@@TheresaCronin-kc6wz "His Choice for His Church" This is such a strange non-biblical category. Roman Catholicism DID NOT EXIST when Jesus was around, he wasn't out there "picking a church" or whatever you seem to think was happening. The "one true church" wars are one of the dumbest things to ever come out of Christianity.
Ever since the satanic cult of sola scriptura a man made tradition invented by a devil possessed man was introduced five hundred years ago many idiots like Calvin Smythe Zwingli Henry Ellen Knox Wesley Russell etc started to interpret the Bible on their own wild imagination and even adding their wishful thinking or twisting historical facts or even tried to manipulate the holy Bible itself in order to make their satanic theology fit into it and this madness go on and on and on and on and on upto fifty thousand heretics like McArthur, Benny, Copeland Crepo, Osteen, Todd, Hagee Ortlund etc are doing all sorts of nonsense and all are contradicting each other all the time rendering Christianity itself into chaotic anarchism
This video was ridiculously helpful for me. I subscribe to Capturing Christianity and have been following his consideration of Catholicism. A lot of the arguments were making sense and causing me to question my convictions as a Protestant and my affirmation of Sola Scriptura, but as you outlined some of the arguments against the papacy in this video as well as a defense for Sola Scriptura in another, I feel more confident in my stance as a Protestant. I go to Biola university as a Bible major, this Chanel and all of my classes have really grown a passion in me to take a deep dive into church history and track the theological developments of the church over the centuries. Thanks, Dr. Ortlund! You’re awesome!
@@jpc9923 you do realize you just made a grossly contradictory statement correct? You are making theological judgements based on your own faith background and worldview the same as they are. If I were to be born in the Catholic tradition, steeped in its theology, I would most likely find the case for Catholicism more compelling than something clearly outside of my comfort zone. The problem is the only arbitration between the two options is found in an outside source, what is the source? Clearly many find it to be Scripture, and I think it is abundantly clear that no matter how hard you try and make Scripture support the RCC it just doesn’t do so, and falls well short in many regards. But the RCC response is to appeal to its “tradition” which only it has and only it can control. Thus, it’s tradition will always lead back to… it! It’s viciously circular in my eyes, no wonder you find no case against it compelling. My path diverged from the RCC when I started asking myself what did Scripture say for itself? I studied the world Scripture occupied, it’s rich cultural and historical context, and combined with its writings I realized I could not be Catholic. Partly because by studying and interpreting Scripture for myself I was doing exactly what the RCC forbids! But what I found was a rich treasure in Christ that surpassed all my expectations and fears.
@@jpc9923 I think Catholics can read Scripture, but the second it deviates from the Catholic understanding it’s deemed heretical and thereby you can no longer be Catholic. If I read Scripture and come to no conclusion of papacy, or even other Catholic dogmas such as the assumption of Mary, then I am automatically not a Catholic. And the only way I would come to such understanding is by submitting myself to the Catholic interpretation of Scripture even when I have more compelling interpretive options. The Catholic Church says it has a monopoly on the Bible, and if you don’t agree with it you’re not a part of the “true Church.” I find that patently ridiculous if I’m being fair. If I go to the source to evaluate, it matters what bias and prejudice I bring to the source. If I bring a Catholic bias I will read “into” the text the Catholic doctrines. If I bring any other bias I will likely read those commitments into the text. The only way to even attempt to countermand this is to try and construct the bias of the earliest readers of these works (the NT specifically) and what they would have understood from Scripture. Which I have endeavored to do, and I can find no reason to believe that they would have gotten anything out of it like what the RCC is today.
Nor should you expect this. Christianity is not meant as a religion for people who can read stuff for themselves. This on its own supports the Papacy. Not even individual bishops can be free from potential errors.
@@pepeinno4002what are you talking about. The catholic popes have been beyond fallible. FRancis said all path lead to heaven. Pope Leo and other burned heretics. The church practices indulgences and realized that was wrong. Peter was no modern day pope. Papacy is not infallible nor it is biblical. Jesus is the head of the chuech. Not an old guy with heresies that was chosen based men voting
Another excellent response doc. You bring together all the evidence and assess them in sum, not just piecemeal, which makes the argument much more powerful.
@@TruthUnites please address Rev1v20 where "angel" is understood by major Protestant commentaries and Church Fathers to mean head bishop of a city. I posted this above in detail.
Excellent response? As everyone SHOULD know, the "canon of scripture" is not provided in the scriptures. On this basis alone (not to mention several others), "sola scriptura" cannot logically be asserted as the authoritative standard of / for biblical truth. Nor can it be ignored that Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants, and even some within Protestantism held/hold to different canons. Luther, himself, had a canon of scripture which varied over the years (after he left the Catholic Church), and still doubted the Book of Revelation should be in the canon at his death. Likewise, there are some who today hold that Enoch and/or other pseudopygraphal books should be in the canon. It should be obvious from these facts that Ortland's appeal to "Sola scriptura" as a standard for proof (apart from the already established authoritative canon of the ancient, established Church) has no firm foundation upon which to assert his claims (including his appeals to "sola scriptura").
I don't watch all of these back and forth videos on all these various topics (my interest is fairly narrow: justification), but I appreciate the time and effort you put in to respond to them all. Praying your continued engagement will lead to fruit in the Spirit, whether with ultimate entrance into the Church, or otherwise. May the Lord bless your continued zeal for serving Him by speaking about these issues.
Thanks for your video, I have been thinking to convert to catholicism but doutbs come to me concerning the papacy and marian dogmas as well. Also i cant deny the graces that God has put in other christians traditions. Your videos always encourge me to seek the truth. May God keep using and blessing you and your family. Greeting from Chile South America!
The polite, compassionate, and respectful way with which you engage with these issues educates me not only on the available evidence, but also on the Spirit led way these discussions should be conducted.. You are indeed a blessing Brother.. Your dialogue is respectful, clear, and not at all offensive.. You continually model to me an attitude that I know is pleasing to the Lord, so that as I adopt that same attitude I become a better man, better equipped, and less emotive in my own discussions.. Thanks again..
I really admire your kindness, patience and how open and respectful you are in presenting your arguments. So many videos I see are snarky and rude. But yours are always gentle and loving, the true heart of Christ. I have had a hard time trying to discuss subjects such as these with people, including my wife hahaha. My in-laws are orthodox and discussing things with them have taught me how to respond with kindness, patience and compassion. I'm still learning but examples such as you are really encouraging to me.
This is my issue with almost everything the Catholic Church postulates as doctrine. It’s all just inference. And it’s hilarious when it’s explained, because the answer is never an answer at all. great job getting into the details with such care.
That's just not true. The Catholic Church is very careful about her reasoning, and has thousands of years of writings on these topics. At the end of the day, the question is really... do you submit to Christ's church, or to your own fancy?
@@Scynthescizor wrong! God gave me faculties to interpret his word as well as to observe the early church’s evolution JUST THE SAME AS HE GAVE IT TO EVERY OTHER HUMAN BEING THATS EVER BEEN IN THE CHURCH. In a fallen world, they are no less fallible than I or you or anyone else. You think that just because they were careful, they were correct? Or impartial? Or not corrupt? I think you need to take a better look at “her” history. Yeah, they’ve been careful about a lot of things. Indulgences, keeping bibles out of the hands of the populous, and child molestation, for example.
@@Scynthescizor The problem is that you that your tradittion is the only correct interpretation, and so when you see others who are part of different traditions you look at them and say "haha! silly rebels, they won't submit to God." No, we just reject outright that you possess anywhere near the doctrinal authority that you claim to have.
@@dokidelta1175 I'm not saying "haha silly rebels." A lot of people are confused about the issue, and I know that protestants of good faith are trying to follow the will of God. But at the end of the day, only one (or none) of the various interpretations can be correct. I submit to the Church that claims to be founded by Christ, with history and tradition and a track record to back that claim. But it's also an act of faith to submit to the Church - I don't think there is a perfect, logical argument that will win minds on it. Just prayerful consideration and intellectual honesty.
This was VERY helpful. I was Catholic for 30 years, but after actually reading scripture for the first time, i became a staunch defender of biblical Christianity instead. But I still struggle sometimes when it comes to defending the truth of scripture vs the claims of catholicism. So these types of calm, rational, and well documented defenses are so helpful. Thank you!
The Bible is a Catholic book. Protestants cannot make that same claim for Protestantism, aside from the claim to a rightful inheritance from Catholics. But even this came at the expense of dispensing Holy Books. If Luther had his way, even more would have been trashed.
@@PaxMundi118 What a ridiculous statement that shows zero understanding of history. But it's typical for catholics, always trying to steal the glory from Christ. The holy spirit wrote the books of the bible and these books were widely distributed and known to be holy scriptures long before the bishop of Rome seized power from all the other bishops that led the church for hundreds of years after Christ. The true church of Christ existed before Rome hijacked it and started burning alive everyone who tried to speak out against it's abuses. If you actually care about learning how we got our Bible, go listen to James Whites video entitled where we got our Bible. Nothing to do with gay roman popes and priests.
@@doriesse824 Though I don't meet many Marcionites, I think both have better claims to determining the Canon than do any 16th century or post-16th century traditions.
@@PaxMundi118 None of the 16th century reformers claimed they were trying to create doctrine. That's what your Catholic church does. The reformers were simply trying to rid the church of all the detestable practices and doctrines added by the catholic Church over the centuries. They were trying to take the church back to its roots, to the church established by Christ and the apostles, as shown in scripture. The Catholic church is an apostate church that left the true church when the bishop of Rome seized power, making himself the head of the church instead of Christ. Shameful.
So I grew up Christian (non catholic) but was never into church stopped going to church once my family moved to a different town when I was in 7th grade. I don’t even know what kind of church I went to because I didn’t know about all these denominations all I know was I learned the gospel. But when I became an adult I actually read the Bible and truly excepted Jesus. Now today I am trying to lean more history about the church and the catholic side is odd..im trying to understand I try listening to catholic apologists and….its so off to me. When I listen to non catholic Christians apologists aka “ protestant” it clicks so well with what I know from the Bible . Oh and also it feels so close to Christ when I hear Catholics it’s like… church, Mary , saints and then Jesus…. still trying to understand but … it’s not sitting well with me
I noticed that the late doctrine that the RCC clings to is read INTO the text. You can't get what they believe FROM the text. Thank you for this video.
Thank you for the new vocabulary word (Eisegesis). You hit the nail on the head. Thanks again Gavin! Always a pleasure and a blessing hearing from you. Always edifying! Happy Easter and God Bless you and your family!
I've had some great conversations with Catholics following Trent and your conversations with Cameron. And, as you say, they are are passionate and sincere. I have learned so much from them about what they believe. I so needed this video RN. TYSM
Excellent presentation of the counter-arguments, sir, and you could have easily gone another hour based on my experience dialoguing with Catholics on YT. I'm thinking about starting a channel here on YT to help people looking to move out of the RCC, since my experience with the same was fraught/confusing/difficult. This video definitely highlights a need for this kind of resource...got you/your ministry in my prayers, Gavin.
I’m a newly confirmed Catholic, I really enjoy your videos and love hearing you talk with other Catholic apologists. Thank you for all that you’re doing!
Read the Bible and understand it. Bible Gateway is the app I use. Baptism is for believers, not babies. Acts teaches that a pastor should be a married family man. Religion says do. Jesus says done. He paid it all, it is finished. Greetings from Trinity Bible Church in Phoenix.
@@aCatholicOne Baptising my cat doesn't make him a Christian anymore than my infant baptism made me a Christian. At some point, I had to trust Jesus for myself.
@@aCatholicOne There is a clear commandment to circumcise on the 8th day,not for baptism. And baptism is not a novel innovation of the church, jewish tradition and the Torah contains core truth about mikvahs and immersion. Always in the ancient Israel and in 2nd Temple period, and in the early church baptism was for adult novice.
Gavin, I see your work as an incredibly important and useful ministry for the whole of Christianity. You display the love and patience of a true believer in your dialogues and have set a wonderful example for me and others to follow as we all attempt to imitate Christ. Thanks
Isn’t it just like the Devil, who is an expert manipulator of the Word, to convince many within and outside of the Church to exalt one Apostle above all of his co-equals? And not only that, but to bow the knee to all subsequent Popes as a diversion from direct faith in Jesus Christ? There is absolutely no Biblical basis for the Papacy. If Jesus giving the keys to Peter was a promotional appointment to the Papacy, then Peter would have immediately began to serve as the ‘Director’ of the Apostles from that point onwards. Remember when Samuel the Prophet anointed Saul as Israel’s first King, which began the reign of the Davidic Dynasty with their next King? Well, as soon as Saul was anointed to Kingship, he immediately ascended the throne. Peter never assumed any position above Apostleship. Not a hint of Peter being the “Pope” is evidenced throughout any of the Gospels or even later in Acts. Simply because there is no Papacy. In Matthew 16, Jesus blessed Peter with personal Apostolic authority, not Papal infallibility. There is only one “Pope” who is our Heavenly Father-Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd.
I agree with this a lot, I'm in a Cameron situation where I'm debating between orthodoxy catholicism and high church protestantism but I am seeing how catholic apologists try to prove too much with little details. Same thing with Isaiah 22, typology should not be used to prove a doctrine.
But the problem with your position on typology is that the biblical writers were highly influenced by typology - Jesus being the new Moses is quite an evident typological connection for instance.
@@lukewilliams448 Yes, but the typology for Jesus as the new Moses is set in Scripture, Passover, the people of God entering the Promised Land, being a “prophet like Moses” as prophesied in Deuteronomy. Other typology such as Isaiah 22 may not be inherently unbiblical, but it is harder to make the case than it would be for Jesus being the new Moses, since it isn’t just one passage that this comparison is set on, but several.
@@lukewilliams448 There's a difference between being influenced by typology and basing a belief on it. When we talk about Jesus being the new Moses we are saying that there are a number of things that are true of Jesus which are also true about Moses, and that God deliberately arranged for their lives to turn out that way. But the similarities that make up the type are all things that are explicitly taught about Jesus in scripture. The kind of argument Child_of_weakness is talking about is different - it starts by arguing that something in the Old Testament is a type of Mary, Peter, or whatever. It then uses that type to get to the conclusion of the papacy, one of the Marian dogmas, or whatever. But this kind of argumentation is rarely persuasive to those who don't already believe the doctrine, since it looks like the Catholic is reading their doctrine into the text. If typology is the best Biblical argument they have for a particular position then they would be more convincing if they admitted that the doctrine came from tradition rather than scripture.
@Bb Dl I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your response, however I do have several points in which I take issue with the “extent” that you allow typology to influence your reading of Scripture. When it comes to addressing the constant echoing and shadowing of the OT in the New (which I agree with wholeheartedly) it is also of paramount importance to address how specifically the NT and Jesus in particular fulfill and address the OT writings. From my understanding, and from the understanding of many of my messianic Jewish friends, Jesus fulfilled these OT typological links in an incredibly subversive way. That is to say that Jesus did not give much credence to the OT understanding of prophecy and it’s application. There is a reason that so many Jewish believers were wholly convinced of a completely different kind of messianic figure, and it had to do with their appropriation of Scripture over that of the intent of the Spirit. The Jewish understanding of their own Scripture was not immune to error, as is clearly demonstrated. So when we look for typological links in the OT, we must be very careful to understand that though Jesus came in fulfillment of the many prophecies and other OT foreshadowing, He did so in a way that was wildly different than what the Jews expected or predicted Him to do. So much so that His true purpose on earth was almost completely misunderstood by even the most learned Jews of His age. When I examine the Scriptures, I find it wise to keep that in mind when I look for potential links, and also when ascertaining the true purpose and plan of the Christ. I cannot help but see so many plain signs that Jesus was wholly uninterested in a hierarchical and institutional Church when I adopt this mindset. For at every chance, He acts and speaks in a way that subverts and almost undermines the traditional Jewish understanding of hierarchy. His language is inclusive, broad, and concerned with the redemption of His people and humanity. Aside from the proliferation and dispensation of teaching that He charges to the Twelve and the other apostles, I find no good reason within Scripture to ascribe any credence to an institutional restructuring of Jewish ecclesial forms. I would also countermand this by saying that I very much believe Jesus came to set up a Church, but His Church is about His body, the people who believe and trust in Him. He offers no other guidelines, and no other instructions other than this. When the first “council” met in Jerusalem in Acts, it is in opposition to the old Jewish traditions and practices that they speak against. Even Peter and James seem to understand the the Gospel is a message for everyone, and that despite tradition and long-held practices it must go forward in a way as to reach humanity where humanity is at. Creating institutions, setting restrictive dogmas, playing the part of God on earth is not the way to reach humanity with the Gospel. We may crave rules and regulations, and institutions may appeal to our nature, but Christ came so that His truth would be written on our hearts and not in the dusty tomes of ecclesial law. A comment I found under an old video the other day summed up my position here, it read “If I were a first century Jew, learned in Jewish tradition and practice, I believe my only option would be Roman Catholicism.” This very statement is the exact reason I am not Catholic, and do not foresee myself ever becoming Catholic. Because the more I study the ancient Jews, the first and second century Christians, and the development of the Church; I see a return to the familiar human conditions of power and structure and institution. Instead, I believe that Jesus calls for a return to humanity that is much better represented in the “universal church of all believers.”
It's presentations like these that make me so excited to see how discussions in Christian theology will progress over the next few decades. I think this is one of the first few times in the history of the Church where we have been able to have honest, thorough, and productive discussions on areas inter-denomenational/traditional disagreement. Thank-you Dr.Ortlund for taking the time to digest and make convincing responses to the claims of our Catholic brothers and sisters. May the Lord bless you!
A great video! It's so needed to have people who are truly and honestly trying to bring the conversation forward with utmost respect for all parties involved, something that's so lacking in all parts of modern day western society. It's such a rarity to be able to openly disagree and discuss our differing opinions while still loving each other
Dr Ortland, I again am so impressed by your arguments and the way you make them. You are charitable and level-headed. I agree with you that the issue of the papacy is very complex, and I think that Orthodox and Protestant Christians do have good arguments against it. I think Catholics also have good arguments. It seems to me, though, that the scriptural and historical arguments cannot deliver any conclusive solutions to the question. As you say, it is about weighing the evidence. I am not well-versed enough in the historical and scriptural arguments to weigh the evidence for myself yet; so for now, I rely on the ecclesiastical argument (that truths of the faith cannot be determined without someone at the head to be a final arbiter between disputes). It seems that the papacy was a legitimate and necessary development in the Church in order to determine solutions between disputing parties and maintain unity. Christ does pray for that the Church would be united (John 17) and it seems clear that heresy is undesirable for the sake of that unity. I may just be thinking with a "Catholic mind," but that's where I am at for the present. God bless you all, and a Good Friday to you all, as well.
@@TheOtherCaleb Hi Caleb, thank you for your comment. I know that this is just a comment thread, and it is not the place for in-depth discussions. You made a good statement, but it is not an argument. I have no way to reply (meaningfully) to what you said, because I cannot understand your viewpoint by such a claim. I can assume some things about where you are coming from, but you know what is often said about assumptions. Haha. So I won't do you that disservice. If you would like to talk further about this, you can email me or DM me.
This is not related to the papacy but I’m really hoping Dr.Ortlund makes a video on kierkegaard. He seems like such a fascinating mind that Christian’s don’t engage with enough
This sounds really good. I am interested in an approach to Kierkegaard from an actual Christian perspective as most commentators make visible efforts to explain and apply his philosophy without its major spiritual implications.
Love this idea! I've been thinking of how relevant and relatable Kierkegaard could be for Christians and non-Christians alike today. His input on mental illness, humor, and push back against institutions are all super relevant to especially young people today!
Thank you Dr. Gavin for your sincerity, and commitment to truth. I’m a Catholic Christian who is especially interested in, and hopeful for, the advancement of Christian unity. Please don’t worry too much about, “stepping on feet”. We want to hear candor.
Thanks so much for your ongoing efforts engaging in these conversations Gavin. I can imagine it must feel difficult when there seem to be a disproportionately large number of apologists on the RCC side. As a reformed Protestant who is considering the claims of Roman Catholicism, I find your videos a helpful challenge. From my own self-interested perspective, I would greatly appreciate a set of meaty dialogues on the papacy/ecclesial authority at some point that really dig into some of key dividing issues (as oppose to these back and forth replies). I know you've done a debate with Suan Sonna and a couple of RCC-related dialogues with Joe Heschmeyer, plus you have a couple more lined up with Trent which may do the trick. Perhaps these could be the culmination of your RCC work. Having said that, I don't know how you find the time to do what you do or what precisely you've got planned with the channel so consider it a mere suggestion from one edified subscriber :)
I think a really helpful resource of typology is G. K. Beale's "Handbook on the NT Use of the OT." He's probably THE scholar on NT use of the OT, and he lays out five criteria for typology: 1. Analogical correspondence 2. Historicity 3. Pointing-forwardness 4. Escalation 5. Retrospection Interestingly enough, he uses Isaiah 22:22 as a case study in chapter 7 of his work, arguing for an indirect typological use in Revelation 3:7.
I've been reading a book recently on how to read the bible and the author really pushes how vital it is to read the old creeds, confessions and theologians of old. The author teaches how to read the bible well, supplementing our readings with the same things you recommend. It's really encouraging as I've been really struggling with the idea of catholicism and eatern orthodox church. My family in law is orthodox and its been challenging to engage with them on the subject. Your channel has become a source of encouragement and an example for my own life.
Another very well done video with the right tone and candor. Thanks for your labor. Happy Easter, and may the Lord richly bless you and your family this season and always.
There's a lot of Catholic "reply guys" out there on TH-cam. I wouldn't take the volume of objections as being indicative of a weakness in your arguments. I think you present the most coherent objection to the Papacy I've heard. Many of the responses only enforce what you were criticizing.
@@michaelspeyrer1264 the volume of replies to a position is not indicative of whether or not that position is true. I’m a philosophy major; during the early 20th century, logical positivism was all the rage. Does the volume of professional philosophers affirming logical positivism or the objections leveled against other views by them indicate that logical positivism is true or that other views have weak arguments? Evidently not. Further, what do you mean by “expertise?” Expertise in what? Does Dr. Ortlund’s doctorate in historical theology not give him some level of “expertise?” And, whether or not it does, how does one’s expertise get to the truth of an argument or a view?
I would say the fact he has gotten the attention of so many apologists indicates that he is making a strong case, and is perhaps threatening. So they are going out of their way to "refute" him. He's rocking the boat pretty hard, and he's not just some random guy quoting a couple of bible verses as a slam dunk. Instead he's making some rather serious arguments using the very thing they claim a monopoly on. As far as I'm concerned he's done a great job, because alot of this stuff especially out of the church fathers are conveniently left out of catholic apologetics. And when brought up, there is much damage control and excuses. I'm Lutheran, so of course im gonna disagree with him on things like baptismal regeneration, and the real presence in the Lords supper. But nevertheless I'm by no means threaten by him. However I appreciate and respect his hard work and presentation on these things. As far as im concerned, to me the church fathers are the church fathers, and history is what it is, whether we like it or not. And if we be challenged, (catholic or protestant), suck it up, and get over it, and trust God above all things.
Great response and great scholarship! Don't worry about Heschmeyer. Your genuineness far outweighs his arrogance. 7 excellent refutations expounded firmly and wisely yet with such compassion for all sides. So glad I found your channel. This is so needed today!
The doc is in the house! Thank you for the dose of sanctified meds brother! Your work is truly unique and admirable! Please keep it coming… I’d like to see you put out a video on the rosary. I’ve yet to hear good detailed teaching on the matter. Thanks again! Love your work.
Great response Dr. Gavin 👌 Btw, your case in the initial dialogue with Cameron was so overwhelmingly stong that I cannot fathom how one can carry on to embrace that system in light of SOLID arguementation you put forth against the papacy 🤷
Sahih, all you have to do is read the old and new testaments, and the writings of the Church Fathers, many of which Dr.Ortlund conveniently leaves out, to prove the Papacy established by Jesus Christ! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@Thoska Brah Most inaccurate, as Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock and built His Church upon Peter and gave Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom. The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God! The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem, since SCRIPTURE ALONE could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. ( Genesis 17:12). Your lack of Biblical knowledge is quite evident! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Happy Easter! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 Just as a quick point, it was James who ruled that circumcision is not necessary. Peter spoke, and then Paul and Barnabas, and then James speaks last and says "Therefore my judgment is that we should..." (Acts 15:19). It is 100% clear that Peter was not the head of the church, instead is seems like James is the one with final authority.
@@TheBlinkyImp Most inaccurate, as it was Peter the rock and sole key holder, who STOOD UP and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. ( Genesis 17:12). James then affirms Peter's declaration and then simply gives food and sexual restrictions! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
I think the point of apostolic succession vs apostolic replacement, especially with the criteria noted as being a witness of the resurrection, was very key - and a hard obstacle to get around. Such a good point.
They do have allot of time 😅 but hey, its always 4 (usually experts of a certain subject) vs you, so it shows they respect you. Love your videos, striving to be half as knowledgeable as you brother 👍🏽
Great vid Dr. Ortlund! Would love to see a video on congregationalism! A positive assertion of your ecclesiological views would be very interesting, especially if it was tied in with the church fathers.
Another great video, Gavin! Your scholarship has been such a blessing to me, my ministry, and my studies. I thoroughly enjoyed all 7 concerns! Concerns 4 and 5 were extremely convincing! I always leave your videos with something to chew on and wrestle with! Thanks again, Gavin - blessings!
@56:50, Trinitarian Pentecostal here, love you brother! Often times I define myself as a Bapti-costal because of all the agreement within our groups. Powerful video- I use your teaching videos and debates as outside learning for our Bible College! :)
If you’re Protestant you don’t follow God’s choice for His Church Jesus built His Church and He chose Peter look at your bible unless it was removed by someone who knows better than the Incarnate Word
Thanks brother Gavin. Your perspectives help to keep me and many others grounded in the truth of Scripture, and to avoid being tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine. And I pray that you and your family have a blessed Easter.
I’m catholic, while I enjoy all of the various catholic channels, I saw all of the response videos and thought the same thing - some of these guys have a lot of time, haha. I think the reason they made the videos to begin with is because you are making strong arguments that aren’t very easy to deal with. I don’t think Catholics have been pressed on the papacy, until recently, from a Protestant that knows church history quite well. I think it’s making them dig deep. I think you are sharpening their arguments and making them better for it. with many catholic apologists it just sort of became a “look at church history and the church fathers” sort of approach to the issues at hand, but history appears to be more complicated than that. Happy Easter to all you Christians out there. Our parish priest recommended seeing Jesus on the cross through Mary’s eyes. This might perhaps not be so bad to do from a Protestant perspective as well. It doesn’t mean idolatry to look at Jesus on the cross through his mother’s eyes. God bless!
Bless you for your graciousness and for not dismissing ideas simply because they don’t agree with your tradition. Jesus said that the world will know that we are his disciples by our love. Let all separated brethren look to serve and honour each other rather than win arguments.
But WHY SEE JESUS ON THE CROSS ............HE IS NOT THERE! This is why we shouldn't visualize stuff make pictures or follow the instructions of false doctrines. Jesus is Lord and SAVIOR HE IS NOT ON THE CROSS...
On the point of Eisegesis: I am continually amazed at how very many folks can be convinced by so little Scriptural warrant, or, let's say, Stretched Scriptural warrant. Arguments for the papacy seem always to depend upon Shadows, Types, Allusions, Fabricated arrangements of texts. Even Jimmy Akin's modest diagraming of Matthew 16 is something of a self-imposed arrangement. Very many other modern-day arguments are novel interpretations of texts as well.
Briefly, I think argumentation by allusions could be problematic. However, Saint Paul was not afraid to use allusion so I don’t think we should be either. For example, the Galatians were clearly bewitched by their superficial reading of Sacred Scripture. How does Paul respond? He tells them Hagar and Sarah represent two mountains. Nobody who reads the OT is going to know Sarah and Hagar represent two mountains unless they read back into the text what Saint Paul said. I don’t think anyone wants to say Saint Paul was mishandling the text. 2 Corinthians mentions that the Jewish people still have “veils” over their eyes when they read the Books of Moses. The question is who has authority to extrapolate from “allusions” real propositions? If Paul did it then we should expect the true Church to still do that. For the Holy Spirit unveils what is hidden in the old.
@@MountAthosandAquinas, Right. Given the Doctrine of Inspiration, St. Paul's words are the intention of the Holy Spirit. The same cannot be said of the reading done by an Apologist.
@@marcuswilliams7448 Yes, but any Jew is going to call “foul” against that claim as well. My argument is that all of Christianity is extrapolated through Christ as the lens. But Jews will argue that’s just “reading back” into the text with a basis in allusion. But in reality, all have some sort of presuppositions and paradigms in which they perceive the text to support. But not all are true. Only one Church can truly be operating under the charism of the Apostles so as to rightly interpret the text handed on. Else, everyone is veiled and there is no arbitrating authority to settle differences.
@@marcuswilliams7448 I will add that Galatia had fallen from the faith by not adhering to the Apostles ruling in Acts 15. They decided the Apostles were acting without any scriptural warrant. So the Apostle challenges them by allusions and allegories.
Gavin, I love when I see a new video from you. This one was great as usual. Do you think it would be possible to do a video or series on the Apostolic Fathers? Because, as you said accretions can happen over time but what about the ones discipled by The Apostles? How should we relate to them, when talking about Sola Scriptura and Church History? Thanks.
Another great follow up video. Your explanations were clear and persuasive. Thanks! Your arguments actually have application to other issues as well. They help us think clearly through the data and the evidence and how to avoid sloppy thinking in our own blind spots. I would also like to see you do a video contrasting the Protestant and Catholic doctrine of justification. Thanks!
Very well communicated, Dr. Ortlund. You made a fair appeal with the extensive research you have explored. I am finishing "Fear and Trembling", by kierkegaard ( I saw someone post about you reviewing his work in the comments). I'll be picking up your book, "The Beauty of Christain Theism" afterwards. I look forward to the read. Thank you for your channel.
The fact the office existed before Christianity should always be cause for concern. You can convert Romans but their weird culture who mixed religions already would just do that to themselves seems self evident. There's even statues of Augustus as the Pontifex Maximus Honestly I don't know why you argue with them anyways their laymen defenders are weak at best and always want to talk merely theology than the politics of the era when many of these more heretical and heavy handed decisions by the various Popes are made. That's why they lean so heavily on personal attacks of Martin Luther, Henry the VIII, Jan Hus, and Peter Waldo. Luther didn't sequester himself afterall and Henry the VIII not leaving England to fall into the hands of France or Spain is completely understandable even if his sex life wasn't. Nor can I say I don't understand why the Byzantines split with Rome over their continual desire to be autonomous of the Byzantine Emperor being a check on their authority. Remember they hold the lower seat of power under Constantine as well and have never refuted that. The treatment of the Bohemians by Sigismund and his betrayal of Jan Hus shuttling him off to a kangaroo court is what lead to the Hussite rebellion as well. They always expect you to just think it all starts with the 95 thesis and Martin Luther is merely a ego maniac. But for the infallible Medieval UN they failed miserably at keeping the peace much less not favoring certain nations over other leading to them all but feeling abused and alienated which lead to them leaving. They brush that all aside like we should ignore it along with who they are now. I would never join any faith with that current Pope as head much less any faith that allows a SJW like Friar Casey in. He is a liberal heretic and a son of Satan in a frock. Also they're so pathetic they still want to fight us because their Woke Pope uses as an excuse for everything. Why is the world bad? Protestants! Why did Father Murphy diddle your son? Well he was raised protestant! Why are the cardinals and Pope so liberal they may as well be atheists LGBTQs activists? Because they are secret masonic protestants! It can never ever be anything they did in history. 3 popes at once, nah! Making Germany submit over and over for Italy? Nah! Favoring France over England? Nah! Letting Constantinople fall? Nah! Staying silent about Hitler and Mussolini? Nah Encouraging slavery in the New World? Nah! Ratlines for Nazis? Nah! Not worth the fight and when Woke Pope flips to pro gay about 50-75% of them are going to split off with SPX all while acting like that's not protestant. I would stop arguing with them focus on gays, SJWs, atheists, and the LGBTQ crowd maybe they'll get the hint. Also we can all cruelly but accurately point out our countries greatness was in spite of them and it's downfall began with their mass immigration and their voting the way they have for decades! It wasn't protestants who brought major organized crime to the US afterall.
The Bible consistently says the 12 are the foundation equally. They sit on 12 thrones, nothing about Peter's throne being larger. The New Jerusalem has 12 foundations, nothing about Peter's foundation being primary.
As I read through alllll these comments, I'm feeling displaced as to "what I am". Everybody seems inclined to give belief system titles to define who or what they are or other people are. If I only read the bible and pray for God to lead me into understanding in regards to truth and salvation and then from there test everything by The Word of God, what am I? I thought this made me "Christian" according to Scripture. Is that even a recognized religion anymore?
@@TruthUnites I think so, but I'll go back and check if this is one of those channels where usually walking two feet away from my laptop makes the video inaudible. I'll report back.
@@TruthUnites Actually the audio on this video is clipping (exceeding the maximum allowable digital value) quite badly, so while it is loud it is also audibly distorted. I'm not sure if you recorded it too hot, or your microphone battery is low, but it is surely different from your usual technical standard.
Peter isn’t the rock the church is built on because you can’t build the church on a man. The rock is full heartfelt faith in Christ, to not just listen to Christ but to do as Christ says in His commandments whenever and however He speaks.
I converted to Catholicism 18 years ago. I think the main thing for me was that while some things might not be said as explicitly as objectors would like, when I read the Bible with the Catholic interpretation, things fall into place with a much more coherent framework. It's like watching a show where someone assumes two of the characters are brother and sister for a few episodes, then finds out on episode 4 that they were father and daughter. That new understanding would completely change the original understanding of the show, and likely also bring oddities or otherwise seemingly disjointed scenes together into a way that makes more sense for the viewer. That's what it was like for me, at least. When I "borrowed" from the Catholic interpretation to change my mind on four or five things, I started to seriously consider the papacy as being the distinction from other denominations and the thing on which it started to all rest. Have you read Jerome's Letter 15 to Pope Damasus? "As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!"
Wow you said that so perfectly. I converted to Catholicism last year, and feel the exact same way when I read Scripture now. The best I could come up with to describe the difference to people was that there are “Catholic verses I never noticed before.” Your explanation is spot on.
I completely agree I’m currently about to start RCIA myself to join the Church and I feel the same way. I’ve heard stories for years of Catholicism being an “empty religion” and lacking real relationship with God. So far as you explained I have felt the exact opposite. I’m excited to go to Mass every week, praying the Rosary has been amazing for me, and Scripture has come alive in a way I have never experienced before.
@@bethanyann1060 Calvinist Christians see many “Reformed verses” throughout scripture they didn’t see before they were Calvinists. Ephesians 2:8 Matthew 24 Romans 9 and so on.
@@angelascow8706 That is true. I used to be a Calvinist, so I’ve seen them all. The problem with Calvinists (and other groups) is that they tend to zoom into only a few verses of Scripture, while ignoring others. Scripture teaches the universal salvific will of God, which Calvinism denies. Catholics do actually have in their tradition different takes on predestination, one of them being Thomism. It has a lot of overlap with Calvinism, and is very interesting to at least study for comparison. Calvin departed radically from his favorite Augustine on many issues. Might I suggest the book “The Mystery of Predestination” by Catholic author John Salza, if you’re interested to learn more?
Wanna learn about the Papacy? Start with Dan. 7, and the "little horn". Then 2 Thes. 2, the "man of sin, son of perdition". Then Rev. 13:1-10, and the "sea beast". Then Rev. 17, and the "Scarlet Harlot". Our Protestant forefathers used to know this stuff. The Laodicean Church is very sleepy today. But thank you for exposing some of the major errors, falsehoods, and lies of Satan's greatest creation. *Soli Deo Gloria*
As always I appreciate your thorough response and your genuinely loving concern, Dr. Ortland. You suggest that: "If you have a supreme infallible head of the Church, you would expect see that either in the New Testament, or in Church history/the early historical literature. You'd expect that that would kind of come up, like in the Book of Acts, or in the Pastoral Epistles, or in Ephesians 4 where Paul is documenting the offices of the Church in relation to the unity of the Chruch; or in the First Epistle of Clement, or somewhere!" You then go on to list two reasons why you think that's reasonable. I wonder, though, if an unambiguous and universal canon of Scripture--what in your estimation is the only indispensable and infallible rule of faith in the Church--would meet the standard you just set out for the Papacy. Would an atheist, as you mention, be reasonable to expect for the Canon of Scripture that Protestants use today, "would kind of come up in like the Book of Acts, or in the Pastoral Epistles, or in Ephesians 4 where Paul is documenting the offices of the Church in relation to the unity of the Church; or in the First Epistle of Clement, or somewhere!"? Why, if it's such an important reality to the unity, governance, instruction and direction of the Church, would God permit such seeming ambiguity by his apostles and among the earliest Christians? You'll rightly appeal to the explicit and implicit ways in which the New Testament alludes to the authority of the written word, to an apostolic teaching, to the Old Testament patterns and examples, and you'll rightly appeal to the various historical attestations to a Canon which is partly or even completely in alliance with the Canon Protestants have today. You'll do this despite other places in the New and Old Testaments that might seem unusually silent on the matter or which seem to imply the opposite, and despite other early historical literature that seems unusually silent on the matter and/or actually disagrees with forms of the Canon you hold to. You'll do all this and still wholeheartedly accept that this is the providential process that a sovereign Christ permitted the Canon of Scripture--such an essential truth to the unity, governance, instruction, growth, and direction of his Church--to undergo. In my opinion this is exactly what Catholics do and accept about the Papacy. Yes, it was and is so important. Yes, there are ways to argue for and against it from Scripture. Yes, there is early historical literature attesting to it, and early historical literature that disagrees. Yes, there are Christians today who hold to it and many others who disagree with parts or entire coneptions of it. But that's the same boat that the Protestant Canon of Scripture finds itself in, no? Should we be as skeptical of the Canon as you propose we be about the Papacy? Maybe you're answer is yes, in which case I'd applaud you for your consistency. But if not, then I think you can begin to more readily accept that such an important reality as the Papacy can really be as reasonable as the equally (or, in the Protestant perspective, more) important reality of the Canon of Scripture by the criteria you yourself layout. Much more could be said of course, but I'll leave my thoughts as they are for your consideration. Thank you as always for your continued pursuit of the Lord and his truth! Blessings, brother.
Thanks for the kind words! Why do you think the canon would be as expected as a supreme and infallible head of the church? I don't see why that would be similarly expected. The canon is not a visible office instantiated by an actual person, as is the papacy.
It seems to me that the Canon doesn't have to be a visible office instantited by an actual person for my question to still hold. If the Church is meant to be built upon and directed by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (which I recognize is very nuanced, as you've argued)--the Scriptures being the only infallible authority from which to formulate and live out our faith--then wouldn't it be important to know with a certainty which Scriptura (which Canon) the Church is meant to be Sola to? Would a skeptic be unreasonable to expect for something as essential as the Canon to be more explicitly affirmed in the New Testament and early historical literature without the seeming ambiguity and variation we see in both the New Testament and early historical literature? That's what I'm arguing because it seems that that's the sort of expectation you're placing upon the important doctrine of the Papacy.
@@gabrieln3836 Besides whether or not the canon is a visible office, there seems to be a positive reason to think that we shouldn't expect such a thing, namely, the canon isn't really ever mentioned in scripture. It is just an assumption in the scriptures and never taught on. Church matters, including its governmental structure, are--conversely--talked about quite a bit in the New Testament. It gives explicit teaching on what the offices ought to be like. I think that one can say, we would expect that it would mention what would appear to be the most important office, just as it does the other offices, but I don't think it can be similarly said that we would expect to see a canon list when there is little to no discussion of canon in scripture.
@@Real_LiamOBryan thanks for the great comment. I think this just bolsters exactly my point. For argument's sake let's just grant that both the Papacy and the Canon of Scripture are infallible sources of authority, and let's also say that there isn't much explicit evidence for either in the New Testament and early historical literature. If the Protestant is skeptical of a Catholics' acceptance of one source of infallible authority--namely, the Papacy--despite the "implicit" evidence we do find in the New Testament and early historical literature for it, but then accepts another source of infallible authority--namely, the (Protestant) Canon of Scripture--on less explicit evidence within the New Testament and early historical literature as you yourself have said, then there seems to be a double standard being held. For the Catholic it isn't an issue for very important truths--like the papacy or like the canon of scripture (or various other important debated truths that were eventually settled on definitively)--to have organically grown and been defined overtime from what is layed out in Scripture and progressively taught and accepted in the early Church. But if a Protestant requires very explicit evidence in order to accept very important doctrines, then it seems like they have to hold to a double standard for accepting the (Protestant) Canon of Scripture and rejecting the papacy. And again, this is true even if one were to concede the assumption granted at the start that there isn't clear or explicit evidence for the papacy, which I think is very debatable.
Congratulations Dr. Ortlund, you are beginning to understand the secret of attractive TH-cam thumbnails - keep making these faces. Also love your work, Lord bless you.
32:20 What I feel a lot of Catholics don't get is that arguing from silence is not a fallacy if one would expect an answer / description in the context of the passage. Yes one cannot derive definitive proof for a positive statement from it but the silence carries enough force with it to shift the burden of proof onto the other party. For example - when sinful conditions that stand in the path to salvation is often outlined in great detail why does the Bible never explicitly say that one cannot be saved without being Baptized? I realize this is not something that Catholics believe in our day - it serves merely as an example.
Thank you for this video, and the non-confrontational discussion of evidence levels. As you (in other videos) give much information on early church writings, and because it has bearing on this discussion, could you consider a video specifically on James the "brother" of Jesus who gives the final decision of the meeting in Acts 15, and who (at the least) clearly has considerable authority in the Jerusalem church. What information do early church writings give us about him, why he became so prominent despite presumably being a non-believer during Jesus's physical time on earth, and how does this relate to the church headship discussion?
Catholic hermeneutics taken consistently proves Jacobean Primacy because James says in Acts 15:13 "Listen to ME" and in verse 19 he says, "THEREFORE **MY** judgment is..." -It proves Pauline Primacy because Paul says in 2 Cor. 11:28 that he daily bore the pressure "of all the churches." -It proves Thomist Primacy because he alone got to place his finger(s) through the risen Christ's wounds. His name is "Thomas" meaning "twin" because he's the true vicar and twin/double of Christ on earth while Christ is in heaven. -It proves Judasian Primacy because to HIM alone was entrusted the money bag. That's why his office NEEDED to be replaced by Matthias on account of Judas' failure to fulfill that exalted office. Lest a sedevacantist sect arise. -It proves Andrewian Primacy because in John 6:8 Andrew was the one who pointed out the boy with the 5 loaves and 2 fish which lead to the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000. Who else better to lead & feed the church of God? -It proves Nathanielian Primacy because to him alone did the Lord say in John 1:47 "Behold an Israelite indeed, IN WHOM IS NO GUILE!" The Lord even said in the next verse, "Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I SAW THEE." Clearly, he was foreordained and foreknown to lead the church. The name "Nathanel" means, "God has given." Isn't it clear that God has given the church guileless Nathanael as the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church? -It proves Lazarusian Primacy because he is specifically said to be loved by the Lord in John 11:3. The name "Lazarus" means "God has helped." What better help can we have for a Pontifex Maximus than he who died and was raised again by the Lord after a period longer than anyone else has remained dead and risen again? Christ was dead ONLY 3 days, Lazarus 4 days. The number Four, according to Biblical numerology is the number of creation [cf. E.W. Bullinger's works]. Obviously, Lazarus is meant to guide the church (the NEW Creation) into the resurrection life and power ordained for the bride of Christ. -It proves Thaddaeusian Primacy because he alone is the three named Apostle according to the best Byzantine manuscripts of the New Testament [Thaddaeus, Judas, and Lebbaeus]. St. Jerome called him, "Trinomius," which means "the man with 3 names." Clearly an allusion to the Holy Trinity's sanctioning of Thaddaeus as Pope. I could go on and on......See Jason Engwer's blogpost titled, "51 Biblical Proofs Of A Pauline Papacy And Ephesian Primacy" He wrote it in response to a Roman Catholic apologist's list of 50 alleged Biblical proofs of a Petrine papacy. It was written to show how Catholic hermeneutics can be used to prove ridiculous things.
Do you see the office of "pastor" in the bible? Where is there an example of someone making a living from teaching the gospel? I'm actually so grateful to you for digging into primary sources to try to prove Catholicism wrong. For so many, at least at the street level, "proving Catholicism wrong," is just yelling "idol worship, whore of Babylon." And Catholics are so shocked and blown away by the rhetoric that they fall down before the street preacher and leave the church. In fact, as you're finding, proving Catholicism wrong is a daunting task. But don't lose heart, in fact 2000 years and tens of thousands of religions later, no one has done it.
Exactly 😊. That's why we keep watching these restless nights some of protesting pastors have trying to put out their case against the Rock. One thing is indeed the gate of hell will not prevail. So with good or bad intention, the outcome remains the same. ONE Consoling things is the intelligent apologists that he debates are not out to convert him, but only clarifying his hopefully unintentional misrepresentation. So his not being persuaded is inconsequential.
Is the power and primacy of the Pope the only doctrine the Catholic Church affirms? I would hope not. Then how can you conflate what Dr. Ortlund is debating with trying to prove Catholicism all wrong? How does one have a dialog with people who reduce everything to “shouting street preachers” and “2000 years and tens of thousands of religions?” If shouting street preachers who rail against idol worship and the Whore of Babylon are causing Catholics to abandon you, maybe that should be a matter for your own introspection. That is not the topic here.
@@jimmydavid1993 great points. They are not trying to convert him. They are just answering his objections. Whether he ever takes the veil off is between him and the Holy Spirit. But I do appreciate his diligence. How many? 99%? of anti Catholics are completely convinced (and think we will be) by a quote from the Jehovah's witness or Jack Chick -the absolute opposite of reliable, or even believable.
1 Timothy 5:17-18 ESV Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The labourer deserves his wages.” Galatians 6:6 ESV One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches. 1 Corinthians 9:14 ESV In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
@@logicaredux5205 the primacy of the pope has not been his only crusade. I'm just saying he's taking a much more scholastic and reliable approach to the impossible. Take a look at some the the youtube videos about the "errors of Catholicism" to you EVER see anything based on anything other than parroting other anti-Catholics?
The problem with your first counter is, NO ONE looked at Paul as leader of the 12. It wasn’t understood to be the case at the time nor in the history of the Early Church. The only way your dismissal of the Bishop of Rome starting with Peter makes sense is if you ignore his that office was lived out starting with what the saints wrote concerning it.
Of course no one interpreted Paul as leader of the 12- That’s the point of the comparison. The bishop of Rome has no evidence of being held as a higher authority for literal centuries after the establishment of the position (Ave even then, the examples given an be understood as political, not doctrinal in nature) and afterwards it is still challenged. The early fathers also sang praises to all of the bishops in a way that makes isolating gushing texts on Rome to be toothless. Rome was an important church, probably the most important, because of its geography, but that is all. You can’t trace the line to Peter, nor is there any formal authority to the ruling.
@@whatsinaname691 That clearly isn't the case from all 4 Gospels, or in the Fact that Paul "learned at the feet of Peter for 2 years." And why specifically Peter, BECAUSE HE WAS THE HEAD OF THE COLLEGE OF THE APOSTLES." And that is also reflected by the Fact that Peter acknowledged Peter as head of the Church in Rome before Paul ever went there. And by the Fact that the Church IN ROME recognized Peter as the Head of the Church there. Why didn't they recognize Paul, he was just as much an Apostle. As did the Church for centuries following. Who did they understanding to have founded the Roman Church? PETER. Who did the Holy Spirit give the vision of the heavenly cloth with the Unclean animals to at the Council of Jerusalem, It was Peter. Who did John wait for at the Tomb of our Lord even though he arrived first? It was Peter. Who did Jesus give the keys of the kingdom to in his profession of him as the "Rock upon whom he would would build his Church?" That was Peter too. Who is the last scene of the Gospel of John directed to who Jesus tells to feed his lambs? Peter. Kind of interesting even though John wrote the Gospel and John arrived at the tomb first, it was Peter to whom the action was centered on both times. And why is that? Because he was the leader. Why is that? Because that's what Jesus appointed him as. That's what the New Testament identified him as. That's what the Early Church identified him as. that's what even the other ancient 5 sees identified in recognizing Rome as 1st among them. For you to simply ignore all that, as per protestant theology because of the warped unscriptural eccelsiology that sprang from it, is just ridiculous ideology.
@@whatsinaname691 By schismatics and heretics. Some challenge. "Ave even then, the examples given an be understood as political, not doctrinal in nature." -Really? According to whom? "and afterwards it is still challenged." Really? According to whom? What's the source? Without specific evidence that's another boilerplate argument. Which seems to be the only kind you can make. " The early fathers also sang praises to all of the bishops in a way that makes isolating gushing texts on Rome to be toothless." -Really? According to what source? More boilerplate. "Rome was an important church, probably the most important, because of its geography, but that is all. " -Really? According to whom? More boilerplate. "You can’t trace the line to Peter, nor is there any formal authority to the ruling." -Wrong, "Oxford dictionary of Popes." We know who every pope was in sequence from today going back to Peter. This is the part where you even though you just made up stuff before, there is actually documented respected research published by respected sources completely contradicting your delusional schismatic nonsense. www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191795459.001.0001/acref-9780191795459
Appreciate your content Dr. Ortlund. Re: James, Peter, and John, I've often wondered if there isn't some type of connection with King David's three mighty warriors from Chronicles who, if memory serves me, were the elite three from his group of 30. Three from a larger group of 30, and Christ with 3 from his larger group of 12. Who knows.
I am a Protestant. We do have a supreme infallible head of the Church. His name is Jesus Christ. (Hebrews 8:1,2)
Amen 🙏❤️
But you don’t accept Jesus and what He said about His Choice for His Church
@@TheresaCronin-kc6wz Ah, you mean like Matthew 23:9?
@@TheresaCronin-kc6wz "His Choice for His Church"
This is such a strange non-biblical category. Roman Catholicism DID NOT EXIST when Jesus was around, he wasn't out there "picking a church" or whatever you seem to think was happening.
The "one true church" wars are one of the dumbest things to ever come out of Christianity.
Ever since the satanic cult of sola scriptura a man made tradition invented by a devil possessed man was introduced five hundred years ago many idiots like Calvin Smythe Zwingli Henry Ellen Knox Wesley Russell etc started to interpret the Bible on their own wild imagination and even adding their wishful thinking or twisting historical facts or even tried to manipulate the holy Bible itself in order to make their satanic theology fit into it and this madness go on and on and on and on and on upto fifty thousand heretics like McArthur, Benny, Copeland Crepo, Osteen, Todd, Hagee Ortlund etc are doing all sorts of nonsense and all are contradicting each other all the time rendering Christianity itself into chaotic anarchism
This video was ridiculously helpful for me. I subscribe to Capturing Christianity and have been following his consideration of Catholicism. A lot of the arguments were making sense and causing me to question my convictions as a Protestant and my affirmation of Sola Scriptura, but as you outlined some of the arguments against the papacy in this video as well as a defense for Sola Scriptura in another, I feel more confident in my stance as a Protestant. I go to Biola university as a Bible major, this Chanel and all of my classes have really grown a passion in me to take a deep dive into church history and track the theological developments of the church over the centuries. Thanks, Dr. Ortlund! You’re awesome!
How awesome, I am so glad it’s been helpful to you! Biola is a great school, I hope you flourish in your studies there.
I plan on going on a similar track at Biola, how do you like it so far?
You should still consider catholicsm. Pray and ask god for the truth
@@jpc9923 you do realize you just made a grossly contradictory statement correct? You are making theological judgements based on your own faith background and worldview the same as they are. If I were to be born in the Catholic tradition, steeped in its theology, I would most likely find the case for Catholicism more compelling than something clearly outside of my comfort zone. The problem is the only arbitration between the two options is found in an outside source, what is the source? Clearly many find it to be Scripture, and I think it is abundantly clear that no matter how hard you try and make Scripture support the RCC it just doesn’t do so, and falls well short in many regards. But the RCC response is to appeal to its “tradition” which only it has and only it can control. Thus, it’s tradition will always lead back to… it! It’s viciously circular in my eyes, no wonder you find no case against it compelling.
My path diverged from the RCC when I started asking myself what did Scripture say for itself? I studied the world Scripture occupied, it’s rich cultural and historical context, and combined with its writings I realized I could not be Catholic. Partly because by studying and interpreting Scripture for myself I was doing exactly what the RCC forbids! But what I found was a rich treasure in Christ that surpassed all my expectations and fears.
@@jpc9923 I think Catholics can read Scripture, but the second it deviates from the Catholic understanding it’s deemed heretical and thereby you can no longer be Catholic. If I read Scripture and come to no conclusion of papacy, or even other Catholic dogmas such as the assumption of Mary, then I am automatically not a Catholic. And the only way I would come to such understanding is by submitting myself to the Catholic interpretation of Scripture even when I have more compelling interpretive options. The Catholic Church says it has a monopoly on the Bible, and if you don’t agree with it you’re not a part of the “true Church.” I find that patently ridiculous if I’m being fair. If I go to the source to evaluate, it matters what bias and prejudice I bring to the source. If I bring a Catholic bias I will read “into” the text the Catholic doctrines. If I bring any other bias I will likely read those commitments into the text. The only way to even attempt to countermand this is to try and construct the bias of the earliest readers of these works (the NT specifically) and what they would have understood from Scripture. Which I have endeavored to do, and I can find no reason to believe that they would have gotten anything out of it like what the RCC is today.
What matters most, brother, is that you're as kind and gentle as you are smart and well-read. We don't see that enough these days.
Nor should you expect this. Christianity is not meant as a religion for people who can read stuff for themselves. This on its own supports the Papacy. Not even individual bishops can be free from potential errors.
@@pepeinno4002what are you talking about. The catholic popes have been beyond fallible. FRancis said all path lead to heaven. Pope Leo and other burned heretics. The church practices indulgences and realized that was wrong. Peter was no modern day pope. Papacy is not infallible nor it is biblical. Jesus is the head of the chuech. Not an old guy with heresies that was chosen based men voting
What matters most is telling the truth. And Dr gavin is doing that respectfully 😊
It must be exhausting keeping up with all these response videos. Respect. From a catholic.
He will not be able to keep up
@@pepeinno9336he's been keeping up and its awesome!
Dr. Ortlund: "In a twenty minute video..."
Everyone: Only 20 min?
Everyone: 39 minutes still to go? Phew.
Yes. We needed every minute of it!
Another excellent response doc. You bring together all the evidence and assess them in sum, not just piecemeal, which makes the argument much more powerful.
Thanks Paul!
@@TruthUnites they like to isolate the evidences so people don’t get the big picture
@@TruthUnites please address Rev1v20 where "angel" is understood by major Protestant commentaries and Church Fathers to mean head bishop of a city. I posted this above in detail.
The other EUtyches
Excellent response?
As everyone SHOULD know, the "canon of scripture" is not provided in the scriptures. On this basis alone (not to mention several others), "sola scriptura" cannot logically be asserted as the authoritative standard of / for biblical truth. Nor can it be ignored that Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants, and even some within Protestantism held/hold to different canons. Luther, himself, had a canon of scripture which varied over the years (after he left the Catholic Church), and still doubted the Book of Revelation should be in the canon at his death. Likewise, there are some who today hold that Enoch and/or other pseudopygraphal books should be in the canon.
It should be obvious from these facts that Ortland's appeal to "Sola scriptura" as a standard for proof (apart from the already established authoritative canon of the ancient, established Church) has no firm foundation upon which to assert his claims (including his appeals to "sola scriptura").
Gotta get my popcorn for this one. 1 hour of Ortlund = pure entertainment
He is awesome and pleasant to listen to.
I don't watch all of these back and forth videos on all these various topics (my interest is fairly narrow: justification), but I appreciate the time and effort you put in to respond to them all. Praying your continued engagement will lead to fruit in the Spirit, whether with ultimate entrance into the Church, or otherwise. May the Lord bless your continued zeal for serving Him by speaking about these issues.
Thanks Taylor.
I love the back and forth videos. I love to hear the best arguments from both sides. It helps me get closer to truth, I think
Thanks for your video, I have been thinking to convert to catholicism but doutbs come to me concerning the papacy and marian dogmas as well. Also i cant deny the graces that God has put in other christians traditions. Your videos always encourge me to seek the truth. May God keep using and blessing you and your family. Greeting from Chile South America!
thank you and may the Lord bless you and guide you!
It was for me that Jesus died, and that's enough for me. ✝️
The polite, compassionate, and respectful way with which you engage with these issues educates me not only on the available evidence, but also on the Spirit led way these discussions should be conducted..
You are indeed a blessing Brother..
Your dialogue is respectful, clear, and not at all offensive..
You continually model to me an attitude that I know is pleasing to the Lord, so that as I adopt that same attitude I become a better man, better equipped, and less emotive in my own discussions..
Thanks again..
I really admire your kindness, patience and how open and respectful you are in presenting your arguments. So many videos I see are snarky and rude. But yours are always gentle and loving, the true heart of Christ. I have had a hard time trying to discuss subjects such as these with people, including my wife hahaha. My in-laws are orthodox and discussing things with them have taught me how to respond with kindness, patience and compassion. I'm still learning but examples such as you are really encouraging to me.
This is my issue with almost everything the Catholic Church postulates as doctrine. It’s all just inference. And it’s hilarious when it’s explained, because the answer is never an answer at all. great job getting into the details with such care.
That's just not true. The Catholic Church is very careful about her reasoning, and has thousands of years of writings on these topics. At the end of the day, the question is really... do you submit to Christ's church, or to your own fancy?
@@Scynthescizor wrong! God gave me faculties to interpret his word as well as to observe the early church’s evolution JUST THE SAME AS HE GAVE IT TO EVERY OTHER HUMAN BEING THATS EVER BEEN IN THE CHURCH. In a fallen world, they are no less fallible than I or you or anyone else. You think that just because they were careful, they were correct? Or impartial? Or not corrupt? I think you need to take a better look at “her” history. Yeah, they’ve been careful about a lot of things. Indulgences, keeping bibles out of the hands of the populous, and child molestation, for example.
@@Scynthescizor The problem is that you that your tradittion is the only correct interpretation, and so when you see others who are part of different traditions you look at them and say "haha! silly rebels, they won't submit to God." No, we just reject outright that you possess anywhere near the doctrinal authority that you claim to have.
@@dokidelta1175 I'm not saying "haha silly rebels." A lot of people are confused about the issue, and I know that protestants of good faith are trying to follow the will of God. But at the end of the day, only one (or none) of the various interpretations can be correct.
I submit to the Church that claims to be founded by Christ, with history and tradition and a track record to back that claim. But it's also an act of faith to submit to the Church - I don't think there is a perfect, logical argument that will win minds on it. Just prayerful consideration and intellectual honesty.
This was VERY helpful. I was Catholic for 30 years, but after actually reading scripture for the first time, i became a staunch defender of biblical Christianity instead. But I still struggle sometimes when it comes to defending the truth of scripture vs the claims of catholicism. So these types of calm, rational, and well documented defenses are so helpful. Thank you!
The Bible is a Catholic book. Protestants cannot make that same claim for Protestantism, aside from the claim to a rightful inheritance from Catholics. But even this came at the expense of dispensing Holy Books. If Luther had his way, even more would have been trashed.
@@PaxMundi118 What a ridiculous statement that shows zero understanding of history. But it's typical for catholics, always trying to steal the glory from Christ. The holy spirit wrote the books of the bible and these books were widely distributed and known to be holy scriptures long before the bishop of Rome seized power from all the other bishops that led the church for hundreds of years after Christ. The true church of Christ existed before Rome hijacked it and started burning alive everyone who tried to speak out against it's abuses. If you actually care about learning how we got our Bible, go listen to James Whites video entitled where we got our Bible. Nothing to do with gay roman popes and priests.
@@PaxMundi118 Eastern Orthodoxy claims the same thing, as do Marcionites.
@@doriesse824 Though I don't meet many Marcionites, I think both have better claims to determining the Canon than do any 16th century or post-16th century traditions.
@@PaxMundi118 None of the 16th century reformers claimed they were trying to create doctrine. That's what your Catholic church does. The reformers were simply trying to rid the church of all the detestable practices and doctrines added by the catholic Church over the centuries. They were trying to take the church back to its roots, to the church established by Christ and the apostles, as shown in scripture. The Catholic church is an apostate church that left the true church when the bishop of Rome seized power, making himself the head of the church instead of Christ. Shameful.
So I grew up Christian (non catholic) but was never into church stopped going to church once my family moved to a different town when I was in 7th grade. I don’t even know what kind of church I went to because I didn’t know about all these denominations all I know was I learned the gospel. But when I became an adult I actually read the Bible and truly excepted Jesus. Now today I am trying to lean more history about the church and the catholic side is odd..im trying to understand I try listening to catholic apologists and….its so off to me. When I listen to non catholic Christians apologists aka “ protestant” it clicks so well with what I know from the Bible . Oh and also it feels so close to Christ when I hear Catholics it’s like… church, Mary , saints and then Jesus…. still trying to understand but … it’s not sitting well with me
I noticed that the late doctrine that the RCC clings to is read INTO the text. You can't get what they believe FROM the text. Thank you for this video.
from the text's context
Thank you for the new vocabulary word (Eisegesis). You hit the nail on the head.
Thanks again Gavin! Always a pleasure and a blessing hearing from you. Always edifying! Happy Easter and God Bless you and your family!
Even though you're not Catholic Christian, I acknowledge your love for the Lord. May He bless you richly in this life and the one to come.❤️🙏❤️
I've had some great conversations with Catholics following Trent and your conversations with Cameron. And, as you say, they are are passionate and sincere. I have learned so much from them about what they believe. I so needed this video RN. TYSM
You really do break this down with such precision, big thanks for what you do, God bless.
Too much “Eis” for an “Ex-man” to abide! Dr. Ortlund keeping it real as always.😇🙏🏼👍🏼
Yes! Keep talking. These videos are so helpful. Thanks again Gavin. These studies are like turning on a light in dimly lit room.
You are blessed God loves you preaching the truth ❤😊
Excellent presentation of the counter-arguments, sir, and you could have easily gone another hour based on my experience dialoguing with Catholics on YT.
I'm thinking about starting a channel here on YT to help people looking to move out of the RCC, since my experience with the same was fraught/confusing/difficult. This video definitely highlights a need for this kind of resource...got you/your ministry in my prayers, Gavin.
I’m a newly confirmed Catholic, I really enjoy your videos and love hearing you talk with other Catholic apologists. Thank you for all that you’re doing!
Newly confirmed and already pope!? 🫢🤣 (if you pardon the pun)
Read the Bible and understand it. Bible Gateway is the app I use. Baptism is for believers, not babies. Acts teaches that a pastor should be a married family man. Religion says do. Jesus says done. He paid it all, it is finished. Greetings from Trinity Bible Church in Phoenix.
@@patrickmccarthy7877 We baptize babies in the same way we circumcised babies in the Old Covenant.
@@aCatholicOne Baptising my cat doesn't make him a Christian anymore than my infant baptism made me a Christian. At some point, I had to trust Jesus for myself.
@@aCatholicOne There is a clear commandment to circumcise on the 8th day,not for baptism.
And baptism is not a novel innovation of the church, jewish tradition and the Torah contains core truth about mikvahs and immersion.
Always in the ancient Israel and in 2nd Temple period, and in the early church baptism was for adult novice.
Gavin, I see your work as an incredibly important and useful ministry for the whole of Christianity. You display the love and patience of a true believer in your dialogues and have set a wonderful example for me and others to follow as we all attempt to imitate Christ. Thanks
Isn’t it just like the Devil, who is an expert manipulator of the Word, to convince many within and outside of the Church to exalt one Apostle above all of his co-equals? And not only that, but to bow the knee to all subsequent Popes as a diversion from direct faith in Jesus Christ? There is absolutely no Biblical basis for the Papacy. If Jesus giving the keys to Peter was a promotional appointment to the Papacy, then Peter would have immediately began to serve as the ‘Director’ of the Apostles from that point onwards. Remember when Samuel the Prophet anointed Saul as Israel’s first King, which began the reign of the Davidic Dynasty with their next King? Well, as soon as Saul was anointed to Kingship, he immediately ascended the throne. Peter never assumed any position above Apostleship. Not a hint of Peter being the “Pope” is evidenced throughout any of the Gospels or even later in Acts. Simply because there is no Papacy. In Matthew 16, Jesus blessed Peter with personal Apostolic authority, not Papal infallibility. There is only one “Pope” who is our Heavenly Father-Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd.
I agree with this a lot, I'm in a Cameron situation where I'm debating between orthodoxy catholicism and high church protestantism but I am seeing how catholic apologists try to prove too much with little details. Same thing with Isaiah 22, typology should not be used to prove a doctrine.
But the problem with your position on typology is that the biblical writers were highly influenced by typology - Jesus being the new Moses is quite an evident typological connection for instance.
@@lukewilliams448 Yes, but the typology for Jesus as the new Moses is set in Scripture, Passover, the people of God entering the Promised Land, being a “prophet like Moses” as prophesied in Deuteronomy.
Other typology such as Isaiah 22 may not be inherently unbiblical, but it is harder to make the case than it would be for Jesus being the new Moses, since it isn’t just one passage that this comparison is set on, but several.
@@lukewilliams448 There's a difference between being influenced by typology and basing a belief on it. When we talk about Jesus being the new Moses we are saying that there are a number of things that are true of Jesus which are also true about Moses, and that God deliberately arranged for their lives to turn out that way. But the similarities that make up the type are all things that are explicitly taught about Jesus in scripture.
The kind of argument Child_of_weakness is talking about is different - it starts by arguing that something in the Old Testament is a type of Mary, Peter, or whatever. It then uses that type to get to the conclusion of the papacy, one of the Marian dogmas, or whatever. But this kind of argumentation is rarely persuasive to those who don't already believe the doctrine, since it looks like the Catholic is reading their doctrine into the text. If typology is the best Biblical argument they have for a particular position then they would be more convincing if they admitted that the doctrine came from tradition rather than scripture.
@Bb Dl …AMEN!!
@Bb Dl I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your response, however I do have several points in which I take issue with the “extent” that you allow typology to influence your reading of Scripture. When it comes to addressing the constant echoing and shadowing of the OT in the New (which I agree with wholeheartedly) it is also of paramount importance to address how specifically the NT and Jesus in particular fulfill and address the OT writings. From my understanding, and from the understanding of many of my messianic Jewish friends, Jesus fulfilled these OT typological links in an incredibly subversive way. That is to say that Jesus did not give much credence to the OT understanding of prophecy and it’s application. There is a reason that so many Jewish believers were wholly convinced of a completely different kind of messianic figure, and it had to do with their appropriation of Scripture over that of the intent of the Spirit. The Jewish understanding of their own Scripture was not immune to error, as is clearly demonstrated. So when we look for typological links in the OT, we must be very careful to understand that though Jesus came in fulfillment of the many prophecies and other OT foreshadowing, He did so in a way that was wildly different than what the Jews expected or predicted Him to do. So much so that His true purpose on earth was almost completely misunderstood by even the most learned Jews of His age. When I examine the Scriptures, I find it wise to keep that in mind when I look for potential links, and also when ascertaining the true purpose and plan of the Christ. I cannot help but see so many plain signs that Jesus was wholly uninterested in a hierarchical and institutional Church when I adopt this mindset. For at every chance, He acts and speaks in a way that subverts and almost undermines the traditional Jewish understanding of hierarchy. His language is inclusive, broad, and concerned with the redemption of His people and humanity. Aside from the proliferation and dispensation of teaching that He charges to the Twelve and the other apostles, I find no good reason within Scripture to ascribe any credence to an institutional restructuring of Jewish ecclesial forms. I would also countermand this by saying that I very much believe Jesus came to set up a Church, but His Church is about His body, the people who believe and trust in Him. He offers no other guidelines, and no other instructions other than this. When the first “council” met in Jerusalem in Acts, it is in opposition to the old Jewish traditions and practices that they speak against. Even Peter and James seem to understand the the Gospel is a message for everyone, and that despite tradition and long-held practices it must go forward in a way as to reach humanity where humanity is at. Creating institutions, setting restrictive dogmas, playing the part of God on earth is not the way to reach humanity with the Gospel. We may crave rules and regulations, and institutions may appeal to our nature, but Christ came so that His truth would be written on our hearts and not in the dusty tomes of ecclesial law.
A comment I found under an old video the other day summed up my position here, it read “If I were a first century Jew, learned in Jewish tradition and practice, I believe my only option would be Roman Catholicism.” This very statement is the exact reason I am not Catholic, and do not foresee myself ever becoming Catholic. Because the more I study the ancient Jews, the first and second century Christians, and the development of the Church; I see a return to the familiar human conditions of power and structure and institution. Instead, I believe that Jesus calls for a return to humanity that is much better represented in the “universal church of all believers.”
This was a great talk. Thanks so much for putting this out there! I really appreciate your measured approach.
I GREATLY appreciate your thoughtfulness and dedication to honoring the Lord and his Word. Thank you.
Your rebuttal to the ‘no governors in the constitution’ argument is genius
It's presentations like these that make me so excited to see how discussions in Christian theology will progress over the next few decades. I think this is one of the first few times in the history of the Church where we have been able to have honest, thorough, and productive discussions on areas inter-denomenational/traditional disagreement. Thank-you Dr.Ortlund for taking the time to digest and make convincing responses to the claims of our Catholic brothers and sisters. May the Lord bless you!
I’m here because many Catholics recommended your channel. Much love
Welcome, glad to be connected!
A great video! It's so needed to have people who are truly and honestly trying to bring the conversation forward with utmost respect for all parties involved, something that's so lacking in all parts of modern day western society. It's such a rarity to be able to openly disagree and discuss our differing opinions while still loving each other
Thank you for a well reasoned response. Keep up the good work for Christ and His kingdom. God bless.
Thank you for your tactfulness. Theological differences are challenging to discuss with charity. I appreciate the discussion.
Dr Ortland, I again am so impressed by your arguments and the way you make them. You are charitable and level-headed. I agree with you that the issue of the papacy is very complex, and I think that Orthodox and Protestant Christians do have good arguments against it. I think Catholics also have good arguments. It seems to me, though, that the scriptural and historical arguments cannot deliver any conclusive solutions to the question. As you say, it is about weighing the evidence. I am not well-versed enough in the historical and scriptural arguments to weigh the evidence for myself yet; so for now, I rely on the ecclesiastical argument (that truths of the faith cannot be determined without someone at the head to be a final arbiter between disputes). It seems that the papacy was a legitimate and necessary development in the Church in order to determine solutions between disputing parties and maintain unity. Christ does pray for that the Church would be united (John 17) and it seems clear that heresy is undesirable for the sake of that unity. I may just be thinking with a "Catholic mind," but that's where I am at for the present. God bless you all, and a Good Friday to you all, as well.
Thanks for the kind words Parker!
If scriptural and historical arguments cannot present a good conclusion, then the papacy should not be an obligatory church structure.
@@TheOtherCaleb Hi Caleb, thank you for your comment. I know that this is just a comment thread, and it is not the place for in-depth discussions. You made a good statement, but it is not an argument. I have no way to reply (meaningfully) to what you said, because I cannot understand your viewpoint by such a claim. I can assume some things about where you are coming from, but you know what is often said about assumptions. Haha. So I won't do you that disservice. If you would like to talk further about this, you can email me or DM me.
Really powerful and clear explanations, thank you
This is not related to the papacy but I’m really hoping Dr.Ortlund makes a video on kierkegaard. He seems like such a fascinating mind that Christian’s don’t engage with enough
Love Kierkegaard. Will think on that, good idea.
This sounds really good. I am interested in an approach to Kierkegaard from an actual Christian perspective as most commentators make visible efforts to explain and apply his philosophy without its major spiritual implications.
Love this idea! I've been thinking of how relevant and relatable Kierkegaard could be for Christians and non-Christians alike today. His input on mental illness, humor, and push back against institutions are all super relevant to especially young people today!
Great idea.. would also appreciate a Kierkegaard video!
Thank you Dr. Gavin for your sincerity, and commitment to truth. I’m a Catholic Christian who is especially interested in, and hopeful for, the advancement of Christian unity. Please don’t worry too much about, “stepping on feet”. We want to hear candor.
Enjoyed and learned a lot from this session. Thanks Dr. Gavin.
Thanks so much for your ongoing efforts engaging in these conversations Gavin. I can imagine it must feel difficult when there seem to be a disproportionately large number of apologists on the RCC side. As a reformed Protestant who is considering the claims of Roman Catholicism, I find your videos a helpful challenge. From my own self-interested perspective, I would greatly appreciate a set of meaty dialogues on the papacy/ecclesial authority at some point that really dig into some of key dividing issues (as oppose to these back and forth replies). I know you've done a debate with Suan Sonna and a couple of RCC-related dialogues with Joe Heschmeyer, plus you have a couple more lined up with Trent which may do the trick. Perhaps these could be the culmination of your RCC work. Having said that, I don't know how you find the time to do what you do or what precisely you've got planned with the channel so consider it a mere suggestion from one edified subscriber :)
@Lunatic I have read bits and pieces. Its on my long to-read list...
Thank you!
Well done as always. Thank you for your thoughtful explanations as well as your Irenic focus.
Ortlund for Pope!!
🌿😇😇😇🌿
I think a really helpful resource of typology is G. K. Beale's "Handbook on the NT Use of the OT." He's probably THE scholar on NT use of the OT, and he lays out five criteria for typology:
1. Analogical correspondence
2. Historicity
3. Pointing-forwardness
4. Escalation
5. Retrospection
Interestingly enough, he uses Isaiah 22:22 as a case study in chapter 7 of his work, arguing for an indirect typological use in Revelation 3:7.
I've been reading a book recently on how to read the bible and the author really pushes how vital it is to read the old creeds, confessions and theologians of old. The author teaches how to read the bible well, supplementing our readings with the same things you recommend. It's really encouraging as I've been really struggling with the idea of catholicism and eatern orthodox church. My family in law is orthodox and its been challenging to engage with them on the subject. Your channel has become a source of encouragement and an example for my own life.
thanks, so glad its been helpful!
Another very well done video with the right tone and candor. Thanks for your labor. Happy Easter, and may the Lord richly bless you and your family this season and always.
Thank you my friend, grateful for you.
There's a lot of Catholic "reply guys" out there on TH-cam. I wouldn't take the volume of objections as being indicative of a weakness in your arguments. I think you present the most coherent objection to the Papacy I've heard. Many of the responses only enforce what you were criticizing.
I would, considering the expertise of those who responded. And the amount of vad information Gavin used.
@@michaelspeyrer1264 the volume of replies to a position is not indicative of whether or not that position is true. I’m a philosophy major; during the early 20th century, logical positivism was all the rage. Does the volume of professional philosophers affirming logical positivism or the objections leveled against other views by them indicate that logical positivism is true or that other views have weak arguments? Evidently not. Further, what do you mean by “expertise?” Expertise in what? Does Dr. Ortlund’s doctorate in historical theology not give him some level of “expertise?” And, whether or not it does, how does one’s expertise get to the truth of an argument or a view?
@@michaelspeyrer1264 What information is bad?
I would say the fact he has gotten the attention of so many apologists indicates that he is making a strong case, and is perhaps threatening. So they are going out of their way to "refute" him. He's rocking the boat pretty hard, and he's not just some random guy quoting a couple of bible verses as a slam dunk. Instead he's making some rather serious arguments using the very thing they claim a monopoly on. As far as I'm concerned he's done a great job, because alot of this stuff especially out of the church fathers are conveniently left out of catholic apologetics. And when brought up, there is much damage control and excuses. I'm Lutheran, so of course im gonna disagree with him on things like baptismal regeneration, and the real presence in the Lords supper. But nevertheless I'm by no means threaten by him. However I appreciate and respect his hard work and presentation on these things. As far as im concerned, to me the church fathers are the church fathers, and history is what it is, whether we like it or not. And if we be challenged, (catholic or protestant), suck it up, and get over it, and trust God above all things.
@@matthew7491 Listen to any of the hours of rebuttles.
Thanks Gavin! Your passion for historical theology is contagious and the humble spirit with which you engage these topics is inspirational
Great response and great scholarship! Don't worry about Heschmeyer. Your genuineness far outweighs his arrogance. 7 excellent refutations expounded firmly and wisely yet with such compassion for all sides. So glad I found your channel. This is so needed today!
The doc is in the house!
Thank you for the dose of sanctified meds brother!
Your work is truly unique and admirable!
Please keep it coming…
I’d like to see you put out a video on the rosary. I’ve yet to hear good detailed teaching on the matter. Thanks again!
Love your work.
Great response Dr. Gavin 👌
Btw, your case in the initial dialogue with Cameron was so overwhelmingly stong that I cannot fathom how one can carry on to embrace that system in light of SOLID arguementation you put forth against the papacy 🤷
Sahih, all you have to do is read the old and new testaments, and the writings of the Church Fathers, many of which Dr.Ortlund conveniently leaves out, to prove the Papacy established by Jesus Christ! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Please see my Revelation 1v20 post below. It is a Biblical/exegetical prooftext for Monepiscopacy. Nobody wants to discuss it, which is sad.
@Thoska Brah Most inaccurate, as Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock and built His Church upon Peter and gave Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom. The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God! The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem, since SCRIPTURE ALONE could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. ( Genesis 17:12). Your lack of Biblical knowledge is quite evident! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Happy Easter! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 Just as a quick point, it was James who ruled that circumcision is not necessary. Peter spoke, and then Paul and Barnabas, and then James speaks last and says "Therefore my judgment is that we should..." (Acts 15:19). It is 100% clear that Peter was not the head of the church, instead is seems like James is the one with final authority.
@@TheBlinkyImp Most inaccurate, as it was Peter the rock and sole key holder, who STOOD UP and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. ( Genesis 17:12). James then affirms Peter's declaration and then simply gives food and sexual restrictions! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
I think the point of apostolic succession vs apostolic replacement, especially with the criteria noted as being a witness of the resurrection, was very key - and a hard obstacle to get around. Such a good point.
They do have allot of time 😅 but hey, its always 4 (usually experts of a certain subject) vs you, so it shows they respect you.
Love your videos, striving to be half as knowledgeable as you brother 👍🏽
As always, great video Gavin. Keep it up! One of the few channels that I’m actually persuaded of my own volition to support as a patreon!
Great vid Dr. Ortlund! Would love to see a video on congregationalism! A positive assertion of your ecclesiological views would be very interesting, especially if it was tied in with the church fathers.
Another great video, Gavin! Your scholarship has been such a blessing to me, my ministry, and my studies. I thoroughly enjoyed all 7 concerns! Concerns 4 and 5 were extremely convincing! I always leave your videos with something to chew on and wrestle with! Thanks again, Gavin - blessings!
@56:50, Trinitarian Pentecostal here, love you brother! Often times I define myself as a Bapti-costal because of all the agreement within our groups. Powerful video- I use your teaching videos and debates as outside learning for our Bible College! :)
Nice to hear that! Thanks for sharing!
God sends Christians the Holy Spirit to guide them, NOT a Pope.
If you’re Protestant you don’t follow God’s choice for His Church Jesus built His Church and He chose Peter look at your bible unless it was removed by someone who knows better than the Incarnate Word
@@TheresaCronin-kc6wz Jesus "built" all seven churches in the book of Revelation... He condemned five of them. What's your point??
Thanks brother Gavin. Your perspectives help to keep me and many others grounded in the truth of Scripture, and to avoid being tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine. And I pray that you and your family have a blessed Easter.
Thanks
I’m catholic, while I enjoy all of the various catholic channels, I saw all of the response videos and thought the same thing - some of these guys have a lot of time, haha. I think the reason they made the videos to begin with is because you are making strong arguments that aren’t very easy to deal with. I don’t think Catholics have been pressed on the papacy, until recently, from a Protestant that knows church history quite well. I think it’s making them dig deep. I think you are sharpening their arguments and making them better for it. with many catholic apologists it just sort of became a “look at church history and the church fathers” sort of approach to the issues at hand, but history appears to be more complicated than that. Happy Easter to all you Christians out there. Our parish priest recommended seeing Jesus on the cross through Mary’s eyes. This might perhaps not be so bad to do from a Protestant perspective as well. It doesn’t mean idolatry to look at Jesus on the cross through his mother’s eyes. God bless!
God bless you and your family brother. Have a wonderful Easter.(edit : assuming Jordan is a male name :-) )
Bless you for your graciousness and for not dismissing ideas simply because they don’t agree with your tradition. Jesus said that the world will know that we are his disciples by our love. Let all separated brethren look to serve and honour each other rather than win arguments.
But WHY SEE JESUS ON THE CROSS ............HE IS NOT THERE!
This is why we shouldn't visualize stuff make pictures or follow the instructions of false doctrines. Jesus is Lord and SAVIOR
HE IS NOT ON THE CROSS...
@@triciaperry2234 Because Hebrews 12:2 and 3 says we should
@@everythingisvanityneverthe1834 misinterpreted scripture.
On the point of Eisegesis:
I am continually amazed at how very many folks can be convinced by so little Scriptural warrant, or, let's say, Stretched Scriptural warrant. Arguments for the papacy seem always to depend upon Shadows, Types, Allusions, Fabricated arrangements of texts. Even Jimmy Akin's modest diagraming of Matthew 16 is something of a self-imposed arrangement. Very many other modern-day arguments are novel interpretations of texts as well.
Exactly! The RCC basically takes a few texts out of context and then uses biblical silence to build its claims.
Briefly,
I think argumentation by allusions could be problematic. However, Saint Paul was not afraid to use allusion so I don’t think we should be either. For example, the Galatians were clearly bewitched by their superficial reading of Sacred Scripture. How does Paul respond? He tells them Hagar and Sarah represent two mountains. Nobody who reads the OT is going to know Sarah and Hagar represent two mountains unless they read back into the text what Saint Paul said. I don’t think anyone wants to say Saint Paul was mishandling the text. 2 Corinthians mentions that the Jewish people still have “veils” over their eyes when they read the Books of Moses. The question is who has authority to extrapolate from “allusions” real propositions? If Paul did it then we should expect the true Church to still do that. For the Holy Spirit unveils what is hidden in the old.
@@MountAthosandAquinas, Right. Given the Doctrine of Inspiration, St. Paul's words are the intention of the Holy Spirit. The same cannot be said of the reading done by an Apologist.
@@marcuswilliams7448 Yes, but any Jew is going to call “foul” against that claim as well. My argument is that all of Christianity is extrapolated through Christ as the lens. But Jews will argue that’s just “reading back” into the text with a basis in allusion. But in reality, all have some sort of presuppositions and paradigms in which they perceive the text to support. But not all are true. Only one Church can truly be operating under the charism of the Apostles so as to rightly interpret the text handed on. Else, everyone is veiled and there is no arbitrating authority to settle differences.
@@marcuswilliams7448 I will add that Galatia had fallen from the faith by not adhering to the Apostles ruling in Acts 15. They decided the Apostles were acting without any scriptural warrant. So the Apostle challenges them by allusions and allegories.
Speaking of Spiritual Fruit… this video is filled with it. Appreciate the thorough video and excellent content. It is edifying and instructive.
Gavin, I love when I see a new video from you. This one was great as usual. Do you think it would be possible to do a video or series on the Apostolic Fathers? Because, as you said accretions can happen over time but what about the ones discipled by The Apostles? How should we relate to them, when talking about Sola Scriptura and Church History?
Thanks.
thanks, will consider!
In the meantime, check out Gavin’s video on Ignatius
@@danielklassen1513 Oh yeah thanks for that. I have watched it, but I always like going back to gavin's videos. I'll watch that later, thanks bro.
you're the king, man! Keep up the great work
Love this video Gavin and love your work !
Thank you for your work!
Another great follow up video. Your explanations were clear and persuasive. Thanks! Your arguments actually have application to other issues as well. They help us think clearly through the data and the evidence and how to avoid sloppy thinking in our own blind spots. I would also like to see you do a video contrasting the Protestant and Catholic doctrine of justification. Thanks!
Glad it was helpful! I have a video on justification, let me know if you cannot find it.
Very well communicated, Dr. Ortlund. You made a fair appeal with the extensive research you have explored. I am finishing "Fear and Trembling", by kierkegaard ( I saw someone post about you reviewing his work in the comments). I'll be picking up your book, "The Beauty of Christain Theism" afterwards. I look forward to the read. Thank you for your channel.
awesome, hope you enjoy the book! :)
I would love to hear more about your work on the conversion of Scandinavia.
The fact the office existed before Christianity should always be cause for concern. You can convert Romans but their weird culture who mixed religions already would just do that to themselves seems self evident. There's even statues of Augustus as the Pontifex Maximus
Honestly I don't know why you argue with them anyways their laymen defenders are weak at best and always want to talk merely theology than the politics of the era when many of these more heretical and heavy handed decisions by the various Popes are made. That's why they lean so heavily on personal attacks of Martin Luther, Henry the VIII, Jan Hus, and Peter Waldo. Luther didn't sequester himself afterall and Henry the VIII not leaving England to fall into the hands of France or Spain is completely understandable even if his sex life wasn't. Nor can I say I don't understand why the Byzantines split with Rome over their continual desire to be autonomous of the Byzantine Emperor being a check on their authority. Remember they hold the lower seat of power under Constantine as well and have never refuted that. The treatment of the Bohemians by Sigismund and his betrayal of Jan Hus shuttling him off to a kangaroo court is what lead to the Hussite rebellion as well. They always expect you to just think it all starts with the 95 thesis and Martin Luther is merely a ego maniac. But for the infallible Medieval UN they failed miserably at keeping the peace much less not favoring certain nations over other leading to them all but feeling abused and alienated which lead to them leaving. They brush that all aside like we should ignore it along with who they are now. I would never join any faith with that current Pope as head much less any faith that allows a SJW like Friar Casey in. He is a liberal heretic and a son of Satan in a frock.
Also they're so pathetic they still want to fight us because their Woke Pope uses as an excuse for everything. Why is the world bad? Protestants! Why did Father Murphy diddle your son? Well he was raised protestant! Why are the cardinals and Pope so liberal they may as well be atheists LGBTQs activists? Because they are secret masonic protestants! It can never ever be anything they did in history. 3 popes at once, nah! Making Germany submit over and over for Italy? Nah! Favoring France over England? Nah! Letting Constantinople fall? Nah! Staying silent about Hitler and Mussolini? Nah Encouraging slavery in the New World? Nah! Ratlines for Nazis? Nah!
Not worth the fight and when Woke Pope flips to pro gay about 50-75% of them are going to split off with SPX all while acting like that's not protestant. I would stop arguing with them focus on gays, SJWs, atheists, and the LGBTQ crowd maybe they'll get the hint. Also we can all cruelly but accurately point out our countries greatness was in spite of them and it's downfall began with their mass immigration and their voting the way they have for decades! It wasn't protestants who brought major organized crime to the US afterall.
Well said
The Bible consistently says the 12 are the foundation equally. They sit on 12 thrones, nothing about Peter's throne being larger. The New Jerusalem has 12 foundations, nothing about Peter's foundation being primary.
Can’t wait to watch this (:
Super helpful video, glad you're doing this work!
As I read through alllll these comments, I'm feeling displaced as to "what I am". Everybody seems inclined to give belief system titles to define who or what they are or other people are. If I only read the bible and pray for God to lead me into understanding in regards to truth and salvation and then from there test everything by The Word of God, what am I? I thought this made me "Christian" according to Scripture. Is that even a recognized religion anymore?
Thank you for the awesome volume on this video.
is it different than usual?
@@TruthUnites I think so, but I'll go back and check if this is one of those channels where usually walking two feet away from my laptop makes the video inaudible. I'll report back.
@@TruthUnites Actually the audio on this video is clipping (exceeding the maximum allowable digital value) quite badly, so while it is loud it is also audibly distorted. I'm not sure if you recorded it too hot, or your microphone battery is low, but it is surely different from your usual technical standard.
Peter isn’t the rock the church is built on because you can’t build the church on a man. The rock is full heartfelt faith in Christ, to not just listen to Christ but to do as Christ says in His commandments whenever and however He speaks.
Excellent response dr Ortlund
I converted to Catholicism 18 years ago. I think the main thing for me was that while some things might not be said as explicitly as objectors would like, when I read the Bible with the Catholic interpretation, things fall into place with a much more coherent framework. It's like watching a show where someone assumes two of the characters are brother and sister for a few episodes, then finds out on episode 4 that they were father and daughter. That new understanding would completely change the original understanding of the show, and likely also bring oddities or otherwise seemingly disjointed scenes together into a way that makes more sense for the viewer. That's what it was like for me, at least. When I "borrowed" from the Catholic interpretation to change my mind on four or five things, I started to seriously consider the papacy as being the distinction from other denominations and the thing on which it started to all rest.
Have you read Jerome's Letter 15 to Pope Damasus? "As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!"
Well said Amy.
Wow you said that so perfectly. I converted to Catholicism last year, and feel the exact same way when I read Scripture now. The best I could come up with to describe the difference to people was that there are “Catholic verses I never noticed before.” Your explanation is spot on.
I completely agree I’m currently about to start RCIA myself to join the Church and I feel the same way. I’ve heard stories for years of Catholicism being an “empty religion” and lacking real relationship with God. So far as you explained I have felt the exact opposite. I’m excited to go to Mass every week, praying the Rosary has been amazing for me, and Scripture has come alive in a way I have never experienced before.
@@bethanyann1060 Calvinist Christians see many “Reformed verses” throughout scripture they didn’t see before they were Calvinists. Ephesians 2:8 Matthew 24 Romans 9 and so on.
@@angelascow8706 That is true. I used to be a Calvinist, so I’ve seen them all. The problem with Calvinists (and other groups) is that they tend to zoom into only a few verses of Scripture, while ignoring others. Scripture teaches the universal salvific will of God, which Calvinism denies. Catholics do actually have in their tradition different takes on predestination, one of them being Thomism. It has a lot of overlap with Calvinism, and is very interesting to at least study for comparison. Calvin departed radically from his favorite Augustine on many issues. Might I suggest the book “The Mystery of Predestination” by Catholic author John Salza, if you’re interested to learn more?
Bottom Line: Be reasonable. God gave us reason. Use it. I am enjoying the channel.
Wanna learn about the Papacy?
Start with Dan. 7, and the "little horn".
Then 2 Thes. 2, the "man of sin, son of perdition".
Then Rev. 13:1-10, and the "sea beast".
Then Rev. 17, and the "Scarlet Harlot".
Our Protestant forefathers used to know this stuff.
The Laodicean Church is very sleepy today.
But thank you for exposing some of the major errors, falsehoods, and lies of Satan's greatest creation.
*Soli Deo Gloria*
You missed Isaiah 22 which demonstrated the position that Jesus gave to Peter.
That face in the thumbnail sums up my thoughts nicely, your patience is a virtue
As always I appreciate your thorough response and your genuinely loving concern, Dr. Ortland.
You suggest that: "If you have a supreme infallible head of the Church, you would expect see that either in the New Testament, or in Church history/the early historical literature. You'd expect that that would kind of come up, like in the Book of Acts, or in the Pastoral Epistles, or in Ephesians 4 where Paul is documenting the offices of the Church in relation to the unity of the Chruch; or in the First Epistle of Clement, or somewhere!"
You then go on to list two reasons why you think that's reasonable. I wonder, though, if an unambiguous and universal canon of Scripture--what in your estimation is the only indispensable and infallible rule of faith in the Church--would meet the standard you just set out for the Papacy. Would an atheist, as you mention, be reasonable to expect for the Canon of Scripture that Protestants use today, "would kind of come up in like the Book of Acts, or in the Pastoral Epistles, or in Ephesians 4 where Paul is documenting the offices of the Church in relation to the unity of the Church; or in the First Epistle of Clement, or somewhere!"? Why, if it's such an important reality to the unity, governance, instruction and direction of the Church, would God permit such seeming ambiguity by his apostles and among the earliest Christians?
You'll rightly appeal to the explicit and implicit ways in which the New Testament alludes to the authority of the written word, to an apostolic teaching, to the Old Testament patterns and examples, and you'll rightly appeal to the various historical attestations to a Canon which is partly or even completely in alliance with the Canon Protestants have today. You'll do this despite other places in the New and Old Testaments that might seem unusually silent on the matter or which seem to imply the opposite, and despite other early historical literature that seems unusually silent on the matter and/or actually disagrees with forms of the Canon you hold to. You'll do all this and still wholeheartedly accept that this is the providential process that a sovereign Christ permitted the Canon of Scripture--such an essential truth to the unity, governance, instruction, growth, and direction of his Church--to undergo.
In my opinion this is exactly what Catholics do and accept about the Papacy. Yes, it was and is so important. Yes, there are ways to argue for and against it from Scripture. Yes, there is early historical literature attesting to it, and early historical literature that disagrees. Yes, there are Christians today who hold to it and many others who disagree with parts or entire coneptions of it. But that's the same boat that the Protestant Canon of Scripture finds itself in, no? Should we be as skeptical of the Canon as you propose we be about the Papacy? Maybe you're answer is yes, in which case I'd applaud you for your consistency. But if not, then I think you can begin to more readily accept that such an important reality as the Papacy can really be as reasonable as the equally (or, in the Protestant perspective, more) important reality of the Canon of Scripture by the criteria you yourself layout.
Much more could be said of course, but I'll leave my thoughts as they are for your consideration. Thank you as always for your continued pursuit of the Lord and his truth! Blessings, brother.
Thanks for the kind words! Why do you think the canon would be as expected as a supreme and infallible head of the church? I don't see why that would be similarly expected. The canon is not a visible office instantiated by an actual person, as is the papacy.
It seems to me that the Canon doesn't have to be a visible office instantited by an actual person for my question to still hold.
If the Church is meant to be built upon and directed by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (which I recognize is very nuanced, as you've argued)--the Scriptures being the only infallible authority from which to formulate and live out our faith--then wouldn't it be important to know with a certainty which Scriptura (which Canon) the Church is meant to be Sola to? Would a skeptic be unreasonable to expect for something as essential as the Canon to be more explicitly affirmed in the New Testament and early historical literature without the seeming ambiguity and variation we see in both the New Testament and early historical literature? That's what I'm arguing because it seems that that's the sort of expectation you're placing upon the important doctrine of the Papacy.
@@gabrieln3836 Besides whether or not the canon is a visible office, there seems to be a positive reason to think that we shouldn't expect such a thing, namely, the canon isn't really ever mentioned in scripture. It is just an assumption in the scriptures and never taught on. Church matters, including its governmental structure, are--conversely--talked about quite a bit in the New Testament. It gives explicit teaching on what the offices ought to be like. I think that one can say, we would expect that it would mention what would appear to be the most important office, just as it does the other offices, but I don't think it can be similarly said that we would expect to see a canon list when there is little to no discussion of canon in scripture.
@@Real_LiamOBryan thanks for the great comment. I think this just bolsters exactly my point.
For argument's sake let's just grant that both the Papacy and the Canon of Scripture are infallible sources of authority, and let's also say that there isn't much explicit evidence for either in the New Testament and early historical literature. If the Protestant is skeptical of a Catholics' acceptance of one source of infallible authority--namely, the Papacy--despite the "implicit" evidence we do find in the New Testament and early historical literature for it, but then accepts another source of infallible authority--namely, the (Protestant) Canon of Scripture--on less explicit evidence within the New Testament and early historical literature as you yourself have said, then there seems to be a double standard being held.
For the Catholic it isn't an issue for very important truths--like the papacy or like the canon of scripture (or various other important debated truths that were eventually settled on definitively)--to have organically grown and been defined overtime from what is layed out in Scripture and progressively taught and accepted in the early Church. But if a Protestant requires very explicit evidence in order to accept very important doctrines, then it seems like they have to hold to a double standard for accepting the (Protestant) Canon of Scripture and rejecting the papacy. And again, this is true even if one were to concede the assumption granted at the start that there isn't clear or explicit evidence for the papacy, which I think is very debatable.
Well said Gabriel! 👏
Congratulations Dr. Ortlund, you are beginning to understand the secret of attractive TH-cam thumbnails - keep making these faces. Also love your work, Lord bless you.
Excellent video and well argued
Thx Gavin for these very explicite détailed explanations ...& very logical ...there is NO CLEAR basis for the papacy in the NT....
32:20 What I feel a lot of Catholics don't get is that arguing from silence is not a fallacy if one would expect an answer / description in the context of the passage. Yes one cannot derive definitive proof for a positive statement from it but the silence carries enough force with it to shift the burden of proof onto the other party. For example - when sinful conditions that stand in the path to salvation is often outlined in great detail why does the Bible never explicitly say that one cannot be saved without being Baptized? I realize this is not something that Catholics believe in our day - it serves merely as an example.
Does scripture say you don’t need to be baptized or that Baptism is not regenerative?
@@imjustheretogrill4794 Exactly
Excellent video. You covered the topic real well. God bless!
Thank you for this video, and the non-confrontational discussion of evidence levels. As you (in other videos) give much information on early church writings, and because it has bearing on this discussion, could you consider a video specifically on James the "brother" of Jesus who gives the final decision of the meeting in Acts 15, and who (at the least) clearly has considerable authority in the Jerusalem church. What information do early church writings give us about him, why he became so prominent despite presumably being a non-believer during Jesus's physical time on earth, and how does this relate to the church headship discussion?
interesting idea, will consider, thanks!
Catholic hermeneutics taken consistently proves Jacobean Primacy because James says in Acts 15:13 "Listen to ME" and in verse 19 he says, "THEREFORE **MY** judgment is..."
-It proves Pauline Primacy because Paul says in 2 Cor. 11:28 that he daily bore the pressure "of all the churches."
-It proves Thomist Primacy because he alone got to place his finger(s) through the risen Christ's wounds. His name is "Thomas" meaning "twin" because he's the true vicar and twin/double of Christ on earth while Christ is in heaven.
-It proves Judasian Primacy because to HIM alone was entrusted the money bag. That's why his office NEEDED to be replaced by Matthias on account of Judas' failure to fulfill that exalted office. Lest a sedevacantist sect arise.
-It proves Andrewian Primacy because in John 6:8 Andrew was the one who pointed out the boy with the 5 loaves and 2 fish which lead to the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000. Who else better to lead & feed the church of God?
-It proves Nathanielian Primacy because to him alone did the Lord say in John 1:47 "Behold an Israelite indeed, IN WHOM IS NO GUILE!" The Lord even said in the next verse, "Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I SAW THEE." Clearly, he was foreordained and foreknown to lead the church. The name "Nathanel" means, "God has given." Isn't it clear that God has given the church guileless Nathanael as the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church?
-It proves Lazarusian Primacy because he is specifically said to be loved by the Lord in John 11:3. The name "Lazarus" means "God has helped." What better help can we have for a Pontifex Maximus than he who died and was raised again by the Lord after a period longer than anyone else has remained dead and risen again? Christ was dead ONLY 3 days, Lazarus 4 days. The number Four, according to Biblical numerology is the number of creation [cf. E.W. Bullinger's works]. Obviously, Lazarus is meant to guide the church (the NEW Creation) into the resurrection life and power ordained for the bride of Christ.
-It proves Thaddaeusian Primacy because he alone is the three named Apostle according to the best Byzantine manuscripts of the New Testament [Thaddaeus, Judas, and Lebbaeus]. St. Jerome called him, "Trinomius," which means "the man with 3 names." Clearly an allusion to the Holy Trinity's sanctioning of Thaddaeus as Pope.
I could go on and on......See Jason Engwer's blogpost titled, "51 Biblical Proofs Of A Pauline Papacy And Ephesian Primacy" He wrote it in response to a Roman Catholic apologist's list of 50 alleged Biblical proofs of a Petrine papacy. It was written to show how Catholic hermeneutics can be used to prove ridiculous things.
🌿 D A N K E 😇🌿
Do you see the office of "pastor" in the bible? Where is there an example of someone making a living from teaching the gospel?
I'm actually so grateful to you for digging into primary sources to try to prove Catholicism wrong. For so many, at least at the street level, "proving Catholicism wrong," is just yelling "idol worship, whore of Babylon." And Catholics are so shocked and blown away by the rhetoric that they fall down before the street preacher and leave the church.
In fact, as you're finding, proving Catholicism wrong is a daunting task. But don't lose heart, in fact 2000 years and tens of thousands of religions later, no one has done it.
Exactly 😊. That's why we keep watching these restless nights some of protesting pastors have trying to put out their case against the Rock. One thing is indeed the gate of hell will not prevail. So with good or bad intention, the outcome remains the same. ONE Consoling things is the intelligent apologists that he debates are not out to convert him, but only clarifying his hopefully unintentional misrepresentation. So his not being persuaded is inconsequential.
Is the power and primacy of the Pope the only doctrine the Catholic Church affirms? I would hope not. Then how can you conflate what Dr. Ortlund is debating with trying to prove Catholicism all wrong? How does one have a dialog with people who reduce everything to “shouting street preachers” and “2000 years and tens of thousands of religions?” If shouting street preachers who rail against idol worship and the Whore of Babylon are causing Catholics to abandon you, maybe that should be a matter for your own introspection. That is not the topic here.
@@jimmydavid1993 great points. They are not trying to convert him. They are just answering his objections. Whether he ever takes the veil off is between him and the Holy Spirit.
But I do appreciate his diligence. How many? 99%? of anti Catholics are completely convinced (and think we will be) by a quote from the Jehovah's witness or Jack Chick -the absolute opposite of reliable, or even believable.
1 Timothy 5:17-18 ESV
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The labourer deserves his wages.”
Galatians 6:6 ESV
One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches.
1 Corinthians 9:14 ESV
In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
@@logicaredux5205 the primacy of the pope has not been his only crusade. I'm just saying he's taking a much more scholastic and reliable approach to the impossible. Take a look at some the the youtube videos about the "errors of Catholicism" to you EVER see anything based on anything other than parroting other anti-Catholics?
That's a gentlemanly response.
This is one of the fairest treatments of this question I have ever seen.
You are very diplomatic to eschew any discussion some of the current pontiff's rhetoric.
The problem with your first counter is, NO ONE looked at Paul as leader of the 12. It wasn’t understood to be the case at the time nor in the history of the Early Church.
The only way your dismissal of the Bishop of Rome starting with Peter
makes sense is if you ignore his that office was lived out starting with what the saints wrote concerning it.
Of course no one interpreted Paul as leader of the 12- That’s the point of the comparison.
The bishop of Rome has no evidence of being held as a higher authority for literal centuries after the establishment of the position (Ave even then, the examples given an be understood as political, not doctrinal in nature) and afterwards it is still challenged. The early fathers also sang praises to all of the bishops in a way that makes isolating gushing texts on Rome to be toothless. Rome was an important church, probably the most important, because of its geography, but that is all. You can’t trace the line to Peter, nor is there any formal authority to the ruling.
@@whatsinaname691 That clearly isn't the case from all 4 Gospels, or in the Fact that Paul "learned at the feet of Peter for 2 years." And why specifically Peter, BECAUSE HE WAS THE HEAD OF THE COLLEGE OF THE APOSTLES."
And that is also reflected by the Fact that Peter acknowledged Peter as head of the Church in Rome before Paul ever went there.
And by the Fact that the Church IN ROME recognized Peter as the Head of the Church there. Why didn't they recognize Paul, he was just as much an Apostle.
As did the Church for centuries following. Who did they understanding to have founded the Roman Church? PETER.
Who did the Holy Spirit give the vision of the heavenly cloth with the Unclean animals to at the Council of Jerusalem, It was Peter. Who did John wait for at the Tomb of our Lord even though he arrived first? It was Peter.
Who did Jesus give the keys of the kingdom to in his profession of him as the "Rock upon whom he would would build his Church?" That was Peter too.
Who is the last scene of the Gospel of John directed to who Jesus tells to feed his lambs? Peter. Kind of interesting even though John wrote the Gospel and John arrived at the tomb first, it was Peter to whom the action was centered on both times. And why is that? Because he was the leader. Why is that? Because that's what Jesus appointed him as.
That's what the New Testament identified him as. That's what the Early Church identified him as. that's what even the other ancient 5 sees identified in recognizing Rome as 1st among them.
For you to simply ignore all that, as per protestant theology because of the warped unscriptural eccelsiology that sprang from it, is just ridiculous ideology.
@@whatsinaname691 By schismatics and heretics. Some challenge.
"Ave even then, the examples given an be understood as political, not doctrinal in nature."
-Really? According to whom?
"and afterwards it is still challenged."
Really? According to whom?
What's the source? Without specific evidence that's another boilerplate argument. Which seems to be the only kind you can make.
" The early fathers also sang praises to all of the bishops in a way that makes isolating gushing texts on Rome to be toothless."
-Really? According to what source? More boilerplate.
"Rome was an important church, probably the most important, because of its geography, but that is all. "
-Really? According to whom? More boilerplate.
"You can’t trace the line to Peter, nor is there any formal authority to the ruling."
-Wrong, "Oxford dictionary of Popes." We know who every pope was in sequence from today going back to Peter. This is the part where you even though you just made up stuff before, there is actually documented respected research published by respected sources completely contradicting your delusional schismatic nonsense.
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191795459.001.0001/acref-9780191795459
Thanks again Gavin!!
Thanks for making an hour long video that I have to sit through because, unfortunate as it is for my schedule, all your stuff is gold.
😜🤣
Appreciate your content Dr. Ortlund.
Re: James, Peter, and John, I've often wondered if there isn't some type of connection with King David's three mighty warriors from Chronicles who, if memory serves me, were the elite three from his group of 30. Three from a larger group of 30, and Christ with 3 from his larger group of 12. Who knows.