pieta, you will notice immediately that Mary is gigantic compared to Jesus. Her body is unnaturally proportioned compared to Jesus. If you view the statue from the ground level, she is the focus and center. Pieta was originally housed in Old St. Peter’s Basilica where as people enter, they will immediately take stairs and go up. Pieta being housed on the ground, people viewing from the second level will see the sunshine illuminating Jesus with Mary’s face shrouded in shadow bowing her head in sorrow holding her Lord. The original intent by Michelangelo was to have Jesus the focus, not Mary.
Both Jesus and Jews read the Old Testament, but they understood and focused differently just like two different angles of Pieta. Jesus says in John 5:46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me”. Jesus says the Old Testament is about him while Jewish leaders read as the Old Testament’s focus is about Israel. For example, the story of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac has twofold messages. The primary message was never about Abraham’s faith, but God showing Abraham who repeatedly violated the offspring covenant by selling Sarah twice and having a son with Hagar, the true significance of the offspring covenant is about the Offspring who will bless the world. If you actually read the story carefully, there are really odd moments like 3 days travel to Mt. Moria, God provided a ram instead of a lamb, Isaac who was an adult willingly get tied and be put on the altar, and at the end Abraham says “on the mount of the LORD it shall be provided” as in the sacrifice of Isaac was just a foreshadowing, but the true sacrifice will actually be provided by the LORD/YAHWEH himself. The secondary message was Abraham having violated God’s offspring covenant repeatedly realizing that it was never about him, but finally having the faith in the mysterious future offspring that came from his seed.
Jewish religious leaders saw the Messiah to establish the Kingdom of Jews like Abraham before the sacrifice. Jesus saw himself as an instrument to do the will of the Father who made the covenant to redeem the whole creation, not just Jews. He was fulfilling prophecies as the true sacrifice of God’s covenant he made with Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, and David that the Messiah will crush Satan and save the world. It was never about glorifying Jewish Kingdom, but the top view of fulfilling the will of the Father (throughout his ministry, Jesus says “I came to do the will of my Father).
The Protestant Five Solas is derived from the top view like Pieta and Jesus. For example, one the much debated Sola Scriptura, Reformers saw the scripture was the only authoritative revelation from God because it came from the “top”. They did not say the tradition is bad or not needed (like the current corrupted Protestants), but it must submit to the scripture when there are conflicts like in Pieta where Mary bows her head to her Lord from the top view. Protestantism’s Sola Scriptura was never about the church tradition being absolutely corrupted, but it must submit to the scripture like the Son submits himself to the Father in perfect love and harmony where there is a conflict. Four other Solas are like that.
Regarding opinions, we all develop frontal views of Pieta where Mary, a human, is the focus and center, but we must never let that continue. Apostle Paul addresses that in Romans 14:1 “as for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions”. There was an in-fighting in the church of Rome between Jewish and Gentile Christians over traditions of the Old Testament like kosher food, sabbath, and circumcisions. However this context was never about just letting both be taught, but bear in love and peace till weak brothers can become strong in the faith. Otherwise, we will still have the teaching that the circumcision is necessary for the salvation in the church. It can still be practiced still as a personal decision, but never be part of the gospel of Christ. Still Pauls says that this decision is for “weak brothers” because Jesus Christ fulfilled all requirements of the law.
It’s a bit longer than I expected, but trying to say that Reformers saw Five Solas as the top view where God is sovereign in all things and desired the church tradition to submit to the scripture just as Jewish leaders who emphasized the Jewish tradition to submit to the word of God which is Jesus himself. I hope I didn't confuse further.
@@thomasc9036 No you make very good points and I agree. I'm not criticising Protestantism but in investigating Catholicism I have heard many agree with you that scripture trumps tradition. I would tend to disagree that tradition should ever be held as rigid because it risks reducing God's diverse humanity when there are many ways to follow Him. But I would make that point without suggesting that the Catholic tradition is wrong either. The major wrong I see is when anyone from any denomination makes their tradition dogmatic as if Jesus did not say "where two or three gather in my name, there I am in their midst."
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 Gavin made another video how sometimes errors or tradition just stay for a long time and becomes dogmatic. There are specific things I disagree on because I am a Presbyterian and he is a Baptist, but really informative. For example, one of the most misunderstood bible verse is "where two or three gather in my name, there I am in their midst" (Matt 18:20) and somehow became the standard understanding. What if there is only one person? Does that mean it is not legitimate? The context of that verse is not about when two or three gathers in the name of Jesus, it is legitimized as church. The context of that verse is about the church discipline that Jesus commands to do in the same chapter... that the majority of churches fail to do. It refers to whenever the church discipline is to take place, it must be done with witnesses and follow the method he gave in Matt. 18:15-19. If elders obeyed his exact commands , it is as binding in heaven as it is on earth and Jesus is there to confirm it. Elders who disciplined is free of responsibility of ex-communicating someone if necessary because they have obeyed his guideline in the church discipline. That's what the verse means... it really has nothing to do with the establishment of church, but somehow people use out of context quite a bit. He doesn't cover this specific one, but he goes into others quite a bit. I recommend that video.
Here are some additional examples of early Church Fathers (in addition to Ignatius of Antioch) speaking about three ranks of clergy: Clement of Alexandria: “A multitude of other pieces of advice to particular persons is written in the holy books: some for presbyters, some for bishops and deacons; and others for widows, of whom we shall have opportunity to speak elsewhere” (The Instructor of Children 3:12:97:2 [A.D. 191]). “Even here in the Church the gradations of bishops, presbyters, and deacons happen to be imitations, in my opinion, of the angelic glory and of that arrangement which, the scriptures say, awaits those who have followed in the footsteps of the apostles and who have lived in complete righteousness according to the gospel” (Miscellanies 6:13:107:2 [A.D. 208]). Hippolytus: "When a deacon is to be ordained, he is chosen after the fashion of those things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: he is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop’s command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful. . . . “On a presbyter, however, let the presbyters impose their hands because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. Even so, the presbyter has only the power to receive [the Spirit], and not the power to give [the Spirit]. That is why a presbyter does not ordain the clergy; for at the ordaining of a presbyter, he but seals while the bishop ordains” (The Apostolic Tradition 9 [A.D. 215]). Origen: “Not fornication only, but even marriages make us unfit for ecclesiastical honors; for neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon, nor a widow is able to be twice married” (Homilies on Luke17 [A.D. 234]).
Are you going to talk about Ignatius or something else? It's, Bishop, Priest (Elder/prysbeter) and Deacon...A bishop is a priest. A bishop is head priest of a certain area, in this case Ignatius was bishop of Antioch. Ignatius remains a priest, though he is Bishop. A Deacon lies under the priest and priest/bishop. The Deacon cannot administer certain sacraments like the Eucharist and confession. So, when are you going to talk about Ignatius? I went here thinking you were going to talk about Ignatius.
Here's what this video misses: When Ignatius (alongside other Fathers) shows you that your low-church congregational-polity Zwinglian-sacramentology tradition has gone far afield from the apostolic faith, you're initially shocked. But then you naturally ask: How did that happen? We were trusting exegesis of the Bible as our reliable tool for arriving at knowledge of Christian orthodoxy, and it _failed us._ What did we do wrong? In wrestling with that question, you're apt to start investigating other Protestant traditions, like Anglicanism (just as Gavin suggests). But then you quickly realize that _they have the same problem,_ and they're all relying on the same _epistemic tools_ for trying to discover Christian orthodoxy. What tools? Well, reconstruction of a "lost Christianity" through Scriptural exegesis, of course! And everybody's reconstruction looks a little bit different. Oh, sure, they're willing to engage with patristic witness to greater and lesser degrees, but they _all_ share this in common: When their individual interpretation of Scripture conflicts with the fathers, they choose their interpretation _over-and-against_ the fathers. And thus their reference to patristic witness is, in the end, a fig leaf: It's there to make it _look_ like they're connected to Christian history, but in the end, they're all practicing Solo Scriptura. It turns out that, in practice, there is no _principled_ difference between the most apologetically-defensible, tendentiously-defined, ivory-tower version of the _Regula Fidei_ of the "Magisterial Reformers," and the Nuda Scriptura guy who "paints a bullseye around wherever his arrow landed." In the end, whatever I think is the right interpretation of Scripture, I will find a local church whose doctrine approximates _that_ interpretation. Then I'll join that church, and claim to be "submitting" to a pastor of a "Bible Believing Church." Ignatius and the _Catechetical Lectures_ and _First Clement_ and Tertullian-before-he-went-nuts and Irenaeus and the Cappadocian fathers don't, in-and-of-themselves, do the work. They just show you a gap between your own experience of Christian practice -- an experience derived from careful exegesis -- and the actual faith of the fathers. And that helps you realize that the _epistemic methodology_ from which your ideas were formerly derived was, itself, fundamentally flawed and bound to fail. Not just _bound_ to fail: You see, and become unable to unsee, how it _HAS failed._ It failed to keep your tradition from drifting far afield, and you belatedly realize that _it could not have done otherwise._ It's just a bad tool. A fundamentally incoherent system, not made for humans, and not designed by anyone who understood human societies. So, you realize: That's NOT the epistemic tool Jesus intended us to use. (Or, if it is, it's a dumb one, and if Jesus proposed a dumb epistemic tool, then He isn't God. But, He is God. Therefore, exegesis of Scripture to reconstruct Christian orthodoxy is _NOT_ the tool Jesus intended us to use.) That's why encounters with patristics lead people away from Protestantism. It isn't because you can't find Protestants that resemble, in some ways, what we see in the patristic witness. It is rather because Protestants share a common epistemic paradigm, and that bad paradigm accounts for all the ways in which different branches of Protestantism _fail_ to match the patristic witness.
Having studied Ignatius myself just recently, as a protestant I have not felt compelled to switch to Catholicism. What I understand is cultures and contexts change. The gospel is unchanged over time but the elements of administration introduced to advance the Gospel can change and must change as the gospel penetrates new territories and people groups. That the order of bishops and deacons worked for the people in the First two centuries should not be the reason to try and enforce the same system in the 21st century. What I believe we must takeaway from Ignatius is that obedience to Church leaders in the right context (where there is no abuse) is a must for believer. Protestants have tended to downplay this over time I suppose and I myself growing in a non-denominational church grew up without this awareness. With Ignatius, I go back with the understanding to honour the elders and the leaders in the church and try and maintain unity under the hierarchy of the church leadership I submit to.
I liked very much when you said....we must protect APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES over apostolic succession.....and i understand fully ur argument of a '' leader'' to help protect against heresy and that that '' leader'' was not necessary for everyone Everywhere ....very GOOD point ....yes we must read Ignatius in light with all the other fathers....his opinion is HIS OWN and not of the beginming church as a whole ....thanks for ur clarity ...details ....from me an ex catholic now baptist......i never understood why the catholic church always talked about Ignatius and almost never of any other father ......i think its to protect their view wich is not justified by other church Fathers or the NT.....this affirms more my protestant view and like u mentioned ....keeping in touch with Gal 1:6-9 ......
All the solid Orthodox teachers I’ve heard agree that Apostolic Succession includes continuity with the faith passes from scriptures and the saints. Simply claiming succession because someone from the line of Apostles laid hands on you does not guarantee you won’t fall into error. On the other hand, continuity with the church and tradition the apostles established is essential to being able to claim any spiritual authority over others, and yes the laying on of hands and having the authority to do that is linked to The Church (like Paul references to Timothy). Not just any denomination that is demonstrably not in continuity with the Apostolic tradition.
But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
Interesting take, Gavin, but it’s hard to ignore that Ignatius learned directly from Peter, Paul, and John and was the Bishop of Antioch-where Christians were first called ‘Christians.’ Relying on Calvin 1,500 years later and downplaying Ignatius’ firsthand experience feels like missing the forest for the trees. Ignatius’ testimony is foundational, and even the other Apostolic Fathers don’t undermine his emphasis on the bishop’s role.
As well , the churches of the New Testament received directly from the
apostles - & we are well aware of how many issues needed to be “taken in hand” over & again
Which is to say that we need to look at the whole “lay of the land”, while searching the scriptures , & imploring assistance of the HOLY SPIRIT as we look thru this glass darkly ~ hoping to be good Bereans
To say that Gavin is “Relying on Calvin” is gross misunderstanding of his argument. He quoted him one time near the end of the video, and it wasn’t really a part of his main argument.
Whether Gavin is right or wrong (I believe right) his argument leans on Polycarp, Clement, the shepherd Hermes, the Didache, Jerome, and the Bible itself.
(I’m not really commenting this to start a back and forth debate about the topic in general, but rather to clarify the video for future readers)
The Bereans @Ari-ih2nl , subscribed to material sufficiency opposed to those who they were compared to (the Thessalonians) who erroneously adopted a protestant version of formal sufficiency. Once you understand that and see it clearly brother, there is no going back to unbiblical protestantism.
This a gross misrepresentation of what Gavin says. He is not relying on Calvin. He quotes church fathers; this is what his argument relies on. The Calvin quote isn’t till the video is mostly over, and it’s not used to further Gavin’s argument.
To say that Gavin is “Relying on Calvin” is a gross misunderstanding of his argument. He quoted him one time near the end of the video, and it wasn’t really a part of his main argument. Whether Gavin is right or wrong (I believe right) his argument leans on Polycarp, Clement, the shepherd Hermes, the Didache, Jerome, and the Bible itself. (I’m not really commenting this to start a back and forth debate about the topic in general, but rather to clarify the video for future readers)
5:17 - Polycarp and a two-office view, presbyters and deacons
5:20 - Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians chapters 5 and 6
5:34 - Concerning Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians, Gavin says, “… there’s no mention of a third office”
5:39 and 6:20 and 6:38 - Clement’s first epistle
6:53 and 7:06 - Didache (Chapter 15)
7:50 and 8:00 “… there’s this evolution or development where you don’t see a single bishop in Rome until you get all the way further into the second century”
9:27 - “But if you go back to the New Testament, you don’t have any basis for a distinction between the office of bishop and elder”
9:40 , 9:48 , 9:56 - Titus 1:5-7 and Acts 20
10:10 - Oxford Dictionary and “bishop”
Gavin says, “In the Oxford Dictionary, it will say that this was used interchangeably with the word ‘elder’ originally.”
10:27 - Quoting Jerome, “bishop and presbyter are one in the same”
12:11 - Concerning Jerome and the development of church government, “Jerome basically says that this came into existence to deal with the threat of schism”
12:31 - “Not all differences with respect to church government are the differences of truth vs error. Sometimes there are just different applications or responses to a particular time.”
15:15 probably the most important part, imo
Thank you, friend
I just recently discovered your videos. I appreciate a Protestants view on Church History. To often we have a low Church and bad attitude towards the early church fathers. You have wet my appetite for more study in this area. God bless 🙌🙏
wonderful to hear, thanks for sharing!
You have a wild road ahead of you. Strap in.
@@TruthUnites Debunking catholicism
I'm more blessed than mary
Proof = Luke 11:27-28
27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen
_________________________
CHRIST alone
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus
_________________________
Work of God =
John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
_________________________
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach
Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul.
Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop
_________________________
Jesus said Matthew 23:9
9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11
11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.
Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father.
Sad
_________________________
Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God
Use this to defeat the argument.
Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”.
Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”
John 19:26-27
26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards).
By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26.
_________________________
We should not pray to apostles
Romans 1:25
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Acts 10:25-26
25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”
Acts 14:15
15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,
Revelation 19:10
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Revelation 22:8-9
8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
Colossians 2:18
18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26
26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34
34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
Hebrews 7:25
25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles
_________________________
There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
_________________________
Apostles are allowed to marry,
1 Corinthians 9:1-5
1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry?
_________________________
The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic).
1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple
2)He sank down while walking on water
3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan
4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times
5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven
6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear
7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles.
8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land),
9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit),
10)King Soloman messed up,
11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11).
Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up)
12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up.
13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20
14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9
If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up.
_
Galatians 4:21-26
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Sarah is mother of all, Not mary
Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics
Changed the 10 commandments by deleting 2nd commandment, and dividing the 10th into 2 commandments. Also changing the real Saturday Sabbath to fake sunday sabbath.
@@mynameis......23 You should read more. All of these so called "objections" have been debunked 100 times over. Just do a basic google search. We even have ChatGPT today, there is no reason to not be this uninformed.
Famous last words before leaving Protestantism
I’m not sure how you get that Polycarp gives a two system leadership role in the church? Ignatius wrote to him and about him as being a Bishop. He was the third role. Polycarp also mentions Ignatius in his letter and confirms those letters that were written to them. He’s clearly on board with Ignatius and the formation of church leadership (chapter 9 and 13). As always, I appreciate your work, but this Anglican slightly differs from you on this one 🙂
For an explanation of the relationship between Polycarp and Ignatius, I would suggest you check out "The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious" by W.D. Killen (available from Project Gutenberg). He suggests that the Ignatius whom Polycarp refers to lived on the island of Syra in the Aegean Sea not far from Philippi. But that a bishop of Rome in the early 3rd century used that obscure reference to fabricate a number of letters from Ignatius of Syria with the hope of making it appear that the authority of a single bishop was a much older tradition than it appeared.
Good points
Same applies in the case of Timothy and Titus.... Paul only mentions their responsibilities towards presbyters and deacons. But they themselves are the bishops... Gavin is incorrect to say there is no evidence before the second century...
Jerome gave the exact same reason as Clement gave (Clement explicitly states that the Apostles knew exactly what Jerome was referring to-dangers of schism, etc.). And Clement said that the episcopacy was the seat of authority for those who succeeded the Apostles-who were *individuals.* We also know that Christ Himself told the apostles on several occasions they would judge the new Israel on “thrones” (cathedra), and that this number 12 was obviously derived from the 12 tribes, which were likewise headed by one tribal elder (hence all the lineages provided in various historical books of the Bible-the chief elder of each tribe, who “succeeded” to the original 12 sons of Jacob/Israel). The other point to consider is that St. Ignatius wrote to 7 churches spread across Asia, Greece, and Italy. He assumed the same model in each of them. Polycarp’s letter was, as far as we could tell, only addressed to one congregation. But even Polycarp begins his letter with “Polycarp, *and the presbyters with him*...”
All this is quite clear. If Jerome himself though it was only a “human custom” and not of divine institution, he would never have referred to the various bishops (including the Bishop of Rome) with whom he corresponded in the way he did-namely as successors of the Apostles. Even centuries later, Pope St. Gregory the Great, who no one doubts had a high view of both papacy and episcopal authority, calls himself a presbyter, or “fellow presbyter” with some of his correspondents-because some presbyters (priests) are bishops, as is the case to this day.
Likewise, when the Popes would write to various emperors, they would often speak of temporal rulers being “subject to priests (presbyters) in spiritual matters,” etc. Did that imply that the mono-episcopacy was somehow not clear to Damasus? To Gelasius? To Leo? To Ambrose? Of course not. Presbyters are simply priests. And bishops are priests (though of a higher degree). And Bishops/presbyters were distinguished from deacons because they had the authority to offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist. So distinguishing between “Priests” and deacons makes a ton of sense for that reason. So when someone says “be subject to the priests and the deacons,” it’s the same as when Deuteronomy 17 says to be subject to “the priests and the judges” but doesn’t go through the trouble of distinguishing the three orders of priesthood outlined in the Torah, etc. Everyone knew what it meant.
You also completely left out all the early Church Historians, such as Eusebius and Sozomen, etc. All of them are able to provide a detailed list of names going all the way back to the Apostles. Those names didn’t come out of nowhere. Each church kept its list (they say this), and that provided those historians with documentation going all the way back to the 1st century. The same was true of Irenaeus, who was from the East, but settled in the West, and took the reality of episcopal authority as granted and normative. He likewise had to draw from these lists.
They all speak of this as divine institution-which, for reasons I already stated, makes a lot of sense given the types with ancient Israel, and Christ’s words to the Apostles judging the new Israel on thrones (among others). Presumably all these people knew what was going on in the Church, and why. It’s not “unclear.”
The stupidity you catholics have to promote satanism is unbelievable.
Debunking catholicism
I'm more blessed than mary
Proof = Luke 11:27-28
27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen
_________________________
CHRIST alone
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus
_________________________
Work of God =
John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
_________________________
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach
Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul.
Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop
_________________________
Jesus said Matthew 23:9
9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11
11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.
Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father.
Sad
_________________________
Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God
Use this to defeat the argument.
Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”.
Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”
John 19:26-27
26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards).
By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26.
_________________________
We should not pray to apostles
Romans 1:25
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Acts 10:25-26
25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”
Acts 14:15
15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,
Revelation 19:10
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Revelation 22:8-9
8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
Colossians 2:18
18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26
26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34
34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
Hebrews 7:25
25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles
_________________________
There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
_________________________
Apostles are allowed to marry,
1 Corinthians 9:1-5
1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry?
_________________________
The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic).
1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple
2)He sank down while walking on water
3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan
4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times
5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven
6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear
7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles.
8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land),
9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit),
10)King Soloman messed up,
11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11).
Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up)
12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up.
13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20
14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9
If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up.
_
Galatians 4:21-26
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Sarah is mother of all, Not mary
Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics
Changed the 10 commandments by deleting 2nd commandment, and dividing the 10th into 2 commandments. Also changing the real Saturday Sabbath to fake sunday sabbath.
I single handedly debunked you entire demonic catholic cult
@mynameis......23 I pray that you realize what Jesus is talking about here (Luke 11: 27-28). He gave focus to the act that gave Mary the gift of being the blessed mother of Christ... listening to the word of God and obeying it instantly... without a doubt: "Be it unto me according to your word." Jesus advises us to obey the word and receive our own blessings instead of focusing on an exclusive blessing to his mother, which is unattainable to anyone else.
Jerome said what he said. You can't escape the fact that Jerome believed that a presbyterian form of church governance was superseded by the monarchical episcopate. The fact that the apostles were apparently okay with both forms of government (according to Jerome) should be evidence for Gavin's point.
Thanks for this great video, Gavin! Looking forward to your take on the Eucharist!
Greetings from Germany
thanks!
I'm a protestant and am really eager to hear your thoughts on the Eucharist. The Eucharist is what is driving me to become catholic. Coming from a very non denominational low church, Ignatius was a huge eye opener to me on considering the catholic church especially his comments on the Eucharist. Thanks for stepping into this.
thanks for sharing that! Okay, I will do something on this. I currently have a 4:00 clip on the eucharist on my patreon as well, coming out in a week or two
@@Will-wu1gb I really want my channel to be a ministry -- if you really are dying for it, email me. :)
@@Will-wu1gb Hi Will ! As a Catholic convert, I would like to share with you the following about the Eucharist and perhaps watch Scott Hahn's video too
th-cam.com/video/67WmIGLPvEM/w-d-xo.html
1. The Jews on the night before the Exodus were instructed to eat an unblemished lamb so that their eldest can be spared biological death. It is insufficient to just smear the lambs' blood on the door post. They were then brought across the Red Sea into their Promised Land.
Jesus being the unblemished Lamb of God gives us His true presence in the Eucharist so that He can save us from spiritual death. That is why he said in John 6:54 whoever eats my body and drinks my blood shall have everlasting life and be raised up on the last day. That is why he said the Jews' forefathers eat manna but die. However whoever eats Him shall have everlasting life. So like the Jews before Exodus needs to eat the unblemished lamb to be saved biologically, we need to eat the unblemished Lamb of God to be saved spiritually. Thus we have to eat the real presence of the Lamb of God - not symbolic - just as the Jews don't eat a symbolic lamb at the Passover Meal.
After consuming the real presence, Jesus gives us eternal life, raise us up on the last day, brings us across the sea of sin into our Promised Land, Heaven.
The Eucharist has to be the real presence for the above to work. That is why Jesus says He is the vine and we the branches - we draw from Jesus. That is how we are children of God as Jesus's blood is flowing in us.
This is part 1.
Part 2 - Believing in the true presence is one thing. How to consecrate the wafer into the true presence is another. Jesus instituted Holy Orders to the Apostles . Jesus is the High Priest and He bestowed the priesthood to the Apostles by asking them to celebrate Mass in memory of Him. Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit into the Apostles and gave them the authority to bind and loose and to teach whatever He taught them.
The Apostles ordained bishops send deacons in Acts.
Thus the authority and ability to consecrate the host, changing it to the true presence with the help of the Holy Spirit only lies with priests who have apostolic succession - ordained by the Apostles and who apostolically ordained the next successive generation of priests. So if I go and found my church today, I can't consecrate the host and there is no real presence because I am not validly ordained through apostolic succession
@ Will. The Apostles believed and taught the real presence. So do the Orthodox and even Luther. Thus for 1500 years, Christians believed in the true presence.
Francis Chen the Evangelical pastor was amazed to discover this and he accepted and shared this discovery.
St Paul taught the true presence of the Eucharist in 1 Cor 11:29
1 Corinthians 11:29, NIV: "For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves."
If the Eucharist were mere symbolic, what is the problem with eating bread in a sinful state ? Why eat judgement by merely eating mere bread ?
St Ignatius roundly declares that the bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists’ denial of the reality of Christ’s body. . . .St Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood.
Here are examples of what early Church Fathers had to say on the subject of the the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist:
Ignatius of Antioch
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33-32 [A.D. 189]).
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life-flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).
Tertullian
“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Hippolytus
“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
Origen
“Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned-[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15-16 [A.D. 251]).
Aphraahat the Persian Sage
“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).
Ambrose of Milan
“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
Theodore of Mopsuestia
“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
Augustine
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ” (ibid., 272).
@@jeremiahong248
I dont agree ...Im sorry! Im ex catholic and the comparison u make with the Lamb in OT and Jésus is flawd ....the essential Idea is the symbol of the SLAYING of the Lamb ....the SACRIFICE & BLOOD ....not the Eating of it!!
And dont forget ...... Jesus is the bread that came down from Heaven is a METAPHORE with Manna ( bread) brought down to feed israelites in desert...
And where does it say explicitly WE MUST ADORE THIS BREAD!!
The Scriptures cannot contradict themselves ......Jésus said my true believers will worship me in SPIRIT & TRUTH ....No physical object suggested
I AM convinced adoring saint sacrament as i did before is idolatry ......and also ....we must not add to the written Scriptures
1 Cor 4 :6 & Gal 1 :6-9
I dont understand why he encourages people who agree with Ignatius to "before you go all the way Catholic/Orthodox, look at Anglicanism" I have to belive in many ways low church Protestants like Gavin have more in common with Catholics e.g. traditional understanding of marraige, the sancity of life, etc. than they do with a much more progressive insitution like Anglicanism. Its like he has reduced it to a team sport and well "Anglicans are protestants so that's a point for my team". The implication being that there is some kind of unified body that is protestantism, when really theologically, liturgically, culturally and politically the only thing they really all have in common is they are not Catholic/Orthodox.
He did because it is compelling
Polycarp doesn't mention a third office, however he himself held that third office as Bishop of Smyrnaea, so obviously he must have respected the utility of such an office.
Good point!
What makes you think that Polycarp's office was distinct from that of elder?
@@cerealbowl7038 Exactly!
The use of the word "bishop" asside. Titus is given "all" authority over the island of Crete. Paul is clear. Titus is appointed to go through the whole island appointing elders and setting right the churches. Paul even says that Titus is to let no one deny him. Seems straight forward to me.
I think this would be a stronger argument if it were clear that Titus is a bishop, but of course, that is a point of dispute. Protestants often understand him to be an apostolic delegate, acting on Paul's authority.
Right. That is the Orthodox view of bishops. That's what Ignatius and Ireneaus ment. However one looks at it this is a clear and Biblical president against congregationalism and for clear, orgainzed and universal authority. Also, when you say "protestants" you are being unclear. Protestants do not agree on this issue.
@@fr.davidbibeau621 thanks for following up. I said Protestants "often" take that view. Apostolic delegate is definitely not necessarily the same as bishop.
The Orthodox could affirm that language, of course, but it's not what is meant by others who use it. I disagree about the evidence, but thanks for commenting.
The only problem with looking at the early church fathers, even ones from the late first or early second centuries, is that Paul warned the church that EVEN FROM AMONG THEIR NUMBERS wolves would rise up and take disciples away after themselves and preach false gospels. So heresy started EARLY--even during the lives of the apostles.
But you’re more inclined to follow a random man from the 1600s who thought he had the authority to remove books from the Bible? You don’t realize that Martin Luther is the fulfillment of Paul’s prophecy? My friend you’re stuck in a twisted evil and demonic delusion.
Yes, and yet God preserved His Scriptures through this institution. And this institution (even in the modern era) holds to the sanctity of life and marriage and the gospel despite socio-political pushback. And has been striving (imperfectly) to do so for 2000 years.
Paul explicitly stated that "all who are in Asia turned away from me" (2 Timothy 1:15), indicating that by the time of his later letters, heresy and abandonment of his teachings had taken root in the Asian churches. This reflects the theological and doctrinal struggles faced by the early church, particularly in Asia Minor.
A few years later, the Didache surfaced, describing itself as "the teaching of the twelve apostles" but notably omitting any direct reference to Paul. This suggests that factions within the early church may have distanced themselves from Paul’s theology, possibly favoring teachings tied to the Jerusalem apostles or other early Christian traditions.
Paul, however, gave explicit instructions for testing doctrine. He warned the Galatians:
> "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8).
Furthermore, Paul urged believers to evaluate all teachings against his writings, as he considered the gospel he proclaimed to be directly from Christ (Galatians 1:11-12).
The writings of the early church fathers, while significant for historical and theological development, must be judged by the standard of Paul’s epistles. Peter himself affirmed the authority of Paul’s letters, referring to them as Scripture:
> "…as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15-16).
Thus, the writings of church fathers and subsequent traditions must align with the teachings of Paul, as affirmed by Peter, to ensure they are consistent with the gospel revealed by Christ.
I'm surprised you didn't bring up the doubtful nature of the 7 letter collection. Lightfoot had a lot of stake in arguing that the 7 letter collection was authentic since it asserted monarchical episcopacy, and he was a bishop. while the shorter collection is more like Paul, Clement and Polycarp.
I mean, if you take a look at the short recension (which is probably as close as we can get to authentic Ignatius) he doesn't sound like a chalcedonian trinitarian either.
anyway, there is currently no community that believes and practices the way the early and subapostolic christians did.
they were subordinationists, liturgical sacramentalists, non-solafide-ists, likely presbyterian in governance, and the laity were relying not on themselves but on the hierarchy for teaching.
whereas in modern times, if a community has a high view of the sacraments, they're certainly trinitarian.
if they're not trinitarian, they will not celebrate the eucharist each sunday, etc. you get the picture.
I go to a trinitarian baptist church that denies real presense and asserts the zwingli view.
It's amazing how many people go to Rome or Constantinople without fully reading about their dogmas. The host of Barely Protestant put it well when he said you should be prepared to adopt or move to adopting a traditions doctrines before moving traditions.
Only when you're prepared to accept that nothing about the early church looks or sounds like post reformation worship.
@BarbaPamino how would you define early church?
@@wesmorgan7729 who deleted my comment? I didn't swear or anything.
The early church is St Clement of Rome writing to Corinth and instructing them on how to repent and move forward properly.
@BarbaPamino It shows up for me. Well, with that definition no one uses the exact same liturgy.
@@wesmorgan7729 we have 4 different gospels but you expect one exactly the same Divine Liturgy? The early church much like the modern Orthodox Church uses variable Liturgies that retain the same essence despite being different in parts or style.
Why didn’t Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli agree?
Calvinism is a subset of the Reformed (Zwinglian) position, which differs with Lutheranism only in Sacramentology, as it is stated in the Marburg Articles signed by both of these Protestant Traditions.
IDK, they were different people, i guess?
All “men of God” guided by the Holy Spirit, correct?
How so different in understanding of scripture?
@@thisiswheezie Also with how you get saved. Lutherans don't believe in total depravity.
Great job Gavin! The average folks appreciate your insight and humility, No arrogant, got it all figured out attitude, grace and peace to you!!!
Yeah-but, even in the modern R.C. and Orthodox churches, every bishop IS a priest, so couldn't that somewhat explain using presbyter and episkopos interchangeably even if the 3 tier organization was the expectation?
Thanks Gavin for your videos. It’s helpful to uncover some of the possible misconceptions that are commonly presented in Catholic/Protestant discussions.
Thanks Joe! Glad it was helpful!
This is so good. 👌🏾
I was a reformed protestant, mostly of the Calvinist doctrine, I converted to Catholicism last year, my relationship with Christ is more clear and stronger than ever, I will die before I ever leave Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
What’s your thoughts on the idol worship and the pope?
@@ShepherdMinistry idol worship is forbidden in the Catholic Church, as per in the Bible, the history of the churches tradition and the catechism, as for the the Papacy, simply looke Matthew 16:18-19, now do I think we have bad Pope's, sure but they still hold the keys given to them by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Also remember the Bible didn't exist in the first century, it was canonized in the 4th century during the council of Rome,under Pope Damasus I,in other words there is no Bible without the church contrary to what most protestants believe, that somehow the it just magically fell out of the sky out of thin air.
@@jesussotelo4775 You don’t think statues and pictures of Jesus are idol worship? They aren’t real pictures of Him. Shouldn’t we not worship a false image? You can’t say it’s not worshipping when it’s impersonating Him.
I do disagree with the Matthew verse regarding it implying a pope but that is a highly debated passage. I appreciate your kind response!
@@ShepherdMinistry thanks for at least trying to understand the Catholic position, now to address the first issue, what would you say to someone if you were eating a bowl of spaghetti and they asked you, "why are you eating a bowl of earth worms?" You would probably explain that,you're not eating worms you're eating spaghetti, even though they perceive something different. Christian iconography dates back to the early century they're simply windowsinto heaven, and even in the old Testament God commands the Israelites to build inside the holy of holy the ark of the covenant which depict statue of charabim. If you want the best biblical and historical catholic teaching, I'll direct you to.
1. Early Church fathers
2. Dr Taylor Marshall
3 Trent Horn
4.Dr Scott Hahn.
Taylor Marshall and Scott Hahn were both former protestants and the give detailed information on Catholic apologetics if you want scholarly information. Go ahead check these sources out even if you disagree, at least you'll get an intellectually honest response to your questions rather than imisconcepions. God bless.
@@timboslice980 Yes, Protestants tend to view anything that takes glory from God as a form of idolatry. As it becomes a first before God.
Gratitude discovering you Sir, dear brother,
_surely_ you have the heart at the right place.
Guidance, forevermore, unsayable! עליכם
∞☮♡
thanks... I appreciate your thoughtful treatment of Ignatius' writings. looking forward to more of your videos
Bishops work together with priests in that priests are an extension of the bishops to be able to properly celebrate the Eucharist among the other sacraments. Sure they are two separate offices but are really only one in that the priest is the authorized extension of the Bishop.
Then there’s deacons which are not ordained to the priesthood (as bishops and priests are) but to ministry and service to assist the Bishops and priests.
The three vs two issue seems to me an unnecessary hindrance. The Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses the topics enough I think to provide maybe some helpful guidance on this issue.
I spent over 40 years trying to figure out “is it this, or is it that” as an Evangelical Protestant & pastor involved in 21 different denominations, affiliations or sects.
Most differed in small ways, but not all.
This video pits church father against father, just like Protestants think with either/or reasoning.
Catholicism approaches things as both/and.
I studied more than anyone I knew for over 20 years.
I realized at some point that after much hard work coming to a conclusion (“the truth”), that it would matter little to the Church as a whole.
Some young teen would start the whole process I went through over for himself & another after him.
That was profoundly saddening.
As I studied Catholicism, I realized that men worked through hard issues & had Councils (or Synods). Once they decided a matter, that was it. It was a foundation to build on without looking back.
A truth could be further unpacked as deeper implications were understood, but what was decided was final.
Protestants don’t have that.
Some things are assumed to be foundations to build on, but with no authority to say that a matter is settled, ANY doctrine or belief may be challenged.
Evangelicals assume the progress of the past, but don’t have to.
Even which books belong in the canon and what level of authority they will be recognized with is up for grabs. Luther threw out 7 OT books & questioned many more (including the NT books of James, Jude, Hebrews & Revelation, which he doubted were inspired).
Some new movement can come along & reform anything the way they choose to interpret things (like nearly every group we call cults- the Millerite Adventist movement, for example, all Baptistic groups, had many offshoots including non-Trinitarian JW’s and Sabbatarians like the SDA’s).
Concerning the evolving role of leadership, there was a transition in leadership roles, even in NT times.
At first, only apostles founded churches. They trained & appointed elders (who functioned under the apostle’s authority). Deacons sprang up, as we see in Acts, out of need as helpers to the apostles.
As apostles began dying & as the Church grew quickly, someone needed to exercise the role of the apostles in their absence.
A role mimicking that of apostle was given to one of the elders raised up by the apostles.. He was called a bishop (over-seer).
In Ignatius’ day, all the elders in a city who pastored many churches would go to a mass with the bishop and bring back Eucharist to share and mingle with their own. Even to this day, a piece of the consecrated bread is placed in the chalice as a reminder that all communion is under the authority of the apostolic representative, the bishop.
The form has changed but the meaning remains the same as in the first century.
Instead of viewing different documents and father’s as divergent ideas of a bunch of ragtag independent leaders,
I see the common apostolic foundations & teaching testified to by St Irenaeus who said that all of the churches, though of many languages & vultures, taught the same things as if they had but a single mouth (and that they all were in harmony with the greatest church, Rome, who had superior training through the most preeminent apostles, Peter & Paul. He went on to show the lineage of the Roman bishops back to the apostles. That was important to his concept of authority.)
Even at the Council of Nicea, when Arius was calling Christ a creature & not God, the bishops listened to Arius creatively twist scriptures to fit his views using scripture alone, the issue of the apostolic authority of the oldest & best taught churches was used to settle the issue.
They asked the Arian party to show that their unique view was that taught by the apostles by asking if anything like this new view had ever been taught in any of the apostolic churches (most eminently, in Antioch, Rome or Alexandria where Peter & Paul had taught). When those churches denied that they had any such teaching from the apostles, the matter was settled.
Might save me a few years haha.. would love to hear about your conversion, particularly your thoughts/experience after converting? Any disappointments?
I don't want to take away from your diligent research. I'm a lifelong Christian myself and spent the last few years looking into Catholicism, and church history as well. You've left out the parts where the Roman church settled matter of doctrinal dispute by burning dissenters at the stake, or other a worse form of torture before they did. I think that's an important part of church history as well, which lends more to explaining how the Roman Catholic church became the central authority. Not so much because they were right, but might was right and dissent wasn't allowed.
Great exposition on why we can only know if a doctrine is true by having a ultimate authority, which is the Pope.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 No, the Church didn't do that.
@@felipeneves9571 The Albigensians, Waldensians, Hussites, Huguenots, and several early Reformers were put to death either by order of, or without any protest from, Roman bishops. Let's not forget the persecution of Jews who refused to convert.
So yes, the church did indeed do that.
I’m realizing we as Protestants do such a poor job teaching our own history, the common person thinks low church non-denominationalism & Pentecostalism are all there is to Protestantism. When they then read Ignatius, the only other group they know of that uses his kind of language are Catholics, so they assume Ignatius is in agreement with contemporary Catholicism & act accordingly, in total ignorance of classical Protestant thought.
It’s not just Protestants. I grew up in Catholic schools and went to the Baptist Church on Sundays growing up.
Most Christians are “Casual Christians” and don’t care to do their own research and get in their Bibles.
I’ve been guilty of it most of my life, but now that I’m older I find I can’t read the Bible enough.
Orthodoxy is where it’s at ☦️ God bless
When Calvin read Ignatius’ letters he believed they were forgeries because of how Catholic they were. So it seems that it’s not just low information Protestants who think the early Church Fathers like Ignatius sound Catholic.
Contemporary Catholicism? Do you have any idea how old the Catholic Mass is? It’s remained mostly the same for over two thousand years.
Classical Protestantism? What year was the Reformation?
Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John. Ignatius was a bishop in the early Church with direct ties to the New Testament. Ignatius also used the word Catholic when referring to The Church.
ACCORDING TO GOD, WORSHIP INVOLVES THESE THREE THINGS:
1. SACRIFICE
2. AN ALTAR
3. AN ORDAINED PRIEST
SINCE THE VERY FIRST MASS AT THE LAST SUPPER, WHEN JESUS OFFERED TO GOD HIS BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, AND DIVINITY, EVERY CATHOLIC MASS HAS BEEN A SACRIFICE, ON AN ALTAR, OFFERED BY AN ORDAINED PRIEST.
LISTENING TO A PREACHER READ FROM THE BIBLE, AND THEN EXPLAIN WHAT HE/SHE THINKS IT ALL MEANS ISN'T WORSHIP. IT'S A BIBLE STUDY.
LISTENING TO A BAND PLAY CHRISTIAN MUSIC ISN'T
WORSHIP. IT'S ENTERTAINMENT.
Ignatius was a Catholic priest.
This was good Dr. Ortlund. I was one who came from low church Protestantism / Evangelicalism, but then was swayed by Eastern Orthodoxy. But I couldn't quite cross the Bosphorus. Their doctrine of Justification is just one I couldn't overcome. That wasn't the only reason but it was the main one for me. I thought I had to leave Protestantism to find a historic church. Now I've been exploring Lutheranism as you mentioned.
I have trouble with sola scriptura that makes it hard to become Protestant (although I think some Anglican denominations don't follow s. s.). Like humans choose canon of Bible, not Bible, so what authority is there for Protestant Bible as opposed to ones used before Protestants? Contradicting Old Testament with stuff allowing pork and optional circumcision before there's any New Testament written to back that up. Paul's verses about tradition 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Tim. 2:2, 2 Thess. 2:15 and Bible not saying when Christians had to give up traditions and start to >only< use the Bible implies we don't have to give up tradition. Would also help if the Bible said to >only< get your infallible religious doctrines/dogmas from the Bible, but it doesn't seem to.
I too am questioning if I should become Orthodox.
The kingdom of God is not food or drink or some other OUTWARD institution, but primarily a question of love and obedience.
@@GinaFisher-w3rI don’t think you properly understand sola scriptura, Gavin has some videos on it, you should watch a few to clear up your misunderstandings
Be careful! Once you get into the Church Fathers, and with all respect, I don't mean Luther and Calvin, there's just no going back!
"Whatever you conclude (from reading Ignatius), it's not a reason to become Catholic." I'd like to focus on this most curious warning! Whenever I watch your channel, or any Protestant channel, I always approach with the mindset that today might be the day that I become convinced of the truth of Methodism or Lutheranism or Calvinism or Mormonism or Adventism or Baptism or Evangelicalism. It is possible that Luther and Calvin and Smith and the other Smith have all gotten it right, and I should take their claims seriously and stop being Catholic. I'd invite all Protestants to take the claims of Ignatius and the other Fathers and Doctors of the Church seriously and open mindedly as well.
So, why the curious warning? Are you afraid that people are actually taking the claims of ancient writers seriously? Are you afraid that Protestantism might actually be wrong?
To any Protestant reading this: don't fear the truth! If Ignatius surprises you by understanding that the Eucharist is truly the ACTUAL flesh and blood of our lord, and if he surprises you by describing the reality of the Church within the created order as a monarchical and tripartite form of government (among other things that might surprise!), this is not because Ignatius made these things up, but simply because these are things that Christ instituted for his Church from its beginning. Keep in mind that Ignatius was writing in the late first century. There was no Bible (because the Catholic Church hadn't yet compied it) yet he was well aware of the contents of Scripture and well informed by Tradition. He is writing as a teacher to whom the faith was handed down and who also hands down the faith to others.
Just for example, when Jesus instituted the Eucharist, he said "this is my body, this is my blood" (touto estin to sōma mou ... touto gar estin to haima mou); people argued with him. He didn't respond by saying "yeah, you know what, chill, I'm just talking symbolic". No he came back, doubling down, with amen, amen, lego humin ean me phagete ten sarka ... kai piete to haima --- truly i say to you, if you shall not have eaten the meat and drunken the blood. I don't know about you, but when God says TRULY, I tend to believe what he says. There is no getting around the fact that the Eucharist is central to Christian worship, there is no getting around the priesthood that presides at the Eucharist and no getting around the symbolic vs Real Presence argument. Now Gavin is right when he says that there was a lot of discussion and debate over HOW Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist, and it is true that some Protestants have held on to the universal and ancient belief that Christ IS present in the Eucharist. But Jesus is not a theologian. Jesus did not explicitly say how, or in what manner, he was present in the Eucharist. This was left for the Church to determine. That same Church governed by a monarchical priesthood with all its bishops and priests and deacons.
I'm a Catholic, so I truly believe that there is much grace to be found in the various Protestant denominations. When I listen to Gavin or Fr Brett Murphy or Rev Calvin Robinson --- I see in you guys a whole lot of faith and a whole of grace. But I have to say also that once you start reading anything earlier than the 1500s, and especially when you start getting into the Apostolic Fathers, you're taking a serious risk. You are just not going to find any universally accepted Protestant doctrines. You're not going to find the Tribulation or the Rapture. You're not going to find the "invisible church", you're not going to find "unity in diversity", you're not even going to find sola scriptura or sola fide. You are going to find an entire world full of what we would now call Catholic doctrines (and even dogmas) that are universally adhered to, in the east as well as in the west and even the south.
My warning would be this: If you are a Protestant and you feel that you are convicted and convinced of the truth of your Protestant religion, just stay away from the Church Fathers! Stay away from Church history! Stay away from the controversies and the debates and the resolutions and their final determinations! When Jesus founded the Church, he didn't found the Baptist church or the Lutheran church or the Christian Science church. He founded the Catholic Church. So, when you read the likes of Ignatius, you're reading Catholicism plain and simple, and these works have to be read in the context of Catholicism for them to make sense. And this is perilous because it is not what you were taught as a Baptist or a Pentecostal. If you start ask questions like "why is Ignatius focused on the monarchical presbyterate" or "where is the Rapture" or "why wasn't I taught these things in vacation Bible school", then you're already opening yourself up to an awareness of Truth. Once you open yourself up to Truth that your religion does not teach, you will now be messing with your conscience.
Can you in good conscience follow a teaching that you were given as a child or a youth and you know no serious alternative to? Of course! If you grew up in a church that teaches Rapture theology or once saved always saved, and everyone in your community accepts this as true and your teachers and ministers all accept it as true, then your conscience is safe! But if you start dabbling into Ignatius --- and Papias and Clement and Polycarp and Justin Martyr and John Chrysostom and Irenaeus and Clement and all the rest --- and find that your beliefs are simply nowhere to be seen and that a whole different set of beliefs are universally held, some of which you have been taught to outright despise, now can you in good conscience hold your old beliefs? No, you can't. At the very least, you now have to examine and deconstruct your own religion to determine which is true and why. If you then find that your Protestant beliefs do not accord with the faith of the Apostles, can you still follow with a good conscience? Can you stand in front of God and deny him?
A famous Protestant said one time: "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
(1) The monoepiscopacy is implied in the Book of Revelation, specifically 7 angels of the 7 churches. Even protestant commentaries recognize this.
(2) Not only did Ignatius believe that the Eucharist was the resurrected body of Jesus, but taught that the Eucharist was a propitiatory sacrifice.
In his second letter to Timothy, St. Paul writes, “For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come” (2 Timothy 4:6; cf. Philippians 2:7). Generally, the term used for sacrifice in Greek is “thusia;” however, St. Paul uses the first person singular passive verb “spendomai,” which translated means “to pour out,” as in a libation or drink-offering. This expression is an allusion to the Jewish ritual of pouring wine into the altar after the sacrificial animal had been burnt (cf. Numbers 28:7). St. Paul employs this metaphor to cast his own martyrdom in a liturgical light. Thus, his death becomes a public act of worship, whereby he offers himself both bodily and spiritually to God, much in the same way that Christ offered himself on the cross.
The Eucharistic overtones of the Greek verb are more clearly seen in the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who in his letter to the Romans, writes, “Do not seek to confer any greater favor upon me than that I be sacrificed to God while the altar is still prepared.”[1] Here, St. Ignatius picks up on the apostle’s metaphor, even employing the same Greek verb (spendomai). However, he expands on the sacrificial metaphor by referring to himself as the bread and wheat of Christ in the same letter. He writes,
Allow me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body; so that when I have fallen asleep, I may be no trouble to any one. Then shall I truly be a disciple of Christ, when the world shall not see so much as my body.[2] (emphasis mine)
The Letter to the Romans contains three essential elements of the Mass: an altar, an allusion to wine, and two explicit references to the Eucharist. St. Ignatius not only identifies himself with the Eucharist, but also parallels his martyrdom which the Eucharistic sacrifice, which is offered upon the altar of God.
We also find Eucharistic allusions in three of Ignatius’ other letters.[3] Here, I will only cite his letters to the Philadelphians and Smyrnaeans. In his Letter to the Philadelphians, St. Ignatius compares the bread and wine to the flesh and blood of Christ which he says are offered upon the altar. He writes,
Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth ] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God.[4]
….
I flee to the Gospel as to the flesh of Jesus, and to the apostles as to the presbytery of the Church.[5]
However, the most explicit statement in support of Eucharistic realism is found in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans. Ignatius writes,
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.[6]
St. Ignatius says that the Eucharist is the self-same flesh of Christ which suffered and which the Father, of his goodness, raised up again. The article in Greek is neuter, so it's not merely that Jesus was raised, but that his flesh was raised. The flesh *which* suffered, and the flesh *which* was raised for our salvation. In essence, by emphasizing the literalism of the bodily resurrection, he is also emphasizing a particular view of the Eucharist, namely, the Real Presence (as opposed to a purely symbolic or pneumatological understanding of the Eucharist). The Real Presence of the Eucharist is also reaffirmed by the sufferings of the martyrs. St. Ignatius writes in the same letter,
But if these things were done by our Lord only in appearance, then am I also only in appearance bound? And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But he who is near to the sword is near to God; he that is among the wild beasts is in company with God; provided only he be so in the name of Jesus Christ. I undergo all these things that I may suffer together with Him, He who became a perfect man inwardly strengthening me.[7]
Here, Ignatius is writing in opposition to the Docetists (a Gnostic sect). The Docetists rejected the bodily sufferings of Christ because they denied he possessed a physical body. However, Ignatius argues that the physical sufferings of the martyrs would be rendered meaningless if Christ did not suffer bodily also. He incorporates the Eucharist into his argument in chapter 7 by suggesting that their refusal to participate in the Eucharist reflects their disbelief in the bodily sufferings and resurrection of Christ. By connecting the Eucharist to the bodily sufferings of Christ, Ignatius is not only emphasizing Eucharistic realism, but also the sacrificial nature of the Mass itself. The martyrs, through their sufferings and death, are not only united to Christ on the cross, but also the Eucharistic sacrifice itself, as Ignatius implies in his letter to the Romans. As Catholic theologian, Servais Pinckaers, writes
Just as Christ truly suffered in his body, so Ignatius suffers in his own body to the point of shedding blood, and it is also the body and blood of Jesus that Christians receive in the Eucharist, as fortifying nourishment. It is for this reason that the Docetists, denying the reality of the Passion, did not participate in the celebration of the Eucharist and rendered the sufferings of the martyrs pointless.[8]
A Protestant can affirm that the Eucharist metaphorically represents Christ's sacrifice. But it's not actually another sacrifice. And nothing you've quoted from Ignatius necessitates that view.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl except Ignatius explicitly teaches the bodily presence of Christ. you're absolutely delusional
Masterful explanation. If you read the Epistle to the Smyrnans and can't figure out that Ignatius believed that the Eucharist IS the Flesh of Jesus Christ, you need to go back and take reading comprehension again.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl The Catholic teaching is that the Eucharistic Sacrifice literally Re-presents Christ's sacrifice and that it isn't another sacrifice. It's in fact the same sacrifice that Christ offered on the Cross, except in an unbloody manner instead of a bloody manner. It's difficult to ready Ignatius in any other way than as he actually believed that the Eucharist IS the Sacrificial offering of Christ's flesh. In fact, it's impossible if you're being honest.
This is sure a different twist on the Book of Romans than that most of us have ever read. The early church at Rome, pastored or mentored by Paul, where he taught and they went soul winning through the Romans approach. Romans 3:10, 3:23, 5:8&9, 6:23, 10:9-10, 10:13 is all there and it’s from Rome.
You recommended people go Anglican before going Catholic. In this time of redefining marriage, you choose a religion that began the effort to redefine marriage as not being a sacrament and basically has a foundation in divorce? I really can't see how someone can be Anglican and not see that they began because their king divorced his wife. How can a Christian celebrate that?
The church had wanted freedom from Rome for centuries, so they used this political split to expedite the split from Rome. Henry VIII was fully Catholic outside of his divorce btw. He did not hold “Anglican” views himself
@@RatIsForRatthew
St Paul taught unity, not Reformation or leaving the church because of divorce
@@paulmualdeave5063 I’m not arguing if the reformation was justified or not, just saying it doesn’t make sense to throw out the third largest denomination in the world for a political reason. Clearly that “issue” has been resolved in the past
@@paulmualdeave5063 1 Corinthians 11:18 highlights that divisions are necessary. This is why groups like the Arians and Gnostics should not be part of the Church.
Additionally, it's important to note that the Church of England ONLY separated from Rome under Henry VIII, but there were no changes in the Catholic doctrine at that time. BTW, it wasn't a divorce as you claim; rather, the marriage was annulled.
The Anglican Reformation began with Edward VI, if you are going to criticize Anglicanism, you have to begin here.
@@luisr5577
His annulment was rejected, meaning he was a bigamist. He had two wives at once until he lopped one’s head off. This was also adultery.
Ann Boleyn would have lived longer had he not rebelled against God in leaving the Church.
The wages of sin. This is when Protestants gained power in England and it was made final with Queen Elizabeth.
And yes, the foundation the Anglican Church rests on is divorce. Annulment means he would never have been married and then could have married Ann Boleyn.
The grows of the hierarchy in the Church is not a human custom. It is already in the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 12:27-31 St. Paul speaks of charismatic gifts in the Church and their hierarchy, apostles, prophets and teachers. These arethe gifts to which some of us are called to fulfill according to our calling. This is a hirarchy of spiritual gifts. But more specifically to the point made in this video we also have a hierachical structure of government in the Church that St. Paul addresses to Timothy.
The difference between elder and epískopos, priest and bishop is easily explained. Priest is a clerical state. Bishop is an administrative title. Cardinal is a honorific title. All bishops and cardinals are priests. The pope is a priest. There is no confusion between priests and bishops, these terms are interchangeable because in the early Church the priest and the bishop are one and the same. The bishop is the original priest in charge of the community. As the community grows and the one bishop cannot take care of the community by itself he appoints other presbyters under him to do so.
Ephesus is one of those growing churches that cannot be governed by just one person anymore. The hierarchy is seen explicitly in 1 and 2 Timothy where St. Paul leaves Timothy in charge and gives him instructions about heresy, order in the church, and hierarchy. St. Paul appointed and annointed St. Timothy as the leader of the Church of Ephesus (2 Timothy 1:6), and instructs him to do the same when ordaining others (1 Timothy 5:22). We see here several clerical orders in succession by laying on of hands (by ordination). St. Paul (apostle) to Timothy (bishop) to his presbyters (priests).
We don't need to invoque Clement, Ignatius, Jerome and others. We see it already in the New Testament.
I heard someone talking about how they were converted to Catholicism by reading Ignatius' letters and knew Gavin would have something to say about that. I wasn't disappointed!
RCC didn't exist in Ignatius's time, but of course "Catholics" teach that it started with Peter...smh.
@@joycegreer9391 St. Ignatius of Antioch (110AD) who was the disciple of St. John the evangelist for nearly 20 years.
“You must follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
@@jamesrey3221 So? The word catholic means universal, not any specific church. The Gospel is universal. All churches have leadership, bishops or elders etc.
@@joycegreer9391 St. Ignatius is bishop of Antioch, St. Augustine is a bishop of Hippo, St. Cyril is a bishop of Jerusalem. These church fathers all predate the "reformation" in 1517.
The Catholic church has bishops, celebrates mass and the Eucharist.
Catholic is universal in the sense that it is a church for all people of all culture and ethnicity, the church prays and speaks in all languages and its more than 200,000 parishes is all over the world. "Go and baptize all nations....."
St. Augustine: 397AD:
"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
St. Augustine:
"This Church is Holy, the One Church, the True Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, She remains fixed in her root, in her vine, in her love. The gates of hell shall not conquer her."
St. Cyril of Jerusalem 350AD:
“And if you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s house is nor merely where the church is, but where the Catholic Church is. For this is the peculiar name of this holy Church, the mother of us all, the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.”
protestants don't have any bishops besides the anglicans, they don't have the eucharist and they don't have rome, he believed in catholicism@@joycegreer9391
In other words, just because a particular church structure developed, largely for pragmatic reasons, doesn't mean that it was originally intended to be infallibly established and binding for all time. The apostles and earliest church fathers did not necessarily invest their impramatur in perpetuity to the church structure that developed out of the times in which they lived.
After much research on this interesing subject I found my answer settled in 1st Samuel chaper 8. Due to the corrupting influences of church overseers (Judges) coupled with failure to trust in the Lord, the people turned to the way of the world by demanding a figurehead in the form of a King.
That's not even what a pope Is bro. He's essentially the high priest of Christianity.
Also If you regulary answer your questions with fringe (meaning you only hold this particular view) Biblical typologies, then you're kinda leading yourself down a path of error. God Bless
@@vasilias2230 There is only one high priest, and hes not the pope of Rome.
@@Alex-ph2pw My point to you Is don't know what a pope Is.
whether or not Christ established a pastoral priesthood with a high priest Is a different discussion
@@vasilias2230 Im well aware of the imposter known as Pontifex Maximus, Vicar of Rome, Papa, holy Roman Emperor. He seeks dominion to rule over the earth.
the problem I find with being called a protestant is: who am I protesting against? the Church? It doesn't seem to fit Jesus' prayer for unity in the body.
Along with the Reformers, we’re “protesting” against a church no longer following orthodox beliefs and practices being called an orthodox church. The so-called “Catholic” church was no longer catholic.
To be truly unified, one has to be unified around a specific group of beliefs. We could be interpersonally warm and huggy-huggy with people we have nothing in common with. You could construct a “church” of nominal Christians, atheists, and Satan worshipers where everyone gave everyone else the handshake of fellowship! Biblical “unity” implies agreement on biblical issues. Otherwise, it’s just a word.
@@HannahClapham yeah it's really evident post-reformation lmao, protestants can't even agree on fundamentals.
If by Protestant you mean ANYONE in the West splitting off from Rome after 1517, then yes, these churches are far flung and disparate. But then, by the same token, you will have to accept ANYONE in the West before that point.
Let’s see, we have Albigensians, Catharis, Waldensians, Arians, Sabellians, Monarchians, Montanists, Novatianists, Donatists, Bogomils, Paulicians, Marcionists, Apollinarists, Docetists, Patripassians, Adoptianists, Collyridians, Nestorians, and Monophysites. And I guess we’d need to give you the Lollards and the Hussites, too. Quite the list!
You’ll probably say these are all heretics. Ah, but they lived during an era when Rome was the only game in town (i.e., the only recognized church). They were bad, sure. But they were bad Catholics.
I share your depiction of Protestantism as “all over the place.” But here’s the thing: the huge majority of them are bad Protestants. Mainstream (liberal) Protestants, for the most part, aren’t even Christian, let alone Protestant. The largest portion of “Evangelicals” believe in the Prosperity Gospel or they’re semi-Pelagians or Modalists or practitioners of Openness Theology or a hundred other modern heresies.
I don’t see how I’m responsible for them, any more than you’re responsible for Socinians and Jansenists and Lefebvrists and other sedevacantists. Catholicism has its share of RadTrads to the far right and Liberation Theologians to the far left.
Something like 80% of American Catholics don’t abide by the Church’s teaching on contraceptives. Thomas Howard, a Catholic apologist, estimates that nine out of ten American parishes don’t catechise properly and are to the left of the Vatican. (Well, maybe not so much anymore since the ascendency of Francis.)
Most Catholics will point to the CCC as official teaching, but then Francis can just up and change it on a whim. C.S. Lewis chose not to join the Catholic Church partly because, in his eyes, its belief systems were too unstable. Anti-modernist vows give way to a very modernist Vatican II Council. And the leaders of Nouvelle Théologie are left to hold the line. John Paul II, thus, gets fashioned as a “conservative.” Less liberal than the other liberals, I guess.
So yes, Evangelicalism is in a bad state of affairs. Almost a death spiral, if you ask me, but even so...people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Catholicism is in shreds. Will it even be here in a generation or two? It’s hemorrhaging members like crazy. The second largest religious group in the U.S. is former Catholics!
And, by the way, magisterial Protestants, those who still follow the Reformers, those who still believe in the Solas, those still constrained by Augsburg and Heidelberg and Westminster and Dordt and the 39 Articles, do agree on the fundamentals, along with pretty much everything else.
Today’s Charismatics might act as if they have eaten the Holy Ghost, feathers and all, as Luther once remarked. But today’s conservative Lutherans and Anglicans and Presbyterians have pretty much stuck to the Gospel “once delivered to the saints.”
Remember, if we’re responsible for the errors of every last sect that splits off from us, then you’re responsible for the errors of...Protestantism!
@@HannahClapham Brother I appreciate your comment, it will help me understand church history better. I'm not a Catholic either...I think all these churches are a joke and compromised. It all boils down to our walk with Christ, that's all I care about nowadays. I think because Christian history is so rich we can use examples from all of the denominations, besides the obvious heresies. God bless
uyg7oftf-
Walking with Christ is certainly more important than coming under the authority of one flawed church or another. But walking with Christ includes fellowship with his children. We are not in this alone, but part of a flock. A flock with but one shepherd. The Good Shepherd.
Though there is much corruption out there, there are a lot of stalwart, genuine lovers of Christ, as well. Seek out the faithful churches. Seek out the faithful followers. Become a part of the unity of faithfulness.
This very much feels like the retention department for your faulty cell provider trying to convince you to stay.
😏 You noticed that as well? 😁
I agree, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I've felt similarly hearing stories of barely thought-out, reactionary conversions to Catholicism or Orthodoxy based on the most superficial readings of the church fathers. Catholic apologists, unlike Catholic scholars, can be extremely disingenuous in their selective usage of patristic writings.
In 2022, 522K Germans left the Catholic Church. Wouldn’t you want to tell them to maybe read a bit further and discern more? I guess not because that would make seem like a call centre operator…
The early Church fathers were unanimous in their teaching of the Eucharist, meaning that Christ is truly present in the species of bread and wine.
If you read the other Church fathers in context of Ignatius, you will see the early Church believed and taught apostolic succession and the Petrine Primacy.
The writings of Clement confirms that the apostles themselves taught apostolic succession:
“Our Apostles, too, were given to understand by our own Lord Jesus Christ the office of the bishop would give rise to intrigues. For this reason, they appointed the men mentioned before, and afterwards laid down a rule once for all to this effect: when these men die, other approved men shall succeed to their sacred ministry”.
- Clement of Rome (a disciple of Peter and Paul), “Epistle to the Corinthians”, 96 AD.
“When we refer to them that tradition which originated from the Apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of the presbyters in the churches, they object to tradition, saying they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even the Apostles”.
- Ireneaus of Lyons (a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna), “Against the Heresies”, 3.2.2, 180 AD
One point that I would like to make. You make the point that non-Catholics should consider other non-Catholic churches but this itself is problematic. The Catholic Church is the only Church that has a pedigree that goes back to the apostles themselves. All protestant churches were established by men during or after the 16th century and therefore not apostolic in origin.
There is plenty of evidence that there was plenty of debate as to whether communion was meant literally, or as a memorial. That's even among those early Christians we would consider the early RC church. Same w/ whether Peter was made head of the church, or equal w/ other apostles. Some of these disputes are laid out in Mike Winger's videos. He spent many months reading the catechism and the various RC councils and their recorded books. Now outside the early RC church, there was much more disagreement, but these early Christian churches were cruelly crushed and pogroms issued to route out dissenters. There were many more attempts at church reform before Luther. He was just the first to actually survive it.
Debunking catholicism
I'm more blessed than mary
Proof = Luke 11:27-28
27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen
_________________________
CHRIST alone
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus
_________________________
Work of God =
John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
_________________________
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach
Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul.
Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop
_________________________
Jesus said Matthew 23:9
9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11
11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.
Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father.
Sad
_________________________
Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God
Use this to defeat the argument.
Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”.
Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”
John 19:26-27
26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards).
By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26.
_________________________
We should not pray to apostles
Romans 1:25
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Acts 10:25-26
25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”
Acts 14:15
15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,
Revelation 19:10
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Revelation 22:8-9
8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
Colossians 2:18
18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26
26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34
34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
Hebrews 7:25
25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles
_________________________
There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
_________________________
Apostles are allowed to marry,
1 Corinthians 9:1-5
1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry?
_________________________
The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic).
1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple
2)He sank down while walking on water
3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan
4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times
5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven
6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear
7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles.
8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land),
9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit),
10)King Soloman messed up,
11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11).
Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up)
12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up.
13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20
14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9
If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up.
_
Galatians 4:21-26
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Sarah is mother of all, Not mary
Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics
Changed the 10 commandments by deleting 2nd commandment, and dividing the 10th into 2 commandments. Also changing the real Saturday Sabbath to fake sunday sabbath.
You have to be dishonest person to be a catholic.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Debunking catholicism
I'm more blessed than mary
Proof = Luke 11:27-28
27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen
_________________________
CHRIST alone
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus
_________________________
Work of God =
John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
_________________________
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach
Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul.
Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop
_________________________
Jesus said Matthew 23:9
9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11
11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.
Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father.
Sad
_________________________
Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God
Use this to defeat the argument.
Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”.
Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”
John 19:26-27
26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards).
By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26.
_________________________
We should not pray to apostles
Romans 1:25
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Acts 10:25-26
25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”
Acts 14:15
15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,
Revelation 19:10
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Revelation 22:8-9
8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
Colossians 2:18
18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26
26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34
34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
Hebrews 7:25
25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles
_________________________
There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
_________________________
Apostles are allowed to marry,
1 Corinthians 9:1-5
1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry?
_________________________
The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic).
1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple
2)He sank down while walking on water
3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan
4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times
5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven
6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear
7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles.
8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land),
9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit),
10)King Soloman messed up,
11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11).
Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up)
12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up.
13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20
14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9
If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up.
_
Galatians 4:21-26
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Sarah is mother of all, Not mary
Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics
Changed the 10 commandments by deleting 2nd commandment, and dividing the 10th into 2 commandments. Also changing the real Saturday Sabbath to fake sunday sabbath.
@@mynameis......23 marked as spam
Thank you for sharing. It's beautiful how Catholicism still practices all of this. It's sad we separated vs all practicing together our faith in Christ
The Catholic Church has a different gospel from traditional Protestant teachings (I.E Luther and Calvin). One of the two is apostate, and seeking to devour the sheep of Christ. The separation is good and necessary.
@@mrnerd5675 potentially an overstatement, one is wrong and misleading, but that doesn't necessarily mean its devouring the sheep of Christ
@@buffcommie942I think biblically the other commenters statement is actually correct... There will still be faithful sheep who will be saved though because of their faith, and they will be forgiven despite their wicked shepherds actions.
Something I thought when reading the letters of Ignatius was to wonder whether he had any comprehension that the Church was going to exist for thousands of years. The entire tenor of discussion from the Apostles regarding the return of Christ makes it sound like it was imminent. It's almost here. It could happen at any moment. If the early Christians took that view, it makes perfect sense to emphasize "listen to your bishop." We have to hunker down, stay faithful, perfect our holiness, and get ready. I simply don't see a compelling reason to suppose that Ignatius was consciously and intentionally commanding everyone to obey their bishop, in succession to the apostles, for the next 100,000 years or more--rather than trying to get everyone to stick together and not fall apart when Christ is just about to return.
Thats an interesting point, I never considered that. I confess I have not taken the time to thoroughly study any of this, but I have heard it said repeatedly all of my life that the earliest christians believed that Christ would return within their lifetime.
Hmmm... trying to think my way through this. My study of Church history also introduced me to the fact that the 3-office view developed over time... but a short amount of time. I understand that some would conclude (like me) that this is a spirit-led development and should be understood as normative... but others see it as purely prudential. I can see that.
But I think one makes a qualitative leap if one applies that thinking to Apostolic succession. The New Testament shows us that current "elders" are the ones who are ordaining new elders. And this is treated as normative by the Fathers. The distinction between "apostolic succession" and "succession of apostolic doctrine" is one which deserves a great deal of skepticism, methinks. Irenaeus tied the two together for a very good reason: Because literally anyone can claim to have Apostolic doctrine. No one purporting to be a Christian teacher is going to say, "Yes, my teaching differs from that of the Apostles." So in a world where every teacher is going to claim the mantle of Apostolic doctrine, we need something tangible to be the guarantor thereof. And that is Apostolic succession.
Overall I'd have received this video differently if you were, in fact, a high-church Episcopalian or Scandinavian Lutheran - for they hold to Apostolic Succession and a literal view of Eucharist. That minority may be able to read these early fathers and come away untouched, but most Protestants don't have that luxury. So what I was hoping to hear addressed was how a low-church Protestant who doesn't adhere to Apostolic Succession and has a mostly symbolic view of the Eucharist interacts with Ignatius. And unless I missed it (very possible), we didn't go there.
The conclusion I hear in this video is: "Become Anglican or Scandinavian Lutheran if Ignatius troubles you." Alrighty, but you've not said you're doing that yourself.... so now what?
Friend, I don't have a "mostly symbolic view of the Eucharist," and my final comment about becoming Lutheran or Anglican don't summarize the earlier portions of the video.
@@TruthUnites : I do recall you saying in an interview with Mr. Suggs that you hold to a higher view of the eucharist.
What I was pointing out was in a Protestant world dominated by Baptists and Evangelicals, the purely symbolic view is very common, if not a majority view. What are they to do with Ignatius? Are you saying that they are on shaky ground and need to make some changes?
Apostolic succession is a different matter. While it is true that a person desiring a higher view of the Eucharist has a breadth of options, a person who becomes convinced of Apostolic succession from the Biblical and historical evidence has a far more limited menu of potential homes.
Is your primary argument against Apostolic succession that it was a matter of practicality which is not binding on the Church universally?
@@actsapologist1991 Thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure how the average evangelical would respond to Ignatius; I was trying to give my own Protestant take. I'd say the purely symbolic view of the Eucharist has problems, even apart from Ignatius. As for apostolic succession, that is really beyond the purview of this video, which was focused on the monarchical episcopate (these are not the same thing -- for example, Ignatius links the apostles with the presbyters, not bishops). I'll have to do a video on apostolic succession sometime.
@@TruthUnites Ahh, very good. I look foreword to that!
@@TruthUnites touch on the argument that it was always monarchial but that the phraseology changed.
I appreciate you showing how the transition toward catholicism happened gradually. I agree that certain changes may have started with the best intentions and only later spiraled out of control. I found it fascinating that Luther believed both in Sola fide (faith alone) and infant baptism at the same time. It was also an incremental move away from Catholicism, and did not happen all at once.
Of course he believed in infant baptism, there wasn’t any other way before he schismed out of the church.
It was a given
@juanluiscarbonepicard-ami5379 , I wonder how many faith alone adherents are aware of Luther's understanding of faith alone.
Not to mention how far removed they are from the early reformers. Calvin and Luther both believed and used Scripture to defend Mary's perpetual virginity
Love it. Thank you so much for sharing this wisdom.
Very clear and humble explanation. You present the proofs of the time and allow for whatever possibilities.
That’s the problem with most Christians. They see right or wrong, Truth or False and they give no room debate among, the early church fathers, AND THATS JUST NOT HOW IT WAS.. yes the Gospel is the Gospel and is secure and fastened in the Holy Word of God…. But there are many aspects of the functionality of the early church that remained debatable fore centuries.
what would you say about a sort of elder “apostolic succession,” where do elders get their authority? (outside of a monoepiscopate structure)
In Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus, as well as in early church documents like the Didache, it is made fairly clear that the authority of bishops / elders and deacons derived from their demonstrated character first, then from the office they held, rather than any sort of succession.
I am not necessarily opposed to a hierarchical episcopate just noting that some of the earliest writings we have seem to acknowledge a congregational model as perfectly legitimate and also point out that authority should be inseparable from character in the church context.
3:00 When I started reading The Puritans I was stunned by how high their view of The Sacraments were. I got unsettled. Then I realised they were quoting Scripture
Elder, overseer, Bishop, presbyter, pastor, all names for the same office.
PERFECT TOPIC! I was wondering yesterday how I should handle these letters
Thank you for your work. You deal with issues that so many ignore.
Ignatius of Antioch doesn't sound like a Baptist because he wasn't! He was Catholic! Ignatius of Antioch is my Confirmation Saint because of the fact that he was martyred for the Catholic faith and for his adoration of the Eucharist. BTW, all of the Church fathers were Catholic, so Ignatius is just one example of all of the wonderful Saints in the Catholic Church!
@ktownbball ktownbball Actually, "catholic church" was used in the proper sense by Ignatius. He wasn't coining a new term so it was the common name of the church in the first century. Additionally, go read the First Epistle of Clement. The Church of Corinth appealed to Rome to help with a dispute instead of the Apostle John who was still alive and was actually closer geographically to them so letters would have taken less time to travel. So, it is your post which has no substance.
@ktownbball ktownbball lol. you obviously haven't read Ignatius of Antioch if you think he wasn't submitting to a certain theology. If you had read him you would see how Catholic he was. "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes." (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 107AD))
And from Augustine, "Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.”
Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51.
@ktownbball ktownbball Ignatius in his epistles says many times "Peter and Paul laying the foundation of the THE church", he also mentions Clement of Rome's relationship with Peter. He explicitly calls the church the "Catholic Church". Peter like in the bible, is mentioned by far more than any other apostle in his epistles. You know what Ignatius says about the Eucharist in his epistles. And if you need another early church father. Irenaeus also was taught through the Apostle John from Polycarp, and makes this even clearer and lists the first 12 Popes and explicitly says this line of succession has the authority over other churches. I can cite exactly where you can read everything I just mentioned.
@@markrome9702Mark you are correct. Also check out Irenaeus wrote in "Against the Heresies" book III, Ch 3. He was taught by Polycarp who was taught by John the Apostle. he says church of Rome has the authority over other churches the way Jesus intended it to be. And lists the first 12 bishops of Rome. I'll provide this link if you can't find off a search www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
Yes, of course, amazingly all of the 1st and 2nd century church fathers were actually medieval Latin Romanists. Just like the Independent Fundamentalist Baptists would have you believe they were all suit-and-tie wearing Americans with King James Bibles. Let's all co-opt the earliest saints of Christ's Church for our own traditions! We love truth!
I can't wait to see it!! I'm a baptism btw but I love your content Gavin!! Keep it up brother!!🙏🏻🙏🏻💯
Thanks, glad you are enjoying it!
For those who are wanting to read the works of Ignatius I would suggest checking out the Syriac version. It only contains three epistles (Polycarp, Ephesians, and Romans) and the scribe makes it clear with the ending that those are the only three (or at least the only three legit) epistles that he knows of. Further, the earliest quotes we have of Ignatius (in the writing of Irenaeus and Origen) match the Syriac version where it differs from the Greek version.
There's still something sketchy about the epistles of Ignatius. Irenaeus has a quote which is shared by Romans but he ascribes it to a martyr from his own community and doesn't ascribe it to Ignatius. This is really weird given that appealing to the authority of people who learned directly from the Apostles was his whole jam. He name-drops Polycarp, Clement, and Papias as people with extant works who learned from the Apostles but Ignatius' name never comes up.
Further, the Ignatius Polycarp writes about in his letter is identified with two other named martyrs as well as other unnamed martyrs from the community in Phillipi. It sure sounds like Polycarp is writing about an Ignatius of Philipi, not an Ignatius of Antioch.
Finally, we know what the Roman policy toward Christians was at the time. Christians who were Roman citizens were to be taken to Rome for trial and beheading (since torturing a Roman citizen to death was illegal). Christians who were NOT Romans were to be put to death in the fashion of the local authority's choosing. So if Ignatius were a Roman he would have been taken to Rome but he wouldn't have been fed to the lions. If he were NOT a Roman he could have been fed to the beasts but he wouldn't have been taken to Rome.
It's possible that the three Syriac epistles are legit and there are plausible explanations for the above issues, but even then keep in mind that Ignatius' view of a monarchical bishop is unique in the early church. It's possible that Antioch was merely the first place where this practice was employed as a way to deal with the followers of heretics like Cerinthus.
I am surprised you are not Lutheran or Anglican yourself, it would be interesting to hear you speak on this (perhaps you will as you get into baptism/eucharist). While I am Lutheran myself, I still appreciate your coversations with Catholics etc. It would be cool to hear you have a conversarion with Jordan Cooper (Lutheran).
Thanks! I have enjoyed watching some of Jordan's videos.
At the end of the day which church has the authority and which one was created by Christ and the simple and honest answer is the Catholic Church! It interesting how Protestants try to disprove what doesn’t align with their particular denomination. We should also know with authority is the interpretation! Why also are there over 40,000 Christian denominations and even with in specific Protestant denominations they have different interpretations!
Which Catholic Church? Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church, Union of Utrecht Catholic Church, Union of Catholic Apostolic Churches, Genuine Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church, Russian Old-Orthodox Church, Pomeranian Old-Orthodox Church, Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia, Old Calendar Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, Syrian Church of the East, Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East?
What is the Catholic Church?
I really enjoy your church history videos. Would love to hear more of your thoughts on the apostolic fathers.
Greetings Galvin, can you quote which Catholics historians claim the pope comes at 2 century?
Ignatius also didn't believe in the Protestant tradition of Scripture alone. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
Thank you so much for these videos 🙏🏼
Thanks, glad it was useful!
Thanks for the video! Apart from the main topic of the video, I also appreciate how you brought up the early church’s relation to the Roman Empire. I have been reading 1 Peter lately and have been considering how Christians have considered submitting to governing authorities. Have you considered doing a video one how various people in the early church thought about this?
I'm late life convert RCC Gavin and absolutely love you. I'm learning so much from you. I want to make a comment about why Protestants chose Orthodoxy or RCC vs higher Protestant liturgies. The higher Protestant traditions (Anglican, Methodist) are really swinging hard left on social issues. I don't know how Lutherans are holding up? Anyway, great channel. Really look forward to learning more from you.
Honestly, Roman Catholicism is doing the same thing. As well, there are plenty of Anglican groups that are opposed to the liberalism we see in, for instance, the Episcopal Church (in fact, the majority of Anglicanism worldwide is opposed to gay "marriage" and women "Bishops"). German Roman Catholics are, today, literally allowing for gay "blessings".
@@barelyprotestant5365 that's a great point and I'm watching closely.. But the OFFICIAL stance of RCC on social issues still holds the line. , some comments by the pope not withstanding 🙂but you are very right that there are very liberal Catholics. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. I'm still learning!
@@barelyprotestant5365 just looked at your profile and saw you are Anglican so forgive me if I've misrepresented. CS Lewis was very instrumental in my return to the faith 10 years ago after a long hiatus, so Anglicans hold a special place in my heart!
@@dennischanay7781 Even in a Province as liberal as the Episcopal Church, they still aren't "officially pro-gay marriage". They haven't changed the Prayer Book. But yes: the stench of liberalism is everywhere in Christendom!
@@barelyprotestant5365 another good point. I'll
follow you and hopefully learn more! This Christian life is difficult!! I'm always open to learn more so share whatever you want!!hope you and your family are well.
Hey Pastor Gavin,
You were going to talk about your new book in which you were going to compel us about the beauty of apologetics this month. Please update your viewers on the same.
thank you for this! I'm waiting on the publisher for a few things, but will do so by end of month, hopefully!
@@TruthUnites Great, thank you.!
And please open up opportunities for Zoom calls or dialogues with you. I think we need the beauty of the apologetics concept to be drawn back in the 21st century as it was in the earlier days.
You bring up an interesting question when you mention Galatians 1, which says not even the angels can preach a gospel that is contrary to Apostolic doctrine. In Apostolic times, if we consider the fact that the Apostles were all teaching with authority in different regions before the existence of the new testament writings, doesn't that refute the idea of sola scriptura? Certainly, without any doubt, not one of the Apostles taught that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith - the writings either didn't exist yet or weren't universally available... think of Thomas in India or Simon and Jude who were probably in Egypt. It is certain that the Lord Jesus Christ didn't teach the doctrine of sola scriptura to the Apostles, rather, it is clear from Scripture that the Church was built on the Apostles themselves. How does sola scriptura find its way into doctrinal teaching, and is it therefore contrary to Apostolic doctrine?
Luke 1:4 Scripture is what gives certainty of doctrine.
John 5:39 We have eternal life from the Scriptures only because they bear witness about Christ.
John 10:35 Scripture cannot be broken or invalidated.
John 15:20 No one may contradict or neglect the Apostles and be a Christian.
John 17:20 The word of the Apostles is the source of true faith.
John 20:31 The Gospel of John alone is enough to tell us what to believe so that we can have life in Jesus' name.
John 22:24 The Gospel of John is a true testimony. No authority may contradict it.
Acts 17:11 We are to examine the Scriptures daily to see if anything taught as doctrine is true.
Acts 24:14 We are to believe everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets.
Romans 15:4 Scripture was written for our instruction to encourage us and give us hope.
1 Corinthians 12:28 All other teachers and servants in the Church come after the Apostles in priority.
1 Corinthians 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he must acknowledge that the things Paul wrote to us are a command of the Lord.
2 Corinthians 1:13 Paul did not write anything other than what lay people of Corinth and Achaia could read and understand. Some partially understand; some fully understand. Paul will boast of all on the day of the Lord.
Galatians 1:8 No one may contradict what the Apostles preached.
Galatians 1:20 Paul did not lie in what he wrote.
Galatians 3:22 The Scripture imprisoned everything else under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Eph 2:20 The Apostles and Prophets are the foundation of the Church and the faith with Christ as cornerstone. All other authorities must build on that foundation and no other.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 We are to firmly hold to the teachings of the Apostles. They are the only true standard by which other teachers and doctrines are to be judged. I challenge anyone to identify an oral Apostolic teaching that is not written in the New Testament.
1 Timothy 3:14-15 This letter tells us who may and may not become overseers and deacons, and how the Church is to be godly. This godliness is unchanging.
1 Timothy 4:13 We are to devote ourselves to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.
2 Timothy 3:15 The scriptures are able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
2 Timothy 3:16 Scripture is profitable for correction in righteousness. No doctrine that isn't supportable by scripture may correct scripture or render it unprofitable. Scripture is the only true standard by which all teachers and doctrines are to be judged.
2 Timothy 3:17 Scripture makes preachers (men of God) complete. Scripture fully equips preachers for every good work.
1 Peter 5:12 This letter is the true grace of God. We must stand firm in it.
2 Peter 3:2 We are to obey the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through his apostles.
2 Peter 3:16 The ignorant and unstable who twist the scriptures do so to their own destruction. Paul's Epistles are Scripture.
1 John 1:3-4 The eye-wittness writings of the Apostles are what give us fellowship with the Apostles, with the Father, and with His Son.
1 John 4:6 The Apostles are from God. Whoever knows God listens to the words of the Apostles; whoever is not from God does not believe the Apostles. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
James 2:8 Love of neighbor as taught by scripture is enough to keep us busy for the rest of our lives.
The Pope's church actually contradicts Scripture (and therefore the Apostles) shamelessly:
Lateran Council 1 Canon 21: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage.
Lateran Council 2 Canon 6: For since they should be and be called the temple of God, the vessel of the Lord, the abode of the Holy Spirit, it is *unbecoming* that they *indulge in marriage* and in *impurities.*
1 Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and *teachings of demons,* through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who *forbid marriage*
1 Corinthians 9:5 *Do we not have the right* to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
Canon 21 continued: We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that *marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved,* and that the persons be condemned to do penance.
Matthew 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.
Innocent III, 1204 "We destine specially to this, that the material sword may be sanctioned to supply the defect of the spiritual sword, and you, besides the temporal glory which you will attain from so pious and praiseworthy a work, may obtain that pardon for sins, which we grant
as an indulgence for the remission of their sins, since we want those who faithfully shall have laboured against the heretics to rejoice in the same indulgence as we grant as an indulgence for those crossing the sea for the aid of the Holy Land."
Lateran Council 4 Canon 3: Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to *exterminate* in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church.
_Ad extirpanda_ of Pope Innocent IV: We decree that the head of state [...] shall observe, both what is written herein, and other regulations and laws both ecclesiastical and civil, that are published against heretical wickedness. [...] No heretical man or woman may dwell, sojourn, or maintain a bare subsistence in the country, or any kind of jurisdiction or district belonging to it, whoever shall find the heretical man or woman shall boldly seize, with impunity, all his or their goods, and freely carry them off. [...] The head of state, or whatever ruler stands foremost in the public esteem, must cause the heretics who have been arrested in this manner to be taken to whatever jurisdiction the Diocesan, or his surrogate, is in, or whatever district, or city, or place the Diocesan bishop wishes to take them to. [...] *The head of state or ruler **_must force_** all the heretics whom he has in custody, provided he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs* to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know.
It may be hard to agree on anything within Christendom but I hope that at least our Catholic and Orthodox friends love the Word of God. At least they believe in the Word. Now some ‘Protestant’ denominations reject it or don’t believe in all of it anymore.
Hi Dr. Ortlund! Can you comment on the general trend over the last 40 or so years of educated and even high profile converts from various Protestant denominations to Catholicism or Orthodoxy who consistently claim that reading the ECF was a major part of their conversion process? I have spent significant time looking for and asking Protestants to provide counter examples (in which someone reads the ECF and decides to leave the Catholic or Orthodox faith for Protestantism) and have found or been provided none. What do you make of this? What do you think they are missing? Given that the evidence is the same, and perhaps all that has changed is access to it (with the advent of the Internet), it would seem that the biggest difference is the hermeneutic framework. But, I have a very difficult time figuring out what YOUR framework is from this video.
The interesting thing about Ignatius is that his comments on the Eucharist are not present in the Syriac manuscripts. I can only conclude that they are interpolations, because why would they be redacted from the other manuscripts? This issue needs more exposure, research and discussion.
I’m a Protestant and my reading of the Apostolic Fathers solidified my views. You will not find evidence for Papuan, Mariology, and the evidence on the real presence is sketchy. I feel the same with Just Matyr, although not schooled directly by the Apostles was early 1st century and often lumped in with Apostolic Fathers. I believe his strong comments on the real presence in the 1st Apology are interpolated. You need only to compare them with his comments in the Dialogue with Trypho.
Hi, what do you think about Irenaeus in “Against the Heresies” book III, Ch. 3. Where he says the bishop of Rome has authority of very church, the way Jesus intended it to be. And lists the first 12 bishops of Rome. Irenaeus who was taught by Polycarp who was also taught by John the Apostle.
Irenaeus said churches "should" agree with the church of Rome, given that it is one of the most ancient and was founded by the 2 most reverenced Apostles, but He didn't say these churches "must" submit to Rome's authority as some sort of God's commandment.
Iraeneus advice has more to do with trusting in the well known virtuous reputation and heritage of the Church of Rome at that time, than asserting some sort of divine right to govern all the other churches.
@@haroldgamarra7175 why does he have to say the language you want him to say. It says as a matter of necessity, every church should agree with this church. And calls it “preeminent authority “ and lists the succession, translated to English. It sounds clear to me. Sounds like the Bishop of Rome today.
@@JJ-cw3nf He says that Rome has preeminent authority in regards to its traditions yet read on and he says in that same chapter verse 3 that Rome sent a letter to the Corinthians explaining what those traditions are and in short it's basically the Oneness of God and the gospel ect. None of the Marian Dogmas or papal infallibility that you have now.
@@ReformedR Ireneaus couldn’t be any clear of the role of Bishop of Rome and office established by Jesus. If I were writing about the Pope I’d write something similar.. The Marian dogma of the “immaculate conception” was declared infallible way later, and four years later in “Our lady of Lourdes” Mary appeared identifying herself as “I am the immaculate conception”, thus confirming Papal infallibility
@@JJ-cw3nf mate actually read irenaus and don't read into him he isn't even talking about the bishop and if a supposed sighting of Mary equals infallibility then surely The Hindus who saw statues of Vishnu drinking milk are also infallibility. Do not look for things that tickle ears
Where are The Bishop's in the Protestant churches?
So you would take John Calvin over Ignatius?
Lutheran presbyter-bishops are bishops. Anglicans and Moravians have Episcopal bishops.
"The writings of the Apostle do not agree entirely with the hierarchy which is now in the Church, because they were written at the very beginning. He even calls Timothy, whom he himself made a presbyter, the bishop, because first presbyters were being called bishops becuase when a bishop passed away, a presbyter succeeded him. In Egypt, presbyters even do confirm if the bishop is absent." --Ambrosiaster commenting on Ephesians 4:11-12
St. Willehad the presbyter built churches and ordained presbyters in Lower Saxony starting in 781. He was not made bishop until 787. Nobody thought he was acting wrongly or reconsecrated his presbyters.
Paphnutius the presbyter ordained his own successor, Daniel, according to Cassian.
There's also the famous Letter 146 of Jerome.
The Assyrian Church of the East did not change from a presbyterial to an episcopal structure until the 300s.
These examples have led several Papist scholars to conclude that Presbyterial ordination is not entirely invalid.
Fr. George Tavard concluded that presbyterial successions are a matter of history, and said:
"I would be prepared to go further, and to admit that episcopal succession is not absolutely required for valid ordination…. The main problem, in our ecumenical context, does not lie in evaluating historical lines of succession, but in appreciating the catholicity of Protestantism today."
Fr. Harry McSorley concluded, after a thorough study of the Council of Trent:
"We can say without qualification that there is nothing whatever in the Tridentine doctrine on sacrament of order concerning the reality of the eucharist celebrated by Christians of the Reformation churches. Catholic theologians who have maintained that there is no sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in Protestant churches because Protestant ministers are radically incapable of consecrating the eucharist are incorrect if they think this opinion is necessitated by the teaching of Trent."
th-cam.com/video/-0w1TtfTIlU/w-d-xo.html
@@Mygoalwogel thanks I appreciate that.
That was my whole point, to show that it is biblical 💯to have Bishops in the churches as leaders, to pass down their teaching just like tradition, &goes to Deacon's ,priests teaching the church. Not pastors as u see in Protestant churches 2day.
Luther and Anglican churches took this teaching because they know it was biblical, As they took the sacraments as well. something Luther couldn't not let go, he knew bread and wine has the blood& body of Christ was biblical, but we don't see this in Protestant churches.
so basically it's really hard for me now after my studies as an ex-protestant now, on how can such knowledgeable men who study so many Christian theologians be so intelligent to not see the true history of the holy Apostolic Catholic orthodox church, they still do not believe its the true church. R early church's were not Protestants @ all. So Catholics r right to say they r not in the body of Christ.
So people that dont believe in the spiritual world & evil powers , all u have to do is look @ educated men like this YT, who study and still can't see the truth blinded by the devil. I pray he wakes up one day
God bless u 🙏🏼💯☦
I recommend you check out "The Ignatian Epistles Entirely Spurious" by W.D. Killen (available from Project Gutenberg). He gives a number of reasons why the letters of Ignatius do not fit well into the time period of the early 2nd century and a theory as to how and why they were created later at the beginning of the third century to try and give support for a mono-episcopal structure in the early church.
I am reading the writings of Ignatius currently. He seems to have a strange obsession with the title “bishop” regardless of the character of the person who fills that role. It would be like me writing, ‘respect your boss’ to a bunch of coworkers without referencing the bosses name. 5 months later, we get a new boss. What if the new boss is corrupt? Something just seems odd with Ignatius’s letters in regardless to the contents about “bishop”. Is it possible his writings were modified by a third party? If so, it would have happened under Emperor Constantine by Eusebius possibly?
That's your protestantism kicking in. Why would St Ignatius have you (people who don't like bishop) in mind when you didn't exist?
@@koppite9600 It was about power and control, and his writings was modified under Constantine. Who wanted to centralize the church around him and Rome. I am making videos on this right now. Christians did not use altars at the time of Ignatias btw. That did not come in, until around Constantine’s time. Obvious modification to the writings.
@@soteriology400 sounds like a rabbit hole for conspiracies to follow
@@koppite9600 Nope, plenty of evidence. I am not blinded by labels, such as “church fathers”. Some have used the name of an apostle to legitimize their church, others have used the name of an apostle to climb the corporate ladder within the church. I am not naive when reading. If you don’t want to study this in depth, no one is twisting your arm. This all removes specks from the eye and was very helpful.
I highly doubt that Ignatius would have approved of a corrupt or heretical bishop. The entire point of a bishop was to safeguard orthodoxy from corruption and heresy. In his mind, I'm sure he meant to qualify his views on bishops as those who were properly ordained and who taught the orthodox faith.
The first church was in Jerusalem had James as overseer and it appears there was a council of elders. They held to orthodoxy and Paul and Barnabus went to them to seek council concerning the mixed Jewish/Gentile congregation. I found 15 Overseers of this church. James until 62 and Judas until 135. Are there any records from this Jerusalem congregation concerning their practice on baptism and the Eucharist, did they Believe that those who had died could intercede for them? How much Greek Philosophy has influenced some of the early church and its formation? I don’t really see the Jerusalem church allowing any of that. I know their were Hellenistic Jews in the church at Antioch…. Did Greek culture and Philosophy enter into the early church during that time?
I do very much think that a high view of the Eucharist (whether that's Luther, Calvin, Rome, or Orthodox) and a high view of spiritual leadership (Presbyterian, Episcopal, and others) have a lot of value. Whatever the outcome is, that does butt up against some Protestant views that maybe have been less thought through, maybe. I don't want to assume.
Also, from many if not most of the Fathers, apostolic succession, to be legitimate, requires adherence to apostolic doctrine as well as actual succession. Both are necessary. I think it was Gregory of Nazianzus who said something like "the road to hell is paved by the skulls of bishops".
Saint Irenaeus “Against Heresies, Book III Ch 3”is an early list of the bishops of Rome ca. 175 AD. Don’t know if it’s the earliest.
There is 1 Peter 5:13, where Peter and Mark send greetings from “Babylon”, an allegory for Rome, where Peter was bishop; his first bishopric was Antioch tho.
The constant witness from the beginning makes hard work for anyone who wants to say there was no bishop in Rome from Peter onward.
I don't see anything about Peter as bishop of Rome in I Peter 5:13, or even in Irenaeus. Also, a problem with Irenaeus' list is that it contradicts Tertullian's. I address that more fully here: th-cam.com/video/eP2U_bC-oUI/w-d-xo.html
@@TruthUnites is it that you don’t see him in Rome or that he was bishop?
I wasn’t aware of Tertullian’s list, but that there are discrepancies in the order not surprising, especially between Cletus and Clement. What is universally believed however is that there were bishops in Rome since Peter. My proof for this isn’t very fancy, just search the web and see. Unless you claim access to some esoteric source That labels them differently, but then, what is the authority of that source?
@@mikelopez8564 its that I don't see him as the bishop. Discrepancies call the accuracy into question. Especially because its not just in order, but more more fundamental discrepancies (e.g., Irenaeus has no conception of Peter as the first bishop). Once the monarchical episcopate develops, of course people will claim its continuity with the past. But all the early evidence (e.g., Heb. 13, Shepherd 1.2.4) indicates a plurality of leaders at Rome early on. I think evidence from the time in question must be given due weight. I go into this more in the video I linked to. God bless.
Arguing that episcopos & presbyter are the same because the new testament qualifications for the 2 are similar fails because for both of those roles would you not want those qualifications? Being enlisted & being an officer have similar but they are not interchangeable. In both cases having a clean background with no ties to our enemies is a great qualification for both roles. Not today protestants
So helpful! Thank you!
Glad it was helpful Ruben!
With regard to two or three orders of Clerics in the early Church. You do make a good point in mentioning that in some places we read Episcopos and Presbyteros being used interchangeably, I'd have to see where and what translation you use for Bishop and Deacon being interchangeable. The reality is there seems from the Scriptures that Christ only laid hands on the Apostles, Paul tells us of his doing likewise on Timothy and Titus. Deacons were a creation of the Apostles to assist the bishop or Apostles. It is a historical fact that the Bishops had the Presbyters as advisors and helpers, they would assist not just with the governing and advising him, but also celebrating the Eucharist with him. As the Church grew, and the Bishop could not be present at all the celebrations of the Eucharist, the members of the Presbyterium would go out to the expanding Church, taking with them a portion of the consecrated bread which they would place into the cup as a symbol of the communion or unity with the Bishop. As to Deacons, who were originally servants or assistants to the Bishop, there seems to be no evidence of them being tasked as the presbyters to celebrate the Eucharist, they would sometimes take communion to the sick, or those in prison, but not actually celebrate the Eucharist. In the West the three orders of Bishop, priest and deacon are seen as one Order, the Bishop having the fullness of the office, as he can ordain, a man as Bishop priest or deacon. At least in the time before the 1970s in the Roman Rite, this was symbolized by the bishop wearing his stole uncrossed, as a sign of his full unfettered authority, the priest would cross his stole a symbol of the limits of his authority, and the deacon with the stole on his left shoulder, and under his right, to symbolize the authority he was given is limited to that of his office. So the priest and deacon would share in the priesthood, but not be vested with the full authority Christ gave the Apostles,
Just as in secular society, as ideas develop, one would not expect to see each and every idea fully expressed in the earlier description. In the same way that looking at an acorn and a mighty oak, one may not at first see the relation between the two. The DNA is the same, the potential to grow into the oak is there, but as a seed or even a sapling one would not know seeing them isolated from each other that they are the same plant at different stages of development.
In the Modern Roman Rite, the Gospel read last Sunday tells us of the promise of the Holy Ghost who would lead and teach all things to the Apostles, I find that there are many who want the Scriptures to tell us everything we need to know, and reject anything not explicitly stated in it. Rather than accept that the promise of the Holy Ghost to guide the episcopate, (as successors of the Apostles) would continue to be guided by Him,
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church?
The quotes provided below are historical facts in reference to our early church which existed prior to Romes adoption of Christianity in 313 A.D.
Church:
* "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrneans 8 (c. A.D. 110)]
Bishop, Priest & Deacon:
* “Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, because he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ [St. Ignatius of Antioch- Letter to the Magnesians 2 (c. A.D. 110)].
Eucharist:
* “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ, which have come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Ash that suffered for our sins and that the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” [St. Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6-7 (c. A.D. 110)].
Scripture:
* “[W]hoever perverts the sayings of the Lord for his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, is the firstborn of Satan. Let us leave the foolishness and the false teaching of the crowd and turn back to the word that was delivered to us in the beginning.” [St. Polycrap of Smyrna - Letter to the Philippians 7 (c. A.D. 135)].
Sunday:
* “But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead.” [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 67 (c. A.D. 151)].
Actions/Works:
* “We have learned from the prophets, and we believe it is true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. If it is not so, then all things happen by fate, and nothing is in our own power. If it is fated that this man be good, and this other evil, the former is not meritorious nor the latter blameworthy [St. Justin Martyr - First Apology 43 (c. A.D. 151)].
Apostolic Succession:
* “It is within the power of all, 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 instituted bishops in the churches by the apostles, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew anything these [heretics] rave about.” [St. Irenaeus of Lyons - Against Heresies 3:3:1 (c. A.D. 189)]
Baptism:
* “The children shall be baptized first. All the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21 (c. A.D. 215)].
Confession:
* “After this, one of the bishops present, at the request of all, laying his hand on him who is ordained bishop, shall pray this way: O God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. pour forth the power that is from you, of "the princely Spirit' that you delivered to your beloved Child, Jesus Christ, and that he bestowed on your holy apostles, who established the Church that hallows you everywhere, for the endless glory and praise of your name. Father, "who knows the hearts [of all]” grant this servant, who you have chosen for the episcopate, to feed your holy flock and serve as your high priest blamelessly night and day, and unceasingly turn away wrath from your face and offer to you the gifts of the holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority "to forgive sins" according to your command.” [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 2-3 (c. A.D. 215)].
Confirmation:
* “The bishop will then lay his hand upon them, invoking, "Lord God, you who have made these worthy of the removal of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit, grant to them your grace, that they might serve you according to your will, for to you is the glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen." After this he pours the oil into his hand, and laying his hand on each of their heads, says, "I anoint you with holy oil in God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus, and the Holy Spirit." Then, after sealing each of them on the forehead, he shall give them the kiss of peace and say, "The Lord be with you." And the one who has been baptized shall say, "And with your spirit." So shall he do to each one [St. Hippolytus of Rome - Apostolic Tradition 21-22 (c. A.D. 215).
Peter’s Authority:
* “The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you,' he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. [Mt 16:18-19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed the others were also what Peter was [apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair.... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?.” [St. Cyprian of Carthage - Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)].
These few topics (but a glimpse) were not only discussed but settled BEFORE Rome adopted Christianity (The Catholic Church) and eventually became The Roman Catholic Church as it also adopted its name after 313 A.D.
Is the Catholic Church Jesus’ original church? Yes!
Does this excuse all its mistakes and sins from the record? Of course not! As Christians, we are called to hold the church accountable, not leave it and let evil flourish within it.
This refusal of accountability within every Christian has led to over 40,000 diferente Christian churches and the ignorance which has flourished from it.
“This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ. Then we will no longer be immature like children. We won’t be tossed and blown about by every wind of new teaching. We will not be influenced when people try to trick us with lies so clever they sound like the truth. Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church.” Ephesians 4:13-15
We are called by God to unite! What better church to do it under than the one he started.
I was a low church Protestant, and Ignatius' letters convinced me of Episcopalianism and the salvific presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But I have stayed a Protestant. As you mentioned, it is not like the only two options are 1) low church Protestant or 2) Roman Catholic. You can be a Protestant and yet have an incredibly high view of the sacraments. In fact, I find it to be the most biblical and reasonable view.
In his second letter to Timothy, St. Paul writes, “For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come” (2 Timothy 4:6; cf. Philippians 2:7). Generally, the term used for sacrifice in Greek is “thusia;” however, St. Paul uses the first person singular passive verb “spendomai,” which translated means “to pour out,” as in a libation or drink-offering. This expression is an allusion to the Jewish ritual of pouring wine into the altar after the sacrificial animal had been burnt (cf. Numbers 28:7). St. Paul employs this metaphor to cast his own martyrdom in a liturgical light. Thus, his death becomes a public act of worship, whereby he offers himself both bodily and spiritually to God, much in the same way that Christ offered himself on the cross.
The Eucharistic overtones of the Greek verb are more clearly seen in the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who in his letter to the Romans, writes, “Do not seek to confer any greater favor upon me than that I be sacrificed to God while the altar is still prepared.”[1] Here, St. Ignatius picks up on the apostle’s metaphor, even employing the same Greek verb (spendomai). However, he expands on the sacrificial metaphor by referring to himself as the bread and wheat of Christ in the same letter. He writes,
Allow me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body; so that when I have fallen asleep, I may be no trouble to any one. Then shall I truly be a disciple of Christ, when the world shall not see so much as my body.[2] (emphasis mine)
The Letter to the Romans contains three essential elements of the Mass: an altar, an allusion to wine, and two explicit references to the Eucharist. St. Ignatius not only identifies himself with the Eucharist, but also parallels his martyrdom which the Eucharistic sacrifice, which is offered upon the altar of God.
We also find Eucharistic allusions in three of Ignatius’ other letters.[3] Here, I will only cite his letters to the Philadelphians and Smyrnaeans. In his Letter to the Philadelphians, St. Ignatius compares the bread and wine to the flesh and blood of Christ which he says are offered upon the altar. He writes,
Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth ] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God.[4]
….
I flee to the Gospel as to the flesh of Jesus, and to the apostles as to the presbytery of the Church.[5]
However, the most explicit statement in support of Eucharistic realism is found in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans. Ignatius writes,
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.[6]
St. Ignatius says that the Eucharist is the self-same flesh of Christ which suffered and which the Father, of his goodness, raised up again. The article in Greek is neuter, so it's not merely that Jesus was raised, but that his flesh was raised. The flesh *which* suffered, and the flesh *which* was raised for our salvation. In essence, by emphasizing the literalism of the bodily resurrection, he is also emphasizing a particular view of the Eucharist, namely, the Real Presence (as opposed to a purely symbolic or pneumatological understanding of the Eucharist). The Real Presence of the Eucharist is also reaffirmed by the sufferings of the martyrs. St. Ignatius writes in the same letter,
But if these things were done by our Lord only in appearance, then am I also only in appearance bound? And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But he who is near to the sword is near to God; he that is among the wild beasts is in company with God; provided only he be so in the name of Jesus Christ. I undergo all these things that I may suffer together with Him, He who became a perfect man inwardly strengthening me.[7]
Here, Ignatius is writing in opposition to the Docetists (a Gnostic sect). The Docetists rejected the bodily sufferings of Christ because they denied he possessed a physical body. However, Ignatius argues that the physical sufferings of the martyrs would be rendered meaningless if Christ did not suffer bodily also. He incorporates the Eucharist into his argument in chapter 7 by suggesting that their refusal to participate in the Eucharist reflects their disbelief in the bodily sufferings and resurrection of Christ. By connecting the Eucharist to the bodily sufferings of Christ, Ignatius is not only emphasizing Eucharistic realism, but also the sacrificial nature of the Mass itself. The martyrs, through their sufferings and death, are not only united to Christ on the cross, but also the Eucharistic sacrifice itself, as Ignatius implies in his letter to the Romans. As Catholic theologian, Servais Pinckaers, writes
Just as Christ truly suffered in his body, so Ignatius suffers in his own body to the point of shedding blood, and it is also the body and blood of Jesus that Christians receive in the Eucharist, as fortifying nourishment. It is for this reason that the Docetists, denying the reality of the Passion, did not participate in the celebration of the Eucharist and rendered the sufferings of the martyrs pointless.[8]
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Eucharist and Mission: A Preliminary Consideration, trans. by Vincent Twomey, S.V.D., Irish Theological Quarterly 65 (2000), 257-259.
III. Martyrdom, Christian Life, and Apostolic Ministry as the Actual Fulfilment of the Eucharist
After considering in broad outline the specific sacramental level of eucharistic theology in the New Testament, specifically in the First Letter to the Corinthians, we must look, however briefly, at the third level. This level I should like to call the ’existential’ level, so as to draw some conclusions for the theme of Eucharist and mission. Here I will discuss three texts: Phil 2:17 (to which 2 Tim 4:6 once again briefly alludes); in addition : Rom 12:1 and 15:16
1. Martyrdom as the Christian becoming Eucharist ’
In the Letter to the Philippians, Paul, in prison and awaiting trial, speaks about the possibility of martyrdom, and he does so, astonishingly, in liturgical language: ’Even if I am to be poured as a libation on the sacrificial offering of your faith.’ The Apostle’s martyrdom is of a liturgical character, it is a pouring out of life as a sacrifice, allowing oneself to be poured out for humanity, What happens here is a becoming one with the self-gift of Jesus Christ, with his great act of love, which itself is the true adoration of God. The martyrdom of the apostle participates in the mystery of the Christ’s Cross and in its theological dignity. It becomes lived liturgy, which is recognised as such in faith and is itself a service for the faith. Because it is true liturgy, it also brings about what all liturgy aims at: joy, that joy which can only arise from the encounter between man and God, from the abolition of the limits of earthly existence.
What Paul hints at here in one single, short sentence, is fully developed in the account of the martyrdom of Saint Polycarp. The entire martyrdom is depicted as liturgy, indeed, as the becoming Eucharist of the martyr, who enters into full communion with the Pasch of Jesus Christ and thus becomes Eucharist with him. To begin with, it is recounted how the great bishop is chained and his hands bound to his back. Thus he appears ’like a noble ram (lamb!), who is led to God from the great herd, a sacrifice pleasing to God and prepared for him.’ The martyr, who in the meantime has been placed on the pyre and tied up there, now utters a kind of Eucharistic Prayer: he gives thanks for the knowledge of God, which has been granted to him though his beloved Son, Jesus Christ. He praises God, because he has been found worthy to receive a share in the chalice of Jesus with a view to the resurrection. Finally, he prays with words taken from the Book of Daniel, which in all probability had at an earlier stage been taken up into the Christian liturgy: ’to be accepted before you today as a pleasing and rich offering ...’ The text ends in a great doxology, as liturgical Eucharistic Prayers do. After Polycarp had spoken the Amen, the slaves light the pyre, and now a threefold miracle is reported, in which once again the liturgical character of the occurrence is portrayed in its diverse significance. The fire first of all takes on the form of a sail enclosing the saint on all sides. The burning pyre appears like a ship with billowing sails that transports the martyr across the boundaries of the earth into the hands of God. However, his burnt body, it is said, appears not like burnt flesh but rather like baked bread. And finally, there is no smell of burnt flesh; what those present inhale is a sweet scent ’like that of incense or precious aromas’. The pleasant odour is, in the Old as in the New Testament, a constitutive ingredient of the theology of sacrifice. In Paul, it is an expression of a life become pure, no longer exuding the stench of the lie and corruption, the decaying smell of death, but rather the refreshing air of life and love, the atmosphere suited to God and healing to man. Thus the image of the pleasant aroma and that of becoming bread belong together: the martyr has become like Christ; his life has become an offering. Not from him the poison of the decomposition of the living caused by the power of death; from him radiates the power of life, he nurtures life, as good bread lets us live. Surrender into the body of Christ has triumphed over the power of death: the martyr lives and gives life, precisely through his death, and so he himself has entered into the eucharistic mystery. Martyrdom is a source of faith.
But you can't just make a new Church in the 16th century or later and claim to have a valid Eucharist, even if you view it highly. There is ONE Eucharist, ONE Church because Christ has ONE body. I can't just go start my own Church, claim to believe in baptismal regeneration and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and have it be so. No.. those "sacraments" that I perform will not have the grace that the True Church, Orthodoxy, has. Only one Church can have the sacraments, not thousands of different sects all claiming to have them whilst simultaneously believing different doctrines.
th-cam.com/play/PLG8ujnM0COm6TzQc8YwjQzYEizTOX4bkC.html
I mean it should just be common sense lol. As if Christ would want 1000's of different institutions, when all the Early Church Fathers were in the same ONE Church and condemned people who were outside of that, such as the gnostics sects who all claimed to follow Jesus too. St. Ignatius says in his epistles that if someone leaves the Church and joins a schismatic sect, they will not inherit the Kingdom of God. How Protestants reconcile this, I have no idea
Please give a reference/citation for the Jerome quote.
Jerome, Commentary on Titus 1:7.
The reason you're surprised at how quickly people move on from protestantism is because people realize how many sacred traditions were disregarded, and then no longer wish to cherry-pick whatever flavor of reformation fits their remaining views. And instead realize they made a more fundamental error. It's not "just" the Eurcharist, its the feeling of being duped into a protestant branch with no real authority itself that stands out the most. Its the realization that we shouldnt pick a church like its a vending machine. Its the craving for something that can teach us, not just us to select for it, as if we already know the criteria. That is why I'm becoming Catholic.
Matt. 20:25Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave- 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Those who love titles and authority and to be first are rejected.
It always seems interesting how we elevate the church "fathers" as if their proximity to the apostles is some sort of argument towards them having the correct views.
So much of the Epistles of the NT are corrective, in spite of them being founded by Apostles and having people in charge who were appointed by them.
We don't even know if those letters got things sorted, but they make it clear that they were required by people taught and appointed directly by apostles.
Yes let's trust modern Protestants over people who were direct students of the Apostles. Why do you choose to elevate Gavin and Protestant reformers over Church Fathers? Which one has the higher chance of being wrong? Hmmm idk
@@ThomasG_Nikolaj So you can't read to well, huh?
The NT churches were "direct students of the Apostles" and that didn't stop them from believing heresies.
@@georgechristiansen6785 Those heresies have nothing to do with Orthodoxy lol, most of them were Judaizing, which is not Orthodoxy. Protestantism didn't exist for 1500 years pal, you believe in a false gospel created by unholy men
@@georgechristiansen6785 Imagine unironically believing that the first 1500 years of Christianity had it all wrong and the Reformers came and got it all right 😂
@@ThomasG_Nikolaj Yup. You genuinely suck at reading. Get that sorted and you might learn some things.
Imagine not having read any of the reformers and thus not knowing they quoted the church "fathers" at least as much as scripture.
Hi Gavin, currently a reformed Baptist here. It’s easy to see why many Protestants convert to Catholicism after reading Ignatius. Because many Protestants are told that the authority of the bishops and the real presence were late first millennium accretions. When people realise they’ve been lied to they get annoyed. Also, in Protestantism the memorial view of the Eucharist is now THE dominant view despite Luther and Calvin not sharing this view. So in essence, Protestantism has had more accretions in this area than the Catholic Church. From one very frustrated Baptist.
The other thing is that Anglicanism and Lutheranism have become corrupted by having female priests and also blessing same sex unions. In this area, they’ve (again) had more accretions than the Catholic Church. 🤷🏼♂️
As Chesterton notes, "There are ten thousand reasons (why he is a Catholic) all amounting to one reason." The letters of St. Ignatius are but one of the reasons I converted after 32 years of being a protestant. I maintain that there is not, and cannot be, a criterion in protestantism. This was a massive problem for me. There is ultimately nothing that prevents me from discarding any ancient teaching. For example, it is generally agreed that the Fathers unanimously understood the water in John 3:5 to be a reference to baptism. John Calvin, in his commentary on John 3 admits this, then states the implications of this interpretation (baptism is the cause of salvation), but ultimately rejects the Father's understanding. He writes, "I cannot bring myself to believe that Christ speaks of baptism; for it would have been inappropriate."
The weight of this argument is seldom felt by protestants. Can I be a monothelite? Can a reject that the Blessed Mother is the Mother of God? Can I believe that the water in John 3:5 is amniotic fluid? As a Catholic, I am not left to my own private interpretation on this matters. While I recognize the fair criticisms of certain Catholic dogmas, I usually find that these have more weight than what I recognized at first blush.
Ultimately, I'm Catholic because I believe one needs to be in communion with the Successor of St. Peter, i.e., The Bishop of Rome. And this seems to me to have ample support among the patristics, and is undeniable as we move along in Church history. Whether I like him or not, the current Holy Father is that successor.
Thank you for the honesty and charity that fill your remarks. May the Lord Jesus Christ light your path.
@@Democracyofthedead you realize that you can believe in baptismal regeneration WITHOUT believing that someone who - and I quote - says "all religions are ways to God" is the vicar of Christ?
@@D12Min No need to be condescending, friend. Yes, I realize this. Perhaps you’re missing the point. By what authority does a Lutheran tell a “Reformed” Baptist she is wrong about this?
The Great Gift which is the Eucharist involves priest who is a successor to the Apostles, as well as a prepared parishioner who has recently confessed. If these two things are present then the joy of the Eucharist is unspeakable. I wish everyone could enjoy this. Other than Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism, I am not aware of any "church" which has
maintained Apostolic succession in its clergy. So.... makes sense to move to Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism rather than to some other Protestant tradition.
@kansashoneybadger7899 I recently learned that the word 'Eucharist' ... means simply "thanksgiving". You sound like a person who is experiencing Christ very closely through the mass, b/c you expressed how you are experiencing tremendous joy when celebrating Jesus' sacrifice in the Eucharist within your Church. That's something to rejoice over for sure.
I have a question about what we do in our religious practices that pleases God. And so I wondered what your views are of 2 teachings / exhortations in the New Testament. One is from Jesus and one from James.
[Quick side note: It seems that different Christian Denominations stand firmly on their personal high views of their own traditions - which they are certain are based on both sound doctrine and the most important doctrines. But over the ages we've been known to knee-jerk from strong opposition or separatists, the scars of which will shape a new emphasis on (1) what it actually takes to achieve right standing with God (regeneration), and then also how to actually maintain right standing before God (sanctification). Our religious methods seem to develop around these 2 key things: beliefs of how we add more members to our church and beliefs of how we grow the spiritual depth of each member. End side note]
My question is: What do you think might be the reason for so few people today transformed by the Eucharist as say, like Mother Teresa? Her testimony is that it was her deep communing with Christ through the sacraments and prayer that brought about her transformed life. It produced tremendous humility and a capacity to love the least, show amazing mercy to the lost, and keep herself separated from worldly pursuits and impurity. Why don't we see and hear more of this kind of transformed life. Why does the Eucharist seem to impact and alter the lives of people at such drastically different levels?
I think the heart and meaning in the following 2 verses are leading me toward possible answers. But was curious about your perspective.
Matthew 12:7
[7] And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.
James 1:27
[27] Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
@@mattnelms2522 That is more than I want to get into. Short answer: people put in differing levels of commitment and persistence across time. No disrespect but I am not a priest or a theologian. Cheers
If you don’t believe in infants baptism then you are not a Protestant
Good one!
You always seem to think presbyters hold more weight than Bishops do in early writings, yet I have never heard you mention any of the Presbyters by their name. Why not? Could you please give their names so I can compare their credentials to the Bishops. Thanks in advance. Forgive me if it sounds snarky it’s a genuine question and don’t mean it that way.
Good stuff 👍🏻
I grew up SBC and the epistles of Ignatius (along with the other apostolic fathers and Eusebius) propelled me on my journey out of low church evangelicalism to explore the claims of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, becoming a catechumen in the latter for a brief time. However for various reasons, I ultimately did not swim the Bosphorus nor the Tiber, but took the Canterbury Trail into traditional Anglicanism where I’ve basically been for the past 15 years. I agree with your advice that people seriously reading the early church fathers do not need to inevitably jump to Rome or Constantinople-classical Anglicanism and confessional Lutheranism are both solid alternatives.
Kiday -that’s interesting. If I may ask, what was it that led you to swim the Tiber, and what was it that led you to swim back?
Bersules -I know that straw man is convenient to erect for polemical purposes, but it’s not even close to accurately capturing the ethos and self-understanding of the reformed Church in England, a certain king’s sinful proclivities notwithstanding.
As a former Baptist now Anglican, I agree. I think the issue is most people see ELCA and TEC when they see Lutheranism and Anglicanism (which they're bigger than the actually orthodox counterparts so makes sense).
@@wesmorgan7729 -yes, you may be right
Anglican and Lutheran lines are null and void…
Thank you. Excellent insight. I have a different view of apostolic succession than most. I treat it like Abrahamic succession, by faith not birth, or by ordination succession. As we are sons of Abraham by having the faith of Abraham, so we are in apostolic succession by following the faith of the apostles. The one in physical apostolic succession can wander from the faith and not be in spiritual alignment with the apostles, thus not in any kind of spiritual apostolic succession.
Dr. Gavlin, as a protestant who has been diving deep into Catholicism, Orthodoxy, as well as considering Lutheranism and Anglicanism, you are the very first to come along and begin helping me sort things out from a Protestant perspective.
Mostly because there are so few that actually care about the early church fathers and the sacredness of the Eucharist.
But there is one thing you have said in another video and in this one that is incorrect.
Lutherans do not believe in Consubstantiation. They reject that doctrine and get frustrated with people who misrepresent them.
If you go to the LCMS website, it denounces it as well. What they will say, and what Jordan B. Cooper and Brian Wolfmueller will say is that they believe that it really is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, but they don't try to explain it through Aristotelian reasoning. It's a mystery to accept, not explain.
Interestingly though, there are some Anglican groups, though not widespread, that do believe in Consubstantiation.
I really look forward to watching your video on the Eucharist. It has been a big struggle for me for the last two years.
Thanks so much!
Thanks, I'm glad the videos have been helpful! I have heard some Lutherans disavow the term consubstantiation. That is interesting -- I wonder how widespread that is? It's a pretty typical term for the Lutheran tradition. Either way, I think the more general point that Lutherans believe in a high account of real presence remains.
Isn't Consubstantiation mentioned explicitly in The (39) Articles of Religion in the (Church of England) Book of Common Prayer (1662)?
Thanks so much Gavin! Same here, really seeking through history. Thanks for sharing your knowledge!
@@jessedutch3086 so glad it was useful for you!
Thank you, Dr. Gavlin.
Consubstantiation really took hold during the Oxford Movement among the high anglicans in particular.
After researching a bit more, it seems like a common belief rather than one that only a fringe group of anglicans believe.
I tried to send you a link to a Lutheran statement that rejects the doctrine but it didn't work.
Will see if I can try again later!
The main reason I was keen to join the Ignatius-friendly Episcopal/Anglican Communion from Baptist is because I went to a Baptist high school, college and theological graduate school where I had to read Greek, and Origen and the apostolic fathers. The low sacramentalism, iconoclasm, trail of blood mythology, recent origins, cherry picking, proof texting, hostility and rancor in the evangelical wing of the church is outrageous. The stories I heard in seminary in the 1980's about how churches and church boards eat people alive is unbelievable, putting the Phar in pharisee and the sad in sadducee. Most of this is on account of the American middle class (church class) being inherently broken as a culturally illiterate desert, fixated on purity/punishment/judgment over mercy/kindness/peace. The more you read the gospels themselves, and the epistle of James, the apostolic fathers, the Didache, the Septuagint tradition, the Enochian literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the harder it is to put your head into the sand of Baptist heresy with its cheap grace and eternal security brand of Calvinism that flies in the face of 1,500 years of warnings against falling away. The best thing about the Episcopal/Anglican worship is that it is centered not in the Institutes or the Book of Concord but in the words of Scripture in the Book of Common Prayer, the liturgical genius of Cranmer and Peter Martyr, and the importance of prayer as a rule of life throughout the 24 hour day. Gavin Ortlund you're doing God's work out there, keep it up, even though I'm not a Baptist anymore, I think you're pretty terrific.
If Ignatius and Polycarp - two of the greatest and most revered Christians of the early second century - disagreed on something like church hierarchy so soon after they both studied under St. John the Apostle, it would stand to reason that the Church began to descend into error within the lifetime of the Apostles. Yet we get no push back anywhere in the historical record when Ignatius's view on church organization seemingly won out. I also doubt Polycarp and Ignatius would have been so buddy buddy with one another if they disagreed on something that seemed, at least to Ignatius, to be of the utmost importance to his theology. The man was so fanatical he begged the Christians in Rome not to attempt a rescue because he so wanted to be a martyr for Christ in the Coliseum.
This is a classic argument from silence.
I think there is a major problem the moment you start to more away from the notion that spiritual revelation from God is somehow inferior to the status, office or calling of any kind of clergy or church leadership. For the moment you do that you are essentially forming the very thing Jesus criticized the Pharisees of doing. Its dangerous to put so much emphasis on the Bishop as a office, because of the power it gives the Bishop to do things contrary to the spirit of God where eventually you would be no better or worse of following a atheist or secular leader.
Ignatius was no Paul or Peter, and I would take Paul and Peter's word and testimony over Ignatius's any day. The most interesting part for me is that perhaps the writings of Ignatius to some degree reveal what started to become the downward spiral of Christianity, which opened the door for the Catholic church to try to make Christianity a sign seeking, saint worshipping, wealth loving, blindly obedient practice where people stopped listening to the spirit and being able to reason and think for themselves.
Luther was baptized shortly after his birth because he was raised as a Catholic. Martin became a monk in the Augustine order and a priest.
Hey I just came across this topic, and like you said in the video. I heard it mostly as a argument against Protestantism, I was wondering if there are any books you recommend to someone getting into early church history I am really interested in this topic in general.
To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.
I don't think Popes were always under sway of Emperors. Constantine was probably an Arianist and for sure his successor was but I don't think the Pope(s?) started to accept Arianism (correct me if I'm wrong).
I am a Catholic, mostly due to what I view as compelling logic found in the writings of the apostolic fathers. But this video is good. It's a nice and logical summary of the tenable Protestant interpretation of these writings. 👍
Also, there is the possibility that people can be mistaken and that other influences can creep in. The "church fathers" were human they can be wrong about many things just as we can be.
I was raised non-denominational attending a local Baptist Church. I lost my faith studying science but encountered God by very supernatural experiences that merged well with my naturalism and while I tried to avoid Christianity in favour of exploring less familiar narratives and disciplines, God had other ideas. Long story short I felt like a prodigal son led out of the wilderness by our Good Shepherd only to find the flock was scattered.
However... one theme that has developed for me as an ecologist appraising a diverse but singular humanity struggling to face up to our faults as nature's stewards is the constant realisation that most disagreements are imaginary observer effects rather than actual conflicts in reality and I am only feeling more and more like this same theme is developing now as I reassess the Church.
In almost every issue there is room for each perspective to be correct without contradicting the other. God's ways are higher than our ways.
I have found myself far more in agreement with Catholicism than most Protestants are comfortable with but while I can accept the Pope's validity as a Church leader of renown amongst men, I cannot accept the claim of primacy above Orthodox and Protestant elders. Jesus said where two or three come together in His name, there He is in our midst.
So I am currently very much in agreement with you and you have been invaluable in my exploration along with others, most notably Father Serafim Aldea of Mull Monastery who is the closest to a spiritual guide I have on the deepest level. However, I do not feel like my attraction to the Orthodox traditions is me leaving my Protestant traditions. I am growing in certainty that the Church IS unified and that the only disunity is in imagining that our opinions and evolved theological doctrines have any greater import than their role in each step each person takes toward Christ.
God bless you.
I would ask that you may rethink on considering theological differences as opinions instead of essentials to the faith. The scripture is God’s wisdom and message to his people. We need to address all matters with awe and reverence. The scripture does distinguish critical and less critical, but never essentials and non-essentials like you would with opinions.
Another thing to consider is that the current generation who can safely practice religious freedoms forget that this benefit was free to us, but it was at the cost of millions of lives of our ancestors. They didn’t just think about their souls, but souls of their descendants. Jesus didn’t say to religious leaders “you have your opinions and I have mine”. He was willing to die on the cross and his disciples died for the truth as well, so future generations may know God and be saved from eternal hell.
It’s easy to say why they didn’t just talk cordially. That’s like asking why didn’t people just surrender to Nazis and avoid the war where so many have died. Once false teachings take root in the church, Satan does not just leave it at that, his desire is to wipe out all true followers of Christ.
Just quick facts. I am not trying to belittle Roman Catholics, but to point out how important faiths were to our ancestors.
500 years ago when Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Tyndale protested against the Church abuses, they protested with the understanding that the Inquisition would catch up to them and they may be burnt at the stake. Zwingli was killed by the invading Catholic army in Zurich and Tyndale was burnt at the stake for translating the bible into English. Remember that the Church Inquisition didn't end till the19th century.
The separation of church and state is Calvin’s contribution that was exported to the English Reformation, then shipped over to America. We enjoy religious freedoms because of Calvin’s Swiss Reformation. Before that the church and state were tightly entangled where religious deviation was punishable by death in many cases.
One third of Germanic territory men and boys died in the Thirty Years’ War.
In England, two Civil Wars were fought even between Protestants. Back then, if you are not part of the Church of England, you can be put in jail or burnt at the stake. Even among Protestants, it was brutal. One side just won’t leave the other side alone till it has been wiped out.
When Roman Catholics spoke out against South American natives slavery, it cost them great influences to kings and nobles.
@@thomasc9036 I didn't mean ALL doctrinal differences were just opinions (although technically even correct and incorrect arguments are opinions) but just that an awful lot of different descriptions that split denominations appear to be equally valid even though people act as if they're contradictory.
I would include justification/salvation through faith/works in this, after listening carefully to Protestant and Catholics describe the Biblical basis for their positions, for example. Catholics do agree (officially according to their catechism) that only faith is enough for the initial moment of justification/salvation and Protestants do heed James stating that faith is empty without the fruit of works to actually continue sanctification. Catholics simply see this process as salvation and Protestants focus on a moment. It's very much akin to observing light as a wave or a particle. Both are valid but depend on each observer's point of view.
There are other examples such as the presence of God in the eucharist but as far as I can see unity is there in God's eyes regardless if we want to panic and argue and disagree as we always have done since the fall.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 I think I may not have made my point clear. This will be a bit long, so please forgive me.
It is sad that Protestants have developed disdain for the church tradition and history, but correct understanding of the Five Solas is necessary from historical perspective.
The best explanation of the Protestant Five Solas was from a theologian who used an example of Michelangelo’s Pieta. If you ever see Pieta, you will notice immediately that Mary is gigantic compared to Jesus. Her body is unnaturally proportioned compared to Jesus. If you view the statue from the ground level, she is the focus and center. Pieta was originally housed in Old St. Peter’s Basilica where as people enter, they will immediately take stairs and go up. Pieta being housed on the ground, people viewing from the second level will see the sunshine illuminating Jesus with Mary’s face shrouded in shadow bowing her head in sorrow holding her Lord. The original intent by Michelangelo was to have Jesus the focus, not Mary.
Both Jesus and Jews read the Old Testament, but they understood and focused differently just like two different angles of Pieta. Jesus says in John 5:46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me”. Jesus says the Old Testament is about him while Jewish leaders read as the Old Testament’s focus is about Israel. For example, the story of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac has twofold messages. The primary message was never about Abraham’s faith, but God showing Abraham who repeatedly violated the offspring covenant by selling Sarah twice and having a son with Hagar, the true significance of the offspring covenant is about the Offspring who will bless the world. If you actually read the story carefully, there are really odd moments like 3 days travel to Mt. Moria, God provided a ram instead of a lamb, Isaac who was an adult willingly get tied and be put on the altar, and at the end Abraham says “on the mount of the LORD it shall be provided” as in the sacrifice of Isaac was just a foreshadowing, but the true sacrifice will actually be provided by the LORD/YAHWEH himself. The secondary message was Abraham having violated God’s offspring covenant repeatedly realizing that it was never about him, but finally having the faith in the mysterious future offspring that came from his seed.
Jewish religious leaders saw the Messiah to establish the Kingdom of Jews like Abraham before the sacrifice. Jesus saw himself as an instrument to do the will of the Father who made the covenant to redeem the whole creation, not just Jews. He was fulfilling prophecies as the true sacrifice of God’s covenant he made with Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, and David that the Messiah will crush Satan and save the world. It was never about glorifying Jewish Kingdom, but the top view of fulfilling the will of the Father (throughout his ministry, Jesus says “I came to do the will of my Father).
The Protestant Five Solas is derived from the top view like Pieta and Jesus. For example, one the much debated Sola Scriptura, Reformers saw the scripture was the only authoritative revelation from God because it came from the “top”. They did not say the tradition is bad or not needed (like the current corrupted Protestants), but it must submit to the scripture when there are conflicts like in Pieta where Mary bows her head to her Lord from the top view. Protestantism’s Sola Scriptura was never about the church tradition being absolutely corrupted, but it must submit to the scripture like the Son submits himself to the Father in perfect love and harmony where there is a conflict. Four other Solas are like that.
Regarding opinions, we all develop frontal views of Pieta where Mary, a human, is the focus and center, but we must never let that continue. Apostle Paul addresses that in Romans 14:1 “as for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions”. There was an in-fighting in the church of Rome between Jewish and Gentile Christians over traditions of the Old Testament like kosher food, sabbath, and circumcisions. However this context was never about just letting both be taught, but bear in love and peace till weak brothers can become strong in the faith. Otherwise, we will still have the teaching that the circumcision is necessary for the salvation in the church. It can still be practiced still as a personal decision, but never be part of the gospel of Christ. Still Pauls says that this decision is for “weak brothers” because Jesus Christ fulfilled all requirements of the law.
It’s a bit longer than I expected, but trying to say that Reformers saw Five Solas as the top view where God is sovereign in all things and desired the church tradition to submit to the scripture just as Jewish leaders who emphasized the Jewish tradition to submit to the word of God which is Jesus himself.
I hope I didn't confuse further.
@@thomasc9036 No you make very good points and I agree. I'm not criticising Protestantism but in investigating Catholicism I have heard many agree with you that scripture trumps tradition. I would tend to disagree that tradition should ever be held as rigid because it risks reducing God's diverse humanity when there are many ways to follow Him. But I would make that point without suggesting that the Catholic tradition is wrong either. The major wrong I see is when anyone from any denomination makes their tradition dogmatic as if Jesus did not say "where two or three gather in my name, there I am in their midst."
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 Gavin made another video how sometimes errors or tradition just stay for a long time and becomes dogmatic. There are specific things I disagree on because I am a Presbyterian and he is a Baptist, but really informative. For example, one of the most misunderstood bible verse is "where two or three gather in my name, there I am in their midst" (Matt 18:20) and somehow became the standard understanding. What if there is only one person? Does that mean it is not legitimate?
The context of that verse is not about when two or three gathers in the name of Jesus, it is legitimized as church. The context of that verse is about the church discipline that Jesus commands to do in the same chapter... that the majority of churches fail to do. It refers to whenever the church discipline is to take place, it must be done with witnesses and follow the method he gave in Matt. 18:15-19. If elders obeyed his exact commands , it is as binding in heaven as it is on earth and Jesus is there to confirm it. Elders who disciplined is free of responsibility of ex-communicating someone if necessary because they have obeyed his guideline in the church discipline. That's what the verse means... it really has nothing to do with the establishment of church, but somehow people use out of context quite a bit.
He doesn't cover this specific one, but he goes into others quite a bit. I recommend that video.
Here are some additional examples of early Church Fathers (in addition to Ignatius of Antioch) speaking about three ranks of clergy:
Clement of Alexandria:
“A multitude of other pieces of advice to particular persons is written in the holy books: some for presbyters, some for bishops and deacons; and others for widows, of whom we shall have opportunity to speak elsewhere” (The Instructor of Children 3:12:97:2 [A.D. 191]).
“Even here in the Church the gradations of bishops, presbyters, and deacons happen to be imitations, in my opinion, of the angelic glory and of that arrangement which, the scriptures say, awaits those who have followed in the footsteps of the apostles and who have lived in complete righteousness according to the gospel” (Miscellanies 6:13:107:2 [A.D. 208]).
Hippolytus:
"When a deacon is to be ordained, he is chosen after the fashion of those things said above, the bishop alone in like manner imposing his hands upon him as we have prescribed. In the ordaining of a deacon, this is the reason why the bishop alone is to impose his hands upon him: he is not ordained to the priesthood, but to serve the bishop and to fulfill the bishop’s command. He has no part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful. . . .
“On a presbyter, however, let the presbyters impose their hands because of the common and like Spirit of the clergy. Even so, the presbyter has only the power to receive [the Spirit], and not the power to give [the Spirit]. That is why a presbyter does not ordain the clergy; for at the ordaining of a presbyter, he but seals while the bishop ordains” (The Apostolic Tradition 9 [A.D. 215]).
Origen:
“Not fornication only, but even marriages make us unfit for ecclesiastical honors; for neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon, nor a widow is able to be twice married” (Homilies on Luke17 [A.D. 234]).
Are you going to talk about Ignatius or something else? It's, Bishop, Priest (Elder/prysbeter) and Deacon...A bishop is a priest. A bishop is head priest of a certain area, in this case Ignatius was bishop of Antioch. Ignatius remains a priest, though he is Bishop. A Deacon lies under the priest and priest/bishop. The Deacon cannot administer certain sacraments like the Eucharist and confession.
So, when are you going to talk about Ignatius? I went here thinking you were going to talk about Ignatius.
Here's what this video misses: When Ignatius (alongside other Fathers) shows you that your low-church congregational-polity Zwinglian-sacramentology tradition has gone far afield from the apostolic faith, you're initially shocked. But then you naturally ask: How did that happen? We were trusting exegesis of the Bible as our reliable tool for arriving at knowledge of Christian orthodoxy, and it _failed us._ What did we do wrong?
In wrestling with that question, you're apt to start investigating other Protestant traditions, like Anglicanism (just as Gavin suggests). But then you quickly realize that _they have the same problem,_ and they're all relying on the same _epistemic tools_ for trying to discover Christian orthodoxy.
What tools? Well, reconstruction of a "lost Christianity" through Scriptural exegesis, of course! And everybody's reconstruction looks a little bit different.
Oh, sure, they're willing to engage with patristic witness to greater and lesser degrees, but they _all_ share this in common: When their individual interpretation of Scripture conflicts with the fathers, they choose their interpretation _over-and-against_ the fathers. And thus their reference to patristic witness is, in the end, a fig leaf: It's there to make it _look_ like they're connected to Christian history, but in the end, they're all practicing Solo Scriptura. It turns out that, in practice, there is no _principled_ difference between the most apologetically-defensible, tendentiously-defined, ivory-tower version of the _Regula Fidei_ of the "Magisterial Reformers," and the Nuda Scriptura guy who "paints a bullseye around wherever his arrow landed." In the end, whatever I think is the right interpretation of Scripture, I will find a local church whose doctrine approximates _that_ interpretation. Then I'll join that church, and claim to be "submitting" to a pastor of a "Bible Believing Church."
Ignatius and the _Catechetical Lectures_ and _First Clement_ and Tertullian-before-he-went-nuts and Irenaeus and the Cappadocian fathers don't, in-and-of-themselves, do the work. They just show you a gap between your own experience of Christian practice -- an experience derived from careful exegesis -- and the actual faith of the fathers. And that helps you realize that the _epistemic methodology_ from which your ideas were formerly derived was, itself, fundamentally flawed and bound to fail.
Not just _bound_ to fail: You see, and become unable to unsee, how it _HAS failed._ It failed to keep your tradition from drifting far afield, and you belatedly realize that _it could not have done otherwise._
It's just a bad tool. A fundamentally incoherent system, not made for humans, and not designed by anyone who understood human societies.
So, you realize: That's NOT the epistemic tool Jesus intended us to use. (Or, if it is, it's a dumb one, and if Jesus proposed a dumb epistemic tool, then He isn't God. But, He is God. Therefore, exegesis of Scripture to reconstruct Christian orthodoxy is _NOT_ the tool Jesus intended us to use.)
That's why encounters with patristics lead people away from Protestantism.
It isn't because you can't find Protestants that resemble, in some ways, what we see in the patristic witness.
It is rather because Protestants share a common epistemic paradigm, and that bad paradigm accounts for all the ways in which different branches of Protestantism _fail_ to match the patristic witness.
Something can still be normative without having to have gone back to the beginning of Christianity, it’s a doctrinal development!
Having studied Ignatius myself just recently, as a protestant I have not felt compelled to switch to Catholicism. What I understand is cultures and contexts change. The gospel is unchanged over time but the elements of administration introduced to advance the Gospel can change and must change as the gospel penetrates new territories and people groups. That the order of bishops and deacons worked for the people in the First two centuries should not be the reason to try and enforce the same system in the 21st century. What I believe we must takeaway from Ignatius is that obedience to Church leaders in the right context (where there is no abuse) is a must for believer. Protestants have tended to downplay this over time I suppose and I myself growing in a non-denominational church grew up without this awareness. With Ignatius, I go back with the understanding to honour the elders and the leaders in the church and try and maintain unity under the hierarchy of the church leadership I submit to.
I liked very much when you said....we must protect APOSTOLIC DOCTRINES over apostolic succession.....and i understand fully ur argument of a '' leader'' to help protect against heresy and that that '' leader'' was not necessary for everyone Everywhere ....very GOOD point ....yes we must read Ignatius in light with all the other fathers....his opinion is HIS OWN and not of the beginming church as a whole ....thanks for ur clarity ...details ....from me an ex catholic now baptist......i never understood why the catholic church always talked about Ignatius and almost never of any other father ......i think its to protect their view wich is not justified by other church Fathers or the NT.....this affirms more my protestant view and like u mentioned ....keeping in touch with Gal 1:6-9 ......
All the solid Orthodox teachers I’ve heard agree that Apostolic Succession includes continuity with the faith passes from scriptures and the saints. Simply claiming succession because someone from the line of Apostles laid hands on you does not guarantee you won’t fall into error. On the other hand, continuity with the church and tradition the apostles established is essential to being able to claim any spiritual authority over others, and yes the laying on of hands and having the authority to do that is linked to The Church (like Paul references to Timothy). Not just any denomination that is demonstrably not in continuity with the Apostolic tradition.
But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
So what word do you use to address your dad? "Call NO man" (emphasis mine).