Dr Ortland this has to be one of the most important videos you’ve made to date. As a former Catholic, I struggle with assurance of salvation. Your video on assurance of salvation and this one are enormously comforting pastorally to me, and I’m sure there are many others who feel the same. Understanding that I can live in the presence of God day by day with the full assurance of salvation and his love made such a difference to my Christian life.
As a former Protestant and now a Catholic, I find his videos very misleading and close to heretical. He needs to be called out but what authority gets to determine that he is a false teacher?
@ryanmic - my friend, Jesus said 'go forth and sin no more' ; and Luther/Orland/protestants claims the opposite. Satan's' greatest triumph is convincing you to 'overlook' your sinning, rather than working-thru Christs Eternal-life-giving transformation of ones life thru His Sacraments of Eucharist and Penance which builds and strengthens transforming one's life rather than covering-up those weaknesses that perpetuate sin!
Perfect timing! My professor in History of Medieval Christianity at Yale has recently been teaching about the significant changes in the concepts of penance and confession, particularly since the Fourth Lateran Council. What you are presenting aligns well with the standard material I am learning in my classes.
@ElvisI97 Read primary sources of the Fathers: THE DIDACHE “Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]). THE LETTER OF BARNABAS “You shall judge righteously. You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify those that contend by bringing them together. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light” (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]). IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH “For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]). “For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop” (ibid., 8). IRENAEUS “[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. . . . Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses” (Against Heresies 1:22 [A.D. 189]). TERTULLIAN “[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness” (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]). HIPPOLYTUS “[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command” (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]). ORIGEN “[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, “To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity”’” (Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]). CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE “The apostle [Paul] likewise bears witness and says: ‘ . . . Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at the hand of the priest . . . they do violence to [the Lord’s] body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied him” (The Lapsed 15:1-3 (A.D. 251]). “Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . . confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. . . . I beseech you, brethren, let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord” (ibid., 28). “[S]inners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of Communion. [But now some] with their time [of penance] still unfulfilled . . . they are admitted to Communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the Eucharist is given to them; although it is written, ‘Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]” (Letters 9:2 [A.D. 253]). “And do not think, dearest brother, that either the courage of the brethren will be lessened, or that martyrdoms will fail for this cause, that penance is relaxed to the lapsed, and that the hope of peace [i.e., absolution] is offered to the penitent. . . . For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace is given” (ibid., 51[55]:20). “But I wonder that some are so obstinate as to think that repentance is not to be granted to the lapsed, or to suppose that pardon is to be denied to the penitent, when it is written, ‘Remember whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works’ [Rev. 2:5], which certainly is said to him who evidently has fallen, and whom the Lord exhorts to rise up again by his deeds [of penance], because it is written, ‘Alms deliver from death’ [Tob. 12:9]” (ibid., 51[55]:22). APHRAAHAT THE PERSIAN SAGE “You [priests], then, who are disciples of our illustrious physician [Christ], you ought not deny a curative to those in need of healing. And if anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public, lest because of it the innocent might be reckoned as guilty by our enemies and by those who hate us” (Treatises 7:3 [A.D. 340]). BASIL THE GREAT “It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist [Matt. 3:6], but in Acts [19:18] they confessed to the apostles” (Rules Briefly Treated 288 [A.D. 374]). JOHN CHRYSOSTOM “Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21-23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven” (The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]). AMBROSE OF MILAN “For those to whom [the right of binding and loosing] has been given, it is plain that either both are allowed, or it is clear that neither is allowed. Both are allowed to the Church, neither is allowed to heresy. For this right has been granted to priests only” (Penance 1:1 [A.D. 388]). JEROME “If the serpent, the devil, bites someone secretly, he infects that person with the venom of sin. And if the one who has been bitten keeps silence and does not do penance, and does not want to confess his wound . . . then his brother and his master, who have the word [of absolution] that will cure him, cannot very well assist him” (Commentary on Ecclesiastes 10:11 [A.D. 388]). AUGUSTINE “When you shall have been baptized, keep to a good life in the commandments of God so that you may preserve your baptism to the very end. I do not tell you that you will live here without sin, but they are venial sins which this life is never without. Baptism was instituted for all sins. For light sins, without which we cannot live, prayer was instituted. . . . But do not commit those sins on account of which you would have to be separated from the body of Christ. Perish the thought! For those whom you see doing penance have committed crimes, either adultery or some other enormities. That is why they are doing penance. If their sins were light, daily prayer would suffice to blot them out. . . . In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance” (Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15, 8:16 [A.D. 395]).
There exists no substantial change in the doctrine of penance. I've delved into that research myself. The ancient church always believed in this doctrine even though it has appeared in different forms at different times and societies. I was recently shocked to find Tertullian arguing in one of his writings against a schismatic who claimed to possess the powers to forgive sins like the Catholic church. This was as far back as the 2nd/3rd century Ad
@@Justas399 all you said is false. The New testament never abolished the priesthood. It replaced the old priesthood (the Levitical) with a superior one (the new priesthood of Christ) (Hebrew 7:12) Penance is declared by Christ to prepare us for entering the kingdom (Matthew 4:17) Confession for the forgiveness of sins is mandated because the power to forgive or retain sins in the name of God was communicated to the apostles by Christ as priests of the New covenant (John 20:22-23) and Divine delegates of Jesus who also forgave sins in the name of God while on earth (Mark 2:5-10) So I don't know what Bible you've been reading or how you've been reading it, but you need to stop being misled by others.
As a Roman Catholic considering Protestantism, I can honestly testify that the anxieties you speak of are real, at least they have been for me. It was the definition of certain things as mortal sins by the RC church that made me start questioning in the first place. Ultimately, this RC cycle of salvation had me so focused on particular sins and whether or not I was in a state of grace that I was ignoring other sins in my life and becoming a more self-centered person overall when I was supposed to be more sanctified. When it hit me that I was so steeped in sin and that nothing but faith in Christ and his sacrifice for me could ever justify me, I began actually WANTING to correct a whole swath of sins in my life and also began confessing them to the people they affected most. Thank you Dr. Ortlund for tackling this important issue with all the honesty and clarity that is so characteristic of all your videos. Praise be to Jesus Christ!
Clearly the Holy Spirit has been leading you, since it is his great work to convict us of the depths of our sin, but then show us the complete satisfaction for every one of them achieved by our Saviour, whose present intercession to the Father guarantees our forgiveness. Have you read Gavin's brother Dane's book "Gentle and Lowly"? I would **seriously** recommend it!
I honestly don't understand the issue, what changed between your previous understanding and your current one? Why didn't you want to correct your sinful behavior before? I don't really follow
I have been waiting for this video since I first started watching Truth Unites. Penance has been such a stumbling block to me. Really excited to check this out! Thank you Gavin!
This is very exciting. I am glad to see you moving this conversation forward and I cannot tell you how excited I am to hear your view on the Marian apparitions. Blessings, dear friend!
Thank you as always for your gracious yet straight forward presentations! I pray us Protestants can return to more historic practices we’ve strayed from and stay firm with the biblical truth we profess
@@TruthUnites You already instruct Christians to take fake Holy Holy Communion. Are you going to actively turn Christians away from Mother Mary's intercession and praying Her Holy Rosary as well?
I am a Lutheran, and my pastor offers private confession and absolution. I have used this when feeling overwhelmed by the guilt of a particular sin. It is a great comfort, and I wish more Protestant pastors specifically offered this and more Protestants took advantage of it
The problem with this in Protestant and Evangelical churches is that we are a bit too friendly with our clergy. They aren't our buddies and best pals, and they don't float above us as demi-gods either, but they are our fathers in the faith. If we are rightly able to accept a certain amount of separation and distinction in how their calling demands they walk in a strict manner of holiness (which frankly everyone ought to imitate, as Paul said, "Imitate me in how I imitate Christ"), then I believe we can benefit from having Confession.
@nightpixma Hello, Brad. I do understand reconciliation. It was achieved through Jesus' expiatory death: "and through him (Christ) to RECONCILE to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Colossians 1, 20 Regarding penance as an outward sign of remorse, yes, it's in Scripture. Penance as a means of forgiveness, it's not. Blessings on your evening.
@@georgegreen711I agree with this George and I think you put it really well. A pastor isn’t the guy who runs a church like a manager runs a store and he’s not just the guy who leads the service and gives a sermon, he is the shepard of the flock, and has pastoral responsibility for his congregation
Thank you for bringing M'Cheyne in, such an important quote that has brought peace to so many a bruised reed. Really appreciate the work you put into this video and how much your pastoral care comes through.
Hey Gavin, just wanted to say I really enjoy your videos and especially admire the tone with which you handle these topics. As a catholic, of course I disagree heavily with what you said but it humbles me that you're able to do this with such grace (pun intended)
As a Catholic I often appreciate and agree with many of Gavin's criticisms of Catholicism but I'm really with him on this one. My personal spiritual benefits derived from the Sacrament of Confession have just been to strong. It's really hard to accept the criticism that Confession diminishes baptism coming from someone who denies baptismal regeneration. From our point of view to treat baptism as "just a symbol" or some vague "sealing" is what actually diminishes baptism. Catholicism is very clear that every Sacrament flows from the grace of baptism - to say that our theology baptism is diminished seems unfounded. "Repent and turn back to your Baptism" while also believing "Your Baptism doesn't forgive your sins" in my opinion really neuters a lot of the points made here.
Hello, friend! I might suggest you look more into Dr. Ortlund's view of Baptism if you haven't already. He denies Baptismal regeneration as the primary means of grace, but his view is quite a bit more historic and sacramental than the view of it being "Just a symbol". I don't imagine it will utterly change whether or not you agree with him on this. But it might be nice to nuance his criticisms some more, because his historic Baptist view has a stronger link between baptism and salvation than the more modern language of symbolism. As somebody who agrees more with Dr. Ortlund, I really appreciate your respectful response. Blessings, dear friend!
@jtbasener1810 If it's not regenerative and it doesn't save, then what is left? What's higher than a mere symbolic view of baptism but lower than baptismal regeneration?
@@JacobWoods-f8zyou'll find that Ortlund will reject fundamental tenants of the faith, including the early church view of the Eucharist, and then use flowery language to make it sound like he still has a very strong and high regard for it. When in reality it is just an evangelical view
@JacobWoods-f8z I don't necessarily see a problem here. A sacrament could be a means of grace without being the full substance of salvation. If I am not mistaken, the historic Baptist view is that baptism is the outward completion of salvation, but not soley necessary to being transported from a state of spiritual darkness to one of spiritual light, while it does still contribute to that process.
Just started the video, but I really appreciate Dr. Ortlund’s positive affirmations of confession and penance. This is unfortunately too rare in many Protestant circles.
Brazilian Catholic here. I'm glad to see a video like this. You didn't misrepresent Catholic doctrine, not at all. I'd only add an answer to a question you've made: how do we know if a sin was mortal? "Full knowledge" means being fully warned. For example, if I'm enraged and feel the urge to beat someone out of anger (e.g., because of a serious offense), and then I remember it's a sin according to God's commandments. That's full knowledge. If I give space for wrath in my heart and take vengeance or desire evil towards this person, it's sin. It's not just the feeling of being angry. Feelings aren't sins in themselves. It's what you think, say or do about them. "Deliberate consent" means not being forced neither being driven by altered states of consciousness (like dreaming or being drunk). In a nutshell, for a sin to be mortal, you have to know it's mortal and still want to do it. And well, you're entering a very vast pastoral issue among Catholics. There are books and manuals written about it, that priests use to address each penitent that comes to confess. The other question you've made: how do we know if it was a perfect contrition? There can be various ways. In the Latin Church, we use a lot the meditation on the Passion of Christ. It's a very common spiritual exercise for it. Anyway, a contrition is imperfect when it's limited to being sad because you've lost heaven and deserve hell for sinning.
I people are criticizing you, they do not understand you at all. What you do here is very gracious and I enjoy the commentary. Just arguing to argue does not rally help grow the Kingdom of God. Keep up the great work!
I appreciate this video. When looking at the Catholic faith this is one of the areas I could never understand. Mortal vs venial and perfect vs imperfect contrition. These are not straight forward and all it does is lead people into wondering (like you said) did that sin rise to the level of mortal-was I contrite enough? I asked a priest one time (my husband is catholic- I am not)- what about automatic thoughts/mental health issues or even a adolescent/teenager who is experiencing hormonal and testosterone changes, how does that play a part into mortal sin. He straight up could not answer me. When a priest who has spent yrs studying to become one can’t answer that question there is a problem in my opinion.
They do make it more complicated than it needs to be. They have a convoluted formula for what constitutes a mortal sin, but different Catholic leaders might differ on the details of it. Why get all bean counting about what kind of sin you've committed? Confess, repent, be forgiven and works towards leading an ever more purified and effective life as a Christian.
It's wild to me that Trent binds with anathema the idea that the Catholic practice back to the apostles was secret confession to a priest while the Catholic catechism says that the private nature of the sacrament rose to prominance in the 7th century. Great video Gavin! Hope this brings people peace. Edit: Clarifying, the anathema was actually to the one saying that private confession to a priest is at variance with the institution of Christ, and the historic claim that it was the catholic practice from the beginning is used as support, not as part of the anathema itself. Still wild!
Nope . Even reading it closely, the Trent anathema doesn’t apply to that clause regarding historical practice just as a matter of grammar and syntax . Of course the fathers at Trent absolutely beloved it and they inserted that clause as “support” against the proposition being anathematized. But disbelieving that support is not being anathematized . Do you really think the authors /reviewers of the CCC weren’t aware of the decrees and anathemas of Trent ?
Good and informative video. I think it's perhaps worth mentioning that the Eastern Orthodox church has never made a distinction between mortal and venial sins.
Sure we do - go confess leering at women versus actually committing adultery and see what happens. Your opinion is just another instance of the all too common and naive, reactive anti-westernism that pervades modernist, pop "orthodoxy."
@Qwerty-jy9mj - To my knowledge, the Eastern Orthodox church has never made a formal distinction between mortal and venial sins. They distinguish between grave and less serious sins, but they do not have the idea that individual sins are serious enough to cause God to remove his justifying grace from believers. In fact, the Eastern Orthodox church does not really use terms such as 'justification' and 'sanctification' at all, but rather words like 'theosis' and 'deification', which are both akin to 'sanctification' in the West. This does not mean that the EOC believes in the 'once saved, always saved' doctrine - by and large they teach that one can lose one's salvation by rejecting the Holy Spirit through one's own free will.
@@Daniel_Miller300the Heidelberg Catechism also affirms that some sins are more grievous than others. Generally speaking its only some modern evangelicals who have an egalitarian understanding of sin. Most Christians theological and intuitively recognize a hierarchy of sin. The controversy arises when these distinctions result in two kinds of debt: eternal vs temporal. The latter being something that can be paid for by the penitent by doing penance and suffering in purgatory which most Christians (Protestants, EO, OO) rightfully reject.
Please pray for me. I've been having lots of ecclesial anxiety for several months and I feel like I don't know what's true and what's not anymore. Most of all, I'm worried about my salvation. Please pray for me. Thank you.
I'm an Anglican Priest, so let me speak to your anxiety: all who call upon the Name of the Lord will be saved. If you have put your faith in Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins you need not fear, for Jesus wil lose none that the Father has given him. It is the evil one who seeks to accuse us and divert our gaze from the cross to our own unworthiness. If you have any specific areas of concern, do say.
Even if the Catholic Church is the one true Church, you can still lean on God's mercy. God wants you to be saved, whether it's by an instantaneous justification by faith alone, or a life long commitment to Jesus, salvation is what God wants for you. That's why He sent His Son and that's why the Son laid down His life. You can put your trust in God's mercy and guidance. If you seek the Truth, you will find it. It's for you.
When I go through this, and it has become rarer and rarer, I remember the point of my rebirth. I know who I was, I know what I am now. I know what my thoughts were, I know what they are now. And I always remember how things changed, so suddenly, so instant, because I simply believed like a child, I confessed that I was a sinner,r and believed that Christ died to save me. I always go back to that night and see the clear proof of the miraculous change that God does in you when He puts a new heart with new desires. So remember your point also. We go up and down with our belief, we are like that father who said "I believe, help my unbelief". But one thing that stays firm and never changes is that point. So remember it and praise God.
You put I John 1:9 up on the screen at 52:25. I wish you had exposited this verse a bit. It is so crucial. I recite this verse in my prayers and rely on its wonderful promise daily. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." EVERYTHING we need regarding "penance" is right here. And remember, Hebrews teaches that each believer has immediate and direct access to the Throne of Grace and will find forgiveness there.
@ I think it was James White who pointed out that the early Catholic church didn't have Hebrews in its canon until sometime hundreds of years in. This would account for this crucial Hebrews teaching about forgiveness coming directly from God, being integrated into their sacramental system. I understand the sacramental system was very useful for a largely illiterate congregation back then. That's the strength of it for me, but of course it has drawbacks. It also springs from a very authoritian system that has far too much control over the flock and of course many abuses happened, when the church gets to claim it stands in the very place of God and that absolutely every matter of your salvation, forgiveness and contrition can only come through the Catholic church.
By the **third century** , St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote about the necessity of confessing sins to a priest for reconciliation with the Church. St. Cyprian of Carthage discussed the necessity of confessing sins to a priest in his work “On the Lapsed” (De Lapsis). In this treatise, he emphasized the importance of confession and penance for those who had lapsed in their faith, particularly during times of persecution. He also touched on this topic in his “Letter to the Clergy”, where he urged the faithful to confess their sins to the priests to receive absolution and reconciliation with the Church. Sheesh Gavin, learn how to use Copilot. took me two minutes to find the above!
Thank you, Dr. Gavin. As a Protestant who has been leaning more and more towards Catholicism, you've given me a lot to think about. Out of all the Catholic apologists, I am rooting for Erick Ybarra to offer a slow, thorough, and incremental response to your video. ( Erick, if you see this, I'll be glad to grovel a bit!) I know with him, he'll engage your content with the utmost of integrity and respect, and probably won't gloss over anything you said.
I was a Protestant for decades until I found the truth in the Catholic Church. Once I learned the history of Christianity, especially before the 1500, I knew there was 1 denomination, which was Catholicism. Now I don’t hopscotch from denominations to fit my wants.
One of the things that led to my deconstruction was how difficult it is to determine as a Catholic that you are making a good confession. For instance: in order to make a good confession, you must intend to avoid the near occasion of sin unless there is a serious reason to not avoid it. But what is a near occasion of sin? Is it a near occasion of sin to put yourself in a situation where there's roughly a 50-50 chance you will sin? Or does it not become a near occasion of sin until the chances of you sinning are notably higher than your chances of not sinning? It depends on which theologian you ask. What about justifying reasons for remaining in the near occasion of sin? How serious do the reasons need to be in order to justify you placing yourself in the near occasion of sin? It depends which theologian you ask. The anxiety that these questions caused me was so overwhelming that I forced myself to seriously reexamine my beliefs and leave Catholicism as a result.
@jmmvirta I did read Alphonsus. That is precisely what drove me to the point at which I arrived. If you go with what St. Alphonsus says, basically everything becomes a near occasion of sin.
@@patristicperspectives That is not correct. You should read his work on Conscience, and particularly on scrupulous conscience and mixed conscience, where a person thinks, that everything is a sin. In that case one should choose the lesser evil, and the person in that case does not sin.
Hey Dr. Ortlund, totally off topic. Could you make a video helping us understand the regeneration and grace and it being either irresistible or able to be resisted. Struggling and try to make sense. Also thank you for all your work!
I am curious on your thought from your statement that repentance should require hard work at 4:04. How have you seen this play out in a Baptist setting? Coming from a Baptist background and having gone through seminary I have always understood the difference to be largely based on the requirement of works in repentance vs penance. Can you give more details on the historical agreement of hard work in repentance? Would this not also be a second plank to what you discuss in minute 30?
I have to disagree here. I was protestant who converted to Catholicism and having regular confession and a place to go has given me the accountability to overcome sins that I never was able to overcome as a protestant. Having someone to talk to about my darkest moments and having absolution and guidance on prayer moving forward truly gave me more grace to be more Christ like. If you make confession optional, then people won't do it, as its embarrassing and humbling. Protestantism is really missing out on this element of the Christian life..
I think you heard Dr Ortland explained that there was nothing wrong with the idea of confessing us in this to each other. His concern is that people are comfortable that this is obligatory before they have formal forgiveness from God.
You use, as many RC do, the term "Protestants" when you really mean Reformed/Evangelical Christians like this pastor. Lutherans and Anglicans are "Protestants" but certainly have beliefs about penance and confession, including confession by saying an act of confession or by private confession and consultation to clergy.
You may have missed the point of the video. He clearly states that confession is good and should be done regularly. It just isn’t a sacrament and you it doesn’t have to be to a priest by mandate (though confess to a priest by all means if that’s helpful).
I"'m a Catholic and am reading Eric Metaxas' biography of Martin Luther. It's really good. I'd urge other non-Protestants to read this bio of Luther to understand how and why Protestantism got started. Generally, Catholics are just told that Luther was a crazy heretic, but there's more to the story.
Luther was a fallible human who fell into pride and self-assertive error. He wasn't a mass murderer but was used as a pawn by princes who definitely were.
Great video, Gavin. A couple of thoughts from a high-church Anglican perspective noting points of agreement and disagreement: -Agreed: Your critique of the system of merit and satisfactions is excellent. -Agreed: You rightly note that the alleged *necessity for salvation* of private confession to a priest for absolution for specific mortal sins is a late practice, and not accepted by the East in that particular mode. -Agreed: Christ forgives those who genuinely repent, with a firm purpose of amendment. Here would be some friendly pushback. Confession and absolution from a priest do really forgive sins in the economy of continual (not progressive) justification. The priest becomes the visible means through which God actually conveys and grants forgiveness (which he continually does invisibly on account of faith). And the priest alone is the only other mere human person who has the authority to really forgive sins in the name of Jesus Christ, with James and other passages interpreted in their ecclesiastical context. Public confession and absolution is sufficient for most "venial" sins (e.g. sins that don't cut one off from Christ). But for sins that actually do sever one from Christ--e.g. unrepentant sin, where someone commits to a course of sin which they know to be sin and then has no real desire or purpose unto amendment of life, and only comes to that purpose later--they should seek priestly absolution (though this isn't absolutely necessary to restore one's relationship with Christ, it is strongly recommended before taking the Eucharist)
Thanks for this comment. Does he mention the 'Eastern' approach at all in the video? (which isn't the same as what was canonized at Trent). I couldn't find it.
“I forgive the sins both of adultery and of fornication to those who have done penance.” - Pope Callistus, AD ~220. Did the bishop just make it up? It’s pretty early evidence! Probably goes back to the second century at least. Where did they get it? The fathers after Callistus tie it to binding and loosing.
Of the bishop, Hippolytus’s Apostolic Traditions says this in a prayer: “And let him have the power of high priesthood, to forgive sins according to your command…” AD 235
He just skips the importance of the Apostles' given the power to forgive sins. He seems to completely miss that Catholics do public confession of venial sins at every mass and only need to go to reconciliation 1 time a year to confess mortal sins. He is so caught up in minor details that he doesn't see the totality of the sacrament.
@@jessebartunek3195Gavin starts with the axiom that those human theories that Protestant revolutionaries started have to be correct, no matter what the evidence against them. Then he forces Scripture, the words of the Fathers, and the facts of history to fit into that schema.
@wondergolderneyes yep. Terrible argument though. We are clearly called to confess our sins and the Apostles were given the power to forgive sins or retain them. The successors of the Apostles then can apply it as seems fit based on the needs of the church. You have to prove that there is no Apostalic succession to show that they don't have the authority to dictate terms which is impossible given the appointing of Matthias in Acts. Gavin is questioning things as if Sola Scriptura were a given and at this point I think that is a completely untenable foundation.
I don’t feel uncertain under this theology. Yes, mortal sin is not a hard science. Because God is the judge. It’s somewhat open in cases of “perfect contrition” or judging culpability for a reason. Because God gets to say based on judging the heart. How do you know if your hate of your brother has crossed into mortal sin of a murderous heart against him? You know. You know, and God knows. People do, (Luther did) but we’re not supposed to be scrupulous about this theology. Just receive it as what it is: a tool for your relationship with God and His grace.
I would like some clarification on point 1 regarding the Protestant view of confession and penitence as necessary, because I do not think that is a typical Biblical Protestant belief. Some clarifications of my own; there is nothing wrong with confession or penitence, and in many cases they are explicitly good things to do, but they are not linked to the forgiveness of sins. The act of repentance, or 'turning away', is an aspect of 'the forgiveness of sins' only insofar as when we become Christians, as we cannot serve two masters, we must turn away from our old master, our old idols, Sin with a capital S; and instead start following God as our master. This does not mean we will not still do small 's' sins, we are not perfect; but it does mean that we are no longer living with those things as the most important thing in our life; a helpful example might be to frame what the idols could be, so imagine someone who lives first and foremost for money, or for sex, or even for their family; when they become Christians they must put Jesus first, God is now their master, the number one in their lives. Just as when sex was the most important thing in their life, they could still do other deeds, they could do something like feeding the poor; but ultimately sex was still their idol and what came first in their lives; when we become Christians, God is the number one in our lives, but that does not mean we will never sin again. As of writing this I am 37 minutes into the video, so perhaps there is more later; but in all of this time I have seen no mention of the blood of Christ (outside of one of the many quotes brought up briefly) as being necessary for forgiveness. Our forgiveness is not achieved by penitence, or by confession; it is achieved by Christ's sacrifice on the cross, that is what allows us to be forgiven. Christ takes away our sins, He is judged in our place, He dies the death that sin requires. This was explained clearly throughout the Old Testament; the wages of sin are death, and so when people sinned they had to make animal sacrifices. The death, the blood, the suffering; that was vividly shown to them with the deaths of those animals, and was a stark and horrific image that it is what they deserved. Their sins caused those deaths, caused that suffering and bloodshed. Likewise, our sins caused Christ's death, He was put on that cross for our sins. The good news is that He has now paid that debt, paid our ransom, taken on our sins and taken the deserved punishment in our place; and that He has risen in glory and triumph, conquered death itself, and ascended to heaven where He reigns as Lord and Master. There can be no venial or mortal sins, because any singular sin would damn us. All have fallen short of the glory of God, for God requires perfection. If we are to be judged in any way upon our own acts and deeds, we have no hope. If Christ did not take our punishment in full, then we are going to be punished. The Bible is clear. On that cross Jesus made us Holy, once for all. By that one sacrifice He has made us Holy forever. God will no longer remember our sins or lawless acts. This is all in Hebrews 10, very clear. It was finished on the cross, Christ paid it all, His death in our place has absolved us of our sins; the only requirement on our part is to believe in Him. We are saved by Christ alone, through Faith alone, by Grace alone. The necessity of penitence or confession would take away from the sufficiency of Christ's death on the cross; and the Bible is beyond clear that Christ's death was sufficient, that in that one sacrifice we were made holy, once for all.
Anyone else notice this pattern with Gavin? Disagree with formal definitions given by the church. Then offer his own version of “historic Protestantism” even tho he doesn’t offer a formal statement like the CCC provides. Then always makes mention that Protestants today have “fallen away”. But essentially excuses that completely
Yes. Gavin more and more just denies whatever he wants, basically on the grounds that it makes him feel personally “icky” then proceeds to define everything according to his own declarations. It’s just turned into the same thing these kinds of seemingly well-meaning Protestants inevitably turn into every time… an individual declaring that he has personally cracked the code on Christianity.
1:00 I am always genuinely confused what is meant by this by people who hold to predestination or double predestination. What do you mean by Christ has forgiven you and assurance of that? How can you have that assurance if Christ only died for the elect, and only called some to him through irresistible grace?
One who holds to predestination holds that God is mysteriously Sovereign over all things, including our decisions. It isn't a doctrine meant for discerning some secret of who was atoned for on the cross. Though we believe Christ did die for those who are written in the Book of Life, it is not for us to discern salvation by means of that doctrine. We are called to test fruit. Does a Christian give evidence of union with Christ. When determining this of another, it is speculative because we cannot perceive the heart with certainty. But we can perceive our own heart. In this case, we can test our own hearts and consider, what is my hope in? If it is in Christ, then you are in Christ. Thus you can have assurance, even if you believe that you were elected to be in Christ.
@joshuareeves5103 the issue is that you can easily apostatize later in life, which many Christians do. Which if you hold to Predestination and salvitic grace, means that you never had Christ. And in that case, did Christ ever forgive you for sins if he never had you written in the book of life? So no, even they don't know if they're saved. Unless they are prophets that can forsee their own future. It's all arbitrary and silly
The pre-destination view is just that if you are a Christian, as in you believe in Jesus, accept Him as your God and Saviour, and accept His sacrifice upon the cross as Him playing the role of the passover lamb that takes away your sins; then you are saved. If you believe in Jesus, and have the correct basic understanding of who Jesus is, you are one of the elect. Point of clarification: I say basic understanding not to anathematise any Christian, but because there are groups like Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses' or Muslims who would argue that they believe in Jesus, but their understanding of Jesus does not have Him as, for instance, uniquely divine, or they might deny that He died on the cross and therefore not have Him taking on their punishment; their 'belief in Jesus' is obviously nothing like the belief that Christians of any denomination have, and that is why I say 'basic understanding', I do not think we need to be too worried about whether or not we are Baptists or Lutherans or Presbyterians, and there will even be RCs and EOs and more who are saved, hopefully many, though at times I worry that they are following a different Gospel that denies the sufficiency of Christ, and based on what is taught in Galatians I'm worried that may render Christ worthless to them; but I do not know, and I also am sure there are many who do follow the true Gospel among them. Those who accept pre-destination would argue that if you could become apostate later in life; you must have never believed, you must not have truly understood, because it is not possible to have truly believed and fallen away. I'm not certain that is true, but I can follow that rationale, and can easily see how such people can have assurance of faith, because they know their own hearts and they know they truly do believe, and therefore they must be the elect.
I wish Dr Ortlund would show that the vast majority of evangelicals do not practice any sort of confession in the sense of the way the reformers defined it. I think the fact that Catholics, even if you disagree, still put a strong view on confession and repentance while our evangelical brothers disregard it as a simple prayer and you’re good for the rest of your life shows a deep flaw within the sect that Dr Ortlund resides, yet won’t make any comments on? If anyone can show me where I’m wrong I will recant
He's literally written a book called "theological retrieval for evangelicals". He has many critiques for the shallowness of protestant churches. You speak on what you do not know.
@@wondergolderneyes Matthew everhard wrote a book on worship abuses and he makes a ton of content about it. It’s cool Dr Ortlund wrote a book about it but the message is going to make far more engagement. I say this with the upmost respect for Dr Ortlund but unfortunately he’s apart of the problem. Talks all day about church history and liturgy yet goes to a non denominational church with a worship band and everything. He makes off hand comments about how evangelicals can do better at things and then has hours of videos critical of high church Protestants, catholic and orthodox views on things. Sometimes it just feels like he’s representing a false Protestant church that doesn’t exist.
I feel God fully knows me, so wouldn't really feel I need to confess to a priest, but can pray directly to God for forgiveness. But if I have wronged someone should apologise to them directly or correct a wrong I have done at a personal level. I am a protestant but could get confession at church I go to.
Greatly appreciate your work Gavin. I know that you are coming from a good place with your desire not to offend, and it’s something you say in many of your videos. However, do you think that offence is something to be so desperately avoided? Is it not inevitable in many cases? And Jesus didn’t seem to concerned with offending people as he spoke the truth with love?
So Gavin denies the churches authority to define anything… but even if he DID acknowledge their authority he personally disagrees anyway… but he ALSO disagrees with the way that many Protestant churches have gone with their view of repentance… and his conclusion is that people should just see it the way he personally declares it to be… So it’s just yet another individual declaring his personal interpretations to be true. Got it.
The Holy Scriptures may not be perfectly clear on exactly how everything works, but they thankfully are very clear on the purpose and consequence of Christ's death on the cross. As in, when the Bible says that we were made Holy by Christ's sacrifice once for all, and that God will no longer remember our sins or lawless acts, and that sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary; we can take it to mean that our sins are forgiven, that they were forgiven on the cross, that the sacrifice of Christ and His atoning blood is what saved us, and that anyone trying to tell you that: "ACTUALLY it's Christ's sacrifice + confession + penitence" is changing the Gospel. I'd recommend you read the London Baptist Confession of 1689 chapter 1 point 7. It outlines what I feel is a very reasonable Protestant take, that while not everything in the Bible is readily and easily understandable for an uneducated man, those matters that are required for salvation can be understood to a sufficient extent. Having read the Bible, I believe this to be the case, because the point is laboured in numerous places; that we are saved by Christ, particularly by Him playing the role of the passover lamb, dying as a sacrifice in our place, paying the wages of our sin which is death, and in that act He paid our ransom, paid our debt. We are told by Jesus on the cross that: "It is finished." We are further told that Christ's death made us holy once for all. That His death in our place is why we have been forgiven for our sins. The lay Christian may struggle with certain context-reliant expressions, perhaps something like the 'eye of the needle', if it was a gate, how would an Englishman in the 8th century know that it was a famous gate in Jerusalem? He could not, and it is not clearly explained in the Scriptures, so is likely to assume a more literal interpretation. He would not struggle with understanding how God saved him though, because if you read the Bible it is VERY clear, and it is explained, over and over again. To go a step further and explain why penitence and confession are not required for salvation; if they were, it would mean that Jesus did not pay our debt in full on the cross. If Jesus did not pay our debt in full on the cross, then we are not 'perfect' in the eyes of God. If we are not perfect, then we have fallen short of the glory of God, and therefore we have no hope. If we have fallen short of the glory of God, and do not have Christ, then we will not be with God in heaven, there will be no salvation, we will be damned. Our hope is in Jesus alone, and if He did not pay the wages of our sin in full; then we are doomed. Thankfully Christ's death was sufficient, we were made holy by His sacrifice once for all. While it may well be good and helpful to confess our sins, and perform acts of penance when we do wrong; those things do not save us, they do not cause us to be forgiven, because if they did it would mean that Christ was not sufficient for our salvation, and if Christ is not taking away the entirety of our sin; then we are damned. Thankfully, Christ did pay it all on that cross. He, like those sacrifices of old, died for our sins; He paid the price that we should have paid, He died the death that we should have died, and because of Him God will no longer remember our sins and lawlessness. He is our God and our Saviour, and He did it all, and then He rose in glory and triumph over death itself and lives and reigns in heaven forever; this is the Good News, the Gospel. Praise God!
"Doesn't need to be the pastor specifically..." And where are all these caveats in Scripture about confession as permitted to anyone? Go ahead find some passage to distort and contort to suit your foregone commitment to heresy.
As for the matter and form of the sacrament of penance in the New Testament: every single time Jesus says "Your sins are forgiven," whether in private or in public. What makes the priest's vocation ministerially different from the general priesthood of the faithful that we inherit in Christ, is that through the laying of hands by the bishop, the priest obtains the ability to act in the person of Christ. The "I absolve" you is the I of Christ. It is Christ who makes the absolution through the priest, as a sign of the conferring of grace. Christ healed with spit and mud, and He heals with the priest's words of absolution.
What do you think about offering confession followed by counseling and guidance instead of penance? You think it would be an acceptable service to offer to the congregation?
Even after Luther leaves the Catholic Church, he continued to do private confessions, though he removed their sacramental character. Is there going to be a video criticizing Lutheran understanding of contrition and forgiveness because they do private confession too?
Here my opinion though I recognize you didn't ask my opinion. (But hey, thats just the nature of UA-cam haha) First, Marriage existed prior to Christ. But Sacraments are instituted by Christ. Second, Sacraments are ment to convey salvation in some sense. In what sense does marriage convey salvation? Third, Sacraments are made available to all who are in Christ. Just as it would be tragic for one in Christ to not be Baptized or refused the Bread and Wine (as the Catholic Church did to the laity prior to the reformation), it is also true that if marriage were a sacrament, ALL should receive it. Yet many are called to singleness, and this is a good thing. Thus marriage is a great gift from God, but it shouldn't be considered a Sacrament.
The Bible says clearly you must confess your sins to each other. We choose a priest because the Bible says they have the power to bind and loose. Who do you confess to?
You emphasize the private nature of confession a lot even though it’s irrelevant. If the sacrament existed, is the claim that the church can’t make a contingent regulation that it be done in private? The Church doesn’t say that public confession is necessarily impermissible, right? So what’s the point of the emphasis here?
The point is that this sacrament is currently practiced secretly. IF this was handed down to us as a sacrament from Christ, it certainly was not handed down in this way. Even if one granted this were a sacrament, it was fundamentally changed from the way it was generally practiced from the beginning. Maybe an example would be if the eucharist were secretly celebrated in homes now or baptism was secretly practiced at homes apart from the congregation. The communal aspect regarding these practices are important aspects of the sacrament. If the church claims we can change a sacrament fundamentally from public to private, it undermines the claim that it is truly a sacrament. This is why he harps on this. Because even if not infallibly required as such, the practice on the ground still matters. If confession fundamentally handed to us from Christ as a sacrament, and was practiced communally, then what is being practiced today is not a sacrament as it has fundamentally changed.
@ That’s the question-there’s no reason why moving confession from public to private would affect the *priest’s* power to forgive-how could it? The priest either has that power or not, and it would be bizarre for it to escape him if a Christian seeking forgiveness sought it outside of Sunday service, say. The form of some sacraments are necessary and unchangeable, like the Trinitarian formula at baptism. But some are changeable subject to church regulation. For example, the earliest Christians gave the sign of peace with a kiss, but churches no longer maintain the practice; they give the sign of peace with a handshake.
Evidence that the priest usually exercised his power publicly in the early church does not entail that he lacked the power to do it privately, including in exigent circumstances or otherwise.
Trent specifies that private confession is the practice of the church from the beginning, which is clearly not true, and binds the Christian to believe it on pain of anathema.
@@TheRoark no, it says it existed at the beginning. To refute this point, it isn’t sufficient to point to sources that confirm the reality of public confession.
If you are pastorally concerned, then reach out to numerous former Protestants who have left Protestantism for Orthodoxy or Catholicism and ask them what confession has done for their spiritual lives. I am sure they'd jump at the opportunity to tell you.
There is nothing wrong w/ the formal form of confession where you confess to a priest in a sacramental system. It's just not necessary for forgiveness. We have a clear scriptural mandate that we can "go boldly to the throne of grace, for help in times of need". I know as a protestant that formal confession can be powerful. If you've ever seen the Ten Minute Bible Hour guy, who goes to all the different churches (sorry, his name escapes me ATM), he did formal confession w/ a priest he interviewed and got a church tour from. I think the first name is Matt, and he really admitted to feeling lighter after, to have that face to face confession experience, where he had a person as a sounding board and to affirm his forgiveness w/ concrete words, so to speak. But I have also felt just as lighter just by acknowledging my sin, admitting to it, and confessing it privately to God. That lightness and knowing that I'm fully absolved and forgiven can be as strong.
@mycattitude As a former Protestant I disagree but I understand where you're coming from. I think there's very good arguments to be made from the Bible and from history to support the Sacrament of Penance. From John 20 with Jesus giving the Apostles (men) the right to forgive and retain sins and then their authority being passed down to successors within Scripture (from Paul to Timothy and Titus, etc) to their successors so on and so forth. I think the evidence is quite overwhelming, if you don't, then there's probably nothing I can say to change your mind and that's fine. Heres some quotes from history pertaining to this issue: THE DIDACHE “Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]). THE LETTER OF BARNABAS “You shall judge righteously. You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify those that contend by bringing them together. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light” (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]). IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH “For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]). “For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop” (ibid., 8). IRENAEUS “[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. . . . Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses” (Against Heresies 1:22 [A.D. 189]). TERTULLIAN “[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness” (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]). HIPPOLYTUS “[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command” (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]). ORIGEN “[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, “To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity”’” (Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]). CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE “The apostle [Paul] likewise bears witness and says: ‘ . . . Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at the hand of the priest . . . they do violence to [the Lord’s] body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied him” (The Lapsed 15:1-3 (A.D. 251]). “Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . . confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. . . . I beseech you, brethren, let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord” (ibid., 28). “[S]inners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of Communion. [But now some] with their time [of penance] still unfulfilled . . . they are admitted to Communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the Eucharist is given to them; although it is written, ‘Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]” (Letters 9:2 [A.D. 253]). “And do not think, dearest brother, that either the courage of the brethren will be lessened, or that martyrdoms will fail for this cause, that penance is relaxed to the lapsed, and that the hope of peace [i.e., absolution] is offered to the penitent. . . . For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace is given” (ibid., 51[55]:20). “But I wonder that some are so obstinate as to think that repentance is not to be granted to the lapsed, or to suppose that pardon is to be denied to the penitent, when it is written, ‘Remember whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works’ [Rev. 2:5], which certainly is said to him who evidently has fallen, and whom the Lord exhorts to rise up again by his deeds [of penance], because it is written, ‘Alms deliver from death’ [Tob. 12:9]” (ibid., 51[55]:22). APHRAAHAT THE PERSIAN SAGE “You [priests], then, who are disciples of our illustrious physician [Christ], you ought not deny a curative to those in need of healing. And if anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public, lest because of it the innocent might be reckoned as guilty by our enemies and by those who hate us” (Treatises 7:3 [A.D. 340]). BASIL THE GREAT “It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist [Matt. 3:6], but in Acts [19:18] they confessed to the apostles” (Rules Briefly Treated 288 [A.D. 374]). JOHN CHRYSOSTOM “Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21-23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven” (The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]). AMBROSE OF MILAN “For those to whom [the right of binding and loosing] has been given, it is plain that either both are allowed, or it is clear that neither is allowed. Both are allowed to the Church, neither is allowed to heresy. For this right has been granted to priests only” (Penance 1:1 [A.D. 388]). JEROME “If the serpent, the devil, bites someone secretly, he infects that person with the venom of sin. And if the one who has been bitten keeps silence and does not do penance, and does not want to confess his wound . . . then his brother and his master, who have the word [of absolution] that will cure him, cannot very well assist him” (Commentary on Ecclesiastes 10:11 [A.D. 388]). AUGUSTINE “When you shall have been baptized, keep to a good life in the commandments of God so that you may preserve your baptism to the very end. I do not tell you that you will live here without sin, but they are venial sins which this life is never without. Baptism was instituted for all sins. For light sins, without which we cannot live, prayer was instituted. . . . But do not commit those sins on account of which you would have to be separated from the body of Christ. Perish the thought! For those whom you see doing penance have committed crimes, either adultery or some other enormities. That is why they are doing penance. If their sins were light, daily prayer would suffice to blot them out. . . . In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance” (Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15, 8:16 [A.D. 395]).
"I think you're already forgiven the night before you get baptized." I'm so glad to hear you say that. I've been working through the nature of baptism for quite a while now, and I'd be grateful if you'd hear me out. I'm not sure where you'd stand, but people usually disagree with me. I think we miss the mark with our understanding of material baptism, though. John the Baptist said, as quoted in all four gospels, "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you im the Holy Spirit and fire." - Matthew 3:11 (Mark 1:7-8, Luke 3:16, John 1:30-33). Jesus echoes this in Acts 1:5. This does not merely refer to Pentecost, as Peter refers back to this in Acts 11:16 when retelling tlhis ministry to Cornelius' house in the previous chapter. So what is this baptism in the Holy Spirit? It's a constant state of immersion in the living water Jesus described in John 4 to the woman at the well. It's a baptism that persists throughout our walk with him until the resurrection of our bodies - being birthed again, not born as in "carried" as Peter describes in 1 Peter 1. Being born again, as also Jesus explains to Nicodemus in John 3, is our baptism. And another understanding is "pray without ceasing" (1 Thessalonians 5:17), which is to be in constant dialogue with the Spirit of Love. So why the continuation of the immersion in material water, if spiritual water suffices? For the same reason that God called Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, only to stay his hand at the last second. It was never the external sacrifice of Isaac that was important, but rather the selfish possessiveness Abraham needed to overcome in order to raise the blade in the first place. Put broadly, it's as Jesus says to the Pharisees in Matthew 23:26 - "You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside may also be clean." The Pharisees mistakenly thought they could invoke Spiritual righteousness through material alignment. But Jesus rightly observes that it is the alignment of the Spiritual which invokes material acts of righteousness. "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." - Hebrews 10:4. So in essence, like the sacrifices of the old testament, the purpose of material water in baptism is to set our eyes on Spiritual things. "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clean conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" - 1 Peter 3:21
A key issue when arguing against Catholic doctrines is how we frame it and only then can the differences be properly understood. Thankyou Gavin for doing this, here and in most of your arguments you frame it well and honestly.
Maybe I am failing to see something, but it is amazing to me how Dr. Ortlund holds up clear evidence for sacramental penance in John 20:23 then effectively says "nothing to see here," and Protestants somehow buy this. I don't want to be uncharitable, but this is really how it looks to me. John 20:23 clearly and explicitly shows Our Lord giving the power to forgive or retain to sins to the Apostles. What is that if not judicial power? Is Jesus just giving the Apostles the power to recognize that God has already forgiven a penitent because he repented? No, that's clearly not what the text is saying. True, John does not explain all the details of how penance works and what is necessary for the form and matter of the sacrament. But that is an unreasonable standard of Scriptural proof to demand. Scripture is not much clearer about the details regarding the sacrements of baptism and the Eucharist, which Protestants believe in. In the great commision, for instance, Jesus just says "go out and baptize in the name..." Does the baptizer need to say "I baptize you," or can he say "we baptize you"? Is immersion necessary, or does sprinkling suffice? Is sincere repentence in the baptized necessary for the sacrament to be efficacious? Who can serve as a valid minister? Scripture does not clearly or explicitly answer these questions, which is one good reason not to believe in Sola Scriptura. Scripture also does not teach that a sinner can have assurance of salvation merely on account of faith and repentance, such that no other action is necessary. Dr Ortlund talks like this was the case all throughout the Old Testament, but Leviticus prescribed that people make offerings in atonement for sins, different kinds of sin recquired different offerings, and Levitical priests were involved in the process. Of course, the sacraments of the old covenant worked differently from the those of the New, but this OT practice nevertheless refutes Dr. Ortlund's idea that God simply forgave contrite sinners in the OT with no need for a system of penance, and then out of nowhere in the NT, according to RC teaching, Christ institutes a sacrament of penance.
To offer an alternate (though surely less educated than Dr. Ortlund) perspective, I don’t really see how anyone could reasonably arrive at the RC view of penance from John 20:23 unless they had already been taught the RC doctrine affirming it. The apostles definitely had a special relationship to Jesus that is very unique. But there are no apostles today, and there is nothing in the Bible that speaks of their special authorities being conferred to a perpetual and unbroken line of successors. The Bible also says that it is impossible for the blood of animals to take away sins.
@@anne.ominous Agreed, few people if anyone would be able to spell out all the Catholic doctrines about the matter and form of penance from John 20:23 alone, but nor would they be able to infer all the teachings which any given denomination accepts regarding baptism or the Eucharist. What's clear from John 20:23 is that Christ confers the power to forgive and retain sins to his Apostles, and that power, contra Dr. Ortlund, is judicial in nature. It would seem very odd for that commission to forgive and retain sins to end with the 12 Apostles, just as it would seem odd for the commission to celebrate the Eucharist ("do this in remembrance of me") to end with the Apostles, or for the commission to baptize to end with the disciples present at the time. We also know from Scripture that the Apostles appointed Church leaders to govern in their place, so it would only be logical to infer that these leaders would take on the function of forgiving and retaining sins. Generally speaking, the commands and sayings of Jesus recorded by the Gospel authors apply to us today just as much as they did to their original audience. As for sacrifices not having the power to forgive sins, yes this is true. The sacraments of the old covenant did not confer grace in themselves, yet the Jews still obtained grace by obediently availing themselves of them, and they foreshadowed the sacraments of the New covenant. Circumcision becomes baptism, the Passover lamb because the Eucharist, and sin offerings become the sacrament of penance. The point is that, contra Ortlund, penance would not be a rupture from OT practice, but just another example of a new sacrament replacing an old one. Further, offering sacrifice was necessary to obtain forgiveness in the OT inasmuch as failure to do so, by constituting an act of disobedience against God, would cut one off from the grace of forgiveness. Thus, Dr. Ortlund's description of how forgiveness worked in the OT is misleading: works were a necessary part of the process.
@ It’s only natural, I think, that when we encounter beliefs of which we ourselves are not personally convinced, that they may seem “very odd” to us. I expect that sentiment is shared on all sides, and that’s okay 😊 Scripture shows us that the church did practice baptism and the observance of the Lord’s supper, so we do have a textual basis for continuing these practices in the post-apostolic church age. However we don’t have any biblical teaching stating that shepherds/elders appointed to oversee local churches were given apostolic abilities like forgiving sins by proxy.
@anne.ominous You're right to point out that calling something "very odd" is not a strong form of evidence against it. So let me try to make the point more persuasively. There is no apparent reason why Christ would institute one means for the forgiveness of sins for the period during which the Apostles were living, namely a juridical sacrament of penance, and then another means to take effect after they died, namely automatic forgiveness of all sincere penitents. Such a transition in the means of forgiveness was not mentioned in the NT, and it seems completely arbitrary and senseless for God to set up the Church in this way. (Is "arbitrary and senseless" better than "very odd"?). So it is more reasonable to surmise that, since Christ gave the Apostles the power to minister this sacrament, as John 20:23 shows, the power would have passed to other appointed Church leaders. We know the Apostles appointed Church leaders who inherited some of their functions, so it's logical to think they inherited this function as well, and Church history bears witness to this at least as early as the 3rd century. Further, Christianity spread quite quickly within the lives of the Apostles, so even within their lifetimes, they would not have been able to forgive everyone's sins, given that there were only 12 of them. I have never heard any Protestant propose this idea of a temporary sacrament of penance exclusive to the Apostles, and my guess is that neither you nor Dr. Ortlund nor any other Protestant in the comments really believes this. I'd be interested to hear a real interpretation of John 20:23 from a Protestant perspective.
@@wynlararinue6866 In my view the transition would be evident in that there haven’t been any apostles for ≈2,000 years. I believe God bestowed special authority to the apostles, who laid the foundation of the church on the gospel of Christ, but I don’t see any apparent reason to believe that apostles have the authority to vest those powers in others. Those abilities were bestowed via God-to-man, and not man-to-man.
Honestly it troubles me deeply the state of my local church. I can see the pastor is concerned over things, but it's affecting his duties. He has said he's overworked, now I wonder if it is something deeper... He keeps mentioning how concerning the things in the world we are seeing, and I have no idea what he goes on about with all his side points. His opening illustration in his sermon yesterday evening wasn't anything to do with exposition, context, and the point wasn't explained.
I am looking forward to the rebuttals. They should be interesting. You do have a point though. Catholics have gotten better at backing w/ scripture, though they do tend to have a very different interpretation method. Sometimes the way they have to dig deep and make super long winded arguments, while ignoring really direct scriptures, reminds me of the super progressive arguments for homosexuality being ok. They of course have to ignore very black and white and simple directives, and dig deep to form their false and preferred doctrine. Shameless Popery parallelled this method when he did his video questioning if protestants ever have true worship. Of course the answer was that no, we don't, and they do, and the only true worship is through their version of Communion.
Catholic apologists simply turn to the Holy Spirit authenticated original sources, including scripture rightly interpreted, as free from Protestant bias and human error.
Confession needs a priest to offer absolution. Roman Catholic scholars like Fr Raymond Brown candidly admit that Jesus did not create a caste of priests. The New Testament nowhere uses the term 'hierus' to describe the office of a minister. This, in itself, should suffice to bring down the sacrament of Penance as it evolved in Roman Catholic theology and practice. Thank you, Gavin!
"absolution" as a liturgical act is a priestly thing so it follows that it requires priests. But forgiveness of sins is broader than that and the Catholic Church has never taught that it requires anything other than a perfect act of contrition. So no, what you're saying isn't true.
I feel like one of the Catholics that continues to have me in consideration of the catholic sect of Christianity is a man named Sam Shamoun, would be cool if you could do some discussions inspired by some of his videos, much like you, he’s very thorough. Your awesome Gavin thanks for all your hard work and love, it’s helped me immensely 🫶🏽
His content changed drastically when he converted, his videos used to be explanations of Biblical passages and ideas but then it shifted to using the Bible to defend the Catholic position. No where in the years prior to his conversion did his videos elude to Catholicism, but now all the verses are proof text for it. It just seems like he is reading his new beliefs into the Bible in an attempt to justify his conversion rather than continuing to explore the Bible for what it is. Just my observation after watching him for a few years.
Michael Lofton made a video that maybe might help you see why some Christians are hesitant to platform Sam or see him as a spiritual leader. ua-cam.com/users/liveRP65_CIAtSY?si=8MmtBPQFaE_n7G9Z
@@danillo.eu.rodriguesI got blocked on his channel for asking Sam a simple question about praying to Mary... he then called me a.demon and said my mother is a w h o r e ... that seems un Christian imo , but maybe I'm wrong? What would you say?
I am sorry but I must correct you here, but you quoted a snippet of the Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 6 out of context. Its not declaring absolution a judicial act. Catholics do not define absolution a judicial act. Everyone, please do a Google search to read the whole, short section. This section is asserting that no matter what bad state a priest is in, absolution comes from God. Additionally the penitent must not think that faith alone absolves him, contrition is required.
here is the broader context. It is explicit. Note what I embolden: "It [the council] teaches furthermore that even priests who are in mortal sin exercise, through the power of the Holy Ghost conferred in ordination,[36] as ministers of Christ the office of forgiving sins, and that the opinion of those is erroneous who maintain that bad priests do not possess this power. But although the absolution of the priest is the dispensation of another's bounty, yet it is not a bare ministry only, either of proclaiming the Gospel or of declaring that sins are forgiven, but *it is after the manner of a judicial act,[37] by which sentence is pronounced by him as by a judge.* The penitent, therefore, ought not so flatter himself on his own faith as to think that even though he have no contrition and there be wanting on the part of the priest the intention to act earnestly and absolve effectively, he is nevertheless really and in the sight of God absolved by reason of faith alone. For faith without penance effects no remission of sins, and he would be most negligent of his salvation who, knowing that a priest absolved him jokingly, would not diligently seek another who would act earnestly."
@TruthUnites so now that you've posted the whole thing, go line by line as to what it means. Note that no where else in the Council of Trent is "judicial act" used. How exactly is it being used here? Its not a definition but a description of the power of Christ through the priest.
@@Collins12246 any mention of judical act is in connection to Christ as judge, in whom the priest acts. But Christ says, neither do I accuse you. That is the judgment from Christ. Our absolution now renders us forgiven. Calling absolution/penance a judicial act carries with it the assumption that this is the character and definition of penance and it's sacrament. The priest does not have authority to judge the nature of the sins and there is no language in the Rite of the sacrament pronouncing judgment. At most, the priest can act as teacher in elucidate what is mortal and denial, but even in his training, he is commanded not to act in any way like a judge. So it is highly inaccurate to portray the Sacrament in such a way.
Hi Gavin, I've commented on a lot of your videos (and should probably go to confession for the amount of time I spend on the internet! Please forgive me if I am unkind or uncharitable.) I have another couple thoughts that I think are worth considering: 1. The definition of a sacrament. That definition is far too narrow to begin with, one of the big problems we Orthodox tend to have with western theology. We tend to be more "both and" people than "either or" people. Also, when I think of the sacrament of confession, it is so full of matter. You have the priest who is a representative of the bishop and therefore in that line of succession from the apostles (which I would argue is the matter in that verse in John. Also, Gavin, you don't consider anointing the sick to be a sacrament, and it is something we do see in the NT, and has matter. Is your issue with it that you don't see Christ establishing it? If so, what do you make of the argument that since James the Brother of the Lord is talking about it, there must be at least the possibility that Christ established it, even though it isn't in one of the gospels? 2. I would actually agree with you that in a lot of ways that very narrow definition of confession isn't quite right. 3. To your point about the Catholic teaching on confession producing unnecessary anxiety, I think that there can be a tendency toward what we Orthodox and the Catholics refer to as "scrupulosity", i.e. spiritual perfectionism. It is a problem and can be very unhelpful. You are right to point out the problem there, and that common pitfall. That being said, I think the Orthodox position on this is helpful because of that "both and" thing again. Something that is in our tradition (and in the Catholic tradition) is to do the best you can and trust God with the rest. I don't think we're that far apart on that score. 4. Penance, at least in Orthodoxy, is meant to point a person to repentance. You are right it shouldn't be considered a judicial punishment, but more like doing cardio when you have high cholesterol: it sucks at first, and can feel like punishment, but when you are healthy it will feel life-giving. Anyhoo, all the best!
Thanks for your input! However, what you just did was attach a definition of matter that doesn't exist in Scripture. this is exactly why Gavin is so diligent and careful. BTW, John 20:23 doesn't require historical verification per se, but your definitions do in fact require exegetical precedence. Did Jesus mean what Rome claims? spend more time on that.
@coreyfleig2139 Hey friend, I don't think the Bible works the way you think it works. It's not a western law textbook, it's a bit more mysterious and variegated than that. I don't think one can easily find a definition of what matter is in there because that's not its purpose. It needs to be interpreted, and I believe that that interpretation should be done by the Church which Christ established, and not by any one individual.
If you don't like penance why do you like the Council of Nicaea? Multiple of the canons of the council of nicaea assign penance for various lapses or sins. Especially for clergy who gave in to persecution. How could the council be authoritative about Christology and creeds but wrong about penance?
Only the RC and the various Orthodox churches accept ecumenical councils as infallible authorities (although they’ll disagree on which ones) but Protestants do not, therefore whatever is said that does not align with Scripture can be rejected because Scripture is the only infallible authority. Authorities can be fallible; pastors in Protestantism for example can tell their congregation to check everything preached in Scripture because although they are an authority they are fallible much like councils full of men
Gavin's message isn't against penance as a concept, but against the teaching that penance is judicially required for the forgiveness of sin, and without completing certain specific steps your sins can't be forgiven.
Matthew 7:22-23, “Many will say to me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name? Then I will declare to them solemnly, I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.” What went wrong? It is clear that these people were Christians because they received the gifts of the Holy Spirit; prophecy, mighty deeds e.t.c. Does Assurance have its limitations? And if it does, why take that risk?
Gavin doesnt want anathema for anything. Oh you should believe in the trinity but no another.. i believe in spiritual prescence but no anathema if you think it is just a symbol..
Either, Jesus-only instituted things or post-Jesus accretions. If Jesus-only, the following things are unnecessary or wrong: Tithing, ministers (pastors good, institution bad), any writ outside of good news spreading, gospel of John, Paul in totality, all church art & philosophy, etc.
I'm not Catholic or Orthodox, but I have spent years meditating on and memorising the New Testament and been in church leadership etc, and probably will become Orthodox at some point. All I can see and say is that when you draw such a sharp and (unscriptural) distinction (to the point of separation) between justification and sanctification, then you end up with false dichotomies and doing Scriptural gymnastics with certain texts which clearly, in context, point to the reality of the possibility of apostasy for a once saved (regenerate /born again - John 3 etc) person. For Salvation is not a thing - but a Person. And we simply must be continuing to be saved (1 Peter 1), in order that we might be found in him (Phil 3) and eventually be saved (Heb 9) Peace
Penance has a double edge. You need to trust the one to whom you confess. If I look from the other side, can I be a good unbiased judge if someone would confess to me. For some sins I can for others not. Since that is clearly true and universal, and since Jesus is trustworthy in all things, I can always confess to Him. Maybe someone already said,” always sinning; always confessing”. That’s only possible by constant relationship with Him.
Well, the sad reality is that James 5: 16 "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed.' is in some current liturgical books of Anglicanism but is almost unheard of and very rarely practised. To all intents and purposes, the practice of Confession died out at the time of the Reformation in the English church and her offspring overseas (what we now call the Anglican Communion). So discussions about the theology of this sacrament are largely irrelevant so far as Anglicans are concerned because it scarcely exists anymore. And I am sure the same is true for Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians/Reformed amongst others. So Gavin is comparing a supposedly faulty RC theology of confession with - in reality - nothing. After a lifetime in the Anglican Communion, I do not know a single Anglican - apart from myself, once - who has ever been to an Anglican confession. I wonder what the Orthodox theology of confession is, and how it compares with the RC one? Is that also faulty?
On John 14:12, Jesus extended a blank check to his followers. So, whatever the Catholic Church did is nothing compared to what "John's Jesus" allowed. Gavin, you have to admit that for John nothing is impossible, he can make God jump thru hoops on command.
All I know is that private confession works and apparently public confession doesn't. Look at the loss of confession and penance in almost all Protestant churches.
No, you do not “know that private confession works and public confession apparently doesn’t.” Lack of proper use doesn’t disprove efficacy in the thing not properly used. Try again.
Dr Ortland this has to be one of the most important videos you’ve made to date. As a former Catholic, I struggle with assurance of salvation. Your video on assurance of salvation and this one are enormously comforting pastorally to me, and I’m sure there are many others who feel the same. Understanding that I can live in the presence of God day by day with the full assurance of salvation and his love made such a difference to my Christian life.
As a former Protestant and now a Catholic, I find his videos very misleading and close to heretical. He needs to be called out but what authority gets to determine that he is a false teacher?
@ryanmic - my friend, Jesus said 'go forth and sin no more' ; and Luther/Orland/protestants claims the opposite.
Satan's' greatest triumph is convincing you to 'overlook' your sinning,
rather than working-thru Christs Eternal-life-giving transformation of ones life thru His Sacraments of Eucharist and Penance which builds and strengthens transforming one's life rather than covering-up those weaknesses that perpetuate sin!
Perfect timing! My professor in History of Medieval Christianity at Yale has recently been teaching about the significant changes in the concepts of penance and confession, particularly since the Fourth Lateran Council. What you are presenting aligns well with the standard material I am learning in my classes.
@ElvisI97
Read primary sources of the Fathers:
THE DIDACHE
“Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).
THE LETTER OF BARNABAS
“You shall judge righteously. You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify those that contend by bringing them together. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light” (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).
IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH
“For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]).
“For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop” (ibid., 8).
IRENAEUS
“[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. . . . Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses” (Against Heresies 1:22 [A.D. 189]).
TERTULLIAN
“[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness” (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).
HIPPOLYTUS
“[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command” (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).
ORIGEN
“[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, “To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity”’” (Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]).
CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE
“The apostle [Paul] likewise bears witness and says: ‘ . . . Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at the hand of the priest . . . they do violence to [the Lord’s] body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied him” (The Lapsed 15:1-3 (A.D. 251]).
“Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . . confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. . . . I beseech you, brethren, let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord” (ibid., 28).
“[S]inners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of Communion. [But now some] with their time [of penance] still unfulfilled . . . they are admitted to Communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the Eucharist is given to them; although it is written, ‘Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]” (Letters 9:2 [A.D. 253]).
“And do not think, dearest brother, that either the courage of the brethren will be lessened, or that martyrdoms will fail for this cause, that penance is relaxed to the lapsed, and that the hope of peace [i.e., absolution] is offered to the penitent. . . . For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace is given” (ibid., 51[55]:20).
“But I wonder that some are so obstinate as to think that repentance is not to be granted to the lapsed, or to suppose that pardon is to be denied to the penitent, when it is written, ‘Remember whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works’ [Rev. 2:5], which certainly is said to him who evidently has fallen, and whom the Lord exhorts to rise up again by his deeds [of penance], because it is written, ‘Alms deliver from death’ [Tob. 12:9]” (ibid., 51[55]:22).
APHRAAHAT THE PERSIAN SAGE
“You [priests], then, who are disciples of our illustrious physician [Christ], you ought not deny a curative to those in need of healing. And if anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public, lest because of it the innocent might be reckoned as guilty by our enemies and by those who hate us” (Treatises 7:3 [A.D. 340]).
BASIL THE GREAT
“It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist [Matt. 3:6], but in Acts [19:18] they confessed to the apostles” (Rules Briefly Treated 288 [A.D. 374]).
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM
“Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21-23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven” (The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]).
AMBROSE OF MILAN
“For those to whom [the right of binding and loosing] has been given, it is plain that either both are allowed, or it is clear that neither is allowed. Both are allowed to the Church, neither is allowed to heresy. For this right has been granted to priests only” (Penance 1:1 [A.D. 388]).
JEROME
“If the serpent, the devil, bites someone secretly, he infects that person with the venom of sin. And if the one who has been bitten keeps silence and does not do penance, and does not want to confess his wound . . . then his brother and his master, who have the word [of absolution] that will cure him, cannot very well assist him” (Commentary on Ecclesiastes 10:11 [A.D. 388]).
AUGUSTINE
“When you shall have been baptized, keep to a good life in the commandments of God so that you may preserve your baptism to the very end. I do not tell you that you will live here without sin, but they are venial sins which this life is never without. Baptism was instituted for all sins. For light sins, without which we cannot live, prayer was instituted. . . . But do not commit those sins on account of which you would have to be separated from the body of Christ. Perish the thought! For those whom you see doing penance have committed crimes, either adultery or some other enormities. That is why they are doing penance. If their sins were light, daily prayer would suffice to blot them out. . . . In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance” (Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15, 8:16 [A.D. 395]).
There exists no substantial change in the doctrine of penance. I've delved into that research myself.
The ancient church always believed in this doctrine even though it has appeared in different forms at different times and societies.
I was recently shocked to find Tertullian arguing in one of his writings against a schismatic who claimed to possess the powers to forgive sins like the Catholic church. This was as far back as the 2nd/3rd century Ad
@@EzinwaChibuzorwhat matters is what the New Testament teaches. No penance. No confession to priests in the New Testament.
@@Justas399typical protestant denial based on a shallow understanding of scripture...
@@Justas399 all you said is false.
The New testament never abolished the priesthood. It replaced the old priesthood (the Levitical) with a superior one (the new priesthood of Christ) (Hebrew 7:12)
Penance is declared by Christ to prepare us for entering the kingdom (Matthew 4:17)
Confession for the forgiveness of sins is mandated because the power to forgive or retain sins in the name of God was communicated to the apostles by Christ as priests of the New covenant (John 20:22-23) and Divine delegates of Jesus who also forgave sins in the name of God while on earth (Mark 2:5-10)
So I don't know what Bible you've been reading or how you've been reading it, but you need to stop being misled by others.
As a Roman Catholic considering Protestantism, I can honestly testify that the anxieties you speak of are real, at least they have been for me. It was the definition of certain things as mortal sins by the RC church that made me start questioning in the first place. Ultimately, this RC cycle of salvation had me so focused on particular sins and whether or not I was in a state of grace that I was ignoring other sins in my life and becoming a more self-centered person overall when I was supposed to be more sanctified. When it hit me that I was so steeped in sin and that nothing but faith in Christ and his sacrifice for me could ever justify me, I began actually WANTING to correct a whole swath of sins in my life and also began confessing them to the people they affected most. Thank you Dr. Ortlund for tackling this important issue with all the honesty and clarity that is so characteristic of all your videos. Praise be to Jesus Christ!
Clearly the Holy Spirit has been leading you, since it is his great work to convict us of the depths of our sin, but then show us the complete satisfaction for every one of them achieved by our Saviour, whose present intercession to the Father guarantees our forgiveness. Have you read Gavin's brother Dane's book "Gentle and Lowly"? I would **seriously** recommend it!
Very encouraging brother, thanks for sharing. From a Baptist, I'm praying that the Lord leads you wherever He wills!
I honestly don't understand the issue, what changed between your previous understanding and your current one? Why didn't you want to correct your sinful behavior before? I don't really follow
@ To what extent do you think we are capable of just "correcting our sinful behaviour"?
@@Crucian1
You believe you're incapable?
I have been waiting for this video since I first started watching Truth Unites. Penance has been such a stumbling block to me. Really excited to check this out! Thank you Gavin!
This is very exciting. I am glad to see you moving this conversation forward and I cannot tell you how excited I am to hear your view on the Marian apparitions. Blessings, dear friend!
Really loved the focus on the Gospel here. It's so wonderful, yet so simple. Praise Jesus.
Thank you as always for your gracious yet straight forward presentations! I pray us Protestants can return to more historic practices we’ve strayed from and stay firm with the biblical truth we profess
I have pneumonia…but a new video makes me happy!
hope you feel better soon!
@ We did Bible Quizzing all morning with the kids…everyone is sick!
Would you consider a video on apparitions of Mary?
@@jenniferboht961 I'm actually working on a script on a video on Marian apparitions right now.
@ thank you! I live close to The University of Notre Dame and the grotto is Lourdes. The video will be very helpful!
@@TruthUnites You already instruct Christians to take fake Holy Holy Communion. Are you going to actively turn Christians away from Mother Mary's intercession and praying Her Holy Rosary as well?
I would buy a "You guessed it, ANATHEMA!" hat in a moment. We need Truth Unites merch!!
Excellent video Gavin!
Thank you for all your hard work, it is very much appreciated. God bless!
I am a Lutheran, and my pastor offers private confession and absolution. I have used this when feeling overwhelmed by the guilt of a particular sin. It is a great comfort, and I wish more Protestant pastors specifically offered this and more Protestants took advantage of it
Only God can forgive sins.
The problem with this in Protestant and Evangelical churches is that we are a bit too friendly with our clergy. They aren't our buddies and best pals, and they don't float above us as demi-gods either, but they are our fathers in the faith. If we are rightly able to accept a certain amount of separation and distinction in how their calling demands they walk in a strict manner of holiness (which frankly everyone ought to imitate, as Paul said, "Imitate me in how I imitate Christ"), then I believe we can benefit from having Confession.
@@Maranatha99 way to expose that you don’t understand reconciliation and penance.
@nightpixma Hello, Brad. I do understand reconciliation. It was achieved through Jesus' expiatory death:
"and through him (Christ) to RECONCILE to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Colossians 1, 20
Regarding penance as an outward sign of remorse, yes, it's in Scripture.
Penance as a means of forgiveness, it's not.
Blessings on your evening.
@@georgegreen711I agree with this George and I think you put it really well. A pastor isn’t the guy who runs a church like a manager runs a store and he’s not just the guy who leads the service and gives a sermon, he is the shepard of the flock, and has pastoral responsibility for his congregation
Thank you for addressing these topics
Please continue to do these videos and challenging the body. Inspired me to dive deep
Hoooooooney the new video from Dr Ortlund is ready baby!
So excited to see a video on this topic! Thanks Gavin!
Your insight on baptism and the gospel was excellent. Never heard that before.
Best channel for the defense of Protestantism
Great video brother, keep up the good work.
All glory to Jesus, who from love sought after us to save us. That M'Cheyne quote brought tears to my eyes. God is using your ministry, Gavin
Definitely. I love hearing Gavin. Hes truly being led by God.
Thank you for bringing M'Cheyne in, such an important quote that has brought peace to so many a bruised reed.
Really appreciate the work you put into this video and how much your pastoral care comes through.
Hey Gavin, just wanted to say I really enjoy your videos and especially admire the tone with which you handle these topics.
As a catholic, of course I disagree heavily with what you said but it humbles me that you're able to do this with such grace (pun intended)
So grateful for your videos Dr Ortlund 😊
Great video Gavin - very important!
Gavin Ortlund has to be the most amicable person on the planet
@@gabrielrivera8822 - Certainly one of them. I agree.
AMEN, AMEN, and AMEN
The hype is real. I've been looking forward to this one.
sharp analysis as always ❤
Fantastic video. God bless you brother.
As a Catholic I often appreciate and agree with many of Gavin's criticisms of Catholicism but I'm really with him on this one. My personal spiritual benefits derived from the Sacrament of Confession have just been to strong.
It's really hard to accept the criticism that Confession diminishes baptism coming from someone who denies baptismal regeneration. From our point of view to treat baptism as "just a symbol" or some vague "sealing" is what actually diminishes baptism. Catholicism is very clear that every Sacrament flows from the grace of baptism - to say that our theology baptism is diminished seems unfounded.
"Repent and turn back to your Baptism" while also believing "Your Baptism doesn't forgive your sins" in my opinion really neuters a lot of the points made here.
Hello, friend! I might suggest you look more into Dr. Ortlund's view of Baptism if you haven't already. He denies Baptismal regeneration as the primary means of grace, but his view is quite a bit more historic and sacramental than the view of it being "Just a symbol". I don't imagine it will utterly change whether or not you agree with him on this. But it might be nice to nuance his criticisms some more, because his historic Baptist view has a stronger link between baptism and salvation than the more modern language of symbolism.
As somebody who agrees more with Dr. Ortlund, I really appreciate your respectful response. Blessings, dear friend!
@jtbasener1810
If it's not regenerative and it doesn't save, then what is left? What's higher than a mere symbolic view of baptism but lower than baptismal regeneration?
@@JacobWoods-f8zyou'll find that Ortlund will reject fundamental tenants of the faith, including the early church view of the Eucharist, and then use flowery language to make it sound like he still has a very strong and high regard for it. When in reality it is just an evangelical view
@JacobWoods-f8z I don't necessarily see a problem here. A sacrament could be a means of grace without being the full substance of salvation. If I am not mistaken, the historic Baptist view is that baptism is the outward completion of salvation, but not soley necessary to being transported from a state of spiritual darkness to one of spiritual light, while it does still contribute to that process.
@@JacobWoods-f8z Perhaps it is better to look at Paul's explanation on the purpose of baptism.
Just started the video, but I really appreciate Dr. Ortlund’s positive affirmations of confession and penance. This is unfortunately too rare in many Protestant circles.
It's a low church problem
The dispute is about how it is done, I think.
Brazilian Catholic here. I'm glad to see a video like this. You didn't misrepresent Catholic doctrine, not at all. I'd only add an answer to a question you've made: how do we know if a sin was mortal?
"Full knowledge" means being fully warned. For example, if I'm enraged and feel the urge to beat someone out of anger (e.g., because of a serious offense), and then I remember it's a sin according to God's commandments. That's full knowledge. If I give space for wrath in my heart and take vengeance or desire evil towards this person, it's sin. It's not just the feeling of being angry. Feelings aren't sins in themselves. It's what you think, say or do about them.
"Deliberate consent" means not being forced neither being driven by altered states of consciousness (like dreaming or being drunk).
In a nutshell, for a sin to be mortal, you have to know it's mortal and still want to do it.
And well, you're entering a very vast pastoral issue among Catholics. There are books and manuals written about it, that priests use to address each penitent that comes to confess.
The other question you've made: how do we know if it was a perfect contrition? There can be various ways. In the Latin Church, we use a lot the meditation on the Passion of Christ. It's a very common spiritual exercise for it. Anyway, a contrition is imperfect when it's limited to being sad because you've lost heaven and deserve hell for sinning.
I people are criticizing you, they do not understand you at all. What you do here is very gracious and I enjoy the commentary.
Just arguing to argue does not rally help grow the Kingdom of God.
Keep up the great work!
Here before all the video responses arrive
hehe same
I appreciate this video. When looking at the Catholic faith this is one of the areas I could never understand. Mortal vs venial and perfect vs imperfect contrition. These are not straight forward and all it does is lead people into wondering (like you said) did that sin rise to the level of mortal-was I contrite enough? I asked a priest one time (my husband is catholic- I am not)- what about automatic thoughts/mental health issues or even a adolescent/teenager who is experiencing hormonal and testosterone changes, how does that play a part into mortal sin. He straight up could not answer me. When a priest who has spent yrs studying to become one can’t answer that question there is a problem in my opinion.
Catholics are so full of vain tradition they dont even understand it. Thats how Satan has them circling around like seals.
They do make it more complicated than it needs to be. They have a convoluted formula for what constitutes a mortal sin, but different Catholic leaders might differ on the details of it. Why get all bean counting about what kind of sin you've committed? Confess, repent, be forgiven and works towards leading an ever more purified and effective life as a Christian.
It's wild to me that Trent binds with anathema the idea that the Catholic practice back to the apostles was secret confession to a priest while the Catholic catechism says that the private nature of the sacrament rose to prominance in the 7th century. Great video Gavin! Hope this brings people peace.
Edit: Clarifying, the anathema was actually to the one saying that private confession to a priest is at variance with the institution of Christ, and the historic claim that it was the catholic practice from the beginning is used as support, not as part of the anathema itself. Still wild!
Nope . Even reading it closely, the Trent anathema doesn’t apply to that clause regarding historical practice just as a matter of grammar and syntax . Of course the fathers at Trent absolutely beloved it and they inserted that clause as “support” against the proposition being anathematized. But disbelieving that support is not being anathematized . Do you really think the authors /reviewers of the CCC weren’t aware of the decrees and anathemas of Trent ?
Good and informative video. I think it's perhaps worth mentioning that the Eastern Orthodox church has never made a distinction between mortal and venial sins.
Sure we do - go confess leering at women versus actually committing adultery and see what happens. Your opinion is just another instance of the all too common and naive, reactive anti-westernism that pervades modernist, pop "orthodoxy."
They do have one though
@Qwerty-jy9mj - To my knowledge, the Eastern Orthodox church has never made a formal distinction between mortal and venial sins. They distinguish between grave and less serious sins, but they do not have the idea that individual sins are serious enough to cause God to remove his justifying grace from believers.
In fact, the Eastern Orthodox church does not really use terms such as 'justification' and 'sanctification' at all, but rather words like 'theosis' and 'deification', which are both akin to 'sanctification' in the West.
This does not mean that the EOC believes in the 'once saved, always saved' doctrine - by and large they teach that one can lose one's salvation by rejecting the Holy Spirit through one's own free will.
@@Daniel_Miller300the Heidelberg Catechism also affirms that some sins are more grievous than others.
Generally speaking its only some modern evangelicals who have an egalitarian understanding of sin. Most Christians theological and intuitively recognize a hierarchy of sin.
The controversy arises when these distinctions result in two kinds of debt: eternal vs temporal. The latter being something that can be paid for by the penitent by doing penance and suffering in purgatory which most Christians (Protestants, EO, OO) rightfully reject.
@@ElvisI97 - Although some EO believe in toll houses, an intermediary realm between Heaven and hell.
Please pray for me. I've been having lots of ecclesial anxiety for several months and I feel like I don't know what's true and what's not anymore. Most of all, I'm worried about my salvation. Please pray for me. Thank you.
I'm an Anglican Priest, so let me speak to your anxiety: all who call upon the Name of the Lord will be saved. If you have put your faith in Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins you need not fear, for Jesus wil lose none that the Father has given him. It is the evil one who seeks to accuse us and divert our gaze from the cross to our own unworthiness. If you have any specific areas of concern, do say.
Even if the Catholic Church is the one true Church, you can still lean on God's mercy. God wants you to be saved, whether it's by an instantaneous justification by faith alone, or a life long commitment to Jesus, salvation is what God wants for you. That's why He sent His Son and that's why the Son laid down His life. You can put your trust in God's mercy and guidance. If you seek the Truth, you will find it. It's for you.
@@Crucian1well said!
@@Crucian1well said!
When I go through this, and it has become rarer and rarer, I remember the point of my rebirth. I know who I was, I know what I am now. I know what my thoughts were, I know what they are now. And I always remember how things changed, so suddenly, so instant, because I simply believed like a child, I confessed that I was a sinner,r and believed that Christ died to save me. I always go back to that night and see the clear proof of the miraculous change that God does in you when He puts a new heart with new desires. So remember your point also. We go up and down with our belief, we are like that father who said "I believe, help my unbelief". But one thing that stays firm and never changes is that point. So remember it and praise God.
Very helpful video. Personally I would have appreciated if Gavin had taken a few more moments to flesh out the meaning of John 20-23.
You put I John 1:9 up on the screen at 52:25. I wish you had exposited this verse a bit. It is so crucial. I recite this verse in my prayers and rely on its wonderful promise daily. "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
EVERYTHING we need regarding "penance" is right here.
And remember, Hebrews teaches that each believer has immediate and direct access to the Throne of Grace and will find forgiveness there.
Amen! So simple!
@ I think it was James White who pointed out that the early Catholic church didn't have Hebrews in its canon until sometime hundreds of years in. This would account for this crucial Hebrews teaching about forgiveness coming directly from God, being integrated into their sacramental system. I understand the sacramental system was very useful for a largely illiterate congregation back then. That's the strength of it for me, but of course it has drawbacks. It also springs from a very authoritian system that has far too much control over the flock and of course many abuses happened, when the church gets to claim it stands in the very place of God and that absolutely every matter of your salvation, forgiveness and contrition can only come through the Catholic church.
@@mycattitude Hebrews has always been in the Catholic canon. Which is the full 73 book canon, not missing any books like protestants.
I think a video on your take on assurance of salvation would be nice.
Come on Gavin, you need to put "Catholics can't possibly ever answer this" in the thumbnail 😂
As my wife says, "I have an answer for everything. It may just not be the right one."
By the **third century** , St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote about the necessity of confessing sins to a priest for reconciliation with the Church.
St. Cyprian of Carthage discussed the necessity of confessing sins to a priest in his work “On the Lapsed” (De Lapsis).
In this treatise, he emphasized the importance of confession and penance for those who had lapsed in their faith, particularly during times of persecution.
He also touched on this topic in his “Letter to the Clergy”, where he urged the faithful to confess their sins to the priests to receive absolution and reconciliation with the Church.
Sheesh Gavin, learn how to use Copilot. took me two minutes to find the above!
Thank you, Dr. Gavin. As a Protestant who has been leaning more and more towards Catholicism, you've given me a lot to think about.
Out of all the Catholic apologists, I am rooting for Erick Ybarra to offer a slow, thorough, and incremental response to your video.
( Erick, if you see this, I'll be glad to grovel a bit!)
I know with him, he'll engage your content with the utmost of integrity and respect, and probably won't gloss over anything you said.
I was a Protestant for decades until I found the truth in the Catholic Church. Once I learned the history of Christianity, especially before the 1500, I knew there was 1 denomination, which was Catholicism. Now I don’t hopscotch from denominations to fit my wants.
I have much respect for Erick Ybarra. I don't always agree with him but his humility and thoughtfulness are admirable.
49:17 I would love to see this video, my wife and I were having this conversation yesterday.
One of the things that led to my deconstruction was how difficult it is to determine as a Catholic that you are making a good confession.
For instance: in order to make a good confession, you must intend to avoid the near occasion of sin unless there is a serious reason to not avoid it. But what is a near occasion of sin? Is it a near occasion of sin to put yourself in a situation where there's roughly a 50-50 chance you will sin? Or does it not become a near occasion of sin until the chances of you sinning are notably higher than your chances of not sinning? It depends on which theologian you ask. What about justifying reasons for remaining in the near occasion of sin? How serious do the reasons need to be in order to justify you placing yourself in the near occasion of sin? It depends which theologian you ask.
The anxiety that these questions caused me was so overwhelming that I forced myself to seriously reexamine my beliefs and leave Catholicism as a result.
You should have read St. Alphonsus Liguori. His views on morals are safe.
@jmmvirta I did read Alphonsus. That is precisely what drove me to the point at which I arrived. If you go with what St. Alphonsus says, basically everything becomes a near occasion of sin.
St. Francis de Sales???
@@angelahull9064 what do you mean?
@@patristicperspectives That is not correct. You should read his work on Conscience, and particularly on scrupulous conscience and mixed conscience, where a person thinks, that everything is a sin. In that case one should choose the lesser evil, and the person in that case does not sin.
Hey Dr. Ortlund, totally off topic. Could you make a video helping us understand the regeneration and grace and it being either irresistible or able to be resisted. Struggling and try to make sense. Also thank you for all your work!
Given the number of evangelicals apparently converting to Orthodoxy, a video on the Orthodox theology of confession would also be timely.
In the Lord's prayer we ask for God's forgiveness... Crazy no one else got involved and God forgave anyways
I am curious on your thought from your statement that repentance should require hard work at 4:04. How have you seen this play out in a Baptist setting? Coming from a Baptist background and having gone through seminary I have always understood the difference to be largely based on the requirement of works in repentance vs penance. Can you give more details on the historical agreement of hard work in repentance? Would this not also be a second plank to what you discuss in minute 30?
Good video, you prepared well. You are stepping carefully through a minefield.
I have to disagree here. I was protestant who converted to Catholicism and having regular confession and a place to go has given me the accountability to overcome sins that I never was able to overcome as a protestant.
Having someone to talk to about my darkest moments and having absolution and guidance on prayer moving forward truly gave me more grace to be more Christ like.
If you make confession optional, then people won't do it, as its embarrassing and humbling. Protestantism is really missing out on this element of the Christian life..
I think you heard Dr Ortland explained that there was nothing wrong with the idea of confessing us in this to each other. His concern is that people are comfortable that this is obligatory before they have formal forgiveness from God.
He's not saying it's not useful or good. Just that it is not and never was a sacrament by definition.
You use, as many RC do, the term "Protestants" when you really mean Reformed/Evangelical Christians like this pastor. Lutherans and Anglicans are "Protestants" but certainly have beliefs about penance and confession, including confession by saying an act of confession or by private confession and consultation to clergy.
You may have missed the point of the video. He clearly states that confession is good and should be done regularly. It just isn’t a sacrament and you it doesn’t have to be to a priest by mandate (though confess to a priest by all means if that’s helpful).
Agreed 100!
I"'m a Catholic and am reading Eric Metaxas' biography of Martin Luther. It's really good. I'd urge other non-Protestants to read this bio of Luther to understand how and why Protestantism got started. Generally, Catholics are just told that Luther was a crazy heretic, but there's more to the story.
Luther was a fallible human who fell into pride and self-assertive error. He wasn't a mass murderer but was used as a pawn by princes who definitely were.
Great video, Gavin. A couple of thoughts from a high-church Anglican perspective noting points of agreement and disagreement:
-Agreed: Your critique of the system of merit and satisfactions is excellent.
-Agreed: You rightly note that the alleged *necessity for salvation* of private confession to a priest for absolution for specific mortal sins is a late practice, and not accepted by the East in that particular mode.
-Agreed: Christ forgives those who genuinely repent, with a firm purpose of amendment.
Here would be some friendly pushback. Confession and absolution from a priest do really forgive sins in the economy of continual (not progressive) justification. The priest becomes the visible means through which God actually conveys and grants forgiveness (which he continually does invisibly on account of faith). And the priest alone is the only other mere human person who has the authority to really forgive sins in the name of Jesus Christ, with James and other passages interpreted in their ecclesiastical context. Public confession and absolution is sufficient for most "venial" sins (e.g. sins that don't cut one off from Christ). But for sins that actually do sever one from Christ--e.g. unrepentant sin, where someone commits to a course of sin which they know to be sin and then has no real desire or purpose unto amendment of life, and only comes to that purpose later--they should seek priestly absolution (though this isn't absolutely necessary to restore one's relationship with Christ, it is strongly recommended before taking the Eucharist)
Thanks for this comment. Does he mention the 'Eastern' approach at all in the video? (which isn't the same as what was canonized at Trent). I couldn't find it.
Reconciliation ❤
Dr Ortlund, which Church Fathers talk about gospel assurance in the way that Protestants like yourself do? Thanks
“I forgive the sins both of adultery and of fornication to those who have done penance.” - Pope Callistus, AD ~220.
Did the bishop just make it up? It’s pretty early evidence! Probably goes back to the second century at least. Where did they get it? The fathers after Callistus tie it to binding and loosing.
Of the bishop, Hippolytus’s Apostolic Traditions says this in a prayer: “And let him have the power of high priesthood, to forgive sins according to your command…” AD 235
Satan was around in 220 AD too...trying to fool God's people.
Each argument against Catholic teaching gets weaker. I'm done, its time to go through RCIA.
He just skips the importance of the Apostles' given the power to forgive sins. He seems to completely miss that Catholics do public confession of venial sins at every mass and only need to go to reconciliation 1 time a year to confess mortal sins. He is so caught up in minor details that he doesn't see the totality of the sacrament.
@@jessebartunek3195Gavin starts with the axiom that those human theories that Protestant revolutionaries started have to be correct, no matter what the evidence against them. Then he forces Scripture, the words of the Fathers, and the facts of history to fit into that schema.
@jessebartunek3195 how the sacrament is practised today is irrelevant when the argument is against it being sacrament at all
@wondergolderneyes yep. Terrible argument though. We are clearly called to confess our sins and the Apostles were given the power to forgive sins or retain them. The successors of the Apostles then can apply it as seems fit based on the needs of the church. You have to prove that there is no Apostalic succession to show that they don't have the authority to dictate terms which is impossible given the appointing of Matthias in Acts. Gavin is questioning things as if Sola Scriptura were a given and at this point I think that is a completely untenable foundation.
I don’t feel uncertain under this theology.
Yes, mortal sin is not a hard science. Because God is the judge. It’s somewhat open in cases of “perfect contrition” or judging culpability for a reason. Because God gets to say based on judging the heart. How do you know if your hate of your brother has crossed into mortal sin of a murderous heart against him? You know. You know, and God knows.
People do, (Luther did) but we’re not supposed to be scrupulous about this theology. Just receive it as what it is: a tool for your relationship with God and His grace.
For the record, Baptist to Catholic convert here. 😊
I would like some clarification on point 1 regarding the Protestant view of confession and penitence as necessary, because I do not think that is a typical Biblical Protestant belief. Some clarifications of my own; there is nothing wrong with confession or penitence, and in many cases they are explicitly good things to do, but they are not linked to the forgiveness of sins. The act of repentance, or 'turning away', is an aspect of 'the forgiveness of sins' only insofar as when we become Christians, as we cannot serve two masters, we must turn away from our old master, our old idols, Sin with a capital S; and instead start following God as our master. This does not mean we will not still do small 's' sins, we are not perfect; but it does mean that we are no longer living with those things as the most important thing in our life; a helpful example might be to frame what the idols could be, so imagine someone who lives first and foremost for money, or for sex, or even for their family; when they become Christians they must put Jesus first, God is now their master, the number one in their lives. Just as when sex was the most important thing in their life, they could still do other deeds, they could do something like feeding the poor; but ultimately sex was still their idol and what came first in their lives; when we become Christians, God is the number one in our lives, but that does not mean we will never sin again.
As of writing this I am 37 minutes into the video, so perhaps there is more later; but in all of this time I have seen no mention of the blood of Christ (outside of one of the many quotes brought up briefly) as being necessary for forgiveness. Our forgiveness is not achieved by penitence, or by confession; it is achieved by Christ's sacrifice on the cross, that is what allows us to be forgiven. Christ takes away our sins, He is judged in our place, He dies the death that sin requires. This was explained clearly throughout the Old Testament; the wages of sin are death, and so when people sinned they had to make animal sacrifices. The death, the blood, the suffering; that was vividly shown to them with the deaths of those animals, and was a stark and horrific image that it is what they deserved. Their sins caused those deaths, caused that suffering and bloodshed. Likewise, our sins caused Christ's death, He was put on that cross for our sins. The good news is that He has now paid that debt, paid our ransom, taken on our sins and taken the deserved punishment in our place; and that He has risen in glory and triumph, conquered death itself, and ascended to heaven where He reigns as Lord and Master.
There can be no venial or mortal sins, because any singular sin would damn us. All have fallen short of the glory of God, for God requires perfection. If we are to be judged in any way upon our own acts and deeds, we have no hope. If Christ did not take our punishment in full, then we are going to be punished. The Bible is clear. On that cross Jesus made us Holy, once for all. By that one sacrifice He has made us Holy forever. God will no longer remember our sins or lawless acts. This is all in Hebrews 10, very clear. It was finished on the cross, Christ paid it all, His death in our place has absolved us of our sins; the only requirement on our part is to believe in Him. We are saved by Christ alone, through Faith alone, by Grace alone. The necessity of penitence or confession would take away from the sufficiency of Christ's death on the cross; and the Bible is beyond clear that Christ's death was sufficient, that in that one sacrifice we were made holy, once for all.
Anyone else notice this pattern with Gavin? Disagree with formal definitions given by the church. Then offer his own version of “historic Protestantism” even tho he doesn’t offer a formal statement like the CCC provides. Then always makes mention that Protestants today have “fallen away”. But essentially excuses that completely
Yes. Gavin more and more just denies whatever he wants, basically on the grounds that it makes him feel personally “icky” then proceeds to define everything according to his own declarations.
It’s just turned into the same thing these kinds of seemingly well-meaning Protestants inevitably turn into every time… an individual declaring that he has personally cracked the code on Christianity.
1:00 I am always genuinely confused what is meant by this by people who hold to predestination or double predestination. What do you mean by Christ has forgiven you and assurance of that? How can you have that assurance if Christ only died for the elect, and only called some to him through irresistible grace?
It's because they believe they're infallible
One who holds to predestination holds that God is mysteriously Sovereign over all things, including our decisions. It isn't a doctrine meant for discerning some secret of who was atoned for on the cross. Though we believe Christ did die for those who are written in the Book of Life, it is not for us to discern salvation by means of that doctrine. We are called to test fruit. Does a Christian give evidence of union with Christ. When determining this of another, it is speculative because we cannot perceive the heart with certainty. But we can perceive our own heart. In this case, we can test our own hearts and consider, what is my hope in? If it is in Christ, then you are in Christ. Thus you can have assurance, even if you believe that you were elected to be in Christ.
@@joshuareeves5103
Jesus died for all men.
@joshuareeves5103 the issue is that you can easily apostatize later in life, which many Christians do. Which if you hold to Predestination and salvitic grace, means that you never had Christ. And in that case, did Christ ever forgive you for sins if he never had you written in the book of life?
So no, even they don't know if they're saved. Unless they are prophets that can forsee their own future. It's all arbitrary and silly
The pre-destination view is just that if you are a Christian, as in you believe in Jesus, accept Him as your God and Saviour, and accept His sacrifice upon the cross as Him playing the role of the passover lamb that takes away your sins; then you are saved. If you believe in Jesus, and have the correct basic understanding of who Jesus is, you are one of the elect. Point of clarification: I say basic understanding not to anathematise any Christian, but because there are groups like Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses' or Muslims who would argue that they believe in Jesus, but their understanding of Jesus does not have Him as, for instance, uniquely divine, or they might deny that He died on the cross and therefore not have Him taking on their punishment; their 'belief in Jesus' is obviously nothing like the belief that Christians of any denomination have, and that is why I say 'basic understanding', I do not think we need to be too worried about whether or not we are Baptists or Lutherans or Presbyterians, and there will even be RCs and EOs and more who are saved, hopefully many, though at times I worry that they are following a different Gospel that denies the sufficiency of Christ, and based on what is taught in Galatians I'm worried that may render Christ worthless to them; but I do not know, and I also am sure there are many who do follow the true Gospel among them.
Those who accept pre-destination would argue that if you could become apostate later in life; you must have never believed, you must not have truly understood, because it is not possible to have truly believed and fallen away. I'm not certain that is true, but I can follow that rationale, and can easily see how such people can have assurance of faith, because they know their own hearts and they know they truly do believe, and therefore they must be the elect.
I wish Dr Ortlund would show that the vast majority of evangelicals do not practice any sort of confession in the sense of the way the reformers defined it. I think the fact that Catholics, even if you disagree, still put a strong view on confession and repentance while our evangelical brothers disregard it as a simple prayer and you’re good for the rest of your life shows a deep flaw within the sect that Dr Ortlund resides, yet won’t make any comments on? If anyone can show me where I’m wrong I will recant
I can't, because you are seeing reality for what it is. Gavin is alternately forcing the facts to fit his thesis.
He's literally written a book called "theological retrieval for evangelicals". He has many critiques for the shallowness of protestant churches. You speak on what you do not know.
@@wondergolderneyes Matthew everhard wrote a book on worship abuses and he makes a ton of content about it. It’s cool Dr Ortlund wrote a book about it but the message is going to make far more engagement. I say this with the upmost respect for Dr Ortlund but unfortunately he’s apart of the problem. Talks all day about church history and liturgy yet goes to a non denominational church with a worship band and everything. He makes off hand comments about how evangelicals can do better at things and then has hours of videos critical of high church Protestants, catholic and orthodox views on things. Sometimes it just feels like he’s representing a false Protestant church that doesn’t exist.
Anathema this... anathema that...
I feel God fully knows me, so wouldn't really feel I need to confess to a priest, but can pray directly to God for forgiveness. But if I have wronged someone should apologise to them directly or correct a wrong I have done at a personal level. I am a protestant but could get confession at church I go to.
14:10, Like the zoom in edit for emphasis.
Greatly appreciate your work Gavin. I know that you are coming from a good place with your desire not to offend, and it’s something you say in many of your videos. However, do you think that offence is something to be so desperately avoided? Is it not inevitable in many cases? And Jesus didn’t seem to concerned with offending people as he spoke the truth with love?
So Gavin denies the churches authority to define anything… but even if he DID acknowledge their authority he personally disagrees anyway… but he ALSO disagrees with the way that many Protestant churches have gone with their view of repentance… and his conclusion is that people should just see it the way he personally declares it to be…
So it’s just yet another individual declaring his personal interpretations to be true. Got it.
The Holy Scriptures may not be perfectly clear on exactly how everything works, but they thankfully are very clear on the purpose and consequence of Christ's death on the cross. As in, when the Bible says that we were made Holy by Christ's sacrifice once for all, and that God will no longer remember our sins or lawless acts, and that sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary; we can take it to mean that our sins are forgiven, that they were forgiven on the cross, that the sacrifice of Christ and His atoning blood is what saved us, and that anyone trying to tell you that: "ACTUALLY it's Christ's sacrifice + confession + penitence" is changing the Gospel.
I'd recommend you read the London Baptist Confession of 1689 chapter 1 point 7. It outlines what I feel is a very reasonable Protestant take, that while not everything in the Bible is readily and easily understandable for an uneducated man, those matters that are required for salvation can be understood to a sufficient extent. Having read the Bible, I believe this to be the case, because the point is laboured in numerous places; that we are saved by Christ, particularly by Him playing the role of the passover lamb, dying as a sacrifice in our place, paying the wages of our sin which is death, and in that act He paid our ransom, paid our debt. We are told by Jesus on the cross that: "It is finished." We are further told that Christ's death made us holy once for all. That His death in our place is why we have been forgiven for our sins.
The lay Christian may struggle with certain context-reliant expressions, perhaps something like the 'eye of the needle', if it was a gate, how would an Englishman in the 8th century know that it was a famous gate in Jerusalem? He could not, and it is not clearly explained in the Scriptures, so is likely to assume a more literal interpretation. He would not struggle with understanding how God saved him though, because if you read the Bible it is VERY clear, and it is explained, over and over again.
To go a step further and explain why penitence and confession are not required for salvation; if they were, it would mean that Jesus did not pay our debt in full on the cross. If Jesus did not pay our debt in full on the cross, then we are not 'perfect' in the eyes of God. If we are not perfect, then we have fallen short of the glory of God, and therefore we have no hope. If we have fallen short of the glory of God, and do not have Christ, then we will not be with God in heaven, there will be no salvation, we will be damned. Our hope is in Jesus alone, and if He did not pay the wages of our sin in full; then we are doomed. Thankfully Christ's death was sufficient, we were made holy by His sacrifice once for all. While it may well be good and helpful to confess our sins, and perform acts of penance when we do wrong; those things do not save us, they do not cause us to be forgiven, because if they did it would mean that Christ was not sufficient for our salvation, and if Christ is not taking away the entirety of our sin; then we are damned. Thankfully, Christ did pay it all on that cross. He, like those sacrifices of old, died for our sins; He paid the price that we should have paid, He died the death that we should have died, and because of Him God will no longer remember our sins and lawlessness. He is our God and our Saviour, and He did it all, and then He rose in glory and triumph over death itself and lives and reigns in heaven forever; this is the Good News, the Gospel. Praise God!
Great video so far! Have you ever addressed Catholic exorcism? I’d be very interested in your thoughts!
"Doesn't need to be the pastor specifically..." And where are all these caveats in Scripture about confession as permitted to anyone? Go ahead find some passage to distort and contort to suit your foregone commitment to heresy.
Wow you’re really charitable.
That's true. Rebuking sinners is an act of mercy. Read the Bible.
Don't worry just make sure the priest is there for Last Rites. Hopefully he makes it!
As for the matter and form of the sacrament of penance in the New Testament: every single time Jesus says "Your sins are forgiven," whether in private or in public. What makes the priest's vocation ministerially different from the general priesthood of the faithful that we inherit in Christ, is that through the laying of hands by the bishop, the priest obtains the ability to act in the person of Christ. The "I absolve" you is the I of Christ. It is Christ who makes the absolution through the priest, as a sign of the conferring of grace. Christ healed with spit and mud, and He heals with the priest's words of absolution.
What do you think about offering confession followed by counseling and guidance instead of penance? You think it would be an acceptable service to offer to the congregation?
Even after Luther leaves the Catholic Church, he continued to do private confessions, though he removed their sacramental character. Is there going to be a video criticizing Lutheran understanding of contrition and forgiveness because they do private confession too?
Its not sacramental and there are no anathemas attached to it so no.
He can do whatever he wants, he hasn't bound anyone's conscience or made it necessary for salvation
You should do a video on why you think marriage is not a sacrament. That if that is your opinion.
Here my opinion though I recognize you didn't ask my opinion. (But hey, thats just the nature of UA-cam haha)
First, Marriage existed prior to Christ. But Sacraments are instituted by Christ.
Second, Sacraments are ment to convey salvation in some sense. In what sense does marriage convey salvation?
Third, Sacraments are made available to all who are in Christ. Just as it would be tragic for one in Christ to not be Baptized or refused the Bread and Wine (as the Catholic Church did to the laity prior to the reformation), it is also true that if marriage were a sacrament, ALL should receive it. Yet many are called to singleness, and this is a good thing.
Thus marriage is a great gift from God, but it shouldn't be considered a Sacrament.
The Bible says clearly you must confess your sins to each other. We choose a priest because the Bible says they have the power to bind and loose. Who do you confess to?
You emphasize the private nature of confession a lot even though it’s irrelevant. If the sacrament existed, is the claim that the church can’t make a contingent regulation that it be done in private? The Church doesn’t say that public confession is necessarily impermissible, right? So what’s the point of the emphasis here?
The point is that this sacrament is currently practiced secretly. IF this was handed down to us as a sacrament from Christ, it certainly was not handed down in this way. Even if one granted this were a sacrament, it was fundamentally changed from the way it was generally practiced from the beginning. Maybe an example would be if the eucharist were secretly celebrated in homes now or baptism was secretly practiced at homes apart from the congregation. The communal aspect regarding these practices are important aspects of the sacrament. If the church claims we can change a sacrament fundamentally from public to private, it undermines the claim that it is truly a sacrament. This is why he harps on this. Because even if not infallibly required as such, the practice on the ground still matters. If confession fundamentally handed to us from Christ as a sacrament, and was practiced communally, then what is being practiced today is not a sacrament as it has fundamentally changed.
@ That’s the question-there’s no reason why moving confession from public to private would affect the *priest’s* power to forgive-how could it? The priest either has that power or not, and it would be bizarre for it to escape him if a Christian seeking forgiveness sought it outside of Sunday service, say. The form of some sacraments are necessary and unchangeable, like the Trinitarian formula at baptism. But some are changeable subject to church regulation. For example, the earliest Christians gave the sign of peace with a kiss, but churches no longer maintain the practice; they give the sign of peace with a handshake.
Evidence that the priest usually exercised his power publicly in the early church does not entail that he lacked the power to do it privately, including in exigent circumstances or otherwise.
Trent specifies that private confession is the practice of the church from the beginning, which is clearly not true, and binds the Christian to believe it on pain of anathema.
@@TheRoark no, it says it existed at the beginning. To refute this point, it isn’t sufficient to point to sources that confirm the reality of public confession.
I was under the impression that lutherans do believe in sacramental confession and absolution?
Yes, to my understanding. But not as required, and with a different understanding of what a "sacrament" is.
If you are pastorally concerned, then reach out to numerous former Protestants who have left Protestantism for Orthodoxy or Catholicism and ask them what confession has done for their spiritual lives. I am sure they'd jump at the opportunity to tell you.
There is nothing wrong w/ the formal form of confession where you confess to a priest in a sacramental system. It's just not necessary for forgiveness. We have a clear scriptural mandate that we can "go boldly to the throne of grace, for help in times of need". I know as a protestant that formal confession can be powerful. If you've ever seen the Ten Minute Bible Hour guy, who goes to all the different churches (sorry, his name escapes me ATM), he did formal confession w/ a priest he interviewed and got a church tour from. I think the first name is Matt, and he really admitted to feeling lighter after, to have that face to face confession experience, where he had a person as a sounding board and to affirm his forgiveness w/ concrete words, so to speak. But I have also felt just as lighter just by acknowledging my sin, admitting to it, and confessing it privately to God. That lightness and knowing that I'm fully absolved and forgiven can be as strong.
@mycattitude As a former Protestant I disagree but I understand where you're coming from. I think there's very good arguments to be made from the Bible and from history to support the Sacrament of Penance. From John 20 with Jesus giving the Apostles (men) the right to forgive and retain sins and then their authority being passed down to successors within Scripture (from Paul to Timothy and Titus, etc) to their successors so on and so forth. I think the evidence is quite overwhelming, if you don't, then there's probably nothing I can say to change your mind and that's fine. Heres some quotes from history pertaining to this issue:
THE DIDACHE
“Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).
THE LETTER OF BARNABAS
“You shall judge righteously. You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify those that contend by bringing them together. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light” (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).
IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH
“For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ” (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]).
“For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop” (ibid., 8).
IRENAEUS
“[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. . . . Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses” (Against Heresies 1:22 [A.D. 189]).
TERTULLIAN
“[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness” (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).
HIPPOLYTUS
“[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command” (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).
ORIGEN
“[A final method of forgiveness], albeit hard and laborious [is] the remission of sins through penance, when the sinner . . . does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord and from seeking medicine, after the manner of him who say, ‘I said, “To the Lord I will accuse myself of my iniquity”’” (Homilies on Leviticus 2:4 [A.D. 248]).
CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE
“The apostle [Paul] likewise bears witness and says: ‘ . . . Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at the hand of the priest . . . they do violence to [the Lord’s] body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied him” (The Lapsed 15:1-3 (A.D. 251]).
“Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . . confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. . . . I beseech you, brethren, let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord” (ibid., 28).
“[S]inners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of Communion. [But now some] with their time [of penance] still unfulfilled . . . they are admitted to Communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the Eucharist is given to them; although it is written, ‘Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]” (Letters 9:2 [A.D. 253]).
“And do not think, dearest brother, that either the courage of the brethren will be lessened, or that martyrdoms will fail for this cause, that penance is relaxed to the lapsed, and that the hope of peace [i.e., absolution] is offered to the penitent. . . . For to adulterers even a time of repentance is granted by us, and peace is given” (ibid., 51[55]:20).
“But I wonder that some are so obstinate as to think that repentance is not to be granted to the lapsed, or to suppose that pardon is to be denied to the penitent, when it is written, ‘Remember whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works’ [Rev. 2:5], which certainly is said to him who evidently has fallen, and whom the Lord exhorts to rise up again by his deeds [of penance], because it is written, ‘Alms deliver from death’ [Tob. 12:9]” (ibid., 51[55]:22).
APHRAAHAT THE PERSIAN SAGE
“You [priests], then, who are disciples of our illustrious physician [Christ], you ought not deny a curative to those in need of healing. And if anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public, lest because of it the innocent might be reckoned as guilty by our enemies and by those who hate us” (Treatises 7:3 [A.D. 340]).
BASIL THE GREAT
“It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist [Matt. 3:6], but in Acts [19:18] they confessed to the apostles” (Rules Briefly Treated 288 [A.D. 374]).
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM
“Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21-23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven” (The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]).
AMBROSE OF MILAN
“For those to whom [the right of binding and loosing] has been given, it is plain that either both are allowed, or it is clear that neither is allowed. Both are allowed to the Church, neither is allowed to heresy. For this right has been granted to priests only” (Penance 1:1 [A.D. 388]).
JEROME
“If the serpent, the devil, bites someone secretly, he infects that person with the venom of sin. And if the one who has been bitten keeps silence and does not do penance, and does not want to confess his wound . . . then his brother and his master, who have the word [of absolution] that will cure him, cannot very well assist him” (Commentary on Ecclesiastes 10:11 [A.D. 388]).
AUGUSTINE
“When you shall have been baptized, keep to a good life in the commandments of God so that you may preserve your baptism to the very end. I do not tell you that you will live here without sin, but they are venial sins which this life is never without. Baptism was instituted for all sins. For light sins, without which we cannot live, prayer was instituted. . . . But do not commit those sins on account of which you would have to be separated from the body of Christ. Perish the thought! For those whom you see doing penance have committed crimes, either adultery or some other enormities. That is why they are doing penance. If their sins were light, daily prayer would suffice to blot them out. . . . In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance” (Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15, 8:16 [A.D. 395]).
"I think you're already forgiven the night before you get baptized."
I'm so glad to hear you say that. I've been working through the nature of baptism for quite a while now, and I'd be grateful if you'd hear me out. I'm not sure where you'd stand, but people usually disagree with me.
I think we miss the mark with our understanding of material baptism, though. John the Baptist said, as quoted in all four gospels, "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you im the Holy Spirit and fire." - Matthew 3:11 (Mark 1:7-8, Luke 3:16, John 1:30-33). Jesus echoes this in Acts 1:5. This does not merely refer to Pentecost, as Peter refers back to this in Acts 11:16 when retelling tlhis ministry to Cornelius' house in the previous chapter.
So what is this baptism in the Holy Spirit? It's a constant state of immersion in the living water Jesus described in John 4 to the woman at the well. It's a baptism that persists throughout our walk with him until the resurrection of our bodies - being birthed again, not born as in "carried" as Peter describes in 1 Peter 1. Being born again, as also Jesus explains to Nicodemus in John 3, is our baptism. And another understanding is "pray without ceasing" (1 Thessalonians 5:17), which is to be in constant dialogue with the Spirit of Love.
So why the continuation of the immersion in material water, if spiritual water suffices? For the same reason that God called Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, only to stay his hand at the last second. It was never the external sacrifice of Isaac that was important, but rather the selfish possessiveness Abraham needed to overcome in order to raise the blade in the first place.
Put broadly, it's as Jesus says to the Pharisees in Matthew 23:26 - "You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside may also be clean." The Pharisees mistakenly thought they could invoke Spiritual righteousness through material alignment. But Jesus rightly observes that it is the alignment of the Spiritual which invokes material acts of righteousness. "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." - Hebrews 10:4.
So in essence, like the sacrifices of the old testament, the purpose of material water in baptism is to set our eyes on Spiritual things. "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clean conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" - 1 Peter 3:21
any church father inckuding aquinas can backup your statement?
Gavin can you discuss that OT Jewish believe what Penance means
A key issue when arguing against Catholic doctrines is how we frame it and only then can the differences be properly understood. Thankyou Gavin for doing this, here and in most of your arguments you frame it well and honestly.
Hey, I recognize you from my comment section!
@StudyisKey. Hi, Yes. I am a subscriber to your channel.
Tell my wife that 😂
Maybe I am failing to see something, but it is amazing to me how Dr. Ortlund holds up clear evidence for sacramental penance in John 20:23 then effectively says "nothing to see here," and Protestants somehow buy this. I don't want to be uncharitable, but this is really how it looks to me.
John 20:23 clearly and explicitly shows Our Lord giving the power to forgive or retain to sins to the Apostles. What is that if not judicial power? Is Jesus just giving the Apostles the power to recognize that God has already forgiven a penitent because he repented? No, that's clearly not what the text is saying.
True, John does not explain all the details of how penance works and what is necessary for the form and matter of the sacrament. But that is an unreasonable standard of Scriptural proof to demand. Scripture is not much clearer about the details regarding the sacrements of baptism and the Eucharist, which Protestants believe in. In the great commision, for instance, Jesus just says "go out and baptize in the name..." Does the baptizer need to say "I baptize you," or can he say "we baptize you"? Is immersion necessary, or does sprinkling suffice? Is sincere repentence in the baptized necessary for the sacrament to be efficacious? Who can serve as a valid minister? Scripture does not clearly or explicitly answer these questions, which is one good reason not to believe in Sola Scriptura.
Scripture also does not teach that a sinner can have assurance of salvation merely on account of faith and repentance, such that no other action is necessary. Dr Ortlund talks like this was the case all throughout the Old Testament, but Leviticus prescribed that people make offerings in atonement for sins, different kinds of sin recquired different offerings, and Levitical priests were involved in the process. Of course, the sacraments of the old covenant worked differently from the those of the New, but this OT practice nevertheless refutes Dr. Ortlund's idea that God simply forgave contrite sinners in the OT with no need for a system of penance, and then out of nowhere in the NT, according to RC teaching, Christ institutes a sacrament of penance.
To offer an alternate (though surely less educated than Dr. Ortlund) perspective, I don’t really see how anyone could reasonably arrive at the RC view of penance from John 20:23 unless they had already been taught the RC doctrine affirming it.
The apostles definitely had a special relationship to Jesus that is very unique. But there are no apostles today, and there is nothing in the Bible that speaks of their special authorities being conferred to a perpetual and unbroken line of successors.
The Bible also says that it is impossible for the blood of animals to take away sins.
@@anne.ominous Agreed, few people if anyone would be able to spell out all the Catholic doctrines about the matter and form of penance from John 20:23 alone, but nor would they be able to infer all the teachings which any given denomination accepts regarding baptism or the Eucharist.
What's clear from John 20:23 is that Christ confers the power to forgive and retain sins to his Apostles, and that power, contra Dr. Ortlund, is judicial in nature. It would seem very odd for that commission to forgive and retain sins to end with the 12 Apostles, just as it would seem odd for the commission to celebrate the Eucharist ("do this in remembrance of me") to end with the Apostles, or for the commission to baptize to end with the disciples present at the time. We also know from Scripture that the Apostles appointed Church leaders to govern in their place, so it would only be logical to infer that these leaders would take on the function of forgiving and retaining sins. Generally speaking, the commands and sayings of Jesus recorded by the Gospel authors apply to us today just as much as they did to their original audience.
As for sacrifices not having the power to forgive sins, yes this is true. The sacraments of the old covenant did not confer grace in themselves, yet the Jews still obtained grace by obediently availing themselves of them, and they foreshadowed the sacraments of the New covenant. Circumcision becomes baptism, the Passover lamb because the Eucharist, and sin offerings become the sacrament of penance. The point is that, contra Ortlund, penance would not be a rupture from OT practice, but just another example of a new sacrament replacing an old one. Further, offering sacrifice was necessary to obtain forgiveness in the OT inasmuch as failure to do so, by constituting an act of disobedience against God, would cut one off from the grace of forgiveness. Thus, Dr. Ortlund's description of how forgiveness worked in the OT is misleading: works were a necessary part of the process.
@ It’s only natural, I think, that when we encounter beliefs of which we ourselves are not personally convinced, that they may seem “very odd” to us. I expect that sentiment is shared on all sides, and that’s okay 😊
Scripture shows us that the church did practice baptism and the observance of the Lord’s supper, so we do have a textual basis for continuing these practices in the post-apostolic church age.
However we don’t have any biblical teaching stating that shepherds/elders appointed to oversee local churches were given apostolic abilities like forgiving sins by proxy.
@anne.ominous You're right to point out that calling something "very odd" is not a strong form of evidence against it. So let me try to make the point more persuasively.
There is no apparent reason why Christ would institute one means for the forgiveness of sins for the period during which the Apostles were living, namely a juridical sacrament of penance, and then another means to take effect after they died, namely automatic forgiveness of all sincere penitents. Such a transition in the means of forgiveness was not mentioned in the NT, and it seems completely arbitrary and senseless for God to set up the Church in this way. (Is "arbitrary and senseless" better than "very odd"?). So it is more reasonable to surmise that, since Christ gave the Apostles the power to minister this sacrament, as John 20:23 shows, the power would have passed to other appointed Church leaders. We know the Apostles appointed Church leaders who inherited some of their functions, so it's logical to think they inherited this function as well, and Church history bears witness to this at least as early as the 3rd century. Further, Christianity spread quite quickly within the lives of the Apostles, so even within their lifetimes, they would not have been able to forgive everyone's sins, given that there were only 12 of them.
I have never heard any Protestant propose this idea of a temporary sacrament of penance exclusive to the Apostles, and my guess is that neither you nor Dr. Ortlund nor any other Protestant in the comments really believes this. I'd be interested to hear a real interpretation of John 20:23 from a Protestant perspective.
@@wynlararinue6866 In my view the transition would be evident in that there haven’t been any apostles for ≈2,000 years. I believe God bestowed special authority to the apostles, who laid the foundation of the church on the gospel of Christ, but I don’t see any apparent reason to believe that apostles have the authority to vest those powers in others. Those abilities were bestowed via God-to-man, and not man-to-man.
Honestly it troubles me deeply the state of my local church. I can see the pastor is concerned over things, but it's affecting his duties. He has said he's overworked, now I wonder if it is something deeper... He keeps mentioning how concerning the things in the world we are seeing, and I have no idea what he goes on about with all his side points. His opening illustration in his sermon yesterday evening wasn't anything to do with exposition, context, and the point wasn't explained.
I can already smell the rebuttal videos from Catholic apologists watch them use the church fathers but not scripture ..
I am looking forward to the rebuttals. They should be interesting. You do have a point though. Catholics have gotten better at backing w/ scripture, though they do tend to have a very different interpretation method. Sometimes the way they have to dig deep and make super long winded arguments, while ignoring really direct scriptures, reminds me of the super progressive arguments for homosexuality being ok. They of course have to ignore very black and white and simple directives, and dig deep to form their false and preferred doctrine. Shameless Popery parallelled this method when he did his video questioning if protestants ever have true worship. Of course the answer was that no, we don't, and they do, and the only true worship is through their version of Communion.
Catholic apologists simply turn to the Holy Spirit authenticated original sources, including scripture rightly interpreted, as free from Protestant bias and human error.
Confession needs a priest to offer absolution. Roman Catholic scholars like Fr Raymond Brown candidly admit that Jesus did not create a caste of priests. The New Testament nowhere uses the term 'hierus' to describe the office of a minister. This, in itself, should suffice to bring down the sacrament of Penance as it evolved in Roman Catholic theology and practice. Thank you, Gavin!
If you think Jesus did not create a hierarchical role to forgive sins you need to reread the Gospels
"absolution" as a liturgical act is a priestly thing so it follows that it requires priests. But forgiveness of sins is broader than that and the Catholic Church has never taught that it requires anything other than a perfect act of contrition.
So no, what you're saying isn't true.
@@sixgunslime Please provide a proof text for this claim.
@ God is not "confined" to the sacrament of penance, normatively speaking it is necessary
For penance itself or being administered through a priest?
I feel like one of the Catholics that continues to have me in consideration of the catholic sect of Christianity is a man named Sam Shamoun, would be cool if you could do some discussions inspired by some of his videos, much like you, he’s very thorough. Your awesome Gavin thanks for all your hard work and love, it’s helped me immensely 🫶🏽
The dude is crazy. Definitely not a good resource.
@@KnightFel that jsut an ad hominem, why do you think he is crazy? what is his teology to make him crazy? can you actually be more helpful?
His content changed drastically when he converted, his videos used to be explanations of Biblical passages and ideas but then it shifted to using the Bible to defend the Catholic position.
No where in the years prior to his conversion did his videos elude to Catholicism, but now all the verses are proof text for it. It just seems like he is reading his new beliefs into the Bible in an attempt to justify his conversion rather than continuing to explore the Bible for what it is. Just my observation after watching him for a few years.
Michael Lofton made a video that maybe might help you see why some Christians are hesitant to platform Sam or see him as a spiritual leader.
ua-cam.com/users/liveRP65_CIAtSY?si=8MmtBPQFaE_n7G9Z
@@danillo.eu.rodriguesI got blocked on his channel for asking Sam a simple question about praying to Mary... he then called me a.demon and said my mother is a w h o r e ... that seems un Christian imo , but maybe I'm wrong? What would you say?
I am sorry but I must correct you here, but you quoted a snippet of the Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 6 out of context. Its not declaring absolution a judicial act. Catholics do not define absolution a judicial act. Everyone, please do a Google search to read the whole, short section. This section is asserting that no matter what bad state a priest is in, absolution comes from God. Additionally the penitent must not think that faith alone absolves him, contrition is required.
here is the broader context. It is explicit. Note what I embolden:
"It [the council] teaches furthermore that even priests who are in mortal sin exercise, through the power of the Holy Ghost conferred in ordination,[36] as ministers of Christ the office of forgiving sins, and that the opinion of those is erroneous who maintain that bad priests do not possess this power. But although the absolution of the priest is the dispensation of another's bounty, yet it is not a bare ministry only, either of proclaiming the Gospel or of declaring that sins are forgiven, but *it is after the manner of a judicial act,[37] by which sentence is pronounced by him as by a judge.* The penitent, therefore, ought not so flatter himself on his own faith as to think that even though he have no contrition and there be wanting on the part of the priest the intention to act earnestly and absolve effectively, he is nevertheless really and in the sight of God absolved by reason of faith alone. For faith without penance effects no remission of sins, and he would be most negligent of his salvation who, knowing that a priest absolved him jokingly, would not diligently seek another who would act earnestly."
@TruthUnites so now that you've posted the whole thing, go line by line as to what it means. Note that no where else in the Council of Trent is "judicial act" used. How exactly is it being used here? Its not a definition but a description of the power of Christ through the priest.
@@angelahull9064I'm a Catholic but I don't understand what you're saying exactly, to be honest
@@Collins12246 any mention of judical act is in connection to Christ as judge, in whom the priest acts. But Christ says, neither do I accuse you. That is the judgment from Christ. Our absolution now renders us forgiven. Calling absolution/penance a judicial act carries with it the assumption that this is the character and definition of penance and it's sacrament. The priest does not have authority to judge the nature of the sins and there is no language in the Rite of the sacrament pronouncing judgment. At most, the priest can act as teacher in elucidate what is mortal and denial, but even in his training, he is commanded not to act in any way like a judge. So it is highly inaccurate to portray the Sacrament in such a way.
@@angelahull9064 If he's not to act as judge, how does he decide to retain sins? Or forgive sins without acting as a judge?
Hi Gavin, I've commented on a lot of your videos (and should probably go to confession for the amount of time I spend on the internet! Please forgive me if I am unkind or uncharitable.) I have another couple thoughts that I think are worth considering:
1. The definition of a sacrament. That definition is far too narrow to begin with, one of the big problems we Orthodox tend to have with western theology. We tend to be more "both and" people than "either or" people. Also, when I think of the sacrament of confession, it is so full of matter. You have the priest who is a representative of the bishop and therefore in that line of succession from the apostles (which I would argue is the matter in that verse in John. Also, Gavin, you don't consider anointing the sick to be a sacrament, and it is something we do see in the NT, and has matter. Is your issue with it that you don't see Christ establishing it? If so, what do you make of the argument that since James the Brother of the Lord is talking about it, there must be at least the possibility that Christ established it, even though it isn't in one of the gospels?
2. I would actually agree with you that in a lot of ways that very narrow definition of confession isn't quite right.
3. To your point about the Catholic teaching on confession producing unnecessary anxiety, I think that there can be a tendency toward what we Orthodox and the Catholics refer to as "scrupulosity", i.e. spiritual perfectionism. It is a problem and can be very unhelpful. You are right to point out the problem there, and that common pitfall. That being said, I think the Orthodox position on this is helpful because of that "both and" thing again. Something that is in our tradition (and in the Catholic tradition) is to do the best you can and trust God with the rest. I don't think we're that far apart on that score.
4. Penance, at least in Orthodoxy, is meant to point a person to repentance. You are right it shouldn't be considered a judicial punishment, but more like doing cardio when you have high cholesterol: it sucks at first, and can feel like punishment, but when you are healthy it will feel life-giving.
Anyhoo, all the best!
Thanks for your input! However, what you just did was attach a definition of matter that doesn't exist in Scripture. this is exactly why Gavin is so diligent and careful. BTW, John 20:23 doesn't require historical verification per se, but your definitions do in fact require exegetical precedence. Did Jesus mean what Rome claims? spend more time on that.
@coreyfleig2139 Hey friend, I don't think the Bible works the way you think it works. It's not a western law textbook, it's a bit more mysterious and variegated than that. I don't think one can easily find a definition of what matter is in there because that's not its purpose. It needs to be interpreted, and I believe that that interpretation should be done by the Church which Christ established, and not by any one individual.
If you don't like penance why do you like the Council of Nicaea? Multiple of the canons of the council of nicaea assign penance for various lapses or sins. Especially for clergy who gave in to persecution. How could the council be authoritative about Christology and creeds but wrong about penance?
Link : www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm
Only the RC and the various Orthodox churches accept ecumenical councils as infallible authorities (although they’ll disagree on which ones) but Protestants do not, therefore whatever is said that does not align with Scripture can be rejected because Scripture is the only infallible authority. Authorities can be fallible; pastors in Protestantism for example can tell their congregation to check everything preached in Scripture because although they are an authority they are fallible much like councils full of men
Gavin's message isn't against penance as a concept, but against the teaching that penance is judicially required for the forgiveness of sin, and without completing certain specific steps your sins can't be forgiven.
@@calebhonegger3787 i understand all that. My point still stands. Read the canons of nicaea.
Matthew 7:22-23, “Many will say to me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name? Then I will declare to them solemnly, I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.”
What went wrong? It is clear that these people were Christians because they received the gifts of the Holy Spirit; prophecy, mighty deeds e.t.c. Does Assurance have its limitations? And if it does, why take that risk?
I'm glad the Roman Catholic Church in Middle Ages didn't have access to helicopters and bazukas to hunt down anyone they considered anathema.
Gavin doesnt want anathema for anything. Oh you should believe in the trinity but no another.. i believe in spiritual prescence but no anathema if you think it is just a symbol..
And that’s how you get “Cafeteria Christianity.”
Either, Jesus-only instituted things or post-Jesus accretions.
If Jesus-only, the following things are unnecessary or wrong:
Tithing, ministers (pastors good, institution bad), any writ outside of good news spreading, gospel of John, Paul in totality, all church art & philosophy, etc.
I'm not Catholic or Orthodox, but I have spent years meditating on and memorising the New Testament and been in church leadership etc, and probably will become Orthodox at some point. All I can see and say is that when you draw such a sharp and (unscriptural) distinction (to the point of separation) between justification and sanctification, then you end up with false dichotomies and doing Scriptural gymnastics with certain texts which clearly, in context, point to the reality of the possibility of apostasy for a once saved (regenerate /born again - John 3 etc) person. For Salvation is not a thing - but a Person. And we simply must be continuing to be saved (1 Peter 1), in order that we might be found in him (Phil 3) and eventually be saved (Heb 9)
Peace
Penance has a double edge. You need to trust the one to whom you confess. If I look from the other side, can I be a good unbiased judge if someone would confess to me. For some sins I can for others not. Since that is clearly true and universal, and since Jesus is trustworthy in all things, I can always confess to Him. Maybe someone already said,” always sinning; always confessing”. That’s only possible by constant relationship with Him.
Well, the sad reality is that James 5: 16 "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed.' is in some current liturgical books of Anglicanism but is almost unheard of and very rarely practised. To all intents and purposes, the practice of Confession died out at the time of the Reformation in the English church and her offspring overseas (what we now call the Anglican Communion). So discussions about the theology of this sacrament are largely irrelevant so far as Anglicans are concerned because it scarcely exists anymore. And I am sure the same is true for Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians/Reformed amongst others. So Gavin is comparing a supposedly faulty RC theology of confession with - in reality - nothing. After a lifetime in the Anglican Communion, I do not know a single Anglican - apart from myself, once - who has ever been to an Anglican confession. I wonder what the Orthodox theology of confession is, and how it compares with the RC one? Is that also faulty?
On John 14:12, Jesus extended a blank check to his followers. So, whatever the Catholic Church did is nothing compared to what "John's Jesus" allowed.
Gavin, you have to admit that for John nothing is impossible, he can make God jump thru hoops on command.
All I know is that private confession works and apparently public confession doesn't. Look at the loss of confession and penance in almost all Protestant churches.
"All" you know? So you can ignore Scripture and Church History?
No, you do not “know that private confession works and public confession apparently doesn’t.” Lack of proper use doesn’t disprove efficacy in the thing not properly used. Try again.