Slightly off topic, but I always wondered if the stereotype of baptists being uneducated stems from the stereotype of southerners being uneducated. Both are clearly false but seem to be believed by so many.
@@TheFIame No. There were two "Baptists" from the beginning during the late Reformation in England. Reformed Baptists tended to be "scholarly" (Gavin is Reformed". Arminian/Free Will Baptists tend to focus on "pietism" (they tend to avoid historical Christianity). Most Baptists are Arminian so they are less "doctrinal" since Free Will Baptists never had historical confessions like Reformed Baptists (London Confession of Faith). That's why Baptists are stereotyped as "Presbyterians who don't read so well".
@@TheFIame Baptists as their local church autonomy doctrine caused the most divisions. It was not meant to be understood that way but got abused, so too many pastors think they are smarter than Luther and Calvin. :-)
“Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” Luke 11:11-13 This ties into you final point, Gavin. Those who shamelessly, humbly and sacrificially seek God will not be led astray with false or deceiving spirits. He is generous with His Spirit and we should trust that truth about Him. As someone who has wrestled with discerning what and where the "true Church" is, I have found great peace in simply being obedient and walking in what I _know_ to be true and not worrying so much about what I am less certain of. My advice is to always keep an open heart and to let Him lead you as the good Shepherd that He is.
I've been feeling drawn to the Catholic Church (again) lately, but this great video put the brakes on. Sigh. I feel like I'm stuck spiritually and ecclesiastically. You are absolutely right that many people seem to want a system where everything would be clear and which would just tell you how things should be. It seems that practically every side has good arguments behind them. There are clearly smarter people than me in every tradition. Somehow I still think that if I just read a little more, listen to this and that lecture, listen to a few podcast episodes, have some conversations online and "in real life", then I will find the place where I need to be. But as usual: the more I learn, the more I realize how much there is to learn. Some days all this is really exciting when you get to research and think, but in the past year this has started to feel even heavier. I feel like I'm stuck.
My main question to you is what are you trusting in for your salvation? Is it Christ and His death for your sins and resurrection? If it is in only Christ in His work and not your own good works then you’re fine. This is of the most important - the gospel message! Where would you go to hear this message of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone? Everything else is of lesser importance. I hope that helps you
thanks for sharing your process. I think a lot of people like that. My recent video, "How to Overcome Intellectual Anxiety" exists to address precisely this circumstance, in case that helps! God bless you and guide you.
As a former RC who is now Baptist, I can only say that Catholicism for me proved to be vacuous and tiresome. The Baptist church I belong to now is filled with the truth of God's Word, love, wonderful fellowship, and the Holy Spirit. It has a richness and depth that I never knew while I was Catholic.
@@kstewart3052all due respect, but you trade "vacuous and tiresome" for something utterly ahistorical. Point in hand, I've seen great arguments from the protestant side, I engaged and partook and even used those same arguments at one point in my own life. One thing I cannot overlook is the Baptist view of baptism. Their view on their very own namesake is perhaps one of the biggest mistakes and ahistorical blunders out of any protestant group, that being the view of credobaptism. When pressed and when research is done there is literally zero credible attestation to this view or practice in the tradition of the early church or the scriptures.
False, this self proclaimed "pastor" always tries to suit protestant churches problems into catholicism so that protestants think all is the same mess, but not, the true Church of Christ is ONE and it has ONE doctrine, and the fullnes of the truth.
@@xaviertorres1685 Yep,you're in the One True Perfect Church and the only problems are w/ other churches. You're full of pride and hubris. Go away, it's just like I already said.
@@saintejeannedarc9460well you should first understand what the church means by infallibility. There absolutely needs to be an authority on earth ordained by God to declare on matters on doctrine. If there are three churches and one says there is no Trinity, only God the father and Jesus was made by God. The second church says we can’t ever know the nature of God and there may be a trinity or may not. The third says God is triune three persons in one God. Obviously they can’t all be right. One is closer to the truth than the others. Catholics believe that God granted authority to Peter and all subsequent popes to declare on such matters and say infallibly that yes indeed the Christian God is three persons in one God. The infallible declaration comes not from the pope but from the Holy Spirit which guides true church of Christ and will not lead it into error on official doctrines. Now hopefully you can see the importance of such an authority. Because you can look at gay marriage. So many churches today are saying this is ok and love is love. Well which is correct? Catholic Church has problems and scandals of course but the fundamental teachings we believe are true because the Holy Spirit will not lead the church into error on such matters.
well you should first understand what the church means by infallibility. There absolutely needs to be an authority on earth ordained by God to declare on matters on doctrine. If there are three churches and one says there is no Trinity, only God the father and Jesus was made by God. The second church says we can’t ever know the nature of God and there may be a trinity or may not. The third says God is triune three persons in one God. Obviously they can’t all be right. One is closer to the truth than the others. Catholics believe that God granted authority to Peter and all subsequent popes to declare on such matters and say infallibly that yes indeed the Christian God is three persons in one God. The infallible declaration comes not from the pope but from the Holy Spirit which guides true church of Christ and will not lead it into error on official doctrines. Now hopefully you can see the importance of such an authority. Because you can look at gay marriage. So many churches today are saying this is ok and love is love. Well which is correct? Catholic Church has problems and scandals of course but the fundamental teachings we believe are true because the Holy Spirit will not lead the church into error on such matters.
Great video. I was Orthodox for 16 years (including my 3 year period of being a catechumen). While in the Orthodox Church I could never find out what the correct beliefs in the church were. They say read the councils, and I did, but even those are interpreted differently by each person who reads them. Also a ton of the American Orthodox online apologetics comes from Catholic and protestant source material. I saw your exchange with Energetic Procession on RU-vid. The bulk of his work on apostolic succession comes from the Anglican Felix Lossing Cirlot. Now Cirlot might make a better argument than Protestants on the subject, but using sources that aren’t Orthodox just shows that they are formulating a unique view unto themselves that isn’t provided by Orthodox thinkers or the fathers. Why does he have to use Cirlot and not refer to the councils? Also, their views against sola scriptural almost purely come from Catholic apologetics. Gregory the Theologian said that we are not to read the Bible like a scientist, but like a poet or lover of literature. I don’t know the last time a judge ruled on how I had to read Shakespeare or Walt Whitman, or that any literary critic has lost sleep over everyone getting Yeats wrong. There main concern is making sure people love poetry. So your example of our decision in this matter being like who we choose marry is a good analogy imo.
Gavin, the difference between Catholics and Protestants on "essential" doctrines is not that one side has a list and one doesn't. The difference is, if I have a question, the teaching office of the Catholic Church can answer definitively. If I ask a Lutheran, a Presbyterian, and a non-denominational, "What is baptism?", which Hebrews 6 calls a "fundamental" of the Christian faith, I'm going to get three different answers and they would each say I am free to leave their congregation if I disagree and go to another which teaches something different. I would expect that Christians 2000 years later would be united on something as basic as that and I don't think the apostles would have imagined Christians 2000 years later being told by their clergy they could leave if they disagree. I don't expect the Church to give me a list saying, "Here are all 274 essential doctrines that you need to believe." Simply put, I trust all the teachings of the church, those that are dogma and those that are doctrine. Sure, the divinity of Christ is more "essential" or important than say, the existence of purgatory, but I can be sure both are 100% true. Yes, I 100% agree you have to follow your conscience and that your conscience is the first and last assessor of which denomination to go, but I find the Catholic claim to be the most consistent logically. Thoughts?
You make good points. You are looking for a branch/ sect of Christianity that is most "logical." I can admire this endeavor but the way of logic can be treacherous! And what about the Way of Virtue, and the Way of what is consistent with that which is Theopneustos -- God-breathed? I.e., Scripture? Why is Logic your Number One? I wouldn't care if the Roman Catholic Church was the preeminently "logical" choice, my conscience simply will not allow me to join an institution that had such a devastating pedophilia that destroyed the faith and lives of thousands, it conspired to cover up for *who knows how long*! Logic tells you 1 + 1 must = 2. But all the logic in the world won't make me believe something is not fundamentally flawed in the Roman Catholic Church. So, why do you give such pride of place to Logic and not Virtue? Why do you idolize The True over against The Good -- when the True, the Beautiful, AND the Good must be found together and never apart? So, while you prioritize logic, I prioritize the word of God *along with* Church history, scholarship, and Patristic theology and writing. And I'm not just looking for what is true, but what is good and what is beautiful.
Always gets me the “Protestants disagree on doctrine” line. Well Taylor Marshall would say someone like me is going to hell while Trent Horn wouldn’t so isn’t that a RC disagreement on essential doctrine?! And if they are following the same magisterium how can they disagree?! Is it coming down to their own interpretation? Isn’t this something that RC are always levelling at Protestants? Mmmmm ,God Bless Gavin 🙏
Apples and oranges. The RC critique isn't comparing individual Protestants. It's comparing various Protestant denoms official teachings, confessions of faith, creeds, etc. with each other.
@@shawngillogly6873 What in the world are you talking about? The reply was Taylor Marshal and Trent Horn having had different opinions on Protestants. Not on the Council of Trent.
Perhaps because the word "canon" meant something else. Original Protestant Bibles all included Apocrypha. Removing them is a 20th century Protestant debacle.
@thomasc9036 Nope. Apocrypha wasn't Jewish canon. Adding them was an accretion of the later church. Not the ECF. Even Protestants who kept it in the text--and not nearly as uniformly or late as you claim, outside Anglicanism--did so explicitly for "historical, not doctrinal use." The Confessions repeatedly reject them.
@@shawngillogly6873 Dude, what we call "Apocrypha" was called "the Second Temple literature" by Jews. Even they debated whether they should be canon or not which Christianity inherited. The surviving Jews were influenced by the Judaen Jewish movement. There are Judaism that accepts the Second Temple Literature as well. The way Christians use the term "canon" is not the same as others. This is what Luther wrote "These are books that, though not esteemed like the Holy Scriptures, are still both useful and good to read". Calvin was similar.
While I appreciate the spirit of this video, I think you are making a few equivocations that aren't really justified. Regarding "essential doctrines" Roman Catholics have an objective formal unity and structure that exists regardless of whether individuals choose to differ on those matters. Protestants explicitly deny their ability to make these claims by admitting to having fallible interpretations. What sense is there in "binding my conscience" and taking oaths to statements of faith that I freely proclaim to be fallible and imperfect declarations? The same cannot be said of Roman Catholics, and that point deserves a better address. Regarding the quote from Vincent of Lerins, just as you accuse Roman Catholics of reading back modern Catholic dogma into the fathers, I think you have done the same from the Protestant side with this quote. When Vincent says we must "cleave to antiquity" I do not think we can seriously argue that he envisioned "cleaving to antiquity" as someone breaking away from apostolic succession, declaring themselves ordained by God, and starting a separate church apart on the basis of their theology being "more historical" than all of the Catholic bishops/churches in the present day. Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that he says "what if some novel contagion *seek* to infect...the whole". He never states that the entire church actually will be infected, just that certain heresies will attempt to affect the whole thing, and that in order to prevent such infections, we must cleave to those churches that are currently in the body to establish sound doctrine and purify the infected parts of the body (or cut them off if the disease is too greatly established). This ultimately raises the greatest problem with Protestantism as a whole and with each individual Protestant denomination. By their very nature, they are wedded to an inability to proclaim or pursue one unified visible Church. That is why Protestants cling to an amorphous concept of the "invisible" church and act as though that were the only unity that Christ cared about in the high priestly prayer. But just as humans are not only spiritual, but fleshly beings, so also the Church is not merely a spiritual idea, but a Divinely established physical reality. And the only means by which she can legitimately call all Christians to unity is if she has the authority and ability to infallibly instruct the faithful. Likewise, the only means by which she can objectively say where the Church truly can be found is through a visible and historic episcopate brought to us by the laying on of hands. Protestants have no means by which they can objectively and authoritatively call one another to a physical unity. That is why there are so many denominations, and it is irrelevant whether the number is 33,000 or 300. The division is a tragedy, and goes directly against what our Lord prayed for us. How will the world believe that God has sent us the Messiah if we are not one (Jn. 17:21; 23)? Do you suppose that the first disciples really thought this "oneness" consisted in a mere "spiritual" unity and was not also manifested in our physical unity? It is our catholicity that proves our Christianity, and we cannot be truly catholic if we cannot proclaim infallible truth.
Dr. Gavin, I’m neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic, yet sometimes I come to your videos with a mixed sentiment of both skepticism and confidence in what you’re going to bring in… Now, concerning this one specifically, I have to admit that the point was very clearly stated and I really resounded with it, specifically with the concept of the “burden” (of it being the same whether you’re a Protestant or not). I liked that! Also, I really liked too that phrase: “He is not Roman Catholic, he is not Protestant, he is just John Chrysostom” or something like that. I think that this kind of sincerity would be very rewarding when studying patristics. Irenaeus, to me, would serve as a perfect example for this kind of approach; I even consider him as a bridge between Roman Catholics and Protestants in every aspect that could create tension in the modern era of Christianity. But anyway, you opened my mind this time concerning this important topic, so thanks! Gladly, Gian from Puerto Rico
That would be true if Ortland did not skip over paragraphs and pages of Chrysostom, and other Fathers to cherry pick what looks like their support of doctrines not conceived of for another thousand to 1200 years in the future with the advent of the Reformers. But perhaps Ortland does not expect his viewers to read what he quotes and see what he omits, but just to trust him
@@thomasfolio7931 Yeah, that might happen sometimes. I do my best to read in context what he and other “Protestant” apologists and theologians offer concerning all this topics related to Church History. By reading Irenaeus’ Against Heresies I can definitely see the importance of applying textual harmonization to the writings and teachings of the Church Fathers, in the same way that we do with the Scriptures (ideally speaking). For, by not taking into consideration their whole way of thinking, we can present two different persons that were actually the same “Church Father”. For I can quote Irenaeus as a faithful Roman Catholic: “Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere.” (3.3.2); Or I can quote him as a solid Protestant: “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” (3.3.1); Or I can even quote him as a faithful Orthodox: “It will be incumbent upon thee, however, and all who may happen to read this writing, to peruse with great attention what I have already said, that thou mayest obtain a knowledge of the subjects against which I am contending. For it is thus that thou wilt both controvert them in a legitimate manner, and wilt be prepared to receive the proofs brought forward against them, casting away their doctrines as filth by means of the celestial faith; but following the only true and stedfast Teacher, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.” (5.preface). Anyways, although you have reason in that which you point out as a possibility, you should also open your mind when reading patristics, because we can see teachings from all the way around. In other words, they weren’t always on the same page, and they certainly are not ideal (sometimes) to defend a certain Christian tradition, because of the formerly said. Sometimes they sounded Roman Catholic, other time they sounded Protestant, other time they sounded Orthodox, in both theology and spirituality; We, as responsible and honest readers of them (whom I myself consider personally as “fathers” of the Church indeed), should try our best to not encase or limit them to our own Christian tradition, instead, just let them be what they were: Christians… God be with you and with all who love Jesus Christ with and unmovable love.
We live in an area that has about 80,000 residents. My husband is an Anglican priest and for a short period of time before planting an Anglican parish we did not have services on Sunday mornings. This gave us an opportunity to visit other congregations. One Sunday morning we attended a local Catholic church where the Catholic priest asked my husband (who was wearing his clerical colllar and easily identifiable) after Mass if we were part of a schismatic Catholic group. We learned later that there are 27 schismatic Catholic groups in our area. Oh my!
I doubt this very much but people will say what they need to make them feel better i suppose. There is a way to prove it. Ask their bishop - “IF” you will.
@srich7503 tbh you would be surprised. There are Catholics who believe that there have been no valid popes since Vatican II and that the church since is heretical, there are others who believe that the church has been heretical since 1929’s treaty signed concerning Vatican City, that baptism of desire is heretical… They’re out there. It’s just that the PR is good at covering up their existence.
I grew up in Anglican Church and I know we have both liberal and true believers (I hesitate to call them merely traditional believers because they are not) ~ I grew up in Africa where we had the great East African Revival ~ the people came to the Lord and were set apart from other nominal Anglican members who practiced sycritism. Both worshipped together even to this very day but true believers are still the pillar holding up the Church and so we have two branches, those that are saved and those that admit they are just born Anglican but without personal relationship with the Lord ~ (Wheat and tare?). What am trying to say is there is a dangerous trend in the so-called traditional mainstream Churches. The clinging on to antiquity without preaching of the gospel. There is no doubt that my beloved Church is splitting but for a good reason. Time for the true believers to stand firmly and obey their God than the united under damning behaviours. We should also rethink women ordination since, if any takes time to reflect, since the ordination of my kind, the Church has fallen nose dive into liberalism and as usual there everything goes, who cares what God's law says ~ only emotions and feelings of persons matters ~ just like the great Apostle Paul explains, it's was Eve not Adam who was deceived ~ we, the Eves are driven most by emotions and subjectivity instead of objectivity. Protestants Churches are built in the way that there is room for reform, unlike the Catholic Church is irriformable. They are stuck with there unbiblical celibacy priesthood that is the main cause of their problems and the "reform" that the liberal Pope can do is to "approve " what the liberals are forcing everybody to approve.
As a former Catholic, it may not be explicitly stated but it is strongly implied, that to be outside the catholic church is to be damned. It was very psycho/spiritually difficult to extricate myself from the quagmire that is now the catholic church. Thank you for this fantastic video!
Wow, in the first 3min you laid out my entire journey and thought process regarding the “one true church” claim & debate. Sometimes while looking towards the early church as a protestant you want to hear the arguments yet the “No salvation outside the church” claim always reels me back. As it is portrayed today, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is ridiculously exclusive, like a private country club of a faith that completely discounts billions of professing believers around the world, as if submitting to God in general wasn’t enough.
Perhaps because the Catholic defenition is different from what Protestants like Ortland define it to be. Having it's origins in St. Cyprian in the 3rd Century it's not what Protestants are told it means. The Roman Catechism teaches, "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is His Body" Read Pope Pius XII explanation of vincible versus Invincible ignorance to understand the official Catholic understanding when the issue came to a head as followers of Fr. Leonard Feeney claimed that only baptized Roman Catholics will go to heaven, something he and his followers were excommunicated for. In its statements regarding this doctrine, the Church expressly teaches that "it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God", and that "outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control". It also states that "they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life"
I've heard very high profile Catholics making these kinds of claims. A related claim is something like "Protestants are their own teaching authorities" and by this they mean that each individual is his or her own teaching authority. I don't see how this notion is even coherent.
When high-profile Catholics make arguments like that, you begin to realize that their case must not be that great if they need to grasp at such arguments
In my experience, evangelical Christians generally don't identify themselves as "Protestant." They would generally call themselves "Christian" or something similar. They don't consider themselves as "protesting" against anything but would likely say they are simply following to obey God and follow Jesus as they are revealed in Scripture. Their denominational identity would generally be secondary. The only time evangelicals identify themselves as Protestant is when they need to distinguish themselves from Catholics or Orthodox believers. Even the term "evangelical" is generally only used to distinguish themselves from other Christian traditions. Some may disagree with this stance but I am simply saying I find this to be generally true among evangelicals and something important to be aware of when trying to understand evangelical Christians.
Personally, I would never join a church that proclaims, "We are the one true church". A few that come to mind are Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness and 7th Day Adventists.
@@garyr.8116There are more problems I have with the catholic church. The catechism defines justification as grace+works. Also having a pope and a priesthood is stealing authority from Jesus Christ as Savior which is contrary to the gospel message. The rock in Matthew 16 refers to Jesus not Peter. Anyway, having a debate on the internet is not conducive. God bless and have a great day.
@@joeoleary9010 I am referring to salvation. There are thousands of protestant churches that do not proclaim we are the "one true church' for salvation. Churches don't save, only Jesus saves. Sorry If I didn't clarify my statement. Have a great day.
Yes, we must exercise private judgement to choose the what church we believe is true. It is simply True that the Catholic Church is the True Church and that is why one should exercise their private judgement to become Catholic.
Dr. Ortlund, you keep trying to slip out from under this issue of a lack of binding authority by saying that the Catholic Church and Protestantism are apples and oranges, but you are defending this issue for PROTESTANTISM as a whole as if it’s also an apple (as you should, mind you, if you are to be consistent). Perhaps we can avoid the equivocation that seems to keep happening with this by saying you are defending Protestantism as a “way of doing Christianity,” just as one might defend the Catholic Church as a “way of doing Christianity?” There are your apples. Well, it turns out that Protestantism as a way of doing Christianity has no binding authority because you can up and leave your denomination for another and still remain a Protestant. The “binding authority” is ultimately your own private judgement, so much so that if your conscience or influence allows it, you can just start your own denomination in your living room and again, remain Protestant. That is absolutely a problem unique to the Protestant way of doing Christianity.
Hey Gavin! Protestant subscriber here! I have been studying church history/fathers for a while now. It’s clear that you don’t see the assumption of Mary clearly in antiquity but there are several other beliefs and practices in the first several hundred years of the church that most Protestants reject like baptismal regeneration, purpose of church being the Eucharist, intercession of martyrs/saints, Mary ever-virgin, among others. Why do we reject the assumption because it’s not in the early church but also reject many important beliefs/practices clearly present in the early apostolic churches?
The differences between a Novus Ordo Catholic and ultra conservative Oriental Orthodox are not as wide as between an Anglo-Catholic Anglican and a Salvation Army Christian. I hear what you’re saying, but it seems as though the divide is greater in Protestantism than between even Catholics and Orthodox.
As usual, this is excellent, Gavin. (I have been saying something very similar for years to my Catholic and Orthodox friends. All of us have to adjudicate what we find to be true or false.)
"Theres no list of essential doctrines among Catholics" This is surprisingly erroneous. You might get different answers from Catholics depending on how well instructed they are in the faith (or due to our current crisis), but that doesn't change that there is an objective and definitive list of essential beliefs. You must believe them or cease to be Catholic. These essential beliefs are contained ordinarily in the Catechisms. But if you want a scholarly list with the authority of each doctrine clearly indicated refer to The Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine by Ludwig von Otto. Differences in essentials among Catholics are due to poor instruction whereas among Protestants each has a right to his own understanding of Christianity as a matter of principle. The two cannot be equated.
True. RC has their catechism. But it would be a mistake to think all Catholics agree on all of them. I like John MacArthur's approach. Instead of saying everyone believes this and that, he says this is what his church teaches. He knows not everyone agrees on every point.
@@margaretwandel5660 well, if it is part of the teaching of Christ, then we have no option but to agree. “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. John 14-15 It would be a mistake to disobey Him
Private judgment...as in... the way we decide on absolutely any and all things in our minds? Even if you decide to follow Roman Catholic teaching, ultimately you have to privately in your mind decide to do that. Lol this is a pretty non-sense criticism.
The RC critique of private judgment is not that humans all interpret and make decisions. That's just obvious and self evident. Someone characterizing and dismissing the critique in that manner hasn't grasped it in the first place.
@@saintejeannedarc9460 the PJ critique is simply a contrast of the nature of the authority you picked to submit to. RC/EO makes claims to divine ecclesial authority. Therefore they can make normative and infallible judgments binding upon all believers. Protestant churches reject such authority, any proposed doctrine or judgment is revisable and tentative and authoritative only insofar as it conforms to the individuals ongoing PJ of Scripture, otherwise it can and should be rejected, and thus we see the endless splintering and emptying concepts like heresy and schism of all meaning. None of the above entailed people weren't making choices or using their minds, such "rebuttals" pointing that out aren't even engaging the critique.
@@cronmaker2 RC/EO are relying on private judgement more, because they are using private judgement to make a commitment to an institution that makes greater claims about itself, like infalliability. The cost of wrongly attributing infalliability to an institution that is in reality falliable is greater.
@@JM-jj3eg sure one can submit to an authority falsely claiming infallibility. Mormons and JWs aren't in a good position. Doesn't mean the PJ critique and authority claims are therefore useless. An NT era believer was right to submit to Christ and the Apostles infallible authority claims, even as they had to evaluate the credibility of other competing false apostles/prophets/messiah's who make similar claims.
@@cronmaker2 Gavin is right, in that we all make a personal decision on which authority to submit to. It's not that protestant churches make no claims to the authority of ministry at all. The bible is clear to submit to authorities, and that we do have church fathers to look out for us. Every denomination has a statement of beliefs. It isn't the huge catechism, but it's the bare essentials to believe in, and it's generally posted on every website. These statements of beliefs don't change easily, and some don't change over decades. When they do change, like to let in progressive notions like ordaining women, or gay affirming, gay marriages, then that is when the church will splinter. The orthodox believers that stick w/ biblical values will go one way, and the liberals are left to progress ever more. This is that so a little leaven doesn't leaven the whole lump. The RCC goes through it's own changes over time, though it says it doesn't. It has had it's own splinters, but none since the reformation. Since then it is carrying a great deal of progressive parishes that it really isn't doing anything about. The outward doctrines haven't changed, but the current pope sure is winking at sin and allowing, and encouraging a lot of church rot w/ his public statements.
Where is "Scripture is sufficient" found in Scripture? The Bible says Scripture is "profitable" , not "sufficient". If Scripture was sufficient, the Apostles would have just handed converts a copy of the Old Testament.
That’s not what sola scriptura means. I’d recommend watching Gavin’s video on it. And no the apostles wouldn’t have handed out just Old Testament because of the New Testament and covenant. They taught what Jesus taught along with there letters which were widely available to the early church until the church was able to put those together with the Gospels it was orally taught along with their letters like Galatians, Corinthians, etc. Also Sola Scriptura is about having the Word of God as our only infallible authority. It’s how we judge if doctrines among other things are valid and don’t go against what Jesus and Apostles taught. But that doesn’t mean that the Church, Doctrines and Church History aren’t important or don’t hold any authority. That’s a common misconception, not saying you made it but many do. Anyways I’d highly recommend watching his other videos on the matter or even his debates on the same topic. I say this all out of love. May Gods Grace and Love be with you. 🙏✝️🙏
@@King_of_Blades Sola Scriptura is not seen in the NT. What is seen in the NT is the paradigm of: oral teaching, written scripture, and the divinely apppointed teaching church as final authority. You replace this with individual study of scripture, Sola Scriptura. The problem you have is that Sola Scriptura is not found in scripture itself. Love and use of scripture is found in the NT, but not Sola Scriptura.
Your observation is quite accurate that there was quite a bit of diversity among the Church Fathers. Nonetheless, what they had in common was striking when compared to Protestantism. Early Christian theology was essentially liturgical theology. It was not so much written down on paper as it was sung out loud during the Liturgy. The early Church viewed the Eucharist as the central feature of Sunday worship and all affirm the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist. Another common element was the understanding that Christianity was based on oral Tradition received from the Apostles and safeguarded by the bishops. The episcopacy was the norm in early Christianity. Protestant forms of church government like congregationalism and presbyterianism were not the norm. Among the early Christians there was some disagreement as to how to reconcile Jesus being the Son of God with Jewish monotheism. This question became a major crisis with the emergence of the Arian heresy. This heresy was refuted at the Council of Nicea (325). It was for his articulate defense of Jesus’ divinity that Athanasius was recognized as a Church Father. Cyril of Alexandria would be recognized as a Church Father for his defense of Mary as the Theotokos (God-Bearer). It was at the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II, 553) that Nestorianism was condemned as heretical and recognition of Mary as Theotokos be made part of the Liturgy. The iconoclast controversy was precipitated by Emperor Leo III’s edict against icons. For his defense of icons John of Damascus would be recognized as a Church Father. It was at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea II, 787) that iconoclasm would be formally condemned as heretical. The early Church encountered numerous heresies and dealt with them through councils-local, regional, and ecumenical-with the assistance of bishops who would later be recognized as Church Fathers. It is not as if conflicts emerged the Church Fathers and were resolved at Ecumenical Councils; but rather heresies surfaced and the bishops came together to deal with these heresies and in the process certain men who played a key role in the upholding of the Apostolic Faith would come to be recognized as a “Church Father” just as an “ordinary” Christian who suffered martyrdom would be recognized as a capital “s” Saint. Another important aspect of Orthodox unity is the patristic consensus. This “consensus of the Fathers” is usually a reference to the bishops of the Church speaking collectively via an Ecumenical Council. Just as the Holy Spirit guided the Jerusalem Council so likewise he guided later Councils into the truth (cf. Acts 15:28; John 16:13). Please keep in mind that while there have been many church councils, only a few have been recognized as “Ecumenical Councils.” Individually the Church Fathers may err but collectively they bear witness to the Apostolic Faith. Orthodox theology does not seek to neatly and systematically answer every theological question possible in a comprehensive manner similar to the Westminster Confession. of Faith While we remain steadfast on matters of dogma like the Trinity and Christology, there is diversity in other matters like soteriology and eschatology.
"Another common element was the understanding that Christianity was based on oral Tradition received from the Apostles and safeguarded by the bishops." So we have faith in the bishops, who gave us icon worship, saint worship, and Marian devotions, purgatory, and plenary indulgences vs. faith in the only written record of earliest Christianity, i.e., the Bible.
@@joeoleary9010 Without Pope Damascus I and the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. Protestantism would have No Bible to develop their Solo Scriptures doctrine. Curios where were the Protestans in 382 A D.?
The exclusivity of the RC Church bothers me tremendously,I just watched a RU-vid short recently with Reasoned Theology and a guest. Seemingly it started out that none RC were being lumped in as none Christians and then it went downhill from there! Baptism was mentioned by the guest and then mid point he corrected himself and said that we were only “loosely” in the Body Of Christ while laughing while at the same time Reasoned Theology was underneath him nodding with a smirk on his face and I couldn’t watch anymore after that! Now I understand there is a CCC canon that begrudgingly accepts us as black sheep if we’ve had a valid Baptism but I was unaware how deeply ingrained it was in RC attitudes. Very saddening and worrying at the same time,the more I see and research on RC the more it pushes me away,not that it was ever an option anyway after early reading. And I don’t want to judge any RC either,we love all our RC brothers and sisters in Christ and one day we will all have to answer to Jesus. God Bless all 🙏
Gavin, quick notes on HIRING HELP FOR TRUTH UNITES: 23 year old male. 50,000 pages read. BA Religion, BA History, minor Philosophy, MA Teaching, Theology Certificate from Cambridge, current M.Div. student at Duke Divinity. Wrote a book in July in vein of Mere Christianity entitled “Academics Just Don’t Understand.” Lots of years in Camp Ministry and some time in pastoral roles, working this summer as Chaplain at Duke Hospital. I write all that context to share-I am beginning my career after divinity school and my hands are open vocation-wise. I note in your change to Truth Unites that you’d like to hire help as you dedicate more time to it. If there’s any pieces you could see with hiring full time help, let me know. My wife and I are young and want to invest in a good ministry. Let’s connect.
I think I’m going to comment this on every video from now on, Dear Gavin, if you see this, pleasssssseee do a discussion or debate with Father Josiah Trenham, he is in Southern California, very big proponent of orthodoxy and went to a Calvinist college under RC Sproul, I would love to see you guys break this down, Protestant vs Orthodox, he wrote a book called Rock and Sand, basically a critic of the reformation and is highly regarded in orthodoxy circles. Please sit down with him, it would be amazing to hear. ❤
Yes it is a huge problem for Protestants. We all must use private judgement to some extent but Catholics and Orthodox are not using their private judgement to decide whether every single specific doctrine, practice, or development is divinely revealed or not. Gavin and other Protestants are taking private judgement too far and making themselves the determining authority over what scripture and Christianity teach. As an analogy, it's like saying one man uses "private judgement" to conclude Jesus is Lord and then obeys him while another uses "private judgement" to determine what God thinks without relying on another teacher. Both are using private judgement but one is relying far more heavily on it than the other. It's a blind spot for Gavin and it will be for as long as he continues his denial about Catholicism being true.
I don't see any evidence that Catholics and Protestants believe wildly different things. Christianity can be made as complicated as one wishes, but beyond baptism, repentance, and faith in Jesus virtually all the sects are the same.
" Catholics and Orthodox are not using their private judgement to decide whether every single specific doctrine, practice, or development is divinely revealed or not." - Neither do us. I have the Westminster Confession of Faith and Cathecism and the Councils of the my Church (The Presbyterian Church) lol.
@@pedroguimaraes6094The WCF is authoritative only insofar as it conforms to the individual's current interpretation and PJ of Scripture, otherwise it is to be rejected in part or total. It states this in 1.10, 20.2, 25.4, 31.2, 31.3. PJ remains supreme and normative, not any ecclesial judgment, confession, creed, or council, e.g. you have no problem rejecting Lutheran or Baptist confessions or 2nd Nicaea. Such ongoing PJ is consistent with Protestant principles. That is far different from the RC/EO paradigm. Or as Turretin wrote “Although in the external court of the church every private person is bound to submit to the synodical decisions (unless he wants to be excommunicated), and such judgment ought to flourish for the preservation of order, peace and orthodoxy, and the suppression of heretical attempts; it does not follow that the judgment is supreme and infallible. For an appeal may always be made from it to the internal forum of conscience, nor does it bind anyone in this court further than he is persuaded of its agreement with the Scriptures.”
@@cronmaker2 Our ministers must read the entire Confession of Faith before entering seminary and must take an oath to follow it in its entirety to become pastors. Isn't that authoritative? Completely different from your interpretation. Protestantism is not one big Church, it is an umbrella term for different churches. If I do not follow the stipulations and Confessions of my Church, I will be excommunicated, as will you in yours and if you, upon being excommunicated, for example, in the EO, you will be able to become a member of the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Assyrian Church etc. just as I can become a member of Lutheran, Anglican etc. Does this mean that your Church had no authority? This line of argument that you like to use to attack Protestant churches makes no sense. Dr. Gavin Ortlund (Thuth Unites Channel) just released a video on his channel talking precisely about PJ in Protestantism, EO, Catholics etc. and responding to these arguments.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 yes we are in the comments of Gavin's PJ video - he's countering a caricature of the PJ critique, not the actual arg - no one disputes we all use our minds and make decisions to submit, that's not the critique. I did not say the WCF was not authoritative. But under Protestant principles and the supreme right of PJ, all secondary authorities are only authoritative insofar as they conform to Scripture, that is the individuals current interpretation/PJ of Scripture. That goes for any confession, creed, council, etc. including of course the WCF itself. That's why it has those built in disclaimers I cited, I'm not misinterpreting them, that's what they (and Turretin) say - all church judgments (eg confessions) are liable to error or corruption and are only authoritative if they conform to Scripture. The difference in RC/EO paradigm is the right to PJ is not enshrined as an ongoing norm. When one submits to RC/EO authority, one is not free to accept/reject each and every doctrine based on ones current PJ. That's inconsistent with RC/EO ecclesial authority claims. Under Protestant principles though, such perpetual PJ is baked into the system and consistent with its authority disclaimers - nothing changes pre and post submission to a church/confession. That's the difference.
Finally! Someone has hit the nail square on the head about private judgement. I've been saying this exact thing for years to family and friends. It's about time someone said this out loud and publicly!
As a catholic I find the notion of private judgement awkward. Not that it doesn't exist, or that I don't judge the validity of some claims regarding the doctrine but I pretty much surrender my doctrine to the (catholic) church and to the Pope's authority. Therefore, I can't just change church, my entire life would become meaningless. This is why the current situation on the Catholic Church makes me borderline panicking. I have nowhere else to go. For example SSPX or other movements are completely meaningless without a valid Pope and cannot resist in any sort of consistent state for long. I don't have a deep understanding of Protestantism but I believe this might be a completely different mindset.
I'm sorry for what you're going through, but just something to think about. When we are all judged by God, it's going to be judgement of your person and you won't be able to hide behind another authority or pope. It's just going to be you, your beliefs, your actions, and your thoughts. While I do personally think we will have all the answers of doctrine provided by God himself, we are still responsible to have biblical knowledge and standards while we are here on earth. I don't want to cause offense, but I do want to encourage you to take some ownership of your beliefs so you can proudly stand before God with a clear conscience and say to him I studied and found these beliefs are true to the best of my knowledge. Don't hide behind an institution, but be confident in the knowledge God has provided for you in his Word. Good luck and God bless.
@@alishavogel7926 There is a clear separation of concerns. I am responsible for my actions, the Pope is responsible for the doctrine. While in many of our actions we can figure out right from wrong easily, in many cases we can't and we must refer to an external authority. I don't have the time, the understanding, or the intelligence to figure out the entire set of rules for myself. I can come up with many cases, like communion for divorced, pre-marital behavior, not to mention the hot topics of the day, which are anything but obvious. Best regards.
@filipius3 you are also responsible for investigating doctrine enough to know you can trust the person who you claim is an authority. If the pope came out tomorrow and said ex-catherda that you don't need Jesus to get to heaven, do you have a responsibility not to follow that doctrine you should know is false or follow it anyways because you have trusted the pope not to lead you astray? I don't want to hear that the pope would never do that, I'm trying to create a scenario that challenges the thinking that you have no responsibility for the doctrine you believe. I think every Christian has a responsibility to be educated in the scriptures enough so they aren't tempted by every wind of teaching.
@@alishavogel7926 The scenario you're considering is not merely hypothetic. While I could accept that many bad popes existed in the long history of the Church, I wonder if, for the first time we are watching a deeply entrenched and organized effort to introduce blatant contradictions to the doctrine. Is there any solution for this problem? I can't see any but expect that God will provide an unexpected solution and the people attempting this, who clearly have no belief in right or wrong, truth or falsehood, are completely mad, by considering they will somehow succeed.
@Truth Unites @Dr. Gavin Ortlund great video. I would like to see you engage with or talk more about the Orthodox Church ☦️ and those with apostolic succession please.
When I became a Catholic, I found peace in the Church. I'm only speaking for my own experience. My years as an Evangelical were positive, but the sacraments have deepened my relationship with Christ.
You make John Chrysostom out to be "just a Christian' . Lol. Apparrently you haven't come accross his book "ON THE PRIESTHOOD". He was a CELEBATE PRIEST! "Not catholic, orthodox, or protestant" smh. Gavin you are reading things in to the Church fathers . You read them as a protestant looking for "outs'. there were no JUST CHRISTIANS back then. Chrystotom was ORDAINED BY A BISHOP. I'll bet you can find out which BISHOP. His Bishop has ABSOLUTELY NO TIES TO YOUR DENOMINATION OR ANY PROTESTANT DENOMINATION.
PSA: “Muh apostolic succession” is not a good response to this video. It just backs the truck up even more. Solves nothing. Never mind the fact that AS as viewed by some modern RCs and EOs has to be proven not just asserted and most of the historical record and scholarship goes against these modern AS claims. If I based my standing with God and his church on a line of bishops I would be terrified especially after reading church history.
Unfair? You are right. It is a human issue and that is why God did not leave it up to individuals. Prov 3.5 says trust not in your own understanding. Jer 3.15 says that God would give us shepherds after his own heart who would give us knowledge and understanding. Its funny that you have to study and be able to read to figure out which is the right denomination. How could this be the historical method when through most of history the MAJORITY of the people couldn't read! Division is not of God. Protestantism is not of God. Your arguments are very poor gavin. What the number is exactly isn't important. It's big.
timestamp 12:35-60 my friends if you ask john chrysostom do you believe in baptismal regeneration? he would say yes if you ask Gavin do you believe in baptismal regeneration he woud say no but they both appeal to the same sacred scripture do you get it? both them would say to one another that it s not the gospel and not taught in scriptures. if we use that system, we would find it hard to identifly who a christian is and what a christian must believe
go back to 3:06 -20 he doesn't notice it also applies to Protestantism. what is the gospel? is baptismal regeneration part the of the gospel? is infant baptism part of the gospel? if i ask protestants today. i would get different answers on what the gospels is from different sect of protestants
My comments are related to only the first 5 minutes of this video as there is enough that troubled me that I'll watch the rest later (and likely have more comments). The first issue is that Dr. Ortlund, when discussing the process of choosing a denomination, characterizes the Old Catholic Church, SSPX, and the SSPV (I think that's what he referred to) as "little tiny offshoots" of the Catholic Church making it sound like it is a similar decision to that of choosing from the multitude of Protestant denominations or churches. The Old Catholic Church and the SSPV reject the authority of the pope and the SSPX has no canonical status with the Catholic Church. These "offshoots" are not an option at all when evaluating the Catholic Church - in no way aligning with the message given in this video. The thing that bothers me the most is that Dr. Ortlund has to know this and given his influence over so many (I have a family member that I believe would become a Lutheran if Dr. Ortlund did) he owes it to his audience to give them a truthful picture. And all of you deserve that as well. I also take issue with the notion of "essentials" as if truth can be divided by "essentials" and "non-essentials". The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, not "truths". Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life...again not "truths". The Catholic Church cares about truth and if a person wants to know what the Catholic Church believes just pick up a Catechism and look it up. To in essence condone and accept error because that is just a "human reality" is offensive...as if Jesus and His Church (the pillar and foundation of truth) is inescapably subject to error...and that Jesus wouldn't protect His bride from the Father of Lies. Lastly, Dr. Ortlund speaks of the many schisms throughout church history and the need for private judgement on what is true and false, but that is not how the Church operates. In Acts 15 Paul and Barnabas specifically don't make a personal decision on truth and rather go to the Church where a decision is made "of the Holy Spirit and of us". This Council approach in making critical decisions is how the Church has always operated. One question I'll ask, the Council of Nicaea met in 325 AD and made a very bold statement...that they were the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. They had the authority to speak for the entire Christian community by excommunicating Arius. They also believed in the necessity of baptism and the Eucharist as viaticum. So, were they who they said they were...the one true Church? I thank you in advance for your responses. I'm hopeful that we can respectfully dialogue where we can learn from each other (iron sharpening iron)! God bless you all!
that the Old Catholic and SSPX etc. are not in communion with Rome was the point. That is why they came up. If they were in communion with Rome, then they would not have been relevant to the point at hand, namely, separatist groups.
OK, I see what you're saying, although I thought your comment was in the spirit of choosing a denomination. Maybe I should have asked what you meant by "offshoots". You gave specific examples for only the heretical groups that split off of the Catholic Church (are there non-heretical examples?). On the other hand, you didn't give Protestant "offshoot" examples. I took "offshoots" as the multitude of Protestant churches that I could choose from that claim to be "Bible alone" (one example is all of the different churches that might be labeled as non-denomination). What did you mean by "offshoot" from a Protestant perspective? I guess my point still applies - the only Catholic "offshoots" are those not in communion with the Church (not viable options) while "offshoots" from a Protestant perspective seem much more problematic from the standpoint of choosing a denomination since truth is defined by each denomination or local church. Thanks in advance for the clarification.
Ignatius of Antioch explained, in the 1st century, how to pick a denomination: Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be, even as wheresoever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church.
The problem is that the protestant clergy cannot really excommunicatr you out of the body of christ, since they dont believe they are the only true church, because of the invisible church doctrine
I’ve just caught a post further on down where it’s claimed that Protestants private judgment is their highest truth and then Christ falls underneath that! I’m not a Protestant but whaaaaattttt?! Really?! I’m lost for words with statements like that I really am,very troubling!
Brother Gavin, I believe you are being slightly disingenuous here. Determining which church Jesus historically founded then submitting to the teaching is different from deciding what you believe then choosing and submitting to a church you already agree with.
no I am not being disingenuous. Those two things are the exact same with regard to the topic at hand. "determining which church Jesus founded" is the same thing as deciding what you believe. You only submit to that church because you arrive upon the conviction that Jesus founded it.
Gavin thanks for your work. It helps balance out the many RC apologist on RU-vid. I’m in the middle of Protestant/catholic debate. And your work has been helpful.
I'm basically in the boat of needing to make this kind of decision. I'm currently in a non-denominational Protestant church, and I grew up in the Restoration and charismatic movements (different churches). But I have been discontent with my tradition for a long time. There are a lot of issues, but it mostly boils down to issues of authority and of worship. I have been looking intensely into Eastern Orthodoxy this year, and I love a lot of what I see, but there are still a few significant sticking points. I have recently also been looking into confessional Lutheranism, which is where I might land. It has the tradition and sacramentality I am longing for but without the hangups I see in Eastern Orthodoxy. Another issue is that my wife and I are training with a Bible translation organization, and our current church wants to support us and be our "sending church." Becoming Orthodox would most likely mean not being able to work with our Protestant Bible translation org, while even switching to another Protestant church would cut ties with our current church that has been so supportive of us (and already has a good relationship with the translation org). But I don't want to make this decision for my family based on pragmatic concerns. So I'm still praying and seeking.
Is having the "perfect doctrine" the most important aspect of a church? I'm part of a Pentecostal church and, while I have some theological disagreements, it doesn't bother me. This church excels in demonstrating God's character and effectively sharing the Gospel with others. However, significant theological differences can be problematic. Sometimes, focusing too much on perfect doctrine might become a kind of idolatry. No church is perfect in its theology or practices, but both are crucial. If I found a vibrant, transformative Catholic church, I would even consider joining it.
I’m in a similar predicament, last church I attended was a Pentecostal church with some doctrines and traditions I found hard to coexist with. Can you please share what other factors you look for in a church that are present in your current church? Or generally how you think through and navigate these things? I may be idolizing and looking for a ‘perfect’ church but it is hard to break away from that expectation.
God bless. Same here. Ive asked God why this is where He placed me. The response I received was there are things that I need to learn that I havent yet. But the biggest deal breaker for me would have to be denial of Jesus Christ as God and the Trinity. After that dialog and exegesis helps a lot. Witnessing my pastor have genuine integrity and hunger to go reach and help the lost community is also extremely helpful.
What was Christ intentions? Found one true Church or allow for a proliferation of them? When Christ prayed that we be one as He is one with the Father what does that mean? Was the unity of Jesus and Father willynilly? Dr Ortlund tries so hard to defend imperfect unity. Jesus was emphatic how unified He wanted His Church. Absolute unity is 100% biblical. Watering down Jesus's wish is unbiblical.
Thank you so much for this video Gavin. I’ve grown up in the Church of Christ, so in the Restoration Movement, and I’ve been walking through a process of figuring out which denomination I belong to. I really appreciate your advice as I go about doing the work!
As a catholic I love your content. I think you are a really charitable protestsnt which i really appreciate. I will note that i think it is quite innacurate to call sspx or Sedevacantism denominations of catholicism. They are not in the communion with the pope therefore are not catholic. They would be their own non protestant denomination, just ass orthodoxy is seperate from catholicism. Great video!
God bless you Pastor Gavin, I've been having a lot of these 'private judgements' these past few days, this video and your intelectual anxiety video have been very helpful. I am born and raised Pentecostal, I know that word seems to spark some debates, I'm from Puerto Rico and at least from what I've seen here, and I'm not here to debate or fight about it, just that Pentecostalism on the US side seems a bit different to say the least seeing videos online, to the point though, this year I've decided to take my relationship with the Lord seriously and have noticed my life improve for the better and have an inmense zeal for God though I still recognize I am but a babe in a lot of ways spiritually. And I've been wrestling with if I am in the right place, am I a Pentecostal? is it a matter of my current church not being the place for me but rather another from my same denomination or if I venture out what then? I don't believe in church hopping, since I believe my place is not for me to decide, but by the Lord. And it's a lot to think about, but for now what I've been doing is what John Chrysostom recommended, studying the scriptures, and that is a bit of a relief to hear. I just want to seek the Lord, and everything else will fall into place, seek truth and I'm sure wherever the Lord places me or doesn't, will be for His glory. For anyone that reached the end of my comment, all I ask if for you to pray for me to be guided by the Holy Spirit and that the Lord may prepare me for whatever is to come. God bless you all and I love you all my brothers and sisters.
Would also like to add Pastor Gavin, keep doing what you are doing, thanks to you I've had an interest in the early church and ordered some books on the early church, the writings Saint Thomas Aquinas etc.
Alistair McGrath's book Christianity's Dangerous Idea, on the priesthood of the believer, points out the pros and cons of this teaching. It leads to sound denominations but also to cults.
There also cults within the traditional churches and sadly they are difficult to fight even by those Churches themselves. These cults equally causes a lot of contradictions but since they are still under the umbrella of "unity" of the Church, the Church normally ignores them or work with them.
I need to read that one. I just wrote a creed and published it on Amazon focused on the Priesthood of All Beievers. The biggest problem is that individuals among the laity can't fully manage the complexity of the Bible and, therefore, can't effectively be priests. Christians are stuck in a holding pattern of division where there local church decides not only where to come down on multiple points of doctrine, but also suggesting and providing applications for what they believe. It's total codependency. It's not healthy, and it's very divisive. What seems to be needed is a common creed that unites us all while making it clearer what the applications and actions of a Christian should be. But absolutely no one that leads a church wants to think of their members being LESS dependent on their guidance and doctrine. Christianity really seems stuck in it's current division which is quite unfortunate. I don't think it's all that hard to know who Christ wants us to be. How have we made it so complex? After writing this creed I know exactly what I believe, how to honor God in worship, and what applications my beliefs should have for life and role as a father. It's nice and uncomplicated.
I really don’t like when non-Orthodox bring up the Moscow-Constantinople creed as if Moscow and Constantinople are two separate churches. There are political and ecclesiastical issues, but both recognize the other as Orthodox despite the strained relationship. Equating sedevecantists and True Believers with the Moscow-Constantinople schism at 5:49 misrepresents the situation imo This doesn’t undermine the videos point. Just a nitpick
Out of all the denominations ive researched the Orthodox seem to be the most put together of all the denominations. Yes, you get slight doctrinal differences with the Orientals, Coptics, and other Orthodox churches, however, they are much more similar than the protestant denominations by a long shot.
@@CVilla49Well you can’t conflate Oriental Orthodox with Eastern Orthodox. The OO are as separated from the EO as they are from RC, at least historically.
@garrettklawuhn9874 How are they separate from the EO church in the same way the RC Church is? I know that RC have differing doctrine and I don't doubt that OO has some differing doctrine as well. I wouldn't say that the RC and OO are equally as apart from the EO. I mean, the obvious comparison would be the Papacy, which the OO do not hold to but the RC does. This already puts them one substantial step closer to the EO side than the RC. I honestly don't know too much about the OO, but to stay that they are as departed from the EO on the basis of doctrine would be disingenuous imo.
@@CVilla49 My point was that the OO schismed from the Church before there was a EO or RC distinction. That’s what I meant by “historically.” OO reject the ecumenical council of Chalcedon which both EC and RC. EC and RC have the same view about the incarceration which the OO disagrees with. If we removed the historical context, I agree OO and EC are closer than EC and RC.
Thank you for this. I hear these arguments constantly from EO & RC’s. I always want to ask them if they just put their brain in neutral once they join a church & no longer need Holy Spirit-led discernment.
A Catholic opinion List of Essentials. But wouldn't you expect to agree on the essentials? Sola Scriptura will never get you there. At least have a catechism. If I go to a catholic church in Italy or California or Chile, they all teach the same thing or at least are trying. If you go to a Methodist church and then a Pentecostal church and then an Evangelical church in no way do they intend on being on the same page, other than the fact they claim to be one; and I don't think they even care if they're not on the same page. Human reality Yes, disagreement is a part of human reality, but it doesn't mean it's what Jesus was intending for his church. It seems to make sense that some church would claim to be the "one true church", why is that a problem? I don't think you’d be damned if you picked the wrong denomination, you would be damned if you knew what to be and didn't comply. Protestantism is not a church. That's an important concession. So, what did Jesus found? Not Protestantism, right? So, what church did Jesus found? WE agree he founded a church, right? They both have an objective authority. I think you’re missing the point. It’s not objective in the sense you say, it’s objectively true standards. That’s the argument. One church says the Eucharist is symbolical and another says it's Consubstantial who's right? We'll never know what the Eucharist is unless God gave us a church that has authority to reveal the truth. Which is exactly what Protestants don’t believe in. If there was a church that had that authority we wouldn't have to be so divided. In principal, a church having the teaching authority to make those decisions would be able to unite believers, whether or not people obey is another story. 1 Timothy 3:15 Leaving denominations. Leaving your denomination once you stopped believing in it is the same as catholics leaving? I think you're missing the point. When a catholic leaves, the church teaches that they’re no longer part of the true church and therefore don’t have the truth. What protestants are doing is moving from one theology to another and maintaining they’re part of a true church. It’s like saying I’m married to the most beautiful woman in world, and then I get a divorce and remarry a different woman and say I’m still married to the most beautiful woman in the world. It’s not that there’s no objective authority, it’s that there’s not objective true authority. If you’re church simultaneously teaches doctrines which are at odds with each other why would you think you still have the true church. That’s the conundrum. Nobody is saying you can’t leave the Catholic Church, we’re saying the church has teachings and once you stopped believing in them, you can’t get them from another denomination because you’re leaving the true church, which makes sense. The point about private judgment is that there’s no authority keeping a person from doing Christianity any way they please. For example, I might decide to start a denomination of my own where I preach there are multiple Jesuses. Who has the authority to say I'm wrong? If the Scripture is the only authority, then no one.
As a Catholic, I like your channel because your ideas are carefully thought through, and your tone is charitable - unlike many protestant apologists who just repeat the tired old lies about the Catholic church.
I used to think that of Ortland, he may be cordial, but he is intellectually dishonest. Omitting large sections of the Fathers that show in context what he quotes means something a Catholic or Orthodox believer assents to and Protestants reject.
@@thomasfolio7931 yes, I was referring to his more charitable manner, compared to most protestant apologists, not his actual theology. Taking quotes from the church fathers, without the full context, is common among the more sophisticated protestant apologists. They treat the church fathers in the same way they treat the Bible - proof texts without context.
St. Vincent’s idea of making corrections in the Church by appealing to antiquity is exactly what the Anglican Reformers were doing in the Reformation. Unfortunately many later Protestants did not have the same respect for the Fathers that many of the Magisterial Reformers originally had. I don’t know how someone could accept St. Vincent’s idea of going back to antiquity without accepting infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, and episcopal governance. Otherwise, it seems like St. Vincent is being cited as a double standard without any real regard for what was taught in antiquity.
Every denomination can make a persuasive case for their core distinctives. So an honest inquirer is going to have to choose which seems most true in light of competing plausible claims. No amount of study, important as that is, can solve the problem. Praying for the Spirit's guidance doesn't do it either since every group does so. In the end it's going to come down the the local churches in our area. Seems to me the best we can do is find a group of believers committed to doing Messiah's work as they understand it and participate in the renewal of creation where we are. I don't like this much, but oh well. It's what the Lord has given us. Chasing certainty is just procrastination.
same question could apply to Christianity. How can we be sure its the right religion when others join a different religion? It also applies to all churches, not just Protestant ones.
@danielboone8256 THIS! Even though I am Protestant, ( and very grateful to you, Dr. Gavin, @TruthUnites, ) I just can't let go of the fact that the Holy Spirit is not going to lead people to believe different things about matters such as the Eucharist, baptism, and even eternal security. I'm not saying that RC is correct, but if not, then what really is the proper way to discern and interpret scripture on such matters so that we are undivided?
@@TruthUnites I'm a Protestant. I mean the question towards all Churches, not as an attack against one denomination or the other. I'm also speaking purely of your point at the end of the Holy Spirit guiding believers to truth, so unless you think the Holy Spirit guides non-believers as well, I'm not sure other religions are relevant. I'm not sure we should hold that the Holy Spirit is guiding people to different Churches unless, perhaps, we postulate that some people will do more good for God in one Church while another does more good in a different Church.
@@wonderingpilgrim Yeah, either most people are not led by the Holy Spirit (at least in this regard) or the Holy Spirit is leading them to these different Churches for a reason other than the truth itself. Perhaps these lesser doctrines matter far less than what the person will do because they're in one denomination and not the other.
the insistence that Jesus created a single physical institution and anyone outside it will surely go to hell regardless of their love for Christ will give anyone anxiety and existential angst, i rest in his words that anyone who comes to him he will by no means cast out. I encourage anyone who is searching for a home church to read the scriptures, read history, pray and trust in the Lord and where your heart finds rest is where you belong.
Hmm odd that RC essentials cant be identified yet Protestants have had no issue writing polemics against them for 500 years and regularly judging RCism to be a false church/gospel. The truth of course is that many RC infallible dogmas are easily identified and known by all. In the Protestant/SS framework it is impossible for infallible doctrines to obtain, everything is offered as revisable and provisional, including any essentials, let alone their interpretation.
