The problem for me with this is that Apostolic Succession is the basis for the Church Councils. The councils were presided over by Bishops, who themselves were appointed by Apostolic Succession and received their administrative legitimacy from it. If they were not legitimate and Apostolic Succession is not valid, then they had no right to make the decisions they did with the binding authority they did. The end result of this is they they had no right to establish one canon as the trustworthy and normative one, no right to excommunicate non-Trinitarians, no right to excommunicate literally anyone for anything. (Or, in a subjective sense, every church has equal right to excommunicate anyone, in which case excommunication is not important and literally anyone can be a Christian because no one has properly derived authority to say otherwise.) I can hear the Protestants jumping to say "scripture is the authority!" No, it isn't, because the BINDING canon of scripture ultimately derives its normativity from Apostolic Succession. That means if I feel in my conscience that John is not a truly inspired book, no one has the right to tell me otherwise, because again, that right was previously conferred via Apostolic Succession granting the bishopric its authority, and therefore allowing it to meet in council to make BINDING decisions. So if Apostolic Succession is out, then ANY normativity in doctrine, including the canon of scripture, goes with it, unless another basis can be found for making these things binding.
Apostolic succession is totally a thing, but I don’t think the successors of the apostles have the same powers at all. Firstly, only the apostles were actually commissioned by the incarnation. Secondly, no one beyond the apostles has the power to change the canon. Just my thoughts.
It's true that the early Church (St. Athanasius etc.) put together the books of the Bible, but the books themselves started coming into being since the time of Moses. They compose the TaNaKh (Tora+Nevi'im+Ketuvim) which has been around for long before they were brought together as the Bible. Furthermore, they testify about themselves of being God breathed and good for instruction (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and that God's people should meditate on them day and night (Joshua 1:8). Christ was a Torah abiding Jew who quoted and taught the Tanakh. The Scriptures are a basis for all theological truth and all doctrines must be checked against them. The canon of Scripture was put together by Holy Spirit inspired men, but scriptural authority cannot be put aside because of that. It is above anything else, otherwise we say that God's instruction to His people has some other authority above it.
@Thatoneguy-pu8ty The apostles didn't leave a canon. If they did, indeed this would be a non-issue. The Church, guided by bishops validated through Apostolic Succession, investigated and found that the NT canon is the true one.
Do we wait for scholars to tell us what the christian faith is?? No, we hold fast to the tradition that was handed to us either by letter or word of mouth.
Protestants agree, we just hold letter to a higher degree than word. Letter can be verified, word of mouth cannot. Therefore any tradition by words of mouth must be verified against that which can be verified in itself- that is, scripture.
Bishops are presbyters but not all presbyters are bishops. When the early Christian church consecrated or ordained a new bishop at least 3 bishops were required to lay hands on the new candidate for the ordaination to be valid. If apostolic succession was not in play why were 3 bishops required to lay hands on the new bishop to be valid?
Three bishops were not required for validity, they were required for the consecration to be licit, in normal circumstances. It served to ensure that if there was any doubt or question about the intention of the Primary Consecrator the two Co-Consecrators served to ensure that the new bishop had received Apostolic Succession. Since the Canon requiring three bishops was first formally pronounced, there have been exceptions including among them time of war, or inside the boarders of countries or states antagonistic to the Church, (Soviet Russia, Communist China etc.) The first time the Early Church formally required an already established, but not universally imposed practice of a Consecrator and Co-Consecrators was in 325 at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, which decreed: “a bishop ought to be chosen by all the bishops of his province, but if that is impossible because of some urgent necessity, or because of the length of the journey, let three bishops at least assemble and proceed to the consecration, having the written permission of the absent." In the RCC indults have been made prior to Vatican II for only one bishop to consecrate. As well as the RCC has upheld the validity of Non-Catholic Consecrations that have been preformed with two or one bishop as consecrators. One example was when Abp Lefebvre and Bp Castro de Mayer consecrated bishops for the SSPX. There were consecrations that Abp Thuc preformed (the Palmarian consecrations were held invalid because they had changed the form of the Consecration) but his later consecrations for various Sede Vacantest groups were held to be valid until later when his mental competency was in question. Old Catholic and smaller splinter Orthodox groups have sometimes used on or two bishops not the canonical three and those too have been held valid, even if illicit.
I've come to think this may be the case, but is this the view adopted by any major churches? I've never heard this as an explanation for the overlap of bishop/presbyter in Scripture by any apostolic church.
Protestantism is the application of individualism to theology and ecclesiology, sowing doctrinal confusion and institutional division, attacking the Gospel and the Church.
You could literally almost just show somebody from Mars this video, and they would know whay they’re trying to do: a.) is unclear; b.) is not doable; and c.) appears to be kind of a playhouse silliness that little boys that only lose tend towards.
POPE CLEMENT I “Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]).
@@stephenmacmillan4178 Clement can also be used to defend orthodoxy who have a similar view of succession but deny the pope. so your comment doesn't hit the mark at all.
Gavin said he doesn’t have an issue with succession, but he rejects Apostolic Succession Proper as is defined in modern Catholicism. Gavin would say Clement was using the word “Bishop” in the same way the NT does, meaning synonymous with Presbyter.
Clement is a testimony against apostolic succession, not for it. Note that Clement refers to two offices, not three. That is contrary to apostolic succession (this is why we defined it up front, and again at 7:45). Clement interprets the constitution of these two offices-bishops and deacons-as the fulfillment of prophecy. Later in his letter as well, Clement uses the terms bishop and presbyter interchangeably. For example, in chapter 44, Clement teaches that the apostles established the office of the episcopate and warns that it is no small sin to wrongfully depose those who hold this office (the occurrence of which in Corinth is the occasion of the letter). Yet he then immediately refers to godly holders of this office as “presbyters.” Later, in chapters 47 and 57, Clement again refers to the leaders of the church of Corinth-who were deposed but now must be submitted to-as presbyters. As Eamon Duffy, a Roman Catholic scholar, summarizes, "Clement made no claim to write as bishop. His letter was sent in the name of the whole Roman community, he never identifies himself or writes in his own person. … The letter itself makes no distinction between presbyters and bishops, about which it always speaks in the plural, suggesting that at Corinth as at Rome the church at this time was organized under a group of bishops or presbyters, rather than a single ruling bishop. A generation later, this was still so in Rome." Part of the reason Duffy (with most scholars) thinks the monoepiscopacy (i.e. rule by a single bishop) has not emerged in Rome even a generation after Clement is the testimony of the Shepherd of Hermas, which was written in Rome sometime in the early 2nd century, and which references “the presbyters who preside over the church” and always speaks of the leadership of the church in the plural.
As a protestant I have to admit that the Catholic comments here are more powerful against your arguments. A lutheran or anglican would fair better. The Baptist view is flawed on a lot of these issues I want you to defend our position but it falls flat
The thing is the baptist view merely takes what scripture says that the whole church is and are priests. Not just apostolic. Baptists have no issue with saying the apostles found succesers. But they have a issue that if there isn't a valid catholic bishop don't have eucharist to be valid is a huge issue. Nothing in scripture suggests that. Anglican Lutheran so on Are told the same thing.... Take a logic hypothetical There were christians in concentration camps hiding communion from nazis. They proly had crackers and dirty water. In other words extremely little What ever those murderor nazis would give em. Now do you think the lord would be pleased by the effort. Or say meh you didn't have a bishop. 😅 This is the issue.
@michaelbledsoe4355 the thing is catholics had 15 hundered years to perfect copes. So there is a passage in the bible that shuts it down Completley. And many others that go um. But mainly the passage About the individual casting out demons in christs name. The apostles attempted to stop him by saying we didn't teach him what did christ do.? What did he say. There are others from pual too. He gets so mad that people are arguing over who baptised who and who has who's authority. There isn't a good case of apostolic succession More simply a ear itching cope. Think like this. That a man in a village somewhere that has. Never seen a christian. Gets a bible reads it believes it. Believes that christ was the son of god. And the spirit comes to him guides him... He starts baptizing the village. Does his teaching go by scripture. Do the other churches have the right to authority He may believe the.major salvific things that christ is god and so on so forth When you begin to see where there logic takes them and compare it with scripture you see the holes.
@@r.a.panimefan2109 Not 1500 years. Roman Catholicism has existed for 1000 years and Protestantism as a movement only has existed for 500 years and individual Protestant denominations far less than even that. Also Dr Gavin is making a category error when he uses the word Presbyter. Bishops are Presbyters. They used the same name for both priest and bishop in St Ignatius’ time but everyone knew that the bishop (as presbyter) held an authority over the others. This is clear even in St Ignatius’ writings when he tells the faithful to esteem the bishop as a symbol of Jesus Christ amongst His people. These presbyters were not like Protestant pastors. Rather were giving the sacraments (Eucharist, etc).
@iliya3110 hm ok lets follow this up. ok I've read several of these writings in fact I've got alot copied to my phone. I don't think it's wrong to suggest there were elders. Gavin isn't saying that. Notice he didn't bring deacon into the mix. It's like with a prot denomination. Say a local you have the eldest elder Then other elders. Then young who are ministering and learning. U see this formula even in small villages Indian tribes U have chief and elders. And young braves who will become elders eventually... Now ignatius doesn't call the bishop a symbol of christ your somewhat misquoting “You must follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father, follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God’s commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone who he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the CATHOLIC Church . It is not permitted without authorization of the bishop either to baptize…. He says to follow lead of the bishop. And at this time it would be folly not to. The reason why is that the apostles were still practically around The ink of there letters were fresh on the page. Now let me ask a logic question if let's say you were a apostle. And you were handing letters to your deacons to carry to the city. Who would you address the letter. Too. Some new kid that barely started learning Or to the elder the you appointed So when it says to gather it is because these elders heard it from the apostles they had the teachings. And the letters... Now again And I don't know why we have to keep saying this we have no problem with the fact that there was and is and should be leadership... this is why since vatican two the catholics are starting to realize that our eucharist has something to it. Remember we didn't want to start a new church or split into a hundered denominations(the 30 000 number is a huge exajeration.) What needs to be shown is what that qoute actually says It says that the leaders are to the apostles as they are to christ. That only means that they are carrying a authority and are pushing these messages more. It also says not to allow a new eucharist without the bishops say. Which again I get the logic. Prots do understand. Where this was There were a multiplicity of heretics running around sowing division. So they would want people having a true and unpainted communion. But this does not say that the people in the house churches couldn't do lords supper in there own homes either. I think your reading a modern view back in. Becuase let's say a faithful follower of these fathers that weren't ordained went and taught and was explaining it to a new village. They believe every correct doctrine. Would this be a no go. See I think if we over estimate the logic of the fathers we get into trouble. Becuase think of the hundereds of converts during that thirty years. After christ. Your saying they couldn't carry it forward. And teach more people. That's what happens if we gridlock this. Instead of thinking the eucharist must be under the bishops teaching. Now not only that no one does bishop pointing as it was done then either It wasn't simply a bishop or a bunch of bishops laying hands. It had to be with approval of the congregation. U see this in a multitude. Of writing. In fact arius was aproved by a group of bishops. But not by the ecclesia(the assembly of believers. There's also a quote that shows bishops could be disposed by the congregation with good reason. The problem is it often wasn't done with good reason. But I need to ask and I want u to please have a open mind.ok. If your. Bishop or your pope or whatever or even the group starts teaching something that you know is unbiblical. What will you do. I think this is something these dialouges are missing What do you do when error shows up. And you know in your heart in the pits of your soul strengthened by the spirit that something doesn't quite feel right. What do u do. I would like to know. And I'd like you to apply this at greater and greater levels. What happens if your leader. The church the group the pope What do u do as a individual believer. What action do you take. I apreciate the convo we r having But consider for a moment that you are stuck in jail. Or a concentration camp. Can you truly not do anything... Something just doesn't seem right with te stricture of the traditions here. Just think on it for a bbit. Let's say you were a christian and you were evangelizing in a concentration camp. To jews there. U may have a little water. Can you really truly not baptise It's these questions I don't think people are asking themselves. Now I'm still learning I've not read all of scripture. So I wouldn't baptise becuase I want to make sure people understand good doctrine.
St. Ignatius clearly saw presbyters as subordinate to bishops. When he compares presbyters to the Apostles, he was speaking in the context of the celebration of the Eucharist, in which the Bishop represents Christ, and the presbyters the band of the Apostles. For example, in his Epistle to Polycarp 6:1 "Give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. I am devoted to those who are subject to the bishop, the presbyters, the deacons." Smyrnaeans 8:1-2 "Flee from divisions, as the beginning of evils. You must all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and follow the presbyters as you would the apostles; and respect the deacons as the commandment of God. Let no one do anything that has to do with the Church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist which is under the authority of the bishop (or whomever he himself designates) is to be considered valid. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the congregation be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permissible either to baptize or to hold a love feast without the bishop. But whatever he approves is also pleasing to God, in order that everything you may do may be trustworthy and valid." Trallians 3:13 "“Similarly, let everyone respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, just as they should respect the bishop, who is a model of the Father, and the presbyters as God’s council and as the band of the Apostles. Without these no group can be called a church." The New Testament itself clearly had 3 levels of authority among clergy. We see deacons. Yes, in the beginning episkopos and prebyteros were often used interchangeable for the next office, but the office of Apostle was clearly over both. As the original apostles passed on, the top tier level has successors, and the word "episcopos" began to be used exclusively for that office, but it is still spoken in terms of being the apostolic office. It is just that we usually do not call them Apostles as a title, reserving that title for the original Apostles, generally. The very fact that St. Ignatius clearly uses this distinction, and given that he was a disciple of the Apostle John, and was the bishop of Antioch, which was at that time, the most important center of the Church, there is no way this can be dismissed as a later accretion. And it is clear from St. Ignatius' epistles that he sees each city as having one Bishop, with many presybters and deacons. In a given city, you could have many local churches, which is why St. Ignatius says that only that Eucharist is valid which is "under the authority of the Bishop, or whomever he himself designates." He never speaks of bishops in the plural when speaking of a local Church. It really could not be clearer, in his epistles.
@@XavierPutnam St. Polycarp's letter is a letter from him and his elders to another Church. St. Ignatius' epistle to him says "Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto Polycarp who is bishop of the church of the Smyrnaeans". So clearly you have a distinction between the one bishop and the many elders in Smyrna. It is not at all clear that St. Clement uses bishop and presbyter interchangalely.
3:55 Gavin is really dishonest here. St Ignatius does compare the presbyters to the Apostles, but only after comparing the Bishops to GOD HIMSELF. Epistle to the Magnesians: "I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles" Epistle to the Trallians: since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, [...] It is therefore necessary that, as you indeed do, so without the bishop you should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ" "In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church" Epistle to the Smyrneans "See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God." St Ignatius clearly and plainly holds the episcopate to be a higher office than the presbyterate.
that is not contrary to anything I said. I did not deny that Ignatius has a high view of the bishop. I said he does not believe in apostolic succession. Which is true. In fact, it's pretty much universally recognized outside of internet apologetics.
You said that Ignatius says that the presbyters sit in the seat of the Apostles, rather than the bishops. To be consistent in the reasoning, you'd have to say that Ignatius believes that the Bishops sit in the seat of God Himself. Ignatius is obviously making an analogy and he is describing three separate offices, with the Bishops having the preeminent position over the presbyters. The two office view is not universal and Jerome makes a clear distinction by saying that only the Bishops can ordain, which is a significant difference.
Further, you say that all the evidence from the first century shows that the office of presbytery and bishop are interchangeable, but St Ignatius even says that the presbyters are to be subject to the Bishops. At no point does St Ignatius conflate those offices. He consistently distinguishes them with Bishops as higher
No, sleepingtube is right. Not that I have any dog in the fight against you, Dr. Ortlund, except insofar as I am Catholic and just disagree, but it's a little rich for you to draw on the idea that a concept is "universally recognized outside of internet apologetics" when you have said multiple times that you don't believe there was a consensus of the Fathers that there was a regenerative baptism, one of the only actual consensuses recognized by nearly all scholars. You are obviously allowed to disagree, but that's my entire point. You can't just point to "Well most people agree with me so there" when people are here literally quoting the sections of the letters contradicting what you said. You have to actually respond to the points that are made. I don't care what is "pretty much [whatever that means, even] universally recognized".
@@TruthUnitesyou’re looney if you think Ignatius doesn’t believe in Apostolic succession. I am reading his letters and he has a clear teaching of a 3 fold office and primacy of Rome. Who appointed the bishops that appointed the bishops of Ignatius day, Gavin?? The apostles did! They didn’t just spawn in. Maybe you are playing the game of “he doesn’t explicitly teach this specific definition of apostolic succession”. Well guess what, you can’t expect a clear definition and apologetic on a doctrine that isn’t controversial at the time. It doesn’t take a genius to see that tacitly within his letters Ignatius believes in apostolic succession.
Will Gavin concede that by NOT believing in Baptismal regeneration that it is clearly a Protestant accretion among some Protestants such as Baptists? This was a unanimous belief in the early Church
Would you be willing to concede that the belief in the effect of water to cleanse sins is unbiblical? Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. Ephesians 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Ephesians 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Colossians 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. 1 Peter 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, Only because of Catholic teachings (not the Bible) you must insist on "water" and not the blood as clearly affirmed in scripture.
He doesn’t have a great response to this, so he basically just muddies the water. Saying that the different fathers define regeneration slightly differently.
@@not_milk So the truth is that they all held a uniform view? Can you prove that? My history text says..."They held baptism to be efficacious in the case of adults only in connection with the right inner disposition and purpose, though Turtullian seemed to think that the very reception of the rite carried with it the remission of sins. And (2) They did not regard baptism as absolutely essential to the initiation of spiritual life, or the life of regeneration; but viewed it as the completing element in a process of renewal." The baptism of the Roman Catholic Church that is said to work "ex opere operato" did not evolve until Aquinas. Do you have other documentation to back up your assertion?
@@jeromepopiel388 They all held that baptism caused regeneration. Everyone who spoke on the matter at least. Barnabas, Hermas, Theophilus of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen. That's just the first two centuries or so. I can provide sources and quotes for every one of these, and plenty more. Naturally, if someone is resistant to the working of the Spirit, God will not force His grace upon us. So an adult must not resist it. There really isn't any variation on this matter of any significance. The only ones who really seemed to scorn baptism were certain gnostics, because it is a physical visible thing, and they believed all physical things must be evil. So in their view God would not work through physical tangible means.
St Ignatius compared the presbyters to the apostles indeed. In the passage where he says that you should obey your bishop as Jesus Christ and the presbyters as the apostles. Who is your bishop, mister Ortlund?
@@TheGogogwo A few passages even. For example, the letter to the Magnesians chapter 6, but also the letter to the Trallians chapter 2, and the letter to the Smyrnaeans chapter 8.
IThinkBiblically went over that quote in full and showed how RCC misrepresents it. Those bishops disagreed with one another. So which one in the disagreement in incorrect? The problem is obvious!
@@lovegod8582 Misrepresents what exactly? That Ortlund is abusing the Ignatian letters to push his own view of the Church? He claimed St Ignatius believed the presbyters got Apostolic Succession and not the bishops, which is just absolute nonsense, as shown by just pulling up the quotes. Why would you think disagreeing bishops are a problem for Catholics? The bishops are still disagreeing unto this day, and they will be until the final day on earth. I don't see a problem there at all. As for who is the final arbiter on earth right now in theological matters, who'd you think that would be?
Gavin´s bishop is Jesus Christ. Just as the Antiochians had no bishop other than Christ after Ignatius´ martyrdom. After the death of Ignatius, according to Ignatius, the Antiochian church “has God for its shepherd instead of me. ONLY Jesus Christ will be its bishop-and your love” (Ignatius Letter to the Romans 9:1).
Man, the mental gymnastics that must be done to try and disprove Catholicism must be tiring. At some point I pray he notices he is just nit picking here or there and that his selective choosing of passages to twist his narrative and thinking is just delaying the inevitable
He once demarked that the Church fell off around 300 AD because he was debating Trent of Marian Dogmas. He drew the line those circa year because it is convenient for him during that time when he wants to disprove those Dogmas. Im always praying for Him and Austin
Not trying to be combative, but to me- a Protestant- it's your arguments that sound like mental gymnastics. I think we're all prone to our own biases, and our minds are more critical of arguments against us than those for us.
i want to thank Gavin for making me read the fathers much more than i ever have before to make me more certain that the Orthodox Church has maintained the teachings of the Apostles for 2,000 years. Don't know what Gavin's motivations are for misrepresenting the writings of the fathers, but that's between him and God. But i do know, if not for his RUclips videos, I wouldn't have become so engaged with the early Fathers. God truly does work in mysterious ways.
“Exclusivist.” Definitely. Christianity isn’t a private religion. Not everyone gets to be a pastor. Not everyone gets to ordain. Not everyone gets to consecrate. It’s Christ’s church, not ours. He set it up, and if you want to claim He did such a poor job that it unraveled immediately after the death of the last Apostle, you’re welcome to it, but you’ll sound ridiculous- coming as you are 2,000 years late with no real credentials (except those you ascribe to yourself or your ecclesiastical besties). Dr. Gavin is amazing in that he, as a Baptist, is calling Apostolic Succession an extra biblical accretion! Again, if you want to make the claim the Church was corrupted from the outset, then get in line… because you’re late to the party… and very unoriginal.
@@henrytucker7189 Got it! Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Acts 2:43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. Acts 5:12 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch. Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people. Acts 14:3 Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands. Romans 15:19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. God confirmed His word!
Ortland despises Catholics and Orthodox! I cannot imagine someone loving the Lord So much and yet having contempt for their neighbor. Ortland remains determined to put His ideas across as absolute! ( Last time I checked, He Wasn't Perfect!) He does remind of Claude Frollo, Not the cartoon villain from Disney, But the character from the Novel by Victor Hugo. In the Book, Frollo was vengeful, vindictive and felt justified in everything he did or thought He despised Gypsies and thought they were beneath him ( kind of like how Ortland thinks of Catholics)
100% agree. He tries to disguise it with a Mr nice guy facade but we can see right through that. He truly does despise anyone that doesn’t believe like him
@cabellero1120 Where is the contempt? The soft-spoken, relaxed, and charitable demeanor isn't a facade. He's just speaking his mind, and I'll be honest...to say he has contempt or thinks cathloics are beneath him when he has gone on at length about how much he admires parts of the tradition and folks from it, suggest a possibility of two things. Either you do not actually look at his interviews, you post and leave because you do not want your beliefs challenged and so you are assuming this much about him, or you are projecting, and you have contempt for him for daring to believe what his conscious tells him... At any rate, both would diminish with prayer and actually listening to what he's saying and not bulverising about some hidden contempt he has ( that you have no way of knowing ) when there is good reason to believe otherwise.
The other MAJOR issue is that the 4th century is still early days compared to just how late Protestantism arrives on the scene. Like, something that was consolidated in the 4th century is orders of magnitude closer to the apostles than a movement that appeared in the 16thC. It's a massive inconsistency that I've never heard addressed. Further, if he distrusts what they were teaching in the 4th century about apostolic succession then by the same token a vast number of other things we take for granted should also be rejected.
They get theological answers wrong for sure (read the NT!), but the anachronistic nature of the questions is how you know who governs the rebellion. Hint: formerly esteemed angel. Rejoices in all in all the little metastasizing growths of protest. This Channel makes it clear - we all have Catholic forefathers- some - myself included - have protester forefathers- I am named for one - a Holy Episcopal Priest, and I with his son my father pray that he is rejoicing in heaven - but make no mistake - it is time. It is - time. Hop on board the Ark or be prepared to answer for the scourge of the atheistic and Islamist horde. Protestants, remove that of you which is the tumor - retain that which is of the body - we NEED YOU!
Martin Luther, The Founder of the Protestant Reformation, Was a Devout Catholic. He had written dissertations on The Virgin Mary And The Eucharist.. ( Most Protestants are unaware of this.) Luther did not intend for his movement to become what it had. Protestantism was a Complete break and abandonment from Apostolic tradition and connection. I doubt, seriously, that The Apostles of Jesus would have had laser light shows, fog machines, Rock music and $10 cups of coffee at Their services!
The same Luther: “The doctrine of justification by faith alone is the doctrine on which the church stands or falls” He clearly valued Sola Fide above all.
Yes they don’t worship God. There’s no sacrifice which is what was always understood for proper worship of God. At Mass we have the representation of the sacrifice of Jesus that was given once for all. However they do a great job with their love of Scripture. Sure they get things wrong but their desire to really know Scripture should be commended
Luther was a devout Catholic and cleric. When he went to original languages to study scripture he began noting that Rome’s teachings were lacking in areas. Rome decided to protect Rome and the rest is history
@@dodavega sure like him adding “alone” rejecting certain books in both the OT and NT as being inspired Scripture. Luther thought himself to be a church of one. His positions grew increasingly radical the longer he separated from the faith
The problem with Anglican orders wasn't the issue of apostolic succession, but that the intention for ordination was shifted to deny the sacrificial nature of the priesthood.
Really liked this conversation. The only thing that I wish would be discussed more is that so often Apostolic Succession is cited as the proof of preserved infallible doctrine/oral traditions. Succession is a good thing, but it does not guarantee preservation of truth. There is a succession list of US Presidents, but that does not guarantee any preservation of truth or principles from George Washington all the way to Joe Biden. This is why the need for the Holy Spirit. Scripture never gives succession as the sign or seal of truth, but rather the Holy Spirit is. (2 Cor 1:21-22, 2 Cor 5:5, Eph 1:13-14, Eph 4:30) I've come to greatly appreciate the phrasing of the WCF that speaks of how we can be moved by things like the church, the majesty of the gospel, the historical reliability of the texts, etc - but ultimately it is the Holy Spirit that must lead us to accepting Scripture as the infallible Word of God. "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." WCF I.5
You're basically making the Catholic argument lol it's the Holy Spirit who guides the Church into all of the truth concerning recognizing the Scriptures and coming to the truth on doctrine. I find it hilarious that individuals claim that the Holy Spirit is leading them into the truth but the Holy Spirit can't protect a 2000 year old visible, historical Church from error and lead it into the whole truth. The hubris in that comment is just cringe... It's the epitome of liberalism, I mean Protestantism.
@@jacobwoods6153 Did the Holy Spirit abandon Israel or did Israel abandon God? Replace Israel with Rome and you'll see how there can be manifest error in the Church. And, yes, the hubris in your own statement and Rome's hubris in finding itself to be without blame for the splits in Christianity, for which it is truly the Mother of all schismaticism, is what is truly cringe. Even anti-Christ cringe.
@@jacobwoods6153 You are right that anyone can claim to be filled with the Holy Spirit whether they actually are or not. The test is whether that person (or church) produces fruit. Fruit is defined as transformed lives to the glory of God. So is the Catholic claim that the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic church only? If so, then why are there many who are saved and spurred to holy living through the preaching of Protestant churches and pastors? Is the Holy Spirit not behind that preaching? And if the Spirit is not limited to guiding the Catholic church only, then isn't that the traditional Protestant view? - that the visible church is not limited to one singular institution? It's not a question about whether the Holy Spirit has the ability to protect a visible institution from error, but whether God chose in his free will to promise such a thing. Just as God had the ability to preserve Solomon's temple and Israel as a nation, but he chose to let the temple be destroyed and exiled Israel and Judah because he never promised to preserve them in that way.
@andrew33bird I'm not gonna get in a huge comment debate with you because these things never go anywhere, but I can tell you that you don't understand the Catholic claim on this one particular issue. This is a genuine question, I'm not trying to pose some gotcha question here. If the Catholic Church is true, meaning what she claims about herself is true, would you become Catholic?
I think Gavin trying to destroy all things Catholic is like a guy dismantling a 10th story floor while standing in the middle of it. "Oh, this piece isn't necessary", "Look, here's another one", "Lets keep going".
Good analogy. Also, look at the fruits of the Reform. The Church of England wants to remove the word "Church" from their name (too triggering). As for the US, already hundreds of denominations (and counting) They should have instead imposed changes, from *inside* the Church, by getting one of their own elected as Pope.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8tyJohn Paul II was the first non-Italian elected to the papacy in 455 years. Funny how churchly power so closely reflects worldly power.
0 For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: ‘May another take his office.’ Acts 1:20. If even horribly unworthy Judas held an OFFICE to which there was succession, AFTER Jesus and under the authority of . . . Wait for it . . . The apostles! Then why not for the remaining apostles and the episcopal authorities they choose?
Ahhh Gavin, I love your book, and I'm going to give it a mainly positive review on my blog! I actually even agree with your critique of a more restrictivist view of apostolic succession, and am on the side of Davenant--there are conditions in which presbyterial succession can be valid. However, here's where I take issue: Was Ignatian a local bishop only akin to a senior pastor? I don't think so. We have to remember that these churches probably met in houses scattered across a city. So when we call Ignatius "Ignatius of Antioch", he--per Irenaeus--would have had charge over the presbyters in that region. This is why we don't see another "bishop of Antioch" at the time of Ignatius, or in quite literally any other instance in recorded history. This *is* a primitive dioceses. On the merits of this form of governance: it accords with sociological facts about human hierarchy, and it does seem like the apostles instituted one presbyter ruling over the other presbyters. This *is* the form of the episcopate. Thus, it's not the case that the office of bishop is a distinct office than the office of presbyter--even Aquinas agreed (Suppl. q40.a4-5) that the bishop was the perfection of the priesthood as the ruling priest. (Nevertheless, I concede that since the bishop is a presbyter, it's not the case that presbyterial succession can be invalid in principle). We see this as apostolic in the fact that Titus and Timothy were ordained to appoint other presbyters. That puts them in a position of the lead presbyter. A quick correction: the argument of Apostolicae Curae depended on the erroneous claim that we denied a sacrifice of the mass. We denied a propitiatory sacrifice in the sense that Rome meant it--a sacrifice which gains merit that remits temporal debt for the living and the dead--but we agree that the sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented in the Eucharist, and always have.
Re, Clement--yet Clement is writing as the Bishop of Rome. Why was Clement speaking for the church of Rome? Probably because he was the ruling presbyter.
@@anglicanaestheticsIgnatius seems to imply that the eucharist is to be celebrated in the presence of the bishop . That seems to make it nigh impossible if the bishop is the leader of many churches. It would fit more if each local church had a bishop Is there any merit in this observation?
Gavin Ignatius in the church of Smyrna testified to the linear succession of bishops from the time of the Apostles, shortly after their death. Irenaeus in the second century compiled a list of the bishops of Rome. Hegesippus introduced the idea of the bishop’s succession in office as a guarantee of the truth of what he preached. He produced succession lists to back this up. In the early church the word bishop and presbyter were used interchangeably until the number of bishops became much too numerous and then the church began to ordain what were called bishop helpers and were referred to as presbyters or just priests.
I think Dr. Ortlund needs to give us a standard for his Accretion theory along the lines of something like Newman’s essay on the development of doctrine. If there’s not an objective criterion to decide between an accretion and apostolic doctrine, we either can’t know the difference, or Dr. Ortlund gets to arbitrarily decide using different criteria each time and different standards between Protestant and Catholic doctrine.
@@jeromepopiel388 Well 2 problems with that 1. Jerome has a canon that nobody uses: 66 books + Deuterocanonical Daniel and Esther. 2. What would that criteria be? Because I’m suspicious that Jerome’s criteria for the canon is the same as what would help you identify doctrine and accretions.
@@bman5257 let me say that for the man of God to be fully equipped he doesn't need the full canon, but he needs to be assured that he has the truth. When the Apostles went out to the world, without a complete canon, how could people know that what they were hearing was of God?
@@jeromepopiel388 Because of their apostolic authority and the Oral word of God. In Acts 4:31, they spoke the Word of God boldly. But there was no New Testament at the time of Acts. But a Christian in the 21st century still needs to ask the question of what’s doctrine and what’s an accretion. How does he do that?
@@jeromepopiel388The Apostles were going out during a time when the canon was incomplete because their acts were still in progress. They had the truth and verified it with signs, wonders and prophecy. That is: 1. A divine legate (Apostle)... 2. ...with a message (the Gospel)... 3. ...and credentials (signs and wonders)
Again and again.. interpretation of authority. Mathew 16:18/19 And I tell you that you are Peter,and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” To me, this is enough said between the Catholic Authority vs Protestantism interpretation. They(protestants)will merry-go-round throwing smoke bombs at this claim
You understand that by doing this you are just playing into the Protestant interpretation problem, yes? Are you a credible and reliable guide to the interpretation of scripture?
So Jesus named Peter rock and gave him the keys of the kingdom. I have yet to hear a Catholic give me an explanation how you derive the authority of the church that Catholics believe in from this passage. All I've ever gotten was "Jesus gave Peter the keys, therefore the church had authority," and never an explanation as to how you get to that conclusion.
I’m not sure if he addressed it in the interview, but to my knowledge the Catholic Church (having Divine Authority to back her) excommunicated Anglicans because of their denial of the Mass as a Sacrifice. Their priesthood and episcopacy was forfeited (power to bind on earth and loose on earth for the Leo XIII if I am not mistaken) if they rejected the actual offering of the Son of God to the Father in worship. You can’t have the Eucharist if you deny what the Eucharist is.
I think one point is that it can, and we do this in protestant circles too, tighten the road to salvation more than God himself does. The narrow way has become narrower than Jesus prestented it to be.
@@aleksdlr5956 Well, the Catechism of the Catholic Church maintains that bishops in apostolic succession are essential to the Church, and yet acknowledges that non-Christians and even non-theists can be saved. So it’s less of a salvation issue than an issue of ecclesiology.
@@aleksdlr5956 No, not universalism. Yes, those outside the RCC who are following their conscience *can* be saved (i.e, it’s possible but not guaranteed; not that salvation is guaranteed for anyone-minus canonized saints-inside the Church either).
"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid." Ch.8 Epistle of Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans - **110AD** !
@@traditionalgirl3943 Does that include the openly Pelagian method of salvation taught by Trent’s canons that stand in stark opposition to the Holy Scriptures?
@@jacobwoods6153 Canon 24 of Trent If anyone says that the justice (righteousness) received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema. Canon 32 If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ (of whom one is a living member), the justified does not truly merit an increase of grace, and eternal life, provided that one dies in the state of grace, the attainment of this eternal life, as well as an increase in glory, let him be anathema.
Will Gavin become the next James White when it comes to disproving Catholicism? The only difference I see between them is that one sounds like a madman and the other sounds like a calm storyteller.
Gavin presbyters may not be necessary in a post 16th century group, but they are necessary in Catholicism or any other Apostolic church. Presbyters or priests are necessary because the Eucharist is both a sacrament and a sacrifice. To have valid presbyters or priests Apostolic succession is absolutely required. The Anglicans maintained their valid Eucharistic sacrament and sacrifice for some 70 years post reformation.
Our faith cannot be based on apostolic succession, otherwise we could doubt the validity of our own baptism and the sacraments if it depended on an unbroken chain of humans
@@Malygosblues I agree, but who gets to decide that? Why does the Lord's Supper require it but not baptism? And if so, what is the need for Apostolic Succession if Baptism works without it?
The problem I have with Gavin is when he covers differences between Catholic/Orthodox and protestantism is he creates a patchwork protestastism that does not exist. Also the problem of denying the difference between presbyters and bishops is I think many times is caused by not understanding that all bishops are presbyters but not all presbyters are bishops.
Hard to take seriously when 1st Clement isn't even mentioned. The guy said Jesus foreknew there would be strife for the office of bishop. How could Christ fore know something that would later be considered an accretion by protestants. I am sure you can dodge this by saying that he was only taking about priest like I always here Gavin do but still. I also think about the difference between the 70 sent out and the Apostles. Jesus seems to indicate 2 level of hierarchy here. the 70 were not apostles and yet still had authority but not at the level of Apostles yet when we here the episcopate described by Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Clement we get a real impression that these bishops are viewed as successors of the apostles and not the 70 sent.
@@TruthUnites that's bold stating the Clement undercuts succession when Irenaeus himself uses that very letter as a defense of succession against gnostic heretics. who should I believe you and Eamon Duffy? or an early church father... I will probably have to go with Irenaeus on this one.
@@MrPeach1 respectfully, if you think it's a matter of "believing" Irenaeus, then I don't think you understand well the position you are criticizing. We both "believe" Irenaeus (and Clement). It is precisely that belief that undercuts apostolic succession. Even Irenaeus refers to the presbyters (rather than strictly bishops) as the successors of the apostles. E.g., Irenaeus writes, "it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church - those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles" (AH 4.26.2). If you "believe" this sentence in Irenaeus, then you are rejecting the idea that bishops RATHER than presbyters are the successors of the apostles. On this point I am saying nothing novel, just what pretty much all Catholic scholars concede. If you don't like Eamon Duffy, go with Raymond Brown, Francis Sullivan, etc.
@@TruthUnites i could say right noe that Father Sal has Apostalic Sucession from the apostles and not under cut the bishop who has the fullness of the Priesthood. At the end of the day what we see is a closed exclusive system that not just anyone can lay claim to.
The issue for Romans is that they cannot prove their own claims to having apostolic succession. Rome simply declares that communion with the pope is proof of apostolic succession and if you reject papal claims then, Rome's own rather self-serving definition, you don't. In other words, Roman claims to apostolic succession are b.s.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8tyto watch Ortlund lie? Already did, go read Cirlot’s “Apostolic Succession: Is it True” and see how it stacks up. Or, better yet, read the three books Ortlund read on this topic. Not only does Stewart thrash the synonymy claim in the very book of his Ortlund cites, but he also those authors don’t think Paul wrote many of the letters attributed to him, giving them far later dates so a 250 AD dating is possible. Ortlund either lied about what the books said because he didn’t read them or because he’s deceitful. Up to you which is which.
This subject of Apostolic Succession has implications that go beyond the sensitivities of men and their sense of human justice. In my opinion. Since Christ is the guarantor, as well as is the Trinity, it reflects on the integrity of the promise. As offensive as Christ's "binding and loosing" declaration to Peter can be to human sensitivities, we cannot dismiss it. We can certainly lobby for a certain decision from Peter, we can appeal to the Holy Spirit who is really in control, but we cannot deny the words of Christ in the Bible, without denying that the Bible is inspired by God. We also cannot appropriate the promise or assign it to whom we please.
To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands. 2 I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3 You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary. Rev. 2 1-3
So jay dyer battling atheists, muslims, protestants, Catholics, these are all things eating away at him? Silly stuff. Sometimes fights happen because conviction. Im sure you are aware of this.
The entire history of the first 1000 years of the church requires apostolic succession to make any of it make sense, but we should just believe secular sources and re-invent Christianity over and over again 🙄
The reason I don’t take Gavin seriously on this issue is, in his presentation on apostolic succession, he read three books. And not even spanning different views and arguments for or against, they were all against the thesis. His arguments, from what I can tell, have not changed. Not one of the books he tackled was Felix Cirlot’s book, the three he read do not represent a scholarly consensus (nor is there one on this topic), and he left out key parts of those he did read, like how all three authors dispute authorship of several Pauline epistles and date them so late it that it forms the basis for their theories of AS being a later accretion. Oh, and Stewart straight up says the synonymy claim between episcopos and presbyter is complete nonsense. I don’t know if Ortlund’s read more books, but you’d think he’d at least reference Cirlot since that is the book in defense of the topic (by an Anglican, nonetheless) or diversify his argument to show he has read more than just 3 books on this topic. Like a definition that Cirlot gives, addressing Perry Robinson’s points, anything but this fallacious appeal to scholarly consensus that doesn’t exist, call something he disagrees with an accretion, or mischaracterizing his sources.
It is helpful, I think, that in contemplating the "fairness" of it all, we remind ourselves of the Parable of the Workers who Came at the Last Hour, and consider that man does not think as God thinks.
Isn't it a presupposition to say that the early church was only intending the presbyters to the successors of the apostles? Seems if the bishops are presumed to be the head of the presbyters, you wouldn't need to argue that the bishops were also the apostolically ordained successors. Hooker's mediated view makes sense. But I could also see Davenant. I don't see baptist ecclesiology or congregationalism in the way it presently exists. I think Sean Luke's talked about presbyterial and episcopal succession being ancient. It seems the argument is ambiguity in the historical form's top down or cross congregational management form silence is used to justify congregational polity and associational governance, but then a question is conciliar authority's presuppositions on relations to congregations, and why congregations would bow to that pressure. The counter is knowing that anthropology and politics are common accross eras and that we don't always make clean decisions- the record's incomplete. But that's an appeal to assuming progression in polity despite historical claims made, assuming ambiguity and a lack of like-to-like correlation between forms of past affirmation of succession and polity and present forms outside congregationalism, and assuming the priority of the living apostolic era's polity for the remaining time in church history.
11:35 - great point on bishop to bishop ambiguity v presbyterial succession in Rome via corroberation, and Clement as testimony to two office, and the question of the legitimacy of successors. Agreement on the succession of offices is good in the time of the apostles. But the argument from those holding to ancient practices after the death of the apostles claiming apostolic sanction are arguing about 1) the early onset of bishop and the types of arguments accepted as legitimate early relative to the authority of bishops. Great point on 20:07 on God's providence in the Roman emperor as an institution that was necessary at one time for the Church, but is no longer. The normalcy of the past distinction and the idea of allowing development over time, is a huge argument.
@TruthUnites Do you think that if Clement or any church father were around today that they would consider you to be a part of their church? And would they consider you to be a legitimate "presbyter" or pastor?
Do you think that if Clement or any church father were around today that they would consider a pope who says "all religions are ways to God" to be a part of their church?
In the early church presbyters were bishops and bishops were presbyters. Priests are priests and bishops are priests and popes are priests. The word priest derives from the word presbyter.
I believe in the episcopate and its authority, but it is important that these insights are shared. lots of non-denom converts see the word "bishop" used by church fathers and completely miss the point of what historians and theologians are actually debating. Not taking Gavin's side, but the arrogance of untrained "theologians" in comment sections gets old. Just like Greek, a little bit of history can lead to a lot of of false assumptions (and baseless insults towards opposition).
When I was getting my theology degree, we used to always say there was nothing more dangerous than a first year Bible/Theology major. One year in, you think you know everything. You graduate and realize just how little you know. Hopefully for many commenters it's just a phase.
Someone is trying to rediscover the wheel and the hot water, let me help you here presbyter = priest bishop = high priest You don't become priest by appointing yourself for one, you become priest when you are ordained canonical bishop
one enormous issue with ortlund's claim that you don't have diocesan bishops in the first century is that he's applying an anachronistic view of what the church practically is at this point in time. you don't have a global church because the church is too small to have dioceses. This is like 10 people gathering in a crypt and the 11th person just got crucified. Irenaeus' concept of a bishop is as close as someone is going to get at this period in time because the church simply isn't large enough to warrant the structures that come later.
As always, I can really sympathize with where Dr. Ortlund is coming from, but all of this really boils down to "Catholic = Inclusive" and that's going to lead to some logical conclusions Dr. Ortlund doesn't like. There's also the problem of "necessary" vs "normative" continually reducing things down to the absolute lowest common denominator. Again, I would really like to see how some of these hermeneutics hold up in a discussion with Sam Tideman of Transfigured. Why can't Unitarians be considered Christian? Why not Muslims? Acts 8 is pretty clear that some sort of Apostolic succession existed. Richard Hooker has a pretty good treatment of this topic.
Right. If Dr. Ortlund is correct, then the only criteria for being a Christian is ultimately that I sincerely believe my beliefs are the true teaching of God. You can't even limit me to the Protestant Bible, either. If I sincerely believe that only the book of John is scripture, then I am still Christian, and there is nothing you can say to stop me. If Protestantism were true all along, then all those ancient sects of heretics were actually Christian the entire time.
According to Catholics they are not Christian as the Church declares that one must believe and hold to the Trinity to be Christian. For Protestants they individually have to think this through and they have different conclusions. Unitarians are not Christians, neither are JW or Mormons from a Catholic perspective. Protestants can’t really define that though. They don’t even agree what essential doctrines are necessary to believe for salvation
To be fair, there are many who have in the long history of the Church, been put in seemingly impossible to escape crucibles (crises of faith)because of human failure and the enemy's hatred of Christ's Church. According to Jesus' words about those that will get into the kingdom before even some of the disciples, I think it is reasonable to say that some of the "Just" will be judged more harshly than some that may be considered "rebels".
"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the *episcopate.* For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, *they appointed those [ministers]* already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should *succeed them* in their ministry." 1 Clement 44
Ortland reminds me of Claude Frollo from the Hunchback of Notre Dame... ( He thought he was doing " God's Work, also) I can just imagine Him shouting" How Dare You Defy ME!"
Imagine comparing one of the most gracious, humble, and charitable individuals in this interdenominational conversation to a literal cartoon villain. I’m sorry, but this kind of behavior is one of the many reasons I can’t take the hyper-traditionalists seriously. Having convictions isn’t wrong, and he doesn’t say Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christians aren’t part of the body.
I can't believe such a mean and disingenuous comment is getting likes. People are projecting the fear of being contradicted onto Gavin. Yes, having someone challenge your deeply held convictions is scary, but you can't just vilify the person doing it simply for doing it.
Acts 8:17-24 [17]Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. [18]When Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, [19]with the words, 'Give me the same power so that anyone I lay my hands on will receive the Holy Spirit.' [20]Peter answered, 'May your silver be lost for ever, and you with it, for thinking that money could buy what God has given for nothing! [21]You have no share, no part, in this: God can see how your heart is warped. [22]Repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that this scheme of yours may be forgiven; [23]it is plain to me that you are held in the bitterness of gall and the chains of sin.' [24]Simon replied, 'Pray to the Lord for me yourselves so that none of the things you have spoken about may happen to me.'
It feels like apostolic succession today is very subjective. Many of the reformers were former Catholic priest so in a way many Protostant churches have apostolic succession. However the Catholic church doesnt view it as such because as many have said here Clement predicted that many would fight over the title of bishop. To assume that only protostants are power hungry would be naive at besg and ignorant at worst.
Protestants have too many worries as is. In particular, they have this idea that "correct theology" (an abstraction) saves you over works (which are concrete). Even salvation is an abstraction, because no one has been to the Hereafter and back. Prioritization of abstractions inherently breeds worries ("Do I have to be in the correct church to have correct theology?" "Does the correct church have to have correct Apostolic Succession?", etc)
Just think a minute about your typical Catholic assertion. Your saying doctrine doesn't matter, just doing something. Theology is just "abstract" so it doesn't matter. Why then did every NT writer warn about false teachers, false Christs, false shepherds, and being deceived? Why did Jesus say that the truth will make you free if it doesn't matter? And btw, Paul and John did go to heaven.
It seems like he has a conclusion and will only use things to get to that point. He’s stretching it and therefore teaching false things about the church.
For me, these arguments against apostolic succession are weak. All the first churches founded by Christians from Rome to India uphold apostolic succession. Opposition to this is 'recent'... emerging only in the XVI century.
It's interesting that Roman Catholic apologists are fixating on Apostolic Succession. When you read the Reformers, for example the Book of Concord, the objection of Apostolic Succession isn't a thing. It's a late add to the argument and one the presupposes that Rome has unbroken Apostolic Succession when it usually cannot go back with adequate documentation for more than about 5 centuries or about the same time period as the early Reformers. What Apostolic Succession is at heart is an appeal to papal supremacy and adherence to the See of Rome. That's it. There is no unbroken line of succession back to the Apostles that Rome can claim as valid any more than Lutherans and Anglicans and when push comes to shove Roman Catholic apologists admit this. What they view and what they call Apostolic Succession is not the unbroken lineal descent of the priesthood from the Apostles, but is entirely based upon being in communion with Rome. According to Rome, if you are in communion with the papacy, you have Apostolic Succession, if you are not, you don't.
@@Sonicmax8728 All of which proves that Rome selectively picks and chooses what is Apostolic Succession and what is not based off of whatever suits Rome at the time. Sometimes the Orthodox are in, sometimes they are out. Sometimes the Anglicans are in, sometimes they are out. The inconsistencies depend entirely on what particular axe a Roman apologist wants to grind on any given day. It is entirely a man-made diversion and the treatment of the Orthodox is testament to that reality.
@@pete3397 I’ve never heard an inconsistent stance on who has apostolic succession? I don’t know if you’re being purposely dense or not but Rome has always claimed the Eastern Orthodox and oriental orthodox maintained apostolic succession. The only one I would grant differing answers on is the anglicans but I think even you would agree the Anglican communities can really differ on from the super liberal ones to the very traditional ones so I think the confusion is granted. Once again I don’t think this is a very good point against apostolic succession because the church has it clearly outline what constitutes apostolic succession or not
@@Sonicmax8728You prove my point. Rome's entire basis for Apostolic Succession in the West is adherence to Rome and the papacy and not on actual Apostolic Succession. If you are in communion with Rome you have it and if you are not you don't. And this is a late objection by Roman apologists to sow doubt among Protestants and arrogate to Rome a false legitimacy.
The comments section in this video is precisely why I don't like modern Christians. Too busy fighting amongst themselves over petty irrelevant squabbles. And no, there's no such thing as "apostolic succession". If there were we would see ANY sort of mention of it in the text of scripture.
He took the Catholic faith and then threw out the Catholic and kept the faith after stripping away everything he didn't like and then called the original faith a false church. If the Catholic faith is false, then all Christian faiths that came out of it are false. You cant take a false church and make a real one out of it.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty No he does deny the validity of the Catholic Church according to what the Catholic Church defines itself as. He might say it's a true Church in that in its communion there are true believers in Christ, but that's not the full definition of the Catholic Church. As an outsider you don't get to determine what X's definitions are and then argue against it based on how you define it. It's not a matter of being "nuanced" it's a matter of him rejecting the Catholic Church's claim of who she is. That's it.
@@jacobwoods6153 And? There is a difference between claim and reality. And the Romans church falls flat in its claims. “As on outsider you don’t get to decide definitions”. Fact is not subjective. Change the definitions all you want. The true meaning will remain. A 2000 years old church is bound to have some nuances
@Thatoneguy-pu8ty And.... neither he nor do you have the authority to tell us what our definitions mean. Nobody is looking to Ortlund nor thatoneguypu8ty for the correct definition and understanding of our doctrines so neither one of you are binding on anybodys conscience.
My prayer is that all my Protestant brothers and sisters will come to know the great blessings, graces, and joys of being Catholic. I was a Protestant for 10 years and returned to the Catholic Church last year. The grace of receiving the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist the real presence of Jesus is beyond explanation. I attend several Masses a week to receive. The grace of Holy Confession the Sacrament of Penance is truly healing. The Grace of having our marriage convalidation in the Church has brought so much blessing to our family. I pray daily for the conversion of the whole world 🌎 to the Church - the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. May Gods love and peace rule and reign in all your hearts today 🙏💕🙏⛪️⛪️⛪️
I think Dr Ortlund is also forgetting that perhaps he isnt seeing dociments as early as he would like that make sense to him is that: 1. The early chirch was heavily persecuted and wasn't able to live openly at lot of times. 2. The early church was secretive. They didnt write down their inner workings for all to see. They didnt write down the intricate details of Holy Sacraments. In fact, if you werent a baptized member of the church, you couldn't even stay and watch communion being given. "The Doors the Doors" "we will not speak of Your mysteries to Your enemies".
Theologically I have less issues with Catholicism. But practically almost everything seems wrong. Come to India. The practises of Catholic church is synonymous to Hinduism. Its very pagan
Denial of the Great Apostasy of the Church. There has been no valid succession down to our times. Immediately after the death of Jesus, vacancies in the Twelve Apostles were filled by casting lots (Acts 1:26). Real Apostles were replaced by new Apostles. Why did that cease?
The casting of lots was restricted to the existing eleven Apostles remaining after Judas cast himself into hell. I.e. it was the first Apostolic succession.
@@leojmullins That process of replacing apostles was later dropped. Why? Congregational bishops certainly had no authority to do so -- including the bishop of Rome. That power existed only in the hands of the actual apostles, not in the hands of any self-appointed presbyters or seventies, nor in the hands of self-appointed councils. The primitive Christian Church already had proper procedures, which were abandoned through apostasy.
@@BobSmith-lb9nc The procedures outlined in the new testament were about appointing elders, deacons, and teachers. There is nothing in there about appointing replacement apostles as the old apostles died. They were chosen directly be Jesus himself, and the only replacement made was for Judas, who specifically was replaced with another who walked with Jesus. Nothing indicates there's any further apostolic succession beyond that point. I disagree with "apostasy" though. I think God is working within Christianity regardless, even Catholicism. However, people become more and more corrupt and deviate over time. This is human nature. This is why the nation of Israel continuously followed God then fell away, followed God again and fell away again. We need to keep going back to the text that was written to make sure we know what God's intention was rather than assuming the gradual deviation of "traditions" passed down is correct. Be like the Bereans who studied the scriptures to know what is being said is true. Catholics keep pushing this idea that if we read and study the Bible ourself we are deciding our own theology. That's ludicrous. The Bible straight up says that we should read what it says to back up any claims that are presented to us.
@@jrconway3 As I said, "There has been no valid succession down to our times." The method used by the Apostles to replace Judas is very clear (Acts 1:12-26): Prayer for the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and then the selection is made. That is what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does. That method always applies, even though you clearly reject it -- which leads to rampant denominationalism and opinion-mongering.
As one whose read the texts Gavin is referring too which church fathers he is way off, the word Bishop is used plenty to signify the succession of the apostles. Until you go through the text and stop with this word salad, you won’t go any where. Just like you exegete the Bible you for to exegete the texts of the church fathers
Gavin you are so far gone if you think Ignatius doesn’t believe in Apostolic succession. I am reading his letters and he has a clear teaching of a 3 fold office and primacy of Rome. Who appointed the bishops that appointed the bishops of Ignatius day, Gavin?? The apostles did! They didn’t just spawn in. Maybe you are playing the game of “he doesn’t explicitly teach this specific definition of apostolic succession”. Well guess what, you can’t expect a clear definition and apologetic of a doctrine that isn’t controversial at the time. It doesn’t take a genius to see that, implicitly, within his letters Ignatius believes in apostolic succession.
It might have been useful at the beginning to define "apostle". In the Bible doesn't the word "apostle" always have the word "of" with it? Apostle just means one who is sent by. Correct me if I am wrong. So if someone is an apostle, they are an apostle of someone. Paul, Apostle of Jesus. Paul, one who is sent by Jesus. So the idea of apostolic succession is immediately suspicious. The first Apostles were Apostles of Jesus. When they were departed, there were no more Apostles of Jesus. I would be very careful around churches and people who claim "Apostolic succession". It seems like a power grab. It doesn't mean anything. Papists likely made it up around Peter. To claim false authority and enthrone popes. It is not even a topic I care to get in to debate. What did Paul say about not getting involved in divisive, heretical things.. Do not be taken captive by empty deceit and philosophy. There are requirements about who can be pastors, public preachers... That is to make sure that the true Gospel is spread and the real Jesus is confessed. Yet we sill end up with those yapping false street preachers on the street corner, shouting a slurry of law and Gospel in to the wind.
"It doesen't add up" I'm doing some simple math. 1518 A.D. is quite some time after 33 A.D. Is this part of the addition equation Ortlund is referring to?
Again Ortland sounds like someone from The Hunchback of Notre Dame or at least That time period! He has No formal authority to judge the Church...much like Claude Frollo ( not the Disney villain, the man in the Novel) In the novel by Victor Hugo, Frollo was ruthless, merciless and corrupt... His title gave him a swelled head! He craved power... Ortland will only debate if he can be right and lord it over everyone.... This is Not a charitable nor kind man!
The voice of the Holy Spirit is what needs to be preserved… The Bible is the guideline … We now see through a glass, dimly, correct… Why would we think we have all the answers… He is the answer
Oddly enough Luther was Not a reformer, He wanted change from Within Not Without! Luther very much believed in the Catholic Church, That's Why he worked for change!
It's really not that hard to get. As Nagel said, "there is no point of view from nowhere," which means words do not have meaning outside of humans with paradigms. Meaning the Bible without men is just symbols and references, not referents or the things signified, and the only way to know what meaning and paradigms the symbols were tied to is through tradition. Otherwise you say "no the Holy Spirit showed me the referents and true meaning." Ok prove it. You can't prove it, it's the protestant subjective dillema. And then the only way you can try to prove it is by not appealing to the Bible and claiming it can be proven with pure reason which destroys the point of sola scriptura.
Thanks for showing why Jesus said this... Matthew 7:13-15 [13]Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: [14]Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. [15]Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
@@bradspitt3896 it's really not me (or you) but the Bible or Tradition. Nice if they were the same, but clearly not. It comes down to... do I want to trust men or the Bible? Acts 20:29-32 [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. [32]And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. Paul takes this prophetic statement with great seriousness. He commends to us the word of God, not church authorities, and how could he since he just stated that some are false.
@@bradspitt3896 However I do understand the agenda of Catholics which is to give their Tradition presedence over the Bible. (for a variety of reasons).
To judge the Reform, look at its fruits. The Church of England wants to remove the word "Church" from their name (too triggering). As for the US, already hundreds of denominations (and counting) They should have instead imposed changes, from *inside* the Church, by getting one of their own, elected as Pope.
Not the direct results of the Reformation. It’s the result of the West leaving Christ. We’re even seeing that in the Catholic Church. Fr Martin and Pope Francis himself are advocating for immoral practices openly.
They essentially have Bible study. They are not a church with the capital C. Meaning these places of Bible study are done on their own personal interpretation solely and if you don’t like it this one or that you go find another.
@@HkP39yes there have always been heretics in the Church and we can call them out and they are disciplined as necessary. Unlike Protestant churches. They can do gay marriage and at best you just go find another Bible study group to join.
The problem for me with this is that Apostolic Succession is the basis for the Church Councils. The councils were presided over by Bishops, who themselves were appointed by Apostolic Succession and received their administrative legitimacy from it. If they were not legitimate and Apostolic Succession is not valid, then they had no right to make the decisions they did with the binding authority they did. The end result of this is they they had no right to establish one canon as the trustworthy and normative one, no right to excommunicate non-Trinitarians, no right to excommunicate literally anyone for anything. (Or, in a subjective sense, every church has equal right to excommunicate anyone, in which case excommunication is not important and literally anyone can be a Christian because no one has properly derived authority to say otherwise.)
I can hear the Protestants jumping to say "scripture is the authority!" No, it isn't, because the BINDING canon of scripture ultimately derives its normativity from Apostolic Succession. That means if I feel in my conscience that John is not a truly inspired book, no one has the right to tell me otherwise, because again, that right was previously conferred via Apostolic Succession granting the bishopric its authority, and therefore allowing it to meet in council to make BINDING decisions.
So if Apostolic Succession is out, then ANY normativity in doctrine, including the canon of scripture, goes with it, unless another basis can be found for making these things binding.
😂
Are all the councils legitimate? They cannot be because they contradict each other
Apostolic succession is totally a thing, but I don’t think the successors of the apostles have the same powers at all. Firstly, only the apostles were actually commissioned by the incarnation. Secondly, no one beyond the apostles has the power to change the canon. Just my thoughts.
It's true that the early Church (St. Athanasius etc.) put together the books of the Bible, but the books themselves started coming into being since the time of Moses. They compose the TaNaKh (Tora+Nevi'im+Ketuvim) which has been around for long before they were brought together as the Bible. Furthermore, they testify about themselves of being God breathed and good for instruction (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and that God's people should meditate on them day and night (Joshua 1:8). Christ was a Torah abiding Jew who quoted and taught the Tanakh.
The Scriptures are a basis for all theological truth and all doctrines must be checked against them. The canon of Scripture was put together by Holy Spirit inspired men, but scriptural authority cannot be put aside because of that. It is above anything else, otherwise we say that God's instruction to His people has some other authority above it.
@Thatoneguy-pu8ty The apostles didn't leave a canon. If they did, indeed this would be a non-issue. The Church, guided by bishops validated through Apostolic Succession, investigated and found that the NT canon is the true one.
Do we wait for scholars to tell us what the christian faith is?? No, we hold fast to the tradition that was handed to us either by letter or word of mouth.
Read the beginning of that chapter......
No we do not
Protestants agree, we just hold letter to a higher degree than word. Letter can be verified, word of mouth cannot. Therefore any tradition by words of mouth must be verified against that which can be verified in itself- that is, scripture.
@@Draezeth the Bible is just references, without the tradition you don't have the referents.
@@bradspitt3896 That doesn't change the fact you can look at a 1800 year old text, but you can't listen to a 1800 year old teaching by word of mouth.
Bishops are presbyters but not all presbyters are bishops. When the early Christian church consecrated or ordained a new bishop at least 3 bishops were required to lay hands on the new candidate for the ordaination to be valid. If apostolic succession was not in play why were 3 bishops required to lay hands on the new bishop to be valid?
Three bishops were not required for validity, they were required for the consecration to be licit, in normal circumstances. It served to ensure that if there was any doubt or question about the intention of the Primary Consecrator the two Co-Consecrators served to ensure that the new bishop had received Apostolic Succession. Since the Canon requiring three bishops was first formally pronounced, there have been exceptions including among them time of war, or inside the boarders of countries or states antagonistic to the Church, (Soviet Russia, Communist China etc.)
The first time the Early Church formally required an already established, but not universally imposed practice of a Consecrator and Co-Consecrators was in 325 at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, which decreed: “a bishop ought to be chosen by all the bishops of his province, but if that is impossible because of some urgent necessity, or because of the length of the journey, let three bishops at least assemble and proceed to the consecration, having the written permission of the absent."
In the RCC indults have been made prior to Vatican II for only one bishop to consecrate. As well as the RCC has upheld the validity of Non-Catholic Consecrations that have been preformed with two or one bishop as consecrators. One example was when Abp Lefebvre and Bp Castro de Mayer consecrated bishops for the SSPX. There were consecrations that Abp Thuc preformed (the Palmarian consecrations were held invalid because they had changed the form of the Consecration) but his later consecrations for various Sede Vacantest groups were held to be valid until later when his mental competency was in question. Old Catholic and smaller splinter Orthodox groups have sometimes used on or two bishops not the canonical three and those too have been held valid, even if illicit.
I've come to think this may be the case, but is this the view adopted by any major churches? I've never heard this as an explanation for the overlap of bishop/presbyter in Scripture by any apostolic church.
Protestantism is the application of individualism to theology and ecclesiology, sowing doctrinal confusion and institutional division, attacking the Gospel and the Church.
Which opened the door to modernism and secularism!
This type of reasoning held the door open to modernism and secularism. Next stop socialism and communism!
@@lindamerrick2419 Yet, some of the most liberal people out there claim to be Catholic, so your position does not hold up to scrutiny.
@@lindamerrick2419this is hilarious
It’s the Jesuits who pushed modernism
Look at Catholic Spain
You could literally almost just show somebody from Mars this video, and they would know whay they’re trying to do: a.) is unclear; b.) is not doable; and c.) appears to be kind of a playhouse silliness that little boys that only lose tend towards.
POPE CLEMENT I
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]).
clearly and accretion....
I had no idea that the title of 'Pope' was used when Clement wrote that letter.
@@stephenmacmillan4178 Clement can also be used to defend orthodoxy who have a similar view of succession but deny the pope. so your comment doesn't hit the mark at all.
Gavin said he doesn’t have an issue with succession, but he rejects Apostolic Succession Proper as is defined in modern Catholicism. Gavin would say Clement was using the word “Bishop” in the same way the NT does, meaning synonymous with Presbyter.
Clement is a testimony against apostolic succession, not for it. Note that Clement refers to two offices, not three. That is contrary to apostolic succession (this is why we defined it up front, and again at 7:45). Clement interprets the constitution of these two offices-bishops and deacons-as the fulfillment of prophecy. Later in his letter as well, Clement uses the terms bishop and presbyter interchangeably. For example, in chapter 44, Clement teaches that the apostles established the office of the episcopate and warns that it is no small sin to wrongfully depose those who hold this office (the occurrence of which in Corinth is the occasion of the letter). Yet he then immediately refers to godly holders of this office as “presbyters.” Later, in chapters 47 and 57, Clement again refers to the leaders of the church of Corinth-who were deposed but now must be submitted to-as presbyters.
As Eamon Duffy, a Roman Catholic scholar, summarizes,
"Clement made no claim to write as bishop. His letter was sent in the name of the whole Roman community, he never identifies himself or writes in his own person. … The letter itself makes no distinction between presbyters and bishops, about which it always speaks in the plural, suggesting that at Corinth as at Rome the church at this time was organized under a group of bishops or presbyters, rather than a single ruling bishop. A generation later, this was still so in Rome."
Part of the reason Duffy (with most scholars) thinks the monoepiscopacy (i.e. rule by a single bishop) has not emerged in Rome even a generation after Clement is the testimony of the Shepherd of Hermas, which was written in Rome sometime in the early 2nd century, and which references “the presbyters who preside over the church” and always speaks of the leadership of the church in the plural.
As a protestant I have to admit that the Catholic comments here are more powerful against your arguments. A lutheran or anglican would fair better. The Baptist view is flawed on a lot of these issues I want you to defend our position but it falls flat
The thing is the baptist view merely takes what scripture says that the whole church is and are priests.
Not just apostolic.
Baptists have no issue with saying the apostles found succesers.
But they have a issue that if there isn't a valid catholic bishop don't have eucharist to be valid is a huge issue.
Nothing in scripture suggests that.
Anglican Lutheran so on
Are told the same thing....
Take a logic hypothetical
There were christians in concentration camps hiding communion from nazis.
They proly had crackers and dirty water.
In other words extremely little
What ever those murderor nazis would give em.
Now do you think the lord would be pleased by the effort. Or say meh you didn't have a bishop. 😅
This is the issue.
There may be some Orthodox comments here too. We may be few in America in comparison but we exist I swear. 😄☦️❤️
@michaelbledsoe4355 the thing is catholics had 15 hundered years to perfect copes.
So there is a passage in the bible that shuts it down
Completley. And many others that go um.
But mainly the passage
About the individual casting out demons in christs name.
The apostles attempted to stop him by saying we didn't teach him what did christ do.?
What did he say.
There are others from pual too.
He gets so mad that people are arguing over who baptised who and who has who's authority.
There isn't a good case of apostolic succession
More simply a ear itching cope.
Think like this. That a man in a village somewhere that has. Never seen a christian. Gets a bible reads it believes it.
Believes that christ was the son of god. And the spirit comes to him guides him...
He starts baptizing the village.
Does his teaching go by scripture.
Do the other churches have the right to authority
He may believe the.major salvific things that christ is god and so on so forth
When you begin to see where there logic takes them and compare it with scripture you see the holes.
@@r.a.panimefan2109 Not 1500 years. Roman Catholicism has existed for 1000 years and Protestantism as a movement only has existed for 500 years and individual Protestant denominations far less than even that.
Also Dr Gavin is making a category error when he uses the word Presbyter. Bishops are Presbyters. They used the same name for both priest and bishop in St Ignatius’ time but everyone knew that the bishop (as presbyter) held an authority over the others. This is clear even in St Ignatius’ writings when he tells the faithful to esteem the bishop as a symbol of Jesus Christ amongst His people.
These presbyters were not like Protestant pastors. Rather were giving the sacraments (Eucharist, etc).
@iliya3110 hm ok lets follow this up.
ok I've read several of these writings in fact I've got alot copied to my phone.
I don't think it's wrong to suggest there were elders.
Gavin isn't saying that. Notice he didn't bring deacon into the mix.
It's like with a prot denomination.
Say a local you have the eldest elder
Then other elders. Then young who are ministering and learning.
U see this formula even in small villages Indian tribes
U have chief and elders. And young braves who will become elders eventually...
Now ignatius doesn't call the bishop a symbol of christ your somewhat misquoting
“You must follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father, follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God’s commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone who he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the CATHOLIC Church . It is not permitted without authorization of the bishop either to baptize….
He says to follow lead of the bishop. And at this time it would be folly not to.
The reason why is that the apostles were still practically around
The ink of there letters were fresh on the page.
Now let me ask a logic question if let's say you were a apostle.
And you were handing letters to your deacons to carry to the city. Who would you address the letter. Too.
Some new kid that barely started learning
Or to the elder the you appointed
So when it says to gather it is because these elders heard it from the apostles they had the teachings. And the letters...
Now again
And I don't know why we have to keep saying this we have no problem with the fact that there was and is and should be leadership... this is why since vatican two the catholics are starting to realize that our eucharist has something to it.
Remember we didn't want to start a new church or split into a hundered denominations(the 30 000 number is a huge exajeration.)
What needs to be shown is what that qoute actually says
It says that the leaders are to the apostles as they are to christ.
That only means that they are carrying a authority and are pushing these messages more.
It also says not to allow a new eucharist without the bishops say.
Which again I get the logic. Prots do understand. Where this was
There were a multiplicity of heretics running around sowing division.
So they would want people having a true and unpainted communion.
But this does not say that the people in the house churches couldn't do lords supper in there own homes either.
I think your reading a modern view back in.
Becuase let's say a faithful follower of these fathers that weren't ordained went and taught and was explaining it to a new village.
They believe every correct doctrine.
Would this be a no go.
See I think if we over estimate the logic of the fathers we get into trouble.
Becuase think of the hundereds of converts during that thirty years. After christ.
Your saying they couldn't carry it forward. And teach more people.
That's what happens if we gridlock this.
Instead of thinking the eucharist must be under the bishops teaching.
Now not only that no one does bishop pointing as it was done then either
It wasn't simply a bishop or a bunch of bishops laying hands.
It had to be with approval of the congregation.
U see this in a multitude. Of writing.
In fact arius was aproved by a group of bishops. But not by the ecclesia(the assembly of believers.
There's also a quote that shows bishops could be disposed by the congregation with good reason.
The problem is it often wasn't done with good reason.
But I need to ask and I want u to please have a open mind.ok.
If your. Bishop or your pope or whatever or even the group starts teaching something that you know is unbiblical. What will you do.
I think this is something these dialouges are missing
What do you do when error shows up. And you know in your heart in the pits of your soul strengthened by the spirit that something doesn't quite feel right.
What do u do.
I would like to know.
And I'd like you to apply this at greater and greater levels.
What happens if your leader.
The church the group the pope
What do u do as a individual believer. What action do you take.
I apreciate the convo we r having
But consider for a moment that you are stuck in jail. Or a concentration camp. Can you truly not do anything...
Something just doesn't seem right with te stricture of the traditions here.
Just think on it for a bbit.
Let's say you were a christian and you were evangelizing in a concentration camp. To jews there.
U may have a little water.
Can you really truly not baptise
It's these questions I don't think people are asking themselves.
Now I'm still learning I've not read all of scripture.
So I wouldn't baptise becuase I want to make sure people understand good doctrine.
St. Ignatius clearly saw presbyters as subordinate to bishops. When he compares presbyters to the Apostles, he was speaking in the context of the celebration of the Eucharist, in which the Bishop represents Christ, and the presbyters the band of the Apostles.
For example, in his Epistle to Polycarp 6:1 "Give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. I am devoted to those who are subject to the bishop, the presbyters, the deacons."
Smyrnaeans 8:1-2 "Flee from divisions, as the beginning of evils. You must all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and follow the presbyters as you would the apostles; and respect the deacons as the commandment of God. Let no one do anything that has to do with the Church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist which is under the authority of the bishop (or whomever he himself designates) is to be considered valid. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the congregation be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permissible either to baptize or to hold a love feast without the bishop. But whatever he approves is also pleasing to God, in order that everything you may do may be trustworthy and valid."
Trallians 3:13 "“Similarly, let everyone respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, just as they should respect the bishop, who is a model of the Father, and the presbyters as God’s council and as the band of the Apostles. Without these no group can be called a church."
The New Testament itself clearly had 3 levels of authority among clergy. We see deacons. Yes, in the beginning episkopos and prebyteros were often used interchangeable for the next office, but the office of Apostle was clearly over both. As the original apostles passed on, the top tier level has successors, and the word "episcopos" began to be used exclusively for that office, but it is still spoken in terms of being the apostolic office. It is just that we usually do not call them Apostles as a title, reserving that title for the original Apostles, generally.
The very fact that St. Ignatius clearly uses this distinction, and given that he was a disciple of the Apostle John, and was the bishop of Antioch, which was at that time, the most important center of the Church, there is no way this can be dismissed as a later accretion. And it is clear from St. Ignatius' epistles that he sees each city as having one Bishop, with many presybters and deacons. In a given city, you could have many local churches, which is why St. Ignatius says that only that Eucharist is valid which is "under the authority of the Bishop, or whomever he himself designates." He never speaks of bishops in the plural when speaking of a local Church.
It really could not be clearer, in his epistles.
Clement uses them interchangeably too. Not sure what to make out of Ignatius seemingly contradicting him.
Clement of Rome and Polycarp don’t seem to speak of a distinct office for “the bishop” though, do they? What do you make of that?
@@XavierPutnam St. Polycarp's letter is a letter from him and his elders to another Church. St. Ignatius' epistle to him says "Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto Polycarp
who is bishop of the church of the Smyrnaeans". So clearly you have a distinction between the one bishop and the many elders in Smyrna. It is not at all clear that St. Clement uses bishop and presbyter interchangalely.
@@D12Min Where does he use them interchangeably?
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 I agree that “Ignatius” sees distinct groups. I just don’t think that’s the case with the other two writers.
3:55 Gavin is really dishonest here. St Ignatius does compare the presbyters to the Apostles, but only after comparing the Bishops to GOD HIMSELF.
Epistle to the Magnesians:
"I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles"
Epistle to the Trallians:
since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, [...] It is therefore necessary that, as you indeed do, so without the bishop you should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ"
"In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church"
Epistle to the Smyrneans
"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God."
St Ignatius clearly and plainly holds the episcopate to be a higher office than the presbyterate.
that is not contrary to anything I said. I did not deny that Ignatius has a high view of the bishop. I said he does not believe in apostolic succession. Which is true. In fact, it's pretty much universally recognized outside of internet apologetics.
You said that Ignatius says that the presbyters sit in the seat of the Apostles, rather than the bishops. To be consistent in the reasoning, you'd have to say that Ignatius believes that the Bishops sit in the seat of God Himself. Ignatius is obviously making an analogy and he is describing three separate offices, with the Bishops having the preeminent position over the presbyters.
The two office view is not universal and Jerome makes a clear distinction by saying that only the Bishops can ordain, which is a significant difference.
Further, you say that all the evidence from the first century shows that the office of presbytery and bishop are interchangeable, but St Ignatius even says that the presbyters are to be subject to the Bishops. At no point does St Ignatius conflate those offices. He consistently distinguishes them with Bishops as higher
No, sleepingtube is right.
Not that I have any dog in the fight against you, Dr. Ortlund, except insofar as I am Catholic and just disagree, but it's a little rich for you to draw on the idea that a concept is "universally recognized outside of internet apologetics" when you have said multiple times that you don't believe there was a consensus of the Fathers that there was a regenerative baptism, one of the only actual consensuses recognized by nearly all scholars.
You are obviously allowed to disagree, but that's my entire point. You can't just point to "Well most people agree with me so there" when people are here literally quoting the sections of the letters contradicting what you said. You have to actually respond to the points that are made. I don't care what is "pretty much [whatever that means, even] universally recognized".
@@TruthUnitesyou’re looney if you think Ignatius doesn’t believe in Apostolic succession. I am reading his letters and he has a clear teaching of a 3 fold office and primacy of Rome. Who appointed the bishops that appointed the bishops of Ignatius day, Gavin?? The apostles did! They didn’t just spawn in.
Maybe you are playing the game of “he doesn’t explicitly teach this specific definition of apostolic succession”. Well guess what, you can’t expect a clear definition and apologetic on a doctrine that isn’t controversial at the time. It doesn’t take a genius to see that tacitly within his letters Ignatius believes in apostolic succession.
His only incentive to disagree with apostolic succession being “an accretion” is that he does not have it.
@nickfrench3776
Oh man, that's an interesting take. You would probably love C.S. Lewis's bulverism essay. It's here on youtube.
I'm a priest ordained by a catholic bishop with apostolic succession and I agree with Pr. Ortlund's take here. 100% correct.
@@jackshannon777 i dont understand the argument , is this not argument from silence
@@jackshannon777 you’re an Anglican who does not have apostolic succession.
@@jackshannon777 that’s why you agree with him. Because you don’t have it either
Will Gavin concede that by NOT believing in Baptismal regeneration that it is clearly a Protestant accretion among some Protestants such as Baptists? This was a unanimous belief in the early Church
Would you be willing to concede that the belief in the effect of water to cleanse sins is unbiblical?
Romans 3:25
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Romans 5:9
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Ephesians 1:7
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Ephesians 2:13
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Colossians 1:14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Colossians 1:20
And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
Hebrews 9:22
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
1 Peter 1:19
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Revelation 1:5
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Only because of Catholic teachings (not the Bible) you must insist on "water" and not the blood as clearly affirmed in scripture.
Gavin told me, “The case for Baptismal Regeneration is oversold.”
He doesn’t have a great response to this, so he basically just muddies the water. Saying that the different fathers define regeneration slightly differently.
@@not_milk So the truth is that they all held a uniform view? Can you prove that? My history text says..."They held baptism to be efficacious in the case of adults only in connection with the right inner disposition and purpose, though Turtullian seemed to think that the very reception of the rite carried with it the remission of sins. And (2) They did not regard baptism as absolutely essential to the initiation of spiritual life, or the life of regeneration; but viewed it as the completing element in a process of renewal." The baptism of the Roman Catholic Church that is said to work "ex opere operato" did not evolve until Aquinas.
Do you have other documentation to back up your assertion?
@@jeromepopiel388 They all held that baptism caused regeneration. Everyone who spoke on the matter at least. Barnabas, Hermas, Theophilus of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen. That's just the first two centuries or so.
I can provide sources and quotes for every one of these, and plenty more.
Naturally, if someone is resistant to the working of the Spirit, God will not force His grace upon us. So an adult must not resist it.
There really isn't any variation on this matter of any significance. The only ones who really seemed to scorn baptism were certain gnostics, because it is a physical visible thing, and they believed all physical things must be evil. So in their view God would not work through physical tangible means.
St Ignatius compared the presbyters to the apostles indeed. In the passage where he says that you should obey your bishop as Jesus Christ and the presbyters as the apostles. Who is your bishop, mister Ortlund?
which passage is that.
@@TheGogogwo A few passages even. For example, the letter to the Magnesians chapter 6, but also the letter to the Trallians chapter 2, and the letter to the Smyrnaeans chapter 8.
IThinkBiblically went over that quote in full and showed how RCC misrepresents it.
Those bishops disagreed with one another.
So which one in the disagreement in incorrect?
The problem is obvious!
@@lovegod8582 Misrepresents what exactly? That Ortlund is abusing the Ignatian letters to push his own view of the Church? He claimed St Ignatius believed the presbyters got Apostolic Succession and not the bishops, which is just absolute nonsense, as shown by just pulling up the quotes.
Why would you think disagreeing bishops are a problem for Catholics? The bishops are still disagreeing unto this day, and they will be until the final day on earth. I don't see a problem there at all. As for who is the final arbiter on earth right now in theological matters, who'd you think that would be?
Gavin´s bishop is Jesus Christ. Just as the Antiochians had no bishop other than Christ after Ignatius´ martyrdom.
After the death of Ignatius, according to Ignatius, the Antiochian church “has God for its shepherd instead of me. ONLY Jesus Christ will be its bishop-and your love” (Ignatius Letter to the Romans 9:1).
Man, the mental gymnastics that must be done to try and disprove Catholicism must be tiring.
At some point I pray he notices he is just nit picking here or there and that his selective choosing of passages to twist his narrative and thinking is just delaying the inevitable
He is Suffering form legalism
He once demarked that the Church fell off around 300 AD because he was debating Trent of Marian Dogmas. He drew the line those circa year because it is convenient for him during that time when he wants to disprove those Dogmas.
Im always praying for Him and Austin
@@catholicguy1073says the catholic
Not trying to be combative, but to me- a Protestant- it's your arguments that sound like mental gymnastics. I think we're all prone to our own biases, and our minds are more critical of arguments against us than those for us.
Protestant theological acrobatics should become an Olympic sport.
Its amazing how Austin can't have a protestant on without his normally kind and friendly audience turning into a bunch of snide, vitriolic bullies.
I see nothing snide or bullying in this comment section, and I'm not even Roman Catholic.
@@EpistemicAnthony just the same bad takes trotted out by RC
@@EthanMiller-ul9spThey are making convincing points
@@EpistemicAnthony That's just your interpretation. We've come full circle!
@@bradspitt3896 Protestantism is filled with 1000s of interpretations, Burger King Christianity, have it your way!
i want to thank Gavin for making me read the fathers much more than i ever have before to make me more certain that the Orthodox Church has maintained the teachings of the Apostles for 2,000 years.
Don't know what Gavin's motivations are for misrepresenting the writings of the fathers, but that's between him and God. But i do know, if not for his RUclips videos, I wouldn't have become so engaged with the early Fathers. God truly does work in mysterious ways.
“Exclusivist.” Definitely. Christianity isn’t a private religion. Not everyone gets to be a pastor. Not everyone gets to ordain. Not everyone gets to consecrate. It’s Christ’s church, not ours. He set it up, and if you want to claim He did such a poor job that it unraveled immediately after the death of the last Apostle, you’re welcome to it, but you’ll sound ridiculous- coming as you are 2,000 years late with no real credentials (except those you ascribe to yourself or your ecclesiastical besties). Dr. Gavin is amazing in that he, as a Baptist, is calling Apostolic Succession an extra biblical accretion! Again, if you want to make the claim the Church was corrupted from the outset, then get in line… because you’re late to the party… and very unoriginal.
…spot on!!🎯
@@gk3292what credentials did the Apostles present? How could people know that they were from God?
@@jeromepopiel388 oh, I don’t know… raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, etc., might have convinced folks.
@@henrytucker7189 Got it!
Acts 2:22
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Acts 2:43
And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
Acts 5:12
And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.
Acts 6:8
And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.
Acts 14:3
Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.
Romans 15:19
Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
God confirmed His word!
Man you really did a good job at not responding to a single argument presented but still remaining triumphant as usual.
Ortland despises Catholics and Orthodox!
I cannot imagine someone loving the Lord So much and yet having contempt for their neighbor.
Ortland remains determined to put His ideas across as absolute!
( Last time I checked, He Wasn't Perfect!)
He does remind of Claude Frollo, Not the cartoon villain from Disney, But the character from the Novel by Victor Hugo.
In the Book, Frollo was vengeful, vindictive and felt justified in everything he did or thought
He despised Gypsies and thought they were beneath him ( kind of like how Ortland thinks of Catholics)
100% agree. He tries to disguise it with a Mr nice guy facade but we can see right through that. He truly does despise anyone that doesn’t believe like him
@cabellero1120
Where is the contempt? The soft-spoken, relaxed, and charitable demeanor isn't a facade. He's just speaking his mind, and I'll be honest...to say he has contempt or thinks cathloics are beneath him when he has gone on at length about how much he admires parts of the tradition and folks from it, suggest a possibility of two things.
Either you do not actually look at his interviews, you post and leave because you do not want your beliefs challenged and so you are assuming this much about him, or you are projecting, and you have contempt for him for daring to believe what his conscious tells him...
At any rate, both would diminish with prayer and actually listening to what he's saying and not bulverising about some hidden contempt he has ( that you have no way of knowing ) when there is good reason to believe otherwise.
Catholics have put out a lot of misleading historical data and he is pushing back against it.
What is wrong with you man?
The other MAJOR issue is that the 4th century is still early days compared to just how late Protestantism arrives on the scene. Like, something that was consolidated in the 4th century is orders of magnitude closer to the apostles than a movement that appeared in the 16thC. It's a massive inconsistency that I've never heard addressed. Further, if he distrusts what they were teaching in the 4th century about apostolic succession then by the same token a vast number of other things we take for granted should also be rejected.
They get theological answers wrong for sure (read the NT!), but the anachronistic nature of the questions is how you know who governs the rebellion. Hint: formerly esteemed angel. Rejoices in all in all the little metastasizing growths of protest. This Channel makes it clear - we all have Catholic forefathers- some - myself included - have protester forefathers- I am named for one - a Holy
Episcopal Priest, and I with his son my father pray that he is rejoicing in heaven - but make no mistake - it is time. It is - time. Hop on board the Ark or be prepared to answer for the scourge of the atheistic and Islamist horde. Protestants, remove that of you which is the tumor - retain that which is of the body - we NEED YOU!
Closeness to the apostostles means nothing by itself. Gnosticism was quite early too
Martin Luther, The Founder of the Protestant Reformation, Was a Devout Catholic.
He had written dissertations on The Virgin Mary And The Eucharist..
( Most Protestants are unaware of this.)
Luther did not intend for his movement to become what it had.
Protestantism was a Complete break and abandonment from Apostolic tradition and connection.
I doubt, seriously, that The Apostles of Jesus would have had laser light shows, fog machines, Rock music and $10 cups of coffee at Their services!
@@cabellero1120 perhaps you are isolated to North America? Protestants exist in other places.
The same Luther: “The doctrine of justification by faith alone is the doctrine on which the church stands or falls”
He clearly valued Sola Fide above all.
Yes they don’t worship God. There’s no sacrifice which is what was always understood for proper worship of God. At Mass we have the representation of the sacrifice of Jesus that was given once for all.
However they do a great job with their love of Scripture. Sure they get things wrong but their desire to really know Scripture should be commended
Luther was a devout Catholic and cleric. When he went to original languages to study scripture he began noting that Rome’s teachings were lacking in areas. Rome decided to protect Rome and the rest is history
@@dodavega sure like him adding “alone” rejecting certain books in both the OT and NT as being inspired Scripture. Luther thought himself to be a church of one. His positions grew increasingly radical the longer he separated from the faith
The problem with Anglican orders wasn't the issue of apostolic succession, but that the intention for ordination was shifted to deny the sacrificial nature of the priesthood.
Well these comments sure are charitable and thoughtful responses to the arguments made in the video....
Really liked this conversation. The only thing that I wish would be discussed more is that so often Apostolic Succession is cited as the proof of preserved infallible doctrine/oral traditions.
Succession is a good thing, but it does not guarantee preservation of truth. There is a succession list of US Presidents, but that does not guarantee any preservation of truth or principles from George Washington all the way to Joe Biden.
This is why the need for the Holy Spirit. Scripture never gives succession as the sign or seal of truth, but rather the Holy Spirit is. (2 Cor 1:21-22, 2 Cor 5:5, Eph 1:13-14, Eph 4:30) I've come to greatly appreciate the phrasing of the WCF that speaks of how we can be moved by things like the church, the majesty of the gospel, the historical reliability of the texts, etc - but ultimately it is the Holy Spirit that must lead us to accepting Scripture as the infallible Word of God.
"We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." WCF I.5
You're basically making the Catholic argument lol it's the Holy Spirit who guides the Church into all of the truth concerning recognizing the Scriptures and coming to the truth on doctrine. I find it hilarious that individuals claim that the Holy Spirit is leading them into the truth but the Holy Spirit can't protect a 2000 year old visible, historical Church from error and lead it into the whole truth. The hubris in that comment is just cringe... It's the epitome of liberalism, I mean Protestantism.
@@jacobwoods6153 Did the Holy Spirit abandon Israel or did Israel abandon God? Replace Israel with Rome and you'll see how there can be manifest error in the Church. And, yes, the hubris in your own statement and Rome's hubris in finding itself to be without blame for the splits in Christianity, for which it is truly the Mother of all schismaticism, is what is truly cringe. Even anti-Christ cringe.
@pete3397
Ok lol. I'll leave you to debate your thousands of other Protestant denominations.
@@jacobwoods6153 You are right that anyone can claim to be filled with the Holy Spirit whether they actually are or not. The test is whether that person (or church) produces fruit. Fruit is defined as transformed lives to the glory of God.
So is the Catholic claim that the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic church only? If so, then why are there many who are saved and spurred to holy living through the preaching of Protestant churches and pastors? Is the Holy Spirit not behind that preaching?
And if the Spirit is not limited to guiding the Catholic church only, then isn't that the traditional Protestant view? - that the visible church is not limited to one singular institution?
It's not a question about whether the Holy Spirit has the ability to protect a visible institution from error, but whether God chose in his free will to promise such a thing. Just as God had the ability to preserve Solomon's temple and Israel as a nation, but he chose to let the temple be destroyed and exiled Israel and Judah because he never promised to preserve them in that way.
@andrew33bird
I'm not gonna get in a huge comment debate with you because these things never go anywhere, but I can tell you that you don't understand the Catholic claim on this one particular issue. This is a genuine question, I'm not trying to pose some gotcha question here. If the Catholic Church is true, meaning what she claims about herself is true, would you become Catholic?
Would love to see Gavin Ortlund and Sean Luke have a robust debate on this!
No: it's the apostolic deposit that needs to be preserved.
What does that mean?
I think Gavin trying to destroy all things Catholic is like a guy dismantling a 10th story floor while standing in the middle of it. "Oh, this piece isn't necessary", "Look, here's another one", "Lets keep going".
Good analogy.
Also, look at the fruits of the Reform. The Church of England wants to remove the word "Church" from their name (too triggering).
As for the US, already hundreds of denominations (and counting)
They should have instead imposed changes, from *inside* the Church, by getting one of their own elected as Pope.
Valid objections =/= destruction of the wider Christian faith.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8tyExcept they’re not valid and only appear to be
Jesus corrected the pharisees traditions, Paul warned of these accretions.
you are here
@@Thatoneguy-pu8tyJohn Paul II was the first non-Italian elected to the papacy in 455 years. Funny how churchly power so closely reflects worldly power.
Gavin when Paul ordained Timothy and Titus he ordained them to be Apostolic successors now called Bishops.
0 For it is written in the Book of Psalms:
‘Let his encampment become desolate,
and may no one dwell in it.’
And:
‘May another take his office.’ Acts 1:20. If even horribly unworthy Judas held an OFFICE to which there was succession, AFTER Jesus and under the authority of . . . Wait for it . . . The apostles! Then why not for the remaining apostles and the episcopal authorities they choose?
Ahhh Gavin, I love your book, and I'm going to give it a mainly positive review on my blog! I actually even agree with your critique of a more restrictivist view of apostolic succession, and am on the side of Davenant--there are conditions in which presbyterial succession can be valid. However, here's where I take issue:
Was Ignatian a local bishop only akin to a senior pastor? I don't think so. We have to remember that these churches probably met in houses scattered across a city. So when we call Ignatius "Ignatius of Antioch", he--per Irenaeus--would have had charge over the presbyters in that region. This is why we don't see another "bishop of Antioch" at the time of Ignatius, or in quite literally any other instance in recorded history. This *is* a primitive dioceses.
On the merits of this form of governance: it accords with sociological facts about human hierarchy, and it does seem like the apostles instituted one presbyter ruling over the other presbyters. This *is* the form of the episcopate. Thus, it's not the case that the office of bishop is a distinct office than the office of presbyter--even Aquinas agreed (Suppl. q40.a4-5) that the bishop was the perfection of the priesthood as the ruling priest. (Nevertheless, I concede that since the bishop is a presbyter, it's not the case that presbyterial succession can be invalid in principle). We see this as apostolic in the fact that Titus and Timothy were ordained to appoint other presbyters. That puts them in a position of the lead presbyter.
A quick correction: the argument of Apostolicae Curae depended on the erroneous claim that we denied a sacrifice of the mass. We denied a propitiatory sacrifice in the sense that Rome meant it--a sacrifice which gains merit that remits temporal debt for the living and the dead--but we agree that the sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented in the Eucharist, and always have.
Re, Clement--yet Clement is writing as the Bishop of Rome. Why was Clement speaking for the church of Rome? Probably because he was the ruling presbyter.
Ignatius was head of the presbytery!
@@EthanMiller-ul9sp Right--which would mean that the form was in place even if the terminology of the episcopate was not.
@@anglicanaestheticsIgnatius seems to imply that the eucharist is to be celebrated in the presence of the bishop . That seems to make it nigh impossible if the bishop is the leader of many churches. It would fit more if each local church had a bishop
Is there any merit in this observation?
@@aajaifennI believe so I would like an answer from a catholic
Gavin Ignatius in the church of Smyrna testified to the linear succession of bishops from the time of the Apostles, shortly after their death. Irenaeus in the second century compiled a list of the bishops of Rome. Hegesippus introduced the idea of the bishop’s succession in office as a guarantee of the truth of what he preached. He produced succession lists to back this up. In the early church the word bishop and presbyter were used interchangeably until the number of bishops became much too numerous and then the church began to ordain what were called bishop helpers and were referred to as presbyters or just priests.
I think Dr. Ortlund needs to give us a standard for his Accretion theory along the lines of something like Newman’s essay on the development of doctrine. If there’s not an objective criterion to decide between an accretion and apostolic doctrine, we either can’t know the difference, or Dr. Ortlund gets to arbitrarily decide using different criteria each time and different standards between Protestant and Catholic doctrine.
He said he is only doing the same thing that Jerome was doing in order to sort out what is of biblical origin.
@@jeromepopiel388 Well 2 problems with that 1. Jerome has a canon that nobody uses: 66 books + Deuterocanonical Daniel and Esther. 2. What would that criteria be? Because I’m suspicious that Jerome’s criteria for the canon is the same as what would help you identify doctrine and accretions.
@@bman5257 let me say that for the man of God to be fully equipped he doesn't need the full canon, but he needs to be assured that he has the truth. When the Apostles went out to the world, without a complete canon, how could people know that what they were hearing was of God?
@@jeromepopiel388 Because of their apostolic authority and the Oral word of God. In Acts 4:31, they spoke the Word of God boldly. But there was no New Testament at the time of Acts. But a Christian in the 21st century still needs to ask the question of what’s doctrine and what’s an accretion. How does he do that?
@@jeromepopiel388The Apostles were going out during a time when the canon was incomplete because their acts were still in progress. They had the truth and verified it with signs, wonders and prophecy. That is:
1. A divine legate (Apostle)...
2. ...with a message (the Gospel)...
3. ...and credentials (signs and wonders)
Again and again.. interpretation of authority. Mathew 16:18/19 And I tell you that you are Peter,and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
To me, this is enough said between the Catholic Authority vs Protestantism interpretation. They(protestants)will merry-go-round throwing smoke bombs at this claim
You understand that by doing this you are just playing into the Protestant interpretation problem, yes? Are you a credible and reliable guide to the interpretation of scripture?
Vast majority of the early church did not interpret it the way Rome tells you to. You are the one "merry-go-round throwing smoke bombs at this claim".
@@EpistemicAnthonyno the church guided by the Holy Spirit was and is the infallible authority, I’m orthodox by the way
So Jesus named Peter rock and gave him the keys of the kingdom.
I have yet to hear a Catholic give me an explanation how you derive the authority of the church that Catholics believe in from this passage. All I've ever gotten was "Jesus gave Peter the keys, therefore the church had authority," and never an explanation as to how you get to that conclusion.
@@nathanortiz6787 I think you responded to the wrong person. I agree with you.
Also, show me one Ancient Christian Community that does not follow Bishop, Priest, Deacon. It would be impossible to have councils and creeds.
I’m not sure if he addressed it in the interview, but to my knowledge the Catholic Church (having Divine Authority to back her) excommunicated Anglicans because of their denial of the Mass as a Sacrifice. Their priesthood and episcopacy was forfeited (power to bind on earth and loose on earth for the Leo XIII if I am not mistaken) if they rejected the actual offering of the Son of God to the Father in worship. You can’t have the Eucharist if you deny what the Eucharist is.
I really don’t understand the objection that Apostolic Succession is too exclusivist. Like, Christianity is already exclusivist. Makes no sense.
I think one point is that it can, and we do this in protestant circles too, tighten the road to salvation more than God himself does. The narrow way has become narrower than Jesus prestented it to be.
@@aleksdlr5956 Well, the Catechism of the Catholic Church maintains that bishops in apostolic succession are essential to the Church, and yet acknowledges that non-Christians and even non-theists can be saved. So it’s less of a salvation issue than an issue of ecclesiology.
@@norala-gx9ld Like universalism or? What about the christians outside of the RCC?
@@aleksdlr5956 No, not universalism. Yes, those outside the RCC who are following their conscience *can* be saved (i.e, it’s possible but not guaranteed; not that salvation is guaranteed for anyone-minus canonized saints-inside the Church either).
"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."
Ch.8 Epistle of Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans - **110AD** !
God is guding his church, and that guidance included the Reformation.
More like God guided the Catholic RESPONSE to the Reformation (Council of Trent.) ✝️
@@traditionalgirl3943 Does that include the openly Pelagian method of salvation taught by Trent’s canons that stand in stark opposition to the Holy Scriptures?
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty
Pelagianism denies the need for grace. Trent teaches you need grace. Stop misrepresenting Catholicism.
@@jacobwoods6153
Canon 24 of Trent
If anyone says that the justice (righteousness) received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema.
Canon 32
If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ (of whom one is a living member), the justified does not truly merit an increase of grace, and eternal life, provided that one dies in the state of grace, the attainment of this eternal life, as well as an increase in glory, let him be anathema.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty, Trent sided, NOT with Pelagianism. Cute your mistaken belief please.
Will Gavin become the next James White when it comes to disproving Catholicism? The only difference I see between them is that one sounds like a madman and the other sounds like a calm storyteller.
He’s a nicer James White but with worse arguments against traditional Christianity.
Thank you Gavin it was truly interesting
Gavin presbyters may not be necessary in a post 16th century group, but they are necessary in Catholicism or any other Apostolic church. Presbyters or priests are necessary because the Eucharist is both a sacrament and a sacrifice. To have valid presbyters or priests Apostolic succession is absolutely required. The Anglicans maintained their valid Eucharistic sacrament and sacrifice for some 70 years post reformation.
Fantastic.
There was also plurality of leadership when Paul asked " I am of Paul, I am of Cephas, but Paul condemned it
Our faith cannot be based on apostolic succession, otherwise we could doubt the validity of our own baptism and the sacraments if it depended on an unbroken chain of humans
Baptism does not need to be administered by a successor to the Apostles.
@@Malygosblues I agree, but who gets to decide that?
Why does the Lord's Supper require it but not baptism? And if so, what is the need for Apostolic Succession if Baptism works without it?
The problem I have with Gavin is when he covers differences between Catholic/Orthodox and protestantism is he creates a patchwork protestastism that does not exist. Also the problem of denying the difference between presbyters and bishops is I think many times is caused by not understanding that all bishops are presbyters but not all presbyters are bishops.
Hard to take seriously when 1st Clement isn't even mentioned. The guy said Jesus foreknew there would be strife for the office of bishop. How could Christ fore know something that would later be considered an accretion by protestants. I am sure you can dodge this by saying that he was only taking about priest like I always here Gavin do but still. I also think about the difference between the 70 sent out and the Apostles. Jesus seems to indicate 2 level of hierarchy here. the 70 were not apostles and yet still had authority but not at the level of Apostles yet when we here the episcopate described by Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Clement we get a real impression that these bishops are viewed as successors of the apostles and not the 70 sent.
we discussed Clement in the interview. Not sure if it made it into this clip or not. I also responded to another comment here on Clement.
@@TruthUnites that's bold stating the Clement undercuts succession when Irenaeus himself uses that very letter as a defense of succession against gnostic heretics. who should I believe you and Eamon Duffy? or an early church father... I will probably have to go with Irenaeus on this one.
@@MrPeach1 respectfully, if you think it's a matter of "believing" Irenaeus, then I don't think you understand well the position you are criticizing. We both "believe" Irenaeus (and Clement). It is precisely that belief that undercuts apostolic succession. Even Irenaeus refers to the presbyters (rather than strictly bishops) as the successors of the apostles. E.g., Irenaeus writes, "it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church - those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles" (AH 4.26.2).
If you "believe" this sentence in Irenaeus, then you are rejecting the idea that bishops RATHER than presbyters are the successors of the apostles. On this point I am saying nothing novel, just what pretty much all Catholic scholars concede. If you don't like Eamon Duffy, go with Raymond Brown, Francis Sullivan, etc.
@@TruthUnites i could say right noe that Father Sal has Apostalic Sucession from the apostles and not under cut the bishop who has the fullness of the Priesthood. At the end of the day what we see is a closed exclusive system that not just anyone can lay claim to.
Answering the question in the title of your video : Yes, they should.
Watch the video
The issue for Romans is that they cannot prove their own claims to having apostolic succession. Rome simply declares that communion with the pope is proof of apostolic succession and if you reject papal claims then, Rome's own rather self-serving definition, you don't. In other words, Roman claims to apostolic succession are b.s.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8tyto watch Ortlund lie? Already did, go read Cirlot’s “Apostolic Succession: Is it True” and see how it stacks up. Or, better yet, read the three books Ortlund read on this topic. Not only does Stewart thrash the synonymy claim in the very book of his Ortlund cites, but he also those authors don’t think Paul wrote many of the letters attributed to him, giving them far later dates so a 250 AD dating is possible. Ortlund either lied about what the books said because he didn’t read them or because he’s deceitful. Up to you which is which.
This subject of Apostolic Succession has implications that go beyond the sensitivities of men and their sense of human justice. In my opinion. Since Christ is the guarantor, as well as is the Trinity, it reflects on the integrity of the promise. As offensive as Christ's "binding and loosing" declaration to Peter can be to human sensitivities, we cannot dismiss it. We can certainly lobby for a certain decision from Peter, we can appeal to the Holy Spirit who is really in control, but we cannot deny the words of Christ in the Bible, without denying that the Bible is inspired by God. We also cannot appropriate the promise or assign it to whom we please.
To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands. 2 I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3 You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary. Rev. 2 1-3
You only fight against something that's eating away at you.
It won't be long. Pray for him.
This
So jay dyer battling atheists, muslims, protestants, Catholics, these are all things eating away at him? Silly stuff. Sometimes fights happen because conviction. Im sure you are aware of this.
Well then, quite obviously, Gavin Ortlund's arguments are really eating away at all the Catholic piranha in his comment sections.
Yeah look at Jordan Peterson. Turns out he was a Jew all along.
The entire history of the first 1000 years of the church requires apostolic succession to make any of it make sense, but we should just believe secular sources and re-invent Christianity over and over again 🙄
The reason I don’t take Gavin seriously on this issue is, in his presentation on apostolic succession, he read three books. And not even spanning different views and arguments for or against, they were all against the thesis. His arguments, from what I can tell, have not changed. Not one of the books he tackled was Felix Cirlot’s book, the three he read do not represent a scholarly consensus (nor is there one on this topic), and he left out key parts of those he did read, like how all three authors dispute authorship of several Pauline epistles and date them so late it that it forms the basis for their theories of AS being a later accretion. Oh, and Stewart straight up says the synonymy claim between episcopos and presbyter is complete nonsense. I don’t know if Ortlund’s read more books, but you’d think he’d at least reference Cirlot since that is the book in defense of the topic (by an Anglican, nonetheless) or diversify his argument to show he has read more than just 3 books on this topic. Like a definition that Cirlot gives, addressing Perry Robinson’s points, anything but this fallacious appeal to scholarly consensus that doesn’t exist, call something he disagrees with an accretion, or mischaracterizing his sources.
Apostolic succession is actually in the Bible. Acts 1:15-26.
It is helpful, I think, that in contemplating the "fairness" of it all, we remind ourselves of the Parable of the Workers who Came at the Last Hour, and consider that man does not think as God thinks.
Since when Ignatius said bishop isn't from apostolic succession, Gavin?
Isn't it a presupposition to say that the early church was only intending the presbyters to the successors of the apostles?
Seems if the bishops are presumed to be the head of the presbyters, you wouldn't need to argue that the bishops were also the apostolically ordained successors.
Hooker's mediated view makes sense. But I could also see Davenant. I don't see baptist ecclesiology or congregationalism in the way it presently exists. I think Sean Luke's talked about presbyterial and episcopal succession being ancient.
It seems the argument is ambiguity in the historical form's top down or cross congregational management form silence is used to justify congregational polity and associational governance, but then a question is conciliar authority's presuppositions on relations to congregations, and why congregations would bow to that pressure.
The counter is knowing that anthropology and politics are common accross eras and that we don't always make clean decisions- the record's incomplete. But that's an appeal to assuming progression in polity despite historical claims made, assuming ambiguity and a lack of like-to-like correlation between forms of past affirmation of succession and polity and present forms outside congregationalism, and assuming the priority of the living apostolic era's polity for the remaining time in church history.
11:35 - great point on bishop to bishop ambiguity v presbyterial succession in Rome via corroberation, and Clement as testimony to two office, and the question of the legitimacy of successors.
Agreement on the succession of offices is good in the time of the apostles. But the argument from those holding to ancient practices after the death of the apostles claiming apostolic sanction are arguing about 1) the early onset of bishop and the types of arguments accepted as legitimate early relative to the authority of bishops.
Great point on 20:07 on God's providence in the Roman emperor as an institution that was necessary at one time for the Church, but is no longer. The normalcy of the past distinction and the idea of allowing development over time, is a huge argument.
@TruthUnites Do you think that if Clement or any church father were around today that they would consider you to be a part of their church? And would they consider you to be a legitimate "presbyter" or pastor?
@TruthUnites I have another question and I hope you can answer. Why don't you have a bishop? Or is that office also an accretion?
Do you think that if Clement or any church father were around today that they would consider a pope who says "all religions are ways to God" to be a part of their church?
@D12Min I do not think that. But I'm not roman Catholic, and my bishop does not preach heresy.
In the early church presbyters were bishops and bishops were presbyters. Priests are priests and bishops are priests and popes are priests. The word priest derives from the word presbyter.
I believe in the episcopate and its authority, but it is important that these insights are shared. lots of non-denom converts see the word "bishop" used by church fathers and completely miss the point of what historians and theologians are actually debating. Not taking Gavin's side, but the arrogance of untrained "theologians" in comment sections gets old. Just like Greek, a little bit of history can lead to a lot of of false assumptions (and baseless insults towards opposition).
When I was getting my theology degree, we used to always say there was nothing more dangerous than a first year Bible/Theology major. One year in, you think you know everything. You graduate and realize just how little you know. Hopefully for many commenters it's just a phase.
@@GospelSimplicity I was told the same thing during mine. Unfortunately, I was still that student in year one. I speak from experience, lol
I love that Gavin is sitting in front of accretions. 😅
Someone is trying to rediscover the wheel and the hot water, let me help you here
presbyter = priest
bishop = high priest
You don't become priest by appointing yourself for one, you become priest when you are ordained canonical bishop
one enormous issue with ortlund's claim that you don't have diocesan bishops in the first century is that he's applying an anachronistic view of what the church practically is at this point in time. you don't have a global church because the church is too small to have dioceses. This is like 10 people gathering in a crypt and the 11th person just got crucified. Irenaeus' concept of a bishop is as close as someone is going to get at this period in time because the church simply isn't large enough to warrant the structures that come later.
As always, I can really sympathize with where Dr. Ortlund is coming from, but all of this really boils down to "Catholic = Inclusive" and that's going to lead to some logical conclusions Dr. Ortlund doesn't like. There's also the problem of "necessary" vs "normative" continually reducing things down to the absolute lowest common denominator. Again, I would really like to see how some of these hermeneutics hold up in a discussion with Sam Tideman of Transfigured.
Why can't Unitarians be considered Christian? Why not Muslims?
Acts 8 is pretty clear that some sort of Apostolic succession existed. Richard Hooker has a pretty good treatment of this topic.
Right. If Dr. Ortlund is correct, then the only criteria for being a Christian is ultimately that I sincerely believe my beliefs are the true teaching of God. You can't even limit me to the Protestant Bible, either. If I sincerely believe that only the book of John is scripture, then I am still Christian, and there is nothing you can say to stop me. If Protestantism were true all along, then all those ancient sects of heretics were actually Christian the entire time.
@@EpistemicAnthony
Does it scare you that people once labelled as 'heretics' might turn out to have been Christians all the time?
According to Catholics they are not Christian as the Church declares that one must believe and hold to the Trinity to be Christian. For Protestants they individually have to think this through and they have different conclusions.
Unitarians are not Christians, neither are JW or Mormons from a Catholic perspective.
Protestants can’t really define that though. They don’t even agree what essential doctrines are necessary to believe for salvation
@@EpistemicAnthony
In a qualified sense it's Christian relativism.
To be fair, there are many who have in the long history of the Church, been put in seemingly impossible to escape crucibles (crises of faith)because of human failure and the enemy's hatred of Christ's Church. According to Jesus' words about those that will get into the kingdom before even some of the disciples, I think it is reasonable to say that some of the "Just" will be judged more harshly than some that may be considered "rebels".
"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the *episcopate.* For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, *they appointed those [ministers]* already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should *succeed them* in their ministry." 1 Clement 44
That's the passage I alluded to
@@GospelSimplicity gotcha. Do you think this passage refutes Ortlund-both here and in chapter 8 of his new book?
Ortland reminds me of Claude Frollo from the Hunchback of Notre Dame...
( He thought he was doing " God's Work, also)
I can just imagine Him shouting" How Dare You Defy ME!"
Imagine comparing one of the most gracious, humble, and charitable individuals in this interdenominational conversation to a literal cartoon villain. I’m sorry, but this kind of behavior is one of the many reasons I can’t take the hyper-traditionalists seriously. Having convictions isn’t wrong, and he doesn’t say Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christians aren’t part of the body.
This is remarkably incorrect. If anything, catholics and orthodox are the ones shouting “how dare you defy me.” What a projection, lol.
You should imagine less and pay attention more to what's being said... comparing him to a cartoon villain is silly man
I can't believe such a mean and disingenuous comment is getting likes. People are projecting the fear of being contradicted onto Gavin. Yes, having someone challenge your deeply held convictions is scary, but you can't just vilify the person doing it simply for doing it.
@@Draezeth i had a comment saying essentially the same thing but it either never posted due to youtube or was censored via this channel.
Gavin the Anglicans mantained Apostolic succession for about 70 years after separating from Catholicism.
Where does any church father confess that a bishop is not a successor of the Apostles GAVIN?
Gavin why do the orthodox, coptics, Assyrian church of the east still maintain their apostolic connection to the Catholic Church?
Acts 8:17-24
[17]Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
[18]When Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money,
[19]with the words, 'Give me the same power so that anyone I lay my hands on will receive the Holy Spirit.'
[20]Peter answered, 'May your silver be lost for ever, and you with it, for thinking that money could buy what God has given for nothing!
[21]You have no share, no part, in this: God can see how your heart is warped.
[22]Repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that this scheme of yours may be forgiven;
[23]it is plain to me that you are held in the bitterness of gall and the chains of sin.'
[24]Simon replied, 'Pray to the Lord for me yourselves so that none of the things you have spoken about may happen to me.'
It feels like apostolic succession today is very subjective. Many of the reformers were former Catholic priest so in a way many Protostant churches have apostolic succession. However the Catholic church doesnt view it as such because as many have said here Clement predicted that many would fight over the title of bishop. To assume that only protostants are power hungry would be naive at besg and ignorant at worst.
Protestants have too many worries as is. In particular, they have this idea that "correct theology" (an abstraction) saves you over works (which are concrete). Even salvation is an abstraction, because no one has been to the Hereafter and back. Prioritization of abstractions inherently breeds worries ("Do I have to be in the correct church to have correct theology?" "Does the correct church have to have correct Apostolic Succession?", etc)
Just think a minute about your typical Catholic assertion. Your saying doctrine doesn't matter, just doing something. Theology is just "abstract" so it doesn't matter.
Why then did every NT writer warn about false teachers, false Christs, false shepherds, and being deceived? Why did Jesus say that the truth will make you free if it doesn't matter?
And btw, Paul and John did go to heaven.
And works-based salvation doesn't breed worries? Do you have any idea how many people worry themselves over whether they're saved or not?
@Draezeth Catholics don't teach or believe works = saved
@@A-ARonYeagerThen how are we saved?
@@Draezeth the anxiety is relieved because ever since Vatican 2 the Church's teaching has tended towards Universalism
Be worried… be very worried! …in response to the subject title
It seems like he has a conclusion and will only use things to get to that point. He’s stretching it and therefore teaching false things about the church.
For me, these arguments against apostolic succession are weak. All the first churches founded by Christians from Rome to India uphold apostolic succession. Opposition to this is 'recent'... emerging only in the XVI century.
It's interesting that Roman Catholic apologists are fixating on Apostolic Succession. When you read the Reformers, for example the Book of Concord, the objection of Apostolic Succession isn't a thing. It's a late add to the argument and one the presupposes that Rome has unbroken Apostolic Succession when it usually cannot go back with adequate documentation for more than about 5 centuries or about the same time period as the early Reformers. What Apostolic Succession is at heart is an appeal to papal supremacy and adherence to the See of Rome. That's it. There is no unbroken line of succession back to the Apostles that Rome can claim as valid any more than Lutherans and Anglicans and when push comes to shove Roman Catholic apologists admit this. What they view and what they call Apostolic Succession is not the unbroken lineal descent of the priesthood from the Apostles, but is entirely based upon being in communion with Rome. According to Rome, if you are in communion with the papacy, you have Apostolic Succession, if you are not, you don't.
That is false considering the Catholic Church still believes that the orthodox have apostolic succession yet they are not in communion with the pope
@@Sonicmax8728 All of which proves that Rome selectively picks and chooses what is Apostolic Succession and what is not based off of whatever suits Rome at the time. Sometimes the Orthodox are in, sometimes they are out. Sometimes the Anglicans are in, sometimes they are out. The inconsistencies depend entirely on what particular axe a Roman apologist wants to grind on any given day. It is entirely a man-made diversion and the treatment of the Orthodox is testament to that reality.
Great input! :)
@@pete3397 I’ve never heard an inconsistent stance on who has apostolic succession? I don’t know if you’re being purposely dense or not but Rome has always claimed the Eastern Orthodox and oriental orthodox maintained apostolic succession. The only one I would grant differing answers on is the anglicans but I think even you would agree the Anglican communities can really differ on from the super liberal ones to the very traditional ones so I think the confusion is granted. Once again I don’t think this is a very good point against apostolic succession because the church has it clearly outline what constitutes apostolic succession or not
@@Sonicmax8728You prove my point. Rome's entire basis for Apostolic Succession in the West is adherence to Rome and the papacy and not on actual Apostolic Succession. If you are in communion with Rome you have it and if you are not you don't. And this is a late objection by Roman apologists to sow doubt among Protestants and arrogate to Rome a false legitimacy.
The comments section in this video is precisely why I don't like modern Christians. Too busy fighting amongst themselves over petty irrelevant squabbles.
And no, there's no such thing as "apostolic succession". If there were we would see ANY sort of mention of it in the text of scripture.
He took the Catholic faith and then threw out the Catholic and kept the faith after stripping away everything he didn't like and then called the original faith a false church. If the Catholic faith is false, then all Christian faiths that came out of it are false.
You cant take a false church and make a real one out of it.
@@Catholiclady3 He doesn’t deny the validity of the Catholic Church. Please take time to understand context. These subjects are very nuanced.
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty
No he does deny the validity of the Catholic Church according to what the Catholic Church defines itself as. He might say it's a true Church in that in its communion there are true believers in Christ, but that's not the full definition of the Catholic Church. As an outsider you don't get to determine what X's definitions are and then argue against it based on how you define it. It's not a matter of being "nuanced" it's a matter of him rejecting the Catholic Church's claim of who she is. That's it.
@@jacobwoods6153 And? There is a difference between claim and reality. And the Romans church falls flat in its claims. “As on outsider you don’t get to decide definitions”. Fact is not subjective. Change the definitions all you want. The true meaning will remain. A 2000 years old church is bound to have some nuances
@Thatoneguy-pu8ty
And.... neither he nor do you have the authority to tell us what our definitions mean. Nobody is looking to Ortlund nor thatoneguypu8ty for the correct definition and understanding of our doctrines so neither one of you are binding on anybodys conscience.
My prayer is that all my Protestant brothers and sisters will come to know the great blessings, graces, and joys of being Catholic. I was a Protestant for 10 years and returned to the Catholic Church last year. The grace of receiving the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist the real presence of Jesus is beyond explanation. I attend several Masses a week to receive. The grace of Holy Confession the Sacrament of Penance is truly healing. The Grace of having our marriage convalidation in the Church has brought so much blessing to our family. I pray daily for the conversion of the whole world 🌎 to the Church - the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. May Gods love and peace rule and reign in all your hearts today 🙏💕🙏⛪️⛪️⛪️
I think Dr Ortlund is also forgetting that perhaps he isnt seeing dociments as early as he would like that make sense to him is that:
1. The early chirch was heavily persecuted and wasn't able to live openly at lot of times.
2. The early church was secretive. They didnt write down their inner workings for all to see. They didnt write down the intricate details of Holy Sacraments. In fact, if you werent a baptized member of the church, you couldn't even stay and watch communion being given. "The Doors the Doors" "we will not speak of Your mysteries to Your enemies".
Didn't a bunch of Lutherans get ordained by a bunch of Anglican bishops? They must of thought there was something to it.
St Ignatius said where the bishop is there is the Catholic Church.
Theologically I have less issues with Catholicism. But practically almost everything seems wrong.
Come to India. The practises of Catholic church is synonymous to Hinduism. Its very pagan
Yes
Denial of the Great Apostasy of the Church. There has been no valid succession down to our times. Immediately after the death of Jesus, vacancies in the Twelve Apostles were filled by casting lots (Acts 1:26). Real Apostles were replaced by new Apostles. Why did that cease?
The casting of lots was restricted to the existing eleven Apostles remaining after Judas cast himself into hell. I.e. it was the first Apostolic succession.
@@leojmullins That process of replacing apostles was later dropped. Why? Congregational bishops certainly had no authority to do so -- including the bishop of Rome. That power existed only in the hands of the actual apostles, not in the hands of any self-appointed presbyters or seventies, nor in the hands of self-appointed councils. The primitive Christian Church already had proper procedures, which were abandoned through apostasy.
@@BobSmith-lb9nc The procedures outlined in the new testament were about appointing elders, deacons, and teachers. There is nothing in there about appointing replacement apostles as the old apostles died. They were chosen directly be Jesus himself, and the only replacement made was for Judas, who specifically was replaced with another who walked with Jesus.
Nothing indicates there's any further apostolic succession beyond that point.
I disagree with "apostasy" though. I think God is working within Christianity regardless, even Catholicism. However, people become more and more corrupt and deviate over time. This is human nature. This is why the nation of Israel continuously followed God then fell away, followed God again and fell away again.
We need to keep going back to the text that was written to make sure we know what God's intention was rather than assuming the gradual deviation of "traditions" passed down is correct. Be like the Bereans who studied the scriptures to know what is being said is true.
Catholics keep pushing this idea that if we read and study the Bible ourself we are deciding our own theology. That's ludicrous. The Bible straight up says that we should read what it says to back up any claims that are presented to us.
@@jrconway3 As I said, "There has been no valid succession down to our times." The method used by the Apostles to replace Judas is very clear (Acts 1:12-26): Prayer for the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and then the selection is made. That is what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does. That method always applies, even though you clearly reject it -- which leads to rampant denominationalism and opinion-mongering.
Lord Jesus Son of God help me never click on this channel again
Why?
People in comments getting butthurt but not providing valid arguments, but only 5th grade childish insults.
There are plenty of arguments. Though still plenty of childish insults.😅
Yo nice Saint Cuthbert icon.
As one whose read the texts Gavin is referring too which church fathers he is way off, the word Bishop is used plenty to signify the succession of the apostles. Until you go through the text and stop with this word salad, you won’t go any where. Just like you exegete the Bible you for to exegete the texts of the church fathers
Gavin you are so far gone if you think Ignatius doesn’t believe in Apostolic succession. I am reading his letters and he has a clear teaching of a 3 fold office and primacy of Rome. Who appointed the bishops that appointed the bishops of Ignatius day, Gavin?? The apostles did! They didn’t just spawn in.
Maybe you are playing the game of “he doesn’t explicitly teach this specific definition of apostolic succession”. Well guess what, you can’t expect a clear definition and apologetic of a doctrine that isn’t controversial at the time. It doesn’t take a genius to see that, implicitly, within his letters Ignatius believes in apostolic succession.
It might have been useful at the beginning to define "apostle". In the Bible doesn't the word "apostle" always have the word "of" with it? Apostle just means one who is sent by. Correct me if I am wrong. So if someone is an apostle, they are an apostle of someone. Paul, Apostle of Jesus. Paul, one who is sent by Jesus.
So the idea of apostolic succession is immediately suspicious. The first Apostles were Apostles of Jesus. When they were departed, there were no more Apostles of Jesus.
I would be very careful around churches and people who claim "Apostolic succession". It seems like a power grab. It doesn't mean anything. Papists likely made it up around Peter. To claim false authority and enthrone popes.
It is not even a topic I care to get in to debate. What did Paul say about not getting involved in divisive, heretical things.. Do not be taken captive by empty deceit and philosophy. There are requirements about who can be pastors, public preachers... That is to make sure that the true Gospel is spread and the real Jesus is confessed. Yet we sill end up with those yapping false street preachers on the street corner, shouting a slurry of law and Gospel in to the wind.
@@br.m Great point. I also commented something similar but not as well articulated
Cool. I declare myself the Pope.
@@druminlaawd7173 most convincing argument for the Petrine office
@druminlaawd7173
Everyone is their own pope. It is every roman cathloics interpretation that they can't interpret the Bible and need the pope.
I don't think that Paul was into plurality too much on truth.
How will you justify your self interpretation if you're not even qualified?
Gavin so was apostolic succession a so called accretion?
"It doesen't add up"
I'm doing some simple math. 1518 A.D. is quite some time after 33 A.D.
Is this part of the addition equation Ortlund is referring to?
Again
Ortland sounds like someone from The Hunchback of Notre Dame or at least That time period!
He has No formal authority to judge the Church...much like Claude Frollo ( not the Disney villain, the man in the Novel)
In the novel by Victor Hugo, Frollo was ruthless, merciless and corrupt...
His title gave him a swelled head!
He craved power...
Ortland will only debate if he can be right and lord it over everyone....
This is Not a charitable nor kind man!
The voice of the Holy Spirit is what needs to be preserved… The Bible is the guideline … We now see through a glass, dimly, correct… Why would we think we have all the answers… He is the answer
Because the church is the pillar and ground of the truth
@@1984SheepDogJesus said "I am the truth", not the church. it's role is to uphold the truth, not create a novel truth of it's own.
Is the Holy Spirit leading all of the Protestant churches to interpret the Bible differently ?
@@haydentrent101 The problem is that certainly not all pastors/leaders are hearing the Holy Spirit, just as the churches in Revelation 2.
@@jeromepopiel388 which churches are the ones in revelations 2 ?
Oddly enough
Luther was Not a reformer, He wanted change from Within Not Without!
Luther very much believed in the Catholic Church, That's Why he worked for change!
Yes.
What a great witness for Catholicism! Did these guys actually allow you to use this footage?!
Oh - nvm - your channel - this is pretty wild tho - like if this is what six centuries of rebellion has to say - bend the flippin knee! Obviously.
It's really not that hard to get. As Nagel said, "there is no point of view from nowhere," which means words do not have meaning outside of humans with paradigms.
Meaning the Bible without men is just symbols and references, not referents or the things signified, and the only way to know what meaning and paradigms the symbols were tied to is through tradition.
Otherwise you say "no the Holy Spirit showed me the referents and true meaning." Ok prove it. You can't prove it, it's the protestant subjective dillema.
And then the only way you can try to prove it is by not appealing to the Bible and claiming it can be proven with pure reason which destroys the point of sola scriptura.
Thanks for showing why Jesus said this...
Matthew 7:13-15
[13]Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
[14]Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
[15]Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
@@jeromepopiel388 Thanks for being exhibit A. Depending on the context and paradigm either you or me is a false prophet.
@@bradspitt3896 it's really not me (or you) but the Bible or Tradition. Nice if they were the same, but clearly not.
It comes down to... do I want to trust men or the Bible?
Acts 20:29-32
[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.
[32]And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
Paul takes this prophetic statement with great seriousness. He commends to us the word of God, not church authorities, and how could he since he just stated that some are false.
@@jeromepopiel388 You don't know what I'm saying.
@@bradspitt3896 However I do understand the agenda of Catholics which is to give their Tradition presedence over the Bible. (for a variety of reasons).
To judge the Reform, look at its fruits.
The Church of England wants to remove the word "Church" from their name (too triggering).
As for the US, already hundreds of denominations (and counting)
They should have instead imposed changes, from *inside* the Church, by getting one of their own, elected as Pope.
Not the direct results of the Reformation. It’s the result of the West leaving Christ. We’re even seeing that in the Catholic Church. Fr Martin and Pope Francis himself are advocating for immoral practices openly.
There are Catholic Churches in Germany flying the pride flag...
@@HkP39 Where ? Fact ? Link ?
They essentially have Bible study. They are not a church with the capital C. Meaning these places of Bible study are done on their own personal interpretation solely and if you don’t like it this one or that you go find another.
@@HkP39yes there have always been heretics in the Church and we can call them out and they are disciplined as necessary. Unlike Protestant churches. They can do gay marriage and at best you just go find another Bible study group to join.