I really like how Gavin debates against the papacy I think he's the best protestant I've seen debate this topic, Suan is the best catholic I've seen on this topic too. Great debate keep it up Cameron ¡Viva Cristo Rey!
For me. Gavin is the best Protestant to debate papacy. But for Catholics. It's not Suan as awesome as he is. It would be any of the following. Jimmy Trent Tim Steve ======= And yes, it is terrifying how Suan would become if he matured through the years. He's a genius at his age.
@@KamalaKackles I'm a protestant whose faith has been severely damaged by James White's debates. Every one I've seen, the Catholic has completely decimated White. I don't know how any open minded viewer could find White persuasive
I'm Catholic convert late in life but feel same for Gavin. Gives me hope that we all can learn something from each other. I'm convicted Catholic but do believe God must have had a good purpose in the Reformation. And we can't forget our Orthodox brothers. Strange that there are 3 main branches of the Christian faith each representing a different element of humanity. Catholic logic Orthodox mystic Protestant heart.
@@dennischanay7781 God did not bring about the reformation, and that's rather a very Protestant view of the events; if one really looks at the reformation and what came with it and what its fruits have looked like, then one can not claim that what happened back then had anything to do with God, for revolution always is the work of the devil; now I agree though, that God will turn it into something good in the long run because that's what He always does...
@@baddog6003 All the so-called reformers chose the heart and their passions, and with it, many times the sword above logic and reason; the sword of Christ is a spiritual one; just read the works of Luther and how he talks about the enslaved will and his other works where he rejects reason and basically blames God for his own wicked sins...
I've been moving towards Catholicism for a couple of years now. This discussion certainly reduced my momentum. Lots to think about. Thanks to Gavin and Suan!
@@vituzui9070 there is nothing in the New Testament that mentions the office of a pope. Peter never claims to be the supreme leader of the church nor do the apostles acknowledge him as such.
Wow very gracious debate. I appreciate the almost immediate effect I sensed Dr. Ortlund's attitude had on Suan. Not the Suan was aggressive or rude but he was "business-like"; he was in debate mode. As Dr. Ortlund pointed out, he's a good debater. But as soon as Dr. Ortlund gave his first remark I sensed a change in the entire mood of the discussion towards graciousness and mutual understanding. That is the way of our Lord. Good on you, sir. God bless all 3 of you.
Amazing dialogue. Often Catholic/Protestant debates get heated to the point where the discussion is useless [at least in blogosphere.] These two gentleman were humble & cordial, while knowing their stuff simultaneously.
That’s simply not true most Catholic/Protestant debate are usually civil and charitable especially when hosted on Christian channels or platforms. That is unless you’re talking about the comment section below them in which case you’re totally right
Thanks Suan & Gavin for agreeing to do this. May the Lord bless you guys, and may clarity & unity among the saints of Christ continue increasing to His glory
Dr. Gavin Ortlund is a true blessing in this community. He has articulated my confusion and questions when I first started hearing typological arguments from Catholic and Orthodox Christians.
I find typological arguments completely unpersuasive. If person X and person Y shared some characteristic or had a similar experience, then that means X and Y are identical in any aspect or respect you feel like asserting -- that's how typology appears to me.
It is a really good typological argument though, especially when you realize the Jewish background of it. We know the Matthew verse about Peter is a reference, a typology, of Eliakim in Isaiah. But I wanna explain. God says he would give the keys to the House of David, or the Davidic Kingdom to Eliakim. He was not king of Israel, yet he acted in the kings stead, and had second authority over all Israel only under the king himself. God says he would give the keys of the kingdom to Eliakim, which is what Jesus says He will give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, the New Israel, and Messianic Kingdom, to Peter. In the Talmud, this is also seen as the Keys to the Temple, so Eliakim was literally given spiritual authority and kingly authority over Israel. He was given priestly garments and a kingly robe, emphasizing not only his kingly role but his priestly as well. In Jewish thought at the time of Jesus, bind meant to prohibit, and loose meant to allow. Jesus gave this authority to Peter specifically, saying these specific words in a Jewish world, before the other Apostles, indicating a special type of authority given to Peter alone to do this. God also mentions Elikiam was supposed to be a father to Israel, the Pope is the holy father, and Pope is essentially “papa”. We also see Elikiam’s role is an office. God gives him an office to be passed down, not just a title. And what we see is that Peter and the Papacy is the same way. We also know that in the Talmud, the Jews in sorrow over being evil, three the keys to the temple into heaven, the sky, and it was though a Hand took them. And God in the Old Testament Promises the Messiah will restore the Judges of Israel, etc. Setting up a New Kingdom. Also, when we look at what Jesus says, he names Peter “Kepha”. And then He says something like, you are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my Church. The foundational stone in the Temple was where the priest would pour the blood of the Yom Kippur Sacrifice onto. It was a foundation of the Temple, which is kind of like a prefigurement of the Church. So, this all means so much to a first century Jew, that you wouldn’t understand unless you read it in context. I mean also, the Jews had God, but God still chose Moses to rule over them, and Moses still had judges, kind of like Bishops. The Jews had a three tier priesthood, with a High Priest, which goes into the Temple, a priest, and a Levite, just as Catholics have a Pope, Bishops, and a priest. The Priests offered Sacrifice and atoned for sins, just as the Catholic priesthood offers the one Sacrifice of Jesus, the Eucharist, onto the Altar, during the Mass. They also are the ones through whom the Sacrament of Reconciliation is done. Jesus even references a “seat of Moses” Talmudic Tradition not found in the Old Testament, but that was found in Jewish oral tradition, which stated Moses had a seat of succession, which fell to the Pharisees, and a literal chair that followed the Jews around in the desert. That’s why we say the Pope speaks from the “Chair of Peter”, when speaking infallibly. Jesus straight up tells those around Him to obey the teachings of the Pharisees, because they sit on the seat of Moses, which was a succession of Mosss tradition not found in the OT. We Catholics have a Tradition of succesion of the Apostles.
Also, adding onto it Eliakim was called a steward, just as Peter was called to be a steward of the Church. Peter was called to be leader, as Jesus said to feed his sheep, and we even see Peter’s name is always listed for at, the earliest Christians, disciples under the Apostles, spoke of the Bishops this way, and also Jesus also tells Peter specifically in one instance satan is trying to sift you all like wheat, but Jesus says he would pray specifically for Peter, to strengthen his brothers.
Great debate. I'm Protestant, so I found myself agreeing with Gavin, as he made clear concise points and his arguments were more convincing. God bless both of them.
@@eternalbyzantium262 I am inquiring into Orthodoxy and I do not think that the comments you have been making in this comment section about Protestantism are savory or useful. I don't like Protestantism myself, but imagine if a Protestant came up and said that "Orthodoxy is of the devil whose Saints are pagan, polytheistic deities"? It wouldn't make you want to listen to anything they'd have to say about Protestantism. Please stop.
Let's talk, Gavin says there is no one leader among the 12 Apostles, yet, Peter is mentioned over 195 times, and the next of the 12, John, at 30 times. So much for equality! Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren and Jesus renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock. The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 Respectfully, a lot is being inferred by you, imho. Christ calling Peter the rock was after the declaration of Peter calling Him Christ. Upon _that_ truth, he'd build His church. Just a clear reading of the text gave me that, even before I was a believer.
Thanks for a great debate from both sides. I realised, growing up protestant, that I've been dismissing a caricature of catholic beliefs rather than their actual beliefs. Time to go do some more learning!
I agree. I'm actually a former Lutheran (now Catholic), and until I started questioning my (former) protestant beliefs I had no idea how much I didn't know not just about the Catholic church but even Lutheranism and Protestantism. I had always believed that the Lutheran church was the true church by my ignorance and obliviousness and now that I have much more knowledge my position obviously has changed.
@@Convexhull210 As a Protestant I’ve decided to join the Catholic Church. For the following reasons. Relying on scripture alone doesn’t make no sense. During the first century there was no Bible. Christians relied on what leaders off the church told them and the letters of the apostles but there was no biblical cannon. The church had the number one authority. The first about 300 years of Christianity there was no set biblical cannon. The church had authority. The biblical cannon comes from the Catholic Church so it’s their book. The oldest bible we have is from the 4th century. So the first three centuries people relied on the church. God himself didn’t pick the cannon it was the Catholic Church. You trust the Catholic Church to tell you what books are the word of God but reject other beliefs? If the Catholic Church is wrong in areas it would make no sense for you to accept they have the word of God right. To reject the Catholic Church you need to reject their book the Bible. As long as you accept their bible you are under the Catholic Church authority. The original bible the apocrypha books in it until the 16th century until Luther chose to remove it. Protestants have changed the Bible by removing books. What gives Luther the right? The Bible cannon was picked by the early Christian leaders in the Catholic Church. These people were taught by people who learned from the original disciples then centuries later Protestants believe a man who never learned from the disciples or the disciples disciples. In conclusion why do Protestants trust the Catholic Church bible but not the Catholic Church. It was the church authority that picked the Bible cannon so the church has authority over the Bible because before the Bible was put together people only relied on the church. The Catholic Church is the only one that can interpret the Bible they put it together. If it weren’t for the Catholic Church Protestants wouldn’t even have their religion. You’re entire religion is based off the Bible the Catholic Church put together. To reject Catholicism you need to reject their book.
@@drewmiller2613 Drew, Perhaps these quotes from Jesus might help. ▪︎Matthew 16:18 18. And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. When Jesus says "My Church", He's referring to just one. Unity is a divine quality. The following reaffirms it: ▪︎JOHN 17:21-23 21. so that they MAY ALL BE ONE, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. 22. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may BE ONE, as WE ARE ONE, 23. I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to PERFECTION AS ONE, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me. God bless.
They praise me with their mouths, but their hearts are far from me. Depart from me, I never knew you. If you really examine the history of the Roman Catholic Church, and not just the ones written by them, and really look at what the Popes and the RCC have done throughout history, you might have to question the authenticity of the RCC and their claims to infallibility and Apostolic derivation. The blood of the Bogomils, Albigensians, Waldenses, Hussites, and many other groups of believers (they were NOT HERETICS) Many others were martyrs murdered by the Catholic Church, and the fact that they forbade the Bible to anyone outside the clergy for over a thousand years is very indicative of their apostate condition. When you read Revelation, the description of the woman who rides the beast dressed in scarlet and purple with a golden chalice full of abominations that is also referred to as being a city on seven hills; do you really need a better description of the Church of Rome and the world domination that it has sought for centuries? I grew up among Catholics, and have many Catholic friends that are dear to me, but I disagree with their doctrine and beliefs. Please study the Bible and see what it says. Examine the scriptures closely, and even though the RCC dismisses the Bible as the primary authority for the Church in our time, nevertheless, Jesus Christ considered the scriptures as His Words, and that they were authoritative. I do not see the Roman Catholic Church in the Scriptures. Neither are most of their doctrines. 🙏✝️👑✝️🙏 @@joecastillo8798
A debate run and participated in the way it should be! We need to be searching for the Truth, and as we do that charitably together, we will find Him. Keep up the good work, all three of you!
I felt like it was quite even during the rebuttals but Suan definitely took a lead during the cross exams. It become pretty clear that the basis for the typology is there and Gavins response was mainly that its not explicit enough considering the weight of a papal office. Which is a stance i think is respectable, though not a strong rebuttal of Suans case. Nonetheless, a fantastic job overall from both sides. Gavin is incredibly humble and honest, and pleasent listening to. Thanks guys for making this! This was a blast!
Typology is always based on established doctrine. It never creates or forms new doctrine. Suan is too ambitious with these typologies and like Gavin pointed out in 1:04:01 ,without boundaries or some explicit textual support there is no limit to the types of interpretation one may infer from this exercise.
@@Mr_A1-37 the doctrine of the papacy isn't based on the typology either, so I don't think i see your point there. I agree that typology can run amok without any boundaries, and I don't think suans case is without textual support: Revelations 3:7 explicitly connects the authority of Christ to the one of Eliakim (not saying its the same, but that there is a connection) spoken of in isaiah 22:22. So there are at least some typology going on with respect to the authority of Christ and the keys to the house of David, which by my lights should be necessary to get an argument for the papacy going.
@@Mr_A1-37 1:04:04 The typology, allusions, and parallelisms in terms of the language used in accordance with the context, is hard to deny. Choosing reject it is to willfully ignore or deny divine revelation in Scripture. Dr. Ortlund is correct in pointing out the Pope's military leadership role, being the successor of Peter, who is indentified as the new Joshua. One of the Pope's roles, assigned by God by virtue of Peter's identity as the new Joshua, is to lead the faithful in the cosmic battle against the ultimate enemy of God's Kingdom- Evil. Although the war has already been won by Christ through His incarnation, cross and resurrection, the faithful's personal battles continue on. We are all called to be a "𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗝𝗲𝘀𝘂𝘀" (Tim 2:3) and to persevere till the end for God and His kingdom's greater glory. Notice the military language used to describe the armors we Christians are supposed to equip ourselves with as we battle the forces of evil, being soldiers of Christ: (Ephesians 6:10-17) Finally, 𝗱𝗿𝗮𝘄 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘆 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿. 𝗣𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗻 the 𝙖𝙧𝙢𝙤𝙧 𝙤𝙛 𝙂𝙤𝙙 𝘀𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗺 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗹. For 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗳𝗹𝗲𝘀𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝙗𝙪𝙩 with the 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀, with the 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿𝘀, with the 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀, with the 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝘀𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘀 in the heavens. Therefore, 𝗽𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗻 the 𝙖𝙧𝙢𝙤𝙧 𝙤𝙛 𝙂𝙤𝙙, that you may be able to resist on the evil day and, having done everything, to 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱. So 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝘀𝘁 with your 𝗹𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗴𝗶𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵, 𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 as a 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲, and 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝘁 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗱 in 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗲. In all circumstances, 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗲𝗹𝗱, 𝘁𝗼 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝗹𝗹 [the] 𝗳𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘀 of the 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝗼𝗻𝗲. And 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗺𝗲𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 and the 𝘀𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗶𝘁, which is the 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗚𝗼𝗱. (Ephesians 6:10-17) We have to recognize the bigger picture. Dr. Ortlund should pray for eyes to see, so that he can recognize more clearly the typology presented to him by Suan. Just because Dr. Ortlund does not yet have the eyes to fully see the overall structure of God's Kingdom, and just because he could not yet comprehend God's divine revelation as it was entrusted to His chosen disciples/apostles and their successors, does not mean the typology is not there nor does it mean that the typology has gone amok.
Love Suan. Converts like him that follow the evidence are powerful witnesses to truth and hope for unity because he speaks to a Bible-only presupposition exquisitely.
Well, the only problem is that his argument as a whole is based on a presupposition which cannot be found Biblically - That there is a pope, who is infallible, has apostolic succession, and is the figurehead of Rome. These things need to be assumed and forced on scripture to have any argument whatsoever. But otherwise, I agree.
It's not assumed or forced on scripture. It is the witness of the church. It's only a problem if you refuse the witness of extrabiblical evidence a priori or force an extrabiblical rule upon Suan. Dismissing evidence based on an ad hoc a priori is not a sound way to arrive at any sort of truth. You'll see skeptics do the same thing when they say, "I can dismiss what was written in Acts because it is not corroborated in the Bible nor extrabiblical witness." Okay, who made that rule? The rule you've applied didn't exist before Martin Luther made it up whole cloth. Protestants use extrabiblical witness to arrive at a necessity of biblical witness. They also use extrabiblical witness to arrive at a canon. The sword cuts both ways if we want to be consistent with an epistemology, so it's rather easy to dismiss your claim about his assumptions.
@@markfrideres284 The difference here is that I'm not dismissing acts or anything of the sort, as it is in the Bible. I'm not saying I disagree with something just because it isn't corroborated the bible. But when it comes to an interpretation and denomination of Christianity claiming that Peter was the first pope with little to no very early/biblical evidence, it makes things far easier to dismiss. Why? Because it is a manmade notion with no link or association with the written words of Jesus.
Thanks for the great debate. The issue of the Eliakim typology had never appeared so decisive in this argument to me before, so thank you a lot for stressing and elightning this point so extensively. However, I am a bit surprised that following very explicit indications by early CHurch fathers of Rome's Church supremacy and guarding of the true faith were not mentioned, especially given that Gavin made a key argument out of it : In the 3rd century, Saint Cyprian of Carthage: “Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come” (Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 A.D.]). Now the quote by the same Cyprian of all bishops" equal in honor and power" does not seem contradictory to me, in the sense that all bishops are autonomous in ordinarily administering their respective diocese, while Rome has a special charisma of doctrinal infallibility and exceptional, last resort supreme jurisdictio. In the 2nd century, Irenaeus of Lyons : “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). In 5th century, Pope Sixtus III : “all know that to assent to [the Bishop of Rome’s] decision is to assent to St. Peter, who lives in his successors and whose faith fails not.” Pope Leo the Great, 5th century: “The dispensation of the truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter, preserving in the strength of the rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church which he undertook to control. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the rock, from his being pronounced the foundation, from his being constituted doorkeeper (Key-holder) of the kingdom of heaven, from his authority as umpire to bind and loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven - from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. And still today he more fully and effectually performs what is entrusted to him and with him, through whom he has been glorified. And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merit whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See” Pope Vigilius (538) (letter to Profuturus of Braga): “To no one well or ill informed is it doubtful that the Roman Church is the foundation and the mould of the Churches (fundamentum et forma sit ecclesiarum), from which no one of right belief is ignorant that all Churches have derived their beginning. Since, though the election of all the Apostles was equal, yet a pre-eminence over the rest was granted to blessed Peter, whence he is also called Cephas, being the head and beginning of all the Apostles: and what hath gone before in the head, must follow in the members. Wherefore the holy Roman Church, through his merit consecrated by the Lord’s voice and established by the authority of the holy Fathers, holds the Primacy over all Churches, to which as well the highest concerns of Bishops, their causes, and complaints, as the greater questions of the Churches, are ever to be referred, as to the head. For he who knows himself to be set over others, should not object to one being placed over himself. For the Church itself, which is the first, has bestowed its authority on the rest of the Churches with this condition, that they be called to a part of its solicitude, not to the fulness of its power. Whence the causes of all Bishops who appeal to the Apostolic See, and the proceedings in all greater causes, are known to be reserved to that holy See; especially as in all these its decision must always be awaited: and if any Bishops attempts to resist this course, let him know that he will give account to that holy See not without endangering his own rank.”
That quote by Cyprian appears to be false or at least very inexact. I tried to look it up myself. The actual quote is: "After such things as these, moreover, they still dare - a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics- to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access. But what was the reason of their coming and announcing the making of the pseudo-bishop in opposition to the bishops?" Letter 54:14 Despite his heated dispute with Pope Stephen over re-baptism, Cyprian is actually good evidence for Catholic claims, but I'd stop using that "quote" you gave.
@@tonyl3762 thanks, I stand corrected! The true version is perhaps even more useful for apologetics as it backs the arguably less well documented papal claims to supreme jurisdiction and being the visible fundament of Churches' unity. The other quotes back the infallibility claims
@@martincorneille7998 Along that line actually of supreme jurisdiction, I came across the Catholic Encyclopedia's "incontestable" claim that Cyprian's Letter 66 "is here explaining to the pope why he ventured to interfere, and that he attributes to the pope the power of deposing Marcanus and ordering a fresh election." Letter 66 from Cyprian to Pope Stephen (New Advent website): "Wherefore *it behooves you to write a very copious letter to our fellow bishops* appointed in Gaul, not to suffer any longer that Marcian, froward and haughty, and hostile to the divine mercy and to the salvation of the brotherhood, should insult our assembly, because he does not yet seem to be excommunicated by us; in that he now for a long time boasts and announces that, adhering to Novatian, and following his frowardness, he has separated himself from our communion; although Novatian himself, whom he follows, has formerly been excommunicated, and judged an enemy to the Church.... *Let letters be directed by you* into the province and to the people abiding at Arles, *by which, Marcian being excommunicated, another may be substituted in his place,* and Christ's flock, which even to this day is contemned as scattered and wounded by him, may be gathered together.... dearest brother, the body of priests is abundantly large, joined together by the bond of mutual concord, and the link of unity; so that *if any one of our college should try to originate heresy, and to lacerate and lay waste Christ's flock, others may help,* and as it were, as useful and merciful shepherds, gather together the Lord's sheep into the flock.... For the glorious honour of our predecessors, the blessed martyrs Cornelius and Lucius, must be maintained, whose memory as we hold in honour, *much more ought you, dearest brother, to honour and cherish with your weight and authority, since you have become their vicar and successor* .... *Intimate plainly to us who has been substituted* at Arles in the place of Marcian, that we may know to whom to direct our brethren, and to whom we ought to write."
Suan is so impressive. Gavin is a better communicator and it can feel like he's on top, but if you listen carefully, Suan is going so much more in depth and giving so much information condensed that you would need time to unpack everything. What a great demonstration.
Could also be that Suan overwhelms the listener with too much information as he mixes tradition, Scriptures, typology and other Catholic interpretations that may not be necessary right.
Gavin effectively uses denial and doubt. He doesn't really have arguments. He doesn't really have an alternative. He just says it is typology run amuk by decree of Gavin.
@@NolongeraslaveI agree lots of suans statements especially in his opening lie upon catholic presuppositions of succession, Jesus founding the bishopric, and the incorrect reflection of type/anti type. As much as I respect suans great knowledge and desire for truth I think he gets caught up in the intrinsic guilt in catholicism to fear consideration of these topics (due to countless anathemas
@@cooperthatguy1271 Cooper, Remember these words: ▪︎MATTHEW 16:17-19 17. And in response, Jesus said to him: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven. 18. And I say to you, that you are Peter, and UPON THIS ROCK I will build MY CHURCH, and the gates of Hell SHALL NOT PREVAIL against it. 19. And I will GIVE YOU THE KEYS of the kingdom of heaven. And WHATEVER you shall BIND on earth shall be BOUND, even in heaven. And WHATEVER you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.” Such authority does not end wirh Peter, the biblical and historical evidence confirms that is ongoing, according to: ▪︎MATTHEW, 28:19-20 19. GO therefore and MAKE DISCIPLES OF ALL NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20. and teaching them to obey EVERYTHING that I have commanded you. And remember, I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS, TO THE END OF THE AGE.” Such promise confirms the permanent presence o Jesus until the end of times, guiding each successor of Peter and all the other Apostles to the truth. May God bless your discernment.
Suan doesnt mention that the handful of early Fathers (ancient Christian writers) that mention a 'New Eve' typology also CONTRADICT required Roman Catholic Marian Dogmas. Such as Tertullian and possibly Ireanaus. There is no 'patristic consensus' on Marian dogmas as any scholar knows.
@@gfujigo He isn't considered a church father by the church. Church fathers praised some of his writings but also criticized or condemned others. Later in his life he left the church and fell into heresy of Montanism. He isn't considered a church father for similar reasons as Origen.
@@kevinbartolen5881 speaking of him as a historical witness, who was very influential to the development of latin theology, likely a pastor, used the term Trinitas. He is commonly cited by roman catholic theologians. So his testimony that is early and against roman catholic doctrines, with no evidence that anybody contradicts him, is relevant. Why shouldn't historians use the oldest historical evidence rather then the later historical evidence? Why do Tertullian and Ireanus, who perhaps originate the 'New Eve' analogy, briefly mentioning it in their vast writings, explain what means differently then modern Roman Catholic?
Love the points both brothers made, and with that rare dint of charity we often don’t see on the Internet. Dr Ortlund, in my opinion, is the gold standard when it comes to presenting forth the “Protestant” argument. What concerns me, however, is which? Given the variety if interpretations of Protestantism writ large, it seems to me that the particular methodological tools Dr Ortlund is using beg the question: which? That concerns me, because I do not think other Protestant brothers and sisters would make similar arguments. And given that there are so many denominations, so many occupying the pulpit, there is something about the 1,500-year history of Catholicism and it’s doctrinal development that makes me much more spiritually at ease. God bless everyone and thank you, Cameron, for hosting this extremely important debate!
Quite true and eloquent. The Word of God never changes while theoretically tomorrow the "Pope/magisterium" could declare Mary Co Mediatrix (5th Marian Dogma which is being pushed by some RC).
@@GS-cj7rf Well, the canonization of the bible is a dogma! We as Catholics do not change the truth, dogmas are an affirmation of what the apostles always believed but not what was explicitly stated in the bible. An example of this is the trinity, can you quote an unmistakable passage that leads to this conclusion? On the other hand, you Protestants changed the truth, you reversed the order, first the church and then the bible, because the second is dependent on the first. Afterwards, you cannot have unity in baptism, communion, the Lord's day and the question of iconoclasm. Now that is change. Sorry for bringing this up so late.
Suan is so based. He does not even flinch, when being cross-examined. "If you have a problem with that, you should talk to Moses." And "Yes, why shouldn't we change the Scripture to appease our modern western sentiments instead of listening to the word of God?" Seems like a very good idea! After all who is Moses if measured by the golden standard of the post-modern sentiment? This kind of argument doesn't go very far against people with the courage to stand up for what they believe.
Since antiquity it has been understood that every priest is the successor of Peter. The Orthodox Church makes excellent applications of the more convincing points put forth by Suan, such as the clear typology (because it's true). But the problem is that papal supremacy and infallibility are the least convincing points put forth, and the parts that Orthodoxy rejects. If the widespread understanding in the 3rd century from St. Cyprian of Carthage was that every priest succeeded Peter, and James was the ultimate authority in Acts in Jerusalem (with Peter present), then how could Peter be supreme? And more than that, how is the Roman church solidly Petrine?
@J. Russell I just cannot see how Protestantism can be taken seriously when they have no historical foundation prior to the 16th century, while Catholics can trace theirs to the 1st century. Please prove me wrong and show me that people in the early church believed in fundamental Protestant doctrine.
@J. Russell Neither do I see pianos/guitars used at church being mentioned in the NT. The word Trinity is not used in the Bible and neither is an explicit definition of the Trinity present anywhere in scripture. There is such a thing as doctrinal development.
In my opinion, if you did not presuppose the Catholic Church was false and had no theological bias while you studied the scriptures in light of its first century Jewish context in the light of the writings of the early church fathers then you’d definitely be Catholic. Suan is a beast - I think he did well in both rounds of the cross examination - great debate on both sides for sure.
Thank you Suan....God bless your efforts/works in defending the true church, founded by Jesus Christ 2021 yrs. ago...Jesus wants us to be one...no matter what, even His apostles were not perfect ...but He said that He will be with us until the end of time...thank you also to Cavin .,pls continue to know the truth.. May God bless you all who made this debate possible...
When the RCC was the only game in town you were allowed to follow, or you'd get excommunicated, which could be a slow death sentence in itself, seeing as how no one would trade or help you anymore. Or if you were stripped of possessions and thrown in prison, or put to death at worst, then it would easily be the default mode to be RCC. People were illiterate back then, so I can totally see how the church evolved as it did. Good people fought hard agaisnt Roman authority to provide the bible to common people, so we can now read it for ourselves. This is why a lot of Christians no longer choose to be Catholic, now that it's not dangerous to choose.
I have never met a new Christian that read the RCC claims in the Bible without having to be told the RCC claims are there The trinity doesn’t have to be inserted into the Bible, it is already there and people can find it without having to be justified to new believers, they read the basic principles right away. Like this discussion of the papacy, even the apostles’s successors for hundreds of years didn’t see it in the Bible, that should tell you right away that the problem is not people not opposing RCC but that the RCC claim has a biblical problem.
Repent “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” ****Revelation 21:14**** • Peter was no different than the others. We can see here in ****Revelations 21:14**** that Peter was still an apostle, not a pope. John saw a vision of the New Jerusalem, so if Peter was a pope, John would have said I saw the foundation of the city walls in layers of 11 apostles and the one pope. ------------------ - Eamon Duffy, an Irish historian, said, “There is, therefore, nothing directly approaching a papal theory in the pages of the New Testament,” and “from all indications, there was no single bishop of Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the apostles”. - Eamon Duffy was a Catholic Historian and he basically refutes that *Matthew 16:18* alludes to or supports papal authority. He said it without any confusion that the New Testament scriptures do not support the papacy. Therefore Peter was not singled out. When Christ said, “upon this Rock, I build my church”…. to say that he was proclaiming a papacy through a lineage of Peter is speculation. - If that were true, there would be other scriptures to cross-reference the theory of Pontification. Paul would have had to check in with Peter if Peter was the Pope. Instead, Paul went to see Ananias to receive his sight. - In ****Galatians 2:11-21**** we can see Paul putting Peter in check for treating the Gentiles differently based upon their state of circumcision and Peter’s fear of criticism. - If ****Matthew 16:18**** was Peter’s proclamation of pontification, that leaves a huge issue. The biggest problem of all is that if Peter is the rock, then the scripture wouldn’t say that Christ is the rock. That’s a contradiction. We can’t build our faith on contradictions. The Rock is spiritual, not earthly. ****1 Corinthians 10:4**** - and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. ------------------ ****Matthew 16:18**** The Catholic Church says that tradition holds that Peter is the first pope and the rock, and that this scripture is proclaiming the Papacy. ****1 Corinthians 3:11**** / ****1 Corinthians 10:4**** The word of God says that Christ is the spiritual Rock. A Rock for the wise builder. ------------------ - I’m choosing to go with the Word of God, not the traditions of men. There is no evidence that Peter ever even went to Rome. Christ is the Rock, Peter is a stone, and we are all stones. ****1 Peter 2:4-8**** ❤❤❤❤❤
@@mercibeaucoup2639 He did write it, through His chosen people. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”
As always. Suan is a master of his craft and delivers the Catholic truth extremely well. Seen Gavin several times and he’s one of my favorite to see in these kind of discussion/debates. Unlike other Protestants, Gavin respectfully hears things out and is seeking the truth.
I am not a Christian, but I am a serious student of religion and history. My own feeling about Rome is that it acquired a certain importance because of its political and cultural significance as the center of the Roman Empire for hundreds of years, and Christianity awarded a certain honorary position because of it. That's all. So the bishop or patriarch of Rome gradually sought greater authority leading to the schism and thereafter. But certainly those who take religion seriously realize the gap between Rome and Istanbul now is still far too great to bridge for unity.
Suan kind of debunked himself saying that the type can refer to more than one individual. That's exactly why Cyprian and Jerome say that all bishops sit on Peter's throne.
I don't think it's so much that he is debunking himself as he is just admitting his arguments absolutely have their weaknesses, Gavin himself does the same thing, which adds a certain authenticity to their dialogue.
There is nothing to respect. One is outside the church of St Peter and that's it. How do you respect something lost? You run away from it lest it takes you with it
@@koppite9600 woah, church of who? Glad i am part of church of Jesus Christ and not saint Peter. Even Peter was the member of church of Jesus Christ. And btw, i am a saint.
Fantastic debate. I'm grateful to have it still available on RUclips even a couple of years later. I'm currently in OCIA and as I've been researching things on my own outside of that I've been really fascinated by the many parallels I'm finding between Old and New Testaments. It's really helped me appreciate better how the Catholic Church understands some of its unique doctrines such as the papacy or Marian dogmas. As such, I find these kinds of debates invaluable as I try to discern their truths and make my own mind up about them. Quick question: were the opening statements ever made available? Cameron mentioned on a couple of occasions wanting to get those and make them available, but I don't see them in the video description anywhere.
A follow-up to @Gavin 's argument that Cyprian of Carthage (Treatise on Unity) preached equality among bishops. I have actually identified the full passage where he mentions "equality in honor and power". Read in full, this excerpt is actually to mean the very opposite of what Gavin makes it sound like. It strikes me as a very clear statement of Rome's See primacy and guardianship of unity around a single creed: “The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, ‘I say unto you, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, ‘As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whosoever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whosoever sins you retain, they shall be retained;’ yet, that He might set forth unity, he founded one chair; he has arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one [Peter]. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity, and primacy is given to Peter, that one Church of Christ and one chair may be shown.…He who opposes and resists the Church, he deserts the chair of Peter on whom the Church is founded….”
Well, this is true, but for those who are able to move the goal post, then anything can be interpreted suit them. They have five views on the Eucharist, four on salvation, five on sanctification, and baptism we can't even count the variations, etc. etc....why do even hope for them to believe in the Pope. Lutherans believe Lutherans, Presbyterians believe Presbyterians, Anglicans believe Anglicans, Catholics believe Catholics, etc...Protestants are not united, they are a big bowl of salad. There cannot be differentiation in the truthful interpretation of the Scriptures within the Bible because there is only one truth of God, not hundred variations of half-truths and falsehoods.
@@Swo37 no he really wasn’t. Gavin has already addressed this part of Cyprian’s quote before. No one is denying that the early church looked to the chair of Peter with a sense of primacy and unity. What Gavin specifically is denying is that Peter held any kind of special authority that the rest of the apostles did not have, especially in terms of infallibility. Nothing about Cyprian’s quote, even when taken in full context, suggests that he thinks Peter spoke infallibly in a manner that the rest of the Apostles did not. That would be reading it into the quote. He didn’t say that the apostles shared equal authority just to contradict himself a sentence later.
To me, the primacy of the bishop of Rome is a matter of common sense, based on the certainty that Jesus was (is) not stupid. The disciples were fighting among themselves for supremacy even during His life on earth, right behind His back. But He prays to the Father for them to be one.... Would He leave His Church without a clear supreme living authority to serve as rock and guarantee of unity? If the Protestant Reformation made something crystal clear-a crystal that even today keeps breaking in thousands of denominations-is that, without a final authority, unity is impossible.
But the Catholic Church fails to bring unity either, they have 253 denominations, and the interpretation of the magisterial authority is actually subjective at best. The Catholic dogmas do not go over every doctrine hence why there is room for subjective interpretation in doctrine which can lead to division. If you think your Church is immune to sin you are in denial. The Catholic Church like any Church is a body that consists of nothing but sinners. Paul has said that sin has entered his church and we can clearly see Peter and the 12 disciples' sins. To think that through a man can unite a body of Christian is questionable, a man is a sinner regardless if he is a pope or not. It's up to the powers of the holy spirit and the will of God to unite Christians together as one. Now, will our triune God unite all Christians across the world through the Roman Catholic Church? Perhaps, but can we know for absolute certainty? My answer is no.
It alarms me that the Holy Spirit and the Holy Scriptures aren't enough of an authority for Catholics. Yeah, you're right, but Jesus didn't leave us with nothing. That was like the whole point of Pentecost and Paul's letters. Why do we need an elevated sinner to intercede and guide us when the New Testament made it clear that we are the new priesthood? I mean no disrespect to you or the Pope, I'm just genuinely trying to understand it. It seems so contrary to the teachings of the New Testament.
@@junkim5853 No Catholic claims that the pope is without sin or that the Church is without sin. I think you are confused about what papal infallibility means.
@@bethanyann1060 well get proper context please I was responding to another person. He is trying to claim that the Catholic Church is united when in reality I believe they are not. Sometimes I doubt Catholics' understanding of sin and its nature because they think their Church is in unity when sin suggests otherwise. I know Papal infallibility you don't need to tell me at all. My point is it certainly won't be the Roman Bishop speaking without ex-cathedra that will unite Christians together. If papal infallibility is true perhaps all Christians would become united with the Roman Catholic Church but do I think all Christians can say this with absolute certainty? My answer is no.
@@jericawilson1484 Of course the Holy Scriptures are like the touchstone of all what we believe, and of course there's no higher guide than the Holy Spirit! But it is from the Holy Scriptures that we learn that Jesus didn't give us a sacred book to be the foundation of His religion. Like I said, Jesus is not stupid, and very well knows of our weaknesses. Mohammed left a Holy Book as the foundation for his religion, and soon after his death, the book started being interpreted to massacre each other among Muslims. We revere and seek the backing of the written Word of God, but we're not Muslims. And Mohamed was not Jesus. According to the Scriptures, Jesus didn't give us a Book for us to found a Church on it. He gave us a hierarchical Church founded directly by him during his lifetime on this earth, with a rock at its foundation. And whom did He chose? Among the twelve, He chose the most sinful of all after Judas, Simon whom He renamed as Peter, He called him "Satan" right away, and was the only one who denied Him, not once but three times, and yet, was charged with shepherding the sheep and was the one Jesus promised to pray for that his "faith will fail him not" so that he, once converted, would "strengthen" his "brothers in the faith." Why are we surprised when his successors sometimes sin and deny the Lord, and even behave like Satan? After Pentecost, the Holy Spirit inspired the hierarchical Church to give us the New Testament. On Pentecost, only the hierarchical Church received the Holy Spirit. I agree with you that we all share, by virtue of our Baptism, in the priesthood of Jesus. We call that "the common priesthood of the faithful." But Jesus instituted a ministerial priesthood, with powers and responsibilities to "forgive and retain sins" and to celebrate the Eucharistic sacrifice on behalf of all His priestly people: "do this in memory of me..."
This came across to me as a debate between an apologist and a scholar. Gavin kept trying to bring some hermeneutical sense to the use of typology while Suan drove a cart and horse through the rules and never really answered questions about why typology was being applied selectively. Again exegetically when it came to the NT texts to me Suan was singularly unconvincing. If the Papacy is so important to the Church and salvation its simply incomprehensible to me that it is not clearly mentioned and described in the New Testament and there is no direct support for a Vatican 1 papacy amongst the earliest church fathers. I very much appreciated the content and tone of this debate, thank you to both participants and of course because I am not convinced by Suan's arguments that doesn't mean I don't respect his position and believe he argued cogently and respectfully for them.
Well then you have no idea and have never read Protestant theologians especially Lutheran Reformed and Anglican. Moreso, it's not consensus but historical evidence. There's no universal consensus and they wrote many times to judge their work by scripture.
Especially given that very early in the Church are the papal authority's primacy over other churches and apostolic succession acknowledged (saint Clement to the Corinthians, saint Ireneaus in the Easter controversy, saint Ignatius of Antioch).
I agree with Gavin's point that Suan's arguments don't have a basis in early church sermons and commentary, but I'll keep listening. Maybe Suan will have some sources. He sure seems to favor recent scholarship.
Eastern Orthodox here. The answer to the title question is - NO, it is not. Ancient Church was approving position of the Bishop of Rome IN PRIMACY and NOT IN SUPREMACY... He was holding that honorary position NOT because he is alleged successor of St. Peter but because he was a Bishop of the imperial capitol city. St. Peter established Patriarchate of Antioch in the year 34 AD and only years after, church in Rome. Yet, Patriarchate of Antioch had never made unreasonable claims on those grounds. Lord's Church is founded upon Lord Jesus Christ and New Testament is clear about that: (1 Cor 3, 11) "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Case closed.
UH NO, that is absurd. The Popes Primacy was not based on his location. This argument which the orthodox try to make is just nonsense. I am happy to walk you through why this argument is bull.
@@dman7668 No heretic can "walk me through" anything. My walking through and leadership is in EOC and anything outside of it is as important as the last year's snowfall. But, here is something for you to consider... copied from a VATICAN website (emphasis mine)... enjoy.! 19. Over the centuries, a number of appeals were made to the bishop of Rome, also from the East, IN DISIPLINARY MATTERS, such as the deposition of a bishop. An attempt was made at the Synod of Sardica (343) to establish rules for such a procedure.(14) Sardica was received at the Council in Trullo (692).(15) The canons of Sardica determined that a bishop who had been condemned COULD APPEAL to the bishop of Rome, and that the latter, if he deemed it appropriate, might order a RETRIAL, to be CONDUCTED BY THE BISHOPS in the province NEIGHBOURING the bishop’s own. APPEALS regarding disciplinary matters WERE ALSO AMDE TO the see of CONSTANTINOPLE, (16) AND TO OTHER SEES. Such APPEALS to major sees WERE always TREATED IN a SYNODICAL WAY. APPEALS TO the bishop of ROME from the East EXPRESSED the COMMUNION of the Church, but the BISHOP OF ROME DID NOT EXERCISE CANONICAL AUTHORITY OVER THE CHURCHES OF THE EAST. - Synodality And Primacy During The First Millennium, Chieti, 21 September 2016
Not really. He just inferred papacy could be a thing by making a big castle of papers with a typology argument. He didn’t reply to any of the objections. Where does the Bible speak (or even infer) the idea of a pope who is infallible? Where does the idea of a succession of popes come from ? These are the pillars of the whole idea for a papacy . Haven’t heard one single argument to prove those and have seen evidence upon evidence why “infallibility” is at best a misguided (yet fundamental) attribute of Roman Catholic papacy.
@@laurapiovan “What you bind on Earth shall have been bound in Heaven, and what you loose on Earth shall have been loosed in Heaven.” Binding and loosing is a rabbinic expression which means to forbid and permit. Most New Testament scholars will tell you Jesus is granting Peter the authority to pronounce doctrine and set the norms for a Christian lifestyle. We see this authority being exercised in Acts when Peter declares that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised in order to be saved. This was nowhere to be found in scripture obviously, so how could Peter have made such a declaration if he didn’t have the authority to do so? This is similar to the role which was filled by the Sanhedrin. They possessed the authority to infallibly interpret the Torah, and Jesus never challenges their authority, he does the opposite. He says “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.” Ask yourself: does it make any sense for God to provide the Israelites with a body which could infallibly “bind and loose”, but not his church which he says will endure forever? That really doesn’t make sense to me. He gives the Jewish leaders authority, and affirms that authority, but not the leaders of *his* church? The Bible also speaks of scripture as being “God-breathed”, and in the same manner, says Jesus breathed on the disciples. When the disciples argue which of them is the greatest, Jesus says the greatest among them will be a servant. Then he addresses Peter specifically and says “Satan has sought to sift you all like wheat, but I have prayed for you Simon, so that your faith may not fail.” Notice that Jesus doesn’t pray for all of the disciples, only for Peter. There is also the fact that Peter’s name is mentioned more in the New Testament than all of the other apostles combined, despite the fact that he contributed very little to it. The seeds for the papacy can easily be found in the Bible. What can’t be found in the Bible is sola scriptura, or even the canon of scripture itself. The very canon which Protestants think ought to be our only authority is itself a tradition handed down by the early Christians, and wasn’t even agreed upon until the fifth century. If scripture was meant to be our sole source of authority, would God have really left his church without it for 400 years, and produce it at a time when the vast majority of people were illiterate and would never be able to actually read what’s supposed to be our only authority? Jesus didn’t leave us with scripture. He left us with a Church. The very earliest members of this Church gave us scripture which was not assembled into a single canon for 400 years and was not widely read for well over 1000 years. The Church *predates* the Bible.
True, It would have been a mismanagement in the part of Christ if he had not picked the apostles to build His church. His teachings would have been diluted with tons of heresy after he left if no church were there to preserve his true teachings. Heresy has always been there at the foot of the church, ever ready to pounce if given the right moment. it is just common sense, to have a Pope, bishops and priest: - with more than 200,000 parishes, 140,000 schools, 10,000 orphanages, 5,000 hospitals and some 16,000 health clinics around the world. There is a need for an organization with a leader on top, this is just how it works in the real world. Any company with more than 20 people would need a CEO. A headless organization will dissolve into a morass of chaos and divisions with conflicting interest. The church is composed of human and a divine element. The Pope and the magisterium of the church preserves the doctrines of faith and morals as taught and handed over by Christ and his apostles. - just as it had protected and preserved the scriptures in writing, catholic monks painstakingly copied the bible, word for word by hand for more than 1000 years since the bible was put into cannon in 382, to until the printing press was invented in 1455. The world is an ever changing world and the church must cope with the changes and offer guidance on the moral issues of the day, abortion, marriage, cloning, stem cells, AI, etc. and other things that can come in the future. It must speak as one voice with authority. - not in conflicting and vague voices on issues that can endanger the soul. Watered down Christianity does not speak about consequences and dangers to the soul.
I think a round table discussion with Suann, Gavin, a Catholic who really knows the church fathers, and a Protestant scholar on typology would be helpful. Gavin and Suan both have great strengths but I think they also have weaknesses that keep each from fully addressing the others arguments.
God bless your work Suan! Very insightful presentation of the parallelism in support of the typology between Matthew 16:19 and Isaiah 22:22. Godspeed in discerning your vocation either entering the religious life or pursuing graduate studies.
Shepherdson, first rule for accepting a type in the Bible. It has to be taught in the NT. Then you can propose similarities and parallelism all you want, but it won't be a type. There are figures, illustrations, examples, etc. But types are defined in the Scriptures.
@@claudiaperfetti7694 says who? Sola scriptura wasn't even taught in NT. If that rule of faith even had a type in the OT, then the apostles clearly went against it when they decided not to burden the Gentiles with circumcision.
Early Church fathers who recognized Peter/Pope's primacy: Irenaeus of Lyons (180 A.D.) [T]he very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also the faith preached to men... comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus (successor of Peter) the office of the episcopate. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement, To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us.And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.2-3; trans. ANF i.415-l6). Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D.): “[Peter is] the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute." Tertullian (211): "[R]emember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]." Letter of Clement to James (221): "“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed.” Origen (248): "[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]." Cyprian of Carthage (251): "[A] primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair." Cyril of Jerusalem (350): "[Peter is] the first and foremost of the apostles" and "both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Ephraim the Syrian, as Jesus to Peter (351): "You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples...I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures." Jerome (393): "[O]ne among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division.” Jerome also, in 396, calls Peter "chief of the apostles." Augustine (411): “Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.'" Council of Ephesus (431): "[T]he head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle...[Peter is] prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church." Pope Leo I: "Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery...among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power...All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others."
It seems to me that Gavin won this one. On the basis of biblical evidence using logic and sound judgment. Not stretching to interpret scripture to affirm the papacy...
protestantism is a disgusting satanic deception and its followers are of their father the devil. Though I disagree with the Catholics, as I am Orthodox, I will say that the protestants expelled the Lord Jesus from the Church (abandoning the real presence of the Eucharist) and replaced him with man-worship. (instituting a man speaking in the pulpit and giving his own interpretation of the Bible.)
Actually i have and comment section looks mixed, even if what you say is true it certainly does not follow that therefore Soan won the debate. There does seem to be a fair amount of Catholics that follow Capturing Christianity youtube channel so that probably has something to do with. Altleast 1 of the Catholics on here that thought the Catholic won openly admited they have a bias because they are Catholic. That would be a fallacy of appeal to common belief. When the claim that most or many people in general or of a particular group accept a belief as true is presented as evidence for the claim or proof.
@dman7668 they believe what they genuinely believe is the truth (presumably in most cases)...to claim otherwise seems to be venturing into uncharity...to imply they have bad motives or they are not being genuinely honest rather they are just believing what they "want to".
protestantism is a disgusting satanic deception and its followers are of their father the devil. Though I disagree with the Catholics, as I am Orthodox, I will say that the protestants expelled the Lord Jesus from the Church (abandoning the real presence of the Eucharist) and replaced him with man-worship. (instituting a man speaking in the pulpit and giving his own interpretation of the Bible.)
@@eternalbyzantium262 You’d do well to heed the following: 38 Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. 40 For he who is not against us is on our side.” Mark 9:38-40
Una Sancta Catholica Apostolica . Christian Unity is in the Catholic Church. The Chruch of Christ is the Catholic Church , there's no unity with the ones outside of the Church . If protestants separated from the Chruch, they need to come back Home. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus 🇻🇦✝️
The attitude of Dr Ortland when defending sola scriptura, namely that a doctrine does not have to be explicit in the Bible, are not extended to his reasoning against Catholic doctrines extracted from Scripture. He keeps saying there is too much stretch. This seems to be double standard given his strategy in defence of sola scriptura.
In the Bible vs explicitly in the Bible vs not in the Bible but having bring it into the Bible. Scriptures tell us that only scripture is God’s word ( Timothy and Peter), the problem the RCC sees is that it is missing the word ‘only’. There is nothing g else that the Bible says is God’s word, however, the RCC says since the word ‘only’ isn’t there, the Bible is not explicit. Gavin acknowledges this distinction, but the Bible still claims that scripture is God’s word (ie it is in the Bible). Using the standard of explicitly in the Bible, the papacy fails, using the standard of in the Bible, the papacy fails. Only by adding meaning and typology to the scriptures do you get to the papacy, no early church fathers even remotely interpreted Mathew 16 as the papacy.
Can’t wait to view it, Suan surely has the primacy when it comes to scripture regarding how The Primacy of Peter is explicit in historical Judaism and in the Early Fathers
Primacy of Peter as a chief Apostle among the other Apostles is perhaps an interesting historical question. It certainly doesn't mean that he had authority over any of the other Apostles, or even what the nature of New Testament pastoral authority even is. It certainly doesn't look like Vatican 1 Ultramontanism. Moreover, whether Peter's "appointees" bore any unique mystical property ostensibly retaining whatever "authority" is imagined of Peter is a distinct question, and certainly dubious.
@@lazaruscomeforth7646 Peters will killed 2 people. How can anyone kill anyone else by words only the way Peter did without so much as a prayer unless he has the authority God gave him.
Barely Protestant tearing up the q and a with his questions. You guys should check outhis channel uf you like roman catholic vs anglican debates and stuff, among other things
@@charliefrostcharlie Do you know what a spectrum is or nuance? Why do Caths/Orths always assume tradition equal good. Its ridiculous. And I didnt say all tradition is bad I clearly said pagan tradition. The only standard is the Bible.
@@xintimidate depends on what do you mean by "good" . And no you didn't write pagan traditions, you wrote "human traditions", stop saying "clear" when you evidently did not write what you said now. If you say the "ONLY" standard is the Bible, can you show that from the Bible?
To fully understand “the true” intent of the new testament one needs to look at it through the lens of the old testament.Rabbinic customs and language usage in it’s native form matters greatly. That is why I believe Suan had a stronger more rich argument. Nevertheless, Dr. Gavin had interesting points. The hole debate was awesome.
I really thought Dr.Gavin address that issue in his argument. Its reading (inserting) narrative into the new testament and typology ran amok as addressed by Dr.Gavin
Reason & Theology is the best & Capturing Christianity isn't exactly chopped liver either! Thanks for hosting this debate. Gavin is by far my fav Protestant debater (w/ Dr Flowers a close second) & Suan is starting to rise very high in my ranking of Catholic debaters. Luv his work on the Papacy.
An enjoyable debate. I'd say both side did well putting for the argumentation. That said, though Dr. Ortlund somewhat touched on it I would have liked to have seen him stress and emphasize the importance that doctrine MUST be built upon the clear teaching of Scripture and not something as abstract like Typology,. ESPECIALLY one with as much significance as the Papacy and even more so Papal Infallibility. Secondly, while I think Dr. Ortlund, again, touched on and mentioned Gal. 2:9, I would have liked to have seen him devote more time and attention to Gal. 2:7-8 and ask Mr,. Sonna what his exegesis of the passage is and specifically how he defines "kathōs" (G2531) in v.7/ "On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles)" (Gal_2:7-8) That seems to me to be the lid on the coffin. I'd be interested in hearing how Mr. Sonna gets around the clear meaning of that text,. Overall, a good debate but I didn't see either side really load up the bases and then hit a Grand Slam. I have to come back and add a comment because of something Dr. Sonna says during the Q&A. First, he makes a grave error by claiming that it is the Church that gets to decide "these things" referring to the binding and loosing. Uh, no, it's not. It's God who gets to decide and the Church gets to choose to obey or disobey. Follow or go astray. Secondly and MUCH more importantly, Sonna says he would "never abandon the Church" no matter how difficult it gets. THAT is a EXTREMELY dangerous position to hold. Many believe it will be the Pope who becomes the False Prophet during the Great Tribulation. Putting one's eschatology aside, he claim begs the question, "Would you still hold to that even if the Pope pronounces ex-cathedra an obvious, indisputable, easily-recognizable heresy as orthodox and acceptable? And since I'm back I'll jus add his as well. I'd like to ask Sonna and every other Catholic out there that wants to tout Unity in the Body...exactly how do you suppose that is to be done when 109 anathemas were pronounced upon Protestants by the Council of Trent and Vatican II and have NEVER been withdrawn and never will because to do so would destroy RCC doctrines?
Thanks again Gavin. Well done. And I definitely agree. The primacy of Peter is a pretty far stretch. If something so summarily foundational were true it would be all over the New Testament. It is not. Not one single word.
Rolando, this is because the new testament was written after the initial institution and formation of the church. Meaning it isn't the case that the New Testament writings were there to create the church, but rather it was the Church that through the working of the Holy Spirit produced the writings of the New Testament. Two recent videos on this channel, both AGAINST (Gavin Cortland) and FOR (Joe Heschmeyer) the Papacy are worth watching. Gavin uses the US Constitution analogously which describes the functions of President, Congress, etc to say why doesn't the New Testament do this? The most powerful office pre civil war were the Governor's and that office is not mentioned once in the US Constitution, the office existed already and this doesn't mean it didn't exist... it's one thread I found interesting. Great content from both angles in March 2022 on this topic. God bless brother!
@@dalkeiththomas9352 He extensively quotes from scripture. The only arguments against it are "I don't see that", "I'm not convinced", sounds like the Matt Dillahunty strategy for debates. There's no biblical foundation to deny the Papacy other than to try desperately say it doesn't teach what the Church Father's also understood about the points Suan made here.
This a great debate, both are really respectful to each other. As a protestant, I really appreciate Gavin Ortlund for his very clear statements. Love his calm presentation. I wish Capturing Christianity will get Matt Slick of CARM on future debate too. Blessings!
It feels like if time was truly of the essence, maybe we didn’t need to discuss topics of some more ludicrous claims that we threw to Suan, and then the marriage issue in Catholicism. I’m guessing the commenters parents were married outside a Catholic Church without permission of the bishop. In that case, you can get that fixed somewhat easily and con validated
Great Job Dr. Galvin! I wish Mr. Sonna would just sit still his constant moving and reaching for items and all the noises. It was very annoying and distracting. Maybe that is his strategy since he has no case only typology.
Yes we do. We ask for her intercession. Our Blessed Lord also taught intercessory prayers, and said that we ought to pray for each other. When you ask your parents or friends to pray for you, are you committing idolatry and thus be condemned to hell? So you’re allowed to distinguish prayer from worship in one sense but the Orthodox aren’t allowed to distinguish prayer from worship when we seek the intercession of the Blessed Mother, despite the fact that we are both consistently applying the principle of seeking the prayer of others especially since the saints in Heaven are more alive than us and are are basking in the glory of God. You inconsistent demon, son of satan.
MY FELLOW BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHRIST. I need this to be addressed about the absolutely unacceptable reality that the Catholic and Orthodox ideals have condemned to hell (which they can't do, praise God) everyone that does not follow their ways! All of you that join this faith are willfully consenting to the idea of rejecting Holy Spirit filled believers all around the world! Praise our Lord Jesus that He does not allow your laws to be fulfilled but don't for get to look every other believer in the eye and say I reject you. So Let's Stop beating around the bush...The real thing is the ANATHEMA. (Catholics and Orthodox) are claiming to hold salvation hostage and that IS NOT biblical! It is free for all and you DO NOT need to be a Catholic or orthodox and agree with there "traditions" or obscure practices to receive salvation! But nevertheless I impose this decree above you all. I have an anointing greater than apostolic succession and any pope. During a supernatural Near death Experience I met Jesus Christ The Risen Lord face to face! He anointed me and laid His hand upon me and by the ordaining of God personally I say and declare these things. By the power of the Lord Jesus Christ as God's personally anointed Son by His Very Hand and above ALL apostolic succession. I, Christ Holy Son by divine right and power given to me specifically, DISANNUL, ELIMINATE and UNBIND all anathemas made by the Catholic or Orthodox Church returning that which even could not be ever taken.. salvation! As well BIND FOREVER that ALL who believe in and on The name of Jesus Christ The Son of God and Messiah and Almighty God, IN ANY AGE AND FOR ALL TIME, SHALL BE SAVED!! AMEN This will stand for all time. All will be saved in Jesus name.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura (having spent years in Protestantism) but I respect it. Peace be with you my brother. I would like to see Suan vs James white.
@@RGTomoenage11 Yes, for sure. I had James White in mind when I said that, thinking of different Catholic apologists that got pretty personal w/ him. Even when he did a debate w/ a priest, and he was esp. gentle and reverential w/ the priest, calling him sir through the whole thing and going esp. easy on him in cross, the father still got took a few shots. I can't see Suan doing that. Though I do like the highly charged debates too. This one was an easier one. White's debates get so technical and the intellect and processing speed of these people is so phenomenal, it's a thing to behold. Has to be so hard to keep your cool and not let stress start clouding your mind and slowing them down.
The fact that Sonna was studying at Kansas State *almost* converted me to being a papist. However, learning that Ortlund drinks beer was compelling. So I remain Lutheran. However, what a great debate. EMAW.
I personally did not find Suan’s arguments convincing. I think Gavin’s closing statement really hit the nail on the head… Suan’s interpretations felt like trying to read something into the text that isn’t there, using a somewhat vague typology that wouldn’t get us to a papacy even if we accepted it. Just my takeaway, I know others probably got a lot more out of his line of reasoning than I did.
When Protestants challenge other religion's doctrines, they require an explicit verse but when it comes to defending Sola Scriptura, Protestants do not need an explicit verse.
Man shall not live by breath alone but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God. Christ is the Word. The Word is the Word. The church or tradition is not the word...
@@theKpen Oral tradition existed before written scripture. The writings were based on teachings handed down. Luke explains that his writings were based on what have been handed down Luke 1:1-4 1 Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed. Show me a single verse that says Scripture Alone. You will see that you have been lied to.
@@James22426 What do you mean by scripture alone or sola scriptura? Edit... Specifically....To prove the authority of Tradition you went to scripture? Do you start with Tradition or do you start with Scripture? If you were proving the Papacy, would you start with a foundation of Scripture or Tradition? If there were no scriptural support for your belief in the Papacy, would you still believe it? If so, what would be your basis? How would you draw the conclusion that the Papacy has authority, that it is infallible?
@@Lambdamale. Scripture Alone = Scripture is the final authority in all areas of faith and life. To prove the authority of Tradition/Oral Teaching, I went to Scripture because Protestants do not believe that Tradition has equal authority with Scripture. If there were no scriptural support for a tradition, I would not believe it because everything in Scripture was derived from Tradition. Scripture owes its existence to Tradition. Example when Paul was teaching that we are "saved by grace through faith not by works", this oral traditon had existed in the church before he had written it. In order for me to believe a doctrine, it has to be supported by both Tradition, Scripture, and approved by the Chruch Authority. All three must be in agreement because all three are equally authoritative. If any doctrice, is not in line with all three, then it is not orthodox.
@@James22426 Fair enough. You perceive Rome to be the authority that waa founded by Christ, and therefore subject your judgements on faith and Morals to them. But what is your foundation for doing this? Because when you define sola scriptura as scripture being thr final authority for the protestant in all areas of life (depending on which group) , it seems to me that Catholics also start with Scripture as their foundation when it comes to establishing Cburch authority.. In other words, for you to get to the point where a teaching is supported by scripture, tradition and approved by the church in order to believe it, it looks to me like the foundation for this comes from the oldest tradition that all Christian groups accept, the scriptures. It looks to me that this is where we all start, and also where we part. Even in this debate we are commenting about.
The Eucharist is everything the true presence of Christ under the veil of bread and wine and how he transformed the Passover into the Eucharist is key also the magesterium is not just a new covenant concept it existed in the old covenant thus it is plausible that it exists in the new also what about Protestantism is biblically and authentically defined as worship most evangelicals think that concert like jam sesh is authentic worship it’s not no where is this defined as worship in the Bible sacrifice is always what worship is defined as
I think Gavin completely demolished the pro-papacy arguments. I'm in no-man land spiritually, if I ever return to Christendom I will be eastern Orthodox.
When Dr Ortland said “ I bet people who’s hearing this debate never even heard of Eliakim until it was use to depend the Papacy”my jaw dropped 😱 because the same thought came to my mind. Also when he mentioned Joshua’s role to control an army and fight and likened it to the Pope as false typology. This is by the best debate of this I heard so far. Both gentlemen did a great job.
I never realized how a lot of significant doctrines of Catholicism stem from typology. If the New Testament authors aren't drawing the typological conclusion for me, then I'd be hesitant to believe it. Just because there's parallels, I don't think gives us justification to create doctrines out of those parallels.
@@hectorchavez1589 I wouldn't necessarily agree that the New Testament is "dependent" on typological truths nor does the New Testament claim that. I would need more clarification on what that really means. And the foundation laid for typology is that the Law and the Prophets were pointing to Christ. That's the only relevant typology we get from the New Testament authors. The authors use the Old Testament to reveal truths about Jesus, but not Mary or Peter.
@@noncalvinistbydecree1672 "The authors use the Old Testament to reveal truths about Jesus, but not Mary or Peter." That's just a protestant assumption without evidence. Truths about Mary or Peter are ultimately truths about Christ. Furthermore, the only way to understand well the OT is in the light of the NT, thanks to typology. Without typology, many parts of the OT seem like a weird collection of historic facts that don't seem to be strongly related to Christ. For example, why would God care about giving us information about Eliakim in Isaiah 22? Without typology, it seems like a random an useless information. Typology gives us the key to understand it.
@@vituzui9070 Can you show a New Testament author that states they're making a connection between Mary or Peter and something in the Old Testament? Their intent must be somewhat clear otherwise it's just up to interpretation or our imagination.
@@noncalvinistbydecree1672 ...straight from Gen. 3:15”...I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers...” Ahhh...right there in the beginning, He mentions His beloved mother😉
3 года назад+19
Great debate I really enjoyed it. Just a sincere comment here and this is something that concerns me a lot. I'm sure Gavin's objections are honest and pretty well thought as of many protestants. But let's think for a moment, why is there so much untrust towards Catholicism and its authority? And even if we say they are right, what would that make of the rest of Christianity? Why would protestantism be in a better position on this regard?
Allan I think you need to understand the protestant position better it's not that they have any problem with authority in general but a mere man claiming to have infallible authority and he has the supreme authority over every single Christians that exists in the entire world. In the eyes of both Protestants and the Orthodox, Christians just can't find the Roman bishop having the sole infallible and supreme authority over all churches in the bible and historic Christianity. To be frank, the Catholic claim is pretty grand and quite absurd. They equate the papacy with the succession of doctrine when it's actually the succession of office. Thus, the Catholic claim that the Bishop of Rome has supreme authority over all Churches must be clearly found in the Bible and in Church history which Catholics admit it's not clear at all especially from scripture.
The protestants don't claim to have authority, they claim that SCRIPTURE has the authority. This isn't like a custody fight. In Galatians chapter one, Paul says that if another teacher or an angel or even the apostles themselves preach a different gospel, we are to reject it. My point is not that the Catholic church has a different gospel (though I personally believe it does), my point is that Paul immediately crushes any chance for some person or organization to claim to be equal in authority to scripture.
I agree with your point that we al should be avoid overly incredulous of the claims of other denominations and create burdens of proof that are unreasonable. However, at the same time we should avoid be to credulous. As Gavin points out, the papacy of true would be one of the most central and significant doctrines. Given that fact that there are three separate ancient apostolic churches that reject the papal claims as not part of the tradition handed down to them (EO, OO, CotE) I think we are justified in asking that Rome provide very compelling evidence for her claims.
@@jericawilson1484 the bible actually affirms an authority equal to scripture. Jesus Christ himself said this Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven Notice he doesn't even mention the new testament books as an authority... Why? Because it wasn't written and ONLY the church given the keys of the kingdom would be able to write then compile these books. In fact if Protestants don't claim an authority of the church then they are in contradiction to both the New Testament and history since for the first 400 years of church history there wasn't a new testament Canon
We must know that this very book based on Christianity, the very backbone of all churches that had relied on in every generation after 325AD, was amalgamated by Council of Nicaea with Constantine as the Head of Rome at the time. The book contains previous history mainly Jewish influenced by our Maker of course, along with stuff they wanted to add to the bible. Therefore Rome's bible is Not Original. If Constantine was able to boldly and easily changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, which is one of the commandments from the Ten, keep the Sabbath. If He could do this in front of the Council and everyone else, how could he not have the power to change documents. Paul is a fake apostle designed to say what Yeshua says in the main messages, but twist and removes salvation requirements (Christ is the end of the Law he says, while Yeshua says until Heaven and Earth passes (hasn't passed yet) not one dot or iota will be removed from the Law until all is accomplished). Paul also told women not to talk or teach in church. Our Yeshua whom they gave the name Jesus, went to India and Tibet to study, teach and heal before 30, they said he lived in a desert or worked as a carpenter until 30. How could you be impressing Elders at a temple at age 12 with your knowledge and teachings, then go back to do dumb labour and not let your Light be set upon where the world could see from 12 to 30? They changed His journeys. Here is an Excerpt from Notovitch who discovered scrolls documenting Yeshua's travels and teachings at Hemis Monastery in Tibet. You know His words and tone because He doesn't change, He is like an old friend and stuff He says if you know Him, sounds familiar: Yeshua whom they gave the name Jesus and said it was a translation, was known as Saint Issa in the East: 8. Upon this, an old woman who had approached the group, to better hear Issa, was pushed aside by one of the disguised men, who placed himself before her. 9. Then said Issa: "It is not good for a son to push away his mother, that he may occupy the place which belongs to her. Whoso doth not respect his mother--the most sacred being after his God--is unworthy of the name of son. 10. "Hearken to what I say to you: Respect woman; for in her we see the mother of the universe, and all the truth of divine creation is to come through her. 11. "She is the fount of everything good and beautiful, as she is also the germ of life and death. Upon her man depends in all his existence, for she is his moral and natural support in his labors. 12. "In pain and suffering she brings you forth; in the sweat of her brow she watches over your growth, and until her death you cause her greatest anxieties. Bless her and adore her, for she is your only friend and support on earth. 13. "Respect her; defend her. In so doing you will gain for yourself her love; you will find favor before God, and for her sake many sins will be remitted to you. 14. "Love your wives and respect them, for they will be the mothers of to-morrow and later the grandmothers of a whole nation. 15. "Be submissive to the wife; her love ennobles man, softens his hardened heart, tames the wild beast in him and changes it to a lamb. 16. "Wife and mother are the priceless treasures which God has given to you. They are the most beautiful ornaments of the universe, and from them will be born all who will inhabit the world. 17. "Even as the Lord of Hosts separated the light from the darkness, and the dry land from the waters, so does woman possess the divine gift of calling forth out of man's evil nature all the good that is in him. 18. "Therefore I say unto you, after God, to woman must belong your best thoughts, for she is the divine temple where you will most easily obtain perfect happiness. 19. "Draw from this temple your moral force. There you will forget your sorrows and your failures, and recover the love necessary to aid your fellow-men. 20. "Suffer her not to be humiliated, for by humiliating her you humiliate yourselves, and lose the sentiment of love, without which nothing can exist here on earth. 21. "Protect your wife, that she may protect you--you and all your household. All that you do for your mothers, your wives, for a widow, or for any other woman in distress, you will do for your God." The only defining church is a church with HEALING miracles and righteous doctrines, just like the days of the Apostles. And you wonder why there are none today? Read the Gospel of the Nazirenes, also known as the Gospel of the Holy 12. Gives you a definite answer on why there are hardly any healing miracles in the world today because of the heathen state we had fallen in. Read how it was found in 1870's, read how it was quoted by all the early church leaders and apostles, then later hidden in Tibet for almost 1700 years because Rome did not like the amount of people building up a new religion in front of their Greek God infatuation. The top brass will see an "anarchy" coming, if you understand power you will understand this corruption.
As a Catholic strongly convicted of the Catholic truth, I hold Dr. Ortland in very high respect. If I ever converted, it would be because of a witness like his.
Same here. I'm a late life Catholic convert but Gavin had me thinking in other debates, particularly with Joe Heschmeyer in Gospel Simplicity podcast. Joe came off looking bad in that I thought. Saun was much stronger here. I've never seen Gavin on his heels like I thought here. Still I love listening to both these guys. I sometimes wonder if God wants the three branches of His Church. Catholic as logic, Orthodox as mystic, and protestant as emotion and heart. Maybe unity can come in all of us respecting what the other brings to the table.
I don't believe in comment like yours because there r thousands of protestants who r involved in a fake comment writing by projecting themselves a catholic......9th commandment "you shall not bear false witnesses"....
@@luvall293 Well, I mean, I probably can't convince you. I could tell you that Catholics don't worship Mary and that I love Mary and pray to her. XD Lol...
The Bible does don’t have a lot of words, like Trinity or Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide, oh wait, it does have faith alone, but only when it is preceded by “not” in the book of James. It doesn’t have “sinners prayer” it doesn’t have “original sin” or hypostatic union, it also doesn’t have the word Bible in it. Or canon of scripture… I think you get the point. Pope mean father. It is just a title. There are many other titles of the pope that are in scripture. Regardless, I would assume you don’t believe in bishops even though they are in scripture.
Suan mentioned in his opening that Moses transferred his role to Joshua, but Moses only did this because of the express command of the Lord. Where in the New Testament did the Lord command any of the Apostles to continue passing down their apostolic role to another person? They replaced Judas with Mathias, but no one was ever commanded to replace Peter, or any other apostle like James John’s brother (Acts 12:2).
I have a hard time getting beyond Sola Scriptura because of Jeremiah 17:9. I know for a fact God preserved his word, and it is unchanging ( Psalms 12). I can't say the same about Catholicism. I also believe that each denomination ( as long as they teach Christ as the savior) are just different branches to bring different-minded people to God, according to Romans 10:9.
The problem is that you're presuming that "God's Word" is the Bible and only the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does the Bible make such an assertion about itself. Furthermore, the Bible never enumerates its contents, which means that your infallible collection of books is based on a completely fallible list of books, which is a major problem, because 1) the canon is a tradition outside of Scripture that all orthodox believers are held to, which is profoundly anti sola scriptura, and 2) to resolve this problem, you would need an authoritative body (the Church) to decide what goes in there--or you're really just hoping that you somehow got it right, when the entirety of Church history points to a canon with at least seven more books.
This is so interesting that I had to like your comment. But the Catholic church doesn’t “change”. Instead, doctrine is understood better over time and eventually well thought out dogmas come out from teachings that have been held for years and years, even since the apostles. I’m not going to mention the scriptures yet since I’m going to go read them now, but I just wanted to mention how one’s perspective on a thing can reveal more truth from God. Thanks again for this post!
I’ve read the prescribed scriptures and… I see these aren’t actually about Sola Scriptura but rather they display *why* you are wary about the Catholic Church’s way of forming dogma. Such fear is not something one can “argue” a person out of. I know, I was there😅. But I do hope that you can come to consider why Christ wanted “one body” of believers, and why the apostles constantly wrote about unity. Think about what unity meant to them, not what it means to you. You may come to a different conclusion than me, but one understanding of God makes the most sense to me. God bless you as you watch more studies/debates such as this one.😊
As a Catholic, I really, really appreciated Suan's deep understanding of scripture and theology. It is refreshing and indeed beautiful to hear the Church's position done completely and charitably. I like Gavin too, a great human being.
Suan needs to realize that making the argument does not settle the argument. You can have a complication of ideas from notable scholars yet be wrong. Suan functions by conjecture, he simply wants what he argues to be so, so in his mind it is so. In other words, he is reaching into thin air, hoping to pull something solid from it.
The Roman apologist did a very respectable job, but no matter how good one is, arguing 2 + 2 equals 5.3 is always a failing endeavor. Great job by Gavin.
Well, it's difficult, if we accept protestantism is true, the those 1.2 billion Catholics can just split up and just add to the confusion that is just protestant denominations. There is a real strength to christiantiy just uniting under the same doctrines. We are not going to be successful winning converts if we keep confusing them by opening up new protestant Churches. That clearly ISN'T a good idea regardless of whether you want their to be a Catholic Church or not. Even if the Catholic Church renounced some of its doctrines and embraced protestant views, we would all just be seperate Churches each teaching our own different truths. It just ends up being a mess. This to me gives credence to the Catholic argument that Jesus didn't make anymore then one instituonal Church.
I'd like to hear the debate between these men on Immaculate conception and transubstantiation and praying to saints. Two knowledgeable passionate intelligent gracious men discussing would help clarify the argument
Great debate for the most part. The Q&A was pretty rough, I think the debaters should have been given equal, timed responses. Even for questions directed to Dr. Ortlund, it felt like Suan was given a pass to dominate the discussion and always have the last word of substance.
I haven't gotten to that part yet, but this seems to be a protestant channel. In older debates, where the organizers and most of the audience is protestant, the questions mostly go to the Catholic debater as well (because the audience wants to challenge them more). The protestant debater is not questioned directly near as much, and only gets half the time to do a short follow up. I guess this offsets the home court advantage a bit.
![Who is the Rock? (Matt 16:18) // Jimmy Akin vs. Dr. Steven Nemes [Full Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qw2M4jIWqeI/mqdefault.jpg)
I love the overall positive attitude in this debate. Everyone was charitable.
I really like how Gavin debates against the papacy I think he's the best protestant I've seen debate this topic, Suan is the best catholic I've seen on this topic too. Great debate keep it up Cameron ¡Viva Cristo Rey!
It’s crazy to think Suan wasn’t even a catholic for a full year iirc when this debate was posted lol
Nah
For me. Gavin is the best Protestant to debate papacy. But for Catholics. It's not Suan as awesome as he is.
It would be any of the following.
Jimmy
Trent
Tim
Steve
=======
And yes, it is terrifying how Suan would become if he matured through the years. He's a genius at his age.
Dr James White has 30 years of epic Catholic debates
@@KamalaKackles I'm a protestant whose faith has been severely damaged by James White's debates. Every one I've seen, the Catholic has completely decimated White. I don't know how any open minded viewer could find White persuasive
Loved the debate. I’m a Protestant, but I loved the depth of knowledge Mr. Suan depicted. Thank you Dr. Gavin for your work!
? He was wrong about everything
I'm Catholic convert late in life but feel same for Gavin. Gives me hope that we all can learn something from each other. I'm convicted Catholic but do believe God must have had a good purpose in the Reformation. And we can't forget our Orthodox brothers. Strange that there are 3 main branches of the Christian faith each representing a different element of humanity. Catholic logic Orthodox mystic Protestant heart.
@@dennischanay7781 "Strange "is not something we should be basing our faith on.
@@dennischanay7781 God did not bring about the reformation, and that's rather a very Protestant view of the events; if one really looks at the reformation and what came with it and what its fruits have looked like, then one can not claim that what happened back then had anything to do with God, for revolution always is the work of the devil; now I agree though, that God will turn it into something good in the long run because that's what He always does...
@@baddog6003 All the so-called reformers chose the heart and their passions, and with it, many times the sword above logic and reason; the sword of Christ is a spiritual one; just read the works of Luther and how he talks about the enslaved will and his other works where he rejects reason and basically blames God for his own wicked sins...
I've been moving towards Catholicism for a couple of years now. This discussion certainly reduced my momentum. Lots to think about. Thanks to Gavin and Suan!
For me also catholicism is making alot of sense to me lately
I’ll welcome you home in advance!!!
I wouldn’t let anything Gavin says deter you from the truth of Christ’s mystical body
So you were more convinced by dr. Ortlund's arguments? Could you tell which arguments in particular?
@@vituzui9070 there is nothing in the New Testament that mentions the office of a pope. Peter never claims to be the supreme leader of the church nor do the apostles acknowledge him as such.
Wow very gracious debate. I appreciate the almost immediate effect I sensed Dr. Ortlund's attitude had on Suan. Not the Suan was aggressive or rude but he was "business-like"; he was in debate mode. As Dr. Ortlund pointed out, he's a good debater. But as soon as Dr. Ortlund gave his first remark I sensed a change in the entire mood of the discussion towards graciousness and mutual understanding. That is the way of our Lord. Good on you, sir. God bless all 3 of you.
Amazing dialogue. Often Catholic/Protestant debates get heated to the point where the discussion is useless [at least in blogosphere.] These two gentleman were humble & cordial, while knowing their stuff simultaneously.
Yeah, thank God for patient and respectful brothers like these. It doesn't seem fake either.
That’s simply not true most Catholic/Protestant debate are usually civil and charitable especially when hosted on Christian channels or platforms. That is unless you’re talking about the comment section below them in which case you’re totally right
Thanks Suan & Gavin for agreeing to do this. May the Lord bless you guys, and may clarity & unity among the saints of Christ continue increasing to His glory
Dr. Gavin Ortlund is a true blessing in this community. He has articulated my confusion and questions when I first started hearing typological arguments from Catholic and Orthodox Christians.
I find typological arguments completely unpersuasive. If person X and person Y shared some characteristic or had a similar experience, then that means X and Y are identical in any aspect or respect you feel like asserting -- that's how typology appears to me.
@@patrickbarnes9874 that's never true even for typological arguments about Christ
@@patrickbarnes9874 There’s definitely ways in which that can be but I do think Suan brought more than just a vague typological argument here
It is a really good typological argument though, especially when you realize the Jewish background of it. We know the Matthew verse about Peter is a reference, a typology, of Eliakim in Isaiah. But I wanna explain. God says he would give the keys to the House of David, or the Davidic Kingdom to Eliakim. He was not king of Israel, yet he acted in the kings stead, and had second authority over all Israel only under the king himself. God says he would give the keys of the kingdom to Eliakim, which is what Jesus says He will give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, the New Israel, and Messianic Kingdom, to Peter. In the Talmud, this is also seen as the Keys to the Temple, so Eliakim was literally given spiritual authority and kingly authority over Israel. He was given priestly garments and a kingly robe, emphasizing not only his kingly role but his priestly as well. In Jewish thought at the time of Jesus, bind meant to prohibit, and loose meant to allow. Jesus gave this authority to Peter specifically, saying these specific words in a Jewish world, before the other Apostles, indicating a special type of authority given to Peter alone to do this. God also mentions Elikiam was supposed to be a father to Israel, the Pope is the holy father, and Pope is essentially “papa”. We also see Elikiam’s role is an office. God gives him an office to be passed down, not just a title. And what we see is that Peter and the Papacy is the same way. We also know that in the Talmud, the Jews in sorrow over being evil, three the keys to the temple into heaven, the sky, and it was though a Hand took them. And God in the Old Testament Promises the Messiah will restore the Judges of Israel, etc. Setting up a New Kingdom. Also, when we look at what Jesus says, he names Peter “Kepha”. And then He says something like, you are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my Church. The foundational stone in the Temple was where the priest would pour the blood of the Yom Kippur Sacrifice onto. It was a foundation of the Temple, which is kind of like a prefigurement of the Church. So, this all means so much to a first century Jew, that you wouldn’t understand unless you read it in context. I mean also, the Jews had God, but God still chose Moses to rule over them, and Moses still had judges, kind of like Bishops. The Jews had a three tier priesthood, with a High Priest, which goes into the Temple, a priest, and a Levite, just as Catholics have a Pope, Bishops, and a priest. The Priests offered Sacrifice and atoned for sins, just as the Catholic priesthood offers the one Sacrifice of Jesus, the Eucharist, onto the Altar, during the Mass. They also are the ones through whom the Sacrament of Reconciliation is done. Jesus even references a “seat of Moses” Talmudic Tradition not found in the Old Testament, but that was found in Jewish oral tradition, which stated Moses had a seat of succession, which fell to the Pharisees, and a literal chair that followed the Jews around in the desert. That’s why we say the Pope speaks from the “Chair of Peter”, when speaking infallibly. Jesus straight up tells those around Him to obey the teachings of the Pharisees, because they sit on the seat of Moses, which was a succession of Mosss tradition not found in the OT. We Catholics have a Tradition of succesion of the Apostles.
Also, adding onto it Eliakim was called a steward, just as Peter was called to be a steward of the Church. Peter was called to be leader, as Jesus said to feed his sheep, and we even see Peter’s name is always listed for at, the earliest Christians, disciples under the Apostles, spoke of the Bishops this way, and also Jesus also tells Peter specifically in one instance satan is trying to sift you all like wheat, but Jesus says he would pray specifically for Peter, to strengthen his brothers.
Great debate. I'm Protestant, so I found myself agreeing with Gavin, as he made clear concise points and his arguments were more convincing. God bless both of them.
@@eternalbyzantium262 this is a disgusting comment, go confess your sin
@@eternalbyzantium262 I am inquiring into Orthodoxy and I do not think that the comments you have been making in this comment section about Protestantism are savory or useful. I don't like Protestantism myself, but imagine if a Protestant came up and said that "Orthodoxy is of the devil whose Saints are pagan, polytheistic deities"? It wouldn't make you want to listen to anything they'd have to say about Protestantism. Please stop.
Let's talk, Gavin says there is no one leader among the 12 Apostles, yet, Peter is mentioned over 195 times, and the next of the 12, John, at 30 times. So much for equality!
Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren and Jesus renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock.
The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@eternalbyzantium262 is it disgusting, because you want to add man made tradition that they restrict?
@@matthewbroderick6287 Respectfully, a lot is being inferred by you, imho. Christ calling Peter the rock was after the declaration of Peter calling Him Christ. Upon _that_ truth, he'd build His church. Just a clear reading of the text gave me that, even before I was a believer.
Thanks for a great debate from both sides. I realised, growing up protestant, that I've been dismissing a caricature of catholic beliefs rather than their actual beliefs. Time to go do some more learning!
I agree. I'm actually a former Lutheran (now Catholic), and until I started questioning my (former) protestant beliefs I had no idea how much I didn't know not just about the Catholic church but even Lutheranism and Protestantism. I had always believed that the Lutheran church was the true church by my ignorance and obliviousness and now that I have much more knowledge my position obviously has changed.
@@drewmiller2613 I am a settled Protestant (SBC) and am not convinced RC or Orthodox.
@@Convexhull210 As a Protestant I’ve decided to join the Catholic Church. For the following reasons. Relying on scripture alone doesn’t make no sense. During the first century there was no Bible. Christians relied on what leaders off the church told them and the letters of the apostles but there was no biblical cannon. The church had the number one authority. The first about 300 years of Christianity there was no set biblical cannon. The church had authority. The biblical cannon comes from the Catholic Church so it’s their book. The oldest bible we have is from the 4th century. So the first three centuries people relied on the church. God himself didn’t pick the cannon it was the Catholic Church. You trust the Catholic Church to tell you what books are the word of God but reject other beliefs? If the Catholic Church is wrong in areas it would make no sense for you to accept they have the word of God right. To reject the Catholic Church you need to reject their book the Bible. As long as you accept their bible you are under the Catholic Church authority. The original bible the apocrypha books in it until the 16th century until Luther chose to remove it. Protestants have changed the Bible by removing books. What gives Luther the right? The Bible cannon was picked by the early Christian leaders in the Catholic Church. These people were taught by people who learned from the original disciples then centuries later Protestants believe a man who never learned from the disciples or the disciples disciples. In conclusion why do Protestants trust the Catholic Church bible but not the Catholic Church. It was the church authority that picked the Bible cannon so the church has authority over the Bible because before the Bible was put together people only relied on the church. The Catholic Church is the only one that can interpret the Bible they put it together. If it weren’t for the Catholic Church Protestants wouldn’t even have their religion. You’re entire religion is based off the Bible the Catholic Church put together. To reject Catholicism you need to reject their book.
@@drewmiller2613
Drew,
Perhaps these quotes from Jesus might help.
▪︎Matthew 16:18
18. And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.
When Jesus says "My Church", He's referring to just one.
Unity is a divine quality.
The following reaffirms it:
▪︎JOHN 17:21-23
21. so that they MAY ALL BE ONE, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.
22. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may BE ONE, as WE ARE ONE,
23. I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to PERFECTION AS ONE, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.
God bless.
They praise me with their mouths, but their hearts are far from me. Depart from me, I never knew you.
If you really examine the history of the Roman Catholic Church, and not just the ones written by them, and really look at what the Popes and the RCC have done throughout history, you might have to question the authenticity of the RCC and their claims to infallibility and Apostolic derivation. The blood of the Bogomils, Albigensians, Waldenses, Hussites, and many other groups of believers (they were NOT HERETICS) Many others were martyrs murdered by the Catholic Church, and the fact that they forbade the Bible to anyone outside the clergy for over a thousand years is very indicative of their apostate condition. When you read Revelation, the description of the woman who rides the beast dressed in scarlet and purple with a golden chalice full of abominations that is also referred to as being a city on seven hills; do you really need a better description of the Church of Rome and the world domination that it has sought for centuries? I grew up among Catholics, and have many Catholic friends that are dear to me, but I disagree with their doctrine and beliefs. Please study the Bible and see what it says. Examine the scriptures closely, and even though the RCC dismisses the Bible as the primary authority for the Church in our time, nevertheless, Jesus Christ considered the scriptures as His Words, and that they were authoritative.
I do not see the Roman Catholic Church in the Scriptures. Neither are most of their doctrines. 🙏✝️👑✝️🙏
@@joecastillo8798
A debate run and participated in the way it should be! We need to be searching for the Truth, and as we do that charitably together, we will find Him. Keep up the good work, all three of you!
What a refreshing debate! Genuine questions, humble responses, and great insight!
I felt like it was quite even during the rebuttals but Suan definitely took a lead during the cross exams. It become pretty clear that the basis for the typology is there and Gavins response was mainly that its not explicit enough considering the weight of a papal office. Which is a stance i think is respectable, though not a strong rebuttal of Suans case. Nonetheless, a fantastic job overall from both sides. Gavin is incredibly humble and honest, and pleasent listening to. Thanks guys for making this! This was a blast!
Typology is always based on established doctrine. It never creates or forms new doctrine. Suan is too ambitious with these typologies and like Gavin pointed out in 1:04:01 ,without boundaries or some explicit textual support there is no limit to the types of interpretation one may infer from this exercise.
@@Mr_A1-37 🎯 I felt the same way. Way too generous with the application of typology.
@@Mr_A1-37 the doctrine of the papacy isn't based on the typology either, so I don't think i see your point there.
I agree that typology can run amok without any boundaries, and I don't think suans case is without textual support: Revelations 3:7 explicitly connects the authority of Christ to the one of Eliakim (not saying its the same, but that there is a connection) spoken of in isaiah 22:22. So there are at least some typology going on with respect to the authority of Christ and the keys to the house of David, which by my lights should be necessary to get an argument for the papacy going.
@@Mr_A1-37 1:04:04 The typology, allusions, and parallelisms in terms of the language used in accordance with the context, is hard to deny. Choosing reject it is to willfully ignore or deny divine revelation in Scripture.
Dr. Ortlund is correct in pointing out the Pope's military leadership role, being the successor of Peter, who is indentified as the new Joshua.
One of the Pope's roles, assigned by God by virtue of Peter's identity as the new Joshua, is to lead the faithful in the cosmic battle against the ultimate enemy of God's Kingdom- Evil.
Although the war has already been won by Christ through His incarnation, cross and resurrection, the faithful's personal battles continue on.
We are all called to be a "𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗝𝗲𝘀𝘂𝘀" (Tim 2:3) and to persevere till the end for God and His kingdom's greater glory.
Notice the military language used to describe the armors we Christians are supposed to equip ourselves with as we battle the forces of evil, being soldiers of Christ:
(Ephesians 6:10-17)
Finally, 𝗱𝗿𝗮𝘄 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘆 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿.
𝗣𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗻 the 𝙖𝙧𝙢𝙤𝙧 𝙤𝙛 𝙂𝙤𝙙 𝘀𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗺 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗹.
For 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗳𝗹𝗲𝘀𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝙗𝙪𝙩 with the 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀, with the 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿𝘀, with the 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀, with the 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝘀𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘀 in the heavens.
Therefore, 𝗽𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗻 the 𝙖𝙧𝙢𝙤𝙧 𝙤𝙛 𝙂𝙤𝙙,
that you may be able to resist on the evil day and, having done everything, to 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱.
So 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝘀𝘁 with your 𝗹𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗴𝗶𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵, 𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 as a 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲,
and 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝘁 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗱 in 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗲.
In all circumstances, 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗲𝗹𝗱,
𝘁𝗼 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝗹𝗹 [the] 𝗳𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘀 of the 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝗼𝗻𝗲.
And 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗺𝗲𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 and the 𝘀𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗶𝘁, which is the 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗚𝗼𝗱. (Ephesians 6:10-17)
We have to recognize the bigger picture.
Dr. Ortlund should pray for eyes to see, so that he can recognize more clearly the typology presented to him by Suan.
Just because Dr. Ortlund does not yet have the eyes to fully see the overall structure of God's Kingdom, and just because he could not yet comprehend God's divine revelation as it was entrusted to His chosen disciples/apostles and their successors, does not mean the typology is not there nor does it mean that the typology has gone amok.
@@neptali_allane What are you saying these verses highlight?
Love Suan. Converts like him that follow the evidence are powerful witnesses to truth and hope for unity because he speaks to a Bible-only presupposition exquisitely.
Yes indeed!
He does an excellent job of speaking to Protestants like me by sourcing scriptures and Protestant sources.
I pray God continues to bless him.
Well, the only problem is that his argument as a whole is based on a presupposition which cannot be found Biblically - That there is a pope, who is infallible, has apostolic succession, and is the figurehead of Rome. These things need to be assumed and forced on scripture to have any argument whatsoever. But otherwise, I agree.
It's not assumed or forced on scripture. It is the witness of the church. It's only a problem if you refuse the witness of extrabiblical evidence a priori or force an extrabiblical rule upon Suan. Dismissing evidence based on an ad hoc a priori is not a sound way to arrive at any sort of truth. You'll see skeptics do the same thing when they say, "I can dismiss what was written in Acts because it is not corroborated in the Bible nor extrabiblical witness." Okay, who made that rule? The rule you've applied didn't exist before Martin Luther made it up whole cloth. Protestants use extrabiblical witness to arrive at a necessity of biblical witness. They also use extrabiblical witness to arrive at a canon. The sword cuts both ways if we want to be consistent with an epistemology, so it's rather easy to dismiss your claim about his assumptions.
@@markfrideres284 The difference here is that I'm not dismissing acts or anything of the sort, as it is in the Bible. I'm not saying I disagree with something just because it isn't corroborated the bible. But when it comes to an interpretation and denomination of Christianity claiming that Peter was the first pope with little to no very early/biblical evidence, it makes things far easier to dismiss. Why? Because it is a manmade notion with no link or association with the written words of Jesus.
Thanks for the great debate. The issue of the Eliakim typology had never appeared so decisive in this argument to me before, so thank you a lot for stressing and elightning this point so extensively.
However, I am a bit surprised that following very explicit indications by early CHurch fathers of Rome's Church supremacy and guarding of the true faith were not mentioned, especially given that Gavin made a key argument out of it :
In the 3rd century, Saint Cyprian of Carthage: “Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come” (Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 A.D.]).
Now the quote by the same Cyprian of all bishops" equal in honor and power" does not seem contradictory to me, in the sense that all bishops are autonomous in ordinarily administering their respective diocese, while Rome has a special charisma of doctrinal infallibility and exceptional, last resort supreme jurisdictio.
In the 2nd century, Irenaeus of Lyons : “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
In 5th century, Pope Sixtus III : “all know that to assent to [the Bishop of Rome’s] decision is to assent to St. Peter, who lives in his successors and whose faith fails not.”
Pope Leo the Great, 5th century:
“The dispensation of the truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter, preserving in the strength of the rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church which he undertook to control. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the rock, from his being pronounced the foundation, from his being constituted doorkeeper (Key-holder) of the kingdom of heaven, from his authority as umpire to bind and loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven - from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. And still today he more fully and effectually performs what is entrusted to him and with him, through whom he has been glorified. And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merit whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See”
Pope Vigilius (538) (letter to Profuturus of Braga):
“To no one well or ill informed is it doubtful that the Roman Church is the foundation and the mould of the Churches (fundamentum et forma sit ecclesiarum), from which no one of right belief is ignorant that all Churches have derived their beginning. Since, though the election of all the Apostles was equal, yet a pre-eminence over the rest was granted to blessed Peter, whence he is also called Cephas, being the head and beginning of all the Apostles: and what hath gone before in the head, must follow in the members. Wherefore the holy Roman Church, through his merit consecrated by the Lord’s voice and established by the authority of the holy Fathers, holds the Primacy over all Churches, to which as well the highest concerns of Bishops, their causes, and complaints, as the greater questions of the Churches, are ever to be referred, as to the head. For he who knows himself to be set over others, should not object to one being placed over himself. For the Church itself, which is the first, has bestowed its authority on the rest of the Churches with this condition, that they be called to a part of its solicitude, not to the fulness of its power. Whence the causes of all Bishops who appeal to the Apostolic See, and the proceedings in all greater causes, are known to be reserved to that holy See; especially as in all these its decision must always be awaited: and if any Bishops attempts to resist this course, let him know that he will give account to that holy See not without endangering his own rank.”
Yeah, I thought Gavin gave that point way too much attention. It's completely out of nowhere.
Wow! great cross-examination by Dr Gavin. I appreciate Suan's knowledge but Gavin is sharp
That quote by Cyprian appears to be false or at least very inexact. I tried to look it up myself. The actual quote is:
"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare - a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics- to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access. But what was the reason of their coming and announcing the making of the pseudo-bishop in opposition to the bishops?" Letter 54:14
Despite his heated dispute with Pope Stephen over re-baptism, Cyprian is actually good evidence for Catholic claims, but I'd stop using that "quote" you gave.
@@tonyl3762 thanks, I stand corrected! The true version is perhaps even more useful for apologetics as it backs the arguably less well documented papal claims to supreme jurisdiction and being the visible fundament of Churches' unity. The other quotes back the infallibility claims
@@martincorneille7998 Along that line actually of supreme jurisdiction, I came across the Catholic Encyclopedia's "incontestable" claim that Cyprian's Letter 66 "is here explaining to the pope why he ventured to interfere, and that he attributes to the pope the power of deposing Marcanus and ordering a fresh election."
Letter 66 from Cyprian to Pope Stephen (New Advent website):
"Wherefore *it behooves you to write a very copious letter to our fellow bishops* appointed in Gaul, not to suffer any longer that Marcian, froward and haughty, and hostile to the divine mercy and to the salvation of the brotherhood, should insult our assembly, because he does not yet seem to be excommunicated by us; in that he now for a long time boasts and announces that, adhering to Novatian, and following his frowardness, he has separated himself from our communion; although Novatian himself, whom he follows, has formerly been excommunicated, and judged an enemy to the Church....
*Let letters be directed by you* into the province and to the people abiding at Arles, *by which, Marcian being excommunicated, another may be substituted in his place,* and Christ's flock, which even to this day is contemned as scattered and wounded by him, may be gathered together....
dearest brother, the body of priests is abundantly large, joined together by the bond of mutual concord, and the link of unity; so that *if any one of our college should try to originate heresy, and to lacerate and lay waste Christ's flock, others may help,* and as it were, as useful and merciful shepherds, gather together the Lord's sheep into the flock....
For the glorious honour of our predecessors, the blessed martyrs Cornelius and Lucius, must be maintained, whose memory as we hold in honour, *much more ought you, dearest brother, to honour and cherish with your weight and authority, since you have become their vicar and successor* .... *Intimate plainly to us who has been substituted* at Arles in the place of Marcian, that we may know to whom to direct our brethren, and to whom we ought to write."
Keep up the good work Suan
Cameron that setup is looking immaculate
Suan is so impressive. Gavin is a better communicator and it can feel like he's on top, but if you listen carefully, Suan is going so much more in depth and giving so much information condensed that you would need time to unpack everything. What a great demonstration.
Could also be that Suan overwhelms the listener with too much information as he mixes tradition, Scriptures, typology and other Catholic interpretations that may not be necessary right.
Gavin effectively uses denial and doubt. He doesn't really have arguments. He doesn't really have an alternative. He just says it is typology run amuk by decree of Gavin.
@@NolongeraslaveI agree lots of suans statements especially in his opening lie upon catholic presuppositions of succession, Jesus founding the bishopric, and the incorrect reflection of type/anti type. As much as I respect suans great knowledge and desire for truth I think he gets caught up in the intrinsic guilt in catholicism to fear consideration of these topics (due to countless anathemas
@@cooperthatguy1271
Cooper,
Remember these words:
▪︎MATTHEW 16:17-19
17. And in response, Jesus said to him: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven.
18. And I say to you, that you are Peter, and UPON THIS ROCK I will build MY CHURCH, and the gates of Hell SHALL NOT PREVAIL against it.
19. And I will GIVE YOU THE KEYS of the kingdom of heaven. And WHATEVER you shall BIND on earth shall be BOUND, even in heaven. And WHATEVER you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.”
Such authority does not end wirh Peter, the biblical and historical evidence confirms that is ongoing, according to:
▪︎MATTHEW, 28:19-20
19. GO therefore and MAKE DISCIPLES OF ALL NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20. and teaching them to obey EVERYTHING that I have commanded you. And remember, I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS, TO THE END OF THE AGE.”
Such promise confirms the permanent presence o Jesus until the end of times, guiding each successor of Peter and all the other Apostles to the truth.
May God bless your discernment.
Gavin is a clever manipulator.
Suan doesnt mention that the handful of early Fathers (ancient Christian writers) that mention a 'New Eve' typology also CONTRADICT required Roman Catholic Marian Dogmas. Such as Tertullian and possibly Ireanaus. There is no 'patristic consensus' on Marian dogmas as any scholar knows.
This is interesting. Do you have a quote or link? Thanks.
Tertullian isn't really a church father though.
@@kevinbartolen5881 What do you mean he is not really a church father? How did you come to that conclusion?
@@gfujigo He isn't considered a church father by the church. Church fathers praised some of his writings but also criticized or condemned others. Later in his life he left the church and fell into heresy of Montanism. He isn't considered a church father for similar reasons as Origen.
@@kevinbartolen5881 speaking of him as a historical witness, who was very influential to the development of latin theology, likely a pastor, used the term Trinitas. He is commonly cited by roman catholic theologians. So his testimony that is early and against roman catholic doctrines, with no evidence that anybody contradicts him, is relevant. Why shouldn't historians use the oldest historical evidence rather then the later historical evidence? Why do Tertullian and Ireanus, who perhaps originate the 'New Eve' analogy, briefly mentioning it in their vast writings, explain what means differently then modern Roman Catholic?
Love the points both brothers made, and with that rare dint of charity we often don’t see on the Internet. Dr Ortlund, in my opinion, is the gold standard when it comes to presenting forth the “Protestant” argument. What concerns me, however, is which? Given the variety if interpretations of Protestantism writ large, it seems to me that the particular methodological tools Dr Ortlund is using beg the question: which? That concerns me, because I do not think other Protestant brothers and sisters would make similar arguments. And given that there are so many denominations, so many occupying the pulpit, there is something about the 1,500-year history of Catholicism and it’s doctrinal development that makes me much more spiritually at ease. God bless everyone and thank you, Cameron, for hosting this extremely important debate!
Well put.
@@GS-cj7rf Spot on
Quite true and eloquent. The Word of God never changes while theoretically tomorrow the "Pope/magisterium" could declare Mary Co Mediatrix (5th Marian Dogma which is being pushed by some RC).
I'm having trouble with the same question of which. There's so many opinions and interpretations; it's a real difficult ocean to traverse.
@@GS-cj7rf Well, the canonization of the bible is a dogma!
We as Catholics do not change the truth, dogmas are an affirmation of what the apostles always believed but not what was explicitly stated in the bible.
An example of this is the trinity, can you quote an unmistakable passage that leads to this conclusion?
On the other hand, you Protestants changed the truth, you reversed the order, first the church and then the bible, because the second is dependent on the first.
Afterwards, you cannot have unity in baptism, communion, the Lord's day and the question of iconoclasm.
Now that is change.
Sorry for bringing this up so late.
Suan is so based. He does not even flinch, when being cross-examined. "If you have a problem with that, you should talk to Moses." And "Yes, why shouldn't we change the Scripture to appease our modern western sentiments instead of listening to the word of God?" Seems like a very good idea! After all who is Moses if measured by the golden standard of the post-modern sentiment? This kind of argument doesn't go very far against people with the courage to stand up for what they believe.
Great debate from the both of you! I think Suan is the clear winner of this debate. Definitely helped convinced me more of Catholicism. 🙏
Indeed. Both sides presented great argument and it was a great debate.
Since antiquity it has been understood that every priest is the successor of Peter. The Orthodox Church makes excellent applications of the more convincing points put forth by Suan, such as the clear typology (because it's true). But the problem is that papal supremacy and infallibility are the least convincing points put forth, and the parts that Orthodoxy rejects. If the widespread understanding in the 3rd century from St. Cyprian of Carthage was that every priest succeeded Peter, and James was the ultimate authority in Acts in Jerusalem (with Peter present), then how could Peter be supreme? And more than that, how is the Roman church solidly Petrine?
@J. Russell I just cannot see how Protestantism can be taken seriously when they have no historical foundation prior to the 16th century, while Catholics can trace theirs to the 1st century. Please prove me wrong and show me that people in the early church believed in fundamental Protestant doctrine.
@J. Russell nowhere in NT do we read about the trinity either.
@J. Russell Neither do I see pianos/guitars used at church being mentioned in the NT. The word Trinity is not used in the Bible and neither is an explicit definition of the Trinity present anywhere in scripture. There is such a thing as doctrinal development.
In my opinion, if you did not presuppose the Catholic Church was false and had no theological bias while you studied the scriptures in light of its first century Jewish context in the light of the writings of the early church fathers then you’d definitely be Catholic.
Suan is a beast - I think he did well in both rounds of the cross examination - great debate on both sides for sure.
Thank you Suan....God bless your efforts/works in defending the true church, founded by Jesus Christ 2021 yrs. ago...Jesus wants us to be one...no matter what, even His apostles were not perfect ...but He said that He will be with us until the end of time...thank you also to Cavin .,pls continue to know the truth.. May God bless you all who made this debate possible...
No you wouldn't
When the RCC was the only game in town you were allowed to follow, or you'd get excommunicated, which could be a slow death sentence in itself, seeing as how no one would trade or help you anymore. Or if you were stripped of possessions and thrown in prison, or put to death at worst, then it would easily be the default mode to be RCC. People were illiterate back then, so I can totally see how the church evolved as it did. Good people fought hard agaisnt Roman authority to provide the bible to common people, so we can now read it for ourselves. This is why a lot of Christians no longer choose to be Catholic, now that it's not dangerous to choose.
I have never met a new Christian that read the RCC claims in the Bible without having to be told the RCC claims are there The trinity doesn’t have to be inserted into the Bible, it is already there and people can find it without having to be justified to new believers, they read the basic principles right away. Like this discussion of the papacy, even the apostles’s successors for hundreds of years didn’t see it in the Bible, that should tell you right away that the problem is not people not opposing RCC but that the RCC claim has a biblical problem.
¡Viva Cristo Rey y la Virgen de los ángeles!
Repent
“And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” ****Revelation 21:14****
• Peter was no different than the others. We can see here in ****Revelations 21:14**** that Peter was still an apostle, not a pope. John saw a vision of the New Jerusalem, so if Peter was a pope, John would have said I saw the foundation of the city walls in layers of 11 apostles and the one pope.
------------------
- Eamon Duffy, an Irish historian, said, “There is, therefore, nothing directly approaching a papal theory in the pages of the New Testament,” and “from all indications, there was no single bishop of Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the apostles”.
- Eamon Duffy was a Catholic Historian and he basically refutes that *Matthew 16:18* alludes to or supports papal authority. He said it without any confusion that the New Testament scriptures do not support the papacy. Therefore Peter was not singled out. When Christ said, “upon this Rock, I build my church”…. to say that he was proclaiming a papacy through a lineage of Peter is speculation.
- If that were true, there would be other scriptures to cross-reference the theory of Pontification. Paul would have had to check in with Peter if Peter was the Pope. Instead, Paul went to see Ananias to receive his sight.
- In ****Galatians 2:11-21**** we can see Paul putting Peter in check for treating the Gentiles differently based upon their state of circumcision and Peter’s fear of criticism.
- If ****Matthew 16:18**** was Peter’s proclamation of pontification, that leaves a huge issue. The biggest problem of all is that if Peter is the rock, then the scripture wouldn’t say that Christ is the rock. That’s a contradiction. We can’t build our faith on contradictions. The Rock is spiritual, not earthly.
****1 Corinthians 10:4**** - and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
------------------
****Matthew 16:18**** The Catholic Church says that tradition holds that Peter is the first pope and the rock, and that this scripture is proclaiming the Papacy.
****1 Corinthians 3:11**** / ****1 Corinthians 10:4**** The word of God says that Christ is the spiritual Rock. A Rock for the wise builder.
------------------
- I’m choosing to go with the Word of God, not the traditions of men. There is no evidence that Peter ever even went to Rome.
Christ is the Rock, Peter is a stone, and we are all stones. ****1 Peter 2:4-8****
❤❤❤❤❤
¡Amen Amen, Que Viva!
Suan is amazing, a true gift. Thank you for this talk!!!!
Wonderful, balanced debate between two very wise and educated men! Enjoyed hearing both sides and learned a lot as a Catholic. Thank you!
Why didn’t Paul mention the Papacy in his instructions to the churches?
Excellent question - absolutely IMPOTENT answer.
Is like saying, why didn't Jesus Christ my God, Lord and Savior write the Bible.
@@mercibeaucoup2639 He DID write the Bible! “The word of God” GET IT?!
@@mercibeaucoup2639 He did write it, through His chosen people. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”
@@mercibeaucoup2639😮💨🤦♂️
These men have so much knowledge that it puts me to shame. I need to study the scriptures more often.
As always. Suan is a master of his craft and delivers the Catholic truth extremely well. Seen Gavin several times and he’s one of my favorite to see in these kind of discussion/debates. Unlike other Protestants, Gavin respectfully hears things out and is seeking the truth.
I am not a Christian, but I am a serious student of religion and history. My own feeling about Rome is that it acquired a certain importance because of its political and cultural significance as the center of the Roman Empire for hundreds of years, and Christianity awarded a certain honorary position because of it. That's all. So the bishop or patriarch of Rome gradually sought greater authority leading to the schism and thereafter. But certainly those who take religion seriously realize the gap between Rome and Istanbul now is still far too great to bridge for unity.
Suan kind of debunked himself saying that the type can refer to more than one individual. That's exactly why Cyprian and Jerome say that all bishops sit on Peter's throne.
I don't think it's so much that he is debunking himself as he is just admitting his arguments absolutely have their weaknesses, Gavin himself does the same thing, which adds a certain authenticity to their dialogue.
Awesome debate and i really love the very charitable and friendly tone of this debate . Congratulations to both sides for being uber respectful
Really enjoyed both of these presenters. Clear respect for each other & the opposing position. Very clear communicators.
There is nothing to respect. One is outside the church of St Peter and that's it. How do you respect something lost? You run away from it lest it takes you with it
@@koppite9600 woah, church of who?
Glad i am part of church of Jesus Christ and not saint Peter. Even Peter was the member of church of Jesus Christ.
And btw, i am a saint.
@@nevin8604 When you perform miracles and cease to sin than you can call yourself a saint.
Fantastic debate. I'm grateful to have it still available on RUclips even a couple of years later. I'm currently in OCIA and as I've been researching things on my own outside of that I've been really fascinated by the many parallels I'm finding between Old and New Testaments. It's really helped me appreciate better how the Catholic Church understands some of its unique doctrines such as the papacy or Marian dogmas. As such, I find these kinds of debates invaluable as I try to discern their truths and make my own mind up about them.
Quick question: were the opening statements ever made available? Cameron mentioned on a couple of occasions wanting to get those and make them available, but I don't see them in the video description anywhere.
Suan is very convincing in his arguments. Almost compels me to become Catholic.
Lovely debate. Good work to the host, and the two brothers. Christianity in action!
18 minutes in and I've only learned I need to study typology ;)
Then you have learned nothing because typology is a cheat and is NOT valid.
@@johnbreitmeier3268I believe that's what I was saying....
@@gburns9222 Well your comment was about as clear as Catholic typology, lol
@@johnbreitmeier3268 Well theres a wink for context. The irony...maybe read the comment and think before you post a comment next time.
@@gburns9222 Maybe write clearly next time.
I love them both. I noticed that Dr. Gavin always said "I don't think", "I see it as", or "in my personal opinion".
Which is very telling.
Great Debate Dr Gavin . Love your work !!
A follow-up to @Gavin 's argument that Cyprian of Carthage (Treatise on Unity) preached equality among bishops. I have actually identified the full passage where he mentions "equality in honor and power". Read in full, this excerpt is actually to mean the very opposite of what Gavin makes it sound like. It strikes me as a very clear statement of Rome's See primacy and guardianship of unity around a single creed:
“The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, ‘I say unto you, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, ‘As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whosoever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whosoever sins you retain, they shall be retained;’ yet, that He might set forth unity, he founded one chair; he has arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one [Peter]. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity, and primacy is given to Peter, that one Church of Christ and one chair may be shown.…He who opposes and resists the Church, he deserts the chair of Peter on whom the Church is founded….”
This is big. Gavin was biased at this point, it seems to me.
Indeed that is quite clear. Nice observation!
Well, this is true, but for those who are able to move the goal post, then anything can be interpreted suit them.
They have five views on the Eucharist, four on salvation, five on sanctification, and baptism we can't even count the variations, etc. etc....why do even hope for them to believe in the Pope.
Lutherans believe Lutherans, Presbyterians believe Presbyterians, Anglicans believe Anglicans, Catholics believe Catholics, etc...Protestants are not united, they are a big bowl of salad.
There cannot be differentiation in the truthful interpretation of the Scriptures within the Bible because there is only one truth of God, not hundred variations of half-truths and falsehoods.
@@Swo37 no he really wasn’t. Gavin has already addressed this part of Cyprian’s quote before. No one is denying that the early church looked to the chair of Peter with a sense of primacy and unity. What Gavin specifically is denying is that Peter held any kind of special authority that the rest of the apostles did not have, especially in terms of infallibility. Nothing about Cyprian’s quote, even when taken in full context, suggests that he thinks Peter spoke infallibly in a manner that the rest of the Apostles did not. That would be reading it into the quote. He didn’t say that the apostles shared equal authority just to contradict himself a sentence later.
@@timtaft8585 exactly so
To me, the primacy of the bishop of Rome is a matter of common sense, based on the certainty that Jesus was (is) not stupid. The disciples were fighting among themselves for supremacy even during His life on earth, right behind His back. But He prays to the Father for them to be one.... Would He leave His Church without a clear supreme living authority to serve as rock and guarantee of unity? If the Protestant Reformation made something crystal clear-a crystal that even today keeps breaking in thousands of denominations-is that, without a final authority, unity is impossible.
But the Catholic Church fails to bring unity either, they have 253 denominations, and the interpretation of the magisterial authority is actually subjective at best. The Catholic dogmas do not go over every doctrine hence why there is room for subjective interpretation in doctrine which can lead to division. If you think your Church is immune to sin you are in denial. The Catholic Church like any Church is a body that consists of nothing but sinners. Paul has said that sin has entered his church and we can clearly see Peter and the 12 disciples' sins. To think that through a man can unite a body of Christian is questionable, a man is a sinner regardless if he is a pope or not. It's up to the powers of the holy spirit and the will of God to unite Christians together as one. Now, will our triune God unite all Christians across the world through the Roman Catholic Church? Perhaps, but can we know for absolute certainty? My answer is no.
It alarms me that the Holy Spirit and the Holy Scriptures aren't enough of an authority for Catholics. Yeah, you're right, but Jesus didn't leave us with nothing. That was like the whole point of Pentecost and Paul's letters. Why do we need an elevated sinner to intercede and guide us when the New Testament made it clear that we are the new priesthood?
I mean no disrespect to you or the Pope, I'm just genuinely trying to understand it. It seems so contrary to the teachings of the New Testament.
@@junkim5853 No Catholic claims that the pope is without sin or that the Church is without sin. I think you are confused about what papal infallibility means.
@@bethanyann1060 well get proper context please I was responding to another person. He is trying to claim that the Catholic Church is united when in reality I believe they are not. Sometimes I doubt Catholics' understanding of sin and its nature because they think their Church is in unity when sin suggests otherwise. I know Papal infallibility you don't need to tell me at all. My point is it certainly won't be the Roman Bishop speaking without ex-cathedra that will unite Christians together. If papal infallibility is true perhaps all Christians would become united with the Roman Catholic Church but do I think all Christians can say this with absolute certainty? My answer is no.
@@jericawilson1484 Of course the Holy Scriptures are like the touchstone of all what we believe, and of course there's no higher guide than the Holy Spirit! But it is from the Holy Scriptures that we learn that Jesus didn't give us a sacred book to be the foundation of His religion. Like I said, Jesus is not stupid, and very well knows of our weaknesses. Mohammed left a Holy Book as the foundation for his religion, and soon after his death, the book started being interpreted to massacre each other among Muslims.
We revere and seek the backing of the written Word of God, but we're not Muslims. And Mohamed was not Jesus. According to the Scriptures, Jesus didn't give us a Book for us to found a Church on it. He gave us a hierarchical Church founded directly by him during his lifetime on this earth, with a rock at its foundation. And whom did He chose? Among the twelve, He chose the most sinful of all after Judas, Simon whom He renamed as Peter, He called him "Satan" right away, and was the only one who denied Him, not once but three times, and yet, was charged with shepherding the sheep and was the one Jesus promised to pray for that his "faith will fail him not" so that he, once converted, would "strengthen" his "brothers in the faith." Why are we surprised when his successors sometimes sin and deny the Lord, and even behave like Satan? After Pentecost, the Holy Spirit inspired the hierarchical Church to give us the New Testament. On Pentecost, only the hierarchical Church received the Holy Spirit. I agree with you that we all share, by virtue of our Baptism, in the priesthood of Jesus. We call that "the common priesthood of the faithful." But Jesus instituted a ministerial priesthood, with powers and responsibilities to "forgive and retain sins" and to celebrate the Eucharistic sacrifice on behalf of all His priestly people: "do this in memory of me..."
This came across to me as a debate between an apologist and a scholar. Gavin kept trying to bring some hermeneutical sense to the use of typology while Suan drove a cart and horse through the rules and never really answered questions about why typology was being applied selectively. Again exegetically when it came to the NT texts to me Suan was singularly unconvincing.
If the Papacy is so important to the Church and salvation its simply incomprehensible to me that it is not clearly mentioned and described in the New Testament and there is no direct support for a Vatican 1 papacy amongst the earliest church fathers.
I very much appreciated the content and tone of this debate, thank you to both participants and of course because I am not convinced by Suan's arguments that doesn't mean I don't respect his position and believe he argued cogently and respectfully for them.
I find it very very ironic that the main backing of Gavin’s arguments are patristic consensus
Well then you have no idea and have never read Protestant theologians especially Lutheran Reformed and Anglican. Moreso, it's not consensus but historical evidence. There's no universal consensus and they wrote many times to judge their work by scripture.
@@wilsonw.t.6878 lutheran from luther who hurled feces at the devil?
@@koppite9600 Lol
And the even more ironic thing is he doesn't even have a consensus haha!
Especially given that very early in the Church are the papal authority's primacy over other churches and apostolic succession acknowledged (saint Clement to the Corinthians, saint Ireneaus in the Easter controversy, saint Ignatius of Antioch).
I agree with Gavin's point that Suan's arguments don't have a basis in early church sermons and commentary, but I'll keep listening. Maybe Suan will have some sources. He sure seems to favor recent scholarship.
Eastern Orthodox here. The answer to the title question is - NO, it is not. Ancient Church was approving position of the Bishop of Rome IN PRIMACY and NOT IN SUPREMACY... He was holding that honorary position NOT because he is alleged successor of St. Peter but because he was a Bishop of the imperial capitol city. St. Peter established Patriarchate of Antioch in the year 34 AD and only years after, church in Rome. Yet, Patriarchate of Antioch had never made unreasonable claims on those grounds. Lord's Church is founded upon Lord Jesus Christ and New Testament is clear about that: (1 Cor 3, 11) "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Case closed.
UH NO, that is absurd. The Popes Primacy was not based on his location. This argument which the orthodox try to make is just nonsense. I am happy to walk you through why this argument is bull.
@@dman7668 No heretic can "walk me through" anything. My walking through and leadership is in EOC and anything outside of it is as important as the last year's snowfall. But, here is something for you to consider... copied from a VATICAN website (emphasis mine)... enjoy.!
19. Over the centuries, a number of appeals were made to the bishop of Rome, also from the East, IN DISIPLINARY MATTERS, such as the deposition of a bishop. An attempt was made at the Synod of Sardica (343) to establish rules for such a procedure.(14) Sardica was received at the Council in Trullo (692).(15) The canons of Sardica determined that a bishop who had been condemned COULD APPEAL to the bishop of Rome, and that the latter, if he deemed it appropriate, might order a RETRIAL, to be CONDUCTED BY THE BISHOPS in the province NEIGHBOURING the bishop’s own. APPEALS regarding disciplinary matters WERE ALSO AMDE TO the see of CONSTANTINOPLE, (16) AND TO OTHER SEES. Such APPEALS to major sees WERE always TREATED IN a SYNODICAL WAY. APPEALS TO the bishop of ROME from the East EXPRESSED the COMMUNION of the Church, but the BISHOP OF ROME DID NOT EXERCISE CANONICAL AUTHORITY OVER THE CHURCHES OF THE EAST. - Synodality And Primacy During The First Millennium, Chieti, 21 September 2016
Can’t wait to listen. Suan does a fantastic job defending the Papacy.
Agreed!
Not really. He just inferred papacy could be a thing by making a big castle of papers with a typology argument. He didn’t reply to any of the objections. Where does the Bible speak (or even infer) the idea of a pope who is infallible? Where does the idea of a succession of popes come from ?
These are the pillars of the whole idea for a papacy . Haven’t heard one single argument to prove those and have seen evidence upon evidence why “infallibility” is at best a misguided (yet fundamental) attribute of Roman Catholic papacy.
@@laurapiovan “What you bind on Earth shall have been bound in Heaven, and what you loose on Earth shall have been loosed in Heaven.” Binding and loosing is a rabbinic expression which means to forbid and permit. Most New Testament scholars will tell you Jesus is granting Peter the authority to pronounce doctrine and set the norms for a Christian lifestyle. We see this authority being exercised in Acts when Peter declares that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised in order to be saved. This was nowhere to be found in scripture obviously, so how could Peter have made such a declaration if he didn’t have the authority to do so? This is similar to the role which was filled by the Sanhedrin. They possessed the authority to infallibly interpret the Torah, and Jesus never challenges their authority, he does the opposite. He says “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.” Ask yourself: does it make any sense for God to provide the Israelites with a body which could infallibly “bind and loose”, but not his church which he says will endure forever? That really doesn’t make sense to me. He gives the Jewish leaders authority, and affirms that authority, but not the leaders of *his* church?
The Bible also speaks of scripture as being “God-breathed”, and in the same manner, says Jesus breathed on the disciples.
When the disciples argue which of them is the greatest, Jesus says the greatest among them will be a servant. Then he addresses Peter specifically and says “Satan has sought to sift you all like wheat, but I have prayed for you Simon, so that your faith may not fail.” Notice that Jesus doesn’t pray for all of the disciples, only for Peter. There is also the fact that Peter’s name is mentioned more in the New Testament than all of the other apostles combined, despite the fact that he contributed very little to it.
The seeds for the papacy can easily be found in the Bible. What can’t be found in the Bible is sola scriptura, or even the canon of scripture itself. The very canon which Protestants think ought to be our only authority is itself a tradition handed down by the early Christians, and wasn’t even agreed upon until the fifth century. If scripture was meant to be our sole source of authority, would God have really left his church without it for 400 years, and produce it at a time when the vast majority of people were illiterate and would never be able to actually read what’s supposed to be our only authority? Jesus didn’t leave us with scripture. He left us with a Church. The very earliest members of this Church gave us scripture which was not assembled into a single canon for 400 years and was not widely read for well over 1000 years. The Church *predates* the Bible.
True, It would have been a mismanagement in the part of Christ if he had not picked the apostles to build His church. His teachings would have been diluted with tons of heresy after he left if no church were there to preserve his true teachings. Heresy has always been there at the foot of the church, ever ready to pounce if given the right moment.
it is just common sense, to have a Pope, bishops and priest: - with more than 200,000 parishes, 140,000 schools, 10,000 orphanages, 5,000 hospitals and some 16,000 health clinics around the world.
There is a need for an organization with a leader on top, this is just how it works in the real world.
Any company with more than 20 people would need a CEO. A headless organization will dissolve into a morass of chaos and divisions with conflicting interest.
The church is composed of human and a divine element. The Pope and the magisterium of the church preserves the doctrines of faith and morals as taught and handed over by Christ and his apostles. - just as it had protected and preserved the scriptures in writing, catholic monks painstakingly copied the bible, word for word by hand for more than 1000 years since the bible was put into cannon in 382, to until the printing press was invented in 1455.
The world is an ever changing world and the church must cope with the changes and offer guidance on the moral issues of the day, abortion, marriage, cloning, stem cells, AI, etc. and other things that can come in the future.
It must speak as one voice with authority. - not in conflicting and vague voices on issues that can endanger the soul.
Watered down Christianity does not speak about consequences and dangers to the soul.
@@laurapiovan Yeah, exactly.
I think a round table discussion with Suann, Gavin, a Catholic who really knows the church fathers, and a Protestant scholar on typology would be helpful.
Gavin and Suan both have great strengths but I think they also have weaknesses that keep each from fully addressing the others arguments.
Good points.
Gavin has so much catholic love.. what a wonderful man
God bless your work Suan! Very insightful presentation of the parallelism in support of the typology between Matthew 16:19 and Isaiah 22:22. Godspeed in discerning your vocation either entering the religious life or pursuing graduate studies.
If you read Isaiah 22 it literally tells you who Isaiah is talking about
Shepherdson, first rule for accepting a type in the Bible. It has to be taught in the NT. Then you can propose similarities and parallelism all you want, but it won't be a type. There are figures, illustrations, examples, etc. But types are defined in the Scriptures.
@@claudiaperfetti7694 says who? Sola scriptura wasn't even taught in NT. If that rule of faith even had a type in the OT, then the apostles clearly went against it when they decided not to burden the Gentiles with circumcision.
Isaiah 22 clearly foreshadows the steward of Christ’s Kingdom having the keys. It couldn’t be any more clear than that.
Suan really turns those pages loudly...lol.
For more emphasis.
Suan could have muted his mic. Suan drinking water every 20 seconds shows anxiousness.
Gavin won.😂
The speaker's credibility is directly proportional to the amount of books in the background camera shot.
Catholics will always win that one by seven books!
Early Church fathers who recognized Peter/Pope's primacy:
Irenaeus of Lyons (180 A.D.)
[T]he very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also the faith preached to men... comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus (successor of Peter) the office of the episcopate. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement, To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed;
after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us.And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
(Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.2-3; trans. ANF i.415-l6).
Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D.): “[Peter is] the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute."
Tertullian (211): "[R]emember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]."
Letter of Clement to James (221): "“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed.”
Origen (248): "[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]."
Cyprian of Carthage (251): "[A] primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair."
Cyril of Jerusalem (350): "[Peter is] the first and foremost of the apostles" and "both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven."
Ephraim the Syrian, as Jesus to Peter (351): "You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples...I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures."
Jerome (393): "[O]ne among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division.” Jerome also, in 396, calls Peter "chief of the apostles."
Augustine (411): “Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.'"
Council of Ephesus (431): "[T]he head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle...[Peter is] prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church."
Pope Leo I: "Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery...among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power...All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others."
Where does the Council of Ephesus say that about Peter?
Cherry picking the church fathers. Ignatius was silent on the bishop of Rome.
@@adamduarte895 So? Arguments from silence are tenuous, this one especially.
Peter was preeminent - but this is not the same thing as a continual line of bishops who speak ex cathedra.
Yet, none of the church fathers recognized infallibility nor succession . So where do you derive those from?
It seems to me that Gavin won this one. On the basis of biblical evidence using logic and sound judgment. Not stretching to interpret scripture to affirm the papacy...
protestantism is a disgusting satanic deception and its followers are of their father the devil. Though I disagree with the Catholics, as I am Orthodox, I will say that the protestants expelled the Lord Jesus from the Church (abandoning the real presence of the Eucharist) and replaced him with man-worship. (instituting a man speaking in the pulpit and giving his own interpretation of the Bible.)
@@eternalbyzantium262 Orthodox is similar to Catholic, so you are without excuse.
@@eternalbyzantium262 Wow You`ve just reminded me that it`s Halloween, You sound like a true loving child of light !!😱
Suan takes more of an attacking tone on the cross examine while Dr. Ortlund in his cross seems like a kind professor talking to a student.
I think Dr. Ortlund won the debate.
If you read the comments most people agree that Suan won
Actually i have and comment section looks mixed, even if what you say is true it certainly does not follow that therefore Soan won the debate. There does seem to be a fair amount of Catholics that follow Capturing Christianity youtube channel so that probably has something to do with. Altleast 1 of the Catholics on here that thought the Catholic won openly admited they have a bias because they are Catholic. That would be a fallacy of appeal to common belief. When the claim that most or many people in general or of a particular group accept a belief as true is presented as evidence for the claim or proof.
No
People believe what they want to believe. Rarely do people flip their minds no matter how smart an argument Gavin or Soan make.
@dman7668 they believe what they genuinely believe is the truth (presumably in most cases)...to claim otherwise seems to be venturing into uncharity...to imply they have bad motives or they are not being genuinely honest rather they are just believing what they "want to".
Fantastic debate! I think both sides did well
Gavin's concerns and arguments echo many of my own concerns with arguing for Papal Authority from the NT. Really enjoying the conversation!
protestantism is a disgusting satanic deception and its followers are of their father the devil. Though I disagree with the Catholics, as I am Orthodox, I will say that the protestants expelled the Lord Jesus from the Church (abandoning the real presence of the Eucharist) and replaced him with man-worship. (instituting a man speaking in the pulpit and giving his own interpretation of the Bible.)
@@eternalbyzantium262
You’d do well to heed the following:
38 Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.”
39 But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. 40 For he who is not against us is on our side.”
Mark 9:38-40
I'm sure that the comments will reflect the Christian unity that Christ would want us to have regardless of where we stand on the issue.
Unity in Christ as provided by the very ordinary means he instituted
Una Sancta Catholica Apostolica . Christian Unity is in the Catholic Church. The Chruch of Christ is the Catholic Church , there's no unity with the ones outside of the Church . If protestants separated from the Chruch, they need to come back Home.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus 🇻🇦✝️
@@tiago1139 Amen
@@tiago1139 Btw, it's Unam Sanctam Catholicam et Apostolicam Ecclesiam
Unity can't be had with the Roman church which is the spirit of antichrist. That's dangerous doctrine of the devil
The attitude of Dr Ortland when defending sola scriptura, namely that a doctrine does not have to be explicit in the Bible, are not extended to his reasoning against Catholic doctrines extracted from Scripture. He keeps saying there is too much stretch. This seems to be double standard given his strategy in defence of sola scriptura.
In the Bible vs explicitly in the Bible vs not in the Bible but having bring it into the Bible. Scriptures tell us that only scripture is God’s word ( Timothy and Peter), the problem the RCC sees is that it is missing the word ‘only’. There is nothing g else that the Bible says is God’s word, however, the RCC says since the word ‘only’ isn’t there, the Bible is not explicit. Gavin acknowledges this distinction, but the Bible still claims that scripture is God’s word (ie it is in the Bible). Using the standard of explicitly in the Bible, the papacy fails, using the standard of in the Bible, the papacy fails. Only by adding meaning and typology to the scriptures do you get to the papacy, no early church fathers even remotely interpreted Mathew 16 as the papacy.
Can’t wait to view it, Suan surely has the primacy when it comes to scripture regarding how The Primacy of Peter is explicit in historical Judaism and in the Early Fathers
Primacy of Peter as a chief Apostle among the other Apostles is perhaps an interesting historical question. It certainly doesn't mean that he had authority over any of the other Apostles, or even what the nature of New Testament pastoral authority even is. It certainly doesn't look like Vatican 1 Ultramontanism. Moreover, whether Peter's "appointees" bore any unique mystical property ostensibly retaining whatever "authority" is imagined of Peter is a distinct question, and certainly dubious.
@@lazaruscomeforth7646 Peters will killed 2 people. How can anyone kill anyone else by words only the way Peter did without so much as a prayer unless he has the authority God gave him.
Barely Protestant tearing up the q and a with his questions. You guys should check outhis channel uf you like roman catholic vs anglican debates and stuff, among other things
Yo where are the downloadable documents of their opening statements? I would love to be able to read them on the go 🙂
Suan, way to affirm my faith in the Church!
totally agree!
So your faith is based on human tradition and not God's word?
@@xintimidate tradition is something which is handed down, isn't scripture itself also handed down?
@@charliefrostcharlie Do you know what a spectrum is or nuance? Why do Caths/Orths always assume tradition equal good. Its ridiculous. And I didnt say all tradition is bad I clearly said pagan tradition. The only standard is the Bible.
@@xintimidate depends on what do you mean by "good" . And no you didn't write pagan traditions, you wrote "human traditions", stop saying "clear" when you evidently did not write what you said now.
If you say the "ONLY" standard is the Bible, can you show that from the Bible?
To fully understand “the true” intent of the new testament one needs to look at it through the lens of the old testament.Rabbinic customs and language usage in it’s native form matters greatly. That is why I believe Suan had a stronger more rich argument.
Nevertheless, Dr. Gavin had interesting points. The hole debate was awesome.
I really thought Dr.Gavin address that issue in his argument. Its reading (inserting) narrative into the new testament and typology ran amok as addressed by Dr.Gavin
@@noelroga4593 Thank u for your opinion, God bless you.🕯🕍🕯
Reason & Theology is the best & Capturing Christianity isn't exactly chopped liver either! Thanks for hosting this debate. Gavin is by far my fav Protestant debater (w/ Dr Flowers a close second) & Suan is starting to rise very high in my ranking of Catholic debaters. Luv his work on the Papacy.
An enjoyable debate. I'd say both side did well putting for the argumentation. That said, though Dr. Ortlund somewhat touched on it I would have liked to have seen him stress and emphasize the importance that doctrine MUST be built upon the clear teaching of Scripture and not something as abstract like Typology,. ESPECIALLY one with as much significance as the Papacy and even more so Papal Infallibility.
Secondly, while I think Dr. Ortlund, again, touched on and mentioned Gal. 2:9, I would have liked to have seen him devote more time and attention to Gal. 2:7-8 and ask Mr,. Sonna what his exegesis of the passage is and specifically how he defines "kathōs" (G2531) in v.7/
"On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles)" (Gal_2:7-8)
That seems to me to be the lid on the coffin. I'd be interested in hearing how Mr. Sonna gets around the clear meaning of that text,.
Overall, a good debate but I didn't see either side really load up the bases and then hit a Grand Slam.
I have to come back and add a comment because of something Dr. Sonna says during the Q&A. First, he makes a grave error by claiming that it is the Church that gets to decide "these things" referring to the binding and loosing. Uh, no, it's not. It's God who gets to decide and the Church gets to choose to obey or disobey. Follow or go astray. Secondly and MUCH more importantly, Sonna says he would "never abandon the Church" no matter how difficult it gets. THAT is a EXTREMELY dangerous position to hold. Many believe it will be the Pope who becomes the False Prophet during the Great Tribulation. Putting one's eschatology aside, he claim begs the question, "Would you still hold to that even if the Pope pronounces ex-cathedra an obvious, indisputable, easily-recognizable heresy as orthodox and acceptable?
And since I'm back I'll jus add his as well. I'd like to ask Sonna and every other Catholic out there that wants to tout Unity in the Body...exactly how do you suppose that is to be done when 109 anathemas were pronounced upon Protestants by the Council of Trent and Vatican II and have NEVER been withdrawn and never will because to do so would destroy RCC doctrines?
Two bright, respectful guys. Very good, illuminating debate.
Thanks again Gavin. Well done. And I definitely agree. The primacy of Peter is a pretty far stretch. If something so summarily foundational were true it would be all over the New Testament. It is not. Not one single word.
Rolando, this is because the new testament was written after the initial institution and formation of the church. Meaning it isn't the case that the New Testament writings were there to create the church, but rather it was the Church that through the working of the Holy Spirit produced the writings of the New Testament. Two recent videos on this channel, both AGAINST (Gavin Cortland) and FOR (Joe Heschmeyer) the Papacy are worth watching. Gavin uses the US Constitution analogously which describes the functions of President, Congress, etc to say why doesn't the New Testament do this? The most powerful office pre civil war were the Governor's and that office is not mentioned once in the US Constitution, the office existed already and this doesn't mean it didn't exist... it's one thread I found interesting. Great content from both angles in March 2022 on this topic. God bless brother!
Nothing can persuade someone who refuse to see
It's definitely a stretch, it's hard to see how that was extracted from scripture.
@@dalkeiththomas9352 He extensively quotes from scripture. The only arguments against it are "I don't see that", "I'm not convinced", sounds like the Matt Dillahunty strategy for debates. There's no biblical foundation to deny the Papacy other than to try desperately say it doesn't teach what the Church Father's also understood about the points Suan made here.
Saun really persuaded me in a lot of ways. Still not all I need, but closer to understanding the view
Oh man, Suan. I seen one of his debates last year and he is very well informed. I'm glad this video put up on my recommendations.
This a great debate, both are really respectful to each other. As a protestant, I really appreciate Gavin Ortlund for his very clear statements. Love his calm presentation. I wish Capturing Christianity will get Matt Slick of CARM on future debate too. Blessings!
It feels like if time was truly of the essence, maybe we didn’t need to discuss topics of some more ludicrous claims that we threw to Suan, and then the marriage issue in Catholicism. I’m guessing the commenters parents were married outside a Catholic Church without permission of the bishop. In that case, you can get that fixed somewhat easily and con validated
Great Job Dr. Galvin! I wish Mr. Sonna would just sit still his constant moving and reaching for items and all the noises. It was very annoying and distracting.
Maybe that is his strategy since he has no case only typology.
I'm Orthodox, so I enjoyed the comments from both guys here.
Only Orthodoxy is true.
@@eternalbyzantium262 Correct.
@@duckeggcarbonara hellow . do you pray to mary ?
Yes we do. We ask for her intercession. Our Blessed Lord also taught intercessory prayers, and said that we ought to pray for each other. When you ask your parents or friends to pray for you, are you committing idolatry and thus be condemned to hell? So you’re allowed to distinguish prayer from worship in one sense but the Orthodox aren’t allowed to distinguish prayer from worship when we seek the intercession of the Blessed Mother, despite the fact that we are both consistently applying the principle of seeking the prayer of others especially since the saints in Heaven are more alive than us and are are basking in the glory of God. You inconsistent demon, son of satan.
@@eternalbyzantium262 did jesus say to pray to mary ?
MY FELLOW BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHRIST.
I need this to be addressed about the absolutely unacceptable reality that the Catholic and Orthodox ideals have condemned to hell (which they can't do, praise God) everyone that does not follow their ways! All of you that join this faith are willfully consenting to the idea of rejecting Holy Spirit filled believers all around the world! Praise our Lord Jesus that He does not allow your laws to be fulfilled but don't for get to look every other believer in the eye and say I reject you.
So Let's Stop beating around the bush...The real thing is the ANATHEMA. (Catholics and Orthodox) are claiming to hold salvation hostage and that IS NOT biblical! It is free for all and you DO NOT need to be a Catholic or orthodox and agree with there "traditions" or obscure practices to receive salvation!
But nevertheless I impose this decree above you all. I have an anointing greater than apostolic succession and any pope. During a supernatural Near death Experience I met Jesus Christ The Risen Lord face to face! He anointed me and laid His hand upon me and by the ordaining of God personally I say and declare these things.
By the power of the Lord Jesus Christ as God's personally anointed Son by His Very Hand and above ALL apostolic succession. I, Christ Holy Son by divine right and power given to me specifically, DISANNUL, ELIMINATE and UNBIND all anathemas made by the Catholic or Orthodox Church returning that which even could not be ever taken.. salvation! As well BIND FOREVER that ALL who believe in and on The name of Jesus Christ The Son of God and Messiah and Almighty God, IN ANY AGE AND FOR ALL TIME, SHALL BE SAVED!! AMEN
This will stand for all time. All will be saved in Jesus name.
Suan is the real deal…
Hie's a strong and persuasive debater, w/out resorting to petulance or personal digs. I'm still a sola scriptura based Christian though. God bless.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura (having spent years in Protestantism) but I respect it. Peace be with you my brother.
I would like to see Suan vs James white.
@@RGTomoenage11 Yes, for sure. I had James White in mind when I said that, thinking of different Catholic apologists that got pretty personal w/ him. Even when he did a debate w/ a priest, and he was esp. gentle and reverential w/ the priest, calling him sir through the whole thing and going esp. easy on him in cross, the father still got took a few shots. I can't see Suan doing that. Though I do like the highly charged debates too. This one was an easier one. White's debates get so technical and the intellect and processing speed of these people is so phenomenal, it's a thing to behold. Has to be so hard to keep your cool and not let stress start clouding your mind and slowing them down.
The fact that Sonna was studying at Kansas State *almost* converted me to being a papist. However, learning that Ortlund drinks beer was compelling. So I remain Lutheran.
However, what a great debate. EMAW.
Bro so true
Great job Suan! Just continue depend the Church founded by Jesus Christ. To God be the glory! Amen
He lost the debate
I personally did not find Suan’s arguments convincing. I think Gavin’s closing statement really hit the nail on the head… Suan’s interpretations felt like trying to read something into the text that isn’t there, using a somewhat vague typology that wouldn’t get us to a papacy even if we accepted it.
Just my takeaway, I know others probably got a lot more out of his line of reasoning than I did.
When Protestants challenge other religion's doctrines, they require an explicit verse but when it comes to defending Sola Scriptura, Protestants do not need an explicit verse.
Man shall not live by breath alone but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.
Christ is the Word.
The Word is the Word.
The church or tradition is not the word...
@@theKpen Oral tradition existed before written scripture. The writings were based on teachings handed down.
Luke explains that his writings were based on what have been handed down
Luke 1:1-4
1 Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.
Show me a single verse that says Scripture Alone. You will see that you have been lied to.
@@James22426 What do you mean by scripture alone or sola scriptura?
Edit...
Specifically....To prove the authority of Tradition you went to scripture?
Do you start with Tradition or do you start with Scripture?
If you were proving the Papacy, would you start with a foundation of Scripture or Tradition?
If there were no scriptural support for your belief in the Papacy, would you still believe it? If so, what would be your basis? How would you draw the conclusion that the Papacy has authority, that it is infallible?
@@Lambdamale. Scripture Alone = Scripture is the final authority in all areas of faith and life.
To prove the authority of Tradition/Oral Teaching, I went to Scripture because Protestants do not believe that Tradition has equal authority with Scripture.
If there were no scriptural support for a tradition, I would not believe it because everything in Scripture was derived from Tradition. Scripture owes its existence to Tradition. Example when Paul was teaching that we are "saved by grace through faith not by works", this oral traditon had existed in the church before he had written it.
In order for me to believe a doctrine, it has to be supported by both Tradition, Scripture, and approved by the Chruch Authority. All three must be in agreement because all three are equally authoritative.
If any doctrice, is not in line with all three, then it is not orthodox.
@@James22426 Fair enough. You perceive Rome to be the authority that waa founded by Christ, and therefore subject your judgements on faith and Morals to them.
But what is your foundation for doing this? Because when you define sola scriptura as scripture being thr final authority for the protestant in all areas of life (depending on which group) , it seems to me that Catholics also start with Scripture as their foundation when it comes to establishing Cburch authority..
In other words, for you to get to the point where a teaching is supported by scripture, tradition and approved by the church in order to believe it, it looks to me like the foundation for this comes from the oldest tradition that all Christian groups accept, the scriptures. It looks to me that this is where we all start, and also where we part. Even in this debate we are commenting about.
Awesome debate, done by two of the best experts in the field. Thanks you!
The Eucharist is everything the true presence of Christ under the veil of bread and wine and how he transformed the Passover into the Eucharist is key also the magesterium is not just a new covenant concept it existed in the old covenant thus it is plausible that it exists in the new also what about Protestantism is biblically and authentically defined as worship most evangelicals think that concert like jam sesh is authentic worship it’s not no where is this defined as worship in the Bible sacrifice is always what worship is defined as
Great comment, thank you.
Both Catholics and many Protestant denominations are apostate churches. They consist of man made traditions and ignore the actual Bible.
I think Gavin completely demolished the pro-papacy arguments. I'm in no-man land spiritually, if I ever return to Christendom I will be eastern Orthodox.
When Dr Ortland said “ I bet people who’s hearing this debate never even heard of Eliakim until it was use to depend the Papacy”my jaw dropped 😱 because the same thought came to my mind. Also when he mentioned Joshua’s role to control an army and fight and likened it to the Pope as false typology. This is by the best debate of this I heard so far. Both gentlemen did a great job.
I never realized how a lot of significant doctrines of Catholicism stem from typology. If the New Testament authors aren't drawing the typological conclusion for me, then I'd be hesitant to believe it. Just because there's parallels, I don't think gives us justification to create doctrines out of those parallels.
The entity of the New Testament is dependent on typological truths, Paul’s clearly draws this out.
@@hectorchavez1589 I wouldn't necessarily agree that the New Testament is "dependent" on typological truths nor does the New Testament claim that. I would need more clarification on what that really means. And the foundation laid for typology is that the Law and the Prophets were pointing to Christ. That's the only relevant typology we get from the New Testament authors. The authors use the Old Testament to reveal truths about Jesus, but not Mary or Peter.
@@noncalvinistbydecree1672
"The authors use the Old Testament to reveal truths about Jesus, but not Mary or Peter."
That's just a protestant assumption without evidence. Truths about Mary or Peter are ultimately truths about Christ. Furthermore, the only way to understand well the OT is in the light of the NT, thanks to typology. Without typology, many parts of the OT seem like a weird collection of historic facts that don't seem to be strongly related to Christ. For example, why would God care about giving us information about Eliakim in Isaiah 22? Without typology, it seems like a random an useless information. Typology gives us the key to understand it.
@@vituzui9070 Can you show a New Testament author that states they're making a connection between Mary or Peter and something in the Old Testament? Their intent must be somewhat clear otherwise it's just up to interpretation or our imagination.
@@noncalvinistbydecree1672 ...straight from Gen. 3:15”...I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers...” Ahhh...right there in the beginning, He mentions His beloved mother😉
Great debate I really enjoyed it. Just a sincere comment here and this is something that concerns me a lot. I'm sure Gavin's objections are honest and pretty well thought as of many protestants. But let's think for a moment, why is there so much untrust towards Catholicism and its authority? And even if we say they are right, what would that make of the rest of Christianity? Why would protestantism be in a better position on this regard?
Allan I think you need to understand the protestant position better it's not that they have any problem with authority in general but a mere man claiming to have infallible authority and he has the supreme authority over every single Christians that exists in the entire world. In the eyes of both Protestants and the Orthodox, Christians just can't find the Roman bishop having the sole infallible and supreme authority over all churches in the bible and historic Christianity. To be frank, the Catholic claim is pretty grand and quite absurd. They equate the papacy with the succession of doctrine when it's actually the succession of office. Thus, the Catholic claim that the Bishop of Rome has supreme authority over all Churches must be clearly found in the Bible and in Church history which Catholics admit it's not clear at all especially from scripture.
The protestants don't claim to have authority, they claim that SCRIPTURE has the authority. This isn't like a custody fight. In Galatians chapter one, Paul says that if another teacher or an angel or even the apostles themselves preach a different gospel, we are to reject it. My point is not that the Catholic church has a different gospel (though I personally believe it does), my point is that Paul immediately crushes any chance for some person or organization to claim to be equal in authority to scripture.
I agree with your point that we al should be avoid overly incredulous of the claims of other denominations and create burdens of proof that are unreasonable. However, at the same time we should avoid be to credulous. As Gavin points out, the papacy of true would be one of the most central and significant doctrines. Given that fact that there are three separate ancient apostolic churches that reject the papal claims as not part of the tradition handed down to them (EO, OO, CotE) I think we are justified in asking that Rome provide very compelling evidence for her claims.
@@jericawilson1484 the bible actually affirms an authority equal to scripture.
Jesus Christ himself said this
Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven
Notice he doesn't even mention the new testament books as an authority... Why? Because it wasn't written and ONLY the church given the keys of the kingdom would be able to write then compile these books.
In fact if Protestants don't claim an authority of the church then they are in contradiction to both the New Testament and history since for the first 400 years of church history there wasn't a new testament Canon
We must know that this very book based on Christianity, the very backbone of all churches that had relied on in every generation after 325AD, was amalgamated by Council of Nicaea with Constantine as the Head of Rome at the time. The book contains previous history mainly Jewish influenced by our Maker of course, along with stuff they wanted to add to the bible. Therefore Rome's bible is Not Original. If Constantine was able to boldly and easily changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, which is one of the commandments from the Ten, keep the Sabbath. If He could do this in front of the Council and everyone else, how could he not have the power to change documents.
Paul is a fake apostle designed to say what Yeshua says in the main messages, but twist and removes salvation requirements (Christ is the end of the Law he says, while Yeshua says until Heaven and Earth passes (hasn't passed yet) not one dot or iota will be removed from the Law until all is accomplished). Paul also told women not to talk or teach in church. Our Yeshua whom they gave the name Jesus, went to India and Tibet to study, teach and heal before 30, they said he lived in a desert or worked as a carpenter until 30. How could you be impressing Elders at a temple at age 12 with your knowledge and teachings, then go back to do dumb labour and not let your Light be set upon where the world could see from 12 to 30? They changed His journeys. Here is an Excerpt from Notovitch who discovered scrolls documenting Yeshua's travels and teachings at Hemis Monastery in Tibet. You know His words and tone because He doesn't change, He is like an old friend and stuff He says if you know Him, sounds familiar:
Yeshua whom they gave the name Jesus and said it was a translation, was known as Saint Issa in the East:
8. Upon this, an old woman who had approached the group, to better hear Issa, was pushed aside by one of the disguised men, who placed himself before her.
9. Then said Issa: "It is not good for a son to push away his mother, that he may occupy the place which belongs to her. Whoso doth not respect his mother--the most sacred being after his God--is unworthy of the name of son.
10. "Hearken to what I say to you: Respect woman; for in her we see the mother of the universe, and all the truth of divine creation is to come through her.
11. "She is the fount of everything good and beautiful, as she is also the germ of life and death. Upon her man depends in all his existence, for she is his moral and natural support in his labors.
12. "In pain and suffering she brings you forth; in the sweat of her brow she watches over your growth, and until her death you cause her greatest anxieties. Bless her and adore her, for she is your only friend and support on earth.
13. "Respect her; defend her. In so doing you will gain for yourself her love; you will find favor before God, and for her sake many sins will be remitted to you.
14. "Love your wives and respect them, for they will be the mothers of to-morrow and later the grandmothers of a whole nation.
15. "Be submissive to the wife; her love ennobles man, softens his hardened heart, tames the wild beast in him and changes it to a lamb.
16. "Wife and mother are the priceless treasures which God has given to you. They are the most beautiful ornaments of the universe, and from them will be born all who will inhabit the world.
17. "Even as the Lord of Hosts separated the light from the darkness, and the dry land from the waters, so does woman possess the divine gift of calling forth out of man's evil nature all the good that is in him.
18. "Therefore I say unto you, after God, to woman must belong your best thoughts, for she is the divine temple where you will most easily obtain perfect happiness.
19. "Draw from this temple your moral force. There you will forget your sorrows and your failures, and recover the love necessary to aid your fellow-men.
20. "Suffer her not to be humiliated, for by humiliating her you humiliate yourselves, and lose the sentiment of love, without which nothing can exist here on earth.
21. "Protect your wife, that she may protect you--you and all your household. All that you do for your mothers, your wives, for a widow, or for any other woman in distress, you will do for your God."
The only defining church is a church with HEALING miracles and righteous doctrines, just like the days of the Apostles. And you wonder why there are none today? Read the Gospel of the Nazirenes, also known as the Gospel of the Holy 12. Gives you a definite answer on why there are hardly any healing miracles in the world today because of the heathen state we had fallen in. Read how it was found in 1870's, read how it was quoted by all the early church leaders and apostles, then later hidden in Tibet for almost 1700 years because Rome did not like the amount of people building up a new religion in front of their Greek God infatuation. The top brass will see an "anarchy" coming, if you understand power you will understand this corruption.
I love and admire that Suan is very honest and does not shy away from possibility it could go either way. Thank you for that.
Great debate. My vote goes to Dr. Ortlund.
No
Wow , what a great opening.....best cases made I've heard.
As a Catholic strongly convicted of the Catholic truth, I hold Dr. Ortland in very high respect. If I ever converted, it would be because of a witness like his.
Same here. I'm a late life Catholic convert but Gavin had me thinking in other debates, particularly with Joe Heschmeyer in Gospel Simplicity podcast. Joe came off looking bad in that I thought. Saun was much stronger here. I've never seen Gavin on his heels like I thought here. Still I love listening to both these guys. I sometimes wonder if God wants the three branches of His Church. Catholic as logic, Orthodox as mystic, and protestant as emotion and heart. Maybe unity can come in all of us respecting what the other brings to the table.
I don't believe in comment like yours because there r thousands of protestants who r involved in a fake comment writing by projecting themselves a catholic......9th commandment "you shall not bear false witnesses"....
@@luvall293 Well, I mean, I probably can't convince you. I could tell you that Catholics don't worship Mary and that I love Mary and pray to her. XD Lol...
The bible doesn't even have the word pope
The Bible does don’t have a lot of words, like Trinity or Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide, oh wait, it does have faith alone, but only when it is preceded by “not” in the book of James.
It doesn’t have “sinners prayer” it doesn’t have “original sin” or hypostatic union, it also doesn’t have the word Bible in it. Or canon of scripture… I think you get the point.
Pope mean father. It is just a title. There are many other titles of the pope that are in scripture. Regardless, I would assume you don’t believe in bishops even though they are in scripture.
Suan mentioned in his opening that Moses transferred his role to Joshua, but Moses only did this because of the express command of the Lord. Where in the New Testament did the Lord command any of the Apostles to continue passing down their apostolic role to another person? They replaced Judas with Mathias, but no one was ever commanded to replace Peter, or any other apostle like James John’s brother (Acts 12:2).
I have a hard time getting beyond Sola Scriptura because of Jeremiah 17:9.
I know for a fact God preserved his word, and it is unchanging ( Psalms 12). I can't say the same about Catholicism.
I also believe that each denomination ( as long as they teach Christ as the savior) are just different branches to bring different-minded people to God, according to Romans 10:9.
I agree with you brother
What about when Paul says to follow the traditions?
The problem is that you're presuming that "God's Word" is the Bible and only the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does the Bible make such an assertion about itself. Furthermore, the Bible never enumerates its contents, which means that your infallible collection of books is based on a completely fallible list of books, which is a major problem, because 1) the canon is a tradition outside of Scripture that all orthodox believers are held to, which is profoundly anti sola scriptura, and 2) to resolve this problem, you would need an authoritative body (the Church) to decide what goes in there--or you're really just hoping that you somehow got it right, when the entirety of Church history points to a canon with at least seven more books.
This is so interesting that I had to like your comment. But the Catholic church doesn’t “change”. Instead, doctrine is understood better over time and eventually well thought out dogmas come out from teachings that have been held for years and years, even since the apostles. I’m not going to mention the scriptures yet since I’m going to go read them now, but I just wanted to mention how one’s perspective on a thing can reveal more truth from God. Thanks again for this post!
I’ve read the prescribed scriptures and… I see these aren’t actually about Sola Scriptura but rather they display *why* you are wary about the Catholic Church’s way of forming dogma. Such fear is not something one can “argue” a person out of. I know, I was there😅. But I do hope that you can come to consider why Christ wanted “one body” of believers, and why the apostles constantly wrote about unity. Think about what unity meant to them, not what it means to you. You may come to a different conclusion than me, but one understanding of God makes the most sense to me. God bless you as you watch more studies/debates such as this one.😊
As a Catholic, I really, really appreciated Suan's deep understanding of scripture and theology. It is refreshing and indeed beautiful to hear the Church's position done completely and charitably. I like Gavin too, a great human being.
Suan needs to realize that making the argument does not settle the argument. You can have a complication of ideas from notable scholars yet be wrong. Suan functions by conjecture, he simply wants what he argues to be so, so in his mind it is so. In other words, he is reaching into thin air, hoping to pull something solid from it.
Huh?
Ortlund is a proficient speaker and good in rebutting but Suan presented a lot of convincing evidences that made him stand out.
Classical debate!
Gavin did a great job
The Roman apologist did a very respectable job, but no matter how good one is, arguing 2 + 2 equals 5.3 is always a failing endeavor.
Great job by Gavin.
Well, it's difficult, if we accept protestantism is true, the those 1.2 billion Catholics can just split up and just add to the confusion that is just protestant denominations. There is a real strength to christiantiy just uniting under the same doctrines. We are not going to be successful winning converts if we keep confusing them by opening up new protestant Churches. That clearly ISN'T a good idea regardless of whether you want their to be a Catholic Church or not.
Even if the Catholic Church renounced some of its doctrines and embraced protestant views, we would all just be seperate Churches each teaching our own different truths. It just ends up being a mess. This to me gives credence to the Catholic argument that Jesus didn't make anymore then one instituonal Church.
The question at 34:25 has an answer: It would take all of Christianity perhaps a thousand years to finally start coming up with it.
I'd like to hear the debate between these men on Immaculate conception and transubstantiation and praying to saints.
Two knowledgeable passionate intelligent gracious men discussing would help clarify the argument
Great debate for the most part. The Q&A was pretty rough, I think the debaters should have been given equal, timed responses. Even for questions directed to Dr. Ortlund, it felt like Suan was given a pass to dominate the discussion and always have the last word of substance.
I haven't gotten to that part yet, but this seems to be a protestant channel. In older debates, where the organizers and most of the audience is protestant, the questions mostly go to the Catholic debater as well (because the audience wants to challenge them more). The protestant debater is not questioned directly near as much, and only gets half the time to do a short follow up. I guess this offsets the home court advantage a bit.