Hey Everybody! While I am on sabbath from making youtube videos during the month of May I thought I would upload one (or two) older dialogues. Hope you enjoy! :)
@YAJUN YUAN I doubt he would be impressed. As I earlier stated to Tony, annihilationism being a core doctrine for SDA is enough to prove that its teachings are false since the founder believed that it was a teaching from God.
@YAJUN YUAN That's a fair point. I should have been clear. Here's the thing: Ellen G White claimed to receive visions from God. How can something as so important as hell and understood as eternal punishment for centuries all of a sudden be changed to annihilationism? She even argued like an atheist that this doctrine has made believers infidels. It may not annihilate (pardon the pun) SDA theology as a whole but it *definitely* questions her supposed prophet hood since she directly contradicts Jesus in this very important topic.
@YAJUN YUAN The first major problem with SDA theology is that it defines death as biological death. Keep in mind that SDA theology is also physicalist in nature where if the brain is dead, the conscious is already a mess. You don’t need a computer scientist to tell you how messed up it is philosophically. Look up the atheist philosopher Emerson Green and his case against physicalism. It is no surprise that many annihilationists are physicalists. Matthew 10:28 is a popular prooftext but it is wrong. The Greek word can for destroy can be translated to ruin or lose which is consistent with the traditionalist position. Lose and destroy do not go together with your theology. Your interpretation of Matthew 25:41 actually signifies the teachings of the traditional position for the damned are aware of their suffering. White argues like an atheist and she was super wrong. I asked Tony the SDA commenter who runs around this channel how annihilationism does justice. Imagine if a government executed a person for stealing a loaf of bread A rational person would condemn such a government. Yet, for White, it is okay for God to destroy a bread thief. That is not justice. It is madness. This is why even the annihilationist Basil Atkins notes “I have avoided . . . any argument about the final state of the lost based upon the character of God, which I should consider it to be irreverent to attempt to estimate”. For some reason, White was okay with the final destruction of a bread thief but couldn’t bear the eternal death of a mere brad thief whose crime was so small. In fact, if you’re correct that the fires of hell burn the soul, that means that it is basically a cosmic version of burning heretics to death. No person with a conscious would accept such a faulty premise. Even the Universalist philosopher Dr. David Bentley Hart (DBH) admitted that annihilationism is still faulty by using the same arguments. In other words, Ellen G White’s premise of physicalism and supposed love of God burning to death a bread thief is already a philosophical mess. This is why when I posed this objection to Tony, he went on a whole rant about why God is worse than Hitler and Charles Mason. It is a very ironic reaction coming from a man who brags to be a Bible preacher. Now for Baptism, you write that the Hebrew posits the mortal soul. You couldn’t be more wrong. I suspect that you use the Genesis story to say that the soul is made mortal because you translate die to mean death. In fact, if both soul and body die, this clearly means physicalism. Once again, my first paragraph rebuts this point. In my opinion, Ellen G White sounds a lot like the so-called LGBT Christians who question historic Christianity because the definition of Christianity’s teaching on marriage is “unfair”. As for your reference to the church fathers, I will just quote annihilationist, Randal Rauser, who says that the eternal conscious punishment is a *majority* teaching of the historic Church. If I have interpreted father Casey correctly, that he is an annihilationist, he is a good example of people disobeying the Catholic church’s teaching on eternal punishment.
@YAJUN YUAN I couldn’t find the quote. Professor Randal Rauser has been defending annihilationism and critiquing eternal punishment but he has admitted that eternal punishment has been the dominant view throughout church history.
@YAJUN YUAN Eternal punishment can also be eternal conscious torment. Some philosophers/theologians like Steve Hays referred to it as eternal conscious punishment (ECP). The damned will never know the love of God and their mind and bodies will torment them forever knowing that they’re shut out from the love of God forever. Your assertion that ECP entered the picture in 430 AD is nothing more but mere assertion. Dr. Edward Feser has shown how ECP has always existed since the time of Jesus. Your argument reminds me of Dr. DBH’s assertion that Universalism was dominant before Augustine.
Dr Ortlund, I cant begin to express my thankfulness for your awesome work.. I was recently considering converting to eastern orthodoxy, but your admirable way of reasoning and knowledge kept me from that, no matter how compelling changing my mind seemed to me. I would also like to congratulate on your irenic way of engaging in arguments, your behaviour really honours Christ and you truly are what christians are called to be : a light in the world..
Hello, I am still considering converting to Orthodoxy. What have you learned that keeps you away? To me what is on show here doesn't seem like a living tradition. Are we all supposed to study documents to come to our understanding?
@@hempenasphalt1587 I understand what you are saying.. That sense of a continual living connection to the early church that orthodoxy claims is really compelling, however for me it all ultimately comes down to the fact that the holy fathers (upon orthodox tradition is based on) essentially teach with authority(and claim infalability) on matters that biblically (a very important aspect, since the apostles explicitly commanded us to stay firm on their traditions and teachings, they received from Jesus) and historically are very weakly supported. Essentially, orthodoxy i believe has broken the commandment of Christ to "call no one your father" and no one "teacher", because we have only one authoritative teacher and that is the messiah (as the famous passage says). (Of course this argument is not focused on titles etc but on the deeper meaning of christ's teaching , which is that the only teacher is him and we should measure every doctrine by the canon of his sayings and teachings that he passed down to his apostles and were recorded in the new testament).
@@hempenasphalt1587 essentialy christianity is a classroom with a teacher and students. Among the students, you can find some really bright examples, however no matter how bright the student is, everything has to be measured in comparison with what the teacher teaches.
@@hempenasphalt1587 so its better to remain protestant and be ready to examine and compare every doctrine with scripture rather than become orthodox and submit to (bright and good Christian but nonetheless) other people other than the messiah. Which leads to a truly dead tradiotanilism comparable with rhe strucure of the pharisees and thr suduces during Jesus time.
Timothy's office was Evangelist, which evidently included the appointing of Elders and Bishops (which makes sense, given if you are planting Churches and then moving on to plant more, you need to establish Elders in that Church before you go.). "I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, *do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry."* ~ 2 Timothy 4:1-5
I am so glad I found your channel. As a Protestant who desires to learn about church history, your channel has been very helpful. Btw, I was wondering where we post our question for your upcoming June Q&A? @truthunites
Great channel and a great debate/discussion, very polite, not talking over each other and I learnt from both these guys. Well researched questions and answers. Good stuff.
great video. as an Anglican, i think you have some great points Gavin! Also, im currently reading one of your Dad's books, I absolutely love it. what a blessing.
There is such an overwhelming amount of information here to take in! Thank you very much for carefully taking this vast amount of information and organizing it so that we can steps to finding the truth and honoring Christ. May God bless you, brother!
Time-stamps 23:05 , 20:38 - Irenaeus and Tertullian: the succession of doctrine 1:30:53 - Charles Spurgeon’s interaction with the Assyrian Church of the East
@Bb Dl some minor historical inaccuracies, and there were some issues about the breadth of acceptable positions concerning it within Anglicanism. One of the central issues to discuss is whether the Episcopate is of the esse, bene esse, or plene esse.
@Bb Dl technically the "bene esse" view is still allowed, but at least for us it's no an option to "switch to", insofar as our Communion is concerned. For me, the answer is that it's the plene esse.
This is THE issue upon which formal authority rests. If there was no monarchical episcopate in the New Testament and it can be demonstrated that such a doctrine was a development in history and not of divine institution, then special claims to interpretation of Divine revelation and jurisdiction over the Church collapses. Like you said, Dr. Ortlund, it is not a right or wrong issue but one of Divine origin of the office. Hope your sabbatical is good!
@@CCiPencil That's certainly the position, I just don't know how to get there from the text itself. The authors don't claim to be writing the words of God in that sense and there's no chain of transmission to know who wrote them in the first place.
@@scuzlol just because you don’t understand how to get there doesn’t mean it’s not there. There are many passages about Jesus giving authority to the apostles, paul being considered an apostles, doctrines stating that they were writing the word of God, Peter affirming Paul is writing scripture, paul quoting from the gospels, we know who wrote the books of the NT (except for Hebrews). If the NT isn’t the word of God, is there an another? Is there anything that is?
@@CCiPencil I agree, but nowhere does it say that the authority given to the apostles includes their ability to write Scripture that is on the same level of authority as the Torah. I reject Paul and certainly don't think HIS followers were given some non-Scriptural prerogative to somehow write the very words of God. The early Christians didn't even agree on what this New Testament was and which books to include. The Shepherd of Hermas was overwhelmingly accepted as Scripture yet teaches what modern Christians deem to be heretical.
The quote from Jerome on minute 24:00 tells the true story. Apostolic succession, as the Catholics/Orthodox would want us to believe, “is a result of TRADITION and not from a particular institution by the Lord.” In other words, ITS MAN-MADE!
@@koppite9600 you’ll say? But God’s word reveals that those who were apostles actually witnessed Christ. No one today who calls themselves an apostle has witnessed Christ. No one today can perform miracles as the apostles did.
@@Phil-bm4xo The Apostles appointed those who would take over from them when they died. They would not be happy with anyone who disobeys their successors. They would want us to maintain unity under The present bishops.
This is a more rhetorical point than anything else but it still stands. They question you have to ask yourself is whether Christ instituted a Kingdom or not. Is Christ the King of Kings or the King of secular, social, autonomous democratic states and congregations who appoint for themselves their own leaders and elders by vote? For the protestant, they have to explain why the Church is not in fact a Kingdom. For the protestant, what they have in terms of their church structure is not any kind of apostolic succession or Kingdom but rather a form democratic, baptismal, confessionalism. At the root of this perspective is a belief in a form of Christian egalitarianism, the arguments for which are very similar to that of Korah in the rebellion. Be reminded that God chose between Moses and Aaron and Korah and his followers who offered strange fire before the Lord.
To respond to the point on Acts: the episcopacy accepts a plurality of *presbyters*, but that’s not really the issue. The issue is over whether one presbyter is a first among equals in exerting a kind of authority over other presbyters. The claim of the episcopate is that we just make the sociological fact that one presbyter leads a presbytery/dioceses visible in the bishop, who is the representative head of unity. Now, why is it that Clement has the authority to write in the name of the whole Roman church? That fits better if Clement is the representative head of that regional church than if he’s just one presbyter among many
Wouldnt that fit an arch episcopy mode of the the church where one is a first among equals than a mono episcopy where authority flows down from one bishop
@@aajaifenn I’d say it fits either. That’s actually why I think the universal jurisdiction of the Roman bishop isn’t necessarily wrong, but it’s not essential to the church. So having a bishop have universal jurisdiction can be expedient but not necessary. I think regional arch bishops are more practical though for the sake of the balance of unity and efficiency in logistics (the ACNA has an archbishop) That’s not to concede the papacy, however, because the papacy claims more than that. It claims that the Roman bishop has universal jurisdiction, a primacy of infallibility, and is by divine appointment the vicar of Christ.
@@anglicanaesthetics in the mono episcopy model the bishop has a divinely appointed office different from the presbyter and from which authority flows downwards . It would not like one who has the same office as other presbyters but who takes the lead ( a first among equals ) Is such a mono Episcopal office necessary for the church in your view
@@aajaifenn I’d say it’s an ideal entailment of natural law outworking in human society but not necessary. Interestingly, that was also Richard Hooker’s position, who regarded Presbyterianism as a legitimate but not ideal form of governance. The monoepiscopacy is a wise move of the church though as she flows with the grain of how human society is constructed
@@anglicanaesthetics Thanks and yes i agree to your point .However my query is does scripture invest in the office of the bishop a divine authority that is not shared by the office of the presbyter.
Excellent video 📹 👏 Sir; as usual. However, as a protestant, I've been dealing with this idea coming back now & again. Let's suppose 🤔 The Lord gave the keys 🔑 to Heaven ONLY to Peter, as Roman Catholics uphold, is there any firm connection between Peter & the bishops of Rome? Any irrefutable document? Any link or video 📹 of yours dealing with this issue? For as long as I'm concerned, Peter's been always the great elder of Antioch, not of Rome. Thanks.
Key Texts of St Ignatius of Antioch On bishops, priests, deacons and laity [UNITY] See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the priests as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.(Smyrnnians, Ch 8) On Deacons, Bishops In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the priests as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. (Trallians, Ch 3)
If there were such a thing as apostolic succession, then why did they quit following the first example of succession in the Bible? When did humans believe they could pick a successor, better than God? If there was truly a succession, then they would have followed successively by picking a successive person by that same succession method. Who changed the rules? When did God quit deciding who would control His Church? If in history or even contemporarily, they had followed that first prescription of succession, by casting lots, then I could believe in a succession. Because at least we would know that God picked the winner. But since they made up their own human system for succession; human picking and human voting, it quit being God’s choice and became a human choice. I can’t believe that the human picking program that we have today would always represent the will of God. After-all the first apostles, who knew Christ’s direct will, would have picked for themselves the first succession if humans were to pick, but instead they gave it to God in the form of casting lots. If anyone was to discern the will of God in how to pick the leaders of God’s Church it would have been the first apostles and yet they left it to God to decide.
Gavin, I have studied Jerome’s Commentary on Titus myself and I have come to view it as entirely compatible, even supportive, of Bishops (with a capital “B”) in the New Testament. That in itself is quite a surprising claim I know! May I reach out to you on Facebook? I have been grappling with early Church history for a while now and believe I am likely to become a Catholic soon. It would be very good to share these curious details about Jerome and ask you for some brief historical pointers as I make this decision. I so appreciate your work which has been instrumental in helping me in this time.
have you looked at Jerome's Letter 146? Also very relevant. Letter 169 is, briefly, too. He is certainly compatible with single bishops, but not as a jure divino command from the apostles.
Hi Gavin thanks for this. I have now read that letter and he restates the case he made in the commentary on Titus. I wasn’t able to find 169, was this a typo? If not I’d appreciate a link. So here is my exciting claim: Jerome does not rule out a divinely inspired appointment of bishops as an ecclesiology for the whole Christian world in his commentary - in fact, he explicitly affirms it! That sounds unbelievable so I’ll make my case as briefly and forcefully as I can. Jerome states that at the time of these writings the elders and overseers were one and the same. He concludes from this that therefore *Jesus* did not appoint bishops in the form that he had in his day. But he also states that the Bishop-Priest distinction emerged (1) as a response to the kinds of schisms seen in 1 Cor (he even quotes “Paul, Apollos, Cephas), and (2) because a command went up to the churches all over the world to institute this hierarchy. Now it’s important to understand what kind of claim Jerome is making. He does *not* have access to a chain of historical evidence unavailable to us in making this claim. Simply, he is doing what you and I and everyone else in this debate are doing: historical text analysis. In fact it’s a mark of his genius that the verses he cites cover most of the debate even down till today - Jerome had already summed up the debate in 387! So Jerome isn’t doing plain history, but rather reconstructive history. He sees that at the time of 1 Tim, Titus, etc there appears to be no distinction between Bishop and Priest. How did the distinction come about? Jerome answers: a command was given up to the whole world to adopt the distinction in all its churches. Now on confronting Jerome’s model we immediately have to ask (1) why is there no record of this command going out to all the churches? And (2) who gave that command? I think Jerome should best be understood as thinking that the apostles had given this command. I have three reasons for thinking this: (1) The schisms were intimately the concern of the apostles and from an early date. Again, Jerome cited 1 Cor 1 as his Premier example. (2) Only the apostles had the prerequisite authority to issue such a command and have it receive universal acclaim. If any other council had done it there would have been dissenters and more of a mark on history. In fact there’s something suspicious about the Congregationalist style overseer-elders ever giving such a command. And Jerome very explicitly uses the language of commands here. (3) Linus as the first successor to Peter is something Jerome affirms in his Chronicon. However this is the weakest strand of evidence for my case because it was written 7 years earlier than Commentary and so he may have adapted his beliefs about this. So to recap: Jerome does not deny that it was the apostles who instituted the Bishop-Priest distinction. He does deny that it was Jesus’ decision. But then he uses language which strongly implies that the apostles introduced the distinction late into the game as it were. For my money, if Jerome is right, I see the imprisoned Paul in 62 writing letters to Titus and Timothy as the first evidence that this is happening. He knows he is going to die soon, perhaps Peter does as well. They start to consecrate their disciples and imbue them with the authority they had enjoyed as apostles. Authority to make elders (Titus 1:5), authority to rebuke without being disregarded (Titus 2:15), etc. This fits remarkably well with the other historical data we have. The apostolic succession lists going back to Titus and Timothy for example, and these commissioning letters happening at the same time Peter and Paul are both at Rome at the time the successors of Peter apparently become bishops. One also considers that both of John’s disciples become bishops. I could go on! Thanks again for your reply Gavin. I know this is a lot to chew on but I’d love to hear your thoughts. Be forgiving of my mistakes here because I’ve sent all this from memory and my phone!
Correction: Jerome *implicitly* affirms apostolic appointment of Capital-B Bishops and this is compatible with his background belief that the Church is divinely inspired and protected from error.
@@zorionto Very interesting. Thanks for sharing! My concern is with the language of “divinely inspired.” Jerome claims capital B-bishops came about from “tradition.” Taking your arguments at face value, we would have to conclude that the tradition is divinely inspired since your claim is Jerome affirmed “divinely inspired appointment of bishops.” I think that is consistent with the RCC. However, Jerome sets “tradition” and “commands of the Lord” in contradistinction for the explicit purpose of giving one (ie commands of the Lord), priority and supremacy over the other (ie tradition). Do you think it is consistent for one type of divine revelation to have supremacy or priority over the other?
@@nickswoboda6647 If I'm understanding you - and correct me if I'm not - you are suggesting that Jerome is deliberately distinguishing between Jesus' commands (for Church structure?) and the tradition, in particular to the detriment of tradition. I don't think that's a tenable reading of Jerome here. Let me compare two passages from the commentary: "Therefore... the bishops know that they, more by custom than by the truth of the Lord’s arrangement, are greater than the priests." But a little earlier he explained how this custom (in his reconstructed history) emerged: "But after each one began to think that those whom he had baptized were his own and not Christ’s, it was decreed for the whole world that one of the priests should be elected to preside over the others..." So this custom (that is, apostolic decision making about ecclesiology, cf. Acts 6) was a "decree" meant for the entire Christian world. That sounds to me incredibly binding and not at all inferior. As for whether I think it's inconsistent for one to be superior to the other -- I can't see why, and I think the RCC has a sensible view on the matter. Their later pronouncements shouldn't override those of Jesus.
Finished the debate. While Sheffield did articulate a couple of his points well, his presentation of the case for episcopal apostolic succession was ultimately lacking. He never satisfactorily addressed Ortlund’s key arguments, e.g. the apparent equivocation of terms in texts like Acts 20, Titus 1, and 1 Clement 44. While he did seem to “win” a couple rounds, e.g. the bout regarding the absence of a crisis/controversy at what would be the transition to monoepiscopacy and also the bout regarding Timothy and Titus seemingly acting as bishops in a sense continuous with what Ignatius describes, overall Ortlund’s presentation and responses were just stronger. I see what Sheffield was trying to do by linking apostolic succession to the reliability of scripture and Christian doctrine, but I think that was the wrong way to approach that problem. When one dives into the history of the modern historical critical study of early Christianity and its reliance on Reformation-era hermeneutics, Enlightenment-era epistemology, and Puritan/Pietist-leaning ecclesiological and sacramentological biases (e.g. in Germany with the work of folks like F.C. Bauer, at least), we do see the way our biases can drive us to doubt the veracity of historical testimony to preserve what our psyche esteems more highly. That such anti-catholic and anti-Semitic biases were on display and influencing 19th century German Protestant scholarship in particular (e.g. Bauer and Wellhausen) is hard to ignore, but that doesn’t in itself establish that the sources such Germans sought to discredit are reliable, nor that Pietist inclinations are divergent from apostolic Christianity. The discussion needs to start at the level of hermeneutics, epistemology, and historical method, and build to the coherence of overall models of the development of early Christian belief and practice. I do believe that the most universally defensible set of hermeneutical and epistemological principles, extrapolated into a historical method then applied to the data of early Christianity, will yield a picture of the early church that overlaps with the beliefs one sees in Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism (ignoring the more liberal and conversely fundamentalist excesses of some of the contemporary embodiments of all three), though with the formality of practice we see in these traditions being something that increases over time (which I don’t believe even the Eastern Orthodox would deny). But such an argument must begin with hermeneutics and epistemology, trace their development from the dawn of the Reformation to the present, and examine the models of the development of early Christian belief that emerged in this period (and those which were received from the Middle Ages) in light of the hermeneutical, epistemological, and other biases on display in those models. Sheffield’s presentation was severely lacking in any such nuance in his case for apostolic succession’s role in such a model, and didn’t really seem to leave room for the possibility of error in his position. As a result, Ortlund squarely won the debate (in my estimation).
Dr. Ortlund, I know this isn’t related to the video but I have a question regarding the channel and content. You do an admirable job of defending historic and confessional Protestantism, and your work shows that Protestants who care about historic continuity need not despair and flee to Rome, which often happens, as you point out, very rapidly. In my speculation this likely often occurs with some holding of the nose and forcing not actual acceptance of some of the accretions, as I myself have been at the trailhead of that path. You often, rightly, say that straw man caricatures of Protestantism is what the Catholic/Orthodox “UA-cam theology” world argues against. However, having been raised an evangelical (southern baptist) in the South, I can say that from my observations (no data or numbers to back my assertion) those caricatures are indeed not caricatures across wide swathes of the evangelical world. Examples being extremely low views of the sacraments, and the idea that the Holy Spirit helps each individual determine for himself what scripture means, and a general unawareness of church history prior to the second great awakening or founding of the US. Do you have any plans or would you consider engaging some of these issues with, for lack of a better term, capital E Evangelicals? I think the historically adrift position of Evangelicalism sets people up to run to Rome too quickly after they start reading pre-reformation church history. I admit I don’t know of anyone in the UA-cam realm that would be a good representative of those views, so forgive my armchair suggestion if it is not worthwhile.
@@TruthUnites Yes. I admit I’m not sure how the dialogue should be formatted without appearing somewhat combative, since the “charge” I make is that average Evangelicals don’t know enough history. Again, my observation and experience, maybe I’m way off. Specifically with regard to baptism and the supper, I know you have a much higher view than I ever heard in the SBC, so maybe dialogue along the lines of why the Evangelical view of the Supper/Baptism is purely symbolic with no spiritual benefit. I don’t want to overstate that view, but I know it is very widespread and common to the point that until I was an adult, that view and the Catholic view were really only the ones I was aware of. Evangelicals also tend to eschew confessions and denominations, so maybe that as a topic?
@@TruthUnites basically a lot of the caricatures that Catholics attack are based in reality in a lot of cases, and I think that the extremely low church evangelical world sets up historically/academic minded members to convert to Rome quickly when confronted with church history. At least, that’s how I felt when first exposed to church history. Maybe another topic could be the what I consider near hostility to tradition. For example, I don’t know if your church practices Lent corporately or not, but it is attacked as “unscriptural” and thus inherently bad in most cases that I have heard Evangelicals talk about it. I’m cognizant of the fact that what I am saying is fairly vague and some specific topic with a specific individual would be needed to dialogue.
@@AmillennialMillenial yeah, I think you are right that they are very common in certain circles. I still think its a caricature to call them the "Protestant" view, however, as opposed to "street-level evangelical." I am not exactly sure what such a dialogue would accomplish, but I will consider it! Thanks for the suggestion!
@@TruthUnites thanks! Sorry, I can’t articulate it better; just a thought I had. As I said, I’ve been at the trailhead of the path to Rome considering “just going with” Catholic doctrines I can’t really affirm, because of being blindsided with history. To me, historical continuity is important and does “bother” me. So glad I found your channel! But yeah, you’re probably right, I’m not sure how fruitful that would be.
Yes, it's nearly impossible from the New Testament Greek usage in the Epistles to make much of a distinction if any between "presbuteros" (elder) and "episkopos" (overseer). But the fact remains that two words occur for a similar office. And Christ is called "bishop of our souls"* where "elder" would certainly not be appropriate, though he is said to be our "elder" brother in another sense, "the firstborn of many brethren." The most logical choice is that expressed by Sheffield (and the Anglican tradition). It accounts for the scriptural language having large amounts of crossover, but being somewhat distinct. The Bishop serves a geographical region, an essential capacity, especially in ancient times. An elder is perhaps more of a free agent. This is the mature brother who would align with the "fathers" spoken of by John in his first epistle: "I write to you: 1. little children 2. young men 3. fathers Wesley among others noted this progression of maturity here. Historically, presbyterian polity served much the same function as espiscopal, and even Calvin was not a hardliner contra bishops. One could argue that he was certainly the ranking bishop of Geneva, and the Consistory a strong presbyterian sideline. It became highly expedient in certain places to do away with bishops, especially in England and Scotland, where they were either Catholic or Anglican, and not favorable to Non-conformists. The belief that the presbuteros and episkopos were equivalent was revived with fervor, and thanks to Jerome it had early attestation. But Jerome had reason to mistrust bishops in his own time, as every heresy came from a bishop or had a bishop to protect it. * 1 Peter 2:25, also the "shepherd" of our souls, here shepherd (pastor) and overseer (bishop) are connected in scripture, though without gloss.
What about the candidates, and recognizing the call on their life? Isn't it God who anoints, but the church recognizes the call? This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. I Tim 3:1
I’m at the very beginning of the discussion. Jonathan Sheffield just cited “Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews.” I’m Anglican, and do believe that apostolic succession in some form had its origin with the apostles and is to some degree quite important, but it’s a topic that needs to be treated with a great deal of scholarly nuance. Sheffield unflinchingly referring to Hebrews as “Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews” doesn’t instill confidence that he’s going to make a nuanced argument. I’m rather conservative in my views about the authorship of the books of the New Testament, but the early church was far from fully convinced that Paul wrote Hebrews (it’s one of seven books that were called the antilegomena by the early church-those spoken against), and with good reason; at the dawn of modern biblical scholarship, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, and Radical scholars like Erasmus, Luther, Cajetan, Melanchthon, Karlstadt, and Calvin were united in their deep doubts regarding Pauline authorship of Hebrews. Though there have been some stalwart defenders of Pauline authorship in contemporary conservative circles, the majority opinion still leans heavily against Pauline authorship even among conservative scholars. So for Sheffield to lead with such a minority opinion as undisputed fact right out of the gate does not instill confidence (to put it mildly) that he’s weighing the evidence with any serious attempt to look beyond his own biases, and makes me question what other minority opinions he’ll assert without argument on topics I’m less familiar with. Put more succinctly, he lost the benefit of the doubt for his case in the opening minute. Apostolic succession is a position that can (and should, I believe) be defended-the evidence for it (in some ambiguous form) is much stronger than the evidence for Pauline authorship of Hebrews (in my assessment, at least). At any rate, now it’s time to unpause and see if Sheffield can recover…
There is a parallel to Apostolic succession in the Levitical priesthood in a very general sense. If you think about Moses handing over the leadership to Joshua/Yeshua/Jesus who leads the children of God into the promised land, as an analogy of the first advent of Christ, and the restructuring of the temple priesthood by king David as an analogy of the second advent of Christ. What happened in between those times? The ark was taken away because the High Priest Eli and his family were destroyed by God BECAUSE OF APOSTASY. The Tent at Shilo fell into disuse, the ark was given over to the Phillistines and then put into storage and almost forgotten for many years. King David brought the ark to Jerusalem and restructured the priesthood after a temple based system, adding singers and musicians, structuring the priesthood as a stationary system in a building instead of a mobile priesthood in a tent. Following that narrative the same analogy would apply to the Orthodox church because of obvious apostasy and heresies which are abundant.
I never understood why the apostle Paul was treated like chopped liver when it came to papal succession in the Roman Catholic Church. But I am sure they have a very lengthy religious (if not very plausible) explanation for that. ✝️
Of the original apostles only Peter became pope. None of the other apostles held that office. They all had a mission to go out to the world to evangelize and they were all martyred except for John.
@@bridgefin Peter is pope 😂. I feel like this is a claim that the RCC has to make even though there is no evidence that Peter functioned in any way similar to how the Pope functions! 1 Pet 5:1: Peter is a fellow elder
@@CCiPencil Whatever that means. You would be correct that the current pope uses electricity, indoor plumbing, and motor vehicles. Some things change over 2,000 years. Others don't.
@@bridgefin something’s do change apparently, like many of the doctrines of the RCC, in which all who don’t follow are cursed to Hell, aren’t founded in the NT or the early church. You know exactly what I was saying, you’d rather deflect.
95% of all Catholic bishops trace their line to the Cardinal Rebiba. Except no one knows who consecrated the Cardinal. The RCC insists on apostolic succession but can't prove it for itself beyond the 16th century.
@YAJUN YUAN I have personally seen "apostolic succession" play out and it does NOT guarantee holding right doctrine. It is seen too much in R.C that it is somehow a magic formula that does not hold up under scrutiny. I've know priests who do not hold to right doctrine, but they are "totally fine" because they have apostolic succession. Bishops, rarely correct or do anything about it.
I think the frustration I feel on my end is the failure to approach the spirit. Apologetics are great…and so interesting from an intellectual perspective. And personally, I am far from not being driven by intellectualism. However, the truth and God’s message has rarely ever depended on intellect…by his glorious grace…and largely has ministered to the spirit. This means that knowledge of the one true God and the heart behind the dogma best identifies the truth. Church governance and bureaucracy may be necessary and definable, even in early church history, but ultimately is a necessity of sinful human institution. Jesus is the head of the church. Below Him, any argument of supremacy in ecclesiastical position is akin to Mark 10:35-45. Leadership is necessary for preservation of biblical doctrine, but ultimately…as our Lord taught us, the first will be last, and the greatest will serve the least. That is driven by the spirit.
Something I don't understand is why this development cannot also be binding on future generations. My feeling is JS tried to prove too much, when other developments (like the definition of the Trinity) are generally considered binding, why not this one? If it was contrary to Scripture, that would obviously be one thing, but the argument here does not seem to be that: it is a legitimate form of order. So, as the order that was universal (starting in the third century), why is it not the preferred and default order of the Church?
The biggest problem with the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession is that it is simply another way men elevate their reasoning above God's authority. The only way any Catholic can defend this ridiculous and blasphemous doctrine is by ignoring Pau's crystal clear statement in 1 Cor. 12:278 that _God_ appoints apostles.
Gavin's argument that development happens when founders are out of the picture is quite telling. The "Founder" of the Church is quite present in the picture, and if one reads the gospels, in particular, one sees that will always be the case.
Him Tim, wouldn't you say, though, that God was present throughout the Old Testament, and yet this did not cause his people not fall into sin and error?
@@TruthUnites Yes, I agree with your statement, but I don't think that the question is whether God's people can fall into error or not, and I also don't think that God promised to guide Israel into all truth, as Jesus did to the Apostles (and, if you admit that their apostolic ministry continued after them, as I believe you expressly did, then that promise also extends). The question is, did God implement an organizational structure and if so, do you or I have the right to unilaterally change it even if the leaders in that structure fall into error? Can you point to me anything in the OT that suggests that the "remnant" that remained godly had the right to go out and form their own structure of authority? Start their own country? Build their own temple? In fact, Jesus expressly shuts down such an idea in Matthew 23. He uses the same language of "binding" and "loosing" that he uses in Matthew 16 and 18 and he tells the people that despite the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, they should be obeyed, but not imitated, for they "sit on Moses' seat." What is Moses' seat? A seat of authority. In Matthew 16 and 18, Jesus gives the same authority to His disciples. Now, putting that aside, as I mentioned earlier, Jesus promised his Spirit to the Church. He promised to guide the apostles into all truth. Paul also tells us that the Church, not you, or me, or Scripture, or our interpretations of Scripture, are the pillar and bulwark of the truth. The Church (a visible organization implemented by Jesus Himself--I don't think there's any other reasonable way to view the Church) upholds Scripture and as such, it has authority. That creates a really, really heavy presumption against rebelling against tradition, so even if the episcopacy is merely a tradition (I think Mr. Sheffield makes a great case that it isn't), I don't think you or I have any authority to rebel against it, unless it's your view that the apostles' successors, who are guided by the Spirit (as a whole), have less authority than Moses' successors, who were not, despite Jesus using the very same language to describe the apostles' authority (in Matt. 16 and 18) and Moses' successors' authority (in Matt. 23).
@@Mitenilk08using your own comparison. The Pharisees who had authority and taught on Moses seat were charged by Jesus for teach their own traditions over the word of God. Plus the Orthodox view that the papacy did not have unilateral authority over the whole church is obvious. So either be Orthodox or sola scriptura but not Catholic.
The Patriarchate of Antioch: Founded by Saints Peter and Paul
The Patriarchate of Antioch: Founded by Saints Peter and Paul The most famous scriptural reference concerning Antioch relates that it was in this city that the followers of Christ were first mockingly referred to as "Christians" (Acts 11:26). In the Book of Acts, which offers an account of the first years of the Church, we discover that Antioch is the second most frequently mentioned city. Nicholas, one of the original seven deacons was a convert from Antioch and perhaps the first Christian from that city (Acts 6:5). During the persecution which occasioned the death of Saint Stephen the First Martyr, members of the fledgling Christian community in Jerusalem fled to Antioch for refuge. Church tradition maintains that the See of Antioch was founded by Saint Peter the Apostle in 34 AD. Peter was either followed or joined by the Apostles Paul and Barnabas who preached there to both Gentiles and to Jews, who seem to have been numerous in the city. It was in Antioch that one of the first conflicts within the Church developed between Peter and Paul. This conflict regarded the necessity of circumcision for male Gentile converts to Christianity. It was the resolution of this conflict at the Council of Jerusalem under Saint James the Apostle that determined the direction of the Antiochian mission to the Gentiles, and the dynamic nature of that Christian community in its missionary outreach. It was from Antioch that Paul and Barnabas departed for their great missionary journeys to the Gentile lands (Acts 13:1). The Apostles directed a truly universal ministry. After spending some seven years in Antioch, Peter left for Rome. To succeed him as bishop of Antioch he appointed Euodius, who is thus counted in early episcopal lists as the first successor to the Antiochian Throne of Peter. The multiple Apostolic foundation of the See of Antioch, the early missions centered there and the active nature of the community, as recorded in the New Testament, have been a unique heritage to all who trace their spiritual and ecclesiastical roots to the Antiochian Patriarchate. The See of Antioch continued its glorious contributions to the universal Church by the numerous outstanding personalities it nurtured. Saint Ignatius of Antioch for example, is revered as both a victorious martyr during the reign of Emperor Trajan (early second century) and as a reliable historical source for the structure of Church life. Ignatius was the second successor to Peter and may actually have been consecrated by that Apostle or Saint Paul. The Church of Antioch has maintained a continuous succession in the Apostolic Faith down to the present. The current Bishop/Patriarch of Antioch is His Beatitude John X, elected on December 17th, 2012.
In what sense from the ministry of our Lord is apostolic succession a necessity? The only time I see in the gospels am even remotely close approach to this is James and John requesting to sit Jesus’ right and left hand. Other than our Lord clarifying the consequences of their request, I see no resolution nor conviction of their intention. The secondary message from this teaching is the irrelevancy of their desire to reign. That…the desire to reign and be first…treated as the least of importance and worthy of reward by our Lord. That is the spirit that the Protestant resists.
The problem with your position Gavin is what would you have in place instead of the catholic church? If you think AS stopped after the 2nd century then what should have been there instead?
The Eucharist = mystical/mysterious, NOT “magical”. For years, I had a typical Protestant understanding and belief about it but now, I’ve come to understand it’s so much more than that. So it’s a mistake to make such assumptions based on “appearance” or on a “feeling” of something “seeming” to be magical or occult…especially if one is basing their foundational understanding of doctrine on that incorrect or misinformed view. In terms of doctrinal importance, the Eucharist > ecclesiology, so one should probably get that right before attempting to define and defend a new governance structure for the faith.
Actually found it at the 1:30 mark. But can't find anything online about this. Was this a commentary that Charles Spurgeon made about the Assyrian Church?
Matthew 16:18 Jesus says "You are Peter and this rock I will build my church" I think there is a place for Protestantism in Christs body but only as evangelists because that is your guys forte' Did Jesus not say regarding John the baptist...He is the greatest among men but still the least in Heaven ,? I know thats not a direct quote from bible but my summation of it.
An apostle (shaliach) is an agent within the Jewish community who has power of attorney to act in the person of another - based on the narrative in which Abraham appoints his servant to find a wife for his son. Apostolic succession is based on the proposition in Kiddushin 12a that a shaliach can transmit his powers to another, absent a stipulation to the contrary. Unless apostolic succession were a valid way of communicating the powers of the High Priest, there would be no authority for Christians to conduct public worship of any description.
Apostolic succession is the tracing of a direct line of apostolic ordination, Orthodox doctrine, and full communion from the Apostles to the current episcopacy of the Orthodox Church. All three elements are constitutive of apostolic succession. It is through apostolic succession that the Orthodox Christian Church is the spiritual successor to the original body of believers in Christ that was composed of the Apostles. This succession manifests itself through the unbroken succession of its bishops back to the apostles. The unbrokenness of apostolic succession is significant because of Jesus Christ's promise that the "gates of hell" (Matthew 16:18) would not prevail against the Church, and his promise that he himself would be with the apostles to "the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20). According to this interpretation, a complete disruption or end of such apostolic succession would mean that these promises were not kept as would an apostolic succession which, while formally intact, completely abandoned the teachings of the Apostles and their immediate successors; as, for example, if all the bishops of the world agreed to abrogate the Nicene Creed or repudiate the Holy Scripture. Orthodox teachings today are the same as that of the first apostles, though their mode of expression has adapted over the centuries to deal with heresies, changes in culture and so forth. This form of the doctrine was first formulated by St. Irenaeus of Lyons in the second century, in response to certain Gnostics. These Gnostics claimed that Christ or the Apostles passed on some teachings secretly, or that there were some secret apostles, and that they (the Gnostics) were passing on these otherwise secret teachings. Irenaeus responded that the identity of the original Apostles was well known, as was the main content of their teaching and the identity of the Apostles' successors. Therefore, anyone teaching something contrary to what was known to be apostolic teaching was not, in any sense, a successor to the Apostles or to Christ. In addition to a line of historic transmission, Orthodox Christian churches additionally require that a hierarch maintain Orthodox doctrine as well as full communion with other Orthodox bishops. As such, the Orthodox do not recognize the existence of apostolic succession outside the Orthodox Church, precisely because the episcopacy is a ministry within the Church.
The big issue I have with Orthodoxy, is the false teachings on the blessed mother, and their prayers through saints. If it wasn't these two things I'd be Orthodox. I know you'll disagree. I don't make these statements lightly, and yes I hold the Theotokos in high regard.
Orthodox church is basically the first protestant church so either protestants and orthodox alike have apostolic succession or nobody has it. I vote for nobody. It's a man made construct to keep people obedient and in line.
If there was clear criteria in scripture for becoming a bishop and we have clear evidence that many many popes were wolves in sheep's clothing who were surely not beyond reproach as the scriptures demanded, so doesn't that disqualify their office as bishops/popes and nullify everything they did as a false bishop/pope?
This gets into the territory of what the Donatists would have said, i.e. that the validity of one's Holy Orders is contingent upon holiness of life after ordination. Which, given that we all have sins, even (and perhaps especially and most commonly) those unknown to others, if that position is true, then how could anyone ever be sure that the Eucharist or confession or chrismation they're receiving from the priest is valid? Rather, being an immoral clergyman doesn't invalidate the Sacraments (because it is God acting through the priest/bishop and not the priest/bishop doing things on their own merit), but they will have to answer more profoundly at the Judgement for how their actions hurt the flock entrusted to their care.
@@Shiranui115 this means Christ is the only one that qualifies as the High Priest to ensure. When God gives clear criteria by which to select Bishops and by which they were to live and these bishop/popes sins were far from hidden but rather out in the open for all to see, then God has already judged them as unfit for office which makes their doctrines of man and traditions null and void.
@@wilsonw.t.6878 Nobody said anything about perfection which is an unusual argument to make when addressing what the scriptures meant when laying out the requirements for a bishop. Why not stick to that? The scriptures say what behavior is required and if that is not met, then they are not to be bishops and if they are bishops, then like Judas, they should be removed. Sins of the heart are not the context of the scriptures outline for bishop requirements so why would you or the previous person bring that into the topic?
Apostolic Succession is not the will of God. “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” ****Revelation 21:14**** • Peter was no different than the others. We can see here in ****Revelations 21:14**** that Peter was still an apostle, not a pope. John saw a vision of the New Jerusalem, so if Peter was a pope, John would have said I saw the foundation of the city walls in layers of 11 apostles and the one pope. ------------------ - Eamon Duffy, an Irish historian, said, “There is, therefore, nothing directly approaching a papal theory in the pages of the New Testament,” and “from all indications, there was no single bishop of Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the apostles”. The Catholic National, a Catholic organ published this quote in July 1895. - Eamon Duffy was a Catholic Historian and he basically refutes that *Matthew 16:18* alludes to or supports papal authority. He said it without any confusion that the New Testament scriptures do not support the papacy. Therefore Peter was not singled out. When Christ said, “upon this Rock, I build my church”…. to say that he was proclaiming a papacy through a lineage of Peter is speculation. - If that were true, there would be other scriptures to cross-reference the theory of Pontification. Paul would have had to check in with Peter if Peter was the Pope. Instead, Paul went to see Ananias to receive his sight. - In ****Galatians 2:11-21**** we can see Paul putting Peter in check for treating the Gentiles differently based upon their state of circumcision and Peter’s fear of criticism. - If ****Matthew 16:18**** was Peter’s proclamation of pontification, that leaves a huge issue. The biggest problem of all is that if Peter is the rock, then the scripture wouldn’t say that Christ is the rock. That’s a contradiction. We can’t build our faith on contradictions. The Rock is spiritual, not earthly. ****1 Corinthians 10:4**** - and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. ------------------ ****Matthew 16:18**** The Catholic Church says that tradition holds that Peter is the first pope and the rock, and that this scripture is proclaiming the Papacy. ****1 Corinthians 3:11**** / ****1 Corinthians 10:4**** The word of God says that Christ is the spiritual Rock. A Rock for the wise builder. ------------------ - I’m choosing to go with the Word of God, not the traditions of men. There is no evidence that Peter ever even went to Rome. Christ is the Rock, Peter is a stone, and we are all stones. ****1 Peter 2:4-8**** ❤ 💜 ❤️ ♥️ 💜 Repent!!!
@@TruthUnites That the church should proceed by, at minimum, presbyters ordaining presbyters (in that construction, the bishop is a presbyter as the first among equals)
@@TruthUnites sure! So it would be a church history plus Scripture argument: 1 Timothy 3:6-7 [6] He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. [7] Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. ^Paul gives these instructions to Timothy, who is per 1 Timothy 1 , left by Paul to remain in Ephesus. He’s probably at least a presbyter, and certainly by the tradition he’s considered the first bishop of Ephesus. Irenaeus says the following: “It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]). I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church-those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (ibid., 4:26:2). Tertullian also has similar statements. What that tells us is that the instructions given to Timothy in 1 Timothy 3 and 2 Timothy 2 were interpreted, from very early on, to be instructions for future generations of presbyters. That makes a good deal of sense, given that the pastoral epistles probably would have been read out loud (they don’t seem to be merely personal correspondences). Thus, Paul appoints Timothy, who in turn appoints presbyters; it’s reasonable that the instructions in 1 Timothy 2 were meant by Paul to be carried out by presbyters, as that’s how it was interpreted from earliest times.
@@TruthUnites PS: I say “presbyters” and not *necessarily* bishops because, as Jerome notes, the bishop is a presbyter who takes the lead among presbyters.
Dr. Gavin, the difficulty that Protestants have is that a "PRESBYTEROS" Is a synonymous word "EMBASADOR." The Presbyter is the embasador for their Episcopos and would be the representation of their Bishop's ministry and authority in local churches where there was a lacking of an identified leader. In communities with no Bishop/Episcopos present and Exarch. That is why the Acts and other New Testament Texts only state two offices of Episcopos and Diaconos, while the Presbyteros is an integral extension of their Episcopos. In All of the Eastern Churches both Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, the Presbyteros is the Extension for their Episcopos and in the local region speaks for the authority of the Episcopos.
I agree with this, but presbyteros means elder, apostolos means ambassador. Other than that, I think this is the most reasonable approach of viewing priests as a deacon acting with the warrant of a commissioned Bishop.
If I have an issue with my brother....what church do I take him to when he won't listen? Yours, the Lutheran's, some random name church, Billy Bob who just started up his own church down the road at the abandoned gas station? We know there is a visible church. So which one is the true church? They all can't be...so which one?
@Daniel Smith your Bapist church has no authority to excommunicated. Matthew 18 clearly states the church has that authority if they still don't listen. No Protestant group goes back to the apostles.
Saint Paul affirms that Timothy and Silvanus are ALSO Apostles. Where in Holy Scripture does it teach that The office of Apostle ceased? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
You miss the nuance of “apostolos.” There are many instances where people are called apostles. Yet, we must be careful to differentiate between mere ambassadors of Christ and the true eyewitnesses of Christ.
@@kennylee6499No, I do not miss the nuance as you falsely claim! So, was Paul an Apostle according to what Peter declared in Acts 2 that the office can only be succeeded by one who was with Jesus Christ from the very beginning of His ministry? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
All of this is nonsense. All that matters is the kingdom of god that Jesus preached. All of the political office nonsense that occurred afterward is irrelevant and our Lord told us so many times.
Gavin, when you refer to “evidential presumption,” I think that’s part of your difficulty here. The burden isn’t on those of us who hold to the established practice to prove it’s right. The burden is on those who dispute it to prove it isn’t consistent with Scripture and history. It’s not enough to prove that your new theory is plausible.
Who is to say which theory is “new” and where the burden of proof lies? Gavin’s opinion seems to be shared by St Jerome at the very least, all the way back in the 300s. If anything, we should be neutral, and see which narrative best fits the evidence.
@@repentantrevenant9776Common sense says which theory is new. The entire church embraced the episcopacy, without question, until the 1500s. Even St. Jerome did in practice, notwithstanding a comment made. At best, there's a case to be made that it wasn't so at the very beginning, but the evidence is sketchy on that. So the default is that the episcopacy is necessary. Given that Scripture commands obedience to church leaders, that heresy and schism are sins, etc., yes, the burden is on the person upsetting the apple cart not just to show that there might be another possible apple cart, but instead, to show that the apple cart ain't actually an apple cart at all.
this is the essence of Protestantism: the debate club! the day finally came when I realized, you guys aren't actually Christians at all, you are modernistic neo-Greek philosophic society. The Christian Bible is your playground; a desperate search to discover what it might mean, or is it just a Taoist lifestyle that might add to your personal success. Round & round you all go with each other trying to score points, lighting down for a short period here & there with a theory or theological exercise that quickly becomes tiresome & ineffective. who will be pastor tomorrow?
Well, I guess you should complain to God. He was the one who gave us his word and from that comes the authority to debate about it. Jesus did it, Paul did it, etc. I'd rather have debate than the nonsensical man made catholic doctrines.
It is a fact that the seed is scattered over several diverse surfaces, but that hardly releases anyone from the responsibility that comes to bear on any who choose to act as an authority over the crop that comes to bear from hand of the sower. It is written: For every word you utter, you shall give account.
One thing is CERTAIN: NO "Baptists," nor "Evangelicals," nor "Lutherans," nor "Calvinists," et al, have any historical basis for their offices; no succession from any earlier, established Bishops, etc.. They are basically established by themselves, and those who SIMPLY LIKE THEM, THEIR PREACHING, AND/OR THEIR WAY OF HANDLING/"MINISTERING TO" PEOPLE. Needless to say, if Gavin were to recognize these historical bases, his whole "office" as a "pastor" is shot. He has to find some small niches in history that would somehow allow/justify himself being a "pastor" / "elder" over his personally/communally established "church."
Dr Ortlund doesn’t need to find a historical niche to be a pastor of his “church”. “Evangelicals “ “ Baptists” and “Lutherans” do not rely on an historical basis as “Catholics “ and “Episcopalians”. Rather, we rely on a biblical one as given by God in scripture.
@Daniel Smith actually not true. I used to use this arguement, but then i read the Provoo Communion's report on Apostolic Succession and its clear that the Church of Sweden has apostolic succession, but does not deem it necessary as per the Book of Concord. Lutheranism is not episcopal and does not support (nor deny) Apostolic Succession the way Anglicans, Roman Catholics and the Eastern Churches do. The Church of England's insistence of Episcopal Apostolic Succession is a later development out of the Caroline Divines, Nonjurors and other clergye of the Old High Church, and later reinforced by the Tractarians and other Anglo-Catholics. Church of Sweden never had this process and so it retains the same view on the Episcopate as the Low Church of Anglicanism derived from the Evangelical Reformed Classical Anglicanism of Cranmer, Parker, Hooker, etc.
No! That God's Word needs an anti-Christus to be effective. Isaiah 55: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Thanks Gavin, now my Anglican twin brother and I will be talking/debating about this all day. Great discussion!
glad you enjoyed!
Hey Everybody! While I am on sabbath from making youtube videos during the month of May I thought I would upload one (or two) older dialogues. Hope you enjoy! :)
@YAJUN YUAN I doubt he would be impressed. As I earlier stated to Tony, annihilationism being a core doctrine for SDA is enough to prove that its teachings are false since the founder believed that it was a teaching from God.
@YAJUN YUAN That's a fair point. I should have been clear. Here's the thing: Ellen G White claimed to receive visions from God. How can something as so important as hell and understood as eternal punishment for centuries all of a sudden be changed to annihilationism? She even argued like an atheist that this doctrine has made believers infidels. It may not annihilate (pardon the pun) SDA theology as a whole but it *definitely* questions her supposed prophet hood since she directly contradicts Jesus in this very important topic.
@YAJUN YUAN The first major problem with SDA theology is that it defines death as biological death. Keep in mind that SDA theology is also physicalist in nature where if the brain is dead, the conscious is already a mess. You don’t need a computer scientist to tell you how messed up it is philosophically. Look up the atheist philosopher Emerson Green and his case against physicalism. It is no surprise that many annihilationists are physicalists.
Matthew 10:28 is a popular prooftext but it is wrong. The Greek word can for destroy can be translated to ruin or lose which is consistent with the traditionalist position. Lose and destroy do not go together with your theology. Your interpretation of Matthew 25:41 actually signifies the teachings of the traditional position for the damned are aware of their suffering.
White argues like an atheist and she was super wrong. I asked Tony the SDA commenter who runs around this channel how annihilationism does justice. Imagine if a government executed a person for stealing a loaf of bread A rational person would condemn such a government. Yet, for White, it is okay for God to destroy a bread thief. That is not justice. It is madness. This is why even the annihilationist Basil Atkins notes “I have avoided . . . any argument about the final state of the lost based upon the character of God, which I should consider it to be irreverent to attempt to estimate”. For some reason, White was okay with the final destruction of a bread thief but couldn’t bear the eternal death of a mere brad thief whose crime was so small. In fact, if you’re correct that the fires of hell burn the soul, that means that it is basically a cosmic version of burning heretics to death. No person with a conscious would accept such a faulty premise. Even the Universalist philosopher Dr. David Bentley Hart (DBH) admitted that annihilationism is still faulty by using the same arguments. In other words, Ellen G White’s premise of physicalism and supposed love of God burning to death a bread thief is already a philosophical mess. This is why when I posed this objection to Tony, he went on a whole rant about why God is worse than Hitler and Charles Mason. It is a very ironic reaction coming from a man who brags to be a Bible preacher.
Now for Baptism, you write that the Hebrew posits the mortal soul. You couldn’t be more wrong. I suspect that you use the Genesis story to say that the soul is made mortal because you translate die to mean death. In fact, if both soul and body die, this clearly means physicalism. Once again, my first paragraph rebuts this point. In my opinion, Ellen G White sounds a lot like the so-called LGBT Christians who question historic Christianity because the definition of Christianity’s teaching on marriage is “unfair”.
As for your reference to the church fathers, I will just quote annihilationist, Randal Rauser, who says that the eternal conscious punishment is a *majority* teaching of the historic Church.
If I have interpreted father Casey correctly, that he is an annihilationist, he is a good example of people disobeying the Catholic church’s teaching on eternal punishment.
@YAJUN YUAN I couldn’t find the quote. Professor Randal Rauser has been defending annihilationism and critiquing eternal punishment but he has admitted that eternal punishment has been the dominant view throughout church history.
@YAJUN YUAN Eternal punishment can also be eternal conscious torment. Some philosophers/theologians like Steve Hays referred to it as eternal conscious punishment (ECP). The damned will never know the love of God and their mind and bodies will torment them forever knowing that they’re shut out from the love of God forever. Your assertion that ECP entered the picture in 430 AD is nothing more but mere assertion. Dr. Edward Feser has shown how ECP has always existed since the time of Jesus. Your argument reminds me of Dr. DBH’s assertion that Universalism was dominant before Augustine.
Dr Ortlund, I cant begin to express my thankfulness for your awesome work.. I was recently considering converting to eastern orthodoxy, but your admirable way of reasoning and knowledge kept me from that, no matter how compelling changing my mind seemed to me. I would also like to congratulate on your irenic way of engaging in arguments, your behaviour really honours Christ and you truly are what christians are called to be : a light in the world..
thank you, I am so glad my videos have been useful to you! God bless and stay in touch!
Hello, I am still considering converting to Orthodoxy. What have you learned that keeps you away? To me what is on show here doesn't seem like a living tradition. Are we all supposed to study documents to come to our understanding?
@@hempenasphalt1587 I understand what you are saying.. That sense of a continual living connection to the early church that orthodoxy claims is really compelling, however for me it all ultimately comes down to the fact that the holy fathers (upon orthodox tradition is based on) essentially teach with authority(and claim infalability) on matters that biblically (a very important aspect, since the apostles explicitly commanded us to stay firm on their traditions and teachings, they received from Jesus) and historically are very weakly supported. Essentially, orthodoxy i believe has broken the commandment of Christ to "call no one your father" and no one "teacher", because we have only one authoritative teacher and that is the messiah (as the famous passage says). (Of course this argument is not focused on titles etc but on the deeper meaning of christ's teaching , which is that the only teacher is him and we should measure every doctrine by the canon of his sayings and teachings that he passed down to his apostles and were recorded in the new testament).
@@hempenasphalt1587 essentialy christianity is a classroom with a teacher and students. Among the students, you can find some really bright examples, however no matter how bright the student is, everything has to be measured in comparison with what the teacher teaches.
@@hempenasphalt1587 so its better to remain protestant and be ready to examine and compare every doctrine with scripture rather than become orthodox and submit to (bright and good Christian but nonetheless) other people other than the messiah. Which leads to a truly dead tradiotanilism comparable with rhe strucure of the pharisees and thr suduces during Jesus time.
All we should be interested in is succession of apostolic doctrine.
Thank you for all the work and study you have put into scripture and Church History. I always learn something in your videos.
Thanks to all involved for this very informative discussion. I appreciate the respectful and civil discourse.
Timothy's office was Evangelist, which evidently included the appointing of Elders and Bishops (which makes sense, given if you are planting Churches and then moving on to plant more, you need to establish Elders in that Church before you go.).
"I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, *do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry."* ~ 2 Timothy 4:1-5
I am so glad I found your channel. As a Protestant who desires to learn about church history, your channel has been very helpful. Btw, I was wondering where we post our question for your upcoming June Q&A? @truthunites
I think you can write it on the “live comment section” of the live video. And to guarantee a response you can try a super chat
@@DavidTextle Thank you!
Great channel and a great
debate/discussion, very polite, not talking over each other and I learnt from both these guys. Well researched questions and answers. Good stuff.
Gavin, I am super grateful for your work and the character you bring to it. Keep going!
great video. as an Anglican, i think you have some great points Gavin! Also, im currently reading one of your Dad's books, I absolutely love it. what a blessing.
There is such an overwhelming amount of information here to take in! Thank you very much for carefully taking this vast amount of information and organizing it so that we can steps to finding the truth and honoring Christ. May God bless you, brother!
Time-stamps
23:05 , 20:38 - Irenaeus and Tertullian: the succession of doctrine
1:30:53 - Charles Spurgeon’s interaction with the Assyrian Church of the East
You also had priests being ordained by other priests well into the middle ages. Dr. Jordan Cooper did an excellent video on this recently.
Arg, I need to have this discussion with Dr Ortlund some time!
@Thomas tlimon.westlaw I have had him on my channel before. Hopefully, he and I can do something again in the future.
@YAJUN YUAN yes! It's just that there are some issues (I say with all due respect) with what he was arguing, here.
@Bb Dl some minor historical inaccuracies, and there were some issues about the breadth of acceptable positions concerning it within Anglicanism. One of the central issues to discuss is whether the Episcopate is of the esse, bene esse, or plene esse.
@Bb Dl technically the "bene esse" view is still allowed, but at least for us it's no an option to "switch to", insofar as our Communion is concerned. For me, the answer is that it's the plene esse.
I’d love to see that
Oh man surprise May video!
This is THE issue upon which formal authority rests. If there was no monarchical episcopate in the New Testament and it can be demonstrated that such a doctrine was a development in history and not of divine institution, then special claims to interpretation of Divine revelation and jurisdiction over the Church collapses. Like you said, Dr. Ortlund, it is not a right or wrong issue but one of Divine origin of the office. Hope your sabbatical is good!
Do you see the New Testament itself as a development?
@@scuzlol the New Testament is the divinely inspired word of God through the Holy Spirit. Authority rests with God
@@CCiPencil That's certainly the position, I just don't know how to get there from the text itself. The authors don't claim to be writing the words of God in that sense and there's no chain of transmission to know who wrote them in the first place.
@@scuzlol just because you don’t understand how to get there doesn’t mean it’s not there. There are many passages about Jesus giving authority to the apostles, paul being considered an apostles, doctrines stating that they were writing the word of God, Peter affirming Paul is writing scripture, paul quoting from the gospels, we know who wrote the books of the NT (except for Hebrews).
If the NT isn’t the word of God, is there an another? Is there anything that is?
@@CCiPencil I agree, but nowhere does it say that the authority given to the apostles includes their ability to write Scripture that is on the same level of authority as the Torah. I reject Paul and certainly don't think HIS followers were given some non-Scriptural prerogative to somehow write the very words of God. The early Christians didn't even agree on what this New Testament was and which books to include. The Shepherd of Hermas was overwhelmingly accepted as Scripture yet teaches what modern Christians deem to be heretical.
Definitely interested thanks
The quote from Jerome on minute 24:00 tells the true story. Apostolic succession, as the Catholics/Orthodox would want us to believe, “is a result of TRADITION and not from a particular institution by the Lord.” In other words, ITS MAN-MADE!
The Lord replaced Judas vs The Church replaced Judas.
@@koppite9600 that was in miraculous age which we are not in today.
@@Phil-bm4xo I'll say it's the age of the Catholic Church to hold until Christ comes again.
@@koppite9600 you’ll say? But God’s word reveals that those who were apostles actually witnessed Christ. No one today who calls themselves an apostle has witnessed Christ. No one today can perform miracles as the apostles did.
@@Phil-bm4xo The Apostles appointed those who would take over from them when they died. They would not be happy with anyone who disobeys their successors. They would want us to maintain unity under The present bishops.
This is a more rhetorical point than anything else but it still stands.
They question you have to ask yourself is whether Christ instituted a Kingdom or not.
Is Christ the King of Kings or the King of secular, social, autonomous democratic states and congregations who appoint for themselves their own leaders and elders by vote?
For the protestant, they have to explain why the Church is not in fact a Kingdom. For the protestant, what they have in terms of their church structure is not any kind of apostolic succession or Kingdom but rather a form democratic, baptismal, confessionalism. At the root of this perspective is a belief in a form of Christian egalitarianism, the arguments for which are very similar to that of Korah in the rebellion.
Be reminded that God chose between Moses and Aaron and Korah and his followers who offered strange fire before the Lord.
To respond to the point on Acts: the episcopacy accepts a plurality of *presbyters*, but that’s not really the issue. The issue is over whether one presbyter is a first among equals in exerting a kind of authority over other presbyters.
The claim of the episcopate is that we just make the sociological fact that one presbyter leads a presbytery/dioceses visible in the bishop, who is the representative head of unity.
Now, why is it that Clement has the authority to write in the name of the whole Roman church? That fits better if Clement is the representative head of that regional church than if he’s just one presbyter among many
Wouldnt that fit an arch episcopy mode of the the church where one is a first among equals than a mono episcopy where authority flows down from one bishop
@@aajaifenn I’d say it fits either. That’s actually why I think the universal jurisdiction of the Roman bishop isn’t necessarily wrong, but it’s not essential to the church. So having a bishop have universal jurisdiction can be expedient but not necessary. I think regional arch bishops are more practical though for the sake of the balance of unity and efficiency in logistics (the ACNA has an archbishop)
That’s not to concede the papacy, however, because the papacy claims more than that. It claims that the Roman bishop has universal jurisdiction, a primacy of infallibility, and is by divine appointment the vicar of Christ.
@@anglicanaesthetics in the mono episcopy model the bishop has a divinely appointed office different from the presbyter and from which authority flows downwards . It would not like one who has the same office as other presbyters but who takes the lead ( a first among equals )
Is such a mono Episcopal office necessary for the church in your view
@@aajaifenn I’d say it’s an ideal entailment of natural law outworking in human society but not necessary. Interestingly, that was also Richard Hooker’s position, who regarded Presbyterianism as a legitimate but not ideal form of governance. The monoepiscopacy is a wise move of the church though as she flows with the grain of how human society is constructed
@@anglicanaesthetics Thanks and yes i agree to your point .However my query is does scripture invest in the office of the bishop a divine authority that is not shared by the office of the presbyter.
Excellent video 📹 👏 Sir; as usual.
However, as a protestant, I've been dealing with this idea coming back now & again. Let's suppose 🤔 The Lord gave the keys 🔑 to Heaven ONLY to Peter, as Roman Catholics uphold, is there any firm connection between Peter & the bishops of Rome? Any irrefutable document? Any link or video 📹 of yours dealing with this issue?
For as long as I'm concerned, Peter's been always the great elder of Antioch, not of Rome. Thanks.
Key Texts of St Ignatius of Antioch
On bishops, priests, deacons and laity [UNITY]
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the
Father, and the priests as you would the apostles; and reverence
the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do
anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that
be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by
the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the
bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be;
even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It
is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a
love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing
to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and
valid.(Smyrnnians, Ch 8)
On Deacons, Bishops
In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of
Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the
Father, and the priests as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of
the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. (Trallians, Ch
3)
If there were such a thing as apostolic succession, then why did they quit following the first example of succession in the Bible? When did humans believe they could pick a successor, better than God? If there was truly a succession, then they would have followed successively by picking a successive person by that same succession method. Who changed the rules? When did God quit deciding who would control His Church? If in history or even contemporarily, they had followed that first prescription of succession, by casting lots, then I could believe in a succession. Because at least we would know that God picked the winner. But since they made up their own human system for succession; human picking and human voting, it quit being God’s choice and became a human choice. I can’t believe that the human picking program that we have today would always represent the will of God. After-all the first apostles, who knew Christ’s direct will, would have picked for themselves the first succession if humans were to pick, but instead they gave it to God in the form of casting lots. If anyone was to discern the will of God in how to pick the leaders of God’s Church it would have been the first apostles and yet they left it to God to decide.
Gavin, I have studied Jerome’s Commentary on Titus myself and I have come to view it as entirely compatible, even supportive, of Bishops (with a capital “B”) in the New Testament. That in itself is quite a surprising claim I know!
May I reach out to you on Facebook? I have been grappling with early Church history for a while now and believe I am likely to become a Catholic soon. It would be very good to share these curious details about Jerome and ask you for some brief historical pointers as I make this decision. I so appreciate your work which has been instrumental in helping me in this time.
have you looked at Jerome's Letter 146? Also very relevant. Letter 169 is, briefly, too. He is certainly compatible with single bishops, but not as a jure divino command from the apostles.
Hi Gavin thanks for this. I have now read that letter and he restates the case he made in the commentary on Titus. I wasn’t able to find 169, was this a typo? If not I’d appreciate a link.
So here is my exciting claim: Jerome does not rule out a divinely inspired appointment of bishops as an ecclesiology for the whole Christian world in his commentary - in fact, he explicitly affirms it!
That sounds unbelievable so I’ll make my case as briefly and forcefully as I can.
Jerome states that at the time of these writings the elders and overseers were one and the same. He concludes from this that therefore *Jesus* did not appoint bishops in the form that he had in his day.
But he also states that the Bishop-Priest distinction emerged (1) as a response to the kinds of schisms seen in 1 Cor (he even quotes “Paul, Apollos, Cephas), and (2) because a command went up to the churches all over the world to institute this hierarchy.
Now it’s important to understand what kind of claim Jerome is making. He does *not* have access to a chain of historical evidence unavailable to us in making this claim. Simply, he is doing what you and I and everyone else in this debate are doing: historical text analysis. In fact it’s a mark of his genius that the verses he cites cover most of the debate even down till today - Jerome had already summed up the debate in 387!
So Jerome isn’t doing plain history, but rather reconstructive history. He sees that at the time of 1 Tim, Titus, etc there appears to be no distinction between Bishop and Priest. How did the distinction come about? Jerome answers: a command was given up to the whole world to adopt the distinction in all its churches.
Now on confronting Jerome’s model we immediately have to ask (1) why is there no record of this command going out to all the churches? And (2) who gave that command?
I think Jerome should best be understood as thinking that the apostles had given this command. I have three reasons for thinking this:
(1) The schisms were intimately the concern of the apostles and from an early date. Again, Jerome cited 1 Cor 1 as his Premier example.
(2) Only the apostles had the prerequisite authority to issue such a command and have it receive universal acclaim. If any other council had done it there would have been dissenters and more of a mark on history. In fact there’s something suspicious about the Congregationalist style overseer-elders ever giving such a command. And Jerome very explicitly uses the language of commands here.
(3) Linus as the first successor to Peter is something Jerome affirms in his Chronicon. However this is the weakest strand of evidence for my case because it was written 7 years earlier than Commentary and so he may have adapted his beliefs about this.
So to recap: Jerome does not deny that it was the apostles who instituted the Bishop-Priest distinction. He does deny that it was Jesus’ decision. But then he uses language which strongly implies that the apostles introduced the distinction late into the game as it were.
For my money, if Jerome is right, I see the imprisoned Paul in 62 writing letters to Titus and Timothy as the first evidence that this is happening. He knows he is going to die soon, perhaps Peter does as well. They start to consecrate their disciples and imbue them with the authority they had enjoyed as apostles. Authority to make elders (Titus 1:5), authority to rebuke without being disregarded (Titus 2:15), etc.
This fits remarkably well with the other historical data we have. The apostolic succession lists going back to Titus and Timothy for example, and these commissioning letters happening at the same time Peter and Paul are both at Rome at the time the successors of Peter apparently become bishops. One also considers that both of John’s disciples become bishops. I could go on!
Thanks again for your reply Gavin. I know this is a lot to chew on but I’d love to hear your thoughts. Be forgiving of my mistakes here because I’ve sent all this from memory and my phone!
Correction: Jerome *implicitly* affirms apostolic appointment of Capital-B Bishops and this is compatible with his background belief that the Church is divinely inspired and protected from error.
@@zorionto Very interesting. Thanks for sharing!
My concern is with the language of “divinely inspired.”
Jerome claims capital B-bishops came about from “tradition.” Taking your arguments at face value, we would have to conclude that the tradition is divinely inspired since your claim is Jerome affirmed “divinely inspired appointment of bishops.” I think that is consistent with the RCC.
However, Jerome sets “tradition” and “commands of the Lord” in contradistinction for the explicit purpose of giving one (ie commands of the Lord), priority and supremacy over the other (ie tradition).
Do you think it is consistent for one type of divine revelation to have supremacy or priority over the other?
@@nickswoboda6647 If I'm understanding you - and correct me if I'm not - you are suggesting that Jerome is deliberately distinguishing between Jesus' commands (for Church structure?) and the tradition, in particular to the detriment of tradition.
I don't think that's a tenable reading of Jerome here. Let me compare two passages from the commentary:
"Therefore... the bishops know that they, more by custom than by the truth of the Lord’s arrangement, are greater than the priests."
But a little earlier he explained how this custom (in his reconstructed history) emerged:
"But after each one began to think that those whom he had baptized were his own and not Christ’s, it was decreed for the whole world that one of the priests should be elected to preside over the others..."
So this custom (that is, apostolic decision making about ecclesiology, cf. Acts 6) was a "decree" meant for the entire Christian world. That sounds to me incredibly binding and not at all inferior.
As for whether I think it's inconsistent for one to be superior to the other -- I can't see why, and I think the RCC has a sensible view on the matter. Their later pronouncements shouldn't override those of Jesus.
Finished the debate. While Sheffield did articulate a couple of his points well, his presentation of the case for episcopal apostolic succession was ultimately lacking. He never satisfactorily addressed Ortlund’s key arguments, e.g. the apparent equivocation of terms in texts like Acts 20, Titus 1, and 1 Clement 44. While he did seem to “win” a couple rounds, e.g. the bout regarding the absence of a crisis/controversy at what would be the transition to monoepiscopacy and also the bout regarding Timothy and Titus seemingly acting as bishops in a sense continuous with what Ignatius describes, overall Ortlund’s presentation and responses were just stronger. I see what Sheffield was trying to do by linking apostolic succession to the reliability of scripture and Christian doctrine, but I think that was the wrong way to approach that problem. When one dives into the history of the modern historical critical study of early Christianity and its reliance on Reformation-era hermeneutics, Enlightenment-era epistemology, and Puritan/Pietist-leaning ecclesiological and sacramentological biases (e.g. in Germany with the work of folks like F.C. Bauer, at least), we do see the way our biases can drive us to doubt the veracity of historical testimony to preserve what our psyche esteems more highly. That such anti-catholic and anti-Semitic biases were on display and influencing 19th century German Protestant scholarship in particular (e.g. Bauer and Wellhausen) is hard to ignore, but that doesn’t in itself establish that the sources such Germans sought to discredit are reliable, nor that Pietist inclinations are divergent from apostolic Christianity. The discussion needs to start at the level of hermeneutics, epistemology, and historical method, and build to the coherence of overall models of the development of early Christian belief and practice. I do believe that the most universally defensible set of hermeneutical and epistemological principles, extrapolated into a historical method then applied to the data of early Christianity, will yield a picture of the early church that overlaps with the beliefs one sees in Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Lutheranism (ignoring the more liberal and conversely fundamentalist excesses of some of the contemporary embodiments of all three), though with the formality of practice we see in these traditions being something that increases over time (which I don’t believe even the Eastern Orthodox would deny). But such an argument must begin with hermeneutics and epistemology, trace their development from the dawn of the Reformation to the present, and examine the models of the development of early Christian belief that emerged in this period (and those which were received from the Middle Ages) in light of the hermeneutical, epistemological, and other biases on display in those models. Sheffield’s presentation was severely lacking in any such nuance in his case for apostolic succession’s role in such a model, and didn’t really seem to leave room for the possibility of error in his position. As a result, Ortlund squarely won the debate (in my estimation).
Gavin, how do you feel the 70 Jesus appointed in Luke 10 fit into the apostolic succession discussion?
Due to the American Revolution, Episcopal Church succession, and therefore ACNA succession, is from Scotland, not England.
Dr. Ortlund, I know this isn’t related to the video but I have a question regarding the channel and content. You do an admirable job of defending historic and confessional Protestantism, and your work shows that Protestants who care about historic continuity need not despair and flee to Rome, which often happens, as you point out, very rapidly. In my speculation this likely often occurs with some holding of the nose and forcing not actual acceptance of some of the accretions, as I myself have been at the trailhead of that path.
You often, rightly, say that straw man caricatures of Protestantism is what the Catholic/Orthodox “UA-cam theology” world argues against. However, having been raised an evangelical (southern baptist) in the South, I can say that from my observations (no data or numbers to back my assertion) those caricatures are indeed not caricatures across wide swathes of the evangelical world. Examples being extremely low views of the sacraments, and the idea that the Holy Spirit helps each individual determine for himself what scripture means, and a general unawareness of church history prior to the second great awakening or founding of the US. Do you have any plans or would you consider engaging some of these issues with, for lack of a better term, capital E Evangelicals? I think the historically adrift position of Evangelicalism sets people up to run to Rome too quickly after they start reading pre-reformation church history.
I admit I don’t know of anyone in the UA-cam realm that would be a good representative of those views, so forgive my armchair suggestion if it is not worthwhile.
Hi Caleb! Thanks for the comment! I'm not totally sure I follow; are you proposing I dialogue with a low-church evangelical?
@@TruthUnites Yes.
I admit I’m not sure how the dialogue should be formatted without appearing somewhat combative, since the “charge” I make is that average Evangelicals don’t know enough history. Again, my observation and experience, maybe I’m way off.
Specifically with regard to baptism and the supper, I know you have a much higher view than I ever heard in the SBC, so maybe dialogue along the lines of why the Evangelical view of the Supper/Baptism is purely symbolic with no spiritual benefit. I don’t want to overstate that view, but I know it is very widespread and common to the point that until I was an adult, that view and the Catholic view were really only the ones I was aware of.
Evangelicals also tend to eschew confessions and denominations, so maybe that as a topic?
@@TruthUnites basically a lot of the caricatures that Catholics attack are based in reality in a lot of cases, and I think that the extremely low church evangelical world sets up historically/academic minded members to convert to Rome quickly when confronted with church history. At least, that’s how I felt when first exposed to church history.
Maybe another topic could be the what I consider near hostility to tradition. For example, I don’t know if your church practices Lent corporately or not, but it is attacked as “unscriptural” and thus inherently bad in most cases that I have heard Evangelicals talk about it.
I’m cognizant of the fact that what I am saying is fairly vague and some specific topic with a specific individual would be needed to dialogue.
@@AmillennialMillenial yeah, I think you are right that they are very common in certain circles. I still think its a caricature to call them the "Protestant" view, however, as opposed to "street-level evangelical." I am not exactly sure what such a dialogue would accomplish, but I will consider it! Thanks for the suggestion!
@@TruthUnites thanks! Sorry, I can’t articulate it better; just a thought I had. As I said, I’ve been at the trailhead of the path to Rome considering “just going with” Catholic doctrines I can’t really affirm, because of being blindsided with history. To me, historical continuity is important and does “bother” me. So glad I found your channel! But yeah, you’re probably right, I’m not sure how fruitful that would be.
Yes, it's nearly impossible from the New Testament Greek usage in the Epistles to make much of a distinction if any between "presbuteros" (elder) and "episkopos" (overseer). But the fact remains that two words occur for a similar office. And Christ is called "bishop of our souls"* where "elder" would certainly not be appropriate, though he is said to be our "elder" brother in another sense, "the firstborn of many brethren."
The most logical choice is that expressed by Sheffield (and the Anglican tradition). It accounts for the scriptural language having large amounts of crossover, but being somewhat distinct. The Bishop serves a geographical region, an essential capacity, especially in ancient times. An elder is perhaps more of a free agent. This is the mature brother who would align with the "fathers" spoken of by John in his first epistle: "I write to you:
1. little children
2. young men
3. fathers
Wesley among others noted this progression of maturity here.
Historically, presbyterian polity served much the same function as espiscopal, and even Calvin was not a hardliner contra bishops. One could argue that he was certainly the ranking bishop of Geneva, and the Consistory a strong presbyterian sideline. It became highly expedient in certain places to do away with bishops, especially in England and Scotland, where they were either Catholic or Anglican, and not favorable to Non-conformists. The belief that the presbuteros and episkopos were equivalent was revived with fervor, and thanks to Jerome it had early attestation. But Jerome had reason to mistrust bishops in his own time, as every heresy came from a bishop or had a bishop to protect it.
* 1 Peter 2:25, also the "shepherd" of our souls, here shepherd (pastor) and overseer (bishop) are connected in scripture, though without gloss.
What about the candidates, and recognizing the call on their life? Isn't it God who anoints, but the church recognizes the call? This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. I Tim 3:1
I’m at the very beginning of the discussion. Jonathan Sheffield just cited “Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews.” I’m Anglican, and do believe that apostolic succession in some form had its origin with the apostles and is to some degree quite important, but it’s a topic that needs to be treated with a great deal of scholarly nuance. Sheffield unflinchingly referring to Hebrews as “Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews” doesn’t instill confidence that he’s going to make a nuanced argument. I’m rather conservative in my views about the authorship of the books of the New Testament, but the early church was far from fully convinced that Paul wrote Hebrews (it’s one of seven books that were called the antilegomena by the early church-those spoken against), and with good reason; at the dawn of modern biblical scholarship, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, and Radical scholars like Erasmus, Luther, Cajetan, Melanchthon, Karlstadt, and Calvin were united in their deep doubts regarding Pauline authorship of Hebrews. Though there have been some stalwart defenders of Pauline authorship in contemporary conservative circles, the majority opinion still leans heavily against Pauline authorship even among conservative scholars. So for Sheffield to lead with such a minority opinion as undisputed fact right out of the gate does not instill confidence (to put it mildly) that he’s weighing the evidence with any serious attempt to look beyond his own biases, and makes me question what other minority opinions he’ll assert without argument on topics I’m less familiar with. Put more succinctly, he lost the benefit of the doubt for his case in the opening minute. Apostolic succession is a position that can (and should, I believe) be defended-the evidence for it (in some ambiguous form) is much stronger than the evidence for Pauline authorship of Hebrews (in my assessment, at least). At any rate, now it’s time to unpause and see if Sheffield can recover…
There is a parallel to Apostolic succession in the Levitical priesthood in a very general sense. If you think about Moses handing over the leadership to Joshua/Yeshua/Jesus who leads the children of God into the promised land, as an analogy of the first advent of Christ, and the restructuring of the temple priesthood by king David as an analogy of the second advent of Christ. What happened in between those times? The ark was taken away because the High Priest Eli and his family were destroyed by God BECAUSE OF APOSTASY. The Tent at Shilo fell into disuse, the ark was given over to the Phillistines and then put into storage and almost forgotten for many years. King David brought the ark to Jerusalem and restructured the priesthood after a temple based system, adding singers and musicians, structuring the priesthood as a stationary system in a building instead of a mobile priesthood in a tent. Following that narrative the same analogy would apply to the Orthodox church because of obvious apostasy and heresies which are abundant.
The episcopate or ecclesiological structure is not a development. The Magisterium is. There should be a distinction.
I never understood why the apostle Paul was treated like chopped liver when it came to papal succession in the Roman Catholic Church. But I am sure they have a very lengthy religious (if not very plausible) explanation for that. ✝️
Of the original apostles only Peter became pope. None of the other apostles held that office. They all had a mission to go out to the world to evangelize and they were all martyred except for John.
Except he wasn't pope.
It doesn't matter how many times a papist parrots this
@@bridgefin Peter is pope 😂. I feel like this is a claim that the RCC has to make even though there is no evidence that Peter functioned in any way similar to how the Pope functions!
1 Pet 5:1: Peter is a fellow elder
@@CCiPencil
Whatever that means. You would be correct that the current pope uses electricity, indoor plumbing, and motor vehicles. Some things change over 2,000 years. Others don't.
@@bridgefin something’s do change apparently, like many of the doctrines of the RCC, in which all who don’t follow are cursed to Hell, aren’t founded in the NT or the early church.
You know exactly what I was saying, you’d rather deflect.
Love your channel. Makes me wish I could sit down and pick your brain.
95% of all Catholic bishops trace their line to the Cardinal Rebiba. Except no one knows who consecrated the Cardinal.
The RCC insists on apostolic succession but can't prove it for itself beyond the 16th century.
@YAJUN YUAN Apostolic succession cannot be that important.
@YAJUN YUAN I have personally seen "apostolic succession" play out and it does NOT guarantee holding right doctrine. It is seen too much in R.C that it is somehow a magic formula that does not hold up under scrutiny. I've know priests who do not hold to right doctrine, but they are "totally fine" because they have apostolic succession. Bishops, rarely correct or do anything about it.
I think the frustration I feel on my end is the failure to approach the spirit. Apologetics are great…and so interesting from an intellectual perspective. And personally, I am far from not being driven by intellectualism. However, the truth and God’s message has rarely ever depended on intellect…by his glorious grace…and largely has ministered to the spirit. This means that knowledge of the one true God and the heart behind the dogma best identifies the truth.
Church governance and bureaucracy may be necessary and definable, even in early church history, but ultimately is a necessity of sinful human institution. Jesus is the head of the church. Below Him, any argument of supremacy in ecclesiastical position is akin to Mark 10:35-45. Leadership is necessary for preservation of biblical doctrine, but ultimately…as our Lord taught us, the first will be last, and the greatest will serve the least. That is driven by the spirit.
Something I don't understand is why this development cannot also be binding on future generations. My feeling is JS tried to prove too much, when other developments (like the definition of the Trinity) are generally considered binding, why not this one? If it was contrary to Scripture, that would obviously be one thing, but the argument here does not seem to be that: it is a legitimate form of order. So, as the order that was universal (starting in the third century), why is it not the preferred and default order of the Church?
The biggest problem with the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession is that it is simply another way men elevate their reasoning above God's authority. The only way any Catholic can defend this ridiculous and blasphemous doctrine is by ignoring Pau's crystal clear statement in 1 Cor. 12:278 that _God_ appoints apostles.
Anyone can claim that God appointed them as an apostle. Joseph Smith made such a claim.
Gavin's argument that development happens when founders are out of the picture is quite telling. The "Founder" of the Church is quite present in the picture, and if one reads the gospels, in particular, one sees that will always be the case.
Him Tim, wouldn't you say, though, that God was present throughout the Old Testament, and yet this did not cause his people not fall into sin and error?
@@TruthUnites Yes, I agree with your statement, but I don't think that the question is whether God's people can fall into error or not, and I also don't think that God promised to guide Israel into all truth, as Jesus did to the Apostles (and, if you admit that their apostolic ministry continued after them, as I believe you expressly did, then that promise also extends). The question is, did God implement an organizational structure and if so, do you or I have the right to unilaterally change it even if the leaders in that structure fall into error? Can you point to me anything in the OT that suggests that the "remnant" that remained godly had the right to go out and form their own structure of authority? Start their own country? Build their own temple? In fact, Jesus expressly shuts down such an idea in Matthew 23. He uses the same language of "binding" and "loosing" that he uses in Matthew 16 and 18 and he tells the people that despite the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, they should be obeyed, but not imitated, for they "sit on Moses' seat." What is Moses' seat? A seat of authority. In Matthew 16 and 18, Jesus gives the same authority to His disciples.
Now, putting that aside, as I mentioned earlier, Jesus promised his Spirit to the Church. He promised to guide the apostles into all truth. Paul also tells us that the Church, not you, or me, or Scripture, or our interpretations of Scripture, are the pillar and bulwark of the truth. The Church (a visible organization implemented by Jesus Himself--I don't think there's any other reasonable way to view the Church) upholds Scripture and as such, it has authority. That creates a really, really heavy presumption against rebelling against tradition, so even if the episcopacy is merely a tradition (I think Mr. Sheffield makes a great case that it isn't), I don't think you or I have any authority to rebel against it, unless it's your view that the apostles' successors, who are guided by the Spirit (as a whole), have less authority than Moses' successors, who were not, despite Jesus using the very same language to describe the apostles' authority (in Matt. 16 and 18) and Moses' successors' authority (in Matt. 23).
@@Mitenilk08using your own comparison. The Pharisees who had authority and taught on Moses seat were charged by Jesus for teach their own traditions over the word of God. Plus the Orthodox view that the papacy did not have unilateral authority over the whole church is obvious. So either be Orthodox or sola scriptura but not Catholic.
@@lolhey6954 I’m not Roman Catholic. I’m Anglican.
The Patriarchate of Antioch:
Founded by Saints Peter and Paul
The Patriarchate of Antioch: Founded by Saints Peter and Paul
The most famous scriptural reference concerning Antioch relates that it was in this city that the followers of Christ were first mockingly referred to as "Christians" (Acts 11:26). In the Book of Acts, which offers an account of the first years of the Church, we discover that Antioch is the second most frequently mentioned city. Nicholas, one of the original seven deacons was a convert from Antioch and perhaps the first Christian from that city (Acts 6:5). During the persecution which occasioned the death of Saint Stephen the First Martyr, members of the fledgling Christian community in Jerusalem fled to Antioch for refuge.
Church tradition maintains that the See of Antioch was founded by Saint Peter the Apostle in 34 AD. Peter was either followed or joined by the Apostles Paul and Barnabas who preached there to both Gentiles and to Jews, who seem to have been numerous in the city. It was in Antioch that one of the first conflicts within the Church developed between Peter and Paul. This conflict regarded the necessity of circumcision for male Gentile converts to Christianity. It was the resolution of this conflict at the Council of Jerusalem under Saint James the Apostle that determined the direction of the Antiochian mission to the Gentiles, and the dynamic nature of that Christian community in its missionary outreach. It was from Antioch that Paul and Barnabas departed for their great missionary journeys to the Gentile lands (Acts 13:1).
The Apostles directed a truly universal ministry. After spending some seven years in Antioch, Peter left for Rome. To succeed him as bishop of Antioch he appointed Euodius, who is thus counted in early episcopal lists as the first successor to the Antiochian Throne of Peter. The multiple Apostolic foundation of the See of Antioch, the early missions centered there and the active nature of the community, as recorded in the New Testament, have been a unique heritage to all who trace their spiritual and ecclesiastical roots to the Antiochian Patriarchate.
The See of Antioch continued its glorious contributions to the universal Church by the numerous outstanding personalities it nurtured. Saint Ignatius of Antioch for example, is revered as both a victorious martyr during the reign of Emperor Trajan (early second century) and as a reliable historical source for the structure of Church life. Ignatius was the second successor to Peter and may actually have been consecrated by that Apostle or Saint Paul.
The Church of Antioch has maintained a continuous succession in the Apostolic Faith down to the present. The current Bishop/Patriarch of Antioch is His Beatitude John X, elected on December 17th, 2012.
Would love to see this as a debate with Romanist or Eastern orthodox
In what sense from the ministry of our Lord is apostolic succession a necessity? The only time I see in the gospels am even remotely close approach to this is James and John requesting to sit Jesus’ right and left hand. Other than our Lord clarifying the consequences of their request, I see no resolution nor conviction of their intention. The secondary message from this teaching is the irrelevancy of their desire to reign. That…the desire to reign and be first…treated as the least of importance and worthy of reward by our Lord. That is the spirit that the Protestant resists.
The problem with your position Gavin is what would you have in place instead of the catholic church? If you think AS stopped after the 2nd century then what should have been there instead?
So the CofE tailors its doctrines according to the outcomes it desires? Making it up as it goes along?
Why doesn't anyone bring up the spurious nature of the ignatian epistles?
The Eucharist = mystical/mysterious, NOT “magical”. For years, I had a typical Protestant understanding and belief about it but now, I’ve come to understand it’s so much more than that. So it’s a mistake to make such assumptions based on “appearance” or on a “feeling” of something “seeming” to be magical or occult…especially if one is basing their foundational understanding of doctrine on that incorrect or misinformed view. In terms of doctrinal importance, the Eucharist > ecclesiology, so one should probably get that right before attempting to define and defend a new governance structure for the faith.
I'm trying to find the part where the Assyrian Church is mentioned but can't find it, anyone remember where?
Actually found it at the 1:30 mark. But can't find anything online about this. Was this a commentary that Charles Spurgeon made about the Assyrian Church?
Matthew 16:18 Jesus says "You are Peter and this rock I will build my church"
I think there is a place for Protestantism in Christs body but only as evangelists because that is your guys forte'
Did Jesus not say regarding John the baptist...He is the greatest among men but still the least in Heaven ,? I know thats not a direct quote from bible but my summation of it.
An apostle (shaliach) is an agent within the Jewish community who has power of attorney to act in the person of another - based on the narrative in which Abraham appoints his servant to find a wife for his son.
Apostolic succession is based on the proposition in Kiddushin 12a that a shaliach can transmit his powers to another, absent a stipulation to the contrary.
Unless apostolic succession were a valid way of communicating the powers of the High Priest, there would be no authority for Christians to conduct public worship of any description.
Apostolic succession is the tracing of a direct line of apostolic ordination, Orthodox doctrine, and full communion from the Apostles to the current episcopacy of the Orthodox Church. All three elements are constitutive of apostolic succession.
It is through apostolic succession that the Orthodox Christian Church is the spiritual successor to the original body of believers in Christ that was composed of the Apostles. This succession manifests itself through the unbroken succession of its bishops back to the apostles.
The unbrokenness of apostolic succession is significant because of Jesus Christ's promise that the "gates of hell" (Matthew 16:18) would not prevail against the Church, and his promise that he himself would be with the apostles to "the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20). According to this interpretation, a complete disruption or end of such apostolic succession would mean that these promises were not kept as would an apostolic succession which, while formally intact, completely abandoned the teachings of the Apostles and their immediate successors; as, for example, if all the bishops of the world agreed to abrogate the Nicene Creed or repudiate the Holy Scripture.
Orthodox teachings today are the same as that of the first apostles, though their mode of expression has adapted over the centuries to deal with heresies, changes in culture and so forth. This form of the doctrine was first formulated by St. Irenaeus of Lyons in the second century, in response to certain Gnostics. These Gnostics claimed that Christ or the Apostles passed on some teachings secretly, or that there were some secret apostles, and that they (the Gnostics) were passing on these otherwise secret teachings. Irenaeus responded that the identity of the original Apostles was well known, as was the main content of their teaching and the identity of the Apostles' successors. Therefore, anyone teaching something contrary to what was known to be apostolic teaching was not, in any sense, a successor to the Apostles or to Christ.
In addition to a line of historic transmission, Orthodox Christian churches additionally require that a hierarch maintain Orthodox doctrine as well as full communion with other Orthodox bishops. As such, the Orthodox do not recognize the existence of apostolic succession outside the Orthodox Church, precisely because the episcopacy is a ministry within the Church.
The big issue I have with Orthodoxy, is the false teachings on the blessed mother, and their prayers through saints. If it wasn't these two things I'd be Orthodox.
I know you'll disagree. I don't make these statements lightly, and yes I hold the Theotokos in high regard.
Orthodox church is basically the first protestant church so either protestants and orthodox alike have apostolic succession or nobody has it. I vote for nobody. It's a man made construct to keep people obedient and in line.
Roman Catholicism is malarkey. Religion doesn't save my soul, the gospel does, that is, Jesus died for sinners, and that's good enough for me.
Would divisions be acceptable to christ.
Wait. I thought you were taking a break for May...
If there was clear criteria in scripture for becoming a bishop and we have clear evidence that many many popes were wolves in sheep's clothing who were surely not beyond reproach as the scriptures demanded, so doesn't that disqualify their office as bishops/popes and nullify everything they did as a false bishop/pope?
This gets into the territory of what the Donatists would have said, i.e. that the validity of one's Holy Orders is contingent upon holiness of life after ordination. Which, given that we all have sins, even (and perhaps especially and most commonly) those unknown to others, if that position is true, then how could anyone ever be sure that the Eucharist or confession or chrismation they're receiving from the priest is valid? Rather, being an immoral clergyman doesn't invalidate the Sacraments (because it is God acting through the priest/bishop and not the priest/bishop doing things on their own merit), but they will have to answer more profoundly at the Judgement for how their actions hurt the flock entrusted to their care.
@@Shiranui115 this means Christ is the only one that qualifies as the High Priest to ensure. When God gives clear criteria by which to select Bishops and by which they were to live and these bishop/popes sins were far from hidden but rather out in the open for all to see, then God has already judged them as unfit for office which makes their doctrines of man and traditions null and void.
@@lucianbane2170 Yep. And actually Donatism more addresses perfection in ministry which is not required.
@@wilsonw.t.6878 Nobody said anything about perfection which is an unusual argument to make when addressing what the scriptures meant when laying out the requirements for a bishop. Why not stick to that? The scriptures say what behavior is required and if that is not met, then they are not to be bishops and if they are bishops, then like Judas, they should be removed. Sins of the heart are not the context of the scriptures outline for bishop requirements so why would you or the previous person bring that into the topic?
Apostolic Succession is not the will of God.
“And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” ****Revelation 21:14****
• Peter was no different than the others. We can see here in ****Revelations 21:14**** that Peter was still an apostle, not a pope. John saw a vision of the New Jerusalem, so if Peter was a pope, John would have said I saw the foundation of the city walls in layers of 11 apostles and the one pope.
------------------
- Eamon Duffy, an Irish historian, said, “There is, therefore, nothing directly approaching a papal theory in the pages of the New Testament,” and “from all indications, there was no single bishop of Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the apostles”. The Catholic National, a Catholic organ published this quote in July 1895.
- Eamon Duffy was a Catholic Historian and he basically refutes that *Matthew 16:18* alludes to or supports papal authority. He said it without any confusion that the New Testament scriptures do not support the papacy. Therefore Peter was not singled out. When Christ said, “upon this Rock, I build my church”…. to say that he was proclaiming a papacy through a lineage of Peter is speculation.
- If that were true, there would be other scriptures to cross-reference the theory of Pontification. Paul would have had to check in with Peter if Peter was the Pope. Instead, Paul went to see Ananias to receive his sight.
- In ****Galatians 2:11-21**** we can see Paul putting Peter in check for treating the Gentiles differently based upon their state of circumcision and Peter’s fear of criticism.
- If ****Matthew 16:18**** was Peter’s proclamation of pontification, that leaves a huge issue. The biggest problem of all is that if Peter is the rock, then the scripture wouldn’t say that Christ is the rock. That’s a contradiction. We can’t build our faith on contradictions. The Rock is spiritual, not earthly.
****1 Corinthians 10:4**** - and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
------------------
****Matthew 16:18**** The Catholic Church says that tradition holds that Peter is the first pope and the rock, and that this scripture is proclaiming the Papacy.
****1 Corinthians 3:11**** / ****1 Corinthians 10:4**** The word of God says that Christ is the spiritual Rock. A Rock for the wise builder.
------------------
- I’m choosing to go with the Word of God, not the traditions of men. There is no evidence that Peter ever even went to Rome.
Christ is the Rock, Peter is a stone, and we are all stones. ****1 Peter 2:4-8****
❤ 💜 ❤️ ♥️ 💜 Repent!!!
Very interesting post thanks :)
Gavin-do you accept presbyterial apostolic succession? Or no?
How would you define presbyterial apostolic succession?
@@TruthUnites That the church should proceed by, at minimum, presbyters ordaining presbyters (in that construction, the bishop is a presbyter as the first among equals)
@@anglicanaesthetics no, not as a matter of necessity. I would be interested in hearing the argument for that view.
@@TruthUnites sure! So it would be a church history plus Scripture argument:
1 Timothy 3:6-7
[6] He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. [7] Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
^Paul gives these instructions to Timothy, who is per 1 Timothy 1 , left by Paul to remain in Ephesus. He’s probably at least a presbyter, and certainly by the tradition he’s considered the first bishop of Ephesus.
Irenaeus says the following:
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church-those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (ibid., 4:26:2).
Tertullian also has similar statements. What that tells us is that the instructions given to Timothy in 1 Timothy 3 and 2 Timothy 2 were interpreted, from very early on, to be instructions for future generations of presbyters. That makes a good deal of sense, given that the pastoral epistles probably would have been read out loud (they don’t seem to be merely personal correspondences). Thus, Paul appoints Timothy, who in turn appoints presbyters; it’s reasonable that the instructions in 1 Timothy 2 were meant by Paul to be carried out by presbyters, as that’s how it was interpreted from earliest times.
@@TruthUnites PS: I say “presbyters” and not *necessarily* bishops because, as Jerome notes, the bishop is a presbyter who takes the lead among presbyters.
Dr. Gavin, the difficulty that Protestants have is that a "PRESBYTEROS" Is a synonymous word "EMBASADOR." The Presbyter is the embasador for their Episcopos and would be the representation of their Bishop's ministry and authority in local churches where there was a lacking of an identified leader. In communities with no Bishop/Episcopos present and Exarch. That is why the Acts and other New Testament Texts only state two offices of Episcopos and Diaconos, while the Presbyteros is an integral extension of their Episcopos. In All of the Eastern Churches both Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, the Presbyteros is the Extension for their Episcopos and in the local region speaks for the authority of the Episcopos.
I agree with this, but presbyteros means elder, apostolos means ambassador. Other than that, I think this is the most reasonable approach of viewing priests as a deacon acting with the warrant of a commissioned Bishop.
Apostles replaced Judas, via apostolic succession.
If I have an issue with my brother....what church do I take him to when he won't listen? Yours, the Lutheran's, some random name church, Billy Bob who just started up his own church down the road at the abandoned gas station? We know there is a visible church. So which one is the true church? They all can't be...so which one?
@Daniel Smith your Bapist church has no authority to excommunicated. Matthew 18 clearly states the church has that authority if they still don't listen. No Protestant group goes back to the apostles.
@Daniel Smith your pastors hold no authority.
@Daniel Smith they don't come from Jesus and the apostles. So how are they different then every other heretical group in history?
Saint Paul affirms that Timothy and Silvanus are ALSO Apostles. Where in Holy Scripture does it teach that The office of Apostle ceased? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
You miss the nuance of “apostolos.” There are many instances where people are called apostles. Yet, we must be careful to differentiate between mere ambassadors of Christ and the true eyewitnesses of Christ.
@@kennylee6499No, I do not miss the nuance as you falsely claim! So, was Paul an Apostle according to what Peter declared in Acts 2 that the office can only be succeeded by one who was with Jesus Christ from the very beginning of His ministry? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
no such thing. no special office today.
idgi.........
The arguments of the Evangelicals againts the Pope are the same Korah and his gang used against Moses in Numbers 16
What, that he was the man of sin, the son of perdition, the anti Christ?
Does that include the Orthodox as well? 😂😂
Yiu treat pope as Moses lol
All of this is nonsense. All that matters is the kingdom of god that Jesus preached. All of the political office nonsense that occurred afterward is irrelevant and our Lord told us so many times.
What about...
Whoever doesn't listen to the Church consider him a Gentile or a tax collector
Gavin, when you refer to “evidential presumption,” I think that’s part of your difficulty here. The burden isn’t on those of us who hold to the established practice to prove it’s right. The burden is on those who dispute it to prove it isn’t consistent with Scripture and history. It’s not enough to prove that your new theory is plausible.
Who is to say which theory is “new” and where the burden of proof lies? Gavin’s opinion seems to be shared by St Jerome at the very least, all the way back in the 300s.
If anything, we should be neutral, and see which narrative best fits the evidence.
@@repentantrevenant9776Common sense says which theory is new. The entire church embraced the episcopacy, without question, until the 1500s. Even St. Jerome did in practice, notwithstanding a comment made. At best, there's a case to be made that it wasn't so at the very beginning, but the evidence is sketchy on that. So the default is that the episcopacy is necessary. Given that Scripture commands obedience to church leaders, that heresy and schism are sins, etc., yes, the burden is on the person upsetting the apple cart not just to show that there might be another possible apple cart, but instead, to show that the apple cart ain't actually an apple cart at all.
this is the essence of Protestantism:
the debate club!
the day finally came when I realized, you guys aren't actually Christians at all,
you are modernistic neo-Greek philosophic society.
The Christian Bible is your playground;
a desperate search to discover what it might mean, or is it just a Taoist lifestyle that might add to your personal success.
Round & round you all go with each other trying to score points,
lighting down for a short period here & there with a theory or theological exercise that quickly becomes tiresome & ineffective.
who will be pastor tomorrow?
Lol
Well, I guess you should complain to God. He was the one who gave us his word and from that comes the authority to debate about it. Jesus did it, Paul did it, etc. I'd rather have debate than the nonsensical man made catholic doctrines.
It is a fact that the seed is scattered over several diverse surfaces, but that hardly releases anyone from the responsibility that comes to bear on any who choose to act as an authority over the crop that comes to bear from hand of the sower.
It is written:
For every word you utter, you shall give account.
One thing is CERTAIN: NO "Baptists," nor "Evangelicals," nor "Lutherans," nor "Calvinists," et al, have any historical basis for their offices; no succession from any earlier, established Bishops, etc.. They are basically established by themselves, and those who SIMPLY LIKE THEM, THEIR PREACHING, AND/OR THEIR WAY OF HANDLING/"MINISTERING TO" PEOPLE.
Needless to say, if Gavin were to recognize these historical bases, his whole "office" as a "pastor" is shot. He has to find some small niches in history that would somehow allow/justify himself being a "pastor" / "elder" over his personally/communally established "church."
Dr Ortlund doesn’t need to find a historical niche to be a pastor of his “church”. “Evangelicals “ “ Baptists” and “Lutherans” do not rely on an historical basis as “Catholics “ and “Episcopalians”. Rather, we rely on a biblical one as given by God in scripture.
@Daniel Smith actually not true. I used to use this arguement, but then i read the Provoo Communion's report on Apostolic Succession and its clear that the Church of Sweden has apostolic succession, but does not deem it necessary as per the Book of Concord. Lutheranism is not episcopal and does not support (nor deny) Apostolic Succession the way Anglicans, Roman Catholics and the Eastern Churches do.
The Church of England's insistence of Episcopal Apostolic Succession is a later development out of the Caroline Divines, Nonjurors and other clergye of the Old High Church, and later reinforced by the Tractarians and other Anglo-Catholics. Church of Sweden never had this process and so it retains the same view on the Episcopate as the Low Church of Anglicanism derived from the Evangelical Reformed Classical Anglicanism of Cranmer, Parker, Hooker, etc.
So in the Anglican mind, the supernatural is equivalent to magic?
👎
No! That God's Word needs an anti-Christus to be effective. Isaiah 55:
11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.