Please do as many videos as you can with Dr. Ortlund. These are amazing. I will be sending in money with questions next interview. This was an amazing discussion. I’m a catholic but when I look for the opposing views. Dr. Ortlund is my go-to. He is incredibly gifted and uses these gifts for Jesus very well.
Ottlund is among the worse when it came mes to catholicism. Albrecht has thoroughly debunked him on many occasions, so much so that he has exposed him to the extent that he's shown that he's not even qualified to speak on the matter.
@@hayatelaguna7599 Let's be serious or let's end the conversation. Gavin's debating Trent Horn this year. I doubt he'd debate trent but be scared of Albrecht lol. Unless you are actually joking, which is possible.
From watching this it appears that Cameron has already decided to convert. He is simply looking for a logical way to justify his conversion in his own mind. He says he is in a journey like he is searching for the truth. Don't think that's totally true.
We'll see if it lasts. Has he looked into indulgences and treasury of merit yet, and how they all relate to purgatory? Those are some real humdingers. For a Christian who already had a strong bible background to be able to accept all that just baffles me. Then again, I see pastors convert to Catholicism. I heard Trent Horn allude to sort of admitting that he didn't agree w/ everything, but he didn't go into any detail. There has to be some sort of plugging your nose for some, and just jumping in.
@@tony1685 when Paul encountered people wanting to use scripture alone to enforce circumcision as a means of salvation Paul literally makes a beeline to the apostles to resolve the issue. He does not simply open some scroll to make a biblical argument. Also Jesus quoting the 10 commandments does not quote all 10.
Nope, they shouldn't. But they should require more research than just reading the scriptures; particularly if the "investigator" is predisposed to limiting his research to just reading the N.T. scriptures. Why is that not the best way to go? Because there is a large amount of background information in the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant which have bearing on these issues. There is also a good amount of information to be reviewed from Church fathers, both East and West. In sum, Ortland has done a poor job of research and analysis. Heschmeyer, Sonna, Lofton, and Tyler have done a good job. I was very surprised to hear one of them bring up D.H. Wenkel's excellent work which I'd all but forgotten about, along with others. In sum, Ortland comes to erroneous conclusions because of his limited scope of research, and several fallacious arguments on which his case is founded.
@@malcolmkirk3343 He used the bible, but that's too limited? If we can't turn to the scriptures about Christian matters of doctrine, what good is the bible, and why did God even give it to us?
14:30 - Popes and Mary 20:30 - silence in scripture 20:58 - silence, Constitution and President 21:40 - the early church writers 22:30, 38:18 - Augustine and Jerome 24:39 - the Trinity 25:50 - bishops 27:05 - the shepherd of Hermas 30:03 - Cyprian and the chair of Peter 34:37 - Ortlund on Matthew 16:18 and infallibility 38:50, 39:18, 49:13 - Matthew 16 and supremacy 40:36 - Augustine and the rock 41:57 - Even if it’s Peter… 47:50 - Cameron’s take on the surface-level reading 52:10 - Protestants’ lack of serious exposure from the other side 52:46 - Peter and leadership 53:17, 54:27 - silence and biblical inerrancy 53:50 - John 10:35 59:01, 1:00:00 - Pints With Aquinas
1Pet 5:1 Peter addresses elders not from a position of authority or superiority or supremacy , but addresses as a "fellow elder". Peter is one among coequal elders. And then goes on to point to Jesus as the "Chief Shepherd" - the one who alone is Supreme.
Gavin Ortland is fantastic at his thought process through this. It seems that he's able to break down what is being said and what the scripture is conveying. Thanks for sharing this discussion.
@YAJUN YUAN The bible was not "written" as one book. It was not canonized for centuries after the death of the apostles. If all you need is the bible for "church doctrine" then protestants don't form one church, because they all have different doctrines.
@YAJUN YUAN So you are your own pope deciding those books are not the word of God then. See you set yourself up as the authority to determine the word of God, or otherwise you are relying on some other man to determine the word of God.
I'm currently a student at a Lutheran seminary and I think the idea of Papal supremacy is already discredited if you look at St. Paul's testimony in Galatians chpt. 2. Paul knew Peter personally and what is interesting is that he reported that there were three "acknowledged pillars" of the Jerusalem church, not one (2:9), and that Peter shared leadership with John and James the Brother of Jesus. It's also interesting to note that the number 3 isn't even exhaustive of the number of possible pillars, but that Peter, James, and John were simply the ones who were expressly named. Furthermore, Paul didn't even recognize these pillars, which included Peter, as having a special kind of authority over any other apostle, saying "And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)" (2:6 NRSV), which implies that Paul saw himself as Peter's equal, along with every other apostle. This is further strengthened when Paul confronted Peter to his face over being peer pressured to not eat with gentiles in 2:11-14. For Paul to call Peter out implies an equal relationship between the two, as opposed to a superior/inferior dynamic, since he did not feel obligated to show deference to Peter's decision, but instead openly questioned and criticized it. In Acts 15, we continually see a collegial style of leadership among the apostles that doesn't seem to imply any kind of special role to Peter. In fact in the Jerusalem council, it was James and not Peter that gave the final word and made the final decision (Acts 15:19) with the final decision being ratified democratically among all of the present members (15:22). I think this really discredits the idea of Peter being in a unique position of authority since he doesn't really seem to be leading from a place of unique authority. Rather he seems to be a leader within a cohort of other leaders. Theologically speaking, this could be understood if one compares Jesus' statement to Peter in Matthew 16 with Abraham's call in Genesis. Both men were chosen because of their faith, because they responded positively to God's word. Thus, just as all people who posses Abraham's faith become heirs to his legacy (Gal. 3:6-9), all those who posses Peter's faith become active participants of Peter's blessings. Thus, while Peter received a unique privilege as being the first to confess Christ as Messiah, all those who follow Peter's confession participate in the blessings of that confession as well, hence every other apostle did become leaders equal to Peter because they too began to believe as Peter did.
One thing I've noticed about both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox arguments is that they often beg the question that when the Bible / early church refer to things like the "church," they are referring to the specific ecclesiastical tradition that they are a part of in exclusion of all others, when that is often the very question at issue.
I mean, it's not that serious a difference. Yes, papal supremacy constitutes a major difference between Catholicism and any other Christians. It is a major distinction. But the model of apostolic succession as the authority structure is nigh universal before Martin Luther, or at best Peter Waldo. No other sects survived the late classical era or the early medieval period that can claim an alternate authority structure, other than one common to all varieties of Orthodox and the Catholic Church: my bishop was given authority through ordination by someone who ultimately was ordained to do the same by the Apostles, who were ordained ultimately by Christ.
I am a Catholic, and I love being Catholic. I have to say, though, that Gavin's argument in this video is the best I have heard against the papacy. It is the linchpin doctrine and ecclesiastical attribute between Catholics and all other Christians. I applaud him for this great argument, and how he irenically demonstrated his case. He has given me so much respect for my Protestant brothers and sisters.
Yeah, he his for sure the best one I've seen. Also his posture helps. But with all due respect, there isn't much competition. It's usually hate, straw man, made up stuff... - Here there is a conversation, logic etc... But yeah, the best by far but still fragile and subjective. William Albrecht, made some videos about this gentleman Pastor. If you want to check it out. He did invite him for a debate.
@@forwardechoes I'm aware of William and listened much of his stuff and initiall interaction with Ortlund, I find Ortlund more convincing and more charitable also.
I’m not sure why it seems reasonable that something as significant as the papacy would not be explicitly mentioned anywhere in Scripture. If the papacy is not something found or paralleled in Judaism and many forms of Christianity, the catholic papacy appears the exception, not the rule...the noise rather than the signal. Rather, what is found repeatedly is communal discernment over and over again. Jewish elders meeting at the city gates, or Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Moreover, the reference to "bind and loosing" in Matthew 18 is a communal power and responsibility given to the church. Similarly when Paul writes, "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16)... the reference is to the text, not the authors. This means the process of authors, compilers, and editors producing the text, which is "God-breathed." The communal process is as important as the individuals who were involved as Peter references, "...men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Peter 1:21). Proverbs 11:14 "Where there is no guidance the people fall, but in an abundance of counselors there is victory." It may seem philosophically wise to have an individual who is invested with supremacy and infallibility. It speaks to that place in our souls that cries out for certainty, security, and assurance. However, to have security, and assurance in any other than Christ is idolatry. Many protestants treat Scripture this way (Father, Son, and Holy Bible). The flesh loves to move to and live in the extremes. Lastly, I wonder if it is no surprise that the papacy is a western church development as the West is marked by an ever-increasing individualism. As the West moved away from community identity it needed something to fulfill that void of authority. The result was the papacy in Catholicism and infallibility and inerrancy in protestants churches. When the community was no longer viewed as the locus of God's presence and work, then substitutes were found. Thus, and only thus, do I see the "need" in Cameron's philosophical question. Why does it seem that Papacy is the best world solution? Because we lack the vision to see the beauty beyond the messiness of communal discernment. We desire certainty and haste over peace. We desire to be "right" over being in right relationship with each other.
The fact the papacy is never explicitly stated in the new testament, and that there's no OT model for it either, shows me very clearly that these few scriptures are being stretched well beyond their limit. The OT testament priesthood is very explicitly laid out. There was no doubt about a priest's duties. In the NT, a bishop, pastor and teacher's duties and requirements are laid out. A pope is the most important of them all, God would not leave it to guess work. This had to be a manmade invention.
@@koppite9600 I can read the whole chapter and what's on display is that Peter said he was called to preach to the gentiles and the same Holy Spirit given to all them, was given to the gentiles. Then James seemed to close the meeting. They quoted a prophecy: 17so that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord who does these things 18that have been known for ages. So the council ended w/ them agreeing the prophecy had been fulfilled. I see no evidence of popery there. You do, your church says that's what that means, so it doesn't matter what the context actually shows.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 who was chosen by God to preach the gospel to the Gentiles? Peter, Paul or James ... or add anyone else. Why did Peter quote his selection, it doesn't make sense for him to quote it to his fellow apostles if they were also chosen. I claim that he means he is The Pope.
God would not leave the Holy Trinity to guesswork either, and yet there isn't a single mention of the "Holy Trinity" or the "Triune God" in the OT or the NT.
@@koppite9600 Problem is, that makes no sense. To clarify, Peter says he is called to preach to the gentiles. That's all that means. Where you get, I'm also the pope from is anyone's guess? It does not fit context whatsoever and just comes out of left field. That's why any Christian who is not taught w/ CAtholic tradition never reads any of that, and says, oh yeah, Peter must be pope, because it's not there. You think it's there, because you have layers of Catholic theology taught to you. I'm a Christian who has followed Catholic theology quite closely and sought Catholic sources for years to see where these kinds of teachings came from. I have sincerely tried very hard to see what you guys see. I still can't, and it's not for lack of giving it an honest shot.
Catholic claims about the teaching authority of the RC church are either circular (wherein they say that only the RC church can interpret the Bible, and they say so because the RC church tells them so, which is the same circular argument made by all authoritarian cults), or else they argue from scripture and history, in which case they’re admitting one doesn’t need the papacy to arrive at Biblical and historical truth.
I get told that sola scriptura is merely a circular argument. This is apparently because we didn't initially have the bible, so the authority was handed to the church leaders to guide us into truth. That's how they justify putting tradition up w/ the bible. Though in practice, I really can't see that they have scripture as equal, they clearly put scripture as subordinate to their traditions. How else could they get so upset at the very notion of sola scriptura, even when it's explained that doesn't mean only the bible, but the bible clearly above tradition.
I was really surprised by Cameron’s response - I’m starting to get the impression that he’s accepted Catholicism more strongly than I realized. Dr. Ortlund made an incredible case essentially culminating in “there is no good evidence for the papacy either biblically or in 1000 years of church history - all of the evidence points to it being an accretion.” Cameron didn’t really seem to dispute that conclusion, but seemed to say that it amounts to just a “small bit of evidence against the papacy.” I get that Cameron wants to avoid arguments from silence, but, if Ortlund is correct, the silence seems deafening. I’d want to ask Cameron: in arguing for the papacy, at what point does it stop being “avoiding arguments from silence” and becomes the fallacy of “argument from ignorance.”
Yeah, I was surprised by Cameron's response as well. I think Dr. Ortlund may have hit the nail on the head when he talked about Protestants being shaken when they find out that Catholics actually have arguments, even if they're not that good in the final analysis. As a Lutheran, I think I almost got taught more growing up about Catholic doctrine than I did about Protestant doctrine, so I'm always surprised to hear how little my fellow Protestants often know about it.
Though I'm Catholic, I agree with the case dr Gavin makes here. It's 100% true that for a doctrine that basically gives Church unlimited theological power over the entire Spiritual reality there needs to be a solid foundation all around - in Scripture, in the Fathers, in the History etc. I have mixed feelings about the Papacy myself. I have no issues following it's authority personally, so it's not like I feel the need to convert elsewhere, but subjugating all other Christians to it, especially the Orthodox Christians who also have their own Apostolic roots, is just unacceptable based on vague quotes and late developments. This is why I especially support the modern ecumenical approach to old anathemas and other means of damnation that Church used to give to everyone who dares oppose it. Thank God for Vatican II which proclaims other Christians as no longer heretics but our Brothers and Thank God for wide-spread theological ecumenical efforts that unite us over key doctrine like Joint Declaration of Justification, which broadly speaking solves the Soteriological disputes, or at least gives us a way to coexist theologically on the same threshold.
@@Golfinthefamily The latest council is "technically" the binding one. Catholic Church makes a lot if updates all the time. And always the latest updates are the ones that are to be followed. It's pretty simple.
Gavin you’re wrong, I read the bible and the Holy Spirit told me your interpretation is wrong. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21 17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
A solid case as usual doc! I wish you brought up the issue of Clement of Rome, whose letter has some peculiar features and silences that call the early papacy into question.
The other Paul, why did Peter say greetings from Babylon, rather than Rome. To name the successor to Peter in persecuted times was dangerous. Yet, the office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@YAJUN YUAN Jesus wants you to come home to the Church He built on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was ever written and that later determined the Canon! I love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth
Hey Cam, maybe a good way to rephrase what you were trying to say about Peter, the rock, keys etc, would be to say from that scripture you could infer that Peter had some kind of leadership role (I don't think that personally). I think Gavin's point is that even granting that, 'Supremecy' is still a non sequitur.
I don't understand why this is so complicated? The papacy is clearly not in the bible, nor is the idea of the papacy. One would never conceive of the papacy just simply reading the bible, and before someone points out how do I know what the bible says or means without some sort of magisterium, read 1 John 2:24-27. "But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as as it has taught you, you will abide in him."
It’s only complicated because Rome makes it complicated and distorts history to try and make its case. Church authority is a real thing. Councils and leaders to help us learn, interpret and grow, but an infallible office that didn’t exist at all for the first 500+ years of the church is not only unbiblical and unnecessary but is also a heresy factory that has completely lost the gospel and introduced gnostic, pagan and mystic legends as dogma. It’s absurd and a complete denial of history to affirm the papacy as it is in Rome today
If all you need is the holy Spirit to teach you and not men then why does Paul say that some men are teachers and also to submit to the authority of your spiritual leaders?
@@charlesjoyce982 I don't know that Paul said any such thing and I didn't say all you need is the Holy Spirit. I supposed you are referring to Hebrews which we don't know for sure that Paul wrote. In any case, Paul was talking about the new church leaders, whom were not teaching falsely. What you should be reading is what Paul said in Galatians. "But even if we, or an Angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel than what we have preached to you, then let him be accursed. " Paul, nor any of the Apostles, taught the papacy or the priesthood as conceived by the Roman Catholic Church.
@@corymoore5093 1 Cor 12:28. Some are teachers. There was always a hierarchy in the Church and a duty to obey. The hierarchy was meant to perpetuate itself through the appointment of successors and trace itself to the Apostles.
@@charlesjoyce982 Except the appointment of successors is no where in the bible. There were church leaders of individual churches known as bishops and elders and that is biblical but not one supreme infallible leader. The pope is not in the bible nor is the Roman Catholic priesthood. All you have to do is show me the passage in the bible that teaches a pope or the priesthood as conceived by the Roman Catholic Church. You won't be able to because those are institutions that didn't come into existence until hundreds of years after Christ and after the bible was written.
The reason there are not a lot of Protestant people trying to correct orthodoxy or Catholicism is because we are busy reaching out to those that don’t know Christ
It’s really annoying that you are pretty much debating him for the entirety of the video while also being extremely dishonest in downplaying significant problems with catholic claims by saying “this would be considered very small evidence” you’re telling your audience how to think rather then just letting them think for themselves.
The next account that immediately follows "the gates of hell" scene is our Lord saying to Peter "Get behind me, satan"; that Peter, rebuking the Lord, had, not the things of God, but man in mind.
@@Draezeth Well, he does give an answer; i.e., the one who would be great must be a servant, even as the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many. But, certainly, He doesn't specify St. Peter and say "And you, Peter, as the greatest of all must be servant of all."
A dialogue between Gavin Ortlund and Erik Ybarra would be really interesting Cameron. Both are really thoughtful, charitable and focussed more on scholarship rather than apologetics. Dr Brant Pitre would also be a worthy interlocutor.
My guess is Dr. Ortland will not go for that. Why not? Because it puts him up against scholars who are VERY well studied in the early church fathers, church history, and all the dated rationalizations Dr. Ortland applies to avoid the problem of Baptists teaching (in relation to church history). There are gaping holes and self-contradictions in the arguments regarding church history which most Protestants (esp. Baptists) put forward. Reading Protestant church history books in seminary was a study in self-defeating arguments. In other words, if you just switched many of the arguments around and applied them to Protestantism, the Protestant authors end up refuting their own arguments. Additionally, Protestants of various stripes REFUTE EACH OTHER on many, many doctrines of their faiths: Baptism, and the Eucharist, Communion (including form, nature, function), Clergy (inc. gender issues, church government issues, etc., etc., etc.). On and on it goes.
Thanks, Gavin! The silence in the Bible on the pope is deafening. Enough said…or…not said! Ha. No glimpses of a pope. Clear the roles in the Church…elders and deacons. Clearly laid out in multiple books of the Bible. And…Not even a glimpse of the pope in those explanations of the roles on l in the church.
That's what is so stunning. The Jews had nothing approximating a pope in the OT, and their priesthood is very specifically laid out. The NT is not as specific about the new priesthood, because it seems it was meant to be fairly different than the OT. Absolutely nothing about a pope though. They glean huge amounts of information from the keys to the kingdom scriptures, even though Jesus said the same to the other apostles.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 I totally agree with you. I think Catholics argue that the papacy is continuing the line of David as instituted by Christ. So Davids eternal kingdom is fulfilled the papal succession. But its really tenuous to try and draw that line imo.
@@TyranBatten Their argument seems to be more based on the seat of Moses. Either way, they are relying on old testament types, like they do completely when it comes to all the Mary dogmas. This is convenient when NT scripture is not there to support their theology. Overall, they seek to continue the OT priesthood, the continual sacrifice through the giving of the Eucharist, and a works based, fulfilling of the law based walk w/ God. Christ clearly abolished that in the NT, and called us to something much different.
"Sift you like wheat," and thus...papal authority!! How on earth do apologists arrive at this? I think Dane is right: people already have it in mind. So when we have " a woman" mentioned in Revelation, it means, "the immaculate conception!" Maybe it does ( and I rather like the idea of the immaculate conception), or maybe the doctrine hunters are seeing what they want to see.
Come on man, the surface level reading of the "on the rock" passage is a referral to Mt. Hermon where the gates of hell were said to be in the old testament because the bulls of Bashaan lived there. (I'm referencing Michael Heiser's work here).
Thanks for providing such a thoughtful and compelling case Gavin, and thanks Cameron for your efforts in setting up this up. Really helpful for my personal journey! More please :)
@53:33 I don't think that the comparison between the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and the doctrine of the papacy was apt. If you read the New Testament, and ask the question "What did Jesus, Paul, and the biblical authors think about Scripture?" you will easily walk away with, if not biblical inerrancy, some form of a *very* high view of scripture. If, instead, you approach the text asking "What did Jesus & his followers believe about the office of the papacy?", you will find almost nothing to support it, and even some areas that seem opposed to the idea. *Every* time Scripture is self-referenced in the Bible, it is clearly assumed to be a source of authoritative truth. The same cannot be said of the papacy every time church structure is brought up. Tl;dr: The doctrine of scriptural inerrancy can easily be inferred by a reading of scripture. The office of the papacy certainly cannot.
22:26 ‘We have so much detailed information about the offices of the church in the New Testament that, given the gargantuan authority invested in the papal office, why is there not a single verse saying, “Oh, btw…”?? It’s as surprising as if the (American) Constitution never mentioned the president.’ Right??
Most likely, the binding and loosing mentioned in Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 are performed by means of the keys, which means that Peter isn't the only one who has the keys. These themes are all part of a larger imagery involving doors and such. See the many other references to keys and binding and loosing elsewhere in the New Testament. The religious leaders of Israel in Jesus' day, angels in Revelation, etc. are referred to as having one or more keys and/or binding and loosing without having papal authority (Matthew 23:13, Luke 11:52, etc.).
Incorrect. In the ancient Near East when a King would go on a journey, he would give the Keys to the Kingdom to his vizer. We see that repeated in Matthew.
@@oisinofthefianna3246 Nothing you've said shows that my comments were incorrect. Even if we assume the journey context you've referred to, that doesn't change the fact that Matthew 18:18 implies that Peter wasn't the only one who had the keys. You can't begin with an assumption that only one person could have the keys, since entities are often paralleled in partial rather than complete ways (e.g., Jesus' being paralleled with Israel, even though Israel is a group rather than an individual; Jesus' being paralleled with Moses while being different than Moses in other ways). And since Matthew 18 implies that multiple individuals had the keys, any assumption you or anybody else makes about how only one individual should have the keys is overturned by what Jesus said in Matthew 18. Jesus didn't agree with your assumption.
@@oisinofthefianna3246 Restating your position is not an argument. He already said why your interpretation is wrong. Jesus (supposedly) gives the keys to bind and loose to Peter alone in Matthew 16, but in Matthew 18 Jesus is speaking to all of the disciples and tells _them_ that they have the power to bind and loose as well in verse 18. So which is it? Was it just Peter as Matthew says in chapter 16 or is it all of the Disciples as Matthew says in verse 18?
@@jasonengwer8923 the keys are never mentioned for the other Apostles. Just given to Peter by Jesus in Matthew 16, Peter the rock. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Whilst I'm no expert, I've read most of the available patristic documents that touch on the papacy--hundreds of letters. Whilst there definitely is a development, the gist of it is in the earliest centuries, although there wasn't clear agreement on the details. I'd say the bishop of Rome was widely seen as having some undefined, unique authority. This wasn't just honourific; it had practical teeth. This doesn't definitively support modern papal claims, but it is most compatible with Catholicism. To those who reject the papacy as an accretion/deviation, I'd question your consistency. We all accept development... Why else do we have a 27 NT book canon and call God 'homoousious'? How do you know these aren't accretions too? How do you judge? And what is God's role in all of this?
As a layman and convert I think it was an accretion but then again the Church started with a bunch of people in a room and God was in the room and in them. It can certainly grow as it is made up of life.
All developments aren't necessarily God breathed, maybe it comes down to what jesus said about his sheep hearing his voice? Plenty of varieties to choose from when considering denominations, and many have varying accretions. I believe in God, and Jesus. That draws me to the bible, to learn more about God and the life of Jesus, I see the truth in Jesus's life and way, I do not see that life or way in roman Catholicism. I dont think the papacys accretion can be compared to the trinity, that is quite a stretch. When you have no reason to believe roman Catholicism dogmas their arguments become transparent, I was a catholic for the first 25 years of my life.
I wouldn’t say that the bishop of Rome had full papal authority from the letters. I look at it like Dr. Ortlund does 29ish minutes in as Rome was the big city and where Peter and Paul died. We would expect that bishop to have a greater sway than the average bishop. That doesn’t make him a pope by any stretch of the imagination. Edit: Just thought of an analogy- instead of the bishop of Rome being the president, he often feels more like the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. His vote was the same as everyone else, but the others perceived him with a greater degree of reverence
@@whatsinaname691 Reference your chief justice analogy and the pope's vote being equal to others... in the council of Chalcedon, the council fathers try to pass canon 28. They, and bishop Anatolius of Constantinople, begged Pope Leo to ratify it, but he didn't, so it didn't pass. They accepted that he could do this. Compare Leo to Dioscorus of Alexandria at the same council. He disagrees with the council and is excommunicated. This doesn't seem to me to suggest the Pope's vote was equal. He had the power to determine what was passed in the councils. When he disagreed, it didn't pass. When others didn't agree, they were ignored or kicked out of the church. The early byzantine historians (like Sozomon, if memory serves) recognised the Pope could ratify councils too.
@@michael7144 I was a Protestant for the first 25 of mine! I'm not suggesting the trinity and the papacy are completely comparable.. but 'homoousion' is certainly an accretion! For a long, long time, the papacy was accepted universally in the West. And even in the East, they accepted far more of the papal claim than most protestants today would accept. I think your position practically condemns a large chunk of Christendom as not being Christ's sheep as they, according to you, are not hearing His voice. I'm sure you didn't mean this, but your position comes across quite arrogant to me.
I don’t get how it’s not blatantly obvious the papacy is totally ungodly , Peter himself spoke of the priesthood of all believers , Jesus spends his parables talking about himself as the vine and us as it’s branches , the entire New Testament is about the kingdom of god through his reigning with the church ….
I wouldn't call it totally ungodly. There is always is hierarchy and order. People in charge, and people under them. The papacy just does not seem laid out in the NT at all. Neither is there a precedence for it in the OT.
@@Skanderberg79 There was an old testament canon genereally aknowledged and in use before there was Peter, the supposed first pope. There is no debate about the right scriptures between Jesus and any jew, there is only debate about the right meaning of scripture.
I really love Gavin Ortlund and appreciate his sincerity and rigor. Michael Lofton of Reason Theology and I (Suan) will be doing a review video. Also, Cameron Bertuzzi's fairness is wonderful and refreshing.
Looking forward to this. Would be cool to hear yours and Michael's response to Gavin saying, and I'm paraphrasing, that there was no authoritative/infallible structure in place in the OT.
If it was really infallible and you follow it all the way to its logical conclusions that seems to me to bring up the question what would prevent one from thinking you should be an Orthodox jew?
@YAJUN YUAN I've addressed this precise question before elsewhere, but I'll provide a brief summary here. 1. There's a distinction between a magisterium and an oral tradition. Insofar as I can tell, Moses established an institution in the Old Testament to interpret and apply the Torah. I don't rule out the possibility that oral traditions from Moses were handed down, although Jesus clearly indicates a corruption of this tradition by His time. 2. Yajun is correct in saying that my response is this: the authority of the Sanhedrin was transferred to the apostles by the New Moses - Jesus Christ. 3. The Sanhedrin claims succession from the Biblical authors - the prophets, judges, and kings - and high priests. If this claim is correct, then I do accept their prior teachings over Israel. 3a. The main thing to note is that Moses installed a judicial system over Israel to interpret and apply the Torah (priests and judges can occupy this seat). Moses did not directly build the Sanhedrin, but the Sanhedrin can claim to be within Moses' seat (as Jesus says) if they have succeeded to that position as the judicial officials of Israel who - like the prophets, judges, kings, and high priests before them - interpreted and applied the scriptures. The Rabbis (and I'd argue the sages) claimed an unbroken succession from Moses. 4. The Sanhedrin's view of "infallibility" is strange insofar as they believed that they could bind God to their own rulings. I do not consider that a valid instance of infallibility. Nonetheless, the Jewish sources are insistent that the Sanhedrin had divine inspiration and guidance from the Holy Spirit. The only place where the Sanhedrin comes close to the Catholic conception of infallibility is that the Sanhedrin under certain circumstances claimed to have the power to be able to bind all of Israel to its rulings forever. 4a. Although I think it's reasonable to say that these permanent rulings of the Sanhedrin are infallible, the Jewish sources do not provide further detail on the status of these rulings. I am now more cautious about saying that the Sanhedrin is infallible and would rather say that I think that's a reasonable but unverified stance.
@@Adam-ue2ig The reason why I am not an Orthodox Jew is because Jesus is the Messiah, the foretold royal son of David, the New Moses who has brought us a new law and judicial order, God incarnate, and my savior who died for me and loved me despite knowing my sinfulness and weakness.
@@intellectualcatholicism The intention of point was more subtle than that, the argument goes more like Catholics are carrying over things into Christianity from Judaism that should not be, such as arguably infallibility claims, exclusive authority claims, the priesthood i.e an ongoing exclusive priestly class with the all the attached claims to authority etc. Obviously Christ is the Lord, that is not one of the doctrines in dispute.
Ortlund said that the Papacy is rejected by all the Eastern traditions. This is false. There are 23 different Eastern traditions/Rites that accept the Papacy. These different traditions make up what is called Eastern Catholicism.
I believe he is referring to the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches. The Eastern Catholic churches are under the headship of Rome, where as the traditional autocephalous eastern churches deny the catholic claims about the papacy.
@@TruthUnites them not all the Eastern traditions reject Rome. Just some of them. Additionally, several eastern saints before the split supported the papacy.
Jesus Christ established His One True Apostolic Catholic Church and Doctrine with His apostles in 33AD, before His Passion. He appointed them leaders, Peter as head(Pope). He gave Peter The Keys to Heaven (His authority, power, Doctrine, Sacraments and Teachings) and told him to feed His sheep and lambs. He changed his name from Simon to Cephas (large rock in Aramaic, translates as Peter). Jn1:42, 21:15-17, Mt16:18-19, 10:1-4, Eph2:19-22, Act20:28, 1 Cor 12:28, 1 Pet 2:6-9, Lk 22:28-32, Sacraments-Jn 3:5, Act 22:16, 2 Cor 5:18-20, Jn 20:21-23, Mt 18:17-18, Jn 6:51-59, 1 Cor 11:23-29, Eph 1:13, 2 Cor 1:21-22, Mt 19:4-6, Col 3:17-19, 2 Cor 5:20, 1:25-29, Lk 22:28-32, Jm 5:16, Lk 10:34 are a few pertinent verses. We have the direct succession of Popes dating back to Peter. The list, The Annuario Pontificio is found on the official website for The Vatican, The Holy See. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and Scribes for making their own versions of His Church and Doctrine, like all 44,000 other Christian Churches have done. Jesus taught we’re to remain in His Church, Doctrine and Sacraments or we don’t have Him. Mt23:1-39, Lk 11:37-54, Jn 10:16, 17:20-26, Eph 4:4-6,2 JN1:9, 2 Thess 3:6-16, Rom16:17, Heb 13:9, Gal 1:6-9, 2 Cor 11:3-4 All other Christian Churches don’t live Gods Doctrine they live heretical mens versions. They don’t receive Jesus Christ,Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in Holy Communion; they receive crackers and grape juice. Their leaders don’t have Gods authority and power. Protestants changed The Ten Commandments and Holy Bible to fit their beliefs. The Catholic Church comprised & gave The Holy Bible to the world. Over 1500 years later, Protestants, WITHOUT GODS AUTHORITY, rewrote it, added/deleted words, verses, chapters, books and changed wording to The Holy Bible & to The Ten Commandments. Changing a word here & there can negate the meaning of Gods words. Rev22:18-19, Jer 26:2
Only 6 mins in and I’m hooked , I’m not usually on the side against Cameron, but the papacy seems like what we wouldn’t want , like a human being who is infallible that isn’t Jesus just doesn’t sit right with me
Yes, except no one believes that the Pope is infallible. Papal infallibility applies to a very, very specific set of circumstances only, and has been used by the Pope to declare authoritatively on an issue…I believe twice (off the top of my head) over the last 2,000 years. It’s not as though the Pope willy nilly makes up teachings and declares them handed straight from Heaven! In all other matters and in all other times, the Pope is every bit as fallible as you or I. The doctrine, in the end, isn’t about the Pope at all: it’s about the Holy Spirit, and Christ’s promise that He would be with us to the end of the age, that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth, and that the gates of Hell wouldn’t prevail against Her. Pax Christi.
@@nathangraham2189 I understand. The point is against the office. Im surprised that idea didn't come across clearly to you... unless you didn't watch the video
@@huey7437 Sure, i was responding to the point above about being skittish about the idea of another infallible person, and merely pointing out that’s not how Catholics understand the Papacy, that’s all.
If it's only been used twice in 2000 years and that's for 2 of the Marian dogmas then what good is it. The "church" claims to have sole ability to interpret the Scripture yet depending on who you ask 0-7 verses have been infallibly defined.
it is misquoted so often--Vatican I did not say that it was known and believed by everyone that the Pope was infallible--it said that it was known in every age that Jesus gave Peter the keys.......
It’s interesting to me that “the gates of hell will not prevail” sounds more like an offensive attack from the church against the defenses of hell. Not an attack from hell against the church. You don’t attack with your own gates.
It could be a reference to the Biblical concept that the leadership of a city or town would meet “in the gates” - so it’s not literally about gates, but about the power and authority of hell.
St Optatus of Milevis was a North African bishop in the 4th century (contemporary with Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom etc). I'll just let his words speak for themselves: "You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit." St Irenaeus Bishop of Gaul in the 2nd century (Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of John the Apostle!) "It is a matter of necessity that all churches should agree with the Church of Rome, on account of its pre-eminent authority". Cyprian of Carthage, a martyr-bishop in the 250s, who was beheaded for his faith, says "Rome is the principal Church, from which sacerdotal unity has its source"
Reading his words, you’d think Peter’s writings must have said “I am the ordained head of the church and all should consolidate under me.” But no, Catholicism had to concoct such arguments later and apply them ex post facto. Was he a Christian or a Peterian? Clearly the latter.
@@WisdomThumbs I'm making the point that you cannot know whether Optatus was a Christian or not (despite your claims to such knowledge) as that knowledge is known only to God.
@@MrWoaaaaah If you're trying to argue that a Catholic *saint* and *bishop* was anything other than a Peterian (especially since we have his writings to judge by), you're barking up the wrong tree. The only doubt is whether he turned back to God in his final days or not, which is irrellevant to his life's work prior.
Gavin and Trent have a debate planned for Autumn (the Fall - I'm in the UK). They had a couple of response videos to each other that you might be interested in if you haven't seen them
@@ProfYaffle Thanks! If you think about their videos on the purgatory, yes, I've seen that. Interesting stuff indeed. Looking forward to their debate. Both are so nuanced and charitable.
I haven't read a lot of St. Augustine's works, but did he write about being against Pope Gregory the Great, the pope who held the papal office during Augustine's life? I just did a quick search, and multiple sources say that Pope Gregory assigned Augustine to England to convert the Anglo-Saxons. That indicates to me that he submitted to the supremacy of the Pope. The Pope seems to have held a level of authority in the early Church.
1. Id love to have Gavin address Sola Scriptura, and Catholic objections to it 2. Marian hymns and whether there is a distinction with a difference between dulia and latria in these regards
Gavin has already done a bunch on Sola Scriptura on his own channel and a great conversation with Jimmy Akin: Part 1: ua-cam.com/video/DFbFT1YtTtQ/v-deo.html Part 2: ua-cam.com/video/xBLpQV4hNWw/v-deo.html
15:30 “The RC (papal) claim, in its effect, is a claim for a kind of authority that punctures our accountability to the Word of God. It untethers us from the accountability that we should have to the 1st century apostolic deposit.” Boom right there. That be some succinct sh!t.
Yeah it was really strange to hear such a weak case from him that basically boiled down to "it just sounds like it means the papacy when you read it". Felt a little like he wasn't really hearing what Gavin was saying.
Is there some rule that says you can't have a guest on who might disagree with you? So what. This wasn't about keeping Cameron Protestant or making him Catholic, he simply wanted to have Dr. Ortlund give a talk on what he has concluded about the papacy.
On the rock issue Michael Heiser claims it pertains to the actual rock they were standing on i.e., Mt. Hermon, where the fallen angels fell to earth and where a temple of Pan was that was called the gates of Hell by the Jews.
See Heiser about "On this rock", it had nothing to do with Peter. Heiser maintains that Jesus was referring to Mt Hermon, where they actually were. This was (as per Heiser) a challenge to the principalities and powers -- long worshipped in that very place.
@@lukewilliams448 Agree that Jesus gave Simon the new name Cephas. Heiser doesn't dispute that. Rather, Heiser maintains that "rock" in Mat 16:18 is a double entendre -- particularly because of where they were when this happened. I'm not a very good apologist for Dr.H but he makes a solid case for this in Hidden Realm that is worth reading and pondering.
These arguments he puts forth have been brought previously by several other Protestant apologists. I, myself, used them in arguing against Rome for years. And, yes, I read those whom he quotes, and more. They are on my shelf, and on my computer to this day. His arguments regarding the papacy, primacy, etc., are nothing new. They have as their goal one clear function: to negate the validity of Rome's authority; and thereby to negate Catholicism as an historically and theologically valid authority, or church option. ...By this method he also seems to validate Protestantism generally, hence vouch-safing their various positions. Thus, there could be NO historicity to any continuing (let alone universal) Church authority. Consequently, one must fall back on "Sola scriptural." But that is problematic, since a doctrine of "sola scriptura" is not found in scripture, nor in the early fathers. The result is more freewheeling multidenominationalisms, which accept and reject whatever they desire. For instance, when one reads the early fathers, be they from east or west, they all believe in the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Eucharist. They believe that the bread and wine (though some of the terminology differs between East and West) become the body and blood of Christ. In spite of this history, Ortland, as a good Baptist, must reject this (like most Protestants). He must, in so doing, also reject Eucharistic miracles which have occured, and are scientifically verified to be flesh and blood which is still living (and of the same blood type as that on the shroud of Turin). Both traditional Eastern and Western Christendom can and do acknowledge the real presence of Christ in the blessed Eucharist, because they have already believed in the authoritative teaching passed down by both East and West from the first Apostles, and those who retained the faith after them. But all the ancient theology, and history is brushed aside by most Protestants. Why? Because it doesn't fit the Protestant schema (which rejects any authority other than what their own particular rational mind and/or denominational authorities support). Note that Ray ESTABLISHED a CHURCH that HE loves. It was done basically on his own authority (and that of his backers). It has no historically valid apostolic authority, nor does it seem to desire any. One could look at other examples of how the vast majority of protestant churches chose to ignore what all the early church taught and proclaimed to be the truth. But I suspect they would ignore it, since they neither believe in, nor desire it.
@capturingchristianity I was hoping Gavin went into more detail for you but maybe his time was limited. Matt. 16:18 you need to look at the Greek words behind the English translation. It's much richer and makes the statement clear. "I also now say to you that, you are Petros (detatched stone/rock) and yet on this, the Petra (solid rock projecting from the earth) will I build my church and the gates of hades will not be strong enough to overcome it." 4073 (petra) is "a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw" (S. Zodhiates, Dict). Note also that the Petra also has the definite article in Greek and is feminine. It's not Peter. It's the foundational statement that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. That is what the church is built on. If someone doesn't believe and confess that they're not a Christian and not part of the body of Christ. Simple. Christ is the head of the church. The papacy attempts to put themselves in that place, hence, Antichrist (in place of Christ). Yah bless Cam. Keep up the good work!
YOU: Christ is the head of the church. ME: Your conclusion here is reckless, as if you don't have clue what Catholic's believe. First of all, NO Catholic would say that Peter is the head of the church, not Christ. Protestant's for the most part get too caught up in the Greek translation of petros and petra, because the fact is, the ability to disprove the papacy is not found in how one of those words is applied to Peter and the other to Christ. Petros is masculine as you indicated, so Peter being a male needed to be called petros, not petra which is feminine. Got it so far? It would have been an awkward use of petros to use it again in the same sentence to refer metaphorically to Peter (as a rock), so the feminine noun petra was used instead. YOU: The papacy attempts to put themselves in that place, hence, Antichrist (in place of Christ). ME: No, that's not it. The pope is Christ's earthly head of the church, while it is obvious that Christ is the ultimate head of the church He founded. Look at it from this perspective, Christ is the heavenly president of the earthly company, while Peter and his successors are managers who have been given the authority to run the earthly company day to day. The manager isn't attempting to put themselves in the place of the president whatsoever. No Catholic denies that
@@charlesjoyce982 Your point is irrelevant since the writers of the Gospels wrote them in Greek and chose specific Greek words to translate Jesus' Aramaic.
@@jzak5723 Except the popes are on record claiming God himself must abide by their judgement so yeah, they do place themselves as the head. My issue isn't with Catholics, my issue is with the Antichrist little horn papacy.
Peter speaking on behalf of the apostles? A bit of a stretch I think. Has Dr. Ortlund actually been to the spot (at Caesarea Phillipi) ? You can see there that he is contrasting the huge rock nearby where Pan was sacrificed to and the rock Cephas (Peter) , the clue being in the name Peter. The singular “you” when Jesus addresses Peter clinches it for me.
This has been an incredibly edifying video. This issue you guys brought forward, that there is a scarcity of higher scholarly defense for the Protestant Christian position, has put shape to a subconscious grievance of mine I haven't even been entirely aware of. I'll be working to educate and equip myself to join the ranks of the intellectual unorthodox. 1 Peter 3:15, baby!
I know Cameron was trying so hard to come across like he was still investigating, but this interview shows that he had already made up his mind. Gavin did his best, but Cameron’s inability to truly see the significance of the holes in the argument for the papacy shows his heart had already decided. Either way he is a brother in Christ…I am grateful for them both.
He came across like he was still investigating because he was still investigating, at this point he was still Protestant. What's the problem with that?
Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but you asked about UA-camrs who address Catholicism, but I didn’t hear anyone mention Anthony Rogers. He’s been addressing it a lot in a very thorough and academic way.
Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check him out. Dr. Michael Brown does to an extent too. He had a debate w/ William Albrecht, who apparently claims he didn't understand the terms of the debate, so he went in and based his whole intro on his own terms, outside the parameters of what the debate was supposed to entail. Which put a whole damper on the rest of the debate, as Dr. Brown did not have a rebuttal, since Albrecht's material was out of the scope of the debate. A mistake, or a tactic? Hard to know for sure.
Gavin made a lot of good points. One thing that didn't come up was the lack of reference to a papacy in the early non-Christian sources (heretics, Jews, and pagans). Men like Aristides and Tertullian wrote apologies in which they responded to objections to Christianity and anticipated potential objections. They address the deity of Jesus, his virgin birth, his resurrection, the second coming, the inspiration of scripture, how to interpret various passages of scripture, Christian moral standards, the apostles, Christian teachers, the nature of the church, and many other topics. But they say nothing of a papacy, to explain it, defend it, anticipate objections to it, or anything else. Trypho, Celsus, and other early opponents of Christianity show no awareness of a papacy, in contrast to the many and explicit references to the papacy among non-Christians in later centuries. We see many references to a papacy, including explicit ones, among non-Christians in our own day in books, on television, etc. The best explanation for the lack of reference to a papacy in the early non-Christian sources is that a papacy didn't exist at the time.
I would definitely like to hear more of this. That's a great argument. Are there videos or apologists that make these arguments in detail? I haven't heard this used before, but it's gold. There is no real talk of the papacy, no records of popes in the first few centuries, and thankfully also none of the praying to saints and deifying Mary in the first few either. All accretions.
As Gavin is a Baptist pastor, I'd love to see a debate between him and former baptist *Steve Ray* who is now a Catholic apologist and author of _"Upon this Rock"_ or with former Baptist pastor *David Currie* who is also now a Catholic apologist and author of " _Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic_ ."
His debate on sola scriptura, w/ Trent Horn, was just excellent. They were both so good, and get along so well. Trent is about the best apologist debater out there, but Gavin gave him a very respectable go. I even saw a Catholic disappointed w/ Trent's performance, so I guess he was too impressed w/ how well Gavin did, even w/ how gentle he is. It was on Pints with Aquinas channel about 3 months ago. Gavin was saying he had another debate w/ Trent, which I hope is still in the works.
I’m so sad this is over. I really wanted to comment on the Roman Catholic teaching on the veracity and biblical proof of the papacy. You mentioned Matthew and Jesus saying to Peter, you are the rock and upon this rock I will build my church. In referencing Dr. Brant Pitre, this is a good passage to verify the papacy but when understood in a Jewish lens, and in conjunction with Isiah 22:19-23. The original Greek word used for “church” in Matthew is Ecclacia meaning assembly of gods people. And usually this term was used in the assembly of the Israelites in the temple where there was a rock. The emon shetiach meaning the foundation stone. The stone was where the arc of the covenant used to be and where the blood of the sacrifice of the lamb used to be sprinkled. The church Jesus was talking about in this passage was the church body. Not necessarily the church as a building. Also, to reflect on “the keys of the kingdom” and the binding and loosing refers to isiah 22:19-23. Where eli’akim is discussed. He is the “Al Bayith” of his day which means he was the “over the house” aka the leader over the house of David, 2nd in rank to only the king. It’s an office, mirroring the office of the pope. And as an office, this role gets passed down over the centuries from person to person. This is what first century Jews would have understood. The Al Bayith’s role, like the pope (papa aka pope), was to be a father figure to the kingdom. In the pasage Isaiah mentioned that whatever the al bayit opens none shall shut and whatever he closes none can open which is a saying symbolic of his power to make binding decisions. Aka papal infallibility. I think that often people dismiss Catholic doctrine because of their lack of understanding of the original Greek or Hebrew text and translation, and lack of knowledge of first century Judaism thought. For a better explanation of the Roman Catholic view of the papacy, I implore you to look at this video of dr brant pitre, 1st century Jewish and biblical scholar discuss it: ua-cam.com/video/PWkmMNvr_to/v-deo.html.
I really suggest you watch the video about the papacy by dr brant pitre. It addresses the Son of God comment by Tony, and a lot of other arguments against the papacy. Thanks! Here’s the link once again: ua-cam.com/video/PWkmMNvr_to/v-deo.html
Ecclesia - εκκλησια does not mean "foundation stone". It means "church", "assembly", "congregation", or "those who are called out from" (the world) ek = from, out from, "kleasea" - the one called"
@@tony1685 don't want you to misunderstand. I'm Orthodox. So we do believe in apostolic succession but not that Peter had a special role.. all were given the keys to bind and loose.. judas office was filled with Mattias... Paul as well was an apostle who appointed Timothy alone.. but the key of David belongs to Jesus as He Himself says in revelation...
20:02 I do have a small problem with. The claim that there's nothing to engage with on Petrine succession, ignores what I'd consider to be the central image of the Petrine office, the "keys to the kingdom." It ignores the entire notion of the Kingdom of Heaven as an essentially Davidic kingdom. I'm sure that there's a debate to be had here, and Dr Ortlund is, you know, I'm no doctor of anything. So I feel weird arguing with someone who clearly has done a great deal more thinking on it than I, but it's not as if the appeal is simply made to *pure rationality*. Rather it's made to a typological consonance between Peter and Eliakim, on the foundation that Christ is the fulfillment of the promise to reestablish the kingdom of David. David and Solomon had ministers, but above all these ministers was a "prime" minister... Yeah. I'm sure that Dr Ortlund has considered this, and for some reasons rejects this argument. But it does feel a little weird not to be brought up.
Re: Matthew 16: I think you can get to Peter having some authority, but I think getting to infallibility, supremacy, and succession is impossible to get there from only that text. I see this in the same way that people argue we are dual substances from 1 Thessalonians 5:23. You just can't get there grammatically. With Matthew 16, you have to assume certain things about what it means to be or have a church to get those other things from the text.
Very well done. See, you can speak on touchy topics without sarcasm. 😏 I’ve not figured it out yet but I just witnessed it. Infallible means never wrong. Why did Paul have to correct Peter to his face about withdrawing into the circumcision circle when they attended church if he was infallible. He was treating Gentiles correctly unless the Jews were in the meeting. Pretty sure there was only one that was infallible. The Son of Man.
Thank you Dr Orthlund, it's my first time to see and hear you speak, definitely rare and gifted and inspired. Very well thought out and well presented. Glad you addressed the 'system' and not the members. Thank you Cameron for your ministry, its touching peoples lives in a real and important way. 'the Truth will set you free'. God bless you both.
I know this was an oversight but, insofar as the inerrancy of scripture; "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness..." 2 Timothy 3:16 "All"
@@MrWoaaaaah would say protestant churches in general are pretty close. If I were to go with a "traditional" church I would pick the Orthodox church over the Catholic church.
Peter understood Matthew 16:18 as him and all the others "living stones" proper for building up of the spiritual house, the body of Christ according to 1Peter 2:5. This was never about papacy or Peter's Supremacy but the revelation of the building of God's spiritual house
Dr. Ortlund said here that he would need to see first century historic evidence to be convinced of the Papacy. What about Clement of Rome? He was the 3rd successor of Peter (4th Bishop of Rome) who wrote at the end of the first century and asserted his authority over the church in Corinth, even though Corinth is not part of Rome and had its own bishop.
You know, many scholars out there, and I agree with them in looking at the evidence internal to I Clement, think that it was actually written as early as 70 AD? It’s an ongoing debate, but would make that letter even stronger evidence for the Apostolic origin of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
@@nathangraham2189 I’m of the opinion that it was written more around AD 90. But I must admit that I haven’t looked into this topic very deeply. Either way, regardless of the 20 year difference, It is indeed solid evidence for the Papal supremacy in the first century. I really would like to see Dr. Ortlund engage with this.
@@alexjurado6029 Agreed. It’s a fascinating academic debate but among other things, like with Acts, there’s the problem with Clement’s letter that he doesn’t mention anything about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, which would seemingly be important if he knew of it. Also though, Clement states at para 19, 40, 5 “To the High Priest, indeed, proper ministrations ARE allotted, to the priests a proper place IS appointed, and upon the levites their proper services ARE imposed.” He continues in 41 as well talking in the present tense about the Temple sacrifices in Jerusalem, so it seems odd if it was written so long after the destruction of the Temple to write in this way. But regardless, it is convincing evidence to me of a first century understanding of a leadership role and primacy of at least some important sense for the ongoing holder of Peter’s office.
@@nathangraham2189 this is fascinating. I’ve heard a theory about 1 Clement, that it was actually written over time. That he began to write it around AD 69/70, and then finished it in the early to mid 90’s. I didn’t know how likely this is, but it is fascinating to think about.
@@alexjurado6029 That is interesting for sure…would be over my head as to the particulars of why some might hold that position, though I would say that if true, nearly all of it still would have likely been written by Clement early on, as there’s only another 19 or so passages after the first 44, where the present-tense discussion of temple sacrifices is discussed, and those subsequent passages are all very brief as well, a sentence or two only in length pretty much for each…fascinating indeed!
I think Cameron may be seeing what he wants to see….. I personally see it as Jesus MAY have been saying the apostles are the rock in so much as they wrote the NT…. How has the church not been built on their inspired writings? Obviously Jesus being the supreme foundation of the church so I do NOT mean in any way they surpass Him. Just that the apostles writings were/are used heavily to establish the church and this was done by divine inspiration. (So God used them to establish/build the church)
I think this was a great overview of different arguments for and against the papacy. I really like Dr. Ortlunds approach and would really like to see a more in depth discussion on the different arguments. Again i really enjoyed the video and would love to see more!
I have heard Dr. Orltund say he believes in the real presence of the Eucharist. I am curious as to how he determines who can consecrate the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ and how he knows when that consecration has taken place. Because the Catholic tradition has guidelines on this supported by Church authority. But I'm wondering what his thoughts are.
@YAJUN YUANThe Catholic teaching is that the elements remain because there is no consecration to transform Christ's body nd blood back into bread and wine.
@YAJUN YUAN The Catholic teaching is of transubstantiation, that the bread and wine transform into the body and blood of Christ, but remain appearing, tasting, and smelling like bread and wine. I am not sure how Mt. 15:17 relates in your view, but the Catholic teaching is that when the elements are no longer composed like bread and wine (so when they dissolve) the body and blood of Christ are then no longer present because they can only be present under the composed elements. So, the body and blood of Christ do leave, but not when the Mass is over, but rather when the elements dissolve. I suppose a Lutheran etc. who holds to consubstantiation could argue that the presence leaves when the service is over, but that proclamation would seem questionable in my mind since it is without a precise causal explanation or a clear tradition.
A big argument Protestants have against the Papacy is the infallibility doctrine. This is understandable when most Protestants don't understand that infallibility does NOT mean perfect, and is only applicable to doctrine. There have been some very bad Pope's, even antipopes. One had six kids with four women, after he became a priest. One "sold" the Papacy. But these Pope's never had doctrine in error which was ultimately not corrected, or ignored by the faithful. In those cases, after the Pope dies, his views are corrected. This has happened a few times in history. So we see that even if a Pope has erroneous views, they ultimately fail to take root and are, like the Gospel says, "seed fallen on the road." This is one facet why Jesus promised the fires of hell will never compromise the Church fatally.
@@tony1685 so the Bible verses your quoted clearly state that only those who keep His commandments truly love Jesus. We are all sinners and have sinned from time to time, so all of us have at times not loved God. Thank God for Confession, by which we are absolved of our sins. So we all, even the various Popes throughout history, have on occasion strayed from the Truth and the Life and the Love of Jesus. And, as the prodigal son and other similar parables teach us, if we have a repentant heart, He will forgive us. So, does the Church walk in Truth? Occasionally, no. And we see there has never been a period in the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church has there never been controversy (indeed the various epistles warn of early heresies). But It always manages to learn, and grow past them, often times through Saints who in their lives pulled the Church out of the issues of the age. Notable one is St. Francis of Assisi (against opulence of the Church, which after his life went on an austerity reform), St. Thomas Aquinas (combating the "Protestant" heresies), and many others. We shall see how the current crises of sexual misconduct and ecumenism and schism with the Germans will be addressed, but I have faith that His Church will pull through it, as it has for 2000 years.
@@tony1685 As I said, sometimes it does (for example see the Arian heresy), but there are always people within the Church teaching the Truth (in the same example I believe it was St. Augustine who settled it) who end up convincing the Church of the Truth. So yes it is still His Church, because any errors get corrected. This is, as I said, part of what Jesus meant by Him saying Hell shall never fatally overcome His Church. A more recent example is an encyclical by Pope Paul VI. He had asked his advisors what to make of contraceptives. When they came back with mixed opinions, thus communicating error, he rightfully corrected them. He wrote how contraceptives are basically the same as abortion due to how they work and he also referenced how in the OT God specifically said masturbation is an abomination, and sex with contraceptives is the same. No pope since then has written or taught otherwise because Paul VI's note is the Truth and is by now considered Tradition because it is rooted in Truth.
@@tony1685 Doctrine is only borne out of many years of debate and review and practice. Rare is the papal bull or council declaration of infallible truth which wasn't preceded by many years of debate. For example which books and letters were included in the Bible was fluid for the first 300 years or so, then was stable for 1200 years until in a fit of rebelliousness as expected of a reprobate as Martin Luther it was reduced to remove books which support Catholicism. But can the Church have doctrine, given the definition above, in error? No. Can it have sinful leaders? Oh yes. There are bad priests and good priests, good Popes and bad Popes, faithful consecrated religious and not. They are all people, but God chose us to be the light and the salt of the earth. And where the salt loses its flavor will eventually be trodden down by man. As Jesus promised in the same chapter of Matthew you cited, His Church, even in times of great turmoil like what I mentioned and even in Acts and the letters, that His Church always triumphs in the end. Patience and seeking the truth is needed by the faithful. And the light will never be extinguished.
Cameron is right. Ortland's arguments are not that strong. He picks a view of Petrine authority that tends more extreme, and ignores evidence contrary to his position; from the confession, to the title "Rock," to the 'key holder,' to the early councils regarding the Bishop of Rome as the FIRST among equals, etc.. RAY ORTLAND is pushing very hard to dismiss ANY Petrine authority. And the fact that he appeals to Waldenses, et al? That's classic old Baptist nonsense that goes right along with the "scarlet thread of faith," allegedly stretching an "ancient Protestantism" down through the centuries! Ha! Some scholarship. And who stood for the procession of the Holy Spirit? Not Protestants. Catholics! ...So, is Ray Ortland going to dispute the procession of the Holy Spirit? ...And will Ray Ortland stand in consensus with the first 7 ecumenical councils?
An example of Apostolic Succession is in Acts 1, where there Apostles choose a successor for Judas. Peter even calls the position that Judas had an “office,” and that it had to be filled by another. If Judas, who was the least of the Apostles, had an office that had to be filled, then so did the other 11 Apostles.
If you actually read Acts 1, you would know that Judas' successor had to be someone who had traveled with Jesus during his entire public ministry and was an eyewitness to the Resurrection. Peter also quotes from Psalm 109 where David writes about an accuser who is tried, condemned, and then replaced. Peter says the speaker of the Psalm is Jesus and that the accuser is Judas. He then says that someone should be appointed to take Judas' place just as David had written. So even if Apostolic Successorship was a thing for everyone and not just Judas, nobody alive now fulfills the requirements to take the positions.
@@TamerSpoon3 and if you read 1 Timothy 3, you would see where St. Paul gives the real qualifications for the Apostles’ successors. And you’ll see that nowhere in that letter, nor in any of the other epistles, does it say that the bishops had to be eye witnesses of Jesus. Sorry, but your argument doesn’t work.
Replacing one apostle with another apostle is entirely different from the transmission of authority from an apostle to a bishop, which is what apostolic succession means. The former hardly counts as proof for the latter.
@@TruthUnites actually, no, it’s not different at all. The Greek word for “office” that is used in Acts 1 that refers to the position that Judas had is the same word for Episcopacy or “Bishopric” in English. The Apostles were the first bishops. And all of the other famous bishops of the first century, like Mark the Evangelist, Luke the Evangelist, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, etc, are all successors of the original 12 bishops - the Apostles. Apostolic Succession is crystal clear in Scripture.
True. And Acts 1 further disproves Petrine Papacy. Surely if Peter was the chief authority of the other 10, he would have simply appointed Judas' successor, no? Why would they pray, ask the Holy Spirit - and then draw lots of all things - for something so important, if Peter had all authority???
I think one of the big reasons that there's more Catholic content than Protestant content is because some of the Catholic views really boil down to Protestants not being saved (stuff like the rejecting the Marian dogmas). On the other hand, many Protestants are okay with saying that Catholics are saved. That's at least been my experience debating Catholics online. With that then comes an entirely different priority. Protestants don't need to debate Catholics other than for the sake of knowing truth. Protestants are more focused on general apologetics where the lost world is perishing. But if Catholicism is true and Protestants are not saved, then Catholics have evangelical reasons not just to save Protestants, but also defend their fellow Catholics from falling to Protestantism. So the mission field to save the lost is different: the lost to the Protestant is the atheist, but the lost to the Catholic is the Protestant.
I largely agree to your point here actually but atleast some Protestants think Catholics have a different gospel i.e because of a works based system/sacramental, infusion of grace piecemeal etc and they think atleast potentially Catholics are part of the mission field while also simultaneously thinking a bigger priority is the atheists etc.
In my experience with Catholics it depends on who you ask regarding their stance on Protestants...the Vatican 2 "modernists" accept Protestants are atleast potentially saved i.e separated brethren or perhaps invincibly ignorant while atleast some trads or sedavacantist types hold to the old pre Vatican 2 "no salvation outside of the church" doctrine in a more literal rendering such that Protestants are not saved.
@@Adam-ue2ig I definitely agree that some views on Protestant salvation does more depend on the individual Catholic. However, it can be hard in Catholicism to really defend your views if the church has to affirm such things. So it does seem as though most Catholics trying to accept Protestant salvation are kind of dancing on thin ice. Now, I don't know a whole lot of the deeper views and dogmas of Catholicism, but this is what I've noticed in the wrestlings of the layperson. Regarding Protestants rejecting Catholic salvation, I do agree that this view can often be held as well. In fact, this is the view I was taught when I was younger, but I think my entire family came to reject this idea as we grew. The way I view it (and I feel like most Protestants would agree with this) is that there are many Catholics who do truly have a genuine relationship with Jesus, and are thus saved. But there are also a lot of Catholics with whom it is all empty religious practice lacking any genuine faith. But these two categories of genuine faith and empty religion are true of any denomination and creed. I think that ultimately, salvation is between the divine judge and the humble sinner. A man may not even know for 100% certainty rather his own wife is truly saved.
I’d like to pile onto Gavin’s response about inerrancy being defensible from scripture a reference from Paul in 2 Tim. Where he says that scripture is “profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God would be fully equipped” (vs 3:16) If Paul says that scripture is sufficient for teaching & correction, it seems like inerrancy is proven by the inverse. In other words, Paul would not instruct them to teach doctrine with error (which he calls out numerous times), but says that scripture’s use is for teaching and correction, presumably because it is trustworthy (without error.)
It says useful. But doesn't say sufficient. Useful toward the end of making the Christian fully equipped. Notice the person in question is already a "man of God."
I'm a Catholic convert (former Lutheran). And I had many objections/lack of faith towards the papacy and I found a book that really helped me clear up my doubts. It's called "Pope Fiction" By Patrick Madrid. In the book, Patrick debunks (I think around) 30 objections people have against the papacy. It's one of the books that were one of the final pushes to me converting to Catholicism. It's a really good read. 👍👍😁😁
@@tony1685 Some verses from the Bible that support the papacy are (first obviously) Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 14:23-27, Matthew 17:24-27, Luke 5:1-10, Luke 22:24-32, John 10:16, John 21:1-17, Acts 1:15-26, Acts 10:1-48, Acts 15:1-2, Matthew 10:2. If you would like a good explanation why these verses support the papacy, you can visit the Catholic Answers article, "The Papacy in Scripture: No Rocks Required". And also why can't Christianity have a hierarchy? Judaism has a hierarchy, the current leader is Yitzhak Yosef who is the Shepardi Chief Rabbi. And many parts of Jewish life are under the jurisdiction of Chief Rabbis (i.e. the chief Rabbis are the ultimate authority, just like the Pope). And even if the papacy isn't scriptural, having a leader is necessary for such a large group that Christianity is. If we never had a Pope/ultimate authority the Bible would be up to the interpretation of the individual and no one would know what the DEFINITIVELY CORRECT interpretation of scripture and church teachings are (i.e. complete chaos). You also should probably read the book I recommended before spouting your easily refuted conspiracy theories. And finally here is a video: ua-cam.com/video/6KV6PXSODgE/v-deo.html
Please do as many videos as you can with Dr. Ortlund. These are amazing. I will be sending in money with questions next interview. This was an amazing discussion. I’m a catholic but when I look for the opposing views. Dr. Ortlund is my go-to. He is incredibly gifted and uses these gifts for Jesus very well.
Ottlund is among the worse when it came mes to catholicism. Albrecht has thoroughly debunked him on many occasions, so much so that he has exposed him to the extent that he's shown that he's not even qualified to speak on the matter.
lol just a huge backhanded compliment
@@hayatelaguna7599 How about you try to get them to debate.
@@garyboulton2302 ortlund is scared of Albrecht
@@hayatelaguna7599 Let's be serious or let's end the conversation. Gavin's debating Trent Horn this year. I doubt he'd debate trent but be scared of Albrecht lol. Unless you are actually joking, which is possible.
From watching this it appears that Cameron has already decided to convert. He is simply looking for a logical way to justify his conversion in his own mind. He says he is in a journey like he is searching for the truth. Don't think that's totally true.
Maybe his girlfriend is Catholic
Looking back at these... it's easy to see with hindsight Cameron already had his swim trunks on during this interview.
We'll see if it lasts. Has he looked into indulgences and treasury of merit yet, and how they all relate to purgatory? Those are some real humdingers. For a Christian who already had a strong bible background to be able to accept all that just baffles me. Then again, I see pastors convert to Catholicism. I heard Trent Horn allude to sort of admitting that he didn't agree w/ everything, but he didn't go into any detail. There has to be some sort of plugging your nose for some, and just jumping in.
is Trent's 5-hour rebuttal to this out yet?
LOL, as a Catholic convert, I can appreciate the humor in this, and I absolutely love Trent Horn. But hey, we’ve got to be thorough, right? 😅
@@nathangraham2189 you’re right! 5 hours isn’t enough! Lol
It's not because he couldn't, but they had a conversation on baptism one month before this.
Glad you had Gavin on. He's one of my favorite Protestants to hear talk on this topic.
Opposing views shouldn't remove charity.
@@tony1685 when Paul encountered people wanting to use scripture alone to enforce circumcision as a means of salvation Paul literally makes a beeline to the apostles to resolve the issue. He does not simply open some scroll to make a biblical argument. Also Jesus quoting the 10 commandments does not quote all 10.
Nope, they shouldn't. But they should require more research than just reading the scriptures; particularly if the "investigator" is predisposed to limiting his research to just reading the N.T. scriptures.
Why is that not the best way to go?
Because there is a large amount of background information in the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant which have bearing on these issues. There is also a good amount of information to be reviewed from Church fathers, both East and West.
In sum, Ortland has done a poor job of research and analysis.
Heschmeyer, Sonna, Lofton, and Tyler have done a good job. I was very surprised to hear one of them bring up D.H. Wenkel's excellent work which I'd all but forgotten about, along with others.
In sum, Ortland comes to erroneous conclusions because of his limited scope of research, and several fallacious arguments on which his case is founded.
@@malcolmkirk3343 He used the bible, but that's too limited? If we can't turn to the scriptures about Christian matters of doctrine, what good is the bible, and why did God even give it to us?
Dr. Ortlund has considerable objections . And his manner is commendable
E. Ybarra
Don't encourage him.
You're a legend Erik. Love your respectful approach. God bless.
14:30 - Popes and Mary
20:30 - silence in scripture
20:58 - silence, Constitution and President
21:40 - the early church writers
22:30, 38:18 - Augustine and Jerome
24:39 - the Trinity
25:50 - bishops
27:05 - the shepherd of Hermas
30:03 - Cyprian and the chair of Peter
34:37 - Ortlund on Matthew 16:18 and infallibility
38:50, 39:18, 49:13 - Matthew 16 and supremacy
40:36 - Augustine and the rock
41:57 - Even if it’s Peter…
47:50 - Cameron’s take on the surface-level reading
52:10 - Protestants’ lack of serious exposure from the other side
52:46 - Peter and leadership
53:17, 54:27 - silence and biblical inerrancy
53:50 - John 10:35
59:01, 1:00:00 - Pints With Aquinas
Never hear about Dr. Ortlund before. He is amazing!
he is
1Pet 5:1 Peter addresses elders not from a position of authority or superiority or supremacy , but addresses as a "fellow elder". Peter is one among coequal elders. And then goes on to point to Jesus as the "Chief Shepherd" - the one who alone is Supreme.
Gavin Ortland is fantastic at his thought process through this. It seems that he's able to break down what is being said and what the scripture is conveying.
Thanks for sharing this discussion.
The church came before the bible.
@YAJUN YUAN The bible was not "written" as one book. It was not canonized for centuries after the death of the apostles.
If all you need is the bible for "church doctrine" then protestants don't form one church, because they all have different doctrines.
@YAJUN YUAN So you are your own pope deciding those books are not the word of God then. See you set yourself up as the authority to determine the word of God, or otherwise you are relying on some other man to determine the word of God.
I'm currently a student at a Lutheran seminary and I think the idea of Papal supremacy is already discredited if you look at St. Paul's testimony in Galatians chpt. 2. Paul knew Peter personally and what is interesting is that he reported that there were three "acknowledged pillars" of the Jerusalem church, not one (2:9), and that Peter shared leadership with John and James the Brother of Jesus. It's also interesting to note that the number 3 isn't even exhaustive of the number of possible pillars, but that Peter, James, and John were simply the ones who were expressly named. Furthermore, Paul didn't even recognize these pillars, which included Peter, as having a special kind of authority over any other apostle, saying "And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)" (2:6 NRSV), which implies that Paul saw himself as Peter's equal, along with every other apostle. This is further strengthened when Paul confronted Peter to his face over being peer pressured to not eat with gentiles in 2:11-14. For Paul to call Peter out implies an equal relationship between the two, as opposed to a superior/inferior dynamic, since he did not feel obligated to show deference to Peter's decision, but instead openly questioned and criticized it.
In Acts 15, we continually see a collegial style of leadership among the apostles that doesn't seem to imply any kind of special role to Peter. In fact in the Jerusalem council, it was James and not Peter that gave the final word and made the final decision (Acts 15:19) with the final decision being ratified democratically among all of the present members (15:22). I think this really discredits the idea of Peter being in a unique position of authority since he doesn't really seem to be leading from a place of unique authority. Rather he seems to be a leader within a cohort of other leaders.
Theologically speaking, this could be understood if one compares Jesus' statement to Peter in Matthew 16 with Abraham's call in Genesis. Both men were chosen because of their faith, because they responded positively to God's word. Thus, just as all people who posses Abraham's faith become heirs to his legacy (Gal. 3:6-9), all those who posses Peter's faith become active participants of Peter's blessings. Thus, while Peter received a unique privilege as being the first to confess Christ as Messiah, all those who follow Peter's confession participate in the blessings of that confession as well, hence every other apostle did become leaders equal to Peter because they too began to believe as Peter did.
One thing I've noticed about both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox arguments is that they often beg the question that when the Bible / early church refer to things like the "church," they are referring to the specific ecclesiastical tradition that they are a part of in exclusion of all others, when that is often the very question at issue.
Exactly, this is one of the biggest problems I have when I talk to Catholics online. They say “the Church” and I say “which one”?
I mean, it's not that serious a difference. Yes, papal supremacy constitutes a major difference between Catholicism and any other Christians. It is a major distinction.
But the model of apostolic succession as the authority structure is nigh universal before Martin Luther, or at best Peter Waldo. No other sects survived the late classical era or the early medieval period that can claim an alternate authority structure, other than one common to all varieties of Orthodox and the Catholic Church: my bishop was given authority through ordination by someone who ultimately was ordained to do the same by the Apostles, who were ordained ultimately by Christ.
Dr. Gavin Ortlund was recommended to me by my son. I appreciate his demeanor.
I am a Catholic, and I love being Catholic. I have to say, though, that Gavin's argument in this video is the best I have heard against the papacy. It is the linchpin doctrine and ecclesiastical attribute between Catholics and all other Christians. I applaud him for this great argument, and how he irenically demonstrated his case. He has given me so much respect for my Protestant brothers and sisters.
If it's the best case what about it do you affirm? What convinces you still that Gavin is wrong?
Yeah, he his for sure the best one I've seen. Also his posture helps. But with all due respect, there isn't much competition. It's usually hate, straw man, made up stuff... - Here there is a conversation, logic etc... But yeah, the best by far but still fragile and subjective.
William Albrecht, made some videos about this gentleman Pastor. If you want to check it out. He did invite him for a debate.
@@forwardechoes I'm aware of William and listened much of his stuff and initiall interaction with Ortlund, I find Ortlund more convincing and more charitable also.
@@forwardechoes check out Dr. Steven Nemes words of life, The Other Paul, Goy for Jesus, Dr. Jordan Cooper, etc
@@Adam-ue2ig Very Insightful" - Great that we now, have your own personal and subjective opinion.
Cameron: There is a little bit of evidence
Gavin's facial expression: What?
I’m not sure why it seems reasonable that something as significant as the papacy would not be explicitly mentioned anywhere in Scripture. If the papacy is not something found or paralleled in Judaism and many forms of Christianity, the catholic papacy appears the exception, not the rule...the noise rather than the signal.
Rather, what is found repeatedly is communal discernment over and over again. Jewish elders meeting at the city gates, or Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Moreover, the reference to "bind and loosing" in Matthew 18 is a communal power and responsibility given to the church. Similarly when Paul writes, "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16)... the reference is to the text, not the authors. This means the process of authors, compilers, and editors producing the text, which is "God-breathed." The communal process is as important as the individuals who were involved as Peter references, "...men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Peter 1:21).
Proverbs 11:14 "Where there is no guidance the people fall, but in an abundance of counselors there is victory."
It may seem philosophically wise to have an individual who is invested with supremacy and infallibility. It speaks to that place in our souls that cries out for certainty, security, and assurance. However, to have security, and assurance in any other than Christ is idolatry. Many protestants treat Scripture this way (Father, Son, and Holy Bible). The flesh loves to move to and live in the extremes.
Lastly, I wonder if it is no surprise that the papacy is a western church development as the West is marked by an ever-increasing individualism. As the West moved away from community identity it needed something to fulfill that void of authority. The result was the papacy in Catholicism and infallibility and inerrancy in protestants churches. When the community was no longer viewed as the locus of God's presence and work, then substitutes were found.
Thus, and only thus, do I see the "need" in Cameron's philosophical question. Why does it seem that Papacy is the best world solution? Because we lack the vision to see the beauty beyond the messiness of communal discernment. We desire certainty and haste over peace. We desire to be "right" over being in right relationship with each other.
The fact the papacy is never explicitly stated in the new testament, and that there's no OT model for it either, shows me very clearly that these few scriptures are being stretched well beyond their limit. The OT testament priesthood is very explicitly laid out. There was no doubt about a priest's duties. In the NT, a bishop, pastor and teacher's duties and requirements are laid out. A pope is the most important of them all, God would not leave it to guess work. This had to be a manmade invention.
It's in full display in Acts 15 7
@@koppite9600 I can read the whole chapter and what's on display is that Peter said he was called to preach to the gentiles and the same Holy Spirit given to all them, was given to the gentiles. Then James seemed to close the meeting. They quoted a prophecy: 17so that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord who does these things 18that have been known for ages.
So the council ended w/ them agreeing the prophecy had been fulfilled. I see no evidence of popery there. You do, your church says that's what that means, so it doesn't matter what the context actually shows.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 who was chosen by God to preach the gospel to the Gentiles? Peter, Paul or James ... or add anyone else.
Why did Peter quote his selection, it doesn't make sense for him to quote it to his fellow apostles if they were also chosen. I claim that he means he is The Pope.
God would not leave the Holy Trinity to guesswork either, and yet there isn't a single mention of the "Holy Trinity" or the "Triune God" in the OT or the NT.
@@koppite9600 Problem is, that makes no sense. To clarify, Peter says he is called to preach to the gentiles. That's all that means. Where you get, I'm also the pope from is anyone's guess? It does not fit context whatsoever and just comes out of left field. That's why any Christian who is not taught w/ CAtholic tradition never reads any of that, and says, oh yeah, Peter must be pope, because it's not there. You think it's there, because you have layers of Catholic theology taught to you. I'm a Christian who has followed Catholic theology quite closely and sought Catholic sources for years to see where these kinds of teachings came from. I have sincerely tried very hard to see what you guys see. I still can't, and it's not for lack of giving it an honest shot.
Did you guys coordinate denim jackets? It definitely enhances the veracity of Dr. Ortlund's argument.
Catholic claims about the teaching authority of the RC church are either circular (wherein they say that only the RC church can interpret the Bible, and they say so because the RC church tells them so, which is the same circular argument made by all authoritarian cults), or else they argue from scripture and history, in which case they’re admitting one doesn’t need the papacy to arrive at Biblical and historical truth.
I get told that sola scriptura is merely a circular argument. This is apparently because we didn't initially have the bible, so the authority was handed to the church leaders to guide us into truth. That's how they justify putting tradition up w/ the bible. Though in practice, I really can't see that they have scripture as equal, they clearly put scripture as subordinate to their traditions. How else could they get so upset at the very notion of sola scriptura, even when it's explained that doesn't mean only the bible, but the bible clearly above tradition.
In my opinion Gavin killed it. Presented a very compelling case against the papacy seeped in both scripture and history
I was really surprised by Cameron’s response - I’m starting to get the impression that he’s accepted Catholicism more strongly than I realized.
Dr. Ortlund made an incredible case essentially culminating in “there is no good evidence for the papacy either biblically or in 1000 years of church history - all of the evidence points to it being an accretion.”
Cameron didn’t really seem to dispute that conclusion, but seemed to say that it amounts to just a “small bit of evidence against the papacy.”
I get that Cameron wants to avoid arguments from silence, but, if Ortlund is correct, the silence seems deafening.
I’d want to ask Cameron: in arguing for the papacy, at what point does it stop being “avoiding arguments from silence” and becomes the fallacy of “argument from ignorance.”
Yeah, I was surprised by Cameron's response as well. I think Dr. Ortlund may have hit the nail on the head when he talked about Protestants being shaken when they find out that Catholics actually have arguments, even if they're not that good in the final analysis.
As a Lutheran, I think I almost got taught more growing up about Catholic doctrine than I did about Protestant doctrine, so I'm always surprised to hear how little my fellow Protestants often know about it.
@@repentantrevenant9776 Tradition has Popes since before John was written.
Historical data has no single bishop leading the church in Rome until mid 2nd century, even RCC historians have documented that.
Though I'm Catholic, I agree with the case dr Gavin makes here. It's 100% true that for a doctrine that basically gives Church unlimited theological power over the entire Spiritual reality there needs to be a solid foundation all around - in Scripture, in the Fathers, in the History etc. I have mixed feelings about the Papacy myself. I have no issues following it's authority personally, so it's not like I feel the need to convert elsewhere, but subjugating all other Christians to it, especially the Orthodox Christians who also have their own Apostolic roots, is just unacceptable based on vague quotes and late developments. This is why I especially support the modern ecumenical approach to old anathemas and other means of damnation that Church used to give to everyone who dares oppose it. Thank God for Vatican II which proclaims other Christians as no longer heretics but our Brothers and Thank God for wide-spread theological ecumenical efforts that unite us over key doctrine like Joint Declaration of Justification, which broadly speaking solves the Soteriological disputes, or at least gives us a way to coexist theologically on the same threshold.
Vatican II contradicted other official catholic doctrines... so what do you do with that? Which is correct?
Amen 🙏
@@Golfinthefamily The latest council is "technically" the binding one. Catholic Church makes a lot if updates all the time. And always the latest updates are the ones that are to be followed. It's pretty simple.
@@mitromney what I mean was, if different councils contradict themselves, then where is the infallibility?
@@Golfinthefamilyif truth is relative then you can change anything. This is why they put tradition over scripture
Gavin you’re wrong, I read the bible and the Holy Spirit told me your interpretation is wrong.
CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21 17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
A solid case as usual doc! I wish you brought up the issue of Clement of Rome, whose letter has some peculiar features and silences that call the early papacy into question.
Ah the classic argument from silence...
@@SteveC-Aus yes, which is perfectly valid in historical inquiry, provided you have strict criteria
The other Paul, why did Peter say greetings from Babylon, rather than Rome. To name the successor to Peter in persecuted times was dangerous. Yet, the office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@YAJUN YUAN Jesus wants you to come home to the Church He built on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was ever written and that later determined the Canon! I love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth
Is Clement of Rome different from Clement of Alexandria?
Hey Cam, maybe a good way to rephrase what you were trying to say about Peter, the rock, keys etc, would be to say from that scripture you could infer that Peter had some kind of leadership role (I don't think that personally). I think Gavin's point is that even granting that, 'Supremecy' is still a non sequitur.
I don't understand why this is so complicated? The papacy is clearly not in the bible, nor is the idea of the papacy. One would never conceive of the papacy just simply reading the bible, and before someone points out how do I know what the bible says or means without some sort of magisterium, read 1 John 2:24-27. "But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as as it has taught you, you will abide in him."
It’s only complicated because Rome makes it complicated and distorts history to try and make its case. Church authority is a real thing. Councils and leaders to help us learn, interpret and grow, but an infallible office that didn’t exist at all for the first 500+ years of the church is not only unbiblical and unnecessary but is also a heresy factory that has completely lost the gospel and introduced gnostic, pagan and mystic legends as dogma. It’s absurd and a complete denial of history to affirm the papacy as it is in Rome today
If all you need is the holy Spirit to teach you and not men then why does Paul say that some men are teachers and also to submit to the authority of your spiritual leaders?
@@charlesjoyce982 I don't know that Paul said any such thing and I didn't say all you need is the Holy Spirit. I supposed you are referring to Hebrews which we don't know for sure that Paul wrote. In any case, Paul was talking about the new church leaders, whom were not teaching falsely.
What you should be reading is what Paul said in Galatians. "But even if we, or an Angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel than what we have preached to you, then let him be accursed. " Paul, nor any of the Apostles, taught the papacy or the priesthood as conceived by the Roman Catholic Church.
@@corymoore5093 1 Cor 12:28.
Some are teachers.
There was always a hierarchy in the Church and a duty to obey. The hierarchy was meant to perpetuate itself through the appointment of successors and trace itself to the Apostles.
@@charlesjoyce982 Except the appointment of successors is no where in the bible. There were church leaders of individual churches known as bishops and elders and that is biblical but not one supreme infallible leader. The pope is not in the bible nor is the Roman Catholic priesthood.
All you have to do is show me the passage in the bible that teaches a pope or the priesthood as conceived by the Roman Catholic Church. You won't be able to because those are institutions that didn't come into existence until hundreds of years after Christ and after the bible was written.
If you genuinely want a scholarly robust protestant voice, Dr. Jordan B. Cooper would be an amazing contribution to your journey
Former Lutheran turned Catholic here, and I agree.
just wondering, what finally brought you to rome?
@@TheJason909 What made you take the leap?
Lutherans are catholic just not Roman. This point is very misunderstood by so many.
@@TheJason909hope you didn’t lose the gospel when you left the church to go to Rome. Ultimately that’s what matters most
The reason there are not a lot of Protestant people trying to correct orthodoxy or Catholicism is because we are busy reaching out to those that don’t know Christ
It’s really annoying that you are pretty much debating him for the entirety of the video while also being extremely dishonest in downplaying significant problems with catholic claims by saying “this would be considered very small evidence” you’re telling your audience how to think rather then just letting them think for themselves.
The next account that immediately follows "the gates of hell" scene is our Lord saying to Peter "Get behind me, satan"; that Peter, rebuking the Lord, had, not the things of God, but man in mind.
Not to mention soon after, the disciples come and ask Jesus which of them is greatest... and don't get an answer, let alone Peter.
@@Draezeth Well, he does give an answer; i.e., the one who would be great must be a servant, even as the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many. But, certainly, He doesn't specify St. Peter and say "And you, Peter, as the greatest of all must be servant of all."
It's interesting to note the ubiquitous absence of the Roman Catholic Papacy in the entire New Testament.
A dialogue between Gavin Ortlund and Erik Ybarra would be really interesting Cameron. Both are really thoughtful, charitable and focussed more on scholarship rather than apologetics. Dr Brant Pitre would also be a worthy interlocutor.
My guess is Dr. Ortland will not go for that. Why not? Because it puts him up against scholars who are VERY well studied in the early church fathers, church history, and all the dated rationalizations Dr. Ortland applies to avoid the problem of Baptists teaching (in relation to church history). There are gaping holes and self-contradictions in the arguments regarding church history which most Protestants (esp. Baptists) put forward. Reading Protestant church history books in seminary was a study in self-defeating arguments. In other words, if you just switched many of the arguments around and applied them to Protestantism, the Protestant authors end up refuting their own arguments.
Additionally, Protestants of various stripes REFUTE EACH OTHER on many, many doctrines of their faiths: Baptism, and the Eucharist, Communion (including form, nature, function), Clergy (inc. gender issues, church government issues, etc., etc., etc.). On and on it goes.
@@tony1685 Are you suggesting that Gavin, Erick and Brant do not follow Jesus? If that is the case, then I must not either.
@@countryboyredthe early church fathers did
Thanks, Gavin! The silence in the Bible on the pope is deafening. Enough said…or…not said! Ha.
No glimpses of a pope. Clear the roles in the Church…elders and deacons. Clearly laid out in multiple books of the Bible. And…Not even a glimpse of the pope in those explanations of the roles on l in the church.
That's what is so stunning. The Jews had nothing approximating a pope in the OT, and their priesthood is very specifically laid out. The NT is not as specific about the new priesthood, because it seems it was meant to be fairly different than the OT. Absolutely nothing about a pope though. They glean huge amounts of information from the keys to the kingdom scriptures, even though Jesus said the same to the other apostles.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 I totally agree with you. I think Catholics argue that the papacy is continuing the line of David as instituted by Christ. So Davids eternal kingdom is fulfilled the papal succession. But its really tenuous to try and draw that line imo.
@@TyranBatten Their argument seems to be more based on the seat of Moses. Either way, they are relying on old testament types, like they do completely when it comes to all the Mary dogmas. This is convenient when NT scripture is not there to support their theology.
Overall, they seek to continue the OT priesthood, the continual sacrifice through the giving of the Eucharist, and a works based, fulfilling of the law based walk w/ God. Christ clearly abolished that in the NT, and called us to something much different.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 agreed
Would love to see you bring Dr. Jordan B. Cooper on the show. He's also a protestant apologist and scholar that does great stuff on UA-cam!
"Sift you like wheat," and thus...papal authority!! How on earth do apologists arrive at this? I think Dane is right: people already have it in mind.
So when we have " a woman" mentioned in Revelation, it means, "the immaculate conception!" Maybe it does ( and I rather like the idea of the immaculate conception), or maybe the doctrine hunters are seeing what they want to see.
Come on man, the surface level reading of the "on the rock" passage is a referral to Mt. Hermon where the gates of hell were said to be in the old testament because the bulls of Bashaan lived there. (I'm referencing Michael Heiser's work here).
Dr. Ortlund is awesome! Great discussion
Ortlund vs. Horn 7-hour debate, make it happen!
That would be so good!
Thanks for providing such a thoughtful and compelling case Gavin, and thanks Cameron for your efforts in setting up this up. Really helpful for my personal journey! More please :)
@53:33 I don't think that the comparison between the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and the doctrine of the papacy was apt.
If you read the New Testament, and ask the question "What did Jesus, Paul, and the biblical authors think about Scripture?" you will easily walk away with, if not biblical inerrancy, some form of a *very* high view of scripture. If, instead, you approach the text asking "What did Jesus & his followers believe about the office of the papacy?", you will find almost nothing to support it, and even some areas that seem opposed to the idea.
*Every* time Scripture is self-referenced in the Bible, it is clearly assumed to be a source of authoritative truth. The same cannot be said of the papacy every time church structure is brought up.
Tl;dr: The doctrine of scriptural inerrancy can easily be inferred by a reading of scripture. The office of the papacy certainly cannot.
I hope you'll have a catholic apologist to respond. So as we hear both sides.
Turretinfan also has a massive blog with lots of historical quotes from church history and early church fathers.
22:26 ‘We have so much detailed information about the offices of the church in the New Testament that, given the gargantuan authority invested in the papal office, why is there not a single verse saying, “Oh, btw…”??
It’s as surprising as if the (American) Constitution never mentioned the president.’
Right??
Most likely, the binding and loosing mentioned in Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 are performed by means of the keys, which means that Peter isn't the only one who has the keys. These themes are all part of a larger imagery involving doors and such. See the many other references to keys and binding and loosing elsewhere in the New Testament. The religious leaders of Israel in Jesus' day, angels in Revelation, etc. are referred to as having one or more keys and/or binding and loosing without having papal authority (Matthew 23:13, Luke 11:52, etc.).
Incorrect. In the ancient Near East when a King would go on a journey, he would give the Keys to the Kingdom to his vizer. We see that repeated in Matthew.
@@oisinofthefianna3246 Nothing you've said shows that my comments were incorrect. Even if we assume the journey context you've referred to, that doesn't change the fact that Matthew 18:18 implies that Peter wasn't the only one who had the keys. You can't begin with an assumption that only one person could have the keys, since entities are often paralleled in partial rather than complete ways (e.g., Jesus' being paralleled with Israel, even though Israel is a group rather than an individual; Jesus' being paralleled with Moses while being different than Moses in other ways). And since Matthew 18 implies that multiple individuals had the keys, any assumption you or anybody else makes about how only one individual should have the keys is overturned by what Jesus said in Matthew 18. Jesus didn't agree with your assumption.
@@jasonengwer8923 Only the vizer/vicar held the keys. The Keys did not belong to all. God gave the Keys to Peter.
@@oisinofthefianna3246 Restating your position is not an argument. He already said why your interpretation is wrong.
Jesus (supposedly) gives the keys to bind and loose to Peter alone in Matthew 16, but in Matthew 18 Jesus is speaking to all of the disciples and tells _them_ that they have the power to bind and loose as well in verse 18.
So which is it? Was it just Peter as Matthew says in chapter 16 or is it all of the Disciples as Matthew says in verse 18?
@@jasonengwer8923 the keys are never mentioned for the other Apostles. Just given to Peter by Jesus in Matthew 16, Peter the rock. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Funny how Cameron tended to only challenge Gavin’s weaker arguments and largely avoided commenting on Gavin’s stronger arguments😌
I didn't see any stronger arguments, maybe that's why.
Whilst I'm no expert, I've read most of the available patristic documents that touch on the papacy--hundreds of letters.
Whilst there definitely is a development, the gist of it is in the earliest centuries, although there wasn't clear agreement on the details. I'd say the bishop of Rome was widely seen as having some undefined, unique authority. This wasn't just honourific; it had practical teeth.
This doesn't definitively support modern papal claims, but it is most compatible with Catholicism.
To those who reject the papacy as an accretion/deviation, I'd question your consistency. We all accept development... Why else do we have a 27 NT book canon and call God 'homoousious'?
How do you know these aren't accretions too? How do you judge? And what is God's role in all of this?
As a layman and convert I think it was an accretion but then again the Church started with a bunch of people in a room and God was in the room and in them. It can certainly grow as it is made up of life.
All developments aren't necessarily God breathed, maybe it comes down to what jesus said about his sheep hearing his voice? Plenty of varieties to choose from when considering denominations, and many have varying accretions. I believe in God, and Jesus. That draws me to the bible, to learn more about God and the life of Jesus, I see the truth in Jesus's life and way, I do not see that life or way in roman Catholicism. I dont think the papacys accretion can be compared to the trinity, that is quite a stretch. When you have no reason to believe roman Catholicism dogmas their arguments become transparent, I was a catholic for the first 25 years of my life.
I wouldn’t say that the bishop of Rome had full papal authority from the letters. I look at it like Dr. Ortlund does 29ish minutes in as Rome was the big city and where Peter and Paul died. We would expect that bishop to have a greater sway than the average bishop. That doesn’t make him a pope by any stretch of the imagination.
Edit: Just thought of an analogy- instead of the bishop of Rome being the president, he often feels more like the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. His vote was the same as everyone else, but the others perceived him with a greater degree of reverence
@@whatsinaname691 Reference your chief justice analogy and the pope's vote being equal to others... in the council of Chalcedon, the council fathers try to pass canon 28. They, and bishop Anatolius of Constantinople, begged Pope Leo to ratify it, but he didn't, so it didn't pass. They accepted that he could do this.
Compare Leo to Dioscorus of Alexandria at the same council. He disagrees with the council and is excommunicated. This doesn't seem to me to suggest the Pope's vote was equal. He had the power to determine what was passed in the councils. When he disagreed, it didn't pass. When others didn't agree, they were ignored or kicked out of the church.
The early byzantine historians (like Sozomon, if memory serves) recognised the Pope could ratify councils too.
@@michael7144 I was a Protestant for the first 25 of mine!
I'm not suggesting the trinity and the papacy are completely comparable.. but 'homoousion' is certainly an accretion!
For a long, long time, the papacy was accepted universally in the West. And even in the East, they accepted far more of the papal claim than most protestants today would accept.
I think your position practically condemns a large chunk of Christendom as not being Christ's sheep as they, according to you, are not hearing His voice. I'm sure you didn't mean this, but your position comes across quite arrogant to me.
I don’t get how it’s not blatantly obvious the papacy is totally ungodly , Peter himself spoke of the priesthood of all believers , Jesus spends his parables talking about himself as the vine and us as it’s branches , the entire New Testament is about the kingdom of god through his reigning with the church ….
I wouldn't call it totally ungodly. There is always is hierarchy and order. People in charge, and people under them. The papacy just does not seem laid out in the NT at all. Neither is there a precedence for it in the OT.
As always Gavin did an awesome job defending the Protestant view using an irenic approach…..I learnt a lot and feel edified……👍🏾
Dr. Ortlund, I think the biblical evidence for inerrancy is crystal clear and overwhelming in comparison to the papacy. Thank you for your work.
Ironically, The Papacy precedes the Bible. It was a Pope the one who made the Bible Possible.
@@Skanderberg79 There was an old testament canon genereally aknowledged and in use before there was Peter, the supposed first pope. There is no debate about the right scriptures between Jesus and any jew, there is only debate about the right meaning of scripture.
I really love Gavin Ortlund and appreciate his sincerity and rigor. Michael Lofton of Reason Theology and I (Suan) will be doing a review video. Also, Cameron Bertuzzi's fairness is wonderful and refreshing.
Looking forward to this. Would be cool to hear yours and Michael's response to Gavin saying, and I'm paraphrasing, that there was no authoritative/infallible structure in place in the OT.
If it was really infallible and you follow it all the way to its logical conclusions that seems to me to bring up the question what would prevent one from thinking you should be an Orthodox jew?
@YAJUN YUAN I've addressed this precise question before elsewhere, but I'll provide a brief summary here.
1. There's a distinction between a magisterium and an oral tradition. Insofar as I can tell, Moses established an institution in the Old Testament to interpret and apply the Torah. I don't rule out the possibility that oral traditions from Moses were handed down, although Jesus clearly indicates a corruption of this tradition by His time.
2. Yajun is correct in saying that my response is this: the authority of the Sanhedrin was transferred to the apostles by the New Moses - Jesus Christ.
3. The Sanhedrin claims succession from the Biblical authors - the prophets, judges, and kings - and high priests. If this claim is correct, then I do accept their prior teachings over Israel.
3a. The main thing to note is that Moses installed a judicial system over Israel to interpret and apply the Torah (priests and judges can occupy this seat). Moses did not directly build the Sanhedrin, but the Sanhedrin can claim to be within Moses' seat (as Jesus says) if they have succeeded to that position as the judicial officials of Israel who - like the prophets, judges, kings, and high priests before them - interpreted and applied the scriptures. The Rabbis (and I'd argue the sages) claimed an unbroken succession from Moses.
4. The Sanhedrin's view of "infallibility" is strange insofar as they believed that they could bind God to their own rulings. I do not consider that a valid instance of infallibility. Nonetheless, the Jewish sources are insistent that the Sanhedrin had divine inspiration and guidance from the Holy Spirit. The only place where the Sanhedrin comes close to the Catholic conception of infallibility is that the Sanhedrin under certain circumstances claimed to have the power to be able to bind all of Israel to its rulings forever.
4a. Although I think it's reasonable to say that these permanent rulings of the Sanhedrin are infallible, the Jewish sources do not provide further detail on the status of these rulings. I am now more cautious about saying that the Sanhedrin is infallible and would rather say that I think that's a reasonable but unverified stance.
@@Adam-ue2ig The reason why I am not an Orthodox Jew is because Jesus is the Messiah, the foretold royal son of David, the New Moses who has brought us a new law and judicial order, God incarnate, and my savior who died for me and loved me despite knowing my sinfulness and weakness.
@@intellectualcatholicism The intention of point was more subtle than that, the argument goes more like Catholics are carrying over things into Christianity from Judaism that should not be, such as arguably infallibility claims, exclusive authority claims, the priesthood i.e an ongoing exclusive priestly class with the all the attached claims to authority etc. Obviously Christ is the Lord, that is not one of the doctrines in dispute.
Dr. Gavin, thanks for always defendjng our protestant faith so beautifully!! Love being protestant 😊
Ortlund said that the Papacy is rejected by all the Eastern traditions. This is false. There are 23 different Eastern traditions/Rites that accept the Papacy. These different traditions make up what is called Eastern Catholicism.
I believe he is referring to the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches. The Eastern Catholic churches are under the headship of Rome, where as the traditional autocephalous eastern churches deny the catholic claims about the papacy.
obviously I am not referring to Eastern Catholicism but the Eastern traditions outside of Catholicism, EO, OC, ACOE, etc.
@@TruthUnites them not all the Eastern traditions reject Rome. Just some of them.
Additionally, several eastern saints before the split supported the papacy.
Jesus Christ established His One True Apostolic Catholic Church and Doctrine with His apostles in 33AD, before His Passion. He appointed them leaders, Peter as head(Pope). He gave Peter The Keys to Heaven (His authority, power, Doctrine, Sacraments and Teachings) and told him to feed His sheep and lambs. He changed his name from Simon to Cephas (large rock in Aramaic, translates as Peter).
Jn1:42, 21:15-17, Mt16:18-19, 10:1-4, Eph2:19-22, Act20:28, 1 Cor 12:28, 1 Pet 2:6-9, Lk 22:28-32, Sacraments-Jn 3:5, Act 22:16, 2 Cor 5:18-20, Jn 20:21-23, Mt 18:17-18, Jn 6:51-59, 1 Cor 11:23-29, Eph 1:13, 2 Cor 1:21-22, Mt 19:4-6, Col 3:17-19, 2 Cor 5:20, 1:25-29, Lk 22:28-32, Jm 5:16, Lk 10:34 are a few pertinent verses.
We have the direct succession of Popes dating back to Peter. The list, The Annuario Pontificio is found on the official website for The Vatican, The Holy See.
Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and Scribes for making their own versions of His Church and Doctrine, like all 44,000 other Christian Churches have done. Jesus taught we’re to remain in His Church, Doctrine and Sacraments or we don’t have Him.
Mt23:1-39, Lk 11:37-54, Jn 10:16, 17:20-26, Eph 4:4-6,2 JN1:9, 2 Thess 3:6-16, Rom16:17, Heb 13:9, Gal 1:6-9, 2 Cor 11:3-4
All other Christian Churches don’t live Gods Doctrine they live heretical mens versions. They don’t receive Jesus Christ,Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in Holy Communion; they receive crackers and grape juice. Their leaders don’t have Gods authority and power. Protestants changed The Ten Commandments and Holy Bible to fit their beliefs. The Catholic Church comprised & gave The Holy Bible to the world. Over 1500 years later, Protestants, WITHOUT GODS AUTHORITY, rewrote it, added/deleted words, verses, chapters, books and changed wording to The Holy Bible & to The Ten Commandments. Changing a word here & there can negate the meaning of Gods words. Rev22:18-19, Jer 26:2
Only 6 mins in and I’m hooked , I’m not usually on the side against Cameron, but the papacy seems like what we wouldn’t want , like a human being who is infallible that isn’t Jesus just doesn’t sit right with me
🤔 good point
Yes, except no one believes that the Pope is infallible. Papal infallibility applies to a very, very specific set of circumstances only, and has been used by the Pope to declare authoritatively on an issue…I believe twice (off the top of my head) over the last 2,000 years. It’s not as though the Pope willy nilly makes up teachings and declares them handed straight from Heaven! In all other matters and in all other times, the Pope is every bit as fallible as you or I. The doctrine, in the end, isn’t about the Pope at all: it’s about the Holy Spirit, and Christ’s promise that He would be with us to the end of the age, that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth, and that the gates of Hell wouldn’t prevail against Her. Pax Christi.
@@nathangraham2189 I understand. The point is against the office. Im surprised that idea didn't come across clearly to you... unless you didn't watch the video
@@huey7437 Sure, i was responding to the point above about being skittish about the idea of another infallible person, and merely pointing out that’s not how Catholics understand the Papacy, that’s all.
If it's only been used twice in 2000 years and that's for 2 of the Marian dogmas then what good is it. The "church" claims to have sole ability to interpret the Scripture yet depending on who you ask 0-7 verses have been infallibly defined.
it is misquoted so often--Vatican I did not say that it was known and believed by everyone that the Pope was infallible--it said that it was known in every age that Jesus gave Peter the keys.......
It’s interesting to me that “the gates of hell will not prevail” sounds more like an offensive attack from the church against the defenses of hell. Not an attack from hell against the church. You don’t attack with your own gates.
It could be a reference to the Biblical concept that the leadership of a city or town would meet “in the gates” - so it’s not literally about gates, but about the power and authority of hell.
St Optatus of Milevis was a North African bishop in the 4th century (contemporary with Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom etc). I'll just let his words speak for themselves:
"You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner.
Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit."
St Irenaeus Bishop of Gaul in the 2nd century (Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of John the Apostle!) "It is a matter of necessity that all churches should agree with the Church of Rome, on account of its pre-eminent authority".
Cyprian of Carthage, a martyr-bishop in the 250s, who was beheaded for his faith, says "Rome is the principal Church, from which sacerdotal unity has its source"
Reading his words, you’d think Peter’s writings must have said “I am the ordained head of the church and all should consolidate under me.” But no, Catholicism had to concoct such arguments later and apply them ex post facto.
Was he a Christian or a Peterian? Clearly the latter.
@@WisdomThumbs are you God, or human?
@@MrWoaaaaah Are you going somewhere with that question, or trolling?
@@WisdomThumbs I'm making the point that you cannot know whether Optatus was a Christian or not (despite your claims to such knowledge) as that knowledge is known only to God.
@@MrWoaaaaah If you're trying to argue that a Catholic *saint* and *bishop* was anything other than a Peterian (especially since we have his writings to judge by), you're barking up the wrong tree. The only doubt is whether he turned back to God in his final days or not, which is irrellevant to his life's work prior.
"We should almost have Trent on the show at this point"
Yes! :))
Gavin and Trent have a debate planned for Autumn (the Fall - I'm in the UK). They had a couple of response videos to each other that you might be interested in if you haven't seen them
or Eric Ybarra
@@ProfYaffle Thanks! If you think about their videos on the purgatory, yes, I've seen that. Interesting stuff indeed. Looking forward to their debate. Both are so nuanced and charitable.
@@Miatpi yes I did mean those, sounds like you already knew. I struggle a bit with Trent, but I am willing to accept I may be biased and wrong
CC should bring on James White as well
I haven't read a lot of St. Augustine's works, but did he write about being against Pope Gregory the Great, the pope who held the papal office during Augustine's life? I just did a quick search, and multiple sources say that Pope Gregory assigned Augustine to England to convert the Anglo-Saxons. That indicates to me that he submitted to the supremacy of the Pope. The Pope seems to have held a level of authority in the early Church.
1. Id love to have Gavin address Sola Scriptura, and Catholic objections to it
2. Marian hymns and whether there is a distinction with a difference between dulia and latria in these regards
Then you should go to his channel and watch his video on sola scriptura and prayer to the saints!
Gavin has already done a bunch on Sola Scriptura on his own channel and a great conversation with Jimmy Akin: Part 1: ua-cam.com/video/DFbFT1YtTtQ/v-deo.html Part 2: ua-cam.com/video/xBLpQV4hNWw/v-deo.html
1. m.ua-cam.com/video/DFbFT1YtTtQ/v-deo.html
2. m.ua-cam.com/video/TQRQ-bbmVvI/v-deo.html
15:30 “The RC (papal) claim, in its effect, is a claim for a kind of authority that punctures our accountability to the Word of God. It untethers us from the accountability that we should have to the 1st century apostolic deposit.”
Boom right there. That be some succinct sh!t.
It seems to me that Cameron is 100% settled on being Catholic before he had any of these discussions with Dr O, or Dr White.
Yeah it was really strange to hear such a weak case from him that basically boiled down to "it just sounds like it means the papacy when you read it". Felt a little like he wasn't really hearing what Gavin was saying.
You could see where he was heading, people predicted he was gonna convert to Rome awhile ago
Is there some rule that says you can't have a guest on who might disagree with you? So what. This wasn't about keeping Cameron Protestant or making him Catholic, he simply wanted to have Dr. Ortlund give a talk on what he has concluded about the papacy.
On the rock issue Michael Heiser claims it pertains to the actual rock they were standing on i.e., Mt. Hermon, where the fallen angels fell to earth and where a temple of Pan was that was called the gates of Hell by the Jews.
See Heiser about "On this rock", it had nothing to do with Peter. Heiser maintains that Jesus was referring to Mt Hermon, where they actually were. This was (as per Heiser) a challenge to the principalities and powers -- long worshipped in that very place.
Heiser's view makes literally no sense then - Christ deliberately changes Simon's name to Peter (Rock) and that in Judaism is very significant.
@@lukewilliams448 Agree that Jesus gave Simon the new name Cephas. Heiser doesn't dispute that. Rather, Heiser maintains that "rock" in Mat 16:18 is a double entendre -- particularly because of where they were when this happened. I'm not a very good apologist for Dr.H but he makes a solid case for this in Hidden Realm that is worth reading and pondering.
Not even going to read the comments until I watch it, but I’m predicting that Cameron’s Catholic flirtation ends today.
This is absolutely BRILLIANT!!!!! Thank you so very much!!! Pastor Ortlund, bless you and THANK YOU!!!!!
Dr. Ortlund looks sort of like that guy from prison break
These arguments he puts forth have been brought previously by several other Protestant apologists. I, myself, used them in arguing against Rome for years. And, yes, I read those whom he quotes, and more. They are on my shelf, and on my computer to this day.
His arguments regarding the papacy, primacy, etc., are nothing new. They have as their goal one clear function: to negate the validity of Rome's authority; and thereby to negate Catholicism as an historically and theologically valid authority, or church option. ...By this method he also seems to validate Protestantism generally, hence vouch-safing their various positions. Thus, there could be NO historicity to any continuing (let alone universal) Church authority. Consequently, one must fall back on "Sola scriptural." But that is problematic, since a doctrine of "sola scriptura" is not found in scripture, nor in the early fathers.
The result is more freewheeling multidenominationalisms, which accept and reject whatever they desire.
For instance, when one reads the early fathers, be they from east or west, they all believe in the real presence of Christ in the Blessed Eucharist. They believe that the bread and wine (though some of the terminology differs between East and West) become the body and blood of Christ.
In spite of this history, Ortland, as a good Baptist, must reject this (like most Protestants). He must, in so doing, also reject Eucharistic miracles which have occured, and are scientifically verified to be flesh and blood which is still living (and of the same blood type as that on the shroud of Turin).
Both traditional Eastern and Western Christendom can and do acknowledge the real presence of Christ in the blessed Eucharist, because they have already believed in the authoritative teaching passed down by both East and West from the first Apostles, and those who retained the faith after them.
But all the ancient theology, and history is brushed aside by most Protestants.
Why?
Because it doesn't fit the Protestant schema (which rejects any authority other than what their own particular rational mind and/or denominational authorities support).
Note that Ray ESTABLISHED a CHURCH that HE loves. It was done basically on his own authority (and that of his backers). It has no historically valid apostolic authority, nor does it seem to desire any.
One could look at other examples of how the vast majority of protestant churches chose to ignore what all the early church taught and proclaimed to be the truth. But I suspect they would ignore it, since they neither believe in, nor desire it.
@capturingchristianity
I was hoping Gavin went into more detail for you but maybe his time was limited.
Matt. 16:18 you need to look at the Greek words behind the English translation. It's much richer and makes the statement clear.
"I also now say to you that, you are Petros (detatched stone/rock) and yet on this, the Petra (solid rock projecting from the earth) will I build my church and the gates of hades will not be strong enough to overcome it."
4073 (petra) is "a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw" (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
Note also that the Petra also has the definite article in Greek and is feminine. It's not Peter. It's the foundational statement that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. That is what the church is built on. If someone doesn't believe and confess that they're not a Christian and not part of the body of Christ. Simple.
Christ is the head of the church. The papacy attempts to put themselves in that place, hence, Antichrist (in place of Christ).
Yah bless Cam. Keep up the good work!
The greek grammatical argument against the catholic position is useless.
Jesus would have used aramaic.
The word is Cephas.
YOU: Christ is the head of the church.
ME: Your conclusion here is reckless, as if you don't have clue what Catholic's believe. First of all, NO Catholic would say that Peter is the head of the church, not Christ. Protestant's for the most part get too caught up in the Greek translation of petros and petra, because the fact is, the ability to disprove the papacy is not found in how one of those words is applied to Peter and the other to Christ. Petros is masculine as you indicated, so Peter being a male needed to be called petros, not petra which is feminine. Got it so far? It would have been an awkward use of petros to use it again in the same sentence to refer metaphorically to Peter (as a rock), so the feminine noun petra was used instead.
YOU: The papacy attempts to put themselves in that place, hence, Antichrist (in place of Christ).
ME: No, that's not it. The pope is Christ's earthly head of the church, while it is obvious that Christ is the ultimate head of the church He founded. Look at it from this perspective, Christ is the heavenly president of the earthly company, while Peter and his successors are managers who have been given the authority to run the earthly company day to day. The manager isn't attempting to put themselves in the place of the president whatsoever.
No Catholic denies that
@@charlesjoyce982 Your point is irrelevant since the writers of the Gospels wrote them in Greek and chose specific Greek words to translate Jesus' Aramaic.
@@jzak5723 Except the popes are on record claiming God himself must abide by their judgement so yeah, they do place themselves as the head. My issue isn't with Catholics, my issue is with the Antichrist little horn papacy.
This was awesome! Thanks so much!
It would be great to see more debates/conversations between Catholics and Protestants. :)
Peter speaking on behalf of the apostles? A bit of a stretch I think.
Has Dr. Ortlund actually been to the spot (at Caesarea Phillipi) ?
You can see there that he is contrasting the huge rock nearby where Pan was sacrificed to and the rock Cephas (Peter) , the clue being in the name Peter.
The singular “you” when Jesus addresses Peter clinches it for me.
This has been an incredibly edifying video. This issue you guys brought forward, that there is a scarcity of higher scholarly defense for the Protestant Christian position, has put shape to a subconscious grievance of mine I haven't even been entirely aware of. I'll be working to educate and equip myself to join the ranks of the intellectual unorthodox. 1 Peter 3:15, baby!
I know Cameron was trying so hard to come across like he was still investigating, but this interview shows that he had already made up his mind. Gavin did his best, but Cameron’s inability to truly see the significance of the holes in the argument for the papacy shows his heart had already decided. Either way he is a brother in Christ…I am grateful for them both.
He came across like he was still investigating because he was still investigating, at this point he was still Protestant. What's the problem with that?
It's very clear to me that Dr. Gavin does not understand, even in the slightest, Eastern Orthodoxy.
Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but you asked about UA-camrs who address Catholicism, but I didn’t hear anyone mention Anthony Rogers. He’s been addressing it a lot in a very thorough and academic way.
Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check him out. Dr. Michael Brown does to an extent too. He had a debate w/ William Albrecht, who apparently claims he didn't understand the terms of the debate, so he went in and based his whole intro on his own terms, outside the parameters of what the debate was supposed to entail. Which put a whole damper on the rest of the debate, as Dr. Brown did not have a rebuttal, since Albrecht's material was out of the scope of the debate. A mistake, or a tactic? Hard to know for sure.
Gavin made a lot of good points. One thing that didn't come up was the lack of reference to a papacy in the early non-Christian sources (heretics, Jews, and pagans). Men like Aristides and Tertullian wrote apologies in which they responded to objections to Christianity and anticipated potential objections. They address the deity of Jesus, his virgin birth, his resurrection, the second coming, the inspiration of scripture, how to interpret various passages of scripture, Christian moral standards, the apostles, Christian teachers, the nature of the church, and many other topics. But they say nothing of a papacy, to explain it, defend it, anticipate objections to it, or anything else. Trypho, Celsus, and other early opponents of Christianity show no awareness of a papacy, in contrast to the many and explicit references to the papacy among non-Christians in later centuries. We see many references to a papacy, including explicit ones, among non-Christians in our own day in books, on television, etc. The best explanation for the lack of reference to a papacy in the early non-Christian sources is that a papacy didn't exist at the time.
You need to be invited to these youtube conversations as you have a broad level of academic knowledge
I would definitely like to hear more of this. That's a great argument. Are there videos or apologists that make these arguments in detail? I haven't heard this used before, but it's gold. There is no real talk of the papacy, no records of popes in the first few centuries, and thankfully also none of the praying to saints and deifying Mary in the first few either. All accretions.
As Gavin is a Baptist pastor, I'd love to see a debate between him and former baptist *Steve Ray* who is now a Catholic apologist and author of _"Upon this Rock"_ or with former Baptist pastor *David Currie* who is also now a Catholic apologist and author of " _Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic_ ."
This was the best video on this subject yet. Dr Ortlund was articulate and generous in his speech. Would love to hear from him.
His debate on sola scriptura, w/ Trent Horn, was just excellent. They were both so good, and get along so well. Trent is about the best apologist debater out there, but Gavin gave him a very respectable go. I even saw a Catholic disappointed w/ Trent's performance, so I guess he was too impressed w/ how well Gavin did, even w/ how gentle he is. It was on Pints with Aquinas channel about 3 months ago. Gavin was saying he had another debate w/ Trent, which I hope is still in the works.
I am very compelled to believe Dr. Ortlund’s view.
I’m so sad this is over. I really wanted to comment on the Roman Catholic teaching on the veracity and biblical proof of the papacy.
You mentioned Matthew and Jesus saying to Peter, you are the rock and upon this rock I will build my church. In referencing Dr. Brant Pitre, this is a good passage to verify the papacy but when understood in a Jewish lens, and in conjunction with Isiah 22:19-23. The original Greek word used for “church” in Matthew is Ecclacia meaning assembly of gods people. And usually this term was used in the assembly of the Israelites in the temple where there was a rock. The emon shetiach meaning the foundation stone. The stone was where the arc of the covenant used to be and where the blood of the sacrifice of the lamb used to be sprinkled. The church Jesus was talking about in this passage was the church body. Not necessarily the church as a building. Also, to reflect on “the keys of the kingdom” and the binding and loosing refers to isiah 22:19-23. Where eli’akim is discussed. He is the “Al Bayith” of his day which means he was the “over the house” aka the leader over the house of David, 2nd in rank to only the king. It’s an office, mirroring the office of the pope. And as an office, this role gets passed down over the centuries from person to person. This is what first century Jews would have understood. The Al Bayith’s role, like the pope (papa aka pope), was to be a father figure to the kingdom. In the pasage Isaiah mentioned that whatever the al bayit opens none shall shut and whatever he closes none can open which is a saying symbolic of his power to make binding decisions. Aka papal infallibility.
I think that often people dismiss Catholic doctrine because of their lack of understanding of the original Greek or Hebrew text and translation, and lack of knowledge of first century Judaism thought.
For a better explanation of the Roman Catholic view of the papacy, I implore you to look at this video of dr brant pitre, 1st century Jewish and biblical scholar discuss it: ua-cam.com/video/PWkmMNvr_to/v-deo.html.
Αμήν Victoria. Αμήν.
I really suggest you watch the video about the papacy by dr brant pitre. It addresses the Son of God comment by Tony, and a lot of other arguments against the papacy. Thanks! Here’s the link once again: ua-cam.com/video/PWkmMNvr_to/v-deo.html
Isaiah 22 is about Jesus
Ecclesia - εκκλησια does not mean "foundation stone". It means "church", "assembly", "congregation", or "those who are called out from" (the world) ek = from, out from, "kleasea" - the one called"
@@tony1685 don't want you to misunderstand. I'm Orthodox. So we do believe in apostolic succession but not that Peter had a special role.. all were given the keys to bind and loose.. judas office was filled with Mattias... Paul as well was an apostle who appointed Timothy alone.. but the key of David belongs to Jesus as He Himself says in revelation...
20:02 I do have a small problem with. The claim that there's nothing to engage with on Petrine succession, ignores what I'd consider to be the central image of the Petrine office, the "keys to the kingdom." It ignores the entire notion of the Kingdom of Heaven as an essentially Davidic kingdom. I'm sure that there's a debate to be had here, and Dr Ortlund is, you know, I'm no doctor of anything. So I feel weird arguing with someone who clearly has done a great deal more thinking on it than I, but it's not as if the appeal is simply made to *pure rationality*. Rather it's made to a typological consonance between Peter and Eliakim, on the foundation that Christ is the fulfillment of the promise to reestablish the kingdom of David. David and Solomon had ministers, but above all these ministers was a "prime" minister...
Yeah. I'm sure that Dr Ortlund has considered this, and for some reasons rejects this argument. But it does feel a little weird not to be brought up.
Re: Matthew 16: I think you can get to Peter having some authority, but I think getting to infallibility, supremacy, and succession is impossible to get there from only that text. I see this in the same way that people argue we are dual substances from 1 Thessalonians 5:23. You just can't get there grammatically. With Matthew 16, you have to assume certain things about what it means to be or have a church to get those other things from the text.
Very well done. See, you can speak on touchy topics without sarcasm. 😏 I’ve not figured it out yet but I just witnessed it. Infallible means never wrong. Why did Paul have to correct Peter to his face about withdrawing into the circumcision circle when they attended church if he was infallible. He was treating Gentiles correctly unless the Jews were in the meeting. Pretty sure there was only one that was infallible. The Son of Man.
Thank you Dr Orthlund, it's my first time to see and hear you speak, definitely rare and gifted and inspired. Very well thought out and well presented. Glad you addressed the 'system' and not the members. Thank you Cameron for your ministry, its touching peoples lives in a real and important way. 'the Truth will set you free'. God bless you both.
I know this was an oversight but, insofar as the inerrancy of scripture;
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness..."
2 Timothy 3:16
"All"
Excellent talk! I just can't comprehend how a person that takes a good look at church history can accept all the deviations of the catholic church.
Which denomination has the least deviations?
@@MrWoaaaaah would say protestant churches in general are pretty close. If I were to go with a "traditional" church I would pick the Orthodox church over the Catholic church.
I agree 100%
Well... all protestants come from a major deviation 1500 years into the church. So, long live irony.
@@EnHacore1 which Protestant churches please?
Peter understood Matthew 16:18 as him and all the others "living stones" proper for building up of the spiritual house, the body of Christ according to 1Peter 2:5. This was never about papacy or Peter's Supremacy but the revelation of the building of God's spiritual house
Dr. Ortlund said here that he would need to see first century historic evidence to be convinced of the Papacy.
What about Clement of Rome? He was the 3rd successor of Peter (4th Bishop of Rome) who wrote at the end of the first century and asserted his authority over the church in Corinth, even though Corinth is not part of Rome and had its own bishop.
You know, many scholars out there, and I agree with them in looking at the evidence internal to I Clement, think that it was actually written as early as 70 AD? It’s an ongoing debate, but would make that letter even stronger evidence for the Apostolic origin of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
@@nathangraham2189 I’m of the opinion that it was written more around AD 90. But I must admit that I haven’t looked into this topic very deeply. Either way, regardless of the 20 year difference, It is indeed solid evidence for the Papal supremacy in the first century.
I really would like to see Dr. Ortlund engage with this.
@@alexjurado6029 Agreed. It’s a fascinating academic debate but among other things, like with Acts, there’s the problem with Clement’s letter that he doesn’t mention anything about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, which would seemingly be important if he knew of it. Also though, Clement states at para 19, 40, 5 “To the High Priest, indeed, proper ministrations ARE allotted, to the priests a proper place IS appointed, and upon the levites their proper services ARE imposed.” He continues in 41 as well talking in the present tense about the Temple sacrifices in Jerusalem, so it seems odd if it was written so long after the destruction of the Temple to write in this way. But regardless, it is convincing evidence to me of a first century understanding of a leadership role and primacy of at least some important sense for the ongoing holder of Peter’s office.
@@nathangraham2189 this is fascinating. I’ve heard a theory about 1 Clement, that it was actually written over time. That he began to write it around AD 69/70, and then finished it in the early to mid 90’s. I didn’t know how likely this is, but it is fascinating to think about.
@@alexjurado6029 That is interesting for sure…would be over my head as to the particulars of why some might hold that position, though I would say that if true, nearly all of it still would have likely been written by Clement early on, as there’s only another 19 or so passages after the first 44, where the present-tense discussion of temple sacrifices is discussed, and those subsequent passages are all very brief as well, a sentence or two only in length pretty much for each…fascinating indeed!
I think Cameron may be seeing what he wants to see….. I personally see it as Jesus MAY have been saying the apostles are the rock in so much as they wrote the NT…. How has the church not been built on their inspired writings? Obviously Jesus being the supreme foundation of the church so I do NOT mean in any way they surpass Him. Just that the apostles writings were/are used heavily to establish the church and this was done by divine inspiration. (So God used them to establish/build the church)
I think this was a great overview of different arguments for and against the papacy. I really like Dr. Ortlunds approach and would really like to see a more in depth discussion on the different arguments. Again i really enjoyed the video and would love to see more!
Great discussion
I have heard Dr. Orltund say he believes in the real presence of the Eucharist. I am curious as to how he determines who can consecrate the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ and how he knows when that consecration has taken place. Because the Catholic tradition has guidelines on this supported by Church authority. But I'm wondering what his thoughts are.
@YAJUN YUANThe Catholic teaching is that the elements remain because there is no consecration to transform Christ's body nd blood back into bread and wine.
@YAJUN YUAN The Catholic teaching is of transubstantiation, that the bread and wine transform into the body and blood of Christ, but remain appearing, tasting, and smelling like bread and wine. I am not sure how Mt. 15:17 relates in your view, but the Catholic teaching is that when the elements are no longer composed like bread and wine (so when they dissolve) the body and blood of Christ are then no longer present because they can only be present under the composed elements. So, the body and blood of Christ do leave, but not when the Mass is over, but rather when the elements dissolve. I suppose a Lutheran etc. who holds to consubstantiation could argue that the presence leaves when the service is over, but that proclamation would seem questionable in my mind since it is without a precise causal explanation or a clear tradition.
A big argument Protestants have against the Papacy is the infallibility doctrine. This is understandable when most Protestants don't understand that infallibility does NOT mean perfect, and is only applicable to doctrine. There have been some very bad Pope's, even antipopes. One had six kids with four women, after he became a priest. One "sold" the Papacy. But these Pope's never had doctrine in error which was ultimately not corrected, or ignored by the faithful. In those cases, after the Pope dies, his views are corrected. This has happened a few times in history. So we see that even if a Pope has erroneous views, they ultimately fail to take root and are, like the Gospel says, "seed fallen on the road." This is one facet why Jesus promised the fires of hell will never compromise the Church fatally.
Yes, EXACTLY!!! 💯💯💯😁👍
@@tony1685 funny since I am studying the Bible and have come to the opposite conclusion. Yes happy sabbath & Sunday!
@@tony1685 so the Bible verses your quoted clearly state that only those who keep His commandments truly love Jesus. We are all sinners and have sinned from time to time, so all of us have at times not loved God. Thank God for Confession, by which we are absolved of our sins. So we all, even the various Popes throughout history, have on occasion strayed from the Truth and the Life and the Love of Jesus. And, as the prodigal son and other similar parables teach us, if we have a repentant heart, He will forgive us. So, does the Church walk in Truth? Occasionally, no. And we see there has never been a period in the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church has there never been controversy (indeed the various epistles warn of early heresies). But It always manages to learn, and grow past them, often times through Saints who in their lives pulled the Church out of the issues of the age. Notable one is St. Francis of Assisi (against opulence of the Church, which after his life went on an austerity reform), St. Thomas Aquinas (combating the "Protestant" heresies), and many others. We shall see how the current crises of sexual misconduct and ecumenism and schism with the Germans will be addressed, but I have faith that His Church will pull through it, as it has for 2000 years.
@@tony1685 As I said, sometimes it does (for example see the Arian heresy), but there are always people within the Church teaching the Truth (in the same example I believe it was St. Augustine who settled it) who end up convincing the Church of the Truth. So yes it is still His Church, because any errors get corrected. This is, as I said, part of what Jesus meant by Him saying Hell shall never fatally overcome His Church.
A more recent example is an encyclical by Pope Paul VI. He had asked his advisors what to make of contraceptives. When they came back with mixed opinions, thus communicating error, he rightfully corrected them. He wrote how contraceptives are basically the same as abortion due to how they work and he also referenced how in the OT God specifically said masturbation is an abomination, and sex with contraceptives is the same. No pope since then has written or taught otherwise because Paul VI's note is the Truth and is by now considered Tradition because it is rooted in Truth.
@@tony1685 Doctrine is only borne out of many years of debate and review and practice. Rare is the papal bull or council declaration of infallible truth which wasn't preceded by many years of debate. For example which books and letters were included in the Bible was fluid for the first 300 years or so, then was stable for 1200 years until in a fit of rebelliousness as expected of a reprobate as Martin Luther it was reduced to remove books which support Catholicism.
But can the Church have doctrine, given the definition above, in error? No. Can it have sinful leaders? Oh yes. There are bad priests and good priests, good Popes and bad Popes, faithful consecrated religious and not. They are all people, but God chose us to be the light and the salt of the earth. And where the salt loses its flavor will eventually be trodden down by man. As Jesus promised in the same chapter of Matthew you cited, His Church, even in times of great turmoil like what I mentioned and even in Acts and the letters, that His Church always triumphs in the end. Patience and seeking the truth is needed by the faithful. And the light will never be extinguished.
Cameron is right. Ortland's arguments are not that strong. He picks a view of Petrine authority that tends more extreme, and ignores evidence contrary to his position; from the confession, to the title "Rock," to the 'key holder,' to the early councils regarding the Bishop of Rome as the FIRST among equals, etc.. RAY ORTLAND is pushing very hard to dismiss ANY Petrine authority. And the fact that he appeals to Waldenses, et al? That's classic old Baptist nonsense that goes right along with the "scarlet thread of faith," allegedly stretching an "ancient Protestantism" down through the centuries! Ha! Some scholarship.
And who stood for the procession of the Holy Spirit? Not Protestants. Catholics! ...So, is Ray Ortland going to dispute the procession of the Holy Spirit? ...And will Ray Ortland stand in consensus with the first 7 ecumenical councils?
Have Scott Hahn Debate him
I don’t know that Hahn is the best option compared to Suan, who Cam hosted on this show to debate Gavin, or even Ybarra.
An example of Apostolic Succession is in Acts 1, where there Apostles choose a successor for Judas.
Peter even calls the position that Judas had an “office,” and that it had to be filled by another.
If Judas, who was the least of the Apostles, had an office that had to be filled, then so did the other 11 Apostles.
If you actually read Acts 1, you would know that Judas' successor had to be someone who had traveled with Jesus during his entire public ministry and was an eyewitness to the Resurrection. Peter also quotes from Psalm 109 where David writes about an accuser who is tried, condemned, and then replaced. Peter says the speaker of the Psalm is Jesus and that the accuser is Judas. He then says that someone should be appointed to take Judas' place just as David had written.
So even if Apostolic Successorship was a thing for everyone and not just Judas, nobody alive now fulfills the requirements to take the positions.
@@TamerSpoon3 and if you read 1 Timothy 3, you would see where St. Paul gives the real qualifications for the Apostles’ successors. And you’ll see that nowhere in that letter, nor in any of the other epistles, does it say that the bishops had to be eye witnesses of Jesus. Sorry, but your argument doesn’t work.
Replacing one apostle with another apostle is entirely different from the transmission of authority from an apostle to a bishop, which is what apostolic succession means. The former hardly counts as proof for the latter.
@@TruthUnites actually, no, it’s not different at all. The Greek word for “office” that is used in Acts 1 that refers to the position that Judas had is the same word for Episcopacy or “Bishopric” in English. The Apostles were the first bishops. And all of the other famous bishops of the first century, like Mark the Evangelist, Luke the Evangelist, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, etc, are all successors of the original 12 bishops - the Apostles. Apostolic Succession is crystal clear in Scripture.
True. And Acts 1 further disproves Petrine Papacy. Surely if Peter was the chief authority of the other 10, he would have simply appointed Judas' successor, no? Why would they pray, ask the Holy Spirit - and then draw lots of all things - for something so important, if Peter had all authority???
I would seriously consider reading Edward Denny's Papalism before going the direction of RCism.
Yes
I think one of the big reasons that there's more Catholic content than Protestant content is because some of the Catholic views really boil down to Protestants not being saved (stuff like the rejecting the Marian dogmas). On the other hand, many Protestants are okay with saying that Catholics are saved. That's at least been my experience debating Catholics online.
With that then comes an entirely different priority. Protestants don't need to debate Catholics other than for the sake of knowing truth. Protestants are more focused on general apologetics where the lost world is perishing. But if Catholicism is true and Protestants are not saved, then Catholics have evangelical reasons not just to save Protestants, but also defend their fellow Catholics from falling to Protestantism.
So the mission field to save the lost is different: the lost to the Protestant is the atheist, but the lost to the Catholic is the Protestant.
I largely agree to your point here actually but atleast some Protestants think Catholics have a different gospel i.e because of a works based system/sacramental, infusion of grace piecemeal etc and they think atleast potentially Catholics are part of the mission field while also simultaneously thinking a bigger priority is the atheists etc.
In my experience with Catholics it depends on who you ask regarding their stance on Protestants...the Vatican 2 "modernists" accept Protestants are atleast potentially saved i.e separated brethren or perhaps invincibly ignorant while atleast some trads or sedavacantist types hold to the old pre Vatican 2 "no salvation outside of the church" doctrine in a more literal rendering such that Protestants are not saved.
@@Adam-ue2ig Mormons tend to have that same attitude towards Protestants as traditional pre Vatican 2 Catholics.
@@Adam-ue2ig I definitely agree that some views on Protestant salvation does more depend on the individual Catholic. However, it can be hard in Catholicism to really defend your views if the church has to affirm such things. So it does seem as though most Catholics trying to accept Protestant salvation are kind of dancing on thin ice. Now, I don't know a whole lot of the deeper views and dogmas of Catholicism, but this is what I've noticed in the wrestlings of the layperson.
Regarding Protestants rejecting Catholic salvation, I do agree that this view can often be held as well. In fact, this is the view I was taught when I was younger, but I think my entire family came to reject this idea as we grew. The way I view it (and I feel like most Protestants would agree with this) is that there are many Catholics who do truly have a genuine relationship with Jesus, and are thus saved. But there are also a lot of Catholics with whom it is all empty religious practice lacking any genuine faith. But these two categories of genuine faith and empty religion are true of any denomination and creed. I think that ultimately, salvation is between the divine judge and the humble sinner. A man may not even know for 100% certainty rather his own wife is truly saved.
I’d like to pile onto Gavin’s response about inerrancy being defensible from scripture a reference from Paul in 2 Tim. Where he says that scripture is “profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God would be fully equipped” (vs 3:16) If Paul says that scripture is sufficient for teaching & correction, it seems like inerrancy is proven by the inverse. In other words, Paul would not instruct them to teach doctrine with error (which he calls out numerous times), but says that scripture’s use is for teaching and correction, presumably because it is trustworthy (without error.)
It says useful. But doesn't say sufficient. Useful toward the end of making the Christian fully equipped. Notice the person in question is already a "man of God."
I'm a Catholic convert (former Lutheran). And I had many objections/lack of faith towards the papacy and I found a book that really helped me clear up my doubts. It's called "Pope Fiction" By Patrick Madrid. In the book, Patrick debunks (I think around) 30 objections people have against the papacy. It's one of the books that were one of the final pushes to me converting to Catholicism. It's a really good read. 👍👍😁😁
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll look into it!
@@sotem3608 Your very welcome, I'm glad to help 😁😁👍👍
@@tony1685 I find it ironic that you call the Catholic Church the whore of Babylon when that is one of things Patrick debunks in his book.
@@tony1685 How exactly does the Catholic Church not know God and not walk in truth.
@@tony1685 Some verses from the Bible that support the papacy are (first obviously) Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 14:23-27, Matthew 17:24-27, Luke 5:1-10, Luke 22:24-32, John 10:16, John 21:1-17, Acts 1:15-26, Acts 10:1-48, Acts 15:1-2, Matthew 10:2.
If you would like a good explanation why these verses support the papacy, you can visit the Catholic Answers article, "The Papacy in Scripture: No Rocks Required".
And also why can't Christianity have a hierarchy? Judaism has a hierarchy, the current leader is Yitzhak Yosef who is the Shepardi Chief Rabbi. And many parts of Jewish life are under the jurisdiction of Chief Rabbis (i.e. the chief Rabbis are the ultimate authority, just like the Pope).
And even if the papacy isn't scriptural, having a leader is necessary for such a large group that Christianity is. If we never had a Pope/ultimate authority the Bible would be up to the interpretation of the individual and no one would know what the DEFINITIVELY CORRECT interpretation of scripture and church teachings are (i.e. complete chaos).
You also should probably read the book I recommended before spouting your easily refuted conspiracy theories.
And finally here is a video: ua-cam.com/video/6KV6PXSODgE/v-deo.html
How could Peter be infallible if Paul rebuked him?
Who holds the godly powers Jesus describes in Mathew 16 17 19?
Which protestant church can claim those powers?
Are those powers in effect or dead?
I am not Catholic fyi, but I don't think they believe Popes are infallible in everything they say.
@@TyranBattenyea I'm a Protestant and they only believe he's infallible Ex Cathedra