I would jump for joy if Gavin ever founded an organization that was like catholic answers. You could call it Protestant Answers or something else. We are in desperate need of good Protestant apologetics.
So you’re looking for a Magisterium?? Only us Catholics have that bc we are One Holy Catholic(universal) and Apostolic Church. Protestant answers would be a mess bc there is no unity not even when it comes to dogma, they can’t even agree on baptism. Everyone has their own interpretations.
As a protestant who was raise catholic and has a lot o friends and family in the Catholic Church, it's refreshing to see an american protestant with such positive dialogue about this issue that is so important to me. Sadly, we often we hear that the more protestant you are, the more "anti-catholic" you need to be. Thank you professor Ortund for presenting a better alternative.
Gavin you’ve been such a blessing to me. You’ve helped me learn so much. I’d also like to say, your consistent demeanor and how you treat people shows how Christ really works through you. It has made me step back and look at how I even talk to people and how my own demeanor is. God bless you and your family
I hear dr. Ortlund on not having time for everything. We all struggle with the messiness and busyness of life. Having a cold currently, its forced me to slow down and pray more while I rest. God bless!
Thank you Gavin. Do you know Spurgeon’s account of hearing a Roman Catholic sermon when he was in Brussels? “In Brussels, I heard a good sermon in a Romish church. The place was crowded with people, many of them standing, though they might have had a seat for a halfpenny or a farthing; and I stood, too; and the good priest - for I believe he is a good man, - preached the Lord Jesus with all his might. He spoke of the love of Christ, so that I, a very poor hand at the French language, could fully understand him, and my heart kept beating within me as he told of the beauties of Christ, and the preciousness of His blood, and of His power to save the chief of sinners. He did not say, ‘justification by faith,’ but he did say, ‘efficacy of the blood,’ which comes to very much the same thing. He did not tell us we were saved by grace, and not by our works; but he did say that all the works of men were less than nothing when brought into competition with the blood of Christ, and that the blood of Jesus alone could save. True, there were objectionable sentences, as naturally there must be in a discourse delivered under such circumstances; but I could have gone to the preacher, and have said to him, ‘Brother, you have spoken the truth;’ and if I had been handling his text, I must have treated it in the same way that he did, if I could have done it as well. I was pleased to find my own opinion verified, in his case, that there are, even in the apostate church, some who cleave unto the Lord, - some sparks of Heavenly fire that flicker amidst the rubbish of old superstition, some lights that are not blown out, even by the strong wind of Popery, but still cast a feeble gleam across the waters sufficient to guide the soul to the rock Christ Jesus.” Autobiography vol.2 ch.59
Thank you so much for answering my question! I would love a series about different seminaries or what to look for in a seminary or program for different interests and goals.
I just want to thank you Dr. Ortland for putting in so much effort in these videos and this channel. I pray that God would lead you and keep a fire burning in your heart for this ministry and lead you to where this channel should go.
I would greatly appreciate a video going through seminaries to potentially attend. As a missionary overseas in Europe, if any attention could be paid to how someone like me could attend (online, minimal trips to campus, affordability) that would be wunderbar :) Many thanks from Vienna!
Elijah, I would highly recommend the online program at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. I currently work in the office which oversees it, and I can testify from the aspect of course development that we strive to make it tantamount to the quality of an on-campus education as much as possible.
Hey Gavin, have you ever thought of doing a video where you summarize your reasons for being a Baptist? Kinda like how Dr. Jordan Cooper has his "5 reasons I'm not ___" series.
Yes, please, to having your brother Eric on again. I'd love to hear a discussion of his excellent book Piercing Leviathan. It's such a helpful study in Biblical Theology for understanding the end chapters of the book of Job.
In addition to Gavin's comments on the scriptural status of the New Testament documents, think of all of the references in John 14-16 about how the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles. They're told that they'll remember what Jesus taught them, will be guided into all truth, will have the future revealed to them, etc. The themes and language are reminiscent of what we're told about the nature of scripture elsewhere, such as in 2 Peter 1:21. And notice how closely what's said in John 14-16 aligns with John's gospel: the "bring to your remembrance all that I said to you" in 14:26 lines up well with the recording of what Jesus said in the gospel of John; the language of the Spirit of "truth" and "testifying" in 15:26-27 lines up well with what's said about "testimony" that's "true" in 19:35 and 21:24. If John's gospel reflects an early belief in the apostles' involvement in writing scripture, that helps explain why Paul refers to how he's writing "the Lord's commandment" (1 Corinthians 14:37) and why Peter referred to Paul's letters as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16), as Gavin mentioned. And, to add to what Gavin said about 1 Timothy 5:18, keep in mind that the scriptural status of the gospel of Luke implies the scriptural status of Acts, since the gospel anticipates Acts (the "things accomplished among us" phrase in Luke 1:1 seems to refer to the history of the Christian movement up to that point in time, which is completed in Acts, as suggested by Acts 1:1), and Acts presents itself as a sequel to the gospel (Acts 1:1). Seeing both documents as scripture makes more sense than driving a wedge between two documents that are so connected. The book of Revelation refers to how John was told to write by Jesus himself (1:11), how Jesus approved of the contents of the book (22:7; see, also, the angel's comments in verse 9), and how nothing is to be added to or taken away from the book (22:18-19). That sounds like scripture. Similarly, Papias' report of what "the elder" (probably John the son of Zebedee) said about Mark's gospel (in Eusebius, Church History, 3:39:15) refers to how the gospel was written without error, without stating anything falsely, etc. That doesn't require the scriptural status of the gospel of Mark, but it offers significant corroboration that the document was so viewed. Most likely, Mark's gospel was accepted as scripture because one or more of the apostles identified it as such (with Peter and John as the best candidates). How do we explain why so many apostolic documents were accepted as scripture so widely from the second century onward? The best explanation is that the second-century church inherited that view from Jesus, the apostles, and the first-century Christians in general, as the evidence I've summarized above suggests. In a video released after his debate with Gavin, Trent Horn went as far as to suggest that there's a lack of evidence that the gospels were even "prominent" early on (see 5:35 and 50:36 in his video titled "A Neglected Argument against Sola Scriptura"). So much could be said in response (e.g., early commentaries on and harmonies of the gospels among both orthodox and heretical sources). Eusebius reports that Quadratus and some colleagues were distributing copies of the gospels as they evangelized in the early second century (Church History, 3:37:2). Justin Martyr's Jewish opponent, Trypho, even comments that "I have carefully read them [Christian precepts in the gospels]" (in Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 10). Why would a non-Christian like Trypho be carefully reading documents that supposedly weren't even prominent in the Christian movement? Justin refers to how the gospels were read alongside Old Testament scripture in church services (First Apology, 67). For more examples of how prominent the gospels were early on, see Charles Hill's Who Chose The Gospels? (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).
Do you get the feeling Trent threw NT Scripture under the bus a little in order to support his argument? I did come away from the debate very unsure about NT infallibility (hence gratitude for your and Gavin's responses).
It's an example of atheistic skepticism (in an attempt to question Scripture in favor of Rome) which is interesting considering Trent has argued that Protestants argue like atheists.
Your matrix reminds me of the Book of Pastoral Rule by Gregory the Great. He has a section where he gives advice for dealing with various types of people.
Thank you Dr. Ortlund for your simple summary of the gospel. Providentially, I got to share the gospel with a friend today and your encouragement to simplicity really helped me present the gospel in an understandable way. I will be praying for you and your ministry!
I typed out that quick gospel summary so I can review it again later. God: God made us, there is a God. Sin: We sinned against Him, so there's a problem in our relationship with God. Christ: Jesus Christ came into this world to fix that problem. That happened through His death on the cross and His resurrection. Response: Now we need to respond to it with faith and repentance.
"If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and remain in his love" 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. ' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself. ' (thou shall not - murder, steal, adultery, honor thy father and mother, etc.)
Thanks for answering this question (35:50) in the way you did. I found your response very helpful in something I have been somewhat distraught by in recent times.
Hey Gavin, Really enjoy hearing you talk about the more practical areas of Christian life. My wife and I just had our first kid last Thursday (March 23rd). We are already reading her children's bible stories and some very simple catechism answers for toddlers as well as worshipping through singing songs and playing piano. I am hoping this will really make a lasting impact. I wanted to say that I have been listening to your sermons a lot lately and would love to hear some more pastoral and family ministry perspectives. Thank you for doing what you do. Also, I am actually 1 class into an M. Div at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. It seems like a lot of really respectable pastors, theologians, and scholars went there (including my pastor at my church). Do you hold SBTS in a pretty high regard as far as doctrinal teaching and biblical exegesis?
I liked your explanation of “How to Summarize the Gospel,” and the 4 major points you emphasized at 20:58: God, Sin, Christ, Response. It’s similar to Bill Bright’s “The 4 Spiritual Laws,” but J. I. Packer actually presented this much like you did in “Evangelism & the Sovereignty of God.” I like how it can be used either very simply, or in an expanded form with the use of scripture and theology.
Gavin, I loved this video, so helpful and packed with great information. However...I think your answer to the question about family life was so on point and for me, was the most important question that was asked in this vlog. I can't thank you enough for the time and work you put in your UA-cam channel.
On the question of the Gospel, in addition to 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Romans 1:1-4 and 2 Timothy 2:8-9 come to mind as simple distillations of Paul's gospel message. I think each of these three passages should inform our understanding of the core gospel message.
Protestants are often too distant from our own heritage and tradition. Too willing to cede key theological ground to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, especially as the decline of our culture pulls us tighter together. Your work has been a blessing, in this regard.
In regards to question 6 (pursuing further education), for me it seems unfeasible financially, though I would love to. I try to get "education" through reading a lot of books, but I know I'm not getting that same education I would get from learning from professors. If anyone knows of any affordable options (I work at a non-profit and can barely make ends meet in this economy), that would be great!
Enjoyed this video. I recently listened to TA Torrey's sermon "the only gospel that can save" where he highlighted the part about Christ's resurrection as a part of saving us from sin. His explanation was that this fact tells us Christ has all power in heaven and earth, power to save us from the power of sin if trust in Him to do it. I think this could be tied in with repentance. Regarding fruit in believers from various denominations, I think Ephesians 4 is a good example as well. I also like the talk on atonement. I feel it's helpful to speak about atonement facts rather than atonement theories. Facts don't have to be explained necessarily, and they won't force us to emphasize or de emphasize certain points, which theories kings of force us to do.
There's a good after debate chat too with Gavin, Trent and Matt. And then a reflection of the debate by Gavin on this channel. I don't know if you caught those
I’m still not sure if you believe the RCC as an institution holds to and preaches the true gospel. Leaving aside the question of whether there can be true believers in the RCC, is someone who understands and sincerely holds to their officially stated position on the gospel in Christ or not?
What do you think of the critiques of PSA from Oliver Crisp? Someone who does not caricature PSA at all, thinks it lacks sufficient biblical warrant to be the primary model of a constructive account of the atonement, and yet has some strong objections to multiple formulations of the doctrine. I find his critiques and proposed alternatives in Approaching the Atonement and Participation and Atonement quite strong/maybe persuasive. If you haven't read those books, totally okay! Just wanted to know if you had any thoughts.
PSA is defensible only symbolically from a Protestant perspective. The issue of course being with the high court language is that for Protestants there is no actual High Court. It's a different situation for Catholics, they actually have a high court on Earth as it is in heaven, represented in the college of cardinals and church counsels. Like much of the theology that Protestants put forward, it's symbolic, non-literal, figurative, in many ways just all in their heads.
Hey Gavin, I’m not the one who asked the ecclesial infallibility question, but I did have a follow up. What about doctrinal boundary lines? Say you disagree with Nicea I’s interpretation of the Trinity, or even the Trinity itself (say you hold an adoptionist Christology). Would you be outside the boundary lines of salvation? Or would you just be outside the boundary lines of the “social orthodoxy” of the Nicene theologians? Could the Nicene theologians have been wrong (that seems worrying cause a lot of key doctrines for classical Protestants are there)?
The fact you are shaping souls for eternity when parenting is THE number one reason I have an aversion to ever having children. There’s other reasons, but that mental strain is something I can’t imagine living with.
If the angels sinned even while knowing and seeing God, will humans sin in heaven after the second coming? If not, will we lose our free will? I have read the whole Bible several times, and I'm unkind with falsehood.
Is Jesus's sacrifice a way to harmonize God's perfect justice (death penalty) and God's perfect love? I always wondered why God, not needing our approval, couldn't just forgive all sins. Jesus's sacrifice seems to be a backhanded loophole because Hitler could avoid eternal torment by receiving Christ as his savior.
God is all merciful and forgives sins, but people can choose to disobey God. "If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and remain in his love"
@@jamesrey3221 then ... why hell? In my case I am an atheist and I reject hell and I choose heaven. Anyway, if god exists I'll stop being an atheist once I see an afterlife; and if I am in hell I will immediately change my mind and accept Jesus as my personal savior. So, what's the point of believing now, when there is not proof god exists?
@@goodquestion7915 does not work that way, you got to choose now while you are alive. Behave and be holy and you go to heaven, be immoral and you go straight to hell. Simple really. "It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God" 1 Thessalonians 4:3 St Jacinta of Fatima: "If men only know what awaits them in eternity they would do everything in their power to change their lives." Some people think there is no 'proof of God", that is where they are mistaken. Indifference to the question of God is insanity. "A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah" And why should He reveal himself to the proud and arrogant, who demand that God “prove himself” through divine pyrotechnics ?
I know the comments below could sound uncharitable, but that is not the spirit in which they are written. You just have such good material to comment on, but that calls for correction and nuancing. I sincerely appreciate you and your work. It gives us all a good opportunity to interact across denominational boundaries. I will give you a break for a while after this comment, I think :) . Blessings on your continuing marriage and family life, and ministry. I just finished listening to this video. I took a break when you did :) . Your argument for the infallibility of the New Testament by using a few NT verses is only based upon "clues" (your word) and inference. Nowhere in the New Testament do any of the authors claim infallibility for what they are writing. The one verse in Paul's letter about the laborer and his wages does not cite Luke specifically. Paul could have read or heard it from someone else. Rock's (Peter's) use of "graphas" could just mean "writings", since that is what the Greek word means, as you know. And the "fuzzy edges" letters, well, they're fuzzy, which means the NT does not ascribe infallibility to them. The infallibility of the New Testament is an article of faith promulgated by the Church, not by the New Testament. We're not edifying our sisters and brothers in Christ by assuring them of the NT's infallibility based upon NT evidence that is not explicitly there, and flimsily inferentially there. On a much more minor point, yes, idolatry is implicitly underlying each commandment. But, to go deeper, what is underlying idolatry? Disordered desire, as Genesis 3 makes clear, Ephesians 2:1-3 alludes to, and Part 3, Section 2 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church explicates regarding the 9th and 10th commandments.
Gavin, I beg of you: it's CHILD-REARING for us--"parenting" (?) is for the unbelievers, whose focus is on themselves ( = "parenting."). Childrearing reminds is that it's about the children.
What is so hard about saying that the RCC has another gospel. Yes, there could be true Christians in their denomination but most will (and should) leave. I would actuallt tell them to run away from them.
Just a clarification in response to what you said about the Catholic Church adding to the Gospel with her doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Nowhere does the Catholic Church teach that you must believe in the Assumption in order to be saved. The Catholic Church clearly teaches that the Triune God saves humans by grace through faith in our LORD Jesus Christ's Passion. We then give evidence of our acceptance of that Gospel through a life of faith working through love (Galatians 5, James 2, and elsewhere). For a person to be in "full communion" with the Roman Catholic Church, she/he is obligated to believe what Mother Church proposes for us to believe, or at least remain open to it with the virtue of humility. To say that the Church has added the Assumption to the Gospel is misleading and should be clarified to your listeners. A thorough and fair reading of the Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this clear. Just as some Protestants who hold to historic confessions of faith would want us Catholics to read your confessions thoroughly and fairly, so, in Christian love, we would ask you to do the same with our most recent Catechism and Magisterial documents, so that we can accurately represent one another for fruitful dialogue toward reunion.
Hi Charles, I did a video on this. You have to qualify Pius XII's words pretty significantly to make the assumption optional. He said: "Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.... It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
@@TruthUnites Thank you for your reply, Rev. Dr. Ortlund. Good to hear directly from you. Recently, I've really appreciated your appeals for all of us to take a cumulative approach for theological understanding. In charity, I assume you would also agree that we should take a holistic approach to an understanding of the Christian faith, not isolating a single doctrine and seeking to understand it on its own. Our faith is an integral one and any single doctrine can only be rightly understood in the light of the whole. Such is the case with the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. How does the Roman Catholic Church view that doctrine in relation to the whole of the RCC Faith and, specifically, to the Gospel? As regards the relationship between the Gospel and that doctrine, it is abundantly clear what that relationship is in light of other Magisterial teachings of the RCC. For example, in Gaudium et Spes, 22; the portion of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the marks of the Church, 811-865; and the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 41, it is clear that God, in a way only known to Him, has made the grace of the Paschal Mystery, the Gospel, available to all of humanity, since He desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. If you read those documents, nowhere will you see that the RCC has added the Assumption to the Gospel. Also, if that were the case, Catholics would not consider Protestants sisters and brothers in Christ, all-be-it separated by our disagreements. One more important point, I used to be an evangelical Lutheran missionary and pastor. I held to the unaltered Augsburg Confession of Faith. Often, I heard non-Lutheran Christians and others criticize the Lutheran faith from the outside, not understanding how the whole of the Lutheran faith fit together. The same is true for all of us. When someone is inside the Roman Catholic Faith--professing it, celebrating it in the sacred liturgy, striving to live its moral teaching, Life in Christ, and corporately and personally praying it--for many years, then one sees how the RCC Faith holds together. The same holds for all faith traditions, Christian and otherwise. Recently, I heard you say that Catholics should not think that Protestants are stupid; that very intelligent men and women have thought through Protestant doctrines for many years. My brother, of course, the same is true for the Roman Catholic Faith. Some of the most intelligent minds of history, from the past and in the present, have professed and celebrated and lived and prayed and thought through all of the RCC doctrines and have articulated them as an integral whole. That ought always to be kept in mind. Catholics are not stupid either. So, to reiterate my prior comment: To be considered in "full communion" with the Roman Catholic Church, a person is obliged to believe that doctrine, or at least to remain open to it with the virtue of humility (The RCC does not require PERFECT faith in any doctrine.) But, a person can be saved, can be a Christian daughter or son of God and not believe in that doctrine, i.e. Christians other than Catholics. I really appreciate you and what appears to be your honest striving after the truth. I look forward to hearing more from you in the future.
This is a reference to Ashera, a pagan goddess who is the consort of the high god El. In the same way that the pagan use of the the title “son of god” (see god kings in the Near East and Rome) does not invalidate the Christian use of the term, the pagan use of the title “queen of heaven” doesn’t invalidate a Christian use of the term
@@garrett2514 She was originally worshiped in Sumer under the name "Inanna", and later by the Akkadians, Babylonians, and Assyrians under the name Ishtar (and occasionally the logogram 𒌋𒁯). She was known as "the Queen of Heaven" and was the patron goddess of the Eanna temple at the city of Uruk, which was her early main cult center.
I would say that praising a child for their virtue not only doesn’t take away from the glory you give the parent, but adds to it. This is like praising God’s Saints. They partake in His holiness, so praising them for their holiness in fact glorifies God.
“I just believe Christ is responsive to faith.” - Amen
I would jump for joy if Gavin ever founded an organization that was like catholic answers. You could call it Protestant Answers or something else. We are in desperate need of good Protestant apologetics.
Lower-case 'c' catholic Answers
@@Psychoveliatonet Ah! My mistake. Let me correct that real quick.
Protestant Answers? who alone can answer for the broad Protestant beliefs?
What is Baptism?
That would be epic!!!
So you’re looking for a Magisterium?? Only us Catholics have that bc we are One Holy Catholic(universal) and Apostolic Church.
Protestant answers would be a mess bc there is no unity not even when it comes to dogma, they can’t even agree on baptism. Everyone has their own interpretations.
As a protestant who was raise catholic and has a lot o friends and family in the Catholic Church, it's refreshing to see an american protestant with such positive dialogue about this issue that is so important to me. Sadly, we often we hear that the more protestant you are, the more "anti-catholic" you need to be. Thank you professor Ortund for presenting a better alternative.
It makes total sense to limit yourself. There's no way someone with a large platform can respond to everything!
Gavin you’ve been such a blessing to me. You’ve helped me learn so much. I’d also like to say, your consistent demeanor and how you treat people shows how Christ really works through you. It has made me step back and look at how I even talk to people and how my own demeanor is. God bless you and your family
I hear dr. Ortlund on not having time for everything. We all struggle with the messiness and busyness of life. Having a cold currently, its forced me to slow down and pray more while I rest. God bless!
Thank you Gavin. Do you know Spurgeon’s account of hearing a Roman Catholic sermon when he was in Brussels?
“In Brussels, I heard a good sermon in a Romish church. The place was crowded with people, many of them standing, though they might have had a seat for a halfpenny or a farthing; and I stood, too; and the good priest - for I believe he is a good man, - preached the Lord Jesus with all his might. He spoke of the love of Christ, so that I, a very poor hand at the French language, could fully understand him, and my heart kept beating within me as he told of the beauties of Christ, and the preciousness of His blood, and of His power to save the chief of sinners. He did not say, ‘justification by faith,’ but he did say, ‘efficacy of the blood,’ which comes to very much the same thing. He did not tell us we were saved by grace, and not by our works; but he did say that all the works of men were less than nothing when brought into competition with the blood of Christ, and that the blood of Jesus alone could save. True, there were objectionable sentences, as naturally there must be in a discourse delivered under such circumstances; but I could have gone to the preacher, and have said to him, ‘Brother, you have spoken the truth;’ and if I had been handling his text, I must have treated it in the same way that he did, if I could have done it as well. I was pleased to find my own opinion verified, in his case, that there are, even in the apostate church, some who cleave unto the Lord, - some sparks of Heavenly fire that flicker amidst the rubbish of old superstition, some lights that are not blown out, even by the strong wind of Popery, but still cast a feeble gleam across the waters sufficient to guide the soul to the rock Christ Jesus.”
Autobiography vol.2 ch.59
interesting, never heard this anecdote before! thx
I would love to see Eric back on the channel! The times he's been on before were great fun.
Thank you so much for answering my question! I would love a series about different seminaries or what to look for in a seminary or program for different interests and goals.
Excellent video Dr. Ortlund.
Very insightful and helpful video, thank you!
I'd love to watch a full video on sermon prep!
I just want to thank you Dr. Ortland for putting in so much effort in these videos and this channel. I pray that God would lead you and keep a fire burning in your heart for this ministry and lead you to where this channel should go.
Amen!
Would you like to do a livestream with Anthony Rogers about explicit and implicit evidence for the Solas of protestantism from patristic sources?
Excellent video.🙂
I would greatly appreciate a video going through seminaries to potentially attend. As a missionary overseas in Europe, if any attention could be paid to how someone like me could attend (online, minimal trips to campus, affordability) that would be wunderbar :) Many thanks from Vienna!
Elijah, I would highly recommend the online program at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. I currently work in the office which oversees it, and I can testify from the aspect of course development that we strive to make it tantamount to the quality of an on-campus education as much as possible.
Hey Gavin, have you ever thought of doing a video where you summarize your reasons for being a Baptist? Kinda like how Dr. Jordan Cooper has his "5 reasons I'm not ___" series.
Yes, please, to having your brother Eric on again. I'd love to hear a discussion of his excellent book Piercing Leviathan. It's such a helpful study in Biblical Theology for understanding the end chapters of the book of Job.
In addition to Gavin's comments on the scriptural status of the New Testament documents, think of all of the references in John 14-16 about how the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles. They're told that they'll remember what Jesus taught them, will be guided into all truth, will have the future revealed to them, etc. The themes and language are reminiscent of what we're told about the nature of scripture elsewhere, such as in 2 Peter 1:21. And notice how closely what's said in John 14-16 aligns with John's gospel: the "bring to your remembrance all that I said to you" in 14:26 lines up well with the recording of what Jesus said in the gospel of John; the language of the Spirit of "truth" and "testifying" in 15:26-27 lines up well with what's said about "testimony" that's "true" in 19:35 and 21:24. If John's gospel reflects an early belief in the apostles' involvement in writing scripture, that helps explain why Paul refers to how he's writing "the Lord's commandment" (1 Corinthians 14:37) and why Peter referred to Paul's letters as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16), as Gavin mentioned. And, to add to what Gavin said about 1 Timothy 5:18, keep in mind that the scriptural status of the gospel of Luke implies the scriptural status of Acts, since the gospel anticipates Acts (the "things accomplished among us" phrase in Luke 1:1 seems to refer to the history of the Christian movement up to that point in time, which is completed in Acts, as suggested by Acts 1:1), and Acts presents itself as a sequel to the gospel (Acts 1:1). Seeing both documents as scripture makes more sense than driving a wedge between two documents that are so connected. The book of Revelation refers to how John was told to write by Jesus himself (1:11), how Jesus approved of the contents of the book (22:7; see, also, the angel's comments in verse 9), and how nothing is to be added to or taken away from the book (22:18-19). That sounds like scripture. Similarly, Papias' report of what "the elder" (probably John the son of Zebedee) said about Mark's gospel (in Eusebius, Church History, 3:39:15) refers to how the gospel was written without error, without stating anything falsely, etc. That doesn't require the scriptural status of the gospel of Mark, but it offers significant corroboration that the document was so viewed. Most likely, Mark's gospel was accepted as scripture because one or more of the apostles identified it as such (with Peter and John as the best candidates). How do we explain why so many apostolic documents were accepted as scripture so widely from the second century onward? The best explanation is that the second-century church inherited that view from Jesus, the apostles, and the first-century Christians in general, as the evidence I've summarized above suggests.
In a video released after his debate with Gavin, Trent Horn went as far as to suggest that there's a lack of evidence that the gospels were even "prominent" early on (see 5:35 and 50:36 in his video titled "A Neglected Argument against Sola Scriptura"). So much could be said in response (e.g., early commentaries on and harmonies of the gospels among both orthodox and heretical sources). Eusebius reports that Quadratus and some colleagues were distributing copies of the gospels as they evangelized in the early second century (Church History, 3:37:2). Justin Martyr's Jewish opponent, Trypho, even comments that "I have carefully read them [Christian precepts in the gospels]" (in Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 10). Why would a non-Christian like Trypho be carefully reading documents that supposedly weren't even prominent in the Christian movement? Justin refers to how the gospels were read alongside Old Testament scripture in church services (First Apology, 67). For more examples of how prominent the gospels were early on, see Charles Hill's Who Chose The Gospels? (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).
great comments Jason, thanks.
Thanks Jason and Gavin, that is very helpful. Two people answering my question. I feel very spoilt! 😊
Do you get the feeling Trent threw NT Scripture under the bus a little in order to support his argument? I did come away from the debate very unsure about NT infallibility (hence gratitude for your and Gavin's responses).
It's an example of atheistic skepticism (in an attempt to question Scripture in favor of Rome) which is interesting considering Trent has argued that Protestants argue like atheists.
@Adam thank you for your response. If true, that is very sad
Amen brother I loved your answer to “Are non Protestants saved?” so much as well as it being extremely insightful. Praise God!
Great video!😊
Your matrix reminds me of the Book of Pastoral Rule by Gregory the Great. He has a section where he gives advice for dealing with various types of people.
Thank you Dr. Ortlund for your simple summary of the gospel. Providentially, I got to share the gospel with a friend today and your encouragement to simplicity really helped me present the gospel in an understandable way. I will be praying for you and your ministry!
Best seminary video would be AWESOME! Please include international options and budget options!
I love how he speaks of his wife. They seem to have a lot of fun together.
Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. Will keep an eye on the long term to see how things progress!
Thank you so much for your work sir. It's very needed and well appreciated.
I appreciate your qualifications and honesty in this video. St.Augustine does seem to teach justification as a process. Thanks for your insight!
I typed out that quick gospel summary so I can review it again later.
God: God made us, there is a God.
Sin: We sinned against Him, so there's a problem in our relationship with God.
Christ: Jesus Christ came into this world to fix that problem. That happened through His death on the cross and His resurrection.
Response: Now we need to respond to it with faith and repentance.
❤️
"If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and remain in his love"
'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. ' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself. ' (thou shall not - murder, steal, adultery, honor thy father and mother, etc.)
Thanks for answering this question (35:50) in the way you did. I found your response very helpful in something I have been somewhat distraught by in recent times.
Great video. I pray that God continues to use you.
Hey Gavin,
Really enjoy hearing you talk about the more practical areas of Christian life. My wife and I just had our first kid last Thursday (March 23rd). We are already reading her children's bible stories and some very simple catechism answers for toddlers as well as worshipping through singing songs and playing piano. I am hoping this will really make a lasting impact. I wanted to say that I have been listening to your sermons a lot lately and would love to hear some more pastoral and family ministry perspectives. Thank you for doing what you do.
Also, I am actually 1 class into an M. Div at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. It seems like a lot of really respectable pastors, theologians, and scholars went there (including my pastor at my church). Do you hold SBTS in a pretty high regard as far as doctrinal teaching and biblical exegesis?
I liked your explanation of “How to Summarize the Gospel,” and the 4 major points you emphasized at 20:58: God, Sin, Christ, Response. It’s similar to Bill Bright’s “The 4 Spiritual Laws,” but J. I. Packer actually presented this much like you did in “Evangelism & the Sovereignty of God.” I like how it can be used either very simply, or in an expanded form with the use of scripture and theology.
I would love to see a video about seminaries and your general advice about all that.
Gavin, I loved this video, so helpful and packed with great information. However...I think your answer to the question about family life was so on point and for me, was the most important question that was asked in this vlog. I can't thank you enough for the time and work you put in your UA-cam channel.
Glad it was helpful!
On the question of the Gospel, in addition to 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Romans 1:1-4 and 2 Timothy 2:8-9 come to mind as simple distillations of Paul's gospel message. I think each of these three passages should inform our understanding of the core gospel message.
good stuff
Great video
Protestants are often too distant from our own heritage and tradition. Too willing to cede key theological ground to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, especially as the decline of our culture pulls us tighter together. Your work has been a blessing, in this regard.
In regards to question 6 (pursuing further education), for me it seems unfeasible financially, though I would love to. I try to get "education" through reading a lot of books, but I know I'm not getting that same education I would get from learning from professors.
If anyone knows of any affordable options (I work at a non-profit and can barely make ends meet in this economy), that would be great!
Enjoyed this video.
I recently listened to TA Torrey's sermon "the only gospel that can save" where he highlighted the part about Christ's resurrection as a part of saving us from sin. His explanation was that this fact tells us Christ has all power in heaven and earth, power to save us from the power of sin if trust in Him to do it. I think this could be tied in with repentance.
Regarding fruit in believers from various denominations, I think Ephesians 4 is a good example as well.
I also like the talk on atonement. I feel it's helpful to speak about atonement facts rather than atonement theories. Facts don't have to be explained necessarily, and they won't force us to emphasize or de emphasize certain points, which theories kings of force us to do.
What's your perspective on the regulative principle of worship vs the normative principle of worship?
Do you have a link to the rebuttal/debate that you are referring to concerning Sola Scriptura? Thanks!
There's a good after debate chat too with Gavin, Trent and Matt. And then a reflection of the debate by Gavin on this channel. I don't know if you caught those
The litmus test for being a true believer is Romans 10:9 ,13.
Roughly how many hours a week do you find you need to sermon prep? Just curious. I've been struggling through that myself.
Hi Gavin, can you share the application grid? Thanks so much
I’m still not sure if you believe the RCC as an institution holds to and preaches the true gospel. Leaving aside the question of whether there can be true believers in the RCC, is someone who understands and sincerely holds to their officially stated position on the gospel in Christ or not?
I admired the Protestants martyrs from Foxe's book of martys. But Protestants burned catholics also, ana Baptist's were persecuted by both.
What do you think of the critiques of PSA from Oliver Crisp? Someone who does not caricature PSA at all, thinks it lacks sufficient biblical warrant to be the primary model of a constructive account of the atonement, and yet has some strong objections to multiple formulations of the doctrine. I find his critiques and proposed alternatives in Approaching the Atonement and Participation and Atonement quite strong/maybe persuasive. If you haven't read those books, totally okay! Just wanted to know if you had any thoughts.
PSA is defensible only symbolically from a Protestant perspective. The issue of course being with the high court language is that for Protestants there is no actual High Court. It's a different situation for Catholics, they actually have a high court on Earth as it is in heaven, represented in the college of cardinals and church counsels. Like much of the theology that Protestants put forward, it's symbolic, non-literal, figurative, in many ways just all in their heads.
Hey Gavin, I’m not the one who asked the ecclesial infallibility question, but I did have a follow up. What about doctrinal boundary lines? Say you disagree with Nicea I’s interpretation of the Trinity, or even the Trinity itself (say you hold an adoptionist Christology). Would you be outside the boundary lines of salvation? Or would you just be outside the boundary lines of the “social orthodoxy” of the Nicene theologians? Could the Nicene theologians have been wrong (that seems worrying cause a lot of key doctrines for classical Protestants are there)?
Isn't your gospel summary stolen from CRU?
The fact you are shaping souls for eternity when parenting is THE number one reason I have an aversion to ever having children. There’s other reasons, but that mental strain is something I can’t imagine living with.
@truthunites was the trinity a way to sincretize the original beliefs in Yahweh's brothers and sisters?
Is your brother a published author too?
I think his entire family is a published author. Even his dad and, maybe, grandfather as well
If the angels sinned even while knowing and seeing God, will humans sin in heaven after the second coming? If not, will we lose our free will?
I have read the whole Bible several times, and I'm unkind with falsehood.
Is Jesus's sacrifice a way to harmonize God's perfect justice (death penalty) and God's perfect love?
I always wondered why God, not needing our approval, couldn't just forgive all sins. Jesus's sacrifice seems to be a backhanded loophole because Hitler could avoid eternal torment by receiving Christ as his savior.
God is all merciful and forgives sins, but people can choose to disobey God.
"If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and remain in his love"
@@jamesrey3221 then ... why hell? In my case I am an atheist and I reject hell and I choose heaven. Anyway, if god exists I'll stop being an atheist once I see an afterlife; and if I am in hell I will immediately change my mind and accept Jesus as my personal savior. So, what's the point of believing now, when there is not proof god exists?
@@goodquestion7915 does not work that way, you got to choose now while you are alive. Behave and be holy and you go to heaven, be immoral and you go straight to hell. Simple really.
"It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God"
1 Thessalonians 4:3
St Jacinta of Fatima: "If men only know what awaits them in eternity they would do everything in their power to change their lives."
Some people think there is no 'proof of God", that is where they are mistaken.
Indifference to the question of God is insanity.
"A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah"
And why should He reveal himself to the proud and arrogant, who demand that God “prove himself” through divine pyrotechnics ?
I know the comments below could sound uncharitable, but that is not the spirit in which they are written. You just have such good material to comment on, but that calls for correction and nuancing. I sincerely appreciate you and your work. It gives us all a good opportunity to interact across denominational boundaries. I will give you a break for a while after this comment, I think :) . Blessings on your continuing marriage and family life, and ministry.
I just finished listening to this video. I took a break when you did :) . Your argument for the infallibility of the New Testament by using a few NT verses is only based upon "clues" (your word) and inference. Nowhere in the New Testament do any of the authors claim infallibility for what they are writing. The one verse in Paul's letter about the laborer and his wages does not cite Luke specifically. Paul could have read or heard it from someone else. Rock's (Peter's) use of "graphas" could just mean "writings", since that is what the Greek word means, as you know. And the "fuzzy edges" letters, well, they're fuzzy, which means the NT does not ascribe infallibility to them. The infallibility of the New Testament is an article of faith promulgated by the Church, not by the New Testament. We're not edifying our sisters and brothers in Christ by assuring them of the NT's infallibility based upon NT evidence that is not explicitly there, and flimsily inferentially there.
On a much more minor point, yes, idolatry is implicitly underlying each commandment. But, to go deeper, what is underlying idolatry? Disordered desire, as Genesis 3 makes clear, Ephesians 2:1-3 alludes to, and Part 3, Section 2 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church explicates regarding the 9th and 10th commandments.
Mealtime triage 😂
Gavin, I beg of you: it's CHILD-REARING for us--"parenting" (?) is for the unbelievers, whose focus is on themselves ( = "parenting."). Childrearing reminds is that it's about the children.
What is so hard about saying that the RCC has another gospel. Yes, there could be true Christians in their denomination but most will (and should) leave. I would actuallt tell them to run away from them.
Just a clarification in response to what you said about the Catholic Church adding to the Gospel with her doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Nowhere does the Catholic Church teach that you must believe in the Assumption in order to be saved. The Catholic Church clearly teaches that the Triune God saves humans by grace through faith in our LORD Jesus Christ's Passion. We then give evidence of our acceptance of that Gospel through a life of faith working through love (Galatians 5, James 2, and elsewhere).
For a person to be in "full communion" with the Roman Catholic Church, she/he is obligated to believe what Mother Church proposes for us to believe, or at least remain open to it with the virtue of humility. To say that the Church has added the Assumption to the Gospel is misleading and should be clarified to your listeners.
A thorough and fair reading of the Catechism of the Catholic Church makes this clear. Just as some Protestants who hold to historic confessions of faith would want us Catholics to read your confessions thoroughly and fairly, so, in Christian love, we would ask you to do the same with our most recent Catechism and Magisterial documents, so that we can accurately represent one another for fruitful dialogue toward reunion.
Hi Charles, I did a video on this. You have to qualify Pius XII's words pretty significantly to make the assumption optional. He said:
"Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.... It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
@@TruthUnites Thank you for your reply, Rev. Dr. Ortlund. Good to hear directly from you. Recently, I've really appreciated your appeals for all of us to take a cumulative approach for theological understanding. In charity, I assume you would also agree that we should take a holistic approach to an understanding of the Christian faith, not isolating a single doctrine and seeking to understand it on its own. Our faith is an integral one and any single doctrine can only be rightly understood in the light of the whole.
Such is the case with the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. How does the Roman Catholic Church view that doctrine in relation to the whole of the RCC Faith and, specifically, to the Gospel? As regards the relationship between the Gospel and that doctrine, it is abundantly clear what that relationship is in light of other Magisterial teachings of the RCC.
For example, in Gaudium et Spes, 22; the portion of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the marks of the Church, 811-865; and the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 41, it is clear that God, in a way only known to Him, has made the grace of the Paschal Mystery, the Gospel, available to all of humanity, since He desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. If you read those documents, nowhere will you see that the RCC has added the Assumption to the Gospel. Also, if that were the case, Catholics would not consider Protestants sisters and brothers in Christ, all-be-it separated by our disagreements.
One more important point, I used to be an evangelical Lutheran missionary and pastor. I held to the unaltered Augsburg Confession of Faith. Often, I heard non-Lutheran Christians and others criticize the Lutheran faith from the outside, not understanding how the whole of the Lutheran faith fit together. The same is true for all of us. When someone is inside the Roman Catholic Faith--professing it, celebrating it in the sacred liturgy, striving to live its moral teaching, Life in Christ, and corporately and personally praying it--for many years, then one sees how the RCC Faith holds together. The same holds for all faith traditions, Christian and otherwise.
Recently, I heard you say that Catholics should not think that Protestants are stupid; that very intelligent men and women have thought through Protestant doctrines for many years. My brother, of course, the same is true for the Roman Catholic Faith. Some of the most intelligent minds of history, from the past and in the present, have professed and celebrated and lived and prayed and thought through all of the RCC doctrines and have articulated them as an integral whole. That ought always to be kept in mind. Catholics are not stupid either.
So, to reiterate my prior comment: To be considered in "full communion" with the Roman Catholic Church, a person is obliged to believe that doctrine, or at least to remain open to it with the virtue of humility (The RCC does not require PERFECT faith in any doctrine.) But, a person can be saved, can be a Christian daughter or son of God and not believe in that doctrine, i.e. Christians other than Catholics.
I really appreciate you and what appears to be your honest striving after the truth. I look forward to hearing more from you in the future.
@@charlescatterall949 thanks for the comment Charles. We disagree, but I appreciate you laying out your thoughts.
In the book of Jeremiah, the Jews are condemned by God for worshipping "the queen of heaven"
This is a reference to Ashera, a pagan goddess who is the consort of the high god El.
In the same way that the pagan use of the the title “son of god” (see god kings in the Near East and Rome) does not invalidate the Christian use of the term, the pagan use of the title “queen of heaven” doesn’t invalidate a Christian use of the term
@@garrett2514 nice, my point I suppose, is that there is one God who deserves all they glory.
@@garrett2514 She was originally worshiped in Sumer under the name "Inanna", and later by the Akkadians, Babylonians, and Assyrians under the name Ishtar (and occasionally the logogram 𒌋𒁯). She was known as "the Queen of Heaven" and was the patron goddess of the Eanna temple at the city of Uruk, which was her early main cult center.
I would say that praising a child for their virtue not only doesn’t take away from the glory you give the parent, but adds to it. This is like praising God’s Saints. They partake in His holiness, so praising them for their holiness in fact glorifies God.
@@garrett2514 in the book of Jeremiah God condemned the Jews for worshipping "the queen of heaven"
Workout your own salvation with fear and trembling
Did Jesus fail in fulfilling prophecy? Mark 9:1
Is it possible for a Protestant to be saved?