I love how humble Dr. Ortlund is. It amazes me how strongly someone can disagree on such important matters and still be so kind and loving. I definitely can see Christ working in and through him. I so appreciate his call to us listeners to read for themselves, in the bible and the church fathers! To me(and that’s obviously subjective) it feels like he is really trying to see Catholicism at its best, while Protestantism is not seen at it’s best...overall I am so thankful for you guys and would love to learn more through your ongoing conversation with Dr. Ortlund. Glory to god
Four of these guys r all humble not only dr. Ortland Christ is working through catholic church and r able to keep her family united after protestant reformation but protestant churches after the reformation divided into thousands of pieces which tells the absence of christ....
@@luvall293 That's rich considering the clearly satanic things the catholic church has done. Unity by threat of death or torture in demonic ways, surely that's what Christ wanted!
@@luvall293 By the way all major protestant churches are united in the one thing that matters: Jesus Christ is Lord and savior of all and the only inerrant and Holy human being to have walked the earth. Catholicism says "yes but follow our half christian half pagan Cult of THE CHURCH".
@@ncw543 who knows! May be catholics r right because protestant churches r always busy judging their own pastors and churches they don't have what christ taught....even a most disciplined pastors have something to say about their fellow pastors
I grow up in a small town of Mexico were all my generation were and are Catholic. It was when I moved to USA that I found out all different Christian denominations. I thank God that I didn't get confused and stay with my faith strong. I wouldn't play with that.
Same here , i grow up In philippines i thought all in the world are Catholic 🤣🤣🤣. Never knew this so called protestants exist but thanks to them because when they attack mama mary there it trigger me to study Catholic more deep.
I was born in Brazil, in a very confusing evangelical church, and I admitt that protestantism gave us a divisive kind of faith sometimes, but I thank God I became a Reformed Protestant after studying the Bible. It never crossed my mind to become a catholic, so I recommend you to study deeper and deeper your bible, to pray and to experience an God's intimacy. Nowadays there is no more any kind of excuse not to know good theology, thanks to the internet.
Dr. Ortlund has raised the esteem of Protestantism as a whole in my Catholic eyes by his strong endorsement of Christian history as a whole. This channel (and some of the related ones) have convinced me to subscribe for future content, cross-tradition, Protestant, or otherwise!
Because his position always falls short, proving Catholicism true. Please read Mat 16:18-19 and understand the symbolism of keys within the context of scripture (Isaiah 22:22-23) also understand that Christ spoke Aramaic NOT Greek, Peter's name was "Cepha" meaning "Rock". There can't be "wordplay" between "Petra" and "Petros" (Big Rock, little Rock). Also, note that name changes had a meaning behind it, for example, Abram changing to Abraham. So why would Christ name Peter "Rock", give him the keys, and make him the head of the church ("feed my lambs") for no reason? @@TommyGunzzz
@@TruLuanLogical fallacy, the RC position is not a default, no position is the default, it must also still be proven. Also, Peter is the architype of bishops, he could even be first among equals if you prefer along with Paul. Yes the Antiochian Orthodox church was founded by Peter if you believe he had the mystical keys. The Holy Spirit was breathed on all of the disciples, not just Peter, so that logic fails there, Plus James oversees the first council. Yeah Peter and Paul are authoritative, but to read Vatican 1 into the text is laughable when the Vatican itself admits universal jurisdiction was not the case and synodality of bishops was always the case for the first 1000 years. I dont really understand how Catholics even argue anymore when their pope and vatican admit Vatican 1 is no longer the case in two recent encyclicals and that the Orthodox position is the case for the first 1000 years. Also if you werent clear on the understanding, you should look at hte council of Nicea for clarity (and most councils afterwards that the Vatican almost universally does not hold to). The papal authority is based on admitted forgeries. Repeat, they admit the forgeries. So there really isnt an argument here anymore now that your authority itself admits the Orthodox position.
@@TruLuanyes, but if you dont find Vatican / papally approved encyclicals valid, then how are you even Catholic? They admit synodality and very explicitly say the Orthodox position is true.
I'm 7 months late and I don't care bc this is SUCH a good discussion and as a Protestant considering Catholicism I'm so thankful for dialogs like this.
What did you end up doing? I can’t outsource my spiteful wellbeing to others. Also an infallible church can’t repent. Can’t quite cross to the other side. I don’t believe everything the Catholic Church teaches hence I can’t even qualify to become one. I have tied!
I’ve been completely disillusioned by my ten years in the Roman church. It’s full of idolatry and man made traditions that have usurped the word of God. My faith is in Christ and I follow him, not Francis.
I am incredibly blessed to be alive at a time when there is so much great Christian content that I will never have enough time to listen to. Also, cool sweater.
I was away from the Catholic Church for 25 years until I got to the place where I got low enough to really seek the Lord. I started listening to Pastor Fred Price who just passed away---rest in peace Pastor. He said, "it's not enough to follow me on television, but you have to be part of a local church". I started looking with no intention of returning to the Catholic Church; however, He led me to a Catholic Charismatic prayer group and the praise and worship practice therein. A year later I returned to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass during Holy Week. The Lord along the way revealed various things like the importance of the Brown Scapular devotion, the Rosary and the importance of the truths of the Catholic Faith and the teachings of the Holy, Apostolic Church. One thing I have learned, is that if there is anything about the Catholic Church that I'm struggling with, I ask Jesus and He has shown me clearly the truth. Otherwise, you will just spend a lot of time arguing over words. God bless!
Sherry, the brown scapular devotion is entirely made up. Apparently Mary promises final perseverance to those who wear it and keep the devotion, unless they fail in some point. This is exactly the same outcome as NOT wearing the brown scapular.
@The Amazing Grace The brown scapular does not save you from hell because of it's special power, the brown scapular requires of you chastity, prayer and devotion. These things lead you to Heaven, but not some special power from it. Secondly the promise is remission from Purgatory, so if you aren't saved to begin with, it does nothing.
Welcome back Christ Sacraments are in the Catholic church in John 6:51-58- Baptism Confession John 20:21-22-23) We need Christ Sacraments & His Holy Mother in Luke & the Saints do Pray for Us 🙏 Jesus Christ Saves us through the Sacraments & in Matthew 16:18-19🗝️🗝️📖 God bless 💯 Catholic And We have The Bible & Church Father's 😇🛐
@The Amazing Grace We are also Saved by Christ Sacraments as stated in the book of John 6:51-58- The Eurcharist Confession John 20:21-22-23) Grace & In Luke The Angel Gabriel said hail Full of Grace When the Holy Sprit came in Christ Mother Mary We honor Mary & the Saints! Christ saves He said we need his Sacraments God bless 🗝️🗝️📖😇🛐💯 Catholic
@The Prodigal Daughter Bashcutter gave you a proper respectful answer. Hope you learned form it and realise that, now that you know, your lies won't be justified by ignorance.
Hello everyone, Protestant here. Was really glad to see this dialogue, between a Catholic and Protestant having a civil argument. Which I have seen angry Catholics and Protestants just lash out in anger which will help no one in the end.
Outstanding discussion moderated by Gospel Simplicity and Cordial Catholic! Joe and Gavin’s discussion was spectacular! Time really flew! Kudos to y’all!
Loved this conversation!! I would love to see a conversation regarding the Eucharist specifically. Thanks so much to you all for taking the time to do this!
Awesome discussion. I am a cradle Catholic gramma! I think some of this has to be accepted on faith. So much scrutiny can cause disbelief anyway. Don’t we just have to do our best to understand it and make our choice and have trust in God’s directive for our faith? So great that you are having a respectful discussion and disagree politely! Love this! Thank you.👍✝️
Conversation aside, I appreciate your incorporation of iconography into your devotional life. Seeing as you hail from a protestant background, I think it demonstrates growth and discernment and lends a great deal of credibility to the sincerity of yourself and your channel.
First, I want to say the level of depth and knowledge on these two participants is staggering. Both, at various points, had me saying, "Wow, that's a great point."
Mr. Gavin is correct that an argument from silence can be a good one IF you can show that the person absolutely would have mentioned something given the context. But such argument can be significantly weakened if one can come up with a good reason why an author might not have mentioned something. On the historical data: In support of his argument from historical silence, Mr. Gavin cited the Shephed of Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Shepherd of Hermas: In Book 1, Vision 2, Chapter 4 he only mentions presbyters when he is asked if he'd given the book to the Church's leadership. However, in book 1, vision 3, chapter 5 he mentions the following offices; Apostles, bishops, teachers, and deacons. I don't think either of these citations represents a clean two-office standard which Gavin says it does. My understanding of that (as a Catholic) is that in the first citation he uses "Presbyters" the way we'd use the word "clergy" - an all-encompasing word. And in Vision 3 we arguably see the same structure as we do in Ignatius, only with the word "teacher" being used to describe priests. In Ignatius, Ignatius makes it clear that a legitimate church is one which follows the leadership of its Bishop. It is true that Ignatius does not mention the Bishop of Rome in his letter, but he does praise the Roman church as being exemplary. It seems unlikely to me that Ignatius would regard the Roman church as exemplary of it didn't meet his most basic criterion for discipleship. This letter doesn't mention the Bishop, but it is also very different from his letter in other respects. Whereas all the others were meant to be teaching documents, in this one he says he has no teaching for them. In Polycarp, we do see him making criteria for deacons and then for presbyters. One could interpret that as Polycarp asserting that there are only two offices in the Church. Or maybe not. I don't think it has ever been the case that someone becomes bishop right out of the gate. All bishops were at one time priests. So when giving the criteria for entry into these offices, perhaps Polycarp is only mentioning the entry-level offices. In regard to the Biblical data: Mr. Gavin's approach to the question is a sound one. He wants evidence that Peter had a special office, and he wants evidence that it was successive. He sees evidence that Peter had a special leadership role, but doesn't see evidence that it is successive. I agree that there isn't explicit attestation that it is. However, I'm not sure that we should expect to find it because most of the New Testament was written while Peter was still alive. Instead, I think one can look at how the Apostolic authority was continued in something like the apostles - the bishops. From there a person can ask, "If Jesus saw fit to establish Peter in a special office, is there a reason why that office would no longer be necessary after Peter? The apostolic offices continue (with modification) in the bishops. Isn't it logical that Peter's role would continue (with modification) as well?" It is a plausibility argument, and perhaps not the strongest, but I think it is more plausible than saying Jesus established a special role for Peter and intended it to only last 30 years. In regard to Mr. Joe's arguments: I think his strongest argument is from the second century lists. That is: If the regional mono-episcopacy is a development of the mid-to-late second century, why are people claiming in the late second century that this goes back to the Apostles and they can produce the lists of names. If the mono-episcopacy is something which had only developed in the previous 40 years... then what the devil are they all talking about? Where did they all get this idea? Mr. Gavin's only reply to this, it seems, is to repeat the claim that we cannot rely on second century evidence because it lays on the other side of some development (46:25) and when the first century is so silent. But that isn't a proper answer. The question is why all those churches would then turn around and say that's the way it has been all along. That question got no answer. @1:42:58 - Mr. Gavin says it is unfair to compare the "Protestant Church" to the Catholic Church, but rather that we should compare the Catholic Church to a single Protestant denomination. Absolutely not. What is under discussion is the fact that we need a visible, infallible authoritative teaching office (a magisterium) to maintain Christian unity and orthodoxy simultaneously. Therefore is it completely appropriate to compare the Christian worldview which says it has one (Catholicism) to the one which says it doesn't need one (Protestantism). Mr. Gavin has not hesitated on other occasions to compare Protestantism to Catholicism when saying Protestantism confers advantages. Balking in this instance seems a bit situational. In the end, he leaves Mr. Joe's thesis rather untouched. Does the dual command of unity and orthodoxy demand something like an infallible magisterium, or not? If not, then what is the alternative which gets the job done? Sure, the Magisterium only works if people adhere to it... but that is self evident and true of literally every authority, even God's authority. The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church is united in a way which the Protestant world is not, and there's a real difference at the heart of it. Perhaps one shouldn't say, "The Catholic Church is united and Protestantism is divided." Perhaps a better way of saying it is that the Catholic world has (or at least claims to have) the thing which is needed if the Church is to feasibly be both united and orthodox. And this has enabled the Church to hold the center far better than the Protestant world has been able to while operating sans magisterium. Either way, I would have liked to see Mr. Gavin grapple with Mr. Joe's thesis directly. Do those dual commands necessitate God also leaving us an infallible magisterium, or not? And if not, what is the alternative which accomplishes the goal? A person can say, "Jesus and the Gospel will unite us", but if one would pardon me for having the practicallity of an engineer, until Jesus comes again in glory to claim the obedience of the nations, that's more of a sentiment than a practical answer.
The truth is protestantism is kept on protesting. It is funny when Mr Gavin talks about plurality he mentioned bishops as church leader in particular area which we can easily trace back their history. Isn’t he noticed upon talking about the councils that is the Catholic councils and still is today handed down?! It seems to me Gavin is missing a whole lot of catholicism. Why not ask Gavin if his faith is based in Spirit or more of evidence like what scientist do? Doesn’t the bible say we walk in faith not by our eyes? So Gavin instead of concentrating those flaws in the past why not concentrate on how those bishops you mentioned WAY OF WORSHIPING JESUS? Perhaps you’ll some clues right after then!
Sorry for the late reply. But I think Ambrose Bishop of Milan is a counter example for a clergy man that skipped priesthood and became bishop right out of the gate. He was also baptized only one week before he became a bishop. But take it with a grain of salt, because I have only read the Wikipedia article (not the primary sources).
Man, I would like to see Trent Horn/Jimmy Akin with dr. Ortlund p.s. I must say, Joe did a great job. Defending catholic position is harder than vice versa, wether you discuss orthodox or protestants. Nice job Joe!
@@GospelSimplicity check it please. If that happens.. it would be one of the most brilliant discussions. You and cordial are going to smile even more :D Thanks for your great work, God bless!
@@GospelSimplicity I would rather have it be a discussion like this than a debate. It seems there are more constraints to the argues when they are in a structured debate.
This is very strange to me. I've never heard a Protestant so articulate and knowledgable, even on Catholicism. I was really impressed by him. Most of the Evangelicals I've heard, are just about reading the Bible. Not at all interested in history.
@@GospelSimplicity If you haven't already. Read st Justin Popovich's essay, "Papism as the Oldest Protestantism". It's essential reading for anyone trying to understand the controversy behind the Roman Catholic Church's problematic understanding of the Pope's authority.
This is very disturbing what Gavin is saying... he is giving an option to live with cognitive dissonance.. he knows church authority is right but he does not want to give what he has .. so he is making a way to live with both.. this is very dangerous stuff..
@@davidbermudez7704 Amen because He love us and that is the definition of love that is to tell the Truth and it'll hurt people which why the prophesy of Simon upon the presentation of the Child Jesus in the temple was absolutely correct and it happens to this day!
Thanks for making this discussion happen. So enriching. Joe would have to be one of the best defenders of the papacy I’ve heard. Such a quick and sharp mind, with clear analogies to bring home his points.
Wonderful example of two things: 1) how Christ followers should discuss differences - cordially and in humility, and 2) of the key point of disagreement: the Catholic brother takes Tradition and reads it back into the New Testament; conversely, the Protestant brother starts with the New Testament and brings it to the Traditional of the church. THIS is the key point of separation between these two Christian family branches.
@@GospelSimplicity Very sound observation except that, you see, well, it comes down to a distinction. Now distinction started all the way back 5000 years ago with Saint Thomas Aquinas, and because of the manifestly plain observation that we find in the distinctions of magisterial propositions, it turns out that in actual fact - your reasoning is unsound. Because there is a distinction between materially not knowing what's going down, and formally not knowing what's going down. So you see, Papacy true. I shall allow you to dwell with the revelation that has been given unto you, as I sit in my cathedra and spit facts. /s xD
@@TheCordialCatholic To be honest and serious, maybe I was reflecting my own biases onto the conversation and seeing myself in your eyes, literally you like dead stare at the camera, but I read your expression as "I am watching a beating going on right here by Joe xD and this is so great for Catholicism". To put it crudely of course, great conversation on both sides.
@@TheCordialCatholic to me, the look on your face said listening to inaccuracies on Catholicism being stated, and formulating the reply based on facts. Which you did a great job of.
It was only “intense” because the guy in the top left just kept talking and interrupting. It felt like the shotgun approach where you throw a million things at the other person making it impossible for them to respond. As a Protestant I have to say the Catholic claims seem convoluted and overly complicated.
I am shocked no one is mentioning this. Heschmeyer is exhausting to listen to! This is someone I avoid in conversation. It's not that he has a ton of knowledge, it's just draining when someone throws up a wall of information without break.
This was a wonderful (and cordial) debate about the Papacy, the apostolic succession, and Christian unity as a whole. Thank you all so much for providing a great example of loving one another even in our differences. As an Orthodox catachumen, I find the question of the papacy of extreme importance, because (as was said) it is sort of the defining question of Catholicism as opposed to non-Catholicism. I appreciate the thorough discussion and presentation of both sides. Very well done. To God be the glory.
If the Pope were infallible, the Western Church would still be using the Septuagint for their Old Testament, but Jerome and his pope messed that up big time ! I'm an Anglo Catholic that sides with the Orthodox on issues of descent from Rome.
Excellent video, Austin! I've been looking forward to this for a long time. Both Joe and Gavin are knowledgeable and respectful. I would love to see another one of these where the two discuss the Marian Dogmas :)
Very nice to see so much information about the early church. Glad to see people who are of different religions openly discussing their views so others might be saved in a calm manner. Great podcast!
Thank you Austin and Keith? /Cordial Catholic. I agree with Joe that the faith of a convert adds much energy and wisdom to the Church. If I followed the bouncing ball tonight Gavin's premise was that if the Papacy and infallibility are not in the New Testament they are contrived. I submit that Christ did not work w flip charts and explain His message explicitly at all times. Several times He expressed his frustration at the Apostles' failure to understand. While references were made to extra biblical sources I didn't hear Tradition discussed. It has always confused me that Sola Scriptura is the only foundation, yet it wasn't put together as a canon until the 380s and 390s. Prudence and discretion were required in that editing. Thus is not Tradition an integral part of the deposit of faith? I would ask each man to state at the beginning what are the premises from which he proceeds. Thank you again for all your hard work. Where do you find time for your studies?
Joe Hersceyer avoids answering to Ortlund, he evades pointing out to other issues. As an Orthodox, Ortlund gives good points. More important is the Chieti Document where RCC admits no Vatican I papacy during the first millennium and it’s a official document from the Vatican
Austin, perhaps after each discussion you should have Dr. Ortlund and Mr. Heschmeyer give suggested reading in the comments, to point us in the right direction for us to dig deeper, and if they suggest primary documents, which specific passage should be of special interest. In fact, I would very much appreciate it if they both do so for this debate! God bless!
I'm on to you Mr.Gospel Simplicity dude! You figured out that a channel is the best way to get some free high-level theology lessons, ha! Jokes aside, this was a very good listen indeed. I'll leave you with this one, that I heard a long time ago - "To think that truth needs no believers to be true seems scary; to know that believers often need no truth to believe is terryfing"
@@Solideogloria00 if you read for yourself the sources dr Ortlund draws from you would see his interpretation is laden with forced distinctions. Ie text saying prebyters are chosen if they are blameless because the bishop is blameless. This is not confusion on the part of the writer of what to call an office. It merely acknowledges that the bishops are normally chosen from among the priests(presbyters).
I loved this discussion, thank you Austin for hosting it. I do have to admit my secret shame, though. When Dr. Ortland’s camera went black my COVID total lockdown brain immediately filled in that space with a kitten filter, and Dr. Ortland saying “I’m prepared to go forward. I’m live and I’m not a cat.” I’m sorry. I apologize for inserting my stupidity into a wonderful discussion.
Gospel simplicity. Sounds like EXACTLY WHY the Protestant Reformation began-- to get back to the simple power of the Gospel! The Roman Catholic church has, however, through slow accretion, built rule upon rule, until the Gospel in their hands is neither simple nor powerful. "For it is: Do this, do that, a rule for this, a rule for that; a little here, a little there.” -- Isaiah 28:10
@Greco Cabanero Sure, if you want to be superficial about it. Union good. Confederacy bad. But maybe not so much if one takes a nuanced approach… South legitimately secedes and is clobbered by a wealthier, more populous North. 600,000 dead at the hands of a bully forcing unity. Kind of like the Catholics in the wars of religion. Genocidal thugs, more or less. Germany left decimated after the Thirty Years’ War. Like the destitute American South after the “War of Yankee Aggression.” Yay, unity!
@@countryboyred To be fair to Joe, we do need a consensus to rally around in order to be united. But why exactly does it need to be Rome? Or to take place within the parameters of Rome? That seems to beg the question. (Perhaps we should all become Orthodox Presbyterians or Evangelical Free or something.) Let’s take another lesson from American History: the established British Empire under George III against the upstart, schismatic colonists. Are we supposed to root for England because they’re bigger and older? Wasn’t it a godsend for the reform-minded Americans to take charge? What would the world even look like without the emergence of the U.S.? (Sunk beneath the waves of unrestrained tyranny? It’s possible.) Catholicism is far better off BECAUSE of the Reformation. Maybe it’s time they took the time to look at the rules under which we schismatics play kickball. They might actually learn something! Catholics, for some reason, cannot see it, but they are the biggest impediment to Christian unity. Others speak of a negotiated peace. Only they speak of unconditional surrender. By God’s mercy, maybe one day they will see that “my way or the highway” is not a very effective slogan for achieving any kind of widespread or long-lasting unity!
@@ericcarlson9885 You tell ‘em Eric! Right on man. I have actually considered becoming Catholic before but I just can’t bring myself to do it. They have too many doctrines that are accretions and frankly unbiblical. Papal infallibility, treasury of merit, the Marian dogmas, purgatory, the list goes on and on. I have Catholic friends and family. And I love them deeply. But something is wrong over there in Rome. I have heard stories of people saying they literally sense an evil presence within the Vatican. Lord I pray for their souls 🙏🏼 that they might know Christ personally and grow in Him every day. I pray for Christian unity. But not a false unity. A unity in TRUTH.
@@HannahClaphammy understanding was that the constitution sets up a government, not a league. Can’t remember which us president said this. What was the South’s legitimate reasoning behind secession?
Lol. You’re lucky. Try having McElhaney as a last name. As far as the conversation, please continue to keep dialogue open with us Catholics. It’s important that those who want to consider Catholicism to know why we are Catholic. There are already enough under catechized Catholic weaklings in the Church now. As a convert (2016) from the Southern Baptist Denomination we need much Iron sharpening. And that’s where you, Dr. Galvinze (jk) can help us. Thanks for your time In Christ
Great video! Loved seeing the cordial debate and discussion. We need more of this! Would love to see you have Dr. Brant Pitre on at some point or Dr. John Bergsma.
Amazing and unsettling how two highly intelligent men can come to such different conclusions. If one is right and one is wrong, there would seem to be something almost mysterious/spiritual about having the truth of the matter. Almost as though God is keeping one in truth and letting the other remain blind. What else can one think when surely God did not design every person to know the argumentative intricacies of all things about Him.
@@dreamweaver3406 I think without God driving our lives and His Spirit driving our minds it's ourselves in the driver's seat. Call it pride or not, but it sure seems a recipe for taking some really smart-sounding, but disastrous intellectual positions.
@@danglingondivineladders3994 the conversation was cordial, Gavin made quite a few jokes, he was great and everybody smiled or laughed at. Joe's *very* respectful and charitable. Please clean your glasses
Great video guys. Im a protestant but appreciate the conversation. One thought. I agree with Gavin except for on one item. It is actually a THREE wheeled vehicle. 1) Peter as supreme authority 2) clear instruction that his authority is passed on and 3) an understanding that this office was incorruptable. He alludes to it but scrupturaly we see the Levites get a very similar position as a priesthood directly from God in the scripture. Their election is MUCH more strongly support than the office of the Papacy. Yet in Jeremiah he laments that there is not one single priest left who is uncorrupted and still follows God. Its counter biblical to believe that mankind would hold any office without corruption. And when protestants and orthodox Christians point to clear corruption in Rome, it removes the third wheel. The office can still exist but it would need to be reformed minus heresies.
@@IG88AAA because if the office is corruptible then there is nothing saying that we must obey all of its dictates for all time. If what the current pope says is corrupted, then I shouldn’t listen to it. Even if he is the pope and his office is legitimate.
Thanks, Austin for bringing these dialogs forward - it seems to me there is a great hunger to know the answer to the question Pilot posed to Jesus; "What is Truth?"
So a person who doesn't know about the existence of the Pope and the Catholic church, and is reading the Bible for the 1st time, would that person walk away thinking that they need a human representative of Jesus on earth in charge of a hierarchical church that he now needs to visit in order to receive the grace of God and confess his sins to a priest that will intercede before God for forgiveness? Does anyone, without being told by another person, feel the need to look for the Catholic Church and the Pope on earth after reading the Bible?
Is he a Jew living in the first century. Or a gentile in that same time period? Or is he an English speaking American from this generation. Is it a rabbi from the first century? We all color the scriptures with our own markers. It’s hard to say because it depends on the person.
If I read the Bible for the first time, my question would be “I wonder if this church is still around somewhere. I believe this Jesus guy and want to be part of it”. From there, I’d probably decide to be Catholic since they reconcile scripture to their theology better. Like when Jesus tells the apostles whoever sins they forgive are forgiven, or when Jesus instructs us how to take a gift to the altar in Matthew 5:23 (where is the Protestant altar???), or when Mary says that all generations will call her blessed. There’s more examples than these.
Listening on Patreon and this has been awesome! Have you ever considered interviewing Fr. Spyridon? He is a pretty cool priest. Possible topics could be the Jesus Prayer, relics, and icons, or maybe all three!
Greetings to all, I have pretty much given up on these discussions. There really is no new light to be shed. In the end it comes down to authority. Where does it reside,who has it and how is it exercised. Dr. Brant Pitre was crucial in my return to the Church as was Steve Ray. Sometimes it’s messy and sometimes I need to hold my nose when our leaders go off the rails with their personal opinions but Magisterially speaking I have been persuaded.
🙂🙂🙂 Jesus died actually for His Church. JUST saying. In the house church that paul started how beleivers worshipped was not stated explicity and mattered little. It matyered that they built their lives around jesus
Great argument by Joe re: Luke 22:31. We have heard before about Jesus praying for Peter, but not the fact of the preceding context. I think that's a really, really good argument. Even if not by itself absolute proof.
15:50 umm, yes, the majority of prodestants reject the pope and the concept of the pope. That doesnt mean they think he's evil or bad, but they dont believe he speaks authoritatively or infallibly.
This has been a great show! These guys put forth a respectful, and super informative conversation. I really enjoyed it. I think the pastor had a lot of intelligent pushback....but I think Joe fired back with intelligent answers...which is why it was fruitful to sit in on. I would love to see more shows like this. Thank you Austin and Keith! 🌷
Austin, I recommend that from the Catholic perspective you do a show on the Communion of the Saints, on the mystical Body of Christ. Their is a fundamental difference between Catholicism and Protestantism on this point. So many testimonials of super natural events within Catholicism must be given a verdict. Take for example Padre Pio. Its beyond a doubt his life of service and the charisma's he manifested...so this verdict for these type of supernatural manifestations must either be ordained by God according to his Grace or by the Devil and his "holy" deception. This aspect of Catholicism is rarely discussed...which is also true for the appearances of Mary as with Lourdes, Fatima, etc...not just the event and the supernatural post manifestations, but also her message. It all must be in sink with The Holy Apostolic Catholic Church and the Holy Scriptures. Thanks for your attention to this aspect of our Faith.
Miracles happen in other churches too though. This isn’t a claim that’s exclusive to Catholics. The Orthodox have plenty of saints and documented miracles. I personally know a Baptist man who was healed during a tent revival. Catholics don’t have an exclusive claim on miracles.
I'm truly puzzled why so many don't see that The Body of Christ, The Church of God is not just Spirit filled, but Spirit Ordained! It is The Living Church, and out of this Living Body came the New Testament, not the Church from the Scriptures. Even the Old Testament didn't create the Church, but foreshadowed it. So to go to the New Testament and use it against The Church Christ ordained is illogical, ahistorical and counterproductive. The Church did develop, it did mature...and yes the NT did continue to guide the Church. This is the nature of a living "being", the nature of how the Spirit works, not only in the Church, but thru the Word. As I used to tell my children it's not about perfection, but direction. In regards to the Church, the direction is one of Sanctification, of Holiness which is governed according to God's Grace by and thru the Holy Spirit. The Spirit will lead the Church into all Truth and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail. I may apostate, a bishop or priest or deacon may apostate, but The Church of Jesus Christ will NEVER Apostate! It was created, it stood, it stands and will continue to stand till the end of time. This is the Historic Christian Faith!
The church follows Christ, it is not the creator or the head/leader. Too many people are brought down too many false paths and think it's the spirit of God. Mormons know they're right because the holy spirit lead them to the book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. If the true church are believers who are trying to follow God, then the evil spirits that happened to hold roles in the church structure, would lead it with another spirit. God stays with with those aligned with his spirit. Or do you think he stays with a direct line of handshakes? The bible says not to worry about geneologies. It would seem the Catholic Church system would require a great looking into to ensure the pure geneology of the apostalic succession.
And we agree, Protestants and Orthodox are catholics too. However, Ignatius didn’t mean “the Roman Catholic Church” though, because it didn’t exist yet.
I’ve been seeing Gavin on a lot of Catholic RUclips. I COULD NOT have my views criticized as long as he has without losing it. He is a very patient man. We hope you come to Rome Gavin and Austin. Laudetur Jesus Christus
Hi, Interesting discussion. I can appreciate both the Catholic and the Orthodox claims with their bishops, councils, and apostolicity aiding in illuminating them in the true interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. Dr. Ortlund, where are your bishops and your councils in interpreting the Bible correctly? Is there any one Protestant denomination that can make such claims? Which one would it be?
To be a little bit facetious here, certainly one that does not hold the Marian dogmas of perpetual virginity immaculate conception and her being sinless. Those are in direct contradiction to the scriptures.
the sad thing is that the Protestant side is always the side of skepticism, of doubt in God's divine providence and guidance. It is quite ironic that their main doctrine is "faith alone"
Seeing if something is true is a virtue, not a vice. In fact not determining whether the pope and the magisterium are true is the vice of credulity. See Acts 17:11 " Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."
@@philagon If I were a protestant I will certainly not accuse any Catholic of the vice of credulity. The reason is that your main doctrine, which is this idea of "extra nos" justification requires way more of the "vice of credulity" that the doctrine of the Papacy. Let me give you some reasons: 1. Luther said that it was "the article by which the Church stands or fall", and yet Paul never explicitly articulates the protestant idea of Justification. This has been argued not by Catholics but by the top protestant Pauline scholars like N.T Wright, Alister McGrath or Matthew Bates. 2. This idea is nowhere to be found in the early Church. In fact, both the latin and greek early Fathers held a substantially different idea of Justification, which is pretty much in line with the one affirmed infallibly by the Church at the Council of Trent. 3. You can clearly see the Papacy as the primacy of the Roman See in the early Church and its ecumenical councils. But your main doctrine is not there. 4. Since "extra nos" righteousness is a theological innovation of the middle ages, then you have to affirm that Protestantism found the gospel as opposed to recovering it (since it follows logically that they didn't really had it or understood it). So, now who's is more guilty of the "vice of credulity"?
@@HosannaInExcelsis Paul certainly does articulate the doctrine of justification which Protestants do adhere to: "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, " Romans 5:1
@@Justas399 well, unless we go deep into your doctrine of justification then you will have to admit that there was no reason for the reformation, because that is exactly what Catholics believe. This is from the 6th session from the Council of Trent: "And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification" do you disagree with anything in that statement?
@@HosannaInExcelsis Trent denied the gospel: "CANON 9: “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.” Here is what Scripture says: “because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin,” (Rom. 3:20). “being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,” (Rom. 3:24). “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law,” (Rom. 3:28).
Wow... enthralling Joe answered it all for me. Such intellectual integrity and charity. Truth in Love. The prayer of unity was for all, and if all would be united it would be to return. May we all be one. I really enjoyed this one. Well done fellas. God bless you all.
A first century Jew would have know Peter was given a successive office because a first century Jew would have understood Isaiah 22 and that Shebna and Eliakim held a successive role in the Kingdom of David. That is spelled out enough for me...
On the question of the monarchial bishop of Rome question, I would actually argue that from the perspective of how information is transmitted in this time period it would be extremely unlikely that something as foundational as the organizational leadership structure of one of the most important and influential teaching offices of early Christianity to have significantly changed at all. If there was a change from a more conciliar Roman church (council of elders, multiple bishops in once city, etc.) to a single bishop we would expect to see far more explicit evidence of correspondence weighing in on the question at least from other cities (something akin to elders writing to other Apostolic sees asking if the model they are switching to is prudent). There is enough evidence that early Christianity put serious stock in its organizational structure as a way of surviving heretical sects and determining what is orthodox teaching, and such a structural switch in what is clearly an important teaching office would merit a good deal of conciliar deliberation outside of the Roman see on the subject. To use some of the same language of arguing from silence here, it would seem that the reverse tack could be taken when arguing against Dr. Ortlund's position: if it is acceptable to say that the evidence for an infallible Roman bishop among the whole church is lacking due to the information we have, it should be equally acceptable to say that the position that a conciliar Roman teaching office based in an assembly of elders is lacking due to the information we have.
1:40:30 To respond to Dr. Ortlund: Heschmeyer's point is not that the papacy will pevent people from disagreeing or damaging the unity. Of course that people are free to break away from Rome. The papacy doesn't remove people's free will. Heschmeyer's point is that if Jesus wants us to be one and in the truth, then he should give us the means to achieve that. This doesn't mean that we will actually always be one and in the truth (Jesus leaves us our free will), but it means that the possibility to be one and in the truth should always be there. However, if no one has an infallible authority, then this possibility isn't even there, which would mean that Jesus's talk about unity in truth was just wishful thinking. And here we are talking about unity between people. But there is also the question of unity between each individual and the truth. Each individual Christian is called to remain united to the truth that Jesus wants us to be united to. However, If there are many christian denominations and churches disagreeing between them about what is this truth that Jesus wants for us, then it becomes a problem for the individual Christian to know which one is right. But Jesus gives us a moral obligation to always remain in the truth he wants for us. Therefore he should have given each Christian the means to always remain in this truth. However if no one has an infallible authority, then there is no means for each Christian to always remain in the truth. If for example, I am part of a church, and this church splits into two, which is the one I should go with? If there is no permanent rock marking the place of the Church, no permanent infallible authorithy, then there is no way for me to know; and in fact there is not necessarily a right answer, since without infallible authorithy, then all the churches and denominations could be at least partially wrong, which would mean that not only the unity with truth would be compromised, but the truth itself would be compromised.
Something I would add to your statement is in regards to him saying that the church isn’t one. We see in the scriptures about the cutting off of people who teach heresy or remain in it or who do not live holy lives and remain in their sins. They are to be separated from the church, we wouldn’t then say that the church isn’t one but rather there are those who are outside of the church because of their unwillingness to submit to the true church and her teachings. This is that the church isn’t one but rather that those who disagree with her or choose to teach or remain in error do not wish to submit to truth found only in the true church.
"...but it means that the possibility to be one and in the truth should always be there. However, if no one has an infallible authority, then this possibility isn't even there...." That's a strong claim that doesn't seem reasonable. If God can do it under Jewish captivity then he certainly isn't limited by your imagination. Those who by conscience, by the holy spirit, written revelation, and by personal revelation are led to the truth and who live and abide by it are united together in the truth through Christ.
@@blamtasticful There is a good argument to be made that Jews had access to some infallible authority. Check out Suan Sonna on his channel Intellectual Conservatism.
@@vituzui9070 Not really though. Such arguments are very anachronistic. Even if granted the idea that this existed throughout Jewish history is certainly false such as during the time of Judges or under the rule of King Ahab.
I noticed that too. He litterally proved gavins point. There was no evolution too remember that gavin says yes there were Oh well it was different 😂 Catholics never fail to give me a massive head ache. And I realize that even we protestants can be blinded by tradition. And mislead by translation. Were all susceptible I my self am egalitarian because saying women can't do stuff doesn't square with either the bible or with extreme early history... But that's a example I know most prots won't like😅 Not trying to start anything btw
1. The early Church, Christians and church fathers all understood the words of Jesus to make Peter the chief authority, even though there are other authorities in the church subject to Peter ( The papacy may not have been fully fleshed out due to the persecutions, scattered nature of the early church, developement of doctrine etc, many of the doctrines such as Trinity, the twofold nature of Christ were fully understood only later on) 2. In the old testament, "giving of keys" was a gesture of bestowing authority by God. See ISAIAH 22:22, Eliakim is clearly given "Keys" indicating that he was bestowed some degree of authority over Israel... Jesus is talking in that context when he clearly bestows the keys to the kingdom of heaven, to Peter primarily, in very clear words and with even greater expressions of primacy. 3. In the FIRST century itself, we find Clement, the Roman bishop and martyr, exercising his authority and guidance over the church of Corinth which they themselves asked and accepted, even though Corinth is far away from Rome and certainly had its own bishops, and even though John the apostle may have been living in nearby ephesus 4. Though some of the early fathers' words have been taken out of context by protestantism, the understanding of the early fathers, both East as well as West, and evidenced by many clear expressions in their letters, ( an early, clear pronouncement of the papacy is found in St Irenaeus, who was a student of Polycarp, who in turn was taught by none less than John the Apostle) is that the Bishop of Rome is the spiritual successor of Peter and is the spiritual head of the Universal Church. 5. It is only in the 15th century Protestant changes that we see novel ideas altogether denying the supremacy of Peter's successor introduced by Luther, Calvin etc, especially the foul mouthed and unstable Martin Luther (just read his raving denouncement of the papacy, in words too foul to even be printed) , before that such ideas were looked at as heresy by nearly all Christians
I enjoyed this, but I'd like to say: The moderators need to be less cordial. Dr. Ortlund is much more conscientious of the time he takes. Mr. Heschmeyer was given quite a bit of space to steamroll. I don't think this has anything to do with an intent to be disrespectful to Dr. Ortlund and seems to occur as a phenomenon of their respective personalities, which is why there is a need for interjecting moderators.
@@GospelSimplicity No I don't think you need to, from what I observed. Gavin played his cards well . The Catholic guy seemed much more versed on the subject matter than him. I'm not passing a judgment on who is right .I'm only pointing that Mr Gavin displayed tact and did not shoot himself on the foot by simply raising his objection and allowing him answer it.
I suspect on several occasions Gavin simply had no well thought out come back and his politeness was a cover for that. In fact I wanted to hear his response to things Joe said but he refrained from giving one. Nothing was preventing him from challenging Joe. The moderators made it clear they were happy for them to go back and forth freely. Joe simply had a strong counter argument or reply to everything Gavin put forth and had to work hard to contain himself.
Gavin admits that there was “one bishop” in Rome as early as 150 AD. Can anyone think seriously that this magically occurred in 150 ad? It’s hard to take this line of reasoning seriously especially when we have the archeological evidence (Eg: the hall of popes in the catacombs) and multiple lists of the papacy in the early church (though admittedly I’m aware of at least one list that does not match exactly). The early church was often under extreme persecution - so one might expect that the writings would not be as extensive as became evident after Christianity was legalized. And this is exactly what happened. Reality is the structure that we see in the early Church is one where there is an organic connection through apostolic succession. It’s found in the Bible (Mathias chosen to succeed Judas). Is it reasonable to think that there wasn’t an apostolic succession when it comes to Peter s office which we find in union with yet distinct from the other apostles (matthew 16 / Matthew 18). Likewise as a baptist Gavin very likely does not hold to baptismal regeneration (at least his denomination does not) - yet this is the universal testimony on the nature of baptism in the early church. So can any one really take what Gavin is saying seriously when it seems that he really does not care what the testimony of the early church is on baptism which is directly related to salvation. Just seems like he is trying to “poke holes” while not drawing obvious implications of the historical record. The Protestant approach to Christianity is a non historical approach. Once one realizes the lack of historicity and organic connection with the apostles - it really is difficult to adhere to the Protestant approach - at least that seems to be the case. The issue of historical Christianity was one of the main drivers in the conversion of Hank Hanegraff (to orthodoxy), Francis Beckwith, Scott Hahn, Bob Sungenis and many others. Can anyone seriously say that if he were a Christian in 180 ad - that he would have been a Protestant Christian - holding fast to the Protestant distinctive s of Sola Scriptura and sola fide? The New Testament DOES NOT speak adequately on every issue but the foundations are there. So once again - we have a Protestant saying something has to be explicit in the scriptures - Where does scripture explicitly teach that the sabbath was changed to Sunday? Or that the Holy Spirit is a “person” within the Holy trinity? These things are implied but not explicit. I would hold there is more scriptural evidence for the papacy than of these two things. I do agree that the testimony of the early church holds that the church in ROME was founded by Peter and Paul - and that Peter founded the church in Antioch and Jerusalem. I suspect Rome was viewed as having the primary based on both Peter finding the Church in Rome and the fact that both of these great men found the church there. That seems to be what is talked about by the early fathers - but with emphasis on Peter s headship of the apostles.
..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222). -Catholic scholar.
Pope Clement 88 ad is listed by both Turtilian and Irenaeus as A pope in the first century. He wrote the letter to the Corinthians. His writings were actually read as Scripture by some in the early church. So yes there was a bishop in the first century in Rome. We still have the letter - He demanded obedience claiming it would be a great sin to not obey his authority. The Corinthian church did adhere to his instruction at the time. So there you have it - a first century pope!
@@mikeoconnor4590 There may have been a bishop in Rome in the 1st but not just one nor a bishop that was over all bishops. That idea did not develop until centuries later.
@@Justas399 Christ left a visible Church on earth with apostles and a leader to bind and loosenon earth what is in heaven after He ascended into heaven. Clearly Peter was the first Pope and apostolic succession.....remember the Early Church was developing the Church structure over time. Your explanation seems illogical to me...and I don't mean to offend you. Think of the Church doctrine of the Trinity.....the Trinity God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit always existed from the beginning yet our understanding of this Truth occured later through doctrinal development think St Patrick using a 3 leaf clover to explain the hard concept of 3 persons in one God.....likewise same logic for the doctrine of the Papacy. Doctrine doesn't change but the way the Truth is explained to create understanding of these unchangeable Truths does become more clear with insight based on scripture and Holy Tradition over time. There are many examples in scripture from the Old to the New Testament where God is preparing the way for the future and preparing our understanding of His Truths. For example the Kigdom of David and the hierarchy was a foreshadowing of the Papacy and Church hierarchy... EXAMPLE Source stjohnfisher.medium.com/isaiah-22-and-the-papacy-529860bcff77 In Isaiah 22:15-24 we read, Thus says the Lord God of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: What have you to do here and whom have you here, that you have hewn here a tomb for yourself, you who hew a tomb on the height, and carve a habitation for yourself in the rock? Behold, the Lord will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you, and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you shall die, and there shall be your splendid chariots, you shame of your master’s house. I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eli′akim the son of Hilki′ah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.[2] In this passage we read of God replacing Shebna with Eliakim, and giving him his office. Shebna was governor of the house. Essentially, he was given all power of fiscal responsibility over the House of David, serving under David’s successor. The privileges endowed to Eliakim include, - Wearing a robe, ornate and royal, to confirm his office. As well as a political sash. - Considered a father (i.e. Pope) among the house of Judah (David’s domain) - Given a key of power to open and shut over the King’s kingdom (*cough* Matthew 16:19 *cough*) - Given a preminate place of honor in the King’s kingdom. - Given a list of successors through his personal lineage. Now, reading this along side Matthew 16:16-20, it’s easy to see the prophet Isaiah’s imagery. We know that Christ is the continuation of David’s lineage writ large. His kingdom, the Church, the continuation of Israel is build on the faith of his followers who he has grafted on. We are not like the Rabbinical Jews in exile, waiting for land, the church is conquering the world one soul at a time. The Pope is his financial minister, placed head of, and holding managing all that is Christ’s inheritance on Earth. Whereas Eliakim’s linage is physical, Peter’s is spiritual, just like how Christ has a spiritual kingdom, where David had a kingdom of this world.
I couldn't help but notice a particular theme that kept popping up, a difference in the way Joe and Dr. Ortlund (and, by extension, Catholics and Protestants respectively) will interpret the witness of the Fathers. Catholics will generally find it sufficient when, even if there's not much early evidence for a teaching (in the 100s or 200s), the evidence that IS there points in the Catholic direction, we can't really find any evidence that CONTRADICTS the Catholic position, and especially if by the time of the 4th century onward those doctrines are made more explicit. Whereas the Protestant will generally be more skeptical of a doctrine if it isn't pretty explicitly taught in the first few centuries. I'd be interested to see these four fine gentlemen discuss this interpretive lens and the merits and demerits of each viewpoint.
@@GospelSimplicity agreed! Especially if Joe and Dr. Ortlund are going to have recourse to the Fathers for their arguments. Each one could be presented with the same data, but come up with different conclusions.
@@tylerrossjcl The problem is many Protestants will always default to “their understanding” of Scripture and use that as the Trump card to undercut anything the early church taught unambiguously. Case in point baptismal regeneration - This was believed and taught unambiguously in the early Church but I’ve had many discussions with Protestants - who are completely dismissive of this idea because in their eyes the Scripture does not teach this. I can show them how / where this is found in scripture but unfortunately many are not open to this interpretation no matter how well it is presented from a scriptural perspective. Bottom line it really takes grace to see these things. I do find these discussions enlightening and thought provoking though ! Cudo s to Gospel simplicity and the Cordial Catholic
@@mikeoconnor4590 You seem to be stuck in a caricature of protestantism. Ortlund and Trent discuss on another YT video the issue of baptism a little more in depth. The reality is that both in the narrative of the Book of Acts and in the epistles, the majority of cases of conversion are associated with belief first. A Catholic monologue might seem persuasive but when you see Ortlund going at it with Trent, Trent has to concede the exceptions to baptism, and how God was changing people before baptism. Ortlund keeps the importance of baptism in God's work of regeneration, while at the same time not ignoring the importance of belief in conversion, and as critical to conversion.
@@carlosrodas423I believe Trent has also made the point that baptism being necessary is normative or ordinary (the normal way in which we are saved, along with faith) but God is not bound by the sacraments. God can choose extraordinary ways to save people, it does not nullify the ordinary. Even in the Old Testament (OT) you were not simply saved by circumcising only, but it was required ordinarily. See the example of Moses almost losing his son because he hasn’t circumcised him. Meanwhile the verses saying where God desires mercy, not sacrifice. Or in various parts of the OT where God greatly desires people to repent and turn to Him, and do good works of mercy in partnership with God. It was a “both and” rather than “either-or” as many Protestants will try to make it seem with baptismal regeneration. Catholics think you need both faith (evidenced by works) and also baptism (ordinarily). Hope this clarifies a bit, I myself am still Protestant but strongly considering becoming Catholic.
"Protestant until proved Catholic." This was well put by Joe, and it seemed to be the core principle of Gavin's argument. But I'm not sure I see the logic behind that; given the history of how the Church grew, developed and dis-integrated. Gavin was very fair in pointing out some of the weaknesses in the "proof" for the papacy... but I imagine a comparable "proof" for the Protestant paradigm would reveal far more weaknesses. As much as we would like a bulletproof proof, I think the most reasonable approach is to accept we have limited evidence available, and therefore just look at which which direction the evidence points to, rather than expecting (or claiming!) a full-blown map.
The problem with Catholic attempts to use a "you don't have proof of your authority either" type argument is that the amount of authority the Catholic church claims is monumentally gigantic compared to the authority claimed by Protestants. It's like saying to two poeple "where'd you get that money?" and both say "I found it on the ground", where one person is holding a $1 bill and the other person is holding a footlocker with $1,000,000 in it. Protestants don't claim infallibility or the authority to forgive sins or the authority to declare people anathema. If you don't agree with a Baptist statement of faith then you to go to another church down the street. If you don't agree with Catholic doctrine then you suffer eternal torment in hell. Do you see the difference there and why the standard of proof for Catholics has to be higher than that of the Protestants? Between the confession with mortal sins and declarations of anathema, the Catholics claim the power to determine who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. If you're going to take that kind of authority for yourself, you need absolute incontrovertible proof of God giving you that power. Jesus renaming Peter the rock in 30ad does not prove that Francis today two thousand years later has that kind of authority.
@@patrickbarnes9874 " If you don't agree with a Baptist statement of faith then you to go to another church down the street. " Jesus praying for all of us to be one: Am I a joke to you?
@@ghostapostle7225 Jesus prayed for all of us to be one, but not to be the same. A baptist and a presbyterian having different opinion in theological issues of second imoportance is not against unity. As long as they love and respect each other. Two catholics (progressive and traditional) fighting agressively over liturgy is against unity.
I find it incredibly sad that so many of the comments state how wonderful it us that the discussion is civil despite disagreements. This should not be exceptional nor worthy of comment. It should be the norm. If it isn't, it is a sad indictment of our working out of our faith
I love how humble Dr. Ortlund is. It amazes me how strongly someone can disagree on such important matters and still be so kind and loving. I definitely can see Christ working in and through him. I so appreciate his call to us listeners to read for themselves, in the bible and the church fathers! To me(and that’s obviously subjective) it feels like he is really trying to see Catholicism at its best, while Protestantism is not seen at it’s best...overall I am so thankful for you guys and would love to learn more through your ongoing conversation with Dr. Ortlund. Glory to god
He's wonderful
Four of these guys r all humble not only dr. Ortland Christ is working through catholic church and r able to keep her family united after protestant reformation but protestant churches after the reformation divided into thousands of pieces which tells the absence of christ....
@@luvall293 That's rich considering the clearly satanic things the catholic church has done. Unity by threat of death or torture in demonic ways, surely that's what Christ wanted!
@@luvall293 By the way all major protestant churches are united in the one thing that matters: Jesus Christ is Lord and savior of all and the only inerrant and Holy human being to have walked the earth. Catholicism says "yes but follow our half christian half pagan Cult of THE CHURCH".
@@ncw543 who knows! May be catholics r right because protestant churches r always busy judging their own pastors and churches they don't have what christ taught....even a most disciplined pastors have something to say about their fellow pastors
Austin's icon collection keeps getting progressively larger. Before long he will no longer have a bookshelf, but an iconostasis.
Whats his reasoning? Does he just happen to like them despite being protestant?
@@Wilkins325 Not sure. But not all those not in communion with the Catholic or the Orthodox communions reject icons, so maybe he venerates them!
I grow up in a small town of Mexico were all my generation were and are Catholic. It was when I moved to USA that I found out all different Christian denominations. I thank God that I didn't get confused and stay with my faith strong. I wouldn't play with that.
Amén 🙏
Same here , i grow up In philippines i thought all in the world are Catholic 🤣🤣🤣. Never knew this so called protestants exist but thanks to them because when they attack mama mary there it trigger me to study Catholic more deep.
Here in US you get crazy seeing so many denominations, all teaching whatever they feel like, is scary.
Bien hecho Marta, en el protestantismo hay mucha confusión.
I was born in Brazil, in a very confusing evangelical church, and I admitt that protestantism gave us a divisive kind of faith sometimes, but I thank God I became a Reformed Protestant after studying the Bible. It never crossed my mind to become a catholic, so I recommend you to study deeper and deeper your bible, to pray and to experience an God's intimacy. Nowadays there is no more any kind of excuse not to know good theology, thanks to the internet.
Dr. Ortlund has raised the esteem of Protestantism as a whole in my Catholic eyes by his strong endorsement of Christian history as a whole. This channel (and some of the related ones) have convinced me to subscribe for future content, cross-tradition, Protestant, or otherwise!
I'm so glad to hear that!
Gavin Ortlund is such a gift to us Catholics. One sword sharpens the other ⚔️
He makes Orthodox arguments that defeat your position, how is he a gift to you?
Because his position always falls short, proving Catholicism true. Please read Mat 16:18-19 and understand the symbolism of keys within the context of scripture (Isaiah 22:22-23) also understand that Christ spoke Aramaic NOT Greek, Peter's name was "Cepha" meaning "Rock". There can't be "wordplay" between "Petra" and "Petros" (Big Rock, little Rock). Also, note that name changes had a meaning behind it, for example, Abram changing to Abraham. So why would Christ name Peter "Rock", give him the keys, and make him the head of the church ("feed my lambs") for no reason? @@TommyGunzzz
@@TruLuanLogical fallacy, the RC position is not a default, no position is the default, it must also still be proven.
Also, Peter is the architype of bishops, he could even be first among equals if you prefer along with Paul. Yes the Antiochian Orthodox church was founded by Peter if you believe he had the mystical keys. The Holy Spirit was breathed on all of the disciples, not just Peter, so that logic fails there, Plus James oversees the first council. Yeah Peter and Paul are authoritative, but to read Vatican 1 into the text is laughable when the Vatican itself admits universal jurisdiction was not the case and synodality of bishops was always the case for the first 1000 years.
I dont really understand how Catholics even argue anymore when their pope and vatican admit Vatican 1 is no longer the case in two recent encyclicals and that the Orthodox position is the case for the first 1000 years. Also if you werent clear on the understanding, you should look at hte council of Nicea for clarity (and most councils afterwards that the Vatican almost universally does not hold to). The papal authority is based on admitted forgeries. Repeat, they admit the forgeries. So there really isnt an argument here anymore now that your authority itself admits the Orthodox position.
@@TommyGunzzz Symbol of the keys literally went right over your head. Did you even watch this video?
@@TruLuanyes, but if you dont find Vatican / papally approved encyclicals valid, then how are you even Catholic? They admit synodality and very explicitly say the Orthodox position is true.
I'm 7 months late and I don't care bc this is SUCH a good discussion and as a Protestant considering Catholicism I'm so thankful for dialogs like this.
Glad you enjoyed it!
What did you end up doing? I can’t outsource my spiteful wellbeing to others. Also an infallible church can’t repent. Can’t quite cross to the other side. I don’t believe everything the Catholic Church teaches hence I can’t even qualify to become one. I have tied!
I’ve been completely disillusioned by my ten years in the Roman church. It’s full of idolatry and man made traditions that have usurped the word of God. My faith is in Christ and I follow him, not Francis.
@@Miroshentrue christian protestantantism is truly the best!!
No to Rome, yes to God alone!❤
I am incredibly blessed to be alive at a time when there is so much great Christian content that I will never have enough time to listen to.
Also, cool sweater.
Thanks!
I was away from the Catholic Church for 25 years until I got to the place where I got low enough to really seek the Lord. I started listening to Pastor Fred Price who just passed away---rest in peace Pastor. He said, "it's not enough to follow me on television, but you have to be part of a local church". I started looking with no intention of returning to the Catholic Church; however, He led me to a Catholic Charismatic prayer group and the praise and worship practice therein. A year later I returned to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass during Holy Week. The Lord along the way revealed various things like the importance of the Brown Scapular devotion, the Rosary and the importance of the truths of the Catholic Faith and the teachings of the Holy, Apostolic Church. One thing I have learned, is that if there is anything about the Catholic Church that I'm struggling with, I ask Jesus and He has shown me clearly the truth. Otherwise, you will just spend a lot of time arguing over words. God bless!
Sherry, the brown scapular devotion is entirely made up. Apparently Mary promises final perseverance to those who wear it and keep the devotion, unless they fail in some point.
This is exactly the same outcome as NOT wearing the brown scapular.
@The Amazing Grace The brown scapular does not save you from hell because of it's special power, the brown scapular requires of you chastity, prayer and devotion. These things lead you to Heaven, but not some special power from it.
Secondly the promise is remission from Purgatory, so if you aren't saved to begin with, it does nothing.
Welcome back Christ Sacraments are in the Catholic church in John 6:51-58- Baptism Confession John 20:21-22-23) We need Christ Sacraments & His Holy Mother in Luke & the Saints do Pray for Us 🙏 Jesus Christ Saves us through the Sacraments & in Matthew 16:18-19🗝️🗝️📖 God bless 💯 Catholic And We have The Bible & Church Father's 😇🛐
@The Amazing Grace We are also Saved by Christ Sacraments as stated in the book of John 6:51-58- The Eurcharist Confession John 20:21-22-23) Grace & In Luke The Angel Gabriel said hail Full of Grace When the Holy Sprit came in Christ Mother Mary We honor Mary & the Saints! Christ saves He said we need his Sacraments God bless 🗝️🗝️📖😇🛐💯 Catholic
@The Prodigal Daughter Bashcutter gave you a proper respectful answer. Hope you learned form it and realise that, now that you know, your lies won't be justified by ignorance.
Hello everyone, Protestant here.
Was really glad to see this dialogue, between a Catholic and Protestant having a civil argument.
Which I have seen angry Catholics and Protestants just lash out in anger which will help no one in the end.
Take RCIA
Gavin standing his ground. I was waiting for this.
Cordial Catholic is THE definition of enthusiasm
He’s fantastic
epitome, not definition
Thick eyebrows, too. I respect a man more if his eyebrows are thick.
Outstanding discussion moderated by Gospel Simplicity and Cordial Catholic! Joe and Gavin’s discussion was spectacular! Time really flew! Kudos to y’all!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Loved this conversation!! I would love to see a conversation regarding the Eucharist specifically. Thanks so much to you all for taking the time to do this!
That could be a fun one!
@@GospelSimplicity yes Austin please make that happen..the Eucharist would be great. I am Catholic..and love what you and Gavin do ..God Bless
!a😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊a😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊qaaaaa😊😊😊😊!1 Q 1AAA❤❤❤❤!1@@GospelSimplicity
I have to say, I much prefer discussions like these to antagonistic debates. Keep up the good work!
Awesome discussion. I am a cradle Catholic gramma! I think some of this has to be accepted on faith. So much scrutiny can cause disbelief anyway. Don’t we just have to do our best to understand it and make our choice and have trust in God’s directive for our faith?
So great that you are having a respectful discussion and disagree politely! Love this! Thank you.👍✝️
Conversation aside, I appreciate your incorporation of iconography into your devotional life. Seeing as you hail from a protestant background, I think it demonstrates growth and discernment and lends a great deal of credibility to the sincerity of yourself and your channel.
This is the most wholesome debate I have ever watched
This dialogue is great for Christians of all traditions.
Very beautiful
If this went 3 hours long, I would still be all like... It's over already?!?
Glad to hear that! I was worried how people would take to the length of this one
First, I want to say the level of depth and knowledge on these two participants is staggering. Both, at various points, had me saying, "Wow, that's a great point."
Mr. Gavin is correct that an argument from silence can be a good one IF you can show that the person absolutely would have mentioned something given the context. But such argument can be significantly weakened if one can come up with a good reason why an author might not have mentioned something.
On the historical data: In support of his argument from historical silence, Mr. Gavin cited the Shephed of Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp.
Shepherd of Hermas: In Book 1, Vision 2, Chapter 4 he only mentions presbyters when he is asked if he'd given the book to the Church's leadership. However, in book 1, vision 3, chapter 5 he mentions the following offices; Apostles, bishops, teachers, and deacons. I don't think either of these citations represents a clean two-office standard which Gavin says it does. My understanding of that (as a Catholic) is that in the first citation he uses "Presbyters" the way we'd use the word "clergy" - an all-encompasing word. And in Vision 3 we arguably see the same structure as we do in Ignatius, only with the word "teacher" being used to describe priests.
In Ignatius, Ignatius makes it clear that a legitimate church is one which follows the leadership of its Bishop. It is true that Ignatius does not mention the Bishop of Rome in his letter, but he does praise the Roman church as being exemplary. It seems unlikely to me that Ignatius would regard the Roman church as exemplary of it didn't meet his most basic criterion for discipleship. This letter doesn't mention the Bishop, but it is also very different from his letter in other respects. Whereas all the others were meant to be teaching documents, in this one he says he has no teaching for them.
In Polycarp, we do see him making criteria for deacons and then for presbyters. One could interpret that as Polycarp asserting that there are only two offices in the Church. Or maybe not. I don't think it has ever been the case that someone becomes bishop right out of the gate. All bishops were at one time priests. So when giving the criteria for entry into these offices, perhaps Polycarp is only mentioning the entry-level offices.
In regard to the Biblical data: Mr. Gavin's approach to the question is a sound one. He wants evidence that Peter had a special office, and he wants evidence that it was successive. He sees evidence that Peter had a special leadership role, but doesn't see evidence that it is successive. I agree that there isn't explicit attestation that it is. However, I'm not sure that we should expect to find it because most of the New Testament was written while Peter was still alive. Instead, I think one can look at how the Apostolic authority was continued in something like the apostles - the bishops. From there a person can ask, "If Jesus saw fit to establish Peter in a special office, is there a reason why that office would no longer be necessary after Peter? The apostolic offices continue (with modification) in the bishops. Isn't it logical that Peter's role would continue (with modification) as well?" It is a plausibility argument, and perhaps not the strongest, but I think it is more plausible than saying Jesus established a special role for Peter and intended it to only last 30 years.
In regard to Mr. Joe's arguments: I think his strongest argument is from the second century lists. That is: If the regional mono-episcopacy is a development of the mid-to-late second century, why are people claiming in the late second century that this goes back to the Apostles and they can produce the lists of names. If the mono-episcopacy is something which had only developed in the previous 40 years... then what the devil are they all talking about? Where did they all get this idea? Mr. Gavin's only reply to this, it seems, is to repeat the claim that we cannot rely on second century evidence because it lays on the other side of some development (46:25) and when the first century is so silent. But that isn't a proper answer. The question is why all those churches would then turn around and say that's the way it has been all along. That question got no answer.
@1:42:58 - Mr. Gavin says it is unfair to compare the "Protestant Church" to the Catholic Church, but rather that we should compare the Catholic Church to a single Protestant denomination. Absolutely not. What is under discussion is the fact that we need a visible, infallible authoritative teaching office (a magisterium) to maintain Christian unity and orthodoxy simultaneously. Therefore is it completely appropriate to compare the Christian worldview which says it has one (Catholicism) to the one which says it doesn't need one (Protestantism). Mr. Gavin has not hesitated on other occasions to compare Protestantism to Catholicism when saying Protestantism confers advantages. Balking in this instance seems a bit situational.
In the end, he leaves Mr. Joe's thesis rather untouched. Does the dual command of unity and orthodoxy demand something like an infallible magisterium, or not? If not, then what is the alternative which gets the job done? Sure, the Magisterium only works if people adhere to it... but that is self evident and true of literally every authority, even God's authority. The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church is united in a way which the Protestant world is not, and there's a real difference at the heart of it. Perhaps one shouldn't say, "The Catholic Church is united and Protestantism is divided." Perhaps a better way of saying it is that the Catholic world has (or at least claims to have) the thing which is needed if the Church is to feasibly be both united and orthodox. And this has enabled the Church to hold the center far better than the Protestant world has been able to while operating sans magisterium.
Either way, I would have liked to see Mr. Gavin grapple with Mr. Joe's thesis directly. Do those dual commands necessitate God also leaving us an infallible magisterium, or not? And if not, what is the alternative which accomplishes the goal? A person can say, "Jesus and the Gospel will unite us", but if one would pardon me for having the practicallity of an engineer, until Jesus comes again in glory to claim the obedience of the nations, that's more of a sentiment than a practical answer.
Well put
Great comment and analysis so far ...
The truth is protestantism is kept on protesting. It is funny when Mr Gavin talks about plurality he mentioned bishops as church leader in particular area which we can easily trace back their history. Isn’t he noticed upon talking about the councils that is the Catholic councils and still is today handed down?! It seems to me Gavin is missing a whole lot of catholicism. Why not ask Gavin if his faith is based in Spirit or more of evidence like what scientist do? Doesn’t the bible say we walk in faith not by our eyes? So Gavin instead of concentrating those flaws in the past why not concentrate on how those bishops you mentioned WAY OF WORSHIPING JESUS? Perhaps you’ll some clues right after then!
Amazing simply amazing !
Sorry for the late reply. But I think Ambrose Bishop of Milan is a counter example for a clergy man that skipped priesthood and became bishop right out of the gate. He was also baptized only one week before he became a bishop.
But take it with a grain of salt, because I have only read the Wikipedia article (not the primary sources).
It has INTENSE in the title so I'm looking forward to it haha. You've been putting in that work Austin!
Thanks! Hope you enjoy it
@@GospelSimplicity Hi its a great discussion!
Man, I would like to see Trent Horn/Jimmy Akin with dr. Ortlund
p.s. I must say, Joe did a great job. Defending catholic position is harder than vice versa, wether you discuss orthodox or protestants.
Nice job Joe!
Dr. Ortlund has a background in debate. He might be open to it
@@GospelSimplicity check it please. If that happens.. it would be one of the most brilliant discussions. You and cordial are going to smile even more :D
Thanks for your great work, God bless!
@@GospelSimplicity I would rather have it be a discussion like this than a debate. It seems there are more constraints to the argues when they are in a structured debate.
How about Scott Hahn and an equivalent Protestant. Maybe an ex Catholic with the same credentials? Brilliant Christian people-huh?
Love it!!
I would love to see Dr. Gavin Ortlund discuss such topic with William Albrecht or Dr. Christian Kappas or Eric Ybarra..
This is very strange to me. I've never heard a Protestant so articulate and knowledgable, even on Catholicism. I was really impressed by him. Most of the Evangelicals I've heard, are just about reading the Bible. Not at all interested in history.
Glad Gavin could surprise you in this way!
Agreed! It was an amazing debate.
@@GospelSimplicity If you haven't already. Read st Justin Popovich's essay, "Papism as the Oldest Protestantism".
It's essential reading for anyone trying to understand the controversy behind the Roman Catholic Church's problematic understanding of the Pope's authority.
This is very disturbing what Gavin is saying... he is giving an option to live with cognitive dissonance.. he knows church authority is right but he does not want to give what he has .. so he is making a way to live with both.. this is very dangerous stuff..
@Eucharist Angel ok .. I am convinced
I love Gavin´s way to approaching this discussions!
I wish all debates and discussions are like this; Respectful.
Thanks!
Jesus didn’t respect nobody check Matthew 23
@@davidbermudez7704 Amen because He love us and that is the definition of love that is to tell the Truth and it'll hurt people which why the prophesy of Simon upon the presentation of the Child Jesus in the temple was absolutely correct and it happens to this day!
Yes, He did. He was respectful. He was harsh at times, but never treated anyone as lowly or beneath Him. @@davidbermudez7704
@@Rob-mr1vkLove means telling the truth. It doesn't mean to be disrespectful. Don't agree with that.
Thanks for making this discussion happen. So enriching. Joe would have to be one of the best defenders of the papacy I’ve heard. Such a quick and sharp mind, with clear analogies to bring home his points.
My pleasure!
Wonderful example of two things:
1) how Christ followers should discuss differences - cordially and in humility, and
2) of the key point of disagreement: the Catholic brother takes Tradition and reads it back into the New Testament; conversely, the Protestant brother starts with the New Testament and brings it to the Traditional of the church. THIS is the key point of separation between these two Christian family branches.
Cordial Catholic is looking at the camera in such a way that every single Catholic watching knows exactly what's going down. It's great.
Ha ha ha. Wait. What's going down?!
Uh oh, someone must not be Catholic😬
@@GospelSimplicity Very sound observation except that, you see, well, it comes down to a distinction. Now distinction started all the way back 5000 years ago with Saint Thomas Aquinas, and because of the manifestly plain observation that we find in the distinctions of magisterial propositions, it turns out that in actual fact - your reasoning is unsound. Because there is a distinction between materially not knowing what's going down, and formally not knowing what's going down. So you see, Papacy true. I shall allow you to dwell with the revelation that has been given unto you, as I sit in my cathedra and spit facts. /s xD
@@TheCordialCatholic To be honest and serious, maybe I was reflecting my own biases onto the conversation and seeing myself in your eyes, literally you like dead stare at the camera, but I read your expression as "I am watching a beating going on right here by Joe xD and this is so great for Catholicism". To put it crudely of course, great conversation on both sides.
@@TheCordialCatholic to me, the look on your face said listening to inaccuracies on Catholicism being stated, and formulating the reply based on facts. Which you did a great job of.
It was only “intense” because the guy in the top left just kept talking and interrupting. It felt like the shotgun approach where you throw a million things at the other person making it impossible for them to respond. As a Protestant I have to say the Catholic claims seem convoluted and overly complicated.
I am shocked no one is mentioning this. Heschmeyer is exhausting to listen to! This is someone I avoid in conversation. It's not that he has a ton of knowledge, it's just draining when someone throws up a wall of information without break.
This was a wonderful (and cordial) debate about the Papacy, the apostolic succession, and Christian unity as a whole. Thank you all so much for providing a great example of loving one another even in our differences. As an Orthodox catachumen, I find the question of the papacy of extreme importance, because (as was said) it is sort of the defining question of Catholicism as opposed to non-Catholicism. I appreciate the thorough discussion and presentation of both sides. Very well done. To God be the glory.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Me, an Orthodox: Sips coffee ☕️
Same 😂
Ditto
You were Catholic but you split off. Now I am sipping coffee 😀
If the Pope were infallible, the Western Church would still be using the Septuagint for their Old Testament, but Jerome and his pope messed that up big time ! I'm an Anglo Catholic that sides with the Orthodox on issues of descent from Rome.
Lol
Gavin is great. Such a charitable and grace filled guest. I love his show. And I'm Catholic.
Ok, if you aren’t on Patreon with these guys, GO!!!! This is 🔥🔥
Thanks Colleen!
Excellent video, Austin! I've been looking forward to this for a long time. Both Joe and Gavin are knowledgeable and respectful. I would love to see another one of these where the two discuss the Marian Dogmas :)
This comment section is so wholesome. Love it.
This is really great! Thanks Austin. I'm mind blown right now.
Hope you enjoy it!
These guys have really done their homework. Incredible
Very nice to see so much information about the early church. Glad to see people who are of different religions openly discussing their views so others might be saved in a calm manner. Great podcast!
It's the same religion!
Thank you Austin and Keith? /Cordial Catholic. I agree with Joe that the faith of a convert adds much energy and wisdom to the Church. If I followed the bouncing ball tonight Gavin's premise was that if the Papacy and infallibility are not in the New Testament they are contrived. I submit that Christ did not work w flip charts and explain His message explicitly at all times. Several times He expressed his frustration at the Apostles' failure to understand. While references were made to extra biblical sources I didn't hear Tradition discussed. It has always confused me that Sola Scriptura is the only foundation, yet it wasn't put together as a canon until the 380s and 390s. Prudence and discretion were required in that editing. Thus is not Tradition an integral part of the deposit of faith? I would ask each man to state at the beginning what are the premises from which he proceeds. Thank you again for all your hard work. Where do you find time for your studies?
Joe Hersceyer avoids answering to Ortlund, he evades pointing out to other issues. As an Orthodox, Ortlund gives good points. More important is the Chieti Document where RCC admits no Vatican I papacy during the first millennium and it’s a official document from the Vatican
Joe’s passion and Austin’s sweater are fantastic
Haha thanks!
Rev. Ortlund - Peace to you from a romanist. God love you!
I've been watching your videos for a while,since 4k subs I guess and only now realized that I was not subscribed yet lol
Watching from Paraná- Brazil
Glad to have you as a part of the community!
These two are awesome, I m sorry the discussion ended.
Austin, perhaps after each discussion you should have Dr. Ortlund and Mr. Heschmeyer give suggested reading in the comments, to point us in the right direction for us to dig deeper, and if they suggest primary documents, which specific passage should be of special interest. In fact, I would very much appreciate it if they both do so for this debate! God bless!
That’s a great idea!
@@GospelSimplicity Yes it helps to get us less read people a direction to go in our personal research. Thanks!
I had never heard of Joe until this video. (I came for Gavin) Wow I am impressed. So many points Ive never thought of before.
I'm on to you Mr.Gospel Simplicity dude! You figured out that a channel is the best way to get some free high-level theology lessons, ha! Jokes aside, this was a very good listen indeed.
I'll leave you with this one, that I heard a long time ago - "To think that truth needs no believers to be true seems scary; to know that believers often need no truth to believe is terryfing"
Interesting quote! Haha, I often joke that preparing for and doing all these interviews is my second undergrad. It’s a joy though!
In my opinion , JOE makes very strong arguments for the papacy.
Well done Bro JOE....Excellent Job 👍
Really? I thought the arguments were not convincing, and the evidence shows the opposite. The case for Peter being the chief apostle is strong though.
@Dusun Prince
No. Its because there isn't any actual evidence.
@@Solideogloria00 if you read for yourself the sources dr Ortlund draws from you would see his interpretation is laden with forced distinctions. Ie text saying prebyters are chosen if they are blameless because the bishop is blameless. This is not confusion on the part of the writer of what to call an office. It merely acknowledges that the bishops are normally chosen from among the priests(presbyters).
I loved this discussion, thank you Austin for hosting it.
I do have to admit my secret shame, though. When Dr. Ortland’s camera went black my COVID total lockdown brain immediately filled in that space with a kitten filter, and Dr. Ortland saying “I’m prepared to go forward. I’m live and I’m not a cat.” I’m sorry. I apologize for inserting my stupidity into a wonderful discussion.
Gospel simplicity. Sounds like EXACTLY WHY the Protestant Reformation began-- to get back to the simple power of the Gospel!
The Roman Catholic church has, however, through slow accretion, built rule upon rule, until the Gospel in their hands is neither simple nor powerful.
"For it is:
Do this, do that,
a rule for this, a rule for that;
a little here, a little there.” -- Isaiah 28:10
Oooh yay! They’re back!!!
Yeah! It was a GREAT conversation. Hope you enjoy it!
@@GospelSimplicity I’m sure I will. Why are you making us wait until next week though? This patience thing is hard 😂
@@margocatholic haha, part of it is just my upload schedule and I always get it out to patrons first
@@margocatholic patrons get the first view as they should. They help support the channel.
When Joe gave the Civil War analogy, I went nuts because it was so similar. 💗
@Greco Cabanero
Sure, if you want to be superficial about it. Union good. Confederacy bad.
But maybe not so much if one takes a nuanced approach…
South legitimately secedes and is clobbered by a wealthier, more populous North. 600,000 dead at the hands of a bully forcing unity.
Kind of like the Catholics in the wars of religion. Genocidal thugs, more or less. Germany left decimated after the Thirty Years’ War. Like the destitute American South after the “War of Yankee Aggression.”
Yay, unity!
@@HannahClaphamAmen.
@@countryboyred To be fair to Joe, we do need a consensus to rally around in order to be united. But why exactly does it need to be Rome? Or to take place within the parameters of Rome? That seems to beg the question. (Perhaps we should all become Orthodox Presbyterians or Evangelical Free or something.)
Let’s take another lesson from American History: the established British Empire under George III against the upstart, schismatic colonists. Are we supposed to root for England because they’re bigger and older? Wasn’t it a godsend for the reform-minded Americans to take charge? What would the world even look like without the emergence of the U.S.? (Sunk beneath the waves of unrestrained tyranny? It’s possible.)
Catholicism is far better off BECAUSE of the Reformation. Maybe it’s time they took the time to look at the rules under which we schismatics play kickball. They might actually learn something!
Catholics, for some reason, cannot see it, but they are the biggest impediment to Christian unity. Others speak of a negotiated peace. Only they speak of unconditional surrender.
By God’s mercy, maybe one day they will see that “my way or the highway” is not a very effective slogan for achieving any kind of widespread or long-lasting unity!
@@ericcarlson9885 You tell ‘em Eric! Right on man. I have actually considered becoming Catholic before but I just can’t bring myself to do it. They have too many doctrines that are accretions and frankly unbiblical. Papal infallibility, treasury of merit, the Marian dogmas, purgatory, the list goes on and on. I have Catholic friends and family. And I love them deeply. But something is wrong over there in Rome. I have heard stories of people saying they literally sense an evil presence within the Vatican. Lord I pray for their souls 🙏🏼 that they might know Christ personally and grow in Him every day. I pray for Christian unity. But not a false unity. A unity in TRUTH.
@@HannahClaphammy understanding was that the constitution sets up a government, not a league. Can’t remember which us president said this. What was the South’s legitimate reasoning behind secession?
I'm just here to see what names I'm called. My favorites: (1) Dr. Galvin; (2) Dr. Givin; (3) Mr. Ortland. :)
To be fair, I keep calling Austin "Gavin." For some reason those names are just too similar in my mind. ;)
@@TheCordialCatholic haha, does this give me license to deflect any difficult questions to him?
Lol. You’re lucky. Try having McElhaney as a last name. As far as the conversation, please continue to keep dialogue open with us Catholics. It’s important that those who want to consider Catholicism to know why we are Catholic. There are already enough under catechized Catholic weaklings in the Church now. As a convert (2016) from the Southern Baptist Denomination we need much Iron sharpening. And that’s where you, Dr. Galvinze (jk) can help us. Thanks for your time
In Christ
😂
Gr. Davin
Great video! Loved seeing the cordial debate and discussion. We need more of this! Would love to see you have Dr. Brant Pitre on at some point or Dr. John Bergsma.
Amazing and unsettling how two highly intelligent men can come to such different conclusions. If one is right and one is wrong, there would seem to be something almost mysterious/spiritual about having the truth of the matter. Almost as though God is keeping one in truth and letting the other remain blind. What else can one think when surely God did not design every person to know the argumentative intricacies of all things about Him.
Very interesting- I am a bit perplexed about this myself- could pride play a role in this?
@@dreamweaver3406 I think without God driving our lives and His Spirit driving our minds it's ourselves in the driver's seat. Call it pride or not, but it sure seems a recipe for taking some really smart-sounding, but disastrous intellectual positions.
@@nametheunknown_ humans are real good at deceiving themselves
@@dreamweaver3406 you've got that right! We aren't too bad at being deceived by others for that matter.
It would have been great if it was posted 2 days ago on the feast of the Chair of Peter. lol
Joe Heschmeyer is amazing.
why is he laughing at everyone? stop smirking it is kinda rude. does he just do that without bad intent or is he mocking everyone? I can't tell.
@@danglingondivineladders3994 you're clueless
@@danglingondivineladders3994 it's the joy of Jesus
@@danglingondivineladders3994 the conversation was cordial, Gavin made quite a few jokes, he was great and everybody smiled or laughed at. Joe's *very* respectful and charitable. Please clean your glasses
Great video guys. Im a protestant but appreciate the conversation.
One thought. I agree with Gavin except for on one item. It is actually a THREE wheeled vehicle. 1) Peter as supreme authority 2) clear instruction that his authority is passed on and 3) an understanding that this office was incorruptable.
He alludes to it but scrupturaly we see the Levites get a very similar position as a priesthood directly from God in the scripture. Their election is MUCH more strongly support than the office of the Papacy. Yet in Jeremiah he laments that there is not one single priest left who is uncorrupted and still follows God.
Its counter biblical to believe that mankind would hold any office without corruption. And when protestants and orthodox Christians point to clear corruption in Rome, it removes the third wheel. The office can still exist but it would need to be reformed minus heresies.
Why must we understand the office to be incorruptible? Not saying it doesn’t but I want to be clear on what you are saying.
@@IG88AAA because if the office is corruptible then there is nothing saying that we must obey all of its dictates for all time.
If what the current pope says is corrupted, then I shouldn’t listen to it. Even if he is the pope and his office is legitimate.
I watched both of the videos that have been done and hope to see a third one soon. 😁
Thanks, Austin for bringing these dialogs forward - it seems to me there is a great hunger to know the answer to the question Pilot posed to Jesus; "What is Truth?"
My pleasure!
So a person who doesn't know about the existence of the Pope and the Catholic church, and is reading the Bible for the 1st time, would that person walk away thinking that they need a human representative of Jesus on earth in charge of a hierarchical church that he now needs to visit in order to receive the grace of God and confess his sins to a priest that will intercede before God for forgiveness? Does anyone, without being told by another person, feel the need to look for the Catholic Church and the Pope on earth after reading the Bible?
Is he a Jew living in the first century. Or a gentile in that same time period? Or is he an English speaking American from this generation. Is it a rabbi from the first century? We all color the scriptures with our own markers. It’s hard to say because it depends on the person.
I am sure people see that they need teachers and don't just read the bible in a vacuum. The Bible wasn't made to be read that way anyway.
If I read the Bible for the first time, my question would be “I wonder if this church is still around somewhere. I believe this Jesus guy and want to be part of it”.
From there, I’d probably decide to be Catholic since they reconcile scripture to their theology better. Like when Jesus tells the apostles whoever sins they forgive are forgiven, or when Jesus instructs us how to take a gift to the altar in Matthew 5:23 (where is the Protestant altar???), or when Mary says that all generations will call her blessed.
There’s more examples than these.
@@andrevaca6700obviously Catholic .. reading Catholicism into the text.
@@StraitGateApologetics I haven’t even started RCIA yet. But I’m about to be Catholic
Great conversation! Thanks to all
Listening on Patreon and this has been awesome! Have you ever considered interviewing Fr. Spyridon? He is a pretty cool priest. Possible topics could be the Jesus Prayer, relics, and icons, or maybe all three!
Glad you’re enjoying it! I’ve come across his name but haven’t put much thought into an interview. I’d be open to it though
Greetings to all, I have pretty much given up on these discussions. There really is no new light to be shed. In the end it comes down to authority. Where does it reside,who has it and how is it exercised. Dr. Brant Pitre was crucial in my return to the Church as was Steve Ray. Sometimes it’s messy and sometimes I need to hold my nose when our leaders go off the rails with their personal opinions but Magisterially speaking I have been persuaded.
Thank God for Church History. It really strengthen my catholic faith. Joe Heschmeyer appreciate your work my brother in Christ.
GOD BLESS HIS ONE AND ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH💗💗💗
🙂🙂🙂 Jesus died actually for His Church. JUST saying. In the house church that paul started how beleivers worshipped was not stated explicity and mattered little. It matyered that they built their lives around jesus
What a great convo all around - great work guys!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Great argument by Joe re: Luke 22:31. We have heard before about Jesus praying for Peter, but not the fact of the preceding context. I think that's a really, really good argument. Even if not by itself absolute proof.
15:50 umm, yes, the majority of prodestants reject the pope and the concept of the pope. That doesnt mean they think he's evil or bad, but they dont believe he speaks authoritatively or infallibly.
As a life long Protestant, who is discerning Catholicism and Orthodoxy. This was very very helpful.
I love how Austin shows the books of both of the speakers during their introductions 😂
I felt like Vanna White hahahah
This has been a great show!
These guys put forth a respectful, and super informative conversation.
I really enjoyed it.
I think the pastor had a lot of intelligent pushback....but I think Joe fired back with intelligent answers...which is why it was fruitful to sit in on.
I would love to see more shows like this.
Thank you Austin and Keith! 🌷
Austin,
I recommend that from the Catholic perspective you do a show on the Communion of the Saints, on the mystical Body of Christ.
Their is a fundamental difference between Catholicism and Protestantism on this point. So many testimonials of super natural events within Catholicism must be given a verdict. Take for example Padre Pio. Its beyond a doubt his life of service and the charisma's he manifested...so this verdict for these type of supernatural manifestations must either be ordained by God according to his Grace or by the Devil and his "holy" deception.
This aspect of Catholicism is rarely discussed...which is also true for the appearances of Mary as with Lourdes, Fatima, etc...not just the event and the supernatural post manifestations, but also her message. It all must be in sink with The Holy Apostolic Catholic Church and the Holy Scriptures.
Thanks for your attention to this aspect of our Faith.
Mary of Fatima's message sounded like the devil to me. Same explanation as alien invasion stories. The devil!
Miracles happen in other churches too though. This isn’t a claim that’s exclusive to Catholics. The Orthodox have plenty of saints and documented miracles. I personally know a Baptist man who was healed during a tent revival. Catholics don’t have an exclusive claim on miracles.
All 4 wonderful guests! Love it. More of this.
I'm truly puzzled why so many don't see that The Body of Christ, The Church of God is not just Spirit filled, but Spirit Ordained! It is The Living Church, and out of this Living Body came the New Testament, not the Church from the Scriptures. Even the Old Testament didn't create the Church, but foreshadowed it. So to go to the New Testament and use it against The Church Christ ordained is illogical, ahistorical and counterproductive. The Church did develop, it did mature...and yes the NT did continue to guide the Church. This is the nature of a living "being", the nature of how the Spirit works, not only in the Church, but thru the Word. As I used to tell my children it's not about perfection, but direction. In regards to the Church, the direction is one of Sanctification, of Holiness which is governed according to God's Grace by and thru the Holy Spirit. The Spirit will lead the Church into all Truth and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail. I may apostate, a bishop or priest or deacon may apostate, but The Church of Jesus Christ will NEVER Apostate! It was created, it stood, it stands and will continue to stand till the end of time. This is the Historic Christian Faith!
The church follows Christ, it is not the creator or the head/leader. Too many people are brought down too many false paths and think it's the spirit of God. Mormons know they're right because the holy spirit lead them to the book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. If the true church are believers who are trying to follow God, then the evil spirits that happened to hold roles in the church structure, would lead it with another spirit. God stays with with those aligned with his spirit. Or do you think he stays with a direct line of handshakes? The bible says not to worry about geneologies. It would seem the Catholic Church system would require a great looking into to ensure the pure geneology of the apostalic succession.
I converted from ND Evangelical to Catholic almost 20 years ago. It’s wonderful to see balanced discussion without rancor. Thanks, guys!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Where there’s the Bishop, there’s the Catholic Church :)
Ignatious:).
And we agree, Protestants and Orthodox are catholics too. However, Ignatius didn’t mean “the Roman Catholic Church” though, because it didn’t exist yet.
@@Solideogloria00
Which Protestants??
And where there is a will , there is a Jesuit! Heard that one on retreat ( Jesuit retreat)
@@RGTomoenage11me, an Anglican who attends his bishop’s parish lol
I’ve been seeing Gavin on a lot of Catholic RUclips. I COULD NOT have my views criticized as long as he has without losing it. He is a very patient man. We hope you come to Rome Gavin and Austin.
Laudetur Jesus Christus
HIs patience is remarkable
Why Rome though?
The living memory argument from Irenaeus' preeminence and listing of the Popes is case and point. There is no arguing against those concrete facts.
Hi, Interesting discussion. I can appreciate both the Catholic and the Orthodox claims with their bishops, councils, and apostolicity aiding in illuminating them in the true interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. Dr. Ortlund, where are your bishops and your councils in interpreting the Bible correctly? Is there any one Protestant denomination that can make such claims? Which one would it be?
To be a little bit facetious here, certainly one that does not hold the Marian dogmas of perpetual virginity immaculate conception and her being sinless. Those are in direct contradiction to the scriptures.
the sad thing is that the Protestant side is always the side of skepticism, of doubt in God's divine providence and guidance. It is quite ironic that their main doctrine is "faith alone"
Seeing if something is true is a virtue, not a vice. In fact not determining whether the pope and the magisterium are true is the vice of credulity. See Acts 17:11 " Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."
@@philagon If I were a protestant I will certainly not accuse any Catholic of the vice of credulity. The reason is that your main doctrine, which is this idea of "extra nos" justification requires way more of the "vice of credulity" that the doctrine of the Papacy. Let me give you some reasons:
1. Luther said that it was "the article by which the Church stands or fall", and yet Paul never explicitly articulates the protestant idea of Justification. This has been argued not by Catholics but by the top protestant Pauline scholars like N.T Wright, Alister McGrath or Matthew Bates.
2. This idea is nowhere to be found in the early Church. In fact, both the latin and greek early Fathers held a substantially different idea of Justification, which is pretty much in line with the one affirmed infallibly by the Church at the Council of Trent.
3. You can clearly see the Papacy as the primacy of the Roman See in the early Church and its ecumenical councils. But your main doctrine is not there.
4. Since "extra nos" righteousness is a theological innovation of the middle ages, then you have to affirm that Protestantism found the gospel as opposed to recovering it (since it follows logically that they didn't really had it or understood it).
So, now who's is more guilty of the "vice of credulity"?
@@HosannaInExcelsis Paul certainly does articulate the doctrine of justification which Protestants do adhere to:
"Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, " Romans 5:1
@@Justas399 well, unless we go deep into your doctrine of justification then you will have to admit that there was no reason for the reformation, because that is exactly what Catholics believe. This is from the 6th session from the Council of Trent:
"And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification"
do you disagree with anything in that statement?
@@HosannaInExcelsis Trent denied the gospel:
"CANON 9: “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”
Here is what Scripture says:
“because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin,” (Rom. 3:20).
“being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,” (Rom. 3:24).
“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law,” (Rom. 3:28).
Cant wait to watch this on Patreon!
It’s out now!
Wow... enthralling Joe answered it all for me. Such intellectual integrity and charity. Truth in Love. The prayer of unity was for all, and if all would be united it would be to return. May we all be one. I really enjoyed this one. Well done fellas. God bless you all.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Amazing how people can have such incredibly different takeaways. I thought Gavin’s answers were way more coherent and truthful.
A first century Jew would have know Peter was given a successive office because a first century Jew would have understood Isaiah 22 and that Shebna and Eliakim held a successive role in the Kingdom of David. That is spelled out enough for me...
43:00 comparing blockchain to apostolic succession is actually kind of genius
These discussions are so great thank you! 🌸🙏
On the question of the monarchial bishop of Rome question, I would actually argue that from the perspective of how information is transmitted in this time period it would be extremely unlikely that something as foundational as the organizational leadership structure of one of the most important and influential teaching offices of early Christianity to have significantly changed at all. If there was a change from a more conciliar Roman church (council of elders, multiple bishops in once city, etc.) to a single bishop we would expect to see far more explicit evidence of correspondence weighing in on the question at least from other cities (something akin to elders writing to other Apostolic sees asking if the model they are switching to is prudent). There is enough evidence that early Christianity put serious stock in its organizational structure as a way of surviving heretical sects and determining what is orthodox teaching, and such a structural switch in what is clearly an important teaching office would merit a good deal of conciliar deliberation outside of the Roman see on the subject. To use some of the same language of arguing from silence here, it would seem that the reverse tack could be taken when arguing against Dr. Ortlund's position: if it is acceptable to say that the evidence for an infallible Roman bishop among the whole church is lacking due to the information we have, it should be equally acceptable to say that the position that a conciliar Roman teaching office based in an assembly of elders is lacking due to the information we have.
Of the many things I learnt in this insightful video, one thing is that I need to occasionally take sips of water throughout the day. :)
1:40:30 To respond to Dr. Ortlund: Heschmeyer's point is not that the papacy will pevent people from disagreeing or damaging the unity. Of course that people are free to break away from Rome. The papacy doesn't remove people's free will. Heschmeyer's point is that if Jesus wants us to be one and in the truth, then he should give us the means to achieve that. This doesn't mean that we will actually always be one and in the truth (Jesus leaves us our free will), but it means that the possibility to be one and in the truth should always be there. However, if no one has an infallible authority, then this possibility isn't even there, which would mean that Jesus's talk about unity in truth was just wishful thinking. And here we are talking about unity between people. But there is also the question of unity between each individual and the truth.
Each individual Christian is called to remain united to the truth that Jesus wants us to be united to. However, If there are many christian denominations and churches disagreeing between them about what is this truth that Jesus wants for us, then it becomes a problem for the individual Christian to know which one is right. But Jesus gives us a moral obligation to always remain in the truth he wants for us. Therefore he should have given each Christian the means to always remain in this truth. However if no one has an infallible authority, then there is no means for each Christian to always remain in the truth. If for example, I am part of a church, and this church splits into two, which is the one I should go with? If there is no permanent rock marking the place of the Church, no permanent infallible authorithy, then there is no way for me to know; and in fact there is not necessarily a right answer, since without infallible authorithy, then all the churches and denominations could be at least partially wrong, which would mean that not only the unity with truth would be compromised, but the truth itself would be compromised.
Something I would add to your statement is in regards to him saying that the church isn’t one. We see in the scriptures about the cutting off of people who teach heresy or remain in it or who do not live holy lives and remain in their sins. They are to be separated from the church, we wouldn’t then say that the church isn’t one but rather there are those who are outside of the church because of their unwillingness to submit to the true church and her teachings. This is that the church isn’t one but rather that those who disagree with her or choose to teach or remain in error do not wish to submit to truth found only in the true church.
"...but it means that the possibility to be one and in the truth should always be there. However, if no one has an infallible authority, then this possibility isn't even there...."
That's a strong claim that doesn't seem reasonable. If God can do it under Jewish captivity then he certainly isn't limited by your imagination. Those who by conscience, by the holy spirit, written revelation, and by personal revelation are led to the truth and who live and abide by it are united together in the truth through Christ.
@@blamtasticful There is a good argument to be made that Jews had access to some infallible authority. Check out Suan Sonna on his channel Intellectual Conservatism.
@@vituzui9070 Not really though. Such arguments are very anachronistic. Even if granted the idea that this existed throughout Jewish history is certainly false such as during the time of Judges or under the rule of King Ahab.
“It was different when the Apostles were alive.”
Also
“And while John was still alive Clement was monoepiscipate.”
I noticed that too.
He litterally proved gavins point.
There was no evolution too remember that gavin says yes there were
Oh well it was different 😂
Catholics never fail to give me a massive head ache.
And I realize that even we protestants can be blinded by tradition. And mislead by translation.
Were all susceptible
I my self am egalitarian because saying women can't do stuff doesn't square with either the bible or with extreme early history...
But that's a example I know most prots won't like😅
Not trying to start anything btw
Killing it Joe!
1. The early Church, Christians and church fathers all understood the words of Jesus to make Peter the chief authority, even though there are other authorities in the church subject to Peter
( The papacy may not have been fully fleshed out due to the persecutions, scattered nature of the early church, developement of doctrine etc, many of the doctrines such as Trinity, the twofold nature of Christ were fully understood only later on)
2. In the old testament, "giving of keys" was a gesture of bestowing authority by God. See ISAIAH 22:22, Eliakim is clearly given "Keys" indicating that he was bestowed some degree of authority over Israel... Jesus is talking in that context when he clearly bestows the keys to the kingdom of heaven, to Peter primarily, in very clear words and with even greater expressions of primacy.
3. In the FIRST century itself, we find Clement, the Roman bishop and martyr, exercising his authority and guidance over the church of Corinth which they themselves asked and accepted, even though Corinth is far away from Rome and certainly had its own bishops, and even though John the apostle may have been living in nearby ephesus
4. Though some of the early fathers' words have been taken out of context by protestantism, the understanding of the early fathers, both East as well as West, and evidenced by many clear expressions in their letters, ( an early, clear pronouncement of the papacy is found in St Irenaeus, who was a student of Polycarp, who in turn was taught by none less than John the Apostle) is that the Bishop of Rome is the spiritual successor of Peter and is the spiritual head of the Universal Church.
5. It is only in the 15th century Protestant changes that we see novel ideas altogether denying the supremacy of Peter's successor introduced by Luther, Calvin etc, especially the foul mouthed and unstable Martin Luther (just read his raving denouncement of the papacy, in words too foul to even be printed) , before that such ideas were looked at as heresy by nearly all Christians
I enjoyed this, but I'd like to say: The moderators need to be less cordial. Dr. Ortlund is much more conscientious of the time he takes. Mr. Heschmeyer was given quite a bit of space to steamroll. I don't think this has anything to do with an intent to be disrespectful to Dr. Ortlund and seems to occur as a phenomenon of their respective personalities, which is why there is a need for interjecting moderators.
That’s really good feedback! Keith and I have already discussed some structural changes we’ll be making for the next conversation😁
@@GospelSimplicity No I don't think you need to, from what I observed. Gavin played his cards well . The Catholic guy seemed much more versed on the subject matter than him. I'm not passing a judgment on who is right .I'm only pointing that Mr Gavin displayed tact and did not shoot himself on the foot by simply raising his objection and allowing him answer it.
I suspect on several occasions Gavin simply had no well thought out come back and his politeness was a cover for that. In fact I wanted to hear his response to things Joe said but he refrained from giving one. Nothing was preventing him from challenging Joe. The moderators made it clear they were happy for them to go back and forth freely. Joe simply had a strong counter argument or reply to everything Gavin put forth and had to work hard to contain himself.
@@peter_hobbs Pft.
Super intelligent back and forth conversation for 1.5 hours. Then Gavin-
“suppose there are some kids who want to go play kickball” 😂😂
Wow,that was awesome!!! I love it!!💯💯😍
What a good fruitful and often times humorous discussion. I will say the man with whom I differ, made great points.
Gavin admits that there was “one bishop” in Rome as early as 150 AD. Can anyone think seriously that this magically occurred in 150 ad? It’s hard to take this line of reasoning seriously especially when we have the archeological evidence (Eg: the hall of popes in the catacombs) and multiple lists of the papacy in the early church (though admittedly I’m aware of at least one list that does not match exactly). The early church was often under extreme persecution - so one might expect that the writings would not be as extensive as became evident after Christianity was legalized. And this is exactly what happened.
Reality is the structure that we see in the early Church is one where there is an organic connection through apostolic succession. It’s found in the Bible (Mathias chosen to succeed Judas). Is it reasonable to think that there wasn’t an apostolic succession when it comes to Peter s office which we find in union with yet distinct from the other apostles (matthew 16 / Matthew 18).
Likewise as a baptist Gavin very likely does not hold to baptismal regeneration (at least his denomination does not) - yet this is the universal testimony on the nature of baptism in the early church. So can any one really take what Gavin is saying seriously when it seems that he really does not care what the testimony of the early church is on baptism which is directly related to salvation.
Just seems like he is trying to “poke holes” while not drawing obvious implications of the historical record.
The Protestant approach to Christianity is a non historical approach. Once one realizes the lack of historicity and organic connection with the apostles - it really is difficult to adhere to the Protestant approach - at least that seems to be the case. The issue of historical Christianity was one of the main drivers in the conversion of Hank Hanegraff (to orthodoxy), Francis Beckwith, Scott Hahn, Bob Sungenis and many others.
Can anyone seriously say that if he were a Christian in 180 ad - that he would have been a Protestant Christian - holding fast to the Protestant distinctive s of Sola Scriptura and sola fide?
The New Testament DOES NOT speak adequately on every issue but the foundations are there. So once again - we have a Protestant saying something has to be explicit in the scriptures - Where does scripture explicitly teach that the sabbath was changed to Sunday? Or that the Holy Spirit is a “person” within the Holy trinity? These things are implied but not explicit. I would hold there is more scriptural evidence for the papacy than of these two things.
I do agree that the testimony of the early church holds that the church in ROME was founded by Peter and Paul - and that Peter founded the church in Antioch and Jerusalem. I suspect Rome was viewed as having the primary based on both Peter finding the Church in Rome and the fact that both of these great men found the church there.
That seems to be what is talked about by the early fathers - but with emphasis on Peter s headship of the apostles.
..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222). -Catholic scholar.
@@Justas399 did you watch the discussion my friend? Joe addressed that specific point
Pope Clement 88 ad is listed by both Turtilian and Irenaeus as A pope in the first century. He wrote the letter to the Corinthians. His writings were actually read as Scripture by some in the early church. So yes there was a bishop in the first century in Rome. We still have the letter - He demanded obedience claiming it would be a great sin to not obey his authority. The Corinthian church did adhere to his instruction at the time.
So there you have it - a first century pope!
@@mikeoconnor4590 There may have been a bishop in Rome in the 1st but not just one nor a bishop that was over all bishops. That idea did not develop until centuries later.
@@Justas399 Christ left a visible Church on earth with apostles and a leader to bind and loosenon earth what is in heaven after He ascended into heaven. Clearly Peter was the first Pope and apostolic succession.....remember the Early Church was developing the Church structure over time. Your explanation seems illogical to me...and I don't mean to offend you. Think of the Church doctrine of the Trinity.....the Trinity God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit always existed from the beginning yet our understanding of this Truth occured later through doctrinal development think St Patrick using a 3 leaf clover to explain the hard concept of 3 persons in one God.....likewise same logic for the doctrine of the Papacy. Doctrine doesn't change but the way the Truth is explained to create understanding of these unchangeable Truths does become more clear with insight based on scripture and Holy Tradition over time. There are many examples in scripture from the Old to the New Testament where God is preparing the way for the future and preparing our understanding of His Truths. For example the Kigdom of David and the hierarchy was a foreshadowing of the Papacy and Church hierarchy...
EXAMPLE
Source stjohnfisher.medium.com/isaiah-22-and-the-papacy-529860bcff77
In Isaiah 22:15-24 we read,
Thus says the Lord God of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: What have you to do here and whom have you here, that you have hewn here a tomb for yourself, you who hew a tomb on the height, and carve a habitation for yourself in the rock? Behold, the Lord will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you, and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball into a wide land; there you shall die, and there shall be your splendid chariots, you shame of your master’s house. I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eli′akim the son of Hilki′ah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.[2]
In this passage we read of God replacing Shebna with Eliakim, and giving him his office. Shebna was governor of the house. Essentially, he was given all power of fiscal responsibility over the House of David, serving under David’s successor. The privileges endowed to Eliakim include,
- Wearing a robe, ornate and royal, to confirm his office. As well as a political sash.
- Considered a father (i.e. Pope) among the house of Judah (David’s domain)
- Given a key of power to open and shut over the King’s kingdom (*cough* Matthew 16:19 *cough*)
- Given a preminate place of honor in the King’s kingdom.
- Given a list of successors through his personal lineage.
Now, reading this along side Matthew 16:16-20, it’s easy to see the prophet Isaiah’s imagery. We know that Christ is the continuation of David’s lineage writ large. His kingdom, the Church, the continuation of Israel is build on the faith of his followers who he has grafted on. We are not like the Rabbinical Jews in exile, waiting for land, the church is conquering the world one soul at a time. The Pope is his financial minister, placed head of, and holding managing all that is Christ’s inheritance on Earth. Whereas Eliakim’s linage is physical, Peter’s is spiritual, just like how Christ has a spiritual kingdom, where David had a kingdom of this world.
I couldn't help but notice a particular theme that kept popping up, a difference in the way Joe and Dr. Ortlund (and, by extension, Catholics and Protestants respectively) will interpret the witness of the Fathers. Catholics will generally find it sufficient when, even if there's not much early evidence for a teaching (in the 100s or 200s), the evidence that IS there points in the Catholic direction, we can't really find any evidence that CONTRADICTS the Catholic position, and especially if by the time of the 4th century onward those doctrines are made more explicit. Whereas the Protestant will generally be more skeptical of a doctrine if it isn't pretty explicitly taught in the first few centuries. I'd be interested to see these four fine gentlemen discuss this interpretive lens and the merits and demerits of each viewpoint.
Getting into interpretive lenses would be really interesting
@@GospelSimplicity agreed! Especially if Joe and Dr. Ortlund are going to have recourse to the Fathers for their arguments. Each one could be presented with the same data, but come up with different conclusions.
@@tylerrossjcl The problem is many Protestants will always default to “their understanding” of Scripture and use that as the Trump card to undercut anything the early church taught unambiguously.
Case in point baptismal regeneration -
This was believed and taught unambiguously in the early Church but I’ve had many discussions with Protestants - who are completely dismissive of this idea because in their eyes the Scripture does not teach this. I can show them how / where this is found in scripture but unfortunately many are not open to this interpretation no matter how well it is presented from a scriptural perspective.
Bottom line it really takes grace to see these things.
I do find these discussions enlightening and thought provoking though ! Cudo s to Gospel simplicity and the Cordial Catholic
@@mikeoconnor4590
You seem to be stuck in a caricature of protestantism.
Ortlund and Trent discuss on another YT video the issue of baptism a little more in depth. The reality is that both in the narrative of the Book of Acts and in the epistles, the majority of cases of conversion are associated with belief first. A Catholic monologue might seem persuasive but when you see Ortlund going at it with Trent, Trent has to concede the exceptions to baptism, and how God was changing people before baptism.
Ortlund keeps the importance of baptism in God's work of regeneration, while at the same time not ignoring the importance of belief in conversion, and as critical to conversion.
@@carlosrodas423I believe Trent has also made the point that baptism being necessary is normative or ordinary (the normal way in which we are saved, along with faith) but God is not bound by the sacraments. God can choose extraordinary ways to save people, it does not nullify the ordinary.
Even in the Old Testament (OT) you were not simply saved by circumcising only, but it was required ordinarily. See the example of Moses almost losing his son because he hasn’t circumcised him. Meanwhile the verses saying where God desires mercy, not sacrifice. Or in various parts of the OT where God greatly desires people to repent and turn to Him, and do good works of mercy in partnership with God. It was a “both and” rather than “either-or” as many Protestants will try to make it seem with baptismal regeneration. Catholics think you need both faith (evidenced by works) and also baptism (ordinarily). Hope this clarifies a bit, I myself am still Protestant but strongly considering becoming Catholic.
"Protestant until proved Catholic." This was well put by Joe, and it seemed to be the core principle of Gavin's argument. But I'm not sure I see the logic behind that; given the history of how the Church grew, developed and dis-integrated. Gavin was very fair in pointing out some of the weaknesses in the "proof" for the papacy... but I imagine a comparable "proof" for the Protestant paradigm would reveal far more weaknesses. As much as we would like a bulletproof proof, I think the most reasonable approach is to accept we have limited evidence available, and therefore just look at which which direction the evidence points to, rather than expecting (or claiming!) a full-blown map.
I think that’s a fair approach
The problem with Catholic attempts to use a "you don't have proof of your authority either" type argument is that the amount of authority the Catholic church claims is monumentally gigantic compared to the authority claimed by Protestants. It's like saying to two poeple "where'd you get that money?" and both say "I found it on the ground", where one person is holding a $1 bill and the other person is holding a footlocker with $1,000,000 in it.
Protestants don't claim infallibility or the authority to forgive sins or the authority to declare people anathema. If you don't agree with a Baptist statement of faith then you to go to another church down the street. If you don't agree with Catholic doctrine then you suffer eternal torment in hell. Do you see the difference there and why the standard of proof for Catholics has to be higher than that of the Protestants?
Between the confession with mortal sins and declarations of anathema, the Catholics claim the power to determine who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. If you're going to take that kind of authority for yourself, you need absolute incontrovertible proof of God giving you that power. Jesus renaming Peter the rock in 30ad does not prove that Francis today two thousand years later has that kind of authority.
@@patrickbarnes9874 " If you don't agree with a Baptist statement of faith then you to go to another church down the street. "
Jesus praying for all of us to be one: Am I a joke to you?
@@ghostapostle7225 Jesus prayed for all of us to be one, but not to be the same. A baptist and a presbyterian having different opinion in theological issues of second imoportance is not against unity. As long as they love and respect each other. Two catholics (progressive and traditional) fighting agressively over liturgy is against unity.
@@ghostapostle7225Catholics don’t even agree with each other..
I find it incredibly sad that so many of the comments state how wonderful it us that the discussion is civil despite disagreements.
This should not be exceptional nor worthy of comment. It should be the norm. If it isn't, it is a sad indictment of our working out of our faith