Dave Armstrong Responds to Gavin Ortlund on Jerome & the Monepiscopacy
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 09. 2024
- Dave's blog: www.patheos.co...
Patreon: / intellectualcatholicism
Podcast: podcasts.apple...
Facebook: / intellectualcatholicism
Suan Sonna is a Baptist convert to Catholicism who is dedicated to curating the best Catholic intellectual content on philosophy, politics, and theology. He is also passionate about engaging people outside of the Catholic tradition on issues relevant to the Church.
Links to Daves works:
www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2024/01/st-jerome-papacy-succession-vs-gavin-ortlund.html
-www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/author/davearmstrong
www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2024/02/reply-to-gavin-ortlund-st-ignatius-bishops.html
www.ncregister.com/author/dave-armstrong
www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2024/02/revelation-2-3-monarchical-bishops-by-95-ad.html
www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2024/01/ignatius-of-antioch-on-monarchical-bishops.html
-www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2024/01/monarchical-bishops-early-fathers-eusebius.html
I hope I got all the links Dave. Let me know if I need to add any.
@@halleylujah247didnt you just have a baby? Praying for you baby and family 🙏🏼😇
Thanks! How did you get them to post?
@@theticoboy That's very kind of you. It was our fourth grandchild. We just went to see him today for the first time. Sweet little contented baby!
@@halleylujah247 The only one you missed was this one:
Jerusalem Council & James, Bishop Of Jerusalem: The Ambivalence and Inconsistencies of Protestant Thought on the Earliest “Monarchical” Bishops [1-30-24]
I love dave. He helped greatly in my conversion from protestant to catholic, as well as navigate the wild world of radical catholic reactionaries. ❤❤❤❤
Awww! That's a lot of hearts!
Haha. Gratitude and love to you and Jesus. ❤❤❤
Why do people worry more about radtrads than Bergoglio allowing sodomites being blessed? Strange.
I love Dave too.
In this day and age of apostasy, Catholics need to be PROACTIVE and CAUTIOUS of Pro-Heretics like Dave Armstrong. He speaks with a forked tongue, pretends to be a defender of the faith on one hand but defends heretics on the other. 👎🏼👎🏼👎🏼👎🏼👎🏼👎🏼
Dave Armstrong was the very first apologist I ever found in college in the late 2000s. Love his work.
Thanks for reading. I appreciate that.
Mr.Armstrong is my favorite Catholic apologist. I solved most of my doubts about Catholicism just reading his articles. Everytime I was uncertain about something, or when I hear a new protestant accusation, I searched an article from Mr.Armstrong and I always found the answer, which was the truth of our faith. Even today his articles are one of my best sources of information.
You are extremely kind, too; thanks! All glory to God for His gifts and blessings and guidance.
66
You 😢ee😢5😅😢
I said I wrote for "National Catholic Review" at the end. LOL It's National Catholic Register. That was my biggest (and hopefully only) mistake, . . . :-)
Dave I’m looking forward to listening to you on your own CZcams channel. 🙏
As long as it’s not National Catholic Reporter, you’re good.
Hi Dave. I have recently been trying to comment on your blog but have been unable to do. As such, I am leaving this comment for you:
I recently became aware of Tim Kauffman (to whom you have interacted with four times I believe) and was wondering if you would be willing to do more responses to him. I've been asking many Catholic apologists to do so as well.
Thanks for all the work you do - may God bless you!
@@ianmiller07 sometimes it gets caught in the spam folder. I replied to Kauffman a few times, but it's beyond the capacity of my patience to do any more. He's of the particularly virulent, intransigent anti-Catholic type.
@@DaveArmstrong1958 Thanks for the reply Dave.
I completely understand that and have gotten the same impression.
Blessings
Great to be able to see Dave on CZcams. I hope he becomes more active in the CZcams scene. His articles and books are not only excellent but also a valuable source of information and inspiration.
Only audio if I do (like this one). I still don't do videos. You are very kind, too.
@@DaveArmstrong1958 That's no problem at all, Dave. It would still be great to hear you on CZcams, even if it's only audio. As an alternative, perhaps you could take inspiration from Classical Theist, where there's occasionally a video but it mainly focuses on the shared screen. This could be a great way to present actual source documents for reference or to guide the talk. It's a compelling way to engage with your audience while keeping the setup simple and focused on the content.
I am a convert to Catholicism, i converted 4 years ago. I haven't heard of Dave Armstrong until recently I picked up one of his books, Catholic Verses. I haven't gotten around to reading the book yet, but after today after what I heard, I know it will be good. I can't wait to read it.
I appreciate your thoughtfulness. Thanks!
Many of his books are worth ordering. Biblical evidence for Catholicism is an excellent reference for the biblical proofs of the Catholic faith. The one you are referencing(95 Verses) is also good.
I would also recommend checking out his website biblical evidence for Catholicism. There are voluminous defenses of the Catholic faith on that website! The one downside is, there’s so much that it’s easy to get lost, but his answers are typically very charitable, and very convincing.
You can also find a list of his books on his website. He also sells e-books.
Dave! When I converted to Catholicism over 20 years ago, your blog was instrumental.
God is so good, to use some of the writings of this poor sinner to help someone along on their spiritual journey. Praise God!
The best way to support Dave, is by buying his books!
Dave was among the first why I got interested in apologetics. There was no CZcams yet or maybe not as popular then.
Glad to be of service to you.
Just discovered Mr. Armstrong and boy got a lot of reading material. So stoked! (Already read some responses he had to Gavin and was super impressed with references upon references)
You are kind. Thanks for reading my material and God bless you!
I thought his responses to Gavin Ortlund pretty much demolish Ortlunds twisting of Church history. Same goes for his treatment of James White
I have come to doubt that these men are really interested in the truth - I don’t like to assign malice to someone but it seems that both Ortlund and White search the fathers - so they can take something out of context to “prove” the fathers weren’t Catholic. It would be comical if it weren’t so sad. I feel sorry for the people who listen to them.
@@mikeoconnor4590 We shouldn't assert insincerity or an effort to knowingly mislead. Everyone has biases, and they color how they interpret the facts. Protestants have a whole set of presuppositions, as we also do, and everyone builds theories or worldviews on top of those premises. But once in a while, the premises to need to be more closely scrutinized and perhaps discarded as false. That's part of my job. :-)
@@DaveArmstrong1958 true enough - just seems that some things are so obvious that to ignore these things - almost seem intentional (eg how does one ignore the universal belief in baptismal regeneration, hierarchical structure of the Church etc)
The fact that mono episcopacy became an early costume of the Church doesn't mean that it wasn't at least implicitly part of the deposit of faith. Jesus didn't regulate explicitly all the details of Church organization but gave the Church a right of self-organization that must be fully respected by its members, as a reflection of the unity of the Body of Christ.
I cannot fathom how Gavin missed the points raised by Dave.
pride
He did miss them, her overlooked them and highlights what supports his opinion and tradition.
Excellent 👊🏻
Thanks!
I put up related links and they were all wiped out! ???
Yeah, CZcams auto blocks links in the comments
CZcams doesn't allow people to post links . I assume it's to your sources. I will do it for you.
Is that you reciting the video, Dave?
Yep. I gave a talk for a good 25 minutes.
@@halleylujah247 how can you do it and not me? :-)
A better transaction is that bishops were *nominated * by voting, then ordained by a bishop.
Dave 11/19/2023 in Cath365 argued with a Pros Apol that Paul was mentioned more than Peter.
In KJV...What is actually interesting is that Peter & Paul are each mentioned in 153 VERSES each
We are Blessed to have Dave Armstrong here in Michigan 🙏❤️🙏
The Big Mitten! Water Wonderland . . .
Another great video!
Glad you like it!
I think it would've been more helpful to point out or emphasize that Jerome still admits that the monoepiscopacy was instituted by the Apostles, who we all agree had divine authority from the Lord. If Christ ruled and governed through His apostles, then one can rightly say that Christ instituted the monoepiscopacy through His apostles.
In the first century, Clement of Rome is even more explicitly stating that the Lord was involved in the institution of successors to the Apostles:
"… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry."
"Far be it from me to censure the successors of the apostles, who with holy words consecrate the body of Christ, and who make us Christians. Having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, they judge men to some extent before the day of judgment, and guard the chastity of the bride of Christ." -Letter 14, To Heliodorus, Monk
I just came across this presentation by accident. In my opinion Dave Armstrong is the most studious, accurate and honest Catholic apologist out there. If he makes an error he quickly corrects himself and posts his corrections. I wish all non catholic apologists would do the same. Please support Dave by buying his books or making a PayPal donation using his email address.
Lol most honest? If he was honest he wouldn’t be defending heretics in shepherds clothing! Look up Fr Hesse, Fr Paul Kramer.
Gavin is good at debating and taking the early church fathers out of context. The great heretic Martin Luther would be proud of him.
Exactly my sentiments!
His ego and pride is the biggest barrier.
Suan what book would you recommend to learn about the "new perspective on Paul"?
You need to read all the fathers and councils to see what the over arching moral view is.
I take a different position on this. Hopefully my presentation will be ready soon. And I don't even have to claim Jerome was wrong ;)
Well, he said one thing about ecclesiastical "custom" in one place and seemed to contradict it in another, as I noted. But then Suan mentioned at the end that it may come down to his Latin word for "custom" and what it means.
Or are you a Protestant?
@@DaveArmstrong1958 Yes that is a good question what Jerome means by "Custom of the church" and what period it covers. The first members of the church were the apostles. So if we say one priest was elevated to the bishopric by the apostles, the claim still stands. Just as certain things were decided by the apostles in the council of Jerusalem, and not by the Lord. The key is, it is still apostolic.
The reason I would not dismiss Jerome, is because its not only him who claims this. Its also Augustine for example.
@@davidszaraz4605 but then later I cited something he wrote where it sounded like he DID think ecclesiology was also apostolic. So "custom" probably didn't mean here what we usually think (an arbitrary choice, etc.).
@@DaveArmstrong1958 So where is Jerome in error in your opinion?
Hi Dave!
Greetings and salutations!
Hey suan, here's a fun question for you and/or for your future guests:
if the pope called you and said 'ask me a question, and I'll consult the bishops and my theologians and then I'll issue an answer at the highest level of authority that my conscience will allow me to', what would you ask?
I don't think a pope would ever act in that way. It's not according to the normative procedure . . . So I deny the premise that lies behind your question. :-)
@@DaveArmstrong1958 but it's a fun thing to think about
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription I suppose, but purely as a hypothetical.
@@DaveArmstrong1958 yes, just a hypothetical. It could be phrased as "what's the open question that you wish the magisterium would settle the most?" but I asked it in a way that's more precise to not have unneeded ambiguity when one needs to answer the question.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription Then I can't think of one. Pretty much everything has been settled to a satisfactory extent by now, as one sees by reading Denzinger.
I mean no animosity or argument here, but I do have a question. In 1st Tim. 3 and Titus 1 the qualifications for a bishop or elder are given. The Greek word Episcopos is used to describe that office, and sometimes the word presbyteros is used for the same office. But the Greek word for priest is hiereus, and that word is not found in 1st Tim 3 or Titus 1. So my question is this: Why are bishops or pastors of the Catholic Church called priests when that word is never used in the New Testament to describe them? I ask this with all sincerity and good will. And I did listen and agree with most of what you said. God bless.
The Oxford Languages source online notes the etymology of the word "priest": "Old English prēost, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch priester, German Priester, based on ecclesiastical Latin presbyter ‘elder’ (see presbyter)."
And of course the Latin was derived from the Greek and biblical word "presbyteros" (which appears 67 times in some form). So "priest" is indeed related to biblical usage. It's derived from "presbyteros".
Thanks for your answer. How early in the history of the Church was the word priest used for the local shepherds of the individual churches?
@@jamestrotter3162 I don't know that offhand.
@@DaveArmstrong1958hey, Dave! I wanted to ask if you would do a rebuttal of Timothy Kauffman. He made a podcast episode making a refutation of 1st clement supporting an early papacy. The video is called 1 clement doesn’t support an early papacy - Timothy Kauffman.
@@noahgaming8833 I've replied to him a few times. He's out to sea. I have written about 1 Clement and the papacy a few times, too. See my Papacy or Fathers of the Church web pages for those articles.
Suan, did you ask him questions? Seems like cutoff abruptly.
He asked a few, but decided not to include them in this video. We may possibly do a second related show with Q & A. Of course, he can answer further, but I thought I'd throw that in.
Yeah, I decided not to include my questions since we might do a second Q&A video and I mainly repeated Dave's points, although I did make some contributions.
@@DaveArmstrong1958 I think it would've been more helpful to point out or emphasize that Jerome still admits that the monoepiscopacy was instituted by the Apostles, who we all agree had divine authority from the Lord. If Christ ruled and governed through His apostles, then one can rightly say that Christ instituted the monoepiscopacy through His apostles.
In the first century, Clement of Rome is even more explicit in stating that the Lord was involved in the institution of successors to the Apostles:
"… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry."
"Far be it from me to censure the successors of the apostles, who with holy words consecrate the body of Christ, and who make us Christians. Having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, they judge men to some extent before the day of judgment, and guard the chastity of the bride of Christ." -Letter 14, To Heliodorus, Monk
Man how many times has Gavin been busted misrepresenting the fathers now?
Once a week at least
There is nothing know as intelluctual Catholicism but everything called Faithful Catholics if you are talking about God , to give unto God what is to God" What specifically is it ?
Not sure what your point is, but God certainly wants us to use our minds. He says we should, even when we love Him: "and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength" (Mk 12:30, RSV; cf. Mt 22:37; Lk 10:27).
I love Dave Armstrong and Dr. Robert Fastiggi! Amazing apologists! I am a huge fan of Pope Francis and have over 15 of his encyclicals and books! I love Dave's book in defense of the orthodox teachings of Pope Francis! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 Well, bless your heart!
@DaveArmstrong1958 Thank you so very much for your ministry Dave! It is an honor to learn from you and Dr. Robert Fastiggi, 2 of my favorites! So grateful for your work! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
"promo sm" ✅