Response to Horn and Akin on Icons
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 07. 2024
- In this video I respond to Jimmy Akin and Trent Horn on the veneration of icons.
See their original video here: • REBUTTING Gavin Ortlun...
See Tim Keller's book on idolatry here: www.amazon.com/Counterfeit-Go...
See Greg Beale's book on idolatry here: www.amazon.com/We-Become-What...
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
01:31 - Defending Truth Unites
08:10 - Is Icon Veneration Tertiary?
10:46 - What is an Anathema?
11:52 - Sola Scriptura
13:25 - Doctrinal Development
22:02 - What is Idolatry?
“If you want this to be a tertiary issue maybe lay off the anathemas.”
😂
1 lone protestant taking on a swarm of Catholic and Orthodox opponents and still coming out on top with the best arguments and most irenic approach. You should change your name to Chad Ortlund.
I don’t know about coming out on top but it’s worth asking why there is only one.. is Protestantism actually reasonable or is Gavin just an intelligent, clever man with a false conviction?
Ortlund believes in Gavin Alone.
@@fantasia55 sounds like you are bearing false witness. Also, it would be pretty impossible to actually believe that after listening to the man speak as his words show him to be Christ centered. This means you either don't actually watch his videos or you want to intentionally deceive others.
@@Bbos2383 Gavin expounds as doctrine whatever pops into his head. His followers think he is infallible.
@@fantasia55 his followers think he is infallible? Um wut??? Can you provide a single shred of evidence that a single person thinks Gavin is infallible?
"If you want this to be a less significant issue, maybe lay off the anathemas." Exactly. Roman Catholics really back themselves into a corner with all their anathemas.
That’s a problem though. Now, they are, practically speaking, moving past Trent. Francis is pretty loosie-goosie, doctrinally, and I believe that the bulk of modern Catholics - effectively - ignore the existence of anathemas.
@@bersules8 James is using the word faith differently than Paul. We do this in modern conversation too. We might ask someone, “What faith are you?” That usage is different than when we encourage a friend to “have faith”. So, Luther included “faith alone” as an appropriate translation of the intended meaning. If one is justified by faith apart from works, isn’t it implicit that one is justified by faith alone? That’s not to say that works are not part of our “faith” as James uses the term. They clearly are a part of the new life we have in Christ, but they don’t justify. By the way, Luther did not remove any books from the bible. Just look at any bible a Protestant friend uses. See? James is still there. It was in Luther’s German translation too. And, the question of the use of images didn’t start with Calvin. Might want to watch Dr. Ortlund’s video that initiated this discussion.
@Tennis Brah when were the infallible councils abrogated, and by whom? Akin is an apologist for Catholic Answers. He’s not the magisterium. I find it laughable (and sad) that current Catholic apologists are pretending - when convenient, of course - that the church was born in 1963.
@@bersules8 because you put a lot of prooftexting and twisting into trying to make Scripture support its insufficiency, does not mean it’s worthy of detailed response. As the 20th C. and 21st C. magisterium would demonstrate, we cannot count upon mere men to be infallible.
@@bersules8 read the whole of the Bible - a STANDARD, scholarly translation from the original text. You will see why Christ is worth of Sola fide. We can repose our hopes in Him and His sacrifice. All of the body of Scripture pints to the sufficiency of His sacrifice.
Im Eastern Orthodox, and I find your videos theologically insightful for the Protestant position. Thank you for the work you put in; I think some of the RC & EO channels could learn from you. Side note, a 30 minute rebuttal to a 3 hour rebuttal is a solid power move lol
Thanks for noticing that, and making an intelligent comment.
Why do you think the consensus of historians around the world is so strong that even Roman apologists admit that the historical Christ and His Apostles didn't actually make icons and kiss them?
@@truthisbeautiful7492 Our Lord and his Apostles were Icons personified. Therefore, for the early first century believers icons were not needed in the apostolic period.
@Sandalio Not creative, but theology.
@@thecommonnarrative1777 That is an interesting perspective about icons. I don't know why icons are Needed at all? It seems we can maintain a closeness w/ God just fine w/out them. I don't understand a lot about Orthodox theology though. Just that icon veneration is very important and integral to the Orthodox form of worship.
It is nice to see positive feedback from Orthodox for any protestant. Most of the Orthodox seem to just disdain us utterly, and I've seen many just blatantly say that we are not even the same religion and they don't really recognize us as Christians.
Roman and other Orthodox apologists on icon veneration: "Icons are not a big deal, but you'll go to hell if you don't believe and act just like I do."
I was once really impressed and persuaded by Roman apologetics -- enough so that I was persuaded to join the Church of Rome for decades. I don't know if I was an idiot and have somewhat matured since then, or Roman and Orthodox apologetics have basically become little more than a dumpster fire.
The anathema is for condemning others based on a false doctrine “that icons are sinful”. It’s not saying you must use them; it’s saying you don’t get to condemn others with your make believe nonsense. Perhaps Roman apologetics persuaded you because there are two apostolic faiths and Rome is one of them 🤷♂️.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787 writes: "The anathema is for condemning others based on a false doctrine “that icons are sinful”. It’s not saying you must use them; it’s saying you don’t get to condemn others with your make believe nonsense."
I suspect that you haven't actually read the acts of N2. If you do so, you will find MANY anathemas, including anathemas simply for not venerating icons, or even for merely believing that they should not be venerated. To claim that the acts ONLY anathemize those who hold that "icons are sinful" is simply not true.
I have no idea what to make of your other assumptive claims.
@@philoalethia You got me that it’s more specific than I realized. Still.. 1) the council was reacting to the false belief that icons were to be condemned as sinful. 2) Anathemas were simply disciplinary measures and they don’t even apply today (as the Catholic Church has stopped using them). 3) There was no requirement for personal devotion; anathemas were related to accepting the practice and not causing public scandal.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787, I am puzzled.
You started out by making a claim that simply isn't true, apparently as a result of not having actually read the council acts (yet strangely still feeling competent to make assertions about their contents). You now make another series of claims that, as before, seem to indicate that you still have not read the acts, yet still presume to comment on what they mean. I recommend that you actually read them before telling others what (you think) they mean.
Specifically, regarding (1): "the council was reacting to the false belief that icons were to be condemned as sinful." That is largely correct. However, it doesn't follow that a reaction to an error is necessarily right, true, or good. Dropping atomic bombs on Japan was a "reaction" to Japanese acts in WW2. It doesn't make them good actions.
Regarding (2): "Anathemas were simply disciplinary measures and they don’t even apply today (as the Catholic Church has stopped using them)" That is false in at least two different ways. Anathemas are disciplinary, but they represent condemnations to eternal damnation, especially within the context of their implementation. Further, the claim that the (Roman) Catholic Church "has stopped using them" is not accurate. They were invoked as recently as Vatican I. Second, it doesn't really matter whether they have been used in the most recent council. They WERE used in practically every one of the early councils, and don't just evaporate over time. They remain in force unless specifically rescinded. There has not been any ecumenical council that states, "oh, by the way, we retract all (or any) past anathemas."
Regarding (3): " There was no requirement for personal devotion; anathemas were related to accepting the practice and not causing public scandal." This is borderline deception. Yes, people were not required to venerate icons in their personal homes, but the acts CLEARLY require veneration in liturgical contexts, as well as belief that such veneration is fitting. They specifically condemn anyone who fails to venerate icons or who otherwise holds that it is wrong to mandate veneration. That is just what the words say. No need to try to skirt around it.
Again, perhaps it would be good to go and actually read the acts of the council before commenting further. They are lengthy. It should take awhile.
@@philoalethia As far as (2) anathemas, you are mistaken. They did not represent eternal damnation (I don’t know where you heard that). Anathemas were comparable to Paul casting believers out of the community for their spiritual growth and repentance. In Catholicism, they actually involved a ritual of sending someone out of the church until they repented (this ritual almost never actually happened), they do not automatically continue and are no longer in use (not used in Vatican II). You’re thinking about them as if they themselves are doctrines; they are not. They are actual disciplinary procedures that are no longer in use (so they have “vaporized”). The Catholic Church has discontinued this disciplinary practice as part of its authority to bind and loose in smaller disciplinary practices (as well as dogmas). Sounds like you don’t understand anathemas as well as you think you do. If you have evidence to support your claims about them then I’ll respond to it but, if not, I’ll assume that I’m correct and that you have misunderstood. As far as icons, yes they need to be accepted in Catholicism. No, you don’t need to be privately devoted and there are no longer public liturgical settings where you must do so (it is optional). There are no longer anathema proceedings being held and, even when they were, they were extremely rare. The point of those was to discourage scandal and the practice of condemning icons; that reality (of anathemas) no longer exists today.
You're filling an important gap in online theological dialogues. Thank you for you continued hard work!
Thanks Nate!
Continue your good work.
Forget the 3 x 3 hours turf protection rebuttals. They just hollow bluster!
@@Tanjaicholan actually, the rebuttals show how shallow Gavin's model is. You guys treat everything like it's an academic exercise bereft of what the Church needs at any given moment in time. Allowing converts from Paganism to venerate icons is like giving a beer to an alcoholic.
Good thing Jesus is in charge of our Church and not you, Gavin, Luther, or anyone else stuck on academic rules.
@@enshala6401 I... Are you suggesting we give beer to Alcoholics? I don't really follow your argument.
@@protoseargeant😂😂😂
I don't see a lot of people in the public eye striving for both truth AND irenicism, period. I pray you continue on this difficult path. Your approach goes beyond theology and apologetics - it demonstrates how we can honor Christ even in viciously decisive times.
I am a Catholic student of theology, but you’re definitely one of the most kind, charitable and intelligent Protestant critics of Catholicism I’ve come across.
I’m not even a reformed baptist but he has such a genuine heart and approach to scripture and theology.
@@caleb3639 Gavin is Reformed?
@@elijah4168 Yes, he is reformed baptist. I thought that was clear.
@@caleb3639 I looked at his church website and it doesn't mention being Reformed and he doesn't seem to mention being Reformed as far as I know but good to know lol
@@elijah4168 Yeah he has spoken of it in the past, he is the head pastor of First Baptist Church somewhere in California
"And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart." Galatians 6:9 NKJV
Amen
Michael Lofton's channel posted a video today on this debate. Someone in the comments there accused Gavin of working in bad faith and misrepresenting Catholicism. I replied and respectfully asked him for evidence. Lofton immediately banned me from his "Reason" channel.
Sounds like lofton.
Same thing happened to me.
I’ve read others write the same.
Self-proclaimed “pope-splainer”
reacts like the pope he defends.
I watched the whole "rebuttal" and was disappointed both with their tone and with the content, especially Jimmy criticising you for making a big deal out of a "third rank doctrine" for which you are anathematized 😂
👆Right~Anathematized Heretic.
They DO have 151 anathemas to choose from, after all. 😁🤣😂
As a Catholic I gotta say I was disappointed with Trent and Jimmy's video. For such a long rebuttal from 2 of the best Catholic Apologists the arguments felt kinda mediocre and Jimmy especially was lacking some charity. I think you have presented your case in a much better way, and as you stated, I think this issue and many others come down to the application of Doctrinal Development and if Church teaching is actually consistent throughout history or not. It's an issue you have inspired me to do more personal reading on, so thank you for that! And I look forward to seeing you in person at your debate with Trent!
Thanks for the comment, see you in Ohio!
Please, you can prove catholicism wrong powerfully just by the end of second Nicaea. Dr. Gavin wouldn’t I think state it this hard, but I must: Nicaea made an absolute doctrinal claim on history and it is absolutely wrong and attested to by all you’ve learned in Gavin’s presentation. A great bulk of your church is a fabrication based on the embers of heretics long dead and mostly unrepented. Please, this is more serious than an academic convo: you must repent and remove yourself with vigor, so many people are falling in the hands of perverse and evil men who refuse to acknowledge the simplicity of the truth. Don’t be them.
God rest
@@TruthUnites I am no one Dr., but I have seven detailed reasons for the absolute dismissal of roman catholicism and the danger of the souls of those who remain inside its institution. Can I go over them with you and possibility get your rendering or even correction if you think them not strong enough, though I am sure they are solid? You can use them on your platform. I rather they go out rather than stay with me a no one. I know this is not exactly a question I have a right to hear back from you concerning, I know you are a man of a great schedule, so feel free to ignore this if you have not the proper amount of time to devote to such a request. Thanks.
God rest
@@TheChristianNationalist8692I’m interested to hear them! If you are willing to disclose.
They always are. Read Letters between an Evangelical and a Catholic Priest. I read it two times as an apologist for the Catholic church and was disappointed with the Catholic priest response. Very low Biblical evidence! Also I knew of Catholic nuns who promoted Earth worship and even Goddess worship. A Catholic deacon tried to refer to Jesus as a woman once or that person. I confronted him on it and said it was blasphemous. He defended noone knew God's sex even though I told him scriptures always refer to him in the masculine. So, it's very prevalent!
Yeah, you just gotta overlook that. What I suspect they really mean is, “Gavin, please stop. You’re making our lives harder.” Lol. Your research is thorough and well-grounded, scripturally and historically. Stand on the truth the best you can and let go of the rest.
I think it runs deeper than that. Mr. Ortlund was talking in this video about the many messages he receives from Protestants about how this can be a question of conscience for them. The reciprocal is likely also true - Roman Catholic apologists like Mr. Horn and Mr. Akin getting similar questions from Catholics about "Wait, is this actually wrong? Are we wrong to do this?" As far as Mr. Horn and Mr. Akin, Dr. Ortlund's content is hurting their fellow RCs' consciences. I can see why they would be frustrated. But this is apologetics - comes with the territory.
And usually, I think the apologists all around do well to understand and accept this. Everyone has a bad day sometimes. While we should call that kind of behavior out when we see it, we should always do so with the same grace and ireny (not irony) that the doctor urges.
Not trying to say you weren't doing any of that, or be reproachful here. Merely rambling.
@@ottovonbaden6353 actually, it’s funny you say that. I just came back in here to comment that people should look where the Roman Catholic Church is, today. It’s a church in crisis. There are quickly becoming two churches at loggerheads, under the umbrella of the Roman rite. People like Akin are less answering-Gavin and more keeping-Catholics-in-the-fold. If or when Francis rolls out his apostolic constitution on the abrogation of the TLM in the next few weeks or months, Catholic Answers is going to get crushed with calls and requests from people at a crossroads, and wondering whether or not it’s all off-base. If the earlier Councils are wrong, and Vatican II is right, then, what really IS infallible?? James White is FAR less dangerous than the peaceful, calm, systematic Gavin Ortlund in the eyes of apologist orgs like Catholic Answers. I’d be willing to bet on it.
@@KristiLEvans1 You make an excellent point. I'm very curious what we will see going forward.
We should all have lives as hard as Trent or Jimmy. Each makes over 6 figures a year reciting Catholic church teachings for a few hours a week.
@@joeoleary9010 very well-trod arguments, in fact.
I’m honestly shocked how much push back you are getting. The historical, biblical, and scholarly evidence is not only crystal clear but pretty much unanimous.
It does not surprise me that people were condescending and rude to you, people tend to respond badly when you go after their idols🤔🧐
Zinger!
being on youtube is idolatry, you better get off.
@@bethl bIBLIOLATRY WORSHIP OF A BOOK IS ALSO IDOLATROUS.
@@josephdalelio6684 Protestants would agree. How many times have you seen a Protestant kiss, light a candle or burn incense to, or bow down before a Bible? There's a big difference between that and simply believing that the Bible is the inspired word of God, don't you?
I'm learning so much from you ....and I'm a Protestant non Calvinist but we're brothers in Christ.
I see you posted this a year ago. I’m interested in knowing if you’ve become a Calvinist or if you’re still not.
@andrewnunez7894 No, I'm still not a Calvinist and don't intend to be . I'm still having a wonderful fellowship with my Calvinist brothers and sisters
@@costa328 thanks for the reply. I was just wondering!
We are much closer than you think (despite what people like Redeemed Zoomer might say). Anyone that has a doctrine of justification by faith alone is instantly closer than any other group, which may or may not be truly Christian. I will leave that for personal preference. God bless you!
Yes, the literal interpretation of scripture is the hill I'm willing to die on. Hence, Catholicism falls apart against the weight of the scriptures.
Exactly! They claim these are minor issues, yet, leave no room to believe otherwise for disagreement means Anathema.
On the weight of the scriptures, and also on their many reversals and innovations, some of which contradict earlier Catholic dogma.
@@joeoleary9010 At the same time those "minor issues" are serious enough to declare anyone in opposition an anathema. Very confusing.
As a Roman Catholic, I didn't appreciate Jimmy's final comments. The video did seem a petty at times. I am sorry that you have been treated this way. You seem to have struck a nerve in part because this doctrine in particular is a difficulty for us. I hope we can discuss these things better in the future.
Your comment kind of echoes mine. I appreciate your comment from the bottom of my heart. I respect your tradition but I don’t like how some Catholic apologists have addressed this issue
@@Frosee14 I humbly ask that you forgive our mistakes and prayerfully consider Catholicism despite the errors we make in making our case. Much love ❤️
@@lyterman Catholics and Protestants are closer than they have been since the Reformation, at least officially. Especially on Justification. These sticking points can be hard to overcome though. Peace to my Catholic brothers and sisters.
@@mj6493 Some Protestants, yes. Certainly the evil one wishes for us to be apart and fighting between one another as we have since the schisms. May the Lord unite us.
👆 Irreconcilable Differences
remain unchanged between Catholics and Non-catholic Believers.
Impossible to have real unity without agreement about foundational issues.
⚔️ TRUTH v DECEPTION ⚔️
= Spiritual War
Gavin, thank you for this video. At the risk of being divisive, I have to say I find it a bit rich that Jimmy Akin is criticizing you for "putting out too many videos." Jimmy Akin and the rest of the Catholic Answers organization have for the last 20 years devoted themselves to daily critiques of Protestantism and other religions. That criticism is the very purpose of Catholic Answers. Moreover, all of the apologists on the Catholic Answers team have for many years now been taking 6 figure salaries for this work. I've listened to them for many years, and at no time have they ever admitted that the RCC was ever at fault for anything, or that church history contains any contradictions. They defend the Crusades, the imprisonment of Galileo, the murder of William Tyndale, and literally everything else the RCC has done over the ages as perfectly fine and understandable. And of course, they vigorously defend the RCC re the sex abuse scandal by ignoring it completely or offering lame justifications for the abuse of so many young people by Catholic clergy.
Despite all of that, Jimmy Akin is upset that a Protestant pastor respectfully critiques church history.
Jimmy Akin is a professional sophist and will say whatever he needs to say to win arguments in the eyes of ignorant people
I wonder what kind of catholic answers you have been watching or listening to, you must share the fine weed you re using. You sounded slanderous .
@@expiringphilosophy7605 As a cradle Catholic, I can tell you that Jimmy Akin views whatever the Catholic church decrees AS the direct wishes of Jesus. To imply that the RCC is or has ever been wrong about anything is the same as saying that Jesus was in error and cannot be trusted. This conflation of the Church with Jesus is the very essence of Catholicism. All professional Catholics believe thus.
Joe, this comment was well said. Thanks for writing it.
@@joeoleary9010 Can't argue with that.
However, treating the Church as Jesus is, obviously, idolatry. That is how I would summarize Roman Catholicism: Church-worship. More accurately Pope-worship, as Revelation 13 describes.
Moreover, it is spiritual butch feminism and egalitarianism. On your model, the Church doesn't even need her Husband's Words. She'll just make all the decisions for herself, on her own authority, and hand them over to "Jesus" for a rubber-stamp. He'll agree to it, no matter what. Who's really leading here?
I tried watching Akin's video but I stopped after half an hour. The amount of insults, lazy arguments, and dodging of arguments was appalling, and Trent thought he could just sit behind him and afirm him for rapport.
You handle the demeaning comments and misrepresentation very well. I think it's telling that it takes so many apologists to refute one video by one man.
As one who has been listening to you for a while now, I just wanted to thank you Pastor Ortlund for your work. A few years ago I began to seriously look into Catholicism, and then Orthodoxy, all prompted by a painful Baptist church split. After much study and prayer I’ve come full circle now and am so grateful for my Baptist upbringing and my parents emphasis on Sola Scriptura and Solus Christus. The two hurdles I could never cross were the subject of Mary, infant baptism, and Icons. God used your videos, and those of Joshua Schooping, on these subjects as a wakeup call. I’m ashamed that I got so caught up in the externals, but I did learn a lot and the whole experience caused me to search the scriptures more and draw closer to God. I look forward to thanking you personally in His kingdom.
glad the videos were helpful!
@@bersules8 we believe in the Triune God, one in essence, three in persons, and in the incarnation of the Son, who shows us the way to the Father.
We do not relate this at all to a graven image with eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear. We prostrate ourselves before God alone, not a representation of Him.
@@bersules8 you are getting to point D from point A. How does incarnation mean that an image of saint whoeveryouwant is a Window to him? How does gets to trinity.
@@bersules8 really? Now that scripture is relevant to icon veneration? You are trying too hard.
@@bersules8 it is an odd comparison though considering Christ was not made from stone or wood. He is alive. The images being mentioned are not.
The part of this video on idolatry was extremely powerful and is the main reason why Protestantism is so beautiful! Being able to receive grace and forgiveness straight from God without any intermediary… Thank you Jesus!!!🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Amen!
Yes!!
Jesus is the mediatior.
@@sustainablelife1st Jesus IS God! ❤️
John 20:23 If you (the Apostles, and their successors through the laying of hands) forgive the sins of any, they are forgive; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.
Thank you for your honest, irenic defense of truth Gavin. We Protestants are blessed by God to have you
Thank you so much dr Gavin! In my opinion, the reason for personal attacks and mockery from Trent and Jimmy is that you've become a very strong opponent, theologically and apologetically, to mostly uncontested Catholic Apologists who've claimed youtube for themselves years ago. You're the cause of their overtime, literally! :) To me, that's even more of a reason to encourage you to keep going! Truth doesn't require ad hominems to shine and people can see it.
Yes indeed. The Goliaths have met their David
To be fair, Trent didn’t actually aim any personal attacks at Dr Ortlund.
Gavin is clearly in a different league than Jimmy and Trent.
@@Wanderer-s2c It's true that most attacks at Gavin's intellect or intentions came from Jimmy. But it was Trent's channel, his video, in which he co-hosted, and no apologies came from him at any point, so he still takes the full impact of these statements on himself and doesn't seem to regret it. But I agree, that he probably would not use such arguments himself.
I've seen this kind of behavior from Trent before (don't know enough about Jimmy). I used to be a big fan of Trent, but now I can't stand the guy.
Thank you very much Gavin for your rebuttal response. I think these secondary comments to "rebuttals" are exceptionally valuable for us lay Christians as they give a rough examination of the quality of the "rebuttal" from a POV of someone more informed on the discussion.
*Edit: Upon reflection, I think saying that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are not “viable” Christian traditions is going too far. Since I haven’t even been baptized or go to church anymore, I have no right to comment on which tradition is “viable”. And I believe there are saved Catholics and Orthodox, so… I take back what I said about viability. It’s time for me to stop talking so much and listen more.*
If it means anything to you, Gavin, your work and Peter Dimond’s debunking of Vatican ll ultimately convinced me that Catholicism isn’t the way to go. (Also, there was a moment when investigating the deuterocanon that I realized… that discussion is far more complicated than I thought.)
And I’m not convinced of Orthodoxy either.
For me, the biggest attractions to Catholicism and Orthodoxy were:
1) their pushback against Sola Scriptura. I’m incredibly sympathetic to their view of scripture and the church. With all of the conflicting views on the sacraments, the Sabbath, election, speaking in tongues… it just became too much for me. To be frank, the division over these issues still confuses me to this day.
2) their focus on church history that I found lacking elsewhere. 3) The deuterocanon topic was a considerable point for me, in the context of the Catholic canon. Early on, I thought this would be the issue that drove me to Catholicism, until later research confirmed that the deuterocanon topic is far more complicated.
But overall, I just couldn’t push past their views on Mary and icon veneration. With Peter Dimond crushing Vatican ll - along with your icon videos - I just lost any hope of treating Catholicism or Orthodoxy as a viable choice in the Christian walk.
Take care, Gavin. May the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you.
I'm glad my videos have been of use and I pray God continues to bless and guide you! Thanks for sharing!
Zekdom,
My parents were cradle Catholics, and when they were born and raised, 1957 onward, Catholicism was uber dominant in their region, Latin America.
The usage of icon veneration down there was, and in many ways still is, far more pronounced than it is in American Catholicism.
They came to evangelicalism, him reluctantly, in a charismatic Presbyterian Church, pastored buy a reverend that had been raised within the Society of Friends (Quaker), who had gone to a mostly Baptist bible college, who originally opposed tongues, but came around because of personal experience.
The beauty of the Gospel is that the ultimate deposit of faith, which Christ gave directly to his apostles in the first century, is beautifully preserved as the Bible, and it has wonderful truths taught clearly, explicitly and with perspicacity and without ambiguity, enough for us to be able to deal with the doctrinal challenges you mentioned with a gentle spirit and with wisdom, without compromising the core Christian tenants at all.
I love the apostles Paul's solomonic wisdom in dealing with disagreement and error . Errors (of the nature which does not exclude somebody from being Christian but serious enough to cause someone to stumble, or cause division)
@YAJUN YUAN Hey buddy :;)
Probably the best question for Roman apologists on the Canon is - is 3rd Esdras (the tale of the swordsmen) Scripture yes or no? There have been different 'answers' from different 'apologists.'
You mention Sabbatarian and pentecostal views, which surprised me, as the historical origins of Sabbatarian groups like Seventh Day baptists, seventh day adventists, and Armstrongism is well documented. Same with 'speaking in tongues' either of the mainstream pentecostals or the anti-Trinitarian UPC. Have you studied the origin of Sabbatarian groups like the Adventists of the origin of the Pentecostal movement? Both are fairly modern.
I actually liked that you filmed at home, it had a real cozy feel 😅
the fact Gavin and his amazing content has not even 20k subs tells you everything you need to know about the horrible state our society is in. I cant even imagine how busy Gavin is and he still puts out this content. Thanks so much
Yep totally agree there. Gavin has to balance preaching, pastoring, CZcams, and family, and writing. I'm amazed st how he does it. I'm always a large procrastinator.
When the "state of our society" is measured by the number of CZcams subs someone has... LMAO. You guys need to go outside.
Ya I am blown away every video that we get this level of quality work for free. I thought you had to pay to go to seminary to get this type of scholarship.
@Caru14 Oh dear, you think this is quality scholarship? Then tell me something, does Gavin believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins? This is stated explicitly in the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed was originally formulated at the first Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church held in Nicea in 325AD and was later amplified, adopted and authorised as a true expression of the Faith at the second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 381AD.
The reason I am asking this is that it doesn't seem like Gavin affirms the content of Councils across the board, so why would he affirm the ones that only suit his narrative? It seems disingenuous to me. It's along the lines of Sola Scriptura, where the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 is ignored out of convenience for the sake of those who find Jesus' teachings too hard to follow, so they walk away, just like many of Christ's disciples that day.
@@enshala6401 you do realize that agreeing with your opinion is not necessary to be scholarly right? You realize people can accurately report on facts that are obvious without agreeing with a certain view right? Do you actually get how research works? Or do you just want biased one sided opinions from like minded people? An echo chamber is not healthy my friend.
Prayers for you, brother, with that hectic schedule of yours! ..
Much appreciated
Gavin thank you so much! Your charity makes you an easy target, and I was really hoping you didn’t accept the condescension and mischaracterisation from the response offered by Jimmy Akin & Trent Horn. I for one was shocked at the personal jibes. As soon as I heard Jimmy Akin make an issue out of the thumbnail I knew their video would not be fair.
And just as a note I respect Jimmy Akin, I was just particularly disappointed by that response.
because it was about the click bait of Garvin. You would only be fair to see that first.... first thing first.
It would seem that things get personal when an answer isn't possible or apparent.
They have gone into panic mode
@@ProfYaffle so you wish. It's actually Garvin that went into panic mode since Cameron's conversion.
@@jimmydavid1993 You guys are such hypocrites, going on and on about "evil suspicion" and then partaking in it yourselves
As a Catholic who’s going to visit a PCA Church for the first time this weekend, I want to say thank you for your amazing work.
I wouldn’t be surprised if little bit of their arrogant shone through in response to your very solid arguments - nevertheless, your humility shines much brighter.
That's such a nice thing to say about Gavin. God really gave him a gentle nature, so that he normally doesn't have to work as hard at it as most of the rest of us do. I don't find arrogance w/ Trent, and Trent and Gavin have such great respect and report w/ each other. Things are a bit different w/ Jimmy though, and I think his nature struggles w/ arrogance a bit more. We all have our strengths and weaknesses.
I’ve been going to a PCA church for about 4 months now and I absolutely love it! I hope you find a good one as well.
@@Beefcake1982 What is the PCA church please?
Presbyterian church? Ok cool. MAy God lead you to the right church😊
Sola Scriptura has to be one of the most misunderstood (and misapplied) doctrines out there. Your argument was about the early Church. Your claim was closer to, “if something is unanimous in the Bible and virtually unanimous in the early church, then overturning such a claim would need an extraordinary reason”
I personally do not have an issue with icon veneration, done in the right way as an aid to the worship of God without crossing the line into idolatry. What I do have an issue with is councils that would presume to force the practice onto all believers, and would make it into such a fundamental issue that they dare to say that those who refuse to venerate icons are, for that reason, no longer part of the church. Especially if Gavin's persuasive historical analysis is correct that icon veneration was not practiced by the early church, and that therefore the most significant church fathers would be included in Nicea II's anathemas had they been alive when the council ocurred. It's such a wrongheaded prioritization of uniformity in devotional and liturgical practice over love and church unity.
Precisely.
How do you worship God or use what He has forbidden as an aid to worship?
How do you know it hasn't crossed?? We see people in Mexico turn it to a culture and it's looking pagan
@@raphaelfeneje486 Done in the right way icons can help draw the mind to God, provide a reminder and awareness of God's presence and the cloud of witnesses (Hebrews 12:1), and inspire a Godly desire to grow in righteousness and holiness (to imitate Christ and the saints who fought the good fight before us).
@@JW_______ I basically asked a question. What is the right way?? Where through out church history was it even stated that venerating icons was done in the right way?? If we have the witness of the Holy Spirit, we can trust in his word and be assured of our salvation. We don't need an icon. The human nature always tend to do things excessive, especially when one is ridden with emotions and loyalty and so on. Where do you draw the line is the question. Nowhere in church history does it suggest that there's a certain way to venerate icons or so. I don't know what's the relevance of the verse you quoted though. The Bible says God is closer to us and that he'll make our heart his temple. A Christian is always conscious of God and his words. Doesn't need to venerate icons to be conscious of God. That's idolatry!
Most important take-away: the notion that Roman Catholic doctrine can take a “U-turn” is completely opposite from the notion that “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
Incredibly well-argued. I really hope that videos like this will help to move the dialogue forward :)
Yes
I’m not sure Jimmy or Trent are arguing this. Nor Suan Sonna.
Jimmy says this verbatim. It’s quoted in this video.
@@repentantrevenant9776 oh yeah that’s right. I believe he qualified it as being seen in light of what he considered a u turn: circumcision to no circumcision.
Newman had to invent progression because he couldn’t find those doctrines in history 😒
To be history is to not ever be catholic
Invocation of the saints is an apostolic practice! So which saints did the Apostles invoke? Who did Ignatius make invocations to? Polycarp? Irenaeus? We have some prayers and closing blessings from these fathers, and no invocations. I can find no written invocations before the 4th century. And if it is apostolic, then again, who did the apostles make invocations to? Abraham? David? The ´αγιων who rose from the grave at Christ’s resurrection? For it to be apostolic it needs to come from the apostles. If it came along later it came along later. If the apostles did it, where is it recorded?
Dr. Ortlund, you knew this would be a Pandora’s box. I’m happy to see you managing these responses as they come out, Thank you for your frontline fight in the face of a differing worldview,
I respect you so much Gavin. Keep up the phenomenal work, my wife & I are praying for you!
Another top notch video from Pastor Ortlund. Thank you. I've often considered jumping ship for Rome or Constantinople and after watching Gavin's videos I feel like the professional apologists from those camps have been dishonest. Akin and Horn really dropped the ball in their response videos clearly demonstrating a bias and inability to handle the facts of history honestly. To go into history is to reject the false claims of Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
may God bless you on your journey.
I was on a similar one and ended up becoming Confessional Lutheran (LCMS), praise be to Christ!
We have all the catholicity you could want, without the idolatrous practices of Rome, focused on the gospel, but also enjoying our western christian heritage
@@joseortegabeede8233can you expand on that please? What are Lutheran churches like? How would you compare Lutheranism with the other denominations?
@@fusion9619 Lutheranism believes in total depravity, unconditional election, justification for all men through faith alone, belief that salvation is a monergistic but resistible process and that falling away is possible, albeit with gospel assurance, and infant baptism. They are higher church, have a form of episcopal government, and are liturgical. They don't believe in transubstantiation, but believe the body and blood of Jesus are present in the Eucharist in a mysterious way. Baptismal regeneration is a thing for them, but it is not 100% necessary to get saved, as per article 251 of the small catechism, and they practice infant baptism. For more information, I recommend Jordan B Cooper, a Confessional Lutheran youtuber,
So where is the truth found? Which is the true church? Whatever we believe is true? Whatever Gavin believes?
@@johnbrion4565 I think the key is what Jesus said - "seek the truth." He didn't say accept the truth, or submit to it, although these aren't bad things if you know a truth. "Seek" is the key. That means use your own head. What even would be the point in knowing a true thing if you lack the ability to discern it for yourself? And that implies that there is such a thing as truth There's an archetypal character in humanity that denies the reality of truth, demonstrated by Pontius Pilate asking if there's such a thing as truth and modern leftists saying all truth is subjective. If you hear someone saying that, run away... Truth exists, but the whole truth, as understood from every angle and in complete and perfect knowledge, is impossible for anyone but God. So the person claiming to know absolute truth is just as deluded as the one saying truth is subjective. The only thing that's left is for you to start from first principles and deduce truth yourself. And I'm not saying to reject churches and their teachings, in case it started to sound that way.
I greatly appreciated this video Dr. Ortlund. There are so many points I could mention. I especially appreciated your comments at the end of the video (namely that by simple Faith we have Christ already, we can approach the throne of grace directly and all we need is IN HIM!). Hebrews 7:25 Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them.
Hey Gavin. I’m an attorney and, unfortunately, in my profession there are often many who engage in mud-slinging and personal insults and justify their actions behind “zealously representing” their clients. I often find it hard to take the high road in response to these tactics.
It’s incredible how you’ve handled these unwarranted personal insults and condescending attacks. It speaks to the quality of your character and, in my opinion, heaps coals upon the heads of those who are not as charitable in their responses to your videos. You focus on the issues, not the person making the video.
Thank you so much for your work. I was raised Christian but since I began watching your videos last year I have delved deeper into the historical richness of Protestantism and, contrary to Cardinal Newman’s claims, have become more convinced of the errors contained in Catholicism while obtaining a better understanding of its beliefs and practices.
I look forward to your videos every week, and I’ll be praying for your safety as you travel these upcoming weeks and that the Holy Spirit guides you in preparing for your upcoming debate. Stay strong, brother.
Thank you so much for the prayers and feedback!
What do you consider unwarranted personal insults and condescending attacks?
Catholics have almost a paranoid attitude to any dialogue or discussion on Christian unity. They perceive anything spoken in good faith as evil. It is very difficult to have any discussion with Catholics. The prime example was Martin Luther who only wanted to improve or get rid of abuses within the Roman church, he sincerely wanted to remain a Catholic, but inept and immoral leadership scuttled his attempts.
@@NP-vk8de
Catholics have almost a paranoid attitude to any dialogue or discussion on Christian unity. They perceive anything spoken in good faith as evil. It is very difficult to have any discussion with Catholics
Can you give a link to a good video that proves that so I can prove it to others?
The prime example was Martin Luther who only wanted to improve or get rid of abuses within the Roman church.
So he agreed with the Catholic doctrine but wanted to get rid of abuses within the Roman church like indulgence or selling indulgence?
he sincerely wanted to remain a Catholic, but inept and immoral leadership scuttled his attempts.
So if he wanted to remain Catholic and held to his Catholic beliefs, how did they scuttle his attempts and was he teaching any non-Catholic beliefs.
@@radar4545 An excellent third party view on Luther Is Eric Metaxas biography of Martin Luther. Metaxes uses historic information based on fact as both Lutherans and Catholics have over dramatized the role Luther played in wanting reform. His absolute intent was to remain Catholic in doctrine. The response of the day was ineptly handled by the current hierarchy. These included a period of six immoral popes including the notorious Rodrigo Borgia. Catholic leadership remained in a rut of obedience and not listening to the guidance of the Holy Spirit as to needed reforms within the Roman church. Indulgences were a prime example, but of course the number one strategy was to deny, deny and keep on denying any faults or weaknesses within the church.
The intent was to retain the historical understanding and doctrine of Catholicism. There is some movement today among some conservative Protestants to align with the ancient church. As understanding of what is true and authentic Catholicism drives many in this direction. The early church of the first 300 to 400 years was totally different than the Catholic Church of today, in fact, it could be said some Protestants appear more Catholic than the modern Roman church. Those who for example, want the Latin Mass want only to return to their grandparents or great grandparents (pre-Vatican II) church.
Enough said, dialogue is difficult on this type of forum.
Channel name proposal: "Truth Unites & Hurts"
My Proposal : " Protestants Unites"
Who dares to have the audacity to say another person is, "defending their views too much"? You were spot on in that there are tens upon tens of Catholic apologists, and Trent Horn specifically can hardly go a day without undermining a Protestant view. Yet you're the only defender of Protestantism I know of, and it is desperately needed. It seems to me like they're trying to swarm you and use their numbers to persuade the masses, -completely missing the fact that truth is not a statistic. Also missing the point that the reason there are so few Protestant defenders is because we choose to fight our enemy, and not our ally.
Protestant defenders are defending Mere Christianity from Islam, Atheism, Jewish Anti-Missionaries, Secularism, Wokism, Christian Nationalism, Hebrew Israelites, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons. When do Catholics ever engage with any of those? Yet while we're the ones on the front line defending the faith, they're attacking us from the back, then boasting about how they saved the day after using us as a meat-shield against the enemy, much in the same way they did when the Orthodox held the front line against the Islamic Caliphates. I myself have friends and family members who are Catholic that I will affirm their Salvation all day, but I am sick and tired of the cherry-picking of history, the robbing of scriptural context, the bully tactics, the gas-lighting, and the rejection to acknowledging my people's place as part of the Church.
I love debates with Jews, I love debates with atheists, I love debates with Oneness Pentecostals/Unitarians. I enjoy debates about freewill/predestination, whether alcohol is a sin, or whether or not we should keep Torah observance. I love a good debate, and will often end them with hugs and praying with my opponent. But I am fed up of Catholic apologists. I would not be able to do what Gavid does and keep it irenic with them. They're worse than even Progressive Christians.
"I'll stop defending Protestantism when the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Church acknowledge that my church is a valid church with a valid Eucharist until then the stakes are too high" Boom! That just sums it up right there!
But they're not a valid Church. "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church (singular, not plural like Gavin needs to be right) and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" Matthew 16:18. If his Church was valid, it, not the Catholic Church, would have been keeping them gates closed for the 1500 years before calvinists arrived.
@@MasterKeyMagic I wouldn't want to stand before God at the end of my earthly life and tell him I was the gatekeeper of his church telling people they were apostate if they weren't in my church. Modern day pharisee.
@@inchristalone25 Jesus called out the Pharisees for practicing traditions not commanded by God, through Moses directly. Thats all protestants since you'll rejected the traditions handed down by Jesus, through the Apostles and their successors. We're just letting you know you don't fully believe in Jesus by doing this and I would not like to stand before God having not only rejected the Church/his body/bride groom, but having attacked it and spread confusion of it because you "didn't like it". The Corinthians already tried that in the year 97AD and read how that went for them in 1 Clement
@@MasterKeyMagic Why am I not fully believing in Jesus if when I look at the teachings of the catholic church they don't line up with scripture? Not to mention your church looks nothing like the early church. The early church met in homes, they would break bread together in remembrance of Jesus' body broken for us, prophesy, teach, disciple, sing psalms, bring new words and revelations from the Holy Spirit and the Lord. Are you doing any of that?
@@MasterKeyMagic But thanks for bringing up Clement, he also said this great line refuting the catholic doctrines of justification by works. “And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen” (1 Clement, 32).
Thank you so much for your irenic and winsome approach, Gavin. You truly embody the teaching of Titus 2:8:
“In your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.”
Excellent Scripture to use here!!
Gavin, your contending for Protestantism is helping me personally no end. But contending really takes it out of you! With all the other demands on your time I'm glad you're going to take a rest from making videos. We'll miss them, but you'll come back even stronger.
I really respect you Dr. Ortlund! I am happy to see this dialogue happening and I think you should continue, despite what other Catholics have said! I think what you're doing is a great thing!
thank you Briana! :)
I think a vast majority of catholics like Dr. Ortlund, among them both Horn and Akin. I respect his work, even though I think that catholicism is true. His challenge of catholic theology brings out the best of our apologists.
@@dnosic It also brings out the worst. An attack on the channel name and message from Akin was an attack on character, not an attack on the argument. It wasn't in keeping with the spirit of Christ. I cannot respect that
@@TheChadPad You cannot expect that 100% of catholics are nice and charitable. This is impossible. We are regular people, not saints. Also the same from other denominations.
@@dnosic well these guys are representatives, not your average catholic. I have every right to expect more of them
Gavin Ortlund: the gift that keeps on giving!
Yeah, giving reasons for Christians to accuse each other. Brilliant. The Prince of Lies is pleased with this video.
@@enshala6401 Let’s all just shut our mouths in the face of falsehoods and not contend for the truth, right?
@@iQuiiKKz well-formed Christians discuss faith and morals in search of the Truth all the time without having to snipe with an outrageous thumbnail message. "This one thing will make you protest againt the Methodist Church!" See how absurd that sounds?
@@enshala6401 No, I don’t think it’s absurd, I think you’re straining at a gnat. It’s a statement meant to suggest that a strong case is presented in the video.
@@iQuiiKKz it's sensationalized click bait that is unbecoming for the Body of Christ. Have you ever considered for just a moment, what if you are wrong? Is lying about Christians something you are willing to risk just for the sake of ... clicks?
Dear Pastor Gavin,
if you ever run out of content, may I give some suggestions?☺️
Could you do videos on
- the 7 ecumenical council from a Protestant perspective
- Indulgences from a Protestant prospective
- The treasury of merit from a Protestant perspective
- That’s a big one: in depth video on the reasons for the reformation.
- Praying for the dead from a Protestant perspective
- More in depth video on the Eucharist from a Protestant perspective
- More in depth video on justification from a catholic and Protestant view
- Maybe a short video on why most Protestants don’t have the crucifix but a cross without Jesus on it.
- The great schism and if there where schisms before the great one.
- The 5 solas, why we believe it and the reasons behind it
- An overview on the first 300 years of church history, the most important things to know.
- The main differences between Protestants and Catholics
- The main differences between Protestants and Eastern Orthodox
Only to give some suggestions ☺️
Thank you for your great and faithful work!
Jimmy is the guy who talks about nothing else but Catholicism and always why Protestantism is wrong. How does that unite people? Jimmy’s definition of unity is that we all become Catholic. Gavin has never defined unity in sectarian terms ever.
Can’t go wrong with the church Jesus started! Godbless!
@@dmal-ty5qw Who said otherwise? The question is not does Christ have a church? All Christians agree that there is only one church and Christ is its head. The question is how do you define it and recognize it. Jimmy says only the Church of Rome has a valid claim to being the one church of Christ. Protestants reject that as well as the sectarianism behind it. God bless!
@@paulsmallwood1484 there is only one church that Christ started. There is only one that has the full deposit of the faith. Sectarianism is good when you’ve attached yourself to the correct one.
@@dmal-ty5qw you are repeating yourself my friend. Let me try again to explain this to you. All Christians believe that there is only ONE church and Christ is the head. You seem to want to argue that point when there is no disagreement to argue against. There are NOT multiple churches. There is only ONE church. Got it? You want to argue that only your particular tradition represents the one true church of Christ and that the fullness of faith resides in it alone. You then want want to exclude all other Christians from Christ’s church. Protestants reject that and YES you are by definition a sectarian.
@@paulsmallwood1484 is there multiple versions of Christianity? Or just one? Why don’t we all go to the same worship service? Why aren’t we all one of one mind then? It’s absurd to think there isn’t a correct one.
I think a lot of the outrage over Gavin's videos on church history is from people confronted with unexamined beliefs. I speak from personal experience on this. I've accepted the beliefs and practices of certain religions because I was told by authorities that they made sense, and so I blindly accepted that they made sense. When I was confronted with criticism of those beliefs, my first reaction was a wholesale rejection of the criticism, and frankly, some degree of anger. From my many years as debating with apologists of various religions, I've noted that this reaction of Denial is almost universal in believers of whatever faith. And so here we see the rage of Catholics and Orthodox when confronted with clear examples of the U-turns of their church on doctrine. Likely most of the apologists of these sects never really examined the import of these U-turns. As Gavin pointed out, they simply wave the concept of church authority as if it's a magic wand that renders every U-turn and error and even wanton abuse of justice as pure as the driven snow. That kind of pre-rational approach to church history only works for so long for some people.
It unfortunately works indefinitely w/ too many, if not most people. Catholic Answers has a full panel of mostly ex protestants who can deftly use the bible to finesse many protestants out of the authority of scripture, by using scripture pretty much against itself, and certainly the Catholics who don't really know the bible.
There are no real U Turns. There’s only a couple examples that are even plausible and they can be easily addressed.
I think there's many times when staying irenic must be a real struggle! May God continue to give you the strength, gentleness and forebearance to remain so
Thank you Gavin for helping us to think through these issues as Protestants! This ministry is a blessing to us!
Well done, Gavin. I don’t know that I’d be able to exercise the kindness, humility, and patience that you’ve demonstrated at this point. Do not grow weary! You’ll be in my prayers.
It's really hard and I don't know Dr. Ortlund does it. I'm on a Christian discord and I frequently encounter Catholic and Orthodox friends that often I butt heads with and sometimes it gets heated.
@@Convexhull210 Show them Jesus. Let them show you the Devil
@@TheChadPad ah, so Catholics and Orthodox worship the devil now? OK, keep talking like that... it's good for people to see the lack of charity in the hearts of Protestantslike you.
@@enshala6401 Not what I meant at all. I assumed from his comment that people were acting ugly to him on discussion threads about religion. I told him to show them Jesus, and let them show you the Devil. Maybe I assumed too much, but it was just a generalized comment about how to engage with people on social media about Jesus. Sorry for the confusion. God bless
@@TheChadPad eh, I don't buy it, because no one said anything about anyone other than a generic reference to Catholics and Orthodox. Ah well. I am indeed blessed by God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as I hope you are now and will be for all eternity.
You're so patient, it's astounding. I couldn't be. When you can find popes and bishops from the earliest centuries saying that ideas, which would centuries later be declared dogma, are heretical, that's a problem. When you are declared anathema for following the Church fathers of earlier centuries, for not participating in actions which they explicitly considered idolatry and pagan falsehood, that is a problem. How any apologist could fail to see this is baffling to me.
I love this channel. May God bless you, brother!
You are also correct that reversals are not development and it is regretful that Akin is confused on that point.
Wow you are a real gentleman Dr. Gavin. Praise the Lord for the way you deal hard issues with such grace... amazing!
I found a lot of Jimmy’s snarky comments very surprising and unfortunate 😒
I love your kindness, Dr. Ortlund. Jimmy's uncontrollable animosity towards you was unbearable throughout the video.
Thank God you did not fall into his childish trap.
Agreed
Gavin Ortlund: I love you for the work you do.
This is a great response as usual. They put out who knows how many hours of rebuttal, between Trent Horn, Jimmy Akin, Suan, Albrecht and who knows who else and you, singlehandedly, respond masterfully with a 30 minute rebuttal. Great! It just doesn't get any better than that. 😁
Keep it up Gavin! You are making a huge difference for the good! I can't wait for your new book!
Thanks so much!
Maybe these RC apologists aren't typical, but the inability or unwillingness or unreadiness to engage rationally with your argument is, perhaps, one more indication that Roman Catholicism is, at it's heart, a traditional rather than rational religion. The primary commitment of faithful Roman Catholics isn't to the truth, or rational truth, it is a commitment to the teaching of the magisterium.
Thank you so much Davin for such a good overview and talk !
The ten tanks and a foot soldier analogy had me rolling on the floor
Seriously they are both part of CatholicAnswers who’s bread and butter is criticizing Protestantism. I’m not sure why Jimmy Akin is complaining.
Default Roman move is to just say “sola scriptura” to every point a prot makes
Thank you Gavin... It's very sad the other side is (1) desperate to respond to every video you put out, and (2) they are also misleading their audience to believe a mere "response" equates to a "rebuttal". But simply responding to a video and calling it a "rebuttal" doesn't actually make it a rebuttal... But this is not a game! Sooner or later they're going to realize that.
I hope they accept idolatry for what it is and forsake it.
I was surprised how often in that three hour video, Trent and Atkin were essentially just conceding Gavin’s main point.
Icon veneration was a doctrinal U-turn. Far from being the universal practice of the early church, it wasn’t even an organic growth out of their practices.
The only argument they are left with is the circular authority of the Magisterium.
Exactly. It's clearly a rhetorical tactic to slap the term "REBUTTED" on a response video.
@@michael6549 At least it isn't "DEBUNKED".
They have to respond when some one accuses them of idolatry. It is an old and tired anti-Catholic rhetoric.
@@joekey8464 Except it isn’t merely about Catholic/non-Catholic but about whether something is apostolic and honours God or isn’t. Maybe Gavin’s video could have been more focused on that angle, but you would think that they would actually try to respond to the scholarship and quotes about the topic, but they did not even address the concern.
This wasn’t a typical “anti-Catholic” rant, it was a valid discussion of the scholarship and the response is to accuse him of Protestant polemics and accuse him of circular logic when they’re doing the same thing (it’s ok because we say it’s apostolic even though the apostolic fathers didn’t do it and if you don’t, then let you be anathema!).
Disagreements are one thing. To resort to ad hominems and ignoring the points themselves while using evidence out of context that because some believers prayed to the saints then icons are okay, are a completely different topic.
Dr. Gavin Ortlund your channel is amazing and you have done a lot in discussing Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox disagreements, and providing a strong case for protestantism IMO.
Love your consistent gracious disposition even when people revile and insult. So refreshing to see maturity in debates. Obviously this is rooted in your identity in Christ and his love. A great model for me. Keep going in grace! You're clearly doing things in such a respectable, humble way and in my opinion far more competent and robust. It's clear from the playground to adulthood that when people resort to insults, they are acknowledging they don't have strong arguments. Praying for you b/c these videos are so helpful and yet I pray you keep taking breaks as you do and stay protected from the craziness of internet dynamics.
I'm immensely grateful for your ministry and speaking on these issues. Thank you so much!
Dr. Gavin, you knocked this out of the park! Thank you for your work defending truth!
They argue from sentiment, human reasoning, and psychology - , not biblical, theological, or even traditional arguement. e.g. "You have pictures of your grandma don't you". That being said, I have a lot of religious art which I enjoy.
This is how Jimmy Akin acts when he loses a debate -- he goes on the warpath by issuing a huge wall of words. I saw this a few months ago when Akin took part in a debate with Professor Bart Ehrman on the holy family's travels through Judea. Jimmy made a number of outlandish claims in the debate, one being that Joseph owned two homes. Bart replied that he knew of no biblical scholar who agreed with that notion. Bart clearly bested Jimmy in the debate, but instead of simply admitting that he'd gotten some things wrong, Akin went home and wrote a 5000-word rebuttal (with no scholarly references mind you) on why Bart was wrong and Joseph must have owned 2 homes in different parts of Judea.
I'm a member of Bart's discussion group and told him about what Akin had done, and asked him if he wanted to issue a reply. Bart told me, no, it wasn't worth his time.
Jimmy does not like to be wrong.
i'm a protestant, but in this issue i dont have a problem with Jimmy, we all are passionate and bias, i mean, you mentioned Bart Ehrman, and he is a man with truly proved wrong ideias about the Bible, history of the Church, etc. But even Bart do not let go of his false beliefs, so to me what comes to play here is the individual abilitie to listen and think. some have less, some have more. sorry for my english
@@renatusinchristo2390 Putting aside the question of what religious beliefs are true or false, my issue with Jimmy Akin is Jimmy Akin's hypocrisy. Jimmy and the organization he works for (Catholic Answers) have for the last 20 years devoted themselves to telling the public all the ways in which Protestantism is abject heresy. I have no problem with them doing so, as I believe in free speech. The problem is Jimmy Akin criticizing Gavin for making a few videos that critique Catholic history, and that doing so is somehow unfair and uncharitable. Hypocrisy 101.
Jimmy is extremely cautious and precise with his words. Please don't minimize that by calling his contribution the the discussion a "wall of words". >.>
Thank you for your work, Dr. Ortlund. Much appreciated.
Thank you for your consistently kind, calm and non condescending explanations and responses. I have just left the Catholic church. I used to exclusively listen to Catholic answers and was frequently saddened and embarrassed at the better than thou condescending answers and responses given. You have cleared so much up for me.
🤗
All of this reminds me of a couple things I learned in my journey to memorize scripture. I was doing it because I wanted to have something no one could take from me. So, I memorized John chapter 1. I memorized all of it. In that process I learned alot about John, and his view of Jesus and who he was. Not only that but what happens when we put our faith in Jesus. When we put our faith in Christ and what he did for us, we then (according to Apostle John) Have the RIGHT to become children of God. "But for those that did receive him, he gave them the right to become children of God" Also, in this same chapter it says when we receive Jesus, we receive ALL of him. Not part of him. Quote: "And of his fullness we have received" Then when we fast forward to Hebrews the Author says that because of Jesus , we, as believers " Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need" Yea, that is DIRECTLY to Jesus himself. To GOD in person. This is just so plain and obvious and it looks like Gavin got Trent and others on the ropes on this one.
Somehow, I appreciate the fact that they were desperate enough to attack Gavin and his intentions. It firmy cements Gavin's upper hand in the debate. You can easily tell who is right, or at least who is winning the actual debate, by looking at what types of arguments are being used. Jimmy and Trent had an easy job to do if proper counterarguments existed. Gavin says early Church was universally against using images for veneration? Just show clear examples of early Christians venerating icons. They can't do it though, so they are forced to attack Gavin directly or grasp at straws, trying to avoid the argument altogether, by watering down anathemas, watering down the consequences of Nicea, watering down consequences of development leading up to infallible statements claiming that no development took place. It really is clear cut. Gavin did his homework and this is why Trent made a 3 hour long "rebuttal" and pulled a known apologist like Jimmy into the mix. The purpose wasn't to actually reveal truth to Gavin or his audience. It was to burry his video, to not cause mass Catholic panic on their channels. Only one channel actually aims for truth here. And it's the one that is not using apologetics as a main source of income, which should be obvious.
Is protestantism a real option though?
@@1984SheepDog depends where you live I suppose. If there's any reason to move though, I'd say God is the reason so you can make it an option :) there are very traditional, high-Church setting protestant denominations out there. Anglicans, high-Church methodist, high-Church baptist. There's a lot to choose from.
@@bersules8 unfortunately most people are not familiar enough with the data
@@bersules8 because Athanasius did not defend venerating icons in the slightest, so the defense holds no water in this debate. He is not biased, he is representing protestant conclusions and perspective. And they are VERY clear cut.
David Erhan's video does just that.
I'm glad you decided to respond. I'm sure you hesitated, but it's a hot topic right now and I think this is helpful to us all. I am glad you noted and were direct in the irony of their videos and claims. I can only conclude they know you are a valid threat and are trying to talk you down. You kicked the hornets nest. Your videos are having way more impact than you know. Grace and Peace.
10:28 cannot be overstated. I always have to wonder if all the converts to Catholicism really know that they are bound to Church teaching like this, and if they are truly convicted in their hearts on every teaching, doctrine and dogma they are now bound to. You simply cannot nuance or disagree with anything Mother Church teaches. You must give complete religious submission of your intellect and will to the Roman Pontiff of an institution run by sinful human beings.
I absolutely do and I am a recent convert. It is an act of faith.
"O my God, I firmly believe all that Thou hast revealed and Thy Holy Catholic Church proposes me to be believed, for thou art the very truth which can neither deceive nor be decieved. In this faith I desire to live and die."
We believe it because the church is the body of Christ; a human and divine organism. Though composed of sinful people, it is His body and through it we will become saints.
You are doing great work Gavin. Keep it up. You have helped me much with your channel!
Glad to hear it! Thanks!
Truth brother. Thank you for standing for the truth even in the face of the critics. I have been concerned in reading Luther's writings that he himself was not too concerned about the issue of icons...
Luther was wrong or lacking in things, he was a human among the rest of us. t. Lutheran
Man I know you didn’t mean it to be savage but your response to Akin was so kind yet sharp.
GREAT rebuttal of their rebuttal! Well done
Thank you for your channel Gavin! You’ve inspired me to dig into the church fathers and these issues and I’m pushing my Sunday school class at my baptist church to look into these issues with me in search for truth.
God bless your ministry.
Great to hear that!
I think you might love listening to defense of the Augsburg confession, apology of the church of England. Read history of Popish Transubstantion and defense of the sacrament by thomas Cramner. Athanasius Against the Arians. Augustine on the Trinity. Tertullian apology. The ante Nicene fathers.
Best - Reformed view of history.
The proper use of the fathers in controversy. I'm Baptist and reading patristics for more then a decade. Ortland is right now. Read the 17th century baptists too.
@@TruthUnites, Gavin, please, suggest the best books and articles in defense of Sola Scripture.
Very glad to see this sort of response to their video. I am a Church historian in training and it was pretty frustrating to see the numbers of times that Horn and Akin sidestepped the historical thrust of the argument in order to attack assertions that were not made. It speaks of a sort of prejudicial understanding of Protestantism that overlaps and masks the actual critiques made by any religious figure/adherent/scholar who happens to be Protestant. It also was a bit frustrating to hear them esteem historicity so much, and yet to not understand the basic language of the claims of the councils that you cited and alluded to. This video ought to clarify the historical thrust and context of your earlier critiques against the Second Council of Nicaea.
(Also, I agree with you: John Damascene's defense is one of the better arguments for the veneration of icons, though I still disagree with him. It certainly is better than Theodore the Studite's defense!)
Theologians have debated points but doctrines are the final conclusion.
"I'll stop defending Protestantism when the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church acknowledge that my Church is a valid church with a valid eucharist." 🎤 💧
But why should they? That’s ridiculous. The Protestant understanding and application of the Eucharist got very little in common with the catholic/orthodox premise and application of it. It’s like even asking this shows he got no understanding of what he even insists upon.
I guess what would settle the issue is by determining whether Apostolic succesion is true or not. if apostolic succesion is true then, can we say most protestant churches have valid eucharist?. I know it is debated whether the Lutheran and the Anglican have valid apostolic succesion but not sure about the rest of the churches...
@@angelvalentinmojica6967 it would seem that Apostolic Succession would be a tertiary issue to the secondary issue of the particular reformed means and application of the Eucharist.
It’s hard to imagine claiming anything that took an ecumenical council to solve as being a tertiary doctrine not worth debating.
Good point
You’re so awesome. Your patience is encouraging and admirable.
God bless you Dr.Ortlund. You have been instrumental in my faith and understanding of the early church. You taking on two seperate groups on this one topic is inspiring for me and I hope it inspires others to engage in these topics 🙏🏽🙏🏽
May God continue to bless and keep you in your good work, Dr. Ortlund. It is a blessing to me and much appreciated to the body of Christ
Wonderful! Thanks!
Hi Dr. Ortlund:
Regarding the oriental orthodox, I don't think anyone is saying that it is impossible that the same practice of icon veneration could have later emerged among the so-called oriental orthodox---whether that may have occurred independently or dependently, through cultural influence despite formal separation.
Rather, the point is that the hypothesis of a shared earlier precedent is simpler than your hypothesis and explains the same observations. So the fact that we find icon veneration among such disparate communities as the church of the east and Coptics, who don't even agree on christology, is evidence against your view. Now, it does not mean that this is conclusive evidence against your view, or that you don't have other evidence in favor of your view, or that this is enough to tip the balance of the evidence. But it is some evidence against your view, and it is hard to take seriously your apparent position that it is not.
This is especially true, since your recourse to independent emergence or cultural influence is an ad hoc move which you are positing--not based on any evidence to support it (as far as I can tell)--but simply to save your hypothesis. The history of the Mandylion may not reflect the doctrines of Nicaea II as such--but surely it is evidence that the nascent Syriac Church (which predated the “Nestorian” and “Chalcedonian” controversies) treated icons as sacred objects deserving of reverence, undermining your position. See, e.g., Herman Teule, “The Veneration of Images in the East Syriac Tradition,” in Die Welt der Götterbilder, pp. 324-346.
More generally, I think your position here reflects a few arbitrary assumptions. First, you seem to assume that what the laity was doing is captured by the surviving excerpts of theologians making normative statements about what should be done. Second, you assume that the mere evidence of icons appearing in sacred places is not in itself evidence that the images were treated with honor. This seems to ascribe an anachronistically high prior probability to pre-modern people having a purely functional approach toward icons. I mean, what would be better evidence that images were treated with reverence than they were placed in sacred places?
I am not saying that there were not controversies as to what the appropriate form that the honor should take. I am just saying that to insist as you do that mere evidence of icons in sacred places is not in itself evidence of more than mere didactic use of icons--this seems to be very anachronistic. You may be right but I think that this debate would generally benefit from some more clarity on what is being assumed as to the base rate/prior probability of art being used in sacred spaces without it ipso facto being seen as sacred.
Finally, I think what has become clear from slogging through the back and forth among all the participants in this dialogue is that a whole lot turns on what is meant by cultic use. This is an ambiguous phrase that sweeps in a wide range of referents. So, let's put it concretely: Do you think the early Christians were using Paul's handkerchief "didactically"? Do you think that they treated the object with honor? Do you think that honor was short of worship? What is the difference between what the early Christians were doing with the handkerchief and what Nicaea stands II affirms?
Your points made at minute 31:00 is so powerful. Set your heart fully on Christ! Honor that great cloud of witnesses… because it was Christ at work in them to will and to do… but give praise and glory to Christ alone. Thanks Gavin.
I burst out laughing when I saw the other possible thumbnail 😂
I have noticed that people who defend "high church" traditions talk about being charitable, but tend to begin their debate by attacking the character or qualifications of their opponent rather than addressing the argument at hand....
(Edited to clarify as a tendency, not an absolute. Thanks for the feedback)
I don't think that's universally true and I don't think the insulting is one sided at all. But yes, you are correct in saying that when someone is defending their church tradition and the argument devolves into them hurling personal insults then they are in the wrong.
I listened to their video, and I noticed a lot of minimalizing and misinterpretations of what you said, I'm glad you made this response. I don't assume ill-will on the part of Jimmy and Trent, but I definitely don't think they really addressed everything to a standard that I would expect in a rebuttal. God bless all.
@@bersules8 it was a few days ago I watched it, but what I remember is a few of what Gavin has mentioned here. The main issue that I felt was undermined was Jimmy saying icon veneration is a tertiary issue at best and being somewhat condescending in his following rhetoric. He may be right about the hierarchy of truths, but it seemed obvious that the point Gavin made is that the problem is that Icon Veneration (or speaking to images, or images in worship settings) is clearly refuted on multiple accounts in the early centuries, and then develops to be the norm, and if you don’t believe and practice it you are separated from God by anathema or the affects of anathema. How could that be an inspired or authoritative belief when it is starkly different from the early beliefs is the question being asked. I think that makes sense. I’m not saying they didn’t address it, I just felt it was undermined and somewhat misrepresented. Gavin may be wrong, and I’m open to it for sure, but I think it would have been more helpful to clearly deal with the issue at hand. Anyway that’s one I noticed. Not trying to rub anyone the wrong way, I think my observation was pretty fair. I like Jimmy and Trent and I’m subscribed to them as well. I had a long and very tiring day yesterday I’m sorry for the later response, I hope you are well.
I’m saying, they didn’t address it.
dismiss & deflect are tactics
Once again, well done Gavin. Superb work!
Orthobros not watching the videos and copy pasta the same church fathers quotes over and over again.
Amazing response, Gavin. Love your approach.
I thought Akin/Horn's response was done in incredibly bad faith. The insults were completely unnecessary, and to say the argument is circular or that you can't contend for your views because of the title of your channel were such bizarre arguments.
I think it highlights the strength of your argument though. When ad hominem gets dragged into the fray, you know you've made a good argument.
Your videos on icon veneration have set off a fire storm on CZcams. Every Catholic/Orthodox apologist it seems has come out of nowhere with some heated vitriol. I guess kissing pictures is a much bigger deal than I realized.
Vitriol 😠😡🤬 and Lots of it.
The book of Revelation (chapter 20:4), also known as apocalypse, makes it clear that to worship an image is like worshipping directly the person on the image. So to worship an image of Christ is like worshipping Christ directly since the “intention” is directed to him. Concerning the saints, they are not supposed to be worshiped but only respected and honored.
Yes but Protestants don’t have book of apocalypse in canon so that argument falls flat immediately
@@huwfulcher I was talking about the book of revelation, it's in the protestant canon as well. Apocalypse is just another to talk about the book.
@@thefaiththatendures ah didn’t realise that, thanks! Still don’t see how that verse supports what you’re saying though. Seems like a bit of a stretch
@@huwfulcher It’s not a stretch, I apply the same principle on the reverse side. Revelation chapter 20 clearly said that, from God perspective, those who are going to worship the “image” of the future antichrist are going to be guilty of worshipping the antichrist himself even if he was not physically present. So in the same way, on the reverse side, we can come to the reasonable conclusion that those who worship an image of Jesus are going to be considered, from God perspective, as have been worshipping Jesus(the real Christ) even if he was not physically present. I want to add that we are NOT obligated to worship Jesus in front of an Icon, since he can be worshiped from anywhere, but an icon is an extra tool in our devotional.
@@thefaiththatendures I see your point but I would be careful about equivocating both sides. We are commanded to worship in spirit and truth. Just because the devil can be worshipped through an image does not mean that God wants to be. You also have the issue of icons of saints, etc but I think that’s a separate argument
COWBOY LOGIC 101:
@ minute 26. On idolatry. Exactly. All veneration, devotion, prayer and adoration is to be directed to God Himself. In God's Word, any exception to this supreme command/principle is always idolatry.