Does Church History Lead to Catholicism? (Joe Heschmeyer & Dr. Gavin Ortlund) 

Wow what a journey you are riding brother

Talk about full circle! God bless.

I'm so glad that the channel is helpful to you!

@C oh man... Pope Patchamama has quite a ring to it lol

Do you know who "they" are? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mhCmbTPdQ34.html

Ha! I must say, I fear for Joe then...

That was hilarious 👍👍😄

Gavin wins. The rest of us are not worthy!

Michael Lofton has entered the chat... in a qualified sense. 😜

@@MouseCheese2010 yes lol

Dr. Ortlund is fantastic

In my experience it's the average lay Catholic that barely studies either the bible or church history.

@Eduardo Rezende Most Protestants, including seminarians, don’t delve deeply into history. But the same can be said of Catholics. Even our popular apologists often have comparatively little background in history (and a lot of grounding in dogmatics and a partisan philosophy/worldview). Both sides cherry pick like crazy. Both come to wholly unsupported and unsupportable conclusions.

Let's be honest. Catholics don't study anything. But they do share out of context quotes of Church Fathers that they're convinced prove Catholicism but doesn't because they don't read it either. At least protestants read the bible.

While everyone is focused on church history and who has the correct answers, i focus on Christ.

I'd love to have Steve Ray on the channel!

@@GospelSimplicity can you get it done 😊

That's an interesting point!

So well said! I’m a Catholic convert from Presbyterianism and while my wife isn’t on the same page, after a couple years looking closely at the Catholic world, she acknowledges and appreciates precisely that physicality you’re pointing at.

This has been on my mind a lot lately. You put it perfectly into words something that has been nagging at me in my Protestant walk.

This is an underrated reply. Thanks for that insight.

Yes and Amen! It's the heart of the church, not just the intellectual, spiritual and physical, but the New Creation in Christ; to participate in the wonder of His peace and joy, forgiveness and life ... It's the treasure that sustains me in this world. The beauty of the absolution throws out my inclinations toward nilhism, and Christ's Body and Blood strengthen His Baptismal promises. The Incarnation is for me the beautiful centre and foundation of my faith. Which is why I long for the common union Christ prayed for, and mourn the schisms between our traditions. The talking past and the difference of language translation, if I dwell on the the communication breakdown, drives me insane. I just hope my synod will shake off the last remnants of the pietist dominance, stop looking to bapto-costals for advice and recover our so-called lutheran heritage, particularly the lazer focus on Christ's incarnation for us. These really are great conversations, love the 'cordiality' of all four. Thank God, Austin and Keith for the opportunity to listen.

Thanks Anna!

Please don’t remind us of Austin’s vitality!

Amen

Amen!

Amen!

All Christians have rights to practice as they choose.

Constanine's liturgy is how its sung in Orthodox Churches.

Glad to hear that!

Glad you enjoyed it!

It's my pleasure!

Glad you enjoyed it!

I'm so glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for your support Yousif!

Glad you enjoyed it!

It was our pleasure!

It was our pleasure!

Glad you enjoyed it Fr. Peter!

So glad you enjoyed it Mikki!

Tell me you don’t know what Reformed believe about real presence without saying you don’t know. P.S. I hope you brush up on the gospel, it’s been massively distorted

Thanks Colleen!

If you don't have much time, better cut right to the chase and read the bible

@@Volleyball_Chess_and_Geoguessr I would second this statement Romans, while simultaneously being quite thankful for this medium of learning while I do yard work, or house chores.

@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 There's definitely a time and place for lots of things.

So glad that you enjoyed it!

So glad you enjoyed it Jesse!

Glad you enjoyed it!

Thanks!

Our pleasure!

Thanks!

That’s a a great idea!

Glad you enjoyed it!

Glad you enjoyed it!

So glad you enjoyed it!

I see your comment is older, but I just want to heartily support it. I pray for unity and strive for it when engaging w/ Catholics. It can be a challenge w/ our doctrinal and ultimate authority differences, but our unity is always in Christ. He knew we would struggle w/ this, that's why there's so many reminders in scripture.

Thanks!

Wow! Thank you so much Colleen! I really appreciate that. God bless!

They’re fantastic! I did the video, but I did not make the audio (though that would be a fun project!)

I'm glad you enjoyed it!

The answer won't be entirely found in dialogue. Only the Holy Spirit can let the scales fall from the eyes to reveal the truth. Unless someone is asking for that revelation of the truth first, they won't be open to receive it from anyone, including the Holy Spirit.

My pleasure!

Church Fathers were all Catholic priests.

Glad you enjoyed it!

It was SO much fun. Hope you enjoy it!

@@GospelSimplicity Thank you!🙂

Glad you enjoyed it!

Thanks! I have seen that!

I can't find it either what is it called?

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks! They’re fantastic.

Interesting point

@joseph goemans I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here. Orthodoxy has never been something we put to majority vote. Athanasius is lionized by Catholics for being “contra mundum.” For taking the struggle into exile. For opposing the established, visible church hierarchy. St. Francis did so. Joan of Arc did so. Catherine of Siena helped heal the Great Schism by going to the Pope and opposing him to his face. It may have been 99/1 against Luther at first, but now it’s something closer to 65/35 (Catholic to Protestant). Truth is truth because you can show it to be so. Not because it is backed by authority or consensus. (Thomas Howard, a Catholic convert from Evangelicaism has said that as many as 9 out of 10 American Catholic parishes are not following official church teaching at all closely in many areas.)

Thanks!

Glad you enjoyed it! That would be fun to set that up!

The big and comforting thing for me when I don't understand or believe something the Catholic Church teaches, I just assume I'm wrong & submit. Is that humble or lazy ignorance. I don't think so b/c i almost always keep studying & reading until I seem to always understand & believe, rather than marching to the Church down the road. In fact, if I ever leave a Catholic Church for another Catholic Church in town, its b/c the priest himself has preached against a magisterial teaching.

I'm glad this gave you something to think about in future interactions!

Are you committed until the day you die because it's the TRUTH or because you'd stick with lies even if you knew they were lies? I had a Mormon also tell me there was no way she'd ever leave the Mormon church.

The papacy is not taught in the early church or the book of acts. Mary died as well since she needed forgiveness of sin.

@@wojo9732 This is why Lucifer rebelled against God. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-r8I8DDfewMU.html

Thanks!

Thank you so much!

Hoping to do more!

Thanks!

I thought that was a great analogy

My pleasure!

Interesting. Thanks for the quotations!

Also, whether she died or not has been dogmatically defined. The doctrine of the assumption proclaimed stated “When her earthly life was completed...”, and intentionally steered clear of defining whether or not she had died.

@@jamesskyles896 absolutely, though for anyone reading this - it is most certainly the mind of the Church and taught consistently by the papal magisterium that she did die. The main theological reason is for her co-passion (compassion) with Christ which, just like Christs passion was completed with death, so too was Mary's. We have to remember that when you see someone you love suffer, "a sword pierces your soul", Mary like any mother grieved for her Son and suffered greatly in her love for Him and thus the Church speaks about the fittingness of her death in her parallel passion. (As we know Mary is in the stations of the cross).

Hi Michael! Thanks for supplying those. I think Ephiphanius is referencing Elijah, not Mary, in that second quotation. Otherwise he'd be contradicting himself in the space of one chapter. Blessings to you.

@@TruthUnites Respectfully I am going to disagree, and by the way - great video, great talk - just had to mention epiphanius cause you brought him up a few times and naturally I think I have good cause to disagree, I'll just explain my case here and I'll just rest it here as well - feel free to respond, anyone else reading can decide for themselves.. So the doctrine of the assumption is clearly compatible with the fact that Mary died, not only did Pope Saint Pius XII say that she died multiple times in the encyclical with the ex-cathedra statement found here: www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html But he quoted another Father as well who teaches the assumption with the death of Mary. "Thus St. John Damascene, an outstanding herald of this traditional truth, spoke out with powerful eloquence when he compared the bodily Assumption of the loving Mother of God with her other prerogatives and privileges. "It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death." Paragraph 21 from the encyclical. So from my perspective, when Epiphanius is unsure of whether or not Mary dies, there is inherently no contradiction whatsoever of being unsure about her death, and being sure of her assumption, because clearly - as the Church teaches (albeit non-definitively but nevertheless consistently) Mary did die prior to her assumption. So if we read Epiphanius in section 78 he says: "If the Holy Virgin had died and was buried, her falling asleep would have been surrounded with honour, death would have found her pure, and her crown would have been a virginal one...Had she been martyred according to what is written: 'Thine own soul a sword shall pierce', then she would shine gloriously among the martyrs, and her holy body would have been declared blessed; for by her, did light come to the world." IF the Holy Virgin had died, so he is clearly UNSURE. And because both views, an assumption after death or an assumption prior to death are compatible, he is perfectly at liberty to express whether he thinks her body was assumed, dead or alive. The only question is whether he thought so, and I think we just need to read Epiphanius again, because he isn't referring to Elijah. "Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, she is like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up, but has not seen death." So Mary (like the bodies of the saints) has been held in honor for her (Mary's) character and understanding. And if I (Epiphanius) should say anything more in her (Mary's praise) she is like (similar to, another example of, a parallel to) Elijah who was a: A) Perpetual Virgin (just like Mary) B) Taken Up/Assumed (just like Mary). You are right he speaks about Elijah, but wrong that he predicates these attributes only of Elijah, instead he is comparing Mary to Elijah precisely because she shares these attributes, perpetual virginity, and assumption. The only attribute/parallel he is doubting is whether, like Elijah, she was assumed alive as opposed to dead (which if the Church has anything to say, it seems to be she was assumed after death). So he was right to be skeptical.

It’s coming!

Fair point

Hope you enjoy it! We had a blast

I think you’ll enjoy it!

Pope Peter was instrumental in developing my understanding of the Papacy

@@ryannafziger5158 yes it certainly rebuked a lot of the protestant objections to it.

Great book. I find its arguments very persuasive since they look at how Petrine leadership was assumed in the text itself.

So glad you enjoyed it!

I am going through the early church was Catholic and was honestly embarrassed for Joe. It may be the worst book I have read on Catholic claims. It made me wonder how anyone could possibly be Catholic . Joe struggles making coherent arguments.

@@jwatson181 Catholic* is the correct spelling (just a heads up for the future). That’s a very interesting viewpoint. Could you give some specific examples of flaws?

@@raydudo3672 Typo. One specific example is he misrepresents Jerry Walls. He makes it seem like Jerry claims Peter was never in Rome, Jerry thinks Peter was in Rome. I would chalk it up to ignorance, but straw manning opponents happens repeatedly throughout the book. Joe may be the worst Catholic apologist.

@@raydudo3672 Another example, the hiarchry of the early church. What was amazing, Joe's argument did not even follow from the premises. I suggest following more academic Catholic's. On a side note, imagine calling WLC a heretic?

Glad you enjoyed it! I'd be open to it in the future

You could almost call it an ecumenical council then 😂

Thanks for sharing these thoughts!

Nice!

"But having deposed the Authority of the Catholic Magisterium nothing has workably replaced it as the Protestant oracle" --Well said. Even by trying to examine what Church Father's believed, the protestant is still practicing surrogate individualism. The Catholic Church had/has Church councils to rectify this problem, whereas protestants do not. Hence, the historical and continued fractionation of the protestant denominations.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this

You have a much better way of putting it than most Catholics. We already are here though, in the body of Christ where we belong and where we always want to be.

That’s a nice gesture for you to make as a Catholic, and I really appreciate it. A Protestant response to this would be- we are already home. We already belong to the Body of Christ. We were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We believe in Jesus Christ. How can I go “home” when I’m sitting inside my house?

Problem is the gospel. That’s the issue and it always will be.

I think I know his answer to it--you find the foundation for the Trinity, etc. in the Scriptures (even in the OT) and very early church writings. The Marian dogmas don't start appearing until much, much later.

Amen

Amen brother..

Deo gratias!

Interesting idea!

@JD Apologetics Do you have some specific references in Jerome you can point me to?

Thanks for sharing these thoughts. For now, what I'll say is that we're hoping to do a future episode on the nature of the church, so stay tuned for that!

Adding an orthodox host and contributor would be great fun!

Don't think Orthodoxy will contribute much as it's essentially Protestantism at it's roots. Reject the Papacy and you get Orthodoxy and eventually Protestantism.

@@p.doetsch6209 Very much not so. I was Protestant.

@@traceyedson9652 It's "high Protestantism", you have the Sacraments, you have the Ecclesiology, but there's no Magisterium.

@@p.doetsch6209 sorry, only from an ultra-montanist would one call it that. If it works for you, fine, but it won’t bring you any closer to understanding it. It has a magisterium, just not a Roman one. It’s a conciliar one.

Thanks for weighing in! I’d love to hear what you thought were his strongest points

I think both of them agree with development, they just differ over the validity of certain developments

@@GospelSimplicity How to know if its valid though? Is it the authority of the church that makes it valid? or take it upon ourselves (through research and own understanding) to authorize if its valid or not?

@@sleepyeye4951 It must depend on what you mean by "developed". Church is the living body of Christ lead by the Holy Spirit, but Christ and the Holy Spirit are God and are not developing/changing. We as humans and as societies do develop/change (although in reality our fundamental nature is the same as it has been before Christ was born). So Church must "develop" to some degree in its appearance in order to be able to proclaim the Truth to its contemporaries, but any development that changes fundamental doctrines and teachings of the Apostles is equal of leaving the Church.

@@goranvuksa1220 so true! And we need to develop our understanding as well!

Great question! Perhaps that could be a future installment

@@GospelSimplicity Thanks! I'd also like to hear what Gavin believes true "heresy" really is. When the Papal legate stands up at the Council of Ephesus and proclaims the Pope "successor to Peter, Prince of the Apostles" and speaking with his authority - is that heresy? No bishops disagree with it at the time. To be an intellectually consistent Protestant, I feel like you have to be OK with essentially the entire Church proclaiming heresy, at least for portions of time. So would love to hear discussion along those lines. Brilliant discussion though! Thanks for facilitating!

@Ryan Pope What would Ryan Pope say about a fixed Catholic canon not arriving until 1546? Heck, not long before that date, we have prominent Catholics like Erasmus and Cardinal Ximenes rejecting the deuterocanonicals. And yes, Jerome may have accepted them (on pain of excommunication), but Athanasius never did.

@@HannahClapham And yet they ALL accept the settled decision of the Church over their personal leanings. We have the same canon in 382 AD that we do in 1546. When does the 66 book version emerge? Is there a date?

@Ryan Pope Well, Erasmus and Ximenez didn’t live until 1546, so they didn’t need to “settle.” The Protestant NT comes from 382 CE, as you stated. And the Jewish OT canon harkens from the 2nd-century BCE, or thereabouts. To be quite honest, I don’t much care. The deuterocanonicals aren’t literarily memorable or theologically significant. I can take them or leave them. It’s all the same.

Perhaps one day in the future

I find it to be an intriguing question, but I think it can only be pressed so far as certain matters of history play in to complicate things, in my opinion

As an American, I have been wondering this myself. It would be much easier (culturally) for me to become Protestant than Catholic.

The UK didn't want to be spiritually guided by Rome. Spiritual leaders always above political leaders. It is about national pride.

Hope you enjoy it!

I cannot wait!