A MAJOR Problem With "Doctrinal Development"
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 07. 2024
- In this video I engage the doctrine "no salvation outside the church" as a window into the Roman Catholic conception of doctrinal development.
Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.
SUPPORT:
Become a patron: / truthunites
One time donation: www.paypal.com/paypalme/truth...
FOLLOW:
Twitter: / gavinortlund
Facebook: / truthunitespage
Website: gavinortlund.com/
MY ACADEMIC WORK:
gavinortlund.com/mypublications/
PODCAST:
anchor.fm/truth-unites
DISCORD SERVER ON PROTESTANTISM
Striving Side By Side: / discord
SOME BOOKS:
www.amazon.com/Makes-Sense-Wo...
www.amazon.com/Theological-Re...
www.amazon.com/Finding-Right-...
MY GEAR:
www.amazon.com/Canon-Mark-EF-...
www.amazon.com/FIFINE-Microph...
00:00 - Introduction
01:19 - Historical Overview
17:40 - A Valid "Development?"
25:52 - Catholic vs. Protestant Approaches
I’m a Roman Catholic and have been listening to this channel for several weeks now. I’ve always felt spiritually pulled in the direction of Lutheranism and I’m finally giving myself the chance to fully explore non-Roman Catholic ideas. This video is exactly what I needed right now! Thank you, Dr. Ortlund.
Glad it was helpful and may the Lord direct you in your journey!
Yes! Lutherans have the historical (catholic) faith without the craziness of 19th century-and-after Roman Catholicism (or the craziness of some contemporary Protestants).
Bryan Wolfmueller, Jordan B Cooper, Flaneur Record are great Lutheran yt Channels
@@moses.coffee yes they do. Lutheran churches are buying into the worldly culture which is terribly discouraging. So far, the Catholic Church has held, but is showing signs of schism. This is a terrible time for Christians and I know is about to get worse.
Follow the Holy Bible, friend. The Catholic Church has been fraudulent for 1,500+ years. Find a non-denominational Holy Bible following church, and get Saved Brother!
"Any development is wrong unless we are the one doing it!" - The One and Only True Church (pun intended)
That’s cute. A better way to frame it might be “Christ promised to guide his apostolic church into all truth; he didn’t promise to guide every club that rents a building and has a Bible into all truth.”
I think the orthodox churches would not take kindly to that description. It's hard to take doctrinal pronouncements seriously when they coincide so neatly with the interests of the powerful that make them.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787Arguing that doctrinal developments is what Lord was talking when he said all truth is🤦
@@thegoatofyoutube1787Christ didn’t promise to guide His apostolic church into all truth. He promised by His Spirit to guide the apostles into all truth. The apostles. The Holy Spirit did that, it’s called the scripture and the church is subordinate to that. Christ never promised ongoing revelation. The church is only guided by truth insofar as it follows the scripture. Churches can err, see Galatian churches and the church in Corinth which persisted in error. Rome isn’t immune. That’s fairy tale thinking.
This "No salvation outside the church" created a lot of anxiety when i was in orthodoxy
Thank God for showing me the truth!!
which one, the baptist, the lutheran, the anglican or the pentecostal truth?
@@haroldgamarra7175 they don't have a different truth.
@@ReformingApologetics yes they do LOL
@@ReformingApologeticsthey contradict on issues of sacraments, ecclesiology and soteriology.
@@hildegardnessie8438 that assumes that those are central
I was looking into Catholicism for awhile. You have helped me see that one can be deep in history and persist to be a Protestant. God bless.
So glad to hear I've been of help, Jonas! God bless you.
the next logical question is "which branch of protestantism?" so many fish in the sea.
or any denomination it okay as long as its not the catholic church? even though denominations within protestantisms dont agree in almost everything, and push comes to shove that you disagree within your fellow protestants of the same denomination, who would be the final arbiter of truth? It wont be the bible since both of you will only use that defense.
@@Ternz_TV Which rite, fraternity, order, society, or family are you? Are you TLM or novus ordo
.. which language is spoken? Are you in the Catholic Charasmatic Renewal or do worship more purely and reverently than "those" people?
@@ReformingApologetics all you mentioned do not fall in the realm of doctrines. So outside of doctrines we catholics kave have varying opinions on rites, theological speculations and opinions and can disagree with one another.
but doctrinally speaking, we catholics are united. If you can't differentiate doctrines from rite/theological speculations/opinion then it will be hard for you to get my point.
@@Ternz_TV That's just based on differing definitions. The RCC might not call "tongues" a "doctrine," while a Pentecostal might. There are still Catholics in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal who worship separately, and believe and practice this while others don't. I think it's close to 200 million people now. The trads, especially the sedevacantists generally don't even consider them Catholics. Are the sedevacantists Catholics with the same doctrine? Perhaps the "doctrine" is just flexible enough to allow them to reject Francis while the other ~92% don't. Are you a Marshalist (disciple of Taylor Marshall)? Does he have the same soteriological "doctrine" as von Balthasar did? Are all the new doctrines and dogmas since the 1st century such that a believer from that time that didn't believe these things would be a heretic if they lived today?
Forcing trads and novus order folks, diocese by diocese to worship separately, is decisive, but if you hide behind your definition of "doctrine," its ignored.
Were all these folks "untied in doctrine"?
catholicherald.co.uk/religious-orders-at-war/
The centuries long, brutal divisions over the Immaculate Conception were even worse, but wasn't it a "doctrine" before it was a dogma?
Where does Scripture say we're known for doctrinal conformity, anyway? If you read it, you'd be inclined to think it's more about, oh, I don't know, love for one another, bearing fruit, maybe doctrinal conformity is in there somewhere and I just missed it.
I am a lfe-long practicing Catholic layman (not an "ex" anything) Throughout my life (I am now 75) I have always thought: A) Augustine should have kept his mouth shut more that he did B) God, being Sovereign, died for ALL people (as Scripture explicitly states several times C) is bigger than any "church" D) established a visible Church E) and brings Christ's salvation to people ANY WAY He wants to in ways the Church can never comprehend......don't bind the Holy Spirit!!
Amen
It seems it wasn't a uniquely Agustinian "problem." Roughly a millennium later, the council of Florence strongly affirms: no salvation outside the Catholic church. It excludes Jews, etc... This sort of "universalism" which is seen in post vatican 2 Catholicism(recognizing protestants as "separated brethren," for example) would have been unrecognizable to the Roman Catholic church of the Renaissance era, for instance. What you're saying is very charitable, and dare I say...Christian😉, yet it is not in alignment with much of the historical stance and practice of the Roman Catholic church.
@@paulyoshida1747 :)
Modernist
@@ShaNaNa242 ???
Ecclesiology alone makes a strong case for protestantism
Another amazing video pastor!!
This channel is great. Finally good sound arguments from a Protestant Pastor who has wrestled with the writings of the church fathers. I grew up in a Baptist church with such a weak grasp on its own rich tradition. It's refreshing to see that the fathers aren't the 'property' of the Roman Catholic church and that it is in our best interest to read them ourselves in light of scripture. Thanks Dr. Ortlund.
I believe it's the same view the Orthodox Church holds to. Though I'm a Protestant, I will never say that those who attend a Catholic or Orthodox church are not saved. I may not agree with much of their doctrine. Only Jesus knows the heart if it's genuine and we are saved.
Excellent fleshing out of this issue; and, for a long time, (since around 1996, when my friend Rod Bennett converted to Roman Catholicism and I started really studying RC more) - for a long time I have had the conviction that this is one of the clearest contradictions to Roman Catholicism to it's own claims. The contradiction is between the long history of the tradition of "no salvation outside the church" vs. Vatican 2 and post Vatican 2 theology. You did a good job of unpacking the issue for us. Thank you!
Another great presentation Dr. Ortlund. I look forward to reading all the clarifications you will make in the comments because folks will mishear you or not finish the whole video and throw out responses and church father quotes that are neither here nor there. Thank you for your service.
This channel is a gold mine.
Amazing work as always Dr. Ortlund!
Hey Dr. Ortlund! I actually wrote an essay for my seminary, over at Southern Evangelical Seminary, about Roman Catholic teachings on justification. When you had brought up the yolk of infallibility claims, it reminded me of what I wrote about in my essay! In my writing, I had compared the development of Roman Catholic dogmatic teaching to a scientific phenomenon known as Mueller's ratchet. I think it is worth taking a look at Mueller's ratchet and order to understand how it feels like a good analogy for the dangers difficulties and burdens which come along with Roman Catholic teaching. Admittedly, my professors, though liking my paper, thought it was strange and interesting to have a chapter on genetics in a paper on Roman Catholic teachings of justification. However, I really do think that it is a helpful way to show, and real life biological examples, the dangers that can come from being bound by certain post scriptural and post 4th century dogmatic proclamations by Roman Catholic magisterium and the papacy.
Sorry for any errors or strangeness in my grammar! I am using the voice to text currently. And either case, I greatly appreciated your video and I pray that God continues to use your ministry so that people may see the glory of God more and more in their lives. Thank you!
Interesting phenomenon
Would you be willing to share your writing? I am actually doing a personal deep dive into Catholicism. On top of that, I love reading peoples essays, articles, etc. I would love to have it for my library but if you are not comfortable sharing I understand.
@@sharplikecheddar2 I would consider it! Or at least I can share a chapter with you about Muller's ratchet.
@@unapologeticapologetics6953 Sorry to pull you back to this thread from a year ago, but would you be willing to give the analogy in a very simple way here by any chance? I think I’m still confused
Thank you for this Gavin. I'm always looking forward to your videos about these hot apologetic cross-denominational topics because I know you won't just discredit Catholics from the start, but you'll give a fair hearing to their arguments and give your best counters. This is very informative, and very necessary in the protestant world, where most preachers who talk about these issues are very antagonistic towards Catholics and basically cut any and all hope for a civil conversation.
glad you find them helpful!
appreciate all your labor. I know the hours and hours it takes to make an argument that is rooted in the sources and that is not a straw man.
Amazing stuff thank you!!!
Great video! Thank you!
So much good information, I wish all these arguments where compiled in one big book. I'd buy it. I'd buy a lot and give them to friend and family.
You have been my favourite brother on CZcams since finding you, awesome dig into the subject brother!
Good argument. I find this issue to be the biggest argument against infallibility and you articulated your position very well.
Great video!
This is really really helpful, it really came out of pivotal time for me, I am a Baptist, I think I started getting a whole bunch of Roman Catholic content sent my way on CZcams because the algorithm saw that I was watching a lot of your content, and a lot like you, I’ve actually really grown to appreciate some of the things that more liturgically based and even catholic Christians emphasize. I’m actually fairly recently coming out of a reformed Baptist church that had the same tendency. That’s not to say anything bad against Baptist in general, but there was a very clear shift in thinking that if you did not affirm a specific confession of faith and didn’t agree, totally with the pastors uncertain, doctrinal developments, and there was one in particular that did develop after many years of attending that church, then you were considered an outsider, namely the proposed doctrine that God is impassible. This had never been discussed before to my knowledge with any real significance, it was proposed as a matter of importance at a general assembly of the denomination, and there came a massive split with many churches leaving because the hard liners on this issue insisted it was a primary, necessary matter.
This gets even more complicated when one considers papal encyclicals like pascendi by pious the 10th. There he says any doctrinal change is ' modernism'. No mechanism exists to distinguish modernism from the development of doctrine. Also, Gavin, this video summarizes my almost exact thoughts on this issue. This issue of doctrine cannot change was a pivotal reason why i left the church. One cannot maintain the Ratzinger Hermeneutic of Continuity. also teaching on usury was changed.
Well, to be honest, some things really can't be changed at all. Trinitarianism. The existence of God. Things like that are dogmatic for a reason. Usury isn't a central tenet of the faith, or even a peripheral one. A teaching on such a thing can change. We then have to consider what "change" actually means and how we're applying it. I think if we understand "change" to mean the organic unfolding of Truth, such as the recognition of the various Marian dogmas or the revelation of the Trinity and a deepening of our understanding of it, then we're not engaging in "modernism".
Also, I really think you've mischaracterised what Pius X did in Pascendi. He definitely did not say that "any doctrinal change is "modernism"". It's a pretty quick read. That document lists 65 relatively modern errors and condemns them. If we take an example: "65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism." We can see that anyone who agrees with this statement is not properly utilising reason. I would hazard the guess that the original error being condemned probably stems from some kind of popular conception of Darwin(ism) and the weird idea that somehow faith is irrational and that religion must somehow condemn science. If we apply reason to the situation, I think it's far closer to the truth that science reconciles itself with faith. When we look at first principles, we understand that God created a sensible, knowable, and rational universe. 2 x 5 = 10; acid plus base = heat + salt; woman + man = family of children. Science might reveal the details, but does not contradict the first principle.
I could be mistaken in understanding what you meant, but in reading Pascendi, I just don't wee where the Pope is condemning modernism per se, rather than errors that modernists fall prey to. "With truly lamentable results, our age, casting aside all restraint in its search for the ultimate causes of things, frequently pursues novelties so ardently that it rejects the legacy of the human race. Thus it falls into very serious errors..."
On the other hand, if we "change" a doctrine such that we overthrow, get rid of, deny, reduce the importance of, or corrupt the meaning of the doctrine, then, yes, that is an error of "modernism" and would result in our self-expulsion from the Church. Christianity holds the doctrine of the Trinity as dogmatic. It's an axiom of the faith. To admit a fourth person of the Trinity is clearly heretical. To deny the Trinity likewise. This is why Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians. Their "doctrinal change" has not been organic in nature so much as catastrophic. So we end up with a people who were once Protestant Christians, but are now polytheists, believing that the Father was once a man and was married and had a kid, named Jesus, and that one day we'll all be gods too. Or another group of former Protestant Christians who now believe that Jesus is not God, but is the archangel Michael.
Amazing!
Great video. You reminded me that I need to finish my study of the topic. In addition to Newman's essay, I have Pelikan's "Development of Christian Doctrine: Some Historical Prolegomena", Owen Chadwick's, "From Bossuet to Newman: The Idea of Doctrinal Development", and R.P.C. Hanson's "The Continuity of Christian Doctrine". I can't wait to start digging. If you have any recommendations for primary sources or historical proponents of the theory, I'd love to hear about them. Keep up the good work.
Excellent!
Have been hoping to have this addressed. Looking forward to response videos as well
Thanks!
As a former RC who became a mere Christian, I note that Jesus' promise (that every one who believes in Him as Savior *will* receive eternal life) is in diametrical opposition to the RCC's decree (that I cannot have eternal life unless I return to the RCC). Now, who should I believe: Jesus Christ, or the church of Rome organization? It's a no-brainer, I'll go with Jesus every day of the week and twice on Sunday! 🤣 Obviously the RCC took a wrong left turn long ago!
Currently I am in a wonderful ACNA Anglican parish, but what defines me is my faith in Jesus Christ. Not the name over the doorway!
I just started watching your discussion with Dr. Cooper on "is infant baptism biblical?".
I'm going to watch this video later. Interesting stuff.
hope you enjoy!
Baptists that aren't in the Reform tradition have Baby dedication which is basically the same as infant baptism just without the Baptism part: it's a very short ceremony usually at the end of a service that parents could dedicate there child to God and their responsibility to raise the child in Christianity and when they make a decision for Christ then they can be baptized as a believer.
The Pastor would then pray for each child and parents individually.
@@TruthUnites thank you. I wrote this on your last video, but would you consider commenting on the "joint declaration of the doctrine of justification" from 1999?
Can it be a regional phenomenon considering the claims about catholicity from the Roman catholic church?
Is it binding?
Is it progress?
Is it just a nice gesture?
@YAJUN YUAN is it propaganda to lure in protestants?
@@georgwagner937 Regarding JDDJ, Austin over at Gospel Simplicity has an informative interview with Dr. Michael Root who served as a Lutheran representative on the project. Interestingly, Root is now Roman Catholic.
The mental gymnastics RC apologists have to make to handle the problem of doctrine development es amazing.
Sometimes it seems there just ain't enough Cardinal Newman to go around. Appreciate your content.
what did you mean by this?
@@Tom-qo4mz it's a reference to Cardinal Newman and his idea of the development of doctrine in the RCC. It's a bit of a meme I guess you could say nowadays where non-RC who are critiquing Catholicism will say just "sprinkle some Newman on it" and all of the perceived contradictions go away because it can be considered a development of doctrine, and not an aberration. The often used image is an acorn developing into an oak tree. However, I'm starting to see the development of Roman Catholic dogmas more as a grafting of one type of tree onto another. Thus, I'm not sure how long before I head to the Orthodox Church. God bless you.
The development of doctrine is also invented because he couldn’t find any of tomes teachings in history
@@johnsayre2038 thanks for elaborating, i had come across Newman in passing before but don't (didn't..!) know enough (or anything really) to understand your comment at first
@John Sayre why not just become Lutheran? If you prefer traditional mass but don't want the problems of the Papacy then Lutherans are basically that.
Greek Orthodox have a borderline heretical view of the trinity where they don't quite accept that Jesus has the authority to send the Holy Spirit.
It's on the border of heresy because while they don't deny the trinity, they do question Jesus equality with the Father.
Thanks again Gavin. I've said this before regarding your videos. They are like light flooding into a dark room.
The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him.
Proverbs 18:17
Can't wait to see the rebuttals 😀
"when you get stuck, you can get unstuck"...AMEN!!!
Helps, perhaps, to define terms? As a layman Protestant, I could hear the statement, "There is no salvation outside the church," and think, "Well of course not! However you slice it, we all come to Christ through the testimony or the word, all of which come from the Body of Christ." So maybe it would be more precise if you said, "No salvation outside the _Catholic_ (or Orthodox) church"? Thanks! Love your channel! You're one of the few I gladly give to support.
The wording/phrasing is extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Which translates to “no salvation outside the church”
The formulation, as presented in the video had 0 to do with RCC or EO, but they ran with it and produced ungodly doctrines based on those
As far as salvation goes, salvation comes through Christ, not the church so the doctrine already has problems. I mean sure the Protestant formulation of all who are in Christ are the church rectifies this apparent contradiction from the doctrine
While I can agree with noble intentions every ought be Christian to be saved, the issues stem now from sacraments and validity which also had heresies such as donatist heresy
Ps
There are rare instances of naaman, commander of assyria, where he was saved despite never converting to judaism
Or the thief on the cross who was never Christian
It’s kind of hard to take the whole no salvation doctrine in good faith
Yes, exactly. We just need to agree on what comprises the Church. Most who do not already know would be surprised to learn the understanding of the Catholic Church on this. (Want to know? Start with CCC 759!)
A lot of non-Catholics believe that what they hear from Catholics engaging in apologetics represents what the Catholic Church is, but this isn't true. Apologetics is, more or less by definition, responding to challenges against our Faith - it is not, in itself, the Faith. (No more than soap and water used to clean something is the dirt or the "something".) And, in reality, the controversies we are willing to defend against run counter to our Church and what our Faith actually IS. We are called to PEACE, and THAT is the character of our Faith - not all this controversy.
This is an unrelated request for a future video: Please consider touching on the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints in church history
This video could not have come at a better time. Thank you for all you do, Gavin.
There's a lot of good evidence in this video against what modern Roman Catholic's teach on doctrinal development and apparent changes over the course of history. I honestly feel bad that they have to work so hard to find ways to defend what to me seems to be obvious changes in teaching over time. I recently became aware of Sedevacantism where modern Roman Catholic's have to defend typically Vatican II changes in teaching from this Catholic sect that are defending traditionalist views.
I expect a two hour response from Trent Horn by next week.😅
Glad you found it helpful!
@@elvisisacs3955 I almost spit out my coffee
Oh, so you can tell doctrinal development is obviously false right out the gate but you just found out what sedevacantism is?
A well versed man...
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Never claimed to be well versed on the particular topic. Just stated my opinion based on my limited knowledge base and the arguments in Dr. Ortlund’s video.
@@Particularly_John_Gill
I can see that.
One of the things that I love about this channel is that it gives us an opportunity to split hairs in a fruitful way and better understand one another. Super!
I think a better example could have been chosen to illustrate the concerns with doctrinal development. Regarding GUARD RAILS, no-salvation-outside-the-church is not what I would call a sacred dogma. There really is a hierarchy of truths in Roman Catholicism. It only makes sense that there would be more wiggle room to develop those lower down the ladder.
And while a medieval theologian might have made an argument for those earlier teachings being infallible, what qualifies as an ex cathedra statement is itself a doctrinal development! So it is wrong to suggest that the church has “positively reformulated” what should have stood the test of time.
For my part, doctrinal development is a brilliant mechanism that God built into his Church to keep it relevant throughout the ages, faithfully guiding its members ever closer to that glorious day.
Once again, though, outstanding video. Always food for thought and a chance to reflect!
Ave Maria.
Glad you enjoyed the video! To your first point, the fact that this dogma may be less important (not sure about that, but granting it for the sake of argument) does not mean it is any less infallible and thus irreformable. So I'd say that is irrelevant. To the second point, when you say "what qualifies as an ex cathedra statement is itself a doctrinal development," I have lots of concerns about this. One is it makes for an infinitely moving target. Another is I really don't think Catholics teach or believe that. Another is that in this particular case, the vast majority of Catholics consider the papal bull from the Council of Florence ex cathedra. Ultimately that kind of statement undercuts the appeal for an infallible authority, it seems to me, because now you never really know when it is infallible. Hope that makes sense.
Warren, I would have to disagree on your approach to this dilemma. It is true that in one sense we can we can rank doctrines in importance or centrality to the Christian faith. e.g. The divinity of Jesus is more important than the dogmas on indulgences. However if something is a dogma, then it is a dogma. All infallible and irreformable definitions are infallible and irreformable by definition. I think the solution to the dilemma is to pay attention to the definitions in their context, distinguish between what is normatively necessary vs. absolutely necessary and not make a dogmatic definition wider than it was intended.
Thank you both for your comments! Very constructive.
It should not come as a surprise that the definition of what constitutes ex cathedra is itself a doctrinal development. While the Church has always had it in some form, it wasn’t until much later that serious discussions about inerrancy began to take hold and obviously weren’t fully formulated until Vatican 1.
Having said that, I don’t know enough about the topic to properly argue it. I’m inspired to dig deeper! Perhaps in the new year.
Merry Christmas!
Thank you for your scholarly deep dives into doctrine, among other things. I am a Roman Catholic who had a major spiritual crisis when talk of declaring Mary co-redemtrix started to be "taken for granted ". Natural doctrinal development, right? I have not been to church in over a year. I can't talk to a priest because one priest here has 3 parishes. I have never had a pastor. I would become Protestant but that would entail individual interviews with each pastor to determine the beliefs of that particular church. I can avoid the ones that have a rainbow flag next to the door, but not all advertise. I know that we need to worship as humans together, but I am unchurched and bereft in that way.
may the Lord protect, guide, and watch over you!
@@TruthUnites thank you for the prayers. I need every one.
The most recent popes have moved away from using the language of Mary as co-redemtrix. No Catholic is bound to affirm this title.
Although, technically all Christians are co-redeemers in Christ since we are all commissioned by Our Lord to proclaim the Gospel.
Might a Lutheran congregation be a reasonably comfortable place to start for you?
Most church websites will state their doctrinal statements, so that’s always a good place to examine. Listen to some sermons online & check for proper use of the Bible. Then visit a few times. Membership classes typically will give you a much deeper understanding of how the church works.
Interestingly, I was sent to this video by Pastor Mike Winger who was addressing the “45,000 denominations” baloney in his first question (his last video of 2023) and how to find the right church for you. Blessings
I encountered what I'd call a fundamentalist Catholic who stated there was no salvation outside the Catholic Church. I asked for clarification: "So all Protestants are going to Hell?" And all he would say in reply was that there's time to convert and "cross the Tiber." Most Catholics I know, including many priests, would not hold to this rather limiting position...for example, Peter Kreeft would say the Catholic Church is the best, but not the only part of the Body of Christ.
There are people, due to their circumstances cannot know the gospel of Christ...those who lived before Christ, those not reached by Christian missionaries, those in isolated primitive places, those mentally disabled, those killed in abortion, those who are born in pagan religions, etc.
God is a merciful and a logical God, He desires that all men be given a chance for salvation.
“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin" John 15:22
The implication is that it is possible to have a salvific link with Christ without knowing him formally.
The bottom line is: the straight and narrow road that leads to heaven is not an easy road to begin with, even for those gifted with the fullness of truth.
CCC847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation".
@AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS Even if the magisterium contradicts itself?
You reject the Church Christ built and you think you're somehow entitled to heaven
They were most probably a follower of Fr. Leonard Feeney who in the 1940s was attached to the Catholic Student's at Harvard University. He took up a very strict interpretation of the phrase "Outside of the Church there is no salvation." He and his followers were asked to explain their position, and instructed that their denial of the Baptism of Desire and the Baptism of Blood along with their denial in Invincible Ignorance, in which a person who through no fault of their own has not heard the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church (be it because they have not been presented it, or they are so prejudiced by Anti-Catholic indoctrination) will be judged by God based on what they knew, and how they conducted their lives. God will through the Merits of the Cross welcome into eternal life those who have endeavored to live a life following God as they understood His will to be. When they continued to refuse the Catholic interpretation of the Catholic understanding of "Outside the Church" they themselves were excommunicated, something they protested was invalid because they were the only one's who understood the teaching better than the Pope and the rest of the Church.
@@thomasfolio7931 Feeney was correct, ignorance can never save.
You can't go to heaven based on how you lived your life, this is "works alone"
The difference between Florence/unum sanctum and Vatican II/current teaching is the primary reason I reject infallibility both from the pope and the general magisterium. They are different things, no matter how much context you allow and categories you create.
Time-stamp
20:26 - Yup, this is modern.
21:06 - “invisibly on the ark of Noah” 🤣
21:55 - where’s the precedent?
22:37 - doctrinal development.
22:52 - what’s the point in an infallible teaching office if Christians misunderstand for centuries?
23:50 - change in meaning, not just a change in understanding.
24:26, 24:55 - the allowance analogy
25:55 - Gavin’s position on Vatican ll
26:15, 27:50 - Protestant freedom
@YAJUN YUAN Basically :;)
Dr. Ortlund, you put together a well thought out podcast on "outside the church there is no salvation". My wife and I, our kids and grandkids are all Orthodox believers.
My wife and I have always believed that you can be in other Christian churches and be saved. We believe the fullness of the church and sacraments are found in the Orthodox church, but you are not going to hell if you are not Orthodox.
I should mention that we are converts to Orthodoxy, therefore we may not believe 💯% of the doctrines there of. But I also have to State that I don't believe 💯 % of Protestant or Catholic doctrine.
So we continue on in the Orthodox Church because we know that there is IMHO, no perfect church. But we feel that Orthodox is the closest to following the Ancient Faith..
God Bless 🙏
Don
As always well researched, presented and argued. I wonder how much Karl Rahners personal influence had to do with the change at Vatican 2
Dr. Ortlund, I’ve been doing a lot of investigation of Catholicism lately, and I’ve found your channel to be an invaluable resource. I would love to hear a response to the Catholic teaching of invincible ignorance, the Protestant position(s) on salvation apart from faith in Jesus Christ, and what Christ meant when he said “forgive them, they know not what they’ve done.” My initial reaction to this teaching is that it is wholly unsound. But if your channel has taught me anything, it’s that I am often surprised that historical Protestant views are much different than what I’ve learned at the nondenominational churches I’ve attended. I have searched for a rebuttal to this doctrine, but I have yet to find a Protestant perspective on these issues (at least on CZcams). Any book reference would also be greatly appreciated!
I am in a similar place. I find that there is no " Protestant " perspective. It is so discouraging. Each individual Protestant church is different. That is the weakness.
@@mcgilldi And it's strength, we can have diversity of thought and ideas.
Can you do a video on penance and its practice throughout Church history and how protestants deal with this
Great video. I'd like to know your scripture citations for no salvation outside a particular institutional chuch.
@thoskabrah amen, that is a good point
@ThoskaBrahwhose us? Rome? Or Constantinople?
This video absolutely devastates Roman Catholicism. Because it first proves the magisterium contradicts itself and is thus not infallible and second it exposes the utter absurdity that only Roman Catholics can be saved.
Someone said a better translation would be "no safety outside the church". Does anyone know where I got this from? I can't find it anywhere 😑
- Protestants : Catholics, you have to reform!!
- Catholics: No!
430 years of protest later
- Catholics: Ok fine, we'll reform
- Protestants: Aha!! You reformed! You were wrong all the time.
Harold, I see your point and that could be an unfortunate conclusion, but the more logical reason would be just to tweak some bad doctrine. It’s like fine tuning something that only needs some clarification, simply cleaning house. Catholics unfortunately, do not want any discussion on any dogma.
So you think that protestant reformed the church? Just look at the fruit of reformation or rather I say deformation. The fruit is thousands of denominations each contradicts each other. Sad to say but thats reality.
@@NP-vk8de Brother, Catholics dont claim that they are perfect. And lm talking about the fruit of "reformation" per se. Dont you see the fruit brother? its division. Massive division.
@@iggymagnifico7821 I guess Iggy, you cannot see the forest for the trees? You have corrupt inept leadership and you blame the Reformers? A sexual pervert is running the show (Rodrigo Borgia) and no one is allowed to say a word? So, basically you are saying it is okay to allow corruption into the church and still have clear conscience?
@@NP-vk8de I am for a reform brother. But not what the protestant did 500 years ago. Because its cause more division not Unity
No, I never say what you have written brother.
This is my last reply. God be with you brother.
Kudos on the opening, in which the context of St. Cyril is touched on, but it would seem that after that brilliant example of how we have to look at statements in their historical context, the idea is set aside. I get the feeling that if one or more Catholic theologians make a statement that when finally settled on by the Magisterium results in a rejection of those ideas, Dr. O wants us to believe that the ideas of those theologians were part of the universal teachings of the Church, and idea which is alien to Catholic thought and teaching.
Brining up the often-cited Unum Sanctum, which he and the followers of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney would qualify as an Infallible statement. Unum Sanctum, which today only exists in stray quotes from other sources, as the original document remains lost to time. But what we do know is that it was a response to the King of France who claimed full authority over all matters civil and religious. If it had been addressed to the entire Christian world, then perhaps we could consider it an Infallible Statement. Aside from Protestants and Fr. Feeney's followers, I can't find any Catholic theologians, past or present who hold this document to be infallible. To be so a Pope would have to have all, not just a selection like one does at a Chinese Family meal with items to choose from. First it must be addressed to the Entire Church (here it was addressed to the King of France) second it must be on a matter of Faith or Morals. (so columb two gets a check, but still we are not meeting criteria as the first requirement is missed.) third it must be given in the fullness of his Apostolic Authority. (the language is there, but there are lots of Roman legal documents using very stern and flowery language, like that of the Encyclical which are not binding infallibly. so we will give this one a, "Could Be") Last it must be clear that it is binding on All Christians (it was addressed to the King and binding on him, it could be used by those in France who wanted to refuse the King's assertion that he could dictate on matters of Faith, Morals or Church Government) While the count is not unanimous, the majority of Catholic Theologians only regard two Papal pronouncements in the entire history of the Church to be infallible, Unum Sanctum is not as we see by it's not fitting the Roman definition of what makes a Papal statement infallible.
What other statements of Dr. O may be a distortion of what the Catholic Church actually teaches. History, Context and bias (Catholic and Protestant both) are important. The second Papal statement which in the determination of Dr. O but not the Catholic Church fulfills the requirements making it an infallible statement again are his own application of the law, not the Catholic definition.
As to Salvation outside the formal membership of the Church. The understanding of St. Thomas Aquinas, who spoke of being in the Church in voto (in desire) rather than in re (in reality). An implicit desire is sufficient. A person who seeks and tries to conform himself to the truth has an implicit desire or votum for Christ and for the Catholic faith because, by seeking to conform himself to the truth, he is seeking to conform himself to Christ (who calls himself “the way, the truth, and the life”) and his Church, even if he doesn’t know it. Florence’s statement concerning the inefficacy outside the Church of almsgiving and martyrdom can be understood to refer to those who do these deeds in an external fashion that lacks the votum needed for in voto membership. While Dr. O and Fr. Feeney's disciples seem to disagree with both St. Thomas and Florence. Dr. O in the interpretation of what he seems to be saying that the Catholic Church held before Vatican II, (we won't here get into the Holy Office and Pius XII in their response to Feeney et al. when they state explicitly reject Feeney's rigid interpretation that formal membership in the Catholic Church is required for salvation.)
So what other statements of Dr. O may be a distortion of what the Catholic Church actually teaches. History, Context and bias (Catholic and Protestant both) are important.
The Council of Trent taught that we can be justified and consequently saved by water baptism or a desire for it. So formal membership seems to not be something that the Church feels is required for entrance into the Pearly Gates.
Pope Pius IX in his encyclical letter said that Well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. This refers to the belief that only those who are in full communion with the Catholic Church and accept the teachings and magisterium of the Church can be saved.
However, Pope Pius goes on to state that even people who are ignorant to the faith can achieve eternal life, as long as they live moral lives and follow the natural law as set out by God. God will not condemn those who have not committed a deliberate sin.
I could be wrong; I was once before. But I could have been mistaken about being wrong.
There are lots of Catholics who consider the assertion in Unam Sanctam to meet the conditions for an ex cathedra statement; it was occasioned by the dispute with King Philip, but not limited to Philip. There is nothing in the context that undermines the plain reading of this or the assertion at Florence; with Florence, the context would indicate just the opposite, since it involved an attempt at reunion with other churches after schism. Thomas' idea of a baptism of desire is fine; that is simply irrelevant. Thomas did not teach that the Eastern Orthodox could be saved, to my awareness. Can you point to anyone who interpreted these statements the way a Vatican 2 Catholic would, for 500 years after their being written?
@@TruthUnites I did include Pius IX and Pius XII. I'd enjoy dusting off more books from my shelves to see if I can rustle up more. I'd like to know who the Catholics aside from the Feeneyites accept Unum Sanctum, (there are as I write the Diamond Brothers, who have established a Monastery and claim to be the only Catholics in town, who defend Feeney, and reject anyone outside their circle as being Catholic) I do like to learn, so please let me know who within communion with Rome holds the Encyclical as and Infallible statement. I'm always willing to accept fraternal correction, when I've been shown to be wrong.
@@thomasfolio7931 Hi Thomas, Pius IX and Pius XII are both in the modern era. Francis Sullivan is an example of a modern Roman Catholic theologian who treats the assertion in Unam Sanctam as ex cathedra. I am not aware of as many who wouldn't treat it that way. Hope that helps.
@@TruthUnites What I heard you say, and as I read it, we were going backward from Vatican II. I will look for earlier citations, as promised. I have not read much of Sullivan, but I'll see what I can find. Most of my books are from closed seminaries, (Catholic, Protestant and SDA, as well as Mormon, because I try not to base any debate or discussion on hearsay and want to read something in context. This is why I listen to your videos. While I find your presentation of the Catholic position to be off, I have learned much about the Protestant, at least the Baptist views that has corrected false information I've heard from Catholics, and various Protestant sources. Work is slow, so I get to blather on and on. Hope in the Catholic Homiletic tradition, I've not yet lulled you to sleep with my longer and winded posts
@@TruthUnites Thanks for the Sullivan reference. I've never read him. I did read the ten pages or so on the subject in "The church we believe in" which seems to be a summary of the entire book, "Salvation outside the church? : tracing the history of the Catholic response" working backward from the pre-1800s where you label it as modern, we see him relating to us Alexander VIII condemns the position of the Jansenists who proclaim that Pagans, Jews, heretics and others of that kind receive no influence at all from Jesus Christ, hence one rightly concludes that their wills are naked and defenseless, totally lacking in sufficient grace. Here in 1691, I don't think you would call that Modern Catholic we see the Pope condemning this and other propositions of the Jansenists who have a strictly limited view of the atonement, akin to Feeney.
Similarly in 1567 Pope St. Pius V condemns the propositions of Michael de Bay, (a thrill for me to come across this, because I had a professor in Med School by the same name, different spelling of his last name, who was quite pompous, and I had while taking his classes come across the condemnation of his namesake, being an impetuous brat, I did of course bring it up in class one day.) who holds a strict only Catholics will be saved stance. Like Trent, who's catechism, reform of the Missal and implementation of the Council, where the Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood were upheld against the rigorists who said only Baptized Roman Catholics will enter paradise, Pius himself condemns such a rigorist interpretation.
Cardinal Juan de Lugo who went further (and my baptismal patron) Robert Cardinal Bellarmine as well as Suarez all respected conservative if not ultra conservative Theologians from the Time of Trent, endorse that Extra Ecclesia and harkening back to Unum Sanctum does not exclude heaven to those not formally inside the bosom of Rome.
What we see in Suarez, and in the development of Doctrine is him facing new questions. When he first started teaching in Rome, the mission fields were not open. The exploration of deepest Africa and the New World were not part of the European experience. So when peoples were encountered a new issue arose, how do see those who have never heard the Gospel, known of Christ and His cross, or been given the opportunity to be baptized? From here Catholic theologians
Frances Xavier in his debates with Buddhist priests speaks of God's mercy and that before Christianity came to Japan, the people knew killing, stealing and other acts were wrong, they knew the Natural Law given by God even if they did not know the Law of God. While he does not say explicitly that the Pagan ancestors of his converts are in heaven or Hell he does implore God's mercy.
Albert Pigge born 1490 argues against Calvin's absolute predestination including God's mercy and that it is applied to those who have not had the Christian Faith taught to them.
Now to one of the proposals you make that Sullivan holds Unum Sanctum as Infallible. Something I do not see him say he holds in either of the books. I do see that he documents Schonmetzer one of the editors of Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum holds that only the last line could be considered Infallible, not the entire document. However he goes on to quote Tavard and tell us others hold that the Bull is not Infallible and related to the Temporal and Spiritual powers of the Sovreign and that they the Kings of Europe are subject to the Authority of the Pope. I don't think I put an ungloved hand on any patients today who may have taken any hallucinogens which can be transmitted transdermally, and I read through the pertinent passages of Sullivan twice. So I think there is some bias, (not saying yours or mine) in how we both read his book. Perhaps there was some other article or book he wrote, or an interview in which he made that statement that Unum Sanctum is Infallible in his opinion, but I just don't see it in the text. I even did what I have rarely done since I finished Pre-Med and read the Introduction and Forward. Did not see it. Perhaps there is someone else you can suggest, to support your claims.
We can go further back if you wish, but there are tugs at my pant leg by dogs who want play time and supper, now that I'm home. Plus all the other things old men do before it's time to say our evening prayers and drink a glass of Port. (Happy to not be Baptist if only for my Port, and happy to be Latin Rite so I can have butter, oil, meat and dairy during Advent and Lent.)
I wish you would clarify what you mean by you appreciate the theology of Vatican two?
How close do they get to universalism?
Just as you stated that Augustine became much "harder" in his later life, I noticed that you are becoming much firmer in your doctrinal teachings. It may just be how you are delivering your teachings. I am not saying this is a bad thing. It allows viewers to understand your position better.
Jordan Cooper became like that too. He used to be pretty "mushy", so I had a hard time understanding the Lutheran beliefs. Nowadays, I can clearly understand the distinctions.
I mean I hate that I’m charitable to RCC teachings but after hearing them they’re just flat out wrong and all that
I know that being a catholic or eo is going to. BE miserable for me especially adherence to sacraments and bad doctrines
@@duckymomo7935 While I am a conservative Presbyterian, Christianity is more than just sacraments and doctrines. It's really about Christ. Some prefer Nicene-Constantian Creed and some prefer Chalcedon Creed. These creeds really set us what it means to be Christians.
We are followers of the Triune God. Unlike deistic Judaism or Islam, we worship the Father who created and loves us eternally. We worship the Son who came down as a man and suffered for us. We believe in the Holy Spirit who indwells in us to help in all aspects of our lives. That's the most important aspect of the Christianity and we can spread from there.
@@thomasc9036amen!
Thank you for doing this video, it is very helpful.
I guess a question I would have is, could you not look at the sum of the parts rather than the individual parts to conclude that Catholicism is closer to the early church beliefs than Baptist? What I mean is, you can poke holes in each individual part(doctrine) but when you look at the whole, the early church was practicing confession and penance from the very start. They were baptizing infants and definitely believed in regeneration. They clearly believed in real presence and being guilty of the Lords body and blood if you didn’t go to confession prior to receiving. They believed in one Church, unified by one faith descended from the apostles etc. From my understanding, a theology of penance, infant baptism for regeneration, real presence, priestly absolution etc have no place in Baptist practice or theology. (At least in my past experience as a Baptist, currently denominationless and searching)
I’ve watched your videos on these individual parts and agree with some of the holes you poke in each doctrine, but I don’t see how you can look at the whole of them and then land in a Baptist church I guess.
This is a great point. I completely agree but am also attending a Baptist church. I long for the Sacraments but have come to accept that the Church's current broken state results from major failures to defend the Truth in Love, allowing egotism and politics to run the show. We are all at fault, but I hold on to hope that in Chridt we can be and in fact are One. The reason I cannot currently be Catholic is primary due to its dogma of infallibility
To be clear, I am referring to failures to love all throughout Church History, resulting in the split with Nestorians, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, as well as crusades and inquisition ultimately resulting in a needed but tragic Reformation
Hi Dr. Ortlund. How would you reply to Francis Sullivan's argument that this dogma was based on the assumption that God's salvific will is universal, and that He doesn't condemn the innocent. In other words, that before the discovery of the New World, it was taken for granted that all had had sufficient chance to hear the gospel, and since they persisted in their unbelief, it was a culpable rejection Christ and his Church?
But after the discovery of the new world it was understood that not all unbelief was a result of a culpable rejection. Therefore the axiom referred to those “culpably” outside of the church rather than strictly outside at all. Can we understand the meaning of those dogmatic statements as insinuating that Jews and Muslims were culpable of rejecting the faith? Meaning that the meaning remains the same, but the understanding of who it applies to changes. Those who are culpable for their rejection vs. those who are in culpable.
🙌🏻
Dear Pastor Gavin,
I’ve watched several videos from Catholics in the past few months on various topics. There is one thing that I just can’t get by and that is that I find that most Catholics argue for and point to the Catholic Church, defending their beliefs as their main goal (not saying all, I also believe that there are brothers and sisters in Christ), but the videos are so intellectual, often empty and draining and it often boils down to “we have the better arguments”, everything is about the church fathers, but it is different with you, one can hear, that your goal is, that God would be glorified. You don’t primarily point people to a certain Christian tradition, but you point People to the person of Jesus Christ (especially in your video about church anxiety) wanting people to put their trust in him and that is very prominent in you. It is your heart that is different.
And if that is the fruit of being solid in your Protestant beliefs, what else can one be than Protestant, for the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.
God bless you🙏🏼
❤❤❤
Ratzinger talks about how hard this is to maintain in one of his encyclicals, he talks about it in relation to francis xavior
Dr. Ortlund for when we will have your channel in Spanish, Latin America needs your valuable help.
As a former Dutch Calvinist who become a Byzantine Catholic, theological development is a good bridge which is lacking in Eastern Orthodox. I had a conversation with Joshua Schooping on why Second Vatican helped Catholics to avoid the dilemma and conundrum in Eastern Orthodox for denying grace in sacraments outside the Church. His approach to substitutionary atonement in the fathers helped me become a Catholic instead of an Orthodox. I think your question on picking and choosing which trajectories of theological developments can be framed differently into how the Church historically picked and chosen specific trajectory of theological development? I believe this will help all of us. It took me 8 years by discerned Lutheranism, then Eastern Orthodoxy, and last Eastern Catholicism. The nail was in 2013 when Moscow refused to attend the Pan Orthodox Synod. I noticed house divided can't stand and indeed now Eastern Orthodox are in internal schism. The Church historically allowed multiple trajectories and diverse theologies by synthesizing both. Two examples. First is post-Nicene synthesis on Sabellian modalist homoousion theology on identity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in terms of their identical Godhood. While maintaining Arian triad hypostases theology on distinction of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in terms of their different personhood. Second is post-Chalcedonian synthesis on Apollinarian miaphysis Christology by redefining physis to be person instead of nature. And Nestorian dyohypostases Christology by redefining two hypostases as two natures instead of two separate persons. This way Chalcedonians can speak of Christ hungry in His humanity and has power over death in His divinity as if two natures can be contemplated distinctly after union. We find in these two examples the power of the Church to prudentially picked and chosen what once and in themselves were heretical to be Orthodox dogmas when balanced with proper synthesis. I hope one day to talk with you. I love your work in tryin to work this thing out. Great approach. We maybe from different churches and we may have fundamental disagreement with one another, but we can speak with kindness and love for pursuing the same truth. From your irenic brother in Christ. God bless your ministry brother.
Double Dutch
I would strongly disagree that the early Church synthesized positions: in no way clearer can this be seen than the fact that the Great Schism happened, which was the direct result of, among other things, the failure to synthesize the Papal governance of the West with the conciliar governance of the East. If you're going to disqualify Orthodoxy for failing to synthesize two different teachings (as I understand you, though I admit I'm probably wrong), then you'd have to disqualify the pre-Schism Church for also failing to synthesize those two different forms of ecclesiology.
The relations between East and West were doomed from the moment their ecclesiology was different, which was very early on, considering you see Papal governance _in the West_ already in the first couple centuries or so.
It’s very unclear to me though how you can synthesize opposites though, as in, the statements that Jews categorically cannot be saved (Florence) and the statements that some Jews actually might be saved (Vatican II). In theological disputes, you can choose a middle ground if you’d like, however, that implies the two ends of the spectrum are wrong. The early Church didn’t affirm Sabellianism and Arianism, instead it said they were both wrong and took the middle ground. What Rome is attempting to do with Florence and Vatican II is say both are correct - analogous to saying both Sabellianisn and Arianism are correct.
@@Gruenders there's a fallacy in your line of reasoning. Let me explain. Florence and Second Vatican are contradicting each other just as First Nicaea and First Constantinople contradicted one another. When what once and in themselves are heretical when they're balanced and reconciled as synthesis it becomes the orthodox dogma. The Church doesn't accept both Sabellianism and Arianism because they were incomplete. Because both excluded each other. It is similar with how we can't square a circle in Euclidean geometry (Florence) while we can square a circle in a non-Euclidean geometry (Second Vatican). Sabellianism is heretical because they affirm consubstantiality at the expense of denying hypostatic hierarchy. While Arians did the opposite by affirming hypostatic hierarchy at the expense of consubstantiality. This is why both are non sequitur and irreconcilable. The way the Church synthesized them both are by applying it to the Church geometries. The Church has power to go beyond the limitations of what the Church herself previously established as a geometric faith. The deposit of faith is never given to a specific geometrical faith. This is the false claims of Rad Trads and Ortho Bros and Cage Phase Calvinists. Namely the deposit of faith not only passed but also explained and ought to be received now as it was understood in exactly the same way. This introduced schizophrenic Church who can't grow and static in her dead faith of the past. Because evidently we explain the same living deposit of faith differently as the Church growing maturely. Rather the deposits of faith are given to the Church analogously like Mathematics to Academia. In which Euclidean geometry is a subset among many geometries studied in Mathematics as a whole. Take as an example a Triangle as a deposit of faith. The apostles never specified or limited the geometry of our ineffable faith. In Euclidean geometry the sum total of all of its three apex is 180 degrees. But in Riemann geometry it is bigger than 180 and could be 360 degrees. In another it's less than 180 and could be zero degrees. Which one is correct? Or all? This is the power of the Church. I can go one by one from each ecumenical council how what once and in themselves were previously anathematized as heretical later accepted as orthodox dogmas. First Nicaea anathematized anyone distinguishing ousia and hypostasis. St Jerome in his letter condemned the Cappadocians as tritheists. First Constantinople contradicted First Nicaea by distinguishing ousia and hypostasis. Notice for Aristotle ousia is particular and hypostasis is the universal. Yet Cappadocians reverse them into ousia as the universal and hypostasis as the particular. I can go on and on going through each and every ecumenical councils but I believe these two examples could be sufficient. Isn't that explicit historical evidence for dogmatic development? The kerygma of core essential dogmas can't change just as your identity can't change. Yet the dogmatic expression and articulation of that same dogmas not only developed over time but also changing from time to time. Even to the point of contradicting previous expression and articulation. You were once a baby then a toddler then a child then a teenager then a young adult then an adult. Similarly dogmatic expression and articulation change. This is why what previously established in one geometric faith could be contradicted in different geometric faith. The Church has power to bind and to lose. This is why Acts 15 contradicted Moses and even Jesus Himself. As Judaizers correctly pointed out Jesus never told His disciples that one day Mosaic law becomes obsolete and superseded by another law based on faith in Jesus. Yet we find what previously established in one geometric faith can be bounded and loosen in another geometric faith. The Church has power to bind and to lose it. The issue is always about authority. Do the apostles had authority in Acts 15 to contradict Jesus? Whose entire ministry never indicated Mosaic laws to be abrogated by oikonomia for the Gentiles. The apostles received power from Christ to bind and to lose. To contradict what previously established when circumstances and context change as led and guided by the Holy Spirit. This is why we find St Pius X and St Tikhon of Moscow publicly open communion between Catholics and Orthodox without violating Florence (Catholic) or Fifth Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox). You can find me on Facebook. Some of my previous debate with Michael Lofton, Erick Ybarra, Jay Dyer, and Perry Robinson are available. I no longer do public debate following Byzantine Seminary policy. A clergy is prohibited from engaging in public debate. But you can read my previous public debate before my ordination.
@@AdithiaKusno yes. Both exclude each other. That’s my point.
Dr. Ortlund,
You mentioned at the 21:07 mark that “no one, from Augustine to…” held a view similar to that of Vatican II. The following excerpt is from Augustine’s “On Baptism, Against the Donatists” (Chapter 28:39). If you haven’t read this yet, I encourage you to do so. If you have, how would this not be considered a strong witness to the understanding of Invincible Ignorance / invisible unity to The Church?
“Hence, therefore, we have now set before us an easier and more simple consideration of that ark of which Noah was the builder and pilot. For Peter says that in the Ark of Noah, "few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God)." 1 Peter 3:20-21 Wherefore, if those appear to men to be baptized in Catholic unity who renounce the world in words only and not in deeds, how do they belong to the mystery of this ark in whom there is not the answer of a good conscience? Or how are they saved by water, who, making a bad use of holy baptism, though they seem to be within, yet persevere to the end of their days in a wicked and abandoned course of life? Or how can they fail to be saved by water, of whom Cyprian himself records that they were in time past simply admitted to the Church with the baptism which they had received in heresy? For the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, "The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale." If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. It is therefore possible that some who have been baptized without may be considered, through the foreknowledge of God, to have been really baptized within, because within the water begins to be profitable to them unto salvation; nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water. And again, some who seemed to have been baptized within may be considered, through the same foreknowledge of God, more truly to have been baptized without, since, by making a bad use of baptism, they die by water, which then happened to no one who was not outside the ark. Certainly it is clear that, when we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body, since all who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark through the same water, through which all who are in heart without, whether they are also in body without or not, die as enemies of unity. As therefore it was not another but the same water that saved those who were placed within the ark, and destroyed those who were left without the ark, so it is not by different baptisms, but by the same, that good Catholics are saved, and bad Catholics or heretics perish. But what the most blessed Cyprian thinks of the Catholic Church, and how the heretics are utterly crushed by his authority; notwithstanding the much I have already said, I have yet determined to set forth by itself, if God will, with somewhat greater fullness and perspicuity, so soon as I shall have first said about his Council what I think is due from me, which, in God's will, I shall attempt in the following book.”
For anyone interested, Michael Lofton did give a good presentation on the Reason and Theology CZcams channel on Salvation Outside the Church and he offered the following as evidence that even in the middle ages, there were theologians that were arguing for a broad view of no salvation outside the Church.
Invincible Ignorance, Baptism of Desire and Implicit Faith in Aquinas
"For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.
• "If some Gentiles were saved, without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in the Mediator. Because even though they did not have explicit faith, they did have a faith that was implicit in their faith in divine providence, believing that God is the liberator of mankind in ways that He himself chooses.
• "A person receives the forgiveness of sins before baptism in so far as he has baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly;"
• "Consequently, just as some are baptized with the Baptism of desire, through their desire of baptism, before being baptized in the Baptism of water; so likewise some eat this sacrament spiritually ere they receive it sacramentally. • Note: Aquinas believed explicit faith in the Trinity and the incarnation is needed for salvation after the incarnation.
Francisco de Vitoria (1483-1546), O.P. on Inculpability for People Who Have Heard the Gospel
"It is not sufficiently clear to me that the Christian faith has yet been so put before the aborigines and announced to them that they are bound to believe it or commit fresh sin. I say this because. they are not bound to believe unless the faith be put before them with persuasive demonstration. Now, I hear of no miracles or signs or religious patters of life; nay, on the contrary, I hear of many scandals and cruel crimes and acts of impiety. Hence, it does not appear that the Christian religion has been preached to them with such sufficient propriety and piety that they are bound to acquiesce in it, even though many religious and other ecclesiastics seem both by their lives and example and their diligent preaching to have bestowed sufficient pains and industry in this business, had they not been hindered therein by men who were intent on other things."
Albert Pighius (1490-1542) on the Possibility of Salvation for Muslims.
"One cannot doubt that in so great a multitude of those who follow the doctrine of Mohammed.there are some who know and revere God...and they keep the law of nature. What is to be though of such people?…..Now if the ignorance of the Christian faith did not prevent Cornelius, even without baptism, from being pleasing to God in Christ, how much less will the much more invincible ignorance of these people prevent them from being able to please God in Christ."
St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) on Church Membership and Baptism of Desire
• "Such a one is in the church with his mind or by desire, which is sufficient for his salvation; however, he is not in the church bodily, that is, by external communion, and it is the latter which makes one in the strict sense a member of the church on earth."
"I answer therefore that, when it is said outside the Church no one is saved, it must be understood of those who belong to her neither in actual fact nor in desire [desiderio], as theologians commonly speak on baptism.
Because the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution [voto], therefore they can be saved."
Francisco Suarez, S.J. (1548-1617)
• "Now we are saying the same things with regard to anyone who has faith in God, and sincere repentance for sin, but who is not baptized, whether he has arrived at explicit or only implicit faith in Christ. For, with implicit faith in Christ he can have an implicit desire for baptism, which St.
Thomas teaches can suffice.
Juan De Lugo, S.J (1583-1660). on the Possibility of Jews, Muslims and Non-Christians Being Saved.
• "There are some who, while they do not believe all the dogmas of the Catholic religion, do acknowledge the one true God; such are the Turks. and all Moslems, as well as the Jews. Others acknowledge the Triune God and Christ, as most heretics do. Now if these people are excused from the sin of infidelity by reason of invincible ignorance, they can be saved."
"It would follow that a Jew or other non-Christians can be saved; for he could have a supernatural faith in the one God, and be invincibly ignorant about Christ.
• "The possibility of salvation for such a person is not ruled out by the nature of the case; moreover, such a person should not be called a non-Christian, because, even though he has not been visibly joined to the church, still, interiorly he has the virtue of habitual and actual faith in common with the church, and in the sight of God he will be reckoned with the Christians
Given the number of examples of the early Church on a broad view of no salvation outside of the Church (See William Most's article "No Salvation Outside the Church" on EWTN), I think it makes perfect sense that the magisterium would clarify some of its statements (e.g. Florence) when there clearly was disagreement through the middle ages on what no salvation outside the Church meant. This does not seem like doctrinal change, then, rather a clarification of ideas that were already present in the Church for a long time.
God bless!
Thanks for these quotes. This is truly helpful. I don't think Thomas' statement are to the point; baptism of desire for catechumens in the Roman Catholic Church is different than Eastern Orthodox or others outside the Roman Catholic Church. Consider what Thomas says in his commentary in Psalm 48, "faith in Christ flourishes principally among the people of the west, because in the northern regions there are still many Gentiles, and in the eastern lands there are many schismatics and heretics." So here the "schismatics and heretics" are, with the Gentiles, contrasted with where there is "faith in Christ" flourishing. I am not aware of any time Thomas ever taught that Eastern Orthodox Christians or Oriential Orthodox or Assyrian, still less Muslims and Jews, could be saved. And my reading of Thomas on this point is consistent with Francis Sullivan, a Roman Catholic theologian (see his book Salvation Outside the Church?, chapter 4).
The same would also apply to some of these other statements, such as that of Bellarmine, who seems to be speaking of catechumens. This is not the issue of tension between Florence and Vatican 2, but rather Jews, Muslims, other Christians outside of RC, etc. Francisco de Vitoria simply says the Christian faith has not been preached to the new people with enough clarity that they are bound to believe it. Does he ever say that this means they are saved? I would be curious if he draws that implication. Similarly, does Albert Pighius mean that Muslims revering God are saved? Because the comparison with Cornelius would suggest otherwise, since Cornelius had to respond to the gospel message as preached by Peter (Acts 10:42-43).
I think your quotes from Suarez and De Lugo are strong, especially De Lugo. They accord with Sullivan's interpretation of them as well, which I re-consulted. This is the first time someone has actually produced clear examples of this, so thank you. It still remains, of course, how to reconcile these with Florence, Unam Sanctam, etc. But this would start to push the timeline back, at least for openness to the salvation of pagans (and for De Lugo, Jews and Muslims).
I will simply note that De Lugo's position (I am still a bit unclear about Suarez') was widely rejected up until more recent times. Here is how Sullivan puts it (Salvation Outside the Church?, p. 103): "[the Jesuit view of salvation for those without explicit faith in Christ] was a departure from the teaching of St. Thomas and the whole medieval tradition, which had required explicit Christian faith for the salvation of everyone in the Christian era. After the suppression of Jesuit order, hardly any Catholic theologians dared to question the traditional teaching on this point."
Thank you for your contribution which has qualified my thinking a bit!
@@TruthUnites You are awesome, Dr. Ortlund! Much respect! Like I mentioned elsewhere, I am no expert in this area and these quotes come from Michael Lofton. In his video he walks through a bunch of examples chronologically, to try and show the differing types of questions theologians in the Church tried to answer that pertain to the formal vs. informal relationship with the Church distinction and how it applies to the teaching on no salvation outside the Church. Hopefully, he or someone with more expertise could point everyone to some other good resources on the differing views on this question in the Middle Ages.
You've piqued my curiosity on the question, so I will keep digging around a bit more too.
God bless!
This is a fascinating free article and worth a read! I think it also has shifted my position a bit. Instead of Vatican II simply clarifying Florence (meaning that Florence was ambiguous but actually meant the same thing), this paper makes me lean towards saying the Vatican II and other modern era documents are definitely developments (meaning there has been a change in some aspects of understanding) of earlier statements, such as Florence.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Substance of Catholic Doctrine: Towards a Realization of Benedict XVI's "Hermeneutic of Reform" by Matthew Ramage.
Nova et Vetera, English Edition, Vol. 14, No. 1 (2016): 295-330
Can be found online for free at St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology.
There are a couple key distinctions as to why modern theologians don't think this means the Catholic Church taught an error, though. I can't say Dr. Ortlund (or other Protestants) will like it, but it makes sense to me and appears to be what the Church has been teaching in recent years.
1. The first distinction is the historical context matters for how a dogma is presented.
Each era dealt with unique circumstances in that they weren't trying to answer the fate of all mankind when discussing issues related to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, but rather local historical sociopolitical/theological issues.
For instance, the early Church was often talking (e.g. Cyprian) about extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the context of Christians who were persecuted and tempted to leave the Church or to defend the early Church's ecclesial structure and prevent schisms.
In the early Middle Ages, all Europe was Catholic and the possibility of not hearing the gospel was likely non-existent. They thought invincible ignorance was not possible, then; anyone in that era who didn't accept the gospel, must have been sinning as the truth of it had to be evident to them. The paper's author states, "had they known about the New World and all the other peoples of the earth who had never heard the Gospel, they likely would have articulated their doctrine differently to account for this knowledge."
It seems that this lines up with why someone like Francisco de Vitoria would be starting to ask that question as the Chruch was running into new people's in the undiscovered countries of the Americas and needing to figure out what that meant for extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
2. The second important distinction the paper also talks about is a distinction in the substance vs. presentation/accidents of a dogma. It shows examples of the recent Church explaining that the presentation of a dogma can develop/change as long as the substance is still something that all Christians in all ages would agree upon. In the case of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, it is that the Church is necessary for salvation, but some are informally connected to it. In this case, the essence/substance of the dogma is the same, but the full understanding of it has developed.
John XXIII's opening words at the Second Vatican Council: "The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another."53 According to Sullivan, the Church has presented the same truth in various ways over the centuries. To apply Newman's thought, we might say that the Church's modern distillation of EENS is something that Catholics of all epochs, if given the knowledge we have today, would agree upon.
Finally, the paper ends by cautioning against assuming all non-Christians/Catholics are invincibly ignorant. This would kill evangelization and is not likely true.
Some cited resources that sound very helpful:
Joseph Ratzinger. "Salus Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Est," Documentatie Centrum Concilie, Series I, no. 88 (1963)
Ralph Martin. "Will Many be Saved?"
Sullivan, "Salvation Outside the Church?"
God bless!
@@Stormlight1234 Thanks Chris for your very interesting input. I wish to disagree with a single point which you have quoted. The idea that the early medieval Catholic church was unaware of unevangelised pagans ( as opposed to Jews and Muslims) and their statements were made in that context is historically implausible. The Catholic church which made these statements did not suddenly become aware of the unevangelised pagans after the 'discovery' of the New World.
1) The peoples along the southern Baltic remained pagan in the early middle ages. Pope Eugenius III called in 1147 for a crusade against the pagan slavs. The Lithuanians were the last European pagans to convert to ( Catholic) Christianity in 1387.
2) Marco Polo travelled on the Silk Road as far as China 1271-1295 and obviously brought back information about vast populations who were neither Christians, Jews nor Muslims.
3) Throughout the middle ages Genoese and Venetian merchants traded with Byzantium and had colonies in Crimea. They would surely have had some knowledge of peoples further east.
Thus the exclusivist statements of the medieval Catholic church were made by a church fully aware of the existence of unevangelised pagan populations.
God bless.
@@derekmchardy8730 Thanks for pointing that out!
This is just how Sullivan (the person Gavin was also citing in his video) and Martin explain it as cited in the above mentioned paper. As I read it again, they certainly aren't saying the Catholic Church was completely unaware of other non-Christian people, but that they thought they knew of most everyone in the world and most everyone would have had exposure to Christianity. They still acknowledge the rare circumstances some might not be as Martin references Aquinas and the belief that God would somehow find a way to present the gospel to a virtuous pagan who has yet to hear it. I am going to have to track down the other paper mentioned by Torrell as it sounds like it deals extensively with the "geographical horizon" topic mentioned in the paper.
Here are the two relevant quotes from the paper:
First of all, there was the fact that their world was practically identical with Christian Europe. . . . When they spoke of the possibility that someone might never have heard the gospel preached, they imagined the case of a child brought up in the wilderness. The limits of their geographical horizon led them to the conviction that everyone had had ample opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel. At the same time, the limits of their grasp of human psychology led them to the conviction that all those who had heard the message of the gospel and did not accept it must be guilty of sinning against the truth which surely was evident to them.49
Foot Note 49: Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church?, 201. On the subject of the limits of medieval Christendom’s geographical horizon and its impact on their position concerning the salvation of non-Christians, see Jean-Pierre Torrell, O.P., “Saint Thomas et les non-chrétiens,” Revue Thomiste 106 (2006): 17-49. Ralph Martin summarizes this reality as follows: “Given the common medieval understanding that Christianity was so widely known and promulgated that invincible ignorance would be extremely rare, it was assumed that nonbeliev- ers were culpable for their unbelief ” (Will Many Be Saved?, 37-38).While not referencing Torrell, the treatment of this issue in Martin and Sullivan aligns well with his careful analysis. Martin and Torrell both cite Aquinas, De Veri- tate, q.14, a.11 ad 1., in which Thomas discusses the hypothetical case of the invincibly ignorant person raised in the wilderness or by animals. According to Thomas, we must most certainly hold (certissime tenendum est) that God would reveal himself to this person by means of an interior inspiration or by a preacher specifically sent to him. It is pivotal to recall here, however, Aquinas’s stipulation that God will extend such an offer “provided that he followed his natural reason in seeking the good and avoiding evil.”
God bless!
Me: "Is that black wand thing going to have fake flowers pop out of it like Michael Scott's?"
I thought it might be some kind of vape pen.
@@RoyCarter I think my suggestion is more likely
The first documented person to hold that is Cyprian of Carthage who had a famous dispute with Stephen of Rome.
The pre christ pagans were not saved because they lived justly alone, but also because christ decended into the hell (limbus patrem) and applied salvation to them through the preaching of the gospel. Which is why saint peter says the gospel has been preached even to the dead. No one, absolutely no one enters heaven by their own merit, but by the application of the blood of Christ and the belief therein
What does this have to do with "no salvation outside the church"?
No.
That passage in Peter does not mean that at all.
Christ preached to the people who were dead at the time that the verse was written but who were alive when the preaching was done.
A proper understanding is that Peter was referring to just prior to the flood when Jesus preached through Noah.
The dead are asleep in the grave.
Doctrine can change in its understanding but not its meaning. I like that.
It reminds me of how Christ declared all food clean, but didn't declare we could eat anything. Yet, the church in general, has taught with an understanding that is more lawless than law abiding. The meaning of Matthew 15 and Mark 7 doesn't change, but our understanding does.
First, I’ll state that I’m a devout Catholic and haven’t read all of the comments here so if I’m repeating a point already made by someone my apologies.
The context is that this session of the Council of Florence is focused on those who were opposed to the Church throughout history and reaffirms those that have been anathematized or excommunicated by a previous Ecumenical Council (Manes, Valentinus, Arius...) while also affirming previous Ecumenical Councils. Opposition has always led to anathematization or excommunication so a “no salvation outside of the Church” makes sense in that regard for those where the Church is known to them but choose another religion. The pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics believe in something other than what the Catholic Church is teaching. It assumes that they are not invincibly ignorant - they are knowingly choosing to not believe and align themselves with the one true Church. The unity of the ecclesiastical body is critical because the Church and Jesus are inseparable (Eph 5:32). The entirety of truth is that important - an iota of falsehood is unacceptable since Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. And the Council makes clear the teaching of the 73 books in the Bible and the Eucharist and the consecration that occurs at Mass…this in 1442...but that's a different topic.
Paragraph 847 that is referred to in this video as a change in doctrine simply makes a distinction between those that knew the faith but chose against it with those that never knew Jesus or His Church. Those mentioned in the Council of Florence above did know the Gospel of Christ and His Church but chose to reject. That is why paragraph 846 still states that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church because it's true. If you are like the pagans, the Jews, the heretics, or schismatics and know Jesus and the truth about His Church, but your pride won't allow you to see the truth then you will not be saved. For a Catholic, Jesus and His Church are inseparable. To love Jesus is to love His Church. Therefore, to reject His Church is to reject Jesus.
I'm sure many will disagree, but just wanted to give another Catholic point of view FWIW. God bless!!
I didn't finish everything you said, but you basically were saying in the beginning the exact issue he had with it. The teaching was very clear and now hundreds of years later, there is an explanation? That's hundreds of years of people thinking they are going to hell and now there's a caveat? I think you need to listen again.
@minagelina Hi, I got to admit that I'm not going to rewatch a video from 4 months ago, but I'm not quite sure what your point is. No salvation outside the Church still applies today as it always has... for those that know the Catholic Church is the one true Church, but their pride won't allow them to submit, then they will not be saved. Jesus and His Church are Inseparable and that has always been the case.
Right now in my discernment process, giving the idea of unchangeable dogma some leeway to respond to very different eras in church history (such as with the issue of no salvation outside the church) seems easier than accepting imputed righteousness, which is a key element of all Protestant traditions and not represented well (or perhaps not at all) in the pre-reformation church. I don’t know what I would do with passages like Hebrews 12:14: “Strive for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” Also, the idea of imputed righteousness just doesn’t seem to fit well with the possibility of losing salvation (something that no church father questioned to my knowledge), or the role of works at the final judgment that we see in Scripture.
It appears that there are challenges, paradoxes, and seeming contradictions within whichever church tradition we choose to be a part of - it’s just a question of which tradition offers us the least challenges/misgivings.
help me understand, why is imputed righteousness at odds with Heb. 12:14? Or the possibility of losing salvation?
@@TruthUnites Hi Dr. Ortlund! Heb. 12:14 seems to be saying that the holiness required to see Jesus in heaven is a holiness we must strive for (internal) rather than the holiness of Jesus credited to our account that is external. I realize this verse could be interpreted to mean that all true believers will necessarily strive to bear fruit and be holy, and that these works are merely demonstrative of true faith. To me, the verse just doesn’t sound like something the author of Hebrews would say if he believed in imputed righteousness.
Regarding the possibility of losing salvation, I know that Lutherans believe this as well as imputation. It just seems like a weird combination to me. The idea that I can lose my salvation through my deeds doesn’t seem to fit neatly with the idea that my salvation ultimately has nothing to do with my deeds (only Jesus’ perfection credited to me).
Why the dire warnings about the consequences of falling away through sin, and why the admonitions to “make every effort to be found spotless, blameless, and at peace with Him” (2 Pet. 3:14) if we are already formally spotless and blameless via Jesus’ righteousness imputed to us? If actual holiness in our hearts is not required (not a factor in our acceptance into heaven) than why the warnings, and if it is required then imputed righteousness doesn’t seem particularly comforting.
I am fairly new to study of church history and the fathers, but I tried Thomas Oden’s Justification Reader awhile back and got frustrated with it due to the inadequate context for some of his quotes.
@@evangelineclark223 Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts! I really don't see the contradictions between imputed righteousness and the things you mention, but I appreciate you explaining.
That is just it, you are correct. “Strive for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.”
1 Corinthians 6:9 “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived…...."
St. Paul: “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God”
Faith and logic must come together. We are responsible for what we do.
In our time, a great moral weakness is evident.
Self-control in the realm of sexuality and self-discipline in general seem increasingly lacking in our culture today.
Many are too weak to keep the commitments they have made to marriage.
Addiction to alcohol, drugs, sex, and pornography.
Increasingly, people declare that they are not responsible for what they do and/or cannot help themselves. - They are like a child let loose on a candy store.
There is a general attitude that it is unreasonable to expect people to live out ordinary biblical morality, to have to suffer or endure the cross.
All of these demonstrate weakness and a lack of courage, signaling the onset of spiritual starvation.
That is what is wrong with Christianity today, spiritual weakness.
Easy to give in to the "modern world"
What would separate us from the pagans if we do what they do.
CCC 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
'Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.'
Note: that aside from "invincible ignorance", one has to live a moral life. - try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience.
90% of all men who ever live on earth believed in a god who demands that they behave and live a moral life.
The essence of a "god" is holiness.
21:31 I have brought up Busenbaum, a 17th C. Jesuit, mentioned by Newman.
I've brought him up to the Dimond Brothers (who are diehard on the obvious sense of Florence), and I'm bringing it up here.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Busenbaum
Fantastic video. I think everything you say here is correct. And I'm Orthodox. Have you read David Bentley Harts Tradition and Apocalypse?
Thanks! Haven’t read it, is it good?
Could you create a quick CZcams shorts on these, it would be extremely helpful?
Great video and so much good content here, but the way Dr. Ortlund used the phrase "the Church must always be reformed" is incorrect per Richard Muller:
Ecclesia semper reformanda est: The church is always to be reformed or always needing to be reformed; a saying often attributed to the early modern Reformed but as yet not documented from their actual usage. The phrase and its variants, Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda; Ecclesia reformata quia semper reformanda; and Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda, secundum verbum Dei, are most probably all twentieth-century inventions, employed for the sake of justifying doctrinal change. Early modern identifications of the church as reformanda do not carry with them the modern claim that it was the intention of the Reformers that doctrine be constantly modified to suit the times: rather, use of the term connoted such things as the need to move further away from the abuses and superstitions of the Roman church or, in a seventeenth-century application identified among Dutch Reformed pietists, a need to be continually observant in the reformation of Christian life. The term Ecclesia Reformata or, in the plural, Ecclesiae Reformatae, by contrast, was consistently used indicate the true church, reformed in doctrine and practice as intended by the Reformers and defined by its confessions."
Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2017), 102-103.
And there are unquestionably cases where the Catholic Church has wrongly claimed that new doctrines are developments of doctrine when they are really corruptions of doctrine. One example I'm familiar with is how the Catholic Church always considered the sub diaconate to be part of the sacrament of ordination. But then there was a "development of doctrine" explaining that the sub diaconate had always been a lay ministry not an ordained ministry. That example of our current belief that minor orders were/ are lay ministries is what I consider a corruption of doctrine. So I do want to acknowledge that point.
Robert bellarmine says in de ecclesia militante book 3 chapter 3 that “outside the church there is no salvation is to be understood about those who neither in fact nor in WILL/DESIRE are members of the church” so there is a pre 19th century source. In the modern period an implicit will to belong to the church was fleshed out, in that a person who follows the dictates of conscience and the light given may be saved.
In this passage he is speaking directly of catechumens
I was so happy to find you. You are so refreshing and loving and kind. I am devastated to find out you are a Calvinist. You say that we can accept it even if we don't believe it. I heard your arguments and even though you are very intelligent and I have learned from you I just can't listen to you any more and I feel very sad about this but how you defend Calvinism doesn't make sense. Not because I don't want it to be true but because the God of the Bible does not fit this view and the church didn't accept it until calvin came up with it later in history
Hi Gavin - Would you do a video in the future about salvation outside the church more broadly (i.e. Jewish people, Muslims, Socrates, etc)? I was deeply disappointed by Bp Barron's response to Ben Shapiro when he was asked about this a few years ago. I have a personal theory about how salvation is made available to all while maintaining Christ as the essential mediator, but I'd really appreciate hearing your pastoral thoughts on this topic.
CCC847: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."
This are for people who due to their situation cannot know Christ and His church. People who live in remote areas, etc. and this can also include people born into different religions, different cultures, different timelines, etc.
God alone is the judge. He desires that all moral man be saved.
One thing that must be understood is that a man must desire God and live a moral life..
An honest question: when you say "you know you're doing theological retrieval well when it forces you to change in a way you don't want to or expect to," how is this different than the Catholic understanding of the bindingness of Traditon?
They have lots of similarity, for sure. One difference would be we don't think tradition is the Word of God, on par with Scripture. That, of course, does not mean you cannot be corrected by it. We are corrected by all kinds of fallible authorities that are underneath Scripture (e.g., our local parish leadership).
@@TruthUnites How can you be corrected by Tradition when in instances (not all) you won't agree that Tradition is in accordance with Scripture? Hypothetically speaking if you're reading something in the Tradition, but it doesn't align with your interpretation of Scripture are you not going to reject it? If that assumption is true (if it isn't then let me know) then how are you ever going to be corrected by Tradition when your tradition (Baptist, Lutheran, etc) is already set in stone? In other words you're not really subject to Tradition, or I'd push it further, even an Apostolic understanding of Scripture because you're reading it through a lens anway so wouldnt your mind already be made up? I mean isn't that completely arbitrary and circular? Doesn't that make you the one that is determining what is Orthodox and what is not?
@@jacobwoods6153 It's the same way you could be corrected by a local parish. Yes, you could disagree with it, and it is not infallible. That does not mean correction does not occur. The idea that you can only be corrected if you close off your mind and blindly accept everything is simply false. This is not even true with infallible sources. For example, a Catholic could conceivably come to disagree that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church, and leave. This is always possible, and it does not entail that correction does not take place. I should add that there are criteria godly Christians will use in evaluating when to disagree with something in church history. One is catholicity. I talked about this a bit at the very end. Hope this helps.
@@TruthUnites thanks, yeah, that helps a bit. The issue this raises, though, is that it's not really (practically speaking) scripture vs. tradition; rather, it seems more like your-own-interpretation-of-scripture vs. your-own-interpretation-of-tradition. That is to say, when you read the scriptures and interpret it to mean a certain thing, you accept what it seems to be saying precisely because you accept the authority of the source, even if you don't like what it appears to be saying.
Now, when you say that theological retrieval done well "forces you to change in a way you don't want to or expect to," it seems that you're attributing some kind of real binding authority to the content of the retrieval (would you call that tradition?) precisely because you seem to acept the authority of the source - in this case, the apparently consistent witness of the saints throughout history. Maybe the distinction you'd bring forward is to point out how if what the tradition seems to say conflicts with what the scripture seems to say, you go with the scripture.
But that kind of begs the question: in defaulting to the scriptures, it's not really the scriptures per se that you're defaulting to, it's precisely *your* interpretation of them. And *you* aren't infallible, even if the scriptures are. So at that point you're not faced with the issue of choosing between scripture and tradition, you're choosing between your understanding of scripture and your understanding of tradition and choosing to give priority to the one that is clearer to you. When theological retrieval determines the way you interpret scripture, Catholics call that the binding force of tradition. What would you call that?
@@tylerrossjclI think before getting into the weeds we need to qualify exactly what “your-interpretation-of-scripture” means to Protestants. While it’s true that in some sense, it ultimately is “your-interpretation-of-scripture,” Protestants still have guard rails for how exactly one can do that. As Gavin mentioned, there are criteria for coming to that interpretation (he goes over that in another video if you’re interested), so by-and-large, it’s not going to be a smattering of interpretations that solely depend on the individual’s whims and feelings.
As a basis, forming “your-interpretation-of-scripture” should already involve interacting with the church fathers/history. One criteria is again, catholicity, but there are several others so that tradition is also qualified and it’s not just “my view over your view.” It’s a careful balance of reason, common-sense, and critical analysis to see if “your-interpretation-of-scripture” aligns with the church fathers
Does the Orthodox church also teach that there is no salvation outside of it? If so, could i ask anyone to cite me some official Orthodox source please? Also, I have just been thinking about this this week, one of the things holding me back from going Orthodox/RCC is that I can't honestly deny the holy spirit working with protestant denominations...
IMO, other churches also have experienced such "Vatican II" moments, either formally or informally, be it EO, OO, or ACOE. At least in the laity levels, you could always find people who defend a broader ecumenism with their own slogans and terms.
yes they do, historically. In my book I document a number of saints/theologians and a few councils saying that the Filioque is damnable heresy, e.g. This starts to change a bit in the 19th/20th centuries among some Orthodox theologians.
But neither the Orthodox or the Catholic Church would claim it's impossible for the holy spirit to work in protestant denominations
Thanks a lot. Also I appreciate how honest and respectful your protestant arguments are, most protestants i know are very militant and arrogant when it comes to arguing with the Cats/Orthodox.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj the Orthodox online that I have interacted with call Protestants heretics and outside the Ark of the church that Saves.
This typology fails because the Flood wasn't Global and only A Large Regional flood of the Middle East.
Nephilim( Giants) are still around after the Flood and settled in Canaan which is why King David and others had to fight this family of Goliaths of Gath.
BTW Traditional Roman Catholics on Trent Horn's and have also called me (a Protestant ) a heretic !
Trent did comment about these types of comments and wanted his supporters to stop because that's not official Roman Catholic church teaching anymore.
But there are Roman Catholics that don't accept Vatican ll new teaching.
This video comments on this problem for Roman Catholicism at the end of the video.
Im on this exact journey and have been considering how or if i should broadcast it.
I think ive completely rejected protestantism, being pulled hard to Orthodoxy. Hopefully i dont land Catholic.
I always have felt that Newman's theory of doctrinal development fits better within a Sola Scriptura framework rather than a Magisterium framework.
Doctrine can develop....only within harmony with Scripture. And when there's an accretion...redirect Church teaching.
I think there's a little arguing over semantics here because in Orthodoxy we view the church to be the body of Christ and catholics have a similar view so saying "no salvation outside the church" would be equivalent to a protestant saying "no salvation outside of Christ" which I think we can all agree with. However I think protestants are completely correct in pointing out that limiting the scope of Christ to only extend as far as the boundaries of what we view to be the canonical church is human arrogance. There's a difference between knowingly, consciously rejecting the church (as in Christ) and desiring to be in the church but not having knowledge of or access to the human denomination that is the most correct in their theology.
So, where would you draw the line? I'd like to know who, in your opinion, can be saved. And on what authority do you say that? Because, based on what you're saying, the Catholic Church could have got the canon of the bible wrong... I mean, according to your reasoning, even that could have happened. (President being that Marten Luther rejected certain books and cut them out of the biblical canon.)
Why do you suppose that the heresies promoted by Protestants are less than heresies of old? How are these new heresies good and why should we acknowledge them?
Also, according to Catholics, if I never participated in sacraments under a priest, then I’ve never actually done that thing.
I have never taken the Eucharist properly for example and I wasn’t baptized under a priest which are things that they make it seem necessary for salvation. Yet, I’m outside of the church without participating in the Roman church with its sacraments but still sort of part of the church. So I need the Roman church to be saved but not really.
The development can sound a bit convoluted.
All of this is false.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj explain. This is so far it how it seems to me. Perhaps I misunderstood.
@@aperson4057
Anybody can baptize, with some exceptions. The bride and groom marry each other, not the priest (in the Latin rite).
The Eucharist isn't necessary for salvation either, that wouldn't be biblical. Only baptism is necessary.
As far as "Roman" Catholic being necessary, that's false too. The Roman Church is only one of 24 Churches that are all in communion with the bishop of Rome you could join an eastern Catholic rite, if the aversion really is founded in some sort of bias against Italy for some reason...
@@Qwerty-jy9mj So do I need the Roman Catholic church to successfully fulfill any of the sacraments?
@@aperson4057
Yes of course, only a priest can celebrate the Mass, only a priest can hear confessions, only a priest can give the anointment of the sick and only a bishop can ordain priests. Along with the faculties given to the deacons, of course.
10:05 I can't accept things that contradict each other, both sides of the contradiction.
But I can accept the unanimity of the CCFF, like Trent Session IV says.
I think a great guy who you can have a conversation on this topic is Christian B. Wagner from the "Scholastic Answers" channel, he has an open debate invite to anybody who wants to talk about Doctrinal Development or Evolution of Dogma.
You should engage Micheal Lofton material on this. He has videos addressing this very issue.
@YAJUN YUAN Regardless of ones opinion of catholicism, seventh day adventism is cringe.
@YAJUN YUAN
But you aren't a protestant, are you?
Ortlund shouldn't waste time with someone of Lofton's caliber.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl Stooping that low already? Be respectful and charitable, something Dr. Ortland does remarkably well. 2+2 still equals 4 even if it's said by a criminal or a crazy person.
Attack the arguments, not the man.
@YAJUN YUAN
Do angels come from Saturn?
Preach it!! The problem is defining what "The Church" means. Even the word "Catholic" needs defining. Most likely, Cyprian was teaching "Lordship salvation" when he unwittingly coined the phrase.
So Rome just refined words and meaning, with no right to do so. That's all.
Btw why do the best apologists use the worst cutaway "music" on CZcams?
Galvin is raising many good questions that are not easy to answer. What I understand of "There is no salvation outside the church" is that is Jesus Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist for everyone to come, but those out of no fault who never received the gospel by missionaries of the church are not guilty. But the church by pope have authority because he has the keys of "peter" can condem those who are against it knowing fully about the truth. Jesus sent the holy spirit to guide the church. The church has evolved thru out 2k years. It has many procedures to take and to follow. So why go against those who Jesus sent? Jesus christ is the tree of life right??? Why would someone break away from the tree of life? In a logical sense you break away you may die. Thats why we condem ourselves at the end. So we were disobedient in the beginning now Jesus christ came reconciled us to the Father and now we want to protest about the church doctrines??? Being a Catholic is not easy Galvin. I'm pretty sure being a Christian believing protestant isn't as well. I have ex Catholic members and i love them and i will pray for them as for anyone. But hey great video. Truly admire how far many CZcamsrs have gone out of there own time to settle this matters. I'm sure Mr trent is itching to respond to you Mr Galvin. Viva Cristo Rey!
It's interesting that Newman, although a hero of conservative Catholics now, was considered by his peers as a more progressive Catholic by Roman Catholic standards. His development theory was considered a departure from the sound scholastic method, and thus he was criticized by both Dominican and Jesuit alike (Jesuits in the 19th century were some of the strongest Thomists). I've read both his Apologia and his Essay on Development, and my sense is that he was aesthetically and morally drawn to Rome and convinced thereby. But he needed more than aesthetics and morality, so he utilized the "organic" and "evolutionary" ideas that were in the air in the mid-19th century to provide the logic that was lacking in his own convictions of Rome's truth claims. It was brilliant, but it can be used to justify almost anything (e.g., Pope Francis changing the Catechism to teach that the death penalty is "an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person." CCC #2267). The liberalism that Newman genuinely hated in mainline Protestantism was, in fact, incorporated into Catholic thinking by, ironically enough, Newman's ideas!
This actually clarifies the confusion surrounding the doctrine
The catholic version of it is just flat out wrong and inconsistent
The practice of pulling passages out and ignoring their historical context is a habit that all denominations have used to validate the errors in their theology. That is a huge issue with the church at large that needs to be resolved by further pushing historical hermeneutic into the churches and seminaries.
People will continue to debate the council of Florence statement. This is a really really difficult judgment and I honestly don't have an answer on Vatican 2 is a legitimate development of that statement in the council of Florence. But I will say this that process that went into drafting that document from the council of Florence was a bit different than an infallible judgement, it was meant to summarize the most important / infallible teachings of the Catholic Church for an eastern orthodox audience. That's why the Pope speaks this way as you read down the document saying “we proclaim preach and declare” x and “anathematize” the contrary statement. He is just repeating or echoing a previous ecumenical council's judgment. In contrast the statement about salvation outside the church does not come with an anathema meaning that this teaching was not part of the summary of previously declared infallible statements that he's making, but rather an additional teaching of the Pope's own. One clearly intended to motivate eastern orthodox persons to come into the Catholic Church. So even though it could meet Vatican I criteria for an infallible judgment we can't really say for sure, even though many theologians including Dr Scott Hahn consider it infallible.
When you say there there is "no precedent" for the understanding of being "invisibly" attached to the Church, do you mean that there are no magisterial statements to that effect (true), or that there is no theological speculation on this point in the period between Florence and the Modern Era? In Sullivan's book he cites a number of theologians after the discovery of the New World who seem to allow for the possibility that a muslim or Jew could be saved through a kind of implicit faith born of invincible ignorance. But, it is true that these statements were not received magisterially.
Question? Suppose you reject the primacy of the pope but accept bishops. Why not be Eastern Orthodox then? Or another question. Suppose that the bishops agree to have a pope as leader. Then it’s not contradicting the will of the bishops.
To the first question, if you accept episcopal church government, you could be Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, Anglican, Lutheran or Methodist. There are also some Reformed Christians and other smaller groups that have bishops. Even some Baptists have bishops! To the second question, yes, if all bishops agreed to have one leader, that would lead to a state of concord. However, this is different from Catholic teaching about the papacy, which maintains the papacy is Christ's appointment, not merely the result of a decision of the church.
@@TruthUnites Interesting, thank you! Brings a lot more diversity to the Protestant position for people who hold certain views of apostolic succession! Never knew that!
@@joiemoie yes, just bear in mind not everyone who affirms episcopal church government necessarily affirms apostolic succession. God bless!
@@TruthUnites And not every church that has apostolic succession regards it as essential.
It seems like this argument is equally good for the rejection of Biblical Inerrancy/Inspiration as well. We could look at a number of statements in the Bible compared to the way they are understood by modern Christians and see them as not just a valid development but a real change. We could even find passages within the Bible that appear to be at odds with each other rather than rely on any particular Christian's understanding. It seems that it follows that it would be better to be unyoked by Biblical Inspiration and just be free to say that the Bible got it wrong.
I'm sure that people who are committed to Biblical Inspiration will find ways to justify it, but should the defenders of Biblical Inspiration at least understand that for someone who is not committed to it that it has every appearance of being, not a consistent understanding, but simply a contradiction?
It depends on what you mean by inspiration, inerrancy and contradiction. Is the Bible at the same time saying that there is a God and that there isn’t? That at the same time He’s essentially personal and an impersonal force? That He’s only One God and also three Gods (the answer is “no,” but admittedly, the doctrine of the Trinity is difficult to understand)? That He became the man Jesus and at the same time is completely disconnected from humanity? That Jesus’ death opens the Way to eternal life and yet our lives will all end in the grave? That at the same time Jesus bodily rose from the grave and remains in it? Etc., etc., etc. As opposed to other religions (like Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism), I see the Bible as God’s inerrant message to us about who He is, about who we are, and about His plan of salvation, all summed up in the New Testament’s preaching of the Gospel. Unfortunately, a lot of people today can’t see the forest for the trees ...
For the meataphor, it would be more akin to the child questioning if the wage is a form of allowance.
That is not saying that the allowance contributes to the money;
But clarifying what is meant by "allowance" as understanding becomes deeper/more nuanced.
To where the wage is included in the term allowance
(and always was even if the child did not understand that parent)
And perhaps the parent only meant the child was not to get money from stealing, gambling, or selling possesions.
Perhaps with maturity the child is now able to understand the nuance whereas before it was not
Saint Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Augustine acknowledged that the rock was Peter's confession, not Peter himself.
Why look to church fathers for guidance?
They contradict each other.
Look to the Bible.
Peter never gave any indication that he believed he had any form of primacy
@@geordiewishart1683
Saint Augustine
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
SAINT IRENAEUS
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Saint Optatus
"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."-Against the Donatists 370 AD
Saint Jerome
“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! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.”- Letter to Pope Damasus 376 AD
Saint Ambrose of Milan
“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).
Council of Ephesus
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).
Council of Chalcedon
“Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out." (Acts of the council session 1)
I specifically mentioned Augustine and you proceed to quote a number of church fathers.
Considering that errors were creeping into the church during the time of the apostles, why assume that the church fathers somehow held the truth exclusively?
You may as well quote Simon Magus to me.
Augustine later revised his statement about Peter being the rock in his The Retractions 1:20:1.
@@geordiewishart1683 Jesus promised the gates hell would not prevail against his church how then can error crept in at all? What kind of god is he if the church he started had error right after his death?
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven -Matthew 16:18
@@anthonyd4119will they agree with the Roman inquisition too
Bought myself a Christmas gift. Protestants, The FAITH THAT Made THE MODERN WORLD BY Alec Ryrie. It is so insightful.