Why Protestants are more catholic (with Jordan Cooper)
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 12. 2022
- See the full interview here: • What is Protestantism?...
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
How did I miss this? Two of my favorite theological CZcamsrs, very cool!
Great work guys. _Semper Reformanda_ 📖✝️📖✝️
It's Semper Reformanda, not Semper Reformada. The full phrase is "ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbi Dei".
@@thomasc9036 typo 🤗
@@thomasc9036 The more accurate phrase, though should be something like,
"Ecclesia deformis, semper secundum insidias et machinationes hominum deformans".
I find it hard to imagine Luther, Calvin et al, being too impressed with the chaos and division that are the true fruits of their labour, as we see today. Peace be with you +
Great conversation!!!
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🙏🏼
Luther and Calvin taught me to never condemn with broad brush the Christians in other traditions. Even if we disagree I know they are my brothers and sisters.
Luther told Zwingli they were not of the same spirit over the issue of the Eucharistic presence
@@Mormonanswers
Luther was right about that.
Calvin taught that to Servet I guess.
@@Mormonanswers "By the end of the Colloquy, Luther and Zwingli wept together and asked forgiveness for bitter words. Both remained firm in their convictions and encouraged the other to ask for God’s enlightenment."
A TGC article with citations. I don't see that happening in the Syro-Malabar crisis or between TLM and Novus Ordo crowds. The debates over the Immaculate Conception were brutal, vicious, and hateful.
Where does Scripture say we're known for doctrinal conformity or communion with the Bishop of Rome?
@@ReformingApologetics Fair enough
Excellent!
Always love your videos on your church history. I just saw your video on the Waldensians and it was great! Could you suggest any resources that deal with the history of the Waldensians and proto-protestant groups in general? Just another suggestion, could you list some resources in the description that are important and helpful when addressing an issue or topic in any given video?
Gavin , would you or Jordan Cooper be open to doing a video explaining the radical reformers ? I see so often they are dismissed but we soo much of their practice and beliefs in multiple Protestant traditions in America. Especially the Anabaptists. Are they within the Catholic Church? Are they heterodox ? Thanks in anticipation
Appreciate both these men and all they do, but I feel like the the argument can go both ways, Luther didn’t hold back on saying that the anabaptists should be killed, Calvin had no problem with people being thrown into jail if they disagreed with his sermons. I believe Dr. Ortlund here is an exception (which I am grateful for) bc in my experience I’ve been called a heretic numerous times bc I’m not a Calvinist and many Calvinists today hold to that position
civil punishment and ecclesial identity are not the same thing. However, I don't believe these statements are accurate to Luther and Calvin. In 1528, Luther condemned Anabaptist theology but then conceded: “still, it is not right, and I truly grieve, that these miserable folk should be so lamentably murdered, burned, and tormented to death. We should allow everyone to believe what he wills” (Luther’s Works, vol. 40, 232). And, as is commonly discussed, one of the statements for which Luther was opposed by the Catholic Church is his claim that “the burning of heretics is contrary to the will of the Spirit.” However, it is true that Luther did approve of the death penalty for sedition and blasphemy, and his mentality hardened over his career in terms of how this should be applied. Your statement about Calvin I had not heard; do you have any documentation for that?
Hey Dr. Ortlund thank you for the response and the quotation by Luther. The statement about calvin comes from this work Grimm, Harold J. The Reformation Era 1500-1650. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1965.
And in specific on pages 325, 338, and 342. the Geneva reformers established a body known as the consistory. It was composed of all of the pastors in the city, together with twelve presbyters. Citizens who opposed the accepted doctrine of Calvin or who missed church services were called before the consistory for discipline.172 The consistory went about its task with gleeful enthusiasm. Officers were set over various districts of the city in order to watch over the conduct of the population. These civil officers reported anyone guilty of even the smallest infraction. They questioned children in order to obtain information about their parents. If any persons were suspected of being opposed to Calvin’s rule, the authorities immediately searched their homes for any incriminating evidence. If no solid evidence was found, the authorities typically tortured the suspects to make them confess. Their confessions were then taken as incontrovertible evidence of their guilt.
And I can provide examples of this if you’d like 👍
@@rickydettmer2003 so where does it say that Calvin put people in jail for disliking his sermons?
I never said he himself put people in prison, what my statements were meant to show is that he was aware and okay with that happening and never spoke against it. I also fail to see how that can merely be overlooked as a “civil issue” when the topic of this video you did with Dr cooper was on catholicity, my point was that you may be overstating your case in regards to Protestantism being more open to catholicity. Here is an example of what I’m referring to : “ In June of 1546, someone left an anonymous note on the pulpit of St. Pierre’s church in Geneva that condemned the Reformed preachers and threatened them with revenge. The city government went into immediate action. They arrested an irreverent freethinker named Jacques Gruet, purely on naked suspicion. They then searched his home. However, they found no evidence linking him to the anonymous note. Nevertheless, when the authorities went through Gruet’s private papers, they found a few of them that contained critical remarks about Calvin. That was enough to make Gruet a criminal. So they tortured him hideously until he “confessed” his crime. They then beheaded him.174 A few months later, a Reformation preacher named Jean Trolliet spoke against Calvin’s doctrine of dual predestination as taught in Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. Trolliet pointed out that Calvin’s doctrine essentially made God the author of sin. It meant that God was punishing the wicked-even though it was His decision that made them wicked. However, Calvin refused to discuss the issue with Trolliet-or with anyone else. Instead, he haughtily replied that the doctrines in his Institutes were put in his brain by God. He then had Trolliet judicially banished from Geneva.175”
Dr. Ortlund, do you use grape juice for communion?
Wine
Question for Dr Ortlund: You claim that the Protestants were more generous with the East than the Roman Catholics. Obviously Icons play a pivotal role in Orthodoxy. I have not personally read Calvin as of yet, but I am somewhat aware of cases of Protestant Iconoclasts forcibly destroying (take Jean Leclerc for example) religious images for charges of Idolatry. Would Calvin have supported the destruction of these images without first converting and convincing their owners do so?
The Swiss and English Reformed tended to go hand in hand with rampant iconclasm from fanatics, including the desecration of graves and relics, but I'm not clued into how much Calvin himself can be implicated . Certainly he wanted images removed from churches, though he had nothing against religious art in homes.
Ortland, Cooper, Macias and Everhard NEED to have quarterly meetings to discuss progresses in Protestantism.
Spicy title
Not that much tbh, it's a common claim
Not only were the early Protestants more generous than Rome, they are also more generous than the churches of the East which also anathematize Rome and Protestants.
LOL. That's why I think asking what is a true Christian is just a game of playing hot potato. I am not saying that every person should be considered a Christian but it is really difficult to even answer that question.
Woo this one’s going to get a lot of dislikes, I’ll give it a like now to help out the cause 😄
🙌🏻
In view of another discussion here, I advocate the following programme for reading the New Testament:
After Pentecost in odd-numbered years, starting with 2023:
Gospel of St Mark, Titus to Jude, Book of Revelations
From Advent in odd-numbered years:
Gospel of St Luke, Acts of the Apostles
After Pentecost in even-numbered years, starting with 2024:
Romans to 2 Timothy
From Advent in even-numbered years:
Gospels of St Matthew and St John
This scheme starts each Advent with a Christmas narrative and a two year cycle is easy to keep track of. Luke and Acts are together, being both by the same author, and Romans and other Pauline epistles follow on in sequence. Matthew and John are different from each other so there is little immediate repetition.
Read a genuine 73-book Bible available from any Catholic bookshop, although if you happen to own a 66-book pseudobible then you could start there with one complete cycle before switching to the 73-book Bible. According to advocates of the 66-book pseudobible, regular reading of any sort of bible will empty the pews at the Catholic Church. Not scared of you.
The New Testament is available as a standalone book. We don't publish it for fun. Read it!
Someone got triggered about something then
Didn't Luther change his View on the papacy later on?
I think this is a bit more messy than what is being made out to be. The orthodox would also claim protestants and catholics aren't part of the true church and salvation only comes out of the orthodox church so in that sense they have a view just like the catholics and many protestants did about catholic and orthodox. So essentially if you aren't part of a tradition or denomination you were seen as not part of the true church and therefor damned. This goes for pretty much everyone and still holds true in a vast majority of catholic, orthodox, and protestant churches. We also cannot forget the sheer atrocities that protestants committed against Catholics, especially following the reformation. This is what personally has made the idea of a particular denomination or tradition so difficult to grasp and why I can't fully commit to Orthodoxy, Catholicism, or even Protestantism. We have barely been united, if ever, since the beginning of the church and it seems the traditions of men has always been an issue that has split the church up or made people say "only we hold true doctrine". You can't really say one tradition has it correct because no one is remaining together, there has always been some doctrine or disagreement that keeps us apart.
Lutherans are not denominationalists: though we have serious doctrinal issues with Rome and EO (and modern evangelicalism as a whole as well), we would never say that there are no Christians within those confessions.
As for atrocities committed against Catholics, yes that happened. Cromwell did some pretty scathing things against the Irish Catholics, for example. But Catholics are not innocent of this either; the Inquisitions were not exactly pep talks.
From an Orthodox perspective you are not a part of the true church until you are a baptized Christian, but that does not necessarily mean that everyone outside of the true church is damned. As far as I know there aren't any church fathers that taught that young children who died without the opportunity to be baptized or to hear the faith yet and make any conscious moral decisions were damned, and the idea that catechumens who died before receiving baptism would still be saved has long been a practice in our church. Also we have church fathers that taught that it was possible to know God and have faith not just outside of the church but outside of the Christian faith entirely with St. Justin Martyr. Further, St. Paul in Romans chapter 2 makes the claim that it is possible for non Christians who had never heard the good news to still have knowledge of God and to be judged by their actions, strongly implying that salvation was at least a possibility even in unreached pagan communities.
Yes we recognize that the only completely true church is that of Eastern Orthodoxy, but we also believe in a loving and merciful God that desires all that can be saved to be saved, not an angry and spiteful one who's looking for any possible excuse to exclude people from the new Jerusalem. To say that salvation is only possible within the canonical EO church is to say that just about every person that's ever lived outside of Europe and North Africa before 1054 A.D. and outside the geographical area of the eastern Mediterranean after 1054 A.D. died with no possibility of salvation of no fault of their own, because there simply was no EO presence in their area during their lifetime and they didn't have the internet back then to hear about it.
❤️❤️❤️👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
👍🏼😊
Catholicism wasnt the problem it was the papacy, the papacy was of the many reasons for the split in 1054
ah yes, it's the disunity which makes them more catholic...
This is rather passive aggressive, magisterial reformers very often don't extend the moniker of "protestant" even to evangelicals yet here we have a Baptist saying how charitable Lutherans and Calvinists are being to the _Catholic_ orthodoxy, but only insofar as they can still be considered Christian, not more. How "generous.
It seems to me that if there's any common ground between these 3 camps, _besides the fact that they're obviously Christian_ is a sacramental theology, of course they'll have more in common than later Christian sects among the radical reformers. Dr Ortlund says it's charitable for Luther to acknowledge Catholic baptisms yet the Catholic Church never taught that protestant baptisms were invalid and it is in fact later protestant sects like anabaptists who denied the validity of baptisms outside themselves and baptists in general who deny baptismal regeneration. As time passes after the reformation, by the time that we get into pentacostal churches the final result of protestant ecumenism is clear: you can be whatever you want, you can believe whatever you want, you can assemble with whoever you want and it all must be valid, as long as you aren't Catholic.
bingo
The only thing catholic (universal) among protestants is their rejection of the Catholic Church.
Interesting point.
Not at all or they would recognize the Mormons, the Jehovah Witnesses, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Bethel Church, etc as real churches. They do not. You have not seriously studied the points of agreement that they consider necessary to be considered a believing church and it shows. It is not 'anything goes but being Catholic'. How strange.
We say all the time that Catholics are valid. We also say all the time that we have more in common with Catholics than most of what is considered evangelism today.
Hi, Gavin. Have you ever spoken about what the Bible means when it says that whatever Peter/the apostles/the church binds on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven?
As a Protestant, I don't know how to interpret it, and it makes me wonder whether the Roman church has authority to exclude us from heaven.
Grammatically, the phrases can be translated as "whatever you...will have already been..."
At the end of the day, what I think is most lost is what "binding and loosing" meant to a 1st century, Judean Jew. The church lost it's Jewish roots very quickly in antiquity and was "Gentilized" rather quickly. The phrase appears in Matthew, written to a Jewish audience, you don't see Paul use the terms, though he certainly knew and practiced them, as a Pharisee.
Pharisees, in decision making likely (based on what's recorded in the Mishnah) engaged in "disagreements for the sake of heaven" in which they would "bind" and "loose," probably in a communal, synagogue context. The only "council" they had was the Sanhedrin and I don't think this kind of decision-making was ever used in that context. This is an example from the Mishnah:
"If one sage declared something as bound, he should not ask another sage who might declare it loosed. If two sages are both present and one rules something unclean and the other rules it clean, if one binds and the other looses, then if one of them is superior to the other in learning and number of disciples, follow his ruling, otherwise, follow the stricter view. (b.Avodah Zarah 7a)"
Note that there isn't an "office" or a monolithic authority for final decisions. It exalts knowledge (i.e. pride and arrogance) and the default, if an agreement isn't reached based on the "wisdom" of the sages, is "follow the stricter view" (valuing justice over mercy). You see this all through Matthew, where the Pharisees err on the side of justice, not mercy. They are harsh and hypocritical, not willing to lift a finger of their own, but make ridiculous demands by "defaulting" to nonsensical rules about working on the sabbath that leaves people in need, etc. To this day, orthodox Jews won't flip a light switch on Shabbat. The pre-segment their toilet paper the day before. The list goes on and on...
Binding and loosing do literally mean permit and deny but they have to be viewed in this context of balancing justice and mercy in the shepherding of a faith community (church) here, in this life. It describes humble responsibilities of those who are ordained to lead our faith families, not an exclusive ecclesiological institution modeled off the Roman Empire. They are not "powers" ascribed to offices and officers, irrespective of the faithfulness and character that make for good shepherds.
Relax, Rome doesn't determine who gets into Heaven. The Gospel is the key, His Word is our guide, shepherds lead us in it, and God will have mercy and exact justice on whom He decides. Binding and loosing happen all the time. There's no need to be anxious, simply because Rome is the only one that uses the terms. She has completely distorted the meaning and claimed power and authority for herself.
The apostles were given this power in a as much as they preached the gospel
The early church pretty unambiguously took this position. The Cathalic church's interpretation is at odds with the Bible and the early church.
Who says the Keys were only for Peter and were left to Rome?
This is a video on protestant justification from an EO perspective that deserves a response czcams.com/video/xNoTIEZtcz4/video.html
For me, apostolic succession hardly matters if they lost the heart of the gospel and developed their own traditions. Just like how John the Baptist told the Jews how it doesn't matter they are children of Abraham, for God could make stones children of Abraham. And later it's written that all who confess faith in Christ are true children lf Abraham. So in a similar sense....I don't see it even all that valid.
It's ironic you quote the OG reformers' congeniality towards Catholics to say they were more inclusive when you consider it is modern day reformers like Gendron and MacArthur and Sproul etc who are most likely to anathematize Catholics. That said, I feel they are the radical minority and don't represent majority protestantism so it doesn't disprove the point. But if the Catholic church says that today's protestants, children of the reform and born into the tradition, are separated brethren then are they really anymore exclusive than the modern protestant majority? I am not sold on that myself but tbh I haven't finished the video yet so I should probably just shut my yap.
MacArthur isn’t even Reformed. He’s a baptist and a Calvinist.
And Sproul didn’t anathematize Rome. Sproul is often critiqued by the Reformed because of his love for Aquinas 😅
@@answeringadventism I suppose it depends on how you define "reformed" but Calvin is considered a reformer everywhere I look so calling someone a Calvinist implies they are "reformed".
Sproul had said that the Catholic church is a false church with doctrines that will damn you and most Catholics then are cut off from God and doomed to hell so...maybe that doesn't meet the technical definition of anathema but it's pretty close.
@@notavailable4891 no it doesn’t. Calvin didn’t even coin the term. It’s a catchphrase for saying you agree with Calvinistic soteriology. That isn’t all reformed theology is. It’s an entire system of theology.
Covenant theology is foundational to Reformed Theology. John MacArthur is a notorious dispensationalist which is the antithesis of Reformed theology.
@@answeringadventism okay then just substitute "reformed" for "theology that strongly clusters around reformed doctrine" in my original comment. It still has the same sentiment either way.
@@notavailable4891 i was just saying he shouldn’t be used to rag on Reformed folks (or be referred to as “modern” reformers) as being anti-ancient churches.
Acknowledging the Reformers views in the 16th century, wouldn’t Protestants’ views change after the Council of Trent with its explicit repudiation of justification by faith alone?
Exactly. At the very least, Calvin's views appear to have changed as the Council of Trent formally anathematized the Gospel. Calvin delivered the below address approx 1557-1558 during the latter half of the Council of Trent.
"No doubt but the Papists will brag enough of their multitude: yea, but we see that the Prophet laugheth all of them to scorn. And why? We must always discern which are the [true] children. For what else are all the Churches of the Papists than Brothel houses of Satan? All things are infected, nothing is there but filthiness, God’s service is there utterly marred, and to be short, there is no soundness at all in them. The Papists therefore for all that ever they can pretend to make themselves God’s Church, are but misbegotten Bastards, as they that are tied to the Brothel house with their mother that Synagogue of hell.
-The Thirtieth Sermon on Galatians, Galatians 4:26-31."
So, I'm a protestant who I think is on my way to the catholic church in terms of agreeing in it's authenticity and efficacy. While I agree that there are many good, strong, charitable and faithful Christians in many protestant denominations, at the end of the day there is no legitimate authority to them. Jesus sent his apostles, and every bishop can trace their spiritual lineage back to them. To say that Jesus is the originator of every denomination might be true, but it's spiritually reckless and we can't just pick and choose how grave the heresies we are comfortable with stick around. Eventually all protestant denominations reduce down to spiritual liberalism. You can argue around that point, but I think unless you grapple with it directly, i don't think arguments for the protestant understanding of the faith hold as much weight as many (including myself not too long ago) believe they do.
I guess I just do not understand why if this was your view you would not go to the Eastern Church or to Lutheranism before Roman Catholicism if spiritual lineage is so important? I am perfectly happy in my Baptist faith and see the spiritual leadership that stretches back through the generations of history just fine for my church and brothers and sisters in Christ. But if I was really concerned about a spiritual lineage I am not sure why I would ever choose the Roman Catholic faith over Eastern Orthodoxy who have a much truer and less convoluted connection to the apostles. Or if I was fully committed to Western Christianity (which I am) why I could not see something like Lutheranism as a true remnant of the church able to traces its spiritual lineage back to the apostles in the face of the rank heresies rampant in the late medieval church leadership?
@Tyler Werthmuller - praying you come home to Rome! 😊
@@skyorrichegg I think of it kind of like a tree. The Catholic faith has had the lineage since the apostles in terms of relationships, teaching, ordination, and communion of faith. Eastern Orthodox is like taking a branch from that tree and making a new tree out of it, while all of the protestant understandings are planting a new seed and tree in the same patch and calling it original. It has some commonality, but it's not part of the original tree. I have no problem with Eastern Orthodox, I just see the original tree and choose that one out of the sake of its being and nature.
@@tylerwerthmuller2005I see, thanks for sharing your point of view on this matter. It sounds like you already pretty settled on the matter. My main problem with that analogy is that it is resting on the assumption that the Roman Catholic faith is actually the true and unadulterated version of that original tree coming from the apostles. This is resting on a lot of, in my opinion, wonky and convoluted interpretations of very ambiguous Bible passages and ways the early Church worked out. The primacy of the bishop of Rome is not something I agree with, see as Biblically supported, or see as settled for the early Church when we look at something like the Pentarchy.
I also have a lot of trouble with thinking that the early apostles would see the corruption and rampant sinfulness of the late medieval and early modern bishopric of Rome as their true ancestors. Luther wanted to reform the Church from this abuse and corruption, not to divide it, but the bishopric of Rome did not want that and wanted Luther and the reformers gone. Because of that I would view the early reformers as the true ancestors of the apostles and not the bishopric of Rome. Rome is not a false church, in my opinion, they are simply just like any other church and diocese as they were during the early Church.
@@skyorrichegg I totally understand what you're saying and where you're coming from. I guess my problem with Luther is that he started his own church essentially. It's a dangerous assumption to assume that the Catholic faith never had faults, but it's also dangerous to assume that starting your own church means that it will align with Jesus and his teaching. I think the history of the Catholic faith has proven itself time and time again, while the stories of Luther and his weird dogma don't do much to convince me of his convictions.
This comment probably won't be interacted with much but I'll throw out my two cents anyway. As an Orthodox Christian, I think saying Protestants are more "catholic" and then pointing out how they aren't as exclusive as the RCC or the EOC is kind of begging the question of what catholicity even is. Respectfully, I find this criticism of exclusivism or stricter ecclesiastical boundaries really just amounts to calling the pre-Reformation bodies mean. My reading of the Reformation is that the entire reason the Reformers aren't being as exclusivist as the RCC was being was because they had to develop an ecclesiology that allowed for their respective church bodies' existence. I don't think any of the Fathers or any Christians prior to the Reformation would have seen the Protestant church bodies as real churches. Now Gavin as a Protestant is free to disagree with the Fathers or say that the Church was wrong about how it understood its boundaries, but it just comes off really unconvincing and ad hoc to me. You have to be able to draw the line somewhere, right? How does that happen? I'm assuming Gavin doesn't view Mormons as part of the Church, but somehow his massive disagreements with Jordan about the Sacraments don't change the fact that he's in. Why are disagreements about the meaning and use of the Sacraments less important than disagreements about Christology or Triadology? You end up compartmentalizing certain areas of Christian faith and practice and creating this lowest-common denominator Christianity that everyone can settle on and call "the catholic faith." It's totally arbitrary
_kind of begging the question of what catholicity even is_
In unity in essentials, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.
_I don't think any of the Fathers or any Christians prior to the Reformation would have seen the Protestant church bodies as real churches_
What the early church had better than today's is unity, and they needed to be united in order to fight off all the heresies that were creeping in. Today's church faces a different problem of unity, in that it's not so much fighting off heresies, but gate-keeping. 2000 years is a long time so any time any church claims to be the church of the NT, it's nothing but a straight up lie, does your church meet in houses? No? Then it's not 1:1 the church of the NT.
_ I'm assuming Gavin doesn't view Mormons as part of the Church_
That's because the founder of Mormonism said his religion *wasn't* meant to be part of the church. Gavin isn't exclusively drawing a red circle around Mormons, they did that themselves when they claimed that ALL the churches were corrupt, the reformers as you've heard in this video don't think/do that.
_Why are disagreements about the meaning and use of the Sacraments less important than disagreements about Christology or Triadology?_
Because disagreements about these issues cannot be shown to lead someone to going to hell. If so, then lots of Christians are going to hell for having inaccurate theology/sacramentology.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 Thanks for responding, I totally forgot I left this comment lol.
To me the unity in essentials line sounds good on paper until it's actually put into practice. What are the essentials? What I consider essential may not be what you consider essential. Again it's question begging and doesn't give any good grounds for substantial catholicity.
I would also challenge the idea that the Church today isn't struggling against heretical doctrines in order to maintain unity. From my own Orthodox Christian perspective, what separates us from other church bodies, be they Roman Catholic or Protestant, is precisely that they hold to heretical doctrines. From our vantage point, the Roman church and all the major confessional Protestant bodies have a false doctrine of the Trinity strictly speaking, on top of many other things. Now if you want to characterize that as gatekeeping, you're certainly free to do so, but I don't feel bad about gatekeeping if it means my Church continues to reject false doctrines of God, the Sacraments, the Church, soteriology, etc. I would also point out that none of the church bodies claiming to be the unbroken church of the NT claim that the way they look externally or in all fine details are exactly identical to what the church looked like in the NT. That your local Orthodox church doesn't meet in a house doesn't affect our claim to the Apostolic faith.
My point about the Mormons was just to say that Gavin, despite his issue with what he considers unacceptable exclusivism, is also exclusive in some areas and also makes truth claims that naturally preclude large bodies of people being "in." What's arbitrary about it to me is that he most likely sees Jordan as part of the church even though he has massive disagreements with him on issues most Christians would see as essentials (notably the Sacraments.)
Finally, I'm not attempting to make any fine grained statements about who is and isn't going to hell, but on the face of it I'm very unconvinced that disagreements on sacramentology are somehow less important than Trinitarian or Christological issues. 1.) Because the structure of one's sacramentology is intimately based on Christology (as people like St. Cyril of Alexandria have historically argued) and 2.) because they are literally the means by which grace is conveyed to the Christian. It is absolutely unacceptable to have mutually exclusive views of things like Baptism and the Eucharist and still claim to uphold some semblance of catholicity. It's totally incoherent in light of historic, ancient Christianity.
@@evren.nikolaos Cheers for the cordial response!
_What are the essentials?_
Affirmation of the early creeds eg Nicene, Chalcedon, Athanasian, Apostles'. The reason JWs and Mormons aren't part of Christianity is because they explicitly reject what these early creeds state about the nature of God and the nature of Christ.
_From our vantage point, the Roman church and all the major confessional Protestant bodies have a false doctrine of the Trinity strictly speaking, on top of many other things_
Would this have to do with the Filioque? If so, do you believe that ever since the pope added that into the creed, every Christian ever since has been in heresy? Btw, for me I believe the term heresy to mean, "You will go to hell for believing in this" You might not have the same exact definition but I finished listening to an orthodox priest say that whereas he thinks non-orthodox Christians are heterodox, not heretical.
_My point about the Mormons was just to say that Gavin, despite his issue with what he considers unacceptable exclusivism, is also exclusive in some areas and also makes truth claims that naturally preclude large bodies of people being "in."_
Mormonism is a different religion with different tenets and is actually the most polytheistic religion on the planet, even more than Hinduism. The discussion about who falls under the "Christian" umbrella does not include them because they themselves expressly choose to be outside it, I've invited Mormon missionaries to church who had claimed that "We all really believe the same things" and was met with a resounding but polite, "No thank you we aren't allowed to do that"
_even though he has massive disagreements with him on issues most Christians would see as essentials (notably the Sacraments.)_
And here's where the massive difference in perspectives comes in. You and I can read the early church fathers and see them put a lot of emphasis on the sacraments, you can conclude that they cared a lot about them, and I can conclude the same thing, I however can see that based on the times and climate they were living in, it was important for them to put tight reins on what counted as orthodoxy and what didn't in order to keep the heretics who were trying to destroy the church from within. The infant church needed far more care in its early days than it does now where millenia and centuries have gone by and we are standing on the shoulders of these giants who spent decades hashing out important doctrines like the Trinity, so that each generation is not stuck having to reinvent the wheel.
_because they are literally the means by which grace is conveyed to the Christian._
Reformed Christians believe that salvation is an act of grace from God, and that grace is conveyed through faith in Jesus and nothing else. If someone were on their deathbed, their faith in Jesus is what would save them. In a normative scenario, the sacraments still remain to be means of grace but they're not the *PRIMARY* means, faith is what justifies a person. This is the biggest difference between Protestantism and Catholicism and Orthodoxy. We emphasize faith, whereas the other traditions emphasize, in varying degrees, sacramentalism. We believe, from the Scriptures, that it's faith that matters the most, as with the thief on the cross going to paradise without having taken communion or being baptized, and this does not negate the importance of these two ordinances, but instead proves that it's faith in Jesus alone that has the efficacy to save, not how many times you take communion or if you have the right theology about baptism.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 I'm all for the early creeds and councils but I would push back a bit and argue that when Protestants say the Nicene Creed and confess "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church," what they mean by that is not what the Nicene Fathers meant. You can claim to uphold the Nicene Creed or the Ecumenical Councils as the essentials but mean something different than what they meant, which is no small issue in my eyes. This is very relevant to the Filioque because Catholics and Protestants will affirm the first two Ecumenical Councils but (in my mind) hold to a doctrine of the Spirit's procession that is totally at odds with the theology of those councils. Here I would draw a distinction between formal heresy and material heresy. I see the Council of Florence, the Lutheran + Reformed confessions, etc. as formally heretical insofar as their teaching on the Spirit is concerned. That doesn't mean that a random medieval Catholic or your average Presbyterian layman is on the same level as Nestorius. Strictly speaking those individuals are heterodox because they are in formally heretical churches from our perspective, but again my argument is not about making any claims about the salvation of particular individuals. I am concerned here with the boundaries of the Church.
My point about Reformation disagreements on the Sacraments was to demonstrate that simply saying we agree on the essentials and allow for disagreement on non-essential issues is demonstrably not true and problematic. Whatever you believe about the Sacraments, they are nothing but essential as far as they Scriptural and historic witness is concerned. This is precisely why I take issue with the redefining of catholicity taking place here, it turns things that really are essential into pious opinions until the Christian faith is nothing but a theological construction project and not once and for all delivered. If we can agree to disagree on how baptism SAVES us or what it means to receive eternal life by eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ, there is no real reason why the list of essential doctrines can't get smaller. At that point the doctrinal boundaries of the Church really do become totally arbitrary and meaningless. This is exactly why you have people like William Lane Craig who openly confess totally heretical understandings of the Trinity and the Person of Christ and get treated just fine. You can disagree with him, but on classical Protestant grounds there's no reason he's wrong to believe what he believes.
Without getting too off topic, I would argue that the Reformed position you've laid out creates an unnecessary opposition between faith and the Sacraments that neither the Scriptures not the Fathers recognize.
@@evren.nikolaos It comes down to whether a person is saved by the grace of God alone or they're saved by having accurate theology. My theology holds to the former whereas to me, it seems, and I could be wrong that you hold that a person *isn't* saved or is in danger of going to hell for believing inaccurate things about God. Obviously we're not here talking about groups like Muslims and Mormons, but moreso the layman in 1435 who couldn't read and didn't have a Bible, and couldn't accurately explain the hypostatic union to his children, that man who believes in Jesus as his Lord and savior is going to hell because he's not part of the correct church, I don't think this is true but if I'm reading you correctly this is what appears to be what you're saying. I certainly know of some Roman Catholics who will go this far, the council of Trent says anyone outside of the Roman Catholic church is anathema.
_it turns things that really are essential into pious opinions until the Christian faith is nothing but a theological construction project and not once and for all delivered._
The Filioque is a huge issue in Eastern Orthodoxy, even a theological issue, despite the fact that numerous Bible verses and early church fathers can be quoted as saying that it was Biblical, however you're still dogmatic on this issue about being right and insist that what you believe was once and for all delivered since Acts 2. I don't think guys like WLC are necessarily the norm and that people in his position ought to know better as teachers, my main concern is with the lay people who have a "child-like" faith and so-happen to be part of the "wrong church" by your estimation.
Luther got his debates. Multiple debates. He had the choice after he lost to unify with the Church. He chose not to. The fact that he did not do this meant he was implicitly saying that his beliefs were correct, and any church that claimed to follow Christ should hold fast to them, scripture and eminent reason and all that, right? You say he's not a Joseph Smith type figure, but he did everything that Joseph Smith did, started his own religion, wrote his own book, claimed the catholic church was wrong in his teachings. He even claimed visions of his struggle with the devil.
You obviously don't know Luther didn't claim to be a prophet or was he restoring a totally Apostate church that is the Church of Satan.
It's called a Reformation to clean up the church not to start his own church but Rome wouldn't let Luther have any different views except what the Church held as the only Christian views from a position of infallibility.
. Luther wanted the RCC to come inline with the Bible: Joseph Smith wrote his own Bible the JST including distorting the book of Revelation and was judged by God through the curse in the Book of Revelation.
Your ignorance is overwhelming.
@Dystopia Lutheran What have I said that is untrue?
Martin Luther called Jesus Lord. And not just a generic Lord. The 2nd person of the Trinity, God incarnate. And affirmed the creed. Joseph smith stepped away from orthodoxy in almost every way
There is a difference between reforming within the confounds of orthodoxy and with completely changing the faith w we
_You say he's not a Joseph Smith type figure, but he did everything that Joseph Smith did_
He really didn't.
Facts
Changing goal posts?
There is wicked stuff in our Catholic Church...why...because it is the true Church and Satan is trying so hard to destroy Gods true Church.
Lutherans and Baptists are united primarily in their opposition to Catholicism. To claim this level of unity is absurd. Would y’all let one another preach on baptism? How about the role of the sacraments?
I thought it was primarily a unity based on the gospel. You are saved by grace through faith.
@@dbendele unfortunately, this just kicks the can of questions a bit further down the road. Too much to write here, but this definition is so broad it doesn’t really describe any cohesive or even closely connected group. Further complicating matters, Catholics adhere to grace alone and believe in grace through faith but reject the “alone” bit in Sola Fide.
Calvin’s remark about not giving a blanket condemnation of all things and people Catholic would not go over well with many modern Calvinists, particularly those of the Baptist variety.
Edit: That being said, there are still a lot of issues with Rome (and to a lesser extent EO) that are at odds with biblical Christianity, and they are major reasons why I would never convert to Catholicism, including...
1.) The gospel itself. Rome/EO still attaches works to justification, even though I know of and have met those in their ranks who essentially embrace sola fide and sola gratia
2.) prayers to Mary/saints. Again, it is interesting to note that there are those in Rome/EO who admit to not being comfortable with or subscribing to these prayers, leading to my 3rd reason
3.) The myth of the Roman Catholic Unity. Rome is not nearly as united as is claimed; they simply put a better spin on it than Protestant confessions do (and no there are not 30,000 Protestant denominations as has been falsely claimed). There is a LOT of division and schism within Rome which is swept under the rug for the sake of a "big tent" Catholicism, and it's difficult to take the claims of Catholics about unity seriously when they don't even have their own house in order. Here are some examples:
-Tridentine (Vatican I/Latin Mass) adherents vs. Vatican II adherents
-Traditional Vatican II Novus Ordo adherents vs. Innovative Vatican II Novus Ordo adherents (Those who hold to a more traditional form of the Novus Ordo mass vs. the more "contemporary" Novus Ordo mass variations)
-Sedevacantist Catholics vs. "Pope-at-all-costs" Catholics (for the record, in light of the current pope's radical modernism, the sedevacantists appear to have a point).
-the growing number of Liberalized Catholics who believe that all religions lead to God (this has been affirmed by items such as the Pachamama incident and other things said by the more left-leaning Vatican II adherents who have basically said as much; whether or not that was the intention of the Vatican II proponents is debatable, but it has been interpreted as such by a large number of Catholic laypeople)
-The increasing number of Catholics who reject sacramental efficacy, yet are still considered Catholic
-Related to the previous point, the many, many places where Roman Catholicism has blended with local pagan religions (In the deep south of Cajun country and in places like Haiti, Catholicism is blended with voodoo, and in Latin American countries Catholicism becomes seriously blended with pagan superstitions and practices, which I have personally witnessed).
-The compromise with the world on the "Father James Martin" topic as well as the "cult of Moloch" (Let the reader understand. I actually heard these terms from a Vatican I CZcams Channel presenter, and I'm rather fond of them).
4.) Purgatory (and for the EO, the toll houses)
5.) Relics and the superstition surrounding them
6.) The general accumulation of unscriptural doctrines that, at best, are speculative, and at worst go against the Word of God (Mary's sinlessness, Jesus not having siblings, etc)
And to be frank, I've listened to Catholic apologists on these issues, and the more I listen, the less I'm convinced.
Pelagianism has been condemned by the Catholic Church for about 3 times as long as protestantism has ever existed.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj But not semi-Pelagianism. Read the Council of Trent: it specifically includes works as part of justification.
@@Outrider74
What you need to do is read what semi pelagianism means.
Actually there has been a movement from reformed baptist to movement away from this
LOL
More catholic than whom? Which Protestants? Tell you what. Jordan should pastor Gavin's church and Gavin should pastor Jordan's church for a year and then you can discuss which group is more catholic.
Whiff
Amen! the term needs to be reclaimed. In fact, so does "orthodox." Neither of these terms, as they were used originally and for so long after they became populare, were intended to be geographically particular. The bounds of their doctrinal dimensions were MUCH smaller, too.
Problem is, you can’t be Catholic without valid Apostolic Succession.
@@billmartin3561 Please define "Apostolic Succession"
You might also want to reclaim the date for the start of Christianity from 1 to 1517
@@Qwerty-jy9mj nothing new started in 1517.
@@ReformingApologetics
According to you there was no orthodoxy before protestantism so that's not true. It must be the case that nobody got it right until Luther showed up.
Wow, I called it. Jesuit perhaps?
Lol
If Luther really admired the Orthodox and Coptic Churches, then would he not have been adding books to the Bible rather than subtracting them?
He didn't subtract any. Where are you getting that information from?
@@ReformingApologetics Gutenberg Bible has 73 books. Modern Protestant "Bible" has 66 books. Luther initiated the process of deleting books.
@@david_porthouse The Orthodox Jewish Tanakh consists 24 books which is the Same of the Protestant Canon.The extra ones were never regarded as a part of their scripture.
@@david_porthouse if you're referring to what was named "deuterocanonical" after Trent, none of those books are in the earliest 6-7 Christian canon lists, except for books thought to be part of Jeremiah. They were also rejected by at least 5 "doctors" of the church, including a pope before the reformation.
@@ReformingApologetics Oldest Christian codex still in one piece is the Codex Amiatinus (Jarrow/Monkwearmouth, England, 700 AD) with 72 books. Oldest comparable Jewish codex is the unfortunately-named Leningrad Codex (Cairo, 1008 CE). "The Bible" is a Christian publication to begin with. It is a compilation from a pile of scrolls of variable content. Luther would have ripped six books out of the Codex Amiatinus. The Catholic Church added one book, Baruch, by the time of Gutenberg. Her authority to do this can be tracked down in the Codex Amiatinus.
Which Protestants? There are many varieties and they don't agree with each other on basic doctrines. Jesus was not going around saying "truly truly I said to you" just to leave it to different denominations to come up with different versions of His message.
_and they don't agree with each other on basic doctrines._
Such as? You literally have a video of a Lutheran and a Baptist being cordial with each other and seeing themselves as both Christians.
@@choicemeatrandy6572 And yet they still disagree fundamentally on issues both think are essential to salvation.
@@CosmicMystery7 They don't
@@CosmicMystery7 no they don’t all main Protestant churches believe salvation is through Christ alone
@@CosmicMystery7 Baptism is essential to salvation.
If you are trying to be more Catholic, why not just be Catholic?
because Catholics aren't catholic.
@@ethanstrunk7698 wow, that's new...its like marriage is not marriage anymore.
@@joekey8464 quippy but dumb
@@ethanstrunk7698 well marriage can now be defined as a union between two men or women, and 'catholic' for some people now can mean almost any church that feels like it.
False, I thought this about myself before I became Catholic. In our pride we say that we are more catholic than the Catholic Church. Obey Christ by submitting to Peter. Love you all!
Or obey Christ by submitting to…CHRIST
@@doubtingthomas9117 Aragorn goes away and you do not obey Faramir whom he left in charge; are you really obeying the King?
@@joshuaslusher3721 What about obeying denethor, since that would be the better comparison
@@joshuaslusher3721 -just because I don’t believe on the revisionist RCC spin on certain biblical passages doesn’t mean I’m not obeying the the King, your LOTR analogy notwithstanding. I along with many other Christians across time and space have not been convinced, based on the totality of biblical data and early patristic testimony, that the apostolic church ⛪️ ever operated under the supervision of a singular supreme ‘Faramir’…or ‘Eliakim’ if you prefer. Indeed such a notion would have been foreign to the fathers of the first few centuries, let alone to Christ and His Apostles.
@@EmberBright2077 It is not a better comparison. Even if it were, he was the steward and should be obeyed.
Nothing says small c catholic like protestant churches dividing over rainbow flags! Truly, so universal.
Be careful, your anathema is showing...
@@elvisisacs3955 My brother, which denomination are you?
@@jacobbrown4971 My brother, XYZ. eXamine Your Zipper. Embarrassing on my end.
Hahaha. Looks like rainbows are your Achilles.
czcams.com/video/eeb4f_ae09g/video.html
Doesn't identifying as "protestant" go along with the Roman Catholic idea that Luther and the churches that followed him are Apostates? If you are a Christian who doesn't worship the Pope, you should see the Papists as Apostate, and THEM as Protestant.
Protestant is not a real title
Most people identify as evangelical or reformed
As in the reformed catholic church
I've never heard of a person who worshipped a pope, is that what papist means?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj I heard of people worshiping Mary
@@Qwerty-jy9mj
Papal Infallibility is worship
@@blackjohn2 and praying to a pope is worship
A Lutheran and a "Reformed Baptist" claiming that they're "more catholic" (than Catholics) ? 🤣🤣
"Inconsistency is a sign of a failed worldview." - Jerome Blanc
the Catholic Church is becoming more and more protestant--or maybe moving to be more and more catholic ;-)
Cause Rome has always been consistent.😂
Consistently evil
The answer is in your statement. Lowercase "c" catholic (which just means "universal") vs Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholic church purposely calls itself capital "C" Catholic in order to hold the claim as the only universal church.
@@matthew7491
you think the OP didn't know that but just happened to get the proper name casing accidentally correct?
Why don't you guys come home to the Catholic Church then?
It's time. Jesus only founded one Church.
Protestantism is heretical!