Why I Don't Accept The Papacy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- Here I offer a biblical argument and a historical argument for why we should not accept the papacy. This is my latest in several videos addressing differences between Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Christians.
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
Website: gavinortlund.com/
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Become a patron: / truthunites
My books:
--Why God Makes Sense in a World That Doesn’t: The Beauty of Christian Theism: www.amazon.com...
--Retrieving Augustine’s Doctrine of Creation: Ancient Wisdom for Current Controversy: www.amazon.com...
--Anselm’s Pursuit of Joy: A Commentary on the Proslogion: www.amazon.com...
--Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage: www.amazon.com...
--Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals: Why We Need Our Past to Have a Future: www.amazon.com...
This is probably my favorite video you have made. I don’t see a lot of good content critiquing the RCC while still treating them as brothers in Christ. This was much needed!
What if RCC preaches heresy? How can people who believe a false gospel be brothers in Christ? Are Mormons? JW?
@@IvanAlvarezCPACMA I think even though RC teaching is not as clear on the gospel and gets some very important things wrong, but they believe that Jesus, fully man and fully God, died and rose again for our sins, and whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. They follow and trust in the same trinitarian God, which Mormons and JWs do not.
@@Qhaon Mormons make similar claims with significant nuances, just like RCC. How do we distinguish?
@@IvanAlvarezCPACMA well, obviously, we do not just take the claims for granted. We have to use our own mental faculties to determine which claims are true. Based on what we know the gospel to be from Scripture and using our reason to determine who lines up with that, we can have a rough idea of who real Christians are. I think there is an obvious, wide gap between the orthodoxy of Mormons and Roman Catholics.
But what if whatever Protestant church or denomination you go to does?
You do such a good job of being respectful while bringing up really good points. It's what youtube needs. No more of " stupid protestant argument gets destroyed by based Catholics' and vice versa. If western society is going to exist in the future it will be thanks to content like this. Thank you
Thanks Ben, appreciate the kind words.
As a Roman Catholic I can honestly say you've done a great job on this topic. However, I'm wondering if you've ever considered The Eastern Orthodox Churches claims of being the original church?
@@TruthUnites Where can I read the original version of the Ambrose of Milan quote, “Ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia”?
Gavin is a congregationalist, isn't he? But he admits Peter had a leadership role in this video. By cherry-picking church-father quotes (I could easily find other quotes of Ambrose in support of at least a high view of the pope - not necessarily infallibility) he makes his case, and also by zooming in on certain texts, picking them apart (they could easily be read in other ways of course). Coming back to my first point - Gavin acts like each congregation can be autonomous - but does he believe that it was how Jesus set it up? What's the point of Peter's "leadership role", a role Gavin readily accepts. The point I am making is that when zooming out of the text, one can see the broader picture. Jesus did have 70 disciples, of which 12 held closer, of which 3 he held even closer, of which 1 he chose as a leader.
Modern, democratic sensibilities may dislike the hierarchical nature, but the leap from such a divinely elected organization (which mirrors even the Trinity) to a modern congregationalist view is an anachronism. Therefore the critique is hollow. At best, he can perhaps critique the infallibility of the papacy.
I had this same thought. He doesn’t understand what was taking place in Matthew 16. Iirc he says the pope is the one to interpret and pass down new teachings. Okay, and the magisterium just decorated the church🤦♂️
You are a brave man....This and related issues almost split apart my entire family. Thanks for wading in, and I hope folks are nice in their replies.
I pray for unity in your family despite doctrinal differences. I'm having this same problem brother
As usual, well done.
A thoughtful and compassionate critique for each of us is both helpful and necessary.
-An Orthodox brother in Christ.
I am gradually coming to a realization that you have filled, and are filling, a huge vacuum in this space and in the general defense of the Protestant faith. I admire your humility, your knowledge of Scripture and church history, and your ability to lay out your arguments in a logical and engaging way. I need to respond by remembering to like your uploads and by looking into your Patreon. I don't do the former very much here and I haven't done the latter at all.
May I provide encouragement in word, in the meantime. Your videos are preparing me for joining a congregation again on Sundays. I am certain they are speaking to a great many Christians who have lost their love and respect for the institution of the church. I believe, while it may be a gradual start, your voice will be prominent in the future. That said, I fear the traps the enemy will use to ensnare you. I don't mean Roman Catholic apologists. I mean the source of temptation. So many of our shepherds have gone astray. You must know the story of a well-known apologist, his massage businesses, his conduct that would be considered lewd by any standard, and his deception regarding his credentials. He had a significant following, although I never thought he explained anything well. We are all sinners, but the nature of his sins and indiscretions probably led many to disillusionment. We can all be tempted, by fame, by the desire for intimacy, by comfort in an uncertain world, by the enjoyment of things the world enjoys. I pray you will be guarded and that you will be strong in guarding yourself. Thank you for your work.
Birds lay eggs; some birds cannot fly (eg. Ostrich); a platypus lays eggs; a platypus cannot fly: therefore, the platypus is a type of bird.
Except it's not.
Logic and soundness are not necessarily equivocal.
There is no sound Christian theological or historical conclusion arriving at a refutation of the Papacy.
At least, if one is utilizing sound premises, then he arrives at the Orthodox pov, ie. "the pride of place" idea. Baptist theology? Well, there's a reason it doesn't formalize until just recent time. If there is no Apostolic heirarchy, then, duh, one isn't going to 'accept the Papacy.'
But that's the rub, not that the thinking proves too little but too much: good luck going back to the first century, second century, etc. and running around as a "Christian pastor" whilst asserting that there are no bishops, no ordained presbyters, no canonical mission, no legation.
A "Church" without bishops, without ordination, and where platypus are birds.
The church comprises those who believe in and follow Jesus Christ wherever that following may take them and no matter what obeying His teachings cost them.
@@LibertysetsquareJack Anglicanism for the win!
@@yeetoburrito9972-yep, as long as it’s traditional classical Anglicanism (not the “progressive” episco-pagan kind). 👍🏻
@@yeetoburrito9972I'm with you, but it feels more and more democratic rather than apostolic. All the Anglican stuff I love is actually Catholic and I'm having a harder time not being Catholic. Of course, a Catholic who struggles with the papacy but who sees apostolic succession as valid. Idk haha😊
Wow, this was handled with such wisdom and grace! As someone with a Protestant background who has been “sent out two by two” with a catholic brother to reach our mutual friends, it’s so nice to see others engage theological topics without hubris or division! Truly an embodiment of “in essentials unity, in nonessentials freedom, and in all things love”
Great protestant apologist. Ive seen so many catholics/orthodox being negative with you on the comments. I think not all of them are like that in general. But i can see you know you are getting yourself in hot water with these great arguments. You defend our faith peacefully and intelligently. Thanks!
WORTH WATCHING MANY TIMES TO REALLY ABSORB EACH CRUCIAL POINT
Hoping this helps:
0:43 Goal of this video
2:45 Five admirable things about the RCC.
5:12 Biblical Argument: Is the Rock in Matthew 16:18, Peter, Christ, Peter's proclamation, or a hybrid of these? (Slides at 7:25)
16:13 Historical Argument: Where is a preeminent bishop/pope's presence before the 5th century?
27:38 Final Statements
Commenting to support the channel. Deserves to been seen/heard.
One of your best videos. The Roman Catholic historic narrative is indeed something that one has to buy into. Like putting on a small shoe.
This is wonderful. I’m Protestant and I have been blessed by your videos and by your kindness for those who disagree.
Great and charitable presentation. As a convert to Orthodoxy I have no qualms with any of this :)
Well-researched, thoughtful, and peaceable. Excellent video!
:)
It’s pretty cool watching this in December 2021 with my Christmas tree lights on while yours is in the background of your video. At any rate, good stuff! A lot more can be said that can possibly be put into a 28 minute video, but the points you brought up were the same I discovered when exploring the early church while considering the claims of Rome. I found, with apologies to Cardinal Newman, that if “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”, to be deeper in history is to cease to be papalist. God bless, and Merry Christmas!
Fwiw I’m with you on your interpretation. I see our Catholic brothers and sisters as such in Christ, but the Papacy is based on false premises. And further, I see it as damaging. There is no ‘head’ of the Christian church, and it sure ain’t the Pope, whomever that may be throughout history. Thanks for your thoughtful insights.
Jesus Christ is the head of the Christian church and always will be 😊
@@merrym72veetee12 No Christian denies that Christ is the head of the church (including Catholics). The pope is the earthly head and without that you have endless splintering over opinions.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787you assert that the pope is the early head as though you didn't even listen to the video. Jorje Borgolio is the best example of why I reject the papacy. Add to that all the immoral and vicious behavior over the past 2 millenia and you have ample reason to see the scoundrels are not worthy of receiving such uncritical adulation.
@@johngeverett Why would you assume I didn’t watch the video, do you imagine Dr. Ortlund makes points that cannot be rebutted? Dr. Ortlund holds the papacy to an unreasonable standard. He says there is no strong evidence early enough but he is completely content believing Baptist doctrines that have no evidence from before the 1500s. The role of the pope has nothing to do with adulation of a man; if you want to claim that the Catholic Church makes too big a deal out of the pope, fine. That’s understandable. What is important to devout Catholics is that Christ’s teaching is preserved and carried through the centuries and without the papacy (as an office) there is no way to know where the true faith is. This is why Catholics today can look into every century in the past and see our faith there; we are not trusting a man, we are trusting Jesus to build his church and guide it. The pope is merely a man, a steward, a pawn on God’s chess board. Have there been bad popes? Absolutely. Has the Catholic Church ever left the earth or stopped teaching the same faith throughout the good, bad, and ugly? No, it has not.
@@johngeverett and yet Schism begets schism.
Listening to you, I feel like I'm taking a theology course. As a Protestant who came out of Orthodoxy, I think you hit it right on the head .I believe the rock Jesus was referring to was the rock of faith Peter demonstrated. Never heard it explained that way.
I’m a Missouri Synod Lutheran. I’m interested in people’s views who became Protestant who were Orthodox. What church were you apart of and what made you leave?
I’m working my way slowly back to my Protestant roots from 25 years in Eastern Orthodoxy. This channel has the right series of messages at the right time. Literally a godsend! Thanks Pastor!
Hey costa, why did you come out of Orthodoxy?
@David Good Because I got saved 🤣. Prayed about it, went to the Orthodox Church with my mom, and what we heard confirmed that nope, this is definitely not where God wants me to be.
@@costa328 what did you hear? I've also seen people pray about things and they believe they were confident in what God said for it only to be confident in what they said to themsleves. This is after they had proved themsleves wrong after some time.
I'm protestant myself, but just curious
Gavin my brother in Christ your videos have helped me so much , as a new Christian who took my salvation VERY seriously i was extremely burdened and worried about being in the "true" church ect. Ive learned so much from you , you have been a blessing in my life! and i feel secure in my faith , secure in Christ i now rest , THANKYOU!!
Have you decided on what denomination you'd join?
The way I view this whole protestant-catholic-orthodox debate is that you're not looking at salvation. As long as you believe in Jesus Christ, you are saved. But the issue is looking at the "fullness of the truth". So I am a Protestant now, but I'll probably be a Lutheran or something, and I'm looking at Catholicism. The only issue for me is icon veneration, the papacy, the repeated prayers, etc.
@@kazumakiryu157Your soteriology doesn’t necessarily match up to the Catholic or Orthodox view though. So it’s not just a matter of “picking your favorite” team so to speak.
@@countryboyred yeah, of course not. That's why I'm considering not being protestant, for those concerns. But I would say to just assert that all protestants are unsaved is also a bit weird. Even the Catholic church and the CCC affirms that protestants are saved, though not "officially".
@@kazumakiryu157 The Orthodox definitely do not believe that all Protestants are unsaved. It’s not our place to speculate on someone’s salvation. Of course being inside the Church would make it much easier to be saved. The RCC has Unum Sanctum which was pretty clear that only those in communion with Rome could be saved but then they changed their mind with Vatican 2 which had a much more loving view of Protestants calling them “separated brothers”. Wherever you end up, I wish you the best on your journey and may God guide your path.
Just ordered my copy of “Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals.” Hopefully I can knock it out on my flights to and from Nairobi this month. You’re content has helped me so much, keep up the great work!
Catholic here, your content is very well thought out and charitable. I don't agree with everything but I appreciate your content and it gives me something to think about.
Subbed.
Dot fall for this false teacher. There’s only one truth not 35K+ versions of it like Protestants like to believe.
I think you gave the main reasons I have for why I can't accept the papacy. I've even begun debating things with Catholics and I feel like they always end up relying on an interpretation of verses that's dependent on a Catholic context. I've drastically changed my thoughts on Catholicism and appreciate it immensely especially individuals like Pascal, Aquinas, Augustine, and the Scholastics and some of my favorite thinkers today like Peter Kreeft, Tom Woods, Gerard Casey, and Brad Birzer happen to be devout Catholics but at the end of the day I'm fairly comfortable with my solo scriptura non-denominational affiliation and seem to not see enough reason to make me leave that
Fan of Tom Woods, huh? Are you an ancap?
@@justingorman1068 eh depends on the day. More just a proponent of decentralization and "spontaneous order" more then anything else
@@bradleymarshall5489
Lol, I hear ya. I was an ancap before I became a Christian. There is so much overlap between the two, yet such a gulf at the time.
Without sounding too pretentious, Christian theologians might benefit from a better understanding regarding the anatomy of the current state; and Christian ancaps might benefit from a better understanding regarding God's word.
A discussion between Doug Wilson and Bob Murphy would be awesome.
@@justingorman1068oh ya no I agree which is why I'm writing a book trying to show the connection. One thinker in particular who I think has shown better than anyone that decentralization is Christian is Don Livingston (a man Tom Woods said was one of his top 10 influences) His lectures and writings on ideology and politics are mindblowing
@@bradleymarshall5489
RE Livingston and Christianity: Could you recommend resources? A quick internet search did not yield much.
Writing a book? Nice. If you want feedback from a random guy on RUclips, I'd totally be that guy.
I wish every Christian could be as irenic as you! Thanks for being a role model for me! (Also thanks for the new vocab of the day 😁.)
Nicely done. This is why Luther contended in his day from the Fathers. One faith and one mediator is where true catholicity resides.
It seems like Roman Catholics (and Eastern Orthodox) think they have a monopoly on the early church fathers-Anglicans and a Lutherans (and others) would disagree.
Thank you for a very helpful scriptural and historical analysis. I agree with your observations.
Hi Gavin, as former Catholic, be careful when you say "grace," because to Catholics grace is the help God gives you through prayer and the sacraments to do the works you need to be saved. You have to cooperate with grace to be saved.
Literally "Grace is no more Grace." I appreciate Gavin's peaceful spirit, but the things that Rome does to the Gospel always make me angry.
@@AzariahWolf heterodox tend to get angry at orthodoxy.
@@coriesu9022 "Orthodox" is a weird way to say "in direct contradiction to their own founding documents"
@@AzariahWolf "in direct contradiction to what heretics from the 16th century started teaching."
Fixed that for you.
@@coriesu9022 Paul wasn't a 16th century heretic, but you are a 21st century one.
This is the most reasonable explanation I’ve ever heard on this subject.
Most Protestants will vehemently argue that Christ was referring to himself instead of Simon (which is ridiculous) and take the verse out of context to provide evidence.
You should give a class on this.
This is so good. Keep up the good fight, Gavin! Much love to my Catholic friends.
Thank you Dr. Ortlund.
I just subscribe to your channel. I love your videos in viewing our faith through the lens of history.
I'm an Indonesian Protestant.
There is a well known pastor here in Indonesia, Dr. Bambang Noorsena from Orthodox background, who use the same approach by tracing the history of the early church fathers. His teachings help me a lot to build up my faith.
I'm glad to know you are a Protestant, I hope I can learn to see the perspectives balanced from either side especially regarding the differences between the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant doctrines.
May Jesus bless you and your ministry.
Gavin, I added your channel in my list of recommended channels. Keep up the hard work.
Good stuff and respectfully said. Thank you for your charitable tone and content.
Thank you for your high quality teaching.
Thank you for this.
a great video, I learn alot historically... thanks Dr. Ortlund
Much appreciated especially your even handed non hostile approach. Acts 20:28 ...Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
Even handed? He made no mention of Matthew 16:19 where we see only Peter was given the keys to Heaven. No other apostle was given the keys to Heaven. He also only gave Church fathers that were vague in their explanation of the primacy of Peter. He certainly didn't post cyprian of carthage on the primacy of Peter. Let's have a look why he might of left cyprian out of this video shall we.
cyprian of carthage wrote this in 251 a.d.
"[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, 👉🏻yet he founded a single Chair,👈🏻 and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; 👉🏻 *but a primacy is given to Peter👈🏻, whereby it is made clear that there is but ONE CHURCH AND ONE CHAIR* So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. 👉🏻 *If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church* 👈🏻(Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)
This is all in line with orthodox objections to the primacy of Rome as well. Would you make a video summarizing your objections to the theological or ecclesiological claims of the East?
I’ll work on it! Could be a while.
Yes please! :)
Yep and by those objections you prove that you are in fact apostates.
cyprian of carthage wrote this in 251 a.d.
"[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, 👉🏻yet he founded a single Chair,👈🏻 and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; 👉🏻 *but a primacy is given to Peter👈🏻, whereby it is made clear that there is but ONE CHURCH AND ONE CHAIR* So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. 👉🏻 *If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church* 👈🏻(Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)
@@timothy9360😂 and because Peter could decide everything alone, he never did decide a single thing alone in the whole new testament. Yeah, makes sense. Surely those verses mean that the catholic church is the one true church in all eternity. Despite the fact that Jesus said the end of the world would come within the lifetime of the apostles.
Jesus preached the kingdom of God and what we got instead was the catholic church.
@@timothy9360 Cyprian of Carthage in dispute with Pope Stephen :"None of us should make ourselves the bishop of bishops or by tyrannical threats force our colleagues to the necessity of submission, because each bishop, by virtue of freedom and power, has the right of his own choice, and as he cannot be judged by another, so he cannot judge another; but let us all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power to put us in charge of His Church and judge our actions" (Sententiae episcoporum // PL. 3. Col. 1054).
"Even Peter, whom the Lord chose first and on whom he founded His Church, when Paul discussed the issue of circumcision with him, did not arrogantly arrogate anything to himself, and did not arrogantly claim anything, and did not say that he had primacy..." (Ep. 71. 3)
According to the modern Catholic researcher P. Mattei, Cyprian has: "The Roman Church (and its head)… as the owner of Petrov's heritage, she is a guarantor of communication, although this does not imply any kind of her jurisdictional or doctrinal primacy" (Mattei. 2012. p. 52).
Gavin is the Pope of Ortlundism.
It would be nice to see more Orthodox Christians responding to this
Awesome video! I love when you include quotes from church fathers, especially when the whole quote is written out on the screen! Would it be possible to share the books you found the quotes in? I'm a protestant trying to get more involved with the writings of the church fathers.
The Fathers Know Best is great!
Phenomenal video. Very well articulated and above all, accurate.
Wonderful respectful and insightful as always
This is great, thanks for this channel, it's direction and your willingness to share in love
glad it was useful to you!
Thank you for this great video, Gavin
I appreciate your loving approach to being truthful, loving and respectful at the same time. I too love Catholic people and aim to love them and encourage them in truth also.
So, I appreciate the irenic approach. I'll try to do the same in return.
The thought I kept having as I listened to this was: "Please define what you mean by 'the papacy'." That is, when you refer to it as a "massive doctrine", the first thing I want to know is what you think is entailed in the doctrine and what you regard as massive. When some people say, "The Papacy", what they imagine is a man dressed in fine robes in Rome, approving every bishop in the world, making infallible pronouncements every other Tuesday, and exclusively being called "the Pope". When all that isn't found, the doctrine is found to be lacking historical or exegetical merit. And for lack of knowing what you regard as the details of "the Papacy", I'm was never certain what you were expecting to find. For me, what I regard "the Papacy" is that Jesus established Peter as the leader of the Apostles (and thus the head pastor of the Church), and he intended for this role to continue in some kind of succession. So what I expect to find is somewhat modest.
For the Scriptural case, the first thought which came to mind was the subjectivity of saying something is slim, or unclear. Last year I was invited to a Calvinist Bible study which was studying Hebrews 10. When we got to the second half, they admitted that a cursory glance may lead one to think it was teaching a Christian could lose his/her salvation. But a more advanced look made it "unclear". I remarked that it didn't seem unclear to me, and I asked if they regard it as unclear out of necessity. (Then I politely was asked to never return).
I digress. What exactly constitutes something being unclear and scant? For many, myself included, the conjunction of Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 is pretty solid. Jesus's blessing in Luke 22 followed by the commissioning in John 21 is really persuasive. The fact that Peter is mentioned more than the other Apostles by wide margin seems significant. And in regard to Acts 15, it seems to me that there's a tendency in Protestant circles to over-emphasize James' role and to relegate Peter in this passage to the role of a secretary - rather than the guy who stood up and settled the core theological issue on behalf of the group, ending the debate.
For me (and others) the thing which grants it the best plausibility is the functional argument. Without some place where the buck stops, it seems that theological questions can have no universal resolution. There needs to be a man at the top who can stand up like Peter in Acts 15 and say what the case is. For lack of that, it seems to me that the project of theology either divides into multiple irreconcilable camps or stops entirely. For many, the prospect of getting the Protestant world together and asking a simple practical question like, "Can a Christian lose his salvation?" or going to the Orthodox world and asking, "Can a divorced Christian get remarried?" is enough to convince people about the necessity of the Papacy. Granted, this its an easier argument to make when its John Paul II standing athwart the Soviet Empire surrounded by a crowd screaming, "We want God" - compared to Pope Francis, who is truly like "The Last Jedi" of Popes. Terrible, but sadly canonical.
😂 I love the story of the Hebrews Bible study. That book is a major reason I'm not a Calvinist, even though I don't believe in loosing salvation. I think there is a middle ground there between the Calvinist and the Armenian approach to scripture.
@@BibelFAQ : It's always seemed to me that the possibility of disinheriting oneself from salvation is the most clearly taught doctrine in the New Testament. The most explicit among the two dozen or so passages would be Hebrews 10:19-39.
The passages which people use to assert the opposite, I think, can be plausibly taken in other ways. But the massive quantity of work one has to do find ways around those which say it can be lost should be an indicator that the Bible does indeed teach the possibility of disinheritance.
Among the others would be:
2Timothy 2:12 - Christians being told Christ might deny them. Luke 8:11-14 - the seeds which sprout life, but die. 1Cor 15:1-2 - the possibility of believing in vain. Galatians 5:4 - Christians being told they've fallen from grace. Hebrews 6:4-6 - Apostates being spoken of. James 5:19-20 - the mention of Christians falling away and in danger of spiritual death. John 15:1-6 and Romans 11:20-22 - The possibility of a grafted in vine being cut off. Romans 14:15, 1Corinthians 6:8, Ephesians 5:3-6, 1Timothy 5:7-8 - Christians being warned that immorality will result in disinheritance. 2Peter 2:20 - Apostate Christians being spoken of. 1Corinthians 9:27 - Paul saying he could possibly be damned.
I'm not saying that inventive ways cannot be found around all those passages. But the work necessary to do it should be an indicator that this is not the correct way.
Fancis my not be a stJPII but the last Jedi is way to harsh he is at worst mediocre imo.
@@JBlackjackp That's fair.
This is a reasonable take.
Here’s a story of a struggling Protestant. In my walk of 10 years as being a Christian I’ve called 3 very different churches home as the first two turned out to be heretical - and ended up in a reformed Baptist church. Then moved to a new large country town and am trying to find a church to call home. The Presbyterian church we just went to on Sunday is very small, held in a school hall and the congregation is made up predominantly of people over 70. Also, the ordinances (communion) were not delivered during the service. What a let down. I now just visited the Roman Catholic Church which is open to visitors every day of the week all day, stands on the highest part of the town and has stood since 1887. I was awestruck.
The turmoil that lands on the Protestant when moving to a new town, when trying to find a church is immense. My question is Do you think God wants us to experience such turmoil that wouldn’t exist if we were one unified ecclesial body? There are many problems with the Roman Catholic church but I fear there are many more with the Protestant church such as the practical example I’ve just given. Ive been part of 3 very different churches in only 10 years because it’s easy to get very lost in Protestantism. Now I’m starting over in a new town. What the heck do I do?
The main option here appear to be either Pentecostalism, Catholicism, dying Baptist / Presby churches, or a few pop up churches that are likely heretical.
I would caution you not to seek ecclesial stability in exchange for personal stability. You will not experience assurance at a Catholic church.
@@ethanstrunk7698 agreed. I’m now comfortably a Berean (I.e reformed Baptist) 😂
Great video! From a Protestant inquiring Eastern Orthodoxy
This is a really great video, Gavin!
Liked! This video was very well articulated and I love the honesty. Would love to see more videos about the topics of church authority and the one true church. Is there a visible church, should there be? Does any church have all their docterine correct? etc... Your videos are super helpful as I was raised in a protestant faith and had a bit of a caricature view of protestantism because my Bible teachers just couldn't answer my challenges well. Thanks for bringing the historical intellectual side of protestantism to youtube. You care alot about truth, and I think thats so important. Also, you make your arguments without misrepresting or mocking other Christian views. Thank you for that! I have so much more respect for those Christians who intelligently disagree than those who think the truth doesn't matter. Lets keep pursuing truth!
Wheat and tares, sheeps and goats. Both are in every denomination, sect, and probably even every congregation. By virtue of that fact, what denomination has the right to say they are the only church? As Christians, we are in the world, but not of it.
Liked the video a lot and I appreciate your irenic approach. Would love to see the references when you quote the fathers so that we could look them up.
As someone who has had many seminary friends go Catholic it’s nice to see more thoughtful treatments of Catholic theology from a Protestant perspective.
Thanks!
Thanks Matthew!
419
My Remnant Church, inspired by the Prophet Enoch, will create hatred
Tuesday, May 8th, 2012 @ 19:00
My dearly beloved daughter, I come this evening to tell you that a great token of My Love and Mercy will now manifest within the hearts of believers everywhere.
They will feel My Presence within their hearts in a way they will not be able to explain and they will unite their hearts with Mine.
This Gift will make them strong in My Faith and they will hunger for My Presence daily.
I urge all of God’s children, who feel the Flames of My Love engulf their souls, to receive My Body and My Blood, in the Holy Eucharist, as often as they can.
You, My beloved disciples, will need the Gift of My Body, through the Holy Eucharist to give you strength, for you will need every ounce of strength, as you witness the falling apart of My Holy and Apostolic, Catholic Church.
My Holy Eucharist will be desecrated as I foretold some time ago.
Excuses will be made to render this Most Holy Gift as simply a gesture in remembrance of My Crucifixion.
Very soon My Real Presence will be denounced as part of a new modern catholic church, which will include other religious churches.
Once this happens, the love and devotion to the Holy Trinity will dwindle and fall away.
Instead false gods will take its place. While this will be difficult, you must remember, I will never forfeit My Church on Earth.
My allegiance is to the Church founded by Me before I ascended into Heaven.
The Church upon the Rock founded by My beloved Peter, cannot and will never die.
For I will lead My Church now in the end times, and will renew the prophecies, foretold long ago.
My Gospels will be preached by My Remnant Church, in every corner of the Earth.
My Remnant Church, will be inspired by the Prophet Enoch, and this will create hatred everywhere My Holy Word is heard.
The Holy Spirit will ignite the faith of My Remnant Church who will never give up proclaiming the Truth of the Gospels, till its dying breath.
Go now and prepare My Remnant Church, by following My Instructions.
Trust in Me always, for all will be well.
Your beloved Jesus
The Book of Truth
Well done Dr. Ortlund!
PETER HIMSELF ANSWERS THIS VERY WELL.
Peter, "the Rock" himself, had very telling things to say about what Jesus meant by "On this Rock"... Peter saw himself as just another rock, and we are said to be "living stones" as well, which make up the church:
1 Peter 2:4-6
"As you come to him, the living Stone-rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him- you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says:
'See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.'”
PETER CALLED JESUS "THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE." That's the final answer.
Gavin, thank you for this. It is perhaps the best video on the subject I’ve yet to encounter.
Thanks for appreciating the Catholic churches teaching on contraception. To me that is the evidence that the Catholic Church is truly built upon a solid rock. If it was man made then the teaching on contraception would certainly be the first thing to go...
So true lol
Yes, Pope Paul IV's Humanae Vitae which reaffirmed the church traditional teaching on sexual morality was largely ignored and rejected by other churches and look where we are now.
@@jamesrey3221 yeah and to be honest the impact of that rejection is felt in the Catholic faith. Under the hood we have many American Catholics who secretly adopt practices that align with the secular viewpoint.
@@MrPeach1 yes, it is the heresy of Modernism (Relativism and secularism. The idea that the truths of the ancient faith are viewed as outmoded and are now subject to adapt to secular "culture") that impacts deep in society including the church, the abuse scandals, etc. was in part caused by the rejection of Humanae Vitae.
Pope Paul's encyclical was opposed even by Catholics, but God in His wisdom see's the importance of family in our civilization that He has to do battle to save it for us.
“We must remember that life begins at home and we must also remember that the future of humanity passes through the family.”
From a letter of Sr. Lucia to Cardinal Caffarra “In that letter we find written: ‘The final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan will be about Marriage and the Family.’ Don't be afraid, she added, because whoever works for the sanctity of Marriage and the Family will always be fought against and opposed in every way, because this is the decisive issue. Then she concluded: ‘nevertheless, Our Lady has already crushed his head’.”
We see this 'battle' being wage in social media, politics and even in the supreme court. In the end God can never lose.
Although you mentioned the rock aspect of Matthew 16, you barely mentioned the keys and the binding and loosing, which is just as important or even more important than the rock part of Matthew 16. Would God give this power to Peter and allow him to bind heresies on earth as in heaven, thus making God a liar?
So appreciate your videos!
I'm watching this New Year's Eve 2021. One year on
Thanks!
Excellent! Wonderful resource.
One thing I would add to the good points you made on the Biblical argument; Matthew 7:24-27 ... "House built on the Rock, not sand"... One could draw some connections there to that rock-faith-confession argument there. Be like the wise man in Jesus's parable, have faith like a rock, like Peter, on The Rock; Lord Jesus.
(EDIT: If that would match the original language used)
Isn’t it just like the Devil, who is an expert manipulator of the Word, to convince many within and outside of the Church to exalt one Apostle above all of his co-equals? And not only that, but to bow the knee to all subsequent Popes as a diversion from direct faith in Jesus Christ? There is absolutely no Biblical basis for the Papacy. If Jesus giving the keys to Peter was a promotional appointment to the Papacy, then Peter would have immediately began to serve as the ‘Director’ of the Apostles from that point onwards. Remember when Samuel the Prophet anointed Saul as Israel’s first King, which began the reign of the Davidic Dynasty with their next King? Well, as soon as Saul was anointed to Kingship, he immediately ascended the throne. Peter never assumed any position above Apostleship. Not a hint of Peter being the “Pope” is evidenced throughout any of the Gospels or even later in Acts. Simply because there is no Papacy. In Matthew 16, Jesus blessed Peter with personal Apostolic authority, not Papal infallibility. There is only one “Pope” who is our Heavenly Father-Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd.
I 💯 agree. But they'll never concede to those who debate/challenge that. No matter how many Bible verses u throw down, they'll either take a verse to prove their justified, so out of context (it'll make u wanna laugh) OR they claim "Sola Scriptura is not anywhere in the Bible, u Protestants make things up". Make it make sense.
They also often say that both tradition & the Bible are necessary/req'd for faith. They simply cannot understand that it's by "faith alone" that God saves us. They can't let it go & it's disheartening.
Thanks for your gracious introduction and for tackling this issue.
Phenomenal! My father became Catholic about ten years and I’ve been trying to figure why in the world he did that ever since. Lol.
This helps fill in some missing pieces! Thank you so much. God bless
because your father is wise enough to know what is true, either Catholicism and early Christian History is true or Luther is true.
@@jamesrey3221that is a wildly false dichotomy.
@@Wilkins325 Luther rejected all Catholic teachings, it is either you believe in Luther or the Church
The early church was defined by the celebration of the mass, the Holy Eucharist, the apostles, the church fathers, the saints, the popes, the bishops, the bible and its sacred traditions.
@@jamesrey3221 Luther and the Reformers were right. Luther only rejected what was false and corrupted.
The early church was defined by the Gospel, scripture, the Apostles. NOT the mass, eucharist, "saints", popes, bishops, traditions. All of that developed over time, including church fathers.
@jamesrey3221 Luther was and is true, the rcc is not.
In the Greek text, Peter is the little rock and Jesus is the Big Rock. Jesus founded the church upon Himself, not Peter.
Fantastic statement Dr. Ortlund!
As as catholic, I find it refreshing to understand why protestant have a hard time with the papacy as long as it is done in a respectable manner. still kinda curious to me why a person with your knowledge is a baptist instead of a protestant church that is more liturgical like lutherans or anglican. not sure if you have a video explaining it.
Baptists have their own liturgy, and they are also part of the reformed protestantism, though I'm not quite sure as per how do you vinculate fairly a certain liturgy tradition with being (or not) knowledgeable.
May be you have a wrong view of Baptist as not educated.
@@angelbonilla4243 maybe I have but it is not my fault there are different types of baptist churches. i have seen lot of southern baptist churches where I live.
I would think that the fact the Baptists weren't around until the 17th century would be an indicator that the Baptist Church isn't apostolic in origin but established by a man. In fact, all of the non-Catholic churches lack a pedigree that goes back to the apostles.
Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Great video, Gavin. Love all the research on the church fathers. One thing I would add is, even if you accept the RCC interpretation of Matt 16 that Peter is the rock in an official capacity, you still have the problem of connecting that to the church of Rome. There is zero evidence that Peter was the bishop of Rome. He was martyred there and buried there. Presumably he ministered and preached there prior to his martyrdom. But there is no evidence that he held any ecclesiastical office in the church of Rome, much less bishop. Then you have the further problem of the lack of evidence that Rome even had a bishop until the mid to late 2nd century. So there is at least a century gap between Peter and the first named bishop of Rome (I'm not sure who that is -- it might be Victor ca. 190s; I know Eusebius refers to him as the bishop of Rome when recounting the debate with the Asian churches over Easter). Medieval tradition (the Liber Pontificalis) claims that the first papal successors of Peter were Linus, Anacletus, Clement, etc., but we have no historical (from that time or near that time) evidence that they were actually bishops of Rome, much less popes with universal jurisdiction. It really does look like a case of reading history through the lens of later developments (like you said, the shift with Gregory the Great and following, especially the 8th century alignment of the papacy away from being under the thumb of the Byzantine emperor to the Carolingians).
Ignatius in his epistle to the Romans says that he does not command them "as Peter and Paul did" implying that Peter was a bishop there. Of course this does not prove him being the universal bishop of all the churches but I do think that should be noted.
@@alfredolebron1428 Ignatius wrote: "I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul: they were apostles, I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4.3). I wouldn't read this as suggesting that Peter was a bishop there. It only supports what we already know, that the two apostles, Peter and Paul, spent time in Rome and ministered there. And when they did so, their authority was that of apostle not bishop. If this sentence implies that Peter was a bishop of Rome, then it implies that Paul was as well, which is not part of the RCC claim.
@The Catholic Integralist the problem begins from apostolic succession a doctrine taught no where
Thank you for this video!
In response to the question - “Is Jesus the rock or is Peter the rock? The answers is simply YES!
This is not a zero-sum game. Jesus is the ultimate authority, and he bestowed that authority upon Peter. Isaiah 22 is clearly talking about Jesus, but when Jesus quotes it in Matthew 16, He makes it about Peter! Peter was made the representative of Christ on earth. The only reason Peter and his successors have authority on earth is because they received it from the ultimate authority in Heaven! Jesus is the authority, and the Pope is His representative (Vicar).
So the answer is yes! Jesus is the Rock and Peter is the rock!
God bless you for having the love of Christ, brother! A lot of Catholics can learn so much from you!
This is not to mention that if we are to assume the office of regent carries over from the Davidic kingdom to the Kingdom of God that Peter who was given the keys (a sign of rhe office in the Davidic kingdom) was the holder of a specific office and that that office would continue after his death is reasonable
@@JBlackjackp Absolutely. This is also supported in Acts 1 when the Apostles chose Matthias to replace Judas. Judas’s place as an Apostle is specifically called in “office.” So if Judas Iscariot, the least of the Apostles (always being last when the names of the Apostles are listed in the New Testament), had an office that HAD to be filled, then of course Peter, the primary Apostle (always being listed first when the names of the Apostles are listed) most definitely had an office as well that would have had to be filled with a replacement after Peter died.
@@JBlackjackp I know he didn't even mention Jesus quoting Isaiah which is a main Catholic argument for the continuation of Peters primacy. "In Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Isa. 22:21)." I took that from part from Catholic answers in the article Peter the Rock lol. Annoying how didnt bring that up i would have liked to here his take on it
Thank you.
The Septuagint, which the Fathers of the Church used and ratified as the Old Testament Canon of Scripture does not contain the same reference to keys in Isaiah 22:22. Even barring such, we cannot purport to assume that this is the exact idea Jesus was alluding to in Matthew 16, much less ascribing such a station to St. Peter. Hence the entire point of this video: we cannot assume or jump to conclusions without context and the interpretation of the Church Fathers considered: whether one is Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. Two of these groups have trouble with Historic Circumstances and the Teachings of the Fathers; One does not. Certainly, if you approach the sources with an honest and open heart, you can figure out that Orthodoxy is One, Protestantism and Catholicism are two.
I don’t agree with your arguments, except to say all Christians agree that Jesus is the head of the church. I do like how you present your arguments in a calm and reasoned manner instead of just hurling attacks. For this reason I respect you though I don’t agree with you.
What specifically do you disagree with?
Do you disagree based on what you were taught or because his arguments had flaws?
@@thomasc9036 I disagree based on my own study. His arguments were right on. If you have proof please give some details.
@@ContendingEarnestly I am asking the original commentor, csterett, pretty much what you are asking, but more detailed. I agree with Gavin. I just can't even imagine the eternal Christ putting someone at the "cathedral" because what's the point of being an eternal King and High Priest if someone will take that chair temporarily?!?!?
@@thomasc9036 Youre right. I assumed you were responding to me.
I am *really* liking these videos and watching just about all of them. Lol Quick suggestion - when you put up a quote (e.g. Ambrose) it would be great to see the date of the passage, the name of the document writing, etc. so it can be easier to research the same document. Keep up the great work! 👍🏻
Here's a document he conveniently left out.
cyprian of carthage wrote this in 251 a.d.
"[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, 👉🏻yet he founded a single Chair,👈🏻 and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; 👉🏻 *but a primacy is given to Peter👈🏻, whereby it is made clear that there is but ONE CHURCH AND ONE CHAIR* So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. 👉🏻 *If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church* 👈🏻(Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)
The Jerusalem Council in Acts is fundamental on this point for me. It is a Biblical-Exigetical, Historical, and logically vital argument against the supposed primative nature of Romanism all contained in a single narrative.
To substantiate its own claims, the Roman Church has to show that its definitive distinctives were present from the very inception of the Church's existence.
In Acts, we have an event which is post-Resurrection and post-Pentecost (no one can say that the Church didn't fully exist at this point) yet is witnessed to within the pages of the New Testament scriptures themselves which testify that it was carried out under proper divine guidance and approbation. So, it serves as an absolute test case against which to place the Roman distinctives. Petrine/Papal supremacy, Roman supremacy, monarchical magisterium, monarchical bishoprics, etc. as well as Eastern Ceasaropapism are not only absent, but are contradicted by the scripturally-verified example of the apostles themselves.
The distinctive aspects that make the Roman Church what it is simply and clearly did not exist in the beginning, nor is their future emergence provided for or justfied by scripture or even human doctrine from the earliest stage.
The Council of Jerusalem is the proto-example of the Pope, making a binding decision for the universal Church, St. Peter declaring that Gentiles did not have to become Jews before becoming Christian, and another Bishop, St. James making a recommendation to appease the Judaizers in Antioch specifically.
@St. Hubertus Outdoors ,
You have got to be kidding me. Peter doesn't so much even rise to the level of primus inter pares in the Jerusalem Council. He gives his testimony, but the one presiding over the meeting (if anyone at all) is James because he's the leader in Jerusalem, they were meeting in Jerusalem, and the question at hand had come about due to Judaizers going out from Jerusalem. No one sat "ex cathedra" as the vicar of Christ. They agreed together, and James formulated their joint declaration. There was no Pope or "proto-Pope" in Acts.
And this was not just *any* council, but the council formed of the apostles of Christ, preserved in the inspired Word, and testified by that very Word to have been carried out according to the will and leading of God. This council *must* logically be seen as normative and definitive, and there was no Pope!
Besides this, even if some kind of "proto-Pope" were being evidenced (and it would suggest James in that role rather than Peter anyway) which it's not, that's not good enough to support the Catholic position which is that the Papacy existed from the time of Christ's earthly ministry. The doctrines of Catholicism are supposed to be "what all Christians, have believed at all times and at all places." I suppose the apostles and elders at Jerusalem were not the true Church then, because the central Catholic doctrine of Papal supremacy, which is supposedly primitive to a time well before that event, *does not exist in Acts* . "Proto" isn't good enough to support Catholic claims on this issue. All you are doing by making that argument is conceding the point that the monarchic, supreme, magisterial Papacy did not exist during the first century of the Church. Thus, it is a doctrine of man not of God, and this central stumbling block in the relations between Roman Catholics and all other Christian groups around the world should be cast aside, leading to truer doctrine and increased unity.
@@jameswoodard4304 Acts 15 does not deny the Primacy of St. Peter. Once St. Peter stood to speak, everyone was silent, and he made the pronouncement for the Universal Church.
The Primacy comes from having the Keys to the Kingdom of God. Mt. 16:19 is clear that the Lord Jesus appointed St. Peter to be His “Master of the Palace.” Mt. 16:19 is a clear reference to Is. 22:22.
@St. Hubertus Outdoors ,
Order of events:
-Everyone discussed generally
-Pharisees delivered their opinion for one side of the debate
-Peter gave a speech for the other
-Then, "Everyone fell silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul..." as they gave testimony of God working among the Gentiles
-Then James of Jerusalem gave a summary opinion which they all agreed to.
Is that how the Roman Papacy works? If the Catholic Church had a point of debate to settle, is that what it would look like? All the bishops including the one of Rome gather together, the Roman bishop is simply among those who speak in turn, then a different bishop provides the communal decision? You are deceiving yourself if you answer yes. If you thought so yourself, you would not have relied on the concept of "proto-Pope." You are well aware that the Roman Papacy as it is distinct to Roman Catholic dogma did not exist.
And remember this. No one denies Peter had a leadership role *among* the apostles. To win your point, you can't just show that he was important or had *some* leadership role, but that the current doctrine of the Papacy was present. You *cannot* do that, because it wasn't.
As to the scriptures you cite, at best, they show a leadership role of some kind for the person of Peter among the apostles, which everyone already knows. You would still have to prove the application from Peter himself to the ongoing office of the Roman bishop, *and* that the office was identical to current Catholic dogma relating to the Papacy. And that's best-case for you. Worst case, the verses about rock and keys don't obtain to Peter personally or his office as supposed bishop of Rome, but to the confessing church generally.
The fact remains that Catholicism requires Peter to have acted as a fully Roman Catholic pontif during the first century. We have a record of church organization, structure, and decision-making from the first century. It is not Roman Catholic.
You can't get around that by quoting ambiguous passages that, at best, confirm what everyone already concedes.
@@jameswoodard4304 ruclips.net/video/xl3pD4l0K5U/видео.html
Thank you for this nice analysis, very insightful to me! 😊 A debate with Steve Ray on this topic would be very interesting 😉
Great video! Thank you! Reading Roman Catholic literature on the topic was a bit confusing to me even though the data is there. Thank you for a clear, accurate and humble way to frame the argument!
Another great video, thank you. I'd love to see you follow some of these conclusions, and answer the broader question of why you are not orthodox? You pointed out the conciliar nature of the church as an objection to the Papacy, which I agree with. It does logically follow to address orthodoxy and I'd be really interested in this! Enjoying your theological retrieval book.
Thanks Tom! Will try to get to a video on orthodoxy but it may take some time.
Thank you for this eloquent and respectful video. I'm an Episcopalian and as part of the Anglican Communion we hold to Apostolic Succession but reject the Papacy. You did an excellent job of explaining how supremacy of the Bishop of Rome wasn't really a thing in the early church.
Ya, says the queen worshipper who replaced the pope with the king as the head of the church. Apostolic succession? You guys? Lol. Best joke.
@@foodmaniac9339 Since your reply was so dignified, respectful, and in the spirit of Christian brotherhood I'll respond. No one believes the Church holds apostolic succession through the crown. It is however the Bishops that do. During the split with Rome there were bishops who remained loyal to the Pope and others who helped create the Anglican Church. It's similar to how the Eastern Church retains its apostolic succession by the laying on of hands going back to the apostles but is not beholden to the Bishop of Rome.
@@enischial965 is that what jesus wanted? A king goes against the church, cause his balls were itching and wanted to marry against the church law and since doesn't get his will done, makes his own church and executes Catholics. How in the world are you apostolic if you have female ordained ministers and bishops. You like the king more than god. That's what Anglican is. Rejecting the papacy is rejecting the church. Where is that apostolic succession if there is no bishop and no pope. You guys have the worst history on your side regarding succession and you have the face to talk about supremacy of the pope. Let's talk about the supremacy of the king first.
@@foodmaniac9339 Supremacy of the monarchy is a common myth about Anglicanism. What it really is is a combination of the religious authority with the secular authority. A concept known as caesaropapism. The church of England was not the first one to do it. A great example is the early Byzantine Church where the Emperor served as supreme governor and protector of the Church. So while he is the supreme governor, the king is not the head of the Church. His Majesty King William III holds no authority in the Episcopal Church. We are still part of the Anglican communion, however we consecrate our own Bishops and have our own Presiding Bishop. The history of our split with the Church of England after the American Revolution is quite fascinating. In terms of Papal authority and Petrine Primacy, I understand people's reasons for backing it. Through the intense and prayerful study of scripture, tradition, reason, and church history I have yet to find enough evidence to allay my disagreements to it. You sound like you already have your mind made up on the matter, so I will not press nor debate you further. Also, truth be told, I don't monitor my RUclips alerts all that often. Please understand I do hold the Roman Catholic Church in extreme high regard. Even as a Protestant I recognize Catholics as my brethren. May Christ's peace be upon you. Have a prayerful Lent and a happy Easter.
@@enischial965 the Byzantine eastern orthodox went wrong on that part and that's why the western church opposed it.
Well done!!! 🙌
Loved the video. Thank you so much! Hermann Sasse wrote a great article called “Peter and Paul”, tracing the historical development of Rome as a primary spot in the Christian Church.
Great video! I just found your channel through a recommendation by a friend and I immediately subscribed. I haven't had nearly enough truth exposure over the Catholic doctrine much at all, and this was some much needed information. Thank you.
If I wanted I further my study into these kinds of topics myself however, are there any good books you would recommend on the church Father's writings? I already am in-line to purchase the Lord's supper book you recommended from another video, but one with more information over the issues regarding the papacy would also be desirable. Please let me know.
Great books, A woman rides the beast by Dave Hunt. Or research Bereanbeacon - richard Bennet, he teaches you all the catholci doctrine and shows you why its not biblical.
Great video...and I say this as a former Protestant who, jbtw, had your dad as my pastor for a couple of years. Curious, in pointing out areas where you admire Catholicism you mentioned moral theology and specifically mentioned contraception. I would love to hear your position on it
when i first began to question protestantism i was constantly being thrown around by trying to make bold, logical deductions. I thought," Ill just read and get the correct sense of the bible." However, from the weakness of my own mind, I kept finding cases that would contradict. So i changed my approach to," Is it unreasonable that some people hold to such-and-such an interpretation of some passage in scripture." it was this change in thinking that revealed the truth of catholicism. When it comes the matthew 16:18, its not unreasonable to conclude that Peters vicarious office is in view. As there are church fathers that have said this. One only has to consider the name of his given by Christ. Peter, which means rock.The name and the role are easily tied to one another. One cant reject the interpretation because there are alternatives. the catholic church accepts a range of different readings for many passages. Plus , it almost makes Christs decision to name simon peter a mistake. Peter could have easily continued his ministry as leader without being given a name that essentially means foundation. with luke 22:32 , it seems clear, at least to me and the catholic church. Christ says the leader will be humble and not lord his power over others. He then tells peter he has prayed for him, the only apostle he prays for in an exclusive manner, and that when he returns to do the things the leader should do. this is the basic role of the pope. to strengthen his brethren, and not to lord over his power. with john 21, there are even protestant scholars who agree peter is serving in a ministry that functions vicariously. Obviously, not in the same sense as catholics, but its undeniable the universal pasture hes been given to lead. Hes the only apostle whos apostolate is the whole church. we even see him exercise his role in acts 15:7, where he gives an eternally binding,and infallible, command onto christians that is still obeyed, or at least should be, today. Ultimately, it seemed the only way protestantism could be true was if the ministry of peter coincidently, a massive and drawn out coincidence, looked like a primitive form of the papacy.
Well defined brother
How can you read Acts 15 and come to the conclusion that Peter is the sole apostle responsible for giving an infallible command to the church? If any one person can be attributed with instituting any infallible doctrine in this chapter, it would be James in verses 19-20. Even then, he only made this judgement after conferring with the elders and other apostles, hearing the testimony of Peter, Paul, and Barnabas, and appealing to the words of Amos. Any attempt at reading papal primacy into the Council of Jerusalem is either disingenuous by anachronistically reading the Pope’s authority into a text where it can’t be found, or historically and literally illiterate.
I agree with that opening sentiment on Catholics often being way ahead of Protestants in terms of being loving, writing great works (especially political), actually doing stuff, etc… We need to pick up the slack…
I am a Catholic and it's becoming more difficult to accept the current papacy teaching of the Catholic Church. If you consider the current divide between traditional minded Catholics, modern Catholics, SSPX, and sedevacantists it becomes obvious that most Catholics have the same concern whether they will admit it or not. Each of these divides are just an attempt to explain away the changes in the modern Catholic Church and still hold onto the ideal of the Pope.
I'm a Catholic convert from Protestantism and see the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches as the true Church--they were one Church for more than a 1000 years. I am finding myself drawn to the Eastern Orthodox Church simply because of the reverence of their Liturgy. Much is said about theology and history, but truth should be found in how a church worships. Unfortunately most Catholic Masses today are very irreverent.
@Zachary Trent The papacy changed significantly during the Gregorian reforms starting in the 11th century. These changes along with the unilateral addition of the Filioque led to the schism that’s lasted more than 8 centuries. As to the reverence of Mass, any Mass that offers the Eucharist in the hand is irreverent and particularly so when it’s offered by an Extraordinary Eucharist Minister.
Comparing the failures of Orthodox patriarchs with that of popes is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Patriarchs can’t make changes to dogma but the pope can. Most recently Pope Francis has changed the catechism to state the death penalty is no longer permitted. Orthodox Christians don’t have to accept the ramblings of heretical patriarchs, but Catholics do have to accept the Pope’s teachings.
I suggest looking into other rites of the Catholic Church. I heard Melkite Divine Liturgy is amazing. These are essentially eastern liturgies but they’re in communion with the Catholic Church. definitely check those out.
@@bansheebrethren797 Eastern Catholic Rites are not available in my area but I did consider that as an option.
Also, notice how Paul talked about the Jerusalem church (which, BTW, was the Headquarters of the Church, not Rome) in Gal. 2:9:
"... James, Cephas, and John, those reputed to be pillars..." The leaders are called "Pillars." AND IT"S JAMES who is given top billing.
Very well balanced and thorough argument! I’m a new comer and your channel has been very refreshing in many way. Keep up the good work and exemplary scholarship!
When it comes to Scripture, we have the words of Jesus Christ saying Peter is the rock that he will build His Church on. The Church teaches that it is the person of Peter as well as his confession. You can't have one without the other. Additionally, the keys are given singularly to Peter. And, 266 popes can be traced through two millennia back to Peter. The papacy is the longest running institution in the history of the world. If it were of man it would have failed, but it wasn't of man, but established by Christ, so it can't fail.
Amen Amen Amen.
Thank you Dr. Ortlund! Very helpful and insightful information about the papacy. Keep up the great work! Maybe a video on the eucharist and transubstantiation could be done in the future? The papacy and the eucharist are the two main reasons I am not a Roman Catholic, so that's why I'd like to hear your views on that subject. Also, thank you for implicitly shattering most everyone's presuppositions about Baptists haha from one Baptist to another, it means a lot.
Thanks Caleb! Historically minded Baptists must stick together! 👍
Caesarea Philippi is home to the Gates of Hell. Jesus is building His church there and we are attacking that as the church and hell will never prevail.
Regarding Peter,
There is not even confirmed data that he ever was in Roma. Paul was there, but we don't know about Peter for sure. The sources are not 100% reliable. . And if he did go to Rome, he did not go as a bishop but as a visiting apostle. Why? Because Peter was NOT a bishop. He was an apostle. Peter was NEVER bishop of Rome.
"So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up"
(Ephesians 4, 11-12)
The idea that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus established His church, is a completely wrong interpretation of Mathew 16, 18: " And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it."
The "rock" is not Peter, but the truth that Peter had just pronounced (v.16): "Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
PETER HIMSELF says that "Jesus is
“‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’ (Acts 4, 11) he repeats the idea in his 1st epistle (2, 6,).
He never considered himself to be that kind of rock.
PAUL also says that Jesus is the cornerstone of the church (ephesians 2, 20) (1 Co.3, 11).
From 77 CHURCH FATHERS, only 17 thought that the rock was Peter. The rest think it was Peter's affirmation.
In Mark 5, 33-35, the disciples argue for 1st place. Why should they if it has been given already?
Jesus also told them that no one of them was above the others: (Mathew 20, 26-27).
Paul mentions different OFFICES in the church: apostles, prophets & teachers. (1 Co 12, 28). No mention of a Pope.
It was James, & not Peter, who presided the 1st COUNCIL of the church in Jerusalem. (Acts 15).
In Acts 8, 14, the apostles sent Peter & John to Samaria. Waw! The Pope is sent in a mission by pple under him!
PETER refers to himself as an apostle & servant. No more than that (1 Peter 1, 1; 2 Pe 2, 11).
HISTORY does not prove the papacy right, just its huge corruption. Popes have been more political figures than anything else. The actual pope seems more concerned with saving the planet than saving souls!
Thank you!
As a Catholic I respect your views. The first thing is that Jesus founded the Church before the scriptures were written down. The second thing is that the church is the Mystical Body of Christ (the people of God) and has produced some wonderful Saints and Scholars over the history of the Church as well as many sinners.. Everything that you are saying has been discussed and debated within the Catholic Church great scholars for over 2000 years. I also think there is a big difference between Evangelical view of the Papacy in the USA than our view in Europe.. The miracle is that the Papacy has survived with all its failings, faults, attacks and corruptions. I believe the Holy people of the church and of faith as well as the holy priests, monks, nuns, hermits, and Saints were the real reformers of the papacy and the Church despite the corruption, scandals and bad leadership.
I was recently in Belgium and went to visit the "Lamb of God" painting in Ghent which had a wonderful history. This was painted in the 14th Century before the reformation and tells a lot about the Church in the 14th century, there is also a copy of the gospels in Latin from a local monastery in the 8th Century on display in the Cathedral.. Have a look at it and look at the medieval monasteries to have a look their role they played in the Papacy and the church. I would say the monasteries were closer to the Catholic Church and people than the Papacy. The monks protected and transcribed the Gospels in Latin.
Not all Catholics are fans of the Current Pope Francis and previous Pope's. As all are human and are sinners and we have some very good Popes in the office as leader of the Church over the 2000 years. May God bless all seeking the Truth in the Person of Jesus Christ. 🙏
As a protestant, I do deny the papacy from a linguistic aspect of the language in scripture, but I do not deny Roman catholicism because of the papacy. Like perpetual virginity, or her assumption, the papacy to me is very benign. I do believe an apostolic succession as it pertains to the continued passed on teachings of the church. But For instance, if Rome didn’t have mandated curses upon accretion practices then the church would be far more appealing to me because if it would be pure Gospel, without anything extra. It would then be the original patristic tradition.
If you don't accept the papacy then build your own church .. pray the holy spirit will guide you and then off you go with your Bible
I read through the comments. All of our Catholic friends don’t address any of the arguments made in this video. They just attack the reformation. The truth is the reformation was just a return to the early church. There was no unanimous universal agreement in the early church, but the fathers agreed far more with the reformers than current Rome.
A big question that should be answered from Protestants and hasn't is did Christ establish a kingdom or not?
And if it's not an actual Kingdom, if it's not a hierarchy with a visible structure as witnessed to in the scriptures, confirm throughout history, and still in existence today, what is it then? Is it a democracy? Is it a congregation? Is it a brotherhood? Is it a federation?
I would ask any any Protestants or Orthodox for that matter, of Goodwill that if they take this issue seriously to prove from scripture that Christ in fact did not establish a kingdom.
We can wait another 500-1000 years.
Some food for thought:- for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
The revelation of the Father concerning the Son combined with Peters confession and a leadership role of the Apostles only…
Hi Gavin, have you started a podcast? I’d LOVE to have the audio versions of your videos to listen to when I’m on the move. Thanks for the amazing content.
Please don’t stop!
Thanks! Looking into this. 👍
I agree 100%. I don’t have time after work to watch RUclips videos, but I do listen to podcasts while I am working. Thank you, Gavin.
Every church building has a pope, usually referred to as pastor.
I’m Orthodox and I approve this message.
Like u had a choice
Pastor Gavin: Thank you for your video. In the sports world, a solid set of rules and a referee are needed for the fairest game possible….There must be someone with authority assuring a fair playing field. We as players cannot simply interpret our own rules. God Bless…I keep you in prayer.
I'm done with the bar exam, so I'm now able to catch up on alot of these videos. While biased, I agree with your arguments and hold to these same arguments. I find them much more persuasive on this topic, as well as some others you didn't mention.