Not only is there (so far as I can find) little to no evidence in the earliest sources that the assumption actually happened, but the Roman Church - by making this a dogma and attaching anathemas to it - is in the strange position of accepting early fathers as saints who don’t believe this while at the same time anathematizing contemporary believers who also don’t believe this. It is a glaring inconsistency in the Church of Rome caused by over reach of authority.
Some thoughts... I think you're misrepresenting Catholicism by calling it 'the church of Rome'. It's a universal system. And I've always felt that the biggest issue with rejecting the Marian dogmas is not that you disbelieve them per se, but that you reject an institution that Christ established to define such matters. I appreciate that Catholics often argue from history for their beliefs. But Catholic epistemology is more complex than that. We also believe, based on the nature of the Church as revealed in Scripture and through history, that the Holy Spirit leads, protects and guides His people into all truth. As such, it's not fatal to Catholicism if the Marian dogmas were more explacated in later centuries. If the majority of Christendom came to accept these beliefs, for over 1000 years, then it warrants belief. In addition, many of the protestant dogmas have even less historical asseststion than the Marian dogmas.
@@MrWoaaaaah The Holy Spirit card wins all arguments on Catholic history. We learn that if people are taught a made--up doctrine that's nowhere found in the early church, and if enough people believe it over time, then it "warrants belief," i.e., because legitimate, accurate history.
@@joeoleary9010 blame Jesus for making the Church and sending His Spirit. But on a side note, the Marian dogmas do have patristic evidence and implicit biblical bases.
@@nicklowe_ I could only see the sinful and fleshly side of Mary being flattered by this undue deification. Heavenly Mary is perfected now, as all the saints in heaven are. I use the term saints as all saved believers, the same way the bible does.
Good work! The massive sudden increase in Marian piety at such a late date is a very important observation, especially in light of the high stakes it has for soteriology.
And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple. And there were lightnings and voices and an earthquake and great hail. Revelation 11:19 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. Revelation 12:1 There is only 1 Church guided by the Paraclete the Holy Ghost and that is Jesus Christ Holy Catholic Church.. be careful going after Jesus Christ Holy Mother it will lead to hell .
@@johnvitelli3862 where does the Bible say that not believing in Mary as you state her to be sends you to hell? No where. Those verses you quoted have absolutely nothing to do with Mary. She has no idea people even pray to her and she’s not suffering in the presence of the Lord. It’s all man made dogma. Be careful adding Mary and papist dogma to the gospel, it will send you to hell.
Thank you so much for your work, Gavin. After Bertuzzi converted, I started looking into RC because I didn't know much about it, and they have very effective rhetorical talking points that make you feel icky about not being a Catholic. Your work has almost single-handedly made me confident in my Protestantism, and I no longer have ecclesial anxiety. Truly, thank you.
Gavin is a good example of how debates and apologetics can be done well. These should not be used to slander, attack, or dominate, but instead to offer careful, loving, and biblical responses to those we disagree with. Apologetics has a reputation for being triumphalist and argumentative, but it really should be an avenue for dialogue about important issues. Otherwise, it just becomes a shouting match, like many debates seem to become.
@@ottovonbaden6353 What do you mean by the reaction to Bertuzzi converting has been regrettable? I just think if he's finding a deeper peace and walk w/ God then it's all good for him. I'm not Catholic, and don't get any icky feeling for not becoming Catholic. I'm just looking for unity as much as we can find, even while believing different doctrines.
@@AshtonSWilson I've enjoyed the debates between Catholics and protestants. No matter if they get triumphant or trying to one up, it's been a wealth of knowledge. Though I do love Gavin's gentle approach. He's not looking to convert them or change minds, just to show why he believes as he does and to give a well informed case for it.
Unfortunately there are certain elements who feel the need to denigrate their brothers and sisters in Christ for not believing the Marion doctrines and their supremacist mindset is quite Islamic in the way they insult and accuse
I recently came across a video from a few months ago where Trent addresses Gavin on the bodily assumption. Being someone who appreciates hearing multiple perspectives, I find it valuable to listen to both sides of the discussion.
@@gto2111 I do listen the Catholic side of things quite a bit. I've listened to a bit of Trent Horn too. His rebuttals tend to be long and sometime multi part rebuttals. I also find him a bit too manipulative and tactical in not just rebutting what was actually said. Gavin gently called him out on this in a short rebuttal that Gavin did.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 In my personal opinion, Gavin can be oversensitive at times. I see him as somewhat effeminate. He criticize individuals like Michael Lofton and Trent etc, who I believe are much kinder than I am. If I were to become an apologist, Gavin would not approve of me lol.
I “might” be the most appreciative of these teachings/ discussions about the RCC! Why? I have been a missionary in Mexico for 12 years and Catholicism reigns here but it looks so different here than in the USA… there’s witchcraft mixed in I’m some places.. they have a ton of saints and other things. It’s so sad, for the most part these people are so lost and have no idea. When we come into a village stepped in traditions of the RCC we most of the time get immediately persecuted.. those who accept the gospel and start studying the Bible etc. get ram out of their villages sometimes.. get their water and electricity taken away and even sometimes killed by the Catholics.. it’s a mess! So I’m super grateful for these videos and will use them… sure wish they were in Spanish too
Thank you, Dr. Ortlund, for graciously contending for biblical truth. I’m a confessional Lutheran, with a SBC background, and I appreciate your ministry!
I think the mystery of Mary's end can be compared to Moses. Archangel Michael hid Moses' body so the people of Israel will not build a shrine on his bones so they might perform rituals on the shrine to worship Moses. God knew this was the devil's plan. Imagine if there is a known location of Mary's tomb. I thank God it remains a mystery.
And the reverse is true with Christ's tomb. The Romans conveniently built a pagan shrine right on top of the place to mark its location so that later on when the Roman empire became Christian they were able to locate Golgotha and build the church of the Holy Sepulchre where Christ's body had lain without much difficulty.
The Orthodox Church has a location which Tradition says is where the Theotokos was buried. There is a church, just like all of the other Holy sites in the Holy Land. It isn’t a source of paganism. The reason why St. Michael took Moses’ body was because he was holy. Satan had no claim on his body because he was holy.
@@garrettklawuhn9874actually no, that couldn’t be the reason because in the transfiguration, Elijah was also there. Could have been anyone but it’s those two prophets.
Catholics also have the dogma that Mary was a perpetual virgin, even though Matthew 1:25 clearly states that Joseph did indeed have marital relations after Jesus was born.
I love how the anathema says that those who reject the dogma “will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” You’d think that if you incur the wrath of God that would be sufficient, right? 😆 It’s just more Roman nonsense that detracts from even God’s very own wrath. Even that isn’t sufficient…
I think for people such as myself we crave tradition but at the same time crave truth. Tradition without truth is nothing. I have a very hard time worshipping in a modern evangelical church. I’ve tried it. For me confessional Lutheranism is the only place I’ve felt comfortable. It’s not perfect but it seems better to me then the other options I’ve come across. I always learn from your videos Gavin. Romans Catholics have tradition but they also have a lot of baggage that I’m not down with. A lot of their teachings set my bullcrap alarm off.
Similar for me. The modern evangelical churches for me feel too try hard and showy. I grew up in Assemblies of God Pentecostals and our "old fashioned hymns" was Caribbean dance hall music but slower and they referenced psalms
I agree with you. I think if I could cut out the falsehoods, I would be most comfortable in a Roman Catholic Church, and yet unfortunately I'm essentially forbidden from partaknig in the fullness of worship there (communion) because I can't contend with what their authorities have mandated
With due respect, try and find a Messianic congregation and visit. It's not some judiazing church or denomination, but a congregation of trying to get back to what the Acts Church would have been like, both Jew and Gentile, worshiping the Jewish Savior in the Jewish tradition. Just a thought and good luck!
I think this encapsulates the core of Protestant concerns with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Almost every other issue can be either resolved or simply set aside in order to have a closer union as different members of Christ's Church, but the existence of infallibly defined dogmas which have little if any evidence for them early on, and which are protected by anathema is a of the utmost concern. Teachings like this put the very salvation of those who discuss them on the line - they're not a matter of whether Christ is spiritually or physically present in the Eucharist or some other issue where the differences ultimately end up in interpretation or expression of a practice. This nothing less than an irreformable and inflexible dogma being defined, with no Biblical, and even no historical support for centuries after the death of Christ to back it up. And further, it carries with it the pain of anathema which was historically understood to be synonymous with expulsion from the church and damnation. This is very concerning to Protestants who want to live in accordance with the teachings and practices of the early church.
" Teachings like this put the very salvation of those who discuss them on the line"... I'm not positive how you mean this. Many protestants think it makes Catholics not saved. I'm fairly sure you don't mean it that way. I don't see it that way anymore. Catholics think there is considerable historical backing for their beliefs and refer to the church fathers. As a protestant, what many early Christians believed (who held power and esteem) is not my deciding factor in what I believe now. Gavin has been good at digging up many other church fathers who disagreed, or only agreed in part. Still the ultimate decider for me, as a sola scriptura Christian is, is it clear and evident in the bible, esp. the NT?
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Catholicism has made it a salvation issue. Salvation of "Catholics" is problematic, not to say impossible. Catholicism is all about church father writings and tradition, and not so much about scripture.
The issue with Mary being sinless is that it would defeat the purpose of Jesus conquering sin. The divine nature from the Holy Spirit's overshadowing was sinless, but Mary herself had to be sinful in nature, so that Jesus could take on that nature and conquer it, to be deemed as the perfect sacrifice for our sins.
@@philipmarchalquizar7741 Any written letters, scrolls, documents, or individual manuscripts "AFTER" the Written Gospel of John and the Revelation had finally completed around 110 A.D. were NOT considered by the early 7 Churches of God in Asia Minor as Inspired by the Holy Spirit... for example, the Gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Judas Iscariot, Barnabas, Nicodemus, Pontius Pilate, Letters of Ignatius, Justin, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Agustine, etc... The written Revelation of God to Apostle John was the LAST of God's WORD (Inspired Holy Scripture of N.T.) given to Mankind... Logically, God will not give HIS revelation if HE wants to add more... saving the BEST Prophecies for LAST (God's final WORD was the Revelation)... God said, "Anyone who ADD or SUBTRACT (take away) from the WORD of God including HIS Prophesies written in the scrolls thereof, God will add plagues to them, and erase/remove their names from the Tree of Life... (ref. Rev. 22:18)... This was the SEALED statement of God's WORD. There were NO more PERSONAL REVELATIONS after the Inspire Holy Scriptures (Word of God) were finally written and completed in individual scrolls (not compiled yet as a Book/Bible) and distributed in the 7 Churches in Asia Minor around 110 A.D. In conclusion, "AFTER" the Revelation by God to Apostle John was finally written in Greek and distributed in the Early 7 Churches of God in Asia Minor around 110 A.D.... The written NEW COVENANT of God through Christ Jesus was finally completed and sealed... The Written WORD of God is "ABSOLUTELY MORE THAN ENOUGH." ... All Scripture is God's breathed and useful for Teaching, Correcting, Reproofing, Instructing, and Training in Righteousness... (ref. 2 Timothy 3:16)... Facts and Truth, Biblically and Historically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
Mad respect to gavin for being the first protestant to take great care in accurately represent us without demonization. Obviously I disagree for a myriad of reasons and he cant make a Jimmy akins level defense to pick apart in a 13 minute video but I cant exactly hold that against him. All in all, well done
Whenever you show them church fathers that clearly disagreed with them, they just say well they agreed with me on this part, and will change the subject and act like we cannot use the church fathers to support ourselves. That’s what I’ve noticed, been talking with many Roman Catholics.
Sam Shamoun recently posted a video called 'When protestants argue like heretics and athiests' ... I look forward to one called 'When Roman Catholics argue like muslims' ...
@@MrKingishere1 True. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox do the same. It’s best not to be a slave to any tradition and be honest about what they said and if it is harmonious with Scrioture. I’m an ex-Protestant and mere Christian, with no intention of jumping to a different but equally erroneous and ahistorical faith like RC or EO.
@CatholicTalks I reject sola fide with my whole heart. Depends what you mean “sola scriptura.” If all one means by it is Scripture has higher authority than one or any number of bishops, then sure. Most ante-nicene Christians would be “sola scriptura.”
Did you know it’s your Protestant tradition to change the word “tradition” to “teaching” and relegate it to a footnote only when it doesn’t fit your narrative? See NIV 2Thes 2:15 and 3:6.
Oh wow, this is wonderful to see an interview w/ you and Becket. I'll go watch it on his channel for now. Still look forward to seeing it dropped on your channel. The comments and dialogue between protestants and Catholics here are refreshing.
Marian Dogmas, Scriptural Defense Mary is the New Eve (Gen 3:15, Luke 1:28 -1:38, Jn 2:4, Jn 19:26, Gal 4:4, Rev 12:1, Rev 12:17) Immaculate Conception: As Eve was created sinless, the New Eve was born unstained by original sin. How can the New Eve be inferior to the old? ASSUMPTION OF MARY: If Adam and Eve had obeyed God, they would have entered heaven body and soul. Since the new creation is the fulfillment of the failure of the old, Jesus, the New Adam, and Mary, the New Eve, obeyed God perfectly. Because of their perfect obedience, Jesus and Mary entered heaven body and soul. CO-REDEMPTRIX: Both Adam and Eve sinned but it was Adam's sin that caused the downfall. Nevetheless, Eve was Co-Transgressor as she played a vital part in man's downfall. In a similar manner, although Jesus' obedience redeemed man, Mary was Co-Redemptrix as she played a vital role in man's redemption. In Luke Ch 1:28-38, God draws a parallel between Eve and Mary. Eve listens to a fallen angel, sins, and tempts Adam who brings the fall of man. Mary listens to an Angel, accepts God's plan, gives birth to Jesus who is the redeemer of man. MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACES: Mary is Mediatrix of All Graces because Mary gives birth to Jesus who reconciles man to God so we can receive God's grace. Also through Mary's intercessory prayers, we receive God's grace as displayed at the wedding at Cana when Mary asked Jesus for help and he truned water into wine. It is not Mary's grace, but God's grace that we receive through Mary's intercession. Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant (Ex 40:34-35, Lk 1:35), (2 Sam 6:1-11, Lk 1:39), (2 Sam 6:14, Lk 1:43), (2 Sam 6:15, Lk 1:42), (2 Sam 6:9, Lk 1:43), ( 2 Sam 6:11, Lk 1:56), (2 Sam 6:11, Lk 1:39-45), (Ex 16:33-34, Ex 25:16, Num 17:10, Heb 9:4), (Rev 11:19, Rev 12:1) Prefigured in Jephthah's daughter (Luke 1:34,38 Judges 11:35-39) EVER VIRGIN: No man could touch the Ark (2 Sam 6:7). Similarly no man could touch Mary the New Ark of the covenant. Mary's viriginy upholds the divinity of Jesus. The Ark's main purpose was to bring the presence of God to his people. Similarly, the New Ark's main purpose was to bring the prescence of Jesus (God/Man) to the world. Sacred vessles set aside for God, cannot be used for normal use. Like a goblet used in worship cannot be used to drink wine at dinner. Simiarly Mary's womb set aside to bring God's prescence into the world cannot be used for normal use. Luke 1:34,38 was alluding to Jephthah's daughter in Judges 11 who accepted the will of her father and was ever virgin. Likewise because Mary accepted God the Father's will, she became ever virgin. Her womb dedicated to God, could not be used for normal activity.
What’s the evidence for talking a donkey? A few verses. Jonah being swallowed? A few verses. Mary assumed? Revelation 12. I’m not pro assumption - all I’m saying is that for many (Protestant Scholars included) Revelation 12 is Mary.
good topic to tal about. i think video about bodly asumption and immaculate conception with fathers' quotes, similar as you did with icons, would be very helpfull
Mary was filled with the Holy Spirit. Mary gave birth to Jesus and took care of him with Joseph and the family. Mary was at the foot of the cross and among those who stayed in the Upper Room at the Pentecost. That is sufficient to know.
Is it any wonder that this idea came out of Ephesus? “And you see and hear that not only in Ephesus but in almost all of Asia this Paul has persuaded and turned away a great many people, saying that gods made with hands are not gods. And there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing, and that she may even be deposed from her magnificence, she whom all Asia and the world worship.” When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”” Acts 19:26-28 ESV Seems to me that the Marian Dogmas were a great replacement for losing Artemis to Jesus and it would make perfect sense that they would arise from this false female deity being such an icon there in Ephesus.
Ephesus decided the Theotokos, “God Bearer”. Not the assumption, immaculate conception etc. If you don’t believe that Mary have birth to God and that thereby she was the mother of God then you side with the Nestorian Heresy which splits Christ into two people effectively. That really was the point of Ephesus. Also the presider over the council was Cyril of Alexandria who was not from Ephesus. The term “Theotokos” also first comes from Origen of Alexandria. The idea that Ephesus is the origin of the doctrine or any other such Marian dogmas isn’t founded on much other than associations it seems. The term itself comes from Egypt
@@tonywallens2173:40 he talks about that council at Ephesus sort of creating the big stir about Mary, and since it was at Ephesus, I am yes, assuming a little bit that the Artemis part of it could’ve also played a role which we see in Acts 19. Many people at the council from Ephesus would have taken that part about Mary and could have run with it since they would have grown up being taught Artemis from the ground up… so it’s just a plausible correlation to the later fantasies about Mary such as almost Deity-like status (sinless, etc).
The label Theotokos is part of a theological trajectory with a questionable endpoint. 1. Theotokos - God bearer. Mary bore/gave birth to Jesus. 2. Mother of God. While Mary gave birth to the incarnate Son of the Trinity, she is now subtly credited with being the originator of all the Godhead. 3. Regina Caeli. Mary, Queen of Heaven. Next Mary is credited with assuming authority over Heaven. 4. Our Lady of Perpetual Help. In her privileged role in Heaven, Mary is able to listen to prayers and provide help. This means she is able to answer prayers; ascribing to her the qualities of the Trinity. 5. Co-Redemptrix. Because she bore Jesus, she had an important role in the salvation of Mankind, possibly even a co-equal role.
Any written letters, scrolls, documents, or individual manuscripts "AFTER" the Written Gospel of John and the Revelation had finally completed around 110 A.D. were NOT considered by the early 7 Churches of God in Asia Minor as Inspired by the Holy Spirit... for example, the Gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Judas Iscariot, Barnabas, Nicodemus, Pontius Pilate, Letters of Ignatius, Justin, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Agustine, etc... The written Revelation of God to Apostle John was the LAST of God's WORD (Inspired Holy Scripture of N.T.) given to Mankind... Logically, God will not give HIS revelation if HE wants to add more... saving the BEST Prophecies for LAST (God's final WORD was the Revelation)... God said, "Anyone who ADD or SUBTRACT (take away) from the WORD of God including HIS Prophesies written in the scrolls thereof, God will add plagues to them, and erase/remove their names from the Tree of Life... (ref. Rev. 22:18)... This was the SEALED statement of God's WORD. There were NO more PERSONAL REVELATIONS after the Inspire Holy Scriptures (Word of God) were finally written and completed in individual scrolls (not compiled yet as a Book/Bible) and distributed in the 7 Churches in Asia Minor around 110 A.D. In conclusion, "AFTER" the Revelation by God to Apostle John was finally written in Greek and distributed in the Early 7 Churches of God in Asia Minor around 110 A.D.... The written NEW COVENANT of God through Christ Jesus was finally completed and sealed... The Written WORD of God is "ABSOLUTELY MORE THAN ENOUGH." ... All Scripture is God's breathed and useful for Teaching, Correcting, Reproofing, Instructing, and Training in Righteousness... (ref. 2 Timothy 3:16)... Facts and Truth, Biblically and Historically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
As my husband and I have journeyed into the Anglican (ACNA) church, our appreciation of the role of Mary has grown. However, we would certainly only subscribe to Theotokos and nothing beyond that.
Same here, I grew in appreciation for the blessed Mother when I journeyed into the Lutheran church. A lot of overlap with Anglicans. I visit my brothers ACNA church (Church of the Redeemer) a few times a year.
Brother Gavin, I’ll be in contact with you to possibly have a colab in my channel for the Spanish speaking community next week. I’ll write to you with a group of questions. Blessings 🙏
One of the serious problems to notice right off the bat is to listen to any RC talk constantly about Mary. It’s like it comes up in every conversation. And then absolute lack of any such language on the lips of the apostles. The difference is striking.
I've always believed that Christ was born of a virgin so it would prove his identity through a "theotokos" (God bearer). That definition has changed over time to point to Mary rather than its original purpose being Christo-centric. Even though we are "created" in the image of God, we "bear" the image of Adam. God placed a seed in Mary's womb that was not from Adam so that Christ's human nature did not come from that same line of depravity because it was a divine conception. He was born without an inclination (propensity) to sin. Saying Mary needed to be immaculately conceived undermines the fact that the "seed" did not come from any existing man on earth. The divine seed earns the precedence here because it did not come from a natural bloodline. If Mary were immaculately conceived, so should her parents, and her grandparents, etc.. because they were all born under the same conditions which equaled depravity received after the fall of Adam. How do we know if this is the case? Because it's impossible to flip the roles. Children only come from one gender (female). We cannot say there was a virgin man who was given an immaculate egg from Heaven. When seed and egg combine, we are left with a completely new genome which is Christ. As long as one of the haploids (gamete cells) is divine and not of Adam, the product will not be subject to depravity.
I really appreciate your videos because they make me think as a Catholic. I grew up Protestant and I did not have a good catechesis. I find the authority of the Catholic Church to be very comforting. Jesus gave us a Church and the Church has the authority to decide what is a dogma. I loved how you talked about Theotokos and how we can agree on that point as protestants and Catholics.
@@zachdavis7536 Protestants and Catholics don't believe the same gospel at all. Just on this video you have the reference to a papal bull that anathemises all those who don't believe in the assumption of Mary. Virtually all Protestants reject the assumption of Mary. Therefore, it cannot be said that we are brothers and all on the same path to heaven. Jesus said: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:24 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." John 6:47 I don't see anything about the assumption on Mary there, or baptism, or confession. Even Peter preached this: "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." Acts 10:43
Cracks me up. She was a sinner like the rest of us. She was not a virgin, except for her first birth. After that she was no longer a virgin. Roman Catholic paganism
“There are many areas of agreement I have with Roman Catholics. They believe the Bible is the Word of God, so do I. They believe in the Trinity, so do I. They believe In Christ’s substitutionary death on the Cross, so do I. They believe in His resurrection, so do I. They believe He is the only way to be saved, so do I. _”It’s the things that were added later that I disagree with.”_ Dr. Billy Graham, arguably the greatest evangelist since the Apostle Paul (emphasis added)
I'm having a thought on the Immaculate Conception of Mary. If Anna (Mary's mother) was herself a virgin when she conceived Mary, why was Mary shocked that she herself will conceive? "'How can this be,' Mary asked the angel, 'since I am a virgin?' The angel answered her, 'The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. For no word from God will ever fail.'" (Luke 1:34-37) 1.) If Anna conceived Mary as a virgin, why was Mary confused how she could herself conceive as a virgin? 2.) If the reason the angel gave for telling Mary her virgin conception was "so the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God", then wouldn't that mean Mary should be called the Daughter of God? 3.) The evidence the angel used to show Mary that God was able was her cousin Elizabeth being pregnant past child-bearing years, but if Mary's own mother conceived her as a virgin, then why wouldn't the angel have used that as reference instead?
That isn't what the Immaculate Conception means. No one thinks that Mary's mother was a virgin when Mary was conceived. Immaculate Conception means that Mary was free from original sin from the moment of conception.
I say this with charity, Gavin is a super smart dude. No doubt. That said why would anyone take his explanations about this topic as the final answer? I’m seeing folks say they are more confident in their Protestantism after watching this, but why not listen to the BEST Catholic argument FOR the Marian dogmas, THEN decide? Tim Staples does a good job explaining the Biblical and historical reasons for the Marian dogmas in videos and in his book Behold your Mother. I’m just saying, look for the really good apologetics from a Catholic, listen to Gavin as well, sure, then make a call. Just some advice FWIW. ✌🏻
All of the Catholic arguments for the Marian Dogmas--but especially the assumption--seem like they were made by people who started with their desired conclusion rather than from people seeking the truth.
@@toddthacker8258 Mary produced that TRUTH, that WAY and that source of everlasting LIFE. So, where that TRUTH is, so is Mary also. If Enoch and Elijah who were God's Creations/Prophets taken to heaven and never S see or experience death, what made you thin that the very GOD who made that bodily ascension possible could not make his own MOTHER ascend the way he made them to ascend?
@@michellebryan8148 God certainly could have. There's just no evidence that He did. And there is certainly nothing in Scripture to make us think that Mary should get so much attention that would otherwise be focused on God Himself.
@@toddthacker8258 I’d just suggest, take a read of Behold your Mother and see if you would make the same statement. No one thing is probably going to be a magic pill, but it might be worth checking out. I know many find that Mary being the new Ark of the Covenant is compelling and that’s straight biblical. ✌🏻
the canon and the Trinity are very unlike the assumption of Mary. See my recent video on the Trinity for an argument for that; I have one on the canon coming out in 6 days
Why would I read a book from a Roman apologist when there is zero historical and biblical evidence for the Marian dogmas? And Rome anathematizes anyone who refuses to believe something that shows up in gnostic writings centuries after Christ? Tim Staples does a good job twisting history and scripture to fit Rome’s narrative. They also try and use Aristotelian philosophy to imply things that scripture and history just denies. Mary was a blessed woman, a wonderful woman who served God in an amazing way. But she was a creature, nothing more.
The North Star of historical hermeneutics is fixed once an infallible conclusion is declared. The "evidence" is required to march towards that conclusion because it is a required entailment that history must affirm it.
I saw the Church of the Dormition of Mary when I visited Jerusalem. I didn't go in, but I saw it from the ramparts. Beautiful place, but based on something that probably didn't happen.
Revelation 11:19 is the answer to your first question. That is the assumption of Mary. Catholic*** not Roman Catholic. Roman Catholicism is a slur and was invented by the Protestant Church of England. And why do you give any credence to the Bible? Aren’t you aware the Bible is the Catholic Holy Divine Liturgy book? We didn’t make it to explain our beliefs. We made it to be read at Holy Divine Liturgy.
Literally nothing here is true. Rev 11 or 12 isn't Mary. Rev 12:1 starts off by saying 'the sign of a woman.' Meaning its not a real, literal woman. Roman catholic is a slur? I've heard that before too. Why does Gelasius in the 5th century talk about books forbidden to be read by the 'roman' church? Why does Boniface the 8th in Unam Sanctum talk about salvation being necessary by submitting to the 'Roman' pontiff? Why does Ligouri in his book The Glories of Mary say his pronouncements are to be considered sound theology by the holy 'Roman' Catholic church? Why does your ccc use the term roman over 30 times? If its a slur, they are doing a bang up job of using it themselves. *And why do you give any credence to the Bible?* Its Gods word, why wouldn't we? *Aren’t you aware the Bible is the Catholic Holy Divine Liturgy book? We didn’t make it to explain our beliefs. We made it to be read at Holy Divine Liturgy.* Your church didn't make anything. God is the author of His own scriptures not you, your church or anyone else. And catholics can't explain their beliefs from it if they tried.
I’m not Catholic, but I do think it could be possible that Mary was assumed since Elijah and Enoch were taken into heaven bodily just for being closely devoted followers to God. Mary being the mother of God, having a virgin birth and raising Jesus from a young age means she definitely had some sort of special role. I don’t think people should be anathematized for speculation but this and the idea of her being the ark of the covenant is kind of convincing of something more than her just being a normal person.
Mary was definitely blessed among women, and scriptures do show that even her cousin Elizabeth knew this by the power of the Holy Spirit when they were both w/ child, so that's a remarkable scriptural proof. I've never been convinced of the ark of the covenant spiritual type. I think that's a new one that has cropped up w/ Catholic apologists like Trent Horn, that were once protestant, and are grasping to convince the sola scriptura camp of Christians. I might be wrong on that last part. If the ark type is historical w/ Catholics, I'd stand corrected.
@@caseycardenas1668 Ok, then I stand corrected on that, thank you. I think it seems to be newer, because ex protestant Catholics use it so liberally now as tool to reach biblically based Christians. That would seem to be a more fair and correct assessment then.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Gavin himself has stated in prior videos that he believes that Mary is the Ark. I would say your assessment is fair but it also needs to be realized that the contemporary use of Mary as the Ark is prominent because it was always a part of the apostolic faith and even present in early protestantism. It's a response to American Restorationist Movements that have moved away from this view of Mary, it was present in one form or another in 16th century magisterial protestantism.
@@caseycardenas1668 Can you think of a video where Gavin agrees w/ that Mary is the ark? I thought I remembered that he still thinks this type is a stretch, but doesn't need to dismiss it outright. I'm pretty sure it was Gavin, because most protestant apologists aren't that gracious and flexible on it, and ones like James White will just toss it all w/out even smaller concessions. I like James White though. He's a bulldog, but he's our bulldog, lol.
Can any RC answer that if Mary is so important to salvation then why is she only mentioned twice in the last 22 books of the NT,once indirectly in Romans talking about lineage and once in Galatians when she was just mentioned as Jesus mother? The woman in Revelation 12 is very clearly Israel.
Satan played an important role. No fall of man, no redemption of man. Judas played an important role. No betrayal, then no arrest and trial. Joseph's parents played an important role. No Joseph, then no spouse to support Mary and her child. Pilate played an important role. No conviction, then no execution. The tree played an important role. No tree, no crucifixion.
@@geordiewishart1683i get where you're coming from, just remember not to fall into the trap of devaluing Mary, she's been through so much and was an example of a believer to follow regardless of what you believe... personally I'm not sure what I do but some people speak of Mary so lowly it's really sad and unfair
I personally think that the Jesus’ brothers=cousins doctrine is at least plausible based on Scripture and church writings (I’m Protestant but I don’t have any issues with this idea, nor does it conflict with the principles of Protestantism) but the other Marian doctrines are something that I am considerably skeptics of, especially the Immaculate Conception.
I think I'd agree that the cousin relationship idea is plausible though really the only reason you would need to lean into it at all is if you're committed to the other dogmas.
I used to be staunchly opposed to this idea, but after reading the Protovangelion of James, I can see that it could have been the case. Not saying it definitely was, but it made me go from "No, Mary did not remain a virgin," to "Maybe she did, maybe she didn't."
The Immaculate Conception is indicated by the parallel use of eulogemene/eulogemenos (distinction of gender only), in "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." This is the Holy Spirit's expression of the Father's good pleasure in Mary and in Jesus. It is reinforced by "kecharitioene" (full of grace), which has the feminine passive suffix of charitoo- with the prefix ke- indicating an action completed in the past with effects in the present.
Why do we need to believe Mary remained a virgin ... sex within marriage is not a sin ... and the plain reading that Joseph did not 'know' her until after the birth of Christ ... meaning the marriage was not consummated until after that event ... and the references to Christ's brothers and sisters then become simply understood ... and let's not forget Jesus' words that anybody who does the Father's will is His 'mother, brothers and sisters' ... which seems to be Jesus distancing Himself from His biological family rather than say Mary is someone to be elevated above the rest of humanity ...
@@MichaelPetek That seems like a very tenuous and very indirect connection to try to build a damning doctrine off of. Besides, Jesus uses the exact same phrase for woman to refer to people he isn't even related to.
Hi, Beckett. You are a brother in Christ. As a Catholic, I hope you actually get a Catholic to speak on the Catholic dogmas. I like Gavin Outland but he is not accurate in things he says and he is not Catholic. Isn’t it better (for anything) to learn something from its strengths rather than from an opposing view of them? (Even if for no other reason than to argue effectively against the ?) I hope you can have someone like brant Pitre, Trent horn or scott hahn on to give an alternative opinion. 💙
I wondered if you had any thoughts on why the Marian dogmas came to be. Meaning what is the value added or intent of creating, adopting and following these beliefs by Catholics? Where does it advance them in any way? In summary, why have it? Thank you.
I personally believe it was due to pagan influences and a decrease in knowledge of Jewish instruction of the law and morals. Our faith started in the Synagogues. What do you get when you have an entire culture that is infused with gods and goddesses, lacks correctional knowledge because it scorns its roots, and it is lured by power of state? Many of the things I have an issue with in Catholicism I firmly believe it came from pagan influences. Perpetual virgin due to being a consecrated temple virgin --> this seems to be influenced by the temple Diana and its temple virgins. Patron saints--> seems to be influenced by the idea of gods and goddesses for every need. Depicting Mary as a queen of heaven --> influence of the goddess of Ishtar in Mesopotamia. That's just my opinion.
Without Mary there would be no Jesus. Without Jesus there would be no Christians. Something to ponder. We should all be grateful to Mary for agreeing to be the Mother of the Messiah. She deserves our respect and love. ❤
Speaking on Theotokos, "God-Bearer, It simply is a reference to the incarnation, really, it just means that Jesus is God." This is wrong, because Theotokos is a title, not one of God's, but of Mary's. It is to hold in honor God's choice of her as the one to bear Jesus. From Wikipedia: "Theotokos is an adjectival compound of two Greek words Θεός "God" and τόκος "childbirth, parturition; offspring". A close paraphrase would be "[she] whose offspring is God" or "[she] who gave birth to one who was God"."
Gavin, you mentioned that there were several lists of people assumed into Heaven that were written in the Church prior to the 5th century. Can you cite the examples of these?
hey Taylor, they are listed in the chapter on Mary in my forthcoming book. Its several pages so I don't really think they would do well in a UA-cam comment. sorry to keep you in suspense!
The Marian dogmas are not authentic Christian dogmas as the Trinity is, nor are they a small issue, I cannot and will never accept the idea of Mary being sinless. When I was basically a full on Roman Catholic I defended them but now stepping back from the Catholic Church I realized I only believed it because The Catholic Church said I had to. James White uses an phenomenal question that goes “if you gave the Bible to a thousand people and had them read it from genesis to revelation, would at least one person come to the conclusion that Mary was sinless, the queen of heaven, only had one child, remained a virgin her entire life and assumed into heaven ? The look of confusion would be understandable.” The Marian dogmas are heresy.
A person who could understand the meaning of the Greek terms eulogemene and kecharitomene could easily conclude that Mary was sinless. A person could find proof that Mary had one child, but no proof that she had any more or that she lost her virginity at any time after the birth of her first. You could find plenty material in the OT to indicate that the Queen of the House of David was the mother of the King, not his wife. You could combine Luke 1:43 with John 20:28 to prove syllogistically that Mary is the Mother of God.
@@MichaelPetek Kecharitomene doesn’t work… even Trent acknowledges that the Greek word used for Mary does not in itself show that she is sinless, that word is also used in apocryphal books. Nobody in the early church used the Greek word to show that Mary was sinless, and that word doesn’t show that she is sinless in any shape or form as Horn even acknowledges that and many others. It’s not a good argument and there are countless verses that make it very clear that Jesus Christ was the only man without sin.
@@MrKingishere1 Kecharitomene on its own isn't conclusive. It means that Mary was completely transformed by grace in the past, with effects continuing to the present - that meaning is contained in the ke- prefix. The effect is indicated by eulogemene. The -mene suffix is feminine passive singular. The -menos prefix is masculine passive singular and in the NT is used only on two occasions and only of Jesus - as in 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." In "eulogemenoi", the -menoi suffix is the mixed gender plural, and is found in "Come, you who are blessed of my Father." In all these constructions, the root euloge- indicates definitive and irrevocable benediction proper to the Last Judgement. Mary received her final judgement while she was pregnant and in this life.
@@MichaelPetek If Mary was really sinless, you wouldn't need to do hoop de loops w/ original language to find vague and inconclusive allusions and hidden inferences. If it was as all important as the RCC makes out, by making it dogma that has to be believed, then the bible would clearly say it. Jesus is said to be sinless and it's laid out many times, in black and white, clearly seen and understood, no matter what language the text is translated into. When God wants us to really know and understand something, he makes it that plain.
I don't care for the term "Mother of God". At first blush, it's a conflation of relationship terms to me. I could consider "Mother of Jesus, Mother of the Son of Man, perhaps, Human mother of the Son of God. People don't generally hold consistently to narrow objective definitions and stay true to them. Ideas get quickly blown out of proportion. Saying "Mary is the mother of God", I get the general idea but do I understand your understanding of it and the subsequent implications? I try to avoid language that must be microscopically understood and is open to easy distortions.
@@Bhope07 Have you seen comments in other videos expressing their own SAVED ALREADY belief saying..... " I can do whatever i want and live however i want to live because Jesus died for my sins" That kind of shallow response is the result of preaching that False FAITH ALONISM doctrine that led them to that false belief and false Pastor like Gabin will be responsible for their deceived and lost souls..
@@michellebryan8148 Goodness Michelle, read the Gospels. Jesus said "no man shall come to the Father except by me," not "except by me and my mom." Protestants may be wrong about Mary but it's not a salvivfic issue.
Another thought is as these 4th century claims are popping up where is the push back it was only 300 years earlier. Thats like if I said George Washington was assumed into heaven. Clearly there would be people that would correct me because they would know where the remains are. Dr Gavin should go in search of the body since he is so sure its make believe. Does he think the early church purposely hid her body? We can't say the early church didn't recognize the value in the mother of the Lord since Luke interviewed her for his gospel clearly the early church recognized her part in the story. Why would they not mark her grave?
Mary was Jesus's mother there's no need to call her the mother of God she is the mother of the flesh of Jesus, she is blessed, there's no need to confuse by calling her the mother of God she's not the mother of God and there's no reason to play the semantic game it just confuses people
I have no problem w/ Catholics calling Mary the Mother of God. Jesus was both man and God, so that's where it ends w/ me. It doesn't have to be a big dividing point. I can't accept the other Catholic dogmas on Mary, but I'd like to have as little to divide on w/ my Catholic brethren as possible.
Except in the Council, the term Theotokos arose out of this VERY idea that she was merely "Christokos", she who bore Christ, in other words, the bearer of Christ's humanity (flesh).
Amen. I’m glad you laid the hammer down when you needed to brother. Keep up the fight for reform. May the Lord bless you. And, as a new father myself, go enjoy your family :) Thanks for your work.
So good. Found the same thing in my own journey peering into Orthodoxy and Catholicism. I came away thinking, they're really shooting themselves in the foot here, only contriving more and more dogmos over millenia at the exclusion of anyone who is more than willing to follow and trust in Jesus for their salvation, but like myself simply cannot sanction or participate in the hyper veneration of Mary or the practice of prayer to the saints. I came pretty close to becoming orthodox but these beliefs as well as the uncertainty in their model of salvation were the key arguments that stood as immovable obstacles to that end. I am now convinced these later traditions are an invention of the enemy who seeks to divide the body of Christ.
I have to admit that I did not know that the doctrine of the immaculate conception was going this far, so thank you so much for helping me learn. This doctrine almost make it sound like virgin births are a mutation that just happen to run in their family, rather than being a God unique one off occurrence.
I used to think the Immaculate Conception had to do w/ Jesus being born sinless and perfect. Then I found out that Mary is supposed to be sinless and perfect too. That was shocking. I see no biblical proof of that whatsoever.
@@psylegio I don't see why it needs to mean more than that either? Jesus' virgin birth, his divine nature, being born of God and of a woman in order to be the ultimate redeemer, mediator and savior for our sins is the heart of the gospel. The rest is just gravy.
@@psylegio Mary was born already carrying the cell/egg that is Jesus incarnation (scientific fact - all human women born already carrying every egg cell they will ever have) - plus Mary had to be prepared to share Jesus Blood (scientific fact - lookup fetal microchimerism) !!!! That's right, natural science reveals those long-held positions true!
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Mary was born already carrying the cell/egg that is Jesus incarnation (scientific fact - all human women born already carrying every egg cell they will ever have) - plus Mary had to be prepared to share Jesus Blood (scientific fact - lookup fetal microchimerism) !!!! That's right, natural science reveals those long-held positions true!
It is interesting that the early Church honored the relics of the martyrs but there is no record of the veneration of Mary's relics. This is evidence that the early Church believed Mary was indeed assumed into heaven. Since everyone believed it and was not atacked it was not actively defended.
If it's true the "early church" believed Mary was assumed into heaven, then why did the 5th century Pope Gelasius condemn the earliest books that speak of the Assumption, and declare them heretical? Does one find the teaching of Mary's Assumption in the New Testament? No. What about in the writings of the Church Fathers previous to Gelasius? No. What about in the authentic piety of decreed Roman Catholic festivals and observances? No.
@@jonatasmachado7217 If you know what these things are, tell us. I note that a number of Catholics here keep alluding that Gavin can't be right on this topic. Yet they never spell out why.
Does it not seem odd that the current established 4 Marion dogmas are listed in The Protoevangelium of James and Pseudo-Matthew which is rejected by the Roman Catholic church?
@@tookie36 not really. Protestant hold firm primarily to the original Church Deposit, which was absent of medieval accretions such as veneration of saints, purgatory and indulgences which violate Deuteronomy 4:2. - We didn’t add or change anything. We removed developed extra-biblical nonsense to restore the church as it was when it started. There are hardly 30,000; Adventists, Anabaptists, Anglicans/Episcopalians, Baptists, Calvinist/Reformed,[h] Lutherans, Methodists, Moravians, Plymouth Brethren, Presbyterians, and Quakers. Nondenominational, charismatic and independent. And really only a hand-full of these adhere to Luther and Calvin original intentions. The current true reformed church adheres to true apostolic succession based on its original definition, which is the passing down of the gospel and teachings of the apostles from Scripture. If we are talking Protestants who engage in rock concerts, you’re going to find almost 100% agreement with a true reformed Protestant on that particular topic. We reformers would never consider them anything related to reformation theology other than just tickled the ear preaching. All TRUE reformed churches adhere to the infallibility of scripture as did the early patristic Fathers. - Irenaeus (AD 180): 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. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1) - Athanasius (AD 296-373): The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. (Against the Heathen, 1:3) - Augustine (AD 354-430): It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place. (Letters, 82.3) But thankfully, the number of protestants is rivaling that of Roman Catholics in that we are quickly catching up globally at about 800 million. Together that gives us almost 2 billion church figure which is astounding given the global population of 9 billion. But technically, the church is invisible in that its core definition are those who hold faith in Christ alone. Christ said there is only one faith and one church and that is true. But that one faith is saving faith not a declared declarative faith as in some sort of title. The faith is saving faith and the church is those who possess saving faith and these people exist in many churches.
@@geoffjs Ecclesia. It means one body unified. A gathering. You see scripture never calls the church "catholic". this is a later developed title which means universal. not Roman.
@@geordiewishart1683because we, as lay Catholics, are not doing a good job of convincing skeptical,Protestants! If Protestants knew what riches they’re missing by turning their collective back on Mary, they would drop their reservations - Through Mary to Jesus which I have experienced. Catholicism enjoys the three legged stable stool of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Tradition & the Magisterium as well as the other three legged stool of Marian Devotion, Real Presence of the Eucharist & the Holy Spirit. Three legs is a very important concept for engineering, so as to ensure stability! The Trinity is obviously three legged as is Mary ie the New Eve, New Ark & New Queen
most catholics aren't catholic in belief they just choose to identify as catholic because of family tradition. I know, i was raised catholic and praise the Lord now I am a saved and sealed Christian. Thank you Jesus for saving me and quickening me
I am Catholic from the cradle and I agree that alot of people show up because of family tradition. Its not like thr church doesn't try to explain the faith though alot of is just don't want to listen. I teach Sunday school now to 6th graders so I see it first hand every week.
PROTESTants famous answer to Catholics, Orthodox etc...." If it's not in the bible, it can not/should not be believed" Such a great insult to God!! What a very hypocritical statement . How many verses of the disciples or Jesus own words CLEARLY written inside the bible that PROTESTants do not accept and believe?Countless of them! So many bible verses that shows Proofs of this church authentic foundation and yet, because it makes PROTESTant church belief as false, they find ways to eradicate and bury the real meaning to oblivion by spreading words like.... " metaphorical or Typology" Wait a minute now PROTESTants......So, what happen to your belief that ONLY what's written inside the bible should be believed, because anything OUTSIDE the bible is from the devil.There is NO verse/s written inside the bible that support your SOLA SCRIPTURA belief.None. Revelation 22:18 is NOT referring to the bible, but John's BOOK OF REVELATION. Galatians 1:8-9 refers to False pastors whose preaching doctrine outside Paul/disciples teaching and whoever does that kind of false preaching ?They are ACCURSED! WHERE does it say that God can not and does not execute/showcase/perform/not do ANY wondrous and jaw-dropping works, which includes RAISING and assuming the body of the very WOMAN he resided for 9 months? God was/is that Ungrateful, huh? That insensitive? That unkind? That rude? That Uncaring? So, Ungrateful that he just let Mary's BODY buried into the dirt and be eaten by worms like most PROTESTants so Uninformly shared.Well, with that shallow and nonsensical belief of yours PROTESTants, you just made Jesus BROKE his own commandment to..... " HONOR your FATHER and MOTHER" Ask YOURSELF.... If you were God, is that how you would treat your own earthly MOTHER?No? So, what made you think God would do such a cruel and heartless thing!
I am sure you would believe this dogma if Jesus himself told you it was true. I also am sure you know the people of the Catholic Church believe that the Holy Spirit was provided to the Church by Jesus to lead it to all truth in matters of Dogma. If the Catholic Church does not have this charism, then who gets to decide these things? Human beings who think they are 'full of Grace' and able to fully grasp (without any Pride) all that is inspired by the Holy Spirit? Who gets to decide what books go in the bible? Who gets to provide proper interpretation of the bible? Who gets to decide what the sacraments are? Who gets to decide what happens in the sacraments? Who gets to profess proper understanding of baptism; the real presence; etc.? The "likeminded" believers in Jesus as God and Savior is too vague, impossible to frame, and leaves too many unanswered (important/salvific) questions - which absolutely leads to a relativism that has run wild in our society today. We must turn away from pursuing Jesus with (wise) interpretation and start pursuing Him with a more human relationship. If the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, if He is the Head and we are the body, then relationship with the Church is truly relationship with Him. In this sense the Church is NOT primarily an institution, it is a 'who', it is Christ visible in the world. It is the 'city on the mountain' it is the lamp on the lampstand. Catholics sit at the feet of the Church and by proxy we listen to Him - this is God's desire for us all as he said; "This is my Beloved Son, listen to Him".
This apologetic is essentially one massive deflection. It is a way of avoiding fact questions. And it does this by side-stepping the historical reality of what is being discussed in favor of a generic "they must be right in general, therefore they must be right about this." But that logic doesn't move beyond the realm of pious narrative, especially in the presence of competing claims.
For me, your statement raises far more questions than it provides answers. Self identification as a Christian brings one under the authority of the Church, under elders, under judgement and under the command to restore repentant sinners. The question of who is a true Christian, is one for the Lord upon His return, sorting the wheat from the tares. So, we can never and should never take our salvation for granted. How can a person be watchful and careful if anyone should say, it's ok, we've judged you saved already? Yet, over silly nonsense, Rome has pronounced damnation on millions! It's foolish to rely on theological bable, won't the Lord judge the heart? Be true to the light you have and trust Jesus to speak to His bride.
@@lazaruscomeforth7646 no deflection at all. My answer to the questions I pose is the Church - which we beelieve to be Christ. Jesus was not recognized for who He was in His time and that remains true today. What is your answer to the questions I posed? Please be specific. Until one understands where the authority of dogmas come from they will deny the scriptural interpretations laid out by the Church on Marian dogmas.
We listen to Jesus and are led and guided into all truth through the bible. The bible is said to be the very word of God, Christ is the word of God. Our reading of the NT shows us that we can individually be led by the Holy Spirit. We sit under elders, teachers, pastors, priests to be taught and fed, but our ultimate walk w/ God is a personal one. There were many church bodies laid out in the NT. The were exhorted to be united in Christ. We are all united in Christ.
So many Catholics here, "you should invite this guy, that guy" to save the day with unknown info that legitimizes the Assumption. If you people don't have answers, what make you think Akin, Petrie, or Hahn will have anything worthwhile to contribute?
@@joeoleary9010 Not everyone can articulate their beliefs to the degree that a biblical scholar can. Dr Scott Hahn was a Protestant minister and he can explain things more clearly and with the understanding the grave errors of Protestant teachings
The worst part of taking gnostic tales and binding them to the consciences of men. Immaculate conception, bodily assumption, perpetual virginity, not only are they nowhere in the Bible, in order to reach the perpetual virginity conclusion you have to do backflips; deny context and twist your brain into a pretzel, but the worst part is that these 3 dogmas are attributed to the singular glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. They are taking glory from Him and giving it to another. They do it with the Pope, they do it with Salvation and Justification and they do it with Mary. Rome as it is today started as a 6th century invention and continued its distortion through the Middle Ages until God raised up the Reformers to bring the One True Church back to the Bible and the Early Church. Stack up the fathers against Rome and the Reformers and Rome doesn’t stand a chance. They have just done a good job lying to their people and twisting history and scripture. This is what happened when you place men as a higher authority than scripture
To believe in the Marian dogmas is to confess that Mary was not fully human, but something more akin to a demigod, like Achilles or Perseus. It makes sense that such a doctrine would begin to develop when it did, considering the sheer number of Greco-Roman pagan converts that came into the church after Christianity was legalized and became the state religion of the Roman Empire.
No, we don’t believe that. “What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.” “The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son."
(A Catholic Response) Two items: 1. Theotokos. Your take was very good - but not deep enough. The issue at Ephesus was about whether to refer to the Blessed Mother as "Theotokos" (God-bearer) or "Christotokos" (Christ-bearer). The Nestorians were OK with "Christotokos" because they held (among other heresies) that Jesus became divine after becoming human - maybe even as late as his baptism. Calling Mary "Theotokos" not only reinforced Jesus' divinity, but emphasized that he was fully God and fully human from the moment of conception. There was never a moment when the man Jesus was separate from the Second Person of the Trinity. 2. Overall, may I suggest that you’re looking at Catholicism through a microscope when it would be more efficient, effective, and (IMHO) reasonable to do so through a telescope. From a documentary perspective, you might be correct in saying that there is scant evidence for and, thus, “no real reason to believe in the Marian dogmas of the bodily assumption and the immaculate conception.” But those, or any individual, Catholic doctrines or dogmas are of secondary importance and are completely taken care of when the primary issue - Church authority - is settled. If the Church truly has divine authority to “bind and loose” (Matt 18:18), and that authority is perpetual, then the only reason one needs to believe in the Marian dogmas, or any other Catholic doctrine/dogma, is that the authoritative Church says so. If the Church doesn’t have any of those Christ-given authorities, then everything it says is up for grabs. Moreover, since the Church claims those authorities, if it really doesn’t have those divine authorities, then it is, at best, a dangerous distraction from true faith, and more likely a demonic obstacle to man’s union with Christ. So, if you come to a conclusion on the Church’s authority claims, the (relatively) minor issues of individual doctrines and dogmas fall into place rather easily.
@@toddthacker8258 but that's my whole point. Instead of nit-picking individual Catholic doctrines, demonstrating the lack of divine authority of the Catholic Church would bring the entire structure down. However, the problem with attacking the authority of the Catholic Church is trying to keep the authority of Scripture in the process. Gavin's take on how we got the Canon, from the (admittedly) little that I have heard, is that the Canon developed organically and was just accepted over time by Christians as Holy Writ. The documentary evidence for Church councils debating and making declarations on the subject really, really make that idea hard to swallow. As I started to investigate Orthodox and Catholic teaching (as a Reformed Calvinist Presbyterian), I took the same tack. I targeted one specific doctrine after another that I believed was heretical and/or extra-biblical and, thus, not acceptable. As I was not getting the results I wanted - invalidation of Catholic teaching - I decided to go for the jugular - Church authority. When that didn't go the way I wanted either, I had to become Catholic. It wasn't easy. Socially and family-wise, it would have been a lot easier for me to stay Protestant, but that would have been direct disobedience to the Holy Spirit's leading. I'm still open - if anyone can demonstrate that the Catholic Church is NOT Christ's authoritative representative on earth, then I'll revert to being a devout Protestant.
The Book of Kings featuring Elijah's assumption into heaven was written 200-250 years after the event supposedly occurred during the reign of King Josiah but may have been written even later during the Babylonian captivity. The King's author relied on the writings of Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Chronicles of the Kings of Judah which are lost. Therefore, we have a historical event written centuries after the fact, not by a witness of the event, relied upon by lost works by unknown authors, and by an unknown author. Indeed, if the criteria are that the historical event must have been recorded within 100 years and by a credible eyewitness to that event, the entire OT is out. There are several NT books that would also be out as well because the author is unknown or falsely attributed to someone who was an eyewitness or was not even an eyewitness to the event. In conclusion, the criteria of whether the Mary assumption is true or not cannot be the same criteria that would make most of the Bible fall.
Difference is 1.) We have access to the beliefs of alot of people living at the time unlike the OT 2.) The belief either leave out or contradict bodily ascension 3.) We know the historical Genesis of those beliefs and they are neither exegetical nor apostolic
God had earlier told Elijah he was to anoint a man named Elisha as a prophet to succeed him (1 Kings 19:16). Later, as the two men walked together, Elijah said to Elisha, "What may I do for you, before I am taken away from you?" (2 Kings 2:9). This led to a discussion of God's gifts to Elisha that would allow him to fill Elijah's role. "Then it happened, as they continued on and talked, that suddenly a chariot of fire appeared with horses of fire, and separated the two of them; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven" (2 Kings 2:11). Elijah was now gone. The former followers and students of Elijah were now to look to Elisha as their new leader. "Now when the sons of the prophets who were from Jericho saw him, they said, 'The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha'" (2 Kings 2:15). Many readers assume that Elijah at that point was made immortal and taken to the heaven where God resides. This was not the case. The sons of the prophets knew otherwise. They knew the whirlwind had simply removed Elijah to another location on earth. They exclaimed to Elisha: "Look now, there are fifty strong men with your servants. Please let them go and search for your master, lest perhaps the Spirit of the Lord has taken him up and cast him upon some mountain or into some valley" (2 Kings 2:16). The disciples were concerned for Elijah's safety, so they sent out a party of 50 men to search for him. The 50 searched for three days but did not find him (2 Kings 2:17). Another passage proves conclusively that Elijah was not taken up to live in heaven. The Bible records that Elijah wrote a letter to Jehoram, the king of Judah, several years after he was removed in the whirlwind. Notice the sequence of events recorded for us in the Bible. Elijah's last recorded and dated act occurred during the reign of the Israelite king Ahaziah when Elijah told the king he would die for his sins (2 Kings 1:3-17). Ahaziah's reign lasted only about a year, ca. 850 B.C. Elijah's removal and replacement by Elisha is then recorded in the next chapter, 2 Kings 2. The story continues with incidents from Elisha's life, including an encounter with Jehoshaphat, king of Judah (2 Kings 3:11-14). Several years later Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, succeeded his father as king of Judah, ca. 845 B.C. (2 Kings 8:16). Jehoram proved to be a wicked king, leading the nation of Judah in rebellion against God's commandments. A few years into Jehoram's reign, and several years after Elijah's removal, Jehoram received a letter from Elijah warning the king of dire consequences because of his sins. This letter is recorded in 2 Chronicles 21:12-15. This letter proves that the prophet was still alive and on earth some years after he was removed by the whirlwind and replaced by Elisha. God had chosen Elisha to succeed Elijah as His prophet, so He bodily removed Elijah to another place, where he continued to live for at least several more years-as his letter to Jehoram demonstrates. The Bible tells us nothing more about Elijah's life following his writing of the letter. But he eventually died, just like the other prophets and righteous men of the Old Testament, who all died in faith, not yet receiving the eternal life God had promised (Hebrews 11:39). Again, a careful reading of the Scriptures shows that Elijah's miraculous removal by a fiery chariot involved transporting him to another location on earth, not to eternal life in heaven.
I wonder if the worship of isis and osiris came into play here. Could the church have used the imagery of isis and osiris to shape their own art to draw in those pagan worshippers into the church? Isis worship lasted into the fourth century, so the timeline is about right
I appreciated the spotlight on nuance and common ground available for "Mother of God" language in your Christological and Trinitarian statements starting around 7:00.
It is quite conceivable that some things were known in the Church to be true about the Blessed Virgin Mary which were not openly proclaimed as required to be believed, but which God has since led His Church to openly assert. I believe these dogmas, but, as an Anglo Catholic, I can question whether it was right that Rome should assert them as being de fide when they had not previously been held to be so, ie necessary to be believed for salvation.
That’s the biggest issue. By making the dogmas necessary for salvation the RCC has created a huge stumbling block for many potential converts. Many church fathers disagreed on what happened to Mary. Why make this dogma essential for salvation? I’m just as troubled as Gavin is by it. It confuses me.
People who are hesitating of becoming Catholic due to Mary's Dogma is not understanding one thing...... God/Jesus will not be offended just because a person is believing that particular dogma of his chosen WOMAN/NEW ARK who helped/cooperated and participated to bring fulfillment of his Masterplan to bring SALVATION to his sinful creations.It's the other way around... He would be offended if people like Gavin is preaching/leading people away from acknowledging HIS own MOTHER'S important role as his earthly NEW ARK/ABODE and spreading such nonsense, disrespectful teaching esp. when Pastor, like McArthur and others, referring to Mary as PAGAN Goddess. That is blaspheming the very chosen woman who gave FORM to an invisible and formless God.
The apparitions and miracles related to Our Lady are WELL DOCUMENTED and should be part of the discussion. In the same vein Gavin could have researched and reported what was considered by the Church in defining the dogmas. Start with humility and seek Truth. Luther loved Mary - think about that.
Apparitions etc should not be part of the discussion as it's a change of subject. Luther loved Mary is likewise a change of subject, ie irrelevant. The encyclical Munificentissimus Deus lays out the reasons why Pius XII originated this dogma in 1950 -- to encourage the faithful to have more respect for the message of Catholicism.
So how do you explain the Marian Apparitions around the world? Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, etc. There is mounds of evidence of her work on behalf of her Son in our world, how do you explain this away?
@@HearGodsWord perfect so the Atheists are right then. Christ was never resurrected because that's just man made superstition. There's clearly no evidence whatsoever of either Christ or Mary acting in our world, so who would believe that sort of thing anyway, right?
@@internautaoriginal9951 you shall know them by their fruits. These events have brought more to faith in Jesus, not less. If they were truly demonic supernatural events it would have been obvious. So you either believe that Satan has the power to move the sun about the sky like it's a soccer ball, or you believe everyone at Fatima had a mass hallucination. Again, you sound like an atheist who argues that the apostles were either sincerely mistaken, or hallucinated.
Not only is there (so far as I can find) little to no evidence in the earliest sources that the assumption actually happened, but the Roman Church - by making this a dogma and attaching anathemas to it - is in the strange position of accepting early fathers as saints who don’t believe this while at the same time anathematizing contemporary believers who also don’t believe this. It is a glaring inconsistency in the Church of Rome caused by over reach of authority.
Some thoughts...
I think you're misrepresenting Catholicism by calling it 'the church of Rome'. It's a universal system.
And I've always felt that the biggest issue with rejecting the Marian dogmas is not that you disbelieve them per se, but that you reject an institution that Christ established to define such matters.
I appreciate that Catholics often argue from history for their beliefs. But Catholic epistemology is more complex than that. We also believe, based on the nature of the Church as revealed in Scripture and through history, that the Holy Spirit leads, protects and guides His people into all truth. As such, it's not fatal to Catholicism if the Marian dogmas were more explacated in later centuries. If the majority of Christendom came to accept these beliefs, for over 1000 years, then it warrants belief.
In addition, many of the protestant dogmas have even less historical asseststion than the Marian dogmas.
@@MrWoaaaaah The Holy Spirit card wins all arguments on Catholic history. We learn that if people are taught a made--up doctrine that's nowhere found in the early church, and if enough people believe it over time, then it "warrants belief," i.e., because legitimate, accurate history.
@@joeoleary9010 blame Jesus for making the Church and sending His Spirit. But on a side note, the Marian dogmas do have patristic evidence and implicit biblical bases.
@@joeoleary9010 Also a pope can teach literal heresy in public debate.....but it doesn't count....cause he wasn't speaking ex cathedra.
Not that strange. The church fathers didn't believe it because it wasn't infallibly taught.
The biblical Mary would be appalled at the false teaching that is centered around her.
Or maybe flattered ? 😂
@@nicklowe_i doubt it
@@nicklowe_ I could only see the sinful and fleshly side of Mary being flattered by this undue deification. Heavenly Mary is perfected now, as all the saints in heaven are. I use the term saints as all saved believers, the same way the bible does.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 This was a joke, hence the laughy face
@@nicklowe_ Ok 😁
Good work! The massive sudden increase in Marian piety at such a late date is a very important observation, especially in light of the high stakes it has for soteriology.
It was one of the biggest stumbling blocks that stopped me from becoming Catholic. It’s so clearly an accretion of dogma.
The Assumption of Mary is just that, an Assumption.
And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple. And there were lightnings and voices and an earthquake and great hail.
Revelation 11:19
And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
Revelation 12:1
There is only 1 Church guided by the Paraclete the Holy Ghost and that is Jesus Christ Holy Catholic Church.. be careful going after Jesus Christ Holy Mother it will lead to hell .
@@johnvitelli3862 where does the Bible say that not believing in Mary as you state her to be sends you to hell? No where. Those verses you quoted have absolutely nothing to do with Mary. She has no idea people even pray to her and she’s not suffering in the presence of the Lord. It’s all man made dogma. Be careful adding Mary and papist dogma to the gospel, it will send you to hell.
@@johnvitelli3862 are those verses supposed to prove the assumption of Mary or something? Even though neither Mary nor an assumption is mentioned?
@@jncon8013 the word Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible do you believe in the Trinity ?
@@jncon8013 who has the AUTHORITY over the Bible ? Shouldn’t it be the Church that put it together in the 4th century?
Becket is an extremely valuable brother in the Lord. God Bless him and yourself too, Gavin. Thanks for all of your work. Hope all is well!
Nice!
Thank you so much for your work, Gavin.
After Bertuzzi converted, I started looking into RC because I didn't know much about it, and they have very effective rhetorical talking points that make you feel icky about not being a Catholic.
Your work has almost single-handedly made me confident in my Protestantism, and I no longer have ecclesial anxiety. Truly, thank you.
That was also how I found Truth Unites.
The overall online reaction to Bertuzzi converting has been fascinating, albeit regrettable at times.
Gavin is a good example of how debates and apologetics can be done well. These should not be used to slander, attack, or dominate, but instead to offer careful, loving, and biblical responses to those we disagree with.
Apologetics has a reputation for being triumphalist and argumentative, but it really should be an avenue for dialogue about important issues. Otherwise, it just becomes a shouting match, like many debates seem to become.
@@ottovonbaden6353 What do you mean by the reaction to Bertuzzi converting has been regrettable?
I just think if he's finding a deeper peace and walk w/ God then it's all good for him. I'm not Catholic, and don't get any icky feeling for not becoming Catholic. I'm just looking for unity as much as we can find, even while believing different doctrines.
@@AshtonSWilson I've enjoyed the debates between Catholics and protestants. No matter if they get triumphant or trying to one up, it's been a wealth of knowledge. Though I do love Gavin's gentle approach. He's not looking to convert them or change minds, just to show why he believes as he does and to give a well informed case for it.
Unfortunately there are certain elements who feel the need to denigrate their brothers and sisters in Christ for not believing the Marion doctrines and their supremacist mindset is quite Islamic in the way they insult and accuse
The 5-6 hour rebuttal at 3 AM incoming.
Yes, lol. Trent Horn and other Catholic apologists could easily crank a series out of this one. God love them.
I recently came across a video from a few months ago where Trent addresses Gavin on the bodily assumption. Being someone who appreciates hearing multiple perspectives, I find it valuable to listen to both sides of the discussion.
@@gto2111 I do listen the Catholic side of things quite a bit. I've listened to a bit of Trent Horn too. His rebuttals tend to be long and sometime multi part rebuttals. I also find him a bit too manipulative and tactical in not just rebutting what was actually said. Gavin gently called him out on this in a short rebuttal that Gavin did.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 In my personal opinion, Gavin can be oversensitive at times. I see him as somewhat effeminate. He criticize individuals like Michael Lofton and Trent etc, who I believe are much kinder than I am. If I were to become an apologist, Gavin would not approve of me lol.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 It's the same when Christians respond to Muslims, atheists etc. The objection can be short, but the response can be longer.
I “might” be the most appreciative of these teachings/ discussions about the RCC! Why? I have been a missionary in Mexico for 12 years and Catholicism reigns here but it looks so different here than in the USA… there’s witchcraft mixed in I’m some places.. they have a ton of saints and other things. It’s so sad, for the most part these people are so lost and have no idea. When we come into a village stepped in traditions of the RCC we most of the time get immediately persecuted.. those who accept the gospel and start studying the Bible etc. get ram out of their villages sometimes.. get their water and electricity taken away and even sometimes killed by the Catholics.. it’s a mess! So I’m super grateful for these videos and will use them… sure wish they were in Spanish too
Same here in Brazil
That’s pretty shocked for someone who had no idea. Thanks for sharing
That's the legacy of Catholicism.
@@chessplayer6632 you bet.. I wish more people knew.. maybe I should make it known more 😄
@@joycegreer9391 pretty much
Thank you, Dr. Ortlund, for graciously contending for biblical truth. I’m a confessional Lutheran, with a SBC background, and I appreciate your ministry!
I think the mystery of Mary's end can be compared to Moses.
Archangel Michael hid Moses' body so the people of Israel will not build a shrine on his bones so they might perform rituals on the shrine to worship Moses. God knew this was the devil's plan.
Imagine if there is a known location of Mary's tomb.
I thank God it remains a mystery.
And the reverse is true with Christ's tomb. The Romans conveniently built a pagan shrine right on top of the place to mark its location so that later on when the Roman empire became Christian they were able to locate Golgotha and build the church of the Holy Sepulchre where Christ's body had lain without much difficulty.
The Orthodox Church has a location which Tradition says is where the Theotokos was buried. There is a church, just like all of the other Holy sites in the Holy Land. It isn’t a source of paganism.
The reason why St. Michael took Moses’ body was because he was holy. Satan had no claim on his body because he was holy.
@@garrettklawuhn9874actually no, that couldn’t be the reason because in the transfiguration, Elijah was also there. Could have been anyone but it’s those two prophets.
@@duckymomo7935 how does that relate to what I said?
It is fairly well known when and where she died and there are those near Jerusalem that are cognizant of her gravesite.
Catholics also have the dogma that Mary was a perpetual virgin, even though Matthew 1:25 clearly states that Joseph did indeed have marital relations after Jesus was born.
The key word, until, does not confirm that they had relations after the birth of Jesus
Why else use the word until?
The text could just have said that he never knew her / had relations with her.
@@geordiewishart1683don’t get caught up in the semantics. My mother never smoked until she died!
@@geoffjs so gimme other context
@geoffjs God never commands Mary or Joseph to refrain from relations either.
I love how the anathema says that those who reject the dogma “will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” You’d think that if you incur the wrath of God that would be sufficient, right? 😆 It’s just more Roman nonsense that detracts from even God’s very own wrath. Even that isn’t sufficient…
I think for people such as myself we crave tradition but at the same time crave truth. Tradition without truth is nothing. I have a very hard time worshipping in a modern evangelical church. I’ve tried it. For me confessional Lutheranism is the only place I’ve felt comfortable. It’s not perfect but it seems better to me then the other options I’ve come across. I always learn from your videos Gavin. Romans Catholics have tradition but they also have a lot of baggage that I’m not down with. A lot of their teachings set my bullcrap alarm off.
Similar for me. The modern evangelical churches for me feel too try hard and showy. I grew up in Assemblies of God Pentecostals and our "old fashioned hymns" was Caribbean dance hall music but slower and they referenced psalms
@@user-ne1ct2ev5z That just makes me second guess the resurrection to be honest.
@@user-ne1ct2ev5z The Marian dogmas are unscriptural and a bit ridiculous and I cannot accept them in good faith.
I agree with you. I think if I could cut out the falsehoods, I would be most comfortable in a Roman Catholic Church, and yet unfortunately I'm essentially forbidden from partaknig in the fullness of worship there (communion) because I can't contend with what their authorities have mandated
With due respect, try and find a Messianic congregation and visit. It's not some judiazing church or denomination, but a congregation of trying to get back to what the Acts Church would have been like, both Jew and Gentile, worshiping the Jewish Savior in the Jewish tradition.
Just a thought and good luck!
The crossover I never know could happen!! ✨🙌
There have been some good ones lately. Redeemed Zoomer and Truth Unites, Becket Cook and Truth Unites...here's hoping they continue!
I think this encapsulates the core of Protestant concerns with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Almost every other issue can be either resolved or simply set aside in order to have a closer union as different members of Christ's Church, but the existence of infallibly defined dogmas which have little if any evidence for them early on, and which are protected by anathema is a of the utmost concern. Teachings like this put the very salvation of those who discuss them on the line - they're not a matter of whether Christ is spiritually or physically present in the Eucharist or some other issue where the differences ultimately end up in interpretation or expression of a practice.
This nothing less than an irreformable and inflexible dogma being defined, with no Biblical, and even no historical support for centuries after the death of Christ to back it up. And further, it carries with it the pain of anathema which was historically understood to be synonymous with expulsion from the church and damnation. This is very concerning to Protestants who want to live in accordance with the teachings and practices of the early church.
And which protestant Church is doing exactly that? All of them? Some of them? None of them?
" Teachings like this put the very salvation of those who discuss them on the line"... I'm not positive how you mean this. Many protestants think it makes Catholics not saved. I'm fairly sure you don't mean it that way. I don't see it that way anymore. Catholics think there is considerable historical backing for their beliefs and refer to the church fathers. As a protestant, what many early Christians believed (who held power and esteem) is not my deciding factor in what I believe now. Gavin has been good at digging up many other church fathers who disagreed, or only agreed in part. Still the ultimate decider for me, as a sola scriptura Christian is, is it clear and evident in the bible, esp. the NT?
Absolutely!
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Catholicism has made it a salvation issue. Salvation of "Catholics" is problematic, not to say impossible.
Catholicism is all about church father writings and tradition, and not so much about scripture.
@@dman7668 Strawman argument.
The issue with Mary being sinless is that it would defeat the purpose of Jesus conquering sin. The divine nature from the Holy Spirit's overshadowing was sinless, but Mary herself had to be sinful in nature, so that Jesus could take on that nature and conquer it, to be deemed as the perfect sacrifice for our sins.
Not now baby, new Gavin Ortlund vid just dropped
St. Paul said, "DO NOT GO BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN." (1 Corinthians 4:6)... Amen.
Yeah.. Throw 7 books in the bible.
@@philipmarchalquizar7741 Any written letters, scrolls, documents, or individual manuscripts "AFTER" the Written Gospel of John and the Revelation had finally completed around 110 A.D. were NOT considered by the early 7 Churches of God in Asia Minor as Inspired by the Holy Spirit... for example, the Gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Judas Iscariot, Barnabas, Nicodemus, Pontius Pilate, Letters of Ignatius, Justin, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Agustine, etc...
The written Revelation of God to Apostle John was the LAST of God's WORD (Inspired Holy Scripture of N.T.) given to Mankind... Logically, God will not give HIS revelation if HE wants to add more... saving the BEST Prophecies for LAST (God's final WORD was the Revelation)...
God said, "Anyone who ADD or SUBTRACT (take away) from the WORD of God including HIS Prophesies written in the scrolls thereof, God will add plagues to them, and erase/remove their names from the Tree of Life... (ref. Rev. 22:18)... This was the SEALED statement of God's WORD.
There were NO more PERSONAL REVELATIONS after the Inspire Holy Scriptures (Word of God) were finally written and completed in individual scrolls (not compiled yet as a Book/Bible) and distributed in the 7 Churches in Asia Minor around 110 A.D.
In conclusion, "AFTER" the Revelation by God to Apostle John was finally written in Greek and distributed in the Early 7 Churches of God in Asia Minor around 110 A.D.... The written NEW COVENANT of God through Christ Jesus was finally completed and sealed...
The Written WORD of God is "ABSOLUTELY MORE THAN ENOUGH." ... All Scripture is God's breathed and useful for Teaching, Correcting, Reproofing, Instructing, and Training in Righteousness... (ref. 2 Timothy 3:16)...
Facts and Truth, Biblically and Historically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
They must of missed those verses...
@@jvlp2046 yeah.. removed 7 books. lol
Mad respect to gavin for being the first protestant to take great care in accurately represent us without demonization. Obviously I disagree for a myriad of reasons and he cant make a Jimmy akins level defense to pick apart in a 13 minute video but I cant exactly hold that against him. All in all, well done
St. John Chrysostom’s Homily 21 on John says Marry sinned at the wedding Canaan and Jesus corrected her.
Whenever you show them church fathers that clearly disagreed with them, they just say well they agreed with me on this part, and will change the subject and act like we cannot use the church fathers to support ourselves. That’s what I’ve noticed, been talking with many Roman Catholics.
Sam Shamoun recently posted a video called 'When protestants argue like heretics and athiests' ... I look forward to one called 'When Roman Catholics argue like muslims' ...
@@MrKingishere1
True. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox do the same. It’s best not to be a slave to any tradition and be honest about what they said and if it is harmonious with Scrioture. I’m an ex-Protestant and mere Christian, with no intention of jumping to a different but equally erroneous and ahistorical faith like RC or EO.
@CatholicTalks
I reject sola fide with my whole heart. Depends what you mean “sola scriptura.” If all one means by it is Scripture has higher authority than one or any number of bishops, then sure. Most ante-nicene Christians would be “sola scriptura.”
Did you know it’s your Protestant tradition to change the word “tradition” to “teaching” and relegate it to a footnote only when it doesn’t fit your narrative? See NIV 2Thes 2:15 and 3:6.
Oh wow, this is wonderful to see an interview w/ you and Becket. I'll go watch it on his channel for now. Still look forward to seeing it dropped on your channel. The comments and dialogue between protestants and Catholics here are refreshing.
This comment section is full of craziness let me tell ya!
Marian Dogmas, Scriptural Defense
Mary is the New Eve (Gen 3:15, Luke 1:28 -1:38, Jn 2:4, Jn 19:26, Gal 4:4, Rev 12:1, Rev 12:17)
Immaculate Conception:
As Eve was created sinless, the New Eve was born unstained by original sin. How can the New Eve be inferior to the old?
ASSUMPTION OF MARY:
If Adam and Eve had obeyed God, they would have entered heaven body and soul. Since the new creation is the fulfillment of the failure of the old, Jesus, the New Adam, and Mary, the New Eve, obeyed God perfectly. Because of their perfect obedience, Jesus and Mary entered heaven body and soul.
CO-REDEMPTRIX:
Both Adam and Eve sinned but it was Adam's sin that caused the downfall. Nevetheless, Eve was Co-Transgressor as she played a vital part in man's downfall. In a similar manner, although Jesus' obedience redeemed man, Mary was Co-Redemptrix as she played a vital role in man's redemption. In Luke Ch 1:28-38, God draws a parallel between Eve and Mary. Eve listens to a fallen angel, sins, and tempts Adam who brings the fall of man. Mary listens to an Angel, accepts God's plan, gives birth to Jesus who is the redeemer of man.
MEDIATRIX OF ALL GRACES:
Mary is Mediatrix of All Graces because Mary gives birth to Jesus who reconciles man to God so we can receive God's grace.
Also through Mary's intercessory prayers, we receive God's grace as displayed at the wedding at Cana when Mary asked Jesus for help and he truned water into wine. It is not Mary's grace, but God's grace that we receive through Mary's intercession.
Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant (Ex 40:34-35, Lk 1:35), (2 Sam 6:1-11, Lk 1:39), (2 Sam 6:14, Lk 1:43), (2 Sam 6:15, Lk 1:42), (2 Sam 6:9, Lk 1:43), ( 2 Sam 6:11, Lk 1:56), (2 Sam 6:11, Lk 1:39-45), (Ex 16:33-34, Ex 25:16, Num 17:10, Heb 9:4), (Rev 11:19, Rev 12:1)
Prefigured in Jephthah's daughter (Luke 1:34,38 Judges 11:35-39)
EVER VIRGIN:
No man could touch the Ark (2 Sam 6:7). Similarly no man could touch Mary the New Ark of the covenant. Mary's viriginy upholds the divinity of Jesus. The Ark's main purpose was to bring the presence of God to his people. Similarly, the New Ark's main purpose was to bring the prescence of Jesus (God/Man) to the world. Sacred vessles set aside for God, cannot be used for normal use. Like a goblet used in worship cannot be used to drink wine at dinner. Simiarly Mary's womb set aside to bring God's prescence into the world cannot be used for normal use.
Luke 1:34,38 was alluding to Jephthah's daughter in Judges 11 who accepted the will of her father and was ever virgin. Likewise because Mary accepted God the Father's will, she became ever virgin. Her womb dedicated to God, could not be used for normal activity.
MOST LEGENDARY CROSSOVER
What’s the evidence for talking a donkey? A few verses. Jonah being swallowed? A few verses. Mary assumed? Revelation 12. I’m not pro assumption - all I’m saying is that for many (Protestant Scholars included) Revelation 12 is Mary.
good topic to tal about. i think video about bodly asumption and immaculate conception with fathers' quotes, similar as you did with icons, would be very helpfull
thanks! I have a lengthy video on the assumption. will consider doing one on the immaculate conception
Mary was filled with the Holy Spirit. Mary gave birth to Jesus and took care of him with Joseph and the family. Mary was at the foot of the cross and among those who stayed in the Upper Room at the Pentecost. That is sufficient to know.
I love Becket❤. Thanks for this great video!
Ready for this good food for thought 😊😊😊
Is it any wonder that this idea came out of Ephesus?
“And you see and hear that not only in Ephesus but in almost all of Asia this Paul has persuaded and turned away a great many people, saying that gods made with hands are not gods. And there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing, and that she may even be deposed from her magnificence, she whom all Asia and the world worship.” When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!””
Acts 19:26-28 ESV
Seems to me that the Marian Dogmas were a great replacement for losing Artemis to Jesus and it would make perfect sense that they would arise from this false female deity being such an icon there in Ephesus.
Ephesus decided the Theotokos, “God Bearer”. Not the assumption, immaculate conception etc. If you don’t believe that Mary have birth to God and that thereby she was the mother of God then you side with the Nestorian Heresy which splits Christ into two people effectively. That really was the point of Ephesus. Also the presider over the council was Cyril of Alexandria who was not from Ephesus. The term “Theotokos” also first comes from Origen of Alexandria. The idea that Ephesus is the origin of the doctrine or any other such Marian dogmas isn’t founded on much other than associations it seems. The term itself comes from Egypt
@@tonywallens2173:40 he talks about that council at Ephesus sort of creating the big stir about Mary, and since it was at Ephesus, I am yes, assuming a little bit that the Artemis part of it could’ve also played a role which we see in Acts 19.
Many people at the council from Ephesus would have taken that part about Mary and could have run with it since they would have grown up being taught Artemis from the ground up… so it’s just a plausible correlation to the later fantasies about Mary such as almost Deity-like status (sinless, etc).
The label Theotokos is part of a theological trajectory with a questionable endpoint.
1. Theotokos - God bearer. Mary bore/gave birth to Jesus.
2. Mother of God. While Mary gave birth to the incarnate Son of the Trinity, she is now subtly credited with being the originator of all the Godhead.
3. Regina Caeli. Mary, Queen of Heaven. Next Mary is credited with assuming authority over Heaven.
4. Our Lady of Perpetual Help. In her privileged role in Heaven, Mary is able to listen to prayers and provide help. This means she is able to answer prayers; ascribing to her the qualities of the Trinity.
5. Co-Redemptrix. Because she bore Jesus, she had an important role in the salvation of Mankind, possibly even a co-equal role.
Is the full video on bekett cooks channel? Those are very important information I have tried to find for years.
yes, see video description for link
Any written letters, scrolls, documents, or individual manuscripts "AFTER" the Written Gospel of John and the Revelation had finally completed around 110 A.D. were NOT considered by the early 7 Churches of God in Asia Minor as Inspired by the Holy Spirit... for example, the Gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Judas Iscariot, Barnabas, Nicodemus, Pontius Pilate, Letters of Ignatius, Justin, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Agustine, etc...
The written Revelation of God to Apostle John was the LAST of God's WORD (Inspired Holy Scripture of N.T.) given to Mankind... Logically, God will not give HIS revelation if HE wants to add more... saving the BEST Prophecies for LAST (God's final WORD was the Revelation)...
God said, "Anyone who ADD or SUBTRACT (take away) from the WORD of God including HIS Prophesies written in the scrolls thereof, God will add plagues to them, and erase/remove their names from the Tree of Life... (ref. Rev. 22:18)... This was the SEALED statement of God's WORD.
There were NO more PERSONAL REVELATIONS after the Inspire Holy Scriptures (Word of God) were finally written and completed in individual scrolls (not compiled yet as a Book/Bible) and distributed in the 7 Churches in Asia Minor around 110 A.D.
In conclusion, "AFTER" the Revelation by God to Apostle John was finally written in Greek and distributed in the Early 7 Churches of God in Asia Minor around 110 A.D.... The written NEW COVENANT of God through Christ Jesus was finally completed and sealed...
The Written WORD of God is "ABSOLUTELY MORE THAN ENOUGH." ... All Scripture is God's breathed and useful for Teaching, Correcting, Reproofing, Instructing, and Training in Righteousness... (ref. 2 Timothy 3:16)...
Facts and Truth, Biblically and Historically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
As my husband and I have journeyed into the Anglican (ACNA) church, our appreciation of the role of Mary has grown. However, we would certainly only subscribe to Theotokos and nothing beyond that.
Same here, I grew in appreciation for the blessed Mother when I journeyed into the Lutheran church. A lot of overlap with Anglicans. I visit my brothers ACNA church (Church of the Redeemer) a few times a year.
You'd be wrong about that.
@@N1IA-4 great comment, very thoughtful and well constructed. 👏
Daily reminder that God has not given us a spirit of fear but of power and love and a sound mind.
Thanks!
Brother Gavin, I’ll be in contact with you to possibly have a colab in my channel for the Spanish speaking community next week. I’ll write to you with a group of questions. Blessings 🙏
One of the serious problems to notice right off the bat is to listen to any RC talk constantly about Mary. It’s like it comes up in every conversation. And then absolute lack of any such language on the lips of the apostles. The difference is striking.
As a Catholic Christian, I don't hear other Catholics constantly talking about Mary. Be careful not to make false assumptions about Catholics.
I've always believed that Christ was born of a virgin so it would prove his identity through a "theotokos" (God bearer). That definition has changed over time to point to Mary rather than its original purpose being Christo-centric.
Even though we are "created" in the image of God, we
"bear" the image of Adam. God placed a seed in Mary's womb that was not from Adam so that Christ's human nature did not come from that same line of depravity because it was a divine conception. He was born without an inclination (propensity) to sin.
Saying Mary needed to be immaculately conceived undermines the fact that the "seed" did not come from any existing man on earth. The divine seed earns the precedence here because it did not come from a natural bloodline. If Mary were immaculately conceived, so should her parents, and her grandparents, etc.. because they were all born under the same conditions which equaled depravity received after the fall of Adam. How do we know if this is the case? Because it's impossible to flip the roles. Children only come from one gender (female). We cannot say there was a virgin man who was given an immaculate egg from Heaven. When seed and egg combine, we are left with a completely new genome which is Christ.
As long as one of the haploids (gamete cells) is divine and not of Adam, the product will not be subject to depravity.
I really appreciate your videos because they make me think as a Catholic. I grew up Protestant and I did not have a good catechesis. I find the authority of the Catholic Church to be very comforting. Jesus gave us a Church and the Church has the authority to decide what is a dogma. I loved how you talked about Theotokos and how we can agree on that point as protestants and Catholics.
Yes, except that the church Jesus gave us isn't the Roman Catholic church.
@@philagon as protestants and Catholics, we agree to disagree on this point. We are brethren and we are both on the path to heaven.
@@zachdavis7536 Nice sentiment, but the Catholic church anathematizes those who disagree with her claim of authority.
@@philagon good UA-cam channels to watch for clarity on this issue are Trent Horn and Bishop Robert Barron. They were a huge part of my catechesis.
@@zachdavis7536
Protestants and Catholics don't believe the same gospel at all. Just on this video you have the reference to a papal bull that anathemises all those who don't believe in the assumption of Mary. Virtually all Protestants reject the assumption of Mary. Therefore, it cannot be said that we are brothers and all on the same path to heaven.
Jesus said:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:24
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life." John 6:47
I don't see anything about the assumption on Mary there, or baptism, or confession.
Even Peter preached this:
"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." Acts 10:43
Cracks me up. She was a sinner like the rest of us. She was not a virgin, except for her first birth. After that she was no longer a virgin. Roman Catholic paganism
🍿🍿🍿
in 1 corinthians 15 St Paul mentions the saving Gospel, yet his Gospel didnt include Marys assumption to heaven.
Really enjoying the recent videos lately, God bless ur ministry!!
“There are many areas of agreement I have with Roman Catholics. They believe the Bible is the Word of God, so do I. They believe in the Trinity, so do I. They believe In Christ’s substitutionary death on the Cross, so do I. They believe in His resurrection, so do I. They believe He is the only way to be saved, so do I.
_”It’s the things that were added later that I disagree with.”_
Dr. Billy Graham, arguably the greatest evangelist since the Apostle Paul (emphasis added)
Thank you for this.
I'm having a thought on the Immaculate Conception of Mary. If Anna (Mary's mother) was herself a virgin when she conceived Mary, why was Mary shocked that she herself will conceive?
"'How can this be,' Mary asked the angel, 'since I am a virgin?' The angel answered her, 'The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. For no word from God will ever fail.'" (Luke 1:34-37)
1.) If Anna conceived Mary as a virgin, why was Mary confused how she could herself conceive as a virgin?
2.) If the reason the angel gave for telling Mary her virgin conception was "so the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God", then wouldn't that mean Mary should be called the Daughter of God?
3.) The evidence the angel used to show Mary that God was able was her cousin Elizabeth being pregnant past child-bearing years, but if Mary's own mother conceived her as a virgin, then why wouldn't the angel have used that as reference instead?
There's nothing in even the most apocryphal Catholic tradition about Anna being a virgin when she had Mary.
That isn't what the Immaculate Conception means. No one thinks that Mary's mother was a virgin when Mary was conceived. Immaculate Conception means that Mary was free from original sin from the moment of conception.
I say this with charity, Gavin is a super smart dude. No doubt. That said why would anyone take his explanations about this topic as the final answer? I’m seeing folks say they are more confident in their Protestantism after watching this, but why not listen to the BEST Catholic argument FOR the Marian dogmas, THEN decide? Tim Staples does a good job explaining the Biblical and historical reasons for the Marian dogmas in videos and in his book Behold your Mother. I’m just saying, look for the really good apologetics from a Catholic, listen to Gavin as well, sure, then make a call. Just some advice FWIW. ✌🏻
All of the Catholic arguments for the Marian Dogmas--but especially the assumption--seem like they were made by people who started with their desired conclusion rather than from people seeking the truth.
@@toddthacker8258 Mary produced that TRUTH, that WAY and that source of everlasting LIFE.
So, where that TRUTH is, so is Mary also.
If Enoch and Elijah who were God's Creations/Prophets taken to heaven and never S see or experience death, what made you thin that the very GOD who made that bodily ascension possible could not make his own MOTHER ascend the way he made them to ascend?
@@michellebryan8148 God certainly could have. There's just no evidence that He did. And there is certainly nothing in Scripture to make us think that Mary should get so much attention that would otherwise be focused on God Himself.
@@toddthacker8258 I’d just suggest, take a read of Behold your Mother and see if you would make the same statement. No one thing is probably going to be a magic pill, but it might be worth checking out. I know many find that Mary being the new Ark of the Covenant is compelling and that’s straight biblical. ✌🏻
Because most of these people are ignorant and intellectually dishonest fundamentalists
Oh no it’s not mentioned until the 4th century. Like everything else Christian it seems. Canon. Trinity.
the canon and the Trinity are very unlike the assumption of Mary. See my recent video on the Trinity for an argument for that; I have one on the canon coming out in 6 days
I would recommend everyone to read Tim Staples book "Behold Your Mother".
Why is that?
Yea the Catholic Church has deviated away from Christ if their entire talking piece is the mother and not Christ
Why would I read a book from a Roman apologist when there is zero historical and biblical evidence for the Marian dogmas? And Rome anathematizes anyone who refuses to believe something that shows up in gnostic writings centuries after Christ? Tim Staples does a good job twisting history and scripture to fit Rome’s narrative. They also try and use Aristotelian philosophy to imply things that scripture and history just denies. Mary was a blessed woman, a wonderful woman who served God in an amazing way. But she was a creature, nothing more.
The North Star of historical hermeneutics is fixed once an infallible conclusion is declared. The "evidence" is required to march towards that conclusion because it is a required entailment that history must affirm it.
I saw the Church of the Dormition of Mary when I visited Jerusalem. I didn't go in, but I saw it from the ramparts. Beautiful place, but based on something that probably didn't happen.
Their Mary nonsense is crazy!!
Revelation 11:19 is the answer to your first question. That is the assumption of Mary.
Catholic*** not Roman Catholic. Roman Catholicism is a slur and was invented by the Protestant Church of England.
And why do you give any credence to the Bible? Aren’t you aware the Bible is the Catholic Holy Divine Liturgy book? We didn’t make it to explain our beliefs. We made it to be read at Holy Divine Liturgy.
Literally nothing here is true.
Rev 11 or 12 isn't Mary. Rev 12:1 starts off by saying 'the sign of a woman.' Meaning its not a real, literal woman.
Roman catholic is a slur? I've heard that before too. Why does Gelasius in the 5th century talk about books forbidden to be read by the 'roman' church? Why does Boniface the 8th in Unam Sanctum talk about salvation being necessary by submitting to the 'Roman' pontiff? Why does Ligouri in his book The Glories of Mary say his pronouncements are to be considered sound theology by the holy 'Roman' Catholic church? Why does your ccc use the term roman over 30 times?
If its a slur, they are doing a bang up job of using it themselves.
*And why do you give any credence to the Bible?*
Its Gods word, why wouldn't we?
*Aren’t you aware the Bible is the Catholic Holy Divine Liturgy book? We didn’t make it to explain our beliefs. We made it to be read at Holy Divine Liturgy.*
Your church didn't make anything. God is the author of His own scriptures not you, your church or anyone else. And catholics can't explain their beliefs from it if they tried.
I’m not Catholic, but I do think it could be possible that Mary was assumed since Elijah and Enoch were taken into heaven bodily just for being closely devoted followers to God. Mary being the mother of God, having a virgin birth and raising Jesus from a young age means she definitely had some sort of special role. I don’t think people should be anathematized for speculation but this and the idea of her being the ark of the covenant is kind of convincing of something more than her just being a normal person.
Mary was definitely blessed among women, and scriptures do show that even her cousin Elizabeth knew this by the power of the Holy Spirit when they were both w/ child, so that's a remarkable scriptural proof. I've never been convinced of the ark of the covenant spiritual type. I think that's a new one that has cropped up w/ Catholic apologists like Trent Horn, that were once protestant, and are grasping to convince the sola scriptura camp of Christians. I might be wrong on that last part. If the ark type is historical w/ Catholics, I'd stand corrected.
@@saintejeannedarc9460the ark type goes back to the church fathers. Hippolytus, Athanasius, and Proclus just to name a few off the top of my head.
@@caseycardenas1668 Ok, then I stand corrected on that, thank you. I think it seems to be newer, because ex protestant Catholics use it so liberally now as tool to reach biblically based Christians. That would seem to be a more fair and correct assessment then.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Gavin himself has stated in prior videos that he believes that Mary is the Ark. I would say your assessment is fair but it also needs to be realized that the contemporary use of Mary as the Ark is prominent because it was always a part of the apostolic faith and even present in early protestantism. It's a response to American Restorationist Movements that have moved away from this view of Mary, it was present in one form or another in 16th century magisterial protestantism.
@@caseycardenas1668 Can you think of a video where Gavin agrees w/ that Mary is the ark? I thought I remembered that he still thinks this type is a stretch, but doesn't need to dismiss it outright. I'm pretty sure it was Gavin, because most protestant apologists aren't that gracious and flexible on it, and ones like James White will just toss it all w/out even smaller concessions. I like James White though. He's a bulldog, but he's our bulldog, lol.
Can any RC answer that if Mary is so important to salvation then why is she only mentioned twice in the last 22 books of the NT,once indirectly in Romans talking about lineage and once in Galatians when she was just mentioned as Jesus mother? The woman in Revelation 12 is very clearly Israel.
Jesus is our salvation, but Mary played a vital role. No Mary, no Jesus. She leads us, like a good mother, to her son
Satan played an important role.
No fall of man, no redemption of man.
Judas played an important role. No betrayal, then no arrest and trial.
Joseph's parents played an important role. No Joseph, then no spouse to support Mary and her child.
Pilate played an important role. No conviction, then no execution.
The tree played an important role. No tree, no crucifixion.
@@geordiewishart1683i get where you're coming from, just remember not to fall into the trap of devaluing Mary, she's been through so much and was an example of a believer to follow regardless of what you believe... personally I'm not sure what I do but some people speak of Mary so lowly it's really sad and unfair
I personally think that the Jesus’ brothers=cousins doctrine is at least plausible based on Scripture and church writings (I’m Protestant but I don’t have any issues with this idea, nor does it conflict with the principles of Protestantism) but the other Marian doctrines are something that I am considerably skeptics of, especially the Immaculate Conception.
I think I'd agree that the cousin relationship idea is plausible though really the only reason you would need to lean into it at all is if you're committed to the other dogmas.
I used to be staunchly opposed to this idea, but after reading the Protovangelion of James, I can see that it could have been the case. Not saying it definitely was, but it made me go from "No, Mary did not remain a virgin," to "Maybe she did, maybe she didn't."
The Immaculate Conception is indicated by the parallel use of eulogemene/eulogemenos (distinction of gender only), in "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." This is the Holy Spirit's expression of the Father's good pleasure in Mary and in Jesus. It is reinforced by "kecharitioene" (full of grace), which has the feminine passive suffix of charitoo- with the prefix ke- indicating an action completed in the past with effects in the present.
Why do we need to believe Mary remained a virgin ... sex within marriage is not a sin ... and the plain reading that Joseph did not 'know' her until after the birth of Christ ... meaning the marriage was not consummated until after that event ... and the references to Christ's brothers and sisters then become simply understood ... and let's not forget Jesus' words that anybody who does the Father's will is His 'mother, brothers and sisters' ... which seems to be Jesus distancing Himself from His biological family rather than say Mary is someone to be elevated above the rest of humanity ...
@@MichaelPetek That seems like a very tenuous and very indirect connection to try to build a damning doctrine off of. Besides, Jesus uses the exact same phrase for woman to refer to people he isn't even related to.
Hi, Beckett. You are a brother in Christ. As a Catholic, I hope you actually get a Catholic to speak on the Catholic dogmas. I like Gavin Outland
but he is not accurate in things he says and he is not Catholic. Isn’t it better (for anything) to learn something from its strengths rather than from an opposing view of them? (Even if for no other reason than to argue effectively against the ?) I hope you can have someone like brant Pitre, Trent horn or scott hahn on to give an alternative opinion. 💙
I wondered if you had any thoughts on why the Marian dogmas came to be. Meaning what is the value added or intent of creating, adopting and following these beliefs by Catholics? Where does it advance them in any way? In summary, why have it? Thank you.
I personally believe it was due to pagan influences and a decrease in knowledge of Jewish instruction of the law and morals. Our faith started in the Synagogues.
What do you get when you have an entire culture that is infused with gods and goddesses, lacks correctional knowledge because it scorns its roots, and it is lured by power of state?
Many of the things I have an issue with in Catholicism I firmly believe it came from pagan influences. Perpetual virgin due to being a consecrated temple virgin --> this seems to be influenced by the temple Diana and its temple virgins. Patron saints--> seems to be influenced by the idea of gods and goddesses for every need. Depicting Mary as a queen of heaven --> influence of the goddess of Ishtar in Mesopotamia.
That's just my opinion.
Without Mary there would be no Jesus. Without Jesus there would be no Christians. Something to ponder. We should all be grateful to Mary for agreeing to be the Mother of the Messiah. She deserves our respect and love. ❤
Speaking on Theotokos, "God-Bearer, It simply is a reference to the incarnation, really, it just means that Jesus is God."
This is wrong, because Theotokos is a title, not one of God's, but of Mary's. It is to hold in honor God's choice of her as the one to bear Jesus.
From Wikipedia: "Theotokos is an adjectival compound of two Greek words Θεός "God" and τόκος "childbirth, parturition; offspring". A close paraphrase would be "[she] whose offspring is God" or "[she] who gave birth to one who was God"."
Gavin, you mentioned that there were several lists of people assumed into Heaven that were written in the Church prior to the 5th century. Can you cite the examples of these?
hey Taylor, they are listed in the chapter on Mary in my forthcoming book. Its several pages so I don't really think they would do well in a UA-cam comment. sorry to keep you in suspense!
@@TruthUnites do you recall the author's names?
Love to hear you're working on that confidence level pastor. Great vid, i wish us Lutherans do more of this kinda content.
Great interview. Gavin, you are a machine. Keep up the good work.
Excellent video
The Marian dogmas are not authentic Christian dogmas as the Trinity is, nor are they a small issue, I cannot and will never accept the idea of Mary being sinless. When I was basically a full on Roman Catholic I defended them but now stepping back from the Catholic Church I realized I only believed it because The Catholic Church said I had to. James White uses an phenomenal question that goes “if you gave the Bible to a thousand people and had them read it from genesis to revelation, would at least one person come to the conclusion that Mary was sinless, the queen of heaven, only had one child, remained a virgin her entire life and assumed into heaven ? The look of confusion would be understandable.” The Marian dogmas are heresy.
A person who could understand the meaning of the Greek terms eulogemene and kecharitomene could easily conclude that Mary was sinless.
A person could find proof that Mary had one child, but no proof that she had any more or that she lost her virginity at any time after the birth of her first.
You could find plenty material in the OT to indicate that the Queen of the House of David was the mother of the King, not his wife.
You could combine Luke 1:43 with John 20:28 to prove syllogistically that Mary is the Mother of God.
@@MichaelPetek Kecharitomene doesn’t work… even Trent acknowledges that the Greek word used for Mary does not in itself show that she is sinless, that word is also used in apocryphal books. Nobody in the early church used the Greek word to show that Mary was sinless, and that word doesn’t show that she is sinless in any shape or form as Horn even acknowledges that and many others. It’s not a good argument and there are countless verses that make it very clear that Jesus Christ was the only man without sin.
@@MrKingishere1 Kecharitomene on its own isn't conclusive. It means that Mary was completely transformed by grace in the past, with effects continuing to the present - that meaning is contained in the ke- prefix.
The effect is indicated by eulogemene. The -mene suffix is feminine passive singular.
The -menos prefix is masculine passive singular and in the NT is used only on two occasions and only of Jesus - as in 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord."
In "eulogemenoi", the -menoi suffix is the mixed gender plural, and is found in "Come, you who are blessed of my Father."
In all these constructions, the root euloge- indicates definitive and irrevocable benediction proper to the Last Judgement.
Mary received her final judgement while she was pregnant and in this life.
@@MichaelPetek If Mary was really sinless, you wouldn't need to do hoop de loops w/ original language to find vague and inconclusive allusions and hidden inferences. If it was as all important as the RCC makes out, by making it dogma that has to be believed, then the bible would clearly say it. Jesus is said to be sinless and it's laid out many times, in black and white, clearly seen and understood, no matter what language the text is translated into. When God wants us to really know and understand something, he makes it that plain.
@@MichaelPetek it doesn’t mean anything special and like I pointed out it’s also used in apocryphal books
I don't care for the term "Mother of God". At first blush, it's a conflation of relationship terms to me.
I could consider "Mother of Jesus, Mother of the Son of Man, perhaps, Human mother of the Son of God.
People don't generally hold consistently to narrow objective definitions and stay true to them. Ideas get quickly blown out of proportion.
Saying "Mary is the mother of God", I get the general idea but do I understand your understanding of it and the subsequent implications?
I try to avoid language that must be microscopically understood and is open to easy distortions.
Mary worship and Hail Mary is sin, it’s terrible that the enemy has deceived so many to do this
See this post, Gabin?Jesus will hold YOU and the other PPastors responsible for their soul.
See how your spiritual toxicity is spreading like fire?
@@michellebryan8148 oh it’s spreading like fire alright, burning out the sin of the land
@@Bhope07 Have you seen comments in other videos expressing their own SAVED ALREADY belief saying.....
" I can do whatever i want and live however i want to live because Jesus died for my sins"
That kind of shallow response is the result of preaching that False FAITH ALONISM doctrine that led them to that false belief and false Pastor like Gabin will be responsible for their deceived and lost souls..
@@Bhope07 And yes, their spiritual toxic teaching are spreading like fire.
@@michellebryan8148 Goodness Michelle, read the Gospels. Jesus said "no man shall come to the Father except by me," not "except by me and my mom."
Protestants may be wrong about Mary but it's not a salvivfic issue.
We know the burial places of John, Peter, and Paul. Where is Marys remains? Certainly John would have remember where he planted Jesus Mom...
Another thought is as these 4th century claims are popping up where is the push back it was only 300 years earlier. Thats like if I said George Washington was assumed into heaven. Clearly there would be people that would correct me because they would know where the remains are. Dr Gavin should go in search of the body since he is so sure its make believe. Does he think the early church purposely hid her body? We can't say the early church didn't recognize the value in the mother of the Lord since Luke interviewed her for his gospel clearly the early church recognized her part in the story. Why would they not mark her grave?
Strange that you think you know where Peter is buried.
Considering there is no proof he was ever in Rome
I was just discussing this topic.
Mary was Jesus's mother there's no need to call her the mother of God she is the mother of the flesh of Jesus, she is blessed, there's no need to confuse by calling her the mother of God she's not the mother of God and there's no reason to play the semantic game it just confuses people
I have no problem w/ Catholics calling Mary the Mother of God. Jesus was both man and God, so that's where it ends w/ me. It doesn't have to be a big dividing point. I can't accept the other Catholic dogmas on Mary, but I'd like to have as little to divide on w/ my Catholic brethren as possible.
Except in the Council, the term Theotokos arose out of this VERY idea that she was merely "Christokos", she who bore Christ, in other words, the bearer of Christ's humanity (flesh).
Amen. I’m glad you laid the hammer down when you needed to brother. Keep up the fight for reform. May the Lord bless you. And, as a new father myself, go enjoy your family :)
Thanks for your work.
The New Testament clearly instructs believers that there is a time and place for rebuking those in error.
@@alwilson3204 I agree
So good. Found the same thing in my own journey peering into Orthodoxy and Catholicism. I came away thinking, they're really shooting themselves in the foot here, only contriving more and more dogmos over millenia at the exclusion of anyone who is more than willing to follow and trust in Jesus for their salvation, but like myself simply cannot sanction or participate in the hyper veneration of Mary or the practice of prayer to the saints.
I came pretty close to becoming orthodox but these beliefs as well as the uncertainty in their model of salvation were the key arguments that stood as immovable obstacles to that end. I am now convinced these later traditions are an invention of the enemy who seeks to divide the body of Christ.
I have to admit that I did not know that the doctrine of the immaculate conception was going this far, so thank you so much for helping me learn.
This doctrine almost make it sound like virgin births are a mutation that just happen to run in their family, rather than being a God unique one off occurrence.
I used to think the Immaculate Conception had to do w/ Jesus being born sinless and perfect. Then I found out that Mary is supposed to be sinless and perfect too. That was shocking. I see no biblical proof of that whatsoever.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 that is precisely what I have thought for years, never thinking it could mean more than that!
@@psylegio I don't see why it needs to mean more than that either? Jesus' virgin birth, his divine nature, being born of God and of a woman in order to be the ultimate redeemer, mediator and savior for our sins is the heart of the gospel. The rest is just gravy.
@@psylegio Mary was born already carrying the cell/egg that is Jesus incarnation (scientific fact - all human women born already carrying every egg cell they will ever have) - plus Mary had to be prepared to share Jesus Blood (scientific fact - lookup fetal microchimerism) !!!! That's right, natural science reveals those long-held positions true!
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Mary was born already carrying the cell/egg that is Jesus incarnation (scientific fact - all human women born already carrying every egg cell they will ever have) - plus Mary had to be prepared to share Jesus Blood (scientific fact - lookup fetal microchimerism) !!!! That's right, natural science reveals those long-held positions true!
The assumption is the most likely of things which only Roman Catholics say about about Mary.
It is interesting that the early Church honored the relics of the martyrs but there is no record of the veneration of Mary's relics. This is evidence that the early Church believed Mary was indeed assumed into heaven. Since everyone believed it and was not atacked it was not actively defended.
If it's true the "early church" believed Mary was assumed into heaven, then why did the 5th century Pope Gelasius condemn the earliest books that speak of the Assumption, and declare them heretical?
Does one find the teaching of Mary's Assumption in the New Testament? No. What about in the writings of the Church Fathers previous to Gelasius? No. What about in the authentic piety of decreed Roman Catholic festivals and observances? No.
@@joeoleary9010 things are more complex than you suggest. Dig deeper into the condemnations attributed to Pope Gelasius I.
@@jonatasmachado7217 If you know what these things are, tell us. I note that a number of Catholics here keep alluding that Gavin can't be right on this topic. Yet they never spell out why.
Does it not seem odd that the current established 4 Marion dogmas are listed in The Protoevangelium of James and Pseudo-Matthew which is rejected by the Roman Catholic church?
As odd as all the other Christian doctrinal varieties.
@@tookie36 not really.
Protestant hold firm primarily to the original Church Deposit, which was absent of medieval accretions such as veneration of saints, purgatory and indulgences which violate Deuteronomy 4:2. - We didn’t add or change anything. We removed developed extra-biblical nonsense to restore the church as it was when it started.
There are hardly 30,000; Adventists, Anabaptists, Anglicans/Episcopalians, Baptists, Calvinist/Reformed,[h] Lutherans, Methodists, Moravians, Plymouth Brethren, Presbyterians, and Quakers. Nondenominational, charismatic and independent.
And really only a hand-full of these adhere to Luther and Calvin original intentions.
The current true reformed church adheres to true apostolic succession based on its original definition, which is the passing down of the gospel and teachings of the apostles from Scripture.
If we are talking Protestants who engage in rock concerts, you’re going to find almost 100% agreement with a true reformed Protestant on that particular topic. We reformers would never consider them anything related to reformation theology other than just tickled the ear preaching.
All TRUE reformed churches adhere to the infallibility of scripture as did the early patristic Fathers.
- Irenaeus (AD 180): 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. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1)
- Athanasius (AD 296-373): The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. (Against the Heathen, 1:3)
- Augustine (AD 354-430): It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place. (Letters, 82.3)
But thankfully, the number of protestants is rivaling that of Roman Catholics in that we are quickly catching up globally at about 800 million. Together that gives us almost 2 billion church figure which is astounding given the global population of 9 billion.
But technically, the church is invisible in that its core definition are those who hold faith in Christ alone. Christ said there is only one faith and one church and that is true. But that one faith is saving faith not a declared declarative faith as in some sort of title. The faith is saving faith and the church is those who possess saving faith and these people exist in many churches.
@@HillbillyBlackWhat is that One Church named?
@@geoffjs Ecclesia. It means one body unified. A gathering. You see scripture never calls the church "catholic". this is a later developed title which means universal. not Roman.
I think you need a Catholic theologian on here to discuss our beliefs about Mary, 🙂.
Why?
Are you unable to articulate or understand your own beliefs?
@@geordiewishart1683because we, as lay Catholics, are not doing a good job of convincing skeptical,Protestants!
If Protestants knew what riches they’re missing by turning their collective back on Mary, they would drop their reservations - Through Mary to Jesus which I have experienced.
Catholicism enjoys the three legged stable stool of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Tradition & the Magisterium as well as the other three legged stool of Marian Devotion, Real Presence of the Eucharist & the Holy Spirit. Three legs is a very important concept for engineering, so as to ensure stability! The Trinity is obviously three legged as is Mary ie the New Eve, New Ark & New Queen
Gavin, you should read The Glories of Mary and make some content on that.
most catholics aren't catholic in belief they just choose to identify as catholic because of family tradition. I know, i was raised catholic and praise the Lord now I am a saved and sealed Christian. Thank you Jesus for saving me and quickening me
I am Catholic from the cradle and I agree that alot of people show up because of family tradition. Its not like thr church doesn't try to explain the faith though alot of is just don't want to listen. I teach Sunday school now to 6th graders so I see it first hand every week.
What most Catholics do is irrelevant to whether Catholicism is true.
Then there is hope that some "Catholics" might be saved.
Then there is hope that some "Catholics" might be saved.
Anyone can take a family tradition for granted. As a Catholic convert, I take none of it for granted. Jesus be praised.
PROTESTants famous answer to Catholics, Orthodox etc...." If it's not in the bible, it can not/should not be believed"
Such a great insult to God!!
What a very hypocritical statement . How many verses of the disciples or Jesus own words CLEARLY written inside the bible that PROTESTants do not accept and believe?Countless of them! So many bible verses that shows Proofs of this church authentic foundation and yet, because it makes PROTESTant church belief as false, they find ways to eradicate and bury the real meaning to oblivion by spreading words like....
" metaphorical or Typology"
Wait a minute now PROTESTants......So, what happen to your belief that ONLY what's written inside the bible should be believed, because anything OUTSIDE the bible is from the devil.There is NO verse/s written inside the bible that support your SOLA SCRIPTURA belief.None.
Revelation 22:18 is NOT referring to the bible, but John's BOOK OF REVELATION.
Galatians 1:8-9 refers to False pastors whose preaching doctrine outside Paul/disciples teaching and whoever does that kind of false preaching ?They are ACCURSED!
WHERE does it say that God can not and does not execute/showcase/perform/not do ANY wondrous and jaw-dropping works, which includes RAISING and assuming the body of the very WOMAN he resided for 9 months?
God was/is that Ungrateful, huh?
That insensitive?
That unkind?
That rude?
That Uncaring?
So, Ungrateful that he just let Mary's BODY buried into the dirt and be eaten by worms like most PROTESTants so Uninformly shared.Well, with that shallow and nonsensical belief of yours PROTESTants, you just made Jesus BROKE his own commandment to.....
" HONOR your FATHER and MOTHER"
Ask YOURSELF....
If you were God, is that how you would treat your own earthly MOTHER?No?
So, what made you think God would do such a cruel and heartless thing!
😂😂😂
@@albertofranca41 LA laughing emoji is a sign that you lack that biblical reasoning.
I am sure you would believe this dogma if Jesus himself told you it was true. I also am sure you know the people of the Catholic Church believe that the Holy Spirit was provided to the Church by Jesus to lead it to all truth in matters of Dogma. If the Catholic Church does not have this charism, then who gets to decide these things? Human beings who think they are 'full of Grace' and able to fully grasp (without any Pride) all that is inspired by the Holy Spirit? Who gets to decide what books go in the bible? Who gets to provide proper interpretation of the bible? Who gets to decide what the sacraments are? Who gets to decide what happens in the sacraments? Who gets to profess proper understanding of baptism; the real presence; etc.? The "likeminded" believers in Jesus as God and Savior is too vague, impossible to frame, and leaves too many unanswered (important/salvific) questions - which absolutely leads to a relativism that has run wild in our society today.
We must turn away from pursuing Jesus with (wise) interpretation and start pursuing Him with a more human relationship. If the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, if He is the Head and we are the body, then relationship with the Church is truly relationship with Him. In this sense the Church is NOT primarily an institution, it is a 'who', it is Christ visible in the world. It is the 'city on the mountain' it is the lamp on the lampstand. Catholics sit at the feet of the Church and by proxy we listen to Him - this is God's desire for us all as he said; "This is my Beloved Son, listen to Him".
This apologetic is essentially one massive deflection. It is a way of avoiding fact questions. And it does this by side-stepping the historical reality of what is being discussed in favor of a generic "they must be right in general, therefore they must be right about this." But that logic doesn't move beyond the realm of pious narrative, especially in the presence of competing claims.
For me, your statement raises far more questions than it provides answers. Self identification as a Christian brings one under the authority of the Church, under elders, under judgement and under the command to restore repentant sinners. The question of who is a true Christian, is one for the Lord upon His return, sorting the wheat from the tares. So, we can never and should never take our salvation for granted. How can a person be watchful and careful if anyone should say, it's ok, we've judged you saved already? Yet, over silly nonsense, Rome has pronounced damnation on millions! It's foolish to rely on theological bable, won't the Lord judge the heart? Be true to the light you have and trust Jesus to speak to His bride.
@@lazaruscomeforth7646 no deflection at all. My answer to the questions I pose is the Church - which we beelieve to be Christ. Jesus was not recognized for who He was in His time and that remains true today. What is your answer to the questions I posed? Please be specific.
Until one understands where the authority of dogmas come from they will deny the scriptural interpretations laid out by the Church on Marian dogmas.
We listen to Jesus and are led and guided into all truth through the bible. The bible is said to be the very word of God, Christ is the word of God. Our reading of the NT shows us that we can individually be led by the Holy Spirit. We sit under elders, teachers, pastors, priests to be taught and fed, but our ultimate walk w/ God is a personal one. There were many church bodies laid out in the NT. The were exhorted to be united in Christ. We are all united in Christ.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 who has the proper bible interpretation? Who had the authority to pick the books of the Bible?
Is becket looking into becoming Catholic like his parents were?
Mary is the Queen of Heaven.
She is Queen of the Apostles.
You should invite on Dr Scott Hahn
So many Catholics here, "you should invite this guy, that guy" to save the day with unknown info that legitimizes the Assumption. If you people don't have answers, what make you think Akin, Petrie, or Hahn will have anything worthwhile to contribute?
@@joeoleary9010The argument here is that he should have invited a Catholic. Gavin is not an expert in Catholic theology. At all.
@@joeoleary9010 Not everyone can articulate their beliefs to the degree that a biblical scholar can. Dr Scott Hahn was a Protestant minister and he can explain things more clearly and with the understanding the grave errors of Protestant teachings
The worst part of taking gnostic tales and binding them to the consciences of men. Immaculate conception, bodily assumption, perpetual virginity, not only are they nowhere in the Bible, in order to reach the perpetual virginity conclusion you have to do backflips; deny context and twist your brain into a pretzel, but the worst part is that these 3 dogmas are attributed to the singular glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. They are taking glory from Him and giving it to another. They do it with the Pope, they do it with Salvation and Justification and they do it with Mary. Rome as it is today started as a 6th century invention and continued its distortion through the Middle Ages until God raised up the Reformers to bring the One True Church back to the Bible and the Early Church. Stack up the fathers against Rome and the Reformers and Rome doesn’t stand a chance. They have just done a good job lying to their people and twisting history and scripture. This is what happened when you place men as a higher authority than scripture
To believe in the Marian dogmas is to confess that Mary was not fully human, but something more akin to a demigod, like Achilles or Perseus.
It makes sense that such a doctrine would begin to develop when it did, considering the sheer number of Greco-Roman pagan converts that came into the church after Christianity was legalized and became the state religion of the Roman Empire.
No, we don’t believe that.
“What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ.”
“The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son."
... and it seems so unrelated to salvation.
(A Catholic Response) Two items: 1. Theotokos. Your take was very good - but not deep enough. The issue at Ephesus was about whether to refer to the Blessed Mother as "Theotokos" (God-bearer) or "Christotokos" (Christ-bearer). The Nestorians were OK with "Christotokos" because they held (among other heresies) that Jesus became divine after becoming human - maybe even as late as his baptism. Calling Mary "Theotokos" not only reinforced Jesus' divinity, but emphasized that he was fully God and fully human from the moment of conception. There was never a moment when the man Jesus was separate from the Second Person of the Trinity.
2. Overall, may I suggest that you’re looking at Catholicism through a microscope when it would be more efficient, effective, and (IMHO) reasonable to do so through a telescope. From a documentary perspective, you might be correct in saying that there is scant evidence for and, thus, “no real reason to believe in the Marian dogmas of the bodily assumption and the immaculate conception.” But those, or any individual, Catholic doctrines or dogmas are of secondary importance and are completely taken care of when the primary issue - Church authority - is settled. If the Church truly has divine authority to “bind and loose” (Matt 18:18), and that authority is perpetual, then the only reason one needs to believe in the Marian dogmas, or any other Catholic doctrine/dogma, is that the authoritative Church says so. If the Church doesn’t have any of those Christ-given authorities, then everything it says is up for grabs. Moreover, since the Church claims those authorities, if it really doesn’t have those divine authorities, then it is, at best, a dangerous distraction from true faith, and more likely a demonic obstacle to man’s union with Christ. So, if you come to a conclusion on the Church’s authority claims, the (relatively) minor issues of individual doctrines and dogmas fall into place rather easily.
Does the EO church approve of these??
Does the EO church approve of these??
Gavin doesn't believe in the infallible authority of the Catholic Church either, William, so I don't think you are moving the needle much.
@@toddthacker8258 but that's my whole point. Instead of nit-picking individual Catholic doctrines, demonstrating the lack of divine authority of the Catholic Church would bring the entire structure down. However, the problem with attacking the authority of the Catholic Church is trying to keep the authority of Scripture in the process. Gavin's take on how we got the Canon, from the (admittedly) little that I have heard, is that the Canon developed organically and was just accepted over time by Christians as Holy Writ. The documentary evidence for Church councils debating and making declarations on the subject really, really make that idea hard to swallow. As I started to investigate Orthodox and Catholic teaching (as a Reformed Calvinist Presbyterian), I took the same tack. I targeted one specific doctrine after another that I believed was heretical and/or extra-biblical and, thus, not acceptable. As I was not getting the results I wanted - invalidation of Catholic teaching - I decided to go for the jugular - Church authority. When that didn't go the way I wanted either, I had to become Catholic. It wasn't easy. Socially and family-wise, it would have been a lot easier for me to stay Protestant, but that would have been direct disobedience to the Holy Spirit's leading. I'm still open - if anyone can demonstrate that the Catholic Church is NOT Christ's authoritative representative on earth, then I'll revert to being a devout Protestant.
The Book of Kings featuring Elijah's assumption into heaven was written 200-250 years after the event supposedly occurred during the reign of King Josiah but may have been written even later during the Babylonian captivity. The King's author relied on the writings of Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Chronicles of the Kings of Judah which are lost. Therefore, we have a historical event written centuries after the fact, not by a witness of the event, relied upon by lost works by unknown authors, and by an unknown author. Indeed, if the criteria are that the historical event must have been recorded within 100 years and by a credible eyewitness to that event, the entire OT is out. There are several NT books that would also be out as well because the author is unknown or falsely attributed to someone who was an eyewitness or was not even an eyewitness to the event. In conclusion, the criteria of whether the Mary assumption is true or not cannot be the same criteria that would make most of the Bible fall.
Difference is
1.) We have access to the beliefs of alot of people living at the time unlike the OT
2.) The belief either leave out or contradict bodily ascension
3.) We know the historical Genesis of those beliefs and they are neither exegetical nor apostolic
God had earlier told Elijah he was to anoint a man named Elisha as a prophet to succeed him (1 Kings 19:16). Later, as the two men walked together, Elijah said to Elisha, "What may I do for you, before I am taken away from you?" (2 Kings 2:9). This led to a discussion of God's gifts to Elisha that would allow him to fill Elijah's role.
"Then it happened, as they continued on and talked, that suddenly a chariot of fire appeared with horses of fire, and separated the two of them; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven" (2 Kings 2:11). Elijah was now gone. The former followers and students of Elijah were now to look to Elisha as their new leader. "Now when the sons of the prophets who were from Jericho saw him, they said, 'The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha'" (2 Kings 2:15).
Many readers assume that Elijah at that point was made immortal and taken to the heaven where God resides. This was not the case. The sons of the prophets knew otherwise. They knew the whirlwind had simply removed Elijah to another location on earth. They exclaimed to Elisha: "Look now, there are fifty strong men with your servants. Please let them go and search for your master, lest perhaps the Spirit of the Lord has taken him up and cast him upon some mountain or into some valley" (2 Kings 2:16).
The disciples were concerned for Elijah's safety, so they sent out a party of 50 men to search for him. The 50 searched for three days but did not find him (2 Kings 2:17).
Another passage proves conclusively that Elijah was not taken up to live in heaven. The Bible records that Elijah wrote a letter to Jehoram, the king of Judah, several years after he was removed in the whirlwind.
Notice the sequence of events recorded for us in the Bible. Elijah's last recorded and dated act occurred during the reign of the Israelite king Ahaziah when Elijah told the king he would die for his sins (2 Kings 1:3-17). Ahaziah's reign lasted only about a year, ca. 850 B.C.
Elijah's removal and replacement by Elisha is then recorded in the next chapter, 2 Kings 2. The story continues with incidents from Elisha's life, including an encounter with Jehoshaphat, king of Judah (2 Kings 3:11-14). Several years later Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, succeeded his father as king of Judah, ca. 845 B.C. (2 Kings 8:16).
Jehoram proved to be a wicked king, leading the nation of Judah in rebellion against God's commandments. A few years into Jehoram's reign, and several years after Elijah's removal, Jehoram received a letter from Elijah warning the king of dire consequences because of his sins. This letter is recorded in 2 Chronicles 21:12-15.
This letter proves that the prophet was still alive and on earth some years after he was removed by the whirlwind and replaced by Elisha. God had chosen Elisha to succeed Elijah as His prophet, so He bodily removed Elijah to another place, where he continued to live for at least several more years-as his letter to Jehoram demonstrates.
The Bible tells us nothing more about Elijah's life following his writing of the letter. But he eventually died, just like the other prophets and righteous men of the Old Testament, who all died in faith, not yet receiving the eternal life God had promised (Hebrews 11:39).
Again, a careful reading of the Scriptures shows that Elijah's miraculous removal by a fiery chariot involved transporting him to another location on earth, not to eternal life in heaven.
Just watched your interview with Beckett. Love what you're doing!
Me too!
Of course they are historically credible, what a question?
A great sign was seen in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
Revelation:12:1
Israel
I wonder if the worship of isis and osiris came into play here. Could the church have used the imagery of isis and osiris to shape their own art to draw in those pagan worshippers into the church? Isis worship lasted into the fourth century, so the timeline is about right
Solid breakdown again Dr.Ortlund
I appreciated the spotlight on nuance and common ground available for "Mother of God" language in your Christological and Trinitarian statements starting around 7:00.
Did I just see Becket cook drink out of a beaker at the end of the video?....heheheheh.. Great video Dr Ortlund
It is quite conceivable that some things were known in the Church to be true about the Blessed Virgin Mary which were not openly proclaimed as required to be believed, but which God has since led His Church to openly assert. I believe these dogmas, but, as an Anglo Catholic, I can question whether it was right that Rome should assert them as being de fide when they had not previously been held to be so, ie necessary to be believed for salvation.
That’s the biggest issue. By making the dogmas necessary for salvation the RCC has created a huge stumbling block for many potential converts. Many church fathers disagreed on what happened to Mary. Why make this dogma essential for salvation? I’m just as troubled as Gavin is by it. It confuses me.
This is the main thing keeping me from Orthodoxy and Catholicisn
Mary's Dogma is keeping you from being really SAVED?
Then, you are a confused Christian.
Why confused?
Because you can not identify the importance of Jesus ,,,, NEW ARK.
Besides, what made you think that believing Mary's Dogma would offend God Or lessen your SAlVATION.In fact, it's the other way around.
People who are hesitating of becoming Catholic due to Mary's Dogma is not understanding one thing......
God/Jesus will not be offended just because a person is believing that particular dogma of his chosen WOMAN/NEW ARK who helped/cooperated and participated to bring fulfillment of his Masterplan to bring SALVATION to his sinful creations.It's the other way around...
He would be offended if people like Gavin is preaching/leading people away from acknowledging HIS own MOTHER'S important role as his earthly NEW ARK/ABODE and spreading such nonsense, disrespectful teaching esp. when Pastor, like McArthur and others, referring to Mary as PAGAN Goddess.
That is blaspheming the very chosen woman who gave FORM to an invisible and formless God.
Logging off....
The apparitions and miracles related to Our Lady are WELL DOCUMENTED and should be part of the discussion. In the same vein Gavin could have researched and reported what was considered by the Church in defining the dogmas. Start with humility and seek Truth. Luther loved Mary - think about that.
Apparitions etc should not be part of the discussion as it's a change of subject. Luther loved Mary is likewise a change of subject, ie irrelevant. The encyclical Munificentissimus Deus lays out the reasons why Pius XII originated this dogma in 1950 -- to encourage the faithful to have more respect for the message of Catholicism.
So how do you explain the Marian Apparitions around the world? Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, etc. There is mounds of evidence of her work on behalf of her Son in our world, how do you explain this away?
They refuse believe those.
They don't need to believe in rumours and man-made superstitions. Save that for the RCC
@@HearGodsWord perfect so the Atheists are right then. Christ was never resurrected because that's just man made superstition. There's clearly no evidence whatsoever of either Christ or Mary acting in our world, so who would believe that sort of thing anyway, right?
@@BrohamMCDemons
@@internautaoriginal9951 you shall know them by their fruits. These events have brought more to faith in Jesus, not less. If they were truly demonic supernatural events it would have been obvious.
So you either believe that Satan has the power to move the sun about the sky like it's a soccer ball, or you believe everyone at Fatima had a mass hallucination. Again, you sound like an atheist who argues that the apostles were either sincerely mistaken, or hallucinated.