As part of an answer to a question from our audience, Erick Ybarra comments on what he believes is Gavin Ortlund’s greatest Achilles heel: ecclesiology. What do you think??
Have to love Erick. Starts off with, "Dr. Ortlund has a very strong critique." This is immediately followed by, "but his position is absolutely incoherent."
Erick’s assessment of Dr. Ortlund’s ecclesiology as “incoherent” is exactly right. The only way to maintain “apostolicity” or “catholicity” for Protestants like him is either to ignore historical facts or redefine terms. Sorry Dr. Ortlund, you can’t have it both ways.
The only rational inquiry should be into where can legit authority be found today, if at all. Once that question is determined, all that is left is to obey and follow that authority, regardless of the kind or number of doctrines that authority binds us to. Authority determines the doctrines; evaluation of the doctrines cannot determine whether the authority is legit.
“Intellectual exhaustion”, that’s exactly what I’m experiencing in the past months. Can’t decide between RC and EO, all I know is that I can’t remain protestant.
@ludwig2573, I too, became exhausted at one point also. Extensive study will do that to you… so I prayed and told the Lord, (He knew already, lol ) that I was exhausted and I needed to take a break from studying a few months. And I did, for about 3 months. And it really helped! My mind was able to relax a lil bit, and I was able to mull over things that I had studied just here and there. I wasn’t pressing myself so hard. I Just asked that the Holy Spirit would stay with me and guide me. And it gave God a chance to speak to my spirit. Instead of me cramming it all the time with more information. And the Lord guided me. He will too. Just make sure you don’t have any fear running around in your head and heart. Trust the Lord for your life!!❤ He will do the work! Blessings to you on your journey!❤️🙏🏻😊
Piece of advice: It is of no coincidence that the Catholic Church is composed of 1.3 billion Catholics compared to Orthodox Christians who are merely about 250 million. Think about it.
The primary Protestant hang-up is submission. While all devout Protestants who truly love Christ and wish to honor him above all will unequivocally declare that they submit to the unquestioned authority of Scripture, they deceive themselves. They only “submit” to what their consciences will accede. What they call “submission” is intellectual agreement with a given doctrine or interpretation. That is not submission. True submission only happens when you bend your will to an authoritative decree with which you don’t (yet) agree. If you require intellectual agreement, it’s not submission. It is mere concurrence.
It is not submission, per se, that is the issue. The issue is submitting to the right authority. We simply do not view accretions as something that one is obligated to submit to. (Mark 7, Acts 5:29) And yes, we use our own judgement in this. But converts do as well, which leads me to the next point. RE "submitting to what conscience accedes" this is true for everyone. For example, converts don't just *blindly* submit to the Roman Church. They usually have to do an *intellectual investigation* into the claims of Rome *before* they can assent. They have to be sure those claims are true before they can offer submission. In other words, converts typically have to do the same thing Roman Catholics accuse Protestants of by becoming their own *Pope* in order to convert. Like the gentlemen in this video, they have to govern their own interpretation of scripture, tradition, and church history in order to judge for themselves whether Rome is the one true church. This is what it means to be your own Pope. And I don't say this as derogatory. I say this because everyone has to do this. It is inescapable. This was the point I raised in my initial comment elsewhere in the comment section.
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 - you are confusing different things. Your objection is a commonly raised one called the "tu quoque" and has been answered at length elsewhere. See for example the Called to Communion article by Bryan Cross.
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 thank you for adding to the conversation. I will try to be brief, as these can get very wordy. The word "accretions" is somewhat of a deliberate epithet, and if the elders and apostles (Acts 15) did, indeed have authority to establish or - egads!- change doctrine, then what they decreed were not "accretions" but Holy doctrine. I will use a simple example to demonstrate what I mean in regard to submission. You acknowledged my point, but then claimed that Catholics do the same thing. I will argue that point using the Catholic standards for sexuality in marriage. Without being explicit here, I made significant changes to the intimacy I have with my wife based on Catholic doctrine simply because the authority of the Church said so, not because I agreed with the doctrines at the time. I submitted my will because I acknowledge the authority of the Church to establish such guidelines, even though, at the time, I thought the guidelines to be excessively narrow. When I claim that Protestants generally do not submit to any authority but their own intellect - requiring intellectual agreement - this is what I mean. I was a Marine for 31 years. Many times I carried out orders with which I did not intellectually agree. They were not sinful or illegal, but I did not agree. I did agree with that the who gave the orders had the rightful authority to do so. That is the difference - recognition and submission to an authority outside of my own intellect. While I will not claim that that no Protestant has ever done this, I find it hard to believe that most devout Protestants acknowledge any authority to which they would readily submit (before intellectual agreement) if that authority told them to do something (or cease from doing something) they disagree with. If you can offer an example to counter this claim, I'd be happy to consider it.
Sir Steven, I request you to please address my question. What is the historical teaching of the Western & Eastern churches about self-flagellation(mortification) among the monsatics? And, this practice of many saints in Catholicism to inflict pain upon themselves for various reasons (for example: Conversion of sinners). This has been bit of a stumbling block for me.
Sure, I can give you a very truncated rationale that you can at least build upon and spring off of. First, I would recommend Pope John XXIII’s “Paenitentiam Agere” (there’s citations in there from early fathers too, I believe, that you can seek out further). First, do you object to there being temporal punishments/consequences for Christians who commit venial sins? You would have to start there, if you don’t. But if you already agree with that, then basically, in the mystery of the communion of saints, if you grant that one can pray for someone else to be remitted of temporal punishments due to them for their sins, it follows that one can also take upon themselves the temporal punishments due to another for their sins as an act of (1) charity, (2) askesis, and (3) the imitation of Christ, who suffered on behalf of the sins of the whole world. In ancient Israel, public penitential practices on behalf of the sins of the whole nation were common among both prophets and priests (and even the people). Times of donning sackcloth (very coarse and uncomfortable material) and ashes, with the aim of lessening Israel’s temporal punishments for sin, were common. The power of self-mortification can even drive out certain demons (“this kind only comes out by prayer and fasting” - Mt 17:21). If the prayer of a righteous man accomplishes much (even to shut out rain from the sky for 7 years - ie. Elijah), so do his acts of penance. Now, none of that is to say that many of these practices are for everyone. The Church has *always* suggested that extremes and abuses of these practices should be avoided, and most should really be reserved for spiritual “athletes” (monks, mystics, visionaries, etc). So, there is a sense in which a high level of discernment and moderation is to be observed so as not to move from wholesome askesis into a masochist pathology in which the pains become an end unto themselves. That would be sin, not mortification. For the common layman, vicarious mortification should mostly be restricted to fastings, offerings, moderate pains like kneeling, discomforts, exposure to elements (like cold showers), etc. But self flagellation and things of this sort are likely too open to be abused and misunderstood and misapplied. Lastly (and providentially! lol) my brother and I are going to release an episode in the next few days all about the flesh and Christ, fighting demonic powers, and atonement. We will actually touch on mortification in that episode, so be sure to tune in. I hope this at least helps you, directionally. Much more could be said, of course.
Thanks for replying! Btw, I do not object to the temporal punishment or purgatory. And, please also touch on what people in Philippines do during Holy Week and Good Friday, they whip and crucify themselves. Instead of devotion, it becomes a mockery.
Did not Jesus tell the Pharisees that how can the Christ be the son of David when David said that the LORD SAID TO MY LORD SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES UNDER MY FOOT STOOL,so if David called him Lord then how can Christ be his son?
9:07 Re: "Whos the authority here? Its your mind." Well, the same is true for everyone who converts to Roman Catholicism. Converts use their "mind" aka their fallible judgement to investigate whether the claims of Rome are true. Ultimately one becomes their own Pope in order to interpret the data for themselves, and they therefore become their own ultimate authority. In fact, all three gentlemen in this video have done this and therefore they are doing the same thing they accuse Gavin of doing. Because all three gentlemen had to use their own judgement and weigh for themselves whether the claims of Rome were true. And at the end of the day this is inescapable. For everyone must ultimately use their own judgment (with the help of the Holy Spirit) 10:18 Re: "The Ortlund route" No, the Ortlund route is not "archaeology" or the "museum". The Ortlund route is the teaching of the Apostles. And the only record we have of their teaching is in scripture. And since we do not see things like the Marian doctrines being part of the teaching of the Apostles, we then look to history to see if there is outside support for it and do not find it. So now we have even more reason to be skeptical. 0:44 Re: "Incoherent" If there is strong counter evidence against the claims of Rome, then its not incoherent to think Rome has fallen into error. And there definitely is strong counter evidence against the claims of Rome. So one cant just continue with the Roman interpretation of John 16:13 and force it over that counter evidence. One must be willing to revise their position.
You have just described the archeology route haha. And as far as incoherence....yes the fact that for 1500 years Christ was not nurturing his bride with sola fide or sola scriptura is nearly enough proof to make protestantism not a realistic option.
@@1984SheepDog no, I first mentioned the apostolic route. The "archaeological" point was just in response to the claims of Rome. It is a supplemental approach, not the primary one. And Christ wasnt nurturing His bride with the teaching of the apostles?
1. The bible clearly delineates that the church has authority to bind and loose, and disputes are to be brought *before the church* to be decided (so this assumes the church is a visible institution). So the question of who has authority is pertinent, you didn't address it cogently at all
2. The teaching of the apostles has to be passed down to us from SOMEBODY. So if the somebody who tells you 'this is scripture ' is confessing a completely different form of Christianity than you, and is within a generation of the apostles, what does that do?
The church is never associated with the kingdom. The church is not the kingdom. The rcc has departed from the apostolic faith by its leadership structure and doctrines.
You guys turned off the comments to respond to your commentary on Taylor Marshall. Hmmmm? What are you afraid of. Taylor Marshall deserves a high degree of respect. Maybe because you're a cradle Catholic, it seems you believe you are better or know more. You are wrong my friends. Whether you agree or disagree with Dr. Marshall, you owe him the same respect and brotherhood that all of us Catholics should have for each other. We are already the most persecuted Christian group by protestants. Be better....
@@robertmartin1512 couple of things. First, we’re reverts to the faith…..from Anglicanism. The same Protestant context that Marshall came from. Second, we only turned off comments because his followers were posting vulgar comments and it became a problem for Protestants who are open to Catholicism to see and hear Catholics engaging in that level of mud slinging. Evangelism is more important to us than giving Taylor Marshall’s foot soldiers complete freedom in our comments section.
