No matter the argument, this all comes down to one thing. If you cannot accept the fact that the Catholic Church is the one true church that Jesus Christ started, it will never matter what counterarguments we give them. Their minds cannot accept it. Like it says, it's a stumbling block to those who are perishing.
Gavin Ortlund’s approach to Catholicism is like a man carefully examining a stained glass window, appreciating its craftsmanship while insisting that the frame holding it together is unnecessary. He often acknowledges the beauty and depth of Catholic theology but simultaneously dismisses the foundational authority-apostolic succession and tradition-that has preserved and illuminated these truths for centuries. His arguments often attempt to separate Catholic doctrines from their historical and theological roots, treating them as isolated ideas rather than interconnected parts of a cohesive whole. This method gives the impression of thoughtful critique, but it ultimately overlooks the structural integrity of Catholic teaching, which rests on the union of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. The irony is that Ortlund relies heavily on the Church’s historical legacy to make his case-quoting the Church Fathers or appealing to early Christian practices-while rejecting the authority that safeguarded these truths and discerned their proper interpretation. In doing so, he unintentionally affirms the necessity of the very structure he seeks to deny, demonstrating that the Catholic Church’s foundations remain far sturdier than his critiques.
Meanwhile other Protestant UA-camrs/influencers gravitate to Gaven's content and use it to justify their rejection of Catholic teaching. This is why rebuttals like this are so important to highlight important texts (like St. Augustine's other works) that are completely being ignored.
As a Protestant, I think your articulated yourself very well. Shockingly, I agree with you. I’m high church Anglican and watching how he shifts through church history is concerning.
Thank You Brother for making it SO SO CLEAR , that Jesus is refering to Simon as the ROCK ( Peter ).... especially changing his name from Simon to Peter.👍 May Our Lord and His Blessed Mother , Bless you in your work for Christ. 🙏🏻
Sometimes, I think the frustrating thing with Dr. Ortlund is, although he's supposed to be the latest and greatest in Protestant apologetics, he still many times regurgitates the same, old, long time refuted arguments. His take on St. Peter, Mt 16:18 (and St. Augustine) is a good example.
@fire15aidenspencer72. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen. (Which, as a Protestant, I declare every Sunday in church.)
@@TheRyno525 God Himself changed the name of only four people in the Bible, reflecting an identity change and a destiny (in the case of the men): Abram's name to Abraham (father of a multitude), Sarai's to Sarah (Laughter), Jacob's to Israel (One who struggles with God) and Simon's to Peter (the Rock). ''Sons of Thunder'' are nicknames, scripture gives no reason for the name change.
@@pappap1702 The definition of Catholic is "Universal." Jesus said that His Church would be named OF ALL NATIONS in the book of Mark 11:17. The word Universal literally means “for/of all nations”. Jesus said: “Is it not written, My house shall be called OF ALL NATIONS the house of prayer?” (Mark 11:17) Jesus actually told us how to find His Church.
@@pappap1702 The definition of Catholic is "Universal." Jesus said that His Church would be named OF ALL NATIONS in the book of Mark 11:17. The word Universal literally means “for/of all nations”. Jesus said: “Is it not written, My house shall be called OF ALL NATIONS the house of prayer?” (Mark 11:17). Jesus actually told us how to find His Catholic Church.
And somehow YOU turned into every Pope the Church claimed is his successor because the Church has that right since they said they do... Makes sense very convincing.
@@FiatVoluntasTuaAmen There are only two possible choices: - Jesus was a meanie and basically said to Peter "We're going to build the Church based on me - the rock - and only me but I will also change your name to rock just to show you how insignificant you are" or - Jesus changed Simon's name to show how significant his role is going to be as a head ("the rock") of the Church that is about to established You pick which option makes more sense.
I believe the Orthodox have it right in this regard with a Council of Bishops not just one Poor. The Apostles came together on issues of the church to work out the correct response and "rules' to situations came up. The boss is Jesus Christ not the Pope. There's not even definitive, irrefutable proof that Peter was even in Rome.
@pappap1702 the keys signify the office of prime minister on the reestablished kingdom of David who has all authority in the Kings absence. In this case, he is soon to ascend into heaven.
“but I have prayed for you(Peter), that your faith will not fail; and you, when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”Lk22:23 (Jesus singled him out) infallibility of Peter St Peter’s basilica 🎉
John 21:15-17: "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" Jesus asks Peter three times, and each time Peter responds, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you". After the third time, Jesus says, "Feed my sheep".
All God's teachings are centered on love. This love is not merely an emotion, but a commitment to act with patience, kindness, humility, and selflessness. It is a reflection of God's own nature and His everlasting love for us. Jesus' New Commandment: A new command I give you: LOVE one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. John 13:34-35 Peter's Emphasis on Love: "ABOVE all, love each other deeply, because LOVE covers over a multitude of sins." 1 Peter 4:8 "Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the TRUTH so that you have sincere LOVE for each other, love one another deeply, from the heart." 1 Peter 1:22 Paul's Teaching on Love: "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the GREATEST of these is LOVE." 1 Corinthians 13:13 Lord, help us to embody this love in our daily lives, as we strive to follow the example set by Jesus and the teachings of the apostles. Let our actions be a testament to Your love, and may we, as Your Church, reflect Your light to the world. One true Jesus' Catholic and Apostolic Church. In Your precious and holy name Jesus Christ, we pray. Amen.
The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases. The main reason is that our LORD Jesus appointed Peter as the head of the first church... Peter the Pope.. Mt 16:18 - upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church Mt 16:19 - give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind & loose. Ananias lied to Peter, but Peter charged Ananias with lying to God (Acts 5:3-4). “As judge Peter acted as Christ’s vicar. To lie to Peter was to lie to God himself". Some one will asks that the word pope not in the Bible? The answer is that Not only the word papacy in the Bible ,You can't also find the word Trinity ...The word Trinity is not in the Bible... so will you reject the Trinity? You can find The core idea behinds in Peter's papacy in the Bible... Primacy of Peter Mt 16:18 - upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church Mt 16:19 - give you keys of thekingdom; power to bind & loose Lk 22:32 - Peter's faith will strengthen his brethren Jn 21:17 - given Christ's flock as chief shepherd Mk 16:7 - angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter Lk 24:34 - risen Jesus first appeared to Peter Acts 1:13-26 - headed meeting which elected Matthias Acts 2:14 - led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost Acts 2:41 - received first converts Acts 3:6-7 - performed first miracle after Pentecost Acts 5:1-11 - inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira Acts 8:21 - excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus Acts 10:44-46 - received revelation to admit Gentiles into Church Acts 15:7 - led first council in Jerusalem Acts 15:19 - pronounces first dogmatic decision Gal 1:18 - after conversion,Paul visits chief Apostle Gal 2:11-14 - I opposed Cephasto his face for his hypocrisy Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Pope Clement I, Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]). Hegesippus: "When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]). Tertullian: "[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]). Irenaeus: "It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]). "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul-that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2). "Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4). "[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church-those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2). "The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8). The early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, ( he is a Protestant) writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37). For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.). Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" (ibid., 41).
No they didn't. The later Gentile Christian fathers used the names of the disciples of Jesus just like Catholic Churches would use supposed relics later. For instance acquisition of the supposed bones of the Three Wise Men by the Bishop of Cologne resulted in building the tallest and most splendid cathedral in Europe there.
@@ji8044 It’s better to preserve relics even if they’re fake than throw them away for the chance they are fraudulent. Also, it’s a historical fact St. Ignatius of Antioch knew John the Apostle.
The sad part about ortlund is he thinks he understands catholicism and can speak for it. The second sadest thing is he thinks he can understand the fathers without catholicism. The biggest mistake he makes is the thing you have alluded to over and over without explicitly stating it. The multiple senses of scripture. He sees three senses as conflicts and tries to figure out which one. He is confused by it. It might even sound likd they ard irenic protestants to him. Or it sounds like augustine is uncertain and changes his mind. Catholicism can reconcile them.
When Jesus spoke this is my real body and drink my blood ,they where leaving he ask Peter are you going to leave too , it was Peter who said were can we go ,Peter stood up and told everyone did not the Lord give me the authority to preach to the gentiles .
Gavin would NOT want this Catholic priest and Bishop preaching at his Church. As an example, St Augustine's words on the keys and the need to confess mortal sins to a priest. _“All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grievous sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven.”_ Christian Combat (A.D. 397). Protestants: do read St Augustine! Most inconsistent to Gavin's beliefs, St Augustine - a Catholic Bishop (hence priest) - taught of the Sacrifice of the Mass. He believed that through his words of consecration, the bread and wine transformed into the Resurrected Christ, a means for receiving his Grace. He peers agreed with him. The only one's that did not were those who denied the deity of Christ. Note: Gavin's bible has the very same 27 New Testament writings that St Augustine and his peers declared as New Testament scripture at both Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) while Gavin's bible is missing 7 Old Testament writings that the very same men declared as scripture at the very same time. That one would tacitly trust them on the former and not the latter, is an inconsistency. That they were all Catholic priests is another inconsistency. That they read this book at Mass, is yet another.
@@ji8044 "There is no distinction of mortal or venial sin in the Bible.": 1 John chapter 5 _16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal._ Scripture is so clear. As is the Church for 2000 years. Examples below. St Clement of Alexandria writes _You see the one God declared good, rendering according to desert, and forgiving sins. _*_John, too, manifestly teaches the differences of sins, in his larger Epistle, in these words: “If any man see his brother sin a sin that is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life: for these that sin not unto death,” he says. For “there is a sin unto death: I do not say that one is to pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin; and there is a sin not unto death.”_* Tertullian writes *John, too, will teach us:* “If any knoweth his brother to be sinning a sin not unto death, he shall request, and life shall be given to him;” because he is not “sinning unto death,” this will be remissible. “(There) is a sin unto death; not for this do I say that any is to request” this will be irremissible. So, where there is the efficacious power of “making request,” there likewise is that of remission: where there is no (efficacious power) of “making request,” there equally is none of remission either. *According to this difference of sins, the condition of repentance also is discriminated. There will be a condition which may possibly obtain pardon,-in the case, namely, of a remissible sin: there will be a condition which can by no means obtain it,-in the case, namely, of an irremissible sin. And it remains to examine specially, with regard to the position of adultery and fornication, to which class of sins they ought to be assigned.* When one drops the protestantism, the Christianity shines through.
@@ji8044 "There is no distinction of mortal or venial sin in the Bible." _5 v16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal._ (1 Jn) Scripture is so clear. As is the Church for 2000 years. Examples below, quoting this verse. St Clement of Alexandria writes You see the one God declared good, rendering according to desert, and forgiving sins. *John, too, manifestly teaches the differences of sins, in his larger Epistle, in these words: “If any man see his brother sin a sin that is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life: for these that sin not unto death,” he says. For “there is a sin unto death: I do not say that one is to pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin; and there is a sin not unto death.”* Tertullian writes John, too, will teach us: “If any knoweth his brother to be sinning a sin not unto death, he shall request, and life shall be given to him;” because he is not “sinning unto death,” this will be remissible. “(There) is a sin unto death; not for this do I say that any is to request” this will be irremissible. So, where there is the efficacious power of “making request,” there likewise is that of remission: where there is no (efficacious power) of “making request,” there equally is none of remission either. *According to this difference of sins, the condition of repentance also is discriminated. There will be a condition which may possibly obtain pardon,-in the case, namely, of a remissible sin: there will be a condition which can by no means obtain it,-in the case, namely, of an irremissible sin. And it remains to examine specially, with regard to the position of adultery and fornication, to which class of sins they ought to be assigned.* When one drops the protestantism, the Christianity shines through.
@@ji8044 "There is no distinction of mortal or venial sin in the Bible." Ch 5: If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal. (1 Jn) Scripture is so clear. As is the Church for 2000 years. St Clement of Alexandria: _You see the one God declared good, rendering according to desert, and forgiving sins. _*_John, too, manifestly teaches the differences of sins, in his larger Epistle, in these words: “If any man see his brother sin a sin that is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life: for these that sin not unto death,” he says. For “there is a sin unto death: I do not say that one is to pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin; and there is a sin not unto death.”_* Tertullian: _“If any knoweth his brother to be sinning a sin not unto death, he shall request, and life shall be given to him;” because he is not “sinning unto death,” this will be remissible. “(There) is a sin unto death; not for this do I say that any is to request” this will be irremissible. So, where there is the efficacious power of “making request,” there likewise is that of remission: where there is no (efficacious power) of “making request,” there equally is none of remission either. _*_According to this difference of sins, the condition of repentance also is discriminated. There will be a condition which may possibly obtain pardon,-in the case, namely, of a remissible sin: there will be a condition which can by no means obtain it,-in the case, namely, of an irremissible sin. And it remains to examine specially, with regard to the position of adultery and fornication, to which class of sins they ought to be assigned._* When one drops the protestantism, the Christianity shines through.
What just occurred to me, and I have never heard anyone mention it, is why is it so important that Pete didn't figure out who Jesus was but instead His Father in heaven has revealed this to Rocky. His Father didn't reveal it to anyone else or everyone else but only the blabber mouth Simon Why Si and no one else or for that matter anyone? Then Jesus after confirming this renames Pete, gives him the keys and the authority to bind and loose.... Then tells them all not to tell anyone! Now there is a second epiphany. "Why are you all calling Si, Rock?" "We can't tell you!"
I find Gavin's argumentation as coping. Let's face it, the centuries have passed since the reformation, personal, national identities have been built around protestantism. In that regard I kind of understand him, he has grown up in the protestant family, majority protestant environment and accepting catholic arguments would be like betrayal to his parents, society, etc... It takes a lot of courage to become a Catholic. That would be like breaking up with your own past and tradition. I pray for all those considering becoming Catholic and those who accepted Catholic Church to persist.
"Apostolicity is a matter of fidelity to the apostolic gospel". Great! Now, how does anyone maintain that fidelity when they are going out on your own interpretation of the Bible without being bound or guided by a central apostolic authority? As is always the case, 'the proof is in the pudding' and we just have to look at the end products of protestantism in the absence of a central apostolic authority to see how that works out. Even Paul having encountered Jesus himself did not go off by himself but felt the need to seek the other apostles to confirm they were teaching the same gospel.
Paul didn't go off by himself? Scholars say we can't trust Acts on that, it's better to trust Paul's own letters to see that he always demanded that the other apostles (the apostles who actually lived with Jesus) bend to his views.
Sometimes it feels like proving to “flat earthers” that Earth is a globe. It doesn’t matter how much evidence one gives, they will always say it is not “real” evidence or that the evidence doesn’t prove anything.
Bingo! He's extremely disingenuous and reads Catholic doctrine through a false understanding of his own rather than from the understanding of the Catholic Church itself. It's a betrayal of truth and charity.
In French, the word for “rock” or “stone” is pierre. This term is also used as a masculine given name in French-speaking countries, derived from the Greek word πέτρος (petros) meaning “rock” or “stone.” He should read the bible written in French...
I thought he was a genuine kinda guy too. But then, I see a completely different character in his comments compared to his videos. Maybe he was having an off day, but look at his responses to comments on his Tyndall video. I was shocked.
Please do also note that Papal infallibility came some 14 centuries later than Augustine's time, so Catholic Christian while trying to correct Gavin on what was omitted, he also erred by associating infallibility with Augustine.
The Bible is replete with example after example of prophets and other prominent figures having received special and specific roles in the divine plan. Why cannot it not be the case for Simon whose name Jesus specifically changed to rock? Is it because it constitutes an existential problem to protestantism? One place to find the answer to this is to look at Martin Luther's overall disposition towards the Holy Bible he received from the Catholic Church.
In a house the foundation is always level. The Apostles were made level and equal and even called brothers by Jesus Christ. Peter’s confession isn’t even the rock. The rock is that the truth had been revealed to Peter by the Father and that was the evidence to Jesus Christ who His Father had chosen for Him. Ephesians 2:19-20 19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
St.Peter is the Rock of Jesus and Jesus entrusted him with the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, as part of God’s divine plan. Peter’s confession was revealed by God the Father in heaven: “For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven” (Matthew 16:17). Jesus Christ is undeniably the Rock of foundation and salvation.Peter’s confession was divinely inspired, affirming that he is the rock (a true believer of Christ) upon which Jesus declared He would build His Church. The Church is built upon the Body of Christ (the believers), but what is unique about Peter is that he holds the keys, symbolizing his authority and leadership within the Church. Praying for my Brothers and Sisters... One Jesus' Universal Apostolic Church. John 17:21, Jesus prays, that they may all be ONE...
John 1 :40-51 is the passage where first Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, and Nathanael identify Jesus as "the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ" [Andrew to Peter], and "the Son of God... the king of Israel" [Nathaniel to Jesus]. Matthew 16 :16 says, "Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, _the son of the living God_ ." Peter still didn't comprehend the full implication of Jesus' identity (see Mt. 16 :22), but he recognized that the Messiah wasn't merely human in the way that the phrase "Son of God" is used elsewhere to describe certain holy men. Andrew and Nathanael recognized the Messiah, but thought he was to be a military leader who would take the role of the earthly king and governor of Israel. Peter recognized that Jesus was literally the Son of God and therefore divine. But he still expected that Jesus wouldn't be subjected to torture and death because of His divine nature and role.
Catholic Christian has certainly put up a very orderly rebuttal which is plausible! However, for many of the videos where Protestants disagree with either Catholics or Othordox I see that anyone can thread their case by selecting which fathers and what part of their writings to quote. A case in point is what has been alluded to concerning Augustine's writing. We must also note that we only have snapshots of their conversations and it is absurd to assume we have a full picture of what they were teaching. The Holy Spirit guided there reactions to the challenges they encountered and they were not necessarily creating blue prints for our practices today. Today if we seek the Holy Spirit he will help us navigate our own waters, but this must be based on the foundation built on the Apostles (Ephesians 2:20). Lastly, there's no proof either way, you have to be Catholic to see Peter as an infallible Pope with successors at some address in the Vatican! Methinks the best way to interpret Matthew 16:18 is to look at how rhis reflected in his life. While we admit a prominent leading role, this looks like more to do with his gifting. Otherwise, we see him being sent around as needed by the Church in Jerusalem. Check Acts Chapters 8, 10,11. 1 Peter 5:1-4, which most Catholics tend to brush aside is a reflection of the true Peter - a fellow elder!!! Lastly, may I also mention that Newman one of the beloved of the Catholics, strongly advised Pius IX, not declare himself infallible?
@mmbtalk As Catholics we must pray for all these Protestants who always disagree with the Catholic Church which Christ Himself build with the authority of His Heavenly Father Lord of heaven and earth through His Apostle Simon Peter only BECAUSE JESUS ALREADY KNEW WHO DO NOT BELIEVE HIS WORDS AND HIS CHURCH AND WHO WILL BETRAY HIM THAT IS WHY OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST WHO IS THE HEAD OF OUR CATHOLIC CHURCH TOLD US John 6:64 - "but there are some of you that do not believe. FOR JESUS KNEW FROM THE FIRST WHO THOSE WERE THAT NOT BELIEVE AND WHO IT WAS THAT BETRAY HIM". John 7:18 - "he who on his own authority seek his own glory but he who seeks the GLORY OF HIM WHO SENT HIM IS TRUE AND IN HIM THERE IS NO FALSEHOOD". John 8:51 - "truly, truly, I say to you if any one keeps My Word, he will never see death" JOHN 10:25-26- "I told you and you do not believe. The WORKS that I DO in MY FATHER'S NAME they bear witness to Me; but you do not believe BECAUSE YOU DO NOT BELONG TO MY SHEEP". John 12:48-49-50 - "he who rejects Me and My sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day. FOR I HAVE NOT SPOKEN ON MY OWN AUTHORITY; THE FATHER WHO SENT ME HAS HIMSELF GIVEN ME COMMANDMENT WHAT TO SAY AND WHAT TO SPEAK. AND I KNOW THAT HIS COMMANDMENT IS ETERNAL LIFE. WHAT I SAY, THEREFORE, I SAY AS THE FATHER HAS BIDDEN ME". JOHN 15:6 - "If a man does not abide in Me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers and the branches are gathered thrown into the fire and burned". JOHN 21:17 - Jesus said only to His Apostle Simon Peter "Simon son of John do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because Jesus said to him the third time "do you love Me?" Peter said to Jesus "Lord, you know everything, you know that I love you" Jesus said to Simon Peter "FEED MY SHEEP". Luke 9:5 -"And wherever they do not receive you, when you leave that town shake off the dust from your feet as a testimony against them". LUKE 9:25 "FOR WHAT DOES IT PROFIT A MAN IF HE GAINS THE WHOLE WORLD AND LOSES OR FORFEITS HIMSELF?". Luke 10:21 - JESUS rejoiced in the HOLY SPIRIT and said "I thank thee FATHER, LORD of heaven and earth that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, FATHER, for such was thy gracious will". LUKE 19:26-27 - "I tell you, that to every one who has will more be given, but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 27] BUT AS FOR THESE ENEMIES OF MINE, WHO DID NOT WANT ME TO REIGN OVER THEM, BRING THEM HERE AND SLAY THEM BEFORE ME". Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prayed for our Catholic Church which He build through His Apostle Simon Peter only with the authority of His heavenly Father, Lord of heaven and earth "SIMON, SIMON, BEHOLD, SATAN DEMANDED TO HAVE YOU THAT HE MIGHT SIFT YOU LIKE WHEAT; BUT I HAVE PRAYED FOR YOU THAT YOUR FAITH MAY NOT FAIL AND WHEN YOU HAVE TURNED AGAIN STRENGTHEN YOUR BRETHREN". MARK 13:5-6 - "take heed that no one leads you astray. Many will come in My name, saying I am he and they will leads many astray". MARK 13:22-23 - "FALSE CHRISTS AND FALSE PROPHETS WILL ARISE AND SHOW SIGNS AND WONDERS TO LEAD ASTRAY, IF POSSIBLE THE ELECT. BUT TAKE HEED I HAVE TOLD YOU ALL THINGS BEFOREHAND". MARK 13:31 - HEAVEN AND EARTH WILL PASS AWAY BUT MY WORDS WILL NOT PASS AWAY". Mathew 7:15 - "Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves". Mathew 7:21 - "NOT EVERY ONE WHO SAYS TO ME LORD, LORD, SHALL ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN BUT HE WHO DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN". Mathew 12:30 - "he who is not with Me is against Me and he who does not gather with Me scatters". Mathew 15:13 - "EVERY PLANT WHICH MY FATHER HAS NOT PLANTED WILL BE ROOTED UP. 14] LET THEM ALONE; THEY ARE BLIND GUIDES. IF A BLIND MAN LEADS A BLIND MAN BOTH WILL FALL INTO A PIT".
I don't disagree with your comment. Jesus didn't leave a detailed instruction manual and the institutional church didn't evolve in a vacuum, the reality of the world in Europe/ Mediterranean region influenced the role and scope of the offices, the Roman empire's cultural understanding of a state religion and religious dissent being a form of treason prevailed in most of the Christian world until relatively recent times (only the last 200 years or so).
When one just takes a step back and realizes that St Augustine was a Catholic priest and bishop, who led the faithful at Mass, believing that through his words of consecration the bread and wine transformed into the Resurrected Christ, one needs to pause and reconsider one's theology. Would Gavin invited St Augustine to preach at his Church regarding the nature of the Lord's Supper? No way. The only one's that denied it, were those who denied the deity of Christ.
@@mmbtalk Christ is the head of our Catholic church no man can build their own but only Christ the Son of God with the authority of His heavenly Father through his apostle simon peter only not even through His 11 Apostles BUT ONLY ONE CHURCH.
The Corner Stone of the Church built by God for us to follow...So why does he not belong to the One Flock? But he belongs to a church founded by who? Calvin, Luther, Smith or etc...are their churches equal to one built by God? If you say "Yes" then you insult Jesus.
Moses was the Law Giver for the Jews...he had the authority to Bid and Loosen what people are to believe. Jesus, God, gave Simon bar Jonah the same authority with one added layer...the forgiveness of sin.... Peter was the one who stated that Gentiles did not have to be circumcized...He loosened the Law...
I find this discussion so funny because Matthew 16 -18 might not prove the Petrine office, but it certainly proves Gavin's branch of protestantism wrong. Jesus establishes a church that can forgive sins and his church doesn't do that, so by defacto his church is not the one Jesus started. The second point of the matter is Jesus says that the church he established will endure to the end of the world. Okay, then where is it if it's not your church Gavin, where is the church that can bind, lose, and forgive sins? Where did that power go?
I have to disagree with a statement you made at the 2:00 mark in the video re: Ortlund. No matter what degree of godliness is exhibited from Gavin, the bottom line is that he is rejecting the One True Church. Many Popes in history have stated that rejecting the truth of the Catholic Church is a grave sin. Were they wrong? I've seen many of Ortlund's videos (as well as Lutheran Jordan Cooper), and what they have in common is a veiled attempt to get around obvious historical facts. Even though Sola Scriptura was (and could never be practiced) in the first three centuries (at the very least), they still insist that it was practiced in the early NT church, somehow, and appeal to out of context Scriptures such as "do not go beyond what is written." When challenged on this, what is even more disingenuous is they can never say exactly how and when the standards of determining truth changed, nor do they have any supporting Church Fathers to corroborate when this changed and how. The cherry-picking of the Fathers is truly a sight to behold, ignoring whole treatises on the authority of the Catholic Church, as well as the lineage of the Popes, the permanent place of Tradition in church history...the list goes on and on. I was in their position for three decades, and what it boils down to is not a dispassionate view of the evidence, but an a priori poking of holes to find weak points so that the truth of Catholicism can be defeated by their mortal minds. Unbelief is at the heart of the matter. Quite simply, they don't want to believe it. I frankly fail to see how playing nice with this kind of unbelief will ever lead them to the True Church.
@@N1IA-4 so, don’t love your enemies and just focus on what they’re wrong about? Conversion of souls comes through love and prudence; not merely jamming truth down their throats by pointing out only their mistakes.
@@The_Catholic_Christian I get it. I have family who are hardcore Calvinistic Baptists. I just act normally with them. I love them. But keep in mind that these folks are engaging in public ministry (according to them). They are putting themselves out there, tearing down the True Church and calling it unspeakable names at times, at best calling it false. Because they are in public (and not private), they need to be called out. Did Jesus always handle things your way regarding public false teachers? Read Scripture carefully before you reply please.
@@bradleesargentI think that is what Catholicism teaches. Jesus is the ultimate head and king of all people while pope is the royal and priestly steward of Jesus Christ. ❤
Jesus is the head of the Church (Colossians 1:18), and Peter has a unique role as a member of the Body of Christ’s Church. As Paul said, each member has a unique role (1 Corinthians 12:12-27). Peter received the keys (Matthew 16:18-19), marking his special role in guiding the faithful.
Hey can yo udo one on the ten commandments. We as catholics follow the ten commandments. Not because they save us but because Jesus gave us a command that in order to follow him we must follow the ten commandments.
Gavin has softened up only recently in earlier times he wasn’t fair at all with Catholicism and at times deceitful by sharing half truths and purposefully ignoring known facts. After being challenged by other apologists he’s had to change his tune in order to avoid further humiliation. There was a time when he would come out with one of his videos and then the next day he’d get refuted, now he’s turned to be almost irrelevant so Catholic apologists don’t even care much to respond to him they’ve exposed him time and time again. I find him disingenuous but I’m basing this opinion on his early work and tone which I’ve seen changing after so much correction he’s been under.
Well I guess my catholic brother that you haven’t seen one of Gaven’s video where he states and proclaims that Protestantism is the true way to Jesus and salvation now I know you’ve watched many videos from all different kinds of people but I guess you didn’t get to see the one where he stated what I’ve mentioned above earlier,and there’s this passage in scripture where Jesus Christ is warning people beware of false teachers or prophets who appear to be in sheep’s clothing but are inwardly ravenous wolves for I must testify that Jesus is saying those who appear as sheep will be so subtle in their speeches that they will certainly gain followers to believe in them and their personal explanations interpretation and appearances that will certainly convince all those who listen to them and believe them of what they’re saying.If I offend you my catholic brother then I don’t know what to say but it’s indisputable and irrefutable that there is one church that Jesus Christ started on Pentecost upon his Apostles and their successor’s who are their successors with Holy Authority and Impowerment given to them by Jesus Christ himself and that’s just the plain simple truth Amen Amen Amen 🙏 if you disagree with me it’s totally ok with me for it was never said in scripture by the Son of God himself that salvation would be easy to achieve or understand may the spirit of humility be with you Amen 🙏
Jesus is the cornerstone, Peter is the Rock. Peter first founded the Church in Jerusalem, then Antioch where he was the Pope for at least 10 years. Then Peter died in Rom. Peter is the Rock but the Roman Church had no right to claim it is infallible and the ruling Church all over the other Churches where Peter was Pope.
@@ji8044 The Early Church Fathers say he did go to Rome. One example: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect. while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundations of the Church"....The Universally known Church was organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles , Peter and Paul." Irenaeus 180 AD Another : "mark was a follower of Peter when Peter preached the Gospel at Rome before some of Caesar's equestrian knights" Clement of Alexandria (195 AD)
@@roddumlauf9241 That's 125-150 years after the event. I do believe Paul went to Rome but there is no evidence that Peter did and certainly they never preached together.
@@ji8044 So do you believe that the Early Church lied. We have tons of evidence that Peter was the Bishop of Rome at the end of his life. What evidence do you have that Peter never went to Rome ?
In Matt 16:19 the “you” (I will give you the keys …) referred to is a singular pronoun spoken directly to Kepha. The keys are meant to be held by only one person at a time - see Isaiah 22:21-24. Once the key keeper has completed his term (through death or other action), another takes his place (named by the ruler). Since Jesus would lead His Church from heaven, the bishops (Apostles and their successors) were given the authority to bind and loose. Thus, choosing a Petrine successor would be perfectly in keeping with Apostolic Tradition - refer to Acts 1:20-26, the election of Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot. Take the Bible in its entirety and not just in “text bites”. IMHO. God bless.
Jude 11 warns everyone of Korah's rebellion. Numbers 16:2 they rise up against Moses. Numbers 16:3 is what they say to Moses. This is the same exact thing that protestants say to Peter and his successors. “Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ, and the true priesthood.” (St. Macarius of Egypt Homily on the Transfiguration) "There the authors of the old covenant saw the authors of the new. Holy Moses saw Simon Peter the sanctified; the steward of the Father saw the administrator of the Son. The former divided the sea for the people to talk in the middle of the waves; the latter raised a tent for the building of the Church. " St. Ephraim the Syrian Homily on the Transfiguration)
Sone can only see the outward with Matthew 16:18 and will conclude Peter is the rock. But if one digs deeper, one will see it is Christ who is the rock that the church is built upon. Peter never overcame hades, Christ did, revelation 1:18. Peter was born of God at the time of his second confession of faith, 1 John 5:1. The first time Peter confessed Jesus is the Christ, John 1:42, Jesus made no mention of “upon this rock, I will build my church”, but He does when the Father revealed to Peter, Jesus is the Christ. So how did the Father reveal to Peter, Jesus is the Christ? Hint:Luke 23:46
19:00 Look, he does this kind of thing often. Leaving out parts of quotes that militates against his interpretation. Fishy is a good word for it. I would also suggest dishonest as another.
Regardless of his motivation for doing it, I am glad when people call it out. Having said that, even if it is unintentional, it is still false and calls into question his ability to be objective. He did this with regard to the more recent scholarship on icon veneration that pushes back against assigning a late date to the rise of icon veneration.
Speaking of leaving out quotes, where in the quote about Jesus calling "the rock" Satan, or the quote where Jesus predicts Peter would deny him thrice? Where are the quotes from anyone in the NT who defers to Peter as the supreme leader of the church?
Well it's a complex question to answer and I'm not refuting anyone's beliefs but you have to lay out all the parts and there are a lot of parts. there's not to my mind a singular answer that is going to be universally acceptable. Anybody coming at this from the top side that the pope is the Supreme head of everything and answers to No One this hour-long video was a total waste of time because it's a pointless discussion The first question that has to be asked did Jesus establish an organized body of believers Second question did he make someone to have headship or some form of leadership role in that organized body. To my mind at this point is where things split into a low Church understanding and a high Church understanding and I'll get the low church out of the way because it's quick If you come from a low church background say Baptist or Church of Christ types in which there is no Authority outside of the leadership of the local congregation this is all a moot point argument because they don't even believe such a position exists let alone whether you examine anything that goes along with an authority of that office and I know some who are of the Baptist background who believe that Apostolic succession & authority ended when the last Apostle died. End of debate for them. Now we're on to the high Church side. is there some form of leadership structure? Is there a successor to the position given to Peter? If you answered yes to both questions then you get into the bigger question of what is the scope of authority of that position. You could probably do several hours of video explaining all of the nuances. Not that the papacy exists but how did it grow and expand to where basically for a very very long period of time you might as well call it the king supreme leader of everyone in Christendom and everyone was accountable for everything including civil government ultimately to the Pope. Functionally that is what it was and how the church saw itself relative to the Christian world. I would say if the Roman Empire never fell and that the institutional organization known as the Christian Church did not take on the functions of civil government things may have evolved in a radically different direction but again we are talking about a 2000 year old organization and issues that have occurred in that time have affected how that organization grew and developed Is the pope a lead Bishop? is he a senior Bishop? Is he a first among equals? Is he an arbitrator in disputes between Bishops? Is he the top of the pyramid and everyone answers to him?
No matter the argument, this all comes down to one thing. If you cannot accept the fact that the Catholic Church is the one true church that Jesus Christ started, it will never matter what counterarguments we give them. Their minds cannot accept it. Like it says, it's a stumbling block to those who are perishing.
@@2196logan Only God's Grace can convince them
The Catholic Church is a product of apostasy. Jesus Christ did not start the Roman Catholic church
@@HulkRampagethe Catholic Church was not founded by Christ. Catholicism is baptized paganism
Why do you twist scripture? The stumbling block is not the Roman Catholic church, it's Jesus.
@@ninjason57 Twisting scripture is the work of Catholics
Gavin Ortlund’s approach to Catholicism is like a man carefully examining a stained glass window, appreciating its craftsmanship while insisting that the frame holding it together is unnecessary. He often acknowledges the beauty and depth of Catholic theology but simultaneously dismisses the foundational authority-apostolic succession and tradition-that has preserved and illuminated these truths for centuries.
His arguments often attempt to separate Catholic doctrines from their historical and theological roots, treating them as isolated ideas rather than interconnected parts of a cohesive whole. This method gives the impression of thoughtful critique, but it ultimately overlooks the structural integrity of Catholic teaching, which rests on the union of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.
The irony is that Ortlund relies heavily on the Church’s historical legacy to make his case-quoting the Church Fathers or appealing to early Christian practices-while rejecting the authority that safeguarded these truths and discerned their proper interpretation. In doing so, he unintentionally affirms the necessity of the very structure he seeks to deny, demonstrating that the Catholic Church’s foundations remain far sturdier than his critiques.
Well said!
Meanwhile other Protestant UA-camrs/influencers gravitate to Gaven's content and use it to justify their rejection of Catholic teaching. This is why rebuttals like this are so important to highlight important texts (like St. Augustine's other works) that are completely being ignored.
As a Protestant, I think your articulated yourself very well. Shockingly, I agree with you. I’m high church Anglican and watching how he shifts through church history is concerning.
Thank You Brother for making it SO SO CLEAR , that Jesus is refering to Simon as the ROCK ( Peter ).... especially changing his name from Simon to Peter.👍
May Our Lord and His Blessed Mother , Bless you in your work for Christ. 🙏🏻
Thank you!
Sometimes, I think the frustrating thing with Dr. Ortlund is, although he's supposed to be the latest and greatest in Protestant apologetics, he still many times regurgitates the same, old, long time refuted arguments.
His take on St. Peter, Mt 16:18 (and St. Augustine) is a good example.
JESUS told Peter. Feed my sheep. Peter was the one preaching in ACTS, at Pentecost
His name was Simon too. Jesus called him Peter - which means rock.
The One True, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church 🇻🇦🇻🇦✝️✝️❤️
@fire15aidenspencer72.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
(Which, as a Protestant, I declare every Sunday in church.)
Thank you for defending the Church so well. Gavin is stuck between a rock and a hard place and is unfortunately misleading many.
@@lellachu1682 you’re welcome
One name was changed which is extremely unique. Other apostles kept their names
Yeah except James and John making your point pointless
@TheRyno525 nicknames are not the same as the name of a book of the Bible
Who are the sons of thunder?
@@ninjason57 James and John , I believe .
@@TheRyno525 God Himself changed the name of only four people in the Bible, reflecting an identity change and a destiny (in the case of the men): Abram's name to Abraham (father of a multitude), Sarai's to Sarah (Laughter), Jacob's to Israel (One who struggles with God) and Simon's to Peter (the Rock). ''Sons of Thunder'' are nicknames, scripture gives no reason for the name change.
As Catholics we know truth, this man’s spiritual eyes haven’t been open yet! Let’s pray for him! 🙏🏻🕊
They can never disprove Jesus words and Jesus Catholic Church
Jesus never said Catholic church but His church
@@pappap1702
The definition of Catholic is "Universal."
Jesus said that His Church would be named OF ALL NATIONS in the book of Mark 11:17.
The word Universal literally means “for/of all nations”.
Jesus said:
“Is it not written, My house shall be called OF ALL NATIONS the house of prayer?” (Mark 11:17)
Jesus actually told us how to find His Church.
@@pappap1702
The definition of Catholic is "Universal."
Jesus said that His Church would be named OF ALL NATIONS in the book of Mark 11:17.
The word Universal literally means “for/of all nations”.
Jesus said:
“Is it not written, My house shall be called OF ALL NATIONS the house of prayer?” (Mark 11:17).
Jesus actually told us how to find His Catholic Church.
Jesus said "I give YOU the keys" case closed.
And somehow YOU turned into every Pope the Church claimed is his successor because the Church has that right since they said they do... Makes sense very convincing.
Yeh, and his name was not originally Peter. It is mundanely obvious
@@FiatVoluntasTuaAmen There are only two possible choices:
- Jesus was a meanie and basically said to Peter "We're going to build the Church based on me - the rock - and only me but I will also change your name to rock just to show you how insignificant you are"
or
- Jesus changed Simon's name to show how significant his role is going to be as a head ("the rock") of the Church that is about to established
You pick which option makes more sense.
I believe the Orthodox have it right in this regard with a Council of Bishops not just one Poor. The Apostles came together on issues of the church to work out the correct response and "rules' to situations came up. The boss is Jesus Christ not the Pope. There's not even definitive, irrefutable proof that Peter was even in Rome.
@pappap1702 the keys signify the office of prime minister on the reestablished kingdom of David who has all authority in the Kings absence. In this case, he is soon to ascend into heaven.
“but I have prayed for you(Peter), that your faith will not fail; and you, when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”Lk22:23 (Jesus singled him out) infallibility of Peter St Peter’s basilica 🎉
John 21:15-17: "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" Jesus asks Peter three times, and each time Peter responds, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you". After the third time, Jesus says, "Feed my sheep".
All God's teachings are centered on love. This love is not merely an emotion, but a commitment to act with patience, kindness, humility, and selflessness. It is a reflection of God's own nature and His everlasting love for us.
Jesus' New Commandment:
A new command I give you: LOVE one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. John 13:34-35
Peter's Emphasis on Love:
"ABOVE all, love each other deeply, because LOVE covers over a multitude of sins." 1 Peter 4:8
"Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the TRUTH so that you have sincere LOVE for each other, love one another deeply, from the heart." 1 Peter 1:22
Paul's Teaching on Love:
"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the GREATEST of these is LOVE." 1 Corinthians 13:13
Lord, help us to embody this love in our daily lives, as we strive to follow the example set by Jesus and the teachings of the apostles. Let our actions be a testament to Your love, and may we, as Your Church, reflect Your light to the world.
One true Jesus' Catholic and Apostolic Church.
In Your precious and holy name Jesus Christ, we pray. Amen.
The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.
The main reason is that our LORD Jesus appointed Peter as the head of the first church... Peter the Pope..
Mt 16:18 - upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church
Mt 16:19 - give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind & loose.
Ananias lied to Peter, but Peter charged Ananias with lying to God (Acts 5:3-4). “As judge Peter acted as Christ’s vicar. To lie to Peter was to lie to God himself".
Some one will asks that the word pope not in the Bible? The answer is that Not only the word papacy in the Bible ,You can't also find the word Trinity ...The word Trinity is not in the Bible... so will you reject the Trinity?
You can find The core idea behinds in Peter's papacy in the Bible...
Primacy of Peter
Mt 16:18 - upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church
Mt 16:19 - give you keys of thekingdom; power to bind & loose
Lk 22:32 - Peter's faith will
strengthen his brethren
Jn 21:17 - given Christ's flock as
chief shepherd
Mk 16:7 - angel sent to
announce Resurrection to Peter
Lk 24:34 - risen Jesus first
appeared to Peter
Acts 1:13-26 - headed meeting which elected Matthias
Acts 2:14 - led Apostles in
preaching on Pentecost
Acts 2:41 - received first converts
Acts 3:6-7 - performed first
miracle after Pentecost
Acts 5:1-11 - inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira
Acts 8:21 - excommunicated first
heretic, Simon Magnus
Acts 10:44-46 - received revelation to
admit Gentiles into Church
Acts 15:7 - led first council in
Jerusalem
Acts 15:19 - pronounces first
dogmatic decision
Gal 1:18 - after conversion,Paul
visits chief Apostle
Gal 2:11-14 - I opposed
Cephasto his face for his
hypocrisy
Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Pope Clement I, Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]).
Hegesippus:
"When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).
Tertullian:
"[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).
Irenaeus:
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul-that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).
"Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4).
"[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church-those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2).
"The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8).
The early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, ( he is a Protestant) writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.).
Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" (ibid., 41).
Must read St. Ignatius bishop of Antioch Antioch 50-107 his 7 letters ,taught by the Apostle John
No they didn't. The later Gentile Christian fathers used the names of the disciples of Jesus just like Catholic Churches would use supposed relics later. For instance acquisition of the supposed bones of the Three Wise Men by the Bishop of Cologne resulted in building the tallest and most splendid cathedral in Europe there.
@@ronaldeglewski3073 No he wasn't. It's just another "tradition".
@@ji8044 It’s better to preserve relics even if they’re fake than throw them away for the chance they are fraudulent. Also, it’s a historical fact St. Ignatius of Antioch knew John the Apostle.
@fire15aidenspencer72 Right. St Ignatius was a disciple of St John. A great example of he (St Ignatius) who hears you (St John), hears me (Jesus).
I love your channel! Looking forward to watching you do brotherly Christian debates with Gavin Ortlund and others
you mean circular debates, nah
Thank you!
It is ecumenically heart-warming to see a Roman Catholic with such a big man-crush on a Protestant.
the devil likes manipulating truth to cause confusion
The sad part about ortlund is he thinks he understands catholicism and can speak for it. The second sadest thing is he thinks he can understand the fathers without catholicism. The biggest mistake he makes is the thing you have alluded to over and over without explicitly stating it. The multiple senses of scripture. He sees three senses as conflicts and tries to figure out which one. He is confused by it. It might even sound likd they ard irenic protestants to him. Or it sounds like augustine is uncertain and changes his mind.
Catholicism can reconcile them.
The Truth is not a popularity contest...
The Father revealed the nature of Christ to Peter, the other apostles didn't
When Jesus spoke this is my real body and drink my blood ,they where leaving he ask Peter are you going to leave too , it was Peter who said were can we go ,Peter stood up and told everyone did not the Lord give me the authority to preach to the gentiles .
Gavin would NOT want this Catholic priest and Bishop preaching at his Church. As an example, St Augustine's words on the keys and the need to confess mortal sins to a priest.
_“All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grievous sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven.”_ Christian Combat (A.D. 397).
Protestants: do read St Augustine! Most inconsistent to Gavin's beliefs, St Augustine - a Catholic Bishop (hence priest) - taught of the Sacrifice of the Mass. He believed that through his words of consecration, the bread and wine transformed into the Resurrected Christ, a means for receiving his Grace. He peers agreed with him. The only one's that did not were those who denied the deity of Christ.
Note: Gavin's bible has the very same 27 New Testament writings that St Augustine and his peers declared as New Testament scripture at both Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) while Gavin's bible is missing 7 Old Testament writings that the very same men declared as scripture at the very same time. That one would tacitly trust them on the former and not the latter, is an inconsistency. That they were all Catholic priests is another inconsistency. That they read this book at Mass, is yet another.
Augustine made up a great deal of Catholic doctrine spontaneously. There is no distinction of mortal or venial sin in the Bible.
@@ji8044 "There is no distinction of mortal or venial sin in the Bible.":
1 John chapter 5
_16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal._
Scripture is so clear. As is the Church for 2000 years. Examples below.
St Clement of Alexandria writes
_You see the one God declared good, rendering according to desert, and forgiving sins. _*_John, too, manifestly teaches the differences of sins, in his larger Epistle, in these words: “If any man see his brother sin a sin that is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life: for these that sin not unto death,” he says. For “there is a sin unto death: I do not say that one is to pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin; and there is a sin not unto death.”_*
Tertullian writes
*John, too, will teach us:* “If any knoweth his brother to be sinning a sin not unto death, he shall request, and life shall be given to him;” because he is not “sinning unto death,” this will be remissible. “(There) is a sin unto death; not for this do I say that any is to request” this will be irremissible. So, where there is the efficacious power of “making request,” there likewise is that of remission: where there is no (efficacious power) of “making request,” there equally is none of remission either. *According to this difference of sins, the condition of repentance also is discriminated. There will be a condition which may possibly obtain pardon,-in the case, namely, of a remissible sin: there will be a condition which can by no means obtain it,-in the case, namely, of an irremissible sin. And it remains to examine specially, with regard to the position of adultery and fornication, to which class of sins they ought to be assigned.*
When one drops the protestantism, the Christianity shines through.
@@ji8044 "There is no distinction of mortal or venial sin in the Bible."
_5 v16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal._ (1 Jn)
Scripture is so clear. As is the Church for 2000 years. Examples below, quoting this verse.
St Clement of Alexandria writes
You see the one God declared good, rendering according to desert, and forgiving sins. *John, too, manifestly teaches the differences of sins, in his larger Epistle, in these words: “If any man see his brother sin a sin that is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life: for these that sin not unto death,” he says. For “there is a sin unto death: I do not say that one is to pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin; and there is a sin not unto death.”*
Tertullian writes
John, too, will teach us: “If any knoweth his brother to be sinning a sin not unto death, he shall request, and life shall be given to him;” because he is not “sinning unto death,” this will be remissible. “(There) is a sin unto death; not for this do I say that any is to request” this will be irremissible. So, where there is the efficacious power of “making request,” there likewise is that of remission: where there is no (efficacious power) of “making request,” there equally is none of remission either. *According to this difference of sins, the condition of repentance also is discriminated. There will be a condition which may possibly obtain pardon,-in the case, namely, of a remissible sin: there will be a condition which can by no means obtain it,-in the case, namely, of an irremissible sin. And it remains to examine specially, with regard to the position of adultery and fornication, to which class of sins they ought to be assigned.*
When one drops the protestantism, the Christianity shines through.
@@ji8044 "There is no distinction of mortal or venial sin in the Bible."
Ch 5: If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal. (1 Jn)
Scripture is so clear. As is the Church for 2000 years.
St Clement of Alexandria: _You see the one God declared good, rendering according to desert, and forgiving sins. _*_John, too, manifestly teaches the differences of sins, in his larger Epistle, in these words: “If any man see his brother sin a sin that is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life: for these that sin not unto death,” he says. For “there is a sin unto death: I do not say that one is to pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin; and there is a sin not unto death.”_*
Tertullian: _“If any knoweth his brother to be sinning a sin not unto death, he shall request, and life shall be given to him;” because he is not “sinning unto death,” this will be remissible. “(There) is a sin unto death; not for this do I say that any is to request” this will be irremissible. So, where there is the efficacious power of “making request,” there likewise is that of remission: where there is no (efficacious power) of “making request,” there equally is none of remission either. _*_According to this difference of sins, the condition of repentance also is discriminated. There will be a condition which may possibly obtain pardon,-in the case, namely, of a remissible sin: there will be a condition which can by no means obtain it,-in the case, namely, of an irremissible sin. And it remains to examine specially, with regard to the position of adultery and fornication, to which class of sins they ought to be assigned._*
When one drops the protestantism, the Christianity shines through.
What just occurred to me, and I have never heard anyone mention it, is why is it so important that Pete didn't figure out who Jesus was but instead His Father in heaven has revealed this to Rocky.
His Father didn't reveal it to anyone else or everyone else but only the blabber mouth Simon Why Si and no one else or for that matter anyone?
Then Jesus after confirming this renames Pete, gives him the keys and the authority to bind and loose....
Then tells them all not to tell anyone!
Now there is a second epiphany.
"Why are you all calling Si, Rock?"
"We can't tell you!"
I find Gavin's argumentation as coping. Let's face it, the centuries have passed since the reformation, personal, national identities have been built around protestantism. In that regard I kind of understand him, he has grown up in the protestant family, majority protestant environment and accepting catholic arguments would be like betrayal to his parents, society, etc... It takes a lot of courage to become a Catholic. That would be like breaking up with your own past and tradition. I pray for all those considering becoming Catholic and those who accepted Catholic Church to persist.
"Apostolicity is a matter of fidelity to the apostolic gospel".
Great! Now, how does anyone maintain that fidelity when they are going out on your own interpretation of the Bible without being bound or guided by a central apostolic authority?
As is always the case, 'the proof is in the pudding' and we just have to look at the end products of protestantism in the absence of a central apostolic authority to see how that works out.
Even Paul having encountered Jesus himself did not go off by himself but felt the need to seek the other apostles to confirm they were teaching the same gospel.
Paul didn't go off by himself? Scholars say we can't trust Acts on that, it's better to trust Paul's own letters to see that he always demanded that the other apostles (the apostles who actually lived with Jesus) bend to his views.
Sometimes it feels like proving to “flat earthers” that Earth is a globe. It doesn’t matter how much evidence one gives, they will always say it is not “real” evidence or that the evidence doesn’t prove anything.
His charity is a smokescreen though he is super fake
Bingo! He's extremely disingenuous and reads Catholic doctrine through a false understanding of his own rather than from the understanding of the Catholic Church itself. It's a betrayal of truth and charity.
Gavin is not honest.
@ “Admire my blue eyes while I distort the Church Fathers to try to convince you they wouldn’t think I’m a heretic” Dr. Ortlund in a nutshell.
True
What evidence do you have to back up that claim?
In French, the word for “rock” or “stone” is pierre. This term is also used as a masculine given name in French-speaking countries, derived from the Greek word πέτρος (petros) meaning “rock” or “stone.”
He should read the bible written in French...
Thank you for your cordial approach. Peter was called to a metron others weren’t. Protestants do this. Ugh.
I thought he was a genuine kinda guy too. But then, I see a completely different character in his comments compared to his videos. Maybe he was having an off day, but look at his responses to comments on his Tyndall video. I was shocked.
Oh for goodness sake. There are a billion Protestants in the world, and they've held these views for over 500 years.
Please do also note that Papal infallibility came some 14 centuries later than Augustine's time, so Catholic Christian while trying to correct Gavin on what was omitted, he also erred by associating infallibility with Augustine.
No one is implying the Saint is infallible on his own.
"Rocky Balboa" 😂 🥊. But ya, Peter is the rock 🪨🕯️⛪🗝
🙏
The Bible is replete with example after example of prophets and other prominent figures having received special and specific roles in the divine plan.
Why cannot it not be the case for Simon whose name Jesus specifically changed to rock?
Is it because it constitutes an existential problem to protestantism?
One place to find the answer to this is to look at Martin Luther's overall disposition towards the Holy Bible he received from the Catholic Church.
How come the Protestant instinctual reaction is to find one saint augustine quote and then base the entire early church on Augustine alone
In a house the foundation is always level. The Apostles were made level and equal and even called brothers by Jesus Christ. Peter’s confession isn’t even the rock. The rock is that the truth had been revealed to Peter by the Father and that was the evidence to Jesus Christ who His Father had chosen for Him.
Ephesians 2:19-20
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
St.Peter is the Rock of Jesus and Jesus entrusted him with the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, as part of God’s divine plan.
Peter’s confession was revealed by God the Father in heaven: “For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven” (Matthew 16:17).
Jesus Christ is undeniably the Rock of foundation and salvation.Peter’s confession was divinely inspired, affirming that he is the rock (a true believer of Christ) upon which Jesus declared He would build His Church.
The Church is built upon the Body of Christ (the believers), but what is unique about Peter is that he holds the keys, symbolizing his authority and leadership within the Church.
Praying for my Brothers and Sisters...
One Jesus' Universal Apostolic Church.
John 17:21, Jesus prays, that they may all be ONE...
John 1 :40-51 is the passage where first Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, and Nathanael identify Jesus as "the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ" [Andrew to Peter], and "the Son of God... the king of Israel" [Nathaniel to Jesus].
Matthew 16 :16 says, "Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, _the son of the living God_ ." Peter still didn't comprehend the full implication of Jesus' identity (see Mt. 16 :22), but he recognized that the Messiah wasn't merely human in the way that the phrase "Son of God" is used elsewhere to describe certain holy men. Andrew and Nathanael recognized the Messiah, but thought he was to be a military leader who would take the role of the earthly king and governor of Israel. Peter recognized that Jesus was literally the Son of God and therefore divine. But he still expected that Jesus wouldn't be subjected to torture and death because of His divine nature and role.
Neither Peter nor anyone else in the lifetime of Jesus thought that he was born divine.
Catholic Christian has certainly put up a very orderly rebuttal which is plausible! However, for many of the videos where Protestants disagree with either Catholics or Othordox I see that anyone can thread their case by selecting which fathers and what part of their writings to quote. A case in point is what has been alluded to concerning Augustine's writing. We must also note that we only have snapshots of their conversations and it is absurd to assume we have a full picture of what they were teaching. The Holy Spirit guided there reactions to the challenges they encountered and they were not necessarily creating blue prints for our practices today. Today if we seek the Holy Spirit he will help us navigate our own waters, but this must be based on the foundation built on the Apostles (Ephesians 2:20).
Lastly, there's no proof either way, you have to be Catholic to see Peter as an infallible Pope with successors at some address in the Vatican!
Methinks the best way to interpret Matthew 16:18 is to look at how rhis reflected in his life. While we admit a prominent leading role, this looks like more to do with his gifting. Otherwise, we see him being sent around as needed by the Church in Jerusalem. Check Acts Chapters 8, 10,11. 1 Peter 5:1-4, which most Catholics tend to brush aside is a reflection of the true Peter - a fellow elder!!!
Lastly, may I also mention that Newman one of the beloved of the Catholics, strongly advised Pius IX, not declare himself infallible?
@mmbtalk
As Catholics we must pray for all these Protestants who always disagree with the Catholic Church which Christ Himself build with the authority of His Heavenly Father Lord of heaven and earth through His Apostle Simon Peter only BECAUSE JESUS ALREADY KNEW WHO DO NOT BELIEVE HIS WORDS AND HIS CHURCH AND WHO WILL BETRAY HIM THAT IS WHY OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST WHO IS THE HEAD OF OUR CATHOLIC CHURCH TOLD US
John 6:64 - "but there are some of you that do not believe. FOR JESUS KNEW FROM THE FIRST WHO THOSE WERE THAT NOT BELIEVE AND WHO IT WAS THAT BETRAY HIM".
John 7:18 - "he who on his own authority seek his own glory but he who seeks the GLORY OF HIM WHO SENT HIM IS TRUE AND IN HIM THERE IS NO FALSEHOOD".
John 8:51 - "truly, truly, I say to you if any one keeps My Word, he will never see death"
JOHN 10:25-26- "I told you and you do not believe. The WORKS that I DO in MY FATHER'S NAME they bear witness to Me; but you do not believe BECAUSE YOU DO NOT BELONG TO MY SHEEP".
John 12:48-49-50 - "he who rejects Me and My sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day. FOR I HAVE NOT SPOKEN ON MY OWN AUTHORITY; THE FATHER WHO SENT ME HAS HIMSELF GIVEN ME COMMANDMENT WHAT TO SAY AND WHAT TO SPEAK. AND I KNOW THAT HIS COMMANDMENT IS ETERNAL LIFE. WHAT I SAY, THEREFORE, I SAY AS THE FATHER HAS BIDDEN ME".
JOHN 15:6 - "If a man does not abide in Me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers and the branches are gathered thrown into the fire and burned".
JOHN 21:17 - Jesus said only to His Apostle Simon Peter "Simon son of John do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because Jesus said to him the third time "do you love Me?" Peter said to Jesus "Lord, you know everything, you know that I love you" Jesus said to Simon Peter "FEED MY SHEEP".
Luke 9:5 -"And wherever they do not receive you, when you leave that town shake off the dust from your feet as a testimony against them".
LUKE 9:25 "FOR WHAT DOES IT PROFIT A MAN IF HE GAINS THE WHOLE WORLD AND LOSES OR FORFEITS HIMSELF?".
Luke 10:21 - JESUS rejoiced in the HOLY SPIRIT and said "I thank thee FATHER, LORD of heaven and earth that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, FATHER, for such was thy gracious will".
LUKE 19:26-27 - "I tell you, that to every one who has will more be given, but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 27] BUT AS FOR THESE ENEMIES OF MINE, WHO DID NOT WANT ME TO REIGN OVER THEM, BRING THEM HERE AND SLAY THEM BEFORE ME".
Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prayed for our Catholic Church which He build through His Apostle Simon Peter only with the authority of His heavenly Father, Lord of heaven and earth "SIMON, SIMON, BEHOLD, SATAN DEMANDED TO HAVE YOU THAT HE MIGHT SIFT YOU LIKE WHEAT; BUT I HAVE PRAYED FOR YOU THAT YOUR FAITH MAY NOT FAIL AND WHEN YOU HAVE TURNED AGAIN STRENGTHEN YOUR BRETHREN".
MARK 13:5-6 - "take heed that no one leads you astray. Many will come in My name, saying I am he and they will leads many astray".
MARK 13:22-23 - "FALSE CHRISTS AND FALSE PROPHETS WILL ARISE AND SHOW SIGNS AND WONDERS TO LEAD ASTRAY, IF POSSIBLE THE ELECT. BUT TAKE HEED I HAVE TOLD YOU ALL THINGS BEFOREHAND".
MARK 13:31 - HEAVEN AND EARTH WILL PASS AWAY BUT MY WORDS WILL NOT PASS AWAY".
Mathew 7:15 - "Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves".
Mathew 7:21 - "NOT EVERY ONE WHO SAYS TO ME LORD, LORD, SHALL ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN BUT HE WHO DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN".
Mathew 12:30 - "he who is not with Me is against Me and he who does not gather with Me scatters".
Mathew 15:13 - "EVERY PLANT WHICH MY FATHER HAS NOT PLANTED WILL BE ROOTED UP. 14] LET THEM ALONE; THEY ARE BLIND GUIDES. IF A BLIND MAN LEADS A BLIND MAN BOTH WILL FALL INTO A PIT".
I don't disagree with your comment. Jesus didn't leave a detailed instruction manual and the institutional church didn't evolve in a vacuum, the reality of the world in Europe/ Mediterranean region influenced the role and scope of the offices, the Roman empire's cultural understanding of a state religion and religious dissent being a form of treason prevailed in most of the Christian world until relatively recent times (only the last 200 years or so).
When one just takes a step back and realizes that St Augustine was a Catholic priest and bishop, who led the faithful at Mass, believing that through his words of consecration the bread and wine transformed into the Resurrected Christ, one needs to pause and reconsider one's theology. Would Gavin invited St Augustine to preach at his Church regarding the nature of the Lord's Supper? No way. The only one's that denied it, were those who denied the deity of Christ.
@@mmbtalk Christ is the head of our Catholic church no man can build their own but only Christ the Son of God with the authority of His heavenly Father through his apostle simon peter only not even through His 11 Apostles BUT ONLY ONE CHURCH.
The Corner Stone of the Church built by God for us to follow...So why does he not belong to the One Flock? But he belongs to a church founded by who? Calvin, Luther, Smith or etc...are their churches equal to one built by God? If you say "Yes" then you insult Jesus.
Moses was the Law Giver for the Jews...he had the authority to Bid and Loosen what people are to believe.
Jesus, God, gave Simon bar Jonah the same authority with one added layer...the forgiveness of sin....
Peter was the one who stated that Gentiles did not have to be circumcized...He loosened the Law...
I think Gavin is name-dropping Karl Barth.
11:40 well that id what I like the most about eastern orthodoxy 😅
I find this discussion so funny because Matthew 16 -18 might not prove the Petrine office, but it certainly proves Gavin's branch of protestantism wrong. Jesus establishes a church that can forgive sins and his church doesn't do that, so by defacto his church is not the one Jesus started. The second point of the matter is Jesus says that the church he established will endure to the end of the world. Okay, then where is it if it's not your church Gavin, where is the church that can bind, lose, and forgive sins? Where did that power go?
Jews don't start churches, so throw that idea out the window, sorry.
I have to disagree with a statement you made at the 2:00 mark in the video re: Ortlund. No matter what degree of godliness is exhibited from Gavin, the bottom line is that he is rejecting the One True Church. Many Popes in history have stated that rejecting the truth of the Catholic Church is a grave sin. Were they wrong? I've seen many of Ortlund's videos (as well as Lutheran Jordan Cooper), and what they have in common is a veiled attempt to get around obvious historical facts. Even though Sola Scriptura was (and could never be practiced) in the first three centuries (at the very least), they still insist that it was practiced in the early NT church, somehow, and appeal to out of context Scriptures such as "do not go beyond what is written." When challenged on this, what is even more disingenuous is they can never say exactly how and when the standards of determining truth changed, nor do they have any supporting Church Fathers to corroborate when this changed and how. The cherry-picking of the Fathers is truly a sight to behold, ignoring whole treatises on the authority of the Catholic Church, as well as the lineage of the Popes, the permanent place of Tradition in church history...the list goes on and on. I was in their position for three decades, and what it boils down to is not a dispassionate view of the evidence, but an a priori poking of holes to find weak points so that the truth of Catholicism can be defeated by their mortal minds. Unbelief is at the heart of the matter. Quite simply, they don't want to believe it. I frankly fail to see how playing nice with this kind of unbelief will ever lead them to the True Church.
@@N1IA-4 so, don’t love your enemies and just focus on what they’re wrong about? Conversion of souls comes through love and prudence; not merely jamming truth down their throats by pointing out only their mistakes.
@@The_Catholic_Christian I get it. I have family who are hardcore Calvinistic Baptists. I just act normally with them. I love them. But keep in mind that these folks are engaging in public ministry (according to them). They are putting themselves out there, tearing down the True Church and calling it unspeakable names at times, at best calling it false. Because they are in public (and not private), they need to be called out. Did Jesus always handle things your way regarding public false teachers? Read Scripture carefully before you reply please.
Christ is the one true head of the church (Ephesians 1:22; 5:23; Colossians 1:18).
Absolutely. Royal stewards are not kings yet they are royal stewards to represent the kingdom. ❤
Christ was always the head of the Jews even though they had a chief priest and a king
@@bradleesargentI think that is what Catholicism teaches. Jesus is the ultimate head and king of all people while pope is the royal and priestly steward of Jesus Christ. ❤
And? How does that conflict with Christ- the head of the Church- selecting his representative?
Jesus is the head of the Church (Colossians 1:18), and Peter has a unique role as a member of the Body of Christ’s Church. As Paul said, each member has a unique role (1 Corinthians 12:12-27). Peter received the keys (Matthew 16:18-19), marking his special role in guiding the faithful.
Hey can yo udo one on the ten commandments. We as catholics follow the ten commandments. Not because they save us but because Jesus gave us a command that in order to follow him we must follow the ten commandments.
There is only one head.
Please refer Mathew 16 and John 21.
Gavin has softened up only recently in earlier times he wasn’t fair at all with Catholicism and at times deceitful by sharing half truths and purposefully ignoring known facts. After being challenged by other apologists he’s had to change his tune in order to avoid further humiliation. There was a time when he would come out with one of his videos and then the next day he’d get refuted, now he’s turned to be almost irrelevant so Catholic apologists don’t even care much to respond to him they’ve exposed him time and time again. I find him disingenuous but I’m basing this opinion on his early work and tone which I’ve seen changing after so much correction he’s been under.
If you know why the Pope carries the title "Patriarch of the West", then you know why the Papacy itself is an early medieval invention.
You haven't read the Church Fathers much, have you
@@MrProsat Quite the opposite for 40 years now. I'm sitting right next to my copy of Eusebius.
Well I guess my catholic brother that you haven’t seen one of Gaven’s video where he states and proclaims that Protestantism is the true way to Jesus and salvation now I know you’ve watched many videos from all different kinds of people but I guess you didn’t get to see the one where he stated what I’ve mentioned above earlier,and there’s this passage in scripture where Jesus Christ is warning people beware of false teachers or prophets who appear to be in sheep’s clothing but are inwardly ravenous wolves for I must testify that Jesus is saying those who appear as sheep will be so subtle in their speeches that they will certainly gain followers to believe in them and their personal explanations interpretation and appearances that will certainly convince all those who listen to them and believe them of what they’re saying.If I offend you my catholic brother then I don’t know what to say but it’s indisputable and irrefutable that there is one church that Jesus Christ started on Pentecost upon his Apostles and their successor’s who are their successors with Holy Authority and Impowerment given to them by Jesus Christ himself and that’s just the plain simple truth Amen Amen Amen 🙏 if you disagree with me it’s totally ok with me for it was never said in scripture by the Son of God himself that salvation would be easy to achieve or understand may the spirit of humility be with you Amen 🙏
Gavin is cherrypicking
Jesus is the cornerstone, Peter is the Rock. Peter first founded the Church in Jerusalem, then Antioch where he was the Pope for at least 10 years. Then Peter died in Rom. Peter is the Rock but the Roman Church had no right to claim it is infallible and the ruling Church all over the other Churches where Peter was Pope.
Peter never went to Rome and ekklesia is not church in the sense of a religious organization, sorry.
@@ji8044 The Early Church Fathers say he did go to Rome. One example: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect. while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundations of the Church"....The Universally known Church was organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles , Peter and Paul." Irenaeus 180 AD Another : "mark was a follower of Peter when Peter preached the Gospel at Rome before some of Caesar's equestrian knights" Clement of Alexandria (195 AD)
@@roddumlauf9241 That's 125-150 years after the event. I do believe Paul went to Rome but there is no evidence that Peter did and certainly they never preached together.
@@ji8044 So do you believe that the Early Church lied. We have tons of evidence that Peter was the Bishop of Rome at the end of his life. What evidence do you have that Peter never went to Rome ?
In Matt 16:19 the “you” (I will give you the keys …) referred to is a singular pronoun spoken directly to Kepha. The keys are meant to be held by only one person at a time - see Isaiah 22:21-24. Once the key keeper has completed his term (through death or other action), another takes his place (named by the ruler). Since Jesus would lead His Church from heaven, the bishops (Apostles and their successors) were given the authority to bind and loose. Thus, choosing a Petrine successor would be perfectly in keeping with Apostolic Tradition - refer to Acts 1:20-26, the election of Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot. Take the Bible in its entirety and not just in “text bites”. IMHO. God bless.
"He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah"
You just completely blew it with that quote.
Jude 11 warns everyone of Korah's rebellion. Numbers 16:2 they rise up against Moses. Numbers 16:3 is what they say to Moses. This is the same exact thing that protestants say to Peter and his successors.
“Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ, and the true priesthood.” (St. Macarius of Egypt Homily on the Transfiguration)
"There the authors of the old covenant saw the authors of the new. Holy Moses saw Simon Peter the sanctified; the steward of the Father saw the administrator of the Son. The former divided the sea for the people to talk in the middle of the waves; the latter raised a tent for the building of the Church. " St. Ephraim the Syrian Homily on the Transfiguration)
Dwayne Johnson!
Sone can only see the outward with Matthew 16:18 and will conclude Peter is the rock. But if one digs deeper, one will see it is Christ who is the rock that the church is built upon. Peter never overcame hades, Christ did, revelation 1:18. Peter was born of God at the time of his second confession of faith, 1 John 5:1. The first time Peter confessed Jesus is the Christ, John 1:42, Jesus made no mention of “upon this rock, I will build my church”, but He does when the Father revealed to Peter, Jesus is the Christ. So how did the Father reveal to Peter, Jesus is the Christ? Hint:Luke 23:46
19:00 Look, he does this kind of thing often. Leaving out parts of quotes that militates against his interpretation. Fishy is a good word for it. I would also suggest dishonest as another.
You could be right; I just hate speculating intentions of the heart.
Regardless of his motivation for doing it, I am glad when people call it out. Having said that, even if it is unintentional, it is still false and calls into question his ability to be objective.
He did this with regard to the more recent scholarship on icon veneration that pushes back against assigning a late date to the rise of icon veneration.
Speaking of leaving out quotes, where in the quote about Jesus calling "the rock" Satan, or the quote where Jesus predicts Peter would deny him thrice? Where are the quotes from anyone in the NT who defers to Peter as the supreme leader of the church?
It’s really his pompous demeanor that annoys me . And the fact he probably knows the truth.
Mr. Ortlund is a danger to the soul of others. Sometimes you have to call it out for what it is.
Youre stumbling on Augustine and a few other things.
Well it's a complex question to answer and I'm not refuting anyone's beliefs but you have to lay out all the parts and there are a lot of parts. there's not to my mind a singular answer that is going to be universally acceptable.
Anybody coming at this from the top side that the pope is the Supreme head of everything and answers to No One this hour-long video was a total waste of time because it's a pointless discussion
The first question that has to be asked did Jesus establish an organized body of believers
Second question did he make someone to have headship or some form of leadership role in that organized body.
To my mind at this point is where things split into a low Church understanding and a high Church understanding and I'll get the low church out of the way because it's quick
If you come from a low church background say Baptist or Church of Christ types in which there is no Authority outside of the leadership of the local congregation this is all a moot point argument because they don't even believe such a position exists let alone whether you examine anything that goes along with an authority of that office and I know some who are of the Baptist background who believe that Apostolic succession & authority ended when the last Apostle died. End of debate for them.
Now we're on to the high Church side. is there some form of leadership structure? Is there a successor to the position given to Peter?
If you answered yes to both questions then you get into the bigger question of what is the scope of authority of that position.
You could probably do several hours of video explaining all of the nuances. Not that the papacy exists but how did it grow and expand to where basically for a very very long period of time you might as well call it the king supreme leader of everyone in Christendom and everyone was accountable for everything including civil government ultimately to the Pope.
Functionally that is what it was and how the church saw itself relative to the Christian world.
I would say if the Roman Empire never fell and that the institutional organization known as the Christian Church did not take on the functions of civil government things may have evolved in a radically different direction but again we are talking about a 2000 year old organization and issues that have occurred in that time have affected how that organization grew and developed
Is the pope a lead Bishop? is he a senior Bishop? Is he a first among equals? Is he an arbitrator in disputes between Bishops? Is he the top of the pyramid and everyone answers to him?
No office of the papacy mentioned in the New Testament.
Christ brother this is just ignorance.
There is some verses that prove papacy. I can bring them if your heart is open.
@@HulkRampage Thank you; I was just going to say the same thing.
@@HulkRampage Ok. Please show me the verse that mentions the office of the papacy i.e. chief shepherd of the church in the NT.
Doesn't need to be. Sola Scriptura is false.
On this rock I will build my church, listen closer to the words and let the words of Jesus change your mind
Peter answered Jesus, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”
Matthew 19:27