The Case AGAINST The Papacy w/ Dr. Gavin Ortlund 

Please do as many videos as you can with Dr. Ortlund. These are amazing. I will be sending in money with questions next interview. This was an amazing discussion. I’m a catholic but when I look for the opposing views. Dr. Ortlund is my go-to. He is incredibly gifted and uses these gifts for Jesus very well.

Glad you had Gavin on. He's one of my favorite Protestants to hear talk on this topic. Opposing views shouldn't remove charity.

14:30 - Popes and Mary 20:30 - silence in scripture 20:58 - silence, Constitution and President 21:40 - the early church writers 22:30, 38:18 - Augustine and Jerome 24:39 - the Trinity 25:50 - bishops 27:05 - the shepherd of Hermas 30:03 - Cyprian and the chair of Peter 34:37 - Ortlund on Matthew 16:18 and infallibility 38:50, 39:18, 49:13 - Matthew 16 and supremacy 40:36 - Augustine and the rock 41:57 - Even if it’s Peter… 47:50 - Cameron’s take on the surface-level reading 52:10 - Protestants’ lack of serious exposure from the other side 52:46 - Peter and leadership 53:17, 54:27 - silence and biblical inerrancy 53:50 - John 10:35 59:01, 1:00:00 - Pints With Aquinas

Dr. Gavin Ortlund was recommended to me by my son. I appreciate his demeanor.

Never hear about Dr. Ortlund before. He is amazing!

One thing I've noticed about both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox arguments is that they often beg the question that when the Bible / early church refer to things like the "church," they are referring to the specific ecclesiastical tradition that they are a part of in exclusion of all others, when that is often the very question at issue.

Dr. Ortlund has considerable objections . And his manner is commendable E. Ybarra

Gavin Ortland is fantastic at his thought process through this. It seems that he's able to break down what is being said and what the scripture is conveying. Thanks for sharing this discussion.

I am a Catholic, and I love being Catholic. I have to say, though, that Gavin's argument in this video is the best I have heard against the papacy. It is the linchpin doctrine and ecclesiastical attribute between Catholics and all other Christians. I applaud him for this great argument, and how he irenically demonstrated his case. He has given me so much respect for my Protestant brothers and sisters.

From watching this it appears that Cameron has already decided to convert. He is simply looking for a logical way to justify his conversion in his own mind. He says he is in a journey like he is searching for the truth. Don't think that's totally true.

It seems to me that Cameron is 100% settled on being Catholic before he had any of these discussions with Dr O, or Dr White.

Thanks for providing such a thoughtful and compelling case Gavin, and thanks Cameron for your efforts in setting up this up. Really helpful for my personal journey! More please :)

In my opinion Gavin killed it. Presented a very compelling case against the papacy seeped in both scripture and history

The fact the papacy is never explicitly stated in the new testament, and that there's no OT model for it either, shows me very clearly that these few scriptures are being stretched well beyond their limit. The OT testament priesthood is very explicitly laid out. There was no doubt about a priest's duties. In the NT, a bishop, pastor and teacher's duties and requirements are laid out. A pope is the most important of them all, God would not leave it to guess work. This had to be a manmade invention.

Looking back at these... it's easy to see with hindsight Cameron already had his swim trunks on during this interview.

is Trent's 5-hour rebuttal to this out yet?

Dr. Ortlund is awesome! Great discussion

This is absolutely BRILLIANT!!!!! Thank you so very much!!! Pastor Ortlund, bless you and THANK YOU!!!!!

This was awesome! Thanks so much! It would be great to see more debates/conversations between Catholics and Protestants. :)

The reason there are not a lot of Protestant people trying to correct orthodoxy or Catholicism is because we are busy reaching out to those that don’t know Christ

Dr. Ortlund, I think the biblical evidence for inerrancy is crystal clear and overwhelming in comparison to the papacy. Thank you for your work.

Thank you Dr Orthlund, it's my first time to see and hear you speak, definitely rare and gifted and inspired. Very well thought out and well presented. Glad you addressed the 'system' and not the members. Thank you Cameron for your ministry, its touching peoples lives in a real and important way. 'the Truth will set you free'. God bless you both.

1Pet 5:1 Peter addresses elders not from a position of authority or superiority or supremacy , but addresses as a "fellow elder". Peter is one among coequal elders. And then goes on to point to Jesus as the "Chief Shepherd" - the one who alone is Supreme.

@53:33 I don't think that the comparison between the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and the doctrine of the papacy was apt. If you read the New Testament, and ask the question "What did Jesus, Paul, and the biblical authors think about Scripture?" you will easily walk away with, if not biblical inerrancy, some form of a *very* high view of scripture. If, instead, you approach the text asking "What did Jesus & his followers believe about the office of the papacy?", you will find almost nothing to support it, and even some areas that seem opposed to the idea. *Every* time Scripture is self-referenced in the Bible, it is clearly assumed to be a source of authoritative truth. The same cannot be said of the papacy every time church structure is brought up. Tl;dr: The doctrine of scriptural inerrancy can easily be inferred by a reading of scripture. The office of the papacy certainly cannot.

I think this was a great overview of different arguments for and against the papacy. I really like Dr. Ortlunds approach and would really like to see a more in depth discussion on the different arguments. Again i really enjoyed the video and would love to see more!

This was the best video on this subject yet. Dr Ortlund was articulate and generous in his speech. Would love to hear from him.

Cameron, you're an intelligent guy. I'm impressed by your ability to quickly synthesize and retain information.

A dialogue between Gavin Ortlund and Erik Ybarra would be really interesting Cameron. Both are really thoughtful, charitable and focussed more on scholarship rather than apologetics. Dr Brant Pitre would also be a worthy interlocutor.

As always Gavin did an awesome job defending the Protestant view using an irenic approach…..I learnt a lot and feel edified……👍🏾

Did you guys coordinate denim jackets? It definitely enhances the veracity of Dr. Ortlund's argument.

Really enjoyed this!

Great job Gavin!

Ortlund vs. Horn 7-hour debate, make it happen!

I'm currently a student at a Lutheran seminary and I think the idea of Papal supremacy is already discredited if you look at St. Paul's testimony in Galatians chpt. 2. Paul knew Peter personally and what is interesting is that he reported that there were three "acknowledged pillars" of the Jerusalem church, not one (2:9), and that Peter shared leadership with John and James the Brother of Jesus. It's also interesting to note that the number 3 isn't even exhaustive of the number of possible pillars, but that Peter, James, and John were simply the ones who were expressly named. Furthermore, Paul didn't even recognize these pillars, which included Peter, as having a special kind of authority over any other apostle, saying "And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)" (2:6 NRSV), which implies that Paul saw himself as Peter's equal, along with every other apostle. This is further strengthened when Paul confronted Peter to his face over being peer pressured to not eat with gentiles in 2:11-14. For Paul to call Peter out implies an equal relationship between the two, as opposed to a superior/inferior dynamic, since he did not feel obligated to show deference to Peter's decision, but instead openly questioned and criticized it. In Acts 15, we continually see a collegial style of leadership among the apostles that doesn't seem to imply any kind of special role to Peter. In fact in the Jerusalem council, it was James and not Peter that gave the final word and made the final decision (Acts 15:19) with the final decision being ratified democratically among all of the present members (15:22). I think this really discredits the idea of Peter being in a unique position of authority since he doesn't really seem to be leading from a place of unique authority. Rather he seems to be a leader within a cohort of other leaders. Theologically speaking, this could be understood if one compares Jesus' statement to Peter in Matthew 16 with Abraham's call in Genesis. Both men were chosen because of their faith, because they responded positively to God's word. Thus, just as all people who posses Abraham's faith become heirs to his legacy (Gal. 3:6-9), all those who posses Peter's faith become active participants of Peter's blessings. Thus, while Peter received a unique privilege as being the first to confess Christ as Messiah, all those who follow Peter's confession participate in the blessings of that confession as well, hence every other apostle did become leaders equal to Peter because they too began to believe as Peter did.

I really want to express how awesome and how humble Dr. Ortlund is. It's great to listen to him answer tough questions with humility and openess. One argument I heard and think is a solid position is that Peter being the rock on which God would build is church specifically refers to the church of Jerusalem and the ministry towards Jewish people. It would make a lot of sense based on Peters ministry and how he worked. Peter was working to convert the Jewish community. I can't remember the specifics of the arguments, I would have to find where I heard that again. But hearing it made a lot of sense to me. Basing the whole papacy on this passage and the one where people stopped when he talks sound like taking things out of context. It's too specific a situation to base an entire doctrine on it. Especially such an important one. The papacy is viewed as importantly as the trinity, the plan and accomplishement of redemption, it's such a vital part of catholicism that you would think it was based on more than a few select passages that are vague and open to interpretation.

Cameron: There is a little bit of evidence Gavin's facial expression: What?

A solid case as usual doc! I wish you brought up the issue of Clement of Rome, whose letter has some peculiar features and silences that call the early papacy into question.

Catholic claims about the teaching authority of the RC church are either circular (wherein they say that only the RC church can interpret the Bible, and they say so because the RC church tells them so, which is the same circular argument made by all authoritarian cults), or else they argue from scripture and history, in which case they’re admitting one doesn’t need the papacy to arrive at Biblical and historical truth.

Great discussion

As Gavin is a Baptist pastor, I'd love to see a debate between him and former baptist *Steve Ray* who is now a Catholic apologist and author of _"Upon this Rock"_ or with former Baptist pastor *David Currie* who is also now a Catholic apologist and author of " _Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic_ ."

Would love to see you bring Dr. Jordan B. Cooper on the show. He's also a protestant apologist and scholar that does great stuff on RU-vid!

If you genuinely want a scholarly robust protestant voice, Dr. Jordan B. Cooper would be an amazing contribution to your journey

This has been an incredibly edifying video. This issue you guys brought forward, that there is a scarcity of higher scholarly defense for the Protestant Christian position, has put shape to a subconscious grievance of mine I haven't even been entirely aware of. I'll be working to educate and equip myself to join the ranks of the intellectual unorthodox. 1 Peter 3:15, baby!

Thank you for this interview! I'd like a video on the OT canon.

Though I'm Catholic, I agree with the case dr Gavin makes here. It's 100% true that for a doctrine that basically gives Church unlimited theological power over the entire Spiritual reality there needs to be a solid foundation all around - in Scripture, in the Fathers, in the History etc. I have mixed feelings about the Papacy myself. I have no issues following it's authority personally, so it's not like I feel the need to convert elsewhere, but subjugating all other Christians to it, especially the Orthodox Christians who also have their own Apostolic roots, is just unacceptable based on vague quotes and late developments. This is why I especially support the modern ecumenical approach to old anathemas and other means of damnation that Church used to give to everyone who dares oppose it. Thank God for Vatican II which proclaims other Christians as no longer heretics but our Brothers and Thank God for wide-spread theological ecumenical efforts that unite us over key doctrine like Joint Declaration of Justification, which broadly speaking solves the Soteriological disputes, or at least gives us a way to coexist theologically on the same threshold.

Very interesting video.

Here’s a story of a struggling Protestant. In my walk of 10 years as being a Christian I’ve called 3 very different churches home as the first two turned out to be heretical - and ended up in a reformed Baptist church. Then moved to a new large country town and am trying to find a church to call home. The Presbyterian church we just went to on Sunday is very small, held in a school hall and the congregation is made up predominantly of people over 70. Also, the ordinances (communion) were not delivered during the service. What a let down. I now just visited the Roman Catholic Church which is open to visitors every day of the week all day, stands on the highest part of the town and has stood since 1887. I was awestruck. The turmoil that lands on the Protestant when moving to a new town, when trying to find a church is immense. My question is Do you think God wants us to experience such turmoil that wouldn’t exist if we were one unified ecclesial body? There are many problems with the Roman Catholic church but I fear there are many more with the Protestant church such as the practical example I’ve just given. Ive been part of 3 very different churches in only 10 years because it’s easy to get very lost in Protestantism. Now I’m starting over in a new town. What the heck do I do? The main option here appear to be either Pentecostalism, Catholicism, dying Baptist / Presby churches, or a few pop up churches that are likely heretical. Lord, help this weary soul. 🙏

Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but you asked about RU-vidrs who address Catholicism, but I didn’t hear anyone mention Anthony Rogers. He’s been addressing it a lot in a very thorough and academic way.

The next account that immediately follows "the gates of hell" scene is our Lord saying to Peter "Get behind me, satan"; that Peter, rebuking the Lord, had, not the things of God, but man in mind.

nice! I Dr. Gavin is awesome.

Brother Gavin is beautifully gentle in his arguments and discussion. I can learn that gentleness from him. Cameron also. Trent Horn is also someone I would love to drink beer with!

36:12 🤣 boy have I been here in debates. So glad to be introduced to Gavin!

Gavin made a lot of good points. One thing that didn't come up was the lack of reference to a papacy in the early non-Christian sources (heretics, Jews, and pagans). Men like Aristides and Tertullian wrote apologies in which they responded to objections to Christianity and anticipated potential objections. They address the deity of Jesus, his virgin birth, his resurrection, the second coming, the inspiration of scripture, how to interpret various passages of scripture, Christian moral standards, the apostles, Christian teachers, the nature of the church, and many other topics. But they say nothing of a papacy, to explain it, defend it, anticipate objections to it, or anything else. Trypho, Celsus, and other early opponents of Christianity show no awareness of a papacy, in contrast to the many and explicit references to the papacy among non-Christians in later centuries. We see many references to a papacy, including explicit ones, among non-Christians in our own day in books, on television, etc. The best explanation for the lack of reference to a papacy in the early non-Christian sources is that a papacy didn't exist at the time.

Hey Cam, maybe a good way to rephrase what you were trying to say about Peter, the rock, keys etc, would be to say from that scripture you could infer that Peter had some kind of leadership role (I don't think that personally). I think Gavin's point is that even granting that, 'Supremecy' is still a non sequitur.

Jesus' prayer for our unity is and will be answered. The very fact that He prayed makes it impossible NOT to happen. John 17:20-23 - Very exciting, praise God! - Thank you Cameron & Gavin

Turretinfan also has a massive blog with lots of historical quotes from church history and early church fathers.

"We should almost have Trent on the show at this point" Yes! :))

It's interesting to note the ubiquitous absence of the Roman Catholic Papacy in the entire New Testament.

Please please please do an interview with Jordan b Cooper as well, someone who is very knowledgeable from the Protestant position (Lutheran side). I'm glad ortland mentioned him as I find his channel very enriching!

Please do an interview with Dr Ortlund expanding on his view of the ortodox church

It’s interesting to me that “the gates of hell will not prevail” sounds more like an offensive attack from the church against the defenses of hell. Not an attack from hell against the church. You don’t attack with your own gates.

I really love Gavin Ortlund and appreciate his sincerity and rigor. Michael Lofton of Reason Theology and I (Suan) will be doing a review video. Also, Cameron Bertuzzi's fairness is wonderful and refreshing.

Edit, I made this comment before the superchat. Awesome that many already know Micheal Heisers book and work! So, first and foremost, I am glad that this channel exists, great work Cameron. Second, Im not so sure the face value reading is the best thing, as it ignores a great deal of context and as you dive deeper into language study, context is more important that the words because a word means nothing (obviously not THE Word because that is Christ lol) without the full context (era, culture, location, author, audience, passage, etc) Third, Matthew 16 is the go to for Peter's Supreme role for most Catholics but I think that both catholics and protestants overlook a really important context for this story in Matthew. Dr Micheal Heiser has an incredibly informative piece on this, not sure which lecture. (sorry) Anyway, most people don't know the culture of the Ancient Near East. (Myself included but I'm working on it through Dr. Heiser's work) The region that Jesus and the apostles are traveling has enormous significance to the narrative. Caesarea Phillipa where the large mountain is. There is a huge boulder there. And below that Boulder is a place referred to as something like the gate to the underworld. In Greek the underworld is called hades. In the koumran texts, that passage is better understood as '...I will build my church on this rock and the gates of hades will not withstand it' as in hades with take the beating instead of the church will successfully defend itself. So the catholics say '...this rock' refers to Peter and protestants say '...this rock' refers to something like Peter's strong faith but with the better older translation of 'withstand' instead of 'conquer' it gives an offensive feeling. As in Christ was making a victory claim over hades. And the 'rock' could be the rock that is above the door to the underworld. Christ was poking the divine rebels in the eye. Which prompted them to crucify him because he died like a week later. And the rest is glorious Christ history. Suffice to say, I love both my catholic and protestant brothers and sisters in Christ. And Dr Micheal Heiser's work is of utmost importance to every Christian who wants to dive as deep as humanity has into the story of God found in scripture. It's not that his doctoral work is better than others. It's that he is bringing the scholarly view to the layman in digestible, understandable language and he is incredibly transparent on what the opposing positions are and why he falls where he does. May God bless the whole church and guide us in the direction of Christ the King Holy Holy Holy is his name!

I am very compelled to believe Dr. Ortlund’s view.

Thanks, Gavin! The silence in the Bible on the pope is deafening. Enough said…or…not said! Ha. No glimpses of a pope. Clear the roles in the Church…elders and deacons. Clearly laid out in multiple books of the Bible. And…Not even a glimpse of the pope in those explanations of the roles on l in the church.

Most likely, the binding and loosing mentioned in Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 are performed by means of the keys, which means that Peter isn't the only one who has the keys. These themes are all part of a larger imagery involving doors and such. See the many other references to keys and binding and loosing elsewhere in the New Testament. The religious leaders of Israel in Jesus' day, angels in Revelation, etc. are referred to as having one or more keys and/or binding and loosing without having papal authority (Matthew 23:13, Luke 11:52, etc.).

Disclosure: Catholic here. I really appreciate Dr. Ortland's attempt to be fair and know that it's correct when he points out the same types of errors occurring on both sides in misrepresenting the other, and he really does a reasonable job at avoiding falling into that himself. That being said, I don't think one comparison he repeatedly made hear isn't fair: He compares the lack of an explicit definition of the nature of the papacy as being like the Constitution of the US not mentioning the Presidency. A Constitution is a document whose sole purpose is to lay out the principles of governance of a group. I think anyone asked "What did the author of the Gospel's want to communicate?" would be mistaken to put "Explain the principles of governance of the Church" anywhere at the top of the list, the authors clearly had other intentions about documenting the life and earthly ministry of Christ. You might still make the case that we should expect some description of the governance of the Church that He built, but it's not the same as to expect a documentation explicitly describing the roles and rules of governance.

One more other thing. Thanks again Gavin.

I’m so sad this is over. I really wanted to comment on the Roman Catholic teaching on the veracity and biblical proof of the papacy. You mentioned Matthew and Jesus saying to Peter, you are the rock and upon this rock I will build my church. In referencing Dr. Brant Pitre, this is a good passage to verify the papacy but when understood in a Jewish lens, and in conjunction with Isiah 22:19-23. The original Greek word used for “church” in Matthew is Ecclacia meaning assembly of gods people. And usually this term was used in the assembly of the Israelites in the temple where there was a rock. The emon shetiach meaning the foundation stone. The stone was where the arc of the covenant used to be and where the blood of the sacrifice of the lamb used to be sprinkled. The church Jesus was talking about in this passage was the church body. Not necessarily the church as a building. Also, to reflect on “the keys of the kingdom” and the binding and loosing refers to isiah 22:19-23. Where eli’akim is discussed. He is the “Al Bayith” of his day which means he was the “over the house” aka the leader over the house of David, 2nd in rank to only the king. It’s an office, mirroring the office of the pope. And as an office, this role gets passed down over the centuries from person to person. This is what first century Jews would have understood. The Al Bayith’s role, like the pope (papa aka pope), was to be a father figure to the kingdom. In the pasage Isaiah mentioned that whatever the al bayit opens none shall shut and whatever he closes none can open which is a saying symbolic of his power to make binding decisions. Aka papal infallibility. I think that often people dismiss Catholic doctrine because of their lack of understanding of the original Greek or Hebrew text and translation, and lack of knowledge of first century Judaism thought. For a better explanation of the Roman Catholic view of the papacy, I implore you to look at this video of dr brant pitre, 1st century Jewish and biblical scholar discuss it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PWkmMNvr_to.html.

St Optatus of Milevis was a North African bishop in the 4th century (contemporary with Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom etc). I'll just let his words speak for themselves: "You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim--each for himself--separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit." St Irenaeus Bishop of Gaul in the 2nd century (Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of John the Apostle!) "It is a matter of necessity that all churches should agree with the Church of Rome, on account of its pre-eminent authority". Cyprian of Carthage, a martyr-bishop in the 250s, who was beheaded for his faith, says "Rome is the principal Church, from which sacerdotal unity has its source"

More of this please! I really want to hear more about Heiser's view!

Thanks to Dr Ortlund for the respectful way he speaks his disagreements with the doctrines of the Catholic Faith. It's a refreshing change to find a rare Protestant who treats us with respect. I appreciate Dr Ortlund albeit I firmly hold the papacy to be willed by Christ Our Lord for His bride, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church so that there may be a living Magisterium. The papacy grounds the faithful on Truth when they are tossed about by new doctrines of reformation. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit will preserve the Chair of Peter from teaching error so that we the faithful can avoid the dangerous practice of "leaning on our own understanding" when interpreting the Bible.

Re: Matthew 16: I think you can get to Peter having some authority, but I think getting to infallibility, supremacy, and succession is impossible to get there from only that text. I see this in the same way that people argue we are dual substances from 1 Thessalonians 5:23. You just can't get there grammatically. With Matthew 16, you have to assume certain things about what it means to be or have a church to get those other things from the text.

I hope you'll have a catholic apologist to respond. So as we hear both sides.

You should get Michael Lofton from Reason and Theology as he's interacted with Ortlund before or Joe Heschmeyer, who you have talked to.

1. Id love to have Gavin address Sola Scriptura, and Catholic objections to it 2. Marian hymns and whether there is a distinction with a difference between dulia and latria in these regards

Excellent talk! I just can't comprehend how a person that takes a good look at church history can accept all the deviations of the catholic church.

Dr Ortlund seems like a great guy - appreciate his tone and humility! I will thank him for making it easy to see where our roads differ. One such fork in the road was the requirement of the papacy to demonstrate supremacy and infallibility from "get-go". My thinking is that if we have an agreement on a "special leadership role" for Peter + Apostolic succession we are already a long way towards the papacy. I was surprised both of them discounted biblical support for apostolic succession. I would think that the Tradition from Aron and his sons, the Levites, and the whole priestly tradition could be one clue to "succession". I would think it almost obvious that Matthias succeded the office of Judas (as they had to be twelve). Furthermore, I find it strange if there was not an apostolic succession. What would such a thing mean? Would it mean that churches could be planted without the blessing of the existing church (leadership)? Does it mean that the power to bind/loose was lost with the Apostles? Would the gates of Hades not prevail while Peter lived, but prevail later on after he died? As long as all the Apostles are jews, and if they saw themselves as the seed of the new Israel (12 tribes), it's hard not to think of succession would be important. Also Clement affirms this in year 80. Furthermore, Ortlund has certain expectations on what the Bible should contain. I had a similar argument back in the days when I was a Protestant. The argument went like this: Since the Bible is not clear on how to interpret Baptism or Eucharist, we must conclude it's not that important. This comes out of a Sola Scriptura view - everything of importance must be in the Bible, or else... But there is a missing piece in the puzzle here, which is "development". If you don't allow for the development of the church and its understanding of what Jesus did - yes, probably the Church of today is not the same as in year 50 or year 100. John Henry Newman converted to Catholicism in the 1800s and thought about the Church like an organism. So in his view, the Church *should* change, but it would essentially be the same (just like we're the same, but different from our childhood). Taken together, it seems to me strange how we can avoid the thought of something like a unified Church under a single leadership, and the leader must be believable. Had the Orthodox Church not broken off, the joint leadership would have been easier to see as well.

I’m not sure why it seems reasonable that something as significant as the papacy would not be explicitly mentioned anywhere in Scripture. If the papacy is not something found or paralleled in Judaism and many forms of Christianity, the catholic papacy appears the exception, not the rule...the noise rather than the signal. Rather, what is found repeatedly is communal discernment over and over again. Jewish elders meeting at the city gates, or Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Moreover, the reference to "bind and loosing" in Matthew 18 is a communal power and responsibility given to the church. Similarly when Paul writes, "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16)... the reference is to the text, not the authors. This means the process of authors, compilers, and editors producing the text, which is "God-breathed." The communal process is as important as the individuals who were involved as Peter references, "...men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Peter 1:21). Proverbs 11:14 "Where there is no guidance the people fall, but in an abundance of counselors there is victory." It may seem philosophically wise to have an individual who is invested with supremacy and infallibility. It speaks to that place in our souls that cries out for certainty, security, and assurance. However, to have security, and assurance in any other than Christ is idolatry. Many protestants treat Scripture this way (Father, Son, and Holy Bible). The flesh loves to move to and live in the extremes. Lastly, I wonder if it is no surprise that the papacy is a western church development as the West is marked by an ever-increasing individualism. As the West moved away from community identity it needed something to fulfill that void of authority. The result was the papacy in Catholicism and infallibility and inerrancy in protestants churches. When the community was no longer viewed as the locus of God's presence and work, then substitutes were found. Thus, and only thus, do I see the "need" in Cameron's philosophical question. Why does it seem that Papacy is the best world solution? Because we lack the vision to see the beauty beyond the messiness of communal discernment. We desire certainty and haste over peace. We desire to be "right" over being in right relationship with each other.

"Sift you like wheat," and thus...papal authority!! How on earth do apologists arrive at this? I think Dane is right: people already have it in mind. So when we have " a woman" mentioned in Revelation, it means, "the immaculate conception!" Maybe it does ( and I rather like the idea of the immaculate conception), or maybe the doctrine hunters are seeing what they want to see.

I'm a Catholic convert (former Lutheran). And I had many objections/lack of faith towards the papacy and I found a book that really helped me clear up my doubts. It's called "Pope Fiction" By Patrick Madrid. In the book, Patrick debunks (I think around) 30 objections people have against the papacy. It's one of the books that were one of the final pushes to me converting to Catholicism. It's a really good read. 👍👍😁😁

Whilst I'm no expert, I've read most of the available patristic documents that touch on the papacy--hundreds of letters. Whilst there definitely is a development, the gist of it is in the earliest centuries, although there wasn't clear agreement on the details. I'd say the bishop of Rome was widely seen as having some undefined, unique authority. This wasn't just honourific; it had practical teeth. This doesn't definitively support modern papal claims, but it is most compatible with Catholicism. To those who reject the papacy as an accretion/deviation, I'd question your consistency. We all accept development... Why else do we have a 27 NT book canon and call God 'homoousious'? How do you know these aren't accretions too? How do you judge? And what is God's role in all of this?

I haven't read a lot of St. Augustine's works, but did he write about being against Pope Gregory the Great, the pope who held the papal office during Augustine's life? I just did a quick search, and multiple sources say that Pope Gregory assigned Augustine to England to convert the Anglo-Saxons. That indicates to me that he submitted to the supremacy of the Pope. The Pope seems to have held a level of authority in the early Church.

Cameron, Do you have a quick list of good apologist channels you follow and recommend? I’m now following your guest’s channel, I also follow Turek’s, Licona’s, Habermas’, but always looking for others :)

I have heard Dr. Orltund say he believes in the real presence of the Eucharist. I am curious as to how he determines who can consecrate the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ and how he knows when that consecration has taken place. Because the Catholic tradition has guidelines on this supported by Church authority. But I'm wondering what his thoughts are.

I think one of the big reasons that there's more Catholic content than Protestant content is because some of the Catholic views really boil down to Protestants not being saved (stuff like the rejecting the Marian dogmas). On the other hand, many Protestants are okay with saying that Catholics are saved. That's at least been my experience debating Catholics online. With that then comes an entirely different priority. Protestants don't need to debate Catholics other than for the sake of knowing truth. Protestants are more focused on general apologetics where the lost world is perishing. But if Catholicism is true and Protestants are not saved, then Catholics have evangelical reasons not just to save Protestants, but also defend their fellow Catholics from falling to Protestantism. So the mission field to save the lost is different: the lost to the Protestant is the atheist, but the lost to the Catholic is the Protestant.

I've heard the argument that the viewpoint of Peter and the viewpoint of the Judaizers was the proper view, and that Paul's emphasis on grace was a weakening of the "truth" and a ploy to win Gentiles. How might the current discussion relate to the Protestant-Catholic debate regarding grace/faith and works?

I would seriously consider reading Edward Denny's Papalism before going the direction of RCism.

Come on man, the surface level reading of the "on the rock" passage is a referral to Mt. Hermon where the gates of hell were said to be in the old testament because the bulls of Bashaan lived there. (I'm referencing Michael Heiser's work here).

See Heiser about "On this rock", it had nothing to do with Peter. Heiser maintains that Jesus was referring to Mt Hermon, where they actually were. This was (as per Heiser) a challenge to the principalities and powers -- long worshipped in that very place.

Hi Cameron- I’m Catholic and have some follow-up “food-for-thought” questions I’d like to send you. Where is the best place to do so? Thanks!- Joel

I’d like to pile onto Gavin’s response about inerrancy being defensible from scripture a reference from Paul in 2 Tim. Where he says that scripture is “profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God would be fully equipped” (vs 3:16) If Paul says that scripture is sufficient for teaching & correction, it seems like inerrancy is proven by the inverse. In other words, Paul would not instruct them to teach doctrine with error (which he calls out numerous times), but says that scripture’s use is for teaching and correction, presumably because it is trustworthy (without error.)

15:30 “The RC (papal) claim, in its effect, is a claim for a kind of authority that punctures our accountability to the Word of God. It untethers us from the accountability that we should have to the 1st century apostolic deposit.” Boom right there. That be some succinct sh!t.

On the rock issue Michael Heiser claims it pertains to the actual rock they were standing on i.e., Mt. Hermon, where the fallen angels fell to earth and where a temple of Pan was that was called the gates of Hell by the Jews.

I know this was an oversight but, insofar as the inerrancy of scripture; "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness..." 2 Timothy 3:16 "All"

20:02 I do have a small problem with. The claim that there's nothing to engage with on Petrine succession, ignores what I'd consider to be the central image of the Petrine office, the "keys to the kingdom." It ignores the entire notion of the Kingdom of Heaven as an essentially Davidic kingdom. I'm sure that there's a debate to be had here, and Dr Ortlund is, you know, I'm no doctor of anything. So I feel weird arguing with someone who clearly has done a great deal more thinking on it than I, but it's not as if the appeal is simply made to *pure rationality*. Rather it's made to a typological consonance between Peter and Eliakim, on the foundation that Christ is the fulfillment of the promise to reestablish the kingdom of David. David and Solomon had ministers, but above all these ministers was a "prime" minister... Yeah. I'm sure that Dr Ortlund has considered this, and for some reasons rejects this argument. But it does feel a little weird not to be brought up.

An example of Apostolic Succession is in Acts 1, where there Apostles choose a successor for Judas. Peter even calls the position that Judas had an “office,” and that it had to be filled by another. If Judas, who was the least of the Apostles, had an office that had to be filled, then so did the other 11 Apostles.

Dr. Ortlund said here that he would need to see first century historic evidence to be convinced of the Papacy. What about Clement of Rome? He was the 3rd successor of Peter (4th Bishop of Rome) who wrote at the end of the first century and asserted his authority over the church in Corinth, even though Corinth is not part of Rome and had its own bishop.

Do you know if Gavin is related to Dane? Author of Gentle & Lowly? Incredible book, which I can’t stop talking about.

The same Pope, Pius IX, stated how serious an issue it is to reject this dogma, and I quote, “Hence, if anyone shall dare, which God forbid, to think otherwise than has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment, that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith, that he has separated from the unity of the church, and that furthermore, by his own action, he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the error he thinks in his heart.” You are damned and you will be excommunicated if you question this doctrine.