Response to Criticism of my Case Against the Papacy 

I am a Protestant. We do have a supreme infallible head of the Church. His name is Jesus Christ. (Hebrews 8:1,2)

This video was ridiculously helpful for me. I subscribe to Capturing Christianity and have been following his consideration of Catholicism. A lot of the arguments were making sense and causing me to question my convictions as a Protestant and my affirmation of Sola Scriptura, but as you outlined some of the arguments against the papacy in this video as well as a defense for Sola Scriptura in another, I feel more confident in my stance as a Protestant. I go to Biola university as a Bible major, this Chanel and all of my classes have really grown a passion in me to take a deep dive into church history and track the theological developments of the church over the centuries. Thanks, Dr. Ortlund! You’re awesome!

What matters most, brother, is that you're as kind and gentle as you are smart and well-read. We don't see that enough these days.

It must be exhausting keeping up with all these response videos. Respect. From a catholic.

Another excellent response doc. You bring together all the evidence and assess them in sum, not just piecemeal, which makes the argument much more powerful.

I’m here because many Catholics recommended your channel. Much love

Gotta get my popcorn for this one. 1 hour of Ortlund = pure entertainment

Dr. Ortlund: "In a twenty minute video..." Everyone: Only 20 min? Everyone: 39 minutes still to go? Phew.

It was for me that Jesus died, and that's enough for me. ✝️

This was VERY helpful. I was Catholic for 30 years, but after actually reading scripture for the first time, i became a staunch defender of biblical Christianity instead. But I still struggle sometimes when it comes to defending the truth of scripture vs the claims of catholicism. So these types of calm, rational, and well documented defenses are so helpful. Thank you!

Thanks for your video, I have been thinking to convert to catholicism but doutbs come to me concerning the papacy and marian dogmas as well. Also i cant deny the graces that God has put in other christians traditions. Your videos always encourge me to seek the truth. May God keep using and blessing you and your family. Greeting from Chile South America!

I don't watch all of these back and forth videos on all these various topics (my interest is fairly narrow: justification), but I appreciate the time and effort you put in to respond to them all. Praying your continued engagement will lead to fruit in the Spirit, whether with ultimate entrance into the Church, or otherwise. May the Lord bless your continued zeal for serving Him by speaking about these issues.

Even though you're not Catholic Christian, I acknowledge your love for the Lord. May He bless you richly in this life and the one to come.❤️🙏❤️

Too much “Eis” for an “Ex-man” to abide! Dr. Ortlund keeping it real as always.😇🙏🏼👍🏼

This is my issue with almost everything the Catholic Church postulates as doctrine. It’s all just inference. And it’s hilarious when it’s explained, because the answer is never an answer at all. great job getting into the details with such care.

I really admire your kindness, patience and how open and respectful you are in presenting your arguments. So many videos I see are snarky and rude. But yours are always gentle and loving, the true heart of Christ. I have had a hard time trying to discuss subjects such as these with people, including my wife hahaha. My in-laws are orthodox and discussing things with them have taught me how to respond with kindness, patience and compassion. I'm still learning but examples such as you are really encouraging to me.

Thank you for the new vocabulary word (Eisegesis). You hit the nail on the head. Thanks again Gavin! Always a pleasure and a blessing hearing from you. Always edifying! Happy Easter and God Bless you and your family!

Yes! Keep talking. These videos are so helpful. Thanks again Gavin. These studies are like turning on a light in dimly lit room.

I've had some great conversations with Catholics following Trent and your conversations with Cameron. And, as you say, they are are passionate and sincere. I have learned so much from them about what they believe. I so needed this video RN. TYSM

Ortlund for Pope!!

This was a great talk. Thanks so much for putting this out there! I really appreciate your measured approach.

Enjoyed and learned a lot from this session. Thanks Dr. Gavin.

I GREATLY appreciate your thoughtfulness and dedication to honoring the Lord and his Word. Thank you.

I’m a newly confirmed Catholic, I really enjoy your videos and love hearing you talk with other Catholic apologists. Thank you for all that you’re doing!

Gavin, I see your work as an incredibly important and useful ministry for the whole of Christianity. You display the love and patience of a true believer in your dialogues and have set a wonderful example for me and others to follow as we all attempt to imitate Christ. Thanks

You really do break this down with such precision, big thanks for what you do, God bless.

As always, great video Gavin. Keep it up! One of the few channels that I’m actually persuaded of my own volition to support as a patreon!

Your rebuttal to the ‘no governors in the constitution’ argument is genius

Another very well done video with the right tone and candor. Thanks for your labor. Happy Easter, and may the Lord richly bless you and your family this season and always.

This is not related to the papacy but I’m really hoping Dr.Ortlund makes a video on kierkegaard. He seems like such a fascinating mind that Christian’s don’t engage with enough

Another great video, Gavin! Your scholarship has been such a blessing to me, my ministry, and my studies. I thoroughly enjoyed all 7 concerns! Concerns 4 and 5 were extremely convincing! I always leave your videos with something to chew on and wrestle with! Thanks again, Gavin - blessings!

Excellent presentation of the counter-arguments, sir, and you could have easily gone another hour based on my experience dialoguing with Catholics on YT. I'm thinking about starting a channel here on YT to help people looking to move out of the RCC, since my experience with the same was fraught/confusing/difficult. This video definitely highlights a need for this kind of resource...got you/your ministry in my prayers, Gavin.

Well done as always. Thank you for your thoughtful explanations as well as your Irenic focus.

I noticed that the late doctrine that the RCC clings to is read INTO the text. You can't get what they believe FROM the text. Thank you for this video.

You are blessed God loves you preaching the truth ❤😊

A great video! It's so needed to have people who are truly and honestly trying to bring the conversation forward with utmost respect for all parties involved, something that's so lacking in all parts of modern day western society. It's such a rarity to be able to openly disagree and discuss our differing opinions while still loving each other

Thank you for a well reasoned response. Keep up the good work for Christ and His kingdom. God bless.

Thank you for your tactfulness. Theological differences are challenging to discuss with charity. I appreciate the discussion.

Can’t wait to watch this (:

So I grew up Christian (non catholic) but was never into church stopped going to church once my family moved to a different town when I was in 7th grade. I don’t even know what kind of church I went to because I didn’t know about all these denominations all I know was I learned the gospel. But when I became an adult I actually read the Bible and truly excepted Jesus. Now today I am trying to lean more history about the church and the catholic side is odd..im trying to understand I try listening to catholic apologists and….its so off to me. When I listen to non catholic Christians apologists aka “ protestant” it clicks so well with what I know from the Bible . Oh and also it feels so close to Christ when I hear Catholics it’s like… church, Mary , saints and then Jesus…. still trying to understand but … it’s not sitting well with me

Thank you for your work!

Super helpful video, glad you're doing this work!

Thanks so much for your ongoing efforts engaging in these conversations Gavin. I can imagine it must feel difficult when there seem to be a disproportionately large number of apologists on the RCC side. As a reformed Protestant who is considering the claims of Roman Catholicism, I find your videos a helpful challenge. From my own self-interested perspective, I would greatly appreciate a set of meaty dialogues on the papacy/ecclesial authority at some point that really dig into some of key dividing issues (as oppose to these back and forth replies). I know you've done a debate with Suan Sonna and a couple of RCC-related dialogues with Joe Heschmeyer, plus you have a couple more lined up with Trent which may do the trick. Perhaps these could be the culmination of your RCC work. Having said that, I don't know how you find the time to do what you do or what precisely you've got planned with the channel so consider it a mere suggestion from one edified subscriber :)

I agree with this a lot, I'm in a Cameron situation where I'm debating between orthodoxy catholicism and high church protestantism but I am seeing how catholic apologists try to prove too much with little details. Same thing with Isaiah 22, typology should not be used to prove a doctrine.

Dr Ortland, I again am so impressed by your arguments and the way you make them. You are charitable and level-headed. I agree with you that the issue of the papacy is very complex, and I think that Orthodox and Protestant Christians do have good arguments against it. I think Catholics also have good arguments. It seems to me, though, that the scriptural and historical arguments cannot deliver any conclusive solutions to the question. As you say, it is about weighing the evidence. I am not well-versed enough in the historical and scriptural arguments to weigh the evidence for myself yet; so for now, I rely on the ecclesiastical argument (that truths of the faith cannot be determined without someone at the head to be a final arbiter between disputes). It seems that the papacy was a legitimate and necessary development in the Church in order to determine solutions between disputing parties and maintain unity. Christ does pray for that the Church would be united (John 17) and it seems clear that heresy is undesirable for the sake of that unity. I may just be thinking with a "Catholic mind," but that's where I am at for the present. God bless you all, and a Good Friday to you all, as well.

Excellent response dr Ortlund

Excellent video. You covered the topic real well. God bless!

Thank you for the awesome volume on this video.

Speaking of Spiritual Fruit… this video is filled with it. Appreciate the thorough video and excellent content. It is edifying and instructive.

Another great follow up video. Your explanations were clear and persuasive. Thanks! Your arguments actually have application to other issues as well. They help us think clearly through the data and the evidence and how to avoid sloppy thinking in our own blind spots. I would also like to see you do a video contrasting the Protestant and Catholic doctrine of justification. Thanks!

The doc is in the house! Thank you for the dose of sanctified meds brother! Your work is truly unique and admirable! Please keep it coming… I’d like to see you put out a video on the rosary. I’ve yet to hear good detailed teaching on the matter. Thanks again! Love your work.

It's presentations like these that make me so excited to see how discussions in Christian theology will progress over the next few decades. I think this is one of the first few times in the history of the Church where we have been able to have honest, thorough, and productive discussions on areas inter-denomenational/traditional disagreement. Thank-you Dr.Ortlund for taking the time to digest and make convincing responses to the claims of our Catholic brothers and sisters. May the Lord bless you!

Great vid Dr. Ortlund! Would love to see a video on congregationalism! A positive assertion of your ecclesiological views would be very interesting, especially if it was tied in with the church fathers.

I've been reading a book recently on how to read the bible and the author really pushes how vital it is to read the old creeds, confessions and theologians of old. The author teaches how to read the bible well, supplementing our readings with the same things you recommend. It's really encouraging as I've been really struggling with the idea of catholicism and eatern orthodox church. My family in law is orthodox and its been challenging to engage with them on the subject. Your channel has become a source of encouragement and an example for my own life.

Thank you!

Thank you Dr. Gavin for your sincerity, and commitment to truth. I’m a Catholic Christian who is especially interested in, and hopeful for, the advancement of Christian unity. Please don’t worry too much about, “stepping on feet”. We want to hear candor.

They do have allot of time 😅 but hey, its always 4 (usually experts of a certain subject) vs you, so it shows they respect you. Love your videos, striving to be half as knowledgeable as you brother 👍🏽

Thanks Gavin! Your passion for historical theology is contagious and the humble spirit with which you engage these topics is inspirational

Great response and great scholarship! Don't worry about Heschmeyer. Your genuineness far outweighs his arrogance. 7 excellent refutations expounded firmly and wisely yet with such compassion for all sides. So glad I found your channel. This is so needed today!

you're the king, man! Keep up the great work

I think a really helpful resource of typology is G. K. Beale's "Handbook on the NT Use of the OT." He's probably THE scholar on NT use of the OT, and he lays out five criteria for typology: 1. Analogical correspondence 2. Historicity 3. Pointing-forwardness 4. Escalation 5. Retrospection Interestingly enough, he uses Isaiah 22:22 as a case study in chapter 7 of his work, arguing for an indirect typological use in Revelation 3:7.

Great response Dr. Gavin 👌 Btw, your case in the initial dialogue with Cameron was so overwhelmingly stong that I cannot fathom how one can carry on to embrace that system in light of SOLID arguementation you put forth against the papacy 🤷

Outstanding!

Congratulations Dr. Ortlund, you are beginning to understand the secret of attractive RU-vid thumbnails - keep making these faces. Also love your work, Lord bless you.

Very well communicated, Dr. Ortlund. You made a fair appeal with the extensive research you have explored. I am finishing "Fear and Trembling", by kierkegaard ( I saw someone post about you reviewing his work in the comments). I'll be picking up your book, "The Beauty of Christain Theism" afterwards. I look forward to the read. Thank you for your channel.

Excellent video and well argued

Thanks again Gavin!!

That face in the thumbnail sums up my thoughts nicely, your patience is a virtue

Thanks brother Gavin. Your perspectives help to keep me and many others grounded in the truth of Scripture, and to avoid being tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine. And I pray that you and your family have a blessed Easter.

I’m catholic, while I enjoy all of the various catholic channels, I saw all of the response videos and thought the same thing - some of these guys have a lot of time, haha. I think the reason they made the videos to begin with is because you are making strong arguments that aren’t very easy to deal with. I don’t think Catholics have been pressed on the papacy, until recently, from a Protestant that knows church history quite well. I think it’s making them dig deep. I think you are sharpening their arguments and making them better for it. with many catholic apologists it just sort of became a “look at church history and the church fathers” sort of approach to the issues at hand, but history appears to be more complicated than that. Happy Easter to all you Christians out there. Our parish priest recommended seeing Jesus on the cross through Mary’s eyes. This might perhaps not be so bad to do from a Protestant perspective as well. It doesn’t mean idolatry to look at Jesus on the cross through his mother’s eyes. God bless!

I think the point of apostolic succession vs apostolic replacement, especially with the criteria noted as being a witness of the resurrection, was very key - and a hard obstacle to get around. Such a good point.

That's a gentlemanly response.

@56:50, Trinitarian Pentecostal here, love you brother! Often times I define myself as a Bapti-costal because of all the agreement within our groups. Powerful video- I use your teaching videos and debates as outside learning for our Bible College! :)

Bottom Line: Be reasonable. God gave us reason. Use it. I am enjoying the channel.

Love your videos!

I would love to hear more about your work on the conversion of Scandinavia.

Gavin, I love when I see a new video from you. This one was great as usual. Do you think it would be possible to do a video or series on the Apostolic Fathers? Because, as you said accretions can happen over time but what about the ones discipled by The Apostles? How should we relate to them, when talking about Sola Scriptura and Church History? Thanks.

There's a lot of Catholic "reply guys" out there on RU-vid. I wouldn't take the volume of objections as being indicative of a weakness in your arguments. I think you present the most coherent objection to the Papacy I've heard. Many of the responses only enforce what you were criticizing.

Dr.Gavin I loved the video, it was extremely helpful and edifying. Always love your charitable tone and argumentation. I have a question about the commentary you used for Jerome. Your slide for the quote says "Titus 1:7", however, when I looked online for this quote I only found it as in Titus 1:5. I was hoping you could possibly link or cite where you got this quote. Happy Easter!

Thx Gavin for these very explicite détailed explanations ...& very logical ...there is NO CLEAR basis for the papacy in the NT....

Thanks for making an hour long video that I have to sit through because, unfortunate as it is for my schedule, all your stuff is gold. 😜🤣

Peter isn’t the rock the church is built on because you can’t build the church on a man. The rock is full heartfelt faith in Christ, to not just listen to Christ but to do as Christ says in His commandments whenever and however He speaks.

What's your thoughts on the arguments presented in the "Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope"? Since that document came out of the Reformation along with the Smalcald Articles, it's interesting to me that a lot of the Lutheran arguments and points don't seem to be discussed much. I get why there might be some hesitancy due to some of the more controversial positions (like the position of supremacy of the Pope being Anti-Christ), but there's interesting historical points discussed at the beginning of the document that's very relevant. BTW, I really enjoyed your presentation here and on your recent CC appearance. Your case is quite strong. Excellent work!

Thank you for this video, and the non-confrontational discussion of evidence levels. As you (in other videos) give much information on early church writings, and because it has bearing on this discussion, could you consider a video specifically on James the "brother" of Jesus who gives the final decision of the meeting in Acts 15, and who (at the least) clearly has considerable authority in the Jerusalem church. What information do early church writings give us about him, why he became so prominent despite presumably being a non-believer during Jesus's physical time on earth, and how does this relate to the church headship discussion?

On the point of Eisegesis: I am continually amazed at how very many folks can be convinced by so little Scriptural warrant, or, let's say, Stretched Scriptural warrant. Arguments for the papacy seem always to depend upon Shadows, Types, Allusions, Fabricated arrangements of texts. Even Jimmy Akin's modest diagraming of Matthew 16 is something of a self-imposed arrangement. Very many other modern-day arguments are novel interpretations of texts as well.

This is one of the fairest treatments of this question I have ever seen.

Loved clear discussion of Type and Antitype

Hey Gavin, may I ask you how you research topics like these? What methods do you use to arrive at your conclusions about topics, especially patristics. Thanks!

Wanna learn about the Papacy? Start with Dan. 7, and the "little horn". Then 2 Thes. 2, the "man of sin, son of perdition". Then Rev. 13:1-10, and the "sea beast". Then Rev. 17, and the "Scarlet Harlot". Our Protestant forefathers used to know this stuff. The Laodicean Church is very sleepy today. But thank you for exposing some of the major errors, falsehoods, and lies of Satan's greatest creation. *Soli Deo Gloria*

Catholic hermeneutics taken consistently proves Jacobean Primacy because James says in Acts 15:13 "Listen to ME" and in verse 19 he says, "THEREFORE **MY** judgment is..." -It proves Pauline Primacy because Paul says in 2 Cor. 11:28 that he daily bore the pressure "of all the churches." -It proves Thomist Primacy because he alone got to place his finger(s) through the risen Christ's wounds. His name is "Thomas" meaning "twin" because he's the true vicar and twin/double of Christ on earth while Christ is in heaven. -It proves Judasian Primacy because to HIM alone was entrusted the money bag. That's why his office NEEDED to be replaced by Matthias on account of Judas' failure to fulfill that exalted office. Lest a sedevacantist sect arise. -It proves Andrewian Primacy because in John 6:8 Andrew was the one who pointed out the boy with the 5 loaves and 2 fish which lead to the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000. Who else better to lead & feed the church of God? -It proves Nathanielian Primacy because to him alone did the Lord say in John 1:47 "Behold an Israelite indeed, IN WHOM IS NO GUILE!" The Lord even said in the next verse, "Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I SAW THEE." Clearly, he was foreordained and foreknown to lead the church. The name "Nathanel" means, "God has given." Isn't it clear that God has given the church guileless Nathanael as the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church? -It proves Lazarusian Primacy because he is specifically said to be loved by the Lord in John 11:3. The name "Lazarus" means "God has helped." What better help can we have for a Pontifex Maximus than he who died and was raised again by the Lord after a period longer than anyone else has remained dead and risen again? Christ was dead ONLY 3 days, Lazarus 4 days. The number Four, according to Biblical numerology is the number of creation [cf. E.W. Bullinger's works]. Obviously, Lazarus is meant to guide the church (the NEW Creation) into the resurrection life and power ordained for the bride of Christ. -It proves Thaddaeusian Primacy because he alone is the three named Apostle according to the best Byzantine manuscripts of the New Testament [Thaddaeus, Judas, and Lebbaeus]. St. Jerome called him, "Trinomius," which means "the man with 3 names." Clearly an allusion to the Holy Trinity's sanctioning of Thaddaeus as Pope. I could go on and on......See Jason Engwer's blogpost titled, "51 Biblical Proofs Of A Pauline Papacy And Ephesian Primacy" He wrote it in response to a Roman Catholic apologist's list of 50 alleged Biblical proofs of a Petrine papacy. It was written to show how Catholic hermeneutics can be used to prove ridiculous things.

This is somewhat tangential, so forgive me for posting it here, but there were several things in this video that made me super excited to hear your deep dive on Anglicanism.

49:40 lol among them. Jokes aside this was a good video. Thanks for the content you put out!

I converted to Catholicism 18 years ago. I think the main thing for me was that while some things might not be said as explicitly as objectors would like, when I read the Bible with the Catholic interpretation, things fall into place with a much more coherent framework. It's like watching a show where someone assumes two of the characters are brother and sister for a few episodes, then finds out on episode 4 that they were father and daughter. That new understanding would completely change the original understanding of the show, and likely also bring oddities or otherwise seemingly disjointed scenes together into a way that makes more sense for the viewer. That's what it was like for me, at least. When I "borrowed" from the Catholic interpretation to change my mind on four or five things, I started to seriously consider the papacy as being the distinction from other denominations and the thing on which it started to all rest. Have you read Jerome's Letter 15 to Pope Damasus? "As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!"

The fact the office existed before Christianity should always be cause for concern. You can convert Romans but their weird culture who mixed religions already would just do that to themselves seems self evident. There's even statues of Augustus as the Pontifex Maximus Honestly I don't know why you argue with them anyways their laymen defenders are weak at best and always want to talk merely theology than the politics of the era when many of these more heretical and heavy handed decisions by the various Popes are made. That's why they lean so heavily on personal attacks of Martin Luther, Henry the VIII, Jan Hus, and Peter Waldo. Luther didn't sequester himself afterall and Henry the VIII not leaving England to fall into the hands of France or Spain is completely understandable even if his sex life wasn't. Nor can I say I don't understand why the Byzantines split with Rome over their continual desire to be autonomous of the Byzantine Emperor being a check on their authority. Remember they hold the lower seat of power under Constantine as well and have never refuted that. The treatment of the Bohemians by Sigismund and his betrayal of Jan Hus shuttling him off to a kangaroo court is what lead to the Hussite rebellion as well. They always expect you to just think it all starts with the 95 thesis and Martin Luther is merely a ego maniac. But for the infallible Medieval UN they failed miserably at keeping the peace much less not favoring certain nations over other leading to them all but feeling abused and alienated which lead to them leaving. They brush that all aside like we should ignore it along with who they are now. I would never join any faith with that current Pope as head much less any faith that allows a SJW like Friar Casey in. He is a liberal heretic and a son of Satan in a frock. Also they're so pathetic they still want to fight us because their Woke Pope uses as an excuse for everything. Why is the world bad? Protestants! Why did Father Murphy diddle your son? Well he was raised protestant! Why are the cardinals and Pope so liberal they may as well be atheists LGBTQs activists? Because they are secret masonic protestants! It can never ever be anything they did in history. 3 popes at once, nah! Making Germany submit over and over for Italy? Nah! Favoring France over England? Nah! Letting Constantinople fall? Nah! Staying silent about Hitler and Mussolini? Nah Encouraging slavery in the New World? Nah! Ratlines for Nazis? Nah! Not worth the fight and when Woke Pope flips to pro gay about 50-75% of them are going to split off with SPX all while acting like that's not protestant. I would stop arguing with them focus on gays, SJWs, atheists, and the LGBTQ crowd maybe they'll get the hint. Also we can all cruelly but accurately point out our countries greatness was in spite of them and it's downfall began with their mass immigration and their voting the way they have for decades! It wasn't protestants who brought major organized crime to the US afterall.

I appreciate Dr. Ortlund’s perspective. Ultimately, I think this is always going to boil down to epistemological method. To take Erick Ybarra’s response as an example, it makes sense if you accept how he is weighing evidence. Maybe we need a video on Christian epistemology that is broader than Sola Scriptura vs tradition.

Great info! I've listened to a couple of your videos on this subject and I really appreciate your words, and especially your analysis of church history. I have two separate comments to make, one on succession, and the second is a positive case for who is considered part of the body of Christ based on Ephesians 4:11-16, that I'm wondering if you've also considered. First, the OT is very detailed and applies a lot of weight to succession. If we were trying to determine continuity vs discontinuity with the OT vs NT, would we not expect some of the same features to show up in the NT, such as noting a successor or stating that there would be a successor to take Peter's place? Since there is so much discontinuity between OT and NT, do you agree we need positive features similar to what I've suggested to guide our application of typology? Now regarding Ephesians 4:11-16 and the growth and building of the church ("on this rock I will build my church"), here is an argument for unity. Throughout its history worldwide, have we not seen growth matching this scripture through protestant portions of the church in very significant ways? In the many historical instances of church growth, isn't there clear evidence that protestants have been given the Holy Spirit for this ministry and that this is demonstrated by the many people flocking to Christ through those ministries, especially in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries worldwide, (although I would add 16th and 17th in areas of Europe as well)? Now if that be the case, wouldn't that be proof that God gave to protestant churches, as described in Ephesians 4:11-16, evangelists and shepherds and teachers for the ministry of the building up of the body of Christ with the result of new believers holding fast to the head, Jesus Christ? And if God gave such men(Evangelists, teachers, shepherds) to protestant churches in protestant lands, whether in America, England, Europe, south America, Africa, or Asia, for the building up of the church, and if that church holds fast to the head, Jesus Christ(vs15), then would it not lead us to contradict the scriptures if we claimed that those parts of the body are NOT part of the body of Christ, if they were given precisely to Build up the body? This is not an argument for establishing who is the church through succession, but through what God has done in history in terms of His promise to give such men, evangelists, teachers, shepherds, (and Apostles and prophets depending on how your view these), and the evidence of congregations holding fast to the head, Jesus Christ, through their ministry. To deny this argument, you would either have to say, 1. All of those shepherds, evangelists, and teachers, who led people to gather in Christ's name, were not from God and the congregations they led were not a part of Christ's body. Or, 2. Those shepherds, evangelists, and teachers, were leading men to Christ, although they were outside the body, so that eventually they would reach the catholic church. But the second option doesn't work, I think, because even during the process of building up, and even prior to maturity, where the members are being blown to and fro with different winds of doctrine, even then they are considered part of the body, although not yet perfected. And if they are indeed a part of the body of Christ, and if Christ has given teachers and shepherds and evangelists to them(and when you look through history it's hard to deny this genuinely happened), then that is proof, according to Ephesians 4:11-16, that they are indeed part of the one true church, as God fulfilled His promise even in the protestant church. If that is the case, are we not in danger of having a factious spirit witch is contrary to the spirit of Christ, by saying "I follow Peter, " "I follow Paul, " "I follow Christ," or Luther, or Calvin, or Rome, in such a way as to consider others to be excluded who hold fast to the head, Jesus Christ. I cannot say (or even consider) that Catholics or Orthodox are excluded if they hold fast to the head, Jesus Christ. I hope they don't say that for me, a protestant. I do hope that I misunderstand the catholic position on this point, but it appears to me that they consider me excluded from the body of Christ.

32:20 What I feel a lot of Catholics don't get is that arguing from silence is not a fallacy if one would expect an answer / description in the context of the passage. Yes one cannot derive definitive proof for a positive statement from it but the silence carries enough force with it to shift the burden of proof onto the other party. For example - when sinful conditions that stand in the path to salvation is often outlined in great detail why does the Bible never explicitly say that one cannot be saved without being Baptized? I realize this is not something that Catholics believe in our day - it serves merely as an example.

As always I appreciate your thorough response and your genuinely loving concern, Dr. Ortland. You suggest that: "If you have a supreme infallible head of the Church, you would expect see that either in the New Testament, or in Church history/the early historical literature. You'd expect that that would kind of come up, like in the Book of Acts, or in the Pastoral Epistles, or in Ephesians 4 where Paul is documenting the offices of the Church in relation to the unity of the Chruch; or in the First Epistle of Clement, or somewhere!" You then go on to list two reasons why you think that's reasonable. I wonder, though, if an unambiguous and universal canon of Scripture--what in your estimation is the only indispensable and infallible rule of faith in the Church--would meet the standard you just set out for the Papacy. Would an atheist, as you mention, be reasonable to expect for the Canon of Scripture that Protestants use today, "would kind of come up in like the Book of Acts, or in the Pastoral Epistles, or in Ephesians 4 where Paul is documenting the offices of the Church in relation to the unity of the Church; or in the First Epistle of Clement, or somewhere!"? Why, if it's such an important reality to the unity, governance, instruction and direction of the Church, would God permit such seeming ambiguity by his apostles and among the earliest Christians? You'll rightly appeal to the explicit and implicit ways in which the New Testament alludes to the authority of the written word, to an apostolic teaching, to the Old Testament patterns and examples, and you'll rightly appeal to the various historical attestations to a Canon which is partly or even completely in alliance with the Canon Protestants have today. You'll do this despite other places in the New and Old Testaments that might seem unusually silent on the matter or which seem to imply the opposite, and despite other early historical literature that seems unusually silent on the matter and/or actually disagrees with forms of the Canon you hold to. You'll do all this and still wholeheartedly accept that this is the providential process that a sovereign Christ permitted the Canon of Scripture--such an essential truth to the unity, governance, instruction, growth, and direction of his Church--to undergo. In my opinion this is exactly what Catholics do and accept about the Papacy. Yes, it was and is so important. Yes, there are ways to argue for and against it from Scripture. Yes, there is early historical literature attesting to it, and early historical literature that disagrees. Yes, there are Christians today who hold to it and many others who disagree with parts or entire coneptions of it. But that's the same boat that the Protestant Canon of Scripture finds itself in, no? Should we be as skeptical of the Canon as you propose we be about the Papacy? Maybe you're answer is yes, in which case I'd applaud you for your consistency. But if not, then I think you can begin to more readily accept that such an important reality as the Papacy can really be as reasonable as the equally (or, in the Protestant perspective, more) important reality of the Canon of Scripture by the criteria you yourself layout. Much more could be said of course, but I'll leave my thoughts as they are for your consideration. Thank you as always for your continued pursuit of the Lord and his truth! Blessings, brother.

I would personally press the argument that the New Testament functions something like a constitution. The precedent of the Law of Moses, I think, is more than enough to warrant at least the consideration of the point that the NT is meant to be received as a governing document.

Appreciate your content Dr. Ortlund. Re: James, Peter, and John, I've often wondered if there isn't some type of connection with King David's three mighty warriors from Chronicles who, if memory serves me, were the elite three from his group of 30. Three from a larger group of 30, and Christ with 3 from his larger group of 12. Who knows.