Thank you so much for defending the fact that the presbyters, not the bishops, are the successor of the apostles, and that the episcopal form of government is an accretion and not the only valid norm! God bless.
There’s Bishops appointed directly in Scripture. Then there is also the Church government having cardinals for example that are all bishops. Cardinals for example can be done away with however organizing a world wide church obviously requires a church government
@@catholicguy1073 the Chruch requires a Chruch government and the government we see explicitly and directly implemented in the Bible is one that is ruled by Presbyters. The later addition of bishops to the mix, and distinction of giving them additional and higher roles is a way of doing chruch government but it is not the most historical/biblical. The Presbyterian form of church government is the closest match to that which was instituted by the apostles.
@@tategarrett3042 Bishops are ordained directly in Scripture. What are you talking about? Ignatius who was a bishop was ordained by St. Paul and was a disciple of the Apostle John for example.
@@catholicguy1073 if you watched the video above they talked about that and not only why this doesn't prove anything given that the terms were used interchangeably between bishop and Presbyters but further these events are not described in scripture - what ordination of bishops do you think occured in the new testament?
@@tategarrett3042 Episcopos arises from two words, epi (over) and skopeo (to see), and it means literally “an overseer”: We translate it as “bishop.” The King James Version renders the office of overseer, episkopen, as “bishopric” (Acts 1:20). The role of the episcopos is not clearly defined in the New Testament, but by the beginning of the second century it had obtained a fixed meaning. There is early evidence of this refinement in ecclesiastical nomenclature in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107), who wrote at length of the authority of bishops as distinct from presbyters and deacons (Epistle to the Magnesians 6:1, 13:1-2; Epistle to the Trallians 2:1-3; Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2). The fact the role of Bishops became more clearly defined is hardly an accretion anymore than our understanding of who wrote the gospels and the Trinity.
Gavin Ortlund is an accretion ;) just kidding. Loved this interview. Everyone should go listen to the whole thing on Gospel Simplicity. Also, his book is great! Definitely worth reading.
The role of the bishop (overseers) as separate from presbyters grew for two reasons: the increasing numbers of the Christian congregations and need for coordination, the need to oversee the struggle against heretical teaching. But it was when the Church leaders began to collude with the Roman imperium, becoming a state religion, that servanthood developed into hierarchy and the Church became a tool for social conformity.
Can you recommend any good books or resources on this matter? I've long been curious about the relationship between the fall of Rome and the transition of the church to a kind of pseudo imperial system in its own right.
@@ottovonbaden6353this is just a big compiracy🤣🤣. plus the church wasn't only in Rome but all churches from Europe to Africa formed a similar ecliseology
The discussion on Clement and the plurality of office is extremely important. There was no head apostle. The apostles governed as a plurality. They are all the foundation with Christ as the cornerstone. None is greater than another.
@@thadofalltrades Clement commanded dioceses that weren't his own, he did have extraordinary authority. Whether it was understood to be unipersonal is a separate issue and not necessary to acknowledge the fact that there was in fact one successor who carried the charism forward.
Imo the Apostles didn’t really appoint successors to their office; they appointed elders to rule over the churches they founded. They wanted each church to be autonomous, but have the same doctrine and practice of faith.
14:40 St Ignatius makes that exact claim, that a bishop is needed for Eucharistic validity. That's not a later accretion. "Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains."
What Ignatius says is that one should not celebrate the Eucharist in rebellion against the bishop, despising a bishop. If there is a bishop, his authority must be respected, of course.
But the point Gavin is making is that when Ignatius uses the term ‘bishop’ he doesn’t mean what we today think of as bishop. He means something akin to a senior pastor as the concept of a diocesan bishop certainly didn’t exist let alone archbishops. Ignatius (Like Clement) conflates bishop with presbyters (Letter to the Magnesians 7:1). He himself was likely one of several bishops in Antioch just as Clement was one of several bishops in Rome. Ignatius himself addresses the Romans in the second person plural when giving them commands.
@@clivejungle6999 We see a plurality of presbyters, never a plurality of bishops. The bishop is also a presbyter and sits at the head of the council of presbyters, not that doesn't mean his role is reduced to merely that. We disagree over if the discussion is Apostolic, but clearly in the patristic literature, long after nobody would dispute that the threefold offices were clearly distinct everywhere, you still see bishops being referred to as priests as well. Aaron was a priest. That doesn't mean that the office of high priest wasn't district from the general Aaronic priesthood or that the distinction is an accretion.
@@AmericanwrCymraeg Your quote looks more like a biased paraphrase. Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
Assuming Irenaeus was not just making things up, how would he have had a line of apostolic succession ready to cite if it had not been recorded (orally or written) from the beginning? And if it was recorded from the beginning, and considered so important for distinguishing the Church from heretical sects by the time of Irenaeus, how could it not be of Apostolic origin?
Good question. Someone told me he or Ignatius simply made up this entire priesthood in order to protect the church from heresy. Which makes no sense. Because if they made this up and forced it on everyone and it's contrary to God's plan for the church, would not that be creating a heresy? Lol... So they created heresy to protect from heresy?
If apostolic succession is an accretion, it emerged very quickly and was such a core issue for the church up until the Reformation. Given Christ’s promise for the church, I believe that if it were proven false, it would bring into question the validity of Christianity itself.
But that is still conceding the issue that it is not essential and not divinely ordained. Considering wars were fought over church polity, that is a very important distinction.
@@clivejungle6999 You acknowledge that wars have been fought over church polity yet somehow think the entire church agreed to switch from a plurality of elders model to a mono-episcopate despite that not being the tradition of the Apostles. And that we have absolutely no record whatsoever of this takeover, and no evidence of any churches resisting this change. Debates around the dating of Easter led to threats of excommunication, but you think a hostile takeover of the leadership of the entire church was accepted without so much as a drop of ink to object?
The idea that because bishops and priests had somewhat interchangeable duties that therefore apostolic succession as we know it is false is absolutely nonsensical to me… in the New Testament itself we find the apostles, appointing successors, and then in writing shortly after the new testament, we find pretty powerful statements about the successes of the apostles.. it doesn’t really matter if there was a college of bishops and priests rather than one bishop of priest, they were still ordained in succession with the apostles, and their institutions were authoritative over Those that were not.. this is what is meant by apostolic succession. We don’t need one bishop or dating another bishop to have apostolic succession. We just need bishops ordaing bishops regardless if there are many at the same time. There is also Evidence from the New Testament itself such as the council of Jerusalem where James oversaw a college of priests as the bishop … this looks a lot like the monepiscopacy that would come about later.
"Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders (πρεσβυτέρους)of the church...Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (ἐπισκόπους) to shepherd [ποιμαίνειν, (i.e. "pastor")] the church of God which He purchased with His own blood."--Acts 20:17,28. As Schaff stated, "bishop" connotes the title of the office, "elder" connotes the dignity of the offive, and "pastor" the function of the office.
Here's what I'll grant. The notion of the necessity of a rigid rite, as laid out by something like Apostolicae Curae, is an accretion. However, the notion that the presbytery is passed down from the high priest is almost certainly not. The earliest strands of data confirm two proper orders--presbyters and deacons. The praxis in the New Testament (e.g. Timothy and Titus) and certainly when we get to Ignatius is of one ruling presbyter who ordains other presbyters. *That* form is the form of apostolic succession.
I'd also rebuff the notion that bishops were akin to senior pastors. To my knowledge, there was no other bishop of Antioch at Ignatius's time. And it's telling that Clement writes for the whole church of Rome, dispersed as it probably was through multiple house churches.
Episkopoi and diakonoi are mentioned together several times in the NT and in early Christian writings. We can be certain that every bishop was a presbyter, but not that every presbyter was a bishop.
@@MichaelPetek Exactly! And I'd even grant that the terminology is a development. But it's a wise one, insofar as one term was used to single out a ruling presbyter. Yet the evidence shows, I'd argue, that the form of one ruling presbyter consecrated over the other presbyters, who ordained other presbyters, was the apostolic form of governance given to us by the apostles.
I'll also say, you're right that Richard Hooker thinks the episcopate wasn't of divine right. But Davenant thought it was, among other Anglican divines. And even Richard Hooker thinks it's the ideal form, for whatever that's worth.
Interesting. I tend to align with Hooker, it shows up early enough and is usually pragmatic and helpful for unity and church discipline/guidance. Helpful video though!
Faith alone and Scripture alone, are accretions, but Holy Scripture teaches even the office of Apostle is to continue until the fullness and maturity of faith! Peace and peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!!
Wouldn't this make the Bible an accretion? Canon wasn't "crystallized" until centuries later and there was debate and "general forming" of the OT and NT during that time?
The canon was formed when the scriptures were written. They were inspired by God at the time of writing. The church only recognized them “formally “ later. Of course the early church in the 1st centuries and the apostles themselves cited the New Testament as scripture. The apostolic fathers and ante-nicene fathers quotes the new teas scripture long before a council pronounced anything. Likewise, North America existed for a long time before Columbus discovered it. No one gives him credit for making North America, correct?
Eh, canon was figured out within the first century. Jewish OT canon was figured out somewhere between 200BC-100AD and in the Peter we read that the writings of Paul were already considered scripture.
Forming canon isn't only the affirmative... it's also deciding which works are not canonical. A process which was underway until the 4th century for the New Testament. Christendom still does not agree on an OT canon so...
@@sample479 but the church doesn’t decide what is canon. Scripture is scripture from the moment of writing. The church can only recognize. Jesus was God incarnate at conception, decades before John the Baptist recognized Him as the Son of God.
@@TomPlantagenet I understand. But you’re talking about people recognizing Scripture that already is. Heretical writings, or important but uninspired writings, had to be qualified as not a part of canon. To use your analogy, someone did invent fake islands and draw maps and hand them out during the time of Columbus. Others were simply mistaken about what they had discovered or had faulty equipment and made bad maps. You would not say those “islands” were there waiting to be disproved… there was a process to determine the good and the bad maps. It took time. The NT was still doing this until almost 400AD. And again there is still major disagreement over what OT canon is.
Hey, would you be willing to dialogue on this? I don’t feel as if we are being properly represented here (in Scripture, the first century documents, St. Jerome, etc).
People will bring up Ignatius of Antioch as evidence for the necessity of the office of bishop and the exclusivity of apostolic sucession. However Ignatius wrote "where the bishop is, there *LET* the people be." It was an exhortation for how the church should be organized, not the passing down of existing principles from the apostles for how the church must be structured.
@@truthnotlies In the same sentence, or next sentence he says to obey your your presbyters as you would the apostles, and to obey your deacons like God himself. Does that mean that deacons have more authority than presbyters amd are equal to bishops? Of course not - so we have to understand him as speaking in hyperbole to make a point.
Catholics are an anomaly in many ways, as they feel that even meaningful discussion is an affront to their faith. The effects or Spirit of Vatican II has dissipated. 😢
Always nice to see someone respond to a reasoned argument with a well thought out response based on solid evidence and avoiding personal attacks. This wasn't nice to see
I don't see how history could possibly bear out the idea that Apostolic Succession is an accretion. The very earliest fathers use apostolic succession explicitly as defense against the heresies of the day. There is an easy and obvious defeater here. The first person who recorded the names of the four gospels, as scripture, Irenaeus, also used apostolic succession of bishops (not presbyters) as an explicit argument against gnostics. To be consistent then, you're stuck. One cannot be an accretion while the other isn't. The original source we know that defined the four gospels as we know them also appeals to apostolic succession of bishops. I really think that shouldn't be ignored in this discussion because Irenaeus is very clear that it is succession of bishops in Rome, not presbyters, that acts as a defeater to the gnostic case.
@charlesjoyce982 that is just factually untrue. This has been a common point when facing overwhelmingly negative evidence. The letters of Ignatius of Antioch were considered frauds by Protestants for years, until they were verified to be genuine. It's historical revisionism.
I think you miss the whole point of "succession." The reason Ignatius et al made such a big deal about it was because Apostolic Succession was the only way new believers could even know they were in a legitimate church-- not, for example, a gnostic counterfeit. There were a lot of false teachers already planting their own churches. Not every guy with a Bible can appoint himself an elder or deacon-- nor appoint others. Any real "catholicity" would be completely impossible-- as we have daily proof. A unified succession plan provides important continuity and identity for catholicity to occur-- and the "Apostolic" part ensures that it will not fail (because it carries Christ's promise-- not because the men are anything special).
Granted, there was some development on this (and nearly every other doctrine in the church). But to accept Gavin's view, how can anything whatsoever in the church be authoritative? Are any of the councils authoritative? Can we be sure we're correct about any of the Christological controversies? Did the church act with definitive authority when spelling out the Trinity? There has to be some actual and definitive locus of authority for any of the theological decisions to be considered authoritative . To accept the Protestant view, pretty nearly every doctine is just up to each Christian (or individual church body) to decide. The church has no definitive authority. There is no definitive Christian theology. The finished canon of scripture has almost nothing to do with the church. We're left to guess whether the current NT canon is truly definitive. To accept the Protestant view is ultimately a house of cards. Where is the locus of any conclusive authority if 10 (or 50, or 100, including) different denominations (including a group like the Unitarians) can each have equal claim to getting the teaching of scripture correct? It's no surprise that this doctrine developed in the first couple centuries. Just because it didn't look exactly as it does today does not mean there was no transmission of authority from the apostles to the leaders in the church. What they were called at any given point is much less important then whether there were individuals who had hands laid on them who received any actual authority. If they did not, the countless Protestant denominations aren't just a bug, they're a feature. (To be sure, I say this with much love toward Protestants. I do think they get most of the big questions right. But it's in spite of their view of the church, not because of it)
Apostolic succession means in Jewish law the reception of powers of agency (shelichut) from someone already in possession of them. Without it, the public powers otherwise exercisable by the King or the High Priest in person cannot be exercised by anyone else, and any possiblity of lawful public worship on earth would expire on the death of the last Apostle.
This is very interesting! I would really like to learn more about Shelichut. What would you recommend to learn more about this (references to Scripture or other sources)
Except that Jesus is an eternal king, so he could appoint anyone at any time similar to the way judges are appointed after the time of Joshua. Gideon's son Abimelek is a perfect example of what happens when an accretion of worldly succession occurs. Likewise, King Saul is a similar example with the rejection of Samuel and Samuel's sons. The judges are also a good example that people should not be deciding who is a new apostle in between.
@@litigioussociety4249 Jesus would have to return to earth to do it. The way of appointing elders capable of serving on the Sanhedrin was always by the laying on of hands by those already in that office. How do I know that a man has been appointed to public office by Christ acting from heaven?
Two protestants marginalize the necessity of Apostolic Succession. Shocker. The focus here -- i.e. the governmental style and structure of Apostolic Succession -- is entirely secondary (and subordinate) to the necessity of it, which is maintaining the integrity and consistency of "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 1:3), i.e. unto the Apostles, and, subsequently, the unity of The Church, not to mention the consistency of the sacraments. (The fact that the vitality of sacraments has been lost on many, even most, Protestant traditions is a testament to the necessity of proper, singular Apostolic Succession).
The necessity of actually thinking that Christianity is better than Hinduism and that not all religions arrive at God somehow hasn't been transmitted via Apostolic succession as practiced by your team, friend. Maybe we're not so wrong to emphasise following the faith of the apostles rather than just passing on offices.
@@SeanusAurelius I'm not Roman Catholic. I'm Eastern Orthodox. The differences between the two is yet another example of why proper Apostolic Succession matters.
Why is there an assumption that because there is a different way of explaining the priest/bishop distinction between Clement and Irenaeus that they mean substantially different things? They are so close to the apostles by time and succession that it would be crazy to think that there is *that* significant of a development for it to be really considered an alien accretion. And if you maintain this attitude about everything in the church then nearly everything can and will be deconstructed: american mega church lowest common denominator Christianity. We should instead assume that the church has faithfully passed down the divine traditions set in place by the apostles. Especially that early.
Two great men. I apologize if I missed it in the video, but does Gavin believe only a presbyter can consecrate the elements for a proper Eucharist? Or can laity?
I would disagree on a small point. I consider myself a necessitist regarding doctrine and practice. I do not make the doctrine/dogma distinction of the Roman Church. Therefore, I do find the development of a monarchical, diocesan bishopric in itself something to push back against. Something should not be allowed to become a central element in the structure of church organization unless it is necessitated by the contents of revelation. That is, in my view, part of what it means that Christ is the sole head of the Church. We simply don't get to make such substantial changes to the nature of how the Church operates simply to relieve our own practical concerns. So, yes. Some Protestants *do* argue against the rise of bishops as a historical reality, even divorced from false claims regarding their apostolic authority and necessity. And for the record, no, I am not a radical who believes such things as not having instrumental music in church because it is not explicitly stated in Scripture. Such things do not rise to the level of a teaching of the church (doctrine/dogma) or a key factor in praxis. The important matters of faith and practice are not touched by such things. But the widespread existence in the government of the church of an office that, regardless of name, is highly unbiblical in character, does. And let us not forget that Christ did declare that the organization of the Church was not to be an authoritative hierarchy of power structure as is the norm in the world. Does that not come into play with the historical rise of monarchical bishops, archbishops, patriarchs, cardinals, etc. even regardless of the issues of the exclusive claims of such organizations? Does not the existence of the structural innovation itself warrant criticism? I thank Brother Ortlund for his tireless, precise, illuminating, and very powerfully applicable work. I don't have to agree with him on every conceptual point to agree with the general conclusions and aims of his work, and to be thankful for them. God bless!
Don't agree at all with your conclusions, especially from the sources you mention, or even the original notion that a "restricted and mechanical" approach to the sacraments is bad. I find that absolutely necessary and fitting though wouldn't use those terms. The general idea you are picturing I believe is something I would picture as entirely positive and by design. But, as usual, it was a productive and fair conversation that is growing more and more rare on these topics.
And the pharasee references how many of there oral traditions. And how many times did christ qoute scripture... U forsake the commands of god for the doctrines of man... How many times Every time a tradition is mentioned in the n.t. each and every time. A apeal to the oral torah(talmud) Mishnah was made what did christ say. He qouted scripture... The argument that luther would argue the apostles is a strawman. For one apostles were prophets... To say that could be infinite regression where they discount any prophet. 😮the jews tuaght a oral trad. They claimed becuase they sat where moses sat and relieved a oral teaching of the law from Moses. And they told everyone trust us There source was litterally trust me bro. Now we get to church traditions... That or extra biblical. Infant baptism. 😮 Forced lent (or you sin )[the trad itself is cool it's the force] the trade that the lay people can't read scripture ... directly the sake kinda stuff The source Our special oral tradition that we received that no one else had... If it was really so good. Then why is a argument still ongoing about easter sense polycarp... A date Why are we still arguing about christmas. When pual warned us not to.😅 These men were the disciples of john yet they do what pual warned about. Can u not see that they weren't prophets speaking the word of God. And can make errors... So yes the bible teaches bible only It may not say those words. But in numerous places showcases it. Just as Jesus slowly reveals himself as God. Drawing on stone.(with the adulterous women) 😅 Saying i. Am (.... ) Saying u call me lord for I am John in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and wad god... Do we really need to have the word trinity present when the scripture teaches it from genisus... This is the worst argument catholics make. The word trinity was a word that was coined to describe a clear message in scripture Sola scriptura is the same. It articulate a clear teaching from christ. From every gospel. And even from pual. Pual teaches that those teaching doctrines of demons would come and fool people 😅 As to sola fide Um the book of romans. And christ. Christ says a multitude of times a sheer multitude that belief and faith will save them. Then Paul in several epistles but especially romans says faith alone. James may seem to contradict but it doesn't there are several early church fathers that say that works justify to humanity faith justifies to God. And yet again 😑 protestants don't believe works don't matter We would all agree that if you have a murderer saying he believes in christ. And then continues murdering non stop. Does he actually believe in christ. I.p. inspiring philosophy says this honestly really well. On ruslans Channel id watch this so u get it. (Catholics combine faith and santification) into salvation. Where as Protestants Believe faith and repentance gives salvation. And that gratitude then begets work. We believe in sanctification but we've seperated the two... Becuase think of this Did the thief work Surely he was in heaven before the father and the lamb. That very night. He had faith repented and seen he deserved his punishment Did he work. Faith gets u salvation It's a free gift. As pual said. But to the one who works it is no longer a gift of God but a wage.... Sigh how does christ and pual and apostles get clearer A good tree produces good fruit. The faith is the root are sanctification and abandoning our old selves is the tree And works is the fruit of being reborn. What protestants don't like is when we are told we must produce fruit before salvation Or worse yet that we have to suffer in purgatory. Let's say hypothetically a drug dealer repents and cries out have mercy on me for I have sinned I'm sorry lord please show me u are true. And he's born again. And he truly regrets his wrongs... Let's say he leaves the area he did that in walks around the corner and gets shot dead by a hit put out by a rival dealer. Is this man going to heaven hell or first to purgatory The catholics teach purgatory becuase he didn't have the apropriate works to justify him. But if this was true why did christ save the man on the cross. When he could have said you will see me but first u must burn for a time to clense yourself... This is why i.p. inspiring philosophy thinks and I agree that the works faith debate needs to stop. Becuase ultimately we are saying the same thing here. But in different terminology And ultimately the views of purgatory are the issue if that doctrine wouldn't have shown up. I doubt very much the reformation would have been as bad. So yes sola fide is taught by christ in the same way the trinity is taught.
"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,-a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter." -Tertullian 160 AD - 240 AD Definitely an accretion
One thing that doesnt sit right with me about this. And is even apoint high church lutherens seem to miss. If apostolic succession (proper) as in u must have the office aproved Was actually intended by christ. Why then does christ in multiple places tell the disciples that the gentile rulers have authority and lord it over them. Not so with you. The greatest among younwill be a servent. Etc But the biggest thing that draws my attention is that when the disciples saw a man casting demons out in christs name and the disciples tried to stop him becuase they hadnt learned from the disciples. What did christ do... Did he praise or rebuke them. He rebuked them No one has worked a miricle in my name can then afterword speek evil. He all but said let him alone to spread the news.... Yet were supposed to believe that only those selected by the apostles (Biships have said authority) It doesnt square Then theres pual saying thank god i didnt baptise any of you so ud be arguing over authority saying i was baptised by pual Again how do you square this I dont understand. The thing with ignatius (One of a few things are occuring) 1 hes apostate(which i heavily doubt 2 ) he could be misunderstanding a apostolic teaching as a fallible human which is why pual said those words(as a warning against acrruing power) [possible] 3 the particular passage is a later forgery. (Possible)(some of his letters are) 4 and i see this as most likely he isnt contradicting scripture. But future power hungry men have twisted his words.... I know this if i was a apostle and i knew i could be murdered id want someone carrying my teachings forward. Possible a few in my area. To be sure sound doctrine is being taught. But i would not intend for this to give power or authority to them to restrict others from sharing sound doctrine. And surely wouldnt mean that only those aproved by them got the holy spirit... It runs counter to christ. Saying only a small select group can baptise read scripture and share gospel... 😅it just feels wrong... And people think its impossible for the 1st century church to go apostate... seriously brau Thats why pual repeatedly warned the churches to continue. Thats why he told timothy wolves would come into church passing along ordinance of demons. Thats why he told churches who have bewitched u 😂we seriously think that they couldnt go south when pual repeatedly shows examples. The roman church believes its solid... (Revalation) Why then do those churches recieve varying degrees of admonishment. Why is rome not mentioned as a ecclessia. Something doesnt sit right. I dont know what it is. Ignatius letter confuses me to know end becuase it seems to run counter to the gospel and to what christ said I dont get it
Catholics affirm that the offices of bishop and presbyter were interchangeable in the early Church. Please read Pope Benedict’s Called to Communion-it’s right there, and he answers the questions raised here from a Scriptural perspective.
@@lukewilliams448 Problems with a papacy: 1- Peter never claimed to be the chief shepherd-vicar of the entire church. He never claimed to be the rock on which the church is built on. Nor did the apostles. 2- The apostles never claimed he was the chief shepherd-vicar of the church. 3- The office of a papacy (supreme bishop leader, chief shepherd of the entire church) is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9
Scholarship is unimportant? The divinity of Christ is in the writings of the apostles. When I was much younger I was asked to read the Bible, despite not being schooled in the Word of God I didn't still need an external body for me to see that Jesus is God. Also, in this discussion he mentions church fathers n what they say, wt scholars deduce from what they say. It has never being a crime to do that. Or u think he has to say, some political institution dressed up in religious garb says this is wt it means therefore it's true, hook, line n sinker?
@@NATAR160 Yes, the Church that wrote and compiled the New Testament and chose to link it to the Old to form the biblical canon is who we should be listening to when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Not ‘enlightened’ reformers or German atheists from the 19th century. Gavin is simply cherry-picking atheistic scholarship to suit his own agenda. That’s undeniable. He doesn’t listen to what scholarship says about the trinity, the dating of biblical texts, the virgin birth, what-have-you. And the point I’m making about the divinity of Christ is that scholarly presuppositions are completely different to Gavin’s, and certainly to the Orthodox Church’s, so the entire foundation is suspect. Even if he could somehow prove these things are ‘accretion’s’ it’s only a problem from his perspective, because he’s separated from Christ’s Church, which has been guided by the Holy Spirit since Pentecost. He’s made his burden to accurately reconstruct the 1st century church’s beliefs and practices 2000 years later using secular scholarship that rejects the divinity of Christ. It’s completely nonsensical.
Unbelievable. It’s right there in the Bible and confirmed by the earliest apostolic father, Clement of Rome: “Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife first the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect knowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (First Letter to the Corinthians, 44:1-3, c. AD 80). Apostolic succession is a direct teaching of Christ.
Scripture was recognized as Scripture long before the Church officially got involved. But, like the Trinity, the canon is something that existed from its inception and that we now understand more completely. Apostolic succession isn't like that--by its very nature, apostolic succession HAD to have been present, in largely its current form, from the time of the apostles, or it doesn't mean anything.
@@Justas399 so the church failed even though scripture says the gates of Hell will not prevail? And nobody knew anything about Christianity until the Reformers 1500 years later? This view of history doesn't make sense.
The living Tradition was passed down through the Apostle's successors--there seems to be this assumption that if they didn't write everything down, it didn't happen, this is an argument from silence. It would make no sense if they did not delegate real authority before they died. The real accretion is the appeal to Scholarship in order to know the truth. The Church has never operated by appealing to the Scholarship.
I think “the living tradition was passed down through the Apostles’ successors “ is an argument from silence. It amounts to “trust me, bro”. This was the same issue Jesus had with the Pharisees where their traditions were the “oral law” supposed given by Moses apart from the written law.
Whatever is true and perfect cannot be left open to the faultiness of Chinese telephone...if it wasn't taught by the apostles then it's not an authoritative requirement. Their successors were not to continue to create new traditions and then elevate them to the same reverence as scripture, the essentials of salvation...they may have utility and enhance worship, but they cannot be authoritative in a circular reasoning kinda way..
For those who would like a more Orthodox or ancient view on this topic, one that is not simply dismissed by the convenient term "accretion" or the standard protestant conflation of terms or weak dismissals based on faulty presumptions and paradigms, you can't really do much better than this wonderful presentation by Perry Robinson. ruclips.net/video/bs77aH4lag0/видео.html
Nothing is wrong with development per se, as long as it is edification of Scripture and not antiscriptural. The problem arises when councils use words like "as it has been since the time of the apostles... Let them be anathema" about developments that assuredly were not from the time of the apostles.
None of the points in your comment follow from each other. The fact is that "anything is true" is incompatible with both "Catholicism is not true" (since Catholicism is one example of "anything") and with "nothing is true" (which means that nothing can be true).
I watched this video on Church History ruclips.net/video/onHIpArMENU/видео.htmlsi=3cRMmY84i1GDHeG3 (i havent done a lot of reading on 2nd century church yet) Anyone have any thoughts on accuracy or suggestions on reading? (I have the list of Gavins top 5 books Augustine, Origen, Athunasius etc)
When Gavin says, "to me" what he's implying is that he's smarter and more enlightened than the early church fathers who all believed and taught apostolic succession. It's not a mechanical or intellectual issue at hand, it's who has more authority and understanding: Gavin Ortlund, or the early church fathers?
Well, I think he's showing that, when you look at the history, not all of the church fathers believed everything the roman Catholic Church claims they did.
@billyhw5492 I haven't done any reading on how the High Priest was appointed in the Old Testament. Do you have any references to how the High Priest was determined in the OT?
It seems like there is a real consistency problem with Ortlund's position in this video - on one hand he claims that there are valid changes that are deemed pragmatic by the church and then on the other hand stands against accretions. That is inconsistent. Ortlund claims that pragmatic changes to church governance are legitimate. But why? Other than his assertion he provides no historical or biblical evidence to why ecclesiastical structural changes should be permitted while other accretions are to be rejected. Either no accretions should be made regardless of pragmatism (Restorationist viewpoint) or accretions are viable including, but not limited to whatever is subjectively determined to be "pragmatic." You cannot have it both ways of denying accretions while allowing for them at the same time.
@@tpw7250If I am expected to submit to the authority of some man in the church, that is binding, not optional. If that man's office is derived from accretion rather than scripture, it is a major problem.
@clarkcoleman8143 Me too actually. You brought in church leadership. My understanding of your original point is that Ortland is against accretions and for pragmatic changes and that is inconsistent. My point is, that isn't inconsistent if accretions are bad because they bring in new doctrines where as pragmatic changes are OK if they help the function of the church and are considered non-bindong.
nope. no institution ever added hillsong as a major component of christianity years after the apostles were dead and then tried to say that the apostles had always included hillsong in an unwritten oral tradition.
Indeed, Matthias did succeed Judas on the basis of him having accompanied Jesus and the apostles during Jesus’ ministry and on the basis of him being a witness to the resurrection, criteria no one has met since the time of Jesus. “Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” Acts 1:21-22
Protestants do have apostolic succession. Think of all the Roman Catholics who became Lutheran or Reformed during the reformation. The office continues with them, regardless of what Rome says.
They really don't though. A lot of protestant churches today actually arise from someone, unaffiliated with any church body, deciding to become a pastor and start their own church, so no succession there. Then even most of the mainline churches deny a traditional priesthood with efficacious baptism and a Eucharistic sacrifice, so there really is no succession in protestantism
@@warmachine8006 Commonly in nondenominational/pentecostal circles, but certainly not so in more traditional congregations like Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, and Anglicans. The Anglicans are perhaps the greatest stand out - they still have a bishopric to this day.
Hilariously bad take on the subject matter. Almost as bad as his sacraments video. This is fuel to the Catholic and orthodox side because most of Gavin’s points here are easily refutable.
I can't even begin to fathom how anyone starts a project to prove that early apostolic church in Roman Empire was actually similar to evangelical baptist church in modern America. At some point you have to stop and ask yourself who are you kidding.
You're setting up a false dilemma. The options of what the early apostolic church was like are not limited to "Roman Catholic Mass" and "evangelical Baptist church." Don't strawman Gavin's points as "well he's saying the RCC is wrong about X, then that means he must think Peter and Luke and Paul were leading worship with a guitar and giving everyone little cups of grape juice at communion time."
@@survivordave No. I'm saying that this thesis would basically mean the 2nd and 3rd generation Christians got it immediately wrong with the tradition that was handed down to them and it's only after 1800 years when baptists in english-speaking America got it right. Unhinged. Also you can read the lineage of apostolic succession of the Church of Rome from Eusebious' Church History which written on 4th century. In my eyes Gavin flushes his credibility down the toilet with the claims like this. Wouldn't be the first time. You'll see right through it once you have done some reading by yourself
@@Justeelisjust It's funny that Gavin gives Eusebius (a semi-Arian) glowing reviews "He's the father of Church history!", etc. when it comes to arguing against icons yet the apostolic succession from the same "Father of Church history" isn't given the same deference.
Is Peter a fake apostle too now? “And account that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:15-16 KJV Not only does Peter call Paul a brother, he validates and places Paul’s epistles on par with Scripture.
@@Joe10e84 Everyone is missing my point: Neither Jesus nor Peter nor any actual apostle appointed Paul, and so the strict definition of apostolic succession is contradicted by early church history.
Surely, this video will not spark controversy in the comments section!
Waaaar! ...in Jesus name, Amen.😂
Anything Gavin says causes some people to feel like they need to make a video about him 😂
Or even lengthy multi-part videos
Surely not! 😂
Catholics are not very favourable to dialogue and meaningful discussion. I wish they were in tune with Vatican II.
Looking forward to the super-positive comments and response videos!
😅
Thank you so much for defending the fact that the presbyters, not the bishops, are the successor of the apostles, and that the episcopal form of government is an accretion and not the only valid norm!
God bless.
There’s Bishops appointed directly in Scripture. Then there is also the Church government having cardinals for example that are all bishops. Cardinals for example can be done away with however organizing a world wide church obviously requires a church government
@@catholicguy1073 the Chruch requires a Chruch government and the government we see explicitly and directly implemented in the Bible is one that is ruled by Presbyters. The later addition of bishops to the mix, and distinction of giving them additional and higher roles is a way of doing chruch government but it is not the most historical/biblical. The Presbyterian form of church government is the closest match to that which was instituted by the apostles.
@@tategarrett3042 Bishops are ordained directly in Scripture. What are you talking about? Ignatius who was a bishop was ordained by St. Paul and was a disciple of the Apostle John for example.
@@catholicguy1073 if you watched the video above they talked about that and not only why this doesn't prove anything given that the terms were used interchangeably between bishop and Presbyters but further these events are not described in scripture - what ordination of bishops do you think occured in the new testament?
@@tategarrett3042 Episcopos arises from two words, epi (over) and skopeo (to see), and it means literally “an overseer”: We translate it as “bishop.” The King James Version renders the office of overseer, episkopen, as “bishopric” (Acts 1:20). The role of the episcopos is not clearly defined in the New Testament, but by the beginning of the second century it had obtained a fixed meaning. There is early evidence of this refinement in ecclesiastical nomenclature in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107), who wrote at length of the authority of bishops as distinct from presbyters and deacons (Epistle to the Magnesians 6:1, 13:1-2; Epistle to the Trallians 2:1-3; Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2).
The fact the role of Bishops became more clearly defined is hardly an accretion anymore than our understanding of who wrote the gospels and the Trinity.
Gavin Ortlund is an accretion ;) just kidding. Loved this interview. Everyone should go listen to the whole thing on Gospel Simplicity. Also, his book is great! Definitely worth reading.
My next book
The role of the bishop (overseers) as separate from presbyters grew for two reasons: the increasing numbers of the Christian congregations and need for coordination, the need to oversee the struggle against heretical teaching.
But it was when the Church leaders began to collude with the Roman imperium, becoming a state religion, that servanthood developed into hierarchy and the Church became a tool for social conformity.
Can you recommend any good books or resources on this matter? I've long been curious about the relationship between the fall of Rome and the transition of the church to a kind of pseudo imperial system in its own right.
@@ottovonbaden6353this is just a big compiracy🤣🤣. plus the church wasn't only in Rome but all churches from Europe to Africa formed a similar ecliseology
@@Weebgamer236All these churches were part of the Roman empire
Great video. Totally going to check out the full video!
Well done, thank you.
The discussion on Clement and the plurality of office is extremely important. There was no head apostle. The apostles governed as a plurality. They are all the foundation with Christ as the cornerstone. None is greater than another.
The dispute between Peter and Paul supports your position.
@@chrisazure1624
How would it do that?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Neither of them was laying down the "I have the divine authority" hammer.
@@thadofalltrades
Clement commanded dioceses that weren't his own, he did have extraordinary authority. Whether it was understood to be unipersonal is a separate issue and not necessary to acknowledge the fact that there was in fact one successor who carried the charism forward.
@@toddthacker8258
And on what grounds would Paul make that claim? I don't get it
Oh boy, I can't wait to read later comments. 😂
Imo the Apostles didn’t really appoint successors to their office; they appointed elders to rule over the churches they founded. They wanted each church to be autonomous, but have the same doctrine and practice of faith.
At the very least, this shouldn't be excluded as a possibility
Someone's fridge is filled with that Italian brand softdrink that I enjoy myself as well :)
14:40 St Ignatius makes that exact claim, that a bishop is needed for Eucharistic validity. That's not a later accretion.
"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains."
What Ignatius says is that one should not celebrate the Eucharist in rebellion against the bishop, despising a bishop. If there is a bishop, his authority must be respected, of course.
But the point Gavin is making is that when Ignatius uses the term ‘bishop’ he doesn’t mean what we today think of as bishop.
He means something akin to a senior pastor as the concept of a diocesan bishop certainly didn’t exist let alone archbishops.
Ignatius (Like Clement) conflates bishop with presbyters (Letter to the Magnesians 7:1). He himself was likely one of several bishops in Antioch just as Clement was one of several bishops in Rome.
Ignatius himself addresses the Romans in the second person plural when giving them commands.
@@hc7385 No, he clearly says more than that, as the quote makes clear.
@@clivejungle6999 We see a plurality of presbyters, never a plurality of bishops. The bishop is also a presbyter and sits at the head of the council of presbyters, not that doesn't mean his role is reduced to merely that.
We disagree over if the discussion is Apostolic, but clearly in the patristic literature, long after nobody would dispute that the threefold offices were clearly distinct everywhere, you still see bishops being referred to as priests as well.
Aaron was a priest. That doesn't mean that the office of high priest wasn't district from the general Aaronic priesthood or that the distinction is an accretion.
@@AmericanwrCymraeg Your quote looks more like a biased paraphrase.
Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
Assuming Irenaeus was not just making things up, how would he have had a line of apostolic succession ready to cite if it had not been recorded (orally or written) from the beginning? And if it was recorded from the beginning, and considered so important for distinguishing the Church from heretical sects by the time of Irenaeus, how could it not be of Apostolic origin?
Good question. Someone told me he or Ignatius simply made up this entire priesthood in order to protect the church from heresy. Which makes no sense. Because if they made this up and forced it on everyone and it's contrary to God's plan for the church, would not that be creating a heresy? Lol... So they created heresy to protect from heresy?
If apostolic succession is an accretion, it emerged very quickly and was such a core issue for the church up until the Reformation. Given Christ’s promise for the church, I believe that if it were proven false, it would bring into question the validity of Christianity itself.
But that is still conceding the issue that it is not essential and not divinely ordained.
Considering wars were fought over church polity, that is a very important distinction.
@@clivejungle6999 You acknowledge that wars have been fought over church polity yet somehow think the entire church agreed to switch from a plurality of elders model to a mono-episcopate despite that not being the tradition of the Apostles. And that we have absolutely no record whatsoever of this takeover, and no evidence of any churches resisting this change.
Debates around the dating of Easter led to threats of excommunication, but you think a hostile takeover of the leadership of the entire church was accepted without so much as a drop of ink to object?
i like that austin isn't wearing shoes. it always stresses me out when people wear shoes indoors...
I feel vulnerable when I don't have shoes on 😂
The idea that because bishops and priests had somewhat interchangeable duties that therefore apostolic succession as we know it is false is absolutely nonsensical to me… in the New Testament itself we find the apostles, appointing successors, and then in writing shortly after the new testament, we find pretty powerful statements about the successes of the apostles.. it doesn’t really matter if there was a college of bishops and priests rather than one bishop of priest, they were still ordained in succession with the apostles, and their institutions were authoritative over Those that were not.. this is what is meant by apostolic succession.
We don’t need one bishop or dating another bishop to have apostolic succession. We just need bishops ordaing bishops regardless if there are many at the same time. There is also
Evidence from the New Testament itself such as the council of Jerusalem where James oversaw a college of priests as the bishop … this looks a lot like the monepiscopacy that would come about later.
Apostolic succession as what the non Protestants define it to be is clearly an accretion.
throuh time travel, perhaps
Protestantism itself is an accretion
This is going to be an interesting video for the folks over at SSBS for sure!
"Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders (πρεσβυτέρους)of the church...Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (ἐπισκόπους) to shepherd [ποιμαίνειν, (i.e. "pastor")] the church of God which He purchased with His own blood."--Acts 20:17,28. As Schaff stated, "bishop" connotes the title of the office, "elder" connotes the dignity of the offive, and "pastor" the function of the office.
Here's what I'll grant. The notion of the necessity of a rigid rite, as laid out by something like Apostolicae Curae, is an accretion. However, the notion that the presbytery is passed down from the high priest is almost certainly not. The earliest strands of data confirm two proper orders--presbyters and deacons. The praxis in the New Testament (e.g. Timothy and Titus) and certainly when we get to Ignatius is of one ruling presbyter who ordains other presbyters. *That* form is the form of apostolic succession.
I'd also rebuff the notion that bishops were akin to senior pastors. To my knowledge, there was no other bishop of Antioch at Ignatius's time. And it's telling that Clement writes for the whole church of Rome, dispersed as it probably was through multiple house churches.
Episkopoi and diakonoi are mentioned together several times in the NT and in early Christian writings.
We can be certain that every bishop was a presbyter, but not that every presbyter was a bishop.
@@MichaelPetek Exactly! And I'd even grant that the terminology is a development. But it's a wise one, insofar as one term was used to single out a ruling presbyter. Yet the evidence shows, I'd argue, that the form of one ruling presbyter consecrated over the other presbyters, who ordained other presbyters, was the apostolic form of governance given to us by the apostles.
I'll also say, you're right that Richard Hooker thinks the episcopate wasn't of divine right. But Davenant thought it was, among other Anglican divines. And even Richard Hooker thinks it's the ideal form, for whatever that's worth.
@@anglicanaesthetics The clear majority of references to presbyters in the NT is to members of the Sanhedrin.
Each was co-opted by ordination.
It would be really cool to see a formal debate between you and Jay Dyer over this topic.
Interesting. I tend to align with Hooker, it shows up early enough and is usually pragmatic and helpful for unity and church discipline/guidance. Helpful video though!
Faith alone and Scripture alone, are accretions, but Holy Scripture teaches even the office of Apostle is to continue until the fullness and maturity of faith! Peace and peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!!
Wouldn't this make the Bible an accretion? Canon wasn't "crystallized" until centuries later and there was debate and "general forming" of the OT and NT during that time?
The canon was formed when the scriptures were written. They were inspired by God at the time of writing. The church only recognized them “formally “ later. Of course the early church in the 1st centuries and the apostles themselves cited the New Testament as scripture. The apostolic fathers and ante-nicene fathers quotes the new teas scripture long before a council pronounced anything. Likewise, North America existed for a long time before Columbus discovered it. No one gives him credit for making North America, correct?
Eh, canon was figured out within the first century. Jewish OT canon was figured out somewhere between 200BC-100AD and in the Peter we read that the writings of Paul were already considered scripture.
Forming canon isn't only the affirmative... it's also deciding which works are not canonical. A process which was underway until the 4th century for the New Testament. Christendom still does not agree on an OT canon so...
@@sample479 but the church doesn’t decide what is canon. Scripture is scripture from the moment of writing. The church can only recognize. Jesus was God incarnate at conception, decades before John the Baptist recognized Him as the Son of God.
@@TomPlantagenet I understand. But you’re talking about people recognizing Scripture that already is. Heretical writings, or important but uninspired writings, had to be qualified as not a part of canon.
To use your analogy, someone did invent fake islands and draw maps and hand them out during the time of Columbus. Others were simply mistaken about what they had discovered or had faulty equipment and made bad maps. You would not say those “islands” were there waiting to be disproved… there was a process to determine the good and the bad maps. It took time.
The NT was still doing this until almost 400AD. And again there is still major disagreement over what OT canon is.
Hey, would you be willing to dialogue on this? I don’t feel as if we are being properly represented here (in Scripture, the first century documents, St. Jerome, etc).
That would be awesome.
People will bring up Ignatius of Antioch as evidence for the necessity of the office of bishop and the exclusivity of apostolic sucession. However Ignatius wrote "where the bishop is, there *LET* the people be." It was an exhortation for how the church should be organized, not the passing down of existing principles from the apostles for how the church must be structured.
He said to follow the Bishop as the Son does the Father.
@@truthnotlies In the same sentence, or next sentence he says to obey your your presbyters as you would the apostles, and to obey your deacons like God himself. Does that mean that deacons have more authority than presbyters amd are equal to bishops? Of course not - so we have to understand him as speaking in hyperbole to make a point.
Every time Gavin says anything, Catholics get triggered. He really must have them worried.
Yes a 2000 year old organization is terrified of a Baptist minister from California
Yes a 2000 year old institution is terrified of a Baptist minister from California
Catholics are an anomaly in many ways, as they feel that even meaningful discussion is an affront to their faith. The effects or Spirit of Vatican II has dissipated. 😢
Matthias from Acts 1:24-26 becomes confused
Gavin Ortlund is an accretion - through faith succession from the apostles. From Abraham in fact.
Always nice to see someone respond to a reasoned argument with a well thought out response based on solid evidence and avoiding personal attacks. This wasn't nice to see
I don't see how history could possibly bear out the idea that Apostolic Succession is an accretion. The very earliest fathers use apostolic succession explicitly as defense against the heresies of the day.
There is an easy and obvious defeater here. The first person who recorded the names of the four gospels, as scripture, Irenaeus, also used apostolic succession of bishops (not presbyters) as an explicit argument against gnostics. To be consistent then, you're stuck. One cannot be an accretion while the other isn't. The original source we know that defined the four gospels as we know them also appeals to apostolic succession of bishops.
I really think that shouldn't be ignored in this discussion because Irenaeus is very clear that it is succession of bishops in Rome, not presbyters, that acts as a defeater to the gnostic case.
@charlesjoyce982 that is just factually untrue. This has been a common point when facing overwhelmingly negative evidence. The letters of Ignatius of Antioch were considered frauds by Protestants for years, until they were verified to be genuine. It's historical revisionism.
@@charlesjoyce982 that’s a theory that is not supported by the evidence and requires selective pleading
@@charlesjoyce982ah yes, the "I don't like it so he must not have said it" argument
I think you miss the whole point of "succession." The reason Ignatius et al made such a big deal about it was because Apostolic Succession was the only way new believers could even know they were in a legitimate church-- not, for example, a gnostic counterfeit. There were a lot of false teachers already planting their own churches. Not every guy with a Bible can appoint himself an elder or deacon-- nor appoint others. Any real "catholicity" would be completely impossible-- as we have daily proof. A unified succession plan provides important continuity and identity for catholicity to occur-- and the "Apostolic" part ensures that it will not fail (because it carries Christ's promise-- not because the men are anything special).
Granted, there was some development on this (and nearly every other doctrine in the church). But to accept Gavin's view, how can anything whatsoever in the church be authoritative? Are any of the councils authoritative? Can we be sure we're correct about any of the Christological controversies? Did the church act with definitive authority when spelling out the Trinity? There has to be some actual and definitive locus of authority for any of the theological decisions to be considered authoritative .
To accept the Protestant view, pretty nearly every doctine is just up to each Christian (or individual church body) to decide. The church has no definitive authority. There is no definitive Christian theology. The finished canon of scripture has almost nothing to do with the church. We're left to guess whether the current NT canon is truly definitive.
To accept the Protestant view is ultimately a house of cards. Where is the locus of any conclusive authority if 10 (or 50, or 100, including) different denominations (including a group like the Unitarians) can each have equal claim to getting the teaching of scripture correct?
It's no surprise that this doctrine developed in the first couple centuries. Just because it didn't look exactly as it does today does not mean there was no transmission of authority from the apostles to the leaders in the church. What they were called at any given point is much less important then whether there were individuals who had hands laid on them who received any actual authority.
If they did not, the countless Protestant denominations aren't just a bug, they're a feature.
(To be sure, I say this with much love toward Protestants. I do think they get most of the big questions right. But it's in spite of their view of the church, not because of it)
Apostolic succession means in Jewish law the reception of powers of agency (shelichut) from someone already in possession of them.
Without it, the public powers otherwise exercisable by the King or the High Priest in person cannot be exercised by anyone else, and any possiblity of lawful public worship on earth would expire on the death of the last Apostle.
This is very interesting! I would really like to learn more about Shelichut. What would you recommend to learn more about this (references to Scripture or other sources)
Except that Jesus is an eternal king, so he could appoint anyone at any time similar to the way judges are appointed after the time of Joshua. Gideon's son Abimelek is a perfect example of what happens when an accretion of worldly succession occurs. Likewise, King Saul is a similar example with the rejection of Samuel and Samuel's sons. The judges are also a good example that people should not be deciding who is a new apostle in between.
@@litigioussociety4249 Jesus would have to return to earth to do it. The way of appointing elders capable of serving on the Sanhedrin was always by the laying on of hands by those already in that office.
How do I know that a man has been appointed to public office by Christ acting from heaven?
Two protestants marginalize the necessity of Apostolic Succession. Shocker.
The focus here -- i.e. the governmental style and structure of Apostolic Succession -- is entirely secondary (and subordinate) to the necessity of it, which is maintaining the integrity and consistency of "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 1:3), i.e. unto the Apostles, and, subsequently, the unity of The Church, not to mention the consistency of the sacraments. (The fact that the vitality of sacraments has been lost on many, even most, Protestant traditions is a testament to the necessity of proper, singular Apostolic Succession).
As an Anglican, I would agree.
The necessity of actually thinking that Christianity is better than Hinduism and that not all religions arrive at God somehow hasn't been transmitted via Apostolic succession as practiced by your team, friend.
Maybe we're not so wrong to emphasise following the faith of the apostles rather than just passing on offices.
@@SeanusAurelius I'm not Roman Catholic. I'm Eastern Orthodox. The differences between the two is yet another example of why proper Apostolic Succession matters.
Why is there an assumption that because there is a different way of explaining the priest/bishop distinction between Clement and Irenaeus that they mean substantially different things? They are so close to the apostles by time and succession that it would be crazy to think that there is *that* significant of a development for it to be really considered an alien accretion. And if you maintain this attitude about everything in the church then nearly everything can and will be deconstructed: american mega church lowest common denominator Christianity. We should instead assume that the church has faithfully passed down the divine traditions set in place by the apostles. Especially that early.
Two great men. I apologize if I missed it in the video, but does Gavin believe only a presbyter can consecrate the elements for a proper Eucharist? Or can laity?
I would disagree on a small point. I consider myself a necessitist regarding doctrine and practice. I do not make the doctrine/dogma distinction of the Roman Church. Therefore, I do find the development of a monarchical, diocesan bishopric in itself something to push back against. Something should not be allowed to become a central element in the structure of church organization unless it is necessitated by the contents of revelation.
That is, in my view, part of what it means that Christ is the sole head of the Church. We simply don't get to make such substantial changes to the nature of how the Church operates simply to relieve our own practical concerns.
So, yes. Some Protestants *do* argue against the rise of bishops as a historical reality, even divorced from false claims regarding their apostolic authority and necessity.
And for the record, no, I am not a radical who believes such things as not having instrumental music in church because it is not explicitly stated in Scripture. Such things do not rise to the level of a teaching of the church (doctrine/dogma) or a key factor in praxis. The important matters of faith and practice are not touched by such things.
But the widespread existence in the government of the church of an office that, regardless of name, is highly unbiblical in character, does.
And let us not forget that Christ did declare that the organization of the Church was not to be an authoritative hierarchy of power structure as is the norm in the world. Does that not come into play with the historical rise of monarchical bishops, archbishops, patriarchs, cardinals, etc. even regardless of the issues of the exclusive claims of such organizations?
Does not the existence of the structural innovation itself warrant criticism?
I thank Brother Ortlund for his tireless, precise, illuminating, and very powerfully applicable work. I don't have to agree with him on every conceptual point to agree with the general conclusions and aims of his work, and to be thankful for them.
God bless!
Michael Lofton’s response will be devastating
Don't agree at all with your conclusions, especially from the sources you mention, or even the original notion that a "restricted and mechanical" approach to the sacraments is bad. I find that absolutely necessary and fitting though wouldn't use those terms. The general idea you are picturing I believe is something I would picture as entirely positive and by design.
But, as usual, it was a productive and fair conversation that is growing more and more rare on these topics.
hopefully to see one day a video on sola fide or sola scriptura and how it's an acceptable accretion
And the pharasee references how many of there oral traditions.
And how many times did christ qoute scripture...
U forsake the commands of god for the doctrines of man...
How many times
Every time a tradition is mentioned in the n.t. each and every time.
A apeal to the oral torah(talmud)
Mishnah was made what did christ say.
He qouted scripture...
The argument that luther would argue the apostles is a strawman. For one apostles were prophets...
To say that could be infinite regression where they discount any prophet.
😮the jews tuaght a oral trad. They claimed becuase they sat where moses sat and relieved a oral teaching of the law from Moses.
And they told everyone trust us
There source was litterally trust me bro.
Now we get to church traditions...
That or extra biblical.
Infant baptism.
😮
Forced lent (or you sin )[the trad itself is cool it's the force] the trade that the lay people can't read scripture
... directly the sake kinda stuff
The source
Our special oral tradition that we received that no one else had...
If it was really so good. Then why is a argument still ongoing about easter sense polycarp...
A date
Why are we still arguing about christmas.
When pual warned us not to.😅
These men were the disciples of john yet they do what pual warned about.
Can u not see that they weren't prophets speaking the word of God. And can make errors...
So yes the bible teaches bible only
It may not say those words.
But in numerous places showcases it.
Just as Jesus slowly reveals himself as God.
Drawing on stone.(with the adulterous women)
😅
Saying i. Am (.... )
Saying u call me lord for I am
John in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and wad god...
Do we really need to have the word trinity present when the scripture teaches it from genisus...
This is the worst argument catholics make.
The word trinity was a word that was coined to describe a clear message in scripture
Sola scriptura is the same.
It articulate a clear teaching from christ.
From every gospel.
And even from pual. Pual teaches that those teaching doctrines of demons would come and fool people
😅
As to sola fide
Um the book of romans. And christ.
Christ says a multitude of times a sheer multitude that belief and faith will save them.
Then Paul in several epistles but especially romans says faith alone.
James may seem to contradict but it doesn't there are several early church fathers that say that works justify to humanity faith justifies to God.
And yet again 😑 protestants don't believe works don't matter
We would all agree that if you have a murderer saying he believes in christ. And then continues murdering non stop.
Does he actually believe in christ.
I.p. inspiring philosophy says this honestly really well.
On ruslans Channel id watch this so u get it.
(Catholics combine faith and santification) into salvation.
Where as
Protestants
Believe faith and repentance gives salvation. And that gratitude then begets work.
We believe in sanctification but we've seperated the two...
Becuase think of this
Did the thief work
Surely he was in heaven before the father and the lamb.
That very night. He had faith repented and seen he deserved his punishment
Did he work.
Faith gets u salvation
It's a free gift. As pual said.
But to the one who works it is no longer a gift of God but a wage....
Sigh how does christ and pual and apostles get clearer
A good tree produces good fruit.
The faith is the root are sanctification and abandoning our old selves is the tree
And works is the fruit of being reborn.
What protestants don't like is when we are told we must produce fruit before salvation
Or worse yet that we have to suffer in purgatory.
Let's say hypothetically a drug dealer repents and cries out have mercy on me for I have sinned I'm sorry lord please show me u are true. And he's born again.
And he truly regrets his wrongs...
Let's say he leaves the area he did that in walks around the corner and gets shot dead by a hit put out by a rival dealer.
Is this man going to heaven hell or first to purgatory
The catholics teach purgatory becuase he didn't have the apropriate works to justify him.
But if this was true why did christ save the man on the cross.
When he could have said you will see me but first u must burn for a time to clense yourself...
This is why i.p. inspiring philosophy thinks and I agree that the works faith debate needs to stop. Becuase ultimately we are saying the same thing here. But in different terminology
And ultimately the views of purgatory are the issue if that doctrine wouldn't have shown up. I doubt very much the reformation would have been as bad.
So yes sola fide is taught by christ in the same way the trinity is taught.
"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,-a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter." -Tertullian 160 AD - 240 AD
Definitely an accretion
One thing that doesnt sit right with me about this. And is even apoint high church lutherens seem to miss.
If apostolic succession (proper) as in u must have the office aproved
Was actually intended by christ.
Why then does christ in multiple places tell the disciples that the gentile rulers have authority and lord it over them. Not so with you. The greatest among younwill be a servent.
Etc
But the biggest thing that draws my attention is that when the disciples saw a man casting demons out in christs name and the disciples tried to stop him becuase they hadnt learned from the disciples.
What did christ do...
Did he praise or rebuke them.
He rebuked them
No one has worked a miricle in my name can then afterword speek evil.
He all but said let him alone to spread the news....
Yet were supposed to believe that only those selected by the apostles
(Biships have said authority)
It doesnt square
Then theres pual saying thank god i didnt baptise any of you so ud be arguing over authority saying i was baptised by pual
Again how do you square this
I dont understand.
The thing with ignatius
(One of a few things are occuring)
1 hes apostate(which i heavily doubt
2 ) he could be misunderstanding a apostolic teaching as a fallible human which is why pual said those words(as a warning against acrruing power) [possible]
3 the particular passage is a later forgery. (Possible)(some of his letters are)
4 and i see this as most likely he isnt contradicting scripture. But future power hungry men have twisted his words....
I know this if i was a apostle and i knew i could be murdered id want someone carrying my teachings forward.
Possible a few in my area. To be sure sound doctrine is being taught.
But i would not intend for this to give power or authority to them to restrict others from sharing sound doctrine. And surely wouldnt mean that only those aproved by them got the holy spirit...
It runs counter to christ.
Saying only a small select group can baptise read scripture and share gospel... 😅it just feels wrong...
And people think its impossible for the 1st century church to go apostate... seriously brau
Thats why pual repeatedly warned the churches to continue.
Thats why he told timothy wolves would come into church passing along ordinance of demons.
Thats why he told churches who have bewitched u
😂we seriously think that they couldnt go south when pual repeatedly shows examples.
The roman church believes its solid...
(Revalation)
Why then do those churches recieve varying degrees of admonishment.
Why is rome not mentioned as a ecclessia.
Something doesnt sit right. I dont know what it is.
Ignatius letter confuses me to know end becuase it seems to run counter to the gospel and to what christ said
I dont get it
Catholics affirm that the offices of bishop and presbyter were interchangeable in the early Church. Please read Pope Benedict’s Called to Communion-it’s right there, and he answers the questions raised here from a Scriptural perspective.
He defends his office, hmm
No office of a papacy in the New Testament. Bishops were to be married with children. 1 Timothy 3
@@Justas399 You are making the assumption Rome follows scripture in which they do not make that claim.
@@Justas399 Matthew 16 (with the context of Isaiah 22), Luke 22, John 10 and John 21 prove the papal office in the NT.
@@lukewilliams448 Problems with a papacy:
1- Peter never claimed to be the chief shepherd-vicar of the entire church.
He never claimed to be the rock on which the church is built on. Nor did the apostles.
2- The apostles never claimed he was the chief shepherd-vicar of the church.
3- The office of a papacy (supreme bishop leader, chief shepherd of the entire church) is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9
Yeah sure so what Ignatius of Antioch sayed is false when we have all the proofs that is real
Is the same fallacy that Calvin used to say
What does scholarship say about the divinity of Christ?
Where can we find apostolic succession exactly, claims aside?
@@NATAR160 The Orthodox Church
Scholarship is unimportant? The divinity of Christ is in the writings of the apostles. When I was much younger I was asked to read the Bible, despite not being schooled in the Word of God I didn't still need an external body for me to see that Jesus is God.
Also, in this discussion he mentions church fathers n what they say, wt scholars deduce from what they say. It has never being a crime to do that. Or u think he has to say, some political institution dressed up in religious garb says this is wt it means therefore it's true, hook, line n sinker?
@@NATAR160 Yes, the Church that wrote and compiled the New Testament and chose to link it to the Old to form the biblical canon is who we should be listening to when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Not ‘enlightened’ reformers or German atheists from the 19th century.
Gavin is simply cherry-picking atheistic scholarship to suit his own agenda. That’s undeniable. He doesn’t listen to what scholarship says about the trinity, the dating of biblical texts, the virgin birth, what-have-you. And the point I’m making about the divinity of Christ is that scholarly presuppositions are completely different to Gavin’s, and certainly to the Orthodox Church’s, so the entire foundation is suspect.
Even if he could somehow prove these things are ‘accretion’s’ it’s only a problem from his perspective, because he’s separated from Christ’s Church, which has been guided by the Holy Spirit since Pentecost. He’s made his burden to accurately reconstruct the 1st century church’s beliefs and practices 2000 years later using secular scholarship that rejects the divinity of Christ. It’s completely nonsensical.
@@NATAR160It’s just so bizarre to me that Protestants will appeal to (largely) atheist liberal scholars over the church authority
TLDR: yes
Unbelievable.
It’s right there in the Bible and confirmed by the earliest apostolic father, Clement of Rome: “Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife first the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect knowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (First Letter to the Corinthians, 44:1-3, c. AD 80).
Apostolic succession is a direct teaching of Christ.
you've not quoted the bible there pal :-)
those who have ears let them hear.. well eyes to read in this case
@@haroldbishop22 Acts 1:15-26.
@@haroldbishop22
Oh that's right, the Church must have gone apostate in the first century then.
@@thejerichoconnection3473Not sure what replacing Judas Iscariot has to do with apostolic succession... Given that Judas... Ya know.
Is the canon of scripture an accretion? There’s more consistency in apostolic succession historically, than the canon
No, Scripture just exists. Peter was calling Paul's letters Scripture from the beginning.
@@thadofalltrades That's not an answer to the canon.
You’re not understanding that God could oversee the canon but he couldn’t oversee His Church. How do I know? Because I’m a prot.
Scripture was recognized as Scripture long before the Church officially got involved. But, like the Trinity, the canon is something that existed from its inception and that we now understand more completely. Apostolic succession isn't like that--by its very nature, apostolic succession HAD to have been present, in largely its current form, from the time of the apostles, or it doesn't mean anything.
He’s made like 100 videos on this just watch them
The definitions of our faith are also third and fourth century. So...
Acts 1:21-22 makes apostolic succession impossible after the 1st century.
@@Justas399 so the church failed even though scripture says the gates of Hell will not prevail? And nobody knew anything about Christianity until the Reformers 1500 years later? This view of history doesn't make sense.
A good video demonstration for the need for Apostolic Succession.
Gavin Ortlund is an Acreation😂
The living Tradition was passed down through the Apostle's successors--there seems to be this assumption that if they didn't write everything down, it didn't happen, this is an argument from silence. It would make no sense if they did not delegate real authority before they died. The real accretion is the appeal to Scholarship in order to know the truth. The Church has never operated by appealing to the Scholarship.
I think “the living tradition was passed down through the Apostles’ successors “ is an argument from silence. It amounts to “trust me, bro”. This was the same issue Jesus had with the Pharisees where their traditions were the “oral law” supposed given by Moses apart from the written law.
Whatever is true and perfect cannot be left open to the faultiness of Chinese telephone...if it wasn't taught by the apostles then it's not an authoritative requirement.
Their successors were not to continue to create new traditions and then elevate them to the same reverence as scripture, the essentials of salvation...they may have utility and enhance worship, but they cannot be authoritative in a circular reasoning kinda way..
Ortlund addresses this at 8:30.
For those who would like a more Orthodox or ancient view on this topic, one that is not simply dismissed by the convenient term "accretion" or the standard protestant conflation of terms or weak dismissals based on faulty presumptions and paradigms, you can't really do much better than this wonderful presentation by Perry Robinson. ruclips.net/video/bs77aH4lag0/видео.html
If it developed what’s wrong that? Lord
Knows we have a ton of developments and keep reforming is continued development
it isnt a dvelopment
@@nathanmagnuson2589 agreed 👍
@@nathanmagnuson2589 traceable in my humble opinion
Nothing is wrong with development per se, as long as it is edification of Scripture and not antiscriptural. The problem arises when councils use words like "as it has been since the time of the apostles... Let them be anathema" about developments that assuredly were not from the time of the apostles.
If Catholicism isn't true, than anything can be; which means nothing is.
True to an extent, but some dogmas need historical revision, which the RCC cannot or will not accept?
None of the points in your comment follow from each other. The fact is that "anything is true" is incompatible with both "Catholicism is not true" (since Catholicism is one example of "anything") and with "nothing is true" (which means that nothing can be true).
If Catholicism isn't true, then the truths taught in scripture still stand.
I watched this video on Church History ruclips.net/video/onHIpArMENU/видео.htmlsi=3cRMmY84i1GDHeG3
(i havent done a lot of reading on 2nd century church yet)
Anyone have any thoughts on accuracy or suggestions on reading? (I have the list of Gavins top 5 books Augustine, Origen, Athunasius etc)
Protestantism is an accretion
When Gavin says, "to me" what he's implying is that he's smarter and more enlightened than the early church fathers who all believed and taught apostolic succession. It's not a mechanical or intellectual issue at hand, it's who has more authority and understanding: Gavin Ortlund, or the early church fathers?
ruclips.net/video/JGIgGnwtyD0/видео.htmlsi=YqskdU3NxzaGeXro
Well, I think he's showing that, when you look at the history, not all of the church fathers believed everything the roman Catholic Church claims they did.
Apostolic succession ( papacy ) is completely foreign to the New Testament
What about the Old Testament?
@@billyhw5492the church isn't mentioned as such in the OT, right?
@billyhw5492 I haven't done any reading on how the High Priest was appointed in the Old Testament.
Do you have any references to how the High Priest was determined in the OT?
@@gardengirlmary Jesus is the high priest, there are no more high priests. The Levite priesthood ended at the cross.
Definitely no Pope in the New Testament
It seems like there is a real consistency problem with Ortlund's position in this video - on one hand he claims that there are valid changes that are deemed pragmatic by the church and then on the other hand stands against accretions. That is inconsistent. Ortlund claims that pragmatic changes to church governance are legitimate. But why? Other than his assertion he provides no historical or biblical evidence to why ecclesiastical structural changes should be permitted while other accretions are to be rejected. Either no accretions should be made regardless of pragmatism (Restorationist viewpoint) or accretions are viable including, but not limited to whatever is subjectively determined to be "pragmatic." You cannot have it both ways of denying accretions while allowing for them at the same time.
Not really. There are pragmatic changes that do not affect theology or doctrine and changes that are non binding and have practical wisdom.
@@tpw7250If I am expected to submit to the authority of some man in the church, that is binding, not optional. If that man's office is derived from accretion rather than scripture, it is a major problem.
@@clarkcoleman8143 Elders are not an accretion.
@@tpw7250 Of course not. I never said they were. In fact, I am one. Not following your non-sequitur.
@clarkcoleman8143 Me too actually. You brought in church leadership. My understanding of your original point is that Ortland is against accretions and for pragmatic changes and that is inconsistent. My point is, that isn't inconsistent if accretions are bad because they bring in new doctrines where as pragmatic changes are OK if they help the function of the church and are considered non-bindong.
Is Hillsong an accretion?
What's hillsong?
@@lifewasgiventous1614 no, it's an abomination
@ClauGutierrezY
I asked what it is.. are you a bot lol
nope. no institution ever added hillsong as a major component of christianity years after the apostles were dead and then tried to say that the apostles had always included hillsong in an unwritten oral tradition.
@@AndyReichert0
I thought it's how you know you're worshipping.
Stumbling, bumbling Gavin.
Matthias succeeded Judas.
Indeed, Matthias did succeed Judas on the basis of him having accompanied Jesus and the apostles during Jesus’ ministry and on the basis of him being a witness to the resurrection, criteria no one has met since the time of Jesus.
“Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”
Acts 1:21-22
@@jncon8013 that’s the criteria to be considered an apostle. The bishops that succeeded are not considered apostles.
@@harley6659 Right, that’s the criteria to be an apostle. And nobody meets that criteria. No apostles, no apostolic abilities.
@@jncon8013 that’s not what apostolic succession is.
@@harley6659 okay, offer your definition of it if you like
Protestants do have apostolic succession. Think of all the Roman Catholics who became Lutheran or Reformed during the reformation. The office continues with them, regardless of what Rome says.
they were excommunicated and they didn't have the proper intention when they celebrated the ordination rite, so no.
@@Qwerty-jy9mjBut the apostate church using church as a covering to play politics do? Who's making those rules?
@@NATAR160
The German princes?
They really don't though. A lot of protestant churches today actually arise from someone, unaffiliated with any church body, deciding to become a pastor and start their own church, so no succession there. Then even most of the mainline churches deny a traditional priesthood with efficacious baptism and a Eucharistic sacrifice, so there really is no succession in protestantism
@@warmachine8006 Commonly in nondenominational/pentecostal circles, but certainly not so in more traditional congregations like Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, and Anglicans. The Anglicans are perhaps the greatest stand out - they still have a bishopric to this day.
Hilariously bad take on the subject matter. Almost as bad as his sacraments video. This is fuel to the Catholic and orthodox side because most of Gavin’s points here are easily refutable.
I can't even begin to fathom how anyone starts a project to prove that early apostolic church in Roman Empire was actually similar to evangelical baptist church in modern America. At some point you have to stop and ask yourself who are you kidding.
You're setting up a false dilemma. The options of what the early apostolic church was like are not limited to "Roman Catholic Mass" and "evangelical Baptist church." Don't strawman Gavin's points as "well he's saying the RCC is wrong about X, then that means he must think Peter and Luke and Paul were leading worship with a guitar and giving everyone little cups of grape juice at communion time."
@@survivordave No. I'm saying that this thesis would basically mean the 2nd and 3rd generation Christians got it immediately wrong with the tradition that was handed down to them and it's only after 1800 years when baptists in english-speaking America got it right. Unhinged. Also you can read the lineage of apostolic succession of the Church of Rome from Eusebious' Church History which written on 4th century. In my eyes Gavin flushes his credibility down the toilet with the claims like this. Wouldn't be the first time. You'll see right through it once you have done some reading by yourself
@@Justeelisjust It's funny that Gavin gives Eusebius (a semi-Arian) glowing reviews "He's the father of Church history!", etc. when it comes to arguing against icons yet the apostolic succession from the same "Father of Church history" isn't given the same deference.
25% of the New Testament was written by a self-appointed apostle who never met Jesus.
Is Peter a fake apostle too now?
“And account that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.”
2 Peter 3:15-16 KJV
Not only does Peter call Paul a brother, he validates and places Paul’s epistles on par with Scripture.
If you mean Paul, there was a pretty crazy meeting on a road to Damascus.
@@Joe10e84 And his commissioning by the church in Antioch at the instigation of the Holy Spirit.
@@Psalm19-1 No, because Peter was directly appointed by Jesus. (How in the world is everyone missing my point and offended?)
@@Joe10e84 Everyone is missing my point: Neither Jesus nor Peter nor any actual apostle appointed Paul, and so the strict definition of apostolic succession is contradicted by early church history.
Numbers 27:18-23