The Immaculate Conception: A Protestant Evaluation
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лип 2024
- In this video Gavin Ortlund offers a Protestant appraisal of the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
For Andrew Wilson's book Remaking the World: www.amazon.com/Remaking-World...
See my previous video on the bodily assumption: • Why Mary’s Assumption ...
Truth Unites exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
SUPPORT:
Become a patron: / truthunites
One time donation: www.paypal.com/paypalme/truth...
FOLLOW:
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Website: gavinortlund.com/
MY ACADEMIC WORK:
gavinortlund.com/mypublications/
PODCAST:
anchor.fm/truth-unites
DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM
Striving Side By Side: / discord
CHECK OUT SOME BOOKS:
www.amazon.com/Makes-Sense-Wo...
www.amazon.com/Theological-Re...
www.amazon.com/Finding-Right-...
www.amazon.com/Retrieving-Aug...
00:00 - Introduction
00:52 - Book Recommendation
01:43 - 1) Understanding the Immaculate Conception
04:42 - 2) Evaluating the Immaculate Conception
08:46 - Tertullian
09:20 - Origen
11:48 - Basil
12:31 - Hilary
12:55 - John Chrysostom
16:31 - Augustine
17:04 - Absence of Positive Testimony
19:02 - Summing up the Implications - Розваги
Gavin Ortlund is someone who commands respect from those whom disagree with him, and this is largely due to his gentle and loving yet firm and assertive demeanor. Dr. Ortlund is a model by which we should consider approaching atheists, Jews, Muslims, and members of opposing denominations regarding Christianity.
does
@patriceagulu8315It doesn't mean false either.
@@EssenceofPureFlavormy gosh, gentle mean GENTLE 😂😂
@patriceagulu8315 what you mean is that from his paradigm of Christian belief Dr. Orlund teaches what he believes to be true. That Dr. Orlund’s teaching stands on the teachings of men who claimed they were removing from the church what they saw as accretions.
In the history of the church there have always been those who worked to conduct necessary change in the church (Saint Ignatius,etc) and those who worked around it (Luther, and the reformers)
@@johnmendez3028 If you listen to him speak he supports his positions with historic documentation. Both first century writings and early Church fathers.
You can disagree with him but you can't say he just spouts opinion. He does careful research before determining if a teaching seems to be Apostolic or a later addition.
As a Protestant I have somehow always assumed the immaculate conception referred only to the virgin birth. I did not know this was a catholic doctrine. Thanks for the explanation! You had me worried when I clicked on the thumbnail!
@elisharp5767
Peace.
You should be concerned.
The doctor got it wrong- at least his Protestant evaluation. Hence the reason that he is not in the Church.
Blessings.
@@JD-sj1zn "The doctor got it wrong."
Refuses to Elaborate.
Leaves
@@DrakonPhD
Peace.
I have explained, many times. Just look at my comments. But I am happy to cover it with you if you would like.
Dr O refuses to look at the writings of the greatest Saints in history with regard to this dogmatic teaching.
He doesn't even look at Luther's writings, who affirmed the Blessed Mother's Immaculate Conception, perpetual virginity, her bodily Assumption into Heaven, her status as the Mother of God, and that of Queen of Heaven and Earth. In fact, Luther's sermons on Our Lady are regarded as classics.
Regarding the Blessed Mother's Assumption in particular, Dr O "apparently" does not realize that the Church was celebrating this event in the 100s AD in Her Liturgy.
His bias comes through time and again. If he believed the authentic teaching of the Church, then he wouldn't be Protestant; he would be Catholic. And to believe that men such as Basil the Great, Cyril, Gregory Nazianzen, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Jerome, Athanasius, Anselm, Hilary, Ignatius of Loyola, John Damascene, Iraneus, Patrick, Thomas Aquinas- some of the greatest intellects in the Church, have not refuted this teaching, but now after 20 centuries the Good Lord has sent us Dr O to finally set us straight, is the height of arrogance. In the Church's history, not one of the great Saints- not one- has refuted this teaching. There are Biblical and theological reasons why the Immaculate Conception is True.
I am happy to dialogue with you if it is Truth you seek. Just let me know.
Blessings.
@@DrakonPhD
I hope you saw my response.
Once again Gavin's team has removed my comment.
No bias here.
@@DrakonPhD
Christ took His Flesh from the Virgin, alone. If She was defiled then so was He, which is impossible.
At no time did He have original sin.
Thanks for the clear presentation of what the Immaculate Conception is, and...what it is NOT. Easiest thing in the world to hear "Immaculate Conception" and think "yeah, Mary was a virgin when she bore the Christ" and drop it there, but there's sooo much more (as there usually is when working with Catholicism).
Many prayers for you/yours/your church, and thanks again.
I found your channel a few days ago as a Protestant Lutherans considering the Marian dogmas. Thank you for showing the history from a true Protestant view. God bless you and anyone reading this that loves the Lord Jesus Christ ❤
@@jpc9923Calvin didn’t. And one can’t if one agrees with Paul that all have sinned and fall short.
Luther did not belive in the immaculate conception. The actual idea was the purification of Mary, if im not mistake is the same belived by the eastern orthodox with the distinction about the original sin@@jpc9923
@johnrevelation37
Peace.
Perhaps it would have been more useful (and honest) if the Doctor showed the history from the Church's view.
Blessings.
He didn't give a Protestant view, he gave a historically accurate view.
@@unamusedmule
Peace.
Historically accurate?
The Church has been around for 2000 years. It has had some of the greatest intellects the world has known. Not one of the Saints or doctors refuted this teaching. Not One. In fact they have plenty to say to show they agree with it.
2000 years of the Church, and Our Lord has finally given us Dr O to set us straight? Even Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Read his sermons on the Blessed Mother.
Blessings.
Wow I had no idea how much my Catholic School upbringing was influencing my life as a now Baptist Christian. I have been using the term "immaculate conception" referring to the virgin birth. And so when I first saw this video I was thinking "what's wrong with the immaculate conception?" But I am glad I know now that there is a difference between the immaculate conception and the virgin birth. That way, I won't also confuse others when I ever talk about it
I was stunned too when I found out the Immaculate Conception is about Mary, not about Jesus. I used to use this term too, thinking Catholics and protestants agreed on this, and that the Catholics just had a great term to sum it up.
My wife thought similarly. We were passing a high school named after the Immaculate Conception, and made conversation about the term. When I told her that the phrase referred to the notion that Mary was conceived as such, not to the Incarnation, her verbatim reaction was "Oh...so they made Mary into Jesus."
I used this term too and I grew up baptist. I must’ve picked it up somewhere and assumed it was talking about Jesus haha.
It is a good thing Gabriel let us know that it is about Mary in Lk 1:28. God certainly bestows the most awesome names and titles on those who love him. Holy Κεχαριτωμένη pray for us!
@@StanleyPinchakThat verse says Mary was favored and blessed, and certainly she was. She was chosen as the one to bring God incarnate to earth after all. But it says nothing of how she was conceived, and certainly doesn’t suggest she was without sin.
I am thankful for your consistent perspectives related to these types of controversies. Your videos always educate me in important issues that I had never considered. May The Lord bless you and keep you.
Good evaluation, Gavin. It can be easy to assume a lot of prominent historic beliefs were always embraced unanimously until the time of the reformers, especially since that is what so many are being told. When a lot of times, in depth study of the fathers suggest some of these beliefs were later developments in Christian thought. Our recent video on the reformers' view of a self-authenticating canon digs into some of these misconceptions.
Typical Protestant position: to cherry-pick Bible verses & the church fathers when it aligns with subjective Protestant interpretations.
Interesting how you utilize the works of the Church Fathers when a few of them disagree on the Immaculate conception.
Why not make a video on the consensus the Fathers have on the Catholic Church as the One Apostolic Church?
Why not make a video on the consensus of baptismal regeneration, the priesthood, apostolic succession, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, infant baptism, & so forth?
The Church Fathers were all Catholic. To quote from them & try to make yourself feel better about being Protestant is jejune.
Thank you for your comment. I do not think that is an accurate representation of the point I was making at all, I'll let Gavin speak for himself. I agree that the early church agreed on baptismal regeneration, the episcopate, apostolic succession, real presence, infant baptism, and many more things. It is important to remember that the Catholic Church believes in development of doctrine and revelation outside of Scripture - so it is not an anti-Catholic position to claim teachings can be revealed after the apostolic deposit. Gavin seems to engage very well with the historical development of the immaculate conception, and I do not think he is guilty of cherry picking historical accounts or the fathers in this analysis. God bless @@SuperrBoyful
I’d love to see Gavin talk with Scott Hahn about Mary.
Same! I was hoping Fradd would introduce him when he went to Steubie for the debate.
What a great video brother. Measured and well argument as usual. Thank you!
"Some people will try to respond to these passages by questioning their orthodoxy. ... As soon as they say something you like, you bring them back in."
-This is something I very recently experienced. I was in conversation with an Orthodox and he was arguing for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Two of his leading sources were the Proto-Evangelium of James and Jerome. I challenged the support of James on a scholarly basis and challenged Jerome on his rejection of James. Apparently, James is a reliable source that Mary was ever-virgin despite not being historically reliable, and Jerome is an infallible source despite rejecting another reliable source. He didn't understand the contradiction of his argument. And this is why Sola Scriptura is important.
The Protoevangelium is an interesting piece of work. I definitely don't consider it inspired or factual, but it does lay out a case for how the perpetual virginity could look. It made me go from a stance on PV being "This is nonsense" to "Okay, I can see how this _might_ be the case, but turning it into dogma is still bogus."
That aside, it is a phenomenon I have observed on both sides for interlocutors to dismiss church fathers or texts where we dislike them, then pull them back in when they agree with us. It's frustrating to argue against, certainly.
@@ottovonbaden6353 I need to do a deeper dive into the Protoevangelium, as there are things I'm conflicted about. On the one hand, the PV has credibility in the earliness of its place in Church History. But there might also be concerns if the Protoevangelium is the first source for it, -similarly to how Gavin argued in his video about the Assumption of Mary originating in non-reliable sources. Of course, I don't think the Protoevangelium is as contra-orthodox as some of the sources Gavin was claiming on the Assumption, but that is where I need to study it more.
And yeah, the phenomenon of dismissing while using sources is something that I think we are all guilty of. It makes sense, -a source can be reliable without being infallible, but justifying why you consider a source reliable on a point you agree with while dismissing it as fallible on a point you disagree with can be really tricky.
So Orthodox (and Catholics, for the matter) reject the canonicity of the proto-gospels/apocrypha but they still derive their tradition from them? Odd.
Typical irrational Protestant thinking, sola Scriptura is flawed & unbiblical. By relying solely on the one legged stool, flawed SS lacks stability and hence Protestantism is unsustainable.
The CC has the benefit of a three legged stable stool ie Sacred Tradition, which has existed from the time of Christ, complementing Sacred Scripture which was freely available for the last 500 yrs though most people were illiterate & relied on Sacred Tradition & the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium.
All entities from family to corporates & Govt require hierarchy & authority without which society couldn’t function properly. The Judicial Court system interprets the law and adjudicates disputes & the magisterium of the CC plays a similar role. Without a structure of hierarchy & earthly authority, Protestantism is unsustainable which is reflected in the chaos, confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects resulting from personal interpretation when Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-21
Peace.
Apparently, you had a conversation with someone who was unable to defend the dogma to your liking. Of course, that does nothing to deter from the fact that the Immaculate Conception is True. Consider that "contradiction."
If you are interested in why this HAS to be the case, I will engage in dialogue.
Blessings.
Great video. I think Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) also rejected the immaculate conception of Mary. Thanks for a clear and even-handed statement of the reformed position.
Yeah he did as well as many medieval churchmen such as The Venerable Bede, Jean Beleth, Albert the Great and several others
For Bernard, it was a question of timing.
Bernard argued that Mary could not have been sanctified *at the moment of her conception* because that would imply she did not need redemption through Christ. Instead, he believed that Mary was sanctified in her mother's womb after conception but before her birth, ensuring *she was born free from original sin yet still redeemed by Christ.*
Of course, as the debate continued in the Church, it was eventually understood that Mary was saved by Christ in the same way that someone can be saved from death by a vaccine instead of by surgery.
But you may be interested to know that Bernard's belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist was a central aspect of his theology and spirituality. His writings and teachings contributed significantly to the medieval Church's understanding and reverence for the Eucharist as the true body and blood of Christ, affirming the sacrament's vital role in the Christian life.
Cherry-picking from the writings of Catholic saints can cut both ways.
@@albertohernandez8721 For Bernard, it was a question of timing.
Bernard argued that Mary could not have been sanctified *at the moment of her conception* because that would imply she did not need redemption through Christ. Instead, he believed that Mary was sanctified in her mother's womb after conception but before her birth, ensuring she was born free from original sin yet still redeemed by Christ.
Of course, as the debate continued in the Church, it was eventually understood that Mary was saved by Christ in the same way that someone can be saved from death by a vaccine instead of by surgery.
But you may be interested to know that Bernard's belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist was a central aspect of his theology and spirituality. His writings and teachings contributed significantly to the medieval Church's understanding and reverence for the Eucharist as the true body and blood of Christ, affirming the sacrament's vital role in the Christian life.
Cherry-picking from the writings of Catholic saints can cut both ways.
This is fascinating. Thanks for the overview.
Some excellent points.
For anyone interested, here are some quotes from the Ante-Nicene Fathers collection. I have included the volume and page numbers for reference so you can verify and read them in context:
“Christ alone is sinless” - Clement of Alexandria 2.210,
Also from Clement: “For this Word of whom we speak alone is sinless. For sin is natural and common to all” 2.293, “I know of no one among men who is perfect in all things at once, as long as he is still human… The only exception is He alone who clothed Himself with humanity for us” 2.433.
Tertullian: “To the Son of God alone was it reserved to persevere to the end without sin” 3.244. Also, “God alone is without sin. And the only human without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God” 3.221.
Origin: “…it is impossible for a human to be without sin in that manner. In saying this, we except, of course, the man understood to be in Christ Jesus, who did not sin” 4.489.
Cyprian: “Let no one flatter himself with the notion of a pure and immaculate heart” 5.476. Also, “No one is without stain and without sin… In the Epistle of John, it says: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” 5.547.
Methodius: “No one can boast of being so free from sin as not even to have an evil thought” 6.365.
Lactantius: “No one can be without defect as long as he is burdened with a covering of flesh” 7.178.
Please verify these quotes for yourself. See what the earliest Christians believed in this, as well as other subjects.
May God bless you.
We can clearly see that all have sinned and fallen short, just exactly as the new and old testament says many times. Yet some Catholic is going to come along and find other quotes, or some reason why these quotes don't pertain. Or claim the context isn't full enough.
@@saintejeannedarc9460
So true, but they would have to appeal to a later period. I couldn’t find any early (first 3 centuries) evidence for the immaculate conception; the same is true for the assumption of Mary. Tertullian and Methodius, as well as the Apostolic Constitutions all attest to the assumptions of Enoch and Elijah. There is no mention of Mary.
But when it comes down to it, the earliest Christians were neither Catholic nor Protestant. I think all modern Christians could benefit from their simple, obedient, love relationship with Jesus Christ. It would go a long way towards unifying Christendom.
May God bless you.
@@kyleolson1522 There earliest Christians in the first generation apostle era, the first generation or so after Christ were very different than either protestants or Catholics. There is pretty early evidence in the church father writings of them calling themselves the Catholic church. I think it was a pretty different entity than the RCC of today, but some of the Catholic beliefs had developed pretty early and are attested to by the church fathers.
Do you know if they had an early belief in communion of the saints, as in praying to their saints and to Mary and angels?
@@kyleolson1522 Let me get this straight, God preserves Enoch and Elijah from the corruption of the grave, but not his own flesh and blood.
P.S. Send pics when you find some first class relics of κεχαριτωμένη.
@StanleyPinchak this is not a reputal at all.
It’s so obvious none of this was taught by the apostles. It seems that people only buy into this because they buy into other (questionable) claims about Church authority. Glad this channel exists to make people aware.
Absolutely. I honestly think it’s because the outlandish claims about church authority have been stated so boldly, and are now irreversible, that they end up having to defend outlandish claims about the apostles because this lie has gotten to big to be false.
What I find amazing about "church authority" is how threadbare the claims for it are. Simply based on Peter's proclamation to Jesus, and Jesus stating, upon this rock I will build my church, I had you the keys to bind and loose, and the gates of hell shall not prevail. They have Peter as the first pope, all popes have infallible authority to proclaim doctrine, the church is infallible, and whatever the church says, that's how it is. Nevermind that Jesus often questions the authority and teachings of the pharisees of his day. Jesus pointed out their errors, and how they replaced tradition for the words of God. Yet the RCC doesn't think this applies to them. They follow a Jewish priesthood model, yet the Jewish system never had an infallible top down authority to proclaim anything into dogma.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 "Thread bare". Jesus promised the church would be guided in to "all truth" 2,000 years ago. This structured and apostolic church is how the world received: the Bible, Sunday as the day of worship, the creeds, the liturgical calendar, the hypostatic union, the Trinity, the sacraments, the scientific method, hospitals, universities, some of the world's most beautiful art, architecture, and much more. Sure this was from God but what he used to deliver it was his Catholic Church that he personally planted. This church was the only church in existence for centuries and centuries and centuries and yet, somehow, you've concluded that the strange, beautiful, ancient church with the most influence, richness, and historical significance is man-made and contradicting Bible communities and denominations, that men launched much later are God's design. The claim that is "thread bare" is the claim that being guided into "all truth" is a promise for each individual with a Bible. No one thought this for 1,500 years and it has never worked since.
@patriceagulu8315He hasn’t. His bride is the body of believers. Not the church in Rome, Italy.
@@KnightFel In the Bible, the church is not an invisible body alone. It's one structured apostolic church that has bishops, presbyters, deacons, and has specific teaching and practices it is carrying. It includes believers but it is not simply a collection of believers; it has a shape, a mindset, a teaching authority, and a promise to last forever. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism.' - St. Paul
Thank you Gavin. You’re a blessing to me.
So good, Gavin! Thank you so much for this! I grew up as Eastern-Orthodox, I am a Protestant now and this material is blessing my heart. I knew that even if we dive into the church fathers, there’s so much to explain from our Eastern-Orthodox brothers.
This gives me so much interest and desire to study the church fathers myself.
Be careful, best avoid the Early Church Fathers. They had already fallen into the great apostasy and started spewing Catholic teachings on baptismal regeneration, real presence, the trinity and other dogmatic accretions to the faith.
“To Be Deep in History Is to Cease to Be Protestant.” - St. John Henry Cardinal Newman
Just keep reading your Bible and ignore those corrupted early church fathers. I mean they didn't even have a closed canon to fulfill the fundamentals of sola scriptura. They likely didn't even have access to the whole corpus of scripture. Surely this counts against any supposed authority they might otherwise be afforded.
Typical Protestant position: to cherry-pick Bible verses & the church fathers when it aligns with subjective Protestant interpretations.
Interesting how Gavin utilizes the works of the Church Fathers when a few of them disagree on the Immaculate conception.
Why does he not make videos on the consensus the Fathers have on the Catholic Church as the One Apostolic Church?
Why does he not make videos on the consensus of baptismal regeneration, the priesthood, apostolic succession, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, infant baptism, & so forth?
The Church Fathers were all Catholic. To quote from them, Gavin attempts to make himself feel better about being Protestant, which is jejune.
I can tell you are frustrated with the Protestant position, but we cannot allow that, because it will prevent us from understanding each other’s position and thus we won’t grow from these conversations.
In your comment you agreed that there are church fathers that disagree on Immaculate conception. So then you are proving our point - this is a dogma that puts a believer into a cursed category if one doesn’t believe in that dogma. This is VERY serious. Protestant position never claims that all the church fathers agree with all our positions, sometimes they don’t even agree with each other, so how can we claim that. But with your church it is a problem because you have a thing called Holy Tradition.
So Gavin raises a valid point highlighting those church fathers. And there’s some serious explaining that has to happen from your position, because there’s a clear logical contradiction.
And the possible answer that I can see is either we, the Church, decide which church father to follow on certain topic which means - you cherry-pick, or there’s another, higher authority over the church fathers that tells us what to believe: for example - the Holy Scriptures.
@@DrMarkich Yes, the church fathers aren’t the ultimate end-all-be-all (No Catholic believes that) & neither is the New Testament taken without Apostolic Tradition.
If the New Testament by itself was sufficient, then there wouldn’t be thousands of different denominational differences. Baptist cannot even agree with extremely important positions, i.e “Once Saved always saved.”
The problem is rooted in a lack of Apostolic-authority, which Protestantism is completely void of.
The New Testament cannot convey the entirety of the truth. If you study the Early councils, you’ll see how many different heresies arose from subjectivism (which is modern day Protestantism.)
If everything of Scripture is dependent upon the individual, there is no truth…only mere opinions.
I ask you, why does your interpretation of serious doctrinal passages contradict the thousands of other Protestant denominations? For example Catholics & Orthodox Christians agree on John 6 referring to the Eucharist while thousands of Protestants do not agree on the traditional interpretation seen throughout all of the Church Fathers?
@@SuperrBoyful Let me quote from “The Vicars of Christ” page 237 by Peter de Rosa a former RC Theologian and priest:
“Until the 12th century, Christians took it for granted that Mary was conceived in original sin. Pope Gregory the Great said emphatically: “Christ alone was conceived without sin”. Again and again, he said all human beings are sinful, even the holiest, with the sole exception of Christ. His reasoning and that all of the Fathers leave no doubt in the matter. The sex act always involved sin. Mary was conceived normally, therefore in sin; Jesus was conceived virginally, therefore without Original Sin.
“Whereas Ambrose and Augustine took the line that Mary did no actual sin, many Fathers disagreed. Tertullian, Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Origen, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria and others accuse Mary of many sins, arguing from biblical texts. She was conceived in sin, she committed actual sin; the New Testament said so.
“So firm was the tradition that Mary was conceived in sin that the only problem for a great medieval saint scholar like Anselm was how the sinless Christ could be born of a sinner. Anselm praised Mary in many ways: her spiritual plenty made “all creatures green again”. Yet, he steadfastly followed Pope Gregory and the great tradition: “the virgin herself was conceived in iniquity and in sin did her mother conceive her, and with Original Sin was she born because she too sinned in Adam in whom all sinned“.
“In the middle of the 12th century, in Lyons, a new feast was celebrated in honor of the conception of the virgin. Saint Bernard of Clairvaux was horrified. He wrote the canons of Lyons, warning them that their argument for Mary’s sinless conception would apply to all Mary’s ancestors, male and female. They would be forced to postulate a whole line - a kind of infinite regress - of ancestors of Mary who were conceived immaculate. The nightmare would not end there. If they were all conceived immaculate they must all have been virginally born. Bernard followed the Fathers in his views of sexual intercourse. It always involved sin. Hence he asked the prelates of Lyons: “was the Holy Spirit a partner to the sin of concupiscence [of Mary’s parents]? Or are we to assume there was no sin of lust present?“ Bernard is simply repeating Gregory‘s argument: sex means lust. Mary came of sexual intercourse, she was conceived in sin. He held that Mary was born sanctified. The feast of Mary’s nativity was in order, not of her conception.
“Peter Lombard, the most influential medieval theologian before Aquinas, followed the Greek Father, John of Damascus. Mary was conceived in original sin and was not cleansed of it until she consented to bear the Savior. Innocent III approved of this new view. Even this did not stop the new cult spreading, though not to Rome itself.
“Bonaventure, the 13th century Seraphic Doctor, denied that Mary was free from inherited sin. His contemporary Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, agreed. He followed Aristotle, who claimed that animation of the fetus is a gradual process. Initially the conceptus is vegetative. Thus, for Aquinas the idea of the immaculate conception was about as intelligible as a sinless carrot. He did believe that the Virgin Mary was sanctified at some, unspecified, time before birth
“Dominicans agreed with their hero Aquinas, as did the Franciscans for a while. In the 14th century, Bishop Pelayo, the Franciscan penitentiary to John XXII had no doubts that Mary was conceived in original sin”.
“Still the cult grew and for the first time a theologian of stature, the Franciscan Duns Scotus, supported it. The Subtle Doctor’s problem is to know how Mary could be among the saved if she had no original sin to be saved from. His solution was based on the principle that prevention is better than cure. Mary was not cured of sin but prevented by the foreseen merits of Christ from incurring sin. According to Scotus, Mary was immunized against Original Sin before she was conceived. Probably nothing would have been heard of this opinion had not Pius IX used it to underpin his infallible definition of Mary’s immaculate conception.
“After Scotus had taken the opposite line to Aquinas, sides were taken. Franciscans and Dominicans engaged in bloody battles, not all literary. Emperors joined in, as when Charles VI forced Dominicans out of Paris and arrested anyone found on the streets who denied the immaculate conception.
“For centuries, disputes and fisticuffs continued. Each party denounced the other as heretical. If ever if a papal decision was needed to stop the fighting, it was now. There were good reasons why it was not forthcoming. Scripture was silent on the immaculate conception; the Fathers of the church were all opposed; until Scotus not one theologian of note had accepted it and the greatest had denied it. Yet there was a powerful groundswell of popular opinion in its favor.
“Sixtus IV ordered the feast of the conception to be kept in all churches; to it he gave, free of charge, a special indulgence. It provoked a still more bitter controversy between Dominicans and Franciscans. To stop it, he wrote another Bull. The feast was honoring Mary’s conception, he said, not her sanctification. Dominicans must accept this or they will be excommunicated; but if the Franciscans gloat over the Dominicans they will be excommunicated.”
It continues at great length but that is sufficient to establish the point beyond a shadow of a doubt - the Immaculate Conception is a late, invented doctrine and not at all of Apostolic origin.
The work put in is greatly appreciated, the infallible Marian dogma are three words I use a LOT these days
So good Gavin! TY so much for your teachings!!
Thanks Gavin for your beautiful work
Lord Jesus Christ bless you ❤
Gavin Ortlund. You are so helpful on these topics. thank you so much.
I also find the gospel story more beautiful and powerful if Mary was an ordinary girl that God used in an extraordinary way. There’s so much more power to the humility of Christ in the incarnation to live inside a flawed and sinful human for nine months and then to be dependent upon and obedient to two sinful people.
I would also say that as a woman, I can appreciate having another female hero to look up to in the scriptures and it’s just not the same if she was born without original sin.
It is much more remarkable and admirable that Mary was an actual person, fallible, a fellow sinner, and a real women. The RCC has near to deifying her, and they actually get offended at her being described that way. I think given another century or so, she will be immortal. She's too close to Christ now as it is, and it's appalling. No biblical backup, but they will shoehorn it in w/ obscure spiritual types from the OT, w/ no clear backup in the NT. Which is how a real type is formed.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Exactly
@@saintejeannedarc9460 How many books do you believe are in the Bible and why?
Much love from Scotland!
Excellent again, gavin. Keep it up, brother. Prayers coming your way.
Keep up this work. There are scarce Protestant voices that speak on these topics with both compassion and authority.
Wow!! I love this. Thought provoking. God bless your family and Ministry 🙏❤
Great video, as always. I'm a protestant who has been spending a lot of time exploring more traditional practices. Thusfar I've come to accept Marian devotion, the veneration of saints, the use of icons, the literal and physical nature of the Eucharist, and baptismal regeneration (sort of, in a less intense, strict way), however I still have major concerns with certain doctrines such as this, the sinlessness of Mary, the infallibility of tradition, the magesterium or the papacy, and the general historacity of the papacy to begin with. Your channel has given me a lot to think about! I know we disagree about many things, but your content is always fairly presented, historically grounded, and well thought out.
Keep up the good work brother
Love your videos Dr. Ortlund, youve been such an incredible source of wisdom and knowledge in my studies the last 2 years. Thank you for the example of humility and grace while striving for the truth. God Bless You!
The Gospel is so powerful,so beautiful,yet so simple! All we need to be saved is to call on the name of Jesus,to repent of ours sins and put our faith and trust in him. To confess with our mouths and believe in our hearts that he died for our sins and God raised him on the third day. To pick up our cross and follow him and stay on the narrow path and like Revelation repeats overcome.
I don’t need or want anything else. He is our Rock,our redeemer,our Messiah,the anointed one. King of Kings and Lord of Lords!Amen!
@patriceagulu8315
I personally don't know any Christians who believe that they don't have to repent.
This is false. Typical Protestant position: to cherry-pick Bible verses & the church fathers when it aligns with subjective Protestant interpretations.
Interesting how Gavin utilizes the works of the Church Fathers when a few of them disagree on the Immaculate conception.
Why does he not make videos on the consensus the Fathers have on the Catholic Church as the One Apostolic Church?
Why does he not make videos on the consensus of baptismal regeneration, the priesthood, apostolic succession, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, infant baptism, & so forth?
The Church Fathers were all Catholic. To quote from them, Gavin attempts to make himself feel better about being Protestant, which is jejune.
@@SuperrBoyful
Peace.
Well said.
Thank you.
Blessings.
Great video. Lots of good citations. God bless.
This is super helpful, Gavin. This is yet another reason I didn't go to Rome. If these early fathers taught Mary sinned, how could the immaculate conception be so integral to the apostolic tradition such that denying it means denying the faith? How could that possibly be an exposition (the magisterium claims only to be an expositer) of what the apostles actually taught?
I content myself with knowing that the fact was known by some in the Church since the Apostles' time, although not brought to prominence until later, and that God has allowed individual fathers to get some things wrong at some point in their life, and we have no record of their individual correction. Being a saint does not mean that all your opinions on every subject were infallibly correct, only that what they have written or taught has not been a defiant contradiction of anything God has caused the whole Church to accept as de fide. Some of the pre Nicene fathers did not have a perfect expression of Trinitarian orthodoxy. God does seem to allow for such imperfections that make for discussion and fuller consideration of important questions before authoritatively defining a dogma. Scripture and Tradition can be seen to give implicit indications of a truth which is later dogmatically defined. It is evident from the quotation Gavin gave from Origen that some Christians ("we"in the text) believed Blessed Mary to be without scandal.
@patriceagulu You’re missing the point.
The argument is that the church wasn’t teaching or arguing for such doctrine until long after the Great Schism or the Reformation.
Iirc, the Orthodox Church also denies the Immaculate Conception. If this issue was such a big issue in tradition, why does the Orthodox Church deny it?
@@samueljennings4809the EO hold Mary was free from personal sin. They conceive original sin differently than the West but the core of the doctrine is shared. Secondly, we would not expect the full-orbed expression of the doctrine in the early centuries (though many ecfs affirm Marys sinlessness), the doctrine developed. There's a hierarchy of truths in RCism, some things are more fundamental or precursors to other doctrines. The doctrine of original sin developed as did Christology. The Immaculate Conception builds on top of those and the church's reflection on those doctrines.
@jpc9923 But that "definitive teaching" is alleged, even by the magisterium, to be derivative from the apostolic teaching. The magisterium doesn't decide things based on sheer fiat, but because it judges there to be a link between a dogma and the apostolic teaching. Fair enough, but then that link has to actually be shown to exist--and if it is asserted, then it's open to examination like any other truth claim.
We could argue that it's also the position of RC apologists to cite patristic support, and when there is not enough they default back to "doctrinal development" and Church authority. Using this hermaneutic approach they can effectively never err. @@jpc9923
Man...I didn't realize the argument from the church fathers was so stongly in favor of the protestant position as opposed to Rome.
Not true. There are several church fathers, (who were all Catholic), who disagree with the immaculate conception, but the vast majority affirmed the position.
In addition, even those who disagreed on the position of I.C still affirmed the Catholic Church as the One Apostolic Church established by Christ. They all affirmed the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the priesthood, baptismal regeneration & so forth.
Below are several of the earliest beliefs on Mary’s immaculate nature.
Justin Martyr
“[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied ‘Be it done unto me according to your word’ [Luke 1:38]” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100 [A.D. 155]).
Irenaeus
“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, ‘Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.’ Eve, however, was disobedient, and, when yet a virgin, she did not obey. Just as she, who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband-for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children, and it was necessary that they first come to maturity before beginning to multiply-having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith” (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).
“The Lord then was manifestly coming to his own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation that is supported by himself. He was making a recapitulation of that disobedience that had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience that was upon a tree [i.e., the cross]. Furthermore, the original deception was to be done away with-the deception by which that virgin Eve (who was already espoused to a man) was unhappily misled. That this was to be overturned was happily announced through means of the truth by the angel to the Virgin Mary (who was also [espoused] to a man). . . . So if Eve disobeyed God, yet Mary was persuaded to be obedient to God. In this way, the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so it is rescued by a virgin. Virginal disobedience has been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way, the sin of the first created man received amendment by the correction of the First-Begotten” (ibid., 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).
Timothy of Jerusalem
“Therefore the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that he who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption” (Homily on Simeon and Anna [A.D. 400]).
John the Theologian
“[T]he Lord said to his Mother, ‘Let your heart rejoice and be glad, for every favor and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit’” (The Falling Asleep of Mary [A.D. 400]).
“And from that time forth all knew that the spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise” (ibid.).
Gregory of Tours
“The course of this life having been completed by blessed Mary, when now she would be called from the world, all the apostles came together from their various regions to her house. And when they had heard that she was about to be taken from the world, they kept watch together with her. And behold, the Lord Jesus came with his angels, and, taking her soul, he gave it over to the angel Michael and withdrew. At daybreak, however, the apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb, and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; the holy body having been received, he commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise, where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary’s body] rejoices with the Lord’s chosen ones and is in the enjoyment of the good of an eternity that will never end” (Eight Books of Miracles 1:4 [A.D. 584]).
“But Mary, the glorious Mother of Christ, who is believed to be a virgin both before and after she bore him, has, as we said above, been translated into paradise, amid the singing of the angelic choirs, whither the Lord preceded her” (ibid., 1:8).
@@SuperrBoyful @SuperrBoyful Pray tell which of those quotes supports the doctrine of the immaculate conception, because I read them and I find no mention of Mary being born without sin or living her whole life without sinning. Your quotes from the fifth and sixth centuries suppport the Assumption of Mary, which Gavin Ortlund addresses in a different video. Your quotes from Justin Martyr and Irenaeus only speak of the doctrine of the virgin birth, which of course all protestants agree to and is not in dispute. They speak of May's obedience to her task of bearing Christ, but throughout the OT many are called obedient to God without being considered to be completely sinless. Elijah and Enoch were assumed into heaven. Does that imply that they were immaculately sinless?
@@JW_______ Absolutly not. Mary differs from the OT figures because she is the earthly mother of God, which bears eternal significance. Mary was addressed as “full of grace” (See Luke 1:28)
To understand the significance of this name change and how it points to Mary being conceived without sin, we look to the Greek word kecharitomene (“full of grace”), a perfect passive participle, coming from the root word charitoo, or grace, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” It denotes an action having taken place in the past, before the announcement of the angel, and one that continues throughout her existence. Understood in this way, the words of the angel “full of grace” (free from all stain of original and actual sin) extend to the moment of Mary’s conception and throughout her earthly life.
@@SuperrBoyful That's you reading into the text.
@@raphaelfeneje486 My interpretation is aligned with the entirety of Church history. Where is your interpretation coming from?
The Biblical Mary would be appalled at all the false teaching that has been attached to her. She would tell us today, what she said to the servants at the wedding at Cana; "Do whatever He tells you."-Jn. 2:5, not whatever Popes and councils tell you.
Actually the Virgin Mary appeared to an ignorant little shepherd girl and told her, “I’m the Immaculate Conception.”
St. Bernadette in Lourdes....Mary said to her: "Immaculada Conceptiou"
“I am the Immaculate Conception.”
@@joekey8464I doubt it
@@thejerichoconnection3473You actually believe that?
@@Wgaither1 of course, I do. The apparition has been investigated for years and all the evidence gathered support the veracity of it.
What do you think it was, then?
Dr. Ortlund I thought you might be interested in a video from "Ask a Catholic" where a lady called Pam Hubbard asks the question "Why do we need to pray to Jesus through the immaculate heart of Mary" The extensive answer from "Ask a Catholic" shows just how serious the errors of doctrine concerning Mary and the authority of scripture are.
Gavin have you ever dialogued with John Bergsma? He is an extremely smart Catholic theology professor who used to be a Reformed Protestant and wrote a book about it. I could see you and him having a really good dialogue.
John bergsma and Scott Hahn, both converted to Catholicism
@@rafaelsilveira5597😅far more went to the Original church of Acts, Messianic
Not a Roman or Orthodox around for centuries.
@@joinjen3854 The saints are pretty catholic
@@rafaelsilveira5597 saints in the Bible are ALL Christians, not people elected to it.
@@joinjen3854 there’s only one Church right? Those who are outside the church can’t be sanctified , because Christ is the Head of the church, Through Christ and the sacraments
man this was a wonderful video! i truly thank you for being so convicted in protestantism, and helping me and many others in our journeys
@patriceagulu8315god didn’t create us to do evil, he gave us free will and we sinned so that’s why we are evil✝️
@patriceagulu8315 nice strawman of calvinism
@user_79049 John Calvin was an evil 16th century French lawyer. There is no reason for any Christian to follow him.
One thing I will say, as a Protestant: if you can establish the immaculate conception, it’s much easier to establish the other dogmas, including the assumption. The RC conception of Mary is actually a fairly reasonable and systematic approach to understanding Mary’s role in the Incarnation, as long as you assume the presupposition of the immaculate conception. The house builds easy if you have that foundation.
However, the lack of early historical evidence for these teachings, biblical claims of the sinfulness of ALL men but Christ, and their problematic results (I.e. Marian devotion) make it impossible for me to hold them by the conviction of the Spirit who lives within me. As much as it makes sense conceptually, it just does not fit with the Bible.
I think your approach is helpful. I grew up hearing about the Marian dogmas and was essentially taught that they were outright ridiculous. Though both sides are guilty of this, it’s an important step for Protestants to admit that we’ve been unfair to Catholics, especially in the last 50 years. Humility and decency must permeate our dispositions.
@AshtonSWilson - Have you ever considered that this took some time for regular humanity to realize, as Miriam had a Creator-recognized Humility - (Luke 1:48) - and kept things mostly to herself (pondered these things in her heart...).
We can learn alot about her from her canticle (luke 1:46-55) "My soul MAGNIFIES The Lord..." and surrounding verses, and how those resonate with the related prophecies show in SCRIPTURE (in the OT books), and how IN SCRIPTURE Jesus 'bookends' His entire earthly ministry referring to Mary as the one created sinless from the beginning named "woman" !
@@garyr.8116Your fake church condemns you to hell by its lies and inventions.
@@garyr.8116I’m not sure what your point is. None of what you said indicates, even implicitly, that Mary was immaculately conceived. God highlights the Godly qualities in many people in the Bible, but those quotes don’t mean that those people are sinless.
At least you're willing to admit that conceptually, it makes sense. I assume you've also looked into the assertions that Mary is the new Eve and the new Ark, and their implications, right? But of course, as a Catholic, I would have to disagree that it does not fit with the Bible. Catholic doctrines about Mary are deeply rooted in Scripture if one interprets the NT in light of the OT. There are early Christians supportive of the Marian doctrines too. It's not as one-sided as Gavin always makes it appear to be, and I disagree that there is “absence of positive testimony.” I would just like to add as a side note though that if anything, when it comes to biblical and historical support, it's the solas that are suspect, to say the least.
@@freda7961 of course, I disagree that the Marian dogmas are more biblically rooted than the Solas, but much ink has been spilt on that topic in recent days. Maybe we can all take a break today and just praise our Lord Jesus Christ together
I like that a lot of your videos come out right before my lunch break!
Found it Gavin thank you!
I'd be much more interested in seeing why you object to early Protestant positions on doctrines like these - or why you object to other Protestant beliefs in general.
As a Catholic, it's often hard for us to understand why Protestants say they're Protestant due to the objections the Reformers had to Catholicism while simultaneously objecting to positions the Reformers had as well. Without a solid position on what denomination is correct, it makes Christianity just seem like something you can make up or customize to fit your own personal beliefs and preferences rather than something you receive and believe in. Please note that I'm not accusing Dr. Ortlund of doing that, but that's often how denominationalism appears to Catholic and Eastern Orthodox believers, and I suspect it also appears that way to many Protestants.
To say "the Reformers were right about things like justification but not about the immaculate conception or the sinlessness of Mary" just begs the question of who, ultimately, is right about anything, because someone had to have been at some point in Christian history, as Christ didn't leave us as orphans.
So I think for many of us, it'd be really interesting to see how an intellectually-minded Protestant determines which iteration of the Protestant Christianity is the correct one given the wildly disparate interpretations we see on important matters like baptism, hell, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and so much more.
After all, it's easy for Protestants to just say "Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believers are wrong" based on the historical disagreements, but that seems reductive and inconsistent given the modern notion that Protestantism is something more than a temporary attempt to reform Catholicism gone awry, but Christianity as it was always meant to be. If that idea holds any merit, then it doesn't make sense to critique Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy without equally critiquing other Protestants as incorrect. If Catholicism isn't true, then it should be as important for a Protestant to refute Catholicism as to refute untrue contradictory Protestant denominations, but it seems like Protestants are all too willing to turn a blind eye to the massive disagreements they have with one another while eagerly attacking Catholicism.
There can only be one true version of Christianity, and anyone who loves Christ has to do their utmost to seek whatever tradition best reflects it. I think Catholics and Protestants alike would love to hear what your opinion is of that and why! Thanks so much for your videos and engaging content, as ever.
@@Josiah12321 That was definitely a big focus of how it all got started (Luther's particular concerns about justification), but the other Reformers had their own concerns that were brought to bear.
Jesus said that we all would be taught by the Holy Spirit. To my mind every church has erros. But I will not be judged by what they taught but by what I believed. Study the Word with the Spirit and live in love.
Former Catholic here. I was shocked to learn that the Immaculate Conception was about Mary’s birth. The RCC definitely didn’t emphasize what it was that they were teaching. Now looking back, it’s quite obvious. Hind sight… Thank you, Dr. Ortlund for your teachings. Though we still need to talk about the eschatological view you have. 😛
Sounds like you didn't ask enough questions or read your catechism. The Catholic Church has defined this for centuries. It is very easy for the Protestant to cherry-pick things to tear down Catholicism. It's a shame you didn't see these tactics for what they are before you jumped. Catholicism is the sum of tradition, Scripture, and Magesterium. Protestants only believe in one "final authority": Scripture. In order to believe this, one would have to reject questions as to how the Church functioned for a millenia and a half without the very concept of Sola Scriptura. Not to mention that Scripture itself points to the Church as the pillar and ground of the truth...NOT itself.
Does the fact that you missed this teaching give you any pause that you may have missed others and this walked away from a fullness that you didn’t see?
Funny how you pointed out that you didn't know this. It's as basic as it can get. There's even a feast dedicated to it - The Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception. If you had paid just a little bit of attention, you should know something as basic as this. It's not that it wasn't emphasized; it's that you were negligent and not paying attention. No wonder you left the Catholic faith.
You were never a member of the RCC because it does not exist. Its name has always been Catholic Church. And, Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception too.
@@marlam8625 I have found that there were many teachings that I missed. I left the church after developing a hunger for the Word. I tried within the church to learn more and attended what was called bible studies. However, we never opened the bible. I decided to join an interdenominational group that was holding Bible studies in my area. My first study was the book of Romans. It was very fulfilling! It was through this study that I became a born again believer. What freedom and what life is in the Word of God! It is truly magnificent!
I’m only 5 minutes in and I hear if the apostles never heard of it you can’t add it. Lol did the apostles hear about bible alone or faith alone? Or were those ideas added later on?
Gavin what is your stance on the Lourdes apparitions confirming the immaculate conception ?
Do you have any recommendations for a good church history book? I am hoping to use the material to teach it on my UA-cam channel.
Justo Gonzalez - The Story of Christianity (2 volumes). For a shorter, single volume work, I like Bruce Shelley - Church History in Plain Language. Not only does he cover the various periods well and succinctly, he provides a "why this is important" section toward the end of each chapter. Both authors are very readable.
@@labsquadmedia176 thank you for the recommendations. I already have Gonzalez, but I will check out the other one.
I always found it strange that the Roman Catholics put Mary on this deified pedestal. Jesus Himself said that among those born of women there was none greater than John the Baptist -- which would include Mary. Where is John's exaltation within the Catholic church then?
@tylerwyat9592 - go back and read that verse - this time realizing that Mary is in the Kingdom of Heaven! ( clothed with the sun and crown on her head Rev12) 😉
Oh, it's not like St. John the Baptist has dozens of churches and towns named after him around the world or is mentioned in the Eucharistic prayer... Where indeed is St. John's exaltation within the Catholic Church?
This kind of superficial reading of an English translation of the Bible, as if it's a manual, is why Protestants have such radically different worldviews than Catholics. Does it not occur to you that this statement was recorded after the actual exchange depicted by the evangelists took place and Jesus would have been speaking in Aramaic to a culture radically different from our own and in a way that would make the most sense for them in that moment? Can you imagine how ridiculous it would be if the authors were constantly interrupting themselves to add scholastic commentary the way Protestants seem to demand in order to believe anything?
It's the same sort of facile exegesis they use when quoting Saint Paul about how "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," as if he was supposed to insert a technical aside there about a woman he probably didn't even know which would have detracted from the larger rhetorical point he was making about the story of salvation or how they try to use his writing about the need to believe in Christ to be saved as some kind of recipe or how-to instructions that exclude everything else that naturally developed within the Christian religion instead of correctly understanding that he was writing in the context of a radical new faith being contrasted with the old way of how the world worked before Jesus arrived.
Thanks G! I always wondered why this wasn’t addressed as much. I definitely think the immaculate deception is a bigger issue than the assumption of Mary in my opinion.
Theologically, from a protestant perspective, it does pose a bigger problem for sure. But both are given the status of dogma and so internally to the Catholic faith, they are both giant issues.
@@noobitronius I didn’t say the assumption wasn’t a big issue. If some Catholics believed that Mary just assumed into heaven, but did not force all Christians to believe in it, then I wouldn’t really care that much because that’s just a personal theory that is not an official dogma that must be believed by all Christians, some people think Moses may have assumed into heaven which is just a personal opinion. But saying that Mary a woman who was not divine or a part of the holy trinity, is without sin, is just completely blasphemous. Which is why I take issue more with the immaculate deception of Mary.
The Marian Dogmas, are like the seven sacraments, the Mass, the saints, the pope/papacy, the rosary, holy water, Holy days, sign of the cross, etc. that Protestants do not believe in, so I do not see why Gavin would even need to refute it, if he does not believe in it, then let the Catholics believe what they want.
@@joekey8464 We are called to expose false teaching. And if those dogmas are true then they would be true for everyone, everywhere. Truth isn't selective. 2+2=4 regardless of who you are on earth, or mars or anywhere else in the universe. Jesus is the one and only savior whether a person is a believer or atheist. So we should expose false teachings where ever they are. And this is but one in a long line of false teachings from rome.
@@ContendingEarnestly How do you know that Catholicism is false, the "reformers", Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, John Knox, etc. did not reformed the church, they protested and rejected the church, established by Christ and His apostles.
They disobeyed Christ by creating their own version of Christianity that led into multiple divisions of a diluted morass of ambiguous churches.
Who are they compared to the saints of the church who truly reformed the church from within, saints with heroic virtues and holiness.
St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226):
Francis received a message from God, saying, "Rebuild my church, which is in ruins." He did so through the simplicity and poverty of life, reforming the way of life of clergy and religious.
St. Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556):
Ignatius founded the Jesuits with the aim of proclaiming the Gospel in charity and truth, placing an emphasis on interior renewal.
St. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380):
She traveled to Avignon, France, and spent three months trying to convince Pope Gregory XI to return to Rome. Gregory eventually did go back to Rome and returned the papacy to the Eternal City.
St. Philip Neri (1515 - 1595):
Neri is known as the "Third Apostle of Rome" and was known for reforming the Church hierarchy through spiritual renewal.
St. Teresa of Ávila (1515-1582):
Teresa worked hard to return the cloister of religious life back to its simplicity and poverty, eliminating many abuses.
Excellent articulation. As an Eastern Orthodox, we are not required to believe in the immaculate conception teaching under pain of anathema, however, I think your video clearly demonstrates how doctrine can legitimately develop.
The first citations struggle to attribute even minor sins to Mary to explain how Christ died for her, because “Christ died for all men” is clear dogma.
Later Mary’s sinlessness was admitted based on OT typology, but the problem of why Mary died leads Augustine and others to attribute Original Sin alone to Mary. Around this time Mary’s sinlessness was inserted into the Divine Liturgies of the East “spotless” “blameless” “without blemish” “achrantos”.
Mary’s freedom from original sin was allowable in the later period by differentiating the temporal punishments from the sin of Adam (ie death, pain, struggle) from the spiritual privation (God not being internalised in our heart from conception). The immaculate conception became fully realised when we could admit God was fully within her, that she was fully sanctified, underwent Theosis, is the example to all of us of what a saved Christian looks like, was still saved and yet still died. When an explanation could be given the position was accepted.
Accretions are spoken of on your channel as being a bad thing. But could God guide an accretion? Doesn’t the Holy Spirit guide us into all truth?
@Truthunites i thank you @Dr Gavin Ortlund for helping me grow as a Catholic and my faith and i don't mean it sarcastically would like to see you have more sit downs or personal interactions with more Catholic Apologists i know you're a busy man, but a nice 1 hour dialog with be edifying for all.
Thank you, pastor!
I'm a former Catholic and appreciate your depth and fairness. I think Mary sinned in John 2 by ignoring Jesus when He didn't want to get involved and saying to the servants, "Do whatever He tells you." She was saying, He's not in charge here, I am.
@GustAdlph - So, who did the servants listen to ?
we love your videos gavin
The Early Church didn’t have an understanding of the Immaculate Conception but they also didn’t have an understanding of Original Sin either. Yet everyone today does. If one believes Mary is sinless, based on the reading “full of grace”, and has the understanding of Original Sin then the logical conclusion is the Immaculate Conception.
Well not really, every Christian who has had their sins forgiven is full of grace. Yet no one claims sinlessness because of this.
Original sin simply means we are born sinners. Are you saying the church fathers didn't agree?
💯
@@anthonywhitney634no to be full of grace is past tense not future tense
@@addjoaprekobaah5914there was debate that’s how doctrine gets clarified
The strongest indication of Mary's complete sinlessness is where the Holy Spirit says "Blessed (eulogemene) are you among women, blessed (eulogemenos) is the fruit your womb."
For the Holy Spirit to say in the same breath the same thing about Mary as about Jesus is a big deal.
A bigger deal than BlackRock buying JP Morgan Chase.
Ooo, ooo, I can take things WILDLY out of context too! Since he used the same word for both of them, this must also mean that Mary has a divine nature!
Heretic.
@@AzariahWolf It means that Mary goes as far upstairs as a human person can go.
"Eulogemenos (masculine singular)/eulogemene" (feminine singular) means "well spoken of by God.
We see the word "eulogesen" (he blessed them, he pronounced them to be good) in the LXX version of Genesis in the creation narrative for the sixth day.
This is God surveying His new creation and pronouncing it to be very good.
@@vazgl100 The fact that Jesus has died for our sins makes the difference between our being blessed and our being incinerated.
@@vazgl100 The Holy Spirit never speaks (in the OT) well of any creation after the Fall.
"Blessed is the fruit of your womb" is the Holy Spirit's way of saying of the Son what the Father says: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
I am also blessed.
Your subs are going up fast!
Thank you for your work on this! Would still love to hear your thoughts on the proper elements for the Lord’s Table, eg leaven/unleavened bread, wine/grape juice, etc.
Hey, you are that Calvinist brother who often comments and debates on soteriology101 content! Good to see you again.
@@SerendipitousProvidence - Thanks SP. nice to see you!
Gavin is just some guy. Compared to the Church, his opinions mean nothing.
@@fantasia55 - The thing is, Gavin has no delusions that “he is just some guy”. It is the pope and the “Catholic” Church who are deluded that they are more than just “some guys”.
Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 180) stated that the elements do not lose the nature of bread and wine (Against Heresies, 4.18.4-5; 5.2.2).
Tertullian (AD 200) said Jesus’ statement was figurative (Against Marcion, 3.19).
Clement of Alexandria (AD 200) called the bread and wine symbols of Jesus’ body (The Instructor, I.6).
Origen (AD 250) held his typical allegorical and spiritual view when referring to the elements in the Last Supper.
Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 340) called the elements the body and blood of Christ, but also referred to them as symbolic of spiritual realities (On the Theology of the Church, 3.2.12).
Augustine (AD 350) believed that John 6:53 should be understood spiritually and symbolically-not literalistically (On Christian Doctrine 3.16.2).
Gelasius I (5th century pope): “The sacrament which we receive of the body and blood of Christ is a divine thing. Wherefore also by means of it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to be… Thus, as the elements pass into this, that is, the divine substance by the Holy Ghost, and none the less remain in their own proper nature.”
Dr. Ortlund, I would say that there are reasons to believe in twl recent apparitions: Lourdes and Fatima.
In the first, she said "I am the Immaculate Conception". In the latter, "consecrate Russia to my immaculate heart".
I never see Catholics link the two dogmas passed by Papal Infallibility and these apparitions. I, nevertheless, would suggest you to check these out.
First you'd need to establish that the apparitions were actually Mary and not deceptive spirits imitating her.
@@anthonywhitney634 There are many reasons to believe these are not demonic apparitions. First of all, because of the prophecies of Fatima that were fulfilled. Second, because any exprcist would tell you a demon could not resist certain symbols and names (for instance, the sole mention of any person of the Trinity makes them trumble).
And also, the miracles. There are hundreds of people who got healed after praying at these shrines. Demons cannot heal you. God can.
I have seen many Protestants claim Fatima is a demonic apparition. I have to tell you that this is very close to those farisees who claimed Jesus healed and casted out demons because He is a great demon. They were really afraid that Jesus was who He claimed He wss.
Look up Dr. Brant Pitre on “Jesus and the Jewish roots of Mary”. It will give you the connection between the Old Testament foreshadows of Mary which clearly upholds all the Catholic doctrines on Mary…. You’re welcome.😊
Yep, he does great work!
Mike Winger refuted this
@@mrepix8287 It is UNREFUTABLE
Half way through so far. Grade A quality just like all your videos. I love the double talk from Catholics when they will throw Origen under the bus, but when he says something that they agree with, especially if he disagrees with Tertullian, then they will say something like “ yeah, they may have both been heretics, but Origen wasn’t declared a heretic while he was alive” - like that makes any difference! And just because someone is declared a heretic because of one or more heresies they are guilty of, it does not follow that they are heretical about everything. I see this sort of throwing the baby out with the bathwater a lot in contemporary Roman Catholic apologetics.
Imagine Origen's surprise on Catholicism. He goes through life, as far as he knows, following Orthodoxy, then when he shows up at St. Peter's gate they say "Oh, sorry, the Church condemned your eternal soul after you died."
@@AzariahWolf that pretty much sums of Roman Catholicism on Origen.
@@jpc9923 The dogma of the immaculate conception isn’t just about Mary not sinning. It Involves Mary being conceived in sin and being protected from sin her entire life. This is not something that Augustine taught. When the Catholic Church talks about not having anything to do with anathemas now, because today’s catholic church feels it would be overused, it doesn’t eliminate past anathemas which were declared in past ecumenical councils. That has not changed. If a Catholic rejects and official dogma with an anathema attached to that, they are still anathematized, which means eternal condemnation in hell. By the way, I was raised and educated Catholic right up through college. You might wanna spend more time knowing what your Church taught in the past, not what it is teaching right now, which is a watered down version of historical Roman Catholicism.
Once upon a time, I was very close to wanting to convert. Thank God I chose to stop that process. Becoming a Catholic requires buying into a narrative that I increasingly realized is filled with post-constructions and intellectual acrobatics and twisted history. The temptation, based in our human need to belong to a collective truth and a clear identity, can be very seductive. The truth will set you free and therefore i really appreciate all your work Gavin!
The sword that pierces Marys heart, in Luke 2:34-35. Is not that about that Jesus teaching is Gods word "that is sharper than a two-edged sword" ... Gods word is a sword through all of our sinners heart - even Mary.
"I am the Immaculate Conception" she said to Bernadette at Lourdes in 1858.
Lourdes is a pilgrimage site, where millions of Christians gather to celebrate the mass, the eucharist and pray the rosary everyday of the year, it is also the site of conversions and healing.
The Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes and the The Basilica of the Immaculate Conception are two of the most impressive churches in the world..
There was also a angel that spoke to John Smith....@@joekey8464
I am very doubtful that someone can have such an experience and meet a dead human being. God bless.
@@joekey8464
@@christopherliljeback246with God, all things are possible and Our Lady, in her many apparitions has acted as a messenger of God and continues to do so. Research Marian apparitions to gain more insight
Scripture nowhere states that the Blessed Virgin Mary sinned or was at fault.
The sinlessness of Mary was established centuries before the New Testament was established in AD 382.
Romans 3:23
@@jasonpoole2093 Jesus was a sinner?
@@jasonpoole2093 That does not deny that there might be an exception in the case of the Blessed Mother of the Lord. Calvinists like to reckon that "all" does not always mean "all", when it suits their theology. Although they are wrong, nevertheless in this case it is possible that the all here is to be understood as excluding the Blessed Virgin whom God preserved from sin. I repeat, nowhere does Scripture accuse her of any fault or sin.
@patriceagulu8315 I understand both words, oral and tradition.
Was there really absence of positive testimony? Didn’t Sts. Ephraem, Cyril, Gregory, Ambrose, Leo, Andrew of Crete, John Damascene and Theodotus describe her as something like uncorrupt, spotless, and at times, explicitly describe her as being free from the stain of sin?
Many of those writings are forgeries or need context.
Colorful language was used a lot at the time.
@@internautaoriginal9951 Where did you get the idea that many of these writings are forgeries? And colorful words they may be, but the burden is not on us to show that they didn't mean to say it the way they said it.
Yea, at least present some counter arguments, Gavin. It would make yours stronger!
It doesn't matter the argument for immaculate conception. The bible never hints of such an idea. Church fathers are not supreme.
@@addjoaprekobaah5914 Again, the Marian doctrines are deeply rooted in Scripture if the NT is interpreted in light of the OT.
I love your firmness at the end. We should be this confident in what we hold to. Thanks for your work Gavin!
You're confidently holding to what a UA-cam preacher tells you to believe.
Gavin, what do you think about consecration to saints or making altars for saints or Michael?
That would constitute worship. Catholics are huge on having alters. They claim we don't have a valid priesthood, because we don't use alters. They claim that because only their priests have the authority to offer the sacrifice of Jesus on the alter for every Mass, that this is true worship. They claim we don't have true worship because of this. So if the offering of Jesus in the actual flesh and blood is true worship, then consecrating saints or Micheal is also true worship. They can't have it both ways in this.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 All early Christian churches had altars, every single one.
Commenting and liking for the algorithm
Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding, but is the argument that we should see it at least debated from the earliest church fathers whether or not Mary was free from Original Sin? But the doctrine wasn’t even fleshed out completely before St. Augustine. Of course the early Church believed we were all fallen in a way, but they wouldn’t have the concept of Original Sin as revealed more deeply later. And therefore no debate about whether or not Mary was free from it.
the argument is that the immaculate conception was completely unheard of among the apostles or anyone for a long time after
@@TruthUnitesgotcha. I guess the difference is going to be whether or not you believe the Church has the authority to grow and deepen doctrines and hold the faithful to what’s revealed. It can’t contradict apostolic teachings or sacred scripture, sure. But does the Church have the authority and responsibility to keep diving deeper? And to determine something as revealed from God? We know the apostles didn’t have the concept of Original Sin we do now. Or the idea of whether or not Mary was conceived free of that. Not an issue, they weren’t there yet. But they were the foundation that got us there. The Church’s job is to hold us to that truth.
@melissaeberhart3476 absolutely. The Catholic church never claimed that all dogmas would be perfectly found in the church fathers historically. The debate should absolutely move to a debate about whether Jesus founded an infallible church who can guard the deposit of faith against heresy.
@@brianaalece5314 amen. I have faith He did just that! We needed it.
@@brianaalece5314the church is not infallible, scripture is. Therefore, the church submits to scripture. If scripture doesn't teach something, the church has no divine mandate to hold or formulate a doctrine on it. All false teachings and confusion in the church today is because we put ourselves above scripture. The church is fallible, that is why it has been given infallible guides; the Word and Spirit.
Gavin, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on how a Protestant should think of Constantine and the Christianization of Rome. Was it God's grace to unify His Church and help it articulate her truths more clearly? Or was it the origin of many accretions in the church that were foreign to the apostles? I've gone back and forth, so hearing your nuanced take would be appreciated. Thanks for all your work!
Greetings. If I may suggest the following book- “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs” edited by David Bercot. It is a reference guide to the ten volume Ante-Nicene Fathers collection. You can find what the earliest Christians believed on hundreds of subjects and make your own assessment as to what has changed through the centuries. I think it will be eye opening for you.
May God bless you.
@@kyleolson1522 It looks solid, thanks for the recommendation! Would you say it is good at being unbiased, or does it more reflect Bercot's beliefs/tradition?
@@TravisD.Barrett
I personally own a set of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and can attest to the fact that Bercot has quoted from them verbatim. He does not add any commentary to the quotations, but occasionally points out things such as when Tertullian is quoting during the period he became a Montanist.
Since his dictionary is arranged by subject, one could argue some bias as to which subjects he chose to include or not include. Regardless, there are hundreds of subjects covered - enough to get a good feel of the earliest Christians.
Whether or not he is totally exhaustive in including all quotations on any given subject, I cannot say, though I have found that the thousands of quotations included makes the job of navigating the ten volumes much easier.
If you choose this path you will find that the early church was much more in agreement on many subjects than we are today. Also, whether you are Catholic or Protestant, you will be challenged by their simple faith, love, and obedience to Jesus and his teachings.
One would think that after going through all the trouble to become a man and die on the cross for us, that God would have figured out a way to leave us a church that that would be guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth, so that as believers we wouldn’t be guessing or have to depend on our own individual understanding of His teachings. I am so glad that I found this channel which proclaims the truth of God infallibly.
1 Corinthians 2:14-16 ESV
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. [15] The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. [16] "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
@@HillbillyBlackAmen!
Gavin, thanks for your work and ministry with charity and gentlemanly conduct! I have a question though, dont most Calvinists hold to an inherited "Sin Nature" from Adam (T In Tulip)? to me it seems like the Doctrine of Immaculate Conception is an attempt to reason toward Jesus not inheriting a sinful nature. full disclosure though I'm not Catholic.
The Homily on Matthew 44.3 that you quote has another clear indication of sin:
_For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of _*_superfluous vanity;_*_ in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son_
This needs to be pinned.
Exactly! Saw that too
Ave Maria Gratia Plena Dominus Tecum
Eliminate original guilt, eliminate the need for immaculate conception
I agree Seven Things....1776-- I read a report on it and it was a fresh study of the changes that happened
There's nothing in scripture that would suggest that our salvation depends on putting faith in Mary. Jesus is our sole Savior, High Priest, Mediator, Lord and King.
I agree, the Catholics don't think you have to put your faith in Mary.
@@dominicracca Then why do you pray to her when prayer should only be reserved for deity?
@@lmorter7867where does it say that in the Bible?
@@user-sk3rb3kk2i "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus" - 1 Tim 2:5
@@lmorter7867 that verse says nothing about prayer. It says that God is the only mediator between men and God, Jesus gave himself as RANSON FOR ALL, to be testified in due time.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Where does it say that prayer should ONLY be reserved for deity? Bible reference.
I have been in numerous protestant churches where I have had to argue for Mary as Theotokos. I agree that it is an historical Protestant position but you may want to consider a video about it for the many Protestants that it gives a queasy feeling to
That doctrine was decided in the 4th century. It is not about Mary. It is about the nature of Jesus not being divided.
@@fantasia55
It's indirectly about Mary, not absolutely not about Mary. She is Mother of the Lord God.
@ro6ti People who denied Mary was Mother of God were excommunicated because that is saying the divine and human nature of Jesus could be divided.
@@fantasia55
Yes, it's denying the incarnation to deny Mary is the Mother of the Word. But, to say it's nothing to do with Mary isn't quite right, since part of incarnation is being conceived by and being raised by a real human mother. So, it was her in relation to Christ. The prophets spoke the Word, but she gave birth and suckled the Word. She is due honor for her intimate face-to-face relationship and contribution to Christ.
@ro6ti That is fair enough, but the doctrine is to uphold the true nature of Jesus.
Christianity is a Revealed religion. 🔥
Dr. Ortlund. Thank you for your video. Would you please be willing to teach on the history of the practice of covering/uncovering in Christianity as found in 1st Corinthians 11?
Thanks and blessings to you
Gavin, you should also cover that bit in Mark where Mary and Jesus' brothers attempt to take charge of him because they think he was out of his mind.
MARK 3:21
21 And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.” ...
31 And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. 32 And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.” 33 And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” 34 And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”
-
For me, the part where they thought he was out of his mind is more important than people realize. If Mary tried to interfere with Jesus' ministry at this point, thinking he was not in his right mind, I'd say she missed the mark here. This seems to be one instance where the Bible actually records her sin.
(Again, this is not to say she is not an admirable woman etc. but that she isn't perfect either.)
The same passage occurs in Luke. Why would Luke include it unless it speaks well of Mary? Wouldn't your interpretation contradict Luke 1? Perhaps Jesus' relatives dragged a hesitant Mary along with them in hopes that she would "talk some sense into him".
@@nateewongo3905 What relatives? The passage only speaks of his mother and brothers.
@@Berkana You do realize that the Greek "brothers" and "sisters" is used throughout the Greek translation of the Old Testament and the New Testament to refer to relatives as well, right? Why would Jesus before his death give Mary as mother to John the Apostle to "take into his own home" if he had blood siblings (cf. John 19:26-27)? That would be a violation of the 4th Commandment (5th for Protestants).
@@nateewongo3905 There is no violation of the commandment to honor one's mother and father in that act at all. That is a contrived objection. Nothing about Jesus having his mother stay with John violates this commandment; the commandment does not require his mother to stay with his siblings.
The reason Jesus had Mary go be with John was that his brothers were not believers yet, as John himself records:
JOHN 7:3-5
3 So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. 4 For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For not even his brothers believed in him.
-
Having her stay with his close disciple would have been the best thing for him to do to honor his mother in that time; he was honoring his mother this way.
Eusebius was unequivocal that James and Jude were "brothers of the lord according to the flesh", even stating that James was the son of Joseph. There is no evidence that they were older sons of Joseph from an alleged prior marriage, as some claim; that is a contrived story that attempts to make Jesus the only child of Mary. If Joseph already had several sons and daughters from a prior marriage, it seems extremely odd that they were not at all mentioned in either nativity account. And if they were from another marriage of Joseph, it would not make any sense for Eusebius to refer James and Jude each as "the brother of the Lord according to the flesh".
@@nateewongo3905 In the context of the usage of the term "brother" it does not make sense to read it as "relative". Why were these relatives always with his mom when it spoke of his "mother and brothers"? And if they were relatives, whose sons were they? Eusebius refers to them as sons of Joseph in "The Church History".
Now I get why Trent likes you. I can't go back to Protestantism because I find sola scriptura to be ridiculous, but you presented a good argument. Personally I find Mary being the fulfillment of the prophecy in Genesis 3 to be compelling enough evidence.
Can you kindly walk me through the bible to explain how Mary fulfils Genesis 3?
Also, please why do you find sola scriptura ( the bible alone is infallible, without error and inspired by God) intolerable. All we are saying is that the bible is on a level that traditions, church fathers, magisterium, councils, Creed and confessions, or anything are not because it alone is inspired, the rest are not.
Just curious, what do you find that is ridiculous about the belief that scripture is the Christian's sole infallible authority?
By relying solely on the one legged stool, flawed SS lacks stability and hence Protestantism is unsustainable.
The CC has the benefit of a three legged stable stool ie Sacred Tradition, which has existed from the time of Christ, complementing Sacred Scripture which was freely available for the last 500 yrs though most people were illiterate & relied on Sacred Tradition & the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium.
All entities from family to corporates & Govt require hierarchy & authority without which society couldn’t function properly. The Judicial Court system interprets the law and adjudicates disputes & the magisterium of the CC plays a similar role. Without a structure of hierarchy & earthly authority, Protestantism is unsustainable which is reflected in the chaos, confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects resulting from personal interpretation when Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-21
Jesus alone is without sin. The rest of us are born again by the Holy Spirit. So, it would make sense that Mary was cleansed from sin when the Holy Spirit came upon her at Jesus’ conception.
Muito 👍 bom.
I have the same attitude about the Immaculate Conception as I do about the Assumption---it's possible, but if the Magisterium is going to assert it as true then they have to have some evidence to support this was believed by the apostles and/or the earliest church fathers, or a better yet a sound Biblical exposition. But we cant find any patristic affirmations until much later, so how exactly can they make this claim?? And even if they *insist* on it being true, what bothers me (and any Protestant) is their declaring anathema on anyone who does not also affirm this as true. Why arent Christians allowed to be agnostic on matters that are not found in scripture and have late appearances in history? James White had it right with his "Sola Ecclesia" quip. I dont agree with him on a lot of things, but all roads keep coming back to the Authority of the Church. The entire Catholic faith tradition rests on this, because if there is error found in teaching then the whole thing crumbles.
And I say this believing that there are many sound logical and even Biblical arguments for the RCC. But they bind you to everything they have ever taught, and are ever going to teach.
Well the Catholic church has all this same exact evidence for the “extra” books in their canon but i bet you dont accept that so i really dont think you really being honest here with your premise….
The Catholic church has and still has 73 book canon - based on the following about the NT canon… so i am calling you out on your post based on this…
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century, just 75 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian doctrine, and then with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
You may need to change the thumbnail. Almost didn't click because I thought it was the last one!
Are infant baptisms in the RCC and EOC valid in his eyes? If I got baptized as a RCC and I have faith in Jesus Christ, which manifests in good works, does that mean I am saved from Gavin's Baptist POV?
Don't worry. The faith of the parents is sufficient until the child comes to accept their own faith.
“31. But they said: believe in the Lord Jesus: and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 32. And they preached the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. 33. And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes: and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately.” (Act 16:31-33, DRC)
“For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife: and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband. Otherwise your children should be unclean: but now they are holy.” (1Cor 7:14, DRC)
@@StanleyPinchakwould if the parents faith is alone?
Gavin's opinion about baptism is irrelevant.
@@Wgaither1 Unfortunately, God doesn't have grandchildren. At some point the child / teen becomes responsible for their own faith. Yet, we can pray that God soften their hearts to be open to the Faith.
“God hath softened my heart, and the Almighty hath troubled me.” (Job 23:16, DRC)
The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kechartōmene is a perfect passive participle of charitō, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence . Man usually receives saving grace at a time like St. Stephen .Mary is an exception like Christ who is pliris charis.
This argument falls for many reasons, 1.. The Greek word is not just used in Luke, but it is also used in apocryphal books, can’t remember the certain book, but it is not found only in Luke. And second, that doesn’t prove that Mary was without sin, many Catholic apologize such as Jimmy Akin and Trent Horn acknowledge that this does not prove the immaculate conception by itself. There’s just no reason to believe that Mary is without sin, other than some of the small church fathers, but you can’t come to that conclusion by reading the Bible.
@@Drew-uh9ozscripture doesn't say that you have to come to conclusions about Christianity by reading the Bible.
Primo The word charitō has the ending ō meaning an extraordinary abundance of God's Grace. How could someone so full of Grace commit a sin?@@Drew-uh9oz
@@Drew-uh9oz The parallel you ard looking for Ephesians 1:6, ἐχαρίτωσεν, which is talking about the grace filled state of a Christian who has received baptismal regeneration.
So Mary was noted to already being in the state of sanctifying grace prior to the birth and passion of Jesus Christ. Also this is prior to being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. The verbs ἐπέρχομαι and
ἐπισκιάζω are in the future tense in Lk 1: 35.
This is why the Church calls this a state or condition of Mary the result of a singular grace which is granted in light of the merits of her Son.
"491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin." -- CCC pp. 491
@@brianaalece5314The Church Fathers would disagree with you
What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ (Catechism of the Catholic Church 487).
So Mary on the same level as Christ.
Mary the light that lightens Christ.
I hope I'm not misrepresenting.
@@addjoaprekobaah5914 Yes, you are misrepresenting. Jesus is both God and man, two natures in one person. Hence, Mary is the Mother of God. If one denies Mary as the Mother of God, it becomes easy to get Christology wrong, and I have heard some Protestants do this. Some claim Mary is the mother of Jesus but not the Mother of God. This is splitting Jesus into two people, and is a mistake. This is just one example- there are many others. I suggest the book “Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary” by Brant Pitre.
@@vazgl100 Just trying to share how Catholics think about this topic. Saying it “doesn’t count” gives the impression that you are not truly interested in understanding the Catholic perspective.
@@HumanDignity10 I don't get your argument frankly. I do believe Mary is the mother of God, but I reject her elevation. She is a mere human, sinful, wretched like the rest of mankind. Except her faith in Christ will save her the same way Christ will save me.
@@vazgl100 So are Catholics. A good book explaining the biblical perspective is "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary" by Brant Pitre. Shameless Popery's video entitled "Was Mary a Perpetual Virgin?" Is also very good.
great video. Marian doctrines outside of the proper names related to Christology always concerned me.
Typical Protestant position: to cherry-pick Bible verses & the church fathers when it aligns with subjective Protestant interpretations.
Interesting how Gavin utilizes the works of the Church Fathers when a few of them disagree on the Immaculate conception.
Why does he not make videos on the consensus the Fathers have on the Catholic Church as the One Apostolic Church?
Why does he not make videos on the consensus of baptismal regeneration, the priesthood, apostolic succession, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, infant baptism, & so forth?
The Church Fathers were all Catholic. To quote from them, Gavin attempts to make himself feel better about being Protestant, which is jejune.
@@SuperrBoyful As someone who was Orthodox for a good while, and read many of the fathers, I can attest the fact that the fathers were not all in agreement with one another. If that were true there wouldn't be Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy and the Oriental churches. They all rely on the fathers but different fathers. Secondly, doctrine developed, at least linguistically. Just Martyr put forward a dyad not a Trinity, but you'd have to assume linguistic development, which is fine, but lets not assume that reading the fathers is like reading a catalog of people who thought exactly the same.
If you really were consistent with your thinking when it comes to the consensus of the fathers, you'd believe in primordial androgyny, blood letting, that masturbation was murder, and that the first 400 years of church history was consistent in young boys castrating themselves. Many of the father, if not most relied on a Platonic cosmology, and because of that, they are far less reliable when it comes to consistent agreement that one who holds to sola scriptura. One could believe almost anything if only relying on them for theology.
@@ericcastleman2 Interestingly enough, majority of Orthodox Christians accept every Church council before 1054 & fail to realize all of those Councils had a Pope. Also, none of the Patristics called the church “orthodox” they called it Catholic.
Great video as always. Could you maybe do one on the Perpetual Virginity dogma? Thank you, God bless.
Good job brother. No struggle here either.
Your videos have been so helpful. A lot of the time RC and EO will oversell the support that church history lends to their position (and they have to cuz they claim infallibility, so even one error would make the house of cards collapse), but for those who have never heard of the church fathers this can be very superficially persuasive... "we are the one true church, unchanged from the beginning"... but they did change. So we have to give up these cheap rhetorical tricks and deal with the facts in all their uncomfortable nuances, and your videos help shed light on a more objective view of church history untainted by confirmation bias and apologetic motivations
It also depends on the edition of the Father's you use. The one used most commonly by Protestants is the Schaff (editor) edition. It leaves out writings accepted by Secular Historians, Catholic and Orthodox Scholars, and includes writings that have since it's first publication are very heterodox, and have been proved to be apocryphal. The Schaff edition also removes sections of the texts that did not agree with the Reformed theology Schaff endorsed and when it retains them puts part of the citations in footnotes with his claim that it was a later addition. As there have been older texts than what Schaff and his translators used that contain the sections he removed, it needs to be used with great caution
Everyone runs the risk of confirmation bias, and Gavin is no exception. I see it in his work, and I'm not saying he does this intentionally, but it's there.
@rachelkopfle5737 that is why we appeal to the only final authority in making doctrines and traditions, Scripture.
Fyi Immaculate conception is not EO. It is a Roman Catholic doctrine.
The term RC was invented by Protestants. Its name has always been Catholic Church.
Thank you so much! Keep doing what you do! God bless you!
To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary was enriched by God with gifts to such a role. The Angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace" In fact , in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly born by God's grace.
Why does Mary need a "special grace" before the incarnation? The bible simply doesn't say that.
Not everything is in the bible Jn 21:25 Lk 1:28 Mary is “full of grace” which means that the grace she enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, and was not only as “full” or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called “full of grace.”
The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly-guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world John 14:25, 16:13. The mere fact that the Church teaches that something definitely true is a guarantee that it is true Luke 10:16
Over the centuries, the Fathers and doctors of the Church spoke often about the fittingness of the privilege of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. The dogma is especially fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the Ark of the Covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the Ten Commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (an instrument of Israel’s redemption).
If this box was created with such honor-to carry a stick, some bread, and stone tablets-how much more should Mary be made a worthy dwelling place for God himself? She is the new Ark of the Covenant because she carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the instrument of our redemption, Jesus’ body.
Some argue that the new ark is not Mary but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would seem to be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box and not sanctifying the womb who carried the Holy One himself. After all, wisdom will not dwell “in a body under debt of sin” (Wis. 1:4 [NAB]).
The Church does not hesitate to profess that Mary needed a savior. This should be the first issue to address if this question arises. It was by the grace of God-and not the work of Mary-that she was saved from sin in a most perfect manner. By what is called “preservative redemption,” Mary was preserved from sin at the time of her natural conception. John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb prior to his birth (Luke 1:15), and Mary was sanctified at her conception.
It is no difficulty that Christ distributed the grace of Calvary some forty-five years or so before it happened, just as he bestows it upon us 2,000 years after the fact. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that this gift was given to Mary, making her “redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son” (492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!
God can “save” a person from a sin by forgiving him or by providing him the grace never to fall into that particular sin. An ancient analogy is often useful to explain this: a person can be saved from a pit in two ways; one can fall into it and be brought out, or one can be caught before falling into it. Mankind is saved in the first manner, and Mary in the second. Both are saved from the pit of sin. If Jesus wished to save his mother from the stain of sin, what is to prevent him?
How can you reconcile Mary’s sinlessness with Paul’s statement that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God?
Though Paul is making a generalization of all humanity, Protestants and Catholics alike would agree that there are exceptions. For example, a child below the age of reason is not capable of committing actual sin. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the epistle to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).
Jesus is another significant exception to the rule, having been exempt from actual and original sin (see Heb. 4:15). If Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the new Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the new Eve (Mary) can also be made.
"Not everything is in the bible" you say, but that's the very reason the Roman Church has strayed so far over time. Small deviations from scripture and accretions add up to a wide deviation centuries later.
OF COURSE MARY was "full of grace' and "blessed among women" -- and was chosen to be the one to carry the Christ child and raise him to adulthood. But the notion that she couldn't do this with ordinary grace is needless and actually kind of silly. @@geoffjs
@@sketchbook1If Catholics are guilty of overstating Mary’s importance, it is to compensate for her neglect & disrespectful treatment by Protestants. Mary is the most important person to have lived, without her, no Jesus, which is why Catholics revere her so much, but from a Christological perspective.
Eve was sinless before she disobeyed God, whereas Mary, the new Eve, was also sinless & obeyed God. Because she was sinless, she was assumed into Heaven where as Queen, she is the woman of Rev 12
As opposed to flawed and unbiblical sola Scriptura which provides Protestantism with an unstable stool, Catholics have a far more stable & balanced, three legged stool system comprising Sacred Traditions, which existed from the time of Christ & before the Bible was codified in 382, complementing Sacred Scripture which was not freely available for 1500 yrs & in any event, most people were illiterate until recent centuries under the unifying hierarchy & authoritative interpretation of the Magisterium.
All entities from family to corporates & Govt need hierarchy and authority to function properly. The Judicial Court system interprets the law and adjudicates dispute. Without this structure, man made Protestantism with its confusion, division & scandal with 000’s of sects resulting from personal interpretation, when Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-21 is not sustainable
@@geoffjs "Mary is the most important person to have lived."
...and you don't see any problem with saying that?
So very well done! And this from one who has a high view of the Mother of God and believes she was Ever Virgin.
I was so waiting for this
Thank you so much!
In 1532, Martin Luther said: 'God has formed the soul and body of the Virgin Mary full of the Holy Spirit, so that she is without all sins, for she has conceived and borne the Lord Jesus."
In his Disputation on the Divinity and Humanity of Christ (28 February 1540), he placed Mary's “purification” at the conception of Christ: “In his conception all of Mary's flesh and blood was purified so that nothing sinful remained.”
Mother Mary, Mother of God pray for us.
A video on perpetual virginity would be great 👍
That is one of the Catholic dogmas.
Perpetual Virginity was officially defined in 389,
Mother of God in 431, The Immaculate Conception in 1854 (Mary herself confirmed the Immaculate Conception in 1858 at Lourdes), and the The Assumption of Mary in 1950.
@@joekey8464 there is nothing wrong with the concept "mother of God" when understood historically. There was a heresy going around that Jesus left His Divinity behind when He came to earth. So when the Council declared that Mary was the "mother of God" it had nothing to do with Mary, but everything to do with Jesus and the Trinity.
Thank God for your zealous eagerness to study and share church history.
@patriceagulu8315No, he isn't, and you have nothing to back that up with.
Typical Protestant position: to cherry-pick Bible verses & the church fathers when it aligns with subjective Protestant interpretations.
Interesting how Gavin utilizes the works of the Church Fathers when a few of them disagree on the Immaculate conception.
Why does he not make videos on the consensus the Fathers have on the Catholic Church as the One Apostolic Church?
Why does he not make videos on the consensus of baptismal regeneration, the priesthood, apostolic succession, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, infant baptism, & so forth?
The Church Fathers were all Catholic. To quote from them, Gavin attempts to make himself feel better about being Protestant, which is jejune.
My belief is that the immaculate conception was the result of a logical dilemma about Jesus being born of a woman who would then pass her sinful nature on to Him as a human. Why not focus on God's ability to bring Jesus into the world without sin, rather than his mother?
I am looking for the foundational arguments, biblical or otherwise, that those who hold to Marian dogma use to back up their beliefs. Is there any comprehensive source such as a book or online teaching?
Plenty of UA-cam & online resources starting with Catholic Answers & EWTN
I had a thought on this while listening and would love your opinion.
In Genesis 3 it says "your desire is for your husband and he wil rule over you" in most translations. My understanding is it would be technically more accurate to render it "for your man". If the whole thing is a mixture of curse and blessing and forshadowing the coming messiah for example in the "strike heel, crush head" is it also resonable to dismiss both the idea of Mary as sinless and her being pain free in child birth (which I have also heard argued) based on this section?
Her painless childbirth refuted by the promise of pain in childbirth, and the sinlessness refuted by her desire to be ober her man as in the incident of John 2, but followed by the promise of the man (Jesus) ruling over her.
A thought that popped into my head. Not sure it is any good, but I don't know enough to really know if that works from the language used.
@euanthompson - where does this concept of a 'painless' childbirth come from? The 'curse' part of Genesis 3:16 says הַרְבָּ֤ה (har·bāh) אַרְבֶּה֙ (’ar·beh) "SHARPLY INCREASE" in the pains of childbirth- meaning before the fall there was **some** pain by default, but would now (after the fall) be **SHARPLY INCREASED**. You cannot 'sharply increase' something unless it is already there to be 'increased' !
@@garyr.8116 I don't know. It is something I have come across both RCC lays and priests talking about in videos and conversations. I don't know if it is dogma or not. The idea being that as part of remaining a perpetual virgin Mary never had any pain in childbirth and Jesus just sort of appeared. It is exclusive to Mary that this occurred and only because she was sinless and a perpetual virgin.
At least, that is what I understand of it.