You do such a good job of being respectful while bringing up really good points. It's what youtube needs. No more of " stupid protestant argument gets destroyed by based Catholics' and vice versa. If western society is going to exist in the future it will be thanks to content like this. Thank you
As a Roman Catholic I can honestly say you've done a great job on this topic. However, I'm wondering if you've ever considered The Eastern Orthodox Churches claims of being the original church?
Gavin is a congregationalist, isn't he? But he admits Peter had a leadership role in this video. By cherry-picking church-father quotes (I could easily find other quotes of Ambrose in support of at least a high view of the pope - not necessarily infallibility) he makes his case, and also by zooming in on certain texts, picking them apart (they could easily be read in other ways of course). Coming back to my first point - Gavin acts like each congregation can be autonomous - but does he believe that it was how Jesus set it up? What's the point of Peter's "leadership role", a role Gavin readily accepts. The point I am making is that when zooming out of the text, one can see the broader picture. Jesus did have 70 disciples, of which 12 held closer, of which 3 he held even closer, of which 1 he chose as a leader. Modern, democratic sensibilities may dislike the hierarchical nature, but the leap from such a divinely elected organization (which mirrors even the Trinity) to a modern congregationalist view is an anachronism. Therefore the critique is hollow. At best, he can perhaps critique the infallibility of the papacy.
I had this same thought. He doesn’t understand what was taking place in Matthew 16. Iirc he says the pope is the one to interpret and pass down new teachings. Okay, and the magisterium just decorated the church🤦♂️
This is probably my favorite video you have made. I don’t see a lot of good content critiquing the RCC while still treating them as brothers in Christ. This was much needed!
@@IvanAlvarezCPACMA I think even though RC teaching is not as clear on the gospel and gets some very important things wrong, but they believe that Jesus, fully man and fully God, died and rose again for our sins, and whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. They follow and trust in the same trinitarian God, which Mormons and JWs do not.
@@IvanAlvarezCPACMA well, obviously, we do not just take the claims for granted. We have to use our own mental faculties to determine which claims are true. Based on what we know the gospel to be from Scripture and using our reason to determine who lines up with that, we can have a rough idea of who real Christians are. I think there is an obvious, wide gap between the orthodoxy of Mormons and Roman Catholics.
Hoping this helps: 0:43 Goal of this video 2:45 Five admirable things about the RCC. 5:12 Biblical Argument: Is the Rock in Matthew 16:18, Peter, Christ, Peter's proclamation, or a hybrid of these? (Slides at 7:25) 16:13 Historical Argument: Where is a preeminent bishop/pope's presence before the 5th century? 27:38 Final Statements
I am gradually coming to a realization that you have filled, and are filling, a huge vacuum in this space and in the general defense of the Protestant faith. I admire your humility, your knowledge of Scripture and church history, and your ability to lay out your arguments in a logical and engaging way. I need to respond by remembering to like your uploads and by looking into your Patreon. I don't do the former very much here and I haven't done the latter at all. May I provide encouragement in word, in the meantime. Your videos are preparing me for joining a congregation again on Sundays. I am certain they are speaking to a great many Christians who have lost their love and respect for the institution of the church. I believe, while it may be a gradual start, your voice will be prominent in the future. That said, I fear the traps the enemy will use to ensnare you. I don't mean Roman Catholic apologists. I mean the source of temptation. So many of our shepherds have gone astray. You must know the story of a well-known apologist, his massage businesses, his conduct that would be considered lewd by any standard, and his deception regarding his credentials. He had a significant following, although I never thought he explained anything well. We are all sinners, but the nature of his sins and indiscretions probably led many to disillusionment. We can all be tempted, by fame, by the desire for intimacy, by comfort in an uncertain world, by the enjoyment of things the world enjoys. I pray you will be guarded and that you will be strong in guarding yourself. Thank you for your work.
Birds lay eggs; some birds cannot fly (eg. Ostrich); a platypus lays eggs; a platypus cannot fly: therefore, the platypus is a type of bird. Except it's not. Logic and soundness are not necessarily equivocal. There is no sound Christian theological or historical conclusion arriving at a refutation of the Papacy. At least, if one is utilizing sound premises, then he arrives at the Orthodox pov, ie. "the pride of place" idea. Baptist theology? Well, there's a reason it doesn't formalize until just recent time. If there is no Apostolic heirarchy, then, duh, one isn't going to 'accept the Papacy.' But that's the rub, not that the thinking proves too little but too much: good luck going back to the first century, second century, etc. and running around as a "Christian pastor" whilst asserting that there are no bishops, no ordained presbyters, no canonical mission, no legation. A "Church" without bishops, without ordination, and where platypus are birds.
The church comprises those who believe in and follow Jesus Christ wherever that following may take them and no matter what obeying His teachings cost them.
@@yeetoburrito9972I'm with you, but it feels more and more democratic rather than apostolic. All the Anglican stuff I love is actually Catholic and I'm having a harder time not being Catholic. Of course, a Catholic who struggles with the papacy but who sees apostolic succession as valid. Idk haha😊
Wow, this was handled with such wisdom and grace! As someone with a Protestant background who has been “sent out two by two” with a catholic brother to reach our mutual friends, it’s so nice to see others engage theological topics without hubris or division! Truly an embodiment of “in essentials unity, in nonessentials freedom, and in all things love”
As a protestant, I do deny the papacy from a linguistic aspect of the language in scripture, but I do not deny Roman catholicism because of the papacy. Like perpetual virginity, or her assumption, the papacy to me is very benign. I do believe an apostolic succession as it pertains to the continued passed on teachings of the church. But For instance, if Rome didn’t have mandated curses upon accretion practices then the church would be far more appealing to me because if it would be pure Gospel, without anything extra. It would then be the original patristic tradition.
@@HillbillyBlack I think the questions are: what is the Gospel? Is it just the Bible? Can we count apostolic tradition as well? If we can't count on apostolic tradition, how can we trust the Bible in the first place, if it was written by the apostles AND others, based on oral tradition years after Jesus? If the rule of faith is the Bible alone, wouldn't Jesus have written something himself to safeguard his teaching? How did early Christians find sound doctrine with the books dispersed and mixed opinions on the list of the inspired books for centuries? In the end, if the Church couldn't safeguard sound doctrine, we can't trust the Bible and Protestantism as we know today wouldn't be feasible until the invention of the press. What we think is accretion we can't know for sure, unless there's clear opposition from the early Church fathers.
@@marcosdisiervi6481 we trust the New Testament only because it is a commentary fulfillment of the old. Jesus quotes the old testament 90 times. The apostles over 150 times. The New Testament doesn’t give you anything new. The entirety of the gospel is contained in the prophets and the law. It’s impossible to know the point of Christ if you don’t understand what he’s fulfilling. That text pre-dates the Catholic Church by 1000 years and in that tradition, the discerning reading and common practice of fellowship over the Scriptures was encouraged by the levitical counsel, unlike the Catholic Church which hindered the word of God’s access for almost 1200 years
@@marcosdisiervi6481 we can trust Protestantism because the point of the reformation was not to create a new religion but to return to the patristic deposit of the church itself. And all we did was remove the medieval accretions added by the Roman empire. No one venerated saints in the early 2 to 300 years of church history. No one considered Peter the pope, no one spoke against faith alone as the single mechanism of salvation and no one elevated tradition above the sufficiency of scripture for salvation. Traditions added by the Roman empire are cursed according to the teachings of Paul in second Thessalonians and Galatians because the tradition mentioned in scripture is the tradition of the gospel, not an open ended ability to add to what has already been solidified. If you pay attention to those verses, they are past tense text not open ended text allowing for further tradition. We must always measure anything the church conjures up or teaches against scripture. We do not measure the teachings of the church against tradition. Everything is measured against scripture because it is the only source of infallible writing we have. Not even tradition is infallible and there is not any extra documents in existence outside of scripture of the words of the apostles or Jesus. Oral tradition doesn’t come close to infallibility. In fact, oral tradition never existed in the original deposit of the church. Traditions certainly did but they were gospel traditions like the Eucharist, baptism, spiritual renewal of the mind through spiritual transformation in salvation. These are the traditions spoken of in scripture. Not something hidden or inferred or secretly revealed. In the end, the church did SafeGaurd the word of God. It just wasn’t the Roman catholic empire. Praise God there were three separate legitimate reformation throughout the Roman catholic system splitting from a corrupt grossly inaccurate system built by men of an unregenerate nature controlled by Satan. In fact if you look at church history, all of the legitimate church fathers living according to scripture stop after 500 ad. After that it’s pure medieval Roman empire. A state religion guilty of killing those that would dare speak against doctrine declaration of the state. Hardly a Christlike attitude. The gospel is the good news. That’s what the word means. And the good news is Jesus. And the only source of writings about Jesus is in the Tanakh and the fulfilling text of the New Testament. Now if you really want to rely on oral tradition where there’s a passing of apostolic succession through the memorization of oral teaching, I highly suggest you join Islam. The Quran has been in memorization circulation for most of its existence and is more trusted in oral form than it’s written accounts.
Great protestant apologist. Ive seen so many catholics/orthodox being negative with you on the comments. I think not all of them are like that in general. But i can see you know you are getting yourself in hot water with these great arguments. You defend our faith peacefully and intelligently. Thanks!
I have recently discovered your channel and want to thank you for the way you approach difficult subject matter. As a Protestant, my focus has been on knowing what the Bible says and have long had an interest in apologetics. I have now developed an interest in polemics and philosophical arguments, and realised that I have utterly neglected church history. Your channel is now my first stop as I set about correcting this oversight. You have a new subscriber. Thank you again.
It’s pretty cool watching this in December 2021 with my Christmas tree lights on while yours is in the background of your video. At any rate, good stuff! A lot more can be said that can possibly be put into a 28 minute video, but the points you brought up were the same I discovered when exploring the early church while considering the claims of Rome. I found, with apologies to Cardinal Newman, that if “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”, to be deeper in history is to cease to be papalist. God bless, and Merry Christmas!
I think you gave the main reasons I have for why I can't accept the papacy. I've even begun debating things with Catholics and I feel like they always end up relying on an interpretation of verses that's dependent on a Catholic context. I've drastically changed my thoughts on Catholicism and appreciate it immensely especially individuals like Pascal, Aquinas, Augustine, and the Scholastics and some of my favorite thinkers today like Peter Kreeft, Tom Woods, Gerard Casey, and Brad Birzer happen to be devout Catholics but at the end of the day I'm fairly comfortable with my solo scriptura non-denominational affiliation and seem to not see enough reason to make me leave that
@@bradleymarshall5489 Lol, I hear ya. I was an ancap before I became a Christian. There is so much overlap between the two, yet such a gulf at the time. Without sounding too pretentious, Christian theologians might benefit from a better understanding regarding the anatomy of the current state; and Christian ancaps might benefit from a better understanding regarding God's word. A discussion between Doug Wilson and Bob Murphy would be awesome.
@@justingorman1068oh ya no I agree which is why I'm writing a book trying to show the connection. One thinker in particular who I think has shown better than anyone that decentralization is Christian is Don Livingston (a man Tom Woods said was one of his top 10 influences) His lectures and writings on ideology and politics are mindblowing
@@bradleymarshall5489 RE Livingston and Christianity: Could you recommend resources? A quick internet search did not yield much. Writing a book? Nice. If you want feedback from a random guy on UA-cam, I'd totally be that guy.
Listening to you, I feel like I'm taking a theology course. As a Protestant who came out of Orthodoxy, I think you hit it right on the head .I believe the rock Jesus was referring to was the rock of faith Peter demonstrated. Never heard it explained that way.
I’m a Missouri Synod Lutheran. I’m interested in people’s views who became Protestant who were Orthodox. What church were you apart of and what made you leave?
I’m working my way slowly back to my Protestant roots from 25 years in Eastern Orthodoxy. This channel has the right series of messages at the right time. Literally a godsend! Thanks Pastor!
@David Good Because I got saved 🤣. Prayed about it, went to the Orthodox Church with my mom, and what we heard confirmed that nope, this is definitely not where God wants me to be.
@@costa328 what did you hear? I've also seen people pray about things and they believe they were confident in what God said for it only to be confident in what they said to themsleves. This is after they had proved themsleves wrong after some time. I'm protestant myself, but just curious
Gavin my brother in Christ your videos have helped me so much , as a new Christian who took my salvation VERY seriously i was extremely burdened and worried about being in the "true" church ect. Ive learned so much from you , you have been a blessing in my life! and i feel secure in my faith , secure in Christ i now rest , THANKYOU!!
The way I view this whole protestant-catholic-orthodox debate is that you're not looking at salvation. As long as you believe in Jesus Christ, you are saved. But the issue is looking at the "fullness of the truth". So I am a Protestant now, but I'll probably be a Lutheran or something, and I'm looking at Catholicism. The only issue for me is icon veneration, the papacy, the repeated prayers, etc.
@@kazumakiryu157Your soteriology doesn’t necessarily match up to the Catholic or Orthodox view though. So it’s not just a matter of “picking your favorite” team so to speak.
@@countryboyred yeah, of course not. That's why I'm considering not being protestant, for those concerns. But I would say to just assert that all protestants are unsaved is also a bit weird. Even the Catholic church and the CCC affirms that protestants are saved, though not "officially".
@@kazumakiryu157 The Orthodox definitely do not believe that all Protestants are unsaved. It’s not our place to speculate on someone’s salvation. Of course being inside the Church would make it much easier to be saved. The RCC has Unum Sanctum which was pretty clear that only those in communion with Rome could be saved but then they changed their mind with Vatican 2 which had a much more loving view of Protestants calling them “separated brothers”. Wherever you end up, I wish you the best on your journey and may God guide your path.
Just ordered my copy of “Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals.” Hopefully I can knock it out on my flights to and from Nairobi this month. You’re content has helped me so much, keep up the great work!
Catholic here, your content is very well thought out and charitable. I don't agree with everything but I appreciate your content and it gives me something to think about. Subbed.
This is all in line with orthodox objections to the primacy of Rome as well. Would you make a video summarizing your objections to the theological or ecclesiological claims of the East?
Yep and by those objections you prove that you are in fact apostates. cyprian of carthage wrote this in 251 a.d. "[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, 👉🏻yet he founded a single Chair,👈🏻 and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; 👉🏻 *but a primacy is given to Peter👈🏻, whereby it is made clear that there is but ONE CHURCH AND ONE CHAIR* So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. 👉🏻 *If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church* 👈🏻(Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)
@@timothy9360😂 and because Peter could decide everything alone, he never did decide a single thing alone in the whole new testament. Yeah, makes sense. Surely those verses mean that the catholic church is the one true church in all eternity. Despite the fact that Jesus said the end of the world would come within the lifetime of the apostles. Jesus preached the kingdom of God and what we got instead was the catholic church.
@@timothy9360 Cyprian of Carthage in dispute with Pope Stephen :"None of us should make ourselves the bishop of bishops or by tyrannical threats force our colleagues to the necessity of submission, because each bishop, by virtue of freedom and power, has the right of his own choice, and as he cannot be judged by another, so he cannot judge another; but let us all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power to put us in charge of His Church and judge our actions" (Sententiae episcoporum // PL. 3. Col. 1054). "Even Peter, whom the Lord chose first and on whom he founded His Church, when Paul discussed the issue of circumcision with him, did not arrogantly arrogate anything to himself, and did not arrogantly claim anything, and did not say that he had primacy..." (Ep. 71. 3) According to the modern Catholic researcher P. Mattei, Cyprian has: "The Roman Church (and its head)… as the owner of Petrov's heritage, she is a guarantor of communication, although this does not imply any kind of her jurisdictional or doctrinal primacy" (Mattei. 2012. p. 52).
Fwiw I’m with you on your interpretation. I see our Catholic brothers and sisters as such in Christ, but the Papacy is based on false premises. And further, I see it as damaging. There is no ‘head’ of the Christian church, and it sure ain’t the Pope, whomever that may be throughout history. Thanks for your thoughtful insights.
@@merrym72veetee12 No Christian denies that Christ is the head of the church (including Catholics). The pope is the earthly head and without that you have endless splintering over opinions.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787you assert that the pope is the early head as though you didn't even listen to the video. Jorje Borgolio is the best example of why I reject the papacy. Add to that all the immoral and vicious behavior over the past 2 millenia and you have ample reason to see the scoundrels are not worthy of receiving such uncritical adulation.
@@johngeverett Why would you assume I didn’t watch the video, do you imagine Dr. Ortlund makes points that cannot be rebutted? Dr. Ortlund holds the papacy to an unreasonable standard. He says there is no strong evidence early enough but he is completely content believing Baptist doctrines that have no evidence from before the 1500s. The role of the pope has nothing to do with adulation of a man; if you want to claim that the Catholic Church makes too big a deal out of the pope, fine. That’s understandable. What is important to devout Catholics is that Christ’s teaching is preserved and carried through the centuries and without the papacy (as an office) there is no way to know where the true faith is. This is why Catholics today can look into every century in the past and see our faith there; we are not trusting a man, we are trusting Jesus to build his church and guide it. The pope is merely a man, a steward, a pawn on God’s chess board. Have there been bad popes? Absolutely. Has the Catholic Church ever left the earth or stopped teaching the same faith throughout the good, bad, and ugly? No, it has not.
So, I appreciate the irenic approach. I'll try to do the same in return. The thought I kept having as I listened to this was: "Please define what you mean by 'the papacy'." That is, when you refer to it as a "massive doctrine", the first thing I want to know is what you think is entailed in the doctrine and what you regard as massive. When some people say, "The Papacy", what they imagine is a man dressed in fine robes in Rome, approving every bishop in the world, making infallible pronouncements every other Tuesday, and exclusively being called "the Pope". When all that isn't found, the doctrine is found to be lacking historical or exegetical merit. And for lack of knowing what you regard as the details of "the Papacy", I'm was never certain what you were expecting to find. For me, what I regard "the Papacy" is that Jesus established Peter as the leader of the Apostles (and thus the head pastor of the Church), and he intended for this role to continue in some kind of succession. So what I expect to find is somewhat modest. For the Scriptural case, the first thought which came to mind was the subjectivity of saying something is slim, or unclear. Last year I was invited to a Calvinist Bible study which was studying Hebrews 10. When we got to the second half, they admitted that a cursory glance may lead one to think it was teaching a Christian could lose his/her salvation. But a more advanced look made it "unclear". I remarked that it didn't seem unclear to me, and I asked if they regard it as unclear out of necessity. (Then I politely was asked to never return). I digress. What exactly constitutes something being unclear and scant? For many, myself included, the conjunction of Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 is pretty solid. Jesus's blessing in Luke 22 followed by the commissioning in John 21 is really persuasive. The fact that Peter is mentioned more than the other Apostles by wide margin seems significant. And in regard to Acts 15, it seems to me that there's a tendency in Protestant circles to over-emphasize James' role and to relegate Peter in this passage to the role of a secretary - rather than the guy who stood up and settled the core theological issue on behalf of the group, ending the debate. For me (and others) the thing which grants it the best plausibility is the functional argument. Without some place where the buck stops, it seems that theological questions can have no universal resolution. There needs to be a man at the top who can stand up like Peter in Acts 15 and say what the case is. For lack of that, it seems to me that the project of theology either divides into multiple irreconcilable camps or stops entirely. For many, the prospect of getting the Protestant world together and asking a simple practical question like, "Can a Christian lose his salvation?" or going to the Orthodox world and asking, "Can a divorced Christian get remarried?" is enough to convince people about the necessity of the Papacy. Granted, this its an easier argument to make when its John Paul II standing athwart the Soviet Empire surrounded by a crowd screaming, "We want God" - compared to Pope Francis, who is truly like "The Last Jedi" of Popes. Terrible, but sadly canonical.
😂 I love the story of the Hebrews Bible study. That book is a major reason I'm not a Calvinist, even though I don't believe in loosing salvation. I think there is a middle ground there between the Calvinist and the Armenian approach to scripture.
@@BibelFAQ : It's always seemed to me that the possibility of disinheriting oneself from salvation is the most clearly taught doctrine in the New Testament. The most explicit among the two dozen or so passages would be Hebrews 10:19-39. The passages which people use to assert the opposite, I think, can be plausibly taken in other ways. But the massive quantity of work one has to do find ways around those which say it can be lost should be an indicator that the Bible does indeed teach the possibility of disinheritance. Among the others would be: 2Timothy 2:12 - Christians being told Christ might deny them. Luke 8:11-14 - the seeds which sprout life, but die. 1Cor 15:1-2 - the possibility of believing in vain. Galatians 5:4 - Christians being told they've fallen from grace. Hebrews 6:4-6 - Apostates being spoken of. James 5:19-20 - the mention of Christians falling away and in danger of spiritual death. John 15:1-6 and Romans 11:20-22 - The possibility of a grafted in vine being cut off. Romans 14:15, 1Corinthians 6:8, Ephesians 5:3-6, 1Timothy 5:7-8 - Christians being warned that immorality will result in disinheritance. 2Peter 2:20 - Apostate Christians being spoken of. 1Corinthians 9:27 - Paul saying he could possibly be damned. I'm not saying that inventive ways cannot be found around all those passages. But the work necessary to do it should be an indicator that this is not the correct way.
Thank you Dr. Ortlund. I just subscribe to your channel. I love your videos in viewing our faith through the lens of history. I'm an Indonesian Protestant. There is a well known pastor here in Indonesia, Dr. Bambang Noorsena from Orthodox background, who use the same approach by tracing the history of the early church fathers. His teachings help me a lot to build up my faith. I'm glad to know you are a Protestant, I hope I can learn to see the perspectives balanced from either side especially regarding the differences between the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant doctrines. May Jesus bless you and your ministry.
This has been so helpful. Ive been listening to a lot of Catholic commentary lately and, biblically, the whole Peter thing was clear to me but I just don't have enough knowledge of the early church to come close to a judgement. Catholic apologists seem to zero in on people like Ignatius while i can see you have studied widely and mention many names and the variety of views at that time. The answer to Catholicism is just "Sorry, not enough evidence" and that theme comes out over and over in what I have come across.
It's true that when a Protestant is regenerated, born again; we tend to focus on our walk with the Lord and His word and the truth of the matter is that, we are content. We don't view Church history as that important, and therefore when Catholic Apologists come around loaded with Church history, referencing to this Church father or that Church father, this Council or that Council ~ normally according to what they want to convince a person with, but not necessary what these historical writings were meant to communicate, we end up being overwhelmed; and many have departed from the simple gospel truth and entered endless genealogies and accepted false teachings that crept into the Church over centuries without question simply because of our ignorance of Church history. As a Protestant, who knew that the day I gave my life to the Lord, that my life changed for good, my conscious tells me I am secure in the Lord's hands and so I am truly disturbed when someone comes along to persuade me to follow extra biblical teachings that are clearly not taught in the Bible. I always wonder how does a born again Christian is really convinced to believe in purgatory, Marian doctrines (recently I was listening to testimonies of wearing a brown scapula) and other burdens of religious practices that one is bound to, to be a good Catholic without his/her conscious being disturbed. There is a great relief that young dedicated but loving Protestants are rising up to explain these things fully and in truth. The goal should remain evangelising the lost not merely converting them to our Church for numbers. Protestant Church members go out in highways and byways to preach the gospel and it's sad to see that the fish they catch is sweet-talked into abandoning the Lord to follow religion.
To follow religion , what a mess phrase you are it seems sounds that those Catholics are ignorant of their faith that we don't read our Bible not yours.
Much appreciated especially your even handed non hostile approach. Acts 20:28 ...Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
Even handed? He made no mention of Matthew 16:19 where we see only Peter was given the keys to Heaven. No other apostle was given the keys to Heaven. He also only gave Church fathers that were vague in their explanation of the primacy of Peter. He certainly didn't post cyprian of carthage on the primacy of Peter. Let's have a look why he might of left cyprian out of this video shall we. cyprian of carthage wrote this in 251 a.d. "[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, 👉🏻yet he founded a single Chair,👈🏻 and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; 👉🏻 *but a primacy is given to Peter👈🏻, whereby it is made clear that there is but ONE CHURCH AND ONE CHAIR* So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. 👉🏻 *If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church* 👈🏻(Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)
One thing I would add to the good points you made on the Biblical argument; Matthew 7:24-27 ... "House built on the Rock, not sand"... One could draw some connections there to that rock-faith-confession argument there. Be like the wise man in Jesus's parable, have faith like a rock, like Peter, on The Rock; Lord Jesus. (EDIT: If that would match the original language used)
Awesome video! I love when you include quotes from church fathers, especially when the whole quote is written out on the screen! Would it be possible to share the books you found the quotes in? I'm a protestant trying to get more involved with the writings of the church fathers.
St. Basil of Seleucia had the best explanation of "Thou art Peter" that I've ever heard. (9:35 ff) Indeed, this is the crux and source of all contention between Catholics and their "separated brethren" of all stripes. They broke from the Orthodox because of this pride, and the Protestants broke from them because of abuse. It all comes from the Papacy's claim to authority and infallibility. Peter was never given the office to be the "Vicar of Christ" and Lord over all believers in Christ's absence. From the beginning of the Church, all questions were debated by all of the Apostles available at the time, and decided in consensus. It is the confession of faith which is the foundation because it's the recognition of Jesus' divine identity. Jesus is the Rock, and Peter was commended for getting it right. But Jesus never said he should take His place when He left.
As as catholic, I find it refreshing to understand why protestant have a hard time with the papacy as long as it is done in a respectable manner. still kinda curious to me why a person with your knowledge is a baptist instead of a protestant church that is more liturgical like lutherans or anglican. not sure if you have a video explaining it.
Baptists have their own liturgy, and they are also part of the reformed protestantism, though I'm not quite sure as per how do you vinculate fairly a certain liturgy tradition with being (or not) knowledgeable.
@@angelbonilla4243 maybe I have but it is not my fault there are different types of baptist churches. i have seen lot of southern baptist churches where I live.
I would think that the fact the Baptists weren't around until the 17th century would be an indicator that the Baptist Church isn't apostolic in origin but established by a man. In fact, all of the non-Catholic churches lack a pedigree that goes back to the apostles.
Liked the video a lot and I appreciate your irenic approach. Would love to see the references when you quote the fathers so that we could look them up. As someone who has had many seminary friends go Catholic it’s nice to see more thoughtful treatments of Catholic theology from a Protestant perspective. Thanks!
419 My Remnant Church, inspired by the Prophet Enoch, will create hatred Tuesday, May 8th, 2012 @ 19:00 My dearly beloved daughter, I come this evening to tell you that a great token of My Love and Mercy will now manifest within the hearts of believers everywhere. They will feel My Presence within their hearts in a way they will not be able to explain and they will unite their hearts with Mine. This Gift will make them strong in My Faith and they will hunger for My Presence daily. I urge all of God’s children, who feel the Flames of My Love engulf their souls, to receive My Body and My Blood, in the Holy Eucharist, as often as they can. You, My beloved disciples, will need the Gift of My Body, through the Holy Eucharist to give you strength, for you will need every ounce of strength, as you witness the falling apart of My Holy and Apostolic, Catholic Church. My Holy Eucharist will be desecrated as I foretold some time ago. Excuses will be made to render this Most Holy Gift as simply a gesture in remembrance of My Crucifixion. Very soon My Real Presence will be denounced as part of a new modern catholic church, which will include other religious churches. Once this happens, the love and devotion to the Holy Trinity will dwindle and fall away. Instead false gods will take its place. While this will be difficult, you must remember, I will never forfeit My Church on Earth. My allegiance is to the Church founded by Me before I ascended into Heaven. The Church upon the Rock founded by My beloved Peter, cannot and will never die. For I will lead My Church now in the end times, and will renew the prophecies, foretold long ago. My Gospels will be preached by My Remnant Church, in every corner of the Earth. My Remnant Church, will be inspired by the Prophet Enoch, and this will create hatred everywhere My Holy Word is heard. The Holy Spirit will ignite the faith of My Remnant Church who will never give up proclaiming the Truth of the Gospels, till its dying breath. Go now and prepare My Remnant Church, by following My Instructions. Trust in Me always, for all will be well. Your beloved Jesus The Book of Truth
I have read all the Pelikan series on Church history, and I found your summary very helpful and well done. You are a light! I have been a Protestant most of my life, and a theolog. I taught adult Sunday School for decades. But I am increasingly drawn to the Catholic Church. This is one of several issues I’ve been studying. I think most of the non-typological arguments in favor of a Pope rest largely upon its efficacy as a “referee.” Bishop Robert Barron, the famous Catholic evangelist, also argues that the Rock” is Christ, not Peter. Thank you for this. I am so glad you are in the conversation!
I hope you keep yourself far away from the Roman Catholic Church! I was raised RC and confirmed in that church. But God strove with me for 8 years (from age 18 to 26) to leave the RCC, and now I attend a wonderful ACNA Anglican parish. The RCC is a cult that enslaves its laity via fear. "Outside of the RCC there is no salvation," they taught for centuries. Still today, most members believe that the RC Sacraments are what will save them! The primary reason for any church's existence is to propagate Jesus' Gospel and to guide people toward salvation through faith in Christ. Anglicans teach what Jesus and Paul taught. Look at what Jesus said: John 3:14-18 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that *whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.* For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. *He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed* in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Look also at John 6:28-29,35,39-40. "Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, *This is the work of God, that ye believe* on him whom he hath sent...And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst....And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that *every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.*" Likewise, Paul wrote to the Ephesians (2:8-9), "For by grace are ye *saved through faith;* and that not of yourselves: *it is the gift of God: Not of works,* lest any man should boast." In contrast, I was taught by the Catholic Church (in catechism and in Mass) that man *might be* saved by being baptized into the Catholic Church, by believing in Jesus, by receiving the Eucharist regularly, by being absolved and performing penances, by keeping the Commandments, etc, but that even if I did all of those things well enough I still might go to hell if I slipped up badly enough and died with a mortal sin on my conscience. Instead of viewing God's grace as a *gift freely given* to anyone when they trust that Christ's atonement paid their personal sin debt in full, the Catholic Church taught me to trust in their Sacraments (which they portray as being unavailable anywhere else, thus binding me to the church of Rome) more than I trusted in Jesus' death and resurrection. This is reflected in their historical teaching that "there is no salvation outside the (Roman) Catholic Church." But neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever taught such a doctrine. Thus, the Roman Catholic faith is not truly Apostolic; it is literally *faith in the Catholic Church* instead of *faith in Jesus my only Savior."* After all, Jesus (not the RCC) died for me on the cross! I also see the idolatry of their Eucharist because of their doctrine of Transubstantiation; they actually worship the wafer as God, much like the Israelites created and worshiped a gold calf as God. As for the papacy, Gavin missed the best argument against it. Consider what Jesus said (in Matt. 16:18, in the original Greek version): "Thou art petros" (a rock) is a masculine noun. "Upon this petra I will build my church" -- petra is a feminine noun. Jesus did not call Simon Peter a woman, obviously. Nor would Jesus refer to Himself in the feminine. Therefore, the petra upon which Jesus builds His church is the foundational, revelatory truth Simon was the first person to speak: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Simon Peter was the first person to give voice to the critical belief that Jesus is the Messiah, the Savior, and that He is divine. This is the revelatory truth upon which Christ builds His true church.
@lukewilliams448 Yes. And guess what... they aren't infallible. They said a great many correct things, and they said some things that weren't. Fortunately, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, or else we'd swallow everything they said (and we'd be very confused by all the contradictions they present against one another; for example, some of them believed that Matt. 16:18-19 applied only to Peter and not to any successors, and others believed the _petra_ rock was not Peter but was his confession of faith and/or Jesus Himself).
Great video, Gavin. Love all the research on the church fathers. One thing I would add is, even if you accept the RCC interpretation of Matt 16 that Peter is the rock in an official capacity, you still have the problem of connecting that to the church of Rome. There is zero evidence that Peter was the bishop of Rome. He was martyred there and buried there. Presumably he ministered and preached there prior to his martyrdom. But there is no evidence that he held any ecclesiastical office in the church of Rome, much less bishop. Then you have the further problem of the lack of evidence that Rome even had a bishop until the mid to late 2nd century. So there is at least a century gap between Peter and the first named bishop of Rome (I'm not sure who that is -- it might be Victor ca. 190s; I know Eusebius refers to him as the bishop of Rome when recounting the debate with the Asian churches over Easter). Medieval tradition (the Liber Pontificalis) claims that the first papal successors of Peter were Linus, Anacletus, Clement, etc., but we have no historical (from that time or near that time) evidence that they were actually bishops of Rome, much less popes with universal jurisdiction. It really does look like a case of reading history through the lens of later developments (like you said, the shift with Gregory the Great and following, especially the 8th century alignment of the papacy away from being under the thumb of the Byzantine emperor to the Carolingians).
Ignatius in his epistle to the Romans says that he does not command them "as Peter and Paul did" implying that Peter was a bishop there. Of course this does not prove him being the universal bishop of all the churches but I do think that should be noted.
@@alfredolebron1428 Ignatius wrote: "I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul: they were apostles, I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4.3). I wouldn't read this as suggesting that Peter was a bishop there. It only supports what we already know, that the two apostles, Peter and Paul, spent time in Rome and ministered there. And when they did so, their authority was that of apostle not bishop. If this sentence implies that Peter was a bishop of Rome, then it implies that Paul was as well, which is not part of the RCC claim.
This is the most reasonable explanation I’ve ever heard on this subject. Most Protestants will vehemently argue that Christ was referring to himself instead of Simon (which is ridiculous) and take the verse out of context to provide evidence. You should give a class on this.
Just began watching some of your videos. These are so good. Thank you for your fair and balanced yet still clear and convictional approach. What a breath of fresh air in the divisive culture we live in! One small request/suggestion is for you to outline the main points in the video description with time stamps. That would be really helpful for folks who might want to jump to a particularly relevant point.
Although you mentioned the rock aspect of Matthew 16, you barely mentioned the keys and the binding and loosing, which is just as important or even more important than the rock part of Matthew 16. Would God give this power to Peter and allow him to bind heresies on earth as in heaven, thus making God a liar?
I am *really* liking these videos and watching just about all of them. Lol Quick suggestion - when you put up a quote (e.g. Ambrose) it would be great to see the date of the passage, the name of the document writing, etc. so it can be easier to research the same document. Keep up the great work! 👍🏻
Here's a document he conveniently left out. cyprian of carthage wrote this in 251 a.d. "[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, 👉🏻yet he founded a single Chair,👈🏻 and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; 👉🏻 *but a primacy is given to Peter👈🏻, whereby it is made clear that there is but ONE CHURCH AND ONE CHAIR* So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. 👉🏻 *If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church* 👈🏻(Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)
Hi Gavin, as former Catholic, be careful when you say "grace," because to Catholics grace is the help God gives you through prayer and the sacraments to do the works you need to be saved. You have to cooperate with grace to be saved.
Here’s a story of a struggling Protestant. In my walk of 10 years as being a Christian I’ve called 3 very different churches home as the first two turned out to be heretical - and ended up in a reformed Baptist church. Then moved to a new large country town and am trying to find a church to call home. The Presbyterian church we just went to on Sunday is very small, held in a school hall and the congregation is made up predominantly of people over 70. Also, the ordinances (communion) were not delivered during the service. What a let down. I now just visited the Roman Catholic Church which is open to visitors every day of the week all day, stands on the highest part of the town and has stood since 1887. I was awestruck. The turmoil that lands on the Protestant when moving to a new town, when trying to find a church is immense. My question is Do you think God wants us to experience such turmoil that wouldn’t exist if we were one unified ecclesial body? There are many problems with the Roman Catholic church but I fear there are many more with the Protestant church such as the practical example I’ve just given. Ive been part of 3 very different churches in only 10 years because it’s easy to get very lost in Protestantism. Now I’m starting over in a new town. What the heck do I do? The main option here appear to be either Pentecostalism, Catholicism, dying Baptist / Presby churches, or a few pop up churches that are likely heretical.
Great video! I just found your channel through a recommendation by a friend and I immediately subscribed. I haven't had nearly enough truth exposure over the Catholic doctrine much at all, and this was some much needed information. Thank you. If I wanted I further my study into these kinds of topics myself however, are there any good books you would recommend on the church Father's writings? I already am in-line to purchase the Lord's supper book you recommended from another video, but one with more information over the issues regarding the papacy would also be desirable. Please let me know.
Great books, A woman rides the beast by Dave Hunt. Or research Bereanbeacon - richard Bennet, he teaches you all the catholci doctrine and shows you why its not biblical.
A latecomer here, but God bless your efforts in this important faucet of the Lord's work. I have been involved in rebuking Catholics occasionally on some particular issues I know pretty well which comes under the heading of defending the Faith. Some of these misguided folks are barely aware of the problems with certain peculiarly false traditions within their own confines and need to be informed of the underlying issues. As you well know, there are meaningful aspects to areas of proper rebuke and correction that are sorely ignored by many denominations, though such a side ministry undertaken with understanding and firm love is an integral part of being a good and well rounded servant of the Gospel. Thanks again.
Phenomenal! My father became Catholic about ten years and I’ve been trying to figure why in the world he did that ever since. Lol. This helps fill in some missing pieces! Thank you so much. God bless
@@Wilkins325 Luther rejected all Catholic teachings, it is either you believe in Luther or the Church The early church was defined by the celebration of the mass, the Holy Eucharist, the apostles, the church fathers, the saints, the popes, the bishops, the bible and its sacred traditions.
@@jamesrey3221 Luther and the Reformers were right. Luther only rejected what was false and corrupted. The early church was defined by the Gospel, scripture, the Apostles. NOT the mass, eucharist, "saints", popes, bishops, traditions. All of that developed over time, including church fathers.
As a Catholic I respect your views. The first thing is that Jesus founded the Church before the scriptures were written down. The second thing is that the church is the Mystical Body of Christ (the people of God) and has produced some wonderful Saints and Scholars over the history of the Church as well as many sinners.. Everything that you are saying has been discussed and debated within the Catholic Church great scholars for over 2000 years. I also think there is a big difference between Evangelical view of the Papacy in the USA than our view in Europe.. The miracle is that the Papacy has survived with all its failings, faults, attacks and corruptions. I believe the Holy people of the church and of faith as well as the holy priests, monks, nuns, hermits, and Saints were the real reformers of the papacy and the Church despite the corruption, scandals and bad leadership. I was recently in Belgium and went to visit the "Lamb of God" painting in Ghent which had a wonderful history. This was painted in the 14th Century before the reformation and tells a lot about the Church in the 14th century, there is also a copy of the gospels in Latin from a local monastery in the 8th Century on display in the Cathedral.. Have a look at it and look at the medieval monasteries to have a look their role they played in the Papacy and the church. I would say the monasteries were closer to the Catholic Church and people than the Papacy. The monks protected and transcribed the Gospels in Latin. Not all Catholics are fans of the Current Pope Francis and previous Pope's. As all are human and are sinners and we have some very good Popes in the office as leader of the Church over the 2000 years. May God bless all seeking the Truth in the Person of Jesus Christ. 🙏
Great video! Thank you! Reading Roman Catholic literature on the topic was a bit confusing to me even though the data is there. Thank you for a clear, accurate and humble way to frame the argument!
Thank you for this eloquent and respectful video. I'm an Episcopalian and as part of the Anglican Communion we hold to Apostolic Succession but reject the Papacy. You did an excellent job of explaining how supremacy of the Bishop of Rome wasn't really a thing in the early church.
@@foodmaniac9339 Since your reply was so dignified, respectful, and in the spirit of Christian brotherhood I'll respond. No one believes the Church holds apostolic succession through the crown. It is however the Bishops that do. During the split with Rome there were bishops who remained loyal to the Pope and others who helped create the Anglican Church. It's similar to how the Eastern Church retains its apostolic succession by the laying on of hands going back to the apostles but is not beholden to the Bishop of Rome.
@@enischial965 is that what jesus wanted? A king goes against the church, cause his balls were itching and wanted to marry against the church law and since doesn't get his will done, makes his own church and executes Catholics. How in the world are you apostolic if you have female ordained ministers and bishops. You like the king more than god. That's what Anglican is. Rejecting the papacy is rejecting the church. Where is that apostolic succession if there is no bishop and no pope. You guys have the worst history on your side regarding succession and you have the face to talk about supremacy of the pope. Let's talk about the supremacy of the king first.
@@foodmaniac9339 Supremacy of the monarchy is a common myth about Anglicanism. What it really is is a combination of the religious authority with the secular authority. A concept known as caesaropapism. The church of England was not the first one to do it. A great example is the early Byzantine Church where the Emperor served as supreme governor and protector of the Church. So while he is the supreme governor, the king is not the head of the Church. His Majesty King William III holds no authority in the Episcopal Church. We are still part of the Anglican communion, however we consecrate our own Bishops and have our own Presiding Bishop. The history of our split with the Church of England after the American Revolution is quite fascinating. In terms of Papal authority and Petrine Primacy, I understand people's reasons for backing it. Through the intense and prayerful study of scripture, tradition, reason, and church history I have yet to find enough evidence to allay my disagreements to it. You sound like you already have your mind made up on the matter, so I will not press nor debate you further. Also, truth be told, I don't monitor my UA-cam alerts all that often. Please understand I do hold the Roman Catholic Church in extreme high regard. Even as a Protestant I recognize Catholics as my brethren. May Christ's peace be upon you. Have a prayerful Lent and a happy Easter.
Thanks for appreciating the Catholic churches teaching on contraception. To me that is the evidence that the Catholic Church is truly built upon a solid rock. If it was man made then the teaching on contraception would certainly be the first thing to go...
Yes, Pope Paul IV's Humanae Vitae which reaffirmed the church traditional teaching on sexual morality was largely ignored and rejected by other churches and look where we are now.
@@jamesrey3221 yeah and to be honest the impact of that rejection is felt in the Catholic faith. Under the hood we have many American Catholics who secretly adopt practices that align with the secular viewpoint.
@@MrPeach1 yes, it is the heresy of Modernism (Relativism and secularism. The idea that the truths of the ancient faith are viewed as outmoded and are now subject to adapt to secular "culture") that impacts deep in society including the church, the abuse scandals, etc. was in part caused by the rejection of Humanae Vitae. Pope Paul's encyclical was opposed even by Catholics, but God in His wisdom see's the importance of family in our civilization that He has to do battle to save it for us. “We must remember that life begins at home and we must also remember that the future of humanity passes through the family.” From a letter of Sr. Lucia to Cardinal Caffarra “In that letter we find written: ‘The final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan will be about Marriage and the Family.’ Don't be afraid, she added, because whoever works for the sanctity of Marriage and the Family will always be fought against and opposed in every way, because this is the decisive issue. Then she concluded: ‘nevertheless, Our Lady has already crushed his head’.” We see this 'battle' being wage in social media, politics and even in the supreme court. In the end God can never lose.
Great video...and I say this as a former Protestant who, jbtw, had your dad as my pastor for a couple of years. Curious, in pointing out areas where you admire Catholicism you mentioned moral theology and specifically mentioned contraception. I would love to hear your position on it
Very well balanced and thorough argument! I’m a new comer and your channel has been very refreshing in many way. Keep up the good work and exemplary scholarship!
I love your approach and attitude. In fact the only reason to become Catholic would be to accept what Cardinal Newman called "Development Of Doctrine".
I agree with that opening sentiment on Catholics often being way ahead of Protestants in terms of being loving, writing great works (especially political), actually doing stuff, etc… We need to pick up the slack…
Another great video, thank you. I'd love to see you follow some of these conclusions, and answer the broader question of why you are not orthodox? You pointed out the conciliar nature of the church as an objection to the Papacy, which I agree with. It does logically follow to address orthodoxy and I'd be really interested in this! Enjoying your theological retrieval book.
The Jerusalem Council in Acts is fundamental on this point for me. It is a Biblical-Exigetical, Historical, and logically vital argument against the supposed primative nature of Romanism all contained in a single narrative. To substantiate its own claims, the Roman Church has to show that its definitive distinctives were present from the very inception of the Church's existence. In Acts, we have an event which is post-Resurrection and post-Pentecost (no one can say that the Church didn't fully exist at this point) yet is witnessed to within the pages of the New Testament scriptures themselves which testify that it was carried out under proper divine guidance and approbation. So, it serves as an absolute test case against which to place the Roman distinctives. Petrine/Papal supremacy, Roman supremacy, monarchical magisterium, monarchical bishoprics, etc. as well as Eastern Ceasaropapism are not only absent, but are contradicted by the scripturally-verified example of the apostles themselves. The distinctive aspects that make the Roman Church what it is simply and clearly did not exist in the beginning, nor is their future emergence provided for or justfied by scripture or even human doctrine from the earliest stage.
The Council of Jerusalem is the proto-example of the Pope, making a binding decision for the universal Church, St. Peter declaring that Gentiles did not have to become Jews before becoming Christian, and another Bishop, St. James making a recommendation to appease the Judaizers in Antioch specifically.
@St. Hubertus Outdoors , You have got to be kidding me. Peter doesn't so much even rise to the level of primus inter pares in the Jerusalem Council. He gives his testimony, but the one presiding over the meeting (if anyone at all) is James because he's the leader in Jerusalem, they were meeting in Jerusalem, and the question at hand had come about due to Judaizers going out from Jerusalem. No one sat "ex cathedra" as the vicar of Christ. They agreed together, and James formulated their joint declaration. There was no Pope or "proto-Pope" in Acts. And this was not just *any* council, but the council formed of the apostles of Christ, preserved in the inspired Word, and testified by that very Word to have been carried out according to the will and leading of God. This council *must* logically be seen as normative and definitive, and there was no Pope! Besides this, even if some kind of "proto-Pope" were being evidenced (and it would suggest James in that role rather than Peter anyway) which it's not, that's not good enough to support the Catholic position which is that the Papacy existed from the time of Christ's earthly ministry. The doctrines of Catholicism are supposed to be "what all Christians, have believed at all times and at all places." I suppose the apostles and elders at Jerusalem were not the true Church then, because the central Catholic doctrine of Papal supremacy, which is supposedly primitive to a time well before that event, *does not exist in Acts* . "Proto" isn't good enough to support Catholic claims on this issue. All you are doing by making that argument is conceding the point that the monarchic, supreme, magisterial Papacy did not exist during the first century of the Church. Thus, it is a doctrine of man not of God, and this central stumbling block in the relations between Roman Catholics and all other Christian groups around the world should be cast aside, leading to truer doctrine and increased unity.
@@jameswoodard4304 Acts 15 does not deny the Primacy of St. Peter. Once St. Peter stood to speak, everyone was silent, and he made the pronouncement for the Universal Church. The Primacy comes from having the Keys to the Kingdom of God. Mt. 16:19 is clear that the Lord Jesus appointed St. Peter to be His “Master of the Palace.” Mt. 16:19 is a clear reference to Is. 22:22.
@St. Hubertus Outdoors , Order of events: -Everyone discussed generally -Pharisees delivered their opinion for one side of the debate -Peter gave a speech for the other -Then, "Everyone fell silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul..." as they gave testimony of God working among the Gentiles -Then James of Jerusalem gave a summary opinion which they all agreed to. Is that how the Roman Papacy works? If the Catholic Church had a point of debate to settle, is that what it would look like? All the bishops including the one of Rome gather together, the Roman bishop is simply among those who speak in turn, then a different bishop provides the communal decision? You are deceiving yourself if you answer yes. If you thought so yourself, you would not have relied on the concept of "proto-Pope." You are well aware that the Roman Papacy as it is distinct to Roman Catholic dogma did not exist. And remember this. No one denies Peter had a leadership role *among* the apostles. To win your point, you can't just show that he was important or had *some* leadership role, but that the current doctrine of the Papacy was present. You *cannot* do that, because it wasn't. As to the scriptures you cite, at best, they show a leadership role of some kind for the person of Peter among the apostles, which everyone already knows. You would still have to prove the application from Peter himself to the ongoing office of the Roman bishop, *and* that the office was identical to current Catholic dogma relating to the Papacy. And that's best-case for you. Worst case, the verses about rock and keys don't obtain to Peter personally or his office as supposed bishop of Rome, but to the confessing church generally. The fact remains that Catholicism requires Peter to have acted as a fully Roman Catholic pontif during the first century. We have a record of church organization, structure, and decision-making from the first century. It is not Roman Catholic. You can't get around that by quoting ambiguous passages that, at best, confirm what everyone already concedes.
As a Pentecostal turning catholic I thought this video was great content. You brought up good points and was very respectful in pushing your points. I think their is more to this topic that you cant fit in a UA-cam video. Both sides have great arguments for their position. One can also argue that before Constantine became emperor the majority of popes were martyred so that push or development becoming more clear in the 5th century to me makes sense.
Read on classical Protestantism. I understand why you might want to leave the Pentecostal church, but consider some historic Protestant traditions like Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, etc.
when i first began to question protestantism i was constantly being thrown around by trying to make bold, logical deductions. I thought," Ill just read and get the correct sense of the bible." However, from the weakness of my own mind, I kept finding cases that would contradict. So i changed my approach to," Is it unreasonable that some people hold to such-and-such an interpretation of some passage in scripture." it was this change in thinking that revealed the truth of catholicism. When it comes the matthew 16:18, its not unreasonable to conclude that Peters vicarious office is in view. As there are church fathers that have said this. One only has to consider the name of his given by Christ. Peter, which means rock.The name and the role are easily tied to one another. One cant reject the interpretation because there are alternatives. the catholic church accepts a range of different readings for many passages. Plus , it almost makes Christs decision to name simon peter a mistake. Peter could have easily continued his ministry as leader without being given a name that essentially means foundation. with luke 22:32 , it seems clear, at least to me and the catholic church. Christ says the leader will be humble and not lord his power over others. He then tells peter he has prayed for him, the only apostle he prays for in an exclusive manner, and that when he returns to do the things the leader should do. this is the basic role of the pope. to strengthen his brethren, and not to lord over his power. with john 21, there are even protestant scholars who agree peter is serving in a ministry that functions vicariously. Obviously, not in the same sense as catholics, but its undeniable the universal pasture hes been given to lead. Hes the only apostle whos apostolate is the whole church. we even see him exercise his role in acts 15:7, where he gives an eternally binding,and infallible, command onto christians that is still obeyed, or at least should be, today. Ultimately, it seemed the only way protestantism could be true was if the ministry of peter coincidently, a massive and drawn out coincidence, looked like a primitive form of the papacy.
How can you read Acts 15 and come to the conclusion that Peter is the sole apostle responsible for giving an infallible command to the church? If any one person can be attributed with instituting any infallible doctrine in this chapter, it would be James in verses 19-20. Even then, he only made this judgement after conferring with the elders and other apostles, hearing the testimony of Peter, Paul, and Barnabas, and appealing to the words of Amos. Any attempt at reading papal primacy into the Council of Jerusalem is either disingenuous by anachronistically reading the Pope’s authority into a text where it can’t be found, or historically and literally illiterate.
In response to the question - “Is Jesus the rock or is Peter the rock? The answers is simply YES! This is not a zero-sum game. Jesus is the ultimate authority, and he bestowed that authority upon Peter. Isaiah 22 is clearly talking about Jesus, but when Jesus quotes it in Matthew 16, He makes it about Peter! Peter was made the representative of Christ on earth. The only reason Peter and his successors have authority on earth is because they received it from the ultimate authority in Heaven! Jesus is the authority, and the Pope is His representative (Vicar). So the answer is yes! Jesus is the Rock and Peter is the rock! God bless you for having the love of Christ, brother! A lot of Catholics can learn so much from you!
This is not to mention that if we are to assume the office of regent carries over from the Davidic kingdom to the Kingdom of God that Peter who was given the keys (a sign of rhe office in the Davidic kingdom) was the holder of a specific office and that that office would continue after his death is reasonable
@@JBlackjackp Absolutely. This is also supported in Acts 1 when the Apostles chose Matthias to replace Judas. Judas’s place as an Apostle is specifically called in “office.” So if Judas Iscariot, the least of the Apostles (always being last when the names of the Apostles are listed in the New Testament), had an office that HAD to be filled, then of course Peter, the primary Apostle (always being listed first when the names of the Apostles are listed) most definitely had an office as well that would have had to be filled with a replacement after Peter died.
@@JBlackjackp I know he didn't even mention Jesus quoting Isaiah which is a main Catholic argument for the continuation of Peters primacy. "In Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Isa. 22:21)." I took that from part from Catholic answers in the article Peter the Rock lol. Annoying how didnt bring that up i would have liked to here his take on it
The Septuagint, which the Fathers of the Church used and ratified as the Old Testament Canon of Scripture does not contain the same reference to keys in Isaiah 22:22. Even barring such, we cannot purport to assume that this is the exact idea Jesus was alluding to in Matthew 16, much less ascribing such a station to St. Peter. Hence the entire point of this video: we cannot assume or jump to conclusions without context and the interpretation of the Church Fathers considered: whether one is Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. Two of these groups have trouble with Historic Circumstances and the Teachings of the Fathers; One does not. Certainly, if you approach the sources with an honest and open heart, you can figure out that Orthodoxy is One, Protestantism and Catholicism are two.
PETER HIMSELF ANSWERS THIS VERY WELL. Peter, "the Rock" himself, had very telling things to say about what Jesus meant by "On this Rock"... Peter saw himself as just another rock, and we are said to be "living stones" as well, which make up the church: 1 Peter 2:4-6 "As you come to him, the living Stone-rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him- you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says: 'See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.'”
Hi Gavin, have you started a podcast? I’d LOVE to have the audio versions of your videos to listen to when I’m on the move. Thanks for the amazing content. Please don’t stop!
Hendriksen's commentary on Matthew 16 is great. He was a Dutch Reformed (i.e., a Protestant), but still chose the view that the "rock" upon which Jesus built his church was Peter, BUT explained that it does not require accepting the papacy, papal infallability or supremacy, etc., etc. Hendriksen's is a great exposition of the various views and why he holds to that view. I'm not entirely convinced, but I can see it as a viable interpretation.
Contrary to Roman Catholic claims, Jesus did not call Peter the Rock on which Christianity would be founded. Roman Catholics make much of Matthew 16:18-19, using it to justify their claims of Papal Authority and Papal Succession. However, they take Jesus’ words out of context and ignore the underlying meaning of the Greek text. *Matthew 16:13-19* _Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter_ [πέτρος (petros)], _and on this rock_ [πέτρα (petra)] _I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."_ Apologists for the Roman Catholic dogma often claim the discussion was in Aramaic and the same word was used in that language for both 'Peter' and 'rock' in Matthew 16:18, since Aramaic uses the same word in both cases. But, if that is so, why did Matthew confuse the matter by using different Greek words? And does the claim about the Aramaic words hold up? Let's just suppose the discussion was in Aramaic. Given that Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26 and Daniel 2:4b-7:28 are written in Aramaic, those passages give us some clues as to how Jesus might have made such a differentiation had he been inclined to do so - as Matthew 16:18 implies. Plus, we already know of the Aramaic כֵּיפָא (kepha), for Cephas. Let's also suppose for the sake of discussion that the Aramaic lacked differentiating nouns. Are there any adjectives for small and large Jesus might have used to convey the distinction we find in the Greek text of Matthew 16:18? Indeed there are: • For small, we have the adjective זְעֵיר (zeer), as in Daniel 7:8; and • For large, we have the adjectives שַׂגִּיא (saggi), as in Daniel 2:6, and רַב (rab), as in Daniel 2:35. Any of the above could be applied to כֵּיפָא (kepha) to make an Aramaic small/large distinction for each of which a single Greek noun is all that would be needed. And are there any Aramaic nouns Jesus might have used that correspond with the distinction we find in the Greek text of Matthew 16:18? Indeed there are: • For πέτρος (petros), we have כֵּיפָא (kepha), meaning a small rock. • For πέτρα (petra), we have טוּר (tur), meaning a large rock, a cliff or a mountain, as in Daniel 2:35. There is also the Aramaic and Hebrew noun אֶבֶן (eben), translated 'rock' in Genesis 49:24 (Hebrew) and 'stone' in Daniel 2:34 (Aramaic), for which we have אֶ֣בֶן גְּלָ֔ל (eben gelal) for large (heavy) stones in Ezra 5:8; 6:4. So, the availability of suitable Aramaic nouns and adjectives that Jesus could have used to create the distinctions reflected by πέτρος (petros) and πέτρα (petra) in Matthew 16:18-19 debunks the Petrine Apostolic Succession claim, which leaves its apologists unable to account for Matthew different Greek nouns if he thought Jesus was referring to Simon Bar-Jona in both cases. Note, too, that Jesus didn't give Peter the binding and loosing authority at that time. That didn't happen until Matthew 18:18, when Jesus gave it to _all_ the apostles.
Very helpful video. I don't believe we will be held accountable for not believing or submitting to an office that the Lord never mentioned once in His word. We are to submit to elders and deacons in the local assembly but never a mention of a head office over the whole Church. It is false doctrine. I must reject it.
I appreciate your loving approach to being truthful, loving and respectful at the same time. I too love Catholic people and aim to love them and encourage them in truth also.
Thanks for putting out a calm video on this subject. Really interesting stuff. As a Messianic regarding the papacy I tend to go back to the idea that there is only one city G-d placed his name, Jerusalem, so the veneration of any other holy city is problematic. Also, at least for the Jewish believers, it is incredibly important that the leadership be of the the nation of Israel, which rules out the Papacy. Granted, you also kind of go back to the division between the priesthood (temple) and the rabbis (local synagogue) in ancient Judaism after the Babylonian exile. If you're building off the Rabbinic/Synagogue model of church as learning center and clergy as teacher (which protestants generally do), the leadership can be anyone (rabbis do not need to be Levites). However, if you are using the temple model of church as place of intermediation between heaven and earth and clergy as priesthood (Catholic and Orthodox model), then it becomes very problematic to do that anywhere other than the place where G-d put his name in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah.
I am a Catholic and it's becoming more difficult to accept the current papacy teaching of the Catholic Church. If you consider the current divide between traditional minded Catholics, modern Catholics, SSPX, and sedevacantists it becomes obvious that most Catholics have the same concern whether they will admit it or not. Each of these divides are just an attempt to explain away the changes in the modern Catholic Church and still hold onto the ideal of the Pope. I'm a Catholic convert from Protestantism and see the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches as the true Church--they were one Church for more than a 1000 years. I am finding myself drawn to the Eastern Orthodox Church simply because of the reverence of their Liturgy. Much is said about theology and history, but truth should be found in how a church worships. Unfortunately most Catholic Masses today are very irreverent.
@Zachary Trent The papacy changed significantly during the Gregorian reforms starting in the 11th century. These changes along with the unilateral addition of the Filioque led to the schism that’s lasted more than 8 centuries. As to the reverence of Mass, any Mass that offers the Eucharist in the hand is irreverent and particularly so when it’s offered by an Extraordinary Eucharist Minister. Comparing the failures of Orthodox patriarchs with that of popes is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Patriarchs can’t make changes to dogma but the pope can. Most recently Pope Francis has changed the catechism to state the death penalty is no longer permitted. Orthodox Christians don’t have to accept the ramblings of heretical patriarchs, but Catholics do have to accept the Pope’s teachings.
I suggest looking into other rites of the Catholic Church. I heard Melkite Divine Liturgy is amazing. These are essentially eastern liturgies but they’re in communion with the Catholic Church. definitely check those out.
Great work. I agree that Protestants are generally suspicious of philosophy, which is probably because of the scholastics and their influence on the RCC before the reformation as well as enlightenment philosophers and their effect on culture. I do think for pastoral and theological works the Protestants have quite a trove of excellent writing, particularly from the Puritans.
I'm done with the bar exam, so I'm now able to catch up on alot of these videos. While biased, I agree with your arguments and hold to these same arguments. I find them much more persuasive on this topic, as well as some others you didn't mention.
You do such a good job of being respectful while bringing up really good points. It's what youtube needs. No more of " stupid protestant argument gets destroyed by based Catholics' and vice versa. If western society is going to exist in the future it will be thanks to content like this. Thank you
Thanks Ben, appreciate the kind words.
As a Roman Catholic I can honestly say you've done a great job on this topic. However, I'm wondering if you've ever considered The Eastern Orthodox Churches claims of being the original church?
@@TruthUnites Where can I read the original version of the Ambrose of Milan quote, “Ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia”?
Gavin is a congregationalist, isn't he? But he admits Peter had a leadership role in this video. By cherry-picking church-father quotes (I could easily find other quotes of Ambrose in support of at least a high view of the pope - not necessarily infallibility) he makes his case, and also by zooming in on certain texts, picking them apart (they could easily be read in other ways of course). Coming back to my first point - Gavin acts like each congregation can be autonomous - but does he believe that it was how Jesus set it up? What's the point of Peter's "leadership role", a role Gavin readily accepts. The point I am making is that when zooming out of the text, one can see the broader picture. Jesus did have 70 disciples, of which 12 held closer, of which 3 he held even closer, of which 1 he chose as a leader.
Modern, democratic sensibilities may dislike the hierarchical nature, but the leap from such a divinely elected organization (which mirrors even the Trinity) to a modern congregationalist view is an anachronism. Therefore the critique is hollow. At best, he can perhaps critique the infallibility of the papacy.
I had this same thought. He doesn’t understand what was taking place in Matthew 16. Iirc he says the pope is the one to interpret and pass down new teachings. Okay, and the magisterium just decorated the church🤦♂️
This is probably my favorite video you have made. I don’t see a lot of good content critiquing the RCC while still treating them as brothers in Christ. This was much needed!
What if RCC preaches heresy? How can people who believe a false gospel be brothers in Christ? Are Mormons? JW?
@@IvanAlvarezCPACMA I think even though RC teaching is not as clear on the gospel and gets some very important things wrong, but they believe that Jesus, fully man and fully God, died and rose again for our sins, and whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. They follow and trust in the same trinitarian God, which Mormons and JWs do not.
@@Qhaon Mormons make similar claims with significant nuances, just like RCC. How do we distinguish?
@@IvanAlvarezCPACMA well, obviously, we do not just take the claims for granted. We have to use our own mental faculties to determine which claims are true. Based on what we know the gospel to be from Scripture and using our reason to determine who lines up with that, we can have a rough idea of who real Christians are. I think there is an obvious, wide gap between the orthodoxy of Mormons and Roman Catholics.
But what if whatever Protestant church or denomination you go to does?
Hoping this helps:
0:43 Goal of this video
2:45 Five admirable things about the RCC.
5:12 Biblical Argument: Is the Rock in Matthew 16:18, Peter, Christ, Peter's proclamation, or a hybrid of these? (Slides at 7:25)
16:13 Historical Argument: Where is a preeminent bishop/pope's presence before the 5th century?
27:38 Final Statements
As usual, well done.
A thoughtful and compassionate critique for each of us is both helpful and necessary.
-An Orthodox brother in Christ.
You are a brave man....This and related issues almost split apart my entire family. Thanks for wading in, and I hope folks are nice in their replies.
I pray for unity in your family despite doctrinal differences. I'm having this same problem brother
I am gradually coming to a realization that you have filled, and are filling, a huge vacuum in this space and in the general defense of the Protestant faith. I admire your humility, your knowledge of Scripture and church history, and your ability to lay out your arguments in a logical and engaging way. I need to respond by remembering to like your uploads and by looking into your Patreon. I don't do the former very much here and I haven't done the latter at all.
May I provide encouragement in word, in the meantime. Your videos are preparing me for joining a congregation again on Sundays. I am certain they are speaking to a great many Christians who have lost their love and respect for the institution of the church. I believe, while it may be a gradual start, your voice will be prominent in the future. That said, I fear the traps the enemy will use to ensnare you. I don't mean Roman Catholic apologists. I mean the source of temptation. So many of our shepherds have gone astray. You must know the story of a well-known apologist, his massage businesses, his conduct that would be considered lewd by any standard, and his deception regarding his credentials. He had a significant following, although I never thought he explained anything well. We are all sinners, but the nature of his sins and indiscretions probably led many to disillusionment. We can all be tempted, by fame, by the desire for intimacy, by comfort in an uncertain world, by the enjoyment of things the world enjoys. I pray you will be guarded and that you will be strong in guarding yourself. Thank you for your work.
Birds lay eggs; some birds cannot fly (eg. Ostrich); a platypus lays eggs; a platypus cannot fly: therefore, the platypus is a type of bird.
Except it's not.
Logic and soundness are not necessarily equivocal.
There is no sound Christian theological or historical conclusion arriving at a refutation of the Papacy.
At least, if one is utilizing sound premises, then he arrives at the Orthodox pov, ie. "the pride of place" idea. Baptist theology? Well, there's a reason it doesn't formalize until just recent time. If there is no Apostolic heirarchy, then, duh, one isn't going to 'accept the Papacy.'
But that's the rub, not that the thinking proves too little but too much: good luck going back to the first century, second century, etc. and running around as a "Christian pastor" whilst asserting that there are no bishops, no ordained presbyters, no canonical mission, no legation.
A "Church" without bishops, without ordination, and where platypus are birds.
The church comprises those who believe in and follow Jesus Christ wherever that following may take them and no matter what obeying His teachings cost them.
@@LibertysetsquareJack Anglicanism for the win!
@@yeetoburrito9972-yep, as long as it’s traditional classical Anglicanism (not the “progressive” episco-pagan kind). 👍🏻
@@yeetoburrito9972I'm with you, but it feels more and more democratic rather than apostolic. All the Anglican stuff I love is actually Catholic and I'm having a harder time not being Catholic. Of course, a Catholic who struggles with the papacy but who sees apostolic succession as valid. Idk haha😊
Wow, this was handled with such wisdom and grace! As someone with a Protestant background who has been “sent out two by two” with a catholic brother to reach our mutual friends, it’s so nice to see others engage theological topics without hubris or division! Truly an embodiment of “in essentials unity, in nonessentials freedom, and in all things love”
I'm catholic. Thank you for being kind. ❤🙏
Amen. We see arrogance everywhere last days.
God bless those who really want to find the truth.
As a protestant, I do deny the papacy from a linguistic aspect of the language in scripture, but I do not deny Roman catholicism because of the papacy. Like perpetual virginity, or her assumption, the papacy to me is very benign. I do believe an apostolic succession as it pertains to the continued passed on teachings of the church. But For instance, if Rome didn’t have mandated curses upon accretion practices then the church would be far more appealing to me because if it would be pure Gospel, without anything extra. It would then be the original patristic tradition.
@@HillbillyBlack I think the questions are: what is the Gospel? Is it just the Bible? Can we count apostolic tradition as well? If we can't count on apostolic tradition, how can we trust the Bible in the first place, if it was written by the apostles AND others, based on oral tradition years after Jesus? If the rule of faith is the Bible alone, wouldn't Jesus have written something himself to safeguard his teaching? How did early Christians find sound doctrine with the books dispersed and mixed opinions on the list of the inspired books for centuries? In the end, if the Church couldn't safeguard sound doctrine, we can't trust the Bible and Protestantism as we know today wouldn't be feasible until the invention of the press. What we think is accretion we can't know for sure, unless there's clear opposition from the early Church fathers.
@@marcosdisiervi6481 we trust the New Testament only because it is a commentary fulfillment of the old. Jesus quotes the old testament 90 times. The apostles over 150 times. The New Testament doesn’t give you anything new. The entirety of the gospel is contained in the prophets and the law. It’s impossible to know the point of Christ if you don’t understand what he’s fulfilling. That text pre-dates the Catholic Church by 1000 years and in that tradition, the discerning reading and common practice of fellowship over the Scriptures was encouraged by the levitical counsel, unlike the Catholic Church which hindered the word of God’s access for almost 1200 years
@@marcosdisiervi6481 we can trust Protestantism because the point of the reformation was not to create a new religion but to return to the patristic deposit of the church itself.
And all we did was remove the medieval accretions added by the Roman empire. No one venerated saints in the early 2 to 300 years of church history. No one considered Peter the pope, no one spoke against faith alone as the single mechanism of salvation and no one elevated tradition above the sufficiency of scripture for salvation.
Traditions added by the Roman empire are cursed according to the teachings of Paul in second Thessalonians and Galatians because the tradition mentioned in scripture is the tradition of the gospel, not an open ended ability to add to what has already been solidified. If you pay attention to those verses, they are past tense text not open ended text allowing for further tradition.
We must always measure anything the church conjures up or teaches against scripture. We do not measure the teachings of the church against tradition. Everything is measured against scripture because it is the only source of infallible writing we have. Not even tradition is infallible and there is not any extra documents in existence outside of scripture of the words of the apostles or Jesus. Oral tradition doesn’t come close to infallibility. In fact, oral tradition never existed in the original deposit of the church. Traditions certainly did but they were gospel traditions like the Eucharist, baptism, spiritual renewal of the mind through spiritual transformation in salvation. These are the traditions spoken of in scripture. Not something hidden or inferred or secretly revealed.
In the end, the church did SafeGaurd the word of God. It just wasn’t the Roman catholic empire. Praise God there were three separate legitimate reformation throughout the Roman catholic system splitting from a corrupt grossly inaccurate system built by men of an unregenerate nature controlled by Satan.
In fact if you look at church history, all of the legitimate church fathers living according to scripture stop after 500 ad. After that it’s pure medieval Roman empire. A state religion guilty of killing those that would dare speak against doctrine declaration of the state. Hardly a Christlike attitude.
The gospel is the good news. That’s what the word means. And the good news is Jesus. And the only source of writings about Jesus is in the Tanakh and the fulfilling text of the New Testament.
Now if you really want to rely on oral tradition where there’s a passing of apostolic succession through the memorization of oral teaching, I highly suggest you join Islam. The Quran has been in memorization circulation for most of its existence and is more trusted in oral form than it’s written accounts.
Great protestant apologist. Ive seen so many catholics/orthodox being negative with you on the comments. I think not all of them are like that in general. But i can see you know you are getting yourself in hot water with these great arguments. You defend our faith peacefully and intelligently. Thanks!
I have recently discovered your channel and want to thank you for the way you approach difficult subject matter. As a Protestant, my focus has been on knowing what the Bible says and have long had an interest in apologetics. I have now developed an interest in polemics and philosophical arguments, and realised that I have utterly neglected church history. Your channel is now my first stop as I set about correcting this oversight. You have a new subscriber. Thank you again.
It’s pretty cool watching this in December 2021 with my Christmas tree lights on while yours is in the background of your video. At any rate, good stuff! A lot more can be said that can possibly be put into a 28 minute video, but the points you brought up were the same I discovered when exploring the early church while considering the claims of Rome. I found, with apologies to Cardinal Newman, that if “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”, to be deeper in history is to cease to be papalist. God bless, and Merry Christmas!
Commenting to support the channel. Deserves to been seen/heard.
Hey Gavin, you do a great job addressing the problems with Catholicism in a very polite and respectful way. Appreciate your work sir
I think you gave the main reasons I have for why I can't accept the papacy. I've even begun debating things with Catholics and I feel like they always end up relying on an interpretation of verses that's dependent on a Catholic context. I've drastically changed my thoughts on Catholicism and appreciate it immensely especially individuals like Pascal, Aquinas, Augustine, and the Scholastics and some of my favorite thinkers today like Peter Kreeft, Tom Woods, Gerard Casey, and Brad Birzer happen to be devout Catholics but at the end of the day I'm fairly comfortable with my solo scriptura non-denominational affiliation and seem to not see enough reason to make me leave that
Fan of Tom Woods, huh? Are you an ancap?
@@justingorman1068 eh depends on the day. More just a proponent of decentralization and "spontaneous order" more then anything else
@@bradleymarshall5489
Lol, I hear ya. I was an ancap before I became a Christian. There is so much overlap between the two, yet such a gulf at the time.
Without sounding too pretentious, Christian theologians might benefit from a better understanding regarding the anatomy of the current state; and Christian ancaps might benefit from a better understanding regarding God's word.
A discussion between Doug Wilson and Bob Murphy would be awesome.
@@justingorman1068oh ya no I agree which is why I'm writing a book trying to show the connection. One thinker in particular who I think has shown better than anyone that decentralization is Christian is Don Livingston (a man Tom Woods said was one of his top 10 influences) His lectures and writings on ideology and politics are mindblowing
@@bradleymarshall5489
RE Livingston and Christianity: Could you recommend resources? A quick internet search did not yield much.
Writing a book? Nice. If you want feedback from a random guy on UA-cam, I'd totally be that guy.
Im Anglican and this is the only Baptist i listen to. Love this guy. Firm but fair
Listening to you, I feel like I'm taking a theology course. As a Protestant who came out of Orthodoxy, I think you hit it right on the head .I believe the rock Jesus was referring to was the rock of faith Peter demonstrated. Never heard it explained that way.
I’m a Missouri Synod Lutheran. I’m interested in people’s views who became Protestant who were Orthodox. What church were you apart of and what made you leave?
I’m working my way slowly back to my Protestant roots from 25 years in Eastern Orthodoxy. This channel has the right series of messages at the right time. Literally a godsend! Thanks Pastor!
Hey costa, why did you come out of Orthodoxy?
@David Good Because I got saved 🤣. Prayed about it, went to the Orthodox Church with my mom, and what we heard confirmed that nope, this is definitely not where God wants me to be.
@@costa328 what did you hear? I've also seen people pray about things and they believe they were confident in what God said for it only to be confident in what they said to themsleves. This is after they had proved themsleves wrong after some time.
I'm protestant myself, but just curious
Gavin my brother in Christ your videos have helped me so much , as a new Christian who took my salvation VERY seriously i was extremely burdened and worried about being in the "true" church ect. Ive learned so much from you , you have been a blessing in my life! and i feel secure in my faith , secure in Christ i now rest , THANKYOU!!
Have you decided on what denomination you'd join?
The way I view this whole protestant-catholic-orthodox debate is that you're not looking at salvation. As long as you believe in Jesus Christ, you are saved. But the issue is looking at the "fullness of the truth". So I am a Protestant now, but I'll probably be a Lutheran or something, and I'm looking at Catholicism. The only issue for me is icon veneration, the papacy, the repeated prayers, etc.
@@kazumakiryu157Your soteriology doesn’t necessarily match up to the Catholic or Orthodox view though. So it’s not just a matter of “picking your favorite” team so to speak.
@@countryboyred yeah, of course not. That's why I'm considering not being protestant, for those concerns. But I would say to just assert that all protestants are unsaved is also a bit weird. Even the Catholic church and the CCC affirms that protestants are saved, though not "officially".
@@kazumakiryu157 The Orthodox definitely do not believe that all Protestants are unsaved. It’s not our place to speculate on someone’s salvation. Of course being inside the Church would make it much easier to be saved. The RCC has Unum Sanctum which was pretty clear that only those in communion with Rome could be saved but then they changed their mind with Vatican 2 which had a much more loving view of Protestants calling them “separated brothers”. Wherever you end up, I wish you the best on your journey and may God guide your path.
Just ordered my copy of “Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals.” Hopefully I can knock it out on my flights to and from Nairobi this month. You’re content has helped me so much, keep up the great work!
Thank you for being a peacemaker.
Great and charitable presentation. As a convert to Orthodoxy I have no qualms with any of this :)
Catholic here, your content is very well thought out and charitable. I don't agree with everything but I appreciate your content and it gives me something to think about.
Subbed.
Dot fall for this false teacher. There’s only one truth not 35K+ versions of it like Protestants like to believe.
10000% not catholic myself. But I respect catholics. ANd I'm Glad that Dr. Gavins videos have blessed u
Solid work as always sir. You'll never know how many ppl you are helping along their journey, but I am one.
Your sharing was clear and convincing, and spoken in love. Thanks!!!
Well-researched, thoughtful, and peaceable. Excellent video!
:)
This is all in line with orthodox objections to the primacy of Rome as well. Would you make a video summarizing your objections to the theological or ecclesiological claims of the East?
I’ll work on it! Could be a while.
Yes please! :)
Yep and by those objections you prove that you are in fact apostates.
cyprian of carthage wrote this in 251 a.d.
"[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, 👉🏻yet he founded a single Chair,👈🏻 and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; 👉🏻 *but a primacy is given to Peter👈🏻, whereby it is made clear that there is but ONE CHURCH AND ONE CHAIR* So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. 👉🏻 *If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church* 👈🏻(Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)
@@timothy9360😂 and because Peter could decide everything alone, he never did decide a single thing alone in the whole new testament. Yeah, makes sense. Surely those verses mean that the catholic church is the one true church in all eternity. Despite the fact that Jesus said the end of the world would come within the lifetime of the apostles.
Jesus preached the kingdom of God and what we got instead was the catholic church.
@@timothy9360 Cyprian of Carthage in dispute with Pope Stephen :"None of us should make ourselves the bishop of bishops or by tyrannical threats force our colleagues to the necessity of submission, because each bishop, by virtue of freedom and power, has the right of his own choice, and as he cannot be judged by another, so he cannot judge another; but let us all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone has the power to put us in charge of His Church and judge our actions" (Sententiae episcoporum // PL. 3. Col. 1054).
"Even Peter, whom the Lord chose first and on whom he founded His Church, when Paul discussed the issue of circumcision with him, did not arrogantly arrogate anything to himself, and did not arrogantly claim anything, and did not say that he had primacy..." (Ep. 71. 3)
According to the modern Catholic researcher P. Mattei, Cyprian has: "The Roman Church (and its head)… as the owner of Petrov's heritage, she is a guarantor of communication, although this does not imply any kind of her jurisdictional or doctrinal primacy" (Mattei. 2012. p. 52).
Fwiw I’m with you on your interpretation. I see our Catholic brothers and sisters as such in Christ, but the Papacy is based on false premises. And further, I see it as damaging. There is no ‘head’ of the Christian church, and it sure ain’t the Pope, whomever that may be throughout history. Thanks for your thoughtful insights.
Jesus Christ is the head of the Christian church and always will be 😊
@@merrym72veetee12 No Christian denies that Christ is the head of the church (including Catholics). The pope is the earthly head and without that you have endless splintering over opinions.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787you assert that the pope is the early head as though you didn't even listen to the video. Jorje Borgolio is the best example of why I reject the papacy. Add to that all the immoral and vicious behavior over the past 2 millenia and you have ample reason to see the scoundrels are not worthy of receiving such uncritical adulation.
@@johngeverett Why would you assume I didn’t watch the video, do you imagine Dr. Ortlund makes points that cannot be rebutted? Dr. Ortlund holds the papacy to an unreasonable standard. He says there is no strong evidence early enough but he is completely content believing Baptist doctrines that have no evidence from before the 1500s. The role of the pope has nothing to do with adulation of a man; if you want to claim that the Catholic Church makes too big a deal out of the pope, fine. That’s understandable. What is important to devout Catholics is that Christ’s teaching is preserved and carried through the centuries and without the papacy (as an office) there is no way to know where the true faith is. This is why Catholics today can look into every century in the past and see our faith there; we are not trusting a man, we are trusting Jesus to build his church and guide it. The pope is merely a man, a steward, a pawn on God’s chess board. Have there been bad popes? Absolutely. Has the Catholic Church ever left the earth or stopped teaching the same faith throughout the good, bad, and ugly? No, it has not.
@@johngeverett and yet Schism begets schism.
One of your best videos. The Roman Catholic historic narrative is indeed something that one has to buy into. Like putting on a small shoe.
Indeed, taking on the whole “innovative “ package before you can “technically” approach salvation - is like swallowing an alligator ~ ~ ~
True
I wish every Christian could be as irenic as you! Thanks for being a role model for me! (Also thanks for the new vocab of the day 😁.)
So, I appreciate the irenic approach. I'll try to do the same in return.
The thought I kept having as I listened to this was: "Please define what you mean by 'the papacy'." That is, when you refer to it as a "massive doctrine", the first thing I want to know is what you think is entailed in the doctrine and what you regard as massive. When some people say, "The Papacy", what they imagine is a man dressed in fine robes in Rome, approving every bishop in the world, making infallible pronouncements every other Tuesday, and exclusively being called "the Pope". When all that isn't found, the doctrine is found to be lacking historical or exegetical merit. And for lack of knowing what you regard as the details of "the Papacy", I'm was never certain what you were expecting to find. For me, what I regard "the Papacy" is that Jesus established Peter as the leader of the Apostles (and thus the head pastor of the Church), and he intended for this role to continue in some kind of succession. So what I expect to find is somewhat modest.
For the Scriptural case, the first thought which came to mind was the subjectivity of saying something is slim, or unclear. Last year I was invited to a Calvinist Bible study which was studying Hebrews 10. When we got to the second half, they admitted that a cursory glance may lead one to think it was teaching a Christian could lose his/her salvation. But a more advanced look made it "unclear". I remarked that it didn't seem unclear to me, and I asked if they regard it as unclear out of necessity. (Then I politely was asked to never return).
I digress. What exactly constitutes something being unclear and scant? For many, myself included, the conjunction of Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 is pretty solid. Jesus's blessing in Luke 22 followed by the commissioning in John 21 is really persuasive. The fact that Peter is mentioned more than the other Apostles by wide margin seems significant. And in regard to Acts 15, it seems to me that there's a tendency in Protestant circles to over-emphasize James' role and to relegate Peter in this passage to the role of a secretary - rather than the guy who stood up and settled the core theological issue on behalf of the group, ending the debate.
For me (and others) the thing which grants it the best plausibility is the functional argument. Without some place where the buck stops, it seems that theological questions can have no universal resolution. There needs to be a man at the top who can stand up like Peter in Acts 15 and say what the case is. For lack of that, it seems to me that the project of theology either divides into multiple irreconcilable camps or stops entirely. For many, the prospect of getting the Protestant world together and asking a simple practical question like, "Can a Christian lose his salvation?" or going to the Orthodox world and asking, "Can a divorced Christian get remarried?" is enough to convince people about the necessity of the Papacy. Granted, this its an easier argument to make when its John Paul II standing athwart the Soviet Empire surrounded by a crowd screaming, "We want God" - compared to Pope Francis, who is truly like "The Last Jedi" of Popes. Terrible, but sadly canonical.
😂 I love the story of the Hebrews Bible study. That book is a major reason I'm not a Calvinist, even though I don't believe in loosing salvation. I think there is a middle ground there between the Calvinist and the Armenian approach to scripture.
@@BibelFAQ : It's always seemed to me that the possibility of disinheriting oneself from salvation is the most clearly taught doctrine in the New Testament. The most explicit among the two dozen or so passages would be Hebrews 10:19-39.
The passages which people use to assert the opposite, I think, can be plausibly taken in other ways. But the massive quantity of work one has to do find ways around those which say it can be lost should be an indicator that the Bible does indeed teach the possibility of disinheritance.
Among the others would be:
2Timothy 2:12 - Christians being told Christ might deny them. Luke 8:11-14 - the seeds which sprout life, but die. 1Cor 15:1-2 - the possibility of believing in vain. Galatians 5:4 - Christians being told they've fallen from grace. Hebrews 6:4-6 - Apostates being spoken of. James 5:19-20 - the mention of Christians falling away and in danger of spiritual death. John 15:1-6 and Romans 11:20-22 - The possibility of a grafted in vine being cut off. Romans 14:15, 1Corinthians 6:8, Ephesians 5:3-6, 1Timothy 5:7-8 - Christians being warned that immorality will result in disinheritance. 2Peter 2:20 - Apostate Christians being spoken of. 1Corinthians 9:27 - Paul saying he could possibly be damned.
I'm not saying that inventive ways cannot be found around all those passages. But the work necessary to do it should be an indicator that this is not the correct way.
Fancis my not be a stJPII but the last Jedi is way to harsh he is at worst mediocre imo.
@@JBlackjackp That's fair.
This is a reasonable take.
Gavin, I added your channel in my list of recommended channels. Keep up the hard work.
Thank you Dr. Ortlund.
I just subscribe to your channel. I love your videos in viewing our faith through the lens of history.
I'm an Indonesian Protestant.
There is a well known pastor here in Indonesia, Dr. Bambang Noorsena from Orthodox background, who use the same approach by tracing the history of the early church fathers. His teachings help me a lot to build up my faith.
I'm glad to know you are a Protestant, I hope I can learn to see the perspectives balanced from either side especially regarding the differences between the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant doctrines.
May Jesus bless you and your ministry.
This is so good. Keep up the good fight, Gavin! Much love to my Catholic friends.
This has been so helpful. Ive been listening to a lot of Catholic commentary lately and, biblically, the whole Peter thing was clear to me but I just don't have enough knowledge of the early church to come close to a judgement. Catholic apologists seem to zero in on people like Ignatius while i can see you have studied widely and mention many names and the variety of views at that time.
The answer to Catholicism is just "Sorry, not enough evidence" and that theme comes out over and over in what I have come across.
This is wonderful. I’m Protestant and I have been blessed by your videos and by your kindness for those who disagree.
It's true that when a Protestant is regenerated, born again; we tend to focus on our walk with the Lord and His word and the truth of the matter is that, we are content. We don't view Church history as that important, and therefore when Catholic Apologists come around loaded with Church history, referencing to this Church father or that Church father, this Council or that Council ~ normally according to what they want to convince a person with, but not necessary what these historical writings were meant to communicate, we end up being overwhelmed; and many have departed from the simple gospel truth and entered endless genealogies and accepted false teachings that crept into the Church over centuries without question simply because of our ignorance of Church history. As a Protestant, who knew that the day I gave my life to the Lord, that my life changed for good, my conscious tells me I am secure in the Lord's hands and so I am truly disturbed when someone comes along to persuade me to follow extra biblical teachings that are clearly not taught in the Bible. I always wonder how does a born again Christian is really convinced to believe in purgatory, Marian doctrines (recently I was listening to testimonies of wearing a brown scapula) and other burdens of religious practices that one is bound to, to be a good Catholic without his/her conscious being disturbed. There is a great relief that young dedicated but loving Protestants are rising up to explain these things fully and in truth. The goal should remain evangelising the lost not merely converting them to our Church for numbers. Protestant Church members go out in highways and byways to preach the gospel and it's sad to see that the fish they catch is sweet-talked into abandoning the Lord to follow religion.
Wow. Well said.
To follow religion , what a mess phrase you are it seems sounds that those Catholics are ignorant of their faith that we don't read our Bible not yours.
Much appreciated especially your even handed non hostile approach. Acts 20:28 ...Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
Even handed? He made no mention of Matthew 16:19 where we see only Peter was given the keys to Heaven. No other apostle was given the keys to Heaven. He also only gave Church fathers that were vague in their explanation of the primacy of Peter. He certainly didn't post cyprian of carthage on the primacy of Peter. Let's have a look why he might of left cyprian out of this video shall we.
cyprian of carthage wrote this in 251 a.d.
"[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, 👉🏻yet he founded a single Chair,👈🏻 and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; 👉🏻 *but a primacy is given to Peter👈🏻, whereby it is made clear that there is but ONE CHURCH AND ONE CHAIR* So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. 👉🏻 *If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church* 👈🏻(Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)
Thank you for a very helpful scriptural and historical analysis. I agree with your observations.
One thing I would add to the good points you made on the Biblical argument; Matthew 7:24-27 ... "House built on the Rock, not sand"... One could draw some connections there to that rock-faith-confession argument there. Be like the wise man in Jesus's parable, have faith like a rock, like Peter, on The Rock; Lord Jesus.
(EDIT: If that would match the original language used)
It's so heart warming to hear such a charitable view of an opposing side! Thank you for your respectful treatment of this
Awesome video! I love when you include quotes from church fathers, especially when the whole quote is written out on the screen! Would it be possible to share the books you found the quotes in? I'm a protestant trying to get more involved with the writings of the church fathers.
The Fathers Know Best is great!
St. Basil of Seleucia had the best explanation of "Thou art Peter" that I've ever heard. (9:35 ff)
Indeed, this is the crux and source of all contention between Catholics and their "separated brethren" of all stripes. They broke from the Orthodox because of this pride, and the Protestants broke from them because of abuse. It all comes from the Papacy's claim to authority and infallibility. Peter was never given the office to be the "Vicar of Christ" and Lord over all believers in Christ's absence. From the beginning of the Church, all questions were debated by all of the Apostles available at the time, and decided in consensus.
It is the confession of faith which is the foundation because it's the recognition of Jesus' divine identity. Jesus is the Rock, and Peter was commended for getting it right. But Jesus never said he should take His place when He left.
It would be nice to see more Orthodox Christians responding to this
Good stuff and respectfully said. Thank you for your charitable tone and content.
As as catholic, I find it refreshing to understand why protestant have a hard time with the papacy as long as it is done in a respectable manner. still kinda curious to me why a person with your knowledge is a baptist instead of a protestant church that is more liturgical like lutherans or anglican. not sure if you have a video explaining it.
Baptists have their own liturgy, and they are also part of the reformed protestantism, though I'm not quite sure as per how do you vinculate fairly a certain liturgy tradition with being (or not) knowledgeable.
May be you have a wrong view of Baptist as not educated.
@@angelbonilla4243 maybe I have but it is not my fault there are different types of baptist churches. i have seen lot of southern baptist churches where I live.
I would think that the fact the Baptists weren't around until the 17th century would be an indicator that the Baptist Church isn't apostolic in origin but established by a man. In fact, all of the non-Catholic churches lack a pedigree that goes back to the apostles.
Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Excellent video, great research, you came to many of the same conclusions I have. Nice to hear an expert echo my concerns 😄
Liked the video a lot and I appreciate your irenic approach. Would love to see the references when you quote the fathers so that we could look them up.
As someone who has had many seminary friends go Catholic it’s nice to see more thoughtful treatments of Catholic theology from a Protestant perspective.
Thanks!
Thanks Matthew!
419
My Remnant Church, inspired by the Prophet Enoch, will create hatred
Tuesday, May 8th, 2012 @ 19:00
My dearly beloved daughter, I come this evening to tell you that a great token of My Love and Mercy will now manifest within the hearts of believers everywhere.
They will feel My Presence within their hearts in a way they will not be able to explain and they will unite their hearts with Mine.
This Gift will make them strong in My Faith and they will hunger for My Presence daily.
I urge all of God’s children, who feel the Flames of My Love engulf their souls, to receive My Body and My Blood, in the Holy Eucharist, as often as they can.
You, My beloved disciples, will need the Gift of My Body, through the Holy Eucharist to give you strength, for you will need every ounce of strength, as you witness the falling apart of My Holy and Apostolic, Catholic Church.
My Holy Eucharist will be desecrated as I foretold some time ago.
Excuses will be made to render this Most Holy Gift as simply a gesture in remembrance of My Crucifixion.
Very soon My Real Presence will be denounced as part of a new modern catholic church, which will include other religious churches.
Once this happens, the love and devotion to the Holy Trinity will dwindle and fall away.
Instead false gods will take its place. While this will be difficult, you must remember, I will never forfeit My Church on Earth.
My allegiance is to the Church founded by Me before I ascended into Heaven.
The Church upon the Rock founded by My beloved Peter, cannot and will never die.
For I will lead My Church now in the end times, and will renew the prophecies, foretold long ago.
My Gospels will be preached by My Remnant Church, in every corner of the Earth.
My Remnant Church, will be inspired by the Prophet Enoch, and this will create hatred everywhere My Holy Word is heard.
The Holy Spirit will ignite the faith of My Remnant Church who will never give up proclaiming the Truth of the Gospels, till its dying breath.
Go now and prepare My Remnant Church, by following My Instructions.
Trust in Me always, for all will be well.
Your beloved Jesus
The Book of Truth
Nicely done. This is why Luther contended in his day from the Fathers. One faith and one mediator is where true catholicity resides.
I have read all the Pelikan series on Church history, and I found your summary very helpful and well done. You are a light! I have been a Protestant most of my life, and a theolog. I taught adult Sunday School for decades. But I am increasingly drawn to the Catholic Church. This is one of several issues I’ve been studying. I think most of the non-typological arguments in favor of a Pope rest largely upon its efficacy as a “referee.” Bishop Robert Barron, the famous Catholic evangelist, also argues that the Rock” is Christ, not Peter. Thank you for this. I am so glad you are in the conversation!
I hope you keep yourself far away from the Roman Catholic Church! I was raised RC and confirmed in that church. But God strove with me for 8 years (from age 18 to 26) to leave the RCC, and now I attend a wonderful ACNA Anglican parish. The RCC is a cult that enslaves its laity via fear. "Outside of the RCC there is no salvation," they taught for centuries. Still today, most members believe that the RC Sacraments are what will save them!
The primary reason for any church's existence is to propagate Jesus' Gospel and to guide people toward salvation through faith in Christ. Anglicans teach what Jesus and Paul taught. Look at what Jesus said:
John 3:14-18 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that *whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.* For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. *He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed* in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
Look also at John 6:28-29,35,39-40. "Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, *This is the work of God, that ye believe* on him whom he hath sent...And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst....And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that *every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.*"
Likewise, Paul wrote to the Ephesians (2:8-9), "For by grace are ye *saved through faith;* and that not of yourselves: *it is the gift of God: Not of works,* lest any man should boast."
In contrast, I was taught by the Catholic Church (in catechism and in Mass) that man *might be* saved by being baptized into the Catholic Church, by believing in Jesus, by receiving the Eucharist regularly, by being absolved and performing penances, by keeping the Commandments, etc, but that even if I did all of those things well enough I still might go to hell if I slipped up badly enough and died with a mortal sin on my conscience. Instead of viewing God's grace as a *gift freely given* to anyone when they trust that Christ's atonement paid their personal sin debt in full, the Catholic Church taught me to trust in their Sacraments (which they portray as being unavailable anywhere else, thus binding me to the church of Rome) more than I trusted in Jesus' death and resurrection. This is reflected in their historical teaching that "there is no salvation outside the (Roman) Catholic Church." But neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever taught such a doctrine. Thus, the Roman Catholic faith is not truly Apostolic; it is literally *faith in the Catholic Church* instead of *faith in Jesus my only Savior."* After all, Jesus (not the RCC) died for me on the cross!
I also see the idolatry of their Eucharist because of their doctrine of Transubstantiation; they actually worship the wafer as God, much like the Israelites created and worshiped a gold calf as God. As for the papacy, Gavin missed the best argument against it. Consider what Jesus said (in Matt. 16:18, in the original Greek version):
"Thou art petros" (a rock) is a masculine noun. "Upon this petra I will build my church" -- petra is a feminine noun.
Jesus did not call Simon Peter a woman, obviously. Nor would Jesus refer to Himself in the feminine. Therefore, the petra upon which Jesus builds His church is the foundational, revelatory truth Simon was the first person to speak: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Simon Peter was the first person to give voice to the critical belief that Jesus is the Messiah, the Savior, and that He is divine. This is the revelatory truth upon which Christ builds His true church.
@lukewilliams448 Yes. And guess what... they aren't infallible. They said a great many correct things, and they said some things that weren't. Fortunately, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, or else we'd swallow everything they said (and we'd be very confused by all the contradictions they present against one another; for example, some of them believed that Matt. 16:18-19 applied only to Peter and not to any successors, and others believed the _petra_ rock was not Peter but was his confession of faith and/or Jesus Himself).
So did you convert?
@@rexlion4510thanks for sharing
@lukewilliams448what keys? Your conclusion makes Peter the Rock not Christ.
Thank you for this great video, Gavin
Great video, Gavin. Love all the research on the church fathers. One thing I would add is, even if you accept the RCC interpretation of Matt 16 that Peter is the rock in an official capacity, you still have the problem of connecting that to the church of Rome. There is zero evidence that Peter was the bishop of Rome. He was martyred there and buried there. Presumably he ministered and preached there prior to his martyrdom. But there is no evidence that he held any ecclesiastical office in the church of Rome, much less bishop. Then you have the further problem of the lack of evidence that Rome even had a bishop until the mid to late 2nd century. So there is at least a century gap between Peter and the first named bishop of Rome (I'm not sure who that is -- it might be Victor ca. 190s; I know Eusebius refers to him as the bishop of Rome when recounting the debate with the Asian churches over Easter). Medieval tradition (the Liber Pontificalis) claims that the first papal successors of Peter were Linus, Anacletus, Clement, etc., but we have no historical (from that time or near that time) evidence that they were actually bishops of Rome, much less popes with universal jurisdiction. It really does look like a case of reading history through the lens of later developments (like you said, the shift with Gregory the Great and following, especially the 8th century alignment of the papacy away from being under the thumb of the Byzantine emperor to the Carolingians).
Ignatius in his epistle to the Romans says that he does not command them "as Peter and Paul did" implying that Peter was a bishop there. Of course this does not prove him being the universal bishop of all the churches but I do think that should be noted.
@@alfredolebron1428 Ignatius wrote: "I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul: they were apostles, I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4.3). I wouldn't read this as suggesting that Peter was a bishop there. It only supports what we already know, that the two apostles, Peter and Paul, spent time in Rome and ministered there. And when they did so, their authority was that of apostle not bishop. If this sentence implies that Peter was a bishop of Rome, then it implies that Paul was as well, which is not part of the RCC claim.
@The Catholic Integralist the problem begins from apostolic succession a doctrine taught no where
This is the most reasonable explanation I’ve ever heard on this subject.
Most Protestants will vehemently argue that Christ was referring to himself instead of Simon (which is ridiculous) and take the verse out of context to provide evidence.
You should give a class on this.
Thank you for your high quality teaching.
Just began watching some of your videos. These are so good. Thank you for your fair and balanced yet still clear and convictional approach. What a breath of fresh air in the divisive culture we live in! One small request/suggestion is for you to outline the main points in the video description with time stamps. That would be really helpful for folks who might want to jump to a particularly relevant point.
great idea, thanks!
Well done Dr. Ortlund!
Wonderful respectful and insightful as always
Although you mentioned the rock aspect of Matthew 16, you barely mentioned the keys and the binding and loosing, which is just as important or even more important than the rock part of Matthew 16. Would God give this power to Peter and allow him to bind heresies on earth as in heaven, thus making God a liar?
Fantastic statement Dr. Ortlund!
WORTH WATCHING MANY TIMES TO REALLY ABSORB EACH CRUCIAL POINT
This is a really great video, Gavin!
I am *really* liking these videos and watching just about all of them. Lol Quick suggestion - when you put up a quote (e.g. Ambrose) it would be great to see the date of the passage, the name of the document writing, etc. so it can be easier to research the same document. Keep up the great work! 👍🏻
Here's a document he conveniently left out.
cyprian of carthage wrote this in 251 a.d.
"[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, 👉🏻yet he founded a single Chair,👈🏻 and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; 👉🏻 *but a primacy is given to Peter👈🏻, whereby it is made clear that there is but ONE CHURCH AND ONE CHAIR* So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. 👉🏻 *If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church* 👈🏻(Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)
Hi Gavin, as former Catholic, be careful when you say "grace," because to Catholics grace is the help God gives you through prayer and the sacraments to do the works you need to be saved. You have to cooperate with grace to be saved.
Literally "Grace is no more Grace." I appreciate Gavin's peaceful spirit, but the things that Rome does to the Gospel always make me angry.
@@AzariahWolf heterodox tend to get angry at orthodoxy.
@@coriesu9022 "Orthodox" is a weird way to say "in direct contradiction to their own founding documents"
@@AzariahWolf "in direct contradiction to what heretics from the 16th century started teaching."
Fixed that for you.
@@coriesu9022 Paul wasn't a 16th century heretic, but you are a 21st century one.
Here’s a story of a struggling Protestant. In my walk of 10 years as being a Christian I’ve called 3 very different churches home as the first two turned out to be heretical - and ended up in a reformed Baptist church. Then moved to a new large country town and am trying to find a church to call home. The Presbyterian church we just went to on Sunday is very small, held in a school hall and the congregation is made up predominantly of people over 70. Also, the ordinances (communion) were not delivered during the service. What a let down. I now just visited the Roman Catholic Church which is open to visitors every day of the week all day, stands on the highest part of the town and has stood since 1887. I was awestruck.
The turmoil that lands on the Protestant when moving to a new town, when trying to find a church is immense. My question is Do you think God wants us to experience such turmoil that wouldn’t exist if we were one unified ecclesial body? There are many problems with the Roman Catholic church but I fear there are many more with the Protestant church such as the practical example I’ve just given. Ive been part of 3 very different churches in only 10 years because it’s easy to get very lost in Protestantism. Now I’m starting over in a new town. What the heck do I do?
The main option here appear to be either Pentecostalism, Catholicism, dying Baptist / Presby churches, or a few pop up churches that are likely heretical.
I would caution you not to seek ecclesial stability in exchange for personal stability. You will not experience assurance at a Catholic church.
@@ethanstrunk7698 agreed. I’m now comfortably a Berean (I.e reformed Baptist) 😂
Great video! From a Protestant inquiring Eastern Orthodoxy
Great video! I just found your channel through a recommendation by a friend and I immediately subscribed. I haven't had nearly enough truth exposure over the Catholic doctrine much at all, and this was some much needed information. Thank you.
If I wanted I further my study into these kinds of topics myself however, are there any good books you would recommend on the church Father's writings? I already am in-line to purchase the Lord's supper book you recommended from another video, but one with more information over the issues regarding the papacy would also be desirable. Please let me know.
Great books, A woman rides the beast by Dave Hunt. Or research Bereanbeacon - richard Bennet, he teaches you all the catholci doctrine and shows you why its not biblical.
A latecomer here, but God bless your efforts in this important faucet of the Lord's work. I have been involved in rebuking Catholics occasionally on some particular issues I know pretty well which comes under the heading of defending the Faith. Some of these misguided folks are barely aware of the problems with certain peculiarly false traditions within their own confines and need to be informed of the underlying issues. As you well know, there are meaningful aspects to areas of proper rebuke and correction that are sorely ignored by many denominations, though such a side ministry undertaken with understanding and firm love is an integral part of being a good and well rounded servant of the Gospel. Thanks again.
Phenomenal! My father became Catholic about ten years and I’ve been trying to figure why in the world he did that ever since. Lol.
This helps fill in some missing pieces! Thank you so much. God bless
because your father is wise enough to know what is true, either Catholicism and early Christian History is true or Luther is true.
@@jamesrey3221that is a wildly false dichotomy.
@@Wilkins325 Luther rejected all Catholic teachings, it is either you believe in Luther or the Church
The early church was defined by the celebration of the mass, the Holy Eucharist, the apostles, the church fathers, the saints, the popes, the bishops, the bible and its sacred traditions.
@@jamesrey3221 Luther and the Reformers were right. Luther only rejected what was false and corrupted.
The early church was defined by the Gospel, scripture, the Apostles. NOT the mass, eucharist, "saints", popes, bishops, traditions. All of that developed over time, including church fathers.
@jamesrey3221 Luther was and is true, the rcc is not.
As a Catholic I respect your views. The first thing is that Jesus founded the Church before the scriptures were written down. The second thing is that the church is the Mystical Body of Christ (the people of God) and has produced some wonderful Saints and Scholars over the history of the Church as well as many sinners.. Everything that you are saying has been discussed and debated within the Catholic Church great scholars for over 2000 years. I also think there is a big difference between Evangelical view of the Papacy in the USA than our view in Europe.. The miracle is that the Papacy has survived with all its failings, faults, attacks and corruptions. I believe the Holy people of the church and of faith as well as the holy priests, monks, nuns, hermits, and Saints were the real reformers of the papacy and the Church despite the corruption, scandals and bad leadership.
I was recently in Belgium and went to visit the "Lamb of God" painting in Ghent which had a wonderful history. This was painted in the 14th Century before the reformation and tells a lot about the Church in the 14th century, there is also a copy of the gospels in Latin from a local monastery in the 8th Century on display in the Cathedral.. Have a look at it and look at the medieval monasteries to have a look their role they played in the Papacy and the church. I would say the monasteries were closer to the Catholic Church and people than the Papacy. The monks protected and transcribed the Gospels in Latin.
Not all Catholics are fans of the Current Pope Francis and previous Pope's. As all are human and are sinners and we have some very good Popes in the office as leader of the Church over the 2000 years. May God bless all seeking the Truth in the Person of Jesus Christ. 🙏
Great video! Thank you! Reading Roman Catholic literature on the topic was a bit confusing to me even though the data is there. Thank you for a clear, accurate and humble way to frame the argument!
Thank you for this eloquent and respectful video. I'm an Episcopalian and as part of the Anglican Communion we hold to Apostolic Succession but reject the Papacy. You did an excellent job of explaining how supremacy of the Bishop of Rome wasn't really a thing in the early church.
Ya, says the queen worshipper who replaced the pope with the king as the head of the church. Apostolic succession? You guys? Lol. Best joke.
@@foodmaniac9339 Since your reply was so dignified, respectful, and in the spirit of Christian brotherhood I'll respond. No one believes the Church holds apostolic succession through the crown. It is however the Bishops that do. During the split with Rome there were bishops who remained loyal to the Pope and others who helped create the Anglican Church. It's similar to how the Eastern Church retains its apostolic succession by the laying on of hands going back to the apostles but is not beholden to the Bishop of Rome.
@@enischial965 is that what jesus wanted? A king goes against the church, cause his balls were itching and wanted to marry against the church law and since doesn't get his will done, makes his own church and executes Catholics. How in the world are you apostolic if you have female ordained ministers and bishops. You like the king more than god. That's what Anglican is. Rejecting the papacy is rejecting the church. Where is that apostolic succession if there is no bishop and no pope. You guys have the worst history on your side regarding succession and you have the face to talk about supremacy of the pope. Let's talk about the supremacy of the king first.
@@foodmaniac9339 Supremacy of the monarchy is a common myth about Anglicanism. What it really is is a combination of the religious authority with the secular authority. A concept known as caesaropapism. The church of England was not the first one to do it. A great example is the early Byzantine Church where the Emperor served as supreme governor and protector of the Church. So while he is the supreme governor, the king is not the head of the Church. His Majesty King William III holds no authority in the Episcopal Church. We are still part of the Anglican communion, however we consecrate our own Bishops and have our own Presiding Bishop. The history of our split with the Church of England after the American Revolution is quite fascinating. In terms of Papal authority and Petrine Primacy, I understand people's reasons for backing it. Through the intense and prayerful study of scripture, tradition, reason, and church history I have yet to find enough evidence to allay my disagreements to it. You sound like you already have your mind made up on the matter, so I will not press nor debate you further. Also, truth be told, I don't monitor my UA-cam alerts all that often. Please understand I do hold the Roman Catholic Church in extreme high regard. Even as a Protestant I recognize Catholics as my brethren. May Christ's peace be upon you. Have a prayerful Lent and a happy Easter.
@@enischial965 the Byzantine eastern orthodox went wrong on that part and that's why the western church opposed it.
This is great, thanks for this channel, it's direction and your willingness to share in love
glad it was useful to you!
So appreciate your videos!
a great video, I learn alot historically... thanks Dr. Ortlund
Thanks for your gracious introduction and for tackling this issue.
Thanks for appreciating the Catholic churches teaching on contraception. To me that is the evidence that the Catholic Church is truly built upon a solid rock. If it was man made then the teaching on contraception would certainly be the first thing to go...
So true lol
Yes, Pope Paul IV's Humanae Vitae which reaffirmed the church traditional teaching on sexual morality was largely ignored and rejected by other churches and look where we are now.
@@jamesrey3221 yeah and to be honest the impact of that rejection is felt in the Catholic faith. Under the hood we have many American Catholics who secretly adopt practices that align with the secular viewpoint.
@@MrPeach1 yes, it is the heresy of Modernism (Relativism and secularism. The idea that the truths of the ancient faith are viewed as outmoded and are now subject to adapt to secular "culture") that impacts deep in society including the church, the abuse scandals, etc. was in part caused by the rejection of Humanae Vitae.
Pope Paul's encyclical was opposed even by Catholics, but God in His wisdom see's the importance of family in our civilization that He has to do battle to save it for us.
“We must remember that life begins at home and we must also remember that the future of humanity passes through the family.”
From a letter of Sr. Lucia to Cardinal Caffarra “In that letter we find written: ‘The final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan will be about Marriage and the Family.’ Don't be afraid, she added, because whoever works for the sanctity of Marriage and the Family will always be fought against and opposed in every way, because this is the decisive issue. Then she concluded: ‘nevertheless, Our Lady has already crushed his head’.”
We see this 'battle' being wage in social media, politics and even in the supreme court. In the end God can never lose.
Great video...and I say this as a former Protestant who, jbtw, had your dad as my pastor for a couple of years. Curious, in pointing out areas where you admire Catholicism you mentioned moral theology and specifically mentioned contraception. I would love to hear your position on it
Very well balanced and thorough argument! I’m a new comer and your channel has been very refreshing in many way. Keep up the good work and exemplary scholarship!
I love your approach and attitude. In fact the only reason to become Catholic would be to accept what Cardinal Newman called "Development Of Doctrine".
Thank you very much, Brother! That is extremely helpful! Please keep going on to teach. It is much needed. God bless you!
Gavin, I love you for the work you do
Phenomenal video. Very well articulated and above all, accurate.
I agree with that opening sentiment on Catholics often being way ahead of Protestants in terms of being loving, writing great works (especially political), actually doing stuff, etc… We need to pick up the slack…
Excellent! Wonderful resource.
Another great video, thank you. I'd love to see you follow some of these conclusions, and answer the broader question of why you are not orthodox? You pointed out the conciliar nature of the church as an objection to the Papacy, which I agree with. It does logically follow to address orthodoxy and I'd be really interested in this! Enjoying your theological retrieval book.
Thanks Tom! Will try to get to a video on orthodoxy but it may take some time.
Thank you for this video!
The Jerusalem Council in Acts is fundamental on this point for me. It is a Biblical-Exigetical, Historical, and logically vital argument against the supposed primative nature of Romanism all contained in a single narrative.
To substantiate its own claims, the Roman Church has to show that its definitive distinctives were present from the very inception of the Church's existence.
In Acts, we have an event which is post-Resurrection and post-Pentecost (no one can say that the Church didn't fully exist at this point) yet is witnessed to within the pages of the New Testament scriptures themselves which testify that it was carried out under proper divine guidance and approbation. So, it serves as an absolute test case against which to place the Roman distinctives. Petrine/Papal supremacy, Roman supremacy, monarchical magisterium, monarchical bishoprics, etc. as well as Eastern Ceasaropapism are not only absent, but are contradicted by the scripturally-verified example of the apostles themselves.
The distinctive aspects that make the Roman Church what it is simply and clearly did not exist in the beginning, nor is their future emergence provided for or justfied by scripture or even human doctrine from the earliest stage.
The Council of Jerusalem is the proto-example of the Pope, making a binding decision for the universal Church, St. Peter declaring that Gentiles did not have to become Jews before becoming Christian, and another Bishop, St. James making a recommendation to appease the Judaizers in Antioch specifically.
@St. Hubertus Outdoors ,
You have got to be kidding me. Peter doesn't so much even rise to the level of primus inter pares in the Jerusalem Council. He gives his testimony, but the one presiding over the meeting (if anyone at all) is James because he's the leader in Jerusalem, they were meeting in Jerusalem, and the question at hand had come about due to Judaizers going out from Jerusalem. No one sat "ex cathedra" as the vicar of Christ. They agreed together, and James formulated their joint declaration. There was no Pope or "proto-Pope" in Acts.
And this was not just *any* council, but the council formed of the apostles of Christ, preserved in the inspired Word, and testified by that very Word to have been carried out according to the will and leading of God. This council *must* logically be seen as normative and definitive, and there was no Pope!
Besides this, even if some kind of "proto-Pope" were being evidenced (and it would suggest James in that role rather than Peter anyway) which it's not, that's not good enough to support the Catholic position which is that the Papacy existed from the time of Christ's earthly ministry. The doctrines of Catholicism are supposed to be "what all Christians, have believed at all times and at all places." I suppose the apostles and elders at Jerusalem were not the true Church then, because the central Catholic doctrine of Papal supremacy, which is supposedly primitive to a time well before that event, *does not exist in Acts* . "Proto" isn't good enough to support Catholic claims on this issue. All you are doing by making that argument is conceding the point that the monarchic, supreme, magisterial Papacy did not exist during the first century of the Church. Thus, it is a doctrine of man not of God, and this central stumbling block in the relations between Roman Catholics and all other Christian groups around the world should be cast aside, leading to truer doctrine and increased unity.
@@jameswoodard4304 Acts 15 does not deny the Primacy of St. Peter. Once St. Peter stood to speak, everyone was silent, and he made the pronouncement for the Universal Church.
The Primacy comes from having the Keys to the Kingdom of God. Mt. 16:19 is clear that the Lord Jesus appointed St. Peter to be His “Master of the Palace.” Mt. 16:19 is a clear reference to Is. 22:22.
@St. Hubertus Outdoors ,
Order of events:
-Everyone discussed generally
-Pharisees delivered their opinion for one side of the debate
-Peter gave a speech for the other
-Then, "Everyone fell silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul..." as they gave testimony of God working among the Gentiles
-Then James of Jerusalem gave a summary opinion which they all agreed to.
Is that how the Roman Papacy works? If the Catholic Church had a point of debate to settle, is that what it would look like? All the bishops including the one of Rome gather together, the Roman bishop is simply among those who speak in turn, then a different bishop provides the communal decision? You are deceiving yourself if you answer yes. If you thought so yourself, you would not have relied on the concept of "proto-Pope." You are well aware that the Roman Papacy as it is distinct to Roman Catholic dogma did not exist.
And remember this. No one denies Peter had a leadership role *among* the apostles. To win your point, you can't just show that he was important or had *some* leadership role, but that the current doctrine of the Papacy was present. You *cannot* do that, because it wasn't.
As to the scriptures you cite, at best, they show a leadership role of some kind for the person of Peter among the apostles, which everyone already knows. You would still have to prove the application from Peter himself to the ongoing office of the Roman bishop, *and* that the office was identical to current Catholic dogma relating to the Papacy. And that's best-case for you. Worst case, the verses about rock and keys don't obtain to Peter personally or his office as supposed bishop of Rome, but to the confessing church generally.
The fact remains that Catholicism requires Peter to have acted as a fully Roman Catholic pontif during the first century. We have a record of church organization, structure, and decision-making from the first century. It is not Roman Catholic.
You can't get around that by quoting ambiguous passages that, at best, confirm what everyone already concedes.
@@jameswoodard4304 ua-cam.com/video/xl3pD4l0K5U/v-deo.html
Thank you for this nice analysis, very insightful to me! 😊 A debate with Steve Ray on this topic would be very interesting 😉
As a Pentecostal turning catholic I thought this video was great content. You brought up good points and was very respectful in pushing your points. I think their is more to this topic that you cant fit in a UA-cam video. Both sides have great arguments for their position. One can also argue that before Constantine became emperor the majority of popes were martyred so that push or development becoming more clear in the 5th century to me makes sense.
Read on classical Protestantism. I understand why you might want to leave the Pentecostal church, but consider some historic Protestant traditions like Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, etc.
when i first began to question protestantism i was constantly being thrown around by trying to make bold, logical deductions. I thought," Ill just read and get the correct sense of the bible." However, from the weakness of my own mind, I kept finding cases that would contradict. So i changed my approach to," Is it unreasonable that some people hold to such-and-such an interpretation of some passage in scripture." it was this change in thinking that revealed the truth of catholicism. When it comes the matthew 16:18, its not unreasonable to conclude that Peters vicarious office is in view. As there are church fathers that have said this. One only has to consider the name of his given by Christ. Peter, which means rock.The name and the role are easily tied to one another. One cant reject the interpretation because there are alternatives. the catholic church accepts a range of different readings for many passages. Plus , it almost makes Christs decision to name simon peter a mistake. Peter could have easily continued his ministry as leader without being given a name that essentially means foundation. with luke 22:32 , it seems clear, at least to me and the catholic church. Christ says the leader will be humble and not lord his power over others. He then tells peter he has prayed for him, the only apostle he prays for in an exclusive manner, and that when he returns to do the things the leader should do. this is the basic role of the pope. to strengthen his brethren, and not to lord over his power. with john 21, there are even protestant scholars who agree peter is serving in a ministry that functions vicariously. Obviously, not in the same sense as catholics, but its undeniable the universal pasture hes been given to lead. Hes the only apostle whos apostolate is the whole church. we even see him exercise his role in acts 15:7, where he gives an eternally binding,and infallible, command onto christians that is still obeyed, or at least should be, today. Ultimately, it seemed the only way protestantism could be true was if the ministry of peter coincidently, a massive and drawn out coincidence, looked like a primitive form of the papacy.
Well defined brother
How can you read Acts 15 and come to the conclusion that Peter is the sole apostle responsible for giving an infallible command to the church? If any one person can be attributed with instituting any infallible doctrine in this chapter, it would be James in verses 19-20. Even then, he only made this judgement after conferring with the elders and other apostles, hearing the testimony of Peter, Paul, and Barnabas, and appealing to the words of Amos. Any attempt at reading papal primacy into the Council of Jerusalem is either disingenuous by anachronistically reading the Pope’s authority into a text where it can’t be found, or historically and literally illiterate.
In response to the question - “Is Jesus the rock or is Peter the rock? The answers is simply YES!
This is not a zero-sum game. Jesus is the ultimate authority, and he bestowed that authority upon Peter. Isaiah 22 is clearly talking about Jesus, but when Jesus quotes it in Matthew 16, He makes it about Peter! Peter was made the representative of Christ on earth. The only reason Peter and his successors have authority on earth is because they received it from the ultimate authority in Heaven! Jesus is the authority, and the Pope is His representative (Vicar).
So the answer is yes! Jesus is the Rock and Peter is the rock!
God bless you for having the love of Christ, brother! A lot of Catholics can learn so much from you!
This is not to mention that if we are to assume the office of regent carries over from the Davidic kingdom to the Kingdom of God that Peter who was given the keys (a sign of rhe office in the Davidic kingdom) was the holder of a specific office and that that office would continue after his death is reasonable
@@JBlackjackp Absolutely. This is also supported in Acts 1 when the Apostles chose Matthias to replace Judas. Judas’s place as an Apostle is specifically called in “office.” So if Judas Iscariot, the least of the Apostles (always being last when the names of the Apostles are listed in the New Testament), had an office that HAD to be filled, then of course Peter, the primary Apostle (always being listed first when the names of the Apostles are listed) most definitely had an office as well that would have had to be filled with a replacement after Peter died.
@@JBlackjackp I know he didn't even mention Jesus quoting Isaiah which is a main Catholic argument for the continuation of Peters primacy. "In Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Isa. 22:21)." I took that from part from Catholic answers in the article Peter the Rock lol. Annoying how didnt bring that up i would have liked to here his take on it
Thank you.
The Septuagint, which the Fathers of the Church used and ratified as the Old Testament Canon of Scripture does not contain the same reference to keys in Isaiah 22:22. Even barring such, we cannot purport to assume that this is the exact idea Jesus was alluding to in Matthew 16, much less ascribing such a station to St. Peter. Hence the entire point of this video: we cannot assume or jump to conclusions without context and the interpretation of the Church Fathers considered: whether one is Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. Two of these groups have trouble with Historic Circumstances and the Teachings of the Fathers; One does not. Certainly, if you approach the sources with an honest and open heart, you can figure out that Orthodoxy is One, Protestantism and Catholicism are two.
Gavin, thank you for this. It is perhaps the best video on the subject I’ve yet to encounter.
PETER HIMSELF ANSWERS THIS VERY WELL.
Peter, "the Rock" himself, had very telling things to say about what Jesus meant by "On this Rock"... Peter saw himself as just another rock, and we are said to be "living stones" as well, which make up the church:
1 Peter 2:4-6
"As you come to him, the living Stone-rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him- you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says:
'See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.'”
PETER CALLED JESUS "THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE." That's the final answer.
Hi Gavin, have you started a podcast? I’d LOVE to have the audio versions of your videos to listen to when I’m on the move. Thanks for the amazing content.
Please don’t stop!
Thanks! Looking into this. 👍
I agree 100%. I don’t have time after work to watch UA-cam videos, but I do listen to podcasts while I am working. Thank you, Gavin.
Hendriksen's commentary on Matthew 16 is great. He was a Dutch Reformed (i.e., a Protestant), but still chose the view that the "rock" upon which Jesus built his church was Peter, BUT explained that it does not require accepting the papacy, papal infallability or supremacy, etc., etc.
Hendriksen's is a great exposition of the various views and why he holds to that view. I'm not entirely convinced, but I can see it as a viable interpretation.
Contrary to Roman Catholic claims, Jesus did not call Peter the Rock on which Christianity would be founded.
Roman Catholics make much of Matthew 16:18-19, using it to justify their claims of Papal Authority and Papal Succession. However, they take Jesus’ words out of context and ignore the underlying meaning of the Greek text.
*Matthew 16:13-19*
_Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter_ [πέτρος (petros)], _and on this rock_ [πέτρα (petra)] _I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."_
Apologists for the Roman Catholic dogma often claim the discussion was in Aramaic and the same word was used in that language for both 'Peter' and 'rock' in Matthew 16:18, since Aramaic uses the same word in both cases. But, if that is so, why did Matthew confuse the matter by using different Greek words? And does the claim about the Aramaic words hold up?
Let's just suppose the discussion was in Aramaic. Given that Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26 and Daniel 2:4b-7:28 are written in Aramaic, those passages give us some clues as to how Jesus might have made such a differentiation had he been inclined to do so - as Matthew 16:18 implies. Plus, we already know of the Aramaic כֵּיפָא (kepha), for Cephas.
Let's also suppose for the sake of discussion that the Aramaic lacked differentiating nouns. Are there any adjectives for small and large Jesus might have used to convey the distinction we find in the Greek text of Matthew 16:18? Indeed there are:
• For small, we have the adjective זְעֵיר (zeer), as in Daniel 7:8; and
• For large, we have the adjectives שַׂגִּיא (saggi), as in Daniel 2:6, and רַב (rab), as in Daniel 2:35.
Any of the above could be applied to כֵּיפָא (kepha) to make an Aramaic small/large distinction for each of which a single Greek noun is all that would be needed.
And are there any Aramaic nouns Jesus might have used that correspond with the distinction we find in the Greek text of Matthew 16:18? Indeed there are:
• For πέτρος (petros), we have כֵּיפָא (kepha), meaning a small rock.
• For πέτρα (petra), we have טוּר (tur), meaning a large rock, a cliff or a mountain, as in Daniel 2:35.
There is also the Aramaic and Hebrew noun אֶבֶן (eben), translated 'rock' in Genesis 49:24 (Hebrew) and 'stone' in Daniel 2:34 (Aramaic), for which we have אֶ֣בֶן גְּלָ֔ל (eben gelal) for large (heavy) stones in Ezra 5:8; 6:4.
So, the availability of suitable Aramaic nouns and adjectives that Jesus could have used to create the distinctions reflected by πέτρος (petros) and πέτρα (petra) in Matthew 16:18-19 debunks the Petrine Apostolic Succession claim, which leaves its apologists unable to account for Matthew different Greek nouns if he thought Jesus was referring to Simon Bar-Jona in both cases.
Note, too, that Jesus didn't give Peter the binding and loosing authority at that time. That didn't happen until Matthew 18:18, when Jesus gave it to _all_ the apostles.
Very helpful video. I don't believe we will be held accountable for not believing or submitting to an office that the Lord never mentioned once in His word. We are to submit to elders and deacons in the local assembly but never a mention of a head office over the whole Church. It is false doctrine. I must reject it.
I appreciate your loving approach to being truthful, loving and respectful at the same time. I too love Catholic people and aim to love them and encourage them in truth also.
Thanks for putting out a calm video on this subject. Really interesting stuff.
As a Messianic regarding the papacy I tend to go back to the idea that there is only one city G-d placed his name, Jerusalem, so the veneration of any other holy city is problematic. Also, at least for the Jewish believers, it is incredibly important that the leadership be of the the nation of Israel, which rules out the Papacy.
Granted, you also kind of go back to the division between the priesthood (temple) and the rabbis (local synagogue) in ancient Judaism after the Babylonian exile. If you're building off the Rabbinic/Synagogue model of church as learning center and clergy as teacher (which protestants generally do), the leadership can be anyone (rabbis do not need to be Levites). However, if you are using the temple model of church as place of intermediation between heaven and earth and clergy as priesthood (Catholic and Orthodox model), then it becomes very problematic to do that anywhere other than the place where G-d put his name in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah.
I am a Catholic and it's becoming more difficult to accept the current papacy teaching of the Catholic Church. If you consider the current divide between traditional minded Catholics, modern Catholics, SSPX, and sedevacantists it becomes obvious that most Catholics have the same concern whether they will admit it or not. Each of these divides are just an attempt to explain away the changes in the modern Catholic Church and still hold onto the ideal of the Pope.
I'm a Catholic convert from Protestantism and see the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches as the true Church--they were one Church for more than a 1000 years. I am finding myself drawn to the Eastern Orthodox Church simply because of the reverence of their Liturgy. Much is said about theology and history, but truth should be found in how a church worships. Unfortunately most Catholic Masses today are very irreverent.
@Zachary Trent The papacy changed significantly during the Gregorian reforms starting in the 11th century. These changes along with the unilateral addition of the Filioque led to the schism that’s lasted more than 8 centuries. As to the reverence of Mass, any Mass that offers the Eucharist in the hand is irreverent and particularly so when it’s offered by an Extraordinary Eucharist Minister.
Comparing the failures of Orthodox patriarchs with that of popes is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Patriarchs can’t make changes to dogma but the pope can. Most recently Pope Francis has changed the catechism to state the death penalty is no longer permitted. Orthodox Christians don’t have to accept the ramblings of heretical patriarchs, but Catholics do have to accept the Pope’s teachings.
I suggest looking into other rites of the Catholic Church. I heard Melkite Divine Liturgy is amazing. These are essentially eastern liturgies but they’re in communion with the Catholic Church. definitely check those out.
@@bansheebrethren797 Eastern Catholic Rites are not available in my area but I did consider that as an option.
Great work. I agree that Protestants are generally suspicious of philosophy, which is probably because of the scholastics and their influence on the RCC before the reformation as well as enlightenment philosophers and their effect on culture. I do think for pastoral and theological works the Protestants have quite a trove of excellent writing, particularly from the Puritans.
I'm done with the bar exam, so I'm now able to catch up on alot of these videos. While biased, I agree with your arguments and hold to these same arguments. I find them much more persuasive on this topic, as well as some others you didn't mention.