@@funandmental Yep, and Catholics agree with you on this too. We don’t claim that popes have infallible authority. Catholics criticize and disagree with popes on a regular basis.
@@HumanDignity10 Thanks for the dialogue. I understand that. The point I’m trying to make is that Protestants emphasize the practical headship of Christ over His church. I recognize that Catholics don’t deny that but the reason we’re protesting is because we believe that the authority of the bishop of Rome interferes with the ability of local churches to submit to Christ. The singularity of authority in heaven allows for and encourages a plurality of authority in earth.
@@funandmental Local Catholic Churches are in no way hindered from submitting to Christ. There are Catholic Churches, monasteries, convents, and ministries all over the world who have their own distinct ways of operating and their own distinct ways of expressing their Catholic faith. There is a lot of local control and plenty of plurality. However, some universality is important for lots of reasons I don’t have time to get into. But I will say some universality can lead to so much beautiful unity - for example when I pray the Liturgy of the Hours and I know that people all over the world are praying it too - I love that!
"...a lot of people just don't hear a thoughtful Protestant side..." Exactly. And therein lies the value of what you're doing Gavin. Thanks again and again and again. And God bless you in the Name above all names.
Thank you Pastor Gavin for refuting the lie of “being deep in history is to cease being Protestant.” Thank you, for being a living example, that this statement is simply not true.
It does seem to be true for many who do that dive into history. The expression seems to be more a triumphalist proclamation against protestant Christians though.
@saintejeannedarc9460. My question is this, “Why is that?” The scholarly consensus is that there was no papacy early on…and that the Assumption of Mary is a later accretion. Marian devotion doesn’t come in till around 250 C.E. It really seems that the only way to maintain one’s integrity is to say, “To be deep into history (on a very superficial level) is to, perhaps, convince oneself of the validity of Catholicism.” Dive in any deeper and things completely unravel. The Real Presence in the Eucharist (shared with Anglicanism and Lutheranism) and Baptismal Regeneration (likewise shared with Anglicanism and Lutheranism) are prevalent in the early years. But as far as I have been able to find, up to the year 250, there is not a single RC distinctive in evidence. No invocation of the saints, no icons, no transubstantiation, no purgatory, no penance. If someone “reads their way” into the Catholic Church, they must want it awfully bad, first.
Greg, I'm a Protestant contemplating converting to Catholicism and I have to say I'm glad I came across your work. You are clearly well-read and extremely cordial. Your critiques have made me seriously question converting. Your series on the papacy have been the most compelling on a biblical and historical POV. If I can't have confidence in the papacy originating from Christ, then I cannot be Catholic. Well done, I look forward to more of your content!
I converted to Catholicism from evangelicalism 9 years ago. I also had that concern. Where I was able to find Truth was not in the succession of the Pope or the Apostles but the succession of Dogmatic truth proving the reality of Papal and Apostolic succession. God only has revealed a single line of Truth not 1000’s of different truths depending on what “church” or “pastor” you adhere too. Look at the doctrine of the Eucharist. It can only be True in one manner. Luthers ideas can’t be true at the same time Calvins being true. Authority of the Church is paramount in all areas of faith and morals. Good luck on your journey and God Bless Bob
Supreme, have you ever read, "Jesus, Peter and the keys", ( Hess, Butler). This book includes many Protestant scholars who attest Peter was given primacy over the Apostles and alone the keys of the Kingdom, and that Peter is the rock on whom Jesus Christ built His Church. The office of sole key holder is one of succession. "Peter is the Shepherd of the Universal Church ", ( John Chrysostom). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
As a Catholic convert myself from Protestantism my biggest stumbling block was myself. I didn't want to submit to any "human authority". I submit to the Church and the Pope because of my faith in Jesus and His promises that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. It is only in the Catholic Church where that protection is promised.
You are the best Protestant Christian out here in YT. It’s refreshing to see Protestants or Catholics with an open mind like yours. I will keep up with your channels.
I'm Catholic and hit the like button before even watching the program. Not because I necessarily agree with it(obv I don't entirely) but because Gavin's content is so well prepared and communicated in a charitable and engaging manner.
You know what Mitchell? As a fellow Catholic, I can appreciate that. Even if we disagree with the conclusion, we can appreciate the research, sincerity, and cordiality present in Gavin's videos.
389 I Am the Church. The Church was founded by Me and it can never die Saturday, April 7th, 2012 @ 10:00 My dearly beloved daughter, the schism I spoke of has begun in the Catholic Church. My Teachings, which have never changed since My Holy Scriptures ended with the Book of Revelation, are now being challenged. There have been a number of challenges, opinions and theological assessments of My Holy Word throughout the centuries. Many fine men questioned the instructions and the Teachings, which I imparted to mankind. Some of My Teachings were taken apart, analysed, new interpretations sought and then accepted. Yet this has been unnecessary, for the Truth was given to man by the prophets who came before Me and then by Me during My time on Earth. The Truth has never changed. The Truth is simple. Other information, not contained in Holy Scripture was given, as a Gift to the world, through chosen souls, for one reason only. To help you contemplate on My Sacrifice for mankind and to show and remind you of the Love I hold in My Heart for all of God’s children. Any Divine Revelations given to the world today are to help you prepare for Eternal Life. My Teachings, honoured by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, are now being attacked in the first of many challenges, which will result in the division of the Church. New laws will be introduced to suit modern opinion and so that they sit comfortably with those who, with pride in their souls, feel a need to pacify mankind, rather than show obedience to the Teachings of the Church. I Am the Church. The Church was founded by Me and it can never die. Many, including those from within, as well as from outside the Church, will attempt to break down its structure. Pray that My Holy Vicar, Pope Benedict XVI, will remain strong amidst the opposition he now faces. This is a deliberate attempt, by those connected with the false prophet, to create a new church. These cunning people will have you believe it will be the same Church, but it cannot be. How can My Church, with new laws, twisted versions of the Truth I gave to the world, represent Me? It can’t. This is why My Father will direct His Church, the true, loyal believers, from the Heavens. He will hold the keys, until the Second Coming, when the New Jerusalem will rise, the One True Catholic Church, out of the ashes to be reclaimed by all of God’s children, all religions, all creeds as one. This is the way it was meant to be in full and final union in the New Era of Peace on Earth. Your beloved Jesus Christ The Book of Truth Second Coming of Jesus Christ
@@michaelt5030 well, yes, maybe, but it can lead people astray in the wrong path....souls are gravely at stake here, eternity has no end. We can make only one mistake and its consequences is forever, our soul is worth more than anything we have here on earth and can we entrust it to one's opinion versus the magisterium of the church that has a 2000 year history. These religious discussions can affect people who are not well founded in their faith and these self proclaimed "bible experts" can lead them into destruction.
Thank you for making this video - I'm Anglican, going back and forth leaning towards Protestantism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy on different days so this is really helpful in trying to better understand Protestantism when so much of what I see online is easily attacked by Catholics it's great to see a Protestant explain Protestantism in a much fuller way than I've seen before.
Joseph, might I suggest the channel Reason and Theology? They are a Catholic channel which has dealt in very in-depth historical debates much like Gavin: that is, a respectful and deep manner. If you are truly vascilating between Protestantism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy, they might be a good channel for you, as they are respectful, and have had discussions with Gavin Ortlund. Most of the recurring guests have also been members of the Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic faiths at one point or another.
If you were asking me, I'll be honest and say I don't quite know. What Daniel said about being true to what the CofE is is what I'm thinking at the moment. I'm still not firm on it but I'll just say I'd be surprised if next Christmas I wasn't a Catholic. God bless
Thanks for your responses. I'm not Anglican (non-denominational protestant) but Ive considered joining an ACNA church as I'm drawn to liturgy and consistent partaking in communion (with belief in real presence). Catholicism is attractive but I remain highly skeptical of the papacy and Marian dogmas. The scandals, corruption, Vatican politics, clericalism are also big turnoffs. I wonder, how often do serious Protestants drawn to Catholicism still remain Protestant based on theological conviction? We need more testimonies of these. Or is it true what Newman said: serious Protestants become Catholic, weak Catholics become protestant
Have you never heard of hierarchy & authority, applies to all entities, so why not to the CC Mt 16 18-19 Without hierarchy & authority, Protestantism has confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects when Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-23
@@geoffjs Firstly, that's a false argument. Protestant is a broad category. There is church government in all of the protestant denominations, and they all function as intended. As far as division, and scandal, the RCC has been soaked in it for centuries, and still is.
Great points in showing holes in Trent's reasoning. The requirements to find a replacement for Judas included being a witness to Jesus resurrection. So naturally this office would not go past the lives of the original apostles. The RCC basically says in order for salvation you must do it through them to get to God. Sorry, no man stands between me and my savior. Jesus never said one had to gain salvation through a group of men first before he would save you.
Oh man, as soon as I heard the St Cyprian quote by Trent I got so frustrated knowing he's fully misleading that quote and pulling it from the context. So glad you read it in full. Wow, very honest review. Funny that Trent quotes St Cyprian (and other Catholics) proving they engage in what Orthodox accuse them of, which is quote mining the Father's and not reading anything in full context. Awesome review.
If the Papacy was Biblical then there would be at least one verse in Scripture that shows Peter passing the torch on to Clement. Or a Scripture stating that after Peter's death that Clement is now the earthly head of the Church.
@@MrMonchis04 No, it wasn't. John's Gospel, Epistles, and Revelation were all written after Peter died, and yet there is still no mention of him passing over some super important office to Clement, or to anyone else in Rome ... and neither do any of the earliest Church Fathers make mention of any such office.
Yeah, same with praying to saints. Why would Paul said that it is better for believers that he stays alive? Why is there none who prayed to departed saints anywhere in the Acts or epistle. Big nothing.
Every time I think Trent has made a good point then you shoot it right down. 😂 I thought his comment on Peter’s name being changed was pretty good but then you said James and John had their names changed too. And then with Peter’s shadow and people wanting it to fall on them but it was the same thing with Paul’s handkerchief. Awesome channel. Thanks for your content Gavin. 👍🏼 You will have over 100k subs in the next few years.
Sure, lots of names were changed in the bible. But Simon's was changed to Peter, which means "rock" and Jesus said "And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
@@HumanDignity10The big question is, did Jesus give the same authority to Peter's successor? Or did he give Peter the ability to pass it on to his successor. And the answer to that question is, we have no evidence to support that. It's an idea that comes hundreds of years later.
Thank you for making these videos. I know you are a busy person in the middle of writing books and leading a physical church body. However, these videos are so helpful and your irenic attitude is so refreshing and winsome.
Really appreciate you sharing this Gavin. I've learned a lot. I especially admire how conscious you are about being charitable. I appreciate your gracious tone and humble posture.
Just saw in another comment that you have a book "Finding the Right Hills to Die on". I've read the synopsis and I just bought it off of Amazon! I'm an Anglican, but all of my friends are Catholic and there's this insurmountable pressure to convert. I've also thought about it for years and it sometimes keeps me up at night. As a fellow protestant (although some would say I'm barely protestant-or even via media- haha!) I truly appreciate your articulation. Before you, I really hadn't seen any protestants being willing to dive into church history and plunge into the perpetual Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant conversation . It really has made the past couple of years trying to figure all this stuff out on my own isolating. As a 20 year old, I feel pretty unequipped with my own knowledge and I definitely feel like I'm being ganged up on sometimes when in theological discussions with my Catholic friends. So thank you for your videos, for your insights, humility, and charity of speech!
so glad the video was useful, Anna! I know its tough engaging in conversation sometimes when you are outnumbered, but I pray the Lord gives you grace to know how to interact with both truth and love. Thanks for commenting!
Well...hang in there lol...I am Protestant with Catholic friends also...I have been studying/debating Roman Catholicism for 13 years and I'm even more convinced and comfortable than ever before that I am in the right place. I can not imagine ever converting. My mom is Anglican but I attend a non-denominational (my personal theological leaning's are most Reformed i.e Calvinistic though).
740 My Mission is not to give you a new Bible, for that could never be, as My Father’s Book contains the whole Truth Sunday, March 24th, 2013 @ 18:06 My dearly beloved daughter, when you are asked by those who love Me, what is the purpose of your Mission, your answer must be - to save your souls. When you are sneered at, mocked and asked what gives you the right to proclaim the Word of God - the answer is, so that Jesus can save your souls. Then, when those who do proclaim My Holy Word already, and who follow My Teachings, accuse you of heresy - then the answer to them is this. You, who are faithful to Christ, do you not think that you, too, are sinners in the Eyes of God? Don’t you, too, want to salvage your souls? Sin will always stand between you and God. Every single soul, including the most hardened sinner and those amongst you who are chosen souls, will never be free from sin, until I come again. You may be redeemed every time you confess your sins, but your soul will remained cleansed for only a short time. Never feel you are not in need of the Food of Life. My Light draws you, now, to Me, through this very special Mission. I give you great blessings and special graces when you respond to My call, as I beckon you towards My New Kingdom - My New Paradise. You may believe that God would not need to send another prophet - that mankind was released from the stranglehold of Satan, after My death on the Cross, that you have been given the Truth through My Teachings already, and that the Truth is contained in My Father’s Book, the most Holy Bible. And you would be correct, but for this. There is still more you have to know as the prophecies contained in the Book of Revelation are not known to you. You have been given the summary - and yet many of you refuse to acknowledge its contents. You snub the Book of Revelation and have no wish to understand it. My Mission is not to give you a new Bible, for that could never be, as My Father’s Book contains the whole Truth. My Task, in a world, which has plunged into paganism, is to remind you of the Truth on the one hand, and on the other, is My Desire to prepare your souls, for the time of My Second Coming. Many of you say you honour Me, but many have fallen away from the Truth. Many do not believe in Satan or the existence of Hell, and as such, do not take sin seriously. You have been led into grave error through your tolerance for sin. And now the gravest errors will come about, throughout all Christian Churches, when sin will be cast to one side. You will be led into a doctrine of deceit. This is a plan crafted by the Evil One to take you away from Me. Because My Divine Presence, My Body and My Blood, is contained in every Tabernacle in the world - you have been able to fight sin. But now, when the plan to remove the Holy Eucharist comes about, you will be helpless. This is why I reveal to you the Truth of what is to come, so that I can prepare you. It is only because I Love you that I call out to you now. When the errors are exposed, you will then realise how much you have to learn and how pride prevented you from accepting My Hand of Mercy and how you are nothing without Me. Your Jesus The Book of Truth Second Coming of Jesus Christ
@@koppite9600 James took the lead at the Jerusalem council! Roman bishops are hardly apostolic. The Roman Catholic Church teaches error and false doctrine. They cannot be of God. You people falsely elevated Mary.
@@koppite9600 How does that add any information? If you read the whole chapter, you could just as easily say that James was in charge, since he listens and renders a judgement, v19.
@@erc9468 how can that be, given that Peter had already established he was the one to give a solution Peter said he was chosen for that occasion, James wasn't.
@@koppite9600 The point is that really have to stretch the text to get to Peter acting as some kind of final arbiter. You could say the same about James. And then in v22 you have the whole body of elders coming together. Just like the good Presbyterians that they were.
It's a slight of hand I noticed Catholics like to assert people were not looking to the Bible because it wasn't formulated yet. Much of the New Testament Scriptures were in circulation in the first century and all of it was written in the 1st century. What Oral tradition can Catholics point to in the first century or early church that was not in the Scripture. Certainly no evidence exists that Apostles taught many things such as Marian Dogmas that they later assert is some kind of oral tradition passed on.
@@aGoyforJesus thanks! I believe there is room for different approaches to meet different needs. My approach is definitely not the only way to go about things! Take care.
@@TruthUnites you may find the video I did recently on the "Psychology of the Catholic Convert" pertinent to some of the authority topics you address here.
" Protestantism with its freedom can afford to be fair and just to Romanism, which is chained to its traditions. The dogma of papal infallibility is fatal to freedom of investigation. Facts must control dogmas, and not dogmas facts. Truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is the aim of the historian; but truth should be told in love (Eph. 4:15)."--Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Preface to Volume VII. When Schaff was writing in the later 1800s, Vatican I scandalized Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and even many Roman Catholic scholars (e.g. Dollinger). If the Pope would come down off his throne and take on the simple role of pastor and expositor of the text, there might be a chance at reconciliation.
16:53 and 17:29 - The church 24:48 - 25:14 What kind of “leadership role” did Peter have? According to Eastern Orthodox and Ortund’s understanding, “First among equals.” 25:28 - Trent on the apostolic lists, namely Matthew 10:2 26:51 - Ortund on James and John having their names changed as well 27:23 - Are James and John in an “inner circle” of sorts? 28:00 - Did Judas have less authority than Peter? 29:06 and 30:00 - How did most of the church writers view Matthew 16? 30:23 - Augustine and Peter 32:57 - Can the Pope be rebuked today like Peter was in Galatians 2? 36:38 - Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem 36:43 - 36:57 James’ impact at the Council of Jerusalem 37:12 and 39:53 - Luke 22 45:01 and 46:22 - “development of doctrine” and monothelitism 54:53 - Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16
No, you're far better than me. Every Catholic priest I meet makes me think, "Maybe it wouldn't be so bad to convert. He's so gracious and he loves Jesus deeply." But every Papist apologist I listen to makes me think, "You really have to be brainwashed to believe the obvious lies of that false religion!"
COWBOY LOGIC 101: @Minute 57. A quote from Ignatius' Epistle to the Romans: "...which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans..." It would seem that this quote alone defeats Trent's entire argument. Absolute historical proof that the authority of Rome was regional and not universal 😳
I'm curious I'm lutheran myself I just want you to clear this up. I don't see this as an argument how is he saying Rome is purley regional he's just saying God resides in the region of the Romans.
@@TruthUnites any chance you’ve encountered Brett Salkeld’s book on Transubstantiation? IMO, it’s a must read for both Protestants and Roman Catholics. I think he’d be a great guest for your channel.
Just wanted to add a note. We should really talk about how Trent Horn deals with alleged errors in the Bible, etc. His paradigm here is really broken. I did a post-debate interview with Steve Christie, after they debated on the Apocrypha. We discussed this. I broke out that section of our discussion and addressed it in a separate video on Mark 7 & Sola Scriptura with reference to Trent Horn. His basic approach is 1) determine that something is infallible first 2) deal with alleged contradictions later. Well, what this does is that he will never, ever come to a conclusion that the papacy is infallible or that the Apocrypha has errors. Now, I understand we all do this once we come to the conclusion something is infallible to some extent. But to make that explicit means that you will never, ever be falsified.
At min 49. "The Papacy and Monotheletism are like apples and oranges." Exactly. What a stretch, like so many of the arguments for the papacy and so many other Roman doctrines. And... the supposed office of the papacy is invisible in those first centuries.
Thank you so much! It’s hard to find knowledgeable Protestants on topics like this. There’s so many Catholic rebuttals and very few Protestant rebuttals. I am baptist and my mother is a Catholic so we clash heads on many things, so that made me want to dive deep into church history. Hearing the quote “to be deep into church history is to cease to be a Protestant” made me very nervous about what was going to happen. I can see why many feel that way because there are so many Catholics in a sense defending their history, and then only a few Protestants. I used to feel more leaning into Catholicism because of my mother and just glancing at history and I have so much more questions , but this definitely affirms for me that I’m not a Catholic for sure if I can’t stand behind the idea of papacy. again , thank you so much for your insight!
History of Emperor Constantine I find very troubling, he was a pagan not a Christian and he had a lot of influence on the structure/format of church practice. A pagan started the denominational structure that is still with us today. He legalized Christianity for power, not because of a conversion. Also from my study of scripture, there is no way Peter, who was an apostle to the Jews, left the Jewish people given the fact they were going through a severe famine and destruction of the temple about to take place, would have abandoned them and gone off to Rome to be a bishop or pope. That is absolutely a rewrite of history. My concern is Acts 17:10-12. A good church group will apply this tradition that was handed down to the Gentiles from the Jews. This tradition is kryptonite to Roman Catholics, which is why they deny sola scriptura. The more one studies scripture, the more one sees problems with their doctrines. Then they try to wiggle around it by using poor hermeneutics. 🤓
I don't understand Trent's common sense arguments. Why would you assume that the body of Christ runs the same way as businesses, corporations, and company bodies do? Catholics regard the Pope to be running the Church, however Jesus said it was His Church and He is the one who runs it.
It's my assessment so far that you have to emotionally want to be a Catholic to be a Catholic. If you weren't raised Catholic, and you're sitting on the fence waiting to be overwhelmed by logic to come down and be a Catholic... I myself have been underwhelmed by their arguments. They make a big claim, and seemingly grasp for straws to make a case for it. And this isn't very nice to say, but they strike me as very weird.
Mathew 16:18 Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it. If Jesus was not referring to Peter, then the sentence structure makes no sense. Why would Jesus mention Peter’s name, and talk about something unrelated to him? I believe that the way the sentence was framed is enough to clarify the intention.
Peter actually translates as "small stone. " Jesus meant Himself as the Rock. Elsewhere He is called the CHIEF CORNERSTONE of the church..CORNERSTONE is the basis of a building. Using Peter as the cornerstone is a desperate grab at connecting the papacy to a biblical mandate, which is nonexistent. Make sense? The chief cornerSTONE used a smaller stone like Peter as part of the church.
And in Acts 1:20, when Matthias was chosen to replace Judas, it wasn't as if the Eleven just said, "Peter, since you're the chief, who do you choose?" They prayed, asked the Holy Spirit to tell them who the best choice was, then drew lots - which was a form of discerning the will of God by a method that takes the decision out of man's hands.
At 29 min: I don’t think Chrystostom poses any problem to Catholic exegesis of Matt 16. Reading the full quote from homily 54 teaches that the rock is the faith of Peter but that rock like strength has an intricate association with Peter and is channeled through his ministry. This is actually exactly what Vatican I says (chapter 2 paragraph 3)-it is saying the successor to Peter recites his rock-like strength, which is that confession of faith. Catholics also see this as being polyvalent, but Peter is still the rock even in the case above since you can’t separate his faith, his person, and his ministry. Also we agree that all bishops are Petrine and have the keys-Rome just has it in a special way. A bishop is a Peter in his diocese, but the Pope is a Peter of the universal church. And there is tons of evidence that the early church agreed.
Seems to me that Trent commits the fallacy of assuming the conclusion quite a bit. He has an end goal in mind, and will quote Bible passages and say "so then naturally this follows" but it doesn't seem natural at all, at least to someone who doesn't already have the end goal in mind. This isn't a personal attack and Trent seems like a nice guy. It's merely an observation from someone who's outside Trent's belief system.
When Trent Horn quotes Acts 1:20 to support the idea of an "episkopos" transfer, I note that Peter is quoting from Psalm 109:8 so the Greek word is a translation from a Hebrew word that (in context) is far afield from the idea of a papacy. Helpfully, Peter interprets what he means by his Old Testament quotation in vv.21-22: :"Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” The "office" is that of witness. This "office" can ONLY be given to an eyewitness of Jesus's life and ministry. I would think this mitigates AGAINST the continuation of Peter's apostolic office.
I’m just beginning this video (having watched some of your previous videos covering the Papacy) and I have to commend you for your gracious and conciliatory approach, which I couldn’t imitate. Knowing the Scriptures pretty thoroughly and knowing what I currently do regarding the history of the Reformation, not the least why it occurred in the first place, it shocks me that so many people could excuse such grievous error as (it seems evident to me) the Roman Catholic Church fell into, and continue to believe it is the one true church. I do believe that many Roman Catholics are my brothers and sisters in Christ, so I am trying to learn from your approach to see things more from their point of view. May God give grace to us all. Thank you for sharing these videos with us.
22:40 It's strange Trent would make this comparison given the Isrealite kingship was a disaster over the generations. That whole era is a story of spiritual degradation with the occasional Godly king who acts a reformer but this whole thing ignores that Jesus is the Son of David who is our king. I think the Office analogy perfectly demonstrates the opposite of what Trent is saying; there can't be a Pope because Jesus is the manager already.
I must admit to experiencing a strange sort of relief in watching videos like these. The behavior I have seen out of far too many Protestants brought me to the edge of thinking that Protestants had no real replies to Catholic arguments, instead having only the practices of interruption, fast-talking, and talking over one's dialogue partner.
I find it Ironic when a Catholic Apologist says that The Papacy helps the church stay unified in doctrine when its the Doctrine of the Roman Papacy that split the Church up by and large in the first place.
“A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.” Luke 22:24-26 NIV It's interesting to read some of the anathemas of Trent in light of the above verses.
Hey Gavin, could you make a video on tips and methods for having fruitful theological discussions? I've noticed that you start your responces with a genuine compliment or steel-manning the opposing view, which I think is quite irenic. I was curious if there are more ways you've learned for having cordial theological discussions. I appreciated what you said when responding to criticism "real listening is willing to be changed by the other person". As someone who loves theology and engaging in argumentation, I've noticed how it can lead to division and disunity among believers. However, I don't believe that means we should not discuss emotionally charged topics. You've been an awesome example from the Protestant side. Perhaps it could be promo to your book "Finding the right hills to die on". Just my thoughts.
For someone like Trent to know so much but yet at the same time be so oblivious to the truth is really staggering to me. To whom much is given, much more is expected. It’s so obvious that the Roman Catholic Church has deviated just as obvious as it is that the sun rises.
Thank you for the excellent content! Your demeanor is refreshing. Am I foolish for wondering … wouldn’t it be strange if Peter granted authority over all the church to Linus, Anacletus, or Clement in Rome…when there were presumably Christ’s hand chosen apostles still wandering the earth at the time of his death? We can at least be certain that John was alive. I wouldn’t be comfortable being thrust in that position. Also if the apostles are going to the ends of the earth, how did they expect to govern the entire church from Spain to India from Rome? I have a really hard time with that.
I think that you will need to do a bit more research, preferably from Catholic sources, about just what exactly a Pope was meant to do. What do you understand by 'govern the entire church from Spain to India'? What is your understanding of the role of the bishops in governing the Church? It might help to think in similar terms about how Roman Emperors governed the vast Roman Empire, although I would not push the analogy too far. As far as Christ's hand chosen apostles still wandering the earth, etc, you might find it helpful to do some research on Clement's Letter to the Corinthians. But, again, I would suggest doing so from Catholic sources. It's probably better to look at what did happen rather than to think in terms of what you think could or could not happen.
Having a pope when John was alive is justified because the highest recognition for a human in the Church is not being a Pope but rather being a saint...Even today, you would come across saintly priests and bad Popes and wonder why these saintly men weren't chosen to be the Pope...The answer lies in God choosing Peter...He could have chose st.John, after all, he was the only one who stood by his side throughout crucifixion, he looked after his mother etc...But why did God choose Peter who denied him 3 times ??
Interestingly, both Linus and Clement are actually named in the Bible. Not sure about Anacletus. But neither of them is called pope or even has any special title at all. Now, that could have been because at the time the scriptures mentioning them were written, neither was pope. They are mentioned implicitly as leaders in the church but they aren't called elder, bishop or even presbyter.
I greatly appreciate your charitable approach in these ecumenical discussions, Dr. Ortlund. I would love to hear you and Trent discuss this in person! You should see if you can set something up with him. God bless!
If Matthew 16 can be used to justify Peter as being elevated, why don’t people read the rest of the chapter and use it to justify lowering him back down? That is where Christ proclaimed to Peter Get behind me Satan, then said to Peter he was a stumbling block who elevated the concerns of men over the concerns of God. It didn’t take any time at all for Peter to be chastised by Christ and humbled. I am sorry that the argument is often which is the one true church, when my only concern is who is the one true God. If we have faith in the teaching of Christ, we are his church. I consider us all, protestant or catholic, to be brothers and sisters, so long as we hold Christ and his teaching to be what saves us instead of which body of believers to whom we belong. I really enjoyed this content and follow many Catholic and Protestant apologetics channels. I pray that we all find the wisdom we need to be more informed vs finding that which further entrenches us to any side beyond that of our lord and savior. Thank you
Maybe when he realizes that he has no real authority over his church. When church members disagree with our Pope Ortlund here, they just go ahead and make a new denomination in which they are their own Pope.
Your knowledge of the subject and your attitude towards others is very welcome. I have learned a great deal fom you and more protestant sites like this are needed. Just finished your book recently Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals keep up the good work.
Trent like so many others who support Peter as the head of the Apostles, do this because they are bias to the fact that we have a single authority in the pope today, so they try to justify what they find to support this authority, yet today if this authority did not exist, would they be using the scriptures to support a single authority certainly not, and simply said, if Peter had the authority over the rest of the Apostles, it simply would be written Peter being the head of the Apostles, you wouldn't try to be pulling at straws to try to support this argument, does anyone argue that caiaphas was the head of the Pharisees, also, Peter calling himself a fellow elder which gives the impression that he is equal to the others, would he not say of himself I been the head of the Elders, the fact that you have a single head of the church today that is the Pope, came by the arrogance of man not by divine influence, and furthermore, if there is a head at the church then they would have to be divine, otherwise they would have the right or authority to sit at it's head,
The authority of apostleship is manifested by healing and raising from the dead; has the current pope manifested this? Second, scripture is the only infallible authority, what if the pope is wrong? Indulgences, allegorizing scripture, etc.
I ALWAYS point to PETER'S OWN DESCRIPTION of his own "Rockness" and that of Jesus and the saints as well in 1 Peter 2. Peter doesn't say "I am the Chief Cornerstone," but rather Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone, UPON WHICH we all as "living stones" are being built upon Jesus.
The smell test applies. I've listened to priests and other Catholic apologists on numerous occasions. Their theological points are always convoluted and involve odd analogies while non-Catholic Christian apologists can defend our faith with clear logic and scripture.
Unfortunately, Protestantism thinks that it is logical, but it clearly isn’t & is riddled with error that is ignored or not recognised, starting with optional or symbolic baptism, that baptism has to be by immersion, infants can’t be baptised etc
Found this very helpful from a Presbyterian who has been more curious about Rome than ever before. Would even be great to also get folks like Gregg Allison engaged as he’s also done a lot of work here too. Really enjoyed his book around an assessment of Roman Catholic theology.
On the question of visible and invisible Churches, I have two points. Firstly, Professor Richard Rex in his recent book, “The Making of Martin Luther” has an interesting section on Martin Luther’s views on the invisible Church and how he arrived at those views. Secondly, I have a question: Can you have more than one Visible Church? Yes, there are many organisations calling themselves Churches, hundreds if not thousands of them. But that is not the point. The point is whether it is possible to have more than one visible Christian Church. Is it possible to have different visible Christian Churches with different doctrines and systems of government? As Trent Horn comments, Hebrews tells us to follow the Elders but which Elders do I follow? The Elders of the Church of Scotland? The Elders of the Free Church of Scotland? The Elders of the United Free Church of Scotland? The Elders of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (of Scotland)? Thirdly, I would ask where in the New Testament does it say that God approves of Christians belonging to different “Churches” in the same town?
Just a point to pick at… the president doesn’t have supreme unchecked authority, there is a check and balance system of 3 authorities. So the office reference was actually self harming. The same is true in corporate systems as Gavin explains. The Papacy is the only thing that we have that gives sole supreme authority to a human individual.
Thank you for your videos. I've been watching these over the last few days and learning. The knowledge people like you (Gavin) and Trent Horn is amazing. My mind doesn't work likes yours, which is fine as we all play different roles in the Body of Christ! One thing I've learned and please correct me if I'm wrong, but when a Catholic says 'THE CHURCH' they are meaning the Catholic Church and not really meaning the Body of Christ. When I say Body of Christ, I thinking in terms of this invisible & visible church that is talked about in the video. Term definitions matter. Also - Peter's shadow (Acts 5:15) never healed anyone, does it? They laid people out in hopes His shadow might heal but the Bible never states it did heal.
I would think it would have worked like it did with Jesus ( he gave them the same power and authority) when the woman touched his robe and he felt power go out of him. It was "her faith" that determined it, it was always done "according to their faith". But only those who were given such power had such power to give those who would have faith. And the apostles and disciples were given this power.
Dr. Ortlund, I think you do a magnificent job defending the type of Protestantism that you hold to. However, my concern is that your type of Protestantism (Sola Scriptura meaning scripture is the only infallible source, but not the only source, the Church playing a role in what Christians believe, Catholics being Christians, etc) is not the type of Protestantism I have encountered. You are the first Protestant I have ever come across who holds to these more nuanced views. Every Protestant I have ever spoken with or heard speak, including well learned pastors, have said that Scripture is the ONLY source and that councils and decrees of bishops are worthless, that Christianity is simply a Christian alone in his room reading the Bible, and that few or no Catholics are truly saved Christians. You say that Catholics often caricature Protestants, but the reality is that the majority of Protestant churches today believe and teach exactly what you claim is a caricature. The reason myself and so many other Catholics create what you consider to be “caricatures” is because that is simply what we have heard from the vast majority of Protestants we have encountered. For that reason, I and so many others consider your views to be a very welcome exception rather than the rule.
I totally agree with you. As a Protestant (still studying to see what seems to be true) many of Catholic friends, especially online, treat all Protestants like they have no grounds and are blindly listening to progressive pastors or influencers. Unfortunately I think that is what gets more attention, rather than a theology based on church fathers or early tradition.
@@DF_UniatePapist I wasn't addressing you...but there is obviously a difference between what some believe and accurate or official position...this is quite obvious when talking to many lay Catholics that don't get their own official Church teaching accurate.
It sounds like the real issue with this is if the Catholic dogma says that we have always been this way and never had significant differing views in theology. But by, what Truth Unites reveals is that, no, it has not always been this way. Also, he points out that the scripture does not seem to point to Peter as the role. If these things are untrue, but they are claimed valid, then that's a big issue.
Hi, Gavin. I apologize for the long comment in advance. You brought up Acts 15. I wanted to give my thoughts and understanding as a Catholic. We see in Acts 11 Peter bring up a similar issue and after speaking on the matter, it states: "When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, 'So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.'" In Acts 15, Peter does speak up and defines the doctrine. We see James as simply further confirming it and adapting it. But it was Peter to whom this was first revealed to, as we see back in Acts 11. In present day, the pope works in accordance with the cardinals, just as Peter works in accordance with the other apostles. Also, what are your thoughts on these statements from Church Fathers? (You may have already addressed these in your videos). At the beginning of the third century, St. Cyprian says, "He who deserts the chair of Peter on whom the Church has been founded, does he still believe in the Church?" He also states that a primacy is given to Peter. Tertullian stated: "They have not the heritage of Peter who have not the see of Peter." St. Jerome said, "I speak with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the cross. Following none but Christ as my primate, I am united in communion with Your Beatitude--that is, with the chair of Peter. Upon that Rock, I know the Church is built. Whosoever eats a lamb outside this house is profane." Would you say the Church Father's were referring to Peter's confession of faith? If you do happen to read this and respond, thank you for taking the time to do so! Either way, I really appreciated this video. I've never felt so challenged to dig deep into my Catholic Faith. Because of your videos, I am really researching the Papacy (along with other Catholic beliefs), as I also really want to live by the Truth, which I know is your main concern as well. Blessings!
Thanks for the charitable comment! I appreciate your willingness to wrestle with these things honestly. On Acts 15, I agree that Peter's contribution is important, but it seems to me that it is not definitive in the way we would expect if the Catholic claims regarding the papacy are true. I don't see why Paul and James would even need to speak after him if Peter's claims were definitive, and James' language (v. 19) seems to indicate he is providing his own judgment on the matter. It just looks like a group decision to me in such a way that that no one person is in authority or leadership. I'll grant that the passage is not absolutely conclusive, but I think it favors that view. I think you've already seen my video on the papacy in the 3rd-7th centuries, but on the testimonies of Cyprian and Jerome and Tertullian, I agree that Rome was looked to as a source of unity and bastion of orthodoxy, but I don't think it was looked to as an authority over the other churches, and I think some of these very fathers (e.g., Cyprian) claimed as much. As a Protestant, I'd see the stature of the early Roman church as dependent upon her faithfulness to orthodoxy, not something that continues on indefinitely. This is where concerns about later departures and developments in medieval Catholicism come in. That is how it seems to me, anyway. Thank you again for the charitable and sincere comment!
Hello Jacque, I am not Gavin, but I think I may have something for you. On the Church Fathers and Matthew 16, you should look up the work of Karlfried Froehlich as he is an expert on Biblical interpretation in the Early Church. Especially his article in the book, "Religious Roles of the Papacy" edited by Christopher Ryan. The discussion of Peter in the Early Church is a lot more nuanced than people make it out to be. I more accessible work would be William Webster's "The Matthew 16 Controversy". Also, do you have a citation for your quotes from Tertullian and Jerome? I would love to look at them. :)
Quick question for Catholics. One of the key areas of disagreement is in the interpretation of Scripture. The Pope is protected from teaching error when speaking ex-cathedra, right? (Not sure that was spelled correctly). Where is the infallible Bible commentary for every verse in the New and Old Testament? Why not give the true sense of the words with such great power and authority? Just put your cards on the table. It's been 2000 years. Show us squabbling protestants how it's done. Looking forward to reading the Pope's Study Bible.
“Sola scriptura is much more nuanced than that.” No, it isn’t. References to various historic documents are irrelevant. For supporters of sola scriptura these documents have no ultimate or binding authority. The very term ‘sola scriptura’ gives the game away. Sola means alone. You cannot have it both ways. Either it is the Bible plus something else or it is the Bible alone. At the end of the day an individual Protestant is not bound to uphold any of these non-Biblical documents. It is up to each Protestant to decide for himself whether or not these documents are consistent with his understanding of the Bible. Yes, an individual Protestant can say, “I agree with the Apostles Creed” but that is because he has decided that his understating of the Apostles Creed agrees with his understanding of the Bible. He is under no obligation whatsoever to agree that any non-Biblical document agrees with his understanding of the Bible. The claimed distinction between solo scriptura and sola scriptura is a distinction without a difference.
Two things. 1. If Peter has a continuity of authority through his successors, do the other apostles have a continuity of authority through a particular see, as well? Do the successors of Thomas have a special apostolic authority in India? Do the successors of Andrew have a special apostolic authority in Poland...or in Scotland, perhaps? Do the successors of Simon Zealot have a bishopric in Georgia? Do the successors of John rule a see in Ephesus? And what about Paul? Yes, Peter may be mentioned more times in the NT, but Paul wrote darn near half of it!! 2. If the Spirit can protect one man from error, why not a group of men? Is anything too hard for God? Yes, among MEN it is easier to guard unity through general submission to one man’s rulings and interpretations. But if we want it known that God himself is doing the protecting, a group actually sounds better to me.
I think the reason Simons name was changed to Peter, is because in this passage of Matthew 16, the Father made Peter born again. Please compare 1 John 5:1 to Peters confession in Matthew 16:16. This represents a new life, new identity in Christ. The rock is Christ, but is inside Peter (Spirit of Christ in him). This is what the church was built upon, all born again believers. Later on, the Holy Spirit makes people born again instead of the Father as we see in Acts 2. The Father is not restrained by time, which is why He was able to make Peter and the apostles born again before Jesus even died on the cross.
"People work this way, so a church established by God obviously should work this way as well" is patently terrible reasoning. It's just like when they use that same pattern of justification for their "queen mother" nonsense. The "People, therefore God" argument and variants like "Earth, therefore Heaven" are fallacious and absurd. I don't see how anybody can gloss over such an assertion as though it necessitates no additional explanation or supporting justification.
While I am protestant and agree with you Gavin on your theology, this here 12:35 is where we depart. The RCC has dogmatized so many errors that I deny Luther's statement still applies to them. Remaining in the Roman Church is an acceptance of those errors. I love your tone, and thank you for your example, but I do worry about the ecumenism of "I'm OK, you're OK", which the RCC even applies to Judaism & Islam.
It blows my mind that people can't see it's all a sham. In the catechism it states Muslims share the same path to salvation and in the very same book damns Christians that believe in salvation through faith alone. Don't even get me started on the Mary stuff.
Trent’s claim that the early church didn’t look to scripture is absurd on its face. That’s exactly what the early church looked to. The patristic citations clearly show this as does scripture itself. It amazes me how much distortion of history takes place.
At the 38:54 mark, Trent just tosses in “one of them is the greatest”. Jesus doesn’t say that. He says the 12 will sit on thrones and judge the 12 tribes of Israel. Earlier Jesus draws a comparison of how the Apostles should not be like the gentile rules where the greatest lord it over them and they should not. It is quite a jump to infer that Jesus is secretly saying that Peter is the greatest. Why wouldn’t Jesus just say that outright. Say Peter you are the head, but you need to not act like the gentile rulers? He doesn’t, he speaks to all of them in this way and then he moves on to telling Peter about his upcoming betrayal.
Do you have any books about the early church fathers with quotes and commentary who contradict the papacy i just ordered the one you talk about in this video
This idea that the Church was just milling around making up things as they go because they didn't have the Bible is absolutely ridiculous. A lack of a compilation of scripture is not a lack of scripture altogether.
There is also the cosmic geography component to 'the rock'. How it relates to the location of this event (mathew 16-17) in connection to the fall of the watchers in enochian literature and than you have the transfiguration happening in this location. The mount of hermon. I view it as the starting point of God reclaiming the nations he gave over to the holy ones or sons of god in Genesis 11 The renewing and manisfestion of eden or all of creation done through the slow growing of the church. Jesus gradually saving the world. He receives his inheritance 'the obedience of nations. Jesus is also making the angelic transgressions right through his resurection by reclaiming not just his authority in heaven but on earth as well.. So much would point towards the church or bride being the focus and not peter or an office of authority.
Peter James and John all at mountain of transfiguration. Aaron, abihu, and nadab all went up the mountain with Moses to see God. Your point about the inner circle reinforces the idea of a priestly hierarchy with Peter/Aaron at the top. Cool thanks.
Did Trent really use human govt as an example for God's? Did he forget that God didn't want His people to have "A King" other than Him, and warned them that if they did, they'd be sorry? And they were? How does somebody just forget this stuff? It's covered in two whole books in the bible--1st and 2nd Kings. It's there for a reason. To show why "man" is not cut out to be a King. That hasn't changed as long as free will exists--and it does.
18:41 Did he refer to the human KINGS of a KINGDOM as being "God's" idea, thus proving Popery? 1. Did they forget that JESUS would be the analog to those Kings? 2. In the Law, it says when they want to have a King like all the other nations, then Samuel says "they have not rejected me, but God"--God, knows they're going to reject His structure by taking a single human leader/King, so, even though "you meant it for evil, God meant it for good" applies, and God becomes their King again through Christ, doesn't this actually work against their view? Wouldn't they be arguing that their taking a Pope is their rejection of God as King just as ancient Israel rejected God as King by taking Saul as King?
There is one person who rules over the Church with absolute authority. He’s seated at the right hand of the Father.
Yes, and Catholics agree with you about this. We don't claim that the pope has "absolute authority".
@@HumanDignity10 Fair enough. We can change "absolute" to "infallible".
@@funandmental Yep, and Catholics agree with you on this too. We don’t claim that popes have infallible authority. Catholics criticize and disagree with popes on a regular basis.
@@HumanDignity10 Thanks for the dialogue. I understand that. The point I’m trying to make is that Protestants emphasize the practical headship of Christ over His church. I recognize that Catholics don’t deny that but the reason we’re protesting is because we believe that the authority of the bishop of Rome interferes with the ability of local churches to submit to Christ. The singularity of authority in heaven allows for and encourages a plurality of authority in earth.
@@funandmental Local Catholic Churches are in no way hindered from submitting to Christ. There are Catholic Churches, monasteries, convents, and ministries all over the world who have their own distinct ways of operating and their own distinct ways of expressing their Catholic faith. There is a lot of local control and plenty of plurality. However, some universality is important for lots of reasons I don’t have time to get into. But I will say some universality can lead to so much beautiful unity - for example when I pray the Liturgy of the Hours and I know that people all over the world are praying it too - I love that!
"...a lot of people just don't hear a thoughtful Protestant side..."
Exactly. And therein lies the value of what you're doing Gavin. Thanks again and again and again. And God bless you in the Name above all names.
You have elevated Protestant dialogue. Thank you for setting the bar much higher.
Thank you Pastor Gavin for refuting the lie of “being deep in history is to cease being Protestant.” Thank you, for being a living example, that this statement is simply not true.
It does seem to be true for many who do that dive into history. The expression seems to be more a triumphalist proclamation against protestant Christians though.
@saintejeannedarc9460. My question is this, “Why is that?” The scholarly consensus is that there was no papacy early on…and that the Assumption of Mary is a later accretion. Marian devotion doesn’t come in till around 250 C.E.
It really seems that the only way to maintain one’s integrity is to say, “To be deep into history (on a very superficial level) is to, perhaps, convince oneself of the validity of Catholicism.” Dive in any deeper and things completely unravel.
The Real Presence in the Eucharist (shared with Anglicanism and Lutheranism) and Baptismal Regeneration (likewise shared with Anglicanism and Lutheranism) are prevalent in the early years. But as far as I have been able to find, up to the year 250, there is not a single RC distinctive in evidence. No invocation of the saints, no icons, no transubstantiation, no purgatory, no penance.
If someone “reads their way” into the Catholic Church, they must want it awfully bad, first.
Greg, I'm a Protestant contemplating converting to Catholicism and I have to say I'm glad I came across your work. You are clearly well-read and extremely cordial. Your critiques have made me seriously question converting. Your series on the papacy have been the most compelling on a biblical and historical POV. If I can't have confidence in the papacy originating from Christ, then I cannot be Catholic. Well done, I look forward to more of your content!
so glad it's been helpful! Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. May the lord bless you and guide you.
I converted to Catholicism from evangelicalism 9 years ago. I also had that concern. Where I was able to find Truth was not in the succession of the Pope or the Apostles but the succession of Dogmatic truth proving the reality of Papal and Apostolic succession. God only has revealed a single line of Truth not 1000’s of different truths depending on what “church” or “pastor” you adhere too. Look at the doctrine of the Eucharist. It can only be True in one manner. Luthers ideas can’t be true at the same time Calvins being true. Authority of the Church is paramount in all areas of faith and morals.
Good luck on your journey and God Bless
Bob
Supreme, have you ever read, "Jesus, Peter and the keys", ( Hess, Butler). This book includes many Protestant scholars who attest Peter was given primacy over the Apostles and alone the keys of the Kingdom, and that Peter is the rock on whom Jesus Christ built His Church. The office of sole key holder is one of succession. "Peter is the Shepherd of the Universal Church ", ( John Chrysostom). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
As a Catholic convert myself from Protestantism my biggest stumbling block was myself. I didn't want to submit to any "human authority". I submit to the Church and the Pope because of my faith in Jesus and His promises that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. It is only in the Catholic Church where that protection is promised.
@@markrome9702 what protection does the Roman Catholic church offer ?
You are the best Protestant Christian out here in YT.
It’s refreshing to see Protestants or Catholics with an open mind like yours.
I will keep up with your channels.
Thanks, so glad it was helpful!
I'm Catholic and hit the like button before even watching the program. Not because I necessarily agree with it(obv I don't entirely) but because Gavin's content is so well prepared and communicated in a charitable and engaging manner.
Thanks Mitchell, I really appreciate that.
You know what Mitchell? As a fellow Catholic, I can appreciate that. Even if we disagree with the conclusion, we can appreciate the research, sincerity, and cordiality present in Gavin's videos.
m.ruclips.net/video/2MFgxEQz134/видео.html papacy
389
I Am the Church. The Church was founded by Me and it can never die
Saturday, April 7th, 2012 @ 10:00
My dearly beloved daughter, the schism I spoke of has begun in the Catholic Church.
My Teachings, which have never changed since My Holy Scriptures ended with the Book of Revelation, are now being challenged.
There have been a number of challenges, opinions and theological assessments of My Holy Word throughout the centuries.
Many fine men questioned the instructions and the Teachings, which I imparted to mankind.
Some of My Teachings were taken apart, analysed, new interpretations sought and then accepted.
Yet this has been unnecessary, for the Truth was given to man by the prophets who came before Me and then by Me during My time on Earth.
The Truth has never changed. The Truth is simple.
Other information, not contained in Holy Scripture was given, as a Gift to the world, through chosen souls, for one reason only. To help you contemplate on My Sacrifice for mankind and to show and remind you of the Love I hold in My Heart for all of God’s children.
Any Divine Revelations given to the world today are to help you prepare for Eternal Life.
My Teachings, honoured by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, are now being attacked in the first of many challenges, which will result in the division of the Church.
New laws will be introduced to suit modern opinion and so that they sit comfortably with those who, with pride in their souls, feel a need to pacify mankind, rather than show obedience to the Teachings of the Church.
I Am the Church. The Church was founded by Me and it can never die.
Many, including those from within, as well as from outside the Church, will attempt to break down its structure.
Pray that My Holy Vicar, Pope Benedict XVI, will remain strong amidst the opposition he now faces.
This is a deliberate attempt, by those connected with the false prophet, to create a new church.
These cunning people will have you believe it will be the same Church, but it cannot be.
How can My Church, with new laws, twisted versions of the Truth I gave to the world, represent Me?
It can’t. This is why My Father will direct His Church, the true, loyal believers, from the Heavens.
He will hold the keys, until the Second Coming, when the New Jerusalem will rise, the One True Catholic Church, out of the ashes to be reclaimed by all of God’s children, all religions, all creeds as one.
This is the way it was meant to be in full and final union in the New Era of Peace on Earth.
Your beloved Jesus Christ
The Book of Truth
Second Coming of Jesus Christ
@@michaelt5030 well, yes, maybe, but it can lead people astray in the wrong path....souls are gravely at stake here, eternity has no end.
We can make only one mistake and its consequences is forever, our soul is worth more than anything we have here on earth and can we entrust it to one's opinion versus the magisterium of the church that has a 2000 year history.
These religious discussions can affect people who are not well founded in their faith and these self proclaimed "bible experts" can lead them into destruction.
Thank you for making this video - I'm Anglican, going back and forth leaning towards Protestantism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy on different days so this is really helpful in trying to better understand Protestantism when so much of what I see online is easily attacked by Catholics it's great to see a Protestant explain Protestantism in a much fuller way than I've seen before.
Thanks Joseph, so glad it was useful to you!
Joseph, might I suggest the channel Reason and Theology? They are a Catholic channel which has dealt in very in-depth historical debates much like Gavin: that is, a respectful and deep manner. If you are truly vascilating between Protestantism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy, they might be a good channel for you, as they are respectful, and have had discussions with Gavin Ortlund. Most of the recurring guests have also been members of the Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic faiths at one point or another.
If I may ask, where are you now? I also resonate with what you said in terms of where I am in my faith journey
If you were asking me, I'll be honest and say I don't quite know. What Daniel said about being true to what the CofE is is what I'm thinking at the moment. I'm still not firm on it but I'll just say I'd be surprised if next Christmas I wasn't a Catholic. God bless
Thanks for your responses. I'm not Anglican (non-denominational protestant) but Ive considered joining an ACNA church as I'm drawn to liturgy and consistent partaking in communion (with belief in real presence). Catholicism is attractive but I remain highly skeptical of the papacy and Marian dogmas. The scandals, corruption, Vatican politics, clericalism are also big turnoffs. I wonder, how often do serious Protestants drawn to Catholicism still remain Protestant based on theological conviction? We need more testimonies of these. Or is it true what Newman said: serious Protestants become Catholic, weak Catholics become protestant
In the Book of the Revelation, there are 12 thrones, for the 12 apostles. No special throne set apart for Peter.
Have you never heard of hierarchy & authority, applies to all entities, so why not to the CC Mt 16 18-19
Without hierarchy & authority, Protestantism has confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects when Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-23
@@geoffjs Firstly, that's a false argument. Protestant is a broad category. There is church government in all of the protestant denominations, and they all function as intended. As far as division, and scandal, the RCC has been soaked in it for centuries, and still is.
Great points in showing holes in Trent's reasoning. The requirements to find a replacement for Judas included being a witness to Jesus resurrection. So naturally this office would not go past the lives of the original apostles.
The RCC basically says in order for salvation you must do it through them to get to God. Sorry, no man stands between me and my savior. Jesus never said one had to gain salvation through a group of men first before he would save you.
This is the tone & research quality that was needed in these discussions. Thank you!
Thanks, glad it was useful!
Oh man, as soon as I heard the St Cyprian quote by Trent I got so frustrated knowing he's fully misleading that quote and pulling it from the context. So glad you read it in full. Wow, very honest review. Funny that Trent quotes St Cyprian (and other Catholics) proving they engage in what Orthodox accuse them of, which is quote mining the Father's and not reading anything in full context.
Awesome review.
Quote mining Trent.
Yes, quote miner Trent. At it again!
If the Papacy was Biblical then there would be at least one verse in Scripture that shows Peter passing the torch on to Clement.
Or a Scripture stating that after Peter's death that Clement is now the earthly head of the Church.
Was the bible complete
@@MrMonchis04 No, it wasn't. John's Gospel, Epistles, and Revelation were all written after Peter died, and yet there is still no mention of him passing over some super important office to Clement, or to anyone else in Rome ... and neither do any of the earliest Church Fathers make mention of any such office.
Great argument Beowulf.Appreciate it!
Yeah, same with praying to saints. Why would Paul said that it is better for believers that he stays alive? Why is there none who prayed to departed saints anywhere in the Acts or epistle.
Big nothing.
Every time I think Trent has made a good point then you shoot it right down. 😂 I thought his comment on Peter’s name being changed was pretty good but then you said James and John had their names changed too. And then with Peter’s shadow and people wanting it to fall on them but it was the same thing with Paul’s handkerchief.
Awesome channel. Thanks for your content Gavin. 👍🏼 You will have over 100k subs in the next few years.
Sure, lots of names were changed in the bible. But Simon's was changed to Peter, which means "rock" and Jesus said "And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
@@HumanDignity10The big question is, did Jesus give the same authority to Peter's successor? Or did he give Peter the ability to pass it on to his successor.
And the answer to that question is, we have no evidence to support that. It's an idea that comes hundreds of years later.
@@not_milk We actually do have scriptural to support the papacy. “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Papacy” by Brant Pitre is a good resource.
I’ve been eating up your content man keep it coming! Your channel deserves a lot more subs.
Thanks a lot! So glad you found it useful!
Thank you for making these videos. I know you are a busy person in the middle of writing books and leading a physical church body. However, these videos are so helpful and your irenic attitude is so refreshing and winsome.
So glad it is helpful, thanks Elvis!
I think we can all agree, Prot and Catholic, the Office is a heck of a show.
Oh hey, I know that guy!
So sorry for mangling your audio! Clearly I have failed as Bishop of Ojai.
@@TruthUnites haha the Bishop is going to need some minions (err, I mean, technical terms for the bishop’s underlings) to take care of that for him!
@@GospelSimplicity I will delegate this matter to the lowly presbyters!!! 😂
Really appreciate you sharing this Gavin. I've learned a lot. I especially admire how conscious you are about being charitable. I appreciate your gracious tone and humble posture.
Wow, Gavin, you bring up such FANTASTIC, WISE, REASONED & REASONABLE points. Words & ideas from God, through Gavin. Thank you!!!
Thinking that a pope has any saying in doctrine is crazy specially this pope Francis
Just saw in another comment that you have a book "Finding the Right Hills to Die on". I've read the synopsis and I just bought it off of Amazon!
I'm an Anglican, but all of my friends are Catholic and there's this insurmountable pressure to convert. I've also thought about it for years and it sometimes keeps me up at night. As a fellow protestant (although some would say I'm barely protestant-or even via media- haha!) I truly appreciate your articulation. Before you, I really hadn't seen any protestants being willing to dive into church history and plunge into the perpetual Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant conversation . It really has made the past couple of years trying to figure all this stuff out on my own isolating. As a 20 year old, I feel pretty unequipped with my own knowledge and I definitely feel like I'm being ganged up on sometimes when in theological discussions with my Catholic friends. So thank you for your videos, for your insights, humility, and charity of speech!
so glad the video was useful, Anna! I know its tough engaging in conversation sometimes when you are outnumbered, but I pray the Lord gives you grace to know how to interact with both truth and love. Thanks for commenting!
Well...hang in there lol...I am Protestant with Catholic friends also...I have been studying/debating Roman Catholicism for 13 years and I'm even more convinced and comfortable than ever before that I am in the right place. I can not imagine ever converting. My mom is Anglican but I attend a non-denominational (my personal theological leaning's are most Reformed i.e Calvinistic though).
740
My Mission is not to give you a new Bible, for that could never be, as My Father’s Book contains the whole Truth
Sunday, March 24th, 2013 @ 18:06
My dearly beloved daughter, when you are asked by those who love Me, what is the purpose of your Mission, your answer must be - to save your souls. When you are sneered at, mocked and asked what gives you the right to proclaim the Word of God - the answer is, so that Jesus can save your souls. Then, when those who do proclaim My Holy Word already, and who follow My Teachings, accuse you of heresy - then the answer to them is this. You, who are faithful to Christ, do you not think that you, too, are sinners in the Eyes of God? Don’t you, too, want to salvage your souls?
Sin will always stand between you and God. Every single soul, including the most hardened sinner and those amongst you who are chosen souls, will never be free from sin, until I come again. You may be redeemed every time you confess your sins, but your soul will remained cleansed for only a short time.
Never feel you are not in need of the Food of Life. My Light draws you, now, to Me, through this very special Mission. I give you great blessings and special graces when you respond to My call, as I beckon you towards My New Kingdom - My New Paradise.
You may believe that God would not need to send another prophet - that mankind was released from the stranglehold of Satan, after My death on the Cross, that you have been given the Truth through My Teachings already, and that the Truth is contained in My Father’s Book, the most Holy Bible. And you would be correct, but for this. There is still more you have to know as the prophecies contained in the Book of Revelation are not known to you. You have been given the summary - and yet many of you refuse to acknowledge its contents. You snub the Book of Revelation and have no wish to understand it.
My Mission is not to give you a new Bible, for that could never be, as My Father’s Book contains the whole Truth. My Task, in a world, which has plunged into paganism, is to remind you of the Truth on the one hand, and on the other, is My Desire to prepare your souls, for the time of My Second Coming.
Many of you say you honour Me, but many have fallen away from the Truth. Many do not believe in Satan or the existence of Hell, and as such, do not take sin seriously. You have been led into grave error through your tolerance for sin. And now the gravest errors will come about, throughout all Christian Churches, when sin will be cast to one side. You will be led into a doctrine of deceit. This is a plan crafted by the Evil One to take you away from Me.
Because My Divine Presence, My Body and My Blood, is contained in every Tabernacle in the world - you have been able to fight sin. But now, when the plan to remove the Holy Eucharist comes about, you will be helpless.
This is why I reveal to you the Truth of what is to come, so that I can prepare you. It is only because I Love you that I call out to you now.
When the errors are exposed, you will then realise how much you have to learn and how pride prevented you from accepting My Hand of Mercy and how you are nothing without Me.
Your Jesus
The Book of Truth
Second Coming of Jesus Christ
There is never just one human leader of the church there was always a plurality of overseers and elders
Nope, read what Peter says to everyone in the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 7.
@@koppite9600 James took the lead at the Jerusalem council! Roman bishops are hardly apostolic. The Roman Catholic Church teaches error and false doctrine. They cannot be of God. You people falsely elevated Mary.
@@koppite9600
How does that add any information? If you read the whole chapter, you could just as easily say that James was in charge, since he listens and renders a judgement, v19.
@@erc9468 how can that be, given that Peter had already established he was the one to give a solution
Peter said he was chosen for that occasion, James wasn't.
@@koppite9600
The point is that really have to stretch the text to get to Peter acting as some kind of final arbiter. You could say the same about James. And then in v22 you have the whole body of elders coming together.
Just like the good Presbyterians that they were.
Thanks for trying to give a charitable protestant perspective that is well thought out. I appreciate this.
Thanks! So glad it came across that way; it is very important to me to aim for that.
It's a slight of hand I noticed Catholics like to assert people were not looking to the Bible because it wasn't formulated yet. Much of the New Testament Scriptures were in circulation in the first century and all of it was written in the 1st century. What Oral tradition can Catholics point to in the first century or early church that was not in the Scripture. Certainly no evidence exists that Apostles taught many things such as Marian Dogmas that they later assert is some kind of oral tradition passed on.
Exactly. It’s just a slight of hand historical claim that is devoid of evidence and detached from reality
I've been putting your papacy videos in one of my playlists. Keep up the good work.
awesome to hear! Thanks for the encouragement!
@@TruthUnites I'm a little more blunt and hard-hitting than yourself but I appreciate your work.
@@aGoyforJesus thanks! I believe there is room for different approaches to meet different needs. My approach is definitely not the only way to go about things! Take care.
@@TruthUnites you may find the video I did recently on the "Psychology of the Catholic Convert" pertinent to some of the authority topics you address here.
@@aGoyforJesus liked that video.
" Protestantism with its freedom can afford to be fair and just to Romanism, which is chained to its traditions. The dogma of papal infallibility is fatal to freedom of investigation. Facts must control dogmas, and not dogmas facts. Truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is the aim of the historian; but truth should be told in love (Eph. 4:15)."--Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Preface to Volume VII.
When Schaff was writing in the later 1800s, Vatican I scandalized Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and even many Roman Catholic scholars (e.g. Dollinger). If the Pope would come down off his throne and take on the simple role of pastor and expositor of the text, there might be a chance at reconciliation.
16:53 and 17:29 - The church
24:48 - 25:14 What kind of “leadership role” did Peter have? According to Eastern Orthodox and Ortund’s understanding, “First among equals.”
25:28 - Trent on the apostolic lists, namely Matthew 10:2
26:51 - Ortund on James and John having their names changed as well
27:23 - Are James and John in an “inner circle” of sorts?
28:00 - Did Judas have less authority than Peter?
29:06 and 30:00 - How did most of the church writers view Matthew 16?
30:23 - Augustine and Peter
32:57 - Can the Pope be rebuked today like Peter was in Galatians 2?
36:38 - Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem
36:43 - 36:57 James’ impact at the Council of Jerusalem
37:12 and 39:53 - Luke 22
45:01 and 46:22 - “development of doctrine” and monothelitism
54:53 - Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16
I need write to Ligonier to invite you to the Ligonier Conference. Your preparation materials and teachings are top knotch!!!
Glad it was useful, thanks Thomas!
I have a character problem. I struggle listen to Trent Horn without rolling my eyes.
No, you're far better than me. Every Catholic priest I meet makes me think, "Maybe it wouldn't be so bad to convert. He's so gracious and he loves Jesus deeply." But every Papist apologist I listen to makes me think, "You really have to be brainwashed to believe the obvious lies of that false religion!"
COWBOY LOGIC 101:
@Minute 57. A quote from Ignatius' Epistle to the Romans:
"...which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans..."
It would seem that this quote alone defeats Trent's entire argument. Absolute historical proof that the authority of Rome was regional and not universal 😳
I'm curious I'm lutheran myself I just want you to clear this up. I don't see this as an argument how is he saying Rome is purley regional he's just saying God resides in the region of the Romans.
A much needed response. Thanks for your efforts!
Thanks Timothy, glad it was of use!
@@TruthUnites any chance you’ve encountered Brett Salkeld’s book on Transubstantiation? IMO, it’s a must read for both Protestants and Roman Catholics. I think he’d be a great guest for your channel.
@@trupela I haven't encountered it! I will look into it, thanks for the suggestion!
@@TruthUnites Check out the Unitas Fidei RUclips channel for a couple good interviews with Brett Salkeld.
Just wanted to add a note. We should really talk about how Trent Horn deals with alleged errors in the Bible, etc. His paradigm here is really broken. I did a post-debate interview with Steve Christie, after they debated on the Apocrypha. We discussed this. I broke out that section of our discussion and addressed it in a separate video on Mark 7 & Sola Scriptura with reference to Trent Horn.
His basic approach is 1) determine that something is infallible first 2) deal with alleged contradictions later. Well, what this does is that he will never, ever come to a conclusion that the papacy is infallible or that the Apocrypha has errors.
Now, I understand we all do this once we come to the conclusion something is infallible to some extent. But to make that explicit means that you will never, ever be falsified.
At min 49. "The Papacy and Monotheletism are like apples and oranges." Exactly. What a stretch, like so many of the arguments for the papacy and so many other Roman doctrines.
And... the supposed office of the papacy is invisible in those first centuries.
Great point in the distinction between development of doctrine and the office of the papacy. Love how you articulated that. Thank you
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you so much! It’s hard to find knowledgeable Protestants on topics like this. There’s so many Catholic rebuttals and very few Protestant rebuttals. I am baptist and my mother is a Catholic so we clash heads on many things, so that made me want to dive deep into church history. Hearing the quote “to be deep into church history is to cease to be a Protestant” made me very nervous about what was going to happen. I can see why many feel that way because there are so many Catholics in a sense defending their history, and then only a few Protestants. I used to feel more leaning into Catholicism because of my mother and just glancing at history and I have so much more questions , but this definitely affirms for me that I’m not a Catholic for sure if I can’t stand behind the idea of papacy. again , thank you so much for your insight!
so glad it was helpful! I totally agree, there are way more Catholic critiques of Protestants than vice versa, it seems. May the Lord bless you.
@@TruthUnites God bless you too! Is there an email that you share for people to communicate or is that only through patreon?
@@incana1734 see the "about" section of my channel page.
m.ruclips.net/video/2MFgxEQz134/видео.html Papacy
History of Emperor Constantine I find very troubling, he was a pagan not a Christian and he had a lot of influence on the structure/format of church practice. A pagan started the denominational structure that is still with us today. He legalized Christianity for power, not because of a conversion.
Also from my study of scripture, there is no way Peter, who was an apostle to the Jews, left the Jewish people given the fact they were going through a severe famine and destruction of the temple about to take place, would have abandoned them and gone off to Rome to be a bishop or pope. That is absolutely a rewrite of history.
My concern is Acts 17:10-12. A good church group will apply this tradition that was handed down to the Gentiles from the Jews. This tradition is kryptonite to Roman Catholics, which is why they deny sola scriptura. The more one studies scripture, the more one sees problems with their doctrines. Then they try to wiggle around it by using poor hermeneutics. 🤓
I don't understand Trent's common sense arguments. Why would you assume that the body of Christ runs the same way as businesses, corporations, and company bodies do? Catholics regard the Pope to be running the Church, however Jesus said it was His Church and He is the one who runs it.
It's my assessment so far that you have to emotionally want to be a Catholic to be a Catholic. If you weren't raised Catholic, and you're sitting on the fence waiting to be overwhelmed by logic to come down and be a Catholic... I myself have been underwhelmed by their arguments. They make a big claim, and seemingly grasp for straws to make a case for it. And this isn't very nice to say, but they strike me as very weird.
Keep up the good work. :) thanks so very much. Love the video
Thanks Will, glad you enjoyed!
Mathew 16:18 Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.
If Jesus was not referring to Peter, then the sentence structure makes no sense. Why would Jesus mention Peter’s name, and talk about something unrelated to him?
I believe that the way the sentence was framed is enough to clarify the intention.
Peter actually translates as "small stone. " Jesus meant Himself as the Rock. Elsewhere He is called the CHIEF CORNERSTONE of the church..CORNERSTONE is the basis of a building. Using Peter as the cornerstone is a desperate grab at connecting the papacy to a biblical mandate, which is nonexistent.
Make sense? The chief cornerSTONE used a smaller stone like Peter as part of the church.
Peter's confession of faith
And in Acts 1:20, when Matthias was chosen to replace Judas, it wasn't as if the Eleven just said, "Peter, since you're the chief, who do you choose?" They prayed, asked the Holy Spirit to tell them who the best choice was, then drew lots - which was a form of discerning the will of God by a method that takes the decision out of man's hands.
At 29 min: I don’t think Chrystostom poses any problem to Catholic exegesis of Matt 16. Reading the full quote from homily 54 teaches that the rock is the faith of Peter but that rock like strength has an intricate association with Peter and is channeled through his ministry. This is actually exactly what Vatican I says (chapter 2 paragraph 3)-it is saying the successor to Peter recites his rock-like strength, which is that confession of faith. Catholics also see this as being polyvalent, but Peter is still the rock even in the case above since you can’t separate his faith, his person, and his ministry.
Also we agree that all bishops are Petrine and have the keys-Rome just has it in a special way. A bishop is a Peter in his diocese, but the Pope is a Peter of the universal church. And there is tons of evidence that the early church agreed.
But having rock-like faith need not be exclusive to Peter. Clearly, others before and after Peter had similar dispositions towards the faith.
Seems to me that Trent commits the fallacy of assuming the conclusion quite a bit. He has an end goal in mind, and will quote Bible passages and say "so then naturally this follows" but it doesn't seem natural at all, at least to someone who doesn't already have the end goal in mind. This isn't a personal attack and Trent seems like a nice guy. It's merely an observation from someone who's outside Trent's belief system.
Very well put.
Right!absolutely good observation.
Thanks, Dr. Ortlund! Good stuff as always.
When Trent Horn quotes Acts 1:20 to support the idea of an "episkopos" transfer, I note that Peter is quoting from Psalm 109:8 so the Greek word is a translation from a Hebrew word that (in context) is far afield from the idea of a papacy. Helpfully, Peter interprets what he means by his Old Testament quotation in vv.21-22: :"Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” The "office" is that of witness. This "office" can ONLY be given to an eyewitness of Jesus's life and ministry. I would think this mitigates AGAINST the continuation of Peter's apostolic office.
I’m just beginning this video (having watched some of your previous videos covering the Papacy) and I have to commend you for your gracious and conciliatory approach, which I couldn’t imitate. Knowing the Scriptures pretty thoroughly and knowing what I currently do regarding the history of the Reformation, not the least why it occurred in the first place, it shocks me that so many people could excuse such grievous error as (it seems evident to me) the Roman Catholic Church fell into, and continue to believe it is the one true church. I do believe that many Roman Catholics are my brothers and sisters in Christ, so I am trying to learn from your approach to see things more from their point of view. May God give grace to us all. Thank you for sharing these videos with us.
It seems absurd to me to think apostolic succession survived through the years of people simply purchasing church positions.
@@colepriceguitar1153 it's blasphemy
22:40 It's strange Trent would make this comparison given the Isrealite kingship was a disaster over the generations. That whole era is a story of spiritual degradation with the occasional Godly king who acts a reformer but this whole thing ignores that Jesus is the Son of David who is our king. I think the Office analogy perfectly demonstrates the opposite of what Trent is saying; there can't be a Pope because Jesus is the manager already.
I must admit to experiencing a strange sort of relief in watching videos like these. The behavior I have seen out of far too many Protestants brought me to the edge of thinking that Protestants had no real replies to Catholic arguments, instead having only the practices of interruption, fast-talking, and talking over one's dialogue partner.
This is an excellent video! Thank you for all you do Gavin
Man I would love a discussion between you two. From a fellow Catholic
I find it Ironic when a Catholic Apologist says that The Papacy helps the church stay unified in doctrine when its the Doctrine of the Roman Papacy that split the Church up by and large in the first place.
I know, it certainly is ironic 👍
“A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.”
Luke 22:24-26 NIV
It's interesting to read some of the anathemas of Trent in light of the above verses.
Hey Gavin, could you make a video on tips and methods for having fruitful theological discussions? I've noticed that you start your responces with a genuine compliment or steel-manning the opposing view, which I think is quite irenic. I was curious if there are more ways you've learned for having cordial theological discussions. I appreciated what you said when responding to criticism "real listening is willing to be changed by the other person". As someone who loves theology and engaging in argumentation, I've noticed how it can lead to division and disunity among believers. However, I don't believe that means we should not discuss emotionally charged topics. You've been an awesome example from the Protestant side. Perhaps it could be promo to your book "Finding the right hills to die on". Just my thoughts.
what an interesting idea! Hmmm, thanks, I will consider this. It seems like it is such an urgent need right now, right?
@@elvisisacs3955 i totally agree. Such a good reminder that eternal consequences are at stake!
Right on Gavin! One of the many reasons I’m happily an Anglican (and gladly embrace the Protestant features of Anglicanism). Good stuff here!
Excellent! Gavin would you consider doing a video on the early church opposition to images in the church/iconography?
interesting idea, thanks for the suggestion!
Agreed. Acts 15 kills the notion that the earliest Church saw Peter with any kind of unique authority.
For someone like Trent to know so much but yet at the same time be so oblivious to the truth is really staggering to me. To whom much is given, much more is expected. It’s so obvious that the Roman Catholic Church has deviated just as obvious as it is that the sun rises.
Thank you for the excellent content! Your demeanor is refreshing.
Am I foolish for wondering … wouldn’t it be strange if Peter granted authority over all the church to Linus, Anacletus, or Clement in Rome…when there were presumably Christ’s hand chosen apostles still wandering the earth at the time of his death? We can at least be certain that John was alive. I wouldn’t be comfortable being thrust in that position.
Also if the apostles are going to the ends of the earth, how did they expect to govern the entire church from Spain to India from Rome?
I have a really hard time with that.
I think that you will need to do a bit more research, preferably from Catholic sources, about just what exactly a Pope was meant to do. What do you understand by 'govern the entire church from Spain to India'? What is your understanding of the role of the bishops in governing the Church? It might help to think in similar terms about how Roman Emperors governed the vast Roman Empire, although I would not push the analogy too far.
As far as Christ's hand chosen apostles still wandering the earth, etc, you might find it helpful to do some research on Clement's Letter to the Corinthians. But, again, I would suggest doing so from Catholic sources. It's probably better to look at what did happen rather than to think in terms of what you think could or could not happen.
Having a pope when John was alive is justified because the highest recognition for a human in the Church is not being a Pope but rather being a saint...Even today, you would come across saintly priests and bad Popes and wonder why these saintly men weren't chosen to be the Pope...The answer lies in God choosing Peter...He could have chose st.John, after all, he was the only one who stood by his side throughout crucifixion, he looked after his mother etc...But why did God choose Peter who denied him 3 times ??
Interestingly, both Linus and Clement are actually named in the Bible. Not sure about Anacletus. But neither of them is called pope or even has any special title at all. Now, that could have been because at the time the scriptures mentioning them were written, neither was pope. They are mentioned implicitly as leaders in the church but they aren't called elder, bishop or even presbyter.
I greatly appreciate your charitable approach in these ecumenical discussions, Dr. Ortlund. I would love to hear you and Trent discuss this in person! You should see if you can set something up with him. God bless!
Thanks Chris! Yes that would be great. Glad you enjoyed!
If Matthew 16 can be used to justify Peter as being elevated, why don’t people read the rest of the chapter and use it to justify lowering him back down? That is where Christ proclaimed to Peter Get behind me Satan, then said to Peter he was a stumbling block who elevated the concerns of men over the concerns of God. It didn’t take any time at all for Peter to be chastised by Christ and humbled.
I am sorry that the argument is often which is the one true church, when my only concern is who is the one true God. If we have faith in the teaching of Christ, we are his church. I consider us all, protestant or catholic, to be brothers and sisters, so long as we hold Christ and his teaching to be what saves us instead of which body of believers to whom we belong.
I really enjoyed this content and follow many Catholic and Protestant apologetics channels. I pray that we all find the wisdom we need to be more informed vs finding that which further entrenches us to any side beyond that of our lord and savior. Thank you
The core fundamentals unite us. Love and peace edify us! The great mission expands us! Soli Deo Gloria!
I give this pastor a little longer before he becomes Catholic..
He's in the right track..
Maybe when he realizes that he has no real authority over his church. When church members disagree with our Pope Ortlund here, they just go ahead and make a new denomination in which they are their own Pope.
Your knowledge of the subject and your attitude towards others is very welcome. I have learned a great deal fom you and more protestant sites like this are needed. Just finished your book recently Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals keep up the good work.
Great to hear, thanks for letting me know!
Trent like so many others who support Peter as the head of the Apostles, do this because they are bias to the fact that we have a single authority in the pope today, so they try to justify what they find to support this authority, yet today if this authority did not exist, would they be using the scriptures to support a single authority certainly not, and simply said, if Peter had the authority over the rest of the Apostles, it simply would be written Peter being the head of the Apostles, you wouldn't try to be pulling at straws to try to support this argument, does anyone argue that caiaphas was the head of the Pharisees, also, Peter calling himself a fellow elder which gives the impression that he is equal to the others, would he not say of himself I been the head of the Elders, the fact that you have a single head of the church today that is the Pope, came by the arrogance of man not by divine influence, and furthermore, if there is a head at the church then they would have to be divine, otherwise they would have the right or authority to sit at it's head,
The authority of apostleship is manifested by healing and raising from the dead; has the current pope manifested this? Second, scripture is the only infallible authority, what if the pope is wrong? Indulgences, allegorizing scripture, etc.
I ALWAYS point to PETER'S OWN DESCRIPTION of his own "Rockness" and that of Jesus and the saints as well in 1 Peter 2.
Peter doesn't say "I am the Chief Cornerstone," but rather Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone, UPON WHICH we all as "living stones" are being built upon Jesus.
The smell test applies. I've listened to priests and other Catholic apologists on numerous occasions. Their theological points are always convoluted and involve odd analogies while non-Catholic Christian apologists can defend our faith with clear logic and scripture.
Unfortunately, Protestantism thinks that it is logical, but it clearly isn’t & is riddled with error that is ignored or not recognised, starting with optional or symbolic baptism, that baptism has to be by immersion, infants can’t be baptised etc
Awesome work, as always! 👏
Thanks Jonathan.
Found this very helpful from a Presbyterian who has been more curious about Rome than ever before. Would even be great to also get folks like Gregg Allison engaged as he’s also done a lot of work here too. Really enjoyed his book around an assessment of Roman Catholic theology.
On the question of visible and invisible Churches, I have two points. Firstly, Professor Richard Rex in his recent book, “The Making of Martin Luther” has an interesting section on Martin Luther’s views on the invisible Church and how he arrived at those views. Secondly, I have a question: Can you have more than one Visible Church? Yes, there are many organisations calling themselves Churches, hundreds if not thousands of them. But that is not the point. The point is whether it is possible to have more than one visible Christian Church. Is it possible to have different visible Christian Churches with different doctrines and systems of government? As Trent Horn comments, Hebrews tells us to follow the Elders but which Elders do I follow? The Elders of the Church of Scotland? The Elders of the Free Church of Scotland? The Elders of the United Free Church of Scotland? The Elders of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (of Scotland)? Thirdly, I would ask where in the New Testament does it say that God approves of Christians belonging to different “Churches” in the same town?
There is just no plausible way to go from Peter’s clear leadership role to the office of the Papacy. It’s a quantum leap of epic proportions
Just a point to pick at… the president doesn’t have supreme unchecked authority, there is a check and balance system of 3 authorities. So the office reference was actually self harming. The same is true in corporate systems as Gavin explains. The Papacy is the only thing that we have that gives sole supreme authority to a human individual.
Thank you for your videos. I've been watching these over the last few days and learning. The knowledge people like you (Gavin) and Trent Horn is amazing. My mind doesn't work likes yours, which is fine as we all play different roles in the Body of Christ!
One thing I've learned and please correct me if I'm wrong, but when a Catholic says 'THE CHURCH' they are meaning the Catholic Church and not really meaning the Body of Christ. When I say Body of Christ, I thinking in terms of this invisible & visible church that is talked about in the video. Term definitions matter.
Also - Peter's shadow (Acts 5:15) never healed anyone, does it? They laid people out in hopes His shadow might heal but the Bible never states it did heal.
I would think it would have worked like it did with Jesus ( he gave them the same power and authority) when the woman touched his robe and he felt power go out of him. It was "her faith" that determined it, it was always done "according to their faith". But only those who were given such power had such power to give those who would have faith. And the apostles and disciples were given this power.
Thanks
Dr. Ortlund, I think you do a magnificent job defending the type of Protestantism that you hold to. However, my concern is that your type of Protestantism (Sola Scriptura meaning scripture is the only infallible source, but not the only source, the Church playing a role in what Christians believe, Catholics being Christians, etc) is not the type of Protestantism I have encountered. You are the first Protestant I have ever come across who holds to these more nuanced views. Every Protestant I have ever spoken with or heard speak, including well learned pastors, have said that Scripture is the ONLY source and that councils and decrees of bishops are worthless, that Christianity is simply a Christian alone in his room reading the Bible, and that few or no Catholics are truly saved Christians. You say that Catholics often caricature Protestants, but the reality is that the majority of Protestant churches today believe and teach exactly what you claim is a caricature. The reason myself and so many other Catholics create what you consider to be “caricatures” is because that is simply what we have heard from the vast majority of Protestants we have encountered. For that reason, I and so many others consider your views to be a very welcome exception rather than the rule.
I totally agree with you. As a Protestant (still studying to see what seems to be true) many of Catholic friends, especially online, treat all Protestants like they have no grounds and are blindly listening to progressive pastors or influencers. Unfortunately I think that is what gets more attention, rather than a theology based on church fathers or early tradition.
This is not the historic Protestant position as Luther and Calvin routinely quote the Fathersto support their position It's Sola not Solo Scriptura.
@@elizafarfan6335 I hope you don't convert to RC(or atleast that you don't without deep study and prayer). Take your time and don't be pressured
@@Adam-ue2ig To be blunt, I don’t care about the “historic Protestant position”. I care about what Protestants actually believe.
@@DF_UniatePapist I wasn't addressing you...but there is obviously a difference between what some believe and accurate or official position...this is quite obvious when talking to many lay Catholics that don't get their own official Church teaching accurate.
It sounds like the real issue with this is if the Catholic dogma says that we have always been this way and never had significant differing views in theology. But by, what Truth Unites reveals is that, no, it has not always been this way. Also, he points out that the scripture does not seem to point to Peter as the role. If these things are untrue, but they are claimed valid, then that's a big issue.
Also how in the world did Peter exercise a different authority?
Hi, Gavin. I apologize for the long comment in advance.
You brought up Acts 15. I wanted to give my thoughts and understanding as a Catholic.
We see in Acts 11 Peter bring up a similar issue and after speaking on the matter, it states: "When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, 'So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.'"
In Acts 15, Peter does speak up and defines the doctrine. We see James as simply further confirming it and adapting it. But it was Peter to whom this was first revealed to, as we see back in Acts 11. In present day, the pope works in accordance with the cardinals, just as Peter works in accordance with the other apostles.
Also, what are your thoughts on these statements from Church Fathers? (You may have already addressed these in your videos).
At the beginning of the third century, St. Cyprian says, "He who deserts the chair of Peter on whom the Church has been founded, does he still believe in the Church?" He also states that a primacy is given to Peter.
Tertullian stated: "They have not the heritage of Peter who have not the see of Peter."
St. Jerome said, "I speak with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the cross. Following none but Christ as my primate, I am united in communion with Your Beatitude--that is, with the chair of Peter. Upon that Rock, I know the Church is built. Whosoever eats a lamb outside this house is profane."
Would you say the Church Father's were referring to Peter's confession of faith?
If you do happen to read this and respond, thank you for taking the time to do so! Either way, I really appreciated this video. I've never felt so challenged to dig deep into my Catholic Faith. Because of your videos, I am really researching the Papacy (along with other Catholic beliefs), as I also really want to live by the Truth, which I know is your main concern as well. Blessings!
Thanks for the charitable comment! I appreciate your willingness to wrestle with these things honestly. On Acts 15, I agree that Peter's contribution is important, but it seems to me that it is not definitive in the way we would expect if the Catholic claims regarding the papacy are true. I don't see why Paul and James would even need to speak after him if Peter's claims were definitive, and James' language (v. 19) seems to indicate he is providing his own judgment on the matter. It just looks like a group decision to me in such a way that that no one person is in authority or leadership. I'll grant that the passage is not absolutely conclusive, but I think it favors that view.
I think you've already seen my video on the papacy in the 3rd-7th centuries, but on the testimonies of Cyprian and Jerome and Tertullian, I agree that Rome was looked to as a source of unity and bastion of orthodoxy, but I don't think it was looked to as an authority over the other churches, and I think some of these very fathers (e.g., Cyprian) claimed as much. As a Protestant, I'd see the stature of the early Roman church as dependent upon her faithfulness to orthodoxy, not something that continues on indefinitely. This is where concerns about later departures and developments in medieval Catholicism come in. That is how it seems to me, anyway. Thank you again for the charitable and sincere comment!
ah, yes! I did watch that video. I couldn't remember if you addressed these specific quotes. Thanks for the response!
Hello Jacque, I am not Gavin, but I think I may have something for you. On the Church Fathers and Matthew 16, you should look up the work of Karlfried Froehlich as he is an expert on Biblical interpretation in the Early Church. Especially his article in the book, "Religious Roles of the Papacy" edited by Christopher Ryan. The discussion of Peter in the Early Church is a lot more nuanced than people make it out to be. I more accessible work would be William Webster's "The Matthew 16 Controversy".
Also, do you have a citation for your quotes from Tertullian and Jerome? I would love to look at them. :)
38:20 Jesus doesn't say there's going to be the greatest, he just tells them that the greatest...
Shouldn't act like the Pope.
The Universal teaching of the Church
vs
A Protestants opinion
Quick question for Catholics. One of the key areas of disagreement is in the interpretation of Scripture. The Pope is protected from teaching error when speaking ex-cathedra, right? (Not sure that was spelled correctly). Where is the infallible Bible commentary for every verse in the New and Old Testament? Why not give the true sense of the words with such great power and authority? Just put your cards on the table. It's been 2000 years. Show us squabbling protestants how it's done. Looking forward to reading the Pope's Study Bible.
“Sola scriptura is much more nuanced than that.” No, it isn’t. References to various historic documents are irrelevant. For supporters of sola scriptura these documents have no ultimate or binding authority. The very term ‘sola scriptura’ gives the game away. Sola means alone. You cannot have it both ways. Either it is the Bible plus something else or it is the Bible alone. At the end of the day an individual Protestant is not bound to uphold any of these non-Biblical documents. It is up to each Protestant to decide for himself whether or not these documents are consistent with his understanding of the Bible. Yes, an individual Protestant can say, “I agree with the Apostles Creed” but that is because he has decided that his understating of the Apostles Creed agrees with his understanding of the Bible. He is under no obligation whatsoever to agree that any non-Biblical document agrees with his understanding of the Bible. The claimed distinction between solo scriptura and sola scriptura is a distinction without a difference.
Two things.
1. If Peter has a continuity of authority through his successors, do the other apostles have a continuity of authority through a particular see, as well? Do the successors of Thomas have a special apostolic authority in India? Do the successors of Andrew have a special apostolic authority in Poland...or in Scotland, perhaps? Do the successors of Simon Zealot have a bishopric in Georgia? Do the successors of John rule a see in Ephesus? And what about Paul? Yes, Peter may be mentioned more times in the NT, but Paul wrote darn near half of it!!
2. If the Spirit can protect one man from error, why not a group of men? Is anything too hard for God? Yes, among MEN it is easier to guard unity through general submission to one man’s rulings and interpretations. But if we want it known that God himself is doing the protecting, a group actually sounds better to me.
I think the reason Simons name was changed to Peter, is because in this passage of Matthew 16, the Father made Peter born again. Please compare 1 John 5:1 to Peters confession in Matthew 16:16. This represents a new life, new identity in Christ. The rock is Christ, but is inside Peter (Spirit of Christ in him). This is what the church was built upon, all born again believers. Later on, the Holy Spirit makes people born again instead of the Father as we see in Acts 2. The Father is not restrained by time, which is why He was able to make Peter and the apostles born again before Jesus even died on the cross.
"People work this way, so a church established by God obviously should work this way as well" is patently terrible reasoning. It's just like when they use that same pattern of justification for their "queen mother" nonsense. The "People, therefore God" argument and variants like "Earth, therefore Heaven" are fallacious and absurd. I don't see how anybody can gloss over such an assertion as though it necessitates no additional explanation or supporting justification.
While I am protestant and agree with you Gavin on your theology, this here 12:35 is where we depart. The RCC has dogmatized so many errors that I deny Luther's statement still applies to them. Remaining in the Roman Church is an acceptance of those errors. I love your tone, and thank you for your example, but I do worry about the ecumenism of "I'm OK, you're OK", which the RCC even applies to Judaism & Islam.
It blows my mind that people can't see it's all a sham. In the catechism it states Muslims share the same path to salvation and in the very same book damns Christians that believe in salvation through faith alone. Don't even get me started on the Mary stuff.
Trent’s claim that the early church didn’t look to scripture is absurd on its face. That’s exactly what the early church looked to. The patristic citations clearly show this as does scripture itself. It amazes me how much distortion of history takes place.
Gavin, is there any book you recommend to start deepening in church history?
I hope my Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals could be helpful! Mark Noll's Turning Points is fantastic.
very helpful review! thank you!
glad it was helpful!
At the 38:54 mark, Trent just tosses in “one of them is the greatest”. Jesus doesn’t say that. He says the 12 will sit on thrones and judge the 12 tribes of Israel. Earlier Jesus draws a comparison of how the Apostles should not be like the gentile rules where the greatest lord it over them and they should not. It is quite a jump to infer that Jesus is secretly saying that Peter is the greatest. Why wouldn’t Jesus just say that outright. Say Peter you are the head, but you need to not act like the gentile rulers? He doesn’t, he speaks to all of them in this way and then he moves on to telling Peter about his upcoming betrayal.
Do you have any books about the early church fathers with quotes and commentary who contradict the papacy i just ordered the one you talk about in this video
This idea that the Church was just milling around making up things as they go because they didn't have the Bible is absolutely ridiculous. A lack of a compilation of scripture is not a lack of scripture altogether.
There is also the cosmic geography component to 'the rock'. How it relates to the location of this event (mathew 16-17) in connection to the fall of the watchers in enochian literature and than you have the transfiguration happening in this location. The mount of hermon. I view it as the starting point of God reclaiming the nations he gave over to the holy ones or sons of god in Genesis 11 The renewing and manisfestion of eden or all of creation done through the slow growing of the church. Jesus gradually saving the world. He receives his inheritance 'the obedience of nations. Jesus is also making the angelic transgressions right through his resurection by reclaiming not just his authority in heaven but on earth as well.. So much would point towards the church or bride being the focus and not peter or an office of authority.
Outstanding!
Michael heiser on da room hahahaha preaciate your comment bro
@@fabriziom9 hahaha
Do Roman Catholics believe that Clement was in charge of the church after Peter died even though the Apostle John was still living?
Peter James and John all at mountain of transfiguration.
Aaron, abihu, and nadab all went up the mountain with Moses to see God.
Your point about the inner circle reinforces the idea of a priestly hierarchy with Peter/Aaron at the top. Cool thanks.
And Aaron has a wife and passed the High Priesthood to His sons but the Pope has none of these.
Did Trent really use human govt as an example for God's? Did he forget that God didn't want His people to have "A King" other than Him, and warned them that if they did, they'd be sorry? And they were? How does somebody just forget this stuff? It's covered in two whole books in the bible--1st and 2nd Kings. It's there for a reason. To show why "man" is not cut out to be a King. That hasn't changed as long as free will exists--and it does.
Very good stuff.
Glad you enjoyed!
@@pastormikewinger7212 Begone, bot.
18:41 Did he refer to the human KINGS of a KINGDOM as being "God's" idea, thus proving Popery?
1. Did they forget that JESUS would be the analog to those Kings?
2. In the Law, it says when they want to have a King like all the other nations, then Samuel says "they have not rejected me, but God"--God, knows they're going to reject His structure by taking a single human leader/King, so, even though "you meant it for evil, God meant it for good" applies, and God becomes their King again through Christ, doesn't this actually work against their view? Wouldn't they be arguing that their taking a Pope is their rejection of God as King just as ancient Israel rejected God as King by taking Saul as King?
“ 59:25 The faithful as a whole will not fall away from the faith”
Sounds like eternal security.