Mary's Assumption: A Protestant Critique w/ Dr. Gavin Ortlund 

@@tony1685 Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are all dead, and yet: "‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” (Mt 22:32). Likewise, Moses died, and yet he appeared alongside Christ at the Transfiguration (Mt 17:3). Even so, Rev 12:1-5 would appear to be an apocalyptic version of the Passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus as described in John 18-20 - in which case, Mary was still living, in the earthly sense of the word. And of course it's symbolic, the Woman of Rev 12 symbolises Daughter Zion and Eve. Alas, I can see I'm not going to get anywhere with you.

@@tony1685 If its the resurrection that is decisive, shouldn't Jesus have said that the Father "will be the God of the living"? Its 1260 days, not years. Moreover, you tell me Revelation 12 is symbolic (I agree!) and yet you read it literally ("was Mary given wings?"). Please make up your mind.

@@tony1685 I didn't say the resurrection wasn't the subject, I said it wasn't decisive to the matter we were discussing. Regarding days/years, does this mean Daniel is referring to 1335 years in Dan 12:12? That's an awful long time for someone to have to wait (whilst not dying). So you're saying the woman doesn't have wings, but the church does? Sola scripture = how many denominations that can't agree on what the Bible says? It's a shame that for 30 years, the Church failed to properly catechize you. It failed to properly catechize me too, but that just meant I had to do my own study, not jump ship to a tradition which is no older than 500 years and, I'm guessing in your case, to an independent church which has existed for no more than 20.

The bible doesn't say a whole lot about Mary. The bible tells us clearly who Mary is. What she is not: mother of god, sinless, assumed, ever virgin.....Thats all from the rcc with zero biblical support.

Does Dr Pitre address the historical points Dr Orlund makes? If so, can you point me to a video or website where I can find more information? Thanks

we may diverge from you, but not from the bible...what Apsotle started the OCA? or is it another man-made denomination that just borrowed aposotolic succession? see my book recommendation at the top

Except you can use similar metrics. There's much more evidence for doctrines like the two wills and nature of Christ than the assumption of Mary. Whether or not it's true, Gavin's primary concern is that the Catholic Church is saying you MUST believe these things to be part of the church which can dangerously be interpreted as a necessary belief for salvation.

Wonder why the Catholic Church didn’t include the wrath of Mary lol

Yeah I experienced that myself

@@lucidlocomotive2014 I'm sorry to hear that. I hope all is well, brother.

Me too! I cannot wait seeing Cameron wearing an Indian Headdress apologizing for all the evil of the world while Christians are murdered everyday! Or he could kiss the HOLY Qur'an as JP II did. Even better, now that Salman Rushdie is on the news, Cameron should condemn Rushdie's book for being BLASPHEME like the Vatican did on the L’Osservatore Romano!!! Cannot wait to see Cameron doing this stuff!

@@prime_time_youtube This is very immature, and I think you should take it to prayer.

@@lyterman ...and that was the best you could say about that information. Bravo!

no. no chance. never gonna happen. ok?

Thankfully Mariology isn’t a theory, it is a reality.

@@toddupchurch1028 That's it. You persuaded me. I was about to write a Martin Luther-esque screed, but referencing it as "fact" sold me immediately. Where's my swimsuit? I'm jumpin' in the Tiber! 😉

@@Henry._Jones Your comment was very persuasive as well. What a wonderful rhetor.

@@Qwerty-jy9mj Indeed it was! ... especially considering I didn't pretend to argue the point about Mariology. Really, I was just razzing the guy a bit for giving a summary conclusion w/o really discussing the point. I meant it in good nature, but in all honesty, I can't process the RU-vid phenomenon of simply asserting stuff without discussing it. Why should anyone care if I say "x is fact!"? It communicates virtually nothing.

@@Henry._Jones Oh that’s exciting! I am glad that is all it took, because the truth doesn’t need some long, verbose explanation. Furthermore, Luther had a deep devotion to the Mother of God. Don’t go into the Tiber, the Pacha mama got tossed on there. 😉

In my view as a Protestant this is the only historically based evidence I’m aware of. RCC folks love them some relics

I would be curious though of a couple things, 1. When the popularity of relics was at its height (was it before or after the 450 date) 2. Were there talk of Marian relics prior to the 450 date where we start to see folks claiming in writing Mary was assumed, that were later destroyed or discredited

💯

the trouble is that no matter how you slice it, things that don't show up until centuries after the apostles just don't work as things that can be assumed to have always been around. that'd be like saying Donald Trump or Joe Biden represent the same views as Thomas Jefferson. Without a biblical basis or a shockingly early source, there's no case for it not being a later development when the evidence shows that it is.

@@AndyReichert0 Sure, this is how I know sola scriptura is false.

later development =/= false many christians have developed awesome ideas centuries after the apostles. i'm really glad that christians developed cool things like genetics, calculus, apologetics, and hospitals. did the apostles teach these things? not that we have any record of, so the intellectually honest will infer that they were later developments, but that doesn't make them false. i like to think that hospitals really do exist, even if they don't show up until long after the apostles. there's no shame in admitting when something is a late development.

Its coming!

@@Sarah-fe1hh there is already one. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ABnXtFCwcRM.html

Sad to see Suan gone tho

it's coming... and then gavin boy will cry about it, Mark my words

@@jaydyle4800 Why would you want that? He seems like a good and genuine person

There also is some historical basis that she was as scripture says taken care of by John and may have went with him to Ephesus and lived out her life there. There is also a tomb in Jerusalem credited to be the burial place of Mary. I agree Mary was a very blessed woman but it seems apparent to me that out of extreme respect and love for Jesus the respect for Jesus mother may have started these doctrines. On another note Goddess worship was very prevalent in Jesus time so It begs the question what unintentional role did this play in the creation of the Marian dogmas. And the fact the 2 most recent ones are under 200 years old came about with no new information available

@@fluffyone2728 Yeah that could have happened, there's also a tradition, though not a dogma, that she was buried, and when they returned to her tomb the body was gone and only lilies were left. The claim isn't that she was never entombed, nor is the dogma that she never died, because the eastern churches (even the catholic ones) believe she did and the west typically don't, but neither is it binding. Also don't forget, the Catholic church condemned Collyridianism in the 4th century, which was the literal worship of Mary as a goddess. As for recent ones being 200 years old, remember, a teaching becoming dogma doesn't mean it was invented at that point and was never taught or believed prior. Think of the change from the Apostle's Creed to the Nicaean Creed. It was expanded in response to heresy. In short, something becomes dogma to clarify what we should be believing because of what the Church knows to be true, instead of allowing someone to think otherwise. And besides the Marian dogmas all have to do with who Jesus is, because if Jesus is the Son of God, and also is God, then logically she is the mother of God, (and daughter of God and spouse of God, because the one God is three persons). And if John saw the arc of the covenant in heaven, then saw it immediately replaced with a pregnant woman (wearing a crown of stars, over the moon, clothed with the sun, all things used to describe heaven) that gives birth to Jesus, and she was literally the dwelling place of God on earth for 9 months, and we pay attention to allusions between references in the OT of the Arc, and Mary in the Gospels, then its hard NOT to see that she is the new arc, of the new covenant, and also a Queen, in heaven. And if Jesus is the new David, king of the new Jerusalem, of heaven and earth, then just by default she definitely is the Queen Mother of the new Jerusalem, of heaven and earth. And if we can see that she is the Eve thanks to subtle but undeniable connections in the gospel of John and Genesis, and we believe Jesus' human nature was created without sin, as the new Adam, (just like Adam, and Eve were created without sin), it stands to reason that she was also created without sin. Also, her perpetual virginity is just a matter of reading and understanding the original languages at the time. Plus, why wouldn't Jesus have left His mother with a blood brother instead of John? I definitely think that love and respect for Jesus had something to do with the doctrines, but not as the root of them.

@@marcelcid182 I do I admit I am not fully aware of the full doctrines of Mary, I tread carefully forward while investigating alot about Catholicism I do agree It is from the Original church Peter put Clement as head over the church in Rome, I have recently been studying alot to understand the Catholic view point as I myself am evangelical and embarrassed by the path our church and protestantism as a whole is headed down and I think there's alot to like about Catholicism I am still working through some of these issues such as Marian dogmas and Intercessory prayers as another I struggle to see a definitive scriptural interpretation of I recognize the verses in Job used and verses such as the prayers of a righteous man avails much. I see Mary as definitely the Mother of God definitely the most blessed woman to ever live but I don't see her as Wife of God or having perpetual virginity as she had other sons. I understand the viewpoint from Catholicism that God cannot be in contact with sin and that's were alot of this comes from but I also believe God is sovereign and can do as he sees fit. That's not to discredit the viewpoint of Catholicism I just personally have not seen enough evidence to reconcile this in my own mind to be intellectually honest with myself.

@@marcelcid182 Mary having other children would in no way have made her less of an amazing woman. Is the issue original sin bestowed upon all at birth?

@@fluffyone2728 I agree, but I think that her having children is actually a more recent idea, because I don't think early protestants believed she had other children either.

Can you provide the historical sources you think Gavin missed?

@@anthonywhitney634 apparently not since he never responded

@@anthonywhitney634 of course, but is it really important since protestants will just "sola scriptura" me back?

@@JeanRausis I'm just curious about what historical sources you think Gavin missed. I don't want to debate you on the subject.

they're always relevant, that's how anyone decides anything at all. Cameron's own experience with this interview is something he now has to take into account for example.

@@Qwerty-jy9mj the part I’m trying to emphasize is the thing I said about *silver-bullet* arguments not likely being available. At some point a person will need to make a decision about X, but they shouldn’t be surprised (or too concerned) if there remains some countervailing argument. Those are expected to exist.

Seems like a good buttressing point doesn't it?

Because the church destroyed them all? Because she died a hundred years before people developed this weird bone thing? Because the bones attributed to her were discredited and the documentation removed? There’s a lot of arguments far more believable than bodily ascension

@@whatsinaname691 are you a christian?

@@MrPeach1 Yep

@@whatsinaname691 did your original comment disappear I cant see it?

Did they also preserve liturgical abuses?

@@wilsonw.t.6878 not sure what you mean by that comment?

@@johns.9659 You said that the church preserved X, and therefore implied X must be true. Do you mean to tell me that the sale of indulgences in the 15th century was preserved? Do you trust what the church had to say about that (the many, many bishops and priests who proclaimed those liturgical abuses)?

@@wilsonw.t.6878 can you show me where the church in question issued doctrinal documents or dogmatic statements concerning the licit sale of indulgences?

A ship with no captain at the helm. A team desparate for guidance. No guidance, no standards. No standards, no consistency. No consistency, chaos!

@@tony1685 aren't you a millerite?

@YAJUN YUAN can you troll somewhere else, and stop chatting nonsense.

Rejecting Protestantism because it doesn’t have an ultimate personal authority (like the Pope) doesn’t make sense. It would be similar to rejecting Catholicism because it does have a Pope and I don’t like that. Either way you go has nothing to do with the truth of a position, it’s just personal preference.

@@Iamwrongbut that's the chief reason why some protestants who convert to an apostolic church turn to Eastern Orthodoxy in lieu of Catholicism. It still doesn't answer the question of whether the papacy is a feature of the fullness of communion.

I'm not Anglican myself, but your comment brings C.S. Lewis to my mind. A believer of his philosophical and theological stature having been Anglican lends some weight to what you're saying.

Could the same not be true about Lutheranism

Hi logan, I've been where you are now once, but ended up becoming catholic instead. For me, I couldn't reconcile Anglican ecclesiology. From my reading of the Scriptures and the Fathers, their ecclesiology to me seems to be that there's one visible communion and that schism removes someone from 'the church'. Of course, modern Catholicism has a nuanced view--there are true chrisitans outside who are still partially connected to 'the church', but nonetheless they aren't fully connected. Whilst this is often seen as offensive, I do think it's the biblical/patristic view. Schism is a sin that separates someone from 'the church'. Anglicanism depends on a different notion and ecclesiology. Thoughts? God bless.

I don't see why it is a stretch. Enoch was taken because he walked with G-d and if that is the case how much more should Mary be assumed into heaven who walked with G-d even before he was born and all the way to the cross and how much more should she be assumed into heaven because of her relationship to our L-rd which was far more intimate than any other on earth? You can say a lot of things about this dogma but I don't think it's a stretch.

@@jourdan4am You are committing a non seqiutur, brother

@@Ttcopp12rt that would be a bad analysis of my comment I merely said that is not a stretch I didn't say the assumption followed this argument.

@@jourdan4am You are clearly implying it. Enoch/therefore Mary. It is fallacious reasoning

@@Ttcopp12rt once you establish that it is at least reasonable or not a stretch the validity of the assumption is accomplished by the necessity and power of the magisterium and the Marian apparitions. The necessity of the magisterium to resolve doctrinal disputes that have eternal consequences this necessity is unavoidable because no other mechanism is able to do this definitively. The quality of the miracles of the Marian apparitions is of the highest quality both in power and fruits is also a good argument for the assumption of Mary.

Sometimes an argument from silence IS a strong argument. But that's only if there's a strong expectation that something would have been mentioned.

I mean relics came later. I’ve read quite a bit of the very early church and I haven’t even come up with one example so far of the use of relics in the first volume of the ante fathers. If relics became a major part of the church’s worship at the same time or later than Mary started to be seen as being assumed why would people try and find some.

@@mw-ys1qq 156 ad in a letter from the Church of Smyrna in regards to the martyrdom of Polycarp talks about taking his bones to a special place and celebrating the birthday of his martyrdom. Plus the existence of things like St. Peter’s bones in the Vatican would be indication that they did practice veneration of icons that early. But I could be wrong I’m no expert.

@@Faithofthefathers12 that’s not exactly relics though. I mean it fits the technical definition sure but we don’t call veterans cemetery’s in the us relics. All that really says is they took his body and buried it someplace they can visit. You don’t get anything close to a full catholic or Eastern Orthodox doctrine of the his body being given some power from god. Frankly every culture takes care of their dead. I’d propose that it wouldn’t be until relics became viewed as the vessels through which god works miracles that people would start trying to get as many as possible and people would want to go find Mary’s bones.

That's interesting. I'm a Catholic convert from an Evangelical background and the Assumption wasn't a big deal for me. I always figured if Elijah was assumed into Heaven it makes sense that Christ would assume his mother. There's also a vision of her in Heaven with her body in Revelation 12. I think the Immaculate Conception and the Communion of Saints were much bigger hurdles for me. Obviously, I got past those hurdles and over a decade later I am very happy that I did. The Church has been an incredible blessing for me, a more concrete theology and a rich tradition of writings from great theologians and martyrs like St Ignatius of Antioch, St Jerome, St Augustine and many, many others has been amazingly beneficial. Peace be with you.

Why would you have a hard time accepting such when the Church teaches Mary is the new ark ? Revelation 11:19 says the prophet saw God's temple in heaven opened, "and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple." if Mary is indeed the New Ark which she is , based on why the church teaches it , it should not be problematic , notice the typology , what was contained in the Original Ark ? The tablets of the 10 commandments which is the word of god , a bowl of manna , and aarons the high priests wooden staff which had a flower bulb on the end of it , what was contained in the womb of Mary who is the new ark ? Jesus who is the word of God , Jesus who is the true manna from heaven , and Jesus who is the high priest and notice when the wooden staff was removed from the Original ark what happened ? the flower bulb on the end of the staff would bloom which represents the ressurection of Jesus ! , so yes if our Blessed mother Mary is the new ark , then go back to Rev 11:19 God certainly assumed her into heaven with purpose

The Assumption was your number 1 objection to Catholocism? Like honestly, or are you just saying that for some likes?

@@phoult37 wow! I almost never comment on RU-vid, and here I get three responses from Catholics, including one that questions my sincerity! That’s my favorite. In short, yes, late tradition becoming forced dogma is my number 1 problem with the Catholic Church. No one need like or comment.

@@philomela1102 I am questioning how much you actually have thought through your position. Think for a moment that even Martin Luther held to the Immaculate Conception/Ensoulment (16th century) and that we already have 3 other examples of bodily assumptions prior to Mary in the OT. The Assumption of Mary, while officially defined in the 19th century, was long held prior to that and not at all a sensational claim given the other dogmas surrounding her. I mean, she was called the Mother of God in the 4th or 5th century? It's just a weird claim to push back against as your number one problem with Catholocism...hypothetically, you accept that Jesus instituted the Petrine papacy, that Mary is the Mother of God, and that Mary was immaculately conceived, but NOT that Mary was assumed like 3 other OT prophets before her...like, really? Maybe it's a good thing you don't comment on YT much because that is a nonsensical position to hold if you are being sincere.

🙏🙏🙏

the virginity of Jesus has yet to be dogmatized simply because nobody has ever challenged it.

Well, gravity can be proven long before Newton slapped a name on it. The trinity is all over the bible. Christs dual nature was discussed at Nicea because of Arius who had a major following and it needed to be put down. There was no attack on Mary's 'assumption' prior to it being defined. Have you read DEIPARAE VIRGINIS MARIAE? It was a letter sent out by Pius 12th 3-4years prior to the actual definition of the dogma. All hes asking is basically for a popularity poll. "We think this is a great idea, how about you?" "Let us know." Pius 9th did the same thing prior to defining Marys IC. It was a letter called Ubi Primum. No attack there either.

@@ContendingEarnestly yes I read it in preparation for a paper I submitted on the lead up to the definition. I also am aware that there were a number of reasons that the time was seen as opportune. The World had just come out of dark days in which humankind had seen the worst attack of one group against another, the rise of atheism and attacks on religions, both Chrisitan, and Jewish. Modernism and Secularism was the proposed answer to what had happened, asking modern man to reject the supernatural, and the idea that there was a good and loving God, if He would allow what had happened. Direct and indirect attacks on religion in general and the Church including among some attacks on Mary, her virginity, and role as an example of perfect submission to God's will. While overt attacks on the belief were overshadowed by more sinister attacks on belief, they were not non-existent. As to Newton. I'm well aware that it was described before he defined it. The point is the Assumption too was described and believed before it was officially defined. In the past few years more and earlier evidence of the belief have been uncovered. In Spain two sarcophagi from the 2nd Century were found in a Chrisitan Cemetery with Christological themed carvings including depictions of the Assumption of Mary, and there is the research of Stephen Shoemaker in his article "The Ancient Dormition Apocrypha and the Origins of Marian Piety: Early Evidence of Marian Intercession from Late Ancient Palestine" which can be found on peer reviewed the online Academia.com website. He too shows sources from the 2nd Century that Dr. O seems to not have been aware of.

The black hole argument doesn't work because, with modern physics, there are unexplained phenomena that hypotheses such as black holes help to explain. There is literally no reason to hypothesize the assumption of Mary. It adds nothing to Christian doctrine, explains no phenomena, and it actually serves the undermine previously agreed upon truths

Interesting, thanks

Unfortunately Protestants see no evidence for Mary's sinlessness either, scripture actually goes against the idea (1 John 1:8-10).

@@anthonywhitney634 your right As a Christian as protestant is far too liberal a term.I don't see biblical evidence of Mary's sinlessness

Beautifully said.

@@anthonywhitney634 Except John is a letter talking about people in certain circumstances, hes not talking about Mary. Mary was referred to by an angel as "being full of grace" Normal people like you and me received our grace by Jesus death on the cross, however Mary had grace before Christ was even born. The only answer here is if she had been born without sin. Which makes sense as Mary is the new Eve as Jesus is the new Adam. Adam and Even were born without sin, as Jesus and Mary also were.

Mary was Not Sinless ... One of Her Parents Came From the Lineage of King David and Both Parents were Sinners . Jesus was Conceived through a Miracle By the Holy Spirit in Fulfilment of Bible Prophecy. Mary's Womb was Borrowed , She was Not Sinless . 1 Corinthians 15:22 AMP For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

“fully redeemed by the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ” As a Protestant, we would agree with this part of your statement. Through Christ’s substitutionary and fully atoning work on the cross, Mary, and you and me, and every single Christian, are counted in the eyes of God as sinless - fully justified by Jesus on the cross.

@@andrewk9037 what sins did she commit?

@@bersules8 Whatever the truth is on various the immaculate conception, your argument cannot stand. God made us all, yet we're not all perfect. Of course it isn't because he made us corrupt, but rather because we fell. If the argument is that someone must *necessarily* be perfect (even post-lapsarian) merely because God made them, then the rest of us disprove that. If the argument is, rather, that God was *able* to make her perfect (again, post lapsarian), then sure, yes he could have-- but that is hardly an argument for the doctrine so much as it is for the theoretical possibility. So far as I know, Protestants don't argue against this doctrine on the presupposition that God is unable to do it. The Protestant argument is simply that Mary was a fallen human like the rest of us, *not* that a special dispensation for an immaculate conception was beyond his power.

@@jpc9923 You Are Wrong ! . Both Mary's Parents were Sinners and One was of the Lineage of King David . Luke's Genealogy Goes Back to Adam . In Adam All Die ... Because of Sin . Jesus was the Only One on Earth who was Sinless because He is God and the Only Means of Redemption . Mary Could Not Possiblly Be Sinless Because She is Not God . Her Womb was Borrowed in Fulfilment of Isaiah and She Was Impregnated by the Overshadowing Miracle Work of the Holy Spirit .

That might have just been carelessness. The teaching was newer is what he meant. That it would be codified so late is strange and implausible.

@@JeansiByxan Not at all. Look at the doctrines that the Council of Trent codified, roughly 1,500 years after the Church began. Also, is the Assumption a "newer" doctrine than say faith alone salvation or eternal security? This is what makes Ortlund's entire argument so odd...it's self-refuting against Protestantism. Regarding the development of doctrine more generally, the Church's understanding of dogma and/or doctrine can develop and become more precise, but it cannot contradict. So the best argument against the Assumption would be to show a contradiction between it and previous doctrines/dogmas, but of course, one can't do that.

I'm Catholic, what you said is wrong. Faith isnt a checklist of things you need to believe before you die or you go to hell for eternity. People who repent and join Christ in communion go to heaven. Your judgement isnt going to be a theological exam.

And neither are in scripture.

@@ContendingEarnestly does not say in Scriptures that everything should be found in Scriptures.

@@winstonbarquez9538 Two dogmas of the rcc aren't anywhere in the bible. And thats your response? Thats the remark catholics make when they agree their doctrines and dogmas aren't in the bible.

@@ContendingEarnestly we are not a Bible-alone Church because Sola Scriptura is not Scriptural.

@@winstonbarquez9538 This isn't really a sola scriptura discussion. Dogma has to be believed in the rcc or else. Why wouldn't you want to see with your own eyes in the bible where is states what your popes have said is dogma and necessary to be believed? Or do catholics just blindly follow the pope on whatever he declares as dogma?

“Lip service” as opposed to what? Actual worship? Well, yeah.

@@geomicpri wouldn't that be a false dichotomy? Either Mary is honored or she is worshiped, one extreme against another. Its an unnecesaary either/or. Not only that, Orthodox and Catholics don't worship her. So at best, it's a misrepresentation.

@@andys3035 well, my question is, how do we honour someone like that? We praise or laud them for their virtues (lip service), but then what?

@@geomicpri you keep saying and "then what", pushing a false dichotomy. It would be like me saying if you don't honor the blessed virgin, then what? Then you must hate her. I'm mean, thats just ridiculous. Besides, Orthodox don't worship her, that's idolatry so you're just way off. Right now, the Orthodox church is celebrating the dormition of the theotokos. You as a Protestant don't do that, so yes, lip service. She is memorialized each year, you don't do that. The problem with you Protestants is you present these either/or paradigms when there is no need. I get you want to avoid idolatry , we do too. Just be honest in how you represent the other side.

@@andys3035 No, I wasn’t presenting a dichotomy. I was asking, then what? You could have just answered, “Well you could celebrate days in the year that mark her accomplishments” or something like that. That’s an acceptable answer. I’d point out that Protestants tend to be hesitant to make holy days (beside Sundays) about ANYTHING, some even refuse to celebrate Christmas! So I would just say that we simply don’t see that as an appropriate way of showing respect. It’s a little ritualistic. We respect saints by referring to their examples. “Look what Abraham did”, “Look what David said”, “Look how Paul reacted”, etc. We see that as a more meaningful way to honour them than observing a day in the year for them. But ok, I suppose “marking days of celebration for” is a good example of honouring that isn’t worship. Thanks. Anything else?

It doesn’t say either way. It’s ironic then that her bodily assumption is simply an assumption by Catholics. There is no evidence of it for the first 400 years after Jesus’ ministry.

@YAJUN YUAN Matthew 18:17 says the church decides disagreements between us. Will you accept the divine word or will you reject God's word?

Sounds exciting

Did it take "months of study" for the 1st Century Christians to "truly receive the Eucharist"? What does it mean to "truly receive the Eucharist"?

@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 catechumens really did take a long time to get ready for baptism

@@Qwerty-jy9mj You speak correctly, and I have also pondered why; considering the earliest record of "the church" as recorded in Acts, did not wait to baptize people. Why did the practice of baptism "develop" to something different than was practiced in the earliest recordings?

@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 So you think the Church died within the first century?

Most Catholics are safe if they base their epistemology on papal dogmas though. There can’t be defeaters as long as they take papal authority as their prime source of belief. Just don’t point out the circularity.

@@JoeDiPilato this makes zero sense, what are you even referring to by "papal dogmas"?

The only fallible is protestantism and sola scriptura which has created 40K+ protesting cults and sects and fallible bibles

@kenton Park how true!

This is 100% accurate. I enjoyed listening to Ortlund for quite some time and at least appreciated his willingness to engage with the ECF. But as soon as he decided to take the route that baptismal regeneration wasn't virtually unanimous, that was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. At that point I knew he was either not a serious interlocutor at best, entriely disingenious at worst.

@@hometownapologist7879 absolutely! You can make a good argument on bodily assumption but to deny baptismal regeneration is absolutely bunk and reeks of being disingenuous.

@Ed Fasolis so you haven't read any Patristic Church Father?

Not really, the Bible isn't a manual and core doctrines like the Holy Trinity aren't exactly explicit in the Bible. Even when we're talking about the basics of salvation, even when they're explicit in scripture, some protestants deny: baptismal regeneration, confession and even the Eucharist.

@@Qwerty-jy9mj Speaking for myself, I have a deep, intimate relationship with God through Jesus Christ and I don't adhere to the Catholic doctrines of baptismal regeneration, confession and the Eucharist. What could account for this if these doctrines are essential to salvation?

@@curiousgeorge555 that you're reading the bible wrong

@@Qwerty-jy9mj My point is that if the Catholic Church is the one true church and one cannot be saved apart from her, why is it that I have been regenerate and have deep fellowship with God in Christ? I do not belong to the Catholic Church. I believe and know that regeneration can be found outside of Catholicism. I confess my sins directly to God. I believe the Eucharist is symbolic.

@@Qwerty-jy9mj what does it mean for those doctrines to be “essential”? What would happen to someone who doesn’t believe them to be the truth.

@@tony1685 where's her body?

@YAJUN YUAN I don't know so I don't declare I do . If Christ's church says he is in heaven I'll accept that. What random prot church should I attend. 1/50,000 chance I guess right sounds great

@@tony1685 yeah Matthew 16:18-19 Peter's successor had the keys to the kingdom. I follow the Bible

@@tony1685 Matthew 18:17 says the church gets to settle our disagreement. Will you obey the word of God and submit to church authority or will you deny God's holy word

@YAJUN YUAN Mary was alive during the primitive church of course it would be unknown. Matthew 18:17 says if we disagree the church gets to decide. Will you honor God's holy word or reject it?

Not at all. That makes marriage and being parents seem almost unimportant when you look at it that way

Well, if you're talking about "mother" in the biological sense, then there's no difference. Jesus had a bunch of biological ancestors. But if you're talking about the role of motherhood, then Joseph played the role of father to Jesus, so why not call him the father of God? Either way you slice it, this obsession with Mary is weird.

@@JM-jj3eg I don't get your point because being the mother of G-d is far more important than any other earthly relationship because by being the mother of G-d she carried G-d within her that makes her analogous with the old Testament ark of the covenant.

There are three things to consider here. Conception, Gestation and Birth. Mary’s gestation and birth of Jesus was natural and biological and so that makes her the biological mother of Jesus. However, her conception of Jesus wasn’t natural and so there is no biological ancestry of Jesus

The ancestry of Jesus spoken of as the Son of David was in a legal sense, not a biological sense. Joseph being the biological descendant of David became the legal adoptive father of Jesus and so Jesus became a legal descendant of David

From what to what? (smiling)

@@thelinkeducationalsupports2949 what?

Cameron is being impressionable. Saying the Church wouldn't be wrong about The Assumption is akin to saying they wouldn't be wrong about burning heretics.

There is more than one definition.😉

@@halleylujah247 Right. They all say the same thing. I didn't want to be rude and overstate my point with all the definitions. People can look into themselves! :)

If Webster says women are anyone who identifies as women you'll accept that?

Hi Elizabeth. I'm assuming you are thinking of 'worship' as being due to God alone (the word has been used differently in the history of the English language, but that's what it's common use now has come to be). I think you're highlighting the wrong part of the definition, and the complete definition is important. When you highlight 'reverence', it seems that to you the operative part of the definition would just be "worship - to honor or show reverence for." By that definition, anyone we revere we would be worshipping - that would be bad. But by that definition, anyone we honor we would also be worshiping: We would be worshiping our parents by following the commandment to honor our parents - that would also be bad, and God's word would have a contradiction in it. If we instead highlight *as a divine being or supernatural power* , we then see the important operative part of the definition. It is not worship if we appropriately honor our parents and ancestors (both by blood and in the faith) - as long as we don't honor them *as divine or supernatural* . Likewise, it is OK to show reverence (deep respect) for those things and people which God has made holy, as long as we don't revere them *as divine or supernatural* .

@@elizabethburns1449 so persistent misuse of a word defines the category? What we offer to the virgin Mary and the saints is properly called _dulia_ which is merely reverence akin to the one a person admires their parents, an athlete, a hero of some sort. These are just the heroes of the Church. What you want to conflate this with is _latria_ which is to recognize God as the creator and lord of all things, including the saints. Dictionaries like Websters have to put the broadest definition possible because they have to account for whatever any sort of pagan religion or atheist might think qualifies as worship. You're resorting to literally paganizing the definition of what's due to God alone in order to smear Catholicism.

Nope, we all know that anyone can derive all kind of type/antitype models that will lead us anywhere they want us to go. When you play with symbols you can get anything, even Tertullian, who is for Catholics, either a hero or a villain (depending on how convenient is to summon him) saw Mary as a "figure" of the synagogue that rejected Christ (On the Flesh of Christ, c. 7) Let's go with Fathers and Saints: We all know that John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria clearly taught that Mary was not sinless. Though Augustine clearly thought that Mary was sinless, his teachings deny the Immaculate conception. Saint Fulgentius of Ruspe denied the Immaculate conception too. preferred

@@prime_time_youtube Rather, let's go with the Bible, specifically the Gospel of John. If John is presenting her as the new Eve (and this is where the debate must begin), and antitypes are superior to their types (which is biblical - Mt 12:6, 41, 42), then we are on our way, both the the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

@@thecatholictypologist5009 Red Herring Fallacy. You were so desperate that you chose to ignore my whole comment. Again... your symbolic models are irrelevant, playing with symbols we can get Mary being the symbol of the synagogue that rejected Jesus as Tertullian literally said. Also, Fathers, Saints and writers of the Church taught that Mary rejected the Immaculate conception or even considered her a sinner. No one should affirm these dogmas because there is no conclusive evidence (and I am being generous).

@@prime_time_youtube When and where did St. John Chrysostom says that Mary was a sinner? The early church fathers believed she was sinless. That is part of the Sacred Tradition of the church that is why the Assumption and The Immaculate Conception was easily declared by the church.

@@alfray1072 Chyrosotom: _"For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she has power and authority over her Son"_ Homily 44 on Matthew FYI: Superfluous vanity is a sin. There are other quotes , but this should be enough. *That is part of the Sacred Tradition of the church* Nope, many Fathers, Saints and Writers (to add Tertullian and Origen somewhere) rejected those dogmas of what you now call "Tradition." The great Augustine did not even believe in the Immaculate Conception. That is aaa big problem for Tradition.

@@ty1158 Yes! Mary was saluted by the Archangel Gabriel as being full of grace, even before baptism, which removes sin, as Mary is the foretold woman in Genesis at emnity with Satan! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

@@ty1158 Yes, for just as God was very specific about how the Ark of the Lord of old was to be designed, a pure dwelling place for Him, all the more Mary, the Mother of the Lord, created like Eve, full of grace to give allow the Author of Grace to dwell! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

@@ty1158 My pleasure! Mary was saved from sin by God's grace and her cooperation with God's grace! Eve, like Mary, was created without sin. Mary was created by God free from sin, full of grace, to be His worthy dwelling place, she the foretold woman in Genesis at emnity with Satan! Mary was saluted by the Archangel Gabriel as being full of grace, even before baptism which removes sin! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

@@ty1158 _”as a human, how did she remain sinless for the entirety of her life”_ That was possible because her nature wasn’t tainted or corrupted by sin. You see, when we talk about original sin and being born with it, we don’t mean we have done something wrong, what we mean is our human nature is corrupted and we would all experience a *tendency* to sin which we inevitably give into by committing an actual sin. Its sort of like a round and smooth object, like a ball (humans), on the floor that has a tendency to roll (sin) if pushed (tempted) a little. It’s because of its shape (nature). The human nature of Mary on the other hand was preserved from the corruption of sin and so she didn’t experience the tendency to sin. To answer your question, Mary, as a human remained sinless her entire life because there never was a tendency to sin. Think of my example earlier, Mary would be a square box on the floor, it won’t roll (sin) even if pushed (tempted) because of its shape (nature). It has no tendency to roll (sin).

@@ty1158 Well, this was indeed how humanity was and is meant to be. We weren’t created with a sinful nature. We weren’t created with a tendency to sin. That’s the whole idea of “The Fall”, the sin of our fore parents comprised the nature of all that came afterwards. Now, you must be thinking, if our fore parents didn’t have a sinful nature and a tendency to sin, how then did they sin? After all, I said Mary was sinless because she didn’t have a sinful nature, why didn’t Adam and Eve remain sinless since they didn’t have a sinful nature either? I should point out that while not having a sinful nature means no tendency to sin, it doesn’t mean it’s impossible to sin. If you factor in our free-will, we do have the freedom to sin. It just means sin is very unlikely. It was very possible for Mary to have sinned even though she had no tendency to sin, just unlikely. Same with our fore parents.

God would be angry that based on your view of her you pray to her. You call her the advocate. You call her the gate. You call her the intercessor. You call her the ark of the covenant. You have given her titles and worship that should only be for the Christ. It is the sin of IDOLATRY that He God would be bothered by. He said I am sending my son for your sins,. YOu have insisted that he should also send his mother for your sins. And yes, while you would never admit that in words you perform it by your deeds.

@@thelinkeducationalsupports2949 none of those title to Mary meant "worship". Clearly you don't know the biblical understanding of worship, what you only knew about worship is HOW PROTESTANTS DEFINE it.

@@Ternz_TV Just because you say a thing does not mean worship does not mean it does not. Jesus says I AM THE WAY. I AM THE TRUTH> I AM THE LIGHT. I AM YOUR INTERCESSOR at the right hand of God. Mary is seat of wisdom. Hmmm..Refuge of sinners. Morning Star.Cause of our Joy. Man Mary is God. And whether you admit it or not, my dear YOU WORSHIP MARY and accord to her titles that are for Christ and Christ alone. But I understand, you are too near to what you are doing to SEE the error of your PRACTICE. May God, have mercy on you especially if you are doing it out of naivete...out of a sincere search for Him; Here is the good news of the gospel. Only God knows your heart. If you are looking for him he has made you a promise. : If you seek ME, not Mary, YOU WILL FIND ME. isnt that a marvelous promise. No one wants to end up in HELL. You dont and neither do I. Let us keep calling for God to show himself to us throuh his SON. He Christ was the perfect expression of the Godhead.,

@@Ternz_TV So why have you not told me the biblical definition of Worship? Why have you dangled before me your knowledge of worship but refrained from sharing it. Is that kind or cruel? I know, you have assumed I would not wish to hear it. That way you can justify calling me a PROTESTANT. Is that a loving way to handle someone? Hmmm..

@@Ternz_TV ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rdzRRSG-G-0.html This confuses my understanding of the role of the magisterium and priesthood. It is not a one off. It is a culture of such practice. And this is only what we have been told. The magisterium dont believe that you are a hireling when you do this? And so you stay on to do it again and again. And because the Magisterium does not deem it the thing to do God's little girls and boys are daily violated. What an awesome magisterium! Packed with men, who satiate thier lust on all and sundry. Who hide under long black gowns to hide thier blackened hearts. Are all priest guilty NO! NO! NO! Do protestants pstors do the same? YES . YES. YES. but because we have no head to guide us, perhaps that is why according to Catholics we might be in this fallen state. But you are not fallen! YOu are hand picked by God to show the world how to live for him. Help! I just need understanding of WORSHIP, of blatant Sin, of how to know Christ of everything. I am sure you are at peace about it all.

"if"

@@Qwerty-jy9mj yes if, that's the question Cameron asked 😅

@@platospaghetti I mean, I agree. The whole point is that they're true so it really is a counter factual to the Catholic Church's claims of authority if they were false.

@@Qwerty-jy9mj ah yes, then I understand 😅 I just feel like this is a vital piece of evidence against RCC since its lacking in the apostolic deposit (to borrow from Dr Ortlund), and even some RCC Apologists (or so I heard in the video) argue for them simply because of the Papacy. How can we come to see the Papacy to be true if all it takes is for the Papacy to say that the Papacy is true, similarly to the Marian dogmas. We must be able to test the claims of RCC against some standard, otherwise it's all completely arbitrary 🤔 or am I missing something? 🙂

@@platospaghetti Not being a part of the Gospel doesn’t mean a distortion of the Gospel. That’s just wrong and the misconception most protestants have when the issue of Scripture and Tradition comes up. Unbiblical or Unscriptural doesn’t mean not in the bible or scriptures, it simply that which is contrary to what is in it. Unless you are saying the Marian dogmas are contrary to the information and revelation of scriptures (in which case I would love to know how), I don’t think your point of distorting the Gospel is valid.

Jerome (347-420) on Romans 10:3: “God justifies by faith alone.” (Deus ex sola fide justificat). In Epistolam Ad Romanos, Caput X, v. 3, PL 30:692D.

@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303 Please don't be like Dr. Ortlund!! Dr. Ortlund has a bad habit of leaving out the complete writings of the Church Fathers! Saint Jerome ALSO TEACHES "Make sure you DO ALL THAT JESUS CHRIST TEACHES which is necessary to avoid Hell!". Faith ALONE? No, obedience too! If we are being honest with regard to the Church Fathers and Holy Scripture! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

@@matthewbroderick6287 Jerome (347-420): Being justified therefore from faith. The matter having been handled, that no one is justified from works, but all from faith; which he proves by the example of Abraham whose sons the Jews deemed themselves exclusively: he shows by argument, that neither descent nor circumcision, but faith alone, makes sons of Abraham, who from faith alone was first justified. Which argument being concluded, he exhorts them to have peace: because no one by his own merit, but all equally by the grace of God, are saved. For translation, see George Stanley Faber, The Primitive Doctrine of Justification (London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1837), p. 122.

@@fellow_servant_jamesk8303Jerome ALSO TEACHES, "do not forget to do all that Jesus Christ teaches is needed to be done to escape hell". You conveniently left that out! Jerome is refuting pelagianism! Works apart from God! Yet, Jerome confirms "it is by WORKS and NOT BY FAITH ALONE that we are JUSTIFIED ", ( James 2:24), in cooperation with God's grace, for even if one has ALL FAITH, but does not LOVE, IT IS USELESS! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink

@@matthewbroderick6287 Jerome (347-420): For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed in God. So great was the faith of Abraham, that both his former sins were forgiven him, and it alone was declared to be accepted above all righteousness. Afterward, he burned with great love, that he prepared himself for the performance of all good works. And it was imputed unto him for righteousness. Therefore he hath glory with God, according to that which the law approved. Now to him, who worketh, is the reward reckoned, not of grace, but of debt. For it is the part of a debtor to do things which are commanded: and; unless he obeys, he is condemned. But, if he does them, he has no glory: for he still is called an unprofitable servant, who does nothing more than is commanded. Righteousness is not given unto him freely: but a reward is paid for his former works. But to him, who worketh not but believeth on him who justifieth the ungodly, his faith is imputed for righteousness. When an ungodly man is converted, God justifies him through faith alone, not on account of good works which he possessed not: otherwise, on account of his deeds of ungodliness, he ought to have been punished. Observe: he doth not say, that a sinner is justified through faith, but an ungodly man; that is, one who hath lately become a believer, according to the purpose of the grace of God: who purposed to forgive sins freely through faith alone. For translation, see George Stanley Faber, The Primitive Doctrine of Justification (London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1837), pp. 120-121.

In Cameron's defense, he doesn't put up hardly any pretense about being more knowledgeable than he is, even when he is decently knowledgeable about something. And when he's not particularly informed on a given topic, he's not at all afraid for that to come across. Also, even when he does know a good bit about a subject, it's my impression that he purposely/consciously asks questions in such a way as to maybe unintentionally give the impression that he knows less than he does. I think this is simply an interviewing & questioning tendency. He seems to like to get basic infundamental questions answered first and then move into deeper complexity methodically. Sometimes the result of this is looking a little less knowledgeable than you really are. I think he's conscious that not all of his listeners know all the background (this is not true of everyone, of course) and he doesn't want anything to go over their heads. That doesn't mean he's not over his head in this conversation. Maybe he is I'm not really sure. But one of his strength seems to be that he doesn't seem to put a premium on showing off is intellectual bona fides.

@@Henry._Jones Yeah I think what I mean is he's so unsure of where he is in his Faith journey right now and it shows in these conversations. He has an urge to go to Rome, but also wants the evidence to lead him. He just doesn't seem sure how to weigh evidence for and against these various positions.

@@Particularly_John_Gill That may be. If so, then he's wise to put the brakes on whilst still investigating. I have felt a vague-ish pull from Rome in the past myself, but in the end I found I was lamenting the shortcomings within evangelicalism and Reformed Presbyterianism more than I was really being "attracted" to Rome specifically.

@Doctor G. K. Spodermin, Sr. I'm not sure which Protestants you're referring to, but magisterial Protestants--confessional Protestants--are by and large bound to the Chacedonian Definition, which states that the Christ was "before the ages, begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-Same, for us and for our salvation, was born of Mary the Virgin, Theotokos as to the Manhood...." So the context is very specifically delineated and simply cannot be, in any effective sense, "exploited by equivocation."

Cynthia, How do you "keep the Sabbath"?

what does this have to do with the video?

6ft under??

Nah. We have many relics, Catholics would have dug her up a long time ago.

@@kennylee6499 classy.

Her body decomposed

Where was Moses buried!? Sometimes the Bible doesn’t care to comment on it. This is a horrible argument.