Apostolic Succession: Framing the Options (Protestant View)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 июн 2021
- Whether we accept apostolic succession depends in part upon our view of the origins of the monarchical episcopal structure of church government. Here I offer four options for how we can interpret the development of the episcopate in the early church.
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
Website: gavinortlund.com/
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Become a patron: / truthunites
My books:
--Why God Makes Sense in a World That Doesn’t: The Beauty of Christian Theism: www.amazon.com/Makes-Sense-Wo...
--Retrieving Augustine’s Doctrine of Creation: Ancient Wisdom for Current Controversy: www.amazon.com/Retrieving-Aug...
--Anselm’s Pursuit of Joy: A Commentary on the Proslogion: www.amazon.com/Anselms-Pursui...
--Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage: www.amazon.com/Finding-Right-...
--Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals: Why We Need Our Past to Have a Future: www.amazon.com/Theological-Re...
I find this format so helpful. Understanding the options that are on the table make sorting through arguments much easier. I also appreciate the discussion about the distinction between historical nuance and higher criticism. Keep up the good work!
Thanks to your channel I found Truth Unites. Thanks a lot.
Thanks Austin, really appreciate the encouragement, friend!
@@quickrat3348 thanks so much, that means a lot to hear!
yeah, he's doing a good job
Gavin, I'm a former Reformed Presbyterian, now Catholic. But I subscribe to your channel out of a genuine respect for you, your viewpoints, your charity, and your unquestionable love for our Saviour. Pax Christi.
Would you mind sharing why you became Catholic? I considered it as a possibility, but the more I study it, the less attractive it seems to me. I find it so untenable that I can't understand why anyone Protestant (especially a Reformed Presbyterian) would want to join Roman Catholicism.
Thanks.
I do hope you repented and surrendered your life to Jesus Christ.
@@stevenlindsey2056 What does "surrender your life to Jesus Christ" mean to you?
@@mattc9764 I am crucified with Christ , nevertheless I live, not yet I but Christ lives in me and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me.
Galations 2:20
What made you switch? And was it from the RPCNA?
Gavin great job. Nobody can claim you are not fair and take an honest approach to getting to the truth. I am so thankful for your videos. And so appreciate the amount of work you put it to this videos. May God bless you highly.
Great information. Love your style.
Helpful discussion, thank you!
Thanks Nate!
Great and helpful way to breakdown the issue👍🏼
thanks, glad it was helpful!
I am ineffably excited for the baptism dialogues with Dr. Cooper! especially because baptism has been the final issue holding me from wholly affirming the Lutheran expression of faith!
Interesting! I hope the discussion will be helpful. Probably won't happen till tail end of July or early August.
The Lutheran expression is much closer to the early church and what the Bible says about what baptism is.
So where are your thoughts now?
@@Mygoalwogel after combing through the New Testament and historical evidence, I am firmly convinced of Baptismal Regeneration. Now I am working through infant baptism, and although it still makes me uncomfortable intuitively, the logical case for it is making more and more sense
@@cristian_5305 I was raised Lutheran but my argument for infant baptism was always more Roman than Lutheran until this year. Pr. Bryan Wolfmueller convinced me that I ought to consider infant faith to be possible according to scripture even though common sense makes it seem impossible.
This was great! I was so excited for you to do this video. Thanks for summarizing all of those arguments about the development of episcopacy. I especially appreciate your comments about Ignatius' use of the term "Bishop."
I agree with your 4 possible options. I don't think option 4 needs to be as bad as it sounds because something can be not ideal without being horrible. An elevated bishop might not be a big deal even if all bishops were originally intended to be equal. But as that transforms into a "super bishop" with special authority, and presbyters lose rightful authority, that could be more problematic. Even then, it isn't like the church ceased to be legitimate... It just suggests that reform was needed.
I am still stuck on the subject of ordination. To me, the biggest ongoing question in the world of evangelicalism is whether it is legitimate for people to start independent churches and set themselves up as its bishop/senior pastor. Do you have any resources that you would recommend on that topic?
Thanks again! I can't wait to see your upcoming discussions with Dr. Cooper!
great comments! I think you're right that option 4 could be defended/nuanced on the grounds of "less than ideal" rather than horrible. Nothing immediately comes to mind in terms of a book on that topic but I will think on this...
Yes that's where I see the real possibility of the bad option that apostolic succession isn't creeping in (self appointment) but the question is what makes it invalid...
Hey Dr Ortlund, I love this discussion, was introduced to the concept thru Irenaeus. Thanks for all you do! I have a suggestion: my first kid was born three weeks ago (yay!) I would love to hear your thoughts (or maybe an interview) on Christian parenting. Specifically, family Bible studies, teaching theology to your children, etc. Just a suggestion! Always get excited when a new Truth Unites video is released!
Thanks a lot Jonathan for the kind words! And great suggestion
Thank you for the presentation.
As an Orthodox I accept episcopal ecclesiastical polity. Nevertheless, I can't deny that the Holy Spirit can operate the way He wants it, but not the way our bishops want it. 'The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit' John 3:8
P.S. You are an open-minded theologian. Thank you for your argumentation.
It seems like the orthodox understanding of apostolic succession does not require an episcopate in the first century while the Catholic one might
@@esoterico7750 Yeah, I first heard of the historical split in the roles of presbyter and bishop and the synonymity in the New Testament of the words "presbyteros" and "episkopos" from Orthodox sources. We're very comfortable with the historical reality of a twofold ministry evolving into a threefold model.
@@esoterico7750 there was one in the first century as a appeals courts were very much a reality
I'd like to present an alternative Orthodox viewpoint: energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2019/02/11/apostolic-succession-is-it-true/
energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/apostolic-succession-1-presbyter-bishop/ (there are 3 more in this series, with links at the bottom)
@@johnketema8880 Is Apostolic Succession of Divine Origin? Definitely yes. An indirect argument for the positive answer of the question is the assessment of the Protestant teaching of sola fide and the Protestant understanding of the works of faith. One is saved by faith. Noone denies it. But there is a Protestant misconception about the works of faith that contradicts Scripture.
In Protestantism as a whole, the works of faith are not considered necessary for justification and for salvation because they are considered to be solely our deeds. They are considered only a manifestation of the process of sanctification by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Which is true. Man cannot do truly good works of faith without the grace of the Holy Spirit because the works of faith are impossible to do without God’s grace (1 Corinthians 15:10:,,But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.’’ in relation with John 15:5:,,I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.“, KJV) and so are Christ’s merits (John 15:5).
In that sense they are God’s works, gifts of God and are not solely ours. When I say that they are not solely ours, I do not mean that it is possible for us to do them even without Christ and He just supports us to do them - as it was seen, that is impossible since the works are done necessarily in synergism with God’s grace without which they are impossible to do. I say that they are not solely ours but in the sense that, although they are impossible to do without God’s grace, our free will is respected and although God’s calling to us to do them precedes our decision to do them (Philippians 2:12-13), man’s free will is not violated and the works are done with the consent of our free will because if they were done against our free will, we would not be judged by our works as we will be (John 5:25-29) but would be judged only according to our faith (John 3:18).
The fruits (John 15:1-5) are the good works (Colossians 1:10). It is these works of faith that are Christ’s merits (15:5) and that are impossible to do without the synergism with the grace of God (1 Cor.15:10 in relation with John 15:5), wherefore they are gifts of God, that are considered necessary for justification, besides faith, which is clearly stated in James 2:24:,,Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.“ (KJV), and considered necessary for salvation which is clearly stated in John 15:2:,,Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.“ (John 15:2, KJV). It is God Who saves and justifies us through the works because they are done in synergism with God’s grace and impossible to do without it. John 15:2 does not mean that the one who does not bear fruit, is cut because he or she does not have faith or real faith but only pretends to have faith, thus not having works following the faith because the words of Jesus refer to a branch that is in Him and that does not bear fruit, i.e. His words refer to one who has faith but nevertheless does not have works of faith because if one does not have faith, he or she cannot be referred to as a branch in Christ.
The works that are not necessary for salvation are the works of the law (Galatians 2:21, 5:4). It is said to the Gentiles that the grace and faith are gifts of God and not of works:,,For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.“ (Ephesians 2:8-10, KJV). But the works here refer to the works of a believer prior to his coming to believe in the sense that the gifts of faith and grace, are not received under a condition of works done by the person before his coming to believe and do not refer to the works of faith because the works of faith are necessary for salvation (John 15:2) and justification (James 2:24). The meaning of Ephesians 2:8-9 is that if faith and grace were received under a condition of some works done before the coming to believe, they would not be gifts.
In the context of John 15:2 and James 2:24 and the sola fide's understanding of the works of faith as solely ours and not God’s works as they are done in synergism with God’s grace without which they are impossible to do (1 Cor.15:10 in relation with John 15:5), sola fide contradicts Scripture. Which means that the pioneers of the sola fide had not received the Holy Spirit because He is Spirit of Truth and where He is there are no false teachings. Any false teachings are blasphemies against the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 2:1-2 in relation with John 15:26 and Matthew 12:32) and so are not from the Holy Ghost. Therefore He is not received by a believer just by faith because sola fide contradicts Scripture. I am not saying He is received by bypassing one’s faith but that He is received after one has come to believe, through the prayer of the priesthood of apostolic succession like He was received at first through the prayer of the apostles (Acts 8:14-17). The occasion of the reception of the Holy Spirit by the Romans in Cornelius’ home without the prayer of the apostles was the first occasion when Gentiles received the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44) and so it only came to show the Jewish Christians that the Gentiles could receive the Holy Spirit as well. So this is an exception which is evident by the fact that after that He continued to be received by prayer (Acts 19:6) and moreover, the contradiction of the sola fide itself with Scripture shows that there is necessary a priesthood (with apostolic succession) through the prayer of which He is received.
Therefore, although the believers are a holy and royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:5,9), there is a distinction between laymen and priesthood in the narrow sense. And therefore the Holy Spirit is received by the believers only in the historical Church with its priesthood with apostolic succession, wherefore He dwells only within the historical Church due to which only the historical Church preserves the apostolic faith intact.
When I said ,,historical Church“ above, I mean the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why the true Church is the Eastern Orthodox Church is a different topic.
As an Independent catholic Bishop who was consecrated in the historic episcopate I found this to be a balanced and interesting discussion. Although I am not part of Rome, my lineage ultimately comes from Rome as part of the Bishop's list that you mention. What the Apostolic lineage and succession provides is a continuity and a passing down of authority although the actual ministry that an Independent catholic or Anglican Bishop wouldn't necessarily fall into the "Monarchical" system of church government since our communities are small, our ministry roles may be more of a Missionary Bishop or what you call a Senior Pastor. What makes a Bishop different is that he has the authority to ordain regardless of what functional role he is performing. So not all of us are Diocesan Bishops in the large scale of things but some of us are serving in smaller, local communties that are similar to Protestant congregations. I was a Missionary Bishop in Asia prior to coming back. This is a good topic.
Powerful, Powerful, Powerful!!!
Well summarized!
thanks, glad it was useful!
Dr. O, a very elegant presentation as always. I cannot concede, however, that option #1 is off the table. I will gesture at the argument, because I know you know it’s fuller version: if the episcopacy qualifies as a “development,” as a category distinct from divine law, that category has to be so capacious so as to include so much, I’m not sure how that position even allows one to condemn as heretics those all orthodox Christians condemn as heretics, including the gnostics (and the arians, the early Monophysites, essentially anyone excommunication or anathematized in the first millennium of the church). If the episcopacy is not divinely inspired, epistemological consistency would demand SO MUCH doctrine not being called doctrine, but merely “permissible.”
Thanks for this. In my experience this is merely a concrete case of a broader concern, namely the indefectability of the Church. I would be interested in hearing your views on different models of indefectability, and how to argue for some early diversity (neo-Bauer thesis?). The New Testament does itself seem to describe the Early Church as a mixed bag requiring correction even on issues such as the resurrection!
Thanks Troy, will consider that!
Church seem NOT to be indefectible according to Revelation + obvious historical evidence
I feel stuck in the middle of all the different Trinitarian Christian Groups : Protestantism / Baptist / Nondenominational / Calvary Chapel, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy etc. It's weird.
I grew up Baptist, then Assemblies of God, then Calvary Chapel while studying Christian Apologetics with Dr Walter Martin the Bible Answer Man and Philosophy with Dr Francis Schaeffer and Dr William Lane Craig , Then I became Eastern Orthodox after studying Church History, The Ecumenical Councils, Reading Seraphim Rose and trying to go as far back into the past of Christianity as I could AND NOW I'm back at Calvary Chapel and Baptist after some of the disillusion and disappointment that I experienced from my time in Eastern Orthodoxy.
I never fully felt comfortable with or agreed with kissing the priest's hand or calling him "father" or kissing and bowing to paintings / icons. It always felt wrong and weird to me. I'm not against icons or religious images in of themselves though.
I still believe in the intercession of the Saints, showing respect for Martyrs and Saints and also showing respect and love for Saint Mary as the Theotokos (The Mother of God) though.
And I still believe that there is Grace and Healing Power and properties from God in Holy Relics of The Saints and Martyrs as is referenced in Holy Scripture of Saint Paul's Handkerchiefs and Aprons having healing power from God in Acts 19:11-12.
Have you tried Anglicanism? That seems to be a good fit for u.
@@akimoetam1282 Interesting. Thanks.
which one was founded by Jesus and the apostles?
That’s the major reason which keeps me from Eastern Orthodoxy - kissing and bowing to images.
I tend to agree with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox when it comes to Sola Scriptura - and I think the idea of Apostolic succession is reasonable - but man… I just can’t get over their veneration of the saints.
@@zekdom but in these cultures, kissing and bowing is what you do to people you want to show honor/respect - like your parents; it's the equivalent to saying yes ma'am and no sir and holding the door open for the elderly in the american south. The orthodox laity bow to each other and kiss each other on the cheek; we don't just bow to and kiss icons/the priest.
#3 for the win!
Excellent video, and clearly argued. My question is that if you are correct that options 2 and 3 are the most likely, does it not make the most sense to join a church that maintains option 2? If there is any ambiguity at all about divine institution, and you admit that bishops are acceptable in any case, wouldn’t it make sense to err on the side that will not mean disobedience to the divine will, if you do err?
My own Methodist church has an episcopal structure, but has not maintained an exclusively bishop-to-bishop succession in the Roman Catholic sense.
Thank you for this video. You cast the 4 views well and I agree with your evaluation of those views. Since today-s age is moire democratic in the west, does it follow that churches in the west should "revert" to the pattern of the NT and first centurzy?
I’d love to hear what you think of this description of the divine hierarchical pattern that our ecclesiological structures attempt to make manifest on earth.
Higher things are higher because they include lower things; lower things are lower because they participate in higher things.
18:00 Note in this context, the see is from the firs referred to as that of the Parisii, not that of the locality Lutetia.
Crete had many poleis, but Thessalonica was a polis comprising Beroea which was three days' walk away, just as Athens is a polis comprising the locality of Troezen 156 km by land (via isthmus of Corinth) or 63 km by boat.
Thanks for the video!
I do think it's important to distinguish Apostolic Succession (something that Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans, as well as some Lutherans, have) from anything concerning the Papacy. There is not really a reason to accept Rome's claims about the Papacy, or any claims about the Papacy, because of Apostolic Succession.
Thanks! Totally agreed. Apostolic succession and the papacy are distinct. BTW, keep up the great work pointing out caricatures of Protestants.
The Pope, as a bishop has the same apostolic authority granted to those by apostolic succession. The Pope has one more authority and that is the authority of the keys to the kingdom. The bishop who holds the keys through succession has been recognized as the one who holds the primacy.
Thank you for pointing this out. As an Orthodox Christian I was wondering if he was basing all of the legitimacy of apostolic succession on the legitimacy of Papal succession/authority. Because they are definitely not the same thing, I would like to hear his thoughts on a more generalized apostolic succession as being potentially original and divinely inspired.
@@GR65330how does the passing of the keys work ? Makes more sense that it is the bishop of Jerusalem or the Galilean region where Peter spent most of his post ascension ministry.
@@bgorg1 The keys to the kingdom (which represents the authority given to the king's steward [prime minister]) are handed down by Peter to his successor. Since Peter was martyred in Rome, the keys were passed on to his successor to be the next bishop of Rome and the primacy.
Now, if peter died in Jerusalem, then his successor would be the next bishop of Jerusalem. The primacy would be in Jerusalem instead of Rome.
I am enjoying all of your videos and slowly getting caught up with most of them regarding RC & EO vs. Protestantism. You do a great job in standing for the truth and also being respectful to the EOs and RCs.
In one ( I cannot remember which one), you mentioned William Webster's book, "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History" - Yes !! this is the best short and succinct book that I have seen that actually refutes the Newman false dictum, "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant".
I noticed you have not addressed justification by faith alone yet, or have I just not seen it?
It seems to me that both RC and EO exalt the visible physicalness of church / rituals / ceremonies, sacraments, relics, icons, statues (RC), Mary, Pope, biships, etc. OVER the gospel of the heart of repentance / faith / trust in Christ.
Some others good books are:
"Long Before Luther" by Nathan Busenitz (shows forensic / legal/ imputed) Justification by Faith Alone was not something that Luther invented)
Sola Scriptura! (Edited by Don Kistler) (chapters by James White, R. C. Sproul, MacArthur, others)
3 volume set: "Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith" by David King and William Webster
The Roman Catholic Controversy, by James White
Baptism in the Early Church, by Henrick Stander and Johannes Louw (2 paedo baptists that admit that infant baptism is a development from late 2nd century onward)
Looking forward to catching up to all your videos. Also, You Tube connects to others where you are on others podcasts/ you Tube videos.
Keep up the good work,
Ken Temple
Thanks a lot Ken! Glad the videos are useful. I am hoping to get to justification this summer/fall!
@@TruthUnites Thanks for all your videos. They make a cumulative case against Newman's dictum. I wrote a summary of your historical argument with links and embedding several of your videos. apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2021/06/18/8683/
@@kentemple7026 thanks a lot Ken!
You should check out Iustitia Dei by Allister McGrath, a leading Protestant scholar that shows sola fide was not taught until the 16th century
I really enjoy your approach to apologetics. I pray you never stop searching for the truth. With regard to your interest in points two and three, I believe that God desired an authority that could answer that question. Truth may lie with either point 2 or point 3, who do you believe determines the truth here?
Very thoughtful presentation and the big problem is for people who want the Holy Spirit to be conformed to their established wishes. He sovereignly guided the church with the not so schooled Apostles and also led a few to record things for us on fragile papyrus and not even the Roman might empire for the first 300 year could put out the work of the Holy Spirit. In His time printing made life a lot easier for dissemination of His word and today, we have internet access and ample media resources to get hold of anything. Lord help us to repent of being so weak with exponential resources so readily available.
what camera did you use?,oh my God,even at 360p it looks phenomenal,you SHOULD give the name bro PLIZZZZZ!
This video does a really good job of laying out four views of how the monarchical episcopate came to be, but it seems like this video is really about Church government. You could, for example, have apostolic succession without a monarchical episcopate. A plurality of elders/bishops at each local church could view their authority as coming from ordination by the apostles and also think elders/bishops can only be ordained by those with such authority. This seems to be plainly in view in the letters to Timothy and Titus. It seems clear that another group that decides to ordain their own leaders on Crete without any connection to other Christians would be seen as illicit (Similar to those without authorization in Acts 15:24).
I'd be curious to hear Gavin's option on the Brethren of Plymouth. I used to be a member of one of those churches and I still haven't found another church (local church, not creed) as biblically sound. They see option 4 as the only biblical one, by the way.
Thanks for this video, Dr. Ortlund! It's a fascinating topic and I'm glad you covered it. In seminary, I did one of my major papers on the development of the monarchical episcopacy. It was a wonderful study and I used that paper as my writing sample to apply to my doctoral program at an Anglican college. Writing that paper as a Baptist, and holding to what you present as the fourth option, I was pleasantly surprised by the two main points you highlight: (1) There is a clear development in the first centuries from a two office to three office view. (2) There are plenty of Roman Catholic scholars you are willing to acknowledge this - in addition to Sullivan's work, I relied heavily on Allen Brent's books.
My question now: Why are you so quick to dismiss option four as not interesting and too difficult? Especially as credobaptistic Protestants, I think we have to recognize many areas where the church, with good reason or not, got important doctrines and practices wrong for centuries. What stops you from going there on church governance?
Thanks for the thoughtful comment! I think you are right that option 4 is defensible. In my view, it's more difficult than 3, but I recognize that depends to some extent on how much we think the details of church government are matters of right/wrong vs. matters of wisdom. Perhaps I should have left more space for option 4 than I gave the impression of here.
"You can have no greater sign of a confirmed pride than when you think you are humble enough."
~ William Law
Boom roasted!
This will make a great short book, sign me up.
Did john set up/appoint singular bishops? Polycarp and ignatius? Or were their roles as singular bishops developed early after john died?
I don't agree with you on everything, but on this I'm with you. I'm also a 3.
One thing that strikes me when it comes to Biblical and early church father polemics against schismatics, is that creeds and canons got successively longer and more complex over time.
That isn’t to say they didn’t all believe in some essential and core truths (they used the unity of the Church as an apologetic argument), but there was a lot of diversity of theological thought within that frame.
In light of that, it seems to me like a schismatic is anyone who prioritized non-essential theology over core dogmas, not necessarily someone who broke away from a specific corporate structure.
indeed so! and everytime a new heresy appeared the proto-orthodox group added stuff to their creed (eg. the part of the Holy Spirit in the Constantinoplitan creed added after a group claimed the Holy Spirit was not consubstantial with the Father)
Option three was Calvin’s conclusion and likewise mine
me too!
Even assuming this point (which I don't) , I would say if it was a good and legitimate development (just not divine), then why not keep it? And especially, why not keep it when the table stakes were the unity of the church ? I feel pretty much the same about all the Reformation objections to the Church as it was at the time. On the abuses, why not accept a slow reform (it would have to be slow if one was realistic). On doctrine and practices, unless the Church's positions were clearly heterodox (and unless they clearly had been for centuries), then again why not accept them but press for nuances (again over a longer time frame) - rather than split the Church. These are the sorts of things (that I am oversimplifying in a youtube comment) that eventually compelled me to leave confessional Lutheranism for the Catholic Church. And if it hadn't been the Catholic Church, it was going to be the Orthodox. However, I love this RUclips Channel and its very fair and charitable approach and tone. As well as its knowledge and intelligence.
@@toddvoss52 Seems like Anglican would be a more natural move from Lutheran, if looking for Episcopate.
@@joefrescoln Newman convinced me otherwise. Actually, so did the Eastern Orthodox.
@@toddvoss52 //I would say if it was a good and legitimate development (just not divine), then why not keep it? //
Because current Roman Catholicism mandates heresy, especially in regards to justification. That's on top of mandating optional beliefs (also condemned by Jesus).
10:36 Btw, Catholics are not bound by "scholars" as scholars, we are bound by bishops (especially in agreement across centuries) as bishops.
12:02 The thing that the convert, whose book quotes or alludes to Ephesians 4:5 in the title, is:
option 1 as to substance
option 2 _only as to usage of terms._
In the NT era, on his view, bishops were _never_ and presbyters _always_ called "bishops" and soon later the usage was reversed. Especially since the most prominent single subcategory of what was substantially bishop (our sense), namely apostles, and the second most prominent, namely evangelist, was no more.
Dr. Ortlund, I was wondering if you could do a video on Protestantism and its relationship to nominalism. I recently heard an argument from a Catholic that I had never heard before. Basically the argument was that Martin Luther and the Reformers were nominalists, and this effected what came to be known as the 5 Solas. As a philosophical realist and a Protestant, this concerned me. It concerned me even more when I looked up the Reformers and saw that Martin Luther was very influenced by William of Ockham. I was wondering if you could do a video on Protestantism and its relationship to nominalism via the Reformers, how that effects what they articulated, etc., if the 5 Solas are nominalist, and if we can be realists and be Protestants without trying to have our cake and eat it too.
You can be certainly be both. There are even Thomist Protestants. For example, Eric Lionel Mascall and Norman Geisler.
I'd be happy to address this sometime! To reassure you in the short-term: there are lots of Protestant realists. There is nothing necessary or inherent about nominalism with respect to Protestantism.
@@TruthUnites Gotcha. Thanks Dr. Ortlund!
Thanks for pointing out that early Bishops were Presbyters.
Loved this. I think there may be another difference that is needed for these discussions to be clear which is this: the Protestant says the New Testament gives us everything we need for the basic structure of church government, it was what the apostles established not counting themselves. But the Catholic and the Orthodox will say the New Testament has given us everything we need for the basic church structure but that this model includes the role of the apostles even though they are redemptively unique in important ways. So it's not just a matter of looking at the bishops/elders but also the apostles who were over these councils of bishops/ elders, and if you bring in arguments about the establishment of a new Sanhedrin and Jewish beliefs about succession then it makes sense that as the apostles died we would see their role being filled in a qualified sense by a developing monarchical episcopacy. So the three tier structure was there all along. I think adding that to the discussion makes it more fair to the Catholic and Orthodox side. Instead of just assuming the Protestant view in this area.
Also I don't want to nitpick but some of your skepticism of episcopal lists seems to apply perfectly to Gospels. Eg. Saying was it Peter or Paul and Peter who started episcopacy = contradiction is what atheists do all the time with Scripture, and someone defending the episcopal lists can do what the Christian apologist does and say both, but one account only mentioned one to emphasize it. I know there are many different ways of interpreting Jesus' genealogies but I would say if we allow the room to produce plausible syntheses of those for someone committed to a Christian paradigm we would need to allow the same latitude for the episcopal lists for those committed to divine law episcopal paradigm. Which would mean not giving that latitude is a form begging the question since it assumes a Protestant paradigm, and other factors would have to be used to cast doubt on a jure divine episcopacy rather than skepticism about episcopal lists. I don't know if that makes sense.
Thanks for the comment! I think the way you are framing the contrast is problematic in the way it construes apostles and bishops. The apostles had unique authority directly from Christ, were over the entire church and not simply a region, were often itinerant, were eyewitnesses of the resurrection, were foundational for the church (Eph 2:2), etc. So the claim that "the three tier structure was there all along" seems to equivocate on the word "tier." So it seems to me, anyway. Blessings to you.
I guess I would say there can be a three-tiered structure in a significant sense with the apostolic church without everything having to be the same because their role was particular in important ways. It doesn't seem a problem that this structure would continue in a form adapted to what the post-apostolic needed, and it even seems like that is what we would expect. Maybe this is an area of "agree to disagree" but even then it does seem an important consideration in the conversation. You may disagree that apostolic succession 3 is the right interpretation but you still present it as a view of the other side for the sake of comparison because some people may have a different view about what seems most plausible to you. I really don't mean to cause trouble, I genuinely mean what I say when I think this distinction is useful, and I see it a lot in Orthodox and Catholic thought
I know you value the church fathers very highly and if I'm not mistaken many of them make points about ecclesiology based on the role of the apostles, in diverse ways but also sometimes similar to the way I am describing
I am referring to places where they compare bishops to apostles or talk about the role of apostles in relation to bishops, that kind of thing
Hans Kung (a controversial Catholic teacher!) said in his “The Catholic Church” that the early church did not have “offices” (αξίωμα, positions of authority) rather, ministries (διακονία, service). He said that “offices” were an aberration, pointing to Mt. 20:25-28: “But Jesus called them to him and said, 'You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Category 4 should be split into 4. The episcopate is a negative change but not forbidden. and 5. The episcopate is an alteration of inspired church governing structure that delegitimizes the churches that take this Nadab and Abihu path. If we recognize that Israel took a curse upon themselves in 1 Samuel 8:7 for altering intended government, we get an idea what to think for the Christian era.
A short book on humility you say. You could call that a humble tome. 😅
LOL, I'm looking for debates on the topic because I want all sides and all evidences. This video has 3:50 of introduction (hindering my research). Brevity is the soul of wit.
If you have a problem with lists, will you say that you also have a problem with Matthew's and Luke's genealogy for JESUS?
16:45 _"hey, Ignatius means something different"_
vs _"the Gospel text is a later accretion"_
Well, the thing is, both have one thing in common - reconstructing, painstakingly, what supposedly happened instead of what other people before us said they knew happened because they had it from Apostolic Tradition. In other words "reconstruction over tradition" ...
Apostolic Succession is very important because we take it or leave it their is anointing that happen that was inherited from the early christians until the Holy Church will be more develop, development is part at times passes by because world changes and it should be organize.
Good Framing! This catholic votes for #2.
4:27 two offices
14:10 The clearer parallel between Higher Criticism is more probably between those pretending Pastorals are post-Apostolic and not Pauline with denial of the necessity of succession in the sacrament of orders.
Sts Paul and Barnabas had received the cheirotoneia, St. Paul handed it on to Sts Tim and Tite, he instructed them how to hand it on to others, and before that, either the group involving Simon Niger _involves_ one of the original twelve, _or_ they very arguably including Simon Niger (confer the request of Simon Magus!) had the cheiroteneia from the original twelve.
16:49 What are the churches that seem to be governed by presbyters?
Titus 1:5? 1 Tim 5:17?
Because, in each case, we would consider these are presbyteran parishes within the respective dioceses of Sts Tim and Tite.
For instance, Beroea would have been, necessarily, a parish within the diocese of Thessalonica.
The injunction is to assemble every Lord's day for the "breaking of bread" - and Beroeans certainly couldn't do that by walking to Thessalonica. It's 73 km or 45 miles.
14:33 The liberal school, and Markan priority, can be traced for prominence to Prussia of the Kulturkampf.
Otto von Bismarck was _both_ sceptical of the obviously and hands on supernatural _and_ of papal and episcopal claims adding up to "Evangelische Kirche" lacking legitimate and ontologically sufficient means to have what they considered the "Abendmahl" to be. The same is true conjointly or separately for the experts that came to prominence in universities of the time.
9:51 Let's suppose for argument's sake that for instance Clement of Rome never judged any important affair personally, but only as a kind of chairman of what would later be called "the college of cardinals" (bishops, priests and deacons of Rome).
Apart from his still being the chairman, the more prominent thing is, he would be consecrator of bishops and ordinator of presbyters. Chief such.
The point is, it is still perfectly compatible with the idea that the apostles laid hands on so and so (St. Paul on Sts Tim and Tite, for example), these on others, these in their turn on others and in order to celebrate the Eucharist or hear confession, you need to have had someone's hands laid on you, which in principle (not always necessarily in historic detail) can trace the lineage back to the apostles.
Since this touches sacramental theology, it is in a way more important than monarchic episcopacy.
B u t ... before you go down that route, check what Mommsen had to say about people heading assemblies convened for deliberation. When Octavian was decreed the lifelong title "princeps senatus" (first partaker of the senate or prince of the senate) this in itself unequivocally involved the monarchic power called being Emperor. A permanent chairman in the ancient world was so much more than just a chairman.
What is the significance of making a distinction between "bishop" and "priest" if they can be used interchangeably?
Philip Schaff has given a good response this, I will look it up when I’m back at my computer
@@TruthUnites As a matter of disclosure, I used to be heavily involved in Catholic Apologetics many years ago. I don't do much of it any more, as I am busy doing other things. However, last year, I resurrected my site again - just for posterity. You might find my colleague's treatment of this informative, so I offer it to you in case you want to read an opposing perspective. Click here, cursor down and read the 7 parts of the "Monarchial Episcopate" articles: www.catholic-legate.org/papacy. Cheers Gavin. I enjoy your irenic tone. You're a good guy. May God bless you in your love and search for the truth.
@@johnpacheco5355 Thanks a lot John! Appreciate the article and the kind words.
With the four options:
1) Monarchical Episcopacy established in Scripture.
2) Monarchical Episcopacy developed by the Holy Spirit (good and immutable)
3) Monarchical Episcopacy developed by humans (good but mutable)
4) Monarchical Episcopacy developed and wrong.
I'm very interested in where a certain Protestant group lands, a group which is unique among their brethren, that being the Anglicans.. a Protestant group that insists on, rather than merely values/prefers the monarchical episcopate.
... Do the Anglicans hold to option 1 or 2? As Protestants, and with a commitment to Sola Scriptura, it would seem to be difficult to assert that an unfolding, extra-Biblical development is necessarily binding on the Church immutably.. but scholarship seems to prevent option 1.
Why couldn't Anglicans hold to 3?
@@Mygoalwogel Due to the fact that they insist upon it as a necessity for the church -- that's what makes them different from Lutherans or Methodists (who hold option 3); in ecumenical dialogue, Lutherans and Methodists have had to embrace the historic episcopate in order to enter full communion with Anglicans (which we regard as an acceptable form of governance, and thus not a compromise to adopt, but not necessary for establishing fellowship on our end).
Put another way, they regard the offices of bishop, priest, and deacon to be divinely instituted offices; and a prerequisite for full participation in the life of the church (in the same way that Presbyterians regard teaching elders, ruling elders, and deacons, to be the divinely instituted and immutable form of church governance).
At least, that is my understanding from talking with them and my reading of the Formularies.
@@vngelicath1580 recent Anglican here, with some thoughts that might help understanding the perspective of one who prefers apostolic succession. Of course, everything I am about to say comes with the caveat of "please kindly disregard the modern state of the Episcopal Church and the Church of England, which have departed from the historic faith, etc."
The first thing to note is that Anglicans sometimes describe their view of Scripture as "Prima Scriptura," or the Primacy of Scripture. Other Anglicans will say it means the same thing as what the Protestant reformers meant by Sola Scriptura, so why make up a new term. Long story short, Anglicans hold to three sources of authority for understanding doctrine: Tradition, Reason, and Scripture, with Scripture being primary and final in its authority. As such, Anglicans are much more open to accepting developed traditions as important or necessary for unity, so long as they do not contradict Scripture.
All that being said, I have come to prefer apostolic succession myself, but for negative rather than positive reasons. Hebrews 13 and other passages make it clear that local church leadership has authority over the congregation. All Christians would agree that this authority is from God. But how does it get to your local pastor/priest? I find congregationalism to be an insufficient answer. The congregation ordains its own minister. Okay, what gives them the authority to do that? Who are they? Church governments like Presbyterianism are better, because they provide practical systems to ensure that your pastor is qualified for the job. However, they still do not appear to answer the question of how this authority from God gets from Heaven to the pastor in the pulpit without "trust me bro" being somewhere in the process. Apostolic succession is, even if I am here admitting my ignorance, the only ecclesiological system I know of that answers the question. As someone with severe authority issues built into my psyche, I find that apostolic succession provides the best ontological basis for my own pastor/priest having any level of authority in my life, per Hebrews 13:17.
I do not deny that God works many good things among the countless Christians living outside apostolic succession, and I respect a man running a church in his house, with a tiny flock of his neighbors, huddled around a Bible; the Church is there. But not in the same way. Apostolic succession is the ideal. Everything else is a concession to ensure that the good work of preaching and teaching and administering the Gospel is being done, whether or not the historic hierarchy can accommodate it (and whether or not the hierarchy is operating properly, cough cough current Church of England, cough cough late medieval Roman Catholicism, etc). Valid, good, but not ideal.
I long for a day when the Church will be one. It would require the independent churches and the historic-hierarchical churches both to swallow mountains of pride. But I reckon we have a few centuries yet of "you first."
And if one disagrees with Church teaching, should one leave the Church? If the answer is yes, what is the basis?
In the case of Catholics, Pope Benedict XVI addressed this stating that if you disagree with some core beliefs (i.e., Christ is God incarnated) you should leave the Church, but in some others (let's say) minor beliefs (i.e., the apparition of Fatima) you should stay.
12:41 Yeah, exactly.
Option 4 is impossible.
It would involve "the Church died, and God resurrected Her through Reformers" which is contrary to Matthew 28:16 - 20.
Is option 2 a minority view among Roman Catholics?
I don't think so; that is more the case among scholars and historians.
11:21 Option 1 = Catholic and Orthodox
Option 3 = Lutheran and Anglican
Option 4 = Presbyterian and Congregational
Option 2 is actually modernist.
18:00 I think you could actually make a stronger case _against_ Apostolic succession.
City after city seems to have insufficient bishops to fill in Late Antiquity.
If Paris had as first bishop the Areopagite, St. Denys being a disciple of St. Paul, the bishops between Denys and Victorinus don't add up to the time. That's the reason why others have put Denys of Paris in around 250 AD, incompatible with him being the genuine areopagite.
?-c. 250: Denis (died c. 250), believed to be the first bishop of Paris[4]
Mallon
Masse
Marcus
Adventus
c. 346: Victorinus
At least in the Western Roman Empire, you have the kind of bishop lists, that:
* start late, like above (reconstructive, not traditional) view of bishops of Paris
* have gaps
* or show (as one has suggested) that our historiography has "ghost years" that never really occurred.
If you go, as I do against revisionism of chronology, if you deny the theory of places having gaps in bishops, and being served very sporadically by priests from other dioceses, which is mine, you need to say bishops start late. If you say bishops start late, either you say Christianity started late in many places, or you say early Christians did without monarchic bishops, which is obviously your theory.
As my alternative one is, sees have episcopal gaps, I would say the gaps between St. Denys Areopagite and Victorinus, contemporary of St. Athanasius and directly attested in this context in 346, part of the time, Christians may have been wiped out in Paris, part of the time they were served from other dioceses, including as far off as Rome or even Smyrna. (Yes, Pothinus, like Irenaeus, came from Smyrna, from Polycarp). Imagine having internet working in a war zone where the enemy is shutting down server after server by violence, and the sites keep working thanks to very different servers in different locations still being up, and each being connected where set up thanks to those still in work. In theory, at least, episcopacy can work like that. I think it _did_ in the West for the centuries of persecution.
6:23 A natural compelling reading is not exactly above actual tradition from Church history.
I think there was a convert from Anglicanism to Catholicism who explained it like this:
* presbyters were called bishops in the NT
* bishops had no common name, but were variously callled apostles, evangelists, prophets and even presbyters.
Only later when certain special cases of bishops (notably apostles) were no longer around, did one get a common word for bishops.
Part of his case is obviously that St. John is calling himself a presbyter like the receivers of one of his epistles (unless I recall wrong) and St. John would have been one of the twelve, therefore one of the first twelve bishops. Fr. Jean Colson contests this identity, arguing the Beloved Disciple was instead a lesser disciple, like one of the 72, and a Cohen, who could very naturally, once he got orders, have gone only to the presbyterate, not the episcopate.
Hmmm... an alternative view: Setting aside the question of whether the monarchal bishop is a development or not, or whether it is a Spirit led development (or not)..... Could one propose that a clerical succession is still presented an expected in Scripture. Namely, even if there is no strict lineage of a single monarchal bishop, there is still the expectation that a valid cleric received his ordination from a man who was himself previously ordained in a lineage which can be traced to the apostles. Suchwise that a man could not assert himself as a valid Christian minister without such approbation.
hmmm, interesting proposal. I'd need to hear more about how the case would be made and which Scriptures would be involved. The tricky thing is (at least, in my opinion) you'd need to argue that such a lineage is not merely the general practice, or useful, but always necessary (even in our day, 2000 years later). Or else it would not really be binding. At least that is how I am looking at it right now. But I'm open to being convinced.
@@TruthUnites: It seems to me that the most relevant texts would be Acts 14:23, 2 Timothy 2:2, and Titus 1:5. In each case we see that new clergy received ordination from existing clergy, and they would be responsible for ordaining the next generation.
So the argument would be: "This is the pattern we receive from the Bible and we're never told it is allowed to be any different."
In fact, I'd wager that the "super-apostles" mentioned in 2Corinthians were people of high education who were illicitly trying to assert themselves as ministers without proper Apostolic approbation.
Then if one looks again at the early Church witnesses, one could see that this expectation is asserted by them too.
Therefore, it would fall to the person who says clerical succession is not necessary to make the case that it is valid despite no provision being made for it in the New Testament and early witnesses siding against it. A hard thing to do for one subscribing to (some) form of Sola Scriptura.
@@actsapologist1991 I'm not convinced, but it's definitely a less ambitious and therefore more reasonable argument.
@@TruthUnites if it’s not necessary couldnt anyone be a presbyter then? Anyone could be a valid minister, any age, any interpretation of the Bible. A child from the Mormon tradition, or from Islam tradition and their interpretation of the Bible. Is that what God intended as a way for his people to be led? I mean I’m sure you’d expect some type of tradition to be taught right? But if lineage really doesn’t matter, then it doesn’t matter AT ALL. 🤷🏾♂️
@@TruthUnites with due respect to your apostolic frame, I truly believe that the epicopate which evolved from apostolic succession is both a necessary and divinely inspired development, and apart from it being a general practice, it is better described as a holy tradition handed down by the apostles. As ActsApologist mentioned, it is presented in scriptures, in its embroyonic stage, in the institution of elders of the church as ordained by the apostles themselves, and down the line they ordained their successors as well.
Another consideration is that Paul cited a criterion to those who will be chosen as elders of the church, and that is the ability to teach others who will be able to teach others as well. This is a clear indication of the intent to propagate and pass on, not only the teachings, but also the succession of elders as teachers. While on the otherhand, their authority to teach the faith comes from their lineage to the apostles.
Lastly, the episcopate viewed as a divinely inspired development is due to Christ's great commissioning of the apostles to baptize all nations; to observe the sacrifice of the mass, "Do this in memory of me"; and the binding and loosing of sins. This entails a priestly ministry that will proceed to the end of the age and hence the necessity of an apostolic Church with Peter and his successors set aside by Christ as the prime minister and shepherd of the Church in journey in this physical world until His return.
Donation of Constantine & liber pontificalis and false decretals. Scholars always never agree. The influence of Greek metaphysics and the heirachial form was from the 10 pseudo Dionysius and proculus and aristolean syllogisms and platonic logic.
This might be a silly question and I’m very new to the Apolostolic fathers. If there are Bishop lists in Rome by the second century wouldn’t that be solid evidence for or against apolostolic succession and a monarchal episcopate? Like in comparison if someone said in the 1920s we had 7 presidents of the US here are the names we could easily say oh yeah that’s true or untrue. Or likewise in the other direction if someone said in 1920 Al Capone was president we could say no that wasn’t true. Wouldn’t the early Church have been able to quickly refute the idea of one Pope being a successor of Peter since it was such recent history?
This is just a question I had. I really have no idea I’m sure everyone is much more versed on this than I am.
I address this here, hope it helps: ruclips.net/video/eP2U_bC-oUI/видео.html
@@TruthUnites Thanks so much! I appreciate the help in all of this. I feel a bit like Alice falling down the rabbit hole at this point in my search. Thank you
@@Faithofthefathers12 I know that feeling! May the Lord guide you. Let me know if I can help.
@@TruthUnites thank you so much! I just watched the other video and I appreciate the detail you went through. I also appreciate that you aren’t taking the hard stance like I’ve heard many others against the papacy take. I really haven’t struggled through a lot of the stuff with the papacy, maybe a few hours of RUclips debates and some light reading. Something that would be a lot of help for me would be some guidance.
Basically I grew up Presbyterian then the last few years have gone to a non denominational Church. I recently have discovered that much if not most of what I have heard of the Catholic Church is misinformation and caricatures that are simply not true. So I’ve now taken this dive into Church history and doctrine (which has been amazingly interesting, to me not my family or or friends who think my conversations are more effective than Ambien for relief of insomnia lol). I thought a good start would be diving into the 5 solas then the Papacy then Maryology. Does that seem to make sense? Or is there a better path to go down. Unfortunately it is very difficult to wade through the sea of bias (my own included). I have found your channel and gospel simplicity very helpful on the Protestant or Evangelical side of things.
As with all theology my goal is to help others so I’m hoping to get to a point that I am way more grounded with how I lead my clients.
Your work literally bought me a week or two of resistance against the orthodox tractor beam... but just when I think I can remain protestant they pull me towards that sweet sweet mystical union. If only we protestants had a mystical tradition worth...well...much of anything.
haha, glad I at least bought you some time! A question I often ask those considering converting to Orthodoxy is, are you willing to reject your entire Protestant past and community in the way that the exclusive claims of Orthodoxy require?
@@TruthUnites that depends...how much do you charge for a phone call to talk me out of it?
@@TruthUnites My mind agrees with you, and with your arguments...but my heart wants what those salty men in black have with their boring liturgy and uncompromising dogma... so uncompromising they aren't sure if C.S. Lewis, (our one and only protestant saint), made it past the toll houses of the demons and into heaven. I mean who are these guys???
@@DouglasHorch lol. Shoot me an email. I’d be happy to chat sometime.
@@TruthUnites in answer to your question about being willing to reject my protestant past, the answer i give you is the same i give them. I will not allow the Christ in you to deny the Christ in me, God forbid we make Christ a liar.
I have started going to the Catholic church, after listening to you the answer is in the orthodox and Catholic teaching. Scripture with tradition things that are passed down from christ to the apostles church fathers to the Nicene Greed all the way to 2023
6:53 Your proof texts for congregational over diocesan, if you don't like to give a recap in a comment, what about time signature?
Hi, I'm a Protestant. Would a Bishop be considered a Pastor or a Priest? Should there not be Bishops in Protestant Churches? (Obviously Anglicans and some Lutherans do)
Right, the other Protestant traditions (excepting Anglicans, Lutherans, and other models such as those found among Methodists, Hussites, etc.) maintain that bishops and presbyters are the same thing. So if you have presbyters, you have bishops. Hope this helps.
@@TruthUnites Yeah that helps a lot. Sorry to have to ask another question but your understanding is very helpful to me. Is it not unbiblical for evangelical churches not to have presbyters/bishops (Obviously fulfilling a different role than the Catholic/Orthodox understanding)? And would a Baptist think a pastor is the same as a presbyter? I'm just trying to understanding the correct role of a presbyter/bishop in evangelical churches.
@@garyboulton2302 no problem. yes, the term pastor would refer to the same office as presbyter/bishop in most evangelical traditions. It's all the same office, just different terms. Hope this helps.
@@TruthUnites Thanks so much. I just want to let you know that what you're doing is very helpful for all of us. Please keep going!
@@garyboulton2302 so glad to hear that, thanks Gary!
I am a protestant but I don't find the skepticism over the list of Bishops to be convincing at all and this is quite a stumbling block for me. I don't think any of the examples like 1. They are late 2. They are far removed 3. There is contradictions; comes nearly close enough to prove that such a list did not exist. The contradictions seems to be small enough to simply prove that Ignatius and Tertullion did not collaborate and yet the fact that they both reference such a list despite being quite late and "far removed" to me is actually evidence that the list probably existed or was very widely accepted as having existed and that minor errors have crept in over time. It seems to me that even though the authority that the Bishops had clearly developed and increased over time all the way up to Vatican 1 there are good reasons to believe in a mono-episcopacy from extremely early on. I am interest to read these Catholic scholars who admit that the papacy was a development and to hear some of the criticism of their view.
18:14 Would St. Joseph have known his ancestry? Can Matthew 1 be trusted?
Getting the episcopal list from Pope St. Eleutherus (Eleutherius?) is no less trustworthy than St. Luke getting the ancestry of Christ from Mary.
18:46 You find apparent discrepancies between Matthew 1 and the kings of Judah succession in III and IV Kings.
18:50 _"Peter or Peter and Paul together"_
As a Catholic, I'd argue _both_ are true, depending on theological emphasis.
For Rome as a see, I see the sixties as a dyarchy - St. Peter comes in belatedly, starts collaborating with St. Paul, significantly approves but with caution his epistle to the Romans, presumably. For Roman see as papal see, St. Peter is the key, since when Sts. Peter and Paul were in other places, Peter was and Paul wasn't the pope (including in Galatian context, if the Cephas in Galatians 2 is in fact Peter, which is disputed).
The point about Catholics in the comments being upset that you “one particular scholar and itself simply dispels this myth of uniformity that the papacy and church government provides.
18:00 _"Irenaeus is not in Rome"_
Here is wiki:
// During the persecution of Christians by Marcus Aurelius, the Roman emperor from 161 to 180, Irenaeus was a priest of the Church of Lyon. The clergy of that city, many of whom were suffering imprisonment for the faith, sent him in 177 to Rome with a letter to Pope Eleutherius concerning the heresy of Montanism,[5] and that occasion bore emphatic testimony to his merits. While Irenaeus was in Rome, a persecution took place in Lyon. Returning to Gaul, Irenaeus succeeded the martyr Saint Pothinus and became the second bishop of Lyon.[14] //
So, whether he did or didn't see Rome between Smyrna and Lyons, he certainly saw Rome between serving in Lyons as a priest and serving in Lyons as a bishop.
So did apostolic succession stop for 1400yrs then start again with protestantism?
Yeah exactly. That's the problem with all this conjecture.
5:05
5:35
7:18
Paul says in Ephesians 4 that even the office of Apostle shall continue until the fullness and maturity of faith! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
It's so nice you always write "protestant view". It's also interesting how you claim to help protestants on their faith, when the reality is that you're carefully and delicately speaking real bad about the catholic church. But once again, the best thing is that you always write "protestant view", which automatically tells us all that you only talk about what you have specifically searched for, and not always searching for the truth. Thank you for being more interested in the catholic church, instead of the protestant one, because once you open your heart, you will already have so many stuff to teach. Keep going!
17:24 We Catholics tend to hold, based on tradition and on reasonable interpretation of its terms, that St. Matthew wrote 42, St. Luke 53.
17:53 The problem we have is, you seem to suppose that Church rulership is as complex as actual detailed events. It's not. Unlike events, it can be expressed as a diagram.
So, if the Church was unable to keep Her original Church structure intact from Apostles to ...
// Against Heresies can be dated to sometime between 174 and 189 AD, as the list of the Bishops of Rome includes Eleutherius, but not his successor Victor.[8] //
... to 189 AD, about 156 years - what _else_ could She have got wrong? Authorship and original genre intent of Gospels? Matthew and biography vs unknown and fantasy novel?
A bit later on you mention St Irenaeus and Tertullian contradict in minor detail, but you find at least apparent discrepancies between genealogies in the Bible too.
Really appreciating the videos, Dr. O, but you realize you are going to have to dress up more for the debate, as Dr. Cooper has the professorial appearance down.
A question that puzzles me on the Baptism debate is not so much baptism itself but what is regeneration? I am curious as to how those who hold to baptismal regeneration can consistently hold to it in light of Romans 6:1-4 and Titus 3:3-7 (especially the latter), which indicate the permanence and immutability of regeneration based on God's grace alone. Can rthey point to passages where regeneration can fail? There are clearly many monstrous and patently evil men in history who were "validly baptized" in sacral churches (e.g. Hitler in the Catholic Church and Stalin in the Eastern Orthodox Church).
I also need to grow a lengthy beard in the next month!! That is a great question and one that I hope we can work through.
Good question. I suppose like everything there is an element of our choice to engage. It brings to mind a sort of opposite - Paul talking about selfish preachers who are in some manner invalid yet those who come to faith on hearing them are valid. It wouldn't surprise me if those preachers are told "depart I never knew you" even though they catalysed other people's salvation. So kind of same with a person validly baptised but not regenerated even though others are - even some not baptised maybe. God knows. Interesting though.
If the true church was never lost, as many Protestants hold and I believe I’ve heard you claim, was the early church not guided by the Holy Spirit and thus potential doctrinal development like apostolic succession guided by it? And does that not follow that this doctrinal development (and possibly doctrinal development as such) is the will of God? I know you said that’s for future discussion but I honestly don’t see how one who would affirm the authority of the early church could say it’s developments were not God-inspired.
Further, is Protestantism per se not just a development to a perceived past of Church history based on developers developing away from the apparently true Church and claiming supremacy of opinion, but just 13 centuries after the supposed development of apostolic succession in the early church? And does the later development of Protestantism invalidate it in comparison to earlier developments, or are they valid because they’re the ones you like, or is there a third alternative?
Love your channel and look forward to more on the discussion, just honestly confused by some arguments that seem sort of confirmation biased or cognitively dissonant. What am I missing?
Thanks for the comment!
On your first point, it's simple. You can believe that God is at work in the church and yet errors happen. I don't see the problem here. It happens all throughout the Old Testament. Even during the apostolic age, churches fall away from the gospel (Gal. 1:6). I don't understand why this is a problem unless you assume that there are only two extreme options: total apostasy or total perfection. There are other options between those two extremes.
On the second point, the intent of Protestantism is to return to the biblical model operative during the apostolic age. To argue that Protestantism is a development, rather than a return, you'd need to argue that it fails to return to the biblical model. Of course, that is where the debate lies. Hope this helps.
@@TruthUnites it does. While I generally disagree with a lot of your conclusions, I appreciate your approach and honesty. Thanks!
In most of the Latin Church a new bishop is appointed by the Bishop of Rome. In the Roman diocese itself the bishop is elected by the parish priests, most of whom are also bishops somewhere else. In history a bishop might be appointed by an elected abbot, or even by the king. Once appointed the putative bishop might need to be ordained a priest, and certainly needs to be consecrated by another bishop if not consecrated already. Only a bishop can ordain a priest or consecrate another bishop, and he is said to have the fullness of the priesthood. How all this came about may be a subject of study.
The system is a little illogical perhaps, but effective in complying with the obligation to teach all nations. Let’s assume it has God’s approval.
In England we expect judges in Cornwall, Kent and Northumberland to apply the same law, which is why it is known as common law. Likewise bishops may be expected to teach the same doctrine, known as dogma accordingly. One bishop, who claims to be the successor of St Peter in a special sense, has a special role in co-ordinating the teaching of different bishops. I won’t pretend that all our bishops teach the same thing concerning the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia.
Our bishops have what is called the binding power. They have used it to publish the first edition of a compilation known as The Bible, and then they have used it to add the Book of Baruch to the second edition. There is no circularity in this.
10:36 Not in any tracable way ...
St. Paul was not one of the twelve.
He had hands laid on him by a group involving one Simon Niger. Some Church Father has identified him with Simon Peter, and if this is so, Sts Tim and Tite _are_ in a traceable way successors of the twelve, as are any they laid hands on.
Petros would be in Latin, grammatically speaking, Peter (we see historically Petrus instead, that's another matter). Ater as sounding nearly like Peter, and Niger as less denigrating than Ater, that would have been a great pseudonym for St. Peter if persecutions forced him to be incognito there.
Wow, you are in my top 10 list of good Scholars. And I don’t even like the Baptist Church(I blame the southern baptist for that). I am actually Catholic with a big Lutheran Influence.
My own bias, coming from a family where one side Sephardic Jews from Greece, who escaped the Holocaust with little more than the clothing on their backs and the oral stories and traditions of our own history, and the other half Sephardic Jews who lived in hiding in Northern New Mexico, not wanting to be discovered, also maintained an oral tradition for over four hundred years. So if we are depending on a written documentation of the subject, it ignores that this is a similar situation, few are writing things down for a couple of reasons. Many of these new Christians are expecting the Parousia to take place in their own lifetimes, we see in the NT that they are not working, or entering into marriage and having children, because they won't be here much longer. So too writing down the preaching of the Apostles, the lineage of Episcopi and Presbyteri are not of primary concern to them. What we see as time goes on is that the oral preaching of the Apostles gets written down in the Gospels and a few of the letters of the Apostles to churches who have obvious issues or questions are saved and incorporated into the NT. John's Apocalypse being a very different class of writing. Variations in oral traditions and lists which were passed on orally and to writers in different parts of the Roman Empire I think can be expected and tolerated.
So we have a culture that because of the literacy rate tends to preserve things orally. We have a church which is spread out across the Empire, and is illegal, and sporadically persecuted. It is ridiculed because it's God was killed, so it tends to be followed and recruit it's adherents from the lower classes, again mostly illiterate. Hence what we see in written form is first the attacks against the Christians, who are labeled Atheists, because they don't worship the established gods. Cannibals because they are accused of believing that they are eating the flesh and drinking the blood of their God. And a myriad of other charges. It is then that a written responsa is required, not prior to these written attacks. If it is just you and me arguing points, then an oral argument is fine, but when addressing written charges from a larger foe, a written reply is needed.
If we look at the OT which was primarily delivered orally, we see a few things, first many of the passages are when read or spoken aloud done so in a rhyme or couplet form making it easier to remember when re-telling it. Secondly like the preaching of the Apostles that would later be written down in the Gospels, these tales are told not just once but over and over, memorized, something that we don't do much in an age where we can pull something up on the Internet, or our saved research in an electronic document. So for us today, showing proof that something was put to bytes with a timestamp is our rule. I myself bought out a couple Seminary Libraries, or parts of them (One a Catholic Seminary, the other a couple of fiercely anti-Catholic groups) My house has full volumes printed from the 1590s to currently published works. The issue there is when I want to post them, if I can't find a scanned or reproduced copy online, I have to type them with my arthritic hands.
Almost Lastly (perhaps, as I tend to droll on and on) There is the evidence from archeology. On the talk you gave expressing doubt about the Assumption, I posted the findings of two sarcophaguses in an early Christian Cemetery in Sevilla from the Mid 3rd Century that included among the Christological images, images of the Assumption of Mary. This I found in a reference by another author to the writings of a second author, now the issue for me is tracking down the original source. But be that as it may, the reliance on only written evidence and ignoring archeological findings in Early Christian sites of the invocation of the Saints, the depictions of Mary, or the absence of the Cross in Iconography could lead one to believe that Jesus was a great sage and had followers in the movement, absent of the Crucifixion and Rising from the dead. But like relying on written material alone some of which was only re-discovered in the 1800s after having been lost or sitting in uncatalogued monastic houses for centuries will give us the same partial insight.
Finally for those who have remained awake this far. My training is not in History or Theology, while it is a great interest of mine. It is in Infectious Diseases. Soon after graduating and going into practice Legionaries Disease and on its heals AIDS became an issue. Taking a page from some Fathers call the leaders Presbyters other Episcopi, lets look at a more recent event. Early on in AIDS, we have an unidentified organism that the French call LAV, the English-speaking world calls HTLV-III, competition in finding the organism has both sides keeping to their own designation. Then when at almost the same date the French and Dr. Gottlieb at UCLA fight over if Dr. G found it or if it was from a sample that the French lab sent him. So they agree to call it HTLV-III/LAV. Later it gets re-named HIV, and GRID, Gay Cancer, the Gay Plauge, and the Hatian Illness becomes AIDS. As with the early church and the nomenclature defining the roles, do we expect anything different? Why is it that we insist on a clean fully developed Ecclesiology or Definition of what the Apostles, who themselves until Pentecost were still hiding from those who wanted to harm them, still not understanding what Jesus had told them? Just a few of my observations and questions that I think were missed in the discussion.
bishop = high priest
- can ordain successors, perform mysteries on his authority.
priest
- cannot ordain successors, perform the mysteries under the authority of his bishop.
Overall a more balanced assessment of apostolic succession from a protestant.
I do not think you are giving the early church fathers a fair shake though. Don't you think we would have seen a dissension by someone (anyone) in the early church had apostolic succession been an innovative tradition? Why did the entire church go along with this new practice if it was not apostolic in origin?
we have such testimonies, from Jerome, for example, in his commentary on Titus 1: "A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop, and before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the peoples, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas,’ churches were governed by a common council of presbyters; afterwards, when everyone thought that those whom he had baptized were his own, and not Christ’s, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, and to whom all care of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schisms might be plucked up. Whosoever thinks that there is no proof from Scripture, but that this is my opinion, that a presbyter and bishop are the same, and that one is a title of age, the other of office, let him read the words of the apostle to the Philippians, saying, ‘Paul and Timotheus, servants of Christ to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.'"
@@TruthUnites So one man, 300 years after you argue that the development began, who abided in the tradition that you believe he is criticizing. That doesn't seem solid to me.
@@TruthUnites Do you believe in transubstantiation? I ask because Jerome's testimony states that the body and blood of Christ are produced through the prayers of Presbyters and Bishops.
I like your method of presenting four views, your references and your own conclusions, but in the end I think options 1,2 and 3 all use the argument of authority from tradition. The whole point of the episcopate, 'bishops' etc, is to pass on something of spiritual authority. The list of bishops has been a reason why some bishops (say Norway, Denmark) were not accepted until recent years, because there was no convincing link for them. It is the 'bishops' who have authority to consecrate things and priests. The link is important because it is about God's authority being passed on, not man's traditional ideas or mere institutional practices.
If the Bible contained any element of this, then it should be accepted by all denominations, but if not, it should be rejected by all of them. In my view, option 2 and 3 are the least worthy of considereation.
Do you see any value of extra-biblical writings from our earliest church fathers at all?
@@williamnathanael412 Yes, for historical information and to see how easily ideas get distorted in just a few years, the Agape feast and communion for instance. None have any authority regarding doctrine or practice.
Dr. Ortlund, I started watching your videos a couple of days ago, having delayed the experience for several months because, I hate to say, your thumbnails did not inspire me. In fact they did just the opposite. I just had this impression (pardon me for saying this) that you were anything but humble. After watching a couple of your videos, I am glad to say that I have changed my mind about you. That's not to say, of course, that I agree with your point of view, but I do think you present both yourself and your subject matter very well.
One thing I really appreciate is your acknowledging that you're approaching the church fathers and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox theology from an Evangelical Protestant background, which makes accepting their doctrines and/or customs rather difficult for you. If you wish to remain an Evangelical Protestant, specifically a Baptist, I have no problem with that. I know there are plenty of stubborn Catholics (I'm sorry, but "stubborn" really is the proper word to use in this case) who believe that unless you are a member of a Catholic parish you're going to burn in hell. Such people are opposed, absolutely opposed, to interfaith dialogue and accepting non-catholics as brothers in Christ. I have no problem at all considering you a brother in Christ. That being said, however, just for grins and giggles, I would suggest (and of course you don't have to do this) if you really want to understand why the Catholic Church and/or the Eastern Orthodox Churches believe what they believe and practice what they practice, perhaps the best approach to take would be to immerse yourself in Catholic life or Eastern Orthodox life and attend a full degree program in theology, whether it be at the bachelor's, master's, or doctorate level, at one of their accredited universities or seminaries. Do so not as someone from a Protestant background but rather as someone from a non-religious background who simply wants to learn what the Catholic and or Eastern Orthodox churches teach and how they live out their faith. Granted that's a tough assignment (after all, how can someone simply throw off his lifelong background for such an endeavor?), but at least you will understand a little bit better why the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches teach what they teach and do what they do. It might also help you to appreciate more what your own tradition teaches and how it lives out its faith.
There’s nothing wrong with saying option 4 is correct. It most certainly is the case that 4 would be the clear result…that apostolic succession was not passed down miraculously from the apostles and there in turn gave bishops the authority to introduce venerating icons, praying to Mary, etc.
The apostles gave us all we needed via God’s mind, not man’s. It is a clear addition to interject a claim that bishops today are inspired as the apostles were and can interject theology we see nowhere in scripture.
The only succession authorized and infallible is Gods word, not man made traditions.
Cool, therefore the Bible is not trustworthy or necessary to be a Christian, as it was decided on by bishops under the assumption that Apostolic Succession gave them the ability to do so.
@@EpistemicAnthony I heard a bishop say just the other day that “for every ecumenical robber council there is a robber council.”
So if these ecumenical councils have the inspiration like the apostles, they would’ve been able to identify false teaching without it taking years to finally be identified. Ecumenical councils are mere men. They are not inspired like the apostles.
@@Phil-bm4xo cool, therefore I cannot trust the Bible. Your Bible is based on the ecumenical council decisions. If they aren't trustworthy, then you cannot point to the canon of scripture as having been identified accurately, and perhaps more importantly you have no grounds to tell anyone that they have to accept your canon. I could deny the Pauline epistles are scripture for example, and I'd still be just as much a Christian as you are.
@Phil-bm4xo cool. Since the councils are apparently unreliable, then I will not trust the canon of scripture, since it was established via council. There were many differing opinions on the canon prior to the council that established the Bible.
Shouldn’t the thief on the cross be a part of the baptism conversation
No because the thief on the cross isn't about baptism.
@@ihiohoh2708 well it’s about salvation. He was saved and he wasn’t baptized.
@@ihiohoh2708 The thief on the cross goes to the show that baptism doesn't save in itself. Only Jesus saves exclusively.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 No it doesn’t. Just because someone can be saved apart from baptism doesn’t mean baptism doesn’t save. The Bible literally says it does. 1 Peter 3:20-21 Baptists try to limit God’s grace to one way. We are all saved by God’s Word, and God’s Word is in baptism.
@@ihiohoh2708 We are saved by faith and trust in Jesus, which is by grace, not by works. A closer read of those scriptures show context. It is like saying, "Call no man fatiher" Is that meant literally, or is there context of what Jesus really meant. You're likely Catholic, and you know the context of the latter scriptures, even though protestants can try and use that as a gotcha against Catholics (which I don't subscribe to, as I know the context).
The Holy Spirit revealed to Paul the traditions of the Apostolic Churcb, which were then given to us (1 Corinthians 11:1-2).
Furthermore Pastor Ortlund, I have a question: how would Protestant denominational Churches act on this mandatory Biblical command for the Church?:
“Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.”
- James 5:14-15
I know that this comment will remain unanswered because it doesn’t tickle ears, and I’m tired of all the Scriptural circumventing by so-called reformists. Unite under the Apostolic Church known today as Orthodoxy, not disingenuously pretend that the Apostles weren’t Orthodox in their traditional beliefs to justify a twisted theological agenda.
Very interesting. I tend to think it is a later extension of the same practical decision we see in Acts, and Spirit-led.
Regardless of whether the records existI think Apostolic succession is a safe assumption and valid as long as we're not saying their successors are Apostles. It seems useful to keep the body "pure" that a valid minister of God's mysteries not be considered a heretic by their forebears. For a strong theological protestant minister like a Baptist, I don't know if the record shows a procession but I can assume that it existed, albeit with a break in precise passing on, but I think if I were you (I know you're busy so I think is the operative word - you're just better placed and educated but this is just an idea I'm throwing out there fwiw) I would explore claiming Apostolic succession of the Biblical teachings and a certain amount of tradition and see can anyone really say that's invalid. I expect the RCC/EOC will see it as less complete (in the set of traditions passed on) but who is complete? Isn't there an argument for valid presbyters in protestant traditions? Maybe. I mean one that could open up eccumenical dialogue - obviously all sides see themselves as most valid but I'm interested in how invalid is invalid lol. I suspect in God's eyes it looks different and any exploration of all this is good work. I appreciate you a lot and am looking forward to your next conversation. God bless you and your family and ministry.
Thanks for the reflections, God bless you as well!
@@TruthUnites Thanks for yet another of your reflection-inducing videos. :)
That seems to be the Lutheran view on apostolic succession, at least according to Jordan Cooper. I tend to agree with that view, that apostolic succession originally meant the passing down of orthodox doctrine through the men ordained by the Apostles and less so on believing that the episcopal polity is divinely ordained and that sacraments are only valid if done by a Catholic or Orthodox bishop.
@@wesmorgan7729 Interesting, thanks. I will have to look up the various views.
I wouldn't discount divine ordination, given that the Apostles used straws to allow for this in Acts when we see the first example of succession. However, I wouldn't necessarily rule out divine ordination occuring in a manner that pervades the manmade divisions and schisms. I'm not saying I hold to it being the case but I'd love to see more learned pastors and priests and/or theologians debate on the idea. For all I know they already have though, lol.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 I think it certainly could be divinely ordained, but I don't think we affirmatively answer whether Ortlund's #2 or #3 scenario is correct. I'm somewhere on the fence between those two options.
Irenaeus wrote around 180AD so you you have concerns with the accuracy of his list of the bishops of Rome. If someone were to hand you a list of the British monarchs or even the presidents of the United States, would you reject those lists also? After all, they are further removed in time from the earliest people on the list than Irenaeus was. Your rejection of his list is not as different from the biblical criticism as you would like to think. Their prejudice is against the supernatural but yours is against Catholicism but you are both prejudiced.
Excellent point.
Apostolic succession is in the New Testament and thus of divine origin. Matthias succeeds Judas. Paul is confirmed in his apostleship by Peter and James. Paul appoints Timothy and Titus and commands them to appoint their own successors (as well as to teach and command with all authority what is consistent with sound doctrine). This is all done through the laying on of hands, explicitly mentioned in the New Testament. The example of Moses and Joshua also shows that the God-commanded laying on of hands entailed a transfer of authority. Also, the earliest of Church fathers, Clement of Rome who was ordained by Peter and wrote in the 1st century AD, confirms this succession of bishops as a tradition going back to Jesus Himself:
" *Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate.* For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a *perfect fore-knowledge* of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, *other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.* We are of opinion, therefore, that those *appointed* by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry." First Clement
Stop reading so-called "scholars" and read the Bible and Church fathers for yourself.
Matthias succeeding Judas is not apostolic succession, its apostolic replacement. Apostolic succession means the transfer from apostle to bishop. Titus and Timothy are nowhere called bishops. Hope that clarifies.
@@TruthUnites "nowhere called bishops" But they were given full teaching authority from Paul, as his letters tell us, were they not?? And were they not told to pass on their teaching authority to others? You focus on the term "bishop," but what about the reality described in Scripture?
“Command and teach these things. Let no one have contempt for your youth…." 1 Timothy 4:11-12
“What you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.” 2 Timothy 2:2
“You must say what is consistent with sound doctrine…. Say these things. Exhort and correct with all authority. Let no one look down on you.” Titus 2:1,15
In addition to teaching authority, did not Timothy and Titus appoint the elders in Ephesus and Crete who were under their authority?
"This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you...." Titus 1:5
"Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.... Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without favor, doing nothing from partiality. Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man's sins; keep yourself pure." 1 Tim 5:17-22
Do you not believe that Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, succeeded the Apostle John?
Do you not believe that Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, succeeded the Apostle Peter?
Do you not believe that Clement, bishop of Rome, succeeded the Apostle Peter?
"apostolic replacement" Fair enough, but still relevant to the topic and to the office of bishop which is mentioned there in Acts 1:20.
@@TruthUnites Eusebius says that they were Bishops in his Church History
The City of Rome had 14 urban districts. It is possible that each district that had a Christian presence had its own bishop.
"Bishop" is the name of the office that Christ conferred on each of the Apostles. (Acts 1:20 - Psalms 109:8). So it is of divine institution in so far as each of the first eleven bishops possessed shelichut (agency) to act for Christ in His office of High Priest, exercising at least some of His powers. The Jewish law of agency is that it can be transmitted to successors by the imposition of hands (semicha) or by any suitable mode of transmission.
But in so far as a bishop is a public judge, with power to bind and loose, agency is not necessary for a man to receive judicial office.
The reason why divine institution must pertain to the office of bishop is that, without it, no public worship instituted by Christ would be possible, any more than a federal agent could exercise executive power without a mandate from the President.
The conditions for the valid transmission of the office of bishop depends on the correct description of the power to be transferred. If the power intended by Christ to be conferred is that of consecrating and offering Christ in a true sacrifice, then there must be a real objective presence of his body and blood in the sacrament of the Eucharist either as Rome understands it or as Luther did.
But if there is no such presence, then the notion of Eucharistic sacrifice must be ruled out, and Christ must be taken to have conferred a different power on His Apostles for public worship. The Protestant narrative is that He did do this - but somehow, all the churches switched in antiquity to purporting to ordain sacrificing priests. At this, valid ordination of bishops was vitiated everywhere, and by the 16th century all the divinely instituted bishops had died out, and the power of ordaining any more died with them.
I like your channel you a cool person but I would like you to Talk about why the Baptist don't Do Christ Sacraments! Like in John 6:51-58- The Eurcharist Confession John 20:21-22-23) & the Others Christ Talk's about 🗝️🗝️😇📖🛐🙏 God bless you 💯 Catholic I'm a Catholic because Christ established the Sacraments & a Church & I pray we are all one God bless 😇🗝️🗝️
Baptists would argue they do the 2 sacraments Christ left, Eucharist & Baptism.
@@aGoyforJesus They deny Christ real Presence though Which Christ Said this is my Body & Blood 🗝️🗝️🛐😇💯 Catholic I love all my Christian brothers I pray we all become One & I want Untiy So God bless you brother If you think it's a piece of bread 🍞 then it's not a sacrament
@@frankperrella1202 you may want to look at a recent video I posted on 1 Corinthians 10-11. Jesus' words don't need to be taken in a sense comporting with a Real Presence view. That view creates more philosophical and biblical difficulties than the allegedly literal reading solves.
Regardless, the video would help you understand the rationale behind rejecting your view. God bless.
@@aGoyforJesus I would like you to go to Dr James Likoudis & I can site Church Father's who said what Christ said this is my Body & Blood Grace Many Baptist believe in once saved always saved that's Wrong Ephesians 5-5-8) I would also recommend Brother Peter Diamond the Bible proves the teachings of the Catholic church by Brother Peter Diamond Nice little book look it up🗝️🗝️📖🛡️🛐😇💯 Catholic
@@aGoyforJesus The Catholic church & Orthodox & a few Prostestants Even back the True Presence Christ Said It & Judas rejected it!!
13:20 I think this is a case against your take on icons and Assumption of Mary.
Supposing somehow they were not divine 1st C truth and practise, they could still not be so erroneous as to put a Church practising or believing either into the wrong.
Because _all_ of the historically attested Church at least _came to_ adopt this as correct and as true.
I'm glad you don't take the view of Ruckman that Wycliff had tradition (as we would call it) from Apostles via Circumcellions and Albigensians, via Tondrakians, Iconoclasts and Paulicians.
Scripture alone and faith alone, are actually later developments!
Jesus Christ gave Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom! Biblically, The King would appoint one prime Minister from among his 12 officers, as Peter alone received. The Apostle Matthew acknowledges the primacy of Peter in Matthew 10, as he lists Peter as First, ( protos, chief, leader), when naming the Apostles. The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically.
Ignatius did not mention the Bishop of Rome in his letter, as to not call attention to his name for fear of him being arrested!
For great books on the Biblical proof and historical proof on the papacy established by Jesus Christ on Peter, I recommend the following, "upon this rock", the primacy of Rome in the early Church, ( Stephen Ray)
"Jesus, Peter and the keys", ( Hess, Butler)
"Keys over the Christian world ", ( Robert Sungenis).
Not of divine origin. It can be very helpful until it's not.
Indeed. It can really become a system of oppression if the bishops go off the rails.
As I see it, the concern for your position seems to be that you can have approximately the same criticism and the same four options for the New Testament canon. For example, by analogy with your third option, we could say that the New Testament is trustworthy, but not divinely inspired. After all, just because the Evangelists tell the truth doesn't mean they are divinely inspired. And Paul never says at the end of his letters "by the way this letter was inspired by God". And after all, the compilation of the New Testament canon was also the result of a development. So we could say that the view that the New Testament was divinely inspired is also a development, just as the view that apostolic succession was divinely instituted.
I'm Catholic by the way, so I believe the New Testament is inpired. I'm just pointing out that your criticism would also apply there if you followed through.
Thanks for the comment. As I see things, it does not follow that if you see the episcopate as a development, you must see the canon as the same kind of development. For one thing, there are all different kinds of developments. They are not all the same. For another, the canon and the episcopate are in themselves apples and oranges. One is the list of which books belong in the Bible; the other is a particular structure for the government of the church. Once the New Testament books are recognized, they are not going to suddenly change what they teach and become heretical. Bishops, however, can and do change. You can have an orthodox bishop in one generation, and a heretical in the next. So it's unclear to me why we should see these two developments in the same way.
@@TruthUnites Well I don't see why the fact that bishops can be heretical is relevant here. It has no impact on the question whether the episcopate is divinely instituted or not.
There is definitely a parallel between the development of canon and the development of the episcopate, inasmuch as you believe that the presence of a development is a sign that something is not of divine authority. In other words, if you believe that the episcopate being the result of a development is a good reason to doubt that it was divinely instituted, then the canon being the result of a development should also be a reason to doubt the authority of the canon.
Furthermore, it is not just the canon which is a result of development, but also the very idea that there *should* be a New Testament. Christ never said that there would be a New Testament, and people from the first century don't seem aware that there is a new set of divinely inspired Scripture in addition to the Old Testament.
So we have four options for the New Testament, similar to your four options for the episcopate: 1. The New Testament is given directly by Christ (doesn't fit with evidence) 2. The New Testament is the result of a development but is still divinely inspired 3. The New Testament is the result of a development, and is good and trsutworthy, but it is not divinely inspired 4. The New Testament isn't good or trustworthy.
And now the interesting debate would be between options 2 and 3.
@@vituzui9070 Thanks for the pushback, but I just don't see why we would put the canon into the same grid. It's not a form of government that can come or go. It's simply the process of recognizing divinely inspired texts. That process begins in the NT itself (II Peter 3:16, I Tim. 5:18). So it seems like a different kind of development than the episcopate. But, I'll keep thinking on this and see if there is a way to make my point more clearly. Thanks again.