Ecclesial Infallibility Has No Foundation! (My Response to Joshua Charles)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 лип 2024
- In this video I respond to Joshua Charles' claim that post-apostolic ecclesial infallibility was present the early church, as represented by Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus.
Truth Unites (www.truthunites.org) exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
SUPPORT:
Tax Deductible Support: truthunites.org/donate/
Patreon: / truthunites
FOLLOW:
Website: www.truthunites.org
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
MY ACADEMIC WORK:
truthunites.org/mypublications/
PODCAST:
anchor.fm/truth-unites
DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM
Striving Side By Side: / discord
VISUAL DESIGN: Clau! | www.clau.uk
CHECK OUT SOME BOOKS:
www.amazon.com/Makes-Sense-Wo...
www.amazon.com/Theological-Re...
www.amazon.com/Finding-Right-...
www.amazon.com/Retrieving-Aug...
00:00 - The Background
02:10 - Clement
11:51 - Ignatius
16:50 - Irenaeus
23:42 - Conclusion About These Three Figures
24:47 - Augustine
25:49 - Objection 1: Matthew 16:19 + 18:18
26:51 - Objection 2: I Timothy 3:15 + Ephesians 3:20
27:45 - Objection 3: Did Christ Abandon His Church?
28:58 - Objection 4: Sola Scriptura is an Accretion, Too!
30:45 - Implications - Розваги
When I listen to Gavin, his manner of thinking and use of sources portray scholarship. I have stopped listening to many social media apologists because they lack depth, nuance and careful scholarship. I appreciate his ministry.
Mike Winger is also better than most about researching topics before he publishes.
The Catholic apologists online, such as Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin, are well-respected apologists and are careful not to engage in overstating their case, a key feature in a good apologist. If you are referring to laymen, ok. But let's be sure and make that distinction.
Amen. I just found his ministry a few days ago and it has been such a blessing
@@N1IA-4Jimmy is “good” apologist because he willingly distorts scripture and lie about the truth. Effective is better than good. He is dishonest and Akins last debate with White put that on full display. It’s easy to represent Rome when you pretend Rome isn’t Rome and it’s some made up thing in your head. It was ridiculous to watch
Thanks Gavin for your work. I'm a pastor in North East Ohio. As you know, there is a lot of duties a pastor is called to (like tending sheep!), and I don't always have the time to be informed as I like on these issues. You help me get going in the right direction and save me a lot of time as I prepare and study.
I know in this line of work, you probably get discouraged. Stay close to Lord brother and know your labor is not in vain. I am praying for you!
thanks a lot! May the Lord bless you in your ministry.
I see these leaps often, and people don't seem to realize they are doing it. Like someone pointing out that some early church writer or other had an extremely high view of Mary and assuming that writing automatically supports/validates everything the modern church teaches dogmatically about Mary. Or referencing a church father's opinion on the authority of the Roman church or the pope and skipping from that directly to infallibility. One does not *necessarily* follow from the other. There are some required steps in between that need elucidation, and you must illustrate how and why you arrived at that conclusion.
This^
Beautifully said!
I've observed this too
All Catholics assume everything about the early church is all about them and lines up w/ their beliefs. It does not matter how clearly a church father stresses a point, like about scripture being their highest authority, they will not see it. Ever. There is truly a Catholic blindness. I get that we will see things through our theology and they will see things through theirs'. That would be fair enough. Except that we can often see where a church father is lining more w/ their theology in many ways. They never , ever, ever, concede that a father was speaking more in line w/ us. Not once, and they will do the craziest mental contortions to deny it too. It's just stunned me at times.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 such as?
This is one of your best videos yet, Gavin, because it really gets to the crux of the Protestant-RC-EO divide - what we believe about apostolic succession and magisterial infallibility. I think that depending how one falls on this question, many of the other issues in debate will follow suit.
-non Anglican protestants anyway
@@reginaldmudford9722 Even Anglicans don't believe in magisterial infallibility - if I'm not mistaken.
@@JW_______ True, but they retain an episcopal, three-office structure of church government, placing bishops above presbyteries. Also, their "priests" operate individually, rather than as a presbytery.
Joshua Charles suffers from the eager convert syndrome. Now that he is Roman Catholic, his church is apparently the best example and fullness of the faith in every single form of Christian expression.
I've debated him several times and he's been kind of smug and snide each time. Then, he gets offended when he is called on it. Furthermore, he relies on obfuscating language and sources most people are unfamilar with and when you start to parse it apart and break up his argument, he'll just stop the discussion on the grounds of "he doesn't debate on X." It's kind of infuriating honestly.
Every time I heard Dr. Ortlund say "there was confusion over X" I kept having to realize he wasn't talking about a theoretical proposition 😂.
We need more Protestant giants like Gavin on UA-cam, dammit I’ll step up cause we’re lacking (I know almost nothing) 😭
I believe in you
@@Philip__325--- Why the hostility? Let's be honest: there are simply too many forms of Protestantism with too many divergences for anyone to comprehensively know.
@@padraicbrown6718 Roman Catholicism is divided as well and so is Eastern Orthodox. Protestants are more honest about the division. Examine gay priests. First of all, priests are supposed to be celibate. Secondly, there are many gay priests and the church just turns the other cheek.
>”giants”
>”i’ll step up”
>”i know almost nothing”
lol bro i think you should study before making these kinds of declarations. i admire the confidence though
@@padraicbrown6718That’s not true, there are 3 main Protestant traditions or church institutions (plus the anabaptists), then there are some offshoot from them. Protestants are united in affirmation of reformation principles summarized as the 5 solas, and also classically Protestants affirm members of other traditions are Christians.
As others have pointed out there is division among Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians as well. Division does not make a claim false.
Thanks for standing for the truth, Gavin. God bless your ministry and family 🙏❤️✝️
Truth unites, but Protestants divide. Y'all are adrift at sea in your own little self-made life boats while the Catholic Church is Noah's Ark on the stormy seas of the modern world. I guess you need little pets from each other since you don't receive life from Jesus through the Sacraments. But keep thumping your chests "icons bad!" 😂
Long-time suscriber here. I just want to point that the new miniatures and quotes are amazing. Nice job!
Great video once again, Gavin 👏
A lot of the overreaching with evidence and the unsubstantiated presuppositions read into Patristic texts by our Roman Catholic friends tend to go unnoticed a lot of the time -- and they deserve to be called out!
Don't forget us eastern catholics and orthodox who originated these biblical teachings. When the assumption was finally defined by rome, it was the Syrian orthodox who said "Rome is late to the party."
@@hailholyqueen "Biblical"? The assumption is not Biblical. Neither is the hierarchy of bishops, the superiority of bishops over presbyteries, nor the disaggregation of presbyteries into individual "priests".
@@stefanosbir3958 really? Who is the woman in revelation?
@@hailholyqueen Revelation 12? Good question. Are you suggesting that she is Mary? This is certainly not made clear. Is she ever taken into Heaven? No, the assumption is not Biblical.
@@stefanosbir3958 who else could it be? Keep in mind who Jesus gave her to from the cross.
This was one of your best videos Gavin. Simple straight forward arguments to correct error.
Looking forward to this!
Same!
I love you Gavin
Thank you, Gavin. You are so kind but firm in your position. I am blessed by your videos.
Very well researched and presented with an attitude of humility and kindness. Great job navigating some choppy waters.
So important Gavin! This is a big deal! Thanks
Great job Gavin. Speaking the truth with patience and grace.
Amen! Trying not to offend someone who holds unfounded beliefs is unproductive, whereas when we are brave enough to speak the truth like this, unity can begin to form. No matter the denomination, there is only one infallible part of the church, and it is the Lord Jesus Christ!
Protestantism is an unfounded belief, my friend. Infallible simply means preserved from error. No one believes the New Testament canon (assembled by Catholics) is just a fallible teaching. No one believes that the trinity is a fallible definition. Infallibility flows from Christ's promise to guide the church to "all truth". You don't see that in modern sola-scriptura Chrisitianity; you see endless division and opinions. Gavin Ortlund is a Sophist.
Don't forget the holy spirit.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787Giving credit to Catholics for everything sound pretty stupid to me. Prove this simple fact n convince me u did ur findings without just peddling what u were told:
Where were the other churches- protestants, eastern Orthodox etc when Catholics were busy compiling the cannon? Fair question n u will see the absurdity of claiming everything for the RC so as to make it look like, therefore they have the infallible capacity to introduce new things.
@@NATAR160 The bible was compiled and made canon in 382AD.
The East/West schism occurred in 1050AD and Luther came out in 1517AD.
No other church was around in 300AD.
The first printed bible was the Catholic Gutenberg Bible dated 1455AD. Luther's 66 book bible was created in1535AD.
@@joekey8464 It means it's not only the RC that exclusively canonized the Bible. Luther n etc were part of the church that canonized the Bible. I don't get how some erroneously claim the Bible is the RC book or that the RC gave us the Bible.
Gavin's approach is so good! Respectful and on point
Good video! Yeah, even if you think Ignatius affirms an episcopate (like I do), that's simply not an affirmation of infallibility. Affirming that one ought to obey their leaders, unless Josh wants to say that anything any bishop teaches ought to be obeyed by the faithful, is not an affirmation of ecclesial infallibility.
It’s incredible because this was an on the fly video from a conversation over X and yet it was so good! Amazing work.
Excellent work from start to finish, Dr. Ortlund!
Excellent Gavin and so helpful for me in my close look at Catholicism. Continued prayers for you and your family as you prepare to move. God bless. Jon
Outstanding! This information of this video is very clear and well researched.
Excellent breakdown and explanation of this topic.
Thank the Lord for people like Big G (my name for Gavin Ortlund)! Because the Catholics generally kick our butts with solid scholarship. We'll done Gavin. Keep on keepin on! We are with you.
The only reason the Catholics kick your butts is that they have reason and history on their side. Ortlund is a smart person with a false belief (that Protestantism is true or reasonable).
I appreciate these updates.
Thankful for this brother.
Great discourse, Doc! Love your heart for Jesus
Thank you Dr. Gavin.
This channel has probably been my favourite one to watch over the past month. Thanks for all the great work you do!
I wonder if you are familiar with the show "Premier Unbelievable?" They just hosted a discussion between Alex O'Connor and Ben Shapiro; I would very much enjoy your analysis on this!
Thanks! I was just hoping to watch that. I will keep my eyes peeled.
Beautifully done, especially the last few minutes where you lay out the motivation of the Protestant protest.
Thank you so much, sir! I’m sure you hear this all the time, but I truly appreciate your work and feel it is a great blessing. As I seek to find a church, God loving Christians like you are inspiring. Praise Jesus Christ of Nazareth! Our Lord and Savior is the Good News!
Thank you for this helpful clarification.
Cogent and convincing. It must be tremendously frustrating when the hard work of doing the scholarship is simply dismissed and ignored. Oh for peer reviewed UA-cam apologetics videos!
Thank you for your work!!
You have the gift of speaking with conviction and clarity brother
What a great video!
I love your channel so much.
In a way Irenaeus’s quotes seem to provide support for sola scriptura, right? “…but to adhere to those who, as I have already observed, do *hold the doctrine of the apostles*…”
No, that´s not a good argument for sola scripture. (I hold to moderate sola scriptura btw)
The doctrines of the apostles were delivered both in word and writing (2Thess 2:15).
@@D12Min appreciate your comment! But Paul says hold fast to the traditions you were *taught* by word or epistle. That doesn’t necessarily mean there are teachings by word only which are unrecorded in scripture. He could be saying just to hold to what you were taught (whether you received it by epistle or by word).
Some people have an affinity to their theological and doctrinal traditions to the degree where no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince them otherwise. But some ppl will acquiesce when presented with sufficient evidence, which is why I appreciate Dr. Ortland’s insistence in responding to these type of topics.
To even ex-posit that the Apostles were infallible is a stretch according to scripture, all we know is what has survived of the Apostles is infallible.
They were of the nature of man and subject to the influence of the flesh, as are all of us.
This is fantastic. One of your best. Arguments were so logical and concise. You can also tell it was powerful when relatively so few comments of dissention can be found.
We do not wrestle against flesh and blood but the spiritual forces of evil that want to deceive and turn people away from relying on the truth and word of God.
Great video!
VERY good point about the 12 thrones in heaven in Revelation attesting to the unique nature of the apostles' position and authority.
Too much Roman and Orthodox argumentation devolves down to whether the proponent can find some historical figure that agrees with (or to whom can be imputed) his position without going deeper to consider whether the position is in fact true. It is little more than "so-n-so agrees with me, so I'm right."
While what some historical figures believed, said, or did is frequently relevant, it is too often erroneously conflated with the underlying, actual question.
Or into authority arguments regardless of their being evidence for their position (this happens when I converse with them on marian dogmas).
@@stevej71393appeal to authority is not by itself a fallacy provided certain claims about the authority in question obtain. After all, an appeal to Scripture is an appeal to authority, but its not fallacious provided that Scripture is actually true.
@@joshuadonahue5871 I agree that appeal to authority is not inherently a fallacy. However, the Roman Catholic Church's appeals to authority are fallacious. Take the "church fathers" for example. My position is that they were human beings with fallible minds and just as much of a propensity to misinterpret the Bible as any human being today. Moreover, many of them did not have any understanding of Hebrew, which is considered a requirement for many serious theologians today. And yet, their writings are given greater weight by virtue of them being "church fathers". Tertullian said such and such therefore the Roman Catholic Church is correct.
I think we tend to overlook that Church Fathers and early Christians had different views on non-essentials. This may seem like divisions and confusion but I see it as the Divine providence. Despite differences, Christianity is stronger than ever due to God's mercy and faithfulness.
Everyone has different personal views on what is essential. Whether Christianity is 'stronger' in general today than in the first centuries is an interesting but highly subjective question.
Hello Gavin, this channel is such a blessing. Could you make a video on the historical argument for Christ?
That’s cool, my intermediate Greek class at Harvard Divinity School just got finished translating Chapter 44 of 1 Clement
Well done!
Peter failed multiple times. Moses and David failed. Joeseph failed. No man is perfect but God. No man carries more of the spirit than any other.
Great explanation. Neither scripture nor the early church fathers support the idea that there is a body that's infallible in its teaching. On top of that, Rome's claims to infallibility are laughable considering how frequently they've changed doctrine over the years.
Thank you.
The influx of Catholic lay theologians to the web has been a disaster
The best disaster though
I suspect that a lot of the development and arguments about the various ideas regarding infallibility, whether papal, ecclesial, Scriptural, etc., and even concepts such as "once saved always saved" find at their roots some form of psychological/epistemological anxiety. We recognize how often we are wrong, sin, fail, etc., and desire for there to be some kind of clear reference or standard to which we can appeal for certainty. Unfortunately, all of these fail in various ways and, in the end, we can really only hope in God's love and mercy to guide our faltering hearts and minds.
Very well said
Wake up honey, new Truth Unites video just dropped
You’re a huge inspiration pastor Gavin pls keep refuting the false theology of the roman papists and eastern orthodox
Calling our Catholic brothers and sisters "papists" seems a bit unnecessary. One Catholic commenter on UA-cam referred to us Protestants as "protest ants". Kind of a clever pun I suppose, but really, are we insects now?
@@PolymorphicPenguinDon't Catholics also refer to themselves sometimes as papists though? Not necessarily derogatory.
@@PolymorphicPenguin papist is what they are, this title comes straight from the reformation
At 29:57/ 58 It would have been helpful to name the title, “A Disputation on Holy Scripture” by William Whtiaker ( as you went rather speedily through that) for those who may want to read from that source.
Very well done. Your final thought on the desire to submit to Christ and the divinely inspired Word of God and resist being led astray by the additions/distortions made by fallible men is spot on.
I have oftentimes reached a point in debates where those in the Catholic Church will throw up their hands and say something to the effect “Your problem is with authority. Jesus gave His authority to the Catholic Church and you are rejecting that authority, so you are rejecting Lord Jesus Christ as well”
A terrible thought indeed.
Important book; Ben Witherington/Sola Scriptura. Blessings from Finland !
Such a great lesson
Hi Gavin, do you have a video where you comment on the use of the title of apostle for people in the modern church, and how that office is defined?
Hey Gavin! I always appreciate the work you put into these videos. I have a question about presbyters being elders vs. priests. Do you have any thoughts on and/or is there a resource on that word and how it is used in the New Testament and elsewhere? Like, why do Catholic and Anglicans argue it means priest? Also, would you say the same authority that is given to the apostles specifically in Matt 16 & 18 is the same kind given in John 20:23, "if you forgive, it will be forgiven, if you retain the sins of any, it will be retained"? I have disagreed with my Anglican brother, who is a priest, about that verse, since he wants to claim it gives credence towards confessing to a priest and absolution.
Gavin,
As a recent convert to The Catholic Church, I appreciate your channel and the work you're doing online. In my opinion, you're one of the leading Protestant apologists in Protestant/Catholic dialogue today. I hope you'll receive this with charity & sincerity because I sincerely am seeking the Truth.
Your first objection in regards to Matthew 16:19 & 18:18 is that we can't just assume Apostolic succession. Would it not be reasonable to respond to that objection by applying the same principle? This appears to just be a negative objection. What positive case do we have to assume that Apostolic succession would *not* be passed on to the disciples of the Apostles?
Catholic scholars & theologians would look at verses such as:
- 1 Timothy 4:14, "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you."
- 2 Timothy 1:6, "Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands;"
- 2 Tim. 2:2, "and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also."
- John 20:21, "Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent* me, even so I send* you.”"
*The Greek word used here is "apostolos" , "a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders".
and many others to develop the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. You mention Mathew 18:18, "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.". It's important to view this verse in its full context:
Matthew 18:15-18, "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
The command to the Apostles on "binding & loosening" comes directly after Jesus' teaching on Church discipline, which doesn't seem to be a coincidence.
If we extrapolate your argument on how the Apostles had a *unique* authority that ceased with the last apostle, wouldn't it be fair to equate this and assume that His teaching on Church discipline would also cease to exist with the last apostle? It seems as if Jesus's teaching on *future* Church discipline presupposes some degree of Apostolic succession, otherwise, there would be no future authority to settle disputes amongst believers.
Another verse that comes to mind is Acts 1:21-26, where we see the Apostles acting quickly to replace the office left vacant by Judas.
As I mentioned earlier, these are sincere questions. I appreciate the work you're doing and the time you spend online seeking to edify believers. I look forward to your response. God Bless
Seems to me these simply show a passing of authority to church leaders but does not indicate infallibility. I have a Protestant church. They lay hands on someone when they go out into missions or become an elder. They are not a continuation of apostles obviously. But they are giving the authority to do the task the Lord wants them to do. I think this is more of a commissioning then anything from the reading
I've had Catholics say that a lot of the New testament wasn't even written during the time of the apostles, so it had to be oral tradition and apostolic succession .
Thank you for this video. Please do produce one covering 1 Tim 3:15! That would be very helpful and important.
Hi Gavin, i think the "Moses seat" that Jesus talks about is their teaching of the Law in the synagogue, not a divine appointment of total obedience, since Christ does not want jews to do as they do, be hypocrites and add commandmends to the Word of God. Correct me if i am wrong and why, grace and peace!
Joshua Charles continues to mislead and refuses to address specific issues with the Catholic Church and then when he feels like he is losing the debate, he falls back on blocking people. It's quite the experience that myself and others I am close with have had.
Im curious Dr Ortlund, what do you see as the cause behind the gap between the claims by roman catholic apologists and the data/historical facts presented by scholars?
The unfortunate outcome of when the Church endorses error as dogma; it changes the meaning of truth and can very easily become a genuine gospel issue where people’s’ beliefs beliefs may lead to eternal condemnation in the same way pagan religious systems accomplish.
As per Augustine. Have you read Dr Ken Wilson ?
Foundations of Augustinian Calvinism?
Wonder if josh would be open to a dialogue on Gavin’s channel, that would be awesome
I went to Catholic School and they taught there was a place called Limbo, a place where unbaptized babies went if they died. That led to another problematic dogma of infant Baptism. The denomination no longer believes in Limbo. Will Purgatory be the other “shoe to drop?”
This point, coming from a Calvinist, about there being only two offices in the early church (presbyter and deacon) surprises me, as I recall my History of the Reformation class, which said that John Calvin taught a three-fold ministry: pastor, elder, and deacon.
Regardless, I am glad to see this presented here, since the two-office view is clearly what is taught in Scripture - at least, for the times since the last of the apostles have left us. It seems to me that the rise of the bishops as the bearers of 'apostolic succession', distinct from, and above presbyters, and the disaggregation of the presbyteries into individual 'priests' who dispense grace on behalf of the bishops, marks the departure of the historical church from Biblical truth.
Great video! Quick note. I think you confused the law of the excluded middle (a proposition is either true or false) with the fallacy of a false dilemma. Small thing. Keep up the great work!
Dr. Gavin, been meditating on the distinction between "infallible" and "divine authority". I agree with you. You once used the example of an umpire - he has authority, but can be wrong. I think a better example is the family structure. Parents are given divine authority with expectation to be obeyed and honored by children. However, does anyone think that parents are then perfect? That they never make incorrect judgements? By no means! And how can we as children know (and they know as the parents) that they are wrong? By norming them by the standard of scripture.
Excellent video. This is one of, if not the most important issue dividing Catholics and Orthodox from the rest of Christianity.
I'm sure that Dr. Ortlund's criticism of a certain tweet are correct, but I'm not sure he's "steel-manning" his opponents by addressing the strongest possible version of ecclesial infallibility. I normally think of ecclesial infallibility as relating to the "sensus fidelium." Particular structures of authority tend to have secondary importance, insofar as we might find among them spokesmen who are authorized to articulate beliefs that have been universally received.
I do associate all this with the latter half of the first millennium--though I'm not particularly committed to the idea of ecclesial infallibility, though I do find some versions of it attractive. Of course, this or that authority within the Church can err from time to time. However, I would be interested to know, as concerns the patristic evidence: did the Church fathers think the whole Church could fall into some erroneous belief? Does that possibility come up in the patristic writings?
When Dr. Ortlund brings out excerpts like that, it's especially interesting. Here, he turns up patristic evidence contradicting the tweet he's answering. But what about the stronger, more interesting versions of ecclesial infallibility that are out there? Not this bishop or that bishop, but the Church as a whole--whatever that would mean, though of course that's part of what's being discussed.
The mere absence of an explicit claim about ecclesial infallibility in the first few centuries is not enough to show that such a belief is an accretion, as opposed to a faithful development of implicit principles. That seems to be where Dr. Ortlund's account of the Church runs into problems. It is difficult to see that he can distinguish in any principled way between genuine developments and accretions.
That's where I suspect Apostolic Succession is particularly helpful; although, this is a belief that Dr. Ortlund also fails to "steel-man," so far as I can tell. That is to say, I have a hard time recognizing the Apostolic Succession that I espouse within Dr. Ortlund's presentation of it.
thanks for the comment! out of curiosity, what is your definition of apostolic succession?
Thanks so much for the follow-up question. I typed out a lengthy response, but unfortunately internet troubles robbed me of my efforts! Hopefully, I'll find a chance to take another stab (though I'm sure the second attempt will be more concise, much as I would love to engage a bit more thoroughly). Again, I hope to get back to you soon. Until then, Godspeed, my brother! @@TruthUnites
@@stephencrawford5452 I hate it when that happens. Don’t trouble yourself too much, I’m just curious as to what you meant in your initial comment about that.
Thanks again for the question! Here's another try at it. I’ll try to give a summary of my views on Apostolic Succession. I’m glad to process some of these thoughts with you, and I’m certainly grateful for any feedback. You listed four points that are features of Apostolic Succession, and then you described such a process as “mechanical.” This description (which is certainly too often true), as well as your first and fourth points about succession (bishops/elders and exclusivity, respectively), is where I see your presentation as clashing with my own understanding. At first I thought I’d address all these differences, but maybe it’s best I focus on your first point about elders and bishops in the New Testament. Hopefully, that will help keep this comment to a reasonable length, but addressing this issue also lays the groundwork for handling other concerns. Maybe there will be an opportunity for us to interact more about those other differences.
You claimed that for Apostolic Succession-proper bishops are necessarily greater than elders by divine appointment. That is certainly very often part of the claim that is made for the historic episcopate. However, the view can and should be nuanced. A defender of the episcopal succession can readily concede that within the New Testament the words overseer/bishop and elder/presbyter are interchangeable. So there is a development that happens in the post-Apostolic Church. But that development is not the formation of a new ministry that otherwise did not exist in the Church overseen by the Apostles. Such a ministry was already in place. The development that happened later was rather a shift in the usage of the words, so that the word “bishop” is used in a new way in order to name a particular ministry that had already been initiated in several cases by the Apostles themselves.
Within the New Testament we are allowed a close-up view of an Apostle delegating aspects of his distinct ministry to others. This is St. Paul handing off his ministry to Timothy in Ephesus and to Titus in Crete. Paul deputizes these men to carry on his work in his absence. The work the Apostle gives these men to do mirrors Paul’s own ministry. For example, Paul delegates Titus to travel throughout Crete, to have authority over congregations in a certain region, and to ordain the local leadership in various churches. Timothy is told to do something surprisingly similar (or so I would argue). It’s also interesting to consider that Timothy seems even to take part in Paul’s apostolic work of writing Holy Scripture! (See 2 Corinthians 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 1 and 2 Thessalonians 1:1; and Philemon 1.)
Yes, even while Paul is initiating these ministries, “overseer” and “elder” are interchangeable. Paul’s commissioning Timothy and Titus is not quite what either of those words refer to-yet. We find in Timothy (and Titus ) a ministry that is distinct from the bishop/presbyters and the deacons that Timothy is deputized to appoint in local congregations. Part of what is so poignant about this is that the Paul’s discussions of qualifications for bishops are so often brought up as evidence against Apostolic Succession. However, these discussions occur exactly in the context of the Apostle deputizing and training certain other ministers to carry on aspects of his work when he's gone.
The development does come later, but this development is semantic. That is, the word “bishop,” has a wider meaning, but eventually takes on slightly new meaning (not long after the last of the Apostles has died) and comes to be used more narrowly as a helpful way of naming this particular ministry that originated with the Apostles. So it is not a problem for the defender of Apostolic Succession that Timothy and Titus are not called bishops. And even if Timothy moved and ministered in other places, so would other successors of the Apostles also be appointed to new churches often enough. (Although, the Church saw the temptations lurking in such a practice and often discouraged it.) Still, it is perfectly natural that Eusebius looks back and sees Timothy as the first bishop of Ephesus and Titus as the first bishop of Crete, even though in their time that’s not how the word bishop was used. Eusebius looks at the ministries of Timothy and Titus taking shape, as Scripture itself reveals, and says without hesitation, “That is what we mean by Apostolic Succession.” The title “bishop” might be anachronistic, but only in the way that calling Paul a Trinitarian might be anachronistic.
Obviously, this implies that my understanding of the early post-apostolic evidence is different from others’ interpretations. But I think this distinction regarding the New-Testament evidence opens the door to similar insights regarding the late first-century and early second-century texts. The figure who stands out most clearly in this post-Apostolic evidence is John the Apostle. With this historic testimony and the New Testament’s witness, we have a pretty clear picture of both Paul and John handing off aspects of their ministry to certain successors. This, in turn, draws us to consider Peter and Mark (whose ministry even Jerome recognizes), as well as the brother of our Lord and his successors in Jerusalem (as witnessed by Hegesippus, preserved in Eusebius). The canonical portrait of Paul’s successors and the clear and reliable historical portrait of John’s successors give added plausibility to the memory of ministers who carried forward the ministries of Peter and of James the Just. (I find this cast of characters especially interesting, since I’m fairly persuaded by the suggestion that Paul, John, Peter, and James represent four cardinal ministries within the college of the Apostles--the three pillars and the Apostle himself.)
So that’s not a full response to your question about how I understand Apostolic Succession, though I’m sure this is more than enough for a UA-cam comment. I tried to focus on one aspect of the historic succession-namely, its origins. That’s the crux of the matter, anyway. But I think this is the entry-point for a fuller vision of Apostolic Succession. For example, from what the Scriptures relate about Paul and Timothy, we can see that the succession is not merely functional, or at least it’s not meant to be. It is, in a deeper way, familial. Unpacking that shows how Apostolic Succession shouldn’t be mechanical. I think this familial backdrop might also open different understandings of ministries outside of this historic line of oversight. I suspect that these different understandings can both honor such ministries, while also appreciating the gift that has been bequeathed to the Church by the Apostles.
Thoughts? Or really, let me ask: is there another way we could continue this conversation? I think I have a way that I could email you. How would you feel about that? @@TruthUnites
What does the fact of no monarchal bishop in early church, have to do with rejection of the concept the magisterium of the "Church".?
Do you have this information posted in text form, anywhere? A "friend" does not like to watch long videos.
Sorry to say but, an even more condensed version to share on X or other platforms would be very useful as well. Two minutes max if you can swing it. It’s just the way of the world these days.
Revelation 2-3 shows that errors happen and the church needs to be able to correct.
I don’t know about RCs but the Orthodox Church does typically view priests as successors to the Apostles in their teaching authority and their sacramental gifts, but not in their ability to ordain clergy. Just a clarification.
Good point, considering we protestant believe that orthodoxy is way more close to us and early christianity than Roman Catholicism. Sadly Rome have defend their innovations so far that nowadays they are even heretics in the eyes of traditionalist catholics, and the own council of Trent who condemed protestantism for things modern catholics now do
Hey Gavin, I don’t agree that the best way to defend the three-tired clergy is by believing it was a “Spirit-led development”. I’d love to send you my research and I think it’s something you have not heard before. Interested in what you would think. Blessings
If you don’t mind, I would love to hear your research! Is there any way I could read it?
Something that bothers me about the infallibility issue, making doctrine that is binding on all Christians...of all the pressing issues facing the church, why something as, I don't know...banal?...as the Marian dogmas. Seriously? There was a perfect opportunity to address very serious abuses...slavery, violence, greed, etc., missed the cut, but "Mary didn't die" got first chair? Makes no sense.
Are you actually claiming that the Catholic Church hasn’t addressed slavery, violence, and greed? If that is your claim then I suggest you do more research. The Marian dogmas are important because they can affect one’s understanding of Christology and salvation history.
This is particularly true when there are clear political intrusion into ecclesiastical matters. A brief look at Nicea 2 is a good example the man leading the council was put in place by an iconophile monarch and a condition of his acceptance of being made a bishop was that he be allowed to restore icons to the church. Not hard to see that then you just gather those who agree with you and make official statements anathematizing those you disagree with. All groups of men will always be subject to potential error, and anything they say must be rejected if it is against what the Bible itself says.
One of my arguments always comes from a combination of Galatians 1 and 2 Corinthians 13, both of which even states that not even the Apostles or early Elders were always infallible or immune to corruption.
Gal 1:8-11 states that "even if *we* preach a Gospel contrary to the one you first received, pay no attention because he is accursed". This "we" referring to the authors of the letters, the Apostolic authority, and that if they contradict the original Gospel as received, not by a man, but from Jesus himself, they should be rejected.
2 Cor 13 likewise gets into the subject of the Corinthian congregation rejecting Paul as a real Apostle, and he says to them that they are free to, if it appears that he or any of the Apostles have failed, because "Christ is in them all", and that he'd "rather" they be faithful, even if it should mean he and the other church leaders are unfaithful.
I find these Apostolic statements to be undeniably clear, that even the highest authorities can become corrupt, and therefore impels all Christians to pay attention to any and all future teachings of the church and their leaders, to see if it is in line with inspired scripture and Jesus' own teachings.
Do you plan on debating or examining a Sam Shamoun video?
Gavin speaking of scholarship, why do you think most scholars affirm an anonymous gospel and a sceptical view of the Pastoral?
We need to make Gavin clones, Protestant have argument that are just ignored, Most Catholics I talked to are surprised when I discuss with them, they are unaware of these arguments.
Were the first century concepts of bishop and deacon less defined and fluid than we think of them today?
Probably. "Deacon" basically just means "servant", and "episkopos/presbuteros" are just "overseer/elder", so the words themselves are quite generic. I'd guess that a case can be made (by someone who actually studies this a little, ie not me) that they were understood as more general "people who fill the role of 'person who was given a specific job to do' and 'experienced/wise person', respectively. (Interestingly, if that turned out to be the case, then a bunch of people in modern churches would be "deacons" by that standard due to being responsible for something. I'm thinking like the A/V team, the person who cleans the church each week, the parish admin person, etc...)
"Jesus didn't leave us with a book! He leaved us with a church!"
If that bumper sticker Catholic slogan were true, Paul would have said it to the Bereans instead of calling them noble.
It is true that Jesus founded a Church rather than a book. This doesn’t discredit the Bible, but rather that the Bible can only be understood through the Church.
If Sola Scriptura were true, it would make sense for Jesus to write the New Testament.
Instead He authorised the Twelve to teach with His authority (Matt 28) and this comes to us through both oral and written Tradition (2 Thess 2:15).
Paul says the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15).
@@daniellennox8804 There are quite a few assumptions made here, but if this was true, Paul also would have said something to this effect about the Bereans. But he didn't. Paul recognized scripture as the authority over any person's interpretation. That's why he calls people noble for taking what they hear, which is claimed to be direct revelation from Jesus, and comparing to scripture.
@@ExaltedTilemaker 1 Thess 2:13 says “When you received the word of God which you *heard* from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God."
This isn’t directly about the Bereans but this is the sense in which they were commended. They didn’t say “where is this written Paul”, instead they trusted the authority which the Apostles had. Which is why Paul regards his own teaching as the “word of God” - this isn’t limited to only which is written.
@@daniellennox8804 I'm not going to have any productive conversation with you if you continue to use these types of strawman arguments. You used a really sneaky one that I didn't even notice at first in your original reply.
“This doesn't discredit the Bible, but rather that the Bible can only be understood through the church.”
See, my argument wasn't that Catholics claim that the Bible has no true merit, but rather that this slogan they use is meant to assert the latter when it has no basis in. In doing this, you argue against a point which I did not make, so that you can simply re-assert the exact same point I was critiquing in the first place.
You wouldn't have to use all these linguistic sleight of hand tricks if you actually had a legitimate point to make. You don't see me maliciously misconstruing catholics in such a manner, because I want to actually win minds instead of just win arguments. I actually care about the well-being of other people's souls, and realize that looking cool and superior, and “owning” another person is of no significance. Helping people be saved is. So there is no need for me to engage in the dishonesty that you have.
That's what I want you to rethink. If you really care about the salvation of others, why do you feel the need to resort to trickery? Isn't God's word sufficient? I do realize, however, that I'm probably wasting my time, since, in effect, God's word not being sufficient is the logical conclusion of catholic thought processes, whether they admit it or not.
Even if you don't learn anything meaningful from this, it doesn't matter. The catholic church is falling apart like a house of cards. Soon, approval of homosexuality and transgenderism will be a catholic dogma that all will be forced upon the entire church. Catholics are in a scramble because they know that this is the direction they are headed, yet they declared the church infallible, so they have no means to prevent it. If you didn't want this to happen, you shouldn't have anathematized Sola Scripura. People tried to warn you about this, but your ilk burnt such people at the stake. It's coming, you know it's coming, you can't stop it, and you know you can't stop it. And when you realize that your church is not the narrow gate, the door to churches that are will always be open, because they **didn't** brutally murder people that tried to warn of corruption and false teaching. Or maybe you are already aware, yet still have itching ears to scratch. It's not known to me.
Either way, there comes a time when you have to acknowledge the position that you're in when it's just not working. I really would hate to be a catholic apologist now, precisely because defending the indefensible makes you look like a fool. They have to jump through so many linguistic hoops to dodge the issues at hand, because they know they don't have any real answers to anything. That's why Catholic apologists sound sound exactly like Karine Jean-Pierre when they talk. The catholic church is as equally indefensible as the Biden administration.
@@ExaltedTilemaker If Jesus did leave us a book or if the apostles did tell us which books belong in this book, then please explain why it was not until the 5th century when the WHOLE church agreed on the 27 book NT canon and until the the “inspired” books being used liturgy was a GROWING list to hundreds of books? Hmmmmmmm????
Ignatius of Antioch was not infallible. In comparison to the writings of the other Apostolic Fathers, one can discern that he perhaps overemphasizes the status of the local presbyter/episkopos as more than merely the chief servant of the Lord to the local congregation, just as he overemphasizes the desire to be martyred.
You do realise in that passage, St. John is writing to a community he's admitting already knows the truth, right? So many of the other epistles are corrective to communities clearly going off the rails. St. John's letter there is full of encouragement about how the audience he's writing to knows the truth already. I don't see it as an indictment of human teachers at all.@@gcrshaw
I'm just a lay person here. So excuse my ignorance. Isn't apostolic succession found in the new testament itself? In that the apostles appointed elders by the laying on of hands. So by definition, the leaders of the church are those who are appointed by those appointed by the apostles. If that makes sense. I don't see in the new testament any other instruction. No? Am I off base?
In scripture, those chosen to lead and to serve in the church (and as missionaries) were commissioned by the laying on of hands, but this is shown by example and it's not stated that this MUST be done on every occasion, or that it's a means of passing on some form of special authority or anything. It also doesn't say anything about what was done in cases where apostles weren't present (either in a distant church, or after the apostles passed away). One can then rely on tradition, but protestants consider that to be fallible and would want to see evidence rather than just a claim that "the church has always believed that" (which is often not true).
Dear Gavin, would you characterize the decision in Acts 15 as infallible, or would you say that the church made possibly a wrong decision on the gentile issue?
If it was infallible, the only question would be, WHEN the church is creating infallible dogmas and when mistakes might be possible.
To add
Do you get to build a church when the one handed down is now wrong?
Gavin, what is your view of the Acts 15 council where not only the apostles but also the “elders”get together and make a binding decision for the whole Church? The decision they made was said to not only be theirs but of the Holy Spirit as well. Respectfully, I feel like if when you say the belief of ecclesial infallibility is totally “unfounded” is unfair. The Acts 15 council is a pretty good model of later binding “infallible” councils, except there were apostles in the first century. What indication is ever given in the Bible that the elders won’t be able to assemble in the future and make similar decisions by the Spirit? Clearly the Judaizer heresy wasn’t the only heresy that needed an infallible teaching to correct it in history.
Blessings
the relevant difference is the presence of apostles. That elders were included is not particularly disruptive to this difference. That which has apostles is of greater authority than that which does not have apostles, and the fact that it ALSO has non-apostles does not change that. I stand by my claim that post-apostolic ecclesial infallibility has no foundation. I don't think it does.
@@TruthUnites thanks for the response Gavin. Also curious if you’ve looked more into Jerome and the mono-episcopacy. Elsewhere, at least twice, he affirms that there are three distinct offices by saying that the heretical sect of the Lucifereans could not continue because they didn’t have bishops to ordain anyone. If priests and bishops were the “same” in the sense that they are equally the same office, then he would not make that comment. Jerome also says “what function belongs to a bishop that does not belong to a priest, except ordination?” I don’t think he meant to contradict himself when he said they were the “same”, unless he meant something else by them being the “same.” I have my thought on why this is but curious on your opinion.
Blessings
26:57 Pillars and foundations support what is put on them they don't decide what is going to be put on them to support.
Someone please correct this “logic” if it’s wrong. I’m just trying to make sure I follow the point.
If the governing body that receives the Word from the LORD has inherently infallible teaching on it, would that not mean the Hebrews in the OT had infallible teaching as well?
That would also mean the abrogation within the Catholic Church teachings (changing prior “infallible” teachings) is both true and false simultaneously
I'm soooo tired of Roman Catholics trying to read their modern beliefs into the patristic writings. The church fathers weren't Roman Catholic! It's so exhausting.
yeah they were
I’m soooo tired of Protestants trying to read their modern beliefs into patristic writings. The church fathers weren’t Protestant! It’s so exhausting.
27:45
After pointing out the problem with Catholics claiming only one must be true: papal infallibility or an abandonment of God's people (excluded middle fallacy) the next argument is an inversion of this. When Catholics say "the words sola scriptura aren't in the Bible either" (in regards to papal infallibility), they are attempting to create a middle ground between these two views, a included middle fallacy, when logically these two views have no middle, they are a real dilemma. If one is false the other must necessarily be true.
Man, I think i need to take a break from discernment channels. The only thing my mind could focus on during the entire episode were the very fallible self proclaimed modern day false apostles and prophets who make up the new apostolic reformation. They have poisoned my mind 🤦♀️Lol
It all comes down to the precise meaning of "bind and loose." The NT says Jesus gave that power and authority to his apostles. Binding and loosing is originally a Jewish Mishnaic phrase. In usage, to bind and to loose simply means to forbid by an indisputable authority and to permit by an indisputable authority. Since we have Peter and Paul making fairly significant innovations in diet and other matters, Protestants must agree that *some* measure of innovation after Jesus' resurrection wasn't forbidden. Given that, it's a fair question on what grounds the innovations on Mary and praying to saints can be proven to be heretical.
Most of the innovations you propose had nothing to do with the apostles but with christ finishing his work on the cross abd fulfilling the law.
After that the mosaic covenant was no longer binding save for the 10 commandments.
So various rituals such as not eating unclean animals and all that were no longer needed because ritual purely for entering the temple, and sacrifices were no longer needed.
In all of the examples you might give the apostles did nothing in regards to these "innovations"
@@anthonypolonkay2681 This seems post hoc to me, given that Jesus never said anything about abolishing circumcision and kosher dietary laws, or changing the day of the Sabbath, etc. There are also the changes to gospel theology that Paul came up with. Also, there's discerning the precise meaning of "fulfilling the law." If fulfilling the law can mean whatever the apostles (and their successors) say it means, then it seems to me to be a wide justification for innovation.
@joeoleary9010
My friend, you should go ask an educated Jewish rabbi if he thinks Jesus claimed to have abolished the law. Perhaps you need to do a more careful reading of the gospels. Peace
@@gregoryweaver3670 I think you're responding to the other guy on this thread, but neither he nor I claimed that Jesus said he "abolished" the law. In Matthew Jesus says I came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. What does "fulfill" mean, exactly? Pastors, Priests and Rabbis have their own ideas.
@joeoleary9010 so I was responding to you, but I guess I wasn't very clear. My point is that the way in which Jesus fulfilled the Torah would seem like abolition to a Jew. Secondly I don't think the apostles were innovating of themselves. Rather Paul understood the implications that Jesus's life had on the Torah and gave us those implications. In Galations, Paul seems pretty clear that he himself was bound to and unable to go outside the gospel implications on the law. So if Paul himself didn't have the power to bring innovation of himself I don't think the subsequent church does either.
My apologies if I'm misunderstanding you.