Solid U2 joke! Everyone should keep those coming in the comments. (I mean, you don’t have to contribute to the puns, but I’m going to With or Without You.)
I just want to point out that asking random Catholics isn't a valid way for Gavin to test the claim that that Catholic Church has well-defined teachings. It's only testing the awareness that random Catholics have of those teachings. He thinks our house is also on fire, but it's really just a dumpster fire in the driveway.
Ortlund isn't the only one that mistakes Catholic opinions for Catholic doctrine. It seems pretty common amongst Protestants to think that any nonsense that comes out of a member of the Church is thus representative of that Church. Maybe that's true in some Protestant denominations, where personal beliefs hold as much authority as pastoral teaching, but not so for Catholics.
@@sentjojoThey're applying the protestant logic to the Catholic framework, which doesn't work, especially with someone like Gavin who comes from a low church background, where there's not really any authority to the Church. He understands a church's beliefs as being the composite of the beliefs of the people, so if all the people at his church believe X, then X is that church's teaching. This doesn't work in the Catholic Church, because our teachings are independent of the laity's thoughts on those teachings. If all lay Catholics began using contraception, that doesn't mean that the Church has changed teaching, it means the teaching isn't being recognized. But protestants who used to teach against contraception changed that teaching as their members stopped believing it.
@@sentjojo yeah, I think Jimmy Akin and/or Trent Horn has pointed out White's tactic of picking the outsider Catholic writers as examples of Catholic theologians. Just a different kind of straw man.
Thank you for pointing this out. I would add to it that if you asked most protestants about their own doctrine most of them couldn't come close to telling you what it is. You'll likely get the answer, "We're a bible church." I've heard that one before.
I don’t care what 20 different Catholics say, I care about what the Catholic Church officially teaches, you know the church Jesus gave us! Ask 40 different protestant “churches” and get 40 different answers, Gavin!
Exactly! Whether a Catholic knows or disagrees with the Catholic Church, it doesn't change the fact that there is an official teaching on it. Protestants just jump around until they find a "church" that agrees with their opinion. (Coming from a long time Protestant).
Amen. I'm grateful christ laid the foundation and hierarchy of his church on earth in a way that we don't have to worry about splitting into a thousand small churches like protestants have to deal with. Catholism is the universal united holy church of christ now and forever
@@hirakisk1973I don't understand why that doesn't bother protestants in general. If the holy spirit was leading protestant churches you'd think they could get basic doctrine down but it's constant arguing and disagreement on thier end
@@humbirdms2784 from my personal experience, I don’t think this topic is anywhere on a Protestants radar… maybe it is to some degree but they don’t think about it as in depth as this. 😕 sad really
The day I realized this in the Methodist Church was the day I knew I could no longer be Methodist. They have mechanism to determine was is Truth. Blessed that I could revert back to the Church! Now teaching RCIA!
The whole thing about individual Catholics not knowing essential doctrines means nothing. It is just like “ignorance of the law is not an excuse.” Just because individual Catholics get things wrong doesn’t mean the right answer isn’t available. This is not system vs system. This is system vs Christ’s Church.
Correct. Gavin is resorting to a "tu quoque" a rhetorical technique to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior--this is a type of ad hominem or straw-man attack.
Ortlund always uses the "... if I asked 20 Catholics they would not know..." comment. That argument means nothing to me and I do not know why it's significant to him. As if 20 protestants coming out of Pastor Larry's church over here on the corner are going to agree on protestant theology. I've watched Ortlund debate over the years and I used to think that he was not as bad as James White but he's getting to be... especially as his protestant theology is getting hammered by Catholic apologists at every turn. Now his arguments seems more like he's digging in his heels saying I am right I know I'm right and you Catholics are just wrong. He's grown to be quite arrogant in that way where I used to see him more ecumenical-
@@malachi487I totally agree. Maybe those 20 Catholics all grew up attending (like me) a Catholic school that did a truly awful job explaining the faith…. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a defined list of teachings somewhere. God bless.
But you can do the same to protestants for their own churchs. When I was Protestant, I didn’t know what my church actually believed because it wasn’t really taught. It wasn’t until I looked into it that I learned.
Joe “The Antidote” Heschmeyer. Thanks for this very necessary video - we have a lot of misdirection from our Protestant friends and you always do a great job helping to point out the errors and correct them.
When I was in conservative Protestant theology classes, we were taught it was the first 3 creeds that established the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy. That includes the trinity, incarnation, resurrection, and more. This is why the Catholic Church still recognizes other Christians as "separated brethren." Ironically, it's Protestants who most often add to or detract from those creeds like restricting baptism or denying the necessity of baptism altogether. (To be even more conservative, you could say the first 7 ecumenical councils establish Christian orthodoxy. Even Historical Protestants upheld those essential doctrines and all councils up until Trent. What made me a Catholic was asking who did I think I was to reject any of the councils?)
I mean, "Conservative Protestant" is hardly what a "conservative Christian" would call himself. "Fundamentalist" perhaps but not "Protestant". Furthermore, a fundamentalist doesn't give heed to any creeds made by councils. We honor God's word as the final authority. If a council agrees with that fundamental teaching then wonderful. If not then it's just another bunch of heresy anyway, right? You don't have to be an expert in every council to know the truth. All you have to do is know God's word and you'll spot a phony a mile off. Counterfeiting experts aren't familiar with every form of counterfeit bill. A counterfeit expert knows what the original (real) thing looks like. Whatever departs from that is a fake.
@@crusaderACR - No brag, just fact. I've done my homework. I listen to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The New Testament isn't that hard. I'm no better than you because I know God's word but you're not better than me because you don't. Certainly there are a few difficult passages but I've worked through many of them. I have the tightest, most consistent and coherent theology of anybody I know. And I say this after a lifetime of study. Now to a Johnny-come-lately, that may sound like a tall order - an arrogant boast - but it's not, really. It's been a labor of love. I know WHY I believe what I believe about God. I'm trusting the words of Christ and the apostles. I'm not entrusting my faith to some plastic know-it-all preacher. I've known LOTS of preachers and I know what their bag is. They are captive to their denomination. They are paid to NOT know the bible like I do. Who was it that said, "It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his NOT understanding it." I'm an expert on the New Testament. I know God because I know His word. God WANTS us to know Him and to know His word. I enjoy the study. That's not arrogant, that's just a careful technician making a normal statement of fact.
You weren’t in a ‘Protestant theology’ class, you were in a Baptist class. We Anglicans include the ecumenical creeds in our BCP since 1549. The oldest and finest English language liturgy. In fact, the BCP is older than TLM and even been recognised by Rome through the Ordinariate. There is no ‘Protestant Church’ it is just an umbrella term like ‘Ecclesial’ for the Romans, Easterners and Oriental Orthodox.
Once Presbyterian, I embrace my Catholic faith. I'm no longer an image of cow dung covered in snow; rather made in the image of God and called to be Holy. Thanks for another excellent video Mr. Heschmeyer!
All humans are made in the image of God. Romans are true Christians as are orthodox Protestants. It is such a depressing view of the global Church to think 40% of Christians are damned for not being Roman Catholic.
What I found disappointing about Dr Ortlund’s response is that he seems to have forgotten that in his debate with Trent, he said we shouldn’t use street level knowledge as an indicator. He said, and I’m paraphrasing, “we shouldn’t ask 20 random Protestants or 20 random Catholics what they believe to be true, as an indicator of official teaching” and yet here he is, forgetting his own argument.
@@zachpeterson8341 idk, I can’t make the determination of whether he’s trying to be honest or not. And we all make mistakes so I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. I still hypothesize that the black box of 5 point Calvinism is the driving factor of his inconsistency because whether he wants to admit it or not, when in doubt, he punts to God’s sovereignty. To echo Joe’s point, he’s left with two options, laziness or wickedness and in Calvinism, whoever doesn’t understand scripture is basically labeled as wicked/not the elect.
Regarding the Canon, Protestants are being similar to Marcion the heretic. They remove 7 books because they know that theses books refutes their theology. In order to defend their position, they make circular reasoning. For example, they say, "Wisdom of Solomon is not included because it is not biblical." Protestants seems to have an invisible scripture beside the Bible which is also called the Bible
The Catholic Church doesn't based its teachings on random Catholics. But the Catholic Church bases its teachings on the Bible, the Catechism and in the Canon Law of the Catholic Church.
I believe the Nicene Creed explains the basic beliefs of Christianity. Protestantism can't agree on believing the Nicene Creed. How can you know the essential doctrines when you can't agree on the universal creed of Christianity?
Most protestant denominations accept the Nicene creed. The ones that reject it are mostly non-trinitarian groups, like the LDS and JW's. Those are not original traditional protestants, they're just trown under the same umbrella term for being non-rcc.
@@marlena. The Southern Baptist recently did not adopt the Nicene Creed at their annual meeting in the summer. In reality, a lot of Protestants can't adopt the Nicene Creed because it says we believe in baptism for the forgiveness of sins. A lot of Protestants don't believe in baptismal regeneration. That is why they don't say the Nicene Creed.
I think it’s Calvary church. I might be wrong. But they have the nicean creed up until the end. They got rid of the I believe in the holy Catholic Church and 1 baptism for the forgiveness of sins cause it goes against their teaching.
The important point is that Protestants make a distinction between "essential" doctrines and "non-essential" doctrines so that they can justify having contradictory "non-essential" doctrines whereas The Catholic Church just has doctrines which every member of the Church has to believe. The things about which Catholics are allowed to disagree aren't doctrines.
I agree that’s the claim but the problem is Protestants don’t even agree on what the “essentials” are. So you have Protestants disagreeing on things like baptism, the trinity, the efficacy of the sacraments, and some will say these points are essential and others will say they’re unimportant.
And there’s very little way in which to resolve and agree on what is essential because their divisions spring from those very issues… they wouldn’t be split if it weren’t for those. And for that matter, the Protestants wouldn’t have split from the Catholic Church if it weren’t for those essentials, either. Baptists will not stop believing in believers only baptism because to stop, they would cease to be Baptist.
@@whiteheatherclub Exactly! 💯... "Protestatism" as a system is essentially Christian relativism. The tragedy of "denominationalism" is the predictable theological chaos that results from relativism. The Protestant revolt is the intellectual gradfather of scientism and liberalism.
@@michaeloakland4665imo, I just look at it as in nearly every denomination that deviates from the Didache is heretical. There are even things Calvin, Luther, and the church is at the time all unanimously agreed on. Many Protestant churches at a top down level have been hijacked by the Enlightenment and Progressivism. This is why after around 1960 things went very unbiblical and more relativistic, especially things like contraception.
That's also why it is frustrating when people say, "It's okay to disagree on this issue. We all believe in Jesus." Well, that only works by assuming a particular view. For example, if baptism is only a non-essential symbol, then of course you can disagree. But if baptism is the normative means of regeneration and entrance into the Church, then no, you can't disagree about that.
Yeah, it seems the only response Catholics get from Protestants on this subject is "You have the same problem"-- but they never give an answer. Are we just never going to know? Is this what God intended, to give us a religion without any way to even define its essentials? We're stuck in spiritual relativism?
Up until I watched this video, Jimmy Akin’s **Teaching with Authority** was the greatest help I’d gotten on this question of what’s required as believers and where are we allowed to disagree. I went through 13 years (pre-K thru 12) of Catholic schools and had a teacher explain marriage in such a way that it seemed logically to indicate that Mary either couldn’t have been truly married or couldn’t have been ever-Virgin…. I thought I was a heretic for years because I struggled so hard making sense of teacher’s argument… (thanks for your excellent videos on that, btw!) only to find out that there was an answer, and that struggling is not the same as heresy. All this to say, I’m truly grateful for all your hard work in explaining authority and the dogmas! God bless.
Joe, I'm very glad you mentioned that Gavin's father and brothers each part of different protestant sects: Ray (father) is an Anglican, Gavin is a baptist, specifically part of American Baptist Churches USA, Dane (who lost a sexual harassment lawsuit, that's why you don't see him doing the nice-guy-schmuck act like Ray and Gavin) Is a Presbyterian, and Eric, who I believe is the oldest brother, isn't in the US, but is a scholar over in the UK. My point is: The Ortlund media syndicate has _very strategically_ placed asset in multiple different sects so that they can keep their family business going. Right now, Catholicism and Orthodoxy are taking big giant bites of their business, a business that was started by Ray's father. Very similar to how you see the Bush family in American politics, the Ortlund family is Protestant ministry; it's probably way easier than being a politician for similar results. Another good metaphor is that octopus with a tentacle in every sect. (oy vey) That's why these people are never going to say to die, will never concede anything whatsoever to the Cathoolic or Orthodox interlocutors. *Their livelihoods are on the line*
I only found the case filed before the Human Rights Commission (Illinois) that Dane was involved in a sexual discrimination case (july, 2023) not sexual harassment. (hrc.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/hrc/decision/hrc-decisions/23-0081-hyland-final-order.pdf)
@@malachi487 I very much appreciate the citation, and to clarify, I spoke in a loose sense. Hyland was harassed / bullied by Dane Ortlund, court ruled it was on the basis of sexual discrimination, out of that I pulled off the top of my head sexual harassment.
@@malachi487 Imagine St Paul castigating Phoebe, Lydia, Priscilla, or Junia, or any of the other women named in the new testament in connection with his ministry. He wouldn't be St Paul.
I never realized that failing in protestantism of either lazy or wicked based on the "clearness of scripture" arguement. Hopefully people will take that as truly intended, to open their eyes to a false teaching rather than an actual claim against them.
@@SneakyEmu That presupposes that St John intends for us to have only the book of John alone and nothing else. St John was aware that the Church existed, so there's no way he thought that.
I was super disappointed in Gavin’s response 🤦🏾♂️. He’s supposed to be the king of Protestant apologetics and this was just a dumpster fire. I hope it was just an off day.
Protestants want Catholicism to be false so bad. I don’t fully understand why. As an ex-Protestant I can only assume it’s a level of pride in not wanting to submit to God’s chosen authority. In Protestantism everyone is their own “pope”, however when we read the Old Testament it’s very clear that God has always chosen individuals to lead his people. Catholics following the Pope is no different than Israelites following Moses. Once we get past the point of submission to authority and try to put our biases aside, I feel like it becomes quite clear that the Catholic Church is the original Church founded by Christ. Much love, God Bless ❤️✝️
Peter is the prime minister, the only one given the keys while the King is gone. This is clearly seen in the Old Testament, prefiguring a greater reality in the New. Protestants just don't see it, having decapitated scripture from the faith from which it came.
I would suggest watching Gavin Ortlands video called Praying to Saints? (A response to Joe) and skip to 25 minutes in. I was shocked. The Catholic Answers guys seem to skip over the church fathers that don't agree with them. It's happening on both sides. We all really need to be reading the church fathers ourselves and not relying on just what we're told on the internet.
Sola scripture first fails at the table of contents. It also fails in that protestants disagree as to its definition. It fails again when trying to list without error, the "Essentials."
EOC here. While I would disagree with the obvious differences that RCs have with the EOCs, I really appreciate your videos and have much respect for the way you handle theological discussions! ☦️
So Pilate said to him, “Then you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say I am a king.* For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. 🕊Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth? John:18 [37-38]✝You're doing a good job. You are using your gift for the greater good. You understand and are able to clearly articulate the Catholic teachings. Thank you for defending the faith so we may all learn the Truth. God Bless you + family.
Just a friendly reminder that Ortlund doesn't care about being truthful to God, but about opposing the Catholic Church. His whole life [or at least his ministry] is centered about giving "glory to protestantism" [factual quote]; Giving glory not to God, but to protestantism. Let that sink in for a minute. And what is the foundation of protestantism? To oppose [protest, hence the name] the Catholic Church, hence what the guy is actually saying once you unravel it is: "glory to opposing the Catholic Church". The guy literally lives to deny anything the Church says, just for the sake of denying it, and will create a thousand mind traps of incoherent, erroneous arguments, even full fallacies if necessary to achieve it, even if that means to lose sight of God in the process. Pray for him and for whoever listens to him seriously.
ortlund is the polite butler who brings poison, the dorky platypus with a venomous nail, an animation cartoon but of snuff and murder. He's not aggressive or obnoxious, but nonetheless simply so anti-Catholic, he doesn't mind being a liar.
@@fantasia55 exactly. William Albrecht doesn't mince words about Ortlund. He hides his venom behind being calm with a false charity; as in with a forked tongue.
Most excellent! You placed water so that the sheep can understand our wonderful the Church by pouring water onto those complicated treatises -not to dilute the wine but to sanctify that which is the result -waiting on the Lord to to make that water into that same wine within our hearts. Alleluia. (i.e. Praise to Yaweh).
The protestant says there are no essential doctrines in the creeds of the Catholic Church..... i don’t know whether to laugh or cry. The whole point of the creeds, like, the Niceo-Constantinopolitan one, is to LIST the most important Christian doctrines that were particularly relevant at the time to combat heretics, like this one. And one of the doctrines, by the way,, is the belief (i.e. obedience, which is what “belief” means) in the One (not many), Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which this heretic rejects outright, while at the same time claiming he’s accepting the Creed as a protestant. And this guy has a PHD? In what? Lunacy? I don’t know if it’s worth even responding to any of this nonsense in a serious manner.
The Constitution / Supreme Court analogy was brilliant! The only caveat is that it incorporates the two subjects that we have been told we are not permitted to discuss at the dinner table in polite company... 😉 Let's discuss them anyway! 😃❤🙏☺
Yes, an excellent analogy with the satanic fruits of Protestantism obvious. Protestantism with no unifying authority = Confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects Catholicism with unifying Magisterial authority = Structure, hierarchy, longevity & relative unity
In order for any such discussion to be fruitful, we need to understand what each party means by "essential" . For a Catholic, the term "essential" pertains to the form of faith. Of course, in terms of content, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not as essential to the Gospel as the Resurrection. However, when a doctrine is formally defined by Apostolic authority, it becomes essential. Thus, in formal terms, both the Resurrection and the Immaculate Conception are equally essential, since it's by the same act of faith - an act which has an intrinsically ecclesial character - that we accept both of them as true. For a Protestant, on the other hand, the accent is very much on the content, as opposed to the form, of faith. For the garden variety Protestant, "essential" comes down to a question of relevance to the Gospel. Sounds nice and simple - but like a lot of simple answers, it only creates problems further down the line.
Dude I’m not catholic but I feel like that intro from Gavin was just some heavy handed disrespect. I really don’t think it takes much to figure out the essentials of the Catholic faith.
As most "cradle" Catholics I grew up learning from what Church authorities taught us. My parents being my first resource, then my school teachers. If they didn't know something that was pressing they would tell us to ask our priest. If for some reason the priest didn't know he will ask his bishop. In the rare situation that the bishop wasn't sure he would write to the most appropriate dicastery, confident that in the extreme case of a very complex question they would ultimately ask the pope. Probably most of the inconsistencies in today's Catholics come from trying to take as ultimate teaching the one from their favorite social network apologist. They make an excellent job in researching and explaining it but ultimately they were given no authority. So it's always good to revalidate with an authority if the matter is important to you.
Hi Joe, may I recommend you publish the presentation you present in your videos somewhere on some website so that it's easier to search and come back later on. And a transcript to go with the presentation. It would be epic.
It's an essential doctrine that you focus on safely driving by not dividing your attention between podcasting and driving. Can we all agree on that much?
That's an interesting article you cited from Gavin. I'm curious about the rest of that series. Gavin discusses the two doctrines in terms of paedobaptism and credobaptism. Maybe if other non-Catholic Christians heard baptism discussed in those terms they would be less antagonistic toward Roman Catholic Christians for the practice of infant baptism. The practice isn't unique to Roman Catholics, but the criticism for the practice appears to be directed only toward Roman Catholics. Perhaps it's just ignorance by lay Baptist Christians and non-denominational Christians where there's limited contact with other Christians who practice infant baptism.
Oh trust me, I was Episcopal/Anglican for 40 years surrounded by Baptist friends. The only charity you get out of this is not talking about it. Baptists do have that thing where you don’t need baptism to be saved, but you are absolutely not validly baptized if you were as a baby and they do not budge on it regardless of your confidence in your salvation or your fruits.
@@pmlm1571 I'm a Catholic myself. I understand some Catholics prefer not to use the adjective "Roman", but it was more accurate for my comment. In my experience non-Catholic Christians have a very specific understanding of the term. For instance, I use the terms Catholic and Christian interchangeably. However, most American Christians don't introduce themselves as Baptists, Methodists, Latin Rite Catholic etc. They just identify themselves as Christians. I chose to be more specific for the sake of other Christians reading my comment. No offense was intended.
Great video, and ended on a banger of a point. To add, if they had used "scripture alone" to settle it they would have agreed that one did need to be circumcised to be saved based on the Old Testament covenant.
@@RenegadeCatholic I don't think so. Someone being mistaken don't mean the are obtuse, he's informed so I wouldn't say he's ignorant. I think it's possible to come to different despite having the evidence he might just be wrong it not he's knows he's motivates they may be good or bad we don't God knows and will meet him where he is just pray for him and let God do what he does best.
I thank you for your videos. You put into words what I didn't have the words for. I saw the video and was like "why is he asking Catholics, he needs to read what the church says" and I did see the posing it back to you response. Now I know the fancy word for it.
All entities from family to corporates & govt require structure, hierarchy & unifying authority to survive, without which Protestantism is unsustainable
Protestants have a system to inform their faith. That system requires an inherently subjective standard--you decide. Catholics don't. So, did Christ give us an objective way to know how to be Christian or not? Seems like if Christianity is true, its got to be Catholicism. Seems like Christianity is unlikely to be true if the "revelation" is inherently subjective.
The relativism of Protestantism can’t abide the Truth, a foreign concept! My way or the highway, no humility, hence their disunity with unity another foreign concept! Must be tough jumping through all those hoops!
I realize everyone’s busy, but any video you have to record while driving suggests you don’t seriously care either about the subject matter or the safety of everyone around you. Concentrate on driving. Your vanity can wait.
“Essential Doctrines” isn’t even a concept that operates natively within Catholicism/Orthodoxy/etc. It’s purely an importation from the Protestant framework to facilitate dialogue.
Protestant indifferentism? Nah, protestant agreement on the essentials. Don't look back to the hundreds of years where protestants violently quarreled on these issues
Maybe that’s something you can summarize on a book for us… No? A book listing the dogmas, doctrines and traditions we need to be on the same page as Catholics (either Roman, eastern, etc), that would be FABULOUS! 🙌 I bought your book about the early church! And it’s better than expected! I’m so thankful for it! 🥰🙏
I think the final point about having a definitive mechanism to settle disputes is the best point in the video. Cardinal Ratzinger's commentary was not itself adopted into JPII's ordinary magisterium. Although there are other sources for every one of that very highest tier of dogmas the commentary lists that are not only magisterial but clearly definitive and irreformable (i.e. under the charism of infallibility). So not sure "Protestantism" has that.
@@SneakyEmu He argues like an atheist where he will pretend some church father believes some protestant view even though that clearly contradicts what the church father argues elsewhere, and he'll even cut off the quotation where the following sentences would give a very different impression. Trent Horn showcases this with a side by side of the full passage vs what Ortlund is trying to push. Sorry but Jerome, Chrystostom, and Augustine were not in any way protestant. To believe that, you would have to say they hold contradictory views just as atheists accuse the Bible of being
@@HowToBeChristianFerris, I absolutely love your channel! I asked Gavin Ortlund ( for over a year until he finally answered). I stated Protestants must then admit they can never know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ", or who the rock is in Matthew 16, or who the Woman is in Revelation 12, since SCRIPTURE ALONE is infallible as the Protestant tradition goe!s, correct? Gavin finally admitted this is true! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
To me, he kind of lost it when he started to argue that Augustine believed in Sola scriptura. He is still better than most Protestant apologists though.
Great video Joe! I am not trying to uncharitable in anyway, but I feel like Gavin doesn't get called out sometimes because he is "nice." I appreciate his charity and we should certainly be charitable back. But when I listen to him it feels like he has to go through extreme mental exercises just to justify his point. God bless him, but I just can't agree with him.
Joe is making a solid logical argument, but I'd be willing to bet that if Gavin makes a response video he will just feign offense and indignation at the "wicked vs lazy" argument and dismiss it wholesale. Just a hunch.
@nickw9766 in some branches of the CC, priests are allowed to marry. In others, they are not. That's a biggy. All Protestants do agree in that. The CC explains it away by saying that it's not a doctrine but something else. Also, what is exactly the soterology of the CC? different Catholics say different things about that. And that is really an important issue. Hell: some popes thought it to be a real place. Some others dont.
@@Maranatha99 Priest celibacy is church discipline, not a doctrine. They're not the same thing. It's similar to fasting rules and holy days of obligation, the church can and has changed those rules overtime. They also are not called "branches", they are rites. The different rites in the church, latin, byzantine, etc have different liturgical traditions and disciplines but identical doctrines. A doctrine is a teaching, a discipline is a rule.
@@Maranatha99 Yet, the soteriology of the Catholic Church is in the Catechism. Once again, if someone doesn't know there is a place to find the official teaching. Saying "some branches" of the CC is misleading. In the Latin Rite, priests are not allowed to marry and take a vow of celibacy. Some rites do allow this. Both are biblical and both are choices made. Its "not a biggy". In the Latin Rite, they follow St. Paul's advice that if someone can remain unmarried and be able to devote their all to God, then they are better off doing that. So, the Latin Rite looks for people called to do that.
I think Dr. Ortlund is so worried about attacking the CC he can’t see the plank in his own eye regarding Protestants who can with any authority point to doctrines that are essential to salvation. He may want to at least attempt to get Protestants on the same page. Perhaps start there
To be fair to Gavin and The Westminster Confession, you would need to focus on the words “for salvation” in the section you cited. I’ve specifically heard Gavin say that if you miss the significance of those words, you are missing the whole point of the doctrine of the perspicuity of scripture.
That still applies, as Baptismal regeneration is such a contentious issue. An extremely serious issue indeed, as there may be untold numbers of people that are damned to hell for skipping their baptism (not accounting for "baptism of desire", but such a thing is not something we should put blind faith to). If you do believe it, you shouldn't only baptize infants, you must baptize infants as soon as possible, even if an hour after leaving the hospital. God may save the child anyway, but if baptism saves, then it's best not to take the chances. Even if so, God might charge you with negligence for risking the salvation of your child. John Calvin tolerated many heresies, but the (Ana)baptists he put to death, burnt at the stake, as Calvin believed that baptism is essential for salvation and skipping it is immeasurably dangerous. All Lutherans hold to the same. Yet somehow, 80% of American Christians don't believe in this extremely important doctrine on the matters of salvation.
Yeah, that's the difference between Westminster's concept of perspicuity and the earlier form laid out by Martin Luther. But that raises the question: which doctrines *are* essential for salvation? And hence, my original question.
@@crusaderACRProtestant irrationality is unbelievable! They profess to be bible believing, yet can’t agree on the necessity for baptism with some denying that water baptism is required!
@@shamelesspopery Thanks for the response. Regarding which “things” are necessary for salvation, Chapter 18.1 of the Westminster Confession says, “…yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.” To me, it sounds like the Westminster Confession is claiming that assurance of salvation depends on the basic belief and acceptance of “Jesus as Lord” (which I think also implies a belief and acceptance of his completed work), as well as the continual striving to walk in loving obedience to his commands (as we can best discern them). I think this is probably intentionally broad and basic, so as to affirm the salvation of truly believing Christians across denominational lines.
At the basic level, there's the Apostle Creed (which the protestants can't proclaim due to its mention of "the holy catholic Church & the communion of saints". For the rest, the Church establishes them fairly well. The Catechism is useful in that regard.
Ortlund should drive to their vast church Library to get doctrinal information. Sometimes I think he learns from Catholics so as to twist information to fit his Theology.
I'm leaning alot more towards Eastern Orthodoxy but I'm finding of the big 3 that specifically prot channels have the most intellectual dishonesty, ignorance, parsing of scripture and selectively picking and choosing what doctrines they personally like and pretend it's plain and easy to see despite being in conflict with countless other prots and usually in conflict with at least some of their own early reformers. I noticed it's common for people to describe the RC church as "creepy" yet the more I dig into the way prot pastors and apologists operate or countless megachurches and popular speakers connections to the CIA the more I view their representatives as by far the creepiest. Always red-flags hiding behind the stereotypical nice-guy for them, my fight-or-flight system always goes up when my Dad puts on one of these used car-salesman snakes.
I think, the fallacy does not apply here. It's more like this: Mom: You shouldn't smoke, anybody who smokes cannot be a member of this household! Kid: But Mom, you too are smoking, and you're still a member of this household! You see what I mean? You apply two different standards. If disagreeing on the essential is a sign of not being a true church, it applies to you aswell.
You don't get why it's a fallacy worth pointing out. You have to attack the argument, not just say "you too!" To use your example, if the kid conceded that smoking is a measure of who is part of the household, then it follows that NEITHER is part of the household. It doesn't spare the kid, it just dooms mom as well. Both of us could (hypothetically) be wrong, and you just seemed to say both of us are. Then where is the Church? Is it none? Is it Islam? Atheism? If you continued on the video, you'd see that the Catholic Church does indeed have a system to decide on the essentials, which makes even the "you too!" false.
@@crusaderACR Protestants don't claim that disagreement on the essentials is necessarily a sign of not being part of the true church, it's a sign of not understanding the bible correctly. Protestantism has always recognized the validity of other churches. It is "your" standard that brings down your own church. It's not a widely accepted moral standard (like smoking is unhealthy) that is being disputed, it's a specific, catholic claim (disagreeing on the essentials is a sign of not being the one true church). Every church has the same problem: "Here is the infallible guiding rail of our faith, stick to it." And then people fail to do so. Even if it's scripture or apostolic succession. Using people's ability to follow their rule of faith as a measuring stick for how valid that rule of faith is, is just false. Moreover, if the orthodox have valid apostolic succession, how can they have any false doctrine?
Ortland’s response is a *category error*. “Essential doctrines” is a concept that operates *between* denominations, not *within* a single denomination. Within a denomination, there’s just doctrine: this is what we believe.
@@geoffjs I don't think Gavin would say he is anti-catholic. He might be anti bad theology though, as am I. I heard Joe say some stuff that sounded like intentional misrepresentation of reformed theology. I have never heard Gavin intentionally mis represent Catholicism.
Solid U2 joke!
Everyone should keep those coming in the comments.
(I mean, you don’t have to contribute to the puns, but I’m going to With or Without You.)
Ouch
I thought that (given your reputation HTBC) this would be the pinnacle U2 joke, but unfortunately I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
Wasn’t expecting to see @HowToBeChristian here, but I guess the Lord works in…Mysterious Ways
@HowToBeChristian You have to the count of catorce to stop these terrible jokes
Wasn’t expecting Ferris to be in the comments, but he does move in Mysterious Ways.
I just want to point out that asking random Catholics isn't a valid way for Gavin to test the claim that that Catholic Church has well-defined teachings. It's only testing the awareness that random Catholics have of those teachings. He thinks our house is also on fire, but it's really just a dumpster fire in the driveway.
@owl2 Excellent distinction... witty with an effective (humorous) illustration
Ortlund isn't the only one that mistakes Catholic opinions for Catholic doctrine. It seems pretty common amongst Protestants to think that any nonsense that comes out of a member of the Church is thus representative of that Church. Maybe that's true in some Protestant denominations, where personal beliefs hold as much authority as pastoral teaching, but not so for Catholics.
@@sentjojoThey're applying the protestant logic to the Catholic framework, which doesn't work, especially with someone like Gavin who comes from a low church background, where there's not really any authority to the Church. He understands a church's beliefs as being the composite of the beliefs of the people, so if all the people at his church believe X, then X is that church's teaching. This doesn't work in the Catholic Church, because our teachings are independent of the laity's thoughts on those teachings. If all lay Catholics began using contraception, that doesn't mean that the Church has changed teaching, it means the teaching isn't being recognized. But protestants who used to teach against contraception changed that teaching as their members stopped believing it.
@@sentjojo yeah, I think Jimmy Akin and/or Trent Horn has pointed out White's tactic of picking the outsider Catholic writers as examples of Catholic theologians. Just a different kind of straw man.
Thank you for pointing this out. I would add to it that if you asked most protestants about their own doctrine most of them couldn't come close to telling you what it is. You'll likely get the answer, "We're a bible church." I've heard that one before.
I don’t care what 20 different Catholics say, I care about what the Catholic Church officially teaches, you know the church Jesus gave us! Ask 40 different protestant “churches” and get 40 different answers, Gavin!
Exactly! Whether a Catholic knows or disagrees with the Catholic Church, it doesn't change the fact that there is an official teaching on it. Protestants just jump around until they find a "church" that agrees with their opinion. (Coming from a long time Protestant).
Amen. I'm grateful christ laid the foundation and hierarchy of his church on earth in a way that we don't have to worry about splitting into a thousand small churches like protestants have to deal with. Catholism is the universal united holy church of christ now and forever
@@hirakisk1973I don't understand why that doesn't bother protestants in general. If the holy spirit was leading protestant churches you'd think they could get basic doctrine down but it's constant arguing and disagreement on thier end
@@humbirdms2784 from my personal experience, I don’t think this topic is anywhere on a Protestants radar… maybe it is to some degree but they don’t think about it as in depth as this. 😕 sad really
@@vazgl100 your comment shows your ignorance on the subject. Don’t be an internet troll.
I was looking for a good U2 joke but I still haven't found what I am looking for.... oh you!
I know next to nothing about U2, so this joke went right over my head…excellent
I did enjoy that
Yes, Joe stuck the landing on that one.
Hahaha. Loved it.
😅
The day I realized this in the Methodist Church was the day I knew I could no longer be Methodist. They have mechanism to determine was is Truth.
Blessed that I could revert back to the Church! Now teaching RCIA!
It’s the Methodist CULT NOT church. Remember theres ONLY ONE CHURCH.
Ortland thinking he knows what Catholicism teaches is my biggest pet peeve.
Man still thinks the way we pray to relics and saints means we're worshiping them.
Another infamous guy who is guilty of this very thing. Is mike winger
@@christisking970 Winger is insufferable and should have stayed Mormon.
@@TokenWhiteGuyAGR 😳 i used to watch him i never knew he was mormon
Is Francis a heretic then?
The whole thing about individual Catholics not knowing essential doctrines means nothing. It is just like “ignorance of the law is not an excuse.” Just because individual Catholics get things wrong doesn’t mean the right answer isn’t available.
This is not system vs system. This is system vs Christ’s Church.
Correct. Gavin is resorting to a "tu quoque" a rhetorical technique to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior--this is a type of ad hominem or straw-man attack.
Ortlund always uses the "... if I asked 20 Catholics they would not know..." comment. That argument means nothing to me and I do not know why it's significant to him. As if 20 protestants coming out of Pastor Larry's church over here on the corner are going to agree on protestant theology. I've watched Ortlund debate over the years and I used to think that he was not as bad as James White but he's getting to be... especially as his protestant theology is getting hammered by Catholic apologists at every turn. Now his arguments seems more like he's digging in his heels saying I am right I know I'm right and you Catholics are just wrong. He's grown to be quite arrogant in that way where I used to see him more ecumenical-
@@malachi487I totally agree. Maybe those 20 Catholics all grew up attending (like me) a Catholic school that did a truly awful job explaining the faith…. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a defined list of teachings somewhere. God bless.
@@malachi487 💯
But you can do the same to protestants for their own churchs. When I was Protestant, I didn’t know what my church actually believed because it wasn’t really taught. It wasn’t until I looked into it that I learned.
Joe “The Antidote” Heschmeyer.
Thanks for this very necessary video - we have a lot of misdirection from our Protestant friends and you always do a great job helping to point out the errors and correct them.
Glad someone’s making a video calling this out. People pretend like he’s destroying Catholicism 😂
When I was in conservative Protestant theology classes, we were taught it was the first 3 creeds that established the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy. That includes the trinity, incarnation, resurrection, and more. This is why the Catholic Church still recognizes other Christians as "separated brethren." Ironically, it's Protestants who most often add to or detract from those creeds like restricting baptism or denying the necessity of baptism altogether. (To be even more conservative, you could say the first 7 ecumenical councils establish Christian orthodoxy. Even Historical Protestants upheld those essential doctrines and all councils up until Trent. What made me a Catholic was asking who did I think I was to reject any of the councils?)
I mean, "Conservative Protestant" is hardly what a "conservative Christian" would call himself. "Fundamentalist" perhaps but not "Protestant".
Furthermore, a fundamentalist doesn't give heed to any creeds made by councils. We honor God's word as the final authority. If a council agrees with that fundamental teaching then wonderful. If not then it's just another bunch of heresy anyway, right?
You don't have to be an expert in every council to know the truth. All you have to do is know God's word and you'll spot a phony a mile off. Counterfeiting experts aren't familiar with every form of counterfeit bill. A counterfeit expert knows what the original (real) thing looks like. Whatever departs from that is a fake.
@@GizmoFromPizmo The pride, the gall to call yourself a Biblical expert in all matters of doctrine. Unbelievable.
@@crusaderACR - No brag, just fact. I've done my homework. I listen to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The New Testament isn't that hard. I'm no better than you because I know God's word but you're not better than me because you don't.
Certainly there are a few difficult passages but I've worked through many of them. I have the tightest, most consistent and coherent theology of anybody I know. And I say this after a lifetime of study.
Now to a Johnny-come-lately, that may sound like a tall order - an arrogant boast - but it's not, really. It's been a labor of love.
I know WHY I believe what I believe about God. I'm trusting the words of Christ and the apostles. I'm not entrusting my faith to some plastic know-it-all preacher. I've known LOTS of preachers and I know what their bag is. They are captive to their denomination. They are paid to NOT know the bible like I do.
Who was it that said, "It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his NOT understanding it."
I'm an expert on the New Testament. I know God because I know His word. God WANTS us to know Him and to know His word. I enjoy the study. That's not arrogant, that's just a careful technician making a normal statement of fact.
@@GizmoFromPizmoDo you find yourself agreeing with all the other New Testament experts about all the essentials?
You weren’t in a ‘Protestant theology’ class, you were in a Baptist class.
We Anglicans include the ecumenical creeds in our BCP since 1549. The oldest and finest English language liturgy.
In fact, the BCP is older than TLM and even been recognised by Rome through the Ordinariate.
There is no ‘Protestant Church’ it is just an umbrella term like ‘Ecclesial’ for the Romans, Easterners and Oriental Orthodox.
That U2 joke made me have to pause the video to laugh because I was laughing so much I couldn't hear it anymore lol
U2? Short chuckle 4Me
Yeah, he just kept talking, with or without you listening to it...
It was so smooth, so seamless, the way he moved right past the punchline. Cool as can be.
Thanks for being an intellectual warrior for the Church, Joe!
Once Presbyterian, I embrace my Catholic faith. I'm no longer an image of cow dung covered in snow; rather made in the image of God and called to be Holy. Thanks for another excellent video Mr. Heschmeyer!
All humans are made in the image of God.
Romans are true Christians as are orthodox Protestants.
It is such a depressing view of the global Church to think 40% of Christians are damned for not being Roman Catholic.
What I found disappointing about Dr Ortlund’s response is that he seems to have forgotten that in his debate with Trent, he said we shouldn’t use street level knowledge as an indicator. He said, and I’m paraphrasing, “we shouldn’t ask 20 random Protestants or 20 random Catholics what they believe to be true, as an indicator of official teaching” and yet here he is, forgetting his own argument.
@@zachpeterson8341 idk, I can’t make the determination of whether he’s trying to be honest or not. And we all make mistakes so I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I still hypothesize that the black box of 5 point Calvinism is the driving factor of his inconsistency because whether he wants to admit it or not, when in doubt, he punts to God’s sovereignty. To echo Joe’s point, he’s left with two options, laziness or wickedness and in Calvinism, whoever doesn’t understand scripture is basically labeled as wicked/not the elect.
@@zachpeterson8341He's definitely not with how he treats the Church father's and even the Bible
Regarding the Canon, Protestants are being similar to Marcion the heretic. They remove 7 books because they know that theses books refutes their theology. In order to defend their position, they make circular reasoning. For example, they say, "Wisdom of Solomon is not included because it is not biblical." Protestants seems to have an invisible scripture beside the Bible which is also called the Bible
They also forget that the CC codified their bibles in 382AD!
The Catholic Church doesn't based its teachings on random Catholics. But the Catholic Church bases its teachings on the Bible, the Catechism and in the Canon Law of the Catholic Church.
I believe the Nicene Creed explains the basic beliefs of Christianity. Protestantism can't agree on believing the Nicene Creed.
How can you know the essential doctrines when you can't agree on the universal creed of Christianity?
Most protestant denominations accept the Nicene creed. The ones that reject it are mostly non-trinitarian groups, like the LDS and JW's. Those are not original traditional protestants, they're just trown under the same umbrella term for being non-rcc.
From non-denominational perspective, you can’t know. That’s pretty much it
@@marlena.
The Southern Baptist recently did not adopt the Nicene Creed at their annual meeting in the summer.
In reality, a lot of Protestants can't adopt the Nicene Creed because it says we believe in baptism for the forgiveness of sins. A lot of Protestants don't believe in baptismal regeneration. That is why they don't say the Nicene Creed.
Check out St John Paul II’s 1998 Profession of Faith, the three paragraphs under the Nicene creed.
I think it’s Calvary church. I might be wrong. But they have the nicean creed up until the end. They got rid of the I believe in the holy Catholic Church and 1 baptism for the forgiveness of sins cause it goes against their teaching.
The important point is that Protestants make a distinction between "essential" doctrines and "non-essential" doctrines so that they can justify having contradictory "non-essential" doctrines whereas The Catholic Church just has doctrines which every member of the Church has to believe. The things about which Catholics are allowed to disagree aren't doctrines.
I agree that’s the claim but the problem is Protestants don’t even agree on what the “essentials” are. So you have Protestants disagreeing on things like baptism, the trinity, the efficacy of the sacraments, and some will say these points are essential and others will say they’re unimportant.
And there’s very little way in which to resolve and agree on what is essential because their divisions spring from those very issues… they wouldn’t be split if it weren’t for those.
And for that matter, the Protestants wouldn’t have split from the Catholic Church if it weren’t for those essentials, either.
Baptists will not stop believing in believers only baptism because to stop, they would cease to be Baptist.
@@whiteheatherclub Exactly! 💯... "Protestatism" as a system is essentially Christian relativism. The tragedy of "denominationalism" is the predictable theological chaos that results from relativism. The Protestant revolt is the intellectual gradfather of scientism and liberalism.
@@michaeloakland4665imo, I just look at it as in nearly every denomination that deviates from the Didache is heretical. There are even things Calvin, Luther, and the church is at the time all unanimously agreed on. Many Protestant churches at a top down level have been hijacked by the Enlightenment and Progressivism. This is why after around 1960 things went very unbiblical and more relativistic, especially things like contraception.
That's also why it is frustrating when people say, "It's okay to disagree on this issue. We all believe in Jesus."
Well, that only works by assuming a particular view. For example, if baptism is only a non-essential symbol, then of course you can disagree. But if baptism is the normative means of regeneration and entrance into the Church, then no, you can't disagree about that.
“Ask 20 Protestants”
Well, which brand(s)?
Your closing is soooo logical and gentle. I pray people have ears to hear.❤
Yeah, it seems the only response Catholics get from Protestants on this subject is "You have the same problem"-- but they never give an answer. Are we just never going to know? Is this what God intended, to give us a religion without any way to even define its essentials? We're stuck in spiritual relativism?
It’s always attack attack attack, not a whole lot of defending their own position (as if they win by default).
@@killianmiller6107 they don't defend. The alternative to Catholicism is certainly not Protestantism.
Personal interpretation with its many “truths” is the ca7se of the modern day scourge of relativism!
Up until I watched this video, Jimmy Akin’s **Teaching with Authority** was the greatest help I’d gotten on this question of what’s required as believers and where are we allowed to disagree.
I went through 13 years (pre-K thru 12) of Catholic schools and had a teacher explain marriage in such a way that it seemed logically to indicate that Mary either couldn’t have been truly married or couldn’t have been ever-Virgin…. I thought I was a heretic for years because I struggled so hard making sense of teacher’s argument… (thanks for your excellent videos on that, btw!) only to find out that there was an answer, and that struggling is not the same as heresy.
All this to say, I’m truly grateful for all your hard work in explaining authority and the dogmas!
God bless.
Joe is so solid and charitable.
Joe, I'm very glad you mentioned that Gavin's father and brothers each part of different protestant sects: Ray (father) is an Anglican, Gavin is a baptist, specifically part of American Baptist Churches USA, Dane (who lost a sexual harassment lawsuit, that's why you don't see him doing the nice-guy-schmuck act like Ray and Gavin) Is a Presbyterian, and Eric, who I believe is the oldest brother, isn't in the US, but is a scholar over in the UK. My point is: The Ortlund media syndicate has _very strategically_ placed asset in multiple different sects so that they can keep their family business going. Right now, Catholicism and Orthodoxy are taking big giant bites of their business, a business that was started by Ray's father. Very similar to how you see the Bush family in American politics, the Ortlund family is Protestant ministry; it's probably way easier than being a politician for similar results. Another good metaphor is that octopus with a tentacle in every sect. (oy vey)
That's why these people are never going to say to die, will never concede anything whatsoever to the Cathoolic or Orthodox interlocutors. *Their livelihoods are on the line*
I only found the case filed before the Human Rights Commission (Illinois) that Dane was involved in a sexual discrimination case (july, 2023) not sexual harassment.
(hrc.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/hrc/decision/hrc-decisions/23-0081-hyland-final-order.pdf)
Interesting😮
@@malachi487 I very much appreciate the citation, and to clarify, I spoke in a loose sense. Hyland was harassed / bullied by Dane Ortlund, court ruled it was on the basis of sexual discrimination, out of that I pulled off the top of my head sexual harassment.
@@malachi487 Imagine St Paul castigating Phoebe, Lydia, Priscilla, or Junia, or any of the other women named in the new testament in connection with his ministry.
He wouldn't be St Paul.
@@malachi487 The whole family is very sneaky and devious. To them this is not ministry, it is industry.
I never realized that failing in protestantism of either lazy or wicked based on the "clearness of scripture" arguement. Hopefully people will take that as truly intended, to open their eyes to a false teaching rather than an actual claim against them.
Do you think John 20:30-31 is a lie? Because it sounds like you do
@SneakyEmu you obviously didn't watch the video.
@@SneakyEmu That presupposes that St John intends for us to have only the book of John alone and nothing else. St John was aware that the Church existed, so there's no way he thought that.
Thank you Joe for this informative and important content.
I was super disappointed in Gavin’s response 🤦🏾♂️. He’s supposed to be the king of Protestant apologetics and this was just a dumpster fire. I hope it was just an off day.
It aint
No... I think this is where Ortlund is these days... he's getting to be as bad a James White.
@@malachi487I love James White
Protestants want Catholicism to be false so bad. I don’t fully understand why. As an ex-Protestant I can only assume it’s a level of pride in not wanting to submit to God’s chosen authority. In Protestantism everyone is their own “pope”, however when we read the Old Testament it’s very clear that God has always chosen individuals to lead his people. Catholics following the Pope is no different than Israelites following Moses.
Once we get past the point of submission to authority and try to put our biases aside, I feel like it becomes quite clear that the Catholic Church is the original Church founded by Christ.
Much love, God Bless ❤️✝️
Peter is the prime minister, the only one given the keys while the King is gone. This is clearly seen in the Old Testament, prefiguring a greater reality in the New. Protestants just don't see it, having decapitated scripture from the faith from which it came.
Have you considered we have deep theological disagreements with your religion?
@@jonathanw1106 "Have you considered we have deep theological disagreements with your religion?"
Who specifically is the "we?"
@@TruthHasSpoken people who don't share your religion
"God has always chosen individuals to lead his people." Who led Adam? Who led Abraham? Or were they not God's people?
It’s impossible to remain protestant after the invention of the internet.
I would suggest watching Gavin Ortlands video called Praying to Saints? (A response to Joe) and skip to 25 minutes in. I was shocked. The Catholic Answers guys seem to skip over the church fathers that don't agree with them. It's happening on both sides. We all really need to be reading the church fathers ourselves and not relying on just what we're told on the internet.
@@ekatrinya Origen is not really a Church Father. And the way Gavin uses Origen was also rebuked.
Why be Catholic when even the pope isn't?
@@jwatson181 why be Protestant when even the apostles didn't teach Protestant doctrines
@@ekatrinya Well that's why we need the Church and the Magisterium for the true teaching, not individual own fallible interpretation!
A new Shameless Popery video. It's a beautiful day. 😊
Standing ovation, great clip
God is mighty, you do strengthen my catholic faith. God reward you. From P.N.G.
This channel is quickly becoming one of my favorites. Cogency is the descriptive that comes to mind. Thank You Joe!
@@nickfiorello3916 same! Joe is a balm for many.
The constitution/court analogy was so helpful! I’m investigating Catholicism and I’ve never heard it put that way before. Thanks!
I'm glad to hear it was helpful, and God bless your inquiry!
Awesome video
Sola scripture first fails at the table of contents. It also fails in that protestants disagree as to its definition. It fails again when trying to list without error, the "Essentials."
Right. There is no definition because it isn’t Scriptural and the only traditions don’t agree with each other.
I'm just here for the dad jokes.
You have no shame, sir
🤣
U2? Same.
EOC here. While I would disagree with the obvious differences that RCs have with the EOCs, I really appreciate your videos and have much respect for the way you handle theological discussions! ☦️
Great explanation! Many thanks!
Much needed to hear. Thanks Joe for explaining with clarity and keep up the good work.
Given the most obvious protestation from Protestants is the Pope and His magisterium… Gavin’s response is wild
Thank you for the video response, Joe!
Boom!!! Next question???
So Pilate said to him, “Then you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say I am a king.* For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. 🕊Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth? John:18 [37-38]✝You're doing a good job. You are using your gift for the greater good. You understand and are able to clearly articulate the Catholic teachings. Thank you for defending the faith so we may all learn the Truth. God Bless you + family.
Just a friendly reminder that Ortlund doesn't care about being truthful to God, but about opposing the Catholic Church. His whole life [or at least his ministry] is centered about giving "glory to protestantism" [factual quote]; Giving glory not to God, but to protestantism. Let that sink in for a minute.
And what is the foundation of protestantism? To oppose [protest, hence the name] the Catholic Church, hence what the guy is actually saying once you unravel it is: "glory to opposing the Catholic Church". The guy literally lives to deny anything the Church says, just for the sake of denying it, and will create a thousand mind traps of incoherent, erroneous arguments, even full fallacies if necessary to achieve it, even if that means to lose sight of God in the process.
Pray for him and for whoever listens to him seriously.
It's reminiscent of "non serviam." Non submittere in this case -- I will not submit to any authority above my own.
I'm a cradle Catholic but I think Gavin Ortlund can still be SAVED but only as through Fire 🔥 in Purgatory.
This is a great responds. Thanks
ortlund is the polite butler who brings poison, the dorky platypus with a venomous nail, an animation cartoon but of snuff and murder. He's not aggressive or obnoxious, but nonetheless simply so anti-Catholic, he doesn't mind being a liar.
Gavin is just as malevolent as James White and John MacArthur, but with a clever shtick.
Wow you Catholics really have a thin skin don't you? It's really childish to react this way to respectful disagreement
@@fantasia55 exactly. William Albrecht doesn't mince words about Ortlund. He hides his venom behind being calm with a false charity; as in with a forked tongue.
@@SneakyEmudiscernment makes you know a snake when you see it, I knew he was a manipulator right from the time he sounded soo sweet and kind
Most excellent! You placed water so that the sheep can understand our wonderful the Church by pouring water onto those complicated treatises -not to dilute the wine but to sanctify that which is the result -waiting on the Lord to to make that water into that same wine within our hearts. Alleluia. (i.e. Praise to Yaweh).
The protestant says there are no essential doctrines in the creeds of the Catholic Church..... i don’t know whether to laugh or cry. The whole point of the creeds, like, the Niceo-Constantinopolitan one, is to LIST the most important Christian doctrines that were particularly relevant at the time to combat heretics, like this one. And one of the doctrines, by the way,, is the belief (i.e. obedience, which is what “belief” means) in the One (not many), Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which this heretic rejects outright, while at the same time claiming he’s accepting the Creed as a protestant. And this guy has a PHD? In what? Lunacy? I don’t know if it’s worth even responding to any of this nonsense in a serious manner.
The Constitution / Supreme Court analogy was brilliant! The only caveat is that it incorporates the two subjects that we have been told we are not permitted to discuss at the dinner table in polite company... 😉
Let's discuss them anyway! 😃❤🙏☺
Yes, an excellent analogy with the satanic fruits of Protestantism obvious.
Protestantism with no unifying authority = Confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects
Catholicism with unifying Magisterial authority = Structure, hierarchy, longevity & relative unity
It's so simple. Thank you Joe.
“But I stiiiiillll haven’t fouuuund what I’m looking foooorrr!” 🎶
10,000 bonus internet points for the U2 joke
the U2 joke and 7 book constitution - man's got JOKES
I totally forgot about that one!
In order for any such discussion to be fruitful, we need to understand what each party means by "essential" .
For a Catholic, the term "essential" pertains to the form of faith. Of course, in terms of content, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not as essential to the Gospel as the Resurrection. However, when a doctrine is formally defined by Apostolic authority, it becomes essential. Thus, in formal terms, both the Resurrection and the Immaculate Conception are equally essential, since it's by the same act of faith - an act which has an intrinsically ecclesial character - that we accept both of them as true.
For a Protestant, on the other hand, the accent is very much on the content, as opposed to the form, of faith. For the garden variety Protestant, "essential" comes down to a question of relevance to the Gospel. Sounds nice and simple - but like a lot of simple answers, it only creates problems further down the line.
Amazing commentary!
Dude I’m not catholic but I feel like that intro from Gavin was just some heavy handed disrespect. I really don’t think it takes much to figure out the essentials of the Catholic faith.
As most "cradle" Catholics I grew up learning from what Church authorities taught us. My parents being my first resource, then my school teachers. If they didn't know something that was pressing they would tell us to ask our priest. If for some reason the priest didn't know he will ask his bishop. In the rare situation that the bishop wasn't sure he would write to the most appropriate dicastery, confident that in the extreme case of a very complex question they would ultimately ask the pope. Probably most of the inconsistencies in today's Catholics come from trying to take as ultimate teaching the one from their favorite social network apologist. They make an excellent job in researching and explaining it but ultimately they were given no authority. So it's always good to revalidate with an authority if the matter is important to you.
One voice. Many of the ONE’s in first marker of the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church
Hi Joe, may I recommend you publish the presentation you present in your videos somewhere on some website so that it's easier to search and come back later on. And a transcript to go with the presentation. It would be epic.
Well done
It's an essential doctrine that you focus on safely driving by not dividing your attention between podcasting and driving. Can we all agree on that much?
That's an interesting article you cited from Gavin. I'm curious about the rest of that series. Gavin discusses the two doctrines in terms of paedobaptism and credobaptism. Maybe if other non-Catholic Christians heard baptism discussed in those terms they would be less antagonistic toward Roman Catholic Christians for the practice of infant baptism. The practice isn't unique to Roman Catholics, but the criticism for the practice appears to be directed only toward Roman Catholics. Perhaps it's just ignorance by lay Baptist Christians and non-denominational Christians where there's limited contact with other Christians who practice infant baptism.
Oh trust me, I was Episcopal/Anglican for 40 years surrounded by Baptist friends. The only charity you get out of this is not talking about it. Baptists do have that thing where you don’t need baptism to be saved, but you are absolutely not validly baptized if you were as a baby and they do not budge on it regardless of your confidence in your salvation or your fruits.
You can leave off the Roman. We are Catholics, East and West, universal. The name is Catholic Church.
@@pmlm1571 I'm a Catholic myself. I understand some Catholics prefer not to use the adjective "Roman", but it was more accurate for my comment. In my experience non-Catholic Christians have a very specific understanding of the term. For instance, I use the terms Catholic and Christian interchangeably. However, most American Christians don't introduce themselves as Baptists, Methodists, Latin Rite Catholic etc. They just identify themselves as Christians. I chose to be more specific for the sake of other Christians reading my comment. No offense was intended.
Great video, and ended on a banger of a point. To add, if they had used "scripture alone" to settle it they would have agreed that one did need to be circumcised to be saved based on the Old Testament covenant.
Gavin pretends to be charitable, but he objectively isn't.
True, and frankly the mask has been falling off for a while
How is he not being charitable?
He's Charitable™
@@user-hj8vd2od9h agreed. The more I watch him, the more I'm inclined to believe he is intentionally obtuse
@@RenegadeCatholic I don't think so. Someone being mistaken don't mean the are obtuse, he's informed so I wouldn't say he's ignorant. I think it's possible to come to different despite having the evidence he might just be wrong it not he's knows he's motivates they may be good or bad we don't God knows and will meet him where he is just pray for him and let God do what he does best.
I thank you for your videos. You put into words what I didn't have the words for. I saw the video and was like "why is he asking Catholics, he needs to read what the church says" and I did see the posing it back to you response. Now I know the fancy word for it.
What a great analogy and using of the constitution.
Thanks!
Brilliant, the analogy of the 2 Countries and Doctrinal Order, or Doctrinal cival war!
All entities from family to corporates & govt require structure, hierarchy & unifying authority to survive, without which Protestantism is unsustainable
Protestants have a system to inform their faith. That system requires an inherently subjective standard--you decide.
Catholics don't.
So, did Christ give us an objective way to know how to be Christian or not?
Seems like if Christianity is true, its got to be Catholicism. Seems like Christianity is unlikely to be true if the "revelation" is inherently subjective.
The relativism of Protestantism can’t abide the Truth, a foreign concept!
My way or the highway, no humility, hence their disunity with unity another foreign concept! Must be tough jumping through all those hoops!
Note, paragraph three of the Profession of Faith states we must accept even none definitive beliefs with intellect and will.
I realize everyone’s busy, but any video you have to record while driving suggests you don’t seriously care either about the subject matter or the safety of everyone around you. Concentrate on driving. Your vanity can wait.
“Essential Doctrines” isn’t even a concept that operates natively within Catholicism/Orthodoxy/etc. It’s purely an importation from the Protestant framework to facilitate dialogue.
Thanks.
JOEY! good job mate.
Protestant indifferentism?
Nah, protestant agreement on the essentials. Don't look back to the hundreds of years where protestants violently quarreled on these issues
"Violently quarreled?" You mean like the three Catholic inquisitions?
We weren't infighting@@johnbrowne2170
@@johnbrowne2170 non-sequitor
Maybe that’s something you can summarize on a book for us… No?
A book listing the dogmas, doctrines and traditions we need to be on the same page as Catholics (either Roman, eastern, etc), that would be FABULOUS! 🙌
I bought your book about the early church! And it’s better than expected! I’m so thankful for it! 🥰🙏
Gavin is going to be so embarrassed when the Lord switches his light on.
I think he'll be so excited he won't even care. I hope so. I think he's closer than he thinks, and he's busy rebelling right now.
@@Catholiclady3 AMEN! Please, God!
@shamelesspopery
Ever considered reviewing Gavin’s book on triage?
"Tu quoque, Bono!" Julius Caesar, as he was assassinated by Celtic rebels while live at MetalFest. Does this count as a U2 joke?
If U2 played at MetalFest that would be a joke 🤣
@@jaredwilliams1031 that was also part of the joke ;)
I think the final point about having a definitive mechanism to settle disputes is the best point in the video. Cardinal Ratzinger's commentary was not itself adopted into JPII's ordinary magisterium. Although there are other sources for every one of that very highest tier of dogmas the commentary lists that are not only magisterial but clearly definitive and irreformable (i.e. under the charism of infallibility). So not sure "Protestantism" has that.
He's a gross liar. The way he quote mines the Church Fathers is sick. Such a disingenuous person
So pointing out fathers that don't agree with Catholicism is "mining"? You are a professional gaslighter
@@SneakyEmu He argues like an atheist where he will pretend some church father believes some protestant view even though that clearly contradicts what the church father argues elsewhere, and he'll even cut off the quotation where the following sentences would give a very different impression. Trent Horn showcases this with a side by side of the full passage vs what Ortlund is trying to push. Sorry but Jerome, Chrystostom, and Augustine were not in any way protestant. To believe that, you would have to say they hold contradictory views just as atheists accuse the Bible of being
I can't believe I missed the U2 joke... 😦😦😧
I feel so stupid. I was so disappointed that he couldn't find one! 😞😓
It's time to reduce Gavin's credibility... by a lot. Too long hes been saying nothing in a nice voice pretending he's saying something substantive.
Yeah, I’ve noticed that Gavin tends to use a lot of fancy words to hide the fact that he has nothing useful to contribute to the conversation.
@@HowToBeChristianFerris, I absolutely love your channel! I asked Gavin Ortlund ( for over a year until he finally answered). I stated Protestants must then admit they can never know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ", or who the rock is in Matthew 16, or who the Woman is in Revelation 12, since SCRIPTURE ALONE is infallible as the Protestant tradition goe!s, correct? Gavin finally admitted this is true! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
To me, he kind of lost it when he started to argue that Augustine believed in Sola scriptura. He is still better than most Protestant apologists though.
@@HowToBeChristian
Hey Ferris, I really do enjoy your insights, thank you 👍🙏
Exactly. Speaking I'm a nice voice while promoting error and showing obstinacy
That analogy with the two countries 👏👏
Great video Joe! I am not trying to uncharitable in anyway, but I feel like Gavin doesn't get called out sometimes because he is "nice." I appreciate his charity and we should certainly be charitable back. But when I listen to him it feels like he has to go through extreme mental exercises just to justify his point. God bless him, but I just can't agree with him.
He is more Catholic than he realises & is struggling with this internal conflict!
This question implies there is only one answer, it doesn’t allow for different circumstances that might effect which essentials are essential.
Send Gavin Joe’s shirt from the last video as an ecumenical gesture.
Thanks much for this video..
🙌
Joe is making a solid logical argument, but I'd be willing to bet that if Gavin makes a response video he will just feign offense and indignation at the "wicked vs lazy" argument and dismiss it wholesale. Just a hunch.
My question to Gavin would be, what doctrines do Catholics not agree on?
@nickw9766 in some branches of the CC, priests are allowed to marry. In others, they are not. That's a biggy. All Protestants do agree in that.
The CC explains it away by saying that it's not a doctrine but something else.
Also, what is exactly the soterology of the CC? different Catholics say different things about that. And that is really an important issue.
Hell: some popes thought it to be a real place. Some others dont.
@@Maranatha99 Priest celibacy is church discipline, not a doctrine. They're not the same thing. It's similar to fasting rules and holy days of obligation, the church can and has changed those rules overtime.
They also are not called "branches", they are rites. The different rites in the church, latin, byzantine, etc have different liturgical traditions and disciplines but identical doctrines. A doctrine is a teaching, a discipline is a rule.
@@Maranatha99 if you mean works, righteousness, that one has to earn your salvation is not a Catholic Church teaching.
@@Maranatha99 Yet, the soteriology of the Catholic Church is in the Catechism. Once again, if someone doesn't know there is a place to find the official teaching.
Saying "some branches" of the CC is misleading. In the Latin Rite, priests are not allowed to marry and take a vow of celibacy. Some rites do allow this. Both are biblical and both are choices made. Its "not a biggy". In the Latin Rite, they follow St. Paul's advice that if someone can remain unmarried and be able to devote their all to God, then they are better off doing that. So, the Latin Rite looks for people called to do that.
@@sentjojo thks for your infos about the names I got wrong.
The main thing is that in that important topic, however u call it, Catholics are divided.
I think Dr. Ortlund is so worried about attacking the CC he can’t see the plank in his own eye regarding Protestants who can with any authority point to doctrines that are essential to salvation.
He may want to at least attempt to get Protestants on the same page. Perhaps start there
To be fair to Gavin and The Westminster Confession, you would need to focus on the words “for salvation” in the section you cited. I’ve specifically heard Gavin say that if you miss the significance of those words, you are missing the whole point of the doctrine of the perspicuity of scripture.
That still applies, as Baptismal regeneration is such a contentious issue. An extremely serious issue indeed, as there may be untold numbers of people that are damned to hell for skipping their baptism (not accounting for "baptism of desire", but such a thing is not something we should put blind faith to).
If you do believe it, you shouldn't only baptize infants, you must baptize infants as soon as possible, even if an hour after leaving the hospital. God may save the child anyway, but if baptism saves, then it's best not to take the chances. Even if so, God might charge you with negligence for risking the salvation of your child.
John Calvin tolerated many heresies, but the (Ana)baptists he put to death, burnt at the stake, as Calvin believed that baptism is essential for salvation and skipping it is immeasurably dangerous. All Lutherans hold to the same.
Yet somehow, 80% of American Christians don't believe in this extremely important doctrine on the matters of salvation.
Yeah, that's the difference between Westminster's concept of perspicuity and the earlier form laid out by Martin Luther. But that raises the question: which doctrines *are* essential for salvation? And hence, my original question.
@@crusaderACRProtestant irrationality is unbelievable! They profess to be bible believing, yet can’t agree on the necessity for baptism with some denying that water baptism is required!
@@shamelesspopery Thanks for the response. Regarding which “things” are necessary for salvation, Chapter 18.1 of the Westminster Confession says, “…yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.”
To me, it sounds like the Westminster Confession is claiming that assurance of salvation depends on the basic belief and acceptance of “Jesus as Lord” (which I think also implies a belief and acceptance of his completed work), as well as the continual striving to walk in loving obedience to his commands (as we can best discern them).
I think this is probably intentionally broad and basic, so as to affirm the salvation of truly believing Christians across denominational lines.
At the basic level, there's the Apostle Creed (which the protestants can't proclaim due to its mention of "the holy catholic Church & the communion of saints".
For the rest, the Church establishes them fairly well. The Catechism is useful in that regard.
Protestants do recite & believe in the Apostles Creed. However, as usual they put their own interpretation on the word Catholic or Universal Church!
Ortlund should drive to their vast church Library to get doctrinal information. Sometimes I think he learns from Catholics so as to twist information to fit his Theology.
I'm leaning alot more towards Eastern Orthodoxy but I'm finding of the big 3 that specifically prot channels have the most intellectual dishonesty, ignorance, parsing of scripture and selectively picking and choosing what doctrines they personally like and pretend it's plain and easy to see despite being in conflict with countless other prots and usually in conflict with at least some of their own early reformers.
I noticed it's common for people to describe the RC church as "creepy" yet the more I dig into the way prot pastors and apologists operate or countless megachurches and popular speakers connections to the CIA the more I view their representatives as by far the creepiest. Always red-flags hiding behind the stereotypical nice-guy for them, my fight-or-flight system always goes up when my Dad puts on one of these used car-salesman snakes.
I think, the fallacy does not apply here.
It's more like this:
Mom: You shouldn't smoke, anybody who smokes cannot be a member of this household!
Kid: But Mom, you too are smoking, and you're still a member of this household!
You see what I mean? You apply two different standards. If disagreeing on the essential is a sign of not being a true church, it applies to you aswell.
Dont expect logic from this guy he goes on to commit a false dichotomy fallacy immediately after regarding whether people or either wicked or lazy
You don't get why it's a fallacy worth pointing out. You have to attack the argument, not just say "you too!"
To use your example, if the kid conceded that smoking is a measure of who is part of the household, then it follows that NEITHER is part of the household. It doesn't spare the kid, it just dooms mom as well.
Both of us could (hypothetically) be wrong, and you just seemed to say both of us are. Then where is the Church? Is it none? Is it Islam? Atheism?
If you continued on the video, you'd see that the Catholic Church does indeed have a system to decide on the essentials, which makes even the "you too!" false.
@@crusaderACR Protestants don't claim that disagreement on the essentials is necessarily a sign of not being part of the true church, it's a sign of not understanding the bible correctly. Protestantism has always recognized the validity of other churches. It is "your" standard that brings down your own church. It's not a widely accepted moral standard (like smoking is unhealthy) that is being disputed, it's a specific, catholic claim (disagreeing on the essentials is a sign of not being the one true church).
Every church has the same problem:
"Here is the infallible guiding rail of our faith, stick to it." And then people fail to do so. Even if it's scripture or apostolic succession.
Using people's ability to follow their rule of faith as a measuring stick for how valid that rule of faith is, is just false.
Moreover, if the orthodox have valid apostolic succession, how can they have any false doctrine?
Ortland’s response is a *category error*. “Essential doctrines” is a concept that operates *between* denominations, not *within* a single denomination. Within a denomination, there’s just doctrine: this is what we believe.
God Bless Gavin Ortlund
Why is he anti-Catholic?
@@geoffjs I don't think Gavin would say he is anti-catholic. He might be anti bad theology though, as am I. I heard Joe say some stuff that sounded like intentional misrepresentation of reformed theology. I have never heard Gavin intentionally mis represent Catholicism.
Pray for his conversion 🙏
@@EmberBright2077 I'll pray for your conversion.
Gavin "humble and irenic" Ortlund has appointed himself spokesman for all of Protestantism.