The Most Misused Verse Against Protestantism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 лип 2024
- Jesus promised in Matthew 16:18, "I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." This promise is often wielded against a Protestant view of church history. Here I recount two assumptions that are often made in such argumentation.
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
SUPPORT:
Become a patron: / truthunites
One time donation: www.paypal.com/paypalme/truth...
FOLLOW:
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Website: gavinortlund.com/
MY BOOKS:
gavinortlund.com/mypublications/
PODCAST:
anchor.fm/truth-unites
DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM
Striving Side By Side: / discord
00:00 - Matthew 16:18 and Protestantism
01:50 - 1. The Meaning of "Church"
06:04 - 2. "Prevail" and "Gates of Hell"
10:30 - Comparable Promises to Israel
I think if the church was supposed to not commit errors then a lot of content of the epistles wouldn't exist
if you believe that of the epistles, then you should believe the same of the gospels that harmonize with them perfectly, as well as the OT -- the whole of the Scriptures falls with that one statement, you're saying you essentially believe in a different gospel from a different god. good luck with that.
@@Taterstiltskin He's just saying that if the church was so protected from errors, then the epistles, most of which are correcting congregations, are strange. He's not denying the epistles.
@@TaterstiltskinHe's saying that nearly all of the Epistles serve to correct the church in significant error. And he's correct.
My faith was shaken when first looking into orthodoxy. It was so hard to find a convicted protestant source to all the questions, but your videos have been a gold mine and given me so much clarity!
I'm still looking into both. Has any thing in particular closed the door to Orthodoxy for you?
@@MikesMusicMethod paganism
I left the Orthodox Church because of its exclusivist claims. I believe they're committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Watch the interviews with Joshua Schooping. My experience in the Orthodox Church was very similar to his. I left for the same reasons.
@@user-en6zl1cm5r please elaborate. I couldn't name a single person at the Greek Orthodox Church i attend who makes judgment on anyone outside the Church. I'm curious as to where you got this feeling and sentiment from? Was it a congregation you attended? People arguing on the internet? Or?
And do you mean an "exclusivist" claim in the sense that the Orthodox think they're the "true" church? If that's the case though then every church is exclusivist. The only reason anyone breaks from one church and goes to another is because they think they have more of the Truth of Christ.
@@MikesMusicMethod The Orthodox Church teaches that people outside the OC aren't Christians.
I know this from priests, born Orthodox, converts. It's well known. The Orthodox don't like to advertise this because they're trying to attract new blood to the sect.
As someone who for a while, (though no longer) was drawn by the RC church, I appreciate your breakdown that gives a nuanced balanced view of Chruch History. You give a solid, reasonable refutation to often broad brushstroke answers, which if dug into are not as clean cut as some say they are. I enjoy and commend your academically informed and charitable approach. Thank you for the time and energy you put into these videos. I genuinely think they glorify God and His desire for how his children should interact with issues and dialogue with one another.
"In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same was also head-that is also why he is called Cepheus ['Rock']-of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner... Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of Holy Church"
-The schism of the Donatists 2:2 (AD 367)
Thank you for the kind words, Christopher, I am very grateful to hear you think my videos bring glory to God. May it be!
Alex Augustine changed his view on church being found on Peter
Go listen to Jay Dyer’s refutation of the papacy parts one and two. Incredibly solid academically. Lengthy, but well worth spending the time.
@jesse77able
Would you mind to share the link? Or can I find it in UA-cam? Many thanks!
Sooo glad you became a UA-camr! I don't have the time nor the energy to read volumes of books on many of the subjects you address. You are a great asset to the church. By church I mean the body of Christ. All those who are regenerate by The Holy Spirit and are citizens of The Kingdom of God. I agree with you that it is undeniable that the Spirit is at work in true believers of all denominations.
@Conquering Death It's quite obvious that plenty of atheists do good in the world. I don't understand your comment in relation to mine.
I adhere to a more Lutheran persuasion, but I have to admit your videos are incredibly interesting and helpful. God bless your ministry!
Glad you find them useful! I find much to admire in the Lutheran tradition.
Same here!
Same here 👍🏻
I just got your book on triage and really enjoyed it. The papacy, icons, and Mariology are 3 reasons I could not become Catholic; although I love my Catholic brothers and sisters. I believe this verse means the same as in the Old Testament. Satan cannot thwart God and God always saves a remnant of faithful believers. Though the Church strayed like Israel strayed, God rescued and preserves the faithful.
So glad you enjoyed the triage book!
Hey Tammy, do you see Mary as the new Eve?
@@flearhcp I could not become Catholic for the most of the same reasons as Tammy. I don't believe the doctrine about Mary being the new Eve. To believe that is part of the slippery slope that has her near to divine, devoid of original sin, living a sinless life (and only Christ is expressly said to have accomplished that), a perpetual virgin, and a co-redemptrix w/ Christ himself. I don't think NT scriptures support this, and digging for an OT type to try and support is thin at best.
Mariology is one of the most beatiful doctrines of the catholic church, you are missing so much, Mary is your mother, the full of grace, all she wants is take you closer to her son, we do not worship her, we recognize her an present our admiration to her. But i know is hard to acept Mariology, you have to go very deep in scriptures.
@@xaviertorres1685 And Church history.
Exactly, in principle, "prevail" implies a long drawn out struggle, at the end of which, the subject is victorious.
Thanks again and again Gavin. You're doing a good job. I should know. I'm almost 70 and I've been following That Person for almost 50 years, and I know Him whom I have believed.
This is an excellent example of a scholar's role in the church, tackling tough subjects and making the academic scholarship accessible in a thought-provoking and charitable way. to the wider church.
Always appreciate your content-honest & informative! 👍🏾
Thank you Dr. Ortlund. Your content is ever helpful. Such useful recourses which help us be grounded, and not blown hither and tither by every wind of doctrine!
Excellent - looking at all sides. You definitely made me think. Thank you for the work you put in to getting the truth - it is appreciated...!
Amazing video as always Dr. Ortlund!
Awesome video, Gavin! Very helpful.
Thanks for the excellent video Gavin! I benefit from your content a lot being a Protestante in a mostly Catholic country (Brazil). Let me suggest videos more related to the sacramental system, that would be nice.
Thank you 👍🏻
What a straight to the point, helpful video. So glad I watched it.
Always so insightful and offering a deep perspective! Thank you. I love your integration of the tripartite promise.
This was very interesting, thank you for sharing. I need to read more about the church councils... I've lately been reimmersed in Anglicanism after finding a new church and feel convicted to remain Protestant.
Cool, I grew up Anglican and now I'm in non denominational.
It's not misused, it's true. The Church wasn't established by man in the 16th century. It was established in AD 30 by the Lord. Although it's true there is no earthly pope, everything else about protestantism is wrong. Orthodox Church is the true Church, St Athanisious was the first to identify the Canonical 27 NT books that everyone uses today
Wrong choice .... protestantism is heresy as you ignore Jesus's direction instruction to eat his body and drink His blood ( Holy Eucharist)
Why do you disobey Jesus?
Here is the proof:
Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 - “This is my Body…This is my Blood.”.....
It's in your bible but you have been brainwashed by your pastors who only want your tithes
Why do you ignore Jesus's
commandment ? Why ? It's there in the bible
Think for yourself instead of letting your pastor fool you .
Mt 26:26-27; Mk 14:22,24; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 10:24-25 - “This is my Body…This is my Blood.”
Don't concern yourself with negative comments Marian.
@@Adam-ue2ig just a few more scoldings from strangers and we'll surely see the light...
Very well articulated Dr Ortlund.
It’s been interesting to observe this phenomenon in my conversations with others (most often Roman Catholics).
The deductive assumption of this phrase in relation to the proposed inerrancy of “the church” is deeply rooted in the question of interpretive authority.
Great video
I’m enjoying your videos. They give me lots to think over. I found you whilst researching a Church History assignment on Sola Scriptura as part of my Bachelor of Ministry.
Thank you from Australia.
glad they have been enjoyable!
Thank you, this was a helpful video Dr. Ortlund.
I love what you’re doing brother. God bless you. I’ve shared your work with many of my friends. I pray that more Protestants will benefit from these videos.
Wow, the breadth of your knowledge & wisdom is helpful & encouraging. I'm amazed & God is glorified. Bless you and your family, Dr. Ortlund.👍🙏
Great stuff!! Really helps a Protestant like me that have felt almost outside of the faith because of the claims of the orthodox. It concerned me to think I should take my focus off of Christ and place it in Eastern Church. I can’t square that with hundreds of verses
@Conquering Death Protestants wouldn't deny that. They simply argue that the Bishops, sitting on the seat of Peter and the Apostles, are not magically caused to become infallible the moment some arbitrary "ecumenical" volume of them meet together.
Precisely! I can only share my 20 years in EO, but your concern is exactly what happened to me. One becomes so totally immersed in reading the lives of the saints, the liturgical texts, the prayerbook with it's dozens of negative affirmations, and the hundreds of Icons begging for your gaze, that the simple promises of the Bible fade into the background. The rituals become your salvation, which are always slipping away into the future, while you anticipate the next sacramental treatment! You are never able to locate forgiveness, because its a moving target that ends up at the Demoniac Tollhouses after bodily death, and if you escape the DT, you face the Last Judgment. An abysmal hope to be sure! The Apostle Paul's warning about being seduced from the simplicity of Christ becomes a reality. Christ settled the sin issue once and for all! Eastern Orthodoxy does not understand this!
The Eastern Orthodox Church is the body of Christ. To focus on Christ, will lead you toward Orthodoxy
@@courtneykees21. I’ve researched EO because I know so many young people who have converted (including my SIL). The beautiful reverence, claims of historicity & intentionality draws them, I think. However, when I studied some of the distinctive doctrines (icons, Mariology, understanding of the Gospel, etc) in comparison to the Scriptures. They not only don’t stand up, but consistently draw the eye away from the finished work of Christ (which the book of Hebrews goes into extensively).
Thank you so much for your videos. You have been an answer to so many prayers 😊
Great articulation Dr. Ortlund. Taking away one anachronism at a time. Btw, your facial expressions on these videos crack me up.
I’d really appreciated a more detailed video on the iconoclast controversy from you. As someone who does a lot of scholarly research into church history and biblical theology who is on a journey inside of Christianity to something new and different from when my own tradition started me I find your videos to bring things to my attention I may not have caught on to as the literature is vast. I find myself lead heavily to high church traditions on theological and historical grounds. What you said on the events related to iconoclasm put a lot of questions in my head I wanna seek answers to from the Eastern Orthodox side and perhaps the Anglicans as well. You only slightly covered this here but while I’m still on this journey and finding myself without the time to really dig hard into the iconoclasm part of church history at the moment seeing a video from you I feel would probably help me greatly in knowing where to go and some resources to look at when I do in addition to what I hear from the other side.
Thank you and blessings to you for the balanced approach you take it is very helpful even if I agree on some things and not others with you.
@Conquering Death I don't believe Iconoclasm is correct and this didn't neccicarly convince me that it is. The bigger issue for me is the question Gavin brings up related to councils and how we know which ones to follow from a empirical perspective.
Believe me I will be talking with an Orthodox Bishop and Priest on this topic and I might even contact some higher level theologians from that side of the discussion as well but the issue related to councils is something I want to approach from as many angles as i possibly can.
I do apprecaite your concern and love however in your comment thatnk you for it
I found you through the Becket Cook site here. Thank you for going "deep" for all of us. In this day and age of "busy-ness" we can all fall back into forgetting scripture and its proper applications. Even as a church of Christ member we agree on so many things and as we study more, we UNITE more. Just as Paul told the Corinthians in chapter one , verse 10 "Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment". This is a COMMAND from Paul. The study of the early fathers and contrasts to scripture and all other areas keep me sharp. Thank you Gavin!!!!
Thank you for putting this information out. It's brilliant.
This is great stuff, thank you!
Great video!
As a former Dutch Calvinist and a deacon candidate in Byzantine Catholic, I am glad for this irenic response. I agree that the language of The Church Lapsed has been abused by many Orthodox and Catholics. I think the question can be framed differently. When can we say objectively that the Church significantly has been corrupted? For an example during the lifetime of the Apostles we found many heresies yet the Church survived. But by the time we are at Ephesus the Council was closed with an Akathist to Theotokos and at Chalcedon during the sessions the fathers went to St Euphemia's shrine. These need to be addressed. Unlike the usage of music or the wearing of sandals which are non theological, veneration of saints at ecumenical councils made their dogmatic announcement suspect of heresies. Would like to see you and Joshua Schooping together. God bless!
He most likely won’t answer you.
@Bb Dl yep and moreover he’s very dishonest and a master of half truths.
@@RedWolf5 can say that again. Playing with nauces at times does help
@YAJUN YUAN yes they did. I was asking for a follow up. Maybe better all three Gavin Ortlund, Joshua Schooping, and Matthew Joyner. As an Irenic Catholic, I would like to hear how they address these so called anomalies in the Early Church. Like how can they accept Ephesus when the Council was closed with an Akathist to Theotokos and how can they accept Chalcedon when during the session the fathers venerated St Euphemia's shrine at Chalcedon? These anomalies need to be addressed by Protestants. Privately I had a correspondence with one of them and basically Protestants do not accept any ecumenical councils as Catholics or Eastern Orthodox do but rather selectively as long as it aligns with Scripture. This is why Protestants don't accept canons from the First Nicaea on monastic celibacy and hierarchic structure in the Church. When I was a Dutch Calvinist that's how I accept all six ecumenical councils. This basically argues that around the fourth century the Church has lapsed at least partially if not totally. Because this is systemic and everywhere. We can't find a Protestant church in the first millennium.
@@bbdl2147 If so many low-hanging fruits is so easily debated and refuted, why bother with the high-hanging fruit?
This is great! I teach like this, and on subjects like this a lot, but I'm not a scholar. I have read the fathers up to Cyprian, read the writing at and surrounding Nicea, written a book on the Council of Nicea, and my skill is scouring such things so those that don't can understand them. You seem to be doing the same thing, but your knowledge is a lot wider than mine. I'll be watching some of your videos for research, and especially for finding sources to read. Very impressed. Thank you. (When I use you as a source, I'll give you a link for whatever that is worth.)
Glad to be connected, hope the vids are useful!
Thank you for this video. It gives me something to help share with my Roman Catholic friends who often do use this verse out of context.
Thanks for that amazing video, and I loved you mentioned council of Frankfurt, I've read about it and Christians in North Western Europe were definitely more close to the reformation than to the counter reformation
Really great video, Gavin! As always!
Very helpful!
Thanks Dr. Ortlund
Gavin, let me first say you are an absolute blessing! As someone who has been discerning Catholicism for a while, your work has been a serious roadblock in that journey. I mean that in the best way possible. LOL. I just love your irenic approach and it's a shame there aren't many like you in the Protestant world who are so well-read and can give as compelling of a case for Protestantism as you have. You've given me so much to think about and have made me question if Catholicism is really where God is leading me. Keep up the good work.
I do have a couple questions:
1. Will you be doing any more debates with Catholics again in the near future? Your debate with Suan Sonna was excellent.
2. What would be your response to the Catholic claim that Sola Scriptura leads to doctrinal anarchy and that we need an infallible magisterium to interpret it?
Thank you so much! 1. Yes. 2. Will do a video on that sometime
Death wont stop the life in Christ. Who overcame death and is alive forever more.
I believe Augustines interpretation of the millennium played into the misapplication of this verse.
The Catholic argument might be, "Yes, but it's BOTH AND. It's both Death and False Doctrine." Their exegesis seems very inconsistent sometimes.
And he’s back!
Amazing video Gavin! I've seen that argument from RC and EO based also on 1 Timothy 3:15. Would your response be any different?
Thanks! Yes, would have to do a separate video on that verse, though some of the principles would be similar, like the meaning of the word "church"
Isn’t it ironic that right after this statement about the church victorious Peter makes an erroneous claim that Jesus would not be crucified? Jesus’ rebuke puts Peter in league with Satan. This illustrates your point, that the promise of the church triumphant doesn’t mean there won’t be some times of troubled teachings. It’s reassuring that Jesus is building his church. We certainly wouldn’t get it right
David, even more ironic, Jesus Christ did not take away the keys He gave to Peter alone. The keys are never mentioned in Matthew 18. Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas,which is Aramaic for rock and gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God and Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren! The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer, even though Holy Scripture said that it was. ( Genesis 17:12). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink and His Church built on Peter the rock
@@matthewbroderick6287 funny how RC always try’s using Peter to prove that the Pope has supreme infallible authority. Especially since before the schism the Church didn’t view it this way. Maybe in Rome they did, because that was their bishop of the Patriarch, but the majority of the Church never seen it this way and the Church is not made up of some peoples quotes, but what has been believed everywhere at all times by all Christians. All the other Patriarchs agreed that the Pope did not have supreme infallible authority. The one in Rome, went off on their own hungry for power and influenced through power in the west. The Pope is not Peter, so please stop using Peter to try and prove the Papacy. The Papacy has literally been used to divide the Church many times, to the point of 45000 Protestant denominations. They schismed the Church, the Orthodox Church in 1054 by proclaiming supreme power and authority, then caused all sorts of blasphemy with selling of indulgence, and only 500 years later their actions created another schism with horrible consequences. Because they decided to change their intellectual theology of Plato, by Augustine to Thomas’s Aristotle. Then now the Papacy prays with Pagans and teaches others to do so as well and is creating another schism with Traditionalist SSPX. Nothing but division and corruption has come from the RC by their pride and hunger for power and control.
@@malachi6120🫶🏼
@@matthewbroderick6287 other guys comment is the truth
@WORLD-MINISTRY mine is actually the Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
Hey Gavin, I'm Not sure if you will read this comment, yet I hope you do because I like your work. I Suggest you Read Michael Heiser's book Reversing Hermon. In his book, he argues that the rock in Matthew is not peter, his confession, or Christ, yet actually mount Hermon. He also says that "The gates of hades shall not prevail against it" is a bad translation, and says it should be translated as "The gates of Hades will not be able to withstand it." This changes the meaning of the verse from defense to offense. The church isn't being attacked by hades, It is the one attacking Hades.
"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans Chapter 8 -- circa 110 A.D
I'm at the beginning. But WE are assaulting Hell, and those gates of Hell WILL FALL. We are on the offensive!!
Sometimes I watch your channel from devices I'm not signed into, alot of youtubers complain about viewers who dont subscribe, this could be a part of it.
I would love to see a video on the "pillar and foundation of truth" verse...
Gavin, I love you
Glory to God. I love all of you brothers regardless of traditions. Let us all pray that God puts us in the right place according to His will.
Doesn’t the visual imagery conjured up by this verse imply that the Church is the aggressor here? In other words, it’s not that hell is attacking the Church and the promise is that the Church will endure and overcome the onslaught. Instead, it is the Church that is leading the onslaught and the gates of hell will not prevail. Seen this way I don’t see how this verse can be offered as an apologetic for preservation of doctrinal integrity through all of history.
Yeah I’ve thought that too about the gates of hell. This verse teaches that the church is on the advance and not about freedom from error
The way I've always read it (even before I became interested in apologetics) was that the phrase "the gates" was a synecdoche (referring to the whole by a part).
In this instance, the gates are an emblem of the city. Sort of how for us the flag of a country represents the country. So if I said, "The Russian banner will not prevail against Ukraine", I am referring to the country of Russia as a whole. And when Jesus says, "the gates of Hades", He is referring to Hades itself and all of its power.
But that's just a difference which Bible nerds would debate. Even if one rejected that view of the phrase, it doesn't seem like a problem for the argument in question. Because if your army is offensively prevailing against the enemy gates, it sure as hell (no pun intended) isn't conquering you. Thus, saying that the Church will not fail to storm the gates of Hades includes the idea that evil will be wildly unsuccessful in its attempts to assail the Church.
I agree with Raj. Dr. Michael Heiser takes a close look at the Greek and suggests that a better modern translation of 'prevail against' is 'withstand'. He also takes a look at the immediate context of the passage and points out that Jesus and his disciples are standing in Caesarea Philippi, the location of the 'Gates of Hades', an ancient cave known at that time for the worship of false gods.
@@yvichenj333 ooh that's an interesting point! The cesarea/gate of hell bit.
This is also make sense to me.
I can't help but prefer Dr Heiser's view of removing the supplied word (against) leaving the possibility of translation open to being,
The gates of hell will not withstand* it.
This is a good look into the arguments, even if I find it ultimately unconvincing.
Great video. I just came across your channel a couple of days ago and subscribed. I am curious if you have ever heard Dr Michael Heisers explanation for the gates of Hell and if so, what are your thoughts on that.
Glad to be connected! I have been told about it but need to read it Heiser's own words before making an evaluation. :)
@@TruthUnites it's a strong interpretation from Jesus 2nd temple period Biblical Judaism that says the Gates of Hell is the huge Rock in Caesarea Phillipi that is THIS ROCK ,not Peter and is what Peter is contrasted to.
The Large Cave is the Gates of Hell in this Pagan worship site of THIS ( huge) ROCK !
The verse where Christ also tells Peter to Get behind me Satan cannot be taken literally either! So if Peter is literally THIS ROCK he is also Satan in a verse down the page.
I don't see both as being literal and is a stronger interpretation than the polemic Protestant one against the RCC interpretation.
I enjoy the scholarship!
I appreciate these videos. By that I mean I despise them because they are challenging for me! Lol I’m jk I know it’s a good thing!
A few things I just thought (and who cares I’m no scholar lol) is obviously we are connecting this to RC doctrine. I know you had mentioned that you were only speaking to this one part of this verse and you’ve talked about it in other videos but Catholics would also turn to the other parts of the passage and draw different conclusions from those passages that lead to these beliefs such as “changing Simon’s name to Rock and then naming him the Rock upon which He’ll build the Church”, the “keys of the kingdom and the connection to the typology in the book of Isaiah” and cultural understandings of the role of “binding and loosing”.
Along with the comparisons of Jesus sending out the 70 or 72 being comparative to Moses establishing the 70 or 72 elders for the “ministerial” type priesthood. Then they would also appeal to several Church fathers as well.
I know you weren’t arguing against the whole thing and were only talking about the “gates of Hell prevailing against” and the definition of “Church”. I’m just saying in the way that they are defining things I think you almost have to include the whole argument to represent it fairly. Idk just my thought. Thank you for everything you do!
thanks for engaging the videos and wrestling with the content!
Hey Gavin, I've been watching for sometime now and I really appreciate you and your content. It's hard for me to even describe how much you've made an impact on me, even on a personal level, which is very cool! Not only do I appreciate your content, which is rich and edifying, but most of all I appreciate your character, which is such a refreshment in a vast desert of triumphalism and contention. I see Jesus' gentle and lowly heart in you so clearly, and what other metric of success in this life is as important than to be like our Savior? With that said, I don't mean to idolize you. I just want to encourage you and praise God for the ways he is using you and your content in mightier ways than you'll ever know!
And with all of that out of the way, I do have a question which I'm curious to hear your response. Though I'm certainly a proponent of striving towards ecumenical peace and unity, not getting too concerned with issues that can disrupt fellowship if said issues are avoidable or tertiary in the order of theological triage, I've been stumped on the issue of referring to RC leaders as "father" when Jesus seems to specifically condemn this in Matthew 23:1-12. My concern is that I don't wish to dishonor the leaders of the church, but I also think that Jesus is quite clear. (Just so you know, I am a Protestant and my concern is more stemmed out of my interactions with Catholics and how best to go about it in peace and unity given my conviction.) I also sometimes even get uneasy when I see Protestant leaders make the point to include 'Pastor', 'Chaplain', 'Preacher', etc. in front of their names. I have no issue with that in itself, for those are simply the title of their offices, but I feel like I often sense a level of pride that comes along those leaders identifying themselves. Personally I feel like we should hold on to those titles loosely and with humility, recognizing that though these offices are "noble tasks" (1 Tim. 3:1) our identity is first and foremost servants of the Living God. Just as Paul often identifies himself as a servant of Christ or prisoner of Christ though he is one of the apostles of Jesus. (Not to mention, just that the Bible seems to describe the church offices as ultimately pretty humble vocations from the world's perspective). Obviously, the main issue is the heart, and I think that's clear from Matthew 23. And I don't mean to say that all Catholics are prideful in their heart to use the language of "father" towards their leaders, but I feel like some titles (including "father") are unwarranted (meaning there are no offices attached to them) from Scripture and thus add no value to include them in our orthopraxy. In fact they only seem to be a breading ground for the pride and superiority that Jesus critiques in the passage. So why should we use them, especially if Jesus specifically talks about it? What are your thoughts on all of this? I would love your feedback!
Your brother in Christ, Judah.
thank you so much for the kind words, Judah! What an encouragement. I will try to address this when I can find the time! :)
1 Cor. 4:15 also has to be balanced w/ the scripture about call no man father. There seems to be a context of only honouring our Father in Heaven. So though I'm not Catholic, I don't have a problem calling a priest father. They take a vow of celibacy and don't have children of their own, so then their flock is their children. Some priests, like Father Altman take their flock children as very precious.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Thanks for sharing this passage and your input! This further spikes my interest in the subject now! I think 1 Cor. 4:15 and the familial language that Paul uses towards his fellow believers (like when he calls Timothy his "true child in the faith") gives great credence to your point. And again, I think ultimately what God is concerned about with this issue is our hearts. But I guess still my concern is whether or not titles like these are more damaging than good in that they can create a breading ground for pride in the hearts of leaders and for confusion about who is the real leader of the church, which of course is Christ. For even when Paul does use this language I don't get the impression that he uses it as some sort of title but rather as a metaphoric and personal description of the nature of his relationship with these believers. I see no problem with that in itself and for any priest who sees their flock as their family. I bet that most of them truly view their position of "father" towards their flock in the same tender and intimate way that Paul did his. But I guess I'm wondering if there is some sort of danger to avoid when it crosses over to a more official title? And what about you and me or anyone else outside of the priest's flock? Maybe it makes sense for those inside his flock, but why should we refer to him as "father" if that is not the type of relationship we have with him? I also want to say that I think when it comes to any sort of title that is also reserved for God (like "father, teacher, leader, shepherd, etc.") we should tread very carefully. For He of course is our ultimate and true father, teacher, leader, shepherd, etc. So I think Christian leaders should be incredibly eager to jump out of that spotlight and do their best to shine that light on our Lord. I think this idea is consistent with Jesus' critique in Matthew 23 and also Paul's general attitude towards church leadership in his Epistles. For example, just one chapter before the passage you shared, Paul was making it clear that though the Corinthians were debating about which Christian leader they "belonged to" God was the one who is actually on top and in control of His Church. Those Christian leaders, including Paul, are nothing but His "servants." Not that true Christians would deny that God is our real leader, I just again think we should be cautious with our use of titles because of the effect that they can have. Now with that said, I do need to acknowledge that Matt. 23:9 says that we should call "no man your father on earth..." and yet I, like almost everyone else, refer to my biological father as "father" or "dad." I admit, this was a bit of a stumper, but I think my concern is still valid in that maybe this should call into question how Christian dads should rear their children? It might require us going against the grain of culture a little bit, but based on this passage shouldn't we make an effort to step out of the spotlight in a similar sense as our Christian leaders in order to magnify the fatherhood of God? Maybe that looks like teaching our kids (and us) to be more comfortable to refer to ourselves by our first names in an effort to help them see that their true and perfect father is God, and our relationship as father and child is really just a tangible metaphor that points to the real thing? Just a thought! I'm speculating and writing down the thoughts that are coming to me now as I think about these things. I also want to acknowledge the cultural and temporal differences of Paul's original audience and their concept of "father" compared to ours today. What can that further tell about what this commandment means and its relevancy towards us? Idk! Time for more study and engagement. :) Thanks again for your input!
@@judah7528 I'm glad that helped and I hope this helps too. To give a bit of context to who Jesus was addressing and why is likely key to Math. 23:9:
Woes to Scribes and Pharisees
…8But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Christ.…
Reading Math. 23 fully really sheds light that he was putting the scribes and pharisees in their place. It was about pride, as you've picked up on and it's an admonition against pride. It's odd that some people only pick up on "call no man father", because he also says call no one Rabbi/teacher/instructor, but he means for them see themselves as equals. They were doing everything to be seen of men and were prideful of their office. So that seems to be what Jesus is really addressing. That's why Paul is calling the good apostles fathers and then in Timothy of course, there's mention of teachers, evanglists, aposltles. It's not the titles or offices that are wrong, it's the spirit in which they are carried out.
@@TruthUnites Thanks!
In p252 of "Principles of Catholic Theology", Ratzinger actually uses the ecclesia term to sketch out how the idea of "office" came out of the term. He doesn't do it in relation to Matthew 16:18 specifically, but basically the whole form of the early church as ecclesia in ecclesiis.
Thank you 🙏🏻
Why does Gavin always look like he just smelled a fart in his thumbnails?
😂
I highly recommend checking out Michael Heiser’s take on this verse considering the significance of WHERE they are when Jesus says this and how Protestants and Catholics might be missing some of the messaging built into this verse by focusing on this Pope issue.
Good exposition of this passage. I think there is a rich historical context within the region of where Jesus and his followers were when He made this powerful statement regarding the Church. It was a place where great evils of child sacrifice took place. It was allegorically known as the "Gates of Hell". In other words, not even the most evil thing you can imagine has power over me. Jesus is teaching, "Do you trust that no matter how evil things will get, I will never leave you or forsake you?" P-O-W-E-R-F-U-L
As you noted, no representatives from the five Patriarchates were present at the Council of Hieria even though there were a large number of bishops present. The council was later overturned by the Second Council of Nicea which had full representation of all the Patriarchates. Also, the Council of Frankfurt seems to have only concerned certain regions in the West for it had no Eastern representation and was never adopted as authoratative for the entire Church.
Can you do a review of Michael Heiser’s view of what the “gates of hell” are?
Oh someone just commented this! Really interesting.
I think the teaching of Dr Heiser is the most coherent understanding of this passage. Caesarea Philippi is home to a location called The Gates of Hell and that's where He started His church as an attack against death
The Church is a living organism. Protestantism understands this best. Sometimes you gotta cut out the extra fat.
@Conquering Death Rather an organism that sees Christ as head not the Pope.
@@jesussaves2642 Christ is the head of the Church, not the Pope. This is basic Catholicism 101, my good sir.
@@prolelog Not always in practice.
@@jesussaves2642 that’s a non-argument. You could say that about any branch of Christianity. You need to front proof of your claim.
I heard a Roman Catholic bishop point this out on Pints with Aquinus recently. It means the Kingdom of God advances and the gates of Hades will not prevail but be overcome. It should encourage us. I think you are right that it gets misused to negate the possibility of any imperfect doctrine arising, but I still would find it strange if God did not retain a remnant of perfect doctrine throughout the first 3/4s of church history.
Also, even if it were true that none of the churches remained orthodox, the likelihood of attaining orthodoxy by way of the passage of protestant history and doctrinal development seems to be less and less likely but that's just my general instinct. I'm open to argument.
Yes very epic
Thanks
Dr. Ortlund, what reason do you think "church" refers to a local congregation or congregations in a city? I have often heard that "the Church at this city" is used to refer to local congregations, which is very different than just referring to that congregation as "a church". It would seem the former formulation fits better with the Catholic paradigm of the one hierarchical Church. Your thoughts?
@Conquering DeathI agree. This is one of many reasons I became Catholic.
Here is an interpretation of Matthew 16:18 which I heard about 30 years ago, however I don't recall who said it. When I heard it I thought that makes sense. It is the gates are built to keep out invaders. Therefore what Christ was saying is that Hell's defense will not prevail against the Church's offensive. The Church is designed to be on the offensive and breaking down the gates of hell. I thought that makes sense since Christ went into the lower parts and set captive's free. The Church, in this age, with the gospel message will be setting free those held in the bondage of sin and death. Hebrews 2:14-15 "Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery."
Quick note, the council of Frankfurt's declaration on iconodulism and consideration that Nicaea II was unecumenical was mainly due to the fact that the Frankish bishops lacked representation there, which appears to be more of a political reason. Charlemagne is an example of this, since he appears to have supported the use of icons prior to Nicaea II.
I feel like this verse only works against Mormonism, who believe the church actually did go into full-blown apostasy and did skate off the rails.
That can be said about any Protestant sect
Caesarea Philippi was located next to a gateway to the underworld (Pan’s Grotto).
I'm not sure I quite agree with your interpretation, gates are defensive structures not offensive. This would mean that the church will plunder and win those who are held by the grasp of hades
Gavin, can you do a video on Peter as first pope more in depth of Matthew 16 and eating the flesh.
Have you read the Bridge of History Over the Gulf of Time: A Popular View of the Historical Evidence for the Truth of Christianity (1871) by Thomas Cooper?
It highlights groups of Christians who were faithful to the true Gospel in each century dating all the way back to the Gospels.
I'm not sure how perfect the history is, but it is a thoroughly entertaining and engaging read from one of history's few Baptist apologists. 😅
Have you read on Heiser’s view on this?
❤️ Love you Gavin.
Accepting your conclusions here about Matthew 16:18 not being acceptable as evidence against protestantism, do you think it would also be unacceptable to use it as evidence against mormonism?
Mormons have their doctrine of "the great apostasy", and I've sometimes pointed them to Matthew 16:18 when talking with them.
Thanks James! I think it would be different, since Mormons speak of a great apostasy, but Protestants do not, affirming instead that the church was faithfully preserved by God. See Calvin's prefatory letter at the start of the Institutes, for example, where he hammers this point that God preserved his church. Hope that helps.
@YAJUN YUAN that's funny since the SDA have a similar view of the RCC and its daughter churches the Protestants.
As seen by me on a SDA TV show by an SDA teacher.
@@davidjanbaz7728they believe they are the remnant that preserves truth
Another verse that is used to make the same claim, that God is protecting the church against error, is 1 Tim 3:15. Any thoughts on this? A video on this verse would be great as well. Thanks Gavin!
It has to depend on what is considered, "the church". For that, you need many other supporting scriptures to properly form a doctrine and make the lofty claim that only one particular church, is all of "the church".
@@saintejeannedarc9460 I don't think I necessarily disagree, but I also think Paul wasn't making it that hard for Timothy to understand. "Church" (ἐκκλησία) simply meant "gathering". So, the fellow believers gathering with Timothy. Likely a local house gathering at that.
@@stueve It wouldn't be only Timothy's gathering (church) though. The scripture in question makes it crystal clear: "in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." So this is definitely speaking of the global Christian church and definitely not just a region or location. Or else someone could have made a pope out of Timothy w/ that scripture (just a little protestant/Catholic humour ;).
@@saintejeannedarc9460 Good point. Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Papists use this verse so often, and, quite frankly, I feel embarrassed for them when they use it.
Gavin, I'm no scholar but have understood the phrase as something like, "following the teachings of the Church will not cause a soul to fall into Hell," which is not a rebuttal to the idea that every decision the church has ever made is correct but rather contra the oft-repeated Protestant view that Rome teaches a "false and fatal Gospel."
Many interpret this verse as the church defending itself against the attacks of Satan. What it says is that the church is on the offensive and the gates of hell are being torn down.
Yeah honestly, I have never once concluded that Matthew 16:18 meant that the church was protected from any doctrinal error. I always understood it to mean the church would stand the test of time, and always exist. Honestly this doesn't work for Catholicism because just look how divided Catholics are amongst themselves. The traditionalist condemn the liberals and sedevacantist, and sedevacantist condemn the traditionalist and liberals, and the liberals condemn the other two. Some love Francis, others cannot stand him, some think he isn't the real pope, and others think he's the antichrist. Francis is night and day opposite of his predecessor. But then even Vatican 2 is opposite of pre Vatican 2, even though some attempt to damage control it.
My understanding is that the meaning of 'prevail' has shifted from originally, 'withstand' to 'overcome'. The new meaning has the gates marching to overcome the church; the old meaning has the gates of death not being able to withstand the triumphant church--in the end, the church wins. Yeah! Whadayathink?
"...gates of hell will not prevail...." - means no teachings from hell can enter the church -
The true church will never succumb to pressures to conform to the secular world.
@@joekey8464. In light of all the warnings of error coming into the church in all the Epistles, your interpretation isn’t logical & presumes much.
@@bethl Error like what?
This is the only church that has zero tolerance for abrtn, no divorce, no remarriage, no artificial birth control, etc. It never succumbed from the intense pressure from the secular world to conform.
All other churches has given way and accepted them in various degrees into their church.
@@bethl This is the only church that has zero tolerance for abrt, no divorce, no remarriage, no artificial birth control, etc.
@@bethl The church never succumbed from the intense pressure from the secular world, (even from Catholics) to conform.
All other churches has given way and accepted them in various degrees into their church.
“What does it mean?” According to whom? Who is to be trusted when it comes to understanding the Holy Scriptures, Councils, history itself? Should one trust in once own wit, some modern scholar? Shouldn’t the 2000 years old Church of the Seven council that had the letters written to, that compiled them along with the rest of the Holy Scriptures and made them “Bible” be tasked with this responsibility?
The Catholic Church has made so many doctrinal errors AND unbiblical/ extrabiblical additions for 2,000 years largely because it is powered by manmade sinful leaders. It is NOT to be trusted, up to the present time, but THE SCRIPTURES, JESUS & THE SPIRIT should be the focus & authority. Much shame on the hierarchy & behavior of RCC; we ALL are imperfect & sin.
Hi Gavin, could you do a video on why you think it’s ok to be a schismatic, or do you think you aren’t in schism from the 2000 year old Catholic Church? If going by sola scriptura the bible warns of schism. So there was one church in the west for nearly 1600 years, and this one has prevailed (on St Peter and his successors) from the beginning until now.
This is not an attack on Protestantism but something potentially contentious that I’ve never heard a Protestant address. Thanks.
As an Orthodox catechumen you nailed this! I dont find my "teams" :) argument at all convincing in using this verse. As you perfectly laid out, the verse can still mean the Church errored but hasnt crumbled. And that's assuming you grant my team a very specific definition of 'Church' which doesnt seem to be defined in this verse.
That's pretty much how I've interpreted the verse for years: the Gates of Hades are the power of death, so the Church will never die out.
On the other hand, I don't think icons are inherently wrong (or veneration of saints more generally), though they do represent a risk of idolatry if the practice is taken to excess--and we do tend toward excess, generally moving from extreme to extreme with little time in the center. I have encountered some Catholics and Orthodox who I thought were a bit over the line, especially concerning Mary, but the problem seems to me more a matter of practice than of principle.
(I also consider veneration a cultural and psychological matter. I don't personally have pictures of loved ones on display--it's not part of my family background, and I'm more aural than visual anyway. Icons would be an acquired practice for me, and since I don't find the practice commanded in scripture or primitive and authoritative tradition, I consider it optional.)
Yes, I don't have a problem w/ icons either. I love the artwork and statues in Catholic churches. I don't venerate them, but I enjoy the historical and biblical reminders of them.
I love how you represent the whole protestant body!!!
This video was a really nice alternative view to what “gates of hell will not prevail” means. I find this argument to be logically sound - thanks, Gavin!
In my ignorance, I didn't know this was invoked to motivate church infallibility.
To me, in English, "prevail" (no idea whether this applies in Aramaic or Greek) refers only to the final outcome of a conflict, it doesn't mean you can't have defeats along the way. And ancient city gates were DEFENSIVE structures... so surely this means the Gates of Hell would not ultimately withstand the attack of the church. (And what exactly did the word for "church" mean in the Jewish context of around 30CE when these words were spoken, rather than in the Greek-influenced later interpretations?)
Yes this verse is drilled over and Over by Roman Catholic apologists. If the church is the Body of Christ (meaning all the born again believers whether they be Catholic, Protestant , Orthodox, Copic etc.) than no need exists to use the verse as an exclusive ecclesiastical authority bludgeoning tool. Howeve, that is not to completely discount a visible aspect of the church. Secondly, "the gates of hell shall not prevail" I take to be a doctrine of assurance of salvation verse. The church (meaning all the authentic believers) will prevail through Christ as the head of the church. This accords well with many other sayings of Jesus in the gospels such as "I give them (the church) eternal life and they shall never perish. All those that the Father gives to me will come to me and I will raise them up on the last day....My sheep (the church) hear my voice and they will follow me, they will not listen to the voice of a stranger (i.e the gates of hell (satan)shall not prevail against them...etc.
It cannot be honestly argued by anyone that really knows what the Bible says that God's Church consists of all believers when Jesus repeatedly warned that there would be about false converts using His name to deceive ppl. He even went so far as to say _many_ will be deceived.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 The believers are the true believers...some fall away but they had no root and John says they went out from us BECAUSE they were NEVER really of us....so yes the believers are the church.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 Phil 1:6 And I am sure of this, that he who began (A)a good work in you (B)will bring it to completion at (C)the day of Jesus Christ.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 Jeremiah 32:40
I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 so yes, It can HONESTLY be argued by ANYONE that knows the bible.
I thank GOD for Luther's (and others) boldness more and more... The more I study and learn, the more I realize how little I know and yet despite my ignorance, I do know that in communication it is imperative we seek to understand what the speaker meant and not read into it something what we wanted them to say.
The NT was written almost entirely by Jewish men during the 1st century AD. Jesus went first to minister to the house of Israel and spoke overwhelmingly to a JEWISH audience who mostly rejected him. The OT was written by Israelites and overwhelmingly deals with Israel. The law was given to the Israelites. The promise was given to the Israelites. The lens through which OT and NT passages SHOULD be interpreted is a 1st century AD lens and backwards, meaning that in order to understand the content, we need to the context and that is NOT a 3rd, 4th...or 21st century lens.
Not only this but in order to arrive at the doctrines of church infallibility, apostolic succession and papal infallibility, one has to read into verses ideas that are clearly NOT explicit and would be completely foreign to any 1st century Jew living in the region at the time. You have to fast forward a couple hundred years (an eternity in church years) to find the seeds of these doctrines even being sown. Yet holding to these accretions forces one to exclude ALL evidence to the contrary.
Peter was hardly infallible. He denied Christ, THREE TIMES. He had a major fallout with Paul (Galatians 2). He cut off the servant to the high priest's ear.... On one occasion he opposed Christ and was called "satan" (adversary). If you're trying to make a case for infallibility, Peter is a poor example, as are we all....
If the argument is that the "church" is infallible then you must omit the first few chapters of Revelation entirely. You'd also have to overlook Paul's letters to the churches addressing their REGULAR errors. We can't look to Paul as infallible as he considered himself chief among sinners. So if Peter is fallible, Paul is fallible and the 1st century churches are fallible then how does one arrive at the doctrine of either "church" or Apostle/Pope/Bishop being infallible? Logically, you cannot.
Moreover, there is ZERO OT precedent for it!!! The High Priest, the closest parallel one might have to a Pope was NOT infallible and had to become ritually clean REGULARLY in order to fulfill his role, which was only for a short duration. The Levitical priests were not infallible and regularly made mistakes. Israel regularly fell into sin, idolatry, sorcery, wickedness, immorality... Why then would anyone expect that under the new covenant that an "institution" would exhibit attributes for which there are no parallels in the OT and moreover, why would we overlook CLEAR examples of that institution not walking in accordance with the perfection it claims to possess? Doing so would require us to walk in willful ignorance instead of truth or even worse, to reshape truth in order to preserve the appearance of what isn't there....whitewashed tombs anyone?
The hard part for many Catholics (and yes protestants too) to swallow is that IF the ORIGINAL "Catholic" church would have ONLY sought to embody the **explicit** teachings of Christ and walk exclusively in accordance with the NT, using the OT as context for interpreting the NT, then we'd all likely be Catholics today as the divergences between Protestants and Catholics wouldn't exist. We'd still have some sticking points but virtually every sticking point between us comes from doctrinal reinterpretations and accretions arising in the centuries following the lives of the Apostles not from the EXPLICIT teachings in scripture.
Oh, and we haven't even scratched the surface....
"I thank GOD for Luther's (and others) boldness more and more" LOL, that's why he was angry that his ignorant movement lead to denying the basic doctrine of Christianity, the Trinity. Second, High Priest may have done wicked behaviors but God but the question to ask is where majority promoting heresy?
"We'd still have some sticking points but virtually every sticking point between us comes from doctrinal reinterpretations and accretions arising in the centuries following the lives of the Apostles not from the EXPLICIT teachings in scripture."
The questions begs, what is scripture? Should we trust the priests who as you mentioned "sin, idolatry, sorcery, wickedness, immorality" who wrote the scripture???
Well-said!
@@bethl yeah right
I have a question. When the people of Israel were falling into idolatry over and over, was it just the people? Or were the priests and prophets and religious authorities leading the people into idolatry? Or did the religious leaders remain true?
It was widespread, but GOD always had a remnant.
Could Protestantism be an error? That’s mostly just my attempt at being provocative and jabbing a little for fun but I guess it’s maybe also a valid question? I guess as a Catholic I’ve never taken that to mean certain bishops/councils or that the Church never does anything wrong or can’t err. Nor do I really know any Catholics who don’t openly recognize the errors and abuses through church history. But I think we would affirm that “the Church” is a thing that Jesus instituted, gave authority to the apostles to operate, established a first among equals, and promised its perseverance through the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit. My concern is that “the church” being just the body of believers without any objective institutional teaching office “where the Buck stops” has led to a lot of believers believing in some version of themselves that they find support for in their reading of scripture rather than what the Church teaches across time and in proper context. This goes for Catholics just the same, don’t get me wrong, but I’d argue that we have an apparatus we can point to and say no, you’re wrong, whereas the Protestant (on my limited, biased view) can only say “no Scripture doesn’t say that.” But who’s view is actually authoritative if two people disagree on something. Just my thoughts. As always I adore your channel, it challenges me in the best ways.
Hello Mm,
If you would allow me, I'd like to address a few of your points:
"Could Protestantism be an error?": If seems you may be thinking of "Protestantism" in a (Roman) Catholic sense of singular, irreformable, entity. "Protestantism" was born out of a proposed need to reform, and such, could be said to be in a constant flux of reform. That being said, "Protestants" could acknowledge possible errors and the need to reform them at various points of church history. So to ask if "Protestantism" could be an error seems to ask if some irreformable entity is wrong, at this moment...which doesn't seem to represent the nature of "Protestantism".
I also think that people who do not identify as (Roman) Catholic, (Orthodox) Catholic, etc, can agree that Jesus instituted the "Chruch" with authority to operate and perservere through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The "Church" can be both "the body of believers" as well as an "objective institution". We just may disagree on the boundaries of said institution.
Regarding the apparatus you mention as your means of clarifying your understanding on matters of faith, allow me to ask you this:
How do you interpret what your apparatus says regarding these matters, and could you consider that you may use this apparatus as a backstop in the same manner people you may identify as "protestant" do the same thing with God's Word?
The abuses of the church are written off…
The abuses SND errors of Catholicism which continue to this present day, being presided over by sinful men.
@@susanburrows810 wait aren’t we all sinners? No abuses or sinners in Protestant churches, wow! Seem to have utterly missed the point of my comment. Good job.
It means you don't have to worry, don't have to threaten, don't have to torture people to support the church. Jesus makes this guarantee, so that none of us shall worry about who is destroying the church, or if we are. Just follow you calling, in what ever faith you have. None of us believe it, so we get angry, talk ugly to different communities within the church, and without, as if we're afraid to loose it.
Wouldn't this also be speaking of the resurrection of Jesus that when he says I will build my church in my resurrection will ensure that I will continue building my church. And death and hell will not keep me in Grave.
So... it seems to me that the characterization of the opposing argument could use some clarification. Our proposition is not that the word "Church" in Matthew's Gospel specifically means "the heierarchy of the teachers of the Church" or "the fathers at Nicaea II". That would indeed be an oddly specific reading which isn't warranted by the text. No, the word "Church" does just mean Church. We don't need Jesus to mean anything other than that.
But the word "Church" does entail things. Suppose I said, "The car will not fall off a cliff". But then we observe that the tires of the car fell off a cliff. Well, that would mean the car went over the cliff. Because, the tires of the car going over the cliff entails the whole car going over.
In like manner, the word "Church" can entail things. Things which, if that part went over the cliff, would constitute the whole thing going over the cliff. For instance, suppose the Fathers at Nicaea 1 were wrong about the Trinity. What if the Arians were, in fact, correct despite losing at the Council? That would mean the teaching authority of the Church from its highest levels bound the laity to an idolatrous heresy for all time.
If that happened, the Church would cease to be the thing which Jesus founded it to be. It was supposed to be His covenant community which, led by the Holy Spirit into all truth, would be the pillar and bulwark of truth. Now, if the teaching authority which Christ embedded into that Church bound the faithful forever to a grave heresy, the Church as a whole would cease to be the thing which Jesus intended. Indeed, the tires went over the cliff, and so the car went over the cliff.
So when we read Jesus saying "Church", we don't need to substitute an idiosyncratic meaning to that word. We can leave it as it is. However, when we keep in mind that Jesus embedded into the Church a heierarchy of authoritative teachers whom the laity are bound to obey, we see that throwing that part of the Church off a cliff would drag the rest over with it. And so the promise which applies to the Church as a whole in Matthew 16, must entail a promise applying that aspect of the Church specifically.
Acts,
Now this is a very thoughtful response. Well articulated indeed.
Question: Help me understand how we can connect (a potentially single) error from the "teaching authority of the Church from its highest levels" to "bound the laity to an idolatrous heresy for all time", without the assumption that this "teaching authority" in inerrant, and said (potentially single) error sends "the Church" spiraling to heresy "for all time"?
Could we not leave room for error and correction (reform), with that still being consistent with the perseverance of "the Church"?
@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 : Thanks! If I'm understanding you correctly, here's what I think you've asked me. You've looked at my argument and said:
"OK, I can see where that makes sense within its own frame of reference. But it seems your argument depends on the idea that the teachers of the Church (as you see them) are infallible. Or at least that they can be under certain circumstances. But... I don't share that assumption. Why can't we admit that a council could make a mistake and be corrected by a later one? Why think that a single error in 325AD binds us for all time, instead of allowing for another council in 545AD to look back and make a course correction? Whence commeth this necessity that councils act infallibly and irreformably? It seems that it creates the very problem you wish to solve."
It's a great question, and I probably won't do it justice.
This is the way I look at it. If it was the case that a council in 545AD corrected a major doctrinal error made in 325AD (and I used the example of the Trinity because the stakes cannot be bigger), then it would open the question of who was correcting who. Was 325AD correct and 545AD was a corruption? Or was 545AD the correction and 325AD the error? And who is to decide? It seems that such a scenario would doom the Church to split in a 325 faction and a 525 faction.
The fathers at the councils, however, didn't see it that way. They thought that the Holy Spirit is superintendant over the proclamations of the Church's teachers when operating at the ecumenical level. That way the Church could say, as the fathers in Acts 15 said, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..."
They thought they were hammering these determinations into bedrock so the faithful could have certainty on disputed questions. If they weren't, then all they were doing was offering their best guess. And all anyone is doing is offering their best guess. But this, they thought (and I think) is not consistent with the nature of the Church which was prophesied in the Old Testament and established in the New.
Thus, at Nicaea they esteemed themselves to have the wherewithal to settle the question forever. And Christians - both Catholic and Protestant - for all intents and purposes treat them as if they did. Because if they didn't (and couldn't) then it becomes difficult to see how the Church could be the pillar and bulwark of truth. It would just be the US Supreme Court with funny hats.
I probably did a poor job at this, but that's my best answer for now.
@@actsapologist1991
I consider that a phenomenal response, and appreciate you taking time to answer me.
It might help you better understand my position if you realize that I actually agree 100% with: "Why can't we admit that a council could make a mistake and be corrected by a later one?"
My concern is that certain traditions don't seem to articulate it this way, at least not on a street level. Forgive me for being ignorant of "official teachings" on this matter.
It seems the street level understanding of the "inerrancy of the church" extends to any and all official pronouncements; excluding room for future reform.
Regarding "pillar of truth":
Again, just referencing my street level conversations, this seems to be used to demonstrate absolute infallibility of a teaching magisterium.
I am seeking education on making the jump from "pillar of truth" to unquestionable infallibility.
Another thing that strikes me, is that in the first few chapters of the book of Revelation, Jesus critiques the seven churches, a number of whom have fallen into errors of various types. The "erring' church is scriptural. Even all through the Old Testament it is notable how often God says that "a remnant will remain"...and this is in reference to His chosen people and their divinely ordained priesthood. By the time Jesus appears on the scene, they are corrupt and act as His enemies. For Jesus's promise to be true for the church, all that is required (it seems to me) is that there be believers in the world, even a small remnant, who believe truly.
So the idea that the magisterium is somehow infallible falls flat for me, even from very basic reading of the Bible. James saying that we all stumble in many ways, and that teachers will be judged more strictly, also suggests that teachers in the true church are capable of screwing up. Thank you for your wonderful work in combating blinkered theological assumptions. We can all benefit from a careful examination of the facts!