Response to Trent Horn on Purgatory
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лип 2024
- In this video I respond to Trent Horn's response to my video on purgatory. I address (1) how Trent frames the discussion, (2) his distinction between the "core essence" and "secondary details" of purgatory, and then (3) the evidence from church history, particularly the church fathers, demonstrating that even the minimal conception of postmortem cleansing is not universal (or anywhere close to it) throughout church history.
See Trent's video here: • Did the Church fathers...
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
SUPPORT:
Become a patron: / truthunites
One time donation: www.paypal.com/paypalme/truth...
FOLLOW:
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Website: gavinortlund.com/
MY BOOKS:
gavinortlund.com/mypublications/
PODCAST:
anchor.fm/truth-unites
00:00 - Introduction
02:24 - 1. Framing the Discussion
06:26 - 2. Definition of Purgatory
15:53 - 3. Historical Analysis
17:05 - 2nd Century Voices
21:53 - Cyprian
29:38 - Syriac Fathers
35:18 - Patristic Eulogies
41:56 - John Chrysostom
46:44 - 4. Historical Overview
53:54 - Concluding Overview
Interesting how many comments are saying, "of course the fathers disagree, that is why we need a magisterium." This pivots away from the original claim to represent the "consensus of the fathers." So my question for Catholics commenting is: which is it? Is purgatory the consensus of the fathers, or the selection of the magisterium?
Dr ortlund why not both? Both the substancial witness of the fathers as well as the magisterium, to serve as a mechanism to definitively settle the matter. The magisterium looks into the mind of the church before making a declaration, not the other way around.
Also just curious, even if every single church father disagreed with your beliefs, would it matter to you? In the end scripture( guided by one's interpretation) would be the only infalliable rule of faith, so you could technically just dismiss them all as long as they disagree with your certain interpretive tradition of scripture.
Moreover, its interesting that ALL churches with the exception of the Catholic church (because this is not just Protestant-Catholic issue) disagree with the doctrine of the Purgatory as defined by the Magisterium. Is the Holy Spirit only limited to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church? Does not the Holy Spirit lead the rest of Christendom too? This is just one of many issues you face when you limit the idea of the "true church" to a single institution.
My brothers, Gavin Ortlund raises a very good point. He is trying to demonstrate that the claims of Roman Catholics need to be consistent. At one hand, they are basing claims from the early church fathers while in the other hand, the magisterium bases the claim to purgatory on its own authority. Another question that should be asked is that if the early church fathers aren’t unanimously agreeing on particular doctrines, from Peter’s Rock to the papacy, then how and why did the Roman Catholic church come to those conclusions when there is pretty good evidence to suggest otherwise? After all, the Protestant Reformation also tried pointing and appealing to the early church fathers to protest the RCC.
@@AaronR319 his goal is to refute whatever the “prompt” is. We get the “prompt” from his own statement in the previous video, that he is arguing that the church fathers were not unanimous or even consensus on the concept of purgatory until later. So I think in this context it would be “Catholic Apologists overstepping”.
@@kkvearkeoloji anyone can claim to have the holy spirit guiding them. if the holy spirit leads the rest of christendom (apart from catholicism), how would you account for the contradictory and multiplicity of interpretations of even important things like baptism or the real presence of the eucharist? is the holy spirit leading the people to make contradictory interpretations within christendom? or would u say that the holy spirit is not guiding them then?
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.
Why do you say this is not true? Protestantism is how old compared to Catholicism? Why would God allow false teachings to exist for 1500 years only for a man to suddenly discover the truth then that truth to fracture into 30,000 denominations. This will never make sense to me.
Also purgatory is logical. There must be a purification for us to exist and retain our free will in a place of perfection.
@@johnbrion4565 because **that's** not true either.
We don't contend that he allowed the whole church to fall into apostasy for 1500 years and then suddenly come back all at once. As Calvin even said "The Roman church is not the true church, but within her are many true churches".
We do not have 30,000 denominations, even if we did the differences are between ancilliary issues not issues in which we would not recognize each other as fellow Christians. We recognize that many catholics, orthodox, anglicans, and many other non-reformed Christians will be with us in heaven and happily call them brothers.
Of course it doesn't make sense because it's a strawman.
And human beings are not free. We are creatures with subordinate wills that will according to our natures; either the Spirit or the flesh. We are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness set free from sin. Purgatory challenges the sovereignty of God and the extent to which we are saved by Christ which Hebrews describes as "to the uttermost". ALL of our sin is atoned for to the uttermost by Christ. There is nothing left for us to atone for or be purified from: we have been saved by Christ.
@@Collidedatoms well where did all your beliefs come from? Send me a book on all the true churches within the Catholic Church for 1500 years. And saying we have no free will is just an insane statement. You can hide behind your fancy theological phrases but in the real world humans act. If someone punches you in the face you’ll be mad at them. You won’t say eh it’s ok God just made you to punch me in the face. Again, Protestants want a cheap grace where they don’t have to participate in God’s grace and plan for the world. You want to believe Jesus did all the work for you. This is untrue and unbiblical. Faith and works to hand and hand and God wants us to continually grow in holiness. Not be lazy and say thanks Jesus you did all the work now I’ll chill and praise you. I’ll be a decent person and then go to heaven after this life because you did all the work. Makes not sense. God does not want a bunch of robots in heaven.
@@Collidedatoms also have you ever thought maybe Calvin was wrong? He’s just one person. And a lot of people like you who were card carrying calvinists have come to believe he was wrong and become Catholic. Two well know. Former Calvinist’s, Scott Hahn and John Bergsma. You can’t accuse them of not knowing the Bible theology or church history. You should listen to their conversion stories because it could mean everything. If you listen and still feel they are wrong well then you’ve lost nothing.
@@johnbrion4565 I think a misunderstanding many catholics have about protestants is that we follow the teachings of the "protestant church" as catholics follow "the Roman Catholic church" not true. Protestantism emphasizes the authority of scripture over traditions of men. The reason for there being many true churches even in catholicism is their faith in Christ. The Roman catholic church does not save anyone. The authority of church fathers cannot spare a soul from hell. Jesus saves. Jesus is our rock and our foundation and there is no salvation without him. Before anyone is an anglican or catholic or lutheran or anything. They need to be a follower of Jesus Christ, they need to revere him as God who came down in the flesh, and they must understand that by faith in him they have been freed from sin and death. Is the real importance knowing Bible theology and church history? Did Jesus say the greatest commandment is your depth of knowledge in theology? No. The greatest commandment is love the lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. Then to love your neighbor as yourself. It's evident that Jesus as our rock and our foundation is the most important stuff for Christians, and fellowship with him is above all other things. So emphasize that more.
As a former Catholic turned Protestant who's been on a journey of looking into the early church and figuring out what that means for my faith, I really appreciate your videos, Dr. Ortlund. The version of church history I had gathered from Protestantism, while not necessarily explicitly stated, was that there was Paul and the Apostles, maybe a generation or so after them, and then we just skip to Luther, Calvin, and maybe Hus. It's nice having a Protestant perspective on this channel that's not completely disconnected from church history.
I also greatly appreciate both you and Trent Horn for your charitable way of handling these issues of disagreement. It's so refreshing, and it makes both of your channels some of my favorites. I'd love to see a dialogue between the two of you. Keep up the good work!
As a cradle Protestant who is converted 23 plus years ago to Catholicism I am really sorry to see that you failed the Lord feeling you benefit from Dr. Ortlunds bible butchering and the Protestant hersey 1500 plus years after Christ!
I pray for you!
@@deusvult2302 How condescending of you. Presumably you think this trait makes you a better Christian?
@@deusvult2302I have a hard time believing that you actually watched this video
@@deusvult2302you should pray for yourself to not be so bigoted
@@deusvult2302I pray you find and practice the love of God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit. That’s how we’re supposed to treat one another. Even Trent would tell you this after seeing what you wrote. We can disagree but we are all part of Christs Body, and His body goes beyond just one institution. His Church refers to all of us who believe in the Gospel, have Faith in Jesus, and use the scriptures to guide our life. I’d recommend you read the Word more and see what it says about how we Christians are supposed to act, especially towards one another. Also read Titus 3:9-11 “But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and striving about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self condemned.” I say this all out of love brother! I see you commented this 2 years so I sincerely hope you’ve had a change of heart since then. I pray God works in your life, I’m not here to judge you but as Believers we can judge based on the Fruits of the Spirit or lack there of.. I sincerely hope He works in your life and all of our lives! We must all humble ourselves and strive to truly love one another. 🙏✝️🙏
Thank you for videos like these. There was a time in 2020 and 2021 where content from Trent’s channel as well as Matt Fradd’s “Pints With Aquinas” channel was persuading a lot of professing Protestants, and the only more influential pushback was coming from occasional videos like Mike Winger or James White’s channels. It’s nice to see a channel like this one that gives very charitable and nuanced responses. With videos like these, Trent is going to have to break his “I don’t respond to rebuttal videos” rule more and more. 👍🏼
Great work.
I think once we get into the rebuttals for rebuttals, it’s time to just call for a debate, which Trent and Dr. Ortlund look to be planning soon.
I am a Catholic and really enjoyed the way in which you approached and articulated the discussion! Your engagement is kind and gentle as St.Peter taught we should in such matters. God Bless you
You are Roman Catholic
@@albusai they are a Roman Catholic showing forth Catholicity and love between Christians universally, they are Catholic in their words
@@albusai There are 15 rites in the Latin Rite and 23 rites in the Easter rite and the Roman Rite is in the Latin Rite We are all Catholic
Purgatory cheapens the cross. If sin is not fully paid for on the cross by Christ, then purgatory makes sense, because the remittance of sin needs to be dealt with due to the insufficiency of the power of God. But if God is sovereign, and all powerful then the death of his son, his angel, should be enough for the covering of the sin of all mankind. The onces for all sacrifice for all.
The very nature of the sacrifice of Christ is to justify the wicked man. The ungodly man. Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.
"Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;
If sin is not counted against you through salvation, then what is there to purify? There’s either a finished work IN Christ or there isn’t. Additionally, the finished work does not apply to the flesh it applies to the spirit. And if sin, according to Romans resides only in the flesh, then how does sin come with you to be purified in the spirit?
Dr. Ortlund - I appreciate when you pointed out how Trent did not frame your argument well up front. RC interlocutors are accustomed to comparing “my tradition verses your tradition,” and assuming Protestants need to, (or desire to), find the same monolithic support from the fathers that they claim. That “my tradition verses your tradition” default mode seems to have seeped in a little and kept Trent from framing his response in a way that fully interacted with your position.
As I read the comments, I notice many of the commenters making the same mistake over and over again. Roman Catholic interlocutors assume you are arguing for a specific Protestant position. They fail to see that you are arguing the case of diversity among the church fathers on the topic of purgatory, NOT that the early church majority opinion on the matter was the contemporary Protestant position.
We would get so much further down the road if we could listen and respond well to other people’s arguments. Many Roman Catholics could very well agree with everything you have said and still find zero issues affirming the doctrine of Purgatory taught by the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church on the grounds of authority and doctrinal development.
Great summary and I appreciate the continued dialogue and your labor in the process.
Thanks a lot Nick. And great point.
Yes. That was my observation. In my quest for truth, this side stepping of the argument presented means I lose trust for e.g. Trent. Gavin doesn't do that. He addresses each question and also includes his uncertainty measures. Trent always appears fully confident. I find that suspicious too. How much is Trent seeking truth and how much is he merely seeking to find evidence to support his beliefs?
I've tried to express this base miscommunication before to people, but you explained it (in my perception) perfectly.
There's an adage that says that even if we trained a Lion how to speak we'd still never be able to understand eachother because our minds work so differently. The boiled down point is that if you're coming from conceptual foundations that are too different speaking the same language isn't going to help. Remembering that has helped me to learn when to stop having a conversation when I'm able to see that misunderstandings are (at the time) too great for us to rectify no matter how mutually curious and in good-faith I am with another party. It's okay to shake hands and know hat we're missing something the other party believes that's a preconception so engrained that they don't even perceive it themselves.
If anyone has an idea of how to discern what preconceptions can get in the way or questions to ask to help us figure it out or conversation formats that lend them selves to exposing those ideas we take for granted but end up getting in the way of mutual understanding and clear communication, I'd really love to hear it and learn.
I'm sorry if I got wordy and confusing.
@@TruthUnites Trent Horn believes the Catholic Church is right, therefore Protestants are wrong.
Thanks, Dr. Ortland! You did a fantastic job of organizing your thoughts and arguments. The main problem (IMO) with the Catholic concept of post mortem purification, is that it seems to assume that the atonement was, in certain ways, insufficient from God's point of view, and that OUR suffering needs to be added to the suffering, bloodshed, and death of Jesus on the cross...to make us acceptable to God in heaven. It could very easily be viewed as an attack on the sufficiency and the perfection of the atonement.
I totally agree with what you said and a further question from that is why the atonement isn't totally sufficient in their view,. I believe it is because of their view of justification being infused righteousness,. This makes righteousness intrinsic to themselves which through sin the grace that enables them to be further justified is lost. This means most Catholics at the end of theirs lives will lack enough righteousness to enter heaven. Purgatory then becomes vital because without it all would end up in hell.
Correct, this drives me nuts the death of Christ on the cross is enough! All our works are filthy rags, there is nothing we can do to earn grace or else it wouldn't be grace.
I always thought that purgatory was just silly and never really gave it more thought than that. However you are absolutely correct the moment the first drop of Jesus's precious blood hit the ground at calvary that the debt had been paid. More than sufficiently
I’m amazed that you recorded an entirely separate video, lost it, then recorded it again. That’s some dedication! One reason I’m a proud patron XD
Exactly. He’s such a trooper!
Watching your videos is like watching light flood into a dark room. Thanks again Kevin. Great 👍🏼👍🏼👌🏼👌🏼
Glad you found it helpful!
As a fan of both of yours and someone trying to decide where I fall in the church, I'm finding Trent's regular failure to properly represent the other side concerning. Thank you for your time and concern in addressing this.
May God guide, direct, and bless you!
@@nerigarcia776 Gavin is wise in refusing to engage with him IMHO
@@ProfYaffle Yeah, he won't because when it comes to The Fathers William is a heavy hitter.
If purgatory were true there would really be no need for Christ's death and ressurection. We could have just believed in Jesus in some sense and then had our sins purged in Purgatory for however long that was needed. Jesus carried all of our sins or he carried none of them. If we are in Christ it is his righteousness imputed to us apart from our own. We are already cleansed in our born again inner man. Once we leave our flesh we leave behind the sinful unclean part of us instantly. Thats why Paul tells us you WERE washed, you WERE cleansed.
Which highlights how bonkers a belief in purgatory really is.
You know what....so you mean even if you are murderer you will be save?..how lame.
Im over a year late with this comment but I just watched your initial "Purgatory: a protestant perspective". I really appreciated all the study/work you did and how you presented the info. I do my own self study regarding these topics for my own edification but your info added a lot to my limited study and filled gaps of knowledge I didn't know I had. I also listened to some of Trent's videos to challenge my theology (I grew up Baptist/non-denominational, wife grew up Catholic). I have not yet listened to his initial response video but ill be listening to your response to Trent. Please don't stop making videos despite the seemingly low number of views as compared to other Christian youtubers. You're a diamond in the rough for protestants and I share your videos to friends and family.
Scripture may hint at our works will be tested by fire, but Scripture is also clear in that "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" and that "... by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified..."
I try hard to take Trent Horn as a serious commentator but the way he constantly misrepresent others (Gavin , Mike Winger, etc) saying completely misleading information and things they never said make it very hard for me.
Thanks again for the great labor pastor Gavin
No joke him and fradd. Both do nothing but straw man and misrepresent
It's really uncharitable.
Fradd really aggravated me with pragur.
Pragur repeatedly said he doesn't like porn. He said. He didn't consider nudity porn and
Funny enouph is very scriptura on masterbation.
It's not in bible. Fradd then spent the rest of the debate misrepresenting pragur. And pragur even said lust wasn't understood in o.t. but coveting was.
Then fradd with shapiro actually called lust covetness... lol.
He literal ly moved goal
Debate him then
@Sm64wii
1) I have zero equipment to make a a youtube. I've never even made a vid. To talk about the shows and books I like let alone a debate.
2) I'm still reading my Bible. I just know how to listen to arguments.
3) I have no access to the patriatics. All I can do is listen to multiple sides. Of a argument over things. And determine where the best argument lies.
IF I HAD ALL THE BOOKS THE CATHESIM IN FRONT OF ME THAT I COULD QOUTE I WOULD. AND I WOULD ENJOY IT. ID DEBATE THE POPE. ON STAGE GIVEN THE OPURTUNITY.
but as it stands finding the quotes and cathesism and info on the official sexual conduct canon(I believe the plentitudes)
Is hard very hard. Instead of debating these people using info from a 3rd hand source saying these sources say. I'd like to have the actuall first hand source.
It would be wonderful if there was a free place on there vuanted catholic answers. Where it would give a run down of every rule and when it was put out.
I.e.
I posses a chart from a site that says the catholics say. It's a run down of the medivel sex rules.
It says the catholics say(I'd like to have this from the catholics) so I have the receipts as it were. I've been trying to find the official I can find it in pieces.
But this chart says it banned sex on several days out of year. Banned it for about half week every week.
All said about 5 months of year.
They at least according to the third party sight quoted pages of books I myself have not read.
1 I'm not disrespectful enouph to argue a point unless I have the verbatim. Proof of it.
After the community post I was excited to see this, thanks for these!
Thank you for another charitable response! Coming from a Catholic convert, you are by far my favorite Protestant out there to listen to. Can’t wait for when you two engage in dialogue!
Thank you Dr Ortlund - after binging on your videos, and some of Trent’s - i didn't have 3 hours! I watched this one in the same evening
How does Purgatory fit with 1 cor 15:51 When Paul says we all will be changed in a flash. those believers seem to not need Purgatory
Hey Dr. Orlund as a Catholic, I would love for you guys to have a conversation. Love both of you guys 👌
Excellent response to Trent's claims. Great work Gavin.
Grateful to you for having Gavin on your channel, Tony. I consequently subscribed and am learning much from him
I’ve noticed that you are very gracious and kind even when engaging with those you disagree with. A true mark of a believer! I watched Pastor Mike Winger rebut Trent horn as well and I’ve come to the conclusion that Trent horn can only refute arguments he misrepresents first. Praying for his eyes to be opened to the truth of Christ alone.
How did trent misrepresent mike's arguments? Mike's arguments even at their best arent sufficient. Trent doesnt need to misrepresent them to refute them.
You came to the conclusion after watching Mike Winger rebut Trent Horn. I would ask that you watch Trent Horn's final rebuttal to Mike Winger to make a final determination on who is misrepresenting who. Obviously Mike Winger will say Trent and misrepresenting him and Trent will say Mike is misrepresenting him, but don't just watch Mike's side and assume everything he says is accurate.
Maybe watch both sides before making such a conclusion? That's the reason I'm here: a Catholic who watched Trents rebuttal to Gavin.
When was he nasty to William albrecht?
@The Hesychast quite the opposite, Albrecht was hostile and nasty towards Gavin and several Catholics even commented how uncharitable Albrecht was towards Dr. Ortlund.
Excited to see this!
You’ve expressed that the goal of your videos and your channel is to “move the conversation forward. I think it’s safe to say successfully well done! I look forward to your conversation with Trent - I hope you achieve great strides in common understanding.
Regarding this doctrine of purgatory, the last statement at the end of this video from Catholic scholar Brian Daley is honest and fair about the lack agreement among the patristic fathers AND ecumenical discussions of the middle ages and post Reformation West. It seems that the "because I (the Catholic Church) said so" argument holds no weight in determining truth among believers. Because of this, Catholic apologists have to appeal to twisting the wording of many church fathers to make purgatory sound more unanimous. They no longer can appeal to the Magisterium's authority because the nature of this doctrine is questionable in light of Christ's finished work on the cross. Naturally, many people will be hesitant to accept this belief on "because I said so". That's why the final authority CANNOT be fallible men, contradictory church fathers and Popes. Their authority literally means nothing to people who's consciences are bound the very Words of God in Scripture. Since only God knows what happens to souls when they die, why not take his word for it rather than man's words? God knew their would be points of lesser essential doctrine that are unclear and that's why He had Paul write Romans chapter 14 that deals with "disputable matters". God had no concept of an infallible authority to determine these secondary matters among Jew and Gentile (eating meat sacrificed to idols, drinking wine, observing the Sabbath, etc.). God told Paul to tell us that on these secondary matters, "Each should be fully convinced in his own mind" (Romans 14:5). However, this does not apply to salvific matters such as how we are saved and how much (if any) works or suffering is done on our part for salvation (see Romans 4:4-5 cf Romans 11:6 & Ephesians 2:8-10; Ephesians 1:13-14). According to God, works or suffering added to Christ's suffering NULLIFY His work ON SINNERS BEHALF. He says if salvation is "by grace then it is no longer of works, otherwise, GRACE IS NO LONGER GRACE" (Romans 11:6). Don't you see that this easily extends to post mortem suffering? If it's necessary to suffer to "expiate" sins as Catholic doctrine teaches, then what sins did Jesus Expiate? If Jesus didn't die for all sins (past, present, AND FUTURE), then He's not a complete Savior and we have to finish saving ourselves by our works and post mortem suffering. Besides ALL this, what else would God mean when He said in 2 Corinthians 5:8, "To be absent from the body is to be PRESENT with the Lord". To further hammer the nail in purgatory's coffin we have the poor man in Luke 16:22-31 taken immediately to the Kingdom of God seated next to Abraham at the great feast (leaning on His bosom as many ancient people did when they reclined at dinner - Cf. Matt. 8:11; John 13:23). We also have the thief on the cross given Jesus promise to be with Him immediately in Paradise without post mortem cleansing. Has any Catholic ever stopped to wonder why God had this incident of a death-bed salvation with promise of IMMEDIATE entrance to peaceful glory recorded for the church? IT WAS TO GIVE US REAL COMFORT! I am a firefighter and I'm about to undergo a brutal bit of fire training that only lasts 25 minutes yet makes me very nervous and fretful. Catholic friend, Can you imagine burning or suffering of any kind for 500 years or even one year after your death?! You can cry to your heavenly Father all you want but He's the one (in your theology) demanding second payment for your sins - once at Jesus hand and another at yours! This is double jeopardy and not Biblical. Trust is Christ alone for your full and complete salvation. Then in gratitude and love for Him, live completely for Him. If you sin, it's already paid for BUT you will have hurt your relationship and want to restore it as a Spirit-born Christian - not to get Saved again, but to reconcile a hurt relationship (see John 13:10 Cf 1 John 1:8-9 and 1 John 3:6-9).
For me 2 Corinthians 5:21 is possibly the best Bible Verse for refuting purgatory. It was ALL of our sins for ALL of Jesus righteousness. When you also put the verse together with many other verses that state it was “once for all” and that our sins “will be remembered no more” we know that all our sins were imputed on to Jesus and all his righteousness was imputed on to us. RC through purgatory is saying either Jesus didn’t pay for all of the sins of the whole world that’s why we still have to be purified or it’s saying that Jesus righteousness isn’t enough to purify us once for all and we still have to be purified.
Many thanks once again Gavin. Watched fully once, going to do so again
(PS Hope Santa bought you a bigger battery and may your mic/audio always work first time)
Excellent rebuttal 👌🏼. Really looking forward to your upcoming head to head with Trent.
I made it to the end. It was well done and respectful. I hope you continue to put this information out there. It is very helpful
Hes too respectful . Pergatoy is a sick sad trick by that idolatrous catholic cult of personality.
Maybe I am mischaracterizing, but it seems that the framework of many Catholics is “because the Magisterium states X, the church father recognized as saints must be read through the context of X as truth, therefore all quotes that seem to say otherwise must be tectonically wrong”. It’s not explicitly stated as such, but the technicalities many Catholics will go to at length to tease out every minor way the father could possibly have not been saying what a plain reading of the text seems to say.
This seems to me a bulletproof wall built around a glass house. All history must be read through the lens of the modern Magisterium. Impenetrable logical structure around a flimsy historical record.
What they are doing is constructing the Oral Tradition Paul talks about in Thessalonians.
Scripture itself is tradition and you are safe with it because the Catholic church decided most of it in 400 AD and you just came to accept it like the Apostle's creed.
You should aspire to argue well like the way Catholic apologists do, read Church Fathers etc
I wouldn't say Catholicism has flimsy historical.record, as you say. And I don't think Dr Ortlund would say that based on this video.
Based on my reading of the Fathers, the particular Protestantism doctrines have a flimsier historical basis.
@@MrWoaaaaah maybe flimsy is a bad word. More so I mean to say that history does not unanimously prove Catholic doctrines as it is often claimed to do so. But instead I just see most Catholics being unwilling to concede even a single quote. They “technically” maneuver around everything. It makes it much much harder for a non Catholic such as my self to entertain the tradition as true, because of the seemed unwillingness to recognize the difficulty of historical studies. It feels disingenuous sometimes.
@@koppite9600 I would say arguing well is not aspirational, finding and accepting truth is. And it seems to be many Catholics would rather go to their grave before they release even a single quote from the church fathers from their grasp.
Some things just have a plain reading, and when I am constantly being told “those words don’t mean what you think they mean”, or “well technically he didn’t mean that”, or “he never explicitly denied or rejected it”. It begins to feel disingenuous and contrived. Like they are gaslighting me. Reading a modern RCC framework back into history.
@@mattwebb563 ok then. Make it priority to find the successor of Peter since he heads the church of St Peter which Christ promised you will not see the gates of Hades. Find that and relax.
Thanks Gavin! Enjoyed the discussion. Christ love! ✝️
I’m glad you had the energy to upload, fix the audio in the hour-long version.
this was actually a separate recording. Hope it's useful!
@@TruthUnites Oo, nice.
Amen. God bless Dr. Ortlund.
Can't wait to watch this! I also look forward to seeing you dialogue with Trent Horn!
Bravo, a new favorite resource, thanks for your insight.
Was looking forward to this
Dr. Gavin, Excellent videos, both your first one and this one. A big problem with Purgatory, historically, is that for centuries it was taught that people go there for years, decades, even centuries and that the RCC used this to motivate people to go fight in the Crusades vs. Muslims (1095-1299) and fight other heretics and so there is a time element of suffering in Purgatory along with the indulgences, etc. that was only brought out clearly by Luther and his protest vs. the selling of indulgences. so from the 1100s to 1500s and beyond even, the time element was there. Many for centuries, and just to name one, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (even after Trent - he died in 1621) and others taught time is spent in purgatory. This is the issue that opened up more and more discussion and debate that eventually led to Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Reformation. Although modern RCC apologetics denies a time element to purgatory, the fact that for centuries people were deceived about this is a major issue.
What are some good sources on the teachings of Purgatory for centuries was about spending time in purgatory suffering in satis passio ? (years, decades, centuries, etc.)
The only one I know of is Purgatory, by X. F. Schoop, (Jesuit)
most important you cannot find a hint of purgatory in the bible.
I made it to the end ;) Good video for sure. If you and Trent are able to have a sit down, something casual and less "debate oriented" I think that'd be awesome!
I really hope you two do a non-debate chat about this. I think it would be awesome. Both of you have so much charity in your hearts and really care without the virtriol.
Ask 10 Catholics what exactly happens in Purgatory...and you'll get 11 answers
Good work, Gavin. Thanks!
Hello Dr. Gavin. I’m Catholic and I’m glad to see your charitable approach when engaging this topics. Please consider to invite Dr. Brant Pitre on the Papacy or any other topic.
Regards,
If you are captured by the bible butchering if Dr. Ortlund, you never bothered to study your Duay Rheims bible and were never properly catechized!
15:00 - Eastern Orthodox
16:14 - Trinity and purgatory
17:24 , 17:52 - Hippolytus
18:27 - Abraham’s Bosom
52:45 - Lactantius
53:10 - Why the details are vital
As an Orthodox Christian, I would have liked an actual discussion of his understanding of our beliefs.
Been looking forward to this all day. Thank you
3 weeks ago if you had told me I'd be on the edge of my seat with anticipation waiting for a response video on purgatory, I'd have not believed you. Even the comments are more interesting and informative than most other channels I subscribe to.
And yes, I did just respond to my own comment
@@ProfYaffle so glad you enjoyed it!
Dr Gavin is definitely a worthy interlocutor, he is very charitable and puts forwards very substantiative arguments. The discussion he had on the Papacy on Gospel simplicity channel, was very refreshing to me as a Catholic. However I do think, he does over nuance historical writings to the point of detracting from the essence of the writer's message. A head to head dialogue with Trent will be highly appreciated. Peace be with you all. #Proudlycatholic
Great video! Thank you.
It seems like those that claim universal affirmation of purgatory take any language that alludes to a post-Mortem cleansing or even post-mortem waiting and classify it all as purgatory. I think that's disingenuous. There are many Protestants that affirm a post-mortem waiting, but wouldn't classify it as the Catholic understanding of purgatory.
Recasting the concept that vaguely shoehorns in all Christians who believe the final stages of sanctification are post mortem.
And most Christians believe this.
But using that level of indistinction makes the entire issue disappear. So it obfuscates the debate.
I wasn’t aware. Which Protestant denominations affirm some post Mortem waiting?
@@tonywallens217 I'm not sure of any official belief on this by a denomination at large, but I know many Protestant individuals who believe this
@@duncanchance Ah ok, thats what I figured it would be.
@@tonywallens217 I could be wrong though - there may be a denomination that does recognize a post-mortem waiting, and if there is, I'm just unaware of it
Let the games begin.
haha. you be campin here too.
Yes, I did make it to the end, though I had to watch in sections over a couple of days.
You are spot on with your assessment of William Albreicht. Hopefully, he will become more professional like Trent Horn over time!
Everyone has different ways of defending their faith, his character is definitely more rustic. But you have to remember he has dealt with these same arguments before and seems to be getting annoyed of the church fathers from 2000 years ago being quoted as if they held Protestant beliefs, sorry but there are little alike between the two
@@cyprianofcarthage6890 people are just so soft these days
@@cyprianofcarthage6890 I appreciate your opinion. But currently I am convinced that William does not season his speech with grace, treat others with respect, and is trying to accurately represent the person he disagrees with.
@@jackdaw6359 That may be true, but that doesn't give anyone the excuse to behave in those manners. Hopefully you agree with me here.
gavin insults people. he does it with a calm tone and mixed with honey. the deal is that gavin can't address william's arguments. william even exegeted the greek. and he provided scholarly work from numerous sources. if gavin can't even get mark of ephesus right i can't take him seriously.
Hi Gavin! I much appreciate you continuing your discussion here on purgatory by responding to Trent's response video. I have enjoyed this discussion. I appreciated your clarification in regards to how Trent framed your video. Both your views are a bit more clear to me now with both your comments and both your responses. I am looking forward to hopefully hearing you both discuss more and I hope you guys get to do it in person. Appreciate the work you are putting into this.
I made it through to the end great video! I love your grasp of church history. Again you show how this was not Universally taught and understood from the beginning.
Most importantly for me it is nowhere taught in the New Testament and it is contrary to the gospel of grace. And thankfully you do everything in the spirit of Christ likeness, meekness, and humility. Which is winsome.
I don't think you need to respond to Trent. Trent regularly mischaracterizes positions and builds straw-man arguments, instead, I think you should continue to make concise videos that focus on the crux of the issues and their support. Those videos are much more helpful than rebuttal expeditions of 4 hour videos.
I have also noticed over several years of watching Trent that he paints a picture that tends to misrepresent or obfuscate.
YES!!!! It’s the only way he can bring about a contrary point by shifting the original point to something he can argue against. He does this with every protestant.
@@HillbillyBlackhis and fradd both
This was a great review, Dr. O. I tried listening to Trent's presentation but only have so much time in the day. I find Trent bright and congenial, even if I disagree. Looking forward to the actual engagement with Trent.
One thing I noticed that kept coming up, and I think is a deeper point is the presupposition Trent holds which is the authority of the Magisterium of the Church to infallibility define Rome's dogmas and to teach with certainty its doctrines. There is a great book called "The Pope and the Professor" on the life of Johann Ignaz von Dollinger and his dispute with Pius IX at Vatican I on Papal Infallibility. The most important concept from the book was "does the Church judge history or history the Church?". I think it'd be cool to see you and Trent debate either Apostolic Succession or Papal Infallibility.
Made it to the end!
Another strong rebuttal while also remaining kind and charitable!
Not strong enough tho.
@@calson814 It was more than strong enough, Trent was thoroughly refuted!
@@Adam-ue2ig don't think so dude.
For example (with all due respect) Dr Gavin claim that Augustine taught Sola Scriptura but we read his letters (in context) we'll fine that's not true. The same goes to his claim regarding purgatory and i personally think that Trent and William did in fact refuted Gavin's claims.
@@calson814 I don't think so dude, Dr. Gavin pointed out in very specific ways how Trent misrepresented his position and introduced several categories with much nuance that Trent just brushed over to paint a picture that these Fathers believed something synonymous with Purgatory as later defined by Rome.
@@calson814 Sola Scriptura was a different videos and topics...Dr. Ortlund introduced 5 categories in this purgatory video and was very detailed showing how much of what is claimed for church history evidence of purgatory is not in fact synonymous with purgatory.
Dr. Ortlund what if purgatory aka post mortem purification is instantaneous like in a twinkling of the eye. Would you still have a problem with it?
Hey Daniel, not only do I not have a problem with that, it is precisely what I believe! :-)
A convenient thing I used to believe as a Protestant too
Good video. You're making it more difficult for me to choose between a denomination.
may the Lord guide you and give you peace.
Pray for God to guide your conscience, I will
Praying rosary 📿 to lady Carmel to get souls out of purgatory is not biblical
My fiancé was raised Catholic and the idea of choosing a church with me was (and is) still confusing and a little stressful to him because of a feeling that denomination matters, and that he'd be marrying into whatever beliefs that denomination holds.
I tried to express that denominations are meaningless other than being shorthand for clear communication about what things that specific group believes. What denomination you go to doesn't matter as long as the church itself is teaching the clear gospel and puts God and the Bible first.
What is genuinely recommended is that you look up Mike Winger's video on how to choose a church and check out some of his Q&As about what makes a healthy church and an unhealthy church so you can learn what is and isn't a good reason to go to a church or to leave a church.
Then start going to different churches in your area (I personally recommend spending 2-3 weeks at each church so you can see patterns and their traditions and not make a quick judgment based off limited perspective) until you find a church that speaks truth and is intent on fostering Christian community.
Whatever denomination you happen to be at that has he gospel correct, doesn't have red flags, has God and the Bible first, and has an eye for community, then let that be your church and your community.
Ignore the denomination on the sign for the most part. You can know things about their beliefs by the name in the sign, but you don't know if they're healthy, gospel-focused Christians until you're inside.
Don't get hung up on denomination which could cause you to choose a dying, self-centered Baptist church instead of a gospel-focused Presbyterian.
The 10 minute Bible Hour helped me learn about denominations in a lovely way, and Mike Winger helped me understand why the traditions that "separate" us are meaningless as long as the gospel isn't tampered with.
If the gospel is good, the church is good
@@bufficliff8978 One of the most paramount issues of importance to me in a church is seeing souls saved. If your church has a good soul winning ministry, God is blessing that church.
Dr. Ortlund mentioned we shouldn't conflate the fathers. The point is that the Fathers did believe in post-death purification. Dr. Ortlund did mention about the belief that everyone enters into heaven immediately. That is the core of the argument.
Protestants believe there is no post-mortem purification when the early fathers did believe in one.
hello, thanks for all the comments! Did you watch the video? The bulk of it was working through five categories of example of how the fathers clearly did *not* believe in postmortem purification. Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Ephrem, Aphraht, Cyprian, John Chrysostom, etc. I'm trying to understand your comment and wondering if you watched?
@@TruthUnites
Hello Dr. Ortlund,
Thank you for reaching out to me. I did watch the video, and I was not convinced by the explanations you gave. Some of them I felt were overlooking key points in the fathers’ writings. Some of the writings you quoted I felt were not at odds with purgatory.
For instance, you looked at St. Cyprian's letter 55 starting at 22:00. You said the context of the letter is about readmitting the lapse Christians into the Church. Trent said something similar to that in his video response.
However, he did make parallelism in his writing where there is purification after death. You said in 22:26 that interpreting a continuation of the penitential process is reading into what Cyprian said because he never said that. The early fathers never said Holy Trinity and three persons sharing one divine nature, but the language is there. Likewise, the language of post-death purification is there.
In the first portion of section 20, Cyprian is alluding to repentance on earth. However, he shifted and said it one thing to be CLEANSED from sin by being PURGED BY FIRE. He also said they will be purged by all sin by suffering. I seriously doubt St. Cyprian is talking about a lapsed Christian on earth getting purged by fire when they return to the Church. Cyprian continues to say some wait until the last judgment and some receive rewards immediately. That is a clear sign that some people go through a purification process after death.
@@TruthUnites
The other writings of Cyprian you pointed to didn't address anything about purgatory or everyone going into Heaven immediately. You cited St. Cyprian Treatise and pointed languages that point to people going into Heaven immediately. That doesn't mean there is no purification process. Everyone who goes to Heaven is a friend of God regardless of whether they have to go through purgatory or not. Everyone receives a divine reward regardless of whether a person goes through purgatory or not.
You emphasized the phrase “in a moment” in Cyprian’s treatise. That doesn't mean there isn't a purification process. That process may be only a moment, and the person enters into Heaven. The Catholic Church never said how long the process is because there is no concept of time in purgatory.
You also quoted a writer on Cyprian’s commentary saying the criteria for entry into Heaven are an unspoiled faith and an unharmful mind. That doesn't mean Cyprian doesn't believe in a purification process. That is saying nothing unclean enters into Heaven. Purgatory is getting rid of the stains so you can enter unspoiled and unharmful.
You referenced Cyprian Mortality writing and talked about Christian hope. You read we passed by death into immortality, and we will not hasten to better things. That doesn't mean there is no purification process after death, and Cyprian never alluded to anything about entering into Heaven immediately. As you said, Cyprian talked to Christians about Christian hope. That is not at odds with purgatory because the people who go through purgatory have obtained Heaven. They have to clean up before entering Heaven.
You also mentioned in the writing that death is a departure and a translation to the abode of Christ. Again, nothing that was said is against purgatory. Everyone in purgatory is going to the abode of Christ. St. Cyprian never focused on the immediate entry or purification process. He simply stated people are going to Heaven.
@@TruthUnites
Towards the end, you equated Christian hope with immediate entry into Heaven. As a result, you claimed that it is at odds with purgatory. This is the biggest stretch out of this portion of the video. Purgatory doesn't take away any hope in going into Heaven. Hoping to go into Heaven doesn't mean you will immediately go into Heaven
Your surgery analogy at 27:50 supports purgatory. The doctor putting the patient to sleep is analogous to the Christian dying. The patient at once opened their eyes to health is analogous to Heaven. The surgery is purgatory. The patient went through a process and open their eyes to good health. purgatory can be considered a moment because there is no concept of time in purgatory.
The issue with your metaphor is that you said the patient have months of pain after opening their eyes to health. That is not purgatory. After the purification process through purgatory, there will be no more pain. They have entered into Heaven after purgatory. There is no more temporal punishment and suffering lost after going through purgatory.
@@TruthUnites
If you are going to emphasize language, you can't overlook the language of being PURGED OF SIN THROUGH FIRE, being cleansed by fire, and being in suspense until the final judgment. He said those words in letter 51. While mentioning lapse Christians coming into the faith, he did shift his attention to what happened after death to some people the end of section
Hey Gavin, enjoing the dialogue on all your videos especially your interaction with Catholicism. Can I ask what led you to researching/reading Brian Daley's book? Thanks!
The distinction between eternal and temporal punishment is NOT a secondary detail about the doctrine. It’s the basis of the doctrine.
Hebrews 6:2 This is BASIC doctrine for any believer. Something a babe in Christ should understand.
Why doesn't Trent face the reality that the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Church of the East all reject purgatory? If it is in the Fathers, then they all misunderstood it, and not until the second millennium does anyone suddenly understand the Fathers rightly.
6:40 Trent has managed to define "purgatory" so broadly now that all Protestants have purgatory now. Goodness gracious. All Protestants affirm that when we die, we are changed and what remains of our sinful nature is stripped away with our flesh. I hate to break it to Trent, but that ain't purgatory. Purgatory is when a person suffers in the process of expiating their own sins, and the prolonged suffering is inextricably linked to this expiation and a necessary part of it.
Made it till the end. Very interesting .
Great job!
Thank you so much for your videos Dr Ortlund, really thankful and blessed by your gentle, wise and gracious but still very deep engagement with Catholic doctrines - God really is using you! I'm not sure if you'll see this comment as you released this video a year ago now but in this video, you briefly mentioned the Catholic argument about doctrine development, and how they use the Incarnation and the Trinity to prove that doctrine has to be 'developed' or 'articulated' etc and thus they used the same argument for purgatory (and many other doctrines). How can we distinguish these? Are we actually the ones picking and choosing and how can we as Protestants argue/show that we're not? I would really love to hear your perspective on this (or even a video if you have time) - Thanks so much and God bless!
It seems like there's only one way to settle this discussion: live dialogue.
Peace to all my Christian bros. 🙏📿
Made it to the end again! These are not too long, if that's what you're worried about!
Been reading a book called "Regnum Caelorum", which I definitely recommend. The reason I mention it is because the thesis is relevant here; the chiliasts of the early church did not believe men went straight to Heaven when they died; instead they went to Abraham's Bosom in Hades and would receive their reward in the Millennial Kingdom. Purgatory would have evolved out of a distortion of this already unbiblical doctrine.
The apostolic fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Epistle to Diognetus, Didache, Pseudo-Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas) all believed that all Christians go immediately to Heaven (which was important to the thesis of the book, as some chiliasts believed only martyrs went directly to Heaven), as the book shows, demonstrating their amillennialism, so this also counters claims they believed in purgatory. Again, highly recommend the book; great historical scholarship.
You'd do better reading Against Heresies by Irenaeus.
And that writer makes many points that are crushing to Papalalism's new Articles of Faith
Abraham's Bosom, the good place, goes back to the OT aka sheol. Jesus kind of confirmed it with the parable of Lazarus and the rich man right?
@@williamrice3052 Yeah. The idea is that the premillennialists believed that Christians still go to Abraham's Bosom at death (hence they receive their reward in the earthly millennium), whereas the amillennialists believed in a ravishing of Sheol at Christ's ascension, so that all Christians go immediately to Heaven when they die. Irenaeus noted this connection between one's belief about the post-mortem destination of Christians and one's view of the millennium in his time, so the book works off that premise.
It is really unfortunate that it seems that a lot of Catholics defending Trent Horn haven’t watched this video in full. Dr. Ortlund covers ALOT of what is being asked or challenged in the comments.
It really is, I want to give Catholics the benefit of the doubt, but it so often seems like they really don't care to respond to the arguments that are actually made.
@@rwleif You have no sense of irony. During the reformation Catholic theologians responded masterfully to all the novel claims of the heretics. The protestant response? To plug their ears and repeat the same nonsense as if saying it a thousand times would make it true.
@@TheThreatenedSwan care to back that up in any way?
@@rwleif You can see in this interaction where Horn provides the full quotes in context, but Ortland could care less that he was misleading because sola scriptura: he is concerned with proof-texting his tradition whereas the Catholic says if we're going to have some tradition, it needs some authority behind it. You can't just come up with semi-pluasible interpretations because anyone can do that and reach a number of diverging conclusions. You can also read Borromeo's writings. On justification especially protestants accuse Catholics, without using the terms of course, or being pelagians or semi-pelagians and believing in "working their way to heaven." You can also read Calvin and Luther on the Church Fathers and exegesis. Protestants have gotten no less sophistic in justifying their tradition though the rhetoric had changed.
@@TheThreatenedSwan OK, you clearly didn't watch the video, proving the point of the original comment.
I believe continuing to reply at this time would not be worthwhile. Good day.
I am curious about the Ephram comment. You say he doesn't view it as a cleansing, however it seems Ephram uses that exact word in the quote that Trent brought up. Not exactly sure what to make of that.
Thanks for a charitable response. However, the biggest difference between you and Trent Horn is not different sources or possibly not even depth of research but rather your understanding of the "Why?" behind all Church teaching. Your referencing of the Trent (the council) clearly demonstrates this. When Trent (the council) deals with temporal punishment it is specifically dealing with sanctification that is denied by the doctrine of faith alone. It does not define what the purgatorial temporal punishment is, that can be understood as merely the temporal separation of the soul from complete unity with God which would be a form of suffering. And this definitely fits within the "minimalistic" definition of purgatory that Trent Horn presents
What is the Catholic understanding of the passage of those who were in Abraham's Bosom into heaven? Did they have to make a "pit stop" cleansing in Purgatory?
Jesus said on the cross, it is finished. That's good enough for me. Purgatory? I'm not worried. I live in Phoenix. 🥵
That will be deducted for time served if you offer it in union with the sufferings of Christ..
@@uncatila Agreed. Jesus caught hell on my behalf so I don't have go there, no worries, I did my time in 💩 cago.
Nice use of the word "interlocutor." at 1:15. It's one of my favorite words :p
haha. Me too. I recently used it in my personal statement while making an application to a University 😀
@@msmutola682 hope they offer you a place and you are studying something lovely
Interesting point on eulogies. Didn't Joseph Smith give his claim that we can become gods in a eulogy? The King Fallet (sp) discourse? I could be wrong.
Yup. Joseph Smith was a complete and total nut. No comparison.
@@rolandovelasquez135 my point is that Trent said that because it was said in a eulogy, it can't be taken as theology, because of emotion and stuff. I was just making the observation that in a eulogy by Joseph Smith, a theology was created.
I'm not comparing, just processing
Hello Dr. Greetings from the Philippines
The church fathers can and did get many things wrong. I see no scriptural evidence (I’ve looked at the verses Catholics point to) for purgatory. You have to be reading into the text to somehow draw that conclusion.
no purgatory in the bible.
1:00:55 I made it to the end. Great video!
Glad you called out william Albrechts style of debate,unfortunately his style is often very abrasive,combative and comes across as rude. The polar opposite of your approach Dr ortland.
if gavin is going to foray into the apologetics he needs to develop thicker skin. the real reason why gavin won't respond to albrecht is because he can't refute the arguments.
ua-cam.com/video/N6qHBKuFxhI/v-deo.html
@@qatoliqayaqushta6889 well,I have personal experience of william,after I called indulgences a fictitious currency for a fictitious place (purgatory) he called me a freak.
It's not a great approach to good debate and dialogue so I have some sympathy with Gavins position.
@@qatoliqayaqushta6889 just to add a little more weight behind my original comment,in a debate with protestant apologist Dr Michael brown on certain catholic dogmas proven through the New testament,William,to Dr browns frustration,was unable to stick to the brief,and drew in the early church fathers writings time and again to defend his position.
@@qatoliqayaqushta6889 will makes me laugh with his comments on how he didn’t insult Gav but Gav needs to grow thicker skin. Reminds me of when children lie and try to come up with as many defences as possible.
Great pick going with Trent. He’s one of the best RC apologist and is thoughtful about what he says. I enjoy his work a lot more than self appointed amateur UA-cam Roman Catholic apologist.
Trent is the best? Wow! Trent misrepresents the arguments from his opponents.
@@IvanAlvarezCPACMA
U r being nice....Trent lies .....
Ex Roman Catholic here.....
Will Most.
Trent is just a very good liar trained by the best liars and deceivers of Romanism.
But lies is no match against Christians who see right through his attempts to deceive.
Unfortunately, Catholic people have no hope of recognising these lies because they don't know the Lord and have no Spiritual understanding of the Bible.
But we will continue to try and help Catholics by preaching the Gospel truth.
That's our duty
@@parrisroy So, let me get this straight, only those who agree with your interpretation of scripture know the Lord and have Spiritual understanding, the rest are liars and deceivers? Take that all you other Protestants! You need to listen to and follow A True Saint. 2C15-21 to be saved!
I don’t think Trent is a liar and I can’t speak to his motives. He seems to genuinely believe what he believes. He is always good natured and charitable which is more than I can say for these comments. I will say that when it comes to some of the unique claims of Rome most RC apologist go into used care salesman mode to defend some of their more untenable claims. It seems to be built in to their apologetics. But I do not think Trent is an intentional deceiver. I have a lot of respect for him. I’m a staunch confessional Lutheran so I’m not defending Rome but I think Trent is a brother in Christ and tho he may be wrong on some things I will treat him with the same respect I would give to any other Christian. I don’t buy into the typical my team vs your team UA-cam polemical sandbox. My alma mater is a Dominican school so please spare me generalizations. I’ve met some great Catholic Christians that would put many Protestants I know to shame in their charity and devotion to Jesus. These sweeping generalizations and putting Catholics outside the faith is just silly.
Trent Horn has a habit of misrepresenting the arguments of the people he rebuts, he did the same thing with one of Mike Winger's videos. I hope it's not intentional.
My jaw dropped when Trent flat out lied about pastor mike!
I just saw this nice comment
How did he misrepresent pastor mike? From what i saw it was the other way around, where mike told trent that he misrepresents catholicsm.
If he did, then he should apologize. Pastor Mike on the other hand has grossly misrepresented Catholicism time and time again.
@@a.d1287 ua-cam.com/video/hIAVbck93pc/v-deo.html check it out for yourself.
Thank you for the well researched rebuttal, and if the camera had died, would it have gone to purgatory?
"Forty days " was the season of Lent (length), which comes between the winter solstice and the spring equinox, when the days are growing longer, and the nights shorter; when the sins (Sun's S. declination) of the world (year) are being purged off, and come to nought (0) as the Sun reaches the equator. This was the purgatory of the ancients, during which a fast was kept, and is still kept by many of the moderns, in imitation of nature, to purge off their sins! The last month of the year, and the one more particularly observed was named February, from februare, to purge; because, at the end of this mouth the Sun was found at the spring equinox; and having no declination, his sins are all gone.
(Roman calendar). The sacred year/world begins and ends at the spring equinox. The new religious year begins with "Let there be light" or "he has risen."
The ancients held two festivals at opposite points of the ecliptic; one, the anagogia, or going-up of the Sun, at the spring equinox (this was the Passover of the Jews); the other the katagogia or going-down of the Sun, at the fall equinox; this was the ingathering of the Jews. This "forty days” was also styled by the Alchemists a “philosophical month." (Bees' Cyclopaedia, art. Month.)
The Dove's station was near Purgatory, i.e., near the spring equinox, at which time she returns to us, the inequalities of the days and nights having been purged off. (Faber, Pag. Idol, vol. 3, p. 343.)
Can you do a video on the filioque?
Calvin’s dishonest usage of the Church Fathers eventually led me from hardcore Reformed anti-Catholicism to Catholicism. Truth will win every time.
Trent Horn almost always misrepresents arguments of Protestants
Good stuff:)
The fundamental element of the entire discussion is really whether or not purgatory ( Post Mortem Purification ) exists at all , and was it taught by the fathers and early church >>> ( ESSENCE OF BELIEF )
This is the point that Trent made;; That the Church Fathers did agree on this essence of belief ... that certain people can and do enter a state of purgatory ( Post Mortem cleansing ) after death
This is what is meant by "essential element".
If the church fathers taught of a purifying post Mortem condition but disagreed or had varying views on on what, how, where, and when etc, then we can say that those varying opinions are secondary to the belief that Purgatory exists.
Secondary elements (might be things like what happens to a person in purgatory ...?? Why does purgatory exist ?? How long do people stay there for ??? Can others pray for them to get them out ??? . . How much pain do they suffer ?? Do they suffer any pain at all ?? Can they pray for us whilst in purgatory ?? ( ESSENCE OF NATURE )
Gavin isn't necessarily wrong about the essential elements of purgatory not being taught by the Fathers as they pertain to things like indulgences and expiatory purification, but that's really irrelevant to that belief itself, namely that purgatory exists, as am essential belief held by the church over the past 2000 years.
is very difficult to interpret the church father's writings in it's original context, we need to look into the Bible alone to see if there any support for the idea of purgatory.
I made it to the end! 👍🏻
Ah but did you listen to all of Gavin's original, then all of Trent's rebuttal aswell.. and while we are on, the Mike Winger-Trent Horn dialogue 🙂
@@ProfYaffle yes I have.
@@duncanchance oh well done! To my shame, I've not made it through all of Trent's - but have tried!
“Muh magisterium says so” circular kind of reasoning is what you will get as a response.
@The Hesychast Right now I don't follow any denomination, however I think Eastern Orthodox Church is the closest, I'm very ignorant in patristics though.
That's why I'm studying.
@The Hesychast easy, read scripture and interpret correctly to i.e. historical grammatical and literal. Aka PLAIN meaning.
RCs constantly points to tradition or church fathers as if both are equal with the word of God - sorry, early father's allegorized scripture and didn't get everything right. Only God is perfect.
@@IvanAlvarezCPACMA agreed and I have deeply studied scripture and have read quite a bit of the writings of the Christians in the first 800 years of Christianity and while I don’t dismiss historical theology and enjoy it quite a bit, they get things wrong all the time (ironically enough especially the earliest guys who should have the purest doctrine and clearest understanding of the traditions if the RC or EO claims were right and their traditions weren’t historical innovations).
Just imagine Paul in the first century requiring believers in Christ to believe in Mary being an ever virgin and being sinless and this being a requirement for salvation. Or him expecting believers to bow down before icons of Angels, Christ and other Christians kissing them even if it goes against their conscience. That is unthinkable if you have deeply studied scripture in its historical/ grammatical context.
Most of the leading Christian scholars are evangelical so I don’t understand why anyone would think deeply studying scripture requires RC or EO. Some of the most known online EO apologists have learned their biblical theology (typology, partial preterism, historical context etc.) from Protestant theologians.
For example Kabanes whole understanding of the biblical Metanarrative is based on Peter Leithart, NT Wrights and James B Jordan’s work (when he already was EO). He then used that framework and married it it with the Eastern Orthodox traditions and teachings. Why is that? Because only reading the scriptures through EO traditions won’t give you as deeply an understanding of the scriptures (especially the OT) which is why most of them rely on evangelical works which they then marry with their traditions. It’s Protestantism that has given Catholics and EO laity the opportunity to read their Bible in their language and to study the scriptures with great historical scholarship and to engage in biblical theology.
That's because faith is the gift of God. Not just anyone will believe the truth.
Thats actually how Trent Horn does his rebuttals. He did the same thing with Mike Winger. Your statements will be stretched to fit how his claims look correct.
As a Lutheran, I'm more biased towards Horn than Winger. But yes, I could not avoid making the same observation you did.
I think ortlunds statement is pretty clear, and so are wingers, neither Trent or anyone can stretch their arguments because they are already ready to burst from hyperextension
Mike Wingers arguments are typically not very good. I like Dr. Ortlund a lot more even though I disagree with the vast majority of his interpretations of the fathers.
I really love Albrecht's exhaustive info, but he seems way more interested in discrediting the person vs the claim.
Excellent
Good video. However, although historically interesting, the debate between you and Trent as to how to read the meaning of various Church fathers is ultimately something of a red herring (for a Catholic). I would simply view the divergent views as permitted theological opinions...until they weren't. In other words, a case of both development of doctrine and how the magisterium works. Eventually, the magisterium defined a number of essential elements (i.e. "definitive"). And even an understanding of those defined elements can be developed in a deeper way (i.e Cardinal Ratzinger's speculation that the fire can be an existential fire and the punitive and purgative aspects are a unity- thus upholding the "fire" but also understanding it in a way that could be a bridge to Mark of Ephesus's views. Same with his nuanced view of what constitutes punishment - which seems both realistic and orthodox to me). I have no problem with praying for souls in purgatory or indulgences(properly understood) - none of which are "anti-gospel" which is often the charge. Should they be "required" beliefs - yes if one wants to be joined to the Holy Mother Church.
I think this is a much more reasonable way to try to defend the doctrine than that sometimes taken by Catholic apologists. However I still think the absence of any early attestation is a problem, and that defining Purgatory so broadly so as to include Mark of Ephesus’ view starts to strain credulity at some point.
@ 40:40. Trent did not respond to this quote from Gregory of Nanzianzus? Hmm, wonder why 🤔
Nice
Hope that dialogue will be good
No point going on a back and forth..Just an honest loving debate between each other will settle things
🙏
When do final sanctification of a believer takes place?
At born again event such that once sanctified, always sanctified?
At the moment of death such that your body is glorified the moment you die?
After death such that one's soul is cleansed of all imperfections - Purgatory?
How do we ask you general questions? I was listening to the BIAY podcast today and the Revelations reading talked about how we will be judged on what we have done. This concept is prevalent in the Bible as I’m sure you know better than I. This seems to contradict the faith alone argument? I Always enjoy your videos.
The First Commandment: You shall have no other gods. You shall love the Lord Your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.
How is this kept? By true faith. True faith naturally keeps the first commandment.
Which commandment is most like it? You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Do you believe that God gives you your daily bread? Then you have no fear giving to your neighbor. Do you refuse? It's only because you lack faith. Do you give, but proudly or selfishly, trying to earn something from God? It is sin. Therefore, anything done not in faith is sin. And sins are forgiven by God through faith. Therefore, true faith alone saves you from sin both by making you active and by granting forgiveness. Faith alone saves. The faith that alone saves is thankful for salvation, thankful for having a God who meets our needs, and is unafraid to give generously.
@@Mygoalwogelevery good I do is by the grace of God, even my faith is from Grace. Love is an action verb though, no we cannot earn our way to Heaven, but it's one thing to say we love God and another to imitate Christ by our actions.
So you go from claiming trent horn is a good faith actor and the imitate next claim is that he missreprented your argument? I mean sure. Maybe he is acting in good faith but I mean I've watched a lot of his videos and he pretty consistently missreprents the arguments of the people he is trying to "rebut".