@flameemperor8317 No. There were two "Baptists" from the beginning during the late Reformation in England. Reformed Baptists tended to be "scholarly" (Gavin is Reformed". Arminian/Free Will Baptists tend to focus on "pietism" (they tend to avoid historical Christianity). Most Baptists are Arminian so they are less "doctrinal" since Free Will Baptists never had historical confessions like Reformed Baptists (London Confession of Faith). That's why Baptists are stereotyped as "Presbyterians who don't read so well".
@flameemperor8317 Baptists as their local church autonomy doctrine caused the most divisions. It was not meant to be understood that way but got abused, so too many pastors think they are smarter than Luther and Calvin. :-)
@flameemperor8317 BTW, I used to be a Reformed Baptist and now I am a Presbyterian. 🙂 I went to a Baptist seminary. There were SOOOO many Baptist pastors who had very little knowledge of historical Christianity... They are trying to remedy but the problem is extensive.
Eh. No, a lot of Baptists are that way. I speak as one as well but one who is going similar academic training as Gavin right now. Thing is that also many other Christians in other denominations lack knowledge, but at least their tradition incorporates a broader and deeper historical narrative to their people than many Baptist congregations do.
As a former Catholic, it may not be explicitly stated but it is strongly implied, that to be outside the catholic church is to be damned. It was very psycho/spiritually difficult to extricate myself from the quagmire that is now the catholic church. Thank you for this fantastic video!
I've been feeling drawn to the Catholic Church (again) lately, but this great video put the brakes on. Sigh. I feel like I'm stuck spiritually and ecclesiastically. You are absolutely right that many people seem to want a system where everything would be clear and which would just tell you how things should be. It seems that practically every side has good arguments behind them. There are clearly smarter people than me in every tradition. Somehow I still think that if I just read a little more, listen to this and that lecture, listen to a few podcast episodes, have some conversations online and "in real life", then I will find the place where I need to be. But as usual: the more I learn, the more I realize how much there is to learn. Some days all this is really exciting when you get to research and think, but in the past year this has started to feel even heavier. I feel like I'm stuck.
My main question to you is what are you trusting in for your salvation? Is it Christ and His death for your sins and resurrection? If it is in only Christ in His work and not your own good works then you’re fine. This is of the most important - the gospel message! Where would you go to hear this message of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone? Everything else is of lesser importance. I hope that helps you
thanks for sharing your process. I think a lot of people like that. My recent video, "How to Overcome Intellectual Anxiety" exists to address precisely this circumstance, in case that helps! God bless you and guide you.
As a former RC who is now Baptist, I can only say that Catholicism for me proved to be vacuous and tiresome. The Baptist church I belong to now is filled with the truth of God's Word, love, wonderful fellowship, and the Holy Spirit. It has a richness and depth that I never knew while I was Catholic.
@@kstewart3052all due respect, but you trade "vacuous and tiresome" for something utterly ahistorical. Point in hand, I've seen great arguments from the protestant side, I engaged and partook and even used those same arguments at one point in my own life. One thing I cannot overlook is the Baptist view of baptism. Their view on their very own namesake is perhaps one of the biggest mistakes and ahistorical blunders out of any protestant group, that being the view of credobaptism. When pressed and when research is done there is literally zero credible attestation to this view or practice in the tradition of the early church or the scriptures.
“Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” Luke 11:11-13 This ties into you final point, Gavin. Those who shamelessly, humbly and sacrificially seek God will not be led astray with false or deceiving spirits. He is generous with His Spirit and we should trust that truth about Him. As someone who has wrestled with discerning what and where the "true Church" is, I have found great peace in simply being obedient and walking in what I _know_ to be true and not worrying so much about what I am less certain of. My advice is to always keep an open heart and to let Him lead you as the good Shepherd that He is.
We live in an area that has about 80,000 residents. My husband is an Anglican priest and for a short period of time before planting an Anglican parish we did not have services on Sunday mornings. This gave us an opportunity to visit other congregations. One Sunday morning we attended a local Catholic church where the Catholic priest asked my husband (who was wearing his clerical colllar and easily identifiable) after Mass if we were part of a schismatic Catholic group. We learned later that there are 27 schismatic Catholic groups in our area. Oh my!
I doubt this very much but people will say what they need to make them feel better i suppose. There is a way to prove it. Ask their bishop - “IF” you will.
@srich7503 tbh you would be surprised. There are Catholics who believe that there have been no valid popes since Vatican II and that the church since is heretical, there are others who believe that the church has been heretical since 1929’s treaty signed concerning Vatican City, that baptism of desire is heretical… They’re out there. It’s just that the PR is good at covering up their existence.
I grew up in Anglican Church and I know we have both liberal and true believers (I hesitate to call them merely traditional believers because they are not) ~ I grew up in Africa where we had the great East African Revival ~ the people came to the Lord and were set apart from other nominal Anglican members who practiced sycritism. Both worshipped together even to this very day but true believers are still the pillar holding up the Church and so we have two branches, those that are saved and those that admit they are just born Anglican but without personal relationship with the Lord ~ (Wheat and tare?). What am trying to say is there is a dangerous trend in the so-called traditional mainstream Churches. The clinging on to antiquity without preaching of the gospel. There is no doubt that my beloved Church is splitting but for a good reason. Time for the true believers to stand firmly and obey their God than the united under damning behaviours. We should also rethink women ordination since, if any takes time to reflect, since the ordination of my kind, the Church has fallen nose dive into liberalism and as usual there everything goes, who cares what God's law says ~ only emotions and feelings of persons matters ~ just like the great Apostle Paul explains, it's was Eve not Adam who was deceived ~ we, the Eves are driven most by emotions and subjectivity instead of objectivity. Protestants Churches are built in the way that there is room for reform, unlike the Catholic Church is irriformable. They are stuck with there unbiblical celibacy priesthood that is the main cause of their problems and the "reform" that the liberal Pope can do is to "approve " what the liberals are forcing everybody to approve.
Dr. Gavin, I’m neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic, yet sometimes I come to your videos with a mixed sentiment of both skepticism and confidence in what you’re going to bring in… Now, concerning this one specifically, I have to admit that the point was very clearly stated and I really resounded with it, specifically with the concept of the “burden” (of it being the same whether you’re a Protestant or not). I liked that! Also, I really liked too that phrase: “He is not Roman Catholic, he is not Protestant, he is just John Chrysostom” or something like that. I think that this kind of sincerity would be very rewarding when studying patristics. Irenaeus, to me, would serve as a perfect example for this kind of approach; I even consider him as a bridge between Roman Catholics and Protestants in every aspect that could create tension in the modern era of Christianity. But anyway, you opened my mind this time concerning this important topic, so thanks! Gladly, Gian from Puerto Rico
That would be true if Ortland did not skip over paragraphs and pages of Chrysostom, and other Fathers to cherry pick what looks like their support of doctrines not conceived of for another thousand to 1200 years in the future with the advent of the Reformers. But perhaps Ortland does not expect his viewers to read what he quotes and see what he omits, but just to trust him
@@thomasfolio7931 Yeah, that might happen sometimes. I do my best to read in context what he and other “Protestant” apologists and theologians offer concerning all this topics related to Church History. By reading Irenaeus’ Against Heresies I can definitely see the importance of applying textual harmonization to the writings and teachings of the Church Fathers, in the same way that we do with the Scriptures (ideally speaking). For, by not taking into consideration their whole way of thinking, we can present two different persons that were actually the same “Church Father”. For I can quote Irenaeus as a faithful Roman Catholic: “Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere.” (3.3.2); Or I can quote him as a solid Protestant: “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” (3.3.1); Or I can even quote him as a faithful Orthodox: “It will be incumbent upon thee, however, and all who may happen to read this writing, to peruse with great attention what I have already said, that thou mayest obtain a knowledge of the subjects against which I am contending. For it is thus that thou wilt both controvert them in a legitimate manner, and wilt be prepared to receive the proofs brought forward against them, casting away their doctrines as filth by means of the celestial faith; but following the only true and stedfast Teacher, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.” (5.preface). Anyways, although you have reason in that which you point out as a possibility, you should also open your mind when reading patristics, because we can see teachings from all the way around. In other words, they weren’t always on the same page, and they certainly are not ideal (sometimes) to defend a certain Christian tradition, because of the formerly said. Sometimes they sounded Roman Catholic, other time they sounded Protestant, other time they sounded Orthodox, in both theology and spirituality; We, as responsible and honest readers of them (whom I myself consider personally as “fathers” of the Church indeed), should try our best to not encase or limit them to our own Christian tradition, instead, just let them be what they were: Christians… God be with you and with all who love Jesus Christ with and unmovable love.
Finally! Someone has hit the nail square on the head about private judgement. I've been saying this exact thing for years to family and friends. It's about time someone said this out loud and publicly!
Great video. I was Orthodox for 16 years (including my 3 year period of being a catechumen). While in the Orthodox Church I could never find out what the correct beliefs in the church were. They say read the councils, and I did, but even those are interpreted differently by each person who reads them. Also a ton of the American Orthodox online apologetics comes from Catholic and protestant source material. I saw your exchange with Energetic Procession on UA-cam. The bulk of his work on apostolic succession comes from the Anglican Felix Lossing Cirlot. Now Cirlot might make a better argument than Protestants on the subject, but using sources that aren’t Orthodox just shows that they are formulating a unique view unto themselves that isn’t provided by Orthodox thinkers or the fathers. Why does he have to use Cirlot and not refer to the councils? Also, their views against sola scriptural almost purely come from Catholic apologetics. Gregory the Theologian said that we are not to read the Bible like a scientist, but like a poet or lover of literature. I don’t know the last time a judge ruled on how I had to read Shakespeare or Walt Whitman, or that any literary critic has lost sleep over everyone getting Yeats wrong. There main concern is making sure people love poetry. So your example of our decision in this matter being like who we choose marry is a good analogy imo.
False, this self proclaimed "pastor" always tries to suit protestant churches problems into catholicism so that protestants think all is the same mess, but not, the true Church of Christ is ONE and it has ONE doctrine, and the fullnes of the truth.
@@xaviertorres1685 Yep,you're in the One True Perfect Church and the only problems are w/ other churches. You're full of pride and hubris. Go away, it's just like I already said.
@@saintejeannedarc9460well you should first understand what the church means by infallibility. There absolutely needs to be an authority on earth ordained by God to declare on matters on doctrine. If there are three churches and one says there is no Trinity, only God the father and Jesus was made by God. The second church says we can’t ever know the nature of God and there may be a trinity or may not. The third says God is triune three persons in one God. Obviously they can’t all be right. One is closer to the truth than the others. Catholics believe that God granted authority to Peter and all subsequent popes to declare on such matters and say infallibly that yes indeed the Christian God is three persons in one God. The infallible declaration comes not from the pope but from the Holy Spirit which guides true church of Christ and will not lead it into error on official doctrines. Now hopefully you can see the importance of such an authority. Because you can look at gay marriage. So many churches today are saying this is ok and love is love. Well which is correct? Catholic Church has problems and scandals of course but the fundamental teachings we believe are true because the Holy Spirit will not lead the church into error on such matters.
well you should first understand what the church means by infallibility. There absolutely needs to be an authority on earth ordained by God to declare on matters on doctrine. If there are three churches and one says there is no Trinity, only God the father and Jesus was made by God. The second church says we can’t ever know the nature of God and there may be a trinity or may not. The third says God is triune three persons in one God. Obviously they can’t all be right. One is closer to the truth than the others. Catholics believe that God granted authority to Peter and all subsequent popes to declare on such matters and say infallibly that yes indeed the Christian God is three persons in one God. The infallible declaration comes not from the pope but from the Holy Spirit which guides true church of Christ and will not lead it into error on official doctrines. Now hopefully you can see the importance of such an authority. Because you can look at gay marriage. So many churches today are saying this is ok and love is love. Well which is correct? Catholic Church has problems and scandals of course but the fundamental teachings we believe are true because the Holy Spirit will not lead the church into error on such matters.
Wow, in the first 3min you laid out my entire journey and thought process regarding the “one true church” claim & debate. Sometimes while looking towards the early church as a protestant you want to hear the arguments yet the “No salvation outside the church” claim always reels me back. As it is portrayed today, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is ridiculously exclusive, like a private country club of a faith that completely discounts billions of professing believers around the world, as if submitting to God in general wasn’t enough.
Perhaps because the Catholic defenition is different from what Protestants like Ortland define it to be. Having it's origins in St. Cyprian in the 3rd Century it's not what Protestants are told it means. The Roman Catechism teaches, "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is His Body" Read Pope Pius XII explanation of vincible versus Invincible ignorance to understand the official Catholic understanding when the issue came to a head as followers of Fr. Leonard Feeney claimed that only baptized Roman Catholics will go to heaven, something he and his followers were excommunicated for. In its statements regarding this doctrine, the Church expressly teaches that "it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God", and that "outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control". It also states that "they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life"
Gavin, the difference between Catholics and Protestants on "essential" doctrines is not that one side has a list and one doesn't. The difference is, if I have a question, the teaching office of the Catholic Church can answer definitively. If I ask a Lutheran, a Presbyterian, and a non-denominational, "What is baptism?", which Hebrews 6 calls a "fundamental" of the Christian faith, I'm going to get three different answers and they would each say I am free to leave their congregation if I disagree and go to another which teaches something different. I would expect that Christians 2000 years later would be united on something as basic as that and I don't think the apostles would have imagined Christians 2000 years later being told by their clergy they could leave if they disagree. I don't expect the Church to give me a list saying, "Here are all 274 essential doctrines that you need to believe." Simply put, I trust all the teachings of the church, those that are dogma and those that are doctrine. Sure, the divinity of Christ is more "essential" or important than say, the existence of purgatory, but I can be sure both are 100% true. Yes, I 100% agree you have to follow your conscience and that your conscience is the first and last assessor of which denomination to go, but I find the Catholic claim to be the most consistent logically. Thoughts?
You make good points. You are looking for a branch/ sect of Christianity that is most "logical." I can admire this endeavor but the way of logic can be treacherous! And what about the Way of Virtue, and the Way of what is consistent with that which is Theopneustos -- God-breathed? I.e., Scripture? Why is Logic your Number One? I wouldn't care if the Roman Catholic Church was the preeminently "logical" choice, my conscience simply will not allow me to join an institution that had such a devastating pedophilia that destroyed the faith and lives of thousands, it conspired to cover up for *who knows how long*! Logic tells you 1 + 1 must = 2. But all the logic in the world won't make me believe something is not fundamentally flawed in the Roman Catholic Church. So, why do you give such pride of place to Logic and not Virtue? Why do you idolize The True over against The Good -- when the True, the Beautiful, AND the Good must be found together and never apart? So, while you prioritize logic, I prioritize the word of God *along with* Church history, scholarship, and Patristic theology and writing. And I'm not just looking for what is true, but what is good and what is beautiful.
Thank you so much for this video Gavin. I’ve grown up in the Church of Christ, so in the Restoration Movement, and I’ve been walking through a process of figuring out which denomination I belong to. I really appreciate your advice as I go about doing the work!
Gavin thanks for your work. It helps balance out the many RC apologist on UA-cam. I’m in the middle of Protestant/catholic debate. And your work has been helpful.
Thank you, brother. As one who is in the midst of discerning between traditions, your words are an answer to my prayers and brought peace to my heart. God bless.
Always gets me the “Protestants disagree on doctrine” line. Well Taylor Marshall would say someone like me is going to hell while Trent Horn wouldn’t so isn’t that a RC disagreement on essential doctrine?! And if they are following the same magisterium how can they disagree?! Is it coming down to their own interpretation? Isn’t this something that RC are always levelling at Protestants? Mmmmm ,God Bless Gavin 🙏
Apples and oranges. The RC critique isn't comparing individual Protestants. It's comparing various Protestant denoms official teachings, confessions of faith, creeds, etc. with each other.
@@shawngillogly6873 What in the world are you talking about? The reply was Taylor Marshal and Trent Horn having had different opinions on Protestants. Not on the Council of Trent.
As usual, this is excellent, Gavin. (I have been saying something very similar for years to my Catholic and Orthodox friends. All of us have to adjudicate what we find to be true or false.)
When I became a Catholic, I found peace in the Church. I'm only speaking for my own experience. My years as an Evangelical were positive, but the sacraments have deepened my relationship with Christ.
Hey Gavin! Protestant subscriber here! I have been studying church history/fathers for a while now. It’s clear that you don’t see the assumption of Mary clearly in antiquity but there are several other beliefs and practices in the first several hundred years of the church that most Protestants reject like baptismal regeneration, purpose of church being the Eucharist, intercession of martyrs/saints, Mary ever-virgin, among others. Why do we reject the assumption because it’s not in the early church but also reject many important beliefs/practices clearly present in the early apostolic churches?
@Truth Unites @Dr. Gavin Ortlund great video. I would like to see you engage with or talk more about the Orthodox Church ☦️ and those with apostolic succession please.
As a Catholic, I like your channel because your ideas are carefully thought through, and your tone is charitable - unlike many protestant apologists who just repeat the tired old lies about the Catholic church.
I used to think that of Ortland, he may be cordial, but he is intellectually dishonest. Omitting large sections of the Fathers that show in context what he quotes means something a Catholic or Orthodox believer assents to and Protestants reject.
@@thomasfolio7931 yes, I was referring to his more charitable manner, compared to most protestant apologists, not his actual theology. Taking quotes from the church fathers, without the full context, is common among the more sophisticated protestant apologists. They treat the church fathers in the same way they treat the Bible - proof texts without context.
I'm basically in the boat of needing to make this kind of decision. I'm currently in a non-denominational Protestant church, and I grew up in the Restoration and charismatic movements (different churches). But I have been discontent with my tradition for a long time. There are a lot of issues, but it mostly boils down to issues of authority and of worship. I have been looking intensely into Eastern Orthodoxy this year, and I love a lot of what I see, but there are still a few significant sticking points. I have recently also been looking into confessional Lutheranism, which is where I might land. It has the tradition and sacramentality I am longing for but without the hangups I see in Eastern Orthodoxy. Another issue is that my wife and I are training with a Bible translation organization, and our current church wants to support us and be our "sending church." Becoming Orthodox would most likely mean not being able to work with our Protestant Bible translation org, while even switching to another Protestant church would cut ties with our current church that has been so supportive of us (and already has a good relationship with the translation org). But I don't want to make this decision for my family based on pragmatic concerns. So I'm still praying and seeking.
After having left an abusive church in my early 20's and having studied all sorts of things since, but never going to another congregation ever, I am looking again. I can only say this about the question as to where to go, it must be based on the narrow path that leads to life. Christ is the narrow gate. It must be through Him and His teaching and you cannot separate those things. God is His Word. Ha cannot break a promise or bend for you and me. We must abide in His will for us. That is no doubt a matter of faith and trust in Him. Great video. I look forward to more. One thing to note, that should actually bring unity among followers of Jesus....is what Christ called us to be. Not one Gospel does Jesus define a follower of His as a "Christian" or a Baptist or any other sectarian teacher. In fact, I am sure most of you already know that "Christian" is a slur. A word with negative connotation towards a faithful follower of Jesus. It's a word that oringinated with the world. It comes from a place of mockery and contempt. Paul asks if Christ is divided. One says I follow Paul, another Cephas, an other Christ. This is something to consider...."Were you baptized in the name of Xxxxx?" Christ only calls His followers to be His disciples. If someone asks me who I am, I state a disciple of Jesus. I learn from Him. Under no other name, teaching, creed, confession, baptism, can one find themselves in the light. The true light of our lives. John 8:31-32. There is no better term to use because that is what Jesus used to define His followers. Those He loves. So be it.
Yes, Gavin. The personal choice is always there. When you leave, you’re under new rules too. You’re exactly right. However, the church you’re in should be able to make the claim they’re the one true church if they’re hoping to define schism in any real sense. The apostles say schism not as subjective, but objective. Even damnable. I’m willing to let my faith guide me more than my own opinions. But reason supplements faith, and so I still think both, through many miracles I’ve seen and lived too, have led me to where I am.
Thanks for another great video Gavin! I know that you touched on it, and with all due respect I think it should be reiterated. The leading of the Holy Spirit; through prayer, should be paramount whenever making private judgments. Thank you!
I think I’m going to comment this on every video from now on, Dear Gavin, if you see this, pleasssssseee do a discussion or debate with Father Josiah Trenham, he is in Southern California, very big proponent of orthodoxy and went to a Calvinist college under RC Sproul, I would love to see you guys break this down, Protestant vs Orthodox, he wrote a book called Rock and Sand, basically a critic of the reformation and is highly regarded in orthodoxy circles. Please sit down with him, it would be amazing to hear. ❤
Your observation is quite accurate that there was quite a bit of diversity among the Church Fathers. Nonetheless, what they had in common was striking when compared to Protestantism. Early Christian theology was essentially liturgical theology. It was not so much written down on paper as it was sung out loud during the Liturgy. The early Church viewed the Eucharist as the central feature of Sunday worship and all affirm the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist. Another common element was the understanding that Christianity was based on oral Tradition received from the Apostles and safeguarded by the bishops. The episcopacy was the norm in early Christianity. Protestant forms of church government like congregationalism and presbyterianism were not the norm. Among the early Christians there was some disagreement as to how to reconcile Jesus being the Son of God with Jewish monotheism. This question became a major crisis with the emergence of the Arian heresy. This heresy was refuted at the Council of Nicea (325). It was for his articulate defense of Jesus’ divinity that Athanasius was recognized as a Church Father. Cyril of Alexandria would be recognized as a Church Father for his defense of Mary as the Theotokos (God-Bearer). It was at the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II, 553) that Nestorianism was condemned as heretical and recognition of Mary as Theotokos be made part of the Liturgy. The iconoclast controversy was precipitated by Emperor Leo III’s edict against icons. For his defense of icons John of Damascus would be recognized as a Church Father. It was at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea II, 787) that iconoclasm would be formally condemned as heretical. The early Church encountered numerous heresies and dealt with them through councils-local, regional, and ecumenical-with the assistance of bishops who would later be recognized as Church Fathers. It is not as if conflicts emerged the Church Fathers and were resolved at Ecumenical Councils; but rather heresies surfaced and the bishops came together to deal with these heresies and in the process certain men who played a key role in the upholding of the Apostolic Faith would come to be recognized as a “Church Father” just as an “ordinary” Christian who suffered martyrdom would be recognized as a capital “s” Saint. Another important aspect of Orthodox unity is the patristic consensus. This “consensus of the Fathers” is usually a reference to the bishops of the Church speaking collectively via an Ecumenical Council. Just as the Holy Spirit guided the Jerusalem Council so likewise he guided later Councils into the truth (cf. Acts 15:28; John 16:13). Please keep in mind that while there have been many church councils, only a few have been recognized as “Ecumenical Councils.” Individually the Church Fathers may err but collectively they bear witness to the Apostolic Faith. Orthodox theology does not seek to neatly and systematically answer every theological question possible in a comprehensive manner similar to the Westminster Confession. of Faith While we remain steadfast on matters of dogma like the Trinity and Christology, there is diversity in other matters like soteriology and eschatology.
"Another common element was the understanding that Christianity was based on oral Tradition received from the Apostles and safeguarded by the bishops." So we have faith in the bishops, who gave us icon worship, saint worship, and Marian devotions, purgatory, and plenary indulgences vs. faith in the only written record of earliest Christianity, i.e., the Bible.
@@joeoleary9010 Without Pope Damascus I and the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. Protestantism would have No Bible to develop their Solo Scriptures doctrine. Curios where were the Protestans in 382 A D.?
As a catholic I love your content. I think you are a really charitable protestsnt which i really appreciate. I will note that i think it is quite innacurate to call sspx or Sedevacantism denominations of catholicism. They are not in the communion with the pope therefore are not catholic. They would be their own non protestant denomination, just ass orthodoxy is seperate from catholicism. Great video!
As a catholic I find the notion of private judgement awkward. Not that it doesn't exist, or that I don't judge the validity of some claims regarding the doctrine but I pretty much surrender my doctrine to the (catholic) church and to the Pope's authority. Therefore, I can't just change church, my entire life would become meaningless. This is why the current situation on the Catholic Church makes me borderline panicking. I have nowhere else to go. For example SSPX or other movements are completely meaningless without a valid Pope and cannot resist in any sort of consistent state for long. I don't have a deep understanding of Protestantism but I believe this might be a completely different mindset.
I'm sorry for what you're going through, but just something to think about. When we are all judged by God, it's going to be judgement of your person and you won't be able to hide behind another authority or pope. It's just going to be you, your beliefs, your actions, and your thoughts. While I do personally think we will have all the answers of doctrine provided by God himself, we are still responsible to have biblical knowledge and standards while we are here on earth. I don't want to cause offense, but I do want to encourage you to take some ownership of your beliefs so you can proudly stand before God with a clear conscience and say to him I studied and found these beliefs are true to the best of my knowledge. Don't hide behind an institution, but be confident in the knowledge God has provided for you in his Word. Good luck and God bless.
@@alishavogel7926 There is a clear separation of concerns. I am responsible for my actions, the Pope is responsible for the doctrine. While in many of our actions we can figure out right from wrong easily, in many cases we can't and we must refer to an external authority. I don't have the time, the understanding, or the intelligence to figure out the entire set of rules for myself. I can come up with many cases, like communion for divorced, pre-marital behavior, not to mention the hot topics of the day, which are anything but obvious. Best regards.
@filipius3 you are also responsible for investigating doctrine enough to know you can trust the person who you claim is an authority. If the pope came out tomorrow and said ex-catherda that you don't need Jesus to get to heaven, do you have a responsibility not to follow that doctrine you should know is false or follow it anyways because you have trusted the pope not to lead you astray? I don't want to hear that the pope would never do that, I'm trying to create a scenario that challenges the thinking that you have no responsibility for the doctrine you believe. I think every Christian has a responsibility to be educated in the scriptures enough so they aren't tempted by every wind of teaching.
@@alishavogel7926 The scenario you're considering is not merely hypothetic. While I could accept that many bad popes existed in the long history of the Church, I wonder if, for the first time we are watching a deeply entrenched and organized effort to introduce blatant contradictions to the doctrine. Is there any solution for this problem? I can't see any but expect that God will provide an unexpected solution and the people attempting this, who clearly have no belief in right or wrong, truth or falsehood, are completely mad, by considering they will somehow succeed.
Luther saw the main issues as Authority and Justification I agree All the differences fall under one or the other And this video points to look at sacraments and church government And those fall under Authority and Justification and are helpful things to consider
Perhaps because the word "canon" meant something else. Original Protestant Bibles all included Apocrypha. Removing them is a 20th century Protestant debacle.
@thomasc9036 Nope. Apocrypha wasn't Jewish canon. Adding them was an accretion of the later church. Not the ECF. Even Protestants who kept it in the text--and not nearly as uniformly or late as you claim, outside Anglicanism--did so explicitly for "historical, not doctrinal use." The Confessions repeatedly reject them.
@@shawngillogly6873 Dude, what we call "Apocrypha" was called "the Second Temple literature" by Jews. Even they debated whether they should be canon or not which Christianity inherited. The surviving Jews were influenced by the Judaen Jewish movement. There are Judaism that accepts the Second Temple Literature as well. The way Christians use the term "canon" is not the same as others. This is what Luther wrote "These are books that, though not esteemed like the Holy Scriptures, are still both useful and good to read". Calvin was similar.
Ignatius of Antioch explained, in the 1st century, how to pick a denomination: Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church.
Perfectly well said. Once an economy developed to the point of allowing meaningful mobility, and if one defines Protestantism as the ability to choose where / how to worship, well all Christians today are Protestant.
In my experience, evangelical Christians generally don't identify themselves as "Protestant." They would generally call themselves "Christian" or something similar. They don't consider themselves as "protesting" against anything but would likely say they are simply following to obey God and follow Jesus as they are revealed in Scripture. Their denominational identity would generally be secondary. The only time evangelicals identify themselves as Protestant is when they need to distinguish themselves from Catholics or Orthodox believers. Even the term "evangelical" is generally only used to distinguish themselves from other Christian traditions. Some may disagree with this stance but I am simply saying I find this to be generally true among evangelicals and something important to be aware of when trying to understand evangelical Christians.
“You will know them by their fruits” really comes in handy here. Also appeal to who founded said church! Compare it all to scripture. Look for unity. Look for the “four marks of the church.” - appeal to the Church Fathers after all. We’re lucky to be able to do that. As Paul said “listen to your leaders, they watch over your souls.” He appointed many!
I've heard very high profile Catholics making these kinds of claims. A related claim is something like "Protestants are their own teaching authorities" and by this they mean that each individual is his or her own teaching authority. I don't see how this notion is even coherent.
When high-profile Catholics make arguments like that, you begin to realize that their case must not be that great if they need to grasp at such arguments
I’ve just caught a post further on down where it’s claimed that Protestants private judgment is their highest truth and then Christ falls underneath that! I’m not a Protestant but whaaaaattttt?! Really?! I’m lost for words with statements like that I really am,very troubling!
The exclusivity of the RC Church bothers me tremendously,I just watched a UA-cam short recently with Reasoned Theology and a guest. Seemingly it started out that none RC were being lumped in as none Christians and then it went downhill from there! Baptism was mentioned by the guest and then mid point he corrected himself and said that we were only “loosely” in the Body Of Christ while laughing while at the same time Reasoned Theology was underneath him nodding with a smirk on his face and I couldn’t watch anymore after that! Now I understand there is a CCC canon that begrudgingly accepts us as black sheep if we’ve had a valid Baptism but I was unaware how deeply ingrained it was in RC attitudes. Very saddening and worrying at the same time,the more I see and research on RC the more it pushes me away,not that it was ever an option anyway after early reading. And I don’t want to judge any RC either,we love all our RC brothers and sisters in Christ and one day we will all have to answer to Jesus. God Bless all 🙏
But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. - James 1:14-15 I’m subscribing. What this guy just described is our sinful nature. Bravo. When sin creeps in the Church, has an exodus and then we resurrect into a new body.
Yes, we must exercise private judgement to choose the what church we believe is true. It is simply True that the Catholic Church is the True Church and that is why one should exercise their private judgement to become Catholic.
God bless you Pastor Gavin, I've been having a lot of these 'private judgements' these past few days, this video and your intelectual anxiety video have been very helpful. I am born and raised Pentecostal, I know that word seems to spark some debates, I'm from Puerto Rico and at least from what I've seen here, and I'm not here to debate or fight about it, just that Pentecostalism on the US side seems a bit different to say the least seeing videos online, to the point though, this year I've decided to take my relationship with the Lord seriously and have noticed my life improve for the better and have an inmense zeal for God though I still recognize I am but a babe in a lot of ways spiritually. And I've been wrestling with if I am in the right place, am I a Pentecostal? is it a matter of my current church not being the place for me but rather another from my same denomination or if I venture out what then? I don't believe in church hopping, since I believe my place is not for me to decide, but by the Lord. And it's a lot to think about, but for now what I've been doing is what John Chrysostom recommended, studying the scriptures, and that is a bit of a relief to hear. I just want to seek the Lord, and everything else will fall into place, seek truth and I'm sure wherever the Lord places me or doesn't, will be for His glory. For anyone that reached the end of my comment, all I ask if for you to pray for me to be guided by the Holy Spirit and that the Lord may prepare me for whatever is to come. God bless you all and I love you all my brothers and sisters.
Would also like to add Pastor Gavin, keep doing what you are doing, thanks to you I've had an interest in the early church and ordered some books on the early church, the writings Saint Thomas Aquinas etc.
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Acts 17:11 Sounds like they were in error, huh?
The problem is that the protestant clergy cannot really excommunicatr you out of the body of christ, since they dont believe they are the only true church, because of the invisible church doctrine
Well done again Gavin. You have articulated several very reasonable and sound arguments for Protestantism being more ancient and 'primitive' than Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox.
My comments are related to only the first 5 minutes of this video as there is enough that troubled me that I'll watch the rest later (and likely have more comments). The first issue is that Dr. Ortlund, when discussing the process of choosing a denomination, characterizes the Old Catholic Church, SSPX, and the SSPV (I think that's what he referred to) as "little tiny offshoots" of the Catholic Church making it sound like it is a similar decision to that of choosing from the multitude of Protestant denominations or churches. The Old Catholic Church and the SSPV reject the authority of the pope and the SSPX has no canonical status with the Catholic Church. These "offshoots" are not an option at all when evaluating the Catholic Church - in no way aligning with the message given in this video. The thing that bothers me the most is that Dr. Ortlund has to know this and given his influence over so many (I have a family member that I believe would become a Lutheran if Dr. Ortlund did) he owes it to his audience to give them a truthful picture. And all of you deserve that as well. I also take issue with the notion of "essentials" as if truth can be divided by "essentials" and "non-essentials". The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, not "truths". Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life...again not "truths". The Catholic Church cares about truth and if a person wants to know what the Catholic Church believes just pick up a Catechism and look it up. To in essence condone and accept error because that is just a "human reality" is offensive...as if Jesus and His Church (the pillar and foundation of truth) is inescapably subject to error...and that Jesus wouldn't protect His bride from the Father of Lies. Lastly, Dr. Ortlund speaks of the many schisms throughout church history and the need for private judgement on what is true and false, but that is not how the Church operates. In Acts 15 Paul and Barnabas specifically don't make a personal decision on truth and rather go to the Church where a decision is made "of the Holy Spirit and of us". This Council approach in making critical decisions is how the Church has always operated. One question I'll ask, the Council of Nicaea met in 325 AD and made a very bold statement...that they were the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. They had the authority to speak for the entire Christian community by excommunicating Arius. They also believed in the necessity of baptism and the Eucharist as viaticum. So, were they who they said they were...the one true Church? I thank you in advance for your responses. I'm hopeful that we can respectfully dialogue where we can learn from each other (iron sharpening iron)! God bless you all!
that the Old Catholic and SSPX etc. are not in communion with Rome was the point. That is why they came up. If they were in communion with Rome, then they would not have been relevant to the point at hand, namely, separatist groups.
OK, I see what you're saying, although I thought your comment was in the spirit of choosing a denomination. Maybe I should have asked what you meant by "offshoots". You gave specific examples for only the heretical groups that split off of the Catholic Church (are there non-heretical examples?). On the other hand, you didn't give Protestant "offshoot" examples. I took "offshoots" as the multitude of Protestant churches that I could choose from that claim to be "Bible alone" (one example is all of the different churches that might be labeled as non-denomination). What did you mean by "offshoot" from a Protestant perspective? I guess my point still applies - the only Catholic "offshoots" are those not in communion with the Church (not viable options) while "offshoots" from a Protestant perspective seem much more problematic from the standpoint of choosing a denomination since truth is defined by each denomination or local church. Thanks in advance for the clarification.
This one caught my attention: (paraphrized) "When judging Protestantism over Church number inflation - we should take into account schisms on the side of RCC and Orthodox Churches". Well, when it happens it is for starters called a schism, mostly they are excommunicated while on Protestant side - there is no uproar, no excommunication. It's just opening of another "franchize", if I can use that word. This liberal, "yes, and you can have your own Church!" view is my problem.
Well, even a franchise, need to follow strictly the rules of the franchisee or they get "excommunicated". One cannot have many masters or it will chaos. Faith and reason must come together, if it seems unreasonable it usually is false..
@@joekey8464again, this rebelion that brought protestantism paved a way for numerous other rebelions. A "charismatic" member with his/her followers, a pastor disgruntled over church leadership, a millieu of closely connected worshippers, you name it - they can all have their own church now! Instead of reform, discussion, compromise, unity - they choose rebelion and rebelion is what they are having on almost at daily basis.
Gavin - another super engaging video, thank you! I would posit that the ways our faith traditions experience disagreements are marked by matters of nature and degree. Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Christian churches give greatest weight to the Christian Faith as they believe (critically) is established by Scripture and confirmed and or clarified by a consensus of Church Fathers, the decrees of Ecumenical Councils, and for Roman Catholics, a Papal definition issued ex cathedra. There is thus agreement with the overwhelming majority of doctrine - 7 sacraments, the authority of scripture and the apostolic succession, etc. Even cultural differences still express the essential truth in different forms, within and among such traditions - e.g., the Assumption of Mary in the West and the Dormition of Mary in the East. Differences in liturgical practices, forms of art, etc. exist as diversity rather than disagreement, not only between the Churches, but also within, e.g., a Greek Catholic (Byzantine) will use liturgy, prayers, art, architecture and devotions that are eastern in cultural and theological formation, while a Latin Rite Catholic will rely on more western traditions. Among these non-Protestant faith traditions that lay a claim to direct apostolic decent, the remaining points of contention such as the supremacy of the Pope versus the primacy of the Bishop of Rome are critical, but fine points. And yes, "hardliners" and "super traditionalists" will even argue over the extent of disagreement- our human nature struggles, and gosh the desire be right for the sake of being right hurts! Thus, different Catholics and Orthodox will argue that we (a) agree to disagree? (b) have resolved the issue as misunderstanding? or (c) should continue to anathematize each other?!, over the filioque (the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son). But within Protestant faith traditions, the theological divergences are, from our viewpoint, more significant and numerous. Anglican? Presbyterian? Baptist? Pentacostal? Disagreement on authority - Bishops? Presbyters? Deacons? The congregation? How many sacraments? Where is the division between the authority of Scripture via magisterial theologians (e.g. Calvin) vs. individual illumination by the Holy Spirit? Is infant baptism valid? Rest in peace - is there Soul sleep or are the faithfully departed fully alive in Christ prior to the final judgement? Iconophile or Iconoclast? Is Baptism of the Spirit distinct from Baptism by Faith and Water? Do you need to manifest speaking in tongues or prophesy to evidence a life in the Holy Spirt? The list can be rather longer than these . . . . The fruit of the central tenant of the Reformation, sola scriptura, leads to increasing differences among Protestants in direct proportion with time and the ability to disseminate theological thought. The (inadvertent) reformer in chief, many historians believe, was Gutenberg. The ability first for all churches, not just the wealthiest, to own an entire bible, then the middle class, then the poor, together with contradicting tracts and catechisms only became possible with the invention of the printing press. This is further evidenced by how divergences grew over time among the Reformed Christians. Do Catholics disagree internally? Yes, but there are several manners of disagreement. (1) The first is in the area of unsettled matters (e.g., defining all attributes of the Glorified Body patterned after Christ's resurrection, for example. The precise interoperation of free will and predestination. For a millennium Catholics were free to argue whether Mary was conceived without sin (predestined to be the Theotokos - Mother of God, as in Don Scotus) or was made pure later (prior to birth as in Aquinas), or by Byzantines (and today, Orthodox) as a gift to her as the first disciple when she said yes to God in her answer to Gabriel (free will), until settled dogmatically in the 19th century. (2) The second type - disagreement or dissent from matters settled under the authority of the ordinary magisterium, such as Church disciplines and morality, e.g., married priests, the use of contraception. (3) Third, disagreement or dissent on issues of the extraordinary magisterium - those things (a) believed to be founded in scripture and (b) confirmed by councils and/or popes such as the virgin birth, the divinity and humanity of Jesus (Tome of Pope Leo & Council of Chalcedon), the total physical resurrection of Jesus and other foundational doctrines that all "Nicene" Christians believe and (b) those Holy Traditions shared broadly but not universally as Biblical and confirmed, such as the Real Presence of Christ and (c) those things that are defined as the fruit of Scripture but defined outside thereof, such as the Immaculate Conception. The further down a Catholic does not hold to truths on this "hierarchy of truths," that is, the less he/she follows Scripture and Holy Tradition, the less of a Catholic Christian they would be. By the time you get to someone who says "Jesus was a nice guy, but that resurrection thing is a stretch" you have someone who is not Catholic or even broadly Christian - that is, if one believes in objective truths, i.e., theological orthodoxy. All of Christendom struggles with disagreements and disorder, but the more one has a magisterial foundation, especially that based on the concept of continued authority over disputes via apostolic succession, the narrower the divides, and the more clearly dissent is seen as contradicting revealed truth. In the Protestant faith tradition, such clarity, however, comes at the expense of what is understood as Christian liberty. Nonetheless, Catholics can learn from Protestants how, despite many doctrinal disputes, the (almost) universal agreement on Christ's mission in Scripture make Protestants a bold "Resurrection People." I hope Protestants can find some value in the use of magisterial traditions to find greater consensus. And all of us in the west have long ignored the richness of the Eastern churches, whose traditions often can complement ours, as we in the west tend to focus on the rational appreciation of the Gospel Truth, and the east, its profound sacred mystery. God bless and sustain all who believe and proclaim that Jesus is the Christ, who died for us when we were yet sinners, and rose from the dead to promise us eternal life.
Yes it is a huge problem for Protestants. We all must use private judgement to some extent but Catholics and Orthodox are not using their private judgement to decide whether every single specific doctrine, practice, or development is divinely revealed or not. Gavin and other Protestants are taking private judgement too far and making themselves the determining authority over what scripture and Christianity teach. As an analogy, it's like saying one man uses "private judgement" to conclude Jesus is Lord and then obeys him while another uses "private judgement" to determine what God thinks without relying on another teacher. Both are using private judgement but one is relying far more heavily on it than the other. It's a blind spot for Gavin and it will be for as long as he continues his denial about Catholicism being true.
I don't see any evidence that Catholics and Protestants believe wildly different things. Christianity can be made as complicated as one wishes, but beyond baptism, repentance, and faith in Jesus virtually all the sects are the same.
" Catholics and Orthodox are not using their private judgement to decide whether every single specific doctrine, practice, or development is divinely revealed or not." - Neither do us. I have the Westminster Confession of Faith and Cathecism and the Councils of the my Church (The Presbyterian Church) lol.
@@pedroguimaraes6094The WCF is authoritative only insofar as it conforms to the individual's current interpretation and PJ of Scripture, otherwise it is to be rejected in part or total. It states this in 1.10, 20.2, 25.4, 31.2, 31.3. PJ remains supreme and normative, not any ecclesial judgment, confession, creed, or council, e.g. you have no problem rejecting Lutheran or Baptist confessions or 2nd Nicaea. Such ongoing PJ is consistent with Protestant principles. That is far different from the RC/EO paradigm. Or as Turretin wrote “Although in the external court of the church every private person is bound to submit to the synodical decisions (unless he wants to be excommunicated), and such judgment ought to flourish for the preservation of order, peace and orthodoxy, and the suppression of heretical attempts; it does not follow that the judgment is supreme and infallible. For an appeal may always be made from it to the internal forum of conscience, nor does it bind anyone in this court further than he is persuaded of its agreement with the Scriptures.”
@@cronmaker2 Our ministers must read the entire Confession of Faith before entering seminary and must take an oath to follow it in its entirety to become pastors. Isn't that authoritative? Completely different from your interpretation. Protestantism is not one big Church, it is an umbrella term for different churches. If I do not follow the stipulations and Confessions of my Church, I will be excommunicated, as will you in yours and if you, upon being excommunicated, for example, in the EO, you will be able to become a member of the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Assyrian Church etc. just as I can become a member of Lutheran, Anglican etc. Does this mean that your Church had no authority? This line of argument that you like to use to attack Protestant churches makes no sense. Dr. Gavin Ortlund (Thuth Unites Channel) just released a video on his channel talking precisely about PJ in Protestantism, EO, Catholics etc. and responding to these arguments.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 yes we are in the comments of Gavin's PJ video - he's countering a caricature of the PJ critique, not the actual arg - no one disputes we all use our minds and make decisions to submit, that's not the critique. I did not say the WCF was not authoritative. But under Protestant principles and the supreme right of PJ, all secondary authorities are only authoritative insofar as they conform to Scripture, that is the individuals current interpretation/PJ of Scripture. That goes for any confession, creed, council, etc. including of course the WCF itself. That's why it has those built in disclaimers I cited, I'm not misinterpreting them, that's what they (and Turretin) say - all church judgments (eg confessions) are liable to error or corruption and are only authoritative if they conform to Scripture. The difference in RC/EO paradigm is the right to PJ is not enshrined as an ongoing norm. When one submits to RC/EO authority, one is not free to accept/reject each and every doctrine based on ones current PJ. That's inconsistent with RC/EO ecclesial authority claims. Under Protestant principles though, such perpetual PJ is baked into the system and consistent with its authority disclaimers - nothing changes pre and post submission to a church/confession. That's the difference.
Totally agree on the exaggerated 30000+ denomination number, and private judgement and discernment will always play a part. One thought which comes to mind though is that if we are bound by conscience to whichever denomination’s teaching authority we eventually decide upon, did this apply to the reformers who were originally part of the Catholic Church? Was Martin Luther bound by conscience to obey the Catholic magisterium? If we say no because ‘the Catholic Church was wrong in his opinion’ then doesn’t that still open up the same problem again? If we only need to listen to an authority under pain of conscience when we agree with what the authority orders then that defeats the whole point of authority. It seems in this view that conscience (and thus the individual) always becomes the ultimate authority, as opposed to an external and objective authority that one has to listen to even if you don’t agree with their interpretation of scripture and the Church fathers. We also mentioned groups like SSPX, Old Catholic Church etc. but these can’t even really come under the label of Catholic in the strictest sense as Catholicity is defined by communion with the Roman pontiff. These also just become High Church off-shoots, though admittedly not Protestant if they don’t accept Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. We mentioned a couple of Church fathers there, but a significantly bigger number seem to affirm the idea that Peter is the rock, not just his confession of faith; and they assert the primacy of the Church in Rome - that should give some food for thought, perhaps a video could be done on this in the future Dr Ortlund.
Is having the "perfect doctrine" the most important aspect of a church? I'm part of a Pentecostal church and, while I have some theological disagreements, it doesn't bother me. This church excels in demonstrating God's character and effectively sharing the Gospel with others. However, significant theological differences can be problematic. Sometimes, focusing too much on perfect doctrine might become a kind of idolatry. No church is perfect in its theology or practices, but both are crucial. If I found a vibrant, transformative Catholic church, I would even consider joining it.
I’m in a similar predicament, last church I attended was a Pentecostal church with some doctrines and traditions I found hard to coexist with. Can you please share what other factors you look for in a church that are present in your current church? Or generally how you think through and navigate these things? I may be idolizing and looking for a ‘perfect’ church but it is hard to break away from that expectation.
God bless. Same here. Ive asked God why this is where He placed me. The response I received was there are things that I need to learn that I havent yet. But the biggest deal breaker for me would have to be denial of Jesus Christ as God and the Trinity. After that dialog and exegesis helps a lot. Witnessing my pastor have genuine integrity and hunger to go reach and help the lost community is also extremely helpful.
The foundational personal judgment for a convert considering catholicsm is -- did St Peter have the authority to build Christ’s church? Mat 16:18. If the potential convert accepts this authority then everything else is settled regarding doctrines, (and is in accordance with scripture which he can verify as all teachings are presented with the relevant bible verses). It also answers the question which is the one true church which orthodox argue.
Jewel’s ‘The Apology of the Church of England’ was basically an appeal to Antiquity in comparing the church of the English Reformation with that of the Medieval Papal communion.
Personally, I would never join a church that proclaims, "We are the one true church". A few that come to mind are Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness and 7th Day Adventists.
@@garyr.8116There are more problems I have with the catholic church. The catechism defines justification as grace+works. Also having a pope and a priesthood is stealing authority from Jesus Christ as Savior which is contrary to the gospel message. The rock in Matthew 16 refers to Jesus not Peter. Anyway, having a debate on the internet is not conducive. God bless and have a great day.
@@joeoleary9010 I am referring to salvation. There are thousands of protestant churches that do not proclaim we are the "one true church' for salvation. Churches don't save, only Jesus saves. Sorry If I didn't clarify my statement. Have a great day.
Gavin, quick notes on HIRING HELP FOR TRUTH UNITES: 23 year old male. 50,000 pages read. BA Religion, BA History, minor Philosophy, MA Teaching, Theology Certificate from Cambridge, current M.Div. student at Duke Divinity. Wrote a book in July in vein of Mere Christianity entitled “Academics Just Don’t Understand.” Lots of years in Camp Ministry and some time in pastoral roles, working this summer as Chaplain at Duke Hospital. I write all that context to share-I am beginning my career after divinity school and my hands are open vocation-wise. I note in your change to Truth Unites that you’d like to hire help as you dedicate more time to it. If there’s any pieces you could see with hiring full time help, let me know. My wife and I are young and want to invest in a good ministry. Let’s connect.
The differences between a Novus Ordo Catholic and ultra conservative Oriental Orthodox are not as wide as between an Anglo-Catholic Anglican and a Salvation Army Christian. I hear what you’re saying, but it seems as though the divide is greater in Protestantism than between even Catholics and Orthodox.
I agree with almost everything you say Gavin, but I cannot get on board with the once saved always saved or sola scriptura. The “yes and” argument doesn’t cut it when disproving the contradiction. That is of course if I understood what you were saying. I’ll keep watching and praying for understanding.
St. Vincent’s idea of making corrections in the Church by appealing to antiquity is exactly what the Anglican Reformers were doing in the Reformation. Unfortunately many later Protestants did not have the same respect for the Fathers that many of the Magisterial Reformers originally had. I don’t know how someone could accept St. Vincent’s idea of going back to antiquity without accepting infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, and episcopal governance. Otherwise, it seems like St. Vincent is being cited as a double standard without any real regard for what was taught in antiquity.
I was told further down the thread that there is no RC doctrine on salvation (or on the word salvation) when discussing Marshall’s and Horns differing opinions on myself and others eternal salvation/separation so I will frame the question another way. And this is by no means a gotcha attempt and please if I misrepresent RC someone let me know. So if there is definitive RC doctrine on how God saves believers (that was the phrase used by the poster in place of salvation) and it is passed down by an infallible magisterium (as I said please correct me anywhere I’m wrong here) then why do Marshall and Horn have such polarising opinions on the matter? Either Taylor is wrong,Trent is wrong (they both can’t be right)or the dogmas,doctrine and canons can be personally interpreted. And ultimately salvation is an essential doctrine for EVERY Christian regardless,God Bless and thanks in advance 🙏
Speaking as a Roman Catholic, my perspective on denominations within Catholicism is that they are not so different from one another as denominations within Protestantism. Most are under the authority of the pope. The ones I know, such as the Maronite Catholic Church, are not exactly denominations either, but more like a branching cultural group within Catholicism that may have been historically isolated at some point due to wars, conquests, and political boundaries, etc. I believe this is the case with the Maronites, whose churches in my area are in total communion with Rome and are the spiritual home for our local Lebanese Catholics. Christians persisted to varying degrees of success under long periods of isolation throughout history, and once rediscovered, were absorbed back into the church if their practices and beliefs were found to be doctrinally sound. The Maronites had built a strong subculture that did not conflict with church teachings, so they continue in their own tradition today, in union with the Pope but still doing their own thing to some extent. I would argue that the fabric of the faith is the same for them as for any Catholic, it's the embroidery that looks different. I go to Mass there when I want to hear the language of Jesus, because part of their Mass is in Aramaic. In Japan, for contrast, Catholics were cut off for over 200 years but persisted in remote areas. Around Nagasaki and the Goto islands, they kept up with baptisms, the celebrations of the church calendar, and passing on prayers in Latin in ways that were immediately recognizable to a priest even after 2 centuries of persecution. They were welcomed back into the Catholic church. Whereas further north, other persecuted Christians on remote islands had become so esoteric in their prayers and beliefs (probably due to the pressure of persisting in secret with the constant threat of death) that the prayers and beliefs had become something else entirely. They were not absorbed back into the church in the 19th century because it was a mismatch. I've long had the impression that most groups within Catholicism had some kind of cultural or historical background of their own, but are still united by the core teachings of the faith and papal authority. I wasn't born into any of them but I'm welcome to participate. They bring a beauty and a history all their own and I find it enriches the whole church to have them. As for the phenomenon or offshoots of Catholicism that don't accept the authority of the pope or papal documents beyond a certain point in time, I think that's a different pehenomenon than denominations within Protestantism, and choosing between them is also different. They actually respect papal authority, in some cases they just believe the current pope is invalid, or all popes after a certain point. But they are hardcore believers in church teaching. These feel like different nuances than what separates Protestant denominations. I don't feel like the theology varies within the subgroups of Catholicism the way it does amongst Protestant denominations. For Catholic subgroups and offshoots, the differences are either more cultural/historical or they come down to judgments on how well the church itself is adhering to its own teachings, which they very much respect. I may be ignorant of some important nuances in all of this, but these are my impressions based on experience.
Gavin has been on a rampage recently, 4 videos in 7 days is insanity, keep it up !
Thank you for being a Baptist. We often get a bad rap as uneducated and historically bankrupt, but you have disproven that idea.
lol...he is like .0001% of baptists. Baptists and their radical reformation caused the division.
@flameemperor8317 No. There were two "Baptists" from the beginning during the late Reformation in England. Reformed Baptists tended to be "scholarly" (Gavin is Reformed". Arminian/Free Will Baptists tend to focus on "pietism" (they tend to avoid historical Christianity). Most Baptists are Arminian so they are less "doctrinal" since Free Will Baptists never had historical confessions like Reformed Baptists (London Confession of Faith).
That's why Baptists are stereotyped as "Presbyterians who don't read so well".
@flameemperor8317 Baptists as their local church autonomy doctrine caused the most divisions. It was not meant to be understood that way but got abused, so too many pastors think they are smarter than Luther and Calvin. :-)
@flameemperor8317 BTW, I used to be a Reformed Baptist and now I am a Presbyterian. 🙂
I went to a Baptist seminary. There were SOOOO many Baptist pastors who had very little knowledge of historical Christianity...
They are trying to remedy but the problem is extensive.
Eh. No, a lot of Baptists are that way. I speak as one as well but one who is going similar academic training as Gavin right now. Thing is that also many other Christians in other denominations lack knowledge, but at least their tradition incorporates a broader and deeper historical narrative to their people than many Baptist congregations do.
As a former Catholic, it may not be explicitly stated but it is strongly implied, that to be outside the catholic church is to be damned. It was very psycho/spiritually difficult to extricate myself from the quagmire that is now the catholic church. Thank you for this fantastic video!
I've been feeling drawn to the Catholic Church (again) lately, but this great video put the brakes on.
Sigh. I feel like I'm stuck spiritually and ecclesiastically. You are absolutely right that many people seem to want a system where everything would be clear and which would just tell you how things should be.
It seems that practically every side has good arguments behind them. There are clearly smarter people than me in every tradition. Somehow I still think that if I just read a little more, listen to this and that lecture, listen to a few podcast episodes, have some conversations online and "in real life", then I will find the place where I need to be. But as usual: the more I learn, the more I realize how much there is to learn.
Some days all this is really exciting when you get to research and think, but in the past year this has started to feel even heavier. I feel like I'm stuck.
My main question to you is what are you trusting in for your salvation? Is it Christ and His death for your sins and resurrection? If it is in only Christ in His work and not your own good works then you’re fine. This is of the most important - the gospel message! Where would you go to hear this message of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone? Everything else is of lesser importance. I hope that helps you
thanks for sharing your process. I think a lot of people like that. My recent video, "How to Overcome Intellectual Anxiety" exists to address precisely this circumstance, in case that helps! God bless you and guide you.
As a former RC who is now Baptist, I can only say that Catholicism for me proved to be vacuous and tiresome. The Baptist church I belong to now is filled with the truth of God's Word, love, wonderful fellowship, and the Holy Spirit. It has a richness and depth that I never knew while I was Catholic.
@@kstewart3052all due respect, but you trade "vacuous and tiresome" for something utterly ahistorical. Point in hand, I've seen great arguments from the protestant side, I engaged and partook and even used those same arguments at one point in my own life. One thing I cannot overlook is the Baptist view of baptism.
Their view on their very own namesake is perhaps one of the biggest mistakes and ahistorical blunders out of any protestant group, that being the view of credobaptism.
When pressed and when research is done there is literally zero credible attestation to this view or practice in the tradition of the early church or the scriptures.
Earlty Christianity was Catholic. Dont let a smooth talker steer you away from the facts.
“Convictions are perfectly ok so long as they are kept humbly.” -Anthony Papadakis, The Intersection of the Cross Podcast
Should Jesus and Apostles have done that too? They were willing to die for their faith.
“Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”
Luke 11:11-13
This ties into you final point, Gavin. Those who shamelessly, humbly and sacrificially seek God will not be led astray with false or deceiving spirits. He is generous with His Spirit and we should trust that truth about Him.
As someone who has wrestled with discerning what and where the "true Church" is, I have found great peace in simply being obedient and walking in what I _know_ to be true and not worrying so much about what I am less certain of. My advice is to always keep an open heart and to let Him lead you as the good Shepherd that He is.
We live in an area that has about 80,000 residents. My husband is an Anglican priest and for a short period of time before planting an Anglican parish we did not have services on Sunday mornings. This gave us an opportunity to visit other congregations. One Sunday morning we attended a local Catholic church where the Catholic priest asked my husband (who was wearing his clerical colllar and easily identifiable) after Mass if we were part of a schismatic Catholic group. We learned later that there are 27 schismatic Catholic groups in our area. Oh my!
I doubt this very much but people will say what they need to make them feel better i suppose. There is a way to prove it. Ask their bishop - “IF” you will.
@@srich7503
And what is it that you doubt?
@srich7503 tbh you would be surprised. There are Catholics who believe that there have been no valid popes since Vatican II and that the church since is heretical, there are others who believe that the church has been heretical since 1929’s treaty signed concerning Vatican City, that baptism of desire is heretical…
They’re out there. It’s just that the PR is good at covering up their existence.
@@Apriluser any Catholic will understand what i doubt.
I grew up in Anglican Church and I know we have both liberal and true believers (I hesitate to call them merely traditional believers because they are not) ~ I grew up in Africa where we had the great East African Revival ~ the people came to the Lord and were set apart from other nominal Anglican members who practiced sycritism. Both worshipped together even to this very day but true believers are still the pillar holding up the Church and so we have two branches, those that are saved and those that admit they are just born Anglican but without personal relationship with the Lord ~ (Wheat and tare?). What am trying to say is there is a dangerous trend in the so-called traditional mainstream Churches. The clinging on to antiquity without preaching of the gospel. There is no doubt that my beloved Church is splitting but for a good reason. Time for the true believers to stand firmly and obey their God than the united under damning behaviours. We should also rethink women ordination since, if any takes time to reflect, since the ordination of my kind, the Church has fallen nose dive into liberalism and as usual there everything goes, who cares what God's law says ~ only emotions and feelings of persons matters ~ just like the great Apostle Paul explains, it's was Eve not Adam who was deceived ~ we, the Eves are driven most by emotions and subjectivity instead of objectivity. Protestants Churches are built in the way that there is room for reform, unlike the Catholic Church is irriformable. They are stuck with there unbiblical celibacy priesthood that is the main cause of their problems and the "reform" that the liberal Pope can do is to "approve " what the liberals are forcing everybody to approve.
Dr. Gavin, I’m neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic, yet sometimes I come to your videos with a mixed sentiment of both skepticism and confidence in what you’re going to bring in… Now, concerning this one specifically, I have to admit that the point was very clearly stated and I really resounded with it, specifically with the concept of the “burden” (of it being the same whether you’re a Protestant or not). I liked that!
Also, I really liked too that phrase: “He is not Roman Catholic, he is not Protestant, he is just John Chrysostom” or something like that. I think that this kind of sincerity would be very rewarding when studying patristics. Irenaeus, to me, would serve as a perfect example for this kind of approach; I even consider him as a bridge between Roman Catholics and Protestants in every aspect that could create tension in the modern era of Christianity. But anyway, you opened my mind this time concerning this important topic, so thanks!
Gladly, Gian from Puerto Rico
That would be true if Ortland did not skip over paragraphs and pages of Chrysostom, and other Fathers to cherry pick what looks like their support of doctrines not conceived of for another thousand to 1200 years in the future with the advent of the Reformers. But perhaps Ortland does not expect his viewers to read what he quotes and see what he omits, but just to trust him
@@thomasfolio7931 Yeah, that might happen sometimes. I do my best to read in context what he and other “Protestant” apologists and theologians offer concerning all this topics related to Church History. By reading Irenaeus’ Against Heresies I can definitely see the importance of applying textual harmonization to the writings and teachings of the Church Fathers, in the same way that we do with the Scriptures (ideally speaking). For, by not taking into consideration their whole way of thinking, we can present two different persons that were actually the same “Church Father”. For I can quote Irenaeus as a faithful Roman Catholic: “Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere.” (3.3.2); Or I can quote him as a solid Protestant: “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” (3.3.1); Or I can even quote him as a faithful Orthodox: “It will be incumbent upon thee, however, and all who may happen to read this writing, to peruse with great attention what I have already said, that thou mayest obtain a knowledge of the subjects against which I am contending. For it is thus that thou wilt both controvert them in a legitimate manner, and wilt be prepared to receive the proofs brought forward against them, casting away their doctrines as filth by means of the celestial faith; but following the only true and stedfast Teacher, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.” (5.preface).
Anyways, although you have reason in that which you point out as a possibility, you should also open your mind when reading patristics, because we can see teachings from all the way around. In other words, they weren’t always on the same page, and they certainly are not ideal (sometimes) to defend a certain Christian tradition, because of the formerly said. Sometimes they sounded Roman Catholic, other time they sounded Protestant, other time they sounded Orthodox, in both theology and spirituality; We, as responsible and honest readers of them (whom I myself consider personally as “fathers” of the Church indeed), should try our best to not encase or limit them to our own Christian tradition, instead, just let them be what they were: Christians…
God be with you and with all who love Jesus Christ with and unmovable love.
@@thomasfolio7931
Thanks for going to the trouble of presenting that!
Finally! Someone has hit the nail square on the head about private judgement. I've been saying this exact thing for years to family and friends. It's about time someone said this out loud and publicly!
Sounds like works righteousness then 😂
Your channel continues to help lessen my doubts and strengthen my faith. Thanks!
Great video. I was Orthodox for 16 years (including my 3 year period of being a catechumen). While in the Orthodox Church I could never find out what the correct beliefs in the church were. They say read the councils, and I did, but even those are interpreted differently by each person who reads them. Also a ton of the American Orthodox online apologetics comes from Catholic and protestant source material. I saw your exchange with Energetic Procession on UA-cam. The bulk of his work on apostolic succession comes from the Anglican Felix Lossing Cirlot. Now Cirlot might make a better argument than Protestants on the subject, but using sources that aren’t Orthodox just shows that they are formulating a unique view unto themselves that isn’t provided by Orthodox thinkers or the fathers. Why does he have to use Cirlot and not refer to the councils? Also, their views against sola scriptural almost purely come from Catholic apologetics. Gregory the Theologian said that we are not to read the Bible like a scientist, but like a poet or lover of literature. I don’t know the last time a judge ruled on how I had to read Shakespeare or Walt Whitman, or that any literary critic has lost sleep over everyone getting Yeats wrong. There main concern is making sure people love poetry. So your example of our decision in this matter being like who we choose marry is a good analogy imo.
This is one of the main problems with Catholicism
The arguments they are using aganist protestantism is something that they themselves struggle!!
They are very blind to the flaws in their own system. Their church is perfect and infallible. Only Other churches have faults, never them.
False, this self proclaimed "pastor" always tries to suit protestant churches problems into catholicism so that protestants think all is the same mess, but not, the true Church of Christ is ONE and it has ONE doctrine, and the fullnes of the truth.
@@xaviertorres1685 Yep,you're in the One True Perfect Church and the only problems are w/ other churches. You're full of pride and hubris. Go away, it's just like I already said.
@@saintejeannedarc9460well you should first understand what the church means by infallibility. There absolutely needs to be an authority on earth ordained by God to declare on matters on doctrine.
If there are three churches and one says there is no Trinity, only God the father and Jesus was made by God. The second church says we can’t ever know the nature of God and there may be a trinity or may not. The third says God is triune three persons in one God.
Obviously they can’t all be right. One is closer to the truth than the others. Catholics believe that God granted authority to Peter and all subsequent popes to declare on such matters and say infallibly that yes indeed the Christian God is three persons in one God.
The infallible declaration comes not from the pope but from the Holy Spirit which guides true church of Christ and will not lead it into error on official doctrines.
Now hopefully you can see the importance of such an authority. Because you can look at gay marriage. So many churches today are saying this is ok and love is love. Well which is correct? Catholic Church has problems and scandals of course but the fundamental teachings we believe are true because the Holy Spirit will not lead the church into error on such matters.
well you should first understand what the church means by infallibility. There absolutely needs to be an authority on earth ordained by God to declare on matters on doctrine.
If there are three churches and one says there is no Trinity, only God the father and Jesus was made by God. The second church says we can’t ever know the nature of God and there may be a trinity or may not. The third says God is triune three persons in one God.
Obviously they can’t all be right. One is closer to the truth than the others. Catholics believe that God granted authority to Peter and all subsequent popes to declare on such matters and say infallibly that yes indeed the Christian God is three persons in one God.
The infallible declaration comes not from the pope but from the Holy Spirit which guides true church of Christ and will not lead it into error on official doctrines.
Now hopefully you can see the importance of such an authority. Because you can look at gay marriage. So many churches today are saying this is ok and love is love. Well which is correct? Catholic Church has problems and scandals of course but the fundamental teachings we believe are true because the Holy Spirit will not lead the church into error on such matters.
Very well said. Thank you, Gavin!
Wow, in the first 3min you laid out my entire journey and thought process regarding the “one true church” claim & debate. Sometimes while looking towards the early church as a protestant you want to hear the arguments yet the “No salvation outside the church” claim always reels me back. As it is portrayed today, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is ridiculously exclusive, like a private country club of a faith that completely discounts billions of professing believers around the world, as if submitting to God in general wasn’t enough.
Perhaps because the Catholic defenition is different from what Protestants like Ortland define it to be. Having it's origins in St. Cyprian in the 3rd Century it's not what Protestants are told it means. The Roman Catechism teaches, "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is His Body" Read Pope Pius XII explanation of vincible versus Invincible ignorance to understand the official Catholic understanding when the issue came to a head as followers of Fr. Leonard Feeney claimed that only baptized Roman Catholics will go to heaven, something he and his followers were excommunicated for. In its statements regarding this doctrine, the Church expressly teaches that "it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God", and that "outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control". It also states that "they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life"
Gavin, the difference between Catholics and Protestants on "essential" doctrines is not that one side has a list and one doesn't. The difference is, if I have a question, the teaching office of the Catholic Church can answer definitively. If I ask a Lutheran, a Presbyterian, and a non-denominational, "What is baptism?", which Hebrews 6 calls a "fundamental" of the Christian faith, I'm going to get three different answers and they would each say I am free to leave their congregation if I disagree and go to another which teaches something different. I would expect that Christians 2000 years later would be united on something as basic as that and I don't think the apostles would have imagined Christians 2000 years later being told by their clergy they could leave if they disagree. I don't expect the Church to give me a list saying, "Here are all 274 essential doctrines that you need to believe." Simply put, I trust all the teachings of the church, those that are dogma and those that are doctrine. Sure, the divinity of Christ is more "essential" or important than say, the existence of purgatory, but I can be sure both are 100% true.
Yes, I 100% agree you have to follow your conscience and that your conscience is the first and last assessor of which denomination to go, but I find the Catholic claim to be the most consistent logically.
Thoughts?
You make good points.
You are looking for a branch/ sect of Christianity that is most "logical." I can admire this endeavor but the way of logic can be treacherous!
And what about the Way of Virtue, and the Way of what is consistent with that which is Theopneustos -- God-breathed? I.e., Scripture? Why is Logic your Number One?
I wouldn't care if the Roman Catholic Church was the preeminently "logical" choice, my conscience simply will not allow me to join an institution that had such a devastating pedophilia that destroyed the faith and lives of thousands, it conspired to cover up for *who knows how long*!
Logic tells you 1 + 1 must = 2. But all the logic in the world won't make me believe something is not fundamentally flawed in the Roman Catholic Church.
So, why do you give such pride of place to Logic and not Virtue? Why do you idolize The True over against The Good -- when the True, the Beautiful, AND the Good must be found together and never apart?
So, while you prioritize logic, I prioritize the word of God *along with* Church history, scholarship, and Patristic theology and writing. And I'm not just looking for what is true, but what is good and what is beautiful.
Thank you so much for this video Gavin. I’ve grown up in the Church of Christ, so in the Restoration Movement, and I’ve been walking through a process of figuring out which denomination I belong to. I really appreciate your advice as I go about doing the work!
Another productive video addressing a far too common criticism of protestantism. Thank you for making these!
Gavin thanks for your work. It helps balance out the many RC apologist on UA-cam. I’m in the middle of Protestant/catholic debate. And your work has been helpful.
Thank you, brother. As one who is in the midst of discerning between traditions, your words are an answer to my prayers and brought peace to my heart. God bless.
From start to finish this video was so encouraging. Thank you, Pastor.
Continue to appreciate your and your honesty. 🙏🏼
Always gets me the “Protestants disagree on doctrine” line. Well Taylor Marshall would say someone like me is going to hell while Trent Horn wouldn’t so isn’t that a RC disagreement on essential doctrine?! And if they are following the same magisterium how can they disagree?! Is it coming down to their own interpretation? Isn’t this something that RC are always levelling at Protestants? Mmmmm ,God Bless Gavin 🙏
Well stated
That's not a doctrine though. Just personal opinions. Doctrine is the official stated beliefs by the church...not personal.
Apples and oranges. The RC critique isn't comparing individual Protestants. It's comparing various Protestant denoms official teachings, confessions of faith, creeds, etc. with each other.
@@thomasc9036Disagree. They're both reacting to whether the anathemas of Trent are lifted for all "wayward brothers" or not.
@@shawngillogly6873 What in the world are you talking about? The reply was Taylor Marshal and Trent Horn having had different opinions on Protestants. Not on the Council of Trent.
Great video. Appreciate you speaking so clearly on this issue.
great video Gavin. Glory to God alone
As usual, this is excellent, Gavin. (I have been saying something very similar for years to my Catholic and Orthodox friends. All of us have to adjudicate what we find to be true or false.)
Excellent arguments. I will be saving this video and using these arguments in my own teaching
Beautifully pastoral at the end Dr. Ortlund
Excellent illustrations and animations. Praise God
Ultimately every ONE of us must face Jesus, not as a church, but in our own judgment moment.
Love watching your videos. Always helpful. God bless!
When I became a Catholic, I found peace in the Church. I'm only speaking for my own experience. My years as an Evangelical were positive, but the sacraments have deepened my relationship with Christ.
Yes.
Thanks for the video!
God bless.
Gavin never misses
Best protestant on internet
you mean best baptist? because anglicans and lutherans got it all wrong.
The irony of saying someone is the best at something in a video where human fallibility is been highlighted 😂
@@haroldgamarra7175 You mean Baptists and their radical reformation becoming the root of the Protestant divisions?
@toonnaobi-okoye2949 good point. 😅
Thank you, Gavin.
Brilliant. Thanks Gavin
Well done, sir. And done in the true spirit of catholicity.
Another great video, Gavin. Love your stuff!
in the words of Paul Zahl, to sum this wonderful exposition of yours up is that “the church did not bypass the fall”. The end
Very helpful as always 🥰
Love the animations! Those are so helpful!
Excellent advice! Thank you!
Another excellent video
Great video Gavin! Thank you!
Hey Gavin! Protestant subscriber here! I have been studying church history/fathers for a while now. It’s clear that you don’t see the assumption of Mary clearly in antiquity but there are several other beliefs and practices in the first several hundred years of the church that most Protestants reject like baptismal regeneration, purpose of church being the Eucharist, intercession of martyrs/saints, Mary ever-virgin, among others. Why do we reject the assumption because it’s not in the early church but also reject many important beliefs/practices clearly present in the early apostolic churches?
hello! I address this exact question at 35:21 of my video, "Why Mary’s Assumption Is Indefensible," hope that helps!
@Truth Unites @Dr. Gavin Ortlund great video. I would like to see you engage with or talk more about the Orthodox Church ☦️ and those with apostolic succession please.
Agree brother.
This broken record with our catholic friends gets old.
As a Catholic, I like your channel because your ideas are carefully thought through, and your tone is charitable - unlike many protestant apologists who just repeat the tired old lies about the Catholic church.
I used to think that of Ortland, he may be cordial, but he is intellectually dishonest. Omitting large sections of the Fathers that show in context what he quotes means something a Catholic or Orthodox believer assents to and Protestants reject.
@@thomasfolio7931 yes, I was referring to his more charitable manner, compared to most protestant apologists, not his actual theology. Taking quotes from the church fathers, without the full context, is common among the more sophisticated protestant apologists. They treat the church fathers in the same way they treat the Bible - proof texts without context.
I'm basically in the boat of needing to make this kind of decision.
I'm currently in a non-denominational Protestant church, and I grew up in the Restoration and charismatic movements (different churches). But I have been discontent with my tradition for a long time. There are a lot of issues, but it mostly boils down to issues of authority and of worship.
I have been looking intensely into Eastern Orthodoxy this year, and I love a lot of what I see, but there are still a few significant sticking points. I have recently also been looking into confessional Lutheranism, which is where I might land. It has the tradition and sacramentality I am longing for but without the hangups I see in Eastern Orthodoxy.
Another issue is that my wife and I are training with a Bible translation organization, and our current church wants to support us and be our "sending church." Becoming Orthodox would most likely mean not being able to work with our Protestant Bible translation org, while even switching to another Protestant church would cut ties with our current church that has been so supportive of us (and already has a good relationship with the translation org).
But I don't want to make this decision for my family based on pragmatic concerns. So I'm still praying and seeking.
After having left an abusive church in my early 20's and having studied all sorts of things since, but never going to another congregation ever, I am looking again.
I can only say this about the question as to where to go, it must be based on the narrow path that leads to life. Christ is the narrow gate. It must be through Him and His teaching and you cannot separate those things. God is His Word. Ha cannot break a promise or bend for you and me. We must abide in His will for us.
That is no doubt a matter of faith and trust in Him.
Great video. I look forward to more.
One thing to note, that should actually bring unity among followers of Jesus....is what Christ called us to be. Not one Gospel does Jesus define a follower of His as a "Christian" or a Baptist or any other sectarian teacher. In fact, I am sure most of you already know that "Christian" is a slur. A word with negative connotation towards a faithful follower of Jesus. It's a word that oringinated with the world. It comes from a place of mockery and contempt. Paul asks if Christ is divided. One says I follow Paul, another Cephas, an other Christ. This is something to consider...."Were you baptized in the name of Xxxxx?"
Christ only calls His followers to be His disciples. If someone asks me who I am, I state a disciple of Jesus. I learn from Him. Under no other name, teaching, creed, confession, baptism, can one find themselves in the light. The true light of our lives.
John 8:31-32.
There is no better term to use because that is what Jesus used to define His followers. Those He loves.
So be it.
Yes, Gavin. The personal choice is always there. When you leave, you’re under new rules too. You’re exactly right. However, the church you’re in should be able to make the claim they’re the one true church if they’re hoping to define schism in any real sense. The apostles say schism not as subjective, but objective. Even damnable. I’m willing to let my faith guide me more than my own opinions. But reason supplements faith, and so I still think both, through many miracles I’ve seen and lived too, have led me to where I am.
Thanks for another great video Gavin!
I know that you touched on it, and with all due respect I think it should be reiterated. The leading of the Holy Spirit; through prayer, should be paramount whenever making private judgments. Thank you!
Yes, but when two people claim to be led by the
Spirit in two different directions...? Sola Scriptura must be the foundation.
Indeed!!
@@ButlerfamilyoutdoorsTwo different directions? There only two different directions heaven bound or hell bound. Do you mean opinions?
@ellysekamate3457 take your pick. Either would be applicable. The Holy spirit will not contradict Himself.
Nor will He contradict scriptures which would be contradicting Himself.
I think I’m going to comment this on every video from now on, Dear Gavin, if you see this, pleasssssseee do a discussion or debate with Father Josiah Trenham, he is in Southern California, very big proponent of orthodoxy and went to a Calvinist college under RC Sproul, I would love to see you guys break this down, Protestant vs Orthodox, he wrote a book called Rock and Sand, basically a critic of the reformation and is highly regarded in orthodoxy circles. Please sit down with him, it would be amazing to hear. ❤
Your observation is quite accurate that there was quite a bit of diversity among the Church Fathers. Nonetheless, what they had in common was striking when compared to Protestantism. Early Christian theology was essentially liturgical theology. It was not so much written down on paper as it was sung out loud during the Liturgy. The early Church viewed the Eucharist as the central feature of Sunday worship and all affirm the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist. Another common element was the understanding that Christianity was based on oral Tradition received from the Apostles and safeguarded by the bishops. The episcopacy was the norm in early Christianity. Protestant forms of church government like congregationalism and presbyterianism were not the norm. Among the early Christians there was some disagreement as to how to reconcile Jesus being the Son of God with Jewish monotheism. This question became a major crisis with the emergence of the Arian heresy. This heresy was refuted at the Council of Nicea (325). It was for his articulate defense of Jesus’ divinity that Athanasius was recognized as a Church Father. Cyril of Alexandria would be recognized as a Church Father for his defense of Mary as the Theotokos (God-Bearer). It was at the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II, 553) that Nestorianism was condemned as heretical and recognition of Mary as Theotokos be made part of the Liturgy. The iconoclast controversy was precipitated by Emperor Leo III’s edict against icons. For his defense of icons John of Damascus would be recognized as a Church Father. It was at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea II, 787) that iconoclasm would be formally condemned as heretical. The early Church encountered numerous heresies and dealt with them through councils-local, regional, and ecumenical-with the assistance of bishops who would later be recognized as Church Fathers. It is not as if conflicts emerged the Church Fathers and were resolved at Ecumenical Councils; but rather heresies surfaced and the bishops came together to deal with these heresies and in the process certain men who played a key role in the upholding of the Apostolic Faith would come to be recognized as a “Church Father” just as an “ordinary” Christian who suffered martyrdom would be recognized as a capital “s” Saint.
Another important aspect of Orthodox unity is the patristic consensus. This “consensus of the Fathers” is usually a reference to the bishops of the Church speaking collectively via an Ecumenical Council. Just as the Holy Spirit guided the Jerusalem Council so likewise he guided later Councils into the truth (cf. Acts 15:28; John 16:13). Please keep in mind that while there have been many church councils, only a few have been recognized as “Ecumenical Councils.” Individually the Church Fathers may err but collectively they bear witness to the Apostolic Faith. Orthodox theology does not seek to neatly and systematically answer every theological question possible in a comprehensive manner similar to the Westminster Confession. of Faith While we remain steadfast on matters of dogma like the Trinity and Christology, there is diversity in other matters like soteriology and eschatology.
"Another common element was the understanding that Christianity was based on oral Tradition received from the Apostles and safeguarded by the bishops." So we have faith in the bishops, who gave us icon worship, saint worship, and Marian devotions, purgatory, and plenary indulgences vs. faith in the only written record of earliest Christianity, i.e., the Bible.
@@joeoleary9010 Without Pope Damascus I and the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. Protestantism would have No Bible to develop their Solo Scriptures doctrine. Curios where were the Protestans in 382 A D.?
As a catholic I love your content. I think you are a really charitable protestsnt which i really appreciate. I will note that i think it is quite innacurate to call sspx or Sedevacantism denominations of catholicism. They are not in the communion with the pope therefore are not catholic. They would be their own non protestant denomination, just ass orthodoxy is seperate from catholicism.
Great video!
thanks! yes, that SSPX and sedas are separate from Roman Catholicism was my point. They are offshoot groups, not in communion.
Gavin, thank you for this thoughtful response. I hope to address some points you brought up in the coming weeks.God bless!
will keep my eyes peeled! God bless you as well Brayden.
but gavin, there are like..............70 million, thousand denominations
This was great from start to finish!
The slogans get so annoying to see over and over again!
As a catholic I find the notion of private judgement awkward. Not that it doesn't exist, or that I don't judge the validity of some claims regarding the doctrine but I pretty much surrender my doctrine to the (catholic) church and to the Pope's authority. Therefore, I can't just change church, my entire life would become meaningless. This is why the current situation on the Catholic Church makes me borderline panicking. I have nowhere else to go. For example SSPX or other movements are completely meaningless without a valid Pope and cannot resist in any sort of consistent state for long. I don't have a deep understanding of Protestantism but I believe this might be a completely different mindset.
I'm sorry for what you're going through, but just something to think about. When we are all judged by God, it's going to be judgement of your person and you won't be able to hide behind another authority or pope. It's just going to be you, your beliefs, your actions, and your thoughts. While I do personally think we will have all the answers of doctrine provided by God himself, we are still responsible to have biblical knowledge and standards while we are here on earth.
I don't want to cause offense, but I do want to encourage you to take some ownership of your beliefs so you can proudly stand before God with a clear conscience and say to him I studied and found these beliefs are true to the best of my knowledge. Don't hide behind an institution, but be confident in the knowledge God has provided for you in his Word.
Good luck and God bless.
@@alishavogel7926 There is a clear separation of concerns. I am responsible for my actions, the Pope is responsible for the doctrine. While in many of our actions we can figure out right from wrong easily, in many cases we can't and we must refer to an external authority. I don't have the time, the understanding, or the intelligence to figure out the entire set of rules for myself. I can come up with many cases, like communion for divorced, pre-marital behavior, not to mention the hot topics of the day, which are anything but obvious. Best regards.
@filipius3 you are also responsible for investigating doctrine enough to know you can trust the person who you claim is an authority. If the pope came out tomorrow and said ex-catherda that you don't need Jesus to get to heaven, do you have a responsibility not to follow that doctrine you should know is false or follow it anyways because you have trusted the pope not to lead you astray?
I don't want to hear that the pope would never do that, I'm trying to create a scenario that challenges the thinking that you have no responsibility for the doctrine you believe. I think every Christian has a responsibility to be educated in the scriptures enough so they aren't tempted by every wind of teaching.
@@alishavogel7926 The scenario you're considering is not merely hypothetic. While I could accept that many bad popes existed in the long history of the Church, I wonder if, for the first time we are watching a deeply entrenched and organized effort to introduce blatant contradictions to the doctrine. Is there any solution for this problem? I can't see any but expect that God will provide an unexpected solution and the people attempting this, who clearly have no belief in right or wrong, truth or falsehood, are completely mad, by considering they will somehow succeed.
Luther saw the main issues as Authority and Justification
I agree
All the differences fall under one or the other
And this video points to look at sacraments and church government
And those fall under Authority and Justification and are helpful things to consider
Great vid!
legendary video
My dude Dr. Gavin
I find it funny when orthodox churches uses this argument when they don't even have a mutual agreement on the No of books in bible.😂
Perhaps because the word "canon" meant something else. Original Protestant Bibles all included Apocrypha. Removing them is a 20th century Protestant debacle.
@thomasc9036 Nope. Apocrypha wasn't Jewish canon. Adding them was an accretion of the later church. Not the ECF. Even Protestants who kept it in the text--and not nearly as uniformly or late as you claim, outside Anglicanism--did so explicitly for "historical, not doctrinal use." The Confessions repeatedly reject them.
@@shawngillogly6873 Dude, what we call "Apocrypha" was called "the Second Temple literature" by Jews. Even they debated whether they should be canon or not which Christianity inherited. The surviving Jews were influenced by the Judaen Jewish movement. There are Judaism that accepts the Second Temple Literature as well.
The way Christians use the term "canon" is not the same as others. This is what Luther wrote "These are books that, though not esteemed like the Holy Scriptures, are still both useful and good to read". Calvin was similar.
Ignatius of Antioch explained, in the 1st century, how to pick a denomination:
Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church.
Perfectly well said. Once an economy developed to the point of allowing meaningful mobility, and if one defines Protestantism as the ability to choose where / how to worship, well all Christians today are Protestant.
In my experience, evangelical Christians generally don't identify themselves as "Protestant." They would generally call themselves "Christian" or something similar. They don't consider themselves as "protesting" against anything but would likely say they are simply following to obey God and follow Jesus as they are revealed in Scripture. Their denominational identity would generally be secondary.
The only time evangelicals identify themselves as Protestant is when they need to distinguish themselves from Catholics or Orthodox believers. Even the term "evangelical" is generally only used to distinguish themselves from other Christian traditions.
Some may disagree with this stance but I am simply saying I find this to be generally true among evangelicals and something important to be aware of when trying to understand evangelical Christians.
I think you are correct in this
“You will know them by their fruits” really comes in handy here. Also appeal to who founded said church! Compare it all to scripture. Look for unity. Look for the “four marks of the church.” - appeal to the Church Fathers after all. We’re lucky to be able to do that. As Paul said “listen to your leaders, they watch over your souls.” He appointed many!
I've heard very high profile Catholics making these kinds of claims. A related claim is something like "Protestants are their own teaching authorities" and by this they mean that each individual is his or her own teaching authority. I don't see how this notion is even coherent.
When high-profile Catholics make arguments like that, you begin to realize that their case must not be that great if they need to grasp at such arguments
As a Catholic I would ask if there's any authority that keeps individuals from becoming their own authority. Who says when someone is in heresy?
Very well said
I’ve just caught a post further on down where it’s claimed that Protestants private judgment is their highest truth and then Christ falls underneath that! I’m not a Protestant but whaaaaattttt?! Really?! I’m lost for words with statements like that I really am,very troubling!
Really well said
Jesus • let them b one
Paul • let there b no division among u
Protestants • let’s make 1000 new churches
Gavin: it’s not 1000… it’s like 850 😅
Catholics: Disagree with us on one thing? ANATHEMA
I agree that this whole business of insisting the Catholic Church - or, any other church - is infallible - that’s a red flag for any church.
Excelente video!
The exclusivity of the RC Church bothers me tremendously,I just watched a UA-cam short recently with Reasoned Theology and a guest. Seemingly it started out that none RC were being lumped in as none Christians and then it went downhill from there! Baptism was mentioned by the guest and then mid point he corrected himself and said that we were only “loosely” in the Body Of Christ while laughing while at the same time Reasoned Theology was underneath him nodding with a smirk on his face and I couldn’t watch anymore after that! Now I understand there is a CCC canon that begrudgingly accepts us as black sheep if we’ve had a valid Baptism but I was unaware how deeply ingrained it was in RC attitudes. Very saddening and worrying at the same time,the more I see and research on RC the more it pushes me away,not that it was ever an option anyway after early reading.
And I don’t want to judge any RC either,we love all our RC brothers and sisters in Christ and one day we will all have to answer to Jesus. God Bless all 🙏
I was looking into the rc at one point just follow Jesus Christ and his teaching love others, look for community and repent
But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.
- James 1:14-15
I’m subscribing. What this guy just described is our sinful nature. Bravo. When sin creeps in the Church, has an exodus and then we resurrect into a new body.
Yes, we must exercise private judgement to choose the what church we believe is true. It is simply True that the Catholic Church is the True Church and that is why one should exercise their private judgement to become Catholic.
God bless you Pastor Gavin, I've been having a lot of these 'private judgements' these past few days, this video and your intelectual anxiety video have been very helpful. I am born and raised Pentecostal, I know that word seems to spark some debates, I'm from Puerto Rico and at least from what I've seen here, and I'm not here to debate or fight about it, just that Pentecostalism on the US side seems a bit different to say the least seeing videos online, to the point though, this year I've decided to take my relationship with the Lord seriously and have noticed my life improve for the better and have an inmense zeal for God though I still recognize I am but a babe in a lot of ways spiritually. And I've been wrestling with if I am in the right place, am I a Pentecostal? is it a matter of my current church not being the place for me but rather another from my same denomination or if I venture out what then? I don't believe in church hopping, since I believe my place is not for me to decide, but by the Lord.
And it's a lot to think about, but for now what I've been doing is what John Chrysostom recommended, studying the scriptures, and that is a bit of a relief to hear. I just want to seek the Lord, and everything else will fall into place, seek truth and I'm sure wherever the Lord places me or doesn't, will be for His glory.
For anyone that reached the end of my comment, all I ask if for you to pray for me to be guided by the Holy Spirit and that the Lord may prepare me for whatever is to come. God bless you all and I love you all my brothers and sisters.
Would also like to add Pastor Gavin, keep doing what you are doing, thanks to you I've had an interest in the early church and ordered some books on the early church, the writings Saint Thomas Aquinas etc.
Church Fathers adamantly opposed private interpretation of Scripture. They also denounced preaching by someone not ordained by a bishop.
How are you defining "private interpretation?" And which fathers? Do you have a reference?
@@EricBryant Not just the Church Fathers - Saint Peter forbade private interpretation of Scripture.
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Acts 17:11
Sounds like they were in error, huh?
@@Isaiah53-FL if you say so
The problem is that the protestant clergy cannot really excommunicatr you out of the body of christ, since they dont believe they are the only true church, because of the invisible church doctrine
Well done again Gavin. You have articulated several very reasonable and sound arguments for Protestantism being more ancient and 'primitive' than Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox.
My comments are related to only the first 5 minutes of this video as there is enough that troubled me that I'll watch the rest later (and likely have more comments).
The first issue is that Dr. Ortlund, when discussing the process of choosing a denomination, characterizes the Old Catholic Church, SSPX, and the SSPV (I think that's what he referred to) as "little tiny offshoots" of the Catholic Church making it sound like it is a similar decision to that of choosing from the multitude of Protestant denominations or churches. The Old Catholic Church and the SSPV reject the authority of the pope and the SSPX has no canonical status with the Catholic Church. These "offshoots" are not an option at all when evaluating the Catholic Church - in no way aligning with the message given in this video. The thing that bothers me the most is that Dr. Ortlund has to know this and given his influence over so many (I have a family member that I believe would become a Lutheran if Dr. Ortlund did) he owes it to his audience to give them a truthful picture. And all of you deserve that as well.
I also take issue with the notion of "essentials" as if truth can be divided by "essentials" and "non-essentials". The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, not "truths". Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life...again not "truths". The Catholic Church cares about truth and if a person wants to know what the Catholic Church believes just pick up a Catechism and look it up. To in essence condone and accept error because that is just a "human reality" is offensive...as if Jesus and His Church (the pillar and foundation of truth) is inescapably subject to error...and that Jesus wouldn't protect His bride from the Father of Lies.
Lastly, Dr. Ortlund speaks of the many schisms throughout church history and the need for private judgement on what is true and false, but that is not how the Church operates. In Acts 15 Paul and Barnabas specifically don't make a personal decision on truth and rather go to the Church where a decision is made "of the Holy Spirit and of us". This Council approach in making critical decisions is how the Church has always operated. One question I'll ask, the Council of Nicaea met in 325 AD and made a very bold statement...that they were the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. They had the authority to speak for the entire Christian community by excommunicating Arius. They also believed in the necessity of baptism and the Eucharist as viaticum. So, were they who they said they were...the one true Church?
I thank you in advance for your responses. I'm hopeful that we can respectfully dialogue where we can learn from each other (iron sharpening iron)! God bless you all!
that the Old Catholic and SSPX etc. are not in communion with Rome was the point. That is why they came up. If they were in communion with Rome, then they would not have been relevant to the point at hand, namely, separatist groups.
OK, I see what you're saying, although I thought your comment was in the spirit of choosing a denomination. Maybe I should have asked what you meant by "offshoots". You gave specific examples for only the heretical groups that split off of the Catholic Church (are there non-heretical examples?). On the other hand, you didn't give Protestant "offshoot" examples. I took "offshoots" as the multitude of Protestant churches that I could choose from that claim to be "Bible alone" (one example is all of the different churches that might be labeled as non-denomination). What did you mean by "offshoot" from a Protestant perspective? I guess my point still applies - the only Catholic "offshoots" are those not in communion with the Church (not viable options) while "offshoots" from a Protestant perspective seem much more problematic from the standpoint of choosing a denomination since truth is defined by each denomination or local church. Thanks in advance for the clarification.
@@ernie8869 He is lying in his response to you. He presented it exactly as you interpreted it originally.
00:14:20: God is not looking to trick us. He's not looking to damn us. Well said.
Well, He did a really bad job then....
This one caught my attention: (paraphrized) "When judging Protestantism over Church number inflation - we should take into account schisms on the side of RCC and Orthodox Churches". Well, when it happens it is for starters called a schism, mostly they are excommunicated while on Protestant side - there is no uproar, no excommunication. It's just opening of another "franchize", if I can use that word. This liberal, "yes, and you can have your own Church!" view is my problem.
Well, even a franchise, need to follow strictly the rules of the franchisee or they get "excommunicated".
One cannot have many masters or it will chaos.
Faith and reason must come together, if it seems unreasonable it usually is false..
@@joekey8464again, this rebelion that brought protestantism paved a way for numerous other rebelions. A "charismatic" member with his/her followers, a pastor disgruntled over church leadership, a millieu of closely connected worshippers, you name it - they can all have their own church now! Instead of reform, discussion, compromise, unity - they choose rebelion and rebelion is what they are having on almost at daily basis.
Hey Gavin can you do a protestant view of confession?
Gavin - another super engaging video, thank you! I would posit that the ways our faith traditions experience disagreements are marked by matters of nature and degree. Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Christian churches give greatest weight to the Christian Faith as they believe (critically) is established by Scripture and confirmed and or clarified by a consensus of Church Fathers, the decrees of Ecumenical Councils, and for Roman Catholics, a Papal definition issued ex cathedra. There is thus agreement with the overwhelming majority of doctrine - 7 sacraments, the authority of scripture and the apostolic succession, etc. Even cultural differences still express the essential truth in different forms, within and among such traditions - e.g., the Assumption of Mary in the West and the Dormition of Mary in the East. Differences in liturgical practices, forms of art, etc. exist as diversity rather than disagreement, not only between the Churches, but also within, e.g., a Greek Catholic (Byzantine) will use liturgy, prayers, art, architecture and devotions that are eastern in cultural and theological formation, while a Latin Rite Catholic will rely on more western traditions. Among these non-Protestant faith traditions that lay a claim to direct apostolic decent, the remaining points of contention such as the supremacy of the Pope versus the primacy of the Bishop of Rome are critical, but fine points. And yes, "hardliners" and "super traditionalists" will even argue over the extent of disagreement- our human nature struggles, and gosh the desire be right for the sake of being right hurts! Thus, different Catholics and Orthodox will argue that we (a) agree to disagree? (b) have resolved the issue as misunderstanding? or (c) should continue to anathematize each other?!, over the filioque (the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son). But within Protestant faith traditions, the theological divergences are, from our viewpoint, more significant and numerous. Anglican? Presbyterian? Baptist? Pentacostal? Disagreement on authority - Bishops? Presbyters? Deacons? The congregation? How many sacraments? Where is the division between the authority of Scripture via magisterial theologians (e.g. Calvin) vs. individual illumination by the Holy Spirit? Is infant baptism valid? Rest in peace - is there Soul sleep or are the faithfully departed fully alive in Christ prior to the final judgement? Iconophile or Iconoclast? Is Baptism of the Spirit distinct from Baptism by Faith and Water? Do you need to manifest speaking in tongues or prophesy to evidence a life in the Holy Spirt? The list can be rather longer than these . . . . The fruit of the central tenant of the Reformation, sola scriptura, leads to increasing differences among Protestants in direct proportion with time and the ability to disseminate theological thought. The (inadvertent) reformer in chief, many historians believe, was Gutenberg. The ability first for all churches, not just the wealthiest, to own an entire bible, then the middle class, then the poor, together with contradicting tracts and catechisms only became possible with the invention of the printing press. This is further evidenced by how divergences grew over time among the Reformed Christians. Do Catholics disagree internally? Yes, but there are several manners of disagreement. (1) The first is in the area of unsettled matters (e.g., defining all attributes of the Glorified Body patterned after Christ's resurrection, for example. The precise interoperation of free will and predestination. For a millennium Catholics were free to argue whether Mary was conceived without sin (predestined to be the Theotokos - Mother of God, as in Don Scotus) or was made pure later (prior to birth as in Aquinas), or by Byzantines (and today, Orthodox) as a gift to her as the first disciple when she said yes to God in her answer to Gabriel (free will), until settled dogmatically in the 19th century. (2) The second type - disagreement or dissent from matters settled under the authority of the ordinary magisterium, such as Church disciplines and morality, e.g., married priests, the use of contraception. (3) Third, disagreement or dissent on issues of the extraordinary magisterium - those things (a) believed to be founded in scripture and (b) confirmed by councils and/or popes such as the virgin birth, the divinity and humanity of Jesus (Tome of Pope Leo & Council of Chalcedon), the total physical resurrection of Jesus and other foundational doctrines that all "Nicene" Christians believe and (b) those Holy Traditions shared broadly but not universally as Biblical and confirmed, such as the Real Presence of Christ and (c) those things that are defined as the fruit of Scripture but defined outside thereof, such as the Immaculate Conception. The further down a Catholic does not hold to truths on this "hierarchy of truths," that is, the less he/she follows Scripture and Holy Tradition, the less of a Catholic Christian they would be. By the time you get to someone who says "Jesus was a nice guy, but that resurrection thing is a stretch" you have someone who is not Catholic or even broadly Christian - that is, if one believes in objective truths, i.e., theological orthodoxy. All of Christendom struggles with disagreements and disorder, but the more one has a magisterial foundation, especially that based on the concept of continued authority over disputes via apostolic succession, the narrower the divides, and the more clearly dissent is seen as contradicting revealed truth. In the Protestant faith tradition, such clarity, however, comes at the expense of what is understood as Christian liberty. Nonetheless, Catholics can learn from Protestants how, despite many doctrinal disputes, the (almost) universal agreement on Christ's mission in Scripture make Protestants a bold "Resurrection People." I hope Protestants can find some value in the use of magisterial traditions to find greater consensus. And all of us in the west have long ignored the richness of the Eastern churches, whose traditions often can complement ours, as we in the west tend to focus on the rational appreciation of the Gospel Truth, and the east, its profound sacred mystery. God bless and sustain all who believe and proclaim that Jesus is the Christ, who died for us when we were yet sinners, and rose from the dead to promise us eternal life.
Yes it is a huge problem for Protestants. We all must use private judgement to some extent but Catholics and Orthodox are not using their private judgement to decide whether every single specific doctrine, practice, or development is divinely revealed or not. Gavin and other Protestants are taking private judgement too far and making themselves the determining authority over what scripture and Christianity teach. As an analogy, it's like saying one man uses "private judgement" to conclude Jesus is Lord and then obeys him while another uses "private judgement" to determine what God thinks without relying on another teacher. Both are using private judgement but one is relying far more heavily on it than the other. It's a blind spot for Gavin and it will be for as long as he continues his denial about Catholicism being true.
I don't see any evidence that Catholics and Protestants believe wildly different things. Christianity can be made as complicated as one wishes, but beyond baptism, repentance, and faith in Jesus virtually all the sects are the same.
" Catholics and Orthodox are not using their private judgement to decide whether every single specific doctrine, practice, or development is divinely revealed or not." - Neither do us. I have the Westminster Confession of Faith and Cathecism and the Councils of the my Church (The Presbyterian Church) lol.
@@pedroguimaraes6094The WCF is authoritative only insofar as it conforms to the individual's current interpretation and PJ of Scripture, otherwise it is to be rejected in part or total. It states this in 1.10, 20.2, 25.4, 31.2, 31.3. PJ remains supreme and normative, not any ecclesial judgment, confession, creed, or council, e.g. you have no problem rejecting Lutheran or Baptist confessions or 2nd Nicaea. Such ongoing PJ is consistent with Protestant principles. That is far different from the RC/EO paradigm.
Or as Turretin wrote “Although in the external court of the church every private person is bound to submit to the synodical decisions (unless he wants to be excommunicated), and such judgment ought to flourish for the preservation of order, peace and orthodoxy, and the suppression of heretical attempts; it does not follow that the judgment is supreme and infallible. For an appeal may always be made from it to the internal forum of conscience, nor does it bind anyone in this court further than he is persuaded of its agreement with the Scriptures.”
@@cronmaker2 Our ministers must read the entire Confession of Faith before entering seminary and must take an oath to follow it in its entirety to become pastors. Isn't that authoritative? Completely different from your interpretation.
Protestantism is not one big Church, it is an umbrella term for different churches. If I do not follow the stipulations and Confessions of my Church, I will be excommunicated, as will you in yours and if you, upon being excommunicated, for example, in the EO, you will be able to become a member of the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Assyrian Church etc. just as I can become a member of Lutheran, Anglican etc. Does this mean that your Church had no authority? This line of argument that you like to use to attack Protestant churches makes no sense. Dr. Gavin Ortlund (Thuth Unites Channel) just released a video on his channel talking precisely about PJ in Protestantism, EO, Catholics etc. and responding to these arguments.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 yes we are in the comments of Gavin's PJ video - he's countering a caricature of the PJ critique, not the actual arg - no one disputes we all use our minds and make decisions to submit, that's not the critique.
I did not say the WCF was not authoritative. But under Protestant principles and the supreme right of PJ, all secondary authorities are only authoritative insofar as they conform to Scripture, that is the individuals current interpretation/PJ of Scripture. That goes for any confession, creed, council, etc. including of course the WCF itself. That's why it has those built in disclaimers I cited, I'm not misinterpreting them, that's what they (and Turretin) say - all church judgments (eg confessions) are liable to error or corruption and are only authoritative if they conform to Scripture.
The difference in RC/EO paradigm is the right to PJ is not enshrined as an ongoing norm. When one submits to RC/EO authority, one is not free to accept/reject each and every doctrine based on ones current PJ. That's inconsistent with RC/EO ecclesial authority claims. Under Protestant principles though, such perpetual PJ is baked into the system and consistent with its authority disclaimers - nothing changes pre and post submission to a church/confession. That's the difference.
Cool video!
Totally agree on the exaggerated 30000+ denomination number, and private judgement and discernment will always play a part. One thought which comes to mind though is that if we are bound by conscience to whichever denomination’s teaching authority we eventually decide upon, did this apply to the reformers who were originally part of the Catholic Church? Was Martin Luther bound by conscience to obey the Catholic magisterium? If we say no because ‘the Catholic Church was wrong in his opinion’ then doesn’t that still open up the same problem again? If we only need to listen to an authority under pain of conscience when we agree with what the authority orders then that defeats the whole point of authority. It seems in this view that conscience (and thus the individual) always becomes the ultimate authority, as opposed to an external and objective authority that one has to listen to even if you don’t agree with their interpretation of scripture and the Church fathers.
We also mentioned groups like SSPX, Old Catholic Church etc. but these can’t even really come under the label of Catholic in the strictest sense as Catholicity is defined by communion with the Roman pontiff. These also just become High Church off-shoots, though admittedly not Protestant if they don’t accept Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura.
We mentioned a couple of Church fathers there, but a significantly bigger number seem to affirm the idea that Peter is the rock, not just his confession of faith; and they assert the primacy of the Church in Rome - that should give some food for thought, perhaps a video could be done on this in the future Dr Ortlund.
Is having the "perfect doctrine" the most important aspect of a church? I'm part of a Pentecostal church and, while I have some theological disagreements, it doesn't bother me. This church excels in demonstrating God's character and effectively sharing the Gospel with others. However, significant theological differences can be problematic. Sometimes, focusing too much on perfect doctrine might become a kind of idolatry. No church is perfect in its theology or practices, but both are crucial. If I found a vibrant, transformative Catholic church, I would even consider joining it.
I’m in a similar predicament, last church I attended was a Pentecostal church with some doctrines and traditions I found hard to coexist with. Can you please share what other factors you look for in a church that are present in your current church? Or generally how you think through and navigate these things? I may be idolizing and looking for a ‘perfect’ church but it is hard to break away from that expectation.
God bless. Same here. Ive asked God why this is where He placed me. The response I received was there are things that I need to learn that I havent yet. But the biggest deal breaker for me would have to be denial of Jesus Christ as God and the Trinity. After that dialog and exegesis helps a lot. Witnessing my pastor have genuine integrity and hunger to go reach and help the lost community is also extremely helpful.
@@toonnaobi-okoye2949 why not watch his streaming "church service"
The foundational personal judgment for a convert considering catholicsm is -- did St Peter have the authority to build Christ’s church? Mat 16:18. If the potential convert accepts this authority then everything else is settled regarding doctrines, (and is in accordance with scripture which he can verify as all teachings are presented with the relevant bible verses). It also answers the question which is the one true church which orthodox argue.
Jewel’s ‘The Apology of the Church of England’ was basically an appeal to Antiquity in comparing the church of the English Reformation with that of the Medieval Papal communion.
Personally, I would never join a church that proclaims, "We are the one true church". A few that come to mind are Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness and 7th Day Adventists.
But only one of those was around 2000 years ago!
@@garyr.8116There are more problems I have with the catholic church. The catechism defines justification as grace+works. Also having a pope and a priesthood is stealing authority from Jesus Christ as Savior which is contrary to the gospel message. The rock in Matthew 16 refers to Jesus not Peter. Anyway, having a debate on the internet is not conducive. God bless and have a great day.
*every* church, one way or another, boldly or coyly, proclaims it is the one true church. Show me an execption.
@@joeoleary9010 I am referring to salvation. There are thousands of protestant churches that do not proclaim we are the "one true church' for salvation. Churches don't save, only Jesus saves. Sorry If I didn't clarify my statement. Have a great day.
Gavin, quick notes on HIRING HELP FOR TRUTH UNITES:
23 year old male. 50,000 pages read. BA Religion, BA History, minor Philosophy, MA Teaching, Theology Certificate from Cambridge, current M.Div. student at Duke Divinity. Wrote a book in July in vein of Mere Christianity entitled “Academics Just Don’t Understand.” Lots of years in Camp Ministry and some time in pastoral roles, working this summer as Chaplain at Duke Hospital.
I write all that context to share-I am beginning my career after divinity school and my hands are open vocation-wise. I note in your change to Truth Unites that you’d like to hire help as you dedicate more time to it. If there’s any pieces you could see with hiring full time help, let me know. My wife and I are young and want to invest in a good ministry. Let’s connect.
The differences between a Novus Ordo Catholic and ultra conservative Oriental Orthodox are not as wide as between an Anglo-Catholic Anglican and a Salvation Army Christian. I hear what you’re saying, but it seems as though the divide is greater in Protestantism than between even Catholics and Orthodox.
I agree with almost everything you say Gavin, but I cannot get on board with the once saved always saved or sola scriptura. The “yes and” argument doesn’t cut it when disproving the contradiction. That is of course if I understood what you were saying. I’ll keep watching and praying for understanding.
St. Vincent’s idea of making corrections in the Church by appealing to antiquity is exactly what the Anglican Reformers were doing in the Reformation. Unfortunately many later Protestants did not have the same respect for the Fathers that many of the Magisterial Reformers originally had.
I don’t know how someone could accept St. Vincent’s idea of going back to antiquity without accepting infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, and episcopal governance. Otherwise, it seems like St. Vincent is being cited as a double standard without any real regard for what was taught in antiquity.
I think you should address the Marian apparitions...
I was told further down the thread that there is no RC doctrine on salvation (or on the word salvation) when discussing Marshall’s and Horns differing opinions on myself and others eternal salvation/separation so I will frame the question another way. And this is by no means a gotcha attempt and please if I misrepresent RC someone let me know.
So if there is definitive RC doctrine on how God saves believers (that was the phrase used by the poster in place of salvation) and it is passed down by an infallible magisterium (as I said please correct me anywhere I’m wrong here) then why do Marshall and Horn have such polarising opinions on the matter? Either Taylor is wrong,Trent is wrong (they both can’t be right)or the dogmas,doctrine and canons can be personally interpreted. And ultimately salvation is an essential doctrine for EVERY Christian regardless,God Bless and thanks in advance 🙏
Speaking as a Roman Catholic, my perspective on denominations within Catholicism is that they are not so different from one another as denominations within Protestantism. Most are under the authority of the pope. The ones I know, such as the Maronite Catholic Church, are not exactly denominations either, but more like a branching cultural group within Catholicism that may have been historically isolated at some point due to wars, conquests, and political boundaries, etc. I believe this is the case with the Maronites, whose churches in my area are in total communion with Rome and are the spiritual home for our local Lebanese Catholics. Christians persisted to varying degrees of success under long periods of isolation throughout history, and once rediscovered, were absorbed back into the church if their practices and beliefs were found to be doctrinally sound. The Maronites had built a strong subculture that did not conflict with church teachings, so they continue in their own tradition today, in union with the Pope but still doing their own thing to some extent. I would argue that the fabric of the faith is the same for them as for any Catholic, it's the embroidery that looks different. I go to Mass there when I want to hear the language of Jesus, because part of their Mass is in Aramaic.
In Japan, for contrast, Catholics were cut off for over 200 years but persisted in remote areas. Around Nagasaki and the Goto islands, they kept up with baptisms, the celebrations of the church calendar, and passing on prayers in Latin in ways that were immediately recognizable to a priest even after 2 centuries of persecution. They were welcomed back into the Catholic church. Whereas further north, other persecuted Christians on remote islands had become so esoteric in their prayers and beliefs (probably due to the pressure of persisting in secret with the constant threat of death) that the prayers and beliefs had become something else entirely. They were not absorbed back into the church in the 19th century because it was a mismatch.
I've long had the impression that most groups within Catholicism had some kind of cultural or historical background of their own, but are still united by the core teachings of the faith and papal authority. I wasn't born into any of them but I'm welcome to participate. They bring a beauty and a history all their own and I find it enriches the whole church to have them.
As for the phenomenon or offshoots of Catholicism that don't accept the authority of the pope or papal documents beyond a certain point in time, I think that's a different pehenomenon than denominations within Protestantism, and choosing between them is also different. They actually respect papal authority, in some cases they just believe the current pope is invalid, or all popes after a certain point. But they are hardcore believers in church teaching.
These feel like different nuances than what separates Protestant denominations. I don't feel like the theology varies within the subgroups of Catholicism the way it does amongst Protestant denominations. For Catholic subgroups and offshoots, the differences are either more cultural/historical or they come down to judgments on how well the church itself is adhering to its own teachings, which they very much respect.
I may be ignorant of some important nuances in all of this, but these are my impressions based on experience.