Does Church History Lead to Catholicism? (Joe Heschmeyer & Dr. Gavin Ortlund)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Whose side is church history on? Can you be deep in history and remain a Protestant? In this lively discussion, Dr. Gavin Ortlund (Ph.D. in Historical Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary) and Joe Heschmeyer (author of Pope Peter) square off on this important topic. Questions ranged from, "why does church history matter?" to the nature of the church, the papacy, and the church fathers.
Dr. Gavin Ortlund:
www.gavinortlun...
Joe Heschmeyer:
www.shamelesspo...
The Cordial Catholic:
podcast.thecor...
Support Gospel Simplicity:
Patreon: / gospelsimplicity
Merch: www.teespring.c...
Follow Gospel Simplicity on Social Media:
Facebook: / gospelsimplicity
Instagram: / gospelsimplicity
Twitter: / gsplsimplicity
About Gospel Simplicity:
Gospel Simplicity began as a UA-cam channel in a Moody Bible Institute dorm. It was born out of the central conviction that the gospel is really good news, and I wanted to share that with as many people as possible. The channel has grown and changed over time, but that central conviction has never changed. Today, we make content around biblical and theological topics, often interacting with people from across the Christian tradition with the hope of seeking greater unity and introducing people to the beautiful simplicity and transformative power of the gospel, the good news about Jesus.
About the host:
Hey! My name is Austin, and I'm a 22 year old guy who’s passionate about the beautiful simplicity and transformative power of the gospel. I believe that the gospel, the good news about Jesus, is really good news, and I’m out to explore, unpack, and share that good news with as many people as possible. I'm a full blown Bible and Church History nerd that loves getting to dialogue with others about this, learning as much as I can, and then teaching whatever I can. I grew up around Frederick, MD where I eventually ended up working my first job at a church. They made the mistake of letting me try my hand at teaching, and instantly I fell in love. That set me on a path for further education, and I'm currently a student at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, IL, studying theology. On any given day you can find me with my nose in a book or a guitar in my hands. Want to get to know me more? Follow me and say hi on Instagram at: @austin.suggs
Send Me Books or Other Things if You’d like:
Austin Suggs
820 N. La Salle Dr.
CPO 123
Chicago, IL 60610
Video Stuff:
Camera: Canon 80d
Lens: Sigma 17-50 F2.8
Edited in FCPX
Music:
Bowmans Root - Isaac Joel
As an Orthodox Christian who converted to orthodoxy from Catholicism, who converted to Catholicism from Protestantism, who now is considering coming back to Catholicism- your Chanel is a huge blessing to me right now.
Wow what a journey you are riding brother
Talk about full circle! God bless.
I'm so glad that the channel is helpful to you!
@C oh man... Pope Patchamama has quite a ring to it lol
Do you know who "they" are? ua-cam.com/video/mhCmbTPdQ34/v-deo.html
The winner shall be determined by whoever has the most books in background. Bonus points if the shelves are mahogany.
Ha! I must say, I fear for Joe then...
That was hilarious 👍👍😄
Gavin wins. The rest of us are not worthy!
Michael Lofton has entered the chat... in a qualified sense. 😜
@@MouseCheese2010 yes lol
I’m around the 1:19:00 mark and a key presupposition that is going unrecognized in this discussion is how fundamentally incarnational do you recognize Christianity to be? After 20 years raised as a Catholic and then 20 years spent thereafter as a Protestant (and now a Catholic revert), probably the most distinctive aspect between Catholic and Protestant understanding of ecclesial structure, dogmatics, liturgy, sacramental theology, worship, etc. is the level to which you accept a baseline necessity of an incarnational ontology for Christianity. Put another way, just how “physical” is Christianity created to be?
I have realized a treasure trove of Church history, insight of the patristics and saints through the ages, beauty in liturgy, partaking in the Eucharist and a sense of homecoming all over the world in any Catholic parish, but the most fundamental change that I completely unexpected (but has been the most inspiring) is the physicality of all Christian worship as truly a fulfillment of OT Jewish temple worship. The spaces, smells, tastes, oils, elements, statues, icons, kneeling, crossing, prostrating, Eucharistic adoration, prayer ropes and rosary, prayer cards... I am convinced that the Incarnation was not just an event showing how salvation history came to a head, but also a profound insight into just how physical WE are as created beings. In short, I’ve come to love that Christianity is not only mystical, emotional and intellectual, it is deeply and inescapably physical.
Thanks to all participants for this great discussion!
That's an interesting point!
So well said! I’m a Catholic convert from Presbyterianism and while my wife isn’t on the same page, after a couple years looking closely at the Catholic world, she acknowledges and appreciates precisely that physicality you’re pointing at.
This has been on my mind a lot lately. You put it perfectly into words something that has been nagging at me in my Protestant walk.
This is an underrated reply. Thanks for that insight.
Yes and Amen! It's the heart of the church, not just the intellectual, spiritual and physical, but the New Creation in Christ; to participate in the wonder of His peace and joy, forgiveness and life ... It's the treasure that sustains me in this world. The beauty of the absolution throws out my inclinations toward nilhism, and Christ's Body and Blood strengthen His Baptismal promises. The Incarnation is for me the beautiful centre and foundation of my faith.
Which is why I long for the common union Christ prayed for, and mourn the schisms between our traditions. The talking past and the difference of language translation, if I dwell on the the communication breakdown, drives me insane. I just hope my synod will shake off the last remnants of the pietist dominance, stop looking to bapto-costals for advice and recover our so-called lutheran heritage, particularly the lazer focus on Christ's incarnation for us.
These really are great conversations, love the 'cordiality' of all four. Thank God, Austin and Keith for the opportunity to listen.
Wow, Austen, I can't believe you're only in your early 20s and you're out here moderating such big convos such as these!! Every time I come back to your channel, I'm always so impressed. Keep up the good work!
Thanks Anna!
Please don’t remind us of Austin’s vitality!
May the Holy Spirit reveal the truth to all men of good will 🙂
Amen
Amen!
Amen!
All Christians have rights to practice as they choose.
Constanine's liturgy is how its sung in Orthodox Churches.
It’s clear that a lot of people who are baptized as children were never regenerated. They never followed Christ. Many of them left the church. you know this is true and all churches. True baptism is baptism of the Holy Spirit I Corinthians 12:13. This happens through faith and trust in Christ.
Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; Galatians 3:2
I think a conversation between Dr. Ortlund and Steve Ray would be fascinating since Steve Ray is a Catholic convert from the Baptist tradition
I'd love to have Steve Ray on the channel!
@@GospelSimplicity can you get it done 😊
Awesome conversation. I’m Catholic and accept and are convinced in the validity and authority of the church and accept all of its dogmas. Although I do not agree with Protestantism, the guest’s explanations of his beliefs helped me understand their stance.
Glad to hear that!
This was amazing. Thank you to the four of you.
For me personally, this was a healing experience 🙏. And I think the polite and humble way to argument and disagree, was a hugh testimony... (Imagine if Rep. and Dem. Politicians discussed like this)
More of this. God bless you all
So glad you enjoyed it Mikki!
When Dr. Ortlund says that a 90/10 split will be more convincing than a 60/40. By that logic, we should all be Arian. In that case, the 10 beat the 90.
Interesting point
@joseph goemans
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here. Orthodoxy has never been something we put to majority vote. Athanasius is lionized by Catholics for being “contra mundum.” For taking the struggle into exile. For opposing the established, visible church hierarchy. St. Francis did so. Joan of Arc did so. Catherine of Siena helped heal the Great Schism by going to the Pope and opposing him to his face. It may have been 99/1 against Luther at first, but now it’s something closer to 65/35 (Catholic to Protestant). Truth is truth because you can show it to be so. Not because it is backed by authority or consensus. (Thomas Howard, a Catholic convert from Evangelicaism has said that as many as 9 out of 10 American Catholic parishes are not following official church teaching at all closely in many areas.)
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you men for the charity, clarity and humility to ask very difficult questions with respect and candor.
Glad you enjoyed it Fr. Peter!
If you aren’t a Patreon, now is the time! This was SO good! They said they plan to do more in the future!
This was SO good!
Thanks Colleen!
Thank you Pastor Gavin for refuting the lie of “being deep in history is to cease being Protestant.” Thank you, for being a living example, that this statement is simply not true.
Church Fathers were all Catholic priests.
No that is historically not true. At the council of Nicaea (325 AD) they recognized that there were different regional authorities. So by definition the church fathers were not all Catholic priests as the church fathers also came from the other four regions.
@coloradodutch7480 Church Fathers all celebrated Mass, all believed in the Real Presence and they all acknowledged the papacy - making them all Catholic priests.
Joe mentioned that Newman might mean believing the same teachings as the early church, as being deep in history, being historically aligned perhaps, instead or mere knowledge but misalignment.
Maybe it's more precise to say: "To be aligned with history is to cease to be Protestant". This does not mean if the early Church is silent, then you're not aligned with it, it means there's no history on the matter and is yet to be defined.
@@coloradodutch7480 Nicea was chaired by the papal legate.
Quote from St Ignatius of Antioch. "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
Tell me you don’t know what Reformed believe about real presence without saying you don’t know. P.S. I hope you brush up on the gospel, it’s been massively distorted
This is the best version of the conversation my wife and I have about once a month. If either of us were this smart I think one of us would have given in at this point. I need to hit the books.
This is how ecumenical dialogue should always go.
I'm glad you enjoyed it!
The answer won't be entirely found in dialogue. Only the Holy Spirit can let the scales fall from the eyes to reveal the truth. Unless someone is asking for that revelation of the truth first, they won't be open to receive it from anyone, including the Holy Spirit.
That was fabulous interview, thanks Austin and Keith for the time putting this together. Praise and glory to Jesus
It was our pleasure!
A great discussion, highly enjoyable. As an Orthodox Christian I found myself nodding in agreement at different comments made by both Joe and Gavin. If only a 3 way debate could be an effective approach to discussing some of these things! Having an Orthodox perspective that at times is different than either Catholic or Protestant's stances on some of the things discussed here would have been cool to see.
Glad you enjoyed it! That would be fun to set that up!
I like the fact that Dr Gavin doesn’t come up with straw man arguments against Catholics.
As a Protestant I grew up with these false accusations against Catholics so when I discovered that my misconceptions towards Catholics were not accurate I felt bombarded with facts but something in me just couldn’t seem to fully agree with Catholic doctrine.
I’m not saying that Catholic doctrine was heretic but I didn’t think it was accurate but Dr Gavin actually laid out some points on stands on Protestants.
Moving forward I hope that Catholics, Protestant, and orthodox can come in agreement despite their doctrinal differences as the unified body of Christ
This was great. I’d love to see these guys back. I like this format because it’s more conversational than debate. I’ve seen some debates where one side was just do obstinate that it was like they couldn’t even bear to listen to the other. You guys do good work. To tag on to something that Gavin said, daily and not than once a day, I pray for unity again amongst the denominations. And I’m Catholic.
So glad you enjoyed it!
I see your comment is older, but I just want to heartily support it. I pray for unity and strive for it when engaging w/ Catholics. It can be a challenge w/ our doctrinal and ultimate authority differences, but our unity is always in Christ. He knew we would struggle w/ this, that's why there's so many reminders in scripture.
Gavin, as a lifelong Catholic, you gave me some things to think about. I always submit to the historical magisterium & will do so until the day I die, but you're right that we all make a choice of what we believe. Whether Catholic, Baptist, Angelican, or evangelical, we make a choice. That helps me understand what my protestant friends must think when I tell them that they are their own Pope. Thanks 😊
The big and comforting thing for me when I don't understand or believe something the Catholic Church teaches, I just assume I'm wrong & submit. Is that humble or lazy ignorance. I don't think so b/c i almost always keep studying & reading until I seem to always understand & believe, rather than marching to the Church down the road. In fact, if I ever leave a Catholic Church for another Catholic Church in town, its b/c the priest himself has preached against a magisterial teaching.
I'm glad this gave you something to think about in future interactions!
Are you committed until the day you die because it's the TRUTH or because you'd stick with lies even if you knew they were lies? I had a Mormon also tell me there was no way she'd ever leave the Mormon church.
The papacy is not taught in the early church or the book of acts. Mary died as well since she needed forgiveness of sin.
@@wojo9732
This is why Lucifer rebelled against God.
ua-cam.com/video/r8I8DDfewMU/v-deo.html
Gosh I respect both of these men so much!! Thank y’all so much for putting this together!!
It was our pleasure!
I too enjoyed this discussion, especially the respect that was shown to one another. I also liked how Gaven was humble enough to consider Joe’s statement about Baptism, specifically that if 3rd and 4th church fathers were incorrect about Baptism, that there would have been debate about their beliefs.
Keep up the good work and great content!
So glad you enjoyed it Jesse!
Great dialogue, good spirit, points thoughtfully made. Well-done all around, thanks for bringing us this kind of quality discussion!
Loved this conversation! Both men were true gentleman. This cemented even more my faith as a catholic! Praying for the conversion of those non Catholics!
Glad you enjoyed it!
The content and thoughtfulness of both of these gentlemen is refreshing and very educational! Thank you so much!
I don't like these kinds of debates. They might help those who are on the fence, but I think they may hinder the way back of those who are very convinced about their position, like the debater.
I'm firmly convinced that unity is a priority, and Gavin is right: the approach of making somebody feel like their side has to pay the price (he uses the example of mutual debts) cannot possibly be enticing.
We have to stop talking of Protestants "converting" to Catholicism. Conversion is a life long task of any Christian: every time we stray from Jesus we must convert back to Him. And there are many Protestants who seem to me a lot closer to Christ than many Catholics. And that is the point. There are so many good Protestants and so many bad Catholics. I've heard and read priests and bishops teach more heresies than many Protestant preachers. So, the point is not who is right and who is wrong. Differences are not negligible, but they must take the back seat for a while. The most urgent need is unity. I know Protestants are missing out on some of the most amazing things that Christ gave to His Church, but no less true is that we Catholics are missing some really amazing people with strong faith and love for the Lord. We are in dire need to have them back. When the Church was rent by the schism, even though the fullness of the doctrine was left in the Church, as Jesus promised to Peter (and the twelve), the Reformation took away some very important gifts that are very badly needed back: knowledge and reverence for Scripture, unapologetic love for our Lord and, most of all, apostolic zeal and hunger to spread the Kingdom of Christ and the good news of the Gospel.
So, no more of "you must recognize your errors and come back" and more of "we need you back home, we beg you to come home." I have great confidence that the time is ripe and that the Holy Spirit will take care of the doctrinal differences. Once they realize how much their mother the Church (because it IS their Church) needs them back, they will surely see how it's not worth arguing about whether Mary was assumed to Heaven or is buried somewhere in Turkey. I'm not talking about sacrificing truth for unity, but rather about trusting in the Spirit of Truth to do His job. None of us will do a better job. Every Protestant that I've read about coming back, has done so more moved by the Spirit than by the pestering of a Catholic. I believe our job is to invite them back, play to their better side by making them understand how much we need them... And we can always entice them with the amazing possibility of eating the Bread of Life. I know that, deep within, all good Christians hunger for the Body of Christ. For what kind of bride is she who doesn't crave for the Body of the Bridegroom! 😊
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this
You have a much better way of putting it than most Catholics. We already are here though, in the body of Christ where we belong and where we always want to be.
That’s a nice gesture for you to make as a Catholic, and I really appreciate it. A Protestant response to this would be- we are already home. We already belong to the Body of Christ. We were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We believe in Jesus Christ. How can I go “home” when I’m sitting inside my house?
53:20 I totally understand Joe's question. Protestants may affirm that the visible Church has been protected by the Holy Spirit trough out every single generation. It's east to say that. But Joe's question is: "How does that fit in with the fact that Luther starts preaching the solas in the 15-th century?"
As a protestant I struggle with that. The only answer I have is: if it's in the Bible, it's not from the15th century. But that still leaves us with the problem: Ok but what the whole Church seduced into not correctly reading the Bible?
Gavin Ortlund : clear winner
Thanks for weighing in! I’d love to hear what you thought were his strongest points
Just one correction on Dr Gavin's constant appeal to Epiphanius. Yes it is true that Epiphanius did not know whether Mary died or not, but he did know that she was assumed into Heaven. His debate is over whether she was assumed alive or dead.
"If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one...Had she been martyred according to what is written: 'Thine own soul a sword shall pierce', then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world." Epiphanius,Panarion,78:23 (A.D. 377)
In the next section in 79 however he writes as Tim Staples quotes
"Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, she is like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up, but has not seen death."
Clearly this is an explicit affirmation of the assumption. And he is confident enough to assert that she was assumed, he is simply not sure whether the parallel of being assumed alive (like Elijah) is true, and is willing to entertain that she was assumed dead as seen in the previous section before this.
Interesting. Thanks for the quotations!
Also, whether she died or not has been dogmatically defined. The doctrine of the assumption proclaimed stated “When her earthly life was completed...”, and intentionally steered clear of defining whether or not she had died.
@@jamesskyles896 absolutely, though for anyone reading this - it is most certainly the mind of the Church and taught consistently by the papal magisterium that she did die. The main theological reason is for her co-passion (compassion) with Christ which, just like Christs passion was completed with death, so too was Mary's. We have to remember that when you see someone you love suffer, "a sword pierces your soul", Mary like any mother grieved for her Son and suffered greatly in her love for Him and thus the Church speaks about the fittingness of her death in her parallel passion. (As we know Mary is in the stations of the cross).
Hi Michael! Thanks for supplying those. I think Ephiphanius is referencing Elijah, not Mary, in that second quotation. Otherwise he'd be contradicting himself in the space of one chapter. Blessings to you.
@@TruthUnites Respectfully I am going to disagree, and by the way - great video, great talk - just had to mention epiphanius cause you brought him up a few times and naturally I think I have good cause to disagree, I'll just explain my case here and I'll just rest it here as well - feel free to respond, anyone else reading can decide for themselves..
So the doctrine of the assumption is clearly compatible with the fact that Mary died, not only did Pope Saint Pius XII say that she died multiple times in the encyclical with the ex-cathedra statement found here:
www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html
But he quoted another Father as well who teaches the assumption with the death of Mary. "Thus St. John Damascene, an outstanding herald of this traditional truth, spoke out with powerful eloquence when he compared the bodily Assumption of the loving Mother of God with her other prerogatives and privileges. "It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death." Paragraph 21 from the encyclical.
So from my perspective, when Epiphanius is unsure of whether or not Mary dies, there is inherently no contradiction whatsoever of being unsure about her death, and being sure of her assumption, because clearly - as the Church teaches (albeit non-definitively but nevertheless consistently) Mary did die prior to her assumption.
So if we read Epiphanius in section 78 he says:
"If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one...Had she been martyred according to what is written: 'Thine own soul a sword shall pierce', then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world."
IF the Holy Virgin had died, so he is clearly UNSURE. And because both views, an assumption after death or an assumption prior to death are compatible, he is perfectly at liberty to express whether he thinks her body was assumed, dead or alive.
The only question is whether he thought so, and I think we just need to read Epiphanius again, because he isn't referring to Elijah.
"Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, she is like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up, but has not seen death."
So Mary (like the bodies of the saints) has been held in honor for her (Mary's) character and understanding. And if I (Epiphanius) should say anything more in her (Mary's praise) she is like (similar to, another example of, a parallel to) Elijah who was a:
A) Perpetual Virgin (just like Mary)
B) Taken Up/Assumed (just like Mary).
You are right he speaks about Elijah, but wrong that he predicates these attributes only of Elijah, instead he is comparing Mary to Elijah precisely because she shares these attributes, perpetual virginity, and assumption.
The only attribute/parallel he is doubting is whether, like Elijah, she was assumed alive as opposed to dead (which if the Church has anything to say, it seems to be she was assumed after death). So he was right to be skeptical.
Who apart from God is competent to judge who is "Saved"?!
I'll say this here as well: The Reason the Apostles and Church Father's wrote ANYTHING was to overcome heretical views about the faith. If everyone agreed that Mary is what the Church said she was, no one would write about it. If the seat of Peter was understood to be what the Church said it was, no one would write about it.
Nobody was writing because it was fun. It was extreamly costly. People only wrote because they had to. If they didn't have to? Then they wouldn't. And what you see given this fact is that Mary's blessedness and Peter's Office is actually mentioned **accidently** by the authors as they addressed completely different issues. THAT should give you confidence that the Church is correct in regards to them, and everyone should decide to become Catholic.
Anyways, God bless yall.
Absolutely the church "developed", that's a given because it was and is a Living Church imbued and lead by the Holy Spirit...but the essential aspects of the Gospel, of The Faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3) was at the foundation...built upon the Apostles with Christ as the Cornerstone!
I think both of them agree with development, they just differ over the validity of certain developments
@@GospelSimplicity How to know if its valid though? Is it the authority of the church that makes it valid? or take it upon ourselves (through research and own understanding) to authorize if its valid or not?
@@sleepyeye4951 It must depend on what you mean by "developed". Church is the living body of Christ lead by the Holy Spirit, but Christ and the Holy Spirit are God and are not developing/changing. We as humans and as societies do develop/change (although in reality our fundamental nature is the same as it has been before Christ was born). So Church must "develop" to some degree in its appearance in order to be able to proclaim the Truth to its contemporaries, but any development that changes fundamental doctrines and teachings of the Apostles is equal of leaving the Church.
@@goranvuksa1220 so true! And we need to develop our understanding as well!
Highlights:
- 41:20 and 41:43 and 42:37 What should we expect when looking into church history? Is everything going to be clear, immediately?
47:00 - Gavin Ortlund on doctrinal development
47:12 - turning the light on
48:10 - Magisterium
51:05, 51:40 - Division
53:18, 53:55 - Gavin’s point: the Reformers made it clear that the Church was alive in every generation.
55:30, 56:35 - Who decides what we should retrieve? Who decides what the church writers - after the first century - got right or wrong?
57:00, 57:32, 58:05 - Gavin’s response
59:45 - picking and choosing is possible for both sides.
1:01:10 - Augustine and Jerome
1:02:51 - Gavin’s response
This dialogue is great but is sorely missing an Orthodox Christian's historically consistent and balanced perspective.
Perhaps one day in the future
Another video that I will have to watch again. Both had great answers and gave me things to think about. Will need a notebook when I watch it again.
That’s a a great idea!
Next episode: Joe Heschmeyer debates Pope Francis
Haha, I’m here for it
Such a great discussion. Thanks all four of you! I loved Dr. Ortlund’s comment about the loneliness of modernity. So, so good. And I’m in the middle of reading Joe’s book *Pope Peter* (the best book on scriptural papal claims)
Great job all around, and God bless
So glad you enjoyed it!
I am going through the early church was Catholic and was honestly embarrassed for Joe. It may be the worst book I have read on Catholic claims. It made me wonder how anyone could possibly be Catholic . Joe struggles making coherent arguments.
@@jwatson181 Catholic* is the correct spelling (just a heads up for the future). That’s a very interesting viewpoint. Could you give some specific examples of flaws?
@@raydudo3672 Typo. One specific example is he misrepresents Jerry Walls. He makes it seem like Jerry claims Peter was never in Rome, Jerry thinks Peter was in Rome. I would chalk it up to ignorance, but straw manning opponents happens repeatedly throughout the book. Joe may be the worst Catholic apologist.
@@raydudo3672 Another example, the hiarchry of the early church. What was amazing, Joe's argument did not even follow from the premises. I suggest following more academic Catholic's. On a side note, imagine calling WLC a heretic?
Fascinating discussion! Thanks to all.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I listened to this on Keith’s podcast having heard of it on Austin’s. It seems hard to not think that the Holy Spirit will use such people & venues to renew & strengthen His Church in the difficult days ahead. Of course, as an Orthodox, I found myself wanting to say, “But Orthodoxy...!” What edifying fun! Cant wait for more, and for a three-way with an Orthodox of kindred spirit & ability.
Adding an orthodox host and contributor would be great fun!
Don't think Orthodoxy will contribute much as it's essentially Protestantism at it's roots. Reject the Papacy and you get Orthodoxy and eventually Protestantism.
@@PaulDo22 Very much not so. I was Protestant.
@@traceyedson9652 It's "high Protestantism", you have the Sacraments, you have the Ecclesiology, but there's no Magisterium.
@@PaulDo22 sorry, only from an ultra-montanist would one call it that. If it works for you, fine, but it won’t bring you any closer to understanding it. It has a magisterium, just not a Roman one. It’s a conciliar one.
Informative, interesting conversation carried w full respect. Thought the question of Scripture and Tradition vs Sola Scriptura would be explicit. Both Joe and Gavin covered it in addressing the church fathers, I believe. Look forward to the next conversation.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thank you Austin, because of Your Channel, I am becoming a good catholic
I'd love to see this same dialogue with an Orthodox scholar. Seems the lion share of his objections are those doctrines that developed after the schism.
Doctrines that were universally believed by early church that the majority of evangelicals reject:
Baptismal regeneration
Ecclesiology (Bishop, priests, and deacons...)
Eucharist is the body and blood (ignore the how's)
...
It seems to me that the "ethos" of Evangelicalism and those teachings that are stressed is absent in the 1st 1k+ years.
My 1 cent...
This was excellent. Possibly my favorite one yet Austin. Keep up the good work and keep seeking truth brother.
Thanks!
Wonderful conversation!
Thanks!
I wonder if it would be possible to have a Jewish Christian as a guest. Roy Schoeman is a Roman Catholic and he has a great interest in Jewish Saints within the Catholic church.
Topic Ideas
What became of Judaism after the destruction of the Temple and the entrance of Christianity?
You may want to extend him and invitation.
Then maybe a Jewish believer who leans more toward an evangelical tradition.
Interesting idea!
LOVE this!! Reasoned cordial conversation that teaches and benefits all. Huge thumbs up guys!!!
So glad that you enjoyed it!
Hello Austin and everyone who reads these things... I must confess that I made some really nasty comments on this thread (before I even watched the video😣) and I am very embarrassed and unhappy with myself for doing so... I have been struggling with some issues lately, (spiritual and otherwise) and unfortunately I decided to get drunk and I lost control of my fingers/brain and I typed some pretty bad stuff, and I did it more than once, to more than one person... I have since deleted those comments, but I would like to offer my sincere apologies to anyone I might have offended. This channel is very special to me, and I am very sorry that I polluted it with my selfish frustrations and anxieties... I must love you all, as Christ commands, and I will work on getting better at it. Please pray for me. ✌️❤️
Thanks for this, Giuseppe. I forgive you
Fair play to you for being humble enough to admit to what you did was ... a good lesson for us all.
Austin!!! Way to go brother, this is so good. What breath of fresh air!
It's good to know that there're very charitable people qho disagree, they really remind me of guys like Jimmy Akin, Erick Ybarra, and Bp. Robert Barron.
Thabk you as always Austin.
My pleasure!
Mr. Ortlund was good but I think mr. Heschmeyer got the edge on him when he asked "What would constitute schism?". Mr. Ortlund didn't really seem to know the answer.
Yes; that was very obvious (I mean no disrepect to Dr Ortlund.) Especially considering the quality of his comments elsewhere
I noticed the same thing you did. In Gavin’s defense, he seems like an honest enough guy to give him the benefit of the doubt to assume it’s just not a question he’s ever considered, and seems humble enough not to try to give a bad answer to a question to save his ego. That’s praiseworthy if you ask me.
In fairness, I got the impression that simply took him by surprise. It wasn't something we had on the outline, and he seemed to be considering the question in real time. I'd be curious if he would give a different answer now that he's thought through it more
@@GospelSimplicity Sometimes those questions we don't have an answer for initially are what moves us forward in our journey home.
@@GospelSimplicity It might be a possibility indeed. In any case, it was a good discussion and I'm excited for the next time.
kuddos Austin! your videos humble hardened hearts, you're a GREAT MAN! Just bought Joe's Book Pope Peter, was shocked when I saw him on your show bc he looks so young! you are in my prayers, Austin God bless you!
Thank you so much!
Very good discussion. Keep up the good work.
Thanks!
Excellent, extremely reasonable, and completely civil debate! Bravo!!
Thanks!
It is the classic "If you trust the Church's judgment on the trinity then you would have to trust it on the rest." This is because the fact is that if the Church didn't have the Holy Spirit's authority then there becomes no ability to trust the very basics of the faith. If the Church didn't have the authority to tell the gnostics were wrong or the authority to tell the Arians were wrong. then the whole Christian religion falls apart. Sorry if that was extreme I am just an overexicted catholic convert lol. Love this Ya''ll are so cool
@C why? They can’t even even hold another ecumenical council
@@unam9931
Typical Latin Catholic Papist. Orthodoxy holds to a Common Tradition which even the Pope thinks he's "above". The modern Papacy is an abomination... a distortion of what bishops are supposed to be...Even higher than bishops, who are supposed to, possibly, call, councils, and Chair, but NOT dominate. The modern Papacy is an institutionalized and "dogmatized" tyranny. How can a Bishop be "over" THE BODY OF CHRIST, ITSELF, which is the continuation of CHRIST HIMSELF, throughout history? The modern Papacy is a blasphemy.
@Harley Mann EI: "Aren't Roman Catholics in the same vien picking and choosing their doctrines by adhering to Rome?"
HM: No, sir! It is clearly stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church what Catholics believe.
*Response: That applies for Protestant as well. Many traditions such as Anglicans, Lutherans and Presbyterians have creeds to which they hold to. If one were to attend one of these confessional churches but rejected these creeds, they could no longer consider themselves as apart of that tradition.*
EI: "Aren't you as an individual choosing to reject other doctrines held by others branches of Christianity by default."
HM: .... However, as a Catholic, I know there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, so I am responsible to adhere to those doctrines I know.
*Response: How do you "know" your doctrines and claims are correct without presupposing her claims to authority. Your choice to trust those claims comes back to you as an individual*
EI: "I don't see how this is any different than what you claim Protestants are doing.
"
HM: The difference is that the Catholic Church has ONE Teaching Office that clarifies what God offers us as correct doctrine. Protestants do not have ONE Teaching Office that was Divinely instituted.
*Response: This is begging the question. Scripture does not teach that Rome was divinely instituted (rather developed), neither was this phenomena unanimously recognized by the early church*
Wow! This is going to be amazing!!😃 Can't wait!😃
It was SO much fun. Hope you enjoy it!
@@GospelSimplicity Thank you!🙂
Austin to reply to your reply...its not necessarily about "developments", but Authority. The Question is...Is there a voice for Jesus Christ after his ascension?
Is it general providence and the Scriptures codified 400 years later...or an established Body of Believers, The Church with a Head. (Though the "Head" in a Catholic perspective is ultimately The Pastor, to pastor the flock...one of many Presbyters who govern the Children of God). Sadly we forget the family aspect of the Body of Christ and moreover the Communion of Saints. Truly the Militant and Triumphant!
Thanks for sharing these thoughts!
Great conversation! I’ll be here for more!
I’d like to add that if we don’t situate our discussions within the cosmic context, we risk truncated conclusions. So, how deep in history are we willing to go? As John’s gospel says, we must go all the way back to the beginning. To be that deep in history is to be in Christ!!
Fair point
As I life long Catholic I have been involved in these discussions innumerable times. One question is never asked or even alluded to is this: What part does national pride play in the existence of Protestantism? Why is it that Protestantism is so closely associated with the Anglo-Saxon US/UK world and Catholicism with the Mediterranean world. Could it really be as simple as Anglo Saxons not liking to "Bossed about" by an Italian? This is not, as may first appear, a flippant question. I am deeply into St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine as well as reading Nietzsche and JPS.
I find it to be an intriguing question, but I think it can only be pressed so far as certain matters of history play in to complicate things, in my opinion
As an American, I have been wondering this myself. It would be much easier (culturally) for me to become Protestant than Catholic.
The UK didn't want to be spiritually guided by Rome. Spiritual leaders always above political leaders. It is about national pride.
Thank God the Protestant world stepped up in 1940 or we would all be speaking german. 😮
Well sure, the Papacy dominated Southern Europe in a way that it didn't dominate in the North.
Only obedience leads to Catholicism.
I love the sudoku puzzle analogy, I'm definitely gonna use that. God bless all of you.
I thought that was a great analogy
My only problems with Gavin’s idea of polling the entirety of the church and seeing what is commonly held is:
1. When is democracy ever established as an authoritative structure for the church?
2. The vast majority of Christians currently and in history are Catholic.
What would Gavin say about a fixed Protestant Canon not emerging until the 16th century?
Great question! Perhaps that could be a future installment
@@GospelSimplicity Thanks! I'd also like to hear what Gavin believes true "heresy" really is.
When the Papal legate stands up at the Council of Ephesus and proclaims the Pope "successor to Peter, Prince of the Apostles" and speaking with his authority - is that heresy? No bishops disagree with it at the time.
To be an intellectually consistent Protestant, I feel like you have to be OK with essentially the entire Church proclaiming heresy, at least for portions of time. So would love to hear discussion along those lines.
Brilliant discussion though! Thanks for facilitating!
@Ryan Pope
What would Ryan Pope say about a fixed Catholic canon not arriving until 1546?
Heck, not long before that date, we have prominent Catholics like Erasmus and Cardinal Ximenes rejecting the deuterocanonicals.
And yes, Jerome may have accepted them (on pain of excommunication), but Athanasius never did.
@@HannahClapham And yet they ALL accept the settled decision of the Church over their personal leanings.
We have the same canon in 382 AD that we do in 1546.
When does the 66 book version emerge? Is there a date?
@Ryan Pope
Well, Erasmus and Ximenez didn’t live until 1546, so they didn’t need to “settle.”
The Protestant NT comes from 382 CE, as you stated. And the Jewish OT canon harkens from the 2nd-century BCE, or thereabouts.
To be quite honest, I don’t much care. The deuterocanonicals aren’t literarily memorable or theologically significant. I can take them or leave them. It’s all the same.
I’m going through a study on the church fathers right now in chronological order and so far nothing seems very Catholic about them in the sense of the things that distinguish a Catholic from say a Lutheran or Anglican or even a Baptist. Even the stuff about bishops and authority from Ignatius don’t seem like a perpetual commandment for all Christian’s for all time but rather a time and situation specific one. I wonder what ignatius would have said if he saw what was going on in the Catholic Church at various times and of course especially during the reformation.
Also haven’t seen anything about anything that would suggest the Marion dogmas were something they’d recognize.
I’m still early in the readings of the church fathers and I’m sure the more Catholic leaning ones will start showing up but people who were disciples of John you’d think would be pushing all these extra biblical traditions hard early on.
The other thing is how does any of this affect my ability to follow Jesus commandments? Not saying it does or doesn’t but that’s what I keep wondering.
The Orthodox wouldn’t quite agree that the Catholic Church was right every time up until Reformation.
Did someone say that?
@@GospelSimplicity Joe says it toward the end of his response to the first question.
And why would it? The schism happened long before the Revoltion.
GOD BLESS HIS ONE AND ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH 💗 💗 💗
At the moment of conception, the new DNA combination already has all the information on how that human being will develop. Using Gavin's way of reading history, we should say that the arm, ear, muscles or what ever part that develops through time is a "new" thing that, since it wasn't there visibly before in the esrly stages then is not part of that being and it is rather added from the outside at a certain moment of time.
1 Corinthians 12:12-13
Shows us how the church is a body that unites in Spirit with the body of Christ through baptism.
Uniting with the Logos of God as a visible body is what the church does through baptizing the members into him, and to unite with the Logos of God in spirit means that you should have an authority (magisterium) that is all wise because is not us humans making the claims but rather Christ who is the head of the Church making the claims through us as a church. and more specifically if Jesus left somebody in charge of the keys of his kingdom, that means Jesus will use him as the head of the his visible kingdom which is the church, no king gave the keys to somebody that wasn't supposed to rule while he is not visibly present there and when decisions are to be made the one with the keys should make the decisions.
We must ask the right questions, put on the right pair of glasses, that's all, we are all smart people and our reason will always seek what's good for us as long as we are exposed to that good propperly, and we have no need to feel offended by anybody statements about "religion" unless they personally offend you by name.
I'll push back on you a bit based on your DNA analogy: to complete the analogy with Catholic doctrines like the Assumption, Papacy, etc, (i.e. the "new" ones), then you have to show that those doctrines were present in the DNA from the beginning; but wouldn't that get you to a Sola Scriptura type of viewpoint? Gavin's claim is that those doctrines aren't present in the beginning, not in the DNA of Scripture nor the earliest Church Father writings.
@@phoult37 but they are, that's the point I am making, when Jesus calls Peter the rock of his church, when he gives him the keys, those are direct attributes that come from the old testament that mean to give authority to somebody in a way that nobody else has, then when the early fathers talk about Rome as being the Church that has propper doctrine it read Pope Leo The Great for example bishop of rome that gives us an understanding of the supremacy of the bishop of Rome, those things gives you the DNA to that development that you see more explicit later.Gavine is just avoiding those because HE thinks that is not enough proof, he is reading history as if HE holds that authority to be able to read the past properly, the problem with "sola scriptura" is that it leads to reading the word of God under your own lenses which in the end means to read the book of life (life itself) with your own lenses and interpret it however you want and not how God intended, the very reason why sola scriptura churches keep dividing is exactly that, as soon as you get somebody thinking they can read life freely without any authority and without any humble submission to authority you get people that are not humble enough to accept what Christ gave us, so they feel with the personal authority to create their own church "of Christ"...
In the whole Bible Jesus only gives the authority of the Keys and the changing of name to Rock only to ONE individual, yet for him that very fact is pretty much something that our Lord made randomnly and that meant nothing...
And if you want to understand development, well, development of a body is exactly like that, look at a baby with 2 weeks in the womb and a baby with 9 months in the womb, there are things that you won't find in the two weeks, that you will clearly see at 9 months, happens the same with trees, look at the seed of an apple tree in the first weeks you will not find an apple there but in the grown and fully developed tree you will...
Much love and I hope I don't sound harsh and I can get my message across
@@AprendeMovimiento I can see the case for the papacy in Matt 16, but how about the Assumption of Mary? You can't simply rely on the argument that 'it's in the DNA, we just couldn't see it,' because that would open you up to any modern heresy. There has to be some hint or clue at the doctrine in either Scripture or early Church history, even if the doctrine is not fully formed.
@@phoult37 the papacy is not only in Matthew 16, again here you are being the arbiter of truth, you interpret through your lenses something that is way bigger than you... and in order to talk about any Marian doctrine or dogma first you need to be able to see who she truly is, if you think she was just some regular person who happened to be the mother of the Logos of God incarnate then we can't get into understanding anything about Marian doctrines. But if you properly honor God's perfect and holy decisions about who was to be exalted and pure enough to carry the purest of all, to carry the light of God himself, then we can start talking. But here we will always fall in the category of "I" read scriptures and "I" read the fathers and "I" decide this or that... The venom of sola scriptura is that it turns everything about how "you" read and interpret, and some might add Sola Scriptura plus the fathers of the church but again they apply the same principle of interpretation.
Gavin please stop apologizing you need to come on strong!
Do either of you have TikTok? There are so many young people on that app and so many of them are (listening and looking for answers) and also spreading false theology. It’s exhausting seeing it. It would be nice to see some solid truths on there. 🙏🏼
Apostolic succession should be the primary issue here. Everything else flows from it.
Nuts to this....bring back Eliza.
Haha! I'll see what I can do
Yes, exactly Gavin. Jesus said there are many things I still have to tell you. After I leave , the Comforter will come And Guide You Into All Truth!🙏🏻❤️ ( if you want to call that development, that’s ok with me!)😀❤️😃 Blessings to you Gavin! The Catholic Church is waiting for you and your precious family!🙏🏻❤️
Very enjoyable discussion!
Thanks!
I'd love to see them both back on again, this was a great video
Thanks!
Its depends on how you read history. Whether one is honest or read history in one's own prejudices and paradigm.
Like how the Far right Japanese politicians till today still maintained that the Japanese did not invade Asia during World War 2. They were there to liberate the Asians from the exploitation of colonial powers and to free them from their colonial master.
Interesting. Hope you enjoy the episode!
42:50 joe make a quote that is inline with scripture. “For now we see in the mirror dimly but then we we see as though we are face to face.” I believe that development of theology and doctrine is possible and biblical as the generation grow. Historical theology allows the new generation to gain greater spiritual understanding of all scripture and scriptural commentary.
excellent, I'll make time for this one 👍
Hope you enjoy it! We had a blast
History is so important just like in medicine we need patient's history inorder to find out the cause/s of the disease so that he/she will be cured.
That's a great analogy!
I like Dr. Ortlund’s “if two people owe each other money” example because it really clarified for me how many Protestants think about this issue. It’s fundamentally different than how Catholics conceive of it. Frankly, I think this framing is rooted more in modern day radical individualism than in historical Protestantism (I’m sure Dr. Ortlund would agree that Reformers such as Luther had no problem believing that his version of Protestantism was correct and not just one of many true versions of it). I don’t think that it’s a Biblical position that “both sides have some of the truth, and we have to both give a little”. I just don’t think it’s what Christ said of the Church. That’s not to say that Protestants individually have nothing to add to the Kingdom (of course) or that Catholics individually including invidious hierarchs can’t learn anything from Protestants. Of course not. I’m not saying that there aren’t certain things that we could bring into the Church’s practice that are totally consistent with the Catholic faith. But what I AM saying is that it’s perfectly possible that Protestants will have to give and Catholics will only “take” in terms of theology, if that is what the truth dictates. And the fact that that is uncomfortable for modern day American Protestants with egalitarian theological ideals is not in and of itself a criterion for whether or not that is how unity will have to be achieved if the Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
Yes!
Hope you enjoy it!
I cannot wait!
Great civil conversation! :D
Thanks!
Did i miss it or did Gavin never answered the question about how to decide what's right and wrong concerning the Trinity or Christology that Jo asked him by comparison with Marian dogmas ?
Great discussion, though, thanks a lot !!
I think I know his answer to it--you find the foundation for the Trinity, etc. in the Scriptures (even in the OT) and very early church writings. The Marian dogmas don't start appearing until much, much later.
I have studied exhaustively church history and the Bible. I conclude there was a rewrite or modification of church history through many “church fathers” by Eusibius under Emperor Constantine.
I’m genuinely curious what you mean by this, I haven’t heard about this. Sources?
@@countryboyred Hi, to answer your question, the first thing I realized was Peter definitely could not have ever stepped foot in Rome. This was an exhaustive study in and of itself. Once I realized this, then it begged the question, who made this up and why? The problem is, we (scholars) tend to read history without much level of discernment. It is no surprise one does not hear about this, due to the fact there is so much misinformation in Christianity. Even many intelligent scholars are fooled by a rewrite of history. It is best to lean heavily on scriptures first, and treat all secondary sources with caution. Problem is, most lean heavily on secondary sources, then mold the scriptures around the secondary sources such as "church fathers".
@@soteriology400 that’s interesting. Why didn’t Peter step foot in Rome? Is there any way I can read more about what you are talking about?
@@countryboyred Peter was one of the 12 apostles to judge the 12 tribes of Israel (Matthew 19). He didn't speak the language of Rome (he spoke Aramaic, Rome spoke Greek and Latin at the time). Peter was also to feed the house of Israel per John 21. Nero was in power towards the end of his life and was the most danger to Jewish Christians at the time. No way Peter would have abandoned his responsibility per John 21, abandon his role as apostle to Jews (Galatians 2:7), abandon the house of Israel, so he can hang out in a country that does not even speak his language, and leave his family in the most dangerous part of the world for Christians knowing he was about to die. Peter was instead, in Babylon Egypt, the safest part of the world for Jewish Christians. When looking at the topography, it was perfect for him to lead the gathering of the house of Israel. Keep in mind, he had a boat and was a fisherman. He would have been allowed to feed the house of Israel, as well as his family as he went back and forth from Jerusalem to Babylon. When the stick of Joseph (Jewish Christians scattered throughout Roman Empire, Ezekiel 37) would have left for their gathering, they would have gone to Babylon, where Peter was. The waterways are such that, they funneled to where Peter would have been, so they could even travel by night and still have no problem reaching Peter. Peter would have escorted them to their final gathering place, Petra. We see evidence of the earth split SW of Petra. Eusebius claims they left for Pella. Problem is, there is no scriptural support for that, and Pella (unlike Petra) has no history of flash floods nor evidence it ever split. None of the writers at the time of the destruction of the temple, made such a claim. Eusebius is the first in history to make such a claim, and he wasn't even there.
It takes good sound hermeneutics when studying the scriptures first. Such as paying close attention to the chronology, time indicators, audience relevance, grammar, setting and of course original language. Less than 1% of believers actually follow this (easily). One must apply this first, and realize the integrity of the scriptures first, then treat secondhand sources with much discernment.
The problem with Roman Catholicism, they definitely lack a good understanding of hermeneutics, and treat secondary sources as infallible truth. Once you go down that road, good luck getting out.
@@soteriology400 really fascinating stuff, thanks for the reply. I’ll have to read more about Eusebius.
You speak as if the saintly church fathers aren’t alive in Heaven and praying for us.
@Shane Hanes
Shane,
They are alive indeed! And very much engaged in our journeys, praying for us.
The church was heavily persecuted in the first three centuries so there would be less writings.
That moment when Joe says, "William Lane Craig, he's a monotheilite, he's a heretic" 😅. Shoh, that's not going to sit well with a lot of protestants
He’s a great Theistic and Christian apologist, but it’s possible that one’s beliefs are not all perfect.
@@sillybearss Oh yes, if you're wanting arguments for the existence of God. WLC is amazing. But as with anyone, as soon as you start re-inventing the wheel you're bound to get some key things wrong.
Haha, yeahhhhh
Church teachings must indeed develop through time because Jesus said this,
John 16:12-14
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition
“I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you."
humans are incapable of swallowing everything at one time so God, the Holy Spirit, must give us according to what our leaders of Church can handle to pass and teach it among their flocks. slowly and surely.
Dr. Gavin must study Marian Apparitions maybe so he can find out if Mother Mary is important or not. Dr. Gavin is such a gentle speaker so he is not annoying to listen to. But pride stops him from seeing the truth. May the Holy Spirit guide us all to ONE TRUTH. some may say that 40,000 denominations is an exaggeration, but whether is it 2 or 3. Jesus established ONE church that teaches ONE truth. if you disagree with Church's teaching, you can disagree but it doesn't mean you can build your own church and teach YOUR truth instead.
anyway, prayers to everyone. GOD bless!
Ooh, spicy
Indeed
God Bless you all!
Gavin's main objection to the bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary rests on the fact that it lacks a clear historical foundation in the patristic writings. On the other hand, there are Catholic doctrines that are universally attested to by the early Fathers such as the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist which I think Gavin still rejects. Thus I think that patristic testimony is not really the deciding factor for Gavin to accept a particular doctrine or not but it is something else and my suspicion is that it goes back to his notion of Sola Scriptura and the principle of private interpretation.
I think it boils down to this, Dr Gavin doesn't see any need to become Catholic. He studies history more of out of interest and not necessarily quest for ultimate truth for, for him the ultimate truth is Christ and the Bible as he understands it suffices. So you are right he is only appealing to the Patristics to the extent that he wants to counter his Catholic opponent. I do this myself when I engage Orthodoxy I try to understand their arguments but at the end of the day I don't see any real serious theological difference that they do passionately seek to argue about. So it is more of an exercise in charitable dialogue than a desire to change anyone's mind.
Joe...you did awesome. The Lord Jesus only instituted 1 church ....if the visible Church isn't the instituted church, then it would have been corrected by the Church fathers and those that followed them, but they did not.
Proud to be a catholic.
"Does Church History Lead to Catholicism?"
Yes, but not necessarily Roman Catholicism. The fundamental, ubiquitous error of (most) RC apologists is to conflate/identify the contemporary Roman Catholic Church with the Christian Church of the first few centuries. It is easily argued that the former descends and derives from the latter, but they are clearly not one and the same in any kind of exclusive sense.
" but they are clearly not one and the same in any kind of exclusive sense." Youre going to have to send proof of when this rift began.
@@haronsmith8974, first, even the most cursory study of history will quickly reveal multiple rifts, not the least of which is the "Great Schism" between the Roman Catholic Church and the various Orthodox Churches, often dated to the 11th century. I'm not sure why I need to "send proof" of something that all parties agree is the case and has been the case for nearly a millennium.
Second, you are shifting the burden of proof. When someone asserts that X is the case (as in "the early Church was the Catholic Church" as JH likes to assert) it isn't as if everyone is obligated to accept the claim as true UNLESS they can provide proof that X is false (though that is easily done in this case). Rather, it is the responsibility of the claimant to show that X is the case. I've repeatedly asked JH if he can provide any sound argument for his position, and I've pointed out errors in his assertions. He doesn't seem inclined to address these.
None of us is obligated to believe something if no sound argument can be brought forth to support it.
There is no "Roman Catholic Church", just ONE Catholic Church, comprised of several "Rites", one of which is the Latin Rite.
@@alhilford2345writes "there is no Roman Catholic Church."
And with the sheer power of his UA-cam comment, hundreds of millions of Christians simply disappear.
Why so many Roman Catholics are ashamed of who and what they are -- are ashamed of their own church's history and identification -- is beyond me. However, the attempt to identify their faith exclusively with Christianity as it comes to use through Christ and the apostles is demonstrably false and delusional. Again, simply claiming to be the only Christians on the face of the earth doesn't make it so (and let us just ignore that it contradicts the teachings of your own church). I understand the attempt to get others to believe this simply be repeating it, given that the actual historical evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary, but some of us are a bit resistant to this argumentation by mere repetition.
At 34:25 Joe speaks of their being various views of Mary’s sinlessness. For him it is enough that the answer was speculative for Chrysostem, and so long as the church’s later view was possibly on the table, then the church has the power to confirm the correct view.
One issue here is the epistemological basis for creating a necessary doctrine to be believed. In the Catholic view, the Church has the power to declare doctrine which is not present in scripture. While in the Protestant view, if the view is a speculative implication based in the statements of scripture (to be distinguished from the Trinity, which is not a speculative view, but directly implied by clear statements of Jesus’ divinity and oneness with the father), then the Church does not have that power.
The decision to make a belief necessary based only upon church tradition and ecclesial decision rather than upon grounding in scripture is a very important distinction in how the church exercises the authority that it does have from God.
To say that Jesus ‘ statement in Jn 17 about the Holy Spirit leading the Church remains true today, but the Protestant is going to insist along with the early church that later non-apostolic insights and speculations not be raised to equality with scripture, because such new doctrines are not being “remembered” by the church, especially if there is no connection to scripture, or a chain of custody reaching back to the first fathers for supposed oral teachings.
To say that the prevailing of the church against the gates of hades (the grave) requires the doctrine of papal infallibility ignores the possibility that the church will prevail, not on account of her infallibility, but on account of her being led by the Spirit into humility and a willingness to be corrected and to not go beyond what is written.
Protestants could see their way back to Rome much more easily if the pretenses of church authority to create dogma was given up. That way, even if Protestants did not agree with a particular doctrine, there would be the possibility to address it based upon scripture. Many difference would be would ranked with the proper attention to their content, rather than Roman infallibility as a denial that the Church need to be sanctified. Is not progressive sanctification the real story of church history. The criterion not being the past exactly but special revelation.
I have a real question and I hope it's taken with sincerity and a desire for knowledge. Can faithful Catholics tell me how they are dealing with the pedophilia crimes in the church? Hasn't Pope Francis participated in shuffling offending priests around parishes? How do you square this with the Pope being the Vicar of Christ?
I would really appreciate an honest answer to this question. I'm not trying to make faithful Catholics mad.
No joke.. The Catholic church has been ripe with scandals throughout history after their break with the original Church.
@@FirstnameLastname-sw1ry Humans are gonna be humans. I know there are Catholics who are following this more closely than I am, which is why I asked the question.
Catholic here. I would recommend Bishop Robert Barron’s book “A Letter to a Suffering Church” for more insight into your question of what these crimes mean with respect to the office of the Pope, other bishops, etc.
Just as a general point though, there is no evidence that suggests Catholic clergy commit sexual crimes at a higher rates than any secular institution or Protestant church. It’s absolutely heinous that these crimes are even committed at all, and no one should be satisfied until zero offenses are committed. I would actually argue that through the reporting avenues the Church has established since the Dallas Charter in 2002, the Catholic Church is the safest religious institution for children, in the US at least. I don’t know enough about other nations.
Jesus never promised that his Church wouldn’t be composed of sinful people. I mean look at his 12 apostles: Peter denied Him, Judas betrayed Him, and the rest, except John, abandoned Him at his darkest hour. St. Paul teaches that we hold this treasure in earthen vessels; no one is sinless except for Jesus Himself; and his Blessed Mother. Our Lord promised that he would separate the wicked and the righteous at the end of the age, and I trust that the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from teaching heresy but of course does not prevent any of us from sinning, because that’s our own free will.
The pope is just infaliable when speaking in Ex Cathedra (Stating a dogma). And don't be catholic becauese of scandals is like if St John stoped being a christian becauese of what Judas did.
@@FirstnameLastname-sw1ry Just like how the Orthodox East got ransacked by Islam and it’s followers after rejecting the The Council Of Florence on the day of Pentecost of 1453 which was chance at reunification
Would be interesting for them discuss ecclesiology in view of Saint Ignatius's writings around 105 AD. How does a Protestant who holds to a low view of Ecclesiology (as most Baptists) line their view of the Church up with Saint Igantius?
@JD Apologetics Do you have some specific references in Jerome you can point me to?
I'm not sure what is meant by protestant. There are so many groups. Not one unifying force. History can trace the development of each of the protestant churches. I think it leads to relativism, and then unfortunately making up your own church.
The term Protestant can be a bit difficult
“In protest” Basically non Catholic non Orthodox Christians
This is amazing! Thanks so much for doing this
Perhaps to make it more precise: "To be aligned with history is to cease to be Protestant". This does not mean if the early Church is silent, then you're not aligned with it, it means the doctrine is not formed yet or there is no need to at that point in time, until heretical-ideas spring up that threatens steering away from Christ.
my humble humble belief... Christianity has alot of "mysteries", the Catholic church devote alot to sacred mysteries.. Faith itself is a Mystery, to believe in something that u may or may not have borne witness to. My explanation to my many protestant friends(which sets them pondering) is that my 1st point, the 5th Commandment of Honouring thy mother and father, you cannot ignore the trinitarian doctrine and yet ignore this commandment to whom the highest honour is commended on The Blessed Mother, 2ndly, the humble girl who said yes to to Angel, for being human, she had a choice, and if she had faltered and said no, there would be no Christianity today. God the Almighty is no wishy washy entity, why would he send another woman in revelations to go through ALL the trouble to conceive again and cloak her with the Rays of the Sun and a crown of 12 stars to re-wage war with the devil again? He would have just sent the 2nd coming of the Messiah and that's it.. Our blessed Mother, in my opinion is not some fanciful conjecture of the faith, but a gradual revelation through the centuries... her apparitions, her words to obey her son aren't mystical stories but about the Catholic(roman or otherwise) Church and its faithful followers..🙏
sorry, but my fault that I didnt make sound clearer, where I'm from, Singapore, protestant movements are very much based on the "prosperity" gospel movement. I do know that the Anglican High/Episcoplian Church have very high regards for the Blessed Mother. They even have the Society of St Mary which I see as equivalent of the Catholics Legend of Mary, the procession, bells and smells 😊, but every young protestant I meet locally, dont know much about Mary, except that she "just another woman" who happen to carry Jesus. I'm talk about churches that ask you to raise your wallets in the air and asking for God's blessing for wealth, or another, I attended, changed the Apostle's creed from "the Holy Catholic church" to the Holy "christian" church.. such blasphemy....we don't traditional High church movement of the west besides the Catholic ones. Even local pastors preached anti-catholic views of Mary openly from their pulpit, saying she's just a woman.. nothing special..I've attended a few. I almost left the RC church for the Anglican movement but that's another story. Its because the local evangelicals don't acknowledge the importance of Mary. I believe I speak for alot of catholics who faces animosity from enthusiastic younger Evanglical protestant who probably learn it from their Pastors on how to convert Catholics to their prosperity gospel church
Up to the 37 minute mark. Does Dr. Ortlund revisit Joe's line of questioning about whether or not the church ever has the authority to dogmatize a teaching? So far definitely enjoying this conversation. Thank you for the content.
As an Evangelical Christian who was born and raised Roman Catholic it's good to see a friendly discussion amongst differing orthodox Christians. My whole family left the Catholic church around 7 years ago after reading church history, reading the Holy Bible, witnessing and experiencing supernatural signs and hearing the Gospel being preached. With no disrespect to Catholics but for me and my family it was like coming out of darkness into the light, we are totally changed as individuals and as a family and it's all thanks to Jesus. Being born again in Christ is truly amazing. God bless.
They are not orthodox Christians.
How did you read church history and leave the church lol? Did u read enough of the church fathers?
Thanks for sharing Sarah! I'd love to know what kind of church you all find yourselves in now. It's great to hear that the gospel has impacted your family so profoundly!
@@derek4412 evangelical does not mean that you attend a megachurch. In the United states all evangelical really means is that you are protestant but not liberal mainline.
@@GospelSimplicity G'day from Australia.
I was ''saved'' in a Baptist Union church than went to an Independent Baptist church for a few years. Now I attend an Independent Pentecostal Church with a strong commitment to the gospel, holiness, street evangelism and discipleship. I consider myself just ''Christian'' and my motto is, "in essentials Unity, in non-essentials liberty and in all things, love."
God bless you.