One BIG argument for Protestantism: Catholicity 

This is the main reason that I never considered the Catholic Church, among other troublesome doctrines. This reminds me of a controlling partner who tells you that if you leave them, you’ll never make it. I see no justification for using threats within a church other than manipulation.

As a new Christian all this kind of topics on "true church" caused me massive anxiety and stress. I prayed and prayed and read and read and basically came to the same conclusion you have brother.

I found myself sinking under the pressure of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic assertion that i was outside and lost.. I was beginning to be quite confused, because the barriers to me joining the EO & RC Churches were the veneration of icons, the background of the Rosary, the elevated position of Mary minimising the graciousness of the Father and Jesus Himself.. Those all did not sit well in my spirit, and yet i was trying my best to squeeze myself into the idea of one of those traditions ultimately being where i was supposed to be.. I was requiring a clear, non adversarial discussion on this, and thankfully found your channel.. Your grace as you discuss this topic is welcomed, and your approach is entirely respectful.. I am so relieved, and my peace is returning to me.. Thank You for your ministry, i will continue to watch your videos.. 🙏

Wow. To be honest I’ve been wrestling with the this issue so much the last few months, finally started attending church as a born again Christian. I was baptized as a baby into the EOC and didn’t learn ANYTHING about who Christ was or how God operates. Just that I need to attend liturgy on holidays and kiss icons and take communion. I became agnostic and into spirituality in my teens well into the age of 23 when God literally caused a 180 degree flip in my heart and made me put my faith into Jesus. A truly unexplainable moment because it was so hard for so long for me to accept Jesus as my savior. I want to get rebaptized - mainly because my first baptism wasn’t even a full immersion into water- but because I’ve felt my entire life change from being worldly to becoming Godly. Praise the Lord, praise Jesus. 💗💗💗✝️

This is so good, Gavin!!! My wife and I are in the process of leaving the Orthodox Church and this is the absolute *core* issue for me. I could not in good conscience continue to claim that I was a part of the One True Church and that the other godly Christians I've known throughout my life were either, at best, missing out on "the fullness of the faith" (as the more generous Orthodox would put it), or at worse, outside of the ark of salvation altogether. This right here is what I keep coming back to. Christ *is* the fullness of the faith. He is sufficient. Whoever has Him, has the fullness. For what can be fuller than having Christ Himself?

Holy smokes, thank you! This video is an answer to prayer, and I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your ministry. I have a tremendous amount of respect for each of the traditions, and honestly one of the only things that I find really hurtful is that condescending pharisaical assumption that anyone who is not (as you said ) on Noah’s Ark is damned and certainly can’t receive the Eucharist in any valid format. The longer I have been walking with the Lord, The more I have come to recognize that there are true believers and make believers in every single tradition and denomination. You are such an incredible blessing. Thankful for all you do especially considering how busy you are!

Just love your videos. I am a baptist too, converted in 1999 from orthodoxy, but saved only by the blood of Our Lord and Saviour,and I resonate intimately with your words. I find some of your videos deeply theological but what I found out was that I had the same answers and revelations given through the Holy Spirit. You are doing a great work brother and if someone wants to live in disunity let them be. We are called to unity in Christ through the Holy Spirit who was given to all those who believe!

Thank you for speaking on these things brother! I have been Catholic for a while, but have been going to a Baptist church for a couple months now. I have disagreed with a lot of RCC doctrines and practices for a while, but it was incredibly difficult to break free from because of this idea of no salvation outside the RCC. The worst part for me is that the official teaching in the Catechism is that other Christian's can be saved through the mystery of God's mercy, but that a Catholic who leaves the RCC is damned. The Catechism says that even a Hindu or Buddhist could be saved, but because I have left the RCC, I would be damned, even though I still worship Jesus and do my best to follow Him. Even though I could see that this didn't make sense on an intellectual level, it was hard to make sense of on a heart level. Hearing someone else point out the inconsistencies in these teachings is helpful.

I'm Catholic and I agree with you. While I haven't had any interest in leaving, I honestly don't feel confident that everyone would flourish better in the Catholic Church than in another group of their choice.

This was so good. As someone who is wrestling with a lot of the claims made by the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, this is extremely helpful. It's something I've said before and had slipped my mind as I've been getting deeper and deeper into Church history and all that. God does do miracles in all denominations.

Born and raised Catholic and I loved this

My struggle is in thinking that my particular “flavor” of Protestantism is the correct one. I don’t want to be unnecessarily rigid, but I also don’t want to be so minimalistic that I am wish washy. I’m in my third semester of seminary so I’m probably in a “crisis of belief” stage where I’m trying to nail down the non-negotiables and have well-thought-out opinions about peripherals. Kinda makes my head hurt, but it’s all so worth it.

Thank you, Dr. Ortlund! This exclusivity in the RCC has always bothered me, even though I was raised Roman Catholic. The passage from Mark 9 is really eye opening.

Thanks Gavin. Agreed. An anecdote which I hope some find helpful as relating to some of your points: Thirty years ago I was working as a missionary doctor in southern Pakistan. Our hospital was under the auspices of the Church of Pakistan. ( Union of Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian.) By conviction I'm a Baptist. Immediately adjacent to our hospital was a Catholic mission. We got on well and , to avoid duplication and confusion, concentrated our evangelism in different tribes. ( Unusually for Pakistan we were in an area of predominantly Hindu/ animist tribal people.) Our area was materially extremely poor. One day Father Joe - a delightful Irish Catholic priest - brought along a young woman to see me. She had horrible lung disease ( emphysema) which was, in my view, terminal. I did what I could with our meagre facilities and prayed for her, as Joe had already done. She got no better and left. I was sure she would die. Months later I met Joe. He told me that the woman had come back to see him in perfect health. She had spent the last of her substance paying a local 'magician' to perform some rituals for her after which her lungs got better. She now told Joe that she wanted to become a Christian. 'Hang on,' said Joe. ' I prayed for you and you didn't get better. I took you to the Christian hospital. The Christian doctor treated you and prayed for you and you didn't get better. You went to the magician and are now cured. So why do you want to become a Christian?' Answer: 'You were kind to me '

You are indeed a blessing for protestants!!!

Great video, mirrors my thoughts almost perfectly! The kind of petty legalism "you aren't the true church", "if you dont kiss icons, anathema!", "you're going to hell if you don't submit to the pope" is totally opposite to the spirit of Christ, who preached against legalism and petty division. Putting up barriers and causing division because of earthly desires to be in the 'true church tm' is just the kind of sectarian legalism that Jesus criticised in his contemporaries. Theres not enough appreciation that all those who strive for Christ are brothers, regardless of which earthly structures they come under.

You were a big help in my figuring out wich church (institution) is the "true church". My faith was renewed recently after being "smacked by the holy spirit". I had a longing for returning to church after those smackdowns but I was lost between all those "we, insert some institution here, are the one true church" statements. "Which to choose !?" "Why is God only in one of them !?" I realised, with your help and by reading the bible, that the church as nothing to do with institutions. Like you said, it's much bigger then what we can understand. I ended up choosing by the fruits and that had everyting to do with the people in the church, not with the name written on the panel outside the building. Thank you !

Struggled with this issue of exclusivity for a long time. It had an existential element to it. I questioned my salvation over it and accused myself of resisting the Spirit over it. But it came down to this: how can I, a frail, broken human judge which of these traditions who all claim to be the only true church, how can I judge between them? I wasn't at the councils, I couldn't observe over the eons of time the flow of the church. I can't look into the hearts of the various actors to see motives. How can I judge between them? I felt like a child between divorced parents. In the end, since I find it impossible to judge between them, their claims cancel each other out. RC, and EOC believers love the Virgin born, crucified, risen Christ. They are my brethren. But I embrace the whole church. The Anglican Church is my home. But it is only one of the many parts of the body of Christ. LOVED this video. Thank you Gavin.

Thank you Pastor Gavin for refuting the lie of “being deep in history is to cease being Protestant.” Thank you, for being a living example, that this statement is simply not true.

As a Catholic, I would like to commened you on your well thought out videos and in the Charity on which you speak on other Christians. Current Catholic teaching is that there is one true Church, but many folds who are not in perfect communion. The catechism refers to Protestants as our Christian brother's and Sister's who are in imperfect communion with us. I'm sure you would agree that any Christian of a different denomination is in "imperfect" communion with eachother, but in communion nonetheless.

Thank you for this video. I've had partially formed peices of this argument floatimg around in my thoughts lately, as a protestant who loves liturgy and loves all the richness of church history, but yet still sees real issues with the Catholic claims. I believe that you've hit on an essential truth here.

Gavin - thank you for this. In a day and age of countless doctrines and explanations and opinions and information coming from all directions, your voice cut through in a moment I needed it. God bless

I knew a man from Romania who had been working in the US for a while. I was an E.O. at the time. He had a spiritual father who was a monk in Romainia and with whom he was in frequent contact. This man told me a story about a Romanian Orthodox, living in Romania; he was a drunkard and cared nothing for God. One day this man went to a Baptist Church and was saved; he stopped drinking, read the Bible with joy, and glorified God. The monk told my friend that the convert to the Baptist church was damned and that he should have remained a drunkard in the Orthodox Church. American Orthodox have the watered-down version of the faith and would be scandalized to know what the real deal is.

“Just because there’s one true church doesn’t mean She has to be restricted within one set of institutional parameters” Or more simply “The Church is not restricted to one institution”. Man God used this as I have been wrestling with the RCC’s claim of exclusivity. Thanks, Dr.

Thank you for this, I’ve always feared making the claim that certain miracles that happen outside my circles aren’t true but now I’m convinced that indeed that was the Holy Spirit at work. You just showed something I’ve been battling for 3 years. Pastor, God bless you, you are truly a blessing. And the passage where Christ says that if someone is not against us but is for us, always came to mind and you just confirmed that it means what it says and it says what it means.

Amen brother I’m very glad to have found your channel. In perfect timing also. You’re standing boldly for TRUTH.

Your work is really helpful, dr. Ortlund! Greetings from Brazil!

I'm always so excited for your posts addressing protestantism/catholicism/EO... I just read you are a continuist. I'd love to hear some of your stories and experiences that have you in that camp!

Great video Gavin. I always enjoy watching your videos because it helps put language to some of the thoughts I’ve had over the years, but never have been able to articulate. I also appreciate your gentleness as you approach your concerns with our brothers and sisters who are Catholic or Orthodox. Keep the conversation going.

Here's my view, I came from a Greek Orthodox Church, got saved outside it, and attended a Non Denominational Church (AGC) for 22 years. I have come to grow and understand that people who attended the Catholic or Orthodox can be saved ( though may be more difficult )even though I don't agree with all their doctrine.

This basic concept has been something that has been huge in my spiritual journey. It was the very issue I once took in debating some Apostolics who were saying that anybody who doesn't speak in tongues doesn't have the Holy Spirit. I argued that turning from sin is a greater sign than speaking what could be gibberish acting like divine speech. Yet even in my debate with them, I recognized a genuine love for God and belief in Jesus. From growing up in a house that taught Catholicism was demonic, to having a Catholic aunt with whom I feel the same Spirit of God as those Apostolics, -I have come to believe that dogmatism doesn't teach good doctrine. God works across the board, -in Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Messianic, African Christianity, Asian Christianity, Aramaic Christianity, and every other sect. The Kingdom of God is one of every tribe, nation, people, and tongue; should it be dominated by European tradition?

Yeah, that discussion/debate you did w/ "According to John" was what shook the magic appeal of EO from me.

This is so helpful Gavin. As a humble Protestant with friends, yes brothers and sisters who are Roman Catholic & Orthodox, I affirm the works of Jesus for the glory of God in all the branches. May we bear more fruit in these days!

Wow, Dr. Ortlund, I've never seen you being so passionate in a Protestant-Catholic-Orthodox debate before! It's refreshing to see a more pointed video like this in this channel once in a while, not a lot of nuance, a strong point is made, but still historically grounded and (in a limited sense) still maintains irenicity. Hopefully this video does not blow up bigger than your more irenic videos, I don't want you to devolve into one of those divisive discernment ministries due to audience demands. Hope you can maintain your irenic vision. Love and support from Indonesia. God bless you and your ministries.

Gavin, I believe your channel is well named. That is what I think. Thank you for the work you do.

So good!!! Thank you Gavin 🙏 Just yesterday a nominal catholic aquaintance told me that we protestants are "blaspheming" by saying "God" so often... 😳... I just listened in horror trying to understand his position, thinking of how the Pharasees acused Jesus of blasphemy, because their hearts were hardened.

I’m sure you’re right in saying that a lot of people won’t like what you said but I’m not one of them. I couldn’t agree more with what you said. I admit that I have seriously considered becoming Orthodox or Catholic at different times. There is much that I admire about both and I definitely consider them part of the family of Christ. But when it comes right down to it, I see God moving among His people from many denominations. I myself am a non-denominational Pentecostal. When I see how God works through my pastor and others and how lives are being transformed in my own church, and even after seeking God for direction, I just can’t see myself leaving to join one of the “True” churches. I’m so glad that you said you believe in a physical church but that it’s not restricted to one particular institution. That’s how I see it as well. As Protestants we are often accused of believing in the “invisible” church. I think the early church was right in clearly defining true Christian doctrine when heresies arose but somewhere along the way it seems to have turned into straining out gnats while swallowing camels! I’ve said enough. Just wanted express appreciation for you sharing this.

I needed to hear this! Thank you!

I want to like this 10 times! Saving, taking notes, sharing. Thank you.

That’s what I wish Protestants would bring up in these debates. That the Spirit is clearly at work amongst Protestant churches. And they are things that happen that funny enough happened in the early church in the book of acts

You've answered many questions just in one video!.Thank you very much !

"Any reasonable, generous hearted person, who travels, reads, or gets to know people, will just recognise that Christ is at work outside of just one institution in such a way that manifestly evidences His Church in word and sacrement." -Gavin Ortlund

Very helpful, Gavin. I like your focus on fruit. This is something I have come to appreciate more the past few years. In Evangelicalism, a "fruitful" ministry is often thought of as one that produces a lot of converts. But with perhaps no exception, fruit in the Bible has to do with godly character. I had wondered what the people thought John the Baptist meant by telling them to produce fruit. Then I realized that they most likely understood it in the context of Isaiah 5 (the fruit of righteousness and justice, which elsewhere we learn are the foundation of God's throne). But I do have questions about groups that appear to have fruit and yet are founded on heretical teachings. I would love to hear you expound more on that.

"...it is not as Romanists, Greeks, Armenians, Abassines, Jacobines, Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminians, &c., that men are saved, but as Catholic Christians, aspiring to the highest perfection. - Richard Baxter,Christian Unity, p.80 (Lexham Press)

Love and appreciate your work, Dr. Ortlund. I’ve been gnawing on the idea of Protestantism being a “conservative renewal effort” within Christianity and I’m not sure which Protestants are actually holding the original Way. I’ve been leaning toward the Catholic faith for a while but haven’t fully crossed the Tiber. Thank you again for what you do and please pray for me!

Agree 100 percent.Am from south India,seen demons cast out infact my great grandmother wasn’t able to walk at age of 70 and Lord sent a healer,when he prayed she started to walk and he is not a Roman Catholic.He is a Pentecostal Christian.And when Jesus told that ye shall do greater works than me,in the new year night it was raining very heavily here but I prayed and rebuked the storm and rain in the name of Jesus so that I would be able to go to church to begin my year with LORD and yes the Lord heard my prayer and stopped it.There are much God is doing through His spirit here in India.Praise the Lord!

"Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness. Know ye therefore that those who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham" (Galatians 3:6-7). Seems like we are united to the one true churh by faith, not by belonging to one institution. God Bless you Gavin😉

Amen Gavin! I was raised in a small sect downstream of Protestantism, totally exclusive. Praise God for dealing with my prejudices, though it’s been painful. Keep up the great work you’re doing.

This is a significant reason why I am now Protestant. I believe that Protestant ecclesiology is necessary in order to be catholic. I suspect that it is the catholicity of Protestantism, where a Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc can see in each other no less than themselves, a member of Christ's Body, is the reason why it is easy to lump them all together and say pointing, "Look, division!" The fact that Protestantism is so multiform and yet, we are able to see in each other a member of Christ's Church, is the uniquely Protestant emblem of catholicity which does not rest in uniformity, but can hope for convergence upon the truth hand-in-hand as brothers and sisters.

Great video man, you and Mike winger have become my favorite guys to watch.

Great video brother.

Appreciate your hard work Gavin! 😊

Amazing as always Dr. Gavin!

Obviously your message in this video, Gavin, was directed by the Holy Spirit working through you because so many people I'm seeing in the comments, myself included, are in total agreement with you.😃 Thank you for taking the time to post this beneficial message to the world and I pray that the Spirit will direct many to "view and chew" on the facts you point to in the word of God. Have a blessed week.

Thank you Gavin, this teaching is having a profound impact on my understanding on how to view these different church institutions and God working throughout His church. Thank you!

Thank you very much. I've been laboring over these very questions lately under much consternation, and this was a godsend. God bless.

Very good exposition. A few things, thanks for mentioning Richard Wurmbrand, as a Lutheran myself, I point to him as a modern inspiration. His experienced showed that when the world persecutes Christians, they won't care what tribe or section of Christianity you come frome, therefore be aware how you judge others especially those who name Christ. His life also amplified what my Classic Greek professor told us. During the early years of Christianity there is a document illustrating the burning of two Christians. The story went that the Roman soldier tied them facing each other before they were to be burned. Each asked the Roman soldier if they can be burned not facing each other, why? Because each looked at the other as a heretic. The soldier obliged, but burned them together anyway.

This was excellent. Thank you for saying this.

really enjoyed this video. thank you.

It is a very important topic, thank you for making a video on it!

Howdy Dr. Ortlund, I really appreciate your honesty and kindness in all your videos. I recently converted to Catholicism, and you were one of the only Protestants I felt I could trust to give a truthful, interactive criticism of Catholicism, mainly because you were open to civil dialogue with Catholics. I'm not super super educated on the history of the Faith, most of my reasonings for converting came from arguments from Scripture, but I would say that because the Catholic Church has this intrinsic hierarchy, we must pay attention to what that is saying in regards to final doctrinal statements, not what various saints say. I know you know all of this, but I just think we can get caught up in what saints say, and go "Ope, contradicts what the Church in the future said!" and it's just not so. Also, couldn't someone use your arguement and apply it to all religions and just say, "Well, there are some Buddhists or Hindus or Muslims who have the implicit desire for Christ and they've got some stuff right and they do really good works (or however you'd like to say it), and they're probably saved, so you really don't even need to be a Christian"? It seems like the problem at hand isn't that some people can be saved or members of the Church without being visibly, explicitly a part of it; the problem, for me, was 'What is the fullness of the Faith?' and I think I'd tell you it's Catholicism, just like I'd tell the Buddhist or Hindu. In regards to your statements about the Eucharist, I think that their could be some graces attached to what Prostestants do during communion, though I'm not sure what the Church officially teaches about that. It seems reasonable to say that anytime someone is making some sort of memorial to Christ's crucifixion, they could be making a sort of spiritual communion, even if it's not the full, valid, sacramental Eucharist under a Catholic priest. But that's just my personal opinion. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but I will say I watched this video a week before making a comment. Thank you very much for all that you do. If anybody wants to chime in here, I'd love that. Pray for me, as I pray for you!

Thank you for the video, Gavin! I’ve been coming to this conclusion myself, it’s helpful to have somebody articulate it so well. You obviously clarified that you couldn’t go into much nuance in a shorter video, so I was wondering how you would qualify the fruit tree statement? Otherwise it feels like it could be used to argue for pluralism or universalism? Or It can be applied to other religions, at least, so how would you caveat that statement that a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor a bad tree good fruit?

Great video. I've been an inquirer to orthodoxy for a while but haven't taken the jump yet. I've asked this question and I pretty much agree with you Dr. Ortlund. I saw and experienced the grace of God in my protestant churches no doubt about it. I think orthodox would say that those fathers and saints who said that everyone not orthodox is necessarily damned were simply wrong. The fathers can be wrong of course. Almost all of the orthodox I've talked to say they think Christ can save those outside of the church, though its safest to be on the ark and we can never who is saved ultimately in the end.

Excellent video in my humble opinion. It was helpful for me because as a Lutheran, i have been recently considering Marian dogmas and almost felt that i would become Roman Catholic. Thank you so much for your videos. I have been binging on them and this video here was very helpful for me. I also want to be a renewing force as a Protestant for the one true visible church as you suggest. God bless you brother.

Thanks for posting this vid. I was raised Pentecostal but I’m inquiring into Orthodoxy and this is one issue I’m still thinking/praying over before I officially become a catechumen. All your videos have been extremely helpful!

Thankful for this video!! Really helpful and well spoken ❤. I can’t accept that Jesus would say to so many millions of precious followers around the world who have been radically transformed and obey His teaching as clearly, simply laid out in scripture that more is required of them. That they are not “fully” living out their faith.. that they are missing something. The gospel is simple. A narrow road but it’s not as complicated as human tradition often makes it. I think of believers in third world countries, worshiping in the bush, of the underground church in China or Iran. Of precious friends saved by grace out of a life of drug use and worshipping in a simple church setting near skid row. Does Christ really require more of these ones? Does he place a burden on them, or tell them they are “missing out” on something beyond what is plainly taught in scripture? (The teaching that they are not worshiping in “fullness” would be SO confusing, hurtful and faith shaking to many many believers I know. It would not draw them to the tiber it would shake their belief altogether.) Does Jesus say their faith, their communion with His body the church is not “full” enough? This is not my only major concern with RC teaching but it’s a big one. Many believers find great fulfillment and beauty in RC mass and are discipled more closely to Christ in this iteration of faith. I praise God for this and am so deeply sorry for the fact that so many of my fellow evangelicals are so harsh in their judgement/dismissal of the Roman church. I just also praise God for the many millions more who are best discipled in their faith in Jesus through other expressions of the church gathered. I see it like fishnets. We are called to be fishers of men, to go into all the world and make disciples and God has ordained many many shapes and sizes of “nets” to bring in and disciple people to faith in Him. I think like Dr Ortlund that He is so much bigger than the boxes we place Him in. Humans will always be prone to both reduce His work/what He will do while simultaneously over complicating things. (Case in point: Judaism at the time of Jesus) This is true in both the RC and Protestantism. (All Protestant traditions I know of do have standards, creeds and basic orthodox truths that must be agreed upon to clarify which churches/fish nets 😉are teaching truth and which are not. These exist and are clear and consistent across denominational lines in all but the most liberal of churches… which would then not qualify as upholding orthodox truth.. They extend down from the very earliest days of church history.)

This was very helpful, brother. God bless all your effort for His Kingdom. Keep it coming. Hugs in Christ. (Presby here)

Very helpful, thank you. I really look forward to your book on the church

Catholic here. A few challenges I've put forth to my own Catholicism are: 1. To what extent did Christ come to start an institution? (you touch on this at 11:41) 2. Would the Church as described Biblically and in early Patristics qualify as an institution? Regarding 1., I think as moderns, we get a sour taste in our mouth when we hear the term "institution" as being necessarily corrupt and inefficient, but an Orthodox actually gave me an interesting though loose definition of "institution" as "something that exists for a purpose." If sacramentalism and apostolic succession is the correct way to understand Christianity, than an institution of some sort (whether the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, ACotE or Oriental/Ethiopian/Eritrean Orthodox) would make sense as a type of safeguard. 2. is a bit more challenging to me but I'd say yes, and I think Protestants, if they agree with the loose definition of institution I gave above, would probably agree. (If you're Protestant and disagree, please let me know, I don't mean to mischaracterize you) 9:10 is interesting in that I've heard Roman Catholic priests (an exorcist, Fr. Vince Lampert) claim that the RCC does not hold that it exclusively is the only church that can exorcise demons, but that it wields the fullness of the Faith confessed by Peter, which other institutions, though wielding some or even most of it, don't wield the fullness of it like the RCC does. Maybe the question isn't "where is the Church" but "where is the fullness of the Church". I do consider my Protestant and Orthodox friends to be part of the broader Christian church (with a lot to admire about both groups, there's a lot I learn from both of them and I aim to take the best parts of both groups in many ways), though I would still affirm that, if Sacraments and Apostolic Succession are truly necessary, then an institution would be necessary to safeguard the fullness of the faith, which I believe to be the Catholic Church. Good video as always Dr. Ortlund, thank you for the content.

Your point about Israel being divided between north and south, Israel and Judah, yet still being one "people of God" was something I had never quite thought about it relation to fractures and denominations within the Church. It reminded of Ezekiel. In Ezekiel 23, Samaria and Jerusalem are described as sisters. But more than that I was reminded of how Ezekiel used the phrase "house of Israel" to refer to different subsets of Israelites, yet they were all the "house of Israel." Often in Ezekiel 'house of Israel' refers either to the exiles in Babylon or those left in the land of Judah (or both). But in Ezekiel 37ː16, he uses 'house of Israel' for those of the northern kingdom (represented by Joseph/Ephraim). Those of Judah are called by a parallel expression the 'people of Israel.' Then God says he will rejoin the two kingdoms. But the people of both are called 'Israelites.' And God will do this with the Church when he restores all things. Though fractured into different institutions now, God will restore his entire people into one. This, I presume, is the 'great multitude' of Revelation 7.

Thank you so much for articulating this!

Thank you, brother. Very helpful

Hi Gavin, I have a question. If the Protestant view of the Church is correct, why even bother with confessing faith in one universal church in the early creeds? If the true church can be found piecemeal both everywhere and nowhere in particular why is that confession of catholicity in the creeds?

Already in the 4th C. John Chrysostom wrote that the virginity of heretics is fornication and the martyrdom of heretics is suicide. Very harsh, indeed. How did it go from Jesus's saying 'Forbid him not' (who follows not with us but casts out demons in my name) and 'the Spirit bloweth where it listeth' and many other things from Scripture to such exclusivity?! Thank you, Gavin, for all your very well-researched studies and discussions on this.

And that "One, True Church" exclusivity and Triumphalism really caused a lot of anguish for me during my EO catechism. I had to quit because it was aggravating my OCD/Scrupulosity

I appreciate your perspective very much.

As a Catholic and a history teacher, I appreciate this video. Plenty here to consider, and I tend to agree with you. Some initial thoughts: Normal Catholic defense, which bugs me and has made me consider Orthodoxy: the innovations are developments which are in the authority of the living church, so any changes we make are infallible. The Newman assessment: Whatever the early church looked like, we can be sure that it didn't look like Protestantism. However, I think you're admitting to the movement being an innovation, so I don't think this would be problematic for you. My personal view: my students are almost entirely Protestant or Messianic. The Spirit is definitely with many of them and I think to degrade it at all would be wrong. However, even before I returned to Catholicism, I was glad that it existed. I was glad there was someone keeping those boundaries and administering the Eucharist and conducting the liturgy formally and holding confession like the Didache describes. I wouldn't accept, as I've been told by some (not by you, thank you!), that Catholics are pagans, that they're going to Hell, that they don't know Christ. To me, this whole concept is just like anything with rigid boundaries - I appreciate the boundaries AND the expression which takes place a bit outside of them. All that being said, I think the early church has plenty of exceptions, as you say (I can't recall in Augustine the reference you made, but I believe you). But, as described in Eusebius, there seemed to have always been a center of gravity. Catholics claim Rome, but Eusebius (in my reading at least) seems to indicate that it was Jerusalem. In fact, if I recall correctly, it was even Jerusalem and only ethnic Jews could be bishop there, and they were admired "for their purity of doctrine." So, I think that even Protestants should be on the lookout for that apostolic epicenter - whether they think it Catholic, Orthodox, or something else.

I agree 100% Dr. Ortlund! Thank you for making this video!

I'm not Catholic. I'm also not a "protestant". I'm not protesting anything. I am simply a Christian, a member of the holy catholic church, the body of all believers. I agree with you that there are "many institutional expressions" of the church. I like how you put that.

thank you Gavin - how charitable, wise and sensible Bless you

Excellent presentation. Thank you. An example of some of the incoherence of the exclusivist “one true church” paradigm: I’ve always thought it was odd that the Orthodox and Catholic churches are not in Eucharist fellowship (at least officially in most instances) yet they both believe they are receiving the one body of Christ in communion. They receive the same Christ, but are separated from one another. That doesn’t make sense to me.

Fan of Gavin Ortland and how thoughtful, and respectful he is when it comes to these kinds of discussions. However I do have a few problems with this video/Gavin's logical flow: 1. I would like to say Catholics right now probably have more inclusivity than any other denomination and has been discounted in the video. Catholics actually recognise baptism from any denomination as being baptised into Christ's Church (although partially in communion). That is why when a baptised Baptist, , Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist etc converts to the Catholic Church, they don't need to baptise them again if they are baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Contrary to this if a methodist were to convert to be Baptist, many need to be rebaptised. I feel this means Protestant churces don't truly believe that they ALL are the One True Church. 2. There was no definition of some terms. Like for example, "Valid Eucharist". What is a valid Eucharist? Is it just taking bread as a symbol of your communion with the Church? Or Is it the real presence of Jesus' flesh in the form of bread. Jumping the gun and saying something like "Orthodox/Catholic are too exclusive to say others don't have Valid Eucharist" is not a matter of exclusivity. its a matter of truth because if valid eucharist is the true presence of Christ's flesh, then even many protestants would say it isn't a valid eucharist because they don't even believe in it. 3. Definition of "One True Church". I think it would benefit everyone if we are to examine what is the criteria for determining what makes a church ONE, and TRUE. I don't see how someone can say all protestant churches are a part of the One True Church, because you can't exchange Unity for Truth. If Calvinists believe in eternal security contrary to Armenians, and Lutherans say Baptism actively saves vs Baptists who oppose etc. on issues concerning salvation, how are they all ONE? and how are they BOTH TRUE if they contradict one another? Having sola scriptura as an authority structure encourages churches to not be one anymore when interpretations oppose one another. Whats the point of an Infallible Book with a Fallible interpreter? You can end up getting fallible teaching that contradict one another. Rather I believe when Jesus established His Church it makes sense to provide an Infallible Book with an Infallible interpreter so that they remain One AND true. 4. Unum Sanctam is commonly taken out of context and misinterpretted. Firstly, it was written at a time when Protestants don't exist so its not addressing protestants in particular. Unam Sanctam is written in such a way that it was attempting to achieve a particular purpose, which was to discourage King Phillip from trying to dominate and take over the Church. It also is misinterpreted in the following way: It is true that outside the Church there is no salvation, and one must be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved. Unum Sanctam is addressed to French Catholics at the time. Baptised Roman Catholics are FORMALLY in communion with this church and must be subject to the Roman Pontiff. If they think they are not, then they are not Catholic and hence excommunicated. (keep in mind excommunication isn't damnation. It is just being cut off. The Church doesn't have power to damn people to hell.) That's all Unum Sanctam is saying. However, we develop our understanding with the help of Aquinas and Vatican II that it is possible that Christians of other denominations (especially if baptised) can be saved since they are connected to the Catholic Church informally. One can have an informal connection to the Catholic Church, although they are not aware. Vatican II states: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation. Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life. . . . But very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the world rather than the Creator (cf. Rom. 1:21 and 25)" this extends out to non Christians too, someting called baptism of desire. Hence this is why Catholics believe you can be saved and have gifts of the Holy Spirit, especially when they have been baptised formally or by desire/blood. From this, I feel Catholicism is more universal. I can't speak on behalf of Orthodox as I don't know much about their views on this but it does sound like they are more exclusive from your video. I look forward to these kinds of dialogues and its good to have conversations about these issues in respectful and thoughtful means.

Edifying video! Blessings!

Thank you so much for this video.

Excellent message. Mark 9:38 always comes into my mind when I'm tempted to judge a particular denomination or preacher.

New Sub and have really enjoyed your take on church history

Liked the approach on this one!

Great, informative video!

What a great video, glory to Jesus.

As Peter Leithart says, "I'm too catholic to be Catholic."

SO GOOD BRO! Thank you. I appreciate your spirit of gentleness and humility. Also, maybe you can get some Pentecostal friends on the channel! Love what you said about some of the most godly men being Pentecostal!

Brother, during my walk, the most important thing I've learned is 'positional truth'; I am 'in Christ', and that has kept me stable over these past 44 years. It is not about me, but about Him. My position should dictate my practice. Early in my walk someone pointed out that 'doing' must come from 'trusting Him'...not trying to score points. I see church history as a progression and try to filter out the non-essentials. So, as odd as it may seem, I consider myself an Orthodox, Reformed, Dispensationalist. This has opened up a lot of discussions with my fellow believers, but I think we should take the best of all 3 and run with them. Thank you for the work you do.

best video yet, not saying you dont do good videos love ya brother

Great video Dr. Ortlund. Thanks

Hey Gavin thanks for this video! Love your work and I appreciate all your work in these ecumenical discussions. I wanted to address the claim you made about not finding "anybody from the 9th century to the 19th" who affirms that there is salvation for Western Christians. It seems to me that, if baptism is salvation/confers salvation, then this question _can_ be reduced to a question of whether baptisms are valid outside the church. And on this question history is replete with Orthodox writers and councils affirming that Latins are not to be rebaptized on admittance to the Eastern churches, thereby signaling that baptisms outside the church are at least valid in part and counting Western Christians as therefore imperfect members of the church. This seems to be the position of the church and councils prior to the schism, though there are plenty of hardliners such as Cyprian who would have mandated rebaptism for all, and was the official position of the church throughout history despite many ecclesial writers holding to the mandatory rebaptism position. I'll provide a few quotes below: None other than Mark of Ephesus after a lengthy passage calling the Latins heretics: "'Have you not heard that they adopted not only customs but also dogmas which are strange to Orthodoxy (and that which is strange to Orthodoxy is most certainly a heretical teaching) and that according to the canons they must be catechized and united to Orthodoxy? If it is necessary to catechize then it is clear that they must be chrismated… Latins must not be re-baptized but only after their renunciation of their heresies and confession of sins, be anointed with Chrism and admit them to the Holy Mysteries and in this way bring them into communion with the holy, catholic Eastern Church, in accordance with the sacred canons.” Council of Constantinople, 1484: The Decision of the Great Synod of Constantinople in 1484. This Synod was summoned at the sacred Church of Pammakaristos by Patriarch Symeon (1472-75, 1482-1485) in 1482 and again in 1484. Ιn the first instance it issued an Horos denouncing the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438) and its doctrine of the Filioque, and in the second, it published an Acolouthy for the reception of Latin converts into the Orthodox Church. This Synod called itself Ecumenical presumably because all four Eastern Patriarchs were present. It denounced the Council of Florence and decided that [Text of the Council begins]: “the Latin converts to Orthodoxy should be received into the Church only by Chrismation and by signing an appropriate Libellus of faith which would include denunciation of Latin errors… The Service for the Reception of Latins into the Orthodox Church Published by the same holy and great Synod, for those who return from the Latin heresies to the orthodox and catholic Church of Constantinople, but also to the three most holy patriarchs of the East, i.e. those of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. This Acolouthy was published in Constantinople in the year 1484 during the patriarchy of the most holy Patriarch Lord Symeon. Let it be known, also, that this Synod, being ecumenical, is the first one with God’s help, tο bring down and overturn that most unlawful Synod that was summoned in Florence, as one that proceeded in an evil and unconstitutional manner; and as having failed tο follow the holy and ecumenical Synods which preceded it; therefore, we included the Statement (Horos) of this Orthodox and holy Synod of ours, i.e. that one of Constantinople, in the present sacred codex of Christ’s holy and great Church, since it was summoned during our days.” Council of Moscow, 1667: “At the time of Patriarch Nikon, upon the insistence of Patriarch Marcarius of Antioch, who was then in Moscow, it was twice decreed at the Council that Latins would not be re-baptized in the future, the deeply rooted custom of re-baptizing remained in practice. This is why Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich proposed that the Great Council should discuss and make a decision on this question. The Council fathers carefully reviewed Patriarch Philaret Nikitich’s statute and came to the conclusion that the laws were incorrectly interpreted and applied to the Latins. They then referred to earlier Council statutes whereby it was forbidden to re-baptize even Arians and Macedonians in the event of their coming into Orthodoxy, and even more so, the fathers said, Latins must not be re-baptized. They referred to the Council of the four Eastern Patriarchs held in Constantinople in 1484, which decreed not to re-baptize Latins upon their coming into Orthodoxy, but only to anoint them with Chrism, and which even composed the actual rite for their reception into the Church. They referred to the wise Mark of Ephesus who, in his epistle addressed to all Orthodox, offers the same teaching. [These decisions were ratified by another Synod in +1718 and applied to Protestants.]” Patriarch Marcarius III of Antioch: “To Patriarch Nikon that “the Latins must not be re-baptized: they have the seven sacraments and all seven Councils, and they are all baptized correctly in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit with an invocation of the Holy Trinity. We must recognize their baptism. They are only schismatics, and schism does not make a man unfaithful and unbaptized. It only separates him from the Church. Mark of Ephesus himself, who opposed the Latins, never demanded their re-baptism and accepted their baptism as a correct one.” St Philaret of Moscow: “Mark you, I do not presume to call false any Church which believes that Jesus is the Christ. The Christian Church can only be either purely true, confessing the true and saving divine teaching without the false admixtures and pernicious opinions of men, or not purely true, mixing with the true and saving teaching of faith in Christ the false and pernicious opinions of men… but I just simply look upon them; in part I see how the Head and Lord of the Church heals the many deep wounds of the old serpent in all the parts and limbs of his Body, applying now gentle, now strong, remedies, even fire and iron, in order to soften hardness, to draw out poison, to clean wounds, to separate out malignant growths, to restore spirit and life in the numbed and half-dead members. In this way I attest my faith that, in the end, the power of God will triumph openly over human weakness, good over evil, unity over division, life over death.” Curious to hear what your thoughts of on this are. Thanks!

Just a few questions 1. How is Protestants a renewal when I see majority of Christian Tradition’s dying especially the more Historically minded Protestant traditions. Of course there is decline across all Christian traditions. But what we are seeing is across the board is decline, and an increase in un-affiliated (lone wolf Christianity). 2. Seeing as Historic Protestantism is by far and away the largest decline amongst Protestants, wouldn’t this implicate that the historic branches of Protestantism wasn’t producing good fruit. Or is it just in the nature of Protestantism to constantly reform. 3. A lot of your video Dr. Ortlund is very Vague, as it relates to what constitutes The Church. You spoke about the exclusivity of the RC and EO traditions yet you gave no clear distinction as to what the Church is, only what you don’t think it is. Can you give a clear definition in the positive of what the Body of Christ is ( The Church). For instance what are the boundaries of the Church, what do you have to believe to be considered a part of that Church, how can one be cut of from a body of the body is split into a hundred pieces already? 4. Also when talking about producing good Fruits as it relates to a Church body or institution, how are defining what those fruits are and how they are seeing from an outside observer? These are just a few I have.

Thank you!

Dr Gavin, Thanks for this analysis. I have a lot to say as a response, so I will be making a video instead of typing it up. Look for this response within the next week. Btw, I was raised by Pentecostal Pastors. I am glad to see, as a Baptist, you have high regards for them.

Where did you get the Luther quote from

I mean no harm or offence in this observation. But there are 3 churches in my town that claim to be the "ONLY" or "true" church etc. The Mormons, the Jehovas Witnesses, and....the Roman Catholic Church . It could just be a coincidence, but also when the community gets together for faith events those 3 are also the only ones that do not participate. ALL the other denominations sing, worship, teach and fellowship with each other in Jesus name!. Not one piece of scripture says " The church is the ark" That is some made up thing. I would argue back "Faith in Christ is the ark of God" The NT says "You will recognize them by their fruits" not that you will recognize them by the institution they belong to. Christs church is made up of small stones of confession of faith in him.