Thank you Pastor Gavin for refuting the lie of “being deep in history is to cease being Protestant.” Thank you, for being a living example, that this statement is simply not true.
Agreed. I remember being convinced by Scripture that Rome was wrong and praying to God to understand how history could be consistent with that. About 18 years ago. The Lord answered my prayer over those 18 years. I'm glad that Gavin has been bringing the historical evidence to a broader audience that has never heard that Rome doesn't match history.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 A history dive does convince a lot of people though. It didn't convince me, but I did my best to compare sources. I wonder if many just looking into Catholic and Orthodox sources, which of course will be very biased to their views.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 I assume ppl are just hearing bad historical claims and falling for them or failing to actually study the history and logic. People fall for fake quotes and out of context citations and lies. And departing from what God has already said in Scripture. Thankfully, the number of ex Romanists that become Bible believing Protestants is about 3 to 1 over the number of apostates. And a major reason that ppl join Rome is getting married to a Roman Catholic (according to studies) which is been historically forbidden by Protestants and criticized by Rome. While converts from Rome to Bible believing Protestants cite their belief in the Bible. I can imagine why people turning away from God can rationalize their actions after the fact.
@@barbhorses yes, it's a lie, since the the unique beliefs and practices of Rome were not taught or practiced by the Lord Jesus and His Apostles or the earliest churches, but according to all the historical evidence Rome's new beliefs and practices developed slowly long after the Apostles had finished their teaching, sometimes hundreds of years later. Innovations in beliefs and practices that are still ongoing even today. One has to intentionally ignore the historical evidence or try to explain it away to think otherwise.
Dr. Gavin Ortlund you are a top notch scholar and pastor, be encouraged and don't get frustrated by those that attack. You are very careful, knowledgeable and charitable. This kind of approach and attention to detail should be encouraged across the board.
Thank you Gavin so much for your work. I grew up Evangelical and have recently been studying more deeply into the roots of Protestantism and Catholicism because, as you mentioned in another video, Evangelicals tend to be lacking in their knowledge of their roots and philosophy. Your videos help explain the essential elements to very complex topics and have definitely helped me understand these issues. Stay strong in the faith. The larger your channel grows, the more opposition you’ll face. There will always be people like me who will support you.
@@TruthUnites The only thing that's gnostic is your protestantism, gav something tells when william releases his rebuttal in a few days, your going to go quiet with embarrassment, you will go quiet with your tail between your legs.. Alot of us are going to be laughing
@@duckymomo7935 we don't need Protestantism to be saved! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Dr. Ortlund, As a Roman Catholic, I 100% agree with you that the way Albrecht responded to your pointing out his (I’ll assume, unintentional) misrepresentation of you, was just completely uncalled for. All he had to do was acknowledge, apologize, and remedy the situation. Instead, he seems to have gone on the attack. -Sean
I appreciate the good faith nature of your comment here, and it demonstrates a genuine desire for truth, which unfortunately is becoming less and less common these days. To that end, I would challenge you to consider whether or not, through the discourse of this debate, it has been reasonably demonstrated that the Assumption of Mary is an unbiblical teaching, possibly with roots of deception. If so, then it must follow that the entire claim of church infallibility must also be dismissed as false. I challenge you to consider if what the RCC has done in its historical claims of infallibility, and the history of its response to any attempt to steer it back towards the truth, most closely resembles the very same form of pride which brought the Jews to reject Jesus? To turn their backs to God, in favor of the "glorious" traditions of man. Because if that's true that means that you have followed them, unwittingly, into their descent into darkness that is the separation from truth, and perhaps by doing so inherited some of their pride. If you were to come upon that realization today, what would you do? Or perhaps a better question is, what would you lose...and are you willing to lose it? Separation from family, loss of tradition, division from community, a personal crisis of faith? Now, to discard these things on any trivial basis would be a tragedy, if it is true that any of them are at odds with the truth in Christ however. Well then, the only tragedy would be the heart's unwillingness to discard them. Once you see the nature of pride that is rooted at the heart of the so-called "infallible" churches. Then you know that not only are they not at all infallible, but they are also tragically deceived by their own pride. I think we both know where that comes from. I pray that the Lord will bless you with the discernment to parse all that which is rooted in pride upon the traditions of man, from the truth in Christ. That He will make the truth desiring nature of your heart into an instrument of His will, so that you may lead others out of their inherited pride, and into the Light of Truth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen
@@fantasia55gavin gives great evidence for what he believes in. Jesus never said pope is infallible and that pope tell people what to believe in. Recently pope said heresy that all religions take you to God which is a lie. Don't believe fallible men. Believe the Word of God.
Albrecht is the fourth popular Catholic apologist I’ve seen badly misrepresent your arguments. Your responses are always gracious. Keep up the fantastic work you do for the gospel!
@patriceagulu8315 LOL. This is hilarious. Can you show me a video he demonized you and called you a pagan? I guess you're a Roman Catholic, why does your church demonize and anathematize fellow body of Christ??
@patriceagulu8315 He said the Marian doctrine had a root in paganism and he quoted the scholarship, was that a lie?? Man you're funny. Refute his position. Show us early church that believes the assumption
A protestant comes to the topic of the Marian Dogmas with a question: Are they true? Then looks at all evidence or lack there of to determine the veracity of the dogmas. A catholic comes to the topic with a statement: The Marian Dogmas are true. They then sift through the evidence to affirm the statement. All counter evidence need not be considered since it goes against the infallible affirmations. Now which technique is better for discovering truth?
@@cunjoznope. The Protestant and the Catholic both still presuppose an inherent need for Christian classical metaphysics and epistemology and special revelations role. Your statement presupposes the deist denial of the capability of faith and reason. This is a category error. The question is, did theotokos mean what later Roman accretions claim?
@@cunjoz I'm still waiting for your reply why evidences leads to deism?? Y'all Roman Catholics are funny. So you mean you just believe things because you were told ?? This is dangerous
@@Parks179-hnope it did. It first meant “God-Bearer.” Still means that, but it was changed. God-Bearer points to and glorifies Christ by showing His humanity. Had nothing at all to do with glorifying Mary.
I get the sense that he (and other Catholics at times) are defensive because they have to be. The church has officially made this a dogma in order to be a Catholic. The fact that it is late 5th century pokes holes in their dogma. In other words because Rome declared this a dogma they have to defend it , even if you have to play mental gymnastics to do so.
Pope is a word, meaning ‘spiritual father’ he did think that during his lifetime. The word doesn’t matter it’s the position Jesus gave him off the bat.
Thank you so much for this Gavin! I shared your video in a Christian groupchat and was really disheartened that my Catholic friends attitude towards it was “we will just wait for Trent Horn to refute him.” One legitimately said that whatever Trent said he would believe and accused me (and Protestantism more generally) of picking and choosing, which was certainly hurtful. Please pray that they will have their minds and hearts opened to other points of view!
Thanks Ryan. Talking across our ecclesial divides is so difficult. I pray the Lord gives you grace in those conversations. Thanks for the encouraging feedback.
This is one of the things that weirds me out about Catholics. They see having a single authority as such a plus and flout their uncritical acceptance of whoever they consider to be an authority
In my experience, most people will defend their beliefs even when refuted. Why? Pride? Fear? If someone has been brought up being told they are in the one true religion, by people they love and trust, is it scary to discover you have been lied to by them? Does your world collapse? This is not just Catholics, also Muslims, and Protestants...and others. If I heard Catholic give good, convincing arguments, I would convert. I even considered Islam, but that took less than an hour to debunk!
I'm late life RCC convert but I thought Trent's rebuttal was a bit weak. I'm learning more from Gavin than any other Christian thinker these days. If all Protestants were like Gavin I might reconsider, but having come as a child from a Baptist Church that split over tongues, I can't get past the need for authority and the fact that Protestant veins are all over the map. Is there ANY benchmark of Christian truth? Scripture yes, but there's so much fighting over how to interpret scripture that I see a real need for authority. I'm open minded about this so maybe Gavin will address this at some point. Anyway I'm definitely going to continue to listen Gavin.
@@dennischanay7781 praise God. Comments like yours restore my hope that there are some genuine, open minded truth seekers. And makes me realise more the value of Gavin and his channel. You know he is writing a book on protestantism too?
I haven't watched this video yet, but just wanted to say how much I have appreciated your ministry. It has been a great help in studying church history and the Roman Catholic claims. I'm currently studying Theology in Durham, United Kingdom and your videos have been a great help for me discovering what humble protestants believe about Church history and why they disagree with Roman Catholics, so thank you so much, may God bless you and your family 🙏🏻
@@TruthUnites William Albrecht made yet ANOTHER video responding to this one. I haven’t watched it all the way through. But now he is rebuking your claim of citing a Mormon Web site. I don’t know how that is relevant. He also claims to have contacted some of the “top Mariologists” who state (allegedly) some of the things you cited from them are inaccurate. (Notice I stressed the word “allegedly”.) And he is now focused on the Vienna Document, which he swears up and down that not only is it undeniably dated to the second century (“most likely” from the first), but that it teaches the bodily Assumption of Mary from a non Gnostic second century source - the Apocalypse of Mary. This is his “silver bullet.” The problem is the article from 2011 that talks about the Vienna Document, it doesn’t actually state or even imply that Mary was bodily Assumed to Heaven. All it states is that Mary was at the end of her life, surrounded by the apostles and Jesus with angels…and that’s it. The author of the article also states that he does not agree Foester that the Vienna Document necessarily comes from the same source as the Apocalypse of Mary from the second century. When William is confronted with this, instead of addressing it, he deflects and just engages in insults and ad hominem attacks, which seems to be his MO. BTW, congratulations to you and your wife on the birth of your daughter Abigail. When my mother was a Catholic when she was a little girl, her Confirmation name was Abigail. She and I are now Protestant, by the grace of God. Praise Jesus! It seems William is beating a dead horse, and is unable to concede that the evidence for his argumentation is lacking.
@@BornAgainRN thank you Steve. I haven’t watched his video but somebody mentioned the Mormon website thing. I have no idea what website they were talking about, and I was actually citing his books. One of the strange things about William if he simply lies about my sources without any grounding for doing so. It’s quite strange. Anyway, good assessment here, I appreciate hearing your thoughts. And cool to hear that about your mother! God bless.
@@TruthUnites thanks, and I don’t know if you’re aware, but I made my own video refuting William Albrecht on his previous attempt to rebut your other video on the Assumption. It is on my RUclips channel if you want to check it out. It isn’t that long. From what I watched on William’s new video, there isn’t much difference, other than the Mormon comment. And he didn’t mention the Vienna Document that doesn’t even say anything about an Assumption. It must be terrifying to be threatened with an anathema for denying a dogma that you can’t find evidence for in the infant church, so he has to read “Assumption” into the texts, and rely on Mariologists who are threatened with the same anathema. God bless you and your family too! 👍
Great stuff as always. Very frustrating to see William’s (hopefully accidental) misrepresentations, but still encouraging to see how calm and gracious your response is to that behaviour.
Sadly, William does seem to misrepresent others too, to put it charitably. For nearly a year, he and Anthony Rogers were to have a debate but it keeps being delayed, and unfortunately William has claimed this is the fault of Anthony. On the contrary, Anthony has been ready and waiting and will even clear his schedule for the debate to go ahead. So far, still nothing.
@@TruthUnites Yes congrats on another addition to your family...my wife and I just got blessed with our first 2 months ago...Life totally changes when becoming a dad! Such a blessing from God!
I noticed the Wikipedia page weirdness as well! I saw it talking about the Book of Mary’s repose as evidence to early dating and thought it was so funny 😂
Great response, Gavin 👍. We appreciate the time you invest in such videos and do know that your approach undoubtedly benefits both sides (regardless if our catholic friends see it that way or not).
O Lord my God, i thank u for the life of Gavin. Give me the grace to have his humility n love for the truth rather than struggle to be right. May God increase him a thousand times so many more IJN
Glad you decided to give William's video a second chance, Dr. Ortlund. My apologies on behalf of the RCC for his misrepresentation of you and failure to apologize for doing so.
@@jpc9923 Look for his response to Gavin's comment. It was a rather back-handed non-apology. I like William a lot, but he could have handled this better.
William is much more of a bulldog than willing to be open to arguments and honest dialogue. I remember watching your group discussion with the three catholics and how much he was squirming to respond to you. I have the same problem... I can't help but get into it emotionally and get charged up. Thanks for showing us a better way, Gavin.
Thank you, Gavin. Your videos are always so beneficial to me. This is a very important and controversial topic and I appreciate you tackling it with grace. By the way, last Sunday my Pastor spoke on saying yes to God and Mary was the one he spoke of as exemplary of a yes to God and all that it entailed for her, including the suffering she experienced in seeing her Son crucified. There’s much we can learn from her example but I really appreciate you shedding light on when the teaching of the assumption of Mary actually appeared within the church. I’m sure this is helping a lot of people like me who felt a need for clarity on this.
It is because the evidence is overwhelmingly against the bodily assumption of St. Mary that they are so willing to misstate or ignore what is said. There is no argument they can raise for them to argue against that. Worse yet, for our Roman brothers and sisters, to admit the assumption comes from gnostic sources outside the orthodox faith, would destroy Papal Infallibility. While Rome often argues that it’s Bishop has only used ex cathedra twice, one of those two time is directly about the bodily assumption of St. Mary. (The other is about the Immaculate Conception of St. Mary.) And if Papal Infallibility is proven false, one of the three legs of the Roman church disappears and their church collapses.
I am an Anglican Catholic priest. I find your analysis to be compelling, balanced, and thorough. As I considered this issue, I realized that upon making this belief a dogma with an anathema attached, Rome can no longer say with Paul, "I was determined to know nothing among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." Nor with Peter (their first pope!), "there is none other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
If it’s the anathema that bugs you, don’t worry it’s only excommunication, Protestants have done that willingly through their founders who left the catholic church on their own accord. As a catholic I would rather be excommunicated and given the kick to repent than blindly go my own way through misunderstanding as I know I can read the bible incorrectly without the church to guide me. A person can still be in Christ if excommunicated only god knows.
@@ProfYaffle I think we all get a bit defensive when our cherished beliefs get challenged. The question of whether the Marian dogmas are of apostolic or gnostic origin can end up determining whether you are Catholic / Orthodox or Protestant.
@@he7230 Do you think Mary is the main dividing doctrine? I find the need for the priesthood(including Pope) to be problematic, since I have a great High Priest. I wouldn't have someone come between us. That's why the veil was torn. Also, the idea that there is anything I can do to add to my salvation; the implication that Jesus did not do enough when he died on the cross. I would find it difficult to reject that. My good works are because I love Jesus, His Spirit lives in me, and by His grace. If my children did things for me out of duty and because of what they gain, that would make me sad. I find the faith plus works doctrine a huge problem. It takes away freedom and puts emphasis on us and what we do, not what He did.
@Bb Dl I have tried to understand what you believe so as not to misrepresent you. Apologies if I misunderstood. I think we both believe that faith without works is dead. If we love Him, we will do this works. If we don't, that is clear evidence (justification) we don't love Him. Why is it not possible for Him to both be "Abba Father" and require holiness. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. If we sin (and I don't know who defines grave) we cut ourselves us from God. If we then repent genuinely He forgives us. That doesn't mean we sin cos we know he will forgive us! He does know if we are talking the mickey. The Holy Spirit, if we let him, changes us so we don't want to sin and don't want to grieve Him. That's love and relationship. We don't do good works out of duty. But out of love. For some struggles we have, e.g.psychological problems like maybe we eat more than we need to, showing greed, it can be an ongoing process to get free from. I think you may have misunderstood what protestants believe. Hope that helps
@@ProfYaffle I think for me the Marian dogmas and prayers to the saints are the biggest difference between Protestants and Catholics /Orthodox. I think the differences regarding justification can be resolved eventually.
I find it curious that Rome makes this a Dogma of the Faith yet there is no reference to Mary's Assumption in the early creeds, which they admit are the standard of the Faith. Btw, I had the popcorn ready for another back and forth with Trent but I guess that'll have to wait
@truth unites I saw some funky stuff going on with William Albrecht. I'd like to advise you to document ALL communications you have with and about William Albrecht. He likes to call people liars.
Excellent job Gavin. Thank you for providing clarity on this subject. I know that if this were meant to be done in the church it would have been mentioned in the New Testament and taught and it was clearly not! Mary is not a divine person and we should not be praying to her! She is blessed among women but she cannot contribute To our salvation now. She was uniquely blessed to be part of the Incarnation. The scripture teaches that Christ is our intercessor and the Holy Spirit. Never any human being!
Thank you Dr! Great video 📹 👍 I'm an Anglican & I do believe in The dormition & bodily ascension of Mary. However 🤔 as article 18 holds: "Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ: They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved." Cranmer. No matter how beautiful or even true the idea of Marian Assumption might be, it isn't a requisite of salvation. I think 🤔 the Apostles made it very clear. The 66 Scriptures talk, not only through what is written, but through what's been left out.
If a person is made anaethema it doesn’t cut them off from Christ’s salvation it is a kick in the spiritual butt to think about and get reconciled to correct teaching. The various Protestant founders excommunicated themselves the church still thinks of them as brethren just separated (from communion with Rome) ones.
Dr Ortlund, I know you won’t really appreciate this comment as you attempt to be as charitable as possible, I do too, but I find Mr Albecht to be quite biased on many of these issues.
I’d hate to be a Catholic who in some sense “needs” to grasp at straws like these to defend their beliefs. I’m so thankful to not have to ground my doctrinal beliefs on gnostic fantasies.
One thing I am sure about is that the bigger your channel becomes (nearly 15k) the more backlash you will get. Sadly there will be people who are interested in defending their briefs irrespective of valid counterarguments. They will swear black is white. I pray you have wisdom to know who to respond to, how to respond, and who to laugh off.
@Prof Yaffle. In a very nice way, your nickname (ie Prof Yaffle) is driving me crazy with curiosity. So, so hoping it comes from the much beloved 'Bagpuss' show.
@@andrewwoods456 yes. Can you see my thumbnail? You are only the 2nd person to recognise this, it probably says something about your age and nationality 🙂
Him mixing you and Cameron up is SHOCKING!😂 Gavin I really commend your patience and charity, it is quite possible that I would not have reacted the same way 😂
@@jpc9923 William apologised then claimed that Dr Ortlund misrepresented Shoemaker, which ironically is exactly what Mr Albrecht did 😂 When someone constantly makes accusations and is almost always wrong, you need to stop listening.
@@jpc9923 I don't think the conduct is comparable. Dr Ortlund only said he won't continue watching after William was like "Oh yes, I made one mistake but you made many more so it really doesn't matter" This is not an issue that should divide. William was wrong. That's it. Whether you are a member of Rome or not you must accept that William was particularly wrong here. Have a blessed day as well!
Honestly I am just unsurprised at William Albrecht’s misrepresentation and rhetoric. He is known for overstating his case in such a “Chad Catholic” kind of way. It gets old. And for people like you (and less so, me) who have actually looked into church history, it’s frustrating beyond belief to keep hearing “well all of the fathers said X” or “we believe exactly what the apostolic church did” neither of those things are true and it gets old really fast. Great job on this topic Dr. Ortlund, as long as Catholicism holds onto this dogma (and really most of the Marian dogmas) I can’t see any real path fro Catholicism for me
Probably the worst was the video on Sam Shamoun's channel where William tried to use Gregory the Wonder Worker's homilies as 2nd century support for the Marian dogmas, I was intrigued, but of course as soon as I looked up the quotes in Phillip Schaff I find all these came from homilies in the "doubtful or spurious" section....
Hey Gavin, don’t let theses guys get to you, while most RUclips apologists I take with a grain of salt I trust you to accurately and maturely represent both sides
I'd be interested to hear Mr. Ortlands opinion of section 79 of the Panarion of Epiphanius, and why he did not include it in his explanation ? "Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, she is like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up, but has not seen death"
I find the Catholic position on certain topics and from certain people to be very interesting. Trent Horn has always been a fave, but Ive grown to see Hahn and Staples as good representatives. When I listen to William, not so much, I think he is a deceptive person and do not find him to be a credible debater. His tactics avoiding Anthony Rogers in debate is embarrassing. I do think you give honest and credible discussions yourself Gavin, keep up the good work.
I’ve seen many claims about dogmas like this in early history and it just seems to be just cherry picking quotes and arguments from silence. They also don’t bet on many people reading the sources that are claimed which usually reveal how the quotes are cherry picked
Your work is very valuable to me, thank you. I have encountered many claims of "always been true" of this or that regarding RC doctrines. Is there any connection between the Sibylline Oracles to the rise and growth of the Marian doctrines? Wiki has some early church notables at least knowing of them. I know it hard to know for certain, but I was just wondering. The Sibylline Oracles (Different from the Roman Sibylline Books) it was said, were used by some Jews and some Christians to "influence" the Romans, and I suspect it had a backfire effect in some ways on the Church years later.
This was so powerful because of the clear historical evidence and the truth it represents which you presented so well. I have heard other people's negative comment's regarding Albrechts lack of honesty and I know for certain that he is dodging Anthony Rogers.
Hey Dr. Ortlund, really appreciated this video and how loving and just graceful you were throughout it. I wasn't necessarily sure if you'd see this if I commented this on the original video, but in your post critiquing the papacy from the 3rd-7th centuries you made a comment which inferred that Leo accepted Canon 28 of Chalcedon and he actually never did; at least all the evidence I could find seems pretty clear that he rejected it. I was curious if you had misspoken or possibly had evidence that would challenge the idea of Leo rejecting Canon 28. Hopefully, I don't sound rude! I was having a conversation and I had asserted that Leo accepted it and I got annihilated 🤣. Although I did end up finding an explanation from some Orthodox friends regarding it! But anyways, I love your videos and have found them very edifying! May God bless you, and congratulations on the new baby! Really shows your dedication to spreading the Gospel and love of God, by constantly putting out content while having a tight schedule!
This video should be required for anyone who grew up Roman Catholic or is thinking about joining. The history is devastating to the folk history people grow up with.
Sooooo William has time to make rebuttal videos but can't debate Anthony Rogers 😂 it's like the Roman Magisterium they have the time and ability to dogmatically declare Mary's assumption as de fide but don't have time to infallibly interpret more than 7 passages of the Bible, yeah talk about like mother like son.
I want to learn the truth about Catholic vs Protestantism debate and a good way to do that is to listen to debates and hearing people's best arguments. William's failure to turn up says a lot for his best argument. I'm sticking with protestantism for now
@Thoska Brah the battle is not against flesh and blood but against powers and principalities. The prince of the earth is rampant, using whatever vices he can. The more I see of unloving, ungracious illogical arguments between people with faith, the more I realise how he works. Thank Gid for people like Gavin. We must keep him in our prayers
Also, they do not exercise confession, as, instead of exposing child abuse scandals and inquisition, they do not apologize about them and try to hide them!
As a catholic interested in gaining more of an appreciation for protestant scholarship(for ecumenical reasons), Is there any sort of Church History books written from a protestant perspective you would recommend starting with?
Anything by JND Kelly, Justo Gonzales has a good overview in his work The Story of Christianity, and Michael Holmes Apostolic Fathers. These are all a good place to start
I was really disappointed with how Trent Horn handled his rebuttal of your original video, especially considering both his attempt to use Shoemaker to prove an early origin while excluding the 'gnostic origination hypothesis' (I'm going with this to be charitable). What bothered me most was his claim that you were arguing like an atheist. His attack might be taken as one against method, but it really is ad hominem. It's gross and... honestly shocking considering that he read the same books. I deeply, deeply appreciate this channel and its balanced approach. I'm glad to see how this channel has grown with time. While I won't always be able to catch up with the scholarship or sources, I'm just so glad that this is available. It makes these complex topics digestible without being so reductive as to fall in to clear errors.
How is it an ad hominem to claim he's being selectively skeptical? How is the case about gnostic origin conclusive when the doctrine as it has been defined has nothing gnostic about it?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj It's not fair to say Gavin is being selectively skeptical, quote the possibility for an older date in Shoemaker, and then not explain that this older date is part of the gnostic hypothesis. Implying that Gavin is selective is implying something about his character and that you should not trust his arguments because he leaves out scholarship deliberately (even though Gavin is citing well known conservative scholars!). Gavin is clearly a careful scholar. If something is left out, it's left out deliberately. The inference is not difficult to make. I never said the case for gnostic origins is conclusive. However, saying the doctrine today has no gnostic influence today is to beg the question. You have read something into my words that I didn't say.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj If it has a gnostic origin as a gnostic doctrine, then it's current definition is, necessarily, gnostic. "What is crooked cannot be made straight." Ecclesiastes
Ultimately, I don't have a dog in this factual fight as my view is informed from my reading Matthew Levering's book years ago (which you admirably summed up in your video with Cameron). I generally agree that the earliest texts we have are from a gnostic milieu. I just thought you should have balanced the Shoemaker quotes with this one which was also from one of his "summative" conclusion sections on page 278 of his 2004 book: The indication of the earliest narratives is that they were in contact with some sort of gnostic Christianity early in their development. Nevertheless, it is not at all certain that the traditions originated in such a milieu: it may be that they merely passed through such a context at some point in their now unknown prehistory.
Thanks for this video. I was a catholic that turned new ager for a little while until I saw these words during one of my deep meditations, “the deception of the gnostics”. I didn’t know what that meant but I started searching and found out that gnostics were people (many identify as christians) who believe so many heretical stuff about Jesus, including things that the New Age believes and teaches. It really opened my eyes to what I was believing and practicing in the New Age. I repented and turned my life to Christ. That was five years ago. I have read all of those gnostic gospels that are so heretical. I was a devout of the mother of Jesus until I was born again. Praise God that he opened my eyes. I have many RC family members that need to be saved as well. I am not a Calvinist nor Catholic but I am thankful for your videos!
In the 2 thousand year history of the Catholic and Orthodox Church, and their penchant in getting the remains of their leaders/saints, it is quite surprising that they did not have in their altars/churches the 2 bodies of the most important persons of their churches: Jesus and Mary.
I’m not completely sure where I stand on this issue, but Albrecht, ever since the first time I watched, rubbed me the wrong way. I was thinking maybe he’s from a different kind of culture where that’s just part of how you argue. I remember watching a piece from Premiere Christianity on how Muslims argue in a certain, well-known town square in the UK. There’s a lot of yelling and the crowd applauds. The Christian (I can’t remember who it was, but he’s like THE guy evangelicals go to for Muslim stuff) was trying to explain how the more impressive you are and powerful, in addition to your arguments, it plays a key role in the match. So maybe Albrecht is from somewhere else? Wasn’t he Eastern Orthodox? Idk, just trying to think of some way to explain his behavior. Anytime I listen to him I have to put it on double speed to get through the very dramatic and over-the-top language.
I freaking love this guy. He just BODIED that man that lied every turn. Tried to be deceptive. Props to you Mr. Ortlund for not getting walked on and letting it fly all the time. Gotta stand up for yourself
Thanks Gavin for the video. I always enjoy watching your videos. Though they don't make my life really easy. Currently I'm semi-Catholic (I've yet to be formed), and I do my best to look into these matters. But I simply don't have the time to extensively go through all the data. I mean, it's an incredible amount of reading. And even if I could read all the early historical documents, then I'd still be bound to miss so many things. I'm in this constant anxiety om asking myself am I right to do this? Am I wrong to do this? Then I find scholarship like yours, or others, and it's great scholarship. A lot of arguments that make sense. But the problem is, I find these arguments on all sides of the equation, there seems to be no way for me to resolve this. I can see the concern for the Marian dogmas, and I do excessive devotion difficult, but then again, I also see a lot in typology. And if I'd make a scale between Catholicism or Protestantism (I'm purposely leaving out the other groups for now as this is hard enough as it is), the scale does tip the most towards Catholicism. When I read Ignatius for example concerning Bishops and their authority, the Eucharist (I truly believe it IS Jesus' body and blood), confessing sins (I discovered the power of this while still Protestant), some of the Marian typology makes a very great deal of sense (though admittedly I'm having a hard time with the assumption), and I do love the communion of saints. Most things I read from the early church fathers, or epistles, I just see more Catholicism than Protestantism. But still..., there's this big tug o' war going on in my head, which I can't resolve. No matter which direction I look, I see things I'm troubled with, leaving me an agnostic Christian. In this state of agnosticism I'm inclined towards being Catholic, though at my current state I can't genuinely be formed. I'll try to keep you in my prayers, I understand your concern with William. I think you are being very reasonable in the things you are saying, and I don't think you are trying to throw dirt at him. I'll pray for William as well! Looking forward to your upcoming back and forth's with Trent. God bless!
Why accept all these doctrines that are doubtful and later developed (not apostolic). If anything the evidence vastly ways against Catholicism by my analysis.
The fractionation in Rome favored a collegial presbyterial system of governance and prevented for a long time, until the second half of the second century, the development of a monarchical episcopacy in the city. Victor (c. 189-99) was the first who, after faint-hearted attempts by Eleutherus (c. 175-89), Soter (c. 166-75), and Anicetus (c. 155-66), energetically stepped forward as monarchical bishop and (at times, only because he was incited from the outside) attempted to place the different groups in the city under his supervision or, where that was not possible, to draw a line by means of excommunication. Before the second half of the second century there was in Rome no monarchical episcopacy for the circles mutually bound in fellowship. Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, trans. Michael Steinhauser (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003) p. 397.
most Roman Catholics are not aware of the historical research done by Roman Catholic Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick regarding the early church’s view of Matthew 16:18. Archbishop Peter Kenrick prepared a paper on this subject, which was to be delivered to Vatican I (1870). However, it was never delivered, but it was published later, along with other insights.[5] He points out the 5 interpretations of Matt. 16:18, to which Fathers of antiquity held: All Christians were the living stones, held by very few Fathers-. Origen who is a common source of patristic exegetical tradition: states “‘If we also say “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” then we also become Peter . . . for whoever assimilates to Christ, becomes rock. Does Christ give the keys of the kingdom to Peter alone, whereas other blessed people cannot receive them?’” (Origen, Commentary on Matthew). All the apostles, 8 Fathers (Cyprian et al). Christ as the Rock, 16 Fathers (Eusebius, early Augustine). Eusebius of Caesarea (D. 263-339), in his view (“rock” as Christ), He links this interpretation with the parallel rock and foundation statements of 1 Corinthians 3:11 and 10:4. Peter as the Rock, 17 Fathers. The Rock upon which the Church was built was the Faith that Peter confessed, 44 Fathers, including the most important Fathers (e.g., Basil of Seleucia [448]; Cyril of Alexandria; Chrysostom, Ambrose, Hilary,[6] Jerome, and Augustine again. Note, that Augustine (later in life) Augustine stated: Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (Retractations).[7] Thus, only 20% of the Fathers held to Rome’s now canonized “infallible” “Petrine Rock” interpretation of Matthew 16:18. That is far from being the norm of the early church. Kendrick concluded: “If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that the “rock” should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.”[8] As Roman Catholic apologist, H. Burn-Murdock actually admitted: “None of the writings of the first two centuries describe St. Peter as a bishop of Rome.”[9] In fact, no one before Callistus (c. A.D. 218-223) used Matthew 16:18 to support the primacy of the Roman bishop (i.e., “Pope”
[5] Cf. An Inside View at Vatican I, ed. Leonard Woolsey Bacon (New York: American Tract Society, 1871). [6] Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity (Book II): “Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter’s mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God” (On the Trinity). [7] Augustine wrote The Retractations late in his life to correct points expressed in his own writings. Here, Augustine corrects his earlier opinion that Peter was the rock of Matthew 16:18. According to Augustine the rock is Christ or Peter’s confession which pointed to the person of Christ [8] Speech of Archbishop Kenrick, 109, An inside view of the vatican council, edited by Leonard Woolsey Bacon. [9] H. Burn-Murdock, The Development of the Papacy (1954), 130f.
Thank you for sharing where you are at. I think a lot of people are having a similar experience and it is very understandable. The issues are certainly complicated. I will say a prayer for you after typing this out for the Lord to guide you and give you peace and clarity and lead you to the truth. God bless you.
Thank you for your humility and patience! As an ex-Roman Catholic (but an ongoing part of the lower case "c" catholic church), the major show stopper for me returning to the RC church is the Mary dogma. I have respect for our Lord's mother (and the other saints recognized by the church) but don't see where any Apostle (or Jesus Himself) said that we were to go to any other intermediary. Our great High Priest doesn't need His mother's help or intervention in performing His duties, and I can't help but feel like we lessen our already inadequate understanding of the Infinite Triune God by adding other people into the equation. I look forward to your next installment.
The issue isn't whether he _needs_ help because we can all say he doesn't, the issue is whether it is a true fact that he got it and he did. To deny this involves accepting a slew of christological heresies at one juncture or another.
The origin of the observance of the celebration of the Epiphany is to be found in the activities of Gnosticism. Its fundamental principle is the idea that individual salvation comes through knowledge, gnosis, rather than through faith or works. The 6th of January was designated as the feast day of Epiphany because on that day was the birthday of Aeon, the patron god of Alexandria. The Gnostics had designated Christ as one of the Aeons in their elaborate system. In opposition to these heretics, it appears that the Orthodox Church acted to protect its followers from this falsification by defining the Theophany of the Holy Trinity, that is, the appearance of God during the Baptism of Christ. 16 The earliest definite evidence of this celebration is given by Ammianus Marcellinus 17 where this pagan Roman historian mentions that Julian the Apostate participated in this feast day in Vienne of Gaul. The Orthodox Church gave to this Feast its correct significance and meaning and celebrated purposely this Feast on the same date to counteract the false celebration of the Gnostics. In all probability, Epiphany was introduced to Gaul, with its Greek name, by St. Athanasius (336), coming from Alexandria. Reverend George Mastrantonis of the Greek Orthodox Church of America Found that super interesting, and thought I'd share. It seems the Orthodox may have habit of incorporating gnosticism into the church. Thoughts, please?
A thoughtful video as always. My main concern is the consistency of your standard by which you judge something to be worthy of belief. You seem to be saying that if a teaching doesn't show up until the 5th century (or at some other agreed-upon point in time) then we should presume it is not an apostolic teaching. As a Catholic, I would say this defeats at least a few Protestant doctrines such as a non-sacramental view of the real presence, sola scriptura, and a rejection of the divine institution of the episcopacy, to name a few. If we take the Vincentian canon as a guide that whatever is believed everywhere and by all ought to be believed, that would give weight to the Assumption/Dormition since, although we don't have solid evidence of its universal belief until after the 6th century or so, it nonetheless is taught universally in all parts of the church east, west, and otherwise. It's a curious thing if the whole church believes it and teaches it for almost a thousand years (that we know of) and yet it would turn out to not be true. Your approach here is well taken, but to me relies too much on history/the historical record that we currently have access to and not enough on faith in Christ's promise that the church would not universally fall into heresy. Or, to put it another way, it ignores the theological and ecclesiological reasons for the doctrine in favor of a merely historical reason. I realize this is certainly no substantial argument for belief in the Assumption/Dormition per se, so I don't want to step beyond my scope here, but I do think it's worthwhile to examine some of the methodological presumptions here. Thanks Dr. Ortlund!
I understand your position but don't think your characterization of Protestant doctrine is accurate. Also, while I recognize you don't agree with them, the Protestant doctrines you mention are argued from Scripture. In contrast, the assumption of Mary is not. I'm not looking to debate the particulars, just pointing out a distinction. And I do understand that other distinct RC doctrines are also argued from Scripture, but again I'm simply pointing out that that isn't the case with some traditions. Anything argued from Scripture, whether Protestant or RC, is arguably Apostolic. Anything that can't be, is not, except in an argument from silence.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I'd say there are three relevant differences: (1) sola scriptura and a rejection of the divine institution of the episcopacy ARE arguable from the early church; I've done videos on Augustine's view of sola Scriptura (for example), and on the developmental nature of the episcopate (as displayed in the early evidence and testified to by Jerome); real presence I'd agree with you (and I affirm that). (2) these doctrines are argued from Scripture; the bodily assumption is not in Scripture unless you jam it into typology; (3) these are doctrines, not historical events. Historical events are more expected to have historical attestation (like Christ's resurrection as a parallel example). So I really don't see any major Protestant doctrines that are in a comparable position to the bodily assumption of Mary, to be honest. But if there were, we could reject them and reform our beliefs; whereas the assumption of Mary is for Catholics infallible and irreformable. That is another difference.
One thing that would be lovely would be a video or film progressing into the church ages and leading through the times. What changes when? Why? And how? How does the state of the Church look at this or that time? How does this connect to European history, Rome, Charlemagne, Black Plague, etc. I want a series from 150 AD up until at least 1500 AD. If you could grasp the entire history up until 1970 or 1870 that would be great. If I am well read in ten years or so, I might attempt this. Maybe someone will do it earlier.
I think you’ll quickly see that history is much like Bible translation in the sense that everyone has their own interpretation of what happened, why, and how.
Dr. Ortlund, you are very generous in the face of absolutely ridiculous slander and misrepresentation. It’s unfortunate that this happens, but it’s the sad reality when dealing with people who follow the doctrines of demons and exalt traditions and religious systems up to the Level of Christ and the Gospel.
I have made this point before, St Epiphanous provides evidence that the assumption was believed early even if it wasn't written, as he wrote “How will holy Mary not possess the kingdom of heaven with her flesh, since she was not unchaste, nor dissolute, nor did she ever commit adultery, and since she never did anything wrong as far as fleshly actions are concerned, but remained stainless?” So, St. Epiphanous not only provides evidence of early belief in Mary's Assumption, but also of early belief in her sinlessness as he seems to assume his audience accepts her sinlessness.
So, from a Protestant perspective, how does one separate the wheat from the chaff regarding these texts? Is it merely comparing it to scripture? It seems that clearly in principle the bodily assumption of Mary cannot be excluded given the several explicit examples in scripture of Enoch and Elijah and perhaps Moses and Christ himself of course. It's also interesting to note that there is a remarkable amount of correlation between these Gnostic texts and most Protestant positions/assumptions, such as the belief that Mary sinned and did not remain a virgin throughout her life, and if you go with some of the more liberal Protestant perspectives that Jesus was in reality the product of a union between Joseph and Mary.
"...merely compared to scripture"? That tells me everything I need to know about your hermeneutic. Also, "cannot be excluded" and must be affirmed as an article of faith are not the same thing. And "remarkable amount of correlation"? Maybe read them before you comment next time.
@@mj6493 Perhaps you should ask yourself what makes you a competent judge of such things? Pride in this area is not appropriate. Utilize humility and spend more time in study and be ready to engage with our actual questions and content when you're ready. Dismissal of things that make you uncomfortable isn't a mark of intelligence or integrity.
Since there are not records of this dogma in the early oral tradition in the church like Epiphanius demostrated it, and the early records of this are from a gnostic document we're justified to say that dogma wasn't in the early church. It's called cumulative evidence.
@@CMartin04 the Catholic Church can account for this situation as the bodily assumption falls under a secondary object of infallibility. The ancient faith is not bound to modern textual criticism or a need for neo-antiquarianism.
@@Silverhailo21 Well, since this dogma was established infallibly, when we prove It's wrong we're proving that Church's infallibility It's also false, therefore, you cannot trust in the catholic church.
➨THE QUEENSHIP AND ASSUMPTION OF MARY IN THE BIBLE: ● REV 12:1 A great sign appeared in the heavens, a woman clothed with thge sun, themoon under her feet and on her head a CROWN (signifying a Queen) of 12 stars. REV 12 tells us the wiman who aooears in the heavens is the woman who gives birth to the male child who will rule the nations. (Mary) ➨HONOURING MARY: ● LUKE 1:48: All generations will call Mary Blessed. We4 catholics call her blessed and treat her accordingly. ➨ MARY'S STATE OF PURITY ● LUKE 1:24-48 The Angel Gabriel greeted Mary with: "Hail, full of grace (grace is the state of purity that God gives to human beings by which they are saved) the Lord is with thee"
God bless you Dr. Ortlund, I have a question is this doctrine of Mary as the RC has defined be part of the partem partem view or would it fall under what Cardinal Newman said that there were little hints here and there like an acorn which later grew into a tree.
It is important also to note that not only Protestant scholars have been critical of the dogma but also Catholics such as Hans Küng. I’m sure there are others but this is not my area of expertise.
What is your view of the writings of Dionysius the Areopogite, a convert and follower of Paul for about three years and eventual Bishop of Athens? He wrote of being in Jerusalem, meeting Mary, and witnessing her repose and Assumption around 57 AD. He is mentioned in the Book of Acts, 17:34.
I didn't know that people thought Mary was sinless or immaculately conceived until studying Catholicism. What's the issue? Lol, how would that be insulting?
Rylands Papyrus 470 and it’s date indicates Mary has the title Θεοτόκος prior to the 5th century. It seemed that you were indicating otherwise around the 25 min mark. I may have misunderstood.
@@bersules8 originally I thought it a mistake. But then he specifically cites the council of Ephesus. He seems very emphatic regarding Mary gaining the title Θεοτόκος in the fifth century. Is he unfamiliar with the scholarship?
Edgar Lobel dates p470 (sub Tuum praesidium) to the mid 200s if I remember correctly and Dr Mazza argues for mid 300s or thereabouts. Just to throw out fifth century and leave it at that…these poor folks think their getting solid scholarship. Hope it was merely an oversight by Dr Ortlund.
Albrecht was disrespectful to you, for sure. Not that you’d be inclined to agree with him much, but you can watch Reason and Theology’s interview with Bart Ehrman, and see Albrecht’s terse words with Bart at points. They debate about the deuterocanon/apocrypha for what seems to be twenty minutes.
Time line shows falseclaims to create a doctrine. It originates frm gnostics Comes too late in church Not mentioned by jesus Epistles Or in any writing before 130AD None other than God Mesiah Are sin worshiped in revelation . Not mary
Sorry a truth has to be twisted to argue with you Dr Ortlund. But as I watch Albreict, Sam Shamoun and others it amazes me how they can twist anything to fit their Roman Catholic religion!
I just went to Amazon to read the conclusions of Stephen Shoemaker's book, "Mary Early Christian Faith and Devotion" and on page 240 he discusses the idea that the evidence could be interpreted to favor either the Catholic/Orthodox view or a view more similar to Gavin's and he says he sees no need to settle one interpretation over the other, and there is evidence open to both understandings. So while Gavin is using the evidence from Shoemaker to favor the Protestant view, Shoemaker himself says it could be used to favor the Catholic/Orthodox view. So while I appreciate Gavin offering this book as a resource (I'm now going to buy it) I think his Protestant bias might be causing him to overstate or cherry pick parts of the book that favor his bias. I'll get the book to read it for myself rather than relying on the few quotes Gavin provides. I already found places in the book where Shoemaker provides alternative possibilities to the quotes Gavin provides in this video. Based on what I've read so far, the main thrust of Shoemaker's book seems to be to refute the idea that Marian piety was a later invention.
Your question: how do you mix up me and Cameron?
Me: well....you guys are both pretty good looking
Love that he pinned this comment 😂😂
LOL!
@@mikedawson975 I always pin the most important comments, that reflect true insight and may advance ecumenical progress.
@@TruthUnites 😂
@@TruthUnites 😂
Thank you Pastor Gavin for refuting the lie of “being deep in history is to cease being Protestant.” Thank you, for being a living example, that this statement is simply not true.
Agreed. I remember being convinced by Scripture that Rome was wrong and praying to God to understand how history could be consistent with that. About 18 years ago. The Lord answered my prayer over those 18 years. I'm glad that Gavin has been bringing the historical evidence to a broader audience that has never heard that Rome doesn't match history.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 A history dive does convince a lot of people though. It didn't convince me, but I did my best to compare sources. I wonder if many just looking into Catholic and Orthodox sources, which of course will be very biased to their views.
Not a lie.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 I assume ppl are just hearing bad historical claims and falling for them or failing to actually study the history and logic. People fall for fake quotes and out of context citations and lies. And departing from what God has already said in Scripture. Thankfully, the number of ex Romanists that become Bible believing Protestants is about 3 to 1 over the number of apostates. And a major reason that ppl join Rome is getting married to a Roman Catholic (according to studies) which is been historically forbidden by Protestants and criticized by Rome. While converts from Rome to Bible believing Protestants cite their belief in the Bible. I can imagine why people turning away from God can rationalize their actions after the fact.
@@barbhorses yes, it's a lie, since the the unique beliefs and practices of Rome were not taught or practiced by the Lord Jesus and His Apostles or the earliest churches, but according to all the historical evidence Rome's new beliefs and practices developed slowly long after the Apostles had finished their teaching, sometimes hundreds of years later. Innovations in beliefs and practices that are still ongoing even today. One has to intentionally ignore the historical evidence or try to explain it away to think otherwise.
Dr. Gavin Ortlund you are a top notch scholar and pastor, be encouraged and don't get frustrated by those that attack. You are very careful, knowledgeable and charitable. This kind of approach and attention to detail should be encouraged across the board.
Thank you Gavin so much for your work. I grew up Evangelical and have recently been studying more deeply into the roots of Protestantism and Catholicism because, as you mentioned in another video, Evangelicals tend to be lacking in their knowledge of their roots and philosophy. Your videos help explain the essential elements to very complex topics and have definitely helped me understand these issues. Stay strong in the faith. The larger your channel grows, the more opposition you’ll face. There will always be people like me who will support you.
Thanks Erik.
You don’t need Catholicism to be saved
Most Protestants are fine without ever interacting with Catholicism
@@TruthUnites
The only thing that's gnostic is your protestantism,
gav something tells when william releases his rebuttal in a few days, your going to go quiet with embarrassment, you will go quiet with your tail between your legs..
Alot of us are going to be laughing
@@duckymomo7935 we don't need Protestantism to be saved! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287see you in heaven. The freedom of being protestant.
Dr. Ortlund,
As a Roman Catholic, I 100% agree with you that the way Albrecht responded to your pointing out his (I’ll assume, unintentional) misrepresentation of you, was just completely uncalled for. All he had to do was acknowledge, apologize, and remedy the situation. Instead, he seems to have gone on the attack.
-Sean
You will find that this sort of misrepresentation happens all to frequently with certain popular catholic youtubers.
I appreciate the good faith nature of your comment here, and it demonstrates a genuine desire for truth, which unfortunately is becoming less and less common these days.
To that end, I would challenge you to consider whether or not, through the discourse of this debate, it has been reasonably demonstrated that the Assumption of Mary is an unbiblical teaching, possibly with roots of deception. If so, then it must follow that the entire claim of church infallibility must also be dismissed as false. I challenge you to consider if what the RCC has done in its historical claims of infallibility, and the history of its response to any attempt to steer it back towards the truth, most closely resembles the very same form of pride which brought the Jews to reject Jesus? To turn their backs to God, in favor of the "glorious" traditions of man. Because if that's true that means that you have followed them, unwittingly, into their descent into darkness that is the separation from truth, and perhaps by doing so inherited some of their pride.
If you were to come upon that realization today, what would you do? Or perhaps a better question is, what would you lose...and are you willing to lose it?
Separation from family, loss of tradition, division from community, a personal crisis of faith? Now, to discard these things on any trivial basis would be a tragedy, if it is true that any of them are at odds with the truth in Christ however. Well then, the only tragedy would be the heart's unwillingness to discard them.
Once you see the nature of pride that is rooted at the heart of the so-called "infallible" churches. Then you know that not only are they not at all infallible, but they are also tragically deceived by their own pride. I think we both know where that comes from.
I pray that the Lord will bless you with the discernment to parse all that which is rooted in pride upon the traditions of man, from the truth in Christ. That He will make the truth desiring nature of your heart into an instrument of His will, so that you may lead others out of their inherited pride, and into the Light of Truth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen
Gavin is his own authority, so he's never wrong.
@@fantasia55gavin gives great evidence for what he believes in. Jesus never said pope is infallible and that pope tell people what to believe in. Recently pope said heresy that all religions take you to God which is a lie. Don't believe fallible men. Believe the Word of God.
Albrecht is the fourth popular Catholic apologist I’ve seen badly misrepresent your arguments. Your responses are always gracious. Keep up the fantastic work you do for the gospel!
@patriceagulu8315LOL. God heals your heart from the bitterness
@patriceagulu8315 LOL. This is hilarious. Can you show me a video he demonized you and called you a pagan? I guess you're a Roman Catholic, why does your church demonize and anathematize fellow body of Christ??
@patriceagulu8315 You still couldn't show where he called you pagan??🥱
@patriceagulu8315 He said the Marian doctrine had a root in paganism and he quoted the scholarship, was that a lie?? Man you're funny. Refute his position. Show us early church that believes the assumption
@@raphaelfeneje486they can’t, it’s just an assumption.
A protestant comes to the topic of the Marian Dogmas with a question: Are they true? Then looks at all evidence or lack there of to determine the veracity of the dogmas.
A catholic comes to the topic with a statement: The Marian Dogmas are true. They then sift through the evidence to affirm the statement. All counter evidence need not be considered since it goes against the infallible affirmations.
Now which technique is better for discovering truth?
The first one is better and it will lead you at best to deism.
@@cunjozhow?
@@cunjoznope. The Protestant and the Catholic both still presuppose an inherent need for Christian classical metaphysics and epistemology and special revelations role. Your statement presupposes the deist denial of the capability of faith and reason. This is a category error. The question is, did theotokos mean what later Roman accretions claim?
@@cunjoz I'm still waiting for your reply why evidences leads to deism?? Y'all Roman Catholics are funny. So you mean you just believe things because you were told ?? This is dangerous
@@Parks179-hnope it did. It first meant “God-Bearer.” Still means that, but it was changed. God-Bearer points to and glorifies Christ by showing His humanity. Had nothing at all to do with glorifying Mary.
Every time I visit Albrecht's channel, I'm reminded of why I don't visit Albrecht's channel.
Yes LOL.....Sometimes he is so ignorant😅
I get the sense that he (and other Catholics at times) are defensive because they have to be. The church has officially made this a dogma in order to be a Catholic. The fact that it is late 5th century pokes holes in their dogma. In other words because Rome declared this a dogma they have to defend it , even if you have to play mental gymnastics to do so.
@@jburd2094 *Romanist or Papist. They do not and should not get to be called "Catholic"; at least not exclusively.
Great video as always Gavin.
Thanks Tony!
I hope you have managed to find time to watch Gavin's video on climate change Tony. GBU
How do they not realize that the only way Peter was 1st pope is posthumously! He sure didn't think he was pope.
Pope is a word, meaning ‘spiritual father’ he did think that during his lifetime. The word doesn’t matter it’s the position Jesus gave him off the bat.
Thank you so much for this Gavin! I shared your video in a Christian groupchat and was really disheartened that my Catholic friends attitude towards it was “we will just wait for Trent Horn to refute him.” One legitimately said that whatever Trent said he would believe and accused me (and Protestantism more generally) of picking and choosing, which was certainly hurtful. Please pray that they will have their minds and hearts opened to other points of view!
Thanks Ryan. Talking across our ecclesial divides is so difficult. I pray the Lord gives you grace in those conversations. Thanks for the encouraging feedback.
This is one of the things that weirds me out about Catholics. They see having a single authority as such a plus and flout their uncritical acceptance of whoever they consider to be an authority
In my experience, most people will defend their beliefs even when refuted. Why? Pride? Fear? If someone has been brought up being told they are in the one true religion, by people they love and trust, is it scary to discover you have been lied to by them? Does your world collapse?
This is not just Catholics, also Muslims, and Protestants...and others.
If I heard Catholic give good, convincing arguments, I would convert. I even considered Islam, but that took less than an hour to debunk!
I'm late life RCC convert but I thought Trent's rebuttal was a bit weak. I'm learning more from Gavin than any other Christian thinker these days. If all Protestants were like Gavin I might reconsider, but having come as a child from a Baptist Church that split over tongues, I can't get past the need for authority and the fact that Protestant veins are all over the map. Is there ANY benchmark of Christian truth? Scripture yes, but there's so much fighting over how to interpret scripture that I see a real need for authority. I'm open minded about this so maybe Gavin will address this at some point. Anyway I'm definitely going to continue to listen Gavin.
@@dennischanay7781 praise God. Comments like yours restore my hope that there are some genuine, open minded truth seekers.
And makes me realise more the value of Gavin and his channel. You know he is writing a book on protestantism too?
I haven't watched this video yet, but just wanted to say how much I have appreciated your ministry. It has been a great help in studying church history and the Roman Catholic claims. I'm currently studying Theology in Durham, United Kingdom and your videos have been a great help for me discovering what humble protestants believe about Church history and why they disagree with Roman Catholics, so thank you so much, may God bless you and your family 🙏🏻
thanks so much for mentioning! The Lord bless you in your studies.
A beautiful city. I am Durham alumnus. Not theology though
@@TruthUnites William Albrecht made yet ANOTHER video responding to this one. I haven’t watched it all the way through. But now he is rebuking your claim of citing a Mormon Web site. I don’t know how that is relevant. He also claims to have contacted some of the “top Mariologists” who state (allegedly) some of the things you cited from them are inaccurate. (Notice I stressed the word “allegedly”.) And he is now focused on the Vienna Document, which he swears up and down that not only is it undeniably dated to the second century (“most likely” from the first), but that it teaches the bodily Assumption of Mary from a non Gnostic second century source - the Apocalypse of Mary. This is his “silver bullet.” The problem is the article from 2011 that talks about the Vienna Document, it doesn’t actually state or even imply that Mary was bodily Assumed to Heaven. All it states is that Mary was at the end of her life, surrounded by the apostles and Jesus with angels…and that’s it. The author of the article also states that he does not agree Foester that the Vienna Document necessarily comes from the same source as the Apocalypse of Mary from the second century. When William is confronted with this, instead of addressing it, he deflects and just engages in insults and ad hominem attacks, which seems to be his MO.
BTW, congratulations to you and your wife on the birth of your daughter Abigail. When my mother was a Catholic when she was a little girl, her Confirmation name was Abigail. She and I are now Protestant, by the grace of God. Praise Jesus!
It seems William is beating a dead horse, and is unable to concede that the evidence for his argumentation is lacking.
@@BornAgainRN thank you Steve. I haven’t watched his video but somebody mentioned the Mormon website thing. I have no idea what website they were talking about, and I was actually citing his books. One of the strange things about William if he simply lies about my sources without any grounding for doing so. It’s quite strange. Anyway, good assessment here, I appreciate hearing your thoughts. And cool to hear that about your mother! God bless.
@@TruthUnites thanks, and I don’t know if you’re aware, but I made my own video refuting William Albrecht on his previous attempt to rebut your other video on the Assumption. It is on my RUclips channel if you want to check it out. It isn’t that long.
From what I watched on William’s new video, there isn’t much difference, other than the Mormon comment. And he didn’t mention the Vienna Document that doesn’t even say anything about an Assumption. It must be terrifying to be threatened with an anathema for denying a dogma that you can’t find evidence for in the infant church, so he has to read “Assumption” into the texts, and rely on Mariologists who are threatened with the same anathema.
God bless you and your family too! 👍
Great stuff as always. Very frustrating to see William’s (hopefully accidental) misrepresentations, but still encouraging to see how calm and gracious your response is to that behaviour.
Sadly, William does seem to misrepresent others too, to put it charitably. For nearly a year, he and Anthony Rogers were to have a debate but it keeps being delayed, and unfortunately William has claimed this is the fault of Anthony. On the contrary, Anthony has been ready and waiting and will even clear his schedule for the debate to go ahead. So far, still nothing.
Very well done, Dr. Ortlund. And, congratulations on the birth of your daughter. God's richest blessings and healing for your wife.
Thank you friend.
@@TruthUnites Yes congrats on another addition to your family...my wife and I just got blessed with our first 2 months ago...Life totally changes when becoming a dad! Such a blessing from God!
@@Adam-ue2ig congrats! Hope you are getting enough sleep!
@@TruthUnites 😆
@@TruthUnites thanks Brother!
Thank you for your careful, detailed, and properly referenced presentations.
Thank you for your close attention to detail! May God bless your ministry!
Thank you for your hard work Gavin,
Hope your new little one is doing well.
I'm very thankful for your ministry. God Bless
Boom! This video does help bring clarity back to the Church, especially that concerning Mary, the mother of our Lord. God bless you, Dr. Ortlund!
Thanks again for your labor and heart! You’re the right voice at the right time.
Thank you for the clarity Gavin. Beautifully done.
thanks for bringing clarity to this confusing topic! 💎
I noticed the Wikipedia page weirdness as well! I saw it talking about the Book of Mary’s repose as evidence to early dating and thought it was so funny 😂
Great response, Gavin 👍. We appreciate the time you invest in such videos and do know that your approach undoubtedly benefits both sides (regardless if our catholic friends see it that way or not).
I appreciate this channel. Thanks Gavin. Lots of good gnowledge here. Little g, of course
O Lord my God, i thank u for the life of Gavin. Give me the grace to have his humility n love for the truth rather than struggle to be right. May God increase him a thousand times so many more IJN
Glad you decided to give William's video a second chance, Dr. Ortlund. My apologies on behalf of the RCC for his misrepresentation of you and failure to apologize for doing so.
@@jpc9923 Look for his response to Gavin's comment. It was a rather back-handed non-apology. I like William a lot, but he could have handled this better.
William always misrepresents people. That's his hobby. Wonder what you find interesting about him. Anyways, different strokes for different folks
William is much more of a bulldog than willing to be open to arguments and honest dialogue. I remember watching your group discussion with the three catholics and how much he was squirming to respond to you.
I have the same problem... I can't help but get into it emotionally and get charged up. Thanks for showing us a better way, Gavin.
@@bersules8 Seems like that is how Jesus treated his mockers.
Another balanced evidenced, irenic video. Thank you
Thank you, Gavin. Your videos are always so beneficial to me. This is a very important and controversial topic and I appreciate you tackling it with grace. By the way, last Sunday my Pastor spoke on saying yes to God and Mary was the one he spoke of as exemplary of a yes to God and all that it entailed for her, including the suffering she experienced in seeing her Son crucified. There’s much we can learn from her example but I really appreciate you shedding light on when the teaching of the assumption of Mary actually appeared within the church. I’m sure this is helping a lot of people like me who felt a need for clarity on this.
I am glad that Mr.ortlund is on our side.😃
Great work Dr. Ortlund. You’re doing a much needed service to the church.
It is because the evidence is overwhelmingly against the bodily assumption of St. Mary that they are so willing to misstate or ignore what is said. There is no argument they can raise for them to argue against that. Worse yet, for our Roman brothers and sisters, to admit the assumption comes from gnostic sources outside the orthodox faith, would destroy Papal Infallibility. While Rome often argues that it’s Bishop has only used ex cathedra twice, one of those two time is directly about the bodily assumption of St. Mary. (The other is about the Immaculate Conception of St. Mary.) And if Papal Infallibility is proven false, one of the three legs of the Roman church disappears and their church collapses.
Your parishioners are blessed by your ministry
As an Orthodox, I really appreciate the way you are presenting your views.
Great video Gavin
I am an Anglican Catholic priest. I find your analysis to be compelling, balanced, and thorough. As I considered this issue, I realized that upon making this belief a dogma with an anathema attached, Rome can no longer say with Paul, "I was determined to know nothing among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." Nor with Peter (their first pope!), "there is none other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
If it’s the anathema that bugs you, don’t worry it’s only excommunication, Protestants have done that willingly through their founders who left the catholic church on their own accord. As a catholic I would rather be excommunicated and given the kick to repent than blindly go my own way through misunderstanding as I know I can read the bible incorrectly without the church to guide me. A person can still be in Christ if excommunicated only god knows.
I wish that one day I may have the same patience and charity towards my critics that Dr. Ortlund has.
Knowing who you are in the Lord Jesus Christ helps. It is not Gavin with whom William has a problem, it is himself and his relationship with Jesus.
@@ProfYaffle I think we all get a bit defensive when our cherished beliefs get challenged. The question of whether the Marian dogmas are of apostolic or gnostic origin can end up determining whether you are Catholic / Orthodox or Protestant.
@@he7230
Do you think Mary is the main dividing doctrine?
I find the need for the priesthood(including Pope) to be problematic, since I have a great High Priest. I wouldn't have someone come between us. That's why the veil was torn.
Also, the idea that there is anything I can do to add to my salvation; the implication that Jesus did not do enough when he died on the cross. I would find it difficult to reject that. My good works are because I love Jesus, His Spirit lives in me, and by His grace. If my children did things for me out of duty and because of what they gain, that would make me sad. I find the faith plus works doctrine a huge problem. It takes away freedom and puts emphasis on us and what we do, not what He did.
@Bb Dl I have tried to understand what you believe so as not to misrepresent you. Apologies if I misunderstood.
I think we both believe that faith without works is dead. If we love Him, we will do this works. If we don't, that is clear evidence (justification) we don't love Him.
Why is it not possible for Him to both be "Abba Father" and require holiness. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.
If we sin (and I don't know who defines grave) we cut ourselves us from God. If we then repent genuinely He forgives us. That doesn't mean we sin cos we know he will forgive us! He does know if we are talking the mickey. The Holy Spirit, if we let him, changes us so we don't want to sin and don't want to grieve Him. That's love and relationship. We don't do good works out of duty. But out of love.
For some struggles we have, e.g.psychological problems like maybe we eat more than we need to, showing greed, it can be an ongoing process to get free from.
I think you may have misunderstood what protestants believe. Hope that helps
@@ProfYaffle I think for me the Marian dogmas and prayers to the saints are the biggest difference between Protestants and Catholics /Orthodox. I think the differences regarding justification can be resolved eventually.
I find it curious that Rome makes this a Dogma of the Faith yet there is no reference to Mary's Assumption in the early creeds, which they admit are the standard of the Faith. Btw, I had the popcorn ready for another back and forth with Trent but I guess that'll have to wait
@@bersules8 John Calvin affirmed real presence (pneumatic).
@truth unites I saw some funky stuff going on with William Albrecht. I'd like to advise you to document ALL communications you have with and about William Albrecht. He likes to call people liars.
I agree....level of his ignorance is unbelievable🙄
Really looking forward to that book you're writing Gavin! Good work as always 😀
Excellent job Gavin. Thank you for providing clarity on this subject. I know that if this were meant to be done in the church it would have been mentioned in the New Testament and taught and it was clearly not! Mary is not a divine person and we should not be praying to her! She is blessed among women but she cannot contribute To our salvation now. She was uniquely blessed to be part of the Incarnation. The scripture teaches that Christ is our intercessor and the Holy Spirit. Never any human being!
Thank you Dr! Great video 📹 👍
I'm an Anglican & I do believe in The dormition & bodily ascension of Mary. However 🤔 as article 18 holds: "Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ:
They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved." Cranmer.
No matter how beautiful or even true the idea of Marian Assumption might be, it isn't a requisite of salvation. I think 🤔 the Apostles made it very clear. The 66 Scriptures talk, not only through what is written, but through what's been left out.
If a person is made anaethema it doesn’t cut them off from Christ’s salvation it is a kick in the spiritual butt to think about and get reconciled to correct teaching. The various Protestant founders excommunicated themselves the church still thinks of them as brethren just separated (from communion with Rome) ones.
Dr Ortlund, I know you won’t really appreciate this comment as you attempt to be as charitable as possible, I do too, but I find Mr Albecht to be quite biased on many of these issues.
Good Stuff Dr. Ortlund
Thank you Dr. Ortlund! I was so annoyed with the manipulations put forth by Albrecht. Good you responded to it 😊
Stay strong. You do great work.
Great video
I’d hate to be a Catholic who in some sense “needs” to grasp at straws like these to defend their beliefs. I’m so thankful to not have to ground my doctrinal beliefs on gnostic fantasies.
One thing I am sure about is that the bigger your channel becomes (nearly 15k) the more backlash you will get. Sadly there will be people who are interested in defending their briefs irrespective of valid counterarguments. They will swear black is white.
I pray you have wisdom to know who to respond to, how to respond, and who to laugh off.
@Prof Yaffle. In a very nice way, your nickname (ie Prof Yaffle) is driving me crazy with curiosity. So, so hoping it comes from the much beloved 'Bagpuss' show.
@@andrewwoods456 yes. Can you see my thumbnail?
You are only the 2nd person to recognise this, it probably says something about your age and nationality 🙂
@@ProfYaffle Yes it does on both counts LOL!
Him mixing you and Cameron up is SHOCKING!😂 Gavin I really commend your patience and charity, it is quite possible that I would not have reacted the same way 😂
@@jpc9923 William apologised then claimed that Dr Ortlund misrepresented Shoemaker, which ironically is exactly what Mr Albrecht did 😂
When someone constantly makes accusations and is almost always wrong, you need to stop listening.
@@jpc9923 I don't think the conduct is comparable. Dr Ortlund only said he won't continue watching after William was like "Oh yes, I made one mistake but you made many more so it really doesn't matter"
This is not an issue that should divide. William was wrong. That's it. Whether you are a member of Rome or not you must accept that William was particularly wrong here.
Have a blessed day as well!
Honestly I am just unsurprised at William Albrecht’s misrepresentation and rhetoric. He is known for overstating his case in such a “Chad Catholic” kind of way. It gets old. And for people like you (and less so, me) who have actually looked into church history, it’s frustrating beyond belief to keep hearing “well all of the fathers said X” or “we believe exactly what the apostolic church did” neither of those things are true and it gets old really fast.
Great job on this topic Dr. Ortlund, as long as Catholicism holds onto this dogma (and really most of the Marian dogmas) I can’t see any real path fro Catholicism for me
William is actually a Gigachad who can bench 400+ for reps.
Probably the worst was the video on Sam Shamoun's channel where William tried to use Gregory the Wonder Worker's homilies as 2nd century support for the Marian dogmas, I was intrigued, but of course as soon as I looked up the quotes in Phillip Schaff I find all these came from homilies in the "doubtful or spurious" section....
Well said Jacob
The earliest attestation is rev 12 Mr. Ortlund.
Interesting how much the "methodology" apologists for extra-biblical doctrines and beliefs use sounds a lot like Muslim apologists.
Many thanks Gavin
Muito bom. Tudo explicado.
Hey Gavin, don’t let theses guys get to you, while most RUclips apologists I take with a grain of salt I trust you to accurately and maturely represent both sides
Gavin is a gift to be honest!!
I'd be interested to hear Mr. Ortlands opinion of section 79 of the Panarion of Epiphanius, and why he did not include it in his explanation ?
"Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, she is like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up, but has not seen death"
I find the Catholic position on certain topics and from certain people to be very interesting. Trent Horn has always been a fave, but Ive grown to see Hahn and Staples as good representatives. When I listen to William, not so much, I think he is a deceptive person and do not find him to be a credible debater. His tactics avoiding Anthony Rogers in debate is embarrassing.
I do think you give honest and credible discussions yourself Gavin, keep up the good work.
@Thoska Brah I was so looking forward to it... it only confirmed my initial feelings about him after Michael Brown's debate
I’ve seen many claims about dogmas like this in early history and it just seems to be just cherry picking quotes and arguments from silence.
They also don’t bet on many people reading the sources that are claimed which usually reveal how the quotes are cherry picked
William has time for this but he won’t debate Mr.Anthony?!?🙃
Your work is very valuable to me, thank you. I have encountered many claims of "always been true" of this or that regarding RC doctrines. Is there any connection between the Sibylline Oracles to the rise and growth of the Marian doctrines? Wiki has some early church notables at least knowing of them. I know it hard to know for certain, but I was just wondering. The Sibylline Oracles (Different from the Roman Sibylline Books) it was said, were used by some Jews and some Christians to "influence" the Romans, and I suspect it had a backfire effect in some ways on the Church years later.
This was so powerful because of the clear historical evidence and the truth it represents which you presented so well. I have heard other people's negative comment's regarding Albrechts lack of honesty and I know for certain that he is dodging Anthony Rogers.
The more I see his tactics the less likely I'm inclined to believe his excuses
Yes, Albrecht's misinterpretation is deliberate. It is like dealing with a cultist.
Hey Dr. Ortlund, really appreciated this video and how loving and just graceful you were throughout it.
I wasn't necessarily sure if you'd see this if I commented this on the original video, but in your post critiquing the papacy from the 3rd-7th centuries you made a comment which inferred that Leo accepted Canon 28 of Chalcedon and he actually never did; at least all the evidence I could find seems pretty clear that he rejected it. I was curious if you had misspoken or possibly had evidence that would challenge the idea of Leo rejecting Canon 28. Hopefully, I don't sound rude! I was having a conversation and I had asserted that Leo accepted it and I got annihilated 🤣. Although I did end up finding an explanation from some Orthodox friends regarding it!
But anyways, I love your videos and have found them very edifying! May God bless you, and congratulations on the new baby! Really shows your dedication to spreading the Gospel and love of God, by constantly putting out content while having a tight schedule!
thanks, so glad the video was helpful! Its vague in my memory but I'm pretty sure I mispoke about Leo ... sorry to set you up for annihilation!!
This video should be required for anyone who grew up Roman Catholic or is thinking about joining. The history is devastating to the folk history people grow up with.
Sooooo William has time to make rebuttal videos but can't debate Anthony Rogers 😂 it's like the Roman Magisterium they have the time and ability to dogmatically declare Mary's assumption as de fide but don't have time to infallibly interpret more than 7 passages of the Bible, yeah talk about like mother like son.
I want to learn the truth about Catholic vs Protestantism debate and a good way to do that is to listen to debates and hearing people's best arguments.
William's failure to turn up says a lot for his best argument. I'm sticking with protestantism for now
@Thoska Brah the battle is not against flesh and blood but against powers and principalities. The prince of the earth is rampant, using whatever vices he can. The more I see of unloving, ungracious illogical arguments between people with faith, the more I realise how he works. Thank Gid for people like Gavin. We must keep him in our prayers
Also, they do not exercise confession, as, instead of exposing child abuse scandals and inquisition, they do not apologize about them and try to hide them!
As a catholic interested in gaining more of an appreciation for protestant scholarship(for ecumenical reasons), Is there any sort of Church History books written from a protestant perspective you would recommend starting with?
Anything by JND Kelly, Justo Gonzales has a good overview in his work The Story of Christianity, and Michael Holmes Apostolic Fathers. These are all a good place to start
Yes james white 😂
@@dolphjan6267
I didn't know that he published books
@@dolphjan6267 Hopefully joking…
Anything by JND Kelly or Phillip Schaff.
When I was a Roman Catholic I struggled with this dogma- thank you for helping me understand the truth- what do you think about Marian apparitions?
Why did you leave the Church?
Several reasons- dogmas that I just couldn’t believe and my husband is Protestant- best for us to be united in faith
@@dreamweaver3406 Was one of those dogmas the Eucharist?
@@michaelharrington6698 I believe Jesus is present in the Eucharist but more in a mysterious and spiritual way
My 20c worth - just because an apparition looks like Mary, doesn't mean it is. There are such thing as deceiving spirits.
I was really disappointed with how Trent Horn handled his rebuttal of your original video, especially considering both his attempt to use Shoemaker to prove an early origin while excluding the 'gnostic origination hypothesis' (I'm going with this to be charitable). What bothered me most was his claim that you were arguing like an atheist. His attack might be taken as one against method, but it really is ad hominem. It's gross and... honestly shocking considering that he read the same books.
I deeply, deeply appreciate this channel and its balanced approach. I'm glad to see how this channel has grown with time. While I won't always be able to catch up with the scholarship or sources, I'm just so glad that this is available. It makes these complex topics digestible without being so reductive as to fall in to clear errors.
I am increasingly disappointed with Trent Horn and he is one of the better Catholic apologists. I even read his book Case for Catholicism.
How is it an ad hominem to claim he's being selectively skeptical? How is the case about gnostic origin conclusive when the doctrine as it has been defined has nothing gnostic about it?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj It's not fair to say Gavin is being selectively skeptical, quote the possibility for an older date in Shoemaker, and then not explain that this older date is part of the gnostic hypothesis. Implying that Gavin is selective is implying something about his character and that you should not trust his arguments because he leaves out scholarship deliberately (even though Gavin is citing well known conservative scholars!). Gavin is clearly a careful scholar. If something is left out, it's left out deliberately. The inference is not difficult to make.
I never said the case for gnostic origins is conclusive. However, saying the doctrine today has no gnostic influence today is to beg the question. You have read something into my words that I didn't say.
@@TheEpicProOfMinecraf
How is it begging the question?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj If it has a gnostic origin as a gnostic doctrine, then it's current definition is, necessarily, gnostic.
"What is crooked cannot be made straight." Ecclesiastes
Ultimately, I don't have a dog in this factual fight as my view is informed from my reading Matthew Levering's book years ago (which you admirably summed up in your video with Cameron). I generally agree that the earliest texts we have are from a gnostic milieu. I just thought you should have balanced the Shoemaker quotes with this one which was also from one of his "summative" conclusion sections on page 278 of his 2004 book:
The indication of the earliest narratives is that they were
in contact with some sort of gnostic Christianity early in their
development. Nevertheless, it is not at all certain that the traditions
originated in such a milieu: it may be that they merely
passed through such a context at some point in their now
unknown prehistory.
Thanks for this video. I was a catholic that turned new ager for a little while until I saw these words during one of my deep meditations, “the deception of the gnostics”. I didn’t know what that meant but I started searching and found out that gnostics were people (many identify as christians) who believe so many heretical stuff about Jesus, including things that the New Age believes and teaches. It really opened my eyes to what I was believing and practicing in the New Age. I repented and turned my life to Christ. That was five years ago. I have read all of those gnostic gospels that are so heretical. I was a devout of the mother of Jesus until I was born again. Praise God that he opened my eyes. I have many RC family members that need to be saved as well.
I am not a Calvinist nor Catholic but I am thankful for your videos!
Glad to be connected! Thanks for sharing your story.
Yes, it is. I studied it too.
In the 2 thousand year history of the Catholic and Orthodox Church, and their penchant in getting the remains of their leaders/saints, it is quite surprising that they did not have in their altars/churches the 2 bodies of the most important persons of their churches: Jesus and Mary.
I’m not completely sure where I stand on this issue, but Albrecht, ever since the first time I watched, rubbed me the wrong way.
I was thinking maybe he’s from a different kind of culture where that’s just part of how you argue. I remember watching a piece from Premiere Christianity on how Muslims argue in a certain, well-known town square in the UK. There’s a lot of yelling and the crowd applauds. The Christian (I can’t remember who it was, but he’s like THE guy evangelicals go to for Muslim stuff) was trying to explain how the more impressive you are and powerful, in addition to your arguments, it plays a key role in the match.
So maybe Albrecht is from somewhere else? Wasn’t he Eastern Orthodox? Idk, just trying to think of some way to explain his behavior. Anytime I listen to him I have to put it on double speed to get through the very dramatic and over-the-top language.
I freaking love this guy. He just BODIED that man that lied every turn. Tried to be deceptive. Props to you Mr. Ortlund for not getting walked on and letting it fly all the time. Gotta stand up for yourself
Thanks Gavin for the video.
I always enjoy watching your videos.
Though they don't make my life really easy.
Currently I'm semi-Catholic (I've yet to be formed), and I do my best to look into these matters.
But I simply don't have the time to extensively go through all the data.
I mean, it's an incredible amount of reading.
And even if I could read all the early historical documents, then I'd still be bound to miss so many things.
I'm in this constant anxiety om asking myself am I right to do this?
Am I wrong to do this?
Then I find scholarship like yours, or others, and it's great scholarship.
A lot of arguments that make sense.
But the problem is, I find these arguments on all sides of the equation, there seems to be no way for me to resolve this.
I can see the concern for the Marian dogmas, and I do excessive devotion difficult,
but then again, I also see a lot in typology.
And if I'd make a scale between Catholicism or Protestantism (I'm purposely leaving out the other groups for now as this is hard enough as it is),
the scale does tip the most towards Catholicism.
When I read Ignatius for example concerning Bishops and their authority, the Eucharist (I truly believe it IS Jesus' body and blood), confessing sins (I discovered the power of this while still Protestant), some of the Marian typology makes a very great deal of sense (though admittedly I'm having a hard time with the assumption), and I do love the communion of saints.
Most things I read from the early church fathers, or epistles, I just see more Catholicism than Protestantism.
But still..., there's this big tug o' war going on in my head, which I can't resolve.
No matter which direction I look, I see things I'm troubled with, leaving me an agnostic Christian.
In this state of agnosticism I'm inclined towards being Catholic, though at my current state I can't genuinely be formed.
I'll try to keep you in my prayers, I understand your concern with William.
I think you are being very reasonable in the things you are saying, and I don't think you are trying to throw dirt at him.
I'll pray for William as well!
Looking forward to your upcoming back and forth's with Trent.
God bless!
Why accept all these doctrines that are doubtful and later developed (not apostolic). If anything the evidence vastly ways against Catholicism by my analysis.
The fractionation in Rome favored a collegial presbyterial system of governance and prevented for a long time, until the second half of the second century, the development of a monarchical episcopacy in the city. Victor (c. 189-99) was the first who, after faint-hearted attempts by Eleutherus (c. 175-89), Soter (c. 166-75), and Anicetus (c. 155-66), energetically stepped forward as monarchical bishop and (at times, only because he was incited from the outside) attempted to place the different groups in the city under his supervision or, where that was not possible, to draw a line by means of excommunication. Before the second half of the second century there was in Rome no monarchical episcopacy for the circles mutually bound in fellowship. Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, trans. Michael Steinhauser (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003) p. 397.
most Roman Catholics are not aware of the historical research done by Roman Catholic Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick regarding the early church’s view of Matthew 16:18. Archbishop Peter Kenrick prepared a paper on this subject, which was to be delivered to Vatican I (1870). However, it was never delivered, but it was published later, along with other insights.[5]
He points out the 5 interpretations of Matt. 16:18, to which Fathers of antiquity held:
All Christians were the living stones, held by very few Fathers-. Origen who is a common source of patristic exegetical tradition: states “‘If we also say “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” then we also become Peter . . . for whoever assimilates to Christ, becomes rock. Does Christ give the keys of the kingdom to Peter alone, whereas other blessed people cannot receive them?’” (Origen, Commentary on Matthew).
All the apostles, 8 Fathers (Cyprian et al).
Christ as the Rock, 16 Fathers (Eusebius, early Augustine). Eusebius of Caesarea (D. 263-339), in his view (“rock” as Christ), He links this interpretation with the parallel rock and foundation statements of 1 Corinthians 3:11 and 10:4.
Peter as the Rock, 17 Fathers.
The Rock upon which the Church was built was the Faith that Peter confessed, 44 Fathers, including the most important Fathers (e.g., Basil of Seleucia [448]; Cyril of Alexandria; Chrysostom, Ambrose, Hilary,[6] Jerome, and Augustine again. Note, that Augustine (later in life) Augustine stated:
Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (Retractations).[7]
Thus, only 20% of the Fathers held to Rome’s now canonized “infallible” “Petrine Rock” interpretation of Matthew 16:18. That is far from being the norm of the early church. Kendrick concluded: “If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that the “rock” should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.”[8]
As Roman Catholic apologist, H. Burn-Murdock actually admitted: “None of the writings of the first two centuries describe St. Peter as a bishop of Rome.”[9] In fact, no one before Callistus (c. A.D. 218-223) used Matthew 16:18 to support the primacy of the Roman bishop (i.e., “Pope”
[5] Cf. An Inside View at Vatican I, ed. Leonard Woolsey Bacon (New York: American Tract Society, 1871).
[6] Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity (Book II): “Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter’s mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God” (On the Trinity).
[7] Augustine wrote The Retractations late in his life to correct points expressed in his own writings. Here, Augustine corrects his earlier opinion that Peter was the rock of Matthew 16:18. According to Augustine the rock is Christ or Peter’s confession which pointed to the person of Christ
[8] Speech of Archbishop Kenrick, 109, An inside view of the vatican council, edited by Leonard Woolsey Bacon.
[9] H. Burn-Murdock, The Development of the Papacy (1954), 130f.
Thank you for sharing where you are at. I think a lot of people are having a similar experience and it is very understandable. The issues are certainly complicated. I will say a prayer for you after typing this out for the Lord to guide you and give you peace and clarity and lead you to the truth. God bless you.
Thank you for your humility and patience! As an ex-Roman Catholic (but an ongoing part of the lower case "c" catholic church), the major show stopper for me returning to the RC church is the Mary dogma. I have respect for our Lord's mother (and the other saints recognized by the church) but don't see where any Apostle (or Jesus Himself) said that we were to go to any other intermediary. Our great High Priest doesn't need His mother's help or intervention in performing His duties, and I can't help but feel like we lessen our already inadequate understanding of the Infinite Triune God by adding other people into the equation.
I look forward to your next installment.
The issue isn't whether he _needs_ help because we can all say he doesn't, the issue is whether it is a true fact that he got it and he did. To deny this involves accepting a slew of christological heresies at one juncture or another.
The origin of the observance of the celebration of the Epiphany is to be found in the activities of Gnosticism. Its fundamental principle is the idea that individual salvation comes through knowledge, gnosis, rather than through faith or works.
The 6th of January was designated as the feast day of Epiphany because on that day was the birthday of Aeon, the patron god of Alexandria. The Gnostics had designated Christ as one of the Aeons in their elaborate system.
In opposition to these heretics, it appears that the Orthodox Church acted to protect its followers from this falsification by defining the Theophany of the Holy Trinity, that is, the appearance of God during the Baptism of Christ. 16 The earliest definite evidence of this celebration is given by Ammianus Marcellinus 17 where this pagan Roman historian mentions that Julian the Apostate participated in this feast day in Vienne of Gaul. The Orthodox Church gave to this Feast its correct significance and meaning and celebrated purposely this Feast on the same date to counteract the false celebration of the Gnostics. In all probability, Epiphany was introduced to Gaul, with its Greek name, by St. Athanasius (336), coming from Alexandria.
Reverend George Mastrantonis of the Greek Orthodox Church of America
Found that super interesting, and thought I'd share. It seems the Orthodox may have habit of incorporating gnosticism into the church. Thoughts, please?
A thoughtful video as always. My main concern is the consistency of your standard by which you judge something to be worthy of belief. You seem to be saying that if a teaching doesn't show up until the 5th century (or at some other agreed-upon point in time) then we should presume it is not an apostolic teaching.
As a Catholic, I would say this defeats at least a few Protestant doctrines such as a non-sacramental view of the real presence, sola scriptura, and a rejection of the divine institution of the episcopacy, to name a few. If we take the Vincentian canon as a guide that whatever is believed everywhere and by all ought to be believed, that would give weight to the Assumption/Dormition since, although we don't have solid evidence of its universal belief until after the 6th century or so, it nonetheless is taught universally in all parts of the church east, west, and otherwise. It's a curious thing if the whole church believes it and teaches it for almost a thousand years (that we know of) and yet it would turn out to not be true.
Your approach here is well taken, but to me relies too much on history/the historical record that we currently have access to and not enough on faith in Christ's promise that the church would not universally fall into heresy. Or, to put it another way, it ignores the theological and ecclesiological reasons for the doctrine in favor of a merely historical reason.
I realize this is certainly no substantial argument for belief in the Assumption/Dormition per se, so I don't want to step beyond my scope here, but I do think it's worthwhile to examine some of the methodological presumptions here. Thanks Dr. Ortlund!
I understand your position but don't think your characterization of Protestant doctrine is accurate. Also, while I recognize you don't agree with them, the Protestant doctrines you mention are argued from Scripture. In contrast, the assumption of Mary is not. I'm not looking to debate the particulars, just pointing out a distinction. And I do understand that other distinct RC doctrines are also argued from Scripture, but again I'm simply pointing out that that isn't the case with some traditions. Anything argued from Scripture, whether Protestant or RC, is arguably Apostolic. Anything that can't be, is not, except in an argument from silence.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I'd say there are three relevant differences: (1) sola scriptura and a rejection of the divine institution of the episcopacy ARE arguable from the early church; I've done videos on Augustine's view of sola Scriptura (for example), and on the developmental nature of the episcopate (as displayed in the early evidence and testified to by Jerome); real presence I'd agree with you (and I affirm that). (2) these doctrines are argued from Scripture; the bodily assumption is not in Scripture unless you jam it into typology; (3) these are doctrines, not historical events. Historical events are more expected to have historical attestation (like Christ's resurrection as a parallel example). So I really don't see any major Protestant doctrines that are in a comparable position to the bodily assumption of Mary, to be honest. But if there were, we could reject them and reform our beliefs; whereas the assumption of Mary is for Catholics infallible and irreformable. That is another difference.
@Bb Dl I can't understand. Didn't he answered exactly what you're saying?
@@TruthUnites Very helpful response
@@bbdl2147I don’t think ortlund would be questioning the dogmas if they were in scripture or the church fathers
One thing that would be lovely would be a video or film progressing into the church ages and leading through the times. What changes when? Why? And how? How does the state of the Church look at this or that time? How does this connect to European history, Rome, Charlemagne, Black Plague, etc.
I want a series from 150 AD up until at least 1500 AD.
If you could grasp the entire history up until 1970 or 1870 that would be great.
If I am well read in ten years or so, I might attempt this. Maybe someone will do it earlier.
I think you’ll quickly see that history is much like Bible translation in the sense that everyone has their own interpretation of what happened, why, and how.
Dr. Ortlund, you are very generous in the face of absolutely ridiculous slander and misrepresentation. It’s unfortunate that this happens, but it’s the sad reality when dealing with people who follow the doctrines of demons and exalt traditions and religious systems up to the Level of Christ and the Gospel.
To be deep in history is to cease being Roman Catholic
Is there any chance of a timeline of church History graph done by yourself?
I have made this point before, St Epiphanous provides evidence that the assumption was believed early even if it wasn't written, as he wrote “How will holy Mary not possess the kingdom of heaven with her flesh, since she was not unchaste, nor dissolute, nor did she ever commit adultery, and since she never did anything wrong as far as fleshly actions are concerned, but remained stainless?”
So, St. Epiphanous not only provides evidence of early belief in Mary's Assumption, but also of early belief in her sinlessness as he seems to assume his audience accepts her sinlessness.
So, from a Protestant perspective, how does one separate the wheat from the chaff regarding these texts? Is it merely comparing it to scripture? It seems that clearly in principle the bodily assumption of Mary cannot be excluded given the several explicit examples in scripture of Enoch and Elijah and perhaps Moses and Christ himself of course. It's also interesting to note that there is a remarkable amount of correlation between these Gnostic texts and most Protestant positions/assumptions, such as the belief that Mary sinned and did not remain a virgin throughout her life, and if you go with some of the more liberal Protestant perspectives that Jesus was in reality the product of a union between Joseph and Mary.
"...merely compared to scripture"? That tells me everything I need to know about your hermeneutic. Also, "cannot be excluded" and must be affirmed as an article of faith are not the same thing. And "remarkable amount of correlation"? Maybe read them before you comment next time.
@@mj6493 Perhaps you should ask yourself what makes you a competent judge of such things? Pride in this area is not appropriate. Utilize humility and spend more time in study and be ready to engage with our actual questions and content when you're ready. Dismissal of things that make you uncomfortable isn't a mark of intelligence or integrity.
Since there are not records of this dogma in the early oral tradition in the church like Epiphanius demostrated it, and the early records of this are from a gnostic document we're justified to say that dogma wasn't in the early church. It's called cumulative evidence.
@@CMartin04 the Catholic Church can account for this situation as the bodily assumption falls under a secondary object of infallibility. The ancient faith is not bound to modern textual criticism or a need for neo-antiquarianism.
@@Silverhailo21 Well, since this dogma was established infallibly, when we prove It's wrong we're proving that Church's infallibility It's also false, therefore, you cannot trust in the catholic church.
Keep your eyes open for William Albrecht rebuttal video coming in a few days.
➨THE QUEENSHIP AND ASSUMPTION OF MARY IN THE BIBLE:
● REV 12:1 A great sign appeared in the heavens, a woman clothed with thge sun, themoon under her feet and on her head a CROWN (signifying a Queen) of 12 stars. REV 12 tells us the wiman who aooears in the heavens is the woman who gives birth to the male child who will rule the nations. (Mary)
➨HONOURING MARY:
● LUKE 1:48: All generations will call Mary Blessed. We4 catholics call her blessed and treat her accordingly.
➨ MARY'S STATE OF PURITY
● LUKE 1:24-48 The Angel Gabriel greeted Mary with: "Hail, full of grace (grace is the state of purity that God gives to human beings by which they are saved) the Lord is with thee"
Worth a like, all scripture is profitable.
Worth a like albeit a year later, all scripture if profitable.
God bless you Dr. Ortlund, I have a question is this doctrine of Mary as the RC has defined be part of the partem partem view or would it fall under what Cardinal Newman said that there were little hints here and there like an acorn which later grew into a tree.
Either, that's the point.
Does a Christian need to accept the Virgin birth? Seems like the virgin birth is an accretion and unnecessary to believe in Christs divinity
It is important also to note that not only Protestant scholars have been critical of the dogma but also Catholics such as Hans Küng. I’m sure there are others but this is not my area of expertise.
Keep your eyes open for Williams rebuttal in a few days...
What is your view of the writings of Dionysius the Areopogite, a convert and follower of Paul for about three years and eventual Bishop of Athens? He wrote of being in Jerusalem, meeting Mary, and witnessing her repose and Assumption around 57 AD. He is mentioned in the Book of Acts, 17:34.
I didn't know that people thought Mary was sinless or immaculately conceived until studying Catholicism. What's the issue? Lol, how would that be insulting?
Rylands Papyrus 470 and it’s date indicates Mary has the title Θεοτόκος prior to the 5th century. It seemed that you were indicating otherwise around the 25 min mark. I may have misunderstood.
@@bersules8 originally I thought it a mistake. But then he specifically cites the council of Ephesus. He seems very emphatic regarding Mary gaining the title Θεοτόκος in the fifth century. Is he unfamiliar with the scholarship?
Edgar Lobel dates p470 (sub Tuum praesidium) to the mid 200s if I remember correctly and Dr Mazza argues for mid 300s or thereabouts. Just to throw out fifth century and leave it at that…these poor folks think their getting solid scholarship. Hope it was merely an oversight by Dr Ortlund.
Albrecht was disrespectful to you, for sure. Not that you’d be inclined to agree with him much, but you can watch Reason and Theology’s interview with Bart Ehrman, and see Albrecht’s terse words with Bart at points. They debate about the deuterocanon/apocrypha for what seems to be twenty minutes.
@YAJUN YUAN you’ve got some interesting clips on there, appreciated.
Time line shows falseclaims to create a doctrine.
It originates frm gnostics
Comes too late in church
Not mentioned by
jesus
Epistles
Or in any writing before 130AD
None other than God
Mesiah
Are sin worshiped in revelation .
Not mary
Haven't watched this yet, looking forward to it. Have you seen Trent Horn's rebuttal as well to your work on Mary?
Sorry a truth has to be twisted to argue with you Dr Ortlund. But as I watch Albreict, Sam Shamoun and others it amazes me how they can twist anything to fit their Roman Catholic religion!
I just went to Amazon to read the conclusions of Stephen Shoemaker's book, "Mary Early Christian Faith and Devotion" and on page 240 he discusses the idea that the evidence could be interpreted to favor either the Catholic/Orthodox view or a view more similar to Gavin's and he says he sees no need to settle one interpretation over the other, and there is evidence open to both understandings. So while Gavin is using the evidence from Shoemaker to favor the Protestant view, Shoemaker himself says it could be used to favor the Catholic/Orthodox view. So while I appreciate Gavin offering this book as a resource (I'm now going to buy it) I think his Protestant bias might be causing him to overstate or cherry pick parts of the book that favor his bias. I'll get the book to read it for myself rather than relying on the few quotes Gavin provides. I already found places in the book where Shoemaker provides alternative possibilities to the quotes Gavin provides in this video. Based on what I've read so far, the main thrust of Shoemaker's book seems to be to refute the idea that Marian piety was a later invention.
Why did the Apostles not predict of Mary bodily assumption?